RealGM

Whew, good decision. Pineda is impressive, but my god, nobody is getting Lawrie from us.

As a couple of the beat writers have suggested, it might have been a fairer trade than Toronto fans would have thought, but it's better that it didn't happen. If there is one thing we have in our farm system, it's lots of great arms and a couple of them might become our version of Pineda (or a really good #2 behind RR). What we have less of are high end infield options. So turning this down was the right thing, especially in light of the team's failure to boost the lineup elsewhere through free agency or trades.

Agreed re: it being a bad idea to trade Lawrie for a pitcher. That would have been a silly trade from an organizational point of view.

Lateral Quicks wrote:Agreed re: it being a bad idea to trade Lawrie for a pitcher. That would have been a silly trade from an organizational point of view.

Yeah even though Pineda is a top of the rotation type starter and a chance to be an ace in the future, the organization would've had a tough one explaining this one to us if they ever gave up Lawrie. There would've been RIOTS!

Ah all the Lawrie love now...where was it when we traded for him haha.

The headline seems a bit over-reaching, seeing as the Globe article claims that it's only guessing the Pineda was the pitcher, and rumour-milling that it was Lawrie.


Then again, I suppose "A team wanted a MLB-ready player for a Pitcher" just doesn't have the same ring to it.

I wonder how many AAA/AA prospects of ours it would of took to get him.

Oh heck yeah there would have been riots. Judging by yesterday, the casual fans might have Lawrie at #1 now ahead of Joey Bats in terms of popularity. With where our pitching depth is at in the minors, losing Lawrie for a pitcher seems counterproductive and the worst part of trying to rush to win.

Maybe for King Felix, but hell no for Pineda.

It probably wasn't even a 1 for 1 trade that was discussed. Probably Lawrie + top prospect for Pineda.

if lawrie wasn't canadian this trade goes down imo, lawrie too valuable to this franchise

Lawrie is a franchise player. No way you trade this kind of player away.

LBJSeizedMyID wrote:Ah all the Lawrie love now...where was it when we traded for him haha.

he was unproven at the time... all potential

We have nobody in the system (I think) that has Lawrie's ability in our system in the future to play his position, while we have many pitchers coming up in the system. It was a no brainer.

I'll be intrigued to see how AA plays his cards with prospects in trades this year and into next winter. My theory is that the new CBA puts more emphasis to the acquisition of major league or major league ready talent. A team can't spend as much on signing bonuses to Latin players or paying overslot to the newly drafted.

Sure, brilliant scouting across the board, year after year, can still give you lots of plus talent to work with, but it is going to be harder, especially if the new CBA makes it more likely that the "hard to sign" draftees no longer slide in the draft because of a perception by their agents that they have to position themselves for the highest slot money.

That means there will be fewer Daniel Norris' sliding through to the second or later rounds. Less overslot money is a direct challenge to AA's prime strategy, and I wonder if he would have paid Beede what he wanted if AA had known about the contents of this CBA.

One consequence of reducing overslot money could well be to push teams to put more money or value on major leaguer talent. At least that's the initial thought although down the line, it might make minor leaguers more valuable once the system has had a few years to generate trackable trends.

What we saw this winter, however, were teams willing to overpay with prospects to acquire proven talent (Gio, Matos, etc.)

That begs the question of whether AA has to adjust and be more willing to move more or betters prospects than he'd like, especially pitching prospects, to get a quality ML player or high position prospects for needs like left field, first base, second base.

I get the feeling that AA is especially comfortable rating his pitching prospects - he certainly drafts enough of them - and I wonder if he's going to have a hard time parting with more of them. With Molina, he had the comfort of trading a pitcher he had a good feeling for for a pitcher with a great contract and track record. (And most commentators believe the ChiSox let Santos go too cheaply).

At some point, one would think AA will have to pull a trade that will strike hardcore fans as too rich because some of our best prospects are 3-5 years from reaching the majors and maturing as major league ballplayers. I don't think AA has the luxury of so much time, especially since Beeston more or less put him on the clock Monday, predicting 2-3 years of playoffs in the next five.

As he should. After this year, we'll be entering year four of his plan, so I expect some major moves to contend next year.

dagger wrote:... and I wonder if he would have paid Beede what he wanted if AA had known about the contents of this CBA.

I'm sure he knew which way the wind was blowing. I thought the issue with Beede was the health of his arm.

dagger wrote:One consequence of reducing overslot money could well be to push teams to put more money or value on major leaguer talent. At least that's the initial thought although down the line, it might make minor leaguers more valuable once the system has had a few years to generate trackable trends.

What we saw this winter, however, were teams willing to overpay with prospects to acquire proven talent (Gio, Matos, etc.)

That was strange, because I agree that the CBA changes should mean that existing prospects are more valuable? I think a traditionally overslot paying team would be less likely to empty the system to get a coveted MLer, because it is now much harder to replace them.

Over the long run, it may encourage more kids to go the college route, since there's not as much money to be made taking the big bonus. So the drafting strategy will evolve over time, and of course collegians won't have to be bribed with as much money to make the switch.

That begs the question of whether AA has to adjust and be more willing to move more or betters prospects than he'd like, especially pitching prospects, to get a quality ML player or high position prospects for needs like left field, first base, second base.

For the reasons above, I'd say the opposite, at least in the short run.

I get the feeling that AA is especially comfortable rating his pitching prospects ...

Like Jo Jo? Yeah, AA is a genius.

- he certainly drafts enough of them - and I wonder if he's going to have a hard time parting with more of them.

Naw, I think he drafts them to trade them.

At some point, one would think AA will have to pull a trade that will strike hardcore fans as too rich because some of our best prospects are 3-5 years from reaching the majors and maturing as major league ballplayers. I don't think AA has the luxury of so much time, especially since Beeston more or less put him on the clock Monday, predicting 2-3 years of playoffs in the next five.

[/quote]

AA continues to promote trading as the best means to acquire talent, so it's inevitable that he'll make a long-term for short-run trade that strikes many of us as shortsighted. But the fact that it hasn't over the off-season tells me that he's bound and determined not to make an objectively horrible deal.

We traded for JoJo?

One thing I think people are misjudging about the rules are guys like Beede or back to Paxton (who from the way they talk about the 2009 draft I'll attribute to AA and Beeston). Both guys weren't signed and their money went to later round overslot guys (Hutch and Norris). This taking a back-up to high risk picks was a fantastic strategy and worked out great as they then get the high pick again the next year.

However, the new rules are supposed to end this strategy (late overslots) and probably will, but they'll also stop the need for them in AA's case. If the system works, the slot system will be much firmer and there won't be nearly as much risk to taking high-end talent with options, you'll just pick them and sign them as there's no leverage. Now, I'm not convinced it's going to play out as intended, but that's the design. It does negate AA's strategy, but it also negates the need for it. Yes, there were other overslots, but depending on how the limits work there might still be Matt Dean money lying around if you structure your picks right. That part is way too hard to predict for us mortals until an actual draft and signing period has come and gone.