Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
Exactly. As a Blue Jays fan, it pissed me off when some other fans started asking how much the Jays could get for Bautista (mid-way through 2010).
He was the only reason to watch the Jays for a while there.
The thing is, the Mets need to be overwhelmed because it is certainly possible that Dickey is still a frontline starter in 3-4 years considering he's a knuckleballer without a lot of mileage on his arm.
You trade Colon or Sabathia or Johnson when you know you can't resign them. You don't trade those guys when you have every chance in the world to keep them on your team for years.
There is no doubt Dickey has tremendous value to the Mets, but one has to think that a sure-fire playoff team....
Anyway, haven't we already read this article a million times over the past couple of years, except with David Wright as the Mets star that should be traded?
For instance, a team like the Texas Rangers would be crazy not to add R.A. Dickey if he were to become available. With Neftali Feliz, Derek Holland, and Alexi Ogando all on the disabled list, the once depth-filled Rangers rotation is currently looking mighty thin… could the Mets get both of Rangers’ top hitting prospects Jurickson Profar and Mike Olt? If Dickey pitches like an ace for the next year-and-a-half, while making a touch over $7 million in the process, perhaps surrendering “untouchables” like Jurickson and Olt are within reason.
Now that Harper and Trout are in the bigs to stay, Profar is probably the best prospect in baseball.
There just aren't any easy ways for bad teams to rapidly improve anymore. Given that, I think there is a fair case to be made that uncompromising devotion to a team's perceived success cycle is the new market inefficiency.
I'm 53 years old, so feel free to adjust the classic beauty in that equation to your own generation if needed :)
Michelle Pfeiffer == Charlize Theron for you kiddies.
Megan Fox is kind of a thing but most reasonable intelligent men like myself and my friends don't really get the Megan Fox thing.
Given that Charlize Theron is currently appearing in a major motion picture as a wicked stepmother rather than as a dewy ingenue, you might need to further freshen your reference.
This list needs more Emma Stone.
Actually Kristen Stewart is probably the best choice for the modern paradigm of female attractiveness. Scarlett Johansson maybe. Mila Kunis? Megan Fox is kind of a thing but most reasonable intelligent men like myself and my friends don't really get the Megan Fox thing.
My personal favorite is Anna Kendrick though. Very cute and crazy talented.
Seriously, if you're going to fantasize, go big or go home.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
Login to Join (4 members)
Page rendered in 0.6277 seconds, 57 querie(s) executed