PDA

View Full Version : Twins might want to trade Joe Nathan....



redsfan4445
07-20-2007, 05:16 PM
How about Joe as the Reds closer with Weathers pitching the 8th??? If they asked for Edwin, think the Reds should go for it?? Freel and Keppinger hold up 3rd till next seaon? curious others opinions?


per yahoo rumurs:

"Twins could deal Nathan
Thursday, Jul 19, 2007 2:41 pm EDT

The way Pat Neshek is pitching, it wouldn't be surprising if the Minnesota Twins traded closer Joe Nathan, who is extremely marketable because he's signed for a relatively meager $6 million next year, for a hitter and to use the savings on a new deal for Johan Santana.

Source: Pioneer-Press "

Matt700wlw
07-20-2007, 05:17 PM
This is being discussed on the radio...

Edwin and Dumatrait was my idea...

Falls City Beer
07-20-2007, 05:17 PM
This is speculation--might change the title of the thread.

redsfan4445
07-20-2007, 05:18 PM
i changed the title... thats a good idea for the trade offer...Matt! :)

RedsManRick
07-20-2007, 05:20 PM
Nathan has a $6M team option for 2008. That's it. You can bet he'll test FA. I'd love to have him, but not as a 1 year rental.

Falls City Beer
07-20-2007, 05:22 PM
Nathan has a $6M team option for 2008. That's it. You can bet he'll test FA. I'd love to have him, but not as a 1 year rental.

Nathan might be in that threshold of relievers (Wagner, Hoffman) that I'd pay big bucks to.

oneupper
07-20-2007, 05:26 PM
EE for 1 year of Nathan?
Tough but I'd do it.

Matt700wlw
07-20-2007, 05:27 PM
I would try to get him for 3 years if a deal were going to happen...

RedEye
07-20-2007, 05:37 PM
I think I'd prefer to try to take the developmental approach to finding a closer. Nathan himself was a sort of poor man's Kyle Lohse before being converted to a closer a few years ago. I think it's more prudent to develop relief pitchers than to try to sign them or trade for them when they are already expensive.

Cyclone792
07-20-2007, 05:43 PM
If the Reds were going to pony up EE in a deal like this, then they'd better get Nathan extended through 2010 or 2011. And they better darn well make sure his arm is absolutely 100 percent completely healthy.

One thing is for certain, which is that if the Reds are going to continue trading hitters for pitching, then they're going to need some more of the pitching coming in return to actually produce when it gets here instead of going Gary Majewski on everyone. In the last 20 months, this team has traded Sean Casey, Wily Mo Pena, Austin Kearns, Felipe Lopez, and Chris Denorfia for pitching, and the only return from those deals who has produced for the Reds is Bronson Arroyo.

The offense hasn't collapsed yet, but everyone knows it's been saved by two factors: the unexpected renaissance of a pair of 37-year-old hitters (Griffey and Hatteberg) and the plucking out of nowhere pair of young hitters (Phillips and Hamilton). If the Reds keep going to that well for too long, it's going to dry up sooner or later. Plus, the expectations for what Jay Bruce and Joey Votto may produce as big leaguers have to actually be realistic instead of wildly hopeful and unrealistic.

Rojo
07-20-2007, 05:52 PM
Nathan might be in that threshold of relievers (Wagner, Hoffman) that I'd pay big bucks to.

Me too.

UKFlounder
07-20-2007, 06:10 PM
One thing is for certain, which is that if the Reds are going to continue trading hitters for pitching, then they're going to need some more of the pitching coming in return to actually produce when it gets here instead of going Gary Majewski on everyone. In the last 20 months, this team has traded Sean Casey, Wily Mo Pena, Austin Kearns, Felipe Lopez, and Chris Denorfia for pitching, and the only return from those deals who has produced for the Reds is Bronson Arroyo..

The only one who has produced for the Reds is Arroyo, that is true, but who exactly has produced much for the other teams?

It has generally been bad hitters for bad pitchers, the way it has worked out and the Casey trade was basically a salary dump.

How many of those guys traded away can we say "Man I wish the Reds still had him?"

Perhaps the bottom line is that in order for the Reds to start receiving pitchers who produce, they need to give up hitters who produce.

Cyclone792
07-20-2007, 06:19 PM
The only one who has produced for the Reds is Arroyo, that is true, but who exactly has produced much for the other teams?

It has generally been bad hitters for bad pitchers, the way it has worked out and the Casey trade was basically a salary dump.

How many of those guys traded away can we say "Man I wish the Reds still had him?"

Perhaps the bottom line is that in order for the Reds to start receiving pitchers who produce, they need to give up hitters who produce.

It's time to start getting good returns on trades. Teams who do that tend to be much more successful than teams who don't do that. No matter how much success (or lack thereof) the players sent packing for those bad players have had since the Reds sent them packing, wheel spinning by bringing in bad players just won't move this franchise in much of a positive direction.

The Reds are 41-55 right now despite having a load of production from older players. Not only are the Reds going to have to find competent replacements for that production in the next two years, they still have to find even more production beyond that level to jump them into contention.

UKFlounder
07-20-2007, 06:23 PM
It's time to start getting good returns on trades. Teams who do that tend to be much more successful than teams who don't do that. No matter how much success (or lack thereof) the players sent packing for those bad players have had since the Reds sent them packing, wheel spinning by bringing in bad players just won't move this franchise in much of a positive direction.

The Reds are 41-55 right now despite having a load of production from older players. Not only are the Reds going to have to find competent replacements for that production in the next two years, they still have to find even more production beyond that level to jump them into contention.

I certainly agree with that - acquiring mediocrity is not a good thing, even if that is all you give up, but it's not like the Reds have been dealing stars for bums either.

Certainly "getting good returns in trades" is something this franchise needs to do better (one of many on that list).

puca
07-20-2007, 06:38 PM
I can see it happening. I think I'd rather it not.

EE represents our really only in-house hope for a long term solution at 3b and one of our few in-house hopes of a RH middle-of-the-order hitter. If Castro (or Keppinger) is the starting 3b for the Reds next year they are in some serious trouble. The only way I would be okay with the trade is if another move is made to fill the gaping hole that will be created.

And even then, they need to address the 3-5 slots in their starting rotation somehow. Joe Nathan without either of the other moves will mean little.

puca
07-20-2007, 06:46 PM
The only one who has produced for the Reds is Arroyo, that is true, but who exactly has produced much for the other teams?

It has generally been bad hitters for bad pitchers, the way it has worked out and the Casey trade was basically a salary dump.

How many of those guys traded away can we say "Man I wish the Reds still had him?"

Perhaps the bottom line is that in order for the Reds to start receiving pitchers who produce, they need to give up hitters who produce.

That just means the Reds sold the players at the right time, they just didn't get anything particuarly valuable in return (sans the Arroyo trade). It's not like A.J. Pierzynski is on his way to Cooperstown. The Twins did all right with that trade.

Rojo
07-21-2007, 12:41 AM
Its nice to have a solid 3rd basemen but is it necessary? Certainly not as necessary as a bullpen. Seems like a lot of fine teams do well with a patch at third.

camisadelgolf
07-21-2007, 04:46 AM
Encarnacion and Dumatrait for Nathan would be worth a lot of consideration. I'd be very hesitant to do it, but ultimately, I think I'd accept and let Freel and Keppinger split time at third base. Then again, it would be tough for me to deal an everyday player for a reliever while knowing there's a lot of young talent in Coutlangus, Coffey, Burton, Majewski, Bray, Medlock, McBeth, Guevara, Pelland, Asadoorian, etc.

GAC
07-21-2007, 05:50 AM
Its nice to have a solid 3rd basemen but is it necessary? Certainly not as necessary as a bullpen. Seems like a lot of fine teams do well with a patch at third.

Necessary? Yeah. Why not have both? A lot of teams do.

I'd pass on Nathan. That's alot of money to pay for a closer, as well as a 1 yr rental. I personally think the closer role is over-rated. Yeah, not all pitchers are "suited" for the role.

We have a guy right now who is 6th in the NL in Saves (19) named Weathers (3.28 ERA; 1.09 Whip). There is a 3 way tie for 5th (20)... and one of those is named Wagner, who is making 10.5 mil in 2007. Weathers is making 2.2 mil.

Now I'm not saying I'm content with that, since Weathers was basically thrust into the role with the injury to Eddie; but simply showing that one can be found within the organization and/or without having to go outside and pay an arm and a leg (or in this case, a young, talented 3Bman). IMO, teams like the Reds cannot afford to do that. And neither can the Twins. Which is why he may be available. Why? Because Nathan was converted to the closer role, is becoming expensive, and they have someone who can possibly fill that role and comes much cheaper. That's what teams like the Twins, Reds, A's, and others, have to do.

Let teams like the Mets (and others) over pay for guys to fill that role.

Be inventive in filling that role; but don't trade away assets for the likes of a closer.

jojo
07-21-2007, 11:13 AM
This is being discussed on the radio...

Edwin and Dumatrait was my idea...

I could see the Twins liking EE. I have no idea why they'd trade for Dumatrait. They're pissed off with Garza and they're gonna target Dumatrait?

BTW, the part of the Nathan discussion that I heard on the radio was pretty god awful-AC didn't even know the contract status of Nathan and completely ignored Nathan's trade value in the context of what other teams in the league might offer.

At least AC said he'd hesitate to trade Bruce for Nathan unless Nathan was locked up for three years. :eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek:

alloverjr
07-21-2007, 12:28 PM
I could see the Twins liking EE. I have no idea why they'd trade for Dumatrait. They're pissed off with Garza and they're gonna target Dumatrait?

BTW, the part of the Nathan discussion that I heard on the radio was pretty god awful-AC didn't even know the contract status of Nathan and completely ignored Nathan's trade value in the context of what other teams in the league might offer.

At least AC said he'd hesitate to trade Bruce for Nathan unless Nathan was locked up for three years. :eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek:


Listening to Cincy sports talk shows kills brain cells.

Kc61
07-21-2007, 01:56 PM
I can see it happening. I think I'd rather it not.

EE represents our really only in-house hope for a long term solution at 3b and one of our few in-house hopes of a RH middle-of-the-order hitter. If Castro (or Keppinger) is the starting 3b for the Reds next year they are in some serious trouble. The only way I would be okay with the trade is if another move is made to fill the gaping hole that will be created.

And even then, they need to address the 3-5 slots in their starting rotation somehow. Joe Nathan without either of the other moves will mean little.

I would make this deal in a heartbeat.

EE is, as you say, a "hope." He is a talented young guy, but so far he doesn't look like a big hitter to me. He looks like a sixth or seventh place bat on a good team. A starting third baseman, but not a middle-of-the-order hitter. And not the righty power guy the Reds need.

I wouldn't mind a low BA in EE's second year, while adjusting, but his 6 homers (and playing at GABP) concerns me. I am also concerned by his numbers against lefties. He hit them hard early last year, obviously they have figured out how to pitch to EE. The Reds need a righty hitter who feasts off lefties.

Nathan, on the other hand, is an excellent proven closer. As long as he is signed for one more year, I would make the deal, try to sign him longer term. Ultimately you can always trade Nathan at next year's deadline and get, perhaps, more than a hope in return.

And yes, I'd pay Nathan for a number of years. It's not easy to find young guys who are top closers. I wouldn't skimp on paying three top starters and a proven closer. That's where I'd put some money.

deltachi8
07-21-2007, 02:03 PM
You could make a deal for Nathan, pick up his option and if you cant sign an extension, flip him next July.

camisadelgolf
07-21-2007, 07:06 PM
You could make a deal for Nathan, pick up his option and if you cant sign an extension, flip him next July.

Exactly. Also, in my opinion, it's much easier to find a quality third baseman for a bargain (Mike Lowell or Joe Randa type) than a closer (this year, Gagne is making $6M+, and Dotel is making $5M+).

jojo
07-21-2007, 08:09 PM
Exactly. Also, in my opinion, it's much easier to find a quality third baseman for a bargain (Mike Lowell or Joe Randa type) than a closer (this year, Gagne is making $6M+, and Dotel is making $5M+).

That ignores the very existence of Nathan himself who is only now getting kind of expensive or a guy like Putz or a guy like Papelbon, or a guy like KRod who put up 45 save in '05 for less than half a mill or a guy like Gagne who saved over 100 games for the Dodgers between '02 and '03 for less than a mill.....

REDREAD
07-21-2007, 08:12 PM
I don't give up any young players for Nathan.

This team is a LONG way from contending. We should be collecting players like EE, not trading them away to get even older.

Take the money that it would take to extend Nathan and actually spend it wisely this winter (ie not on Castro/Stanton/Conine/Gonzo and other below average players). Spend the money on a guy that would actually make a significant difference.

camisadelgolf
07-21-2007, 08:12 PM
I see what you're saying, but my thought is this: If the Reds trade Encarnacion and a border-line prospect for Nathan, then the Reds can trade at next year's trade deadline for something that is a bigger need than third base.

Rojo
07-21-2007, 09:11 PM
Spend the money on a guy that would actually make a significant difference.


A lights-out closer doesn't make a difference?

camisadelgolf
07-21-2007, 09:31 PM
A lights-out closer doesn't make a difference?

I think the thought is, "Weathers has done a good job. The Reds don't need a closer." Meanwhile, people don't realize that having a lights-out closer could put Weathers as the set-up man and fix what has doomed the Reds all year.

jojo
07-21-2007, 09:44 PM
I think the thought is, "Weathers has done a good job. The Reds don't need a closer." Meanwhile, people don't realize that having a lights-out closer could put Weathers as the set-up man and fix what has doomed the Reds all year.

Here's the thing though. Weathers pretty much stunk last year (a fact hidden by good luck) and he might stink next year. So next year, you'll have a lights out closer giving you pretty much what Weathers has given the Reds thus far this season and the Reds very well may still have the game blown before your stud gets to pitch while struggling with a blackhole at third.

flyer85
07-21-2007, 09:47 PM
Reds needs at least two Nathans ... maybe they could trade for him and clone him.

camisadelgolf
07-21-2007, 09:56 PM
Here's the thing though. Weathers pretty much stunk last year (a fact hidden by good luck) and he might stink next year. So next year, you'll have a lights out closer giving you pretty much what Weathers has given the Reds thus far this season and the Reds very well may still have the game blown before your stud gets to pitch while struggling with a blackhole at third.

Despite your misuse of the word "fact", I pretty much agree. However, if Weathers won't step up next year, I figure that someone else will since there's too much talent for someone not to.

REDREAD
07-22-2007, 11:44 PM
A lights-out closer doesn't make a difference?

No, I meant spend money on guys that would make a difference, as opposed to Conine, Stanton, Castro, etc.. pretty much every guy Wayne signed last year. I didn't mean Nathan.

I wouldn't be opposed to signing Nathan as a free agent.

I don't want to trade EdE for one year of Nathan. Although Camisgolf has a point that Nathan could potentially be flipped for something better than EdE. I just don't trust Wayne to do that though.

coachw513
07-23-2007, 12:25 AM
One thing is for certain, which is that if the Reds are going to continue trading hitters for pitching, then they're going to need some more of the pitching coming in return to actually produce when it gets here instead of going Gary Majewski on everyone. In the last 20 months, this team has traded Sean Casey, Wily Mo Pena, Austin Kearns, Felipe Lopez, and Chris Denorfia for pitching, and the only return from those deals who has produced for the Reds is Bronson Arroyo.

The offense hasn't collapsed yet, but everyone knows it's been saved by two factors: the unexpected renaissance of a pair of 37-year-old hitters (Griffey and Hatteberg) and the plucking out of nowhere pair of young hitters (Phillips and Hamilton). If the Reds keep going to that well for too long, it's going to dry up sooner or later. Plus, the expectations for what Jay Bruce and Joey Votto may produce as big leaguers have to actually be realistic instead of wildly hopeful and unrealistic.

Sad, but true...

It's not the intent or philosophy but rather the results...

The next 6 months had better net the "right" guys or a dark, dark extended period of rebuilding looms...

I personally am scared by veteran closers...they seem to come and go so very quickly that for the money needed to acquire them, I'd decline... I'd rather get a young, talented, "miss bats" setup man that is ready for the chance to close...

11larkin11
07-23-2007, 03:33 AM
If this happens, then I think Dunn very well could be moved for an A+ 3B, a guy like Brandon Wood, + others, or better yet, for Chase Headley and others.

Edwin Encarnacion and Phil Dumatrait for Joe Nathan

Adam Dunn for Chase Headley, Chad Huffman, and Nick Hundley

jojo
07-23-2007, 09:40 AM
I'd be very wary of any domino plan that involves trading Dunn as an integral part of your return in a later step....