Dan Duquette ON MLBNETWORK

[Roll Tide]

I have no problems with them all going, shame the list doesn't include Hardy.

The problem is there is no one of even vaguely equivalent value (to what they produced as O's, not going forward) joining the team.

I agree which cements my point that these guys should've went at the deadline. They certainly could've moved Chen, ODay, and Davis for bunch of prospects. Wieters they could've still QO'D him and we've had two picks...plus we could half ass try to bring them back with no penalty. No lost picks as they couldn't have been QOd.

[weams]

I agree which cements my point that these guys should've went at the deadline. They certainly could've moved Chen, ODay, and Davis for bunch of prospects. Wieters they could've still QO'D him and we've had two picks...plus we could half ass try to bring them back with no penalty. No lost picks as they couldn't have been QOd.

Game out. You don't even think of selling unless you are a criminal, lawyer.

[Going Underground]

Game out. You don't even think of selling unless you are a criminal, lawyer.

So I guess,personal injury lawyers don't count?

[Can_of_corn]

I agree which cements my point that these guys should've went at the deadline. They certainly could've moved Chen, ODay, and Davis for bunch of prospects. Wieters they could've still QO'D him and we've had two picks...plus we could half ass try to bring them back with no penalty. No lost picks as they couldn't have been QOd.

I think the return would have been less then the value of the pick. Remember Davis got hot late.

[weams]

So I guess,personal injury lawyers don't count?

No, they don't.

[weams]

I think the return would have been less then the value of the pick. Remember Davis got hot late.

Anyone who wanted to be a seller was not taking into consideration that the club may not be in that position again for another 14 years.

[Can_of_corn]

Anyone who wanted to be a seller was not taking into consideration that the club may not be in that position again for another 14 years.

I'd have sold, I just don't think they had a lot to sell.

Of course one could postulate that the best way to avoid that position for another 14 years is to neglect the farm in an effort to buoy a flagging MLB team.

[weams]

I'd have sold, I just don't think they had a lot to sell.

Of course one could postulate that the best way to avoid that position for another 14 years is to neglect the farm in an effort to buoy a flagging MLB team.

A game out? I question if you would have had the fortitude. None of the 30 that actually have that job would have.

[Can_of_corn]

A game out? I question if you would have had the fortitude. None of the 30 that actually have that job would have.

The only coveted asset that would have been realistic to give up and would bring more back then the QO would have been O'Day.

At that point you are better rolling the dice with what you have.

As opposed to trading for Parra.

[weams]

The only coveted asset that would have been realistic to give up and would bring more back then the QO would have been O'Day.

At that point you are better rolling the dice with what you have.

As opposed to trading for Parra.

I do not disagree with either of those mentions.

[brianod]

So since you want to start with an attempt at condescension and a writing critique, we shall. My sincerest apologies for offending your keen editorial eye with my use of "bantered" vs. "bandied". I plead writing this quickly this morning. Additionally, I wasn't aware that I was taking "a lofty pose", whatever that might mean, when I responded to you. I'm not sure "a lofty pose" is really a thing; however, you seem to be the English expert, so perhaps you can correct me. Alternatively, perhaps you meant my post was an attempt at lofty prose? Unsure... There are a few typos in your own post, so perhaps I'd suggest checking the structural integrity of your glass house before your start casting stones.

On to substance, if we can. I actually, in principle, don't disagree with your position- finding value in the trade market is not a bad thing and you obviously need to give something to get something. I'm just saying that I have some doubts about the current regime's ability to get good value in trades, given its performance of late. I do think you are overestimating the return of some of your trade proposals (such as the Britton for Reed deal), but I recognize you're just coming up with these quickly, so not going to hold you to that.

Additionally, you point out Cisco, Mancini, etc - sure, these guys have value, but do we really want to be trading from the already thin pool of quality MiLB depth that we have? My preference is that we don't, and instead we focus on the FA market. If we don't fill all the gaps sufficiently to compete in 2016, I'm okay with that as long as we're continuing to build for the future. I don't really think that 2016 is our year, but I think we can continue to be competitive. What I don't want to see happen is a hail mary to compete in 2016 by reaching on a number of trades and thinning out our farm system even further. That's my ultimate point here.

I can't agree more with the last paragraph. No trades from our thin farm system. I'd rather take a step back and build the farm than execute another horrible trade of prospects for overrated, average players.

[brianod]

They had two different jobs. Andy was selling, Dan has been buying -- for both of them, often at the time of year that favors the seller. I agree Andy made several great trades, but I don't think it's completely fair to compare the two.

Dan has sucked at trades, Andy was good. I don't see why it's not fair to point that out. The trades Dan has made have made us worse. Since our ownership is cheap and we have to win with less, we need to build the farm, not deplete it.

[gmelson26]

Dan has sucked at trades, Andy was good. I don't see why it's not fair to point that out. The trades Dan has made have made us worse. Since our ownership is cheap and we have to win with less, we need to build the farm, not deplete it.

The day we traded for Parra, I said DD should never be allowed to make another trade for us again. I was called ridiculous. There was a touch of hyperbole in there I will admit, but I still stand by it- particularly given the complete and utter waste the Parra trade turned out to be.

[weams]

Dan has sucked at trades, Andy was good. I don't see why it's not fair to point that out. The trades Dan has made have made us worse. Since our ownership is cheap and we have to win with less, we need to build the farm, not deplete it.

Because you are wrong. Andy was a seller. Dan has had to be a buyer. Just had to point that out. They are different positions to deal from. Like when you are playing cards. Position is everything. Just needed to point that out.

[weams]

The day we traded for Parra, I said DD should never be allowed to make another trade for us again. I was called ridiculous. There was a touch of hyperbole in there I will admit, but I still stand by it- particularly given the complete and utter waste the Parra trade turned out to be.

Obviously Parra under-performed, as did the rest of the club. It's not like someone could not have predicted both of those things.