witesoxfan Posted January 16, 2014 Share Posted January 16, 2014 QUOTE (Al Lopez's Ghost @ Jan 16, 2014 -> 11:13 AM) I don't follow your thought. They'll get rid of Flowers if they can't acquire Nieto outright. What am I missing here? QUOTE (Y2JImmy0 @ Jan 16, 2014 -> 11:16 AM) If they keep Nieto he has to stay on the roster all year. Meaning it would most likely be He and Phegley. Flowers would have to go. If they could acquire Nieto rather than using him as a Rule 5 selection, they could send him to the minors and keep Flowers if they wanted to. Yeah, this. I think the organization knows what it has in Flowers, it only cost $1 mill to keep him, and he'll have "value" to other teams, though the Sox likely wouldn't get anything worthwhile back. I think they are going to want to keep Nieto regardless. If they can't and do get rid of Flowers, they still have Hector Gimenez in the minors ready for a call up at any time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hogan873 Posted January 16, 2014 Share Posted January 16, 2014 QUOTE (Y2JImmy0 @ Jan 16, 2014 -> 11:16 AM) If they keep Nieto he has to stay on the roster all year. Meaning it would most likely be He and Phegley. Flowers would have to go. If they could acquire Nieto rather than using him as a Rule 5 selection, they could send him to the minors and keep Flowers if they wanted to. I learn something every day here. So, since he was a Rule 5 guy, he has to be on the 25-man roster? Unless they acquire him some other way. Well, only time will tell, but if he's as productive as Flowers or Phegley, the Sox are propbably better off with him and Phegley (or Flowers) because he's young and can hit from the left. Regardless, it looks like there will not be a big upgrade at the catcher spot. Could just be an investment for the future. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted January 16, 2014 Share Posted January 16, 2014 QUOTE (pittshoganerkoff @ Jan 16, 2014 -> 12:57 PM) I learn something every day here. So, since he was a Rule 5 guy, he has to be on the 25-man roster? Unless they acquire him some other way. Well, only time will tell, but if he's as productive as Flowers or Phegley, the Sox are propbably better off with him and Phegley (or Flowers) because he's young and can hit from the left. Regardless, it looks like there will not be a big upgrade at the catcher spot. Could just be an investment for the future. Yes, if the White Sox want to take him off the roster, they lose him and send a $25k check to Washington as penance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
witesoxfan Posted January 16, 2014 Share Posted January 16, 2014 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 16, 2014 -> 01:27 PM) Yes, if the White Sox want to take him off the roster, they lose him and send a $25k check to Washington as penance. Washington sends the $25k check. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted January 16, 2014 Share Posted January 16, 2014 QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Jan 16, 2014 -> 01:33 PM) Washington sends the $25k check. I think he was getting at the fact that, on net, the Sox lose $25k. Not that it matters a ton. It still surprises me they didn't just trade for the guy. I just don't see anyone who has never played above A ball being able to stick all year. And if he is there as a bench guy, why did you bother? And what kind of development does he get out of that anyway? The only reason I can think of they did this, is that they wanted to trade for him but WAS asked for the world for him. Which makes no sense to me, since they didn't even protect him on the 40 man roster. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Ultimate Champion Posted January 16, 2014 Author Share Posted January 16, 2014 Kenny thinks Rizzo smokes sausage so Hahn said to tell with it and smacked him with the beef. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
witesoxfan Posted January 16, 2014 Share Posted January 16, 2014 QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 16, 2014 -> 04:33 PM) I think he was getting at the fact that, on net, the Sox lose $25k. Not that it matters a ton. It still surprises me they didn't just trade for the guy. I just don't see anyone who has never played above A ball being able to stick all year. And if he is there as a bench guy, why did you bother? And what kind of development does he get out of that anyway? The only reason I can think of they did this, is that they wanted to trade for him but WAS asked for the world for him. Which makes no sense to me, since they didn't even protect him on the 40 man roster. I think it's a little more complicated than that. They would have had to have known that Nieto was the guy they wanted prior to the Rule 5 draft deadline, and then they would have had to have known that Washington wasn't going to protect him or that they didn't feel highly about him. I think they went into the process feeling like they wanted to take a catcher no matter what and merely went about scouting these guys and felt that Nieto was the best overall player out of that group. Had the Sox traded for him prior to the Rule 5 draft, then someone can just re-claim him and then the Sox are SOL. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paulstar Posted January 17, 2014 Share Posted January 17, 2014 (edited) I wonder if the Dodgers are in the market for trading one of their outfielders. They have 4 guys (3 who are getting paid A LOT) and not enough AB's to satisfy each player. I would assume Kemp is staying just because he is a "superstar" out there in LA and dating Rihanna and what not and is a damn good ball player when he is healthy and not trying to pull everything for a homerun. Crawford is just way too expensive and not good enough for any team to be interested in having him on their roster for the next four years even at a discounted price if the dodgers pick up a good chunk of his salary. Puig is another superstar in the making out there and the most cost controlled and youngest of the 4, he ain't going anywhere. That leaves Andre Ethier and his 4 years and 70 million to probably be only a part time player out there in LA. I don't know, it doesn't make any sense at all how the Dodgers plan on keeping all four outfielders unless they are pretty confident one of Crawford/Kemp gets hurt (might not be that bad of a bet) or they want to limit the amount of AB's Puig and Crawford see. Personally, I don't see that as a healthy situation as you have 4 guys with probably pretty big ego's and want to play everyday competing for only 3 spots. Plus, I know the Dodgers are showing they don't give a s*** about money and the luxury tax, but I have to assume they would want to start cutting some salary in eras where they have a ton locked up in at (OF and SP), especially if they do get Tanaka. If Tanaka doesn't come to Chicago, I don't think it would be a bad idea to acquire Ethier if you could get the dodgers to pick up a little bit of his salary to get him down to where Chicago would only owe him around 14 mil per season. I'm not sure what it would cost to acquire him, but I don't think it would be to the level of crippling our farm system at all. In this scenario, you ideally find a way to get rid of Dunn as well to make Viciedo the primary DH (maybe not ideal since he and Konerko are both righties, but Viciedo provides more upside for the future of the club and could also be used in LF vs. tough lefties to sit Ethier). Just spit ballin some ideas. Edited January 17, 2014 by Paulstar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackSox13 Posted January 17, 2014 Share Posted January 17, 2014 Paulstar. I see what you're saying and agree that Ethier makes the most sense out of the Dodger outfielders. Left handed bat with some power would fit well on this team. Like you said it depends on the amount of money the Dodgers would send with Ethier. Hes older than what I would prefer but could help accelerate the contention process. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
witesoxfan Posted January 17, 2014 Share Posted January 17, 2014 Where would the Sox play Ethier? They have a logjam in the outfield right now as well and adding Ethier to that mix is doing no one any favors. Plus he's 32 and, as mentioned, has 4 years left on his deal. Let them suffer their own fate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldsox Posted January 17, 2014 Share Posted January 17, 2014 I always liked Ethier, but in 3-4 yrs he will be an albatross, getting in the way of developing some unknown young OF. Still, trading Dunn for Ethier straight up solves the money problem mentioned above. Dodgers probably have a couple of young outfielders who will be ready for roster spots in 2015, too, so they might be motivated. Geez, if Sox were a legitimate contender in 2014 (and they might be if Abreu really hits), it would improve the DH spot as well as OF depth. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted January 17, 2014 Share Posted January 17, 2014 QUOTE (oldsox @ Jan 17, 2014 -> 09:19 AM) I always liked Ethier, but in 3-4 yrs he will be an albatross, getting in the way of developing some unknown young OF. Still, trading Dunn for Ethier straight up solves the money problem mentioned above. Dodgers probably have a couple of young outfielders who will be ready for roster spots in 2015, too, so they might be motivated. Geez, if Sox were a legitimate contender in 2014 (and they might be if Abreu really hits), it would improve the DH spot as well as OF depth. And also if we take 1/2 of Ethier's contract off the Dodgers' hands, it clears things up for them to sign Tanaka and pretty much removes the White Sox as a legit contender, which is great since we're Dodgers fans. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LittleHurt05 Posted January 17, 2014 Share Posted January 17, 2014 Ugh, not another Ethier discussion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rowand44 Posted January 17, 2014 Share Posted January 17, 2014 Trading for an of is literally the last thing this team needs to do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackSox13 Posted January 17, 2014 Share Posted January 17, 2014 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 17, 2014 -> 08:27 AM) And also if we take 1/2 of Ethier's contract off the Dodgers' hands, it clears things up for them to sign Tanaka and pretty much removes the White Sox as a legit contender, which is great since we're Dodgers fans. Paulstar said the trade would be after Tanaka decides on who to sign with and not before so the Sox wouldn't be helping LA sign Tanaka at all. Paulstar also said he's just throwing ideas out there so for those with the attitude of here we go again, feel free to take your favorite ant-acid and abstain from the conversation. You won't be missed. I admit there are other players I'd rather have (younger/cheaper) but if LA sent the right money I wouldn't be against it either. Yes Dunn would have to be moved a yes this would be difficult if not impossible and again, this was brought up more for the sake of something to talk about. It has been rather boring outside of the Tanaka speculation and that's starting to get old. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LittleHurt05 Posted January 17, 2014 Share Posted January 17, 2014 QUOTE (Rowand44 @ Jan 17, 2014 -> 08:57 AM) Trading for an of is literally the last thing this team needs to do. Not to mention an old platoon OF with a long, expensive contract. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackSox13 Posted January 17, 2014 Share Posted January 17, 2014 QUOTE (Rowand44 @ Jan 17, 2014 -> 08:57 AM) Trading for an of is literally the last thing this team needs to do. QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Jan 17, 2014 -> 09:40 AM) Not to mention an old platoon OF with a long, expensive contract. Its obvious neither one of you bothered to read Paulstars post. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
witesoxfan Posted January 17, 2014 Share Posted January 17, 2014 Bringing in Ethier is still going to cost the Sox money and puts them in a similar or worse position than they were in with Dunn. I understand that he was stimulating conversation, but part of conversation can be people saying "no, that is a very bad idea." And trading for Ethier, with the Sox in their current position, is a very bad idea. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Y2Jimmy0 Posted January 17, 2014 Share Posted January 17, 2014 QUOTE (StRoostifer @ Jan 17, 2014 -> 09:49 AM) Its obvious neither one of you bothered to read Paulstars post. Ethier is a platoon player. He shouldn't play vs LHP ever. I just think this board is funny sometimes. People hate Dunn but they advocate for acquiring guys like Granderson and Ethier. Ethier would be fine for a couple years against RHP but our manager would not use him properly and he would still cost too much for a platoon. Let the young guys play. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LittleHurt05 Posted January 17, 2014 Share Posted January 17, 2014 QUOTE (StRoostifer @ Jan 17, 2014 -> 09:49 AM) Its obvious neither one of you bothered to read Paulstars post. I did, it sounds like he is a Dodgers fan trying to rid his favorite team of their OF logjam, because for the White Sox Ethier makes zero sense. Again, he is due $71.5 million through his age 35 season. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackSox13 Posted January 17, 2014 Share Posted January 17, 2014 QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Jan 17, 2014 -> 10:06 AM) I did, it sounds like he is a Dodgers fan trying to rid his favorite team of their OF logjam, because for the White Sox Ethier makes zero sense. Again, he is due $71.5 million through his age 35 season. And he also exlained money would be coming with Ethier. There's no way I would take that contract as is, there would have to be plenty of money coming back. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
witesoxfan Posted January 17, 2014 Share Posted January 17, 2014 QUOTE (StRoostifer @ Jan 17, 2014 -> 10:15 AM) And he also exlained money would be coming with Ethier. There's no way I would take that contract as is, there would have to be plenty of money coming back. There is no way I'd take Ethier regardless of money coming back. He's a terrible fit for this team right now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LittleHurt05 Posted January 17, 2014 Share Posted January 17, 2014 QUOTE (StRoostifer @ Jan 17, 2014 -> 10:15 AM) And he also exlained money would be coming with Ethier. There's no way I would take that contract as is, there would have to be plenty of money coming back. So hypothetically let's say that the Dodgers pay 1/2 his contract, which is probably unrealistic anyway. He'd then be due $36 million over 4 years. He's still an aging platoon OF and the Sox are still a rebuilding team. What good does he exactly do? Take at-bats from a young player who might be part of the future? Dunn's contract expires and you just want to replace it with a similar player, no thanks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackSox13 Posted January 17, 2014 Share Posted January 17, 2014 QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Jan 17, 2014 -> 10:24 AM) So hypothetically let's say that the Dodgers pay 1/2 his contract, which is probably unrealistic anyway. He'd then be due $36 million over 4 years. He's still an aging platoon OF and the Sox are still a rebuilding team. What good does he exactly do? Take at-bats from a young player who might be part of the future? Dunn's contract expires and you just want to replace it with a similar player, no thanks. What younger player? Assuming Tank becomes the next DH which is very possible who takes over LF? ADA and Danks are not the answer and the Sox don't have anyone ready in the minors to take LF so Ethier wouldn't take at bats away from anyone really. Ethier would give the Sox a a lefty bat that can actually hit above his weight while drawing walks. Like I said earlier, I admit Ethier is not ideal and there are other players I would rather have but I wouldn't bed against Ethier under the right circumstances. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
witesoxfan Posted January 17, 2014 Share Posted January 17, 2014 QUOTE (StRoostifer @ Jan 17, 2014 -> 10:33 AM) What younger player? Assuming Tank becomes the next DH which is very possible who takes over LF? ADA and Danks are not the answer and the Sox don't have anyone ready in the minors to take LF so Ethier wouldn't take at bats away from anyone really. Ethier would give the Sox a a lefty bat that can actually hit above his weight while drawing walks. Like I said earlier, I admit Ethier is not ideal and there are other players I would rather have but I wouldn't bed against Ethier under the right circumstances. Except that he's going to be 32 next year and exiting his prime years, while being injury prone, and still a heavy platoon player. Ethier adds maybe 1 win this year and then he will likely get progressively worse throughout the course of the deal. 3 years from now, the Sox would be left with a $10 million salary for a player that they don't want. Ethier is a terrible, terrible fit for the White Sox. 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.