PDA

View Full Version : Would you trade Chris Heisey for....



Kingspoint
07-21-2009, 08:42 PM
Or Stubbs if the White Sox preferred him to replace DeWayne Wise instead of Heisey....

....and include EE and Harang for Beckham? Would that be enough to get Beckham, as EE could even DH some and Heisey/Stubbs would be good prospects, and the right-handed Harang would balance out their L-L-R-L Top-4 starters?

Degenerate39
07-21-2009, 08:56 PM
Good question. So Heisey/Stubbs, EE, and Harang for Beckham. I think I'd do it just to get rid of Harang's salary and just get rid of Edwin.

dougdirt
07-21-2009, 09:19 PM
Id rather just play Todd Frazier at 3B and keep my talent.

thorn
07-21-2009, 09:23 PM
Too much IMO so no. I would do Harang and have them pick one of the others but not 3 players.

kpresidente
07-21-2009, 09:39 PM
Id rather just play Todd Frazier at 3B and keep my talent.

Pretty sure the idea would be to play Beckham at SS.

dougdirt
07-21-2009, 09:42 PM
Pretty sure the idea would be to play Beckham at SS.

Then I would rather play Cozart at SS since he can actually play there.

kpresidente
07-21-2009, 11:00 PM
Then I would rather play Cozart at SS since he can actually play there.

So can Beckham and he'll give you something with the bat, too. That's why the Blue Jays want to trade Halliday for him...to play SS (not 3B.) That's why Ozzie Guillen said he has no problem playing him at SS (as well as 2B and 3B) so long as he can get him in the lineup. You know, because he "can't play there."

But the Reds, last in the league in batting, would be better off with Zach Cozart.:rolleyes:

Of course, for blind FO supporters, it's mighty convenient if you can convince everybody that he "can't play there," because then nobody can say we should've taken Beckham instead of Alonso (which we should have.)

PuffyPig
07-21-2009, 11:34 PM
Pretty sure the idea would be to play Beckham at SS.

If Beckham could play SS he would be playing there and we would have drafted him.

Trading Heisey/Stubbs plus EE plus Harang would be trading a ton of talent for a guy we can likely replace from the minor leagues from our best organizational depth position.

Just a horrible trade.

dougdirt
07-22-2009, 12:56 AM
So can Beckham and he'll give you something with the bat, too. That's why the Blue Jays want to trade Halliday for him...to play SS (not 3B.) That's why Ozzie Guillen said he has no problem playing him at SS (as well as 2B and 3B) so long as he can get him in the lineup. You know, because he "can't play there."

But the Reds, last in the league in batting, would be better off with Zach Cozart.:rolleyes:

Of course, for blind FO supporters, it's mighty convenient if you can convince everybody that he "can't play there," because then nobody can say we should've taken Beckham instead of Alonso (which we should have.)

Beckham isn't a shortstop. Someone might let him play SS, but he won't be a good fielder there. It has nothing to do with our front office and everything to do with the majority of talent evaluators who say he can't play shortstop defensively at the major league level.

icehole3
07-22-2009, 05:32 AM
all those guys mentioned should be traded for an proven major league all star

bucksfan2
07-22-2009, 09:53 AM
If Beckham could play SS he would be playing there and we would have drafted him.

Trading Heisey/Stubbs plus EE plus Harang would be trading a ton of talent for a guy we can likely replace from the minor leagues from our best organizational depth position.

Just a horrible trade.

Don't the White Sox have a pretty good young SS? That may be the biggest reason that Beckham isn't playing SS.

princeton
07-22-2009, 10:02 AM
If Beckham could play SS he would be playing there and we would have drafted him.


if Tim Lincecum had any future, we'd have drafted him as well.

Reds would have a much better team now and a brighter future had they drafted Beckham. So it goes.

Kc61
07-22-2009, 10:36 AM
if Tim Lincecum had any future, we'd have drafted him as well.

Reds would have a much better team now and a brighter future had they drafted Beckham. So it goes.

You may be right about Beckham. But if the Reds drafted him he would be at AA.

GIDP
07-22-2009, 10:38 AM
I like Todd Fraziers future at 3rd much more than I like Beckhams.

princeton
07-22-2009, 02:59 PM
if the Reds drafted him he would be at AA.

Reds fans are conditioned for defeat.


I like Todd Fraziers future at 3rd much more than I like Beckhams.

major league numbers on one side of scale, AA numbers on the other... does not look good for Todd.

Wait-- let me pour two quarts of Kool-Aid on the AA side. There-- you're right. Todd Frazier rocks.

Benihana
07-22-2009, 03:01 PM
Reds fans are conditioned for defeat.



major league numbers on one side of scale, AA numbers on the other... does not look good for Todd.

Wait-- let me pour two quarts of Kool-Aid on the AA side. There-- you're right. Todd Frazier rocks.

Easy with the Beckham fawning. If he could stick at SS I'd agree with you. But even the team that drafted him doesn't think he can. While he has advanced much quicker than Frazier, I believe that's more a result of the organization he's in than anything. The two strike me as similar talents.

Plus, former White Sox 3B prodigy Josh Fields says :wave:

White Sox prospects seem to start with a spark and then crash- HARD. Maybe overpromotion has something to do with it?

GIDP
07-22-2009, 03:11 PM
Reds fans are conditioned for defeat.



major league numbers on one side of scale, AA numbers on the other... does not look good for Todd.

Wait-- let me pour two quarts of Kool-Aid on the AA side. There-- you're right. Todd Frazier rocks.

Hes had what 150 ABs?

princeton
07-22-2009, 03:14 PM
Easy with the Beckham fawning.

better to announce that Reds have 50 strong prospects below the age of 25? please.


If he could stick at SS I'd agree with you. But even the team that drafted him doesn't think he can.

poor inference. Sox like their SS

GIDP
07-22-2009, 03:18 PM
How good to you think Beckham is going to be?

Benihana
07-22-2009, 03:23 PM
better to announce that Reds have 50 strong prospects below the age of 25? please.

Are you referring to me?


poor inference. Sox like their SS

Do they though? Looks to me like their SS played 121 games at 2B last season. And their current 2B is OPSing < .700. Beckham is no more a SS than Todd Frazier is. Try again.

princeton
07-22-2009, 03:26 PM
How good to you think Beckham is going to be?

I don't think that he'll be Chase Utley.

princeton
07-22-2009, 03:27 PM
Do they though?.

yes

Benihana
07-22-2009, 03:36 PM
yes

Great explanation.

Here's some actual real evidence to support my point: :eek:

From the Tribune less than one month ago:

Ozzie Guillen still frustrated with Alexei Ramirez
Shortstop's repeated fielding lapses a problem for Chicago White Sox manager


This is not meant to be a debate over Alexei Ramirez. If Beckham was such a strong fielder and true middle infielder, he'd at least be playing 2B- especially with their $10 Million Man Dayan Viciedo entrenched at 3B in the minors.

princeton
07-22-2009, 03:42 PM
Sox think that Ramirez will be an impact hitter as a shortstop. it's what they want and it's why he's there. it's not what I'd do, but the Sox are one unique organization that likes things like Ken Griffey as a CFer.

guys pout when you move them for a kid too. fact of life. Joey Votto will hopefully be an exception

kpresidente
07-22-2009, 09:06 PM
Great explanation.

Here's some actual real evidence to support my point: :eek:

From the Tribune less than one month ago:



This is not meant to be a debate over Alexei Ramirez. If Beckham was such a strong fielder and true middle infielder, he'd at least be playing 2B- especially with their $10 Million Man Dayan Viciedo entrenched at 3B in the minors.

OK, enough with the misinformation. Beckham is playing 3B because Fields had a .650 OPS and can't field worth a lick. At second, Nix is a GG quality fielder. That's it. He was playing SS in the minors. They haven't necessarily moved him there permanently, they're trying to put the best team on the field.

reds44
07-22-2009, 10:06 PM
OK, enough with the misinformation. Beckham is playing 3B because Fields had a .650 OPS and can't field worth a lick. At second, Nix is a GG quality fielder. That's it. He was playing SS in the minors. They haven't necessarily moved him there permanently, they're trying to put the best team on the field.
I'm not sure what Jayson Nix has to do with Beckham playing 3rd because Chris Getz is their starting 2nd baseman. The sox like Getz better than Fields, that is why Beckham is playing 3rd and not 2nd.

reds44
07-22-2009, 10:07 PM
Great explanation.

Here's some actual real evidence to support my point: :eek:

From the Tribune less than one month ago:



This is not meant to be a debate over Alexei Ramirez. If Beckham was such a strong fielder and true middle infielder, he'd at least be playing 2B- especially with their $10 Million Man Dayan Viciedo entrenched at 3B in the minors.
Yes, he has fielding lapses but he is extremely young and raw, and has GG potentional at SS.
Vicedo isn't going to play 3rd base in the majors. He'll either be in LF, 1B, or DHing.

reds44
07-22-2009, 10:16 PM
I like Todd Fraziers future at 3rd much more than I like Beckhams.
If you massively overrated your teams prospects (and most people do) I can see why you believe this.

Frazier is in his 3rd season in the minors at the age of 23 and is posting an .870 OPS in AA. That's good, but Beckham had 68 ABs in the minors last season, then OPS'd a similar .863 OPS in AA, was promoted to AAA where he expoloded for an 1.127 OPS, and now is posting a .788 OPS in the majors that includes an awful start to his major league career.

There's no possible way anybody could like Todd Frazier's future at 3rd base "much more" than Gordon Beckham. There is absolutely nothing to back that up. Could you say they have similar futures? Maybe, but I'll still give the edge to Beckham.

Oh, and for the record, I like Gordon Beckham but there's no chance I deal EE and Harang for him.


Then I would rather play Cozart at SS since he can actually play there.
You can't possibly believe this.

dougdirt
07-22-2009, 10:26 PM
You can't possibly believe this.

I certainly do. Cozart can play defense at a major league level at the shortstop position. Beckham can't.

reds44
07-22-2009, 10:28 PM
I certainly do. Cozart can play defense at a major league level at the shortstop position. Beckham can't.
Beckham can swing the bat at a major league level, Cozart can't.

Beckham could handle SS for the first few years of his career without problem. It's like Jay Bruce in CF.

Would you rather have Juan Castro playing SS instead of Felipe Lopez? I wouldn't.

dougdirt
07-22-2009, 10:36 PM
Beckham can swing the bat at a major league level, Cozart can't.

Beckham could handle SS for the first few years of his career without problem. It's like Jay Bruce in CF.

Would you rather have Juan Castro playing SS instead of Felipe Lopez? I wouldn't.

I think its an assumption to suggest that Cozart can't swing a bat at the MLB level, especially in 2010.

And while Beckham may be able to 'handle' shortstop it would be because of his bat, not because of his glove, because his glove/range aren't all that good at shortstop.

And I don't see Cozart as a JC type. He has strong plate discipline and some pop.

FTR
Beckham in the SL this year - .864 OPS, 14BB, 26K.
Cozart in the SL this year - .803 OPS, 42BB, 60K.

Given that one has no questions about sticking at SS and one most certainly does, I am all about the guy who is going to stick there in everyone's mind. Beckham will have the better stick between the two, but lets not pretend that Cozart is not showing pretty solid signs with the stick at AA.

GIDP
07-22-2009, 10:37 PM
Beckham had 30 PA at AAA, and 160 at AA. Nothing to get super excited about. He was rushed to the majors.

Those numbers could be easily skewed one way or the other.

reds44
07-22-2009, 10:41 PM
I think its an assumption to suggest that Cozart can't swing a bat at the MLB level, especially in 2010.

And while Beckham may be able to 'handle' shortstop it would be because of his bat, not because of his glove, because his glove/range aren't all that good at shortstop.

And I don't see Cozart as a JC type. He has strong plate discipline and some pop.

FTR
Beckham in the SL this year - .864 OPS, 14BB, 26K.
Cozart in the SL this year - .803 OPS, 42BB, 60K.

Given that one has no questions about sticking at SS and one most certainly does, I am all about the guy who is going to stick there in everyone's mind. Beckham will have the better stick between the two, but lets not pretend that Cozart is not showing pretty solid signs with the stick at AA.
Give Beckham 600 ABs in the Midwest League and 300 ABs in AA and see what kind of numbers he puts up.

reds44
07-22-2009, 10:41 PM
Beckham had 30 PA at AAA, and 160 at AA. Nothing to get super excited about. He was rushed to the majors.

Those numbers could be easily skewed one way or the other.
He produced in college.
He produced in AA.
He produced in AAA.
He's producing in the majors.

dougdirt
07-22-2009, 10:43 PM
Give Beckham 600 ABs in the Midwest League and 300 ABs in AA and see what kind of numbers he puts up.

I am not sure I see what you are trying to say. Beckham came out of college at a more advanced stage in his career than did Cozart. Cozart had to retool his swing. Beckham didn't. And regardless of all of that, neither has to do with the players skillsets. Beckhams bat is better than Cozarts because he has a little more pop in it. Both players have strong discipline. Cozart has the edge on Beckham with the leather.

reds44
07-22-2009, 10:44 PM
I am not sure I see what you are trying to say. Beckham came out of college at a more advanced stage in his career than did Cozart. Cozart had to retool his swing. Beckham didn't. And regardless of all of that, neither has to do with the players skillsets. Beckhams bat is better than Cozarts because he has a little more pop in it. Both players have strong discipline. Cozart has the edge on Beckham with the leather.
Beckham's advantages with the bat far outweigh Cozart's with the glove. Beckham will end up at 2nd base, and be a pretty solid golveman there.

dougdirt
07-22-2009, 10:52 PM
Beckham's advantages with the bat far outweigh Cozart's with the glove. Beckham will end up at 2nd base, and be a pretty solid golveman there.

2B and 3B are pretty much equal in todays game as far as offense goes. So the fact that he may slide to 2B at some point is not really an 'upgrade' for his value.

reds44
07-22-2009, 10:53 PM
Who said it was?

GIDP
07-22-2009, 10:58 PM
He produced in college.
He produced in AA.
He produced in AAA.
He's producing in the majors.
Frazier has a better BB rate, strikes out less, has a better ISO.

The reds could have easily rushed Frazier to the majors like the sox did to beckham.

princeton
07-22-2009, 11:47 PM
Beckham had 30 PA at AAA, and 160 at AA. Nothing to get super excited about. He was rushed to the majors.

Those numbers could be easily skewed one way or the other.


so maybe Beckham is even better than he's showing?

Holy Rogers Hornsby

reds44
07-22-2009, 11:55 PM
Frazier has a better BB rate, strikes out less, has a better ISO.

The reds could have easily rushed Frazier to the majors like the sox did to beckham.
With huge holes in LF, CF, and SS why isn't he then?

Benihana
07-23-2009, 12:00 AM
OK, enough with the misinformation. Beckham is playing 3B because Fields had a .650 OPS and can't field worth a lick. At second, Nix is a GG quality fielder. That's it. He was playing SS in the minors. They haven't necessarily moved him there permanently, they're trying to put the best team on the field.

:laugh: Oh, the irony :laugh:

GIDP
07-23-2009, 12:35 AM
With huge holes in LF, CF, and SS why isn't he then?

because he could be doesnt mean he should be. He also doesnt play 2 of those 3 positions.

GIDP
07-23-2009, 12:36 AM
so maybe Beckham is even better than he's showing?

Holy Rogers Hornsby

or he wasnt as good as the numbers said. those AAA numbers are pretty much meaningless to me.

reds44
07-23-2009, 03:05 AM
or he wasnt as good as the numbers said. those AAA numbers are pretty much meaningless to me.
So what numbers do mean anything to you?

GIDP
07-23-2009, 04:00 AM
So what numbers do mean anything to you?

60 ABs at any level mean nothing to me. I could pluck 60 ABs out of Juan Castros career and make him look like a hall of famer probably. It's impossible to judge a player from that little of ABs. To cite them is as silly as me saying he never took a walk over those same number of ABs in AAA showing that he is a hacker. Its just way too small of a number for me to care about.

princeton
07-23-2009, 06:14 AM
60 ABs at any level mean nothing to me.

yup, it's what separates you from pros.

a top scout really only needs to see 8-10 ABs against top competition to make a sound assessment.

bucksfan2
07-23-2009, 09:35 AM
yup, it's what separates you from pros.

a top scout really only needs to see 8-10 ABs against top competition to make a sound assessment.

I generally agree with you. It doesn't really take much for a good scout to determine if a player has it or doesn't. I would even go as far to say that you can get a good idea by a certain players mannerisms, plate presence, and swings of how good he is. Most good scouts could see a player go 0-4 with 2K's but still realize that he is a very good player.

I disagree with you 8-10 AB's theory. You can compile a good stretch of at bats or look good at the plate for a couple of games. Heck even Juan Castro has 36 career HR's. But it doesn't take much to look at Castro and see he is limited at the plate.

GIDP
07-23-2009, 09:52 AM
yup, it's what separates you from pros.

a top scout really only needs to see 8-10 ABs against top competition to make a sound assessment.

Yea because its super uncommon for guys to have some great numbers at AAA, and MLB over 10 days worth of ABs.

princeton
07-23-2009, 10:22 AM
I generally agree with you. It doesn't really take much for a good scout to determine if a player has it or doesn't. I would even go as far to say that you can get a good idea by a certain players mannerisms, plate presence, and swings of how good he is. Most good scouts could see a player go 0-4 with 2K's but still realize that he is a very good player.

I disagree with you 8-10 AB's theory. You can compile a good stretch of at bats or look good at the plate for a couple of games. Heck even Juan Castro has 36 career HR's. But it doesn't take much to look at Castro and see he is limited at the plate.

I'm not actually sure which way you're arguing. first you say four ABs is enough then you say 8-10 are not enough.

my key point is that decisions have to be made early-- for instance, do we know what the heck is going on with our drafters? if we were to wait until hall of fame ballots are cast before we assess and make changes, then we've waited far too long.

with Stubbs vs. Lincecum, I argued that you knew within weeks, and that has turned out to be true. yet folks here continued to argue, as recently as last year, that I just "think" and don't actually "know" about Stubbs. it's true, the early returns can be wrong but how many Cy Young awards does it really take? honestly, at some point you've got to make a decision. you can deal Lincecum for a LOT, and have a Stubbs as a throw-in in that deal. That tells you all that you really need to know.

with Beckham vs. Alonso or Frazier, the rookie of the year award should help. Beckham's value-- actual franchise value-- last year was probably $5mill, and it's probably quadrupled since then. you can probably trade him right now for Alonso and Frazier and another solid prospect. that's nice.

regarding Lincecum: at time of that draft, I commented that if Reds were so worried about Lincecum getting injured then pick Kyle Drabek instead. just not Stubbs. And, here we're getting info that Drabek is the guy that everyone's lusting after. Lincecum's still the man by FAR, but a Drabek buys you a Stubbs and a lot more right now. Drabek wins, Reds first round loses.

so, are the Reds re-thinking how they pick the first round? I sincerely hope so. but I guess we could wait as they pick like this for 15 more years in order to gather all of the data...

bucksfan2
07-23-2009, 10:30 AM
I'm not actually sure which way you're arguing. first you say four ABs is enough then you say 8-10 are not enough.



Not getting into the Stubbs draft debate.

But what I am saying is that when you get to a certain level you can tell who the good players are and who are the fillers. It doesn't take much and a good scout should be able to determine that.

I just think that if you are using an 8-10 AB frame you can be deceived by a hot streak. I think most of us on RZ could go and watch a AA game and pick out who are the good players and who aren't. I do think it is a little premature to make those judgments about draft players because projectability is still a huge issue.

princeton
07-23-2009, 10:33 AM
I think most of us on RZ could go and watch a AA game and pick out who are the good players and who aren't.


I don't

OesterPoster
07-23-2009, 10:40 AM
I don't

I'm trying to think of a polite way to respond to your condescending post, and I can't do it.

dougdirt
07-23-2009, 12:54 PM
Really.... Stubbs and Lincecum? Is there even anyone on this board that thought at any point in time that Stubbs was better on this board? I don't recall a single poster thinking that. Not one.

The_jbh
07-23-2009, 02:42 PM
if Tim Lincecum had any future, we'd have drafted him as well.

Reds would have a much better team now and a brighter future had they drafted Beckham. So it goes.

GET OVER IT. We drafted Drew Stubbs... jesus

PuffyPig
07-23-2009, 09:56 PM
Reds would have a much better team now and a brighter future had they drafted Beckham. So it goes.

A little early to be saying that......

Remember when Prior was pitching (great) in the majors, while the Twins were waiting patiently for Mauer to develop?

princeton
07-23-2009, 10:13 PM
A little early to be saying that......



it's not actually. Reds would give up Yonder Alonso plus a couple of other prospects in return for Beckham right now.

(apologies for introducing logic into the argument)

JayBruce
07-23-2009, 10:14 PM
it's not actually. Reds would give up Yonder Alonso plus a couple of other prospects in return for Beckham right now.

(apologies for introducing logic into the argument)

Naw dude, we have Zack Cozart. ZACK F'ING COZART

Captain Hook
07-23-2009, 10:23 PM
yup, it's what separates you from pros.

a top scout really only needs to see 8-10 ABs against top competition to make a sound assessment.

Maybe the Reds should hire a few of those guys.

GIDP
07-23-2009, 10:26 PM
Princeton is getting a little out of control I think.

Krawhitham
07-23-2009, 10:40 PM
I would not trade EE straight up for Beckham

he has little power, little speed and horrible D

Benihana
08-17-2009, 03:09 PM
FWIW, from BA's chat today:



mark (il): do you think Gordon Beckham will stick at 3B or be moved to SS or 2B next yr?


Matthew Eddy: People tend to run out of glowing adjectives to describe Beckham, but few of those admirers think he's a shortstop long-term. Second or third seem like equally likely destinations.

http://www.baseballamerica.com/today/prospects/prospect-hot-sheet/2009/268714.html

GIDP
08-17-2009, 03:11 PM
if Hanley can play SS Beckham could do it for at least a few years.

PuffyPig
08-17-2009, 03:20 PM
if Hanley can play SS Beckham could do it for at least a few years.

Just becuase Hanley can play SS doesn't mean he should be playing SS.

dougdirt
08-17-2009, 03:21 PM
if Hanley can play SS Beckham could do it for at least a few years.

Of course the question begs, would he suck at SS defensively like Hanley did for several years?

GIDP
08-17-2009, 03:23 PM
Just becuase Hanley can play SS doesn't mean he should be playing SS.

Yea but he hits well enough that it doesn't destroy his value. Same could be said for Gordan who probably is a better fielder.

dougdirt
08-17-2009, 03:24 PM
Yea but he hits well enough that it doesn't destroy his value. Same could be said for Gordan who probably is a better fielder.

Doesn't destroy it, but certainly hurts it.

GIDP
08-17-2009, 03:37 PM
Does it hurt it so much that they are better off trying to find a new SS though and moving Hanley. He isnt the ideal fit at SS but moving him to say 3rd or RF or even CF and trying to find that SS to replace him might not be worth it. Hanley is probably average much defending SS and if hes below average its not that much over the last couple years. Moving him off SS isnt that big of a deal right now. Same with Beckham. If he can hit well enough and play SS to average level why worry about finding the above average lesser hitting SS. My point is kinda being if hes not brutal why open up the new hole?

dougdirt
08-17-2009, 03:43 PM
Does it hurt it so much that they are better off trying to find a new SS though and moving Hanley. He isnt the ideal fit at SS but moving him to say 3rd or RF or even CF and trying to find that SS to replace him might not be worth it. Hanley is probably average much defending SS and if hes below average its not that much over the last couple years. Moving him off SS isnt that big of a deal right now. Same with Beckham. If he can hit well enough and play SS to average level why worry about finding the above average lesser hitting SS. My point is kinda being if hes not brutal why open up the new hole?

Beckham doesn't hit like Hanley. Beckham isn't as good at SS right now as Hanley is. Hanley has improved his defense since coming up. However doesn't moving Beckham off of 3B open up a new hole too?

GIDP
08-17-2009, 04:51 PM
Beckham doesn't hit like Hanley. Beckham isn't as good at SS right now as Hanley is. Hanley has improved his defense since coming up. However doesn't moving Beckham off of 3B open up a new hole too?

Yea I'm not saying I would move him, im just saying if Hanley can stick there so could Beckham. Hanley has improved a lot for sure but I think Beckham could play better SS if given the reps Hanley has.

bucksfan2
08-17-2009, 05:09 PM
Yea I'm not saying I would move him, im just saying if Hanley can stick there so could Beckham. Hanley has improved a lot for sure but I think Beckham could play better SS if given the reps Hanley has.

Isn't Alexi Ramirez a pretty good SS in his own right?

osuceltic
08-17-2009, 05:20 PM
.306/.380/.480/.861/120 OPS+

I can't believe this thread is still alive. The Reds would struggle to put together any minor league package that would entice the Sox to part with Beckham. I'll be surprised if any current Reds prospect ever puts up a line like that over 64 games. Zach Cozart? Really?

Drafting Alonso over Beckham was a major mistake. My guess is we're going to spend the offseason trying to turn Alonso into a guy like Beckham -- an impact player who can play SS in the bigs. And I doubt we'll have any luck.

GIDP
08-17-2009, 05:21 PM
Isn't Alexi Ramirez a pretty good SS in his own right?

Hes similar to Hanley most likely.

dougdirt
08-17-2009, 06:00 PM
.306/.380/.480/.861/120 OPS+

I can't believe this thread is still alive. The Reds would struggle to put together any minor league package that would entice the Sox to part with Beckham. I'll be surprised if any current Reds prospect ever puts up a line like that over 64 games. Zach Cozart? Really?

Drafting Alonso over Beckham was a major mistake. My guess is we're going to spend the offseason trying to turn Alonso into a guy like Beckham -- an impact player who can play SS in the bigs. And I doubt we'll have any luck.

Gordon Beckham is NOT a guy who can play SS in the bigs. I have no clue where the idea came from that he is able to do it, but well, no one really seems to believe it but Reds fans who wish they had a shortstop at the major league level.

osuceltic
08-17-2009, 06:05 PM
Gordon Beckham is NOT a guy who can play SS in the bigs. I have no clue where the idea came from that he is able to do it, but well, no one really seems to believe it but Reds fans who wish they had a shortstop at the major league level.

We've seen Jerry Hairston Jr. and Jeff Keppinger play the position for long stretches over the last two years and still have no answer heading into next season. I'd take my chances with Beckham there and, if dissatisfied with his performance, at least we'd be buying time to find another solution.

Then, we could move Beckham to another position where he would continue to kick ass.

GIDP
08-17-2009, 06:10 PM
We could play Jay Bruce at SS and it doesnt make him any more of a SS than Jeff Keppinger or JHJ were.

bubbachunk
08-17-2009, 06:22 PM
Willy T at short, hes got speed

dougdirt
08-17-2009, 06:47 PM
We've seen Jerry Hairston Jr. and Jeff Keppinger play the position for long stretches over the last two years and still have no answer heading into next season. I'd take my chances with Beckham there and, if dissatisfied with his performance, at least we'd be buying time to find another solution.

Then, we could move Beckham to another position where he would continue to kick ass.

Simply being better than what we have had doesn't make it a good option.

Kingspoint
08-17-2009, 10:35 PM
Gordon Beckham is NOT a guy who can play SS in the bigs. I have no clue where the idea came from that he is able to do it, but well, no one really seems to believe it but Reds fans who wish they had a shortstop at the major league level.

Which had nothing to do with my original question for posting this thread. I don't know how it morphed into that, but it did. I had Beckham playing 3rd Base for the REDS as EE was included in the deal.

Looking back, instead of EE, Roenicke and Stewart for Rolen, I had EE, Cozart (or Stubbs) and Harang for Beckham.

We'd have Beckham, Roenicky and Stewart and not some aging has-been playing 3rd base minus two Star Prospects.

I wish I was running the REDS.

"Dusty, you're fired!"

11larkin11
08-18-2009, 12:21 AM
Which had nothing to do with my original question for posting this thread. I don't know how it morphed into that, but it did. I had Beckham playing 3rd Base for the REDS as EE was included in the deal.

Looking back, instead of EE, Roenicke and Stewart for Rolen, I had EE, Cozart (or Stubbs) and Harang for Beckham.

We'd have Beckham, Roenicky and Stewart and not some aging has-been playing 3rd base minus two Star Prospects.

I wish I was running the REDS.

"Dusty, you're fired!"

The only problem is theres no way the White Sox would even consider your offer.

Kingspoint
08-18-2009, 08:27 PM
The only problem is theres no way the White Sox would even consider your offer.


Now it looks that way, but if you look at the beginning of this thread, you'd think I was offering the moon.