Jump to content

John Lannan or Joel Hanrahan to Sox?


Steve9347

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 87
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

QUOTE (DBAH0 @ Jul 31, 2008 -> 01:02 PM)
That's like asking why would the Nats trading Jon Rauch when he was their closer and under their control til what 09 or 2010?

 

You know how much Jim Bowden loves his toolsy outfielders and position prospects. I don't know how Fields would be a fit for them considering they have Zimmerman at 3B already (unless Fields moved to 1B/OF). Otherwise my guess would be Broadway + McCullough + Shelby maybe, the Nats are just really going after loading up their system.

 

 

Anybody but Shelby. Can the White Sox find some way to include Robert Valido in some kind of deal. I'm just tired of watching him suck.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (maggsmaggs @ Jul 31, 2008 -> 07:18 PM)
Apparently (taken WSI) Rogers said that the talks have cooled for Lannan and now Hanrahan is more of a possibility. I'm sorry, I don't trust Rogers' source, I don't know his reputation, but I have never heard him give good inside scoop ever.

 

Sounds to me like he just misheard the name, and is looking for an excuse to cover it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (JPN366 @ Jul 31, 2008 -> 02:21 PM)
Anybody but Shelby. Can the White Sox find some way to include Robert Valido in some kind of deal. I'm just tired of watching him suck.

Valido should be gone by next season I'd imagine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (maggsmaggs @ Jul 31, 2008 -> 01:24 PM)
I hope you mean just being released and not traded because I don't think anyone would want him as part of a trade.

No I mean released, he has no value whatsoever.

 

From Rotoworld;

 

The Score 670 Chicago reports that the White Sox are close to acquiring John Lannan from the Nationals.

 

It's unknown just who the Chicago would be sending over in the deal, but this is Jim Bowden we're dealing with, so anything is possible. Josh Fields would make some sense. Lannan is under control through 2013, and he can keep the ball on the ground, which would make him a nice fit in Chicago.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like Hanrahan. Good live arm with some upside. At what cost is the key question as I refuse to give up Poreda or Fields for a reliever unless we are talking about some uber special reliever.

 

This guy is also going to be under the Sox control for a number of years (this is his 2nd season in the majors). Again, I would do all I could to insist on not giving up Fields/Poreda and instead offer up some of the AAAA starters the Sox have (offer up quantity of potential major league starters). Ie, Broadway and Whisler. I don't know how much value Broadway has now that he's completely fallen apart.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Jul 31, 2008 -> 10:29 AM)
I would like Hanrahan...not as hot on Lannan but sure, whatever dude. Hanrahan appears to have big upside, and I remember him as a Dodgers top prospect a few years back, so there's something there.

Yep, tremendous live arm. If I recall he had some injuries and than kind of had a period where he fell off the radar in LA before regaining everything. Just a very good arm.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Jul 31, 2008 -> 12:29 PM)
I would like Hanrahan...not as hot on Lannan but sure, whatever dude. Hanrahan appears to have big upside, and I remember him as a Dodgers top prospect a few years back, so there's something there.

 

It sounds like this is actually the guy the rumor is about. I don't know if someone screwed up a name early, but Hanrahan's name came up again.

 

It makes much more sense from the perspective of what we have to offer to other teams.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jul 31, 2008 -> 12:45 PM)
It sounds like this is actually the guy the rumor is about. I don't know if someone screwed up a name early, but Hanrahan's name came up again.

 

It makes much more sense from the perspective of what we have to offer to other teams.

 

And I have no idea why the Nats would give up young starting pitching.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (KipWellsFan @ Jul 31, 2008 -> 01:48 PM)
And I have no idea why the Nats would give up young starting pitching.

Well I think it's one thing that they actually have some backup in.

 

They're just desperate for offense really. No Johnson or Young for most of the season, and they just need more power in that lineup.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...