iamshack

QUOTE (KevinM @ Nov 12, 2009 -> 04:38 PM) It isn't like Gonzalez has one year of service time. He's pretty close to free agency, all things considered. He's not commanding 7-8 guys. And certainly not 7-8 "good" prospects. Well, I actually agree with you. I think it would take 4 or 5 prospects, and I think if we gave up 5, we would get another player back from them. Maybe a Kevin Correia or something. Just my opinion.

QUOTE (KevinM @ Nov 12, 2009 -> 04:29 PM) On what planet would Alex Rios be a once in a lifetime move? Even when he was producing at his personal peak, it's not like .850 OPS outfielders are that hard to come by. Also, the Miguel Cabrera deal is perfect evidence for why a 7-8 for 1 (or 2) deal is not happening. If he didn't command seven to eight good prospects, Adrian Gonzalez certainly will not. As referenced in my recent post, Cabrera was going to cost the Tigers more than 2.5 times as much as AGon will cost us. Additionally, the reason the Tigers won the Cabrera sweepstakes is because they took on Dontrelle Willis, whom they have basically paid an additional $15 million thus far, and still owe $12 million to in 2010. So no, that is not anywhere close to a perfect example.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 12, 2009 -> 04:14 PM) 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. I could not disagree with you more, and as a person with a scientific background, I expect more from you. First of all, the question that was asked was qualified by asking how many times has this occurred (have 7 prospects been traded for 1 player) in the HISTORY of the game. That would be like me asking you "How often has civilized man caused as many ill-effects on the environment as he has during the industrial age in the HISTORY of the earth?" It's not an accurate question, as posed. You're asking about a result that has only come about due to a set of circumstances that have occurred over a very small percentage of the whole history. It couldn't possibly have occurred much in the history of the whole, because those circumstances have not existed for all but a small percentage of the history of the whole. Second of all, the other situations you mention are simply not entirely analogous with this situation. Miguel Cabrera was due to make $11.3 million dollars in 08', in a deal he made with the Marlins to avoid arbitration. He would have made even more in 09', his final year of service time. So you're talking about a guy that probably would have made closer to $27 million over two seasons (still a good deal for MCab), but not nearly as paltry as the $10.25 million AGon will make over the next two seasons. The same thing goes for Teixeira. He agreed to a contract of $12.5 million with Atlanta in 2008, avoiding arbitration, and they paid him approximately $4 million in 07' as they acquired him on the day of the trade deadline. They would have paid him, had they not traded him, approximately $16.5 million for less than 1.5 years of baseball. And Teix was a player everyone knew wanted to play out east - there was no way he was staying in Atlanta, there was no way he was going to re-sign with LA. He was going to the Yankees, to Boston, or worst case, to his hometown Baltimore Orioles. So an extension to keep him was simply not possible. Who is Captain Cheeseburger?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 12, 2009 -> 04:01 PM) 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?

QUOTE (qwerty @ Nov 12, 2009 -> 03:55 PM) 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?

QUOTE (KevinM @ Nov 12, 2009 -> 03:53 PM) 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?

QUOTE (KevinM @ Nov 12, 2009 -> 02:33 PM) 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.

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.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 12, 2009 -> 11:48 AM) Moving to Tennessee Are you really?

QUOTE (1977 sox fan @ Nov 12, 2009 -> 08:57 AM) Hey question for you ? Why is it your telling others to tone it down and to watch there language but its ok for you to be a smart as- to me ? I read your profile its says your 12yrs old well if that is true until you accomplished half of what i have done in life . YOU my friend should tone it down . Oh my! Thank you for alerting me to that inconsistency in my personal information! I appreciate that. I have changed it just for you.

QUOTE (sircaffey @ Nov 12, 2009 -> 12:43 AM) It's not like they aren't going to be getting multiple players from the Red Sox w/ Buchholz. Either offer is going to fill multiple holes. The Padres actually have some good offensive prospects. Outside of Latos though, their pitching is absolutely pathetic. You can't trade your franchise player for offense when your pitching is just that horrendous. With quality young pitching being the #1 hardest thing to acquire, the Padres better take advantage of this situation because after Adrian is gone, the only way they'll be able to acquire young pitching is through the draft. And with the current system's pitching talent, they'll be rebuilding for the next decade. I'm not saying they wouldn't like to get a good position player or two, but I can't see them accepting a deal that isn't pitching heavy. It would be a very unwise decision, imo. Yeah, fair enough. It just depends on how they view some of the position players we might offer versus those the Red Sox might offer. My guess is we have a few that we are willing to offer that can help them a bit more than those that they are willing to offer. I could obviously be wrong.

QUOTE (Quinarvy @ Nov 11, 2009 -> 11:55 PM) Wouldn't expect him to carry a major load in the majors, but instead be a spot-starter and last BP resort. Yeah, Hynick actually looks like he maybe able to offer us something. He had some really solid numbers in Colorado Springs last year, if I recall correctly.

QUOTE (sircaffey @ Nov 11, 2009 -> 09:49 PM) SD's holes are SP, SP, SP, SP, SP, SP, and then offense. They are in desperate need of young impact SP. Regardless of whether Buchholz is involved or not, SD is going to get 3-4 good prospects for Gonzalez. They'll fill holes. Outside of Hudson, we really can't offer much in terms of pitching. If Boston comes in with an offer involving Buchholz and Bowden, I don't see us having much chance. They have needs all over the place. I don't know about you, but I'd rather have Hudson and some other pieces that can fill out my lineup card than a slightly upgraded young pitcher. The key for them should be to score as many mlb-ready or near mlb-ready prospects with high ceilings as possible. They're not trading Gonzalez for the salary relief here. They're using him as way of rebuilding their core very quickly.

QUOTE (knightni @ Nov 11, 2009 -> 10:43 PM) He used the cream, not the clear Evidently he should have used the clear...

QUOTE (lostfan @ Nov 11, 2009 -> 10:35 PM) Considering he averaged something like 37 points one year when they still allowed hand checking I'd say 40 ppg is within the realm of possibility. That was 87'-88' I think. Insane year he had.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Nov 11, 2009 -> 10:34 PM) I meant from the Pistons days onward. There's some Youtube videos out there where Jordan used to just get mugged, it was part of the game back then. Nowadays the entire style of defense is just different. The Jordan Rules...poor Michael... They've changed the rules to encourage more scoring...you try and play defense like that, and your entire team will foul out and get fined and ejected for flagrant 2's.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 11, 2009 -> 09:16 PM) In all seriousness, if Clay Bucholz was out there, the only way we would top that is with either Danks or Floyd. In that case, I hope Kenny folds. I don't necessarily agree. If you're Jed Hoyer, you're going to want to fill multiple holes by trading Gonzalez. If we are offering prospects that are closer to filling some gaps in the Padres' lineup card, he may like a deal involving Hudson as the centerpiece more than Bucholz, even though that package includes the better centerpiece.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 11, 2009 -> 09:10 PM) Maybe Jake Peavy can hook the Sox up? I think it would ultimately come down to whether Jed Hoyer liked our prospects more than what Theo was offering him from that system he knows so well.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 11, 2009 -> 06:50 PM) http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405...1984299454.html There is a pretty incredible article in the October issue of GQ. Some pretty incredible studies have been done and papers have been written and the NFL has tried to smother them. If you're interested in this topic, you should definitely check it out.

QUOTE (Rowand44 @ Nov 11, 2009 -> 06:12 PM) That's awesome. And I think a lot of people were in the same boat as Rick, that's awesome that he owned up to it. I agree. That's great of Rick to show some accountability. One of the few in the Chicago sports media that ever has. As for Noah, I am so proud of that guy. I think most people thought that would be a wasted pick, but wow, he has really worked his butt off and continued to show that energy he had as a college player. Good for the kid, and Rick.

Seems as though Adrian has begun to accept his fate, although he is curious just what number the Padres' are going to throw at him...

QUOTE (lostfan @ Nov 11, 2009 -> 07:11 PM) The 80s and 90s were waayyyyy more physical than today's game. Well, you need to qualify that. The early and mid-eighties...the game was not especially physical. It wasn't until the late 80's and the rise of the Pistons' "Bad Boy" teams and "The Jordan Rules" that things really started getting physical. The rest of the League saw the success the Pistons were having in defeating teams like the Celtics, Bulls and Lakers and the rush for defense was on. This culminated in 04' and 05' with titles won by the Pistons and Spurs with stifling defense. Ever since then, the League started making rules adjustments in an attempt to encourage more scoring. So as you said, yes, the game was far more physical in the 80's and 90's, even as recently as 5 years ago. But not until the late 80's. In the days of the Showtime LA Lakers and the excellent Celtics teams, the game was definitely played with more pace and less defense.

Padres to Meet with Gonzalez About His Future

QUOTE (1977 sox fan @ Nov 11, 2009 -> 07:25 PM) Granderson is a very nice guy i met him a few years ago at a Tigers Angels weekend series once outside the park very easy for my daughter to get a autogragh . The next day we ran into him at our hotel and again he was very easy to talk to and approach . I have met a lot off ball players and in recent years most are real jerks and some are very big AZZHOLES . Whoa whoa....keep the language in check a little there, please.

QUOTE (1977 sox fan @ Nov 11, 2009 -> 06:53 PM) i said it over a month ago about a trade of konerko to the giants and was just hammer here for it . i mentioned konerko for jonathen sanchez while maybe throwing in a prospect or eating part of konerkos salary . And just so you know the giants are trying to trade Sanchez . I got blasted for Sanchez because he is a starter well so what we could put him in the pen. lefty power arm strikeout pitcher NO WE CAN'T USE A GUY LIKE THAT . AMAZING Well maybe you are a true genius and none of us here know it...