toonsterwu

My hunch is that at this point, he probably heads to Eugene for a bit first, but if they feel he's taken that many leaps, I could see a jump to South Bend. I mean, it's not like Jeffrey Baez, much as I like 60+ power and Yasiel Balaguert are doing anything to keep their South Bend slots. Eugene starts right around the corner, though (June 18th, I beieve), so my guess is he probably heads there and they wait and see if he's ready for the jump, but who knows.

Since I don't know what's going on ... Deeg - I have a hard time buying the idea that viewing Addison Russell at 2nd base in the bigs is enough to make an assessment that he has better range and hands. I'm also a bit confused about the unanimous opinion thing - in fact, there were plenty of folks that questioned/wondered if Russell is better moving to 3rd (I believe Kiley McDaniel noted this in his thing this year, noting, as many others have, the arm action that could potentially be a problem, particularly as he gets older.) Personally, I think Castro, Russell, and Baez are all "through their prime" shortstops, guys who can stick there but as they age have to get shifted off of short (granted, one could argue that there are very few post-prime year shortstops that you would want there in an ideal situation). The reality is all three have warts about their defense. I'd be stunned if any were multiple, legitimate Gold Glove winners through their careers, particularly at short. None of them are Machado ... and Machado had to move to 3rd for Hardy and Machado coming up might've had better defense tools than all three of them for shortstop. If I had to say one was better long run, I'd say Russell, but I don't think it's by enough to justify moving Castro to another position anytime soon. Personally, I'm not convinced that Castro's range is worse than Russell's ... and he has a better arm. That isn't to say that I think the current configuration is the long term configuration. I just don't see them making that move this year, unless they come up with a Castro deal. I could be wrong.

I'm okay if the price is right, but color me not convinced that Papelbon would be the closer with Rondon as the setup guy. Furthermore, while it's unlikely Papelbon finishes 55+ games in 2015, unless Rondon is blowing saves like crazy, I'd rather not risk Papelbon's option vesting. This, though, feels like idle chatter at an early stage. I imagine, barring the pen falling apart, that they will give Grimm/Ramirez enough time.

I'm still of the opinion that we don't need to sell the farm to land an elite 3rd starter. Assuming we are still hanging around at the ASB, I'd prefer moves for a solid starter, pen help, and maybe a positional asset or two that won't cost us elite talent. You can sell all the secondary pieces and have a decent shot of replacing those assets relatively quickly. That said, would that get their attention? I'd be surprised if it wouldn't, particularly since we'll have a good grasp of Underwood at the ASB. A potential TOR starter that might be in AA this year, an elite power bat (power being one of the tougher things for them to get), and a few more solid pieces? I don't think I'd want to sell the farm like that ... and it's possible the A's could feel that packaging them separately could net them a more meaningful return (not necessarily just better, but they could perhaps be targeting specific things in trades). But that should, unless I'm just off on things ... get their attention.

@andruwgreen: Carl Edwards Jr. hitting 95 here on the stadium radar gun. Just blew a fastball by D.J. Peterson for his 2nd strikeout in as many batters. @andruwgreen: And he just hit 96. Hope they'll just call him up and let him skip Iowa when he's ready. I'm bummed they're transitioning him already, but the idea of Edwards going 2 innings at a time as a relief ace is an interesting one. Shark was a pen guy to start. I think Edwards can have a similar path. It's possible, but Edwards has frame/durability issues, while Shark was more or less, an issue of stuff not being ready to start (an oversimplification but that's the best I can come up with right now).

Man, that Eugene rotation is going to be so intriguing but raw. De la Cruz would be the old man in the rotation after turning 20 in March. Jae Hoon Ha converting to pitcher? Yeah. It's an interesting move. His ceiling as an OF seemed to be a depth OF in the bigs if he put it all together, and more likely, a AA/AAA type to cycle around. He's always had good arm strength, so it's an interesting option to try him as a starter. One wishes they had tried this earlier in his career, but it could still pan out. Or it could the way of Che-Hsuan Lin's move from OF-P (to name an Asian OF with good defensive skills, questionable offense who was shifted to pitcher and is now playing in Korea at last check). I've only skimmed Phil's comments this year, so not sure how well he's been doing.

To be quite honest, I don't care that much about the age. The bigger concern was that most of the reports on Williams entering the year, and including some article I saw a few weeks ago, suggested that he had an average fastball, and average secondary stuff. The Kyle Hendricks types that work their way up the ladder, let alone reach the majors, are usually the exception, and thus, for me, it seems tough to buy in on Williams as of now. Perhaps his stuff improves ...

To be quite honest, the idea that the Mets have to make a move at shortstop is also somewhat debatable. If Matt Reynolds can hold the fort, they can wait and see if that Rosario kid that they pushed him to A+ is special enough. There's also cheaper options that might fit the FO's needs ... someone like Jed Lowrie comes to mind.

The flip side to the idea that Gray is untouchable because they are trying to rebuild would be that moving a guy like him, with, I think, 3 arb years, would net a lot more and likely help the rebuild move along faster. I don't rule anything out with Beane, as he's shown that he's amenable to all sorts of ideas. That said, they made a lot of moves this winter to rebuild while trying to stay competitive, so I don't think they would make any moves with the sole focus being on rebuilding.

so Castro for Hamels then Couple points: a) Leaving aside whether we would do it ... I don't see the Phillies even considering that. They have Crawford lined up and ready to go, on paper, perhaps as soon as 2016. On paper, Crawford should be better defensively than Castro at short, more disciplined offensively, and might have more pop than Castro. b) A key issue that's been touched on, and I say this as someone who is not adamantly against anything, is maintaining flexibility, long term and short term. I think the idea of an elite 3rd pitcher is nice ... but not a necessity to our chances to compete and win. If we move Castro now, we are committed to Russell for a couple years, and limit our payroll with Hamels contract. Considering we aren't an on-paper, rock solid team to go far (for example, the Nationals, on paper, would be that), that's a big commitment. I'm not convinced that the difference between Hamels and say, Wei-Yin Chen (just to pick a lefty name from a club that could potentially sell ... I'd actually love to see if Bosio could improve the new changeup Wei-Yin Chen has been working on this year) is necessarily what is going to limit us from going far this season (sorry, when I pick a name to use, it sort of sticks around for a few posts for a comparative purpose ...), and Chen should not cost, if the Orioles are out of it, as much as Hamels. You give yourself a lot more flexibility this route, because even though our secondary assets are good, it's easier to replace those guys. Now, if you believe Hamels vs. a guy like Chen is a wide gap, and feel that good about our chances this year, then yes ... I get why you go that route.

what certainty is there that we're not mired in a repeat of '13 for Castro? is it greater than the odds that Syndergaard doesn't acclimate or that Matz can't immediately be a viable high-leverage reliever? Are you more concerned about 2015 or simply having the most overall talent in the org to set up a longer run? I think it's much more likely that Starlin is a positive 2015 asset. It's probably about a wash in the long run if you look at him for Thor + Matz. Given what you know of my opinion of Starlin, that's how down I am on trading assets for pitching prospects, in general. For the trade proposal I was responding to in particular, adding Almora and Torres on top of Starlin for those guys is, IMO, ludicrous. Every teams fans are going to have a much higher regard for their own teams prospects / players than the opposing team. We have a glaring hole in the pitching staff, rather than trading away prospects for rental players at the deadline, as a fan of the cubs i'd rather trade long term talent pitching talent for long term hitting talent . it just so happens that the METS are one of the few teams that have excess of that other than maybe the Nationals. I get your point, I do. Here's the thing ... what if we can trade good, but secondary, young assets, guys that may not be definitive parts of our future, for a key arm and pen help? On paper, it seems doable. It might "strip" the system for 2016, but it's doable. We keep our top assets around, make a push this year, and then we revisit in the offseason. Perhaps we sign a big time FA arm in the offseason and deal a position asset away to restock the system. Short of it is, we aren't limited, and I feel like your idea, while I get it, might limit our flexibility in some respects. Pushing secondary chips in the pot and keeping our prime assets would be enough. Put it this way, if we can get a rotation of say, Lester, Arrieta, Wei-Yin Chen, and Hammel (just to name a guy), with maybe someone like Brian Matusz for situational usage in the pen I think we would have a real good shot in the post-season, and I doubt we would have to fork over an arm and a leg for a guy like Chen. Then, we can adjust in the offseason for our short and long term goals.

it would improve our chances of playing meaningful Fall games pretty substantially the categorical 'f pitching' narrative is almost as bad, when we have 3rd-worst bullpen in the league to this point and 2 starters with whom the manager doesn't allow to see the 6th inning I agree, and I think we will make a move, but I also think there's enough in the system to address those needs for now without touching Castro. This buys us time, in case a youngster starts to scuffle and doesn't pan out. I mean, we're discussing Castro as a fallback option. Maybe I'm wrong about the potential trade dynamics for this season.

Well ... I'd disagree on that as well. A shrewd front office needs to assess what key pieces to keep and maximize value early by dealing guys away. You shouldn't waste value ... if guys are excess, or if you don't believe in them enough but can get value, you should move them.

Hahn doesn't seem like the type that's really going to get too worried about the media. Hahn's a pretty smart guy ... there's a reason a lot of folks tabbed him as a GM for a long time, and why the White Sox, iirc, played keep away on him for awhile.

I've been thinking about Samardzija coming back. I would toss the Orioles in as an option to consider. It could be tough sledding for them this year, and if they are out of it, with so many pieces hitting FA, it could be an interesting matchup with their pen depth and decent, but not great, SP's.

So...a top 10-15 shortstop on a great contract, a top 50 and a top 75 prospect for two pitching prospects and a reliever? I'm going to go with no. Syndergaard is #11 in all of MLB in 2015 rankings Matz is #65 Almora is #56 Torres isnt even on the top 100 list. This is not a big strech. In all honesty, much as I love rankiings, lists are for discussion purposes mostly. Last year, the Rays were blasted initially on fan sites for going after Wily Adames in that David Price deal. Lo and behold, sounds like a lot of folks were actually quite high on Adames already, but he simply wasn't ranked high the previous year. Right now, Torres looks ... real good. Hard to make a comparison, but he feels like he's better than Adames was last year in terms of talent, development, and potential. That's an an enticing prospect. I'll even say that if the Mets came and offered Syndegaard for Torres ... I would at least, personally, have to think about it (obviously, only people that matter are Theo/Jed/Jason). Where Torres ranked entering the year doesn't matter

No. Just no. Man ... no. It should be clear by now that I am not against anything. I like Castro a fair amount, perhaps even more than most, and still believe he may take steps forward, but even in that hypothetical discussion with uh ... crap ... I can't find the thread that was in (too lazy to search ... apologies to whoever I was discussing that with), my point was that if Torres was ready by 2017 ... that's a completely different scenario to assess. In a couple years, the value of Castro's deal, while still nice, is not as significant as it is now, and he would be older with a more clearly defined idea of what he is and what he might be through his prime years. Right now ... the length and "friendliness of the deal" is significant, along with his age and the idea that there is still untapped potential. I like Syndegaard a lot (who isn't intrigued with him). I'm not as in love with Matz as a lot of folks ... but I get why people love him. Power lefties are intriguing (not completely convinced he's a good starter ... a guy who can mix it as a an end of the rotation option ... fine but a lot of guys can fall in that mix). I'm just not sure I would necessarily do Syndegaard, Matz and change for Castro, though. Again, 2017 is a different dynamic. Right now ... two unproven, albeit, exciting, arms for a solid young major league shortstop on a really friendly deal is not necessarily a deal I would make (furthermore, if I'm trading to make a push, I try to trade for a more proven commodity than Syndegaard, but that's a secondary point). There's probably a hypothetical deal involving Castro this year that I could go on board with. I haven't thought that deeply about it. I can easily envision a scenario where I would be fine with Castro deal options this offseason. This idea, nothing personal, is just not one I'd do, particularly when you factor in if we're pushing, we want a more proven commodity. ______ On paper, we should have enough to net a quality 3rd starter without giving up Castro or even Schwarber. There are definitely enough assets, on paper, to add whatever is needed to the pen without giving up a key piece. Trades involving Castro that would make sense would really have to be blockbusters involving proven impact major leaguer arms (and most top arms being dealt are guys that are hitting FA soon, so there would need to be quality young talent to add to that mix). If that scenario presents itself, then I think a Castro deal becomes a lot more palatable.

It's always a tough guess in these situations, and at the end of the day, a lot comes down to what teams want, but I'd be stunned if something like that didn't at least get their attention. Close is a tough thing to define in these situations, but that would have to get their attention. I mean, with Torres supposedly a fast track kid (I know they have ANOTHER shortstop in the pipeline already, name is slipping me, but Torres is a better talent than him), and Underwood looking like a TOR type arm that could hit AA soon ... if Beane calls it quits on this year, that would have to be something that could get their attention. With Gray being cost-controlled for 3 more years (unless I'm mistaken), I doubt that would be enough, unless there's some concern about Gray that I'm missing. To be quite honest, I doubt they move Gray unless it's a blow them away offer.

Ah yes, was thinking Luis Liria. Arias was a bit after them (I want to say he was 2 years after them in Arizona for Rookie League but being too lazy to check right now, I could be off). That said, having 1 of them make it up to AA is probably a win in some respects. Peralta's always had electric stuff. I remember when he got snapped up in Rule 5 and there were positive reports that Arizona really wanted to keep him around.

If de la Cruz is as good as Phil makes him sound ... damn. That said, I remember when (I think) Phil had some incredibly great reports on Willengton Cruz and ... who was the other guy (not Peralta) ... Amaury Paulino? (there was one more guy as well ... name's slipping my mind ... I recall 4 intriguing LA arms from those years with those 3 being 3 of them) ... and they never panned out.

Pre-season, I think I'd vote Candelario/Black here, but this is too deep into the season that even though I've been voting with the idea of how I'd vote pre-season ... it's just tough. Thus, vote is 1. Black - he ought to be able to help in the pen in some fashion. Don't think he's a starter - but doesn't hurt to keep him there for another year while others work their way up. 2. Contreras - He's not this good a hitter. Still, looks like he should be able to do something offensively (love the pop he's shown) and defensively, sounds like he's decent-solid.

Interesting move by Brian O'Connor yesterday. Josh Sborz had moved back into the rotation with Kirby's injury, but with UVA needing one win to lock up the ACC tournament, he went Waddell (who finally had a good outing) and Sborz (as a side note, they knocked Bukauskus around a bit ... I remember when folks were huge on that kid ... granted, I think he'll be fine in time, but was nice to see him get knocked around, as a UVA fan ... side note 2 ... Sborz has quietly had a good season and I think he's sort of been lost in the midst of interesting college pen arms ... I'd love him in the 3rd-5th range as a guy who might ... might ... be able to move fast and get to the bigs soon, although I think there might be some clubs tempted with the idea of trying him as a starter). A healthy Kirby, and I would feel more intrigued about UVA's chances. As it stands, they are in the ACC tournament, and Connor Jones seems to have taken that next step. If they can sneak into the NCAA tournament, they'll be an interesting team. Not as strong a "darkhorse" challenger without Kirby, but with a legit ace and a fairly interesting lineup, could cause some trouble. Assuming Pinero comes back, and assuming a young arm or two steps up (namely, the injured Derek Casey), they should be back to their usual quality ACC team next year.

Fulmer at 1 is a bit stunning. That said ... it's Dave Stewart and those crazy Diamondbacks. Personally, I think Sonny Gray had a better profile out of college than Fulmer. I like Fulmer, legit big time stuff, but boy if I'm not convinced he's a starter. It's a weak pitching class. I'm not anti-pitcher in the 1st round in the draft, but with such as weak class, you really ought to opt for the best talent, first and foremost, wherever that is. This is the sort of draft that I wish we could trade top 10 round picks. Would certainly love to move up to grab one of many intriguing starting arms that seem likely to fall into the late 1st/early 2nd range. If the draft falls that way ... I think I'm alright with Bentinendi.. Still, one wonders if a draft-eligible sophomore may squeeze for a big deal. I'd prefer, in this draft, at our spot, last year's route of trying to save early and stocking up on some intriguing guys in the next few rounds. One has to think an intriguing college arm or two will be available in the 2nd, and perhaps some may even fall to the 3rd-5th range. I don't follow preps enough, but Donny Everett sure sounds interesting as a power arm, if we were to opt that route. It seems like a reach in the draft, but I still like Cornelius Randolph. Dunno, such an eh draft.

Issue with Batista prior to this year, despite minor league success, was that his stuff was very pedestrian. IIRC, it was above average slider? (maybe curve), with a fastball that topped out low 90's. I mean, that's Joe Borowski-ish stuff. Granted, that's more than enough to succeed in the bigs (the famous Italian, Alessandro Maestri, was a power arm with a power slider ... who has powered himself to wherever he is, but not with us). Now ... I have no idea if his stuff has improved, and to be quite honest, I'm somewhat intrigued. Not a ton, as he is 26 in AA with a good breaking ball, but I'm curious if the fastball might've ticked up or if he picked up a better change-up (or something else). At the end of the day, gut feeling is that he's probably a polished arm succeeding against younger talent, but it's a strong enough start to at least pique some interest.

No, I get the point you are making, and no one really annoys me on sports forums, so no need to apologize. I would just say that I think to preclude any possibility (that is, being rather adamant that the idea that everyone is going to stay put) would be a bit silly. I certainly wouldn't rule them out from keeping everyone. I don't think that's likely, much as everyone wants a full homegrown team (and much as Theo has made jokes of it in the past), but it's possible. We're talking about 2017 ... if the Cubs are lucky enough that the majority of the players have panned out, at some point, there's going to be a logjam somewhere. I also noted in a separate post that I don't think they'd make a rash trade/bad trade of Castro (or anyone else, for that matter), but again, we're talking about 2017. That said, we are talking about a guy in Castro who a) Doesn't exactly fit the offensive profile that they desire (again, I like Castro, and I believe he may add power and discipline as he gets older) b) Doesn't really fit the defensive emphasis that they would ideally prefer c) Hasn't, and it hurts to say this because of what I expected at the time, shown much growth from what he was when he came in (fully acknowledge that my belief in a bit more power and discipline isn't really a justifiable belief yet based upon his moderate rate of development) Functionally, this front office has shown, based on past history, that they'll move big pieces to try and shore up holes to make a push (and I'm not speaking solely of the Nomar deal, although a 31 year old Nomar coming off a big offensive season vs. whatever Starlin is at 27 isn't as dramatic of a difference as it sounds right now ... ). Now, situations and circumstances are different for each trade and each organization's dynamics. I would also add in that what's left of the deal, while team friendly, isn't so far below market value that it's ridiculous (3/31 or 4/46 ... I'd guess that 27 year old Starlin Castro, barring a collapse and assuming MLB market forces haven't drastically changed, and assuming he hasn't made a huge offensive leap yet, could probably net 12-15 mil on the AAV). Again, I don't know why it's so hard to consider the idea that, if Torres is ready for the bigs by 2017 (his age 20 season), that they may consider moving Starlin Castro (or someone else) to shore up a run. If so many of our guys pan out, someone's going to go at some point. To be quite honest, the shrewd front office would discern who the guys are to keep (I keep thinking of the Pettite/Hitchcock decision back in the day, along with the Braves moving young pitchers in the 90's like David Nied) and sell the other names earlier to net a bigger return (there's always a gamble ... the Braves thought Adam Wainwright might never become a TOR iirc). You just try to balance the gamble with ceiling and floor considerations.