Jump to content

Churchill's latest - M's don't want to trade Jones?


JTrea81

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 110
  • Created
  • Last Reply
The Bedard and Roberts trades tie in together so much, because like someone said, if we got Pie, we could take a Balentien et al package for Bedard.

It's too bad St. Louis doesn't have a couple better prospects to send with Rasmus. I don't think anything short of Rasmus, Wainwright, and a 3rd prospect could even start discussions.

I dont get it ! We have Scott & Markakis to play on the Left & Right. So we would essentially be trading a blue chip & CF Jones for a 4th OF or LF platoon w/ Scott. I dont like it!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I dont get it ! We have Scott & Markakis to play on the Left & Right. So we would essentially be trading a blue chip & CF Jones for a 4th OF or LF platoon w/ Scott. I dont like it!

Rasmus and Pie are both CF. Balentien is at least a year or two away, and Scott might be nice to have now, but is 28 and will be coming up on FA before we know it. Besides, if people developed how they are supposed to, we would have some trade chips for later too!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Question - I see this thread was started at 4:10. I can't get to Prospect Insider right now to check, but in his chat which began at 1:00 on ESPN.COM, Keith Law said Jones and the Mariners being unsure about his availability was the hold up in the trade. However, Law said he was also "out of the loop" for a week because of a vacation. IS this suspicious? I don't know anything about Churchill and his site. If he is beyond posting something from a chat as insider info, I sincerely apologize. Just asking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Question - I see this thread was started at 4:10. I can't get to Prospect Insider right now to check, but in his chat which began at 1:00 on ESPN.COM, Keith Law said Jones and the Mariners being unsure about his availability was the hold up in the trade. However, Law said he was also "out of the loop" for a week because of a vacation. IS this suspicious? I don't know anything about Churchill and his site. If he is beyond posting something from a chat as insider info, I sincerely apologize. Just asking.

I don't understand what you're asking............ why would that be suspicious?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't understand what you're asking............ why would that be suspicious?

Nobody seems to have heard anything about Jones being unavailable. Then, on ESPN at 1 - Law says a week ago I heard that Jones was the holdup. Then, at 4:00 this thread started. I'm asking- is Churchill posting admittedly week old info from Law as new info?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nobody seems to have heard anything about Jones being unavailable. Then, on ESPN at 1 - Law says a week ago I heard that Jones was the holdup. Then, at 4:00 this thread started. I'm asking- is Churchill posting admittedly week old info from Law as new info?

Laws info was from before Jones was even pulled from winterball...by his own admission

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The first post in this thread is from Jason Churchill, not Keith Law...

I am aware this thread started because of a Churchill post. But, the thread didn't start until 4. I was wondering if info in Laws chat from 1 could've been used by Churchill. If Churchill first posted after Laws chat - this could be old info - Law said his info about Jones was from a week ago.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

After exchanging emails with a person connected to the trade discussions between the Baltimore Orioles and the Seattle Mariners, I've learned that maybe the reason a deal has not been consummated is not what we've been led to believe up to this point.

Thus far it's appeared that the Orioles' demand for either Brandon Morrow, Carlos Triunfel or even Chris Tillman to be included may have held a deal up for the past few weeks. But perhaps that's not true, says the source.

"It's Adam Jones. I don't think they (Seattle) are sure about giving him up."

The two clubs are apparently keeping the lines of communication open, but no deal is imminent.

http://prospectinsider.com/2008/01/14/bedard-jones-update/

You've got to be kidding me? Why are we even bothering with Seattle then? :rolleyes:

Great question. If they are balking at Jones then stop wasting time with the MARINERS. Let them keep him and they will finish 10 games behind the Angels. We will finish 20 games behind the world but at least we will not have given Bedard away.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At this point, it's really hard to believe anything I read anymore. I'm just waiting for a press conference. When I see something confirmed in The Sun, then I'll believe it.

I don't see anything but speculation in the blog JTrea posted. If you guys think he's clued in, God bless ya.

In my first response to all this I said I dont believe it & I still dont. The Mariners are said to really want EB therefore it would be stupid to say Jones is the deal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know this is kind of off the wall, but in light of this info (Jones not included in M's offer) does this lend any credibility to the rumors of Gibbons being included that were going on in other threads? Could AM's position be that if Jones is not included we can still accept other packages (Morrow/Balentin/Tillman/Triunfel, etc) but you have to take our most unmoveable part of the roster back with Bedard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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


×
×
  • Create New...