2011 Trade Deadline Thread

[BigPapiEnFuego]

Conor Jackson isn't a bad move. Before he went to Oakland he was pretty decent in Arizona. Gets on base and an .825 OPS against lefties. Career wise his best month has been September, with a .315 .380 .473 .853 line. Overall better than Darnell McDonald.

 

So either McDonald is getting pushed to pinch running duty, or they give up on Drew.

[Spitball]

Interesting article about the failed deadline trades for Beltran and Jimenez:

 

http://espn.go.com/blog/sweetspot/post/_/id/15647/beltran-jimenez-deals-havent-worked-out

[a700hitter]

The Globe is reporting that the Sox have picked up Conor Jackson for reliever Jason Rice. MLBTR has it as well.

 

http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2011/08/red-sox-acquire-conor-jackson-.html

 

 

 

I like it. Nothing crazy, just a simple move to enhance our depth in the outfield and give us a solid option off the bench to hit lefties. Jackson's struggles were a product of him playing in Oakland more than anything else IMO. He's always had talent and now he'll have a ballpark that's better suited to his abilities.

I had noticed that he had been hitting pretty well over the last month. At one time, he had been a good hitting prospect. I don't think he has a great reputation as an outfielder. My recollection is that he was a 1B prospect. If possible, he might be more fragile than Drew. He can get injured while sitting on the bench. All in all, D Mac might be more valuable on the Sox roster.

[a700hitter]

Interesting article about the failed deadline trades for Beltran and Jimenez:

 

http://espn.go.com/blog/sweetspot/post/_/id/15647/beltran-jimenez-deals-havent-worked-out

It's really hard to call the Beltran deal a failed deal. The guy injured his hand. It's not like it was a chronic condition that could have been expected. His problem area has been his knees. For all the talk about SF giving up a top prospect to get Beltran, I had read that the guy was close to falling out of prospect status for the Giants. In other words, they dumped him before he lost all value. I was hoping that the Giants would pull the plug on the playoff hopes and dump Beltran to the Sox for $.

[Palodios]

How can you say the Beltran trade wasn't a failed deal? Trading for a guy who is always injured makes you run the risk of that player getting injured. If Bedard got a blister on his hand and didn't pitch in the playoffs, would you say it was a failed deal? I certainly would, even though his knees are the problem.

[a700hitter]

How can you say the Beltran trade wasn't a failed deal? Trading for a guy who is always injured makes you run the risk of that player getting injured. If Bedard got a blister on his hand and didn't pitch in the playoffs' date=' would you say it was a failed deal? I certainly would, even though his knees are the problem.[/quote']I don't think you can look back on deals and say that the GM screwed up if contingencies occurred that were unexpected. You look at what was known at the time. There was nothing in Beltran's medical history relating to hand injuries. If it had been his knees, I would say that the medical staff should have examined him more thoroughly. If Bedard gets a blister, I wouldn't call it a failed deal. He has no history of blisters. If a deal doesn't workout because an injury intervened that doesn't mean that the GM made a mistake.

[jacksonianmarch]

I had noticed that he had been hitting pretty well over the last month. At one time' date=' he had been a good hitting prospect. I don't think he has a great reputation as an outfielder. My recollection is that he was a 1B prospect. If possible, he might be more fragile than Drew. He can get injured while sitting on the bench. All in all, D Mac might be more valuable on the Sox roster.[/quote']

 

he can play the corners, but if really more of a LF than a RF

[Palodios]

I don't think you can look back on deals and say that the GM screwed up if contingencies occurred that were unexpected. You look at what was known at the time. There was nothing in Beltran's medical history relating to hand injuries. If it had been his knees' date=' I would say that the medical staff should have examined him more thoroughly. If Bedard gets a blister, I wouldn't call it a failed deal. He has no history of blisters. If a deal doesn't workout because an injury intervened that doesn't mean that the GM made a mistake.[/quote']

 

If a guy is fragile, how can it be unexpected when he gets hurt? There are some guys that have their injuries exaggerated, like Ellsbury, but there are some guys that get hurt more often/ will not play through injuries. Beltran has not been healthy since 2008.

[a700hitter]

If a guy is fragile' date=' how can it be unexpected when he gets hurt? There are some guys that have their injuries exaggerated, like Ellsbury, but there are some guys that get hurt more often/ will not play through injuries. Beltran has not been healthy since 2008.[/quote']Beltran isn't fragile. He had a knee problem that the Mets misdiagnosed and handled poorly.

[Spitball]

It's really hard to call the Beltran deal a failed deal. The guy injured his hand. It's not like it was a chronic condition that could have been expected. His problem area has been his knees. .

 

Bottom line, injured or not, Beltran has not produced for the Giants. The team has dropped to six games back since acquiring the guy. He has hit one homerun and has an OPS under .300.

 

For all the talk about SF giving up a top prospect to get Beltran' date=' I had read that the guy was close to falling out of prospect status for the Giants. In other words, they dumped him before he lost all value.[/quote']

 

Wheeler is 21 years old and throws in the upper 90s. He is no where close to "falling out of prospect status" at this point. He was rated #55 in all of baseball before the season started and has had decent numbers in a hitter friendly league where most teams have ERAs over 5.00. He does have control issues as do many young hard throwers. Wheeler was a heavy price.

 

I was hoping that the Giants would pull the plug on the playoff hopes and dump Beltran to the Sox for $.

 

The way he has been playing, I hope this unlikely event does not happen.

[a700hitter]

Bottom line' date=' injured or not, Beltran has not produced for the Giants. The team has dropped to six games back since acquiring the guy. He has hit one homerun and has an OPS under .300. [/quote']Because he has been injured.

 

 

 

Wheeler is 21 years old and throws in the upper 90s. He is no where close to "falling out of prospect status" at this point. He was rated #55 in all of baseball before the season started and has had decent numbers in a hitter friendly league where most teams have ERAs over 5.00. He does have control issues as do many young hard throwers. Wheeler was a heavy price.

His prospect rating fell 5 spots from the year before.

[TheMeanWalrus]

If Bedard got a blister on his hand and didn't pitch in the playoffs' date=' would you say it was a failed deal? I certainly would, even though his knees are the problem.[/quote']

 

I only know one guy gutless enough to not pitch in the post-season because of a blister.

[VA Sox Fan]

I only know one guy gutless enough to not pitch in the post-season because of a blister.

 

Raja?

[TheMeanWalrus]

How'd ya guess Ellie Mae???

 

Gutless f***ing bitch (Roger, VA, not you!)

I haven't had a nice rant against Ole Blood & Guts in a while.

My Mean-ness is waning in my old age as I count down the final 110 or so days til the 40th anniversary of the day I burst onto the scene back in the winter of 1971. I need to rip someone a new ******* before then.

 

WHERE THE HELL IS RED HAT????

 

Hehehehehe

[Spitball]

Because he has been injured.

 

Even when he has not been injured, he has not produced since the trade. He has had more than 80 at bats with the Giants and is OPSing under .300. He has one homerun. At that rate over a whole season he'd have less than ten.

 

It is valid to say a trade didn't work out even if there was an injury. The Giants didn't trade for that kind of production nor for a drop of 8 games in the standings.

 

His prospect rating fell 5 spots from the year before.

 

There are well over 5,000 minor leaguers. A vast majority will never reach the bigs, but those rated in the top 60 prospects are a pretty good bets. Dropping five positions in the top 60 in all of baseball is not as you said, "...close to falling out of prospect status."

[a700hitter]

Even when he has not been injured' date=' he has not produced since the trade. He has had more than 80 at bats with the Giants and is OPSing under .300. He has one homerun. At that rate over a whole season he'd have less than ten. [/quote']It could be because he has been playing with the injury. I don't think a guy like Beltran, who was an All Star this season playing in a big pitcher's ballpark would turn to suck overnight for no reason.

 

It is valid to say a trade didn't work out even if there was an injury. The Giants didn't trade for that kind of production nor for a drop of 8 games in the standings.

Sure you can say that it didn't work out. It hasn't worked out, but you can't say that the GM did the wrong thing making the trade. He had every reason to think that Beltran would continue his production, and he would have but for the injury.

 

There are well over 5' date='000 minor leaguers. A vast majority will never reach the bigs, but those rated in the top 60 prospects are a pretty good bets. Dropping five positions in the top 60 in all of baseball is not as you said, "...close to falling out of prospect status."[/quote']I am just relating what I read about him on a site before he was traded. I've never seen the guy pitch, so i don't know. I'm just telling you what I read and he did drop in rating. He's going in the wrong direction from 2010 to 2011. We'll see if he amounts to anything for the Mets. Even though CitiField is a big ballpark favorable to pitchers, I'm not holding my breath.

[ORS]

I am just relating what I read about him on a site before he was traded. I've never seen the guy pitch, so i don't know. I'm just telling you what I read and he did drop in rating. He's going in the wrong direction from 2010 to 2011. We'll see if he amounts to anything for the Mets. Even though CitiField is a big ballpark favorable to pitchers, I'm not holding my breath.

This kind of shows that you still don't get it. Think of the top 20 players in MLB (there are 6x more players in MiLB - so I've reduced the consideration accordingly). If Dustin Pedroia is the 10th best player in all of MLB one year, and is then 11th the next year.....would you say he's going in the wrong direction? In terms of rankings, it would be appropriate to do so, which is why I think you are doing it, but I'd be surprised if you thought so. Little variances in performance from year to year happen all the time and these blips impact ranking lists, but that doesn't mean Pedroia isn't a fantastic, talented player that you'd want on your team.

[a700hitter]

This kind of shows that you still don't get it. Think of the top 20 players in MLB (there are 6x more players in MiLB - so I've reduced the consideration accordingly). If Dustin Pedroia is the 10th best player in all of MLB one year' date=' and is then 11th the next year.....would you say he's going in the wrong direction? In terms of rankings, it would be appropriate to do so, which is why I think you are doing it, but I'd be surprised if you thought so. Little variances in performance from year to year happen all the time and these blips impact ranking lists, but that doesn't mean Pedroia isn't a fantastic, talented player that you'd want on your team.[/quote']You are the one that is placing too much emphasis on the ranking part of my post. I was only looked at the rankings to see if it confirmed what I had read about the guy. If you are telling me that falling 5 spots in the rankings is meaningless, so be it. It doesn't change what I read about him on some prospect evaluator site. If that evaluation is accurate and based on solid info from the Giants, it would make sense why the Giants would be willing to part with the guy.

[Spitball]

It could be because he has been playing with the injury. I don't think a guy like Beltran' date=' who was an All Star this season playing in a big pitcher's ballpark would turn to suck overnight for no reason.[/quote']

 

It does not really matter why he has not produced. there are too many reasons to even consider why a player does not produce. Luck, skill, black magic....the only thing that matters is the outcome. Beltran has not produced and the team has lost eight games in the standings...so the trade was a failure.

 

Sure you can say that it didn't work out. It hasn't worked out' date=' but you can't say that the GM did the wrong thing making the trade. He had every reason to think that Beltran would continue his production, and he would have but for the injury..[/quote']

 

The bottom line is how it turns out. If Wheeler turns into a decent starter, the Giants failed big time.

 

I am just relating what I read about him on a site before he was traded. I've never seen the guy pitch' date=' so i don't know. I'm just telling you what I read and he did drop in rating. He's going in the wrong direction from 2010 to 2011. We'll see if he amounts to anything for the Mets. Even though CitiField is a big ballpark favorable to pitchers, I'm not holding my breath.[/quote']

 

Dropping from 49th to 55th on the list of all baseball prospects is not "...close to falling out of prospect status." as you stated. That is a totally false and misleading statement. Hopefully we will all avoid such tactics when posting. You are an admired and respected poster but that is not a valid statement.

[a700hitter]

It does not really matter why he has not produced. there are too many reasons to even consider why a player does not produce. Luck, skill, black magic....the only thing that matters is the outcome. Beltran has not produced and the team has lost eight games in the standings...so the trade was a failure.

 

 

 

The bottom line is how it turns out. If Wheeler turns into a decent starter, the Giants failed big time.

I disagree with you on this. Under this logic, drafting Ryan Westmoreland was a bad pick.

 

 

 

Dropping from 49th to 55th on the list of all baseball prospects is not "...close to falling out of prospect status." as you stated. That is a totally false and misleading statement. Hopefully we will all avoid such tactics when posting. You are an admired and respected poster but that is not a valid statement.

See my prior post. I was not relying on his fall in the rankings as proof that he was close to falling out of prospect status. I'll repeat what I said earlier so that you don't have to look back:

 

It doesn't change what I read about him on some prospect evaluator site. If that evaluation is accurate and based on solid info from the Giants, it would make sense why the Giants would be willing to part with the guy.

 

And I am not just a "respected poster". I am the best poster ever.

[Spitball]

nm

[Spitball]

I disagree with you on this. Under this logic, drafting Ryan Westmoreland was a bad pick.

 

 

 

See my prior post. I was not relying on his fall in the rankings as proof that he was close to falling out of prospect status. I'll repeat what I said earlier so that you don't have to look back:

 

 

 

And I am not just a "respected poster". I am the best poster ever.

 

I don't see what drafting a player has to do with this trade. Draft choices fail all the time and the final chapter on Westmoreland is far from over.

[a700hitter]

I don't see what drafting a player has to do with this trade. Draft choices fail all the time and the final chapter on Westmoreland is far from over...and yes' date=' you are a great poster...if not the greatest ever.[/quote']We can all hope and pray for the kid.

[ORS]

You are the one that is placing too much emphasis on the ranking part of my post. I was only looked at the rankings to see if it confirmed what I had read about the guy. If you are telling me that falling 5 spots in the rankings is meaningless' date=' so be it. It doesn't change what I read about him on some prospect evaluator site. If that evaluation is accurate and based on solid info from the Giants, it would make sense why the Giants would be willing to part with the guy.[/quote']

That's the thing, though. You are lock-stock-and-barrel behind one single prospect evaluation for the purposes of supporting your point. Anyone who follows this stuff knows that these "evaluations" are, at best, somewhat educated guesses. Hell, this is your motus operandi in handling all prospects....ie, they are nothing until they make their first all-star team. In other words, the evaluations are meaningless until they prove it.

 

No, it doesn't change what you read, the opinion of one of a thousand prospect evaluators, prospect evaluators that you previously had no use for, not at least when they supported a prospect replacing a "proven veteran". The only thing that has changed seems to be how much credence you find in the evaluations.

[a700hitter]

That's the thing, though. You are lock-stock-and-barrel behind one single prospect evaluation for the purposes of supporting your point. Anyone who follows this stuff knows that these "evaluations" are, at best, somewhat educated guesses. Hell, this is your motus operandi in handling all prospects....ie, they are nothing until they make their first all-star team. In other words, the evaluations are meaningless until they prove it.

 

No, it doesn't change what you read, the opinion of one of a thousand prospect evaluators, prospect evaluators that you previously had no use for, not at least when they supported a prospect replacing a "proven veteran". The only thing that has changed seems to be how much credence you find in the evaluations.

Please don't generalize about me.

 

As for the discussion about this prospect, I'm not "lock-stock- and- barrel" behind anything. I was just pointing out to those who think the Mets scored a big prospect that there is another point of view about the guy. It's not my point of view. As I said earlier, I never followed the kid's career and I have never seen him pitch. I can assure you that I didn't research thousands of prospect evaluations on the guy. It came up early in my search. I see no reason to think that the opinion of the evaluator in question is any less valid than other evaluations.

[ORS]

Please don't generalize about me.

Well, you generally use information in any way possible to support the case for the "veteran player". When something becomes that rote, generalizaitons follow.

 

As for the discussion about this prospect, I'm not "lock-stock- and- barrel" behind anything. I was just pointing out to those who think the Mets scored a big prospect that there is another point of view about the guy. It's not my point of view. As I said earlier, I never followed the kid's career and I have never seen him pitch. I can assure you that I didn't research thousands of prospect evaluations on the guy. It came up early in my search. I see no reason to think that the opinion of the evaluator in question is any less valid than other evaluations.

Top-100 is a big prospect. Full stop.

 

You know, you could put this to bed by providing a link.

[a700hitter]

Well' date=' you generally use information in any way possible to support the case for the "veteran player". When something becomes that rote, generalizaitons follow.[/quote']Testy tonight. I have some generalizations about you too, but I'll keep them to myself, because we come here to discuss sports not each other.

 

 

Top-100 is a big prospect. Full stop.

 

You know, you could put this to bed by providing a link.

Look for it yourself. It's out there, and that's all I was saying. I didn't say that I agreed with it. I never followed or watched the kid. I just pointed out that it was out there. Tonight, you are like one of those monkeys on the keyboard that you mentioned in the other thread. Keep twisting what I say and telling me what I think, and I guess you must be smarter than me. Case closed.

[ORS]

I could care less about it, but you seem to want people to be exposed to this information. How about providing a path?

[a700hitter]

I could care less about it' date=' but you seem to want people to be exposed to this information. How about providing a path?[/quote']People should educate themselves. I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything. I think an open-minded person should leave open the possibility that SF was willing to part with the guy for 2 months of Beltran, because they weren't real high on his future. Maybe the case for Wheeler is not open and shut.

[ORS]

People should educate themselves. I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything. I think an open-minded person should leave open the possibility that SF was willing to part with the guy for 2 months of Beltran' date=' because they weren't real high on his future. Maybe the case for Wheeler is not open and shut.[/quote']

I'm not asking you to educate me. I'm asking for access to the information, information that you have brought to the table, that has shaped the last page of discussion. I'm willing to admit anything is possible, but I'd like to read the evaluation myself. Is that too much to ask?