2009 MLB Trade Deadline:Winners & Losers
The 2009 MLB Trade Deadline has come and gone and left some teams standing in a position to chase the championship crown, and left others, well...thinking what happened?
Trading players and prospects is similar to gambling. The key word is risk. My personal opinion is no risk, no reward, but I'm also not a major league general manager.
Late Thursday, all the way into Friday afternoon, phones were ringing ridiculously all over major league baseball offices. Roy Halladay's name surfaced to the top, but once 4 p.m. came he was still across the border, out of the playoff chase.
My point is who are the winners and losers of the MLB Trade Deadline? In this article I will provide three winners and three losing ball clubs.
1. St. Louis Cardinals—Key acquisition: Matt Holliday
Christmas in July was the motto for the St. Louis Cardinals in 2009 after they snagged outfielder Matt Holliday from the Oakland A's. Prior to Holliday, the Cards acquired infielder Mark DeRosa from the Indians in late June.
Holliday is hitting .600 with the Cardinals and has quickly regained his form from his old home, known as the National League. With the addition of Holliday, the Cardinals could be poised for a repeat of 2006.
2. Philadelphia Phillies—Key acquisition:Cliff Lee
The reigning MLB Champions are just getting crazy now. The Phillies offense has a mass load of productive players from Rollins to Utley to Howard, all the way down the batting order.
Now they have a stacked pitching staff? Cliff Lee, Cole Hamels, Joe Blanton, Jamie Moyer, and rookie J.A. Happ is a starting staff to watch out for. Oh, and Pedro Martinez is waiting on the DL. Cliff Lee will make a C.C. Sabathia type turnaround for Philadelphia after leaving the lowly Indians, for a competitive NL team. This is a steal for the Phillies.
3. Boston Red Sox—Key acquisition: Victor Martinez
Fact one: The Cleveland Indians are sellers in 2009. Fact two: The Boston Red Sox got much better in 2009. Adding Catcher/First basemen Victor Martinez adds more pop to this lineup than ever before. There is so much power and Martinez has patience to work pitchers and with a potent lineup in Boston he should do damage.
1. Pittsburgh Pirates—Key losses: Jack Wilson, Ian Snell, Freddy Sanchez
As we speak, there in a huge hole in the infield at PNC Park and on the Pirates roster. The ability to play defense is gone and I can promise anybody, rookie Andrew Mccutchen will not hit three home runs a game for Pittsburgh many times in his career.
I mean we never can expect much from the Pirates, but now I think the Nationals are more exciting to watch. At least they have Nate Mc...oh wait he's gone too.
2. Chicago White Sox—Key losses: MLB Prospects & Gained: Jake Peavy
Congratulations White Sox, you've just acquired an ace, but he's on the DL. Don't forget about all those prospects you discarded for Peavy as well. The good factor in all of this mess is Peavy is excited to pitch for Chicago, but that's exactly why he declined to remove his no trade clause earlier in the season to come to Chicago right? T
his move may look sub par now, but in the years down the road the White Sox will be selling to regain those missing prospects.
3. Texas Rangers—Key losses: None & Key Gains: None
Texas, where are you? Chasing the division leading Angels is what will be happening all season long, until the losses pile up. There was no major move by Texas and in my opinion these Rangers needed a leader.
Michael Young is good, but Adam Dunn is a nice bat to throw in the lineup. Pitching could have used a nice boost. Instead, what do you have? A mediocre team who could potentially be a one and done, or just not make the post season period. I'm a person who enjoys winning and always looks to improve, obviously the management in Texas isn't.
Well, there is my in-depth perspective on the trade deadline. Some teams followed my go big, or go home theory, others just watched it come and go.
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?