RealGM

http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2011/01/b ... um=twitter

$5 million per year, multiple years, for a 35 year old left handed reliever. Thought we had one of those for a million less...

what the shizzle... why didn't we just keep scott downs then?

DonYon wrote:what the shizzle... why didn't we just keep scott downs then?

No doubt.

draft pick?

DonYon wrote:what the shizzle... why didn't we just keep scott downs then?

the two draft picks? and the chance of getting another two draft picks next year for Fuentes or trade for something useful at the trade deadline

makes perfect sense to me, get those draft picks. and essentially, downs needs to be replaced.

It would be a win win situation. Draft Pick(s) and our relief pitching would be pretty solid.

Avenger wrote:

DonYon wrote:what the shizzle... why didn't we just keep scott downs then?

the two draft picks? and the chance of getting another two draft picks next year for Fuentes or trade for something useful at the trade deadline

rumour is he's looking for a multi-year deal - 2 or 3 years.

What pick would we be giving up? Is Fuentes not a Type A?

wlujaysfan55 wrote:

Avenger wrote:the two draft picks? and the chance of getting another two draft picks next year for Fuentes or trade for something useful at the trade deadline

rumour is he's looking for a multi-year deal - 2 or 3 years.

exactly... plus he's type A so we would surrender a pick as well. Essentially it would be Fuentes + sandwich pick for Scott Downs which isn't exactly a genius move imo since I think Downs is a better choice than Fuentes in every way imaginable. Also, didn't Downs sign the exact same contract that Fuentes is supposedly seeking?

I doubt we're seriously pursuing him.

DonYon wrote:what the shizzle... why didn't we just keep scott downs then?

The draft picks, and the fact that it's a pretty large assumption that Downs would have re-signed anyway? There's also a misconception that Fuentes will cost a draft pick. He was only Type B anyway, and the Twins declined to offer arbitration...in either case, he costs nothing.


So if the worst thing that happens is that we get a pitcher comparable to Downs at the same price, picking up two high draft picks and getting an asset that can be easily flipped, I'm good with it. I'm also good with not signing Fuentes, for that matter.

Schadenfreude wrote:

DonYon wrote:what the shizzle... why didn't we just keep scott downs then?

The draft picks, and the fact that it's a pretty large assumption that Downs would have re-signed anyway? There's also a misconception that Fuentes will cost a draft pick. He was only Type B anyway, and the Twins declined to offer arbitration...in either case, he costs nothing.


So if the worst thing that happens is that we get a pitcher comparable to Downs at the same price, picking up two high draft picks and getting an asset that can be easily flipped, I'm good with it. I'm also good with not signing Fuentes, for that matter.

Thanks for clarifying. I am now a fan of this move. Obviously wouldnt be heart broken if it didnt happen.

Schadenfreude wrote:
The draft picks, and the fact that it's a pretty large assumption that Downs would have re-signed anyway? There's also a misconception that Fuentes will cost a draft pick. He was only Type B anyway, and the Twins declined to offer arbitration...in either case, he costs nothing.


So if the worst thing that happens is that we get a pitcher comparable to Downs at the same price, picking up two high draft picks and getting an asset that can be easily flipped, I'm good with it. I'm also good with not signing Fuentes, for that matter.

oh okay, didn't realize his arb was declined although I would argue he isn't exactly 'easy' to flip if he signs a multi-year deal, and I don't think it's safe to count on him being a ranked free agent 3 years down the road.

He's a solid pickup. We really need a guy in our BP who can get out lefties. It's probably our #1 overall team weakness right now. We can platoon him with Dotel as our closer. Dotel against righties and Fuentes against lefties.

DonYon wrote:oh okay, didn't realize his arb was declined although I would argue he isn't exactly 'easy' to flip if he signs a multi-year deal, and I don't think it's safe to count on him being a ranked free agent 3 years down the road.

He'd be easy to flip unless he gets injured. Good left-handed relievers --and Fuentes is one of the best non-LOOGY lefties in the league -- are always in high demand.

Schadenfreude wrote:

DonYon wrote:oh okay, didn't realize his arb was declined although I would argue he isn't exactly 'easy' to flip if he signs a multi-year deal, and I don't think it's safe to count on him being a ranked free agent 3 years down the road.

He'd be easy to flip unless he gets injured. Good left-handed relievers --and Fuentes is one of the best non-LOOGY lefties in the league -- are always in high demand.

What is "non-LOOGY"?

kelso wrote:

Schadenfreude wrote:

DonYon wrote:oh okay, didn't realize his arb was declined although I would argue he isn't exactly 'easy' to flip if he signs a multi-year deal, and I don't think it's safe to count on him being a ranked free agent 3 years down the road.

He'd be easy to flip unless he gets injured. Good left-handed relievers --and Fuentes is one of the best non-LOOGY lefties in the league -- are always in high demand.

What is "non-LOOGY"?

A LOOGY is a Lefty One-Out Guy...the Arthur Rhodes types who come in to face a left-handed batter or two and depart. Fuentes is a full-inning sort, with something of a platoon split (100 OPS career) but capable of getting out righties, and thus a very good eighth/ninth inning option.

Well,we're still in the hunt if not leading it

From JonHeyman

word is, #bluejays are pressing for fuentes, who'll get a multiyear deal from someone.

LottOnBaseball
… big risk for age 35, when some relievers fall off the face of the earth. Maybe one year + option, but he apparently wants more.