« Manny History: Almost A Twin Or Mariner? | Main | No Starting Job For Willingham? »

Heyman On Contracts, Loretta, Indians, Lackey

By Tim Dierkes [March 11, 2009 at 1:22pm CST]

SI.com's Jon Heyman has a new column up...

Heyman writes in praise of White Sox GM Ken Williams, who says, "People don't really understand our way, our method."
Heyman names his top 13 contracts, from an agent point of view. Barry Meister appears twice, with Edgar Renteria and Kyle Farnsworth. Scott Shapiro and Barry Praver get two mentions (Willy Taveras and Juan Cruz), and Scott Boras has three (Derek Lowe, Mark Teixeira, and Willie Bloomquist).
Heyman writes of "talk at Dodgers camp" about possible Yankee interest in Mark Loretta (you may recall their consideration of him as a first base candidate in 2007). Loretta would have to consent to a trade, and keep in mind Brian Cashman's comments yesterday.
The Indians may have sufficient depth in young position players to make a trade for pitching.
Heyman speaks of optimism for an extension for Angels ace John Lackey, since the team was able to hammer out his '06 contract with agent Steve Hilliard.

Comments

Kenny Williams "way" or "method" is to somehow have all 12 of his pitchers have career years, netting his team a championship, then blame it all on Posednik.

Real talk: KW is hugely overrated and probably wouldnt have a job now if they hadnt won it all thanks to all those pitchers being their most awesome at the same time. The Chisox are a joke now and wont be serious contenders for a long time.

Posted by: Athletic Domination | March 11, 2009 at 01:49 PM

Yeah, it's pretty hard to figure out what you do, Kenny:

1. Trade injured pitchers for former high-round draft picks who are blocked or seem to have busted out; act like you're a genius for "discovering" them

2. Sign Cubans

3. Keep signing your old players to outrageous contracts; cry poor despite the fact that you have one of the highest payrolls in baseball.

4. Play in a terrible division

And viola! You have an average team that manages to make the playoffs occasionally.

Posted by: MikeMeyer | March 11, 2009 at 01:51 PM

Athletic Domination, you're hitting on a point. What's the difference between Kenny Williams and Billy Beane, Mark Shapiro, and other similar genius GMs. Williams won a championship. So regardless, he's accomplished more than other more smarter GMs.

Posted by: start_wearing_purple | March 11, 2009 at 01:56 PM

I wonder if the Dodgers could work Pierre into some sort of Loretta trade... wishfull thinking hey!

Posted by: richie | March 11, 2009 at 02:01 PM

Who is even playing CF and 2B for the White Sox this year? I dont know these guys and they look horrible. Sign Lofton and Durham while you can, oh wait those dudes can actually get on base more than 35% of the time and the Chisox dont believe getting on base is important or anything...

They still have OBP black holes literally everywhere except Thome, Quentin and Dye. Explain how this offense works? They have good pitching though, ill give them that.

Posted by: Athletic Domination | March 11, 2009 at 02:10 PM

LOL, getting all of those "busted" former #1's, that is a dumb strategy. It obviously does not pay. Not like the A's who collect a bunch of mid level prospect for the day Oaklnad no longer has a major league team and has to field a Triple A team.

Posted by: OmegaMan | March 11, 2009 at 02:13 PM

They have good pitching though, ill give them that.

Doesn't picthing win championships? No wait, Billy Beane says OBP is important.

Posted by: OmegaMan | March 11, 2009 at 02:14 PM

4. Play in a terrible division
--------------

In what world is the AL central terrible?

I rarely agree with the moves Williams make, but they seem to work, so more power to him.

Posted by: wickedwitch | March 11, 2009 at 02:15 PM

"4. Play in a terrible division
--------------

In what world is the AL central terrible?"

In a world where the Royals and White Sox are the only 2 teams in the division.

Posted by: OmegaMan | March 11, 2009 at 02:19 PM

"Who is even playing CF and 2B for the White Sox this year? I dont know these guys and they look horrible. "

I think you should know that "unknown" guys aren't necessarily "bad".

Lillibridge and Getz are fighting over the 2B spot. There is plenty of upside there. I don't see a major issue at 2B.

CF looks ugly with Anderson/Owens though. At least they could've signed Kotsay.

The fact that KW has traded 3!!! young *potential* CFers (two are probably better suited for a corner spot though) over the last 2 years, and 2 will almost definitely be starting in CF for other teams must hurt a bit.

"They have good pitching though, ill give them that."

I wouldn't call their pitching solid or good. Buehrle, Danks, and Floyd are solid (although Floyd might regress a bit, he'll still be solid). Danks and Buehrle are both ace caliber. Clayton Richard has plenty of upside and gets the 4th spot. Then, you've got Bartolo Colon and a bunch of low-ceiling guys in Marquez, Nunez, and Broadway competing for the 5th spot. Poreda, the Sox' only top pitching prospect, needs more time in AAA to develop a second pitch, and him developing that 2nd pitch to flourish as a starter is still a question mark.

Very top heavy rotation, but SERIOUSLY lacking in depth.

Posted by: melonis rex | March 11, 2009 at 02:26 PM

OK, not over the last 2 years, but you get my point.

Posted by: melonis rex | March 11, 2009 at 02:27 PM

How about they actually wait a little bit to see how A-Rod does and get a much better idea of when he will back before making any moves.

Posted by: Tim | March 11, 2009 at 02:45 PM

"In what world is the AL central terrible?"

In a world where the Royals and White Sox are the only 2 teams in the division."

Posted by: OmegaMan | March 11, 2009 at 02:19 PM

lol

Posted by: Alex Trebek | March 11, 2009 at 03:08 PM

Signing of Hudson makes Loretta very expendable. Dodgers could use Dewitt as utlity 2B/3B.

Not sure what Dodgers could expect in return. They would love to build the deal to get Hughes or Kennedy. However, both sides really value their prized young players and likely won't move any youngsters that have already seen some MLB action.

Posted by: kbrooks2LA | March 11, 2009 at 03:17 PM

"The Indians may have sufficient depth in young position players to make a trade for pitching."

Funny, the Indians traded young pitching during the offseason for position player depth (DeRosa).

Posted by: pageian | March 11, 2009 at 03:19 PM

Heyman mentioned the idea of an Ian Kennedy for Blake DeWitt trade.

What do Yankee fans around here think about that?

I think that might not be bad. Both were 1st rd picks. Plus, the Yankees have 4/5 of their rotation pretty set with Sabathia, Burnett, Wang and probably Phil Hughes.

Do any Yankee fans see this making any sense for your team.

Just wondering.

Me personally, it would be a slight overpay but I think DeWitt would give the Yankees a very good defensive 3B who can hit decently. Not an A-Rod replacement but can be a fill in for a bit.

Posted by: Die-Hard Dodger Fan | March 11, 2009 at 03:20 PM

@melonis

"Lillibridge and Getz are fighting over the 2B spot. There is plenty of upside there. I don't see a major issue at 2B."

Lillibridge is an excellent prospect if the year is 2005. He's AAAA, sorry dude. I drank that kool aid for bit as well but he's terrible in 09. And Getz? C'mon Ray Durham is still out there, but he actually gets on base more than 35% of the time, that's probably unacceptable by chisox standards, they want everyone no higher than a .310 OBP. Also, Kotsay wont play CF ever again.

"Very top heavy rotation, but SERIOUSLY lacking in depth."

So you'd say overall, its.....good?

Posted by: Athletic Domination | March 11, 2009 at 03:22 PM

I'm not sure who exactly Heyman is talking about on trading from the Indians.

At first we have Ryan Garko, is anyone honestly sold on him? No way I trade Beau Mills.

At second is Asdrubal Cabrera who has never put together a solid hitting season, so trading Valbuena/Barfield is harder.

At third is DeRosa who is getting old and may need to play 2B for Cabrera, so how can we trade Wes Hodges?

The OF is the only one I can see having LaPorta, Brantley, and Crowe in the minors, but Choo needs to prove himself in the majors first and confirm he's not going into the Korean Army and Francisco has a long way to go before solidifying that LF spot.

Moral of the story, until the major league position players lock down their own jobs, no way they trade for pitching.

Posted by: the lowercase zach is better | March 11, 2009 at 03:22 PM

"Funny, the Indians traded young pitching during the offseason for position player depth (DeRosa)."

The Indians traded a AAA Relief Pitcher in Stevens, along with some Class A Pitchers. He's talking about trading for starters.

Posted by: the lowercase zach is better | March 11, 2009 at 03:24 PM

A-Rod is only going to miss 23 games, theres no need to trade for anyone. Either play Ransom there for those games or sign one of those FA stragglers to sub for the month.

Posted by: Athletic Domination | March 11, 2009 at 03:24 PM

Personally, i dont think the yanks should trade for a young player. but if they want they wanted dewitt, this would be a very good trade for the dodgers

Dewitt/Elbert/Pierre(3/4 of his contract paid) for Hughes.

I know people want kennedy for dewitt, but Dewitt has done at least OK in the majors, while kennedy has struggled since he came up. that would be overpaying on the dodgers side.

with the trade I said, Yanks get a solid 2b/3b, who is relearning SS(and looks pretty good). The dodgers are VERY high on Dewitt and would want good pitching for him, not pitching that struggled. Pierre culd be the center fielder for them if they feel that their kids arent ready. in elbert, a young lefty reliever who can pitch. Hughes can be a good pitcher and in the NL west would be very good

Posted by: lakersdodgersyankees4life | March 11, 2009 at 03:48 PM

"Dewitt/Elbert/Pierre(3/4 of his contract paid) for Hughes. "

Why would someone who claims to be a Dodger fan want to see the Dodgers fleeced in that way?

Posted by: AA | March 11, 2009 at 04:06 PM

Athletic Domination-

Top heavy =/= good. You'll get great performance 2 days, purely average performance (Floyd) the 3rd day, and have 2 days of complete wildcard performance. And if someone gets hurt, things could get really ugly. Having only one good pitching prospect (Poreda) who still has major questions just isn't a good thing. The rotation lacks depth, which is huge.

Agreed on the Sox should sign Ray Durham though. If Lillibridge/Getz struggle, which could very easily happen, then having someone else would be useful. And I could see Lillibridge get some time in CF.

Posted by: melonis rex | March 11, 2009 at 04:18 PM

""Dewitt/Elbert/Pierre(3/4 of his contract paid) for Hughes."

That is an absolute steal for the Yankees.

And will Dodgers fans please stop talking about trading DeWitt. He'll be starting somewhere in the LA infield in 2010, or heads will roll.

Posted by: melonis rex | March 11, 2009 at 04:19 PM

"Dewitt/Elbert/Pierre(3/4 of his contract paid) for Hughes. "

Why would someone who claims to be a Dodger fan want to see the Dodgers fleeced in that way?

like i said before, this would probably never happen. but it is not as bad as it seems. If the dodgers feel they can/will sign Hudson to a multiyr deal, then Dewitt is still expendable. elbert is a lefty who has struggled in ST and may or may not be able to make it in the majors. and pierre, well that gives Paul a chance to play, and any way to get rid of Pierre would be OK. getting Hughes would make a REALLY great rotation in a few yrs. a rotation of Huughes, Billz, Kershaw, Mcdonald, and E. Martin. thats all kids, and at least one would be in the Pen so there would be a vet in the rotation. If that trade would really happen, the Yanks would have to give up one more player, probably a relieve arm.

Posted by: lakersdodgersyankees4life | March 11, 2009 at 04:19 PM

Well, I wouldn't do the 75% of Pierre's contract paid but if it were the Dodgers only picking up 33% of Pierre's contract, its a steal for the Dodgers.

Dodgers would save $19 mill and get Hughes for DeWitt and Elbert. I'm sold.

Posted by: Die-Hard Dodger Fan | March 11, 2009 at 04:30 PM

"If the dodgers feel they can/will sign Hudson to a multiyr deal, then Dewitt is still expendable."

Why would you sign a declining and injury prone Hudson to a multi year deal??? I strongly doubt he's going to get better.

"Well, I wouldn't do the 75% of Pierre's contract paid but if it were the Dodgers only picking up 33% of Pierre's contract, its a steal for the Dodgers.

Dodgers would save $19 mill and get Hughes for DeWitt and Elbert. I'm sold."

The Dodgers don't need to payroll slash that badly. And they don't need to give up young talent for the sake of payroll slashing, which is exactly what that deal is.

Hughes is good, but he's not worth both DeWitt AND Elbert. Remember, he hasn't proven anything at that MLB level either. And don't put too much stock into Elbert's ST numbers. He needs AAA time, yeah. He's got a ceiling of a MOR starter and his ceiling isn't MUCH lower than Hughes' (and I am one who thinks that Hughes has ace potential).

And DeWitt is easily an elite defender at 3B and will probably be above average defensively at 2B. He'll be a solid 2B for years to come IMO.

Posted by: melonis rex | March 11, 2009 at 04:42 PM

The deal that i originally said, this is how im thinking. Elbert was expected to be an ace, but got hurt and hasnt been the same. Pierre has neg. trade value, while Dewitt has great trade value because of his age and ability to play multi postions. I get that Hughes hasnt proven much at the MLB, but neither has Elbert. So in a way, i included Elbert for them to take Pierre(and you are probably right that 33% of Pierre's contract would be better.) I really like Dewitt and dont want to give him up, but we do have Dejesus and hopefully Hu healthy next yr.

also, melonis, what i was saying is at the end of the yr if Hudson proves he's recovered from the freak injuries, then they may want to lock up the mid infield with furcal/hudson.

Posted by: lakersdodgersyankees4life | March 11, 2009 at 04:56 PM

Also, my signing of Hudson multi yr would either be if they traded Dewitt or decide that Blake is a bench player and Dewitt is a 3B

Posted by: lakersdodgersyankees4life | March 11, 2009 at 05:00 PM

Anyone who believes anything Cashman puts out for public consumption has already forgotten the Teixeira deal. The Yankees will be acquiring someone soon.

Posted by: Little Bear | March 11, 2009 at 05:11 PM

Not sure where all this Williams criticism is coming from. Last time I checked, he's got a World Series championship and two division titles in two years where they were predicted to finish 3rd or 4th in their division behind the supposedly "loaded" Tigers or Indians. In 2006, they were very solid (90 or 92 wins, sixth or seventh best record in the bigs), just not good enough to make the playoffs in a great division. 2007 was KW's only bad year, and he certainly wasn't responsible for all the injuries and his studs all hitting .230. He puts good teams out there and it's hard to argue that he hasn't found a few diamonds in the rough that other teams had given up on.

Posted by: Christina | March 11, 2009 at 08:07 PM

I think most of you Dodger fans are nuts thinking you can offer the likes of Juan Pierre, DeWitt, etc., for Phil Hughes.
That's like a Yankee fan (me) suggesting we'll trade you Kei Igawa, Melky Cabrera and Curt Ransom for Manny Ramirez. We'll even pay half of Manny's salary. Now I couldn't be any fairer than that. LOL!

Posted by: Don Mack | March 11, 2009 at 09:10 PM

"That's like a Yankee fan (me) suggesting we'll trade you Kei Igawa, Melky Cabrera and Curt Ransom for Manny Ramirez. We'll even pay half of Manny's salary. Now I couldn't be any fairer than that. LOL! "

Well, I probably would have said Kershaw/Billingsley instead of Manny (more comparable to Hughes) but I see what you're going for.

Posted by: the lowercase zach is better | March 11, 2009 at 09:46 PM

I like the idea of obtaining Dewitt due to his versatility and age, but I don't think the Yanks should trade Hughes. Cashman didn't want to give up Hughes for Santana so I doubt he'll be traded now.

Posted by: Yanksallday | March 11, 2009 at 09:52 PM

Ken Williams will catch negative remarks on the internet because CHONE and PECOTA don't project the sox to win 90 games, while at the same time Billy Beane will be praised for high projections. (like the ridiculous 90 wins in another post)

Posted by: brocklanders | March 11, 2009 at 10:08 PM

Damn, see yor one of the Yankee fans that everyone talks about. You think that all your prospects are better than ANYONES. Dewitt for Hughes straight up is honestly a fair deal. But I also said include Elbert and Pierre with 1/2 or 1/3 of Pierre's contract. And yes, i am a yankee fan also. I know what Hughes can do and I've seen Dewitt play. the rest of the majors who didnt face him/see him until the playoffs got a horrible picture. He struggled in the playoffs, but wasnt even thought about to make the roster until 2010 or 2011. thats why he struggled toward the end of the season. He hadnt played that long a season, didnt know how to adjust to MLB pitchers, and had to learn another postition he had NEVER played.

So please, stop bein arrogant and explain your argument how Yanksallday did.

BTW, Yanks, part of the reason that he could be traded in a deal with Dewitt instead of Santana is because they already knew CC was a FA at the end, so they didnt want to give up prospects and $. they were trying to go young with pitching. but that didnt work. If they get Dewitt, he'll be able to be a utility IF, and could be their SS of the future when Jeter is done.

Also, Don, we dont have a Curt Ransom... did you mean Cody? lol fail

Posted by: lakersdodgersyankees4life | March 11, 2009 at 10:17 PM

I hope Derek Jeter gets AIDS from sharing a steroid needle with A-rod. Does that demonstrate my lack of a pro-Yankee bias enough?

Phil Hughes is a stud.

You are offering the Yankees the privilege of paying 1/4 of one of the worst contracts ever, to get an absolute garbage of a baseball player to fill a position that they already have 5 players. A no bat 3B, and Scott Elbert.

If Scott Elbert for Phil Hughes was a wash in value, it wouldn't be worth having to move people off the 40 man roster.

Just a little reminder:

Phil Hughes
Born June 24, 1986

Posted by: ArodSucksAtLife | March 12, 2009 at 01:48 AM

Phil Hughes is not a stud, until he proves that he can stay healthy and post an ERA under 4, he is still just hype; not yet 4A or garbage by any means, just hype.

Posted by: aj7380 | March 12, 2009 at 08:27 AM

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

Posted by: |

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:

Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Heyman On Contracts, Loretta, Indians, Lackey

Comments

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

Post a comment

Top Stories

Search MLBTR

MLBTR Features

Recent Posts

MLBTR Mailing List

Rumors By Team

Monthly Archives

Live Chats


Home Contact About Advertise Archives Widget Twitter RSS Usage