General 2020 Blue Jays Discussion Thread

[max silver]

Only way I can see a deal getting done unless Groshans is part of the deal, but Reds in win now mode so can't see it

 

It seems very odd for the Reds to move on from such a seemingly high end talent so quickly, it makes me wonder if they see him as having a more limited ceiling than the prospect evaluations would lead you to believe.

[Jimcanuck]

It seems very odd for the Reds to move on from such a seemingly high end talent so quickly, it makes me wonder if they see him as having a more limited ceiling than the prospect evaluations would lead you to believe.

 

I don't think it has to do with valuation, although the shine has rubbed off a bit. More about dealing their best trading chip from a position of surplus to fill other needs.

[max silver]

I don't think it has to do with valuation, although the shine has rubbed off a bit. More about dealing their best trading chip from a position of surplus to fill other needs.

 

Seems pretty short sighted in my view, but Reds are obviously serious about winning now and not worrying too much about the future.

[Brownie19]

Only way I can see a deal getting done unless Groshans is part of the deal, but Reds in win now mode so can't see it

 

Giles, Groshans and Teoscar for Senzel and Winkler?

 

I think the best thing we could offer them in terms of immediate needs is at catcher; however, they do have Tyler Stephenson in their ranks. Giles and Janssen for Senzel? Assuming Senzel is healthy, who says no?

[Deadpool]

Giles, Groshans and Teoscar for Senzel and Winkler?

 

I think the best thing we could offer them in terms of immediate needs is at catcher; however, they do have Tyler Stephenson in their ranks. Giles and Janssen for Senzel? Assuming Senzel is healthy, who says no?

 

I'd have to think the Jays say no to that, can't see them moving Jansen really, unless they're much higher on Reese than they should be.

[Daniel Labude]

SWR, Kirk, and Conine for Senzel

[Jimcanuck]

SWR, Kirk, and Conine for Senzel

 

Reds are in win-now mode. This year's Mets.

[Laika]

Giles, Groshans and Teoscar for Senzel and Winkler?

 

I think the best thing we could offer them in terms of immediate needs is at catcher; however, they do have Tyler Stephenson in their ranks. Giles and Janssen for Senzel? Assuming Senzel is healthy, who says no?

 

I'd have to think the Jays say no to that, can't see them moving Jansen really, unless they're much higher on Reese than they should be.

 

Yeah I guess Reese is an upgrade on Barnhart, and in theory could platoon with Stephenson in the future. Giles + McGuire fits the Reds roster but it's light and not the 2020 impact they would be looking for.

[LGBJ29]

Yeah Danny is a tough one, if his bat blows up this year like it did in the minors he can become a 4 win catcher.

 

On the surface Reese + Giles sounds like a huge underpay, but with a win now team Reese would project to be their top catcher on the roster by quite a bit based off steamer, and adding Giles to the pen would certainly be a win now move. With Stephenson still a year or two out, it isn't a laughable offer, but unlikely gets it done

[Brownie19]

Could always throw in another young controllable piece who could help them win not like Trent Thornton - or a prospect of their liking to sweeten a Giles/Reese package.....but I mean, that still seems incredibly stupid of the Reds. They have to be getting an impact player like Lindor or some big time prospect at another position if they are moving Senzel.

 

Aquino and Akiyama probably aren't very good and what's the upside of Moustakas? a 2.5 WAR 2nd baseman? Even the upside of Castellanos is like 2.5-3 WAR probably. There's a decent chance that Senzel is better than everyone on the Reds who isn't named Suarez. Why on earth you'd trade him is beyond me.

[Laika]

Could always throw in another young controllable piece who could help them win not like Trent Thornton - or a prospect of their liking to sweeten a Giles/Reese package.....but I mean, that still seems incredibly stupid of the Reds. They have to be getting an impact player like Lindor or some big time prospect at another position if they are moving Senzel.

 

Aquino and Akiyama probably aren't very good and what's the upside of Moustakas? a 2.5 WAR 2nd baseman? Even the upside of Castellanos is like 2.5-3 WAR probably. There's a decent chance that Senzel is better than everyone on the Reds who isn't named Suarez. Why on earth you'd trade him is beyond me.

 

Yeah I think they are set up for more disappointment in Cincinnati. I guess a Lindor acquisition would change the script but right now I don't see it.

[Jimcanuck]

If the Reds are truly all in and looking to bolster their bullpen, Giles for Jose Garcia would be fine by me.

[The Cats Ass]

Could always throw in another young controllable piece who could help them win not like Trent Thornton - or a prospect of their liking to sweeten a Giles/Reese package.....but I mean, that still seems incredibly stupid of the Reds. They have to be getting an impact player like Lindor or some big time prospect at another position if they are moving Senzel.

 

Aquino and Akiyama probably aren't very good and what's the upside of Moustakas? a 2.5 WAR 2nd baseman? Even the upside of Castellanos is like 2.5-3 WAR probably. There's a decent chance that Senzel is better than everyone on the Reds who isn't named Suarez. Why on earth you'd trade him is beyond me.

 

Upside of Moustakas is more like 3.5. With a more likely outcome somewhere between 2.5-3. Casstellanos is probably the same.

[Brownie19]

Upside of Moustakas is more like 3.5. With a more likely outcome somewhere between 2.5-3. Casstellanos is probably the same.

 

I'm assuming that playing 2nd base all year drags Moose's WAR down. He's also only exceeded 3 WAR once in his career back in 2015. Seems unlikely he'll ever hit 3.5 again.

[The Cats Ass]

I'm assuming that playing 2nd base all year drags Moose's WAR down. He's also only exceeded 3 WAR once in his career back in 2015. Seems unlikely he'll ever hit 3.5 again.

 

Unlikely, yes. But that's his upside. He's also been over 3 twice, not once. He was worth 2.8 last year, so to say his upside is less than that just seems off. Unless we are using different definitions for what upside means.

[Brownie19]

Unlikely, yes. But that's his upside. He's also been over 3 twice, not once. He was worth 2.8 last year, so to say his upside is less than that just seems off. Unless we are using different definitions for what upside means.

 

sorry - I missed the other time back in 2012. Moose turns 32 this year. I'd project a decline - especially while playing 2nd base full time for the first time in his career. But maybe that's just me.

[Orgfiller]

sorry - I missed the other time back in 2012. Moose turns 32 this year. I'd project a decline - especially while playing 2nd base full time for the first time in his career. But maybe that's just me.

 

For what it's worth, and not that it goes against your argument, but Moustakas did play a handful of games at 2B last season, and he rated about average by DRS, UZR, and slightly above by OAA. He's probably not as much of a butcher as some people are expecting him to be.

[jerb]

[Spanky99]

 

WooHoo...

[P2F]

Our team president evidently doesn't know the difference between it's and its.

[max silver]

Our team president evidently doesn't know the difference between it's and its.

 

Good thing hes team president and not president of the internet grammar club. (yes its intentional)

[Spanky99]

Good thing hes team president and not president of the internet grammar club. (yes its intentional)

 

[JaysAllMighty]

Is there a centre fielder in that truck?

 

Kevin Pillar ?

[KevinGregg]

Our team president evidently doesn't know the difference between it's and its.

 

That's a stupid grammar rule anyways.

 

Let's say we are talking about the driver of the truck instead of the truck itself. Let's say the driver is named Jeff. We could say "On Jeff's way to Dunedin". Jeff is a proper noun, the way belongs to Jeff, so we use an apostrophe to indicate ownership

 

But if we go back to talking about the truck, we use a pronoun because the truck doesn't have a proper name. All of a sudden we have to say "On its way to Dunedin" even though the way still belongs to "it" ("it" being the truck") but we can't use an apostrophe here to indicate ownership for no apparent reason. It's total inconsistency and it's ********.

 

example 2) I have a cat named Frank. It has a toy. How on earth does it make sense to write "Frank's toy" but when I use a pronoun all of a sudden I write "its toy". Garbage rule is garbage

[Spanky99]

That's a stupid grammar rule anyways.

 

Let's say we are talking about the driver of the truck instead of the truck itself. Let's say the driver is named Jeff. We could say "On Jeff's way to Dunedin". Jeff is a proper noun, the way belongs to Jeff, so we use an apostrophe to indicate ownership

 

But if we go back to talking about the truck, we use a pronoun because the truck doesn't have a proper name. All of a sudden we have to say "On its way to Dunedin" even though the way still belongs to "it" ("it" being the truck") but we can't use an apostrophe here to indicate ownership for no apparent reason. It's total inconsistency and it's ********.

 

example 2) I have a cat named Frank. It has a toy. How on earth does it make sense to write "Frank's toy" but when I use a pronoun all of a sudden I write "its toy". Garbage rule is garbage

 

You know he was joking, right?

[KevinGregg]

You know he was joking, right?

 

I wasn't!

[Spanky99]

I wasn't!

 

Oh... I see.

[Bobthe4th]

That's a stupid grammar rule anyways.

 

Let's say we are talking about the driver of the truck instead of the truck itself. Let's say the driver is named Jeff. We could say "On Jeff's way to Dunedin". Jeff is a proper noun, the way belongs to Jeff, so we use an apostrophe to indicate ownership

 

But if we go back to talking about the truck, we use a pronoun because the truck doesn't have a proper name. All of a sudden we have to say "On its way to Dunedin" even though the way still belongs to "it" ("it" being the truck") but we can't use an apostrophe here to indicate ownership for no apparent reason. It's total inconsistency and it's ********.

 

example 2) I have a cat named Frank. It has a toy. How on earth does it make sense to write "Frank's toy" but when I use a pronoun all of a sudden I write "its toy". Garbage rule is garbage

 

"Its" doesn't have an apostrophe when it's possessive because it's the genderless equivalent of "his" and "her".

[JaysAllMighty]

Our team president evidently doesn't know the difference between it's and its.

 

Bottom line, wgaf

[Boxcar]

Our team president evidently doesn't know the difference between it's and its.

 

Fire this clown immediately