Lone Star Ball: An SB Nation Community

Navigation: Jump to content areas:

Trading Millwood

732906189457a09115a574_tiny by Excel Hearts Choi on

Over at MLBTR, Tim (the site maintainer) posits a trade possibility regarding the Braves.  It seems that Smoltz will be moving to the bullpen once he comes off the DL, so Atlanta will need some help with the rotation.  Tim mentions two minor league pitchers who could step into the rotation, but feels that the Braves need an inning eater.  He thinks Blanton or Millwood would be an ideal fit for Atlanta.  To be clear, there were no links provided to suggest that beat writers have heard any rumors about a trade for either pitcher, this is just pure speculation on the part of MLBTR.

I am not really interested in what MLBTR has to say about Atlanta, but I am interested in the idea that it would be in the best interest of the Rangers to trade Millwood.  Next season, the Rangers plan on bringing up some young pitchers.  Like it or not, they will be limited as to how much they can pitch in their first full season in the majors.  Added to that is the fact that McCarthy has missed a fair amount of time due to injuries, and Gabbard has spent some time on the DL as well.  It seems like the Rangers too will need an innings eater for 2009.  Millwood could easily pitch 200 or more innings of above average baseball.  Padilla, however, has reached at least 200 innings three times in his career, but he has just as many season of less than 150 innings pitched.

Would the prospects that Millwood could bring back in a trade this season offset the need for an innings eater for next season?

0 recs | Comment 95 comments

Story-email Email | Print |

Comments

Display:

I said this before

we’re going to get a hullevalot of good prospects back for him…

To answer your question, yes…

just got ownaged

by Longhorn on May 1, 2008 10:08 AM CDT   0 recs

Of course it depends on the return.

I have stated elsewhere that we undervalue Millwood and Padilla. The Rangers currently do noy have anyone to pick up those innings.

Max Ramirez 2008 Texas Rangers ROY

by RangerMad on May 1, 2008 10:24 AM CDT   0 recs

Upper Level Value

I think JD will get beat up by the media if doesn’t get a major league player in the deal for Millwood if that were to happen. By that I mean someone who is ready to play from day one. So what I’m saying is the return would have to bring a starter in some form back. I think everyone is getting tired of hearing about how stacked the minor league system is. I think they want results now.

by OKC Ranger Fan on May 1, 2008 10:28 AM CDT to parent up   0 recs

I don't think that JD

gives a flying eff what the media thinks.

I’m not tired of hearing how stacked our minor league system is, i like it, i hope it gets better. 2010-11, not 2008.

just got ownaged

by Longhorn on May 1, 2008 10:32 AM CDT to parent up   0 recs

+1

Right around the time all the young talent is ready to contend is when the organization will realize that Ron Washington is the wrong man for the job.

by Chad Crudup on May 1, 2008 10:59 AM CDT to parent up   0 recs

FSN

must pipe in minor league games to your house.

Please forgive any and all typos, mispellings, etc.
Your kindess in this matter is appreciated.

by red shoe ranger on May 1, 2008 11:39 AM CDT to parent up   0 recs

yeah, the media is an extension of the fans

and you know they are worried about attendance. so you may not give a crap about it, but it’s obvious Tom Hicks and Nolan Ryan do. Poor play on the field = less support. So yes, JD needs to bring in a MLB ready player.

by OKC Ranger Fan on May 1, 2008 11:40 AM CDT to parent up   0 recs

Millwood needs to be moved

Definitely, yes, he needs to be moved but unless we are blown away with an offer right now we would be best served waiting until the market develops a little more. The longer you wait the more teams you might be able to get involved and drive the price up.

My only worry about trading Millwood to the Braves is that didn’t we drain most of their best-looking guys last season with the Teixeira/Mahay trade? Their best prospect left is Jordan Shaeffer who is suspended for using ‘roids and then bragging about it publicly. I don’t know that they have enough left to get a Millwood deal done.

"We live, we die, and the wheels on the bus go round and round." - Tony Romo

by kentbenfer on May 1, 2008 11:01 AM CDT   0 recs

Heyward

MLBTR says Jason Heyward is their best prospect, for what it is worth.

by Excel Hearts Choi on May 1, 2008 11:11 AM CDT to parent up   0 recs

Heyward is their best non-suspended prospect

but he was a 2008 draft pick so he would have to be a player to be named later. Their top overall prospect is Jordan Schafer, who is currently suspended for 50 games for taking HGH. I don’t know too much about their pitching prospects, but Tommy Hanson was one of the guys I hoped we got last year for Tex and he is currently dominating High A.

by uthornfan on May 1, 2008 3:18 PM CDT to parent up   0 recs

I agree with you EHC

I often wonder about the sentiment that says we should trade Millwood. You can’t have a team of all rookies, especially in your pitching staff. It puts too much strain on other aspects of the game (relief pitching, etc).

Obviously, you can be bolwed over by an offer. But why would anyone offer that much for a pitcher like Millwood?

by GhettoBear04 on May 1, 2008 11:09 AM CDT   0 recs

Millwood

Unless the Rangers were totally blown away by an offer, I think trading Millwood would be a really bad idea. That is, unless the team has given up on even trying to compete at all until 2011 or 2012.

But that river of tears has dried for all of us.

by trza on May 1, 2008 11:19 AM CDT   0 recs

I agree

the Rangers shouldn’t be looking to trade Millwood for the sake of trading Millwood. If something ridiculous came along (e.g., the Yankees think they have to have him because their rotation is in shambles and they will give us Hughes or Joba), then you answer the phone. But you have to get a major league ready piece who will likely be better than Millwood in a year or two in return. At least if you trade him half-way through that contract.

If in a year or two the Rangers cannot compete, its a different story.

by JBImaknee on May 1, 2008 12:06 PM CDT to parent up   0 recs

Next year's rotation

If you trade Millwood, then in a best case scenario you have:

Padilla
McCarthy
Gabbard
Hurley
Harrison/Mendoza/Rupe/Murray/Mathis/Feldman

Barring a significant FA signing, I wouldn’t be terribly comfortable with such a rotation considering that the Top 3 in that list could implode at moment’s notice. Do you really want the Mad Panamanian headlining your staff?

by robert_d_wilfong on May 1, 2008 11:42 AM CDT   0 recs

what

about possible free agent signings?

"Then, like a**holes, they took it back." -Jeff of Lookout Landing after Hamilton's 9th inning HR on April 1st.

by dstar442005 on May 1, 2008 4:53 PM CDT to parent up   0 recs

oliver perez

cc sabathia
ben sheets

but mainly oliver perez. yay, rangers win!

but, its going to be hard to project who’s available this early on

Rare Gnats Sex

by ab03 on May 1, 2008 5:13 PM CDT to parent up   0 recs

CC Sabathia

Ben Sheets

"Then, like a**holes, they took it back." -Jeff of Lookout Landing after Hamilton's 9th inning HR on April 1st.

by dstar442005 on May 1, 2008 5:40 PM CDT to parent up   0 recs

Well...

you also have to consider that if you deal Millwood you would have to be overwhelmed right now because his contract looks pretty good.

That said, you would have to get a young pitcher back who could step into the rotation as well. For the Rangers to deal Millwood they should look for a return like what the A’s got for Haren. That may be a little optimistic, but unless you get that kind of deal I think you hold onto him and keep him at the top of your rotation for the next couple years.

"The only good is knowledge and the only evil is ignorance."-Socrates

by slc ranger on May 1, 2008 11:49 PM CDT to parent up   0 recs

you got it all wrong, Salt...

...according to DouchebatM3… this team needs another outfielder.

ANOTHER outfielder.

young quality pitchers… pffttt… those guys fall off trees

by oc on May 2, 2008 12:09 AM CDT to parent up   0 recs

Why are people such idiots

look you leaky vagina, my contention is that talent is talent, especially for a team that’s lacking it in several areas. If you improve your pitching by getting a young guy, that’s great, but if you improve it by getting a guy that can field, hit and will hit his prime in line with the rest of your pitchers? that’s even better. Colby Rasmus is just a name I saw, that I thought would be able to help this team. Seriously, are you saying that we may only target pitchers because that’s what we’re lacking right now?

Irrespective of what our system’s strengths are? Irrespective of the degree of talent we’re getting in return? The point is this, right now, if you can get a high impact talent for Millwood, I’d say do it, since I think of all our veterans, he’s the guy with the most value on the market and he’s the guy that’s most imminently replacable in the future. If you can get a guy like David Price for him, well by all means do it too. It’s not the outfielder that’s the point of contention, it’s the talent.

I am a firm believer that you never turn down the deal that gets you greater talent in favor of need. You make the deal with the highest upside, especially for a team in dire need of talent. I like guys like Murphy and Boggs, but if you DO get a guy like Rasmus (which is very hypothetical at this point), you do it because the difference between Boggs and Rasmus in terms of future impact is far, far greater than the difference between a guy like Millwood and a pitcher like Hurley. I’m not saying “get an outfielder”, I’m saying “get an impact talent.” If I thought someone might give up a Clay Bucholz or a Phil Hughs for Millwood, I’d be screaming to get him too. But you know, not every team is a fit and pitching prospects are very over-valued right now, that’s the only reason that I threw the name Rasmus out there, because he’s the best value, regardless of what position he plays.

And so far, beyond your endless stream of annoying little truisms, I have failed to see you’ve proven me wrong. Does any team actually trade for need vs. trade for the best talent? Isn’t that why deals like the one with Hamilton vs. Volquez was made? because we think we got the best talent? Isn’t that why we swung the deal for Saltalamacchia rather than the one for Joe Saunders offered by the Angels?

But whatever, keep doing your wufdog impression, and keep spewing these inane truisms punctuated by random profanities. Keep doing that until you officially become this blog’s version of Jim Reeves. And after you do that give yourself a nice old salt wash cause you’ll officially be the biggest douche ever to post on LSB.

by FirebatM3 on May 2, 2008 12:26 AM CDT to parent up   0 recs

juicebox = leaky vagina

...at least we’re on the same page there.

by oc on May 2, 2008 1:43 AM CDT to parent up   0 recs

lemme put it this way...

...a very bad pitching staff cannot afford to trade it’s one solid ace for a positional player.

any trade for Millwood would NECESSITATE an arm coming back in return. it is a trade based on NEED FIRST… because it puts a stranglehold on an already maligned rotation…

if it’s a stud pitching prospect, great. if it’s a generic back-of-the-rotation starter, fine.

if it’s some touted outfielder, who hasn’t been all that impressive this year anyway… you hang up the phone. why?

because if you trade your best pitcher, you are left with very few options to replace him in the rotation.

would you like me to teach you the alphabet, while we’re at it?

by oc on May 2, 2008 2:34 AM CDT to parent up   0 recs

When your best pitcher

is a guy who’s good for about a 4.00 ERA during most years and a guy who’s getting up there in age, it’s not that difficult to replace that production, especially considering what we’re getting back. And I think it’s pretty inane to declare that we can’t replace him when we do have decent options in the high minors, and even more so when you account for the fact that when we’re ready to compete, Millwood will probably not even be the best starter on the team. Heck, he might not even be the best starter right now.

If you have an OF that is made up of say Hamilton-Rasmus-Murphy, that’s a much better combination than Hamilton-Boggs-Murphy. I don’t know of any other way to explain it, so take that for what it will.

And yeah, you’re right, you’re not so much of a leaky vagina as you are a sandy vagina. My bad showtime, I’ll teach you the alphabet and your multiplication tables when I have time.

by FirebatM3 on May 2, 2008 9:10 AM CDT to parent up   0 recs

Hey...

you guys can disagree.

I normally agree with a lot of what both of you have to say. I would side a little more with you in this argument. If Millwood is dealt I would like a solid pitching prospect back as well. That said, if the Cards offer Rasmus that would be a tough deal to turn down if they included a B or B- pitching prospect with him. Then both of you could get what you want.

Of course I think the Cards are going to collapse and be sellers, not buyers, at the deadline. So it’s a moot point anyway.

"The only good is knowledge and the only evil is ignorance."-Socrates

by slc ranger on May 2, 2008 12:28 AM CDT to parent up   0 recs

The thought of a Rasmus/Hamilton outfield makes me smile

Picking a random blog comment and wielding it as a club to bash "blogs" is like picking a random romance novel off an airport bookstore shelf and saying, "This book sucks. Fuck you, Tolstoy -- your medium is worthless!" - Ken Tremendous

by TheBZA on May 2, 2008 8:31 AM CDT to parent up   0 recs

One word, people. Rebuilding.

It’s why signing A-Rod was a bad decision; this team kidded itself into thinking it was good enough to win if only they had that one extra cog. The Rangers won’t be legitimate perennial contenders until the turn of the decade, if at all, unless some of these guys blossom beyond belief. If you get a fair deal offered for Millwood, go for it so fast that Cashman, Theo, or Minaya don’t have time to finish their sentence. If we suck in ‘08 and ‘09, big whoop. We were going to anyway, and Milwood wasn’t going to be a significant player in our plans beyond then.

Livin' in Heartbreak Central

by BudLight on May 1, 2008 12:55 PM CDT   0 recs

Rebuilding

Whats to say we can’t compete while rebuilding? Look at todays lineup. We have Kinsler, Hammy, Boggs, Duran, Murphy and Salty all starting. I think its safe to say each one of those guys is in our long term rebuilding plan. Thats 2/3 of the lineup right there. Add in MY who is here for awhile and we are playing a lineup that will probably be similar to next years. As was pointed out in another thread we are 10-7 in games started by Millwood, Padilla, and Gabbard this year. Now if we can get a couple of our youngsters to come in and hold down the back end of the rotation who knows what we can do all while still rebuilding. The misconception is that you can’t win while rebuilding. Thats not true. Millwood and Padilla both could help us win while rebuilding and not be blocking a young player who figures to be a part of the long term future. Now I am in no way saying if a team calls and overwhelms you with an offer for Millwood or any other veteran player you turn them down but don’t trade Millwood just for the sake of rebuilding. If Millwood pitches here until his contract expires and then we have a young guy who has been at the back of the rotation and is ready to step into his spot that is fine with me. But don’t just trade Millwood just because we are rebuilding.

by bigsteve on May 1, 2008 1:09 PM CDT to parent up   0 recs

please name a team that didnt have a huge salary that rebuilt while competing?

.500 or bust!

Bad Vibes Kill Rallies!

"Well, we are one of the cheapest teams in Major League Baseball"
-Tom Hicks 4/8/2008

by Jayslick on May 1, 2008 4:19 PM CDT to parent up   0 recs

The A's

"If we where [sic] gonna trade them Salty, I would want a helluva lot more than just Joba though." -lonestarJon

by thedirkatron on May 1, 2008 4:40 PM CDT to parent up   0 recs

im pretty sure theyve always been an either or....

for example the moves after last season in no way have indicated an intention to win, but rather an intention to rebuild, if they pull off both, it wasnt their intention.

.500 or bust!

Bad Vibes Kill Rallies!

"Well, we are one of the cheapest teams in Major League Baseball"
-Tom Hicks 4/8/2008

by Jayslick on May 1, 2008 4:59 PM CDT to parent up   0 recs

I disagree

I think the A’s made some moves that indicate they would try to compete while rebuilding.

They dealt Haren and Swisher, but they kept guys like Blanton, Harden, and Street, all of whom could’ve been dealt to save salary and/or amass more prospects, and picked up veteran guys with little to no hope of helping long term…. guys like Sweeney, Emil Brown and Foulke, and just now went out and got Frank Thomas.

You can rebuild while not completely abandoning the idea of trying to win games.

I’m not saying they went all out trying to win this year… cause obviously they didn’t. n the other hand, they didn’t completely fold up the tent and just say they “we’re gonna accept losing 120 games this year as long as it makes us better in ‘09 and after”.

"If we where [sic] gonna trade them Salty, I would want a helluva lot more than just Joba though." -lonestarJon

by thedirkatron on May 1, 2008 9:11 PM CDT to parent up   0 recs

dig it

totally agree on that aspect. it really does take an organization thats been totally screwed up forever or just flat traded every single guy who has any talent to lose 100-120 games and its just not that common.

getting to the point where your team is such shit that its just hopeless, it takes effort. unfortunately we’re pretty close to that stage. that said, i dont think i trade millwood unless the offer is above market value. he’s the only veteran fa pitcher to ever come here who was worth a damn. him having a great season or 2 in a rangers uni does us much more good than an extra eric hurley.

.500 or bust!

Bad Vibes Kill Rallies!

"Well, we are one of the cheapest teams in Major League Baseball"
-Tom Hicks 4/8/2008

by Jayslick on May 1, 2008 9:16 PM CDT to parent up   0 recs

Well

So far this year you have the O’s, A’s, Marlins and Rays

Last year you had the Brewers in the hunt with a 70 million payroll, Diamondbacks at 52 million, Indians at 61 million, Padres at 58 million, Rockies at 54 million, and the Twins at 71 minnion. For reference the Rangers were at 68 million last year.

by bigsteve on May 1, 2008 5:32 PM CDT to parent up   0 recs

Absolutely Right

Very good reply.

My three favorite numbers: 10, 32, 36. =)

by utlonghorn24 on May 1, 2008 4:44 PM CDT to parent up   0 recs

Yeah, Millwood needs to be moved

But I’d rather trade him to the somebody whom we haven’t cleaned out lately, like maybe the Mets.

After Teixeira, the Braves probably aren’t gonna give us much more of their farm system.

Anybody think we could get Fernando Martinez out of the Mets for Millwood? I doubt it, but it’d be worth a try…

A Lonestar in California - 2.0

by lonestarJon on May 1, 2008 3:36 PM CDT   0 recs

The Mets

wouldn’t give him up for Johan Santana. What makes you think they will part ways with him for Kevin Millwood?

"We live, we die, and the wheels on the bus go round and round." - Tony Romo

by kentbenfer on May 1, 2008 3:38 PM CDT to parent up   0 recs

Ehhh... maybe we could take Minaya out and get him drunk first?

I don’t know. It was just a thought (kinda like Salty for Joba, apparently), I know it won’t happen.

Anybody have any idea what the Mets might give up though? They kinda traded most everything interesting for Santana.

A Lonestar in California - 2.0

by lonestarJon on May 1, 2008 3:44 PM CDT to parent up   0 recs

Humber? Mulvey?

Their system is not very good.

just got ownaged

by Longhorn on May 1, 2008 3:48 PM CDT to parent up   0 recs

you're right

how quick we (me) forget…

just got ownaged

by Longhorn on May 1, 2008 3:54 PM CDT to parent up   0 recs

mets wouldnt give up lastings for any1 either and they overplayed their hand.

.500 or bust!

Bad Vibes Kill Rallies!

"Well, we are one of the cheapest teams in Major League Baseball"
-Tom Hicks 4/8/2008

by Jayslick on May 1, 2008 4:20 PM CDT to parent up   0 recs

Hmm

i would love for Tampa to be in the race come the trade deadline…

just got ownaged

by Longhorn on May 1, 2008 3:46 PM CDT to parent up   0 recs

Or the Nats

You think the Nats would be interested in Millwood?

A Lonestar in California - 2.0

by lonestarJon on May 1, 2008 3:58 PM CDT to parent up   0 recs

lol

The Nats? In the race?

We’re more likely to be in the race come summer than the freaking Nats.

They’re terrible.

"If we where [sic] gonna trade them Salty, I would want a helluva lot more than just Joba though." -lonestarJon

by thedirkatron on May 1, 2008 4:43 PM CDT to parent up   0 recs

Not saying they'll be in the race

But would they want Millwood? Their rotation is a rediculous patch-job, it seems like they could use a guy who can go out and give them consistent, effective innings… maybe if we payed part of Millwoods salary, do you think they’d be interested?

A Lonestar in California - 2.0

by lonestarJon on May 1, 2008 4:46 PM CDT to parent up   0 recs

But why...

...on God’s green earth would we eat his contract for their prospects? (Of course, I know nothing about who’s on their farm system…)

My three favorite numbers: 10, 32, 36. =)

by utlonghorn24 on May 1, 2008 4:48 PM CDT to parent up   0 recs

They have a pretty good farm system

I would be willing to eat Millwood’s contract if it got us someone like Justin Maxwell or Collin Balester, I’d do it.

A Lonestar in California - 2.0

by lonestarJon on May 1, 2008 5:05 PM CDT to parent up   0 recs

No

JD would be fired on the spot if he did that deal, and I’m pretty sure Hicks would make every effort to use his political connections to have JD deported. And he’d deserve it.

You have an odd sense of the value of players.

"If we where [sic] gonna trade them Salty, I would want a helluva lot more than just Joba though." -lonestarJon

by thedirkatron on May 1, 2008 8:00 PM CDT to parent up   0 recs

Well, I didn't mean the whole contract

Just part of it. And Balester and Maxwell aren’t bad – Balester’s on BA”s top 100, and Maxwell just hit 27 HR with 35 SB’s (although it was in A ball) last year.

There’d be more to that deal, I’m just speculating. Maybe we could get Ross Deitwiler or Chris Marrero instead of Maxwell.

I’m just not sure what Millwood’s worth. I mean, I know he’s worth something, but he’s not gonna bring in any uber-prospects, is he?

A Lonestar in California - 2.0

by lonestarJon on May 1, 2008 8:14 PM CDT to parent up   0 recs

yeah....he would

He’s a veteran pitcher who can eat innings, is under a very reasonable contract, and can pitch really well. If the trade happens around the trade deadline to a contending team it could net something similar to the Tex and Gagnes bounties.

But as I have said in another thread we don’t need to trade Millwood for the sake of trading him. Only if such a package is on the table.

by bigsteve on May 1, 2008 8:23 PM CDT to parent up   0 recs

Considering the price of pitching on the market

I think he would indeed be worth uber-prospects. If he can keep a 3.50 or below ERA, he’s signed for the next 2 years, no extensive history of injuries and thanks to the insanity that is the FA market, his contract is actually reasonable.

I don’t think he’s worth someone like, say, Jay Bruce or Evan Longoria, but a top 50 prospect? Yeah, I think he can fetch one.

by FirebatM3 on May 1, 2008 8:24 PM CDT to parent up   0 recs

Cardinals

with Ankiel and Ludwig and Chris Duncan and everyone else all hitting well and with Colby Rasmus not hitting well in AAA. I think there’s a SLIGHT chance that they migth be willing to deal him at the deadline.

by FirebatM3 on May 1, 2008 7:20 PM CDT to parent up   0 recs

another outfielder?

...the Rangers wouldn’t take Murton for Byrd straight up…

if there’s any trading to be had, it’s going to be for pitching.

by oc on May 1, 2008 7:46 PM CDT to parent up   0 recs

Colby Rasmus

is a long-term centerfielder with good pop. That’s ALOT better than Murton or Byrd.

by FirebatM3 on May 1, 2008 7:49 PM CDT to parent up   0 recs

no.

...neither Brandon McCarthy or Kason Gabbard has proven they can stay healthy… that’s two-fifths of your starting rotation.

the Rangers have the worst ERA in baseball…

Jon Daniels has been under constant fire for trading away Danks, Young, Volquez… now Galaragga…

if Wash is the first to go, you better believe that Daniels’ head is next.

say what you want about Hamilton’s production… there is no way that Daniels will trade another pitcher for another position player.

by oc on May 1, 2008 8:21 PM CDT to parent up   0 recs

That's just dumb

there’s no reason to limit yourself to one type of acquisition when value is staring you in the face. If the Cardinals did offer Rasmus for Millwood, and JD turned it down, I’d be hell of a lot more mad than if he traded Millwood for Rasmus and Millwood ended up taking the Cards to the World Series.

This isn’t football, non-contenders that trade on need and not talent usually end up being very bad.

by FirebatM3 on May 1, 2008 8:26 PM CDT to parent up   0 recs

And what was the last rebuilding team

that traded based on need and not talent?

by FirebatM3 on May 1, 2008 9:07 PM CDT to parent up   0 recs

The Texas Fucking Rangers:

...trading Edinson Volquez to Cincinatti for Josh Hamilton

by oc on May 1, 2008 9:17 PM CDT to parent up   0 recs

And of course

we got the best talent in that deal. Calm down, Showtime.

by FirebatM3 on May 1, 2008 9:25 PM CDT to parent up   0 recs

if you're going to make a case based on need and talent...

...i can certainly make one for a pitcher over another outfielder… regardless of how awesome Baseball America thinks he is…

i just spelled it out for you… every factual reason why Daniels doesn’t make that trade… and you give me “dumb” and “this isn’t football”...

unbelivable…

please… have the last word, Jim Rome.

by oc on May 1, 2008 9:30 PM CDT to parent up   0 recs

Whatever

if anything, J.D.’s history has shown us that he takes value regardless of where it can be found. If pitching is as big of a need as you seem to believe, why would the Hamilton-Volquez trade happen in the first place?

Arre you honestly saying that if the Cardinals presented the Rangers an offer of Rasmus for Millwood you’d reject it because “we need a pitcher?”

by FirebatM3 on May 1, 2008 9:44 PM CDT to parent up   0 recs

the way you ask that question...

...the way you’ve phrased it… and the cute little quotations you’ve included… leads me to believe that you are the all-knowing diety of right and wrong, good and bad, baseball and football… whatever…

but, here is the problem at hand, dude: J.D.’s history of taking “value” is exactly why we are where we are today…

this isn’t about “talent”... it’s about common-fucking-sense. it’s always been about pitching with this ballclub, and continues to be. sure, we have the major-league RBI leader… but, we also have the worst earned run average in baseball…

if the Rangers don’t make that trade, a healthy Volquez makes that start every fifth day instead of Jennings. does that make us a .500 ballclub….. tough call. you certainly don’t win that second game against the M’s… but, you probably win the home opener. i can guarantee one thing, however. three solid starters… as opposed to two with three on the disabled list….

i’ve been very critical of the trade… but i know it had to happen. and i’ve accepted that.

but, trading one of those two “guaranteed” arms that we have right now… for another outfielder… where does that leave your rotation?...

with Padilla… and that’s about it. Gabbard, McCarthy… are you serious?... the only thing consistant about either of the two is their time NOT helping this ballclub. Jennings?... he’ll need some kind of voodoo to get his shit together.

and those Triple-A call-ups in August and September… do you really expect them to come up and take on more innings as starters when they’re already gassed themselves for the season?

please…

i’m perfectly fine with an outfield of Murphy, Hamilton and some assortment of Byrd, Boggs, Catalonotto… and whoever else.

so, in summation… yes, your highness, i reject a Millwood for Rasmus deal. because i don’t believe Colby Rasmus gets us any closer to a championship than a pitcher with just as high of a ceiling.

by oc on May 1, 2008 10:34 PM CDT to parent up   0 recs

As always

oc takes too much time on the toilet and misses the freakin point altogether. The argument is not whether or not a pitching prospect is better than a position guy, that’s a whole separate argument.

The argument here is whether or not need or talent is the determinant of a trade. If you can get David Price or Clay Bucholz or whoever for Millwood, then you by all means do it. But if the choice is between Rasmus and say…Aaron Laffey of Cleveland or someone like that or just straight up keeping Millwood, I’d say you’d be a fool not to deal for Rasmus.

by FirebatM3 on May 2, 2008 12:31 AM CDT to parent up   0 recs