iamshack

Not sure about trades, but for FA signings, Clubs are technically not allowed to announce a signing that is contingent on a player passing a physical prior to passing said physical.

Bush ain’t happening

One rumor online is Fulmer/Bummer/low level guy

No

Jimmy has mentioned on a number of occasions it might benefit the Sox to move Rutherford before having to play at Birmingham.

That’s outside of the scope of Rabbit’s purview

James has found his soul mate

This is no longer a question of if, but of when.

If you're getting a player in Pederson that has potential value of like $50-60m over two years for a pricetag of something like $15m, there are a number of ways to pay that acquisition price. The considerations that go into that decision include what their plans are for signing FAs, who the Dodgers would like in return, what the current needs of the team are, etc. Taking Hill back could absolutely make sense if it allowed them to keep a particular prospect they didn’t want to part with, especially since they have a need for SP this year. I personally don’t believe Hill is involved, but I don’t think it’s something that can be ruled out from a logic perspective. Just depends on whether they prefer spending prospect capital or actual capital at this stage.

Hill Schmill

Y tu mama tambien against all flags?

I think he’s pointing to the 8 year deal part of that.

My thoughts on the Dan Lozano statement fiasco: https://theloopsports.com/2019/01/18/clicks-ratings-revenues-why-major-league-baseball-enabled-the-culture-that-led-dan-lozano-to-lash-out/amp/?__twitter_impression=true

Back and to the left. Back and to the left. Back and the left. Back and...

Keep the discussion on hats, friend.

There’s always been cheating. It’s only been dictated by the technology available.

Machado will not play ss regularly for the White Sox. If he comes here, it is to play 3b.

Well, that doesn’t surprise me.

I dunno. I can guarantee you it wasn’t Lozano admonishing two reporters by name and borderline accusing them for tampering/negotiating through the media because he was the source feeding them the information to begin with. I also don’t believe he’s admonishing the Sox here. The risk of alienating them by calling them out publicly is too great. This was a response the the SI article that was published. Clearly that angered the Sox FO and they let Lozano hear about it. My guess is they threatened to withdrawal entirely. Thus the strong admonishment of two reporters in particular. This could have been handled in a much more benign fashion but clearly was instead intended to be a harsh rebuke of leaks that were hurting his client as well as the Sox’ reputation. My guess is the leak came from Philly.

No, it’s not speculation. Trust me

The Yankeee value Machado above $30m. The issue is the years.

No offense, but this simply isn’t true.

I’ll say Ottavino

Lay off. This isn’t acceptable.

I do. I think it’s probably been discussed, but I think 7 is what’s been formally offered. This notion that the Sox can get Machado for less than $275m is nonsense. Harper will get $350m. Lozano taking $250m for a very similar player would cause damage to his career. I understand not wanting to pay more than you have to; I also understand alienating the player and bringing shorter term options into the fray. The Sox can only afford to play with fire for so long. I trust Hahn. He’ll get it done. But 7-8/$240-250m ain’t happening.