davell

72, tops. my honest guess is 72 is probably close. But that's not the top end. If Youkilis and Liriano stay healthy, that team(with a bullpen arm or two added) could do much better than that. At any rate, that team probably comes in around 90 mill or so, adds some longterm pieces and gives you plenty of room moving forward to add a young middle of the order hitter and a TOR starter that's much better than a Garza, when one comes available.

How many games would a team win with a rotation of Anderson, Hutchison, Shark, Wood, and Liriano win with a lineup of DeJesus, Castro, Rizzo, Soriano, Youkilis, Morrison, Castillo, and Barney?

I'm not opposed to adding major league talent, but I like tge one or two year contract, stopgap approach for one more season. That said, if we DO go looking for major league talent, my favorite scenario by far includes trading Garza, with a return piece slotting immediately into the rotation. Looking into Oakland and Atlanta, to acquire pitching from them, attempting to use young position players to acquire them. Maybe try and buy low on Logan Morrison.

Evidently the Dodgers are pissed we let Dempster listen in on the trade talks last Tuesday and we may no longer have a good relationship with them. Of [expletive] well.

SGP is what he's got. Serious Grit Potential.

Geez, he's 19. First game back home. I wasn't saying he's overmatched or anything like that. Just saying he could have been trying to impress his family and friends a bit tonight. He'll be just fine, no doubt whatsoever.

He's playing 4 hours away from where he went to HS. He could easily have a bunch of people there to see his first game and is pressing.

By the way, one possible negative to doing something like this, is it's possible you could ruin relationships with other teams. As soon as a team does this, guys like Boras could expect other teams to as well. Making it harder to get some players signed. Teams affected by this, could lock out the team that started it from trading. For all we know, teams may have an unwritten agreement not to do this. Pure speculation though, on my part. Because it definitely is sitting there, waiting for a team to take advantage.

I'm very curious now about Alcantara and what the plans are for him. I thought I had read he was really close to coming back like a week ago. So either there's been a setback or he could play a couple of games in Arizona and move on up to Tennessee after that, I guess. On another note, they've really moved Saunders around. I was a tad surprised they moved him down to Peoria. He seems like a utility type, I would have kept him there and moved Bruno up, I believe.

I've thought something like this is conceivably possible. My guess is they woyldn't do it in a year they're forfeiting a high pick. The issue becomes how good of a draft your doing it in. to me, it'd have to be a very deep draft, to where you're recouping enough that both the loss of 2 first rounders and paying double basically is worth it. I can see the same thing going on with IFA as well, especially since the non monetary penalties don't seem as harsh. You're just having to take a quantity approach, since you wouldn't be able to spend more than 250k on a player. My guess is if a team does either, it'd happen with IFA first, because of that. And my guess is it'd be less of an effect on overall baseball operations, in general, since the cumulative amount of money spent on IFA is less than half of what is spent on the draft. Bottom line though, is I DO see a team doing this at some piint. And depending on disciplanary actions possibly enforced from what we know, other teams could follow suit. And yes, I hope we pick the right time and spot, and beat everyone else to the punch with it.

Worth what? What is being risked? Money that is otherwise not being spent? A modest payroll amount 4 years down the line? No long term assets are being sold off for temporary upgrades, or prospects being blocked for short term fixes. Wouldn't you rather have the draft positioning and IFA money than winning 75ish games, if we're not even adding young, longterm assets to do that? No. I'd rather make thoughtful upgrades to the MLB roster and have the potential to get the tens of millions in revenue that come from playoff appearances than intentionally hold back the MLB roster in order to have the flexibility to add a marginally better draft pick or two. Money helps bring in better talent in the draft, but it's still too much guesswork for me to intentionally tank the end product for such a small benefit. Fair point obviously. That said, I don't see the options out there that could be had on short term deals that make it worth trying myself. Again, it's one more year of this, then I'd be buying for sure. If I'm trying to use your method, maybe adding Marcum and McCarthy to the rotation. I doubt either gets more than 2-3 years max, maybe even not that long. Add a couple of bullpen arms on one year deals. Have a veteran SOMETHING at 3B, in case Vitters tanks. Maybe a Mark Reynolds? Maybe get Torii Hunter, let DeJesus play CF? Or is Hunter one of the "I hate Wrigley" guys anyway? At any rate, I guess Pagan could be OK. You could probably do those things and stay around 110 mill or so, is my guess, without trading anyone else. I prefer the other route though. That being said, I really am thinking the renovation keeps our payroll down around 80 or so this upcoming season, maybe next as well. Although I think we'll be solid by then, even with the payroll and up it bigtime after that.

Yeah, I can see him starting in Daytona next year.

Worth what? What is being risked? Money that is otherwise not being spent? A modest payroll amount 4 years down the line? No long term assets are being sold off for temporary upgrades, or prospects being blocked for short term fixes. Wouldn't you rather have the draft positioning and IFA money than winning 75ish games, if we're not even adding young, longterm assets to do that?

Garza to Arizona for Corbin and Pollock Thanks TT, but ugh. If that's the best we can do, I gotta admit, I'd change my tune completely on what to do with him. But, it's Bowden and I think he's off on value here.

Just curious, anyone with ESPNInsider? What was Bowden's Garza trade that should have happened?

My guess is one of Rosscup or Burke gets kept, along with one of the low level, high upside arms, like a Peralta or Rosario. I'm starting to see the writing on the wall for Watkins though, I think the Villanueva trade hurt his chances quite a bit. That said, Villanueva may be blocked here as well, he'll certainly get kept obviously, but I'd love to see him dealt to the Braves in a Delgado package or to Oakland as part of a deal for a young arm there. At any rate, I can see us making a minor leaguer for minor leaguer type trade over the offseason, where we acquire more pitching.

Wow. I know he's not getting challenged in Peoria, I guess they feel he needs to see better pitching in order to work on his plate discipline.

I was thinking Brett and/or Vitters could interest Atlanta possibly. Granted, either or both probably would need to come up and audition well for us. Anderson's probably my main focus though, he'd be a great get for us, in my mind.

I think part of our disagreement is I'm just not sold that Garza IS a TOR guy. Although, I fully admit he's good. That said, I honestly will be surprised if when we have our [expletive] together, he slots in higher than 3 for us longterm. In other thrwads I'm trying to target Atlanta and Oakland for some of their young pitching, by the way. I'd LOVE to find a way to buy low on Brett Anderson. I want us to revisit Delgado. And while I'm using him as an example, I do obviously rwally like Hutchison. My perfect scenario this offswason would be teading Garza, with Hutchison as the main piece and winding up with Anderson somehow. No clue what it'd take to get him, but Oakland needs an entire left side of the infield. I could see Beane valueing Barney pretty highly, maybe him, Vitters, and Vogelbach could entice him? Too much? Too little? Am I throwing spare parts out there? I honestly have no idea, but Anderson, Shark, Hutchison, and Wood, with a vet at 4/5 seems like a really solid future rotation. And certainly gives us the ability to go sign or trade for a true ace to join them in the next year or two as well.

Yeah, that could be bad news for Watkins. I hope we find a way to include him in a teade beforehand now. I figure he'll get picked and I also think he's got a major league career ahead of him. But he's blocked in all sorts of ways with us.

Didn't realize this, but Villanueva has to be added this offseason.

Wow, Tim mentioning Andreoli made me look him up. He's doing about what I thought he was, but he's 6'1, 215 ? Would NOT have thought that.

I'd love to see 2 youngsters in the rotation, with Shark and Wood. One from a Garza deal, and one from the glut in Atlanta or Oakland, if we can pry someone away using Brett and/or Vitters as the headliners. After that, assuming we go cheap, Ervin Santana, Joe Saunders, Liriano on 1 year deals or McCarthy or Marcum if they'd take 2 year deals. A guy like Blanton or Correia, as an innings eater you don't care if his arm falls off could be of use. Scott Baker's coming off of TJS, he's interesting to me. I'd probably want a 2 year deal, since year 1 will probably be a struggle. Feldman on a 1 year deal would be fine too.

You just said Upton's stats would be better moving from the AL East to the NL Central, but you dismissed a currently 21 year old SP doing the same? Age alone, dictates him getting better, much less the move out of that division. I think you're worried way too much about finding a TOR starter. The money saved, the extra prospects, we'll get one. Honestly, I'll be very surprised if heading into 2014, we don't have one. And I'll be just as surprised if by 2015, we don't have 2. Neither of which is Garza.

Carlos Rodriguez pitched out of the pen today, going 4.1, 0 hits, 1 walk, and 5 K's.