|
#76
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
__________________
![]() 19 seasons, 9232 AB, 216 SO |
|
#77
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Quote:
It's possible that they have it wrong, but the rumored Helton deal would be fairly similar to how BA recaps the Hampton deal. Colorado pays a portion of Todd's salary and some/all of his buyout and receives players in return.
__________________
"You don't quit. You don't go home before it's time. You don't come out of a game, even if you are in pain and feel as if you can't go one more step" "Never give up, Never, never, never give up." - Luther Head after Elite 8 win v. Arizona |
|
#78
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
|
|
#79
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
In the scenario that Colorado would throw in, say $30, while at the same time taking on Konerko's contract, I fail to see how this would give them payroll flexibility. What is the status of Konerko's contract? How many7 years does he have left? If it ends this year, them they would be sending out their best player and $30 mil for a half a year rent-a-player. That would necessitate them either re-signing him (probably at an increased salary) to have a veteran holdover from the trade or take that money and search for someone to replace him. That is assuming they don't have anyone they think is major league ready which if they did, why wouldn't they bring the kid up at mid year for some experience and not incur Konerko's salary? IMHO, I just don't see the Rockies taking a veteran like Konerko in a deal for Helton and cash. It would defeat the purpose of reducing the payroll. I also don't see KW giving that much up for Helton. Now, a deal of prospects (Sweeney, Rogo, Tracey) for Helton and cash I could see as a possibility, but I just fail to see how either side would include Konerko in a deal such as this. Maybe Konerko and A prospect for Helton and some cash, not $30 mil. Just my opinion though. |
|
#80
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Acquiring Konerko (in a Konerko + 2 prospects for Helton + cash deal) advances both these objectives. Konerko's contract is up after this season; there is a chance the Rockies would take on Konerko long term, but its more likely they would turn him right around and trade him again at the deadline to a contender for more prospects. (A week or two hitting at Coors certainly wouldn't do anything but help his stock.) Consider Konerko an "asset" to the Rockies as opposed to a player meant to replace Helton. So, ultimately the Rockies would end up with a prospect or two from the Sox, a prospect or two from their second Konerko deal, and increased payroll flexibility from Helton's departure. Not too bad.
__________________
2005 World Series Champs![]() "All I wanted was to get to the World Series one time. One time. I didn't care how I got there. I'm here with these guys in body, mind and spirit. People say it's bittersweet. It's not bittersweet. It's only sweet." -Frank Thomas, 10/15/05 |
|
#81
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
2) As was previously stated, you're utterly missing the point by a mile 3) No way the Sox could trade for Helton without dumping Konehead at the same time. Konerko and/or Dye are free-bies. Teams look to take on expiring contracts in lieu of cash all the time. If they turn around and re-trade Konerko, they get more prospects, if they keep him, it's possible they could offer him arbitration and end up with 2 high draft picks (a la more prospects) depending on how he finishes the year)... Meanwhile, it's better to have 70 million extra in the bank over the next 7 years to help rebuild the team all-around than the equivalent of 0 that they have now due to being committed to 100+ million or so to 1 player while they're perhaps the worst team in baseball (the NL at least).... |
|
#82
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
As for the Sox, with ARow & Podsednik, they only have 1 OF slot, and a plethora of options beginning with Anderson. Sweeney could move to 1B, but if you acquire Helton that becomes unnecessary. Tracey's behind at least McCarthy and Gio so is also somewhat expendable for the Sox given they have Buehrle & Garcia for 3 years and Contreras, Garland, Hernandez for 2 (and are IMO likely to resign Garland). |
![]() |
| Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|