We have the potential to land a huge stud via trade

[Kapono]

Think about it..

One of JPA and Travis d'arnuad is expendable
One of Marsinick and Gose is expendable.

Add to that one of our stud young pitchers in the lower levels of the minor leagues...

That could easily land as an ace calibre pitcher.

[torontoaces04]

Think about it..

JPA is expendable
Neither Marsinick or Gose is expendable.
We have a ton of other great minor-league assets.

Add to that one of our stud young pitchers in the lower levels of the minor leagues...

That could easily land as an ace calibre pitcher.

FIXED.

[BobbyBoy]

I think everyone knew that already.......

[satyr9]

There's no doubt there's enough talent in the minors to put together a package for an ace, the problem is what to give up for what's available. Go look through the top SPs and ask if someone's remotely available for prospects. You're very quickly going to be down to the guys with 1-2 years before FA and even the best of those would be almost impossible to acquire. So then it's the Garza, Shields types that have been available all offseason. They're not really aces, although probable or borderline top 30 pitchers so it's all how you define the term, but are you really giving up 3 top and a decent prospect for a year or two of those guys. I'm not even saying no, just that it's not like you can call up PHI and say Gose, JPA, Hutch and you give us Roy back. And it'll be the same story for every single one of the top 10 types.

What's more likely is you just wait it out. Every couple of years a Roy type gets too close to FA (and everyone's been holding their breath that Felix is the next one pretty much since the Roy trade) or things go so sideways for a team it's better to move along from their franchise quality SP and when that happens the package that could've gotten you Garza in the interim can now land you the real top guy. Those chances are very rare, but I'd say they consistently come along once every couple years, so as long as you are patient for the opportunity and willing spend premium bucks to keep him you can use your prospect depth to acquire truly top-end pitching talent (the salary is the other really big issue, but we've covered the Jays spending issues ad nauseum this offseason already, so I'm not going near that part).

[UN-Owen]

Unless that "stud" is going to start 30+ games for us, I'm not interested in dealing our prospects

[satyr9]

Unless that "stud" is going to start 30+ games for us, I'm not interested in dealing our prospects

Um, I'm sure you had other criteria, 'cause you can have lots of guys who'll pitch all year for your prospects.

Here are 10 guys with 90+ starts in the last 3 years:

D.Lowe
R.Wolf
C.Pavano
B.Arroyo
J.Guthrie
M.Pelfry
J.Saunders
L.Hernandez
J.Lannan
T.Lilly

Still want to deal prospects for 30+ game starters?

[UN-Owen]

Unless that "stud" is going to start 30+ games for us, I'm not interested in dealing our prospects

Um, I'm sure you had other criteria, 'cause you can have lots of guys who'll pitch all year for your prospects.

Here are 10 guys with 90+ starts in the last 3 years:

D.Lowe
R.Wolf
C.Pavano
B.Arroyo
J.Guthrie
M.Pelfry
J.Saunders
L.Hernandez
J.Lannan
T.Lilly

Still want to deal prospects for 30+ game starters?

I did say "stud"

So try embarrassing someone else...

[satyr9]

I did say "stud"

So try embarrassing someone else...

You said "stud" not stud. The quotation marks suggest you don't like the definition of the word as it was used in the thread and are re-defining it and the only qualification you used was 30+ starts. As in, I don't like how everyone else is defining this "stud," this is what I want out of a pitcher we get for our prospects. And the stupid little at the bottom of post in this thread was meant to show I was just being playful. I wasn't trying to embarrass you, 'cause everyone - myself included - knew what you meant, just that you didn't say it very well.

Chalk it up to the miscommunications of the interwebs I guess.

[UN-Owen]

I did say "stud"

So try embarrassing someone else...

You said "stud" not stud. The quotation marks suggest you don't like the definition of the word as it was used in the thread and are re-defining it and the only qualification you used was 30+ starts. As in, I don't like how everyone else is defining this "stud," this is what I want out of a pitcher we get for our prospects. And the stupid little at the bottom of post in this thread was meant to show I was just being playful. I wasn't trying to embarrass you, 'cause everyone - myself included - knew what you meant, just that you didn't say it very well.

Chalk it up to the miscommunications of the interwebs I guess.

Consider it chalked