August 26, 200322 yr just heard on mlb.com radio that Hummel is in fact the PTBNL Damn. I swear man. With all the good prospects we traded this year we better win this division and make some noise in the playoffs...
August 26, 200322 yr Damn. I swear man. With all the good prospects we traded this year we better win this division and make some noise in the playoffs... Tim Hummel is not a "good" prospect. At best Hummel=Graffanino.
August 26, 200322 yr Hummel is having a great year. I've heard about him for a few years now. He finally improved that batting average. Oh well...
August 26, 200322 yr Tim Hummel is not a "good" prospect. At best Hummel=Graffanino. I don't agree with that...But will see...
August 26, 200322 yr The guys we have picked up are have an impact on our team, that is why they cost us good players. Sullivan, Alomar and Everett could have been three of the better acquisitions. Remember we have had two of them for over half a season.
August 26, 200322 yr The guys we have picked up are have an impact on our team, that is why they cost us good players. Sullivan, Alomar and Everett could have been three of the better acquisitions. Remember we have had two of them for over half a season. I know. But unless we win the division and make some noise in the playoffs we lose in the end...
August 26, 200322 yr Tim Hummel is not a "good" prospect. At best Hummel=Graffanino. I disagree. Hummel will equal Graffanino at worst. I'm not saying he is as good now, but Hummel will at least be able to fill that kind of role. I am not commenting on the trade being good or bad, just that I think Hummel will be a solid utility guy at worst. He coudl be better than that in the right situation.
August 26, 200322 yr Tim Hummel is not a "good" prospect. At best Hummel=Graffanino. I'd say Hummel is a good prospect. Take away last year and most people would be calling for him to be the 2nd baseman of the future. Lets remember that it was two years ago when everyone was talking how he was raking through the minors and was going to replace Durham. Not Harris...not Jimenez (Neither were in the system at the time of the talk, then Harris came and later on Jimenez). Last year he struggled early on, surged late, and exploded in the AFL. He's been very good all year this year so other then his first year in AAA, he's been a hitter wherever he's been. Sullivan is a proven reliever that is awesome. The Sox gave up someone at a position of weakness and added something at a position of weakness at the major league level. I'd make the trade in a heartbeat, but I do think Hummel will make it to the majors. I do agree with your assesment that he'll likely become a utility man, but he is patient, has a nice stroke and can play 3 different positions. The guy will get a lot of playing time during his career, imo. As far as the good prospects the Sox have given up this year. I'd rate Rupe and Ring as the best ones given up and then Hummel/Webster in a solid prospect class. Rupe and Ring are high ceiling guys, as is Webster (Without the Power) and Hummel is a productive type guy. I'd say getting Everett, Alomar, Colon, and Sullivan was worth that. Especially when you consider that the Sox, if they lost these guys would get draft pick compensation for Alomar/Colon (I'm confident in that) and their is a good chance they could get it for Everett (If he keeps hitting the way he has been) and Sullivan. Of course this depends on whether the Sox are willing to offer arbitration. Now I don't think the Sox will lose all these guys, but sure, some of them were only playoff run fixes. But if anyone can tell me that renting these guys going for it all and taking the chance isn't worth losing one or two prospects (Considering Sox have the shot to get a couple studs with the draft picks) then I wouldn't want that person as the GM. A GM has to put his team (When it has the Shot) in the position to win it all and I can confidently say that this year Ken Williams did his job.
August 26, 200322 yr Author just heard on mlb.com radio that Hummel is in fact the PTBNL Finally an link... http://chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sp...-home-headlines
August 27, 200322 yr The Sox have seemed to have some luck with their utility guys...Grebeck, Wilson, Graffanino, Norton...
August 27, 200322 yr The Sox have seemed to have some luck with their utility guys...Grebeck, Wilson, Graffanino, Norton... Haywood_Jablome.......oooooo boy best name yet.
August 27, 200322 yr I like Hummel and think he'll be a good player, but we needed a RH reliever and we got a good one in Sullivan. So, I still like this trade even though we gave up Hummel.
August 27, 200322 yr Haywood_Jablome.......oooooo boy best name yet. Thanks Murcie, you're the second compliment tonight. Like I told Cali, I took some ribbing as a kid. lol
August 27, 200322 yr Haywood_Jablome.......oooooo boy best name yet. I'll agree with you on that. Very creative. By the way, WELCOME ABOARD
August 27, 200322 yr Under the circumstances the Sox were in at the time of the deal, I would have pulled the trigger on that trade in a New York minute. No disrespect intended to Hummel, as I think he has a chance to be a solid ML infielder. But, we were desperately in need of a quality RH pitcher in the bullpen, and Sullivan fills that bill to a tee.
August 27, 200322 yr Under the circumstances the Sox were in at the time of the deal, I would have pulled the trigger on that trade in a New York minute. No disrespect intended to Hummel, as I think he has a chance to be a solid ML infielder. But, we were desperately in need of a quality RH pitcher in the bullpen, and Sullivan fills that bill to a tee. I agree........ I have no problem with pulling that trade.... I would have liked to keep Hummel, but you have to give up something to get something.
August 27, 200322 yr Thanks Murcie, you're the second compliment tonight. Like I told Cali, I took some ribbing as a kid. lol Please tell me you aren't 16 and thinking that name is original?? It's humorous, I'll give you that, but then again, it was funny 20 years ago when I first heard it.
August 27, 200322 yr Please tell me you aren't 16 and thinking that name is original?? It's humorous, I'll give you that, but then again, it was funny 20 years ago when I first heard it. No and no, but it's was original to this site. I thought the board could use a little humor too. Are you really Rex Hudler?
August 27, 200322 yr Please tell me you aren't 16 and thinking that name is original?? It's humorous, I'll give you that, but then again, it was funny 20 years ago when I first heard it. No and no, but it's was original to this site. I thought the board could use a little humor too. Are you really Rex Hudler? Nope, real name is Miles..... Miles O'Toole. Cousin is Phil McCracken.... Have a sister that is Anita Dickens.... Her husband is Mike Hunt.....
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.