The Red Sox did not have to DFA Mortensen because they wanted to wait and see on Drew

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from ADG. Show ADG's posts

    The Red Sox did not have to DFA Mortensen because they wanted to wait and see on Drew

    This is the second player the Red Sox did not have to lose because of unecessary roster issues, first Ciriaco and now Mortensen.

    Yes, we are in first place, both both DFA's were not necessary.

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from ADG. Show ADG's posts

    Re: The Red Sox did not have to DFA Mortensen because they wanted to wait and see on Drew

    In response to ADG's comment:

    This is the second player the Red Sox did not have to lose because of unecessary roster issues, first Ciriaco and now Mortensen.

    Yes, we are in first place, both both DFA's were not necessary.



    And to respond to myself, great to hear he cleared waivers and is now in Pawtucket. 

    Phew.

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from southpaw777. Show southpaw777's posts

    Re: The Red Sox did not have to DFA Mortensen because they wanted to wait and see on Drew

    yup, he cleared waivers...

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from BosoxJoe5. Show BosoxJoe5's posts

    Re: The Red Sox did not have to DFA Mortensen because they wanted to wait and see on Drew

    In response to ADG's comment:

    This is the second player the Red Sox did not have to lose because of unecessary roster issues, first Ciriaco and now Mortensen.

    Yes, we are in first place, both both DFA's were not necessary.




    Mortenson was DFA'd for performance issues too. Based on the comments by Farrell afterward the move, Mortenson was going to be DFA'd sooner rather than later. On of that top Mortenson cleared waviers and is Pawetucket.

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: The Red Sox did not have to DFA Mortensen because they wanted to wait and see on Drew

    I'm not sure why we are lamenting the departure of Ciriaco.

    Sox4ever

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from BosoxJoe5. Show BosoxJoe5's posts

    Re: The Red Sox did not have to DFA Mortensen because they wanted to wait and see on Drew

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

    I'm not sure why we are lamenting the departure of Ciriaco.

    Sox4ever




    He is great first impression guy. He has been a decent SS for SD so far. He was also DFA for Will Middlebrooks unless ADG wanted to option Middlebrooks when he got off the DL, you have to wonder why he is comparing him to Mortenson.

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: The Red Sox did not have to DFA Mortensen because they wanted to wait and see on Drew

    In response to BosoxJoe5's comment:

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

     

    I'm not sure why we are lamenting the departure of Ciriaco.

    Sox4ever

     




    He is great first impression guy. He has been a decent SS for SD so far. He was also DFA for Will Middlebrooks unless ADG wanted to option Middlebrooks when he got off the DL, you have to wonder why he is comparing him to Mortenson.

     



    I'd rather have Snyder on the big club than Ciriaco, so I don't see why anyone misses him.

     

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from BosoxJoe5. Show BosoxJoe5's posts

    Re: The Red Sox did not have to DFA Mortensen because they wanted to wait and see on Drew

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

    In response to BosoxJoe5's comment:

     

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

     

     

     

    I'm not sure why we are lamenting the departure of Ciriaco.

    Sox4ever

     

     




    He is great first impression guy. He has been a decent SS for SD so far. He was also DFA for Will Middlebrooks unless ADG wanted to option Middlebrooks when he got off the DL, you have to wonder why he is comparing him to Mortenson.

     

     

     



    I'd rather have Snyder on the big club than Ciriaco, so I don't see why anyone misses him.

     

     



    Unless he keeps hitting like this, which is probably not going to happen, Middlebrooks, Holt, or a player not currently on the Sox roster will be the 5th infielder for the stretch.

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: The Red Sox did not have to DFA Mortensen because they wanted to wait and see on Drew

    1 Napoli

    2 Pedey

    3 Iggy

    4 Drew

    5 Snyder

    (Middlebrooks may take Snyder's place at some point or Drew's, if he's traded or is out for a while longer.)

    Sox4ever

     
  10. This post has been removed.

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from MadMc44. Show MadMc44's posts

    Re: The Red Sox did not have to DFA Mortensen because they wanted to wait and see on Drew

    Mort cleared waivers and opened a spot on the 40 for Snyder and Diaz and Jose DLT.   Mort may be in a position to help before the season is over. I meant obviously his clearing opened one spot but BenC is moving people and carrying them just in case on the WC trip--it's a challenge to keep tabs.

    It will be interesting to see if Britton is put into the PawSox rotation or if they use him as a reliever.

    He's already on the 40; I think they want a closer look Vs. tougher hitters or perhaps the Cubs want to see what he can do at AAA in a Garza trade. 

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from lasitter. Show lasitter's posts

    Re: The Red Sox did not have to DFA Mortensen because they wanted to wait and see on Drew

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

    I'd rather have Snyder on the big club than Ciriaco, so I don't see why anyone misses him.


    I'm just sorry that he played much better for SD AGAINST us in Fenway than he did for us this year.

    Did he end up with seven errors for us this year?

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from chickenandboose. Show chickenandboose's posts

    Re: The Red Sox did not have to DFA Mortensen because they wanted to wait and see on Drew

    In response to lasitter's comment:

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

    I'd rather have Snyder on the big club than Ciriaco, so I don't see why anyone misses him.


    I'm just sorry that he played much better for SD AGAINST us in Fenway than he did for us this year.

     

    Did he end up with seven errors for us this year?



    Boston.216 .293 .353 .646 SD .246 .281 .344 .626        
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from lasitter. Show lasitter's posts

    Re: The Red Sox did not have to DFA Mortensen because they wanted to wait and see on Drew

    chickenandboose: He made a number of strong plays against us, and while not great, his arm was not as wildly erratic as it was for us earlier this season.

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hfxsoxnut. Show Hfxsoxnut's posts

    Re: The Red Sox did not have to DFA Mortensen because they wanted to wait and see on Drew

    In response to ADG's comment:

    This is the second player the Red Sox did not have to lose because of unecessary roster issues, first Ciriaco and now Mortensen.

    Yes, we are in first place, both both DFA's were not necessary.



    I think they realized what they were doing.

     

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from maxbialystock. Show maxbialystock's posts

    Re: The Red Sox did not have to DFA Mortensen because they wanted to wait and see on Drew

    What is it with ADG and his constant criticism of a FO that has made a ton of smart moves to produce a winner?  We are now well past mid-point and the Sox have easily the best record in the AL, a 5.5 game lead in the AL East, all while playing a tough schedule and more games than any other team in MLB. 

    Now he wants to gripe about Mortensen, who cleared waiver with 29 other teams, meaning none of them can use him even though most MLB teams carry 7 relievers

     

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share