Clem Fandango

Thank you for compiling those scouting reports, CR!

Too bad Heyman didn't put a #sneakysneakybraves tag in there

Maybe they'll trade us Tank! THERE'S NO ONE STRONGER THAN TANK!

There's that trademarked blanket statement!

http://i545.photobucket.com/albums/hh380/human_anomaly/Gifs/HappyBirthdayBlackKid.gif *Although admittedly I kind of assumed that already

http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m2sal9kay11ro2qi2.gif

WHAT'S YOUR POINT!?!?!?

We all knew the team would suck, but like someone said, the fact that they were halfway decent for a small stretch there got people's hopes up. They never should've let those hopes get that high

I could be wrong here, but if they keep him off the 40 man, I don't think the luxury tax comes into play. Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2 Ahh, I kind of assumed contracts given out to prospects counted towards the luxury tax cap so long as they sign major league contracts, which I assume Soler will do and settle for nothing less.

What, no Haren? Too old. The Cub way requires that you be euthanized at age 30. Kind of like Logan's run. I turn 30 next year... 8-[

I don't see the Dodgers splurging heavily on an unproven prospect. A free agent? Sure. Not a prospect though, not of this monetary magnitude. I'd be concerned about the Yankees and that's it, but even then they were looking to move minor pieces to stay below the luxury tax. Can they afford an addition this size? It's not massive, but it's big enough to warrant luxury tax concern I'd imagine

Throw in C.J. Wilson and maybe we'll consider it.

Well our starters were doing pretty decent the first month and a half and we continually lost ballgames because of the bullpen. I honestly think if we had a bullpen we could rely on we'd be close to a .500 ball club the rest of the way out. Not a contender, but halfway decent, at least.

Touche. I somewhat regret even debating the damn thing. And by somewhat, I mean there's been three pages of bickering about something Jim Bowden suggested. My bad.

Is this the thread where we use emoticons to indicate how people should react to our sentences? :oldbluekoolaid:

Rhymes with LaHair, I think. I've been pronouncing it So-Lair. Although Sa-Lair sounds possible, too.

I can imagine there is a case to be made in support of such a move, I think it's ridiculous to suggest that not wanting to make that move is dumb. Ridiculous to suggest not wanting to do it is dumb, if there are other offers on the table to consider. We're speaking in regards to one specific trade suggestion. I think that's the kind of deal we could never expect to get for Dempster, I think we can get good players back for Dempster, sure, but I don't think anyone will give up their top prospects for him. We'd have to pick up some Top 10-20 projectable prospects for him, but I think that particular deal has the Braves waaaaay overpaying for Dempster. In the choice between that trade and picking up some mid-tier prospects it would come down to personal preference over the players involved. I'd prefer a guy like Minor who can contribute and be worked on immediately at the MLB level over the kind of prospect package Dempster might yield in return (IMO). But if we can pull a top prospect or two away from someone who is desperate, then yeah definitely consider the alternatives. But the argument made pages ago was in response to the ridiculous proposal that Jim Bowden made with no other alternative proposal to consider in that regard

Your point: It's too early to give up on Minor, because Roy Halladay had similar struggles early in his career. Response: Well, judging from the other 61 examples of highly regarded players struggling early in their career, odds aren't good for Minor. But sure, misinterpreting, laughs, whatever makes you feel better about it. My point: You don't give up on a recent top prospect after 180 innings and you don't ignore trading a half season rental of a 35 year old pitcher who won't be on the team next year for him. Especially when that player will still be under team control for several years Roy Halladay was merely an example, not the reason. If you all sincerely think the latter, well then... okay. The last three pages of this thread were discussing 61 reasons you do kind of give up on a recent top prospect after 25 miserable starts. You pointing out Roy Halladay is just using the exception to try to prove your rule. But at this point you're trying to get as much value out of Dempster as you possibly can. He's expensive, even for a half year, so you'd have to eat a lot of contract. Would you prefer a guy with some MLB struggles in his first season's worth of starts who has a good track record and top prospect pedigree from one year ago who you could slot into your rotation if needed or, probably more appropriately for Minor, insert as a long reliever to help work out his kinks and bolster the bullpen? The underlying and driving theme in all this bickering is "How much is Dempster worth?" I happen to think getting Mike Minor (and a servicable cheap reliever in Medlen) in return, as per the suggested trade by Bowden (which was stupid to begin with) was a damn good deal and it would be foolish not to pull the trigger on that deal. To NOT want to trade 4 months of Ryan Dempster for 3 years of Kris Medlen and 5 years of Mike Minor? Sorry, I think that's a really dumb move, and that's kind of the whole point I was trying to make in general.

Your point: It's too early to give up on Minor, because Roy Halladay had similar struggles early in his career. Response: Well, judging from the other 61 examples of highly regarded players struggling early in their career, odds aren't good for Minor. But sure, misinterpreting, laughs, whatever makes you feel better about it. My point: You don't give up on a recent top prospect after 180 innings and you don't ignore trading a half season rental of a 35 year old pitcher who won't be on the team next year for him. Especially when that player will still be under team control for several years Roy Halladay was merely an example, not the reason. If you all sincerely think the latter, well then... okay.

Glad to see such a riveting response to my point which appears to be intentionally misinterpreted for laughs. Well done.

I'm gonna be some kind of mad if we don't land him

He watches the games, maaaaaaaaan

Mike Minor isn't anywhere close to reaching his potential. He'd be a good buy low candidate, IMO. I like Minor, despite his struggles, if he puts it together he could be a very good pitcher. And really, what are you expecting in terms of MLB talent for a half year rental of a 35 year old pitcher? A guy that hasn't been horrific in a full season's worth of ML starts. Yeah and at the ages of 23 and 24 180 innings is a good indicator to pass on a guy who, just last year, was a top MLB pitching prospect. Good logic there. Let's pass on the big potential of a young, under-control-for-several-more-years pitcher with a good pedigree because he hasn't cut the mustard in parts of two seasons. This player, over the course of two partial seasons totaling a full seasons worth of starts (more or less), at the age of 23 and 24, put up this line... 6.09ERA 29GS 9W-10L 173IP 140K 79ERA+ 10.6H/9 3.5BB/9 7.3K/9 He was a top prospect in baseball before his age 23 season. Would you trade Dempster for that if you knew it was Roy Halladay? OWNED ha ha dummy, you wouldn't trade dempster for a 23 year old roy halladay??? what are you stupid or something??? abuck: Reading Between The Lines Since Never

That being said, he's an extreme splits player. He crushes it at Coors and not so much everywhere else