Pretty sure Pirate fans are used to it

You cant half rebuild. Trade Q, Frasier, Robertson, and Benetti!

Welp if the pirates are involved do whatever you gotta do to get glasnow!

Tell me that Todd Frazier wouldn't be the 1B/3B that they've needed for the last 5-10 years. PEDro Alvarez could get hot and carry the team for a month or a two at a time (sept 2009 or 2010 comes to mind) but then he'd generally end up giving Mendoza a run for his $$$ while putting the "ooh" in "hard platoon"

Srsly the pir8s could have a fun lineup come August once mccutchen actually starts hitting alongside starling matte, Greg polanco, Jung smack-a-ho Kang, and then ofc Todd Frazier.

#ImJustSayin..................#Rosemont

_________________

https://twitter.com/CourtneyRCronin/status/831937792535957504

Here you go Keyser
I'm with you

_________________
https://www.backroadspubandgrill.com

I have not seen anybody suggest this except for Keyser and a 40 year old shortstop who was on the Sox for barely 70 days last season. I am not saying its impossible, but its going to take a lot more to convince me that the Sox moved Sale & Eaton out of spite.

I know the retort will be "Blah blah than why haven't Frazier, Quintana, Robertson, etc been traded?!" And the answer to that is simple. The Sox still have to play 162 games this season, so they have to fill out a roster. You also don't trade guys just to trade them because "thats what rebuilding teams do.". If Hahn can get something of value back for anybody who was on this team last year, they can and should be moved.

_________________

Frazier-Matt Davidson
Quintana-Carson Fullmer
Robertson-Really? Sign a JAG

There really is no excuse. They are retooling, not rebuilding.

As I said, you don't move Frazier and Quintana just to move them. You have to get something of value back, especially for those two guys. I would be OK with moving Robertson just to move him, but I think you can get something decent back for him too. This will definitely be the case if/when a contending team has a bullpen arm that goes south on them.

_________________

One thing I would not do if I were the Sox is pay money to move anyone. There is no sound "move them just to move them" reasoning to pay any part of an outgoing player's contract. They do need bodies and no prospects coming back equals no deal to me. I am assuming this is Hahn's thinking as well.

_________________
Elections have consequences.

I think you have to eat some dough to move Robertson.

_________________

Yes but if that is the case keep him. Unless there is a very plus prospect coming back.

_________________
Elections have consequences.

If the hang up in the Pirates deal was taking Q's contract, you wouldn't for the return in prospects?

That is different. I am thinking more about Robertson and Frazier. There is no point to pay someone to take them away without a great return.

_________________
Elections have consequences.

I am not saying move them to move them. I am just saying I don't buy the argument, they are on the roster because you have to fill it out.

I think Kenny is still running things. And there are reports that 2 deals were nixed by "ownership".

I will keep repeating, I am not interested in being a .500 team or a .475 team. If they are going to rebuild, help it with a top 5 pick not the 15th pick.

Agreed


Depending on the return. If the Nats are giving you Robbles(sp?), I would pay 150% of the salaries going to Washington.

I don't think the Sox are keeping those guys just to fill out a roster. I'm just saying they have to, and if Hahn is not going to get what he is asking for-- provided he is not asking for the moon and/or a team counters with something at least reasonably close-- then there is no reason to move anybody.

_________________

I would wonder if he is asking for the moon knowing he was told(by Kenny) he couldn't trade anyone. To make fans think he wasn't going to give anyone away.

If that is the case, then all it takes is one team to say, "OK" (like the Nationals for Eaton), and a deal should be done.

_________________

Why would Reinsdorf worry about attendance when it is guaranteed?

_________________
O judgment! Thou art fled to brutish beasts,
And men have lost their reason.

You mean, a Guaranteed Rate.....?

no, the state pays him when attendance falls below a certain amount. He is in a no lose situation in terms of attendance (other than lost revenue on the tangential sales when people attend)

_________________
O judgment! Thou art fled to brutish beasts,
And men have lost their reason.

It was a pun

They're not giving you Robles for Robertson, even with the cash.

That Fredde/Keiboom trade sounds like a haul for Robertson. Why would the Sox not jump at it?

_________________
O judgment! Thou art fled to brutish beasts,
And men have lost their reason.

Because it's probably Spencer not Carter KieBOOM. I'm not sure if Fedde has a bad older brother in the Nats system too but if he does it's him and not Eric.

If he gets off to a good start to the season as he did last year, they may well be able to move him without picking up any of the contract AND get a decent prospect if a team is in a similar position as the Giants/ Nats/ Cubs/ Indians were last year.

_________________
Go Cubs!!!!

They will be in a position next year where the payroll is so low that they can afford to eat contract to obtain better players. The number one goal right now has to be getting the best possible players in these trades

_________________
O judgment! Thou art fled to brutish beasts,
And men have lost their reason.

The Sox will not eat money on outgoing players, its an organizational rule that they seem unwilling to break. They'll DFA guys, they'll pick up bad contracts, but they wont pay for a guy to play elsewhere. It's stupid.

If you DFA a guy ( Danks) and eat 15 million, you are paying a guy to play for another team..assuming somebody wants him. I can see the Sox DFA Shields soon, he's due 21 million this year and next year and 16 million in 2019

_________________

Sox only pay half.

_________________
Reality is your friend, not your enemy. -- Seacrest