O's making trade (O's acquire Thome)

[Greg]

Left-hander Zach Phillips has cleared waivers and been outrighted to Triple-A Norfolk. The O’s designated Phillips for assignment on June 30 to make room on the 40-man roster for Jim Thome.

[Frobby]

Left-hander Zach Phillips has cleared waivers and been outrighted to Triple-A Norfolk. The O’s designated Phillips for assignment on June 30 to make room on the 40-man roster for Jim Thome.

Surprised and happy that Phillips didn't get plucked away.

[Hank Scorpio]

Everyone. Read this post. And read it again. NO compensation for any free agent to be that is traded.

I read it three times... and I just have one question:

What can we get in terms of compensation for Thome after the season?

[clapdiddy]

I read it three times... and I just have one question:

What can we get in terms of compensation for Thome after the season?

The only compensation we might receive is a bottle of champagne from Thome thanking us for trading for him. Or...it could be a box of dog pooh in an unmarked box with no return address from him if we wind up stinking the rest of the season.

[Flash- bd]

Wow, this thread reads like a baseball-themed version of 1984. Lots of bellyfeel, duckspeak, and doublethink going on in here...

Anyway, at the risk of committing a thoughtcrime, I'll just say that I think it's a pretty bad idea to trade a high-ceiling catching prospect for 3 months of a 41 year-old pinch hitter with a bad back and leave it at that.

You sound like a kid who just read 1984 for the first time and is trying to throw in as many references as possible in a couple of sentences. If you're going to (try to) show off, you could at least pick a better book...

Ironically, you're description, "a high-ceiling prospect for 3 months of a 41 year-old pinch hitter with a bad back," is about as misleading, manipulative, and based-in-fact as the archetypal Orwellian government.

[OFFNY]

You sound like a kid who just read 1984 for the first time and is trying to throw in as many references as possible in a couple of sentences. If you're going to (try to) show off, you could at least pick a better book...

Ironically, you're description, "a high-ceiling prospect for 3 months of a 41 year-old pinch hitter with a bad back," is about as misleading, manipulative, and based-in-fact as the archetypal Orwellian government.

I walked on the moon.

[Flash- bd]

I walked on the moon.

Hah, good stuff. Reminds me of this:

Grimes: You? Went into outer space? You?

Homer: Sure. You’ve never been?

[Lucky Jim]

You sound like a kid who just read 1984 for the first time and is trying to throw in as many references as possible in a couple of sentences. If you're going to (try to) show off, you could at least pick a better book...

Ironically, you're description, "a high-ceiling prospect for 3 months of a 41 year-old pinch hitter with a bad back," is about as misleading, manipulative, and based-in-fact as the archetypal Orwellian government.

Outside of the "pinch hitter" part, what's the main point of inaccuracy?

[Flash- bd]

"high-ceiling prospect"

[Lucky Jim]

"high-ceiling prospect"

By nearly all accounts that I've seen, he's high-ceiling prospect. He may be a flawed prospect, with tons of holes and little chance of meeting his ceiling, but that doesn't change the ceiling.

He's got a long way to go and lot of hurdles to get over, but he's got the tools to be an everyday major leaguer with a ceiling as a power hitting, good defensive major league catcher.

That's not a high-ceiling?

[Flash- bd]

By nearly all accounts that I've seen, he's high-ceiling prospect. He may be a flawed prospect, with tons of holes and little chance of meeting his ceiling, but that doesn't change the ceiling.

Fair enough. It's still pretty misleading to call him a "high-ceiling prospect" and nothing else. When I hear the words "high-ceiling prospect" I think top 100 prospect, at the very least. Lino isn't in our top 10 and he's not in our top 20 depending on who you talk to.

With your literal reading of it, you're correct, but I just don't think you throw around "high-ceiling prospect" as your only descriptor of a player, lest we confuse him with Bundy, Machado, or Schoop. If we want to broaden the definition of that term to the very literal sense, we have to allow guys like the Pedro Florimon (before his ceiling collapsed), Jai Miller, Mychal Givens, Glynn Davis, etc., who all, technically, have "high-ceilings".

[Lucky Jim]

Fair enough. It's still pretty misleading to call him a "high-ceiling prospect" and nothing else. When I hear the words "high-ceiling prospect" I think top 100 prospect, at the very least. Lino isn't in our top 10 and he's not in our top 20 depending on who you talk to.

With your literal reading of it, you're correct, but I just don't think you throw around "high-ceiling prospect" as your only descriptor of a player, lest we confuse him with Bundy, Machado, or Schoop. If we want to broaden the definition of that term to the very literal sense, we have to allow guys like the Pedro Florimon (before his ceiling collapsed), Jai Miller, Mychal Givens, Glynn Davis, etc., who all, technically, have "high-ceilings".

I wouldn't trade Glyn Davis for Thome. Florimon, Miller and Givens are not high-ceiling guys. His description was accurate. I agree with him.

[Frobby]

Fair enough. It's still pretty misleading to call him a "high-ceiling prospect" and nothing else. When I hear the words "high-ceiling prospect" I think top 100 prospect, at the very least. Lino isn't in our top 10 and he's not in our top 20 depending on who you talk to.

.

Tony had him in the OH top 10. That's good enough for me. This isn't like trading Henson or Miclat. This kid has significantly more upside than that. And if he was traded for someone who would help us at a position of need beyond 2012, I would have been fine with it, but I just don't see a huge need for Thome given the other 1B/DH types on our roster.

[Flash- bd]

That's funny, because Florimon and Givens' profiles read pretty damn similar to Lino's about 2 yrs back.

I guess it all just comes down to your valuation of Lino. I only consider Lino a high-ceiling prospect if you'll also consider me a potential-millionaire if I buy a couple lottery tickets. There's little use of talking about ceiling if the chances of hitting that ceiling are less than 5%, and that "ceiling" may be no more than a chimera in the first place.

Frobby: I'm pretty sure Tony won't have him in his top 10 this year after he hit .218/.282/.340 at Delmarva (and that after a torrid start), with a 64:16 K:BB ratio. And no knock on Tony, but he's the only one who put him that high and basically qualified the choice with the sidebar: (paraphrasing here) I'm putting him here because there's basically no one else with a high enough ceiling to warrant this position.

[Lucky Jim]

That's funny, because Florimon and Givens' profiles read pretty damn similar to Lino's about 2 yrs back.

I guess it all just comes down to your valuation of Lino. I only consider Lino a high-ceiling prospect if you'll also consider me a potential-millionaire if I buy a couple lottery tickets. There's little use of talking about ceiling if the chances of hitting that ceiling are less than 5%, and that "ceiling" may be no more than a chimera in the first place.

No, it doesn't. He's legitimately high-ceiling.

But you should feel free to define "high ceiling" however you like. That said, if you do, you should probably warn people who care about scouting that you're using your own (finely nuanced) definitions of their terms of art.