Riccardi: We have no interest in Wilson

stro4swift · Post #21 » by **stro4swift** » Tue Jul 24, 2007 4:15 am

jalenrose#5 wrote:But with that said, I'd take Wood/Saunders anyday for him....I'd add Willilts if we add Johnson.

Yeah, I'd love that deal.

Post #22 » by **OldNo7** » Tue Jul 24, 2007 1:43 pm

Updated title after today's papers.

"We have no interest in Jack Wilson, absolutely no interest in Jack Wilson. None," he said. "I have Jack Wilson. I have John McDonald (a light-hitting, good defensive player)."

Post #23 » by **SmallTownJournalist303** » Tue Jul 24, 2007 10:17 pm

BlueJay_ wrote:-= original quote snipped =-

Maybe im undervalueing him but my offer is alot closer to reality then Brandon Wood, Reggie Willits and Saunders. Thats arguable the best 3rd best prospect in the minors, a guy whos been awesome for the Angels this season as a rookie in Willits and a decent lefty in Saunders? Im sorry but what I proposed is closer to Glaus's value then what he did. Kouzmanoff might be struggling but its just his first full season and he's already shown very good power potential and dont forget he hits in a tough ballpark to put up good stats in those cats. Put him in the Rogers center on a daily basis and his power numbers would jump nicely. Ring might not be good filler, switch him with Germano and call it a day.

I still think that package is trash, even if you replace Ring with Germano; Kouz isn't enough of a sure thing yet to justify being the centerpiece of a deal for our best hitter.
I won't like any Glaus deal unless it involves at least one top prospect coming back or a player similar to Glaus (Kouz isn't there yet).
It's also good to see that JP realizes we already have a Wilson on our roster.