Forum: base
Page 20088
Subject: 2011 MLB Hot Stove Talk

  Posted by: Great One - [4110471110] Thu, Nov 11, 2010, 11:49
A general thread for off season talk for those of us who don't only want to discuss the Yankees.

Where do you see the following FA's headed?
Carl Crawford
Jayson Werth
Cliff Lee
Adrian Beltre
Adam Dunn
Victor Martinez
Rafeal Soriano

and play Fantasy GM of your favorite team and tell us what they should do!
what moves would you make?
 
1Great One
      ID: 4110471110
      Thu, Nov 11, 2010, 12:34 		A team source tells Jayson Stark of ESPN that the Phillies have "no chance" to keep free agent outfielder Jayson Werth.
"No chance. None. Zero," was the full quote. According to Stark, it isn't necessarily the money that stands in the way of keeping Werth, but the team's unwillingness to go beyond three or four years for a player who turns 32 next May. Instead, the Phillies will likely forge ahead with rookie Domonic Brown in right field. Stark hears that the Phillies could add Jeff Francoeur as a right-handed bat, possibly as part of a platoon.
 
2Seattle Zen
      Leader
      ID: 055343019
      Thu, Nov 11, 2010, 12:40 		I think A Beltre will resign with the Red Sox, though I think they ought to sign him to a one month contract. He'll play lights out and then resign him to another month, rinse and repeat for the rest of the season. ;)

Jayson Werth will not sign with the hyper-feminine Yankees and their anit-beard policy. Don't really know where he will land, maybe Boston.

Cliff Lee resigns with Texas.
 
3weykool
      ID: 138481617
      Thu, Nov 11, 2010, 12:42 		As an Angel fan I would like to see them step up and get Crawford.
My fear is they will try so save a few bucks and settle for Werth.
 
4blue hen
      Dude
      ID: 710321114
      Thu, Nov 11, 2010, 12:57 		Awesome post #2. You are spot on about Beltre. By the way, whoever gets him is going to be disappointed.

I think Adam Dunn is going to the Twins, and Soriano to the Angels. Wasn't Dunn just a free agent last year?
 
5Great One
      ID: 4110471110
      Thu, Nov 11, 2010, 13:13 		I have a weird feeling Beltre won't be back with the Sox. I just keep thinking they are hunting for more power, and that means a more prototypical 1B like Dunn and move Youk over to 3B.

I agree Red Sox are the frontrunner for Werth. He's a good fit there.

I secretly hope they get rid of Dice and Papelbon and use that $ to go after a guy like Lee but thats video game GM'ing. Although Papelbon is just about done there so I don't think he'd stand in the way of that. If Papelbon did get traded, I could see him fitting in perfectly in Philly where Lidge is not reliable.
 
6Mith
      ID: 28646259
      Thu, Nov 11, 2010, 14:26 		I've been under the impression that the long term plan was for Youk to stay at 1b unti. Lars Anderson is ready. Anyone know if he'll be getting a shot this spring? Maybe they could sign Dunn with plans to move him to DH. How much longer will Ortiz be around?
 
7Great One
      ID: 4110471110
      Thu, Nov 11, 2010, 14:29 		Thats pretty good MITH... so Ortiz goes one more year... Lars full time by 2012 after a part time role in 2011... slide Dunn to full time DH. If Lars doesn't pan out, then Dunn/Youk can still handle 1B.
 
8Great One
      ID: 4110471110
      Thu, Nov 11, 2010, 14:31 		Crawford would be a nice fit for the Angels. Imagine his steal totals with the green light the Angels always seem to get!
 
9Species
      ID: 21130412
      Sat, Dec 04, 2010, 13:30 		Adrian Gonzalez to the Red Sox possibly.....for Casey Kelly, Rizzo and Fuentes.

REALLY? THAT'S IT? No Ellsbury? No Lars Andersen thrown in?? DAYUM that package seems light. I wonder what the offers were leading up to last year's trading deadline.
 
10Great One
      ID: 53105119
      Sat, Dec 04, 2010, 13:50 		I'm surprised at no Lars, cause where they hell are they gonna play him anyway. He's gonna have to learn OF. And SDG could throw him out there right now and let him try and replace Adrian.

Casey Kelly is their top pitching prospect + Rizzo is their top ranked hitting prospect.
 
11R9
      ID: 2854239
      Sat, Dec 04, 2010, 19:36 		Ya, if thats the entire package, better off to wait and hold out for more. Whats the rush?
 
12StLCards
      ID: 36746177
      Sat, Dec 04, 2010, 20:09 		Cards signed Berkman for 1 year
 
14Mith
      ID: 17117422
      Sat, Dec 04, 2010, 23:27 		FWIW, soxprospects.com has Kelly and Rizzo ranked #1 and #3, resectively, among Red Sox prospects. Both are also former 1st round draft picks (2008 and 2007). Anderson is obviously closer than the other two but is ranked 4th.
 
15Una Gran
      ID: 53105119
      Sun, Dec 05, 2010, 10:32 		Interesting to compare that Adrian and Rizzo played at the same place at the same age...
This is what Adrian Gonzalez did for the Portland Sea Dogs as a 20-year-old in 2002: .266/.344/.437/.781, 17 HR, 96 RBI, 138 games

This is what Anthony Rizzo did for the Portland Sea Dogs as a 20-year-old in 2010, following his early-season promotion from Hi-A Salem: .263/.334/.481/.815, 20 HR, 80 RBI in 107 games

Rizzo became the 20-year-old to hit 20 or more homers in the Eastern League since Dernell Stenson in 1998. Between his two levels, Rizzo finished the year with 25 homers, 42 doubles and 100 RBI, hitting .260/.334/.480/.814.

"We haven't seen this kind of power production from a player in the last five years that I've been here, especially not from a high school kid," said Hazen. "He's an exciting hitter. The numbers speak for themselves, I think. To do that at that age and at that level is pretty impressive."
 
16Great One
      ID: 53105119
      Sun, Dec 05, 2010, 10:57 		I don't know who this Una Gran guy is, but he sounds smart.
 
17blue hen
      ID: 266191021
      Sun, Dec 05, 2010, 14:45 		Mark Prior at similar numbers in a similar place (USC) at a similar age to Randy Johnson.
 
18Mattinglyinthehall
      ID: 37838313
      Sun, Dec 05, 2010, 15:37 		NESN
The 2 p.m. ET deadline for the Red Sox and Adrian Gonzalez to come to terms on an extension has come and gone with out an agreement.

Accordingly, the deal has fallen through -- says Jon Heyman.

The 2 p.m. deadline was considered "soft" -- meaning a deal could come after that time -- but according to Heyman, the parties just couldn't reach a deal. Gonzalez apparently wanted an eight-year extension while the Sox only wanted to go six years.

The Padres previously said that they wouldn't be willing to field other offers for Gonzalez if the trade with Boston did not work out.
If true the Yankees posturing this week with Carl Crawford becomes a much more siginficant issue in Boston.
 
19Mattinglyinthehall
      ID: 37838313
      Sun, Dec 05, 2010, 15:52 		WEEI
A source reportedly told Heyman that Gonzalez’ camp wanted an eight-year deal for the 28-year-old, while the Red Sox were more inclined to give a six-year deal. Fox Sports’ Ken Rosenthal noted in a tweet following the deadline that the Red Sox could still go through with the trade and try their luck with eventually reaching an agreement with Gonzalez, who is set to make $6.3 million this season, the last of his current deal.
If the issue is the length of the deal rather than the $ per, a long term contract for a power-hitting all star 1b that sees him turn 37 in the final year doesn't sound like such a bad deal to me. Personally if I were Gonzalez I might prefer a 6 year deal for more money per year and gamble that I'd still be able to cash in at 35 with a deal that could take me past my 39th or 40th birthday. And if he can't, he still might be able to pull off a 2 year deal that would take him to the same age and total income (if not more) than he's asking for now.

I guess he'd rather get the bird in hand.
 
20Mattinglyinthehall
      ID: 37838313
      Sun, Dec 05, 2010, 17:25 		Werth to Nats for 7 years and $126m.

This is bad news for the Red Sox. If can't complete a deal for Gonzalez, the Yankees have a very strong incentive to step up talks with Crawford.

I still don't think they're that interested (unless they fail to sign Lee) but they can definitely drive up his asking price a bit. Clearly, the Sox' offer to Mariano Rivera ruffled some feathers, even if everyone knew Mo wouldn't consider it for even a moment.
 
21Astade
      ID: 38542218
      Sun, Dec 05, 2010, 19:02 		Still can't believe he got that much money....
 
22Mattinglyinthehall
      ID: 37838313
      Sun, Dec 05, 2010, 19:27 		Agreed. Averaging $18m over 7 years seems like an awful lot for a guy who turns 32 in May and just discovered his stroke in 2008. It's almost the same deal as Tulowitzki's contract extension, and he's 5 1/2 years younger, has outproduced Werth in the past couple of years and is a gold glove shortstop.

I wonder if Gonzalez' agent was aware of this deal as they were taking the hard line with Boston.
 
23 HBL18
      ID: 81134519
      Sun, Dec 05, 2010, 20:34 		I also agree that Werth was way overpaid. Does anyone legitimately think that Crawford could end up in Boston? I just don't see it, I think he'll be with the Angels regardless of what happens with Cliff Lee
 
24Mattinglyinthehall
      ID: 37838313
      Sun, Dec 05, 2010, 20:41 		The Yankees plan b in the event that they can't get Lee seems to be to go after Crawford and make Gardner or Swisher available in a trade to land another quality SP.

Not sure why you think the Angels have an inside track over NY and Bos. Do you believe they'd bid higher or that the Sox and Yanks aren't really interested or that Crawford specifically wants to play in CA? Some other reason?
 
25R9
      ID: 2854239
      Sun, Dec 05, 2010, 23:35 		Whoa, thats a ton for Werth. Not sure what the Nats are thinking here. Werth is not a franchise player, and that kind of money at age 32 is nuts, maybe even if he WAS a franchise player. Crazy.
 
26blue hen
      Dude
      ID: 710321114
      Mon, Dec 06, 2010, 10:08 		Unfortunately, I think the Nats' high position drafting means a lesser pick for the Phils. But I'll take it - no desire to keep Werth at that price.
 
27Electroman
      Donor
      ID: 010833614
      Mon, Dec 06, 2010, 10:15 		I love when Washington looks bad. The franchise is such a far cry from what it was in Montreal. We were maybe a joke, but at least we were competitive. They are just a joke.
 
28RecycledSpinalFluid
      Dude
      ID: 204401122
      Mon, Dec 06, 2010, 11:12 		Great Line:

Mets executive Sandy Alderson offered this, dryly: "I thought they were trying to reduce the deficit in Washington."
 
29Khahan
      ID: 373143013
      Mon, Dec 06, 2010, 11:22 		I love Werth as a player. Being in Philadelphia I have gotten to see him play for the past few years and I was SO excited at the prospect of him going to Boston. But that length of a contract and that amount of cash - Welcome to Washington, Jason. Boston can take that money for Gonzalez and then some.

Honestly congratz on a humungous contract. I'm just glad my favorite teams aren't saddled with it.
 
30blue hen
      Dude
      ID: 710321114
      Mon, Dec 06, 2010, 11:40
 
31Species
      ID: 21130412
      Mon, Dec 06, 2010, 15:06 		Werth deal: just awful. Weren't those the same numbers Zito got??? Werth will be cursed.

Thinking it over, the AGonz deal is pretty good for both teams. For Boston, they deal from strength with their farm and get a coveted player in his prime. They'll get a bunch of picks after Vmart and Beltre signings to restock the farm. Padres do fairly well considering he's 1-yr from free agency and coming off of shoulder surgery.

Mark Reynolds to BAL for a bag of balls. Yeah he's brutal in the field and the K's are scary, but 40hr is still 40hr.
 
32PuNk42AE
      Donor
      ID: 036635522
      Mon, Dec 06, 2010, 20:10 		Baltimore got a nice piece in that trade. As you said he K's a ton, but he hits HR, and they didn't give up one of their top pitching prospects. Rumor is they are talking a Reimold for Barlett trade at the meetings.
 
33R9
      ID: 2854239
      Mon, Dec 06, 2010, 21:27 		Reynolds has a decent contract for the next two years too. Baltimore's pen was awful though, and they just moved two of their more promising future options. They didn't deal from a position of strength.

With what MR's are earning on the open market right now, they lose if they sign some MR's (since they aren't ready to compete for 1st) and they lose if they try to fill from whats left of their organisational depth.
 
34R9
      ID: 2854239
      Mon, Dec 06, 2010, 21:28 		Marcum leaving the AL East for the NL has to be good for his career. Brett Lawrie's value has to go up a bit, as he now has a better chance of sticking at 2B.
 
35Bond, James Bond
      Leader
      ID: 04352469
      Thu, Dec 09, 2010, 00:04 		Carl Crawford is going to the Red Sox! I thought for sure he was Angel-bound.
 
36Species
      Dude
      ID: 07724916
      Thu, Dec 09, 2010, 01:16 		Red Sox = evil empire.....just buying free agents and trading for All-Stars that the poor teams can't afford.

Bastards.
 
37Khahan
      ID: 373143013
      Thu, Dec 09, 2010, 10:08 		Glad to have Crawford on the Red Sox. Not so glad to have a contract of that length or that price on the Red Sox.
 
38Skidazl
      ID: 3253219
      Thu, Dec 09, 2010, 16:04 		Angels always suck in the meetings. Nothing left now.

We'll probably end up overpaying for Beltre...

Werth was a much better fit in Boston, IMHO, and though his contract is outrageous, it is still a lot less than what crawford got. LF in Fenway is too small to showcase Crawford's defensive skills.
 
39Mith
      ID: 371138719
      Fri, Dec 17, 2010, 00:51 		NYT:

Red Sox sign Bobby jenks for 2 years/$12m.

Cubs sign Wood for 1 season at $1.5m, way down from the $12m fir 2 years he was reportedly asking.

Nats trade Willingham to Oakland for prospects.

According to Buster Olney, citing two unnamed sources, the Jenks deal moves the current Red Sox payroll past the Yankees. Though the Yankees will still likely add at least 1 SP, 2 RP and 1 or 2 bench players. Don't know if the Sox are done, I have to imagine they'd add a good catcher if one became available, not sure what else they might be looking at.

Anyway, as I previously noted in another thread, the Yankees budget advantage over other big market teams appears to be shrinking. Will be particularly interesting to see how the 2011 opening day payrolls look.
 
40Mattinglyinthehall
      ID: 37838313
      Sat, Dec 18, 2010, 14:16 		Red Sox add Dan Wheeler to the pile for 1 year at $3m with a 2nd year vesting at the same salary if he notches 65 appearances.
 
41R9
      ID: 2854239
      Sun, Dec 19, 2010, 20:14 		Like the Greinke trade for both teams, smart move for both given where they are at.

Mith, 39: Cmon. Seriously? Fine, the Sox caught the Yankees in payroll. Philly is a bit up there too. Anyone else in range? Anyone else even over 100 mil? Just give it a rest.
 
42Mattinglyinthehall
      ID: 37838313
      Sun, Dec 19, 2010, 23:39 		Give what a rest? If I wrote something that you feel is untrue then lets hear it.
 
43Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Sun, Dec 19, 2010, 23:50 		Hear hear r9. Last year the Yankees were #1 in Opening Day payroll by 21% over Boston. And about 29% over the Cubs at #3. In fact, about 10% of all MLB salary dollars spent on Opening Day 2010 were cut by the busy Yankee Accounts Payable Department.

With the Yankees yet to add players there should be no doubt the Fat Wallet Trophy is staying in the Bronx in 2011.
 
44Mattinglyinthehall
      ID: 37838313
      Mon, Dec 20, 2010, 01:11 		Uh, sure. Here here. Really put the guy who neither said nor implied anything to the contrary in his place.

What I did say was that the advantage over other big market clubs was srinking. It takes notably more data than a comparison of the 2010 payrolls of 3 clubs to prove or disprove that statement. - Unless of course we apply on the FOX News Channel standard of proof.
 
45Mattinglyinthehall
      ID: 37838313
      Mon, Dec 20, 2010, 03:39 		Shrinking advantage over other big market clubs.

For each year, Yankees payroll, followed by the next 5 teams in order, with the percentage amount their payroll was lower than the Yankees, followed by the average of those percentages.

2010:
Yankees: $206,333,389
Red Sox: $162,747,333 - 21%
Cubs: $146,859,000 - 29%
Phillies: $141,927,381 - 31%
Mets: $132,701,445 - 36%
Tigers: $122,864,929 - 40%
Average advantage: 31%

2009
Yankees: $201,449,189
Mets: $149,373,987 - 26%
Cubs: $134,809,000 - 33%
Red Sox: $121,745,999 - 40%
Tigers: $115,085,145 - 43%
Angels: $113,004,046 - 44%
Average advantage: 37%

2008
Yankees: $209,081,577
Mets: $137,793,376 - 34%
Tigers: $137,685,196 - 34%
Red Sox: $133,390,035 - 36%
White Sox: $121,189,332 - 42%
Angels: $119,216,333 - 43%
Average advantage: 38%

2007
Yankees: $189,639,045
Red Sox: $143,026,214 - 25%
Mets: $115,231,663 - 39%
Angels: $109,251,333 - 42%
White Sox: $108,671,833 - 43%
Dodgers: 108,454,524 - 43%
Average advantage: 38%

2006
Yankees: $194,663,079
Red Sox: $120,099,824 - 38%
Angels: $103,472,000 - 47%
White Sox: $102,750,667 - 47%
Mets: $101,084,963 - 48%
Dodgers: $98,447,187 - 49%
Average advantage: 46%

All figures pulled from USA Today, don't know if they are opening day or final payrolls.

Maybe the #s 2 thru 6 teams will average more than 31% lower than the Yankees' payroll in 2011 (tho it does seem unlikely given the Red Sox and Phillies actvity this year). Regardless, at least for the time being, an undenyable trend is an undenyable trend, Gretchen.

Funny thing is, anyone who honestly cares about league parity the good of the game more than they care about their victim complex and having a good reason to hate the Yankees should see this as very good news rather than a reason to attack the messenger.

Can I get a "Here Here!"?

I didn't think so.
 
47Mattinglyinthehall
      ID: 37838313
      Mon, Dec 20, 2010, 07:27 		Sorry, finishing up an overnight shift...

Looks like 2005 was the peak:

2005
Yankees: $208,306,817
Red Sox: $123,505,125 - 41%
Mets: $101,305,821 - 51%
Angels: $97,725,322 - 53%
Phillies: $95,522,000 - 54%
Cardinals: $92,106,833 - 56%
Average advantage: 51%

2004
Yankees: $184,193,950
Red Sox: $127,298,500 - 31%
Angels: $100,534,667 - 45%
Mets: $96,660,970 - 48%
Phillies: $93,219,167 - 49%
Dodgers: $92,902,001 - 50%
Average advantage: 45%

2003
Yankees: $152,749,814
Mets: $117,176,429 - 23%
Braves: $106,243,667 - 30%
Dodgers: $105,872,620 - 31%
Rangers: $103,491,667 - 32%
Red Sox: $99,946,500 - 35%
Average advantage: 30%

2002
Yankees: $125,928,583
Red Sox: $108,366,060 - 14%
Rangers: $105,726,122 - 16%
DBacks: $102,819,999 - 18%
Dodgers: $94,850,953 - 25%
Mets: $94,633,593 - 25%
Average advantage: 20%

2001
Yankees: $112,287,143
Red Sox: $109,675,833 - 2%
Dodgers: $109,105,953 - 3%
Mets: $93,674,428 - 17%
Indians: $92,660,001 - 17%
Braves: $91,936,166 - 18%
Average advantage: 11%

2000
Yankees: $92,938,260
Dodgers: $90,375,953 - 3%
Orioles: $83,141,198 - 11%
Braves: $82,732,500 - 11%
Red Sox: $81,210,333 - 12%
Mets: $79,759,762 - 14%
Average advantage: 10%
 
48Species
      ID: 711122010
      Mon, Dec 20, 2010, 11:12 		I love the Grienke trade for the Brewers....with him and Marcum they can compete in the NL Central. IMO the Royals only did ok....I really would've expected them to get at least one all-star projectable prospect out of it, and I don't see it at all. Escobar and Cain are ok...the pitchers are okay.....just no studs. Not a bad trade necessarily....but not the haul I would have expected.

MITH -- dude, who has pissed in your Corn Flakes lately? Can you take the ultra aggressive/defensive argument style back to the Poli Board please (Lee thread in particular)?
 
49Mith
      ID: 4010542612
      Mon, Dec 20, 2010, 11:40 		Sorry Species if I've offended you, I just dont take blatant falsehoods, being told to "give it a rest" by someone without a clue or having the point of my posts twisted up beyond recognition very well. I guess I'm odd that way.
 
50Mith
      ID: 4010542612
      Mon, Dec 20, 2010, 11:44 		And ftr I have no idea why my posts here would have prompted that remark, Species, even as you note that you take greater issue in the other thread. I think the data I put together in 45/47 is really interesting stuff you won't find compiled anyplace else.
 
51Species
      ID: 711122010
      Mon, Dec 20, 2010, 12:05 		Because MITH....IMO this board should be baseball talk in a more simple form. I don't like the Yankees getting $hit on any more than you do, but I personally don't enjoy Sean Hannity references and Poli-board style arguments where any sentance can be dissected and attacked with four links to prove a counter-point.

Yeah I said it here...because I'd like this thread to continue to have real chatter and not turn into the mess that is the Lee thread. Of course, I'm not the board police....just one dude in this community with an opinion.

To answer your question, IMO your defensive tone and point-belaboring in here is reeking of the tone in the Lee thread, so I commented. R9 has more than a clue...not that he needs me to defend him but he's pretty baseball savvy for a french-speaker ;)
 
52Mith
      ID: 4010542612
      Mon, Dec 20, 2010, 12:13 		I guess I should just learn to stfu when someone savvy comes along (Anyone else in range? Anyone else even over 100 mi?) and tells me to give it a rest.

Hear Hear!

Yeah thanks for the advice.
 
53R9
      ID: 2854239
      Mon, Dec 20, 2010, 12:36 		MITH, my beef isn't with the Yankees its with baseball's economy, and how the haves consistantly get hugely lucrative bonuses over the have-nots. I've said this before.

Every other major sport has attempted to curb the advantage money plays in the competing of the sport except baseball, which has watched it reach ridiculous levels while doing nothing. (Revenue-sharing is a joke and everyone knows it.) If anything, the Sox catching the Yankees is just another example. Its not baseball getting closer to money parity, its another 'have' growing their advantage over the have-nots, who clearly have not gained on anyone in the last decade.

Is that a shot at the Yankees? Not really. Its a shot at baseball, one I've taken before, and to be honest I can still be a fan without focusing on it. A part of me even likes the all-star dynasty-like teams the haves can throw together. (Must be my Habs background.) But yeah, I guess I don't like having every discussion devolve into one about the Yankees and money, certainly not in a thread titled MLB Hot stove, and certainly not when there is a Yankees thread already on this board. Thats why I said give it a rest.

I guess I should just learn to stfu when someone savvy comes along (Anyone else in range? Anyone else even over 100 mi?) and tells me to give it a rest.

Probably not a bad idea, and I don't mean that in a bad way. If you really think someone is an idiot, and defending your point is going to take 5 tldr; posts and take a discussion way OT, maybe letting the idiot stay an idiot is a better path to take?
 
54R9
      ID: 2854239
      Mon, Dec 20, 2010, 12:43 		48, while there isn't a top prospect in the group, KC got alot of young depth where they needed it. They had no CF prospect, no SS prospect, and their RP prospects were actually fairly weak as well. Both the SS and CF prospects are excellent defenders, and Cain probably has leadoff potential, something else their prospect pool was light on.
So addressing defense up the middle in spots where they had none was a solid move imo. I also suspect the offers out there adding in top prospects was alot lighter then we'd imagine. While Greinke certainly commands a top prospect, there were few available from teams who needed the SP. So not a bad time to take some quantity over quality.

KC is going to be a fun team to follow for a few years.
 
55R9
      ID: 2854239
      Mon, Dec 20, 2010, 12:48 		Funny thing is, anyone who honestly cares about league parity the good of the game more than they care about their victim complex and having a good reason to hate the Yankees should see this as very good news rather than a reason to attack the messenger.

Just saw this. I agree that parity is starting to be reached at the top levels. But parity for all of MLB is getting farther away, not closer. Two 'have' teams are reaching higher levels, while no 'have-not' team has gained in money. Agree?

My favorite sport's league, the NHL, has a salary cap that the vast majority of teams has reached. Its also got a cap on draftee contracts, so players are actually drafted based on perceived talent, and not on signability concerns. Other then 3-4 franchises that are still struggling financially, the league has monetary parity, and the 'have' franchises are those with the best talent, both on the ice and in the offices. Which is fun to see. When a team like Philly goes to the cup final, we know they got there through good management and solid play, not because they were able to sign 5 have-not team's best players.
 
56KrazyKoalaBears
      ID: 517068
      Mon, Dec 20, 2010, 13:00 		MITH, please feel free to continue.

As a Nats fan, I look forward to the day when I can have payback for all the snarky remarks about the team I root for.

The Yankees are clearly not the far-and-away biggest spenders in MLB like they used to be, so your point in #39 is completely valid and raises interesting points about the spending of other teams in this MLB Hot Stove season.
 
57Mith
      ID: 4010542612
      Mon, Dec 20, 2010, 13:12 		R9

You might be right on most of the topics you touched on -- but not, I don't think, what you said about 'parity for all of MLB'. I suspect it has likely improved at least moderately, with the possible exception of one or more teams that haven't seemed interested in helping themselves. This is a good topic for a new thread. Probably be a couple of days before I have time to dive into it.
 
58Species
      ID: 711122010
      Mon, Dec 20, 2010, 13:44 		Re: 54 -- good points. To a team like the Royals, a premium on cheap, salary-controlled ML-ready players makes sense. That they got two at positions of organizational scarcity again has value to them. I just don't think either of these guys are very good. Escobar looked over his head at the plate last year...and his 25+ sb speed didn't even materialize, as he went 10 for 14 in sb.

Time will always tell.....but history suggests that the team receiving the star usually wins. I think KC could have waited....although I DO get the points out there that suggest it might have gotten ugly if they started the season with Grienke.
 
59Great One
      ID: 1711331610
      Mon, Dec 20, 2010, 13:49 		We need a floor and a salary cap, keep everybody in the 50 MM to 125 MM range.
 
60R9
      ID: 2854239
      Mon, Dec 20, 2010, 13:53 		58, I tend to agree. The majority of the time, the team that gets the best player wins the deal. And I'm not all that big on the players they got either, though if both Escobar and Cain reach the top of their potential its a good deal. Its just tough for two non-blue chip prospects to both pan out.

59, that seems solid. I think every market can afford to spend 100-125 mil during a couple of contender seasons, saving some money by spending 50-60 mil during rebuilding years. And if they cant, they really ought to be contracted/moved. Just like in hockey, the 3-4 teams that are still having financial problems really ought to be moved.
 
61Tosh
      Leader
      ID: 057721710
      Mon, Dec 20, 2010, 15:30 		Examining Why Kansas City Dealt Zach Greinke
 
62Electroman
      Donor
      ID: 010833614
      Mon, Dec 20, 2010, 18:33 		I heard a snippet of a Billy Butler interview where he was happy that Greinke got traded because something about solving a problem. I guess he wasn't happy.

RE 55

Donald Fehr is now defending the players in the NHLPA, I think it has been made official. Interesting to see how that will work out. There is no parity in baseball.

Someone mentioned something about a salary floor. The problem with that is that teams often overpay players that are not worth the salary to hit that floor, so it doesn't really serve the purpose it is supposed to.
 
63MBT
      ID: 191142515
      Tue, Dec 21, 2010, 15:13 		From MLB.com

“There’s no surprise,” Butler said Monday. “This has been a controversy ever since Zack had that article that came out and he was wanting out. Whenever you do something like that, the organization has no choice but to trade you. I’m just happy that its behind us now, because if it would have kept lingering on any longer, I think it would have affected the team.”

“You don’t want somebody to be somewhere they don’t want to. That being said, Zack made it public that he didn’t want to be here anymore. As the Kansas City Royals, you don’t want that around. It’s not good for your team. I hope it works out for Zack in Milwaukee. I think we got some great pieces that came over.”
 
64MBT
      ID: 191142515
      Tue, Dec 21, 2010, 15:16 		Harden back with the A's according to MLB.com

"Rumblings of a reunion began last week, but the A's made their second partnership with hurler Rich Harden official on Tuesday by announcing a one-year deal with the right-hander.

Harden's contract is worth $1.5 million plus incentives."
 
65Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Mon, Dec 27, 2010, 15:44 		Dotel close to signing with the Blue Jays
 
66Electroman
      ID: 3170417
      Fri, Jan 07, 2011, 13:21 		Garza to Cubs pending physicals.
 
67Mith
      ID: 371138719
      Sat, Jan 08, 2011, 00:01 		Given a choice, I so would have preferred the Yankees trade for Garza than sign Lee. I knew the chance was remote if it existed at all that Tampa would trade him to a team within the division. And the package sent by the Cubs was probably more than I'd have cared to see the Yankees match.

But Garza is 27, still arbitration-eligible, has been a starter in the AL East for 3 full seasons and never posted an ERA of 4 or higher and is a solid 7-4, 3.83 in 18 career starts against the Red Sox.

I think he's gonna be great in Chicago.
 
68blue hen
      Dude
      ID: 710321114
      Mon, Jan 10, 2011, 12:56 		I think Garza will be good, but I think the Yankees will find a way to make a splash with a pitcher.
 
69Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Mon, Jan 10, 2011, 13:02 		Maybe. But without trading their top pick, any top prospects, and with few top SP remaining as FA's, it is hard to see how that would happen.

I suspect they'll take a shot on someone like Webb or Chris Young at the back of the order and count themselves lucky if they get 10-12 wins out of it.
 
70Mith
      ID: 4010542612
      Mon, Jan 10, 2011, 16:42 		The addition of Martin would indicate an increased willingness to move Montero. It could possibly mean they're disappointed in Montero's glove or impressed with the progress of Romine's bat or possibly trying to give the illusion of the latter to increase Romine's trade value.

That might sound silly but it feels like Romine's been getting a bit of extra attention lately. A few weeks back, the NY Daily News (a sports page which George Steinbrenner seemed to always enjoya certain preferred status) ran a big full-page article that just gushed over Romine. Seemed a bit odd with Montero so well established as the top talent in the organization - and at the same position.

I agree they'll be willing to move some prospects for a SP but Cashman seems pretty determined to not overpay and he doesn't seem to be bluffing when he says he's willing to open the season with the talent he has.
 
71Electroman
      ID: 3170417
      Fri, Jan 21, 2011, 19:59 		Wells to the Angels.

Juan Rivera and Mike Napoli would go to the Jays in return.
 
72Species
      Dude
      ID: 07724916
      Fri, Jan 21, 2011, 21:56 		Why in the F**K would the Angels take on that albatross of a contract????? Exclusive of the money, good trade. Just. Wow.
 
73Electroman
      ID: 3170417
      Sat, Jan 22, 2011, 13:54 		I think he is able to opt out after 2011, doubt that will happen. He won't get 20 million per year again.
 
74filthy
      Sustainer
      ID: 568191312
      Sat, Jan 22, 2011, 19:12 		If VW can win over the Angels next season, it might be beneficial for both sides to opt out of the last 3 years/60ish million, and restructure into a 5/75 type deal. Might be tough for him to even earn a contract by 2014, so anything above what is currently guaranteed would likely be a bonus for him.

Or maybe he will go into contract mode, and have a killer season that sets him up with a huge contract to end his career in Texas.

Wouldn't be crazy to see him opt out, and it's slowly becoming a really bad contract, rather than an epic fail contract. Mostly due to other teams lowering the standards, but I'm sure the Angels are fine with that.

Absolutely nothing holding the Jays back now. They just cut their long term contract investments by like 60%. Wells was the Jays best cleanup hitter by default, and that will be missed, but I think Napoli might be able to fill that spot. All of those relief signings were just the appetizers, this trade was worth not seeing any big free agent moves. Go Jays.
 
75Graydog
      ID: 260361718
      Sat, Jan 22, 2011, 20:00 		I think from a jays standpoint this is obviously a great move long term. im shocked the Angels took on this contract. I think they will get something in return for Rivera eventually. Unless Lind rebounds this deal hurts Bautista's fantasy value as who else on the jays has the kind of bat that can be protection for Bautista?
 
76Skidazl
      ID: 3253219
      Sat, Jan 22, 2011, 22:19 		As an Angels fan, I like the move, never been much of a Napoli fan, he either K's or hit a HR, and he is pathetic behind the plate. This will give them the chance to bring up Conger, whose potential I like a lot.
Rivera was also a liability defensively and if he isn't playing everyday, as he wouldn't for the Angels with Abreu, Bourgos and Hunter, then his offensive numbers seem to drop a lot.

If Wells can return to form, or as mentioned before, go into contract mode, I'm liking our chances today a lot better than 2 days ago.
 
77Great One
      ID: 56051423
      Sun, Jan 23, 2011, 00:56 		Manny and Damon to the Rays? interesting.
 
78Mith
      ID: 4010542612
      Sun, Jan 23, 2011, 07:42 		Surprised that Manny was only able to command $2m.
 
79Khahan
      ID: 13126822
      Sun, Jan 23, 2011, 13:39 		Considering the reputation Manny has and his actual production the last 2 years, I'm not.
 
80Matt G
      ID: 250262319
      Sun, Jan 23, 2011, 20:26 		Twins Off season.

Coming off a great regular season and another disappointing first round exit, things looked grim for the Twins. The Twins we set to lose arguably their best starting pitcher, team MVP of the second half, the majority of their bullpen which has been their strength as well as the middle of their infield.

What they had to gain was getting Justin Morneau back, Joe Mauer getting healthy, Michael Cuddyer figuring it out while playing his actual position and Danny Valencia maturing even more to fill the void which has been third base.

What they need: a Front line starter, bullpen help and a right handed bat. As well as a 1B/3B backup to help if morneau/valencia go down. And a C backup.

What they got: Same team as last year, minus the stud bullpen and more question marks in the middle in field.

What the Twins did was sit back and bring the pieces they had form last year. Casilla was great in 2008, but has regressed since then. Nishioka has drawn comparisons to Ichiro and might bet a great bat to hit in front of Mauer. Carl Pavano is back from one of his best, if not his best seasons ever, but has yet to put together back to back years. Nathan and Capps provide two great arms in the bullpen, but Nathan might not be ready, Neshek should be back to take the place of Guerrier as a situational righty. Thome comes back as the veteran clubhouse guy, he gave the twins a discount because he loved playing there so much, has to say something about this organization.

What I wish they did: Use the plethora of starting pitchers and some of the outfield prospects to get Greinke. Greinke would have loved the Minnesota clubhouse, I think you'd see some of his best work yet if he'd been traded to minnesota. I wish they got a Right handed bat. Jim Thome is great, and he was key down the stretch for the twins, BUT he is a lefty as are most of the twins big bats Morneau, Mauer, Thome, Kubel... all lefties. On the right all they have are Young and Cuddyer, and while Young had a career year, Cuddyer looked lost at times. I wish they would have chased one of the high risk high reward injury guys to add to the rotation. Why not sign Manny instead of Thome, put him at the DH position and left him rake from the #5 hole. Also needed a better backup then Drew Butera for Mauer

Outlook: People keep saying the tigers and the sox did so much to catch if not pass the twins, and they might be right, but we've been hearing for years about this and the twins have been content to promote from within and bring in pieces. Is Nishioka going to be better than Hardy at the plate and at the bat? It's possible. Is casilla going to be comparable to the O-Dog at 2B? Maybe... Can Mauer and Morneau stay healthy for the entire year? Will Pavano and Liriano post similar numbers to 2010 or 2009? Can the bullpen be a strength again even while losing most of the big arms?

I think the twins will stay on pace and continue to win, With Morneau and Mauer healthy, they can carry the offense, Nishioka should fit nicely at #2 and Valencia hopefully won't regress too much as a sophomore. Despite losing a bunch of bullpen pieces, Nathan and Capps should help, and if both of them are healthy the other can be a trade piece mid season. Anthony Slama and Glen Perkins will be fine as middle relief, Mijares and Diamond will be the lefty guys and Neshek is 2 years removed from Tommy John and Should be filthy against righties. Alex Burnett will be in the mix as well and the twins now have 7 starters, plus Kyle Gibson knocking on the door to the rotation.

Some one you haven't heard of is Estarlin de los Santos. A few years ago was one of the top dominican republic prospects, he's 24 and might see some time later in the year.
 
81Seattle Zen
      Leader
      ID: 055343019
      Sun, Jan 23, 2011, 21:02 		I like the thought behind making an offer for Grienke. I, too, think he would have fit in well.

You couldn't be serious about signing Manny, though, that would invalidate many of the points in your story. Thome gave the Twins a discount because their clubhouse and organization is the type of place where Manny does not fit in. It would not have worked.
 
82Matt G
      ID: 250262319
      Mon, Jan 24, 2011, 09:27 		Seattle - You're correct, perhaps I should rephrase that... A bat LIKE Manny. The needed a RH bat to come off the bench and to DH against Lefties... Thome and Kubel were terrible against lefties last year, and having a strong Righty that you can counter with when bullpens go lefty to get past Mauer and Morneau... Cuddyer doesn't scare anyone and Delmon has to have another repeat season before they start being afraid of him too.

I don't think Manny would have been too toxic in the clubhouse, he seemed lovable on the idiots in Boston, possibly the light heartedness in Minny would have helped? Who knows, I still stand by needed a RH power bat off the bench... Althought, being that the bullpen is the twins only major concern right now, I think they will be ok. Two allstar closers at the end. A former starter in the LR role. We have to remember that Guerrier was a waiver pickup, Eddie Guardado was a failed Starter, LaTroy Hawkins was one of the worst relievers in the league before Rick Anderson got to him and Joe Nathan was a struggling SS and an also ran in the Pierzynski trade that brought Liriano and Boof Bonser(of which Boof was the centerpiece)

Middle relievers are one of the most plentiful commodities in MLB, if that is my favorite teams biggest concern then I'm not too worried.
 
83Electroman
      Donor
      ID: 010833614
      Tue, Jan 25, 2011, 21:06 		Napoli gets traded back to the AL West, Texas, for releiver Francisco.
 
84Species
      ID: 711122010
      Wed, Jan 26, 2011, 12:03 		Re: Matt G #82

Dude, what version of Joe Nathan's story did you read? By the time MIN got Nathan, he'd LONG since been converted to pitcher, had 2 mediocre seasons as a starter....blew out his elbow or shoulder and missed nearly two seasons. Installed as a reliever in 2003, he went 12-4 with peripherals approaching those he achieved with the Twins. To characterize the Twins as revolutionizing him into the pitcher he is on their own is hyperbolous at best.

The Giants, IIRC, I think felt like they were playing with house money, getting value for a converted SS with 1 yr of relief success. Too bad they didn't know what they had.
 
85mc5huffl35
      Leader
      ID: 00795541
      Sun, Jan 30, 2011, 00:42 		Brian Wilson... awesome
 
86Matt G
      ID: 19126211
      Wed, Feb 02, 2011, 12:26 		Species - you are correct, he was a couple years from that, I guess I shouldn't have pointed that out, but more pointed out that they got Liriano, and Nathan who was a throw-in at that point but there were rumors of him being a closer right off the bat... Either way the twins saw success in that..

My point is, the twins have found relievers all over the place, whether Nathan as a throw in on a trade or guerrier, etc.