dew1679666265

I think that's the best argument for trading him. He was really a different type of pitcher this season, in terms of repertoire, so I think the productivity has a real chance to be sustainable. However, it also comes with a higher chance of arm injury. That said, I'd still hold out for at least a king's ransom and if nobody offered that, then I'd hold onto him.

While I agree it's very unlikely we get any sort of a good return for him, I actually think our best chance to trade him is at the deadline. A team probably would take a resurgence from him as an abberation in the offseason, but it's possible that at the deadline a dumb team might be desperate for a bat and overpay for him. Not likely, but probably our best chance, I think.

MLBTR

Man, I was thinking Harden was around 33 or so. If only he could stay healthy.

It would annoy me a lot. I like Vitters, but I doubt he's in Theo/Jed's long term plans. However, he is a toolsy, still young guy who a scout-heavy organization could still overvalue. Even if you think his likelihood of becoming a successful major leaguer is near 0, his potential trade value makes him far too valuable to simply give away.

He has value and upside. Whether you like him or not, he's a far better piece than the Cubs gave up to get MacPhail and Selig forcing us to give him away to the Red Sox would take away a fairly valuable trade chip from an organization that still lacks them. That said, I simply can't imagine this is serious. I don't mean to doubt Brett and I'm sure he's heard it if he says he did, but it's hard to believe Selig would be ok with setting a brand new, much higher precedent than the one that was already set.

I don't know that the ceilings are that much different between the two, it's more the likelihood of reaching that ceiling that Turner holds the advantage to Archer, I think. How would you compare Lee to Smyly/Crosby? I've admitted Turner is better than Archer was at the time, though I probably think the gap is smaller than most on here, but it's the combo of the two (Archer/Lee) that I think keeps the deals fairly comparable. Maybe I'm overrating Lee because of his hot offensive start in 2011, though. Or underrating Crosby/Smyly because of lack of track record/unfamiliarity.

Turner is better, but Archer was coming off two really good seasons, cutting his walks way down (from 84 in 2008 to 64 and 65 in 2009-10) and improving his Ks (106 in 2008 to 119 in 2009 and 149 in 2010). A lot of that luster came off this past season when he reverted to his pre-Cubs walk rates, but he was a really good looking pitching prospect by the end of the 2010 season. And I believe that was Hendry's final big trade.

BA had Archer as the #27 prospect in the minors pre-2011 and Turner as the #21 prospect pre-2011. I admit, however, I don't know how much Turner will jump entering the 2012 season.

Pre-2011, Archer was the #27 prospect in baseball (BA ranking) and H-J Lee was #92. Are Turner and Smyly or Crosby going to be considerably better than that? And would a couple lottery tickets be considerably better than limited, but sure-fire major leaguers in Fuld/Chirinos/Guyer? Um, yes? Turner was #21 prior to 2011, is he really going to jump that much? On Smyly/Crosby, I'm guessing they would slot into the top 100 above #97, but I'm honestly not sure where. It's partially why I left that as a question rather than a declaration - I'm a bit unsure as to exactly how the rankings will shift from one year to the next. If Turner ends up a top 10-15 prospect and Smyly/Crosby end up in the top 50 or 75, then clearly I'm wrong. But if Turner is 18-21 and Smyly/Crosby slot into the 80s or 90s, I'm not sure the overall value is considerably better. As for the back-end of the deal, I'd personally prefer the lottery tickets, but there is value to definite major leaguers like Fuld/Chirinos/Guyer, especially if you believe one or more can be league average starters (like Chirinos and Guyer could be).

I agree that I'd take Turner over Archer, but at the time I was a huge Archer fan and still like his upside. But purely from a value standpoint, the two deals are too similar for me to really be interested in dealing Garza. While I don't necessarily agree with you that you have to completely disregard past value in determining whether a trade is worth accepting, even if we assume that's the case then there's a perfectly reasonable argument that he could be worth more by the deadline or even after the season. If he continues last year's success this year, then we're talking about a definitely elite pitcher rather than a guy who might be elite. He'll have less time of team control, but he would also be a much more proven elite pitcher at that point. The risk is he reverts back to being the good pitcher he was before we got him and so we extend him for a much cheaper cost than if he continues to be elite. If we keep Garza and he remains an elite pitcher, we have a much more realistic chance of being good by 2013 than we would without him. There's basically no chance we compete in 2012 and if we deal Garza, we can pretty much forget about 2013 unless we're ready to pony up a silly contract or two for whatever FA pitchers hit the market after this year (if any do). If we keep Garza and he repeats his 2011 season, we have a chance to keep him for less than full market value (it's too early to say for certain what he'll demand a year from now, I think) and it's a lot easier to piece together a contender for 2013. If we keep him and he reverts to pre-2011 Garza, then we have a solid mid-rotation guy and his cost plummets somewhat accordingly. We're in a near-perfect situation with Garza, I think. We don't need to trade him for budgetary reasons and there are plenty of benefits to any scenario. Sure, ideally we trade him for some outrageous package, but if that's not being offered we shouldn't settle for whatever we can get.

Pre-2011, Archer was the #27 prospect in baseball (BA ranking) and H-J Lee was #92. Are Turner and Smyly or Crosby going to be considerably better than that? And would a couple lottery tickets be considerably better than limited, but sure-fire major leaguers in Fuld/Chirinos/Guyer? I realize Garza has one less year of team control now, but he's also coming off a significantly better year than he was when we got him. We have no motivation to trade him other than the potential return (we don't have to trade him for monetary reasons) and there's legitimate reason to believe that the improvement was sustainable (though there's also reason to believe it wasn't). If I trade him, I want a considerably better return than we gave up and I simply haven't seen that offered yet. So I'm perfectly comfortable with keeping him if that's what Theo and co feel is the best course of action.

No, the risk is that he returns to pre-2011 ability levels and we waste an opportunity to sell high. If we're selling high, then trade him. However, if we're not getting the offers Theo and co want (which we clearly aren't or he'd have already been traded) then I question whether we're actually selling high. That was my whole point - if we're simply getting what he's worth, then keep him. But if somebody is willing to overvalue him because of the big 2011 season, then you trade him. If all we're getting offered is Turner, one of Crosby or Smyly, and maybe a couple lottery tickets, then I question whether we're selling high because that's not too much different than Lee/Archer/etc in terms of value - thus it isn't selling high. I don't want to trade Garza simply to trade him, I want to trade him because we're getting incredible value. If the reported offers are accurate, then we're not being offered enough for me to consider it selling high and I'm perfectly comfortable keeping him as a result.

I think the "risk" here is being overblown quite a bit. I'm all for selling high on Garza, but if we were getting the offers that Theo and co found as overvaluing Garza, he'd have been traded by now. The only risk involved here is that we keep a very good - potentially elite - starting pitcher and work on an extension with him. If we can get a severe overpayment for Garza, by all means deal him. But I don't want to see the braintrust settle at all.

I'd have some interest if we could get him for dirt cheap. I'd rather give him a half season audition at first than LaHair.

I'm pretty happy with Tennessee's signing day. The overall ranking is disappointing (18th on Rivals is our highest), but it was a pretty defensive line heavy class - 5 Dlinemen and 1 kicker out of 21 total players - which probably pulled it down a tad from where it could be. Getting Cordarrelle Patterson is pretty exciting, as is holding onto Davante Bourque. I'm really excited about Daniel McCullers (6-6, 390) and Danny O'Brien (6-3, 300). I'd be really excited about this class if we could have held onto Dalton Santos and Otha Peters, but we desperately needed defensive linemen and offensive skill position guys and we did both of those (Patterson, Jason Croom, Drae Bowles, and Pig Howard is a really nice WR crew to go along with Justin Hunter and Da'Rick Rogers).

I am. Russel Wilson has looked pretty good. I'm intrigued by him, depending on where he goes. Approximately what round is he projected? I've not seen any projections yet beyond round 1. But, WalterFootball has him as the 10th QB in the draft and National Football Post has him at 9th. Based off that, I'd guess he's a mid-late round guy right now. I actually think the Broncos would be a good landing spot for him if they keep Tebow and build the offense around him. Wilson could fit right into the spread option elements type offense they'd need for Tebow to be successful.

I really hated losing Santos. I've heard a lot of really good things about him.

I like this signing pretty well. The very strong likelihood is that we'll have no need of him since we already have Russell, which is why I'm glad it's a minor league deal, but I believe Miller's been pretty good pretty recently so he's nice depth to have.

Jason La Canfora:

So a week or so after retiring from the Steelers, apparently Bruce Arians is back. Seems like a really good hire.

I think in a stable environment, I'd definitely take the risk on Jenkins. But without good, consistent veteran and coaching leadership, I think it's too big a risk. Not sure I'd feel that comfortable with the Cowboys' leadership, but the talent is very hard to pass up. And Isaiah Pead has looked really, really fast.

I am. Russel Wilson has looked pretty good. I'm intrigued by him, depending on where he goes.

It depends on which Soto shows up. The 2011 version would have put Geo 14th out of 16 AL DHs (with 300+ PAs) in wOBA. But, the 2010 version of Geo (.385 wOBA) would have put him 2nd out of those same 16 DHs. He clearly has a lot of value as a catcher since his offense is inconsistent, but his defense is consistently solid, but if his bat shows up he carries plenty of value as a DH.

Some Packer players (Matt Flynn, I think?) have said he's the best coach at in-game adjustments they've ever been around. That's all I've got, though.