PDA

View Full Version : A's wanted Cueto



Benihana
03-19-2008, 02:28 PM
From Rosenthal's column today:

The A's wanted spring sensation/top pitching prospect Johnny Cueto from the Reds for Joe Blanton - no deal.

:thumbup:

top6
03-19-2008, 02:35 PM
There's a line from Pulp Fiction I could quote here, if this wasn't a family-friendly web site.

The point would be, let's wait until Cuteo, you know, pitches at least a few real major league games before we start congratulating ourselves on not trading him for a proven starter.

princeton
03-19-2008, 02:36 PM
probably was the starting point (non Bruce starting point, at least) in Haren discussions as well.

that had to be a tougher decision for Krivsky

reds44
03-19-2008, 02:44 PM
I wonder if the Reds countered with Bailey?

rotnoid
03-19-2008, 02:45 PM
I wonder if the Reds countered with Bailey?

I'm sure they did. Beane's not too hot on Bailey though.

fearofpopvol1
03-19-2008, 02:48 PM
Cueto for Blanton? I wouldn't have done the deal before and I most certainly wouldn't do it now.

Benihana
03-19-2008, 02:50 PM
There's a line from Pulp Fiction I could quote here, if this wasn't a family-friendly web site.

The point would be, let's wait until Cuteo, you know, pitches at least a few real major league games before we start congratulating ourselves on not trading him for a proven starter.

Nope, I'll congratulate oursel(ves) now. Just as fearofpopvol1 said above, I wouldn't trade Cueto for Blanton then and I wouldn't do it now. Period.

If Cueto blows out his arm next week, that's fine. It was still the right decision at the time.

Chip R
03-19-2008, 02:54 PM
I'm still confused as to why Beane wants(ed) to hold up the Reds for a pitcher like Blanton but basically gave away Dan Haren.

Kc61
03-19-2008, 02:56 PM
I'm still confused as to why Beane wants(ed) to hold up the Reds for a pitcher like Blanton but basically gave away Dan Haren.

Because Blanton is signed relatively cheaply for three years.

Benihana
03-19-2008, 02:57 PM
Because Blanton is signed relatively cheaply for three years.

Isn't Haren as well?

membengal
03-19-2008, 03:15 PM
Yes. Very much so.

Johnny Footstool
03-19-2008, 03:18 PM
I would have given Cueto straight up for Haren. Maybe even Cueto and another decent prospect.

But for Blanton? No friggin' way.

Screwball
03-19-2008, 03:37 PM
I'm still confused as to why Beane wants(ed) to hold up the Reds for a pitcher like Blanton but basically gave away Dan Haren.

I think he was trying to work the best-starter-still-available angle, and figured the Reds would get desperate because of it. Good job by Krivsky to remain disciplined and not give up too much for Blanton.

PuffyPig
03-19-2008, 03:39 PM
Because Blanton is signed relatively cheaply for three years.

Blaton isn't signed, just year to year arbitration.

Haren is the one signed for 3 years at a bargain rate.

Jpup
03-19-2008, 04:14 PM
I just wish they would have gotten Haren.

flyer85
03-19-2008, 04:23 PM
not surprising ... from strictly a numbers standpoint Cueto looks like the better prospect.

redsrule2500
03-19-2008, 04:23 PM
There's a line from Pulp Fiction I could quote here, if this wasn't a family-friendly web site.

The point would be, let's wait until Cuteo, you know, pitches at least a few real major league games before we start congratulating ourselves on not trading him for a proven starter.

I really want to know what that quote was, I just watched this movie for the first time a few nights ago...

Matt700wlw
03-19-2008, 04:25 PM
From Rosenthal's column today:

The A's wanted spring sensation/top pitching prospect Johnny Cueto from the Reds for Joe Blanton - no deal.

:thumbup:

I hope Krivsky laughed at Beane and hung up the phone.

princeton
03-19-2008, 04:31 PM
I'm still confused as to why Beane wants(ed) to hold up the Reds for a pitcher like Blanton but basically gave away Dan Haren.

I figure Rosenthal mixed up rumors surrounding Haren with those surrounding Blanton.

bucksfan2
03-19-2008, 04:50 PM
Someone enlighten me but why was there all this love for Blanton this offseason. I mean the guy is a decent start but in reality what is the big difference between him and a guy like Fogg? I understand Blanton is younger and probably is a better pitcher than Fogg but in the Reds situation Fogg+ Cueto > Blanton even if Cueto pitch horriable this year.

Chip R
03-19-2008, 04:51 PM
I really want to know what that quote was, I just watched this movie for the first time a few nights ago...


I believe the quote he's referring to was when Travolta and Jackson finished cleaning out their car when they accidentally shot Marvin and Harvey Keitel said it looked good but "Let's not start (patting each other on the back) just yet."

top6
03-19-2008, 04:55 PM
I believe the quote he's referring to was when Travolta and Jackson finished cleaning out their car when they accidentally shot Marvin and Harvey Keitel said it looked good but "Let's not start (patting each other on the back) just yet."
Correct.

fearofpopvol1
03-19-2008, 05:00 PM
I don't think asking for Cueto prior to spring training was "laughable," even if I wouldn't have done it. It is undeniable though that Cueto has raised his stock 10 fold since the start of ST.

red-in-la
03-19-2008, 08:37 PM
I wouldn't do this deal right now, since Cueto has made the rotation. To me it makes little sense to simply change names in the number 3 spot.

I would give the A's almost anything outside of Cueto and Volquez for Blanton.

Give them Bailey, Maloney, and Votto. Or Bailey, Stubbs and Roenicke.

......but WK, for heavens sake, MAKE A DEAL. I am lovin' the idea of:

Harang
Cueto
Blanton
Arroyo
Volquez

If I could make this deal, I would turn around and extend Dunn, leave Bruce in AAA for 2008 or JR gets hurt, whichever comes first, and set my scouts to finding a 2009 FA centerfielder and then rest for the next 3 years and just get ready to buy playoff tickets for a while.

OnBaseMachine
03-19-2008, 08:45 PM
I would give the A's almost anything outside of Cueto and Volquez for Blanton.

Give them Bailey, Maloney, and Votto. Or Bailey, Stubbs and Roenicke.


Goodness. What a terrible trade for the Reds. In deal #1 proposed the Reds give the #9 prospect in baseball, a solid lefty whose 357 strikeouts the last two seasons are the most in the minors league, and the #44 prospect in baseball for a pitcher who has a 4.70 ERA (310.1 IP, 360 H, 184 K) away from his pitcher friendly home ballpark the past three seasons. Big no thanks from me on that one. Deal #2 is just as bad.

jojo
03-19-2008, 08:46 PM
I'm still confused as to why Beane wants(ed) to hold up the Reds for a pitcher like Blanton but basically gave away Dan Haren.

Because he didn't give away Haren.....

GAC
03-19-2008, 08:56 PM
I would have given Cueto straight up for Haren. Maybe even Cueto and another decent prospect.

But for Blanton? No friggin' way.

Exactly.

cincyinco
03-19-2008, 09:40 PM
Because he didn't give away Haren.....

Thank you! Agreed 100%

Why is it the popular notion around here that Beane got nothing for Haren, or gave him away?

He got a bunch of quality prospects IMO.

WMR
03-19-2008, 10:17 PM
I wouldn't do this deal right now, since Cueto has made the rotation. To me it makes little sense to simply change names in the number 3 spot.

I would give the A's almost anything outside of Cueto and Volquez for Blanton.

Give them Bailey, Maloney, and Votto. Or Bailey, Stubbs and Roenicke.

......but WK, for heavens sake, MAKE A DEAL. I am lovin' the idea of:

Harang
Cueto
Blanton
Arroyo
Volquez

If I could make this deal, I would turn around and extend Dunn, leave Bruce in AAA for 2008 or JR gets hurt, whichever comes first, and set my scouts to finding a 2009 FA centerfielder and then rest for the next 3 years and just get ready to buy playoff tickets for a while.

::Jamaican accent:: "YOU CRAZY MON!!"

red-in-la
03-19-2008, 10:56 PM
::Jamaican accent:: "YOU CRAZY MON!!"

Oh sure....call me crazy just like everybody else does.....:bash:

I just believe there are times when overpaying a little is justified. Blanton is a 200 inning pitcher......they are worth a lot more than you guys give credit for.

;)

Highlifeman21
03-19-2008, 10:58 PM
Oh sure....call me crazy just like everybody else does.....:bash:

I just believe there are times when overpaying a little is justified. Blanton is a 200 inning pitcher......they are worth a lot more than you guys give credit for.

;)

People call me crazy b/c I'd send Bailey, Wood and Stubbs to Oakland for Blanton.

Blanton would easily be our #3, regardless of how the kids perform.

TRF
03-19-2008, 11:08 PM
People call me crazy b/c I'd send Bailey, Wood and Stubbs to Oakland for Blanton.

Blanton would easily be our #3, regardless of how the kids perform.

Did you see the numbers Affeldt put up in his last two ST starts? Blanton would be more of that.

Thanks, But I'll bet the round FCB owes the board that if Belisle makes the rotation, and I believe he will over Fogg who is flat AWFUL, that he'll put up right at 200 IP this year.

red-in-la
03-19-2008, 11:19 PM
Did you see the numbers Affeldt put up in his last two ST starts? Blanton would be more of that.

Thanks, But I'll bet the round FCB owes the board that if Belisle makes the rotation, and I believe he will over Fogg who is flat AWFUL, that he'll put up right at 200 IP this year.

"Make it so"

cincrazy
03-19-2008, 11:22 PM
Did you see the numbers Affeldt put up in his last two ST starts? Blanton would be more of that.

Thanks, But I'll bet the round FCB owes the board that if Belisle makes the rotation, and I believe he will over Fogg who is flat AWFUL, that he'll put up right at 200 IP this year.

You can not possibly compare Joe Blanton to Jeremy Affeldt. I can see you not wanting to trade the kids, but there's no reason to tear down a pretty good major league pitcher. The number's speak for themselves my friend, and they sure as heck say he's no Affeldt.

TRF
03-19-2008, 11:30 PM
No, they say he's likely a product of his home park. The numbers say he gets killed on the road. The numbers say he thrives on having a good to great defense behind him and that he may benefit from a park with a large foul territory. The numbers say he doesn't K a lot of batters.

The numbers say he's as bad a fit for the Reds as Affeldt is for the rotation. That said if I were an Oakland fan, I'd be ok with him as my #4-5 starter. He does eat inning, as an A, and for them, in their park, with their defense, he's a good fit.

Joseph
03-20-2008, 12:11 AM
I love when guys like Rosenthal come out with these kind of revelations. Of course the A's asked for some of the big 4 prospects. Beane is a competant GM. I'd be more interested to learn that he didn't ask for one of them for one of the higher pitchers on the market in the offseason.

Blitz Dorsey
03-20-2008, 01:26 AM
Cueto for Blanton?

Sorry, just fell out of my chair. I'm alright now. Please go on with the discussion.

(Joe Blanton's mother thinks that would be a bad trade for the Reds.)

Screwball
03-20-2008, 06:08 AM
Blanton would easily be our #3, regardless of how the kids perform.

I'm not so sure that Blanton would be the third best pitcher in the rotation this year. At least not after the course of the season. He's got very good control, so he'd probly do alright for himself, but to say that "regardless of how the kids perform" suggests that even at Cueto and Volquez's best, they can't touch Blanton. That may be true for Harang, but certainly not Joe Blanton, IMO.

cincrazy
03-20-2008, 08:21 AM
No, they say he's likely a product of his home park. The numbers say he gets killed on the road. The numbers say he thrives on having a good to great defense behind him and that he may benefit from a park with a large foul territory. The numbers say he doesn't K a lot of batters.

The numbers say he's as bad a fit for the Reds as Affeldt is for the rotation. That said if I were an Oakland fan, I'd be ok with him as my #4-5 starter. He does eat inning, as an A, and for them, in their park, with their defense, he's a good fit.

Put Jeremy Affelt in Oakland's ballpark and he's still an awful pitcher.

Highlifeman21
03-20-2008, 10:14 AM
Did you see the numbers Affeldt put up in his last two ST starts? Blanton would be more of that.

Thanks, But I'll bet the round FCB owes the board that if Belisle makes the rotation, and I believe he will over Fogg who is flat AWFUL, that he'll put up right at 200 IP this year.

My point wasn't about the number of innings, but the production yielded from the innings.

Given Blanton and Belisle both pitch 200 IP in 2008, IMO Blanton will produce better, more productive numbers than Belisle.

Highlifeman21
03-20-2008, 10:21 AM
I'm not so sure that Blanton would be the third best pitcher in the rotation this year. At least not after the course of the season. He's got very good control, so he'd probly do alright for himself, but to say that "regardless of how the kids perform" suggests that even at Cueto and Volquez's best, they can't touch Blanton. That may be true for Harang, but certainly not Joe Blanton, IMO.

I'd rather have Cueto and Volquez be labeled the 4/5, and not put unrealistic pressure on them. We can reasonably expect and demand better than 4/5 numbers from Blanton, whereas with essentially 2 rookies in the rotation, while I hope they will succeed and believe they will, I don't want them having some unrealistic expectation(s) over their heads.

I wouldn't be surprised if Volquez and Cueto put up similar and or better numbers than Blanton in 2008, but I don't want to expect and demand those kids to pitch as well if not better than Blanton from day 1.

IMO, once you start tossing numbered labels at your SPs, then you automatically assign levels of expectation to each respective SP.