NY Post: Oakland A's want outfield bats in return for Bailey

polo007 · Post #1 » by **polo007** » Thu Dec 1, 2011 5:52 pm

http://www.nypost.com/p/sports/mets/met ... 8QgrlN9x0I

The Mets are among the at least half-dozen teams that have inquired seriously about Oakland closer Andrew Bailey, a person familiar with those talks told The Post.

However, the A’s are selling high on the righty and currently do not believe the Mets have the necessary pieces to obtain Bailey, a two-time All-Star and the 2009 AL Rookie of the Year. The Reds, Rangers and Blue Jays are among the teams that are pursuing Bailey, a New Jersey native who went to college at Wagner.

Oakland has made it clear it wants bats, preferably outfield bats, for Bailey, who has 75 saves and a 2.07 ERA over three seasons. In Lucas Duda, Fernando Martinez and Kirk Nieuwenhuis, the Mets have some potential fits. But Martinez’s value has decreased with his continuing inability to stay healthy. Scouts from opposing teams see Nieuwenhuis as either a complementary starter or fourth outfielder. And, for now, Duda is the Mets’ starting right fielder and probably too valuable to them to include in a trade for a closer.

Bailey, 27, is arbitration eligible for the first time this offseason and cannot be a free agent until after the 2014 campaign.

Post #2 » by **Duffman100** » Thu Dec 1, 2011 6:26 pm

Eric Thames? Done.

silverhill27 · Post #3 » by **silverhill27** » Thu Dec 1, 2011 7:03 pm

I'd rather sign Bell (to a reasonable amount and length) than give up Thames for Bailey.

SharoneWright · Post #4 » by **SharoneWright** » Thu Dec 1, 2011 7:08 pm

In a heartbeat, Thames for Bailey.

DO NOT give in and give up Snider. It will haunt you!!!

MGD24 · Post #5 » by **MGD24** » Thu Dec 1, 2011 7:52 pm

Duffman100 wrote:Eric Thames? Done.

Obviously Toronto would do this deal...I think Oakland would want more than Thames for Bailey though.

tecumseh18 · Post #6 » by **tecumseh18** » Thu Dec 1, 2011 8:07 pm

MGD24 wrote:
Duffman100 wrote:Eric Thames? Done.

Obviously Toronto would do this deal...I think Oakland would want more than Thames for Bailey though.

Thames and Cooper? Done.

Kapono · Post #7 » by **Kapono** » Thu Dec 1, 2011 9:42 pm

Thames + Hech + Cooper

Get'r done BC!!!

errrgh I mean AA

SharoneWright · Post #8 » by **SharoneWright** » Thu Dec 1, 2011 9:49 pm

tecumseh18 wrote:
MGD24 wrote:
Duffman100 wrote:Eric Thames? Done.

Obviously Toronto would do this deal...I think Oakland would want more than Thames for Bailey though.

Thames and Cooper? Done.

Seal the deal by throwing in Garrett Mock.

Post #9 » by **Duffman100** » Thu Dec 1, 2011 10:16 pm

MGD24 wrote:
Duffman100 wrote:Eric Thames? Done.

Obviously Toronto would do this deal...I think Oakland would want more than Thames for Bailey though.

Sssssh.

Weems · Post #10 » by **Weems** » Thu Dec 1, 2011 10:39 pm

How many bullpen aces do the Rangers need? They have about 12 of them.

LBJSeizedMyID · Post #11 » by **LBJSeizedMyID** » Thu Dec 1, 2011 11:20 pm

They developed their homegrown talent quite well, assume that their payroll somewhere in the middle? Allows them to splurge a bit on the relievers.

Al_Oliver · Post #12 » by **Al_Oliver** » Thu Dec 1, 2011 11:37 pm

they need to extend Hamilton soon...

Post #13 » by **OldNo7** » Fri Dec 2, 2011 3:35 am

Kapono wrote:Thames + Hech + Cooper

Get'r done BC!!!

errrgh I mean AA

Dumbest post I've read in awhile. We are not trading Hech.

Thames + Cooper, yes. Thames + a pitching prospect (Norris?), sure. Maybe they want Fahrquar again? lol

vaff87 · Post #14 » by **vaff87** » Fri Dec 2, 2011 3:59 am

OldNo7 wrote:
Kapono wrote:Thames + Hech + Cooper

Get'r done BC!!!

errrgh I mean AA

Dumbest post I've read in awhile. We are not trading Hech.

Thames + Cooper, yes. Thames + a pitching prospect (Norris?), sure. Maybe they want Fahrquar again? lol

Norris can't be traded as far as I know(going by the old CBA - don't know if there was a change n the new one in that regard).

I say Thames and Moises Sierra. Neither really have long-term homes with the Jays, it seems.

Post #15 » by **OldNo7** » Fri Dec 2, 2011 11:28 am

vaff87 wrote:
OldNo7 wrote:
Kapono wrote:Thames + Hech + Cooper

Get'r done BC!!!

errrgh I mean AA

Dumbest post I've read in awhile. We are not trading Hech.

Thames + Cooper, yes. Thames + a pitching prospect (Norris?), sure. Maybe they want Fahrquar again? lol

Norris can't be traded as far as I know(going by the old CBA - don't know if there was a change n the new one in that regard).

I say Thames and Moises Sierra. Neither really have long-term homes with the Jays, it seems.

He could be a PTBNL until he can be traded 1 year after. But at least you get my drift on what we should be giving up.

Post #16 » by **Schad** » Fri Dec 2, 2011 11:56 am

OldNo7 wrote:He could be a PTBNL until he can be traded 1 year after. But at least you get my drift on what we should be giving up.

He can't be a PTBNL until mid-February, actually; there's a six month maximum on the clause, and Norris won't be trade-eligible until one year after his signing date.

Don't think that I'd do it for that kind of value, either. There are two primary concerns about Bailey: his health, and his increasing reliance on his fastball. The two might be linked...it's not uncommon for players who've come off arm injuries to favour their fastball, which generally places less stress on the elbow, but at 75%+ usage it has to be one hell of a pitch.

Wally West · Post #17 » by **Wally West** » Sat Dec 3, 2011 3:40 pm

Someone please explain to me why we'd even entertain the notion of trading Daniel Norris this early in his career? He hasn't even pitched an inning of minor league ball yet.

Relentless88 · Post #18 » by **Relentless88** » Sat Dec 3, 2011 8:19 pm

I wouldn't trade Norris. Oakland can have Thames though, and Cooper if they want.

Post #19 » by **OldNo7** » Sat Dec 3, 2011 11:38 pm

blackflash234 wrote:Someone please explain to me why we'd even entertain the notion of trading Daniel Norris this early in his career? He hasn't even pitched an inning of minor league ball yet.

I was merely using it at as an example of the calibre player we could be willing to deal and the A's would be interested in obtaining because they are a new stadium away from contending still.

rarefind · Post #20 » by **rarefind** » Sat Dec 3, 2011 11:44 pm

Jays can't even trade Norris if they wanted to, have to wait a year after the draft.