Re: Do you remember this 2003 MLB trade? (possibly worst in recent mem
 

[ QUOTE ]
I don't recall how proven Nathan was at the time, but you need to realize that the other 2 were merely prospects.

[/ QUOTE ]

2003, Joe Nathan:
12-4, 2.96 ERA 83:33 k/bb ratio

2003, A.J:
.312/.360/.464

In 2003, Francisco Liriano was injured with a minor shoulder problem. Prior to that, he was a flamethrowing kid in rookie ball with high, high upside.

This trade is [censored] embarassing both at the time of the trade and the results of the trade. Let's also not forget that instead of offering A.J. arbitration, they decided to release him without it (thus getting no draft picks) and sign MIKE MATHENY.

I will defend to the death my position that this is a top three worst trade of all time (Bagwell for Andersen and Babe Ruth for a Snickers bar are the others).

Re: Do you remember this 2003 MLB trade? (possibly worst in recent mem
 

I had no idea.

Re: Do you remember this 2003 MLB trade? (possibly worst in recent mem
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I dont believe either was anywhere near a top prospect when the deal was made.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was referring to phb's post, not this trade. I don't remember how highly Liriano and Bonser were thought of at the time of the trade.

[/ QUOTE ]

You mean the one were I said "prospects" aren't worth much? And that sometimes "top prospects" flame out?

Quality interpretation of my post.

[/ QUOTE ]

You said prospects aren't worth much. Since "prospects" includes all qualities, the only possible way to interpret your post was that no prospect is "worth that much in the grand scheme of things."

I know you suck as a baseball poster, but at least try to make your poor, inaccurate points coherently.

[/ QUOTE ]

"Prospects" means all minor leaguers who are "on path" for possible MLB action. Thus, prospects aren't worth much to an MLB team, because most of them never see any meaningful action. This is especially more true for a larger market team who can buy players (the extreme case being NYY).

"Top prospects" are obviously worth more than average prospects. Please go away after admitting that you jumped to a poor conclusion. And study the career path of Joe Borchard as homework.

Re: Do you remember this 2003 MLB trade? (possibly worst in recent mem
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I dont believe either was anywhere near a top prospect when the deal was made.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was referring to phb's post, not this trade. I don't remember how highly Liriano and Bonser were thought of at the time of the trade.

[/ QUOTE ]

Let's put it this way. At the time, Bonser was rated ahead of Liriano.

Re: Do you remember this 2003 MLB trade? (possibly worst in recent mem
 

[ QUOTE ]
Let's put it this way. At the time, Bonser was rated ahead of Liriano.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's only because Bonser wasn't injured.

Sigh.

Re: Do you remember this 2003 MLB trade? (possibly worst in recent mem
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I dont believe either was anywhere near a top prospect when the deal was made.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was referring to phb's post, not this trade. I don't remember how highly Liriano and Bonser were thought of at the time of the trade.

[/ QUOTE ]

You mean the one were I said "prospects" aren't worth much? And that sometimes "top prospects" flame out?

Quality interpretation of my post.

[/ QUOTE ]

You said prospects aren't worth much. Since "prospects" includes all qualities, the only possible way to interpret your post was that no prospect is "worth that much in the grand scheme of things."

I know you suck as a baseball poster, but at least try to make your poor, inaccurate points coherently.

[/ QUOTE ]

"Prospects" means all minor leaguers who are "on path" for possible MLB action. Thus, prospects aren't worth much to an MLB team, because most of them never see any meaningful action. This is especially more true for a larger market team who can buy players (the extreme case being NYY).

"Top prospects" are obviously worth more than average prospects. Please go away after admitting that you jumped to a poor conclusion. And study the career path of Joe Borchard as homework.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know if it's better to ignore people like this or laugh at them.