Diamondbacks Bullpen

shoewizard · Last edited by shoewizard on Sat Oct 07, 2006 9:13 am; edited 1 time in total

OK.....if this team wants to aquire an ESTABLISHED front of the rotation starter, ( or a guy that is so obviously on the cusp of becoming a front line guy ) someone to pair with Webb to make a dominating 1-2 punch, they are going to have to give up something. And Alberto Callaspo and Scott Hairston are not gonna get it done.

It's going to take one of the 5 golden Children.... I purposely left Carlos Gonzalez off, because I don't believe he has that kind of trade value yet, and won't till he puts up some numbers at AA. Obviously if he has a really good year at AA, then he is in the same category, trade value wise, but he's not there yet.

So which one would you trade to get that Front Line guy to pair with Webb?

Vote in the poll, AND tell us your reasons. The very future of the franchise is at stake!! Let your voice be heard....THIS IS THE QUESTION

P.S. The order in the poll is a shoutout to one of our esteemed members Wink

shoewizard · Posted: Sat Oct 07, 2006 9:13 am Post subject:

If one of the Mods can help me to add the following option to the poll, I'd appreciate it:

I Would not trade ANY of them for ANY pitcher

B. O. N. D. · Posted: Sat Oct 07, 2006 9:26 am Post subject:

B. O. N. D. · Posted: Sat Oct 07, 2006 9:33 am Post subject:

Well, I wish I had the none of the above option when I voted. Mad

I voted for Upton because a) I don't want to dismantle the team that's just rearing its ass-kicking head, b) he's the most unproven quantity on the list, c) we'll all probably be real happy with a Quentin, Young, C-Gonz outfield in the future, d) teams would probably bite, and e) Callaspo, Hairston and/or Tracy weren't on the list.

But I really would have voted none of the above.
_________________
Oops in the 2 hole!

shoewizard · Posted: Sat Oct 07, 2006 10:05 am Post subject:

Interesting....so there isn't one pitcher out there you would trade for then.
That means the team would have good offense, for sure, BUT....it also means you are going to have to get VERY lucky with your pitching prospects and draftees....IN A HURRY. There isn't one starter in the minors that projects to be a front of the rotation starter, and that includes Owings.

So either you get another Webb like guy to come out of nowhere and confound all the scouts and experts.....OR....by the time this organization drafts and develops top end pitching talent, it will be 2010 and all these young studs are going to be deep into arbitration and approaching free agency.

I don't think they can or will stand pat....and Byrnes is indicating pretty strongly that he won't.

McCray · Posted: Sat Oct 07, 2006 10:18 am Post subject:

i voted jackson -- least demanding defensive position, and while his obp skills are golden, he doesn't seem like the prototypical 1bman power-wise. also, 1b is the easiest position to fill either by FA or by having tracy, barden, gonzalez, etc switch to 1b.

if jackson could get a bonderman type (a pre-ace, but on the cusp of acedom) then i do it. upton i might not trade unless it was for someone young, controlled, and very very clearly an ace... and i doubt the twins are moving johan any time soon.
_________________
Hank, you're dead to me.

EvilJuan · Posted: Sat Oct 07, 2006 10:48 am Post subject:

While torn between "None" and Upton, I finally voted for Upton because I agree with Shoe that Byrnes cannot stand pat -- there must be some deal for a pitcher. So, why Upton? I'm not the insightful analyst others in our merry band have shown themselves to be; I rely a lot on their reports and insights. If we have to give up one of the "golden children," I choose the one who has yet to sparkle -- even though he may one day sparkle more brightly than any, or all, of the others.

It has been said, "A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush." The other four are here, and have all shown they can play, and all have definite potential for even more than we've seen so far -- Upton is still a few years away from the plateau the others have already reached. If we're gonna go for it, let's start now...

My $0.02...
_________________
Is It Next Season Yet? Sad

levski · Veteran Presence Joined: 10 Aug 2006 Posts: 1763

sigh...

how about you tell me whom we're acquiring first?!

yeah, i'll trade upton for carl pavano. sign me up... Wink

_________________
Old school Hollywood baseball,
Joe Girardi is ten feet tall,
Old school Hollywood baseball,
Me and Frenchy walk a ton.

And Tony Pena cuts in line...

The Fan · Posted: Sat Oct 07, 2006 11:03 am Post subject:

I voted for Upton because he still has a ways to go. He has enormous talent, but from what I've read and heard, he can be a little lackadaisical. I think Chris Young will be an excellent offensive/defensive centerfielder with the hustle.....IMHO. Very Happy

stu · Everyday Player Joined: 12 Aug 2006 Posts: 560

I am assuming that the poll means for the pitcher of our dreams, say J. Santana. Phrased another way, which one of these guys is the most expendable for pitching.

I voted Jackson for the reasons mac cites. I think Jackson will be a very good player and maybe even an all star, but I think Upton can be a superstar. The type of player who can win championships.

levski · Veteran Presence Joined: 10 Aug 2006 Posts: 1763

purely in terms of ceiling and position, jackson would be the most easily replaceable (thus tradeable) player. in terms of talent, or how I see them panning out over their careers in az, i'd rank them thus:

upton > young > drew > gonzalez > quentin > jackson

however, i do think that they are all supremely talented, and i'd like to keep all of them, potentially by moving to the AL so one of them can DH
_________________
Old school Hollywood baseball,
Joe Girardi is ten feet tall,
Old school Hollywood baseball,
Me and Frenchy walk a ton.

And Tony Pena cuts in line...

McCray · Posted: Sat Oct 07, 2006 11:18 am Post subject:

what do you see in gonzalez that i don't yet? i mean, i take your word he's going to be GOOD -- you tend to be right, and i've given up arguing with you and eventually finding out i'm wrong. but WHY is gonzalez's ceiling higher than quentin's (who rocks)?
_________________
Hank, you're dead to me.

levski · Veteran Presence Joined: 10 Aug 2006 Posts: 1763

Guitar Salad · Posted: Sat Oct 07, 2006 11:52 am Post subject:

I voted for Jackson because he seems to be the most readily replacable guy with Tracy able to play first well enough. That said, what would we have to throw in with him? Maybe Nippert and/or Hairston. I think that would probably be worth it, but it may not get it done. Upton was my second choice. He's farther away and things can more easily go awry with his development, but, as Levski said, he has the highest ceiling among our prospects. We'd definitely need control of said pitcher for at least three years for it all to be worthwhile.

Any way you look at it, it's difficult to trade away any of these guys. I'm holding a huge mancrush on all of our minor leaguers. It's hard to be rational and pull one away for the pitcher we need oh-so-badly to be 'for real' in the post season.
_________________
Ha ha! Charade you are...

moviegeekjn · Posted: Sat Oct 07, 2006 12:12 pm Post subject:

Jackson for reasons that Levski and others have already stated. First baseman is easier to replace than middle position players... and there is far too much potential upside to Upton to part with him (without possibly wanting to commit hari-kari in the future when he's tearing up the league)

dirtygary · Posted: Sat Oct 07, 2006 2:50 pm Post subject:

Jackson for all the reasons mentioned. Should have been check sheet, cuz I would've included Young and Quentin, too. But this is for a Santana type pitcher. I want to see where Upton goes from here. He's further along than Quentin was when he was a frosh at Stanford.

Ideally, I'd like to trade the Hairston/Callaspo's for guys that are yet to peak, but have showed some good signs and just get more solid across the board on the pitching side. It's just a necessity at our park. The fact is, anybody will hit when they come here. Even Danny Bautista. Look what Byrnes did. Marginal players will sign here and for cheap, and will have career years.

But instead of trading those guys, I'd rather we trade Hudson, Estrada, and Byrnes. If the other team is concerned more about the cost/production issues and that drives them to want the cheaper players even if they aren't quite as good, why don't we include the cash to make it like the other team is financially getting a cheap player, but with the higher ability.
_________________
The pen is mightier than the sword, if that pen is shot out of a gun

foulpole · Veteran Presence Joined: 10 Aug 2006 Posts: 1357

Out of all of our "prospects", who would be the most fungible...hmmm...let's see...could it be...JACKSON!!!

http://www.countrykeepers.com/images/church_lady.jpg

VIII · A-Ball Kid Joined: 07 Oct 2006 Posts: 14

New here...

Anyways, I think that Upton would have to go because we already have Chris Young at CF. If onlyl Upton could adjust to LF...
_________________
VIII THE POET

The Curse of The Snake Bite Strikes!

dirtygary · Posted: Sat Oct 07, 2006 7:00 pm Post subject:

Upton can play all OF positions.
_________________
The pen is mightier than the sword, if that pen is shot out of a gun

VIII · A-Ball Kid Joined: 07 Oct 2006 Posts: 14

Then crap, I can't change my vote. Evil or Very Mad

_________________
VIII THE POET

The Curse of The Snake Bite Strikes!

shoewizard · Posted: Sat Oct 07, 2006 7:18 pm Post subject:

shoewizard · Posted: Sat Oct 07, 2006 7:24 pm Post subject:

matt · Posted: Sat Oct 07, 2006 7:41 pm Post subject:

IMO, anyone is tradeable for the right price.

Upton shouldn't be considered. First of all, he is the most likely to be a superstar player of all of them. Second, his pre-mlb value hasn't had enough time to build either. Third, and probably most important, you don't go trading people away because they MIGHT be blocked in 2 or 3 years unless they are farther down on the depth chart.

I have them ranked:

Upton>Drew>Young>Quentin>Jackson>Gonzalez.

Therefore, I choose Jackson for teh previously mentioned reasons.

McCray · Posted: Sat Oct 07, 2006 8:06 pm Post subject:

upton>young>quentin>drew>gonzalez (in lev i trust on this one)>jackson
_________________
Hank, you're dead to me.

shoewizard · Posted: Sat Oct 07, 2006 8:23 pm Post subject:

You know...the WORST I imagine Jackson being in aggregate in the next 3 years is 120 OPS+

I see something like 115, 125, 130 over the next 3.

I don't envision higher than 140 as a career peak, but it wouldn't shock me either.

So if all the others are as good or better than that, (position adjusted) they are really going to have a hell of an offense.