Jump to content

Q & A with MacPhail


8ripken2131

Recommended Posts

Why would you trade for something if you can sign it w/o giving up picks AND you have extra salary available? By definition, you have to trade something of value to get something of value. If we can pick up enough relief pitching via trades to make it unneccessary to sign relievers, fine, but I'd much rather pick up hitting and starting pitching via trades. They would be my first and second priority.

Well, trading Tejada could net a reliever.

Hernandez could net a good reliever.

I would also trade next to nothing to get Farnsworth.

Perhaps Millar, Mora and some of the others could bring good relievers back.

NOTE: I am not saying these guys should only be traded for relievers or that is all we can or will get back for them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 317
  • Created
  • Last Reply

I appreciate that the insiders want to be as cryptic as they can and for understandable reasons. However, in doing so we open this topic up to follow-up questions and a big guessing game, and the next thing you know we have a three-hundred post topic. As such, I'd respectfully ask for the insiders to put as much on the table as they reasonably can, so we don't have the incessant back and forth in a game of Clue. Thereafter we can assume that if the insiders didn't mention it, we need to respect it's not for public discussion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So what you are saying is don't give Trembley what he asked for.

I agree that Jones looks more likely to go back to the Tiger with Zumaya injury. Boy was that a big mistake.

If he asking for relievers who can only get out lefties but struggle versus righties then yes, that is what i am saying.

That was a problem with BRadford this year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well this is at least the second time BB has brought up Bay, so I guess we have to think that's a real possibility and start making some fantasy teams with him included. I'd rather not trade much young talent for him, it depends on what it takes to get him, like Penn, his value has fallen a lot, so maybe we can get a bargain with him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The relievers better be throw ins. There is no way at all I want to waste any of the primary value received in trade on relievers. That is just no a smart way to go IMO.

There is no way I would trade Hernandez (or anyone else with any value) for a reliever as the primary return unless it is someone really, really good and really, really established.

Would you trade Ramon for Heilman??

You don't think guys like Marmol or Wuertz should be part of the Miggy deal?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not sure I understand trading a very young Penn who had very good numbers in his healthy time at AAA.

Not sure about trading Liz unless a lot of people don't believe his mechanics can be fixed and with his young age that seems unlikely.

Cant figure out who the four pitchers would be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, I'd rather sign someone and trade him for something harder to find. Ramon is worth more than an above average reliever

Only if they are the secondary/tertiary parts of the trade AND we've can't get a starter/position player as the secondary/tertiary parts.

I've got no problem is throwing in relievers to "round out" a trade, but I don't think most relievers represent enough of a value to be the primary components coming back for our precious resources if we trade them. There are exceptions of course, but not a lot of them and the exceptions tend to be overvalued IMO.

I agree with a lot of what you are saying...Disagree about Ramon/Heilman though.

Also, i like the idea of going after guys with good peripherals, signed to more expensive contracts, that you could get cheaply...Put them in the closers role, inflate the save column and thus, their trade value.

People like Farnsworth and Dempster come to mind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I appreciate that the insiders want to be as cryptic as they can and for understandable reasons. However, in doing so we open this topic up to follow-up questions and a big guessing game, and the next thing you know we have a three-hundred post topic. As such, I'd respectfully ask for the insiders to put as much on the table as they reasonably can, so we don't have the incessant back and forth in a game of Clue. Thereafter we can assume that if the insiders didn't mention it, we need to respect it's not for public discussion.

Good point.

So, the player we're getting back, is he bigger than a breadbox? (this will help rule out M. Cabrera!)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




×
×
  • Create New...