Rumor: Yankees interested in trading for Castillo.

[MikeS21]

LOL if we're going to go there they definitely should have traded Casey instead in a heartbeat

Oh I dunno. Perhaps they should have traded both Casey and Konerko, and hung on to Roberto Petagine.

[corkedbat]

This thread has nothing to do with Luis Castillo or the Yankees....

Luis was the first to welcome Puig to the clubhouse when he arrived.

Better?

[klw]

This thread has nothing to do with Luis Castillo or the Yankees....

Yankees may be in the lead to pickup Jameson Taillon from the Pirates
https://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2021/...the-block.html

10:45 pm: A trade does appear to be on the horizon, potentially as soon as tomorrow, per Jason Mackey (via Twitter). By all accounts, nothing has been finalized. The Pirates are said to be looking for high-ceiling prospects, even if that means taking players who are further away from reaching the Majors.

8:45 pm: The Yankees are indeed one of the teams talking to the Pirates about Taillon, tweets MLB Insider Jon Heyman. MLB.com’s Mark Feinsand (via Twitter) goes as far as to say they “appear to be emerging as the frontrunner.” The Yankees are not the only team involved, however, as the Pirates have offers from multiple teams, adds Jason Mackey of PGSportsNow. Taillon has two years of control remaining.

[Ron Madden]

C. Trent Rosecrans
@ctrent
Source: Jamison Taillon is not Luis Castillo

C. Trent Trolls Yankee fans

[bm1475]

It's 2021 and I am still waiting for Casey's power to develop like Leatherpants said it would...

[REDREAD]

No. The question was if he was a “throw-in” or not. You are moving the goal posts.

I think we are misunderstanding what the debate is about.
Some people say that the Homer-Puig trade was a good one, because if we didn't have Puig, we wouldn't have been able to get Bauer. If I understand correctly, their statement is "No Puig, No Bauer" -- there was no one else in the Reds organization that the Reds could have included to acquire Bauer. Maybe the word "Throw in" was used (I don't want to look back through the whole argument), but I think the context was that Puig was not the "KEY" piece Cleveland wanted, and they would have accepted someone else possibly.. like perhaps Winker, Greene, or another interesting player/prospect on the Reds.
Would that have made the trade less appealing to the Reds? Of course, but the trade still could have been worked out.

Therefore, the argument that the Puig-Homer trade was good because it led to Bauer is a false narrative. The Homer-Puig trade was a disaster.

I am not going to debate it anymore, but I wanted to clarify what the original point I was trying to make. I don't want to speak for others on the same side of me, but I believe they are trying to make the same point.

[REDREAD]

Ok, so, the logic here is that the Cleveland Indians. Perhaps the most infamously cheap teams in all of professional sports, added a not-cheap contract and batted him clean-up, just to get Reyes and Allen? The team that was 1 game out first place in their division and had a 91 wRC+ among all of their OF? Like, this is the thought?

In real life if the Indians didn’t need to add a salary they ABSOLUTELY would not have. It is the cleveland Indians for goodness sake.

Bauer made more money than Puig, Indians saved cash the year the trade was made (2019). They did not add salary.
They also saved paying Bauer's salary in 2020.

[RedTeamGo!]

I think we are misunderstanding what the debate is about.
Some people say that the Homer-Puig trade was a good one, because if we didn't have Puig, we wouldn't have been able to get Bauer. If I understand correctly, their statement is "No Puig, No Bauer" -- there was no one else in the Reds organization that the Reds could have included to acquire Bauer. Maybe the word "Throw in" was used (I don't want to look back through the whole argument), but I think the context was that Puig was not the "KEY" piece Cleveland wanted, and they would have accepted someone else possibly.. like perhaps Winker, Greene, or another interesting player/prospect on the Reds.
Would that have made the trade less appealing to the Reds? Of course, but the trade still could have been worked out.

Therefore, the argument that the Puig-Homer trade was good because it led to Bauer is a false narrative. The Homer-Puig trade was a disaster.

I am not going to debate it anymore, but I wanted to clarify what the original point I was trying to make. I don't want to speak for others on the same side of me, but I believe they are trying to make the same point.

People are saying “at least we got Bauer as a result”

That’s it.

[JFLegal]

oh wait, none of you are changing each other's minds on this issue? i'm shocked.

guess what, no one will be changing their mind on this issue. if you for some reason (incorrectly) believe that puig was a big piece of the bauer trade, no one is going to change your mind.

likewise, if you (correctly) believe that puig was a glorified throw-in and the two players the indians really wanted in the deal were franmil reyes and logan allen, no one is going to change your mind.

have fun going in circles, gents!

[KronoRed]

LOL if we're going to go there they definitely should have traded Casey instead in a heartbeat

The problem there is the White Sox didn't want Casey.

[backbencher]

oh wait, none of you are changing each other's minds on this issue? i'm shocked.

guess what, no one will be changing their mind on this issue. if you for some reason (incorrectly) believe that puig was a big piece of the bauer trade, no one is going to change your mind.

likewise, if you (correctly) believe that puig was a glorified throw-in and the two players the indians really wanted in the deal were franmil reyes and logan allen, no one is going to change your mind.

True, it is a classic debate.

One side:
Here are five articles from spring training describing how the Indians will be shopping all year for a power-hitting right fielder.
Here are six articles specifically linking the Indians with Puig.
Here is an article predicting a Bauer-for-Puig/Trammel trade.
Here is the actual deal.
Here are four articles in which the Indians front office or manager describe how they were seeking help for the stretch run.
Here are Indians post-trade batting Puig cleanup and playing in RF, in a playoff race, while Reyes bats sixth, or seventh, or even eighth exclusively as a DH.

The other side:
The early-season articles don't matter because reasons.
The pre-deadline links to Puig don't matter because reasons.
The front office and manager's comments on adding talent for the stretch run don't matter because reasons.
For the stretch run, the Indians were more interested in adding the DH they sometimes batted #8 rather than the RF they batted cleanup from day one.
What really matters is that I can totally imagine a world in which the Indians would have taken Phil Ervin instead of a meh Puig. Or taken "prospects." Or taken some unnamed outfielder that was not on the Reds, but the Reds maybe could or would have signed and also wanted to trade.

[757690]

True, it is a classic debate.

One side:
Here are five articles from spring training describing how the Indians will be shopping all year for a power-hitting right fielder.
Here are six articles specifically linking the Indians with Puig.
Here is an article predicting a Bauer-for-Puig/Trammel trade.
Here is the actual deal.
Here are four articles in which the Indians front office or manager describe how they were seeking help for the stretch run.
Here are Indians post-trade batting Puig cleanup and playing in RF, in a playoff race, while Reyes bats sixth, or seventh, or even eighth exclusively as a DH.

The other side:
The early-season articles don't matter because reasons.
The pre-deadline links to Puig don't matter because reasons.
The front office and manager's comments on adding talent for the stretch run don't matter because reasons.
For the stretch run, the Indians were more interested in adding the DH they sometimes batted #8 rather than the RF they batted cleanup from day one.
What really matters is that I can totally imagine a world in which the Indians would have taken Phil Ervin instead of a meh Puig. Or taken "prospects." Or taken some unnamed outfielder that was not on the Reds, but the Reds maybe could or would have signed and also wanted to trade.

The other side could literally do exactly what you just did: List all the evidence on their side, then list all the evidence on the your side and mock them by adding “because reasons.”

All this posts adds is a re-enforcement that no side will convince the other.

[JFLegal]

True, it is a classic debate.

One side:
Here are five articles from spring training describing how the Indians will be shopping all year for a power-hitting right fielder.
Here are six articles specifically linking the Indians with Puig.
Here is an article predicting a Bauer-for-Puig/Trammel trade.
Here is the actual deal.
Here are four articles in which the Indians front office or manager describe how they were seeking help for the stretch run.
Here are Indians post-trade batting Puig cleanup and playing in RF, in a playoff race, while Reyes bats sixth, or seventh, or even eighth exclusively as a DH.

The other side:
The early-season articles don't matter because reasons.
The pre-deadline links to Puig don't matter because reasons.
The front office and manager's comments on adding talent for the stretch run don't matter because reasons.
For the stretch run, the Indians were more interested in adding the DH they sometimes batted #8 rather than the RF they batted cleanup from day one.
What really matters is that I can totally imagine a world in which the Indians would have taken Phil Ervin instead of a meh Puig. Or taken "prospects." Or taken some unnamed outfielder that was not on the Reds, but the Reds maybe could or would have signed and also wanted to trade.

wrong.

[see how easy that is? did i change your mind?]

[backbencher]

The other side could literally do exactly what you just did: List all the evidence on their side, then list all the evidence on the your side and mock them by adding “because reasons.”

All this posts adds is a re-enforcement that no side will convince the other.

No, you couldn't. That's the point. There is no evidence that the Indians were targeting anyone other than Puig. There is no evidence that the Indians even asked about any Reds player other than Puig. There is no evidence that the Indians wanted "prospects" from the Reds rather than to load up for the stretch run. There is no evidence that the Indians approached the Padres before the Reds. There is no evidence that the Padres rejected Bauer. There is no evidence that the Indians were more focused on the #6 or #8-hitting DH for the stretch run than they were on Puig.

No one on the "other side" can even come up with a RH power hitting OF that fit what the Indians needed for their lineup. Ervin? Wasn't going to happen. Suarez? Same, but for different reasons. Who else could the Reds offer?

If you are going to play the alternate-reality game, you have to either cite sources/real-world events that are the foundation for your new reality, or, at a minimum, describe an alternate reality that makes sense.

Here's a start: You propose that we should disbelieve the national press, the Indians press, the Indians front office and the Indians manager in assessing whether the Indians were after Puig. So - what source is valid? What evidence should I be looking at?

[JFLegal]

No, you couldn't. That's the point. There is no evidence that the Indians were targeting anyone other than Puig. There is no evidence that the Indians even asked about any Reds player other than Puig. There is no evidence that the Indians wanted "prospects" from the Reds rather than to load up for the stretch run. There is no evidence that the Indians approached the Padres before the Reds. There is no evidence that the Padres rejected Bauer. There is no evidence that the Indians were more focused on the #6 or #8-hitting DH for the stretch run than they were on Puig.

No one on the "other side" can even come up with a RH power hitting OF that fit what the Indians needed for their lineup. Ervin? Wasn't going to happen. Suarez? Same, but for different reasons. Who else could the Reds offer?

If you are going to play the alternate-reality game, you have to either cite sources/real-world events that are the foundation for your new reality, or, at a minimum, describe an alternate reality that makes sense.

Here's a start: You propose that we should disbelieve the national press, the Indians press, the Indians front office and the Indians manager in assessing whether the Indians were after Puig. So - what source is valid? What evidence should I be looking at?

nope, everything you said was wrong.