I really can't say I disagree with much of anything he said here. For a couple of years now I have thought that prospects have become way over valued. After seeing the Scott Rolen trade and the benefits that good MLB players can add to a team I am even more in favor of trading prospects for proven vets. That said there is something about Wood that I would be very hesitant to trade him.2. “I would never trade that prospect for Lee.” There is so much wrong with statements like this, including that most of the people who make that statement have never even seen the minor leaguer play. There are many wonderful elements about the statistical revolution and what is available on the internet. But among the bad things is that it has made too many people feel that they know prospects who they do not really know at all.
There are too many folks who would not trade a Jesus Montero or a Wilmer Flores based on, at best, anecdotal or secondhand information.
I understand why prospects have become more valued than ever in the game. A strong feeder system is the best way to have cost containment. Also, with sterner drug testing older players have become a more risky proposition. Still, I think prospects have become over-valued. Teams are unwilling to discuss too many players in their system. They are still prospects, not sure things, while Lee is as sure as sure things get.
I know that there are all kinds of Jeff Bagwell-for-Larry Andersen nightmares that bring caution to trading prospects. But there is just as many triumphs – if not more. I remember distinctly in 1995 the Yankees’ minor league heads imploring George Steinbrenner to overrule then GM Gene Michael and not include a prospect named Marty Janzen in a trade with Toronto for David Cone. The Boss sided with Michael, the Yanks obtained Cone and went to the playoffs because of it. Does anyone remember elite prospect Marty Janzen?
Even look back at the Mets’ horrid trade of Scott Kazmir for Victor Zambrano in 2004. That deal still looks bad, though not as bad as it did originally because Kazmir has faded relatively quickly in his career from a very good starter to a dubious one. But the real problem in that trade is not that the Mets gave up a blue-chip prospect. It is that they gave up a blue-chip prospect for Victor Zambrano, a pitcher with talent they were hoping to fix once he arrived in New York.
Cliff Lee is not Victor Zambrano. He is a finished product, a sure thing, tested in every forum you could think of: postseason, NL, AL, big northeastern city, etc.
If I can trade Francisco, Alonso and a C type prospect like Valliquette for Lee, sign me up.
The Sox traded Bullfrog the only player they've got for Shottenhoffen. Four-eyes Shottenhoffen a utility infielder. They've got a whole team of utility infielders.
Even if Cliff Lee turns out to be a rental, who cares? If this team lets anybody in the minors not named Chapman stand in the way of getting Cliff Lee then my head will explode.
Redszone....I know it's been a long, long, long time since we've been able to say this but:
"Cliff Lee makes the Reds a contender for the World Series."
I cannot wrap my head around the fact that there are some here who are against trading for this man because of the loss of prospects.
"Strickland Propane... Taste the meat, not the heat." - Hank Hill
no matter if you think trading for Lee (for the discussed packages) is a good idea or not, isn't it fun for the Reds to be in serious discussions for the top trade deadline player on the market?
In 1999, Juan Guzman went 6-3 after being acquired at the deadline from the Orioles. He moved into the number one or two spot in the rotation and improved each spot below him. Most importantly he consistently saved the bullpen by going more deeply into his starts than the fifth man in the rotation. The trio of Williamson, Sullivan, and Graves had been a major factor in the Reds' successful season but were on the verge of major blowout because of overuse. The Reds would not have made it to that one game playoff if it hadn't been for Guzman and the innings he logged.
The Reds lost B.J. Ryan but at least the fans enjoyed an exciting run at the post season.
I agree and am against including Travis Wood. Alonso needs to be involved in this trade but good young affordable left handers like Wood need to be kept.Originally Posted by dougdirt
Btw, The Tampa newspaper is reporting the Rays are interested and may be dangling Upton in a three-way trade.
"I am your child from the future. I'm sorry I didn't tell you this earlier." - Dylan Easton
Francisco, Alonso, Maloney, and Frazier for Lee
Do it Walt!
"I could watch video of Griffey swinging all day. It's like baseball porn." - C. Trent Rosecrans
2008 Reds Record When I Attend: 9W - 5L
2009 Reds Record When I Attend: 1W - 2L
2010 Reds Record When I Attend: 1W - 0L
2011 Reds Record When I Attend: 0W - 1L
I'm betting we will be very surprised by who the M's get for Lee, no matter which team they trade him too, and are more likely to be underwhelmed than overwhelmed. While Lee is definitely the Belle of the Ball this trading deadline, there are a few available pitchers that could help contending teams.
"Imagination is more important than knowledge." -- Albert Einstein
wouldn't trying to get Haren be a 'buy low' move vs trying to get Lee which is clearly a 'buy high'. Plus Haren would be here for 2011-2012-2013.
Oswalt could also be had for less than Lee. One guy a bit under the radar who could be had is Greinke (owed $13.5M in 2011 & 2012). For all three of these guys their fat deals should lower the amount of talent that the Reds have to give up.
My concern with giving up a lot for Lee is that it compromises our ability to win in 2011-2012-2013. while we may get two draft picks they won't be early ones & certainly won't be as close to the bigs as the guys we give up. I personally would rather get one of the other available starters than Lee. it would help us this year & next. Giving up top talent is a bit of an 'all in' move yet their is certainly no guarantee that the team will have post season success with him.