southsider2k5 Posted January 12, 2011 Author Share Posted January 12, 2011 Well on the bright side, the entire panel said they would do this deal if they were Philly, and saw no reason to do it if they were the Sox. Mitch Williams said the idea had to come from a Philly fan. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenny Hates Prospects Posted January 12, 2011 Share Posted January 12, 2011 That deal doesn't make any sense for the Sox. The Sox had the option of non-tending CQ but didn't. If the Phils had the option of non-tending Ibanez they would have, and if they could give away Blanton they'd probably do that too, just for salary relief. One deal that would make sense to me would be Blanton to SEA for Aardsma, straight up. The Phils could then spin Aardsma off elsewhere for total salary relief while getting a prospect or two in the process. For the Mariners, Blanton would give them a bit more stability and could up his value playing in SafeCo. Would be a nice fit IMO. I don't think the Sox make good trading partners for Philly though. I'd happily do Teahen for Blanton and even throw in a couple pretty decent prospects since I think Blanton is movable while Teahen is not. That would be a great deal for us because we'd have a Peavy fill in, and by the time Peavy was 100% someone else in baseball would need a starter, and so we'd have a pretty good shot at just dumping that contract outright IMO. But that's just wishful thinking. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IamPabloOzuna Posted January 12, 2011 Share Posted January 12, 2011 QUOTE (Heads22 @ Jan 11, 2011 -> 04:25 PM) I'd rather flip him for Lincecum and Posey. I like Posey but I think we can get more for Quentin. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kjshoe04 Posted January 12, 2011 Share Posted January 12, 2011 Depends on if we're trading CQ or TCQ. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quin Posted January 12, 2011 Share Posted January 12, 2011 Yes. This deal makes complete sense for us. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chetkincaid Posted January 12, 2011 Share Posted January 12, 2011 QUOTE (kjshoe04 @ Jan 12, 2011 -> 12:25 AM) Depends on if we're trading CQ or TCQ. CQ is tradeable. TCQ, or Q!perman is a baseball god and is therefore NOT tradeable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.