toonsterwu

His ceiling really comes down to how much power you think he develops. Obviously, there are moments where the idea of average pop seems almost comical for him ... but he did the 15th most doubles out of qualified carolina league players). If he can push that into average power, that's a very intriguing talent, a potentially plus defensive player, with a plus approach, makes solid contact. He could, though, be a guy where the power never develops to the extent that people think it might, as he's comfortable with taking walks and driving the balls into the gaps. As for comps, not the easiest to find as it's an odd profile mix. I mean, if the power doesn't develop, mid-age Nick Markakis is possible. Obviously, hope for better. I still say from an offensive profile, Jason Heyward isn't the worst comparison of what a positive expectation for Zagunis' offense might be. Again, I'm not saying he will be that good, but simply making the comparison of a disciplined, solid approach offensive corner OF that has average power.

Sure, by no means am I saying that they were going to actually complete a trade. I'm saying, from a leveraging standpoint, you somewhat close the door to threaten a trade with. Let's put it in a more tangible way - if I'm an agent for Price, Cueto, Zimmerman, or Greinke, I'm salivating at getting the Red Sox to the table, as everyone knows how badly they are beating the drum for an ace, and how Dombrowski just acknowledged that the SP answer is probably coming through FA, because trade options are limited. Certainly, the threat of a Tyson Ross trade isn't on the same magnitude as the rumored strikeouts the Red Sox made (that is, if I recall the report correctly, the asked about Sonny Gray and Chris Sale, two guys a notch above Ross), but that flexibility is now a bit diminished. As a side note, I think if you had put, hypothetically, a Rafael Devers level talent (far away/upside) with a Henry Owens, and maybe couple that with a Guerra or Margot, and another piece, that might be as competitive as any team would likely be willing to consider in a deal, unless a team surprises and pushes an elite chip on the table (and elite chips are limited this winter, as the entirety of minor league baseball is much thinner than in years past).

I see this spin a lot, and I never buy it. Teams don't go hunting for the worst deal they can get with their prospects. We're talking a no pop speed and defense OF prospect (that's like half a notch above basic), a teenaged pitcher in rookie ball, a decent teenaged MIF prospect, and someone else that I forget. What is that really supposed to get? It's not like Kimbrel is chopped liver either, the only relievers better than him this decade have been Chapman and Davis, and there's a case he was the best of the bunch. These are guys who are/were as valuable to a staff as a #3-4 starter even despite the innings difference. Um ... okay? I'm not exactly disagreeing with your contention - heck, I directly answer that with my statement after the quote you snipped by saying essentially that to call this a bad trade isn't fair, but I don't love it. So, I guess, then, the question is why don't I love it. Again, I completely get the trade, and I get why Dombrowski made it, but I don't love it because it limits their ability/leverage to go after guys in the SP market. The threat of a trade for a SP is a bit more limited (doesn't mean it's impossible, just that it's diminished) because you traded away key prospect depth that could form the secondary pieces to a major SP trade (for example, if you go with Devers or Moncada as the key asset, and either Eduardo Rodriguez or Henry Owens as a the second piece, you probably still need a solid 2nd tier piece like a Margot or Guerra assure yourself of a deal ... again, this doesn't exactly remove the threat of a SP trade, but now, they are a bit more limited). I clearly believe that a staff ace/#1 is of a higher priority, but they certainly needed pen help, and the flip side is that if they waited, they might've missed out on guys. So all in all, I get why Dombrowski did what he did ... I just don't love it.

I have mixed feelings about this deal. 1. I think that the model of strong bullpens is something that teams are going to copy, as we've seen overall mediocre teams in other areas thrive with strong pens (Baltimore, Yankees, the Royals). One of the fangraphs guys had a comment the other day about elite closers being under-valued, and I think that may be fair. I also think the Red Sox bullpen needed a huge upgrade, and look, if Dombrowski is anything, he's a great short-term GM who will address your short term needs and boost you into competition for a few years. I think they also made the decision that, barring a team meeting their trade price for a starter, they are going to go hard after a SP in free agency. The Red Sox, after all, can spend. Finally, as enticing as Margot/Guerra/Asauje/Allen are as a group, they weren't the Red Sox top tier of prospects, and probably, long term, were trade assets to be utilized anyways. Margot is exciting, but he's also fairly raw offensively, despite having a very solid ceiling. Kimbrel is good, and he'll be a big upgrade. 2. Still ... pen arms can be found. Or they can be paid for, giving you the ability to use your other assets elsewhere, and it's not like the Red Sox only had one bullpen need to address. I mean, a quick look at some of the top pen arms will let you know that they are often failed starters (Zach Britton - low 90's sinkerballer starter became an elite mid-90's power sinker pen arm, Dellin Betances had little control as a starter, but in the pen, the stuff plays up, Wade Davis probably could've still succeeded as a starter). Every system has some arms that have that potential (Carl Edwards Jr. is obviously one example for us, but I wonder about Pierce Jonson), and you hope your scouts and development staff can identify which guys to move and which guys to nurture. I'm not exactly convinced the Red Sox prospects are going to pan out - I've been lukewarm on Margot for the most part, while acknowledging that, like Almora, he is young (to be clear, he's a better talent than Almora overall, so there's a bit more leeway). I like Guerra more than Margot, long term, tbh. Look, this is a nice trade for the short term, and the prospects may not pan out. The question shouldn't be whether they pan out, though - the question should be if they could've found a better way to use their assets. I'm not sure, and I wouldn't know, so it's tough for me to say this is horrible, but I clearly don't love it for the Red Sox, but I understand it. For Preller, this is a solid rebound trade focused on rebuilding, and in that sense, okay. You've got a park that "develops" arms, so go get positional assets as the keys to your trade. That works, and makes a ton of sense. Good for him to sell on a pen arm when they are rebuilding and clearly a year or two away from competing for the NL West. - Should add that I don't think the Red Sox are far. With Kimbrel, and if they add an ace, the staff looks very solid, so it would come down to the young bats continuing to develop - basically what we are hoping for as well. They are essentially looking for their Jon Lester now, and hoping the other young arms step up.

I'm not surprised by it (I think I posted about the Braves dealing Simmons as a possibility a while ago), and I kinda like it. I don't think it it portends a Castro to the Braves trade. With Albies in the wing (and perhaps with an outside shot of seeing the bigs in late 2016) and the Braves rebuilding, it always made sense for them to, at some point, consider dealing Simmons for some long term assets. I thought it would be more next year than this year and I didn't really expect this sort of deal (taking on a short term veteran in Aybar to get prospects). Still, Newcomb has huge upside and the Braves are seem to do a solid job in molding young arms. Chris Ellis is also a very solid starter with mid-rotation potential. The combination of two solid arm prospects and a stopgap veteran ... I really like this gamble. It's a gamble, as Newcomb could flame out and Ellis has an average fastball, but in their current situation, rebuilding for 2017 on, okay, I like it. To be clear, I get the gamble for Eppler as well, and I like it on that end as well. Simmons should be excellent for them for the next few years, and Eppler must feel like, with his background, he can find high upside arms. The Braves were never going to get DeGrom, Syndegaard, or Harvey, but if the Mets weren't willing to consider Matz at all ... I would find that odd. Maybe they just aren't huge on Simmons for some reason. The thing that mildly fascinates me about the trade is I'm curious what impact Kiley McDaniel had on the trade (not saying he made the final call or anything, just curious if he played a role), as he was huge on Ozhaino Albies in his rankings last year.

I wonder if the Happ ranking is sort of by default. That is, it's somewhat hard figuring out who to put up there, and with a respected college pedigree, you are sort of hoping on it. The Zobrist comps - don't like. Zobrist was a shortstop coming up (even in the Astros farm coming up, IIRC). A lot more fluid than Happ seems to be. Happ, at the same age, seems to have much more offensive potential. Just an odd comp, IMO (other than 2nd/possible corner OF ...). The beauty of this list, if anything, is in it's identification of upside, which, in some respects, gives us a better grasp of how Manuel's sources are feeling on other guys as well. I mean, in noting de la Cruz and Cease's pitching upside, and Underwood as a possible 3, it sort of gives us an identification on the potential ceiling of other arms. As for de la Cruz, even I tend to think that report was a bit gushing (now, he did have such a season that perhaps all the scouts that saw him were that gushing), and I've been fascinated with de la Cruz. On profile, this is an exciting kid. Frame, stuff, velo, mechanics - I mean, on paper, other than a good 3rd option, which is fine at his age, he's a fascinating arm. Profiles only matter when it comes to rankings, though. I do think de la Cruz sounds far more intriguing than any Latin American arm we've had come through the pipeline in a LONG time. As for the system rank, I did a quick scan when this came up in another thread, and while systems across the board are down, I still have, on a quick glance, around 10 teams ahead of the Cubs myself.

I've really got no huge issue with Edwards outside of the top 10. Look, at the end of the day, rankings are simply for discussion, and Manuel is one of the better ones out there. It sounds like he was fairly thorough in doing the legwork, and IIRC, he was huge on Edwards last year (as he acknowledges in the chat). If the thought process is that he feels that Carl, as a reliever, is not a surefire bet to dominate, and thus, the question of his value to the organization, as a whole, becomes trickier to assess, then okay. I don't think I would leave Edwards out of a top 10, but I don't have a problem with the argument for it. Everyone ranks differently, and it really comes down to what criteria you are utilizing and emphasizing. It sounds like, in this case, he made a value assessment (to put him outside the top 11 - he basically says Zagunis is 11). Doesn't mean he's right, doesn't mean he 's wrong, but I can understand his thought process behind it. A measure of upside, a measure of value. The Pierce Johnson statement is a bit more telling. If his stuff has backed up ... he's really not that intriguing. I mean, what held his intrigue was the potential of two plus pitches utilized in some role (starting or out of the pen). Vogelbach out of the top 30? Eh. Don't agree. Dewees in 21-30 range? I'm okay with that, but he's got more potential to be a long term CF than McKinney, so the wide gap seems questionable. Again, no issue with it, though. Wish he had given more analysis on Trevor Clifton in that question. Felix Pena borderline top 30? Admittedly, hadn't thought about it, but at first thought, okay, why not? 3-7 top 100? Based on his list, the debate is on Underwood/Cease/Almora/McKinney. I'd be surprised if more than 2 made it in, in all honesty. Markey, Skulina, and Chesny Young as borderline top 30? Wouldn't really think all three of them would make it. System rank 7-12? Okay. His 2nd comment (about the plethora of bad systems out there) is the more telling statement. The statements on Candelario's defense was quite ... stunning. "outstanding defender"? If so, then we might be under-selling Candelario. 2 of Williams/Null/Torrez in the top 30? Okay, I can see that, but geesh, he's throwing a lot of guys out there as top 30. Granted, he wasn't done with the list when he did the chat. Christian Villanueva as the White Sox 3rd baseman is ... funny.

At first glance, my first inclination is ... okay. Really, you could make the case for a lot of different arrangements for the Cubs prospects this year. It does feel like they went harder on tools/upside this year. I really do love the de la Cruz ranking. Feels like there's some serious elite upside potential there (frame, size, stuff, mechanics don't seem to be a huge concern as of now), and he's coming off a simply fantastic season. We'll have to see how it holds up. Are they really projecting almost all plus tools for Gleyber? If so ... that's better than projections for Profar's tools back in the day, tools wise. That's a lot of love ... very curious if there's any questions directed as to why they feel the tools are that special.

yeah, brain cramp there on my part when looking at the park factors. South Bend seems to limit power to some extent, based on a quick scan of three year park factors.

Pivoting a bit to a separate name, but I'm somewhat curious how Frandy de la Rosa performs in Kane County next year (I expect he starts there). He's not a shortstop, and the strikeouts are still too high, but it was an interesting start for a young kid. He did hit better in the 2nd half (or post-ASB), albeit SSS. Sure feels like in another year, or with another organization, de la Rosa might be getting some more discussion.

Okay, not the greatest comparison, admittedly, but I was just more focusing on the fact that Profar wasn't a guy who had plus tools and was viewed more as a guy with good, across the board tools, as is Torres. There is still some expectation that Torres will grow into some power. Edit: Not to drag this side discussion to far, but I do feel like I should clarify why I made the comparison. From a production standpoint, Torres does not, in any way, match up to what Profar did in Hickory in 2011 (Hickory is a fantastic hitter's park ... but Kane County played as a hitter's park in 2014 and I'm guessing the numbers haven't dramatically changed, although Kane County played as a pitcher's park before then). What made Profar so unique was his readiness and polish for a guy who really didn't have any plus tools. That's the comparison point I was making - Profar was viewed as a guy with across the board average tools, maybe above average, that played better because he was just more polished. Now, it's fair to say that Profar probably had a couple tools closer to plus than Gleyber does, but I wanted to give some clarity as to why I made said comparison.

I do agree that I think talent is a bit down, relatively speaking right now. I honestly didn't think, based on history, that this was a, say, top-half type system until I started looking around at the other orgs. I think there will be some orgs that will argue that they deserve to be ahead of us that I put, mentally, in the low-teens/early twenties, but the fact that we can make a case for a top half system is quite impressive considering the graduations we just went through, and speaks well to the developmental process as it compares to the rest of baseball (and perhaps to increased medical diligence? ... I can think of a couple orgs that had "impact" talent lost to injuries)... as of now. I should note, and have noted, that Torres probably compares relatively well to Jurickson Profar back in the day, so far all the talk about the lack of "pop" tools, he compares fairly well to a guy who was viewed, coming up, as a very solid top overall prospect in baseball. I think the start of 2016 is going to be really focused on "prove it" guys - whether or not guys can show that their somewhat surprising (in some fashion) performances a year before can carry over. I'm thinking Contreras, Candelario, Eloy, and to an extent, Caratini. If the bulk of them get off to good starts, then that'll be a very impressive sign for the developmental process.

We really should have a thread labeled 2015 Cubs Prospects ... I don't want to seem like the negative guy in all of this, but while I do like the system, it's also not hard to view it as a) Short on ceiling in a top 20 (I mean, Gleyber Torres is viewed as a solid all-around tools guy, but nothing off the charts ... Willson Contreras is a very good offensive catcher if the development holds, but no one is expecting him to be an elite guy (as of last check) ... then there's a bunch of guys that could end up in LF without elite pop, and a CF who is still trying to find the balance between instinct/patience ... and when you do find ceiling (EJM/Eloy/Cease), it's so far away. b) Arms far away always look great. It's hard not to look back at circa 2003 and the Cubs low level arms and wonder ... how did so many falter? Still ... it happens. First off, rankings, as always, are only really for fan discussion, but having said that, I think, and I said this somewhere, but I think that this year, the org is borderline top 10, probably right outside for my tastes. I think it's too early to speculate on how we might rank after this year right now - you hope all the young arms succeed, but history has proven otherwise, and sometimes breakthrough years are followed with struggles as teams get a better picture on how to attack the changes you've made. To be clear, I can also see the system exploding back into a top 5 system (breakthrough years for some young arms, Candelario/Torres/Eloy/EJM having big years would certainly give us a good top tier of positional assets).

I like Chesny Young. Saw him play once this year, and he was just a solid player, for the level. Thing is, don't expect him to be much better than this, so unless he has an uptick in skill, he's pretty much, at best, a utility guy. I think he could make it up as such, but players like that profile tend not to rate highly, as they need to prove it up each level (as a side note, he could probably dabble at short in a pinch, he was a shortstop in college, IIRC). I can't find where I put my list I was dabbling on, so making one right now (could completely change this by ... an hour from now) 1. Gleyber Torres - I get the reasons for Contreras, but as exciting as the press is for Contreras right now, I still think Torres' overall upside is a notch or two better than Contreras', and I'm not so sure he's that far behind, timeline wise, to give Contreras that much of a boost on him. I think a very good case ETA puts him knocking on the door (skill and development wise, not opportunity related) to the majors in late 2017.. 2. Willson Contreras - If his bat is as capable, and he's solid defensively, that's a great asset at catcher. Big prove it year in 2016 - prove that last year wasn't a fluke and that he can get off to a good start. If that happens, hard not to see him making an impact in the 2nd half of 2016. 3. Ian Happ - This is sort of a reach for me, but sort of a recognition that I don't love the other OF's in this range enough, I have never been a fan of ranking pure relievers high unless you are certain they are elite (I get why Tom has Carl Jr. high, but I've been this way for several years now as it pertains to relievers, so even though I ranked CJ high last year, I'm sticking with how I go with things), and I don't think any of the starters deserve it here. On upside, the bat is fascinating, and you hope he can push up fast. 4. Albert Almora - There's a case for him at 2, I think, but I really need to see consistent development and improvement to justify that. Still ... at his age, and showing improvement offensively, and still being solid defensively? I guess I've never been huge on him, but on profile, it's deserving to be high. 5. Mark Zagunis - Here's where maybe I talked myself into ranking a guy far higher than a lot of other folks. My argument would be this - he has the ability to be a strong defensive right fielder (arm strength/athleticism), has great discipline/approach at the plate, and it's not like he is just a slap-hitting singles guy. He's never going to hit a bunch of home runs, but he'll drive some pitches (24 doubles in qualified Carolina League lists places him 15th overall). Now, he shouldn't be stealing bases anymore, but a potential plus defensive right fielder with a good approach and some gap power is an intriguing asset to me (a certain FA is about to make a bundle of money with a similar profile ... to be clear, I don't think Zagunis is on that leve and we have to see him prove it up the ladder). As noted, I thought about him at 2 for a long time, due to my own wariness with believing in Contreras right now. 6. Eloy JImenez - That was a very solid debut, with a, at least for my expectations, better than expected approach at the plate. A long way to go, but the upside and solid approach is fascinating. 7. Carl Edwards Jr. - I've noted Edwards already - I like his potential to be an elite closer, but I just have a hard time valuing pen arms high enough unless they are simply going to be blow-away, you know he's going to be a elite player for a long time type arm. It's just my thing on certain positions/profiles 8. Duane Underwood - I like his potential a ton, but even I have to be fair and note that he has to produce consistently on the mound with that type of raw stuff to justify attention/hype. 9. Billy McKinney - I thought about him much higher, and I think he could reach the bigs and find a role (perhaps even as a starter), but ... he's probably a LF, and he looks like the Nick Markakis of the last three years (Nori Aoki could be another comp). A LF without an elite bat is hard to justify ranking high. 10. Jeimer Candelario - I thought about him much higher as well, but I just want to see him prove it. Still .. at his age, improving defensively at 3rd, the improvement offensively in AA along with his offensive potential, and in AA? That's a great profile as it pertains to ranking a guy high. 11. Dylan Cease - There's something to be said for ceiling as it pertains to rankings, and Cease's ceiling is at, or near, the top of the list. 12. Pierce Johnson - I've been a big proponent of his, but I just wonder if he's simply better off in the pen, rather than slogging away as an inconsistent, but still flashes, starter. 13. Eddy Julio Martinez - I could go with him much higher as well, and if he's as talented as people say, no reason he isn't top 3 next year. 14. Victor Caratini - He improved offensively in the 2nd half, still has the profile to be a solid defensive catcher if he works at it. Offensively, power has been the question, but he did hit 31 doubles this past year, and I think, for the position, he has more than enough offense. 15. Dan Vogelbach - I want to rank him higher, but I just can't, at least, until he shows more in-game power. 16. Oscar de la Cruz - Yeah, I'm probably the high man on him, but I am absolutely enamored with the size, production, stuff, and potential. A lot of work to do, and there's a lot of intriguing young arms. 17. Donnie Dewees - I get why some have him ranked high, and I hope he becomes that CF who gets on base, hits for average, steals bases, and shows a solid approach. If he ends up in a corner role, not going to be that excited. Could easily see him 5-7 spots higher. 18. Justin Steele - I get it, the ceiling's fantastic and he seems a lot more polished than his age. I'm intrigued by it, and maybe I really should have him higher than de la Cruz, but I'm just enamored with de la Cruz right now. 19. Trevor Clifton - I really wanted to rank him higher, as I think he is sort of getting over-looked with the class of young arms behind him. 20. Jen-Ho Tseng- Really hard to find a cutoff point, but he's a lot more polished than some of the raw arms left on the board or the positional assets that could be considered. Still ... ceiling isn't huge, and polish gets you only so far in a rankings list. ___ Hard to find a cut-off point and not contemplate why I didn't go with some guys higher (namely, Bryan Hudson (sort of fell into the I want to see him prove something/produce something at Eugene before getting really enamored), and Carson Sands (very intriguing arm with a solid lefty profile, but his ceiling isn't huge, and he's not that polished)). Very deep system, with a strong mix of talent up and down the system. It's as balanced as our system has been (in terms of talent up and down the ladder) as I can recall in awhile. There will always be holes, but it feels like to start 2016, we should be able to find a few intriguing prospects in all the full-season leagues.

I expect a ton of rumors to involve the Cubs this off-season, as I expect this front office to talk about every single possibility, including dealing possible "core" guys, but I still view Gordon to be a minor possibility at best. When multiple dominoes have to fall to make something happen (Cubs have to address pitching first, clear a roster spot by moving a guy, be willing to pony up for an aging positional player (however solid, he's still aging)), I tend to think it's simply less likely to occur. As for Heyward, if he simply wants the best money, I think he's probably gone. I don't think St. Louis will give him the largest deal - at least, I'd be rather surprised. I do think they might give him a competitive deal, forcing him to decide how comfortable he is leaving. Now, two notes to make is that a) St. Louis actually has a relatively thin system at this juncture (heavy on pitching, but positional assets of note are mostly far away, with Charlie Tilson probably the closest), so unless they like the guys they have, they might have to spend on a replacement anyways (off the top, Brandon Moss is a FA, is Peter Bourjos?) Grichuk/Holliday/Piscotty/Pham/Jay - would they be willing to role with that? I think they'd probably want another guy in the mix. b) Holliday's contract could be off the books after this season, if I remember right, clearing a lot of money up. With their relative lack of upper level positional assets at the moment, I wonder if the Cardinals might also be interested in a short term deal with Heyward as well, giving their guys time to develop.

Oh, if an OF gets dealt, then yes, we should probably keep Coghlan (unless there's some weird scenario where we land back an intriguing outfield asset, or they decide to spend big on someone in FA). And certainly, TT is correct in that, he's cheap enough that keeping him might be worth it. It's tough to gauge the 2nd tier OF market at this stage, but I wouldn't call it implausible to think that the trade value he might be able to generate might mean more to the team than his role as depth. There would be a lot of variables at play (for example, can we find a capable replacement), so it's tough to determine at this early stage, but I can envision him as a possible key 2nd piece to a major deal.

A part of me does keep wondering, for the OF, if they might take a gamble on a youngster that's basically ready for a shot and stock up on solid reserves to start the year. Not sure who that youngster might be(I guess the name at the top of my head would be to see what Mark Shapiro (and whoever the new GM is) might want for Dalton Pompey, if they are willing to move him. Or perhaps see what the Indians might want for someone like Tyler Naquin perhaps, or the Braves with Mallex Smith). I doubt it, as I think the most likely scenario is still a veteran like Fowler or maybe Span, but if the price was right and it was someone they liked and was ready for a shot, I wonder if that idea might be convincing enough to them, as it would free up money for moves elsewhere.

Sorry if this is piling on, but Coghlan's fine if they want to bring him back. I mean, Coghlan's last two years (is pretty much what you'd expect from a Daryle Ward type (career .263/.320/.447, ISOP .184, 17.1%K's, 7.8%BB's), and Coghlan did it with a lot more AB's than Ward ever had in a season. Furthermore, Coghlan has a lot more utility potential (even though he should be mainly a corner OF now, you can have him pitch in at a few other spots in case of emergency). Can he keep it up, if he's utilized in a lesser role? Not sure, but he's fine if they want to keep him around. To be quite honest, a part of me wonders if they could move Coghlan this offseason, sort of selling high. He's really not a bad asset to shop this winter (although on a quick glance, the corner OF market seems alright this winter for the Coghlan level players). Really, if a team wanted a major league asset as a secondary piece in some sort of trade, someone that could fill a positional role without costing too much ... Coghlan makes some sense as a guy we can let go and might attract some attention.

Possible ... but I think the flip side argument would go something like a) They have some money to spend, by most accounts. My guess is not a ton without moving stuff, but b) This isn't a team with HUGE pressing needs. There's an OF need (if they can move Werth, corner or CF depending on what they want to do with Taylor), perhaps 2nd, maybe 1st, and maybe catcher. That said ... Ryan Zimmerman is going to get some AB's at first as the "franchise" guy that's been around, so that eats some AB's at first, and a guy like Tyler Moore can flip between 1st/OF. At 2nd, Wilmer Difo and Danny Espinosa could be as intriguing as anything they could get in a trade, and at catcher, Ramos is tied down 1 more year (I think) and they have two intriguing young catchers a year or two away (Reetz is further away but the more intriguing option). Even their pitching needs aren't HUGE. Joe Ross and Tanner Roark are fine end of the rotation options to start the year, if we're being honest. If anything, they need pen help. c) This is a team with some prospect depth. They are strong on pitching, and have some intriguing enough bats. The chance of landing the impact they need likely isn't through the trade market. Short of it is, my thinking is that I think the Nats probably go - "Hey, you want an elite level arm (and lost in the noise about Strasburg's issues is that he has been pretty damn great ... not elite (dependent on how you define that, but pretty damn great), who, prior to this year, was slowly building up his yearly workload, without paying elite level price in years and cost? We'll listen on Strasburg, but we aren't pressed to move him. Take a contract off us and/or give us something we care about, and we might consider it." ____ All that said, much as I've pushed the idea for awhile now that the Nationals may listen on Strasburg, I still have my doubts. After all, a rotation of Scherzer/Strasburg/Gonzalez/Ross/Roark (or a FA competing), and maybe add someone like Dexter Fowler, plus a healthy Rendon, and this team looks like a playoff squad again, assuming Trea Turner is ready. I think it would probably take a great deal for them to pry him away. By no means am I saying that any team should offer the kitchen sink for him ... just that I think the Nationals view would be that, to give up an elite arm, we're going to need a lot. ____ To be quite honest, much as I enjoy pondering the idea about Strasburg to the Cubs for the right price, I am starting to wonder if Boston makes a ton more sense than us (and many other squads) as a possible Strasburg trade partner. They have contracts that they can swap (Allen Craig/Rick Porcello come to mind - my belief is that no one's taking Hanley off them unless it's something ridiculous), pitchers that could probably help add competition (Henry Owens, Wade Miley, the aforementioned Porcello, Brian Johnson, and others), positional assets they could move (I mean, in the OF, they could move the likes of Jackie Bradley Jr. or if the Nationals wanted prospect depth, maybe even Benintendi?), and mostly, a GM that loves making these aggressive moves (and it really feels like a Dombrowski trade to do something like this). ____ All the speculation is coached on the idea that Strasburg's medicals are clean, which I'm assuming, but I guess you never know.

Storen has value. I doubt they would combine the two, but could be wrong. Also, Cubs don't need Werth (or Pap) - just guessing Rizzo would want to dump some money to go after FA targets. Wouldn't stun me if they looked at Price/Greinke, but think they may focus on 2nd tier arms.

No on Papelbon. Its not needed. They passed at the trade deadline for a reasonable price. Don't see them doing it now, but could be wrong. Still think they may try to peddle Werth's contract with Strasburg to give them greater flexibility. Would not be surprised if they went after Fowler. Robles is a couple years away, and Taylor is okay, not great.

Probably the orioles. They know they need pitching with plus stuff, but they won't spend for the top arms. They also know they need to remake their 1 dimensional offense. Guess is soler gives them pause. I doubt they would consider Baez.

I like a Moore gamble, but more as the 2nd starter this off season. That said, I worry about the cost. I would not give up Soler in a deal for him. I would, however, note that the jury is still out on the Days FO. Their big trade last year is still iffy. I also would not want Chapman as the main SP addition, as it's still risky, from an adjustment perspective, as well as timing (relative to future costs). That combination makes it tough for me to see a package that makes sense. I would be open to a Soler swap that nets Strasburg, but I'm not sure that's enough. Hence why I've said that if a Straburg trade happens, I think there is a third team.

Was toying around with trying to make a list while I was at the airport the other day, and I found it to be the hardest thing to do. Part of it is I've been a touch out of it, but part of it is, after Gleyber, I really think you can make a case for a lot of different orders. I slammed out 20, but this isn't the thread for it. I surprised myself, as I kept pushing Mark Zagunis higher each time I looked over it (I find myself thinking a Zagunis-type would be the perfect depth OF on the main roster - a good approach guy who can spray the ball around, and play a bit of each OF spot (and act as uh ... the 4th catcher) and, if developed, be utilized at the top of the lineup. He's got solid athleticism, enough to make me wonder if we should give him some IF time to develop him as a utility guy. In all honesty, I almost talked myself into Zagunis at 2, despite the glaring issue.) We're deep ... I mean, the guy at 2 is not demonstrably that much more valuable than the probable options in the mid-teens, and that's a testament to the system, not a huge knock on who's at 2. Still, depth will only go so far in trade discussions.

Not sure if it's been posted, but Jim Callis wrote this today: There was a video in there as well. If Contreras can be ready by midseason, it'd be great if we could sideline David Ross and make him the backup, giving us an improved backup and some time to get him ready for 2017.