He very quickly faded out of the major leagues. Great clubhouse guy though, one of the best senses of humor you could find.

 

Coming up with the Royals in that generation of players, you had have a way to deal with all the losing.

Happened across this article earlier, but for a team like the Sox who are looking to add offense, why not think big and consider the mighty MIKE TROUT who, if this article is correct, could be made available given the current state of the Angels. And as I read this article and saw the potential trade partners the author notes and the kinds of prospects who would need to be in play to entice the Angels to part with Trout, I'm not too sure the Sox couldn't have a seat at that table in any negotiations given the elite talent they currently possess on the farm.

 

A huge long shot, of course, but such an acquisition would not only catapult the Sox' chances for success in the near and perhaps distant future, but it could also go a long ways towards changing the narrative on the Chicago baseball landscape to firmly remind everyone that there are two teams in the city.

 

http://scores.espn.go.com/blog/sweetspot/p...ding-mike-trout

With the presence of Simmons, the incentive to add Anderson to any package in lessened.

 

While Fulmer would be attractive, and Adams...they just can't put together a competitive enough package compared to the 5-7 teams like the Red Sox, Dodgers, etc.

 

It really has to be a significant overpay of prospects for them to give him up.

Happened across this article earlier, but for a team like the Sox who are looking to add offense, why not think big and consider the mighty MIKE TROUT who, if this article is correct, could be made available given the current state of the Angels. And as I read this article and saw the potential trade partners the author notes and the kinds of prospects who would need to be in play to entice the Angels to part with Trout, I'm not too sure the Sox couldn't have a seat at that table in any negotiations given the elite talent they currently possess on the farm.

 

A huge long shot, of course, but such an acquisition would not only catapult the Sox' chances for success in the near and perhaps distant future, but it could also go a long ways towards changing the narrative on the Chicago baseball landscape to firmly remind everyone that there are two teams in the city.

 

http://scores.espn.go.com/blog/sweetspot/p...ding-mike-trout

I have no idea what kind of offer would even be good enough for Trout. First thought was Quintana/Eaton/Anderson/Fulmer/Adams, but other teams could beat that offer, and that's probably the best package we could offer. Angels aren't trading Trout though.

For a midmarket team, that's incredibly risky...because Trout has a ballooning contract, too.

 

Eaton and Quintana being included is scary enough. Maybe if you substituted Rodon for Q...but that's probably undervaluing Rodon with his slow start.

 

 

For a midmarket team, that's incredibly risky...because Trout has a ballooning contract, too.

 

Eaton and Quintana being included is scary enough. Maybe if you substituted Rodon for Q...but that's probably undervaluing Rodon with his slow start.

 

Risky? That's ridiculous, he is a top 3 player in the game, you don't worry about how much you are paying him

Risky? That's ridiculous, he is a top 3 player in the game, you don't worry about how much you are paying him

Even the remote possibility of Trout being available got me to thinking about when Miguel Cabrera was available several years ago and the push the team made to get him. The opportunity to acquire a top 3 player in the game comes very rarely, and so if he was available, it wouldn't surprise me if the Sox somehow wound up in the pursuit.

Edited May 7, 20169 yr by Thad Bosley

We don't have the talent without removing too much from the big league squad.

It won't happen, but you do what it takes to get Trout. If he is on the White Sox, it would change the entire dynamic of the franchise.

I just don't think their owner would ever trade trout.

I just don't think their owner would ever trade trout.

I don't think so either. At least not for a couple of years. As long as he is there, they don't need much more to always have the proverbial puncher's chance of making the playoffs.

There's no way the Sox get Trout without giving up Sale.

There's no way the Sox get Trout without giving up Sale.

If they would trade Trout, I doubt Sale would be someone they would be interested in. i would think they would want younger guys with many years of control.

 

 

Maybe a 3 way trade where a team with the prospects the Angels would want would want Sale.

 

I love Sale, but I would trade him straight up for Trout in a heartbeat.

Edited May 7, 20169 yr by Dick Allen

If they would trade Trout, I doubt Sale would be someone they would be interested in. i would think they would want younger guys with many years of control.

 

 

Maybe a 3 way trade where a team with the prospects the Angels would want would want Sale.

 

I love Sale, but I would trade him straight up for Trout in a heartbeat.

So would I, but it'd take even more than just Sale to land Trout.

 

Probably Sale, Q, Eaton, Fulmer, and Adams would be enough, but that'd make no sense for the Sox.

Sadly, Anderson and Fulmer doesn't sniff Trout. Ya need to package Rodon as well I'm sure. The issue with that is it'd blow up our team if we moved Eaton, Q and Rodon in a package. I don't even know what the package would be. I'm sure we'd be outbid. Especially by the Dodgers or Red Sox

Edited May 7, 20169 yr by SouthSideSale

GreenSox will enjoy this stat...

 

Marcus Semien now with 8 homers and 15 RBI's, 9th in qualified SS OPS and tied for 10th with Russell/Baez, Villar, Asdrubal Cabrera and Elvis Andrus at 0.5 WAR.

 

Aledmys Diaz of STL already at 1.9.

 

 

 

 

I would give them Eaton and Rodon or Rodon/Fulmer/Adams/Anderson for Trout. That's as good of a deal as they're going to get.

Edited May 8, 20169 yr by soxforlife05

Sadly, Anderson and Fulmer doesn't sniff Trout. Ya need to package Rodon as well I'm sure. The issue with that is it'd blow up our team if we moved Eaton, Q and Rodon in a package. I don't even know what the package would be. I'm sure we'd be outbid. Especially by the Dodgers or Red Sox

 

I think Rodon would be way more enticing for them than what another team could offer since he's young and proven at the ML level and under control at low cost for quite a while.

 

I think the only way we could make that deal though is if we find an adequate #5 starter to get us through the year without making another trade. Because we'll have to make a trade for another starter.

Edited May 8, 20169 yr by soxforlife05

17:$19.25M, 18:$33.25M, 19:$33.25M, 20:$33.25M

full no-trade protection

 

Where are we going to get the money or the trade chips for fixing/repairing our rotation...?

 

You're going to have to trade 2 out of Rodon/Quintana/Fulmer and maybe Adams.

 

That leaves only two certainties in the rotation...and three more question marks with no or limited internal options.

 

From 2018-2020, the financial flexibility we've been waiting for with Danks/LaRoche leaving would be essentially erased by a $100 million contract over 3 years.

GreenSox will enjoy this stat...

 

Marcus Semien now with 8 homers and 15 RBI's, 9th in qualified SS OPS and tied for 10th with Russell/Baez, Villar, Asdrubal Cabrera and Elvis Andrus at 0.5 WAR.

 

Aledmys Diaz of STL already at 1.9.

But how many errors?

But how many errors?

Semien has 2, count "em, 2 errors in 31 games this year. BFD. He's a good player with significant pop for a middle infielder who is only going to get better. I'm pretty sure Oakland insisted on him vs Micah, Sanchez, or Saladino. Hahn insisted on Michael Ynoa.

In the end, Hahn picked Anderson's potential over Semien.

 

Time will tell if that was the right call or not.

 

 

It could be worse. Was just reading an article at the Star Tribune (Minny paper) and it looked all all the Twins' long-term contracts, going back to Puckett and Hrbek.

 

Almost all of them blew up in their faces, not unlike Danks for us. The list includes Mauer, Morneau, Phil Hughes, Nolasco, Santana (he's been "okay" so far, and Hughes was very good on a one year deal, terrible since the extension), Chuck Knoblauch and Glen Perkins.

 

So, in the end, this strategy (and maybe there's no choice financially) of bringing in guys with 1 or 2 year deals seems to be working quite well. Even Melky's been revitalized this season when he looked like a dead contract three months last year.

We don't have the talent without removing too much from the big league squad.

Agreed. We have holes as it it. Acquiring Trout would give us even more holes.

Happened across this article earlier, but for a team like the Sox who are looking to add offense, why not think big and consider the mighty MIKE TROUT who, if this article is correct, could be made available given the current state of the Angels. And as I read this article and saw the potential trade partners the author notes and the kinds of prospects who would need to be in play to entice the Angels to part with Trout, I'm not too sure the Sox couldn't have a seat at that table in any negotiations given the elite talent they currently possess on the farm.

 

A huge long shot, of course, but such an acquisition would not only catapult the Sox' chances for success in the near and perhaps distant future, but it could also go a long ways towards changing the narrative on the Chicago baseball landscape to firmly remind everyone that there are two teams in the city.

 

http://scores.espn.go.com/blog/sweetspot/p...ding-mike-trout

 

You'd destroy the rest of the roster and handicap your payroll to get him.

The Angels aren't trading Mike Trout