Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
43 minutes ago, chasfh said:

Wait a minute—how did a freely available Shane Greene get by us after we were all over Daniel Norris??

 

Maybe Chris Fetter wanted to take his shot with Norris - everyone else has. He's still has good stuff if he could ever find the plate consistently. 

Edited by gehringer_2
Posted
41 minutes ago, chasfh said:

Wait a minute—how did a freely available Shane Greene get by us after we were all over Daniel Norris??

 

They brought back Norris to start... Greene isn't a starter

Posted

al's grand plan was to re-sign shane greene, matt boyd, and daniel norris and offer them to the yankees for gleybar torres.

stupid yankees beat us to the punch!

Posted
5 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said:

so what's Matt Boyd doing now-a-days. If they don't trade Fulmer they can still put the 2016 band back together!

Injured and out for the year, unfortunately 

Posted
3 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said:

I've missed seeing anything about him recently- still recovering from the off-season surgery or something new?

Listed as an elbow, so I assume a continuation of his issues last year.

Rooting for him to recover, he seems like a good dude

Posted
6 hours ago, mtutiger said:

They brought back Norris to start... Greene isn't a starter

Maybe. Although Norris hasn’t been a starter since 2019 and we’re about to dump a bunch of relievers. 

Posted
2 minutes ago, chasfh said:

Maybe. Although Norris hasn’t been a starter since 2019 and we’re about to dump a bunch of relievers. 

I always thought moving Norris to the pen was a mistake. They did it because they thought he got too amped up looking forward to his starts, but it seemed to me that for a guy with problems repeating his delivery, longer outings working across the range from fresh to fatigued would help him learn how to get into a groove better. But at 30 the die is probably now cast for him - improving the way he pitches now has to be a long shot - whether working short or long.

Posted (edited)

Does the Luis Castillo deal change any perspectives on Skubal or the idea of it?

I would still keep him, and the Reds and Tigers situations aren't exactly parallel anyway, but while I dont think he would command the same haul that Castillo did because of how established Castillo is, I'm even more sure that he'd bring back a haul if he were to move. (At least for a competent GM anyway lol)

Edited by mtutiger
Posted
1 hour ago, mtutiger said:

Does the Luis Castillo deal change any perspectives on Skubal or the idea of it?

I would still keep him, and the Reds and Tigers situations aren't exactly parallel anyway, but while I dont think he would command the same haul that Castillo did because of how established Castillo is, I'm even more sure that he'd bring back a haul if he were to move. (At least for a competent GM anyway lol)

He might have similar perceived value, as he’s LH with more years of control, but I don’t think we would be pursuing prospects that are 2-3 years away from contributing.  Teams would need to be willing to give up AA/AAA/majors players, which might be more of an issue to any potential buyers.  Clearly, the Reds are embracing a rebuild and are OK with getting more talent that will take longer to develop.

Posted
11 hours ago, mtutiger said:

Do they need Greene in the BP?

They’ve been stocking up on bullpen arms and he was freely available is all I was saying. As long as we were going for devils we know …

Posted
28 minutes ago, Tenacious D said:

He might have similar perceived value, as he’s LH with more years of control, but I don’t think we would be pursuing prospects that are 2-3 years away from contributing.  

This would be dumb on their part. Get the best prospects you can. You want a consistent pipeline on into the future. The idea of bunching prospects on the same timeline is an illusion.

Posted
36 minutes ago, Longgone said:

This would be dumb on their part. Get the best prospects you can. You want a consistent pipeline on into the future. The idea of bunching prospects on the same timeline is an illusion.

Perhaps, but I’d just rather hold on to Skubal if we can’t immediately address our lineup.

Posted
39 minutes ago, Longgone said:

This would be dumb on their part. Get the best prospects you can. You want a consistent pipeline on into the future. The idea of bunching prospects on the same timeline is an illusion.

Yeah... I think you're only going to get one premium, close-to-the-majors guy in dealing Skubal...

I have my eye on a couple guys because that's who I want/ am targeting. But the other team has to agree. If not... move on to another team, or if there's no deal good enough to be had then, no trade. But outside of one premium guy who might be a double-A/close-to-the-majors guy.... the rest of any prospect package will be lower level guys...

If I want to send Skubal and Soto to the Cardinals or Rangers for Walker or Jung (first they have to agree to that... but on that end... I believe both those teams have a serious interest in Skubal if the rumors are to be believed...?); we'll get more prospects than just the one... but those extra prospects will be the A/Low-A/Rookie league guys.

With potential.

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.

×
×
  • Create New...