davell

Some dimestore psychology, on my part. But he's laid back for the most part and I think he figured him and Rizzo were probably arriving together. Rizzo killed it, came up, and Brett has steadily regressed. Maybe moreso after that happened. No clue, but I'd like to see some numbers, if anyone can find them. But yeah, I DO think bringing him up, giving him the rest of the year to see big league pitching and have Sveum and Rawson work with him everyday would ease things for him somewhat.

Yeah, Dale already said either or both would need to play everyday.

So what is everyone's opinion on bringing up Brett and Vitters? My view is probably the exact opposite of everyone elses. But, for me, I'm in favor of bringing Brett up, but not Vitters. My hope is Brett has been pressing all season, trying to do too much. Bringing him up could actually take the weight off his shoulders and allow him to have fun again. Vitters has struggled every time he's been promoted during the middle of a season. Yeah, I want to see him in the majors this year, but bring him up after Iowa's season is over. That said, most of the articles I read made it sound to me like it could happen any day. And don't get me wrong, it'd definitely make things very interesting over the last two months.

Under 70 wins next year, while trying out Brett and Vitters, making sure Rizzo, Castro, and Shark continue to progress. No big additions at all, Garza dealt. Over .500 in 2014, maybe make the playoffs. 2015 and for the rest of Theo's 10 year run here, dominate the division.

Geiger has a double, 2 HR and 8 RBI today.

I doubt we've got enough money left to sign him. Seattle was big on him and hasn't spent much yet at all. Texas has all their money left too.

By the way, another reason, although it's extremely early to be thinking anout it, is the 2013 draft class is not considered any stronger than this past one, maybe even weaker. Things can change there though, but it's not looking like we'll get a game changing talent, and that's safe to say. On the other hand, the 2014 class has 2 of those type guys. Again, super long way out, too many things can and very easily could go wrong, but Carlos Rodon and Drew Ward are both considered right now anyway, to be better than anything on the plate for next year.

I was careful in what I mentioned, by saying Garza definirelt a top 30 guy, I can call him a top end 3, since I said 25 total of 1 and 2s, hehe. It is semantics obviously. Numbers-wise, I see Hutchison putting up mid 3ish ERA's in the NL, but he doesn't have anything extraordinary going for him. To me though, he's got a high floor. A capable replacement for Garza, especially once the money differential is accounted for. I'd love to get a HUGE upside type with a guy like Hutchison, but honestly, there's just not THAT many of those guys around. Maybe a Syndergaard is possible, not thinking of other options honestly right now. I'm fishing, when O get off the boat, I'll look through some possibilities and give any packages I could see as plausible.

Definitely too early... But, if Maples logs some good innings in August an extended, I think he's more likely I be at Peoria than Blackburn. Age-related? Maples was old for a HS kid last year.

Dew Toonster hit the prospects I mentioned on the head basically, although I think of Nicolino as having more of a 3 ceiling. Hutchison is definitely a 3 type guy. I think where we're off here though is basically the terminology of 1,2,3,4, and 5's. A 3, by scouting standards is a very, very solid guy. There probably aren't but 10 "1's" in baseball and I doubt there's more than 15ish 2's. By no means am I saying Garza isn't a top 30ish type SP in baseball, he is. A 1 has two plus pitches, an average pitch and plus command, a 2 has the same but without plus command. A 3 has one plus pitch and 2 average pitches, a 4 has no plus pitch but avrage on 3 pitches and a 5 is basically the same, except maybe less command than a 4. Or something close to that, I can't find it right now and I don't have access to my BA Handbook at the moment. FWIW, a guy like Syndergaard has a much higher ceiling than Nicolino. Getting him and Hutchison would be excellent for me. I'm not particularly advocating any type of package per se' though, just a general value. My guess is we're looking at getting a guy who's maybe lost his prospect status but is still certainly making league minimum, that was once a top 50ish type prospect and has had some semblance of success, although not too much. Like a Delgado type or Hutchison, at the major league level. Then a guy who's probably a borderline top 100ish guy, that may or may not have a humongous upside. My guess is most GM's prefer nopt to trade those guys, in case they actually do hit and make them look like an idiot. And yes, we've had a few high picks in a row, but the only true impact talent we currently have are Baez, Soler, and Almora. It's possible a guy like Candelario, or Maples, or Johnson, or one of the other arms drafted this year can turn into that, but we're not flush with elite talent yet. And I do stand behind us having the best positional prospects in the minors. But, we need more of everything to do what I think we want to be able to do with these guys. Another season of adding to this group becomes much more valuable to me, than increasing our win total by 15 games from whatever we end up at this year. I'm just a year behind you though, if any of the 2015 talk is real, I think that is going overboard. But letting things unfold this way and doing it with youngsters playing next season and seeing who sticks gives us many more opportunities and lfexibility moving forward than spending ona few guys that aren't difference makers and could possibly hinder you from getting difference makers later on.

My guess is Boise. Just seems like him and Underwood are less advanced than Blackburn. Honestly, it's too early to even bother speculating on any of them though right now anyway.

Yeah, but they won't be there too long either. My guess is next year, Johnson starts in Daytona, Blackburn in Peoria, and Underwood in Boise.

This is what I kind of expected. I think Dempster played the card of one of the Cubs or Dodgers caving and it didn't work out. I also figure he wanted out of Chicago in the end, because spending the next 2 months in Texas probably isn't going to help his trade value at all. Probably wishes he had taken the Atlanta deal and stuck in the NL.

FWIW, Sappelt's line looks bad obviously, but he's played much, much better for the last month, maybe a bit longer. Not a guy I keep total track of, but he's been much better recently.

I just think FA class this year is so weak, it's going to be impossible to add the types you're wanting to, without dpending like I'm mentioning. I do think that if Garza comes back strong, a Hutchison and Nicolino type package is solid enough value to make the move. The key for me is the part you didn't address though: The draft positioning and IFA money. That alone is possibly costing you a couple of impact talents that could come in very handy in multiple ways. My guess is they want as much of that type of inventory as humanly possible, so they'll have the flexibility to make the trades needed to push this team forward, instead of relying on overpaying FA, at least as much as they possibly can.

Helit's possible it went undetected for a while. Hopefully, he comes back from it better than Simpson did. HE went from being looked at by AZPhil as advanced, to getting destroyed awfully quickly with a startling lack of control. This easily could have affected him bigtime before they even got to the bottom of it.

I think the lowered payroll has already take into account the loss of some revenue, due to fan apathy. No way that wasn't talked about prior to the plan getting started. And if the Cubs are good, the fans will come back. It's only going to get so bad from that standpoint, and Ricketts knows that. I think there's a good chance the saved money is renovation money too. And then a renegotiated CSN deal after 2014, helps out with all this as well. Just in time for a spending spree and right in line with when our younger guys are producing. I think the fans will be fine with one more year like this one, as long as they see progress, which they should, out of the youngsters. We'll add in 2014 and probably 2015 as well.

I'm not even advocating gutting the farm system or spending like crazy in the offseason - I think either would be a bad idea. But making a concerted effort to improve both the major league roster and the minor league system would be ideal. Spend some money at the ML level (BJ Upton would be ideal, also maybe Anibal Sanchez) and make use of the large budget and high picks in the draft and IFA - basically the "parallel fronts" idea that Hoyer talked about when he and Theo took the jobs. Make the entire system better for 2013 and maybe contend if a few things go right. It doesn't have to be video game rebuild or gut the system and spend like mad. There is middle ground and that's where I think we should have been from day 1. For what Theo looks to be doing, there's a lot to take into account here. Money, not even being one of them, as we certainly could afford to extend Garza and sign Upton and Sanchez. But, lets look at the big picture. Adding those 2 and filling out your roster does what? Does it put you in the playoffs? I doubt it. May get you to 80 wins or so. Sanchez may be the best pitcher actually on the market too, from a FA standpoint, so is he going to be worth the 5/90ish deal it may take to get him. Is Garza, for that matter? Is Upton worth trading for, after Tampa hits him with the qualifier? Or worth losing your 2nd rounder for? It's a flexibility issue. Locking in two solid starters is fine, but we're likely wasting a year that we won't be a playoff team at the beginning of those contracts. And them at their best performance-wise. I'm not doing this with a first-hand knowledge of what our payroll capabilities going forward are, but let's say it's in the 140ish neighborhood, I think that's fair. Those 3 guys are going to be 18, 18, and 12. in this exercise. What else are you looking at doing over THIS offseason, becomes the next question? You're definitely going to add to the pen, for one. Let's say that's 8 mill more, even if it's short term deals to 2 guys. My problem with this scenario is it's going to put a decent, not special, team on the field, and not allow you to ever be special, because you're going to run out of money fairly quickly by doing it this way. In this case, you're adding 56 mill to a team that's prtobably sitting at 60 heading into the offseason, counting arb raises to everyone we expect to be back. So, you're at 115ish basically, with raises coming each year to Castro, and Shark, with Rizzo and Barney not long after that. Yes, some of that will be offset by SDoriano and Marmol falling off. But, using 140ish as a top end(which I think is fair), making those 3 moves, doesn't allow you to add more than one bigtime contract going forward from there and the system isn't going to be solid enough to be able to trade for cheap, bigtime talent without gutting it either. Why is this? Because you signed those guys and it's cost you at least 10 spots in draft positioning and probably 2 mill in IFA money. Which to quite a few guys here, doesn't mean jack [expletive], but it's a big deal. It's the possible difference off adding another couple of bigtime impact talents to the system versus not having them. Plus, the return of Garza could produce a guy that gives you his actual production, just in a much cheaper model and allows you to spend money in different spots as well moving forward. Going out and signing a couple of non-elite, but solid FA are exactly what Hendry did. We need elite. Not good. And spending to get average and handcuffing ourselves more in the process from ever being elite, is NOT the way to go here. Video game rebuild/ Yep, it's what they're doing, in a way. But, it's also the smartest way possible to have a very long sustained run too. The parallel fronts thing just means we'll continue to sign the Maholms and DeJesuses of the world and hope to catch lightning in a bottle until we've got enough longterm pieces set up to where adding a couple of bigtime FA makes sense. It's not now though, it honestly does cost us in the long run.

If we see a team lose an OFer between now and Septamber and get offered close to what the Dodgers got for Victorino, I think he's gone. Quick. You think he'd clear waivers up to a contender? He could, but a shrewd GM might see him as an opportunity for cheap production (basically the same reason Theo signed him in the offseason). Honestly, I don't think he's good enough to warrant a team making a claim on. Most teams probably figure they can address their OF situation over the offseason, if they don't have a big issue that just popped up. Does placing a claim on someone cost money to do? It makes sense to me, just to keep some raging [expletive] from seeing the list everyday, erasing the few guys that make absolutely no sense to claim, and then claiming everyone else.

If we see a team lose an OFer between now and Septamber and get offered close to what the Dodgers got for Victorino, I think he's gone. Quick. I think you're overstating the comparable value of Victorino and DeJesus. It's kind of why I said close, but I do think the reasonable extra year helps make it closer, along with Victorino's struggles AND the act of desperation if a bad injury hits and they're not a team with a lot of cash to spend. Obviously, not a likely scenario, but I don't think it's set in stone he's back next year.

Yes. But, in all honesty, I think Houston's already put a plan into motion that allows them to do that much better than what we can even attempt. Lots of time left until next season. Short of trading Rizzo, Castro, and Shark, I can't see us getting as bad as them.

If we see a team lose an OFer between now and Septamber and get offered close to what the Dodgers got for Victorino, I think he's gone. Quick.

Yes. But, in all honesty, I think Houston's already put a plan into motion that allows them to do that much better than what we can even attempt.

Considereing that going into next year, the only positions we're likely to have filled with hat we even halfway know what to expect are 1B, 2B, SS, RF(assuming DeJesus is even still here), and 2 SP, I think it's fairly safe to say we're not gutting the system to add a whole bunch, unless some guys basically 26ish or younger come available that make sense. With what's available on the FA market, I expect us to go into next year with Castillo at C, Vitters at 3B(unless they find a way to trade him for a young guy that's already in the majors) Brett in CF, with us signing a LF(last month I still had LaHair hope, I was proven to be a dumbass) and 2-3 averagish SP, along with some bullpen moves. Only big monetary moves I could see are things we don't know of yet, like another younger, but older than 23(since new IFA rules) comes over, or another Pac Rim import that's young. Begs the question how low on the Limbo stick the payroll will go, but I kind of expect it to be sitting around 80 mill or so next year, with probably a 70ish win team being talked about, going into April.

As far as Garza goes, it's the first actual mistake this FO has made, in my mind. I seriously doubt we'd really considered him a longterm guy from the time we decided what direction we were going. He was going to be traded, one way or the other. So, they took the gamble that he'd bring more at the deadline than he would have over last offseason. And him getting hurt and missing the last start or two before the deadline killed their chances at trading him. If they just wanted to trade him for the hell of it, they COULD have done that yesterday, I'm sure. They want to maximize his value and it's definitely possible he'll bring more in the offseason, than we got offered yesterday for him. But, there's no way he's going to bring more than he would have over last offseason. It's 2 years versus 1, it's him coming off what was probably a career year versus whatever he winds up with this year. So, in that way, we've lost value definitely. If over the offseason, we were holding out for Castellanos, Turner, and Crosby, now we'll be holdng out for Turner and Crosby(example of value, not of actual deal obviously), as an example. And the leverage will be gone that we had. Personally, before the season began, I thought he was coming into his own and was going to solidify himself as a true TOR starter. A guy worth giving 5/90 to or so. Now, trade aside, I'm not comfortable at all with that type of contract for him. Because it looks lie he's a very solid mid-rotation guy on a good team. We're in a spot where we ought to trade hiM at this point. The FA market is weak as hell in 2013. It'd take damn near our entire system to be dealt away to turn this team into a solid contender and even then, it's hard to say whether that team would have longevity or not. If over the offseason, we get offered a solid young starter with upside, like a Delgado or a Hutchison, along with a solid prospect, maybe a Nicolino or a Gilmartin, since I used Toronto and Atlanta, then it makes all the sense to go ahead and take it. Sucks we could have had more, but if he's a midrotation guy, as it appears to me, then locking him up longterm doesn't seem to be very beneficial, unless we're trading away Baez and others just to make sure we put an 85ish win team out there. The articles talking 2015 certainly have no source for that, because I seriously doUbt Theo even knows when it's time to be true buyers yet. I keep saying 2014 personally, as I expect we'll have a decent core of younger positioN guys already performing and Shark, Wood, and hopefully a piece from a Garza deal in the rotation, allowing us to spend big and trade big as well from a very amped up system by then. But, as far as Garza goes, I don't really see why giving him a longterm deal to be a 3ish type guy, when there's always going to be guys like him around to trade for at some point over a season, is a must, by any stretch.