- Notable NFL News (Cuts, signings, injuries, etc.)
Today, 01:36 PM
- Zimmer's Freaky-Fast Friday Presser
Today, 10:58 AM
- This Week's Enemy Fan Forums: The Chicago Bears
Today, 02:26 AM
- Please welcome our new moderator: Melanie (Funkytown)
Yesterday, 07:51 PM
- This Week in the NFC North - Week 17
Yesterday, 10:43 AM
- Should Teddy win the ROY award?
Yesterday, 10:00 AM
- Will He/Won't He?? - Jerry Kill's future...
Yesterday, 09:43 AM
- Article: We Wish You a Purple Christmas
Yesterday, 09:11 AM
- Vikings Free Agency News
Yesterday, 09:03 AM
- Special Teams fire and cut them all.
Dec 25 2014 07:42 PM
Article: Trade Talk: Cincinnati Reds
Posted 07 July 2013 - 08:35 PM
Posted 07 July 2013 - 10:50 PM
Clearly, Josh Willingham would have been a potential fit here, so the timing of his injury is unfortunate. Trevor Plouffe's right-handed pop could be of some interest, but the Reds already have a fairly similar third baseman in Todd Frazier.
How about Plouffe playing Left Field for the Reds?
Posted 08 July 2013 - 09:33 AM
I say this as I know that the reds are willing to trade with us but being what we have to trade. I dont see a case where we get stephenson.
I agree. Unless the Reds are crazy, there is no way the Twins could get Stephenson. Maybe - MAYBE!!! - they would consider it for a 100% healthy and effective Willingham, but even that seems like a stretch.
Posted 08 July 2013 - 01:10 PM
Posted 08 July 2013 - 02:00 PM
This my problem with the twins. They have asset and they hang on to it to long. So the fact that they didn't trade willingham at the start of the season didn't suprise me. this what they do. They are in rebuilding mode, so everyone expect mauer, and the players there trying to delvelop. Any why shouldn't trade mauer, first off the twins hold two of the top ten propects and anyone they get back would not be comprobable to them. Second, why trade your best player, whenour teams is build around him.
How often do other teams trade players at a near peak value? I would not count any trade where a player was headed to free agency (Grienke). That player has for forced the teams hand in those cases.
Looking at last winter. The Rays traded Shields. The Twins traded Span. The Twins traded Revere.
If Ryan was willing to trade Span and Revere, why wouldn't he trade Willingham if offered reasonable prospects?
Why would team offer a good prospect for a decline phase player with a history of injury trouble? Who would be willing to endure his continued decline in the field? Why risk that two year commitment and risk losing a good prospect?
I am sure teams offered to take Willingham's contract for a return of marginal prospects. I think J.C. Sulbaran was a name mentioned last year and the Reds eventually traded him for Broxton. Should Ryan have traded Willingham for a prospect like Sulbaran?
Posted 08 July 2013 - 08:31 PM
I think he's referring to the realistic targets. The Twins aren't getting Stephenson, or Cingrani (who is also quite appealing). And I tend to agree with that take... as I was researching this list, all I could think was, "Woof." Nearly all of their top position players are outfielders, too. Just not much of a match here.
You have pretty high standards if Stephenson doesn't interest you... He was a top 50 guy on BA's list today.
Posted 08 July 2013 - 09:50 PM
Posted 08 July 2013 - 10:38 PM
The league obviously had its notions about Willingham. I mean the guy was a free agent one year earlier, coming off a 29-HR season in a pitcher-friendly park, and yet he barely drew any interest in free agency. The bidding came down to Cleveland and Minnesota, two non-contenders, and the Twins won with a pretty dang low bid.
I just find it odd that willingham had a silver slugger season and couldn't get a very good propect for him. while he got meyer, for span, and worley and May for revere.
Yes, Willingham had an awesome season last year. But one great season isn't going to change the perception of him that much. He didn't get a huge contract because he was in his mid-30s, injury-prone and a terrible fielder. A career year in 2012 didn't change any of those things.
Posted 08 July 2013 - 11:02 PM