It’s no coincidence that Duque’s last start came on September 11 ...

I thought this sentence was going in a completely different direction.

Panic FTW!

I thought this sentence was going in a completely different direction.

I thought the same thing about this one:

Kevin Mulvey (Villanova) seems to be coming fast

Man, I keep having problems differentiating between my thinking voice and my typing voice ...

The General Tone of This Thread Needs Improvement.

From the perspective of a fan, who does not care about how much money the team owners make or don't make, is it really hard to suggest what players to get or get rid of?

is it really hard to suggest what players to get or get rid of?

The "get" part is easy; every Santana or A-Rod looks like this year's world-beater and must-have acquisition.

But in a way, the "get rid of" part is actually probably harder for the fan than it is for the GM or the owner. We have a fan's eye, sometimes emotional attachment to the player that is completely unrealistic, that may (even in this tabloid age where we learn more than we'd like to about athletes) little to do with who he really is. The team, OTOH, probably knows more about them as human beings than they would really like to, and in many instances it may be quite easy for the front office to be quite dispassionate about getting rid of a player whom the fans may be quite fond of, but whom the team may have no good feelings at all about.

Anyway, of course we should put that aside (both in considering whom we'd like our teams to acquire and dispose of). And we should factor in what we know of their budgetary limits and policies (which of course is, at least sometimes, based on limited and possibly inaccurate information -- teams have every incentive NOT to let their competitors or player agents know with any specificity how much they are willing to spend and how much of that budget they have left at any given time) when we mull over possible moves. If we don't, then while hot stove mullings can be entertaining, they end up being pretty silly in the final analysis.

Patiently waiting that Phillies melt down thread.
wouldn't miss reading that for the world.

It'll be up soon right? :)

But in a way, the "get rid of" part is actually probably harder for the fan than it is for the GM or the owner. We have a fan's eye, sometimes emotional attachment to the player that is completely unrealistic, that may (even in this tabloid age where we learn more than we'd like to about athletes) little to do with who he really is. The team, OTOH, probably knows more about them as human beings than they would really like to, and in many instances it may be quite easy for the front office to be quite dispassionate about getting rid of a player whom the fans may be quite fond of, but whom the team may have no good feelings at all about.

Or vice versa? I'm lookin' at you, Mota. :)

Humber (2004) and Pelfrey (2005) were also billed as college players whose ascent to the majors would be rapid. Well, they've reached the majors, but so far, their contribution to the franchise have been minimal. Why should we assume that Mulvey and Kunz will be any different? At the very least, we should assume that they won't make any impact on the team in 2008.

Ah, the off-season arrives again, and all the big market fans are banging the drums for all the small market stars again. It never gets old or less vaguely insulting.

good point

Ah, the off-season arrives again, and all the big market fans are banging the drums for all the small market stars again. It never gets old or less vaguely insulting.

In fairness, Santana has himself made noises about being traded, and faces free agency next winter. This isn't a random big market fan base saying, "that small market player would look good on our team. Let's trade for him so he doesn't have to live without culture or good Chinese food."

There's some good Chinese in Minneapolis, dammit.

By the time the Mets, Yankees (who after tonite's debacle certainly are now convinced that Wang is not a #1 starter) and whoever are done bidding up the price for Santana, it will likely cost 3 A level prospects to get him. As a Red Sox fan Joba, Hughes and Kennedy going for Santana would please me. I wouldn't be estatic, but that would be one dangerous trade for the Yanks.

The Pizzaman is a Minneapolis resident as well:

http://blogs.citypages.com/pizzaman/

You'd need a gun to get Santana for that.

Ah, the off-season arrives again, and all the big market fans are banging the drums for all the small market stars again. It never gets old or less vaguely insulting

and yet they fail to comprehend why they are so disliked.
They fail to understand why fans actually cheer for them to fall and bloody their nose.

#### the Mets!
#### the Yankees!
#### the Sox!

Oh...awesome...time for the fans of small market teams to ##### and moan about how unfair it is that the billionaire owners of large market teams are willing to spend while their billionaire owners just want to get rich off of revenue sharing. And yet, they fail to comprehend why they are so disliked. They fail to understand why fans actually would like for them to be contracted.

#### the Royals!
#### the Marlins!
#### the Nationals!

You forgot Pohlad's Twins, Fabian. Quite an omission.

It was probably implied.

South Florida and Washington aren't small markets. And I stopped eating Chinese food since coming to the USA.

"#### the Royals!
#### the Marlins!
#### the Nationals!"

Right back at ya.

Just a quick observation re Santana. I watched the imbeciles on "Daily News Live" and they were unanimous in saying the Mets HAD to get him, regardless of price. And every time one of them declared how necessary it was, the crawl ran the AL Central standings featuring "Minnesota 17 GB". Maybe the Twins should trade for him themselves!

As a Red Sox fan Joba, Hughes and Kennedy going for Santana would please me. I wouldn't be estatic, but that would be one dangerous trade for the Yanks.

I don't think even George in his crazy Boss prime would make that deal. Last winter, maybe, but after this year? Doubtful.

A couple of days ago Buster Olney had a blog entry on ESPN.com titled: "Santana for Reyes make sense?"..

and then yesterday there was this in Keith Law's chat:

Seth (New York): Tell me that the Johan for Reyes rumor isn't for real...

Keith Law: That wasn't a rumor - it was something a writer made up and claimed made sense for both sides, which is true if you assume Omar has an IQ of 12.

a little snidely over at the world wide leader ?

Johan for Reyes . . . made sense for both sides . . . if you assume Omar has an IQ of 12.

There are lots of reasons this is true. First, the Mets will at least have a shot at bidding on Santana if/when he becomes a FA. That shot at least makes it LESS critical to give up an asset as valuable as Jose Reyes for one additional year of Santana. Second, they have no one to replace Reyes. Third, the Mets control Reyes's rights at a remarkably reasonable price for much longer than they would control Santana -- the simple fact is that Reyes is a much more valuable asset than Santana is right now. You can say all you want that as a big-market team with massive revenues the Mets shouldn't care about cost but that is pure, unadulterated BS. Any business cares about cost, and should. The Mets should want to get the most wins they can at the cheapest price, so they will have the most dollars to spare to go out and purchase more wins. Reyes buys wins at a much cheaper price than Santana does, and after 2008, he will do so even to a more extreme degree. That difference enables the Mets to afford to buy a lot of other wins.

Now, if you want to talk about prospects, whose ability to deliver wins is unproven, then you can debate it more vigorously. Like Reyes, they are of course also cheaper than Santana. But the wins may not be there, so maybe you trade the cheap for the wins. Depending on the prospects, I might. Not mortgaging virtually the whole farm (Pelfrey, Humber, Milledge, and Gomez), the way Howard was proposing the other day. But a lot.

Now, if you want to talk about prospects, whose ability to deliver wins is unproven, then you can debate it more vigorously. Like Reyes, they are of course also cheaper than Santana. But the wins may not be there, so maybe you trade the cheap for the wins. Depending on the prospects, I might. Not mortgaging virtually the whole farm (Pelfrey, Humber, Milledge, and Gomez), the way Howard was proposing the other day. But a lot.

I'll stand beside the wisdom of Eddie Coleman any day of the week.

I will say that I find it hard to believe that any team will offer more to the Twins than Gomez/Humber/Pelfrey/Gotay- but if a team does, I think Gomez is worth the difference between having Santana and not having him.