Rett Johnson
John Delahanty
untouchables (minor league) were CLINT NAGEOTTE, TRAVIS BLACKLEY, JOSE LOPEZ,
and FELIX HERNANDEZ.
What happened to RETT JOHNSON?
John
Joe
news:20030809134637...@mb-m29.aol.com:
He has put up some great numbers in the minors but he has never been
considered a top prospect. His upside is thought to be limited.
--
VOTE: Become A Weapon of Mass Dissent.
Pete Livengood
I wondered the same thing, John (but then again, it isn't like Gillick
went out and traded Johnson, either). I also wondered why Hernandez
is on the list. As good (great) as he is, he is a 17-year-old pitcher
who is in short-season A ball. I can see making pitchers who will
definitely help you in the next two years (and maybe even later *this*
year) "untouchable" but Hernandez is probably at least four years away
from MLB. A lot can happen to a young pitcher in that time.
Pete
Jason Michael Barker
> He has put up some great numbers in the minors but he has never been
> considered a top prospect. His upside is thought to be limited.
If by "top prospect" you mean a #1 or #2 guy, then yeah, I suppose not.
He's been a solid top 10 (or even top 5) guy in the system for a few years
now, though. David Cameron's got him at #5 as of August 1st; Baseball
America had him at #8 this winter.
In any event, I've seen him more than once and IMO he has the slider and
fastball to pitch in the majors right now.
--
Jason Michael Barker
http://ussmariner.blogspot.com
Exclusive home of the Big Board and the Future Forty
John Delahanty
>From: Joe joe...@combatspam.com
>Date: 8/9/2003 12:10 PM Pacific Standard Time
[Rett Johnson]
>He has put up some great numbers in the minors but he has never been
>considered a top prospect. His upside is thought to be limited.
"Upside limited ? (Like GIL MECHE's?)
I realize that three of those four players are rated higher than JOHNSON,
but FELIX HERNANDEZ?
Since when is a top pitching prospect in ssa ball * rated higher than a top
pitching prospect in AAA ball?
I guess that inasmuch as he supposedly was included in that BOONE-GARCIA
package, that Johnson is not untouchable.
I'd just like to know why.
________
*If HERNANDEZ makes normal progress--a classification promotion per year--his
ETA is 2008.
Most talent evaluators don't consider someone with such a far-away ETA to be
untouchable.
John
>
Hsberman
Cardinals wanted to trade Pujols for Nageotte AND Blakeley, I think they would
suddenly become very touchable.
I think a team uses that phrase to make it clear that they player is not a
throw-in minor leaguer, but rather a player worth close to a good major
leaguer, since he is projected to be a VERY good major leaguer.
All the more reason why a short-season A player should not really be in the
category, since one cannot project a player that low to be VERY good. Junior
and Alex never had to play at that level, yes?
Henry
John Delahanty
>From: hsbe...@aol.com (Hsberman)
>Date: 8/9/2003 6:33 PM Pacific Standard Time
>I think the word "untouchable" is used a bit loosely. For example, if the
>Cardinals wanted to trade Pujols for Nageotte AND Blakeley, I think they
>would
>suddenly become very touchable.
I think you may be wrong.
It's 9 AM, Mon., Aug. 11; and I'm listening to Mitch (KJR) replay that
interview.
Gillick DID say that he would not trade any of those four under any
circumstances.
Mitch then expressed his opinion--quite widely held, btw-- that you trade
anything to get the missing piece that will put you over the top.
The only example I can think of--of what Gillick would do in such a
situation--is the one referred to by the ever-popular Mike Schmidt.
A while back, the Pirates wanted RYAN ANDERSON and GIL MECHE for BRIAN
GILES.
"You jump through the phone to make such a deal," wrote Schmidt.
I really think that if Gillick were offered PEDRO MARTINEZ for one of those
players, Gillick would say, "Sorry; he's untouchable."
"Besides, we like the team we have."
>I think a team uses that phrase to make it clear that they player is not a
>throw-in minor leaguer, but rather a player worth close to a good major
>leaguer, since he is projected to be a VERY good major leaguer.
I think you're right on this--most of the time (29/30).
>All the more reason why a short-season A player should not really be in the
>category, since one cannot project a player that low to be VERY good.
A ssa player probably isn't--in 29/30 instances.
John
John Delahanty
>From: "Pete Livengood" p.liv...@nospam.comcast.net
John Delahanty said:
>> In one of his recent interviews, PAT GILLICK stated that
>> the Mariner untouchables (minor league) were CLINT
>> NAGEOTTE, TRAVIS BLACKLEY, JOSE LOPEZ,
>> and FELIX HERNANDEZ.
And asked:
>> What happened to RETT JOHNSON?
>I wondered the same thing, John (but then again, it isn't like Gillick
>went out and traded Johnson, either).
According to reports, it wasn't for lack of trying.
John
nospam Brian Thornton
John,
I'm curious about something. You cite the requested package of
Meche/Anderson in exchange for Giles above. That was what? Last year
or the year before?
Yet here we are, in 2003 and Giles is still a Pirate. Since Gillick
isn't biting on what the Pirates want, does that make him unwilling to
deal, or simply unwilling to 'over-pay'? After all, Giles is an RBI
machine, and every contender in both leagues for the past couple of
years has either peceived itself to be a 'big bat' short
(Steinbrenner, for example, is never shy about getting a move made),
or actually been a 'big bat' short (like the M's). Teams in both
leagues have come calling about Giles. None of them has been
interested in paying the price the Pirates were asking for him, year
after year. Are they all just being penny wise/pound foolish, or are
the expectations of the Pirates just completely unreasonable? What's
more, what role does Giles' limited no-trade clause play in this?
I've never heard it mentioned before this year.
Just curious.
Go M's,
Brian
Pete Livengood
>
> . . . [H]ere we are, in 2003 and Giles is still a Pirate. Since
> Gillick isn't biting on what the Pirates want, does that make
> him unwilling to deal, or simply unwilling to 'over-pay'? After
> all, Giles is an RBI machine, and every contender in both
> to be a 'big bat' short . . . [and] have come calling about Giles.
> None of them has been interested in paying the price the
> Pirates were asking for him, year after year. Are they all
> just being penny wise/pound foolish, or are the expectations
> of the Pirates just completely unreasonable?
I think this is a good, and fair question. From my perspective, there
is no question that the Pirates have been asking a steep price, and
well they should, because Giles is under contract at what is a
reasonable rate for his production. I thought the price would
decrease a little this year, because Giles is 32 now and has had some
injury problems this year -- a much different scenario than getting
him in 2000 or 2001, or whenever it was that the M's first started
putting out feelers for him.
I wouldn't say the M's were penny wise/pound foolish, but the analysis
they should be making *should* include how close their current squad's
window is to closing. When it is almost closed -- and especially when
the race is close and the need is so glaring, and would be
well-filled -- I think you need to be more willing to overpay than you
would otherwise. Still, I am not disappointed that the M's didn't
meet the Pirates' price this year, particularly if it included taking
Kendall's contract as well. That's *too much* overpaying.
> What's more, what role does Giles' limited no-trade clause
> play in this? I've never heard it mentioned before this year.
It came up last year, as well, and Giles was quoted (actually, closer
to "paraphrased") last year as saying he would accept a trade to
Seattle. This year, the rumor was that he forestalled preliminary
trade discussions with both Seattle and Oakland by indicating he would
not accept a trade to those teams. Giles denied that, but he has
often indicated a preference to stay in the National League it could
be true in some form if he thought a deal to San Diego (where he is
from) or Atlanta (where his brother plays) was imminent. It wouldn't
shock me to learn that it has played a pretty big role in why nothing
has been done over the last couple of years.
Pete
M. S. Burton
> Giles denied that, but he has often indicated a preference to stay in
> the National League it could be true in some form if he thought a deal
> to San Diego (where he is from) or Atlanta (where his brother plays) was
> imminent.
the general consensus is that over the off-season the Padres & Pirates
will finalize the deal they discussed through July. It was going to be
Pittsburgh sending Giles, Kendall and almost half of Kendall's remaining
salary for Oliver Perez, Xavier Nady, Kevin Jarvis & another minor league
pitcher, but SD wants to keep Perez, so discussions continue....