PDA

View Full Version : Will we get full value in trades?


cornball
12-12-2003, 11:27 AM
Read an article from the NY Daily News (don't ask), anyway it was talking about the options the Yanks have for OF. Sheffield, Vlad and Mags.

To paraphrase the Mags comment was knowing the Sox want to get rid of salary, and if they can get him realatively without giving up much. Or something to that effect. Which brings me to the question:

With others knowing we need to get rid of salary, will we get a good return in trades?

Tekijawa
12-12-2003, 11:29 AM
Yes, I'm sure we'll get a magglio caliber player in return and at Millions less! I guess that could be in pink too

ma-gaga
12-12-2003, 11:30 AM
Originally posted by cornball
With others knowing we need to get rid of salary, will we get a good return in trades?

No. You want a good player? You have to eat contract. To dump a $14MM contract you'll get back crap and like it. Jeff Weaver for Kevin Brown is an awesome example. The two players are nothing alike, yet the trade is very likely and some would even call it a good trade for both teams.

Money talks.

cornball
12-12-2003, 11:32 AM
http://www.newsday.com/sports/baseball/yankees/nyc-sheff1211,0,3518471.story?coll=ny-sports-span-headlines




Found the article.

WhiteSoxWinner
12-12-2003, 11:49 AM
Yeah, I am concerned about this whole philosophy of dumping Maggs. We will either get a couple crap prospects from a team that can take salary (like the Mets or Orioles, the only teams I can think of that would be in the market to take salary), or we have to get a bad contract back. We could save in the short term by getting a guy making less on a yearly basis, but he will be owed for a lot longer. I don't see how that helps us in the present. If we have to get junk back, I would say keep Maggs and see if we can't make a run this year in what is probably the worst division in baseball. If by the break we have fallen down for some reason, then go get a few prospects. Teams in contention might be willing to give a little more than spare or broken parts for a consistently good hitter.

Lip Man 1
12-12-2003, 01:10 PM
Other (smart) teams know the Sox are over the barrell because of their self imposed salary limitations which are well below the median MLB team payroll.

You can bet they'll take advantage of it...that's why you have good teams..... and bad ones.

Lip

jeremyb1
12-12-2003, 03:55 PM
Originally posted by cornball
Read an article from the NY Daily News (don't ask), anyway it was talking about the options the Yanks have for OF. Sheffield, Vlad and Mags.

To paraphrase the Mags comment was knowing the Sox want to get rid of salary, and if they can get him realatively without giving up much. Or something to that effect. Which brings me to the question:

With others knowing we need to get rid of salary, will we get a good return in trades?

Not as far as talent goes no. The main objective of any deal would be to move salary first and acquire helpful pieces second, even in a deal involving Maggs. A large part of what we'll get in return is the financial flexibility to fill holes at 2B, CF, in the bullpen, and in the rotation.

Randar68
12-12-2003, 04:12 PM
Originally posted by ma-gaga
No. You want a good player? You have to eat contract. To dump a $14MM contract you'll get back crap and like it. Jeff Weaver for Kevin Brown is an awesome example. The two players are nothing alike, yet the trade is very likely and some would even call it a good trade for both teams.

Money talks.

I'd bet dollars to donuts that Weaver has an ERA in the 3's pitching for the Dodgers next year. He's not been the same pitcher since going to NY, and he'll be allowed to be the #3 or #4 pitcher and be assured of having his regular turn in the rotation...

He'll be successful next year with LA, but that doesn't mean he'd have been successful in Chicago...

ma-gaga
12-12-2003, 05:35 PM
Originally posted by Randar68
I'd bet dollars to donuts that Weaver has an ERA in the 3's pitching for the Dodgers next year.


I would NEVER take that bet. :D:

I agree completely. I think the Dodgers actually will get the best of this deal. Thank god for Steinbrenner.

kermittheefrog
12-12-2003, 05:40 PM
Originally posted by ma-gaga
No. You want a good player? You have to eat contract. To dump a $14MM contract you'll get back crap and like it. Jeff Weaver for Kevin Brown is an awesome example. The two players are nothing alike, yet the trade is very likely and some would even call it a good trade for both teams.


I don't think the Weaver trade is all that bad, remember Weaver has only had one bad year. And Brown is old and injury prone. If Weaver re-discovers the form he had with the Tigers it's a steal for the Dodgers, they'll have someone who is nearly as good as Brown for about 10 million less. If they reinvest that 10 million in the team it could really help fix up their horrible offense.

Hangar18
12-12-2003, 05:40 PM
The SOX will NEVER get Full Value for any trade they make.
I cant believe this will be Magglios last season in a SOX uniform,
and why? Because now hes too "expensive"? The SOX are
the ones who Structured the contract like that (I know I know,
all teams backload the most $$ towards the end of the deal)
but its stupid theoretically because your basically AVOIDING paying your Bill when its time to pay up. This kind of thinking
certainly Begs the Question. WHY get Good Players on your team? Theyre just going to want big Contracts Later supposedly right? Only certain guys are somewhat worthy of a big contract, and Certainly a ALL-Around Excellent Player that can HIT LIGHTS OUT should be worthy of Remaining on your team. Im Sorry guys Like Maggs dont come around Often, and hes Certainly been Poorly Marketed to be sure. Ive travelled a bit watching our Beloved Play, and every City Ive been to, the opposing teams fans all Say " man, Magglio is an excellent hitter" "I like Ordonez on your team" " You guys are lucky to have Maggs"
In his honor, I'll be wearing a Black ORDONEZ 30 Jersey around town and at the ballpark. Hes a special player, and were going to miss him when he leaves

RichH55
12-12-2003, 06:10 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
Other (smart) teams know the Sox are over the barrell because of their self imposed salary limitations which are well below the median MLB team payroll.

You can bet they'll take advantage of it...that's why you have good teams..... and bad ones.

Lip


Just like everyone knew the Astros had to deal Wagner yet they still go value in return? >??

Or I'm sorry you don't care, you just want to badmouth the team....my bad

Lip Man 1
12-12-2003, 06:56 PM
Hangar:

Remember Buehrle's new contact is heavily backloaded as well. (Shape of things to come???)

Lip

joecrede
12-12-2003, 07:07 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
Hangar:

Remember Buehrle's new contact is heavily backloaded as well. (Shape of things to come???)

Lip

I don't understand what you're getting at here Lip. Are you for or against a backloaded deal for Buehrle?

jordan23ventura
12-12-2003, 07:55 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
Hangar:

Remember Buehrle's new contact is heavily backloaded as well. (Shape of things to come???)

Lip


Shape of things to come? I'd say shape of things past, shape of things as they are now, shape of things in the future.

Lip Man 1
12-13-2003, 02:43 PM
Joe:

Neither. I'm just stating that like with Ordonez who is now up for trade and has refused a contract extention because the Sox want to offer less money to him, that I see the same scenario playing out with Buehrle.

I just don't think he'll be around for the final year of his deal or that the Sox will pick up his option and the contract is so good from an ownership standpoint that as soon as the Sox go into a "salary dump" mode, Buehrle's name will be one of the first that other teams are going to ask about.

I don't mind backloaded deals as long as ownership decides to honor them instead of immediately start shopping the player because of "financial concerns."

Lip

joecrede
12-13-2003, 04:55 PM
Lip:

The Buehrle deal is a good deal for Buehrle and something less than that for the Sox. In my opinion, the only way he'0 would have been able to top the $18M he's guaranteed over the next three years would be if he pitched at the very top of his abillities for the next two years.

'05 Buehrle, Konero, and Thomas under contract for about $20M.
'06 Buehrle and Thomas under contract for about $16M
'07 Buehrle option for about $10M

At this point, the only way I can see Buehrle not being on the Sox through his contract is if he pitches more like he did last year than he did in '02 or '01.

As far as the Ordonez situation is concerned I think you're looking at the wrong way. If the only way you can get rid of a contract like Konerko's is to deal Maggs it would be foolish not to at least consider it.

Lip Man 1
12-13-2003, 06:46 PM
Joe:

I don't mean Maggs specifically but more as an example.

I think back over the years to when guys like Harold Baines (the first time), Jack McDowell and now Maggs are being shopped or were traded for financial reasons.

To me past is prologue since the same owner is involved, and I just think that Buehrle will be the next in line.

We'll see...hell there may not even be a 2007 season because the CBA will have expired, Selig will have stepped down and I'd think the MLBPA will be out for blood considering the way they got screwed in the CBA of 2002. Plus the 'contraction rights' the MLBPA had to prevent the Twins from getting tanked will be gone

Lip

RichH55
12-13-2003, 06:51 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
Joe:

I don't mean Maggs specifically but more as an example.

I think back over the years to when guys like Harold Baines (the first time), Jack McDowell and now Maggs are being shopped or were traded for financial reasons.

To me past is prologue since the same owner is involved, and I just think that Buehrle will be the next in line.

We'll see...hell there may not even be a 2007 season because the CBA will have expired, Selig will have stepped down and I'd think the MLBPA will be out for blood considering the way they got screwed in the CBA of 2002. Plus the 'contraction rights' the MLBPA had to prevent the Twins from getting tanked will be gone

Lip


Its also how many damn years away? You don't have enough to bitch about Lip without adding speculative pre-emptive bitching to the old resume?