Mahay Traded

by marbotty on Apr 1, 2008 8:15 AM EDT Comment 26 comments

From MLBTraderumors.com. I have to say, I didn't see this one coming:

Astros Acquire Ron Mahay

According to Troy E. Renck of the Houston Chronicle, the Royals traded reliever Ron Mahay to the Astros for a player to be named later. In an accompanying move, the Astros placed closer Brad Lidge on the 60-day Disabled List.

The 36 year-old lefty reliever is coming off of a successful 2007 in which he split time with Texas and Atlanta, posting a 2.55 ERA and logging 55 strikeouts in 67 innings. While we would still want to hear the official word from the Astros' skipper, we'd be surprised if Mahay isn't among the candidates for the closer's role in Lidge's absence.

As for speculation on who the Royals may receive in return as the PTBNL, both Humberto Quintero and Reggie Abercrombie have been mentioned as possibilities.

Posted on March 31, 2008 at 11:47 PM in Houston Astros, Kansas City Royals, Ron Mahay | Permalink "

This doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. Quintero was recently DFA'd, so there was a good chance we could have just picked him up off of waivers, rather than give up Mahay for him. Besides, with Olivo, do we really need another catcher?

As for Abercrombie, that would be a terrible option. The only reason I could think we'd go to such drastic measures would be if DDJ's injury is worse than expected and Hillman doesn't have enough faith in Gathright to play center, and Abercrombie represents a warm body.

I really hope the player to be named is a prospect, because otherwise Moore just got hosed.

1 recs | Comment 26 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

hmm

the timing on this could have been better

This space intentionally left blank.

by marbotty on Apr 1, 2008 9:42 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Agreed

You look at the calendar and you can't believe the Royals would trade him so early in the season, especially on a day after they celebrate a win. Dayton looks quite foolish for trading a guy so soon after signing him to a deal.

Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com

by RoyalsRetro on Apr 1, 2008 9:55 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Why couldn't the Royals trade Gullen for Fukudome today!

Rock Chalk Talk for pretty good KU baseball coverage

by James Quinn on Apr 1, 2008 10:30 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

I like how all the links

go to stuff about Ramirez instead of Mahay...

Boyfriend of the Year 2008: It's gonna be big!

by loyal2theroyals on Apr 1, 2008 10:32 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Lidge?

Isn't Lidge with the Phillies now?

That article has to be a hoax.

Chaim Mattis Keller New York City's # 1 Royals fan!

by cmkeller on Apr 1, 2008 10:48 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Hoax

Article is a hoax. I can't find any other source on this one....Lidge is with the Phillies. And if this is an April Fool's Joke, someone should have come up w/ a better one.

Never giving up on your team is what makes you a good fan.

by kcisbetterthanstlateverything on Apr 1, 2008 4:24 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Don't forget

what day it is.

by wetleg on Apr 1, 2008 11:57 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

April Fools Day

You can't trade a player you sign as a free agent for 365 days. Come on people.

I probably disagree with you.

by NYRoyal on Apr 1, 2008 12:10 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

its not 365 days...

but there is a time period where you cant trade guys. Plus, Lidge is not on the Astros.

by billybeingbilly on Apr 1, 2008 12:48 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

You're right

The 365-day rule is for drafted players. I'm not sure what it is for free agents. But I still think we are in the prohibited period.

I probably disagree with you.

by NYRoyal on Apr 1, 2008 12:50 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I had the same reaction

If you are going to bother with the joke, at least pick a guy who can get traded.

A free agent signee's "no trade" rights extend until June 15.

by Gopherballs on Apr 1, 2008 1:21 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Thanks for the clarification on the rule

I actually think that when they do these fake April Fools Day things, they usually put one or two things in there that allow you to figure out it is fake. They want people to be fooled...but only for a little while. They don't want to cross the line between joke and genuine misinformation.

I probably disagree with you.

by NYRoyal on Apr 1, 2008 1:59 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Can a player wavie that right?

Like they can when they have a no trade/partial no trade clause in there contract? Just wondering.

by TXroyal on Apr 1, 2008 10:48 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Don't know, but I don't think so

Players can waive no-trade clauses because it is in their contract and they can agree to disregard part of their contract. But the June 15th rule is a MLB rule. I don't think a player can help the team get around that.

I probably disagree with you.

by NYRoyal on Apr 1, 2008 11:13 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I do admire

The all out effort, though. Reasonable player to pick, authentic-looking mlbtraderumors post.

Nice work!

by Bornin85 on Apr 1, 2008 12:39 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Marbotty

You are pretty quick to conclude that the Royals got hosed. Seriously, on most trades and signings (and hoaxes), isn't your default reaction that the Royals screwed up and got the short end of the stick? And back when Mahay was signed, you were very critical of it, saying that it would make it harder next year for the Royals to sign free agents (because the wasted $4M commitment). In this hoax scenario, the Royals have completely gotten out from under this commitment and gotten something back for him to boot. It seems like you should have loved this deal. But instead your immediate reaction was that the Royals got hosed.

I probably disagree with you.

by NYRoyal on Apr 1, 2008 12:49 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

not big on the mahay signing, but certainly warmed up to the idea

My main concern was his age. But he's not too old, and he's certainly been effective the last few years.

As for my seeming pessimism, it's hard not to be a Royals fan and not have an immediate suspicion about trades. Just think of all the clunkers under Baird, and even in the previous regime. Damon, Dye, Cone, Saberhagen -- all for next to nothing.

That said, while I have been critical of Moore overall, I think he's had some great trades. I was especially happy with the Callaspo, Dessens, Shealy, and Bannister trades. I thought the MacDougal trade was average at best (wasn't a fan of Lumsden, and didn't even consider Cortes a serious prospect) and was really down on the Gathright, Gload, Pena, and Davies trades.

This space intentionally left blank.

by marbotty on Apr 1, 2008 2:54 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I do my best to be realistic

I try not to knee-jerk one way or another. Certainly the futility of the Royals organization pre-Moore has nothing to do with the current team. If a GM usually makes bad trades, then I can certainly understand an inherent suspicion on any trade he makes. But Moore has had a pretty good track record. I don't assume every trade is good, nor do I suspect the worst when he makes a trade. Here is a brief breakdown of the Moore trades off the top of my head:

- Afflect and Bautista for Shealy - looks bad for now
- Graffanino for DLR - we didn't get much out of it, but it was a 2-month rental of a utility IFer. You're lucky to get a young pitcher with good stuff for a trade like that
- Howell for Gathright - I really didn't like it at the time. I thought it was a stupid trade. But Howell has been unrelentingly awful for TB (as he was for KC) and Gathright has shown himself to be a pretty good 4th OF. But we'll see how they both continue to develop.
- Sisco for Gload - Gload has been and is a decent player. It is only the thinness of the Royals system in 1B's that overexposes him as a starter. Sisco has been beyond awful for the Chisox both in the majors and in AAA. His performance couldn't have been worse.
-MacDougal for Lumsden and Cortes - I liked it at the time and I love it now. MacDougal continues to be a freqently injured, always inconsistent reliever who had a really awful 2007 season. Lumsden looks like a failed prospect, but Cortes is a gem. Great trade.
- Cordier for Pena - a low-minors prospect with two major surgeries, including missing all of the 2007 season for a very light hitting, but near Gold Glove caliber middle infielder (a position where the organization is very thin). Good trade
- Dotel for Davies - A two-month rental of an oft-injured reliever for a 24-year-old pitcher with great talent and significant upside. Quite simply, it was the best deal available (multiple sources say that the Mariners never offered Balentien for Dotel). Very good trade
- Burgos for Bannister - tremendous trade
- Buckner for Callaspo - a #4/#5 SP who only has one genuinely good pitch for a potentially very good 2B (a position of great need for the Royals future). Great trade
- Dessens for Pimental and Johnson - a rental of an old, mediocre reliever for two decent pitching prospects. And Pimental has become a pretty good prospect with great stuff. Great trade

My quick count out of those 10 trades is:
1 bad trade
2 pushes
7 good trades

I probably disagree with you.

by NYRoyal on Apr 1, 2008 3:20 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Shealy for Affeldt/Bautista

Don't see how this is a negative. Affeldt gave all the value he was going to, which was nothing, and became a free agent. Bautista netted Jose Capellan for them. Meanwhile, we have six years of Shealy who may yet turn out ok.

by BlueEyes_Austin on Apr 1, 2008 3:38 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Evaluating that trade is complicated

Colorado received:

Affeldt - a fairly poor half season in 2006 and then a good season as a LOOGY in 2007
Bautista - crappy pitching and then Jose Capellan

Kansas City received:

Shealy - a pretty decent partial season in 2006 and then a horrible, injury-filled season in 2007. While he is under team control for multiple years, this is his last option year, which means he kind of needs to show something at the major league level this year or he'll be one of those out-of-options players who gets traded for a PTBNL before the 2009 season.

Right now it really looks like the Rockies got the better of that trade. If Shealy takes a real step forward, then that could change.

I probably disagree with you.

by NYRoyal on Apr 1, 2008 3:46 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

It's simply too...

...soon to judge the Affeldt/Shealy trade (those were the principals---who are we kidding) as ~bad~. Who knew that Affeldt had last season in him, particularly in Colorado? And now he's just a reliever again for the Reds. - TL

by timlacy on Apr 1, 2008 5:55 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

so...

had me fooled

i even added a "bizarre trades" tag

which i guess applies

by royalsreview on Apr 1, 2008 1:27 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

April Fool's again?

Not you too, marbotty?...

by sumajestad on Apr 1, 2008 2:10 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

i'm a sucker for a good leg pull

Unfortunately, the Bonds post was up a mere 3 minutes (literally) before this one. I thought for sure it would have ruined the effect.

This space intentionally left blank.

by marbotty on Apr 1, 2008 2:41 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

WOWOWOWOWOW

Scared the living shitt outta me. I was like well first off all Lidge doesnt play for the 'stros. and second of all we wanted Mahay really bad this offseason why would we give him up, especially for that stuff lol.. good job though you got me good

I love life. Life = Royals

by focs on Apr 1, 2008 2:10 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs