SSH2005

Possibly. I haven't read through this entire thread. The article says that it's from 19 hours ago. Okay, so give us Jonathan Broxton, Scott Elbert, and Joel Guzman. B)

We still have the Angels as a trade option, who also have good prospects. Although, dealing Garland to the Dodgers would be ideal.

http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/5185624 Hmmm, haven't we all been saying this? A California team like the Dodgers or Angels would be willing to give up the most for Garland because they know that they would have a very good chance of re-signing him to a long-term deal (just like KW did with Freddy Garcia).

That kind of thing will happen to the Royals regardless. Who do they have in their bullpen who's any good? Andy Sisco?

What if we got back a package which included Scot Shields and Dallas McPherson for Garland? They just traded for Edgardo Alfonzo so they may be willing to move McPherson. We would get great bullpen help and an eventual replacement for Crede (we could then trade Crede after 2006) and it would lower our payroll. That seems like a more reasonable and realistic trade to me.

It's pretty sad that the Royals continue to pick up over-the-hill players over the years instead of playing their prospects. Either way, they aren't going to compete so what's the difference? At least if you play your prospects you get a chance to see if any of them are really good.

http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/5188214

So a trade of Garland and Crede for Chavez isn't realistic but a trade of Crede for Chavez is?

Rob Neyer of ESPN completely called out Jim Hendry regarding the Jacque Jones signing in his latest article. Pretty funny stuff... http://insider.espn.go.com/mlb/insider/col..._rob&id=2267243

http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/5189112

Okay, that looks better.

By the way, didn't the Giants also re-sign Randy Winn? Is Steve Finley going to be a fourth outfielder for them? What a dumb trade.

True, losing out on the draft picks was stupid.

It was a bunt. That was the witty part.

I agree but the reason they let Bengie Molina go is probably because of Jeff Mathis.

I would honestly see Alex Cora starting at shortstop before they ever threw Loretta back there.

That would make a lot of sense. They are probably going to lose Bengie Molina and they traded away their backup stud catcher in Josh Paul. They could go with a catching tandem of Jose Molina and Olivo and let Jeff Mathis spend another season at AAA, although one could argue that he is ready now.

No wrongdoing involved. I was just surprised that you thought Graffanino was that good and that a big payroll team like Boston would go with him as their starting second baseman. And you really weren't serious about the Red Sox starting Loretta at shortstop, were you?

I just remember during the ALDS that you said Graffanino would be the Red Sox starting second baseman in 2006 even after he booted that ball. I said that he wouldn't be and not just because he booted that ball but because he isn't really that good. And I hope you were joking about the Red Sox starting Loretta at shortstop. That isn't going to happen. He hasn't played shortstop regularly since 2000. He will be at second base and Graffanino will be on the bench.

What about Mark Loretta? The only reason Boston offered Graffanino arbitration was because they wanted the draft pick if he signed elsewhere. Apparently, no other team was interested in giving him much money.

Hey redandwhite, what happened to Tony Graffanino being the Red Sox starting second baseman in 2006? He couldn't even find a starting job elsewhere. The only reason Boston offered him arbitration was because they wanted the draft pick. Told ya so.

Bradford only pitched 23.1 innings last season because he was coming off surgery in March to address his lower back spasms. He has always been bad against lefties but he's really good against righties.

100% correct here.

Pretty good stuff there.