Viva El Birdos: An SB Nation Community

Navigation: Jump to content areas:

Around SBN: On Bobby in the Box Score Bar-right-arrows

Bedard = Left Handed Beckett

Groat_tiny by Red Blazer on

I know there is a thread about Rasmus possibly being dealt for Bedard but I wanted to discuss the similarities between that potential deal and the one Boston made for Beckett by sending phenom SS prospect Hanley Ramirez to Florida so here it goes...

Bedard is a year older than Beckett. They show a very similar pattern if you look at the year to year numbers. Beckett came into his own with a better team around him in Boston than he ever would have had the chance of playing for in Florida. Beckett cost the Sox a highly regarded prospect. Ramirez was 21 coming out of AA ball. Sound familiar? It will sting intially but Bedard has more value in the post season. Beckett showed that this year. Not to mention Tejada could be our Mike Lowell. A throw in. Rasmus plus an assortment of lesser prospects for Bedard & Tejada is starting to grow on me. Keep Rolen and the infield looks pretty solid if Adam Kennedy can rebound. I would like to see a full year of  Duncan and Ankiel in the outfield with Edmonds starting and training a younger replacement with potential. I would argue that the acquistion of Barton makes Rasmus expendable and Barton can be that younger replacement with potential. Knowing that Baltimore already drafted a phenom catching prospect by the name of Matt Wieters who else do you think we would need to send over in a package with Rasmus to bring back Bedard and Tejada?

0 recs | Comment 71 comments

Story-email Email | Print |

Comments

Display:

the difference
The difference is that the Red Sox were a much better than than the Cardinals at the point of the trade. Dealing for Beckett elevated the Red Sox to world series contenders. Dealing for Bedard elevates that Cardinals to ... maybe the 5th or 6th best team  in the NL. You can't always play to win the world series the next year. Sometime you have to take in the mouth for one season so that you will be better for the next three seasons.  

by maurerdj on Dec 9, 2007 5:42 PM EST   0 recs

adding on
At the point Sox made trad they also had a deeper farm system, gave up another of their highly regarded prospcts Sanchez, and they had seen Beckett dominate in playoffs

by zolak16 on Dec 9, 2007 5:47 PM EST to parent up   0 recs

This is true but we could include Reyes.
Also we won't need the farm for 2 to three years and by then the A and AA prospects from the 2006 and 2007 draft will be ready.
The Red Blazer

by Red Blazer on Dec 9, 2007 7:39 PM EST to parent up   0 recs

They may have been a little better but not by
much. Papi couldn't stay healthy. Manny is declining. Lugo couldn't hit. Crisp couldn't hit.
Schilling was the top dog. Varitek is aging. I think what held up Boston this year was the pitching. With Bedard we would have the makings of a solid staff and if Carp can come back and be effective I would take Carp/Bedard/Wainright in any post season series agianst any rotation and fell like I had a chance.  
The Red Blazer

by Red Blazer on Dec 9, 2007 7:41 PM EST to parent up   0 recs

Huh?
Dude, do you even do any fact checking before you post? Lugo was not on the team yet, and wouldn't be for another two years. Ortiz played 159 games in 2005, Manny posted an OPS+ of 153, Schilling was out for most of the year, Varitek posted his highest OPS+ ever in a full season, and they won 95 games. In no way do the Red Sox of 2005 compare to the Cardinals of 2007.

Bedard has never pitched more than 200 innings. As much as I love Carp, its unlikely he will come back and be as effective as he was in 2004-2006. Wainwright had an xFIP of 4.60 last year, so he will likely regress a little bit.

It makes no sense to trade 1 great prospect and 2 very good ones so we might have a chance to get to the playoffs. Even if we traded for Bedard, the Cardinals would need everything to fall into place perfectly to get to the playoffs. And we would still would only be about the 5th best team. Don;t sacrifice the future for a first round playoff lost.

by maurerdj on Dec 9, 2007 9:17 PM EST to parent up   0 recs

I realize that
Lugo wasn't there yet. I blurred the seasons. Manny is declining now. Varitek was still old no matter what he posted. Finally, did Beckett throw up a 200 inning season before Boston? I was making a point that it is similar. Not exactly the same. The two moves would share similarities. Never did I say this move would be exactly like the Boston move but I did use the word similar.
The Red Blazer

by Red Blazer on Dec 9, 2007 10:05 PM EST to parent up   0 recs

Josh Beckett's ERA+ in 2006...
... which was his first year in Boston: 95. or, below average. so simply acquiring him doesn't mean that he's gonna lead us to a World Series in his first year. remember how disappointing Mulder was in 2005? he was the same age as Bedard when we acquired him, and had a better track record. plus, we were coming off of a World Series appearance that year, and thought we only needed one more piece to win it. the same is not true now.

the Marlins also got salary relief (from Lowell), Anibel Sanchez, Harvey Garcia, and Jesus Garcia in addition to Ramirez in the deal. the Cards might not have three pitching prospects that highly regarded at the time of the trade.

also, you keep harping on the fact that they are the same age (or similar). actually, Beckett is one year younger than Bedard, plus he was acquired two years ago. that's a three year age difference, which isn't negligible, especially if you want to try to sign him long-term.

by kindred on Dec 9, 2007 11:24 PM EST to parent up   0 recs

re
First, Beckett is younger than Bedard by a year.

Second, Tejada is not a "throw in", the Orioles want decent prospects for him, the Marlins just wanted to rid themselves of Lowell's contract, very different.

When was the last time Bedard pitched over 200 innings?  Hell he's only pitched over 150 innings twice.  This is also Bedard's breakout year, sell high? Bedard will be 29 this upcoming season, and will be starting to make a lot in arbtration, then in free agency in 2 years will make a good 150M if he wants.  Now Rasmus will be pretty damn cheap during that time.  Now I'm not saying Bedard is bad, because quite frankly he was the most impressive starter in the game while he did pitch last season.

The Cardinals aren't going to compete this year anyways unless everything in the world goes right.

by bigboy1234 on Dec 9, 2007 6:03 PM EST   0 recs

Thanks for catching that.
I fixed it . Still my point is they are basically the same age. A year apart doesn't matter and that was my point. Also Beckett did not pitch 200 innings until he arrived at Boston. I disagree that we will not compete. You make that trade and the pitching stands a chance at being respectable. Not to mention I think this would look pretty good defensively and offensively...

CF Barton          1 Bedard
RF Ankiel          2 Wainright
1B Pujols          3 Mulder(healthy)
SS Tejada          4 Piniero
LF Duncan          5 Looper
3B Rolen           * Reyes
C  Molina
P
2B Kennedy

The Red Blazer

by Red Blazer on Dec 9, 2007 7:37 PM EST to parent up   0 recs

what trade?
Tejada isn't a throw in.  The O's don't even need Bryan Anderson.  In order for the Cards to get Bedard and Tejada they would have to give up Rasmus, Garcia, Perez, Ottavino, Herron, Martinez, Boggs, and likely more.  Thats a ton of cost and team controlled years.  Then what happens in 2 years when Bedard walks for more money elsewhere?  What happens in a couple months when Tejada's name comes out in the Mitchell report and he continues to decline and becomes a PR problem?

I seriously doubt Mulder being healthy.

Rolen does not want to play for the Cards (and I dont blame him), so he more than likely will be gone.

Barton will be lucky to have a .750 OPS next season, Ankiel will be lucky to have an OBP of over .310.  Piniero, Looper, and Reyes are all 5 ERAs waiting to happen.  The bullpen is pretty overrated as Franklin, Izzy, and Springer all over performed last season.

by bigboy1234 on Dec 9, 2007 8:00 PM EST to parent up   0 recs

I really hope your wrong about next year
otherwise it is going to be a very painful year of baseball for Cards fans. I never said inlcude Anderson in fact I hinted he should not be included because they have Wieters.
The Red Blazer

by Red Blazer on Dec 9, 2007 10:23 PM EST to parent up   0 recs

re
I know you said that.  My point was the Orioles don't even need one of our better prospects, which means a deal is probably even less likely.

by bigboy1234 on Dec 9, 2007 11:01 PM EST to parent up   0 recs

painful either way
this year won't be great either way, but making the trade for bedard makes the following years even worse for the cards.  unless we pay $20mm a year to sign a 31 yr pitcher with injury concerns to a 6 or 7 year deal when bedard gets to free agency.   would you give aj burnett a deal like that now?

not a good long-term move, imo.

by birdsonthebat on Dec 9, 2007 11:50 PM EST to parent up   0 recs

Whatever...............
We competed almost all last season and i`m pretty sure we are going to compete all of 08...
Sure we wont be anywhere near a great team but we can compete in the Central even without everything going right......

by Calhoun on Dec 9, 2007 8:57 PM EST to parent up   0 recs

optimism is beautiful
The Cardinals had the 6th lowest ExpWP, compared to the 13th worst record.  The Cardinals were lucky to finish where they did last season.  The Cardinals were outscored by more than 100 runs last season, only 6 other teams managed to do that.

Added:
Barton
Izturis
LaRue

Lost:
Eckstein
Percival

Really doesn't look like we've solved that problem.  And even if the Cardinals do miraculously make the playoffs, they aren't going to do anything in the playoffs, although the playoffs are generally lucky.

by bigboy1234 on Dec 9, 2007 9:29 PM EST to parent up   0 recs

A starter like Bedard and a bat like Tejada
will complete the season and it will make us competitive. You are splitting hairs. If you don't want to agree with me then fine but at least try to see the merit in what I proposed before you slam it into the ground.
The Red Blazer

by Red Blazer on Dec 9, 2007 10:07 PM EST to parent up   0 recs

hmmm
Bedard is great, no doubt.  Tejada, really isn't a great bat.  Actually this response I had wasn't even toward one of your comments, so I don't know why you're getting so defensive.

Would having Tejada and Bedard next year make us competitive?  Probably, but is 2 years of Bedard worth the entire farm system?  Thats where I STRONGLY disagree with you.  Tejada isn't a "throw in" although you think he is, he's going to cost a couple good prospects himself, while Bedard will cost Rasmus and another couple good prospects.

Thus leaving the Cardinals with absolutely no farm, and once Bedard leaves in a couple years for a huge contract, and an even bigger problem than the Cards have now.  Or even if Bedard did re-sign it's going to cost a crazy amount of money, while the prospects we would be trading for him would be making no money at all.

by bigboy1234 on Dec 9, 2007 10:38 PM EST to parent up   0 recs

I see your point.
But at some point they need to make up thier minds. To rebuild or reload. Gutting the farm system is risky I agree I just wanted to look at how the trade might work out for us and the closest thing out there is the Beckett trade.
The Red Blazer

by Red Blazer on Dec 10, 2007 9:49 AM EST to parent up   0 recs

Actually
I think the Mulder trade is a more appropriate comparison to this one.  Beckett was a dominating starter with the Marlins who had problems with blisters on his right hand.  He single handedly dominated the playoffs in 2003 and threw a complete game shutout on three days rest against a great Yankee lineup to close out the World Series that year.  He had proven to be a dominant starter -- Bedard has done it for one year and is older than Beckett right now.

To be totally honest, if Beckett and Lowell put up seasons like 2006 for the Red Sox this year we'd be talking about how terrible a trade this was for them, consdering the value that they gave up, and they'd probably have already sold the rest of the farm to get Santana.  The Cardinals don't have the farm system depth to be able to deal for two top starters in a three year timeframe, so you can't really compare this.  They would be gutting what's left of an unhealthy farm system to acquire a guy that's not necessarily going to solve any problems.

Mulder was about the same age as Bedard is right now when he was dealt to the Cardinals in 2005.  The Cards gave up pretty decent value for him at the time, although Duncan didn't think much of Dan Haren (good call on that one Dunc!), and Barton wasn't a guy with a realistic shot at playing for the Cards because of his position.  This trade has proven to be a disaster for the club and if they traded Rasmus and he turns into the next Grady Sizemore for 6 years you'd be cursing the carpet Mo walks on.  IMO, a possible all-star, five tool centerfielder that is cost controlled is probably worth more the the Cards than dealing him for a pitcher coming off a career year and probably not signable when he becomes a free agent.

You're just constantly looking for the next big splash trade Blazer, if it isn't Miggy then it's Tejada/Bedard.  I think you need to take a long, hard look around the big leagues.  There are only a few teams capable of constantly trading away talent on short term fixes and re-signing/signing big name free agents.  All of those teams play in much bigger markets and have much higher payroll ceilings than the Cardinals do.  Three of them made the playoffs last year (Yankees, Red Sox, Cubs).  The rest of the '07 playoff teams have strong farm systems and have rebuilt from within, which gives them tradable assets, payroll flexibility, and team controlled players for long stretches.  Even the three high payroll teams have a lot better farm systems than the Cards do, and the Yankees and Sox aren't trading away all of those assets to get "the one guy", i.e. Santana.  

Name one player that the Rockies, Indians, D-Backs or Twins have sold out to get in trade over the past 4 seasons?  Had the Cards stood pat with what they had in 2004 we'd have a top of the line starter who's cheap on our payroll already for next year, a pretty nice trading chip in Daric Barton, and a much better overall ballclub.  Invariably, selling out for that "one more guy" can get you in a lot of trouble in the long run and that's where we are.  The Rox have one big contract player (Helton) and a nice core of young talent to build on (Holliday, Tulo, Atkins, Hawpe, Francis), wouldn't it be nice of this were the Cardinals in 2010/2011?  You certainly don't get there by trading away four top prospects for one starter.

"The Cardinals have won a World Series in THEIR new stadium!" --my Uncle Jim to a heckling Cubs fan

by fourstick on Dec 11, 2007 12:19 PM EST to parent up   0 recs

I agree mostly
I am frothing at the mouth for something big to happen. But occasionally I do come back to my senses and realize maybe the best move right now is none. Just wait and see how the first few months of the season pan out. The problem is that is such a loooooong ways away. Whatever will I do?
"Sell the Farm Guy"

by Red Blazer on Dec 11, 2007 1:42 PM EST to parent up   0 recs

(Insert very loud buzzer sound)
"...although Duncan didn't think much of Dan Haren (good call on that one Dunc!)..."

That keeps getting thrown around and quite frankly it is very, very incorrect.  That deal was all on WJ's shoulders, and partially on TLR's too.  

Dave Duncan wanted to hold on to Haren, and apparently that has been the only real argument that TLR and Dunc have really ever gotten in over personnel.  Based on my limited knowledge, it seems the situation was that TLR and WJ thought a Mulder/Hudson type was the missing piece to a very good Cardinals team, but Dunc thought Haren was good and needed to be around.  Google Dave Duncan and Dan Haren together and you'll see other interviews that back this up.  

by redbirdnation8206 on Dec 11, 2007 5:55 PM EST to parent up   0 recs

In other words...
why would you so consistently want to trade a guy who compares to

This guy?

Colby Rasmus

"The Cardinals have won a World Series in THEIR new stadium!" --my Uncle Jim to a heckling Cubs fan

by fourstick on Dec 11, 2007 12:38 PM EST to parent up   0 recs

I just knew when I clicked on that link
it would be someone like Micky Mantle or Willie Mays or Stan Musial, but low and behold we get Grady Sizemore....again.

I know if I were a betting man, I'd want a better comp than Grady Sizemore if I were to deem someone "untouchable".

by Big Red on Dec 11, 2007 1:19 PM EST to parent up   0 recs

really?
Have you seen the numbers that Grady's put up in his 1st three seasons?  He was a legitimate MVP candidate last season as well.

Besides, it's not just Colby's talent that makes him untouchable, it's the fact that he's the only great talent in the whole farm system.  If the Cardinals had someone to fall back on that projects to be as good we wouldn't be hearing the "untouchable" moniker.  But they don't have anyone even close.

"The Cardinals have won a World Series in THEIR new stadium!" --my Uncle Jim to a heckling Cubs fan

by fourstick on Dec 11, 2007 2:50 PM EST to parent up   0 recs

Besides
How could I compare three of the top 6 players all-time (IMHO, always) with any kid who hasn't played a game in the majors?  The last player that one could possibly do that with would have been A-Rod around 11 years ago.  He's really the last sure thing that's come up out of the minors where everyone was sure he was destined for greatness.

Speaking of which, isn't it amazing how the last to "can't miss" HOF prospects came up with the same team (Griffey, A-Rod, Seattle) and that team hasn't ever been to a World Series?  Not to mention they also had a certain future HOF pitcher come up at the same time.  This should dispell the notion that one player can carry a team in baseball.

"The Cardinals have won a World Series in THEIR new stadium!" --my Uncle Jim to a heckling Cubs fan

by fourstick on Dec 11, 2007 2:55 PM EST to parent up   0 recs

I'm not sure about your second reply
but I think you're kind of agreeing with me.

Btw, if you can't compare Rasmus to players who are in the Top 6 of all time, then how can you compare him to a 4 year player in the major leagues?  Last time I checked, Rasmus hasn't played 4 years just yet.

Anyway my point is, if he's maybe as good as Sizemore (remember we don't really know for sure as player comps aren't absolutes) then why would he be untradeable?

I'm sure if the right deal came around, Cleveland would trade Sizemore.  They'd be silly not to.  What's the right deal?  Who knows, but to blindly label a 20 year old AA guy who has comps that "compare" to Sizemore as untradeable is not smart business.  

Btw, those numbers you linked of Sizemore aren't exactly impressive.  An argument can be made that Sizemore imrpoved greatly once being promoted to the Indians big club which would make any comps between the two players even less reliable.  (and lets not overlook the fact that Sizemore has struck out over 150 times the last 2 seasons, and over 130 the last 3)

And simply because he's the best in the farm system doesn't mean you should never trade him.  It just means he's the best of a bunch of bad players.  Sometimes I think we informally evaluate him based on his competition in the system as opposed to his competition overall.  

But let's talk about your point about Arod and Griffey coming from the Mariners and them never going to the WS.  You also said no one player can carry a team in baseball.  

Exactly!!

Which is exactly why Colby Rasmus and "untouchable" should NEVER be used in the same sentence.  

Thanks for making my point.

I'm not trying to say Rasmus isn't a top prospect.  He is.  That's not the point.  But to compare him to Grady Sizemore and proclaim him as close to savior status as possible is crazy.

by Big Red on Dec 11, 2007 3:47 PM EST to parent up   0 recs

Well
"Sometimes I think we informally evaluate him based on his competition in the system as opposed to his competition overall.  "

He's a top 10 prospect in the entirety of the minor leagues. Rasmus is an excellent prospect -- his projection and value isn't an illusion of the state of our farm system.

by azruavatar on Dec 11, 2007 4:18 PM EST to parent up   0 recs

agree
Rasmus was ranked highly against all minor league prospects.

I have not see you do this but it is funny people say he is untouchable and then say he compares to Grady Sizemore!  Grady Sizemore is not even the best player on the Indians.

I would be happy with Rasmus performing like Sizemore but it is far from untouchable.

by ICbirdfan on Dec 11, 2007 4:33 PM EST to parent up   0 recs

accounting for position and defense
Sizemore is the best position player on the Indians.  If you are a real believer in the imporatance of catcher's defense, you could make an argument for Victor Martinez.

by azruavatar on Dec 11, 2007 5:05 PM EST to parent up   0 recs

I completely agree with you
and Rasmus IS a top prospect.  That definately holds water, but is not the end-all-be-all.  

And yes, he is an excellent prospect, but being an excellent prospect doesn't elevate him to untouchable status.

I'm not advocating trading Rasmus, but if there were a trade that came about that could radically change this ballclub and it included Rasmus to get done, I think it would be within our best interests to at least remove his untouchable label.  

That's all.  I don't have a problem with him being considered a top prospect.  I just have a problem with labeling him untouchable especially when his top comp is Grady Sizemore.

by Big Red on Dec 11, 2007 4:59 PM EST to parent up   0 recs

Sizemore
He's averaged 55 runs over replacement level the last three years per VORP.  He's probably a plus 10 defender in center.  I can't think of a realistic package that I would move Grady Sizemore for.  The key word is realistic -- how often do elite players get moved when they're in their cost controlled years (the Cabrera example aside that isn't the norm).

That's an amazing comp for someone who hasn't even made it past AA.  Comparison systems are often conservative in nature since the truly outstanding players are very rare.  They aren't going to come and label every player the next Griffey or Willie Mays -- better to underpromise and overdeliver.

by azruavatar on Dec 11, 2007 5:13 PM EST to parent up   0 recs

The central isn't going to be awful for forever
Eventually the Brewers or the Cubs are going to click

by Valatan on Dec 9, 2007 9:45 PM EST to parent up   0 recs

I wouldn't bet on that
It could happen, but Milwaukee's young talent has proven to be either just alright, injury prone or future designated hitters while the Cubs are filling up their roster with players that will become real bad contracts in about a year from now.

by Big Red on Dec 9, 2007 9:54 PM EST to parent up   0 recs

That Young Talent
Very nearly won the division this year, and probably would have if their manager wasn't completely incompetent.  The dude let his team get in a beanball contest in the middle of the pennant race.  He refused to move Braun out of the infield, even though a very obvious move would have been to Braun in right/left, Hart in center, and Hall at third.  This wasted a great deal of Braun's offensive contribution, as he had a nasty habit of giving those runs right back.  He rode Villanueva, Shouse, and Turnbow into the ground.  Their rotation was horrible, and built around an ace with a very questionable injury record.  Their inability to win the division this year wasn't on their position guys...That lineup was scary as shit.  It was on the GM and the manager.  

To say "oh well the Brewers didn't do it this year, they won't ever" is a drastic mistake.  They're much much MUCH closer than the Cardinals to being very very good.  

by redbirdnation8206 on Dec 11, 2007 6:04 PM EST to parent up   0 recs

and the nightmare rumour today
was Blalock to MIL...  That, plus shoring up the bullpen, very well could turn then into a 95-win team imho.
Christmas lights are an extremely efficient method for converting Christmas Spirit into heat. -anon

by SleepyCA on Dec 11, 2007 11:24 PM EST to parent up   0 recs

Don't put words in my mouth
"To say "oh well the Brewers didn't do it this year, they won't ever" is a drastic mistake."

FYI, if you're going to put quotation marks around something I apparantly said, at least find something I actually said instead of making something up and "quoting" it as if I said someting as stupid as that.

And FYI, their rotation is STILL horrible and it's still built around that same ace with the questionable injury record.

by Big Red on Dec 12, 2007 1:45 AM EST to parent up   0 recs

Apologies
I wasn't trying to put words in your mouth, more to sum up the theme of your post in an obviously sarcastic way.  I can see where you'd get mixed up...My apologies to you sir.  

by redbirdnation8206 on Dec 12, 2007 1:34 PM EST to parent up   0 recs

The Fact Remains, However
That their young talent was quite a bit more than ok, injured, and future-DH material.  The only young kid who got significant playing time for them that I would say was "ok" was Weeks.  I'm not sure who you would say was injured...maybe Weeks I guess b/c Hall isn't exactly young.  As for the future DH part: that's Prince Fielder alright.  Braun's future (and should be his present too) is the outfield.  He's a tremendous athlete with a cannon for an arm.  

My original point was that their young talent is far more than what you gave them credit for, and nearly won them the NL Central in spite of incompetence by the man in the dugout.  I guarantee that if someone had kidnapped Yost and duct-tape him to his chair in his office and move Braun to the outfield, they would have won 3 more games this year at least.  

by redbirdnation8206 on Dec 12, 2007 1:40 PM EST to parent up   0 recs

Blazer...
You're really starved for a big name my friend...at any cost apparently.  Any time the Cards are linked to a big name player you become hysterical.

Again, we aren't one player away from being a good team.  We don't need that little extra push, we need a hydraulic lift.  It doesn't make sense to gut our entire minor league system of it's top prospects when we look like an 80 win team.  Is there one guy out there that's worth 10 wins?  I've yet to see one.

Lincecum, Garza, McGowan...maybe you deal Rasmus for, but not a guy who's 2 years from free agency and has never had 200IP in a season.

"I'm hungry. Not for food. Just for baseball" Amaury Cazana Marti

by bobbyballgame1 on Dec 9, 2007 8:44 PM EST   0 recs

I feel ya Bobby.
But this time I took care to check my facts and provide supporting links. I avoided stressed language. I still contest the idea of the move would be similar to the Beckett move. How come nobody sees that? Read it again and tell me where I said this has to happen. I just said it would be a similar move and I wanted to discuss the similarities. Everytime I throw something up I get pasted and this time I took care to make it as unpersonal as possible.
The Red Blazer

by Red Blazer on Dec 9, 2007 10:10 PM EST to parent up   0 recs

well...
... a few differences:

Red Sox = $175mn payroll + a great farm system

Cardinals = $100mn payroll + a shitty farm system

so your analogy doesn't work. satisfied? no? well, then, consider this: Peter Angelos is certifiably crazy when it comes to personnel moves. during the Winter Meetings, he was asking for 2+ top prospects for Tejada alone. and a lot of commentators believe that Bedard might bring a higher prize than Santana, because Bedard comes with two years of control rather than one. the Marlins in '05 were trying to dump salary any way they could, and Lowell's money coming off the books was a big reason why the deal was made. Angelos isn't doing that with Tejada; he's doing the opposite. it's two completely different situations.

not only that, but look what the Marlins just got for Miggy/Willis. arguably, to a time without payroll constraints, Bedard and Tejada are worth more than that package, since Tejada plays a premium defensive position, Miggy might be the worst defensive 3B in the AL next year, Willis sucks now, and Bedard was one of the top 5 pitchers in baseball last year. so, how likely do you really think it is that the O's would hand over Bedard + Tejada for Rasmus and a few other pieces?

finally, the Reds are reportedly in on Bedard, and they have way better prospects to deal, and many more of them, including Bailey, Encarnacion, Hamilton, and a few MiLB studs. if we were to get in a bidding war with Cinci, we'd lose. with or without Rasmus.

there really isn't a chance of this happening. and, if it did, we'd be mortgaging the future for a chance to be a couple of games over .500 in '08. even with Tejada and Bedard we aren't as good as the Cubs, and probably not the Brewers either.

it ain't happening, and it shouldn't.

by kindred on Dec 9, 2007 11:13 PM EST to parent up   0 recs

fact-checking
like this would get me fired from my job

by baw on Dec 10, 2007 2:21 PM EST to parent up   0 recs

Bedard
It really doesn't seem possible that the Cards have what the O's would take for him, nevermind him and Tejada

by zolak16 on Dec 10, 2007 12:57 AM EST   0 recs

No, just stop
Beckett was not acquired for just Hanley Ramirez.  The Red Sox had to trade Anibal Sanchez too.  He had a great 2006, but injuries haven't been kind to him since.  Still, Sanchez was a big deal too.  It's not like the Marlins got any old arm.  The O's are going to want much more than just Rasmus.

Second, Mike Lowell was a throw-in because:
a. the Marlins wanted to dump payroll to almost $0
b. he was a career .275 20HR hitter who just played a full season with a .236 8HR season
c. he was on the wrong side of 30
d. he plays a position where you can't have guys hit .236 and have 8HR
e. rumors of steroids were plaguing him

Miguel Tejada is down, but still hit .298, 18HR, and supposedly can still play SS.  

This ain't going to happen.  No big trade is going to happen.  Get use to it.  It grinds a bit every time I look at the diaries and here is yet another 'Blazer' special about some guy we should trade Rasmus for.

by SpringfieldDude on Dec 10, 2007 3:17 AM EST   0 recs

WOW
Who cares whether it grinds you to see Blazer making Diaries?
He has every right to make a diary and what is wrong with having conversations about possible trades during the off-season?
If it "Grinds" you so much don't click on Blazers diaries............
Just because he is discussing trading Rasmus does not mean he wants to..............

by Calhoun on Dec 10, 2007 11:30 PM EST to parent up   0 recs

It goes beyond just that
Every diary is full of false assumptions, inaccurate analysis, and a woeful misunderstanding of our team's position.  Just take a look at his summary of the 2004 Red Sox as a perfect example.  

You are right.  Everyone has a right to post what ever they want.  If I know Blazer's diaries are going to be terrible, I shouldn't read them.  However, other readers of the site have the same right to put their two cents if information on this website is not very good.  Bottom line, next time something pops up in the rumor mill, Blazer should spend a lot more time doing research before writing half-assed diaries that just barely meet the word minimum.

by SpringfieldDude on Dec 10, 2007 11:45 PM EST to parent up   0 recs

I tried my best. Sorry it wasn't up to your
standards. Maybe you should check out my tribute to baw. At least he has a sense of humor.
"Sell the Farm Guy"

by Red Blazer on Dec 11, 2007 1:44 PM EST to parent up   0 recs

Well if I didn't know you
I would have thought this post was a joke if that makes you feel any better.  I'm a pretty funny guy.

by SpringfieldDude on Dec 11, 2007 9:52 PM EST to parent up   0 recs

Similarities
I think Red Blazer meant to preface his diary with this.

by baw on Dec 10, 2007 2:30 PM EST   0 recs

and by this,
i mean this: www.youtube.com/watch?v=O-9PX95lE8c

by baw on Dec 10, 2007 2:32 PM EST to parent up   0 recs

i'm not
it's sesame street. a joke. everybody just cool out!

by baw on Dec 10, 2007 3:29 PM EST to parent up   0 recs

haha, that
will be even better if you tell me it's actually you behind the mic

by baw on Dec 10, 2007 5:15 PM EST to parent up   0 recs

I wish I could but I'm a little to Irish for that
to be me...Liked the sesame street link wish I had thought of that one.
"Sell the Farm Guy"

by Red Blazer on Dec 10, 2007 5:25 PM EST to parent up   0 recs

and
seeing as how Red Blazer wasn't particularly offended by my terribly scathing use of Sesame Street to make light of this whole discussion... I don't see why it should offend you so much, Valatan. Are the diary police expanding their jurisdiction to include comments now?

by baw on Dec 10, 2007 11:55 PM EST to parent up   0 recs

after the kerfluffle with diaries lately
(one of which I had to shut down) do you really need to ask the question of why we'd want to avoid a flame war. Also, this idea that there are a bunch of diary/comment nazi's running around is disingenuous and condescending. No one wants to see VEB devolve into mindless bickering. By and large, there's a very liberal privilege for everyone to say anything they want related to baseball.

by azruavatar on Dec 11, 2007 12:12 AM EST to parent up   0 recs

flame war?
it wasn't even an argument until we started arguing about whether or not it was an argument. does that make sense? what you and i have going now is a lot closer to "mindless bickering" than our youtube exchange. if half of the population here would relax and quit sniffing for insidiousness in every sesame street comment, maybe everyone else could step away from their macs, lower the collective blood pressure on this site and get laid once in a while. or not; after all, there is a level of discourse to uphold and that demands our full attention.

by baw on Dec 11, 2007 1:09 AM EST to parent up   0 recs

hmm...
I'll have to agree with the sentiments of Baw on this one.  He made a joke.  The bickering started when he was asked if he was trying to start a flame war.  

by jdub176 on Dec 11, 2007 1:28 AM EST to parent up   0 recs

That comment was posted very shortly
after this went up.  I wasn't trying to be hostile, I was just asking for a step back to reconsider the way things could be taken without an ability to hear intonation.  I wasn't trying to 'police' or whatever.  

I'm happy everyone took everything well.  

by Valatan on Dec 11, 2007 3:23 AM EST to parent up   0 recs

I will say intially
that I was a little peeved but I need to get over it because this is suppose to be fun so I did. I really liked the sesame street but. It was what I was trying to say. It was funny because it was true.
"Sell the Farm Guy"

by Red Blazer on Dec 11, 2007 1:45 PM EST to parent up   0 recs