Wilson to the Dodgers???

by ElliottBayBucco on Jul 29, 2008 7:50 PM EDT

Brian Bixler was called up early this morning to fill the void left by Adam LaRoche being placed on the DL. Speculation in regards to a possible Jack Wilson to the Dodgers immediately came to mind, considering that Mientkiewicz will fill in for LaRoche and Pearce is an adequate backup at first.

I came across an article on ESPN.com about Brian Fuentes and the Rockies today in regards to whether the Rockies are buyers or sellers at this time. The following passage made me think about a potential Wilson to Dodgers trade further:

Contrary to what you may have read or heard, the Rockies have not taken Fuentes off the market -- not according to the seven teams that are still interested in him, anyway.

Then again, the Rockies haven't exactly paraded him up to the auction stand in that market and said, "Make your bid," either.

That's because about the only thing the Rockies have decided is that they won't decide much of anything until late Wednesday night, when they've finished playing their current series in Pittsburgh.

If his team is eight games out, he'll sell. If it's four out, he won't. If it's somewhere in between, who the heck knows?

So who is to say that Coletti and the Dodgers brain trust didn't get in touch with NH and FC after the latest Garciaparra injury wanting to make a trade for Wilson but not until Thursday. One would think that the Pirates have a better chance of taking a few games from the Rockies with Wilson than without Wilson. If the Pirates could take three games from the Rockies, possibly driving them into seller mode and dumping Fuentes, the Dodgers would be able to get their shortstop while the Pirates could possibly be driving the Rockies out of playoff contention. In return, the PBC would get an additional prospect added to the trade or a better rated prospect for their collusion and Russell and his staff would have time to work with Bixler a couple of days before he gets thrown into the frying pan of Wrigley Field this upcoming weekend.

Nothing but pure crazy speculation...

This is a FanPost and does not necessarily reflect the views of the managing editor (Charlie) or SB Nation. FanPosts are written by Bucs Dugout readers.

Tweet Comment 27 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

I wish......

I wish that were true ….... I would love to get a prospect for Wison. Any prospect. I see little reason to keep Wilson around. But I doubt it happens.

by haven on Jul 29, 2008 8:41 PM EDT reply actions

haven

“I would love to get a prospect for Wison. Any prospect. I see little reason to keep Wilson around.”

Yeah, let`s unload Jack for any crap the Dodgers could come up with.

Geez.

by patthatt on Jul 29, 2008 10:02 PM EDT reply actions

Not any load of crapm but I would take a B-/C+ prospect for him

Wilson is a 30 year old with a career .687 OPS. A .655 OPS this season. Making $6.65M. Lots of value there….....

by haven on Jul 29, 2008 10:15 PM EDT reply actions

First, you said,

“any prospect.”

So now you would take just a run-of-the-mill, low-ceiling guy. Someone you think of as a C-level player. In other words, a guy who probably would never amount to anything.

How would that be sufficient return for Jack Wilson? How would that help the PBC down the road?

I think you far undervalue Jack Wilson`s worth in a potential trade.

by patthatt on Jul 29, 2008 10:56 PM EDT reply actions

...

I think he expects you to understand the term prospect as a player that projects to make a 25 man roster at some point …a B-/C+ prospect would profile as someone above replacement level with some upside. If you’re looking at the Dodgers, I’d have called Kouzmanoff a prospect in that range before this year.

by ChicagoBucco on Jul 30, 2008 1:13 AM EDT reply actions

Any player should go for the right deal

I agree that Jack and Grabow would be a great fit for LA at this time, filling both their needs and most likely getting them to the playoffs, thus saving Coletti’s job. Because of that and the pressure to make a trade by LA before the deadline, I believe that one of the youngsters not named Kemp or Loney could be had from the Dodgers, along with another decent minor league prospect. Jack would be great insurance even if Nomar comes back quickly. (see below)

From LA’s 2-0 win tonight over SF (MLB – espn.com)
“Dodgers INF Nomar Garciaparra, who has a sprained ligament in his left knee, said he felt better Tuesday and took batting practice to prove it. “I won’t go on the (disabled list),” he said. “I’ll let it calm down, and once it calms down, I’ll be out there.” Garciaparra was injured Sunday. ... “

by long4willie on Jul 30, 2008 1:31 AM EDT reply actions

ChicagoBucco

“If you’re looking at the Dodgers, I’d have called Kouzmanoff a prospect in that range before this year.”

What does Kevin Kouzmanoff of the San Diego Padres have to do with the Dodgers?

“I think he expects you to understand the term prospect as a player that projects to make a 25 man roster at some point.“

Thanks for the pointer, ChicagoBucco. There`s an awful lot of crap that gets a cup of coffee here and there on 25-man rosters. I guess this is the way you and haven want to rebuild the Pirates.

Whether it`s “any prospect”, or someone that could possibly “make a 25-man roster at some point,” that`s not sufficient return for Jack Wilson.

by patthatt on Jul 30, 2008 8:02 AM EDT reply actions

you have a weird definition of prospect

I thought by using the term “prospect” it would be clear that I meant someone that had the upside to possibly make a 25 man roster and possibly contribute to the next Pirates winning team. If there is ever such a thing. I used the word “any” because I would except the dreaded relief pitcher prospect or a prospect with some warts because I simply do not think Wilson has much use to the Pirates at this point and I can not see his value being very high.

Hey, but if you can get Ned Coletti to deal Matt Kemp or even Andy Laroche for him then I am all for it…. But would even Coletti be this stupid?

So would I accept someone like Chris Withrow who hasn’t pitched this year due to injury? Someone under 20 holding their own at a age-relative high level like Austin Gallagher? Or even a young, borderline prospect having a poor year like Pedro Baez? Probably. Yes. Especially now when I have yet to seriously start questioning Huntington’s ability to evaluate prospects.

What I didn’t say was that I say I would except “organizational fodder” from the Dodgers for Wilson. That seems to be the conclussion you jumped to for some reason…..

by haven on Jul 30, 2008 9:23 AM EDT up reply actions

remember

Wilson isn’t as valuable because his contract is relatively expensive. Finding a player of his value at his price in FA wouldn’t be that difficult IMO. So if you get the chance to get a prospect who could become a contributor, then you have to bite on that deal (especially while SS’s are scarce so Wilson’s value is high).

by Reddrummer9187 on Jul 30, 2008 9:00 AM EDT reply actions

If we are just talking potential Dodger trade,

Wilson’s price shouldn’t scare them away at all.

by DITO on Jul 30, 2008 9:49 AM EDT up reply actions

no

But I think his contract/age+performance+current scarcity in SS market should result in maybe a B- or C+ prospect. You can usually sign guys like him in the offseason.

by Reddrummer9187 on Jul 30, 2008 11:04 AM EDT up reply actions

Not this offseason.

You’ve got Furcal and Eckstein, and that’s it. And there are probably seven or eight teams that’d like a new SS.

by Vlad on Jul 30, 2008 12:15 PM EDT up reply actions

If you are talking trades

Lugo will be available as well, Jason Bartlett of the Rays could probably be had. Same with Adam Everett and Miguel Tejada.

I think Orlando Cabrera will be a FA, not sure though.

Not great options by any means, and you are right there are few options this year, but even with that scarcity at the position I dont think Wilson is worth more than a B-/C+ prospect.

by Reddrummer9187 on Jul 30, 2008 1:22 PM EDT up reply actions

Lugo was a deliberate omission

You’d have to be pretty desperate to take him on at this point.

You might be right about OC.

by Vlad on Jul 30, 2008 4:46 PM EDT up reply actions

Reddrummer

“Wilson isn’t as valuable because his contract is relatively expensive. Finding a player of his value at his price in FA wouldn’t be that difficult IMO.”

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/08190/895468-63.stm

“Management also values that it can retain Wilson for two more seasons, with a guaranteed $7.25 million next season and a club option of $8.4 million for 2010. That is well within market range for a shortstop of Wilson’s experience, and management has repeatedly stated that it is under no financial constraints to move any current contract.”

Also, Charlie posted the other day about the Nationals giving Cristian Guzman an extension, and why they did so, which also suggests differently from what you are saying.

“So if you get the chance to get a prospect who could become a contributor, then you have to bite on that deal (especially while SS’s are scarce so Wilson’s value is high).”

I`m not opposed to trading Wilson if they get a reasonable return, but just “any prospect” doesn`t cut it. It would take one helluva prospect for the Pirates to trade Jack Wilson for only one player.

by patthatt on Jul 30, 2008 9:35 AM EDT reply actions

Nats

First of all, I hope you aren’t suggesting following their FO, because they aren’t exactly a model franchise (especially with their extensions).

What it sounds like is that Jack Wilson is worth far more to the Pirates than he would be to any other team (which happens quite often). So trading him for his market value (probably that B- or C+ prospect) wouldn’t make sense.

My point on the contract bit is that, for $8 Million per, you can go out and sign a shortstop of Wilson’s calibur in the offseason, so why would LA trade impact prospects (B or higher) for him?

by Reddrummer9187 on Jul 30, 2008 11:10 AM EDT up reply actions

who

by ElliottBayBucco on Jul 30, 2008 8:06 PM EDT up reply actions

Hu?

LA already has him…

by Vlad on Jul 31, 2008 9:43 AM EDT up reply actions

Ha! Hey, how did you fare in the pierogie race? Which one were you?

by ElliottBayBucco on Jul 31, 2008 3:08 PM EDT up reply actions

Cheese.

And I rolled. My dad was Saul, and he finished second.

I’m going to do a blog post on it in the fairly near future (honest).

by Vlad on Aug 1, 2008 3:54 PM EDT up reply actions

haven

You wrote:

“I would love to get a prospect for Wison. Any prospect. I see little reason to keep Wilson around.

“I would take a B-/C+ prospect for him.”

My last question to you here:

Do you think trading Jack Wilson for only one prospect that has a “C” grade would be fair value for the Pirates and help them down the road?

by patthatt on Jul 30, 2008 9:46 AM EDT reply actions

Probably not......

OK, sorry for the original use of the word “any”. Didn’t think it was a big deal at the time, but you have clearly ran with it…... Should have been more clear originally and said B-/C+ prospect from the start.

by haven on Jul 30, 2008 10:10 AM EDT up reply actions

Bixler's callup

Probably had more to do with him being the only remaining infielder on the 40-man roster, than with an imminent Jack trade.

I’d deal Jack if we got back value, but I wouldn’t move him just to move him. LA’s last offer sounded pretty good, and I have to think we could probably get something done there.

by Vlad on Jul 30, 2008 12:16 PM EDT reply actions