Trade Rumors

hell it's almost not worth 33 mil a year for the next two years just to be given hallady straight up....simply bc you are going to spend 70 mil paying off the rest of well's contract

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BINGLEBOP

Lohse has a no-trade clause. I doubt he'd waive it to go back to the American League (in the AL East) and get hammered. Even if you picked up Wells' contract (or most of it), they'd probably want at least two top prospects for Halladay still. You can't offer them garbage.

---

how about i give you a box of tampons for Roy Halladay and a player to be named later?

It's just a rumor, either way. Still, you're going to have to give up something of value whether it's just for Halladay or Halladay and another player. That's "top prospects" that will hurt giving them up.

and HGM. I understand that Ludwick is a .250, 25 homer a year kind of player...with ok defense and a plus arm....i'm fully aware what he is worth...he does have value at being cheap for two more years though

I'm hearing from a couple places that Wells is gonna have to be included in any deal involving Halladay.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jeffy25

What makes u think I think he is good? He is cheap and a decently valauable outfielder. No gm would ever take the deal I proposed, I'm fully aware. But I don't think luddy gave birth to our lord and savior

---

That right there. You keep throwing Ludwick's name into trades for players like Holliday and Halladay. Why? I'd assume it's because you think he's better than he actually, which is why I said what I said. I wouldn't assume that it's because you're just throwing out impossibilities for no reason at all, which apparently is what you're doing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jeffy25

So if the cards packaged something like, duncan, lohse, todd, jay, and ankiel for halladay and wells. What would be the benefit for toronto unloading the greatest pitcher in baseball? Other then 30 mil a year in contracts, which would be made up slightly with someone like lohse, or glaus. I don't see the cardinals taking on that much payroll for that long, especially if they plan to keep albert and go after another bat, like holliday's.

---

Another trade that wouldn't happen in any universe. :confused: What's the point of mentioning this stuff?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jeffy25

and HGM. I understand that Ludwick is a .250, 25 homer a year kind of player...with ok defense and a plus arm....i'm fully aware what he is worth...he does have value at being cheap for two more years though

---

Sure, but a 29 year old with one good season under his belt is not what a team trading a top 5 pitcher is looking for.

what does toronto even really want for Halladay? other then to also unload Wells?

what direction is the organization going in?

and what teams can both take on an extra 30 mil a year in contracts that are also players for Halladay?

They'd want one young major league ready player with big upside, plus probably 1 or 2 top prospects, plus another prospect for Halladay alone. It's going to take A LOT which is why they aren't LOOKING to trade him and simply said they'd LISTEN to offers.

I say it's more than likely that Halladay stays in Toronto.

Quote:

---

I say it's more than likely that Halladay stays in Toronto.

---

well thats goin out on a limb, seeing how most of the time these stud pitchers aren't traded. :rolleyes:;)

Quote:

---

and what teams can both take on an extra 30 mil a year in contracts that are also players for Halladay?

---

philly fits the bill well IMO...and i think whoever toronto deals with, if wells is included they would pay for some of the contract. NYM maybe...don't know if they have the prospects to do it...and IMO it would be dumb for them..but they could afford it. And hey..if Toronto could afford it i'm certain quite a few other teams could find a way to make it work too.

Quote:

---

Another trade that wouldn't happen in any universe. What's the point of mentioning this stuff?

---

its a discussion about trade possibilities. always get homerism in these discussions. that said, IMO its more of a reasonable and realistic discussion than comparing players of different eras/worlds. :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

The team could always send back a bad contract that expires soon and I'm sure Toronto will take on some of the salary. So with the Cards, send a guy like Glaus or Loshe back. For the Phils, send Moyer and Romero or something (not many bad contracts).

---

this would have to be the case. If i'm TOR and STL calls, i'm starting with Rasmus and adding multiple talents on top from there. This talk from Jeffy about these fringe prospects isn't realistic. Gotta move a big fish, and TOR wants bats in return.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dickay

its a discussion about trade possibilities. always get homerism in these discussions. that said, IMO its more of a reasonable and realistic discussion than comparing players of different eras/worlds. :rolleyes:

---

You're right. Clearly, discussing impossible, unrealistic trades is a more reasonable and realistic discussion than comparing players of different eras using perfectly valid methods such as comparing how they fared against their competition.

Are you still hung up on that nonsense? You still don't get it that it's possible to compare players without using a retarded time machine scenario?

Hmmm, one of the Pirates upper guys was in Seattle today to watch the game. Could there be a Jack Wilson/Freddy Sanchez trade coming soon? Maybe send Mark Lowe for one of them. Would that be enough?

I gotta think the Z-Tango crew is looking for a SS, moreso than a 2B. Does Sanchez have any significant SS experience?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by haveacigar

I gotta think the Z-Tango crew is looking for a SS, moreso than a 2B. Does Sanchez have any significant SS experience?

---

Either way, we get Wilson, plug him at short, Yuni at second and Lopez at third. We get Sanchez, put him at either third or second, Yuni at second and Lopez at the other position.

How long is YB out?

He should be back after the break. In rehab assignment in AAA right now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by asianinvasion

Either way, we get Wilson, plug him at short, Yuni at second and Lopez at third. We get Sanchez, put him at either third or second, Yuni at second and Lopez at the other position.

---

Haven't you seen that Betancourt was pulled right before tonight's Rainiers game. I'm not saying it's definite, but I'm assuming that he'd be going the other way in any trade with Pittsburgh.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Coach Owens

Haven't you seen that Betancourt was pulled right before tonight's Rainiers game. I'm not saying it's definite, but I'm assuming that he'd be going the other way in any trade with Pittsburgh.

---

Lets get Sanchez and Wilson then. Lowe + Betancourt + _______ for them

And lets get this done before the break. Then the Pirates will have to send in another rep which should suck and lose the game for the NL.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by asianinvasion

Lets get Sanchez and Wilson then. Lowe + Betancourt + _______ for them

---

I doubt they would trade BOTH for Lowe/Betancourt. I could definitely see a Betancourt/Lowe/??? for Wilson type deal though. The Pirates GM had interest in YB a little while ago and the fact he was scratched could mean something.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoustonGM

You're right. Clearly, discussing impossible, unrealistic trades is a more reasonable and realistic discussion than comparing players of different eras using perfectly valid methods such as comparing how they fared against their competition.

Are you still hung up on that nonsense? You still don't get it that it's possible to compare players without using a retarded time machine scenario?

---

There is no "perfectly valid methods" lmfao.....all it is, is nonsense bar fodder. Yes, trade discussions is mroe reasonable and realistic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoustonGM

You're right. Clearly, discussing impossible, unrealistic trades is a more reasonable and realistic discussion than comparing players of different eras using perfectly valid methods such as comparing how they fared against their competition.

Are you still hung up on that nonsense? You still don't get it that it's possible to compare players without using a retarded time machine scenario?

---

Well when they invent a time machine you will be sorry. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ragecage

Well when they invent a time machine you will be sorry. ;)

---

probably not, since it is he trying to use one.

can you say who was the best of each era...most certainly yes.

thats where it ends though....its great bar fodder to say "he(1) was better against his era than he(2) was against his thus he(1) must have been better but it really means zero, nada, nothing...and there's no real way to prove any of it. Each era has had major changes. With each era, the talent has improved...making todays era the most talented (and by that i mean harnessed talent) of alltime.

Babe Ruth was amazingly better than his counterparts..in an era where the game wasn't "professionalized" (to many it was just a game), many had 2nd jobs and were paid peanuts, a large segment of society wasn't allowed to play the game, and many with the talent didn't have the availability at an early age to join and harness their talents.

It is he that wishes to take a time machine and compare players of today to those of yesteryear. I just think its stupid...and if you want to do that you shouldn't preface the discussion with "who's the best player off alltime" type jargan, because todays players are superior. I say...don't compare, its futile and proves nothing. There is no comparison of apples to oranges, except for that they are round i guess???? Babe was the best of his era, Barry's arguably the best of todays. You want to compare the best of "eras"...thats legitimate. Leave it at that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dickay

probably not, since it is he trying to use one.

can you say who was the best of each era...most certainly yes.

thats where it ends though....its great bar fodder to say "he(1) was better against his era than he(2) was against his thus he(1) must have been better but it really means zero, nada, nothing...and there's no real way to prove any of it. Each era has had major changes. With each era, the talent has improved...making todays era the most talented (and by that i mean harnessed talent) of alltime.

Babe Ruth was amazingly better than his counterparts..in an era where the game wasn't "professionalized" (to many it was just a game), many had 2nd jobs and were paid peanuts, a large segment of society wasn't allowed to play the game, and many with the talent didn't have the availability at an early age to join and harness their talents.

It is he that wishes to take a time machine and compare players of today to those of yesteryear. I just think its stupid...and if you want to do that you shouldn't preface the discussion with "who's the best player off alltime" type jargan, because todays players are superior. I say...don't compare, its futile and proves nothing. There is no comparison of apples to oranges, except for that they are round i guess???? Babe was the best of his era, Barry's arguably the best of todays. You want to compare the best of "eras"...thats legitimate. Leave it at that.

---

If you guys start this again, I'm going to find both of your houses and savagely beat you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by haveacigar

If you guys start this again, I'm going to find both of your houses and savagely beat you.

---

lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dickay

There is no "perfectly valid methods" lmfao.....

---

Uh, yes, there is. Just because you're intelectually incapable of acknowledging it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dickay

all it is, is nonsense bar fodder.

---

Just because you have this weird phobia of ranking players doesn't make it nonsense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dickay

thats where it ends though....its great bar fodder to say "he(1) was better against his era than he(2) was against his thus he(1) must have been better but it really means zero, nada, nothing...and there's no real way to prove any of it. Each era has had major changes. With each era, the talent has improved...making todays era the most talented (and by that i mean harnessed talent) of alltime.

Babe Ruth was amazingly better than his counterparts..in an era where the game wasn't "professionalized" (to many it was just a game), many had 2nd jobs and were paid peanuts, a large segment of society wasn't allowed to play the game, and many with the talent didn't have the availability at an early age to join and harness their talents.

It is he that wishes to take a time machine and compare players of today to those of yesteryear. I just think its stupid...and if you want to do that you shouldn't preface the discussion with "who's the best player off alltime" type jargan, because todays players are superior. I say...don't compare, its futile and proves nothing. There is no comparison of apples to oranges, except for that they are round i guess???? Babe was the best of his era, Barry's arguably the best of todays. You want to compare the best of "eras"...thats legitimate. Leave it at that.

---

Nobody's attempting to compare players based on the time machine scenario in your last paragraph. Nobody. Babe outclasses his era to a greater degree than, say, Ken Griffey Jr. Therefore, Babe was better in comparison to his era than Griffey was in comparison to his. Therefore, in an all-time ranking, the Babe ranks above Griffey. This is not meant to say that the Babe would perform better than Griffey if magically teleported into 1996 without the benefit of anything all the other players in 1996 had access to. You're just apparently intellectually incapable of identifying the difference between an all-time ranking and a stupid ****ing time machine scenario. That doesn't make all-time rankings useless, nonsensical, unrealistic, etc. It just makes you look silly.

Seriously. I feel dumber that I even have to explain this AGAIN to you. I really don't think you're that dense that you don't understand what I'm saying, so the logical conclusion is that you're just trolling with this, and I hope that's the case, because it's sad if you seriously don't get it.

I dont know whats worse, the time machine scenario, or that the fact blacks were not allowed to play like its Babe Ruths fault for all of that.

Quote:

---

Seriously. I feel dumber that I even have to explain this AGAIN to you. I really don't think you're that dense that you don't understand what I'm saying, so the logical conclusion is that you're just trolling with this, and I hope that's the case, because it's sad if you seriously don't get it.

---

I fully understand what you're saying...and you should feel dumb because frankly its DUMB. Meaningless and pointless.

Quote:

---

Babe outclasses his era to a greater degree than, say, Ken Griffey Jr. Therefore, Babe was better in comparison to his era than Griffey was in comparison to his. Therefore, in an all-time ranking, the Babe ranks above Griffey.

---

So in all-time rankings, because babe was better against his contemporaries than griffey was against his contempories...the babe is better?? See...it is you comparing era's, thus using your time warp. Every era is different. Griffeys contemporaries were not the same as Babes. Babe was ahead of his time...but also played in an era where there were no african americans, where many played baseball as a second job and more played it merely as a game. few as a profession. Maybe Griffey isn't as far ahead of his contempories than Babe was of his because the game has grown exponentially and the competition is much much more significant? Your retarded equations don't account for that....meaning what i've said all along. Babe was the best of his era...Bonds is arguably the best of his. The ONLY rational way to look at it is to leave it at that. You can't do a time warp and compare apples to oranges.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ragecage

I dont know whats worse, the time machine scenario, or that the fact blacks were not allowed to play like its Babe Ruths fault for all of that.

---

nobody said it was babes fault...but how can you not consider the era people played in and the talent level when trying to say X was better than Z by Y amount?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ragecage

I dont know whats worse, the time machine scenario, or that the fact blacks were not allowed to play like its Babe Ruths fault for all of that.

---

I'll go with the 2nd one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dickay

nobody said it was babes fault...but how can you not consider the era people played in and the talent level when trying to say X was better than Z by Y amount?

---

Well I always get the argument that if blacks were allowed to play Babe wouldnt be as good. Its just annoying and a cop out argument.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ragecage

Well I always get the argument that if blacks were allowed to play Babe wouldnt be as good. Its just annoying and a cop out argument.

---

agreed

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dickay

I fully understand what you're saying...and you should feel dumb because frankly its DUMB. Meaningless and pointless.

---

No, it's not. If you feel it's meaningless and pointless for you to participate in, then don't do so, but don't berate others for not feeling the same way as you do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dickay

So in all-time rankings, because babe was better against his contemporaries than griffey was against his contempories...the babe is better in comparison to his peers

---

Fixed it for you. That's what you apparently fail to comprehend.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dickay

See...it is you comparing era's, thus using your time warp.

---

No. You're adding the time warp because you're apparently incapable of comprehending anything other than that...or you're trolling.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dickay

Every era is different. Griffeys contemporaries were not the same as Babes.

---

It's true, which is why we compare them to their contemporaries and rank them based on that. We're not ranking them based on how they'd do in a time warp scenario. We're ranking them based on how they did in their time period, and the value they provided to their team.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dickay

You can't do a time warp and compare apples to oranges.

---

Sure, and nobody's doing that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dickay

nobody said it was babes fault...but how can you not consider the era people played in and the talent level when trying to say X was better than Z by Y amount?

---

If you were trying to say that X was better than Z by Y amount, meaning that if one was teleported into the other's time, X would do better than Z by Y amount, that'd be dumb. Of course, nobody's doing that, but that's apparently the only way you're capable of comprehending it, but it's not the only way to do all-time rankings. Let's see if I can put this into even simpler terms for you.

Babe Ruth provided more value to his team than Ken Griffey did.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ragecage

Well I always get the argument that if blacks were allowed to play Babe wouldnt be as good. Its just annoying and a cop out argument.

---

So this isn't a cop out;

-Babe was X amount better than his competition and Bonds was Y amount better than his competition. X is bigger than Y so Babe was better.

If you're going to say my **** is bigger than your **** therefore I am better...you have to take into account the **** size enhancing medication i'm taking :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dickay

So this isn't a cop out;

-Babe was X amount better than his competition and Bonds was Y amount better than his competition. X is bigger than Y so Babe was better.

If you're going to say my **** is bigger than your **** therefore I am better...you have to take into account the **** size enhancing medication i'm taking :)

---

Ok good luck with that:p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dickay

-Babe was X amount better than his competition and Bonds was Y amount better than his competition. X is bigger than Y so Babe was better in comparison to his competition... or X is bigger than Y so Babe provided more value to his team.

---

.

May I remind HGM and Dice that haveacigar is currently looking you guys up

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoustonGM

.

---

.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ragecage

May I remind HGM and Dice that haveacigar is currently looking you guys up

---

I'm still trying to wrap my head around the idea that dickay is so thick-headed that he seriously does not comprehend what I'm saying, and that he keeps twisting it into a position that I'm NOT saying and arguing against that position. He's either insanely thick-headed and silly or trolling, and like I said, I really hope it's the latter because while I rarely ever agree with him, I don't think of him as an idiot.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html

Quote:

---

No, it's not. If you feel it's meaningless and pointless for you to participate in, then don't do so, but don't berate others for not feeling the same way as you do.

---

I was merely stating my opinion and you didn't like it. Why is it wrong for me to do so but right for you to critique people for talking about trade possibilities? Hypocrite maybe?

Quote:

---

Fixed it for you. That's what you apparently fail to comprehend.

---

thanks....you can compare to their peers. never said you couldn't. you've been comparing them to each other...ie the whole Babe is better than Griffey because he was better by X amount more than griffey was to his peers. again...you using your time warp comparing players of different eras.

Quote:

---

No. You're adding the time warp because you're apparently incapable of comprehending anything other than that...or you're trolling.

---

You're not this dumb...really? I'm the one saying its illogical to compare players of different eras. You're in here saying Babe was better than Griffey and i'm using a time warp and you're not?? Interesting....:rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Sure, and nobody's doing that.

---

YOu're dilusional and don't even know what kind of crap you're writing.

Quote:

---

If you were trying to say that X was better than Z by Y amount, meaning that if one was teleported into the other's time, X would do better than Z by Y amount, that'd be dumb. Of course, nobody's doing that, but that's apparently the only way you're capable of comprehending it, but it's not the only way to do all-time rankings. Let's see if I can put this into even simpler terms for you.

Babe Ruth provided more value to his team than Ken Griffey did.

---

You're the only one talking about teleportation, take the star trek emblem out of your arse! I agree Babe provided more value to his team than Griffey did to his. So what? What does that mean? Does it mean Babes better than Griffey? Babe was ahead of his time...played in a different era. Griffey COULDN'T provide as much value to his team because the playing field wasn't the same. There was much greater competition. Why the need to compare players of different eras?

Babe was the best of his era...done.

Bonds was the best of his era (arguably)...done

Why compare the two? You can't logically. Its again merely bar fodder.