Hooking Crochet? 12/8 update: Rumors of Red Sox "just on the periphery," "not aggressors at all" at this point.

pjheff

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 4, 2003
1,537
Yes, I think a mid-level prospect, like Chase, could be the difference between a deal being accepted or not. Happens all the time in trades. Chase doesn't have tools, but he's proven everything he can prove in the minors, grades very well in statistical models, and has proven he deserves a shot at the big league level in a low pressure situation, but there just isn't room for him on the sox with our glut of better talent.
How do you envision that conversation going down? “We‘re kind of on the fence. Can you throw in the guy who doesn’t have tools?”

The durability is definitely not cherry picked:
Casas has been the opening day starting first baseman for only two years - 2023 and 2024. He missed 30 games in 2023 and 99 games in 2024. He also missed over a month to a high ankle sprain in 2022.
Vlad, on the other hand, has missed a grand total of 12 (!) games over the past five years. He's one of the most durable players in MLB (knock on wood).
I’m not talking about Vlad. I’m specifically referring to you prorating Casas’ missed time from a significant injury this season over the last two years to create the impression that he is chronically hurt when he played 132 games as a rookie.
 

E5 Yaz

polka king
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 25, 2002
95,283
Oregon
Seems like a lot moving out of Boston to facilitate Crochet to another team for one year of Guerrero.
Here's my sniff test for any trade proposal on the board: If the deal winds up with the Red Sox getting the two best players involved, I scroll down to the next post
 

geoflin

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Feb 26, 2004
787
Melrose MA
How about this 3 way instead: Casas to Toronto, Abreu+ Hamilton or Crawford (whichever gets the deal done) to CWS, Crochet and Vlad to Boston. Decent positional prospect from Toronto to CWS…
So you think Toronto would trade Vlad and a decent positional prospect for Casas? If Casas is that valuable maybe we should keep him.
 

SuperDieHard

New Member
Jun 13, 2015
42
One year of Vlad, vs. 4 cost controlled of Casas who could very easily be as much of a middle of the order force…most here seem to feel Casas would be an overpay straight up unless you could absolutely extend Vlad. So yes a little sweetener from Toronto makes the deal more even…the level of prospect is the negotiation…
 

SuperDieHard

New Member
Jun 13, 2015
42
Here's my sniff test for any trade proposal on the board: If the deal winds up with the Red Sox getting the two best players involved, I scroll down to the next post
Made me laugh, thank you! And does make sense, but most of the deals presented right now are of the 3 dimes for a quarter variety- that’s what we’re hoping for…
 

Petagine in a Bottle

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 13, 2021
15,179
Vlad was worth 5.5 fWAR last year. Hes 25. Casas best year so far is 1.7. He’s 24.

Obviously, the years of control is a huge factor but I doubt the Jays would do Vlad for just Casas.
 

simplicio

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 11, 2012
9,033
And the year before that he was worth 1.3. Vlad has the capacity to be astounding but realistically he hasn't been consistent about it.
 

EddieYost

is not associated in any way with GHoff
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
11,284
NH
Holy crap, Vlad is only 25? Seems like he’s been around forever and was in “decline”.
 

E5 Yaz

polka king
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 25, 2002
95,283
Oregon
Here's an MLBTR chat answer tonight to a question as to whether Mayer-for-Crochet one-for-one makes sense:
The BoSox probably add some low-level prospect along with Mayer so it isn't a clear 1-for-1, but this trade makes sense on paper for both teams.
That being said, Mayer is also probably the most untouchable of Boston's "big four" prospects. If Boston did swing a big deal for Crochet, it's more likely one of the other three will be the centerpiece rather than Marcelo.
Is Mayer still the "most untouchable"?
 

SouthernBoSox

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 23, 2005
12,298
Here's an MLBTR chat answer tonight to a question as to whether Mayer-for-Crochet one-for-one makes sense:

Is Mayer still the "most untouchable"?
I’d consider him the most likely to be traded. Roman and Campbell have to much high end impact potential. Hell Campbell could break camp on the roster at second.

Mayers value is that he’s a shortstop who is above average in most areas, but he doesn’t have the impact potential as the top 2.

Teel fills an immediate team deficiency at catcher.

Edit: And after listening to the farmer director on SoxProspects, I think they really believe Campbell can handle short.
 

brownsox

New Member
Mar 11, 2007
47
I don’t think Mayer is as untouchable as Anthony, but his ceiling is still very high - IIRC the comp when he was drafted was Corey Seager and I think that’s still broadly right as a best case scenario.

I do think evaluators view Anthony as more likely to reach something close to his ceiling than Mayer.
 

LogansDad

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 15, 2006
32,824
Alamogordo
Anthony is the least likely to be traded. No question
Yeah, I would put Marcelo around 4th at this point, maybe even 5th if the team loves Montgomery's defensive ability as much as it seems like.

But I also don't think any of them will be traded, even for 2 years of Crochet or 1 of Vlad.

I am often wrong, though.
 

SuperDieHard

New Member
Jun 13, 2015
42
Yeah, I would put Marcelo around 4th at this point, maybe even 5th if the team loves Montgomery's defensive ability as much as it seems like.

But I also don't think any of them will be traded, even for 2 years of Crochet or 1 of Vlad.

I am often wrong, though.
As are most all married men
 

ALiveH

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 23, 2010
1,207
The 30 games he missed in 2023 were not all for injury. He spent the last 15 games of the season on the IL with shoulder inflammation. Something he and Cora at the time acknowledged he likely could have played through if the team had anything left to play for. The rest were normal rest days and an early season platoon with Justin Turner.

So yeah, it is cherry picking to take one severe injury and average it over two seasons to make it seem like he is injured more often than he really is.
Even the 15 games in 2023 is more than Vlad missed in the last 5 years combined. Then he goes and misses 2/3 of the next season.
 

ALiveH

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 23, 2010
1,207
How do you envision that conversation going down? “We‘re kind of on the fence. Can you throw in the guy who doesn’t have tools?”



I’m not talking about Vlad. I’m specifically referring to you prorating Casas’ missed time from a significant injury this season over the last two years to create the impression that he is chronically hurt when he played 132 games as a rookie.
Meidroth is the guy who looks great in statistical models who has nothing left to prove in the minors and would already be a cost-controlled starter if he weren't in a big market blocked by lots of blue chip prospects and legit major league veterans.

Casas missed more than a month with injury in 2022, missed 29 games in 2023 and missed more than 2/3 of 2024. At best, his durability track record has been "mixed".
 

TrotNixonRing

Sally Field
SoSH Member
Jul 28, 2023
1,185
Let’s say we sign one of Burnes, Fried, Snell, Eovaldi, Buehler. Seems pretty likely. They slot in ahead of Houck, Bello, Crawford, Giolito with Criswell, Fitts, Priester and others as depth.

So if they make that signing and then also trade for Crochet, without including one of the starting five listed above, you have to either move one of those five, likely Crawford, to the pen or trade one.

moving a viable big league starter to the pen seems suboptimal and risky, the risk being jerking him around hurts his value and/or leads to injury from being jerked around

so you’re left trading one for who knows what? Seems understanding that piece is critical to assessing a potential or actual Crochet trade

of course, if you spend big on Soto and it results in not going after one of those FA SP, then trading for Crochet makes tons of sense
 

HangingW/ScottCooper

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 10, 2006
2,726
Scituate, MA
Here's an MLBTR chat answer tonight to a question as to whether Mayer-for-Crochet one-for-one makes sense:
The BoSox probably add some low-level prospect along with Mayer so it isn't a clear 1-for-1, but this trade makes sense on paper for both teams.
That being said, Mayer is also probably the most untouchable of Boston's "big four" prospects. If Boston did swing a big deal for Crochet, it's more likely one of the other three will be the centerpiece rather than Marcelo.
Is Mayer still the "most untouchable"?
No, that seems quite wrong.
Agreed. I don't think this is correct at all. I think Mayer + ? is a slam dunk deal for the White Sox, unless there is a true bidding war for Crochet's services. I also think Anthony, and potentially Campbell is more untouchable than Mayer.
 

simplicio

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 11, 2012
9,033
moving a viable big league starter to the pen seems suboptimal and risky, the risk being jerking him around hurts his value and/or leads to injury from being jerked around
Agreed, and doing that to Crawford right after he gave us 183 innings seems like terrible personnel move from a human factor standpoint too.
 

marcoscutaro

New Member
Jun 15, 2024
61
Meidroth is the guy who looks great in statistical models who has nothing left to prove in the minors and would already be a cost-controlled starter if he weren't in a big market blocked by lots of blue chip prospects and legit major league veterans.

Casas missed more than a month with injury in 2022, missed 29 games in 2023 and missed more than 2/3 of 2024. At best, his durability track record has been "mixed".
This isn’t how this works. About half of those “missed” games were from Cora’s platooning! The rest were from shoulder inflammation which they only shut him down for because they weren’t competitive. Seems remarkable how everyone likes to pretend he’s shit now.
 

Yo La Tengo

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 21, 2005
1,149
Let’s say we sign one of Burnes, Fried, Snell, Eovaldi, Buehler. Seems pretty likely. They slot in ahead of Houck, Bello, Crawford, Giolito with Criswell, Fitts, Priester and others as depth.
I continue to look for updates about when Giolito will be ready to go next year, with lots of reporting stating something like "began his throwing program in early August with the hope to be ready to start spring training next year."
And is the Giolito/Fried recruiting pitch undercut if the Sox don't give the former an extension?

Trading Crawford, with four years of team control, for Crochet, who will be a free agent after the 2026 season, and who comes with durability concerns, feels like a move that could blow up in our faces. It all boils down to what the team will set for a budget moving forward.
 

Fishy1

Head Mason
SoSH Member
Nov 10, 2006
7,975
I continue to look for updates about when Giolito will be ready to go next year, with lots of reporting stating something like "began his throwing program in early August with the hope to be ready to start spring training next year."
And is the Giolito/Fried recruiting pitch undercut if the Sox don't give the former an extension?

Trading Crawford, with four years of team control, for Crochet, who will be a free agent after the 2026 season, and who comes with durability concerns, feels like a move that could blow up in our faces. It all boils down to what the team will set for a budget moving forward.
One thing to keep in mind is that Crochet indicated he would want an extension before "pitching in the postseason" before last year's trade deadline. CWS clearly intended to trade him, but it didn't happen. I wonder why.

I've been thinking about this, and a lot of people are assuming what Crochet has said indicates he's open to an extension and that means CWS will get more value from the trade, but I actually think it might be the opposite. He hasn't indicated an openness to an extension, he's indicated he won't pitch at the most important time if he doesn't get one.

Any team trading for him has to assume that Crochet might test free agency regardless of who he is traded to if the value of the extension he's offered doesn't match his desires. And the whole thing might just be posturing, too, a bargaining position meant to force the team he's with to offer him an extension that isn't commensurate with his performance/availability. I honestly think that's making a lot of teams wary of offering the ransom CWS wants.
 

jon abbey

Shanghai Warrior
Moderator
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
74,397
One thing to keep in mind is that Crochet indicated he would want an extension before "pitching in the postseason" before last year's trade deadline. CWS clearly intended to trade him, but it didn't happen. I wonder why.

I've been thinking about this, and a lot of people are assuming what Crochet has said indicates he's open to an extension and that means CWS will get more value from the trade, but I actually think it might be the opposite. He hasn't indicated an openness to an extension, he's indicated he won't pitch at the most important time if he doesn't get one.

Any team trading for him has to assume that Crochet might test free agency regardless of who he is traded to if the value of the extension he's offered doesn't match his desires. And the whole thing might just be posturing, too, a bargaining position meant to force the team he's with to offer him an extension that isn't commensurate with his performance/availability. I honestly think that's making a lot of teams wary of offering the ransom CWS wants.
You're overthinking and should probably have researched a bit more, he said that because his innings were already so much more than he'd ever pitched before, pretty sure it was a 2024-only statement.
 

jon abbey

Shanghai Warrior
Moderator
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
74,397
"Crochet, 25, wants a contract extension if he's traded in order to pitch in the postseason this year, according to sources familiar with the situation. Crochet also is making it known he has no desire to pitch out of the bullpen, citing health concerns for all of the above requests.

The first-time starter already has doubled his single-season high in innings, pitching in 111⅓ after totaling just 12⅔ last year. In 21 starts, he also has struck out 157 batters, second most in the majors. However, there are concerns about his usage down the stretch considering the enormous jump in his workload.

Crochet still has two more years of team control after this season before he becomes a free agent, but to push himself for another month in October, he wants security, according to the sources. And he prefers to stay in a starting pitching routine."

https://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/40640468/white-sox-pitcher-garrett-crochet-wants-start-get-extension-traded
 

Fishy1

Head Mason
SoSH Member
Nov 10, 2006
7,975
You're overthinking and should probably have researched a bit more, he said that because his innings were already so much more than he'd ever pitched before, pretty sure it was a 2024-only statement.
Thanks for the correction.

I'm not sure I'm overthinking though or that it changes my thinking overmuch. Still feels like a potentially huge red flag--you don't think a guy who has made demands like that won't make other demands in the future? Or might be difficult to negotiate with? Pitchers make jumps in workload all the time--I can count the number of them who've demanded an extension to pitch in the postseason on one hand, however.

I'm not saying it's dispositive of anything, just that any team trading for him has to at least be wary that he's going to be a tough nut to crack and might want an extension out of proportion with his expected value, or that he might change his mind and shoot for free agency.

Anyways, my point was mostly that the fact that he "wants an extension" was making a lot of people think we should offer more for him, but that it might not be so simple, and that the calculus actually might be totally different. "I won't pitch without an extension" doesn't exactly scream "team player," after all.

I'm not saying CWS won't get a good return for him or that he isn't worth trading for, fwiw.
 

jon abbey

Shanghai Warrior
Moderator
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
74,397
I'm not sure I'm overthinking though or that it changes my thinking overmuch. Still feels like a potentially huge red flag--you don't think a guy who has made demands like that won't make other demands in the future? Or might be difficult to negotiate with? Pitchers make jumps in workload all the time--I can count the number of them who've demanded an extension to pitch in the postseason on one hand, however.
No, I think it was a very unusual situation, a gigantic jump in innings plus a proposed trade. I certainly wouldn't read anything into it for 2025 and beyond.
 

Fishy1

Head Mason
SoSH Member
Nov 10, 2006
7,975
No, I think it was a very unusual situation, a gigantic jump in innings plus a proposed trade. I certainly wouldn't read anything into it for 2025 and beyond.
Okay, that's fair enough. I'm reading it differently. :)
 

patrickscribe

New Member
Mar 16, 2009
1
One thing to keep in mind is that Crochet indicated he would want an extension before "pitching in the postseason" before last year's trade deadline. CWS clearly intended to trade him, but it didn't happen. I wonder why.

I've been thinking about this, and a lot of people are assuming what Crochet has said indicates he's open to an extension and that means CWS will get more value from the trade, but I actually think it might be the opposite. He hasn't indicated an openness to an extension, he's indicated he won't pitch at the most important time if he doesn't get one.
Yes, durability is a real concern. Crochet wanting an extension to pitch in the postseason is not.

His return from injury was being managed. That's a smart thing. Adding lots of extra stress on his arm right at the time it should be scaled back would be tossing aside a plan that's in his best interest. Teams don't trade for pitchers at the deadline to use them with caution. They ride them hard in the pennant race and playoffs. How many healthy pitchers have trouble the year after being pushed in the playoffs? For a young pitcher with his career ahead of him to refuse to be treated as a disposable asset for a new team he has no connection to - not coming up through the organization or spending a season with teammates - is very natural. It's only fair for him to want a team to share the risk of pushing outside of a prudent plan: I'll put myself at risk for strangers, but have my back.
 

Fishy1

Head Mason
SoSH Member
Nov 10, 2006
7,975
I wish we'd stop saying that Meidroth has no tools. Guy gets on base at ungodly rates. That's the most important tool that there is.
Yeah, you'd think we'd have learned from Pedroia, or Youkilis, or countless other guys that traditional tools aren't the be all end all. The list of guys from 2010-2024 in the international league arranged by BB% is really interesting. A lot of washouts on the list, but what sticks out is that Meidroth is the only one on the page with a K rate below 15% in AAA.
 

Fishy1

Head Mason
SoSH Member
Nov 10, 2006
7,975
Yes, durability is a real concern. Crochet wanting an extension to pitch in the postseason is not.

His return from injury was being managed. That's a smart thing. Adding lots of extra stress on his arm right at the time it should be scaled back would be tossing aside a plan that's in his best interest. Teams don't trade for pitchers at the deadline to use them with caution. They ride them hard in the pennant race and playoffs. How many healthy pitchers have trouble the year after being pushed in the playoffs? For a young pitcher with his career ahead of him to refuse to be treated as a disposable asset for a new team he has no connection to - not coming up through the organization or spending a season with teammates - is very natural. It's only fair for him to want a team to share the risk of pushing outside of a prudent plan: I'll put myself at risk for strangers, but have my back.
Look, I don't disagree on principle. I think it makes a lot of sense for him to want that. I think it's fair. I'm just not sure general managers for baseball teams will see it that way.
 

NickEsasky

Please Hammer, Don't Hurt 'Em
SoSH Member
Jul 24, 2001
9,696
I wish we'd stop saying that Meidroth has no tools. Guy gets on base at ungodly rates. That's the most important tool that there is.
He indeed does, but how will that translate to the majors when pitchers aren't worried about challenging him?
 

Jimbodandy

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 31, 2006
12,879
around the way
He indeed does, but how will that translate to the majors when pitchers aren't worried about challenging him?
Of course we don't know for sure, and the defense in the show is better, but he's a guy with good contact skills too, not just discipline. So...low slugging, high OBP guy who can play defense at a few positions?
 

Petagine in a Bottle

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 13, 2021
15,179
Bohm is coming off a 3.5 fWAR season; I don’t think Grissom is a great comp. Totally different opposition obviously, but Abreu? Granted Bohm already has 4 years service time so not sure why CWS would be that interested.
 

nvalvo

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
22,587
Rogers Park
One thing to keep in mind is that Crochet indicated he would want an extension before "pitching in the postseason" before last year's trade deadline. CWS clearly intended to trade him, but it didn't happen. I wonder why.

I've been thinking about this, and a lot of people are assuming what Crochet has said indicates he's open to an extension and that means CWS will get more value from the trade, but I actually think it might be the opposite. He hasn't indicated an openness to an extension, he's indicated he won't pitch at the most important time if he doesn't get one.

Any team trading for him has to assume that Crochet might test free agency regardless of who he is traded to if the value of the extension he's offered doesn't match his desires. And the whole thing might just be posturing, too, a bargaining position meant to force the team he's with to offer him an extension that isn't commensurate with his performance/availability. I honestly think that's making a lot of teams wary of offering the ransom CWS wants.
You're doing a lot of close reading here of a text we don't have, i.e., what his agents actually said to the White Sox and their trade partners. Any team acquiring him can speak to his representatives as part of that process; I'm sure they'll be at the hotel.
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
32,679
https://bsky.app/profile/redsoxstats.bsky.social/post/3lbrnqg2kg32w

According to this, the ever-accurate Bob Nigtengale has the Phillies talking Bohm and Crawford in a Crochet trade. No idea why the White Sox would want Bohm, but leaving that aside, what’s the Red Sox equivalent here, Grissom and Brayden?
I don't know if its equivalent, but I doubt the Sox are looking to trade the guy who they probably have pencilled in as the starting 2Bman in 2025. If some other things happen first, then I suppose it's possible.
 

Yelling At Clouds

Post-darwinian
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
3,924
I don't know if its equivalent, but I doubt the Sox are looking to trade the guy who they probably have pencilled in as the starting 2Bman in 2025. If some other things happen first, then I suppose it's possible.
I’m going to keep riding this “Trade Grissom and let Hamilton handle 2B until Campbell is judged to be ready” wagon until one of the three of them is playing elsewhere.
 

Fishy1

Head Mason
SoSH Member
Nov 10, 2006
7,975
You're doing a lot of close reading here of a text we don't have, i.e., what his agents actually said to the White Sox and their trade partners. Any team acquiring him can speak to his representatives as part of that process; I'm sure they'll be at the hotel.
That's perfectly fair. Good point. I'm really just trying to remark on the possibility that all of this might play a role in the sort of package CWS can extract. I will admit it could be totally off-base.
 

greenmountains

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 24, 2023
68
Jim Bowen in the Athletic:
"Based on what the White Sox are saying, I think a package of Casas, Abreu and Connor Wong probably gets close to landing Crochet."

That's just bonkers. Three starters each with multiple years of control for a not yet number 1 arm with one year remaining. Sorry Jim. He just throws sh** out there.
 

jon abbey

Shanghai Warrior
Moderator
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
74,397
Jim Bowen in the Athletic:
"Based on what the White Sox are saying, I think a package of Casas, Abreu and Connor Wong probably gets close to landing Crochet."

That's just bonkers. Three starters each with multiple years of control for a not yet number 1 arm with one year remaining. Sorry Jim. He just throws sh** out there.
Two years remaining, through 2026.
 

LogansDad

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 15, 2006
32,824
Alamogordo
Jim Bowen in the Athletic:
"Based on what the White Sox are saying, I think a package of Casas, Abreu and Connor Wong probably gets close to landing Crochet."

That's just bonkers. Three starters each with multiple years of control for a not yet number 1 arm with one year remaining. Sorry Jim. He just throws sh** out there.
Well, there's a reason most of us here at SoSH refuse to acknowledge Bowden as "a source of information".

I enjoy reading him because he clearly loves the sport and there isn't enough of that out there, but I take everything he says with a massive, dehydration causing grain of salt.
 

Sandy Leon Trotsky

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 11, 2007
7,445
Jim Bowen in the Athletic:
"Based on what the White Sox are saying, I think a package of Casas, Abreu and Connor Wong probably gets close to landing Crochet."

That's just bonkers. Three starters each with multiple years of control for a not yet number 1 arm with one year remaining. Sorry Jim. He just throws sh** out there.
But.... that BTV whatever it's called trade simulator says we should be telling them Abreu is an overpay!!!!
Crochet's value is overinflated, but some team will definitely send out a ton of young controlled talent for him. I just want the Sox to walk away from this and get Fried. Just adding him (and a good bullpen arm) is enough for the '25 Sox to get into the playoffs (assuming health of course!). I'd really like Soto but adding him in doesn't mean you have to trade Abreu just to clear OF space.
 

HangingW/ScottCooper

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 10, 2006
2,726
Scituate, MA
https://bsky.app/profile/redsoxstats.bsky.social/post/3lbrnqg2kg32w

According to this, the ever-accurate Bob Nigtengale has the Phillies talking Bohm and Crawford in a Crochet trade. No idea why the White Sox would want Bohm, but leaving that aside, what’s the Red Sox equivalent here, Grissom and Brayden?
92282

92283

It's not perfect, but Crawford and Montgomery are fairly close on prospect rankings. In both cases, I think the White Sox view that as an underpay regardless of BTV's opinion.


Jim Bowen in the Athletic:
"Based on what the White Sox are saying, I think a package of Casas, Abreu and Connor Wong probably gets close to landing Crochet."

That's just bonkers. Three starters each with multiple years of control for a not yet number 1 arm with one year remaining. Sorry Jim. He just throws sh** out there.
Jim Bowden is bad at what he does. With that said, that may not be that far off. I just think you'd be selling low on Casas and high on Abreu. Even still, I'd view Connor Wong as a sweetener to the deal and probably not necessary.

If you do deal Casas as the headliner in a Crochet deal is the subsequent move to send Devers to 1B and promote Campbell?

92284
 

grimshaw

Member
SoSH Member
May 16, 2007
4,422
Portland
View attachment 92282

View attachment 92283

It's not perfect, but Crawford and Montgomery are fairly close on prospect rankings. In both cases, I think the White Sox view that as an underpay regardless of BTV's opinion.




Jim Bowden is bad at what he does. With that said, that may not be that far off. I just think you'd be selling low on Casas and high on Abreu. Even still, I'd view Connor Wong as a sweetener to the deal and probably not necessary.

If you do deal Casas as the headliner in a Crochet deal is the subsequent move to send Devers to 1B and promote Campbell?

View attachment 92284
13 years of position player control vs 2 starting pitcher years is just too much for me regardless. Seems like only something you'd do if you have a million other moves queued up. I'd rather go straight prospects, and if they want Wong too, fine.
 

Fishy1

Head Mason
SoSH Member
Nov 10, 2006
7,975
13 years of position player control vs 2 starting pitcher years is just too much for me regardless. Seems like only something you'd do if you have a million other moves queued up. I'd rather go straight prospects, and if they want Wong too, fine.
Yeah, that would be an insane deal for which I can't imagine there is any precedent. It is full-on silly season.