neely crenshaw

he is a 270-300 ba guy, a 350-260 obp, and high 700's to low 800's ops guy through out his career. faster than heck, good defender....what's the down side? He might have been that throughout his minor league career, but in parts of three seasons, he is sporting a .248 batting average and a .300 OBP. He has a way to go to get to the numbers you are saying he's already at. being sneaky with numbers...he played 8 games in 2010, had the mentioned stat line 2011, which again is better than all but 2 of our guys this year. at his stat line for last year, he would still be a good addition... if you knew anything about him other than reading his mlb stat line, it would be no stretch that he would hit 270, with 30 hrs, have a 320-330 obp and push 850 ops. he has never gone down in stats his 2nd season at a level. never is a pretty good baseline for a bet now did i think he would go 300, slug close to 700 and hit 40+ hrs...no way. but i guess even without this year, the idea of dropping marmol's salary and getting an actual player certainly would have made as much sense as trading z for volstad, and paying 15mil. to me it would have been well worth the gamble. Now if you want to argue, the angels would never have done it, then you may be right but the argument that trumbo would have been the problem in that deal is crazy.

no if i could have then i should have a front office job BUT his history says improvement was very,very plausible and even without it his stats were better than anyone we had certainly could have filled a major league spot on a team lacking major league players AND we could have dropped marmol's salary. on a team that wasn't going to win much a closer, even at his best, is a luxury item. I simply threw the idea out there when they signed pujols because of their closer trouble and trumbo not having a sure position. I am not sure if we had even gotten rizzo yet. It seemed at the time as a decent possiblity but the idea was met with "trumbo blows" which of course he didn't and certainly doesn't. now back to Garza, it sure seems like it may be a better idea to wait and trade him in the offseason, their are simply too many names out there to get a great return on. The rays turned down bourjos for shields straight up but are looking at adding conger to the mix. if they that is close, then I am not sure we could get more than that or 1 AA arm. With our lack of young arms, it seems to be a necessity to get pitching for pitching.

the scuttle was looking at pence or victorino for left field, with abreau heading to bench/pinch hitting spot starts.

doesn't have to be the centerpiece, but you have a ml ready player, and a couple of AA pitchers and that could be a solid deal. of course you thought trumbo for marmol was awful. He really should've seen Trumbo going from .254/.291/.477 with 29 HR in 149 games to .307/.359/.611 with 27 HR in 90 games. actually yes he should have. his career stats show that his 2nd year at every level show marked improvement to 280-290 ba, 330-250 obp and 800-900 ops. and when you are selling off an older. fading closer that you don't really need because of price, and stature of your team, getting a power hitting 26 year old in his 2nd full season wouldn't be a bad haul. it was thrown out there, because they had just signed pujols, who plays trumbo's primary position. they had trouble at closer and it may have been a time to dump salary. oh, and he has played 3rd, left and right this season...but of course we are really solid there. even with last years stat line, we have 2 regulars (lahair and soriano) with a higher ops (.768) than trumbo had last year, and only 1 returner from last year(castro .773) had a better one in 2011. also if you were sure that Lahair would have a .830 ops this season, then you should have a job in an MLB front office.

According to Fangraphs, yes (offensively). According to BR, no. i was talking offensively. he also hasn't been a butcher in the field but his best chance is as a DH in the AL, if for no other reason than it would give him a chance to have value until the end of his contract. I can understand giving him away to lose his salary, i can understand paying part of his salary for prospects you really want, but I don't see why you would give him away and pay most of his salary.

doesn't have to be the centerpiece, but you have a ml ready player, and a couple of AA pitchers and that could be a solid deal. right now we have nothing for garza or dempster. our future outfield is Dejesus, LaHair, Campana and a struggling jackson. There is not a single player there for 2014. he is a 270-300 ba guy, a 350-260 obp, and high 700's to low 800's ops guy through out his career. faster than heck, good defender....what's the down side? he's from park rudge? or that hendry might have liked him? right now the angels are talking bourjos and conger for shields. of course you thought trumbo for marmol was awful.

So your theory is that the Dodgers don't need pitching anymore, because they got a 3B? They got wins. I'd be much more inclined to follow that sentiment if they hadn't just opened up a hole in their rotation where they have no acceptable options to fill it. that gives hope. evoldi's spot is due friday. jamey wright could make a spot start but did throw 2 innings yesterday. lilly is due for a simulated game before he is activated but with off days, they only have one more start to cover before lilly is ready. I am not saying they won't do this, i am just saying that they may not be willing to give as much back. I really don't like the idea of going to a qualifying offer. even sandwich picks are a crap shoot, and it would someone that is probably years from being able to help if ever. hoping that is just rhetoric trying to get back some leverage with teams. i am getting worried simply because the names coming on the market seem to getting longer and the list of potential suitors seem to be getting shorter.

So your theory is that the Dodgers don't need pitching anymore, because they got a 3B? no my theory is that they have the 3rd best pitching statistically in the bigs. their problem has been injuries to the staff, and offense-especially with either and kemp out. their back, they added rameriz to help offensively. they will get lilly back soon(he can be activated any time now) their worst pitchers have been their big dollar guys kershaw and billingsley- so they aren't going anywhere. do they feel they need to trade one of their stud prospects for 2 months of dempster? are they willing to trade when there may not be a huge difference in dempster and harang?

my point from the start has been stewart at his best, is not likely to work out. I look at a poor career line of 6 seasons, and don't see much hope of him jumping up. I also mentioned that playing in colorado, most players don't have their stats jump up when they leave there. i don't look at a hot streak and see a guy that has turned the corner on bad luck. i just see a player on a streak. over the course of a season players tend to revert back to norm. sometimes there are reasons why the norm is low, over the course of 140-162 games played, streaks-good or bad- even out. bad luck and good luck do not continue for an entire season. if a players is a .230 avg .320 obp , 700 ops guy for 6 seasons of stats, he is probable a 230-320-700 guy, not hitting in bad luck. add in the colorado aspect and i didn't see him rebounding, not even now after surgery..but it's possible. colvin is having a better year. i don't now why you choose to dispute that. it's not the type of year that makes you mad he's not here(or it shouldn't) but a nice year. why is that so hard to for you to say? you seem intent to downplaying anything colvin does, and promoting the "good" of stewart. it's ok that colorado got the better right now. I really don't see that changing simply because I don't think stewart ever does much. this isn't brock for brogglio, this isn't a game changer, it's 2 teams taking a chance on pieces that weren't working for them and in the end colorado got a 4th outfielder out of it, and we hoped to find a bridge at 3rd, and didn't.

no mention of them much, but the angels need pitching. they wanted hamels who is now off the market. they have a bourjos as a 4th of, who aside from this year, spot starting and inconsistent playing time, has been a high 200's avg, mid 300 obp guy and has been replaced by trout, he is also a park ridge kid. plus they have several AA starters that look solid. They seem to have more need than the dodgers for either garza or dempster.

i don't see a reason to pay 90% of his salary unless you are getting something you truly want back. he has arguably been their best player this year, he does not seem to be a cancer like zambrano. it seems like you could either pay a heck of a lot less of his salary, and get a volstad like gamble or get something good paying 90% of his deal.

the problem we could run into is that with the pick up of rameriz, the dodgers may not feel they need dempster. the will get lilly back soon, which gives them kershaw, billlingsley, capuano,lilly and harang, pitching hasn't been their problem, health has and missing kemp,either and gordan has. kemp/either are back, rameriz is in the fold, they may feel good for the stretch.

it sucks that teams like the brewers, marlins,phillies, red sox and even the diamondbacks, who all expected to compete, have fallen apart and now are possibly flooding a "presumed" slow market with starting pitchers and closers, places where we may have been able to get something more simply because the options were few. now you have hammels,greinke, johnson, bell, street, even kennedy, shields and cliff lee are names out there. upton, victorino, hunter pence and logan morrison are bats that are possibly available not too mention ichiro and youkolis already being moved. in the first year of the extra wild card, when so many teams were going to feel they were still in it, it's terrible luck that the wires are seeming flooded with possibilities!

they are attempting to build up our entire organization. we have limited players with the type of value that can net multiple good prospects. yes, if we are only concerned with putting the best team on the field next year then we would keep him. however, we are not going to compete next year. it is doesn't matter if we win 60-70 or 75 games if it doesn't help us get to the end goal of having an organization built to compete every year, not just a couple and then start over. we need depth, we need resources to trade in order to add stars, and we need to develop as many of our own players to do this. having a 4 star pitcher on a team that will lose 90-100 games is kind of like living in the projects but owning a rolex. it's pretty cool but in the end you still live in the projects.

is he a hall of famer...no but on a team searching to find as many home grown, real live major leaguers- he is exactly what the cubs need. he won't be a guy who turns this whole thing around but it was one less spot that they have to worry about filling. He's not the top of the order guy but set him at second, and hit him at the bottom of the line up and you are fine. his offensive stats are ok, but on this squad they are right there with castro's and better then any of the 3rd basemen. it's just one less hole to fill on a team with a bunch.

there is nothing to like in either. valbuena's value? he's cheaper. you however have been a huge backer of stewart based on stats that don't exist. he has been had his entire career save for 80 games four years ago. you simply will not admit to any chance of being wrong or the new FO not making a good deal. right now. colorado got the better of the deal. colvin is better, but it really doesn't matter. colvin would not change this club. he probably would not be in the future here either, it's actually better for him, because he will at least be a part time starter if not more in colorado. we needed someone to play third base. stewart was down but was once highly thought of, and same for colvin. it was definitely a deal that should have been made, it had potential to help, and limited cost if it didn't. which is what this particular team needs. i hate to use the word "bum" with any of these guys. they are in the major leagues which makes them good, but neither is the answer nor do i think they were ever supposed to be, if stewart worked out and g=could keep 3rd base warm until hopefully vitters is ready, then great but he hasn't. it's just hilarious that people keep defending the deal, and stewart in general when it's ok that it didn't work out. it's ok that colorado got the slightly better end of it. we are better with dejesus, lahair and rizzo which are really the who replaced colvin not stewart.

it might add some value now that lewis is out for the season and probably then some. there were rumblings of interest this offseason. angels staff is very off at the bottom, and although I think they want hamels, garza might be a good 2nd choice, especially since he is under contract. It's not bad if garza is not dealt because he is under contract. obviously dempster is a priority because he is gone after this year BUT they idea is that garza's value would be highest right now with almost a year and half of service left. the plan seems to be rather than look to resign garza as a TOR pitcher,it would be better long term to trade him-get multiple prospects to help restock, amd then sign another free agent ace, so that we would have prospects and an ace for the same amount money basically. my fear would be by not trading pieces, we put ourselves further behind, or at least don't dig out as quickly as we hope. it's real important that he throws and seems 100%, if not he will never clear waivers so a deal will be off until the off-season

allegedly the pirates are looking at billy butler, if that falls through, could lahair be on their radar?

so was it bad luck or an injury? was the good 2 weeks not a sign of him "coming around" because he was injured? stewarts line is better? really. I must miss something. Of course I know you have your own special stat line but if luis is .217 .250 .377 .627 and ian is .201 .292 .335 and .627 I just don't see "better" valbuena has 11 extra base hits and 18rbi in 32 games, ian has 12 extra basehits and 17 rbi in 55 games. one makes 495k, one makes 2.4mil

with soriano there is no reason to rush to beat the deadline because he certainly will go through..if not, let him go. With his play this year I don't think it makes much sense to eat 90% of his deal unless you are getting prospects that you really want. I would not like to see a volstad type deal to simply hope something worked. the problem is his salary not his production. if you take on most of his salary, you keep the problem. As for blocking jackson, right now there is nothing that says he will produce as well as soriano is. so you would have less of a player (at least short term), and still have the contract. bottom line is if the best you can get is a player you don't want, and still are paying 90%, he's been your best offensive player so far, and you are at least another year from doing anything, probably more, there is no reason to drop your drawers to deal him.

they just said that the dodgers are putting together a package, and that the cubs have called up a minor leaguer to start tomorrow, and that it will be done soon, coming down to "the package"

long story...

stewart's a better prospect...he just has bad luck

well as soon as we start dealing all of our major league staff, we will have to have someone to throw innings....perhaps not well but somebody has to do it.

i don't think that fits the idea of getting out of his contract to take on another terrible one that is now longer. right now there isn't a big need to move him for anything that kills us-like we did with zambrano. we might actually be able to move him at a rate that we may not have to eat much of the deal. we may not get much but the only problem with soriano basically is his deal. he might help someone as a DH. nice thing about soriano is that the is no rush to get a geal done before waivers. after the deadline we can put him on waivers and if anyone blocks it...let them have him.