What is Tejada worth on the trade market?
by byronlhsdrmr on Jun 13, 2009 2:30 PM EDT
Email
PrintI am looking for your thoughts here. Feel free to be as specific, specific teams, specific players, or generic as you like. Here are some of mine.
I'm an Astros fan, and want to see Tejada traded, along with Valverde, and others if possible. I think Tejada would bring in a big bounty right now. Here's why: 1. several teams are on him as either a SS or 3B. Simple supply and demand. Playoff teams need to improve on the left side of the infield. Tejada is the best available. The Cards and Red Sox are both known to be interested. 2. He's only going to cost another $6 million this year, and then he's going to be a free agent. I think teams will jump all over Tejada knowing they only have to pay him for a few more months. 3. He's going to be a type A free agent and could be worth two first rounders in next years draft. So, you may give up a couple top prospects, but you could get some of that value back once Tejada leaves.
I especially see the Red Sox are a fit. Michael Bowden or Justin Masterson would be a nice start and would give Houston a #2/3 starter they desperately need.
What do you think Tejada would bring back to Houston if they traded him?
48 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
The Red Sox could be a good fit
But I think you’re aiming far too high if you’re expecting Masterson/Bowden type guys in return. Which teams besides the Red Sox have the need, plus have the ability to add $6M in payroll for half of the season?
Most of his value is tied up in his batting average, which is propped up by a pretty high .350 BABIP. His walk rate has dwindled down to 2.3% of his plate appearances. All 6 of his homers are at Minute Maid Park, and 5 of those 6 were to left field.
The Astros should be happy just to get some low level RP prospects and the salary relief of moving Tejada’s contract elsewhere. Something along the lines of the Mark DeRosa trade, but with 1 or 2 prospects instead of 3. Unfortunately for Ed Wade, the only other GM that’d probably be willing to give anything of major value for an over the hill shortstop already bought one this past offseason (Sabean).
Every trade exists in it's own environment
All that said, I’m hard pressed to see a team fork over a high level, close to ready pitching talent for Tejada. We’ve seen a lot of prospect protection in recent years, particularly on the pitching side. It used to be that the fans were too conservative on trades, but now, teams seem very wary of moving young guys, as they recognize the need for cheap talent. My guess is that you could probably net a better package, in value, than what the Cubs got for Mark DeRosa in the offseason (Jeff Stevens, John Gaub, Chris Archer), but it might not be that much better.
That said, my first statement still holds. Every trade exists in their own environments and other trades are only used as ways to compare. If a team gets desperate enough, anything can happen. I just don’t see a Theo Epstein led team forking over a quality arm and more for Tejada, unless they got something else in return, but only time will tell.
"unless they got something else in return"
That’s a great point, and would be the only way to get a team to consider Bowden or Masterson being “a nice start” to a trade. Return value for Tejada would be equal to what they would get in draft compensation; in essence, a bottom-half first-round talent, and a supplementary-type player. If you look what the Dodgers gave upfor Manny Ramirez — Andy LaRoche and Bryan Morris — it was the same kind of blueprint. In the case of Masterson and Bowden though, prospect development also factors into the value. So you’re not going to get a supplementary-type player in addition to either of them. If the Red Sox were willing to deal either of those players for Tejada — and that’s a big, and somewhat unlikely ‘if’ — it would pretty much have to be Tejada and a low-level prospect for Masterson or Bowden and a prospect of relatively lesser value than the one Houston would give up.
DeRosa Offseason trade
You’re right. Every trade exists in its own environment.
A lot of people are underestimating DeRosa’s trade value by looking at the pieces Cleveland gave up to acquire him. This is foolish thinking for a number of reasons:
1. We don’t know the facts surrounding the deal: what kind of players were the Cubs looking for? Maybe they liked the arms of Gaub, Archer, and Stevens. Perhaps they were looking for relievers specifically. How many teams were interested in DeRosa? What did they offer in return? Did the Cubs not like those players? Were the Cubs looking for quantity or quality? Etc, etc
There’s any number of important facts that we don’t know about which is exactly why we can’t say that the Cubs “only” got X for DeRosa so the Indians will “only” get Y for DeRosa. We all know DeRosa won’t net Cleveland a Matt Wieters typle prospect but you can’t use DeRosa’s trade last year to limit his value this year.
2. There’s a difference between offseason trades and deadline deals: Market’s fluctuate. One moment a player will have low value. Couple of months later his value might be through the roof. There seems to be this assumption that getting a full season of a player is worth more trade value than if you deal him during the deadline. While this is certainly the case for certain bonafide all-stars or players will multiyear contracts this is usually not the case. I can give you two trades the Indians have been on either side of to prove my point.
Prior to the 2007 year would any of you seriously argued that a mostly platoon hitting Kenny Lofton was worth Max Ramirez? (Hell would you ever have made the offseason trade of Wickman for Ramirez if you were the Braves a few years earlier?) Absolutely not. But during the heat of the playoff hunt with the trade deadline approaching, the decision making calculus for GM’s is different. When both of those trades occurred most analyst considered the trade(s) fair deals.
by world dictator on Jun 14, 2009 2:31 AM EDT up reply actions
as a cubs fan
I think you misinterpreted my comments as suggesting that the Cubs got a bad deal. I’m certainly not suggesting that. I thought the deal that the Cubs got was okay. By commenting on the DeRosa deal, I was simply suggesting that, if the OP was expecting a top level talent to head a deal in return for Tejada, that I wouldn’t be expecting it. Certainly, as I noted, every trade exists in it’s own environment and I would never go as far to suggest that the DeRosa deal is somehow a specific model for the Tejada deal, as there are far different circumstances to look at, ranging from, as you note, different timing, to different positional value, and so much more.
if...
the Bo Sox didn’t trade Masterson or Bucholz or their other top flight prospects for JAKE PEAVY, there’s little chance one of them go the Astros way. Tejada is probably worth two middle tier prospects though.
Valverde on the other hand might net an elite type prospect back.
Unfortunately for Astros fans, their owner is stubborn and he thinks they can win every second half. …and Oswalt, Berkman won’t be traded any time soon.
"Fantasy, reality, science Fiction. Which is which? Who can tell?"
Tejada had been showing signs of decline the last couple years, while he’s been good this year that seems like more of a fluke (He’s never been a .344 hitter) then a resurgence, defensively is probably more of a 3B then a shortstop at this point, and yeah, is a rental player.
6 million is also quite a bit of money in this economy. There’s very few teams with that much payroll available right now, which severly limits the market.
In John’s style of rankings, I’d say probably a package around a B- prospect is about as good as you’re going to do.
Regarding the Type A designation....
is Tejada really worth offering Arb to and risking owing him $10ish million dollars for next year?
Fire Everyone
by billybeingbilly on Jun 13, 2009 9:51 PM EDT reply actions
Absolutely
In the context you’re talking about, the worst that happens from the Astros side is they pay $10-mil for a marque player who is a very good defensive shortstop that is coming off a .300+ batting average year. With that, he either performs up to spec in 2010 and the ‘Stros take the chance of having to pay the same through arbitration for one more year in 2011, or he tanks and he still qualifies as a Type A in after next season, but won’t accept arbitration coming off a poor season.
Tejada though is likely to seek a multi-year deal after this season. He will certainly get two- or three-year offers if he finishes the season among the league leaders in batting average. At age 35, a player generally cashes in on a big year with a multi-year deal. If he were to accept arbitration after this season, it would be far riskier for Tejada than for the Astros.
Oh dear, just quote me the sabermetrics that “prove” Tejada’s range has decreased, and I’ll rely on the intangibles of a veteran shortstop that sheer metric evaluation doesn’t account for.
prove me these intangibles....
b/c there are lots of numbers that show that he’s not an awesome defensive shortstop.
He’s also not a great hitter….he’s hitting well now due to a fluky average. He OBPd 314 last year and grounded into 32 double plays. Take him out of MM and he’s even less of a hitter. 944 OPS at MM 774 on the road. 701 OPS on the road last year. You really want to risk paying that player $12 million in arbitration? AND give up prospects for him?
Fire Everyone
by billybeingbilly on Jun 13, 2009 11:45 PM EDT up reply actions
I never said he’s an awesome shortstop. That’s the problem with many sabermatricians, is they use numbers as definative statements, and in turn they neglect the nuances of language.
Tejada is not the shortstop he used to be, but he is still a very good defensive player. If you pair him up the middle with someone like Dustin Pedroia, his intangibles would be more obvious. And yes, you risk paying $12-mil for one season when you know he is likely to waltz into Boston or Anaheim on a three-year deal.
3 years at $6 million per is far less valuable than 1 yr at 12....
he’s going to regress with the bat due to luck so thats probably about the contract he’s looking at
Fire Everyone
by billybeingbilly on Jun 14, 2009 1:13 AM EDT up reply actions
Would this be better to prove he’s not a good defensive SS?
http://www.tangotiger.net/scouting/scoutResults2008_HOU.html
Nevermind, intangibles isn’t on there, so it’s no good.
all taken into account in defensive stats
Fire Everyone
by billybeingbilly on Jun 14, 2009 1:11 AM EDT up reply actions
I know. I was commenting as to the ratings he received in the above link. Those are tangibles, hence the reason there are specific and singular words to classify them.
Quantify an intangible.
Then I’ll take it into account. The problem is, you can’t. And I don’t mean that in general, I mean you… can’t. You expect me to take something into account that can’t be quantified meanwhile you want to snub quantifiable evidence because it doesn’t fit into your world view.
Quite frankly, there’s no reason to take what you say seriously. Tejada is a horrible defensive short stop.
Fans are typically idiots.
by The Typical Idiot Fan on Jun 14, 2009 3:59 PM EDT up reply actions
I can verse the intangible. Tejada is an adaptable player. He’s changed settings twice in his career, and there have been an adjustment periods on both accounts. He has gotten better in many of the key areas of his game — hitting for average, generating runs, being a veteran presence in the field — since he’s gotten more experience in Houston.
He’s lost a lot of range defensively. Most 35-year old shortstops do. His glovework is better than it ever has been in his career though, his arm is one of the best shortstop arms in the league, and he has more guts around the bag than anyone. Why do you think left-handed pitchers are having the success they are having in Houston? Southpaws that aren’t uber-strikeout pitchers don’t get results without someone relaible playing up the middle. And Kaz Matsui certainly isn’t the reason.
There is an overwhelming trend in baseball to discount veteran players when they lose a step. With good defensive players though, the loss of a step or two is compensated for with a better understanding of how to affect the game in the field. Tejada is certainly one of those guys in my opinion, which you might want place at least a little stock in. Or don’t. That’s your business. But I happen to know a thing or two about the game of baseball.
Changed settings?
Reggie Sanders was the most adaptable player ever. I don’t think that really spoke to his ability.
Defensive metrics say that this
With good defensive players though, the loss of a step or two is compensated for with a better understanding of how to affect the game in the field.
is nonsense.
By adaptability, I mean Tejada has steadily gotten better the more he has played in Houston, as he did in Baltimore. Someone above stated his 2009 season is a Minute Maid Field fluke, but this isn’t true. Tejada has always be a home-field hitter. He was the same in Baltimore, and in Oakland. All of his homeruns have come at Minute Maid this year, however a majority of them would have been out of any ballpark in the majors. The reason he is a better home hitter isn’t that he’s playing in something of a bandbox. It’s because he adapts to regular surroundings, and performs better at the places he plays the most.
And with that, our convo is done Fanon. That should suit you since you believe my views to be “nonesense”. Peace.
Except I was talking about defense
Not offense.
Yeah, I didn't think you could do it either.
Here, let me help you in an Around The Horn fashion and show you when you make points that can be quantified or are already quantified by sabermetrics in either offensive or defensive forms:
I can verse the intangible.
0. I can tell you my cheese sandwich is delicious, too. Doesn’t tell you how much fat content I just ingested.
Tejada is an adaptable player.
0. So?
He’s changed settings twice in his career, and there have been an adjustment periods on both accounts.
-1. He’s gone from one American League team to another AL team then a team in the weak as hell National League. I don’t care what purists like to harp on about the differences between the two leagues, baseball is still baseball. A short stop still has to go get the ball when it’s hit in his area. He still has to hit. He still has to perform. It doesn’t make any difference at all that he went to a more FAVORABLE environment for him to hit in. Twice.
He has gotten better in many of the key areas of his game — hitting for average
+1. We can quantify this.
generating runs,
+1. This too.
being a veteran presence in the field — since he’s gotten more experience in Houston.
-1. How does he being a veteran presence on the field help him not be a bad defensive short stop?
He’s lost a lot of range defensively.
+2. Right. That’s what the metrics are for.
Most 35-year old shortstops do.
+1. Fair enough. We can quantify this statement.
His glovework is better than it ever has been in his career though,
+1. Okay, we can sort of measure this, too. Someone out there did a metric study on the “sure handedness” of players and their defensive reputations. It seems that there’s a huge confirmation bias on those that think that because someone doesn’t commit and error, that means they’re good defensively. The funny part is, it just means they’re doing what they’re supposed to do. We’re praising them for doing their job. Not that errors are adored by anybody, but lack of errors does not a good defensive player make.
his arm is one of the best shortstop arms in the league,
0. This is one we have to rely upon scouts for, still. I’m not sure I trust the defensive metrics on arm strength (probably because it only really helps out fielders).
and he has more guts around the bag than anyone.
-1. Great. He’ll make a fine feast then. What the hell does this even mean? What do courage, bravery, and lack of common sense do for defense?
Why do you think left-handed pitchers are having the success they are having in Houston? Southpaws that aren’t uber-strikeout pitchers don’t get results without someone relaible playing up the middle. And Kaz Matsui certainly isn’t the reason.
-1. Okay, if you really wanted to, you could go find out the reason why left handed pitchers are doing so well. Just doing a quick and lazy here, I see that Wandy Rodriguez is the most successful left hander, and he stirkes out about 8.5 per 9. Mike Hampton and his 4.61 FIP, Wesley Wright (irony) and his 5.06 FIP, and Tim Brydak and his 5.64 FIP, all basically say that the left handed pitchers aren’t doing that well. Not that well at all. Am I missing someone? Did you even look?
There is an overwhelming trend in baseball to discount veteran players when they lose a step.
-1. Yeah, it’s called analysis. It sucks sometimes when you have to point out the truth. What we should do is take these veteran players and worship them until the end of time. Who cares if Ken Griffey Jr can’t play left field and can’t hit right now? He’s a freaking Hall of Famer! He deserves to play no matter how bad he makes the team!
With good defensive players though, the loss of a step or two is compensated for with a better understanding of how to affect the game in the field.
0. What? Like how? This is about trying to find observable or quantifiable evidence here. You’re going to have to be more specific than that.
Tejada is certainly one of those guys in my opinion, which you might want place at least a little stock in.
0. Based on what?
Or don’t. That’s your business. But I happen to know a thing or two about the game of baseball.
-2. Making an appeal to your own authority is the most pathetic argument tactic. Worse, we’re back to square one. This comment reveals exactly what I said above: you’re not going to listen to any counter argument that doesn’t fit into your world view. You’ll ignore facts, empirical evidence, and logical and rational reasoning, in favor of whatever you want to believe. That’s the very definition of ignorance.
And Miguel Tejada is still a horrible defensive shortstop.
Fans are typically idiots.
by The Typical Idiot Fan on Jun 17, 2009 3:47 AM EDT up reply actions
FIP has nothing to do with infield defense. Yes, I looked up this year’s Astros team; last year’s too. I have read everything posted, and responded to the baseball points. When you say something like:
“What? Like how? This is about trying to find observable or quantifiable evidence here. You’re going to have to be more specific than that.”
well, that makes me not want to discuss the topic with you either. You are much more insightful than some of the other posters, but just as irrational. I listen to all arguements that don’t “fit my world view”. Well, it isn’t really a world view. It’s baseball. I haven’t written anything in this thread to give any reason that should discount the manner in which I digest people’s views. You’re attaching some stigma of opposition and trying to paint me with it.
You want to throw around words like “pathetic” and “ignorance” and apply them to me? I have a rule not to get personal on the internet. Moreso, I have a lot of repsect for the people who run this site. But I will say this … Try going to the local pub and talking to someone like that. See how far it gets you.
Interesting.
I’m fully aware of what FIP is. You’re trying to say the pitchers are doing well. No they’re not. Even with Miguel Tejada standing there, the pitcher’s talents are still bad. He’s not magically making anybody better by just being at short.
Now, it IS possible for a good defense to effect pitching to the point where ERA and whatever looks good. But we can measure that in run values which.. da da da!… UZR does! And guess what UZR says?
well, that makes me not want to discuss the topic with you either.
Well that’s a relief.
You are much more insightful than some of the other posters, but just as irrational.
I’m open to commentary.
I listen to all arguements that don’t "fit my world view". Well, it isn’t really a world view. It’s baseball.
Fine. Your baseball world view. Whatever you want to call it.
I haven’t written anything in this thread to give any reason that should discount the manner in which I digest people’s views. You’re attaching some stigma of opposition and trying to paint me with it.
From above:
Oh dear, just quote me the sabermetrics that "prove" Tejada’s range has decreased, and I’ll rely on the intangibles of a veteran shortstop that sheer metric evaluation doesn’t account for.
The quoted text is both dismissive of sabermetric views and intentionally contrarian in nature. I don’t have to paint someone who’s already taken a head first dive into a swimming pool full of pastels.
You want to throw around words like "pathetic" and "ignorance" and apply them to me?
Both comments were justified. You have intentionally dismissed the sabermetric viewpoint that defensive metrics show Tejada is a bad defensive short stop. That’s ignorance. Your argument that because you know “a thing or two about the game of baseball” means you’re an authority on the subject and not to be questioned was a pathetic argument. Note the difference:
Personal opinion of you: ignorant.
Opinion of your argument: pathetic
So, you are ignorant. “Pathetic” was never aimed specifically at your person.
I have a rule not to get personal on the internet. Moreso, I have a lot of repsect for the people who run this site. But I will say this … Try going to the local pub and talking to someone like that. See how far it gets you.
So, I can’t say what I say to people’s faces, is that your claim?
I’m going to offer up something here: I’m a raving egotist. I do and say things that make me feel good about myself. I love being right, and I love a good argument. Even if my argument is found to be wrong, I enjoy the intellectual processes of a logical discussion. Why? Because talking like a know it all makes my head swell. There are a billion other people out there who enjoy this kind of thing, too. Unlike them, I’m not going to hide behind a pretense.
With that in mind, if you honestly believe that I wouldn’t tell some bonafide moron that he’s a bonafide moron whether he’s Mini-Me or The Undertaker, then you’re wrong. My ego would be swollen even more by some barbarian jackass who couldn’t handle the truth. In the future, spare me the “internet tough guy” rhetoric and stick to debating the actual issues. You’ve done nothing to deflect away from my opinion that you’re incapable of accepting counter view points.
Fans are typically idiots.
by The Typical Idiot Fan on Jun 17, 2009 9:22 PM EDT up reply actions
What I say to someone else is not intended for you, so the comment about sabermetrics I made in response to novaoakland was intended for novaoakland. As for dismissing sabermetric viewpoints, i’ve done no such thing. No one has quoted anything of the sort in this thread. And just to enlighten a bit of your ignorance, bona fide is two words. Peace.
My brain hurts
Would you like to engage us in a debate on the merits of Intelligent Design next? I’m sure you’re well versed in the kind of “arguments” ID proponents seem to enjoy.
Linda's in the cold ground, won't see her anymore
Somewhere out on the highway tonight, the drunken engines roar
It's just one of those things, one of those things
-- Al Stewart, "Accident on 3rd St."
In memory of Nick Adenhart and all victims of drunk driving
I don’t know what that means. So far as an intelligent debate goes, I’m game. I’d like to hear from the person who originally questioned my assertion though … who’s team, at the time made it, was playing my team. One of the reasons I was confrontational with him. I don’t enjoy having to qualify myself, my statements, or my motives. But I will if I have to. So far as debating goes, I have responded in turn to everyone in this thread with a baseball-related perspective. All of gotten in return is some irrelevant OPS numbers, a link to an unreliable defensive graph, and a comment about outfielder Reggie Sanders from someone that — when I responded to the comment — tells me the comment was intended to be relevant to shortstop defense. Guy doesn’t even know that ‘shortstop’ is one word. And I’m the one that people jump on? It’s a wonder why most of the knowledgable regulars at this site (and I’ve been a contributing member of this site for a long time) don’t come around anymore.
Reread your posts and check who's posting
A) Two different posters there.
B) What I said was nonsense was this:
With good defensive players though, the loss of a step or two is compensated for with a better understanding of how to affect the game in the field.
Which is just spitting in the face of defensive metrics. Which say that Tejada is bad. Even though he knows how to affect the game better. Which you don’t address.
Scouting report
I take it your not a believer in sabermetrics, so you aren’t going to buy into any statistical evidence against his defensive ability. Thats fine, but I would be willing to bet you can’t find any scout that would say his defense is even average anymore.
Who’s going to give up any elite prospect for a former “steroid All-Star” with eroding skills, a guy who was named in the Mitchell Report, pleaded guilty to lying to congress about steroids, and falsified his age?? Nobody!
As far as the Bowden/Masterson idea that was thrown out earlier, they would be a nice start to a trade…..for Hanley
"Nice start" for a trade for Hanley?
I really, really doubt that. Even if the Marlins were looking to deal for him, there’s no way in hell Bowden/Masterson would get the Sox the man. Try Buchholz at a minimum, add someone like Lowrie and you’d still need more than that.
I don’t see the ‘Stros getting anything good for Tejada unless they take on a chunk of his contract (which they obviously wouldn’t want to do if they’re trying to trade him). Otherwise, it’d just be maybe one or two interesting arms. I think they should just take the draft picks and run like hell, they need all the help they can get to rebuild their system (not offering Pettitte when he was not coming back for anything other than megabucks in 07 still remains a stupid decision).
Remember to retire Fin's number, Mark.
Hanley
I don’t think that would get interest from Florida either. My point was Florida would be more likely to trade Hanley for a package including Bowden/Masterson than Boston would be trading Bowden/Masterson for Tejada
Oh right
misunderstood your point. I’d agree completely that there’s no chance they get Bowden or Masterson for Tejada…maybe if it’s straight up and the Astros swallow most of the salary. But obviously you don’t deal someone for that.
Remember to retire Fin's number, Mark.
okay, here's a tangent
but what teams would have interest in Tejada? I’ve been pondering it since this post, and I can’t come up with that many. Forget whether or not a team can afford it for a moment.
I come up with Boston, San Francisco (at SS or 3rd?), and ??? KC? Angels (why not give Wood a shot)? Athletics (at 3rd?). Oh, there’s perhaps Chicago Cubs (if Aramis is out longer), St. Louis and Cincinnati (?), but would they pay the extra rumored for other NL Central Clubs? I tend to think no.
I know I’m missing possibilities perhaps … and all you need is two teams to generate or market (or one desperate club). But I could see a number of teams, including those above, go other routes.
Maybe Mets
If they thought he could learn first or second base on the fly when Reyes and/or Delgado return.
Yeah I actually really like the idea
From the Mets perspective. Obviously, I like it less and less the more days pass where Reyes has time to heal. But with the abysmal production the Mets are getting from first base right now and Castillo’s mediocrity and inability to play everyday, it seems like it should be possible to find Tejada ABs once Reyes gets back if he keeps hitting at anything close to the clip he’s on now. I just can’t imagine giving up much for him. Maybe pick a couple of arms out of Moviel, Carson, Familia, Allen, etc. at most. I can’t imagine giving up anything much better. One advantage the Mets do have, if they offer arb to Tejada, they can pretty much tell him he won’t be a SS if he accepts, and that he’ll be tried at first base. Its not like there’s a ton of great first base candidates out there anyway, but I bet he’d decline. So they might feel a bit more comfortable leveraging their prospects in this particular situation. The problem with the Mets system is that they have a nice top five now, a kind of funky 6-11, and then a number of intriguing arms and positional scarcity types beyond that. They’re kind of weak in the middle though, and that’s the range you’d expect to be discussing for a guy like Tejada, whose sort of an impact guy, but sort of a salary dump, and all rental.
"All energy flows according to the whims of the great magnet
What a fool I was to defy him"
-HST
by Mark Himmelstein on Jun 15, 2009 2:31 AM EDT up reply actions
Really?
Tejada is a guy that doesn’t get on base, isn’t particularly fast, and will cost a bounty of prospects and dollars. He Cora, both riding kind of hot spots this year, have the same OBP.
Why waste the money, prospects and anything for Miguel, who I guarantee you will regerss to .300 anyway
by METSMETSMETS on Jun 17, 2009 11:29 PM EDT up reply actions
I don't think he'd cost "a ton of prospects"
If he did, it obviously wouldn’t be worth it. No one is giving Houston anything significant for him, so if that’s what they ask for, they can have their draft picks.
"All energy flows according to the whims of the great magnet
What a fool I was to defy him"
-HST
by Mark Himmelstein on Jun 22, 2009 12:52 AM EDT up reply actions
Boston
Boston keeps getting mentioned, but they would be looking for a big upgrade. I’m sure they would much rather go with Lugo and see what happens when Lowrie comes back, rather than give up prospects of much value for Tejada.
Astros
Im a die hard stros fan. Despite their recent improvement the last few weeks, the still need to blow this team up and go for quality prospects
Tejada to the Mets, really?
Goodness no,
the last thing the Mets need is an over-the-hill player in Tejada (even though he’s hot right now).
"Fantasy, reality, science Fiction. Which is which? Who can tell?"
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 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.
