• Ian Kennedy *And* Melky Cabrera?

    Posted by on December 19th, 2006 · Comments (24)

    From MLBTradeRumors.com -

    A baseball source indicated to MLBTradeRumors.com that the Yankees and Pirates are working on a trade that could be Mike Gonzalez and Nate McLouth for Ian Kennedy and Melky Cabrera.

    Nate McLouth? At 25-years old, McLouth is just a younger version of Bubba Crosby.

    So, if true, the Yankees would be trading their youngest, major-league-proven, position player and one of the, say, seventh best pitching prospects in their system, for a closer of limited experience who had a seriously sore arm last season (when he closed for the first time) and a Four-A back-up outfielder.

    Aw, shucks, why doesn’t New York throw-in a half-dozen Lamborghini’s and an original copy of the Declaration of Independence too – just to further sweeten the pot for the Pirates?

    Comments on Ian Kennedy *And* Melky Cabrera?

    1. brockdc
      December 19th, 2006 | 4:39 pm

      This rumor cannot possibly be true. No way.

    2. baileywalk
      December 19th, 2006 | 4:43 pm

      I’m sure MLBTradeRumors has tons of major-league sources. (This seems like a total fanboy creation: take an existing deal and throw a prospect into the talks.)

      The Yankees don’t know what they have in Kennedy yet. Most people think he was an overdraft, so the Yankees had to like him a lot. They just paid him 2.5 million dollars to sign. He’s going nowhere.

      The site also doesn’t know what it’s talking about: Kennedy isn’t a “long ways” from the big leagues; he’s a polished college pitcher the Yankees chose specifically because he was close to being ready. The word was that the Yankees saw Kennedy in the Bronx no later than 2009.

    3. Michael
      December 19th, 2006 | 4:59 pm

      this deal can’t happen for one reason: kennedy can’t be traded until one year after the draft. Plus McLouth is terrible.

    4. December 19th, 2006 | 5:05 pm

      Kennedy is not eligable for trade yet.

      Unless he is a “player to be named” and they don’t name him until June something or other.

      Won’t happen.

    5. Michael
      December 19th, 2006 | 5:17 pm

      he can’t even be a PTBNL because there is a 90 day time limit

    6. December 19th, 2006 | 5:20 pm

      I agree with brockdc, have we seen anything this off season that would indicate Cashman making a move like this? We need Gonzo, but that price is too high.

    7. December 19th, 2006 | 6:05 pm

      Hey, Bubba has a MUCH better glove than Nate McLouth.

      We can trade Kennedy. They would just have to hold off finalizing the deal until Jan. 15.

      But I don’t see how this makes sense for either club. Pittsburgh needs an outfielder. If they trade McLouth for Cabrera, they still need an outfielder. And we don’t need an outfielder. We need a catcher.

      If it was Doumit or Paulino instead of McLouth, now…

    8. December 19th, 2006 | 6:12 pm

      this sounds a bit crazy. not to mention again, but Kennedy cant be traded until a year after the draft. and that Cash$$$ is stockpiling young pitching, especially a first rd pick who did quite well in Hawaii. He’s not ‘a long ways off,’ as he’s very polished. Yes, he’ll start in Tampa, but he could easily finish the year in Trenton. He already has great control, and gets a lot of Ks, so he’ll move quick. The Yanks see him as a can’t miss 3/4 starter. He wont dominate, but he’ll be a solid middle-rotation guy. I would NOT do this trade.

      I dont know anything about McClouth.

    9. December 19th, 2006 | 6:22 pm

      The link Steve posted up top says:

      “I should note that as a 2006 draft pick, Kennedy can’t be traded until one year after he signed, which would be approximately July 15, 2007. Given that a player to be named later must be named six months in advance, the Pirates and Yankees would have to wait about a month to make such a deal official. After speaking to a couple of baseball guys, I can tell you for a fact that there is precedent for agreeing to trades in December involving June draft picks from the same year. Kennedy is fair game for discussion.”

      If that’s true, they could do this deal Jan. 15. Is he incorrect?

      (Not that I think this trade is a good idea.)

    10. SeanJ
      December 19th, 2006 | 7:13 pm

      “Cash$$$ is stockpiling young pitching.”

      And while we certainly are going to see some of that pitching in pinstripes, he is also stockpiling it because it makes the best trade bate. Some of the multitude of RHP Cash has been drafting will be shipped off eventually.

      That being said, this trade blows. Melky straight up for Gonzalez would have been good. Maybe include a B-/B prospect but not a prospect like Ian Kennedy. We need to keep him to trade for Johan Santana. :)

    11. baileywalk
      December 19th, 2006 | 8:06 pm

      The Yankees weren’t sold on trading Melky for Gonzalez. Now they’re going to add a guy they see as a future three starter and get nothing back but a crappy fourth outfielder?

      This rumor smells like bullsh-t because it IS bullsh-t.

    12. brockdc
      December 19th, 2006 | 8:46 pm

      Clearly there are severe psychological consequences for reading Mlbtraderumors.com, as many of their posters maintain that this would be a terrible deal…FOR THE PIRATES?!

    13. Yu Hsing Chen
      December 19th, 2006 | 9:23 pm

      It wouldn’t make much sense for the Pirates, their bigger needs would be upgrading at 2B and a 1B/RF that could slug a bit, while Melky would help out their RF woes a little, he’s not the perfect guy for a lineup that already have a couple of banjo hitters in Chris Duffy and Jack Wilson.

    14. DonnieDosTresBaseball
      December 19th, 2006 | 11:25 pm

      I do not agree with giving up Ian Kennedy in this particular deal. However, if we can give this guy up for somebody better, there is not one reason why we shouldn’t. First, he’s just a prospect, and because pitching prospects rarely pan out, you have to get rid of him if you can to get somebody better. Second, why settle for a “3 starter” when you can get 3-5 #1 starters. Third, if Ian Kennedy is a SO pitcher, then he will be a piece of crap with us, just like Clemens was, and the same goes for Phil Hughes.
      This is the case because a strikeout pitcher with the Yankees gets cheated on what should be strike 3 and gets batters to swing and miss for strike 3 less often than with other teams. That is because everyone is putting forth their best effort against us. I say our strikeout pitchers have this problem, because everyone’s inevitable answer is Wang. Wang is exactly the opposite. He was good for us because he had some control and pitched to contact. Wang did not have to depend on umpires to treat him fairly or for batters to swing through his pitches. In the few games that he pitched for, even Carl Pavano didnt pitch too badly, mainly because he’s not a SO pitcher.

      I will say this though, do not expect Wang to have as good a season in ’07, because pitching to contact allows for luck to come into play, and as you all know, we have shit luck. Wang may have gotten *lucky* last year, and let’s hope it happens again, but you cant expect the same type of luck again.

    15. December 19th, 2006 | 11:53 pm

      FWIW…Kennedy is projected to grow up to be Mike Mussina. Assuming he pans out, of course.

    16. hornblower
      December 19th, 2006 | 11:59 pm

      Please put Melky at 1st. He is the same size as “23″ and is a quick learner. He would have no problem at the position. Don’t trade young players that have potential. Watching them grow is the romance of baseball.

    17. December 20th, 2006 | 12:11 am

      I don’t think it makes sense to put Melky at 1B. Think of the “defensive spectrum.” First base is the easiest defensive position. It’s the last stop before DH. That’s why players like Giambi and Big Papi play first base.

      Melky doesn’t have the bat for first base. And I don’t think he ever will. He’s not that kind of hitter.

    18. Chewbacca
      December 20th, 2006 | 12:18 am

      Donnie –

      I agree. Only thing is, Wang could perform the same as 2006 because it is so tough for batters to make good contact off of him, as his pitches dip.

      Hornblower –

      You’re not a hornblower. You’re a pot smoker, and you’ve let it get to your brain. “Watching them grow is the romance of baseball.” I always thought seeing the individuals on your team spraying each other with champagne and hoisting the World Series trophy was the romance of baseball. Seeing a young guy develop dont give me chills up my spine. Winning does.

    19. Raf
      December 20th, 2006 | 11:06 am

      I always thought seeing the individuals on your team spraying each other with champagne and hoisting the World Series trophy was the romance of baseball.
      ===========
      I always thought it was playing catch with your father/son/brother. Or watching someone who was in the zone (dominating pitching/hitting performance). Or enjoying the nuances of the game.

      But that’s just me

    20. Chewbacca
      December 20th, 2006 | 11:52 am

      You’ve got you’re opinion, I’ve got mine. Screw playing catch, and screw dominant hitting or pitching unless it comes from our team.

      Ill tell you this, I cry sometimes thinking about 2004 because of one moment. Game 1 of the ALCS, Gary Sheffield comes all the way around from 1st to score to make it 5-0 on Curt, I think, and he got up and just went nuts. I cry because we were the better team, and we deserved to win, and the only reason why we lost was because Varitek punched ARod and the gods had to reward him for sucker punching a Yankee.

    21. Raf
      December 20th, 2006 | 2:03 pm

      the only reason why we lost was because Varitek punched ARod and the gods had to reward him for sucker punching a Yankee
      =========
      Um yeah…

      Yanks lost because they either didn’t score enough runs, or because the team couldn’t hold a lead.

      As many times the Yanks pwned the Sox, it was only a matter of time before the tables were turned. The laws of averages caught up to the Yanks.

      Nothing more, nothing less.

    22. Chewbacca
      December 20th, 2006 | 8:24 pm

      The law of averages means a team winning 2 games of 3 game series, or 3 games of a 4 game series. It does not mean a team coming back from a 3-0 deficit to win a best-of-seven series. If that was the law of averages, then why have only 3 teams in all of sports come back from that deficit.

      It’s obvious that you are a Red Sox fan in disguise, as any Yankee fan knows that it had nothing to do with us not scoring more runs or not holding leads, but mostly to do with luck. The luck, plain and simply, went against us (Of course, the umpires are implied). Take your A** back to Sons of Sam Horn you incompetent waste.

    23. hornblower
      December 20th, 2006 | 8:40 pm

      You guys must be young and spoiled by the nonsense of King George. I remember the joy of watching Mickey Mantle as a young player.
      Do you guys recall 96, 97 and 98 before the Arods and Giambis. Give me Nick and Sori anyday. Imagine rooting for player you like!
      Melky would be a good temporary first baseman until they need him in the outfield. It’s great to win but its not a birthright. Win with your own players and an occational free agent.

    24. Raf
      December 20th, 2006 | 11:29 pm

      It’s even more obvious you don’t know squat about math. Fetch off, whiny little hairdresser

    Leave a reply

    You must be logged in to post a comment.