Austin Tatious

We don't know what names the Brewers bandied about. I guess the A's got the 4/8/12 prospects of the Yankees. The org rankings for any given team can vary so that offers no real precision. I wonder if we offered something like Ray, Woodruff, and Clark. That's two low end top 100 guys and a former number fifteen overall pick, and FWIW the Brewers' 2/4/13 ranked guys. I would have done that, but it's hard to say if anything like that was viable for the A's.

Offense couldn't have been more loud and clear in their message this series: 'We are not ready for a pennant race or a playoff series ' +1. I know deep down we aren't there yet. But I still have "enthusiasm" and get myself worked up.

Over/under on this team finishing fifteen back? Zero mental toughness. None. Offense just lays down softly, quietly, and gently.

Alternate lineup with same guys Villar 2b Braun Lf Shaw 3b Santana rf Thames 1b Bandy c Brinnie cf Arcia ss

Anything mlb.com posts should come with an asterisk noting that they highly favor big market prospects versus small market prospects. Ortiz would probably be in the 40s if he was in the cubs organization, and 30s if in the dodgers. This is totally right. I recall a few years ago, they ranked about three Red Sox pitchers, none of whom amounted to anything, pretty highly and above Jimmy Nelson. I pointed out how ludicrous it was at the time and I have been vindicated. I think there is a big market bias because the reporters/experts seem to reside in bigger markets and they also tailor to the large market fan bases (business decision).

I hope Keston Hiura is not on that list someday, or, ideally, the NL brings in the DH.

True and I have been at work too

I'd keep Blazek over Drake, but, hey, that's just me. And I am glad (relieved) Brinson was brought up and not traded.

SIAP https://www.fanragsports.com/news/heyman-yankees-talking-sonny-gray-deal/

We could just 86 a guy like Oliver Drake to make room for Swarzak. As for Brinnie, I am not sure who goes. Anyone's guess. You could punt Drake now and then hold on until tomorrow for the other spot.

I think he was referring to the Swarzik trade. That's how I took it anyway.

Good point. Also, Phillips wasn't pulled last night, right? So he may not be going out either.

It's been said that the A's wanted a CF so I would be surprised if it's Santana. Phillips, Ortiz and a lottery ticket like a Nic Pierre would be risky but might be interesting. Too bad we couldn't make it Corey Ray but that seems unlikely. At that point, you'd have to wonder if Ryan Cordell wouldn't have been the better number 4 OF. That mythical OF depth would be much farther down the pike.

Please please please please let them not be trading Brinson!!

I cringe any time the Chisox come up as a trade partner. Rick Hahn (Harvard Law) is a brilliant guy. He wins trades.

To be fair, the article expressly states that it is NOT a ranking of systems as whole, but rather who has the most higher end prospects (by ranking in the top 100). The Brewer strength as a system is in the depth. I'd agree, though, with all the drafting failures, the amount of high impact talent is not so great as of today. But, some of the lower ranked guys may come up in a big way. It's just too early to declare it. From the group of Lutz, Lemons, Murphy, Ward, Ernesto, Martinez, Rodriguez, Pierre, McClanhan, Henry, et al. and many others, there could be multiple guys bubble up. The depth is so great, we have more oars in the water from which high end talent may emerge.

Fun read - very interesting that they put Ward in the top 30 already. Lutz got a healthy ranking which was interesting and nice to see. Hopefully Ray turns it on the second half. That would allow him to keep his lofty ranking.

Clark has adjusted his golf grip to a more traditional batting grip. He's young and adjusting. Ray was a top five pick and there has to be some talent there. Both could be on the rise. I'd imagine they both have some value. The bigger issue is we have threads every year about trading for talented pitchers, i.e., the Walker Buehlers, or Triston McKenzie's. The real issue is that we should have some of these guys in our own system. We could have just drafted any of them. It's nice that we found Burnes and Woodruff, that's at least a plus. But, we are starving for those difference maker arm talents.

His high A season sticks out like a sore thumb compared to the rest of his minor league stats. Sub 800 ops, look it up. Fair enough. I think I am taking exception just to the term struggling. The brass saw what he did at A+ and moved him quickly to double A. He didn't really miss a beat. I have predicted that Hiura will soar through the minors on a similar trajectory, although I don't see him as having Braun's power. It's a trajectory you'd like to see with top ten draftee advanced college bats.

Lot of factual errors in this thread. 1. Trent Clark was drafted 15th in 2015 2. Trent Clark was a high school draftee 3. Ryan Braun never struggled in the minors. He was drafted in 2005 and roared through the minors. He hit .324 with 34 homers in 2007 in the majors.

I think David Stearns is terrific. I wish we had him in 1992. We may not have wasted a precious decade plus of our lives with no hope living under Bud Selig's myth that small market teams can't compete. The psychology of that era was just killer. It's interesting that baseball has hopped on the hiring of highly educated types. Like many fields, you could hire based on academic credentials. It took baseball 100 plus years to do that, but it's striking. You look at a guy like Rick Hahn. He's absolutely brilliant. Harvard Law. Daniels at Texas, Theo, and on and on. The trend should continue to other decision making positions. You had a high school grad in a Ray Montgomery running the draft. In other professions, that would not happen. Making decisions in the draft is not about a kid's arm slot and speed or batting average or whatever. You need a smart guy, a guy who has been educated and been trained to think critically and make intelligent decisions based on a larger, multi-year context, while taking in a variety of considerations including opportunities (or lack thereof) to acquire talent from other sources. I'd say ten years from now, you might see these smart GM's hire smart farm directors and the Ray Montgomerys, bless their hearts, would provide scouting inputs. Much like a doctor goes to medical school or a lawyer goes to law school, the guy without the credentials could aspire to be a physician assistant or paralegal. We may be seeing that already, as Montgomery was given a scouting position and college educated Tod Johnson runs the draft. Eventually, you will see even higher caliber guys take those jobs. Stearns and Daniels had the good fortune of timing so they could get these jobs young. We could run a study on favorite Stearns trade and there'd be many answers because he's been brilliant. Freddy Peralta, Travis Shaw, Chase Anderson/Isan Diaz, etc. It's been eye popping what he's done. Stearns is not a nerd studying the nuances of scouting. He's taking those inputs. What he's doing is thinking critically and making sound decisions in an organized manner with the long term. You'd like to see similar decision makers in the farm director spot, taking input from the high school educated scouts and maybe some MIT analytics types. As the GM jobs fill up, the future David Stearns' of the world will take farm positions and help build rosters and move up. Twenty years from now, it may be hard for a thirty year old Harvard kid to get a GM job, because there will be fifty year olds already saturating the market. It's part of the evolution of the profession. Did Stearns get beaten to the punch on Quintana? You could say that and it's a fair view. My view a month ago was that Quintana was the guy to get, over Sonny Gray. Time will tell. Stearns does lack experience and he's gaining it now. You have a southpaw with a nice track record and a team friendly deal with years to go, and that's basically the perfect addition to the roster.

Is Rose really going to take that small of a contract? I will be happy if we don't get him as stated above. 21% from three when what we really need is a guy who can make jumpers off Giannis' creations. Also, don't like Rose's ball dominance and inadequate defense.

I'd like to see Woodruff in the bullpen with his strong k/bb ratio. Work him in like we are with Hader. Who knows what CS did to him, but he's got good signs of being really solid.

This is a fun discussion. The complication is that baseball lends itself to lots of trends, where player could get hot or cold, and deciphering these trends. There is so much mental and mechanical about the skills in baseball that you have to figure out what player A's current status is now in the context of the larger picture. Jimmy Nelson was a low top 100 prospect and he obviously has an outstanding frame and solid, albeit not elite, arm. At the start of 2016, he was coming along nicely but then the last 2/3 of the season he fell apart. But, he's a guy who's a worker and right now his curveball is coming in with snap and bite with control. Has he really turned the corner for good? I think you take that position now and consider him a nice 2/3 starter. Arcia is one of my favorite players. The Escobar comparison is lazy, uninspired, and unwarranted. Even when he was hitting .220 you saw raw potential at the plate. I was saying it when he was hitting .220, that he's got a nice, quick stroke and as he gets older and stronger he will hit the gaps more. He's actually been showing it already as his OPS has come up quite a bit. Sure, he will take a step back because baseball is a game of adjustments but he's still young and will settle in nicely. I wouldn't anoint him Lindor, but he's a key cornerstone player IMO. There's a reason why he was a top ten prospect in all of baseball. Nobody, including Lindor, has a bigger arm at shortstop. He can absolutely gun you down. Santana has been hitting at a very high level. Like Arcia, I wouldn't be shocked if he slips due to pitchers adjusting to him. He's got that low key demeanor which I find rather odd and I don't know that he hustles like Pete Rose. But, I think the criticism of his D is overblown. He's got a big arm for right and it's not like he's costing us games out there. He's got good patience at the plate, and I'm curious if he can actually still improve. He takes a lot of pitches and there may be some room for improvement with his eye. You compare Santana to the over hyped Jorge Soler, and Santana is killing it. Villar is the other side of the coin. He's fallen off the cliff the last month of '16 and in '17. I wouldn't put him in the core because I think somebody amongst Diaz, Hiura or Dubon will be our 2b of the future. But, he hit very well for five months in 2016 and has been working through a funk. I'm not giving up on him. Zach Davies and Junior Guerra. Also not in the core, but I see a lot of folks down on them. Like Villar, I'm not panicking. Guerra has had a couple of more unpredictable, unexpected injuries. He hasn't been able to get himself in a flow this year. He has flashed some good pitching for innings at a time but needs to get himself on track with more reps. Davies is all about keeping the hitter off balance and having pinpoint control. I'm not going to be surprised if he ends up with an ERA closer to 4 than to 5. Chase Anderson and Shaw. I couldn't be happier with Shaw. Shaw is only 27 and doing at the MLB level what we hope a kid like Erceg could someday be. Other than a bad stretch the second half of '16, he's been great. He's a premium player at a tough position. Is he as great as he's shown? Not sure but I don't think he falls off a cliff either. Anderson has had an uptick in velocity. He knows how to pitch. I don't know thst he's in the long term core because I don't know how long the velo stays this high. He may be peaking. Either way, both of these guys are testaments to Stearns' vision in player acquisitions.

Thanks for the clarification. Some of these rules can be confusing for fans.