wade boggs chicken dinner said:
No one is arguing that smart teams have to adapt. However, if they know they are going to be willing/able to pay $250M to position players, what really is the point of getting Cespedes and Craig?
Eddie Jurak said:Diffidently.
RedOctober3829 said:REALLY hope the kid is wrong about this one....
https://twitter.com/mlb_nl_al/status/537006160269021184
https://twitter.com/mlb_nl_al/status/537006160269021184RedOctober3829 said:REALLY hope the kid is wrong about this one....
https://twitter.com/mlb_nl_al/status/537006160269021184
moondog80 said:
Not exactly going out on a limb with that. Of course either Bogaerts or Cespedes will be traded, That's true even if it's 10% Bogaerts, 90% Cespedes,
https://twitter.com/mlb_nl_al/status/537006160269021184RedOctober3829 said:REALLY hope the kid is wrong about this one....
https://twitter.com/mlb_nl_al/status/537006160269021184
RedOctober3829 said:REALLY hope the kid is wrong about this one....
https://twitter.com/mlb_nl_al/status/537006160269021184
If Hamels has a no trade, wouldn't the Sox need to talk to him?nvalvo said:He also just said that the Sox were in talks with Cole Hamels, so I'm not sure how much stock we should put in his speculations.
BeantownIdaho said:At some point down the line Vazquez or Swihart will be traded.
C4CRVT said:If Hamels has a no trade, wouldn't the Sox need to talk to him?
I suppose they would. Score one to the kid!C4CRVT said:If Hamels has a no trade, wouldn't the Sox need to talk to him?
Well you spelled egg right.CaskNFappin said:If Bogaerts is trading for pitching it has to be cost controlled and elite. I'm not against that idea, honestly. Sometimes you gotta break an egg to make an omlet.
It's a school night, you twit!soxhop411 said:“@mlb_nl_al: Red Sox fans, we have learned sox willing to do things late at night ( I reported it at midnight) . They need 40man roster space.Look trade!”
Yeah I'm thinking it has to be in a package for Harvey/Fernandez/Strasburg type for it to make sense at all. Xander for Harvey would definitely make the Mets think. They have pitching, desperately need offense and their shortstop position is a black hole.CaskNFappin said:If Bogaerts is trading for pitching it has to be cost controlled and elite. I'm not against that idea, honestly. Sometimes you gotta break an egg to make an omlet.
soxhop411 said:“@mlb_nl_al: Red Sox fans, we have learned sox willing to do things late at night ( I reported it at midnight) . They need 40man roster space.Look trade!”
Autocorrect insisted on that spelling.Reggie's Racquet said:Well you spelled egg right.
ehaz said:Yeah I'm thinking it has to be in a package for Harvey/Fernandez/Strasburg type for it to make sense at all. Xander for Harvey would definitely make the Mets think. They have pitching, desperately need offense and their shortstop position is a black hole.
I'm going to stick my head in the sand then whine like a petulant child. Just so you know.BeantownIdaho said:At some point down the line Vazquez or Swihart will be traded.
A hole they can cover up for a season with Hanley. I'm sure they don't view him as the long term answer there, but as a bridge to Marrero? Who knows. Not saying I'd do it but when Harvey was healthy he was the closest you could get to Kershaw like production.E5 Yaz said:
You realize such a trade would leave a hole at SS for the Red Sox, right?
ehaz said:A hole they can cover up for a season with Hanley. I'm sure they don't view him as the long term answer there, but as a bridge to Marrero? Who knows. Not saying I'd do it but when Harvey was healthy he was the closest you could get to Kershaw like production.
Yeah, because the Sox aren't overly concerned about potentially terrible defense at shortstop. Come on.ehaz said:A hole they can cover up for a season with Hanley. I'm sure they don't view him as the long term answer there, but as a bridge to Marrero? Who knows. Not saying I'd do it but when Harvey was healthy he was the closest you could get to Kershaw like production.
what are you talking about? deven marrero is better than francisco lindsor! that makes him a top 5 prospect!!!E5 Yaz said:
You realize such a trade would leave a hole at SS for the Red Sox, right?
It's been much discussed that Hanley's piss poor defense didn't exactly derail the Dodgers.E5 Yaz said:
You realize such a trade would leave a hole at SS for the Red Sox, right?
Snodgrass'Muff said:
Why? The team needs two catchers and Swihart has the athleticism to move to third or the outfield. Having him as a 2-3 times a week catcher and then available to spell 3B and a corner outfield positions 1-2 times per week would be a great asset if Vazquez follows his pattern of figuring out a new league in his second look at it. There's also a pretty good chance that Vazquez does not figure it out and becomes an excellent defensive backup catcher while Swihart gets 4-5 starts per week.
He wanted to get back on the mound, they wanted him to not blow out his arm again. You want to call that friction, go ahead.CaskNFappin said:It's been much discussed that Hanley's piss poor defense didn't exactly derail the Dodgers.
In this scenario, the Sox acquire Harvey for Bogaerts, slot Hanley at SS, and possibly hold onto Cespedes.
I know that sounds crazy, but there's a lot of people who are wondering why we signed Sandoval AND Ramirez. Maybe the return for Cespedes wasn't enough of an impact to stabilize the rotation, BUT it was clear Bogaerts could land a true ace.
I'm not pontificating based on Jake's tweets, but I think there's validity to the idea of dealing Bogaerts for a stud, even if that's a touchy subject around here. The Mets, with a ton of young pitching and a huge hole at SS match up quite well....not to mention Harvey had some friction with their brass as the season ended IIRC.
BeantownIdaho said:
Yes, in your perfect scenario I would keep him too. Perhaps WMB can be moved to long relief.
E5 Yaz said:
Hanley has become terrible at SS. They can't play him there, which is why the Dodgers moved him to third
Edit: just correcting facts. Have no desire to see HR at SS.
amarshal2 said:
I mean, the Sox's interest was pretty clearly brought up around the time he announced he'd move positions and there was a story today about him suggesting to Ben that he can play LF but yeah, other than that the Red Sox totally want Hanley at SS.E5 Yaz said:
I stand corrected. All those in favor of playing Hanley at SS, say aye
In the abstract, or in the context of a real-world scenario in comparison to other real-world scenarios?E5 Yaz said:
I stand corrected. All those in favor of playing Hanley at SS, say aye
Savin Hillbilly said:In the abstract, or in the context of a real-world scenario in comparison to other real-world scenarios?
I mean, this is a little like saying "all those in favor of open-heart surgery, say aye."
Great...I hope it works out. I have my prediction that down the line one of them gets moved. You have your prediction that he will be playing a different position.Snodgrass'Muff said:
There are plenty of reports about Swihart and how he has the athleticism to play pretty much anywhere. This isn't a new thought.
BeantownIdaho said:Great...I hope it works out. I have my prediction that down the line one of them gets moved. You have your prediction that he will be playing a different position.
I'm definitely guessing, but I bet he meant "on the Boston Red Sox baseball team in 2015."Savin Hillbilly said:In the abstract, or in the context of a real-world scenario in comparison to other real-world scenarios?
Yeah, that part I caught. Also the sarcasm part. If only the reading comprehension was working equally well in both directions...JohntheBaptist said:I'm definitely guessing, but I bet he meant "on the Boston Red Sox baseball team in 2015."
Savin Hillbilly said:Yeah, that part I caught. Also the sarcasm part. If only the reading comprehension was working equally well in both directions...