Search results

Not true, waiting roughly 3 to 4 weeks into the 2017 season would have avoided super 2 status, but we would have had to wait until sometime in June to gain an extra year of contractual control.

These last 43 games will essentially be an audition to see if Dansby is ready to be our starting shortstop starting in 2017. John Hart basically said as much. If he struggles, I think it is very possible he starts 2017 in either AA or AAA, and yes his clock would stop until he was brought back...

This FO has made is perfectly clear they couldn't care less about service time. I don't agree with this philosophy at all, but it is their stance.

Yea, if the plan was to start Dansby to start 2017 in the new ballpark, then they may as well bring him up now to get some experience, as these last 43 games of 2016 won't affect his service time with us at all.

Very nice, got Detroit's #20 prospect, at as dak pointed out, at a position of need for 6 weeks of Aybar, plus gained $1.5MM in salary. Good job John.

Bucket of balls?

OK guys, I relent. Not because Hunter had one bad inning (can happen to anyone), but because I've had time to digest the trade, and have changed my overall opinion based on the apparent pipeline of guys like Cervenka that we can replace him with.

Really, embarrassing and inexcusable? Guy just threw a quality start in just his 2nd major league start, 1 BB and 7 K's, and you pick out one pitch that really wasn't even that bad? Geez.

You don't compile a 2.45 ERA, WHIP of 1.115, K/BB ratio of 2.67 in the minors without having at least decent stuff. Understandably, he had serious jitters in his first major league inning, but I think he could settle in and become a solid #4 starter in the majors.

Perhaps, or he could improve that and remain a useful piece at minimal cost for years. Most likely neither guy we got will amount to what he has already accomplished.

It basically is a trade where we shipped out a guy that has been pretty good for us this year, and could continue to be useful for the next several years at minimal cost, for two prospects that are marginal at best, with the best case scenario of one of them being as useful as Cervenka has been...

I don't give a damn if he has 100 speed, the guy can't hit so what good is speed if you can't get on base? Not bemoaning losing Cervenka, bemoaning the awful return.

You'll take it? Why? If Cervenka had been a pending FA I could see it, but he has proven he can get major league hitters out with 6 years of control remaining, and you trade him away for two guys that are struggling in the low minors and have very little chance of ever contributing close to...

I really don't understand this trade for the Braves. Why would you trade a major league lefty reliever who has been pretty darn good, one we would have had under our control for the next 6 years, for two C prospects that most likely will never contribute? Baffling.

Solid lefty reliever with 6 years of control left. Should be able to get a decent prospect for him.

So net payroll dollars per year to get Kemp and get rid of HO: 2017 +$12.25MM 2018 +$11.75MM 2019 +$10.75MM 2020 -$8.5MM So over the course of the next 4 years, we will pay Kemp $26.25MM more than we would have paid HO. Assuming $7MM equals 1 WAR, Kemp will need to be worth roughly...

Wisler sent back to Gwinnett.

He's a 3rd baseman but was moved to 2nd since he was blocked by Gallo and Beltre. I'm sure we will move him back to 3rd. He was ranked 20th in the Rangers very good farm system, so this is a really good trade for us. A+

If Alvarez is included, we better get at least a decent prospect back. He has been excellent for us this year and still has 5 years of control left. He alone should have pretty decent value. Couple him with Harrell, we better be getting back more than minor league filler.

Of course, 8 of the top 10 are pitchers, which you know we will take one of them. I will be floored if we take a position guy.