Red Sox acquire Aaron Hill from Brewers for Aaron Wilkerson and Wendell Rijo.
EDIT: Per Pete Abraham, the Brewers sent cash, as well.
EDIT: Per Pete Abraham, the Brewers sent cash, as well.
X-rays reportedly came back negative, so him being out long-term seems unlikely.Shit. Shaw's out for the season, isn't he.
I had two thoughts on this. First: Hey, what could go wrong with asking a career infielder to try LF at Fenway?! Second: Hill's someone I'd be fine playing at 3B every day, which could mean that Shaw's injury is serious...Bit of a head scratcher. He's never played the outfield in his big league career, and that would seemingly be where the game time would be for a RHH like Hill. Unless they intend to platoon him with Shaw at 3B.
or Hill is...or it could mean that teams with starters to trade are focused on getting back major-leaguers in return, and Shaw's the guy who's going to go.
Maybe they are just really confident in Sean O'Sullivan? It does seem strange, with the decision already made to convert Kelly to the bullpen.“
“@JMastrodonato: So Red Sox lose Wilkerson, potential back-end starter, at a time when they’re desperate for SP. Have to assume there’s more in the works…”
@JMastrodonato: Would think if Red Sox are comfortable trading Wilkerson, Dombrowski is close to acquiring a starter.”
I wouldn't be surprised if they're not sold on Wilkerson at all and this is--sort of--selling high.If Shaw was hurt to the point that they need a full time replacement for him, I would expect he'd have been the one removed from the roster to make room. Instead it was LaMarre.
That Wilkerson was the one dealt doesn't say to me that a deal for a starter is imminent. It says to me that they don't view him as a candidate for the rotation at all. With or without acquiring another starter, if Wilkerson is high on the rotation depth chart, he's someone I would expect they'd want to hang on to (or at least give a shot to before moving on).
That's like #146 on the list of probable outcomes from this.I'd bet you see Shaw moved, Moncada moved to third, and a good solid long term starter aquired and I'd be absolutely thrilled with that sequence of events.
Just below "Dombrowski confused Aaron Hill for Rich Hill" at #145That's like #146 on the list of probable outcomes from this.
Why? You have Shaw's replacement both long term and short term in Moncada and Hill, and you have a "proven" major league 3B-1B on the cheap to deal for a major league pitcher.That's like #146 on the list of probable outcomes from this.
If Hill just plays 3B against lefties, pinch hits for catchers late in games, and makes us all feel a little less freaked about the prospect of Josh Rutledge, Everyday Player in the event of an injury, that's a really fantastic return for a non-prospect pitcher the FO clearly didn't think was an option for this year and a far-away MI prospect who desperately needed a change of scenery.Kind of odd. Hard to not like the deal in terms of talent exchange, but I was also thinking that Hernandez getting more run wasn't a bad thing.
Barring injury this probably puts to rest any thought of Moncada following in bogaerts 2013 footsteps unless he really forces the issue.
I also don't think people were knocking down the Sox doors for Wilkerson and Rijo. So I'm having trouble figuring why I'm so meh on this trade, and yet there I am.
Just a half-season under Farrell, though.Aaron Hill played for John Farrell's Blue Jays in 2011.
Or Brock Holt is traded and Benintendi is called up, which is 145th of probable outcomes.I'd bet you see Shaw moved, Moncada moved to third, and a good solid long term starter aquired and I'd be absolutely thrilled with that sequence of events.
He was traded away on August 23rd so a little bit more than half a season. I haven't seen Hill play in a long time but if he hasn't lost too much in the field I feel a lot more confident with his glove than I do Josh Rutledge's.Just a half-season under Farrell, though.
Think of Hill as an upgrade on Jeff Rutledge and Wilkerson-Rijo as not much of a price to pay, and it's a solid depth move
I'm saying that Moncada is moved from 2nd to 3rd. Hill takes over at 3rd ROS.Or Brock Holt is traded and Benintendi is called up, which is 145th of probable outcomes.
No, thought you meant Moncada up this year.I'm saying that Moncada is moved from 2nd to 3rd. Hill takes over at 3rd ROS.
It isn't an insane idea.
He made that statement about this trade, or has something else been announced?
Does this strike anyone else as a bit weird? Why piss on a guy on his way out the door? Maybe there's something lost in translation, but when GMs make trades, isn't the protocol to talk about the benefits of the guy you got and not to dump on the guy you gave up? Sometimes you'll hear a guy say, "X is a really talented player, but given our strength at that position we decided to trade using some of that strength" or something like that. This quote sounds like bus-throwing-under to defend your trade.Pete Abraham @PeteAbe 58s59 seconds ago
Dombrowski said the Sox did not see Wilkerson as a viable option.
Maybe he was talking about the Mega Millions jackpot.He made that statement about this trade, or has something else been announced?
All true, plus there's this guy named Sandoval out there who could somehow fight his way back into the 3B picture for 2017.I also suspect that Shaw is going in a deal for a pitcher. He's a good, prearb player who doesn't seem like an immutable part of the team's core. He has real value in trade, but not so much that you need a real ace coming back if you're not going to just drain value out of the organization.
I didn't like that either. The right answer to that question — "why trade pitching when we need pitching?" — is something like, "Milwaukee really loved Wilkerson's potential, and were willing to give up value."Does this strike anyone else as a bit weird? Why piss on a guy on his way out the door? Maybe there's something lost in translation, but when GMs make trades, isn't the protocol to talk about the benefits of the guy you got and not to dump on the guy you gave up? Sometimes you'll hear a guy say, "X is a really talented player, but given our strength at that position we decided to trade using some of that strength" or something like that. This quote sounds like bus-throwing-under to defend your trade.
Good point. Presumably Dombrowski knows a lot more about what's up with him than we do, also.All true, plus there's this guy named Sandoval out there who could somehow fight his way back into the 3B picture for 2017.
Yeah, or you say, "We like (player whoever) but you have to give up talent to get talent."Does this strike anyone else as a bit weird? Why piss on a guy on his way out the door? Maybe there's something lost in translation, but when GMs make trades, isn't the protocol to talk about the benefits of the guy you got and not to dump on the guy you gave up? Sometimes you'll hear a guy say, "X is a really talented player, but given our strength at that position we decided to trade using some of that strength" or something like that. This quote sounds like bus-throwing-under to defend your trade.
If sounds better if you're thinking of it in the context of needs for the current season.Does this strike anyone else as a bit weird? Why piss on a guy on his way out the door? Maybe there's something lost in translation, but when GMs make trades, isn't the protocol to talk about the benefits of the guy you got and not to dump on the guy you gave up? Sometimes you'll hear a guy say, "X is a really talented player, but given our strength at that position we decided to trade using some of that strength" or something like that. This quote sounds like bus-throwing-under to defend your trade.
There might be more to what DD said that isn't tweeted here. For example, maybe the question was "Why not give Wilkerson a shot in the rotation?" and DD's answer was more like "We didn't see him as ready to help in this current season."I didn't like that either. The right answer to that question — "why trade pitching when we need pitching?" — is something like, "Milwaukee really loved Wilkerson's potential, and were willing to give up value."