Comments on: The Diamondbacks want to “win” any Justin Upton trade. What does that mean?

By: WhenMattStairsIsKing

WhenMattStairsIsKing — Thu, 18 Nov 2010 18:39:33 +0000

You really want to trade Upton now, Towers? Unless you get a package of Hanley/Logan Morrison/Mike Stanton, there’s no reason in the world to deal him.

By: WhenMattStairsIsKing

WhenMattStairsIsKing — Thu, 18 Nov 2010 18:35:25 +0000

Haha, Ken should have said that instead.

By: xpensivewinos

xpensivewinos — Thu, 18 Nov 2010 18:04:32 +0000

“Winning the trade” is all relative and certainly subjective. A team could offer a package of players that Towers perceives is a “win” for his team, but still may not be perceived as a “defeat” by the team giving up the players.

Hypothetically, the Red Sox could provide a package of guys that helps Arizona far more than it hurts the Red Sox. In the grand scheme of things, that’s still a “win” for Towers.

Boston is already of the mindset that they would have to give up a ton for Adrian Gonzalez……….so who wouldn’t give up a ton plus a little extra somethin’ somethin’ to get a player with Upton’s skills? Not to mention, he might cost a little extra in terms of players, but waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay less in terms of dollars over the next five years which allows the Red Sox to spend money to fill other holes. It seems like monopoly money to most of us, but I’m sure the Red Sox do actually work within a budget.

By: BC

BC — Thu, 18 Nov 2010 16:42:47 +0000

How in God’s name they’re looking to trade a 23-year old potential superstar that they have under contract for 4 or 5 more years is ridiculous. Been a while since I’ve seen something that dumb. Probably since the Haren trade.
Hey…. wait a minute…..

By: nps6724

nps6724 — Thu, 18 Nov 2010 16:30:35 +0000

I’ve always heard the goal of any trade is to make the other team feel like they pulled the wool over your eyes. You WANT them to think they “won” the trade because it makes them more likely to deal with you again.

This makes me think the Arizona GM ain’t too bright.

By: twang621

twang621 — Thu, 18 Nov 2010 16:12:32 +0000

yeah i don’t get that either.. “Sources say the D’backs would like to get something in return or possibly just get totally raped in the trade.” Of course they want something, that’s like saying the sun is going to rise tomorrow.

By: churchoftheperpetuallyoutraged

churchoftheperpetuallyoutraged — Thu, 18 Nov 2010 16:12:04 +0000

Winning the trade means getting back far more value than the slop they received for the Haren trade.

By: Ari Collins

Ari Collins — Thu, 18 Nov 2010 15:54:10 +0000

Well, to be fair, the strikeouts aren’t a detriment to his current production, but if he doesn’t cut down on the Ks, it could hurt his future development. If you DON’T believe he has superstar upside (and I do), then trading him to a team that thinks he does is a good move, at least value-wise.

By: billtpa

billtpa — Thu, 18 Nov 2010 15:46:57 +0000

I wonder if all along it’s been some sort of jerk-around-the-media thing aimed at motivating Upton to have a better 2011 or something. Not that that would be a *good* idea, by any means, but it would start to make sense.
Because the only thing I can think of that actually leads to them seriously considering a trade is that they think he strikes out too much (Gibson, Baylor and Towers have all complained about the team strikeouts) and want to shake things up, and that’s just too depressing to really think about.

By: Kevin S.

Kevin S. — Thu, 18 Nov 2010 15:42:35 +0000

Winning the trade means not trading Justin Upton.