Eminor3rd

QUOTE (bbilek1 @ Jun 27, 2013 -> 12:19 PM) I am always weary of BOS/NYY products. I would much rather prefer Iglesias but I feel Middlebrooks is a much more likely trade candidate. I wish Iglesias never went on this tear because he could be had. With Drew holding SS for the year and Bogarets for the future there is no spot for Iglesias except 3B. I can't really see Boston putting a guy with a minimal power at 3rd though. I really think they supplanting Alexei with Iglesias will not lose any production and perhaps improve defense. Then we can move Alexei and whatever we get back is gravy. Yeah, I agree. I like Alexei, but we could use a longer-term, less expensive solution. Obviously Anderson is far away and might bust, and it looks like they think Sanchez is a 2B.

QUOTE (bbilek1 @ Jun 27, 2013 -> 11:54 AM) I know there's been talk about acquiring Iglesias and honestly I love the kid's defense. If we could get him at SS that would be a huge plus in the future and he doesn't hit arbitration years til '16. I don't like buying high on him but either him or Middlebrooks don't have a spot in Boston. While obviously you can't be sure, you have to think one of them is on their way out. I would guess Middlebrooks since they are having great success with Iglesias at 3B right now. I think Reed is a fit there but does anyone think they'd give up either Iglesias or Middlebrooks for him? I would love picking up either. I doubt Boston wants to have an Andrew Bailey part 2 but at the same time they are sitting atop the AL east with a back end of the bullpen that could use a solid closer. Andrew Bailey's 1.4 WHIP is nothing to instill confidence during a pennant race. IMO, Middlebrooks is one of the most overrated players in the game. His success last year was propped by a .330ish BABIP despite a 25% K rate and a 4% walk rate. His rates are nearly the same this year (K's up to 27%) but with a 90 point BABIP drop, and he has performed to the tune of .192/.228./.389. Disgusting. If you guys hate watching Adam Dunn, imagine Adam Dunn with a 4% walk rate and way less power. I want nothing to do with Middlebrooks, especially not for Reed.

QUOTE (pettie4sox @ Jun 27, 2013 -> 10:13 AM) Lo and behold the SOX do it again... make a crappy pitcher look elite. I'm ready for some Football! vomit

QUOTE (The Ultimate Champion @ Jun 26, 2013 -> 03:45 PM) See I view that trade totally differently. The Teahen trade & extension itself was dumb, but the second Jackson deal was KW taking advantage of the Jays desire for Rasmus. The Cards wanted EJax & weren't going to make that deal without him, so Kenny rightfully got a good prospect out of them (Stewart was a good, highly rated prospect with a nice arm who busted, as is typical, let's not rewrite history) and then Kenny made them eat Teahen's deal. Frasor was the add-on kind of piece there. That was actually a huge haul for Kenny for a 1/2 season of Jackson, and an excellent example of him taking advantage of a very unique situation. The lamenting of the Jackson-Hudson deal just needs to disappear from these boards. We tried to win, we didn't, oh well. We didn't miss a beat in the SP department, we actually got better even without anyone we were talking about at the time coming through. Still the biggest & most hurtful move during that time period was the one we didn't make, where JR blocked KW from firing Ozzie's ass. +1

QUOTE (The Ultimate Champion @ Jun 26, 2013 -> 02:32 PM) I just read that the Phillies don't even want to trade Papelbon because they don't feel his deal is a problem. Crain isn't a closer, that's just another experiment. How do you know what other teams are asking? You don't. You have no idea. The Marlins need talent too, they're done giving players away. They have practically nothing on the books anymore. Who is to say they wouldn't ask even more than the Sox? They're all better than Reed? Throwing s*** at the wall here? You're asking me why the Tigers would try to get a good closer from someone in exchange for a prospect. I've answered that already. You just keep asking the same question. Crain has performed like, what, 90 times better than Reed so far? Who cares if he's not a closer? Harold Reynolds does maybe. I don't buy the "pressure" garbage for a second. If a guy can't handle the pressure of the 9th inning, he's not in the Major Leagues. Crain has pitched out of a TON of high leverage situations, probably more than the average closer. Certainly more than Reed this year. Cishek, ok, maybe not. There's a Cishek-shape stain of s*** on the wall. But he's not MUCH worse, isn't on an inter-division rival, and would come cheaper.

QUOTE (The Ultimate Champion @ Jun 26, 2013 -> 03:11 PM) I agree he has a high amount of value. There is also a precedent of MLB teams drafting players well higher or than what is out there in print; there's a precedent of mainstream writers heavily underrating and overrating prospects while MLB FO react very differently (nobody biting on Olt over the offseason on a big deal as one example, then his numbers falling off in Triple A this year) etc. Let's just call a truce on this, and I will ask you the same basic question as above, being that if the Sox get offered a player they like as much as you like Castellanos, do you make that deal? Because I believe that Reed's value is also very high, and that it's higher mid-season, that it's likely higher now than it ever will be because he's farther from arbitration now than he will be tomorrow, and that his value is higher to a team in desperate need of a closer, and further, that in the right situation (Illitch for example acting as a GM) Addison can bring back a player who has the potential to be far more valuable than he is worth to us. We've been fighting like dogs all day, rolling around in the muck, scratching & biting, you've sniffed a couple of places you shouldn't have but if that's a dominance thing I understand, but I offer this truce because I'm ready to move on assuming you say you would 1) put Addison out there on the block IF you can bring back what you would consider a Castellanos return, and that 2) you would make that deal. Truce. Yes, I'd make that deal. I only fall on the side of keeping Reed because I don't think a deal of that magnitude is available with so many alternative RPs on the market -- but if Reed can go for a top 30-ish hitting prospect, I'd do it. I think most of Reed's value is in his team control rather than his ability to be an impact player.

QUOTE (The Ultimate Champion @ Jun 26, 2013 -> 02:21 PM) Let's just tackle the most glaring issue here: your view of Castellanos as a prospect & your idea of his value. What is this based on? Are you a professional scout? Do you have any real reason, aside from a few snippets of scouting video you may have seen, or the "general consensus" among baseball writers, which you have read, and which almost always are a composite of several different opinions over different periods of time, to personally believe that Nick Castellanos should be viewed as a player who is so valuable, and enough of a sure thing, that he should even be viewed as equal to Addison Reed, who is a proven MLB closer? Just an equal now? Because personally all I see is another highly rated prospect who is going to have to come to the big leagues and prove his worth. Unless you have some incredible scouting knowledge which I do not have, and which I doubt anyone here has, you really have no reason to believe that a Reed for Castellanos deal benefits ANYONE at the moment other than the Tigers, because they are getting a proven player. Every single year around the deadline it is the same general conversation. OMG this prospect is so great, yadda yadda yadda, and most of them fall off. It's always risky trading for them, but unfortunately the Sox are so bad right now that they pretty much have to. Unless you have a crystal ball or a really good deck of magical talking tarot cards, you DO NOT have any clue what kind of contributions Nick Castellanos is ever going to make at the MLB level. ----- And as for the rest of your post, it all relates to your own personal reasoning for believing Castellanos is so special. You're saying Castellanos is overpaying? What are you basing that on? If Castellanos is out there on the block for a closer - and there is a report that he is, for the right deal if necessary - then our people are going to have their own very real opinions on his abilities as a player & the likelihood of his success at the MLB level. And none of those opinions are going to come from someone else's blog either. If the Sox believe that one of the Tigers prospects out there may be available, and this player might be a real difference maker, then they should take a shot. Because they have to take risks, because they need the talent, because they don't have the farm system, because they don't have many valuable pieces to trade, and because a starting pitcher or a starting position player who is very good is worth more than a closer. Lastly, no matter where you get your information, absolutely NO ONE knows more about Nick Castellanos than the people in the Tigers organization, period. ***IF*** the Tigers people are making him available AT ALL, then it means that they themselves have questions. Why do they have those questions? I don't disagree with any of this. Your assessment of my knowledge on Castellanos is correct. But, I'm taking it one step further by observing precedent to form my opinion since I have no access to ML front offices. I believe Castellanos' value is high because I have observed that the value of top 30 hitting prospects that are in AAA and major league ready is higher than that of a half decent closer with less team control remaining. It is certainly possible that the Tigers think he's overrated and the White Sox don't, but there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that is the case. However, there's tons of evidence (from past trades over the past 5-10 years) that suggests that guys like Castellanos (or guys described like Castellanos by the media the I read) are worth much more. Therefore, I think there is no chance for this trade. ESPECIALLY given that there is no reason for the Tigers to be so desperate, what with so many other options available.

QUOTE (The Ultimate Champion @ Jun 26, 2013 -> 01:52 PM) I think you're angry, blind with anger, and when you see my posts you go AAAAAHAHAHHARGHGHGRHGAAA and the fingers start flying and it's like AAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH and then I come back and I'm just like I don't get it, I already responded to that point on the last page. That is pretty close to the sound that I make, lol. What I missed is this: why would the Tigers trade Castellanos for Reed when Papelbon, Crain, and Cishek are all available for substantially less talent? All three are better than Reed right now, also.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Jun 26, 2013 -> 02:09 PM) Morel is going to go 9 for 11 wtih 5 blasts Yep, and thus ruin our 25 man roster when Gillaspie returns, lol.

QUOTE (bbilek1 @ Jun 26, 2013 -> 02:09 PM) Considering it's paternity leave, this is basically a non move. Morel can pick it over there at 3B. Or so his reputation suggests. I remember him being pretty mediocre from what I saw :\

QUOTE (The Ultimate Champion @ Jun 26, 2013 -> 01:48 PM) At what point did I ever dispute that the Tigers were thinking about Papelbon? And at what point do you read the responses of the people you are arguing with before continuing the conversation? Answer #1: I did not put those words in your mouth. This is what I'm trying to say, spelled out as clearly as possible: - MLBTR says the Tigers are willing to give up Cast/Garcia for a closer IF NECESSARY - You suggest there is a real possibility that the Tigers would want to trade one of those for Reed, becuase he is, in fact, a closer - I say that they would never do that, because that would be an overpay, and there exist several cheaper options on the market, such as Jesse Crain or Jonathan Papelbon, the latter with which they have actually been connected by at least one reporter - Further, such intradivisional swaps of controllable talent are extremely uncommon, perhaps virtually unprecedented, because of the long-term risk each team takes by given their closest rivals weapons that may haunt them for years to come. Whether you think this is dumb or not, it is fact. If you were to not agree with me, I would expect you would do so by making an argument that overpaying for Reed somehow makes more sense than the cheaper alternatives that are currently better pitchers in the short term. To clarify further, I would LOVE to trade Reed for Castellanos, because we would clearly win that trade. However, there's no chance of it happening so long as Dombrowski is still mentally fit for his job. Answer #2: All the words.

QUOTE (The Ultimate Champion @ Jun 26, 2013 -> 01:06 PM) Jimminy Christmas CAN YOU READ? http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/detroit_tigers/index.html Other teams say the Tigers are willing to surrender top prospects Nick Castellanos or Avisail Garcia if necessary. The team is focused on finding a closer. I like that, it's easier to read when it's so big. I'll do you the same favor: http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2013/06/stark-on-1.html The Phillies are talking to the Red Sox and Tigers about closer Jonathan Papelbon right now, one exec tells Stark, even if they say otherwise.

QUOTE (The Ultimate Champion @ Jun 26, 2013 -> 12:39 PM) Can you read? I was implying that the statement you made is in stark contrast with what you're saying elsewhere. But maybe I CAN'T read. That would make sense, because it would explain why you seem to be contradicting yourself so much. It could my poor comprehension.

QUOTE (The Ultimate Champion @ Jun 26, 2013 -> 11:39 AM) They're going to haggle whenever things get serious, but both sides know the general level of value & they're not going to get so far out of hand as to create a bad relationship. I highly doubt any contender wants to sour things with a FO that looks like it will spend at least part of the next 2 seasons acting as a seller. What like "Castellanos for Reed" out of hand? I'm starting to think that 'The Ultimate Champion' actually a small team of posters acting independently.

QUOTE (The Ultimate Champion @ Jun 26, 2013 -> 11:24 AM) On July 20th Mike Illitch will turn 84. Question, do you think he gives one single s*** about what some unproven minor league is going to do 2-3 years from now? Obviously he doesn't want to set his organization back, but he wants a ring & he can't just wait around forever. Then he gets Papelbon and pays money to give up less talent. They aren't trading Castellanos for Reed. It's a stupid decision and there are better options, even if they are going to be reckless as you assume. Castellanos for Reed wouldn't even hold up in an ESPN discussion, there's just no argument for it.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Jun 26, 2013 -> 10:20 AM) We'll say good arsenal then. He can throw 5 different pitches and, with the variations he can throw of his stuff, it really can equate to about 25 different looking pitches. I mean, seriously, if he didn't have his cutter and then one of his offspeed pitches, he'd be f***ed, no matter his command and control. Agreed

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jun 26, 2013 -> 10:27 AM) Is Crain a better option? This is a guy who has never been a closer. Great set up guys don't always make great closers. Reed isn't exactly a great closer either. He's a decent closer with upside. Also, if they don't believe in Crain, they can still pay less for Papelbon by absorbing the contract.

QUOTE (kitekrazy @ Jun 26, 2013 -> 10:09 AM) You are thinking with a logical baseball brain. We are talking about the Tigers who paid more than they need to for Fielder. BTW these type of deals happen in pro sports all of the time. Not when there's a better option available. Again, why overpay for Reed when you can pay less for Crain? If the Tigers want nothing but NOW, they ar ebetter off with Crain.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Jun 26, 2013 -> 09:45 AM) But the great change-up was always a plus pitch. However, no, he wasn't in the same category as Floyd or 2005-06 Contreras or 2004-2005 Freddy Garcia or anything like that. He was just, for lack of a better description, a pure pitcher and not a thrower who was usually one step ahead of opposing hitters, always keeping them off balance and changing speeds. To be able to have 3-4-5 different fastball speeds (even in the 80's) is more important than throwing a flat 93 mph fastball over and over again. No doubt. Excellent pitcher. I'm just arguing the word use. Stuff/Command/Control/etc.

I understand what you mean, but I don't think it's accurate to say that MB has ever had good "stuff." I think it IS accurate to say Buerhle had both very good control (locating) and very good command (control of movement). I think people usually mean velocity and sharp break when they refer to stuff.

Ugly wins. woo

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jun 26, 2013 -> 09:27 AM) What if the Tigers feel that Addison Reed is the difference between a first round out, and the World Series? Then they get Crain for cheaper and have an even better short-term upgrade.

Slider is sharp but he just can't control any of it.

Lol you're trolling me, right? You argue that trading valuable contributors for prospects is stupid. Then you argue that we should trade Reed for prospects. Then you argue that Reed sucks so it's laughable to want to keep him. Then you argue that Reed should be able to fetch one of the highest-rated hitting prospects in the game.

QUOTE (The Ultimate Champion @ Jun 25, 2013 -> 06:13 PM) "Other teams say the Tigers are willing to surrender top prospects Nick Castellanos or Avisail Garcia if necessary. The team is focused on finding a closer." So there. That has nothing to do with Addison Reed. Again, why do you think the Tigers team of professionals scouts and administrators are going to overrate Reed when we won't?