Transmogrified Tiger

Teams put everyone on waivers so it is less obvious who they are trying to move. It's also a way to gauge who has interest in certain players, even if you don't plan on moving them at the time.

Really? I could have sworn someone else on this board quoted a substantial loss in runs for Ozzie. Not that I disagree, but that's what I remember hearing. BTW, what calculations do you use to come up with these numbers? His career OPS+ is 82, I'm pretty sure an average OPS+ is around 100.

So do people here really think Ozzie does not belong in the Hall? He is the best defensive shortstop ever. That counts for a lot. He made spectacular plays every day. Even though his offense is not Hall worthy overall, it did improve significantly as his career went on. Plus, he didn't play most of his career in the offensive era we have today. He also played his career before the emergence of power hitting shortstops. Shortstop was traditionally a defensive-minded position, with a few exceptions in the past. Only recently has it become an offensive position. I don't think the way baseball has changed over the years should make Ozzies spot in the hall less deserving. Shortstops who are similar in offensive production to Ozzie Smith(Using OPS+, so era isn't much of an argument): Deivi Cruz Chris Woodward Shawon Dunston Kevin Elster Spike Owen Garry Templeton Ricky Gutierrez Walt Weiss Jose Vizcaino Greg Gagne Mark Grudzielanek Royce Clayton Kevin Stocker Players significantly better offensively than Ozzie Smith: Jeff Blauser Jay Bell Edgar Renteria How many of these players have made an All-Star Game, nevermind consideration for the HOF? Is Smith's defense THAT much better than the assortment of role players above?

I've read in a couple places that the A's gm (Billy Beane) called up the Reds gm (Dan O’Brien) and asked about the availability of Adam Dunn. O'Brien said that unless the name Rich Harden was going to come up, they had nothing to discuss. That was the end of that. O'Brien apparently doesn't like being a gm or something, because if he thinks the best strategy is to make insane trade offers to other teams and then do nothing, he's going to struggle. I don't understand why that is an insane offer. People are saying how great Dunn is and then expect the Reds to only ask for peanuts for Dunn. He should be the cornerstone of that team and the Reds should expect rightful compensation for a player like him. Rich Harden Would you trade Z for Dunn? Would the Reds be sane in expecting Zambrano in return for Dunn? If they don't want to trade Dunn, they're doing a really good job of it. Huh, I was under the impression that Harden was older than that, like around the same age as Dunn. Still, for a player of Dunn's caliber, I don't think that proposal is too ridiculous. Not as bad as LaMar asking for Z in exchange for Baez at least, although we probably shouldn't use a crazy like LaMar to compare. I wonder what O'Brien was asking for Kearns. Dunn I can understand wanting top dollar, but Kearns would be expendable if it were me.

Wow, that is bizarre. His 1 for 12 October helps explain it, and I get a .337 OBP when I calculated it from July through October. So I guess it's not THAT farfetched that his July was close to what you suggest to bring down his OBP to the .320s.

That's strange, considering how much better he's been against LH. His WHIP against LH: 1.25. Against RH: 1.74

Frankly I don't think we will be having that conversation 15 years from now about Pujols and Lee. Agreed. Pujols' debilitating elbow injury a couple years from now is going to ruin his HOF chances. :wink:

Ray King is no stud this year. His ERA is only 2.22 but he hasn't been as good as that number. I'd blame LaRussa for that. King's a solid LOOGY, yet he's faced almost as many RH(55) as LH(64). This actually surprises me, given LaRussa's propensity to use as many pitchers as necessary to get the "right matchup". Or maybe he's just like Dusty in that he only does it when facing each other.

Wrong. Macias is a utilty man who can play all 9 positions, and he's the emergancy catcher. But you're right. He has to go. The thought of the 5'8" gremlin at first amuses me. Moreso than him pitching?

I believe he has a job with them waiting for him when he retires.

That wouldn't matter, because as the rules state, the claiming team is responsible for the remainder of the player's contract (if not pulled back). Griffey's contract as is, is way too much for any team at this point in the season - including the Yankees (imho). That's why he'd likely clear waivers, paving the way for the Reds to negotiate to a team interested, and likewise a team Griffey would play for. Just my :twocents: The problem isn't getting Griffey to pass through waivers, it's the players it will take to get him getting passed through waivers. You could put one of them as a PTBNL I suppose, but I think that Cincy would still have to choose the PTBNL before the end of the year, which would still subject that player to waivers. But given how bad Cincinatti is, wouldn't the have one of the first cracks at the waiver claim? Thus, if we tried to slip a couple players through to them in exchange for Griffey, wouldn't they not have to go through all 30 teams but just through the DRays and Rockies before getting to the Reds? I'm pretty sure in order for a trade to happen, the players have to clear all 30 teams, and not just the players in front of that team on the waiver priority list. So there's not way to manipulate it? As other have stated you could have Griffey clear waivers, we could claim him, and then we could try and force a couple guys through, independently of a trade, just through the waiver process, so that all they'd have to do was get past the 2 or 3 teams behind the Reds, and then they could claim them? Does that make any sense? I see what you're saying, but I don't know if it would work out.

That wouldn't matter, because as the rules state, the claiming team is responsible for the remainder of the player's contract (if not pulled back). Griffey's contract as is, is way too much for any team at this point in the season - including the Yankees (imho). That's why he'd likely clear waivers, paving the way for the Reds to negotiate to a team interested, and likewise a team Griffey would play for. Just my :twocents: The problem isn't getting Griffey to pass through waivers, it's the players it will take to get him getting passed through waivers. You could put one of them as a PTBNL I suppose, but I think that Cincy would still have to choose the PTBNL before the end of the year, which would still subject that player to waivers. But given how bad Cincinatti is, wouldn't the have one of the first cracks at the waiver claim? Thus, if we tried to slip a couple players through to them in exchange for Griffey, wouldn't they not have to go through all 30 teams but just through the DRays and Rockies before getting to the Reds? I'm pretty sure in order for a trade to happen, the players have to clear all 30 teams, and not just the players in front of that team on the waiver priority list.

That wouldn't matter, because as the rules state, the claiming team is responsible for the remainder of the player's contract (if not pulled back). Griffey's contract as is, is way too much for any team at this point in the season - including the Yankees (imho). That's why he'd likely clear waivers, paving the way for the Reds to negotiate to a team interested, and likewise a team Griffey would play for. Just my :twocents: The problem isn't getting Griffey to pass through waivers, it's the players it will take to get him getting passed through waivers. You could put one of them as a PTBNL I suppose, but I think that Cincy would still have to choose the PTBNL before the end of the year, which would still subject that player to waivers.

He can be resigned for any amount (hi or low). I think arbitration does not have limits; but, the parties must come up with a number. Not surprisingly, the teams generally come up with lower numbers than the player and the arbitrator sides somewhere in between. In effect, the team sets the minimum with their offer in arbitration. Most teams try not to ridiculously low ball a player becase it may create for an unhappy player in the clubhouse. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought that the arbiter could pick the players number or the teams number, and nothing in-between. There could be certain situations I'm not aware of, however. That's true, but in the team selecting a number, they have a minimum that they have to offer. I believe the lowest is 15% below the previous year's salary, but don't hold me to that.

As much as I would be interested in that happening, Boras says: "That's a good one Jim. I think you'll reconsider if you ever want to sign any of my clients, or any clients in general, after I tell the media about your shenanigans."

Also, since the contest is complete, the powers can be can unsticky this thread.

Well, the deadline is past, and we have a winner. By virtue of being the lone entry, Roast is the winner of the contest, and the signed Gallagher ball. Congratulations! Here's his winning entry: Trade 1 The Yankees send Robinson Cano to the Reds in exchange for Ken Griffey Jr. The reds also agree to pay the remainder of Griffey’s contract this season, and 5 million, of the total 12.5 million, owed to him next year. The Yankees are responsible for the rest of his contract, except for the deferred money. The Reds will be responsible for Cano’s contract. Why the Yankees do it: They are in dire need of a center fielder. Griffey would give them the CF’er they need, plus the big name type that King George likes. This will also allow the Yankees to move Womack back to second base, where he belongs. Why the Reds do it: Cano really wasn’t their target on this trade. Their target was to get rid of Griffey’s colossal contract. Cano, for the most part, is just an extra bonus. Having Griffey off the books will give them a lot more room to do things in the free agent market. Trade 2 The Yankees send Bernie Williams to the Cleveland Indians for Kevin Millwood. The Yankee’s pay Williams salary for 2005, the 2006 portion of his contract is to be handled by the Indians. The Indians will be responsible for Millwood’s contract. Why the Yankees do it: They need pitching. Also, now that they have Griffey in center, they do not need Williams nearly as much. Why the Indians do it: Williams has been rumored to be on the move anyways, and the Yankees seem like a pretty logical stop. Williams gives them a DH in place of the currently injured Travis Hafner for now, and can play either as a starting OFer or off the bench for the remainder of the year (after Hafner gets back). All in all, neither of these trades come remotely close to helping the Yanks get better for the long term. But that has never really been the focal point of that organization anyways. It does however give them a boost in both of the spots they need help in, Center field and the rotation. Said boost should also be big enough to launch them into the post season. Congrats again to Roast!

Reposted from the trade thread. Going by Runs Created, here's some people Lawton has been better than this year: Jose Guillen Andruw Jones Craig Biggio Brady Clark Geoff Jenkins Carlos Beltran Ryan Klesko

From Walker's page on Cubs.com. I don't believe he gets hammered by lefties. Walker's been good in a short stint v. LH, but for his career his been less successful. I don't mind having them together, because by the time a LOOGY is in the game, you can go to Murton to get the R/L matchup, and for defensive purposes. Of course if you want Murton in the lineup, that's a different matter. v. RH Lawton LF Walker 2B Lee 1B Ramirez 3B Burnitz CF Nomar SS Murton RF Barrett C v. LH Murton LF Walker 2B Lee 1B Ramirez 3B Burnitz RF Barrett C Nomar SS Hairston CF After tinkering with it, there's really a number of different combinations that I'm okay with, and no real ideal situation.

I think I'd rather see Frese or Kelton before McClain.

Yep, I think that will be the outfield. Some people really undervalue defense. Cub pitching is not that good. Murton & Hairston may be the odd men out. If that's the case, then it means Murton goes down for Patterson, which I don't like. Of course, they could always get rid of the redundant reliever, and keep Hairston as a utility guy. But I doubt we see them do that this late in the season. I don't see the Cubs bringing Patterson back up before September. They know it'll take him some time and don't seem to be in much of a rush. What would bringing up Patterson in September do? I don't think Patterson sitting the bench would be productive for him. I'd hate for him to be brought up only as a late-inning defensive replacement. From what I've read and heard, I'm not sure there's a big difference between Patterson now and Patterson of April-June. What's the alternative? By September the Minor League season is over, and Iowa isn't going to the playoffs.

Yep, I think that will be the outfield. Some people really undervalue defense. Cub pitching is not that good. Murton & Hairston may be the odd men out. If that's the case, then it means Murton goes down for Patterson, which I don't like. Of course, they could always get rid of the redundant reliever, and keep Hairston as a utility guy. But I doubt we see them do that this late in the season.

While it's not the blockbuster trade everyone was hoping for, it does add to the depth and versatility of the team. As of right now, you have 3 options for LF, 3 for CF, 3 for RF, 3 for 2B, 2 for leadoff, etc. Unfortunately, instead of Hairston replacing Macias as supersub, I'm sure Cedeno will go down to AAA. Hopefully, the Cubs will cut Remlinger when Williamson and Wood return. Who knows, maybe they can get a little something (very little) for him when he goes on waivers. Actually I am satisfied with this trade I just think it's funny that the guy withthe teams highest OBP is going to be the one replaced. cuse again, they're not replacing Lee...They're replacing Holly who has an OBP of around .300 Where you gettin that bro? Murton, his OBP is over .500 I believe.

Not with any consistency.

I gave it a yuck label because of who we got. Lawton always does well in the first half, then DIES DIES DIES in teh second. Oh well. I guess this isnt too bad of a situation. I'm just a little dissapointed we couldnt nab somebody else. If Lawton is platooned with Murton(Lawton is very bad against LH), then there's less chance of him wearing down, if that's the reason for his poor second half performances.