| By Jason A. Churchill |  | By 07-19-2010 |
UPDATE: The rumor mill is open -- and updated for 7/21/2010 for subscribers!
We haven't talked as much about Carlos Triunfel this season, partly because Dustin Ackley, Nick Franklin and Michael Pineda have put up bigger numbers and/or have been promoted, which has dominated the system's headlines.
But Triunfel is still very much a prospect, and I've been sending out feelers to check in on the 20-year-old's progress.
The numbers aren't pretty -- they aren't ugly, either at .277/.310/.369 in Double-A West Tennessee -- and since his bat will have to lead the way, it's easy to question the upside potential in Triunfel's future.
"It's a legitimate question, and one I hear a lot from fans and the press," said one club's player development director. "Stats can mislead in both (directions, positive and negative) which is why you have to see the player to get a feel for what's going on. A kid like Carlos Triunfel is even more difficult to assess without seeing him because he's so young for the league."
OK, so tell us whatcha think.
"There is a lot to like," he said. "He's got tremendous bat speed and has a little Vlad Guerrero in him -- he can hit pitches out of the zone very, very hard. He's made progress in the field but can rush things with throws and overall probably projects better a third.
"I like him, I'll take him."
The concern, for me, is the power, but I'm not worried to the point where it's negatively impacting Triunfel's prospect status just yet. I do think, however, that the idea that he's a fast-track potential superstar are over. But that's alright, he's 20, makes contact, and continues to show signs that he's maturing.
I still don't like his approach to the game in general -- he's not of poor character, but he's still a kid in many ways and isn't quite a hard a worker as would be ideal, but he does put in the time, as evidenced by his return from injury last year more than four months earlier than expected.
I still contend the power will come, and it's the maturity of his swing that will produce the loft and leverage necessary for 20-25 home runs, or at least a 14-18 homer bat with 40 doubles. He stings the ball, but the result is often ground balls and line drives, which explains to satisfactory batting averages.
But there's a little more to the adjustments than the swing.
"It's also a test of how he can recognize pitches, and the situations and counts when he can look to drive the ball and when he really should be looking to go oppo," the farm director said. "But let me say this -- you don't lose confidence in a talent like that. You ride it out, that's how the Phillies ended up with Ryan Howard."
Johermyn Chavez, OF
Chavez has had a nice year -- big power, more than he's shown in previous seasons with the Toronto Blue Jays -- and scouts are taking notice.
"What I like is that, yeah, he's got the 20 (now 22) homers but he's also hitting for some average and driving the ball into the gaps," said an NL scout.
Chavez entered play Monday night with 22 doubles and four triples and is hitting .378/.489/.973 over his last 10 games with a 9-9 BB/K ratio and 18 RBI. And it's not all about the league or the home park, either. The 21-year-old has put up better than respectable numbers on the road (.813 OPS) but has posted a .933 OPS on the road since June 8.
July seems to be the month he's putting it all together, too. "He's one of the more feared bats in this league right now and he's right where he should be," the scout said. "He's a nice upside play for them (Seattle) and he may work his way into an everyday job in a few years. I like the swing, and when he's going right he'll knock the ball around the park. I'd like to see him go to center and right field a little more with two strikes, but he's developing just fine."
Justin Smoak vs. Jesus Montero
When you watch Jesus Montero -- one of the first things you notice is the strength. Even when Montero didn't make solid contact -- the ball was hit hard due to his extremely strong wrists, as well as plus pitch recognition.
At the plate -- Montero actually has a similar set-up to former Mariner catcher Kenji Johjima. The kick isn't as pronounced -- but he does use his leg as a sort of timing mechanism with similar hand-placement. That's where the comparisons with Johjima end, though. The right-hander has very little wasted movement in his swing, and as I stated above has very good pitch recognition and strength.
Montero's raw power is as good as it gets in the minors right now, and it extends to all parts of the field. In his second at-bat vs. Toledo this past weekend he lined a double in to the right-center gap on a slider that was at his knees on the black. Very few major-league players could drive that pitch -- much less a twenty year old in Triple-A.
If there is one thing offensively Montero could use work on it's that he can be a bit overly aggressive at the plate -- his career high in walks is just 37. In his four at-bats I saw on Friday -- Montero saw only eight pitches -- swinging at the first pitch three times. The young Venezuelan will probably adjust as he matures and sees fewer strikes, but it's the one thing he's missing from being a complete offensive player.
Montero's defense has been talked about to death so, naturally, I'll bring it up again. At 6-foot-4 and listed at 225 pounds -- probably bigger -- Montero just doesn't have the foot speed or quickness to play the position long-term. While there's nothing to say he won't be able to handle first-base, as he continues to grow he's unlikely to be a plus defender at the position.
Montero does have a pretty decent arm, which will aid him well at first-base in turning the double play. He just can't stick at catcher, unless we see a body-shift change -- and I don't think that'll happen with a visit from the Nutty Professor.
Despite the fact that a position change is almost assured, and that his aggressiveness can be a bit of a hindrance, Montero is still an elite prospect. Smoak was the better fit for the M's, but Montero would have been an excellent consolation prize.
-- By Chris Crawford
As Chris wrote, Smoak was the better fit, and it's more about the present stage of each players' career then anything else. But to give you an idea of how much the Yankees think of him, they have told teams since the Cliff Lee deal fell through that the left-hander was the only player on the trade market they were willing to trade Montero for. They love this kid, which should tell you how much Jack Zduriencik and his staff adore Smoak.
Rumor Mill Churning
If you haven't noticed, or aren't a subscriber to take advantage of the new rumor mill here at Prospect Insider, you can fix that by visiting the top of this page and clicking on the appropriate links.
We'll update several times a week -- almost daily, and even sometimes more than once a day, through the trade deadline on July 31. Included in these update will be draft signing news, such as the tidbit on Marcus Littlewood today.
We're working on confirming a new rumor today about a particular Mariners infielder, and an update on that could come as early as tonight.
prospect-watch:-triunfel,-chavez-and-notes
Comments
The following 55 comment(s) for this article are shown below:
| 1. By: littlelinny6 on 07-19-2010 20:53:23 So Truinfel's absolute ceiling is Jose Lopez 2009 season? Not that its terrible but tough to be excited about. Have the M's been working on his plate discipline at all or is he just a lost cause and the M's are just hoping he hits .290-.300 to make up for the lack of walks? Great info guys and it's really encouraging to hear some good news about Chavez. |
| 2. By: rjfrik on 07-19-2010 22:09:19 I loved tabbing Chavez as the prospect in the Morrow trade. I thought then he had a chance to be a MLB regular and the guy looks like he's improving his game this year. |
| 3. By: Adam T on 07-19-2010 22:15:13 Jason or Chris - I just subscribed, but can't sign in yet. |
| 4. By: johnburkland on 07-19-2010 22:20:56 Jason- RE: Draft pick mentioned in the rumor section. How likely are the M's to give him he wants? Is 2x slot too rich for their blood, or has this always been expected? |
| 5. By: Jason A. Churchill on 07-19-2010 22:29:58 Adam, That is because you did not follow instructions AT ALL. But, because I did the leg work for you, you now have access. You're welcome! Linny, Triunfel might slug .475-plus in his prime years, and I'd say his ceiling is a .500 slugging for a few years, just with 2009 Lopez-esque avg and OBP. If he's hitting 20-25 homers a year and is also hitting 35-40 doubles, he'd have to get 730 PAs not to exceed what Lopez did in 2009 in terms of rate stats. |
| 6. By: Hawhuskonics on 07-19-2010 22:30:46 More international players signed per MLBtraderumors.com. Hope this doesn't further detract from '10 draft picks. |
| 7. By: Adam T on 07-19-2010 22:43:26 Jason - Actually, I did do the leg work. It turns out I left out an "i" in Insider. Sorry. |
| 8. By: krob4mvp on 07-19-2010 23:09:35 Jason, As regards to the rumor mill; do you think the Detroit Tigers may take a look at Jose Lopez since Brandon Inge got injured. Furthermore, I saw Ed Price (AOL Fanhouse) wrote that the Tigers may be interested in Aardsma...do you think there may be a possibility we deal both to them? Thanks! |
| 9. By: tylers1216 on 07-20-2010 01:02:44 Jason or Chris, have you guys heard anything about whether the FO is still high on Triunfel? I hope he isn't viewed as a possible yuni/lopez type because it seems like he could be a pretty good bat at 3B with good defense |
| 10. By: yohnhimself on 07-20-2010 01:17:35 Jason, do you have any thoughts on Kyle Seager? I know High Desert isn't the best place to truly judge offensive production but he seems to be having a really nice season across the board. |
| 11. By: Edman on 07-20-2010 11:18:40 About the mentioned draft pick, considering what the Rockies are about to give Parker (assuming rumors are correct, which is asking a lot) the M's should be aggressive and get him in the fold. There is always a gamble, but I think this is a good one. One has to ponder Detroit's need at thirdbase, with Inge injured and out for a month. They recently put themselves back in the race. This could open a door for as a potential trade partner. I wouldn't mind seeing Mangini for a few weeks. He could be a better version of Jack Hannahan, sans the superb defense. He does have more offensive potential than Jack. One thing I have noted about Mangini, is that he's hit at every level he's been at. He's not a spectacular hitter, but he's done a journeyman's job. It couldn't hurt to have a guy with a litle potential in his bat off the bench. That said, I would not be in favor of a move that puts Tui back at third. He needs to hit everyday in Tacoma for a while. He started off hot after he was sent down, but had fallen off lately. |
| 12. By: rocketdawg31 on 07-20-2010 12:03:18 I wouldn't mind seeing Mangini, either. I know what's been said about him here in the past, but I can't deny that I think he's played well enough to warrant an audition when the opportunity allows. Even if likely the long-term potential isn't there, a player should at least be given the chance to prove he can get the job done if he's been producing at AAA. And I'm in favor of that draft-pick being in the fold, damn the torpedoes. There might be some middle-ground to be had, there. |
| 13. By: Slack on 07-20-2010 12:38:27 I don't mind the M's doing what it takes to sign that particular pick. The rumored demands seem reasonable enough to me, especially since Taijuan Walker didn't cost that much. As for Triunfel, I read an article by Peter Gammons that said that power is usually the last thing to come. With that in mind, I am willing to be patient with Triunfel. |
| 14. By: StandinPat on 07-20-2010 13:50:08 Slack, Gammons didn't coin that. It's been the general rule of thumb for just about ever. The keys with Triunfel are gonna be his natural strength, swing path, and ability to square up the ball. From everything Ive seen/heard he does the last one very well. Ed, If Mangini is a better bat without the glove, than he's nothing like any version of Hannahan. He'd actually be the Bizarro-Hannahan. But really, I'd rather see Figgins there. We've got to figure out a way to get him back on track, because this current version, with his current contract is an albatross. Additionally, Ackley's prob gonna be your 2B my mid-2011 at the latest, so I'd rather flop Figgins to 3B now and find some stop-gap at 2B until Dustincredible is ready to take over. |
| 15. By: Edman on 07-20-2010 14:09:19 Pat, I'm not sure a position shift, mid-season, is what the M's need to do for Figgins. They can do that next season, from the beginning. They need to find pieces to the bigger puzzle. There's more value in trying to see if Mangini can fill a roll, than to put a stop-gap like Wilson as second, who's value is already apparent. Figgins is Figgins, and moving him to third is simply a change in scenery. He's a sunk cost, and there's no value to moving him right now, in regard to the future. I'm not interested in making him feel good. The change to second can't be that big of a transition. Besides, you're surrendering a position to him, that depending on what Jack does in the off-season, may not be his to own next year. Seattle doesn't need him to make a playoff run. So, don't block a guy who may have future value. Granted, Mangini's value may not show, but we won't know, until we try. Ackley isn't a shoe-in to stay at second, either. I suspect he will be, but if there's a hole still in LF, he may end up there. Assume nothing. |
| 16. By: StandinPat on 07-20-2010 14:54:52 Ed, I gotta pretty much disagree with all of that. First, Figgins would be going back to the position he's played for the past 3 years. Thats not the same as a traditional "switch." Also, if you've watched him at 2B this year, the plays he has the most trouble with are 2B specific, turning the double-play with a runner baring down, even last night he had issues playing the ball with a runner near by, plays he won't have at 3B. As far as Mangini v Ackley, Matt is likely not an everyday player anywhere, and Dustin could be a future all-star, I'm penciling in Ackley before Mangini. And while Ackley still has some holes in his defensive game, he can get better, Mangini on the other hand will always be a liability. Basically, Figgins is better defensively at 3B than at 2B, Ackley is maybe now, but def in the future a better defender than Mangini, and his bat is better. Ackley >>>>> Mangini, and its not even close. |
| 17. By: Edman on 07-20-2010 15:20:51 Where in the world did I say that it was Mangini versus Ackley? That's not even in question, that Ackley is better. The question is, what value is there to evaluating the future, to move Figgens to third now, to create a hole for Ackley, that he's not even capable of filling for at least another year? The question is, can Mangini fill a role as a bench guy, maybe as soon as sometime next year? Everyone knows what Josh Wilson can do at second. And, nobody doubts that Figgens can hold down third. But, there is value to giving Mangini a test at third, if Lopez is moved. Mangini has been playing both first and third, at Tacoma. I have no idea if he can play second, or how well. The point is, can his bat play at the major league level, as a role player. |
| 18. By: Marco on 07-20-2010 15:22:13 "...until Dustincredible is ready to take over" Dustincredible ? For what exactly, walks, hitting splits vs LHP, defense ? Jeysonheywardincredible, Mikestantonincredible, Carlossantanaincredible, Busterposeyincredible or even Starlincastroincredible...that're incredible. |
| 19. By: Juan Valdez on 07-20-2010 15:39:08 I like the idea of bringing Mangini up in September and then sending him to Winter Ball. The major league staff can then evaluate him again in spring training. |
| 20. By: randallball on 07-20-2010 15:59:45 Kevin Rivers with 2 HR for the Sox today. He's off to a nice start. |
| 21. By: baseballman on 07-20-2010 16:18:07 ya marco, Dustincredible...so get over it |
| 22. By: amsbary on 07-20-2010 16:29:34 Jason, given the latest report in the rumor mill and Inge's injury, what are the chances that we could package Lopez and rumored position player to Detroit for something more than a bag of baseballs? Do we have any other pieces they might want for the stretch run? |
| 23. By: short on 07-20-2010 16:41:44 I'd send those players anywhere for the privelege of not paying them ten million dollars next year. I'd really like to see what Jack could do with the money and our farm system to fill 2B and SS (assuming Figgins returns to 3B). |
| 24. By: brianc1279 on 07-20-2010 16:53:28 I agree that Figgins should return to 3B after the trade deadline. I think they should start getting him back on track and ready for next year. Its not fair to Figgins that he has to be out of his comfort zone playing on a new team, new position and batting second instead of first. It's also not fair to the fans to watch the team pay a free agent millions of dollars and then jerk him around to the point that he underperforms. I'm impressed with his professionalism (there are a lot of players that would be speaking out if they were in his shoes). |
| 25. By: StandinPat on 07-20-2010 17:39:54 Marco, first, Ackley is the M's best positional prospect since AROD and has all the tools to be an exceptional player, second, none of those nicknames you mention make any sense. Ed, I just don't see Figgins as the 2B next year or at any point in the future. I'd rather start the process of moving him back to 3B now, than to leave him there so we can give a look to a player whose upside is as a bench/role player. |
| 26. By: amm02008 on 07-20-2010 17:50:58 Looks like Cortes is finally being converted to a reliever. I'm glad. He was Snellian as a starter but I think he has the stuff to be a reliever. |
| 27. By: Edman on 07-20-2010 18:05:29 And, that's where we disagree. I do see value in looking at role players, especially when the club isn't in a position to make the playoffs. All positions need to be evaluated. If Jack thinks Mangini can provide something, it's one less hole to fill, at minimum wages, for years to come. The M's are significanly in need of offense, no matter where it comes from, with a few exceptions. Exactly what process does Figgens need to go through, to return to thirdbase? Is he somehow untrained at the position? Exactly what value is there in watching Josh Wilson do what we already know he can do? And honestly, brian, I'm not worried about what's "fair" for Figgins. What's more fair, is performing at a level he was signed to achieve. It's not like he agreed to play third and the M's moved him. Just how did they jerk him around? Wouldn't moving him to third in fact be, jerking him around? He's played one position all season. And, it's not like he's never played second before. He's been there before. Figgins has nobody to blame for his performance, but himself. To cry fowl because he's playing second, is ridiculous. And, I don't recall him ever saying it was a problem. The irony is that some went on about how much improvement there would be at second, defensively, with Lopez moved. Figgins offers more offense, but he hasn't been any better than Lopez. |
| 28. By: StandinPat on 07-20-2010 18:31:15 Yes Ed, we definitely disagree. I see a lefty bench bat who is basically a 1B/DH type that should only get a handful of starts at 3B as being way down on the shopping list. As you've stated, this club isn't in a position to make the playoffs, so shouldn't they be focusing on getting the most out of their starting nine before worrying about bench players. It's almost like worrying about who's gonna be the mop-up guy in the bullpen next year. It's one of the last pieces to try to find on a winning team, not one of the first on a losing team. Honestly I don't know if moving Figgins back would help him or not, but if it does then that move is so much more valuable than trying to find a bench player, and its not even close. And why does moving Figgins mean you couldn't still get a look at Mangini anyway? If the plan is to find out if he can be a bench/role player, why couldn't you give him a look in that exact role, instead of running him out at 3B as an everyday guy? |
| 29. By: littlelinny6 on 07-20-2010 18:47:15 Jason or Chris, Since Cortes is apparently moved to a pen, can we expect him to help the pen next year? He throws so hard as it is it seems his stuff could really play up in the pen. With someone like him and Leuke the bullpen seems like it could get a few nice arms internally. Also I think you guys mentioned you think Hensley could help the M's in 2011 as a reliever, does that mean being a starter long term is not in the cards? Thanks guys. |
| 30. By: Blowgun7 on 07-20-2010 19:17:20 The pen has a chance to be good in the future with League, Kelley, Pryor, Lueke, Cortes, and Hensley. Who knows, maybe Fields gets his act together as well. We still have no lefty specialists anywhere to be found though. |
| 31. By: Lailoken on 07-20-2010 19:32:53 If 2012 is the magic year when the young guys are ready to play at a higher level then moving players like Cortes, Hensley, & Robles to the bullpen makes a lot of sense. With Kelley, League, Lueke, Varvaro, Fields, Cortes, Hensley, Cleto, Pryor, Paredes, Robles, Hyphen, & Moran GMZ can build an inexpensive bullpen from homemade ingredients easy. Paxton signing would be a plus to this strategy as he is a solid bet to remain a starter. With Felix, Vargas, & Fister anchoring the rotation (granted Vargas & Fister are backend innings eaters) the need for starters in the upper minors is less urgent unless they have enough stuff to slot behind Felix. |
| 32. By: Blowgun7 on 07-20-2010 19:58:36 I think in the ideal world we have Felix-Pineda-Paxton-Vargas-Fister anchoring our rotation in 2012, with a huge upside 2011 draft pick SP, knocking on the door. I'm not worried about the SP long term, as long as Pineda can stay healthy and Paxton gets signed (and doesn't suck). We probably go with one of the top arms in the 2011 draft, so by 2012-2013 we could have a very sick rotation. Of course, things never play out that way, but right now you can at least envision a strong young rotation in the near future. It's just up to the players we're talking about to live up to their potential. |
| 33. By: Adam T on 07-20-2010 23:17:13 Honestly, I hope we can do better than Felix/Pineda/Paxton/Vargas/Fister in 2012. Pineda won't have reached his potential in 2012, Paxton likely will have not as well, and Vargas and Fister are end of the rotation types. Hopefully a more established guy will be the rotation in 2012. |
| 34. By: rjfrik on 07-20-2010 23:37:52 Pineda should be a solid #3 by 2012 I would think. I don't think Paxton will be ready at all. He most likely won't play at all this year, so we are talking one year in the minors and then pencil him into the rotation? I don't think so. Hopefully Bedard will be back to full strength next year and can actually have a couple of good years back to back before he fades off into the sunset. |
| 35. By: Edman on 07-21-2010 11:02:23 I find it highly unlikely that the speculation in the latest rumor (7/21) carries much weight. Trading away a good starting pitcher, even if he gets expensive, only creates another hole to fill. Major League experience is important to stabilizing a rotation. I understand the concept of reducing payroll as much as possible. I just don't think you do it when Felix is your only anchor. Fister appears to be returning to a good #4 or #5. Bedard may or may not be healthy next year. Pineda is probably ready for the majors, sometime mid next season. The other part of that speculation makes sense. But, unless it's a real good prospect coming back to Seattle, Jack would be better off to sell low on the second piece, and keep the other. |
| 36. By: zackr on 07-21-2010 12:05:04 @ 35 - I'm rarely on the same page as you, but this raises a good question of the juggernaut of the m's. How much of a selloff can we handle before it screws us for next year and beyond? Although we'd be selling high on Vargas now, his regression to the mean as a starter next year is still a very serviceable #4 starter. Do we have that replacement anywhere (that is reliable). It doesn't look like it. Also, if we sell off the talent we have now the team may end up so incredibly, unbelievably horrendous that come august, ticket sales will hardly be able to keep the lights on in the place. |
| 37. By: StandinPat on 07-21-2010 12:22:16 @35, 36 How are you even coming to this assessment without even knowing what might possibly come in return? Saying "But who will replace player x?" is ridiculous without knowing who's coming back, maybe it IS that players replacement, but just someone who is younger and still a little rough around the edges. As its been stated quite a bit, this isn't a playoff roster, nor will it likely be next year, so taking a half step back now, to take a full step forward a year from now isn't automatically a bad thing. |
| 38. By: Edman on 07-21-2010 12:32:21 Pat, that said, how can anyone speculate, under those same conditions? The point is, trading for inexperience, generally means an extended period of time until you see results. You never build a veteran core, if you have a constantly revolving door. Certainly it depends on who you potentially get back. But, you can't discount the OJT that said pitcher has acquired this season, that someone new coming in, wouldn't have. That has value too. Prospects are a crapshoot. I don't know a team that promotes them to the major league level, that expects them to fail. If they did, their GM should be fired. |
| 39. By: StandinPat on 07-21-2010 12:37:38 "Pat, that said, how can anyone speculate, under those same conditions?" Thats the point Ed, its utterly ridiculous to be for or against trading the player for who knows what. If it was a Michael Pineda type you'd jump for joy, if it was some kid in low A ball you'd scratch your head. The point is, we don't know. But honestly this team needs help all over, if moving said player improved the team in 2 or more other areas, wouldn't that be atleast worth considering? |
| 40. By: Captain Poopy on 07-21-2010 12:59:01 Re: Vargas. He's not a top 3 rotation type pitcher anyway. He's having a great year so far, but he will come crashing down. If he can net us a few good prospects, then why not?! He's a 4 or a 5 - and the type that we don't need to hold on to if it means we get better in other areas. This shouldn't be an argument right now. |
| 41. By: Edman on 07-21-2010 13:02:19 I never said I was against trading him. But, it had better be for greater reasons than potential salary and worry over him being being at his peek trade value. I'll take five or six years of solid contribution in the rotation first. And, let's be more accurate. Could help improve in 2 or more areas, is more accurate. I love prospects, but I don't fall in love with the idea that they, by themselves, will lead the Mariners to the holy land. |
| 42. By: Edman on 07-21-2010 13:10:18 Captain Poopy, you know this for a fact? I don't know what he is yet, and neither do you. Most pitchers don't start out great. Many develop. Continuing to trade guys because you're afraid they won't stay at that level or will decline, will give you a steady revolving door. This isn't short-term investing in the stock market. You don't get bonus points for having more prospects than the other team. It helps, but it's no more a guarantee than banking on Vargas. You have to decide where your core is. If Jack thinks Vargas isn't for real, then trade him. But, do it because they have the evaluation of the coaching staff and scouts, that this is as good as he'll ever be. Not because his value is high and he's gonna cost more money. |
| 43. By: zackr on 07-21-2010 13:16:13 @ 37 Exactly my point. You are trading a known quantity for an unknown quantity. I have as much faith in our front office as anyone - but those unknowns can turn into real disasters (Wilson, Figgins, League for a Brandon Morrow who is now showing promise). I know this is cherry picking examples, but there has to be value in an in-house known quantity. I think we are all working on the assumption that a Vargas trade for an older mlb proven player of equal talent wouldn't happen. How much more 'rough around the edges' can we handle? We have a whole lot of that and it doesn't seem to be working out presently. You can only mortgage the present for the future so much before all of your major league talent is hypothetical (prospects). |
| 44. By: xarmyguy78 on 07-21-2010 14:27:58 I can't believe you used that relif pitchers name and reliable 9th inning arm in the same sentence, since when does he fall into that category? |
| 45. By: StandinPat on 07-21-2010 16:12:16 "I think we are all working on the assumption that a Vargas trade for an older mlb proven player of equal talent wouldn't happen." Again, what exactly are you basing that assumption off of? You've seen a list of a handful of teams looking to make some moves, and the mention of a couple of potential M's that might be made available in the right deal. Saying that they will or won't get A, B, C or D is impossible because you have no idea what any deal might look like. Assuming that the M's won't get major league talent back in a deal involving unknown players and unknown teams is just plain ridiculous. Let's just for a moment consider the fact that the Phillies are making Werth available for big league pitching, but no team in a race is gonna give up their pitching depth. That's where a third team like the M's come in. If a back of the rotation pitcher netted you a player like Reid Brignac that wouldn't atleast get you listening? |
| 46. By: d2ret on 07-21-2010 17:05:24 It might be a longshot to lose out for the top pick and Rendon, but the M's sure are trying.. Too bad Baltimore will be smashed in division competition in September. |
| 47. By: mykillmagnum on 07-21-2010 17:53:23 Jason, How many players from the 25 man roster do you actually see being traded? Could this team really trade 4 or 5 of the players you have mentioned before the end of july and play with triple a players like tui, mangini, maybe even ackley? I like the idea of making these moves, but I don't see any of the players you have mentioned bringing in anything to write home about, are there free agents out there to do some patch work or will we go with a in house fix? |
| 48. By: Edman on 07-21-2010 18:08:15 Pat, Jack is going to listen to a lot of proposals, that's his job. And, he might even put himself somewhere in the mix. Those are givens. All I'm saying is that if Vargas was to be traded, it had better be for someone like Brignac. The M's aren't deep enough in starting pitching, tha they could easily adjust to the loss of Vargas.....both now, and three years from now. |
| 49. By: rjfrik on 07-21-2010 18:26:34 d2ret, Thats what I was thinking when looking at the lineup today. Saunders and Branyan still out. Bedard now out for the year. Trade away a regular or two and a few relievers (if it happens) and I see no way this team wins more then 15 games the rest of the way out. Maybe JZ is going for the gutter this year to get the impact bat he needs for 2012. Too bad he wasn't at the helm in 2008. Do you think he would of trotted out the Safeco 9 for the last series of the year? Or do you think he gives the boys an early vacation and plays for the #1 pick? |
| 50. By: Edman on 07-21-2010 20:23:20 Good lord, not that 2008 thing again. It was Yuni that won that Oakland series. How in the world could ANYONE have thought to remove him to prevent winning? In fact, many would have expected nine Yuni type hitters in the lineup. |
| 51. By: Edman on 07-21-2010 20:25:06 Also, I don't get the feeling that Jack indorses losing for any reason, if it can be prevented.....just saying. |
| 52. By: StandinPat on 07-21-2010 20:30:20 Not to mention that Z doesnt fill out the lineup cards and both those players were recently injured, but other than that... |
| 53. By: mauricewilliamsiii on 07-21-2010 23:39:51 Oakland tanked that last series because they wanted no part of Strasburg for six and a half seasons starting this year. |
| 54. By: rjfrik on 07-22-2010 03:08:51 ha. You might be on to something Maurice. |
| 55. By: d2ret on 07-22-2010 04:24:23 Ha, rjfrik, I didnt mean that literally. I was just making the point of how bad they are playing.. They are playing so bad it just looks like they are trying to lose. But they definately are not. |
Haven't created a Prospect Insider account yet? Sign up!
|
|
 |
|
|
| Copyright 2010 Prospect Insider | Created by AQ Central Prospect Insider is optimized for Mozilla Firefox and Google Chrome |