Hamilton and Cueto for Garza not a chance in hell i would be ok with that.
Hamilton and Cueto for Garza not a chance in hell i would be ok with that.
I wouldn't trade either one straight up for Garza.
Anyway, moot point. I was wrong, the Twins will not sign Santana, but trade him. That means they are not listening to offers on any of their other pitchers.
BTW, with all this talk about acquiring Garza or Snell, or Olsen, why would the Reds want more unproven talent when they already have Bailey and Cueto? Either acquire a real proven #1, just because it is so hard to get one, or some inning eaters for the back of the rotation without giving up much. The Reds already have enough guys in between that.
I think a Hamilton for Garza trade could be accepted. There is no way I could ever see Wayne trading both Hamilton and Cueto for Garza. As far as I know, Garza is still on the trading block. I would appreciate any information to the contrary.
From MLB.com Hot Stove Report
http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?...2007&fext=.jsp
Twins: If Santana indeed is expected to be pitching elsewhere next season, it may be time to throw some dirt on a rumor "that won't die," according to the St. Paul Pioneer Press -- Matt Garza to Tampa Bay for outfielder Delmon Young. The Twins wouldn't be looking to move any other starting pitchers -- even for a runner-up in the 2007 American League Rookie of the Year voting.
"the next Mickey Mantle" for a #3 pitcher (prospect) ... I can't stomach it ... I hope WK has his sights set higher in exchange for Hamilton (or keeping him would be fine too)Originally Posted by AmarilloRed
ugh, Ian Snell is not unproven, and I am tired of him being lumped in the same class as Matt Garza... Snell is also an innings eater by the way, with 208 innings last year in 32 starts (6.5 innings per start)...
I've never heard Hamilton being compared to Mickey Mantle before. Pretty bold statement right there. In Mantle's career he had health problems but he was still a great player. Hamilton might go down the same path but I don't think he'd put up as good of numbers as Mickey did.
Yep. I give this guy up only for return value, and that's the way it is supposed to work. I got something you need, you got something I need. The Reds have some throw-ins that could be deal closers, but unless they get return value, Hamilton starts in CF, 3/31/08. Reds brought him this far, no need to give him up for a song and a dance. It was a roll of the dice that shows extreme promise. I don't care about injuries or fragility. The Reds are the organization that showcased his ability to be something special,----in the Big Leagues. They deserve something of equal value in return if they trade him, like a true #2-3 pitcher.
I'll give you that. He is better than Garza, and he has gotten better every year. Still not in Bedard's, Kazmir's or Santana's class yet, though.
He's also a flyball pitcher who gives up his share of homers.
Still, if he can be had without giving up one of the big four, he would be a nice addition.
Good information. It does leave the door open in the case that Santana is not traded; even though that seems a remote possibility with the large gulf that exists between Santana and the Twins in negotiations.
I would offer the Royals Josh Hamilton and see if I could get Greinke. The Royals are DYING for an OF with power, although they prefer a right handed bat. The Reds need a good starter in the worst way. Both players come with significant risks but both have significant talent as well. It just makes sense for both teams.
The only thing Hamilton and Mantle have in common is they are/were addicts.
When I see the 2016 Reds, I see a 100 loss team and no direction.
Yeah, Mantle would have been the greatest player in baseball history had he been able to stay healthy. Hamilton has some great potential but lets not go overboard.
Whoever wants to know the heart and mind of America had better learn baseball - Jacques Barzun
Well - I'm not the 1st one to make that comparison..I've read it several times in several places .. but really it's just in light spirit.
I do feel, however, that Josh Hamilton has as much potential to be a superstar than Bailey or Bruce ... I'm not so sure why everyone says "Bruce is untouchable" but Hamilton is not ... it's evidently the drug issue, because the injury issue is not a valid one considering the man had set on his bum for 4 years (or whatever) and then tried to play a whole year's worth of baseball.. I'll give him another year before I say he's injury-prone... it's not like the guy is Freel or something and is diving into walls.. I think that "injury-prone" isn't fair. So, the real issue is .. will he relapse into drug use... I think those chances are slim.. the kid seems devoted and has everything to lose plus he's drug tested like what was it 3 times a week, so there would be immediate consequences if he did use ... so, I don't thinks that a legitimate concern either. Josh Hamilton is "the natural" and I will sweat him putting up huge numbers for other teams much more than I would seeing Bailey do it.
I agree w/ an earlier poster - I'm glued to the TV when Josh comes to bat. He's amazing.
And if he didnt drink to excess.
When I see the 2016 Reds, I see a 100 loss team and no direction.
Posting Permissions
|
Board Moderators may, at their discretion and judgment, delete and/or edit any messages that violate any of the following guidelines: 1. Explicit references to alleged illegal or unlawful acts. 2. Graphic sexual descriptions. 3. Racial or ethnic slurs. 4. Use of edgy language (including masked profanity). 5. Direct personal attacks, flames, fights, trolling, baiting, name-calling, general nuisance, excessive player criticism or anything along those lines. 6. Posting spam. 7. Each person may have only one user account. It is fine to be critical here - that's what this board is for. But let's not beat a subject or a player to death, please. |
