Mariners wanted Lawrie in return for Michael Pineda

[Lateral Quicks]

I don't think it has anything to do with Lawrie "love" per se, nor his nationality. It comes down to the position he plays. We have fewer high upside position players in the organisation, so it wouldn't make a whole lot of sense to trade a high upside position player one for one for a high upside pitcher, particularly when we have a lot of the latter already.

If we had another young prospect ready to jump in to play 3rd, it might have been different.

[Schad]

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.

My feeling is that it won't take away all the leverage of the players; you're still going to have guys demanding above-slot deals with returning to college as a fallback, so the strategy of 'banking' guys like Dean should still be effective, because the need to budget makes it even more likely that you'll fail to pull the trigger on some kids who stick to their demands, simply because it's no longer a matter of "spend the money/don't spend the money", but rather a choice of allocation between options.

[Myth111]

We traded for JoJo?

He was in the Escobar trade.

[LBJSeizedMyID]

OHHHHHhh right...he was the throw in. I was just playin.

[tecumseh18]

OHHHHHhh right...he was the throw in. I was just playin.

I just just referring to the fact that AA said he really believed in JoJo, and we kept seeing him get trotted out there to be shelled (or miraculously survive in spite of the terrible metrics). It was in response to Dagger's line "I get the feeling that AA is especially comfortable rating his pitching prospects ... "

[distracted]

My feeling is that it won't take away all the leverage of the players; you're still going to have guys demanding above-slot deals with returning to college as a fallback, so the strategy of 'banking' guys like Dean should still be effective, because the need to budget makes it even more likely that you'll fail to pull the trigger on some kids who stick to their demands, simply because it's no longer a matter of "spend the money/don't spend the money", but rather a choice of allocation between options.

I'm not too sure on the exact rules, but it sure seems like guys can still demand big money.

If guys do fall even more than usual, it might be worth it for a GM to go for a quality over quantity approach. You'd be collecting picks to up your ceiling, but then spending the ceiling on the same number of players. The other guys sign for below slot or go back to school.

[Nolan]

The value really isn't off by much really. But when you look at the fact that our farm system is loaded with young arms and no positional players of Lawrie's caliber the deal really starts to fall apart.