Quote:
Originally Posted by BigRedChief
Does anyone not remember the Dan Haren trade?
|
Haren would be like throwing in Jenkins.
Haren was
not considered a gem within the system. He was considered a guy that was just another decent arm probably destined for middle relief or the 5th starters role. Hell, many thought
Kiko Calero was a bigger loss.
He was a scouting failure. If you're going to cite Haren, it has to be for the proposition that you trade
nobody. Because Dan Haren would most assuredly not be analogous to Shelby Miller.
The 'gem' in that deal was Daric Barton and I notice you didn't call it the 'Barton' trade; which was what it was considered at the time.
If you trade Trevor Rosenthal or Tyrell Jenkins and he ends up being a stud, you've duplicated the Dan Haren trade. The Mulder trade perfectly illustrates my point, though. It wasn't Barton (the 'stud' in the deal) that hurt us - at all. Barton was among the top 10-15 prospects in baseball at that time and dealing him didn't hurt us a bit because ultimately our scouts knew more than everyone elses did (he wasn't going to stick at C or ever hit with enough power for 1st). I think dealing Miller is likely to have similar repercussions.
Like I said - it's a scouting issue, not an approach one. We need to make the right scouting decision here and I think we have already failed in doing so by allowing Miller's value to depreciate to a point that we can't get the talent we would've snagged for him before the rest of the league saw him throwing slop.
Trading Miller for Hamels would be just like trading Barton for Mulder. You have to hope that Hamels is better than Mulder (likely) and that we don't throw in Jenkins for giggles. I absolutely remember the Mulder trade and it does very little to bolster your argument.