Zach Davies is pitching his butt off

[Ruzious]

If you think Duquette has "gutted" the farm system, do not even look at what the Blue Jays gave up for Mark Buehrle, Jose Reyes, and R.A. Dickey. But now the Blue Jays are baseball's darlings! Let's all step back from the ledge, guys.

Putting gutted in quotes implies that you're quoting someone. Who were you quoting?

[eb45]

Putting gutted in quotes implies that you're quoting someone. Who were you quoting?

The guy that said Duquette emptied the farm system. Misremembered "emptied" as "gutted."

[Frobby]

Zach won his first major league game yesterday -- 7 IP, 4 H, 1 R.

[Stotle]

If you think Duquette has "gutted" the farm system, do not even look at what the Blue Jays gave up for Mark Buehrle, Jose Reyes, and R.A. Dickey. But now the Blue Jays are baseball's darlings! Let's all step back from the ledge, guys.

The Blue Jays didn't gut their system -- they arguably still have a better system than Baltimore's even after the prospect sell-off this summer.

[Il BuonO]

The Blue Jays didn't gut their system -- they arguably still have a better system than Baltimore's even after the prospect sell-off this summer.

Depressing....

[sportsfan8703]

Davies was always a favorite of mine. But I was stupid enough to think Parra would help, but I also knew we needed a SP. How I reasoned the trade was is that we had plenty of #4/5 type starters, so why not trade one for an OF. Parra is good. It wont look so bad if we keep Parra here. I'm happy for Davies. He's the one guy over all the years that always had "good command", and we all know how rare that is around here. The season of the 0-2 pitch killing us.

[webbrick2010]

Davies was always a favorite of mine. But I was stupid enough to think Parra would help, but I also knew we needed a SP. How I reasoned the trade was is that we had plenty of #4/5 type starters, so why not trade one for an OF. Parra is good. It wont look so bad if we keep Parra here. I'm happy for Davies. He's the one guy over all the years that always had "good command", and we all know how rare that is around here. The season of the 0-2 pitch killing us.

Why do people keep saying this?

We didn't need to trade for Parra to sign him in the offseason.

I don't think it makes it any more likely to sign him. I'm not sure his audition makes me want to see him signed. There are better options that we should be targeting.

We should have Davies competing for a rotation spot and could have signed Parra or whomever else

heck DeAzza has comparable or better stats and has been better with the Red Sox than Parra has been with the O's

[Reboulet'sStache]

It wont look so bad if we keep Parra here.

Sure it will.

[eb45]

The Blue Jays didn't gut their system -- they arguably still have a better system than Baltimore's even after the prospect sell-off this summer.

Right -- just pointing out it's possible to trade away top prospects (even those who turn out to be very good!) without crippling the franchise.

[Ruzious]

Davies was always a favorite of mine. But I was stupid enough to think Parra would help, but I also knew we needed a SP. How I reasoned the trade was is that we had plenty of #4/5 type starters, so why not trade one for an OF. Parra is good. It wont look so bad if we keep Parra here. I'm happy for Davies. He's the one guy over all the years that always had "good command", and we all know how rare that is around here. The season of the 0-2 pitch killing us.

Good point - It's very possible that Davies would have helped the team down the stretch more than Parra has. Iron Ic.

[Stotle]

Right -- just pointing out it's possible to trade away top prospects (even those who turn out to be very good!) without crippling the franchise.

But isn't a big part of that having a system deep enough to allow for trading-off of big pieces while having still further pieces remaining? It's not a universal principle, right?

[eb45]

But isn't a big part of that having a system deep enough to allow for trading-off of big pieces while having still further pieces remaining? It's not a universal principle, right?

Sure. The point I was making was more about how it's possible to quickly rebuild a farm system following a major sell-off, even one that ends up looking bad. I'm not so much saying that trading away Davies is good resource management, but that judicious drafting and signing can help rebuild in a hurry, even if you trade away four of the top five prospects in the system. If you've got a constant stream of quality talent, you can absorb those kinds of trades much easier.

[Can_of_corn]

Sure. The point I was making was more about how it's possible to quickly rebuild a farm system following a major sell-off, even one that ends up looking bad. I'm not so much saying that trading away Davies is good resource management, but that judicious drafting and signing can help rebuild in a hurry, even if you trade away four of the top five prospects in the system. If you've got a constant stream of quality talent, you can absorb those kinds of trades much easier.

But if you have a constant stream of quality talent you don't need to trade for a Parra in the first place.

[Frobby]

But if you have a constant stream of quality talent you don't need to trade for a Parra in the first place.

Toronto really loaded up on draft picks a few years ago. That's why they could deal a bunch of prospects and still have some talent in their system. That said, the Dickey trade looks pretty awful in hindsight.

[Stotle]

Sure. The point I was making was more about how it's possible to quickly rebuild a farm system following a major sell-off, even one that ends up looking bad. I'm not so much saying that trading away Davies is good resource management, but that judicious drafting and signing can help rebuild in a hurry, even if you trade away four of the top five prospects in the system. If you've got a constant stream of quality talent, you can absorb those kinds of trades much easier.

Absolutely agree -- fix the pipeline and selling off barrels becomes a non-issue.