Jump to content

2019 MLB Discussion


rico

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 4.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply
55 minutes ago, rico said:

If Suarez played for a contender he would be in the MVP discussion.  .271/47 HR/100 RBI, what were the Tigers thinking when they traded him?

No doubt but I find it hard to believe with that many homers he only has 100 RBI.  It just shows that majority of his RBI is on HR but that is not unusual for todays game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, rico said:

If Suarez played for a contender he would be in the MVP discussion.  .271/47 HR/100 RBI, what were the Tigers thinking when they traded him?

Regarding why they traded him. Dangers of sometimes being good at drafting players. I think the Tigers had so many good infield players/prospects they thought one was dispensable. Similar to when Cubs traded Gleyber Torres. Infield was loaded with Russell, Baez, Zobrist,etc....and we traded him for a title. If you give up a great prospect it better have great return. For the Cubs it did. Tigers...not so much. Guess it's under the win some lose some category.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, IU Scott said:

No doubt but I find it hard to believe with that many homers he only has 100 RBI.  It just shows that majority of his RBI is on HR but that is not unusual for todays game.

Well he had 34/104 last year.  I surmise there just ain't guys getting on in fron of him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Seeking6 said:

Regarding why they traded him. Dangers of sometimes being good at drafting players. I think the Tigers had so many good infield players/prospects they thought one was dispensable. Similar to when Cubs traded Gleyber Torres. Infield was loaded with Russell, Baez, Zobrist,etc....and we traded him for a title. If you give up a great prospect it better have great return. For the Cubs it did. Tigers...not so much. Guess it's under the win some lose some category.

But, but for Alfredo Simon?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Seeking6 said:

Regarding why they traded him. Dangers of sometimes being good at drafting players. I think the Tigers had so many good infield players/prospects they thought one was dispensable. Similar to when Cubs traded Gleyber Torres. Infield was loaded with Russell, Baez, Zobrist,etc....and we traded him for a title. If you give up a great prospect it better have great return. For the Cubs it did. Tigers...not so much. Guess it's under the win some lose some category.

Actually I think they traded Suarez because he was a short stop and they already had Inglesias so they traded him.  It is ironic now that the Reds have both of those players and they have been their best hitters all year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, IU Scott said:

Actually I think they traded Suarez because he was a short stop and they already had Inglesias so they traded him.  It is ironic now that the Reds have both of those players and they have been their best hitters all year.

Yep. It is funny how that all worked out. Just imagine if the Reds who made that call made the right calls with Chapman, Cueto, and Votto to an extent. Reds could be loaded.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Seeking6 said:

Agree. 5 years later it looks like crap but at the time? I love the Tigers. They gave us Castellanos for nothing. Gave us a chance to salvage this season.

Simon was coming off a career year, 15-10 and an AS appearance...played one year with the Tigers and then re-signed with the Reds.  Not only did the Reds get Geno but they got the Big Pasta back as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Seeking6 said:

Yep. It is funny how that all worked out. Just imagine if the Reds who made that call made the right calls with Chapman, Cueto, and Votto to an extent. Reds could be loaded.

They got absolutely  nothing for Chapman and Cueto.  You trade that caliber of player you should get at least two top prospects for each of those guys.  I also believe that Votto's contract has been a big hindrance to the organization as well.  There are still 4 years left on his contract and he is already 36 years old. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, IU Scott said:

They got absolutely  nothing for Chapman and Cueto.  You trade that caliber of player you should get at least two top prospects for each of those guys.  I also believe that Votto's contract has been a big hindrance to the organization as well.  There are still 4 years left on his contract and he is already 36 years old. 

How about Yasmani Grandal, Yonder Alonso, Brad Boxberger, and Edison Volquez from the Reds to the Padres for one Matt Latos?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, rico said:

It was a terrible trade that many Reds fans sweep under the carpet.

For a couple of years I thought it was a very good trade. Alonso could not play the OF and he was not going to take Votto's place.  Boxberger had a couple of good years but is pretty much out of the league.  Grandal the last 3 years has been pretty good so I don't think it was a big loss on any of those players.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, IU Scott said:

For a couple of years I thought it was a very good trade. Alonso could not play the OF and he was not going to take Votto's place.  Boxberger had a couple of good years but is pretty much out of the league.  Grandal the last 3 years has been pretty good so I don't think it was a big loss on any of those players.

Kind of funny.  All 4 players the Reds gave up made the AS team...Latos never did.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, rico said:

As I said, swept under the carpet.  And he is the mofo that melted down against the Giants in game 5.  Bad trade.

Latos also was the one that came in game one of that series when Cueto went out hurt and pitched a great game.  Also being up 2-0 an going home for 3 there shouldn't have been a game 5 of that series.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, IU Scott said:

Latos also was the one that came in game one of that series when Cueto went out hurt and pitched a great game.  Also being up 2-0 an going home for 3 there shouldn't have been a game 5 of that series.

WTH is your point there?  Get back to the 4 players the Reds gave up became AS's...Latos never did.

I am starting to think you would argue with a bag in a grocery story if wasn't along your line of thinking....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, rico said:

WTH is your point there?  Get back to the 4 players the Reds gave up became AS's...Latos never did.

I am starting to think you would argue with a bag in a grocery story if wasn't along your line of thinking....

I just don't think that trade was bad, that's all and you would never know if they would made the AS.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




×
×
  • Create New...