Jham

Not at this time. But the Rays did trade for him. Same way I see the twins bringing in kalk and trading odorizzi instead of signing cobb as curious. Could mean something, could mean nothing. But look at their stat lines coming through the minors. Polacios is only perhaps 1 step away from matching the likes of Gordon and adames.

Not from what I've read. Strong arm, good glove, range, etc. He's extremely slight. Alexei Ramirez build. I think sometimes people see that and assume glove first/ only. So I would expect him to gain weight and strength, but I have not heard real concerns that he won't play short. I'm guessing the rays think that they can put some muscle on him, teach him to elevate, and have a shot at a 15 to 20 hr ss.

You need to post more. Human nature is darn fascinating. It makes us incredibly predictable at times. And incredibly unpredictable at times. There is no metric to measure the human elements. And yet we each diligently chase our own best interests. Even if it's just a opinion. The Rays don't get ripped off. I looked at Baseball America's prospect rankings for Polacios, Polanco, and Gordon. Really similar profiles. Biggest difference is that Gordon started as a top prospect, Polanco had to work his way there, and Polacios will need to work on to those lists. Polacios is only a year older and 1 level behind Gordon. His offense had developed similarly. His defense is evidently better. Given Polacios' offensive breakout last year, and the sure route to the bigs for ss being defense, it's actually a little is he's not more highly regarded than the 3 others with defensive concerns (and offensive concerns is say). Lewis, Wander, and Gordon were all big dollar bonus babies and have carried all the hype. But if we had to be truly honest, I'm guessing we'd admit doubts regarding each of the other more highly regarded 6s. Lewis slumped after a hot start and always had concerns at short. Gordon's production finally matched the hype, the hype turned around and finally met his performance. Wander Javier had similar questions about his ability to stick at the position, and much like the others, his bat, while showing flashes really hasn't Terry matched the hype. Meanwhile Polacios has quietly climbed the ladder while out hitting the others, apparently adding the power, and without the apparent question marks regarding the glove. In summation, Tampa rarely loses trades. Though they often trade fairly. After all, their model requires frequent trade partners. And you should post more.

Cobb is available to sign, but we were instead interested in trading for 2 other Rays pitchers. We sign Kalk to run numbers. And in the end we choose Hodor. Could be nothing. Could be significant. Also, I believe Sanchez only helps our depth of he makes the team. Less than 50%in my mind. K not guaranteed, and signed prior to the Hodor trade.

The fact that you consider Jorge Jay and Stewart as reasons for optimism makes me all the more pessimistic. Two failed first rounders and a AAAA pitch to contact guy. I see the draft of Jay (And reed and Burdi) as huge organizational failures. The pick of Stewart wasn't awful, but they're failure to either develop him or correctly scout and market him for trade (along with Kepler arguably) is somewhat indefensible in my eyes. I believe Stewart passed Rule 5 draft despite having AAA experience? Hoping he learns to miss bats is a bad risk.

The goal is for the team consultants to beat the cocky team of upstart millennials in a team scrimmage leading to new found respect and a pennant. Major League 4. Also Jason Vargas 1 year 7 mil. 2.19 at 2:19.

In that regard, tear down may have been too extreme of a word. This first couple years may have been more of a see what we've got before the money comes off the books and you can go shopping next year. The biding of time hypothesis.

Again, if it's up to me, I try to make a nice run. That said, you can't ignore the money coming off the books next season. This thread, I thought, was for trying to explain the lack of addressing the rotation. One plausible explanation, in my mind, is that the front office disagrees as to whether this team is truly ready to compete or if the additions don't sync up with their overall plan. Human nature says that if you're constantly under scrutiny, you'd rather pin your success or failure to your own plan than another's. If the front office is skeptical of the team's ability to win now, then they will be extremely hesitant to devote significant resources to that goal.

Well, the bigger piece of evidence is the lack of activity with the rotation compared to short contracts with relievers, the Pineada deal for next season, and apparent lack of discussion of extensions for Mauer, Dozier, Erv or the young guys. Usually they talk in spring training, so perhaps we'll figure out more of the plan shortly.

I'm not so sure. The original plan may have been to replace Molly, trade Dozier, trade Erv, get Mauer off the books, and reload. We could be greying caught in a half-in half-out phase that makes things tough as a GM. Are we buyers? Evidently not. Are we then sellers? Evidently not also. If this team isn't good enough on its own, do we have a plan to get good enough? If not, should we at least consider selling? I just don't think we can easily discount the idea that an expedited tear down and rebuild was the plan. There has to be a limit for how far falvine cam allow things to go off course. Btw, I do not agree with a tear down strategy, but the teams that were popular at the time followed that model. And I believe that was the initial plan. Eventually, if you're going to make a decision that might risk you're career, it has to further your plan and not someone else's. Right now, we have tons of flexibility going into next season. That probably feels pretty good in the FO.

Losing out on Darvish is perfectly defensible. It's just tough to swallow given our needs and the feasibility of the contract for once. Another potential defense could be that the front office is sticking to it's guns and initial analysis. I think competing last year surprised the heck out of them. I think the second Garcia trade represented their gut instinct on the team more than the first one. To some extent they might feel trapped and unable to do the tear down they initially wanted. They may be looking for this team to prove it once again, or to not prove it and allow them to move on to their guys.

It also has a failed premise of trying to predict era. The whole point of fip Siera etc is to get away from era which has too many variable to be a great measure of performance. Why not try to predict itself? The wide variation in fip and xFIP from year to year tells us it's not perfect. But who really cares? Pitchers also change from year to year. There is no perfect measure or perfect prediction. Archer is a top quality pitcher by many measures but not results. We hypothesize why. I believe it's mostly competition. But whatever. He's the exact type of player a team like Tampa is trying to acquire, not trade. They'd have to get a prospect projecting to be better than archer and several pieces that are ready now. We don't even have the first part.

It's based on comparison of FIP (actual HR rate) to xFIP (expected HR rate by league average). I think that's how xFIP is calculated anyway... I'd assume league average is based on that season, but don't know for sure. Could be historical average. That's the same argument I use against Sano when comparing his whole skill set. The HR are nice, but 30 or 35 isn't what it used to be, or it is what it used to be, depending on which era it we're comparing to.

The first two years he gave up fewer HR than expected. The last 2 he gave up more than expected. That explains the variation in my mind and can be interpreted multiple ways. His GB% dropped by 4-5% last year and consequently his babip against went up 30 points. His k rate actually increased. It's an odd mix of stats to be honest. The k% indicates no loss of prowess. The gb% and hr indicate a slight slip. No wonder we have arguments. I think it's more likely the gb% is an aberration over the k% remaining high, so trust the xfip numbers in this case. But I can see the argument that his numbers were saved by a high k% that his other numbers don't seem likely to sustain. I'm a big fan of Archer. I think he's a beast in target field. Cy young candidate. But trading him makes absolutely no sense for Tampa. None. Not happening.

Why trade against leverage (trade deadline) in order to receive a half season or less of a player when you could have traded for them preseason and had them all year? That said, I can't imagine the Rays trading Archer. The guy is a stud and young and under contract. Unless he demanded a trade and said he would absolutely not re-sign with Tampa, they should keep him and continue to build around him.

I dunno. From what I heard other teams knew not to pick him or he'd have gone to LSU. Twins were basically the only team that could offer him enough money by undersigning on Lewis. I love Enlow. I'd have him as my number 1 pitching prospect in the org. I think he needs to be fast tracked before that spin rate causes his arm to detach at the Enlow.. I mean elbow.

I'm not sure what your point is. Criticizing my use of hindsight by offering another example utilizing hindsight? I'll fully admit I'm using hindsight. I'm not sure how else to view history. That said, I've openly defended all of those signings as well even when it wasn't cool. I think Terry Ryan came back to the game with a plan to speed the rebuild. We were trotting out awful arm after awful arm. Speaking of hindsight, who did Nolasco, Hughes, or Pelfrey block? We had to spend some money. We are required to put a pitcher out every game. Some people saw those signings as awful and unnecessary. But couldn't it have also been a realistic view of our farm system at the time, proven correct every time we brought up a young arm you pitch themself out of baseball or nearly so? The idea isn't to burn through every prospect in the system. It's to make accurate judgements and risk assessments so that you don't have to.

Dear goodness... Is it fair to say any talk of a Mauer extension is a waste of time?

Awfully snarky comment for a statement not based in sports economics or real life economics. Franchises don't have to make money. They have to build value. Chewy.com (or some pet supply site) sold to Petco for $3+ million, the largest ever e-commerce acquisition. Chewy didn't make a profit in 6 years. It was founded with $250k in start up funding. They could have ran the business less aggressively. Perhaps they would have sold for $1.35 mil and cost themselves $2 mil without even knowing it. Perhaps they wouldn't have distinguished themselves in a competitive field and not made it at all. 14 NBA Franchises lost money 2 years ago. Down to 7 this year. Are the owners stupid? Or do they know that sustainable losses are worth taking if the overall growth exceeds the expense? For the first time in NBA history, EVERY owner can now say they have a BILLION DOLLAR franchise. Speaking of, the Pohlads have a billion dollar franchise. Perhaps if they had reinvested profits into the team and won, they'd have a $1.5 billion dollar franchise. Or $1.2. Or $1.8. The Cubs' title brought in an estimated $300 million in value to the franchise in a single season. In fact, capital gains tax is about a fourth of income tax for the wealthy. From a tax planning standpoint, you're better off reinvesting income if you can generate real value. We argue that the balance point is further to the left on the spending vs saving continuum of where the Twins are currently operating. We say this because other teams are being more aggressive. The Yankees, for instance, just traded for Giancarlo Stanton.

Sustained.

It's not that rookie pitchers can't be good. It's that none of the guys you mention other than Romero are projected to be better than Kyle Gibson at their peaks. Romero should be conserved for innings and probably debut putt of the pen. The only reason this stings is because the opportunity to sign a Darvish doesn't come along very often for a team with our self-imposed budget restraints.

That's fair, but what are your opinions based on? I've never seen Gonsalves or Romero pitch. Maybe an inning or two last spring training. Mejia peaked at 91 on a BA midseason top 100 list. Gonsalves reached 99. Romero would be higher if more seasoned and durable. Duffy... May is fine but had arm and back problems on top of sporadic command and results. Hughes will either be good again or retire I suspect. I get that you're skeptical of Darish and don't like the years, but the overall contact and aav was very reasonable compared to wishing for lightening in a bottle with 2 rookies and two guys off of surgery.

There's a price for not overpaying. Ironically, it's usually overpaying for worse. Ryan frequently put himself in a pinch by low-balling, missing his target and having to sign or trade or of desperation. Put another way, you're going to sign someone anyway. You're going you over-pay anyway. They will be risky anyway, just the risk is production rather than value. We could have paid Darvish's current deal with the money dropped on Hughes, Nolasco, and Pelfrey. To me, that's more wasteful or moronic than paying through a known decline which you can likely trade away anyway (salary dump or eat salary for prospects). It's easy to call a contract moronic if you choose not to analyze the alternatives. It's like low-balling on your dreamhouse. You don't get the house you want. Rent's going out the door. Now you're desperate to buy any house. You spend your money on the value home in need of repairs. Add the roof, kitchen, plumbing, and furnace and you're in almost as much, and now your cars gone because your neighborhood sucks. Move twice more, hire a tutor because the schools are awful and now your behind.

Do people not get how dramatic a fall off it is from Darvish to whoever we throw out there? Duffy? Gonsalves? Gonsalves profiles almost identically to Mejia no? At least as a prospect? Arguably worse stuff? Romero is most likely a bull pen guy. May couldn't clearly beat out Pelfry. There is some hope there. But realistically no chance in hell any one or combination of those arms can replace the production of a Darvish. I'd actually bet on Hughes to have an impact over any of those other options and I'm not even sure he has any ribs left. Not to mention we'll probably spend that money anyway. On worse components. And if we don't, we're certainly not banking it for next year or for any other signing or extension.

Gonsalves and Romero are nice prospects. They are not Sano, Buxton, or even Berrios or Gibson as prospects. Gonsalves has hardly cracked a top 100 list in his career. Ditto the Romero, although this site seems to hold him in much higher regard than others. These aren't blue chippers. I don't think anyone would bet on either of those two being better than Darvish over the next six years. There's a solid chance that neither of the two will have a season as good as Darvish's worst season over that same stretch. But more to the point, we're trying to win this year. World Series runs take talent and luck. Giving up seasons where you could have enough talent to get lucky is disappointing. I'm concerned that we're gearing up to be sellers at the deadline at this point.