Jocketty Names Five Untouchable Reds

I wouldn't trade Phillips either, he is a stud. I agree all those players shouldn't be traded in most cases.

Color me shocked that F.Cordero is available. 4/46 for a ehhh closer, and he's available??? No WAY!

you cant trade a draft pick in MLB

Phillips and Harang

*not on the list

I would love to see the yankees go for Phillips/Harang for Cano/prospects package

agreed why would the reds trade phillips and harang for cano when phillips is a better 2nd baseman than cano unless the prospects are some very good ones but this list is a joke phillips is going nowhere

Thus continues the Reds line of poor GMs.

Any GM that thinks Encaracion is untouchable should be fired on the spot.

The other four I'm fine with add Harang, Phillips, perhaps Cordero and I rather resign Dunn then deal him as well.

"yuck, really? you do know those "prospect packages" are going to one way or the other include kennedy?"
fine with me, im not exactly on the kennedy bandwagon. i think they should have traded him and prospects for johan.

"agreed why would the reds trade phillips and harang for cano when phillips is a better 2nd baseman than cano unless the prospects are some very good ones but this list is a joke phillips is going nowhere "
Cano is a very good second baseman. the yankees have a deep farm system and could give up some prospects to get these guys to help them win this season.

"i honestly think the yankees should not trade for anything and wait until july to see if maybe, even though the heavens would fall, call it a season and plan for next year by trading away pettitte, matsui (since damon is finally coming around for the yanks) and giambi if they can find a way to move him for some prospects."
ok, obviously you havent been paying attention to the yankees the past decade plus. there is no way that they become sellers. they just won 7 straight. they need starting pitching depth and maybe one solid reliever, Street maybe?.

"Phillips to the Dodgers for Andre Ethier and a draft pick."

Aside from the obvious about the draft pick, it doesn't really make much sense. The Dodgers MAYBE have a need at 2B next year, but it looks like they may well convert one or the other of DeWitt or LaRoche. This year, they have $9 million sunk on a still productive Jeff Kent who is somehow playing his best defense in years this year. As for the Reds, Phillips has been more productive than Ethier at the plate despite being right handed and a bit swing happy, and this is while batting out of place at cleanup. Both are excellent defensive players. Doesn't really make sense at this point.

“Aside from the obvious about the draft pick, it doesn't really make much sense”
…Hence my requesting others to not feed the Troll. If you think about the situation, I think a couple things are visible:

~ Person is new to the board, or doesn’t post often (or atleast from my understanding)
~ Person has limited knowledge of game, or just doesn’t care to get facts straight in a possible attempt to cause controversy. (DPs cant be traded)
~ Person has limited knowledge of the teams, or again doest care to get the facts straight. (Dodgers don’t need 2B or SS after Furcal is back this year ~ Reds don’t need OFers)
~ Person didn’t pose statement as a question though ~ possibly a typo, but most likely a sign of confidence in statement despite the above errors
~ Person chooses a screen-name honoring a humorous or problematic side of a player. (ask ArodSucksAtLife, he will probably admit he posts in a fashion similar to the one his moniker implies)
~ Persons comment was directly against the one above it (“I wouldn't trade Phillips either, he is a stud.” By Gogo) despite the fact Phillips wasn’t mentioned in the original thread, and his being only the second poster.
~ the persons other comments elseware: (that I saw atleast)
“C.C. and Borowski to the Dodgers for kershaw and juan pierre and a Draft Pick. That is a deal that would get it done.”
&
“How about Justin Masterson and Jed lowrie for C.C. Red Sox Win another World Series!!!!!!”
Both these comments show the same tendencies (DP not traded, Pierre illogical to Indians, the RedSox/WS statement often causes problems, both in statements instead of question form) He’s not attempting to hold conversations at all, just making questionable statements which would have a tendency to cause problems.
~ Where the comments apparently started. It appears (again, from what I saw) it started in a post where a simple trade example caused emotional responses.

When you add it all up, I think its probably unlikely this person is doing anything more than attempting to cause controversy… I could be wrong, but sure seems like nothing more than a troll ~ it’s a bit too much to think all of it is coincidence in my eyes...

And if I’m right, the more people humor it ~ the more he will provide…

"So does my name mean Im on steroids?"

No, I think it means you are about 10 years late on that joke and enjoy a rather poor level of humor overall...

Wow Darkstar - who appointed you the Board Police. Get over yourself.

“Wow Darkstar - who appointed you the Board Police. Get over yourself.”

…Not board police, and it has nothing to do with ‘getting over myself’ ~ its solely the thing people complain about the most and, in this case, pointing out a possible culprit before he can set off a chain of strife. Its easier to think about the situation for a sec and the likelihood this person later causes problems with statements to this effect. If people didnt encourage someone solely attempting to cause problems, then said person is more likely to stop attempting to do so. Now, if you want to throw me overboard because I happened to be the one who said that our boat might be on a course to meet up with a waterfall, well go ahead and try I guess ~ but I don’t see pointing out the waterfall before it hurts us as being a bad thing, and I guess I’m sorry if you do…

Okay…

Here you claim to enjoy reading the humorous rants of “guru”. That being the case, you must be aware that I am generally the center of his hostility. There was a point where he would post in random threads and mention my name seemingly every three sentences ~ despite me not being around. Really, I have probably been screwing with the ‘self-described one’ longer than anyone, and he makes sure he lets me know it. He goes are far as to blame me for the disrespect he receives. My making fun of him apparently (well in his mind) sparked that which you make mention of ~ I mean, he makes sense to himself so in his mind apparently something else has to be the root of his being picked on. “guru” is a true classic, but “guru” is nothing like the person above ~ “guru” will explain (to the best of his limited ability) what he is talking about; in 5-post, 8K word books which somehow trail off into the ever puzzling detailing of WarnerBrothers cartoons and of course rest on the backbone of a “you live in your moms basement” argument… “guru” is one of a kind, and he brings the group together as a whole with said posts.

However this person does none of those things, and its likely that his sole intention is to cause separation between us. We will always have things which will bring out the homers (I mean, a certain fanbase isnt going anywhere…), we don’t need children attempting to divide us otherwise though. The site at this point is doing better than it has for a long time; there is not the amount of strife that previously existed while so many outsiders are starting to take part in the bashing of the obvious homers. Its even bridged previous separations in some cases, and given people who didn’t get along some common ground. We don’t need some buffoon putting people at eachothers throats over nothing again, it makes the threads unreadable when no one gets along with anyone else. We will see morons naturally, we don’t need to try and make them out of each other…

Anyway, the interesting thing comes in the fact that I merely pointed out that this is most likely the intention of this person ~ it was dead at that. Those who followed and questioned me for doing so are merely playing his game. Your going into personal attacks on me is doing exactly as he intended, youre playing right into his hand instead of thinking about what he is most likely trying to attempt. Its all just going to encourage him more, and we will end up with these types of posts in countless threads. There was no need for his post, there was no need to humor it, there was no need for you (or others) to attack me for pointing out his probable intention ~ in the end you fell for it though and did try to go into pitiful personal attacks on me, so I guess you must be his fool…

I've never understood the concept of "untouchables". There is NO ONE in the game that is untouchable. I don't care how good you are, a package of players and cash consideration can always exceed the value of one individual.

I look at this list of talent and acknowledge that the Reds have a great core of young players. However, to assume that they represent 5 irreplaceable players is absurd.

Good GM's realize that anyone is expendable. They might put a "tariff" on certainly players and charge a premium - fine. That's being a smart GM. Saying that they can't be moved under any circumstance just blocks you into a corner. That would be the sign of a dumb GM.

i agree with bjguess. untouchable is a very stupid term because if you want a player enough you will give up an untouchable in a heartbeat. almost four teams were ready to give up untouchables, alot of them, for santana, the same would apply for guys like santana and players like in that league of skill. to call unproven talent untouchable without even using them as a jump off point for negotations is really bad because guys trying to deal players wont even want to trade with you because theyll think al youll offer is junk. so good point and i totally agree, untouchables is a term that should only describe elliot ness