The phone rings in Neal Huntington's office.

Brian Cashman: Uh, hi, is this Neal?

Neal Huntingon: Yup.

BC: Don't you, like, have a secretary or something?

NH: Dude, I don't even have a bullpen. What's up?

BC: Well, we just picked up Mark Teixeira, so we really don't need Nick Swisher AND Xavier Nady and I kinda thought, that, you know ...

NH: That'd I'd just give them to you in return for Paul Maholm and Nate McLouth and maybe if I haggled really hard you'd include Melky Cabrera?

BC: Did you just read my mind? Because that's incredible. It's like ... wow. What are you even doing in a front office. You should have your own TV show or something.

NH: Excessively complimenting me is not going to make this trade happen.

BC: What is?

NH: Uh, remove Swisher and Nady from the deal, add Jackson and Betances, and make it for McLouth OR Maholm and we'll talk.

BC: You're much meaner than the guy on The Mentallist. Call me back when you feel like taking overrated, overpaid players in return for the only talented players you have on your roster.

Click.

OK, so maybe that's not how this happened. But it's pretty much how it went down in my head.

Comments

Add New Search

UtesFan89     |2009-01-08 17:51:55 Would you trade for Swisher if it was going to cost you any of the starters? Reply | Quote 0   0

Nate     |2009-01-08 18:08:59 I think that was the point. I don't know if you're a regular follower of this blog or not, but you'll find that Pat is pretty good with the sarcasm. Reply | Quote 0   0

UtesFan89     |2009-01-08 18:53:57 I caught the sarcasm... I think. I was serious in asking what he'd give up for him though. Reply | Quote 0   0

Pat     |2009-01-08 18:11:59 Do you mean a position player? Or a starting pitcher? And who counts as a starting pitcher? To try and answer your question, I might think about it, but the player we give up would have to be pretty far down the totem pole, and I don't think that's what the Yankees are looking to do here. Reply | Quote 0   0

UtesFan89     |2009-01-08 18:55:29 Meant starting pitcher. Should've clarified that. Yeah, that's what I was wondering. It didn't seem to make much sense to give up a MLB starter for a 1/OF... we already have a sort-of log-jam there. I think... is it possible to have a log jam when you're as bad as the Pirates? Reply | Quote 0   0

Nate     |2009-01-08 18:12:54 Though I'll say, as someone posted in DK's comments, I'd much rather see Nady or Swisher than Nyjer Morgan in the outfield. But then again, I'd rather see just about anyone other than Nyjer Morgan in the outfield...including Jeromy Burnitz again. It's just not worth any kind of talent in return. Reply | Quote 0   0

long4willie     |2009-01-08 19:06:59 Why wouldn't the Bucs give up any of their starters. I mean really, this pitching staff needs to be replaced completely by the time we think we can compete with the Alvarezes , McCutchens, and Tabatas, etc. The Buccos do not have a #1, #2, or a #3 pitcher. If Malholm is the best, he is probably a #4 on a good team. The front office needs to fnd some pitchers and I would start with a trade from the SF Giants. They have 2 of the best and guess what, they could use some hitters such as Doumit, LaRoches, McClouth, etc. As they say in the NFL, defense wins championships, then IMHO, PITCHING wins pennants and World Series Championships. Management can pick all the shortstops that will fit on a bus, but if the pitching is not there, this team is destined to fail---again in (pick the year). Reply | Quote 0   0

Nate     |2009-01-09 06:56:20 It's not that I have a problem giving up starters, it's that if they gave u[p starters for the return of a player we traded last year and Nick Swisher, I'd be upset. Reply | Quote 0   0

apk     |2009-01-08 20:27:46 It is awfully funny if you pretend that commenter "Nate" is Nate McLouth. I think I'll do that the rest of the year. Speaking of Nate- how creepy is that FSN commercial where he's just standing there? Reply | Quote 0   0

gregschuler     |2009-01-09 03:19:01 From reports I have read, it would seem that Huntington called Cashman. Not very funny, but whatever. As far as re-acquiring Nady - no thanks. It's unlikely he'll repeat his career season and he's a pending free agent, meaning the Pirates will peddle him for even less than they got last time. It also flies in the face of the supposed rebuilding - these players won't be here when the Pirates are good again in 2015. Swisher is a useful player, but superfluous on the Pirates even in the best of times. He might replace Morgan in LF or LaRoche at 1b, but he's league average. He's a good rebound candidate, but n ot assuredly so. And the Pirates would have to give up something to get him and pay him a big salary (for them). If the Pirates are out combing for extra talent, it must be because even the front office realizes how historically bad this team could be next year. Reply | Quote 0   0

Dr. Mattitude     |2009-01-09 04:09:28 I'd trade Grabow for Swisher straight up... and I think the Yankees would too. Reply | Quote 0   0

MrPedriqueIfYou'reNasty     |2009-01-09 07:22:32 Thats a trade that I could get behind at least...the Yanks could use a LOOGY and Swisher is entering his 28 year old year. But thats probably not going to happen. Reply | Quote 0   0

Marc     |2009-01-09 05:25:31 What type of FA will Nady be? Reply | Quote 0   0

Curtis     |2009-01-09 05:36:35 I would offer Karstens for Nady, then laugh. Then get hung up on. Reply | Quote 0   0

Deaner     |2009-01-09 14:39:33 This is classic stuff... I love the secretary comment! Reply | Quote 0   0

Name:
Email:	do not notifynotify
Website:
Title:
UBBCode:	-color-aquablackbluefuchsiagraygreenlimemaroonnavyolivepurpleredsilvertealwhiteyellow -size-tinysmallmediumlargehuge
	Please input the anti-spam code that you can read in the image.

3.26 Copyright (C) 2008 Compojoom.com / Copyright (C) 2007 Alain Georgette / Copyright (C) 2006 Frantisek Hliva. All rights reserved."