Minor League Ball: An SB Nation Community

Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Sports blogs for fans, by fans.
Around SBN: Cal RB Jahvid Best Seriously Injured, Carted Off Field

Is it possible for the Braves to get Peavy without including Heyward, Hanson, or Escobar?

I fear the answer is no, but I'm wondering whether a Schafer/Morton/Medlen/Flowers package might be a good starting point for trying.

I'm also wondering whether taking Greene off their hands in a straight salary dump (and perhaps offering Lillibridge as a warm, cheap body for the position) might make a Heyward-, Hanson-, and Escobar-less deal for Peavy more possible.

I'm fairly certain we won't trade Heyward, but I can't say the same for Hanson and Escobar.

0 recs  |  Comment 118 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Display:

What about Brandon Jones?

I’m surprised his name hasn’t come up. Is he untouchable?

I think if a deal gets done, at least Escobar or Kelly Johnson will get dealt. The Braves seem to believe in Prado magic.

Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com

by RoyalsRetro on Oct 17, 2008 2:27 PM EDT reply actions   0 recs

I’m sure the Braves would be willing to include Jones, but I didn’t think the Pads would be terribly interested. Anyway, he’s certainly not untouchable.

by vandystu on Oct 17, 2008 2:38 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

especially

since the padres already have two brandon jones already- Will Venable and Cedric Hunter

by ScottAZ on Oct 17, 2008 2:44 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

I like Hunter

more than I ever really liked Jones, but only time will tell.

by toonsterwu on Oct 17, 2008 2:48 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

There is no way the Padres could be dumb enough to deal Peavy

without getting Heyward in return in a package could they? If I was the GM, I would hang up on the Atlanta GM (Frank Wren is it?) if he wouldnt include Heyward. And I would probably insist on Schafer too. Plus others…

by Maxima231 on Oct 17, 2008 7:44 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Then I would allow you to hand up on us and hope you ripped some other NL team off.

by jfish26101 on Oct 17, 2008 8:19 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

not a chance

i don’t think the braves can get a deal done without heyward in it (and that ain’t going to happen)……..look what the a’s got for haren – and peavy is signed longer and flat out better……..if they still had all the guys from the tex deal it would be possible, but b grade guys like schafer/morton/medlen/flowers ain’t going to cut it when the padres are flooded with other offers that contain superior prospects

by Wheelhouse on Oct 17, 2008 2:28 PM EDT reply actions   0 recs

The Braves can certainly get a deal done without Heyward. He’s one of the top 10 or so prospects in all of baseball, and nothing close to that was given up for Haren (who, by the way, was also not being paid as much as Peavy is). You substitute Hanson for Morton, and that deal becomes a no-brainer for the Padres, I would think.

What other offers with superior prospects are the Padres flooded with?

by vandystu on Oct 17, 2008 2:41 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

The Yanks are said to be having talks

Phillip Hughes, Ian Kennedy and Robinson Cano? I don’t really think the Yanks can match what the Braves could offer.

Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com

by RoyalsRetro on Oct 17, 2008 2:59 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

I think the Yankes can match

Whether or not they would want to is a debatable issue. Also comes down to how they rate Hughes. I just don’t think Atlanta is going all in (offering say, Heyward AND someone else) and as such, I think the Yankees can match.

Of course, the other factor is that no-trade clause of Peavy’s.

by toonsterwu on Oct 17, 2008 3:15 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Good point

And we shouldn’t underestimate the liklihood that the Yanks will go “all-in” with their prospects much more than the Braves will.

Hank wants trophies! NOW!

Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com

by RoyalsRetro on Oct 17, 2008 3:29 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Won't happen...

From what I have been reading, Peavy wants to stay in the NL, so the Yanks have to convince Peavy, not the Padres to do the deal with them since he has a No Trade Clause. He gets to pick which team he goes to of the ones that San Diego will take trades from. I don’t see the Yanks being that team, even if they do automatically pick up the option year at the end of the contract.

"My mom always taught me it's better to laugh at yourself than to laugh at others. She was so wrong. ;)" -Pedrophile

by Boxkutter on Oct 17, 2008 3:40 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

The Yanks

can get Peavy if Peavy will waive his no trade. If the Yanks offered Hughes and Cano for Peavy they should take it right away. Kennedy is garbage. But Hughes could be a #1, and we know Cano can hit better than he did.

by Maxima231 on Oct 17, 2008 7:45 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

thats ridiculous

Cano is a proven 120 ops+ 2nd baseman at the MLB level…. thats worth way more then a prosopect whos hit really well in A ball… and Hughes still has plenty of value.

No one in any of the trades for pitchers last year was nearly as MLB experienced as those two would be.

Check out my baseball analysis blog FANalytics

by jbluestone on Oct 18, 2008 12:12 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Please read down

a few comments.

Who the hell would trade for Hughes right now? He’s stil a rare talent, but his health is a huge question mark. No one trades for damaged goods. When have you ever seen a team trade for a player like this?

Same principle on Cano. He’s a proven nothing. What have you done for me lately. I think teams would gladly take him before Hughes, still, but there are so many question marks(partying? effort? concentration?) that its hard to imagine a team moving for him.

Even harder to imagine is the Yanks trading either of these guys! Theyd be selling low. Trades like this never happen. And in no way will the Padres be taking two players with big question marks coming off down years as the centerpieces of a Peavy trade.

by alskor on Oct 18, 2008 12:41 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

+1

The Yankee system sure aint what it used to be.

by alskor on Oct 18, 2008 12:48 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Wait so the Braves HAVE to add Heyward/Schafer and multiple other players (I’m guessing pitchers since they said they want 2?) but the Padres should take Hughes/Cano in a second?

by jfish26101 on Oct 17, 2008 8:21 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Some logic

Hughes does provide an instant potential replacement for Peavy that the Braves couldn’t offer. Cano, while he’s struggled a bit, has proven himself capable of performing at the major league level, even if his defense sucks and he takes a vacation for the first two months. I don’t think they should take it in a second, but that’s a real solid starting point for a trade.

by Fanon on Oct 17, 2008 9:55 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Perhaps but does Hughes really give them that much better of a shot in replacing Peavy than Hanson does? In that park, his FB tendencies could turn him into an amazing pitcher as other posters around the net have pointed out. A year ago, I could see Hughes/Cano as a vast improvemnt on a Hanson/Schafer/Lillibridge + 1 or 2 more prospect package but not present day in my opinion. /me shrugs

by jfish26101 on Oct 17, 2008 10:18 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Point taken

I was just saying, it’s not totally absurd.

I also think it’s relevant that if you think Hughes is going to be a good to very good major league pitcher, he’s probably already been through his growing pains. Hanson is a really good prospect, but he could be quite a ways away. Hughes is already there if he’s going to be there. It depends on what their preference is.

by Fanon on Oct 17, 2008 10:37 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Hughes is the same age as Hanson

and put up better #‘s in AA as a 19-20 year-old than Hanson did as a 21-22 year-old. Not saying that Hanson still can’t be better than Hughes but there’s no reason to expect that to be the case.

http://mvn.com/milb-yankees/

by lemonjello on Oct 18, 2008 7:47 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

That’s more or less my point

by Fanon on Oct 18, 2008 8:18 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Oh man

its so funny you said that…. from Joe Sheehan’s recent chat:

henry (bronx): Hughes, Cano and Betances for Peavy, would it get it done?

Joe Sheehan: No.

Pretty slim chance Peavy ends up a Yankee.

As to this thread, there is absolutely NO WAY they can get a deal done without including one of those guys.

by alskor on Oct 17, 2008 11:51 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

And since

Betances >>> Kennedy, its a safe bet to say it aint going to happen. Not when they can throw money at a similar solution.

Oh, and here is the link: http://baseballprospectus.com/chat/chat.php?chatId=535

by alskor on Oct 17, 2008 11:53 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Can we also not completely say Kennedy sucks at this point

Hes been a bust so far in the majors but he was 23, he dominated AAA to the following tune.

69 ip in 13 games 52 hits17 bbs 72ks… thats a k/9 of 9.4 a bb/9 2.2 and a k/bb of 4.2. The book on him is far from closed…. there is no reason he cant be at least as good if not better then an Andy Sonnanstine or someone like that, in fact his raw stuff is a tad better the Sonnanstines.

Check out my baseball analysis blog FANalytics

by jbluestone on Oct 18, 2008 12:20 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Well, that's not what i said, was it?

I said Dellin Betances is clearly a better prospect than Kennedy and I stand by that. Betances has big question marks, too, though.

But I’ll go ahead and say it anyway: Ian Kennedy completely sucks.(for the purposes of this discussion – ie a Peavy trade).

No one wants him in a trade. He has marginal stuff that may never works at the MLB level. No way do I agree his stuff is better than Sonnanstine.

by alskor on Oct 18, 2008 12:44 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

i didnt say id trade him for peavy

and certainly wouldnt expect him to be the center piece of a deal.

And im going to ask you to defend your statement that his stuff is not better then sonnanstines?

Kennedy’s fastball is about 3 mph fastball on average, he also has tremendous command.

Again, I like sonnanstine a lot, but I don’t see why Kennedy cant be at least that (a solid back end rotaiton starter for a contending team).

Check out my baseball analysis blog FANalytics

by jbluestone on Oct 18, 2008 12:50 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Well

we have seen that Sonnanstine can pitch effectively at the MLB level. Stuff is not just a question of velocity. No one is claiming Kyle Farsnworth has the best stuff in the majors, after all. Sonnanstine’s pitches move a lot is the main reason. Kennedy’s fastball is relatively flat, and for whatever reason Sonnanstine is better at deceiving hitters than Kennedy is.

by alskor on Oct 18, 2008 12:54 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

and to be clear

I could definitely see Kennedy becoming a lesser Sonnanstine type pitcher/back end rotation guy who looks good one outing and gets killed the next. He could be a decent 4 or 5… but for trade purposes he has zero value at all.

There are a hundred guys around who have marginal stuff and plus control and look like they could be the next Sonnanstine… but theyre not all going to pan out… and no one is trading assets for them.

by alskor on Oct 18, 2008 1:06 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

lol

im sorry, marginal.. stuff isnt as good..

Kennedy was a first round draft pick, he is a premier talent who has dominated the minors in ways that Sonnanstine never did.

Sonanstine is also 25 years old already, hes abotu 2 years older then Kennedy..

How would you have rated sonnanstine last year??? When he pitched 130 innings to a near 6.00 era giving up 18 hr and 151 hits in those 130 ip.

I think you are a) not giving Kennedy enough credit and b) at the same time giving sonnanstine too much….

Check out my baseball analysis blog FANalytics

by jbluestone on Oct 18, 2008 1:28 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Some good points

but in all fairness, Kennedy was a stretch for a first round pick and they took a ton of flack for that at the time. He was coming off a bad senior year and his velocity was way down. Supposedly it was a prearranged deal with Boras.

I have never heard him described as a “premier talent.”

As to Sonnanstine, I would have looked at and loved his minor league numbers and seen great K rates in his MLB time. I was high on him last year and remain so…

Lastly, how did Kennedy “dominate the minors in ways that Sonnanstine never did?” I dont see that at all. I see Kennedy as a polished college pitcher who pitched well against the low minors and then did well, but certainly didnt dominate AAA. Thats not unusual for guys with marginal stuff. Sonnanstine had the important edge over Kennedy which predicted MLB success: BB rate. 1.32 BB/9 for Sonnanstine to 2.79 for Kennedy. They are both guys who dont have an outpitch. Once they reached the majors Kennedy got exposed while Sonnanstine actually has the better command and thus has shown better success.

Kennedy has a reputation as being a phenomenal control pitcher, but its all Yankee prospect hype, IMHO. He doesnt have phenomenal control… its just pretty good. Sonnanstine has phenomenal control. Thats the difference between them. Kennedy walked MORE batters in his MiLB career than Sonnanstine (70 to 68) and has done it in less than half as many innings (226 to 464.3).

Sonnanstine is the better bet going forward by a decent margin, IMHO, and I think thats the consensus as well. I’ll say it again: Kennedy completely sucks. Marginal stuff, good but not great control and no out pitch. Hes the kind of guy who will always put up good numbers in AAA but cant fool MLB hitters consistently. I wouldnt be shocked if he had a couple good years in MLB, but there are loads of guys hanging around who are just as good a bet as Kennedy. He’s pretty much a run of the mill guy… I cant figure out why youre so high on him… and youre pretty much the last one left…

by alskor on Oct 18, 2008 2:43 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

well the one thing i def. agree with

is the fact that Sonnanstine has succeeded at the MLB level is a big deal… which is why I am saying Kennedy could become a Sonnanstine, and i believe his raw stuff is a tad better and they have similar command so that I think his upside is slightly better, but I would be thrilled if he became a similar pitcher to Sonnanstine.

You have to keep in mind that Sonnanstine had 500 innings in the minors before he pitched in majors. Kennedy had 148 innings before the team put him into the starting rotation.

Sonnanstine’s Minor league numbers were 463 ks / 75 bbs in 495.2 IP. Thats a K/9 of 8.4 a BB/9 of 1.36 and a sparkling 6.1 k/bb ratio.

Kennedy’s minor league numbers were 248 ks /70 bbs in 226.1 ip. Thatss a k/9 of 9.9 with a BB/9 of 2.78. Which is a K/BB ratio of 3.5.

So Sonnanstine basically is a bit more of a control pitcher, he strikes out less, but walks less, and has a stellar k/bb ratio…. (big part of why he was on my fantasy team after last year). Kennedy on the other hand has a bit more K ability (mostly because he has a tad better stuff) and while his control is not in Sonnanstines league, a bb/9 rate of under 3 and a K/BB rate of 3.5 is elite.

You make good analysis above, but yoru conclusion drips with Bias… while I agree any player who proves themselves at the MLB level vs. another proving it at the AAA level is a “better bet going forward” I think your ridiculous comment in that “kennedy sucks” is not in line with the rest of your analysis. Kennedy is not a run of the mill guy…22 year olds who dominate AAA with more then a k per inning and under 3 walks per 9 are elite prospects, your letting 58 innings in the majors overshadow 5 times as many in the minors.

Check out my baseball analysis blog FANalytics

by jbluestone on Oct 18, 2008 6:59 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Joe Sheehan

Also said that Jeff Francour or Ryan Zimmerman would be MVP candidates this year (2008) among many other stupid things he says… and hes not a guy who I would respect int erms of inside info on who would deal for whom.

I find it hard to believe that Hughes and Cano and Betances wouldnt get that done… unless the money cano is owed really offsets things.

I know Cano is coming off an off year, but he still had a WARP of 6.0 and hes proven to be a 9.0 guy the previous 2 yaers. And he was even a top 5 defensive 2nd baseman in 2007 but was horrible this year.. so not sure where that reality is.

Check out my baseball analysis blog FANalytics

by jbluestone on Oct 18, 2008 12:15 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Disagree again

There is zero chance another team doesnt step in and outbid that Yankee package. Whether you have Kennedy or Betances or both in there.

That deal would under no circumstances get it done, unless Cashman has a time machine than can go back and get Cano and Hughes values from last year.

by alskor on Oct 18, 2008 12:46 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

I mean

really, can you imagine the dance Brian Cashman (and Yankee fans) would be doing if they got Peavy for Cano and Hughes plus? They might hold a parade. If that was on the table Cashman would do it in a second and throw in melky for good measure.

by alskor on Oct 18, 2008 12:50 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

well unlike most yankee fans

i cant see anyone being interested in melky cabrera.

And actually I think id rather sign burnett and keep hughes, kennedy and cano.

Check out my baseball analysis blog FANalytics

by jbluestone on Oct 18, 2008 12:52 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

in other words

I think the combo of Burnett, Hughes, Kennedy, Cano > Peavy + draft pick lost for Burnett signing (not claiming burnett is on peavys level)

Check out my baseball analysis blog FANalytics

by jbluestone on Oct 18, 2008 12:54 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Exactly

That was my first post up above. In the end, the Yankees have the financial muscle and it makes more sense to exercise it when there are equivalent options to Peavy on the free agent market. Doesnt make any sense to trade the farm for Peavy when you could sign Burnett or CC… or both.

Another issue is that Peavy’s contract is one of the things that makes him so attractive to many of the clubs chasing him. That isnt an issue for the Yanks. They can chase after a higher priced pitcher closer to free agency and just pay him what he wants. Ie Santana last year and Sabathia this year. Those pitchers have less suitors and lower acquisition cost.

Peavy just doesnt make sense for the Yankees in this market, and they’ll be making four holes to plug one.

by alskor on Oct 18, 2008 12:57 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

you might be right, but

can you give me an example of a package you consider better then that one?

I understand we may disagree on the value of the players, but im curious to see what you think would be a better offer?

Check out my baseball analysis blog FANalytics

by jbluestone on Oct 18, 2008 12:51 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Its a tough question

but for the reasons I stated above there will be a lot more suitors for Peavy than we saw for Haren, Bedard and Santana, etc… So I really believe you have to adjust your estimated return up. Plus, Towers is pretty savvy. In the end, its hard for me to see him getting moved. I could totally see them talking with a bunch of teams and then backing off. The way theyve approached this so far indicates they truly want and truly expect a king’s ransom. And again, they really have no great need to move the guy. He’s signed relatively cheaply for four+ more years.

I could definitely see a Braves package based around Heyward doing the job.

I tell you, if he ends up getting moved I expect to see Teixeira to the Braves type return.

by alskor on Oct 18, 2008 1:02 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Really

I could see Towers pulling back… making a Peavy trade is sort of like how the Red Sox were always willing to trade Manny… sure, he’s available, but who the hell is going to meet this asking price?

by alskor on Oct 18, 2008 1:03 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Haren

I agree with you on the whole, but it’s definitely worth noting that Haren has a very club-friendly deal while Peavy is getting paid a ton of money, which was the real reason that Haren cost so much more than Santana did.

by Fanon on Oct 17, 2008 9:53 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Called Up

How long until Heyward get’s called up if he’s traded? How long if he stays with the Braves?

by thebenjamin06 on Oct 17, 2008 2:42 PM EDT reply actions   0 recs

he's got a while

nomatter what… no reason to rush him… i expect 2010 he’ll get a taste

"If you were a hot dog, would you eat yourself?"

by Trobone on Oct 17, 2008 7:44 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

How about this?

Jordan Schafer, Tommy Hanson, Tyler Flowers, Charlie Morton

ProjectProspect.com - Sullivan10x@yahoo.com

by sully10x on Oct 17, 2008 2:49 PM EDT reply actions   0 recs

Sounds reasonable

Fits the Padres needs … without devastating the Braves system.

by toonsterwu on Oct 17, 2008 2:50 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

I’d be hesitant to give up Hanson and Morton. As I alluded to above, I think substituting Hanson for Morton (and keeping Medlen in the deal) would be plenty good enough for San Diego.

by vandystu on Oct 17, 2008 2:52 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

I don't

think the difference between Medlen and Hanson is “good enough” for the Padres.

We are talking Jake Peavy.

Think of what Haren went for.

ProjectProspect.com - Sullivan10x@yahoo.com

by sully10x on Oct 17, 2008 2:55 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

The issue

would be the difference between Medlen and Morton.

by vandystu on Oct 17, 2008 2:59 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Understood now, but

Again, Hanson has much more upside than Morton, who’s only success ever came in his stint at AAA this season. He was terrible before that, and he was terrible in the Majors.

And he’s 3 years the elder of Hanson.

ProjectProspect.com - Sullivan10x@yahoo.com

by sully10x on Oct 17, 2008 3:02 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

My point being.

I don’t think I have a point, but I don’t think Morton vs. Medlen is a big difference at this point.

ProjectProspect.com - Sullivan10x@yahoo.com

by sully10x on Oct 17, 2008 3:03 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Let me clarify:

Hanson is clearly a cut above both Morton and Medlen. I’m suggesting that including him in the deal with Schafer, Flowers, and one of the other two would be a no-brainer on the Pads’ end.

As for Morton and Medlen, I like Morton a little more, which is why I’d rather include Medlen. (A lot of that is due to the fact that Morton is already in our rotation, and Medlen’s not quite ready for the majors.)

by vandystu on Oct 17, 2008 3:06 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

I agree, it would be better to keep Morton for the Braves

However, the Padres are looking for Major league ready pitching.

Also, many people think Medlen will eventually wind up in the bullpen.

ProjectProspect.com - Sullivan10x@yahoo.com

by sully10x on Oct 17, 2008 3:13 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

You sure about that?

Medlen was primarily a reliever before this season, but he was outstanding when they moved him to the starter’s role. I thought most considered him a starting prospect at this point.

Think there’d be any interest in Jo-Joe Reyes from San Diego? I’m not high on him in Atlanta, but in that huge ballpark, he might actually be effective with more consistency.

by vandystu on Oct 17, 2008 3:16 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Medlen's future

In a recent Q&A with Baseball America, a question was posed to the future of Medlen, and Baseball America’s synopsis was “a bullpen arm, but a good one.”

As far as Reyes goes, I definitely think he would be a better fit for San Diego than Medlen.

I’d like the Braves to hang on to Hanson, but I don’t know if that’s possible in this type of deal.

But I would certainly do Schafer, Flowers, Reyes, Morton.

ProjectProspect.com - Sullivan10x@yahoo.com

by sully10x on Oct 17, 2008 3:35 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Hmm

Well, I’d much rather give up Jo-Jo than Medlen, so maybe there’s something there! I just assumed, perhaps for no good reason, that everybody thought as little of Reyes as I do. He does seem like a good change-of-scenery candidate.

by vandystu on Oct 17, 2008 3:40 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Plus

were not trying to figure out the bare minimum that could get a deal done… this is Jake Peavy. There will be a ton of suitors and a bidding war, unlike with Haren. Adjust all your estimates UP.

by alskor on Oct 17, 2008 11:54 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

I think one of them has to be included

My guess would be Hanson, as the Padres need pitching (although I don’t see Hanson as an ace caliber-type.) I think a package of Schafer, Hanson, and another arm might do the trick.

by toonsterwu on Oct 17, 2008 2:50 PM EDT reply actions   0 recs

I would quit being a Braves fan and would change my user name if the Braves get Peavy giving up Heyward

Just don’t like Peavy, who has an inflated ERA from his home park and sucks big time in big games.

by Bravesin07 on Oct 17, 2008 3:33 PM EDT reply actions   0 recs

lol

1. taking the “Braves” off of your name would be so super for the rest of Braves fans on this board….

2. you’re wrong….flat wrong….Peavy’s 3 year split from 2005-2007 show August and September as two of Peavy’s 3 best months of the year… he’s had 2 chances to pitch in the postseason, one of which he gritted through against doctor’s advice and nearly pulled off a “quality start” even when injured….for reference for you: tom glavine lost his first two playoff starts, and he finished his first postseason 1-3 and only got a win with 14 runs of support behind him….greg maddux in his first two starts in the postseason went 0-1 with less than 8 innings total pitched with a 13.50 ERA….i’d say the braves did alright with them in the playoffs….

Insanity is doing the same thing over and over expecting different results.

by biggentleben on Oct 17, 2008 5:28 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Jordan Schafer, Jurrjens, and...?

A package topped by those two guys should certainly do it.

by aap212 on Oct 17, 2008 3:42 PM EDT reply actions   0 recs

...and will never happen.

I figure the only 3 untouchables in the Braves’ system are McCann, Jurrjens, and Heyward.

by vandystu on Oct 17, 2008 3:51 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Then by your world view...

The whole premise is off. You would be willing to start a package with Schafer and Hanson, so Jurrjens doesn’t have to come up.

by aap212 on Oct 17, 2008 4:17 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

I'm not sure what worldview has to do with it...

but, as I said, I’d actually start with the Schafer/Morton/Medlen/Flowers package. Including Hanson over Morton would make it a no-brainer for the Pads, I’d think, but I would not start in no-brainer territory if I were negotiating for the Braves.

by vandystu on Oct 17, 2008 4:28 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

worldview

in that you seem to think baseball earth revolves around the braves. Quite simply, the only way the deals you propose are getting done is if it is in a fantasy game, and you can force trades.

Adoptive Parent of Francisco Peguero. He can throw, he can run, he can hit(fastballs), and he's Dominican. What else do you need to know?

by haverecords on Oct 17, 2008 6:25 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Well, OK.

I asked the question of everyone specifically because I realize that it doesn’t revolve around the Braves.

For what it’s worth, with Peavy’s no-trade-waiver list including 5 teams, the Padres don’t exactly have the world’s strongest hand from which to deal. Even if they did, I don’t think the above proposals—specifically, the one including Schafer, Hanson, Flowers, and Medlen—are in the fantasy world.

by vandystu on Oct 17, 2008 6:59 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Well, remember that the Padres do not have to trade Peavy: he isn’t going anywhere unless they deal him, and could very likely trade him around the deadline for similar potential value (and perhaps even after that). The only thing that might make sense for them is if they get at least a Haren-like package; otherwise, why trade a true #1 with a very friendly contract?

Many of those you mention would be a good fit (though I’m not sure what value Schafer has anymore—though it certainly isn’t what it was before this season). The proposal would seem to need at least one more b prospect as is, or build a package starting with one of the 3 thought to be untouchable.

Adoptive Parent of Francisco Peguero. He can throw, he can run, he can hit(fastballs), and he's Dominican. What else do you need to know?

by haverecords on Oct 18, 2008 4:50 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Hanson

I think Hanson’s flyball tendencies in Petco would be sick – he might be another Chris Young.

by Dfarth on Oct 17, 2008 3:56 PM EDT reply actions   0 recs

Peavy

is under a very under market value for the next 5 years… I covered this on my blog…. www.fanalytic.com recently.

Also mlb trade rumors had some links that said the padres were looking for 2 young pitchers and a near mlb ready CFer…. I am sure a guy like heyward would interest them despite his lack of being in a CFer.

Check out my baseball analysis blog FANalytics

by jbluestone on Oct 17, 2008 5:15 PM EDT reply actions   0 recs

You're fantasizing if you think your team, whoever it is, can get Peavy without giving up their #1 prospect

His contract makes him one of the most tradable commodities on the market. He should easily blow by the Haren and Erik Bedard packages in return value.

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Oct 17, 2008 6:35 PM EDT reply actions   0 recs

That's ridiculous.

Some teams’ #3 prospects would constitute other teams’ #1. The Braves are certainly capable of putting together a Peavy-winning package that doesn’t include Jason Heyward.

by vandystu on Oct 17, 2008 7:01 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

I disagree...

Are you a Braves fan and just hope they wont give up Heyward. If I am the GM of the Padres. If Heyward isnt involved, then I send him somewhere else….

by Maxima231 on Oct 17, 2008 7:52 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

+1

The market is very different from the Haren trade. This is a special case and there are already a ton more teams with serious interest than there were for Haren. Nothing against Haren, but times are different, and Peavy is a better pitcher than Haren. Not to even broach the issue of contracts. Peavy’s deal isnt super cheap, but its a value, and it keep him under team control. Haren was signed for what? two or three years? Peavy is under team control for 5 years. There is no signing him to a deal like there was with Haren.

by alskor on Oct 17, 2008 11:58 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

I'm not sure how true all of that is

For one thing, there are more injury concerns with Peavy than with Haren. For another, Peavy’s got a no-trade clause that basically lets him limit the teams SD can shop him to. Last I heard, there were like five NL teams he wanted to play for and none in the AL. The Braves are by far the best suitor on his list, and it’s not like there’s young pitching talent just growing on trees. By the quality of player involved and level of financial commitment, the possible field is necessarily small. Also, I’d imagine Peavy might do something like get his $21M option exercised as a condition of letting him get traded ANYWHERE.

So while there are similarities, there’s a big difference between this situation and Haren’s.

by mraver on Oct 18, 2008 1:42 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

They can do it without Heyward, no problem

Hanson and Schafer are both GREAT fits for the Padres; one is a brilliant defensive CF at the very least who will be able to cover their OF, and the other is a stirkeout pitcher with crazy FB tendencies. Put them together in PETCO….

Personally, I think I could deal with Hanson/Schafer/Medlen/Low-minors pitcher with upside. If they want more MLB-ready guys, they can have Lillibridge or B. Jones if they want instead of the 3rd pitcher.

The question becomes for Atlanta whether you’re willing to give all that up. Frankly, I’m not sure I would. Hanson I’d be okay with giving up. But Peavy’s deal isn’t super team-friendly after the first few years, and I’m a big believer in Schafer. So it’s hard to say. But this deal could definitely get done without Jason Heyward being involved.

by mraver on Oct 17, 2008 7:12 PM EDT reply actions   0 recs

Again, why would San Diego accept a package that is so much worse than other packages that have been given

for worse players? Adam Jones is clearly better than Schafer. Tillman is better than Hanson. Sherrill is already a good reliever, vastly more valuable than a relief prospect. I mean, it’s not even close.

Then remember that Bedard is the one with an uncertain contract situation and only 2 years of control. Judging by the quality of the packages, you’d think the reverse were true.

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Oct 17, 2008 8:15 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Its a good point

but the Bedard trade was a colossal disaster that everyone who didnt work for the Mariners saw coming a hundred miles away. It was a ridiculously bad trade at the time. With only Sabean, Colletti and Bowden left to match Bavasi’s stupidy its hard to imagine another team giving up that kind of package.

by alskor on Oct 18, 2008 12:01 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Because times change

The market changes. Peavy is not going to be willing to waive his no-trade for each of the other 29 teams, which means that there will be less competition bidding with Kevin Towers for his services. Jones, Tillman, and Sherrill have already been traded; that trade ain’t happening again. The Pads will have to look at what’s on the table this time and decide between a limited number of possibilities.

Paul DePodesta had this to say: “So, to answer the most basic question: are we going to trade Jake Peavy? We’ll see if someone offers us a compelling deal that makes us better.” Considering the state of their major league roster, I think it’s pretty likely that they’d be able to be compelled, even if it’s by a parcel of B, B+ prospects like Schafer, Flowers, Medlen, Gorky Hernandez, or Hanson, with Heyward off the table.

http://www.chop-n-change.com

by alexwithclass on Oct 18, 2008 12:55 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

less competition???

It was basically a two horse race for Bedard. A three horse race for Santana. Peavy already has five or more teams in on him. He is not an impending 3rd year arb case/1 year from free agency like Bedard and Santana were. That makes him palatable to a lot more teams. I think there is going to be a great deal MORE competition for Peavy than for the front line starters available last year.

AS for filling holes on their major league roster with those Braves prospects… that doesnt really make them better. They can get reasonable approximations of that through free agency on the cheap or trade other assets for comparable options. Theyre going to want a premium return for a premium asset. They can NOT go out and replace Peavy or get anything close to him in free agency.

I think youre seeing thing in a light that would make a deal for Peavy easy… not gonna happen. B and B+ prospects are not going to get this done. No way in hell Towers settles for that. Being as theyve already given up on next year more or less – what impetus is there to trade Peavy? They can just as easily hold on to him if they best offer they get is what you have above. That’s the light I read DePodesta’s comment in. Sounds like he’s saying: “We’re not going to trade him unless we get blown away by an offer… because a bunch of B and B+ prospects dont make us any better than having Jake Peavy.”

I keep hearing the arguments you bring up and it sounds to me just like a Yankee fan last year explaining why they were going to get Santana for Melky, Kennedy and a C prospect.

by alskor on Oct 18, 2008 6:21 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

But Peavy has veto power

If the Padres get a better offer from a team Peavy doesn’t want to play for, then the offer doesn’t matter. That’s the difference.

http://www.chop-n-change.com

by alexwithclass on Oct 20, 2008 11:31 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Ok

But Peavy has already said hed approve trade to at least 5 NL teams, and apparently would consider AL powers, as well. That’s already more of a market than last year’s starters had.

by alskor on Oct 20, 2008 1:54 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

By this reasoning

The price of a replacement-level left-handed arm is a relief ace with three arbitration years left. Good luck getting that from anyone but Bavasi.

by mraver on Oct 18, 2008 6:04 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

I would expect

Hanson or Heyward, but not both.

They might also be able to pry away a guy like Julio Tehran. High upside, but still a few years away from his ML debut.

by RoyalsFan4Life on Oct 17, 2008 7:13 PM EDT reply actions   0 recs

I just dont see how anyone can reasonably argue against having to include

Heyward. This is iddferent than the Johan sweepstakes as Peavy is signed to a long term deal. The Padres would be retarded for dealing him to the Braves without getting Heyward + for him. I know I would never do that if I was the Padres…
Another thing for the Braves fans in here. The Braves acquiring Peavy are still no better than the 3rd best team in the division, and maybe the 4th….
Braves are better off staying out of this and starting over….

by Maxima231 on Oct 17, 2008 7:55 PM EDT reply actions   0 recs

A starting point...

I think Hanson, Flowers and either Shafer or Heyward is the starting point. I am reading that the Padres want more of a MLB ready CF, which makes Shafer more appealing. But we all know Heyward has more upside (and more time to bust as well). And if the Padres insist that Atlanta takes Greene to get the deal done, I think Lillibridge will go to San Diego as well. But Atlanta taking on Greene’s contract will likely give them a small bargaining chip in trying to make sure that it is Shafer and not Heyward that they send.

Peavy & Greene
for
Shafer, Hanson, Flowers, Lillibridge, and maybe a small time C+ type of prospect might get it done.

"My mom always taught me it's better to laugh at yourself than to laugh at others. She was so wrong. ;)" -Pedrophile

by Boxkutter on Oct 17, 2008 8:50 PM EDT reply actions   0 recs

Why do the Braves want Greene?

Just for salary relief for the Padres? If we did that deal, much of what we had to spend in FA is gone. IF we can get Peavy and another pitcher like Lowe then it’s possible the Braves could mix it up with the Phillies/Mets but we are gonna need that cash we would be spending on Greene. I’d do the above deal w/o Greene if it landed us Peavy to be honest.

by jfish26101 on Oct 17, 2008 9:31 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

The don't want Greene

That’s called “more salary relief for SD”. Which is the whole point of this deal: the Pads don’t see themselves contending within a few years.

But to be honest, this is why I don’t think the deal gets done. The Padres are in a weak division, and just because they’re not in great shape for next year doesn’t mean they can’t become a .500 team and get lucky in 2010 or 2011 or something. So I really think you’d have to blow them away to get Peavy.

by mraver on Oct 18, 2008 1:48 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

they paid a lot more then that for one and a half years of tex

i really don’t think that matches up very well with what the d-backs paid for haren either, and i view peavy as an even more valuable commodity

by Wheelhouse on Oct 17, 2008 9:54 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

What seems most plausible to me at this point

Is something like

Peavy + Greene

for

Schafer, Hanson, Kelly Johnson, Pitching prospct

And the Braves play Greene or Prado at 2B. I’m not sure I like this deal very much. But I do think the Braves would have to move some MI if they acquired Greene.

by mraver on Oct 18, 2008 1:53 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Replace Kelly Johnson with Yunel Escobar and you have a deal

which probably still isn’t enough, but might get them to maintain diplomatic relations with you until you add more to it.

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Oct 19, 2008 2:43 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Na

Too much, IMO. Escobar is too valuable for the next two years to deal away like this. KJ at least has already reached arbitration.

by mraver on Oct 19, 2008 3:19 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Only if Sandy Alderson and Kevin Towers put on their stupid hats

I think the Braves have the minor league talent to land Peavy and the price tag will include 1 of the 3 you want to make untouchable.

Now, should the Braves go after Peavy? That i’m not so sure about.

The monster at the end of this blog.

by grover on Oct 18, 2008 12:57 AM EDT reply actions   0 recs

prospects for proven players

i dont understand why people are so against trading prospects for proving big leaguers.
if i was in the financial position to do so, i would do it EVERY SINGLE TIME.
Not a Kazmir-Victor Zambrano idiot move, but a trade like Jason Heyward for Jake Peavy. Are you kidding me? Where do I sign up?
In hindsight, how does it look that the Yankees wouldn’t trade Hughes or Kennedy for Santana last winter? I argued it then as I will now, you trade the guys who “could be” for the guys who “already are” every time.

I like Heyward a lot as a prospect, but the dude is 19 years old. There’s no such thing as a can’t miss player. Remember the last seriously hyped can’t miss OF, his name was Delmon Young. Hey, how’s that working out? Would you have traded Delmon Young for Jake Peavy? I sure as hell would have.
Look at what the Rays did. They traded him for Matt Garza, who isn’t in the same league talent wise as Peavy (no knock against Garza), and they are in the ALCS now knocking on the door to the World Series. Sure Garza is not the only reason, but he was a big part of what they did this year.
If I was the Braves, I’d give them whoever they wanted to land Peavy. He’s a battle tested ACE pitcher, and they are harder to come by then anything else in baseball.

by loop on Oct 18, 2008 1:44 AM EDT reply actions   0 recs

Dan?

Dan Duquette? Is that you?

Fess up.

The major problem is one of finances. Young players/prospects are cost controlled. They can be optioned to the minors. If they fail or get injured youre not really out much of anything. If Peavy gets injured that’s a significant portion of your payroll out.

The other issue is that not all prospect are created equally. If youre smart about is a talent evaluator you can increase your chances of trading the overrated prospects and holding on to the great ones. For every guy who got injured, for every melky cabrera and phil hughes that werent traded for Santana that you regret there is an Evan Longoria.

Although, as you state, battle tested ACE pitchers are harder to come by then anything else in baseball, there is also a high attrition rate for pitchers. They get injured a lot, and even if they dont their performance varies a good deal from year to year, and on a four year scale they are extremely difficult to predict. So if your reason for trading the 19 year old prospect is youre risk averse it doesnt make a whole lot of sense to trade him for a pitcher signed to a four year deal. Theyre almost as risky.

by alskor on Oct 18, 2008 2:27 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Typos...

should read:

The other issue is that not all prospects are created equal. If youre smart about it as a talent evaluator…

by alskor on Oct 18, 2008 2:28 AM EDT reply actions   0 recs

understood.

i understand that prospects are cost controlled. I also understand that pitchers are more prone to injury, but that also includes young pitchers like Hughes or Clay Buchholz, two of the players named in Santana rumors that were “untouchable.” I’d rather have a guy like Peavy who has been in the league since 2002 then an unknown prospect. And most of the teams that are gunning for Peavy are not going to be in a situation where they can’t afford him, that was another reason why I didn’t mention it.

Also, there aren’t many Evan Longoria’s. Go back to say 2002 and look at the Top 100 prospect lists. How many of those guys became actual stars? Let me check out the top 25 for shits and giggles:

1. Josh Beckett, rhp, Marlins – star
2. Mark Prior, rhp, Cubs – was good when healthy, is never healthy
3. Hank Blalock, 3b, Rangers – an ok player, not a superstar
4. Sean Burroughs, 3b, Padres – bust
5. Carlos Pena, 1b, Athletics – above average i’d say
6. Juan Cruz, rhp, Cubs – good middle man but not a star
7. Joe Mauer, c, Twins – all star
8. Wilson Betemit, ss, Braves – bust
9. Drew Henson, 3b, Yankees – super bust
10. Mark Teixeira, 3b, Rangers – star
11. Austin Kearns, of, Reds – average OF
12. Joe Borchard, of, White Sox – bust
13. Nick Johnson, 1b, Yankees – decent when healthy, never healthy
14. Ryan Anderson, lhp, Mariners – bust injured
15. Angel Berroa, ss, Royals – bust
16. Dennis Tankersley, rhp, Padres – bust
17. Nick Neugebauer, rhp, Brewers – bust injured
18. Josh Hamilton, of, Devil Rays – star took the long way
19. Jerome Williams, rhp, Giants – bust
20. Brandon Phillips, ss, Expos – same as hamilton
21. Justin Morneau, 1b, Twins – star
22. Casey Kotchman, 1b, Angels – decent 1B, not a star but above average
23. Jon Rauch, rhp, White Sox – decent middle man
24. Carlos Hernandez, lhp, Astros – bust
25. Ty Howington, lhp, Reds – bust

as you can see, its less than a 50/50 bet, actually it’s not even close to 50/50. So maybe if you are absolutely convinced that Heyward will develop the power and become a superstar, then you don’t trade him. BUT to me, all things equal, I’d always take the established guy over the prospect. Of course I’m not running the Marlins here, every situation is different. But all the teams who will trade for Peavy will be able to afford him. The only reason you trade for a Jake Peavy is because you think you’re close to winning a World Series, and to me, he’s a Top 3 pitcher in the game and I’d give prospects all day to land him. I’m not a fan of trading a Heyward type for anyone, but an elite SP with an affordable contract I’d absolutely be interested in.

by loop on Oct 18, 2008 10:11 AM EDT reply actions   0 recs

Nit picking...

Carlos Hernandez wasn’t really a bust. He was pitching very well until he got injured back in 2002 or 2003. Somewhere in there.

"My mom always taught me it's better to laugh at yourself than to laugh at others. She was so wrong. ;)" -Pedrophile

by Boxkutter on Oct 18, 2008 11:13 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

50/50...

That’s not really how probabilities work. Some people are more likely to make it, some people are less likely. Pitchers, obviously, are much less likely to pan out than position players. A guy with a preternatural control of the strike zone like Heyward is more likely to pan out than a tools guy who has no idea what to swing at — like Henson. And to go along with that, he already has the power that everyone was waiting for Burroughs to develop. You can weight the likelihoods, and I’d say Heyward’s a significantly better shot to make it than most of these guys.

http://www.chop-n-change.com

by alexwithclass on Oct 18, 2008 12:49 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Dodgers

There’s been some discussion above about what the Pads might get as offers from teams besides the Bravos, but I didn’t see much discussion of the Dodgers. Even with their farm system down a bit, I could see them putting together an offer that would surpass Hanson/Schafer.

by siddfynch on Oct 18, 2008 2:28 PM EDT reply actions   0 recs

why?

why would the pads trade a perennial cy young contender within their division?

no debate that the dodgers have quite a bit that would intrigue the pads, but the indians and tigers also had solid systems to use when the santana sweepstakes started, and minnesota said absolutely not….

Insanity is doing the same thing over and over expecting different results.

by biggentleben on Oct 18, 2008 3:14 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Because every team is different

I know the conventional wisdom is not to trade within your division, but different teams have different tolerance for risk. I don’t think a team ever makes a trade not thinking it benefits them, so if the pot is sweet enough, why wouldn’t SD have to consider it?

Your point about the Indians and Tigers is good, but rests a lot on 1) what it was the two clubs would actually offer, and 2) the Twins personal perspective on such things. The Dodgers and Padres could each have very different philosophies. And the Dodgers have certainly come up in early rumors.

by siddfynch on Oct 18, 2008 4:02 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

What did you have in mind?

Something like Kemp and Kershaw? Maybe. But I don’t see regional/division rival making a deal like this. It’s just really hard to be the GM who traded away the ace/young stud who is beating your team 3-5 times a year; no one wants to risk that.

by mraver on Oct 18, 2008 5:58 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Dodgers

Not sure who they have in the low minors – didn’t follow their draft very closely this year, for example.

But in the upper levels, I can see SD being interested in guys like Hu, DeWitt, DeJesus, Elbert, and McDonald. Kemp and Kershaw would obviously be on anyone’s wish list.

by siddfynch on Oct 18, 2008 8:01 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Cards

What about an offer of Bryan Anderson, Daryl Jones, and Jess Todd? Would that get it done if you were the Padres? And would the Cards do it?

by siddfynch on Oct 18, 2008 2:29 PM EDT reply actions   0 recs

I don't think that's even close

There’s just not that much upside with those guys. I’d like Anderson if I’m the Padres, but I’m also looking for some pitching with top-of-the-rotation upside.

by mraver on Oct 18, 2008 6:02 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Creo que

the Braves will be sharks in this off-season, but odds are they’ll lay off Peavy.

I can see the Braves going out after Garland, and maybe Sheets or Perez, but I’d think that they’d go after Figgins on the trade market to bolster the leadoff spot. It may only take Escobar and Flowers to get him.

by METSMETSMETS on Oct 18, 2008 5:34 PM EDT reply actions   0 recs

Escobar and Flowers for Figgins?

That makes no sense from the Braves perspective. They really like Escobar, and Figgins’ defense can’t tough his. If a MI gets moved this off-season, look for it to be Kelly Johnson, who the Braves inexplicably seem to want to get “out of the way” of Martin “I can’t play defense at all, and my offense is entirely BA dependent” Prado.

by mraver on Oct 18, 2008 5:56 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Response

I think that the Braves have faith in McCann and Kotchman, so they can view Flowers as expendable, and although they do love Escobar and aren’t fans of Johnson, I think Frank Wren would drool over Figgins, and they do love Prado as well.

Also, when Chipper leaves, they have the option to get either a SS like Tejada or a 3B like Tracy or Beltre.

by METSMETSMETS on Oct 18, 2008 6:25 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Johnson

I would love to have Johnson on the Mets. Not that it could ever happen.

by Fanon on Oct 19, 2008 3:54 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Chipper will be playing longer than Tejada

And he’ll play out his career in Atlanta.

As for Kotchman, I think the Braves view him more as a patch, not a long-term solution there. I’m also confused why you think Wren has such a big boner for Figgins. He’s under contract for, what, another year? Two? I don’t see them trading one of their better young, cheap players for that.

by mraver on Oct 19, 2008 3:22 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Debatable

whether Chip will be playing longer. He’s never stopped hitting, but I’d be hard-pressed to re-sign a 37 year old who hasn’t played a full year since 2003

by METSMETSMETS on Oct 19, 2008 4:44 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

like alou?

except he was 40….

Insanity is doing the same thing over and over expecting different results.

by biggentleben on Oct 22, 2008 7:11 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

well

I’ll sign the reigning NL batting champ even if he’s only going to play 100 games (and he’s averaged like 140 the past few years). I mean, that’s 100 games that you’re getting MVP-caliber production, and surely that’s worth something.

by mraver on Oct 22, 2008 4:21 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Why would the Angels do that deal?

They have a solid little 2B already that is still a few years away from being expensive, and they have two solid young catchers right now. If the Angels trade Figgins I see them going after a 3B prospect and/or pitching help…. particularly bullpen help since I don’t see them making a serious offer to K-Rod.

"My mom always taught me it's better to laugh at yourself than to laugh at others. She was so wrong. ;)" -Pedrophile

by Boxkutter on Oct 19, 2008 6:12 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

No, he means a prospect with the grade of "C"

not a catching prospect.

Frankly, I think Johnson for Figgins straight up would be an awful deal for Atlanta, mostly because Figgins’s team control expires two years sooner.

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Oct 19, 2008 2:49 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

Minor League Ball: Where the Future of Baseball is Discussed
Start posting on Minor League Ball »

Join SB Nation and dive into communities focused on all your favorite teams.

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recommended FanPosts

Pose_small
SHS 'spect list continued....101-201
Hu_080227mag_uptonscover_small
daveh's top 111 prospects for 2010
Pose_small
SHS' 2010 top 100 prospects in MiLB

Recent FanPosts

N16115505_31581383_8646_small
Rising Stars Chat
Small
Dexter Fowler and UZR
Small
Teahen to the White Sox....
Planetterror_small
Stephen Strasburg is out of the AFL Rising Stars Game
N16115505_31581383_8646_small
Twins Acquire J.J. Hardy For Carlos Gomez
Small
BA NYM TOP 10
Batmanbaseball_small
Timmy Lincecum likes weed.....
Small
Lester or Votto
Kurtz_small
Hermida Traded to Red Sox
Small
Community Prospect List - Reds

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >


Managers

Carew_small John Sickels


Site Meter