Proud fans of a 128-year old tradition

It is currently Mon Sep 15, 2014 11:55 pm

All times are UTC - 4 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 30 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Scott Kazmir Dealt to the Angels
PostPosted: Wed Sep 16, 2009 11:22 am 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 7:30 pm
Posts: 6228
My only defense of the move is that realistically, the Rays are out of the race.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Scott Kazmir Dealt to the Angels
PostPosted: Wed Sep 16, 2009 1:39 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 6:18 pm
Posts: 5060
Location: Scotch Plains, NJ
Az Bucco fan wrote:
My only defense of the move is that realistically, the Rays are out of the race.

And they likely were out of the race when they dealt Kazmir.

_________________
"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong."
~H. L. Mencken


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Scott Kazmir Dealt to the Angels
PostPosted: Wed Sep 16, 2009 1:53 pm 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 7:30 pm
Posts: 6228
Exactly.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Scott Kazmir Dealt to the Angels
PostPosted: Wed Sep 16, 2009 6:06 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 WWW  YIM  Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 7:24 pm
Posts: 4160
Location: Zelienople, PA
PirateParrot wrote:
[

My point on this was that they traded one fifth of their rotation, who was the AL strikeout leader two years ago.


And Sheehan points out that he is NOT 1/5 anymore. That is why he was traded. He has been passed up. There is absolutely nothing wrong with moving a guy who has been passed up, regardless of his salary.

What is wrong is that somehow the salary trumps his performance, and so he should stay.

ZM

_________________
Someone tell Votto... rbis are good


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Scott Kazmir Dealt to the Angels
PostPosted: Wed Sep 16, 2009 8:59 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 4:52 pm
Posts: 5206
Location: Pittsburgh
PirateParrot wrote:
sisyphus wrote:
As I asked before, do you know anything at all about the abilities of the guys they got in return for Kazmir?


Nope. The scouting report on those guys they faxed me got lost somewhere...sorry. :roll:

My point on this was that they traded one fifth of their rotation, who was the AL strikeout leader two years ago. A guy who most, including themselves since they just re-upped his contract, consider a top end starter, granted with some injury concerns(like a lot of pitchers). IN THE MIDDLE OF A PENNANT CHASE. The Rays management acknowledged the move gave them financial flexibility. For the point I was trying to make, I don't care who they got back in the deal. Maybe they are future stars, but when I hear the manager say fans will really like the player to be named later I get Bobby Hill chills running up my spine.

I understand they like their young pitchers coming through the high end of their system. I understand they are a small market who has to constantly evaluate contract situations(which is still baseball's biggest problem). But with a chance to win, and coming off of a World Series appearance to make this move?? Plus Kazmir had just strung together some good starts and was looking stronger. They left their playoff hopes in the hands of Andy Sonnanstine and Wade Davis, who probably will be very good one day.

If they come back next year and win, which they very well could, and especially if Kazmir breaks down in Anaheim then they look very smart. But at the time of the move, IN MY OPINION, they were telling their fans they were more concerned with finances than making a push for the playoffs and maintaining their momentum off of last year.

And my main point in all of this was that it's a shame baseball is like this....it really beats down my enthusiasm for the game.

And my main point is that you have no business having an opinion on the trade, since you don't have a clue what they got in return.

You're not the only one guilty of this; I see it all the time. How can you possibly evaluate a trade when you only know one side of it? That's like telling a guy who just bought a car that he was ripped off without even knowing the price he paid.

_________________
"Enjoy every sandwich." - Warren Zevon


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Scott Kazmir Dealt to the Angels
PostPosted: Wed Sep 16, 2009 9:50 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 6:10 pm
Posts: 2157
sisyphus wrote:
PirateParrot wrote:
sisyphus wrote:
As I asked before, do you know anything at all about the abilities of the guys they got in return for Kazmir?


Nope. The scouting report on those guys they faxed me got lost somewhere...sorry. :roll:

My point on this was that they traded one fifth of their rotation, who was the AL strikeout leader two years ago. A guy who most, including themselves since they just re-upped his contract, consider a top end starter, granted with some injury concerns(like a lot of pitchers). IN THE MIDDLE OF A PENNANT CHASE. The Rays management acknowledged the move gave them financial flexibility. For the point I was trying to make, I don't care who they got back in the deal. Maybe they are future stars, but when I hear the manager say fans will really like the player to be named later I get Bobby Hill chills running up my spine.



I understand they like their young pitchers coming through the high end of their system. I understand they are a small market who has to constantly evaluate contract situations(which is still baseball's biggest problem). But with a chance to win, and coming off of a World Series appearance to make this move?? Plus Kazmir had just strung together some good starts and was looking stronger. They left their playoff hopes in the hands of Andy Sonnanstine and Wade Davis, who probably will be very good one day.

If they come back next year and win, which they very well could, and especially if Kazmir breaks down in Anaheim then they look very smart. But at the time of the move, IN MY OPINION, they were telling their fans they were more concerned with finances than making a push for the playoffs and maintaining their momentum off of last year.

And my main point in all of this was that it's a shame baseball is like this....it really beats down my enthusiasm for the game.

And my main point is that you have no business having an opinion on the trade, since you don't have a clue what they got in return.

You're not the only one guilty of this; I see it all the time. How can you possibly evaluate a trade when you only know one side of it? That's like telling a guy who just bought a car that he was ripped off without even knowing the price he paid.


I had a long reply typed but I'm going to just leave it at this. You don't have to be a pompous ass all the time. ZM and AZ(to name two) disagree with me on this but don't tell me I'm not entitled to an opinion. THIS IS A MESSAGEBOARD. It is designed for people to voice their opinions. Quit taking yourself so seriously...Jeez.

And, your Excellency, I wasn't voicing an opinion on the trade itself. Player for player it may turn out great for the Rays. Who knows? The only thing I said about the actual trade itself is it makes me nervous when fans are told they will love the player to be named later(again, insert Bobby Hill joke here). I was voicing an opinion on the fact that they made the trade in the first place...for financial flexibility in the middle of a pennant race. My point is that this is what is wrong with baseball. Some teams have to do stuff like this while others just keep adding on at whatever the cost.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Scott Kazmir Dealt to the Angels
PostPosted: Wed Sep 16, 2009 10:24 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 6:10 pm
Posts: 2157
ZelieMike wrote:
PirateParrot wrote:
[

My point on this was that they traded one fifth of their rotation, who was the AL strikeout leader two years ago.


And Sheehan points out that he is NOT 1/5 anymore. That is why he was traded. He has been passed up. There is absolutely nothing wrong with moving a guy who has been passed up, regardless of his salary.

What is wrong is that somehow the salary trumps his performance, and so he should stay.

ZM


I agree with your last statement however...

Since July 4th Kazmir has 9 out of 12 quality starts, a 4.22 ERA(2.95 minus two bad starts) 59 K's and 25 BB's. Not Cy Young material, but not bad also. So I will never believe it was his performance that got him moved, but rather the salary. I think it was going to be hard to catch the Red Sox, but certainly not impossible by any stretch so to trade a guy with those numbers(and his past success) because supposedly they had players who were better?? I just don't buy that. Andy Sonnanstine isn't better for sure. And Wade Davis may be someday, but probably not right now. I'd accept it more if they would've just said "We are out of it, so we are going to look to the future and give ourselves some flexibility". Of course they aren't going to say that but it is far closer to the truth than Kazmir got passed by.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Scott Kazmir Dealt to the Angels
PostPosted: Wed Sep 16, 2009 10:30 pm 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 4:26 pm
Posts: 3006
PirateParrot wrote:
So I will never believe it was his performance that got him moved, but rather the salary.


Or the chance to trade from a position of depth to get a great return. That's why sisy's point is so important. If the Rays thought that Kazmir could be replaced and they could get terrific pieces back in return, then it is a good deal, never mind the salaries. I know nothing about the guys they got back, so I can't say whether it is a valid argument or not in this instance, but I think saying a trade is either a salary dump or getting rid of an underperforming player is rather simplistic.

Was the trade of Brian Giles a salary dump? (yes, I know we weren't in a playoff race)


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Scott Kazmir Dealt to the Angels
PostPosted: Thu Sep 17, 2009 2:17 am 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 6:10 pm
Posts: 2157
BBF wrote:
PirateParrot wrote:
So I will never believe it was his performance that got him moved, but rather the salary.


Or the chance to trade from a position of depth to get a great return. That's why sisy's point is so important. If the Rays thought that Kazmir could be replaced and they could get terrific pieces back in return, then it is a good deal, never mind the salaries. I know nothing about the guys they got back, so I can't say whether it is a valid argument or not in this instance, but I think saying a trade is either a salary dump or getting rid of an underperforming player is rather simplistic.

Was the trade of Brian Giles a salary dump? (yes, I know we weren't in a playoff race)


http://www.raysindex.com/2009/08/the-sc ... which.html

The above article from a Tampa paper helps make my point.

The players acquired in the trade...Alex Torres- a highly thought of 21 year old pitcher just promoted to AA(Kazmir was in MLB at that age)who has a high K rate. Matt Sweeney- a 21 year old infielder who at time of article was hitting .299 with 9 HR's at high A. And the player to be named later. A lot of unknowns for sure...

And I never said a trade was either-or...I'm saying, IMO, that this particular trade is more about money than anything else. The article I linked seems to agree.

And the Giles trade isn't a valid argument for the reason you already stated. The Rays were coming off a World Series and still right in the thick of things for a playoff spot this year and they make this move. Big difference.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Scott Kazmir Dealt to the Angels
PostPosted: Thu Sep 17, 2009 7:22 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 4:52 pm
Posts: 5206
Location: Pittsburgh
PirateParrot wrote:

I had a long reply typed but I'm going to just leave it at this. You don't have to be a pompous ass all the time. ZM and AZ(to name two) disagree with me on this but don't tell me I'm not entitled to an opinion. THIS IS A MESSAGEBOARD. It is designed for people to voice their opinions. Quit taking yourself so seriously...Jeez.

Quote:
And, your Excellency, I wasn't voicing an opinion on the trade itself.

Oh really? You're the one who pronounced it a "salary dump". Ever think that maybe the Ray believe that they're taking a quality offer that will improve their team?

Quote:
Player for player it may turn out great for the Rays. Who knows? The only thing I said about the actual trade itself is it makes me nervous when fans are told they will love the player to be named later(again, insert Bobby Hill joke here). I was voicing an opinion on the fact that they made the trade in the first place...for financial flexibility in the middle of a pennant race. My point is that this is what is wrong with baseball. Some teams have to do stuff like this while others just keep adding on at whatever the cost.

You could be right about that, IF this was purely a salary dump. I'd prefer to wait and see the trade completed before I form an opinion. Right now all I can say is that the Rays rid themselves of a pitcher (5th best from a deep rotation) who looks to be declining rapidly at an early age, and who has definitely been overpaid for his actual production over the last two seasons.

_________________
"Enjoy every sandwich." - Warren Zevon


Top
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 30 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

All times are UTC - 4 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Google [Bot] and 4 guests


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 post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group  
Design By Poker Bandits