Bedard a possibility, once again?

by nighthawk32 on Jan 30, 2008 10:44 AM EST

Mlbtraderumors brought up the rumor that the Orioles are not happy with medical reports about Adam Jones' hip. The same articles suggested that new teams have jumped back into discussions about Bedard. They listed the Reds as potential suitors.

If the Seattle rumors are true (about Jones' hip) and Baltimore dropped their price (see the Santana trade) would you be interested in getting Bedard?

Tweet Comment 38 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Yeah

Only if we can get him for about what the Mets got Santana.

That would be a package of Votto, Maloney, Dickerson, and a Daryl Thompson type.

Find me on MySpace- http://www.myspace.com/mixfmkyle

by MixFMKyle on Jan 30, 2008 10:48 AM EST reply actions

Bedard might cost more

because he isn't limited to about 5 times, and he doesn't require a ridiculous possibly hazardous extension.

The Dusty path to the World Series!

by justin0070000 on Jan 30, 2008 10:51 AM EST reply actions

Votto, Stubbs, Maloney, Thompson

I'd offer that and pretty much keep it at that. I'd be comfortable giving that up and it's a fair return for the O's as well.

by Geki on Jan 30, 2008 11:12 AM EST reply actions

I kinda want to keep Stubbs around

I know you have to give up something to get something, but with Griffey in his last season, and Dunn possibly about to leave in free agency, for the first time in my memory this team may have an outfield shortage. Maybe Frazier instead of Stubbs.

The Dusty path to the World Series!

by justin0070000 on Jan 30, 2008 11:37 AM EST up reply actions

Never

Frazier's a better prospect than Stubbs. He's younger, a better hitter, and he plays the infield.

Comparatively, Daniel Dorn may make Stubbs expendable, though he's nowhere near his level defensively, but there isn't really anybody in the system that would make Frazier expendable. Soto would be the closest, and he's got a long road ahead of him still.

I'm not superstitious...but I am a little stitious.

by Slyde on Jan 30, 2008 11:44 AM EST up reply actions

you are probably right

i was just throwing out a prospects name. Frazier probably is too much.

The Dusty path to the World Series!

by justin0070000 on Jan 30, 2008 11:46 AM EST up reply actions

Frazier > Stubbs.... I dunno

Frazier doesn't really have a position right now and there are already people speculating he could move to a corner outfield position. Is his bat better than Stubbs? Yeah, it is. He doesn't really have the power potential that Stubbs does though and he surely doesn't have the defense that Stubbs does, much less have it at a position like CF.

As far as infielders go.... I would say that the Reds are pretty set everywhere in the infield that Frazier can play for a while. Is he going to jump past Votto, Phillips or Edwin anytime soon? I highly doubt that. He isn't a shortstop, so he won't be playing there in the majors. The idea that he is an infielder doesn't really give him some additional value in my mind. While the Reds aren't really stock full of young infielders at the upper levels, like I just showed, they don't really need to be unless its a shortstop, which maybe Jose Castro (from the Mets) is a possibility that could develop into something solid.

Frazier however couldn't be traded anyways since it hasn't been a year since he signed and its still too early for him to be a PTBNL I believe since a PTBNL has to be named within 6 months.

www.redsminorleagues.com

by dougdirt on Jan 30, 2008 2:26 PM EST up reply actions

But that six months is approaching pretty quickly.

I couldn't find what date he signed, but his first game with Billings was on July 11 - so he could be "included" as a PTBNL at least by February 11.

Everybody's a jerk. You. Me. This jerk.

by andromache on Jan 30, 2008 2:38 PM EST up reply actions

I still have huge doubts about his bat.

I have very few doubts about Frazier's bat, and a year from now, I expect Frazier will be a top-25 prospect. Not to mention he can't be traded until a year after his signing, which isn't until at least June. Although the Reds may have an outfield shortage if Dunn and Griffey leave and Stubbs is traded, the Reds will also have quite a bit of money freed up, and outfield is always the easiest position to fill in free agency.

by Geki on Jan 30, 2008 12:11 PM EST up reply actions

or

The majority of major league quality hitters can get by in the outfield. The only question is who plays center field, but I'm sure the Reds can get by with Bruce for a year or two before he would have to move to a corner.

I'm not superstitious...but I am a little stitious.

by Slyde on Jan 30, 2008 12:19 PM EST up reply actions

The Os can have Stubbs, Maloney, Castro and Gapper

we get Bedard, an autographed photo of Cal, a firm handshake and a lukewarm cup of coffee

by jacob brumfield on Jan 30, 2008 11:56 AM EST reply actions

Hold out for some Boog's BBQ

by Brendanukkah on Jan 30, 2008 11:58 AM EST up reply actions

will do

but if this deal falls through we're still sending Castro in for a physical with this doc

by jacob brumfield on Jan 30, 2008 12:25 PM EST up reply actions

Wasn't Gapper an untouchable ?

Bailey
Dunn
Harang
Casto
Gapper

The big 5 that Bob refused to trade before?

"Statistics are like a bikini. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." - Aaron Levenstein

by Madville on Jan 30, 2008 1:29 PM EST up reply actions

I was just thinking

the prior two Bedard diaries didn't really give the rumor justice.

by ken on Jan 30, 2008 12:34 PM EST reply actions

PSYCH!!!!!1!1!!11!!!!!!!!!!

I'm not superstitious...but I am a little stitious.

by Slyde on Jan 30, 2008 12:38 PM EST up reply actions

hehe

still hilarious

by jacob brumfield on Jan 30, 2008 1:37 PM EST up reply actions

This has Peter Angelos written all over it.

I figure Angelos, as he often has done, wants to kill the deal. An injury to Jones opens that door.

Scenario No. 2 has the Orioles trying to goad Seattle into including another player or substituting a better one somewhere in the trade.

We Are ... Marshall!

by Thundering Turtle on Jan 30, 2008 1:28 PM EST reply actions

Thats the rumor

The Orioles are holding out for Triunfel to be included.

www.redsminorleagues.com

by dougdirt on Jan 30, 2008 2:26 PM EST up reply actions

After Albert Belle

The words "degenerative hip" throw a legitimate scare into O's nation.

by Brendanukkah on Jan 30, 2008 3:08 PM EST up reply actions

Shocked Twins didn't get

neither Mets No. 1 OF prospect (Fernando Martinez) nor No. 1 pitching prospect (Mike Pelfrey)in the deal.

If we could keep Bruce and Bailey or Cueto and still get Bedard, go for it.

Of course, I think more teams might make a run for Bedard because of trade value dropped significantly.

by LastRites on Jan 30, 2008 4:16 PM EST reply actions

I think the santana deal should be a good

indicator of the market for bedard. so i wouldnt give up ANY of our top 4. fuck them. we have the leverage now. i think a package of frazier, maloney, dickerson, and a pitcher (gardner or thompson) should be enough. the mets did not give up anyone from their projected major league roster, and we shouldnt either. or maybe i just still dont like the idea of a bedard trade at any rate.

and i have a feeling that the volquez deal was wayner's way of getting a pitcher. and i liked it. so lets play ball.

is it April yet?

by Charlie Scrabbles on Jan 30, 2008 5:56 PM EST reply actions

bedard is different though

Santana held a no-trade clause, and would only go to a team that would give him a huge extension. Bedard is available to more teams. Santana was limited pretty much to the NY's, and Boston, and maybe the Cubs or Dodgers could have given him that kind of extension.

The Dusty path to the World Series!

by justin0070000 on Jan 30, 2008 6:00 PM EST up reply actions

I don't

Everyone thinks the Twins got raped on the Santana deal. Scouts are saying that the Twinkies were "robbed without a gun." Baseball America says the Twins should be hoping the deal collapses, so they have a chance to start over.

The Twins are supposed to be pretty good horsetraders, so it's odd to see them on the short end of such a one-sided deal. Perhaps they value the prospects they got more than anyone else does. (That would be very Minnesota.) More likely, the restrictions Santana put on them - according to rumor, only to NY or Boston, and only before spring training starts - hamstrung them a bit. They should have traded him in December, before the Yankees changed their minds. I think once the Yanks pulled out, the market collapsed. The Red Sox were only trying to keep him from the Yanks (or at least drive up the price), so once the Yanks dropped out, that left only the Mets.

All Things Bubba: Because how can you not love a baseball player named Bubba?

by BubbaFan on Jan 30, 2008 6:21 PM EST up reply actions

The Twins did get screwed big time

but not by the Mets.

If the rumors are true that Santana gave them a deadline of about 24 hours to get a deal done or he wouldn't waive his clause, then Santana screwed the Twins big time and the Twins pretty much had to take the offer on the table at the time. While they didn't get FMart, they did walk away with some talent that could help them in the future, likely better talent than the draft picks they would have recieved when Santana walked at the end of the year.

www.redsminorleagues.com

by dougdirt on Jan 30, 2008 10:45 PM EST up reply actions

The Twins screwed themselves

by trying to play games with the Yankees and Red Sox. You can't try to play them off of each other if you're gonna fail that hard at keeping information in house. It was pretty apparent that's what they were trying to do over a month ago, and when Hank gave them the finger, the Red Sox dropped out since they already have what's probably the best rotation in the majors. Meanwhile, they got four mediocre prospects from the Mets. Better than draft picks? Yeah, but sure as hell not better than any of the other offers they were getting. I can't put any blame on Johan for this, he's been in flux for two months now.

by Geki on Jan 31, 2008 12:19 AM EST up reply actions

I will partially agree

I don't think the Yankees or Red Sox were ever serious contenders. They were more trying to keep the other from getting Johan than they were actually trying to acquire him.
While they both have stronger offers than what the Mets had, I am not sure that had the Twins said ok a month ago what they would have done.

www.redsminorleagues.com

by dougdirt on Jan 31, 2008 3:56 AM EST up reply actions

Disagree

The Yankees were serious contenders. The Red Sox were not. They had no need of Santana. They were just making sure it would be very expensive for the Yanks if they did land him.

The Yankees are currently a three-headed beast, with Hal, Hank, and Cashman all pulling in different directions. Hal wanted Santana. (Hal seems a lot like his dad.) Hank didn't; he's the bean counter, and didn't want to spend the money. Cashman didn't want Santana, either, because he wanted to keep their young players. Hal appears to be the one with the final say, but Cashman and Hank talked him out of trading for Santana.

Andy Pettitte agreeing to return rather than retire probably had a big role. The Yankees love lefties, and they don't have any. Before Pettitte re-upped, their backup plan for a lefty starter was Kei Igawa. Had Pettitte not returned, they probably would have paid any price the Twins asked for Santana, because they have no lefties on the farm. They have more RHP talent than they'll ever use, but not much in the way of left-handed pitching.

I don't blame Santana for how it turned out. He earned his no-trade fair and square, and what's the point of having one if you're not going to use it? It's not like he dropped a bombshell on them at the last minute. The Twins knew all along that they had a deadline. I think they got a little greedy.

All Things Bubba: Because how can you not love a baseball player named Bubba?

by BubbaFan on Jan 31, 2008 6:27 AM EST up reply actions

im with you

santana did nothing wrong here. he has every right to exercise that no-trade clause. the twins are lucky enough he waived it to begin with. they had the chance to get hughes and cabrera + one and they overplayed their hand. the twins have no one to blame for their mismanagement of trade talks than themselves. if i were a twins fan i would be livid.

is it April yet?

by Charlie Scrabbles on Jan 31, 2008 8:14 AM EST up reply actions

why do GM's care

if they have a starting rotation comprised of only right handed pitchers.

I would rather have 5 good right handed pitchers, than 3 or 4 good righties and a mideicore to poor lefty.

The Dusty path to the World Series!

by justin0070000 on Jan 31, 2008 1:37 PM EST up reply actions

The Yankees...

...may be in a rather unique situation. They have a stadium with a short right porch that favors lefty batters. So they love lefties, both batters and pitchers. Since lefty hitters are assumed to have more trouble with lefty pitchers.

Also, lefty pitchers are seen as a way to counter David Ortiz. The Yanks kept freakin' Mike Myers on the roster for two years, as a LOOGY for use against Big Papi. He sometimes wasn't seen for weeks at a time, but they kept him on the roster anyway.

All Things Bubba: Because how can you not love a baseball player named Bubba?

by BubbaFan on Jan 31, 2008 4:57 PM EST up reply actions