View Full Version : Thank you Dan Glass?
04-22-2003, 09:14 PM
I mentioned this in a game thread and someone else may have stated this before, but how lucky are we so far that Dan Glass vetoed that Randa trade to the Cubs? He has been huge for us and a catalyst in our lineup. We certainly wouldn't be sitting where we are right now had the trade gone down...
04-22-2003, 09:22 PM
I'll thank Glass once he doesn't do anything to break the good karma and places that ahead of $$$$
With the Royals winning and being a contender, I'm half-eager to see what kind of owner he is.
I'm not keeping my hopes up high.... :grr:
04-22-2003, 09:44 PM
Although I advocated it before the season, DO NOT TRADE BELTRAN. I repeat, DO NOT TRADE BELTRAN. Along with that, DO NOT TRADE RANDA. That is all...
keg in kc
04-22-2003, 10:04 PM
If this continues through the upcoming road trip, and we play .500 ball against the Twins, Blue Jays, Red Sox and Orioles, then I consider taking Beltran off the table. If we still have a .500 record by the all-star break (after a BRUTAL month of June), then I definitely consider trying to keep him.
But we still need to be realistic here, and do what's best for the team long term. Is keeping Beltran now and getting nothing for him when he leaves after 2004 more important than trading him away when he still has maximum value?
Plus, we're winning despite the fact that he missed two weeks and has made virtually no impact whatseover since returning.
As for Randa, well, he's playing well now, but we'd still better do whatever we can to secure the future at 3rd base. Maybe that's Jarrod Patterson, maybe not. He's not exactly a youngster himself.
04-23-2003, 12:42 AM
I thought we'd get a first round sandwich pick if we lost Beltran (assuming he'd command big bucks...).
keg in kc
04-23-2003, 01:59 AM
Originally posted by Pitt Gorilla
I thought we'd get a first round sandwich pick if we lost Beltran (assuming he'd command big bucks...). I believe you're correct.
JMO, but the only reason we should refrain from trading Beltran is if we are certain we can sign him for 2005 and beyond. I don't see a real upside to keeping him for the next two years and getting nothing more than a draft pick in return. If we're going to lose him, we need to at least get a pair of prospects who are close, guys who will be able to join the big club and make an impact quickly. Waiting on it, and ending up forced to draft a guy we won't see in KC before 2009, if at all, just isn't much of an answer if you ask me.
'course, in the end, it's like the Chiefs: whatever happens, people will probably bitch. This is, hopefully, the last ugly situation that Baird will have to deal with thanks to the way the team was run before he took over. Now it's time for him to start worrying about his own guys, getting the new group of "core" guys signed long term early and relatively cheaply, like he wasn't able to do with guys like Damon and Dye and, likely, Beltran.
vBulletin® v3.8.8, Copyright ©2000-2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.