A Good Charlie Walters Article?
Wow - I'm shocked. Charley Walters actually wrote a good article. Well, technically, it is just an interview so it wasn't filled with "Little Birdie" information and it was with Frankie V. I think it was quite a good bit of timing since the last time Minnesota traded their best pitcher for a ranson was Sweet Music. Frank makes some great points about what the Twins should wait for and be able to get - very honest and what we all hope happens. Check it out here:
http://www.twincities.com/dailydose/ci_7595915?nclick_check=1
It's a tossup for my favorite quotes:
Viola said: "I don't want to see (center fielder) Coco Crisp in a Twins uniform. I want to see that Ellsbury kid to go along with (Jon) Lester, who I think is a terrific lefty pitcher. And maybe get another young talent." I agree - I don't want to see Coco Crisp in a Twins uni either.
And then he followed it up with this: "As good a job as Nick (Punto) has done, I think he's made to be an (ex-Twin) Al Newman type of player, one of those role players." I also completely agree with this one. Don't get me wrong, I don't think Nick Punto is very good at all, but his defense is good enough to fill in once a week at SS/2nd/3rd. I think he's a great util player but nothing more.
Anyway, It looks like The Yankeess might be back in it since they're thinking of including Phil Hughes. Is he any good?
0 recs |
18 comments
Comments
Yep.
FWIW, I suspect Frank's right about Garza. Hope he's right about Young, too.
by BD57 on Nov 30, 2007 9:02 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
An Honest Opinion?
Future Scout or GM Frank Viola?
Do you think he was paid somehow by the Twins to get this opinion written to make it seem like the Twins "won" the trade?
by Chaddens on Nov 30, 2007 11:00 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
a little too quiet .. . . .
Is it just me or has this been a relatively quiet day on the Santana front? They say it always gets quiet just before something is actually going to happen.
by Snarky on Nov 30, 2007 9:16 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Well...
by ubelmann on Nov 30, 2007 10:11 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Here's the philosophical question
Sox: Ellsbury, Lester, and Lowrie. (That is the absolute best you could hope for, IMO).
Yanks: Hughes, Cabrera, Jackson/Tabata.
Which do you prefer? Here's the thing about this: the most valuable piece in either of these offers is Hughes. There's no question that he's the one guy among the above that could regularly be competing for post-season awards.
But, Ellsbury and Lowrie really help you solve problems with potentially above average players, and both of them are serfs for 3 years. Lester is probably a mid-rotation guy at best.
Do you take the potential star difference maker, or the more well rounded package?
by Eric in Madison on Dec 1, 2007 10:55 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
well
You also have a leadoff hitter with Ellsbury and a line up of
CF Ellisbury
3B Punto or another 3b
C Mauer
LF Young
1b Morneau
RF Cuddyer
DH Kubel
2B Harris
SS Lowrie
You would want to go out and get a veteran pitcher of some type.
with a rotation of
Liriano
Baker
Lester
Bonser
Slowey/ Perkins/ Blackburn/ Deunsing/ R.A Dickey/ Bass (note I would like to see how Dickey and his knuckler would fair at the dome)
With the Yanks you get a SP and a cf and more questions to answer. So how those other questions get answered is the most important aspect in deciding which package is better.
With the Yanks proposal the lineup is still without a leadoff hitter, a SS, and a 3b Cabrera could be a number 2 hitter or 9 hitter or traded to the Rangers or Braves and we go and get Rowand Yay... How good is the other prospect the Yanks are sending us? I don't know that much about their minor league players.
The key to the decision IMO is what are your other answers to addressing the teams needs? Because the Yanks package only gives us a potentially good starter, a solid CF, and a prospect. The CF doesn't really solve any holes in the lineup either.
by doofus04 on Dec 1, 2007 11:21 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Good response
As to Jackson/Tabata, they are boom/bust guys neither of whom will be ready for a couple of years, if ever. There's talent there, but both are miles from being ready to help.
Normally my gut is to take the best player (Hughes), but actually in this case I think I'd take the Sox deal. Ellsbury won't hit .350, but I see no reason that he couldn't be a .300/.350/.420 guy right now, and somewhat better than that going forward. He's always stolen bases with a good success rate, and plays center. That's a good ballplayer. He has a chance to be Kenny Lofton, really. As you note, that solves your leadoff problem nicely and cheaply.
by Eric in Madison on Dec 1, 2007 11:41 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
One
by AdamOnFirst on Dec 1, 2007 4:26 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Rowand
And also, what else is there for us to spend our Santana savings on? I can't really come up with any particularly good FAs that would help us fill our holes, but then I'm no savant.
by ravenfly on Dec 1, 2007 7:22 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
still
I can only wish that the Sox decide they are just that desperate for Santana that they decide to throw in Ellsbury (to be honest though, at this point I feel it a bit more likely we settle for Crisp, unfortunately -- please let me be wrong!).
After landing this deal, then send Nathan to LA for LaRoche and a bullpen arm to help us shore up depth in that area. Suddenly we have a very solid lineup!
by adam on Dec 2, 2007 10:18 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
The Twins
by AdamOnFirst on Dec 2, 2007 3:16 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Viola.....
It is down time as everyone is travelling to Nashville. Although the meetings don't start until Monday, I'm sure there's lots of face-to-face happening in the lobbies of the hotels, as well as the suites. Hopefully Santana (or his agent) are in attendance. Yes, there is a 72-hour window once a team has finalized a trade that a signing can/cannot happen.
If the Twins trade with the Sox or the Yankees, I'm sure they won't be done. Not having Santana or Hunter on the payroll frees up funds. Could they sign ATkins, perhaps, for 2-3 years to play third? Actually go after a decent free agent?
Back to Viola, yes, Punto is an Al Newman or a Denny Hocking. He isn't bad if you need to replace someone injured for a period of time.
And, yes, Ellsbury would be better than Crisp. The upside is there. After his past two seasons, don't see Crisp getting better, unless he sees free agency stars in his eyes and really pops in 2009. Crisp could work in the Twins plan, though, if he can lead off, show some speed, and get that average up. Ellsbury virtually means that combined with Young you don't need any new outfielders for five years or so...what does that do to any prospects in the Twins system. Same with Lowrie at short...is he a better upside than Poluffe or anone else getting at bats at rookie or A-ball right now?
Once you start adding folks like a Hughes or Lester to you already mix, it means a few prospects in the system become more expendable and eitehr worth more, or less, depending on how badly you want/need to keep them.
Again, no one says being a general manager is easy. You have to balance present players with players obtained elsewhere against what you are building in your system.
If the Twins do get Lowrie, do they package out Plouffe soon for someone else? And is Moses tradable (like with Nathan).
Just don't let the teams in the Santana hunt turn their attentions elsewhere. You either get something done, or just pull back and wait until July 31st, I guess.
by twintown on Dec 1, 2007 2:03 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Moses
by ravenfly on Dec 1, 2007 7:24 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Moses
by Jesse on Dec 3, 2007 1:46 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
1
by AdamOnFirst on Dec 3, 2007 2:09 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Sickels
by cmathewson on Dec 3, 2007 4:48 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

by 














