“You don’t write because you want to say something, you write because you have something to say.” – F. Scott Fitzgerald

I am tempted to let you write the foreward. Here’s the catch: I will not tell you what the book is about. I will only tell you that it has nothing to do with sports.

No, I sing in tune during game threads.

I agree.

Boy everyone’s crawling out of the woodwork. Imagine what it’ll be like when we trade Grady to Oakland.

Doyle Alexander for John Smoltz?

I don’t know, and this is something I’ve been wrestling with for a few months.

In general, 90% of the time, it is very clear that one playoff appearance is more valuable than any minor leaguer.

What I can’t quite get past is the idea of limping into the postseason, and how valuable that really is. The Brewers get a 2008 NL Wild Card flag, which I don’t think is as good as an NL Central flag, and I think their chances of winning the NL pennant considerably less than the standard 25, and their chances of winning a championship well below 10.

Essentially, I’m saying the Brewers did not win this trade. I do not think the Brewers were more helped by having made this playoff cameo than by still having those four prospects. They need Zach Jackson more than ever, and with legitimate questions about Gamel and Escobar hitting in the majors, they need LaPorta and ultimately Brantley as well. I think they have substantively hurt their ability to make a playoff run over the next six years — a run in which they hypothetically would have had a real shot at postseason success — and it’s hard to conclude that the playoff cameo was worth that.

On the other hand, the Sheets injury had a lot to do with their tiny odds of prevailing in the postseason, and you can’t blame them for counting on Sheets over two or three months. And I’m aware that it’s easy to say all this in retrospect. I just know that I would never want to see us make a trade like this, just to see us be the 4th seed in the postseason with a two-man rotation.

First, just to get it out of the way, the question of an extension is irrelevant for me. You acquire a player and his current contract, period, and it’s actually fairly unusual to see the contract modified as a part of the trade. I think you have to deal with the trade question with the assumption that the player is not sticking around beyond that, or that the player will only stick around at market rates, which is almost the same thing.

I essentially agree with (what I think is) Shapiro’s thinking on this. I think you have to assign a value to each player or prospect based on his upside potential, expected production and downside risk. Based on that kind of comparison, I don’t teams would ever trade a significant Triple-A prospect for someone on a one- or two-year deal.

I’m not saying that a club should be absolutely governed by that kind of computation, not at all. I am saying that that is an important way of looking at the decision, and from that perspective, most of these deals look absolutely ridiculous. You can look at it like fielding stats — nobody’s saying one stat is absolute, but if Dewan’s plus/minus and RZR both make the guy look awful, you can’t just close your eyes and pretend he’s good.

In short, very few trades for veterans could stand up to the scrutiny of any kind of asset valuation analysis. I also think it’s a mistake to treat an enitre upcoming season as essentially “high-leverage” — as the Tigers did a year ago — as compared with the last ten weeks of an ongoing season, when you know so much more about your competitive situation. Shapiro would not have traded Max Ramirez for Kenny Lofton at the start of 2007, and I think that’s a good call.

I don’t think his transition to 3B was as much a reflection of his ability to play 3B as it was his ability to catch.

And to clarify, Gimenez is far from the superior alternative. Aybar would be first in line. Then Carroll. And perhaps Hodges, if he’s doing well over the first few months in Buffalo. And then, and only then, Gimenez might be an option. I don’t think Blake outproduces Aybar by much.

The Blake comparison probably overrates Gimenez as a hitter, and it definitely underrates him as a defensive piece. Giminez’s second position is catcher, not first base!

Yea, he struggled in his first 120 ABs at Akron in 2007. Then, he repeated and dominated to start 2008. Sure, his age doesn’t put him on the prospect path. And sure, it was his second taste of Akron, but I don’t think coming back to the same league after only 120 ABs is a repeat. He had a rough first 200 ABs at Buffalo, but his on-base skills stayed in tact. All that really suffered was his power, and his entire resume, including what he’s done in the DWL this winter, suggest he has more pop than what he displayed. The strikeouts concern me, but the walk rate (and his propensity to get hit by pitches) suggest he has an underlying useful offensive game.

In summary, I’m not too worried about a power outage in his first 200 ABs in Buffalo. If he starts off with a few hot months in Buffalo, he’s what Matt LeCroy was supposed to be.

Double-A and Triple-A aren’t usually that different in difficulty, not even close to that different. It seems likely to me he let himself get outside of his game after he was promoted. My guess is that he’ll be solid in Columbus this year.

They need a right fielder. Gutierrez for Sonnanstine?