Jump to content

CL Joe Nathan now available


Elbren

Recommended Posts

Wow. This is really sad for MLB. A single team may lose 3 of their biggest stars because they do not have an owner who will open his pockets or cannot open his pockets enough.

Perhaps we are seeing the real reason that Ryan resigned. He knew this was coming and couldn't handle the dismantling of a very successful team that he put together.

I too would imagine the brewers will be all over this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think this relates directly with the trade talks behind Johan. If they trade Santana then Nathan will also be dealt.

The Brewers would definitley be interested as would the Indians I think although who knows if the Twins would trade within the division.

I dont see the Brewers giving up a big time name to get Nathan such as Weeks or Hart.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nathan should be traded.

BTW, I disagree that it is sad.

To me, it is time to let all 3 of these guys go...The Twins can get a boatload of talent for them, rebuild quickly and perhaps be a playoff team next year if Liriano is back and dominant like he was.

Closers are overrated and giving up 5-8 year 20+ million dollar contracts to pitchers, especially ones who will be pitching most of their years well into their 30s is a mistake.

And the Hunter contract was terrible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nathan should be traded.

BTW, I disagree that it is sad.

To me, it is time to let all 3 of these guys go...The Twins can get a boatload of talent for them, rebuild quickly and perhaps be a playoff team next year if Liriano is back and dominant like he was.

Exactly, it's the action of keeping players beyond their peak trade value that's sad, enter the Orioles. People are always wondering how Oakland, Minnesota and Florida stay competitive and trading players like stocks is part of the answer, sounds harsh but it's true.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree that it was definitely time to let go off Hunter, but I do believe that it's sad that teams like the Twins or Athletics have consistently rotating rosters. Not because it's a part of some grand plan by their respective GM's but because they can't afford to pay for any of their players once they come up on arb./FA. They never seem to have players for a prolonged period of time and I doubt it helps the fanbase that they rarely have a consistent "face" of the franchise.

The only major extension that Oakland has handed out in recent memory was Eric Chavez (and I'm pretty sure they would take that back if they could). After him, they only have one player making more than $5 Mil. If the Twins do end up trading Santana and Nathan, their highest paid player (Monroe) is actually making less than $5 Mil. Yeah, if they make smart moves, they can compete within a year or two, but the truth is teams like Oakland and Minnesota can never consistently compete because they can't retain any of their top players.

Yeah, it looks nice when small market teams go deep into the playoffs, but does it really mean anything if they're basically just larger farm teams for the major clubs like Boston, New York, etc.?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree that it was definitely time to let go off Hunter, but I do believe that it's sad that teams like the Twins or Athletics have consistently rotating rosters. Not because it's a part of some grand plan by their respective GM's but because they can't afford to pay for any of their players once they come up on arb./FA. They never seem to have players for a prolonged period of time and I doubt it helps the fanbase that they rarely have a consistent "face" of the franchise.

The only major extension that Oakland has handed out in recent memory was Eric Chavez (and I'm pretty sure they would take that back if they could). After him, they only have one player making more than $5 Mil. If the Twins do end up trading Santana and Nathan, their highest paid player (Monroe) is actually making less than $5 Mil. Yeah, if they make smart moves, they can compete within a year or two, but the truth is teams like Oakland and Minnesota can never consistently compete because they can't retain any of their top players.

Yeah, it looks nice when small market teams go deep into the playoffs, but does it really mean anything if they're basically just larger farm teams for the major clubs like Boston, New York, etc.?

It is smart baseball though...Every once in a blue moon, you get a Cal Ripken type guy that you need to keep around forever.

But, generally speaking, I would make sure most of my players were gone by the time they were 32 or so.

Give them a 4-5 years extension after their 3rd or 4th service year and then be done with them...Most of the time, that will take you into the 30 year old range, give or take a few years and they will be getting to the point where decline is a possibility.

Again, their are exceptions to this but generally speaking, being able to constantly turn over your roster, have good drafts and trading guys one year to early will keep you a consistent contender.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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



×
×
  • Create New...