pacopete4

27-28 level bust out? 29-30 were bad 31 was actually his good year since his prime. He can easily go down from last years totals. He's 3 years removed from being impactful. He's had some broxton to him 2 of the last 3 years. I don't realky think that's a sales pitch. I generally don't think a team will get much for Gomez at the deadline, but for different reasons than you. A hot hitter at the deadline will be a target for teams. If a guy is hot, teams aren't going to say "well he was bad when he was 30" when they are renting a guy for 2 months. What he did 2 years ago is 100% irrelevant. The reason he won't get much is because of how teams are valuing rentals. Swarzak got a middling prospect. Look at all it took to get JD Martinez at the deadline. Gomez will get a fraction of what Martinez got. Best case scenario is probably getting someone like 21 year old Dubon, which isn't a terrible return but it doesn't really move the needle for a team. I think rentals have dropped enough in value that a team can't even get a Parra type return of Davies(What an outstanding return that turned out to be). Not disagreeing with either of you it’s just a calculated move to hope you get production and a possible Dubon player out of it. May not be a kings ransom but could pay off for a rebuilding team.

When you say cutting one of and list Broxton... I'd hope you would just mean that he would be going to AAA.

I thought the same thing. The got a guy who could produce solid numbers for them and someone who they could trade at the deadline. Solid move.

So if this is true, we shouldn't trade for Archer as it would make no difference.

You only have them, until you don't.

Braun isn't playing RF according to Counsell.

Smart move. They will take this risk and hope he can bust out again and reap the benefits by trading him in July when a team needs an OF.

Yeah, it does amaze me how un-athletic some of these pros really are when they are asked to do something different. I do like Braun over emphasizing the catch though. Almost like he's framing a pitch

In fact, if you go Quintana & Darvish for the Cubs I don't think there is a single team I would have Anderson higher than 3 on in the NL. So he can go out and out pitch these guys but you still will put him lower than them? Interesting.

So for which of the contending teams would Anderson be a #1 or #2? He may be a TOR on this team but not a championship team, like it or not. Here is a list of the #1's & #2's on the playoff teams from a year ago: Minnesota: Anderson fits in 1. Santana 2. Berrios NY Yankees: Anderson fits in 1. Severino 2. Tanaka/Gray Boston: Anderson does not fit in 1. Sale 2. Price Houston: Anderson fits in, maybe 1. Verlander 2. Keuchel Cleveland: Anderson fits in 1. Kluber 2. Carrasco Chicago Cubs: Anderson fits in 1. Lester 2. Darvish Washington: Anderson does not fit in 1. Scherzer 2. Strasburg Arizona: Anderson fits in 1. Greinke 2. Ray LA Dodgers: Anderson fits in 1. Kershaw 2. Rich Hill Colorado: Anderson is the ace 1. Gray 2. T. Anderson Milwaukee: 1. Nelson (injured) 2. Anderson There are some teams here Anderson is not a 1 or 2 on but there are plenty that he is. Heck, he put up better numbers a year ago that Darvish or Lester and we are all deathly afraid of them.

I don't disagree with you on this. I think they are fine with the roster that they have right now if they have to. They are being patient, and they should be. If the right deal comes available, they will do it. It's just harder for us as fans because we want to see movement but we just may not get it. And in the end, that may be okay too. I feel like folks think I'm frustrated with the fact they haven't acquired a pitcher. I'm not. I'm not at convinced that standing pat isn't the right move. It may well be the right move. My point is that if they were going to spend the resources for Cain/Yelich you would have thought they would have had a better read on the pitching market. Why waste a year of Cain/Yelich with a clearly inferior pitching staff? A lot of factors will have to play out before knowing it is a wasted year. Maybe they ride their starting five to the All-Star break and are in the mix. Nelson comes back and they add a pitcher via trade. All of a sudden they are contenders and there is no year wasted. I get your point, I do, but it seems as though we are always trying to play with a crystal ball and guess the future and usually it comes up in a negative light no matter what move we are discussing making or not making. And that is not directed at you but pretty much everyone on the boards, myself included.

It's a moot point because it won't happen and I'm fine with it, but McKenzie + Mejia would be absolutely unbelievable value for Knebel, Santana, and Shaw. Cleveland probably hangs up the phone if you ask for just one of them with those 3 players at this time last year. There's nothing wrong with keeping this team together right now, but it's silly to suggest I'm over-valuing prospects. If those 3 do it again this year, then they'll be a lot closer to having the trade value you're suggesting. Eh, you might be. The three have pretty good value and would help them win a WS right now. McKenzie and Meija might never be anything to anyone. I could see this deal getting done.

I think I agree with you but does anyone have any data or factual evidence that many moves occur so close to the season? I am trying to remember previous years but do not remember a lot of movement other than people being let go and others trying to pick them up and stash them.

I don't disagree with you on this. I think they are fine with the roster that they have right now if they have to. They are being patient, and they should be. If the right deal comes available, they will do it. It's just harder for us as fans because we want to see movement but we just may not get it. And in the end, that may be okay too.

I forget we are living in the society that isn’t sure what facts are. You asked for examples. -Fact: All the owners I listed, meddled. Whether a little or a lot. You can go on some rant about who they surrounded themselves with all you want but it doesn’t change the fact that they meddled. They took part in making decisions you would say are none of their business. You then say all Mark should do is set a budget, a five year budget. That’s an opinion. Not a fact. It’s your opinion on what Mark should do as an owner.

Telling an owner that it’s not his place is absurd to me. Again, Mark owns the Brewers. An owner can run his business however he wants. Maybe it won’t work out for said owner if they meddle in roster building but saying it’s not his place is flat out wrong. And some of those owners at icons, sure. But they go to be icons for what they did as owners building winners. I’ll take that any day.

-Cuban rode Dirk to one more title than Milwaukee has lol -Steinbrenner meddled in everything. -Turner took over as manager of his team at one point. -the Rooney family -Jerry Buss -Jerry Jones -Robert Kraft -Mike Ilitch And I’m sure plenty more examples. There’s definetely not a one size fits all equation to this thing. Again, you don’t like it, that’s fine. But it doesn’t make your statement true. Cuban, great dude. Love how he treats people. Really do. Gets a ton of undeserved flack. Not good at basketball. I believe Steinbrenner under achieved. It could have been better than it was for the yankees. Scary but also true. As the game developed he flat bombed. Turner I'm admittedly unfamiliar. Rooney's no way that's on them. They've hired beautifully and built the league but their football people had the say on the team. Buss I raise you the logo who was his brain. Jones... ok somewhat. Most is hiring brilliant coaches and they really did almost all the work. He gets a part but his coaches made him and the salary cap era destroyed him. Kraft does way less than you think with football operations. Its all bill. Kraft runs the league bill runs the team. Who is ilitch... sorry! These are all your opinions. Never said that an owner does it all on his own. Just that there are some that get involved with roster decisions. Especially when large sums of money are involved. You asked for examples and you got em. All these owners listed had a lot of say and a lot of them pulled the trigger on a lot of the deals their teams made and won. I’m not even saying I like an owner who meddles but just showing you that it does and has worked out plenty of times for other franchises. And like another poster mentioned, any large figure deal is going through Mark, not Stearns.

-Cuban rode Dirk to one more title than Milwaukee has lol -Steinbrenner meddled in everything. -Turner took over as manager of his team at one point. -the Rooney family -Jerry Buss -Jerry Jones -Robert Kraft -Mike Ilitch And I’m sure plenty more examples. There’s definetely not a one size fits all equation to this thing. Again, you don’t like it, that’s fine. But it doesn’t make your statement true.

It's his prerogative. He can do what he wants. But owners who meddle consistently lose and waste money. And to plush... i don't disagree but if the owner wants to do it its hard for the gm to pass on it. He's your boss. But he's not at all qualified to be your boss in this odd scenerio known as sports. I like when GMs and their FO are left alone to do whats best. Not true. There are plenty of examples through sports of owners who run it their way and meddle and win championships. You just don’t like it and that’s fine but your statement is false.

Oh bother.

Huh? In what way? Sogard had a hot streak that inflated his stats. Villar was downright awful. Correct. He's racking up scooter stats that got scooter released. And look what Scooter did a year ago after switching teams. You twist and then just about every statement you make. It’s unreal.

That stuff is just so overblown. Marks money, his team. He hires a GM, that’s fine but he in the end is the one spending the money. He can do it however he wants to.

Huh? In what way? Sogard had a hot streak that inflated his stats. Villar was downright awful.

Owners shouldn't talk to agents. Why? It’s their team.