toonsterwu

I'm going to be very curious what it costs to get LoMo. I have a hard time seeing us get involved and winning there, but maybe I have a flawed view on what it might take to land him. Boston does make a ton of sense, though, as they an opening.

I thought Lindor was a bit over-hyped his draft year, and I still feel that way. Now, that doesn't mean that I don't think he's a good talent - he is. Furthermore, when you consider that we had Castro in the big, and considering the depth at shortstop we have now, well, I really wouldn't even ponder Lindor over Baez. Offensively, I'm not sure I see a gigantic difference from Lindor to Matt Szczur, so if we want a "safe" (and neither guy is really safe) "prototypical leadoff guy", well, we have one. Baez might well bust, but there should be no 2nd guessing on that pick, particularly at this stage, IMO.

I'm not sure the Orioles do that, but perhaps. I really have doubts that a) The Fish would consider that, but b) That the Fish couldn't get a better deal. As much as he struggled last year, I tend to think that he's still young enough with enough raw ability that teams will give them something of more intrigue than that trio. I think they will hold onto LoMo/Stanton for now and hope their next wave, which I guess is now Jose Fernandez, Christian Yelich, Justin Nicolino, and Jake Marisnick, develops fast (all four are likely to be in AA to start 2013) and joins the youngsters in the bigs, Eovaldi, Stanton, LoMo, Hechavarria, and role pieces like Coghlan/Cox. Lost amidst all the justifiable bashing of the Marlins (and it's definitely justifiable), is the fact that one could actually see them put together a decent lineup next year. Granted, they need guys to step up/step forward, but it's not like expecting LoMo to bounce back a bit right now is something that people wouldn't take the gamble on. Even the rotation could be decent (although that's much tougher to accomplish if Nolasco gets moved). By no means am I suggesting they can be a sleeper team, but it's not hard to see them be ... better than this past year, record wise, and hence, I think for them to move a youngster that might be a key asset for them would need to have them land some more impact. But that's me.

True, but he looked great at the end of the year in a relief role, leading me to think he's fixable. He's also just 25 still and being arb eligible shouldn't matter to us, should it? He's still got 3 years of control. Having seen enough of Matusz the last two years, I'm just not sure he's anything more than a end of the rotation starter type, or more likely, very good pen arm. The other two arms that would get mentioned (Arrieta and Britton) would intrigue me a bit more, Britton moreso than Arrieta. That said, I'm not sure any of those three would really be available in a Soriano deal. Perhaps, but I'm not convinced the Orioles would do that when they have enough money to spent to land a DH/1st/OF (Chris Davis will probably keep a regular gig, and he showed he can be ... passable ... in the OF, so they have some flexibility on what they look for).

Well ... they don't have elite prospects besides from those two, but it's not like we have a guy to trade them that would cost an elite prospect. After that, they have some decent-solid secondary pieces (although Gausman/Kline would have to wait till summer) that would probably work with the OP's suggestion of a LaHair (which I don't see the Orioles trading for) or Soriano deal (also don't really see the O's making a move on this, but I guess there's some potential if we eat enough money).

Still ... it's not like the Blue Jays gave up an elite prospect. Marisnick is close, perhaps, but not elite. I like the five prospects they got back, it's a decent package of guys, but the Blue Jays didn't give up anyone that they, as of now, they might regret, and they kept their higher ceiling pitching (Nicolino, for all he was talked about, was more of a high floor guy, as much as a pitching prospect can be a high floor guy). If for some reason, things go bad, they could probably spin Josh Johnson off at the deadline and get 1-2 interesting prospects (assuming Johnson is pitching well and healthy). I see what you are getting at, but all in all, it's hard not to understand why he had to make this move if it was offered. It's a lot of money to take on, but baseball is flush with money, and the Blue Jays have always indicated they had room to spend in recent years. If they could afford those two deals from a financial perspective, this was, IMO, a no-brainer move for them. But that's me.

I doubt Shark makes sense for the Marlins. In general, I doubt they move Stanton or LoMo unless it's a ridiculous deal. They still need something to draw some fans to their new park, and those guys are cheap. In a year or two, perhaps (and that could fit well with our timeline ... so maybe it's something to ponder a year or two from now).

Nobody seemed to care when he did it to Montreal Besides they can't be expected to compete without a new stadium I really wonder how bad attendance is going to be at their new stadium next year. I mean, it was below expectations this year, and they had an interesting team entering the year.

I have nothing to say other than ... damn. This one sure was a surprise. My first reaction was that this was a blow away win for Toronto, as they gave up a couple intriguing pieces, but it doesn't feel like they gave up anything that's worth regretting considering they majorly upgrade their squad for next year. If they fall out of contention, they could always try to spin Josh Johnson off. The more I look at it, the more I sorta like the Marlins return. Still think, if I had to pick a winner/loser, it's the Blue Jays, as they have a clear opening in the AL East with the aging Yankees, the Rays sort of in neutral/slightly downgrading, the Orioles likely over-achieving last year, and the Red Sox rebuilding. That said, Marisnick, Alvarez, and Hechavarria is a solid trio of prospects, and Nicolino/DeSclafani are decent arms. Damn ... a shocker this early.

I tend to think, as of now, that 2015 is probably the most realistic year to begin to make a push. The short of it is, barring some surprises, there just aren't many pieces that we are going to add to the core of Castro/Rizzo in the next year or two. At best, it feels like maybe an piece or two will develop into capable starters, but there just isn't much that we are adding to the core to build around. Thankfully, Castro/Rizzo are young enough that we can take that time. Most of our prime prospects are a few years away, and it's not like we have a ton of assets to bring in a lot of upper level, closer to ready quality talent. I'm not enthused about it. I can understand it, and I'm okay "punting" 2013. I don't know if the general fan base can take 3 years of horrid play, though.

Very nice gamble. Would've been nice if we could've gotten some sort of 2nd year option on this, but this is fine. If he struggles, then well, we had extra money to spare and needed guys to fill rotation spots. If he finds his form, he's a decent mid-rotation type arm that we can flip for something.

I wouldn't trade Castro, but if for some reason the Cubs were pondering it, I'd tell the Diamondbacks, go call the Rays up for a young pitcher and change, and demand Skaggs or Bauer/Patrick Corbin/Archie Bradley and another piece. There's no way the Diamondbacks would do it, but to trade an elite young shortstop, I'd want to address the Cubs main need on the arm side. Anyhow, I highly doubt they are really considering dealing Castro. I'm sure they'd listen, but it'd have to take a dang heap to make this happen. This feels like Phil Rogers wanting to throw something out there to get attention. I don't recall the article "sourcing" things to some sort of scout or executive in regards to the potential for this to happen (IIRC, the article talked about how scouts were enthused with Baez's potential, but that's the extent it "sourced" things).

Eh, I'd want more than that. Actually, I don't really want Upton. I'd demand 2 of their quality young arms as the start to a package.

Nothing should be off the table as it pertains to rebuilding this club, so the idea of trading Castro isn't a bad one. If you get a big enough haul, of course you do it. Furthermore, shortstop is arguably the deepest spot in the system, with 4-5 quality prospects. That said, on the Rogers article ... a) Don't believe Upton for Castro makes sense for us. I think I'd honestly want more than Upton, but I haven't analyzed it. I doubt the D-backs would offer more. b) The idea that you trade Castro now because Baez can play short, which is what Rogers suggested, is ludicrous in this regard - Baez is only in A+ and while he has loads of potential, there's also some areas of concern. You don't trade Castro now because of Baez. You trade Castro if you get a gigantic, ridiculous, stupid return that makes sense, otherwise, despite his flaws, Castro is a premier player at a premier position at a premier age. c) I don't get the need to target Upton. If you are going to argue that system depth allows you to move Castro, well, CF is probably the 2nd deepest position in the system. Granted, there's only 1 prime chip as of now, and 2 guys that you hope can be decent starters, but have question marks. Still ... I don't see the need to trade an elite shortstop talent for an elite CF talent. If anything, if we dealt Castro, I'd want a prime, ready quality young MLB starter PLUS at least another high quality upper level arm as the START of the package.

I think everyone would hope that pitching was the priority. Ideally, upper level pitching, but upside is needed, more than anything. I mean, there's only a very, very thin group of guys with front of the rotation potential, and Vizcaino has big durability question marks. After that, Ben Wells has to show he's healthy, regain velocity, and continue his improvement with his breaking ball. That said, there were many that didn't buy Wells as a 2, 2/3 type starter anyways. Underwood/Maples have big time stuff, but I still am bothered with Maples mechanically, and both are far away. Paniagua is far away, but there's hope that he moves fast. Beyond that? I'm really running out of names of guys that have high ceiling potential. Peralta, but the consistent inconsistency makes one wonder. Arias has the big time fastball, big frame, but a lot of secondary work. It's a scary thin group of high ceiling arms. I'm not ready to put McNeil/Blackburn up there yet. You left off Johnson. I've never bought Johnson as anything more than a mid-rotation guy. I hope I'm dead wrong, but I really don't feel front of the rotation potential with Johnson right now. I'm not suggesting any of the above guys will be front of the rotation type, 2, 2/3 types ... and I certainly recognize there's a bit of SNTS/Unknown raw guy snydrome, but I think their ceilings are a touch higher. But that's me, and I hope I'm dead wrong on Pierce.

I think everyone would hope that pitching was the priority. Ideally, upper level pitching, but upside is needed, more than anything. I mean, there's only a very, very thin group of guys with front of the rotation potential, and Vizcaino has big durability question marks. After that, Ben Wells has to show he's healthy, regain velocity, and continue his improvement with his breaking ball. That said, there were many that didn't buy Wells as a 2, 2/3 type starter anyways. Underwood/Maples have big time stuff, but I still am bothered with Maples mechanically, and both are far away. Paniagua is far away, but there's hope that he moves fast. Beyond that? I'm really running out of names of guys that have high ceiling potential. Peralta, but the consistent inconsistency makes one wonder. Arias has the big time fastball, big frame, but a lot of secondary work. It's a scary thin group of high ceiling arms. I'm not ready to put McNeil/Blackburn up there yet.

The problem I have with the BP/Fangraphs list is seeing them tout Maples/Underwood, and leaving Paniagua off. If you want to leave all of them off, fine. I get that. If you take Starling Peralta's excellent start against, um, Beloit?, this year, he'd be a candidate for top 10, but he hasn't shown that consistency. If you want to put all three on, on an upside argument ... okay. But to split it? It's not as if Maples/Underwood have a long enough performance record to turn to, and the reports on stuff would seem to have Paniagua up there with them, _____ Total side note: I'm surprised at how ... eh ... I feel about Pierce Johnson not being on Hulet's list. I think he should be on a top 15 ... but I don't feel bothered by it.

It will be in August when Wood is the only healthy/non-traded one. So the Cubs are trading Shark now? I've been pushing that idea since last summer, that the Cubs have to at least ponder dealing Shark. Shark feels like a part of the Castro/Rizzo next wave, but it's easy to forget that he'll be in his age 28 season. The organization isn't likely to compete next year, and 2014 seems a bit unrealistic as well. The system has a void right now, with thin upper levels and the bulk of prospects in the lower levels. Of note is the fact that the arms are even further down ... with many of the more promising arms not yet at A ball, or just entering it. You don't haphazardly deal Shark, but I think they have to at least ponder it if he gets off to a hot start and shows last year wasn't a fluke of sorts. Dealing Shark/Garza (and maybe a FA starter signed to a short term deal) could jump start rebuilding by potentially getting a few quality upper level guys, guys that can develop with Castro/Rizzo while the the lower levels develop.

I find it odd in that the stuff they put up, only Faleris seemed to be arguing hard for Almora as first, with at least 2 others pushing Baez as first. Not the biggest deal, but I wonder what the process was in determining things.

Okay, this is going to be a bit harsh ... but what the heck? Dillon Maples as the 4th prospect in the system? ....... I get upside. I can buy the top 10 inclusion in Parks list. But 4th? The explanation reads like someone who read a scouting report somewhere without really doing any legwork (I know Hulet has his sources, but geesh, it really reads like some random scouting report from his draft year). I'm just a bit flabbergasted with that, and I didn't think it possible to be really flabbergasted at any Cubs prospect list this winter. Guess I was wrong. I like the hat tip to Justin Marra. That also might be the most positive review on Szczur this winter.

I also would like to thank NYCF for posting that. This feels like a strangely non-BP list for me. I think part of it is the change from Goldstein to Parks, and I kept anticipating a Goldstein-ish list, which, IMO, would've looked a tiny bit different. I can't say I'm all that supportive of putting Underwood/Maples on the back end of the top 10 ... but I get it (that said, for an article that went with Almora ahead of Baez because he was less risky, I found it interesting that they put two highly risky arms in the back 10 ... granted, I guess they could view a significant ceiling gap thereafter). Fascinated on the Soler comment as it pertains to his swing. Curious if this shows up in A ball next year (A or A+). Wonder if that impacts where he is placed next year, but a long way until Spring. I've always been a touch bothered with Maples' mechanics ... and those comments sure don't help me feel better. Curious that Parks has Lake in the bigs next year ...

It's a very nice gamble. Even if it fails, the only thing we really lost was an organizational catcher. Not the biggest deal. I just don't know what type of stuff he has right now. Well, I guess no one does. At his best, he seemed like a possible setup type arm with some closing potential. IIRC, he was working on a cutter/slider pitch last year to try and go the next step.

Oh, leaving SCS' hypothetical aside, as I noted above, I think they definitely move someone. I just have high doubts that it's Cespedes or Reddick unless it's a monster deal, and while I think SCS' hypothetical could be considered too much for the Cubs, I can also understand why the A's. coming off the excellent year they just had, might not consider it as enough. I tend to think they'll move Crisp (despite Beane's recent comments). I don't think they'll net much in return, but that'd be my bet. Actually, one thing I wouldn't rule out - considering how early this trade was, I wouldn't necessarily rule out the A's from considering their options with Chris Young, including listening to offers involving him. I doubt it, but I wouldn't rule it out. Seth Smith has such big platoon splits from this year, and for his career, that I don't think he really factors in that much.

Well ... I don't think that would be enough to net Reddick AND Anderson, but as to whether or not his original trade proposal (with Krol and Taylor) might be too much, that's a fair question. From the Cubs perspective, the argument that it's too much is easy. Let's take the most basic argument - if the Cubs believe that Brett Jackson can adjust his swing enough to hit in the .240-.250 range ... you could basically have Josh Reddick right there. Now, it's a fair question if Brett can adjust, but that would be the starting point of any "is this too much" conversation in this hypothetical. Add in a solid major leaguer in Barney who fills a need and fills their emphasis on defense, and 3 talented youngsters, it's not hard to buy that it's too much. The flip side is this, and maybe I didn't articulate it well enough in the drive-by posting - why the heck would the A's do this, though? They emphasize defense, and Reddick has been excellent in RF. They are always on the search for power. Reddick is young, cost-controlled (4 more years). Their system is strong. To give him up, it'd have to be a monster deal. Vogelbach is a nice piece, but far away. The need for Brett Jackson isn't high, as their OF is packed, with pieces in the system. Would quantity entice an organization coming off such a surprising surge in the 2nd half? I'm also of the opinion that Barney is a guy that, if he's on your team, you value him a lot, but if he's being dealt, I'm not sure another team would necessarily value him that high. Marmol is an unnecessary asset for them. Like I noted, I doubt either team would seriously consider such an option, and was simply saying I think the value of it, IMO, looks okay, but I think there's an easy argument for the A's as to why they wouldn't do this.

Garden variety chicken salad (that is, bought it at the grocery store in the morning as I couldn't go out for lunch). Nice big chunks of chicken, but lacked something in it. The soup, on the other hand, was very good. Cream of Mushroom.