Trade Scott Linebrink before it's too late?

[HollywoodLeo]

Of course, the Rowand deal was on the table at the beginning of the season, before we knew exactly how good the rest of the bullpen would be.

Perhaps Kevin Towers wasn't quite as sure whether or not the pen could withstand the loss of Linebrink yet.

Going into the season Heath Bell was a guy who posted a 5.59 ERA and a 5.11 ERA in the two previous seasons, for example.

By the time it became certain that we could do without Linebrink I'm sure the Rowand deal was off the table.

In short, it's easy to use hindsight (something you claim to not use...) and say he should have traded for Rowand when he had the chance, but I can certainly understand the hesitance to do so at the time the deal was proposed.

[JayDawg27]

In PFF's defense he has been calling for Linebrinks trade since last year. Oh how I remember those fun nights arguing over his nick name of Linestink (on another forum) because he stunk then and he stinks now.

It's not really hindsight when PFF knew at the middle of last year that we needed to get a trade done while his value was still high and would probably dip.

[MrPadre19]

Even though KT couldn't be sure the bullpen would be OK w/o Linebrink.....he could still be certain that the offense could use another hitter.Even giving the benefit of the doubt on Kouz and Sledge,we could have used Rowand.
In other words,there was a greater certainty that the Pen would survive the loss of Linebrink than there was that the offense would be "good".It's splitting hairs I know,but KT has a knack for finding good,young,cheap arms(Cla,Bell,Cameron)......hitters are another story altogether(Castilla,Randa,Branyan).

[HollywoodLeo]

That's certainly true, and in retrospect the deal definitely should've been made. (I know, reefer, you told us so) I'm simply stating that I understand the mindset that KT probably had at the time when he didn't want to go through with the deal.

[padrefanforever]

Even if hindsight tells you it would've been a horrible deal?

You don't get to use hindsight when making the deal, so you shouldn't use it when talking about how you felt at the time you felt the deal should have been made. And I think Betemit just might have brought more to this teams blackhole last year, and could have been a very productive player. What he did for the Dodgers doesn't necessarily equate to what he'd have done in this environment. He might have thrived in the smaller market, with quiet media, and near zero national pub. Not seeing himself on ESPN every night may have helped him.

But we wont know.......so we therefore shouldn't use hindsight, since it really isn't available to us.....

[HollywoodLeo]

You don't get to use hindsight when making the deal, so you shouldn't use it when talking about how you felt at the time you felt the deal should have been made. And I think Betemit just might have brought more to this teams blackhole last year, and could have been a very productive player. What he did for the Dodgers doesn't necessarily equate to what he'd have done in this environment. He might have thrived in the smaller market, with quiet media, and near zero national pub. Not seeing himself on ESPN every night may have helped him.

But we wont know.......so we therefore shouldn't use hindsight, since it really isn't available to us.....

I'm not talking about how I felt at the time the deal was proposed, because I wanted the deal done at the time it was proposed.

I'm talking about what it'd most likely be now that we know what we know.

And if you're telling me I can't use Betemit's performance (or lack thereof) in LA as an indicator that the Linebrink-Betemit deal would've been a horrible move then you can't use Rowand's performance in Philly this year as an indicator that the Linebrink-Rowand deal would've been a good one.

You can give me the "who's to say Betemit wouldn't have done good here" argument, well then I'll say "Who's to say Rowand wouldn't have sucked at PetCo?"

You can't have it both ways. You can't point to Rowand's 2007 performance elsewhere and tell me that that move should have been made, then turn around and tell me that I'm not allowed to use Betemit's late 06-2007 performance to point out that it's a good thing that move wasn't made.

[padrefanforever]

And if you're telling me I can't use Betemit's performance (or lack thereof) in LA as an indicator that the Linebrink-Betemit deal would've been a horrible move then you can't use Rowand's performance in Philly this year as an indicator that the Linebrink-Rowand deal would've been a good one.

When did I say anything about Rowands #'s during any year ?

You can give me the "who's to say Betemit wouldn't have done good here" argument, well then I'll say "Who's to say Rowand wouldn't have sucked at PetCo?"

Again......who is saying he would have been either or here ? Fact is it's a deal that could have gotten done....and should have.......PERIOD

You can't have it both ways. You can't point to Rowand's 2007 performance elsewhere and tell me that that move should have been made, then turn around and tell me that I'm not allowed to use Betemit's late 06-2007 performance to point out that it's a good thing that move wasn't made

You're going to have to show me where I've discussed specifics regarding Rowands #'s........maybe I was drunk.......I don't know, but I don't remember siting any of them

[HollywoodLeo]

When did I say anything about Rowands #'s during any year ?

It's implied when you use it as a response to a challenge to name a "fair deal that was turned down" But I suppose I should stop reading too much into your posts.

Looking at your argument on the would-be Betemit deal it's obvious I was jumping to the wrong conclusion here. My fault.

Again......who is saying he would have been either or here ? Fact is it's a deal that could have gotten done....and should have.......PERIOD

So it doesn't matter how people may have fared when they came here? As long as Scott Linebrink was traded? What kind of sense does that make?

I wanted the Betemit deal made at the time of the proposed deal, but as I see him struggle in LA (game tying HR today not withstanding) I continue to think about how it's a good thing it wasn't made.

Your argument of "Well, he could've done different had he come to San Diego" is just silly. You know just as good as I that we'd both be talking about how bad of a trade it was if Betemit was struggling in a Padres uniform right now.

I'm willing to concede that the Rowand deal most likely would've worked in our favor, but I won't bend on this. Your argument in regards to Betemit simply makes zero sense and is a huge stretch.

You're normally better than that. The "We should have traded Linebrink for Betemit, what he has done in LA is irrelevant because it could've/would've been different if he came to San Diego" argument is right up there with Johndbr's "We never should've gotten rid of Sean Burroughs" tirades.

[FmrFresnan]

Look fellas...woulda coulda shoulda means JACK right now. Who knows what Betemit could or would have done last season or this season in a Padre uniform, or Aaron Rowand for that matter. As far as I'm concerned, let's focus on right now. Bradley has yet to make his Padre debut, let's give him a few weeks to show what he can do both offensively and defensively before we start talking about other moves.

As far as my signature about Adam Dunn being a Padre. I'm not backing down until the move ISN'T made. I'll stick with it until after July 31st, then I'll admit I was wrong.

[padrefanforever]

You're normally better than that. The "We should have traded Linebrink for Betemit, what he has done in LA is irrelevant because it could've/would've been different if he came to San Diego" argument is right up there with Johndbr's "We never should've gotten rid of Sean Burroughs" tirades.

This all started when you asked me to give you instances where Linebrink should have been traded........I gave you two........one clearly would have worked out, the other we'll never know.......but IMO both deals at the time should have been done.......it's as simple as that......

Now we're staring at draft pick compensation unless we can deal Linebrink before the break.......only dealing him before the break to better this team will change my reaction to us not dealing him last year in an attempt to better this teams gaping black holes. We had a great team last year, won the division, but I can't help but wonder how far we'd gone if we had anotehr bat.........this year..........same damn thing but we've got even better pitching......and I don't want to see it wasted for a KT love affair

[HollywoodLeo]

This all started when you asked me to give you instances where Linebrink should have been traded........I gave you two........one clearly would have worked out, the other we'll never know.......but IMO both deals at the time should have been done.......it's as simple as that......

I have trouble agreeing that it "should have been done" when it would've been a bad deal.

That tells me you think he should have been traded just for the sake of trading him, which is a mindset I have trouble getting behind.

If it would've been a bad deal, no he should NOT have been traded at the time.

Anyways, just my opinion and we're starting to talk in circles.

Now we're staring at draft pick compensation unless we can deal Linebrink before the break.......only dealing him before the break to better this team will change my reaction to us not dealing him last year in an attempt to better this teams gaping black holes. We had a great team last year, won the division, but I can't help but wonder how far we'd gone if we had anotehr bat.........this year..........same damn thing but we've got even better pitching......and I don't want to see it wasted for a KT love affair

Draft pick compensation is not nearly as bad of a thing as you make it out to be.

And let me ask you this, if Towers trades Bell or Cla for an adequate bat that helps this team, but holds on to Linebrink will you still be upset over the situation?

I still have trouble believing we'll get what we need using Linebrink considering the situation at hand.

Moving all this banter to the Linebrink thread, btw, so please hold off on a response till it's there.

[padrefanforever]

I have trouble agreeing that it "should have been done" when it would've been a bad deal.

That tells me you think he should have been traded just for the sake of trading him, which is a mindset I have trouble getting behind.

If it would've been a bad deal, no he should NOT have been traded at the time.

Anyways, just my opinion and we're starting to talk in circles.

No you don't just trade him to trade him.......at the time Betemit looked as if he'd be a huge asset to this club in one of the biggest chasm's this teams ever seen......So it's hardly trading him just to trade him........and not all trades work out, there is always risk.....I would also like to think that KT would have gotten more than just 1 player in return for Linebrink.....maybe another Ring or Bell or Meredith or CY......etc......

Draft pick compensation is not nearly as bad of a thing as you make it out to be.

Come on.......I've never said draft pick compensation is a bad thing, but does it help us this year ? I'm all for getting what we can IF we are stuck with only that as an option. But damn it, I want what in my opinion is our "best trade chip" over the last few years, to yeild more than just compensation players that may or may not pan out over the next 4 years......

And let me ask you this, if Towers trades Bell or Cla for an adequate bat that helps this team, but holds on to Linebrink will you still be upset over the situation?

I would need to know the trade, and I would need to know if Linebrink is resigning. If Linebrink isn't resigning he's GONE at the end of the year, so I would much rather move him if possible.....it's not a deal breaker if the right player is involved, but it's a priority for sure. I'd move Cla before Bell, and hang onto Bell if at all possible. He seems to have a closers mentality, and more than one out pitch.

I still have trouble believing we'll get what we need using Linebrink considering the situation at hand.

Moving all this banter to the Linebrink thread, btw, so please hold off on a response till it's there.

[HollywoodLeo]

No you don't just trade him to trade him.......at the time Betemit looked as if he'd be a huge asset to this club in one of the biggest chasm's this teams ever seen......So it's hardly trading him just to trade him........and not all trades work out, there is always risk.....I would also like to think that KT would have gotten more than just 1 player in return for Linebrink.....maybe another Ring or Bell or Meredith or CY......etc......

I understand that it looked like it would have been a good deal at the time, but are you telling me we're not allowed to look back on something and say "damn, I'm sure glad we didn't do that"?

I feel the need to reiterate that at the time of the proposed deal I wanted KT to pull the trigger. That doesn't mean I'm going to look back at it and still think it should have happened knowing what I now know.

Come on.......I've never said draft pick compensation is a bad thing, but does it help us this year ? I'm all for getting what we can IF we are stuck with only that as an option. But damn it, I want what in my opinion is our "best trade chip" over the last few years, to yeild more than just compensation players that may or may not pan out over the next 4 years......

I wasn't trying to suggest you thought it is a bad thing, but it's the message you send when you state "now we're looking at draft pick compensation for him" like as though that's something we should detest. (even if that wasn't the intended message.)

I'd love for us to trade Linebrink for offensive help as much as you would, where you and I seem to differ is you seem to be of the belief that Linebrink must be traded at all costs on the grounds that he's such a good trading chip (something I don't fully agree with, btw)

I, on the other hand, only think we should trade him if we get good return for him.

If the 2007 season ends with Linebrink still wearing a Padres uniform, where I fear you will go on another rant about how we didn't trade him when we had the chance, I will be open minded for the possibility that perhaps nobody offered/accepted a fair return for him.

I would need to know the trade, and I would need to know if Linebrink is resigning. If Linebrink isn't resigning he's GONE at the end of the year, so I would much rather move him if possible.....it's not a deal breaker if the right player is involved, but it's a priority for sure. I'd move Cla before Bell, and hang onto Bell if at all possible. He seems to have a closers mentality, and more than one out pitch.

I asked the question because I see Heath Bell or Cla Meredith being moved before I see Linebrink being moved.

[HollywoodLeo]

And, on a side note, quit making me fix your quote tags

[padrefanforever]

I understand that it looked like it would have been a good deal at the time, but are you telling me we're not allowed to look back on something and say "damn, I'm sure glad we didn't do that"?

KT should have used him to address our 3rd base issues last year. This year he should have used him to address our LF issues. If all we get for one of the best setup guys over the last 3 years are comp picks, then I'm going to feel KT did us a disservice.

I wasn't trying to suggest you thought it is a bad thing, but it's the message you send when you state "now we're looking at draft pick compensation for him" like as though that's something we should detest. (even if that wasn't the intended message.)

It's not good or bad......black/white........up/down......there a many levels between the two.........dealing in absolutes is what a Sith does

I'd love for us to trade Linebrink for offensive help as much as you would, where you and I seem to differ is you seem to be of the belief that Linebrink must be traded at all costs on the grounds that he's such a good trading chip (something I don't fully agree with, btw)

And last year IMO without question he was, this year before he started rolling out the gascan he was still a top trading chip.

I, on the other hand, only think we should trade him if we get good return for him.

Of course.......again.....we're not trading him just to trade him.....we should use him to get a piece we need......

If the 2007 season ends with Linebrink still wearing a Padres uniform, where I fear you will go on another rant about how we didn't trade him when we had the chance, I will be open minded for the possibility that perhaps nobody offered/accepted a fair return for him.

If nobody offers/accepted a fair trade, that entirely different.....it's my opinion that this isn't the case, and it's more a love affair KT has with him, as to why he's not been moved

I asked the question because I see Heath Bell or Cla Meredith being moved before I see Linebrink being moved.

You may be right.......but we control both of those guys.......why would we trade them away ? Doesn't make much sense unless the return was so dynamic that the depth of the bullpen could be compromised. Again, I would dangle Cla, and maybe others out there, but not Bell