houston

Astros · Post by **Astros** » Wed Dec 08, 2010 10:28 pm

Okay, after the Ludwick deal, I'll just be blunt here cause that's the route to go I think. Houston is a collossal mistake, we need to get him out before he completely kills this team. He hasn't made a single good trade, the team is gutted, we gave the guy a chance, better to try and find a good GM before the draft than have him run the franchise further into rhe ground.

Reds · Post by **Reds** » Thu Dec 09, 2010 7:22 am

I am not sure what direction to take here. I would expect the Ludwick deal will be vetoed but the fact it is even out there is a bit disturbing. A slap hitting middle infielder in the low minors for an established power hitting outfielder (even if he is coming off an off year) is a poor return. Has anyone communicated to Dan about the dissatisfaction surrounding his deals? If so then I guess the boot could be an option but if not a stern warning should come first.

Cardinals · Post by **Cardinals** » Thu Dec 09, 2010 10:40 am

I had sent him something in October telling him members were unhappy about how he conducted his trading, though it wasn't any type of official warning, I did send him a message letting him know that his returns on his trades were sub-par as were his trading methods, i.e. leaving Levine and Lape in the dust on a Wilson deal before having it rejected by the TRC and how he traded half his roster within 12 hours of joining.

Astros · Post by **Astros** » Thu Dec 09, 2010 4:29 pm

I think it's time to chalk this up as a failure. We might as well bring Dave back at this pace, at least he's active and only kills his team a little at a time (I'm kidding btw)

Astros · Post by **Astros** » Tue Dec 28, 2010 4:33 pm

I want some more guys to chime in on this. It's been a month. He continues, IMO, to make terrible trades. I think we really need to evaluate this guy and decide if he should remain a member or not. This kind of stuff is why we got rid of Dave even though everyone liked Dave

Reds · Post by **Reds** » Tue Dec 28, 2010 4:53 pm

Not sure I get what was so terrible about the last deal. We went back and forth on it for the better part of the day with multiple offers involving several players and picks. Since his goal was to improve his stable of prospects and move down slightly in the draft he pulled the trigger when I finally offered up Hamilton who I did not wish to trade. He knew of him and knew that he was a second round pick from the previous year and that he was the top rated prospect in the Pioneer league and likely to be #2 or 3 on the Reds BA prospect list depending on if Chapman is still on the list and if Alonso hasn't slipped (which I believe he has). So he dropped down 6 spots from 3 to 9 and picked up a very good prospect in Hamilton and will pick up another good one at 9... btw I don't believe he was sold as highly as some on the Pirates pitcher who is considered to be one of the top 3 guys in the draft (I am not either). Dan also waited to field other offers and see what else was out there before he would pull the trigger. Lets try and look at it from his point of view now because he really does have a plan and has been trying to get more in his deals lately.

Rangers · Post by **Rangers** » Wed Dec 29, 2010 12:35 am

I thought it was another bad trade for Houston/Texas in going from one of the three premium players in this draft to a mishmash zone for a nice prospect but not someone in the range of what he gave up. Prospect deals involving one superior guy for two lessers are almost never good ideas.

It seems like we're split on Dan, though. Aaron, JP and I feel like the net of these deals over the past few months has been even worse than what Dave typically did, but I don't have the impression that anyone else agrees. The issue seems tabled unless/until additional evidence changes some of our minds (unless someone just hasn't chimed in).

Dodgers · Post by **Dodgers** » Wed Dec 29, 2010 8:02 am

I haven't chimed in yet.

To be honest, I'm questioning whether this guy will ever be able to rebuild the team. I just don't think he has the knowledge of prospect value, as evidenced by his gutting of any talent on his team and not getting fair market value in return.

I'm perfectly okay with letting him go, if we do I wish we had done it sooner though.

Reds · Post by **Reds** » Wed Dec 29, 2010 8:06 am

As an alternative is it possible to have another member give him guidance and work closely with him where it comes to prospects and dealing. I'd do it but I believe they probably should be in a different division. I seem to recall Nate doing that for me when I joined up.

Rangers · Post by **Rangers** » Wed Dec 29, 2010 9:02 am

Reds wrote:As an alternative is it possible to have another member give him guidance and work closely with him where it comes to prospects and dealing. I'd do it but I believe they probably should be in a different division. I seem to recall Nate doing that for me when I joined up.

I suppose it's possible, but I think that part of the frustration that some of us already have is that JP offered to council him and he generally ignored him. He also had Jim available as an easy resource but couldn't even wait a day to review with Jim before making several of his high impact deals. In short, he hasn't been interested in guidance/mentoring.

I can relate to his attitude, as I was criticized when I joined this league, and I wasn't really interested in advice either. But here it's coupled with what I really struggle to see as any modicum of progress in any direction (short/long term).

It's also not unlike the situation we found ourselves in with Dave at the end, where he's already dealt his prime assets without receiving prime assets in return, so I guess the tipping point that we might have tried to avoid has already passed in some respects.

Cardinals · Post by **Cardinals** » Wed Dec 29, 2010 12:58 pm

JP..After talking with KC..I am pretty confident he will take Machado. I like him..I am not so high on Tallion. My take on him..I am more confident in one of the other SP like Pomeranz etc.. I feel Hamilton(a excellent prospect) more than makes up the dfference in Pomeranz/Sale/Ranaudo etc and Tallion

My plan is to get as many good players as possible that will be of use in 2012 and beyond. I wasnt exactly left with depth or the ability to win much more than 70 games in 2011. I cant really look at 2011..maybe even 2012. I am very confident in my ability to come away with a nice colecction of guys for the future with this draft.

I just don't know how or why everybody is so down on Tallion. I would understand a lot more if he wasn't considered one of the three elite talents in th draft and was on the next lower tier - the Pomeranz, Sale, Ranaudo, Colon etc. - but he's been regarded as one of the top talents in the draft from the get-go.

Not that Goldstein at all is the be-all-end-all, but these reviews of Tallion have been pretty consistent across the board:

1. Jameson Taillon, RHP
DOB: 11/28/91
Height/Weight: 6-7/230
Bats/Throws: R/R
Drafted/Signed: First round, 2010, The Woodlands HS (TX)
2010 Stats: Did Not Play (signed late)
Best/Worst Tool: Velocity/changeup
Year in Review: The Pirates had no controversy with their first-round pick in 2010, taking the highest-ceiling pitcher in the draft and signing him to a team-record $6.5 million bonus.
The Good: In a state known for its power arms, some scouts felt Taillon was the best high school pitcher to come out of Texas since Josh Beckett more than a decade ago. His size is ideal, his arm action effortless, and his velocity nearly at the top of the scale as he sits in the mid-90s and consistently touched 98 mph throughout the spring. That's not even his best pitch. One scout called his 82-85 mph curveball, "the best single pitch in the draft" due to its velocity and movement.
The Bad: Taillon still needs to develop his changeup, as he rarely needed it in high school; he carved up hitters with two big league-ready plus pitches. He had a few clunker starts during the spring when he lost his release point and control. He does throw across his body a bit, but not enough to give anyone considerable concern.
Ephemera: Everyone calls him "Jamo," so get the cool T-shirts ready.
Perfect World Projection: Taillon has the raw ability to be a true ace for a club that desperately needs such a beast.
Fantasy Impact: If he hits his ceiling, he's a fantasy monster, putting up big numbers in every column.
Path to the Big Leagues: While it's not official, Taillon heads into spring training with an opportunity to earn an Opening Day gig with Low-A West Virginia, which he'll likely take advantage of.
ETA: 2013, with an outside shot at pulling a Clayton Kershaw and reaching the majors in his second full season.

And look, it's not just the fact that he doesn't like Tallion. I've essentially wanted all of his trades reversed and have him booted from the get-go, when he started trading everybody before being in the league for 24 hours. I know that's obviously not feasible, but it's not like I'm out to get him because of the fact that he doesn't like Tallion. He's just draining himself of every possible impact asset.

Ken suggested to me over AIM that we let him draft and then compare this roster before and after before making a decision on booting him.

Reds · Post by **Reds** » Wed Dec 29, 2010 10:01 pm

Dan has agreed to run deals by me and while he seems to have a decent grasp on prospects I think he will be seeking out a few others in the league to get other opinions as I suggested.

Obviously for the time being I won't be making any trades with him and if something comes up that I feel is a conflict I will tell him to seek out another opinion.

Rangers · Post by **Rangers** » Sat Jan 01, 2011 10:25 am

Ugh, even worse, #3 could have had Machado.

Reds · Post by **Reds** » Sat Jan 01, 2011 10:42 am

I would have to agree there. Jason was a tad sneaky as he told me he wasn't taking Tallion and liked Machado. Maybe there is a deal coming later or since it was a queue pick perhaps it was set wrong.... hope not (that would be messy). Doesn't change things for me as I would have still dealt it to get Mesoraco because I needed a catcher but I may not have needed to include the lower pick swap. However Dan told me he would not have dealt me the pick if he thought Machado was going to be there, I believe he was under the impression he wouldn't be. This is kind of where not allowing the trading of picks during the draft can backfire, but not much you can do about that because allowing that slows things way down.

Rangers · Post by **Rangers** » Mon Jan 03, 2011 12:14 pm

Not to harp on this, but that deal is now complete. Machado for Billy Hamilton and Nishioka.

Reds · Post by **Reds** » Thu Jan 06, 2011 8:27 pm

From the Baseball America chat on the Reds...

Kerm (Milwaukee, WI): I was a little surprised to see Hamilton ahead of Mesoraco, as I view Mesoraco as the obvious #2 in this system. What was the rationale?

J.J. Cooper: Understandably that is probably the one "surprising" ranking in the Top 10. I can definitely see arguments for Mesoraco at No. 2, after all, you're comparing a guy who slugged .600+ and made it to Triple-A versus a guy who's yet to play full-season ball. But everyone I talked to couldn't stop raving about Hamilton and his potential. Several scouts I talked to viewed Hamilton as having more long-term potential than Mesoraco, and said they have Hamilton ranked higher than Mesoraco. That's not meant as a rip on Mesoraco, but there are some reasons to be concerned still with the catcher. Before his outstanding 2010, Mesoraco had struggled at the plate for most of the previous 2 1/2 seasons and he's had a series of injury problems. And as mentioned before, there are scouts who think he still has some work to do on his receiving before he's big league ready. Mesoraco is definitely a safer pick as the No. 2 guy in the system, but this is more of a case of Hamilton's significant potential more than a knock on Mesoraco. I'll be the first to say I could be wrong, but I expect Hamilton to be one of the breakout prospects of the 2011 season.

Astros · Post by **Astros** » Thu Oct 20, 2011 5:57 pm

DBacks trades Ross Detwiler, Al Alburquerque, to Astros for Mike 10-Olt, Reds Draft Pick 1,

I only bring this up because I know Pat Gillespie has expressed interest in rejoining the league. Dan had a year and he didn't do anything to make me feel better about him as a long term solution. Heck, he has 1 pick before the 4th round. How exactly is he going to rebuild?

Rangers · Post by **Rangers** » Fri Oct 21, 2011 1:34 am

Cardinals wrote:DBacks trades Ross Detwiler, Al Alburquerque, to Astros for Mike 10-Olt, Reds Draft Pick 1,

I only bring this up because I know Pat Gillespie has expressed interest in rejoining the league. Dan had a year and he didn't do anything to make me feel better about him as a long term solution. Heck, he has 1 pick before the 4th round. How exactly is he going to rebuild?

Pat coming back would be great. Would he be interested in taking over that team, though?

Cardinals · Post by **Cardinals** » Fri Oct 21, 2011 6:09 pm

I talked to Pat two weeks ago or so. He asked me if we had any spots open. The answer, of course, is we currently don't, and I told him that we usually have one or two per year open up, which is true. Unfortunately, they're usually the bottom teams of the league. He said he'd be ok with that and didn't expect to be handed a winner.

Whether or not he'd like Houston's roster enough, I don't know, but he did approach me twice about coming back.

Rangers · Post by **Rangers** » Fri Oct 21, 2011 11:22 pm

On Gendell, my only hesitation with booting him is that I can't swear that he's any worse than Kelly. I do feel strongly that he's a constant threat to unbalance the league every time he wanders into a good player, which is why we booted Dave (and in my opinion is the most critical attribute in determining whether we can afford to retain a bad GM). I guess it isn't a huge rush since he's already thrown away his high first in a great draft. He seems like a nice guy, but his trades are aggressively damaging to his roster and to whoever isn't quickest to rob him.

The fact that Pat wants a team makes it a slam dunk for me if he would be willing to take on that mess.

Astros · Post by **Astros** » Sat Oct 22, 2011 9:03 am

No he's worse than Kelly. When I had my firesale at the deadline Kelly was interested in a few of my guys, so I tried to get Wheeler, Brown, some of his top prospects, but he wouldn't do it. If Dan had them, I could've traded him some magic beans and a goose that lays golden eggs for them

Reds · Post by **Reds** » Sun Oct 23, 2011 8:27 am

I am not sure why this is coming up at this time, other than Pat's being in the wings. After reviewing the last two deals I just don't see anything there worthy of giving Dan the boot. He has managed to accumulate a fair amount of well rated prospects.

I'd like to have Pat back in the league, but not at the expense of ejecting Dan when we have other GM's who are considerably less active and make their share of questionable moves.

If there is a problem with his deals perhaps we should be looking at the TRC's approval process and provide them with more guidance that matches our expectations.

Rangers · Post by **Rangers** » Sun Oct 23, 2011 8:00 pm

A couple of responses:

Reds wrote:I am not sure why this is coming up at this time, other than Pat's being in the wings.

This is coming up now, outside of the Pat issue, because the season has ended and we're about to begin another cycle. It's a natural time for this sort of thing.

Reds wrote:He has managed to accumulate a fair amount of well rated prospects.

Dan hasn't accumulated much of anything, except the bare minimum possible from the assets he began with and extremely high draft positions. If you were to compare where he would be if he had just minidrafted reasonably and made obvious high picks, he is well behind that.

Reds wrote:I'd like to have Pat back in the league, but not at the expense of ejecting Dan when we have other GM's who are considerably less active and make their share of questionable moves.

Activity is good in general, but it actually becomes a negative when the GM's moves are continually bad for the league. I said this when we let Dave go and I know some don't agree with me, but I would prefer someone very conservative to someone who treats his good players like hot potatoes and gets very little for them.

Reds wrote:If there is a problem with his deals perhaps we should be looking at the TRC's approval process and provide them with more guidance that matches our expectations.

I'm pretty sure that you know better than this, given your experience on it. The TRC can't perpetually protect a self destructive GM from himself. When they're asked to do this, they are placed in an impossible position. We tried to do it with Dave and weren't able to. It's the same thing now with Dan and the new group (and was with us, frankly, as well).

Reds · Post by **Reds** » Sat Dec 10, 2011 8:19 am

There has been more rumbling on this issue and we should take a closer look at it well before the draft if a move is going to be made.

My original thoughts about it were more based on activity than results. I would almost rather have an active member who isn't very good than one that doesn't respond or who goes missing for months at a time.

However the team, like a few others, has very few assets and little hope for competitiveness in the future.

Padres · Post by **Padres** » Sat Dec 10, 2011 8:40 am

For the record (and not because I recommended him to the IBC), I do not believe Dan has had time to really develop his own team as I believe he has been in less then a full season ... I have seen positive results in another leagur we are both in.