but it would keep us in the game. I do wonder if they might want someone like Randy Wells, a cheap arm that they can plug into the rotation for next season.

Keith Law’s suggestion of two ready guys and two AA prospects seems high. I’m assuming he’s suggesting two high ceiling prospects. That said, I’d be willing to fork over Wells and two of our big 3 arms and another piece. Risky, but I’d roll that dice.

I’m not really expecting it, but I would love to land Josh. If that means sacrificing 2010’s lineup (and potentially, our chances in 2010), fine. Landing an ace like that would be awesome.

I think, if they move Josh, and only Perrotto has suggested that they will consider it, it is because they realize they won’t be able to sign him down. That said, I don’t get why they wouldn’t give him the 4 years, which is supposedly the biggest hindrance. I mean, an organizational philosophy is good, but you can’t be strict about it. For an ace like this, I’d take the chance on a 4th year.

Hanley’s signed down long term, and at least this offseason, I don’t see them moving him now. If they keep Josh, they have a shot at the playoffs next year. Even without, they still might have a chance if they get a good enough arm in return and a youngster, or two, step up. Obviously, it’d be easier with Josh Johnson in the rotation.

they’ve said before their isn’t a package of players and contracts in MLB that would be worthy of Hanley Ramirez

only time will tell. but again, with this idea that somehow the yankees and braves can make trades that the Cubs can’t. For this post, I’ll leave aside any issues on Cubs prospects. Let’s just look at those two organizations you mention.

First off, it’s well acknowledged that the Yankees system is fairly weak right now (probably bottom third in the league). They have one stud in Jesus Montero, but after that, we’re looking at guys like Austin Jackson and Zach McAllister, solid guys but not studs. All indications so far are that they won’t part with Hughes or Chamberlain to make a deal unless it’s for a pitcher. There’s some intriguing lower level assets like Austin Romine and Manny Banuelos, and there’s some catching depth in the system, albeit raw. Some raw arms could still turn it around. The chances that Arodys Vizcaino gets dealt are fairly unlikely. That said, for them to make a deal, they would basically have to go all-in, and even then a package of Montero, Jackson, McAllister wouldn’t really scream out to me as a package that can’t be beat (leaving aside the fact that I think there’s no chance the Yankees would do that). So … how is it that a relatively weak system like the Yankees can make a move that 28 other clubs can’t?

We’ve had the Braves discussion before. Granderson would make some sense for them, allowing them to shift the poor defensive player in McLouth to a corner spot. Overall, as a system, the Braves likely rank in the middle of the pack, basically where the Cubs will be. The problem is, strip away the untouchables in the system, and it’s hard for them to make a big deal without really damaging their system (leaving aside the fact that Wren has basically suggested he won’t make a big deal involving key prospects, though that could always change). Heyward is definitely untouchable. They’ve given all indications that Freddie Freeman is untouchable. What do you have left? A bunch of arms, but a lot of them are raw arms that aren’t close. Some pen assets like Craig Kimbrel, who I think has been a tad overhyped, although he has closing potential. They could put a Jordan Schafer in there perhaps.

The issue I have with your statement isn’t whether or not these two teams could win a deal, it’s the fact that somehow you think these two teams are the only teams that could make a deal, when on the surface, one team doesn’t have a strong system (Yankees) and with the Braves, once you strip the untouchables (and Teheran could be untouchable) then they really don’t have much of a system left. Neither system is a top 10 system right now.