Two Guy's we should think about

[davearm]

LOL...Dave stick the NL.

If that is the type of player they want for Huber, they will just lose him as a 6 year minor league FA or have him getting 150 ab's a year in the AL.

BTW, Liz and Olson appeared on BA's top 20 list in TWO DIFFERENT leagues...Huber didn't make his.

Very little doubt in my mind that Olson and Liz have a higher prospect status right now.

WTF is with the attitude?

You asked me what I thought the Royals would ask for. I told you what I think they would ask for.

If the best they could get from you guys was Olson or Liz, I think they'd pass, and see what some other team would offer.

[NoVaO]

I think if I hear this bs one more time I'll pull the last few hairs out of my head.

JUST BECAUSE A GUY IS BLOCKED DOESN'T MEAN HIS TEAM IS DYING TO GIVE HIM AWAY TO THE FIRST TEAM THAT'LL TAKE HIM.

Bargain shopping like this is going to get you a whole lot of nothing.

ONCE AGAIN, look at the Kouzmanoff trade. Barfield's a darn good return for a guy that was blocked in the Indians' system. That's full price.

Well, the Indians did add a pretty decent reliever prospect in Andy Brown to the trade, but whatever. It was a good deal for both teams. However, Kouzmanoff right now (maybe not before the 2006 season) is the better prospect. His numbers are pretty superior to Huber's and the league rankings this year shows that Kouzmanoff has passed Huber as a prospect.

I use the "homer excuse" when you overvalue O's prospects.

You have yet to present why Huber has more value than Olson and Liz. BA ranked Huber as the #83 prospect entering 2006. By mid-season, he was off the top-100 lists I saw, and Liz placed in the top-75. Olson was just outside the top-100 in the ones that extended beyond 100.

Well sounds like he's got a fastball, a curveball he can't command, and a changeup he can't command.

Is that one pitch or three?

Look the guys obviously got a live arm, and if he can work through the rawness and the control issues, then he'll be a good young bullpen arm with setup or closer upside. That is still a big "IF".

Maybe I'm jaded because this guy sounds exactly like our Roberto Novoa, who had basically the exact same scouting report a few years back when we got him (and some other prospects) for Kyle Farnsworth. Same big heater, same control issues. The results of that combination are not pretty, believe me. (See also: Julio, Jorge.)

As Callis mentioned, Huber's got a Craig Wilson profile.

I'd take a young Craig Wilson over a young Roberto Novoa or Jorge Julio anytime.

I'd be interested to see what the folks at "Royals Hangout" would say to Huber for Liz/Olson. Doubt they'd be too thrilled.

Lol, I was the one who said he looked like Craig Wilson...same body type, similar minor league numbers (except Wilson was a little better), and he mashes lefties, but struggles against righties. I also said this was a BEST-CASE scenario. Callis mentioned .280/20 HRs...I don't think he'll hit .280 and there is obviously the scenario where he just never pans out (same with any prospect).

In the minors Novoa consistently had K rates around 6. You could say Liz has a scouting report like Julio. You can also say he has a scouting report like Jose Valverde, etc. etc. The bottom line is that if you read the scouting reports on Liz, they say he has top of the rotation stuff, but will most likely end up in the bullpen. Novoa and Jorge Julio would be like Liz reaching his mid/lower level potential.

And this may not be from a Royals site, but this is from an Arizona site, something I actually found a long time ago...this is dated 4/17/06 and discusses Carter (who I like much better than Huber) in the first couple comments:

Chris Carter

Hi! Jim,

You probably already saw it, but I was pleased over the weekend to see John Sickels list Chris Carter among his three "favorite" National League Prospect Sleepers to watch in the NL this year. (see cut & paste below)

How 'bout we trade Carter to an AL club where he can be put to optimal use. . . oh, I don't know. . . how about Radhames Liz (RHP, Baltimore Orioles) or Brian Duensing (LHP, Minnesota Twins)?

http://www.azsnakepit.com/story/2006/4/17/165251/834

[NoVaO]

I see those snippets. I also see the terms "raw" and "command issues", and I see from his stat sheet that he walks guys at a frightening rate.

But I am curious, did anyone use phrases like "special" and "a lot of upside" to describe Julio when he was the same age as Liz is now?

Recall that was the year the O's handed him their closer job as a rookie, and he responded with 25 saves, a sparkling ERA, and a handful of ROY votes.

What happened next was that his control went south to the tune of ~5 BB/9(the same neighborhood Liz lives in already, incidentally), and hitters learned to sit on his fastball, and cream it. The rest is (sad) history.

Could Liz turn out better than this? Sure. Or he could be worse.

I'm not sure what they said about Julio, but I do know when we traded for him, he was in his fourth season in A-ball and destined to be a reliever.

But why are we comparing him to Jorge Julio? If you do that, then I'll make the comparison with Joel Zumaya (who walked 4.5 batters per 9), or Jose Valverde (who walked 4-7 per 9). Liz IS raw, but the potential is there for him to do great things.

But again, why is Huber so much more valuable than Liz? Whats the scouting report? W/o seeing one, just going by the numbers, he has trouble making contacting and gets too pull happy at times.

The point is, if you can't recognize the similarities, both good and bad, then you've simply lost your ability to look at the situation rationally. Which is what (IMO) is giving rise to the orange-glasses phenomenon that's going on here... you're trumpeting to the accolades, and sweeping the red flags under the rug. I'm not joining in.

Goodness...you seem to be treating Huber with how you perceive us to be treating Liz and Olson. You have not acknowledged that Huber had a down year and is not as highly touted as he was in 2005. You have not talked about Huber's struggles to consistently hit for a high average in the minors (besides one season) and you have not talked about how he struggles to make contact. The red flags are right there for Huber as well.

I thought Penn for Shealy was debateable, but I don't feel that way with Huber. Huber for Loewen is a joke.

[davearm]

I'm not sure what they said about Julio, but I do know when we traded for him, he was in his fourth season in A-ball and destined to be a reliever.

But why are we comparing him to Jorge Julio? If you do that, then I'll make the comparison with Joel Zumaya (who walked 4.5 batters per 9), or Jose Valverde (who walked 4-7 per 9). Liz IS raw, but the potential is there for him to do great things.

But again, why is Huber so much more valuable than Liz? Whats the scouting report? W/o seeing one, just going by the numbers, he has trouble making contacting and gets too pull happy at times.

Goodness...you seem to be treating Huber with how you perceive us to be treating Liz and Olson. You have not acknowledged that Huber had a down year and is not as highly touted as he was in 2005. You have not talked about Huber's struggles to consistently hit for a high average in the minors (besides one season) and you have not talked about how he struggles to make contact. The red flags are right there for Huber as well.

I thought Penn for Shealy was debateable, but I don't feel that way with Huber. Huber for Loewen is a joke.

You misunderstand NoVaO.

I'm viewing Huber the way I expect the Royals' FO would.

My pure, 100% speculation is that they would:

* jump at Loewen without a moment's hesitation;

* think hard about Penn and ultimately they probably do it (actually you probably wouldn't get a lot of pushback on that);

* pass on anything less than that, and shop Huber elsewhere.

In the latter case, my guess is they'd be after either a) a ML-ready guy they can stick right into their 2007 rotation, or b) a top-shelf prospect that's worth waiting a year or two for (Erbe for instance).

Neither Liz nor Olson fit either of those descriptions, IMHO. And that's why I don't think there's a deal to be struck there.

BTW I don't blame you in the least for calling Huber for Loewen a joke. I wouldn't recommend that trade if I was the O's. But that's where the Royals would start the conversation, IMO. And that's what I was asked: "what you think it would take to get Huber".

[Sports Guy]

You misunderstand NoVaO.

I'm viewing Huber the way I expect the Royals' FO would.

My pure, 100% speculation is that they would:

* jump at Loewen without a moment's hesitation;

* think hard about Penn and ultimately they probably do it (actually you probably wouldn't get a lot of pushback on that);

* pass on anything less than that, and shop Huber elsewhere.

In the latter case, my guess is they'd be after either a) a ML-ready guy they can stick right into their 2007 rotation, or b) a top-shelf prospect that's worth waiting a year or two for (Erbe for instance).

Neither Liz nor Olson fit either of those descriptions, IMHO. And that's why I don't think there's a deal to be struck there.

BTW I don't blame you in the least for calling Huber for Loewen a joke. I wouldn't recommend that trade if I was the O's. But that's where the conversation would start, IMO. And that's what I was asked: "what you think it would take to get Huber".

Do you honestly believe some team would give up a top 20 pitching prospect for Huber?

[davearm]

Do you honestly believe some team would give up a top 20 pitching prospect for Huber?

I can't explain it to you any other better way brother.

IMO they'd want a guy that can go straight into the rotation and improve them immediately, or a "worth the wait" top-end prospect. Liz is neither of these, nor is Olson.

[Sports Guy]

I can't explain it to you any other better way brother.

IMO they'd want a guy that can go straight into the rotation and improve them immediately, or a "worth the wait" top-end prospect. Liz is neither of these, nor is Olson.

So, what type of starter would they need? Oh wait, let me guess...Johan Santana right? Or, maybe that great pitcher, Angel Guzman...Oh no, i got it! Sean Marshall!!!!!

So, basically you are saying the Royals would rather keep him than get a prospect like Liz or Olson because let me tell you something, there is absolutely no way they get more than that for him and if they want an established ML starter, it will be a guy like Benson.

And if they would prefer Benson, i would do that in a second.

[davearm]

So, what type of starter would they need? Oh wait, let me guess...Johan Santana right? Or, maybe that great pitcher, Angel Guzman...Oh no, i got it! Sean Marshall!!!!!

So, basically you are saying the Royals would rather keep him than get a prospect like Liz or Olson because let me tell you something, there is absolutely no way they get more than that for him and if they want an established ML starter, it will be a guy like Benson.

And if they would prefer Benson, i would do that in a second.

Penn would be the obvious "straight into the rotation" guy.

If you wanted to explore "worth the wait" options, I'm sure Erbe would be a guy they'd be thrilled to have.

And once again, there's no call for the hostility. I'm just telling you what I think the Royals would need to make this worth their while. If my opinion so irritates you, then stop asking me for it.

[Sports Guy]

Penn would be the obvious "straight into the rotation" guy.

If you wanted to explore "worth the wait" options, I'm sure Erbe would be a guy they'd be thrilled to have.

And once again, there's no call for the hostility. I'm just telling you what I think the Royals would need to make this worth their while. If my opinion so irritates you, then stop asking me for it.

First of all, don't get your panties in a bunch, im messing with you.

Secondly, that is fine if that is what the Royals ask for because no team in baseball will give that to them for Huber. They would have to trade Butler or Gordon to warrant a top arm like Loewen.

So, again, they can either REASONABLY use Huber to upgrade a weakness, pitching, or they can hold onto him and play him sparily or leave him in AAA for insurance.

That is a horrendous way of using resources...That is why the Royals are the Royals.

[Pedro Cerrano]

Guys this is turning into a series of ad hominem attacks to a certain extent. SG & Co. feel like Liz and Olson are better prospects than Huber or, at the very least, feel the Royals would be willing to make a swap due to organizational needs. Dave, as a (more) objective observer of our farm system, seems to think that Liz or Olson will not get it done because

1) Huber has more value than Liz or Olson in a vacuum

and therefore

2) Will not move him prematurely simply because they are deep at 1b and need pitching help.

Everyone has addressed their stances and it doesn't appear anyone wants to budge; perhaps we can just agree to disagree and move on? After all, unless the Royals and O's consummate a deal featuring Huber for either Liz, Olson or Penn, we have no real way of knowing who is right in this debate.

[davearm]

I'm not backing down.

I still think Huber is a guy that can step into your ML lineup right away and be a productive, well-rounded player both offensively and defensively. I have no clue why the Royals are handling him the way they have, but regardless, it doesn't change the fact that this guy is ready to be a solid everyday bigleaguer right now, IN MY OPINION.

If I'm the one trading a young/cheap guy like that away for pitching, I want one of two things: either another young/cheap guy that can step into the ML rotation right away and be productive, or a guy that, although not ready right away, has risen near the top of the prospect heap in the lower minors and stands a strong chance of being a very good major leaguer in a year or two.

Neither Liz nor Olson meet either criteria, IN MY OPINION.

That's how I'd look at this thing, and I've got no reason to believe the Royals would approach the situation any differently. Blocked or not, the Royals have no incentive to move Huber unless it's worth their while. Liz/Olson falls short. IN MY OPINION.

[Sports Guy]

Dave, your opinion has to be based on something.

We keep asking for this incredible scouting reports on Huber. Where are they?

Why is that your opinion?

[davearm]

Dave, your opinion has to be based on something.

We keep asking for this incredible scouting reports on Huber. Where are they?

Why is that your opinion?

So you want me to chase down some scouting reports so that you can jump up and down screaming PRESEASON! PRESEASON!! PRESEASON!!!

No thanks on that.

[wildcard]

I think it all comes down to how much an organization values their young pitchers. Pitcher are the difference makers. Good pitching does shut down good hitting.

The O's have a chance of beat the Yanks, Boston and whoever else is out there. It is the development of young pitching that is their - one chance. Bedard, Cabrera, Loewen, Penn, Ray, Olson, Liz, Hoey and Erbe are the O's chance to dominant. Yes, dominant.

If the O's have a chance to be like the Tigers of 2006 or the White Sox of 2005 they need to value their top young pitchers like they are gold -- and they have. How many offers have they gotten for Bedard, Cabrera and Penn? How many more will they get for any of the pitchers mentioned? They seem to understand that these guys are their one chance.

So Huber may be everything that is being said about him. He could be very good. But he is not valuable enough for this franchise giving up its chance to be a playoff team or even better. The O's can find other ways to get offense then trading the crown jewels of the franchise.

[Sports Guy]

So you want me to chase down some scouting reports so that you can jump up and down screaming PRESEASON! PRESEASON!! PRESEASON!!!

No thanks on that.

Dave, RZ and NovaO have provided in season reports on these guys. It is obvious to everyone else that the prospect status of Liz and Olson is higher than it was before the season.

It is also obvious to everyone else that Huber's status has gotten worse.

Do you agree with those 2 statements?