Derosa traded to Cleveland
by krgrecw on Dec 31, 2008 1:53 PM EST
66 comments
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=3802342
not one of the guys the Cubs got back where on Johns list or HQ's list of the Indians and none of the 3 of them even got honorable mentioned on either list. So who the hell are they? I guess I'll post more since I have to make this 75 words long. I wish John could turn this filter off. Thank you
0 recs |
66 comments
Email
Print
Comments
The cubs got hosed...
I’m not a huge fan of derosa…he had a career year and I don’t think he’ll repeat it, but those three arms are pretty weak sauce.
Couldn’t the A’s have found three spare arms between the cushions to swap for Derosa?
by okteds on Dec 31, 2008 2:04 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
I think it would have taken something like Carignan, Bailey and Morla
to beat what the Indians gave up. Seems like a lot for one year of DeRosa for $5.5M. Dillon and Hannahan are worse, but a lot cheaper. I’d rather spend the money on a Giambi or a starting pitcher.
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Dec 31, 2008 10:12 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Aren't all three of those A's pitchers better than what the Cubs actually got?
by thejd44 on Dec 31, 2008 11:25 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
According to John, yes, except for Morla.
But I had trouble finding something that beat the Cub offer without upgrading all the way to Carignan and Bailey. Stevens did have 81K in 58.1 IP at AA and AAA. Carignan’s the worst guy I could find who was better than him. The other choices would be Rodriguez (whom I love), and Demel (who’s farther away). I guess you could have used Blevins, but I like him more than Carignan.
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Dec 31, 2008 11:38 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
As a Cubs fan, right now
I hate the deal. I absolutely hate it. None of the three guys in return are likely to help us in any appreciable way if we keep them. Maybe Stevens in MR, but it wouldn’t surprise me if Archer failed to advance and if Gaub got stuck in our lefty depth in the lower levels.
The suggestion is that the payroll was tighter than Cubs fans assumed (there was a rumor in December of 145). If the payroll was closer to 140 million, then we had to make these moves (dealing Marquis and DeRosa) to slash enough payroll to add a lefty OF (Bradley is supposedly signed, sealed, and delievered according to some).
There’s also rumors saying that the FO may let us revisit Peavy … but the beauty of a DeRosa deal before was to clear payroll and find assets to send. Outside of Stevens perhaps, I don’t see how any of these arms fit the Padres needs. Now, if Towers price comes down, then maybe it’s still possible.
But I’m a bit flummoxed, as of now.
by toonsterwu on Dec 31, 2008 2:04 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
i agree
with the cost cutting measures but we just spent $2.5 MIL on Aaon Miles. DOn’t we already have enough middle infield guys. Theriot, Fontenot, etc. You can’t tell me Aaron Miles is any better than the guys we already have on the roster.
What a waste
by snod on Dec 31, 2008 2:10 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
what are the Cubs doing?
I am really finding it difficult to be a fan of the Cubs these days. Why would they “give” DeRosa away like this. How did he go from being one of the key pieces of a possible Jake Peavy deal to a guy that can only land 3 low ranking prospects. DeRosa is so much more valualbe to the Cubs than just about anyone else on the team because of his ability to play so many positions. I don’t think he will repeat last years numbers but he is still a solid major leaguer.
by snod on Dec 31, 2008 2:06 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
personally
I think this is setting up Shark in the rotation, Bradley in RF, and Stevens in the pen. I hope not, but that seems more plausible to me than a Peavy deal atm, because I don’t see how we net the pieces to make a Peavy deal without DeRosa (and btw, the rumors of the DeRosa deal involved in the 3 way seemed to net the Cubs better talent than we got today … of course, just rumors).
by toonsterwu on Dec 31, 2008 2:12 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Bradley?
I would much rather go into 09 with Derosa in right than Bradley. I know we need the lefty stick but Bradley is not soooo much better than Derosa that it is worth the move. It is like we are making a move to make a move. I would go with Derosa’s slightly less talent and much better attitude than Bradley. We already have enough attitude problems with Ramirez, Soriano, and Big Z.
Speaking of ARam, why not see what you can get for him? He had a solid year, but always chokes under pressure. He would bring back more pieces than any of these other deals we have been screwing around with.
by snod on Dec 31, 2008 2:17 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Bradley is sooooo much better than Derosa
With the bat at least. Not in the OF, that could be a circus with Bradley, Soriano, and Fukodome. Good thing Wrigley is small.
by Birdfan01 on Dec 31, 2008 2:20 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Fukodome
is above average defensively, and Bradley can at least hold his own.
Want a circus, the yanks are over there waiting for you to mock their defense.
by Navi's_Navy on Dec 31, 2008 11:10 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Bradley is a pretty good defensive player
It’s just a matter of keeping him healthy if he’s out there everyday.
by thejd44 on Dec 31, 2008 11:27 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
He was a good defender, but I wonder whether the knee problems have changed that.
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Dec 31, 2008 11:39 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Stevens
I don’t know much about Archer or Caub, but Stevens looks like he could be a pretty valuable piece. He put up a K/9 of 12.5, between AA and AAA this year. Furthermore, he held opponents to a miniscule .184 batting average against. While that low BAA isn’t likely to carry forward, as it was aided by a .266 BABIP. Although he did pitch in the Olympics, one thing that concerns me is that with all of the Indians’ bullpen struggles they never brought Stevens up. Could indicate that they didn’t think he was ready.
Seems like the Cubs could have done a little bit better in this salary dump, as Derosa is a pretty valuable player. He should be able to help Valbuena at second and possible platoon with Choo in left.
by Birdfan01 on Dec 31, 2008 2:17 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Gaub and Stevens look like they could be solid relievers
Stevens as soon as next year, and Gaub in a while. That isn’t a nothing return but it isn’t especially significant
TheSouthWing.com - A Magazine of essays, prose and poems
by OldProspects on Dec 31, 2008 2:35 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Archer
had the 3rd best breaking ball in 06 draft among preps and throws in the low 90s. Hes raw but young, projectable and athletic. He got a 200k bonus in 06.
Gaub also got a 200k-ish 06 bonus. He was a late-round summer draft/follow out of U Minnesota. He never really pitched much there due to injuries. Health is a huge ? but he has touched 96 and flashed three plus pitches… as a lefty. Hes been lights-out when he can actually pitch
by nms on Dec 31, 2008 2:50 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
did Gaubs' velo come back
to pre-surgery mid-90’s form? I don’t remember hearing him hit the mid-90’s as much in the minors.
by toonsterwu on Dec 31, 2008 3:02 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Tony Lastoria reported that his fastball sits in the low 90’s topping out at 94 last season. He also scrapped his curveball for a slider which obviously led to great success.
Gaub could become a very solid reliever, but he’s already 23 (turning 24 next April) and he hasn’t pitched in high A yet, so he’s definately old for his league. That said, if he can stay healthy, he could move quickly.
by JP_Frost on Dec 31, 2008 3:23 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I don't really worry too much about being old for leagues
with pitchers if their stuff looks good enough to get guys out in any league, especially relievers since their development is so random. For a smoke/mirrors command guy that would be a concern but if Gaub has the stuff he is supposed to have I don’t think much of his dominance can be attributed to taking advantage of younger opposition.
Plus Gaub is a guy who is old for league because of college + injuries, not because he wasn’t good enough to get out A-ball hitters a year or two ago or anything.
by nms on Dec 31, 2008 5:16 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Holy Batcrap Bill Smith....
How the Twins couldn’t beat this deal is beyond me. This is why I will never be Bill Smith Jr
Relax, all right? Don't try to strike everybody out. Strikeouts are boring! Besides that, they're fascist. Throw some ground balls - it's more democratic.
Crash Davis
by Terry Ryan Jr on Dec 31, 2008 2:21 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
i don't get it either
seems to me the twins could’ve used DeRosa and easily topped this package. I mean … I don’t think Gaub ever got his pre-surgery velo back, and Archer was as raw as can be. Stevens is okay, but you can find Stevens types. DeRosa was the ideal pickup for the Twins, versatile, one year.
There are still some folks suggesting that these three arms were specifically targeted by the Padres for a Peavy deal. I have my doubts (and the Cubs new ownership has to approve any new spending), particularly since previous DeRosa rumors with the Phillies suggested a potentially better return.
by toonsterwu on Dec 31, 2008 2:49 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
It's pretty risky for the Cubs to trade for guys that the Padres want. They could get stuck with them.
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Dec 31, 2008 10:17 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
as a fan of the braves and twins
i’ll say i’m glad only one of the teams i cheer for had derosa….what the twins need to do with their young rotation is get some defensive studs that can hit enough to stay on the field….instead, last year they pursued a part-timer that hit as a bench guy, but never as a starter and a no-hit stud defender….i know he’s coming off a tough defensive season in his first year back from injury, but joe crede before injury was a good defender and a solid bat….why the twins don’t already have him is beyond me….
Insanity is doing the same thing over and over expecting different results.
by biggentleben on Dec 31, 2008 3:09 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I love the fact that LENIII
had the whole “I can’t believe we couldn’t top that reaction” AND he said his second reaction was to check Sickels site.
LENIII reaction On DeRosa deal
The Internet – It’s good for sportswriters.
by toonsterwu on Dec 31, 2008 3:47 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
just curious
what do you think would be a fair offer from the Twins for DeRosa. What would you offer that would beat Stevens/Archer/Gaub but also still be worth it for you to pay.
by nms on Dec 31, 2008 5:17 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
The inexplicable desire of the Indians to never put solid corner guys around their star core continues to puzzle me.
Of course, from a value standpoint this was a very good trade for Shapiro.
by alskor on Dec 31, 2008 3:14 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
DeRo
is very solid – the Indians will not be disappointed. I f nothing else he’s a great stopgap for a year until something else becomes available.
by slurve on Dec 31, 2008 3:16 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
What I don't get
though, is that they are supposedly leaning towards DeRosa at third with Cabrera at 2nd and Peralta at short. Why not begin the move of shifting Jhonny off by having DeRosa at 2nd, so when Luis Valbuena is ready, there isn’t as much shifting going on (with Cabrera at short and Jhonny at 3rd).
by toonsterwu on Dec 31, 2008 3:38 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
The key to the Indians is flexibility.
They paid a good price for that in DeRosa. I wouldn’t necessarily assume that DeRosa will not be used exactly how the Cubs used him. Cleveland is a small market franchise unlike the Cubs and cannot afford to play with the big guys in FA. I think the Cubs will be happy with their haul. These guys aren’t for the stat oriented but there is talent potential in the group.
by sdtribefan on Dec 31, 2008 5:21 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Cleveland is not a small market. It's about in the middle of the pack in MLB.
A small market is Milwaukee or Kansas City or Pittsburgh or even St Louis.
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Dec 31, 2008 10:18 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Cleveland has been in the bottom 30%
of ML attendance for many years, win or lose. They are even lower in attendance generated revenues. The city census is declining at 14% per year and it has arguably the worst economy of any city. Any sport fan in Cleveland is far more likely to spend the sports dollar on the Cavs or the woeful Brown. What about these statistics argue for middle market?
by sdtribefan on Jan 1, 2009 1:29 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Ok
but before they ripped those great teams apart they had the record for consecutive sellouts. Its a pretty big market city, the team is just being run somewhat on the cheap.
by alskor on Jan 1, 2009 2:24 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Different time, different circumstances.
New stadium, no football and a decent economy with 350,000 more in population. They aren’t being run on the cheap since they are spending midmarket on payroll and are not cutting back this year. You need to differentiate prudence for a small market team from the options available to the big markets.
by sdtribefan on Jan 1, 2009 7:08 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
What do you mean they "aren't for the stat oriented"
They’re good, but put up bad numbers? What makes them good?
This just seems like another veiled comment from somebody who doesn’t seem to realize that stats are a record of what actually happened.
by thejd44 on Dec 31, 2008 11:30 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I also disagree that they're not for the stat oriented. Stevens and Gaub have excellent
K-rates.
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Dec 31, 2008 11:40 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Sometimes you just have to watch them
play to make an analysis of projection and upside. No one who scouts for a living give a shit about the stats. They look at many things but statistics aren’t one of them. Statistical analysis has its place and gives people who don’t watch them play great opportunities to argue over what is essentially meaningless. There is a nice article on BA web site about scouting. Recommend you read.
by sdtribefan on Jan 1, 2009 1:37 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
No one who scouts for a living give a shit about the stats.
100% not true. There are old timers, but if you look around at the successful organizations in baseball the player development guys pay a lot of attention to stats.
by alskor on Jan 1, 2009 2:25 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
That is true and I speak from experience.
by sdtribefan on Jan 1, 2009 7:09 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
If you used to be a scout and didn't look at numbers,
perhaps that’s why you are no longer a scout.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on Jan 2, 2009 1:23 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Actually, I had to go to a vacation
in Southeast Asia and protect the inalienable right of ignorant bloggers like you to have free speech. And who says I am no longer a scout?
by sdtribefan on Jan 5, 2009 7:27 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
OK but this is a separate point than the statement that they're not for the stat-oriented
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Jan 1, 2009 7:09 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Not really in my opinion but we may
be arguing semantics which wastes both our time. Can we settle on differences of opinion and let it go from there?
by sdtribefan on Jan 1, 2009 7:12 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I'd argue they are for the stat-oriented
Stevens feels more like a middle relief/setup arm than his stats would suggest. As a Cubs fan, I don’t see him being different in value from say, a Kevin Hart, although the numbers may suggest otherwise. Stevens has a wider arsenal, but out of the pen, I imagine it’ll be 4-seam/curve as his main two, and Hart’s fast/cutter combination is probably as useful.
As for Gaub, the numbers suggest more than the reports, IMO. I think the plus slider skews his statistics at the lower levels. We’ll have to see if he can hold up. I mean, in the Cubs system, he’s a bit backlogged. A guy like Casey Lambert is above him, unless Gaub’s velo inches up. If it does, then he may be a useful starter type.
As for Archer, he’s a bit more projection than statistics, although I would suggest that Archer’s breaking ball probably helps him rack up the K’s a bit better.
by toonsterwu on Jan 1, 2009 12:39 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Hello toonsterwu,
Like gatling, I can understand the question surrounding why they wouldn’t shift Cabrera to SS and Peralta to 3B now, allowing DeRosa to play at 2B. I think there are two main reasons why the Indians plan to play DeRosa at 3B:
1. There are some reports and metrics that suggest DeRosa’s defense at 3B is even better than at 2B; if DeRosa’s defense at 3B is at least above-average and Cabrera’s defense at 2B is above-average to outstanding, this will enable Peralta to have to cover less ground to play an adequate to solid SS, which he’s done pretty much over the past few seasons. At his age, he can probably maintain that adequate to solid level in 2009, especially with two above-average to plus defenders on both sides of him. This leads to the second reason.
2. Peralta’s potential trade value would go down if he gets shifted to 3B; by keeping him at SS, his potential trade value remains higher. If I remember correctly, I think Peralta has an option for 2011, so technically, he’d have two years left on his contract after 2009. I don’t think it’s out-of-the-question for the Indians to potentially deal him after the 2009 season if the right deal comes along and/or potential replacements on the farm fill in the holes (Cabrera at SS, Valbuena at 2B, possibly Hodges at 3B/perhaps resign DeRosa or find another stopgap for 3B).
I’m not saying for sure that Peralta will get traded after 2009, or that he won’t get shifted to 3B after the 2009 season, but I think this keeps the Indians’ options open in terms of trading Peralta for highest-perceived value, while also fielding what they feel will be the best team they can for 2009 (I know there can be some debate that Peralta would be better at 3B, Cabrera at SS, and DeRosa at 2B, but the Indians probably don’t feel it’s enough of an improvement for 2009 combined with Peralta never playing 3B regularly, plus the fact Peralta’s perceived trade value would go down).
Just my 2 cents.
Take care and have a great 2009! :-)
The "cream of the crop" doesn't always rise to the top.
by indiansfan on Dec 31, 2008 10:47 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
IF seems pretty thin behind Peralta. If they were to trade him what would they want back
if not another IF? He seems more like an extension candidate than a trade candidate.
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Dec 31, 2008 11:42 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I think indiansfan is talking about 2010-2012.
Although MI is probably the organizational weakness, the tribe has a top 10 SS prospect in AA. Cabrera is ML ready to step in at SS any time. Shapiro will probably be able to trade him comfortably at any time depending upon development. With his contract, his value will likely peak in 2010.
by sdtribefan on Jan 1, 2009 1:47 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Who's the Top 10 SS in AA? Rivero?
I don’t see anyone on the farm that I’d move Peralta for.
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Jan 1, 2009 7:10 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Rivero it is and he already
is more advanced offensively and defensively than Peralta was at the same age. He has a greater upside than Peralta and will likely have a breakout at AA even though he will likely start slowly. The fact that you don’t see it leads me to believe you haven’t seen him play or looked at this stats from the second half of last year. In any case, it is a difference of opinion which is fine by me.
by sdtribefan on Jan 1, 2009 7:18 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
You're more familiar with him than I am no doubt. I've just never heard him
mentioned as a top prospect, certainly not one in Peralta’s class. As you say I don’t follow him daily either.
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Jan 1, 2009 11:25 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Hello WaddellCanseco,
It’s possible he could be extended (moreso than say Grady, who will likely cost way too much), but I still doubt it, as Peralta will still likely cost more than the Indians will want to commit to him, especially since Peralta will likely move to 3B at some point down the road.
There has been talk about Peralta being a trade chip for about a season now, though those rumors seem unfounded for the time being.
It’s possible Peralta could bring back a strong IF (though who would be appropriate – a good-fielding SS that is a solid hitter and is under team control for a few to several seasons – that is available or would be available in the next few years – I’m not sure anyone really qualifies).
When trading a chip like Peralta, I think you go for best value, regardless of positional needs. If you can get a young, good to great middle- to front-of-the-rotation starter, you acquire him and worry about filling the SS hole another way.
As sdtribefan mentioned, there are two main possibilities to take over at SS for Peralta after he is moved to 3B and/or traded:
1. Asdrubal Cabrera, who projects to be a very good to excellent shortstop – he would have taken over if Peralta had shifted to 3B this season.
2. Carlos Rivero, who is a very solid and young SS prospect, and reports seem to indicate that his defense is good enough for him to remain at SS for a while, if not long-term.
Again, it’s not that I want to see Peralta traded or that the Indians think Peralta is not a good player; it’s the likely fact that they will have a difficult time resigning him when his contract is up after 2011 (I think) and that he will eventually move to 3B down the line. He should have solid to very good value on the trade market, especially if he continues to remain at SS, so I think the Indians will explore the opportunity to trade him in the coming years, especially if they have a hole that needs to be addressed (such as the rotation).
Like most small- to mid-market teams, the Indians have to be creative in determining which players to keep and which ones to trade in order to best ensure that they can remain competitive, being that they can’t add many worthwhile pieces through FA. Players with expiring contracts are usually those players that teams like the Indians have to consider potentially trading before their contracts are up and while they have high value to set themselves up well for the future by filling the holes that the farm system is not covering. Cabrera and Rivero are two potential candidates to play SS in the coming years, whereas the Indians’ farm system has been turning out pitching prospects that are either more back-end type pitchers or higher-ceiling pitchers with injury (Miller) and/or command (Lofgren) issues.
Just my 2 cents.
The "cream of the crop" doesn't always rise to the top.
by indiansfan on Jan 1, 2009 10:48 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Grady is obviously the #1 extension candidate. You guys know better than me about Peralta.
But looking at it from the outside, I don’t see any other decent SS/3B in the system, and for that matter the prospect world looks thin in IF. Witness our Community Rankings. If it were me I’d hang on to my IF with both hands. Sure Asdrubal is a SS candidate, but they also need a 3B and 2B, and Valbuena looks like the only other candidate for 2B. I’m not sold on Rivero, but you’re doubtless more familiar with him than I am. If they do trade Peralta, I’d want a king’s ransom back.
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Jan 1, 2009 11:23 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Hello WaddellCanseco,
Regarding trading Peralta, the Indians would expect quite a bit, if not a “king’s ransom,” back for Peralta, and probably make the trade that gives them the most value – they’re not just going to give him away for a no-name prospect or two. It would have to be a valuable package, with at least one very solid to star prospect, especially if Peralta has a very solid to good 2009 (that will actually determine how much value Peralta can bring back, but the Indians certainly won’t give him away for nothing or next-to-nothing – they’d keep him and take the draft pick or picks if Peralta can’t bring back anything of value, but unless Peralta falls off the planet offensively in 2009, he’d likely be able to bring back something valuable).
Regarding Grady, the Indians would certainly love to extend him, but is probably the least likely to be extended because he will likely cost way beyond what the Indians can afford to put into one player, even someone as special as Grady. I’m sure the Indians will make an effort of some type, but Grady would likely have to take a hometown discount, and I’m not sure it would be enough of a discount, in order for the Indians to be a serious player in retaining him.
In fact, as I think you hinted above, Peralta would be likelier to be retained because he would be cheaper to retain, but again, with the fact that he’ll likely move to 3B at some point down the road, he could bring back a critical piece or two the Indians could use. Additionally, as you mentioned, Cabrera, Valbuena, and Rivero could and project (at least at this point) to be critical IF pieces within the coming years, plus you have guys further away such as Lonnie Chisenhall and Cord Phelps who could factor into the 2B and 3B picture within the next 3-4 years (around 2012-2013), so I think the chances of Peralta being traded increase significantly the closer we get to the end of his contract (with the option year, that would be after the 2011 season).
Just my 2 cents.
The "cream of the crop" doesn't always rise to the top.
by indiansfan on Jan 3, 2009 12:02 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
3B
Clearly the Indians don’’t think Marte’s the answer at 3B. Not that he’s proven capable of anything at the major league level but remember not too long ago this was a can’t miss guy. A dose of reality from the prospect police.
You can argue about how good DeRosa is but he at least has proven he can hit in the bigs, and solid enough defensively to get by. The Tribe turned Blake into Santana and replaced him with DeRosa. Not bad.
by thebroman on Dec 31, 2008 4:59 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Look Obviously this isn't all of it yet...
IMO this must be centered around The Padres GM Hightower and Jake Peavey….
THe Padres must really like some of those arms…..
I just can’t see how this isn’t a precursor to something bigger right now.
by SteveHoffmanSlowey on Dec 31, 2008 5:43 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Maybe they did it to free up money for Bradley.
Never, Never, NEVER give up
by hero66 on Jan 1, 2009 2:21 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
its about the salary
I think that looking at other teams and asking why they didn’t beat the Indians package misses the point. Perfect example in the Rangers who could have found three similar arms under the seat cushion and are currently looking at going into opening day with Travis Metcalf as starting 3b. Derosa would be worth two wins in that lineup. But the Rangers don’t want to pay Derosa $5.5 million and certainly can’t do that and chase Ben Sheets. As much as they could use him I don’t think that they wouldl have given a bag of sunflower seeds for Derosa except for the purpose of flipping him.
by Dalman on Dec 31, 2008 6:10 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
They could have gotten DeRosa and chased Sheets if they had gotten someone else to take
Millwood off their hands and pay $5.5M of his salary.
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Dec 31, 2008 10:19 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Rumor has it
That the Rangers need to clear quite a bit of salary before they CAN chase Sheets. So if they get DeRosa that would just add to how much they need to clear.
Regardless though DeRosa would be an immense improvement for the Rangers compared to the Metcalf/Duran combo they seem to be content using.
by TRanger on Dec 31, 2008 11:43 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
+1
Marquis to go next, then to go along with the signing of Aaron Miles….maybe Milton Bradley will come next.
by SteveHoffmanSlowey on Dec 31, 2008 6:47 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Marte
What happens to Andy Marte now?
by The Colonel on Dec 31, 2008 7:35 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
He joins JBarf in a ride into the
Indians sunset. Or the Havens if you are a Frodo follower.
by sdtribefan on Dec 31, 2008 7:58 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
same as usual
he’ll suck
"If you hit .440 with 20 bombs, you don't have to do s---. You don't have to bring a glove to practice, just hit and leave whenever you want. You can bring a 40 and smoke a cigarette and call me from the parking lot asking me what time the game is, and I'll tell you. You can even say 'F--- you, Steve!' Actually, don't say that, that wouldn't be very nice." -Steve Friend, Head Coach, Chabot College Gladiators Baseball
by flipgatey3 on Jan 1, 2009 9:31 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Given
Given that Marte is only 25, has been an underachiever (understatement!) so far and is out of options, I would think it would be a good low-cost gamble for a team who needs help at third base to take a gamble on him.
A definite gamble it would be — but the cost in players nor salary should be anything but low, so the possible reward might outweigh the minimal risk.
by sharksrog on Jan 2, 2009 2:49 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
can't deny that
but if i were running a team, i probably wouldn’t be the one taking the risk
"If you hit .440 with 20 bombs, you don't have to do s---. You don't have to bring a glove to practice, just hit and leave whenever you want. You can bring a 40 and smoke a cigarette and call me from the parking lot asking me what time the game is, and I'll tell you. You can even say 'F--- you, Steve!' Actually, don't say that, that wouldn't be very nice." -Steve Friend, Head Coach, Chabot College Gladiators Baseball
by flipgatey3 on Jan 2, 2009 3:46 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Thinking Brandon Phillips?
Not me, though. I think he’s toast.
by alskor on Jan 2, 2009 1:35 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2009 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
