Olney Reports Cards Talking to Twins About Rolen

There is no way this is real

I suppose nothing is impossible, but I would think for the Twins to take on Scott's contract we would have to eat a significant chunk of it. They are trying to resign Santana and Nathan and Morneau, they shouldn't pick up this contract. And it makes little sense for us either...I would rather take the chance that Rolen rebounds even a little for us rather than paying for him to rebound somewhere else. Unless we got one of their young, studly pitchers, which we won't, I can't see this actually happening.

The hot stove is burning...

by cardzfan24 on Nov 8, 2007 1:30 PM EST reply actions

rebound

i'd pass on a pure salary dump. rolen still has good D and there is a chance he regains a little of the offense after the surgery. he did have a decent 2006.

however, someone like garza would be very, very tempting.

by dmb60614 on Nov 8, 2007 3:27 PM EST up reply actions

Doesn't Make Sense

We all agree Rolen is still good with the glove. Punto, the usual 3B/util man in Minn., is a defensive studmuffin who goes balls out on each play. He can play any position in the IF.

The Twins want power at 3B and preferably a young man b/c they won't be able to retain Mauer and Morneau.

I don't see Rolen taking a 30HR RH bat there...

by DuncanDipper on Nov 8, 2007 3:50 PM EST up reply actions

Nick Punto is a terrible player

he's absolutely atroucious with the bat and merely above average defensively. he isn't as great with the glove as you seem to imply and he's have to be like Adam Everett to come close to the breakeven point.

by azruavatar on Nov 8, 2007 4:48 PM EST up reply actions

Punto is a regular reader

of VEB, not anymore I guess.

The hot stove is burning...

by cardzfan24 on Nov 9, 2007 12:12 PM EST up reply actions

I'm sure he's a very nice person

and I know that Twins fans, by and large, liked him but that doesn't mean he wasn't really truly awful last year.

by azruavatar on Nov 9, 2007 5:09 PM EST up reply actions

Percentages

Punto was at .973 in 2007.

Rolen was at .969 in 2007.

Not a ton better, but he is no slouch considering its a higher % at a variety of positions.

by DuncanDipper on Nov 9, 2007 1:48 PM EST up reply actions

That looks like fielding percentage

tell me your not using fielding percentage.

by azruavatar on Nov 9, 2007 5:16 PM EST up reply actions

I am sorry

I am sorry but you are incorrect here.

Nick Punto is better than any MI STL has or will have the next couple years. I get FSN Midwest and watch a lot of Twin games. He has very good, range, as strong arm and plays 3B, SS, 2B.

Sorry but you are wrong about his skills.

by ICbirdfan on Nov 9, 2007 3:15 PM EST up reply actions

I looked at the fan scouting report

that tangotiger runs on his site. I was surprised by how well Punto was rated. The defensive metrics weren't impressed with him this year (not that he was bad, just that he was only 3-5 runs over average). The idea that Punto would preclude a deal for Rolen is ridiculous. He may be better defensively than I or the metrics credit him for but he's a fringe MLB player along the lines of Aaron Miles.

by azruavatar on Nov 9, 2007 5:09 PM EST up reply actions

Why would the Cardinals trade Scott Rolen

if they have to eat any of his contract? And paying part of the contract is the only way the Twins make a deal like this.

Scott needs to grow up, kiss and make up with the organization and get ready for the season.

"Well, you wait for a strike. Then you knock the shit out of it. - Musial to Flood on how to hit a curveball

by Hardcore Legend on Nov 8, 2007 1:55 PM EST reply actions

gosh, i hope so

i don't think we get slowey, bonser, garza or anyone great here, but i'd be happy with oswaldo sosa. he's a sinkerballer, probably a couple of seasons away from pitching in the bigs.

http://firstinning.com/players/Oswaldo-Sosa-a/

Future Redbirds

by erik on Nov 8, 2007 2:08 PM EST up reply actions

You hope so what?

That the Cardinals eat part of Rolen's contract?

"Well, you wait for a strike. Then you knock the shit out of it. - Musial to Flood on how to hit a curveball

by Hardcore Legend on Nov 8, 2007 2:10 PM EST up reply actions

yes

part of it is better then all. i don't think he will ever get back to being the player he was. yagottaproblemwitdat? i kid, i kid. if they can get a good prospect or two and be rid of most of that horrid contract, i'd be happy.

Future Redbirds

by erik on Nov 8, 2007 2:16 PM EST up reply actions

but

who plays third? I can't think of anyone that we have as a starter, and our defense had enough trouble as it was last year. Rolen was one of our bright spots.

I agree that if the trade is right, I wouldn't mind letting him go, but using him as a salary dump for prospects, I'd rather not. Maybe it's just my being a fan of Rolen's glovework getting in the way, but I'd to see us make a deal with him involved, unless the price is right. I agree with Hardcore, unless it's a full salary dump, then I'd rather not see it happen.

On with the youth movement!

by aet15 on Nov 8, 2007 2:44 PM EST up reply actions

speezio

at least vs. lefties, speezio would play. maybe they can find a tag team partner for the righties.

by dmb60614 on Nov 8, 2007 2:58 PM EST up reply actions

Speizo, why lefties.

I thoutht hit better left handed. I know he has more power. He just never looked that good at third to me, but maybe it's just because I got so used to Rolen.

by ridgesee on Nov 8, 2007 5:25 PM EST up reply actions

i dunno, but for what it's worth

ZiPS Barden .265 .310 .430

Rolen .255 .331 .397

Future Redbirds

by erik on Nov 8, 2007 3:00 PM EST up reply actions

Th question is

Do you think Rolen can produce like he did in 2006 again?

I think is it possible and would rather bet on finding out than paying 6 million plus the cost of a new contract to someone like Arron Rowand or Andruw Jones (i.e. the replacement bat for the middle of the lineup). For a team in need of pitching, such a move if very wasteful .

by JMedwick on Nov 8, 2007 3:48 PM EST up reply actions

I feel that way too

by ridgesee on Nov 8, 2007 5:27 PM EST up reply actions

What's

Barden like in terms of fielding, though? If Barden's a studly fielder, then then may be inticing. Otherwise, we really need someone else.

Plus, last year was an awful year for Rolen, so I'd rather not have a player who can put up numbers similar to an awful hitting year.

On with the youth movement!

by aet15 on Nov 8, 2007 4:39 PM EST up reply actions

La Russa Too

both of them need to grow up and realize it's a job that they get paid good money to do. I work with lots of people I don't like.

by JShell73 on Nov 8, 2007 2:09 PM EST up reply actions

Could it be something crazy?

Like Rolen and Rasmus for Santana? Clearing the fraction of the payroll that we're paying Rolen would probably be enough to actually sign Santana. It makes sense for them to want Rasmus, considering that the twins are losing Hunter.

I know it's a pipe dream, but thinking of crazy blockbusters is the only thing that keeps me awake in the offseason.

by Valatan on Nov 8, 2007 2:14 PM EST up reply actions

I don't think dumping only part of Rolen's

payroll is a good idea. Say we have to eat $6 M of the $12 M he is owed. Then, we are paying Brendan Ryan/Brian Barden/Miguel Cairo atleast $500 k to play 3B.

In essence, we are still paying $6.5 M for some 'not so good' 3B play, which is still overpaying for it.

That, and we still haven't improved the offense.

Now, if they'd like to send us Johan Santana for Scott Rolen and anyone not named Colby, I'm game.

"Well, you wait for a strike. Then you knock the shit out of it. - Musial to Flood on how to hit a curveball

by Hardcore Legend on Nov 8, 2007 2:22 PM EST up reply actions

Agreed

Why in essence pay Cairo 6 million to play third or Barden or Ryan? Ick.

by OCCardsFan on Nov 8, 2007 2:52 PM EST up reply actions

That's basically what I said

Give them Rolen and Rasmus, and they give us santana and a fraction of Rolen's contract. They're probably losing santana anyway, and they can put in a stopgap at CF until rasmus comes up to replace Torii Hunter. The Cardinals use the cleared salary plus the added salary room to sign santana long term.

It won't happen, but it would make some sense for both teams.

by Valatan on Nov 8, 2007 3:49 PM EST up reply actions

But the Cardinals are giving up Rasmus

without any real assurances that they will resign Johan Santana.

"Well, you wait for a strike. Then you knock the shit out of it. - Musial to Flood on how to hit a curveball

by Hardcore Legend on Nov 8, 2007 3:50 PM EST up reply actions

They would have the money under this scenario

a $115M payroll with the money gained by clearing a decent fraction of Rolen's payroll would be more than enough to sign him. They'd have over a year to get a deal done. Perhaps he's absolutely determined to hit free agency. But if He gets some offer along the lines of 6Y/$100M or so, he'd be crazy not to take it.

by Valatan on Nov 8, 2007 3:59 PM EST up reply actions

But the Cardinals

would save probably $6 M for the next 3 years in payroll but would be forced to find a middle of the lineup bat plus sign Santana.

So, with the $30 M they have availible next year, they would then have $36 M. You just paid Johan Santana $17 M a year. That leaves the Cardinals $19 M to find another impact bat, a 3B and a SS. Now, the impact bat could come from one of those spots but that is going to raise the cost.

"Well, you wait for a strike. Then you knock the shit out of it. - Musial to Flood on how to hit a curveball

by Hardcore Legend on Nov 8, 2007 4:04 PM EST up reply actions

But you've just filled the SP spot

and you've filled it spectacularly. You go with makeshifts in 2008, wait for Izzy and Edmonds and others to go off of the books, and then retool around a core of Pujols, Carp, and Santana. You still have Duncan, Anderson and Molina as trading chips. It won't happen, and it probably would be a bad idea, but it's worth thinking about. I'd rather spend a bunch of money on Santana than spend a bunch of money on Gil Meche.

by Valatan on Nov 8, 2007 5:02 PM EST up reply actions

Shudder

Please don't say the words "spend a bunch of money on Gil Meche" again!

On with the youth movement!

by aet15 on Nov 8, 2007 5:09 PM EST up reply actions

I understand that

but you also just said that Johan Santana was only going to get 6 years/100 M, which is less annually than the severly less talented Barry Zito.

That year was what I figured into it. After next year, we would have $36 M to spend.

We would have to get:

SS
3B
2B
LF/RF

We'd have a very good rotation with Carpenter, Wainwright, Santana. Our lineup would have Rasmus, Molina and Pujols still in it...with Duncan and Ankiel providing support.

I'm not arguing against getting Johan Santana. I just think we'd be adding another hole to patch.

And if we want him that bad, then just wait until he is a FA.

"Well, you wait for a strike. Then you knock the shit out of it. - Musial to Flood on how to hit a curveball

by Hardcore Legend on Nov 8, 2007 5:13 PM EST up reply actions

Possible 3-team trade?

I don't know who, or what, but could it be possible to include a third team in the deal with a 3rd-base surplus that needs something Minnesota has?

Somehow we'd have to get rid of Rolen, lose some of that contract, and pick up another 3rd baseman, IMO.

Cardinal fan in War Eagle land

by Mr Redbird on Nov 8, 2007 2:11 PM EST reply actions

While we're

all throwing out wild speculation, I say what makes sense is rolen to the twins for Scott Baker. Cards eat a portion of rolen's contract, and in return get baker, an under appreciated, yet useful pitcher.

by Dave Barry on Nov 8, 2007 2:23 PM EST reply actions

Oh, and btw

just to set the tone for this, Buster Olney has also already stated once today that crazy rumors are flying around the meetings like : Jake Peavy for Phil Hughes and Melky Cabrera.

Reasons Rolen won't go to Minnesota:

Minnesota won't take most of the contract
Scott Rolen left Philadelphia in part because he was told if he kept playing on Astroturf, his career would be over. He ain't gonna go back and play on it again.

"Well, you wait for a strike. Then you knock the shit out of it. - Musial to Flood on how to hit a curveball

by Hardcore Legend on Nov 8, 2007 2:25 PM EST reply actions

Bingo

Watching the Playoffs as Reigning Champs is not a bad thing.

by Birds on the Bat on Nov 8, 2007 2:33 PM EST up reply actions

I understand, I'm not saying this is legit

But he was asked by Steiner if there were any trades talks that were serious (or something to that effect) and he brought up this trade.

I usually think Buster is pretty reliable (which is obvious because he is a Vandy grad).

by OCCardsFan on Nov 8, 2007 2:53 PM EST up reply actions

actually

Minnesota is getting a new field. They did the ground breaking this past summer. It will be an outdoor stadium.

FYI-

I am with you in that there are crazy rumors all over the place. I don't see Rolen going to the Twins.

by ICbirdfan on Nov 8, 2007 3:42 PM EST up reply actions

Rolen has 3 years left

they aren't moving into the new stadium next year.

A guy coming of injury, I don't believe, would be willing to risk reinjuring his back doing what people told him not to do anymore.

Then again, he could hate TLR that much.

"Well, you wait for a strike. Then you knock the shit out of it. - Musial to Flood on how to hit a curveball

by Hardcore Legend on Nov 8, 2007 3:49 PM EST up reply actions

Slowey

would be nice if we could get Slowey from they, build a bigger package and eat some of Rolen's deal.

by mcgrathp on Nov 8, 2007 2:36 PM EST reply actions

Not gonna happen

For all the reasons listed above, Rolen is probably staying put. Besides, these GM meetings seem to be "testing the waters" a little bit. The big GM meetings are in December.

However, there wouldn't be a ball get through the left side with Rolen and Punto. Holy crap that would be a good (defensive) infield.

by BigdJC on Nov 8, 2007 2:39 PM EST reply actions

Bernie's take on the situation



Mozeliak at the GM meetings floated the idea that Rolen could be available ... he wanted to gauge interest to see if there's a market ... Now he'll wait to see the level of interest and if any move makes sense

That's where it stands for now.

-B

If the idea is being publicly floated, IMHO, Scott is gone one way or another.

Fuck.

"Well, you wait for a strike. Then you knock the shit out of it. - Musial to Flood on how to hit a curveball

by Hardcore Legend on Nov 8, 2007 3:15 PM EST reply actions

Anyways

if we trade Scott Rolen to Minnesota, unless we get Johan Santana back (ha!) we will still have these issues to address:

Front of rotation starter
Power hitting 3B
RH corner OF bat with pop
Shortstop

"Well, you wait for a strike. Then you knock the shit out of it. - Musial to Flood on how to hit a curveball

by Hardcore Legend on Nov 8, 2007 3:24 PM EST up reply actions

Don't forget

That we'd be leaving a big hole in our defense. With Rolen gone, our left side of the inflied will be looking VERY ugly.

On with the youth movement!

by aet15 on Nov 8, 2007 4:42 PM EST up reply actions

I don't think Mo floating Rolen means

that he will be gone. In one respect it might help Rolen see how low his stock has fallen, and maybe help him just suck it up, make up, and play. here's to hoping he has a bounce back year (again).

In another respect, it gives an opener for Mo to talk trades with some prospective partners that may not have thought we had anything of their interest to deal. It would be no fun to be at those meetings with all the buzz, and nobody calling your number.

Maybe Mo needs to take the phone off vibrate, so someone might notice that he actually receives a call, and doesn't just start them.

Watching the Playoffs as Reigning Champs is not a bad thing.

by Birds on the Bat on Nov 8, 2007 3:28 PM EST up reply actions

Burnett

It's like Toronto tossing Burnett's name out there. They'll trade him in the right deal, but they aren't committed to moving him at all costs.

C70 at the Bat

by Cardinal70 on Nov 8, 2007 5:51 PM EST up reply actions

What if?

The trade for Rolen nets us the missing piece to get Miggy Cabrera? Only then would this make sense.

How about handin' me another helpin' of those mashed taters...thank you very much!

by Elvis on Nov 8, 2007 3:31 PM EST reply actions

Miggy is going to make $10 M+ in aribitration

so unless the Twins pickup more than half of Rolen's contract, we would be paying Miggy more than Albert, in essence.

"Well, you wait for a strike. Then you knock the shit out of it. - Musial to Flood on how to hit a curveball

by Hardcore Legend on Nov 8, 2007 3:36 PM EST up reply actions

So.

The Red Blazer

by Red Blazer on Nov 8, 2007 3:39 PM EST reply actions

This is a bad idea...

Unless the Cards surprise all of us and go out spending on a big time offensive free agent, I fail to see how it makes any sense to trade Rolen.

For good or for bad, Rolen is a big part of any resurgence next season. Rolen producing at least like he did in 2006 would be more valuable than any free agent we could acquire.

Short of the Twins taking all of his deal and sending us someone like Bonser back, I think this is a bad deal.

by JMedwick on Nov 8, 2007 3:45 PM EST reply actions

mmmm,,,,

this is interesting news to say the least.

I'm going to go try to find a puppy and kick it. - Brad Thompson And That's A Winner!

by gdm426 on Nov 8, 2007 4:46 PM EST reply actions

Look at the rotoworld sidebar

Twins say no truth to the rumor.

by silent_bob on Nov 8, 2007 4:53 PM EST reply actions

Eh...

they always lie about stuff like this. Surely the Cards would pick up a sizable chunk of Rolen's contract.

If I were the Twins' GM, and I was about to lose Hunter's production, and I had a stable of young arms, I might be willing to take a chance on Rolen at three years/$20 million. Worst case scenario you get a good glove and a guy who can post a .350 obp. Twins third baseman had a .236/.308/.323 line last year. Plus there's some upside with Rolen if he can regain his health.

Who needs Antonetti? Give Luhniak a chance!

by guayzimi on Nov 8, 2007 5:09 PM EST up reply actions

barden = not a starting-caliber 3b

people keep floating that idea out there, but it doesn't seem like there's much chance of that happening.

by willievinceterry on Nov 8, 2007 6:35 PM EST reply actions

I don't understand

Why people don't think Barden is an MLB caliber 3B. His fielding is MLB caliber already and his hitting in the minors was better than anything Ryan or Duncan ever did and people are ready to hand the SS job over to Ryan and people are freaking out at the thought of trading Duncan. Now before some wise guy talks about Duncan's major league stats, just remember this...I don't care. Nobody could predict that he would put those numbers up at the major league level, especially when he never did in the minors. So, why is it that Barden's numbers are expected to be so much worse in the bigs, while Ryan and Duncan both improved. Is it the small sampling of at-bats he has had to date? Not that I think he is going to come up and be and all-star, but why is this guy not good enough when I believe he was a much higher rated prospect than anyone on the Cards' roster other than Ankiel.

How about handin' me another helpin' of those mashed taters...thank you very much!

by Elvis on Nov 8, 2007 7:13 PM EST up reply actions

Name 1

Big time offensive free agent... and not the $350 million dollar man. (We all know that you have a better chance of winning the lottery twice in one week than the Cards signing that guy.)

Andruw Jones - washed up
Tori Hunter - Better defense than offense
Aaron Rowand - Nothing special outside Philly
and we already have plenty of centerfielders

Milton Bradley or Jose Guillen...and I think they are both trouble and working on suspensions.

My point is that the offensive free agents suck as much as the pitching free agents. It looks like a trade is the only way to acquire someone and the Cards are low on trading chips.

How about handin' me another helpin' of those mashed taters...thank you very much!

by Elvis on Nov 8, 2007 7:04 PM EST reply actions

buy high, sell low

seems for both rolen and kennedy as well as other "under achievers" on the roster, we are far better off waiting until ST or later to move them. hopefully they will be doing better and both have track records to sell as well. hardly appears a great idea to sell at the lowest value, i.e., what are the odds they will do worse this spring than they did last year? we already have 6.5M sunk/lost in juan enc and agreeing to eat part of rolen's salary now seems to put us with a $110M payroll and a $100M team at best.

by sportsman on Nov 8, 2007 8:44 PM EST reply actions

100% agree

I keep saying this too. Rolen, Edmonds and kennedy all have negative trade vale right now. It isn't worth moving them.

The St. Louis Cardinals- 11 time World Champions!

by Zubin on Nov 8, 2007 8:51 PM EST up reply actions

Disagree

We should definitely listen to and pursue offers for these guys now, because a) we might do better than we expected, and b) there is value to making a deal early and thus have the rest of the winter to move on to the second and third steps. The opposite approach of sitting tight with our heads in teh sand to get maximum return means that we may miss many other opportunities to make other deals that depend on thsi one first....and then there is always the risk that the trade value never does increase.

So basically, open the door early, and realize the early action has a value all of its own, and can even offset dealing at a slightly lower price.

by siddfynch on Nov 8, 2007 9:05 PM EST up reply actions

Other way of saying it

If you can move Kennedy and Reyes now for a number 2 starter, then why wait until their value increases in May...but there are no #2 starters available?

by siddfynch on Nov 8, 2007 9:07 PM EST up reply actions

Kenedy and Reyes for a #2 starter?

How do you figure to pull that off?

To be more exact, I think moving any of these guys for something of significant positive value (as as a sallary dump-swap) could be worthwhile, however their current contracts don't support those kinds of moves. Edmonds, Rolen and Kennedy all have negative trade value, meaning they are worth less than their contracts and we'd likely have to eat a significant portion of their sallary to move them. Since each of these guy's values is at an all-time low and 2008 is a rebuilding year for us, I just don't why you'd look to trading them. That is unless you know of a GM who has been unconcious for the past year or so.

The St. Louis Cardinals- 11 time World Champions!

by Zubin on Nov 8, 2007 10:28 PM EST up reply actions

Bad Grammar

Man it has been a long day... Let me say that over:

To be more exact, I think moving any of these guys for something of significant positive value (or possibly a salary dump-swap) could be worthwhile, however their current contracts don't support those kinds of moves. Edmonds, Rolen and Kennedy all have negative trade value, meaning they are worth less than their contracts and we'd likely have to eat a significant portion of their salary to move them. Since each of these guy's values is at an all-time low and 2008 is a rebuilding year for us, I just don't know why you'd look to trading them. That is unless you know of a GM who has been unconscious for the past year or so.

The St. Louis Cardinals- 11 time World Champions!

by Zubin on Nov 8, 2007 10:43 PM EST up reply actions

Huh?

Kennedy and Reyes wouldn't get a number 2 starter if hell froze over, if pigs flew, if the Cubs won the WS, if the LA Clippers made the NBA Finals, if an 8th Harry Potter book flopped, if someone came out and said they enjoyed the "This is Our Country" commercials, if the Yankees moved to Florida, if the Sawx stopped losing...er scratch the last one.

Kennedy and Reyes getting a 2005 Mark Mulder-level of pitching? I think not.

by redbirdnation8206 on Nov 9, 2007 1:02 AM EST up reply actions

Missing the point

I'm replying to a post that says dogmatically that we must hang onto them until next year because their trade value is not as high now.

And my point is that this should not be an absolute - rather, when you choose to deal them is not just a function of what their worth is in absolute terms (Rolen now, vs. if he has an .825 OPS next year), but also a) what else is available in return, and b) what your opportunity cost is for waiting a year.

Whether the example is a #1 starter, a #2 starter, a date with Britney Spears, or a bag of potato chips is irrelevant.

by siddfynch on Nov 9, 2007 9:41 AM EST up reply actions

What if Rolen

is asking to be traded, but wants to stay in the mid-west. The Cards will not trade in the division, so who else can they work a deal with?

by nybirdfan on Nov 8, 2007 10:15 PM EST reply actions

here's the thing

Rolen's contract is an albatross. If we could talk somoene into taking that off our hands, then by all means i think it must be explored. No one definitively knows how or if he'll come back. in my personal opinion, if rolen lays an egg this year and looks like a shell of his former self, he has no value to any of the other 29 teams and we're definitely on the hook through 2010. i'd just assume take a bath this year on paying a pittance for a replacement player and only a portion of that rolen salary than 3yrs @$12MM. and until the market sets itself, there's still a chance (albeit nominal) that someone may take the whole thing off our hands. in either case, i think you have to jump on that. encarnacion and edmonds are different stories becuase this is the last year of the commitment. those contracts are gross too, but at least its just 08, and at the deadline this year i have to think jimmy will look attractive to a playoff contending team.

build towards 09 and beyond...thats the battle cry.

by trip mcneely2 on Nov 8, 2007 10:19 PM EST reply actions

Juan Encarnacion's contract

is an albatross. Chris Carpenter's contract looks to be an albatross. Mark Mulder's contract the last two years albatross.

Scott Rolen't contract sucks but he is atleast likely to provide something of value. Those 3, it's doubtful.

"Well, you wait for a strike. Then you knock the shit out of it. - Musial to Flood on how to hit a curveball

by Hardcore Legend on Nov 8, 2007 11:03 PM EST up reply actions

Exactly

Rolen isn't the greatest 3b in baseball anymore, but his contract isn't terrible. You look at someone like Mike Lowell, and he will be getting at least $12million a year. You think if Rolen is anywhere near healthy next year, he doesn't completely blow Lowell away?

Baseball has gotten expensive. $13mil/yr isn't that much anymore. If Rolen had work ethic problems, I might bite. But he is recovering from serious injuries, and you aren't getting value from him. If he recovers to anywhere near his potential, his contract suddenly is CHEAP. We are looking at 1 year of injury/under-achievement since he came to the cards (2007), with 2005 being out the door because of injuries.

Unless you believe he absolutely won't recover, his upside is too high for the amount you'll get for him right now.

by Quel on Nov 9, 2007 11:15 AM EST up reply actions