The "is in a potential deal" makes me think its bigger than just a Rule 5 trade with cash. 

Edited December 13, 20187 yr by Sockin

2 minutes ago, Sockin said:

The "is in a potential deal" makes me think its bigger than just a Rule 5 trade with cash. 

I guarantee it's just this guy and maybe we get cash or some very very minor prospect. But i'd bet on just cash.

2 minutes ago, bmags said:

I guarantee it's just this guy and maybe we get cash or some very very minor prospect. But i'd bet on just cash.

Didn't we do exactly that last year? Sold our pick for cash to the Rangers? 

And yep, looks like a straight cash deal. Sorry for the false alarm.

2 minutes ago, GenericUserName said:

Didn't we do exactly that last year? Sold our pick for cash to the Rangers? 

Yes

3 minutes ago, Sockin said:

And yep, looks like a straight cash deal. Sorry for the false alarm.

It's okay. Clearly with sox stash of players in AAA they don't want to be hamstrung with really a 24 man roster, so they are using their position for cash at this point.

Its stuff like this that makes me hate JR. We can pay barely anything to take a shot on someone but instead we sell our pick so JR can get more money. Same thing with the Bulls and their second round pick a couple years ago. We are just lucky we can't see our actual draft picks for cash because if MLB allowed that we probably wouldn't have a pick in the top 10 rounds. 

8 minutes ago, Sockin said:

And yep, looks like a straight cash deal. Sorry for the false alarm.

Has this been confirmed on the twitterverse? 

5 minutes ago, GenericUserName said:

Its stuff like this that makes me hate JR. We can pay barely anything to take a shot on someone but instead we sell our pick so JR can get more money. Same thing with the Bulls and their second round pick a couple years ago. We are just lucky we can't see our actual draft picks for cash because if MLB allowed that we probably wouldn't have a pick in the top 10 rounds. 

What in the world does this have to do with Reinsdorf?  These picks cost like $25k worst case scenario and I can guarantee you Jerry has not wasted one second worrying about these.

4 minutes ago, ChiSox59 said:

Has this been confirmed on the twitterverse? 

 

 

8 minutes ago, GenericUserName said:

Its stuff like this that makes me hate JR. We can pay barely anything to take a shot on someone but instead we sell our pick so JR can get more money. Same thing with the Bulls and their second round pick a couple years ago. We are just lucky we can't see our actual draft picks for cash because if MLB allowed that we probably wouldn't have a pick in the top 10 rounds. 

Come on this is taking it too far. THey have option to just not take a player. They are instead taking advantage of position to get something out of it.

They've had pretty good success with the minor league rule 5, but the major league one requires a spot they may not want to guarantee with all the youth coming up.

okay this pisses me off

edit: whoa, sorry, I thought rangers traded off their rule 5 pick for a comp balance pick. THat was not the case!

I do not understand the Sox move. You are a team that lost 100 games. Granted, most of these guys are available for a reason, but why not roll the dice? Maybe your coaches can do something for someone and make them a player. Probably not, but It's not like the cash they get in these type of trades move any needles anyways. 

2 minutes ago, Dick Allen said:

I do not understand the Sox move. You are a team that lost 100 games. Granted, most of these guys are available for a reason, but why not roll the dice? Maybe your coaches can do something for someone and make them a player. Probably not, but It's not like the cash they get in these type of trades move any needles anyways. 

I think it simply comes down to roster spots.

6 minutes ago, Dick Allen said:

I do not understand the Sox move. You are a team that lost 100 games. Granted, most of these guys are available for a reason, but why not roll the dice? Maybe your coaches can do something for someone and make them a player. Probably not, but It's not like the cash they get in these type of trades move any needles anyways. 

They would need to value this person more than their own players just off the 40 man so it's clear they still have some liking for the players in AAA left off.

7 minutes ago, Dick Allen said:

I do not understand the Sox move. You are a team that lost 100 games. Granted, most of these guys are available for a reason, but why not roll the dice? Maybe your coaches can do something for someone and make them a player. Probably not, but It's not like the cash they get in these type of trades move any needles anyways. 

They'd rather give their young arms like Burr, Frare, Hamilton, Covey, Ruis, Stephens, Vieira, etc a chance versus holding a guy on their 25 man all season.  Its not really that hard to figure out.  They have plenty of bullpen options, didn't need to add a fringe guy into that mix that HAS to stay on the 40 man all season.

I would have been fine with them rolling the dice on Ferrell if he fell to them or ever Tyler Jay, but I am not at all disappointed.  

I just deleted the huge rant I had written. I am going to try to take a more level headed approach to this. 

This probably isn't that big of a deal. It just angers me that we won't even take a chance on a guy. We don't have the huge payroll like big market teams, but we don't take chances like small market teams need to do to succeed. 

 

1 minute ago, ChiSox59 said:

They'd rather give their young arms like Burr, Frare, Hamilton, Covey, Ruis, Stephens, Vieira, etc a chance versus holding a guy on their 25 man all season.  Its not really that hard to figure out.  They have plenty of bullpen options, didn't need to add a fringe guy into that mix that HAS to stay on the 40 man all season.

I would have been fine with them rolling the dice on Ferrell if he fell to them or ever Tyler Jay, but I am not at all disappointed.  

You don't NEED to keep the guy on the roster. You just need to do that to keep him. If one of our guys is better, then we can sell him back to the original team, at which point the tryout would have only cost $50,000. 

So basically we decided not to pay $50,000 to tryout the third best rule 5 pick available. 

Just now, GenericUserName said:

You don't NEED to keep the guy on the roster. You just need to do that to keep him. If one of our guys is better, then we can sell him back to the original team, at which point the tryout would have only cost $50,000. 

So basically we decided not to pay $50,000 to tryout the third best rule 5 pick available. 

I am aware. 

1 minute ago, bmags said:

They would need to value this person more than their own players just off the 40 man so it's clear they still have some liking for the players in AAA left off.

There are a couple of guys on the 40 man that could easily get by waivers and outrighted. If later they needed the space, DFA the guy they drafted. I get that it's probably no big deal, but you are at the top of the draft because your team sucks, and you have too many good players to draft anyone? That doesn't add up. 

5 minutes ago, GenericUserName said:

I just deleted the huge rant I had written. I am going to try to take a more level headed approach to this. 

This probably isn't that big of a deal. It just angers me that we won't even take a chance on a guy. We don't have the huge payroll like big market teams, but we don't take chances like small market teams need to do to succeed. 

 

Preach. This was a lame move on the Sox part. Even the guy they picked, we have holes galore in the rotation. Bring him in as a cheap tryout.

7 minutes ago, ChiSox59 said:

They'd rather give their young arms like Burr, Frare, Hamilton, Covey, Ruis, Stephens, Vieira, etc a chance versus holding a guy on their 25 man all season.  Its not really that hard to figure out.  They have plenty of bullpen options, didn't need to add a fringe guy into that mix that HAS to stay on the 40 man all season.

I would have been fine with them rolling the dice on Ferrell if he fell to them or ever Tyler Jay, but I am not at all disappointed.  

For the most part, they are all fringe guys. Who knows, maybe there is a guy out there like Matt Thornton, who makes a minor tweak and goes from garbage to one of the better relievers around. I get the odds are long, but it's not a huge investment if only for a peek.

7 minutes ago, GenericUserName said:

You don't NEED to keep the guy on the roster. You just need to do that to keep him. If one of our guys is better, then we can sell him back to the original team, at which point the tryout would have only cost $50,000. 

So basically we decided not to pay $50,000 to tryout the third best rule 5 pick available. 

They paid $50k, they probably got slightly more from Texas. Maybe it will cover lunch.

1 minute ago, Dick Allen said:

For the most part, they are all fringe guys. Who knows, maybe there is a guy out there like Matt Thornton, who makes a minor tweak and goes from garbage to one of the better relievers around. I get the odds are long, but it's not a huge investment if only for a peek.

I agree, just don't think its worth getting upset about (not that you are).  

1 hour ago, ChiSox59 said:

I agree, just don't think its worth getting upset about (not that you are).  

This is not worth getting worked up over. I'm sure they scoured and carefully considered if they would be interested in any potential players. 

They did not see anyone that was worth keeping on the roster all season, and I don't blame them. Might as well get cash for a pick you are not going to use.