The only way the Indians will trade Lee, sources say, is if they are offered a potential top-of-the-rotation starter at the level of the Braves' Tommy Hanson or [somebody better than] Red Sox's Clay Buchholz. [my edit]
Rosenthal, on rumors Los Angeles's interest in Cliff: "The Dodgers' best young starting pitchers, right-hander Chad Billingsley and lefty Clayton Kershaw, are part of the major-league rotation and all but untouchable. Their best pitching prospect, right-hander James McDonald, is not considered top-of-the-rotation material. Thus, a package of say McDonald, third baseman Blake DeWitt and one or two other prospects would not be enough to satisfy the Indians. The Phillies have also asked about Lee, but balked at the price, sources say." Naw, you don't say.
7 months ago
fleerdon
103 comments
0 recs |
Email
PrintComments
And today, Buster Olney writes this in regard to a potential DeRosa trade.
The expectation among rival executives is that in the end, DeRosa will go to the team that offers the best pitching prospect in return. There is a lot of demand for DeRosa but also a lot of reluctance within the game right now to part with young pitching, one executive said. "Those zero-to-three [years of service time] prospects are absolute gold right now, even more than they have been before.
by FallsTribeFan on Jun 25, 2009 1:11 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Might not get us pitching, but if we take this tack long enough, it could result in somebody overpaying anyway.
by fleerdon on Jun 25, 2009 1:18 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I’m sure we’ll compromise by getting a good pitching prospect who’s not necessarily major league ready. Think AA or even an A ball pitcher that might move to AA in the second half of the season
by world dictator on Jun 25, 2009 1:36 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
That would suck. Another guy who can flame out between AA and the bigs.
by odradek on Jun 26, 2009 12:15 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
And Heyman says the Cards and the Mets remain in The Hunt for Red DeRosa.
Lots of things in here don’t react well to rumors. Like me. I don’t react well to rumors.
by fleerdon on Jun 25, 2009 1:37 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Jay, you hear that? We can get Buccholz
by Roger Dorn on Jun 25, 2009 1:15 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Ha.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
by Jay on Jun 25, 2009 1:16 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I’d take Buchholz for DeRosa.
FE WEE
by westbrook on Jun 25, 2009 1:28 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
So, the Indians acquired Cliff, worked through his struggles and injuries, basically did all the leg-work to make him an ace, and now that he’s achieving his potential, we’re supposed to flip him because, you know, darned if L.A. couldn’t find a niche for 1.5 years of a healthy southpaw with a 150 ERA+, currently under contract for less than half his market value.
Pay up or get bent, rest of baseball.
by fleerdon on Jun 25, 2009 1:27 PM EDT reply actions 10 recs
Pay up or get bent, rest of baseball.
I love this.
by hans on Jun 25, 2009 1:28 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
How is this different than any time a small market team trades a top player?
by world dictator on Jun 25, 2009 1:37 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The 1.5 seasons and half-of-market-value contract.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
by Jay on Jun 25, 2009 1:47 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
From a rational perspective, contract status. I don’t understand how anybody could “balk” at Cliff’s price when it’s plain as day that his price is going to be the market value of his contract plus a sweetener to convince the Indians to take the hit to their 2010 competitiveness. And here, it’s equally obvious that sweetener would have to be long-term value.
From an irrational perspective, we’re the ones who paid for Cliff’s underachievement, so underpaying for his over-achievement just feels like Cliff squaring up to me.
by fleerdon on Jun 25, 2009 1:47 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Put it another way: I can understand why the Yankees didn’t bother trading for Sabathia, knowing their 2008 playoff odds were tight and that they were willing to out-spend the market for him in free agency by eight figures. It disgusts me, but I understand it.
But these clubs don’t have any similar walk-away-from-the-table kind of leverage over us when it comes to Cliff, so their sense of entitlement to him is just ignorant hubris.
by fleerdon on Jun 25, 2009 1:55 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Is it crazy for the club to enter into a contract extension negotiation with Lee right now? Or would it be crazy for him to do that? Precisely because of his current contract, seems like we could pay him more for 2010 than he would get, and then add 3 years onto that. I’m not sure where we’d clear the dollars from to pay the extra 2010 salary, though.
"Lotta heart in Cleveland." - Ian Hunter
by Denver Tribe Fan on Jun 25, 2009 2:15 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I agree with all this. But that’s not the point I was making.
Its an unfortunate reality that small market teams must flip imposing free agent superstars because of their inability to sign them. In all of these cases the small market team worked through the struggles and injuries, and did all the leg-work only to lose them later on.
This doesn’t mean you should GIVE them away for free or when a big market team says jump, but its not a reason to be bitter.
by world dictator on Jun 25, 2009 3:58 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Hey, you know what? I invested a lot of time and effort into this team, all I have to show for it is a bunch of scavenging, pissy GMs who think their future wash-outs are a fair price for our best player.
Screw the Dodgers, screw the Phillies, and — from the bottom of my heart — screw Clay Buchholz.
by fleerdon on Jun 25, 2009 2:19 PM EDT up reply actions 5 recs
When Carlos Baerga was a stud for us in the earlly 90’s, Gammons was always trading him to the Red Sox for crap. Talk is talk. If Shap does one thing right, it’s getting max value for what he has of value. We’ve all invested allot of emotional energy on this team and yes, we’ve all been short-changed. We have a dog on our hands with the risk of returning to the 70’s and 80’s form. Trading strengths to fix weaknesses only to create new weaknesses. Blah.
by larzko on Jun 25, 2009 2:54 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
This team has a ways to go before we can say there’s of risk of returning to 1970s form.
by odradek on Jun 26, 2009 12:20 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
You’re right, and it’s as if they’re doing you a favor. “Look, I can see you’re taking this rough. What say we let you have Buchholz? Wouldn’t that make you feel better?”
by odradek on Jun 26, 2009 12:19 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Every Indians fan should get to choose – whether an emotional or intellectual level – but on one of them, you have to have Cliff Lee as your favorite current Indian. Pick whomever you want for the remaining level. Non-negotiable.
by joeee on Jun 25, 2009 3:49 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Asdrubal Cabrera and it’s not even close.
Il faut d'abord durer.
by CU Adam on Jun 25, 2009 4:45 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I’m rather fond of Choo. But Asdrubal is right up there. If we were going to go for the most relentlessly good player, you’d have to give Martinez some credit. The guy’s just a wonderful hitter.
by peter m on Jun 25, 2009 4:53 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
When you think about it, there are a lot of really likeable players on this team, both in terms of character and talent. We have that to feel positive about. On the other hand, the glass has to be way more than half full to get that championship.
"Lotta heart in Cleveland." - Ian Hunter
by Denver Tribe Fan on Jun 25, 2009 5:06 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Victor Martinez. End of discussion.
Though I look right at home, I still feel like an exile
by Manhattan Tribe Fan on Jun 25, 2009 5:15 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
It’s amazing that this discussion hasn’t even mentioned Sizemore.
by dgcambridge on Jun 25, 2009 5:32 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
“What have you done for me lately”
If you believe it's just a game, you're also probably wondering why Santa keeps skipping your house every year.
by LeftyCatcher on Jun 25, 2009 5:55 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Grady F-ing Sizemore. That’s my favorite. I don’t think it needed mentioning.
Who needs affection when you can have blind hatred?
by ClemsonGirl on Jun 25, 2009 10:23 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Definitely Victor. It will be hard to beat. Seeing his face after we lost to Boston in 07 had me on the verge of tears
by Roger Dorn on Jun 25, 2009 11:19 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Uh, nope. Not close.
Ride on ye fearsome Horsemen of the Basketball Apocalypse. We got this.
by Turkmenbashi on Jun 25, 2009 10:56 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Couples interesting tidbits from Jayson Stark today.
Meanwhile, an executive of one club says he’d be wary of overpaying for Lee with the assumption that you’d have him for this year and next, because if he’s dealt, he has the right to demand a trade over the winter. So regard all Cliff Lee trade rumors you hear with at least one raised eyebrow.
and
we’ve been hearing that the Cubs have kicked the tires on a deal that could bring DeRosa back to Wrigleyville.
by FallsTribeFan on Jun 25, 2009 4:13 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
we’ve been hearing that the Cubs have kicked the tires on a deal that could bring DeRosa back to Wrigleyville.
…Along with one of the kicked tires. The goat is a throw in as well.
by JimmyAB on Jun 25, 2009 4:49 PM EDT up reply actions 2 recs
Meanwhile, an executive of one club says he’d be wary of overpaying for Lee with the assumption that you’d have him for this year and next, because if he’s dealt, he has the right to demand a trade over the winter. So regard all Cliff Lee trade rumors you hear with at least one raised eyebrow.
That adds an interesting wrinkle to the Lee trade speculation.
by bewwolv on Jun 25, 2009 5:45 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
It gets more interesting.
This clause in the CBA is rarely ever invoked — in fact, I can’t remember the last time it was invoked and not later revoked.
There’s a catch, you see. If you demand a trade and the team fails to trade you, then you’re a free agent. But if you demand a trade and the team DOES trade you, then you’re not a free agent for three years. The next team that acquires you gets you not only for the last year of the contract, but they also get to offer you arbitration for the year after that, and then the year after that — and you can’t turn it down.
So it’s a dicey game, demanding a trade after a trade.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
by Jay on Jun 25, 2009 6:18 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Has that ever happened? It would be a high-priced arbitration case.
by dgcambridge on Jun 25, 2009 6:28 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
No higher than any case where a veteran accepts a club’s offer of arbitration, declining free agency.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
by Jay on Jun 25, 2009 7:46 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I remember Javier Vazquez did it several years ago. He was traded to Arizona, then demanded a trade the next winter.
by Ryan on Jun 25, 2009 6:32 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Good memory. At the time, he still had two years left on his deal, so he was only risking one year of free agency.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
by Jay on Jun 25, 2009 7:46 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
It is odd, isn’t it? But the intent is clear … the player should only demand a trade if he really considers his situation untenable, and the team gets to trade at least three years of player control rather than only one or two.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
by Jay on Jun 26, 2009 12:17 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
love this info. never heard that before. very well explained, thanks.
by Brick. on Jun 26, 2009 10:23 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I never ceased to be amazed by your knowledge of detail in baseball contracts. You really should be thinking about becoming an agent.
-Erik
by drerikbrady on Jun 26, 2009 3:54 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Hello Jay,
Great info. – to me, that would seem to greatly neutralize any realistic chance of Lee requesting a trade. This makes me wonder why the reporter didn’t mention this, as that much destroys his implication that teams would be THAT wary of trading for Lee.
Again, great info. – I never knew that before – thanks!
The "cream of the crop" doesn't always rise to the top.
by indiansfan on Jun 26, 2009 6:34 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Why even discuss trading guys who are signed through next year unless we’ve conceded next year? And is there a good reason to concede next year? Until someone presents an intelligent reason why the Indians cannot get themselves turned around for 2010, Shapiro should be a buyer and not a seller for 2010. DeRosa will be needed for that pennant run and Lee will be needed for that pennant run.
by elsandito on Jun 25, 2009 5:53 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I stand corrected, however, Shapiro should consider extending DeRosa if he believes that, like this year, DeRosa can be a valuable asset in next year’s pennant race.
by elsandito on Jun 25, 2009 6:06 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
He’s been excellent for us recently, but this probably isn’t wise. All signs point to him being a desired player around the league whom we should trade, and whom we should not compete to sign. That money goes to pitching, if available.
by dgcambridge on Jun 25, 2009 6:17 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I wouldn’t hate seeing us give DeRosa the deal we wouldn’t give Blake. But I wouldn’t love it, either.
For that matter, we can trade DeRosa and then still try to sign him in the offseason.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
by Jay on Jun 25, 2009 6:19 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
That’s what I was gonna say (2nd ¶).
FE WEE
by westbrook on Jun 25, 2009 8:00 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Indians won’t need DeRosa next year, because in 2009 Garko and Francisco bust out of their slumps,
by odradek on Jun 26, 2009 12:24 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Why even discuss trading guys who are signed through next year unless we’ve conceded next year?
There is one good reason: To improve the club for next year. Cliff Lee would be a great asset for 2010, but it’s not out of the question that we could get multiple players back that would make the club even better. Hence, we need to be overwhelmed, with a big-league-ready starter to replace Lee (with somewhat more risk) plus a couple other pieces to make it worth our while.
And is there a good reason to concede next year?
Real good question. I think we should think long and hard about that.
I could turn it around, too: After seeing 2008 and 2009, is there a good reason not to concede 2010?
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
by Jay on Jun 25, 2009 6:22 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I could turn it around, too: After seeing 2008 and 2009, is there a good reason not to concede 2010?
A wealth of position player talent on both sides of the ball (diamond?), a legitimate ace, an improved rotation behind him based on Westbrook’s health and the development of Laffey, Huff, and perhaps Lewis, the chance that Carmona puts it together. A closer who ought to be dominant, and the fungibility of bullpens. A weak division whose current leader is very old on offense and poor defensively.
It’s not a slam dunk, and it depends on how Jake and Fausto look down the stretch (in the minors or the majors), but there’s plenty of reasons as of June 2009 not to wave a white flag on 2010. I’m more wary of a potential impending financial disaster than the team one would currently project.
Though I look right at home, I still feel like an exile
by Manhattan Tribe Fan on Jun 25, 2009 6:32 PM EDT up reply actions 6 recs
Damned good answer.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
by Jay on Jun 25, 2009 7:49 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I would also look at the competition in the central, as it stands now, not very difficult for a mediocre team (relative to the league as a whole) to win the division.
by hans on Jun 25, 2009 8:40 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I’m not buying this. After Cliff and 1/2 Laffey, I think you’ve got four big question marks.
Scott Lewis might never be healthy
David Huff might be the next Jeremy Sowers
Carmona might have been a one year wonder
Westbrook might never bounce back to be anything more than a fringy fifth starter.
The other half of Laffey might also never be healthy
It’s a rotation with far more questions than answers. And the bullpen is what the bullpen is. Why should I believe Shapiro has any more ability to build a pitching staff next year than this year?
by NickFantana on Jun 25, 2009 11:14 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
You will respect David Huff.
Westbrook is very likely to be better than fringe.
Laffey isn’t really any more of an injury risk going forward than any other starter.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
by Jay on Jun 25, 2009 11:40 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
By “questions” I think you mean “pitchers.” Seriously though, while I think you’re setting the bar pretty high (what team with a payroll less than $150 M doesn’t have to take chances with pitching?), I do think we try to add someone in the middle of the rotation. The picture looks a whole lot better then. And this is addition to the normal NRI or $1 M fliers.
What is the alternative? What until you somehow luck into 4 Rondons coming up from the system at the same time?
by dgcambridge on Jun 26, 2009 1:59 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Agreed. As much as our bullpen has sucked – I think the primary priority for the off-season, or at least where are monetary resources get directed, is the starting rotation. We have a lot of “depth” in the sense we have a lot of arms that might be good, but nearly all of them have a significant amount of uncertainty associated with them. As it stands right now, factoring in some of the current guys in Columbus, I really don’t see any gaping hole in our positional players.
This just serves to further highlight this season’s frustrations…if Westbrook comes back healthy, if Huff starts putting together starts like his last, if Laffey rejoins the rotation…a lot of that uncertainty begins to go away and lo and behold, just as most of us thought at the beginning of the season, the Indians once again look like a 88-90 win team. Sadly, an 88-90 win team on pace to win 66-70. Ugh.
by APV on Jun 26, 2009 2:43 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Agreed. As much as our bullpen has sucked – I think the primary priority for the off-season, or at least where are monetary resources get directed, is the starting rotation.
Improving the starting pitching automatically improves the bullpen, because they’ll be throwing fewer innings. That doesn’t mean that priority #2 shouldn’t be bullpen help.
by woodsmeister on Jun 26, 2009 11:57 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
You’re right dg. My point is, some of what MTF said will happen, some of what I said will happen. If we’re lucky, it’ll be 70% MTF, 30% NF. This year it was pretty much 80-90% NF. But I really don’t want to go into 2009 thinking, “If this, that and four other things go right, we’re competitive in the AL Central.” That’s not good enough.
by NickFantana on Jun 26, 2009 8:59 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
"If this, that and four other things go right, we’re competitive in the AL Central."
I don’t think that is the approach the front office takes. I think more likely they ask the question, “if this, that and four other things go wrong, we’ll still be competitive in the AL Central.” And I think they probably felt that way, as did I and many others, this season. Only the things that have gone wrong include; Fausto continuing to blow up, Grady getting injured, Rafael Perez blowing up, Jensen Lewis blowing up, Kerry Wood being erratic, Scott Lewis getting injured, Anthony Reyes being ineffective and injured, Jhonny Peralta sucking, Eric Wedge failing to connect…And yet up until about 10 days ago we actually were still a few games out of 2nd place and not too many more out of 1st in the AL Central.
by APV on Jun 26, 2009 9:09 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
What were the preseason likelihoods of these events?
Fausto continuing to blow up, 50%
Grady getting injured, 20%
Rafael Perez blowing up, 40%
Jensen Lewis blowing up, 40%
Kerry Wood being erratic, 30%
Scott Lewis getting injured, 60%
Anthony Reyes being ineffective and injured, 70%
Jhonny Peralta sucking, 20%
Eric Wedge failing to connect, 60%
The point being that most of these events were forseeable. The Indians must put together lists like this, and look at the probabilities of various combinations.
by odradek on Jun 26, 2009 11:30 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don’t know. It just occurred to me that someone in the employ of Mark Shapiro must make these sort of actuarial judgments.
by odradek on Jun 26, 2009 11:25 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
My take on these numbers is that they are not so far off any other team’s (assuming a realisitic budget.) Too much in the starting rotation, sure, and Shap acknowledged that. But that’s where we throw our resources for 2010.
by dgcambridge on Jun 26, 2009 12:13 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Every time my NF% gets too high, I get light-headed and need to sit down.
by dgcambridge on Jun 26, 2009 12:18 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Also…I think the go for 2010-don’t go for 2010 is a false binary. You can take about how much of an investment you are making in 2010 vs. 2011 and beyond, but it doesn’t have to be an all or nothing discussion. Given the level of play in the AL Central, this is particularly relevant I would think.
by APV on Jun 26, 2009 12:19 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
When you’re talking about trading Cliff Lee, it does become a binary choice. We’re not going to get back his equivalent in major league talent, or major league-ready talent. The team isn’t good enough to contend without him or something equivalent. And even if we somehow got a minor leaguer who was ready to make an immediate impact at that level, we wouldn’t see him in the majors until June 5.
Though I look right at home, I still feel like an exile
by Manhattan Tribe Fan on Jun 26, 2009 8:35 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
If it was Kershaw or someone at that level, we could see it as being almost an even replacement for 2010, assuming there was some other decent piece in there, maybe another reliever as a PTBNL.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
by Jay on Jun 26, 2009 12:12 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Kershaw plus would definitely be an acceptable return, long and short-term. But that seems like a stretch even for Colletti
Though I look right at home, I still feel like an exile
by Manhattan Tribe Fan on Jun 26, 2009 2:19 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
All we have to do is dangle a little cash in front of him.
Remember, Colletti’s owners are even dumber.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
by Jay on Jun 26, 2009 2:34 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I actually think Colletti will be able to resist trading Kershaw as well. What I really want to know is why we haven’t ripped off the Astros yet
by Roger Dorn on Jun 26, 2009 3:02 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Maybe their prospects suck.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
by Jay on Jun 26, 2009 5:04 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Also some help from minors?
I’d say 8-1 or so that they’d be contenders. Most of our hopes once again derive from the proposition that the team cannot once again “underperform.” Though this year recalibrates what is underperformance as opposed to what is just plain expected performance.
by odradek on Jun 26, 2009 12:29 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I could turn it around, too: After seeing 2008 and 2009, is there a good reason not to concede 2010?
Yes, there’s good reason. Each year represents a chance to win a championship, and that possibility better be pretty far off the table before you give up on one of those opportunities. The heavy burden should always be on the choice to punt a season from the beginning.
And in this case, it’s not even close.
On the other hand, there is an offer out there that would pull Cliff from us. At some point the talent return could be too much.
by dgcambridge on Jun 25, 2009 6:34 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think the offense will be fine, but the starting pitching picture has to get a lot better between now and the end of the season. Carmona has to figure things out, Jake Westbrook and Aaron Laffey have to get back in the rotation and having success. I’m not planning on much from Anthony Reyes and Scott Lewis given their injury histories.
by Ryan on Jun 25, 2009 6:34 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, having three more years of control over Reyes doesn’t seem like much of an asset as it might have been.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
by Jay on Jun 25, 2009 7:48 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
My biggest reason is that we should see what a new manager can do with the same talent that was provided Eric Wedge. We don’t know if this team is capable of much more as it stands, with fewer injuries. Remember, I am specifically answering the question about why shouldn’t we concede 2010.
by elsandito on Jun 25, 2009 7:23 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Central*
and I just saw that typo as it published
by world dictator on Jun 25, 2009 8:49 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Al Centeral, 2B, Atlanta’s 23rd round pick out of Rice.
You know Selig? Ombudsman.
by rolub on Jun 25, 2009 11:18 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Snap commentary: “He’s a baseball player.”
by fleerdon on Jun 26, 2009 10:27 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
GIving this a second thought, the one good thing about the report is that with Bavasi no longer running the Mariners, the Dodgers are probably now our best bet for a ridiculous sucker trade. That alone makes them the leading candidate to acquire Cliff Lee, or in fact any of our players that they want. If we deal with the Dodgers, they’re going to overpay.
This is not to advocate trading Cliff generally or specfically, not at all. It’s more just to say, the Dodgers put in play the possibility of Cliff Lee trade that we would actually like, just for pure ridiculous lavishness.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
by Jay on Jun 25, 2009 7:55 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I’m not against trading Cliff if the numbers work. I mean it: “Pay up or shut up.” “Pay up” would be totally acceptable.
The thing I keep coming back to: If everybody agrees that major leaguer-for-prospect deals are Shapiro’s calling card, don’t you want to know what he could work with the gloves off? Just a little?
by fleerdon on Jun 25, 2009 7:58 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Kershaw, Kemp and Loney will do.
FE WEE
by westbrook on Jun 25, 2009 8:21 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Too much money. We must dig a little deeper. Find the next Kemp, the next Kershaw, the next Loney.
They’re all out there.
by jhon on Jun 25, 2009 8:24 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Throw in Broxton and I’ll consider it.
You know Selig? Ombudsman.
by rolub on Jun 25, 2009 11:20 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
But the dodger don’t have the pitching prospect we’d require in return. And I doubt they’d trade Kershaw since that’d be a lateral move at best.
by world dictator on Jun 25, 2009 8:51 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
not short-term it wouldn’t be.
FE WEE
by westbrook on Jun 25, 2009 8:55 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I might agree with you (on the lateral move) if I hadn’t seen what C.C. did to the National League last year.
Cliff Lee … in Dodger Stadium … in the NL West … would absolutely kill everyone.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
by Jay on Jun 25, 2009 9:54 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
2 no-hitters every three weeks.
FE WEE
by westbrook on Jun 25, 2009 11:54 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
It would be like swimming in one of those artificial wave pools, except instead of a wave, Cliff would kill you.
by fleerdon on Jun 26, 2009 10:23 AM EDT up reply actions 2 recs
wow, i remember those comercials. man, that’s going back.
by Brick. on Jun 26, 2009 10:39 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
He would be killing any and all bears that got past Kerry Wood. With his bare hands.
by woodsmeister on Jun 26, 2009 12:00 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Let's Go Tribe!
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.
