There are still no "reality-based foundational elements" (what the hell does that statement even mean?!?!?!!) to make that case... if so, Lowrie's first-base experience (11 games, and further as needed on teams that already have a SS and 3B... of which he hasn't been on till this year), the GM's refusal to deny that 1B could be a possibility for him, and the fact that there is one struggling player in this lineup, currently at 1B, which this team could "replace" with somebody "average" and possibly see an improvement.... would trump any "reality-based foundational elements" you've presented thus far (what does that even MEAN???) I know you keep harping on Carter playing in as many games as he has as evidence why he wouldn't be replaced... but again, who would have replaced him to this point? Marwin? Conger? At least we both agree that Singleton is not blowing away AAA to the point where he should be handed the job (if it happens, again its more due to Carter's ineptness vs. Singleton winning it). I guess Valbuena is also a potential option to move to first... but I sorta like what he brings at 3B right now. But again... there are no "reality-based-foundational elements" (WHAT THE HELL DOES THAT MEAN???) that state that Altuve could/should/would be traded at this time (especially not when his value is the lowest its been in 3 years). If so, guys like Castro (who regressed far further/faster... without the sharp high), Santana, Singleton, even Keuchel would all have the same "reality-based-foundational elements" needed to consider a possible trade. (I thought if I used it one more time it would make more sense... it didn't work). Likewise, I could easily see this regime trading the players "they" selected with just as much frequency... they know more than any other team regarding their weaknesses, they know more about their injury potential, and they probably have more advanced metrics that show who's likely to fit their models of success (the Cardinals now have that info too!). We also know that Luhnow isn't considering a trade of anybody on the big league roster... merely GM-speak, or simply opening the door for a Appel/Singleton package? (which should be able to get something decent).
Just when I thought I was out, he pulled me back in for a cameo! Well, actually, I said there's no evidence that this regime values "their guys" instead of "wade's (or purpura's) guys", just because they are "their guys". As for the rest of that, none of that is "evidence". It's your personal deductive reasoning, tailored to fit your position. "They've shown no hesitation to deal a Wade/Heck era player" is just an idiotic point to continue attempting. They've shown no hesitation to deal "Luhnow era" players either. Talent matters. Whose watch the player was acquired under literally makes no difference. I can't believe this is even part of your argument. Why are Springer, Keuchel, Altuve, and Castro (Santana, etc) on the team right now??
Awesome... This is a strawman, cardpire. I never said they ONLY deal Wade/Heck-era players; just that they've jettisoned a boatload of high profile ones, which is 100% true. For a team that wanted to rebuild it's farm, Luhnow traded/released 4 of Wade's 7 first round draft picks (Lyles, DDJr, Folty, Kvasnicka) while burying a 5th (Jio Mier) behind an avalanche of middle infielder selections of his own. And he's jettisoned 9 of the 13 players Wade acquired for Berkman/Bourn/Oswalt/Pence (Cosart, Zeid, Happ, Wallace, Melancon, Parades, Schafer, Abreu, Clemens). Those guys were supposed to be the foundation of Wade/Heck's rebuild, carpire. MLB isn't like the NFL, where they're drating 21+-year old college juniors and seniors, or the NBA, where (like the NFL), they're drafting players who have declared for the draft. They're drafting young kids they have to convince to either leave college early or skip it altogether and that means spending *a lot* of time with their families. Read Luhnow's comments about the Tucker family and how it influenced their selection of Kyle, and then tell me these guys aren't personally invested in these 17-, 18-, 19-year old kids they're drafting. You are demonstrating zero critical thought when it comes to the uniqueness of the MLB draft. Again, strawman. I never said they had or were going to deal every single Wade/Heck-era player. They're not stupid. But I feel confident in speculating they do not have the same level of connection/investment in Altuve as they do Kemp, for instance. Or will have in Bregman. That's basic human nature, frankly. And as such, if they feel Altuve can help them acquire a P, that he isn't a guy they've invested in very likely makes it an easier decision.
Is that your opinion? I don't recall any of those guys being the "foundation" for anything. They were all possibilities... just like Luhnow has a bunch of possibilities that may or may not work out. You know who I THINK were the higher valued guys by that regime?: Altuve, Castro, Springer, Villar... and Santana was a coup at the time as the Phillies didn't intend to give him up. Keuchel was not highly rated by either regime... and yet he stuck. Why? Because talent matters (and even then, Wallace, P. Clemens, Paredes all were given a fair chance to make it here). You just listed a smorgasbord of players, the majority of who have gone on to accomplish very little at the MLB level... And then there's guys with question marks like DDJr (what position does he play on this team?), Cosart (attitude, doesn't strike enough guys out), Folty (control, lack of secondary pitches that this organization covets)... and they all still had enough value to net something quality in a trade (other than DDJr... and there will be more casualties like him from THIS regime if they can't move some of these guys for established players).
Well how on earth are those crazy-heads choosing which Wade/Heck players they keep and let play on the big league roster?? Go figure. Seems like only 8 months ago that the entire FO was crapping their pants, biting their nails, and (originally) forcing Altuve to sit the final (meaningless) game(s) of the season, just because they felt it was that damn important to them and the franchise to have its first ever batting champion. Seems to me like there would inherently be a pretty strong level of connection/investment in a player who accomplishes such a thing under their watch, but what do I know?
Their first round picks were drafted to be, what exactly, Nick?... You and cardpire continue to enjoy shooting down arguments no one is making.
And you keep calling responses that render your arguments worthless "strawmen", and calling your opinions "evidence".
2008: Jason Castro - Has/had talent, on the roster 2008: Jordan Lyles - given more than a fair shot here. Ultimately helped acquire Fowler who then led to Valbuena. 2009: Jio Mier - STILL IN SYSTEM, likely never going to make it. 2010: DDJr, Folty, Kvasnika - one had no real position, the second one had no secondary pitches, the third one was a bust. 2011: Springer - Has talent, on the roster. So, 3 of the 5 years of Heck/Wade features players this regime has kept. The other years/players features either busts or ones used for trades while their value is still high. The ONE outlier/unknwon is DDJr... and like I said, it became a numbers game that will likely plague them with their current regime players as well. No, we're just not twisting the narrative around to fit your idea of what you think is happening... you just literally said all those players were the Heck/Wade "foundation", when really they weren't. "Surprisingly", the ones who've stuck here are the ones with talent.
You can't turnover baseball rosters in a day; the system is too deep and you need too many players. But they've torn this organization apart from top to bottom about as quickly as humaly possible: 2.5 years, and the 40-man roster is nearing 90% all Luhnow-era guys and the Wade/Heck-era has almost systematically been wiped from existence, Seriously, scan the rosters... Luhnow has literally flooded the system with his guys; he traded anything that wasn't bolted to the MMP grass just to get bodies through the door. What are you and Nick even arguing? That they're *not* turning over the vast majority of Wade/Heck-era players? Are you sure, cardpire? I mean, I can't wrap my head around where you're coming from. They have abolsutely gutted this system; you yourself freaking called it a wasteland. Now, because they haven't traded EVERY player from that era, my point is, what did you call it... ah, yes: idiotic? OK......
Oh, 3 of the 5 YEARS... yeah, never mind it's 4 of the 7 PLAYERS (including the entire first round in '10) with Mier "likely never going to make it" (which would make it 5 of the 7 players) and Castro, who's been the subject of trade talks each of the past two years, now in a straight time/split with Hank Freaking Conger. But, please, tell us more about twisting narrartives to fit your idea of what you think in happening, Mr. 3 of 5 Years... Again, what are first round picks if not foundation? And at the time of their deals, Cosart wasn't a foundation piece? Happ? Wallace? OK.
If you make up something I've said for the express purpose of shooting it down, it is most assuredly a strawman. And circumstantial evidence is, you know... evidence. It's true! I promise.
No, pretty sure we (me and Nick) are both saying that they are making decisions based on evaluation of the players' talent, and have no bias toward the regime/manner in which they players were acquired, contrary to what you've said/implied. I'll repeat that as many times as you need me to.
This is literally you going so deep into the forrest that you can no longer see the trees. You honestly think Mier is being "held back" by this regime because he was of a different regime? You honestly think they didn't give Wallace any/every opportunity to make it here (hell, he was playing ST games at 3B as of last year). Shoot, why not talk about MATT DOMINGUEZ? Was he unfairly treated by this regime, even though he was traded for by this regime? If anything this exercise has taught us is that there wasn't all that much here when Luhnow took over (which typically happens when you have a 100 loss team that needs to fire its GM). The Heck/Wade draft era will pale in comparison to this front office... but in the end, the players they drafted with "talent" stuck... and this regime continues to value that, despite them not being hand-picked. Just like they'll jettison players/decisions they've made that don't seem to work out (Lucas Harrell, Matt Dominguez, Bo Porter, Chris Carter...haha!)
Na, I don't think that will be necessary In fact, i'm not sure what any of yall think you are going to "settle" with this conversation, apparently about who could hit ace pitching better Ed Wade or Jeff Luhnow I'm going with Luhnow, think he is a big younger and just seems to have a little more edge to him Carry on children, carry on
Cool. I sincerely respect that POV. So let me ask you... do you not believe in familiarity bias? If you had a friendly, 100% platonic relationship with my wife via work - and she asked you to go to lunch the same day your wife asked you to go to lunch, who do you go to lunch with?...... Humans are inherently biased. Regimes are fundamentally biased. I don't think it's a stretch to offer that, if Luhnow rates Kemp equal to Altuve, he might be biased to providing a Kemp an opportunity at the expense of Altuve, who he didn't scout, draft or develop. These discussions sometimes get so fractured, the original messages/intent get lost. I never said he'd 100% favor Kemp over Altuve ONLY because he drafted Kemp and not Altuve; there was was a lot of context to how Luhnow *might* favor Kemp: bias, yes - but also him rating them equally, Altuve having more trade value, etc.
Great, but that's not what I did. I quoted what you said word for word, then responded with a reason that your argument held no water. Sure, but this isn't evidence, circumstantial or otherwise, of the regime having some inane bias of keeping their players over the previous regimes', simply because they are "theirs" (your original stance that i was sucked back into this about): "They have other, more pressing needs (SPs), a seemingly acceptable replacement in AAA (that, btw, this regime selected) and they've shown no hesitation to readily deal a Wade/Heck-era player..." Additionally, as far as Altuve specifically: "more pressing needs", and a "seemingly acceptable replacement in AAA" aren't circumstantial evidence of them being willing to dump Altuve either. Those are YOUR OPINIONS. And it's YOUR OPINION that the opportunity cost of losing altuve to upgrade elsewhere would net a positive result.
