toonsterwu

Just to be clear, I didn't mean to suggest shopping Davies in a Contreras deal. If they opt to shop him, Davies should be good enough to be a deal on his own, considering the financial dynamics in baseball right now and his performance last year. Considering the win-now mode the Angels are in and Contreras and Maddon's seemingly close relationship, plus a clear need for them there, that'd be an interesting fit. It's an interesting package idea that Tom posted above, with two major leaguers and Jordyn Adams as the headlining prospect. I could see something like that happen. I'd rather try and grab a high ceiling arm like Jack Kochanowicz than someone like Jordyn Adams. That said, Kochanowicz is a prized arm and might not be available.

Dealing Contreras shouldn't be an issue. He's close to the tipping point where guys start sliding back down, but he's at enough of a peak still, offensively and defensively, that he should net something ... decent. The Cubs seem fairly clear to be either a) dumping salary b) Rebuilding/retooling whatever word you want to use or more likely c) Both So might as well get a return while a guy is close to his peak. In that same vein, I'd still make an argument to shop Davies. He's arguably at a high point in value, teams are pinching pennies because of the pandemic (whether right/wrong is a different issue, but most teams are). Cubs just saved on Darvish. You could move Davies, sign someone to eat innings in FA for maybe a 2 year deal and hope they turn out well so you can shop him mid-season, or if not, heck, it's 2 years.

Longenhagen's take on Preciado is fascinating. If he's that intriguing (and honestly, it's a positive sign that there's positive signs so far ... so many kids struggle out of the gate ... I recall very early reports that Juan Soto was the one the Nationals were excited about but it took some time ... of course, there have bene guys in recent years that they've been wrong about too), and one has to think that the Cubs probably view it somewhat similarly, then this is trade is arguably a coup right now. Getting basically a top 15 or so pick (Longenhagen would pop a 50 on him, and slot him above Ed Howard), plus lottery tickets, and Davies, while moving most of Darvish's money left, even with tossing in Cartini, would be well worth it. It seems likely that BA would slot him lower than that. Hard to see them popping a potential top 15 pick in the mid-teens of any system (I'm sure there probably has been one at some point in time, but I don't recall it). So, there's a level of risk in there. I'm also mildly fascinated that Longenhagen thought Made/Santana would go to full-season ahead of him. Strikes vaguely similar to the Marco Hernandez (who I really liked ... oops)/Javier Baez debate on A ball many moons back. * to be very clear, I'm not saying Longenhagen is right or wrong. Just that, if he's right, this is a good deal when viewed right now, but he's probably on the high end.

Just to ramble on the trade a bit longer as I wait on something to get done - We'll never know the deliberations, but for a Cubs organization and system that has struggled to develop pitching, it would've been nice if they had gotten another arm or two in the deal. Caissie just worries me on paper, and Santana, dunno, don't get a great feel, although the MilB profile makes him sound quite intriguing. Honestly, if they picked up an Omar Cruz or a Carlos Guarate in the deal, I would've been far more pleased. This obviously isn't a big issue in the grand scheme of things (and with lottery tickets, you take the highest upside and worry about position later, and neither Guarate or Cruz have huge upsides). Part of me wonders if they try flipping Zach Davies sooner than later. It feels like a team could take a decent gamble on Davies for one year, and then wash their hands if they flounder, or move him again next year (or sign him to a deal).

After reading Tom's post, I had to go back and look up the Harden trade, as I had entirely forgotten, outside of Donaldson and Gallagher, who the other two guys were. It's a fairly comparable trade. At the time, you got a bit more ceiling with Gallagher than what Davies offered, but Davies offers proven MLB ability. Donaldson and Caissie were upper level guys with issues, albeit different issues. The floor for Murton/Patterson would seem to balance out the upside risk for the younger talents. He has a good point in comping that trade, and in hindsight, I was hoping for Morejon and lottery tickets (I wanted better, but that was my realistic hope), and this isn't that far off. If taking guys further away gave them guys who they felt had better upsides, then okay. I'm not much of the belief that you start moving pieces, that the Cubs have a legitimate window in the next 1-2 years, so getting talent to develop in the lower levels (Marquez and Davis are at best 2 years ahead of them, so they could all be pre-arb if they get to the majors) is fine. I mean, if we got Murton/Patterson type guys here, I'd probably be quite upset right now (and heck, I wasn't too pleased with the Cronenworth rumors, as I'm not huge on him). It's hard to believe they are going to reinvest said money right now - who and what would they target? Maybe it gives them a path to reallocate resources starting next offseason. That said, still don't love the deal. I think it's partly colored by the fact that I don't believe in Davies all that much. Hope I'm dead wrong.

Preciado should easily fit in the top 10, I imagine Caissie will make some but if he's in then Mena's got a case...Santana's a little more likely to stick at SS than Luis Verdugo, both broke out at 18 in the AZL with Verdugo also repeating... Preciado is probably top 10 in our system. I'd guess 8-10 for most lists, but could be lower a bit. Not big enough on Caissie's swing to put him in the top 10. I'd be a bit surprised if he got in there. I'm more intrigued with Mena than Caissie. I think the other 3 will slide in the top 22 or so for the Cubs, dependent upon what people value (upside, floor, closeness to bigs).

Holy ... dammit I'm about to curse online. That was our return? I mean, I'd be the first to say that I'd never try to think I know more than front office folks, but dammit ... that's our return? Zach Davies is essentially the stud piece of the return???? Damn, a salary dump. For arguably our top, or 2nd best, trade asset. Damn. If this was the return for Kris Bryant, I wouldn't have said much. For an ace level Darvish coming off a strong end of 19 and 20 ... even with 3 years left ... Damn. Damn. I thought Blake Snell set the market, so I knew we weren't getting a top end guy. I was pleasantly surprised with the Campusano/Morejob talks, but realistically, I was hoping for a Morejon and lottery tickets package. It's sort of hard to imagine selling high on Davies as well - sure feels like the Padres are selling high on him. Just not a big believer that he will keep performing like that, but I hope I'm wrong. Well, if you are going this route, then you might as well sell it all. If there's a silver lining in all this, it's that it might finally set a course for the Cubs and make sure that they aren't waffling. We just decided to give them Caratini as well. In saying all that, it's possible all four prospects turn out. It's just a disappointing trade in the moment. I can understand a lot of moves. I can understand that teams are spending less and tightening the belt due to the pandemic (whether fair or not is a totally separate issue, just that I understand it). This just baffles me that no other team stepped in to offer more than this. Or the Cubs were so in love with Preciado, Mena, and maybe Caissie that they just wanted them that bad.

A bit surprised at an all-in type move after Snell for the Padres, but okay. They had a deep enough system to make it work, although honestly, I would've waited to see what Snell offered and see what the team needed at mid-season. If this happens, I'm just glad the Cubs are making definitive actions rather than waffling. Really curious on the final names. I'm not huge on Cronenworth. At best, he seems like a decent starter. I'm not sure he's better than Nico. That said, the Snell deal sort of set the market. If they can get Campusano and Morejon, that'd be alright. If only one, eh. Not huge on Davies - the type of arm you buy for an end of the rotation slot, but as the 3rd or 4th piece to a deal, okay. I honestly would've preferred the Cubs asking for all prospects rather than getting average MLB guys. I'm just not convinced on Cronenworth being anything special. At this juncture, I'd like to see the Cubs shop Hendricks. I really don't see this team doing much, even in a "balls bounce all our way" luck type of year. After all, those surprise runs are often predicated on strong pitching carrying a team in a series. Hendricks feels like he could nab a good return if he was offered on the market.

I said this earlier in the off-season, but if you were/are going to move Darvish, and I'm not against it, you ought to really just tear down. The logic of the Cubs being able to compete now and get hot partly resides in having an ace level Darvish and Hendricks potentially giving them to quality starts in a series. Without one, it's hard to imagine them going far, even if all the balls bounced their way. Tbh, I really don't see who gets in the game for Darvish. If the Cubs shopped Hendricks, they could probably get a market, but hard to see what remaining teams get in the game for Darvish. I mildly wonder if Dombrowski might consider it in Philly as a win now move, but seems a bit unlikely.

Damn. That's a fascinating deal. Tbh, there's a tendency to pick winners and losers ... and I like it enough for both sides. Tbh, it sort of reminds me of the Cubs Quintana deal - a win-now move giving up high end talent. The Rays were going to move on from Snell sooner than later, and getting a legit headliner in any trade these days is tough, but Patino is a legit headline prospect, and is close to ready. The Padres get ages 28-30 for Snell at a solid rate, make a play to win now in their window hoping the Dodgers slip a bit. If they believe they can make that jump, then this is a logical move. Patino and Co. aren't going to be the help they need this year, particularly with Clevinger out, and Hunt and Wilcox are lottery tickets that you sacrifice to make a play. The Rays have to feel confident in filling their pitching. If they do, I can't blame this deal. They have to maximize their assets while they can, and dealing early gives them a better return, and they got a pretty damn good return. It's rare to see high end upper level talent get moved. I like Patino ... if the Rays can tighten things up for Wilcox, though ... I wouldn't be surprised if he's a stud in a few years. I don't love Hunt as much ... all that said, he does sort of remind me of Tyler Flowers, and Flowers ended up having a few solid years. Not sure how I feel about Mejia now, but he's probably a better fit back in the AL. Is it me, or do the Rays really need to make a move for pitching? I also think the Padres are more likely than the Rays to pursue catching, as their depth is what, Nola/Campusano now?

Meh, name a player and I can find the reasons not to get that guy. For the price they just paid I'd rather focus on him being a giant, cheap athletic switch hitter in his 20s with a high Iso offense at a position the league isn't really stacked at with starters. It's hard not see this as at least a potential coup for the Nats, in many ways the kind of trade I'd like to see the Cubs make On the other end, the Pirates are hoping Wil Crowe can replace Trevor Williams so they don't have to spend too much money while trying to lose So you like the 28 year old who is a FA in 2 years and accumulated 2.1fwar over the last 2 seasons (836 PA), but you don't like the 23 year old Arraez who has 5 years of control and put up 2.8fwar in the last 2 seasons (487 PA)? I really think this is more of a "we get someone in place and we wait and see if the market gives us a good opportunity". They really haven't moved anyone in Yean or Crowe that will likely be a make-or-break guy for any potential big trade (Granted, they are saying Rutledge and Cavalli aren't moving, so maybe they don't have the assets to make a big trade, depending on how Kieboom is viewed). Honestly, I view it as the Nationals taking a gamble, and they didn't give up much. If Bell pans out, great. But this gives them time without being pressed into making a move. I suspect they will dangle Carter Kieboom out there and maybe some secondary prospect arms and see if they can't add another bat. ___ Honestly, I keep wondering about Lindor and the Nationals. Now, Lindor's market is going to be packed, and a lot more teams could get in the mix. That said, they do have a middle infield need if they move Lindor, and I keep wondering if there is some package of say, Kieboom, Tanner Rainey, and maybe the nationals budging on one of their big 2 arms. Trea Turner seems like a team guy that might be willing to slide to another spot, you get a bat and upgrade defensively. Now, it does thin out the pen, but I do have my questions on Tanner Rainey maintaining his level of performance. That said, this presumes the Indians value Kieboom well enough, and even if they do, I can envision other teams offering a big enough package to trump it. Still, if the Nationals budged on one of their big 2 arms (Cavalli or Rutledge) it seems possible that they could swing a home run deal. I just have a hard time seeing Rizzo going into next year with Josh Bell as the main protection brought in for Juan Soto.

That's because he isn't very good. Since May 15th of 2019 covering 669PA, he has put up an .807 OPS good for a 107 wRC+. Outside of the crazy start to 2019 he has never been good. I agree Bell hasn't been good but they basically got him for a middling prospect and a lottery ticket. Yean could be special, but the Nationals have pitching depth. Crowe ... best case scenario is basically he makes it as an end of the rotation starter, but despite having a starter's arsenal, I'm not sure he sticks in the rotation. I wouldn't surprised if he ends up in the pen, ditching a breaking ball, and sharpening things up. Crowe could very well work out, but for the Nationals, it's a good enough gamble of pitching prospects that are a bit down the pecking order for them to get a stopgap option at 1st base while hoping that Bell can turn it around. For the Pirates, I get it too. You hope Crowe sharpens things up and maybe ticks up to a borderline mid-rotation arm (I doubt it, but it's not impossible), and you hope Yean blossoms with his high end stuff. You think Bell peaked and you clear his salary to get a lot more flexibility. All in all, seems like a pretty smart trade for both sides.

I think there's a lot more wishful dreaming on former high ceiling arms than there are on positional assets that haven't panned out over an extended run while showing similar issues/problems. That said, could I see a team potentially take a shot on Almora? Sure. I'm hard pressed to see anything more than a struggle swap (someone who has equally struggled in the bigs) or a low level lottery ticket type move.

I'd do it, but color me surprised if Contreras can net Snell alone.

Yes. I think the comparison of this year's crop to pre-2011 is closer than people would acknowledge (I'd take this group probably, value wise), but late 2011, Brett Jackson's swing was slowly getting exposed, and McNutt's stuff didn't show as well with a full season in AA. Baez's potential coming out might grade higher than Howard, but it probably isn't that big a gap. Obviously, the key here is that we got another year's worth of data to assess Jackson and McNutt, and the world went south this year. We're missing that from Davis and Marquez. It's entirely possible by the end of 2021, it could go south (although if Davis struggles, I suspect it'll have less to do with swing dynamics and more to do with experience facing quality pitching).

I really phrased that poorly. What I really meant to say is that, selling one or two pieces and bringing the rest of the band back likely means we are hoping for luck in the playoffs, which can work, but would the fan base be okay with simply hoping for luck in the playoffs? Because I'm not necessarily sure I'd be for that. I'd rather build consistently strong, even if it means two to three years of tough times. If you are going to bring the band back, you might as well bring it all back (which would be a stronger team) and see if you can add a cheap veteran addition or two that could be primed for bounce backs.

The days of this as a possibility are long gone and likely so are the chances of landing Kieboom. At this point I think I'd be thrilled walking away with Jackson Rutledge and Seth Romero. I wonder about them moving on from Kieboom this offseason (or at least, not having him in a key role). I have nothing to base it on, but just an odd feeling that they may have soured on him as fast as they soured on Giolito (albeit, maybe for different reasons). That said, probably aren't giving up that many years of control for a one and done. There's definitely enough arms to take a gamble on in the Nationals system. I'd love to see take a shot on Eddy Yean as a 2nd piece, although Bryant's value in a trade is just too damned hard to figure out right now.

I don't have a problem tearing it down to the studs, but I think because of the lack of quality in our division you don't necessarily *have* to. You certainly need to make a trade or two that hurts, trading like Kimbrel and Schwarber does nothing. I think Darvish and Hendricks would each bring in Quintana-esque returns, but moving them wouldn't be my Plan A. Maybe I'm naive but I'm hoping to do more of a retool than a rebuild. I've said it a couple times, but I think if you do still want to compete Bryant and Contreras is the path to go. We have high quality backups for each, while Bryant opens up funds to use in FA and Contreras brings in legitimate star power on the prospect front. I hate getting too bogged down on specific names, but something like Contreras to the Marlins for Bleday, Rogers, and another top 20 guy? A Contreras trade likely ends up really moving the needle on the farm system. Bryant's much harder to value, maybe to the Giants for Mauricio Dubon? That might require a few more names to balance it out. Also, on just a pure cold numbers front, trading Javy makes some sense. If you backfilled him with Andrelton Simmons, you're not losing much if anything on defense and you're probably knocking out 100 strikeouts. That's something that will be felt at the team level. That said, I have a more visceral reaction to moving Javy than any of the other position players except for Rizzo. Here's the question though. Is competing for the NL Central and hoping for luck enough in the playoffs? I've said before, I think you can make a case for either way. Tearing it down, or running it back without trading young assets away. I just don't want them to do half-measures - trade a piece or two away and settle in for mediocrity and the hoped for lucky run, and I just don't see how one or two trades, while running the other guys back, is enough. I don't think any asset on our major league team is really going to net a big return in prospects, outside of maybe Darvish and Hendricks (I have my doubts Contreras will net a huge return - I really don't see a Bleday level guy being offered for him, but maybe I'm way off here). Running it back is fine. You can make the argument that this climate might be tough to make major moves (the contracts on the team, and the fact that our top players might not net huge returns). The team as constituted is competitive enough to run it back, playing out the string, and not damaging a redeveloping farm system. Spend a little to try and fix the edges - gamble on an Adam Eaton and maybe he bounces back to be a solid top of the order option, sliding Bryant/Rizzo into better roles. Hope for some bounceback offensive years. See if you can't find a veteran starter and try and shore up the pen. Hope by mid-season you have an internal arm step up and solidify the back of the rotation.

So a) On value, I don't disagree. Lacy is a good notch ahead. I also think they are fairly unlikely to deal him. I just sort of lumped him in there as he was in the minors, but even a Hendricks deal (as I view Hendricks as likely having the most value), someone like Lacy doesn't seem likely. b) Truthfully, was never that big on Lacy. I don't know what it is - or more, I don't remember why right now. Just never viewed him as a guy I really bought to be a top starter. A possible mid-rotation arm? Sure. c) As a UVA fan, I'm as stunned about Lynch's development as anyone. With a bigger body of minor league work to judge off of, I'm legitimately intrigued with how they've straightened him out and he's become a power mid-upper 90's lefty. Can he keep that up? Don't know, but I don't think Lynch is all that bad as a headliner. I do think there's some areas where he's likely "safer" than Lacy while offering close enough upside. d) Kowar's probably the least interesting of the three, as I view him more as a 4th starter who will eat innings who might be able to be slightly better. A useful guy, but obviously, not exciting. Still, he might be the safest of the three. ____ The match between the Cubs and the Royals is actually fairly intriguing. That said, it's probably a year too early for Dayton Moore to be making these moves, considering relatively new ownership, the pandemic, and a MLB squad undergoing changes.

Speaking on Hendricks, I'd be surprised if they couldn't get a pretty big deal for Hendricks, considering his age, production, and contract. It might entail some more lower level guys, but honestly, with a restart, or whatever the term is, you don't need young MLB players. You need quantity of quality young assets for a system that's still relatively thin at the top. The ideal Hendricks trade needs to focus on quality of assets, if it's a restart, rather than position. If, though, the focus is on improving the young pitching depth in the system, I don't think it'd be that ridiculous to suggest Hendricks could net say, an upper level, close to ready young arm, a high upside arm in the A ball ranks, and maybe another lottery ticket (or two). Now, considering his age, it'd likely have to be a team that is in their window right now. The usual teams would likely get mentioned in trades, like the A's, Mets, Braves, but the team I'd be looking at, if the focus is on pitching, would be the Royals. With limited budget flexibility, and needing rotation depth, Hendricks would be a nice veteran to front that group. They have a bunch of young arms in the system - if you can pry one of say, Lacy/Lynch/Kowar to headline a deal (I'd be stunned if you could get more than 1), it'd be the start of a pretty intriguing package. Of course, a lot of teams could put up something comparable.

Honestly, if you are going a full re-start, then you need to place all your chips into restocking the system. As much as there's some high level intrigue now, most of it is far away with a lot of risk at hand. If you are selling, then you need to go all-in on selling, and if that's the case, your two assets that are likely to net the most impactful young talent in return would be Darvish and Hendricks. Hendricks would probably, at that contract, get a high level return. You'd arguably be selling high on Darvish, and the remaining deal (looks like 3/59) ought to be palatable enough for the Cubs to get a quality return without eating any of the money (if eating money would help increase the return, they should obviously do it). Either way, if you are going to dip your toes into that pool. you need to jump in. Half-measures only extend and delay the inevitable. I don't know Cubs fans sites very well anymore, but I did see someone suggest moving Heyward. While that would be nice, it's hard to see that happen. Kimbrel ... it's hard to see a team taking him in the off-season. Mid-season, sure.

I mean, after the top 5 or so, you could put 30 names in a bag and pull it out in a random order and make a compelling enough case. Okay, that's a bit of an exaggeration, but it's close. Personally, I still like Kohl Franklin a lot more than most, it seems. There's some performance to go with projection there, and the fact that his stuff has inched up has helped. I'm still not all that enamored with Morel either, but it feels like one of those situations where had a 2020 season, we would've had some better clarity on where he really was going forward in terms of his approach and discipline as he moves up. I still remember not being all that enamored with Willson Contreras' bat back in the A ball ranks. As a UVA fan, I really like Andy Weber. As a Cubs fan, it's hard for me to see him being more than one of those upper level utility guys with spot chances in the bigs, and I would tend to value, for rankings, upside of some raw guys a bit more, and at his age, he has to move fast. He's the type of guy that was really hurt by the lost season - could've been possible to see him slide through the ranks with a solid season this past year. He'll really have to move next year, as he'll turn 24. Feel like we may have a lot more variance this year in lists, throughout the entire minors, due to the lost season.

I think I would not be surprised by anything this offseason. Heck, it starts with this Epstein/Ricketts meeting. Would it be absolutely stunning if both guys decided that his run was done and mutually split? I wouldn't be shocked. The organization is bogged down. In some respects, it happened quick. As interesting as some of the guys in the minors are, honestly, most systems have a few guys of top intrigue. You could run it back. With Darvish/Hendricks, you have a capable top two. Add a bat for the top of the order (I'm still mildly curious which Marlin critiqued our bats), hope Baez bounces back after this strange season, and you achieve better balance. Get lucky with the pen, and hey, short series, who knows. Still, we've been saying that for a couple years now. I guess you could hope the ownership says screw it up and spends a crapload. I don't that's realistic. I'm leaning towards blowing it up, to be honest. We aren't the A's (I believe Forst gave an interview saying they could never blow things up like some other organizations, for fear of losing their fan base). I think this team has a ceiling now - this core isn't a championship level core anymore. It's a good enough core that will be a winning club if it's kept together, but to win a title, it would need some luck. I'm not reading too much into some of the offensive performances this year, but the general trajectory of the organization the last few. With age and contracts, and the bloated contracts constricting movement, and the unknown of how payrolls will look next year, it feels like this window is ending soon. You could hold on for a year, but then trade value goes down (you could possibly even argue that we held on one year too long). If you blow it up, though, you should blow it up. Don't half it. Go all the way. Put everything out there and see what you can. The return for KB probably won't be as good as anyone expects, but with enough teams desperate for a big bat, it's possible (still think the NL East is the likely target there). Contreras could get moved even if they don't blow it up - I like the Tigers idea above, but he should generate a decent market if he's out there. Off the top, we have a reasonable option on Rizzo, right? I half-wonder if there's any way we could pick up the option and move him. It'd be a bit cold-hearted, as I'm sure Rizzo would prefer to pick and choose and sign for more than 1 year, but feels like some team might give up something for 1 year of him, and we could pick up some of the costs to help a return. If you burn it down, I'd shop Happ as well - I wonder if he gets better than this, and if not, some team might buy him on his performance, along with multiple years of control. ___ In saying all that, I think Option A, running it back, is most likely. Many teams look to be paring payroll. It'd be sort of a last hurrah for ... well, everyone - Epstein, Rizzo, Bryant, Lester (buyout seems a lock, but it's not hard to see them agree to a cheap 1 year deal), Kimbrel and so forth. I'm not against it, but I'd like to see some substantive moves. Shop Contreras in this situation - he's at the age where the wear and tear may start to accumulate, but still, young enough that with his track record, you might get something decent. I really wonder about the Padres - Preller's had a history of all-in gambits in the past, and with a young team whose window is now, Contreras would offer a better backstop. ___ Don't know what happens, but I'm mildly ... not upset they were beat. Hope it gets some creativity flowing in the FO.

I'm trying to recall why Taylor Trammell was hyped. He's not particularly young, more gap power. Production since his run in A ball has been okay but not great. I saw fangraphs Brett Gardner comp ... and Gardner is a fine player, but those guys, you are happy with their career when it ends, but you don't get excited about it that much on the way up. They've got some OF prospects in the system that should cover the loss of Trammell, perhaps sooner than later, although with the developmental system thrown out of whack, who knows on timing. I actually really like the Padres moves here. They've attempted to shore up small areas of their roster to make a push now, dealing from their relatively deep system. They really haven't blown a hole in their system yet (guess there's still some more time). I'm not sure Austin Nola is as good as he's been, but he's a very nice end of the bench guy with a usable bat. AJ Preller's had a hit or miss history, but I think he's done a nice job this trade deadline so far.

I think you sort of play out the string. There's justifications to go all sorts of ways (being hyper-aggressive for one last run, tanking and selling for a new cycle), but I think the least exciting route might simply be the most prudent route. You let this core play out the string. Hey, if someone comes along and offers an unexpected return for say, Schwarber, you pull the trigger, but otherwise, you just count down on it. Make some determinations on who can be signed long term and help build the next window. The current core as is isn't great, but it's competitive, and you hope for a little luck to go along with it while you play out the string. Thing is, as was hit upon, the trade value of most of our assets have declined to the point where unless we do a full sell-off, it's hard to see how we get enough in return to facilitate a quick rebuild. A partial sell-off never made that much sense to me - say you move one or two pieces and keep everyone else - well, you probably won't get a top tier return, and you aren't really tanking, so you end up a below-average middling team without significantly improving your prospect base. If you get lucky, you push some chips in to create a run, but you absolutely don't push all your chips in, a la the Eloy/Cease/Gleyber moves, as the window is on the down slope. The system isn't as ... eh ... as it was several years ago, and there are some bright spots, with real excitement for some impact potential, but it thins out fairly fast. Almost all systems gave some guys to hope on, so any commentary is really commentary on an improvement from the last couple years, and we have to wait and see if the organization has figured out their problems in assessing and developing pitching (I do like Franklin a fair amount). Playing out the string sounds awful ... it's not exciting, it's not game-changing, but it might just be the right course to take.