Dodgers Still Interested in Jack Wilson, Pirates Pursuing Eckstein
Bumped, newer stuff below - Charlie
The Dodgers have not slammed the door on Wilson, but [Dodgers GM] Ned Colletti is exasperated by the Pirates' asking price and has turned his attention -- full and intently, it seems -- to getting Rafael Furcal re-signed. ... Delwyn Young, one of the Los Angeles prospects mentioned in a proposed deal, is out of options and might not make the 25-man roster out of spring, which means he might be had for nothing if a team waits long enough.
Well, good. Delwyn Young (totally different player from the far-more-interesting Delmon Young, and yeah, it's confusing) isn't worth giving up much for anyway. I haven't heard of any concrete trade offers in which the Pirates get a player for Wilson who might be an important part of their future, so there's no need to trade Wilson now. As KPatrick mentioned in the comments of a previous thread, I'm not normally a big proponent of waiting for the perfect deal before trading a middling vet, but in this case the Pirates really don't benefit in any way by trading Wilson (except by shedding salary, which I don't care whether they do or not, since they can afford to keep Wilson and spend a bunch of money on amateur signings). The Pirates don't have a young shortstop who might turn into a productive regular if he got playing time; the position is a complete black hole after Wilson. The Pirates should be demanding here, because Wilson is valuable to them right now. Of couse the most important thing is the long-term future of the team, and so if the Pirates get anyone who can potentially really help--even if they have to reach deep into the minors--they should make the trade. But so far we've heard about nothing but AAAA players and Grade C prospects.
UPDATE: The P-G also reports the Bucs are talking to David Eckstein, which would seem to mean that a trade of either Wilson or Freddy Sanchez is pretty likely. Eckstein is a marginal starter at this point, but he's probably a bit too good for the Pirates to be pursuing him as a bench player.
UPDATE II: The P-G now says the Bucs are in formal negotiations with Eckstein. It looks increasingly likely that either Wilson or Sanchez will be traded, soon or at some point in the offseason.
UPDATE III: The Braves are interested in Paul Maholm or Nate McLouth. There isn't much to say here until there are some specifics, but even after the Javier Vazquez deal, the Braves have the prospects needed to get things done with the Pirates if they want to.
0 recs |
34 comments
Comments
We should...
just leave Young out of this. He is not good.Deals I would like to see is Wilson for Hu and McDonald or Wilson and Grabow for Perkins.
by joegonzo on
Dec 9, 2008 4:01 PM EST
reply
actions
0 recs
WhatWhatWhat?!?
I would like to see is Wilson for Hu and McDonald
You can’t be serious? There’s no way that Jack Wilson is worth those two. Maybe straight up for Hu, but Wilson for Hu AND Jimmy Mac??? Those are nursery rhymes you’re singing.
Paul Lo Duca is MLB's Pablo Escobar..
by DodgerBlueBalls on
Dec 9, 2008 4:17 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
That does seem to be quite a lot to ask, but Ned Colletti is dumber than a bag of hammers—no disrespect to you personally, of course.
by Charlie on
Dec 9, 2008 4:21 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I guess...
you both missed the comment I made right after that. I thought about it and figured it is very unlikely, but there was still a chance because of Colletti. Also, Wilson for Hu would never happen because Huntington would never take that little for anyone.
I am actually more surprised you guys didn’t mention the second trade which I think is more unlikely.
by joegonzo on
Dec 9, 2008 4:33 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
No offense taken
And yeah, Ned “Flanders” Colletti is dumber than a learning-disabled doornail. Touche’
Paul Lo Duca is MLB's Pablo Escobar..
by DodgerBlueBalls on
Dec 9, 2008 4:34 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
They...
are both probably unlikely though.
by joegonzo on
Dec 9, 2008 4:02 PM EST
reply
actions
0 recs
Y'know,
AP is reporting the Mets have reached a deal with K-Rod for three years and $37 mil. That’s just insane.
We really, really ought to be shopping Capps. Just sayin’.
by bucdaddy on
Dec 9, 2008 4:33 PM EST
reply
actions
0 recs
I agree...
Capps could probably get us 1 or 2 good prospects. I was actually thinking the other day he would be a good fit for the Angels. Something like Capps and Ad. LaRoche for Nick Adenahrt and Brandon Wood would be sweet for us.
by joegonzo on
Dec 9, 2008 4:34 PM EST
reply
actions
0 recs
Yea!
Thats the exact trade I was thinkin about a week ago. That’s assuming, of course, that Tex, their “number one prioirty,” signs elsewhere and they don’t want Dunn. It’s still wishful thinking though.
by scully0505 on
Dec 9, 2008 4:38 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Exploring offers for Capps is the right idea
But I think there is a flood of closers on the market now. Cordero got 4/48 last year, and he is worse than Capps. K-Rod was hoping for 5/75, but signed for half that. I doubt there would be a lot of demand for Capps now. Midseason might be the best time to shop him.
Also, my personal favorite blocked prospect is Sean Rodriquez. He’s got legit power and would make a nice 2b of the future for the Buccos. Maybe we could get him for either LaRoche or Capps.
by Chad Bahamas on
Dec 9, 2008 5:41 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Glut of Closers
I think this would be one of the worst times to trade Capps. There are so many guys available that could close….and they wouldn’t cost a prospect, just dollars.
And Adenhart and Wood are two of the better prospects of the last three years, so I think that’s overshooting it a bit.
If the Angels resign Tex, it may be a good idea to see what it would take to get Kendry Morales from them.
by lost_zero on
Dec 9, 2008 5:57 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Actually...
it would not be a bad time, just not the best. Capps would be probably the cheapest option available so many teams would want him. A team like the Angels could trade for Capps and still have the financial flexibility to go after one of the top tier free agents.
by joegonzo on
Dec 9, 2008 6:03 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I see where you're going, but
the Angels are going to be counting on Adenhart to be a major part of the rotation as early as this year. If they traded him away, then they would have to “buy” a free agent starter somewhere else, negating the money saved by adding Capps vs someone like Fuentes or Kerry Wood.
Brandon Wood’s not quite as hyped as he was two years ago when he was bashing 40 HRs in the minors, but it would take more than Capps to pry him loose.
by lost_zero on
Dec 9, 2008 6:07 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
First...
Adenhart will probably not contribute this year. Also, that was my point, that they use the money on Capps to sign one of the bigger free agents. Actually, tarding for him, signing someone like Olli, and signing Texeira would be perfect for them.
Also, Brandon Wood’s value does not is not as good as Capp’s. He is below average defensively at short and will probably have to move to second or third. Combine that with the questions about him being able to hit in the big leagues and if he does hit in the big leagues he will still have A LOT of strikeouts. His value is not TOO high. We could probably get him for something like Grabow and Walker.
by joegonzo on
Dec 9, 2008 6:17 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Brandon Wood and Brandon Moss?
by Arnold Rothstein on
Dec 9, 2008 9:48 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
If
the Pirates are talking to Eckstein, they are probably doing so to sign a starter. I couldn’t see them thinking about Eckstein as a bench player.
by northsidenotch on
Dec 9, 2008 4:36 PM EST
reply
actions
0 recs
I'm a big fan...
of Eckstein, but you’re right… he’s a bit too good to just be a bench player.
Eckstein would definitely bring in the attitude that his team needs.
by Deaner on
Dec 9, 2008 4:47 PM EST
reply
actions
0 recs
Too good to be just a bench player
I’m sorry, but Eckstein is awful.
by bucdaddy on
Dec 9, 2008 4:59 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
OK
maybe “awful” is unfair. Still, he’s not very good, and he’s going to be 34.
Oh, but he makes up for it with “grit.” Sorry, I forgot.
by bucdaddy on
Dec 9, 2008 5:02 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Personally
I wouldn’t mind seeing Eckstein in a Bucco uniform.
by UtesFan89 on
Dec 9, 2008 5:58 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I seriously couldn’t handle Eck being a Pirate without FJM to help me through it.
by EmmaOMG on
Dec 9, 2008 6:26 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Articles like this. DK isn’t one for hyperbole, but you KNOW Meyer would go crazy with the annoying “grit” and “hustle” references. If FJM was still around, this would be okay. Without them, I will lose my mind.
There are worse options in theory, but oh my god would it be annoying in practice.
by EmmaOMG on
Dec 9, 2008 8:33 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Oh... guess I don't have to worry about it too much
because I never see articles those in Utah.
by UtesFan89 on
Dec 9, 2008 8:43 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
On the PG...
it says the Braves called about Maholm and McLouth. The only problem is they don’t want to give up Hanson. For almost any deal to work he would have to be included. It could be done without him though. Something like Escobar and Locke for one of them would probably work.
by joegonzo on
Dec 9, 2008 6:01 PM EST
reply
actions
0 recs
If it were for both guys
Hanson or Heyward would HAVE to be included.
Considering they were very reluctant to add those guys to a Peavy deal, this sounds like something that won’t get very far in negotiations.
by lost_zero on
Dec 9, 2008 6:04 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I doubt...
they try for both. They will probably want McLouth more because they could find a #3 starter easier than they could an all-star center fielder. They could just sign a starter.
by joegonzo on
Dec 9, 2008 6:19 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Maholm
Has his stock gone up that much after his good 2008 season? I mean has his stock risen enough that he can now be seen as a #3 starter on a good team?
I genuinely have no idea, I just can’t think of any time that I’ve heard his name associated with a trade before that wasn’t some sort of big package deal.
I made most of my life decisions at a Foghat concert... I stand by them.
by Chester J Lampwick on
Dec 9, 2008 8:18 PM EST
reply
actions
0 recs
Yes...
I believe he should be considered a good #3 on a good team. He has solid stuff, good command, and good durability. He is like a slightly better left handed version of Joe Blanton.
by joegonzo on
Dec 9, 2008 10:27 PM EST
reply
actions
0 recs
Interesting
I just don’t remember anyone praising him that highly before this season. Always talked about as a number 5 on a good team. I know he has some pedigree (8th overall pick?) and has shown good stuff in the past. But was this season really enough to raise his stock that much?
I made most of my life decisions at a Foghat concert... I stand by them.
by Chester J Lampwick on
Dec 9, 2008 11:45 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Yea...
he took the step to become an innings eater. He has also improved each season he has been in the majors and probably has not even had his “breakout” year yet. His numbers from this year would indicate he should not regress too far from this past year and has a slight chance of doing better. His BABIP was normal and so were the rest of his stats. The thing that really did it for him in my opinion is his K/9 increased from a little over five to just over six.
If he is able to improve or even not regress too much than he would be a decent number 2 and a good number 3. A good ERA for a #3 starter is around 3.90 so even with a little regression Maholm’s 3.71 ERA this year he would still probably be at least a decent #3. I actually would project him for an ERA around 3.85 so he will still probably be a good 3 next year even if he does not improve.
by joegonzo on
Dec 10, 2008 7:18 AM EST
reply
actions
0 recs
Most machine projections for 2009...
…seem to have Maholm around 4.25 or so. He made significant progress last year, but also got a little bit hit-lucky, and had by far the best defensive support of any of our starters.
by Vlad on
Dec 10, 2008 9:35 AM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Maholm won't get
much better, he’s about at his personal ceiling. But him on a very sound defensive team and presto magic! He gets better, so yes a solid #3 on a team with very sound defense.
by BSpar on
Dec 10, 2008 11:24 AM EST
reply
actions
0 recs









