Jump to content

Zack Greinke?


GGajewski18
 Share

Recommended Posts

QUOTE (SoxPride18 @ Dec 3, 2014 -> 10:16 PM)
Chris Cotillo @ChrisCotillo · 8m 8 minutes ago

Sources: #Dodgers may be willing to make Zack Greinke available in trade talks with opt-out next year looming http://sbnation.com/e/7095054

 

Could come cheaper with potential of him opting out.

 

But could you imagine Sale, Greinke, Quintana.

 

Could you imagine what our farm system would look like after acquiring Greinke?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Chilihead90 @ Dec 3, 2014 -> 10:29 PM)
Could you imagine what our farm system would look like after acquiring Greinke?

 

Who cares? He isn't a one year rental, we would have him till he's 34, that's as good as it's going to get. I'd listen if Dodgers are willing to throw in some money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Jose Abreu @ Dec 4, 2014 -> 12:45 AM)
When we were interested in him a few seasons ago, wasn't he quoted saying he hates pitching at our ballpark?

 

He doesn't like Chicago, it's well known. He specifically had a beef with Q back in the day. I'm sure it's nothing he couldn't be talked into but it doesn't help imo.

 

That said, Sox don't have the pieces to get this done and they aren't close enough to contending to bother anyways. They'd be much better signing Melky (or better, Headley) and then seeing what they can do to improve the pitching without breaking the farm system again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (thxfrthmmrs @ Dec 3, 2014 -> 08:39 PM)
Who cares? He isn't a one year rental, we would have him till he's 34, that's as good as it's going to get. I'd listen if Dodgers are willing to throw in some money.

Aren't Dodgers supposedly dealing him because he has an opt out and thus would be kind of a rental? Or did I misread? Either way, I don't believe for one second the Dodgers are going to trade Greinke. Not unless they plan on signing Lester or making a couple other major moves.

 

By the way, I must be the only one but if we could trade Anderson for Shark straight up and get him to sign for a slightly below market 4 year deal with a 5th year option, I'd be all over it. I'd probably even be willing to go 5 years. I think a rotation with Shark as our #3 with Rodon developing would be a huge step in the right direction and I still believe we can move Danks for an overpriced bat of some sort.

 

PS: I'd try to trade others then Anderson cause he clearly can hit the ball but at the end of the day, I'd make the trade as long as Shark was around long term.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Dec 3, 2014 -> 11:52 PM)
Aren't Dodgers supposedly dealing him because he has an opt out and thus would be kind of a rental? Or did I misread? Either way, I don't believe for one second the Dodgers are going to trade Greinke. Not unless they plan on signing Lester or making a couple other major moves.

 

By the way, I must be the only one but if we could trade Anderson for Shark straight up and get him to sign for a slightly below market 4 year deal with a 5th year option, I'd be all over it. I'd probably even be willing to go 5 years. I think a rotation with Shark as our #3 with Rodon developing would be a huge step in the right direction and I still believe we can move Danks for an overpriced bat of some sort.

 

PS: I'd try to trade others then Anderson cause he clearly can hit the ball but at the end of the day, I'd make the trade as long as Shark was around long term.

 

Good catch. There is a strong chance he will opt out after next year and sign a 5 year year $120 mil contract with a new team, provided he stays healthy and performs this year.

 

As for Shark, I think his price is that of trading for an ace, I just don't think it takes only Anderson to get him, especially if he shows interest in signing a below market value extension. And he's more of a #2 or even #3 starter than an ace.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (chitownsportsfan @ Dec 3, 2014 -> 11:48 PM)
He doesn't like Chicago, it's well known. He specifically had a beef with Q back in the day. I'm sure it's nothing he couldn't be talked into but it doesn't help imo.

 

That said, Sox don't have the pieces to get this done and they aren't close enough to contending to bother anyways. They'd be much better signing Melky (or better, Headley) and then seeing what they can do to improve the pitching without breaking the farm system again.

 

Focusing on just last years stats alone, which may or may not be right but it is the most recent sample, I don't think Headley is that much of an upgrade of Gillaspie. We are going to spend $40M+ for not that much of an upgrade when we have a gaping hole in LF? For a LF, Viciedo's production is abysmal, just absymal. I'd much rather spend that kind of payroll on Melky, who will be a significant upgrade in LF. His OBP is 70 points higher, his avg. is 70 points higher and his slugging is 70 points higher. Gillaspie had a higher batting avg, higher OBP and a higher slg % and made $500,000 last year. Assuming Headley makes $10 M next year, is he really worth 20x more than Gillaspie at this point? Whereas Viciedo is going to make $4.5M? Just doesn't make sense to me, unless I'm missing something (which is always possible).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (thxfrthmmrs @ Dec 3, 2014 -> 10:39 PM)
Who cares? He isn't a one year rental, we would have him till he's 34, that's as good as it's going to get. I'd listen if Dodgers are willing to throw in some money.

Not necessarily though, the final three years are essentially one big player option. So if he has another great year, he opts out. If he struggles, then you're probably on the hook for $77M for a player who just struggled. I don't think this one's realistic.

 

I couldn't root for that guy anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...