PDA

View Full Version : Peter Gammons hints at a Reds/White Sox/Angels trade?



Tom Servo
12-20-2008, 03:57 PM
Just found this, all of the things Gammons lists before the 3 way are plausible, but where the hell does this trade come from?



It has been suggested that the best way to decipher the Red Sox-Mark Teixeira negotiations is to pull out your old turntable, pull "Number Nine" out of the Beatles' white vinyl and play it backwards. Then you will know what's been offered and what's been requested.

We don't know if the Angels, were they to lose Teixeira, would turn to Manny Ramirez. We don't know if Randy Levine, Hank Steinbrenner and the Yankees could win out and buy Ramirez. We don't know if the Red Sox will decide not to pony up and sign Teixeira or whether there really might be a three-day deal with the White Sox, Angels and Reds that would put Jermaine Dye in Cincinnati, Joey Votto in Anaheim and Chone Figgins in Chicago.

What we do know is that there are many very good players -- Pat Burrell, Orlando Hudson, Adam Dunn, Bobby Abreu, Milton Bradley, Derek Lowe, Rocco Baldelli, et al -- who are now realizing that in terms of free agency, January is the new November. It looks like that is the signing period this year, not early in free agency like years past.

Most of free agents probably read Red Sox owner John Henry's cryptic e-mail in regard to the Teixeira negotiations, which was probably a rewrite of something he wrote to Frank McCourt when Henry was negotiating to buy McCourt's house outside Boston, which, roughly translated, might have read, "if you can get $30 million for the house, you'd be wise to take it." McCourt didn't, and Henry got the house for considerably less.

One source close to Teixeira on Friday claimed the two sides are not that far apart, and the conciliatory and civilized nature of the words made it obvious that Teixeira likes Mr. Henry's neighborhood, he just wants the kitchen and heating system remodeled as part of the deal. Teixeira is a very bright man who may be willing to take Washington's money (if it has been offered) or go back to Anaheim or welcome the Yankees in; whatever, he knows what he thinks he is worth, and he knows that Boras' math says the Red Sox could sign him, Jason Varitek and Derek Lowe and be right around last year's payroll.

Teixeira has been the model of reliability -- he's played 151 games a year with a .919 OPS to go with his 34 homers a season. Look, CC Sabathia is a great pitcher and an even better person. Plus, he proved this past season how much he cares by risking his arm to try to bring a championship to Milwaukee. CC, though, has helped Teixeira this offseason. Yankees GM Brian Cashman flew to Sabathia's house during the winter meetings and moved the Yankees' offer from $140 million to $161 million because he feared that if Teixeira signed quickly with the Red Sox or Nationals, that if the Angels came in at $130-$140 million Sabathia might give them the California discount.

Sabathia is worth it to the Yankees, because Cashman can stick to his plan of not trading away his best young pitchers. The Dodgers got the Ramirez, Casey Blake and Greg Maddux contracts eaten by the Red Sox, Indians and Padres because of the value of the young players they had to throw into the deals.

Cashman backed off the Mike Cameron deal because Melky Cabrera has improved his plate discipline in winter ball, and there are voices in the organization who still believe Brett Gardner is going to be a useful major league player. No one will argue his energy and intensity, but watch him take batting practice and you'll find out he's a lot stronger than he looks. Granted, he has to take it into games, but there is something on which to place hope.

Mike Lowell is sitting in Florida watching the Teixeira drama play out, probably wondering why he didn't take the four-year offer from the Phillies at this time last year to remain with the Red Sox for three years.

Then there's Varitek; Boras turned down arbitration and a virtually guaranteed $10 million a year for the catcher, and now Varitek doesn't have one offer. The Red Sox tried to get Miguel Montero from Arizona, but the D-Backs wouldn't do Daniel Bard for Montero. Red Sox GM Theo Epstein will not trade Michael Bowden, who Epstein projects as a very good major league starting pitcher.

If Boston does not sign Rocco Baldelli, would they consider eating the final $22 million of Eric Byrnes' deal to get Montero? That has yet to be seriously discussed, but it's something to consider down the line if the Red Sox can't find a catcher.

That is all for another day. For two years, it has been the Red Sox baseball operations' plan to sign Teixeira. That plan remains. What remains to be seen is whether the Red Sox can quantify what Boras does or does not have in offers. When one side is talking about something between $170 million and $200 million there is what Boras calls "the sticker-shock factor," especially when in his six years as general manager Epstein's Red Sox have won two world championships, played in two more ALCS Game 7s and the only major free agent acquisitions have been Daisuke Matsuzaka and J.D. Drew, both Boras clients.

We don't know where the truth really lies. In reality, Henry and Boras don't know, either.
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/blog/index?entryID=3783590&name=gammons_peter

edabbs44
12-20-2008, 03:59 PM
That would be so brutal.

paulrichjr
12-20-2008, 04:04 PM
Votto for Dye??? Sign me up for that deal all day long. (Then I can go ahead and change my allegiance to another team)

LvJ
12-20-2008, 04:05 PM
Votto for Dye??? Sign me up for that deal all day long. (Then I can go ahead and change my allegiance to another team) I 2nd this.

If such BS happened, I am done.

cincy09
12-20-2008, 04:05 PM
I think that would be the last straw!

OnBaseMachine
12-20-2008, 04:06 PM
That would be an AWFUL trade by the Reds.

dougdirt
12-20-2008, 04:07 PM
Im going to go back to sleep to wipe this nightmare away with some happy thoughts.

CTA513
12-20-2008, 04:12 PM
We don't know if the Red Sox will decide not to pony up and sign Teixeira or whether there really might be a three-day deal with the White Sox, Angels and Reds that would put Jermaine Dye in Cincinnati, Joey Votto in Anaheim and Chone Figgins in Chicago.

:barf:

red-in-la
12-20-2008, 04:14 PM
Yeah, I believe this one made up by Gammons just to fill in his story. Why in the world would the Reds trade away years and years of youth? Also, trading Votto leaves the Reds with JUST Bruce as a LH bat.......just dumb Peter......just shows how little you know and how much you make up.

Heath
12-20-2008, 04:19 PM
Peter's been staying up late again with his band.

Or forgetting his meds.

Mario-Rijo
12-20-2008, 04:26 PM
Good grief, let that be way off point. If Jocketty even considered that deal he needs canned.

cincrazy
12-20-2008, 04:31 PM
If Jocketty makes that deal he needs to be institutionalized, and his honeymoon phase would officially be over.

lollipopcurve
12-20-2008, 04:33 PM
Zero chance of that trade happening in that form.

Spitball
12-20-2008, 04:36 PM
Or forgetting his meds.

I think you're right. Unless he has squirrels in his underwear, how does he explain his use of the first person plural here?


We don't know if the Red Sox will decide not to pony up and sign Teixeira or whether there really might be a three-day deal...

Reds1
12-20-2008, 04:36 PM
How about EE instead of Votto? No way they do Votto

paintmered
12-20-2008, 04:37 PM
If that deal goes down, I'm taking a year off from baseball. I'll reject reality and substitute my own via MLB Front Office.

RedEye
12-20-2008, 04:40 PM
When I first saw the name Chone Figgins, I thought we might be on to something here. Then I saw he would be the return for Chicago.

What ever happened to the Homer Bailey idea? Sheesh!

This would be an absolutely mind-bogglingly stupid trade by Walt.

Caseyfan21
12-20-2008, 04:44 PM
Gammons has to be smoking something. That would be an AWFUL trade from the Reds perspective.

RedEye
12-20-2008, 04:44 PM
How about EE instead of Votto? No way they do Votto

I don't want to trade either of those guys for Dye. Homer + a prospect was already testing my limits.

Wayne, I thought EE and Votto were supposed to be "untouchables"!? What am I misunderstanding here?!

http://www.dissimulate.org/accordingly/wp-content/uploads/2007/12/untouchables-cast_1137616950-000.jpg

RedEye
12-20-2008, 04:45 PM
And yes, I realize my last post, including my avatar, has two pictures of Sean Connery in it. Not sure quite what that means, but I realize it.

Move along...

paintmered
12-20-2008, 05:07 PM
And yes, I realize my last post, including my avatar, has two pictures of Sean Connery in it. Not sure quite what that means, but I realize it.

Move along...

All I have to say to that is...

You're the man now dog!

RedEye
12-20-2008, 05:23 PM
All I have to say to that is...

You're the man now dog!

Well played, paint. Well played.

Mainspark
12-20-2008, 05:31 PM
This trade, as defined by Gammons, would justify a recreation of the infamous "baseball bat" scene in The Untouchables.

Highlifeman21
12-20-2008, 05:34 PM
This trade, as defined by Gammons, would justify a recreation of the infamous "baseball bat" scene in The Untouchables.

At the plate, it's a time for individual achievement.

But when you're out in the field, you're part of a team.

klw
12-20-2008, 05:35 PM
But what if the deal included one of the Angels middle infield prospects coming over as well?

dougdirt
12-20-2008, 05:37 PM
But what if the deal included one of the Angels middle infield prospects coming over as well?

Still not all that likely given that the Angels don't really have something we need in their system as far as MI guys go.

OldXOhio
12-20-2008, 05:38 PM
Gammons didn't necessarily say it was a one for one swap Votto for Dye. Those would probably be the principals, but I would think there'd be others involved as well.

Always Red
12-20-2008, 05:47 PM
I feel very ill...

RedLegSuperStar
12-20-2008, 05:55 PM
We getting Erick Aybar and Ervin Santana back as well?

RedEye
12-20-2008, 06:09 PM
We getting Erick Aybar and Ervin Santana back as well?

Votto for Dye, Aybar and Santana. Let me think... yes, I would do that.

camisadelgolf
12-20-2008, 06:13 PM
Votto for Dye, Aybar and Santana. Let me think... yes, I would do that.

Wow, you had to think about it? ;)

redsmetz
12-20-2008, 06:15 PM
Gammons has to be smoking something. That would be an AWFUL trade from the Reds perspective.

Doesn't Gammons always get a little screwy when it comes to Reds trades?

Raisor
12-20-2008, 06:19 PM
http://nymeria87.files.wordpress.com/2008/05/facepalm1.jpg

RedEye
12-20-2008, 06:20 PM
Doesn't Gammons always get a little screwy when it comes to Reds trades?

That sounds right. He also always seems to think the Reds are on the verge of being contenders. How many times did that guy give me unrealistic expectations of the team during the 80s and 90s? And I don't feel like he was the same way with other teams, either. I loved him (and hated him) for it. Good to have that dirty laundry out there finally. Thanks, RedsZone!

camisadelgolf
12-20-2008, 06:28 PM
............................................______ __
....................................,.-...................``~.,
.............................,.-...................................-.,
.........................,/...............................................:,
.....................,?........................... ...........................\,
.................../.................................................. .........,}
................./.................................................. ....,:`^`..}
.............../.................................................. .,:........./
..............?.....__............................ .............:`.........../
............./__.(.....~-,_..............................,:`........../
.........../(_....~,_........~,_....................,:`..... ..._/
..........{.._$;_......=,_.......-,_.......,.-~-,},.~;/....}
...........((.....*~_.......=-._......;,,./`..../............../
...,,,___.\`~,......~.,....................`..... }............../
............(....`=-,,.......`........................(......;_,,-
............/.`~,......`-...............................\....../\
.............\`~.*-,.....................................|,./.....\,__
,,_..........}.>-._\...................................|........... ...`=~-,
.....`=~-,_\_......`\,.................................\
...................`=~-,,.\,...............................\
................................`:,,.............. .............`\..............__
.....................................`=-,...................,%`>--==``
........................................_\........ ..._,-%.......`\
...................................,<`.._|_,-&``................`\

RedEye
12-20-2008, 06:29 PM
............................................______ __
....................................,.-...................``~.,
.............................,.-...................................-.,
.........................,/...............................................:,
.....................,?........................... ...........................\,
.................../.................................................. .........,}
................./.................................................. ....,:`^`..}
.............../.................................................. .,:........./
..............?.....__............................ .............:`.........../
............./__.(.....~-,_..............................,:`........../
.........../(_....~,_........~,_....................,:`..... ..._/
..........{.._$;_......=,_.......-,_.......,.-~-,},.~;/....}
...........((.....*~_.......=-._......;,,./`..../............../
...,,,___.\`~,......~.,....................`..... }............../
............(....`=-,,.......`........................(......;_,,-
............/.`~,......`-...............................\....../\
.............\`~.*-,.....................................|,./.....\,__
,,_..........}.>-._\...................................|........... ...`=~-,
.....`=~-,_\_......`\,.................................\
...................`=~-,,.\,...............................\
................................`:,,.............. .............`\..............__
.....................................`=-,...................,%`>--==``
........................................_\........ ..._,-%.......`\
...................................,<`.._|_,-&``................`\

Good lord, golf shirt! Did you do that how I think you did that?

Playadlc
12-20-2008, 06:29 PM
Come on, guys...there is no way a Votto for Dye trade would ever happen. Not straight up, anyway.

I can't believe Gammons' column isn't being laughed at more in this thread.

RedEye
12-20-2008, 06:30 PM
Come on, guys...there is no way a Votto for Dye trade would ever happen. Not straight up, anyway.

I can't believe Gammons' column isn't being laughed at more in this thread.

We're trying hard to laugh. Really hard.

camisadelgolf
12-20-2008, 06:32 PM
Good lord, golf shirt! Did you do that how I think you did that?

If you think it was from Ctrl + C, Ctrl + V, then yes. ;)

RedEye
12-20-2008, 06:35 PM
If you think it was from Ctrl + C, Ctrl + V, then yes. ;)

Oh... no, I thought it was by spending a heck of a long time placing different punctuation marks in line with one another. :)

blumj
12-20-2008, 06:48 PM
Doesn't Gammons always get a little screwy when it comes to Reds trades?
Not to get all serious or anything, but he's really been a little "off" ever since the aneurism.

PuffyPig
12-20-2008, 06:59 PM
Wayne, I thought EE and Votto were supposed to be "untouchables"!? What am I misunderstanding here?!

http://www.dissimulate.org/accordingly/wp-content/uploads/2007/12/untouchables-cast_1137616950-000.jpg

Two things I would say.

Firstly, his name is Walt, not Wayne.

Secondly, there's is nothing from Walt to suggest he would even do this deal.

;)

HokieRed
12-20-2008, 07:21 PM
Walt should come out and clear the air on such an absurdity. He owes it to Reds fans.

Tom Servo
12-20-2008, 07:42 PM
http://www.deviantart.com/download/76908810/Facepalm_jpg_by_Aqua_ng.jpg

Joseph
12-20-2008, 07:43 PM
If its 3 players all changing around then no. If we were getting a SS from the Angels as well, and or some young pitching, then I'd listen.

redsfan4445
12-20-2008, 08:01 PM
Gosh I cant think of Walt being that dumb to make a trade of Votto for a return of a 35yr old outfielder on his declining years!! Thats got to be made up.. The Reds management cant be that dumb!!

Ltlabner
12-20-2008, 08:21 PM
I know nothing has happened yet, and the offseason is young, but these are some whacked out rumors we are hearing.

Votto for Dye? Good grief.

corkedbat
12-20-2008, 08:30 PM
Iagree that the only way it even starts to make sense is if theyre including one of the Angels young SSs (and we're gonna give Alonso a shot from day one of ST) - and even that is preposterous

Caveat Emperor
12-20-2008, 09:10 PM
Votto for Dye?

http://www.forwardedtome.com/images/fail/ftm_epicfail.jpg

membengal
12-20-2008, 09:58 PM
That proposal might as well be sub-titled:


"Peter Gammons' continuing thesis that the other 24 teams in baseball live to serve the Yankees/Red Sox/Angels/Cubs/Dodgers/Mets"

Do his fingers operate independently from his brain?

Unassisted
12-20-2008, 10:57 PM
We've had the "Hal McCoy just keeps gettin' em wrong" thread. Can the Gammons equivalent be far behind if this deal doesn't pan out?

Raisor
12-20-2008, 11:09 PM
We've had the "Hal McCoy just keeps gettin' em wrong" thread. Can the Gammons equivalent be far behind if this deal doesn't pan out?

He didn't say it was going to happen, just that they were talking.

Falls City Beer
12-20-2008, 11:16 PM
He didn't say it was going to happen, just that they were talking.

I don't even think he said "they were talking." I think Gammons is just filling up fishwrap.

BCubb2003
12-20-2008, 11:34 PM
a three-day deal with the White Sox, Angels and Reds

Relax, it's only for three days.

Vada Pinson Fan
12-20-2008, 11:52 PM
Think Hal McCoy is sending trade ideas to Peter Gammons and vice-versa?

MartyFan
12-21-2008, 12:20 AM
Gammons track record on trade rumors is so bad, Inever pay any attention to him anymore...he used to be a good baseball writer but when he makes stuff up like this it's just sad.

HeatherC1212
12-21-2008, 02:25 AM
That trade would force me to take time away from baseball too because I would be way too upset. I thought we got rid of the stupid people in the organization?!? *bangs head very hard on a concrete wall* :bang: :explode: :rant2: :thumbdown

redsmetz
12-21-2008, 09:35 AM
That trade would force me to take time away from baseball too because I would be way too upset. I thought we got rid of the stupid people in the organization?!? *bangs head very hard on a concrete wall* :bang: :explode: :rant2: :thumbdown

Remember this is a rumor, probably one with no basis in fact. If earlier rumors are to be believed and we balked at taking Dye for Bailey and another prospect, then why would Jocketty be stupid enough to facilitate a three way trade in which we get the worst end of the stick?

I'm not saying he might never trade Votto, but it's highly doubtful that it would be during this offseason when we still don't know where Alonso is in his development. And as others have clearly noted, why would we give up a solid gem (the kid finished second in the Rookie of the Year voting afterall) for why could be a one year rental, and at best would be a two year stint with our club?

This isn't reflective of a stupid front office, it's the work of someone's incredibly wild imagination.

Krusty
12-21-2008, 09:39 AM
Foxsports' Ken Rosenthal is the new Peter Gammons. And what I mean by that back in the early 80s when Gammons was with the Boston Globe, his stuff was worth reading. Then he left the Globe to go to the ESPN and the quality of his stuff declined. Maybe going to television had to do with that.

Any way. If I want a rumor with some truth to it, I look to Rosenthal first before evening considering Gammons.

Matt700wlw
12-21-2008, 09:42 AM
...this is crap that won't stick on the wall.

Wheelhouse
12-21-2008, 10:07 AM
We've had the "Hal McCoy just keeps gettin' em wrong" thread. Can the Gammons equivalent be far behind if this deal doesn't pan out?

Gammons' reports are legendary garbage. Does that fit the bill? But hey, I do feel bad for Hal-- the DDN refused to pay to have him go to the Winter Meetings, and it must have felt strange for him not to be there after so many years. He probably took it as a personal jab, which he shouldn't have, and felt the need to make a splash in the paper.

Jpup
12-21-2008, 10:13 AM
Gammons is a great writer, but sometimes his content isn't so great. He's very eloquent, but with little substance. At least he has one of the two.

Highlifeman21
12-21-2008, 10:14 AM
Gammons' reports are legendary garbage. Does that fit the bill? But hey, I do feel bad for Hal-- the DDN refused to pay to have him go to the Winter Meetings, and it must have felt strange for him not to be there after so many years. He probably took it as a personal jab, which he shouldn't have, and felt the need to make a splash in the paper.

So lemme get this straight...

You think that b/c the DDN left Hal at home and didn't pay for him to go out to Vegas for the Winter Meetings that he made up the Bailey/Dye trade?

Really?


Any proof to this?

camisadelgolf
12-21-2008, 10:26 AM
So lemme get this straight...

You think that b/c the DDN left Hal at home and didn't pay for him to go out to Vegas for the Winter Meetings that he made up the Bailey/Dye trade?

Really?


Any proof to this?

That's not what I got from it. I think what he was saying was that if McCoy were at the meetings, he might not've written the Bailey/Dye story. If McCoy had had more people around him to get feedback from, it would have given him a better idea of how valid his report was.

Jpup
12-21-2008, 10:28 AM
I thought the story was written before the meetings actually started?:confused:

redsmetz
12-21-2008, 10:32 AM
Gammons is a great writer, but sometimes his content isn't so great. He's very eloquent, but with little substance. At least he has one of the two.

One classic Gammons story was after he came to from his coma, and "The Trade" had occurred while he was unconcious, was reading a newspaper and turned to his wife and said "How did Austin Kearns end up on the Nationals?"

lollipopcurve
12-21-2008, 11:05 AM
It's an interesting rumor if you assume the trade would bring more than Dye to the Reds (which you have to, I think).

Essentially, the Angels (and, to a lesser extent, the Dodgers) are probably the best place to look for a young SS who's ready to play from day one. Aybar and Izturis are redundant, and Brandon Wood may still be considered a SS, though I doubt it.

It's reasonable to assume that the Angels are going to be looking for a LH-hitting 1st baseman if/when they lose out on Tex. Votto would give them that, plus the financial flexibility to go out and offer Manny/Bradley/Dunn to come in and DH (and maybe Crede on top of that). Very attractive backup plan, right? So....

Could the Reds get a total package of something like Dye, Aybar or Izturis, and Reggie Willits? I don't know much about Willits other than he really works his ABs, but I can easily imagine Jocketty seeing him as a nice CF/leadoff option.

Moving Votto in such a package addresses 3 needs -- middle-of-the-order bat, SS, OBP-oriented leadoff -- while creating a temporary need at 1B until Alonso is ready. That's a pretty efficient use of a resource that the team can replace from within in the relatively near future.

Would Anaheim yield a SS plus Willits when they're already giving up Figgins? You have to think that the prospect of getting Votto plus the payflex to still do a lot of damage in the FA market makes it well within the realm of reason. Would the Reds move this early on solving the Votto/Alonso dilemma? I think Jocketty is a confident enough GM to do it, and while I would have mixed feelings about the deal, I'd respect him for recognizing what appears to be a forward-thinking, probably unique opportunity.

To like the deal, I'd most likely have to buy into 2 years of Dye (giving the team a couple of years to wait on/figure out Alonso, Frazier, Stubbs and Francisco), which I could do. The bigger question for me would be, is the young SS the right call? I am not the biggest Aybar fan around here. He's error prone and the stick has not really emerged. But he's still pretty young. I almost would prefer Izturis, who's a steadier hitter. I do not know what kind of defender he is at SS. This is where the trade could really pay off, or level off. I think Willits would work out well somehow -- and you know the Cincinnati fans would love the guy.

Thoughts?

Will M
12-21-2008, 12:33 PM
the white sox want figgins & want to move dye.
the reds want dye.
it makes sense to try to do a 3 team deal.

Votto is worth LOTS more than either dye or figgins. he is young, cheap & his best years are ahead of him. i can't believe walt would move him in a deal like this.

now the question becomes: who could the Reds send to the Angels to make a deal like this work? i don't see how it could as the Reds have extra prospects to deal but not established players which is what the Angels want.

Jpup
12-21-2008, 01:13 PM
I would guess that Gammons mixed up Votto and Bailey. :dunno:

lollipopcurve
12-21-2008, 01:17 PM
who could the Reds send to the Angels to make a deal like this work?

The answer is Votto (provided Texeira goes east), with the Reds getting a SS, plus more, from the Angels. Whether the Reds would do it is another matter.

M2
12-21-2008, 01:22 PM
It's an interesting rumor if you assume the trade would bring more than Dye to the Reds (which you have to, I think).

Essentially, the Angels (and, to a lesser extent, the Dodgers) are probably the best place to look for a young SS who's ready to play from day one. Aybar and Izturis are redundant, and Brandon Wood may still be considered a SS, though I doubt it.

I think that's the only sensible way to look at it. If Jocketty's going to deal Votto, you have to assume he's going to want a big return.

blumj
12-21-2008, 01:36 PM
And that's typically the way that Gammons tends to lose things in translation, too.

M2
12-21-2008, 01:44 PM
And that's typically the way that Gammons tends to lose things in translation, too.

To be fair, all he did was was describe the general framework of a deal that might get some discussion if Teixeira doesn't go to Los Anaheim. At no juncture did he say such a deal imminent or limited only to those three names. In fact, I'm guessing Gammons assumed readers would figure there was more to a deal like that than just those three names.

RedsManRick
12-21-2008, 01:53 PM
or whether there really might be a three-day deal with the White Sox, Angels and Reds that would put Jermaine Dye in Cincinnati, Joey Votto in Anaheim and Chone Figgins in Chicago.

The misconstruing seems to be happening on this board, not in Gammons' mind. All Gammons said inferred is that somebody things a deal along these lines is a possibility. He never said a trade offer was proposed. In fact, he very clearly worded the sentence to imply that the three players listed were merely the principals of the idea.

Of course Votto is worth more than Figgins or Dye and more players would be involved. Gammons never implies otherwise. Because we're both a) Reds fans who understand our teams needs beyond LF and b) baseball dorks who know the strength the Angels have at SS, we can imagine what the broader trade might look like.

I'm sure we never hear 98% of the partially-formed ideas that get thrown around between front offices. Peter Gammons meanwhile is pretty plugged in and certainly hears more of these than we do -- most of which he doesn't report. While I'm sure there are journalists who make up trade rumors so they have something to write, I think Gammons is beyond that.

That we react so violently when Gammons throws one of them out (carefully worded so it won't be misconstrued) in the context of an alternative to a headline signing is more of a comment on our ability to think objectively when the Reds are involved than on Gammons ability as a reporter.

mth123
12-21-2008, 10:16 PM
It's an interesting rumor if you assume the trade would bring more than Dye to the Reds (which you have to, I think).

Essentially, the Angels (and, to a lesser extent, the Dodgers) are probably the best place to look for a young SS who's ready to play from day one. Aybar and Izturis are redundant, and Brandon Wood may still be considered a SS, though I doubt it.

It's reasonable to assume that the Angels are going to be looking for a LH-hitting 1st baseman if/when they lose out on Tex. Votto would give them that, plus the financial flexibility to go out and offer Manny/Bradley/Dunn to come in and DH (and maybe Crede on top of that). Very attractive backup plan, right? So....

Could the Reds get a total package of something like Dye, Aybar or Izturis, and Reggie Willits? I don't know much about Willits other than he really works his ABs, but I can easily imagine Jocketty seeing him as a nice CF/leadoff option.

Moving Votto in such a package addresses 3 needs -- middle-of-the-order bat, SS, OBP-oriented leadoff -- while creating a temporary need at 1B until Alonso is ready. That's a pretty efficient use of a resource that the team can replace from within in the relatively near future.

Would Anaheim yield a SS plus Willits when they're already giving up Figgins? You have to think that the prospect of getting Votto plus the payflex to still do a lot of damage in the FA market makes it well within the realm of reason. Would the Reds move this early on solving the Votto/Alonso dilemma? I think Jocketty is a confident enough GM to do it, and while I would have mixed feelings about the deal, I'd respect him for recognizing what appears to be a forward-thinking, probably unique opportunity.

To like the deal, I'd most likely have to buy into 2 years of Dye (giving the team a couple of years to wait on/figure out Alonso, Frazier, Stubbs and Francisco), which I could do. The bigger question for me would be, is the young SS the right call? I am not the biggest Aybar fan around here. He's error prone and the stick has not really emerged. But he's still pretty young. I almost would prefer Izturis, who's a steadier hitter. I do not know what kind of defender he is at SS. This is where the trade could really pay off, or level off. I think Willits would work out well somehow -- and you know the Cincinnati fans would love the guy.

Thoughts?

This is exactly what I was thinking. Add Aybar and Willits and its a decent deal. Votto is my current favorite, but to address all those concerns it seems like a decent deal given Alonso's probable arrival at some point soon. If the Angels are reluctant to give up Aybar and Figgins, the Reds could probably add Keppinger with maybe another piece coming back like say Kendry Morales.

The Angels still get the most long term value, but the Reds really need Aybar.

Figgins to the White Sox.
Votto and Keppinger to the Angels.
Dye, Aybar, Wilits and Morales to the Reds.

Post deal Reds:

Dickerson/Willits CF
Aybar SS
Encarnacion 3B
Dye LF
Bruce RF
Phillips 2B
Morales 1B
Hernandez C

Hanigan C
Richar IF
Janish IF
Rosales IF
Gonzalez DL

membengal
12-21-2008, 10:17 PM
The misconstruing seems to be happening on this board, not in Gammons' mind. All Gammons said inferred is that somebody things a deal along these lines is a possibility. He never said a trade offer was proposed. In fact, he very clearly worded the sentence to imply that the three players listed were merely the principals of the idea.

Of course Votto is worth more than Figgins or Dye and more players would be involved. Gammons never implies otherwise. Because we're both a) Reds fans who understand our teams needs beyond LF and b) baseball dorks who know the strength the Angels have at SS, we can imagine what the broader trade might look like.

I'm sure we never hear 98% of the partially-formed ideas that get thrown around between front offices. Peter Gammons meanwhile is pretty plugged in and certainly hears more of these than we do -- most of which he doesn't report. While I'm sure there are journalists who make up trade rumors so they have something to write, I think Gammons is beyond that.

That we react so violently when Gammons throws one of them out (carefully worded so it won't be misconstrued) in the context of an alternative to a headline signing is more of a comment on our ability to think objectively when the Reds are involved than on Gammons ability as a reporter.

Meh. All Gammons had to do was add a sentence which clarified that more players would be involved. Not hard to do. It's pretty lazy, frankly.

Falls City Beer
12-21-2008, 10:18 PM
Do people not know how to read? This Gammons comment is the equivalent of a Krusty slobberknocker. He's pulling it out of his hiney-hole. There is no verification, no rumor, no whisper. It's made up. Good lord.

membengal
12-21-2008, 10:21 PM
I agree, FCB, and since that is what he is doing, if he had a shred of common sense, he would have thrown in the extra sentence. As it is, what he wrote is so laughably silly as is that even Bad Fundamentals would have issues with it.

If you are going to pull something from your nether-regions, perhaps go ahead and pull something with it that makes it make even a little sense.

membengal
12-21-2008, 10:30 PM
While we are here, I would have to think that in the crazy chance that the Reds would let loose Votto at this point, that whatever return comes back, will need a more certain piece at SS than Aybar. His best OPS to date? .698. And he's 24, so it's not like he's flashed much at this point.

I am not sure what would make me comfortable with turning loose an .874 OPS'ing Votto at the age of 24, but Dye/Willits (who I like)/Aybar ain't near enough.

Highlifeman21
12-21-2008, 10:34 PM
I agree, FCB, and since that is what he is doing, if he had a shred of common sense, he would have thrown in the extra sentence. As it is, what he wrote is so laughably silly as is that even Bad Fundamentals would have issues with it.

If you are going to pull something from your nether-regions, perhaps go ahead and pull something with it that makes it make even a little sense.

Don't kid yourself, Bad Fundamentals might think Gammons' faux proposal is a good idea for the Reds.

Topcat
12-21-2008, 10:41 PM
Do people not know how to read? This Gammons comment is the equivalent of a Krusty slobberknocker. He's pulling it out of his hiney-hole. There is no verification, no rumor, no whisper. It's made up. Good lord.

LOL quit Picking on Krusty atleast his deals have some spec of logic to them :D

Raisor
12-21-2008, 10:43 PM
LOL quit Picking on Krusty atleast his deals have some spec of logic to them :D

I'm not sure how logical signing Wily T to a "two year deal" is "logical".

:eek:

:thumbup:

RedsManRick
12-21-2008, 10:47 PM
Meh. All Gammons had to do was add a sentence which clarified that more players would be involved. Not hard to do. It's pretty lazy, frankly.

His sentence never implied those were the only people involved. It was carefully worded to make clear it was not a 1-1-1. The readers who want every single thing spelled out for them perfectly are the lazy ones, frankly.

Falls City Beer
12-21-2008, 10:52 PM
His sentence never implied those were the only people involved. It was carefully worded to make clear it was not a 1-1-1. The readers who want every single thing spelled out for them perfectly are the lazy ones, frankly.

The writers who speculate for a living on ESPN were probably better off reporting on fact.

membengal
12-21-2008, 10:58 PM
No, RMR, what is lazy is not looking at those three alleged principles, if you are an HOF'er, and saying, "of course, more would be needed on Cincy's end". Go ahead and treat us like adults, and complete the WAG speculation, since he is WAG'ing, go ahead and WAG who else might be involved.

Heck, we WAG'd it here. Not too terribly hard to do. Course, we are all WAG'ing based on his ridiculous made-up speculation, so why shouldn't he make his WAG'ing make sense?

ETA: What was lazy from Gammons in particular? Not taking the opportunity to explore under what circumstances the Reds WOULD consider dealing a player as good as Votto is. Is that asking too much of him, really? It begs the quesiton, in my mind, of whether he is aware of just how good Votto is. Lazy.

PS: I have gone back and re-looked at the way he worded it and I don't find it carefully worded at all in an effort to imply more. Not even close.

Look, I used to love Gammons when he was with the Globe. But he is a shell of what he once was, and stuff like being discussed here in his latest column, simply reminds how much of an empty shell he has become when it comes to actual reporting...

RedsManRick
12-21-2008, 11:34 PM
No, RMR, what is lazy is not looking at those three alleged principles, if you are an HOF'er, and saying, "of course, more would be needed on Cincy's end". Go ahead and treat us like adults, and complete the WAG speculation, since he is WAG'ing, go ahead and WAG who else might be involved.

Heck, we WAG'd it here. Not too terribly hard to do. Course, we are all WAG'ing based on his ridiculous made-up speculation, so why shouldn't he make his WAG'ing make sense?

ETA: What was lazy from Gammons in particular? Not taking the opportunity to explore under what circumstances the Reds WOULD consider dealing a player as good as Votto is. Is that asking too much of him, really? It begs the quesiton, in my mind, of whether he is aware of just how good Votto is. Lazy.

PS: I have gone back and re-looked at the way he worded it and I don't find it carefully worded at all in an effort to imply more. Not ever close.

Look, I used to love Gammons when he was with the Globe. But he is a shell of what he once was, and stuff like being discussed here in his latest column, simply reminds how much of an empty shell he has become when it comes to actual reporting...

The reference was second order, a context setting piece for the basis of the Angels pulling out of Teixeira sweepstakes. If the 3-way trade was an item in and of itself, he likely would've further elaborated. The only purpose of saying it was to suggest that the Angels were looking at alternative options, namely Votto, and that in a deal for Votto, Figgins and Dye would be the main pieces. Going in to further detail was simply unnecessary because he was only trying to show that other options were being pursued, not tease out the feasibility in detail.

As for the implication... he said where each guy would land, not that any specific trade had been proposed. The inference that those 3 represented the entirety of the trade is on those who took 1 sentence from a multi-paragraph article as if it were the main point. Sure, he could've been more clear about what the full deal would have looked like. But it would have only detracted from the primary point of the sentence's inclusion and from the larger point of the topic being discussed.

I'm right with you at being annoyed at baseless rumor-mongering. And while Gammons certainly colors his article with a certain geographical bias, he's not historically been one who just makes things up.

Mario-Rijo
12-22-2008, 01:21 PM
Do people not know how to read? This Gammons comment is the equivalent of a Krusty slobberknocker. He's pulling it out of his hiney-hole. There is no verification, no rumor, no whisper. It's made up. Good lord.

I'd have to disagree with you that it's Gammons concoction.


We don't know if the Angels, were they to lose Teixeira, would turn to Manny Ramirez. We don't know if Randy Levine, Hank Steinbrenner and the Yankees could win out and buy Ramirez. We don't know if the Red Sox will decide not to pony up and sign Teixeira or whether there really might be a three-way deal with the White Sox, Angels and Reds that would put Jermaine Dye in Cincinnati, Joey Votto in Anaheim and Chone Figgins in Chicago.

The bolded part seems to indicate that he has at least heard a whisper of a potential deal like that. Doesn't sound like something he himself is constructing. Whether or not it had much truth to it to begin with isn't the important part. The fact that Joey's name came up in any prospective deal is the part that's interesting. He could have tossed Votto's name into that mix to make it work IDK. But clearly he has some reason to believe that something close has been at least thrown out there.

Although I agree there's no real indication that it's anything more than an idea from someone, just don't believe it's from Gammons.

Connect the dots people.

LAA: Needs a bat and a 1st baseman if Tex goes elsewhere.
LAA: Has been rumored to have some degree of interest in Konerko
CWS: Has been rumored to wanna deal Konerko and/or Dye
CWS: Almost had a deal with Cincy for Dye
Cincy: Has a good 1B and a need for a RH bat
CWS: Has been tied to wanting Figgins in the past for 3B or OF due to his style of play which is speed based.
LAA: Votto would fit right in

Works out pretty good except for 1 thing, we wouldn't need the RH bat as much if we traded away one of the reasons for acquiring it. So they missed one dot.

Cincy: Would be worse off in this scenario now and in the future, but forget how it would effect the lowly Reds because it's a great fit for the Sox and Angels!

Although I could think of an interesting 3-way that might work between the 3.

To LAA: Konerko, Jenks & Keppinger
To CWS: Figgins, Matthews, Watson, Francisco & Bailey
To Cincy: Dye, Izturis & 3 million (1.5 from each team)

Spitball
12-22-2008, 01:39 PM
Look, I used to love Gammons when he was with the Globe...

Back in the 1970s, I used to live for his weekly column in the Sunday Globe. When I moved out of New England, my mom would send me the Sunday sports page so I could still read it.



This is exactly what I was thinking. Add Aybar and Willits and its a decent deal. Votto is my current favorite, but to address all those concerns it seems like a decent deal given Alonso's probable arrival at some point soon. If the Angels are reluctant to give up Aybar and Figgins, the Reds could probably add Keppinger with maybe another piece coming back like say Kendry Morales.

The Angels still get the most long term value, but the Reds really need Aybar.

Figgins to the White Sox.
Votto and Keppinger to the Angels.
Dye, Aybar, Wilits and Morales to the Reds.

When I saw the Gammons' rumor, I pretty much assumed there were more players involved. Aybar and Morales were two of the most logical additions I could see from the Angels. I didn't think of Willits, but I like him and think he would make pretty good sense.

I actually think Brandon Wood might make sense in place of Aybar. He is a much better shortstop than many realize and could provide the potential for a 35 homerun player in th NL and GABP. He recently was cut from his winter league team but think he would be an interesting acquisition.

BTW, I am not advocating a trade of Votto who is currently my favorite non-pitcher in the Reds' organization.

remdog
12-22-2008, 02:18 PM
BTW, I am not advocating a trade of Votto who is currently my favorite non-pitcher in the Reds' organization.

Just curious. Who would that favorite pitcher be? My guess would be either Volquez or Cueto but you did say organization so.....

Rem

Spitball
12-22-2008, 02:34 PM
Just curious. Who would that favorite pitcher be? My guess would be either Volquez or Cueto but you did say organization so.....

Rem

You guessed correctly. I love Volquez and Cueto. If Volquez keeps himself centered, he could be very special. It is exciting to think about Cueto maturing, building confidence, and cutting down on mistakes. It is sweet to be entering a season with the current rotation rather than the Eric Miltons, Paul Wilsons, and Jimmy Hayneses we had to endure for too long.

Wheelhouse
12-22-2008, 07:06 PM
So lemme get this straight...

You think that b/c the DDN left Hal at home and didn't pay for him to go out to Vegas for the Winter Meetings that he made up the Bailey/Dye trade?

Really?


Any proof to this?

No, I don't think he made it up. I think he got bad info, and didn't verify it. And actually couldn't, because he wasn't "on the ground" in Las Vegas, as it were. It was part showing he could get a scoop even though he wasn't there (if he were right), or showing that they should have had him there to verify it (if he was wrong).

Krusty
12-22-2008, 07:06 PM
Do people not know how to read? This Gammons comment is the equivalent of a Krusty slobberknocker. He's pulling it out of his hiney-hole. There is no verification, no rumor, no whisper. It's made up. Good lord.

I find this offensive.

Spitball
12-22-2008, 09:21 PM
I find this offensive.

I don't think he meant to say you pull slobberknockers out of your hiney-hole. He just meant Gammons made this big trade rumor up without real insider information. Your slobbeknockers are based on realistic team needs and designed to promote discussion.

Falls City Beer
12-22-2008, 09:23 PM
I don't think he meant to say you pull slobberknockers out of your hiney-hole. He just meant Gammons made this big trade rumor up without real insider information. Your slobbeknockers are based on realistic team needs and designed to promote discussion.

Exactly. And Krusty, you don't collect a nice paycheck from ESPN for speculation-cloaked-as-rumor.