daggins Posted December 8, 2016 Share Posted December 8, 2016 QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Dec 7, 2016 -> 11:52 PM) By the way, I don't see Dodgers not paying Jensen. Hard telling. They have some good relievers already and even if they aren't cutting costs massively, they may not be ready to drop huge money on a closer. Plus, Loria has opened the coffers to pay for an elite closer, which is weird, but I'm not sure the Marlins get outbid here. Of course this could all be totally wrong! Hot Stove, Baby! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caulfield12 Posted December 8, 2016 Share Posted December 8, 2016 (edited) The Yankees are insane. Next, they'll be taking Robertson back again (well, they already tried that once, if not twice)... And how exactly are the Marlins planning to compete this year without Fernandez? It's almost like they're contemplating this upcoming season and competing for the playoffs as if he's still a member of the team. Weird. Edited December 8, 2016 by caulfield12 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chisoxfn Posted December 8, 2016 Share Posted December 8, 2016 QUOTE (daggins @ Dec 7, 2016 -> 08:59 PM) Hard telling. They have some good relievers already and even if they aren't cutting costs massively, they may not be ready to drop huge money on a closer. Plus, Loria has opened the coffers to pay for an elite closer, which is weird, but I'm not sure the Marlins get outbid here. Of course this could all be totally wrong! Hot Stove, Baby! Supposedly the Marlins aren't willing to give up the qualifying pick for Jensen. That is what I heard on LA sports talk tonight at least. They mentioned Jensen's reps were spotted with the Dodgers most of the day. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iamshack Posted December 8, 2016 Share Posted December 8, 2016 QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Dec 7, 2016 -> 09:00 PM) The Yankees are insane. Next, they'll be taking Robertson back again (well, they already tried that once, if not twice)... Just taking Robertson back? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoxAce Posted December 8, 2016 Share Posted December 8, 2016 QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Dec 7, 2016 -> 11:00 PM) The Yankees are insane. Next, they'll be taking Robertson back again (well, they already tried that once, if not twice)... I mean Robertson was a pretty sweet SU guy for them when Mariano was around. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daggins Posted December 8, 2016 Share Posted December 8, 2016 QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Dec 8, 2016 -> 12:01 AM) Supposedly the Marlins aren't willing to give up the qualifying pick for Jensen. That is what I heard on LA sports talk tonight at least. They mentioned Jensen's reps were spotted with the Dodgers most of the day. Yeah, just read that. Huh. I guess its the Dodgers or possibly the Nats then. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chisoxfn Posted December 8, 2016 Share Posted December 8, 2016 QUOTE (SoxAce @ Dec 7, 2016 -> 09:03 PM) I mean Robertson was a pretty sweet SU guy for them when Mariano was around. Yanks aren't going to spend that much money on a closer and set-up guy. No way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoxAce Posted December 8, 2016 Share Posted December 8, 2016 QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Dec 7, 2016 -> 11:04 PM) Yanks aren't going to spend that much money on a closer and set-up guy. No way. You dare doubt the evil empire?!?! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rowand44 Posted December 8, 2016 Share Posted December 8, 2016 Yankees could seemingly be a good fit for Q or Nate. Breaking news I know. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rowand44 Posted December 8, 2016 Share Posted December 8, 2016 QUOTE (SoxAce @ Dec 7, 2016 -> 11:05 PM) You dare doubt the evil empire?!?! The Dodgers?!? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Southwest Sider Posted December 8, 2016 Share Posted December 8, 2016 Yanks need another lefty in the pen. Maybe they look at Dan Jennings? Everything the insiders are saying is they won't be looking to part with any of their premium prospects, so it's doubtful they pursue Q I guess. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iamshack Posted December 8, 2016 Share Posted December 8, 2016 QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Dec 7, 2016 -> 09:04 PM) Yanks aren't going to spend that much money on a closer and set-up guy. No way. They still have Betances, right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChiliIrishHammock24 Posted December 8, 2016 Author Share Posted December 8, 2016 QUOTE (SoxAce @ Dec 7, 2016 -> 10:51 PM) More like good deal for both teams since Cubs got a World Series ring out of it. They in spite of Chapman, methinks. Or at least, they paid for shutdown innings and they got blown saves and shakey successful ones. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoxAce Posted December 8, 2016 Share Posted December 8, 2016 QUOTE (ChiliIrishHammock24 @ Dec 7, 2016 -> 11:09 PM) They in spite of Chapman, methinks. Or at least, they paid for shutdown innings and they got blown saves and shakey successful ones. They don't make it that far without him bottom line. Unless you think Pedro Strop was the answer it was a clinching move for them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iamshack Posted December 8, 2016 Share Posted December 8, 2016 QUOTE (South Sider @ Dec 7, 2016 -> 09:06 PM) Yanks need another lefty in the pen. Maybe they look at Dan Jennings? Everything the insiders are saying is they won't be looking to part with any of their premium prospects, so it's doubtful they pursue Q I guess. Jenning is a guy I wouldn't mind hanging on to and giving a slightly larger role to see if he can increase his value. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chisoxfn Posted December 8, 2016 Share Posted December 8, 2016 QUOTE (iamshack @ Dec 7, 2016 -> 09:08 PM) They still have Betances, right? Yeah...they still have a good pen, but I presume they'll look for another good set-up guy to join (especially since they don't have a deep rotation). Clearly Q is a fit, but it doesn't appear they are ready to deal the prospects necessary for him, but maybe the Sale deal forces their hand (referring to Boston getting stronger). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daggins Posted December 8, 2016 Share Posted December 8, 2016 I guess the Marlin have 5/80+ on the table for Jansen. Holy poop. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kwill Posted December 8, 2016 Share Posted December 8, 2016 If I am the Dodgers I am calling the White Sox up riight now. Jansen would cost 80/5 million dollars and a supplemental pick. Robertson- 25/2 million dollars. Probably 2 top prospects in a loaded system. The White Sox would probably do Lux and and Barnes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jenksycat Posted December 8, 2016 Share Posted December 8, 2016 QUOTE (kwill @ Dec 7, 2016 -> 11:22 PM) If I am the Dodgers I am calling the White Sox up riight now. Jansen would cost 80/5 million dollars and a supplemental pick. Robertson- 25/2 million dollars. Probably 2 top prospects in a loaded system. The White Sox would probably do Lux and and Barnes. Wouldn't cost the Dodgers a pick Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChiliIrishHammock24 Posted December 8, 2016 Author Share Posted December 8, 2016 QUOTE (SoxAce @ Dec 7, 2016 -> 11:11 PM) They don't make it that far without him bottom line. Unless you think Pedro Strop was the answer it was a clinching move for them. Or they could have acquired someone else for a lot cheaper than Chapman. But oh well, it's not really a debate anyone can prove one way or another. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kwill Posted December 8, 2016 Share Posted December 8, 2016 QUOTE (Jenksy Cat @ Dec 8, 2016 -> 12:27 AM) Wouldn't cost the Dodgers a pick Dodgers would get a supplemental pick if another team signed him. So in theory, it would. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChiliIrishHammock24 Posted December 8, 2016 Author Share Posted December 8, 2016 QUOTE (kwill @ Dec 7, 2016 -> 11:22 PM) If I am the Dodgers I am calling the White Sox up riight now. Jansen would cost 80/5 million dollars and a supplemental pick. Robertson- 25/2 million dollars. Probably 2 top prospects in a loaded system. The White Sox would probably do Lux and and Barnes. Gimmie Buehler and Lux. Or straight up for Calhoun. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LittleHurt05 Posted December 8, 2016 Share Posted December 8, 2016 Too long and too much money. Just when you think the franchise had changed, Yankees gonna Yankee. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LittleHurt05 Posted December 8, 2016 Share Posted December 8, 2016 QUOTE (SoxAce @ Dec 7, 2016 -> 11:11 PM) They don't make it that far without him bottom line. Unless you think Pedro Strop was the answer it was a clinching move for them. Hector Rondon was rendered useless by his injury too. Did they "overpay" for Chapman? Sure. Was Chapman a bit disappointing? Sure But they HAD to have another reliever and flags fly forever. I read numerous Cubs fans commenting that the Chapman trade was way worse than the Eaton trade. But they are wearing 2016 WS hats so no one cares Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoxAce Posted December 8, 2016 Share Posted December 8, 2016 QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Dec 8, 2016 -> 08:04 AM) Hector Rondon was rendered useless by his injury too. Did they "overpay" for Chapman? Sure. Was Chapman a bit disappointing? Sure But they HAD to have another reliever and flags fly forever. Bingo. Well said. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.