Kenny Hates Prospects

QUOTE (scenario @ Jun 4, 2009 -> 11:39 AM) Ok... whatever. By the way, Bill James was an accountant... who is now fabulously rich because baseball people finally decided that his stupid numbers really matter. Baseball as a whole has lagged waaaaaaaaay behind other industries in learning how to appropriately use statistics to improve their business. Like living in the freakin' dark ages type of behind... kicking and screaming to avoid change and progress that is routinely being applied by other successful businesses. Most fans have been right there with them, confused by numbers, and longing for the good old days when numbers didn't matter. Sorry. That cat is out of the bag. You prefer to continue to think the world is flat? Be my guest. Stats have been used in baseball for a very, very, very long time - well before Bill James even busted his first nut thinking of new ways to turn them into pudding. I have to ask you, what in the hell does a knowledge of pythagorean win blah blah blah have to do with being a better baseball executive? It only muddies waters. Why aren't you scoring more runs? Why are you allowing so many runs? Hmm, I know! Let's look at pythagorean bulls*** theory! Ahh, yes, here's my answer!!!

QUOTE (TLAK @ Jun 4, 2009 -> 11:09 AM) Agree Like many stats, it coorelates historically but is not predictive. It just says teams that score more runs than their opponent will tend to win more games. The larger the sample, the better the coorelation. But on any given day, the clock starts at zero and you have to watch the game to see who wins. Your comment about when runs are scored is true. A couple years ago when Dewan Day and similar stars comprised the B group relievers the White Sox apparently out performed the stat, but only because they would turn a 3 run deficit into a 9 run one. The A group relievers like Thornton were never used in those games, a loss is a loss so who cares if its by 3 or 9? As always, past performance does not guarentee future results. Exactly. And truthfully, a really good manager doesn't give a s*** about run differential in the first place. One thing I like about Ozzie is that if we're getting it handed to us because our starter gets taken out early and the guy opposite is dealing, Ozzie will take out some key starters and plug in some bench guys to get them time and keep regulars fresh. He'll put in struggling or new relievers and give them a go, knowing full well that even if we put our best team out there and make a comeback, we're still going to lose by a couple runs. Rather than doing that he lets the game continue out of hand but in a manner that leaves us in much better shape for the following day. Good managers do this all the time during a season, and runs only actually matter when they contribute to wins. I think the best way to evaluate a manager if you're just trying to use record is his team's record in 1-run and 2-run games where he's forced to make more critical decisions. And even then, you can only take that so far because if the manager doesn't have much of an offense to work with or if he has a shaky back end of the bullpen, then he's going to have trouble.

QUOTE (sircaffey @ Jun 4, 2009 -> 09:40 AM) Pittsburgh would love to trade Sanchez. He has an $8 mil option for 2010 that automatically vests with 635 PA or 600 PA + All-Star appearance this season (which he's likely to get). Jack Wilson, Sanchez, and Adam LaRoche are all players the Pirates would love to trade. They are putting an incredible emphasis on the draft and Latin America. They just opened a $4 mil academy in the DR, are looking to sign the best Latin American prospect (a 16 year old SS) in the neighborhood of $3 mil, and have the 4th overall pick in the draft. Any payroll outside of Doumit and Maholm can probably be had. If that is the case then I want: Ian Snell: $3M in 2009, $4.25M in 2010, $6.75M in 2011 (club option), $9.25M in 2012 (club option) He's actually a candidate for Coop because he has the stuff. Perfect change of scenery guy because he's only committed $4.25M in 2010 and if we get him back on track we've got him at a bargain through 2012. I'd been thinking about Snell and Nyjer Morgan as potential KW buys and I wouldn't be surprised to see him make a move for either one.

BTW I'm all for trading Poreda but I'd have never given up Poreda for McLouth.

QUOTE (BearSox @ Jun 4, 2009 -> 10:31 AM) I'm looking at the minor league numbers, and they aren't crap. Morton could be decent, as he has done good in AAA, but then again, before he hit AAA, he got hit good in all his previous stops and had an ERA of over 6 in the majors. Could go either way, depending on if he just figured out minor league hitters, or if he's figured it out altogether. Jeff Locke has had 1 good year in the minors, but other than that, he has sucked and his peripherals are terrible. Hernandez might hit for a high average, but he doesn't walk a lot, and has really no power. He's the best prospect the Pirates got back in return, and he isn't all that great of a prospect, IMO. You don't trade your best player for a mediocre group of prospects. I really have to disagree with you on Gorkys. He seems to be an excellent CF with game-changing speed and a pretty high contact rate. His BB rate needs to come up, and if it does he's a prototypical lead-off man coming from a defensive position where he also gets it done with the glove. And he's more than holding his own as a 21-year-old in AA. I wanted this guy in the Javy deal, him and Morton actually. I really like this deal for Pittsburgh because I was never exactly enamored with McLouth anyway. He's a good player but his defense is rated poorly and I don't think he has the power to really fit in a corner. He's interesting because of the contact he makes plus the speed, but I dunno, I get that rich man's Eric Byrnes feeling about him. Their numbers and tools are very similar. I think this is a great deal for Pitt because I see them giving up a good player who seems far greater simply because of the s***hole he used to play in. They will get back Morton who I see as a 3/4, Gorkys who I see as a lead-off guy, but probably more of the Taveras mode, and another guy in Locke who I don't know about. But for me it's 2 solid everyday players who will be ready when they need them, plus a prospect, for one solid everyday player who they don't need right now. For Atlanta I think it's fair value and McLouth will help them now. I think fans of both teams will call this deal a win for both sides in due time.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jun 4, 2009 -> 10:48 AM) I sometimes think he or other Sox people do, with some things they have said in the press. Concerns here are probably echoed across every other Sox fan forum or blog. They even sometimes make their ways into the press, and they always get through over the radio. Sox brass do not have to do much to catch a whiff of the stink Sox fans will put up when they throw a turd out in CF.

QUOTE (scenario @ Jun 4, 2009 -> 10:16 AM) So, the fact that it consistently predicts correctly is stupid and shortsighted to you and a bad reason to use it. It's stupid and short-sighted because it counts all runs equally and all runs allowed equally. In real baseball, losing or winning a game by 10 runs vs. winning or losing a game by 3 runs does not matter, but in that particular formula it does. It rewards teams with average pitching and inconsistent but powerful offenses (like the Indians seemingly every year) and takes away from teams with good pitching that play a lot of close games because they lack a powerful offense (seems like the Angels every year). Tampa Bay has the 2nd best run differential in baseball right now but has the 16th best record and is 4th in their division instead of leading it, which apparently they should. Is that a good sign of a bad manager? Probably not. You judge a manager by how a team is performing with regards to organizational expectations, as well as how he handles the game situationally and how players develop under him. If your manager is getting "extra wins" when run differential shows he shouldn't be, maybe instead of praising the guy you should ask why he keeps sending such-and-such pitcher out there or such-and-such defender out there when all the player does is contribute to your run differential negatively? Or maybe you should ask why the offense is so inconsistent or outright poor? Or perhaps your run differential is too small on the positive side and that is a reflection of a poor manager who runs himself out of innings too often? In some cases the formula can come out pretty close which should be no surprise to anyone considering the parity in the league and how close (+ or -) most players are to league average. But it's still not worth anything.

QUOTE (BearSox @ Jun 3, 2009 -> 09:00 PM) bump... I want to hear more opinions about the idea of trying to trade for Rolen. Well I'd obviously be for it, but it would depend on salary. Firstly, I'd be willing to throw in a bunch of talent in order to get the Jays to pick up Count's contract this season and eat some 2010 salary. The reason? I imagine valuable pieces hitting FA such as Randy Winn (for CF if we're not playing Brian), Danys Baez (too many setup men never hurt), and Doug Davis (better than Colon), etc. will be hitting the market for very little aside from immediate salary relief. I'd love to retain the ability to take on one of those contracts. If we can't get the Jays to take back Count then I still consider the deal, but ONLY if they eat a good portion of 2010 salary. I would then try to make a deal of Contreras + spects + $1M cash or so for Winn. Point is, I want to make SEVERAL deals this season if we can in order to take advantage of JR's willingness to take on salary this year. In each deal, I'd like to give up as little as possible with the biggest points being our ability to provide savings for another team. I would not deal Beckham (obviously), Poreda, Richard, Danks, Flowers, Viciedo, Allen, or Upchurch, and I'd try to hold onto Hudson and Carter, but I'd definitely throw in some quality prospects. I'd look to then take the bigger names and take offers for them over the offseason, especially for Webb because he'll in all probability be out there for the taking. But yeah, I think given the circumstances we could easily put together a playoff run team like: CF Winn 2B Beckham LF Quentin DH Thome RF Dye 1B Konerko C Pierzynski 3B Rolen SS Ramirez Rotation: Buehrle-Floyd-Danks-Davis-Richard ...while taking on roughly $15M prorated if we can dump Colon, Contreras, and currently Betemit in bad contract deals. Peavy was $11M prorated, so it would be more than that, but man, that team could be a juggernaut. Edit: I'd offer something like Count + Fields + Shelby/Morel/Retherford + Jones/Santeliz for Rolen + 2010 cash; then Colon + Anderson + Getz for Davis; then Betemit + Link/DRod/Russell for Winn Each deal saves the other team $$$ and gets them young players for veterans they won't get comp for, being that arb will not be offered. Obviously these are all easy offers for other teams to beat, but who else can take on salary? And what other teams willing to take on salary would want these players? Doug Davis would be the only target here that I think we'd get any real competition on.

QUOTE (fathom @ Jun 3, 2009 -> 02:34 PM) Brian Anderson isn't a good enough player to get this worked up about. It's not like if Ozzie would have platooned Owens with Quentin last year. All Anderson had to do was get one clutch hit in the last week and/or not get sick, and we wouldn't have seen this thread. Aaron Rowand in 2005: .270/.329/.407/.736 Brian Anderson so far in 2009: .269/.352/.344/.696 If Brian could be as productive offensively as Rowand was in 2005 (the last year of CF stability for us) plus give us an even better glove, then yes, he is a "good enough player to get this worked up about" because the players we're talking about Brian sitting for don't even belong in CF to begin with.

Overall I like Ozzie as a manager, but I just can't understand what goes through his head when it comes to CF, grinders, speed, and trying to turn career minor league prototypical 4th/5th OFers into prototypical lead-off men. I have said many times that Ozzie is a great manager for developing pitchers. But if he takes PT away from BA after BA has proven so far that he's ready to be a league average or near-league average hitter and GG defender at a position that has been a revolving door since Rowand left, then f*** him anyway.

QUOTE (BearSox @ Jun 3, 2009 -> 01:25 AM) does anyone else find it sad that Roy Halladay's 133 pitches thrown tonight is the most by any pitcher in the MLB since last year? Hawk and Stone were talking about it today, and it's really stupid how pitchers are babied now and in result, some pitchers actually lose stuff and have their arms weakened. I agree with Stone 100%. While maybe you shouldn't work pitchers as much as you did 20-30 years ago and beyond, there's no reason why pitchers shouldn't be able to average at least 120 pitches a game and even get up into the 150 range. I understand you want to be cautious with all the money that goes to pitchers, but more and more teams will hopefully go to a more old school way of thinking when it comes to developing pitchers. With guys right out of high school, you could/should baby them some. However, once they turn 20 or 21, there is no reason why they can't average 120 a game and not only stay healthy but build up their arm. I'm against that in some circumstances for purely baseball reasons: it depends on how stressful the game is, like how many times does a pitcher reach back for something extra in a tight situation as one example, plus it depends on playing conditions, score, and availability of the pen. You don't want to work your staff harder just because you can. I'm wholly 100% completely against that in nearly ALL circumstances for non-baseball reasons: you don't want to get a bad rep for over-working pitchers which can affect your relationship with the players association, agents, and your ability to recruit free agent pitchers or trade candidates with full or partial NTC's. The Dusty Baker/Nolan Ryan school of thought is not going to work in this era of baseball. Old school types may favor it, but it's not coming back, at least not for a long time. BTW can you image how many pitches an African American starting pitcher on the Rangers would throw in 110 degree heat in a relatively meaningless game in August if Dusty Baker was his manager? Edit: I have to say I agree with extending starters in extremely important games as long as the manager feels that is the best option for winning the game. Doing that in May or June in order to make a guy happy, or to prove a point, or to pad stats, or because you have no confidence in your bullpen is short-sighted and foolish. The idea that throwing more and putting even more stress on your elbow and shoulder is in some way safer is very confusing to me. And keep in mind, many of the older-era guys who are proponents of extending starters further played under different conditions altogether, from mound height to heavier ball to less HR parks, etc. which all made it more of a pitcher's game. There have to be at least twice as many situations in today's game that are stressful on a pitcher than in the past. Also, bullpens are specialized and sticking with a starter instead of going with your set-up guy will get a manager fired. Plus, because of all the home run parks and all the home run hitters, if a starter loses his control in the 7th inning with men on base you can't just count on him to rediscover it, because the next 3 guys coming up are all threats to go yard. Much of the time it actually seems that starters begin to get themselves in big trouble around the 85-100 pitch mark and the managers react more to the situation than the pitch count. There's no reason to put blind faith in your starter that is losing it when you have a guy in the pen making $3-4M+ per season who is fresh and has nasty stuff, especially if that guy presents a different look and a more favorable lefty/righty matchup. So the pitch count is often not the only reason, or even the main reason, why pitchers routinely get pulled around that magical 100 mark.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Jun 3, 2009 -> 12:09 PM) Are you saying you care more about Brian than the actual success of the team? BA is a decent starting CF'er and a GOOD 4th OF'er, how can you sit there and say how good he is, but then want him to contribute for another team? It makes zero sense. Brian's presence on this club doesn't mean jack s*** if he's not playing every day. He's not going to hit at all if he's not getting regular AB's. He's hardly going to be valuable at all coming in a few days per week possibly as a defensive replacement. I would much rather see Brian succeed elsewhere than continue to get misused for another year. I am much more sympathetic towards Brian's career than I am toward Ozzie's incredibly moronic CF decision making. And LMAO at me caring more about him than the team. Are you really dumb enough to believe that? Yeah, wanting a 4th OF to get an opportunity elsewhere because the manager is a dumb s*** is such an anti-Sox viewpoint... Edit: And if Kenny had any balls he'd call Ozzie into his office and tell him what's up. I can't believe Kenny is the one telling Ozzie to play Erstad, Wise & Co. over his former 1st round pick who he traded 2 CF'ers to open up a spot for.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jun 3, 2009 -> 11:59 AM) No one will give you a reasonable return for a guy who seems like he's on the .270 average, 15-20 home run, excellent defense, still pre-arb track when they think they can steal him from you because he's lost on your bench. I don't even care about that. Give him away for absolutely nothing. The kid deserves a chance to play and if Ozzie won't start him in the sorriest CF situation in all of baseball then Ozzie & Kenny need to f*** off already and give him a chance elsewhere. If the Sox have believed since 2006 that Rob Mackowiak, Darin Erstad, DeWayne Wise, Jerry Owens, and Scott Podsednik were all better CF options than BA then get BA out of here and run out grinder du jour for the next two seasons for all I care since they're just going to do it anyway.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Jun 3, 2009 -> 11:51 AM) I'm all for saying that Ozzie likes Wise more than his play justifies, but this is a bit much. I'm not so sure about that. Ozzie sees Javy sucks when it counts, so Javy is off the team. Ozzie hates Swisher's attitude, so he's gone. Ozzie see Boone Logan, Mike MacDougal, etc. all sucking ass so they are gone. Ozzie sees Jerry Owens and DeWayne Wise sucking so he gives them more playing time. Something doesn't quite fit.

QUOTE (fathom @ Jun 3, 2009 -> 11:28 AM) I can't believe people are so blind as to what will happen. CQ returns on 6/10, and Wise is likely DFA'd (even though it could end up being Betemit). Pods will become our starting CF, and Anderson will be our 4th outfielder. He'll play for CQ when he's hurt and give Pods a break once a week. This is exactly what I said would happen when Pods came up here, and this is exactly what will happen. Please trade Brian Anderson already. This situation has been ridiculous for 4 straight years. Let the kid move on.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Jun 2, 2009 -> 10:45 AM) Thats another thing, all the comments in the game thread about how dumb Ozzie is without ever knowing that he sat Brian for most of the game because he has been suffering from the flu. You can only kick a dog in the stomach so many times before it either bites you or s***s all over the floor whenever you walk into the room.

Old Big Frank >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DeWayne Wise DO IT!!! Honestly though, since Betemit cannot play 3B I would be in no way opposed to dealing Betemit off for a mid-level prospect and salary relief while bringing in the Big Hurt as a pinch hitter. Big Frank would have to get a few games in at Triple A to get his swing back, so we deal Betemit, call up Phillips, then Quentin comes back and we send Wise down, and when Frank is ready we send Whisler back down and call up Frank. Bench: Nix 2B/SS/3B, Castro C, Big Frank PH, Phillips 1B/LF, Pods/BA OF With Carrasco and Gobble not getting much work we don't need so many pen guys.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jun 2, 2009 -> 07:48 AM) I don't know if it will be brought back or not. There seems to be one or two threads at a time about trades, hardly enough to really justify a whole other forum. Maybe if things heat up, but as of now, no. Can we at least have a trade winds sticky thread then?

I ate crow on Floyd early last year. After watching him in ST 2007 I thought there is no way this kid will ever be mentally capable of pitching in the bigs. I was very, very wrong and I haven't doubted him since, even after his horrendous start this year. I stopped doubting Kenny a long time ago and aside from disagreeing with his reasoning for certain moves, I actually don't think I have ever doubted him. He wants to win. I will always doubt Ozzie when it comes to Brian Anderson.

QUOTE (danman31 @ Jun 2, 2009 -> 02:49 AM) You brought up extreme examples and my statement doesn't cover all players, it's a generalization that is typically correct. Jerry Owens was a prospect because in his 2nd full season as a pro he hit .331 in AA after skipping high-A. Tim Raines Jr. was never a big prospect and got 2 September call-ups on bad teams where he was probably called up because of his speed. I don't see how he is relevant. Age is an extremely important tool to evaluate what a player's stats mean. Cook can hit the s*** out of the ball in AA, but he is older so does that mean more than Dayan holding his own in the league at 19? Probably not. That's what I'm saying. I'm not saying Tim Raines Jr. hitting .256 in AAA with no power at age 21 is going to be a good player because he is young for his level. I get what you are saying about Viciedo vs. Cook and Viciedo is a special player to be able to hang in AA at such a young age. Maybe I didn't make my original point all that clear. Basically, age should be the last thing you look at IMO when it comes to evaluating a minor league player. Age can be telling when it comes to how advanced a player is at a certain point in his life, and it can be very telling when you're talking about how close or how far away a guy is from his physical prime, but to me it should go 1) physical tools & body type, 2) projectability & ceiling vs. floor, 3) performance, 4) age. For example, Shelby would rate out much higher to me than Owens would have after his big year in AA even if Owens had been younger. The reason is Shelby is more toolsy, had performed well up to this point, has IMO a ceiling of a slightly above league-average starter offensively in an OF corner with an arm and a floor of a pinch runner/AAAA player. Owens appeared to have only 2 tools (speed and contact), he had performed as well, and his ceiling was a Juan Pierre type LF with no power. His floor was also a pinch runner/AAAA player just like Shelby's is. Because of the first three criteria, age wouldn't make me favor Owens even if he was 20 and tearing up AA with singles while Shelby was 23 and off to a slow start for the same team. I think a lot of people though would probably rate Owens higher than Shelby if this were the case simply because of age. The biggest problem with rating prospects largely because of age is that it implies probable improvement as a player learns and grows physically, but in reality, there are a lot of players who can both learn and grow a lot but still not become capable of playing baseball in the Major Leagues. Also age is an especially bad argument for pitchers. Look at how long Tim Redding sat in the minors after failing in previous chances before having a couple good seasons for the Nats. Or there's Grant Balfour as another example, like Sherrill I mentioned earlier, although Sherrill played indy ball instead of wallowing in the minors. The point is, age is only worth so much. A 29-year-old pitcher with a big league arm who has never put it together before and is struggling in Triple A is automatically a better prospect than a 20-year-old kid who dominates low-A off of finesse, even though the 29-year-old is not considered a prospect and the 20-year-old is. These aren't just extreme examples either. There are lots of them. Santo Luis is 25 years old and has an ERA approaching 7.00 in Winston-Salem, and IMO he is a much better prospect than 24-year-old Kyle McCulloch with an ERA just above 4.00 in Birmingham. Neither are performing well, both have or are repeating levels with relatively minor improvement, and McCulloch is younger and is also a former first rounder. The difference is that Santo Luis can touch 100mph and that is a lot more important to me than those 6th starter/fringe LR AAAA types who are available every single ST for the league minimum. Edit: Basically I think that the age curve is formed by a bunch of mediocre to s***ty players who aren't really prospects to begin with and a comparatively small group of legit top prospects who in general move quickly, thereby passing the s***ty players and appearing young for their leagues. But if a guy is old for his league but has a lot more talent than the rest of the s***ty players his age on his team then age alone is in no way a reliable predictor of his future success or failure. I guess I'm saying that we can't say David Cook won't make it simply because 1,000 Micah Schnursteins didn't make it. You have to look beyond that. And of course the numbers will bear out because there are a lot more old non-prospects in the minors than there are legit prospects of any age.

Just saw that. I have to say, Kimbo has earned serious respect for this. There's no telling how many guaranteed G's the guy gave up from Strikeforce or a Japanese promotion in order to prove himself. Even if he doesn't win one fight I think he deserves his due, unless of course Dana is paying him out the ass for the appearance. Lashley has been rumored too but I highly doubt that one since he's got that Sapp freakshow fight lined up.

I'm all for giving Fields time and have stated as much repeatedly, but none of that matters if the Sox don't want to go that route. I'm wholeheartedly against bringing Beckham up without giving him positional security. If the Sox don't see Slayer as a 3B long-term, then don't put him there. I have to think they view him as a 2B with Alexei here, so if that's where he's headed, and if the Sox want Slayer in the lineup, then do whatever is necessary to put him there and then keep him there. If the Sox want more out of 3B and do not want to give Fields more time, then go out and get a veteran stopgap until Viciedo is ready. Those are my thoughts.

I've always been pessimistic about Shelby but I kept hearing great things as far as his attitude, work ethic, and baseball mentality. He's a toolsy type and those types sometimes "get it" all of the sudden and make huge strides in one year, although that doesn't happen very often, which is why I'd like to see him traded while he still has value. But the age factor isn't a big deal for me with those types. The age factor is mainly an issue IMO when a toolsy guy hits like 25 and he's not doing anything significant in Double A or above despite repeating the level (a Miguel Negron kind of thing). Age is just a factor when you look at it alongside lack of improvement at a key level. The stats considering age is really flawed anyway because anytime I've ever seen this "research" it takes a ton of non-prospects into account who stick around a long time hoping for an emergency shot, as well as a lot of guys who were prospects simply because of athletic ability or having 1 very good tool (Owens, Gathright as examples). The really great prospects generally seem to move fairly quickly regardless of their age, and if they end up flaming out they still reach the Majors after being on a pretty steady path. The age s*** is really pointless. Take Tim Raines Jr. for example. He signed at 18 out of high school and made his MLB debut at 21. He flamed out, but age didn't have s*** to do with it. Take George Sherrill, who I'm sure wasn't considered a prospect at age 26 pitching in the independant league, but he still obviously had a big league arm and end up flying though the minors as soon as the Mariners picked him up. I think age is just a really, really short-sighted way to evaluate players overall because it doesn't take into consideration what you really should be looking at, which is ability to play the game of baseball, tools, and performance. For instance, David Cook is old for his level and therefore isn't considered a prospect, but he went to rookie ball out of college and had never actually spent more than 1 full season at any level until this year when the Sox decided to put him in Birmingham for the 3rd season instead of starting him off in Triple A. Age is a dumb reason to write the guy off considering he has continued performing and advancing through the system. He has power and OBP skills, so I see no reason why he can't be at least a 4th OF in the Majors based on that. Now I don't get to see him play, so if there is a major hole somewhere in his swing that the Sox think MLB pitching will exploit but minor league pitching will not, then that would be a real reason for holding him back. But it's certainly confusing as to why this guy gets held back while Jerry Owens and DeWayne Wise are considered Major League starters.

Seriously.

If the Sox will be ending the Fields era soon and Beckham is going to come up, I'd rather see the Sox go with Beckham at 2B and look to deal both Fields and Getz. I believe Beckham is going to end up at 2B long-term anyway, so I'd like to start him there and leave him there if at all possible, with the Sox picking up a veteran 3B. Some ideas for that veteran 3B: Troy Glaus - coming back from injury and the Cards seem to want Wallace up there, but Cards IMO would have to eat salary or take back a bad contract (Contreras) to get talent IMO Russell Branyan - having a monster season for Seattle so will cost something, but is he for real? I don't think so. Adrian Beltre - not going to be offered arb even if he's Type A, so a small amount of talent + savings should do it... but if we could get them to take back Contreras' contract in exchange for a bit more talent, then that would be gravy Melvin Mora - probably won't have his option picked up and shouldn't cost much My favorite idea is this: -Trade something small to SF for Uribe who should come very cheap. On a $1M contract this year I believe and would be a great backup option all around. -Try to deal for Scott Rolen. Rolen is injury prone, but he played 115 games last year and hasn't missed any time this year. Rolen is due $11M option next year which the Jays really do not want to pay, and over the offseason the Jays were rumored to have been offering talent simply to take on that contract. My idea would be to see if the Jays will take back Contreras' contract for this year and eat about $5M next year in return for Fields and a package of pretty good prospects but not our great prospects. That way, we'd have Rolen this year while only adding $1M to the payroll, and we'd also get him at $6M next year. The Jays would save a total of $7M by doing this and would pick up some talent. Then we could bring Juan back at $1M again for 2010 or find another suitable backup for the same price, which would give us Rolen/Uribe as a 3B for $7M in 2010. The main reason I would really like this deal is because it would buy us another year for Viciedo's development without us having to sign a 3B for a 2-3+ year deal over the offseason. I'm sure other 3B will sign for a lot less over the offseason, but I still don't see a guy like Crede or Beltre signing a 1-year deal unless it has vesting options that could guarantee it for much longer (ala Maggs' contract with Detroit, except much cheaper annually).