Indians fans interested in Closer & 3rd Baseman?
by Rhombus67 on Nov 4, 2008 6:54 PM EST
109 comments
I'm an Astros fan but I visit other teams fan blogs to check out different perspectives on their players and what fans think their teams should do. With that in mind...
With the news of Jake Peavy being available and him being interested in coming to Houston... most Astros fans are salivating at the opportunity of seeing him and Oswalt atop our rotation. Obviously we would have to give up a lot and we don't have very much in our farm system. Realizing that it would probably take a 3rd team involved to bring Peavy to Houston... I figured the Indians might be a good candidate for that third team.
I believe the Indians are looking for a closer and third baseman so if the Astros offered Valverde & Wigginton what would you be willing to give up. Obviously it would have to be young players and players that the Padres would want. I just wanted to check and see if those players interested Indians fans and what the possibilities were.
0 recs |
109 comments
Email
Print
Comments
Here’s where I think you’re gonna hit a speed bump.
Obviously it would have to be young players and players that the Padres would want.
It looks like both Wiggy and Valverde are going into 2009 with about 5 years of ML service time. I’m lousy at contracts math, but I think that means we only get them for a year apiece.
1 year of Wiggy + 1 year of Valverde ≠ enough prospects to get Jake Peavy.
I mean, we’re ridiculously protective of our prospects as an organization, to a fault. I hate to sound flippant, but you could basically draw up a list of guys you (and, by extension, the Pads) would like to have from our system, and that would be the list of guys Shapiro wouldn’t move in a deal like the one you’ve proposed. I’d think you’d have a great chance at most of the rest of the system, or even some of the marginal big leaguers, but those aren’t the guys you’d need to Peavy.
by fleerdon on Nov 4, 2008 7:34 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
You are correct in asserting that both Valverde and Wiggington will be free agents after 2009. Wiggington missed free agency by three days. Sucks for him, considering he just had his career year.
by xrickx on Nov 4, 2008 8:28 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Bottom line, the Indians organization simply does not value veterans entering their walk years very highly.
by Jay on Nov 4, 2008 9:25 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
It is worth noting that these guys are potential type A/B Free Agents, so we could recover a portion of the prospects we send out.
But with that said,
1 year of Wiggy + 1 year of Valverde + compensation picks ≠ enough prospects to get Jake Peavy.
by KevinV on Nov 5, 2008 12:33 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
As a rule, if you are seeking a trading partner willing to part with prospects in exchange for vets or soon to be vets, it would be a larger market team. We smaller markets don’t have enough budget to pay for proven vet performance.
by elsandito on Nov 4, 2008 9:49 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
(In the spirit of killing the fun that is playing armchair GM) I’d like to say that as a rule, if one team is seeking a trading partner, the discussion must be between the general managers and not between the fans of the organizations. I mean no disrespect, but um…yea.
by xrickx on Nov 5, 2008 2:07 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Then why should we bother to discuss anything related how Shapiro runs the team? Shouldn’t the discussion be between a team and a FA’s management if they want him? Why should we even talk about it?
I think it is a perfectly reasonable and fun enterprise to discuss trades like this. The only problem is that we would need to get a Padres fan in it too to let us know their organizational needs.
by KevinV on Nov 5, 2008 8:22 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Rosterbation at its finest.
Steel Nick
by nickjs21 on Nov 5, 2008 10:13 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I think it’s reasonable to discuss potential fits, legit rumors, and actual transactions. But to go to another fan website and ask, “What would it take to get this player from you?” and then proceed to hash it out as if you’re completing the deal isn’t the same thing as those other scenarios I mentioned. So if we strike a deal in this forum, do we submit it to the Indians and Astros?
by xrickx on Nov 5, 2008 10:55 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
what do you think we could get from oakland for grady sizemore?
by Brick. on Nov 5, 2008 11:25 AM EST up reply actions 4 recs
Jeremy Giambi. John Mabry. And…Erik Hiljus.
by xrickx on Nov 5, 2008 12:53 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I believe the Indians are looking for a closer and third baseman so if the Astros offered Valverde & Wigginton what would you be willing to give up? Obviously it would have to be young players and players that the Padres would want. I just wanted to check and see if those players interested Indians fans and what the possibilities were.
Sounds like a discussion of a “potential fit” to me.
Besides he didn’t ask "What would it take to get this player from you?"
He asked what we would give up for those guys. I think we have a pretty good idea of the kinds of trades Shapiro would and wouldn’t make. Asking seems reasonable to me.
I’d like to see more discussions like this. They’re interesting. Then again, I don’t hate MLBTR type stuff. So there’s no accounting for my taste.
by KevinV on Nov 5, 2008 12:20 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
It’s the offseason… what else do we have to do?
Don't be stupid. PUT IN MELOAN.
by gte619n on Nov 5, 2008 12:42 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
rec
Burn on, big river, burn on...
by Turkmenbashi on Nov 5, 2008 3:30 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
With all due respect to the poster because his intentions were indeed sincere (and I did indicate no intention of disrespect in my original post), I just find it a futile exercise in discussing things that will never ever happen. This isn’t even something that should happen. Or could happen.
Maybe I’m assuming that we all have a grasp on the reality of the situation (players’ service time, offseason goals, etc) and just a true appreciation for how RARE three-team trades are.
I said “it’s reasonable to discuss potential fits, legit rumors, and actual transactions” in my post above. This isn’t a potential fit, a legit rumor, or an actual transaction. Again, maybe I assumed away the fact that it wasn’t obvious that this just isn’t even close to being a fit. Especially not in some whimsical three team trade. It’s not a Coco Crisp for Andy Marte inquiry. Or a Kelly Shoppach what if? It’s too Cleveland.com, “hey,we’ll give you A, B, and C if you give us X, Y, Z.”
by xrickx on Nov 5, 2008 12:51 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
If you feel posts like this are pointless speculation, you could always refrain from reading and/or posting to these types of threads.
I agree there’s a certain level of futility in these talks, but there’s a certain futility in a lot of things we do here. On some level, futility is intrinsic to what we do, in the sense that none of it has any real affect on the front office. But then again, that’s not why I come to LGT or follow trade rumors/ news.
And frankly, I’m all for cross team rosterbation. Its a much better alternative than hearing someone seriously suggest a Julio Lugo for Grady Sizemore trade.
by world dictator on Nov 5, 2008 3:02 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
If you feel posts like this are pointless speculation, you could always refrain from reading and/or posting to these types of threads.
AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!
I’m going to go start a thread about politics and religion. If you don’t want to talk about that, just ignore it.
by Brick. on Nov 5, 2008 3:21 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Except politics and religion are not baseball topics.
Though personally I’d be fine with you starting a thread on politics or religion. Jay and Ryan…not so much.
by world dictator on Nov 5, 2008 5:25 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
i would argue that fictional hypothetical trades negotiated by fans are not baseball topics either. what if me and one of the nicks get on here to discuss a fantasy baseball trade between our two teams? that’s about baseball.
by Brick. on Nov 5, 2008 5:35 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
FINALLY
1B Albert Pujols
CL Brad Lidge
-for-
MR Jose Arredondo
C/1B/3B/OF Shea Hillenbrand
SS Barry Larkin
Stop declining this trade!
by NickFantana on Nov 5, 2008 5:38 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
while getting 3 players versus two is very tempting, not to mention the extra positional flexibility i’d gain is tempting, i can’t pull the trigger because i’m platooning garko with pujols at DH.
by Brick. on Nov 5, 2008 5:42 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
i’m platooning garko with pujols at DH.
Now that’s how to manage a fantasy baseball team!
"It's hard to win when you don't score." Cliff Lee, 9/28/05.
by Harry Doyle on Nov 5, 2008 6:02 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
See if he’ll take Dellucci.
Steel Nick
by nickjs21 on Nov 5, 2008 10:09 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Gotta rule against you on this one, Brick.
No doubt, fans concocting trades is meaningless, but I think most fans find it to be a lot of fun, and it’s a natural offseason topic.
Those of you who hate it … too bad. Register your displeasure — once — and move on. But I bet that most of you who would claim to hate it are going to end up getting seduced into doing it more than once this offseason.
Hey, have you guys noticed that you can now stretch the text box while you’re typing?
by Jay on Nov 6, 2008 10:21 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
to me there’s a big difference between a report – even though it ended up refuted eventually – about the indians being interested in a guy like teahan turns into a trade discussion and the completely pulled out of thin air by a fan concotion. esentially if there is a point of departure based in reality then it’s a fruitful discussion. otherwise it’s grady to oakland for ???
by Brick. on Nov 6, 2008 10:47 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I agree that playing a game about what we should obtain for Grady Sizemore is pointless and boring
by Roger Dorn on Nov 6, 2008 10:50 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Funny, I find the pure concoction to be more fun, because it’s pure concoction and not a faux-serious attempt to figure out how a trade that isn’t going to happen actually could happen.
For that matter, I think an intelligent concocted trade is more likely to actually happen as a real-world trade than a rationalized rumor is.
by Jay on Nov 6, 2008 5:04 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
the three examples that have come up here:
grady to oakland for ???
teahen to tribe for ???
peavy to houston, wiggington and valverde to tribe, and ??? to san diego.
which is/are the most likely to happen? i think rick’s original point is valid. the “intelligent” part is the key to these things not being not fun.
by Brick. on Nov 6, 2008 5:13 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I take it that by “intelligent” you mean “feasible.” Well, I disagree.
The Sizemore thread led me to estimate the cash value of Grady and his current contract. I came up with $175 million, i.e., if you’re willing to send us $175 million or the equivalent in players/prospects, then you can have him. To me, that’s also an interesting exercise, even though it’s academic.
If you actually meant “intelligent,” well, that can’t always be helped. We encourage and in some ways reward intelligent discussion, and Lord knows plenty of reasonably smart people apparently refrain from posting here for fear of being ripped to shreds. But you can’t make everyone post smart things all the time. Hell, you can’t even make yourself do it, let alone anyone else.
by Jay on Nov 6, 2008 6:49 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Not sure I’m entirely on board with this. The kid from Athletics Nation was kind of fun until he started insisting that trading Grady was the only hope for our future; the discussion made me realize just how unlikely a Sizemore trade really is. And this guy’s a pretty straight shooter. I at least think it’s possible we’ll be trying to put together a deal for Wiggy or Valverde, neither of whom I’d even considered before since the Astros exist at the corner of my known baseball universe.
by fleerdon on Nov 7, 2008 9:36 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I have absolutely no problem ignoring threads that I don’t want to partake in. I don’t know why some people make such a big deal out of that. If some people want to discuss something (and it relates to Indians baseball), then let them discuss it.
The best thing probably is to hit [Grady] 2nd -- Jay
by Buckeye Brad on Nov 5, 2008 6:06 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, I’ve never really understood how jumping into a discussion just to say you hate it adds to the community. Certainly we get plenty of trollish stuff here that’s worth lambasting, but I don’t think stuff like this is a big deal.
Burn on, big river, burn on...
by Turkmenbashi on Nov 5, 2008 10:54 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Again, maybe I assumed away the fact that it wasn’t obvious that this just isn’t even close to being a fit.
Woah, triple negative….
I think it’s unfair to accuse the OP of a Cleveland.com style post (even if he’s probably not familiar with cleveland.com, being an Astros fan). It was a sincere, and not completely shallow inquiry — whether or not the actual trade speculation was realistic, the tone was well above cleveland.com comments. I’m with Kevin on this one — I have no problem with idle trade speculation — after all, what else are we going to talk about between now and the Winter Meetings?
Plus, shouldn’t the standard to which we hold posters be partly a function of their familiarity with the culture of this blog? I’d advocate giving a little extra leeway to visitors from far and distant lands…
All of that said, I agree that there’s no way Shapiro is willing to give up much prospect for veterans in their walk year, unless they’re stars with reasonable contracts (e.g. Sabathia last year). Nor would I, in his place. If Houston provided (provode?) the centerpieces of the trade and we just supplemented it, then maybe, but there’s no way Valverde and Wigginton are alone worth the kinds of prospects it would take to get Peavy. I think it’s pretty unlikely that any supplementary players we would be willing to provide would be a major factor in putting the deal over the threshold for SD.
by Logodaedalus on Nov 5, 2008 1:27 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
I apparently fail at replying… I could have sworn I hit the right button…
by Logodaedalus on Nov 5, 2008 1:28 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
i wouldn’t call this speculation, though. It’s fan brainstorming and can get out of hand in a hurry.
by Brick. on Nov 5, 2008 1:38 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
also! thus far, this is a drive-by fan brainstorm.
by Brick. on Nov 5, 2008 1:45 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
True… where’s he gone? I guess it hasn’t even been 24 hours, so maybe we’re expecting more rabid checking in than is realistic for a visitor…
by Logodaedalus on Nov 5, 2008 1:48 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Fair enough. If we started getting tons of fanposts like this, it would get out of hand. Maybe the best compromise would be to say, it’s fine to do this stuff, but keep it to comments, not posts?
by Logodaedalus on Nov 5, 2008 1:47 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Wow………. I did not realize there would be this much debate over whether or not a post like this from a visitor is welcome. You’re right…. It is simple brainstorming on my part and I have no connection with anybody inside the Astros front office… I’m just a fan. I obviously want the best for my team and thought it would be interesting to see the perspective from Indians fans on this crazy scenario that is totally hypothetical. As a fan, I think it is fun to try and think of possible scenarios to improve your team…. while realizing other teams needs and trying to stay realistic (maybe I was wrong to think that Valverde or Wigginton have any value to a team like the Indians). Still as fans… I think we have that right.
Posting something of this nature could very well be perceived as an exercise in futility but I also find it just as futile and ironic to complain multiple times about futility. If something is not worth my time I simply don’t partake.
Last, I mean no ill-will with this messge and meant no ill-will with my post. As I said earlier I did not realize anybody would find this disrespectful and I actually find a post like this fun and interesting. Putting myself in another’s shoes….I can, however, see how someone else can have a different take. I apologize for intruding.
by Rhombus67 on Nov 5, 2008 3:11 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
I wouldn’t say it’s so much an intrusion.
Me, I have to be in the right mood to partake in this kind of discussion.
Steel Nick
by nickjs21 on Nov 5, 2008 3:13 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Relax. I think most people take more issue with the “drive-by” nature of the post than its contents.
No harm, no foul, in my eyes… what’s wrong with a little hypothetical discussion?
It’s November baseball
Burn on, big river, burn on...
by Turkmenbashi on Nov 5, 2008 3:33 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I didn’t find it disrespectful. I didn’t find it intrusive. Just unrealistic. And, for the third time, maybe I assumed it was obvious or should have been. I’d liken it to me stopping by the Astros’ board saying:
“We all know the Indians are looking for a big corner bat. The Astros have Lance Berkman, are an aging team in a competitive division, and, despite a favorable won-loss record, were actually outscored by their opponents last year. The writing is on the wall that the Astros are running out of time, as their 3B and closer are nearing free agency, their SS is on a severe decline, and the starting rotation aside from Oswalt and Wandy Rodriguez is a mess next year. . . .With that being said, what do you think it will take for the Indians to land Berkman?”
You and I know damn well that Berkman is going anywhere. The characterization of the team might be correct, but Ed Wade is going for it. Then add another dimension to my proposal by making it a three-team trade, and, while it might be fun to engage in some 100% pure creative speculation, we all know—especially the Astro fan who knows Berkman isn’t going anywhere—that the proposal isn’t much of a proposal or a talking point at all.
by xrickx on Nov 5, 2008 4:11 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Berkman is not going anywhere. Typos. Ah.
by xrickx on Nov 5, 2008 4:12 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
No harm taken.
I think it’s slightly different from you stopping by the Astros board and saying “what will it take to land Berkman” because I did not mention any Indians players. I realize that I don’t know what Indians fans feel is tradeable and speculated on your needs at Third base and Closer based on what I have read in the papers.
A similarity would be you stopping by and saying “The Indians are looking for some young talent (although if you were looking for that you wouldn’t come to the Astros) and I think you might have interest in Rafael Betancourt & Kelly Shoppach ….. what would you be willing to give up?”
I agree that you have to be in the right mood to conjure up ideas based on some random fans speculation but I would welcome a trivial post of that nature on the Astros board.
That’s just my opinion however.
by Rhombus67 on Nov 5, 2008 5:17 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
heh, you should have been here when an Oakland fan wanted to know what it would take to get Grady Sizemore.
by Ryan on Nov 6, 2008 9:10 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
“I’m not the one who suggested blowing up the team!!! You did!!!”
by fleerdon on Nov 6, 2008 2:48 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
You’re fine dude
Sometimes this board is just too in love with its high level of baseball discourse to the point where it can be a turn-off.
I appreciate the fact that most posts are thoughtful and intelligent. I just think it’s effing silly that we have to engage in a meta-discussion about whether coming up with hypothetical trade proposals is appropriate.
by Cap'n Snegiryov on Nov 6, 2008 11:27 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
if you don’t like the meta discussion, just ignore it.
by Brick. on Nov 6, 2008 11:57 AM EST up reply actions 2 recs
There’s a difference between ignoring a post altogether because the topic doesn’t interest you and trying to read a post that you find interesting which is filled with silly discussions on the appropriateness of that post.
The best thing probably is to hit [Grady] 2nd -- Jay
by Buckeye Brad on Nov 6, 2008 1:46 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I quite agree. And that’s why ultimately, the non-interesting topic is more appropriate than complaints thereof — as long as it’s about baseball.
by Jay on Nov 6, 2008 5:06 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
This has officially become a meta-meta-discussion.
And my present comment, I suppose, takes it into the realm of meta-meta-meta-discussion.
The thread is soon going to eat itself.
by Logodaedalus on Nov 7, 2008 1:57 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
By rules of mathematics two of those metas cancel out — they’re like negative numbers. So now it’s only a meta-discussion.
The best thing probably is to hit [Grady] 2nd -- Jay
by Buckeye Brad on Nov 7, 2008 10:09 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I assume you mean the rules that govern how the rules of mathematics work…
by Logodaedalus on Nov 8, 2008 1:30 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
The point is taken. The beast is dead. The fluff gets up your nose.
by woodsmeister on Nov 8, 2008 7:21 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Woodsy, I e-mailed you a few weeks ago, never heard back. Can you shoot me an e-mail?
by Jay on Nov 8, 2008 9:21 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I had to roll this around in my head for a good full minute before I could place it. Nice job.
by Voltaire on Nov 10, 2008 1:01 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I concur with Buckeye Bradley. That logic only goes so far.
Coming up with realistic trade scenarios is, in my opinion, fun. A lot of other people feel that way too, I think. That’s part of why fantasy baseball is popular. This thread had the potential to provide some interesting discussion—how do we value our own farm system? How do the Astros value their ML-ready assets? It would be interesting to get a fan consensus on these subjects, and to hear different points of view. Then it got hijacked by the meta-discussion, which pretty well derailed any of that. And now it’s getting hijacked by meta-meta-discussion, over whether it’s appropriate to discuss the appropriateness of the OP’s topic. And I am contributing heavily to it. Damn it all.
by Cap'n Snegiryov on Nov 6, 2008 4:45 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
That’s interesting. The trade rosterbation is actually a meta-conversation about how we value prospects and players. We learn things about Grady’s value by examining just how impossible it would be for someone to get us to trade him.
by Jay on Nov 6, 2008 5:07 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Smooth sailin'
I can’t stop. It’s like an awesome disease.
Steel Nick
by nickjs21 on Nov 6, 2008 2:42 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Yes … with his boat. Or possibly with himself.
by Jay on Nov 6, 2008 5:08 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
There’s a straw man back home he thinks fondly of.
I don’t know, I lost the metaphor.
Steel Nick
by nickjs21 on Nov 6, 2008 5:49 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
The boat is a sunk cost.
"It's hard to win when you don't score." Cliff Lee, 9/28/05.
by Harry Doyle on Nov 6, 2008 6:42 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Wouldn’t the SS Mark Ellis be a sunk cost?
by Peter Bendix on Nov 7, 2008 11:08 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
OR THE WATER
Travis Hafner is overrated. Clarity is underrated. David Dellucci is David Dellucci.
by westbrook on Nov 7, 2008 2:56 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
If you want to trade us Wigginton and Valverde at the value Shap will value them at, fine.
This means no 3-way incl Peavy.
Which means we can then trade for Peavy ourselves.
Travis Hafner is overrated. Clarity is underrated. David Dellucci is David Dellucci.
by westbrook on Nov 5, 2008 6:02 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
So, in summary, we don’t feel that Valverde and Wigginton would be enough to get the kind of prospects from the Indians that would net Jake Peavy.
Don't be stupid. PUT IN MELOAN.
by gte619n on Nov 6, 2008 3:28 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Okay, here’s an offer: Ben Francisco, Wes Hodges, Jeff Stevens, Kevin Dixon, maybe Shawn Nottingham. We can talk about Trevor Crowe.
by fleerdon on Nov 7, 2008 9:52 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
In the vein of November armchair GM'ing
I just thought about a few moves that I think work and I want your take on it. (Yes, I know it’s futile, but “what’s wrong with a little hypothetical discussion? It’s November baseball”.)
Tribe trades Victor Martinez to the Boston Red Sox for Jon Lester and Justin Masterson. Shoppach becomes our starting catcher with Carlos Santana as the backup. Masterson becomes our closer (or setup to Jensen Lewis) and Lester is our 2 or 3 (in front of/behind Carmona).
Reason: Victor has been hurt the past 2 years and is a FA after ‘09 (I think). Boston needs a catcher and we have depth. We save a little cash on Victor, but don’t lose much in the lineup with Shoppach’s production.
Then, we take our abundance of OF and LHP depth and trade Francisco/Gutierrez and Sowers/Laffey to Colorado for Garret Atkins. Atkins will be getting a slice of the money we saved by trading Victor.
What this boils down to is: do you want Victor as your starting catcher and Casey Blake (or lesser player) in your lineup? Or do you want Shoppach full-time and Atkins, and adding a proven #2/#3 in Lester and closer in Masterson?
I throw myself at the mercy of the blogosphere court.
by lenred on Nov 7, 2008 12:14 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
I’d trade V-Mart for Lester and Masterson. The Red Sox almost certainly wouldn’t. I don’t think they’d even trade Lester straight up for V-Mart.
If we can get Atkins by giving up Ben Fran + Sowers, I’d do it. Anything more and I don’t think it’s worth it. He’s not particularly good.
by Peter Bendix on Nov 7, 2008 12:38 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Cot’s says we have a 2010 option on Martinez
by world dictator on Nov 7, 2008 12:54 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
No way Boston does that trade.
The best thing probably is to hit [Grady] 2nd -- Jay
by Buckeye Brad on Nov 7, 2008 1:09 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Basically I have to agree with everyone that Jon Lester is absolutely positively not going anywhere, and if he is it won’t be for Victor Martinez straight up let alone included with Masterson. Boy I would love it though.
Steel Nick
by nickjs21 on Nov 7, 2008 2:28 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
First, you should not bother to engage in any trade speculation if you don’t know the exact contract status of every player involved, which you can find here. Teams do not trade players, they trade player contracts.
Second, Santana is not going to be a big-league backup this season and probably not next season. He may be nearly ready — then again he may not be — but putting him on a bench can only stunt his development. Can you imagine if we’d stuck Victor on the bench in 2002 rather than having him dominate Double-A? That doesn’t sink the trade idea, but you need to rid yourself of fanboy notions here. (Also not appearing this season: Weglarz, Rivero, Kelvin De La Cruz.)
I do think trading Victor should be on the table, though, and it probably is.
by Jay on Nov 7, 2008 2:54 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Teams do not trade players, they trade player contracts.
This should be displayed prominently on the site somewhere.
by Logodaedalus on Nov 7, 2008 3:56 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
You’re right. I was WAAAAAAAAAYYYYYY off when I said his contract was up after ’09 when he has an option for ’10. You act like I said Victor is a FA in 2020… get a grip.
Jay, please verify that this is grammatically accurate to your liking:
Tribe trades the contract for Victor Martinez (but actually keeps Victor Martinez) for Jon Lester, Papelbon and Pedroia
Tribe then trades Victor Martinez (the player) to the Rockies for Matt Holliday.
Better?
by lenred on Nov 7, 2008 4:18 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
That situation is ludicrous. We would never accept Pedroia.
Steel Nick
by nickjs21 on Nov 7, 2008 5:10 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Jay was trying to make the point that the player’s contract matters in trade discussions, not just his baseball abilities. That’s what he meant by “you don’t trade players, you trade contracts.” I think you missed that.
The best thing probably is to hit [Grady] 2nd -- Jay
by Buckeye Brad on Nov 7, 2008 10:07 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I never said that you were way off, but you yourself noted that you didn’t really know the exact contract situation. All I’m saying is, there really is no point discussing trades without first looking at the contract situation. I mean, we can say Brian Roberts and a prospect for Jake Peavy, but that whole discussion is meaningless without the contract info.
by Jay on Nov 8, 2008 5:06 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I would rather have Victor instead of Shoppach, but I’m open to trading Victor.
The problem is, Jon Lester isn’t going anywhere after the way he pitched this season. If I’m Boston I’d rather trade a prospect for one of Texas’ Catchers than trade Lester, and Masterson.
Also, I don’t think Fransisco/Gutz and Sowers/Laffey is enough for Atkins, though I’d have to check the numbers. In my opinion, the slim market for 3rd basemen alone would stop Colorado from doing that trade.
Part of me thinks Laffey is likely to be in our starting rotation next year too.
by world dictator on Nov 7, 2008 12:42 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Agreed about Laffey. I wouldn’t include him in a deal for Atkins.
by Peter Bendix on Nov 7, 2008 1:46 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
When I heard they wanted a P and OF for Atkins, I said to myself “It’d better be Benfran and Sowers – more than that I wouldn’t give up.”
Travis Hafner is overrated. Clarity is underrated. David Dellucci is David Dellucci.
by westbrook on Nov 7, 2008 9:37 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
A relatively minor update on the 3B possibilities: Texas is keeping Hank Blalock for another year according to this morning’s paper.
by peter m on Nov 8, 2008 10:43 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
they exercised his option…doesn’t necessarily mean they’ll keep him
by APV on Nov 8, 2008 10:57 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Are options different than actual contracts? I’m pretty sure that there’s a provision in the MLBPA that prohibits a sign-and-trade, right? Does the option not work that way? Probably just splitting hairs, but I wonder if that prevents a trade?
Don't be stupid. PUT IN MELOAN.
by gte619n on Nov 10, 2008 9:08 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
You can do that. The Yanks picked up Shef’s option, then traded him to Detroit.
by Voltaire on Nov 10, 2008 1:03 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Guys with new contracts can’t be traded until June, I believe. An option is not like a new contract, it’s an optional year at the end of an existing contract.
You don’t see that many pick-up-and-trades because most players in that situation are five-and-ten guys with trade veto rights.
by Jay on Nov 10, 2008 2:12 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
again, thanks guys.
Don't be stupid. PUT IN MELOAN.
by gte619n on Nov 11, 2008 8:26 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Also, that 19-year old Andy Marte wanna-be Dayan Viciedo has been declared a fe agent. WARNING, LINK CONTAINS RAMPANT HOMERISM.
by NickFantana on Nov 8, 2008 2:45 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
3B
From the Denver Post:
“It has been a rapid transformation from slugger to walking trade rumor. Garrett Atkins chewed on that idea over dinner Wednesday, aware he has become an appetizer for teams looking for a corner infielder. The Rockies are aggressively trying to deal outfielder Matt Holliday, while listening to calls from the Twins and Indians about Atkins”
Anyone here anything about Atkins and the Indians?
by davelibn on Nov 11, 2008 1:57 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
i heard we were trading laffey for him.
by Brick. on Nov 11, 2008 2:10 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I hear we are trading the entire 2008, 2009 and 2010 batches of GLBC Christmas Ale for Atkins. Shapiro was quoted as saying, “This will be a big sacrifice for the Indians and the people of Cleveland. Cliff Lee loves that stuff. But we think it is a move that will provide a lot of long-term value to the organization, if for no other reason than people will have more of a reason to spell Ross’s name correctly.”
by APV on Nov 11, 2008 3:15 PM EST up reply actions 4 recs
Disappointed that I cannot rec this twice.
by woodsmeister on Nov 11, 2008 3:23 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
What? Flag. Atkins is not worth it.
Steel Nick
by nickjs21 on Nov 11, 2008 3:34 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Is anybody actually flagging? Is there a flagged bin somewhere?
by NickFantana on Nov 11, 2008 9:32 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
FLAGGED for questioning the flagging, sir.
Steel Nick
by nickjs21 on Nov 12, 2008 12:38 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
But, er, no, not really. At least not by me. I treat flagging the same way Michael Scott treats declaring bankruptcy.
Steel Nick
by nickjs21 on Nov 12, 2008 12:38 AM EST up reply actions 2 recs
Rec for hearing his voice yelling “I! Declare! BANKRUPTCY!!!!” in my head all day.
by Peter Bendix on Nov 12, 2008 3:35 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
The Coors behemoth notwithstanding, there’s a lot of good beer made in Colorado, so we’d have a hard time selling that deal. Lets target a beer-deprived metropolis. Like St. Louis.
by FredOx on Nov 11, 2008 4:11 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
If I was to believe this “report”, which I don’t, most of Shapiro’s moves are not publically known by anyone (the CC obviously was out in the open pretty much).
More often than not, the rumors/stories posted are not actually what the Tribe brass is actually engaging in discussions for. But just fodder for the mainstream masses to discuss.
by talonk on Nov 11, 2008 2:44 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
It’s all about misinformation these days.
Don't be stupid. PUT IN MELOAN.
by gte619n on Nov 12, 2008 10:53 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
And it’s most certainly NOT about the B-3 bomber.
"It's hard to win when you don't score." Cliff Lee, 9/28/05.
by Harry Doyle on Nov 12, 2008 5:49 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I recall the CC thing being more of a report out from the Brewers side that the Cleveland side just ran with. Which has happened before (the Crisp trade was leaked out from the Boston side). So there can be some track record in the trading partner leaking it out.
by hans on Nov 12, 2008 10:05 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
Featured Stories
Sweet Baboo
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
