South Dakota Tom

Sorry, Brock and TD, but I advocate running Firefox and adding the AdBlock extension, and it is all eliminated. None of the ads now even show up. I support your site but I kept getting error messages (can't remember the exact wording now) about glitches occurring in running programs from those ads, and I couldn't even navigate the website anymore without doing something drastic.

To me, the highlight of this trade (or similar ones) is to demonstrate how close we are to having a strong lineup in the next couple of years. I think the only way to accomplish it is to wait and see what plays out - that is clearly what the F.O. is doing. This is good in that we aren't throwing top prospects at one guy in the hopes he puts us over the top. It is bad in that I don't see anything happening for quite awhile yet (until we figure out who is going to be good and who is going to be gone). But that batting lineup looks good to me, and I'd like to see it in place sooner rather than later (a call echoed throughout this website for several years).

Seth, et al - this is a great series, but I would like to see a 2014 slash line for the player. It helps me decide whether the projected lines are reasonable progressions or regressions. Several of these profiles have not contained a 2014 baseline. Add doubles, triples, SBs, SOs, whatever, but at least avg/obp/slg plus doubles/homers.

The eyeball test last year didn't suggest to me that a quicker outfield would have contained Ricky Nolasco. That man's era wouldn't have dropped half a run if he pitched for the Royals post-season defense. I'm not an advanced stat person, but it strikes me that someone who consistently underperforms his peripheral numbers simply means that he pitches less well in crucial situations. That his hr/walk/strikeout ratios versus his era means that one batter per game that you "really need to get out" he doesn't get out as often as all the other guys he pitches to. That's what you see when you look at the guy some of the time as well. He augers in and digs a hole and his numbers reflect that. It's like that relief pitcher we all hate (no names here) who allows in the inherited runner, but keeps his era low because the guy after him keeps his runner(s) from scoring. Yes, I think defense matters - it inspires confidence, and confidence influences pitch selection, and stops a pitcher from trying to be too fine, and allows him to relax. Most everybody reading this wants him to find that peace and confidence and relaxation (even in the absence of the stout D).

We have 52 replies but one question: what do we have? Is he a late-inning stopper? A top of the rotation guy? A long reliever? A #3? You have to let this guy pitch! He's going to be whatever he is, but his confidence is not going to increase or decrease depreciably in minor league baseball. He has big-league talent, and he needs to slot in to this team now. He's way past worrying about his ego getting bruised by being hit. He might rise to the occasion but we are never going to find out until we put him on the field. He does not strike me as a pitcher who needs more seasoning. Whatever strengths or shortcomings he has, he is ready to work them out in the big leagues. Ready or not ready, he's a big boy. I think he's ready - to find out. (I know I am ready to find out).

Most of the folks here remember that Pelfrey was, for several months of 2013, the best starting pitcher we had on the staff. For a period, Sam Deduno took over. So I'm a little reluctant to "anoint" anyone. Anyone here want to look at 2013 posts about who we thought would be the core rotation come 2015? I'm also very reluctant (points well made by Leviathan and brvama) to put a lot of stock in stats compiled in March. I've been to spring training. I don't want it to be a full-blown competition. I would rather pitchers went to the mound saying that they were going to work on their mechanics/slider/cutter/location without feeling like raw numbers were going to dictate their futures. That same mentality applies to batters - we know that Hicks can rake when he knows what's coming. I'll make one more point here. I try to trust the staff to decide what's best. At the same time, I do understand that this decision is, always, more than which pitcher gives the team the best chance to win today. It's an imperfect analogy, but I watched a Duke team in the early 80s when Krzyzewski marched out freshmen Dawkins, Bilas, Henderson, and Alarie over holdovers Emma, Engelland and Meagher, because he knew that those freshmen were the core of the future. This team needs a blueprint. It needs leadership; it needs to sell tickets. But more than anything, they need to figure out a path to be "good" and that's been sorely lacking for a few years. If that means we choose the guys that are eventually going to be on the good team, then do that. I'll be giddy it if we strike lightning in a bottle. I watched it happen a dozen years ago. But if we keep losing and dancing around the rebuild with a roster of guys who are, today, better than the alternatives, I'm not just going to avoid going to games. I'm gonna join that riot.

If we got an established CF, I fear this conversation would turn into the same one we're having about relief pitching and potential young starters - that they have now blocked the progression of the next winning team. At some point, you have to go one way or the other - either take a chance on youngsters (while not blocking anyone who rises to the position) or keep signing mid-level talent to make us slightly more competitive now. I guess it's also true that (at least theoretically) both can be accomplished. You pencil in the guys you think are the long-term solution and their timetable, and you simultaneously fill the roster with short-term players who you would gladly waive or trade if said youngster proves ready. So what's the domino effect? Sign someone, then keep Schafer and Hicks and dump Nunez, in order to maximize flexibility in the OF?