Well, that's kind of the point: 1 in 4 worked out. And that's totally fine with reclamation projects -- you throw a bunch at the wall and when one works, it justifies the cost of the most that didn't. But that's a building strategy, not an immediate contention strategy. My issue isn't with either strategy, it's that Hahn seemed to have gone half one way and half the other, which is a recipe for doing neither particularly well.

I just wonder who could have really been signed.

 

I obviously don't know what we offered, but there seems to be a good argument to be made that all of these guys wanted to end up all along exactly where they ended up. Now Hahn's recent comments may shed some light on the quality of our offers, but I'm not convinced it would have mattered.

The problem is that Gonzalez (and even Lawrie) will get more expensive...and how much would he actually be worth in trade to other teams?

 

The Humber comparison (with Gonzalez) is a good example. He was effective for X amount of time, but he was too effective for a stretch to trade (see Feldman and Garza) without damaging the rotation and eliminating competitiveness. Humber was even more of a reclamation project like Loiaza, but the point stands as the acquisition of Contreras might have been the best of the KW regime.

 

You ride Humber too long and get nothing in return, or you just suffer "bad luck" like we did with Jenks, Crede, Floyd and Crain and they end up with no or diminished value.

 

A clearly rebuilding team makes those deals 100% of the time, turning rebounding veterans (see how we originally obtained Floyd for Garcia) into younger players with high potential upside but a significant bust rate as well.

 

 

The problem is that Gonzalez (and even Lawrie) will get more expensive...and how much would he actually be worth in trade to other teams?

 

The Humber comparison (with Gonzalez) is a good example. He was effective for X amount of time, but he was too effective for a stretch to trade (see Feldman and Garza) without damaging the rotation and eliminating competitiveness. Humber was even more of a reclamation project like Loiaza, but the point stands as the acquisition of Contreras might have been the best of the KW regime.

 

You ride Humber too long and get nothing in return, or you just suffer "bad luck" like we did with Jenks, Crede, Floyd and Crain and they end up with no or diminished value.

 

A clearly rebuilding team makes those deals 100% of the time, turning rebounding veterans (see how we originally obtained Floyd for Garcia) into younger players with high potential upside but a significant bust rate as well.

 

I think the main difference is that Gonzalez has a history of being effective, while Humber had a history of being defective. That being said, if I got a decent offer for Gonzalez, he'd be gone in a heartbeat.

I think the main difference is that Gonzalez has a history of being effective, while Humber had a history of being defective. That being said, if I got a decent offer for Gonzalez, he'd be gone in a heartbeat.

 

http://www.espn.com/mlb/player/gamelog/_/i...miguel-gonzalez

 

Check out his July game logs. That would have been the time to deal him, at the deadline. He's never going to pitch any better than he did in July and September.

 

Do you really believe that KW kept Hahn from dealing him?

http://www.espn.com/mlb/player/gamelog/_/i...miguel-gonzalez

 

Check out his July game logs. That would have been the time to deal him, at the deadline. He's never going to pitch any better than he did in July and September.

 

Do you really believe that KW kept Hahn from dealing him?

 

Me? I have no idea what the situation surrounding Gonzalez was at the deadline including if there were offers, what the offers were, and what the team thought of the offers.