"The price for Roberts? It won't be Kelly Shoppach, as Baltimore has a hot catching prospect in...

"The price for Roberts?

It won't be Kelly Shoppach, as Baltimore has a hot catching prospect in Matt Weiters.

But the Birds had a 5.13 team ERA. Jeremy Guthrie was their only starter with an ERA under 5.01. They desperately need starters, and the Indians have several young ones in Jeremy Sowers, Scott Lewis, David Huff, Zach Jackson and Adam Miller."

Terry Pluto

8 months ago nickjs21 Comment 81 comments 0 recs |

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

He also suggests Hodges, Raffy Left, and Barfield as possible attractive players for Baltimore.

Steel Nick

by nickjs21 on Oct 10, 2008 11:16 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

I like the idea of trading for Roberts but a 5 for 1 deal like Pluto suggests? Not worth it. I also don’t like the idea of trading Hodges, especially since Roberts is signed to a one year deal. That would just leave us in the same position next year expect with no viable in house option.

Though it does point out something that hadn’t crossed my mind. If we sign/trade for a 2nd baseman on a multiyear deal and Peralta moves to 3B, then that makes Hodges expendable doesn’t it.

by world dictator on Oct 10, 2008 11:47 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

That all depends on Peralta’s usefulness at 3rd, but yes.

Without looking at potential free agents for 2010 I would guess it’s also easier to get a one-year fix like Roberts and, elsewhere, get a third baseman/second baseman who won’t be ready until 2010. Like it’s easier to get a Carlos Santana now than someone with his talent as a major leaguer. Of course when you’re dealing with players only a year away the price goes up.

I guess what I’m saying is that just because we’re looking to compete in 2009 doesn’t mean we can’t also look ahead at the same time.

Steel Nick

by nickjs21 on Oct 10, 2008 12:02 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I would think it’d be more expensive to get Roberts for 2009 and then get another 2nd/3rd replacement in 2010 in pretty much all circumstances. Unless of course we don’t trade Hodges in a deal for Roberts or another trade.

i wasn’t arguing against acquiring Roberts, I’d love to have him, but giving up Hodges in the trade seems unwise.

by world dictator on Oct 10, 2008 12:15 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I hope Hodges is not the piece that makes this not happen. I don’t value him any where near enough to let him get in the way of acquiring a player like Roberts.

by afh4 on Oct 10, 2008 8:23 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Hello Andrew,

While I’d like to acquire Roberts, I’m not fond of his only having one year left on his contract. Hodges would have more value going forward, especially since Marte does not look like a lock for the 3B position, and I’m not sure you want Carroll holding down 3B on a regular basis or resigning Blake to play 3B regularly for the next few seasons, so while I can understand not wanting Hodges standing in the way of acquiring Roberts, I’d be more opposed if we controlled Roberts for 2-3 years rather than just 1 year.

Additionally, Huff would be off-limits for me, and I’d still hold onto Miller; the others mentioned I’d consider, with Lewis probably having priority next, then Sowers, then Jackson. Add another prospect or two to the mix, but being that Roberts would only be here for 1 year and we’d probably be unlikely to sign him long-term (maybe we could, but would he be worth signing to a 3-year or 4-year deal for $6-$10 million/year? Not sure), I wouldn’t go overboard (i.e. Huff or Miller) for him.

Just my 2 cents.

The "cream of the crop" doesn't always rise to the top.

by indiansfan on Oct 10, 2008 9:17 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Hodges = Garko. I just can’t see a guy with that low of a ceiling being a stumbling block in a Roberts deal. That’s not to say Hodges won’t be ok but he’s just not that big of a deal.

by afh4 on Oct 11, 2008 12:02 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I think one Garko is sufficient, perhaps even one too many. Keep in mind that Hodges only projects to being Garko. In Roberts, we would already know what we have.

by fwembt on Oct 11, 2008 12:59 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I like this comparison. Garko was probably a better hitter coming through, but Hodges gets a little bump for playing 3B.

by APV on Oct 11, 2008 9:35 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Hodges is far from a lock to be a major league starter.

In fact, Hodges is far from a lock to do as well as Marte did in Triple-A, three years younger.

I agree that Huff should be off-limits if we’re not acquiring a major star for more than one season.

by Jay on Oct 11, 2008 4:59 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

his prom analogy is a straw man.

by Brick. on Oct 10, 2008 11:19 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Steel Nick

by nickjs21 on Oct 10, 2008 11:39 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

If only Brady Quinn had a brain …

Pinch-hitting Carroll for Marte at this point in the season is inexcusable. I’ve had it with Wedge. He’s a younger, paler Dusty Baker.

by emd2k3 on Oct 14, 2008 5:23 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

We need to start using Steel Men

Burn on, big river, burn on...

by Turkmenbashi on Oct 10, 2008 3:09 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I would love to get Brian Roberts.

by mjschaefer on Oct 10, 2008 11:38 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

In the free agent market, the Indians are like the high school boy excited about the prom. He rents a tuxedo, buys flowers and plans every word he’ll say when the big night comes. But the morning of the prom, the girl calls — and says she loves being friends, but she plans to go with someone else. She does tell everyone how you’re a great guy.

rough adolescenthood for Terry…

by ASP on Oct 10, 2008 12:08 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

my prom date slept with one of my best friends

Anti-Ben Fran before it was cool.

by Gradyforpresident on Oct 10, 2008 12:53 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I hope not on prom night. Cold.

Steel Nick

by nickjs21 on Oct 10, 2008 1:37 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

on prom night

Anti-Ben Fran before it was cool.

by Gradyforpresident on Oct 10, 2008 7:48 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

That’s just harsh.

by fwembt on Oct 11, 2008 12:56 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

GOOD GOD

by NickFantana on Oct 11, 2008 1:23 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Anti-rec.

Steel Nick

by nickjs21 on Oct 11, 2008 8:28 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Why does Pluto pretend like Orlando isn’t the type of FA we sign? He’s exactly the kind of FA we settle for. An older guy, coming off an injury that we hope will perform to league average.

Roberts is the kind of guy we can never get. Either the asking price is too high or we get cold feet.

by Toxicadam on Oct 10, 2008 1:17 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Hello Tox,

I too would probably prefer spending the money and signing Hudson to a 1-year deal with an option or a 2-3 year deal if need be (not sure if a multi-year deal is wise with him coming off an injury) rather than paying too much to acquire Roberts, especially being that we’d only control him for 1 season.

I too think Hudson would be a guy we would go after – he’d almost be perfect, and if he’s still the defender he’s been the past few seasons, he would be almost a perfect fit for us.

Just my 2 cents.

The "cream of the crop" doesn't always rise to the top.

by indiansfan on Oct 10, 2008 9:20 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Why would Hudson sign a one year deal, let alone a one year deal with options considering there’s a pretty decent market for 2nd basemen? I’d have to imagine the Mets would be more than willing to give him a contract within his asking range.

by world dictator on Oct 10, 2008 9:45 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

He would not sign a one-year deal.

Also, his offensive numbers outside of Arizona were pretty bad.

by Peter Bendix on Oct 11, 2008 1:22 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Pluto’s point regarding Hudson is correct imo. I suspect the asking price is going to be too high for Hudson considering teams like the White Sox and the Mets are looking at 2nd basemen and Hudson is probably at the top of that list.

by world dictator on Oct 10, 2008 9:51 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I think Puto has it backwards. Instead of trying to come with a package for Brian Roberts, the Indians should be coming up with the best package for Kelly Shoppach. Then, if necessary, flip some of the return for Shoppach to Baltimore for Roberts if he’s the best infielder available.

by Ryan on Oct 10, 2008 1:32 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

I endorse this approach. Roberts would be nice, but I don’t think we should overvalue or overpay for him. He is not Roberto Alomar v2.0.

by APV on Oct 10, 2008 1:58 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

+1 – definitely agree about not overpaying for Roberts (see my post above).

Just my 2 cents.

The "cream of the crop" doesn't always rise to the top.

by indiansfan on Oct 10, 2008 9:18 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

three team deal?

by world dictator on Oct 10, 2008 2:16 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

*Pluto

by Ryan on Oct 10, 2008 3:25 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Spanish Freudian slip?

by cleveland teamer on Oct 10, 2008 3:48 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Just a finger slip.

by Ryan on Oct 11, 2008 9:23 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Pluto engages in exactly the kind of trade speculation that dominates cleveland.com and talk radio. “Give them everything we don’t want for something we do want!” I mean, Zach Jackson, Josh Barfield, Wes Hodges, and Jeremy Sowers?

I would think Baltimore would want one of our top prospects plus an established big leaguer with little service time. LaPorta, Mills, Weglarz, Rondon, Santana, and Huff would fill the latter, and ACab, Perez, Francisco, or Choo the former. To think we can just dump five players who we’re not to hot on is wishful thinking.

by JesseAK on Oct 10, 2008 2:15 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

the reality is our acquisition of Laporta and Santana have made guys like Mills and Weglarz considerably more available. I’d be surprised if both of them were dealt, but in the right deal trading one of them wouldn’t surprise me.

by APV on Oct 10, 2008 2:18 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

The only way Mills gets dealt is if he’s in a Jake Peavy-esque trade. But with the possibility that Mills might be able to play 3B i doubt he’s going anywhere.

by world dictator on Oct 10, 2008 2:22 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I really don’t think this is true. Of our top, top guys (Mills, Wegz, Santana, The Door, Huff, Rondon) I think Mills is as available, if not more, than anyone else. He has no position and he’s not overly advanced for his age. I’d say him or Rondon are the 6th best guy out of that group.

by afh4 on Oct 10, 2008 8:30 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Hello Andrew,

I can see your argument about Mills, though 1B could still be his for the taking, depending on what happens with Martinez, LaPorta, and Weglarz (though all indications seem to be that he is NOT currently in the 1B mix and will remain in the OF), but I think you are undervaluing Rondon a bit – I think he’s in that Top 5 – he had a very good year at Kinston, and unlike Mills, he was actually underage for the Carolina League. Arguably, he’s as valuable as Huff – Huff is more advanced, but Rondon is on the same age curve, or even slightly ahead, of Huff’s pace, and is more projectable by most accounts, so I think Rondon is definitely Top 5, even in that group.

I’d probably put him ahead of both Mills and Wegz because Wegz also doesn’t have a position, plus his power numbers did drop off a bit (though that was a minor concern because his plate discipline improved considerably). You might even make an argument that he’s as valuable (or very close) to Santana, based on ages, projectability, and performance. In my mind, Rondon is definitely Top 5 in that group, maybe even Top 3 (only LaPorta and possibly Huff and Santana are ahead or equal to him in my opinion).

By the way, who is “The Door”? (De La Cruz? Meloan? Who?)

Just my 2 cents.

The "cream of the crop" doesn't always rise to the top.

by indiansfan on Oct 10, 2008 9:27 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

“The Door” is LaPorta. La Porta in Italian = “the door”

by Roger Dorn on Oct 10, 2008 11:21 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I think we should start calling him DoorMatt

Burn on, big river, burn on...

by Turkmenbashi on Oct 10, 2008 11:45 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Not bad.

by Jay on Oct 11, 2008 5:02 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Unless it’s a self-fulfilling prophecy, like J-Barf.

by ken from alexandria on Oct 11, 2008 8:06 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

prescient ≠ self-fulfilling

by Jay on Oct 11, 2008 11:36 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

“the” DoorMatt

by APV on Oct 11, 2008 9:35 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yeah, because people step all over him.

Sorry, this one doesn’t work. Try again.

Pinch-hitting Carroll for Marte at this point in the season is inexcusable. I’ve had it with Wedge. He’s a younger, paler Dusty Baker.

by emd2k3 on Oct 14, 2008 5:25 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

no, because he keeps your floor from getting dirty.

by Brick. on Oct 14, 2008 5:35 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

No, because the little rubber things on the back of him break off if you didn’t spend enough money on him, and then they’re forever running around your apartment, or more accurately this happens to the guy who rents your apartment before you, and then your parents mistake the rubber thingys for mouse turds when you move in, and pitch a fit, and embarrass the hell out of you in front of your new landlord.

He’s EXACTLY like a doormat.

by fleerdon on Oct 14, 2008 8:52 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I see what you’re saying but I really don’t think thats the point. There’s a difference between being available because there’s an immediate logjam occurring and being open to the idea of trading a player because you have depth in the system.

After this season Mills has definitely increased his stock. Will we trade him? Maybe. Will it be for Einar Diaz or Kenny Lofton? I doubt it.

by world dictator on Oct 10, 2008 10:20 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Einar Diaz/Kenny Lofton are not Jake Peavy. Mills could get moved for a lot less than that.

by afh4 on Oct 11, 2008 12:03 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I also should have added that with Mills coming off a season where he won Carolina league MVP and was named Minor League Player of the year, his value is pretty high right now. The Indians would probably only include him in a deal that brings them back something significant.

by world dictator on Oct 10, 2008 10:29 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Minor league offensive player of the Year from Tony Lastoria…which is almost as good as being from the Indians of course :-)

by world dictator on Oct 10, 2008 10:31 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Alright, first off these MVP awards and any award from Lastoria is totally off the table. Jordan Brown has like 3 of these MVP things. Lastoria thinks Juan Pierre is a better player than Randy Winn. Tony seems like a nice guy but he’s not exactly an authority.

The real thing going on here is semantics. You brought up Peavy as the benchmark. Well, Peavy is probably one of the 15 most valuable commodities in the game. This means Mills only gets moved for one of those guys: extremely good, extremely durable, extremely cheap, extremely young. The only one of those points that’s really debatable is how cheap he actually is but with the structure of his contract it sure looks like he’s going to stay a bargain until the buyout decision has to be made.

It now appears that that’s not really what you meant and that’s fine. But that’s the thesis I was responding to; my point is that the list of players or deals that Mills gets involved in is not the Jake Peavy stratosphere. It’s considerably lower.

Mills is a great prospect but he’s far from immovable. This guy is exclusively a 1B apparently and didn’t OPS over .900 as a 21 year old in A+. Again, that’s a good year, a really exceptional one. But it’s not David Huff or Matt LaPorta.

Mills + Shoppach + KDLC for Wieters and Roberts.

by afh4 on Oct 11, 2008 12:12 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

You brought up Peavy as the benchmark. Well, Peavy is probably one of the 15 most valuable commodities in the game. This means Mills only gets moved for one of those guys: extremely good, extremely durable, extremely cheap, extremely young.

Peavy is also a front of the rotation pitcher and probably one of the top players available. Which is what I meant by a Peavy esque trade.

But regardless my point is that in order for a GM to persuade Shapiro to include Mills in a deal, it would probably need to be for a very good player or an overall trade package with substantial upside, like the trade you proposed. Mills might be a potential trading chip but he’s someone we’re going to include in any trade because you have a decent 2nd baseman and we have Beau Mills. (I’m not refering to Roberts specifically)

by world dictator on Oct 11, 2008 2:37 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Mills + Shoppach + KDLC for Wieters and Roberts

I’d do that trade in a heart beat if I were the Indians. Would Baltimore? Not a chance. They probably wouldn’t even do that trade straight up for Wieters.

by world dictator on Oct 11, 2008 2:41 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Mills for Peavy? Don’t get me excited…

Travis Hafner is overrated. Clarity is underrated. David Dellucci is David Dellucci.

by westbrook on Oct 10, 2008 8:46 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Baltimore might want one of our top prospects, but only because they have a tendency to grossly overvalue their players. One of the top 25 prospects in all of the minors for a 2nd baseman? Uhhh no.

But in all fairness to Pluto, he’s not just suggesting some scrap players we don’t want. Adam Miller, even with injuries, isn’t a throw away prospect, and I don’t think Huff or Lewis are players we don’t want. Actually, I wouldn’t put Hodges in that category either.

by world dictator on Oct 10, 2008 2:20 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

You’re actually misreading him. He doesn’t actually propose Zach Jackson, he simply names him as someone that exists on this team as part of our “starter surplus.” Which is true. He also includes Huff and Miller in the list.

Barfield maybe. But Barfield doesn’t make the deal. Hodges is a pretty nice piece. He even goes on to say,

This deal could be a 5-for-1.
We’re not talking guys like Dave Dellucci and the injured Travis Hafner, Baltimore has TV sets and scouts, too.

It’s not a great package he’s putting together, but it’s far from listening to Greg Brinda pound the desktop for Manny Ramirez and K-Rod.

And anyway, it’s high time in the season for rosterbating. And once the postseason ends, we’ll be in full swing.

Steel Nick

by nickjs21 on Oct 10, 2008 2:29 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Pluto doesn’t see these Indians the way a trading partner would. Sowers, Jackson, Lewis, Miller, and Barfield all have serious injuries or performance questions around them. If you have a chip like Roberts you should be building a trade around guys who have moved through the system with relative ease. That is why Huff will be very attractive to trading partners this winter. More attractive, I would say, than the guys who have had hiccups like the ones mentioned above.

by JesseAK on Oct 10, 2008 2:38 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I think Huff and Hodges does it, probably with someone comparable to a Bryson added in (like Sipp two years ago).

Of course I don’t think I do that.

Steel Nick

by nickjs21 on Oct 10, 2008 2:41 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I agree, that’d probably get it done.

And I agree, I wouldn’t make that trade.

by Peter Bendix on Oct 10, 2008 2:47 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

nor would I.

Travis Hafner is overrated. Clarity is underrated. David Dellucci is David Dellucci.

by westbrook on Oct 10, 2008 8:47 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

+4 – that makes 4 of us who wouldn’t do that deal.

I’d rather hold onto Huff myself – if you substituted Sowers, Laffey, or even Lewis (or even 2 of the 3) along with Hodges for Roberts (for more than 1 year, mind you), I’d more strongly consider, but again, I’m not fond of Roberts being here for only one year, and is it worth resigning him to a 3- or 4-year deal for, I’m guessing, around $40 million or so? I’m not sure.

Just my 2 cents.

The "cream of the crop" doesn't always rise to the top.

by indiansfan on Oct 10, 2008 9:35 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I agree – I’d be really hesitant to trade one of our top guys for one year of Brian Roberts. Even if we managed to re-sign him, he’d be 32 when his extension began.

I’d be happy to package several the players we don’t really want/need (Sowers, Jackson, Hodges, etc.). Unfortunately, Baltimore would either laugh at us or hang up on us. Or, more likely, both.

by Peter Bendix on Oct 11, 2008 1:28 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

What’s wrong with Lewis?

Also, from what I’ve read, i doubt Jackson goes anywhere. Apparently some in the organization are very high on him.

by world dictator on Oct 10, 2008 2:57 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Injury history, soft tosser. Plus, his proximity to Sowers and Laffey. The thing about being the next Buehrle or Zito is that you have to prove it in the Bigs first before your value reaches its apex.

by JesseAK on Oct 10, 2008 3:03 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I just hope we don’t become like the Yankees and overvalue our youth. Then you are stuck with a bunch of guys like Melky Cabrera and Kennedy.

by Toxicadam on Oct 10, 2008 2:51 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Young players are FAR, FAR more important to us than the Yankees. Cost controlled, etc. Plus I wouldn’t give up on Kennedy just yet.

by Peter Bendix on Oct 10, 2008 3:04 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Also, Baltimore already has Brandon Snyder who’s essentially a Beau Mills clone (same position, age, level, and similar power numbers

by world dictator on Oct 10, 2008 10:25 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I’d be more than happy to send over Sowers and Jackson in a deal for Roberts.

by TN1F on Oct 10, 2008 6:14 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Well, who wouldn’t? That’s the whole point. Sowers would be the “third guy” in a major deal, and Jackson actually was the fourth guy in a deal not three months ago.

by Jay on Oct 11, 2008 5:12 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

One thing people need to keep in mind is the Orioles’ desperate need for a shortstop. I don’t see us getting Roberts without giving up Jhonny or Droobs, plus one of our young lefties, plus someone (Barfield, presumably) to plug the hole at 2b. I like Roberts a lot, but not that much.

by ken from alexandria on Oct 10, 2008 7:12 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

I wouldn’t trade Roberts for Jhonny straight up

by world dictator on Oct 10, 2008 7:36 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Hello WD,

That sounds like that’s from Baltimore’s perspective. I don’t know if you meant it that way or the following way:

I wouldn’t trade Jhonny for Roberts (especially 1 year of Roberts) straight up.

I wouldn’t either – Jhonny has fit nicely in the #4 hole and our offense is in a state of flux with Hafner’s status and cloudy future. Plus, you’re essentially trading one hole for another. You may fill 2B, but who plays 3B? Marte, Carroll, resign Blake? I’m not fond of those options.

Just my 2 cents.

The "cream of the crop" doesn't always rise to the top.

by indiansfan on Oct 10, 2008 9:33 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Indiansfan

Thanks for correcting me. I meant I wouldn’t trade Jhonny for Roberts if I were the Indians. Honestly I don’t think the O’s would seriously ask for Peralta. Best offensive shortstop in the AL, can play multiple positions, young, cheap, and under our control for multiple years for Roberts who is good but has no power and is on a one year deal.

If Angelos said that with a straight face he should be dragged out on to the streets and shamed with eggs and bricks.

But of course you’re 100% correct about filling one hole by opening another. I would hope on some level GM’s have enough common sense to not ask for players that would be counterproductive to the trade.

by world dictator on Oct 10, 2008 10:01 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

can we afford to give up raffy left? our bullpen was hurting too…

One of these days... bang, zoom, straight to the moon...

by mixmasterasia on Oct 11, 2008 12:04 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

For Roberts? No.

by afh4 on Oct 11, 2008 12:13 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Hello mixmasterasia,

No – I wouldn’t trade Raffy-Left – granted, he faltered a bit late in the season (even Wedge said that the reason wore on him, which makes me wonder why he didn’t just shut Perez down for the rest of the season), but arguably, he had a more consistent season than Betancourt, and until Lewis finished the season strong, a more consistent season than Lewis. At worst, I think Perez and Lewis finished about neck-and-neck for the best follow-up season among the “Big 3” from our 2007 bullpen (Perez strong early and middle, Lewis strong middle and late), so I can’t see us trading Perez unless we get much more value than Roberts (and especially for one season).

Just my 2 cents.

The "cream of the crop" doesn't always rise to the top.

by indiansfan on Oct 13, 2008 9:22 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

It also doesn’t make sense to trade bullpen arms, especially decent bullpen arms, when rebuilding your bullpen is one of the area’s you’re trying to address in the offseason.

I know we have Sipp, Stevens, Miller, and others likely to get a shot to join the team in SP but still…

by world dictator on Oct 13, 2008 10:47 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs