binkar
ASFN Lifer
- Joined
- Dec 24, 2002
- Posts
- 2,672
- Reaction score
- 52
Adam LaRoche and Kelly Johnson were placed on waivers on Friday. It will be interesting to see if they clear, and what kind of return they could bring.
I believe Johnson still has an arbitration year. Even with the raise he has earned this year, I'd imagine someone would have to overpay for him. Especially without an obvious replacement.
So much for being comfortable with the payroll post-Haren. This front office is dishonest.
I don't get what you are going at. Nearly every player gets put on waivers to guage what interest could be. LaRoche is the only one of the two that has a chance to be traded. If we have a chance to get something for him them we should instead of buying out his contract at the end of the season and getting nothing in return. Allen has been playing good ball in the minors and should be up in the majors within a week to two. This has nothing to do with saving money but continuing to get better.
I don't get what you are going at. Nearly every player gets put on waivers to guage what interest could be. LaRoche is the only one of the two that has a chance to be traded. If we have a chance to get something for him them we should instead of buying out his contract at the end of the season and getting nothing in return. Allen has been playing good ball in the minors and should be up in the majors within a week to two. This has nothing to do with saving money but continuing to get better.
Hall said there wouldn't be any more changes, that they were comfortable with the payroll and they liked who they had left. I assumed that to mean the might actually keep the everyday roster in place for the rest of the year.
I understand the waiver process, but I think if you're not looking to shed more salary for prospects, you don't put your most consistent hitter on the wire.
When did you hear this? Just last week Hall was on Doug and Wolf and definitely didn't shoot down the idea of trading LaRoche.
Hall said there wouldn't be any more changes, that they were comfortable with the payroll and they liked who they had left. I assumed that to mean the might actually keep the everyday roster in place for the rest of the year.
I understand the waiver process, but I think if you're not looking to shed more salary for prospects, you don't put your most consistent hitter on the wire.
Ohhhh. Never mind. I had forgot about you were alluding to the dishonesty of the front office. Dishonest or not, I am more comfortable with this franchise then I was a month ago.
I'm not upset with the changes. I was in favor of blowing this thing up last year. I can't believe Chris Young is still on the roster.
But one of the things I think the FO needs to do is explain what the plan is. They have a major credibility issue with the fans and they shouldn't suggest the big moves are over when they're seriously shopping key parts of the team.
I don't get the fans who don't understand why Haren was traded. I don't get the fans who think the D-Backs should have held on to all of these players like all they lacked was one or two key free agents. Baseball never works that way, and you need to be mindful to prune the tree when the fruit is rotten. At the same time, when you're about to set a team record for low attendance in a season, you can't just assume fans have faith in what you're doing. You have faith, but I'm guessing the average Joe sees this as another attempt to shed salary at the expense of their entertainment.