PDA

View Full Version : Huff, Orioles close



Spring~Fields
12-30-2006, 03:27 PM
The Orioles, thwarted in earlier attempts to add a top slugger, are close to signing free agent Aubrey Huff to a three-year contract worth at least $18 million, FOXSports.com has learned


http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/6317476

Guessing this would just be a rumor until finalized

Wonder if this guy could have been signed at the 6 mil per and then traded at the July deadline for some pitching hopefuls.

StantontheRed
12-30-2006, 04:02 PM
I would liked for the Reds to went after Huff.

Spring~Fields
12-30-2006, 05:03 PM
Probably over their heads budget wise.

I thought that the guy could be an asset too, in one form or another, might even put more people into the seats.

Spitball
12-30-2006, 05:47 PM
Before Hillebrand signed, I thought Huff made a fairly logical signing for the Angels. He is a better, more versitile player than Hillebrand. He has shown more power than Hillebrand, who has hit twenty homers only once, and takes more walks than Hillebrand, who has never walked more than 26 times in a season. Huff could have worked at third, first, or the outfield, depending on which prospect or prospects might happen to break through.

Handofdeath
12-30-2006, 07:46 PM
I could see the Rangers going after him for all the talk of trading Blalock. The Rangers need pitching and as a Rangers fan I wish they would get some more but I'm glad they didn't get Zito. I hope to God they get Mulder though.

vaticanplum
12-30-2006, 07:57 PM
Probably over their heads budget wise.

Angelos has a good deal of money to spend, I think. It's just that nobody wants to play there. Konerko rejected their offer, which was higher than the White Sox if I remember correctly.

marcshoe
12-30-2006, 08:05 PM
The Hatteburg extension caused the Reds to settle a little more than they should, I think. It would have been nice to see them go after Huff as a full-time first baseman, but with Hatteburg signed, I doubt he was even considered.

Three years, 18 million doesn't seem all that expensive in this market.

Spring~Fields
12-30-2006, 08:08 PM
Angelos has a good deal of money to spend, I think. It's just that nobody wants to play there. Konerko rejected their offer, which was higher than the White Sox if I remember correctly.

Is that the guys team where the fans put on some kind of protest last year because they were upset with him?

I am sure that you are right about the rest.

vaticanplum
12-30-2006, 08:11 PM
Is that the guys team where the fans put on some kind of protest last year because they were upset with him?

I am sure that you are right about the rest.

Yep, the very one.

One of my best friends is an Orioles fan so I hear the lot of it. A well-funded organization with a good history -- and an owner who dearly loves the team but can't see the forest for the trees. That's the very, very short of it. It's not a well-run organization to say the least. This is a great signing though in my opinion.

Spring~Fields
12-30-2006, 08:12 PM
Ok, thanks, I thought his name was familiar.

Dracodave
12-30-2006, 08:16 PM
The Hatteburg extension caused the Reds to settle a little more than they should, I think. It would have been nice to see them go after Huff as a full-time first baseman, but with Hatteburg signed, I doubt he was even considered.

Three years, 18 million doesn't seem all that expensive in this market.

Even with Hatteburg on the team, You go after a decent player. Hatteberg would provide a great late-innings at bat to wear down a pitcher. Huff provides a stabile plan for first/right field when Votto is ready.

Spring~Fields
12-30-2006, 08:18 PM
The Hatteburg extension caused the Reds to settle a little more than they should, I think. It would have been nice to see them go after Huff as a full-time first baseman, but with Hatteburg signed, I doubt he was even considered.

Three years, 18 million doesn't seem all that expensive in this market.

I like your points.

I have it my head that the guy could be kept or moved later and a team would make out either way.

Maybe the guy is more comfortable back the AL.

Aronchis
12-30-2006, 08:38 PM
The Hatt extension didn't cause the Reds to "settle" for anything. They had already made up their mind how they would handle the 1st base position. Literally. You don't offer a guy like Huff a contract when you are moving a prospect like Joey Votto into the starting role soon.

The "fantasy ball" mentallity of this board and Krivsky's "Transitional Progross" are quite at odds.

Dracodave
12-30-2006, 09:03 PM
The "fantasy ball" mentallity of this board and Krivsky's "Transitional Progross" are quite at odds.

I honestly think even if you move Votto to first after half a year or so. You still need something MORE than Hatteberg and Conine who WONT perform to the level of Huff.

Anyway, we still have a gapping hole in Right Field. We need something there and apparentally its not going to be Griffey, so who goes? The two Centerfielders we have? Freel or Denorfia? I'd rather sign Huff and play him in Right Field.

Will M
12-30-2006, 09:10 PM
1. Huff ( like Craig Wilson ) plays a lot of positions but isn't very good at any of them defensively

2. Why sign Huff when Votto is ( hopefully ) here this year.

3. Hatteberg for $1.5 million for a 1 year deal is good. Plays 1B vs righties until Votto is ready then spot starts and pinch hits.

4. Aronchis - I for one am happy with Krisky's 'transitional progress'.
Short of spending a ton of money on decent but not great players there was little chance of the Reds being World Series caliber this year.
I look forward to 2008 and beyond.

marcshoe
12-30-2006, 09:10 PM
I'm not sure I would consider Conine progress, transitional or otherwise.

On another thread, mention was made that one objection to moving Dunn up to the second spot in the order was that the Reds would then not have a productive power bat after the first four batters. As things stand now, unless Griffey can be counted on to be healthy and productive (a huge if), then Dunn and an improving EE are about it in the power department anyway (unless you expect continued power from David Ross; I'm skeptical). Without adding another bat, this team could find themselves struggling to consistently produce runs.

So, is picking up a player to fill a position where a nice prospect isn't too far off an answer? It would seem not, but this is where Huff would have fit in well. As DracoDave pointed out above, Huff is a player who could have easily been moved to the outfield when Votto was ready.

My problem with Krivsky isn't his idea of transitional progress. My problem, as things stand now, is that he has developed a fondness for past-their-prime players who cannot be counted on to produce at their past levels.

I would love to see him do something that would prove me wrong, but the Conine trade was particularly disheartening, because he filled a stated need with an old, below-average player. There are better options.

mth123
12-30-2006, 09:17 PM
I'm not sure I would consider Conine progress, transitional or otherwise.

On another thread, mention was made that one objection to moving Dunn up to the second spot in the order was that the Reds would then not have a productive power bat after the first four batters. As things stand now, unless Griffey can be counted on to be healthy and productive (a huge if), then Dunn and an improving EE are about it in the power department anyway (unless you expect continued power from David Ross; I'm skeptical). Without adding another bat, this team could find themselves struggling to consistently produce runs.

So, is picking up a player to fill a position where a nice prospect isn't too far off an answer? It would seem not, but this is where Huff would have fit in well. As DracoDave pointed out above, Huff is a player who could have easily been moved to the outfield when Votto was ready.

My problem with Krivsky isn't his idea of transitional progress. My problem, as things stand now, is that he has developed a fondness for past-their-prime players who cannot be counted on to produce at their past levels.

I would love to see him do something that would prove me wrong, but the Conine trade was particularly disheartening, because he filled a stated need with an old, below-average player. There are better options.

Good post.

Will M
12-30-2006, 10:30 PM
disagree

Huff could NOT easily be moved to the outfield. He is a BAD fielder and is really one of those DH types you try to hide at 1B/LF. Since we already have two of these ( Griffey and Dunn ) we don't need more.