Jays in the hunt for Fuentes

dagger · Post #1 » by **dagger** » Fri Jan 7, 2011 11:44 pm

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... :lol:

DonYon · Post #2 » by **DonYon** » Sat Jan 8, 2011 12:34 am

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

Post #3 » by **Nolan** » Sat Jan 8, 2011 12:41 am

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

No doubt.

hyper316 · Post #4 » by **hyper316** » Sat Jan 8, 2011 12:53 am

draft pick?

Avenger · Post #5 » by **Avenger** » Sat Jan 8, 2011 1:48 am

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

rarefind · Post #6 » by **rarefind** » Sat Jan 8, 2011 2:21 am

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

CapeCrusader · Post #7 » by **CapeCrusader** » Sat Jan 8, 2011 3:45 am

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

wlujaysfan55 · Post #8 » by **wlujaysfan55** » Sat Jan 8, 2011 4:17 am

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.

Post #9 » by **OldNo7** » Sat Jan 8, 2011 4:56 am

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

DonYon · Post #10 » by **DonYon** » Sat Jan 8, 2011 6:04 am

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?

Raps in 4 · Post #11 » by **Raps in 4** » Sat Jan 8, 2011 6:19 am

I doubt we're seriously pursuing him.

Post #12 » by **Schad** » Sat Jan 8, 2011 9:58 am

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.

Post #13 » by **OldNo7** » Sat Jan 8, 2011 1:52 pm

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.

DonYon · Post #14 » by **DonYon** » Sat Jan 8, 2011 4:23 pm

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.

baulderdash77 · Post #15 » by **baulderdash77** » Sat Jan 8, 2011 5:14 pm

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.

Post #16 » by **Schad** » Sat Jan 8, 2011 6:24 pm

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.

kelso · Post #17 » by **kelso** » Sun Jan 9, 2011 9:52 pm

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"?

Post #18 » by **Schad** » Sun Jan 9, 2011 11:03 pm

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.

dagger · Post #19 » by **dagger** » Thu Jan 13, 2011 3:34 am

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.

dagger · Post #20 » by **dagger** » Thu Jan 13, 2011 4:03 am

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.