gregmag

I like winning trades, but never this way. I hope he can land in a good situation and get back on track. The Astros aren't a dumb organization, though, so I'm definitely worried for him.

The linked story, while interesting to see, tells us very little. We don't know if Wheeler or Conforto was supposed to be the centerpiece of the package. This could be one of those situations where the reporter (or the source) highlights names that more fans would know. The story doesn't say whether the Mets considered those guys sticking points. The word "insisted" suggests that was the case, but nothing else tells us more. Stearns' ask, for all we know, could have been Wheeler or Conforto plus two of the Mets' top prospects. We also don't know how serious Stearns ever was about dealing with the Mets, as opposed to just keeping them in the mix to put pressure on the serious suitors.

I agree with this. My only caveat would be that I don't actually know which of 2b and 3b is better for Villar and Perez. I'm pretty sure both guys can play both positions. So if the team prefers Villar's glove at 3b and Perez's glove at 2b, that's fine too. I would love to be able to use Perez as a permanent supersub. Having a guy like that on the roster would be so valuable -- get him 450 PAs at three or four (or five or six) different positions. It isn't feasible, mainly because he's a starter on our depth chart now but also, I suspect, because good players balk at having to play a lot of positions and not having a regular starting gig. I get that, but it would be a great asset.

If the point is that he has a downside that we should be aware of, then sure, but I think most of us are aware of it; I don't see a lot of people here projecting him for insane greatness. If the point is that he's weak for a top prospect, I disagree. He isn't can't-miss -- few prospects are -- but he's been in the 5-to-15 range on lists for a reason, or several reasons. If you don't like the kind of prospect he is -- big-time glove, wide variation in what he might be offensively -- then you can reasonably argue that people have been ranking him too high all along. But the consensus appears to be that those attributes make him close to an elite prospect. Also, I don't really care what other shortstops he's better than. Sometimes you get waves of a certain kind of player -- leadoff men, slugging corner OFs, whatever. If you have (forgive the shorthand) a five-win ss, and he's only the tenth-best ss in baseball, you aren't going to trade him for a three-win 2b who's the fourth-best 2b in baseball. What matters IMHO is if the guy is winning games.

I always do this before looking at others' lists, so that I can look stupid under my own power. DROP Boyer Elmore Garza (I can dream, can't I?) Goforth Middlebrooks Nieuwenhuis Scahill Wilkins ADD Brinson Coulter M. Diaz Hader Phillips Suter Wang Wren I'm not adding Betancourt and Taylor because I don't think they've shown enough to warrant a Rule 5 claim. You could say the same about Coulter, but his power could make him appealing. The other additions are useful guys I'm more confident we'd stand a good chance of losing. I'm on the fence about adding Jorge Ortega and Ventura. They're two guys for whom I've never had a great feel, but they seem to have some promise. We could dump one or two of Rowen, Cravy, or Marinez (approximate order in which I'd consider dumping) to add one or both of them. I'm not sure about the contract status of all our MLB relievers, but I'm assuming for this exercise that we either have them for next year or would have reason to add someone similar to replace any we lost. I could see an argument for dropping Cecchini, but I'd like to know more about how the FO thinks he's looked this year, and he serves a purpose with Elmore, Middlebrooks, and Wilkins all leaving. I would also consider subbing out Maldonado for Pinto. I'd need to know more about how that move threatened to affect our pitching staff before I could decide. I'd like to see Susac or Pina start next year, and unless the pitchers would collapse without Maldonado I don't see why he's essential. At least Pinto can hit. I can't remember whether we can actually drop 60-day guys. It doesn't matter for the math, because they don't open up a spot, but I think we should jettison Capuano (whom I love) ASAP, and I don't think I'd keep Zach Jones over the other options.

Seeing Weeks as a part-time LF in Arizona and learning of both Hart's and Fielder's retirements has made this a hell of a week for feeling old. I always figured Prince's body would give out early, but it's sad to see the end come so much faster than I'm sure he expected. He was one of a kind. One indelible image of him stands out for me above all others, my favorite baseball moment I ever saw in person: http://m.mlb.com/video/topic/6479266/v6511913/sfmil-fielder-blasts-a-walkoff-home-run-in-extras Goodnight, sweet Prince.

Edit -- The right honorable Reilly says I can't exclude Arcia on grounds that (IMHO) he's no longer really, as opposed to technically, a prospect. Because Reilly's doing all the work, I hear and obey. But FWIW, in my internal happy place we view Arcia as a major leaguer, everybody on my list moves up a spot, and Gabe Garcia jumps on at the bottom. 1. Orlando Arcia 2. Lewis Brinson 3. Josh Hader 4. Luis Ortiz 5. Phil Bickford 6. Isan Diaz 7. Trent Clark 8. Gilbert Lara 9. Brett Phillips 10. Marcos Diplan 11. Corey Ray 12. Brandon Woodruff 13. Jorge Lopez 14. Freddy Peralta 15. Jacob Nottingham 16. Lucas Erceg 17. Cody Ponce 18. Monty Harrison 19. Kodi Medieros 20. Devin Williams 21. Jake Gatewood 22. Demi Orimoloye 23. Corbin Burnes 24. Miguel Diaz 25. Mario Feliciano Obviously I value youth and potential, at the margin, over decent performance at higher levels. Just as obviously I'm a fan of the recent trades and drafts: I think Lopez, Williams, and Miguel Diaz are the only guys on my list who joined the organization before the 2014 draft. At the same time, I try to restrain myself on guys who haven't really shown anything above rookie ball, hence the concentration of young kids at the bottom of my list. I left off the injured pitchers, knowing that a guy like Kirby may easily crack my top ten if he comes back as good as he was supposed to be.

Overdone? What else is he supposed to do? Buy everybody in town a burger? As for "suiting his needs," RoCo asks the obviously right question: How does taking out the ad suit Lucroy's needs? Lucroy has always been a frank guy. I learned this when he ripped Tony LaRussa as a rookie, and I've valued his candor ever since. Nothing he said about wanting to play for a winner was insulting or inflammatory. He said exactly what we all would have assumed he was thinking if he hadn't said it, and he said it straightforwardly. I can't figure out why anyone has a problem with that, but obviously we've had that discussion and none of us are going to change each other's minds at this point. He explained the Cleveland thing very well in the essay he published last week -- ESPN I think? He signed a bad contract and honored it, but he has every right and a more than ordinary motivation to set himself up as well as possible for his next contract. He needs to come out of next season as a catcher, and a team on his no-trade list wouldn't promise him they'd do that. How exactly does his exercising his contractual right reflect badly on him? It's hard to say he contradicted his "want to play for a winner" statement when he and his agent knew he would almost certainly get traded to another contender. But even if he cared a little bit more about signing a good contract after 2017 than about playing for a contender now, so what? Everybody has the right to say what they want, but IMHO the guy's little farewell gesture is sort of a ridiculous context in which to keep up the griping about him.

Putting together the Matuella theory with the Mendez theory . . . Is it possible that Matuella is at the top of a mix of possibilities, and they want the time to see how he progresses medically? If that's the case, and if they prefer him to Mendez (or whomever you like better), that could trump the "if it were Mendez (or whoever you like better), he would already be here" logic. In other words, it could be anybody.

I was a little surprised. Maybe Carter and Perez were just overdue for off days? At that point sticking Scooter at clenup is probably more just process of elimination / spread out the lefties. I mean, Kirk fifth and Keon sixth don't scream "killer middle of the order" either. Wilkins doesn't even scream "roster spot." I just hope Scooter looks at some pitches. I'd love to see his splits by ball-strike count.

They showed the adjustment of his hands on the broadcast a few nights ago, and how it affected his swing. All I can say with my untrained eye is that it's a big adjustment. The idea that such an adjustment, along with experience and confidence, could dramatically improve his results seems plausible to me.

Has anyone else noticed that you could basically drop Villar's 2016 season line (as of now) into the middle of Paul Molitor's career and not know the difference? It's very reasonable that Villar could regress. It's also reasonable that he's for real. I sure don't see any reason he shouldn't start at 2b or 3b next year.

I just don't get Goforth's appeal. He has never put up impressive numbers. He has only posted one good ERA in relief, last year at AAA, but his peripherals stunk as usual. He's already 27. He has no physical traits that suggest any breakout capacity. Right now I'm not sure he's one of our eight best relievers. I'd love for him to prove me wrong, but if he can't, I hope this is the last we'll see of him.

That just isn't true thought. You can very well say Carter replaced Davis without looking at Flores... What's to say Flores wouldnt have started at first base if we didn't have Carter? You cant look at two players from one side and only one player from the other side. (Does that makes sense?) For example...if we had Davis in right and Flores at first...as opposed to Carter at first and Flores in the OF...the WAR changes a good amount. Imo I think it was basically a trade off with improved defense. Very good points, and you can also say that if we didn't trade Davis, Perez probably wouldn't have gotten a real shot. These rf starts have been key for him. If Davis is still here, no way does Counsell indulge the facially bizarre idea of giving Perez a bunch of starts in rf. He just gets some 3b starts between Hill's departure and Arcia's arrival, plus fill-ins for injuries. That probably isn't enough to make him a serious candidate for regular playing time going forward. Stearns' love of multiposition guys, and Counsell's willingness to move guys around, make these "what ifs" complicated.

I've been rooting for Broxton since we got him. It's irrational, but no more irrational than rooting for the 2016 Brewers. I love late bloomers, guys with broad skill sets, athletic cfs, and outside-the-box trade targets. I don't care much about strikeouts. Every so often a player comes along to remind me I should care a little more than I do. First half Broxton was that player. He looked as helpless as any hitter I've seen in a while. Utterly doomed. To his great credit, he took his demotions as opportunities. I also love guys who know when they're sucking, work hard to get better, and take to coaching. He went down. He hit. He came back. He sucked some more. He went back down. He hit some more. Now he has basically wiped out one of the lousiest starts to a season I've ever seen. On the season as a whole he's done everything but hit for average. He plays a great cf, hits for power, runs fast and smart, draws walks. Now he's even starting to show contact skills. This isn't random either. Dropping his hands has kept him on pitches. Experience seems to be keeping him in counts. He's had some solid PAs with two strikes, which was far beyond him in April. It's still a tiny sample, and he could end up as a platoon guy even if he clicks, but if he can hit .240 and keep doing the other stuff well, he can start. I think he's shown enough now that giving him an extended shot is the best use of our remaining cf time this year.

Agree with the Guzman skeptics. He doesn't have a single bigtime tool or skill. Of course, he still could be good. FWIW I don't think he's a Stearns type. If Stearns targets a hitter, the target will almost always have one or more of three qualities: relative youth, athleticism, plate discipline. (Susac's a special case.). Guzman doesn't really have any of the three. He's young, obviously, but not relative to his development curve. Mendez or Taveras would make sense if it's really one of their bigtime remaining guys.

I'm never shy about expressing my hatred of Garza, so I have to say that he looks great tonight. If he's this pitcher, he's valuable. A modest proposal: Maybe Gennett should reconsider his new career strategy of becoming the worst first-pitch hitter on the planet.

I'm never shy about expressing my hatred of Garza, so I have to say that he looks great tonight. If he's this pitcher, he's valuable. A modest proposal: Maybe Gennett should reconsider his new career strategy of becoming the worst first-pitch hitter on the planet.

Anyone know why Ortiz only went 3?

Will having such a highly rated system, and having shown we know how to build it, help with our courtships of favorable affilliates?

I'm never shy about expressing my hatred of Garza, so I have to say that he looks great tonight. If he's this pitcher, he's valuable. A modest proposal: Maybe Gennett should reconsider his new career strategy of becoming the worst first-pitch hitter on the planet.

Thank goodness they finally moved Coulter. Let's see what he's got.

Man his approach at the plate has looked good tonight.

Broxton says "I'm really figuring it out. Play me more please."

The Helena college guys continue to look good. Clearly this organization likes plate discipline and knows how to find it.