Bob Sacamano Posted December 13, 2015 Share Posted December 13, 2015 QUOTE (BlackSox13 @ Dec 13, 2015 -> 09:13 AM) Last I read Alvarez was projected 8.1M and Carter at 5.6M. There's really no reason for the Brewers to even be curious about LaRoche. Sox fans just need to accept he will be with the Sox next season. Most likely. Then Melky DH in 2017. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackSox13 Posted December 13, 2015 Share Posted December 13, 2015 QUOTE (soxfan2014 @ Dec 13, 2015 -> 09:16 AM) Most likely. Then Melky DH in 2017. Why wait? Put LaRoche on the bench for late inning pinch hitter/defensive sub at first. I think this is what may end up happening. The Sox talked to Eaton about moving him to one of the corners to open up CF for Thompson so it looks as though the Sox plan to use Melky more at DH in '16 anyway, in some capacity. I'm hoping for Eaton LF, Thompson CF and anyone not named Avi in RF. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Sacamano Posted December 13, 2015 Share Posted December 13, 2015 (edited) QUOTE (BlackSox13 @ Dec 13, 2015 -> 09:28 AM) Why wait? Put LaRoche on the bench for late inning pinch hitter/defensive sub at first. I think this is what may end up happening. The Sox talked to Eaton about moving him to one of the corners to open up CF for Thompson so it looks as though the Sox plan to use Melky more at DH in '16 anyway, in some capacity. I'm hoping for Eaton LF, Thompson CF and anyone not named Avi in RF. I'm thinking as of now, they'll go with LaRoche to start with but he will be on a short leash. They probably want him and Abreu sharing time at first and DH against righties with Melky DHing, Eaton in left and Trayce in center against lefties. But like I said, if LaRoche isn't performing and Trayce starts off good out of the gate we'd likely see LaRoche shift into a bench role (or even released). Edited December 13, 2015 by soxfan2014 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackSox13 Posted December 13, 2015 Share Posted December 13, 2015 QUOTE (soxfan2014 @ Dec 13, 2015 -> 09:56 AM) I'm thinking as of now, they'll go with LaRoche to start with but he will be on a short leash. They probably want him and Abreu sharing time at first and DH against righties with Melky DHing, Eaton in left and Trayce in center against lefties. But like I said, if LaRoche isn't performing and Trayce starts off good out of the gate we'd likely see LaRoche shift into a bench role (or even released). That sounds about right to me, good call. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saufley Posted December 13, 2015 Share Posted December 13, 2015 QUOTE (BlackSox13 @ Dec 13, 2015 -> 09:13 AM) Last I read Alvarez was projected 8.1M and Carter at 5.6M. There's really no reason for the Brewers to even be curious about LaRoche. Sox fans just need to accept he will be with the Sox next season. Maybe the Brewers will follow the cubs rebuild plan of losing on purpose and do everything possible to lose. If that is the case they could use LaRoche. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackSox13 Posted December 13, 2015 Share Posted December 13, 2015 QUOTE (Saufley @ Dec 13, 2015 -> 12:29 PM) Maybe the Brewers will follow the cubs rebuild plan of losing on purpose and do everything possible to lose. If that is the case they could use LaRoche. I like your way of thinking. Ok, LaRoche to the Brewers it is. Game on! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LDF Posted December 13, 2015 Share Posted December 13, 2015 QUOTE (soxfan2014 @ Dec 13, 2015 -> 03:56 PM) I'm thinking as of now, they'll go with LaRoche to start with but he will be on a short leash. They probably want him and Abreu sharing time at first and DH against righties with Melky DHing, Eaton in left and Trayce in center against lefties. But like I said, if LaRoche isn't performing and Trayce starts off good out of the gate we'd likely see LaRoche shift into a bench role (or even released). so does that mean, they will not make any improvement on that front??? they are being shortsighted in order not to spend money. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmags Posted December 13, 2015 Share Posted December 13, 2015 QUOTE (LDF @ Dec 13, 2015 -> 12:36 PM) so does that mean, they will not make any improvement on that front??? they are being shortsighted in order not to spend money. How is it shortsighted? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CWSpalehoseCWS Posted December 13, 2015 Share Posted December 13, 2015 QUOTE (soxfan2014 @ Dec 13, 2015 -> 09:56 AM) I'm thinking as of now, they'll go with LaRoche to start with but he will be on a short leash. They probably want him and Abreu sharing time at first and DH against righties with Melky DHing, Eaton in left and Trayce in center against lefties. But like I said, if LaRoche isn't performing and Trayce starts off good out of the gate we'd likely see LaRoche shift into a bench role (or even released). I would disagree. The Sox rarely hold big contract players on short leases. Adam Dunn is a prime example of that. LaRoche will be no different. Look how long it took Robin to bench him last year vs. LHP. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LDF Posted December 13, 2015 Share Posted December 13, 2015 QUOTE (bmags @ Dec 13, 2015 -> 07:52 PM) How is it shortsighted? next yr fa is really not that strong, this is the time, esp with the signing of heyward, teams would be needing to make trades to get better or closer by trading for key personnels, so they will be stronger. in that area, the sox can at least make 1 significant trade and reap in prospects and players. they can make a smart fa or 2 signings and maybe trade off some surplus pitches and or prospects in another minor trade to finish off this time of retooling. here is what i am talking about.... will pitt continue to remain as is, or will they sell b/c of heyward, or will they make even a bigger effort to get a better sp?? stl, stl needs a of'er but most importantly they need a real #1/2 sp esp to combat the sCrubs. sfo, they have not be heard from, with heyward signing, what will they do?? dodgers, they need and prefer a cost control pitching. they need another sp and they want a closer. arz, if sfo and dodgers improve, will arz do the same?? nl east... i do not know what going on over there so here is the time to make some moves, screw the profit margin, go over and it is not going to be a big lost. use next yr as a testing ground for the team and a time for the team to bound. at the end, 28 mil come off the books. add that to the 15 mil coming off the books with the trading of robertson. that is the missed opportunity, to take advantage of the situation that team will feel they will need to make to compete. and the sox can be the sellars and buyers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GGajewski18 Posted December 13, 2015 Share Posted December 13, 2015 QUOTE (CWSpalehoseCWS @ Dec 13, 2015 -> 01:07 PM) I would disagree. The Sox rarely hold big contract players on short leases. Adam Dunn is a prime example of that. LaRoche will be no different. Look how long it took Robin to bench him last year vs. LHP. Disagree. Dunn sucked his 1st year in a 4 year contract with the Sox. He was serviceable the next 3 before being traded to Oakland. Difference between LaRoche and Dunn? LaRoche is in the final year of his contract, Dunn had 3 more years, but he at least put up decent/good numbers those last 3 seasons. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Knackattack Posted December 13, 2015 Share Posted December 13, 2015 QUOTE (SoxPride18 @ Dec 13, 2015 -> 11:09 AM) Disagree. Dunn sucked his 1st year in a 4 year contract with the Sox. He was serviceable the next 3 before being traded to Oakland. Difference between LaRoche and Dunn? LaRoche is in the final year of his contract, Dunn had 3 more years, but he at least put up decent/good numbers those last 3 seasons. I seem to remember Dunn having an issue with his son during that year. Something life threatening IIRC, that really bears on your mind. The fact that he was actually decent (for what he was) the next 3 years makes me really believe that it was weighing on him, and it's a reasonable thing. Adam LaRoche's excuses were.... I've never DH'd and my hand hurts... not buying that as much. I will however say that if his hand injury was the real issue and he is strictly used against RHP only, he may swat 20 homers next season and approach a more Adam LaRoche-like OPS Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lillian Posted December 13, 2015 Share Posted December 13, 2015 (edited) Remember, Dunn was younger than La Roche, when he joined the Sox. He also had a more distinguished career. I'm not hopeful. Edited December 13, 2015 by Lillian Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Sacamano Posted December 13, 2015 Share Posted December 13, 2015 QUOTE (CWSpalehoseCWS @ Dec 13, 2015 -> 01:07 PM) I would disagree. The Sox rarely hold big contract players on short leases. Adam Dunn is a prime example of that. LaRoche will be no different. Look how long it took Robin to bench him last year vs. LHP. Well they were willing to dump him for 8 mill. Maybe about a month or two in when 1/3 of the remaining contract has been paid. And Dunn and LaRoche are not perfect comparisons. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Y2Jimmy0 Posted December 14, 2015 Share Posted December 14, 2015 I actually think LaRoche is a good bounce back candidate. The problem with having LaRoche is that Melky is in the OF rather than DH Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LDF Posted December 14, 2015 Share Posted December 14, 2015 QUOTE (Y2JImmy0 @ Dec 14, 2015 -> 01:04 AM) I actually think LaRoche is a good bounce back candidate. The problem with having LaRoche is that Melky is in the OF rather than DH you said he is a good bounce back. the problem i have with this statement is this, he might be, and if the sox wanted to experiment and had the so call money to waste, why not. but at his salary, he was suppose to be a guarantee, not some experiment. second, this team can not waste their effort in this kind of player, they need players who will produce. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glangon Posted December 14, 2015 Author Share Posted December 14, 2015 What saddens me is that we could have probably gotten better production from Andy Wilkins at Salary minimum than La Roche at $8 million odd. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dick Allen Posted December 14, 2015 Share Posted December 14, 2015 QUOTE (glangon @ Dec 14, 2015 -> 05:59 AM) What saddens me is that we could have probably gotten better production from Andy Wilkins at Salary minimum than La Roche at $8 million odd. LaRoche sucked but Andy Wilkins is a reach. He has been claimed on waivers by 4 or 5 teams since he left the Sox, and he was pitiful in his brief time in Chicago. Less than .400 OPS and struck out half his plate appearances. The LaRoche signing made sense. It isn't something that would hamstring you for a long time, and he had been pretty solid for a while. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quin Posted December 14, 2015 Share Posted December 14, 2015 "LaRoche's $13M this year will handicap us forever!" "Let's go get Chris Davis for $150M" "Let's take James Shields" Guys, in the scheme of things, LaRoche isn't making a massive amount and is in no way a long-term handicap. He's a short term handicap and it would be foolish to make the situation a long term one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LDF Posted December 14, 2015 Share Posted December 14, 2015 QUOTE (Quinarvy @ Dec 14, 2015 -> 12:15 PM) "LaRoche's $13M this year will handicap us forever!" "Let's go get Chris Davis for $150M" "Let's take James Shields" Guys, in the scheme of things, LaRoche isn't making a massive amount and is in no way a long-term handicap. He's a short term handicap and it would be foolish to make the situation a long term one. long term no, short term yes, esp added to danks contract, the sox FO will not go beyond what they think the team should spend. esp with 28 mil on the books that can not be moved. so if nothing else is done, do you think the team will do well??? the owners would not be b****ing in fans not coming out??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quin Posted December 14, 2015 Share Posted December 14, 2015 QUOTE (LDF @ Dec 14, 2015 -> 07:30 AM) long term no, short term yes, esp added to danks contract, the sox FO will not go beyond what they think the team should spend. esp with 28 mil on the books that can not be moved. so if nothing else is done, do you think the team will do well??? the owners would not be b****ing in fans not coming out??? I said he's a short-term handicap, but that doesn't give a reason to make him a long-term one by taking on someone like Shields or signing Chris Davis to hysterical amounts to fill LaRoche's place. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LDF Posted December 14, 2015 Share Posted December 14, 2015 QUOTE (Quinarvy @ Dec 14, 2015 -> 01:34 PM) I said he's a short-term handicap, but that doesn't give a reason to make him a long-term one by taking on someone like Shields or signing Chris Davis to hysterical amounts to fill LaRoche's place. you know, i know you are making, probably a great point, but this is on me, i can't seem to understand it. fyi i am really sick and nasally. so pls forgive on this. but let me add this to what i perceived you are getting at. getting Davis is a real bad mistake, plain and simple. getting shields, maybe interesting, if and only if, they the Padres sweeten the pot. the sox FO could easily say no to any proposals, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quin Posted December 14, 2015 Share Posted December 14, 2015 QUOTE (LDF @ Dec 14, 2015 -> 07:40 AM) you know, i know you are making, probably a great point, but this is on me, i can't seem to understand it. fyi i am really sick and nasally. so pls forgive on this. but let me add this to what i perceived you are getting at. getting Davis is a real bad mistake, plain and simple. getting shields, maybe interesting, if and only if, they the Padres sweeten the pot. the sox FO could easily say no to any proposals, No worries bud, you've got it right. And feel better! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LDF Posted December 14, 2015 Share Posted December 14, 2015 QUOTE (Quinarvy @ Dec 14, 2015 -> 01:43 PM) No worries bud, you've got it right. And feel better! dang..... i was ready to get to the pulpit and preach how the sox are starting to screw this up ... blah .. blah btw, many thanks . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glangon Posted December 14, 2015 Author Share Posted December 14, 2015 QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Dec 14, 2015 -> 12:13 PM) LaRoche sucked but Andy Wilkins is a reach. He has been claimed on waivers by 4 or 5 teams since he left the Sox, and he was pitiful in his brief time in Chicago. Less than .400 OPS and struck out half his plate appearances. The LaRoche signing made sense. It isn't something that would hamstring you for a long time, and he had been pretty solid for a while. The La Roche signing didn't make sense. We went and got a good First Baseman, where we already had someone else incumbent in the position. The sense move would have been to have Wilkins still on the 40 man and playing in AAA in case Abreu went on the DL and Gillaspie as back up 1st baseman and bring in a proper DH such as Butler or Morales. The problem happened when Gillaspie had a poor year and La Roche had a poor year, then all of a sudden we were forced to release Gillaspie in order to bring up Saladino as we had no player on the roster with options as Bonaficio and Beckham wasting away in roster spots they had no right to be in. Our roster construction was flawed and La Roche was brought in to play a position that a) he didn't want to play and b) he had never played before. He suffered, we suffered and it all went to pot. 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.