Quote:
Originally Posted by Matty81
Gose I could live with... although honestly I would rather not see them trade any more of their top prospects for a guy who will be retired in 3 or 4 years. The goal should be long term sustainability not flaring out in one year, especially when you have no idea how the new roster will mesh and what the results will be like. Imagine if the team craters and they've traded two more top prospects for Dickey.
If you want to spend 14 mil a year, sign Edwin Jackson for nothing, or better yet, wait until the trade deadline and pick up a rental when you're certain the team is going to contend. Garza, Lincecum, Floyd, Shields... lots of rental arms out there this year
The Jays aren't the Yankees or the Red Sox, they need to maintain decent farm depth if they want to build something that lasts. And if they insist on trading a D'Arnaud, they need promising or established cost controlled players back with lots of contributing years or significant trade value ahead of them.
|
Hope you don't mind me playing devils advocate here but here goes.
Edwin Jackson is going to get 5 years and big money. I'd say that's more franchise handicapping then a D'Arnaud for Dickey trade. Especially for a guy who's about as average a pitcher as you can get, but stays healthy.
I think there is value in Dickey for not just one season but 3-4. That's possibly 3-4 seasons of a top of the rotation pitcher. There's some real value there and not just short term, the Jays don't win next season they're screwed in an LAA type of way.
You bring up the trade deadline pitchers, you're likely still going to have to give up value somewhat close to D'Arnaud and you get barely a quarter of service time (from a pitcher none the less) I think there's much more value in a full season of Dickey.
I think a lot of what your saying is fair but you're sort of selling Dickey short IMO. I think I might take him for 3-4 seasons over a #3 or #4 ceiling type of young guy with control.