Patrick Bateman
04-29-2007, 05:40 PM
I posted this in the original Deno trade thread, but I'm guessing most people are sick of rummaging through it, so I thought this was worth it's own discussion:
One player that makes sense for the other PTBNL is Danny Putnam.
Now I reason this based on how strange the PTBNL seems to be in this occurence. We know the player is near major league ready, but still isn't going to be traded right now.
The fact that the player is close to being ready seems to cancel out the chance of a draft pick, and the Athletics players currently injured don't seem like logical candidates based on already being major league ready or their contract status.
So to me, it's most logically a player that the Athletics currently have a use for, and that the Reds wouldn't.
Now the Athletics currently have Milton Bradley and Mark Kotsay injured which forced them to call up Danny Putnam due to their lack of depth. My guess is that Putnam goes down when Bradley comes back in the next 3 or so weeks, but the Athletics would still be thin on OF depth which would explain why they would want to hold on to Putnam for now.
So my guess is the transaction goes down when Kotsay comes back from injury (approximately mid June). Krivsky did say that he expects the other player to be announced sometime during the summer whih does coincide with Kotsay coming back from injury.
Putnam would fit Krivsky's description of being close to major league ready. We know the player is a prospect of some assortment. Putnam is in the majors right now, but he's not really ready, but is fairly close.
As the Reds don't have a use for Putnam right now, and he's likely to spend most of his time in the minors anyway, Krivsky probably doesn't mind Putnam staying on the major league roster for the Athletics for the time being. I think McBeth was named for the reason that the Reds had a more potential use for him right now while the Athletics didn't, unlike Putnam.
IMO, Putnam is the only player that makes sense as the PTBNL. There is obviously an abnormal reason as to why the player has not been named yet and the Athletics OF situation right now is very shaky. Putnam is also the A's only OF prospect that really qualifies as being near major league ready.
In Putnam, the Reds would get a 25 year old corner outfielder. he's not very good defensively, and his bat doesn't profile to be good enough to play everyday as a corner outfielder.
He's fairly disciplined. 55-65 BB's per season should be expected out of him while also not striking out an enormous rate. Shows mediocre power (around 15-20 homer potential). In all, his bat profiles as a pretty similar overall package to Deno. Not quite the on base ability, but probably a little better power.
Here's his career minor league stats:
http://www.thebaseballcube.com/players/P/Danny-Putnam.shtml
The big downgrade is the defense. Deno can play a very solid CF, while Putnam is below average, even in LF. He compares favorably to a Gabe Gross.
I'm probably looking too much into this, but I think he's the most logical bet. If true, the trade would be adding McBeth for a downgrade in the OF. the Reds already have CF candidates in Freel and Hamilton which would make Denorfia's strong ability there unneccessary in Cincy, while the Reds would still add some good OF depth in Putnam as a really strong bench player down the road. If true, I think this would be a worthwhile trade for the Reds where the upgrade in pitching far outweighs what is lost in the OF.
Can anyone think of other logical candidates based on clues that Krivsky has given?
One player that makes sense for the other PTBNL is Danny Putnam.
Now I reason this based on how strange the PTBNL seems to be in this occurence. We know the player is near major league ready, but still isn't going to be traded right now.
The fact that the player is close to being ready seems to cancel out the chance of a draft pick, and the Athletics players currently injured don't seem like logical candidates based on already being major league ready or their contract status.
So to me, it's most logically a player that the Athletics currently have a use for, and that the Reds wouldn't.
Now the Athletics currently have Milton Bradley and Mark Kotsay injured which forced them to call up Danny Putnam due to their lack of depth. My guess is that Putnam goes down when Bradley comes back in the next 3 or so weeks, but the Athletics would still be thin on OF depth which would explain why they would want to hold on to Putnam for now.
So my guess is the transaction goes down when Kotsay comes back from injury (approximately mid June). Krivsky did say that he expects the other player to be announced sometime during the summer whih does coincide with Kotsay coming back from injury.
Putnam would fit Krivsky's description of being close to major league ready. We know the player is a prospect of some assortment. Putnam is in the majors right now, but he's not really ready, but is fairly close.
As the Reds don't have a use for Putnam right now, and he's likely to spend most of his time in the minors anyway, Krivsky probably doesn't mind Putnam staying on the major league roster for the Athletics for the time being. I think McBeth was named for the reason that the Reds had a more potential use for him right now while the Athletics didn't, unlike Putnam.
IMO, Putnam is the only player that makes sense as the PTBNL. There is obviously an abnormal reason as to why the player has not been named yet and the Athletics OF situation right now is very shaky. Putnam is also the A's only OF prospect that really qualifies as being near major league ready.
In Putnam, the Reds would get a 25 year old corner outfielder. he's not very good defensively, and his bat doesn't profile to be good enough to play everyday as a corner outfielder.
He's fairly disciplined. 55-65 BB's per season should be expected out of him while also not striking out an enormous rate. Shows mediocre power (around 15-20 homer potential). In all, his bat profiles as a pretty similar overall package to Deno. Not quite the on base ability, but probably a little better power.
Here's his career minor league stats:
http://www.thebaseballcube.com/players/P/Danny-Putnam.shtml
The big downgrade is the defense. Deno can play a very solid CF, while Putnam is below average, even in LF. He compares favorably to a Gabe Gross.
I'm probably looking too much into this, but I think he's the most logical bet. If true, the trade would be adding McBeth for a downgrade in the OF. the Reds already have CF candidates in Freel and Hamilton which would make Denorfia's strong ability there unneccessary in Cincy, while the Reds would still add some good OF depth in Putnam as a really strong bench player down the road. If true, I think this would be a worthwhile trade for the Reds where the upgrade in pitching far outweighs what is lost in the OF.
Can anyone think of other logical candidates based on clues that Krivsky has given?