toonsterwu

I'm not too bummed that he didn't do that. It was a good deal for the Padres, but I don't know how much sense Grandal makes for us and he's chip number 2. Grandal opens up the possibility of trading Soto (for decent prospects), while Boxberger/Carpenter/Cashner compete for the closer's role freeing up Marmol as a trade chip (for decent prospects). Obviously Alonso takes over 1B and Wood slides into the back of the rotation. It wasn't Soto that I was focusing on. I'm not sure Grandal is significantly better than Castillo to justify using a Garza trade to gain a C. Castillo's also closer to being ready.

I didn't mean to compare them directly. I just meant that I don't think the ceilings of either guy is more than an end of the rotation, innings eating type of arm.

I'm not too bummed that he didn't do that. It was a good deal for the Padres, but I don't know how much sense Grandal makes for us and he's chip number 2.

James Russell, John Gaub, an Scott Maine are lefty pen arms. Sean Marshall is one of the top set up men in the game who happens to throw with his left arm. I don't disagree with that (hence why I think the return should be better than Wood and average prospects), but our pen can be fine if the lefties fill their role and Woody is fine as a setup arm.

I don't mind trading Sean Marshall, and with our depth of lefty pen arms, we should be okay in the pen. That said, never been a big fan of Travis Wood, and I hope the 2 prospects make this trade more palatable. It's not that Wood doesn't have some value - 5 cost-controlled years of a guy with the potential to fill a back of the rotation slot is valuable, and perhaps that allows them to save some money and move on from Randy Wells if they decide to, but Marshall's one of the best relief arms available and the ceiling's just not big enough for my liking. Ideally, we grabbed someone like Corcino or Gregorius to make this trade happen, but my guess is that since it's 2 prospects coming back and the reports suggest Wood as the centerpiece, we probably get guys a bit lower than that.

I tend to think trading them separately is likely to net a better return for the organization, even if the additional value is simply depth pieces.

I think you mean Edinson Rincon, who is also a butcher in the field. You leave out Logan Forsythe, who could be a short term option if they want Gyorko to get more time in the minors. Still, I think it's going to take a pretty massive deal, relative to expectations, for them to move Headley.

I'm still not too enthused with the idea of a Rangers package. For me, a prospect-only package from the Rangers almost has to have Profar for me to be excited about the deal. I'm just not excited about anyone else in that system as a possible headliner in a Garza trade. If it was more than a prospect-only package, that might be a different story, but I don't see the Rangers moving Holland or Andrus in a deal, and I'm not huge on Ogando.

Eh, Rizzo/Perez for Garza? I'd be lukewarm on that. I want an elite guy in return for Garza, or 3 really good guys at the very least. Rizzo has enough questions, IMO, and Perez looks more like a mid-rotation arm and some question his "pitch-ability", for lack of a better term. Very valuable, and add in the lefty premium, but still, I'd want better, ideally.

Now, I hadn't pondered Headley, but that would be an interesting idea. We could move Stewart to the OF, or trade Stewart (or Headley). I'd want a good young arm in that deal, though. I'd be a bit more open to something like that. I was thinking solely of a prospects for Garza deal. I still think this Garza thing doesn't make that much sense for them (cost, and they aren't close to winning, on paper, right now), not when they are rumored to be shopping Headley for assets.

This troubles me. Garza, IMO, should get a big return. I prefer an elite chip in return, and I'm not sure the Padres have an elite chip (not huge on Erlin or Wieland, who a lot of people seem to be loving this year, and I'm not sure Rizzo is elite). Maybe Sampson. I wouldn't mind giving up prospects for Rizzo, but unless they give us a crazy package (say, 4 prospects of our choosing), I'm just not huge on what we can land from the Padres. I mean, it would take something like Keyvius Sampson, Anthony Rizzo, and one to get me excited, and I'm not sure they do that.

All that is fair. I tend to think that Boston/San Diego prospects in recent years have become a bit over-rated (particularly this year and San Diego prospects ... it's gotten to the point where I sound like I have some bias against the Padres, but I don't. I just think that system is being over-rated quite a bit). I like Rizzo, don't love Rizzo. He certainly has to prove that he has more than just good power, and his swing is a bit long.

I like Blanks, but I wonder if his swing is something that can produce consistently at the big league level for a corner player.

My only thing is what it would take to get Rizzo. Provided it isn't a crazy package of some sort, I'd be interested, but I wouldn't move Brett 1 for 1 for Rizzo.

My general thought on the deal: Good deal for both sides, slight edge for Padres. Cost-controlled young pitching with a solid track record in the bigs are always costly. No if and or but's about it, particularly in the modern era, where teams, to some extent, over-value 2nd tier pitching prospects at times (and at other times, value quantity of pitching prospects as much as quality). Latos is good, very good, and considering the 4 cost-controlled years, he was going to net a huge haul. Now, off the top, there are some small medical concerns (I think), and by most accounts, he's a headcase of some level, but that type of talent nets huge returns. An interesting comp, of sorts, to make is to the Garza trade last year. Both guys were talented headcases, and the value they netted in trades is closer than I think is being acknowledged elsewhere (the value of Lee/Archer last year is arguably similar to the value of Grandal/Alonso right now, albeit, for different reasons). Latos having an extra year of cost-control and being younger deserved a better return, and I think the difference in the packages acknowledges that. More times than not, top young pitching gets big returns (one exception, IMO, was the Greinke trade last year, which I thought was a steal for Milwaukee relative to what they gave up, although I am a big, big fan of Odorizzi). This trade is getting compared to the Cahill trade due to both occuring this offseason. My general take is that the Padres got a better overall package, but the A's got the best talent, which is important (in Parker, they get a potential ace ... ), and considering Latos is a better talent than Cahill, I think the trade values are understandable and similar. In general, I don't see why people are blasting the A's (elsehwere) for a weaker return, and I don't see why people are blasting the Reds. Young pitching is costly, and like the Cubs last year, the Reds gave up some potential surplus value. The Padres are another year or two from a serious push, in all likelihood, and this builds the talent base up in the system a bit more. While I think some of the talent in the system is over-hyped, it is a very good system because it has a deep quantity of solid quality guys (just not sure there are enough blue chip prospects, guys with either superbly elite talent, or very high quality talent that is polished, but I'm not as big on some guys as others). Grandal looks to be a key get, a possible replacement as soon as late 2012, but more likely, in 2013. A key component of the deal could be Volquez. FIP, xFIP, SIERA have all been more positive to him the last 2 years than his ERA, and Petco could help enhance that. They simply need, at the minimum, for Volquez to have the mirage of improvement (obviously, actual improvement would be nice), and they likely would have a good mid-season trade asset, which would further enhance how this deal looks in hindsight. Furthermore, Rizzo could be a component to factor in about this deal, as the acquisition of Alonso allows them to potentially shop Rizzo. Reds get an excellent young pitcher, and you can never have enough of those. Now, there's a joke somewhere in here about Dusty and young pitchers, and considering that they traded one headcase for another, there's some obvious pitfalls, but I can't fault them for this gamble. Mesoraco looks real good, and Votto is their franchsie. I imagine Rizzo will get shopped. If I'm Byrnes, I wait for the Fielder market to settle, but it wouldn't surprise me if the Cubs went aggressively after Rizzo to lessen the pressure to be in on Fielder. I like Rizzo enough. I just hope we don't over-pay for him, but I imagine we probably have enough assets to put together a solid enough trade to entice them. Rizzo, off the top, has some swing issues, but the power looks good, and off the top, is a solid defensive first baseman. I'd part with anyone not named Brett Jackson in a deal, provided that it wasn't some crazy package (Rizzo's likely to be a better offensive player than Brett, but Brett's defensive value is enough, IMO, compensate such that I don't think a 1 for 1 deal makes sense for the Cubs). An offseason of Rizzo/Stewart as additions at the corner, plus a veteran stopgap like DeJesus in the OF would be solid. Risky, but solid. Still work to do on the pitching side of the equation, and still waiting to see the outcome of all the rumors on Garza, but I like the direction our off-season could potentially head.

Really like the gamble. I don't love Stewart that much, but for the cost, it was worth the risk to see if he develops. I've never been huge on LeMahieu, and Colvin didn't have much of a future here. I'm not too enthused on Casey Weathers, but he's got some late inning potential. Solid move to address a position, and the price was a bit less than I thought. Sounds good. Now ... first base, maybe rotation and they'll have had a decent offseason.

Why you think Erlin is a touch overhyped? He hasn't been a top 100 prospect yet (although he could be this offseason when they come out with the new one) and haven't heard anyone saying that he's an ace caliber pitcher or even a great #2. I've seen the guy pitched and I wish he was in the Cubs minor leagues. Honestly I like him more than Martin Perez (Perez just reminds me of Marmol- his stuff is so good that it's hard to keep it in the zone if hitters aren't swinging) although Erlin doesn't have the stuff, but his control is off the chart. I think he got a very high floor and will be a productive pitcher for a long time. Anyway the reason I said Erlin/Wieland is that it would've been more pieces that Rangers could throw in on a deal. I agree that Diamondbacks got the legit centerpieces to do a deal for Garza. Profar is the only one from the Rangers that I would put on the same level as Skaggs/Parker. I want Cubs to offer like Garza/Marshall/Byrd for Justin Upton and see if they would bite. Heck you can replace B Jax with Byrd if that's what it takes. As for Feldman, seriously, why would Cubs ask for him in the deal? Well, I should be specific. I thought some of the comments about Erlin when the trade happened were a bit overboard. Made him out to be a big prospect, when I think he's a nice one. In fact, I'm not sure I don't prefer Wieland to Erlin, but haven't pondered it too much. I think he's a nice arm, a possible mid-end of the rotation type, a guy I would like in my system

I think Rangers would be great system to go after if you want the "quantity over quality" although the quality is still good to very good unless the centerpiece is Profar or Holland like you said. If they still had Erlin and Wieland (traded for Mike Adams), I think a deal would be done IMO. Who would you want beside one of Skaggs/Parker from Arizona in a package for Garza? *did see a ton of Texas League games this year as Northwest Arkansas Naturals stadium is only like 5 minutes away from here so I got to see the Rangers AA team several times so I'm familiar with a few of these prospects* Don't disagree with any of that (on the Rangers), although I still feel like Erlin is a touch overhyped. That said, in this type of deal, I would definitely want quality over quantity. Davell's Arizona package would probably be fine for me. Haven't thought about it a ton, but the point was that they have multiple legitimate centerpieces to build a deal around in terms of just looking at prospects. Shoot me if Feldman is anything more than a throw in.

Gonzalez goes to Houston. I think he'll get a shot at their starting shortstop gig. Good gamble on their part. I think he's a solid top 15 prospect for them right now. Not sure why the Red Sox wanted Duarte. Doesn't seem all that interesting.

The only question I had about leaving Flaherty, and to a lesser extent, Gonzalez unprotected was whether or not Theo and Jed could find upper level 40 man guys that were better than those two. I think we've seen the last of Flaherty - Baltimore has openings in LF, 3rd, and to an extent, 2nd, meaning that Flaherty can probably stick as a utility guy. My guess is we've seen the last of Marwin - Boston is still rumored to want to deal Lowrie, and this provides them the flexibility to do that. It's not a bad loss in terms of talent, but I do question who replaces them. As for Castillo, eh. Sounds like Marcos Mateo to me, but younger, or a poor man's version of Alberto Cabrera. Mildly exciting. Keeping Rhee was the most important thing to me, and he'll be around for now (a lot of offseason left).

I'll stick with what I said a few weeks back - I don't love the Rangers system as a great match for Garza. A young starter in his prime, still cost-controlled (albeit, expensive, but cost-controlled is still valuable) needs a top prospect in return. A package built around Perez as a centerpiece does not excite me. He has enough pitching concerns in terms of, for lack of a better term, "pitchability", and his ceiling might be more mid-rotation than a possible 2. I don't see Martin or Olt as guys to centerpiece a package. Only way I really like a deal is if they deal Profar ... or if they move some quality major league talent. I don't see the latter - Profar is too far away for them to gamble on an Elvis Andrus move, I don't know if I buy Ogando as someone to build a deal around, and that leaves Holland, who I'd be fine as a centerpiece, but why would Texas make that move. If they do, using Holland as a centerpiece, okay. Rest of the system, not so intrigued. I'd love to get Arizona involved, and one of their top arms as a centerpiece would be great.

If it is just a DeWitt/Stewart swap, I'd do that in a heartbeat. No 2nd thoughts about it. DeWitt's hitting his arb years and, well, isn't all that good defensively at 2nd or 3rd, and isn't all that good offensively. If Flaherty makes it through Rule 5, I'd simply add him on if they wanted a utility guy, and there's still LeMahieu. The way I read the Renck thing seemed to suggested DeWitt and a pitcher for Stewart. Depending on who the arm is, I'd probably still be okay with the gamble.

Lamb took a step back this year. He may rebound, but he did take a step back this year and a lot more folks are down on his potential of developing into a front of the rotation type arm, as had once been hoped.

WSR - I'll be honest, I don't really love either deal for us, and I don't think the Royals would do the former (the Moustakas deal). I'd really want a 2nd quality asset, and I guess the argument is that Hochevar is a proven major leaguer that is a solid rotation pitcher, but I don't believe he is more than a 4th starter, and we can find and spend on those.

That's pretty much what I think the cost of Garza should be as well (hence why I think a Rangers package almost has to include Profar to even get my attention). I don't mind dealing within the division, but the Reds simply don't have the arms to offer in return. If we move Garza, we'd have to get an arm, or two, in return. It doesn't need to be the centerpiece prospect to a deal, but the Reds are really lacking in arm talent right now. An over-hyped system, if you ask me.