Joined: 10 Aug 2006
Posts: 3243
Location: In front of my computer
Posted: Mon Dec 04, 2006 8:44 am Post subject: D Backs could trade some of the young pitching away
I mentioned this in another thread, but I think it is certainly possible that with so many potential 5th starters among all the young guys we have, plus the fact that bullpen looks fairly full at the moment, it seems probable that somebody is going to get traded away simply to make room on the roster, and of course as a means to reel in a short term upgrade if they are looking to try to win in 2007
Todays EVT article had this to say:
Quote:
The D-Backs landed a No. 3 starter in Doug Davis in the recent trade of Johnny Estrada, although including Claudio Vargas in that deal with Milwaukee means they still need to identify the final two members of the rotation.
They could be Mulder and Batista. They more likely will come from a stable that includes Juan Cruz, Dana Eveland, Edgar Gonzalez, Enrique Gonzalez, Dustin Nippert, Ross Ohlendorf and Micah Owings.
At the same time, the D-Backs also have received inquires about almost all of those young starters in possible trades and could consider trading one if it means upgrading a bullpen that still seems to be lacking a reliable closer, although Jose Valverde once again will have the job entering spring training.
“We get asked about those guys all the time,” said Byrnes, adding “those guys are valuable to us, but if it is the right sort of deal . . .”
I would offer that if they sign Mulder to a multi year deal, it would seem to almost cement the need to trade one or two of these pitchers away.
Personally, I would not do it that way. I'd just make Edgar my 4th starter, and either Enrique or Nippert my 5th starter and go from there. Whoever falters gets replaced by whoever is doing the best in Tucson....simple as that.
This way you not only get the full evaluation of your pitchers, especially guys like Edgar, who is out of options, or Nippert, who only has one option year left, but you also have the chance to increase a guys trade value.
Joined: 10 Aug 2006
Posts: 3243
Location: In front of my computer
Posted: Mon Dec 04, 2006 9:43 am Post subject:
That seems like a decent order, but I have to think this is almost impossible to forecast. After all, who knows what other teams GM or Scouts saw that they liked or didn't like about each guy.
Joined: 10 Aug 2006
Posts: 1749
Location: Researching my theory that a lime hat is more effective than tinfoil
Posted: Mon Dec 04, 2006 10:15 am Post subject:
Edgar and Cruz are the only ones that don't have options. Therefore, they are the only ones who 'need' to be on the 25 man roster. Oldenhorf and Owings aren't even on the 40 man roster. The team doesn't 'need' to make a trade right now. I think this FO is smart enough to recognize this and act appropriately.
From what I have read, the front office is not content with the pitching staff still and wants to improve it. I expect some more moves this offseason to accomplish this. Of course, it will depend on what opportunities present themselves.
Personally, I would not do it that way. I'd just make Edgar my 4th starter, and either Enrique or Nippert my 5th starter and go from there. Whoever falters gets replaced by whoever is doing the best in Tucson....simple as that.
That's my preference. I wouldn't go that route if we were going to compete for the division, but this is our rebuilding year, so let's rebuild, get prospects experience, gain some evaluation time, SAVE THE $$$, and figure out what we need going into the '08-'10 stretch.
However, it does seem that we're #4/#5 starter prospect heavy, and it'd be stupid to keep 4 or 5 back-of-the-rotation guys when we could have a stronger bullpen or a potential upgrade in the front of the rotation. Or LF.
_________________
The pen is mightier than the sword, if that pen is shot out of a gun
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum