By:
Advanced search…

Welcome to Detroit Sports Forum!

By joining our community, you'll be able to connect with fellow fans that live and breathe Detroit sports just like you!

Get Started
  • If you are no longer able to access your account since our recent switch from vBulletin to XenForo, you may need to reset your password via email. If you no longer have access to the email attached to your account, please fill out our contact form and we will assist you ASAP. Thanks for your continued support of DSF.

2016 MLB Trade Deadline Tracker

Looks more like it may be that shitty 1 game WC crapshoot or bust for the Tigers, if the Indians also nab Lucroy. They have only 7 games left to play head to head in the last half of Sept. and could have to win, if not better still, sweep one and win the other series. Based on their miserable 1-11 record against them so far, and a losing record vs division of 18-23 (Tribe 30-13) looks pretty damn daunting for overtaking them.
 
From ESPN's Jim Bowden-

"Jonathan Lucroy deal to Indians is dead. Brewers moving on. For all the things for Lucroy and his representatives to ask for to waive no-trade nothing could be dumber than asking to eradicate option year. Of course prospect return was based on not being a rental. They could have asked for 1m trade bonus, full-no trade with Indians but NOT eradicate option year because no one would do that...no one. Now he can be traded to Mets and now nor only won't be able to block trade but will now get nothing. To be concerned he won't be every day catcher in 2017 over Gomes is stultified . Bad move by Lucroy camp."
 
Jim Bowden is a knucklehead. Lucroy had every right to exercise his no trade and it was there for his protection, not the Brewers. Word is that Cleveland is still trying to work a deal, along with a new contract for Lucroy. If given a new contract and the trade, Cleveland becomes the favorite for the next 3 years or so.
 
Last edited:
Cle is notorious for dumping star players when their huge paydays are imminent. They could have traded Lucroy as soon as next offseason tomaximize return, and avoid losing him to FA after '17.
 
Rebbiv said:
Jim Bowden is a knucklehead. Lucroy had every right to exercise his no trade and it was there for his protection, not the Brewers. Word is that Cleveland is still trying to work a deal, along with a new contract for Lucroy. If given a new contract and the trade, Cleveland becomes the favorite for the next 3 years or so.
Click to expand...


Did you not even read what he said???? He didn't give him shit for exercising the no trade, it was for asking the team to decline the option for next year, making him a free agent after this year. That option is the value in any trade so there isn't a team anywhere that would agree to that.
 
gotime909 said:
Did you not even read what he said???? He didn't give him shit for exercising the no trade, it was for asking the team to decline the option for next year, making him a free agent after this year. That option is the value in any trade so there isn't a team anywhere that would agree to that.
Click to expand...

"Bad move by Lucroy camp." --Bowden


Lucroy and his agent(s) know that. They are trying to leverage that with a contract beyond 2017. When he signed the contract with the Brewers, it was give and take. They wanted the club option year, in return, Lucory asked for the no trade. But that was a "home town discount". Now, he is trying to get something in return from Cleveland. It is hardly a bad move by Lucroy and it is the reason you put no trade clauses into contract. It protects the player and can give stability.

Hypothetically, if DET traded for Lucory, I would hope/expect they would re-work his contract beyond 2017. Otherwise, the prospect package for 1 1/3 of a year of Lucroy is very expensive, even if his salary is very much low.
 
Tribe fans won't even support their winning team this season, as Cle is 28th! out of 30 MLB teams in home attendance, and although they draw better on the road by almost 10K/game, they are dead-last in MLB for that category as well...aka the Rodney Dangerfields of MLB.

http://espn.go.com/mlb/attendance
 
Last edited:
Rebbiv said:
"Bad move by Lucroy camp." --Bowden


Lucroy and his agent(s) know that. They are trying to leverage that with a contract beyond 2017. When he signed the contract with the Brewers, it was give and take. They wanted the club option year, in return, Lucory asked for the no trade. But that was a "home town discount". Now, he is trying to get something in return from Cleveland. It is hardly a bad move by Lucroy and it is the reason you put no trade clauses into contract. It protects the player and can give stability.

Hypothetically, if DET traded for Lucory, I would hope/expect they would re-work his contract beyond 2017. Otherwise, the prospect package for 1 1/3 of a year of Lucroy is very expensive, even if his salary is very much low.
Click to expand...

He's pointing out that asking for something that you know isn't a possibility was dumb.

I wouldn't want Detroit extending him. He's a 30 year old catcher. I'd love for them to get him for this year and even next, but I'd be sketchy on him after that.
 
gotime909 said:
He's pointing out that asking for something that you know isn't a possibility was dumb.

I wouldn't want Detroit extending him. He's a 30 year old catcher. I'd love for them to get him for this year and even next, but I'd be sketchy on him after that.
Click to expand...

So why have a no trade clause? Especially when you identify CLE as one of the teams. There is no point to having a no trade clause if you cannot wield it at times like this.

And you make it sound like 30 years old is "old". We are talking about a top tier catcher. He isn't worth a 2-3 year extension, especially if you are getting 2017 dirt cheap?

And Bowden is a dirtbag, especially what he did with Latino bonuses. I hate listening to him on MLB radio. He is almost comical to listen to, as much as reading Rob Rogacki's hatchet blogs.
 
Lucroy beginning to decline after '17 would still make him better than 75% of the starting Cs in MLB.

Catchers w/800 OPS and some power+ above average defense in MLB are fairly rare. If I was a MLB GM, I would draft one prospect in the upper rounds every year in the hopes of one possibly developing into an MLB star.

Since '69, other than signing Pudge as a FA, they developed Lance Parrish, and two one-year rookie wonders in Matt Nokes and Alex Avila.
 
Rebbiv said:
So why have a no trade clause? Especially when you identify CLE as one of the teams. There is no point to having a no trade clause if you cannot wield it at times like this.

And you make it sound like 30 years old is "old". We are talking about a top tier catcher. He isn't worth a 2-3 year extension, especially if you are getting 2017 dirt cheap?

And Bowden is a dirtbag, especially what he did with Latino bonuses. I hate listening to him on MLB radio. He is almost comical to listen to, as much as reading Rob Rogacki's hatchet blogs.
Click to expand...

I think your pre existing hatred of Bowden is getting in the way. Again, he wasn't saying he thought using his no trade clause was the problem. It was asking to have his option year not picked up.

Do you really not see how dumb that was to ask??? They were willing to part with some pretty big pieces. No chance they'd give all that up for a rental.

As far as extending him, I'm with you on his skill level right now. I'd love to get him. I'd just be worried that in the next couple years he'd be forced to play 1B and DH more and more. His bat is great as a catcher, not so amazing as a 1b or DH.
 
turok said:
Lucroy beginning to decline after '17 would still make him better than 75% of the starting Cs in MLB.

Catchers w/800 OPS and some power+ above average defense in MLB are fairly rare. If I was a MLB GM, I would draft one prospect in the upper rounds every year in the hopes of one possibly developing into an MLB star.

Since '69, other than signing Pudge as a FA, they developed Lance Parrish, and two one-year rookie wonders in Matt Nokes and Alex Avila.
Click to expand...

As much as Lucroy would be an upgrade at C, I doubt he is coming here. I just read that we are one of the other 7 teams on his no trade list.
 
I'm super curious as to Lucroy's reasoning for his no trade list. Mostly because I'll never know, but I've lived in Wisconsin and been to Milwaukee dozens of times. Milwaukee, Detroit, Cleveland...they're all the same really.
 
http://mlb.nbcsports.com/2016/07/31...clause/?ocid=Yahoo&partner=ya5nbcs&yptr=yahoo

Lucroy didn’t owe it to the Brewers to agree to move elsewhere just to facilitate their rebuilding process, particularly if it affected his family’s future. Hopefully, Lucroy setting an example today helps players feel more confident in using the full extent of their rights as contractually agreed upon.

I couldn't agree more. No trade clauses are meant to protect the player. It didn't matter that it was CLE or that his contract was deemed "value". That value was agreed upon with MIL, not CLE.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

About Us

Founded in 2011, Detroit Sports Forum is a community of fanatics dedicated to teams like the Lions, Tigers, Pistons, Red Wings, Wolverines, and more. We live and breathe Detroit sports!

Stay Connected

Forum statistics

Threads
32,892
Messages
1,109,081
Members
942
Latest member
Proud Pheasant

Affiliates

    Discussion Hub
Back
Top