I've been rooting for TB, as I usually do, and am disappointed in the Red Sox for rolling over so pathetically against the Orioles and doing zilch to help (to Gerry's question, I would bet that they will be no less flaccid against the Yankees). And the Rays are no impostors what with the best run differential in the AL and all. Not sure how Maddon does it. The names on paper just don't seem to add up to much. Ever. If there is a better manager in baseball I'd like to know who it is.

The Red Sox have been as poor this September as last, even without the beer and fried chicken. Heading into September of 2011, they seemed playoff-bound and looked like a reasonably strong organization. They sure don't look that way any more. Not sure what this off-season has in store, but the instinct to lump them in as a division power house moving forward is no longer there. Presumably they'll look to spend a chunk of their freed up cash but this is not the greatest FA market.

While seeing the Orioles do well may please many, I am, frankly, put off by the game of mirrors they have been playing. Yes, insofar as they actually won all those games, they have deserved to do so, but I don't like seeing phony baloney teams get rewarded. That said, they have been a .667 team the past two months (and only slightly above Pythagoras) and some could argue that what was luck for the first 4 months has been legitimate skill the past 2 months and the team they are running out now is fully deserving. I imagine they will be the darlings of many and surely won't miss me on their bandwagon.

So with TB almost certainly not playoff-bound, I find myself rooting for the A's. I always felt that Billy Beane deserved a better fate in earlier times, and while I didn't see this particular incarnation of the A's as even a .500 team, their success has been well earned and the corresponding screw you to the anti-Moneyball crowd has been enjoyable. Kind of anti-schadenfreude.

As for the NL, Washington seems like a juggernaut but if the Cards win their play-in against Atlanta, I'd find myself looking at them as a potential dark horse. Pythagoras has not been kind to them. They are much stronger than many are giving credit. That said, that one-game play-in, presumably against baseball's hottest starting pitcher, Kris Medlen, will be a serious impediment.

Braves' trivia: Kimbrel has struck out 113 of 227 batters faced, just a hair below 50%. No pitcher, I don't think, has ever struck out 50%.

Question: if you're Bruce Bochy, what is your rotation?

I would have gone with Janssen instead of Loup to face Swisher in the 7th and tried to preserve the lead. That's when the game needed saving. While Janssen wouldn't be able to finish off the game, he was a better option to put out the fire than Loup.

I'm quite aware that no manager in the game today would do this. I just can't understand why. Something is seriously wrong when a manager thinks that getting a save for his best reliever is more important than getting a win for his team. Farrell let today's game slip away in the late innings without ever having Janssen warm up, and that doesn't make any sense to me.

I'm not expecting Farrell to suddenly start quoting WAR or FIP, but I don't think that using a little common sense every now and then is too much to ask of him.

I'm quite aware that no manager in the game today would do this. I just can't understand why.

Did Farrell really display a lack of 'common sense', if no one else that holds the same position (or at least the vast majority) would have done the same thing? I know losses are frustrating, but Farrell really does seem like a misguided target in this case. In this case, 4 different arms were given the opportunity to contribute, and none of them could. I see this one on the players, and not some relative failing of the manager. It feels like a tilt at the windmill to think otherwise.

And while the Angels have C.J. Wilson on the mound tomorrow in Seattle, they're facing Felix Hernandez. The Angels are losing as I type this, so it doesn't look good for them.

I didn't intend to hijack the playoff chatter thread with my bullpen discussion. I was mostly just venting about the way the Blue Jays lost their last meaningful game of the year, as it would've been nice to bump the Yankees into second place. I'll respond to the points Spifficus raised in the Quest for 70 thread.

Another way to put it: the Pirates haven't had a winning season in Bryce Harper's lifetime. Harper was born two days after game 7 of the 1992 NLCS.

When I suggested pursuing Soler before he signed with the Cubs, it was pretty much crickets around here.

In fairness, though, it's the organization's job to be on top of players like that, not this forum's.

It is pretty clear, based on this past off-season, that AA is not going to change, whether due to financial restraints or his own personal choosing. Last off-season he had every chance to sign cheap one year stop-gaps to fill the rotation, but he instead opted to go with Drabek, Alvarez, and a heavily rushed Hutchison when internal options like Cecil, McGowan, and Carreno could not go. He went with Thames in the OF and was ready to move on with a first round pick for Kelly Johnson before KJ decided to accept arbitration. His big off-season move for a closer was made almost entirely because of the cost effective contract that Santos has (and likely projection that Santos' K rates would make him an elite closer). Nothing has really changed, and the worst case happened because young players regressed and/or got hurt, and Bautista missed the last two+ months of the season.

Basically, all the talk about Fielder, Darvish, etc, was pointless. AA was never going to do any of that. His goal, whether right or wrong, is to find cost effective talent that he can either acquire at low value and lock up or talent already signed that he can use for x amount of years. That also explains his reasoning for acquiring Happ, Lincoln, and Delabar. He wants to win with a low payroll, probably out of necessity due to Rogers and the snakeoil salesman himself Paul Beeston, so it is hard to really look at lost opportunity when those opportunities were likely never even considered given the cost associated with them.

I am willing to bet that the players he uses to fill holes this season are going to be in the same vein as Rasmus, Lawrie, Escobar, Morrow, Santos, Lincoln, etc. If not, they will be Alex Gonzalez short-term types (maybe Scutaro at 2B?). For all the talk about "now" being the time to start adding players (right, because the season after losing 90 games seems like the ideal time to start adding pieces), it is all BS, IMO. We as fans just have to hope internal improvement and maybe some luck helps the team out next year.

This sounds eerily like a description of Ricciardi's tenure, apart from the Burnett/Ryan spending blip. Remember when JPR was going to turn the Jays into "a developmental machine"?

Unfortunately, either Rogers, AA, or both, want the team to be run like the Rays. Everything they have done since AA took over shows that (except the playoff appearances). Maybe hiring a Joe Maddon type can turn the existing roster into a winner, who knows, but I'm not going to expect any big signings or trades. If this team makes the playoffs in 2013, it will be because Bautista and EE carry the offense, Lawrie/Rasmus/Escobar/Romero have bounce back years, Morrow continues on his great season, Happ's ratios from 2012 turn into 2013 success, Alvarez pans out, Santos/Delabar/Lincoln/Janssen/etc form a knockout pen, etc. It won't be because Greinke and Hamilton put the team over the top, that's for sure.

Speaking of Prince Fielder.  He's in line to play 162 games this season with an OPS+ of 151.  He's missed one game in the last four seasons and a total of 12 in his 7 full seasons.  On the other end of the spectrum, Troy Tulowitzki is up to about 200 games missed in his career.

So which players is it this forum's job to be on top of? And what do you mean by "players like that"?

I understood your crickets remark to mean that given that this forum expressed little interest in Soler, that the organization should not then be blamed for seemingly having been no more interested than we.

My counter was intended to suggest that we, as a forum, are permitted to miscalculate the value of international free agents insofar as being on top of such matters is none of our jobs.

Perhaps I misunderstood your initial remark.

Except that AA has stated clearly, in every recent interview, that he IS going to change. He has stated that he will go after free agents, he will boost the payroll, he's not focusing on prospects any more, he is in "win now" mode.

I understand your skepticism, but your skepticism has slipped into outright cynicism, which is probably not warranted. To be fair, we should wait and see if AA does what he is promising to do. If he fails to do it, then let's criticize him. But let's give him a chance first.

AA also said he did not envision the payroll skyrocketing either. If he starts making trades for players (say, Justin Upton for example), then he is trading away the one thing he spent three years trying to build (the farm system). At this point, I think the Jays should hold on to Sanchez/Nicolino/Syndergaard with a vice grip. Don't let any of them go. But that is why free agency is the better option, because then all he would be giving up is money, not assets. You can bet if he goes after Upton or Felix Hernandez, or players of that kind, he will have to part with his top prospects. No way around it.


Last off-season was different from this off-season, because the Jays were still in rebuilding mode. Circumstances have changed. The Jays have done all of the preliminary things that they wanted to do (rebuild the farm system, acquire young core players such as Lawrie and Rasmus, sign long-term contracts with key middle-of-the-order hitters such as Bautista and Encarnacion, etc). Now they have no excuses, and I think AA fully realizes that.

But practically everyone on the team, save for Encarnacion and Morrow, regressed this season. I'm not sure how AA could feel last season's team wasn't ready, yet next season's team (which won't have Drabek and Hutchison as top prospects to plug into the rotation) is somehow ready for pieces to be added for a run. The team needs a 2B, LF,  DH/1B (whichever Encarnacion is not playing), and at least two MLB starters, and on top of that they need their core players to bounce back (Bautista, Lawrie, Rasmus, Escobar, Romero, Santos, etc, etc, etc). I mean, the latter could happen, and maybe if Farrell/Murphy/Walton are sacked it becomes more probable, but how can AA possibly rely on that at this point?

If they went out and got Darvish last season, sure, they still finish 4th place this season, but they would have Darvish next season too. AA, by his own accord, was in "asset building" stage the first three years on the job. Unfortunately, it was only "cheap as dirt" assets, and not something better than that. I don't blame AA for that. He is doing what ownership wants him to.

Let's give AA a chance to stick to his plan and follow his strategy. If he fails to spend in the coming off-season, then he will have clearly broken his promise. But let's wait and see.

I was somewhat disappointed in the last off-season because I thought the Jays had a chance at the 2nd wild-card if they had acquired a good pitcher and DH, but in retrospect it was probably a bit too early -- and that was probably AA's thinking too. Let's wait and see.

I have no problem letting AA do this thing. Like I said, this is reality. The Jays are being built like the Rays. Rogers wants to win by spending as little as possible. Once revenue increases (i.e. playoff appearances), then adding payroll will be less of a burden on the bottomline, so I have no doubt the Jays will increase spending at least to league average levels eventually, but that intiial playoff berth that all of us have been waiting nearly two decades for will come in the form of a low (relative to league) $85 million payroll, and it will only be that high because existing talent is becoming more expensive.

That's not me being angry; that is simply the way the team wants to build a winner.

I don't agree with the Sanchez/Nicolino/Syndergaard comment.  First, chances are only one of them will be a stud.  Second, everything has value.  If you get an offer you can't refuse then you have to take it.  To give an extreme example, let's say there is a deal on the table for a #1 pitcher, Felix Hernandez, then you have to let one of them go.  Maybe some team falls in love with Aaron Sanchez and thinks he is their number 1 target and is willing to open the bank, then you have to go.

This will be a different off-season for the Jays.  Pressure is building on many fronts to compete next season.  The Fans have come out in 2012; Beeston promised contention; and AA is under increasing pressure to deliver.  I would expect that one of those three will be dealt this off-season.  AA went to Lansing several times this year and he saw all three pitch twice.  Why?  He knows he may have to deal one and needs to feel comfortable with his choice.The Jays have an understanding of the kids value and those kids are part of the Jays most valuable assets.

If you are going to trade for a valuable piece for 2013 who are you going to give in return if not one of those kids?  Gose, Hechavarria, D'Arnaud, Marisnick and the "Lansing three" are the Jays best minor league trading pieces.

If the Jays sign a free agent this off-season (not a reliever, but a mid-rotation starter or better, or a top-calibre DH or outfielder), will you be willing to admit that you were wrong? if the owners want to spend "as little as possible," they certainly won't be signing any free agents. But AA has stated repeatedly that the Jays will be players in the free agent market. By January, we'll know who's right on this.

Sure, but I don't see it happening, for a number of reasons. AA has yet to sign anyone, whether it be free agent or a current Jay, to a player-friendly contract. All of the contracts AA has given out, even to Jose Bautista, have either been a one year deal or involved a team option(s) for well below market value. I can't see AA throwing cost effectiveness away for a mid-tier free agent....and it will have to be a mid-tier free agent because if the organization refuses to go above five years on a contract, then no star free agent (unless he is closing in on 40 years old) will even consider the Jays as a viable option.

AA saying he will be a player in the free agent market is all spin. Of course he is going to say that. The team started the year with so much fan interest and finished with a massive thud. He is going to have to say that to keep the bandwagon at least partially filled if he wants fan interest to continue in 2013-beyond. If he doesn't or can't deliver, he will preach the same thing he did last off-season (payroll parameters, young kids, etc), except now he will have injuries to add to the excuses.

Hell, at this point, I hope they avoid the free agent market. There won't be a Darvish or Fielder situation out there now (young, high upside, star, no interest from big market teams, etc). They blew their chance on that one.

I don't agree with the Sanchez/Nicolino/Syndergaard comment.  First, chances are only one of them will be a stud.  Second, everything has value.  If you get an offer you can't refuse then you have to take it.  To give an extreme example, let's say there is a deal on the table for a #1 pitcher, Felix Hernandez, then you have to let one of them go.  Maybe some team falls in love with Aaron Sanchez and thinks he is their number 1 target and is willing to open the bank, then you have to go.

Normally, I would agree with you. If the team functioned as a team that was ready to win the World Series every year, then I would absolutely agree with you. Unfortunately, this is a team, as I mentioned before, that wants to build like the Rays. The Jays want to have cost controlled talent. They want to develop talent to avoid paying the cost of the free agent and trade market. They want to be able to sustain winning for 10 years (or whatever it was) rather than go for broke for a year or two. All of that points to keeping the high upside talent and using the overvalued or expendable talent in trades. That's why Nestor Molina was traded, and why I expect someone like Sean Nolin to be dealt this off-season. AA has been pretty darn good at deals that involve trading prospects, as only Tim Collins (off the top of my head) has had any type of success since being traded.

I agree that prospects, especially pitching prospects, are often fool's gold. If you can turn them into MLB stars, do it and run. My issue with the Jays is, I don't think they will spend money until they make the playoffs on a below league average payroll. They want to be the Rays, and MIGHT start spending like the Rangers if they can sustain winning on a small payroll, but in order to do that they have to build from within, or develop a Bautista/EE out of thin air every year.

I don't want to see the Lansing Three traded only for the team to continue to cheap out. If you are going to trade one or two of them, then make sure you are all in and ready to spend enough to put yourself in a position to win. I doubt the Jays are ready to do that. If I'm wrong, then I'm wrong.

In all my years of following the team, I have never been more certain about an offseason prediction than this:  SK in NJ's prediction is absolutely correct.  The offseason will be cheap, and it will be risk-averse in terms of trading prospects.  "Internal improvement," "focus on development," "payroll parameters," "if everything breaks right," 'we just need to get healthy."  Rinse and repeat.  There's cynicism, and then there's relying on every available shred of evidence since AA's appointment.  Also, all cynicism aside, each of these cliches have some merit in the context of the Jays; they're just not as likely to improve the '13 team as would be an infusion of above-average veteran talent.

Don't be too caught up in PR expectations and repercussions, because only hardcore fans (a distinct minority in Toronto) parse through AA's interviews to try to read the offseason tea leaves.  Casual fans will either notice acquisitions when they are announced on TSN, Sportsnet or the papers, or they will check in next April.  I don't think there will be any meaningful backlash in respect of AA's comments.  There is a much more real, and much less avoidable, chance of a backlash based on this poor season, and query whether a mid-level signing like an Edwin Jackson would even matter to the '13 outlook of the casual fan who's been disappointed by the '12 team.  I know I'd have a tough time persuading Rogers (or, the more relevant test, guaranteeing to Rogers) that Edwin Jackson would definitely generate enough revenue to justify 3/$30.

It's the Rays, only without as good of a minor league developmental regime; without Maddon; and without a string of top-5 draft picks (yet, I suppose) to develop or trade.

I'll take SK's prediction a step further:  They won't sign any MLB free agents to eight-figure contracts.  That's *total* contract value, not *annual* contract value.  If they take on more than $10 million in commitments for any one player, it will be by way of an extension, a trade-and-extend or a trade for an underachieving player like Morneau with a year or two left on their contract.  There's also a possibility they'll sign an Hechevarria-type IFA to a $10-15 million deal.

But there is a huge distinction, China fan.  They were the only team allowed to negotiate with Edwin at the time.  They can trade certainty and stability for a hometown discount without allowing a bidding war to start.  It's a very different matter to compete against other teams in terms of years and dollars during the free agency bidding, especially for a losing cold-weather team on turf.

Nobody can suggest that the Jays' goal is to absolutely minimize payroll.  But they are value-focused -- so value-focused as to tolerate glaring holes on the team if they can't be filled at an excellent value.  They may well lock up a Lawrie, but they won't outbid 29 other teams for an FA.  At least not one of obvious consequence.

Anthopoulos achieved value in the past. Does that condemn him to be a miser in the future? I don't think it logically follows.

I would argue that he achieved value AND has been a miser in the past, either by choice or by ownership's fiat.  That's what condemns him to be a miser in the future.  Darren Oliver is the richest major league free agent signing of AA's three-year career ($7M if option is picked up).  He and Cordero were both guaranteed $4.5 million -- AA's record for guaranteed MLB FA money.

Look, it's not that I "prefer a spendthrift GM."  AA has demonstrated very clear value parameters and is very quick to walk away from bidding wars in terms of dollars, years or prospects (when the target is a non-FA on the trading block).  For any given bidding war, the strategy can be, and likely is, sensible.  But when the outcome is you start the 2012 season counting on Henderson Alvarez AND Kyle Drabek AND Dustin McGowan (!) for your starting rotation, that's miserly.  It was also miserly to start the 2011 season with literally no third baseman on the major league roster, such that you have to move your superstar right fielder to third against his wishes.  (That plan ultimately worked out okay, after they converted Lawrie to 3B and dealt with his injury suffered in the minors while he was being held there for service time reasons.  Certainly better than the 2012 starting rotation gamble.)

I understand not wanting to overpay for an apartment when you move to a new city, but if you have a comfortable amount of money, it's irrationally miserly to sleep in a bus shelter because you think the monthly rent of every apartment you check out is too high.  Sometimes you have to suck it up and pay market value to get a place you can live in.  At least one would think so.  The Jays under AA have been perfectly willing to sleep in bus shelters when they think the rent is too high.

To the best of my knowledge, Win or Lose, Toronto concludes the season with a top ten protected pick (#10).  That was a "must have", it will give A.A. options.   To finish the season with at least 2.1 million fans, 20,106 fans must attend the final game of the year.   This will be tougher, but with 338,632 fans so far since September 1, it's do-able.   It all depends on how many people want to attend the final game of the year.

I agree with John Northey's post: Yeah, that new TV deal is crazy.  Serious thought must be put into Free Agency and Trades starting this season to be ahead of the pack.   The "new" "new" "new" Moneyball is staying a year ahead of everyone on upcoming changes.  Something that A.A. might have been a little lax on lately.

If this were the Rays and the real strategy was as SK has it, the logical thing to do would be to trade Bautista and Encarnacion for prospects/younger players as soon as possible.  I don't think that will happen.  Instead, I am pretty sure that the club will be neither fish nor fowl. 

I think the goal of the franchise is to win with a low payroll, so having Bautista and Encarnacion locked up to below market value contracts will only help in possibly reaching that goal (as opposed to Vernon's deal, for example, which was way above market value with no chance of helping the team win). That is probably why AA started Spring Training with Alvarez, Cecil, and McGowan pencilled into the rotation, and started the season with Drabek and Carreno (and eventually Hutchison) replacing Cecil and McGowan in the rotation. The only way the Jays have any real shot at building a cost effective pitching staff and to win without spending money is to develop their own starters. That is basically the backbone of Tampa's emergence and likely the avenue AA wants to emulate. AA took a foolish gamble by going with all youth in the rotation in 2012 and it resulted in lost development time (Alvarez), injuries (Drabek/Hutchison), and regression (Carreno). That likely explains why he traded so many prospects for J.A. Happ and why he will probably make a comparable trade this winter for a not-too-expensive rotation option (for some reason Brett Anderson is the guy I keep thinking of given his one year + 2 team options contract and his injury history making him more obtainable).

AA is obsessed with value. Bautista and EE are value-based contracts. He will hold on to them as long as he can (or as long as they are worth the contracts). We can only hope that some time soon, hopefully 2013, is when all the stars align and the Jays finally win on a small payroll. Then maybe Rogers will see the increased revenue and start spending more. That's really the only hope. The Jays will never do a Rays or Nats type of rebuild, which is probably why the team has been spinning its wheels for nearly 20 years.

SK, the Bautista and Encarnacion contracts are only below market value considering what they have done after. There was significant risk of regression at the time they were made, and this risk is what made them mutually benefitial.

As for Brett Anderson, sign me up. I'm also hoping that Rick Porcello has worn a bit thin in Detriot; he's had a significant uptick in velocity this year, but his ERA isn't being helped by that infield defense.

My appologies.   The site I was using (TSN) doesn't always update fast enough - My Fault.   The three Teams playing for ther last 2 protected spots are:

Toronto         72  89   .447.   Toronto is playing Minnesota (who cannot improve potential their draft pick) and starting their best Pitcher, Brandon Morrow (has something to play for).   Chances of a loss are slim.

Kansas City    72  89   .447.   KC is playing Detroit (who's clinched 1st in AL Central) and only Miguel Cabrera has anything to play for.   KC beat Detroit yesterday.  Chances of repeating that feat are slim.

NY Mets         73  88   .453.   NY is playing Miami.  This is more about who shows up to play and not just go through the motions.   NY is a better team right now, but that means nothing.

I know the effect of the Appel pick according to MLB on protected picks but it really is a very odd ruling.

If, for arguments sake, 6 of the top 10 hadn't signed, only the worst 4 teams the following year would have protected picks. Not really sure how this achieves the purpose of this protected pick rule, to help the strugglers!

I also echo the other sentiments - the thought of losing the number 10 overall pick for someone like Marcum or Ortiz is not very great, especially after the season from hell.

Magpie - are the Jays allowed to lose the last game accidentally on purpose? I always want the Jays to win and understand the karma argument but 1 game vs the Twins for a protected pick?

How typical it would be Morrow

I don't agree with that.  Encarnacion and Bautista are good-value contracts, but are of much more value to another team than the Jays (under the "budget-buy" theory of talent acquisition) because of the team's poor situation for 2013 and the ages of the players. The contracts may not look that way after 2013...

I agree. Hell, if I was GM and knew ownership had no intention of increasing payroll any time soon, I would have dealt Bautista for Mike Trout last winter back when the Angels were throwing money around like it was nothing. In sports a team should try to be really good or really bad. The Jays, for the last two decades, have decided to do neither. That is why they are where they are. The reason Bautista and EE are sticking around is because it gives the team a chance to make the playoffs on a small payroll, assuming everything else breaks right. Otherwise, the team stays competitive, sells hope, and accomplishes nothing. That's all Rogers wants. They would never allow a true rebuild.

Did I mention that I am ready for a new owner any time?

I'm right there with you.

Breaking out the FA charge card didn't work prior to 2006 when the Jays overpaid for Burnett and Ryan. Do we really want to go down that road again? Some people have short memories.

Well we wouldn't want to do something like that.  Why would we want to improve the team today by spending Rogers' money?  It's much better to hail the move to get rid of Vernon Wells so that Rogers can pocket the savings..

Big game in Oakland tonight

If you are planning to follow the game live, note that it's actually an afternoon game starting at 3:30 EST. Dempster vs. Griffin.

Since 1947, there have been 85 teams who have had rookies start at least 60 games. Three teams reached the postseason: the 1952 Dodgers, 1984 Royals and 2003 Giants.

This season can be seen as existing in three parts.  April 02 - June 15 (lost 3 Starters in 4 days): 32-32 and holding a playoff spot, or close to it.   June 16 - July 28: 19 - 17 and still close to a playoff spot.   July 29 - October 02 (with 1 game to play): 21 - 40, call it playing out the string.   From this A.A. has determined Pitching must be obtained.  

If trading for Pitching, the price will be high.  

As for young, controllable MLB-ready prospects A.A. might have to trade.    Adeiny Hechavarria (SS) has improved his stock since his call-up.   He will be sought after in any trade talks.   Anthony Gose (CF) has gotten better in his "2nd half" (82 ABs - 81 ABs and counting).   His stock has improved enough to be sought after in trade talks.   Moises Sierra (RF) started well (.284, .312, ..432), then the pitchers adjusted, or he tried to do too much.   He needs to show he`s adjusted to the pitchers to be as highly sought after as the others.   Travis d`Arnaud (C) has depressed trade value (but still top prospect status) due to his latest injury (even thought it`s thought to be relatively minor) and possible injury-risk status.  He needs to stay healthy for a year before he`s top trade value again.   Henderson Alvarez (RHP) is an ideal trade item, exactly what everyone wants, but only if an Ace, No.1 Stud, is coming back.   I think Chad Jenkins has gained considerably in trade value.   It is just possible Brett Cecil (LHP) has trade value. 

As for other Prospects, their value is not the same for everyone.   There will be a truer read on prospects once Buffalo comes into use, so some of our personal prospect evaluations might be off.   The Outfield and Starters are producing a surplus of valued prospects, so someone might be traded from the groups.   The first Big Three of Sanchez, Syndergaard and Nicolino (still 2-4 years away) is being challenged by Roberto Osuna, Sean Nolin, Adonys Cardona (even further away) to name a few.   Their value to the Big Club is more in trades, than in being MLB-ready for the Team, and right now that is all that matters.   Fears that A.A. will gut the Farm system is ludicrous, the system is much too strong for that to happen.   A.A. should not be unwilling to trade anyone if the right value can be obtained. 

"Remember when the Wells contract was still on the books? It was a major obstacle to revamping the team;"

It was? What's been done since that justifies this statement? Nothing that I can see.

Um.  New desk for Zaun and Campbell? The repatriation of Hazel Mae?