ramssuperbowl99 Posted January 31, 2018 Author Share Posted January 31, 2018 3 minutes ago, bkobow05 said: Alright, say Peralta instead of Ortiz? Because, if we back off on Burnes, we'd definitely have to include someone in our next line of SP prospects and it's Ortiz/Peralta with better depth in the deal. Huh? Ortiz is gonna have more value that Peralta. Do you mean Burnes or Ortiz + Peralta? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beekay414 Posted January 31, 2018 Share Posted January 31, 2018 Just now, ramssuperbowl99 said: Huh? Ortiz is gonna have more value that Peralta. Do you mean Burnes or Ortiz + Peralta? I know. What I'm trying to say is, are you comfortable adding MORE with Peralta than just sending Burnes and lotto tickets? I know I'd rather just part ways with Burnes. Hell, wouldn't surprise me if the drop from Burnes was Ortiz+Peralta in Tampa's eyes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramssuperbowl99 Posted January 31, 2018 Author Share Posted January 31, 2018 Just now, bkobow05 said: I know. What I'm trying to say is, are you comfortable adding MORE with Peralta than just sending Burnes and lotto tickets? I know I'd rather just part ways with Burnes. Hell, wouldn't surprise me if the drop from Burnes was Ortiz+Peralta in Tampa's eyes. Yeah I'd probably deal depth in the 18-30 range that doesn't have upside but Brewerfan scouts the Burnes stat line and thinks he can be an ace and that's dumb. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beekay414 Posted January 31, 2018 Share Posted January 31, 2018 1 minute ago, ramssuperbowl99 said: Yeah I'd probably deal depth in the 18-30 range that doesn't have upside but Brewerfan scouts the Burnes stat line and thinks he can be an ace and that's dumb. What would your package look like? When you say 18-30 range without upside, are you talking about guys like Bickford, Stokes, Kirby, etc? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramssuperbowl99 Posted January 31, 2018 Author Share Posted January 31, 2018 Just now, bkobow05 said: What would your package look like? When you say 18-30 range without upside, are you talking about guys like Bickford, Stokes, Kirby, etc? Yep. Ponce too tbh. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beekay414 Posted January 31, 2018 Share Posted January 31, 2018 Just now, ramssuperbowl99 said: Yep. Ponce too tbh. Makes sense. Honestly, I don't think a deal for Archer depletes us like most people think. Lots of intriguing, albeit risky, prospects still in the system. Plus, we know that Stearns has the ability to replenish the farm if push comes to shove and this experiment (for lack of a better word) fails. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Packerraymond Posted February 1, 2018 Share Posted February 1, 2018 If we moved a group of minor league guys for Archer, I'd look into dealing Shaw and signing Moustakas to replenish some of what we lost. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SplashDive Posted February 1, 2018 Share Posted February 1, 2018 12 hours ago, Packerraymond said: If we moved a group of minor league guys for Archer, I'd look into dealing Shaw and signing Moustakas to replenish some of what we lost. That would be a hefty payroll because I believe Moose is looking for around $20 mil per. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Herbie_Hancock Posted February 1, 2018 Share Posted February 1, 2018 We are gonna get yu. Will sign him by Sunday morning. Calling it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SplashDive Posted February 1, 2018 Share Posted February 1, 2018 Which scenario appeals more to you... Give Darvish a 6 year deal... Or Give up 3 top 10 organizational prospects for Archer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Herbie_Hancock Posted February 1, 2018 Share Posted February 1, 2018 9 minutes ago, SplashDive said: Which scenario appeals more to you... Give Darvish a 6 year deal... Or Give up 3 top 10 organizational prospects for Archer. Archer. Yu is already 31 and a half. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beekay414 Posted February 1, 2018 Share Posted February 1, 2018 14 minutes ago, SplashDive said: Which scenario appeals more to you... Give Darvish a 6 year deal... Or Give up 3 top 10 organizational prospects for Archer. Both Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beekay414 Posted February 1, 2018 Share Posted February 1, 2018 This guy viable? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramssuperbowl99 Posted February 1, 2018 Author Share Posted February 1, 2018 36 minutes ago, SplashDive said: Which scenario appeals more to you... Give Darvish a 6 year deal... Or Give up 3 top 10 organizational prospects for Archer. This hypothetical is Archer because I'd handpick the prospects I don't like. Realistically, Tampa Bay is gonna rail us for him. They've got leverage, they know it, and they're smart. There's no Archer trade that's not gonna be a kick to the stones. I'd need a dollar figure on Darvish. 6/$120M? Coolio. 6/$180M? No es bueno. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CWood21 Posted February 1, 2018 Share Posted February 1, 2018 3 minutes ago, ramssuperbowl99 said: This hypothetical is Archer because I'd handpick the prospects I don't like. Realistically, Tampa Bay is gonna rail us for him. They've got leverage, they know it, and they're smart. There's no Archer trade that's not gonna be a kick to the stones. I'd need a dollar figure on Darvish. 6/$120M? Coolio. 6/$180M? No es bueno. Yeah...I don't see any way that Milwaukee doesn't feel an Archer trade hurt badly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.