Posted this in MLB-Catch-ALL but don't feel like starting another thread.

 

Cardinals just signed Lance Berkman! OF/1B but more OF clearly. Does this make Rasmus available?

Posted this in MLB-Catch-ALL but don't feel like starting another thread.

 

Cardinals just signed Lance Berkman! OF/1B but more OF clearly. Does this make Rasmus available?

 

No, because the Cardinals don't have anybody else who can play CF.

I'd think that was an overpay.

 

You do realize that Rafael Soriano was traded for Jesse Chavez last year straight up. The same Jess Chavez who was then traded to the Royals for Rick Ankiel and Kyle Farnsworth, the same Jesse Chavez who owns a career 5.09 ERA in 145 IP. So if the Padres are going to get either Hudson or Flowers for Heath Bell....thats a freaking steal for them.

You do realize that Rafael Soriano was traded for Jesse Chavez last year straight up. The same Jess Chavez who was then traded to the Royals for Rick Ankiel and Kyle Farnsworth, the same Jesse Chavez who owns a career 5.09 ERA in 145 IP. So if the Padres are going to get either Hudson or Flowers for Heath Bell....thats a freaking steal for them.

 

Soriano shocked the Braves by accepting arbitration. They would've given him away. Had nothing to do with them thinking Jesse Chavez was a fair swap.

Edited December 4, 201015 yr by Jordan4life

Isn't Bell under control for 2012 as well? That makes it a bit different than with Soriano.

Isn't Bell under control for 2012 as well? That makes it a bit different than with Soriano.

 

Nope. FA in '12.

I keep having this feeling that TCQ will be traded to Oakland

 

Quentin for Michael Taylor and Brad Kilby?

 

I still think the best route is to use *Jackson to target a CF/RF. And then use Quentin to target a young (#4-5) SP.

 

 

*were not re-signing him while his agent is still Scott Boras.

Edited December 5, 201015 yr by pktmotion

Quentin for Michael Taylor and Brad Kilby?

 

I still think the best route is to use *Jackson to target a CF/RF. And then use Quentin to target a young (#4-5) SP.

 

 

*were not re-signing him while his agent is still Scott Boras.

Hey, we signed Andruw Jones! Maybe everything's different now

Hey, we signed Andruw Jones! Maybe everything's different now

 

I would actually welcome Andruw back.

As long as the plan isn't for Andruw Jones to be the everyday RFer and to just boot Quentin's salary off the payroll for a few B prospects.

 

 

And newcomer Edwin Jackson is owed $13.35 million over the next two seasons, although that might be a tough contract to deal.

Phil Rogers wrote this today. One, it's crazy to think they couldn't trade Jackson if they really wanted. Part two of the craziness, I only thought we had him for 2011 at $8.5 million or whatever it is.

 

Then someone else had written that we have him for two more years....if we want and offer him arbitration before 2012, but I was almost positive he was a FA. Certainly, I think Rogers is wrong here in today's article.

I think the Cardinals signing of Berkman means that no Quentin to the Cardinals.

The Nats might need a power bat. I bet that their minors have a few guys that the Sox would want.

The Nats might need a power bat. I bet that their minors have a few guys that the Sox would want.

 

 

Do you really think after the bad blood last year that Rizzo and KW are likely to make a trade now?

 

Especially after we just signed Dunn?

 

If I'm another team, I might just take my chances with Jermaine Dye on an incentive-laden deal versus giving up young talent for Quentin...maybe there are a lot of NL teams willing to put him in the OF, but I don't think so. A lot of the turf stadiums are gone, but the NL has always been a home for more athletic outfielders until recent years.

 

Plus, they really have to get some indications on Zimmerman and Strasburg...and even to start putting together a Harper timetable for ETA, before they start making significant monetary commitments going forward.

Do you really think after the bad blood last year that Rizzo and KW are likely to make a trade now?

 

Especially after we just signed Dunn?

 

If I'm another team, I might just take my chances with Jermaine Dye on an incentive-laden deal versus giving up young talent for Quentin...maybe there are a lot of NL teams willing to put him in the OF, but I don't think so. A lot of the turf stadiums are gone, but the NL has always been a home for more athletic outfielders until recent years.

 

Plus, they really have to get some indications on Zimmerman and Strasburg...and even to start putting together a Harper timetable for ETA, before they start making significant monetary commitments going forward.

 

What "indications" are they supposed to get on Zimmerman? He's the best 3B in the game and locked up through 2013.

Do you really think after the bad blood last year that Rizzo and KW are likely to make a trade now?

 

First off, the Nats chose to not re-sign Dunn. It had nothing at all to do with the Sox.

 

Secondly, the only "bad blood" is between Zimmerman and the Nats for them not making an attempt to keep Dunn.

 

Thirdly, Rizzo gets the Sox #1 and gains 15+ million of roster cash to spend. CQ's contract is tiny in comparison to Dunn's; and if he's healthy, he can hit 3/4 of Dunn's numbers.

What "indications" are they supposed to get on Zimmerman? He's the best 3B in the game and locked up through 2013.

He was really pissed off about the Nationals lack of effort to bring back Dunn. His quotes certainly didn't sound like a guy who plans on sticking around when his contract is up, but 3 years is a long time.

He was really pissed off about the Nationals lack of effort to bring back Dunn. His quotes certainly didn't sound like a guy who plans on sticking around when his contract is up, but 3 years is a long time.

 

Alright then. I understand that, I guess. But man would it take some kinda haul to pry him away. Dude is spectacular. And everybody knows how much I love Longoria. But Zimmerman > Longoria

First off, the Nats chose to not re-sign Dunn. It had nothing at all to do with the Sox.

 

Secondly, the only "bad blood" is between Zimmerman and the Nats for them not making an attempt to keep Dunn.

 

Thirdly, Rizzo gets the Sox #1 and gains 15+ million of roster cash to spend. CQ's contract is tiny in comparison to Dunn's; and if he's healthy, he can hit 3/4 of Dunn's numbers.

This is the point I've always tried to make when people want to trade guys because they are a couple years away from being a free agent and possibly leaving for nothing. You get a draft pick or 2, plus you have the money you would have used to sign these players on others. Its like the Lee/ Pods trade that opened up some cash for other acquisitions.

Alright then. I understand that, I guess. But man would it take some kinda haul to pry him away. Dude is spectacular. And everybody knows how much I love Longoria. But Zimmerman > Longoria

Yeah, Zimmerman is a guy I see the Sox with no chance of acquiring in the near future.

I'd rather have Longoria or Tulowitzki over Zimmerman.

I'd rather have Longoria or Tulowitzki over Zimmerman.

 

I was talking 3B. And you can't go wrong with either Longoria or Zimmerman. But I feel Zimmerman is slightly better defensively. Longoria has 'lexi syndrome sometimes. He botches the simplest of plays. Zimmerman is pretty automatic and has insane range. But I'd take Carlos Gonzalez over both of them.

Tulo will be the Rockies 3B within 7-8 seasons probably.

As long as the plan isn't for Andruw Jones to be the everyday RFer and to just boot Quentin's salary off the payroll for a few B prospects.

 

 

And newcomer Edwin Jackson is owed $13.35 million over the next two seasons, although that might be a tough contract to deal.

Phil Rogers wrote this today. One, it's crazy to think they couldn't trade Jackson if they really wanted. Part two of the craziness, I only thought we had him for 2011 at $8.5 million or whatever it is.

 

Then someone else had written that we have him for two more years....if we want and offer him arbitration before 2012, but I was almost positive he was a FA. Certainly, I think Rogers is wrong here in today's article.

 

you are correct, phil rogers is (once again) wrong