If Burrell weren’t injured and raking the ball, Edwin were pitching like Edwin, Kapler were hitting like his career norms, this list would not exist.

Neimann was out of options.

Percival? No brainer there, they gave him a shot rather than just pissing away $4M.

EJax? He’s due for his Mike Matasow blow up.

Kapler sux, Burrell’s been a bust but for a guy that’s been averaging 30+ HR’s and 100 RBI over the past 4 seasons it was a good signing at the time.

The point is as horrible and unenthusiastic as many feel the Rays have played they’re only 5.5 back.

I agree with the others that this is a stupid post. I would have signed Pudge and deep 6’d the worst player in all of baseball A.K.A. the round man.

Sonny’s been horrible all year and unless he turns it around, Niemann should stay in the rotation over him when Kaz is back.

it appears that most of the people on this site do not agree with all your points, pontormo, at least the ones who have responded so far. In fact, many people don’t agree with any of them. Count me among that latter group for the reasons already given.

As for Friedman being a genius, I don’t like to toss that description around easily. I think he has demonstrated an excellent grasp of how to build a contender and how to acquire talent and add depth to an organization. Many moves do not work out, and before he is done as GM many others will also fail. But the reasoning behind the moves is sound, and as is usually the case require choices among various defensible options, not simply doing the right or wrong thing.

For example, many people on this site wanted the Rays to sign Milton Bradley or Giambi rather than Burrell. Or thought the Rays should deal Niemann rather than Hammel. There were legitimate arguments for any of those moves, but in hindsight none now seem to be right.

the Cubs traded 25 year old Lou Brock and two other players to the Cardinals for 28 year old Ernie Broglio and 2 others, one of whom was 38 year old Bobby Shantz. Ever since, the Cubs have been pilloried for making such a one-sided deal, giving up a future HOFer for a pitcher who managed two more partial seasons in baseball and was awful.

Leaving aside the debate over whether Brock really was that great a player, the criticism is still unfair. Given what was known at the time and how players were evaluated then, the deal made sense for Chicago. Brock had disappointed for 3 years. An indifferent fielder at best, he had not hit for average or power. His only asset seemed to be his speed. And their incumbent left fielder was 26 year old BIlly Williams, already established as an excellent player.

In addition, 3 of the Cubs starting pitchers in 1964 were respectively 33, 35 and 37 years old. Broglio was not only a former 21 game winner but had gone 18-8 the previous year with a 2.99 ERA. Although he was just 3-5 at the time of the trade, his ERA was solid. Even Shantz could be seen as a plus for the Cubs as he also pitched very well in relief in 1963 and started 1964 well also. It must have seemed enticing to add Broglio to a staff with 2 other recent 20 game winners, a still effective Larry Jackson and a very young Dick Ellsworth, while just giving up a failed prospect. An established front line pitcher, still in his prime, for a very limited left fielder! The Cubs made a legitimate decision and got screwed.

Although I did not think he was a very good pitcher, I liked Edwin Jackson and thought he showed some progress last year even if the numbers did not reflect it. Should he emerge as a star pitcher, a development I still think unlikely but possible, while Joyce becomes a 4th outfielder at best, the trade will have been a bad one for TB. But given the circumstances at the end of 2008 it was exactly the right thing for the Rays to do. Results are important is assessing trades, but analyzing the legitimacy of options is crucial for assessing the judgments of the people making the trades.