Wallace Matthews smokes crack

[duan]

Yes, the Twins would trade their well paid, but still there or thereabouts the best in his position, homegrown, catcher.
FOR an average (or below) soon to be Free Agent starter, a soon to be Free Agent oft injured middle reliever and a "unknown to you so can't be that fucking good" prospect or two.

Does anyone actually read these things before they go live?

http://espn.go.com/blog/new-york/yankees/post/_/id/58545/first-pitch-why-not-mauer
But there's another possibility: What about Joe Mauer?

Yes, the Twins owe him another $115 million between now and 2018, but he only turned 30 in April, and by the time the contract runs out, he would be 35, hardly too old to split time among catcher, designated hitter and first base. Even though he doesn't have a lot of power, Yankee Stadium is a lot kinder to left-handed hitters than Target Field, and Mauer has been a reliable .320 hitter for his entire 10-year career.

The question is, do the Yankees have what it takes to pry him loose from the franchise that wanted to make him its face?

They could offer Phil Hughes, Joba Chamberlain and a prospect or two, although the fact that both Hughes and Chamberlain will be free agents could be an impediment. There's also Ivan Nova or David Phelps, or maybe even a situational reliever such as a Shawn Kelley or a Preston Claiborne.

[dinosaur jesus]

Oh, I think if Cashman asked nicely, and maybe threw in a tour of Yankee Stadium, the Twins would be glad to go along. They're usually very obliging where the Yankees are concerned. Preston Wilson and Claiborne Pell would make it hard to resist. Or Robert Preston and Liz Claiborne. Whatever it takes. Do it, Yankees!

[Edgy MD]

If Mauer wants to win, he'll insist on it. The Twins, in fact, owe it to him to trade him to the Yankees.

Repeat as necessary.

Duan reads Wallace Matthews. How 'bout that?

[metsmarathon]

morneau would actually be a very sensible get for hte mfy, depending of course on what it costs them. but why on earth would minnesota want anything other than young sorta-ready good prospects for anything they give up?

five years ago, maybe phil hughes/joba chambelain plus some depth gets you a qualified star with an oversized contract. but jeez, the baseball world has seen what these guys are and have become, and right now, well, maybe they could get michael young from the phils.

[metirish]

It's incumbent on the MFY's to trade for huge contracts, please make it happen.

[Frayed Knot]

One of the original conditions that marked a trade as a 'WATP' was the inclusion of the phrase "and a couple of prospects" because, as in Mathews' proposal here, it essentially acknowledges that the major pieces of the trade aren't even close to equal and so you toss in some un-named and undefined 'prospect(s)' so as to give it the illusion of fairness. Not identifying the prospects also gives the inventor of the trade an out later on if a deal is made and the prospect turns out to be the real deal since he can always claim; "I didn't say to deal THAT guy!"

[Vic Sage]

Mike Young is still a good player; why would Philly give him away for a bag of crap?

[metsmarathon]

he's a WAR=0 kinda guy this season, his last season on his current contract, and he's making $16M this year. that's about the kind of thing i'd expect hughes/chamberlain to bring back in return.

i don't think philly would do that kind of trade, necessarily, but maybe there's another team out there with a similar combination of price/performance in a position of redundancy that could use a pair of underperforming but supposedly talented arms with no commitment whatsoever attached, and also assuming they've tried to turn their own overpriced player around into useful prospects but have given up due to lack of trading interest out there.

my point is, hughes/joba ain't getting you much back. certainly no mauer.

[stevejrogers]

Frayed Knot wrote: One of the original conditions that marked a trade as a 'WATP' was the inclusion of the phrase "and a couple of prospects" because, as in Mathews' proposal here, it essentially acknowledges that the major pieces of the trade aren't even close to equal and so you toss in some un-named and undefined 'prospect(s)' so as to give it the illusion of fairness. Not identifying the prospects also gives the inventor of the trade an out later on if a deal is made and the prospect turns out to be the real deal since he can always claim; "I didn't say to deal THAT guy!"

I'd agree with you, except that is Wally's standard statement on any minor leaguer.

The day the Benson and Zambrano deal happened he was gung ho on trading Kazmir because he "didn't know" Kazmir and Peterson but he "knew" Benson and Zambrano because they had major league experience.

[Frayed Knot]

Which just further emphasizes how the 'coupla prospects' line is nothing more than the lazy man's way of "equalizing" a one-sided trade.
Mathews is essentially saying: 'Yeah, there are probably some guys down there who could be attractive to the other team, I just can't be bothered to learn who they are so I'll demand that they deal SOMEBODY(s) now while reserving the right to pan exactly who they send once I get five or six years worth of hindsight'.

[Guest Swan Swan H]

I don't blame Wally for being a hack. Why do research when you get paid by the word, regardless of the quality?

[Frayed Knot]

I know I've said this on these airwaves before, but I remember liking Wally when I first started reading him back when he was mostly covering boxing for Newsday. I didn't even give a shit about boxing but liked reading his stuff.
Sometimes however it seems like guys get their own column and either quickly or eventually become lazy Bill Madden. Oh, did I just type that out loud?

[ashie62]

I enjoyed Wally's covering of the Arod tweeting and Cashman flipping out over it issue.

It was like a fun National Enquirer thing..