Shout - moethedog - 12/3/15 5:06pm

<p>Explain to me, if you guys can, why Kivlehan just wasn't included in the original deal. Kivlehan and Wilhelmson for their glove and their less useful arm would have been smoother. I'm not sure I would have liked it any more than I do now, but it would have had symmetry. I would have liked to see Kivlehan patrol CF to get a sense of his chops there. Alas....#Texas got some taters and we got leather. If the leather doesn't hit .720-ish vR, then it can't chase down enough flies in Safeco CF to make it worthy. If he's the</p>
<div class="indented">Reply - jemanji - 12/3/15 5:22pm<br><p>That's maybe the weirdness that throws me off, Moe. Can't remember the last time I saw a PTBNL turn out to be an org top-5 prospect.</p>
<p>And this stuff about, well it's the MARINERS' top-5 prospect ... sigh. True, the Clippers' #6 player is different from the Lakers' #6 player, but invoking the magic word "Lakers" doesn't make the player a nonfactor.</p>
</div><div class="indented">Reply - csiems - 12/3/15 5:53pm<br><p>I'm not really contributing here other than posting the link, but:<br />
@jaskline2007 There were logistical reasons.— Seattle Mariners (@Mariners) December 3, 2015</p>
<p>Did Texas ask us to delay naming PTBNL so they could sort out their 40 man first I wonder?</p>
</div><div class="indented">Reply - jemanji - 12/3/15 7:56pm<br><p>Even with 'logistical reasons' for concealing the fact that a 'PTBNL' is actually one of your best and brightest prospects, you would expect some *indication* that Tom Wilhelmsen wasn't the main player in the deal, wouldn't you?</p>
<p>Been watching baseball for a while now and don't ever remember a deal being handled this way. Not that it's the biggest deal in the world. Just very off-putting.</p>
</div><div class="indented">Reply - MtGrizzly - 12/4/15 5:43am<br><p>Agree that it was strange. If it was a TX 40-man issue then why take Jones at all, just to drop him from the 40-man in order to make room for the PTBNL?</p>
</div>