October 21, 200520 yr Right now this looks a pretty good trade for Oakland. It becomes more of a win if Daric Barton becomes the player we all think he's going to be. If only Drew Meyer actually pitched like he was meant to though.
October 21, 200520 yr St. Louis was in the playoffs. Oakland wasn't.... Duh. Of course the redbirds won the deal. DUH.
October 21, 200520 yr QUOTE(3E8 @ Oct 21, 2005 -> 12:48 AM) Plus, I don't understand why Oakland has to make the playoffs when considering... ...that you are making the trade for the future, and not the present. The rest of what you said holds very true. I just look at that one key concept when viewing the trade - Oakland was not looking for the deal to push them over the top. Oakland won this deal in a landslide.
October 21, 200520 yr QUOTE(3E8 @ Oct 20, 2005 -> 11:48 PM) Come on Punch, take off the Cardinal shaded glasses. I just showed above that St. Louis paid 10x more than what they needed to for lower production. And I see what you're saying about Barton, but he was tearing up AA at 19 years of age. Barring career ending injury or something, this trade will be looked on as laughibly lopsided in the future, even though it went undoubtedly in the A's favor for year one. Plus, I don't understand why Oakland has to make the playoffs when considering their value gained in this trade. A strong team can make a s***ty trade and still make the playoffs while a decent team can make a great trade and miss the postseason. Doesn't make the stronger team winner of the transaction in my mind. I don't think that St. Louis regrets the trade seeing how they made the playoffs with Mulder. THey were not in a position to wait and see if Haren could win now. Shaded glasses? There is no helping your talk-radio mentality of having a winner and a loser in every trade and having to determine it RIGHT NOW. You are trying to sell this as Brock for Broglio and you are way off base
October 21, 200520 yr Author QUOTE(Punch and Judy Garland @ Oct 21, 2005 -> 09:05 AM) I don't think that St. Louis regrets the trade seeing how they made the playoffs with Mulder. THey were not in a position to wait and see if Haren could win now. Shaded glasses? There is no helping your talk-radio mentality of having a winner and a loser in every trade and having to determine it RIGHT NOW. You are trying to sell this as Brock for Broglio and you are way off base Best pitching prospect...McCarthy League min. salary solid reliever...Cotts Best minor prospect not major league ready...Young It'd kind of be like if we offered this group of players together for a good #2 type starting pitcher this offseason. We could still make the playoffs in '06, but probably everyone here would resent the trade. I'll refrain from saying winner and loser in the future, but just evaluating it after year one, Oakland got better production and value out of the deal, not even considering minor league talent obtained.
October 21, 200520 yr QUOTE(Gene Honda Civic @ Oct 21, 2005 -> 03:01 AM) St. Louis was in the playoffs. Oakland wasn't.... Duh. Of course the redbirds won the deal. DUH. LOL, nice one, Da Chort.
October 21, 200520 yr Yes the Cardinals were in the playoffs but they would of been there w/out Mulder too so how is that even a solid argument regarding the trade?
October 21, 200520 yr He gave them a pitcher with a better chance to winin October. He was great against eh Padres, he was excellent against the Astros in the gaem 2 loss and he was weak against them in Game 6. The move for Mulder didn't result in a ring but it gave them a better chance than they had with last year's rotation. If you don't recognize that, you haven't followed the team enough the last few years
October 21, 200520 yr QUOTE(Punch and Judy Garland @ Oct 21, 2005 -> 06:50 PM) He gave them a pitcher with a better chance to winin October. He was great against eh Padres, he was excellent against the Astros in the gaem 2 loss and he was weak against them in Game 6. The move for Mulder didn't result in a ring but it gave them a better chance than they had with last year's rotation. If you don't recognize that, you haven't followed the team enough the last few years Well 1 even though they were in the playoffs the Padres are hardly a "playoff team" they shouldnt of been there with that record they had it was an embarassment to baseball. Than they needed him to come through in game 6 and he failed so if anything the trade failed. They didnt trade for him to get a better chance they traded for him to win it all and they didnt so they failed and the trade was bad by your way of thinking.
October 21, 200520 yr My way of thinking is that you cannot fairly evaluate a trade after 1 year. Using the Padres record in your argument is just not on point with the discussion. That said, we obviously have a disagreement here and I've expressed my point and considered your so I will let it go now unless you have something you wanted to add
October 21, 200520 yr My way of thinking is that you cannot fairly evaluate a trade after 1 year. Using the Padres record in your argument is just not on point with the discussion. That said, we obviously have a disagreement here and I've expressed my point and considered your so I will let it go now unless you have something you wanted to add <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Pitching well against the Padres is far from impressive. They stink and really didn't deserve to be in the playoffs to begin with. The Twinkies finished the season with a better record than the Padres.
October 21, 200520 yr Well I think you can evaluate fairly after 1 season because the point for the Cardinals was to help win them a WS now and sacrafice a little bit of the future. Now next year the Cardinals are going to be w/out Walker and its iffy on Rolens future. Not 2 mention that Edmonds is starting to get up there and age and he didnt exactly have that great of a season this year. Also Sanders is nearing the end of his career as well. Next year they are going to be a worse team and than after that they are going to have to semi-rebuild.
October 22, 200520 yr If given the choice, who would you take? Haren or Mulder I'd take Mulder. Now you may tell me its not that simple, but as of this point Mulder is the better of the 2 pitchers. However, Haren definately looks legit and should develop, but you never know what could happen. Calero didn't come close to reaching the A's expectations and Barton is still a minor leaguer. Financially speaking there are other aspects, obviously, but Mulder was signed to a reasonable deal. I think this is one of those trades that worked well for each team, but you can't tell me that Oakland blindly robbed the Cards. The Cards have a #2 pitcher with post-season experience thats entering the prime of his career while the A's have a #3 pitcher or a great #4 pitcher, whose still developing as well as a solid reliever (not a great one at this point..although he could return to form) and a good looking prospect, but in the end, he's still a prospect.
October 22, 200520 yr QUOTE(Chisoxfn @ Oct 21, 2005 -> 10:22 PM) If given the choice, who would you take? Haren or Mulder Assuming we are not taking money into the equation(which the A's were doing), not taking into consideration the fact that Mulder is a free agent after 2006(which the A's did), not taking into consideration whether you are rebuilding or not(which the A's did), and not taking into consideration what Haren and Mulder would do this year(which the A's did NOT do), I'd take Mark Mulder.
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.