Adrian Gonzalez

[soxbsbllvr]

Thanks, Chisoxfan! I tend to look at the future as opposed to next year. I like the thought of the core youngsters staying together as opposed to trading them all away in one fell swoop for 1 big name. Clubhouse attitude goes a long way in developing a perennial winner, and having a group gel together will produce on the field down the road (ie; 1996 Yankees class). However, I do understand the need for a big bat and the "let's win it next year."

 

Jim Bowdens reflections:

 

http://msn.foxsports.com/video?vid=4de211e...38-d9978c3a6616

 

 

[sircaffey]

I realize Victor Martinez/Casey Kochman are on board but Victor might catch (who knows) and the Red Sox have to be concerned with Papi. Probably unlikely, but what if:

 

Sox Trade: Ramirez/Konerko for Kochman/Jacoby. Would you guys do it?

 

Absolutely. Regardless of what he does with the bat, Kotchman is going to give you GG defense at 1B. I think he could hit .280 with 15 HR w/ an OPS around .790. It's not great by any means, but getting Ellsbury for the next handful of years would be tremendous. Plus you add 2 LH bats to the lineup. We'd need to make a splash at DH, but that's doable.

 

FYI, Varitek also picked up his player option so the Red Sox have him and Victor on the roster.

[Kenny Hates Prospects]

I would say the Giants are probably the best fit amongst that group. I doubt that Dodgers are just going to bench Loney, and I'm pretty sure they tried moving him to the outfield with bad results, and I think the Mets will probably try and sign someone to an incentive laden deal. I don't think the Braves touch him without the Sox taking on some money, and there is no need to just straight up get rid of Konerko, which is what sending him to Baltimore would be. I also seem to recall that during Konerko's free agency, Baltimore actually offered a 5/$65 deal, but that with taxes included it would have actually been less money than he was going to make in either Anaheim or Chicago, though I don't recall the specifics.

 

The Giants seem like the most logical fit, and that'd probably be the best fit too. They are looking to add offense, and Sabean has been known to give up solid prospects for players before (and I'm not even thinking about Pierzynski here)

Agree, the Giants are probably the best fit.

 

Atlanta might be able to do some maneuvering because of some bad contracts they have.

 

A three-way for example:

Sox trade: Konerko, $2M

Braves trade: Kawakami, Reyes, $2M

3rd party trades: prospect

 

Sox receive: Reyes, prospect

Braves receive: Konerko

3rd party receives: Kawakami, $2M from Sox in 2010, $2M from Braves in 2011

 

Sox clear $10M and pick up a lefty to compete with Williams plus a prospect, Braves ditch Kawakami and use some of his contract to pay Konerko, third team gains a 5th starter at a normal price ($4.7M in 2010 and 2011)

[SoxAce]

Disagree on Bowden being close to Hudson. Hudson is definitely better than that. Agree Buchholz is probably more attractive to the Padres than anything we could offer, but I still think Adrian is going to be a back-up plan for Boston, with King Felix being the #1 target. I do believe Boston has a great chance of winding up with one of these two.

 

I mentioned this in another thread about suitors for Gonzalez, but watch out for Baltimore and Tampa Bay if they get involved. They could beat either us or the Red Sox, even without Baltimore including Jones/Wieters/Tillman, etc. Baltimore has the cash for an extension and they have been wanting to make a splash for a while.

 

Well I did say you can give Huddy the slight edge in terms of overall status. Though it'll be hard to convine you on Bowden regardless cause I know your not a fan of his. I love the kid personally, but still think Huddy is a tad better in the upside. And remember KHP, quality over quantity. Some of those spects you listed are nice and all, but that doesn't mean most of them project any. SD would not even ask for 1/2 those names you listed IMO. I also wonder how much Reterford's trade value is actually, especially for an undraftee. Should be quite interesting though to say the least.

[eickevinmorris]

In terms of overall depth Boston has us beat IMO, but in terms of impact prospects who are ready now I think we may have the edge, and if Boston doesn't want to include Buchholz, then we beat the s*** out of Boston there.

 

Casey Kelly and Tazawa are in there too for them. But again, the Padres should be looking primarily at who is ready now.

 

It also needs to be said that SP is an area of need for Boston more than Gonzalez would be, especially if Bay comes back, and I think they want King Felix a bit more. They may have reservations about dealing a ton of pitching for Adrian when they could deal pitching for a true ace.

 

The Sox can offer something like this:

Dan Hudson - slots in as their #2 behind Latos, right now

Tyler Flowers - starting catcher, right now

Dayan Viciedo - starting 3B, maybe even right now because they'll trade Kouzmanoff, but probably by midseason

Jordan Danks - midseason 2010 starting CF, possibly earlier

Nathan Jones - possible future closer candidate, would likely be up sometime in 2010

Assuming this is all true (which it isn't), why on earth would the White Sox absolutely murder their sparse organizational depth for a corner player? Gonzalez is a special player, but you're talking about giving up (what you consider -- which is extremely optimistic and foolhardy at best) a starting pitcher with no service time, a catcher who made drastic defensive strides and has the potential to be a .275/.400/.500 hitter, a starting 3B in Viciedo (which is a preposterously stupid evaluation right now), a plus defensive CF, and a good and cheap bullpen arm (something we're immune to, and something we need so we don't do stupid things like sign Scott Linebrink and trade Brandon Allen for Tony Pena).

 

I get it: Gonzalez is a great player, but he's far too close to free agency to do a 7 for 1 (or 2, I guess, if you're into getting Heath Bell, whose value in the late innings probably doesn't surpass that of Hudson) sort of deal.

 

Plus you want to give 2-3 of these guys away.

 

Then give them 2-3 of the following:

Clevelan Santeliz - could compete for a 2010 spot

Lucas Harrell - could compete for a 2010 spot

Jon Link - could compete for a 2010 spot

Johnny Nunez - could compete for a 2010 spot

CJ Retherford - could start at 2B if they ditched Eckstein

Charlie Shirek - could compete for a 2010 spot

John Shelby - could compete for a 2010 spot

Stefan Gartrell - could compete for a 2010 spot

Christian Marrero - could compete for a 2010 spot

Brent Lillibridge - could compete for a 2010 spot

Carlos Torres - could compete for a 2010 spot

Brent Morel

Jon Gilmore

Santos Rodriguez

Miguel Gonzalez

Charlie Leesman

Steven Upchurch

Nevin Griffith

Gregory Infante

etc.

 

Just sign Nick Johnson. Don't run the organization any further into the ground. If we're giving up the farm, it must be for a cheap, pre-arb up the middle player.

[balfanman]

Assuming this is all true (which it isn't), why on earth would the White Sox absolutely murder their sparse organizational depth for a corner player? Gonzalez is a special player, but you're talking about giving up (what you consider -- which is extremely optimistic and foolhardy at best) a starting pitcher with no service time, a catcher who made drastic defensive strides and has the potential to be a .275/.400/.500 hitter, a starting 3B in Viciedo (which is a preposterously stupid evaluation right now), a plus defensive CF, and a good and cheap bullpen arm (something we're immune to, and something we need so we don't do stupid things like sign Scott Linebrink and trade Brandon Allen for Tony Pena).

 

I get it: Gonzalez is a great player, but he's far too close to free agency to do a 7 for 1 (or 2, I guess, if you're into getting Heath Bell, whose value in the late innings probably doesn't surpass that of Hudson) sort of deal.

 

Plus you want to give 2-3 of these guys away.

 

 

 

Just sign Nick Johnson. Don't run the organization any further into the ground. If we're giving up the farm, it must be for a cheap, pre-arb up the middle player.

 

Because this corner infielder is special and we seem to be set at the middle infield positions for a few years. If the Sox see Gonzales as the type of hitter that can put them over the top, and I hope that they do, then I would absolutely sell most of the farm for him. There are no guarantees that any of those minor leagers ever turn into half of the player that Gonzales is now.

 

As far as Nick Johnson, sure he's an okay player, but with his injury history he's more of a gamble than the monor leagers in my opinion.

[Kenny Hates Prospects]

Well I did say you can give Huddy the slight edge in terms of overall status. Though it'll be hard to convine you on Bowden regardless cause I know your not a fan of his. I love the kid personally, but still think Huddy is a tad better in the upside. And remember KHP, quality over quantity. Some of those spects you listed are nice and all, but that doesn't mean most of them project any. SD would not even ask for 1/2 those names you listed IMO. I also wonder how much Reterford's trade value is actually, especially for an undraftee. Should be quite interesting though to say the least.

A lot of those names in the second tier would be throw-ins anyway, that the Padres could just have. I should have split that up.

 

But still, we could offer them 7-8 good prospects. In terms of upside the list would be shorter, but there are others who maybe aren't really exciting but a team like the Padres could have some interest in.

 

I agree that it is quality over quantity in general, but the Padres have a ton of holes and should be looking for both, a quantity of quality, especially players who should be up in 2010 at some point.

[witesoxfan]

Assuming this is all true (which it isn't), why on earth would the White Sox absolutely murder their sparse organizational depth for a corner player? Gonzalez is a special player, but you're talking about giving up (what you consider -- which is extremely optimistic and foolhardy at best) a starting pitcher with no service time, a catcher who made drastic defensive strides and has the potential to be a .275/.400/.500 hitter, a starting 3B in Viciedo (which is a preposterously stupid evaluation right now), a plus defensive CF, and a good and cheap bullpen arm (something we're immune to, and something we need so we don't do stupid things like sign Scott Linebrink and trade Brandon Allen for Tony Pena).

 

I get it: Gonzalez is a great player, but he's far too close to free agency to do a 7 for 1 (or 2, I guess, if you're into getting Heath Bell, whose value in the late innings probably doesn't surpass that of Hudson) sort of deal.

 

Plus you want to give 2-3 of these guys away.

 

 

 

Just sign Nick Johnson. Don't run the organization any further into the ground. If we're giving up the farm, it must be for a cheap, pre-arb up the middle player.

 

I generally agree with this. If you can get Gonzalez for about 4 prospects, I say you look into it, but killing the depth of the minor league system is not something that should be done. Signing a Nick Johnson or Adam LaRoche isn't the worst thing in the world if you can get them relatively cheap. Again, I'm going to cite the Dodgers - even if there are arguments over how well Colletti has done - and just point out that they tend to keep their young players and sign stopgaps, and if the young player can outproduce the stopgap, then he plays. It can backfire drastically in the case of Pierre, but at the same time can help and allows for a bit of flexibility in dealings, such as using Casey Blake at 3B and trading LaRoche and Morris for Manny Ramirez.

 

That said, Gonzalez does fit about every piece of criteria the White Sox are looking for right now in a hitter (except for the fast part) and would be a monumental acquisition.

[SoxAce]

Assuming this is all true (which it isn't), why on earth would the White Sox absolutely murder their sparse organizational depth for a corner player? Gonzalez is a special player, but you're talking about giving up (what you consider -- which is extremely optimistic and foolhardy at best) a starting pitcher with no service time, a catcher who made drastic defensive strides and has the potential to be a .275/.400/.500 hitter, a starting 3B in Viciedo (which is a preposterously stupid evaluation right now), a plus defensive CF, and a good and cheap bullpen arm (something we're immune to, and something we need so we don't do stupid things like sign Scott Linebrink and trade Brandon Allen for Tony Pena).

 

I get it: Gonzalez is a great player, but he's far too close to free agency to do a 7 for 1 (or 2, I guess, if you're into getting Heath Bell, whose value in the late innings probably doesn't surpass that of Hudson) sort of deal.

 

Plus you want to give 2-3 of these guys away.

 

 

 

Just sign Nick Johnson. Don't run the organization any further into the ground. If we're giving up the farm, it must be for a cheap, pre-arb up the middle player.

 

Outstanding post BTW. Please post more.

 

And I hope we can net both as a possible best case scenario. You get your OPS/OBP stud in Adrian and net your severe OBP guy in Nick to stick at DH. You can then trade Konerko for a couple of good spects (or pray like hell Sabain would trade Bumgarner for Kong. ) then your overall lineup is much, much improved not to mention your getting a s***load of RBI opportunities. But if all comes to worst.. I've been on the Nick Johnson bandwagon months ago when DBAH0 and I talked about it on AIM and still would like him. (I trust Herm as well, as he is IMO, one of the best in the buisness at his job)

[eickevinmorris]

A lot of those names in the second tier would be throw-ins anyway, that the Padres could just have. I should have split that up.

 

But still, we could offer them 7-8 good prospects. In terms of upside the list would be shorter, but there are others who maybe aren't really exciting but a team like the Padres could have some interest in.

 

I agree that it is quality over quantity in general, but the Padres have a ton of holes and should be looking for both, a quantity of quality, especially players who should be up in 2010 at some point.

So you're alright with shipping off our top 7-8 prospects in exchange for a player who will more than likely test the free agent waters in two years? Aye carumba.

 

Adrian Gonzalez is a good player. Is he worth that? God no. How many 7-8 for 1 (2, again, if you really want to touch Heath Bell) deals have there been in the history of baseball?

Edited November 12, 2009 by KevinM

[iamshack]

I think the last few posts in this thread have been outstanding.

 

Good work, guys.

 

My only problem with the statement that we need to get a pre-arbitration middle of the field player is that they generally are not available. You're either taking a huge risk because the guy hasn't proven himself enough yet, or the team that already has him is not interested in moving him.

 

Players that are extremely productive, yet cheap, only become available for a few reasons:

1) He will soon price himself out of the market of his current organization; or

2) He needs to be sacrificed for the good of the organization to help build it's core with more productive young players.

 

Obviously it is possible to acquire a prospect with huge potential before he even earns any service time, but those trades are usually made by trading off a sure-thing productive player to a competing team. We are not in that position. We are in the opposite position here. And if you want to acquire a guy like that, it is more difficult now than it ever has been, due to the economics of the game as well as the general global economy right now. Certainly we could try and move a Danks or a Floyd for another team's top prospect and pray he pans out, but we aren't deep enough as a farm system or with our budget to make such a move. We need our valuable, inexpensive productive players, and we need our expensive veteran productive players as well if we hope to compete.

 

So what it comes down to is moving our prospects for other team's productive players. That's what Kenny has always done, always believed in, and what I consider to be a pretty solid philosophy.

Edited November 12, 2009 by iamshack

[iamshack]

So you're alright with shipping off our top 7-8 prospects in exchange for a player who will more than likely test the free agent waters in two years? Aye carumba.

 

Adrian Gonzalez is a good player. Is he worth that? God no. How many 7-8 for 1 (2, again, if you really want to touch Heath Bell) deals have there been in the history of baseball?

Adrian Gonzalez is well-beyond a good player. He's an absolutely fantastic player. Probably one of the top 10-15 hitters in baseball, when you consider park factors. Add to that the fact that he plays outstanding defense, and is left-handed, and he is our absolute perfect target.

 

Now I tend to agree with you about the 7-8 prospects thing. I think it would probably be more like a 5 for 1 or 2. But honestly, from a historical standpoint, placing a player like Gonzalez on the trading block is a relatively rare occurrence. It just hasn't happened very often. So asking how many 7 to 1 trades have there been in the "history" of baseball is not exactly asking the the question that it sounds like it is asking.

Edited November 12, 2009 by iamshack

[balfanman]

So you're alright with shipping off our top 7-8 prospects in exchange for a player who will more than likely test the free agent waters in two years? Aye carumba.

 

Adrian Gonzalez is a good player. Is he worth that? God no. How many 7-8 for 1 (2, again, if you really want to touch Heath Bell) deals have there been in the history of baseball?

 

I for one would gladly do it. I love the 1 World Series that we won. I think that Gonzales is that one player who could possibly put us over the top, combined with this starting staff. I don't want to see us lose a bunch of one run games because we are 1 bat short.

 

I would much rather take a 2 year shot at winning it all as opposed to being in contention for the division most years only to fall short. If we can sign Gonzales to a long term deal then this deal becomes a no brainer in my mind. Again JMHO

 

If you could guarantee me that even 1 out of every 3 of the minor leagers mentioned in this thread were going to be average major leagers then I might reconsider, but that seems unlikely.

Edited November 12, 2009 by balfanman

[eickevinmorris]

Adrian Gonzalez is well-beyond a good player. He's an absolutely fantastic player. Probably one of the top 10-15 hitters in baseball, when you consider park factors. Add to that the fact that he plays outstanding defense, and is left-handed, and he is our absolute perfect target.

 

Now I tend to agree with you about the 7-8 prospects thing. I think it would probably be more like a 5 for 1 or 2. But honestly, from a historical standpoint, placing a player like Gonzalez on the trading block is a relatively rare occurrence. It just hasn't happened very often. So asking how many 7 to 1 trades have there been in the "history" of baseball is not exactly asking the the question that it sounds like it is asking.

I think there are better ways to fill the 1B/DH hole. If we can sign LaRoche/Johnson and keep Flowers, Hudson, etc. -- I'd much rather do that than get Gonzalez.

[qwerty]

Outstanding post BTW. Please post more.

 

And I hope we can net both as a possible best case scenario. You get your OPS/OBP stud in Adrian and net your severe OBP guy in Nick to stick at DH. You can then trade Konerko for a couple of good spects (or pray like hell Sabain would trade Bumgarner for Kong. ) then your overall lineup is much, much improved not to mention your getting a s***load of RBI opportunities. But if all comes to worst.. I've been on the Nick Johnson bandwagon months ago when DBAH0 and I talked about it on AIM and still would like him. (I trust Herm as well, as he is IMO, one of the best in the buisness at his job)

 

Maybe, maybe not.

 

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/a...onzalezs-walks/

[iamshack]

I think there are better ways to fill the 1B/DH hole. If we can sign LaRoche/Johnson and keep Flowers, Hudson, etc. -- I'd much rather do that than get Gonzalez.

But will you say the same thing in 3 years if Flowers, Hudson, etc. all turn out to be average or below-average players?

[eickevinmorris]

But will you say the same thing in 3 years if Flowers, Hudson, etc. all turn out to be average or below-average players?

I'd say it's far more likely that Flowers and Hudson are producing at above average levels in three years than average or below average. As for the rest, I don't know. I'm cautiously optimistic about Danks, and pretty pessimistic about Viciedo.

 

I'm just not up for sending away the organization's 7-8 best prospects for a first baseman.

 

[eickevinmorris]

I for one would gladly do it. I love the 1 World Series that we won. I think that Gonzales is that one player who could possibly put us over the top, combined with this starting staff. I don't want to see us lose a bunch of one run games because we are 1 bat short.

 

I would much rather take a 2 year shot at winning it all as opposed to being in contention for the division most years only to fall short. If we can sign Gonzales to a long term deal then this deal becomes a no brainer in my mind. Again JMHO

 

If you could guarantee me that even 1 out of every 3 of the minor leagers mentioned in this thread were going to be average major leagers then I might reconsider, but that seems unlikely.

Fair enough. I enjoyed it too. I just don't want to see this organization sign 7-8 Daryle Ward type players to fill all the holes a hypothetical deal would create.

 

[Balta1701]

Now I tend to agree with you about the 7-8 prospects thing. I think it would probably be more like a 5 for 1 or 2. But honestly, from a historical standpoint, placing a player like Gonzalez on the trading block is a relatively rare occurrence. It just hasn't happened very often. So asking how many 7 to 1 trades have there been in the "history" of baseball is not exactly asking the the question that it sounds like it is asking.

Honestly, is that true? I can think of a number of really big time players, even 1b, who get moved a year or two before their contract has wrapped up, from just the past few years. Johan. Tex, twice. Beltran. ARod. Soriano. Captain Cheeseburger. Manny. Miguel Cabrera.

 

If you move down to the next tier, you get even more names, who are either discussed or actually moved. Halladay, Holliday, Bay, Crawford, just from teh past year.

 

These guys move a lot. The problem is they often move towards the Yankees, but that doesn't mean they're not being dealt with some regularity.

[eickevinmorris]

Honestly, is that true? I can think of a number of really big time players, even 1b, who get moved a year or two before their contract has wrapped up, from just the past few years. Johan. Tex, twice. Beltran. ARod. Soriano. Captain Cheeseburger. Manny. Miguel Cabrera.

 

If you move down to the next tier, you get even more names, who are either discussed or actually moved. Halladay, Holliday, Bay, Crawford, just from teh past year.

 

These guys move a lot. The problem is they often move towards the Yankees, but that doesn't mean they're not being dealt with some regularity.

Well done.

 

[iamshack]

Maybe, maybe not.

 

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/a...onzalezs-walks/

Interesting stuff.

Qwerty, I saw the comments about how protection theory has largely been debunked, but how much of the WAR is related to his OBP? I understand the value of Gonzalez being a .400 OBP guy versus a .360 OBP guy, but I am happy as a pig in slop if his HR numbers increase because of the park factors. If Gonzalez hits 48 homers for us because of US Cellular instead of the 40 he hit with the Padres, won't that more than make up for the reduction in walks he's taking because he isn't so easy to pitch around?

[SoxAce]

Maybe, maybe not.

 

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/a...onzalezs-walks/

 

Yea I figured the crappy team would inflate his OBP/BB rate, but good find A.J. I would still take a .360 OBP Gonzo if it means his OPS (and OPS+) will rise here, not to mention getting a Nick Johnson to help balance out the lineup with his discipline.

 

?? LF/RF

Beckham 2B

Gonzalez 1B

Quentin RF/LF

Johnson DH

Rios CF (good bounce back year I'm banking)

A.J. C

Alexei SS

Teahan 3B

 

What a balance of the LH/RH combo in that lineup.

Edited November 12, 2009 by SoxAce

[iamshack]

Honestly, is that true? I can think of a number of really big time players, even 1b, who get moved a year or two before their contract has wrapped up, from just the past few years. Johan. Tex, twice. Beltran. ARod. Soriano. Captain Cheeseburger. Manny. Miguel Cabrera.

 

If you move down to the next tier, you get even more names, who are either discussed or actually moved. Halladay, Holliday, Bay, Crawford, just from teh past year.

 

These guys move a lot. The problem is they often move towards the Yankees, but that doesn't mean they're not being dealt with some regularity.

Right, these have all occurred when? In the last how many years?

Now start naming all those that it happened before.

So when I say, how many times has this happened in the HISTORY of baseball, am I really asking how many times it has happened in the last 150 or so years, or practically, am I asking how many times has it happened in the last 10 years?

[Kenny Hates Prospects]

Assuming this is all true (which it isn't), why on earth would the White Sox absolutely murder their sparse organizational depth for a corner player? Gonzalez is a special player, but you're talking about giving up (what you consider -- which is extremely optimistic and foolhardy at best) a starting pitcher with no service time, a catcher who made drastic defensive strides and has the potential to be a .275/.400/.500 hitter, a starting 3B in Viciedo (which is a preposterously stupid evaluation right now), a plus defensive CF, and a good and cheap bullpen arm (something we're immune to, and something we need so we don't do stupid things like sign Scott Linebrink and trade Brandon Allen for Tony Pena).

Corner player or not, he's one of the best hitters in baseball. He's easily a $20M+ player on the open market and you're trading a bunch of prospects which in total value do not come close to equaling the $30M+ gain in production we would be getting by having Gonzalez here for about $10M over 2 years. Go ahead and try to dispute that.

 

With the money saved on Gonzalez the Sox would be able to target bargains in free agency. There's a very good chance that some of these prospects you don't want to trade are going to be dealt this offseason anyway for players far less than Adrian Gonzalez. At least with Adrian you deal the farm for a beast and then fill remaining holes off the scrap heap in FA without surrending more prospects.

 

Speaking of extremely optimistic, you're sucking Tyler Flowers' balls right now by saying he can be the type of hitter Adrian Gonzalez is currently.

 

Hudson isn't as special as everyone here thinks he is. I like him, but he's not an ace.

 

Viciedo could turn out to be a very good player, but again it is very tough to ever see him becoming what Gonzalez is now. It is preposterously stupid to consider Viciedo a 3B? Then the Sox must be a preposterously stupid organization then because they haven't said Viciedo will be anything other than a 3B and I doubt they moved Gordon Beckham to accommodate Brent Morel and they certainly didn't do it to accommodate Mark f***ing Teahen.

 

These players are NOT going to all turn out. You're probably looking at above average player and possible All-Star, one average player, and two busts. And it's highly unlikely that any of these players aside from Hudson do anything significant until at least 2011, when Danks and Quentin become expensive. Your "save the farm" philosophy is a losing one that thankfully Kenny does not adhere to. Farm system depth is important, but farm depth can be built over the span of 1-2 drafts and international signing periods. Building a title contender is a much tougher process. And you seem to be overlooking all the playing time we'd have to give these young guys to prove they're MLB players as well.

 

The Tony Pena deal is NOTHING like dealing the farm for Gonzalez, not even close. Ditto with the Linebrink deal.

 

I get it: Gonzalez is a great player, but he's far too close to free agency to do a 7 for 1 (or 2, I guess, if you're into getting Heath Bell, whose value in the late innings probably doesn't surpass that of Hudson) sort of deal.

 

Plus you want to give 2-3 of these guys away.

 

Just sign Nick Johnson. Don't run the organization any further into the ground. If we're giving up the farm, it must be for a cheap, pre-arb up the middle player.

Nick Johnson is an injury prone defensive liability who will almost certainly make more guaranteed money over the next two years than Gonzalez will. Now THAT is a bad deal.

 

LOL at trading the farm for a cheap, pre-arb MIF or CF. Like who? We need offense, and along with the C position those are the weakest offensive positions around. Just because 1B is an "easier position to fill" with garbage like Casey Kotchman and Kevin Millar doesn't mean that bats like Adrian Gonzalez grow on trees. I don't think you realize that Gonzalez playing half his games in the Cell instead of PetCo will give us the best hitter we've had here since Big Frank was in his prime. Check his home/road splits. He would do incredible damage here.

[Balta1701]

Right, these have all occurred when? In the last how many years?

Now start naming all those that it happened before.

So when I say, how many times has this happened in the HISTORY of baseball, am I really asking how many times it has happened in the last 150 or so years, or practically, am I asking how many times has it happened in the last 10 years?

Basically within the last less-than-a-decade, we've had on average at least 1 absolute marquee guy get traded each year, and then probably an additional really good player or more as well.

 

We were told 2 years ago that Miguel Cabrera moving was a once in a lifetime chance. Then Tex being traded was a once in a lifetime move. Then Captain Cheesburger was. These just aren't once-in-a-lifetime moves any more, not with baseball's current economics. They're opportunities that come along every year or two at the most.