Nomadsfest Sox Fans

A forum for the old AOL board Sox fans and others.


    Matt Wieters

    Share
    avatar
    Deplorable Mark
    Roof Shot

    Posts : 1711
    Join date : 2016-09-16

    Matt Wieters

    Post by Deplorable Mark on Mon Jan 23, 2017 1:38 pm

    Still out there and the White Sox need a catcher.


    Wonder if a 1 year, $8mil deal would do it


    ************************************


    Geo Soto is not the answer.  Neither is bringing back Tyler Flowers to platoon with him
    avatar
    rmapasad
    Roof Shot

    Posts : 2417
    Join date : 2009-04-06
    Location : Northridge, CA

    Re: Matt Wieters

    Post by rmapasad on Tue Jan 24, 2017 1:05 pm

    Deplorable Mark wrote:Still out there and the White Sox need a catcher.
    Wonder if a 1 year, $8mil deal would do it
    ************************************
    Geo Soto is not the answer.  Neither is bringing back Tyler Flowers to platoon with him


    Wieters signed for $ 15 mil last year and while he's not getting teams to step up for a multi-year deal, taking a 1 year contract at a 50% pay cut seems pretty drastic.  He did hit 17 HRs last year.
    Second, not sure what purpose it serves for the Sox to sign a soon to be 31 year old Catcher who's been backsliding with injuries and declining performance for last 3-4 years. Granted, they need somebody to catch but why pay a lot for what is basically going to be a temp ?  Wieters seem to make much more sense for a team that is planning to contend this year.
    avatar
    Deplorable Mark
    Roof Shot

    Posts : 1711
    Join date : 2016-09-16

    Re: Matt Wieters

    Post by Deplorable Mark on Tue Jan 24, 2017 10:39 pm

    3 weeks to spring training and a 50% cut is better than a 100% cut

    As to the sense of paying a temp 8 mil, the Sox still need to field a team that can put up some kinda fight.  Just because they are rebuilding doesn't mean they have to lose 100 games.

    Plus you can always flip him on 7/31
    avatar
    alohafri
    Pope Malort I

    Posts : 7132
    Join date : 2009-04-03
    Age : 50
    Location : Southwest Suburbs

    Re: Matt Wieters

    Post by alohafri on Wed Jan 25, 2017 7:27 am

    Deplorable Mark wrote:3 weeks to spring training and a 50% cut is better than a 100% cut

    As to the sense of paying a temp 8 mil, the Sox still need to field a team that can put up some kinda fight.  Just because they are rebuilding doesn't mean they have to lose 100 games.

    Plus you can always flip him on 7/31

    If the Sox can't be the best, they should be the worst.
    avatar
    Deplorable Mark
    Roof Shot

    Posts : 1711
    Join date : 2016-09-16

    Re: Matt Wieters

    Post by Deplorable Mark on Wed Jan 25, 2017 8:35 am

    FALSE LOGIC
    avatar
    rmapasad
    Roof Shot

    Posts : 2417
    Join date : 2009-04-06
    Location : Northridge, CA

    Re: Matt Wieters

    Post by rmapasad on Wed Jan 25, 2017 4:04 pm

    alohafri wrote:
    Deplorable Mark wrote:3 weeks to spring training and a 50% cut is better than a 100% cut

    As to the sense of paying a temp 8 mil, the Sox still need to field a team that can put up some kinda fight.  Just because they are rebuilding doesn't mean they have to lose 100 games.

    Plus you can always flip him on 7/31

    If the Sox can't be the best, they should be the worst.

    When a team is rebuilding, does it really make sense to sign veterans who won't be part of the eventual rebuild just so the team will only lose 95 games instead of 100 ?  Sure, Wieters can always be traded later but for what ?  Sox have been shopping Cabrera, Robertson, and Frazier all winter with no takers. Why would Wieters be any different if the Sox got him ?
    Anyone that wants Wieters will get him now when he's a free agent and it won't even cost a draft pick (Orioles didn't give him a qualifying offer).  If the Sox sign him, he would have to perform some miracle turnaround the first few months to convince any club to give up a worthwhile prospect for him in July. 

    The Sox have been waiting on too many miracle turnarounds from too many guys for far too long as is.   No need to add another to the list.
    avatar
    Deplorable Mark
    Roof Shot

    Posts : 1711
    Join date : 2016-09-16

    Re: Matt Wieters

    Post by Deplorable Mark on Wed Jan 25, 2017 5:45 pm

    Rebuilding and deliberately sucking are 2 different things

    Nowhere did I say get into a bidding war for him

    Just suggested making a bargain basement offer for a player that plays a position that the Sox currently do not have a viable alternative

    Again, the 2017 White Sox have to field a team.  Try thinking beyond your cookie cutter analysis
    avatar
    rmapasad
    Roof Shot

    Posts : 2417
    Join date : 2009-04-06
    Location : Northridge, CA

    Re: Matt Wieters

    Post by rmapasad on Wed Jan 25, 2017 7:58 pm

    Deplorable Mark wrote:Rebuilding and deliberately sucking are 2 different things

    Nowhere did I say get into a bidding war for him

    Just suggested making a bargain basement offer for a player that plays a position that the Sox currently do not have a viable alternative

    Again, the 2017 White Sox have to field a team.  Try thinking beyond your cookie cutter analysis


    This isn't "cookie cutter" analysis, just common sense.  What the Sox need is a veteran Catcher who can help develop younger
    pitchers even if he sucks with the bat (as most Catchers do anyway).   Wieters doesn't have a great rep with the glove or in
    handling pitchers - his calling card is HR's which is what the Sox don't need in 2017.  So sign a hack like Soto or Mathis for $ 1-2 mil
    and give young guys like O'Dowd or Narvaez a shot at some innings too.  The biggest need is making sure the pitchers have
    a guy who can catch the ball and help them.  
    avatar
    alohafri
    Pope Malort I

    Posts : 7132
    Join date : 2009-04-03
    Age : 50
    Location : Southwest Suburbs

    Re: Matt Wieters

    Post by alohafri on Wed Jan 25, 2017 8:10 pm

    rmapasad wrote:
    alohafri wrote:
    Deplorable Mark wrote:3 weeks to spring training and a 50% cut is better than a 100% cut

    As to the sense of paying a temp 8 mil, the Sox still need to field a team that can put up some kinda fight.  Just because they are rebuilding doesn't mean they have to lose 100 games.

    Plus you can always flip him on 7/31

    If the Sox can't be the best, they should be the worst.

    When a team is rebuilding, does it really make sense to sign veterans who won't be part of the eventual rebuild just so the team will only lose 95 games instead of 100 ?  Sure, Wieters can always be traded later but for what ?  Sox have been shopping Cabrera, Robertson, and Frazier all winter with no takers. Why would Wieters be any different if the Sox got him ?
    Anyone that wants Wieters will get him now when he's a free agent and it won't even cost a draft pick (Orioles didn't give him a qualifying offer).  If the Sox sign him, he would have to perform some miracle turnaround the first few months to convince any club to give up a worthwhile prospect for him in July. 

    The Sox have been waiting on too many miracle turnarounds from too many guys for far too long as is.   No need to add another to the list.

    Roger, I agree with you. There isn't much difference between losing 95 games and 100 games. I'd rather have some kid catching, getting experience at the major league level. Plus, there is no guarantee that Wieters would have the kind of year that would make a team say, "yeah, he is the missing piece." Let someone else take him.
    avatar
    Deplorable Mark
    Roof Shot

    Posts : 1711
    Join date : 2016-09-16

    Re: Matt Wieters

    Post by Deplorable Mark on Wed Jan 25, 2017 8:52 pm

    That kid is Zach Collins and he ain't ready or even close

    A lowball offer to Weiters makes all the sense in the world

    Young developing pitchers need run support as well
    avatar
    Nomads44
    Roof Shot

    Posts : 1688
    Join date : 2009-04-03
    Age : 69
    Location : Springfield

    Re: Matt Wieters

    Post by Nomads44 on Thu Jan 26, 2017 12:09 am

    What did Omar Narvaez do wrong to not get any respect?  He got on base at I think an admirable .350 clip.  He did not throw out many for the Sox when he was brought up, but his career numbers up to then was about 40%.

    Considering this is a waste year, why not let Narvaez get the bulk of time until A Sox prospect C is ready.  I would still hope we might grab a catcher in a Frazier or Quintana or Robertson trade.  Swihart was high on my list, but apparently he did not do well defensively at catcher.

    Still frustrated with the way the Sox have handled the last 3-4 trade deadlines.  Each season they had guys that may have brought some value.  Williams always seemed afraid to risk having someone that was semi-attractive have a big second half.  For the right prospects, who cared?  Sheets was coming off some impressive performances up to the deadline and may have brought a decent if not major prospect.  Sanchez got hot right afterwards.  Jose DeLeon just went for Logan Forsythe.  He was one I was sure the Sox were going to get before the winter was over, especially if they could not pry Urias away.  A nice start to the winter meetings petered out.  I HOPE they were not deals ONLY to get rid of guys that were at odds with the organization.
    avatar
    Nomads44
    Roof Shot

    Posts : 1688
    Join date : 2009-04-03
    Age : 69
    Location : Springfield

    Re: Matt Wieters

    Post by Nomads44 on Thu Jan 26, 2017 12:12 am

    A nice start to the winter meetings petered out.  I HOPE they were not deals ONLY to get rid of guys that were at odds with the organization.


    That should have been Shields, not Sheets, sorry. 

    Others that were attractive like Benintendi had not set MLB on ear yet.  Sale I think would have brought even more at midseason, though certainly not upset at what he did bring.
    avatar
    alohafri
    Pope Malort I

    Posts : 7132
    Join date : 2009-04-03
    Age : 50
    Location : Southwest Suburbs

    Re: Matt Wieters

    Post by alohafri on Thu Jan 26, 2017 6:59 am

    Deplorable Mark wrote:That kid is Zach Collins and he ain't ready or even close

    A lowball offer to Weiters makes all the sense in the world

    Young developing pitchers need run support as well

    He's the only catcher in the minor league system? Man, the Sox system sucks worse than I thought!
    avatar
    Deplorable Mark
    Roof Shot

    Posts : 1711
    Join date : 2016-09-16

    Re: Matt Wieters

    Post by Deplorable Mark on Thu Jan 26, 2017 9:54 am

    alohafri wrote:
    Deplorable Mark wrote:That kid is Zach Collins and he ain't ready or even close

    A lowball offer to Weiters makes all the sense in the world

    Young developing pitchers need run support as well

    He's the only catcher in the minor league system? Man, the Sox system sucks worse than I thought!


    JIM SEEMS TO THINK THIS OMAR CAT IS WORTH A LOOK.


    THE KARK WAS COMPLETELY UNAWARE THE WHITE SOX HAD ANOTHER KID CATCHER WORTH A DAMN.


    SO LET THE KARK RESTATE HIS POSITION


    1) ANY KID CATCHER WORTH A DAMN THAT IS ACTUALLY MLB READY
    2) A PROVEN VET LIKE WEITERS


    WHAT I WANT TO AVOID IS ROTATING FOSSILIZED QUAD A GARBAGE THRU THE POSITION LIKE ROGER WANTS TO DO
    avatar
    Deplorable Mark
    Roof Shot

    Posts : 1711
    Join date : 2016-09-16

    Re: Matt Wieters

    Post by Deplorable Mark on Thu Jan 26, 2017 9:59 am

    When a team is rebuilding, does it really make sense to sign veterans who won't be part of the eventual rebuild just so the team will only lose 95 games instead of 100 ?


    **************************************************************


    YES IT DOES


    BECAUSE YOU AIN'T GOING TO BE ABLE TO FIELD NINE 21 YEAR OLD BLUE CHIP ROOKIES AT ONCE.


    YOU STILL NEED TO PLAY THE GAMES WITH A TEAM THAT IS CAPABLE OF PUTTING UP SOME KIND OF FIGHT.


    REBUILDING DOESN'T MEAN YOU BECOME THE WASHINGTON GENERALS FOR 3 YEARS THEN WATCH ALL THE WUNDERKIDS TURN IT ON AT ONCE.


    HOPE YOU GOT MILK WITH YOUR COOKIES
    avatar
    Deplorable Mark
    Roof Shot

    Posts : 1711
    Join date : 2016-09-16

    Re: Matt Wieters

    Post by Deplorable Mark on Thu Jan 26, 2017 1:55 pm

    LOOKED UP OMAR NARVAEZ


    His stat line reads like the Lance Blankenship of catchers.  By that I mean his offensive value will be concentrated in his walks.  Narvaez is the rare type that will have a higher OBP and a SLG.


    Scouting reports claim he is good defensively and he has a strong arm.


    He bats lefty, always a plus.  However so does the heir apparent Zach Collins.


    Narvaez had a 350 OBP  over 117 big league plate appearance in 2016.  But the man has hardly any power.  He has 2nd stringer written all over him.


    Let this kid back up Wieters.
    avatar
    rmapasad
    Roof Shot

    Posts : 2417
    Join date : 2009-04-06
    Location : Northridge, CA

    Re: Matt Wieters

    Post by rmapasad on Thu Jan 26, 2017 6:53 pm

    Deplorable Mark wrote:When a team is rebuilding, does it really make sense to sign veterans who won't be part of the eventual rebuild just so the team will only lose 95 games instead of 100 ?


    **************************************************************


    YES IT DOES


    BECAUSE YOU AIN'T GOING TO BE ABLE TO FIELD NINE 21 YEAR OLD BLUE CHIP ROOKIES AT ONCE.


    YOU STILL NEED TO PLAY THE GAMES WITH A TEAM THAT IS CAPABLE OF PUTTING UP SOME KIND OF FIGHT.


    REBUILDING DOESN'T MEAN YOU BECOME THE WASHINGTON GENERALS FOR 3 YEARS THEN WATCH ALL THE WUNDERKIDS TURN IT ON AT ONCE.

    HOPE YOU GOT MILK WITH YOUR COOKIES

    Last I looked the Cubs lost 101 games the first year of their rebuild (2012) and their main Catchers had 631 and 537 OPS's.  Next year they had great Catching but still lost 96 games.  Neither of these terrible seasons damaged the psyches of the Rizzos, Hendricks and Arriettas to the point that it prevented them from becoming 101 game winners in 2016.  If anything, getting your ass kicked hard for a few years may instill the hunger to make sure it doesn't happen again.   Trying to spiff up the Catcher spot for 2017 is like a guy spending money on a Lincoln instead of a beat-up Chevy to drive to the Welfare office. The Sox are on welfare now and what they need to do is figure out ways to get back on their feet in the future, not worry about how they might look doing it. 
    avatar
    Nomads44
    Roof Shot

    Posts : 1688
    Join date : 2009-04-03
    Age : 69
    Location : Springfield

    Re: Matt Wieters

    Post by Nomads44 on Thu Jan 26, 2017 8:03 pm

    Deplorable Mark wrote:
    alohafri wrote:
    Deplorable Mark wrote:That kid is Zach Collins and he ain't ready or even close

    A lowball offer to Weiters makes all the sense in the world

    Young developing pitchers need run support as well

    He's the only catcher in the minor league system? Man, the Sox system sucks worse than I thought!


    JIM SEEMS TO THINK THIS OMAR CAT IS WORTH A LOOK.


    THE KARK WAS COMPLETELY UNAWARE THE WHITE SOX HAD ANOTHER KID CATCHER WORTH A DAMN.


    SO LET THE KARK RESTATE HIS POSITION


    1) ANY KID CATCHER WORTH A DAMN THAT IS ACTUALLY MLB READY
    2) A PROVEN VET LIKE WEITERS


    WHAT I WANT TO AVOID IS ROTATING FOSSILIZED QUAD A GARBAGE THRU THE POSITION LIKE ROGER WANTS TO DO

    Narvaez already had his look last year and was adequate.  I doubt anyone is expecting him to become an all star, but it seems he can fill the gap for the next year or two while the top prospects move towards being ready.  Kevan Smith is another catcher I do not expect a lot from, (and he is one of those that missed the season without even getting a game in), but Smith had been projected as a future starter in BBAmerica a year or two ago.  They also have Carson Blair and Alfredo Gonzalez brought in from outside and 18-yr old Jhoandro Alfaro in the system.  They are probably LL just fringe catchers, but for this year, Geovany Soto will be an adequate backup.
    avatar
    Deplorable Mark
    Roof Shot

    Posts : 1711
    Join date : 2016-09-16

    Re: Matt Wieters

    Post by Deplorable Mark on Thu Jan 26, 2017 9:13 pm

    rmapasad wrote:
    Deplorable Mark wrote:When a team is rebuilding, does it really make sense to sign veterans who won't be part of the eventual rebuild just so the team will only lose 95 games instead of 100 ?


    **************************************************************


    YES IT DOES


    BECAUSE YOU AIN'T GOING TO BE ABLE TO FIELD NINE 21 YEAR OLD BLUE CHIP ROOKIES AT ONCE.


    YOU STILL NEED TO PLAY THE GAMES WITH A TEAM THAT IS CAPABLE OF PUTTING UP SOME KIND OF FIGHT.


    REBUILDING DOESN'T MEAN YOU BECOME THE WASHINGTON GENERALS FOR 3 YEARS THEN WATCH ALL THE WUNDERKIDS TURN IT ON AT ONCE.

    HOPE YOU GOT MILK WITH YOUR COOKIES

    Last I looked the Cubs lost 101 games the first year of their rebuild (2012) and their main Catchers had 631 and 537 OPS's.  Next year they had great Catching but still lost 96 games.  Neither of these terrible seasons damaged the psyches of the Rizzos, Hendricks and Arriettas to the point that it prevented them from becoming 101 game winners in 2016.  If anything, getting your ass kicked hard for a few years may instill the hunger to make sure it doesn't happen again.   Trying to spiff up the Catcher spot for 2017 is like a guy spending money on a Lincoln instead of a beat-up Chevy to drive to the Welfare office. The Sox are on welfare now and what they need to do is figure out ways to get back on their feet in the future, not worry about how they might look doing it. 

    I could give a flying fuck about what the Cubs did or didn't do.
    avatar
    Deplorable Mark
    Roof Shot

    Posts : 1711
    Join date : 2016-09-16

    Re: Matt Wieters

    Post by Deplorable Mark on Thu Jan 26, 2017 9:23 pm

    Hey Roger

    If you love the Cubs so much, consider Wieters to be Hahn's David DeJesus

    Cubs never sign Dexter Fowler using your logic

    In fact your logic would dictate making Tim Anderson go back to Charlotte in order to screw him out of a year of free agency
    avatar
    Deplorable Mark
    Roof Shot

    Posts : 1711
    Join date : 2016-09-16

    Re: Matt Wieters

    Post by Deplorable Mark on Fri Jan 27, 2017 8:34 am

    AND ANOTHER THING


    NOWHERE DID I CLAIM THIS WIETERS CAT WOULD TURN THE WHITE SOX INTO CONTENDERS


    I JUST SEE AN OPPORTUNITY TO PICK UP A QUALITY PLAYER ON FAVORABLE TO THE TEAM TERMS.


    THE 2017 WHITE SOX STILL NEED TO FIELD A TEAM


    THE 2017 WHITE SOX STILL NEED TO PLAY THE GAMES


    THE 2017 WHITE SOX STILL NEED TO RESEMBLE A MAJOR LEAGUE TEAM.


    THIS NOTION THAT YOU LET EVERYTHING GO TO HELL JUST BECAUSE IT IS A REBUILDING YEAR IS FLAWED LOGIC BASED ON OVERSIMPLIFIED COOKIE CUTTER ANALYSIS


    7 MIL ON A 1 YEAR DEAL ISN'T QUITE THE SAME AS WHAT ADAM DUNN WAS GIVEN
    avatar
    rmapasad
    Roof Shot

    Posts : 2417
    Join date : 2009-04-06
    Location : Northridge, CA

    Re: Matt Wieters

    Post by rmapasad on Fri Jan 27, 2017 10:42 am

    Deplorable Mark wrote:Hey Roger

    If you love the Cubs so much, consider Wieters to be Hahn's David DeJesus

    Cubs never sign Dexter Fowler using your logic

    In fact your logic would dictate making Tim Anderson go back to Charlotte in order to screw him out of a year of free agency

    Cubs got both Fowler and Lester in 2015 when they went into win-now mode. As to DeJesus, agree it was odd to sign a 32 year old like him and also strange to get Edwin Jackson on a 3 year deal the next year.  Didn't cite the Cubs because they did everything perfectly but rather that their losing 100 games one year (something you say Sox need to avoid) didn't damage their ability to get back on their feet and win 97 games three years later. 
    Lesson in fact is that Cubs got zilch from useless DeJesus and Jackson signings.  Jackson was released and DeJesus was traded for the infamous Player to be Named Later. OK, wasting money on these guys didn't cripple Cubs and signing guys like Holland and Wieters won't kill the Sox either. 

    But Sox need to concern themselves with finding guys who can be on the team in 2019-2020 not snatching "bargain" vets that will give them 3 more wins in 2017. No harm trying to give Narvaez some PT. He probably won't hit but at least he understands the strike zone and is good defensively.  Who knows, maybe he will hit enough to be worthwhile.  Only if Wieters can help develop young pitchers does he make sense.  If he's not good at that, then the Sox shouldn't give him a 2nd thought.
    avatar
    Deplorable Mark
    Roof Shot

    Posts : 1711
    Join date : 2016-09-16

    Re: Matt Wieters

    Post by Deplorable Mark on Fri Jan 27, 2017 11:40 am

    But Sox need to concern themselves with finding guys who can be on the team in 2019-2020 not snatching "bargain" vets that will give them 3 more wins in 2017. No harm trying to give Narvaez some PT. He probably won't hit but at least he understands the strike zone and is good defensively.  Who knows, maybe he will hit enough to be worthwhile.  Only if Wieters can help develop young pitchers does he make sense.  If he's not good at that, then the Sox shouldn't give him a 2nd thought.


    ************************************************


    AGAIN, YOU NEED TO PLAY THE 2017 SEASON


    AND IF YOU LOOK AT THE PROJECTED LINEUP, THERE IS PLENTY OF ROOM FOR YOUR PRECIOUS NARVAEZ.  ESPECIALLY WHEN THEY START DUMPING THE LIKES OF FRAZIER AND CABRERA


    BTW, IF THIS NARVAEZ IS SO GOOD, THEN START HIM IN AAA SO YOU CAN GET AN EXTRA YEAR OF SERVICE TIME AND/OR AVOID AN EXTRA YEAR OF ARBITRATION.


    SPRING TRAINING 2 1/2 WEEKS AWAY.  FEB 10TH MIGHT BE A GOOD TIME TO MAKE THAT 1 YEAR $5MIL OFFER.  HECK, MIGHT BE ABLE TO GET HIM FOR AS LOW AS $3MIL
    avatar
    Deplorable Mark
    Roof Shot

    Posts : 1711
    Join date : 2016-09-16

    Re: Matt Wieters

    Post by Deplorable Mark on Fri Jan 27, 2017 11:50 am

    Only if Wieters can help develop young pitchers does he make sense.


    *********************************************************


    LOOK AT THE ROSTER!!!!!!


    WHAT YOUNG PITCHER IS ON THIS TEAM OTHER THAN RODON?!?!?!?!


    YOUR STUDS LIKE GIOLITO AND KOPECH AND FULMER WILL BE IN CHARLOTTE AVOIDING THE SERVICE TIME CLOCK.


    HOW MUCH USELESS QUAD A CRAP DO YOU WANT TO WITNESS UNDER THE GUISE OF REBUILDING?!?!?!?
    avatar
    Nomads44
    Roof Shot

    Posts : 1688
    Join date : 2009-04-03
    Age : 69
    Location : Springfield

    Re: Matt Wieters

    Post by Nomads44 on Sat Jan 28, 2017 11:22 am

    Deplorable Mark wrote:
    Narvaez had a 350 OBP  over 117 big league plate appearance in 2016.  But the man has hardly any power.  He has 2nd stringer written all over him.


    Let this kid back up Wieters.


    That would be fine since you have come well down from your $8M original number.  $3-$5 sounds reasonable if he will take it, mostly because his two years prior to last season were apparently pretty much lost to injury.  I assume that at 30, his career will start to slide downhill within a couple years if it has not already.  The fact that he switch hits helps, since if Narvaez is able to retain the job out of ST, then Wieters can platoon with him against the lefties and keep him well rested against some of the righties.  I would hope each could handle four days a week with ease.  And nothing writes off them getting one even better in return for one of our vets.

    I don't much care what happens with the club this season.  I hope they have kids that are up and comers that will be fun to watch.  I like the Bourjos pickup simply because he gives us a strong defensive CF.  I doubt he will hit enough to stay with the club beyond a year or two, but he might keep us interested a bit.

    For Quintana's and Frazier's sakes, I hope they are traded to a club with a chance to contend.  Robertson might be better off staying with the Sox and hoping he can find himself again to elevate his value for a deadline deal.  I am shocked that DeLeon went for Forsythe.  I wonder if Frazier and Robertson together could have netted a similar top prospect if not even two to the right club.

    Back to Wieters, no rush.  If he gets no nibbles much over $3-5M, make him a contingent offer.  Easy for us to offer Sox money away.

    Sponsored content

    Re: Matt Wieters

    Post by Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Thu Sep 21, 2017 6:07 pm