10 Best MLB Trades Of 2007

I loved the Back to the Future reference.

To comment on the Gio fleecing, I'd say it's pretty reasonable that Floyd won't be apart of the Sox rotation for a while, or even a smaller amount of time. He could never handle it in the NL, even though he generally pitched well in the minors. I don't get what makes people think he can do it in the AL. I'm not trying to come off as condescending, I just don't see it happening.

To comment on the Heath Bell deal, that guy just flat out sucked when on the Mets. He would go down to AAA and close and be good, then come back up and get rocked and then sent back down, he was constantly complaining, and nobody cared when he was traded. Adkins had a decent year in the pen last year, and this year he stunk, so Omar loses that one, even though the loss of Heath Bell means nothing to the Mets. Same thing with Ring. The Burgos/ Bannister swap is a little bit different. I think I speak for most Mets fans when I say I am shocked how well Bannister is performing after watching him pitch last year. He found a way to win, but wasnt over powering, had decent secondary stuff, and struggled with his control (albeit that was supposed to be his strength.). I hope he does well because he was a good kid and I wish him the best, but I really think that overtime he will not have close to the success he has had this year. Burgos still has a ton of upside, but I can say this again, like I said about Bell. This is more of a win for KC, who needed Bannister more then the Mets did, then it is a loss for the Mets. Bannisters presense in the royal rotation has helped KC a lot this year, but his absense from the Mets rotation has not hurt them. Good move by Moore, and time will tell with Burgos. I believe he is still only 23. These were low risk/high reward type deals for Omar, who knew even if these guys ended up busts we were trading from a surplus at that position. Before the year Bannister probably was on the same level as a guy like Vargas or Chan Ho park in terms of chance to get a rotation spot.

"Williams has taken a lot of heat this year but he might've acquired 40% of his rotation for the next few years with his perfect timing on this one. "
To anyone who has seen Floyd Pitch, is is clear he doesnt have a spot in any rotation but when you say the Mets not having Bannister has not hurt them you are certainly wrong. The amount of wins he would be good for over the Mets 5th starter would be large.

And Nrmax- your post wasnt COMPLETELY retarded considering you wrote it however

That's a silly thing to say about Heath Bell. That he was good in the minors and not the Majors probably just means they didn't give him enough of a chance. He was fine in 24 innings in '04, then posted bad ERAs and great K/BBs in 83 innings thereafter.

The Mets would LOVE to have Heath Bell right now.

Floyd wont be the ace that he was predicted to be coming out of the minors, but having seen him pitch, his arm is very good and he should be a fine # 4-5 in a good rotation, and be able to keep his era in the 4.60-5 area. Yes, he's a bust, but it's hard to believe he wont atleast be a solid back end of the rotation kinda guy, his last few starts have been very good.

I have to comment on the Hamilton deal. If the Reds hadn't call the Cubs and ask them to take Hamilton and deal him to them, the Cubs would have passed on their spot in the Rule V Draft. To assume the Cubs would have kept Hamilton, even without the Reds asking a favor, is ludacris. Yeah, I would like the Cubs to have kept Hamilton, but the Cubs had no intentions of it.

It's funny that the rapper ludacris has taken over as the most common spellig of the word.

Anyway I said at top that at the time of these deals many of us did not expect them to turn out like this.

That doesn't change the fact that Hamilton was a huge steal for the Reds and the Cubs facilitated it. Doesn't matter if none of us objected at the time. It's still the best trade of the year.

And the Cubs having no intention of keeping Hamilton...how does that help your case?

"Maybe only Krivsky saw that coming, but that's why we're giving him props here."

that's a good point on the hamilton deal after rereading it. i guess that's what consistitutes a really good deal is that he saw something that no one else did and took and took a chance. krivskys had an up and down run as the reds gm, but that was a wise gamble

How about the Orioles getting Moore and Cherry for Trachsel?

I don't think the Sheffield deal is too good. I guess it's ok, in that it filled a need and when he's been in the lineup, Sheff has been pretty good, but not worth much more than his salary. But TJ surgery for Sanchez aside, the Yankees got a good return. And I know we're judging just the trade, but the ridiculous extension has to offset any positives from the trade.

About Bannister - come on, just admit you got hosed on that deal. I know you love the Mets and all, but seriously. Here, I'll show you how to admit your team made a bad decision: "Kei Igawa sucks." It's not that hard.

come on nrmax88 ... the post is about trades as they stand today. Bannister would be anchoring your staff right now.

The entire Mets pitching staff has put up a 4.06 ERA w/ a 1.35 WHIP. Brian Bannister stands at 3.39 for an ERA and 1.17 for a WHIP. That would place him ahead of ALL starting Mets pitchers (of those that have started 25 games or more).

Don't get me started about adjusting for league differentials. The fact is that Brian Bannister would have been a tremendous asset to the Mets this year.

Bell has out-pitched every reliever on the Mets. His ERA is lower than Wagners and is a full run under Heilman's. To suggest that he wouldn't have helped this year is silly.

nrmax - a few comments:

1) Paragraphs and line breaks = good. "LMAO" and "ROFL" = bad.

2) God, seriously. You wouldn't undo the Bannister trade? The loss of Bell means nothing? So you're happy with Brian Lawrence starting games, and a different member of the pen blowing them each night?

3) Explain how Bannister's season has been lucky? Actually I agree to an extent - his BABIP is a bit low, and his FIP is around 4. In the AL. Which still makes him a very good pitcher. Let's not talk about luck (cough cough, John Maine). Oh wait, I forgot, his 2nd half has gone exactly as the first half should have - Mets fans are already painfully aware about luck.

Now, I understand you're upset because the Mets are in the process of blowing the division, but really, you should stop here for a chance of maintaining any semblance of respect that people have for you on this site.

I'm sorry to tell you this, but, if you think the Mets are better off WITHOUT Bannister, you're crazy. One of these days (in the not too distant future) there will be no more Pedro, no more Glavine & no more El Duque pitching for the Mets. I would bet Minaya would love to have him back.

I'd be curious to know if you think Minaya has made ANY bad trades as Mets GM?

First of all I'd like to say this is my first post here. As far as Bannister goes I don't think his numbers would have been that different if he was with the Mets. Both the divisions are fairly similar with mostly pitchers parks and three good offenses. Plus he would have been good to have around when Pedro was out. Plus most of the Mets rotation is going to be retiring soon.

what about milton bradley...scott hairston, etc.

Nrmax, I'm just curious to see how a top 3 pitching coach, as you have stated numerous times, could not get Brian Bannister and Heath Bell to realize their potential at the major league level?

While I agree that for the format of this discussion, the Josh Hamilton deal deserves to be at the top of the list, it is irrelevant to picture Hamilton in the Cubs' outfield, because there was never any consideration of him ending up there. Jim Hendry did nothing wrong by taking cash to throw some drug addict at a division rival. And while Hamilton has been good on the road, he is still a GAB-improved product with an OPS that is 128 points higher at home.

While I do agree that the Sox won the Danks trade, I think we have to give that one some time to say it officially.

The Hamilton deal is completely different then the Bannister deal for one big reason -- the Cubs probably NEVER truly had the rights to Hamilton. I am sure that the Reds asked the Cubs for the rights to their pick in the rule V draft in exchange for cash. Since the Cubs were not planning to make a rule V pick, they agreed. Once the deal was in place (and not until then) the Reds told them to take Hamilton with the pick. At this point the only way the Cubs could have kept Hamilton would have been to then say, "hey thats a good idea, why don't we keep him" and completely back out of a deal already in place. The Reds would not have tipped their hand and said who they wanted without a deal in place and the Cubs could not back out of a done deal without losing a ton of credibility.

Now if you want to say the Cubs should have known he was out there and drafted him, that is another story. But you have to add a bunch of other teams to that list. The D-Rays, who traded the first overall pick in the Rule V draft to the A's (and left Hamilton off their 40 man roster) and the A's themselves who took Ryan Goleski with the first pick(who they then later gave back to Cleveland). Both could have had Hamilton the same as the Cubs and did not take him, same as the Cubs.

It just does not seem quite correct to say the trade was "Hamilton for cash" when in reality what the Cubs were trading was "their rule V selection for cash". I know that selection turned out to be Hamilton, but really this is more a case of the Reds making a really good rule V selection -- the fact that the Cubs pick made the selection does not really matter at this point.

There is no sequence of events, based on what the Cubs were planning to do during the rule V draft, that could have led to Hamilton being a Cub. So you can say they should have made a better rule V selection (which puts them in the same boat as a number of other teams that passed on Hamilton) or you can say the Reds made a great rule V pick -- but you cannot say the Cubs made a bad trade.

Tim, do you think that the Pads' got Milton Bradley at such a discount in part as payment for the Cust trade?

I just don't think it's a coincidence that you have two teams essentially getting a bargain from each other like that.

I think we can close the book on the WORST trade of 2007....Is there ANT chance Theo sees those precious Gagne draft picks? No.

Should've made the Dye-Masterson trade.

And not to beat a dead horse, but Heath Bell had a BABIP of .394 last year. .394! That's crazy!

What's more crazy? .22 HR/FB.

This isn't to say he was just as good last here - he has cut his LD% and increased his K rate a bit.

Anyone could have spent 30 seconds looking at these stats and saw that the hits and allowed and ERA from 2006 don't tell the whole story. And ERA aside, you've still got a guy striking out a batter per inning with a K/BB ratio greater than 3!

Sadly Minaya had no clue and wanted to give him away....oh well.