Haha, just like they were committed to Gallo at 1B last year.
Signing Choo was a mistake for sure, but the mistake I am more concerned with is in keeping him and not trading him off. The disappointment I have expressed lately regarding Choo is in not trading him for the best package we could get. One of the last two trade deadlines should have seen him traded.
And if the trade was in taking back 1 or 2 equally bad contracts? I have no argument with getting rid of him but if to do it meant doing than no.
So do you think they turned down legitimate trade scenarios?
I guess "legitimate" is in the eye of the beholder, but yes, I believe they have. I think they have either overvalued his leadership role, his talent, what they could get for him, or a combination of some or all of those. There have been too many rumor rumblings about him over the last couple of years to think they had to keep him in my estimation.
I don't want a part of bad contracts for the most part. The key to trading Choo has always been to make his contract one that clubs wouldn't view as bad. That would be done by agreeing to pay whatever amount it would take to get the deal done. If the best offer requires us to be on the hook for all but $7-8 million per year then do that. Whatever it takes.
Me too.
The catcher position is quie interesting. Keep thinking Trevino may be an option second half unless they are grooming IKF to eventually be the starting catcher perhaps next year
I had read of interest both the last two deadlines and this offseason as well.
I think if they were going to try Guzman or Choo out at a new position guys like TR and Evan would have already reported it.
T R has said more about the possibility of Guzman losing his position than others and he has mentioned Gallo moving back to 1B should that happen.
