• Jim Johnson & Doug Fister Trades

    Posted by on December 3rd, 2013 · Comments (13)

    I like the Fister trade for both teams. Seems fair to me. But, the Johnson trade? Jemile Weeks? Seriously?

    Dan Duquette is doing a pretty good job for Baltimore. So, maybe he sees something that I am missing here?

    Comments on Jim Johnson & Doug Fister Trades

    1. Corey
      December 3rd, 2013 | 9:58 am

      You thought the Fister trade was fair? 2 reliever prospects and a 2b who can’t hit?

    2. yanksofny
      December 3rd, 2013 | 11:08 am

      I thought the tigers could have gotten better quality for Fister, though they do need bullpen arms.

      Johnson to the A’s was purely a salary dump to fill other needs

    3. December 3rd, 2013 | 11:10 am

      @ Corey:
      Steve Lombardozzi is a useful player and good insurance at 2B.
      Ian Krol has very good LOOGY potential.
      And, Ray is a prospect. The Tigers get that AND money freed up to go spend on someone else.
      Fister is nice. But, he’s not Felix Hernandez.

    4. Corey
      December 3rd, 2013 | 1:59 pm

      @ Steve L.:
      A comparable package would be Nunez, Cabral and Montgomery. If I’m the Tigers, I need a lot more than that.

    5. Corey
      December 3rd, 2013 | 2:01 pm

      And then they use the money they saved to sign Nathan? Wow. Dombroski makes Cashman look good.

    6. MJ Recanati
      December 3rd, 2013 | 4:51 pm

      Steve L. wrote:

      Fister is nice. But, he’s not Felix Hernandez.

      Sort of a strawman, no? I mean, he doesn’t have to be arguably the best pitcher in the American League in order for this trade to be a heist for the Nationals. As Corey said, they gave away a bullpen arm and a no-hit backup second baseman for a guy that is good enough to be a #2 starter but only has to fill the #4 role for the Nats.

    7. MJ Recanati
      December 3rd, 2013 | 4:53 pm

      Corey wrote:

      And then they use the money they saved to sign Nathan?

      The bigger question for me is why the Tigers thought that a closer was more valuable to their team than a very good #3 starter.

    8. hallofamer2000
      December 3rd, 2013 | 5:20 pm

      Johnson was traded b/c he is gonna make 10 million and the orioles don’t want to spend that on a non elite closer. The non tender deadline was coming so they took what they could get. The Fister deal confused me. The Yankees should have been in play if that’s all they wanted

    9. Kamieniecki
      December 3rd, 2013 | 10:18 pm

      Corey wrote:

      Dombroski makes Cashman look good.

      @ Corey:
      You’re the guy that likes Smyly, right?

      Dombrowski sheds more payroll in a bid to sign Cabrera and Scherzer with only about $150 mil. to work with, and opens 2014 with a Front Four of Verlander, Scherzer, Sanchez, and Smyly, dealing a pitcher he acquired in a trade (Fister) with two more years of arbitration eligibiliity before free agency for two very good young pitchers from Washington. Smyly replaces Fister, Krol replaces Smyly, and an All-Star reliever is added to a team that missed the World Series by two games because of a non-existent bullpen… All of this makes Cashman look good?

      MJ Recanati wrote:

      The bigger question for me is why the Tigers thought that a closer was more valuable to their team than a very good #3 starter.

      Did you watch the 2013 A.L.C.S.?

      The Tigers don’t have a $230 million payroll, either.

      Dombrowski’s dad didn’t get him a job with a team that had drafted and signed the greatest closer of all time, and with the highest payrolls in baseball, so having a solid 1-2-3 at the front of the rotation, and faced with the prospect of a second-straight A.L.C.S. loss without a bullpen, Dombrowski might have thought a free agent coming off an All-Star year with 43 saves was the best fit in the market at the time. If Dombrowski had a $200 million payroll, he might not have made the deal…

      hallofamer2000 wrote:

      The Yankees should have been in play if that’s all they wanted…

      The way Cashman was in play for Ed Yarnall, Jeff Weaver, Humberto Sanchez, and Curtis Granderson? I don’t think Cashman should be allowed to play with Dombrowski anymore…

    10. Corey
      December 3rd, 2013 | 10:26 pm

      Kamieniecki wrote:

      You’re the guy that likes Smyly, right?

      Yep, good memory.

      Honestly, I take back my statement after seeing Ellsbury’s deal. Absurd.

      But you have to admit, trading a number 3 starter for that package is dumb. They could have gotten more from other teams without question.

    11. Kamieniecki
      December 3rd, 2013 | 10:47 pm

      Corey wrote:

      But you have to admit, trading a number 3 starter for that package is dumb. They could have gotten more from other teams without question.

      @ Corey:
      I don’t.

      First, for Detroit, Fister was the no. 4 starter.

      Second, I would have to hear what an alternative deal should have been. And third, I would have to see how this deal turns out a few years down the road – I don’t buy the “at the time” argument, because you and I do not have access to all of the information upon which this deal was based.

      From Detroit’s side, the team has an 84-year old owner that wants to win now, does not have a $200 mil. payroll, and has one of the best postseason rotations in M.L.B. already in place – the team might have made it to the 2013 World Series with Nathan. In the long-term, the team was not going to be in a position to sign Verlander, Scherzer, Sanchez, and Fister for 2016.

      The Tigers had to get back to the ALCS with a $150-60 mil. payroll while re-signing Scherzer and Cabrera, and re-building a bullpen… Cashman’s never been in that position; Cashman can’t even win with a $200 mil. payroll.

      Again, what was an alternative deal? And, let’s see if the young pitching acquired turns out to be better than Yarnall, Noel, Johnson, Sanchez, Claggett, or Whelan, shall we?

    12. Evan3457
      December 4th, 2013 | 12:23 am

      MJ Recanati wrote:

      Corey wrote:
      And then they use the money they saved to sign Nathan?
      The bigger question for me is why the Tigers thought that a closer was more valuable to their team than a very good #3 starter.

      The recent ALCS is all the reason they need.

    13. Sweet Lou
      December 4th, 2013 | 12:24 am

      Kamieniecki wrote:

      I don’t buy the “at the time” argument, because you and I do not have access to all of the information upon which this deal was based.

      Agreed. Although I thought Detroit could have gotten a little more this time.

    Leave a reply

    You must be logged in to post a comment.