Tenacious D Posted July 12 Posted July 12 I wonder why they don’t try Anderson at 1B in Toledo? Quote
Edman85 Posted July 12 Posted July 12 (edited) 11 hours ago, 4hzglory said: I’m not sure, but I am sure the draft pick compensation for SkubalMize would drop from a 1st to a 4th. Not sure about losing the competitive balance pick also which would be after the 1st next year. Correct... compensation picks slide back from 1st to 4th, and you lose the competitive balance pick. This all assumes current rules stay, but it is very possible they don't. But if they push to win the World Series, the weakened 2027 draft is a small price to pay. Edited July 12 by Edman85 3 Quote
chasfh Posted July 12 Posted July 12 Giving up a decent chance to make the playoffs in exchange for the chance to maybe be a playoff contender three or four years from now strikes me as baseball’s platonic ideal of counting chickens before they hatch. 2 Quote
4hzglory Posted July 12 Posted July 12 57 minutes ago, chasfh said: Giving up a decent chance to make the playoffs in exchange for the chance to maybe be a playoff contender three or four years from now strikes me as baseball’s platonic ideal of counting chickens before they hatch. I’m definitely not for selling, I just think they need to stay under the tax, to not lose the comp a pick, and drop 3 rounds in compensation if they lose Mize or Skubal. i also think this team is good enough to win the AL, especially on the pitching side if they get into the postseason. Quote
casimir Posted July 12 Posted July 12 I think they have to have plans in plans to buy, to sell, and to buy and sell, and be ready to go down any of those paths. 2.5 games behind a wildcard spot and 5.0 games behind the division lead with 67 games left is not insurmountable at all. And while we don’t know which path they will go down, and I guess we also have to acknowledge that standing pat is another path, I think the larger unknown for us is the timing of when any move might be carried out. I think if they move quickly, it’s going to be to pursue the postseason as the primary and perhaps they also sell to address the future as the secondary. Quote
1984Echoes Posted July 12 Posted July 12 10 hours ago, Tenacious D said: I wonder why they don’t try Anderson at 1B in Toledo? Seriously! Quote
Tiger337 Posted July 12 Posted July 12 I would not worry about going over the threshold if they can significantly improve their chances of winning a championship. Picking up another Kyle Finnegan would not qualify, but picking up a shutdown reliever with a long track record would. So would picking up a good hitter. 1 Quote
casimir Posted July 12 Posted July 12 10 hours ago, Tenacious D said: I wonder why they don’t try Anderson at 1B in Toledo? A look at defensive stats for the Hens shows 3 or 4 different guys with at least 100 defensive innings at each non P and C position except for CF where Clark has almost all of the playing time. As for Anderson at 1B, I don’t know. Maybe they’re just not ready to move him down the defensive spectrum, maybe he’s still working on aspects of 2B/3B until they decide it’s fruitless? Quote
casimir Posted July 12 Posted July 12 5 minutes ago, Tiger337 said: I would not worry about going over the threshold if they can significantly improve their chances of winning a championship. Picking up another Kyle Finnegan would not qualify, but picking up a shutdown reliever with a long track record would. So would picking up a good hitter. Yup. Ain’t my money. And it’s unlikely they’ll continue to be over the threshold enough to impart ill effects for the long term. Quote
Tiger337 Posted July 12 Posted July 12 17 minutes ago, casimir said: Yup. Ain’t my money. And it’s unlikely they’ll continue to be over the threshold enough to impart ill effects for the long term. Losing a draft pick could hurt a little, but it would be worth it for the right player. I don't care about the financial penalty at all. Quote
chasfh Posted July 12 Posted July 12 37 minutes ago, Tiger337 said: Losing a draft pick could hurt a little, but it would be worth it for the right player. I don't care about the financial penalty at all. I care about the financial penalty only to the degree that the team allows it to artificially restrict their spending elsewhere. Quote
casimir Posted July 12 Posted July 12 41 minutes ago, Tiger337 said: Losing a draft pick could hurt a little, but it would be worth it for the right player. I don't care about the financial penalty at all. The caveats are we don’t know what this process looks like in the next CBA and it sounds like next season’s draft class isn’t so robust. 2 minutes ago, chasfh said: I care about the financial penalty only to the degree that the team allows it to artificially restrict their spending elsewhere. From an opportunity cost standpoint, sure, that makes sense. Quote
Tiger337 Posted July 12 Posted July 12 2 hours ago, chasfh said: I care about the financial penalty only to the degree that the team allows it to artificially restrict their spending elsewhere. Sure, but there is no way for a fan of knowing whether the money would be used elsewhere or whether it restricts their future spending. The only time I really notice is when they sign a guy to a long term deal and then he performs poorly at the end of the contract and they keep running him out there because of the financial commitment. Most of the players obtained in deadline deals don't have much time left on their contracts, so it's just a short-term commitment. Quote
chasfh Posted July 12 Posted July 12 18 minutes ago, Tiger337 said: Sure, but there is no way for a fan of knowing whether the money would be used elsewhere or whether it restricts their future spending. The only time I really notice is when they sign a guy to a long term deal and then he performs poorly at the end of the contract and they keep running him out there because of the financial commitment. Most of the players obtained in deadline deals don't have much time left on their contracts, so it's just a short-term commitment. I know we don't know for sure. But I know they know for sure. And I do think we fans can put 2 and 2 together in obvious cases. But yeah, I'm speaking in theory. Quote
Tiger337 Posted July 12 Posted July 12 14 minutes ago, chasfh said: I know we don't know for sure. But I know they know for sure. And I do think we fans can put 2 and 2 together in obvious cases. But yeah, I'm speaking in theory. I can't think of a lot of obvious cases othrr than the situation I mentioned. Fans complained that they shouldn't have spent money on Verlander because that money could have been used elsewhere, but I don't think it would have been. I think there are a lot cases like that when players are signed outside of a set budget. Quote
4hzglory Posted July 12 Posted July 12 (edited) 3 hours ago, Tiger337 said: Losing a draft pick could hurt a little, but it would be worth it for the right player. I don't care about the financial penalty at all. For me, it may be different if it was 1 of the draft consequences-again, assuming there aren’t massive changes to the draft pick compensation/competitive bonus structure. But the difference between 4 picks before the 2nd round and 1 is too much to add at the margins IMO. (could be 5 and 2 if McGonigle wins ROY) Edited July 12 by 4hzglory Quote
4hzglory Posted July 12 Posted July 12 The only way I think it makes sense to add is if they can move some $ out. But not sure who you move in that case that gives you enough $ to get someone who improves from where you were. Maybe If you could get someone to take all of Jansen’s contract? Torres?-but he’s the type of hitter they need. Flaherty? But then you lose Montero in the bullpen. Not really sure who else besides Skubal/Mize/Finnegan makes enough to give $ flexibility to acquire solid veterans, but I wouldn’t trade them as they’re important to our chance of getting to and advancing in the playoffs. Best bet might be to find someone young enough whose has a minimum salary, and be willing to attach high enough prospects to one of our minimum salary players to get them. Maybe the right person would be worth including Yost and Anderson, even Chris Rodriguez for example and if you could get them to take Jansen it gives a bit more flexibility. Quote
1984Echoes Posted July 12 Posted July 12 3 minutes ago, 4hzglory said: The only way I think it makes sense to add is if they can move some $ out. But not sure who you move in that case ... Maybe If you could get someone to take all of Jansen’s contract? Flaherty? But then ... Jansen and/or Flaherty make the most sense, to me... Quote
Edman85 Posted July 12 Posted July 12 The financial penalty if you are just over is a drop in the bucket. 1 Quote
monkeytargets39 Posted July 12 Posted July 12 I still say sell Skubal. Feel free to sell Skubal for future pieces and then also buy to continue to compete this year, but don’t lose Skubal for nothing. Do something creative like trade Skubal and Gleyber to the Dodgers, have the Dodgers send a package of good prospects to the Twins, and then we acquire a Dodgers OF prospect and Joe Ryan. 1 Quote
Edman85 Posted July 12 Posted July 12 I think 2024 has warped people if they think selling Skubal and pushing for 2026 is a good idea. 2 1 Quote
4hzglory Posted July 12 Posted July 12 16 minutes ago, Edman85 said: The financial penalty if you are just over is a drop in the bucket. Exactly. If it was only financial, it wouldn’t be an issue at all. Quote
Nate7474 Posted July 13 Posted July 13 3 minutes ago, Edman85 said: I think 2024 has warped people if they think selling Skubal and pushing for 2026 is a good idea. I don't know about that in this age of baseball where starts only go 6 innings. Skubal averages roughly 6 innings in every start and he pitches roughly 31 games in a regular season. In 162 game season so 1458 innings and hes going to pitch around 190 innings in a healthy year so hes a part of roughly 13% of season. I think if you are able to get 1 top 100 prospect and 2 other high minors prospects who are basically ready you might be able to make up that 13%. Now the pain will be in the playoffs as he is going to give you better chance then almost any starter for at least 2 games in every series. I would trade him this deadline no matter what we look like as a team if you like the return and don't plan on signing him. I also would not be interested in the Tigers resigning him if its more then 40 million or more then 5 years. 1 Quote
monkeytargets39 Posted July 13 Posted July 13 11 minutes ago, Edman85 said: I think 2024 has warped people if they think selling Skubal and pushing for 2026 is a good idea. Depends on what they do. Personally I think this season isn’t worth buying into just because of the bullpen. I’d rather get something for Skubal regardless. Between the CBA needing to be settled and our lack of expiring deals to use in trades next year—this is our opportunity to capitalize on adding some depth and talent 1 Quote
IdahoBert Posted July 13 Posted July 13 If Valencia works out as a catcher and has offensive potential, what becomes of Jake Rogers? And yeah, I know he can play first base but that means some change in Torkelson’s status with the team which is also complicated and I guess he could DH. It just seems like Jake is the odd man out. Could they get anything for Jake Rogers in a trade? Would a National League team take him? Because I wouldn’t want to face too many American League teams with him knowing as much as he does about this one. And of course, I have a soft spot in my heart for him. But I can’t see this team carrying three catchers for too long. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.