PDA

View Full Version : Unofficially official: Adrian Gonzalez now a Red Sox



redsfandan
12-04-2010, 09:00 AM
According to ESPN this looks like a done deal.

The Boston Red Sox have agreed to a deal in principle to acquire slugging first baseman Adrian Gonzalez, sources told ESPN The Magazine's Buster Olney on Saturday morning.

The Red Sox have received permission from Major League Baseball to negotiate with Gonzalez on a new contract, the sources said, and Gonzalez's physical examination, one of last hurdles to deal, could happen Saturday.

The Padres would not receive any established major league players in the trade, ...

http://sports.espn.go.com/boston/mlb/news/story?id=5882356

Sea Ray
12-04-2010, 12:07 PM
This doesn't say much for baseball's level playing field. This was solely an economics driven deal and just because those prospects may work out or the Padres may sneak into the playoffs before the Red Sox doesn't make it right

RANDY IN INDY
12-04-2010, 12:09 PM
Whatever happened to Bowie Kuhn? Sounds like the deal "is not in the best interests of baseball." Funny how that doesn't hold true when "Sox" is on the end of "Red."

I'm still mad over Vida Blue.:D

Orenda
12-04-2010, 12:18 PM
This doesn't say much for baseball's level playing field. This was solely an economics driven deal and just because those prospects may work out or the Padres may sneak into the playoffs before the Red Sox doesn't make it right

i know MLB shouldn't even have the world series anymore. Everyone should get a trophy, every team should be represented in the all-star game, and the good franchises should be regularly penalized for their success while the poor teams should always be propped up to protect against the unfair tactics of competition.

Tony Cloninger
12-04-2010, 12:23 PM
Padres better hope this is a Davis for Schilling, Finley and Harnisch type deal.
They have no real excuses for not getting more than what they got unless the Red Soz refused to part with anyone that was already at least had a semblance of being established in the majors.

westofyou
12-04-2010, 12:26 PM
Teams with limited depth (coming off an ownership that lost money) and now under the helm of new ownership trading a star for more assets.

In baseball?

Nothing new here.

I thought the Bowie Kuhn ruling was BS, so did the a good portion of the owners, this current set of owners in todays very different business climate would probably hate it more.

klw
12-04-2010, 12:30 PM
http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/Adrian-Gonzalez-trade-with-Chicago-Cubs-or-Boston-Red-Sox-still-possible-120310


A major-league source confirmed to FOXSports.com that the Padres will receive right-handed starter Casey Kelly, first baseman Anthony Rizzo and center fielder Reymond Fuentes -- all prospects who have yet to debut in the major leagues. A separate source said there will be a player to be named later, as well.

Major League Baseball has approved a negotiating window for the Red Sox to negotiate a contract extension with Gonzalez, according to a source.

With the extension, the Padres will receive a better package of prospects than if the Red Sox were only gaining control of Gonzalez for one year.

BA ranks the prospects as Boston's 1, 3 and 6 prospects.

traderumor
12-04-2010, 12:51 PM
Teams with limited depth (coming off an ownership that lost money) and now under the helm of new ownership trading a star for more assets.

In baseball?

Nothing new here.

I thought the Bowie Kuhn ruling was BS, so did the a good portion of the owners, this current set of owners in todays very different business climate would probably hate it more.Still, I wish baseball would put together a system that is a little more middling and does not so favor the extremes as it does now, the poles being large revenue vs. small revenue, and players vs. ownership. They overcorrected an unfair situation in the 70s and have done little to tilt the thing back in the middle. It all seemed ok until the money came flooding into the big market teams through television and now they have done nothing to re-level the playing field, unless one counts the spit in the ocean of revenue sharing.

Man, I'm kinda soap-boxy here lately ;)

WMR
12-04-2010, 12:53 PM
Are we seeing Joey Votto's future?

Benihana
12-04-2010, 01:12 PM
I wish the Reds could've gotten involved, sending Alonso to the Padres and getting Ellsbury back from the Sawx. Oh well.

Gonzalez is reportedly seeking a Ryan Howard type deal (5 yrs, $125MM). I think we are seeing Joey Votto's future.

Even worse in this case is Gonzalez is from San Diego. So much for a "hometown discount."

blumj
12-04-2010, 01:19 PM
Are we seeing Joey Votto's future?
Not if they sign him NOW. Emotions aside, fans should be okay with losing players when they're getting into their mid-30's, not when they're just 30-ish. The Reds seem to have stable enough ownership and enough of a real fanbase that they shouldn't have to get stuck in the sort of 'need to keep payroll around $40M' situation the Padres are in.

Caveat Emperor
12-04-2010, 01:37 PM
Are we seeing Joey Votto's future?

Almost certainly, unless Castelinni tells Jocketty "Sign Joey for whatever it takes, and we'll increase budget appropriately to make sure it doesn't impact the rest of the team."

Cooper
12-04-2010, 01:38 PM
Way off the subject...kind of...but i thought Bowie cancelled one of the deals to the Sox...Joe Rudi comes to mind.

Prospect 1, 3, and 6 are pretty good returns. If AGon was 2 years younger then i think maybe a long term 7 year deal makes sense, but at his age a 7 year deal puts him at 35/36. Those last 2 years could be killers. Small marker teams can sign LTC's if the player is young enough to get back end production. The big market teams never have to worry about those things

Orenda
12-04-2010, 03:26 PM
Way off the subject...kind of...but i thought Bowie cancelled one of the deals to the Sox...Joe Rudi comes to mind.

Prospect 1, 3, and 6 are pretty good returns. If AGon was 2 years younger then i think maybe a long term 7 year deal makes sense, but at his age a 7 year deal puts him at 35/36. Those last 2 years could be killers. Small marker teams can sign LTC's if the player is young enough to get back end production. The big market teams never have to worry about those things

The Fuentes guy looks like bust city based upon his numbers. Speedster who hacks at the plate and hasn't hit for enough power to make a major league pitcher walk him. We all know the value of a base-stealer who can't get on base. Maybe he is projected too but that doesn't look like a big loss for the Sox.

GADawg
12-04-2010, 03:56 PM
not exactly going out on a limb here but I'm guessing that Gonzalez will quickly become a mega superstar playing in Boston....even Jason Bay owned the city for awhile

RedEye
12-04-2010, 03:57 PM
i know MLB shouldn't even have the world series anymore. Everyone should get a trophy, every team should be represented in the all-star game, and the good franchises should be regularly penalized for their success while the poor teams should always be propped up to protect against the unfair tactics of competition.

Since when are "good" and "poor" opposites? I think we should be talking about balancing out the "rich" franchises--not penalizing the good ones. And no, not all rich franchises are good ones--but there are some poor franchises that would have a lot better chance to compete if they had a little more money. But okay, I guess there are some folks who would prefer just watching the titanic struggle between the Yanks and the Red Sox every year...

Orenda
12-04-2010, 05:19 PM
your right not all of the best teams are necessarily the richest ones.


And no, not all rich franchises are good ones--but there are some poor franchises that would have a lot better chance to compete if they had a little more money. But okay, I guess there are some folks who would prefer just watching the titanic struggle between the Yanks and the Red Sox every year...

No actually i just think it's dumb to reward incompetence. Maybe the solution is for owners to move to more lucrative markets.

If you give these "poor" teams more money, does that make it easier for them to compete or does it make it more likely that they will accept profitable losing?

_Sir_Charles_
12-04-2010, 05:29 PM
I'm sure its possible that these 3 prospects can turn out to be great ones...BUT I think the Pads should've gotten more for AGon. Considerably more. Heck, at least ONE ML-ready player (experienced that is).

Sea Ray
12-04-2010, 05:33 PM
Teams with limited depth (coming off an ownership that lost money) and now under the helm of new ownership trading a star for more assets.

In baseball?

Nothing new here.

I thought the Bowie Kuhn ruling was BS, so did the a good portion of the owners, this current set of owners in todays very different business climate would probably hate it more.

Except that's not what happened here. Padres have "assets". They came closer to making the playoffs last year than the Bosox did. They made this trade because they don't have the $$ to pay Gonzalez past this year. This trade was all about money

RED VAN HOT
12-04-2010, 05:51 PM
I'm sure its possible that these 3 prospects can turn out to be great ones...BUT I think the Pads should've gotten more for AGon. Considerably more. Heck, at least ONE ML-ready player (experienced that is).

Agree. None of these is going to help the Padres in 2011. Of the three, it looks to me as if Fuentes is the most likely to succeed in Petco. If these are top rated prospects in a well regarded Boston system, it makes positively ebullient about the Reds' system.

mth123
12-04-2010, 05:53 PM
Except that's not what happened here. Padres have "assets". They came closer to making the playoffs last year than the Bosox did. They made this trade because they don't have the $$ to pay Gonzalez past this year. This trade was all about money

Anybody who doesn't get why many have been saying that the window for the Reds closes in a couple years and that now is the time to go for it should look at this deal and think about where the Reds will be with Votto after the 2012 season.

TheNext44
12-04-2010, 06:05 PM
Anybody who doesn't get why many have been saying that the window for the Reds closes in a couple years and that now is the time to go for it should look at this deal and think about where the Reds will be with Votto after the 2012 season.

Padres payroll is around half of the Reds. That's why they can't afford Gonzalez.

If Votto leaves after 2012, and he might, it won't be because the Reds can't afford him, it will be because he wants to play elsewhere.

Cooper
12-04-2010, 06:05 PM
The Fuentes guy looks like bust city based upon his numbers. Speedster who hacks at the plate and hasn't hit for enough power to make a major league pitcher walk him. We all know the value of a base-stealer who can't get on base. Maybe he is projected too but that doesn't look like a big loss for the Sox.
__________________


He's 19. He's way projectable. Sally League is a tough league for hitter's.

westofyou
12-04-2010, 06:26 PM
Except that's not what happened here. Padres have "assets". They came closer to making the playoffs last year than the Bosox did. They made this trade because they don't have the $$ to pay Gonzalez past this year. This trade was all about money

But they have no depth, one of the reason's they pooped out was their makeshift OF generated nothing offense wise in September, they were a pitching heavy team and a big wish. The teams prior owner unloaded a bunch of talent prior to this owners tenure, he came into a pitching heavy team without any position player depth in the middle if and the OF.

AG was going to walk, as it stands now he just had surgery, in many ways this move was because of his impending salary, but if the padres can get what the Rangers got for Texira then this is not a bad deal.

blumj
12-04-2010, 07:19 PM
The Padres GM was the Red Sox assistant GM and their assistant GM was the Red Sox director of amateur scouting when they drafted all 3 players. There's also a PTBNL, but I'm not sure if it could be someone from last year's draft, maybe someone who signed right away because you only get 6 months to complete it and you have to wait a year after they signed?

Also, the Cubs were supposedly one of the other teams trying to get him.

mth123
12-04-2010, 07:30 PM
Padres payroll is around half of the Reds. That's why they can't afford Gonzalez.

If Votto leaves after 2012, and he might, it won't be because the Reds can't afford him, it will be because he wants to play elsewhere.

Votto will be in his last year under team control. His deal will probably be reachng around $20 Million per year. That is 25% of the payroll. They could afford him, but others would have to go,

Mario-Rijo
12-04-2010, 09:12 PM
PTBNL, Jed Lowrie or Jose Iglesias? I would demand at least one of those guys, neither should be a deal breaker. Pads need a SS. Could the Sox deal Iglesias since he was a FA signing as opposed to a draft pick?

BTW Heath Bell now on the market, according to espn insider.

redsfandan
12-04-2010, 09:47 PM
Anybody who doesn't get why many have been saying that the window for the Reds closes in a couple years and that now is the time to go for it should look at this deal and think about where the Reds will be with(out) Votto after the 2012 season.

Maybe, but we both know that 1st base is one of the easier positions to fill if there's a need. Losing Votto would hurt but it wouldn't mean that the Reds couldn't adjust and still compete.

blumj
12-04-2010, 10:55 PM
PTBNL, Jed Lowrie or Jose Iglesias? I would demand at least one of those guys, neither should be a deal breaker. Pads need a SS. Could the Sox deal Iglesias since he was a FA signing as opposed to a draft pick?

Iglesias signed in '09, there's no reason for him or Lowrie to be a PTBNL, if either were in it, we'd know.

Spitball
12-04-2010, 11:45 PM
Peter Gammons is reporting that the PTBNL will not be a significant player. Really, I believe sometimes those PTBNL are thrown in there to add some hope for the fans of the team trading away the big star.

NJReds
12-05-2010, 12:23 PM
San Diego should just contract. If you're giving away your only decent offensive player for pie-in-the-sky prospects, it's time to close up shop. Not sure how they're going to score any runs next year.

Redsfan320
12-05-2010, 01:07 PM
Well after they signed Harang, they had to clear a spot on the big-league roster. ;)

320

RedsManRick
12-05-2010, 01:29 PM
I'm not happy with the package either, but we should realize that the Red Sox have one of the best minor league systems in baseball and parted with 3 of their top 10 prospects. Jim Callis of Baseball America had them at #1 (Kelly), #3 (Rizzo) and #6 (Fuentes).

If we had given up, say, Mesoraco, Yorman Rodriguez and Billy Hamilton (with a PTBNL) how would people feel about the fairness?

I wonder how we might compare Gonzalez's value to Zack Greinke's?

I think we all have a tendency to discount other people's prospects more than we'd like to admit. The Padres got 3 very good prospects. Time will tell how it all works out, but let's not pretend like they just gave him away.

TheNext44
12-05-2010, 01:46 PM
I'm not happy with the package either, but we should realize that the Red Sox have one of the best minor league systems in baseball and parted with 3 of their top 10 prospects. Jim Callis of Baseball America had them at #1 (Kelly), #3 (Rizzo) and #6 (Fuentes).

If we had given up, say, Mesoraco, Yorman Rodriguez and Billy Hamilton (with a PTBNL) how would people feel about the fairness?

I wonder how we might compare Gonzalez's value to Zack Greinke's?

I think we all have a tendency to discount other people's prospects more than we'd like to admit. The Padres got 3 very good prospects. Time will tell how it all works out, but let's not pretend like they just gave him away.

The Padres got a good package for Gonzazlez, but Kelly is the only prospect they got that compares to the three Reds prospects you mentioned.

Rizzo compares to Francisco and Fuentes commpares Sappelt, IMO. To me a comperable Reds package would be Alonso, Francsico and Sappelt. solid, but not as good as I expected.

mth123
12-05-2010, 02:04 PM
The Padres got a good package for Gonzazlez, but Kelly is the only prospect they got that compares to the three Reds prospects you mentioned.

Rizzo compares to Francisco and Fuentes commpares Sappelt, IMO. To me a comperable Reds package would be Alonso, Francsico and Sappelt. solid, but not as good as I expected.

I agree with your point, but think its understated. Kelly, as a top arm, has a lot more value than Alonso even if you still think Alonso is going to be a .300/.400/.500 guy in the big leagues. Lots of good 1B. Rizzo doesn't have the huge plate discipline issue to overcome that Francisco does, so he's a better bet to carry it to the majors. Rizzo is probably better than Francisco but not as good as Alonso. Chapman, Alonso and Sappelt is probably a better comp for what the Sox gave up. Fuentes doesn't have Sappelt's numbers, but he was a first round pick in A ball at 19 so its hard to read much into his stat line. I'd say the Sox gave-up a lot.

Its not so much what the Sox gave up that is so appalling. The Padres were on the verge of making the post-season and instead of building on that, they appear to be restarting. That has to be demoralizing for the SD fan base.

RedsManRick
12-05-2010, 02:08 PM
Its not so much what the Sox gave up that is so appalling. The Padres were on the verge of making the post-season and instead of building on that, they appear to be restarting. That has to be demoralizing for the SD fan base.

Demoralizing, maybe. But is it really worse than deluding yourself in to thinking you had sustainable greatness on your hands. The Royals and Mariners both made that mistake in recent years and paid for it. I say kudos to the Padres for not getting caught up in 1 year's unexpected success.

RedEye
12-05-2010, 02:17 PM
No actually i just think it's dumb to reward incompetence. Maybe the solution is for owners to move to more lucrative markets.

If you give these "poor" teams more money, does that make it easier for them to compete or does it make it more likely that they will accept profitable losing?

There are well-run rich franchises (Yankees, Red Sox) and well-run poor franchises (Twins, Reds?). There are also poorly-run rich franchises (Dodgers, Cubs) and poorly-run poor franchises (Pirates, Royals--although the latter may be on the up and up).

In my view, it isn't so much about assessing outcomes. Sometimes the poor succeed and the rich fail--like in anything. Rather, it's about ensuring that every team has an equal chance to succeed. That's what is sad about the San Diego scenario--that they were a good team primed to build on success, but simply didn't have the financial stability to do so. Instead, they had to tear down. Meanwhile, the Yankees and Red Sox are in a perpetual state of gobbling up everything they want. These teams have, by default, more chances to succeed and a bigger margin of error with every transaction. To me, that's not good for the game--and it's just not fair.

TheNext44
12-05-2010, 03:29 PM
I agree with your point, but think its understated. Kelly, as a top arm, has a lot more value than Alonso even if you still think Alonso is going to be a .300/.400/.500 guy in the big leagues. Lots of good 1B. Rizzo doesn't have the huge plate discipline issue to overcome that Francisco does, so he's a better bet to carry it to the majors. Rizzo is probably better than Francisco but not as good as Alonso. Chapman, Alonso and Sappelt is probably a better comp for what the Sox gave up. Fuentes doesn't have Sappelt's numbers, but he was a first round pick in A ball at 19 so its hard to read much into his stat line. I'd say the Sox gave-up a lot.

Its not so much what the Sox gave up that is so appalling. The Padres were on the verge of making the post-season and instead of building on that, they appear to be restarting. That has to be demoralizing for the SD fan base.

First, Chapman is worth more than all three prospects the Padres gave up combined. He's truely one of a kind prospect with the highest ceiling a prospect could have.

Second, Kelly projects to be a solid #2-3 starter. He's no ace. He's a low 90's sinkerballer with good control. He might be higher than Alonso, simply because he's pitcher, but not by much.

Third, Rizzo has similar contact issues as Francisco (as well as on base problems) Rizzo K'd once in every 4.9 PA's, Francisco, once in every 4.3. Francsico is worse, but both are very bad, and won't survive the majors unless addressed.

Fourth, a first rounder by the Red Sox is like a second or third rounder for a team like the Reds this past decade. Guys from #15 to #100 usually aren't that different in talent. Fuentes seems like a reach for the Red Sox, a guy with great tools, that needs to learn the game.

I like what the Padres got, I'm just trying to point out that the #1, 3 and 5 prospects from the Red Sox are not the same as the #1, 3 and 5 prospects from the Reds. Making the playoffs nearly every year vs. losing record every year will do that.

TheNext44
12-05-2010, 03:31 PM
Demoralizing, maybe. But is it really worse than deluding yourself in to thinking you had sustainable greatness on your hands. The Royals and Mariners both made that mistake in recent years and paid for it. I say kudos to the Padres for not getting caught up in 1 year's unexpected success.

I agree in the abstract, but the Padres just need to increase their payroll to a legitimate level and they can be very successful and keep guys like Gonzalez. This a case where a salary floor would be helpful.

mth123
12-05-2010, 03:52 PM
The deal fell through per MLB Trade Rumors.

RedsManRick
12-05-2010, 03:52 PM
I agree in the abstract, but the Padres just need to increase their payroll to a legitimate level and they can be very successful and keep guys like Gonzalez. This a case where a salary floor would be helpful.

Heyman is tweeting that the deal may have fallen through b/c the Red Sox couldn't come to terms with him.

cincinnati chili
12-05-2010, 04:02 PM
Demoralizing, maybe. But is it really worse than deluding yourself in to thinking you had sustainable greatness on your hands. The Royals and Mariners both made that mistake in recent years and paid for it. I say kudos to the Padres for not getting caught up in 1 year's unexpected success.

Good post. The Padres' core is not very good, especially minus Gonzalez.

blumj
12-05-2010, 05:38 PM
I agree in the abstract, but the Padres just need to increase their payroll to a legitimate level and they can be very successful and keep guys like Gonzalez. This a case where a salary floor would be helpful.
Isn't their ownership in some sort of flux or limbo or something, and there's nothing they can do until some legal thing has been resolved, sort of like the Dodgers owners' divorce but with some other twist?

Orenda
12-05-2010, 08:08 PM
There are well-run rich franchises (Yankees, Red Sox) and well-run poor franchises (Twins, Reds?). There are also poorly-run rich franchises (Dodgers, Cubs) and poorly-run poor franchises (Pirates, Royals--although the latter may be on the up and up).

In my view, it isn't so much about assessing outcomes. Sometimes the poor succeed and the rich fail--like in anything. Rather, it's about ensuring that every team has an equal chance to succeed. That's what is sad about the San Diego scenario--that they were a good team primed to build on success, but simply didn't have the financial stability to do so. Instead, they had to tear down. Meanwhile, the Yankees and Red Sox are in a perpetual state of gobbling up everything they want. These teams have, by default, more chances to succeed and a bigger margin of error with every transaction. To me, that's not good for the game--and it's just not fair.

So by your logic MLB should get rid of the draft. Obviously it's not fair that the worst teams get the opportunity to pick the best amateur talent. And why should the teams have all the power? Is it fair to the labor that they are forced to play for teams that they might not sign with if they were free agents?

What if every team starts out with an 'equal' chance to succeed but a few organizations have a habit of making good decisions and in so doing they build up their business to where they may have a bit of a competitive advantage. Under your system you would punish those teams for the years of good decisions they made by re-equalizing the playing field once again.

hebroncougar
12-05-2010, 08:31 PM
So, the deal fell through, if the Sox offered a similar deal to the Reds for Votto, would you take it?

mth123
12-05-2010, 08:53 PM
So, the deal fell through, if the Sox offered a similar deal to the Reds for Votto, would you take it?

No. Now is time to win. When the rebuild phase comes around, I'd do it.

Cedric
12-05-2010, 08:55 PM
So, the deal fell through, if the Sox offered a similar deal to the Reds for Votto, would you take it?

Not in a million years. What in the world could be worse than trading the MVP of the league right after you end a LONG playoff drought?

I wouldn't even listen on Votto. No matter what.

RedLegSuperStar
12-05-2010, 09:02 PM
A Gonzalez is a member of the Boston Red Sox.. presser tomorrow

Ghosts of 1990
12-05-2010, 09:05 PM
A Gonzalez is a member of the Boston Red Sox.. presser tomorrow

I can't find anything official.

If it is, I won't miss seeing his bat 6 times a year.

traderumor
12-05-2010, 09:13 PM
A Gonzalez is a member of the Boston Red Sox.. presser tomorrowSays who? The mlb.com link is to the deal if off story.

RedLegSuperStar
12-05-2010, 09:13 PM
I can't find anything official.

If it is, I won't miss seeing his bat 6 times a year.

Jon Heyman SI tweeted it about 15 minutes ago.. also on MLBTradeRumors.com

blumj
12-05-2010, 09:13 PM
I can't find anything official.

If it is, I won't miss seeing his bat 6 times a year.
Something must be happening, SoSH is moving at tortoise speed.

Joseph
12-05-2010, 09:30 PM
7 years, 161 million

JaxRed
12-05-2010, 09:33 PM
The deal would have to be better for Votto. Gonzales was 1 year from Free Agency

RED VAN HOT
12-05-2010, 09:52 PM
6 years, 161 million

Does this increase or decrease the possibility that Votto gets a long term deal this year?

Joseph
12-05-2010, 09:57 PM
I think it probably decreases it. Thats just an assumption of course.

Certainly won't be long term, the best we could hope would to buy out his arbitration years.

blumj
12-05-2010, 09:58 PM
I think it's 7 years, same total, $23M a year, after his current contract is up.

blumj
12-06-2010, 10:15 AM
Okay, there's no extension yet, numbers getting thrown around by the media are probably rumors or guesstimates.

I(heart)Freel
12-06-2010, 10:48 AM
Do the Pads need a young, cheap 1B who can drive the ball in those ridiculously large gaps in PetCo?

Sea Ray
12-06-2010, 11:28 AM
But they have no depth, one of the reason's they pooped out was their makeshift OF generated nothing offense wise in September, they were a pitching heavy team and a big wish. The teams prior owner unloaded a bunch of talent prior to this owners tenure, he came into a pitching heavy team without any position player depth in the middle if and the OF.

AG was going to walk, as it stands now he just had surgery, in many ways this move was because of his impending salary, but if the padres can get what the Rangers got for Texira then this is not a bad deal.

Let me see where you're coming from. Do you think the Padres did this deal because it makes them a better team or because they knew they couldn't afford him?

GullyFoyle
12-06-2010, 03:55 PM
So by your logic MLB should get rid of the draft. Obviously it's not fair that the worst teams get the opportunity to pick the best amateur talent. And why should the teams have all the power? Is it fair to the labor that they are forced to play for teams that they might not sign with if they were free agents?

What if every team starts out with an 'equal' chance to succeed but a few organizations have a habit of making good decisions and in so doing they build up their business to where they may have a bit of a competitive advantage. Under your system you would punish those teams for the years of good decisions they made by re-equalizing the playing field once again.

I apologize for jumping in on this but I'm interested in peoples responses.

It probably needs to be clarified on what levels teams should compete and what levels they shouldn't. Should the front offices be part of what makes for a successful team? (in my mind, yes) Should where a team plays and the media market it belongs to? (no, again IMO)

Making a level playing field, so the best front offices create the best teams, is everyones goal (I assume). The disparity in media income makes the possibility of this being a level playing field unlikely and finding a solution equally so.

Benihana
12-06-2010, 06:11 PM
Looks like the M's aren't completely sold on Justin Smoak, as they were a finalist for AGonz's services.

The White Sox were the other finalist, and offered up a package that included Gordon Beckham. Surprised to see the Padres preferred the Red Sox package.

kpresidente
12-07-2010, 04:29 PM
Anybody who doesn't get why many have been saying that the window for the Reds closes in a couple years and that now is the time to go for it should look at this deal and think about where the Reds will be with Votto after the 2012 season.

There's no reason to think we're going to collapse post-Votto. Chapman will be coming into his own, I imagine most of the currently too-young staff will still be together and entering their prime, Alonso (if we held onto him), Frazier, Mesoraco, Hamilton, etc. There's good players in the pipe-line who can replace that production.

Here's a hypothetical roster in 2013 minus Votto:

1B Alonso
2B Hamilton
3B Francisco/Frazier?
SS Cozart
CA Mesoraco/Grandal?
LF Frazier?
CF Stubbs
RF Bruce

SP Chapman
SP Cueto
SP Wood
SP Bailey
SP Volquez
SP Leake
SP Arroyo (final year)

Bullpen - ? who knows, but no reason to think it's going to be a problem.

That's looks like a pretty good team. The offense is a little week but I still see extra starters who could be leveraged into a bat or two, and of course you could add FAs along the way, not to mention we should be able to get a quality major-leage player or two in return for Votto.

jojo
12-07-2010, 08:24 PM
Looks like the M's aren't completely sold on Justin Smoak, as they were a finalist for AGonz's services.

That would have to be filed under the category of rumor most incongruous with reality of the offseason.

Benihana
12-07-2010, 08:34 PM
That would have to be filed under the category of rumor most incongruous with reality of the offseason.

Take it up with Mr. Nightengale.

jojo
12-07-2010, 08:41 PM
Take it up with Mr. Nightengale.

You're the one that suggested it had meaning. BTW, when did tweets become news?

Joseph
12-07-2010, 08:44 PM
You're the one that suggested it had meaning. BTW, when did tweets become news?

Don't you know if it wasn't delivered hot and fresh within 30 minutes or less its free?!?!

Wait, thats pizza.

People need it NOWNOWNOWNOW! Therefore twitter counts as news. Lots of reporters 'break' news on twitter first.

I'm still not a fan but lots of the kids these days love it.

Benihana
12-07-2010, 08:51 PM
You're the one that suggested it had meaning. BTW, when did tweets become news?

Welcome to 2010. You can read about Twitter here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twitter).

If you would like to read the report that I cited, it can be found on the website here (http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2010/12/nightengale-on-gonzalez-beckham-mariners.html).

You might need a computer and something called the Internet to log in.

jojo
12-07-2010, 08:55 PM
Don't you know if it wasn't delivered hot and fresh within 30 minutes or less its free?!?!

Wait, thats pizza.

People need it NOWNOWNOWNOW! Therefore twitter counts as news. Lots of reporters 'break' news on twitter first.

I'm still not a fan but lots of the kids these days love it.

When I was a kid tweets thought he saw a puddy cat.... now get off of my lawn.... :cool:

Treating a tweet like fact is like wind surfing next to the cliffs of dover...great view but the landing can really suck...

jojo
12-07-2010, 08:59 PM
Welcome to 2010. You can read about Twitter here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twitter).

If you would like to read the report that I cited, it can be found on the website here (http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2010/12/nightengale-on-gonzalez-beckham-mariners.html).

You might need a computer and something called the Internet to log in.

Nightengale tweeted some hard to believe statement that he didn't actually include in his USA today article.

You said this in response to his tweet:


Looks like the M's aren't completely sold on Justin Smoak, as they were a finalist for AGonz's services.

Snark is best served with substance BTW....

Benihana
12-07-2010, 09:05 PM
Snark is best served with substance BTW....

Likewise...


That would have to be filed under the category of rumor most incongruous with reality of the offseason.

jojo
12-07-2010, 09:44 PM
Likewise...

Which seems not like the others?

The Ms pass up the best hitting prospect in the game to trade Lee for a first base prospect they have coveted.

Going into the off season, it was clear the Ms would go with youth in 2011 having several position players expected to make debuts during the upcoming season-a notion that is consistent with their hiring of Eric Wedge.

The Ms big move thus far has been to trade Jose Lopez for Chaz Roe, to nontender Rowland-Smith because he thought their offer was too low, and to sign Eric Bedard to a $1M one year deal.

Armstrong is on record as indicating their budget will not increase over last season, a season in which their payroll shrank considerably from the previous year.

The hot targets of the Ms during the meetings have names like Zaun, Diaz, and Valbuena.

The Ms were in a bidding war for Adrian Gonzalez!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!

mth123
12-07-2010, 11:44 PM
There's no reason to think we're going to collapse post-Votto. Chapman will be coming into his own, I imagine most of the currently too-young staff will still be together and entering their prime, Alonso (if we held onto him), Frazier, Mesoraco, Hamilton, etc. There's good players in the pipe-line who can replace that production.

Here's a hypothetical roster in 2013 minus Votto:

1B Alonso
2B Hamilton
3B Francisco/Frazier?
SS Cozart
CA Mesoraco/Grandal?
LF Frazier?
CF Stubbs
RF Bruce

SP Chapman
SP Cueto
SP Wood
SP Bailey
SP Volquez
SP Leake
SP Arroyo (final year)

Bullpen - ? who knows, but no reason to think it's going to be a problem.

That's looks like a pretty good team. The offense is a little week but I still see extra starters who could be leveraged into a bat or two, and of course you could add FAs along the way, not to mention we should be able to get a quality major-leage player or two in return for Votto.

Pitching staff looks pretty good but Volquez and Cueto may have priced themselves out of town. Stubbs and Bruce I'll give ya assuming the Reds can still afford them (Votto won't be the only 8 figure salary by then).
Mesoraco could be pretty good. The rest of those guys are big drop-offs from the guys already playing those spots. Hamilton is the guy most likely to be able to replace Phillips, and I hope he's ready by 2013, but I'm guessing late 2014 and a couple more years struggling after that before he can fill Phillips shoes. Don't really like the guys you show for 3B and LF. Cozart will probably be serviceable as a starting SS, but he won't be a star and may need a LH counterpart if his high minors splits don't change soon. Wonder if Chapman ever finds his way back to the rotation. He seems to have fallen into the Joba syndrome. Hasn't built enough innings or gotten enough work on the secondary stuff to be viable in a contending rotation and is too good to send to AAA to get him positioned to start.

backbencher
12-08-2010, 12:17 PM
Which seems not like the others?
The Ms were in a bidding war for Adrian Gonzalez!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!

I'm not so sure that the snark is justified. Wouldn't a Gonzalez deal have been exactly like last year's deal for Lee (trade prospects for a star FA-to-be, knowing that you can flip him at the deadline)?

Perhaps the rumor was fabricated, perhaps not -- but it's not outside the Mariners' FO MO, IMO. (Yes, I had to type it that way.)

jojo
12-08-2010, 12:31 PM
I'm not so sure that the snark is justified. Wouldn't a Gonzalez deal have been exactly like last year's deal for Lee (trade prospects for a star FA-to-be, knowing that you can flip him at the deadline)?

Perhaps the rumor was fabricated, perhaps not -- but it's not outside the Mariners' FO MO, IMO. (Yes, I had to type it that way.)

But the Lee acquisition was made as part of a dice roll that they could sneak into the playoffs with a true talent 85 win team.

That's not the case this season.