Bedard?

by Pronktastic on Jan 30, 2008 11:44 AM EST

Didn't see this in any of the other threads, but apparently we are now a player for Bedard? With Angelos scuttling the deal, the Angels and Indians are making a play.

Link

I shudder at the thought of who we would have to give up if Adam Jones wasn't enough to get a deal done.

Tweet Comment 28 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Re: Bedard?

No Asdrubal!

Sizemore-Shapiro 2008. The Official Red Bull of Let's Go Tribe Game Threads.

by Gradyforpresident on Jan 30, 2008 11:50 AM EST reply actions

Re: Bedard?

Can we trade them Jason Bay?

I swear, next year is it.

by Brad D on Jan 30, 2008 11:52 AM EST reply actions

Re: Bedard?

got ya by 10 minutes!

http://www.letsgotribe.com/comments/2008/1/27/214024/323/33#33

but i agree... if the Jones hip rumors are false and the Orioles are balking at a deal that includes Jones among other pieces (such as a more-than-serviceable bullpen arm), then they won't get want they want from Shapiro.

in my opinion, it's just the Seattle Times writer thinking out loud to himself.

You know Selig? Ombudsman.

by rolub on Jan 30, 2008 11:57 AM EST reply actions

Re: Bedard?

Blast! I didn't look deep enough, apparently.

Well played, sir.

by Pronktastic on Jan 30, 2008 12:00 PM EST up reply actions

Re: Bedard?

Here is my scenario for success:

-Fleece Baltimore for Bedard
-Flip CC for Adam Jones and Carlos Triunfel

Positives:
Adresses LF, CC contract situation without hurting this year's team, as well as getting middle infielder of the future

Negatives:
Gnashing of teeth from Seattle may be loud enough to hear from Cleveland

by Pronktastic on Jan 30, 2008 12:06 PM EST reply actions

Re: Bedard?

How is that a negative?

by Nat on Jan 30, 2008 12:11 PM EST up reply actions

Re: Bedard?

It would be tough to sleep at night with the low hum. But other than that, it isn't.

by Pronktastic on Jan 30, 2008 12:22 PM EST up reply actions

Re: Bedard?

I'd call it the sweet sound of victory....

by Nat on Jan 30, 2008 12:27 PM EST up reply actions

Re: Bedard?

OK, I'm down with this. But what/who would we hafta give up to get Bedard? Miller and Laffey maybe? Miller and Marte and Laffey? I dunno.

"the most vehement Yankee-hating guy I know" - Jay

by mauichuck on Jan 30, 2008 12:29 PM EST up reply actions

Re: Bedard?

I would be ok with that if we'd be able to flip CC for someone like Hughes or Buchholz instead of Jones - that way we go from CC & Adam Miller to Bedard & Hughes. Not bad at all.

But, don't we then have the same game to play with Bedard next year that we do with CC now. I'm not sure this helps us in the 'contract extensions are a distraction' front.

I'm not superstitious, I'm just a little stitious.

by jakesinger777 on Jan 30, 2008 12:34 PM EST up reply actions

Re: Bedard?

i'm not sure if suggesting to the "the most vehement Yankee-hating guy (Jay) know(s)" that we flip Sabathia to the Bronx is a good idea.

You know Selig? Ombudsman.

by rolub on Jan 30, 2008 12:44 PM EST up reply actions

Re: Bedard?

Yeah that's right I hate the bastards, but I'm also a realist. I think that if we can't sign him to an extension, CC's probably headed to NY or Boston. I'm just suggesting that we prepare for the worst and pick up a front of the rotation starter to go with Fausto- Carmona might be our future number one - and make the best deal we can for CC. A stud outfielder would probably soothe the pain of losing Captain Cheeseburger.

Plus I like the idea of NY signing CC to $150m for 7 seven years and his knees buckling half way through year one. That would be perfect.

"the most vehement Yankee-hating guy I know" - Jay

by mauichuck on Jan 30, 2008 2:10 PM EST up reply actions

Re: Bedard?

Plus I like the idea of NY signing CC to $150m for 7 seven years and his knees buckling half way through year one. That would be perfect.

You are just a mean ol' cratchety man, Chuck.

Burn on, big river, burn on...

by Turkmenbashi on Jan 30, 2008 3:00 PM EST up reply actions

Re: Bedard?

*crotchety

Burn on, big river, burn on...

by Turkmenbashi on Jan 30, 2008 3:00 PM EST up reply actions

Re: Bedard?

I certainly wouldn't want CC heading to Boston in any trade. I think most of us agree that any road to the World Series goes through them, so I think sending our ace over, even for Bucholz (whom they were unwilling to part with for Santana) is the proverbial "one step forward, two steps back."

by Pronktastic on Jan 30, 2008 12:52 PM EST up reply actions

Re: Bedard?

CC does not get traded to the Yankees. The Yankees are evil. The Red Sox, as the "New Yankees", are tainted by association, and therefore evil as well.

Period.

The problem is that the Mets now have Santana and therefore our ability to send Sabathia to the NL are limited. Seattle would be a good choice, as they are most likely to overpay given a lack of pitching.

"Hey, you! Get off our lawn!" -- New Detroit Tigers Team Motto

Pronk Needs You

by woodsmeister on Jan 30, 2008 1:25 PM EST up reply actions

Re: Bedard?

the headline of the yahoo article is just bad journalism

it's a question, as is evidenced by the question mark at the end.
the article substantiates it its headline with by saying the angels and indians "COULD POSSIBLY" get involved.

could get involved.

possible get involved.

combine could and possibly, and that's a clear sign that it's a stab in the dark.

and i'm not opposed to a bedard trade. think of it as the mark teixeira move the braves made last year, buying the team at least one year of star-potential to fill the void by a departing star (andruw jones).

bedard could fill that role in 2009 if sabathia were to leave.

but bedard has not been to pitchers what tex is to hitters, spare 2007.

i just get nervous when bedard is hailed as an ace. yes, he has ace stuff. clearly. but he's never been a workhorse, always battled small injuries, and only put it together last year.

that doesn't mean he didn't turn the page and he hasn't become what he's capable of becoming. i'm just not comfortable putting bedard on the level of a santana/sabathia just yet.

by rick @ Let's Go Tribe! on Jan 30, 2008 12:49 PM EST reply actions

Re: Bedard?

i guess i should have summarized my thoughts as:

if you didn't give up the house for three years of haren, do you really give it up for two years of bedard?

by rick @ Let's Go Tribe! on Jan 30, 2008 12:52 PM EST up reply actions

Re: Bedard?

I agree with your post in principle but I think the main reasons we lost out on Haren are:

Wouldn't give up Cabrera
Arizona matched up better in terms of high-level position player prospects.

Perhaps we can match up with the Orioles needs better than the Mariners or Angels. I suppose that would depend on whether the Orioles were looking to restock or rebuild.

by NickFantana on Jan 30, 2008 1:07 PM EST up reply actions

Re: Bedard?

its the offseason, rick----we are all full of question marks and pet trades and general boredom and malaise. i'd trade marte for a cheeseburger and fries to be named later. id love to have bedard but what would be the sense if we werent planning to move sabathia or thinking we may lose him. it may just be me, but i think we have other holes to fill more pressing than adding another starter.

just for fun i propose a straight up deal of sabathia for albert pujols(not really straight up, they would have to take marte--he could be their future corner infielder around the year 2015).

by rustyparts on Jan 30, 2008 7:08 PM EST up reply actions

Re: Bedard?

Man, you keep bringing up the cheeseburger and fries .

by jhon on Jan 30, 2008 7:46 PM EST up reply actions

Re: Bedard?

What a shock, you mentioned not thinking Marte is any good. Again.

Time to move on, buddy.

by Jay on Jan 31, 2008 11:20 AM EST up reply actions

Re: Bedard?

It really is a piss poor headline choice. That said, the last two paragraphs are direct quotes of the Seattle Times article (which seems like it should say that somewhere, but whatever). So the Yahoo editor probably plucked that line out and made a headline of it to grab attention.

There's also the possibility that the Angels and Indians aren't random teams or guesstimates, but names that a source has dropped. Very unlikely, and if so it's bad journalism by the Times guy to not blame/attribute the source for the idea. Likely it's just his speculation, and his article doesn't feature it as the headline.

In the end this whole speculation is based off a MacPhail quote that's probably just an attempt to worry the Mariners: "We continue to talk [with Seattle]," Andy MacPhail, the Orioles' president of baseball operations, told the Baltimore Sun. "We've had some other clubs chime in as well."

by nickjs21 on Jan 30, 2008 8:12 PM EST up reply actions