dew1679666265

Followed by getting a basehit UP the middle. :D He got lucky and failed to pull it like he was trying. But I won't complain about good luck It looked like he shortened up his swing on that one, actually. Yeah, I definitely agree that he shortened up the swing.

Here are some interesting tidbits from players I consider to be good to great. Ty Cobb career postseason OPS: .668 Mark McGwire career postseason OPS: .669 Todd Helton career postseason OPS: .615 Mike Schmidt career postseason OPS: .690 Jeff Bagwell career postseason OPS: .675 Craig Biggio career postseason OPS: .620 And some others who fared better, but not particularly well: Mike Piazza: .756, Miguel Cabrera: .786, Joe Dimaggio: .760

If they manage to split a 3 game series, color me impressed. It's really quite simple Keener. Cards win the first game, Brewers win the second and then they tie the third after the game goes to the 30th inning and both turns burn out their entire pitching staffs. :D I would take two or three 15 inning slugfests up there in Milwaukee this week. Most definitely.

As well thought out as a Dusty Baker lineup. There's really little point in explaining yet again why it's piss-poor to construct a team and/or a lineup for the regular season around the tiny sample size of 6 playoff games since you show zero sign of realizing how ridiculous an idea that is. If you're looking at those games as the definitive "proof" as to how a player should be handled in the regular season then Aramis needs to be benched or traded or released ASAP. Those Soriano numbers were his enitre post season career. He's awful. Which is a whole 172 ABs. And those ABs are split into 18-30 AB segments. There's too much volatility in small numbers like that to really make a good evaluation. 15 good at bats could increase just his average by 20-30 points. Small sample sizes aren't reliable indicators on what a player can do. Should Vladimir Guerrero (.623 career postseason OPS) bat high in the order in the playoffs? Is he "awful" as you called Soriano?

This is true. But it's fun to have a discussion on a completely moot point. :)

Ok. Your explanation makes sense, the rules are just vague on a trading scenario. FWIW, this is what Wikipedia says, and it does make sense. That still doesn't directly relate to sporrer's question, but it's close enough to further prove intent, I guess.

As much as I'd love to have Yunel Escobar, he's not expensive contract-wise so I can't imagine they'd give him up for just prospects. We'll have to come up with some kind of a legit ML bat to give them and we're not exactly overflowing with them. Why are the Braves even considering trading Escobar? He has decent #s including hitting over .400 w/risp this year. No idea. I wouldn't trade him if I were them.

Ok. Your explanation makes sense, the rules are just vague on a trading scenario.

Marquis might be our third best starter this year, but I'd likely take Dempster and Harden to have better second halves than Marquis. And yes, Marquis tends to be much better in the first half than the second half. His 07 first half was almost identical to this year's first half and then he wasn't particularly good in the second half.

If they manage to split a 3 game series, color me impressed. It's really quite simple Keener. Cards win the first game, Brewers win the second and then they tie the third after the game goes to the 30th inning and both turns burn out their entire pitching staffs. :D

It's not confusing. If any team in MLB wants to keep Patton on their 25-man roster for the duration of the season, that's what will happen. If nobody does, then either the Rox will take him back, decline to take him back, or a trade will be worked out in which the Rox get someone other than Patton back (or cash). That was the original question that I responded to - whether Patton would have to pass through waivers if the Rockies and Cubs worked out a trade. I said no waivers would be involved in a trade, you disagreed. Patton would have to first pass through waivers before the Cubs and Rox could discuss such a trade. My confusion (and sporrer's it seems) is that's never stated anywhere. The only way the waiver process would come into play would be if the player is returned to the original team before a trade was made. If that's the case then ok, but it's not clear on that point.

With no mention of that player going through waivers. The only mention of the waiver process is returning the player back to the original team. Read the preceding paragraph. The only way the Cubs and Rox will be discussing Patton's immediate future is if no other team in baseball wants him under the Rule 5 restrictions, which that team would assume if they claimed the guy off of waivers. That's a paragraph about returning a player to his original team. Does that have to happen in the event of a trade? That's what is not clear.

That's what we did with Josh Hamilton when we dealt him to the Reds and I don't recall any waiver process. And the question here is working out a trade with the original team anyway, not the Cubs trading Patton to some random team.

It's not confusing. If any team in MLB wants to keep Patton on their 25-man roster for the duration of the season, that's what will happen. If nobody does, then either the Rox will take him back, decline to take him back, or a trade will be worked out in which the Rox get someone other than Patton back (or cash). That was the original question that I responded to - whether Patton would have to pass through waivers if the Rockies and Cubs worked out a trade. I said no waivers would be involved in a trade, you disagreed.

I just saw Eric Patterson go 1 for 4 with a double against the Fresno Grizzlies this weekend, so I doubt he'll get the chance to take Vazquez yard again. Hendry could always pull off a last second Miles for EPatt trade and get EPatt to Chicago on the first flight.

Yes. If the Cubs worked out a trade for Patton he'd be theirs without any type of restrictions. That would only be correct if Patton has passed through waivers. Otherwise another club can put in a waiver claim on Patton, and assume the Rule 5 restrictions themselves. So no, it's not accurate to say that the Cubs could flip a player to the Rox and then be free of the Rule 5 restrictions, UNLESS he's already passed through waivers. Do you have a link for that? Nothing I've seen indicates you have to pass the player through waivers to trade him. http://static.espn.go.com/mlb/s/transanctionsprimer.html The only mention of trading a player is this: With no mention of that player going through waivers. The only mention of the waiver process is returning the player back to the original team.

Why? When was the last time he put together back to back very good seasons? He's an inconsistent soon-to-be 33 year old pitcher who can get hit hard quite frequently. The only thing inconsistent I'm seeing from Vazquez is his ERA. He's had very good K:BB ratios, more than 200 Ks, low HR/9, and high K/9 over the past few seasons. And he's very hittable, plus he's 33 already. He's been a nice pitcher, but trading Fielder anywhere close to straight up for him would be a horrible idea. The prospects would have to be very significant to even up that deal of a pre-prime hitter for an aging pitcher, both of them signed through next year, with Vazquez making $1m more. He's hittable, but he also strikes out a lot of batters and doesn't walk many. The age is an issue especially since he's a power pitcher, but Jo-jo Reyes/Jordan Schafer or Brandon Jones type duo of prospects might make it worthwhile.

Yes. If the Cubs worked out a trade for Patton he'd be theirs without any type of restrictions. That would only be correct if Patton has passed through waivers. Otherwise another club can put in a waiver claim on Patton, and assume the Rule 5 restrictions themselves. So no, it's not accurate to say that the Cubs could flip a player to the Rox and then be free of the Rule 5 restrictions, UNLESS he's already passed through waivers. Do you have a link for that? Nothing I've seen indicates you have to pass the player through waivers to trade him.

To my understanding, that is correct.

Yes. If the Cubs worked out a trade for Patton he'd be theirs without any type of restrictions.

Why? When was the last time he put together back to back very good seasons? He's an inconsistent soon-to-be 33 year old pitcher who can get hit hard quite frequently. The only thing inconsistent I'm seeing from Vazquez is his ERA. He's had very good K:BB ratios, more than 200 Ks, low HR/9, and high K/9 over the past few seasons.

Will the Brewers want/be able to keep Fielder long term? He's making around $10 million right now, that price is going to go up quite a bit the next time he signs a new deal (which will be 2011). Gamel will be cheap for much longer. If the prospects are good enough, then the trade gives the Brewers a very good starter this year and next and two good, young, cheap prospects for the future - plus it gives Gamel a place to play where his defense won't hurt. Well, if they are top notch prospects, sure but the way you presented the deal it seemed more like those would be throw ins than impactful. They could have Fielder for this year and next or Vasquez. Worry about losing Fielder in 2011, trading for Vasquez now doesn't solve the problem. Sorry, I didn't mean elite prospects but still quite good ones. And acquiring Vazquez now does solve a problem - the need for pitching. Vazquez has been very good so far this year and likely will be very good again next year. If they want to win, they'll need a pitcher of that caliber. Giving up Gamel wouldn't be a good idea because of how cheap he'll be for the next few years, but giving up Fielder and getting a couple good prospects in return along with Vazquez might be worth the consideration. I'm thinking prospects in the Jo-Jo Reyes mold more than a Tommy Hanson type. Good, but not top 5 in the system.

Will the Brewers want/be able to keep Fielder long term? He's making around $10 million right now, that price is going to go up quite a bit the next time he signs a new deal (which will be 2011). Gamel will be cheap for much longer. If the prospects are good enough, then the trade gives the Brewers a very good starter this year and next and two good, young, cheap prospects for the future - plus it gives Gamel a place to play where his defense won't hurt.

Do you really solve that issue by trading him for an inconsistent 30-something pitcher due to make $11.5m next year and then become a free agent? If the Cubs were to trade a 25 year old stud hitter who is signed through next season for a soon to be 33 year old pitcher who never really built on his early career success and has been unimpressive in 4 of the past 6 seasons, I'd be pissed. Vazquez's K:BB ratio has always been very good, he's a lock to give you 200+ solid innings, the last two seasons he's struck out more than 200 batters and the three years before that he K'd between 150 and 192 and he averages around 1 HR/9. He gets hit a little too hard sometimes, but overall is a very productive pitcher. Maybe not an ace, but his peripherals are very solid. Prince is a very good hitter and only 25, but he's not that good defensively right now (-9.4 UZR/150) and may get worse as he bulks up. He's still more valuable than Vazquez in a one-for-one deal, but that's why I brought up the Braves tossing in a good prospect or two to make up the difference.

Yeah, a Gamel or Escobar trade for Vazquez wouldn't be good for the Brewers. It wouldn't happen, but what about a Fielder for Vazquez trade? Both teams get an impact at their weak spot and the Brewers move Gamel into first base. Probably more of an offseason trade if it was going to happen. Braves could also theoretically throw in a good prospect or two to alleviate the age differential. How could you theoretically endorse a Fielder for Vazquez trade but not an Escobar for Vazquez trade? Escobar is hot garbage. A Vazquez for Escobar trade would be better than a Gamel for Vazquez trade. I like Escobar's potential more than you do, though, as his numbers have been improving and he's only 22. The biggest reason for the Fielder trade from the Brewers perspective, though, would be to find a place for Gamel to play (without his defense hurting that much) and freeing themselves of Fielder's stout and soon to be increasing salary.