17 Seconds

I may have said he sucks in a fit of anger during a game, but I know he doesn't. I can't believe we have to keep going back to this point in the argument. It's not Huet sucks vs. Huet doesn't suck. It's Khabi vs. Huet and whether the team will be improved for this year by trading Khabi for a forward. I say they wouldn't. I haven't seen a single person say Huet is better than Khabi or even that he should be starting over Khabi Whatever, I don't even care. Just don't act like you don't know why the argument takes place. You've even admitted you irrationally hate Huet...then denied it like 10 minutes later The next time Huet has a bad game there will be multiple posts trashing him, guaranteed. The next time Khabi has a bad game his name won't even be mentioned

well that 11 point lead disappeared quickly

You can have incentives for awards and all-star appearances though

Show me how I'm wrong We've now resorted an "eyeball test" ro judge the worth of a player who has above average numbers I don't take sides in this endless argument... wasn't directed at you at all... it was directed at EVERYONE. Oh Ijust don't get why everybody has to constantly take shots at Huet. It's like the people who say Soriano sucks because of his flaws

Show me how I'm wrong We've now resorted an "eyeball test" ro judge the worth of a player who has above average numbers

No dude if you take pretend something means Huet sucks then you have to do it.

Their rotation isn't really all that special imo... unless kershaw dominates

They minimized reward, not risk. And keep pretending he netted them Haren.

...don't have a lot of info yet.... will update.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/cubs/chi-20-cubs-bits-chicagofeb20,0,5167297.story So...if Bradley is hitting cleanup, that means Ramirez has gotta be 3rd right? Cuz bumping Ramirez down to 5th just seems really dumb. So if that assumption is correct, you can put Lee 2nd, 5th, or 6th right? With Lee's dp's, I'd hate to put him 2nd, but that would let Soto be 5th. Soriano Lee Ramirez Bradley Soto Fukudome Fontenot Theriot

All I've read is that they "know a drug dealer" that they're currently questioning and that the entire thing is overblown so far. Who knows

http://cleveland.indians.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20090219&content_id=3851020&vkey=news_cle&fext=.jsp&c_id=cle :(

I'm 95% sure that you don't even believe what you're saying right now. The "Shut up." PM you sent me was a nice touch too. It really made me think. You're right. You should always give up on stud prospects early if you have the opportunity to lock up a league average player. That's just common sense. League average players like Eric Byrnes just don't come around every day. Don't bother trying to get anything good for said prospect either, you don't need to. Just dump him for the other team's number 10 prospect. The priority should be to lock up that average guy long term. Now quick...somebody get Hendry to get Shapiro on the phone. It's only a matter of time before they lock up Garko and give away Matt LaPorta for our 10th best prospect (Shapiro is a good GM so this should happen quickly).

Consistently mediocre-to-bad. He's a corner outfielder fielder, not a middle infielder. All this "they were in win mode" stuff is making it sound like Byrnes is some great player. You're making it sound like they gave up on Quentin to lock up some really good player that wouldn't be replacable if you let him walk. So let's say you let Byrnes walk and let Quentin start in left. If he sucks, how hard is it to find an .800 OPS left fielder? Not hard at all. The risk of trading away Quentin and then him end up being a superstar was much higher than the risk of letting Byrnes walk and it costing them a chance at winning anything. He's Eric Byrnes. Byrnes is easily replaced. Quentin is not. Either way, the argument is ruined by the fact that they didn't get true value for him when they traded him. Was Carter even in the White Sox top 10 at the time? BTW, A 96 OPS+ is not really good for a left fielder, even with the good baserunning. He was bad the 2 year prior to his 2007, so 2007 was likely the aberration, not the other way around.

If you want to believe that Josh Byrnes didn't plan on trading Quentin when he signed Byrnes (even though there were rumors at the trade deadline of 2007 that they were already shopping Quentin), then that's your choice. I just think we both know what the much more likely scenario was. Edit: BTW that was a typo about Upton in center. It was supposed to be Young.

Are we sure that Byrnes signed that contract after Quentin was traded? I could swear he signed it before Quentin was traded, and also before Justin Upton got his first call to the majors. I kind of thought Quentin was traded because Byrnes already had a long term deal, Young already had CF locked up, and Upton had the brighter future. IIRC, Upton was called up for a cup of coffee in 2007. He's on the 07 roster on the BR page with minimal at bats. Byrnes signed the extension in August. So yeah, they traded Quentin in the offseason (December, for Cris Carter, who was sent over to complete the Haren deal). Perhaps they intended on trading him after his poor showing to make room for Upton? So in reality, they had already signed Byrnes, so they had a logjam in RF. Either way, they made the right decision at the time. I'd have traded Quentin as well You'd give up on a stud prospect early so you can lock up a below average LF just because of clubhouse presence and intangibles? They didn't do that. They signed Byrnes before they traded Quentin and once Byrnes was signed, it became a bad contract that they weren't going to be able to move. Quentin got them Haren, which in my mind is a pretty good deal. They probably never should have given Byrnes a long term deal, but since the damage was done, they made the best of the situation by trading one of their young stud outfielders for a stud pitcher, which they needed. With Byrnes hurt last year, they were able to move Conor Jackson back to the outfield, so it's not like they were left with no options. What? Eric Byrnes was extended on August 7, 2007. Carlos Quentin was traded on December 3, 2007. So they locked up Byrnes and then 2 months later realized he wasn't worth it? I think it's pretty clear that when they signed Byrnes they had a plan to trade Quentin in the offseason. I think it's pretty clear that they had designs on Byrnes in LF, Young in CF, Quentin in RF and Upton in AA. When Upton impressed with his September call up, they decided to trade outfield depth for a stud starting pitcher. He went .221/.283/.364 in his September callup. So what? You said they planned on Quentin in RF for 2008 and that those plans changed when Upton impressed in his September callup. So his .221/.283/.364 made Josh Byrnes go "man, I really wanted Quentin in RF next season, but I don't see how we can deny Upton that job after his 62 OPS+ in his callup. Screw it, I've gotta trade Quentin... it's the only way". Which is more likely... that scenario, or the fact that they had planned on Upton in right all along and trading Quentin? I'd think a GM has a plan when giving out a 3 year contract. I think it's obvious the plan was to trade Quentin. I don't see any other reasonable theory. They knew Upton was close to being ready and they knew Upton was locked in at center. There was nowhere for Quentin to play.

Are we sure that Byrnes signed that contract after Quentin was traded? I could swear he signed it before Quentin was traded, and also before Justin Upton got his first call to the majors. I kind of thought Quentin was traded because Byrnes already had a long term deal, Young already had CF locked up, and Upton had the brighter future. IIRC, Upton was called up for a cup of coffee in 2007. He's on the 07 roster on the BR page with minimal at bats. Byrnes signed the extension in August. So yeah, they traded Quentin in the offseason (December, for Cris Carter, who was sent over to complete the Haren deal). Perhaps they intended on trading him after his poor showing to make room for Upton? So in reality, they had already signed Byrnes, so they had a logjam in RF. Either way, they made the right decision at the time. I'd have traded Quentin as well You'd give up on a stud prospect early so you can lock up a below average LF just because of clubhouse presence and intangibles? They didn't do that. They signed Byrnes before they traded Quentin and once Byrnes was signed, it became a bad contract that they weren't going to be able to move. Quentin got them Haren, which in my mind is a pretty good deal. They probably never should have given Byrnes a long term deal, but since the damage was done, they made the best of the situation by trading one of their young stud outfielders for a stud pitcher, which they needed. With Byrnes hurt last year, they were able to move Conor Jackson back to the outfield, so it's not like they were left with no options. What? Eric Byrnes was extended on August 7, 2007. Carlos Quentin was traded on December 3, 2007. So they locked up Byrnes and then 2 months later realized he wasn't worth it? I think it's pretty clear that when they signed Byrnes they had a plan to trade Quentin in the offseason. I think it's pretty clear that they had designs on Byrnes in LF, Young in CF, Quentin in RF and Upton in AA. When Upton impressed with his September call up, they decided to trade outfield depth for a stud starting pitcher. He went .221/.283/.364 in his September callup.

and boom goes the dynamite They chose Byrnes/a bad contract/Carter over Quentin. Period.

And I don't know why you have to turn every baseball discussion into this dramatic episode of "As the World Turns". Seriously, it's a baseball discussion. It's not life or death. I'm pretty sure I'm discussing baseball. I'm not the one who just made a post about something else.

There is a pretty big difference between "I'd rather see Khabi out there than Huet" and "Oh god, we have to watch Huet flopping around out there tonight...great". Look through the thread. It's even been admitted by a poster that he irrationally hates Huet.

How is it a no brainer to hold on to the worst of your 5 OFs? The ink was dry on his contract. As I said, the crowded OF didn't all of a sudden come up in October. They knew what they had when they signed that moronic contract. Whether it was pressure from Moorad as rumored, or Byrnes falling in love with the grit, it was a terrible decision. Yeah, it's not like the Diamondbacks weren't aware that Upton was closing to being called up. They knew perfectly well when thy extended Byrnes that they were dumping Quentin, and that's a really bad move IMO. I don't see how you can justify that. If they traded Quentin for another top prospect that then ended up being the centerpiece in a Harne trade, okay. But that's not what happened. I don't know why people are acting like they traded Quentin for Haren.

Are we sure that Byrnes signed that contract after Quentin was traded? I could swear he signed it before Quentin was traded, and also before Justin Upton got his first call to the majors. I kind of thought Quentin was traded because Byrnes already had a long term deal, Young already had CF locked up, and Upton had the brighter future. IIRC, Upton was called up for a cup of coffee in 2007. He's on the 07 roster on the BR page with minimal at bats. Byrnes signed the extension in August. So yeah, they traded Quentin in the offseason (December, for Cris Carter, who was sent over to complete the Haren deal). Perhaps they intended on trading him after his poor showing to make room for Upton? So in reality, they had already signed Byrnes, so they had a logjam in RF. Either way, they made the right decision at the time. I'd have traded Quentin as well You'd give up on a stud prospect early so you can lock up a below average LF just because of clubhouse presence and intangibles? They didn't do that. They signed Byrnes before they traded Quentin and once Byrnes was signed, it became a bad contract that they weren't going to be able to move. Quentin got them Haren, which in my mind is a pretty good deal. They probably never should have given Byrnes a long term deal, but since the damage was done, they made the best of the situation by trading one of their young stud outfielders for a stud pitcher, which they needed. With Byrnes hurt last year, they were able to move Conor Jackson back to the outfield, so it's not like they were left with no options. What? Eric Byrnes was extended on August 7, 2007. Carlos Quentin was traded on December 3, 2007. So they locked up Byrnes and then 2 months later realized he wasn't worth it? I think it's pretty clear that when they signed Byrnes they had a plan to trade Quentin in the offseason.

Why do people keep acting like Carter got them Haren? Gonzalez got them Haren. They most likely could have gotten Haren without Carter. They should have Quentin AND Haren right now.

Then why do people in this thread always trash him? I'm just messing around though, no need to get all bent out of shape about it

Are we sure that Byrnes signed that contract after Quentin was traded? I could swear he signed it before Quentin was traded, and also before Justin Upton got his first call to the majors. I kind of thought Quentin was traded because Byrnes already had a long term deal, Young already had CF locked up, and Upton had the brighter future. IIRC, Upton was called up for a cup of coffee in 2007. He's on the 07 roster on the BR page with minimal at bats. Byrnes signed the extension in August. So yeah, they traded Quentin in the offseason (December, for Cris Carter, who was sent over to complete the Haren deal). Perhaps they intended on trading him after his poor showing to make room for Upton? So in reality, they had already signed Byrnes, so they had a logjam in RF. Either way, they made the right decision at the time. I'd have traded Quentin as well You'd give up on a stud prospect early so you can lock up a below average LF just because of clubhouse presence and intangibles?