BBTF's Newsblog Discussion :: N.Y. Post: Sherman: RAYS MAY DANGLE KAZMIR

Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Monday, November 05, 2007

N.Y. Post: Sherman: RAYS MAY DANGLE KAZMIR - HEAR THAT, METS? (RR)

I’m pretty sure The Dangling Kazmir’s once followed Domkoffski’s Cycling Bears of Russia on Ed Sullivan.

An executive familiar with Tampa’s thinking said if the offers for Santana grow to a substantial level, then the Rays would test to see what they could get for Scott Kazmir.

The thinking is that because Kazmir is three years from free agency as opposed to one year for Santana, he might bring nearly as much in return.

The Rays need multiple high-end pitchers, and Kazmir, just about to enter arbitration eligibility for the first time, might be too expensive and ready to depart just as Tampa is projecting contention in two to three years.

How comical would it be if the Mets, with their No. 1 need being a No. 1 starter, found themselves trying to trade for Kazmir 3½ seasons after getting Victor Zambrano for him?

Repoz Posted: November 05, 2007 at 02:58 PM | 192 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
Tags: mets, rays, red sox

Reader Comments and Retorts

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.

Page 2 of 2 pages < 1 2

101. Famous Original Joe C Posted: November 05, 2007 at 10:15 PM (#2605831)

1. I would say IP is important when you are a team considering trading for a starting pitcher and looking to consider his established value.

2. Kazmir's Translated ERAs for the 3 years are 3.93, 3.33, 3.29. Beckett's are 3.38, 4.06, 3.64. I believe this, in conjunction with Kazmir having demonstrated greater durability, would show that he has established a higher level of performance.

The only quibble I'd have with this is (as has been pointed out elsewhere) that Beckett's troubles were of the blister variety, not arm trouble, and that Kazmir only managed 144 innings in '06. Given the amount of info we *don't* have about these guys (their medical histories, actual scouting reports, etc.), wouldn't these guys be considered roughly equal? Kazmir with a bit more on the results side, Beckett with more potential upside (which we finally saw this year).

Which is to say, Bowden, Lester, and Crisp is a joke. This is really two B+ pitching prospects and, at best, and average starting CF with little to no upside. Needless to say, you're not getting a 24 y/o #1 starter for that. Tampa wouldn't return the Red Sox calls until they started the conversation with "Buchholz", if they did at all.

You have to think if the Rays really are dangling Kazmir, they either a) think he's going to get hurt soon (or already is hurt) or b) have no intention of trading him, but figure if they dangle him maybe they'll get someone to throw out an offer they can't say no to.

102. Rocco's Not-so Malfunctioning Mitochondria Posted: November 05, 2007 at 10:17 PM (#2605834)

No. We're talking about prospect status. The opinion of scouts is just as, if not more, important. Beckett has always thrown harder than Kazmir and was considered the best pitching prospect in years when he was drafted. 7(!) pitchers were drafted ahead of Kazmir in 2002.

I agree that Beckett was a better prospect than Kazmir before they hit the majors; Beckett was probably one of the top 3 pitching prospects in the past 10 years (Prior and King Felix being the others where you can make an argument). Also, Beckett was absolutely phenominal one of his seasons in the minors. However, it's misleading to say 7 pitchers were drafted ahead of Kazmir. Kaz dropped due to signability concerns, and was pretty unanimously considered to be the best pitching prospect in his draft class. As mentioned above, he was the second rated prospect by BA on draft day.

Also, I think people aren't looking enough at the playing time issue. Yes, Kazmir was shut down at the end of one season due to shoulder fatigue, but Beckett missed 10 starts almost every single year he was with the Marlins. His durability was a major concern when he was acquired. Kazmir has some durability concerns, but they have been somewhat alleviated by the fact that he made 34 starts last year without a single report of pain or fatigue. And even without those concerns, there's still a big difference between two years of Beckett and three years of Kazmir. Beckett's just not better enough than Kazmir to justify giving the same package for a full extra season, not even considering that it's not particularly close to being as good of a package.

Finally, I just want to point out that the Rays and the Sox (or Yankees) are actually in the same division. Theoretically, they're competing directly against each other for playoff spots. You can't expect to improve too much when by improving yourself you're also improving your direct opposition. The Red Sox would have to pay a premium to get anyone from the Rays.

103. Famous Original Joe C Posted: November 05, 2007 at 10:21 PM (#2605838)

Crisp is signed to a pretty bad contract.

MCoA - isn't it like 2/$11m remaining? If you believe in his D, he's roughly an average CF. Would you really rather have Andruw or Torii for $15-18m for the next six years instead?

104. Famous Original Joe C Posted: November 05, 2007 at 10:22 PM (#2605839)

if they did that, then both Bowden and Crisp are off the table.

Well, sure, but why would the Rays trade him to the Red Sox anyway?

105. Fred Garvin still has outstanding warrants Posted: November 05, 2007 at 10:25 PM (#2605843)

No, kevin. We're talking prospect status when we discuss what would be given up to get Beckett or Kazmir. We're talking established levels of performance when discussing the Beckett/Kazmir performance. BTW, despite the fact that he was drafted 17th or whatever, Kazmir was ranked as the second best talent in the draft by Baseball America, behind B.J. Upton.

Putting aside our back-and-forth about the respective prospect status of Beckett and Kazmir, it seems to me that all this is irrelevant to the main question -- "is Kazmir more established at this point in his career than Beckett was when he left the Marlins?"

It doesn't matter if Beckett was the #1 prospect in baseball or an undrafted FA -- what matters is whether he was "established." Frankly, I really don't know how to measure that (it seems awfully subjective), but I certainly know that "prospect status" isn't the way, nor is contract status.

106. Fred Garvin still has outstanding warrants Posted: November 05, 2007 at 10:29 PM (#2605848)

Actually, I was wrong -- the actual question was:

1. Kazmir is more proven than Beckett was at that time.

To this question, however, I still submit that prospect and contract status are irrelevant. What matters is how "proven" each pitcher was, a question that is somewhat subjective.

107. Dizzypaco Posted: November 05, 2007 at 10:30 PM (#2605849)

When the Sox traded for Beckett, people talked largely about two things: His amazing upside, and his injury history. Beckett was thought to have the potential to perform far better than he had in the NL to that point, but there was concern that A) he wouldn't fulfill his potential, and B) injuries.

Kazmir is seen, I believe, as having both less upside and less downside than Beckett. People aren't talking about his potential the way they did Beckett, but there isn't the same concerns over injury risk or failing to fulfill his potential.

Of course their contract status is very different, which is the most important point. I'm guessing the DRays don't consider trading Kazmir unless they get a boatload of talent for that reason. More talent than Met fans would be willing to give up at this point.

108. Dizzypaco Posted: November 05, 2007 at 10:34 PM (#2605851)

Putting aside our back-and-forth about the respective prospect status of Beckett and Kazmir, it seems to me that all this is irrelevant to the main question -- "is Kazmir more established at this point in his career than Beckett was when he left the Marlins?"

It doesn't matter if Beckett was the #1 prospect in baseball or an undrafted FA -- what matters is whether he was "established." Frankly, I really don't know how to measure that (it seems awfully subjective), but I certainly know that "prospect status" isn't the way, nor is contract status.

This isn't right. The Red Sox didn't trade for Beckett because what he had "established." They didn't trade for him based on what he had done in the past. They traded for him based on what he might do in the future - his potential. I agree that prospect status isn't completely right either. And its not whether he was the #1 prospect in baseball. Its what his potential was at the time of the trade. And that was very, very high.

109. The Artist Posted: November 05, 2007 at 10:37 PM (#2605853)

No. We're talking about prospect status. The opinion of scouts is just as, if not more, important. Beckett has always thrown harder than Kazmir and was considered the best pitching prospect in years when he was drafted. 7(!) pitchers were drafted ahead of Kazmir in 2002.

Now you're being cute - the Reds at 3, the Nationals/Expos at 5, and a bunch of others passed on Kamzir because he was expected to be ridiculous expensive to sign. The Marlins were willing to commit cash for Beckett - the reds were not for Kazmir.

Either way, your trade proposal is the stuff dreams are made of. Crisp is a good player and a fit for teams that need a CF, but he'd the 4th or 5th best OF for TB.

110. Alex meets the threshold for granular review Posted: November 05, 2007 at 10:38 PM (#2605854)

Kazmir was an excellent pitching prospect. Josh Beckett was the greatest pitching prospect since Roger Clemens or Dwight Gooden. Those were the immediate comparisons when anybody talked about his stuff. His fastball and curveball were legendary before he pitched in AA.

Sheesh. Stick with best since Kerry Wood (or Mark Prior, or Rick Ankiel, or whoever) and leave it at that.

111. Melo's Love Handles (NJ) Posted: November 05, 2007 at 10:40 PM (#2605856)

I don't agree with this at all. The only "injury" issue Beckett ever had was the blister thing. Kazmir was traded because the Mets thought his mechanics would lead to subsequest arm trouble and he missed time in 2006 with arm soreness.

From Baseball America's pre 2002 scouting report on Beckett:

He had a serious scare after two tours on the disabled list with shoulder tendinitis in 2000. Offseason tests diagnosed a small tear in his labrum, fraying in his rotator cuff, biceps tendinitis and an impingement. Dr. James Andrews advised against surgery.

112. Melo's Love Handles (NJ) Posted: November 05, 2007 at 10:46 PM (#2605864)

I was responding to the part where you said the only injury issue he had ever had was blisters. I didn't notice that you qualified it with a time frame. Silly me.

113. TDF, situational idiot Posted: November 05, 2007 at 10:46 PM (#2605865)

If you ask me, it is kazmir who is the bigger risk going forward, injury-wise. Or looking backward, for that matter.

Despite the fact that in a full additional season, Beckett only had 29 more IP?

114. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: November 05, 2007 at 10:58 PM (#2605871)

"That's 3 frikkin' years after the trade was executed!"

Uh, what?

115. Teheran's Uranium Enriched Missiles Posted: November 05, 2007 at 11:11 PM (#2605885)

I was responding to the part where you said the only injury issue he had ever had was blisters. I didn't notice that you qualified it with a time frame. Silly me.

You are expecting a fanboy to be reasonable?

Beckett had bunch of issues with the Marlins. The blisters, big time attitude issues too ( supposedly very unwilling to be coached ).
And at the time of the trade, Anibal Sanchez was considered the centerpiece, with Hanley as the sidekick. Hanley was coming of a disappointing season, had some injury/attitude rumours too.
You have to credit the Marlins scouts on that one. They got him and plugged him straight into the majors.

116. Kyle S Posted: November 05, 2007 at 11:15 PM (#2605890)

I think that some of y'all are looking at the Beckett acquisition with some serious rose-colored glasses thanks to the way he performed this past year. Yes, there was excitement about him when the Sox got him (after all, he was "replacing Pedro", sort of). But there was also trepidation, both from his injury history and his up-and-down performance record. Beckett followed up all that anticipation with a horrible year in 2006. His excellent year this year has erased a lot of those memories, it seems.

Kazmir, FWIW, is getting killed by his defense. Unless I'm incompetent (certainly possible), his BABIP this year was astronomical - I have it at .339.

117. Teheran's Uranium Enriched Missiles Posted: November 05, 2007 at 11:18 PM (#2605891)

Well, why shouldn't it be qualified? The year after that, he blew the yankees out of the water in the WS with 97 MPH heat and pitched 2 subsequent years without a whiff of shoulder trouble.

Injury history has to be relevant.

So 40 ip 2 yrs ago is more relevant than a minor labrum tear 3 yrs ago? codswallop. Beckett was a special talent, and so is Kazmir. But both have had injury scares. That Beckett has worked through his and is now maximising his potential is good. There is no reason to twist the facts to make him out as some demi-god

118. Doris from Rego Park Posted: November 05, 2007 at 11:19 PM (#2605892)

Sox Land Beckett, Lowell

119. Kyle S Posted: November 05, 2007 at 11:38 PM (#2605912)

I think that thread matches what most have said on this thread. There were concerns about beckett's injury history. There was some wistfulness at parting with Anibal and Hanley (although not that I saw from kevin, who as we all know totally disowns Sox prospects as soon as they leave the roost).

Thanks for posting it.

120. Dizzypaco Posted: November 05, 2007 at 11:44 PM (#2605917)

And at the time of the trade, Anibal Sanchez was considered the centerpiece, with Hanley as the sidekick.

Considered by who? I live in Boston, and I barely remember anyone mentioning he was included in the deal. It was two things; Ramirez, and the willingness to take on Lowell's contract, from what I remember.

121. Dizzypaco Posted: November 05, 2007 at 11:46 PM (#2605921)

By the way, it wasn't an injury scare with Beckett. It was an injury problem. An ongoing problem, that caused him to miss time every year. There was a time in spring training of '06 where there were rumours that the Sox got taken for a ride, and that Beckett was finished as a top pitcher because of adjustments made from the blisters.

122. JPWF13

Posted: November 05, 2007 at 11:49 PM (#2605924)

Sheesh. Stick with best since Kerry Wood (or Mark Prior, or Rick Ankiel, or whoever) and leave it at that

Beckett was drafted in '99, Prior in '01
(Prior was also drafted but didn't sign in '98- obviously he didn't have the "best college pitcher ever" nametag until after '98)

I think Beckett was the most highly regarded amateur pitching prospect to come along in many a moon when he was drafted.

123. Fred Garvin still has outstanding warrants Posted: November 05, 2007 at 11:53 PM (#2605929)

This isn't right. The Red Sox didn't trade for Beckett because what he had "established." They didn't trade for him based on what he had done in the past. They traded for him based on what he might do in the future - his potential.

That may be, but it's irrelevant to the original question, which is whether Kazmir is more "proven" now than Beckett was.

124. CraigK Posted: November 05, 2007 at 11:55 PM (#2605931)

And you all think I make silly trade proposals. :)

125. bibigon Posted: November 05, 2007 at 11:56 PM (#2605932)

Considered by who? I live in Boston, and I barely remember anyone mentioning he was included in the deal. It was two things; Ramirez, and the willingness to take on Lowell's contract, from what I remember.

Certainly on SoSH, and here, Sanchez, not Hanley was the real prize. It wasn't particularly close really. For Florida however, they did seem to care about Hanley more. I haven't heard much about how the Sox valued the two relatively.

Also, at the time, nobody was really talking about an AL-NL differential. While it already existed, nobody had really picked up on it. If we're talking about what it took to get Beckett, it's not really "correct" to downgrade his trade value at the time on that basis.

126. Social media assassin (Templeusox) Posted: November 05, 2007 at 11:59 PM (#2605933)

If this news is true, and a franchise can't keep its franchise pitcher before his first arb-eliigible season, they shouldn't be a franchise anymore. Who are they fooling? The world now knows how much money there is in the game. There's no excuse for not offering him 5 years/50-60 million.

127. Social media assassin (Templeusox) Posted: November 06, 2007 at 12:11 AM (#2605946)

If there's a franchise who can't pay their best player that, they don't deserve to be a franchise. That's basically peanuts in today's baseball economics. I understand that people don't like the Red Sox and Yankees for the amount of money they spend, but this deserves an equal amount of disdain and ridicule.

08: 5 million
09: 9 million
10: 12 million
11: 14 million
12: 14 million

How hard is that?

128. Hugh Jorgan Posted: November 06, 2007 at 12:12 AM (#2605948)

"I think Beckett was the most highly regarded amateur pitching prospect to come along in many a moon when he was drafted"

Ben Macdonald says hello. This guy was "can't miss" when he was drafted and of course touted as the best since (insert hall of famer here)
As a Red Sox supporter I would love for us to make a play at Kazmir based solely on the fact that 3-4 of his wins every year is against us. Seriously though, he's awesome and there is no way they are taking spare parts for him. Besides why would you trade a dominant starter to one of your divisional rivals no matter how much talent is offered?

129. Teheran's Uranium Enriched Missiles Posted: November 06, 2007 at 12:15 AM (#2605949)

Five years ago. 5. One, two, three, four, five. As in 5 gold rings.

Capiche?

And yes, missing 60 innings last year is more relevant that someone having minor labrum surgery 5 years ago and then demonstrating beyond all doubt that he is fully recovered. Absolutely.

Your fanboyism is clouding your skills of comprehension. Beckett never had Labrum surgery, he rehabbed it. And the 40 ip I was referring to was the playoffs in 2003, not the time he missed.
Be as it may, as dJF says, the important question is, why should Beckett circa 2005 be more highly regarded than Kazmir?

Their numbers are similar, they have similar peripherals, Kazmir's probably a bit better, both are expected to mature and become better pitchers.
Kazmir has had problems with his shoulder, Beckett has shoulder trouble history too, and a recurring blister problem. Kazmir has 3 yrs of arb left while Beckett had 1. If anything, that should give Kazmir an edge over Beckett, and in no way Beckett 2005 had more value than Kazmir 2007. Which is the entire point of the argument, isn't it? Whether Kazmir does go on to realise his potential is another thing, but he has a lot of value, because of his potential.

Though on another note, Beckett's blister problems are in the larger scheme of things, rather minor, and I remember couple of people arguing that those problems saved him from overuse ala Burnett.

130. JPWF13

Posted: November 06, 2007 at 12:19 AM (#2605953)

Ben Macdonald says hello. This guy was "can't miss" when he was drafted and of course touted as the best since (insert hall of famer here)

Drafted in 1989 ten years before Beckett

78-70 ERA+ 115, disappointing but hardly a bust.

Ben WAS highly regarded, maybe it'd change my mind if I go back and read some BA articles from 1988/89, but I don't think he was quite as highly regarded as Beckett was 10 years later.

Prior was more highly regarded than either FWIW

131. Hugh Jorgan Posted: November 06, 2007 at 12:28 AM (#2605965)

#148
You could be right, its pretty subjective. I just remember MacDonald as being the next coming of Jim Palmer. It was quite extraordinary the amount of coverage that both SI and the sporting news gave him.

132. Biff isn't really an apt handle anymore Posted: November 06, 2007 at 12:30 AM (#2605968)

I like this line from the Beckett trade thread:

"HRam is a magician with the glove. Unfortunately, his bat has disappeared."

133. Nasty Nate Posted: November 06, 2007 at 01:04 AM (#2605986)

258. Catfish326 Posted: November 22, 2005 at 02:25 PM (#1742583)

Enough already about Beckett being an "ace"! Please. He has 41 career wins over 5 years. . . . an average of 8.2 per year. Last year, yet another injury ladened season for Beckett, was his best year and he only pitched 178 innings. That's an ace? The pitcher he is "most similar to" at age 25, is Lynn McGlothen. A fine pitcher, but hardly an ace; his career W-L was 86-93, but at least McGlothen managed to pitch over 200 innings in 4 seasons. Beckett hasn't done it once.

As to Lowell's 58 RBIs in 500 ABs. . . Little Freddie Patek knocked in 60 RBIs in 1977, and it only took 497 ABs. Lowell wouldn't deserve starting for the 1962 Mets.

287. mgl Posted: November 23, 2005 at 03:20 AM (#1743559)

Oh and by the way, Lowell is a stiff. He has a rep for being good defensively, yet his UZR is consistently and accumulatively poor (I don't care about the "consistently" but I do care about the "accumulatively"). His offensive projection is not all that great either for a third baseman. He must be slower than dirt as his baserunning and GDP lwts are also terrible over the years. Overall he projects at 4 runs below average for a third baseman (I'm done with saying how many runs relative to replacement, as everyone has a different definition of replacement). That is "worth" from 3 to 6 mil on the FA market, and at his age, not for very long. Taking on his "9 mil per" contract for 2 years is a joke. You wouldn't want to pay him anywhere near that in the first place. Why would you want to actually trade something for it?

56. RB in NYC (Now with Pension!) Posted: November 21, 2005 at 09:22 PM (#1741623)

Wowsa. Whatever becomes of the pair going to Boston, still an awful trade for Florida, a blatant salary dump, since I gather they aren't picking up money equal to what Blalock would've cost, but who knows? I wonder if that's become the hang-up ESPN mentioned

134. PJ Martinez Posted: November 06, 2007 at 01:48 AM (#2606004)

"He must be slower than dirt"

Well, he got that right. Mike Lowell is probably the slowest player I've ever seen who wasn't either a catcher, first baseman, or DH. Or maybe pitcher-- but being an AL fan, I don't see them run that often.

Edit: Slower than Jeremy Giambi? I say yes.

135. Raskolnikov Posted: November 06, 2007 at 01:51 AM (#2606008)

Okay, okay, stop twisting my arm...

We'll give you Milledge *and* Pelfrey for Kazmir.

136. T.J. Posted: November 06, 2007 at 01:54 AM (#2606014)

As I recall in the early 1990s, the A's were the dominant successful major league franchise and had the deep pockets. The Braves had the first pick, but were dirt poor and had signability concerns about the consensus top pick, one of the greatest amateur pitching prospects of all time.

The Braves had to settle for Chipper Jones, and Todd Van Poppel fell all the way to the mid-teens, where only the A's could meet his demands.

137. Iwakuma Chameleon (jonathan) Posted: November 06, 2007 at 02:58 AM (#2606056)

The Devil Rays can have Bobby Crosby if they want a cheapish defensive minded shortstop.

Crosby for Jonny Gomes would be an interesting swap of reclamation projects, but Gomes at this point would probably just be unnecessary in the Nick Swisher/Daric Barton/Travis Buck/Jack Cust/Dan Johnson 1B/DH/COF wheel of fun. So, in light of that, Crosby for Sonnanstine. They could use the good defensive shortstop with some upside still lingering around, and we could use the major league ready arm with 4th or 5th starter potential around for when Rich Harden exceeds his 15 inning seasonal limit. That's not too crazy and fanboyish, is it?

138. Gaelan Posted: November 06, 2007 at 03:13 AM (#2606067)

If Kazmir gets traded it will be to the Dodgers. They are the only team that has the young talent in the right positions to get it done and the only team with a front office clueless enough to pull the trigger.

I foresee something like Hu, Billingsley, and Kershaw for Kazmir. The Dodgers may be able to get away with a B guy instead of Kershaw but in any event the Dodgers are the only team that has the goods to get it done with the Rays.

139. Teheran's Uranium Enriched Missiles Posted: November 06, 2007 at 03:25 AM (#2606084)

No way the Dodgers give up on Billz. That guy is their anchor for the next few years.

140. Melo's Love Handles (NJ) Posted: November 06, 2007 at 04:14 AM (#2606124)

I foresee something like Hu, Billingsley, and Kershaw for Kazmir

This trade makes no sense. You give up an A pitching prospect and a guy with a career 130 ERA+ in a little over 200 innings who was very recently considered one of the best pitching prospects in the game as well as a SS who is supposed to be outstanding defensively and decent with the bat.

141. Sam M. Posted: November 06, 2007 at 04:20 AM (#2606127)

Okay, okay, stop twisting my arm...

We'll give you Milledge *and* Pelfrey for Kazmir.

Actually, if the Mets had the SS equivalent of Milledge -- a major league ready stud prospect who could play the position (and who was, for them, surplus because of Reyes) the D-Rays need -- that trade might well make a lot of sense. But what do you know . . . Milledge isn't a SS, and the Mets don't have one like him who is.

But then again, if Jim Duquette wasn't a brainless turdball, this whole conversation wouldn't be happening.

142. Teheran's Uranium Enriched Missiles Posted: November 06, 2007 at 04:29 AM (#2606132)

I think Renteria would have been a good trade for the Rays. Solid offence and defence. And gives them 2 years to develop Brignac properly.
But I think the Braves soured on the Rays after they made stupid trade proposals under Lamar. Lugo for Marte and cash!!

143. Phil Coorey. Posted: November 06, 2007 at 04:34 AM (#2606137)

Lugo for Marte and cash!!

Looks like a great trade now.... :)

Nice win over Pakistan, btw, from what I saw India bowled quite well

144. Teheran's Uranium Enriched Missiles Posted: November 06, 2007 at 04:38 AM (#2606141)

Nice win over Pakistan, btw, from what I saw India bowled quite well

Quite anti climactic after the Aussie series. Aus has trumped over Pak as our greatest rivals...e should have split that series..blew that chase in Nagpur :-(

Hope you trounce SL. We are coming for you in Dec! That series is gonna be good..there is lot of tension between the teams right now.

145. Gaelan Posted: November 06, 2007 at 04:39 AM (#2606144)

This trade makes no sense. You give up an A pitching prospect and a guy with a career 130 ERA+ in a little over 200 innings who was very recently considered one of the best pitching prospects in the game as well as a SS who is supposed to be outstanding defensively and decent with the bat.

You don't understand the Dodgers mindset. Kazmir is better than Billingsley. That is what matters. For the Dodgers Hu is both unproven and unnecessary therefore only of value in terms of what he can garner in a trade. The only question is whether TB would trade Kazmir for Billingsley + Hu. I think there is no way they make that deal. They hold out for another pitcher. The question is who the third guy will be.

In the end Kazmir probably won't be traded but if he is it will be to the Dodgers. You can write that in stone (with a small footnote that the Angels are my second choice).

146. J. Cross Posted: November 06, 2007 at 04:42 AM (#2606146)

foresee something like Hu, Billingsley, and Kershaw for Kazmir

I think it's too much. What about Hu. Broxton and Elbert?

147. Teheran's Uranium Enriched Missiles Posted: November 06, 2007 at 04:43 AM (#2606147)

I think it's too much. What about Hu. Broxton and Elbert?

Elbert coming off surgery! The rays dont need any more prospects. They have one of the best SS prospects already..And they have bunch of arms with potential. Noone in this thread has even mentioned Hellickson yet.

148. Rafael Bellylard: Built like a Molina Posted: November 06, 2007 at 04:43 AM (#2606148)

If the Rays don't want to start a fan revolt, Kazmir 1) shouldn't be traded, but extended, or 2) barring that, traded for actual major-leaguers, not more prospects. Rays fans locally are sick to death of the constant trading for prospects.

149. Zach Posted: November 06, 2007 at 04:46 AM (#2606150)

Tony Pena Jr. would be a great fit for Tampa. Make it happen Dayton.

Tony Pena doesn't belong anywhere near a thread about Kazmir, but he actually would be a great fit for Tampa. Maybe Pena for a first baseman?

150. Phil Coorey. Posted: November 06, 2007 at 04:46 AM (#2606151)

Hope you trounce SL. We are coming for you in Dec! That series is gonna be good..there is lot of tension between the teams right now.

I can't wait, and the best news is the fact that the whole series is after Christmas! (Games before Christmas are hard to watch as the shop is so busy. )

We'll have to find a place to chatter during the games for sure. They'll start at roughly 9pm ESY time in America if my rough calculations are correct!!

Sri Lanka might not be so tough with Sangakara out... The game is on Thursday and if it looks good, I'll head down on Saturday for a squiz

151. Yeaarrgghhhh Posted: November 06, 2007 at 04:51 AM (#2606153)

Why would the Dodgers trade Billingsley to get Kazmir? Even if Kazmir is better, they'd still end up needing another starter. Something like Kemp, Kershaw, and Hu for Kazmir (or Bedard if that's not enough for Kazmir) makes a lot more sense.

152. Teheran's Uranium Enriched Missiles Posted: November 06, 2007 at 05:03 AM (#2606165)

We'll have to find a place to chatter during the games for sure. They'll start at roughly 9pm ESY time in America if my rough calculations are correct!!

Yea, maybe on the forum where Other sports are linked? watch most India matches , regardless of the time.

153. Phil Coorey. Posted: November 06, 2007 at 05:07 AM (#2606169)

Yea, maybe on the forum where Other sports are linked? watch most India matches , regardless of the time.

yeh, great idea.

I'll see you there Boxing day!!!

154. Random Transaction Generator Posted: November 06, 2007 at 05:40 AM (#2606198)

Jays offer:
Rios + McDonald
for
Kazmir

Then the Rays can flip Rios or Crawford for something and have a top-flight defensive shortstop...

Pretty please?

155. Kyle S Posted: November 06, 2007 at 06:00 AM (#2606215)

Living up to your name...

156. IronChef Chris Wok Posted: November 06, 2007 at 06:05 AM (#2606225)

Alex Rios is a really great young OF, but the Rays are loaded in the OF already.

Seriously, scott Kazmir, kindly leave the AL East.

Also, F!@# you Mets. You F!@3ed us, and then F!@#ed yourselves.

157. Phil Coorey. Posted: November 06, 2007 at 06:11 AM (#2606230)

Seriously, scott Kazmir, kindly leave the AL East.

Also, F!@# you Mets. You F!@3ed us, and then F!@#ed yourselves.

I saw Wok's name as the last post in a Kazmir thread. I just knew what he was gonna say!

158. Sam M. Posted: November 06, 2007 at 06:14 AM (#2606234)

Also, F!@# you Mets. You F!@3ed us, and then F!@#ed yourselves.

Oh, yeah. I just feel SO bad for you. Your team's just gone down the ####### toilet since Scott Kazmir came into the AL East. Not a bit of success. Poor dears. Have you ever considered that the debut of Scott Kazmir in the AL East (2004) was no coincidence???

159. Rafael Bellylard: Built like a Molina Posted: November 06, 2007 at 06:29 AM (#2606253)

LOL, Sam.

But you might forgive the Red Sox fans for feeling snakebit. I'd put this in a chart if I knew how:

Kazmir vs. Red Sox, career

6-3, 17G 17GS 105.2IP 80H 35R 31ER 51BB 115K 2.64 ERA.

In 7 of his 17 starts, he gave up no earned runs (1 unearned, and went 4-0 with 3 ND).

160. Teheran's Uranium Enriched Missiles Posted: November 06, 2007 at 06:50 AM (#2606263)

yeh, great idea.

I'll see you there Boxing day!!!

I will be there! Time Australia got over their success cycle

161. IronChef Chris Wok Posted: November 06, 2007 at 07:24 AM (#2606278)

We let you have Pedro!

Ungrateful bastards.

162. Rocco's Not-so Malfunctioning Mitochondria Posted: November 06, 2007 at 05:07 PM (#2606579)

Crosby for Jonny Gomes would be an interesting swap of reclamation projects, but Gomes at this point would probably just be unnecessary in the Nick Swisher/Daric Barton/Travis Buck/Jack Cust/Dan Johnson 1B/DH/COF wheel of fun. So, in light of that, Crosby for Sonnanstine. They could use the good defensive shortstop with some upside still lingering around, and we could use the major league ready arm with 4th or 5th starter potential around for when Rich Harden exceeds his 15 inning seasonal limit. That's not too crazy and fanboyish, is it?

Not a bad idea, if the Rays think Crosby can bounce back from the past two seasons. I see Sonnanstine as a league average innings eater type in the future, but there are still the lingering concerns about whether his stuff is good enough to get major league hitters out. I'd rather see Gomes, Howell or Hammel for Crosby, but I could see Sonnanstine for Crosby and a C+ level prospect.

163. Sean Forman Posted: November 06, 2007 at 07:52 PM (#2606875)

Kazmir and Crawford
for
Reyes and a good reliever

Mets Sign A-Rod to play SS.

164. The Essex Snead Posted: November 06, 2007 at 08:00 PM (#2606888)

Kazmir and Crawford for Reyes and a good reliever

1) I'd check the Tampa Bay front office for traces of Lamar if this actually happened
2) This would have to be a 3-way trade for a trade-worthy "good reliever" to be involved

165. rfloh Posted: November 06, 2007 at 08:11 PM (#2606898)

Kazmir and Crawford
for
Reyes and a good reliever

Mets Sign A-Rod to play SS.

Do the Mets need another OF? I guess they could trade Milledge, or Gomez for more shiny pitchers.

OTOH, I don't see any reliever on the Mets that is good enough to justify this trade for the Rays. Wagner is too expensive. Heilman isn't good enough, unless he can be a decent starter. Feliciano isn't good enough.

166. Kyle S Posted: November 06, 2007 at 08:16 PM (#2606905)

I think Sean meant to say

Kazmir <s>and Crawford</s>
for
Reyes and a good reliever

Including Crawford in the deal is asinine and makes no sense for the Rays. Maybe Baldelli, but surely not Crawford.

If you're the Rays, do you make that trade? I don't put a lot of value on "good relievers," as they tend to turn into bad relievers with unexpected frequency (assuming he doesn't mean Wagner).

They need a SS, but have Brignac coming eventually (although he is a prospect and thus far from a sure bet). Of course, they need starting pitchers too.

How about Kazmir and Baldelli for Reyes and Pelfrey? Mets fans hate Pelfrey, so no worries about losing him, and he still throws hard and is projectable.

That gives the Rays a potential lineup of

Reyes SS
Crawford LF
Upton CF
Pena 1B
Young RF
Gomes DH
Iwamura 2B
Longoria 3B
Navarro C

If nothing else, they'd be fun to watch run the bases! The rotation would be terrible next year, maybe something like:

Shields
Sonnanstine
Pelfrey
Niemann
Jackson

with the survivors of the Wade Davis, Jake McGee, and David Price group there by 2010.

167. Nasty Nate Posted: November 06, 2007 at 08:30 PM (#2606924)

How about Kazmir and Baldelli for Reyes and Pelfrey?

maybe i'm wrong, but i dont think the Mets would consider this for a second

168. Kyle S Posted: November 06, 2007 at 08:43 PM (#2606943)

Okay, guess those two teams aren't a good fit then.

169. rfloh Posted: November 06, 2007 at 08:44 PM (#2606944)

How about Kazmir and Baldelli for Reyes and Pelfrey?

No way. Baldelli has little value to the Mets, especially with his injury issues. With Beltran in CF, Milledge already ready, Gomez and FMart on the way, that would basically be Reyes + Pelfrey for Kazmir.

170. John Mazzeo Posted: November 06, 2007 at 08:56 PM (#2606956)

Hey Phil, I'd love to chat about cricket on Boxing Day too, but I'll be busy. Tickets to the Members Stand take precedence. I can't wait to get back out to the colonies.

171. The Artist Posted: November 06, 2007 at 09:06 PM (#2606970)

maybe i'm wrong, but i dont think the Mets would consider this for a second

Why would the Rays give up Kazmir for Reyes?

172. Nasty Nate Posted: November 06, 2007 at 09:19 PM (#2606985)

Why would the Rays give up Kazmir for Reyes?

is this a trick question?

173. Kyle S Posted: November 06, 2007 at 09:22 PM (#2606991)

I don't think so - they need a shortstop, but they also badly need starting pitching. Reyes is signed for a bit longer but isn't as valuable a shortstop as Kazmir is a starting pitcher.

Maybe the Rays would take Reyes for Kazmir straight up, but it's certainly not a slam dunk. Although it would be funny in that they would have traded Victor Zambrano for three nice seasons from Kazmir and Jose Reyes' future... not a bad deal.

174. The Artist Posted: November 06, 2007 at 09:31 PM (#2606999)

is this a trick question?

No. I just don't believe Reyes is the second coming, as many Mets fans insist. A SS with an OPS+ of 103 and good defense is a very good player - he's not an elite, out of this world player. Given the price of acquiring pitching appears to be significantly higher than that of hitting and that Kazmir plays in the most expensive division in baseball, I'm not sure why they would trade him for Reyes. David Wright might be a different story due to the 5 years of control, but not Reyes.

Page 2 of 2 pages < 1 2

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

<< Back to main

Monday, November 05, 2007

N.Y. Post: Sherman: RAYS MAY DANGLE KAZMIR - HEAR THAT, METS? (RR)

Reader Comments and Retorts

Support BBTF

Bookmarks

Hot Topics