Jump to content
  • Welcome to AngelsWin.com

    AngelsWin.com - THE Internet Home for Angels fans! Unraveling Angels Baseball ... One Thread at a Time.

    Register today to comment and join the most interactive online Angels community on the net!

    Once you're a member you'll see less advertisements. If you become a Premium member and you won't see any ads! 

     

IGNORED

Pederson/Stripling deal is DEAD. MOVE ON.


failos

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, bloodbrother said:

The only positive is that RF is wide open for Adell to take off and run with it. I'm more bummed they didn't get Stripling. He'd have replaced Sandoval/Barria/Suarez which IMO would have been a pretty big upgrade.

The deal was never about Pederson....it was always about Stripling....Pederson was a money dump...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok here are my thoughts.  The Dodgers weren’t expecting to have Graterol on their team, so when they acquired him to make this trade happen that put them still at 40 men on the 40 man roster.  Then they traded Verdugo and brought two more on the 40 man roster.  So that puts them at 41.  The rumored deal was Rengifo and Ward plus a prospect for Stripling and Pederson, leaving the Dodgers still at 41. My guess is they asked the Angels to replace Ward with a minor leaguer that doesn’t have to be on the 40 man roster.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Stradling said:

Ok here are my thoughts.  The Dodgers weren’t expecting to have Graterol on their team, so when they acquired him to make this trade happen that put them still at 40 men on the 40 man roster.  Then they traded Verdugo and brought two more on the 40 man roster.  So that puts them at 41.  The rumored deal was Rengifo and Ward plus a prospect for Stripling and Pederson, leaving the Dodgers still at 41. My guess is they asked the Angels to replace Ward with a minor leaguer that doesn’t have to be on the 40 man roster.

Same question—-Depends on who that minor leaguer would be....if it wasn’t a premium prospect, we would be stupid not to do it....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, AngelsLakersFan said:

They are but the money doesn't change so there is no reason for the deal to have to change because of that. 

Did we ever really hear about the money exchanging the first time? I don't recall that but I have been sick the last week so I probably missed it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...