The Trade Market

by samael88 on Dec 3, 2007 2:05 PM EST Comment 15 comments

after seeing the trades for outfielders lasting milledge and carlos quentin, im wondering is MO even talking to other teams about possible trades??

I mean those 2 guys are exactly what we needed and the asking price for them was fair in my mind.

lasting milledge was traded for a 31 year old catcher and a 4th outfielder.

In my mind if we offered something along the lines of tyler johnson and bryan anderson we coulda have him.

now for carlos quentin, he was traded for chris carter, a slugging first baseman who sucks at defense and is years away from the majors....mark hamilton anyone?? i think if we offered mark hamilton and brad thompson he also coulda have him.

I think MO has to be a little more agresive in the trade deparment, those trades are perfect examples on how to get good talent with huge upside without giving anything special in return.

0 recs | Comment 15 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Mark Hamilton

I doubt the Dbacks would have taken Hamilton and Thompson for Quinton.

The Rays are looking add a first basemen and are willing to trade Edwin Jackson... Jackson has a bad year but has some good potential and is cheap.

How about Mark Hamilton for Edwin Jackson?

Let's build for '09...

by Born in 82 on Dec 3, 2007 2:00 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

hmmm

E. Jackson is tempting, but will need to lower his BBs to be effective at this level. I wouldn't be able to handle watching a guy who walked 88 in 161 ip last year.

by Beware the Molinas on Dec 3, 2007 7:35 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

problem is....

does edwin jackson fir the pitch to contact criteria....?

if i recall correctly he doesnt.

by samael88 on Dec 3, 2007 2:06 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Wow

I can't believe that's all they were able to get for Quentin. He's two years younger than Hamilton, though, and has been the more consistent power threat.

I'm guessing the Diamondbacks have another player that they want to protect in the Rule 5 draft or else have someone they want to take in it—that this has as much to do with 40-man roster management as it does disappointment in Quentin's production and health.

by liam on Dec 3, 2007 3:16 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Another possibilty

now that the nationals have a surplus of outfielders with their acquisition of eliajh dukes

does a austin kearns for anthony reyes swap make sense??

just throwing it out there since we need a right hander outfielder and they really need pitching.(not that we dont)

by samael88 on Dec 3, 2007 3:23 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Ludwick

I'm actually a pretty big Ludwick fan, I think he fills the need for a RH bat.

Give Ludwick 400 AB's and I bet he hits you 15 TO 18 HR with a solid OBP.

Let's build for '09...

by Born in 82 on Dec 3, 2007 4:44 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

yo on luddy also

by sportsman on Dec 3, 2007 8:12 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Quentin

There's a lesson in the Quentin trade. Lots of times in here, when some poster asks or suggest a deal, people are way to quick to leap in and tell him/her that there's "NO WAY" such-and-such will be dealt....as if they were sitting in the owners box or something.

This happened with Quentin a few times in here - people countering that the D-Backs would "never" deal him now because his stock was low, injury, etc. Well guess what, they did? And similar trades wil happen again - a team can have a good reason to deal a guy when his stock is low.

Nothing is black and white, so I guess my point is to maybe go a little easier on people when they inquire about a player. Nobody in here has a crystal ball.

by siddfynch on Dec 3, 2007 5:06 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

i actually learned this lesson with...

the scott linebrink trade. before then i had been saying there was no way the cards could get what some people were suggesting for, e.g., izzy, franklin, percival. after that, i thought, who knows?

the point is to remember that there are still a shocking number of bad gm's out there. so i think it's still fair to say, that's a ridiculous idea, that is not even close to a fair/balanced trade and any gm would have to be a complete idiot to even think about making that deal. what we have to bear in mind, though, is that that doesn't mean a gm won't make the deal - because some of them act like idiots sometimes.

does this mean boras is human?

by nycbirdo on Dec 3, 2007 5:36 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Quentin

I think it was just overlooking evaluation. AZ probably said they had no need for Quentin with all their "healthy" young talented OF people. Sometimes it is hard to say what an Org will do and I can't call it smart or stupid. Maybe AZ really wanted a 1B with some big time pop, I want to say he is LH too. But the guy sounds pretty darn good and as ERIK says he is about 20 times better than Mark Hamilton in our organiztion. Maybe AZ sees it as an even trade. They got what they were looking for and it just made sense. Now according to ERIK the future redbirds guy this prospect was way better than what STL had to offer. So I can't say Quentin went for a bag of balls/ a guy with zero upside.

by ICbirdfan on Dec 3, 2007 5:57 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Right

and my point was not that the Cards had the same player in Hamilton, but rather that these bizarre black-and-white statements that claim AZ would never trade Quentin right now are simplistic, erroneous, and really add nothing to these diaries. Sometimes a GM doesn't wait to see how a guy rebounds from injury - period.

by siddfynch on Dec 4, 2007 12:10 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Neither Milledge nor Quentin

Really address a need in my mind. The Cards have three productive outfielders in some combination of Duncan/Ludwick/Ankiel/Edmonds/Schumaker/Spiezio. The question marks are the rotation and in the infield, and sadly the SS position seems to have been plugged (well occupied) by Izturis. So if Mozeliak is really serious about making trades, it should be to improve the staff. There's no reason to get all hot and bothered over not acquiring outfield prospects.

by redbirdnation8206 on Dec 3, 2007 6:23 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

devil's advocate

would say that if you have a quality RF that needs no platoon partner, than you can spin that platoon into help needed elsewhere.

I would say that needing 6 OFs to fill 3 spots competently means that we could certainly stand some improvement there. As well as in the rotation and infield, of course.

by siddfynch on Dec 4, 2007 12:13 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

a starting pitcher

healthy starting pitcher please and a right handed outfield bat if you trade edmonds and rolen then you have to have offense form somewhere.I could would like to see schumaker in the leadoff role if we trade edmonds,,..Also move duncan to right field ludwick duncan schumaker and ankiel with a right handed bat sound ok for the outfield/speez seems to hit better lefthanded/..

by cm1000 on Dec 4, 2007 1:17 PM EST reply actions 0 recs