This is really splitting hairs here, but I kind of like the talent in group B better but might take group A instead. Assuming Bautista has a year close to last year, I have no problem with him (obviously), but, should he bomb, I would rather have to replace a Util guy than a 3B. So, while I like Howard and Uggla and Granderson better than the other three, I think I might take group A. Either way, though, I think you will be in good shape.
interesting take on Bautista....pure value isn't everything, is it?
Would it make a difference if it is likely that I could grab M. Young, Prado or Alvarez in the draft as "bautista insurance?" As a matter of fact, I could even keep M. Young instead of Granderson (but I do like Granderson's up-side much more than Young's).
We do have 2 utility spots in our league....so I would have a spot to play Young/Prado/Alvarez i I drafted them.
Honestly my first instinct was to take option B, but after reading the comments in this thread I have been swayed. Insurance on Bautista will be nice I suppose, although I don't know if you'll have too much to worry about in his regard. What really hit me though was onitapgr's observation that side B would crush your BA. While I still think that side A is better overall value, I don't think you can do that for your team. Good luck!
can you keep Bautista at Uti and move Arod back into 3B or vice verse, letting Granderson go? That's what I would do with plan B. You would get younger (Howard over Konerko and Howard has much more value anyway), but keep Arod over Granderson, which is a no brainer, though Arod is getting older. I really don't like Granderson. A horrible BA will bring you down. Not worth it.