1984Echoes

You're talking Garrett Crochet or Joe Ryan here. Very costly in prospect terms. And uncertain if Boston or the Twins want to move those guys.

Exactly on DeGrom. Sale also fits that description (to an obviously lesser degree); and is at half DeGrom's cost so we wouldn't have to go through Rangers' salary-pay-downs/ better prospect gyrations. I'd prefer DeGrom... but you've outlined a difficulty there (salary-paid-tied-to-top-prospects). Joe Ryan is a difference maker. But even more tricky because he's a higher prospect cost and it's the Twins... Next year's rotation would be Skubal-DeGrom-Olson-Flaherty-Jobe, with Madden/ Melton/ Hamm in Toledo and other depth either signed for Toledo or in Erie on the way up, or as a 5th/6th starter for Detroit (hopefully better than we've seen from Maeda/Cobb). IMO: that makes Mize/ Montero/ SGL superfluous, or at least tradeable assets. If Mize needs to be a part of a package that gets us DeGrom: Absolutely. I don't see Mize as a 1.10 WHIP guy, he's a really good pitcher but has consistently been less than that (this year at 1.20, one of his best years ever...) but I'm looking at difference-makers in the top 2 spots. Maybe top 3. That's DeGrom... and I'm hoping Jobe steps it up after recovering from his injury and gets into that 1.05 WHIP or better range. Olson has been in the 1.10 range, with a higher K-rate... Just sayin'... I'm absolutely with point 3. I see no reason for a depth starter. It's difference-maker as a starter or forget about it.

PS: I would definitely offer Mize AND Montero for Joe Ryan. Plus one of Madden/ Melton/ Hamm or whoever else they wanted to add that was not top 5 Tigers prospect or Cris Rodriguez. IMO.

Some additional thoughts on those guys (I had this in another thread... but it was yesterday's game thread and this post is trade related... specifically thoughts on DeGrom/ Chapman/ Miller...): I think the biggest bang for the buck on the pitching side... Meaning lowest trade cost but highest impact... is to trade for an older veteran who still has some dominance. The Rangers are struggling: Jacob DeGrom. I don't think the Rangers get near what it would cost for Garret Crochet or Joe Ryan. Just a guess. Sale would be costly (in prospect terms)... but what if a team wanted to contend next year after flopping out this year... could we include Mize or Montero for Sale or DeGrom and not spend much in prospect capital? Just some thoughts. And I would prefer a 1-2 punch of Skubal-DeGrom with Olson/ Flaherty at the back-end than Skubal-Mize-Flaherty-Olson... especially in the playoffs. And/or the World Series. But that's just me. Same thing on the reliever side. Aroldis Chapman should cost significantly less than Mason Miller in prospect capital. I would like to get them both however. Can we send Tyler Mattison (Miller-wannabe-who-will-probably-never-be...) to the A's for Miller? Maybe they could "fix him up" to be a pale replacement for him? Plus additional pieces as necessary? Just spit-ballin'...

I think the biggest bang for the buck on the pitching side... Meaning lowest trade cost but highest impact... is to trade for an older veteran who still has some dominance. The Rangers are struggling: Jacob DeGrom. I don't think the Rangers get near what it would cost for Garret Crochet or Joe Ryan. Just a guess. Sale would be costly (in prospect terms)... but what if a team wanted to contend next year after flopping out this year... could we include Mize or Montero for Sale or DeGrom and not spend much in prospect capital? Just some thoughts. And I would prefer a 1-2 punch of Skubal-DeGrom with Olson/ Flaherty at the back-end than Skubal-Mize-Flaherty-Olson... especially in the playoffs. And/or the World Series. But that's just me. Same thing on the reliever side. Aroldis Chapman should cost significantly less than Mason Miller in prospect capital. I would like to get them both however. Can we send Tyler Mattison (Miller-wannabe-who-will-probably-never-be...) to the A's for Miller? Maybe they could "fix him up" to be a pale replacement for him? Plus additional pieces as necessary? Just spit-ballin'...

It's not. This is now MAGA-land. Dangerously similar/ close-to Nazi Germany.

The veterans I want to get are: Jacob DeGrom, Aroldis Chapman, and Mason Miller. I'm not asking for the moon or anything...

And all the High School kids want those jobs picking cabbages. MAGA said so. Or maybe that was Trump that said it was true. So true. Picking cabbages. Who wouldn't want to do that for your country? For your President? Make America Great Again!!!! By picking cabbages.

Does Hao-Yu Lee get a chance at that? Small sample sizes... but against lefties in AAA this year: .885 OPS and against lefties in AA last year: .968 OPS I thought it would be worth it right about now to at least give him a chance to see if he could be an Ibanez this year... He's played 3B this year (offset to Keith there) and 2B and SS so he can move around a bit... Just a thought...

Right... But I'm talking about monthly employment numbers, increase average per month, not the "level" or "rate" of unemployment. If you look at a chart showing monthly numbers since Obama: The monthly gains in employment are massive starting the end of 2011, I think August IIRC. November/December 2011 added 500K I believe. 2012 monthly gains (average): 153K. 2013: lower at 36K, 2014: 260K avg per month. To your point on unemployment rate: The unemployment rate goes steadily down from 2010 until Trump's midway point first-term... It's almost a straight line (tilted downwards) from Obama until the pandemic (no one's fault...). BTW: When Obama left office the unemployment rate was 4.2%. Hmmm... where is it now I wonder...? Trump did NOT fundamentally change the economy his first term. THIS term... well, we'll see where his "tariff wars", expulsion of immigrant labor, reshoring of manufacturing, etc... leaves us. We will no longer be in Obama's Economy once Trump is done. Right now... I would call it a "transition period" from Obama's to Trump's economy.

Since Obama 2011. Everyone else is just riding Obama's coattails...

One more guy on my want list: Al Horford. He probably isn't interested in us... But I would love the vet leadership and the outside shooting he could give, even if it's for just one year...

Would we be interested in a 3-way if we were receiving Josh Giddey instead?

Wrong. I've voted multiple times for a Republican. I'm an Independent.

Today? There are no longer any Republicans to vote today. Only Trumpist-Fascist-Magats. That doesn't make me NOT an Independent... It is simply a limitation of my choices based on circumstances. And if these parties split into 3 (pipe dream, I know...): I would vote for the centrist Mainstream America Party. Fevered Dream... I know... but I am a centrist through and through. I would vote for Teddy Roosevelt if he were running (and in fact, his corpse would be a better President than the current guy), Colin Powell if he would have ever run, I was fine with George HW Bush, voted for W in 2004 (on one specific issue) ... etc. But yeah... today's Republicans are Toxic beyond belief, with a capital T. Again, that doesn't make me NOT an Independent, it just limits my choices. Call me "functionally" not an Independent... But I am an Independent.

I'm an Independent. I've voted Republican. And I've voted Democrat.

Yes, this is true... I get that. Of the 35%, let's sat 55% "normally" vote Republican and 45% "normally" vote Dem... But this is where you'll get 3rd party votes, stay-at-home votes, and the biggest swings election-to-election. Didn't Trump have a massive upswing in Independent votes between 2020 and 2024? IIRC. I don't remember how may registered Dems didn't vote in 2024 versus voted in 2020. It's in the numbers somewhere...

This is NOT correct. Trump won because of Independents. Republicans = 30% of the electorate. NO ONE can win with ONLY the support of their party voters. Dems are 35%, BTW. Go back and crunch your numbers again. Let us know how many Independents voted for Trump, because they are 35% of the electorate. And THEY are the "kingmakers" or the "backbreakers".

And too many fell out of love in 2024. And here we are...

Trump is a backstabbing ****scum. Amongst his hundreds of other atrocious character flaws.

The D looks better... IF A couple "not ready yet" prospects make a great leap forward (sorry Mao. Actually... NOT sorry): Seider - one of Buium or Wallinder if they can take a huge step forward... Edvinsson - Tuomisto (if he can...) Chiarot - Albert or Holl or Gustaffson or Mitchell bench D - whoever loses out but isn't bought out (I'm looking at you Holl and Gustaffson...). Obviously, I made that a very, VERY big IF for a reason which doesn't even need to be stated. Don't hold your breath, I'm not holding mine... and I would have preferred Miller or Dobson same as you except for the cost... I'm just sayin'... (should I have made that IF bigger...?)

aaah... You are correct.... I looked at one of his years and "saw" AHL when it was actually an NHL season... Reading too fast or something, something... excuses. But I would say this. I'm still not that impressed with JBD and I actually don't mean that in a bad way. On the positive side... he looks like he has been a 3rd pairing RHD. Which looks like a buyout of Holl... to me. We'll see if that happens... If it does, I'll look at that as a good thing in taking off 10 years from our 3rd pair RHD. And I'll gladly take him as a 3rd pair D, or even a 4th on the bench guy if he loses out to anyone else. Even Mitchell or Albert. I know Albert's a lefty but they played him on his opposite side for a reason... his play really grew on the team. I could see Albert quite a lot dressed as a 7th D so he can swing up and down the pairings as needed, or even as a forward. Just guessing... but I think he gets cross-trained this year. I don't see higher upside than that for JBD though, which is where the "unimpressed" comment comes from... Unless he pulls a "Walman" surprise and shows more upside than anyone expects. But KUDOS to Yzerman and whomever in his front office sussed out these two guys... cheap "give them a chance" guys who we could hope surprise on the upside. It does offer several options in trying to find that 2nd pair RHD to match up with Edvinsson. JBD is in the mix... although I don't think he has a chance there... unless he pulls that "Walman" shocker. Mitchell has less NHL time... but toss his hat in the mix anyways. Do they keep Holl at least through training camp to see if he's still needed? Or do they decide to move on and just fall back to Albert? This is what I won't change on what I said though: The team has expectations on Tuomisto. Everyone else can downplay his chances... but they gave him a two-way. For a reason. Obviously, they see things differently than as stated here on this forum. "back in Europe"? Seriously buddha? You may even be right... but they're going to give him chances, they're going to push him/ coach him/ and... We'll see what happens. It looks like everyone's assessment is that he doesn't belong in the NHL. So... we'll see...

Maybe I'm wrong here... But I believe Tuomisto, and Buium, and Wallinder will be getting LOTS of chances with Detroit this year. Sometimes it takes guys longer to make it to the NHL, and that's especially true of the taller guys (Tuomisto = 6'5") who often struggle with coordination a couple of years. And a Finnish player to boot getting used to the smaller/ faster north American rink. I think Tuomisto is right on time. Even without 150 NHL games under his belt. I'll let Yzerman and his team figure that out. Interesting though... that they gave Tuomisto a two-way this year... They gave JBD a two-way contract also... right? Because he has a better chance of playing in Detroit than Tuomisto, per what you are telling us. Do I have that correct?

I'm hoping that with all these crazy deals some player(s) gets squeezed and SY can get his hands on a traded player or two. In a dream world that's K'Andre Miller and Jason Robertson. But I know I'm dreaming... So just wake me up when it's all over and we have... : ______________ and ______________ .

So anybody who has been on the ice in the NHL is automatically better than a youngster who has not yet made it to the NHL...? I don't get your logic here.