HiAndTight

Well that's good because there is a chance that the Cards could have a lead over the Brewers by the time the week is up.

Yeah, I don't think your comment that they've run into a wall is over the top in the slightest. Everyone was raving about this embarassment of riches with all these young front line pitchers who were young and throw in the mid 90's to go with several other pitchers who were established. Wacha is hurt(and he may be coming back at some point, but it's a shoulder injury, so that point may be well down the road and he might not be the same) Carlos Martinez and Shelby Miller were both elite prospects that have stalled. And yes, I'd take a young power arm over Estrada. But was anyone talking about how Estrada was one of the Brewers 8-9 young power pitchers who were going to help them dominate for the near future last year? Of course not, so I don't see how that's relevant. I also think the Crew is overwhelmingly positive when it comes to opposing teams prospects, but a bit reserved when it comes to ours. He assigns the #2 ceiling pretty loosely to the Cards farm hands where he has Nelson as a middle of the rotation innings eater whom he's disliked a great deal up until recently(though still has him pegged as a #3). So they may have plenty of youth performing well. They are not however performing NEARLY as well as was expected at coming into the season and things have gone about as poorly for them as they could have.

You make it sound as though his ERA for today's start was 9.00 or something. It was 3.60. In the PCL, that would actually lower a lot of pitchers ERA's. He also had 13 ground balls tonight to 0 fly ball outs. I don't expect him to turn the corner like Nelson as Nelson has the stuff to be an ace and Jungman just doesn't. But I would consider 13 GB outs, a 1.00 Whip and a 3.60 ERA a solid outing where your phrase that this outing "actually," lowered his ERA has a pretty negative connotation.

I'm not "failing," to understand anything. I'm simply not agreeing with you with you and your plan as I think it's extraordinarily convoluted and is an absurd overreaction to a small problem that impacts a handful of players a little bit every year. As I said, you want to reward the best players in their respective classes with a 4th year of arbitration, take what they've done over the first three years, even if the first year is truncated and rank them on a scale. The guys who fall into the top 23 percent, they get a 4th year of arbitration. There, done. Solved without reinventing the wheel. I'm sure that would be a whole lot easier for this math guru you're talking about to sort out than this incredibly complicated plan that the players union would almost certainly not go for. What I am failing to understand is how comparing Mike Trout at age 20 to Vida Pinson would have anything to do with this new pay structure. Yes, you can compare players from different era's statistics. It's an inherently flawed process for a litany of reasons, but nobody would deny you could do that. I don't understand how that would help to evaluate how to pay Mike Trout at age 20 when you already have him at a set number. And finally, why WOULDN'T a team and a player come to terms on a deal? I think I went well into that. Why would you commit 30 million dollars a year to Clayton Kershaw NOW when you control him through his age 29 season? Why would you give Sabathia that type of money until his age 29 season or Johan Santana? At the rate pitchers deal with injuries or decline(see Justin Verlander this year) what motivation would a team have to give these young pitchers these long term deals? Then again maybe they would because you've changed how the arbitration works by simply saying math guru's would figure it out and it would be different than it is now and come up with some figures for some players that I can't really figure where they came from. Like I said, you're trying to re-invent the wheel when all it needs is a very minor adjustment.

I'd guess they're going to go with Ramirez next year and pick up his option. It'd be the same as signing him for one year at 12 million dollars if he was a FA after this year with the 4 million dollar buyout. So as long as he continues to perform reasonably well, I'd guess he's the guy. Well obviously I would assume he'd been dealing with something all year, but he hadn't been on the DL when I suggested it. If you're going by this logic then Braun has been hurt all year as have most everyone who's over the age of 30. The point is, assuming he can come back, he's been productive this year while dealing with his injuries which have been chronic over the past 5 years or so. If he was completely healthy, he'd likely be an everyday player with a huge deal. We just need some PH appearances out of him and to play 1st base for us(and 3rd in a pinch). At this point though we'll have to wait and see how his knee is. But he'd likely cost next to nothing in terms of salary or prospects. I doubt Oakland wants to add 22 million over the next 2 years for Prado or give up the prospects it'd take to get Zobrist while Weeks would likely be much cheaper provided they could get a utility IF'er who is RH'ed to platoon with Gennett.

2 relievers? I think upgrading Lyle Overbay with Justin Morneau or James Loney and staying in house with the relievers would make this team a whole lot better than adding two relievers and sticking with Overbay/Reynolds. Though of course it depends on who you're getting back, but the top RH'ed relievers are likely to cost at least close to what either 1st basemen would cost, the difference is both those 1st basemen are good defensively and they have team friendly deals, meaning we wouldn't have to worry about 1B the next 2 years. This conversation would obviously be easier if we had any idea what it would cost to add Morneau or Loney vs Soria, Uehara, Benoit. There are less teams looking for upgrades at 1st base then are looking for relievers.

Morris Broke a bone in his forearm I believe and is shelved a minimum of 6weeks if not more. Clark fills in his 1b position. Morneau. Well he certainly didn't do anything to help out Pittsburgh last season, He didn't even wind up playing 1b everyday. So I look at his numbers and attach Coors to them. The problem is, Morneau will cost a Prospect of his Coors Numbers value and not the value he's likely anywhere else...which appears a .700-.765OPS batter. I'm definitely for him, but for the right cost. Not to overpay for him. He was worth Alex Presly and a PTBNL. Which have resulted in nothing in truth for a return. Presly is an underachieving below Replacement Level OF. Sounds like Logan Schafer to me. Of course if we got rid of Schafer we'd have to find an OF to replace him. It would potentially be an ideal fit for Colorado with Schafer's Defense ability in the expanse of Coors Field. And of course He likely raises his OPS some .150-.200pts overall making him a .750+ CF with great Defense. It's worked for Drew Stubbs so I'm sure it will work for Schafer. Stubbs btw is heading in to his 3rd year Arb and based on his season this year, Colorado really could look to trade him to and avoid what may turn in to a 8mil Arb cost. This move would open the door then to aggressively seek a 4th OF with a better bat. And I'd target Josh Willingham. OR David Dejesus, who is LH. Neither will require a major piece in trade they are older but have OB ability with some Pop in their bat. How bad would Braun be in CF if Gomez were to go down? That's the only big problem with losing Schafer for the upgrades in Morneau+ Willingham or Dejesus as 4th OF. Morneau has a .824 OPS on the road in 42 games, and an .895 OPS at home in 43 games. His BABIP is higher .317 at home vs .325 on the road. I don't see why he'd be a .750 OPS player. Just taking what he did last year for the Pirates or the compensation is flawed in my opinion. He's increased his value and is performing better. He also had a .773 OPS in the pitcher friendly Target Field in 2012. You're assigning far too much value to the 25 games in Pitt last year. He'd fit in perfectly in our lineup and as a left handed bat. But he'd cost a lot more than what the Pirates had to give up to get him, and the Rockies also have no need for more athletic OF'ers from what I've seen. His current road OPS is also lower than his career OPS which, again, included playing most of his career in a significant pitchers park. I think you're vastly overestimating the impact of Coors field. I don't see Logan Schafer improving his OPS 200 points just by going to Colorado. He might be a .750 OPS guy in Colorado only because I think he would be a .720 OPS guy in Milwaukee with regular playing time. But again, with Gonzalez, Dickerson, Stubbs, Blackmon and Cuddeyer, I don't see the Rockies wanting him. And lets not forget that while his value has improved on the field, he's now getting paid 5 million dollars as opposed to 14 million dollars.

Ok, I wasn't going to say anything the first time, but really? Why? I'm secure enough to look at a guy and not give it a second thought. He's not a fat guy, he's a thick guy. It wasn't full nudity, and it was hardly something you don't see regularly unless you're not very engaged in social media, TV or well....the outside world. It's a picture of a guy covered up. I'm just not sure why you'd be so traumatized by it that you'd comment twice. And I don't believe this has anything to do with his violent swings. I believe this is a fairly common genetic issue that many people have doesn't become symptomatic until later on, or in many cases ever. That is if I understand it correctly. But he's hardly the only guy who swings the bat hard. Hell, my aunt had the same surgery and she was 50 and never played a sport in her life and I have a similar issue and have played sports my entire life and have never experienced any issues with it.

I don't think you made things any easier, and I don't think the Union would ever go for this. You just cost Mike Trout how many tens of millions? From where I'm looking, less than 20mil. Of course I don't know how the Arb money works out but I'd think he'd have a strong case to get a ton of what he's asking for. And I could also say that a team is free to sign a Player to a contract before they reach Arb or FA. In which case Trout has lost nothing. There could also be say a special 23/24 Aged Request for Arb by a player if he's performed to a special level such as Trout and be granted Arb ahead of age 25. This whole idea would change the spectrum of normalcy in Arb. Rather than trying to be paid to players like so and so at such point in a career, it can easily be tied to what a player has accomplished by his age. This could also likely be figured out over players of history to deem what kind of money he can look forward to. Since it's tied to Age and not Team control regardless of age. Nelson being 25 and looking for his first year of Service time. Nelson would just go straight to Arb next season and he'd get money based on what he's done for his age. Maybe it's 1mil or 2.5mil? So in his case it's more than he will make today. The Union would have to figure that in that Trout's case is the exception. Player's like Price who are drafted out of college, (and he made it to Tampa quick) and having to wait in his case til he was 26 for his first Arb year...He would have had Arb 1 year prior and be on his 2nd Arb year instead. So he in fact Gains off of my idea. The only real players that are hurt are ones that make it at age 18,19 and I guess 20. But as I'm thinking about this, they can just have that granted age 23/24 request to receive Arb a year or two earlier due to special Performance circumstances. My guess is a Team will just wind up offering that player a Trout like contract around age 22 or 23 to forgo this. It's great you picked out a Player who's been worth 25WAR in under 3 total seasons of Playing time. Or somebody on track for a clear-cut HOF to make an argument against the idea. The one single man who I'm going to take a guess likely, has the highest WAR in all of Baseball since his ML debut? Is he going to be the one single reason to not want some idea like mine? Because guys like Nelson/Polanco/Singleton/Springer who are all older than Trout, get shafted because the once in a generation player Trout would get screwed in this idea? Nevermind the dozens getting screwed every year now all for Team control(Trout was one himself) or avoid Super 2 status? No one idea will wind up playing out perfect, but I think mine would begin to be some sort of improvement? No, there are actually quite a few reasons, that was just one I pointed out. And he's hardly the only young guy who's come up and been great at a young age. How about Miguel Cabrera, Alex Rodriquez, Bryce Harper, Prince Fielder or any other young players who would otherwise be making more money prior to their age 25 season or the dozens of players who would be free agents before the age of 29? You don't think that might be a bit of a sticking point? You think Prince would have been happy waiting two more years for free agency? Or that Trout would have liked waiting another 3 years? Harper? Strausburg? Kershaw? Hernandez? Santana? You know, the type of guys who's contracts the union cares the most about as they set the market? Or guys like Xander Bogaerts moving forward? But you say that a team could just sign a player if they wanted anyway. What incentive is there to sign Trout to a 6 year deal when now all the risk has been transferred to the players as opposed to the team? There certainly isn't any incentive to sign a pitcher when they can't be free agents until their 29 years old. Just ride them until you break them and if they get hurt, well, you don't have any money invested in them moving forward. I just think it's far too convoluted an idea when the whole problem we're talking about is a few players having to wait a few extra weeks to get called up. It's also a pretty difficult argument to make that Mike Trout got "screwed," by the whole super 2 status when he got called up at age 19,struggled a bit and then came up permanently at age 20. You're making the assumption that anytime a guy spends time in AAA and dominates he was only there to avoid super two status. I think there are a lot more flaws in this idea than in the current setup, so no, he's not the "one single reason," that I don't want to implement your idea. I don't think the players union would be a big fan of giving team control of players through their age 29 season so that nobody can hit free agency until their 30 years old. In this scenario, the only way I'd give a player a multi year deal is if they're going to take substantially less money for a long term deal than they would by going year to year because the organization now holds all the cards. How about an easier solution. Instead of going off service time, you rate the players like you used to rate them for their draft value? The top 23 pct of the players are "A's," and they are granted a 4th year of arbitration? Seems a lot simpler than this whole....idea.

I meant they wouldn't be taking on any more. As in, there's no way they'd do that trade. The Bucks are going to have to give up something else if they want to unload Mayo on anyone. Probably at least a protected 1st round pick. Given that the Suns have 3 of them next year and 2 the following year, AND that they would be letting Bledsoe go due to a logjam in the backcourt, I see no reason they'd want Mayo back even with a lottery protected 1st.

Because it's a rare confluence of events that will make Bledsoe even available. Phoenix thinking they have a shot at Bosh or LeBron, Bledsoe being a backup behind Chris Paul for 2 years, and the Bucks having enough cap space to take on Bledsoe's contract. Banking that in the future, someone will 1) fit our team, 2) be under 25, 3) want to sign a long term deal with Milwaukee and 4) that whomever we pick next year will be better than Bledsoe seems like too much to me. Last year was a perfect storm of events. Caron Butler, Gary Neal, Larry Sander's injuries, Larry Drew thinking that Caron Butler and Gary Neal were good defensive subsitutions late in games, Brandon Knight playing point guard, Ersan being hurt all year, Zaza playing way, way, way too much, etc, etc. It just won't happen again. Exactly. It's not like we're talking about giving someone like Salmons or Maggette..or Richard Jefferson a big contract. We're talking about another young player that could grow with this team. You're never going to go from the worst team in the league to the Finals in one year so I don't know why that gets thrown up there. But he could be a key player in us one day GETTING to the conference finals. Plus, he could be huge in helping all our young guys develop. You would think he'd create a lot of opportunities for guys like Giannis and Parker, but even for Henson and Sanders on lobs and put backs as he gets to the rim. I think he could easily be an 18/8 type guy who can be a very good defender. And then Knight can move to his more natural Ben Gordon type role coming off the bench. There is no rule these guys HAVE to be drafted by the Bucks. I would also agree if you swing and miss on Bledsoe you put your checkbook away and don't touch Lin, or anyone else on this market(that would realistically come to Milwaukee).

I'd trust a veteran like Benoit before I gamble on a rookie like Jeffress. Taking a chance on Jeffress is something you do in a losing season. I think the Brewers should do the smart thing and pick up a clutch veteran RP. Will Smith, Joaquin Benoit,and K-Rod is an excellent trio. Well obviously I'd trust Benoit right NOW more than Jeffress. But it's obviously far more complex than just who we would trust more. I would "trust," David Price more than Jimmy Nelson as well. But the price you pay for that trust is pretty significant. A-Calling up Jeffress now gives the Brewers a pretty clear picture of what he can do by the trade deadline. We know what he can do physically. Throw in the upper 90's with a good curve and vastly improved command in the minor leagues. We'd have time to figure out what he can do for the big league team. B-We currently have K-Rod, Smith, Duke all pitching incredibly well, Henderson is coming back from injury as is Thornburg. The later of which was dominant earlier this year and the former was an excellent closer last year. So it's not like we're relying on Jeffress to come up and be what Uehara was for the Red Sox last year. But there is no reason he can't come up and be an effective reliever. And what are we giving up for Benoit? He's mentioned with nearly every contender right now. More teams are competitive than ever and are trying to add pieces. So he's not going to be cheap. He's going to cost us one of our top prospects(as is Soria). Soria has an FIP of .76. What's his value in terms of prospects? Coulter+another prospect? Arcia and another? And for all the teams that are going to target guys like Benoit and Soria, Uehara is likely to command even more. The Red Sox wouldn't surprise me at all if they put a QO on him next year to keep him given just how dominant he's been. All that is to say, before you give up a couple of really good prospects in a sellers market, lets see if the power arm who is absolutely dominating everyone in AAA can come up and be effective. Lets wait and see if the 3 guys we have who were outstanding relievers for us earlier this year or last year can come back and be effective(Kintzler/Henderson/Thornburg).

Huh...I feel bad for him. He gets himself into better shape and his string of playing every game(160 on average over 8 years) and then he deals with a serious neck injury. And he's getting absolutely TRASHED in Texas. One article said that he was THEE reason for the Rangers failing this season and many are calling for Daniels to get fired over this move. He had what sounds like an asymptomatic neck injury that is somewhat common and it became symptomatic. Though it's also apparently difficult to understand exactly when that happened as he is said to have started losing strength in it while in Detroit. I still believe he's going to come back and be a very productive player for the Rangers. A .280/.400/.525 type guy who can still hit 40 in TX.

I don't think you made things any easier, and I don't think the Union would ever go for this. You just cost Mike Trout how many tens of millions?

I think what he was saying is the Brewers should take their opportunity to call up their top prospect who's dominating in AAA to replace the soft tossing castoff of the Nationals, not that they should go out and trade for Price or something. And Milone was pitching far better than Estrada is when Milone got kicked out. Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. I don't want the Brewers to go out and trade away what they've just started building in reference to their farm system. But they don't have to. I think Nelson is about as close to a Peralta type pitcher as you can get. We can improve our rotation just by dumping Estrada, giving Fiers a couple starts before moving him into the long relief role, and let Nelson sit for a couple weeks to rest his arm, keep his innings down until they're ready to start him.

Probably the same people who said Sergura couldnt play SS I just think it's a lot easier to suggest a player can't play a premium position because it's easier to be right. Unless the guy is a smaller Arcia type guy who doesn't have a great bat, it seems like scouts throw in the caveat that any player that's bigger than normal for a position will likely end up elsewhere.

Dykstra looks like he's turned himself into a useful young nice utility player. Playing everywhere but catcher and pitcher. And he's drawing a lot of walks. Still just 25 he could carve out a nice career still.

Yup. We do have the money. 25 extra million We do huh? I've been following the TV deals and the progressive revenue sharing for a while. I've believed we could raise our payroll to 100-110 million. So I've been far more...optomistic about our finances than many over the past few years. Look at Tort....it's still in his signature (though I believe I've been proven right). But how exactly do you propose we add ANOTHER 25 million dollars? Our ACTUAL payroll is probably about ~108 right now. You have a lot of things added into payroll than just adding up the 25 man rosters salaries. At least based on how MLB figures it for the luxury tax. Insurance payments count, defferred money, a lot of things. Lets just go with 105 for a nice round number. How do you honestly believe the Brewers can maintain a payroll of 130 million dollars? And mind you, you're not only spending 130 million this year, but you're not giving up a pitcher with the legitimate potential to be an ace. 6 years of team control for close to what you want to pay for one year of David Price. 6 years of a GG caliber SS who's bat is really coming around in Arcia. A guy with star potential in Coulter, and Tyrone Taylor. This is just about the most illogical way to run a franchise like the Brewers. The Brewers do have some money. They can push their way into the top half of the league in terms of payroll. They're not getting into the top 10. They're not going to be able to spend 130-140 anytime soon. So I'm curious, what do you think a Brewers team looks like with a 35 year old Ryan Braun, a guy who's already starting to wear down from injuries, a 33 year old David Price who IF he stays healthy(and I can almost guarantee that he won't over this 8 year contract) he's likely to be a MUCH less impactful pitcher, much like Sabathia who is 33 years old right now, or Santana's huge contract worked out terribly as the best pitcher in baseball was done by the age of 31 years old. Barry Zito was worth 28 WAR through his age 28 season whereas Price has been worth less than 22 WAR. This list goes on and on. So we find ourselves in 3-4 years with about a third of our payroll tied up into two players who are either on the downside of their career or who may be completely infective. And forget about being able to carry those huge salaries with young talented players who are still making 500K a year like Arcia, Coulter, Nelson and Taylor because we traded them away for the right to be stuck in purgatory. And good luck counting on Gatewood, Harrison, Mereiros and Lara developing and all hitting their ceilings perfectly. OR, like we've said, the Brewers could continue to develop their farm system, take the money that is being spread around MLB right now and spend is wisely so they can afford to pay for a guy like Lohse, Garza, Aram or guys like Lucroy, Peralta, and Gomez and then work our young studs into the lineup and rotation without blowing up our farm system and our payroll for a guy who history tells us will likely be a shell of his former self half-way through your proposed 8 year mega deal.

I say this with the caveat that I have only seen Arcia play a handful of times, but he strikes me as the type of guy who's going to add 10-12 pounds and could actually hit for pretty good power. And as far as his defense goes, in the couple games I did go up to Applteon to watch last year, he didn't really stand out defensively because everything was so smooth. Ball hit up the middle, he just seemed to glide over there. Segura is really good defensively, but he runs like a RB. He's quick, strong arm, but Arcia just looks like he's taking BP. And of course his defense is pretty renowned. I would agree. He should be just about untouchable. I would place him, Coulter and Nelson in the virtually untouchable class. As for him taking Segura's job, he could certainly do that in a year. But I am one who would still extend Segura and my opinion of him hasn't changed. I like his swing...I just think he's going to be a good starter for 8-10 years. But how valuable is a right handed guy like Arcia who is a defensive wizzard who can play 2nd, SS and I'm sure could play 3rd without much preparation. You'd have Gennett's platoon partner, a potential replacement for Segura, a potential future 3rd basemen as we currently don't have anyone. If he puts on 10-15 pounds, at 6' 180 I could see him hitting 12-15 HR's a year, with his speed, he could create some problems, and could easily put up a slash line of .285/.335/.400.

By the way, Oakland, best record in the big leagues. Tommy Millone in his last 11 games for them had gone on average 6 1/3 IP, an ERA of 2.62, the team was 9-2 in his games. But, they saw an opportunity to improve upon their rotation and they took it. So both teams had soft tossing pitchers who are Nationals castoffs and one goes out and gives up an elite prospect to replace a guy that's actually having success so they can maintain their lead over the hard charging Angels, and the Brewers continue to trot out a guy who gives up HR's like foot kitchens give out soup.

You don't dump Wang. To steal Wang's analogy, you don't swim across the Atlantic and then decide it's not worth it once you see Ireland. No, put him on the DL. There's no MLB Gestapo that's going to come and fine and penalize the Brewers if they say that Wang has a sore shoulder from his side sessions. DL Wang DFA Estrada (I don't see a spot for him in the pen. The last thing you want is to bring in a guy who gives up so many HR's in the latter innings. Henderson transfered to 60 day DL(and Thornburg if you so desire as he won't likely be back before 60 days anyway). Callup Jeffress and Fiers now and sit Nelson down for a few weeks so you don't have him throw 220 innings as he becomes our ace down the stretch (that should be partially in blue). But both Jeffress, Nelson and Fiers offer clear upgrades over what you've got right now in the big leagues. So why wait? I get rolling with Kintzler right now because he appears to be on the verge of righting the ship and we need him. But you don't make up a schedule to hand him the ball every 5th day. I think Roenicke is a really good manager. I'm not sure if Melvin is good or really good. I don't know how much Attanasio has been involved in some of the signings. But I do know that neither seem to be proactive and they're usually pretty slow to react. Estrada just hasn't earned this type of loyalty. If Yo was struggling like this I would understand it, but it's not, it's Estrada.

Is it wrong that I consider it a positive that Howard didn't hit that one out and Estrada "only," gave up a RBI single(which should have been a double).

Yeah....really getting sick of Estrada. I'd rather be starting Fiers if you're that worried about Nelson and his super 2 status. It's getting to the point where you look at the schedule and you have a pretty good idea they're going to lose when Estrada starts. Since May 18th he has given up an OPS of .883 with an ERA of 6.61. with 16 HR's given up in 9 games.

The Suns have already intimated they're not confident in giving Bledsoe a max deal. If the Bucks move fast here with the Suns pursuing big name Free Agents, I think there is a reasonable chance they could sign Bledsoe. 4 years 64 million is the exact type of risk that I think the Bucks should be taking. The knock in Bledsoe is that he hasn't been a starter for a full season. If he had, it'd be a no-brainer to lock him up and would have likely already been done. But as I said in the previous thread, he's the ONLY guy I'd want to bring in. Otherwise, let this team play together, learn and grow together and end up back in the lottery next year and grab your PG then. By the way, the Suns who already had another very good PG to go with Bledsoe in Dragic, they drafted Tyler Ennis a guy many thought could find his way into the lottery, they then also drafted another guard in the 1st round. But that's up to the Suns to decide if they want to keep him. The Bucks need to offer him a max deal. And if that falls through, they should not lock up a single dollar of '15-16 cap room on anyone else. Wait until G and Parker have developed enough and the Bucks have a new stadium deal and are more attractive to free agents. I've heard people even throw around ridiculous idea's like Gasol and others. All or nothing on one player(well, I suppose they could offer LeBron a max deal as well, but I'm going out on a limb here and am gonna say he's not considering Milwaukee).

I'm still not sure how he's arriving at these projections. How is he arriving at the conclusion that Estrada projects to be more valuable than Nelson? I haven't read much of Carson Cistulli, but he also says that these projections do not represent future value. So I'm just not certain what he's saying. That based on what these players have done at their respective levels in the minor leagues, that would translate to 1.8 WAR for Zarraga for example? In any event, I digress. I think the logic is inherently flawed when you are using minor league numbers to try and come up with projections, and beyond that, I think we might be relying on these projections a bit too much. Anyway, I just don't see why Colorado would value Zarraga when they have a catcher the same age who's produced for them. If they're going to trade Morneau, they're likely going to want someone who is a better prospect. At least not someone who's blocked by a player already. Zobrist may have more value than Morneau, but a 1st basemen in this market hitting .316 with a .518 SLG is pretty damn valuable. I would expect Zarraga to be more of a throw in than the key player in such a trade.