Jump to content

kj2018

Greene / Boyd Trade Options

Recommended Posts

19 minutes ago, chasfh said:

It's hard to respond to every brickbat everyone hurls at me, but in my view, even if we offered to eat Nick's entire salary in exchange for a legit prospect, I don't think any contender bites, because I doubt any contender regards Nick as valuable enough to help them win deep into October.

The Cubs' right fielder is Jason Heyward, who's locked up through 2023, so unless the Tigers are willing to take that off Theo's hands in exchange for Nick—which, hey, Theo could probably be talked into—I doubt the Tigers agree to anything like that.

And, just to make Biggs happy, I'll say this: there's a non-zero chance the Tigers simply allow Nick to walk out the door in November.

To clarify, Chuck, I said we would eat his salary and take back a low end (non-legit) prospect, and doing so could make him useful to any team where he would be an upgrade. 

I listed the cubs, among other teams, as teams with right field situation that were worse than nick. And further conceded that not all of those teams would want him due to other factors. 

I tend to agree that for the cubs in particular having a guy like Heyward in right would make it difficult. But contenders make minor moves to improve their team often. I wouldn’t necessarily count the cubs out as a potential landing spot if they aren’t giving up much of anything and aren’t paying his salary. At that point, he’s effectively the cost of a minor league fee agent. Not exactly, of course. They would have to send “something,” but that something doesn’t have to be all that good. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Shelton said:

All of this could have been avoided if we had simply just non-tendered him like I suggested at the beginning of the offseason...

He's gotta point there

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, chasfh said:

You have a point, but to me, hyping Castellanos as a five-tool superstar in the making on both sides of the ball and comping him directly to Evan Longoria paints a pretty specific picture. Does it strike you as meaningless word soup applicable to every draftee?

Well I guess I'm an old fart that knows draft day/night in all sports is full of hyperbole from teams, analysts and fans.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Shelton said:

To clarify, Chuck, I said we would eat his salary and take back a low end (non-legit) prospect, and doing so could make him useful to any team where he would be an upgrade. 

I listed the cubs, among other teams, as teams with right field situation that were worse than nick. And further conceded that not all of those teams would want him due to other factors. 

I tend to agree that for the cubs in particular having a guy like Heyward in right would make it difficult. But contenders make minor moves to improve their team often. I wouldn’t necessarily count the cubs out as a potential landing spot if they aren’t giving up much of anything and aren’t paying his salary. At that point, he’s effectively the cost of a minor league fee agent. Not exactly, of course. They would have to send “something,” but that something doesn’t have to be all that good. 

I get what you mean. I just don't think there's anywhere to put Nick on that roster, since they already have six guys who can play outfield including Carlos Gonzalez, who they just picked up off the scrap heap specifically to play Gold Glove-level right field.

EDIT: Seven. I forgot Contreras plays out there sometimes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, LooseGoose said:

Well I guess I'm an old fart that knows draft day/night in all sports is full of hyperbole from teams, analysts and fans.

You mean the Tigers didn't really just draft 38 future Hall of Famers?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Lei Pong said:

Nick is a bench bat throw in to enhance Greene's value.  Put him at 1st here and there ...play him some late at 3rd and let him play a little OF.  Demonstrate a little versatility...that you can capably suck at at least 2-3 defensive positions and you might have the same value as a profoundly impoverished Chase Headley type.  You could possiboly expand the market to him to a semi-desperate NL team... (also as a PH'er on an NL team besides 1B-3B-RF...)

 

I think we'll see Wilson-Avila 2.0 in a Greene-Casty trade...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Mr. Bigglesworth said:

Honestly the biggest problem with Castellanos pick / development was that the Tigers committed to Nick and Jose on the left side of the IF, and dealt Suarez as a direct consequence.

this gets much closer to the root of the problem. I for one could never understand the constant dissatisfaction with a productive shortstop vs the constant adulation of barely over replacement production 3b. We probably should have had Iggy at 3rd and Suarez at SS or SS and 2b. Whatever. The fact is the team fell irrationally in love with Nick's bat, which just never merited it. Much like they kept touting Moya well past his use-by date. And then there was Dixon Machado who was the shortstop of future for several years and who made it through all of about 2 weeks as a starter before it was clear that had been a fantasy all along.  There has been a  tendency towards blindness or at least irrational optimism with regard to the limitations of certain of their own players which is fine as PR but as noted is deadly if it become the basis of trade decisions.

And I think you can dump on Chadd a little for calling Nick '5-tool'. People were talking about Nick's defensive liabilities pretty much as long as I can remember him being a topic of conversation. That was just Sparky level stupid prospect talk. I would note we didn't hear that about Greene. Maybe it's just in the age of the InterWebs they know they can get away with less.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

iglesias isnt all that good.  i dont understand this board's fascination with him.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Buddha said:

iglesias isnt all that good.  i dont understand this board's fascination with him.

The guy did have a pretty good defensive reel. Like Jeter. Only better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, chasfh said:

Sure they did. Just ask LooseGoose! :D

Which is of course the exact opposite of what I'm saying, but you be you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, chasfh said:

Do you work in advertising, G2?

Oh Lord no - I'm an engineering geek.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Buddha said:

iglesias isnt all that good.  i dont understand this board's fascination with him.

Avila didn't sign him and he is doing better elsewhere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Buddha said:

iglesias isnt all that good.  i dont understand this board's fascination with him.

But in the Tiger case "not all that good" is still miles better than anything they have put there since Peralta. Team building is always about getting better position by position. And when you not only get worse but spend 2'ce as much to do it, it kinda sticks out as an organizational fail. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, LooseGoose said:

Which is of course the exact opposite of what I'm saying, but you be you.

So-o-o-o ... you're saying we drafted 38 losers? That doesn't sound like you. :cheeky:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, chasfh said:

Do you work in advertising, G2?

I do.  Knew there was a reason I never trusted any of your posts.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, 84 Lives!!! said:

I think we'll see Wilson-Avila 2.0 in a Greene-Casty trade...

Cubs don't match up well with us. Their system is thin.Rockies, Brewers, Braves,Nationals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Tim Mitchell said:

Cubs don't match up well with us. Their system is thin.Rockies, Brewers, Braves,Nationals.

I didn't mean with the Cubs specifically.

I meant putting the two of them together.

Agree on Braves; they have a few prospects I'd like... didn't look at the other systems...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Gehringer_2 said:

this gets much closer to the root of the problem. I for one could never understand the constant dissatisfaction with a productive shortstop vs the constant adulation of barely over replacement production 3b. We probably should have had Iggy at 3rd and Suarez at SS or SS and 2b. Whatever. The fact is the team fell irrationally in love with Nick's bat, which just never merited it.

Kinsler was at 2B, Castellanos was the fast rising golden boy at 3B, they just acquired Iglesias to be the long term solution at as, and Saurez only saw time because Jose got hurt.

Nowhere to put Suarez when Jose came back, plus I am sure they saw him as more a marginal starter anyway.  Nevermind he wasn't terrible as a MLB as at 22 year old (IIRC).

In retrospect, had they dealt Nick then and slid Saurez into 3b, they probably would have gotten both a much better return in trade and better to much better 3b production.

Or deal Iglesias.

But they screwed up that evaluation / Nick's bat never developed as they hoped, which I think was a harbinger of things to come.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not that it adds to the discussion much, but I think a very good book could be written about the backstories of bad trades based on faulty assumptions on player development arcs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Mr. Bigglesworth said:

Kinsler was at 2B, Castellanos was the fast rising golden boy at 3B, they just acquired Iglesias to be the long term solution at as, and Saurez only saw time because Jose got hurt.

Nowhere to put Suarez when Jose came back, plus I am sure they saw him as more a marginal starter anyway.  Nevermind he wasn't terrible as a MLB as at 22 year old (IIRC).

In retrospect, had they dealt Nick then and slid Saurez into 3b, they probably would have gotten both a much better return in trade and better to much better 3b production.

Or deal Iglesias.

But they screwed up that evaluation / Nick's bat never developed as they hoped, which I think was a harbinger of things to come.

Should have never traded for Iglesias in the first place. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If they had signed Beltre then they wouldn’t have signed Prince.  Then Avi wouldn’t have had Mrs Fielder to play with. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Shelton said:

Should have never traded for Iglesias in the first place. 

indeed, they could have brought Suarez up and he probably would have done fine. In the 85 games he played when Iglesias went out in '84 he did OK. But that is another thing I really haven't liked in the professed world view of the management - that 'you can't expect a rookie to play on a championship team" BS. There are good players and there are bad players. Even a rookie has been playing the game for half a lifetime.

I can buy that theory a *little* for an NHL  defenseman, and maybe an NFL QB, but not may other places in pro sports.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...