|
Post by soxaddict on Feb 12, 2020 9:47:19 GMT -5
Clearly the Dodgers are open to moving Stripling, I wonder if we could give them Chavis. They only have two rhh infielders in Turner and Kiki. IMO, makes sense for both teams.
|
|
|
Post by jdb on Feb 12, 2020 10:03:40 GMT -5
Would Workman for Stripling work?
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Feb 12, 2020 10:48:15 GMT -5
It's the Dodgers, they'd likely want younger high upside guys. Guys you might be like that makes sense, but could bite you in the ass in a few years.
The bigger question is why the heck didn't we get a guy like him in the deal for Betts and Price?
|
|
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 10,699
Member is Online
|
Post by nomar on Feb 12, 2020 11:00:34 GMT -5
After seeing what the Angels were giving them for Stripling, I wouldn’t part with Chavis for him.
I’m very open to trading Chatham+ for him though.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Feb 12, 2020 11:03:04 GMT -5
Well that wasn't just Stripling. It was him, Pederson and a Prospect.
|
|
|
Post by alexcorahomevideo on Feb 12, 2020 11:08:31 GMT -5
I'd offer Barnes and a lesser prospect for Stripling. But it seems like the Sox might be content with this opener strategy. We will see.
|
|
|
Post by soxaddict on Feb 12, 2020 11:52:54 GMT -5
I know it’s all hypothetical, but Chavis for Stripling makes perfect sense. Chavis is younger and cheaper than Kiki with similar production and more pop. Stripling would fill our sp void. Then it would free us up to bring back Brock. A guy can dream right?
|
|