toonsterwu

We're getting to the point where this is getting to be an important topic, so listing, in order, of the guys that I think should be protected, as of today, 8/2: 1. Brett Jackson - Still a no-brainer. It's not inconceivable that he's used as a trade chip this winter, although I don't expect it. Gigantic Gap 2. Robert Whitenack - Moving him up to 2nd. It's a gigantic gap from Brett, as debatable as Brett has been, but the velocity is there and it's year 1 back. The movement on the fastball seems to be there as well. Small Gap 3. Jose Rosario - Young power arm has had a solid season. Betting money, by me, is still on the pen as a long run future, but he'll be heading, and teams have shown a tendency to gamble on young power arms in the past. 4. Starling Peralta - One could make the argument that since he profiles better as a starter, that you should slide him ahead of Rosario. A lot will depend on how he finishes, but he's on a very strong run right now. 5. Brooks Raley - Strong run in AAA. Upper level lefty with enough rotation ability to provide depth. Gap 6. Nick Struck - He's had a good season, and he's young. I know I was leading the charge on Struck a year ago, and it's not that I'm off him, it's just that his ceiling isn't high enough to say that he absolutely has to be protected, as of now, IMO. I'd like it, but I can understand it if they don't. 7. Trey McNutt - Nice power pen arm type, but is he really better than say, a Marcus Hatley? It's debatable, but I'm giving him some rope. Next three: Hatley, J. Jackson, L. Watkins I feel like, as of now, I'm really hoping 1-5 is protected.

Wait, how's that the polar opposite from me? I've never argued against the hit tool as being ... illegitimate? Polar opposite's not the right wording there obviously. I know you don't think the kid sucks or anything. I'm just much more sold he winds up as our longterm 2B than you are. That's fair. My argument, just to reiterate, isn't anything about the quality of the hit tool. My argument has always been, let's wait and see on a guy with one plus tool, and let's see how his secondary abilities develop. It's the exception when guys with one plus tool succeed to the point of being quality starters. There's a reason why, even with all the advanced metrics we have these days, teams still push for toolsy guys. You want to lessen the risk of a player, and multiple tools obviously helps. Obviously, exceptions exist. My point, and I thought I had been fairly clear about it, has always been that I'm not going to jump on a bandwagon until I see him in the upper levels doing well. I'm almost certain that I've said for most of the year that I expected him to rake in A+. In fact, in one of those pre-season prediction threads, I think I said I thought he would do well in A+ and then hit AA this year, by midseason, and struggle, or something along those lines. Obviously, the chances of that happening now are slim, particularly since there's no rush (and Logan Watkins is having himself another decent summer again).

How are you defining "best arms"? It might sound like a small difference, but I can buy top 10, but not sure about top 5. Maybe ... but Bundy, Cole, Tailion, Walker, Fernandez would seem to have the quality of Bradley's arm while being more polished. If you just want to talk raw arm ability, Luis Heredia is probably in the discussion. If we're talking uniqueness of arm, a lefty like Skaggs is arguably a "better arm".

Wait, how's that the polar opposite from me? I've never argued against the hit tool as being ... illegitimate?

I realize stats aren't the be-all, end-all in the minors - especially the low minors - and you know better than me about Bradley's stuff, but I'd be really concerned about making a guy the headliner of a Garza deal who's walking almost 6 guys per 9. I have no doubt that he's got TOR potential if you say he does, but he's also a long way away from the majors and already has a legitimate issue that needs to be resolved. I have strong reservations about him being the centerpiece of a Garza deal. Sure, but in that hypothetical scenario that davell threw out, you'd be getting a ready lefty arm with a mid-rotation ceiling, which would be the "balance" to the risk with Bradley.

I'm saying that I would expect the Garza camp to be posturing right now, just as I would expect the Theo regime to be trying to get Garza to sign an extremely team friendly deal. If Garza is saying that he wants to test FA, there's a very good chance it's a negotiating ploy. A large number of experts, if I recall correctly, were saying that Hamels was a likely candidate to test FA this coming offseason and the Phillies ended up signing him to a (relatively) reasonable contract. I'm not arguing that you shouldn't shop Garza. I'm saying don't take a lesser deal just to trade him because you're afraid you might not be able to re-sign him during the season. We've got more than a full calendar year to negotiate with him, if Garza's agent isn't throwing around the idea of testing free agency right now then Garza needs to fire him. Sure, but I think where we're drawing a difference right now is related to expectations. I think you've set the expectation bar and what would constitute a good deal for Garza rather high. Expecting two high upside arms for a guy like Garza for one year seems ... high. I guess the issue is how we define what a "good deal" is. I guess, very loosely speaking, for me, a good deal for Garza this off-season (to be clear, I would hope for better), would be something like 1 close to ready major league option that either looks to have mid-rotation ceiling or is a potential solid positional starter plus 1 high upside gamble in the lower levels. If we get a good deal for Garza and there's little movement on negotiations, I think Theo/Jed would be making the right course of action in dealing Garza, rather than taking the risk of carrying him into the season and having him get hurt. Now ... if they feel like there's some progress on negotiations, then okay, that changes the equation. One thing we haven't really touched upon is whether or not Garza might change his opinion on an extension after this latest setback. Maybe they become more amenable to an extension, out of fear of an injury. A lot of things to figure out in the coming months, that's for sure.

The positive scenario for Torreyes is much better than Barney. He might not be the defensive player Barney is, but in Torreyes, the positive scenario is an above average defensive 2nd baseman with good contact ability that has some pop. If Torreyes development is positive, whatever advantage Barney has defensively would be easily outweighed by Torreyes offensive ability over Barney. I've been clear that I'm not on the Torreyes bandwagon, even now, even though I hope he proves me wrong (he would be a nice top of the order fit, something we badly need), but we'll get a clearer picture of his abilities this time next year.

You could rank him as high as 5. Or he could be borderline top 10. The big thing is ... what is his power ceiling? It's nice that he's hit two home runs today ... but up until now, the suggestion has been that he has average power potential. So, taking another borderline top 10 guy in Arismendy Alcantara, do you take the potential shortstop with average power potential or the potential 3rd baseman with average power potential? Now, there are some that think Villanueva could develop a bit more power, and if that happens, then yeah, the argument for top 5 is ... buyable. A plus glove 3rd baseman with above average power, at his age and in A+ would be a very nice asset, even with his aggressive mentality.

I'm having a change of heart on something (no, this is not a Torreyes-related comment). I'm starting to think that Starling Peralta needs to be protected this offseason (before, I was thinking I'd like to protect him, but I can understand it if we don't). Not the best finish to his outing today, but still ... another solid outing. It might end up costing us a guy or two in Rule 5, but young power arms occasionally are gambled upon in Rule 5 (see ... Lendy Castillo), and Peralta's fastball is solid and able to hit mid-90's. There's been some improvement on his breaking ball. He's a 21 year old power arm, and he had a wonderful July and has been very, very good post-MWL ASB. In my mind, I know he's the type of arm that teams might leave expose, as the chances of him helping in the next year ... or two ... are slim, and that it is only a good month and change. That said, considering where we are in rebuilding, I wonder if we should take that gamble, or protect the young power arm with starting potential. I also know that with Jose Rosario at the same level, it'd be tough to justify protecting 2 power arms just hitting A+ ball, particularly 2 power arms that could end up in the pen, but I wonder if now's the time to take that gamble. Guys like Jay Jackson, Hunter Cervenka, Marcus Hatley, Austin Kirk, Brooks Raley, Dae-Eun Rhee, Zac Rosscup, Chris Rusin ... and heck, even Trey McNutt and Nick Struck ... they might be safer in some respects, but they are mostly end of the rotation/pen arm types (I'm noticeably leaving out Whitenack, who I think should be protected). They can be replaced with greater ease. There's very few guys in that grouping that hasa mid-rotation ceiling (maybe ... maybe Nick Struck if you think something positive can break his way) or end of the pen potential (I could see arguments for McNutt/Hatley/Jackson as end of pen potential types ... maybe even Rhee). Anyhow, it's nice to see a nice young arm on the upswing.

Fully recognizing that this could be a case of me being difficult ... but I can't answer that. Now, I was never that supportive of giving Pujols a deal, but I was supporting of giving one to Fielder. (to be clear, I'm pretty certain that I argued that I was perfectly fine with giving neither a deal, as I didn't think it was the right time to, just saying between Fielder and Pujols, I preferred giving Fielder a big deal). But this isn't a question of just Fielder and Rizzo. There's a myriad of dynamics at play, but getting to the main point - There's also the Cashner component to this in that, if we had signed Fielder, what would we have done with Cashner? Maybe we dealt him off to get another prime piece, and maybe said prime piece was playing well. I mean, if you are just comparing Fielder and Rizzo alone, then yes, you take Rizzo, on his salary, over Fielder.

I don't think Theo/Jed should take it personally. The Dodgers simply gambled that Dempster only wanted to go to LA and wouldn't open up his list of teams. If they had desperately needed a SP, they might have relented and offered something better, but obviously they were happy to take the gamble that they could get Dempster for a bag of balls. If the Dodgers truely believed they had to have a SP, they would have had something worked out or in the works as a backup option. Where did I say Theo or Jed should take it personally? Nor did I say that they should not do business with them. I just said that I wouldn't waste time listening to them unless they come in with a serious offer to start negotiations. Eh, I think any GM should be responsible and "waste time listening" on negotiations with any team out there. You need to build up trade markets. To be really fair ... the idea that the Dodgers lowballed is also debatable. The only thing we know, unless I missed something, is that they took Lee/Webster/Reed off the board. Look, after the Delgado thing, everything got out of whack on expectations for Dempster, but the reality is, going into the process, I wouldn't have thought that we could get a Delgado or a Lee type package. Heck, I believe I was initially hoping for a Gould type package, and we got no indications that Gould was off limits. When you factor in how teams are ... over-protective of young pitching prospects these days ... it's a debatable notion on whether or not we shot high and missed, or if the Dodgers low-balled and get stoned. Put it this way - they parted with a Martin/Lindblom package for Victorino. Had they offered that for Dempster, I think the value would be akin to what we ended up getting with Villanueva and, crap, name is slipping me on the other guy right now.

I'll admit I don't know enough about individual prospects to comment with any real knowledge on specific packages. From the guys I have some idea about, though, I'm not real excited by Bradley and I like Syndergaard but he's a little far away to be a headliner for Garza. The Royals, Braves, and Rangers packages might intrigue me, but I'd want more than just those two players in each. I think davell acknowledged that the Diamondbacks package (Corbin/Bradley) is probably wishful thinking, but the upside of Bradley, a guy with legitimate TOR stuff, plus a ready arm with mid-rotation ability in Corbin would be a knockout trade. Doesn't mean these guys WILL pan out, but I think that would be an extremely good scenario, but I doubt that will happen.

This seems like a really bad idea - it sounds like trading him just for the sake of trading him. I hope Theo and Jed don't do that, but I also didn't think they'd tank 1+ seasons and they've done that so we'll see I guess. Wait ... are you saying that if Garza shows no willingness to sign and definitely wants to test FA, then they should just keep him for a year, let him walk in FA, and take picks? I'd call that a bad idea in all honesty. You would further delay whatever rebuilding plan is sketched out, rather than getting some assets for the higher levels.

Eh, I doubt Theo is going to hold it against the Dodgers and not do business with them. He understood why they were lowballing. Heck, I wouldn't be surprised if Theo would've been lowballing another team if he were put in that situation. I don't think any GM would be foolish enough to hold a grudge like that, but I could be wrong. The Dodgers have payroll space, and even after their moves, they still have some pitching depth in that system.

Barnes and Owens from Boston. Or one of the two and Jackie Bradley. Nomnom I really want Boston to trade for him. My hunch is that Boston is going to decide to go with a youth movement and will be hoping that, in a few years, JB Jr. is in CF, Middlebrooks is at 3rd, and Bogaerts is in a corner OF role. I think you could see them trade guys like Ellsbury this offseason to try and find long term holes to fit with those pieces. Barnes ... I'm not huge on, but he might be a tough get as their only close to ready (within 2 years would be the hope) quality arm.

You'd only be "OK" with Corbin/Bradley? I'd jump for joy if that happened. One possible team you leave out are the Dodgers. I could see them pursue a big time starter. The new ownership seems to want to play big. Maybe not Zach Lee, but I could see Webster and another arm as a possible offering, and that would fit in line, value-wise, with some of the offers you have.

I'm not sure Castro can make a leap to a .170 ISOP next year, but ... playing this hypothetical (how to compete next year) ... for the Cubs to ... on paper ... contend, I think a) They keep Garza. Garza/Shark looks like a solid enough tandem to top the rotation. b) They sign 2 veteran starters, 1 fairly big money item. You cannot go into the year expecting Wood to be any more than an end of the rotation guy. c) They sign one veteran pen arm ... if not 2. I HATE signing pen arms. I really do. But they really could use another stable veteran arm that has some late inning ability, unless someone emerges. The bigger question is what happens with Marmol. I think a strong finish, and he's gone this winter if they can get something decent (and heck ... I think there's a tiny chance that he could be an August trade). d) They need two bats - either 1 top of the order bat to go with DeJesus (with Castro batting in the middle of the lineup again), or 2 middle of the order bats (assuming Soriano is moved ... if he's back, you'd be hoping that he can replicate his power). If all five of these things happen, I think this is a competitive squad. Don't expect it to go this way, though.

Just to be clear, I don't actually think pressure is the issue, or the main issue. I think I'm leaning towards swing mechanics as the bigger issue for Brett right now, but I'm also not sure there's much more he can do in Iowa, and I also don't think sending him to Arizona to rework his swing makes that much sense (and a demotion to Tennessee makes zero sense).

LaHair was awful in July, but up until June, he was still showing power against righties (I believe all his XBH's were off against righties). I mean, teams are often looking for "specialists" off the bench. I'm not saying you place a priority on making sure LaHair is on a roster, but he can fit a role. Maybe platoon was over-stating it on the initial, but I think he can probably fill a role as a lefty masher off the bench. But who knows, maybe the July collapse continues through the rest of the summer/fall.

I could probably be swayed on the secondary piece, but I think it's a must to get a high upside, major league ready (or near ready) arm as the headliner for Garza. As a major market team with ample resources, I don't believe we should trade away a proven TOR pitcher who's still moderately young for uncertainty. There's too much risk that the young pitcher doesn't develop, even with the excellent talent evaluators we have. I realize that's a very unlikely package to get, but that's ok. We don't need to trade Garza, so we shouldn't accept a lesser package just to move him. If the Cubs could reach an agreement with Garza, I think they would very much contemplate keeping him, but for all the talk about Garza's ability and restocking the farm, at the end of the day, if Garza doesn't show a willingness to sign for what Theo and Jed think is appropriate, then I think they will move him in the off-season to avoid wasting a potential resource, even if that means getting a less than awesome package.

Sounds like Sappelt's a few steps away from going all Chris Carpenter on us. As a side note, he was actually red hot in July, with a BABIP closer to what he had last year (albeit, higher than any monthly BABIP he had last year). He's on that Sam Fuld level, IMO, a potentially useful backup if the right opportunity presented himself. I know someone here was really high on him, but I never really saw it, personally. But a Sam Fuld type has use - look at how he helped the Rays in stretches this year and last year.

I'm too busy to work out all the numbers or go through detailed game longs, but on fangraphs, he's had 34 games where he had a O'fer on the hit column. 8 were in July, 9 were in June, 10 in May, 7 in April (granted, 1 May, 2 June, 1 July were pinch hit appearances, I assume (1 AB)). The funny thing about Brett's year is that his best monthly line was in June, .282/.350/.545. Of course, he also struck out 40.7% of the time in June, and his line was propped up by a .463 BABIP. He actually wasn't terrible with the K's in the first month (26.7%). Both May and July, the K%, according to first inning, was around 33.

Heck, weren't there stories last year that that's why he struggled when he got the initial call to AAA? That he felt pressure from the fact that Fleita (or someone else) was there watching?

I don't know how bringing Jackson up will make him feel less pressure. I'm not sure if pressure is the issue, but it's conceivable that a prospect could feel pressure to make it up, and once they do, they might relax a bit and play more to their natural abilities.

nonsense. hope like crazy the nl gets DH On a personal note, I would hate it if the NL added the DH. I like the DH, but I like it the way things are.