Skip to content

Max Scherzer is “in play” on the trade market. WHAT?

Dec 11, 2013, 1:00 PM EDT

Jeff Passan has something that makes no sense to me:

 

The presumed reason why Prince Fielder and Doug Fister were traded was so the Tigers could afford extensions for Max Scherzer. At the very least the Fister trade was based on the assumption that the Tigers’ pitching staff was strong enough to weather his absence. Because, hey, you got Mac Scherzer there.

Not that trading Scherzer while he’s at his most valuable is a bad move in a vacuum. He’s unlikely to ever be as good as he was in 2013 again and he is going to get expensive.

But if you’re thinking of trading him, why lose Fister first? That just seems nutty to me.

  1. xjokerz - Dec 11, 2013 at 1:05 PM

    there we go….

    and I agree, no idea why they traded Doug Fister and his 7 million per / 2 years left if we were going to trade Scherzer.

    damn you scott boras..damn you.

  2. Kevin Gillman - Dec 11, 2013 at 1:05 PM

    Oh come on now Craig, Steve Lombardozzi will win the World Series for Detroit. Not Doug Fister.

  3. chacochicken - Dec 11, 2013 at 1:06 PM

    No one wants from their off-season to be over too fast. Dave just wants to get a few phone calls maybe have someone buy him a nice lunch or dinner. Who amongst us has not baited the hook but kept the line in the boat?

    • historiophiliac - Dec 11, 2013 at 2:07 PM

      I don’t know if I’m going to recover from this off-season.

      • chacochicken - Dec 11, 2013 at 2:19 PM

        This is the winter of your discontent.

      • historiophiliac - Dec 11, 2013 at 2:22 PM

        If I’m left sitting on the couch with a bottle of wine sobbing in my heterochromial celebration goggles, I’m taking all y’all down with me.

      • nbjays - Dec 11, 2013 at 3:30 PM

        The dreaded “nuclear option”.

      • historiophiliac - Dec 11, 2013 at 3:32 PM

        I prefer “ladies choice.”

  4. xjokerz - Dec 11, 2013 at 1:07 PM

    in other news..Miguel Cabreras head is exploding

    • historiophiliac - Dec 11, 2013 at 1:48 PM

      MY head is exploding.

      • cur68 - Dec 11, 2013 at 2:10 PM

        Rasmus and 2 or 3 bullpen arms (Santos and Janssen? Maybe Wolf, too? A minor leaguer?) might get it done. Then, His Hyperchromatosis* is gonna be a Beaver!

        *note to self: learn to spell “hyperchromatosis”. googling that is a PIA

      • historiophiliac - Dec 11, 2013 at 2:14 PM

        *Heterochromia (hetero = different; chromia = color — to make it simple for you medical types)

        Oh, and FORK NO!

      • cur68 - Dec 11, 2013 at 2:17 PM

        Spoon yes. Ladle, even.

        I now channel Gollum to indicate the amount I covet Scherzer:

        Yes…we wants this funny eyed man on our team, yes we do……yes precious….

      • cur68 - Dec 11, 2013 at 2:11 PM

        er…that was suppose to be “heteroerchromatosis”. Pardon moi.

      • historiophiliac - Dec 11, 2013 at 2:14 PM

        I already corrected your work.

      • cur68 - Dec 11, 2013 at 2:22 PM

        Yes, but if My Boys reel in Scherzer I shall re-name him for my favourite husky dog who also had 2 different coloured eyes and you won’t be able to correct that.

      • historiophiliac - Dec 11, 2013 at 2:34 PM

        Now I’m glad I said mean stuff about Canadians on Twitter!

        /kicks dirt and runs off with the heterochromia man

      • cur68 - Dec 11, 2013 at 2:38 PM

        Run as far as you like. If Anthopolous has targeted him, he will be obtained. And if AA has to rub out some history professors to do it, well I’m ok with that.

        Besides, there’s almost no chance Scherzer’s going anywhere. Let me dream.

      • historiophiliac - Dec 11, 2013 at 2:43 PM

        Ha! DD out-alphabets your AA! We win. To infinity. Pbblt! Plus, America. Now, if you’ll excuse me, Sir Bravo and I have some tactical plans to review.

        /tosses hair

      • xjokerz - Dec 11, 2013 at 4:20 PM

        i feel you, i have no clue wtf domrowski is doing.

  5. Jason @ IIATMS - Dec 11, 2013 at 1:07 PM

    C’mon Craig, this should be the THIRD “for some reason” item of the day1

    • xjokerz - Dec 11, 2013 at 1:09 PM

      why? this has been all over the news in Detroit for the past 4 hours……

      • Jason @ IIATMS - Dec 11, 2013 at 1:12 PM

        see his other posts today, using the “for some reason” thing.

  6. xjokerz - Dec 11, 2013 at 1:14 PM

    yeah i saw his other posts…but this is hardly a ” for some reason ” post..hes the CY Young winner… him being traded, or even talking about him being traded is big news…….

  7. stevedubs11 - Dec 11, 2013 at 1:15 PM

    Dodgers?

    • xjokerz - Dec 11, 2013 at 1:19 PM

      you giving us Kemp ++ ?

      • paperlions - Dec 11, 2013 at 4:02 PM

        Kemp has negative value. His contract is for far more than he is likely to be worth. The Dodgers would have to pick up some of that as well as throw in something just to trade him.

  8. hittfamily - Dec 11, 2013 at 1:18 PM

    Matt Joyce is reportedly on the trading block. Colby Rasmus is reportedly on the trading block. Max Scherzer is reportedly on the trading block.

    What do these 3 have in common?

    All three were acquired by their current team in a trade for Edwin Jackson.

    • proudlycanadian - Dec 11, 2013 at 2:04 PM

      Edwin Jackson just finished the first year of a 4 year $52 million contract with the Cubs. He had an 8 and 18 record with a 4.98 ERA. Ain’t life grand?

      • hittfamily - Dec 11, 2013 at 2:09 PM

        Yeah, only 1 team lost that deal, and it’s the one who didn’t trade for him.

  9. frank433 - Dec 11, 2013 at 1:23 PM

    At this time of the year, every player is “in play” on the trade market. Mark Trumbo was “untouchable” about 3 days ago. The only way the Tigers would move Max Scherzer at this point would be if the had a “Herschel Walker” trade offer on the table.

    • churchoftheperpetuallyoutraged - Dec 11, 2013 at 1:33 PM

      If any GM said Mark Trumbo was “untouchable”, they should be fired on the spot.

    • pestiesti - Dec 11, 2013 at 1:35 PM

      That would be an awful deal! Herschel Walker is 51 years old and he doesn’t even play baseball!

    • hittfamily - Dec 11, 2013 at 1:48 PM

      Herschel Walker? Isn’t he that bobsledder?

  10. temporarilyexiled - Dec 11, 2013 at 1:31 PM

    No matter how much THC is in my system, I just can’t quite look like that picture. Must try harder.

  11. pastabelly - Dec 11, 2013 at 1:33 PM

    Here’s why it makes sense to deal him: Scott Boras

    Dave Dombrowski is a very smart guy. I’m a Red Sox fan who has always admired how sharp Dombrowski is. I have to wonder if Dombrowski broached the topic of an extension with Boras and was told that Boras is taking him to free agency. Once that happens, Boras generally does not do quick deals. Many were caught off guard by the Ellsbury deal, but the Yankees made an overmarket offer that nobody was going to match.

    Boras’ players have very little value in their walk years, especially with the rule that traded players can’t even get qualifying offers. It is a huge risk for Dombrowki to keep Scherzer. Even though Scherzer is saying all of the right things now, until he signs an extension, I wouldn’t trust him.

    • churchoftheperpetuallyoutraged - Dec 11, 2013 at 1:59 PM

      I’m a Red Sox fan who has always admired how sharp Dombrowski is

      Don’t the Prince Fielder contracts and re-signing Valverde say otherwise?

      • paperlions - Dec 11, 2013 at 4:04 PM

        And giving Fister away for a poo poo platter.

      • historiophiliac - Dec 11, 2013 at 4:25 PM

        /cries into her glove

  12. aphillieated - Dec 11, 2013 at 1:43 PM

    Yeah, so is Cliff Lee and Cole Hamels. SMH lies!

  13. tigers182 - Dec 11, 2013 at 2:13 PM

    I’m definitely against trading for Hershal Walker. He hasn’t done anything in years.

    • ejheim62 - Dec 11, 2013 at 2:38 PM

      Well, he did a cameo in “Necessary Roughness”. Doesn’t that count for something?

  14. justanothersportsjunkie - Dec 11, 2013 at 2:53 PM

    Right, because Passan is so “in the know”!

  15. buyamericanonly - Dec 11, 2013 at 3:27 PM

    Its looking like a fire sale in detroit, who wants Miggy next? He can be had for a utility infielder, a marginal outfielder and a farm hand arm! Other breaking news, illitch preparing the team to sell!!!

  16. 3yardsandacloud - Dec 11, 2013 at 3:31 PM

    The simple fact of the matter is that Scherzer will never have higher value than he has coming off this past year. Further, he always is out of gas near the end of the year. Compare him to JV… he’s a good arm, but he isn’t an Ace the way JV is.

    Garza is still available, who the Tiger’s were interested in when he was with the Cubs. He could be a much more affordable replacement. Cabrera is going to demand big money and they still need a real bat in Left. Matt Kemp anyone? I’d consider it if the package was right.

    I like Scherzer and love the way he approaches the game, but with Boras, there is no extension coming and he will never be priced higher.

    • xjokerz - Dec 11, 2013 at 4:55 PM

      IF the tigers were going to trade Scherzer..why the HELL would we trade Fister as well?

      makes no sense.

      • beelza - Dec 11, 2013 at 5:24 PM

        Dave Dombrowski got bent over on the Fister deal. He’s a brilliant dealmaker no doubt, but it appears he got schooled. It happens.

  17. moogro - Dec 12, 2013 at 3:44 AM

    I disagree. Scherzer is now good for a while. It is Verlander that is now starting the decline.

  18. sidelineshot - Dec 12, 2013 at 11:07 AM

    How much dough is it going to take for the Tigers to sign Cabrera, when Robinson “pacific northwest” Cano got $240M ?
    That’s the danger on relying way too much on one dude to carry a franchise.

Leave Comment

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

Featured video

Alex Gordon, MVP candidate
Top 10 MLB Player Searches
  1. R. Castillo (3391)
  2. Y. Molina (2885)
  3. J. Soler (2823)
  4. D. Ortiz (2279)
  5. B. Colon (2194)
  1. D. Wright (2102)
  2. S. Doolittle (2032)
  3. Y. Darvish (1987)
  4. R. Cano (1948)
  5. T. Lincecum (1904)