Email
PrintComments
It looks like the speculation has turned into concrete talks. Of course, the article points out nothing is close but still. I’m glad to see that some semi serious conversation has occurred.
Also, does this bother anyone else:
Davis is regarded within the industry as being one notch below the likes of elite prospects like Tommy Hanson and Clay Buchholz. But the disparity is not great. Davis, 23, runs his fastball up to 95 miles per hour and would instantly become the best young starting pitcher in the Cleveland organization.
…
The Rays would probably be more comfortable moving shortstop Reid Brignac than Davis, due in large part to the middle infield depth they currently have in the majors (Jason Bartlett, Ben Zobrist and the injured Akinori Iwamura).
wow..Reid Brignac is NOT Wade Davis. That’s like asking for Roy Halladay and being offered Joe Inglett
"sometimes the internet is hard for me." - ClemsonGirl
I don’t necessarily read that as if the Rays would prefer to trade Brignac for Lee.; they do later mention that the Rays have interest in Betancourt, so something could be in the works there.
You are reading my signature.
The context of the full article makes it pretty clear that Morosi is saying the Rays would prefer to trade Brignac instead of Lee. The discussion of relievers is mentioned in passing after the Lee discussion, and not limited to the Indians.
"sometimes the internet is hard for me." - ClemsonGirl
by world dictator on Jul 23, 2009 10:02 AM EDT up reply actions
How can TBR trade Lee when they don’t even have him yet?
by JulioBernazard on Jul 23, 2009 10:24 AM EDT up reply actions
DO NOT QUESTION ANDREW FRIEDMAN…HE WILL EAT YOUR SOUL
"sometimes the internet is hard for me." - ClemsonGirl
by world dictator on Jul 23, 2009 10:26 AM EDT up reply actions
I think WD meant that the Rays would prefer to trade Brignac instead of Davis, but I don’t see how the Rays get Lee without giving up Davis (and maybe Brignac also, though we hopefully are set in the MI, unless we could shift Brignac to say, 3B, though that would block Chisenhall’s arrival, though that likely wouldn’t be until late 2010 at the absolute earliest, and more likely, 2011).
The "cream of the crop" doesn't always rise to the top.
Did you not read the part that said Brignac hit .271 when he was called up earlier this year? Guy’s clearly the real deal.
by cleveland teamer on Jul 23, 2009 10:48 AM EDT up reply actions
Wow … that’s Ben Francisco callup territory.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
by Jay on Jul 23, 2009 11:21 AM EDT up reply actions 2 recs
Of course they’d rather trade Brignac and rather keep Wade. What they apparently fail to realize is they’re going to have to give something up especially since the Indians don’t really have to trade Lee.
Who needs affection when you can have blind hatred?
by ClemsonGirl on Jul 23, 2009 10:31 AM EDT up reply actions
Maybe we could trade Brown for Davis?
"sometimes the internet is hard for me." - ClemsonGirl
by world dictator on Jul 23, 2009 10:32 AM EDT up reply actions
Do it!
Who needs affection when you can have blind hatred?
by ClemsonGirl on Jul 23, 2009 10:33 AM EDT up reply actions
Yes, possibly at least one.
Texas intrigues me as a potential trading partner (Feliz – though I’m not sure about his command, Holland – seems solid, though maybe not “elite”, Perez – who BA recently said that he is a prospect that is “not worth trading” – I’d certainly try to get him if possible, Kiker – he looks very promising; I almost might prefer him to Feliz or Holland, since his command seems better than Feliz’s and he seems to have a higher ceiling than Holland in my opinion, Main – almost forgot him; I’m not sure how he’s doing, Beavan – was projected to be a draft pick of ours a few years; has been solid, though maybe not “elite”) I know they are having financial issues, but if I could get an additional premium pitching prospect or two for paying Lee’s salary next year, I’d do it, since I have serious doubts about us competing in 2010, and especially without Lee, Martinez, or both (I have doubts EVEN if we keep both for the start of 2010).
Just my 2 cents.
The "cream of the crop" doesn't always rise to the top.
I meant to say that there would have to be AT LEAST ONE (I think 2 or three, with two being top pitching prospects and the third being a very good pitching prospect being what I would try to get for Lee – see the info. about Texas’ pitching prospects above).
The "cream of the crop" doesn't always rise to the top.
No, that’s not quite it. It’s, by the time you’ve heard about a specific deal, Shapiro is negotiating a different one.
by fleerdon on Jul 23, 2009 10:18 AM EDT up reply actions
You have to hold out for Davis. Period.
And you know what, make them give us Brignac too.
And two lesser prospects.
Absolutely.
Or, gimme Davis, Brignac and Moore.
I’d even consider McGee, although he’s still in post-surgery recovery.
by FallsTribeFan on Jul 23, 2009 10:05 AM EDT up reply actions
that’s exactly what I had in mind. I’d even pay their salaries the rest of the season or atleast a large chunk of it. Hellickson intrigues me, because he’s somewhat undersized, his fastball is a little flat, but the results have been great. Worst case scenario he’ll turn into a flamethrowing reliever.
BA rated him as having the best control in the Rays system, we could use some guys that throw strikes
he does have very good command. He can spot a low to mid-90’s fastball and he supposedly has a pretty good changeup as well. His breaking ball is lacking a bit and there are some concerns about him being too hittable because he throws so many strikes.
I’d take him. Some people wanted us to draft Mike Leake last month (I was one of them) and Hellickson is basically the same guy but with better velocity and obviously more experience. He reminds a little bit of Oswalt in terms of his size and stuff.
Davis also has a sick nasty curve
"sometimes the internet is hard for me." - ClemsonGirl
by world dictator on Jul 23, 2009 11:21 AM EDT up reply actions
I think I read earlier that its plus fastball and 11-5 curve. He’s working on a cut fastball that is avg right now…and his change is avg too.
by MooneysRebellion on Jul 23, 2009 11:33 AM EDT up reply actions
Pretty much. Though I wonder why we’d want Brignac. Doesn’t seem that great to me. I’ve heard mixed reviews about his defense and ability to stick at SS. (He’s 6’3)
"sometimes the internet is hard for me." - ClemsonGirl
by world dictator on Jul 23, 2009 10:03 AM EDT up reply actions
I think they’d move him. 3B maybe. 2B maybe.
Push Valbuena into a cost-effective UT?
by FallsTribeFan on Jul 23, 2009 10:05 AM EDT up reply actions
eh…thats all rumors are until a trade occurs. And to be fair I partly wanted to post a WTF at the Brignac instead of Davis comment.
"sometimes the internet is hard for me." - ClemsonGirl
by world dictator on Jul 23, 2009 10:10 AM EDT up reply actions
Honestly? I love this time of year.
That said, I wish the Indians weren’t on the “saying goodbye to their 2 best players” end of the rumors for another year.
by FallsTribeFan on Jul 23, 2009 10:12 AM EDT up reply actions
Look at it this way … after these two, there really aren’t any more that we’d consider trading for at least a couple of years.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
You say that now, but what about when we blow up next season and someone decides to ransack their entire system for a rejuvenated Fausto, Grady and Jhonny?
I'm not from round 'ere...
by RasenFridge on Jul 23, 2009 11:25 AM EDT up reply actions
Won’t happen, except maybe for Jhonny. Fausto and Grady are under contract for too long and too cheap.
We wouldn’t even be considering Victor and Cliff if they weren’t down to their last 1.5 seasons.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
The logic’s good.
But then again, PECOTA reckoned we’d be clear by now…
I'm not from round 'ere...
by RasenFridge on Jul 23, 2009 11:35 AM EDT up reply actions
Escobar is the far better defensive player
"sometimes the internet is hard for me." - ClemsonGirl
by world dictator on Jul 23, 2009 10:18 AM EDT up reply actions
Brewers don’t really have the upper level pitching help right?
I mean their top pitching prospect likes the ganja!
by FallsTribeFan on Jul 23, 2009 10:19 AM EDT up reply actions
Probably there’d be a third team involved.
Yeah. “There’d.”
by fleerdon on Jul 23, 2009 10:21 AM EDT up reply actions
Sure, I suppose so.
Hypothetically, why would we even care about shortstops?
by FallsTribeFan on Jul 23, 2009 10:24 AM EDT up reply actions
He’s never played 3B from what I’ve seen. And scouts are starting to come around about his ability to stick at SS. But seriously guys, we’re not trading for Brignac or any other SS (at least as a center piece)
"sometimes the internet is hard for me." - ClemsonGirl
by world dictator on Jul 23, 2009 10:28 AM EDT up reply actions
No and I don’t think we should. I honestly just didn’t know who to like better between Reid and Alcides.
Steel Nick
Escobar is 14th on BA’s top 25 prospect list…Brignac is mysteriously absent. And not in the next 25 either.Typo right? RIGHT?
"sometimes the internet is hard for me." - ClemsonGirl
by world dictator on Jul 23, 2009 10:31 AM EDT up reply actions
I’d like Gallardo (the best of the four from the group that included him, Phil Hughes, Homer Bailey, and Adam Miller), but I doubt the Brewers would give him up, though if they really want Lee, I’d probably ask for him, since Jeremy Jeffress (I think that’s his name – something like that) is still a distance away, has command issues, and, if I remember correctly (please correct me if I’m wrong) had some issue with a banned substance just recently (could be wrong on that, but I thought I just read that within the last 1-2 weeks).
Obviously, Gallardo is more of a sure thing, and I’m not sure they have a pitching prospect in their system that even comes close to Gallardo’s ceiling and is reasonably close to the Majors.
Of course, the Brewers want to improve their ballclub for a postseason run – losing Gallardo won’t help them do that, so essentially, a third team would have to be involved or there will be no Lee to MIlwaukee deal – I’m pretty sure of that.
The "cream of the crop" doesn't always rise to the top.
I think things are going to get pretty heated around here. Maybe an Official Cliff Lee thread is in order, and I would nominate this one (can we rec fanshots to the top?).
Steel Nick
Probably a good idea … this is gonna go on for a while.
by FallsTribeFan on Jul 23, 2009 10:19 AM EDT up reply actions
Nick, you’re going to need a pre-emptive intervention, aren’t you? A printervention?
by fleerdon on Jul 23, 2009 10:20 AM EDT up reply actions
this is pretty much my job right now. That and being awesome.
"sometimes the internet is hard for me." - ClemsonGirl
by world dictator on Jul 23, 2009 10:25 AM EDT up reply actions
wait for it….
"sometimes the internet is hard for me." - ClemsonGirl
by world dictator on Jul 23, 2009 10:28 AM EDT up reply actions
and I hope your not lactose intolerant because the next word is…DARY
"sometimes the internet is hard for me." - ClemsonGirl
by world dictator on Jul 23, 2009 10:29 AM EDT up reply actions
Good set up by my wing man
"sometimes the internet is hard for me." - ClemsonGirl
by world dictator on Jul 23, 2009 10:33 AM EDT up reply actions
Great episode.
Who needs affection when you can have blind hatred?
by ClemsonGirl on Jul 23, 2009 10:38 AM EDT up reply actions
You’ll be happy to know that my nose isn’t bleeding right now
"sometimes the internet is hard for me." - ClemsonGirl
by world dictator on Jul 23, 2009 10:40 AM EDT up reply actions
I won’t lie. I celebrated Happy NOT a Father’s day
"sometimes the internet is hard for me." - ClemsonGirl
by world dictator on Jul 23, 2009 11:30 AM EDT up reply actions
how about an official Office thread too, so I don’t get all excited when there’s 160 new posts about Karen in a Heyman/Lee thread?
You are reading my signature.
a-men brother.
"sometimes the internet is hard for me." - ClemsonGirl
by world dictator on Jul 23, 2009 10:28 AM EDT up reply actions
Yikes
Ride on ye fearsome Horsemen of the Basketball Apocalypse. We got this.
by Turkmenbashi on Jul 23, 2009 11:13 AM EDT up reply actions
Interesting lineup … Victor DH’ing … Gimenez catching.
Sizemore cf Cabrera ss Choo rf Martinez dh Peralta 3b Garko 1b Francisco lf Carroll 2b Gimenez ca
I forgot there was an early game today, even if this doesn’t belong in Tradin’ Cliff thread.
Steel Nick
There is? Darn Now I can’t see it!
Who needs affection when you can have blind hatred?
by ClemsonGirl on Jul 23, 2009 10:33 AM EDT up reply actions
Sigh. Trade rumors in a nutshell.
“We’re interested in [your most valuable player]. We’ll talk about anybody besides [our only prospect you’d actually want]. For example, would you consider [iffy prospect you don’t have room for]?”
It’s like that episode of Friends when Phoebe says she’ll “negotiate” for one of those dude’s engagement rings and leads with, “I will give you five dollars.”
by fleerdon on Jul 23, 2009 10:39 AM EDT reply actions 1 recs
Still better than what passes for most internet trade speculation: [Player on our team] really sucks, so let’s trade him for [player on another team who doesn’t suck]. BenFran for Clay Buckholds. READ THIS THIO EPSTEEN
by FredOx on Jul 23, 2009 10:47 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
No, no, you have to package up the mediocrities.
Start with Trevor Crowe, whom they wanted a few years ago.
Now add in Beau Mills, whose Dad works for the Red Sox.
Josh Barfield, obviously.
Okay … now we get Buchholz.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
by Jay on Jul 23, 2009 11:27 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Lets get Bowden too by tossing in Marte and Drennen.
by FallsTribeFan on Jul 23, 2009 11:32 AM EDT up reply actions
Potential 2010 Rotation
(In no particular order)
Carmona
Westbrook
Davis
Buchholz
Huff
Rondon
Laffey
Lewis
"sometimes the internet is hard for me." - ClemsonGirl
by world dictator on Jul 23, 2009 10:45 AM EDT reply actions
where do you get Buchholz from? I assume in Victor trade, but it seems pretty clear that the Red Sox are very reluctant to trade Buchholz and then there’s the question if we should trade Martinez.
…POTENTIAL
And reluctant to trade means nothing at this time of the year. Just like we’re reluctant to trade Lee and Martinez. There’s no reason to believe that any of the three players or Davis will get traded at all. It’s all speculation. Do we really need to have a debate about discussion potential moves?
"sometimes the internet is hard for me." - ClemsonGirl
by world dictator on Jul 23, 2009 11:24 AM EDT up reply actions
Also, this wasn’t intended to be rude. I’m just saying…
"sometimes the internet is hard for me." - ClemsonGirl
by world dictator on Jul 23, 2009 11:28 AM EDT up reply actions
Yeah from a potential Martinez deal. Which Gammons says this morning isn’t dead. Don’t know if it’d include Buchholz though.
"sometimes the internet is hard for me." - ClemsonGirl
by world dictator on Jul 23, 2009 11:47 AM EDT up reply actions
just read that Gammons report. Alot of contradicting reports lately about Boston and Martinez. We’ll see what happens I guess.
with this much contradiction it usually means there’s something going on. Not a trade per se but definitely interest.
"sometimes the internet is hard for me." - ClemsonGirl
by world dictator on Jul 23, 2009 11:51 AM EDT up reply actions
I do not want Laffey in AAA to start another season.
Proud Fan of the Worst Baseball Team I've Ever Seen
I think if this scenario miraculously happened, it would be Davis starting in the minors. Or (gulp) the bullpen, knowing us.
Steel Nick
I don’t think Shap would put the centerpiece of his Lee deal in the bullpen.
"sometimes the internet is hard for me." - ClemsonGirl
by world dictator on Jul 23, 2009 12:54 PM EDT up reply actions
Agreed. I also don’t want him in the bullpen.
"sometimes the internet is hard for me." - ClemsonGirl
by world dictator on Jul 23, 2009 12:52 PM EDT up reply actions
To the DRaysBays folks:
This is what a thread looks like when you don’t fill it up with:
1. Trolls
2. Bashing the trolls
3. Gay jokes
We don’t allow #s 1 and 3 here, in case you want to jump in with input.
Steel Nick
by nickjs21 on Jul 23, 2009 10:52 AM EDT reply actions 1 recs
We mercifully don’t allow #4.
by JulioBernazard on Jul 23, 2009 11:02 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
There’s one troll in particular over there who really gums up the works.
by FallsTribeFan on Jul 23, 2009 11:11 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
haha rec for the sternfan reference. only we cleveland.com veterans can truly understand. . .
by Cap'n Snegiryov on Jul 23, 2009 2:48 PM EDT up reply actions
gay jokes are certainly preferable to the morose and depressive gallows humor we have been forced to around here. Oh, I wish only for some light and witty gay jokes….sigh.
You’ll have to go elsewhere.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
by Jay on Jul 23, 2009 5:40 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
what do you have against happiness?
"sometimes the internet is hard for me." - ClemsonGirl
by world dictator on Jul 23, 2009 8:56 PM EDT up reply actions
It’s off-topic.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
by Jay on Jul 23, 2009 10:58 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
I’d disagree if this were any other team. But sadly…its the Indians.
"sometimes the internet is hard for me." - ClemsonGirl
by world dictator on Jul 23, 2009 11:05 PM EDT up reply actions
Morosi now says the Rays might bring in a third team to get the Indians the second arm. Link.
by fleerdon on Jul 23, 2009 11:00 AM EDT reply actions
Or, wait, was that in the original story? Anyway, it’s the same as before, except:
The Rays are trying to involve a third team in an attempt to satisfy Cleveland’s prospect demands, major league sources told FOXSports.com senior baseball writer Ken Rosenthal. The third club would provide a second pitcher of the Indians’ liking.
by fleerdon on Jul 23, 2009 11:01 AM EDT up reply actions
Oh my God the guys at DRays might actually be onto something. The Rays could get one of Texas’ catchers.
Steel Nick
That makes a lot of sense.
Could we somehow land Holland out of this too?
What would the Rangers get?
by FallsTribeFan on Jul 23, 2009 11:12 AM EDT up reply actions
Cliff Lee pitches every tenth day for each team.
Steel Nick
by nickjs21 on Jul 23, 2009 11:16 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
I’d rather trade them Shoppach and get a better prospect. :-)
But I like the way this is developing. So would we get Davis from the Rays plus another quality pitcher from another team? Because that would…umm be awesome
"sometimes the internet is hard for me." - ClemsonGirl
by world dictator on Jul 23, 2009 11:27 AM EDT up reply actions
I get the impression, from the article at least, that the Rays don’t want to give up Davis so they;re trying to find a third team.. I’m confused, who would the Rays be to us. And for that matter who this second team is and why’d they be’d willing to give up a top pitching prospect?
My guess is the Rays are willing to give up Davis but not another top line pitching prospect. Hence the 2nd team.
Also worth pointing out, if the Rays are looking for a third team then it proves they are serious about getting this deal done.
"sometimes the internet is hard for me." - ClemsonGirl
by world dictator on Jul 23, 2009 11:37 AM EDT up reply actions
that is also the impression I get.
Maybe it’s Davis and some lesser prospect or Brignac and pitching prospect not named Davis. Shap is probably asking for Davis and another good pitching prospect, which is what the third team would bring to the table.
Interesting stuff though. Hopefully we’ll get more info soon.
We could always use everything (except maybe catcher right now) but we definitely need pitching and pitching and pitching
Actually if we trade Vic, another quality ML bat would be nice. But only as a non centerpiece part of the deal. And still this is unlikely because we’d need someone reliable to contribute in 2010 not a “potential contributor”
"sometimes the internet is hard for me." - ClemsonGirl
by world dictator on Jul 23, 2009 11:48 AM EDT up reply actions
What I haven’t quite figured out is what this hypothetical third team gets from the hypothetical deal.
unless is Betancourt going to the third team, Lee going to the Rays
We get Davis + another pitching prospect (or two)
Rays get Lee and whomever from third party.
Third team gets Betancourt plus something from rays……?
by MooneysRebellion on Jul 23, 2009 11:47 AM EDT up reply actions
Could very well be…I was trying to piece something together in my mind. Maybe its
Lee and Betancourt to Rays along with Texas catcher (we pay for Lee thru end of year)
Texas gets Kazmir and Rays prospect
We get Davis, AA (or higher) pitcher from Texas, and another position player (or A level pitcher) from Rays
by MooneysRebellion on Jul 23, 2009 11:51 AM EDT up reply actions
just looked at that…we’d need another player or two coming our way
by MooneysRebellion on Jul 23, 2009 11:51 AM EDT up reply actions
Maybe it’s Kerry Wood going to Texas. From what I remember they were one of the candidates this offseason to land him.
Texas doesn’t have any money…so unless we pay for his salary for the end of the year and get a AAA level pitcher for him…I kind of doubt it…..TX gm is very adament not to add salary.
by MooneysRebellion on Jul 23, 2009 11:53 AM EDT up reply actions
That’s true. Frankly, I wouldn’t be a fan of trading Wood anyway, especially because it means we’d have to pay for him, but I just remembered Texas went after him pretty agressively.
I understand what you were saying…and i’m with you, I’d rather keep Wood unless TX would be willing to part with some of their extreme depth in the minors
by MooneysRebellion on Jul 23, 2009 11:56 AM EDT up reply actions
Texas can’t afford to take on Kazmir’s contract. Or crappy production this year for that matter
"sometimes the internet is hard for me." - ClemsonGirl
by world dictator on Jul 23, 2009 11:53 AM EDT up reply actions
yeah, unless the Rays offer to pick him up for the rest of the year….ain’t gunna happen
by MooneysRebellion on Jul 23, 2009 11:54 AM EDT up reply actions
Here’s an idea. The Pirates. With Wilson and Sanchez ready to leave they need infielders like whoa. Plus we all know Huntington loves tribe players.
"sometimes the internet is hard for me." - ClemsonGirl
by world dictator on Jul 23, 2009 12:03 PM EDT up reply actions
Actually the A’s might make more sense, they have a ton of pitching prospects as well and Brignac could play SS for them since Crosby has no future. How long did they sign Cabrera for?
1 year deal … and he’s very much on the block.
Think the A’s like Pennington … but if Brignac became available …
by FallsTribeFan on Jul 23, 2009 12:07 PM EDT up reply actions
So … somehow Brignac ends up with the Bucs along with … Niemann?
Indians net Davis … and .. Snell .. and?
by FallsTribeFan on Jul 23, 2009 12:06 PM EDT up reply actions
Yeah, there’s got to be more of the and at the end of this deal for it to be good….I’d love to give snell a shot, but there’s got to be somemore coming our way.
by MooneysRebellion on Jul 23, 2009 12:09 PM EDT up reply actions
Exactly …
I guess I’m just talking key components.
I’m sure there will be more pieces in play for all the teams.
by FallsTribeFan on Jul 23, 2009 12:11 PM EDT up reply actions
yeah there’d be stuff at the bottom. (Meaning lower level prospects.) Hypothetically speaking, I wonder if acquiring Snell and Davis would prompt Shap to take a Victor deal from Boston around Lars Anderson instead of Buchholz? Though of course, Snell, Davis, and Buchholz…that’s just crazy.
"sometimes the internet is hard for me." - ClemsonGirl
by world dictator on Jul 23, 2009 12:14 PM EDT up reply actions
What about Texas?
Spitballing here. There would need to be more than this.
Niemann or Kazmir and a prospect to Texas … for Salty.
Lee and Betancourt to Rays for Davis, Brignac, something.
V-Mart to Texas for Feliz, prospect.
by FallsTribeFan on Jul 23, 2009 11:49 AM EDT up reply actions
You’re adding too many players. Kazmir AND prospect to Texas for Salty, V-Mart to Texas for Feliz AND prospect.
Steel Nick
Yeah I know … was just randomly throwing stuff out.
Niemann for Salty straight up.
Problem is also money for the Rangers in this deal …
by FallsTribeFan on Jul 23, 2009 11:52 AM EDT up reply actions
Is it possible we’d want Kazmir?
The $22.5 million due after 2009 is a little steep for a reclamation project, but other than that … ?
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
his peripherals have been decreasing for the past few years from what I read. And this year he’s horrid. I wouldn’t want to take on that kind of player at all. But I’d maybe consider it if it boosted the prospects we got in return.
"sometimes the internet is hard for me." - ClemsonGirl
by world dictator on Jul 23, 2009 8:57 PM EDT up reply actions
More likely, they eat a chunk of the salary, possibly reducing him to $6 million per year. At that point, I think he’s a sensible flier.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
This is his contract according to Cot’s
# 09:$6M, 10:$8M, 11:$12M, 12:$13.5M club option ($2.5M buyout)
# $0.8M bonus if traded (for first trade only)
If the Rays ate $9 mil (4.5 in ’10 and ’11) the Indians could get him for $6 mil per in 2010 and 2011.
Not a horrible move, but i’d still be reluctant to take on that kind of salary. Though I’m surprised no one else is willing to do that deal. Like the Mets for starters. (ironic I know)
"sometimes the internet is hard for me." - ClemsonGirl
by world dictator on Jul 23, 2009 11:15 PM EDT up reply actions
Of course a benefit to Cleveland making that move would be filling enough payroll for the rays to trade for Lee.
I guess i’d have to see the package we’re getting in return for Lee in order to determine whether that’s a good move. I still think taking Kazmir off their hands has to be seen as a plus for their side and not ours. In other words, Kazmir would have to be added on top of any deal we made for Lee rather in exchange for another piece.
"sometimes the internet is hard for me." - ClemsonGirl
by world dictator on Jul 23, 2009 11:18 PM EDT up reply actions
He’s had trouble maintaining his sense of worth ever since being traded for Victor Zambrano
by APV on Jul 24, 2009 8:15 AM EDT up reply actions 3 recs
yeah, i’m with you. if TB’s hesitant to give up more than Wade for Lee, then that 3rd team would potentially be receiving something of value from us, I’d guess.
You are reading my signature.
isn’t that backwards. Lee has a lot more value than just Davis. I’d assume the Rays were giving a 3rd team something of value in order to persuade them to send something of value to us.
"sometimes the internet is hard for me." - ClemsonGirl
by world dictator on Jul 23, 2009 11:54 AM EDT up reply actions
You know…the Twins might actually fit the bill. They need an infielder, oh which the Rays have several, and probably have pitching prospects to spare. But of course they’d probably be reluctant to deal a quality pitching prospect in division.
"sometimes the internet is hard for me." - ClemsonGirl
by world dictator on Jul 23, 2009 11:46 AM EDT up reply actions
See, now I’m all a Twitter.
Trade Cliff.
by Gradyforpresident on Jul 23, 2009 2:59 PM EDT up reply actions
Blue Jays feeling teams turning to the Indians?
Bob Elliott of the Toronto Sun says the Jays could potentially expand a Halladay trade to include Marco Scutaro, Jason Frasor, Scott Downs or Brian Tallet, depending on their trading partner’s needs.
One scout tells Elliott that some surprise teams are calling the Jays about Halladay.
Nuts to these trades. Imagine 2010 without Lee or Victor. Does that sound like fun to anybody?
No, not you. Your helmet!
by PatBordersHelmet on Jul 23, 2009 11:56 AM EDT reply actions
That’s my point. Not contending is no fun.
No, not you. Your helmet!
by PatBordersHelmet on Jul 23, 2009 11:57 AM EDT up reply actions
I guarantees a solid Cy Young caliber starter and a proven bat. These trades guarantee nothing. You guys are wishing for another season of trades next year.
No, not you. Your helmet!
by PatBordersHelmet on Jul 23, 2009 12:01 PM EDT up reply actions
Actually there’s not much left to trade.
I’d rather trade guys at their peak value, especially if there’s little chance of re-signing them.
If the team can get a Davis and a Feliz or Holland-type to pair with Rondon, Westbrook, Carmona and the lefties … I think I’d take my chances.
by FallsTribeFan on Jul 23, 2009 12:03 PM EDT up reply actions
Because a team with Victor and Lee on it is sure to contend.
Steel Nick
by nickjs21 on Jul 23, 2009 12:00 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
yes
"sometimes the internet is hard for me." - ClemsonGirl
by world dictator on Jul 23, 2009 12:01 PM EDT up reply actions
Obviously I’m in the wrong thread. i just can wish for bad baseball next year.
No, not you. Your helmet!
by PatBordersHelmet on Jul 23, 2009 12:03 PM EDT up reply actions
No, you just showed up on this thread and said something that didn’t make much sense. We have Victor and Lee playing very well this year and we aren’t contending. Why would keeping them give us a promise of contention next year?
If your argument was that we should keep those two and try to reload some other way, it might have been beneficial to say that up front.
Yeah, i think the people who argue we can’t contend next year if we trade Lee and Vic are grossly overstating their case. I think there are arguments to be made but its not as clear cut as they assert.
"sometimes the internet is hard for me." - ClemsonGirl
by world dictator on Jul 23, 2009 12:11 PM EDT up reply actions
I don’t know, we’re trading two of the three best players from a terrible team. If we do that, I can’t see any way we would contend next year even with a haul of prospects. Where would we get major league players from?
I’m not against trading Lee or Victor, but I do think it would mean giving up on next season.
Right. The Mariners were awful last year and they’re contending now. It’s not like we’re the Royals or anything. They have NO hope for the future and a GM that keeps making bad trades. I know their record is slightly better now but that will change; their run differential is much worse than ours.
by Buckeye Brad on Jul 23, 2009 2:28 PM EDT up reply actions
First of all, who says we need to contend next year? We are not doing it with this team as constructed. So either trading Victor and Lee means we still stuck next year, which we already likely will (meaning nothing changes except a more promising future), or we trade Lee and Vic and those pieces allow us to contend next year.
People talk about the prospects as if Davis, Feliz, Buchholz, Brignac are three years away. They aren’t. They’re next year.
Steel Nick
Brignac is one year away from OPSing .645
Proud Fan of the Worst Baseball Team I've Ever Seen
by westbrook on Jul 23, 2009 12:43 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
I agree with your final point.
There may be a trade out there where we lose Cliff and it makes us better for next year. I just don’t think it’s likely. None of the scenarios here make us better in 2010.
by dgcambridge on Jul 23, 2009 12:45 PM EDT up reply actions
Yes, I don’t think 2010 is a contending year no matter what we do. So there’s the status quo or there’s some damn promising players for 2011 to go with the damn promising players we already have for 2011.
Victor and Lee aren’t doing anything for this team next year, and they won’t be here in 2011.
Steel Nick
by nickjs21 on Jul 23, 2009 12:53 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
OK. Count me as one of those who thinks we can contend next year.
You have to admit that when you look at 2007, and then consider that the only major loss from then until now was CC (and Blake?), and that we had a relatively young core, it’s pretty amazing that we’re debating whether 2010 is a total bust “no matter what we do.” Amazing.
I’d almost rather go into next year thinking it’s a wash & we’ll just watch some young guys develop, then I can be pleasantly surprised when we do well instead of completely depressed when we do not.
*sigh*
I didn’t say that we needed to contend next year. I was responding to WD’s point, which was that “the people who argue we can’t contend next year if we trade Lee and Vic are grossly overstating their case.”
I don’t believe it’s overstating the case to say that, if we trade Lee and Vic, we are not going to contend. We probably won’t contend anyway, of course, and like I said, I’m not against trading Lee.
I didn’t say that we needed to contend next year. I was responding to WD’s point, which was that "the people who argue we can’t contend next year if we trade Lee and Vic are grossly overstating their case."
I don’t believe it’s overstating the case to say that, if we trade Lee and Vic, we are not going to contend. We probably won’t contend anyway, of course, and like I said, I’m not against trading Lee.
Lee and Vic are good players is not an argument for why we can’t contend without them. For all of the lengthy debates we’ve had about this subject the “can’t compete without them” side has absolutely no arguments.
At this point its just a silly assertion.
"sometimes the internet is hard for me." - ClemsonGirl
by world dictator on Jul 23, 2009 2:09 PM EDT up reply actions
It doesn’t seem silly to me. We can’t even compete WITH them, so how will we compete without them? That’s the argument.
For us to compete, we would need the players we get back for Cliff and Victor to immediately be better than Cliff and Victor. Do any of the packages you’ve seen on this page — even the dream ones — have a prayer of contributing as much as Cliff and Victor next year?
And that’s just to break even. To compete next year, we need the guys we get back to be as good as Cliff and Victor and we also need to improve enough in other areas to make up for the fact that the current team sucks. That just seems incredibly far-fetched to me.
On a side note, it’s funny that WD disagreed with me on the basis that we could compete without those two, and Nick disagreed with me on the basis that we couldn’t compete no matter what.
this isn’t a terrible team
"sometimes the internet is hard for me." - ClemsonGirl
by world dictator on Jul 23, 2009 12:53 PM EDT up reply actions
Primarily in the bullpen and rotation.
"sometimes the internet is hard for me." - ClemsonGirl
by world dictator on Jul 23, 2009 12:54 PM EDT up reply actions
I dunno. Let’s see how we finish. If we continue to tank and lose 100 games I’d say – now here’s a reach – we’re a terrible team. I can’t remember the last time a team went from losing 100 games to contention the following year. Can you?
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
Not quite 100, but the 2005 Tigers did lose 91…
by Logodaedalus on Jul 24, 2009 2:31 PM EDT up reply actions
Let me get out my rabbit axe and split that hare. It still ain’t a hunnert.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
Well, for what it’s worth, both those teams not only contended, but made it to the playoffs (and won pennants). So if they weren’t as bad as losing 100, they were better than merely “contending”.
by Logodaedalus on Jul 24, 2009 6:35 PM EDT up reply actions
Thinking of this another way …
Perhaps the Rays also try to facilitate Victor going somewhere in the 3-way deal, in order to net the Indians that other big arm.
This helps the Rays by keeping Vic away from the Sox.
I doubt it. I think teams are generally too busy to make defensive moves to “prospect block” other teams
"sometimes the internet is hard for me." - ClemsonGirl
by world dictator on Jul 23, 2009 12:15 PM EDT up reply actions
It’s not really a block per se.
But, perhaps, like with a team like Texas … you could push Vic there … and make everyone happy.
by FallsTribeFan on Jul 23, 2009 12:17 PM EDT up reply actions
Oh you mean as part of a Lee-Davis swap. Gotcha. That’s a neat idea. Probably not likely but neat nonetheless.
…by chance that does happen I think we have to label the trade as the FU Boston trade from here on out
"sometimes the internet is hard for me." - ClemsonGirl
by world dictator on Jul 23, 2009 12:19 PM EDT up reply actions
or a 1B.
The braves off the top of my head
"sometimes the internet is hard for me." - ClemsonGirl
by world dictator on Jul 23, 2009 12:16 PM EDT up reply actions
The Braves sure don’t need a catcher, but Vic would definitely be an upgrade for them at 1b.
"Actual versatility is a good thing. Imagined versatility is a bad thing."
Jay Levin
by woodsmeister on Jul 23, 2009 12:21 PM EDT up reply actions
If the Rays don’t want to include Davis, I don’t see how I like this deal as a way of being “blown away”
Proud Fan of the Worst Baseball Team I've Ever Seen
It sounds to me like Shapiro is asking for 2 arms … Rays are countering with Davis and Brignac.
So now, Rays are trying to find 3rd team to give Shapiro the second arm he wants.
by FallsTribeFan on Jul 23, 2009 12:18 PM EDT up reply actions
bingo
"sometimes the internet is hard for me." - ClemsonGirl
by world dictator on Jul 23, 2009 12:19 PM EDT up reply actions
What has happened to LGT? I leave for two weeks and you guys are convinced that Lee and Victor are (likely) to get traded.
Not happening. I’ll make an avatar bet with anyone about this.
Both will be gone.
Case of the beet bandit. Missing beets from all over the farm, no footprints. Inside job. Mose in socks. Boom. Case closed. -Dwight Schrute
I’m asking him if the bet is that BOTH will be traded or ANY ONE of them will be traded. Because I’ll absolutely take the latter bet.
Steel Nick
Both will still be here on August 1st. If I lose I will accept any avatar you assign me, if you lose you have to the one I give you (can’t be NSFW, obviously).
Ok. I’m not supremely confidant that both are gone but since I just switched avatars, I’m not married.
Deal.
I’ll start taking suggestions for his new avatar, everyone.
Steel Nick
Question:
If you say both will be here does that mean if only one is traded then this bet is a push?
Case of the beet bandit. Missing beets from all over the farm, no footprints. Inside job. Mose in socks. Boom. Case closed. -Dwight Schrute
I wish I would have taken this bet.
Trade Cliff.
by Gradyforpresident on Jul 23, 2009 3:06 PM EDT up reply actions
if we trade Cliff and V-Mart do we make a run at first overall pick? Is there another Strasburg-type guy coming out next year?
Strasburg.
Case of the beet bandit. Missing beets from all over the farm, no footprints. Inside job. Mose in socks. Boom. Case closed. -Dwight Schrute
But you would draft him, wouldn’t you?
"be where you are when you're there"
by BLAZER_FAN_199 on Jul 23, 2009 1:13 PM EDT up reply actions
I really don’t think it’s going to matter. I don’t think we’re making a run at #1, and I expect the Nationals to sign Strasburg and draft him.
Steel Nick
Ok, if you’re the Nat’s and he didn’t sign with you after being drafted this year – are you seriously going to spend your top pick on him two years running?
I just wanted to believe.
Brought this up a while ago. Realistically, nobody’s catching the Nats, including the Padres, and it’s doubtful anybody’s catching the Padres, either, unless it’s the Royals, who themselves are doing everything in their power to oust us from the cellar. Smart money is on us finishing fourth- to seventh-last overall.
by fleerdon on Jul 23, 2009 1:26 PM EDT up reply actions
Really? If we trade Cliffy and Carmona doesn’t come back? Not to mention Pavano’s going someplace. Are we going to win more games with Sowers continuing to get more starts as our #3 starter? Really??
I just wanted to believe.
The question isn’t whether we’ll win fewer, but ENOUGH fewer to catch the Padres. Keep in mind that some of our “competition” are also going to be deadline sellers. I’m not ruling out a second-worst-record, I just don’t think it’s especially likely. But hey, number 2 overall pick — bring it on.
by fleerdon on Jul 23, 2009 4:30 PM EDT up reply actions
I wouldn’t mind Brignac (along with Davis or NIemann+Hellickson) if it meant JP moving. I’m becoming apprehensive about the money situation; I’d really like to see some stuff come off the books.
I’m ready for an overhaul. I think I could stomach Cliff, Vic and JP leaving town. It’d be surreal but I think it might be the right thing.
I really must be out of it...
…since when have we even thought about trading Vic????
"be where you are when you're there"
were you ever really in it?
You are reading my signature.
by rolub on Jul 23, 2009 1:18 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
sadly...
I believe so. the last month has been fuzzy. I’m as passionate as the next guy but seeing your team just seemingly fall apart, over a 162 game season is tough. at least with the browns, its 16 weeks, and thats that.
"be where you are when you're there"
by BLAZER_FAN_199 on Jul 23, 2009 1:24 PM EDT up reply actions
Please stop using the subject line.
Case of the beet bandit. Missing beets from all over the farm, no footprints. Inside job. Mose in socks. Boom. Case closed. -Dwight Schrute
no
"be where you are when you're there"
by BLAZER_FAN_199 on Jul 23, 2009 3:14 PM EDT up reply actions
Yes.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
by Jay on Jul 23, 2009 5:45 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
How evenly matched do people think Wade Davis and Clay Buccholz are? Davis is a year and a month younger… is the consensus that Buccholz might be I don’t know slightly, like 5% better at this point?
Looking at their numbers, I’d forgotten how long the Sox had held Buchholz down despite his clearly being ready.
I don’t know. I still had the impression Davis was better. Doesn’t he have better stuff?
If Victor is traded for the great Boston Hype Machine, it’s not impossible that I would cry.
And I also don’t agree with the widespread assumption that he’s leaving after 2010. Am I the only one here who thinks that (a) Martinez would sign an affordable deal, maybe as soon as the offseason, and that (b) he probably will be an effective hitter well into his 30s if he’s moved to first full-time?
Though I look right at home, I still feel like an exile
by Manhattan Tribe Fan on Jul 23, 2009 1:47 PM EDT reply actions
I think his value is greatly diminished at 1B. He’d simply be an overpriced, league-average, first baseman.
Case of the beet bandit. Missing beets from all over the farm, no footprints. Inside job. Mose in socks. Boom. Case closed. -Dwight Schrute
If you are Martinez’s agent you are going for a contract that pays you as a top of the line catcher, not a middle level first baseman.
Case of the beet bandit. Missing beets from all over the farm, no footprints. Inside job. Mose in socks. Boom. Case closed. -Dwight Schrute
I think you missed assumption (a).
Though I look right at home, I still feel like an exile
by Manhattan Tribe Fan on Jul 23, 2009 2:06 PM EDT up reply actions
At this point I question whether any player will sign an affordable deal? Why shouldn’t I?
Case of the beet bandit. Missing beets from all over the farm, no footprints. Inside job. Mose in socks. Boom. Case closed. -Dwight Schrute
You shouldn’t. I’m taking the less probable position,based on decades of MLB player movement. But presumably Shapiro has at least spoken to Martinez and his agent, and has a better foundation for a belief one way or the other.
Though I look right at home, I still feel like an exile
by Manhattan Tribe Fan on Jul 23, 2009 2:16 PM EDT up reply actions
Don’t get me wrong I like Victor but I’m worried about locking up another bigger contract and it not coming through.
Case of the beet bandit. Missing beets from all over the farm, no footprints. Inside job. Mose in socks. Boom. Case closed. -Dwight Schrute
I wouldn’t accuse anyone of not liking Victor. Except maybe Chuck.
Though I look right at home, I still feel like an exile
by Manhattan Tribe Fan on Jul 23, 2009 2:21 PM EDT up reply actions
I’d assume his numbers increase, as they do with most converted catchers. With that increase offset by age, I honestly believe he can continue to be what he is now until age 35 and maybe a little beyond—a .300/.375/.475 hitter. He’s also a good defensive first baseman.
Though I look right at home, I still feel like an exile
by Manhattan Tribe Fan on Jul 23, 2009 2:05 PM EDT up reply actions
He’d simply be an overpriced, league-average, first baseman.
I also don’t really get this. He’s been a middle-of-the-order hitter for a contending team. Who gives a rat’s behind what his positional value is? In case you haven’t noticed, the Indians haven’t developed a whole lot of Jim Thomes lately. Instead, we have players with great positional value, Choo, and a bunch of crappy fill-ins at the power positions.
Though I look right at home, I still feel like an exile
by Manhattan Tribe Fan on Jul 23, 2009 2:08 PM EDT up reply actions
I’m simply stating that Victor’s value beyond the Indians isn’t exactly an known-quantity. What is a fair market value on Martinez? We’re not really in the position where we can overspend on Martinez to resign him.
Case of the beet bandit. Missing beets from all over the farm, no footprints. Inside job. Mose in socks. Boom. Case closed. -Dwight Schrute
Yes, I think Vic is the most likely player on the team to take below market value to remain with the club
Victor is one person where, honestly, I don’t really give a crap what people think about his propensity to decline as a hitter. I want him on this team — as long as possible. I’m tired of hearing people rationalize trading him like he’s some faceless asset. Like it or not, a lot of baseball and sports in general is about emotion, and Vic is the heart and soul of this team. People who want to trade victor based solely on economic considerations have no soul.
Ride on ye fearsome Horsemen of the Basketball Apocalypse. We got this.
by Turkmenbashi on Jul 23, 2009 3:58 PM EDT up reply actions
We could have probably made the same argument about Thome, and I don’t recall that having worked out too well for us.
Victor is different
Ride on ye fearsome Horsemen of the Basketball Apocalypse. We got this.
by Turkmenbashi on Jul 23, 2009 4:38 PM EDT up reply actions
Castrovince covers the rumors, and pretty rationally too.
Heyman adds this tweet (not that I really trust him.)
rival tampa bay #rays join red sox in pursuit of star catcher victor martinez, sources say
That even tops the epic Grady to Oakland deal.
by Buckeye Brad on Jul 23, 2009 3:19 PM EDT up reply actions
some Jayson Stark tidbits about Lee:
- Acquiring Cliff Lee would take a “four-for-one, Halladay-esque Package.”
- The Dodgers, Angels, Phillies, Rays and Brewers are scouting Lee.
- Both the Blue Jays and Indians want top young arms for their aces, but the Indians aren’t demanding big-league ready prospects, as long as they get a high-upside group.
Which, as is typical for this time of the year, contradicts everything else.
by FallsTribeFan on Jul 23, 2009 4:09 PM EDT up reply actions
yeah, especially the part about the big league ready prospects, which seems would be exactly what Shapiro is looking for.
Haven’t seen the Angels mentioned before though.
The Angels are notoriously reticent to give up prospects.
"Actual versatility is a good thing. Imagined versatility is a bad thing."
Jay Levin
by woodsmeister on Jul 23, 2009 4:41 PM EDT up reply actions
You’re right about that. They also mishandle alot of their prospects (Brandon Wood says hello). They also don’t really have alot of pitching prospects aside from Jordan Walden.
I’d trade for him actually, if the Angels would lower their asking price. Sure he’ll strike out alot, but he’s able to play short and 3rd fairly well and he’ll hit for power. I’m surprised no team has been able to pry him away yet, but that further proves the theory that the Angels rarely trade their prospects.
Notice the “sources say” in there, WD… I really think this is the norm.
by Logodaedalus on Jul 23, 2009 7:30 PM EDT up reply actions
one reporter doesn;t prove the norm. Nor does it prove that its the prerequisite for journalistic integrity. But I really don’t care that much.
"sometimes the internet is hard for me." - ClemsonGirl
by world dictator on Jul 23, 2009 8:59 PM EDT up reply actions
I don’t actually care that much either. I’m not saying it proves the norm at all — it was a separate statement: “It is my sense that this is more typical than the other thing.”
by Logodaedalus on Jul 24, 2009 12:50 AM EDT up reply actions
I’m thinking an Ozzie Gullien avatar. Or maybe a picture of CC in his NY hat. Or a picture of Palpebon with that stupid look on his face
"sometimes the internet is hard for me." - ClemsonGirl
by world dictator on Jul 23, 2009 11:20 PM EDT up reply actions
I like this.
Who needs affection when you can have blind hatred?
by ClemsonGirl on Jul 23, 2009 11:26 PM EDT up reply actions
I think it’s embarrassing. I think I’m looking at it as a representation of yourself.
Who needs affection when you can have blind hatred?
by ClemsonGirl on Jul 23, 2009 11:43 PM EDT up reply actions
Nah, it’s like mocking someone. Jay for awhile had a Bartolo Colon as an Expo avatar. Not because he identified with Bartolo Colon on the Expos, but because he was mocking Minaya for giving us three awesome players for Colon.
If someone had this as an avatar, one could only assume they find this picture of Justin to be hilarious, and are mocking the Yankees and their fans
I can see this but I’m thinking of it like representing who he is. But I guess I’m just thinking of it wrong and since I would be in the minority it should be something else.
Who needs affection when you can have blind hatred?
by ClemsonGirl on Jul 24, 2009 11:17 AM EDT up reply actions
What is the term of this bet? How long would the avatar have to stay up?
by Logodaedalus on Jul 24, 2009 12:51 AM EDT up reply actions
http://www.letsgotribe.com/2009/7/23/959685/rays-in-talks-to-acquire-lee#18573930
Let’s say until the end of the season? I’d agree to go until opening day 2010.
Steel Nick
Although I avoid any movie with #1 in it like the plague, if find #3 the most offensive. Only a real Jeter fan could want that avatar. (I have no idea who’s in #2, so that one’s lost on me.)
No, not you. Your helmet!
by PatBordersHelmet on Jul 24, 2009 8:33 AM EDT up reply actions
Yeah, not a clue.
Though I look right at home, I still feel like an exile
by Manhattan Tribe Fan on Jul 24, 2009 9:30 AM EDT up reply actions
Am I supposed to be looking at the guy or the woman?
Though I look right at home, I still feel like an exile
by Manhattan Tribe Fan on Jul 24, 2009 9:31 AM EDT up reply actions
Even The Wicker Man has its moments.
"Some days are better than others, but it's a long season."
— The Inestimable Eric Wedge
NOT THE BEES
Ride on ye fearsome Horsemen of the Basketball Apocalypse. We got this.
by Turkmenbashi on Jul 24, 2009 11:58 AM EDT up reply actions
- is hilarious. I can’t see #3, I just see a question mark.
Who needs affection when you can have blind hatred?
by ClemsonGirl on Jul 24, 2009 11:18 AM EDT up reply actions
"Some days are better than others, but it's a long season."
— The Inestimable Eric Wedge
by emd2k3 on Jul 24, 2009 10:07 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
It says, not only are you a douche, but you’re disposable, too.
"Some days are better than others, but it's a long season."
— The Inestimable Eric Wedge
What I don’t understand is, why is the picture of some girl hangin’ out by the ocean, looking at boats go by or something? Shouldn’t it be of someone kinda grungy looking in a downstairs bathroom? Or is it customary to hang out by the sea after a good douche? ?
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
Featured Stories
FanShots
Quick hits of video, photos, quotes, chats, links and lists that you find around the web.
Recent FanShots
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- Photo: Padres fan regrets letting mother capture moment with Trevor Hoffman
- Marlins agree to unretire No. 5 for Logan Morrison, who will honor his father’s favorite player
- Weatherman Derek Holland does Dallas TV
- Ask Alex: Will Julio Teheran or Matt Moore win rookie of the year?
- Ku Klux Klan, umpires and bowling: Why the minor leagues tossed out Jim Evans academy
Certain photos copyright © 2012 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.
