Kenny Hates Prospects Posted October 5, 2009 Share Posted October 5, 2009 QUOTE (Thunderbolt @ Oct 4, 2009 -> 10:35 PM) You know what would be both badass and implausible? Doing a Fielder trade with Danks in it, and then trading Paulie for Homer Bailey and Chris Heisey. Sadly, this is both unrealistic and rendered impossible by Joey Votto. If we get that kind of value out of Paulie I'll eat a turd. I'd love to see it, but I think it's very optimistic to imagine getting something decent for him without eating salary, let alone a package like that. At $12M/per, even if we trade him to another team and he finishes 2010 as a Type-A player, it would be doubtful Paulie gets an arbitration offer. So the team trading for him would only be trading for one year of Paulie, not one year of Paulie + draft compensation in 2011 as would be the case with other players. Plus the Reds are going to be paying Cordero for a while and they added Rolen, so I don't know how much they'll be looking to add to the payroll, if they're adding anything. Maybe the Giants or Braves could be interested, and those are two teams that may be able to take Paulie's deal on if we take back another contract or eat money. I've mentioned Paulie for Affeldt before because Affeldt has a bad 1-year deal and we'll need at least one more lefty in the bullpen (2 if Thornton becomes the closer), but I don't know who the Braves would have. The Sox never eat salary unless they're releasing somebody and they have to, as was the case with MacDougal. I would like to take a flyer on Bailey though. The only problem is he'd have to be on our team all of 2010 and going forward or else we'd lose him to waivers. He'd have to start off in the pen and then work his way into the rotation if someone became injured/ineffective. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whitesoxlove Posted October 5, 2009 Share Posted October 5, 2009 I love Prince Fielder but I wouldn't give up Danks or Floyd for him. Pitching is the most important thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qwerty Posted October 5, 2009 Share Posted October 5, 2009 QUOTE (rockren @ Oct 3, 2009 -> 05:45 PM) KW claiming Rios off of waivers should be a sign of things to come. KW didn't put together potentially the greatest rotation in all of baseball and disregard his defense. While Prince has come A LONG way on defense (I live in the Madison and watch the Brewers almost nightly) he's still below average at best defensively. Add in the fact that Boras represents Fielder as stated numerous times in this thread...I can't say enough how far off base this idea proposed by Rogers is. Kenny williams has disregarded defense for essentially his entire tenure. I'm not optimistic about a change anytime soon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThunderBolt Posted October 5, 2009 Share Posted October 5, 2009 QUOTE (Kenny Hates Prospects @ Oct 5, 2009 -> 12:13 AM) I would like to take a flyer on Bailey though. The only problem is he'd have to be on our team all of 2010 and going forward or else we'd lose him to waivers. He'd have to start off in the pen and then work his way into the rotation if someone became injured/ineffective. He pitched REALLY well for the Reds down the stretch. He’d be a worth investment/replacement as a 4th starter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted October 5, 2009 Share Posted October 5, 2009 QUOTE (VAfan @ Oct 4, 2009 -> 10:14 PM) I still don't get why so many guys here talk about trading a ton of talent and depth for Fielder or Gonzalez. Why not try to improve the club without sending out players? Matt Holliday has nearly the same value as Prince Fielder (5.4 WAR v. 6.2 WAR) and Adrian Gonzalez (6.4 WAR) but would cost only money -- probably less than it would cost to extend Fielder beyond his current deal. Granted, Holliday is a righty, whereas we need some lefty power. But still, doesn't it make sense to add some valuable bats without weakening out starting rotation, bullpen, or depth? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WCSox Posted October 5, 2009 Share Posted October 5, 2009 QUOTE (Kenny Hates Prospects @ Oct 3, 2009 -> 01:15 PM) Kenny will have all kinds of competition if he shops Jenks. Qualls and Bell will be among those on the trading block, plus Mike Gonzalez, Rafael Soriano, Valverde, Wagner, Hoffman, etc. are all free agents. Maybe Huston Street is on the block too. There are all kinds of options, so it's not like Jenks would be the far-and-away #1 closer on the market which other teams will fight over. Kenny will not be able to get a major haul out of Jenks when he's projected to make $7M+ in arbitration and other guys should be out there as free agents for around that same price and only costing draft picks as opposed to top MLB/MiLB talent. Agreed. The only realistic immediate-impact talent that Kenny might get for Jenks is Carl Crawford. And that would only be because the Rays need a closer and Crawford only has one year left on his contract. Otherwise, dealing Bobby would likely be a salary dump for some minor leaguers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
witesoxfan Posted October 5, 2009 Share Posted October 5, 2009 QUOTE (VAfan @ Oct 4, 2009 -> 10:14 PM) I still don't get why so many guys here talk about trading a ton of talent and depth for Fielder or Gonzalez. Why not try to improve the club without sending out players? Matt Holliday has nearly the same value as Prince Fielder (5.4 WAR v. 6.2 WAR) and Adrian Gonzalez (6.4 WAR) but would cost only money -- probably less than it would cost to extend Fielder beyond his current deal. Granted, Holliday is a righty, whereas we need some lefty power. But still, doesn't it make sense to add some valuable bats without weakening out starting rotation, bullpen, or depth? Look at what Holliday did in the AL compared to the NL. Oakland is more of a pitchers park, but Busch Stadium favors pitchers too, and Holliday put up an OPS nearly 200 points higher in St. Louis. Giving him a monstrosity of a contract would be a huge burden to the franchise. There's no chance for it, and anybody who thinks it could happen is mistaken. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve9347 Posted October 5, 2009 Share Posted October 5, 2009 (edited) If you can get Fielder with Floyd being the main ingredient going back to Milwaukee, you figure it out. Jenks obviously wouldn't even approach the value to be a centerpiece, so I'm disregarding that idea right off the bat. Edited October 5, 2009 by Steve9347 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThunderBolt Posted October 5, 2009 Share Posted October 5, 2009 (edited) The Ultimate two-pronged pipe dream The Danks Brothers and Shelby for Fielder Konerko, Fields, McCulloch (Yay for Filler!) for Homer Bailey, Chris Heisey, and Alex Smit (lefty AA-pitcher) We've essentially made up for trading Danks by getting Bailey (assuming Bailey can continue pitching like he has over the last two months), and have replaced Jordan Danks with a VERY under the rader player like Heisey who is blocked by about fourty others guys in the Reds system. Edited October 5, 2009 by Thunderbolt Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joeynach Posted October 5, 2009 Share Posted October 5, 2009 Its Phil Rogers, master of the worst articles and analysis in the history of Chicago. Enough said. How he even has a voice on such matters is beyond me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elgonzo4sox Posted October 5, 2009 Share Posted October 5, 2009 Phil Rogers suggested the Sox would trade Peavy for Zambrano. Phil Rogers has the Cubs ranked higher than the Sox in his power rankings. Phil Rogers has 4 NL teams in the top 6 of his power rankings. Phil Rogers is an absolute idiot. Why the Trib gives him huge amounts of space to prove how little he knows about the sport of baseball baffles me, until I remember that the Trib doesn't know anything about winning baseball either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kitekrazy Posted October 5, 2009 Share Posted October 5, 2009 QUOTE (whitesoxlove @ Oct 4, 2009 -> 11:22 PM) I love Prince Fielder but I wouldn't give up Danks or Floyd for him. Pitching is the most important thing. Best post yet. Didn't we just spend most of 2009 without any reliable 4th, 5th starter? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve9347 Posted October 5, 2009 Share Posted October 5, 2009 QUOTE (kitekrazy @ Oct 5, 2009 -> 02:19 PM) Best post yet. Didn't we just spend most of 2009 without any reliable 4th, 5th starter? We also spent it without a guy who had a .412 OBP, hit 46 bombs, and hit .300. I think you guys are underestimating the fact that Prince is a top-5 bat in the game and entering his prime (turns 26 in May). With our pitching depth, now is the time to f***ing strike, not sit back because we have a pretty arm like Floyd. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigSqwert Posted October 5, 2009 Share Posted October 5, 2009 QUOTE (elgonzo4sox @ Oct 5, 2009 -> 01:54 PM) Phil Rogers has the Cubs ranked higher than the Sox in his power rankings. They have a better record. Hard to argue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted October 5, 2009 Share Posted October 5, 2009 QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Oct 5, 2009 -> 12:32 PM) They have a better record. Hard to argue. We had a better head to head record and a guy who could barely survive starting games for us went on to pitch very well in their league. It's a fairly easy argument actually. Not necessarily right, but not difficult. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigSqwert Posted October 5, 2009 Share Posted October 5, 2009 Then I guess the Royals should be ranked above us. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted October 5, 2009 Share Posted October 5, 2009 QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Oct 5, 2009 -> 12:39 PM) Then I guess the Royals should be ranked above us. Except the Royals were in the same league as us. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigSqwert Posted October 5, 2009 Share Posted October 5, 2009 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Oct 5, 2009 -> 02:42 PM) Except the Royals were in the same league as us. We played in the worst division in baseball and came up with a worse record than the Cubs. I fail to see how we were obviously better. I could only imagine our record if we faced the Cards 18 times. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elgonzo4sox Posted October 5, 2009 Share Posted October 5, 2009 QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Oct 5, 2009 -> 02:32 PM) They have a better record. Hard to argue. Do you really think the AL and NL are equally strong leagues, in which case W-L records can be compared without adjustment across the two leagues? Do head-to-head records, either between two teams in different leagues, or between the two leagues in all interleague games, matter? If your answers are "Yes" and "No", then you are as smart as Phil Rogers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
knightni Posted October 5, 2009 Share Posted October 5, 2009 Floyd, Fields, Jenks for Fielder. Two years of Fielder is worth the loss of those three. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted October 5, 2009 Share Posted October 5, 2009 QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Oct 5, 2009 -> 12:43 PM) We played in the worst division in baseball and came up with a worse record than the Cubs. I fail to see how we were obviously better. I could only imagine our record if we faced the Cards 18 times. Or if we faced the Pirates, Astros, and Reds 18 times as well. We were the worst division in baseball...relative to the other 2 in our league. The AL Central went 45-43 against the NL this year. And that was with Cleveland tying for the worst Interleague record out there of any team. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted October 5, 2009 Share Posted October 5, 2009 QUOTE (knightni @ Oct 5, 2009 -> 01:02 PM) Floyd, Fields, Jenks for Fielder. Two years of Fielder is worth the loss of those three. I can't believe the Brewers would take that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
knightni Posted October 5, 2009 Share Posted October 5, 2009 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Oct 5, 2009 -> 04:03 PM) I can't believe the Brewers would take that. Why not? Those guys are young vets. They'd help the staff and 1B opening. Milwaukee's issue is that they have too many young guys. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalapse Posted October 5, 2009 Share Posted October 5, 2009 QUOTE (knightni @ Oct 5, 2009 -> 03:07 PM) Why not? Those guys are young vets. They'd help the staff and 1B opening. Milwaukee's issue is that they have too many young guys. So the Brewers are going to pay Jenks $7M-$8M to set up for Trevor Hoffman? Sounds like a waste of money to me. Floyd and an incredibly expensive setup man for Prince Fielder? If that's not Xbox fodder then I don't know what is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted October 5, 2009 Share Posted October 5, 2009 QUOTE (knightni @ Oct 5, 2009 -> 01:07 PM) Why not? Those guys are young vets. They'd help the staff and 1B opening. Milwaukee's issue is that they have too many young guys. Fields is essentially worthless and equivalent talent can be found on the DFA market. Jenks is a bill and they just resigned hoffman to close today. The only guy worth anything they're getting there is Floyd. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.