Skip to content

What's trade deadline week without a wild rumor?

Jul 26, 2010, 2:15 PM EDT

This one appeared on the sidebar of Jayson Stark’s latest column. He says “rumblings continue to surface” about it, but this is the first I’ve heard of a deal for Adam Dunn being a three-team affair:

Rumblings continue to surface about a possible three-team deal involving
the Nationals, White Sox and Diamondbacks that would send Edwin Jackson to Washington, Dunn to Chicago and a bunch of young pitchers to Arizona.

I get the Dunn to Chicago part, because people have talked about that. And I get the Edwin Jackson to Washington part, because someone mentioned that once a month or two ago too.  But where, pray tell, are the “bunch of young pitchers” coming from?  If Washington really had any that were worth a damn, they wouldn’t need Edwin Jackson.  If Chicago had them, why wouldn’t they be offering them up to the Brewers in a Prince Fielder deal?

I want to believe it because it sounds like all kinds of fun, but this one just doesn’t make sense to me.

  1. Philip P - Jul 26, 2010 at 2:25 PM

    Considering the “wonderful” prospects the Dbacks just picked up for Haren, is it a stretch to think that the Nats and/or Chisox could send them some pitchers that may be young but far from valuable? At the rate the Dbacks are going, it looks like they are going to experience bad years traditionally common for expansion clubs, except in this case it will be 13 years after they were an expansion club.

  2. Buccofan - Jul 26, 2010 at 2:25 PM

    If you’re looking for sense in the trade rumors this week or any other, you’re looking in vain.

  3. TomTom - Jul 26, 2010 at 2:32 PM

    Please stop reporting wild rumors and post when someone is either actually traded or when, you know, the deal to the Yankees “is just about done.”
    Thank you.
    PS: This isn’t directed at you alone, I mean for every baseball writer to read this, thanks.

  4. Utley's hair - Jul 26, 2010 at 2:49 PM

    “Please stop reporting wild rumors and post when someone is either actually traded or when, you know, the deal to the Yankees ‘is just about done.'”

    What part of the “What’s trade deadline week without a wild rumor?” title led you to believe that this post was about anything but a wild rumor, which obviously necessitated your respnse? If you don’t like reading about rumors–which often tend to be incorrect, but do sometimes pan out–why would you click on a link to a post dedicated by the title of the link to a rumor?

  5. JimmyY - Jul 26, 2010 at 2:53 PM

    The CWS well should be dry since they shipped off about 4 arms to SD in the Peavy deal. Don’t know if they any left.

  6. TomTom - Jul 26, 2010 at 2:55 PM

    Fair point sir. I neglected to take into account the title of the post. It was more of a timing thing for me than an actual content thing. Also, I can’t get enough of Craig’s snarky banter so I can’t be held responsible for reading posts that aren’t touching on a subject that I’m interested in.
    I will go back to my parents’ basement and shut the light off now.

  7. geoknows - Jul 26, 2010 at 2:58 PM

    Well, they still have Hudson, and they supposedly are willing to part with him. Although I can’t figure out who would take his spot in the rotation if that happened.

  8. Sidd Finch - Jul 26, 2010 at 4:42 PM

    Carlos Torres

  9. Wooden U Lykteneau - Jul 26, 2010 at 4:57 PM

    I heard the Nats have this guy named Strasburg. Just turned 22. Throws a little hard. Maybe he’s not that good?

  10. bigtrav425 - Jul 26, 2010 at 7:36 PM

    that would be HORRIBLE for the Nationals..edwin jackson for Dunn? how in the hell would that be fair or make sense at all.Washington would need more then that for Dunn

Leave Comment

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!

Top 10 MLB Player Searches
  1. B. Crawford (2802)
  2. C. Correa (2561)
  3. Y. Puig (2503)
  4. G. Stanton (2458)
  5. G. Springer (2387)
  1. H. Pence (2308)
  2. J. Hamilton (2180)
  3. M. Teixeira (1977)
  4. H. Ramirez (1948)
  5. J. Fernandez (1920)