If Brett Lawrie fails = the implications?

[satyr9]

I neither meant to say Lawrie was B+ nor that you had to be a Griffeyesque prospect to rate as a potential star, but I see why people said it.

First, the B+ thing was that every prospect B+ and up, including Lawrie, has a ceiling and a maximum absolutely everything goes right ceiling. IMO Lawrie is a full A- type maybe full A but right there.

The Griffey/Arod comment was just me going fast and thinking of guys people would recognize and remember as huge prospects. I guess it's more like A.Gordon or J.Upton or J.Mauer or Longoria who were in a different tier of expectations and prospect status.

None of this was meant to say I think Lawrie is not a great young prospect, just that he's more like Zimmerman's offense (stealing Avenger's comparison) than freaking Pujols or AGone or pretty much any legitimate AL East 3/4 type and I even think some of those questioning my post (legitimately) would agree with that. Maybe he becomes a perennial all-star, triple-crown threatener type guy, but I hadn't read anybody projecting him that far up the baseball food chain (and I only read sporadically so if it's out there so be it).

[dagger]

It's interesting we begin a thread on Lawrie about the implications of him failing.

What about the implications of him living up to his billing?

To me, that means starting to looking really seriously for the remaining missing pieces for playoff contention, which might mean sacrificing some minor league pieces (but not the best unless for bona fide proven MLB stars with lots of good years left). To me, it would mean no more excuses, Rogers, time to start raising the major league payroll this offseason, starting with a second baseman, bullpen remake and fifth starter. (I'd keep Hill for another year or two if he would resign for much less than his option; with Lawrie, we'd have room for one low % hitter so long as he has a great glove.) By 2013, when d'Arnaud should be challenging for starting catcher and one of our phenom pitchers is ready to make the jump as a depth starter/star in waiting.

If Lawrie is the real deal, that very well might mean the end of Travis Snider.

[CanadaB-Ball]

It's interesting we begin a thread on Lawrie about the implications of him failing.

What about the implications of him living up to his billing?

To me, that means starting to looking really seriously for the remaining missing pieces for playoff contention, which might mean sacrificing some minor league pieces (but not the best unless for bona fide proven MLB stars with lots of good years left). To me, it would mean no more excuses, Rogers, time to start raising the major league payroll this offseason, starting with a second baseman, bullpen remake and fifth starter. (I'd keep Hill for another year or two if he would resign for much less than his option; with Lawrie, we'd have room for one low % hitter so long as he has a great glove.) By 2013, when d'Arnaud should be challenging for starting catcher and one of our phenom pitchers is ready to make the jump as a depth starter/star in waiting.

If Lawrie is the real deal, that very well might mean the end of Travis Snider.

I agree with the premise, but there are certain points are strongly disagree with.

First of all, if our young players develop correctly and have strong years next year, then I agree that we should start looking to fill the holes using some of our insane minor league depth. So that, which I assume is the main point of your post, I agree with.

However, to say that Hill is a great defender couldn't be further from the truth. He's slightly above average at the moment, and has definitely regressed compared to the abilities he had just a couple years ago.

I also don't see how Brett Lawrie has any implications on Travis Snider. They could very well both succeed on the same team.

Nonetheless, I agree with the point, just not with all the details.

[dagger]

It's interesting we begin a thread on Lawrie about the implications of him failing.

What about the implications of him living up to his billing?

To me, that means starting to looking really seriously for the remaining missing pieces for playoff contention, which might mean sacrificing some minor league pieces (but not the best unless for bona fide proven MLB stars with lots of good years left). To me, it would mean no more excuses, Rogers, time to start raising the major league payroll this offseason, starting with a second baseman, bullpen remake and fifth starter. (I'd keep Hill for another year or two if he would resign for much less than his option; with Lawrie, we'd have room for one low % hitter so long as he has a great glove.) By 2013, when d'Arnaud should be challenging for starting catcher and one of our phenom pitchers is ready to make the jump as a depth starter/star in waiting.

If Lawrie is the real deal, that very well might mean the end of Travis Snider.

I agree with the premise, but there are certain points are strongly disagree with.

First of all, if our young players develop correctly and have strong years next year, then I agree that we should start looking to fill the holes using some of our insane minor league depth. So that, which I assume is the main point of your post, I agree with.

However, to say that Hill is a great defender couldn't be further from the truth. He's slightly above average at the moment, and has definitely regressed compared to the abilities he had just a couple years ago.

I also don't see how Brett Lawrie has any implications on Travis Snider. They could very well both succeed on the same team.

Nonetheless, I agree with the point, just not with all the details.

No, the main point of my thread is NOT to fill holes with some of our insane minor league depth. Sure, you keep driving the best up to the major league level, and some will fill those holes, but if we rely solely on the minor league system to generate Blue Jay players, it will be another 2-3 years before we can even get a whiff of wild card contention.

There is no one left at AAA except Drabek and Snider who have question marks hanging over them. The best at AA are at least a year away but may be 2-3 years away from starting to mature at the MLB level. Anyone at A or lower is likely 2-3 years away from the majors, maybe more, and 3-4 years from starting to establish themselves.

I don't think every minor league phenom is sacrosanct. I believe if we want to content we will identify one or two top prospects who are redundant, i.e. they play a position where we have quality youth, and package them for a significant major league upgrade. For example, Gose. If Rasmus is our guy in CF, do we consider packaging Gose, a top pitching prospect or two, etc, to get an establish major league star caliber player under the age of 30? I say it has to be seriously considered. Call it the reverse Roy Halliday/Shawn Marcum situation.

We have enough guys under reasonable or controllable situations well into the future to be assured that we don't have to fill every single position at the major league level with a home-grown player. We have more than enough financial latitude to either sign a significant free agent or two or deal prospects for the right kind of upgrade.

I can't stress enough that I wouldn't deal top prospects for major leaguers who are not stars, or for stars with only a limited window of prime play left.

As for Snider, the implication in Lawrie's success is that we'd have pretty good offence through most of the lineup and with Thames or a significant upgrade via trade/free agency, he might be squeezed out. Snider has turned himself into a spray hitter, and I'd like to see more power in LF.

[flatjacket1]

In my opinion he will fail - to a degree (or go through a major slump) but I think the organization and the fans will be patient with him and he will turn out to be a good ball player.

[CanadaB-Ball]

It's interesting we begin a thread on Lawrie about the implications of him failing.

What about the implications of him living up to his billing?

To me, that means starting to looking really seriously for the remaining missing pieces for playoff contention, which might mean sacrificing some minor league pieces (but not the best unless for bona fide proven MLB stars with lots of good years left). To me, it would mean no more excuses, Rogers, time to start raising the major league payroll this offseason, starting with a second baseman, bullpen remake and fifth starter. (I'd keep Hill for another year or two if he would resign for much less than his option; with Lawrie, we'd have room for one low % hitter so long as he has a great glove.) By 2013, when d'Arnaud should be challenging for starting catcher and one of our phenom pitchers is ready to make the jump as a depth starter/star in waiting.

If Lawrie is the real deal, that very well might mean the end of Travis Snider.

I agree with the premise, but there are certain points are strongly disagree with.

First of all, if our young players develop correctly and have strong years next year, then I agree that we should start looking to fill the holes using some of our insane minor league depth. So that, which I assume is the main point of your post, I agree with.

However, to say that Hill is a great defender couldn't be further from the truth. He's slightly above average at the moment, and has definitely regressed compared to the abilities he had just a couple years ago.

I also don't see how Brett Lawrie has any implications on Travis Snider. They could very well both succeed on the same team.

Nonetheless, I agree with the point, just not with all the details.

No, the main point of my thread is NOT to fill holes with some of our insane minor league depth. Sure, you keep driving the best up to the major league level, and some will fill those holes, but if we rely solely on the minor league system to generate Blue Jay players, it will be another 2-3 years before we can even get a whiff of wild card contention.

There is no one left at AAA except Drabek and Snider who have question marks hanging over them. The best at AA are at least a year away but may be 2-3 years away from starting to mature at the MLB level. Anyone at A or lower is likely 2-3 years away from the majors, maybe more, and 3-4 years from starting to establish themselves.

I don't think every minor league phenom is sacrosanct. I believe if we want to content we will identify one or two top prospects who are redundant, i.e. they play a position where we have quality youth, and package them for a significant major league upgrade. For example, Gose. If Rasmus is our guy in CF, do we consider packaging Gose, a top pitching prospect or two, etc, to get an establish major league star caliber player under the age of 30? I say it has to be seriously considered. Call it the reverse Roy Halliday/Shawn Marcum situation.

We have enough guys under reasonable or controllable situations well into the future to be assured that we don't have to fill every single position at the major league level with a home-grown player. We have more than enough financial latitude to either sign a significant free agent or two or deal prospects for the right kind of upgrade.

I can't stress enough that I wouldn't deal top prospects for major leaguers who are not stars, or for stars with only a limited window of prime play left.

As for Snider, the implication in Lawrie's success is that we'd have pretty good offence through most of the lineup and with Thames or a significant upgrade via trade/free agency, he might be squeezed out. Snider has turned himself into a spray hitter, and I'd like to see more power in LF.

Sorry, I meant use our insane depth in the minor leagues to fill holes VIA trades. As in, because we have so much depth, we are able to trade for some key pieces. That wasn't very clear, my bad. So, although it wasn't very clear, I did agree with your point.

Also, wouldn't having tons of bats be better for Snider? He is far and away the better defender, when compared to Thames.

[Evermore]

david wright would be cool.

I think if the stars align...Lawrie could have a David Wright-type career

Apparently AA has already called NASA to ask what it would take to make it happen

[Schad]

It's interesting we begin a thread on Lawrie about the implications of him failing.

What about the implications of him living up to his billing?

To me, that means starting to looking really seriously for the remaining missing pieces for playoff contention, which might mean sacrificing some minor league pieces (but not the best unless for bona fide proven MLB stars with lots of good years left). To me, it would mean no more excuses, Rogers, time to start raising the major league payroll this offseason, starting with a second baseman, bullpen remake and fifth starter.

We just took on something like $7.5m attached to a terrible player, while trading a fairly well-regarded prospect, in order to get one of those missing pieces. I think that's as good a sign as any of our intentions.

[Homer Jay]

As long as he hits well that is all that matters, if he can't do duty at 3B, I think he will be more than fine at LF if it came down to it. Just hoping he does well at 3B because it is pretty barren in the rest of the organization.

[BigLeagueChew]

I know shortstop is completely different than 3rd base but Derek Jeter once had 56 errors in a season in the minor leagues(1993). I'm not worried about Lawrie's defence, he will learn as the game goes along. We also have Bautista as a guide and Butterfield as infield coach , which should help even more.

[why22]

Such negatvity. Nothing ever comes from comparing players. Lets hope he becomes the best Brett Lawrie he can be. Hopefully an allstar and someone to bring us to the playoffs