G&T

QUOTE (kyyle23 @ Dec 8, 2008 -> 02:23 PM) I dont know about that. If they were that confident in DeWitt, then they really shouldnt of had to trade for Casey Blake last year. Also, Kent isnt getting any younger I'm sure they'd rather move DeWitt to 2nd, where his offense would look a little better. And it's true that the Dodgers want Blake back. My point, is that for either Kemp or Ethier, Dye and Fields probably isn't what they'll want. But what the hell do I know.

QUOTE (kyyle23 @ Dec 8, 2008 -> 02:19 PM) When did Jeff Kent start playing third? Or conversely, when did Josh Fields start playing 2nd? Blake DeWitt plays 2nd and 3rd. DeWitt is 22 and looks like a good player. He covered for LaRoche at 3rd because LaRoche sucks. So unless someone clears out of that infield, Fields isn't going to help them. Kent is 40 and is blocking DeWitt at 2nd.

QUOTE (joesaiditstrue @ Dec 8, 2008 -> 02:17 PM) interesting if this wasn't a rebuilding year/fire sale, why would we be trading jermaine for young unproven pitchers and not keep him (he could obviously help the team compete in 2009), and resign him as the DH in 2010 since Thome will be gone? Because he will be 36 by then and this team has much younger power potential.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Dec 8, 2008 -> 02:11 PM) Well, trading EITHER ETHIER (had to say that) or Kemp for one year of Dye is certainly a "no go." It would require the inclusion of Fields, IMO. OTOH, Dye's Californian and I don't think he would be opposed to going back out there again. I mean, the cold weather in April/May in Chicago can be a drag sometimes, but USCF was seemingly built for him. There also have to be the same concerns we have about his age, declining range and the fact that he's had no major injuries over a four year time span. He seems to be one of those guys like Jenks we expect to go down again at some point. Then give them Fields. Did Jeff Kent retire? Because if not, Fields wouldn't have a position on the Dodgers.

QUOTE (fathom @ Dec 8, 2008 -> 02:07 PM) Ethier and Kemp I can't imagine the Dodgers trading either for 1 year (2 at most) of Dye.

QUOTE (fathom @ Dec 8, 2008 -> 02:02 PM) Who do they have of interest? And yes, Juan Pierre is still there. Billingsley is not an option, nor is Broxton. Juan Pierre demanded a trade, BTW, according to Rosenthal

QUOTE (scenario @ Dec 8, 2008 -> 02:00 PM) Dodgers if they lose the Manny sweepstakes. And they have plenty of young pitching, correct?

QUOTE (Texsox @ Dec 8, 2008 -> 01:49 PM) He would be telling people he turned down Dye. Maybe, but I don't think he would talk to the media and say they haven't spoken since Thanksgiving. I'm sure both teams are using this alleged deal to establish a price for their player. Problem is, the Reds probably value Dye higher than most teams (because of their needs), and the Sox value Bailey higher than most teams (because of needs and ability to correct young pitchers).

QUOTE (Texsox @ Dec 8, 2008 -> 01:41 PM) The Reds could be floating this one with the hopes of setting the market price for Bailey that high. On the backside they could be whispering, hey the Sox are offering Dye, whatcha got? But Jocketty wouldn't be the one shooting down the rumor. He'd want people to think it's active and see if someone will up the price. If anything, KW has set the price on Dye at a young starter with ace potential and another prospect.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Dec 8, 2008 -> 01:08 PM) Has Hal McCoy reacted to all this denial of what his source is telling him? Has he defended his story or his source at all? I think this has been shot down and it's only on that site still because it's getting hits.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Dec 8, 2008 -> 01:00 PM) This seems like a deal that's been discussed at length and is or was very close to being done, but a number of things came up, especially the salary situations, and that this deal is at a point where it can still get done but it's not so far along that something has to come out of it. I wouldn't be surprised in the least if this rumors does just blow away in the wind. I will say that David Weathers, who Dick brought up a while earlier, is interesting in this all. The Sox generally never give cash in a deal, but they will take on contracts. I'm personally wondering if there isn't a possibility of this turning into a 5 player deal with the Sox dealing Dye and another player for Bailey, Weathers, and another. We'll just have to see how this plays out within the next week. Weathers would have to go through the arbitration (?), then agree to be dealt. That would take a month.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Dec 8, 2008 -> 12:23 PM) It's funny how articles such as this have JD gone. (This one by Jayson Stark) http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/columns/stor...rumblings081207 I think this is a done deal, but it just is on hold for whatever reason but will be announced later. That article was posted yesterday before the latest round of rumors.

QUOTE (Jimmywins1 @ Dec 7, 2008 -> 09:45 PM) Is that Rotoworld saying we won a trade?!?! That was my reaction, and why I can't imagine this one is right.

QUOTE (Sockin @ Dec 7, 2008 -> 09:31 PM) Cowley updates, Dye's agent hasn't heard anything but KW isn't saying anything either. http://twitter.com/cst_sox/status/1044354168 KW would have refuted it if it were false. This isn't done yet.

QUOTE (chisox2334 @ Dec 7, 2008 -> 09:20 PM) i believe in mr. raines and sox will be adding to payroll very soon. Cowley said the same thing last week. If dye is moved, it's because they are adding in FA.

QUOTE (beautox @ Dec 7, 2008 -> 08:51 PM) if its just bailey ill be disheartened, if dickerson or stubbs are along sign me up. I'll bet it's only Bailey. The money issue forced this down to one player.

I just figured I'd point out that, in fact, a player signed via arbitration cannot be traded until July 16. This is in the CBA Art. XX, sub B(6)(a) in case anyone wants to look at it.

I think there is discussion about this in the Cabrera Arbitration thread.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Dec 6, 2008 -> 08:11 AM) Jason Marquis for 4th/5th starter anyone? Wittenmyer adds that the Cubs would be willing to eat as much as $4MM of Jason Marquis' $9.875MM salary to move him. If the Cubs were to add Jake Peavy after that, they'd be around $138MM. They could then squeeze in their coveted left-handed hitting outfielder. source, mlbtraderumors No. We have prospects that can put up a 5+ ERA.

QUOTE (GreatScott82 @ Dec 6, 2008 -> 09:05 AM) The whole Jenks thing is intruiging. If they move him then it may be a loooong 2009 and a partial rebuilding phase. I would do it if you can get a promising top prospect who can potentially be our CF of the future. I wonder if the Mets would ever cave in and accept a Dye, Jenks for Fernando Martinez. I have been reading up about this young fella and boy is he exciting... If you were the Mets, an oppurtunity to add a 30+ HR-100 RBI guy AND a 35+ save guy has to be intruiging... The Winter Meetings will be interesting.... All indications are that there is no activity with the Mets and, even if there were, Martinez is considered totally untouchable.

QUOTE (PlaySumFnJurny @ Dec 6, 2008 -> 08:36 AM) True; but other than Pods (and maybe Contreras and Floyd), none of the above were acquired in exchange for a player of Jenks' value to the current squad. Most were acquired for cash. All suckage is relative. If we trade Bobby, we need to be fairly certain to get players back who can contribute now, not guys with mere potential. Ok, but you just named everyone on that list acquired via trade besides Javy who the Sox gave up their top prospect for, and Thornton who was acquired for nothing. So KW has a tendency to give up value to the current roster for question marks.

Prince Fielder for Jenks...those would be heavy talks. I'm here all week.

QUOTE (DukeNukeEm @ Dec 5, 2008 -> 02:32 AM) bahahhahaha KW's idea of a 1 or 2 is different than most people's idea. He'll take 1 or 2 potential. Last year he called Floyd and Danks 1 and 2...and everyone laughed.

QUOTE (Thunderbolt @ Dec 4, 2008 -> 05:47 PM) Stop working right after my Lillbridge post. Guess i killed it I hope it was worth it.

So I guess there was a little problem with the site there?