toonsterwu

I think any talk of trades at this point is fairly unlikely (barring some sort of stunner ... which I guess is possible). In the winter, perhaps, but even then, I'd have my doubts. Sometime next year seems more likely, and next winter would probably be my bet. At this point in time, they need to get Russell in and see how things go. Baez has turned it around a bit, but with the struggles he went through early, there's zero rush there. Down the line, I do expect them to make a move. It would simply be prudent for them to. The chances of all these guys panning out is slim, so if you determine which guy you are betting on or which guy you have a concern with, trading them at peak value gives you that increased flexibility. Hell, it could be for more positional talent. That said, as great as Bosio has been so far, at some point, you need high end starting pitching arm talent, and using our positional surplus to net young high end arms seems the most likely maneuver. There simply isn't enough in the system. They took some good gambles in this year's draft (arguably their best draft year so far in regards to taking arm "lottery picks"), and that was exciting, but of the guys currently in the system, we have what, 3-5 SP prospects with high end potential right now, which isn't enough (and one of them probably includes Trevor Clifton, who I like, but is so far away level-wise, and developmentally, while another would be Edwards, who has legitimate concerns ... let's see, I would go Tseng, Edwards, and ... damn, Clifton be third for me, I think). There is the potential to sign guys through FA, but realistically, there are so few prime pitching arms that reach FA these days. Epstein has long noted his wariness of paying too much in FA (hell, his dream situation is probably a team that is solely made up of guys that spent some time in the system), and a system can get burned quickly by trading for the pricey midseason veterans (although you certainly consider it if you are close). The FO is legitimately wary of going after arms, for justifiable reasons (although the post-trade narrative that this trade shows how they are wary of young arms, IMO, is a bit flawed. Addison Russell was simply, far and away, despite offensive and defensive concerns, the best talent that was supposedly discussed. If it's true that the Jays weren't willing to offer Norris (or heck, even Sanchez), there simply wasn't comparable high end pitching talent available out there. Furthermore, I think this trade is also another indication that, while it's possible Epstein and Co. are exploiting a changing dynamic in the game, the opposite side of it is that teams still place an inordinate amount of value on high end pitching prospects as it pertains to trades). That said, they were supposedly linked to Appel IIRC (phew on that so far), and IIRC, reports this year suggested they had Aiken and maybe Rodon at the top of their board, so as it pertains to the draft, it is also partially a case of positioning and the new system dictating their course of action(there was certainly justifiable reason for wariness on Kolek ... although Jennings and Co. viewing him so highly has admittedly piqued my attention on Kolek's future). As for the Mets, on paper, the match makes sense as of right now, but one potential issue is timing. If the Cubs wait until the winter of 2015 to make a trade, it's possible that the guys (here and there) establish themselves (or falter) to impact value. It's not hard to imagine someone like Syndegaard getting a late call-up, dominating, starting 2015 int he bigs and establishing himself, which would severely change what both sides expect on a trade. Simply put, a long way to go.

First off, I hope everyone had a great 4th. I got away from things, so that was nice. I briefly caught this on my phone, but am not a fan of tapatalk (or phone typing in general). I can't recall a mid-season trade as bold as this. I don't like this trade ... I don't hate this trade. It's gutsy, that's for sure. From a value perspective, I can't fault it. You rarely get elite talent involved in trades these days, and Addison Russell is elite. I really like McKinney, and I'm sort of fascinated who the PTBNL is (or if it's cash, maybe it's been named already as I haven't sifted through the thread). There's a deep bench of decent arms in the A's system, with some high upside/high risk types that I wonder if the Cubs might be able to nab. Even a rookie league upside gamble would be fascinating. That said, we just shipped off our main chips without getting pitching in return. At some point in time, we will need to find that pitching. As good as Bosio is, you need arm talent (for Arrieta's flaws, he always had arm talent, and you can't really depend on "rescue" arms like Arrieta to build a playoff rotation). Realistically, this is a smart FO that knows that, so I gotta think that they sifted through the pitching talent and realized that they couldn't nab that top arm that they wanted, the Daniel Norris or Kevin Gausman types (which was to be expected in some respect). So, instead of waiting (and I applaud them for this ... waiting on Hammel didn't make sense, as the perception of Hammel is not that of an elite starter, and waiting on Samardzija risked other arms coming into the market), they went to Plan B (nabbing the best positional talent), which will lead to Plan C (trading some of those positional talents for pitching). As fascinating as that secondary plan sounds, you also have to be able to get what you desired, which is easier said than done. You also have to gamble on the right guy, and trade guys at peak value. It's a lot of moving parts, and it makes me wonder more about a Starlin Castro trade for pitching down the line (a year or two from now, if guys pan out). Still, I applaud them for aggressiveness, getting excellent value in a deal, and getting an elite prospect plus another top talent. If one door doesn't open (the ability to get the desired pitching), you try to force it open (by creating a 2nd avenue to get said pitching). I really like Addison Russell a ton, and it wouldn't surprise me if McKinney is the best prospect from the deal when it's all said and done (to be clear, I think Russell will be, just saying McKinney's talent seems legitimate). Not a huge fan of Straily, but for a 3rd piece ... alright. Usable end of rotation arm who could bounce back. For the A's, this is a fascinating win-now gamble that, considering who is at the helm, almost seems like it could be deserving of it's own mini-book. Now, this isn't a "wipeout" of the system, although it's a monster shell-shock (they still have Robertson, who I think can handle short) and some decent arms to gamble on. That said, if things don't pan out, they are going to have to hit the restart button and start moving guys for young talent. Still, sometimes you have to gamble to win it all, and this is as good an opportunity as there has been for the A's in the Beane tenure.

Really comes down to how the young bats develop. UVA should be deep at catcher next year, so one of them may move to another spot, but on the surface, there should be PT open at 1st/CF/LF/DH (with LaPrise sliding in for Cogswell at 2nd), and they need one or two guys to step up and help anchor the middle of the lineup with McCarthy. Of course, the flip side was, this year's lineup never became as good as expected ... so it's actually not that hard to have a better lineup than last year's. The pitching's going to have to carry things, though, and the ACC should be better next year (as it was a pretty bleh conference this year).

Others can provide better answers, but on the surface, the draft looks better than this year's IMO, because the college pitching looks better. Of course, a year ago, Rodon/Beede were looked at as two guys that would make this draft better than the year before (with Appel/Gray), and well, that didn't pan out. So, a long way to go. On the surface, I do wonder if the prep bats are better, but others more knowledgeable are better equipped at answering that.

I'm of a mixed opinion on what to do with Schwarber. A part of me thinks that he should be moved off catcher and push the bat up. It's awfully nice to see a good bat succeeding in Kane County - we've had guys go through there that we thought could be good, but still struggled, and he's handling it just fine (so far). That said, if he's anywhere near decent behind the plate, that'd be a tremendous asset - an offensive catcher with pop. Still, then the other side of my brain tells me that why waste such a good bat behind the plate, where the wear and tear could damage his production (Matt Wieters never became the dominant hitter people expected, although admittedly, he actually became a good defensive catcher, which a lot of folks had doubts on). I've said this before on Alcantara, but there's a part of me that sort of wonders if someone might over-pay on Alcantara and try him as a shortstop. The age, profile, and production makes him fascinating, and I still believe that in time, he probably could've been passable at short. Still, if the "bad" outcome is having Alcantara tried as our 2nd baseman or CF ... not going to complain.

Fulmer, if he can pitch the way he did tonight next year, is my favorite for 1-1 as of now. I like his secondary stuff better than Matuella, he's a bit more electric than Kirby with a better changeup, and I forget the TCU arm right now, but I sure didn't buy him as a starter yet. That said, Fulmer was also eh versus Texas. Swanson looked real good, though. If his defense at short is plus, as people are expecting, I wouldn't be shocked if he went top 10. That's a good bat. McCarthy has to tap into that power a bit more to be a first rounder. I would guess he's in the same range that Fisher/Papi went this year, as of now - that is, a late first - mid-2nd type of guy. As electric as Sborz's stuff is, I'm not sure I buy him as a first rounder if he stays in the rotation. Now, move him to the pen, let him whip out 97-100+ and that slider ... maybe some team pulls the gun. Not sure Waddell is a first round type unless he finds some velo. Pitchability lefthander with a ton of poise, but the stuff seems just lacking that touch. Could be close, I guess, depending on how the class breaks next year. The UVA guy I am quietly fascinated with is Kenny Towns. Not first round fascinated, but he really swung a good bat in the post-season and if he keeps that up, I could see him as a 2nd-3rd round senior type.

That one hurts. I don't even think Howard made a bad pitch on that play. Virginia had chances, but at the end of the day, Vandy made the pitches today, and they made the pitches to hold on Game 1. Hats off to them, and they should be in line for a good few years run, as I think most of their key guys are freshmen/sophomores. If Fulmer pitches the way he did today as a starter next year, he's easily my favorite for 1-1. That's a power arm with electric stuff. A nasty change-up, a good breaking ball. Of course, I wasn't impressed in the Texas game, so we'll see if he can hold it. Thought UVA gave Fulmer a break by chasing some bad pitches (and while I'm not complaining, I thought Fulmer got a ton, a ton, a crapton of borderline calls). Gut instinct - I wonder if Fisher is a bust. For all his running speed/bat speed/power combination, I just don't get a great feel for him at the plate. I thought UVA made a mistake to go with Sborz to start the game instead of Lewicki. Lewicki's the strike-thrower - you use him to get you to the mid-innings and save Sborz for a short role. Still, UVA had their chances. 2nd-3rd ... 1 out ... I so wish Towns didn't get hit. Once he got hit, I was down. Laprise just hasn't been having good swings, and Downes will chase some pitches. UVA should still be good for a nice 1-2 year run. The pitching should be superb next year, even with Howard gone, and the reality is, the lineup was never as good as expected this year, so the offense might be better if some guys develop. There's a solid freshmen class coming in. Still, this was lined up perfectly for UVA - best team in college, with their rotation rested, and a veteran, talented lineup. Just didn't work out.

I never compared the two ... they are two different assets as it pertains to the type of trade discussions they would be involved in.

Would mgmt look at Arrieta + Strop as more their own failure or the fault of the coaches?[/quote My gut hunch based on what I recall of the talk then was that they would view both as failures of the players (their own failure). Arrieta was given a ton of rope. Strop, perhaps a bit less so, but he had lost his spot.

Would mgmt look at Arrieta + Strop as more their own failure or the fault of the coaches? Either way, it doesn't bode well for another deal, in my mind. It could result in some new coaches and new general pitching philosophies, but watching us turn another pitcher of theirs into what they're trying to trade for...... Likely isn't what they want to see happen. I have my doubts about that. Strop went from setup to mopup and Arrieta was clearly off. They knew what they had with Arrieta but he had been so bad in the majors that year and was ... bleh in AAA ... it sort of felt like cut the cord time. It's not like they've been bad with pitchers - the pen's been strong in Showalter's tenure, and Gonzalez/Tillman weren't exactly on the tip of everyone's mouths a couple seasons back. I really doubt that Duquette is going to be influenced by that trade enough to prevent a trade with us if he likes it. If you don't move Arrieta then, they would've kept him in AAA to do what? He's not exactly building value down in AAA. Sometimes, however a trade works out really doesn't imply that the process to make the trade was a bad decision, and I don't see any way that the Orioles selling two clearly out of favor pitchers as some negative mark on them and I have my doubts that the trade will weigh heavily on future decisions.

I'll be rather shocked if the Mariners even remotely ponder moving Walker. Paxton I think they might listen on, but Walker? I'd be stunned. They have enough middle infield chips to shop around to fill some holes, but probably not enough to really make a serious charge this year.

They've only been shuttling Gausman because they can do so with no downside - he's a part of their short-term plans. If folks think Sanchez, Norris and Pompey is short, it really does seem as if expectations are unrealistic because of the Garza overpay. Sanchez has warts, but his stuff is truly elite - and you're getting another TORP prospect and a multi-tool switch-hitting CF who draws walks. That's a good deal. Would I rather have Bundy, Harvey and extras? Yeah - but I very much doubt that happens. First off, this whole "Garza" overpay as it pertains to the Shark trade is something that has bothered me. People seem to think that no deal can stand up to the Garza deal at that point in time. Realistically, Hunter Harvey (taking a name that's been discussed), entering this year, was viewed as good as, if not a better talent, CJ Edwards entering last year. The rest of the package is "nice", but most teams can put together something equivalent to Olt/Ramirez/Grimm's value last year, pre-trade. The gap from Edwards to Harvey at the same point in time isn't all that much ... and I have my doubts that there are many Cubs fans that would be okay with a Harvey-led package. Put it another way - a comparable trade to Sanchez/Norris/Pompey from the Orioles is closer to Rodriguez/Harvey/? than people seem to be acknowledging. As for the Jays package, I was a big proponent of Sanchez in years past, but as tantalizing as his upside is, he's now entering AA/AAA and hasn't fixed his problems yet. I'm not all that sure that his FB/breaking ball combination is that much better than Neil Ramirez's. A Samardzija trade, IMO, really needs a super-elite ceiling or a good ceiling that is close to ready. I'm not sure Sachez fits either spot - he has an elite ceiling, but not out of this world that when combined with his risk, really makes a ton of sense for the Cubs. Now, I'll grant, maybe the Cubs think they can fix him and if so, alright. From the outside looking in, I'm just not sure I buy the fit for the Cubs, as the centerpiece to a Shark deal, as the best. That said, I guess the argument could be made that Norris is the centerpiece to the deal and Sanchez is a good gamble to see if they can fix - the Neil Ramirez to Norris' CJ Edwards. It's debatable, I just happen to prefer Harvey to Norris a bit, and I think the safety of Eduardo Rodriguez, plus a solid enough ceiling, is a safer bet. Of course, this is speaking about a hypothetical that supposedly isn't being offered, but that was my only point about the Blue Jays trade - not sure the Sanchez risk is a worthwhile one at this stage.

Thanks for the more detailed breakdown. It wouldn't be outlandish to see them make a big move and spend a couple of their big three (I'm not a big fan of Rodriguez). I just don't expect them to make that big of a splash. I guess if: - the team as a whole is playing well - Tillman, in particular, falls on his face and - Gausman is erratic they may consider it. It just isn't very likely. I fully expect them to be active ... I'm just not sure how active at this point. They simply have an opening that might not be there in the future - Red Sox are down, Rays are close to done, and the Yankees don't exactly have a monster system to necessarily facilitate moves (and I'd argue that the Blue Jays don't have the system to make more than 1 big move, but that's at least a bit more debatable, I guess). Of course, some of the talk is that, well, how many moves do the Orioles need (the implication being that they may need too many pieces to legitimately contend, so why waste young talent)? Personally, I think an optimistic look on the Orioles would be - Pen - Britton shores up the closer role, and Hunter settles back into his setup role, allowing you to piece the rest of the pen together (and namely, move O'Day back to more of a 7th inning role and Matusz as a lefty specialist). Their success the past few years has been dependent upon a 6 inning ball-game essentially. Offense - Realistically, I'm not sure they have any place they CAN make a move. You have to wait on Machado. Hardy/Davis/Markakis/Jones/Cruz aren't going anywhere. You have to hope Davis can turn it around. All that really leaves is catcher and 2nd, and I think Hundley was their move at catcher, and after playing Schoop for this long, I have doubts that they will just dump the move for a temporary upgrade, particularly since if Machado/Davis pick it up, their offense is that much better. Rotation - You aren't making two moves for starters ... and I'm not sure they need to. Chen's fine, you get fine back end production from Norris. I guess this is my roundabout way of saying that I think they will seriously pursue the big splash if they can avoid moving Bundy/Gausman and control the pitcher for more than this year. You get another starter in there to pair with Chen, then you can mix and match the back end. Now, that said, as noted, I have doubts they move either Bundy or Gausman. I'm in an odd spot with Rodriguez - last year, I thought he was over-hyped ... now I think he's a bit under-hyped. It's still a very good 3 pitch mix, and there's slightly better than mid-rotation potential with that velocity. The one darkhorse factor is if Gausman solidifies a spot in the rotation and allows them to piece together the rest of it. A lot of moving factors in play with them.

I'll be the first to say that was a dumb, dumb play by Mike Papi. Running into Campbell like that was unnecessary. I don't think it was malicious, but it's the 9th, you look like you are going to win and force Game 3 ... why take a risk of getting hurt? Just foolish. That said, great win for UVA. I got really worried after yesterday (reminded me of Kirby last year, the Kirby that didn't have the sharp command of this year). I think a big thing for Game 1 was that they got away with only using Whit Mayberry and Austin Young (and almost came back to win). Waddell going the distance means they probably go with Lewicki over Sborz (Lewicki with better command), keeping Sborz/Howard in relief. The offense seems to be coming alive after the year-long malaise, but if they get good Carson Fulmer tomorrow, it's going to be tough. Stone should be ready to go as well. Fulmer's on short rest after throwing what, 90? Still ... youngsters and their ability to rebound in the short term often overshadows the "numbers" game. I admit to being a touch mystified at Corbin not pulling Beede for Papi/McCarthy/Fisher ... only to bring in the lefty to face Laprise and then go to Ferguson and the other guy whose name is slipping me (I understand wanting to save the pen for Game 3). Total Side note: There's a part of me that thinks Cogswell has a shot to make it. Of course, that's not fair, as I tend to be harsh on guys that are heavily dependent on contact, as he definitely doesn't have the offensive potential of Taylor or Bruno before him. Watching him handle the bat, though ... just wonder. Should be a fun one tomorrow.

Baltimore's starting pitching has been ... more productive over the past month (ERA is down, but the advanced metrics are still bad). They aren't about to move Bundy, from everything that's been speculated upon here. Speculation seems to be that Gausman is close to untouchable as well, as they are just biding time to give him a full-time slot. I think in the right deal, they might move Gausman, but I doubt it would be Gausman and more for Samardzija (personally, I'm actually not that against a Gausman for Samardzija type deal ... dunno if either side would do it, though ... but I think Gausman has mysteriously dropped off the radar of young pitching excitement for some reason (I guess his struggles last year?), but nothing seems to suggest a need to be grossly worried yet). I think they would easily listen on Rodriguez and Harvey, and honestly, if they offered those two in a package, I think I would be open to it. Right now, last word out was that they aren't going to trade 2 of their Big 4, but they have a great shot at the east this year, so my guess is push come to shove, they might consider it. Honestly, I like the idea of Rodriguez and Harvey for more than Sanchez (who I was big on once upon a time) and Norris. Thing is, Tillman's velocity creeped back up last time out. If he is back in the low-mid 90's with the breaking ball, he might turn his season around enough that, combined with Chen, and along with Gonzalez/Norris being decent, they might not feel an urge to go over-board. Granted, the last time they had a big 4 in pitching, 3 of them never became starters, so maybe that changes the calculus a bit. I really don't expect them to make a move until late, though, as I think they are going to bide their time to see if Ubaldo can turn it around, see if Miguel can find his form, and see what Tillman's velocity is at. That's probably at least going to take us to mid-late July.

out of random curiosity, for what position? Off the top, he's played 3 spots this year, right? Or do you bring him up and move him around to different spots to get him the AB's? It's been nice to see the discipline tick up. Personally, I'd give him a few more months before calling him up. Beyond the obvious reasons (buys time to see if some of the spare parts veterans can it going to trade them, gives us time to see if his improved discipline holds, gets him extra work in CF), I like the idea of keeping him in AAA a bit longer because it should give him some occasional chances at short, and I still wonder if there's a pie-in-the-sky chance a team might get a hard-on for Alcantara as a shortstop and gives us a great deal to get him (akin to the Did Gregorius trade). Unlikely, but as there's no rush, it's something to store in the back of the mind. That said, as well as he's played, they may just consider him a key part of the future as a top of the order bat. I still have my doubts about the approach holding up in the bigs as a top of the order bat, but if it works, it's great (particularly the CF experiment, as that keeps 2nd open for Bruno if he makes it up, or Baez).

I really want to see what happens when this guy gets called up. Is he a pitching genius? I just don't get it. Command with three average, if not slightly better, pitches will play in the minors. It can probably play in the majors as well, but the reason why there's been hesitancy on rankings with him is the simple fact that, without really strong stuff, there's always a concern that things don't hold/show up as well once he faces major league bats. Certainly, there are guys with that generic profile (3 average pitches, command) that have had success in the bigs.

Virginia really is in the driver's seat now. Kirby's rested for Game 1, Howard was only used for 1 inning. Lewicki is the only arm that's been used a bit hard, but he should be fine for at least Game 2 pen usage, if not Game 1, and the rest of the pen is rested. There really won't be a better situation for Virginia (and I guess, for the ACC in general) than the way it sets up now, with Vandy having to use Fulmer today.

Can't imagine him being in the organization much longer. I tend to agree with that, which is disappointing as he was an intriguing asset as recently as 2 years ago. I'm actually fairly curious what went wrong this year for him - the strikeouts went back up, but the walks blew sky high to ridiculous levels. Considering I had heard in previous years he was working on harnessing his 2-seamer (that is, throw it at a lower velo but get more command), my initial thought is that maybe he got worried about strikeouts and started over-throwing things. Still ... those are some ridiculous walk numbers, even for 22 innings, so it feels like it's more than just over-throwing. The breaking ball never did develop. It's easy to forget in 2012, prior to being shut down, he had a fascinating and exciting start to the year in Low A. Shame.

That's definitely a fair perspective, but I think it's rather exciting since we will have a high pick and the college arm class looks ... very good as of now and we might be able to nab a polished college arm with high upside that is close to ready. The depth feels strong, so we should be able to get another good arm in the 2nd round. Admittedly, a lot can change in a year, but we still need elite pitching talent, and the 2015 class could provide that for us.

Weren't people psyched for the dud 2014 draft a year ago? Arm wise ... yes ... and no. A lot of the excitement was, realistically, over Rodon, as the perception was that, after a perceived "down" year with Appel and Gray, that Rodon would be that elite college arm. Even last year, there were a lot of folks with mixed feelings about Beede, while Hoffman was sort of lurking. There's a lot of justifiable excitement with the college arm class for next year, IMO. Now, some of them will falter, but there are more guys coming off exciting years that look like top picks, IMO, than there was at the same point in 2013. Raisin could probably provide a better analysis as to whether or not this is a fair statement, as I don't follow college baseball that closely, but that's just my gut take with guys like Fulmer, Matuella, and Kirby. A lot can and will go wrong, though, so in a year's time, we'll see (I still don't love Funkhouser, for some reason, and I'm not sure Ferrell is a starter, although he sure was nasty last night). It feels stronger than this year's class at the top at the same point in time, though.

Ha, I went to sleep Raisin. Then, around 1am, got up to go to the bathroom, decided to flip on the TV and saw the end. I'm going to be fairly surprised if it's not UVA vs. Vandy in the finals. I still think Ole Miss made a mistake not going with Trent vs. UVA. Finnegan looked good, but UVA made some solid contact. Actually, I was fairly impressed with how Cogswell seemed to get a good read on his pitches. Ferrell was nasty. He looks like a possible 1st round closer. Howard was good as well, and the breaking ball was really on. Was surprised Lewicki hit 95 on some pitches - that said, could be because he was coming out of the pen. For all the talk about TD being awful for offenses (and it is ... still no home runs, I think), I was more bothered by how UVA hitters were being very aggressive and not working up the pitch counts for Finnegan and Ferrell. Good for Pinero to be the one that drove in the runs. Fascinated how he turns out in 2 years - I see a bit of Ryan Flaherty in there, although perhaps not Flaherty's pop.

Yeah, I'll be honest, don't understand why you didn't walk him. I guess I do ... but walking him made more sense just for the force out possibility. Hell, had you guys gotten behind McCarthy, walking the bases loaded wouldn't be the worst thing. Papi's just been on, and I think I under-rated his MLB potential.

Well that sucks. Actually took the time to type a post and lost it. Oops. Let's see ... I think I am not expecting anything as good as say, Bundy/Harvey. A Shark deal needs to be for ceiling, and preferably arm ceiling (as you can use a Hammel deal to get solid guys), but few teams fork over elite arms that readily. Specifically, on the Orioles, I think I still would be fine with Gausman as a center piece, and I still like Rodriguez, albeit not as a centerpiece by himself. My expectations on the centerpiece to a Shark deal is more either 1 high ceiling, upper level arm, or 1 elite arm talent (like Bundy), or two high upside arms in the A ball ranks (wanted to clarify a bit). We don't need the Grimms or even the Ramirez's of the world as key parts of a trade. Randomly ruminating on some teams - I just don't love the Red Sox current system pieces as much as most, in general, and I don't love the fit for a trade. A lot of good arms, not great arms. I guess if they parted with Betts, okay, but I don't see that happening. I guess if they really dumped quantity of solid quality on us, okay, but it's not like I think they will offer say, Owens/Ranaudo/AND Webster. Braves and Giants feel like quantity trades, if they go after Shark. Don't love that. Rockies would be great if you could get a big fish. Three teams I randomly wonder about - Tigers (if Verlander can't get it goiing ... but the problem is, Thompson is more an excellent dream for a Hammel deal, and more of a #2 piece in a Shark deal, IMO), Reds (Stephenson and another arm or two might be a decent consideration depending on how the FO views Stephenson), and Marlins (but don't expect them to move Heaney).

In general, yes, but I've actually been quite pleased with Wilson Contreras. Maybe that's digging for a silver lining, or whatever random phrase I'm trying to come up with right now, but that's a weak position in the system, and he's showing enough to hold some intrigue. I've been somewhat hard on Zastryzny, but he has struck out 50 in 47 innings without walking a lot of guys, with what, at last check, was a fairly high BABIP. He still really doesn't project all that differently from the guy we hoped for when he was drafted last year - it might just take him a bit more time than we hoped for. And ... this might be interesting only to me ... but Starling Peralta seems to have found some command in the pen. I haven't been following close enough to know how sharp the stuff has looked, but if the fastball/breaking ball is still quality, he'd be an interesting guy to give some 2nd half starts to (or they could move him up in the pen). I still remember the early positive reviews of his time with the Diamondbacks in spring last year. Maybe just digging for positives, but while not super exciting, I think those three guys deserve enough attention that the team isn't exactly devoid of excitement, from a prospect following perspective.