Stuff That's Happening
by Jeff Sullivan on Jan 19, 2009 7:58 PM PST
in Miscellaneous
- Nobody wants Adam Dunn. Except Washington, for whom Dunn's primary purpose would be flagging down cabs for the rest of the outfield. The quote of the day comes from Agent, who took time away from his busy schedule of hanging out with Unnamed Source and High-Ranking AL Executive to answer a few questions:
"I think Dunn will get a max of $5 million per year. Anything more than that and I'd be surprised."
I think Agent is probably exaggerating (or maybe he's just a shitty agent) (Kenny Lofton's agent?), but the fact of the matter is that a market for Dunn simply hasn't developed, and it doesn't look like there's much demand in the cards for later on as more and more free agents find new homes. This one could get really interesting, and as long as Dunn is out there somewhere homeless and potentially cheap, there's no reason to even think about Griffey. No Griffey. No Griffey no Griffey no Griffey.
- Aside from Dunn, the Mariners have kicked the tires on Nick Swisher and Xavier Nady. Zduriencik is clearly determined to find himself another bat, and I'm happy to see him exploring his options rather than taking the Bavasi approach and homing in on one player. Of the two, I'd prefer Swisher, but given that all we've heard is that the M's gave the Yankees a phone call, now is hardly the time to go into great detail.
- We're looking at Craig Counsell and Rosenthal speculates that we're also open to dealing Aaron Heilman. Neither of these should come as much of a surprise. Counsell has Milwaukee ties and would fill the utility role that Zduriencik has tried to address, and Heilman is a new body who wants to start on a team with too many starters. On Counsell: he can still pick it at three positions and draws walks because he hates to swing, but power-wise, he's you. Were he to sign with Seattle, he'd basically be Willie Ballgame, only way less annoying. On Heilman: now doesn't strike me as the best time to sell, but if the team doesn't feel that he can be effective in relief, his value may not have much rebound potential. Trade rumors seemed to follow Heilman wherever he went with New York. I guess it makes sense that they'd follow him to Seattle.
- Between Felix Pie, Adam Jones, and Nick Markakis, Baltimore has put together one hell of a defensive outfield with loads of offensive upside. And Markakis is on the verge of signing a $66m/6yr extension. I can't believe I live in a world in which the Orioles have a clue. Too bad they're pretty much fucked for eternity.
How long do you go if Dunn is ok with 5 million a year?
Robert - January 19, 2009
Two years
Aaron Campeau - January 19, 2009
If the price is that low I'd strongly consider 3
Eating 5 million is not the end of the world in the worst case, and best case is you get three years of a good DH for only 15 million, worst case you get 2 years for 15 million. I’d take that risk
Corco - January 19, 2009
I probably would as well but I'd go hard for two.
I would imagine Dunn would be more likely to go two years as well, because he’s probably trying to convince himself that the lack of interest is economy related and not Adam Dunn related. I don’t think that’s the case, but if I’m him I’d probably feel the same way.
Aaron Campeau - January 19, 2009
Way to stick to one tense dingus.
Aaron Campeau - January 19, 2009
Actually
aside from a blown subjunctive (should be “if I were him”), your tenses were spot-on.
The Ancient Mariner - January 20, 2009
I doubt there's any way Dunn signs a 3/15 contract.
I’d even be surprised at a 2/10.
Matthew - January 19, 2009
I'd be willing to offer him what Burrell got.
JI - January 19, 2009
Maybe a little less
JI - January 19, 2009
I'd be shocked at 2/10
Jeff Sullivan - January 19, 2009
1/7
or so. That’s probably what Dunn should be hoping for. He might need a “rehabilitation year,” so to speak. I really doubt he goes multi year for anything less than 8 per.
tait644 - January 19, 2009
I think if he's bound to get less than 10 million per
Dunn won’t be looking for a long term deal. He’d just test the market again in a couple of years; he’s young enough that he can get another multi year contract.
Bearskin Rugburn - January 20, 2009
Heh
I’m pretty sure that’s what the rest of baseball thinks about us.
Goose - January 19, 2009
1995-2003
Matthew - January 19, 2009
There's always
KC/ Nationals, and even if they do grow a brain, there’s always the Pirates
RollingWave - January 19, 2009
Aren't the Padres supposed to be bad too?
Fin - January 19, 2009
The Padres are run by pretty smart people who have about $150.43 to work with.
Teej - January 19, 2009
So basically they are a low budget team?
Fin - January 20, 2009
Yeah
But the worst part is that due to the owner’s ugly divorce they have have to cut significantly down on spending and quickly.
edddgar - January 20, 2009
Every team in the NL Central is run like shit except for the Brewers and maybe the Pirates
JI - January 19, 2009
Off the Top of my head:
Excellent:
Tampa, Oakland, Boston, Cleveland
Above average:
Seattle(!), Minnesota, Milwaukee, Arizona, San Diego
Adequately:
Philadelphia, Colorado, Pittsburgh, Toronto, Atlanta, Baltimore(?), Florida, New York, New York, Texas, St. Louis, Anaheim
Poorly:
Chicago, Chicago, Kansas City, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Houston, Cincinnati
Crazily:
Detroit, Washington
JI - January 19, 2009
How did Dayton Moore grade above anyone?
seattlebruin - January 20, 2009
Drafts.
Llewdor - January 20, 2009
How about Pittsburgh?
Wilder. - January 20, 2009
I thought Pittsburgh was now in good hands.
JI - January 20, 2009
Did they change their front office?
I just know they have had a terrible last 15 years, both drafting, trading, and free agency.
Wilder. - January 20, 2009
Yeah, they made a change.
They hired Neal Huntington out of the Cleveland GM factory, and he’s made it pretty clear what kind of path he’s on. And they drafted and signed Pedro Alvarez, which is something you wouldn’t have seen with the old regime. And they recognized that Matt Morris was a sunk cost and just dropped him. Seems like they’ve got a clue.
Teej - January 20, 2009
They hired Dan Fox to be their Pitch f/x guru as well.
Matthew - January 20, 2009
No Dontrelle
JI - January 20, 2009
Good point
seattlebruin - January 20, 2009
http://www.lookoutlanding.com/2009/1/19/728510/stuff-that-s-happening#11597666
JI - January 20, 2009
If Dunn is a 2 or 2.5 win player,
what would be wrong with 2 years at $22 million with performance incentives and a team option for a third? (Not necessarily just for the Mariners.) He may have old player skills but 2 years is hardly risking decline. If he’d DH I’d be pretty happy to have him aboard, but he seems hell bent on costing his team runs with the glove.
Double06 - January 19, 2009
Not much, but
1/7 is much better, no?
tait644 - January 19, 2009
Of course
but I doubt it comes to that.
Double06 - January 19, 2009
You'd have to think that if 2/22 is out there, he would have jumped on it by now
I’m excited for the possibility of Adam Dunn on a one or two year deal at $8M per
seattlebruin - January 20, 2009
Except all indications in the press (that I've read)
are that he’s content at demanding $14 million a year. He’s just not ready to settle. And if he gets close to signing a 1 year $8 million deal somewhere and we enter the bidding with a $10 or $11 million deal, he’d have a pretty tough decision to make.
Getting a steal is fantastic, but I’m perfectly content paying players what they’re worth in free agency.
Double06 - January 20, 2009
I think is one player where I don't really want him unless we get him at a fairly significant discount
the downside is just too high and he’s still a guy with little to no defensive value
seattlebruin - January 20, 2009
At 2 years the risk of decline is really low, even with old player skills.
And wins are wins. And you’d probably get Type-A compensation.
Double06 - January 20, 2009
With this team I'd rather not surrender the opportunity cost going into next season.
The more I think about the more I’m convinced he’s only a good idea for one year or two years/$cheap.
Aaron Campeau - January 20, 2009
He's been worth an average of almost +2.5 wins over the last 3 years.
I’d call $10 million a year cheap money.
Double06 - January 20, 2009
On a one year deal maybe.
Aaron Campeau - January 20, 2009
There's certainly better deals to be had if you got creative.
But one or two years of cheap production followed by possibly two draft picks is mighty enticing.
Double06 - January 20, 2009
You'd have to offer him arbitration and have him decline to get those draft picks.
Something that’s a lot more risky in this climate now.
Matthew - January 20, 2009
Ah, I forgot that in one or two years defense will be valued even more than it is now.
However he can still be dealt.
Double06 - January 20, 2009
Because people will willingly trade for him and take on the same problems we'd have anyway?
seattlebruin - January 20, 2009
Since when are league average players a problem?
Double06 - January 20, 2009
I'm saying that if you're correct and people will value defense even more than now
how are you going to deal him? There’s a decent chance he’d decline arbitration and a decent chance that no one wants to trade for him. Part of the rationale of getting him is to recoup those picks on the end.
seattlebruin - January 20, 2009
Because league average players are still worth something.
Draft picks or no.
Double06 - January 20, 2009
Washington needs more outfielders
JI - January 19, 2009
I agree
6 outfielders aren’t enough.
baetown415 - January 19, 2009
Good for the Orioles
Let the AL east beat up on each other.
Scruffy Lefty - January 19, 2009
Heilman for Swisher.
Make the call, GMZ.
Wilder. - January 19, 2009
The Yankees don't really have any use for Heilman either
Although it would be hilarious to send him back to New York
Corco - January 19, 2009
I don't know.
Name three guys in the Yankees’ bullpen (without looking). And when it comes to starting, they are still looking for a 5th starter (if they decide they don’t want to go with their young hurlers).
If they are serious about wanting to dump Swisher, they will be willing to get most anything of value back. I would hope GMZ at least tests the waters, which he may already have done. The great thing is, the longer Dunn’s value goes down, so does Swisher’s.
Wilder. - January 19, 2009
Rivera and
… uh…
BrianL - January 19, 2009
Like I said, make the call, Jack.
Wilder. - January 19, 2009
Farnsworth? Procter?
Are they still with the Yankees?
Fin - January 19, 2009
No.
Royals and Marlins
Mariner John - January 19, 2009
well
They actually do have several 5th starter candidates, they just want to sign guys who most team would qualify as #3 or better guys to be their 5th starter. most teams would be ecastic if their worse starter is potentially Phil Hughes.
RollingWave - January 19, 2009
Did I say otherwise?
Wilder. - January 19, 2009
Veras! And...uh...Joba!
.Taylor - January 20, 2009
Joba is in the starting rotation.
Wilder. - January 20, 2009
That's what I was thinking
after last year’s barrage of starter injuries they’ll be looking for depth, and he’s got value as a setup man, long reliever, etc. It’ll be a lot more than what they gave up for Swisher.
Bearskin Rugburn - January 20, 2009
I'd assume they'd ask for something else too, like a far away prospect with good upside
so without trying to rosterbate too much, this trade does seem to make a little sense on both ends provided we toss in a little carrot on the back end
seattlebruin - January 20, 2009
I thought so too
and would have no problem with a A+/AA position player heading out there too. Or Rob Johnson. Everyone likes defensive minded catchers, right?
Bearskin Rugburn - January 20, 2009
I was thinking more like Juan Ramirez/Michael Pineda/Jharmidy DeJesus
someone with real upside who right now isn’t terribly high probability
seattlebruin - January 20, 2009
(and preferably a pitcher, since we have some depth there in the low minors)
seattlebruin - January 20, 2009
I'd break Zduriencik's neck if any of those went to New York.
They paid for Swisher with a failed corner infielder, a piece of worthless roster filler, and one interesting bullpen arm. Any of those three you mentioned has more potential value then what the Yankees paid the ChiSox. Heilman alone may not do it, but I’m not forgoing any of those three.
The Typical Idiot Fan - January 20, 2009
Who cares what the Yankees paid to get him?
That’s not the price anymore.
Jeff Sullivan - January 20, 2009
One of those guys is entirely reasonable.
Swisher would probably warrant a draft pick at the end of his contract anyway, and he’d be around for 3 years. That’s not really sacrificing the future when Swisher will be a part of the near future.
Double06 - January 20, 2009
You're forgetting
that they got an even more interesting bullpen arm back; I’d rather have Kanekoa Teixeira than either of the pitchers they sent the White Sox.
The Ancient Mariner - January 20, 2009
I think SB's overvaluing Swisher as well
if Heilman goes there I think it takes little more to bring Swisher to Seattle. He had a terrible season last year.
Bearskin Rugburn - January 20, 2009
Siwsher is better than Heilman
JI - January 20, 2009
Is he more valued though?
The Yanks still need starting depth and every dollar of payroll they currently have is counted double because of luxury taxes. It’s a good match although I freely admit they could find a better one elsewhere. Anyway, I doubt it takes one of our A+ ‘aces’ on top of Heilman to get him here.
Whatever. The point is, we know Zduriencik is interested in a bat, and at least the reports are that he’s interested in Swisher and not Griffey/Dunn, which is a welcome change.
Bearskin Rugburn - January 20, 2009
I don't think Michael Pineda is an A+ prospect
despite being very intruiging
seattlebruin - January 20, 2009
I mean A+ as in high A ballnot grade
Bearskin Rugburn - January 20, 2009
Gotcha
because I was thinking “I don’t see how we have more than one prospect who would be an A+, and I’m not even sure Aumont is that good”
seattlebruin - January 20, 2009
Just because you pick up Ichiro for a delicious cold can of Sprite in a trade
does not mean you are obligated to trade him for a delicious cold can of Fresca if someone else wants him.
eponymous_coward - January 20, 2009
You would still end up a winner, though.
Fresca is awesome.
Teej - January 20, 2009
Cashman's not stupid.
Heilman is maybe a 1 WAR reliever, ??? as a starter, under team control for one year. Swisher is a 2-3 WAR OF/1B, under team control for a lot longer. No deal.
eponymous_coward - January 20, 2009
Swisher is not a 2-3 WAR player if he doesn't get the playing time.
Graham MacAree - January 20, 2009
Sure he is
He might not be a +2 to +3 win player for the Yankees, but he’s still a +2 to +3 win player. There’s no reason for the Yankees to give him away. Asking them to deal him for Heilman is giving him away.
Really, it’s going to have to be something like Bedard/Wlad for Swisher/something or several prospects for Swisher, then Wlad gets flipped to someone else for whatever you can get for him.
davidcameron - January 20, 2009
The Yankees should try to get the highest possible marginal return on their roster
That means that if they can trade a 2-3 win guy who’ll play half a season for a 1.5-2.5 win guy who has an open spot on the roster to fit into, they should do it. I’m not asking them to give him away, but them trying to get Swisher value back for Swisher will only work if they draw other teams into a bidding war.
Graham MacAree - January 20, 2009
NB: I am not saying that they'd accept a Heilman/Swisher swap.
Graham MacAree - January 20, 2009
But if you're the Yankees, you have the financial resources to chance some low marginal return.
I could easily see Cashman letting Swisher play part-time the first half of ‘09 giving guys like Matsui and Damon some time off if he didn’t get a deal he liked coming out of spring training, and then flipping him in a deadline deal for some bullpen arm + stud prospect to a NL contender needing “one more bat”. That, or if one of them goes down, boom, you’re playing Nick Swisher every day instead of the worse of Gardner/Cabrera.
The Yankees of the 1940’s and 1950’s were kind of like that- they’d have an OF with 4 legit MLB players- the superstar like DiMaggio or Mantle, All-Stars like Bauer or Henrich, and guys who were pretty good and would be 145 games a year regulars on other teams like Woodling and Noren. Stengel would be playing some pretty good ballplayers only 100-120 games a year, and it helped a lot when Mantle or DiMaggio had their annual injury.
eponymous_coward - January 20, 2009
Yeah, something like that.
Also, it wouldn’t be completely irrational for Cashman to wait until the end of spring training to a) see if everyone is coming back from their injuries just fine and b) see if someone else on a contender blows out a knee to help drive the price for Swisher up.
Also: Bedard/Wlad? Yikes. Bedard is a HUUGE piece of the potential group of “guys with upside enough to get us into contention if we get lucky”. I’d grit hard having to trade him, because it almost certainly means you’ve punted ’09… but I probably would do it.
eponymous_coward - January 20, 2009
Rivera, Veras, Ramirez, Coke, Marte
I had to look after that
Trenchtown - January 19, 2009
They could always
Put Joba back in the pen and give half the writers in Ny an organsim while 90% of the bloggers a heart attack.
in reality, their plan seem to be Rivera then a bunch of rotating door, almost everyone except Marte still has options and can just rotate until they find some shite that sticks.
RollingWave - January 19, 2009
I would be suprised
if Veras doesn’t stick. For some reason I saw a lot of him last year and am smitten. His walks and HR’s are a little high but his stuff is sick
Trenchtown - January 20, 2009
Question
I’m curious, why the preference for Swisher over Nady?
El Macho - January 19, 2009
Lefty.
Wilder. - January 19, 2009
Better defender.
Double06 - January 19, 2009
Better hitter
JI - January 19, 2009
Better surprised face
BrianL - January 19, 2009
Natural born killer.
Wilder. - January 19, 2009
The Yankees are back to evil empire status
I can know this because I instantly recoiled in disgust when I saw that picture.
Omerta - January 19, 2009
We must trade Heilman to free Nick Swisher.
BrianL - January 19, 2009
Amen.
Omerta - January 19, 2009
How hard was it to shop a "NY" on to a Sox hat?
JI - January 19, 2009
Probably much easier than their other shop products
I do think that they’ve gotten better with their photoshops than they were like four or five years ago.
Fin - January 19, 2009
not to mention ....
lovely locks
msb - January 20, 2009
All three of these reasons, really
plus, he’s under contract through 2011, while Nady’s a free agent next winter.
Jeff Sullivan - January 20, 2009
he's actually a switchy but...
RollingWave - January 19, 2009
Because Swisher's way better.
Teej - January 19, 2009
http://www.lookoutlanding.com/2009/1/19/728510/stuff-that-s-happening#11599163
http://www.lookoutlanding.com/2009/1/19/728510/stuff-that-s-happening#11599175
JI - January 19, 2009
I'm trying to be a nice guy and make it as general as I can,
since the commenter doesn’t appear to realize that one year does not a player make. Swisher has a record of hitting better, fielding better, having more awesome facial hair and being younger. Plus he’s locked in for a few years.
I might be a sucker for a good smile and a high OBP, but Swisher’s one of my favorite players in baseball.
Teej - January 19, 2009
I wanted to create a recursive loop. :(
JI - January 19, 2009
Because
Swisher is a good hitter coming off a mediocre poor year
Nady is a mediocre hitter coming off a good year
Trenchtown - January 20, 2009
I wonder what the odds line in Vegas is
That Adam Dunn hits exactly 40 homeruns next year?
Trenchtown - January 20, 2009
right now? not very high.
abender20 - January 20, 2009
If I were Dunn I'd find a 1 year deal and get myself back on the market...
I mean this offseason has been so drastically different than the past few. Say the economy rebounds a bit in a year…there’s no way some team won’t pay him. I refuse to believe that every franchise got smart and started valuing players accuratly, I just think they’re reluctant to spend in tougher times. I mean even if he has an off year it probably won’t hurt him much.
SethGrandpa - January 20, 2009
Some of the really dumb teams got a lot smarter over the past two-three years
Seattle, Baltimore and Tampa(!) come to mind (I’m aware that Tampa has done a good job rebuilding but they were the laughingstock of baseball as recently as three years ago)
seattlebruin - January 20, 2009
The economy has certainly had an effect on the free-agent market, but that's not the only cause.
Teams have gotten smarter, and the teams that are still stupid don’t need Adam Dunn. Teams are going to continue to get smarter; players with Dunn’s skillset are as close to being properly valued as they’ve ever been, and I doubt we see a complete 180 on that front.
Aaron Campeau - January 20, 2009
Wilder's said it
but I’d like to reinforce how much I like the idea. Heilman for Swisher. Makes sense for us, makes sense for them. If they insist, we can throw in Rob Johnson (great defensive catcher!).
Bearskin Rugburn - January 20, 2009
Also worth noting
in terms of what’s going on around the league. Roto world cites an Arizona paper as claiming Randy Wolf has turned down the Dbacks’ offer and they are running out of options for starters. They apparently have about 5 million to spend and I for one would be very happy to give them 5 million plus Washburn. Plus it would be interesting to see if pitching in the NL can outweigh Arizona’s run environment. I’m betting no.
Also per Roto (I’ve been productive at work this morning) SD is under executive order to pare down payroll another five million minimum, and Peavy’s salary minus Washburn’s salary is exactly that. I imagine they would require something more than Washburn to move him, and I don’t want to speculate as to what that might be. But if the goal for the mariners is to contend as soon as possible picking up a guy who’s under a reasonable contract through his prime years is a good idea. Even if he starts to age and has to adjust to the AL he needs to be a ~3 -3.5 win player for the next three years to justify his pay. The big problem here is his no trade clause and the Padres’ demands, but if payroll MUST be cut, they lose leverage.
Bearskin Rugburn - January 20, 2009
The Padres
They wanted Yunel Escobar, Tommy Hanson, and Gorkys Hernandez from the Braves for Peavy. To put that into Mariner terms, that’s something like Jose Lopez, Brandon Morrow, and Michael Saunders. Pass.
davidcameron - January 20, 2009
I figured it would be something like that
It’s hard to ask for the world when you have to cut payroll no matter what, but if they’re looking for a sucker then I’d rather it not be the Mariners. Been there done that.
Bearskin Rugburn - January 20, 2009
I don't blame them for trying to play their hand.
Not everyone correctly adjusts for league/park.
JI - January 20, 2009
So they'll offer Wolf 1/5 but not Randy?
They must really really hate him.
JI - January 20, 2009
ыеач тчеы кинда сцрешед тче пооцч он тчат оне
Bearskin Rugburn - January 20, 2009
Rec'd for unintentional comedy value. :)
The Ancient Mariner - January 20, 2009
My bad
I was saying yeah they kinda screwed the pooch on that one
Bearskin Rugburn - January 20, 2009
The Sun says the Markakis deal is done.
6 years/$66.1 million.
That buys out three years of free agency. Nice work.
Teej - January 20, 2009
Also a report
that AJ has gained 25 pounds after extensive training this winter. If he keeps his mobility… shit.
Bearskin Rugburn - January 20, 2009
Bavasi's new name should be GM A
Wilder. - January 20, 2009
Lack of power wasn't much of a problem for AJ.
It may not have translated to the Majors yet but I have confidence it would have — CHONE is predicting .170 ISO. I’d be really afraid of him losing range if this is true, which is his biggest asset right now.
Double06 - January 20, 2009
Yeah, 25 pounds is scary.
Teej - January 20, 2009
Maybe that's why they got Pie : P
Need some lost range covered.
Double06 - January 20, 2009
Good batch of HGH this year, I guess
seattlebruin - January 20, 2009
Must've stolen some from Morse before leaving.
That or he got a hold of Yuni’s bulking-up secrets.
Wilder. - January 20, 2009
I'd recommend HGH before delicious sandwiches.
Double06 - January 20, 2009
The Mexico appellation
had a very favorable climate this past autumn. Really potent output for this winter/spring seasonals.
Matthew - January 20, 2009
They're thinking of him in left with Pie in center
he has speed to spare and the extra weight will help him hit the ball farther.
Bearskin Rugburn - January 20, 2009
Even still,
we’ll just have to see if that ends up with more positive run contribution. I’m relatively sure he’d still be a plus defensive corner outfielder, but maintaining agility and making more contact would have been a more suitable regimen if you ask me. The power would come anyways.
Double06 - January 20, 2009
Hope he doesn't pull a Ruben Sierra.
I suppose it’s all conjecture that the bulk he put on damaged his career.
Kermit. - January 20, 2009
Aardsma --> Us
We just acquired Aardsma from the Red Sox for minor-leaguer LHP Fabian Williamson.
The Yellow Dart - January 20, 2009
Well that seems random
Graham MacAree - January 20, 2009
Guess we really wanted to fill that 40th roster spot before FanFest...
The Yellow Dart - January 20, 2009
Meh
Dewey N - January 20, 2009
Huh. Wonder if Heilman is going away.
Aaron Campeau - January 20, 2009
I wouldn't think Aardsma would be that great of a replacement
Dewey N - January 20, 2009
No, but he is added depth.
I think I’m just bored and hoping for news.
Aaron Campeau - January 20, 2009
Translation:
Hoping for Swisher
(collective nod of the entire LL community)
Wilder. - January 20, 2009
I want Swisher, sure, but there are other interesting things Heilman could bring.
The thing that’s awesome about this front office is that I think they’re capable of figuring out awesome things that I am not, which is different.
Aaron Campeau - January 20, 2009
Absolutely agree.
This has been an awesome offseason of good news. Keep the news coming because you know it’s going to be good with Jack at the helm.
Wilder. - January 20, 2009
That is the only way it makes much sense
Corco - January 20, 2009
WHY DO WE KEEP GETTING REILEIVERS
Corco - January 20, 2009
Lower your case.
Matthew - January 20, 2009
Sorry I used capitalization to express shock and a bit of confusion
Corco - January 20, 2009
Because bullpen depth is awesome?
Aaron Campeau - January 20, 2009
Don't we already have plenty of it though?
Corco - January 20, 2009
Can you ever have enough?
Aaron Campeau - January 20, 2009
I'm all for pulling in random dudes on minor league deals
But spending money and giving away warm bodies doesn’t seem good
Corco - January 20, 2009
Bringing in guys who are out of options like Aardsma and Walker seems to limit flexibility
Corco - January 20, 2009
That's a solid point but it's not something I'm going to get my knickers in a twist about.
Aaron Campeau - January 20, 2009
I'm not going to lose sleep over the move
I just have trouble seeing the point
Corco - January 20, 2009
Like I said above though, when I don't see the point right away
I no longer assume it was pointless.
Aaron Campeau - January 20, 2009
I realize that Zduriencik spent a whole lot more time thinking about it then I did and will assume that it's the right move
I think half of it is just a kneejerk reaction that any move any GM makes ever is bad that still hasn’t worn off of me yet.
Corco - January 20, 2009
What's great about relievers is that you can just release them and not hurt the core of the team.
Wilder. - January 20, 2009
If you release them you give up the depth you acquired though
I just prefer to, for guys who may not be on the team all season, try pretty hard to find guys with minor league options
Corco - January 20, 2009
Williamson is a dime a dozen.
And if Aardesma can gain some trade value through midseason, we can turn around and trade him for a different Williamson (maybe even better).
Wilder. - January 20, 2009
hopefully not Scott
abender20 - January 20, 2009
Where can I exchange this dollar for 120 Fabian Williamsons?
marc w - January 20, 2009
Would you have noticed if they had just cut Fabian Williamson?
seattlebruin - January 20, 2009
Yes.
marc w - January 20, 2009
Would you notice if I snuck into your house and stole your bottle of Dalwhinnie?
Sec 108 - January 20, 2009
YES.
I don’t have any Dalwhinnie, but if you touch my bottle of Nadurra, I would know, and I would CARE.
However, if you asked nicely, I would pour you a generous glass.
marc w - January 20, 2009
I could use one right now.
I haven’t had Nadurra yet. What would you compare it to?
Sec 108 - January 20, 2009
Hmmm.
Balvenie mixed with bourbon?
It’s quite strong at 112 proof, so it has a bite that a normal Speyside wouldn’t, but it’s still sweet and smooth like Glenlivet 12 or Balvenie. It’s aged in bourbon casks (16 years), so sweeter/more vanilla than normal. If you like scotch AND bourbon, you’d love it. If you’re a highland purist, eh, you might hate it or just prefer the cask-strength Laphroaig or whatever.
marc w - January 20, 2009
Interesting. I'll have to try it even though I am not a big bourbon fan.
Sec 108 - January 20, 2009
You must Login with your SB Nation account and be a member of Lookout Landing to post a comment.