2015 Farm System Rankings (Law 6th/Fangraphs 6th)

Julio3000 said:
I'm intrigued by Ruiz. We may end up feeling better about the Gattis deal than about the other big talent offloads. Fried and Miller have a lot to say about that, I guess.
Click to expand...

The Upton deal is a bad one (Hart overplayed his hand and should've waited to the deadline once that happened). The Heyward deal looks much better in context with the Upton deal, but I would like it more if Walden hadn't been a part of it. I really liked the Gattis deal. And the other deals outside of the Stella! trade have all been solid.
 
Dalyn said:
The Upton deal is a bad one (Hart overplayed his hand and should've waited to the deadline once that happened). The Heyward deal looks much better in context with the Upton deal, but I would like it more if Walden hadn't been a part of it. I really liked the Gattis deal. And the other deals outside of the Stella! trade have all been solid.
Click to expand...

That's what drives me crazy about this re-build. It could have been done by keeping Heywayrd (or Upton)

We could have made every move identical to what we did, except for the Heyward trade (and not signing Markakis). And we would have really set up our farm system AND kept a potential star for the magical 2017. I also would have traded Kimbrel.
 
sturg33 said:
That's what drives me crazy about this re-build. It could have been done by keeping Heywayrd (or Upton)

We could have made every move identical to what we did, except for the Heyward trade (and not signing Markakis). And we would have really set up our farm system AND kept a potential star for the magical 2017. I also would have traded Kimbrel.
Click to expand...

I think trading Kimbrel is a terrible idea. Other than that, I pretty much agree, except I would've made the Heyward trade over the Upton one.
 
MadduxFanII said:
I really don't think any franchise in the game would have kept Heyward at AAA for any considerable length of time in 2010. Some undoubtedly would have kept him down for a few weeks to push back the service time clock, but we had a massive hole in right field, a competitive team on the verge of a playoff berth and Heyward had just finished clobbering the holy hell out of AA. Maybe 15 or 20 years ago he would have spent some time in AAA, but in the MLB of 2010, that guy plays in the big leagues.

Simmons is a different, slightly more difficult case, and he was undoubtedly rushed a bit. But again, the big league club was in the middle of a 94-win season and spent the season in a legitimate race for the division despite a massive sucking chest wound at shortstop. I'm not going to say that we would have missed the playoffs without Simmons- we ended up winning the Wild Card by six games, and no one is that good. But contending teams just don't run Tyler Pastornicky, Paul Janish and a game but out of position Martin Prado at shortstop.
Click to expand...

I agree on Heyward. He was athletically ready and brought a lot to the table. I guess my point is that the game is one of adjustments and plateaus and maybe a little more honing would have helped him. Maybe not.

The Simmons' move was necessitated, as you've pointed out, by the failure of the Pastornicky experiment. He was the best option for a team bent on contending because of his glove. Anything he did with the bat was a bonus. Maybe they took a "he is what he is offensively" approach with him figuring that no amount of additional minor league time would help him. I just think it's difficult to learn the game at the big league level.
 
Dalyn said:
The Upton deal is a bad one (Hart overplayed his hand and should've waited to the deadline once that happened). The Heyward deal looks much better in context with the Upton deal, but I would like it more if Walden hadn't been a part of it. I really liked the Gattis deal. And the other deals outside of the Stella! trade have all been solid.
Click to expand...

Going into the off-season, I thought if they were going to trade one of J. Upton and Heyward, it would be J. Upton because the return would likely be higher. Shows how much I know.
 
Dalyn said:
The Upton deal is a bad one (Hart overplayed his hand and should've waited to the deadline once that happened). The Heyward deal looks much better in context with the Upton deal, but I would like it more if Walden hadn't been a part of it. I really liked the Gattis deal. And the other deals outside of the Stella! trade have all been solid.
Click to expand...

This is complete speculation. We have no idea what kind of offers were being made for him.
 
nsacpi said:
The proof will ultimately be in the pudding. I liked the returns we got in the La Stella, Carpenter and Kubitza trades. Did not think we got good value in the Heyward, Upton and Gattis trades. Let's see how it all pans out.
Click to expand...

How on earth did we not get good value for Gattis? I don't even think it's debatable.
 
Dalyn said:
You saying it is complete speculation is complete speculation.
Click to expand...

I'm not making a claim, so there's the difference. I'm not saying "oh he could've gotten something better for JUp if he played it right" or "the deal we got was 100% the best one every available." You're stating speculation as fact.
 
Dalyn said:
The Upton deal is a bad one (Hart overplayed his hand and should've waited to the deadline once that happened). The Heyward deal looks much better in context with the Upton deal, but I would like it more if Walden hadn't been a part of it. I really liked the Gattis deal. And the other deals outside of the Stella! trade have all been solid.
Click to expand...

yeezus said:
This is complete speculation. We have no idea what kind of offers were being made for him.
Click to expand...

A is offering Z to B for Y. B counters and offers C. A refuses and again offers Z to B for Y. B then offers C to X for D. X accepts. A later trades Z to B for? Y? I seriously doubt it. It's simple logic, really.
 
yeezus said:
I'm not making a claim, so there's the difference. I'm not saying "oh he could've gotten something better for JUp if he played it right" or "the deal we got was 100% the best one every available." You're stating speculation as fact.
Click to expand...

You're speculating that it's speculation.
 
Dalyn said:
A is offering Z to B for Y. B counters and offers C. A refuses and again offers Z to B for Y. B then offers C to X for D. X accepts. A later trades Z to B for? Y? I seriously doubt it. It's simple logic, really.
Click to expand...

What?
Tell me then, what offers did Hart turn down for JUp?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top