RealGM

Not Safe After All? A source for the Toronto Blue Jays says that Jose Bautista and Ricky Romero are the only Jays "safe". That’s it. Two guys. All the rest, Brett Lawrie included, are fair game

http://blogs.thescore.com/mlb/2011/11/2 ... ouchables/
Hard to believe we'd even entertain giving up Lawrie in any type of deal I don't care who we get in return.

You don't publically give Lawrie that kind of status until he earns it/performs for a couple of seasons. The kid can't think he's been granted immunity at 21 years old. He isn't going anywhere.

That's nonsense

Lawrie is the future face of the franchise

SharoneWright wrote:You don't publically give Lawrie that kind of status until he earns it/performs for a couple of seasons. The kid can't think he's been granted immunity at 21 years old. He isn't going anywhere.

Lawrie knows how important he is to the franchise and its fan base

The Jays know how important Lawrie is to their future success, both on the field and in the community


To say otherwise is just being silly

Lawrie is or should be far more "untouchable" than Romero. Lawrie and Bautista would be my 2 untouchables.

Lawrie isn't going anywhere. Let's not forget the kid may hit a wall or struggle a bit but Bautista being traded would be less of a surprise to me.

No one is untouchable for the right price. Or at least they shouldn't be.

I don't agree with "untouchables" but many arguments could be made for trading him now.

He posted Pujols like numbers at age 21. Imagine the return we could get in a trade? We could get like Howie Kendrick and prospects, or even Dan Haren.

Personally I would keep him, but I could see the logic in shopping him.

Howie Kendrick? Really?

Have to earn your stripes. Lawrie hasn't quite done that yet, and to put the untouchable label offers the opportunity that he's already the franchise.

I think most know he's pretty much untouchable.

Agree the sentiment with earning your stripes, but you don't use that logic on players that project to be fixtures for a long time. Nobody should be untradeable, if a team wants to overpay to acquire a piece then let them. However, the big boys at Rogers know the mass appeal Lawrie brings to the team and that alone makes him as "untouchable" as any player can be in my opinion.

LBJSeizedMyID wrote:Howie Kendrick? Really?

What? A 3.5 WAR (Over the last 5 years) second baseman whose 27 years old and just recently turned the corner? And prospects? How is that a bad trade?

flatjacket1 wrote:

LBJSeizedMyID wrote:Howie Kendrick? Really?

What? A 3.5 WAR (Over the last 5 years) second baseman whose 27 years old and just recently turned the corner? And prospects? How is that a bad trade?

Some see Lawrie as a future MVP candidate

Mr. Kendrick is a borderline all-star at best


Maybe you didn't see what Lawrie accomplished after joining the Jays


Oh, and Kendrick turned 28 back in July

flatjacket1 wrote:

LBJSeizedMyID wrote:Howie Kendrick? Really?

What? A 3.5 WAR (Over the last 5 years) second baseman whose 27 years old and just recently turned the corner? And prospects? How is that a bad trade?

Possibly because prior to "just recently turn[ing] the corner" (he's also 28, not 27) and having a monster year, he was a 1.9-2.5 WAR/year player. Given that his HR/FB ratio last year was wacky-high, not unlike another second baseman we know who suddenly turned the corner, there's a real possibility that he goes back to being a 1.9-2.5 WAR player.

Not that 2 WAR is bad...but Lawrie put up 2.7 WAR in less than fifty games as a rookie. So yeah, bad trade.

[quote="Schadenfreude"][/quote]
I mentioned prospects, for all you know it could be Mike Trout and crew.

If it was Mike Trout, you wouldn`t phrase it as `Howie Kendrick plus prospects`, you`d phrase it as `Mike Trout, plus Howie Kendrick`. Not that the Angels would do that, of course.

Schadenfreude wrote:If it was Mike Trout, you wouldn`t phrase it as `Howie Kendrick plus prospects`, you`d phrase it as `Mike Trout, plus Howie Kendrick`. Not that the Angels would do that, of course.

Prospects would be filler up to whatever AA valued Lawrie at. Not necessarily Mike Trout but you would be talking about serious prospects.

Brett Lawrie ain't going anywhere. Mass riots would be outside the Rogers Centre if we ever moved the kid. Think about it.. what reasons would we have behind trading a 21 year old with unlimited potential that possesses all 5 tools and has united a Toronto fan base and brought more people to Blue Jays games?

Mike Trout cannot be `filler` in a deal, given that most of baseball values him more than Lawrie, being widely considered the best prospect in the game (and one of the best in the past decade) and all.

I think it's pretty safe to say that they won't be trading Brett Lawrie after what he showed in the majors in the 2nd half. Certainly not for Howie Kendrick anyway.

Schadenfreude wrote:Mike Trout cannot be `filler` in a deal, given that most of baseball values him more than Lawrie, being widely considered the best prospect in the game (and one of the best in the past decade) and all.

I would tend to agree with you, I would take Trout over Lawrie.

flatjacket1 wrote:Prospects would be filler up to whatever AA valued Lawrie at. Not necessarily Mike Trout but you would be talking about serious prospects.

Angels have other prospects not named Trout. By filler I meant if Lawrie was seen to be worth 100 baseball points, and Howie Kendrick 60, two 20 prospects or one 40 prospect would be used to fill the remainder of the value. I'm talking about a perfect world scenario where we and everybody else knows Lawrie's career numbers and we get dead even value.

My point is Lawrie can be moved. Not that he should.