This Year's Delmon Young for Matt Garza

Chris Davis

I think he could be involved in a trade straight up for a young pitcher.

Bryan Smith (12:17:17 PM PT): Justin Smoak and Josh Hamilton. The AL West might just have found their Bash Brothers, v. 2.0.

by bigsteve on Sep 3, 2008 4:35 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

I hope to hell not

The 40 Trumps All!!!

by thedirkatron on Sep 3, 2008 5:47 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

+1 for thedirkatron

ditto

by ACtheStud1980 on Sep 3, 2008 9:24 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Would the A's and Rangers be ballsy enough to trade with each other?

Among the two teams, it’s zero-sum, but it would make the Angels a lot more nervous… I could see a trade of one of the better A’s arms for Max Ramirez… maybe Mazzaro, to keep the ball on the ground in Texas.

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Sep 3, 2008 9:45 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I don't know if the Rangers

would agree that Vince Mazzaro is one of the better As pitchers. I agree that he’s good, but considering the As got Greg Smith and Dana Eveland (who strike me as relatively comparable to Mazzaro) as basically throw-ins in the Dan Haren deal, I think they could reasonable expect more

www.loftylantern.com

by OldProspects on Sep 3, 2008 10:18 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Well, I'm not suggesting the value match is perfect

I think Cahill or Anderson would be too much for just Ramirez. A bunch of the other A’s pitchers are kind of flyball and/or walk-prone (eg Gio Gonzalez, Smith and Eveland themselves, etc). Inoa would obviously be absurd.

Maybe they could add in a reliever with Mazzaro. The Rangers could use a bullpen upgrade as much as they could one for the rotation.

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Sep 4, 2008 1:27 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Kurt Suzuki

“Among the two teams, it’s zero-sum, but it would make the Angels a lot more nervous… I could see a trade of one of the better A’s arms for Max Ramirez… maybe Mazzaro, to keep the ball on the ground in Texas.”

Where would they play Max Ramirez, considering they have Zuki?

BTW, I quoted your post, because it will probably put mine way below yours, even though I responded to yours.

Never, Never, NEVER give up

by hero66 on Sep 3, 2008 10:46 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

If he hits, there will be space

At catcher, at DH, at first, maybe even at third.

If he doesn’t hit, who cares?

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Sep 4, 2008 1:28 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Not an option

at 3B, he’s terrible there.

O Freunde, nicht diese Töne!
Sondern laßt uns angenehmere anstimmen,
und freudenvollere.

by t ball on Sep 4, 2008 3:47 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Rangers

have enough near ready guys that they won’t trade for anything short of an ace. Otherwise, why bother throwing Mazzarro in there when they can simply bring up someone like Derek Holland.

by FirebatM3 on Sep 5, 2008 12:39 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Well...

Because the organization has an extraordinarily slim record of developing young pitchers, and young pitching has a high attrition rate for anyone, so it makes sense to add to their supply.

by aap212 on Sep 5, 2008 12:51 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I get your point, but this seems like lazy reasoning.

Track records are important, but the Rangers are l-o-a-d-e-d with good pitching prospects at each level. I agree with Firebat that the only thing the Rangers don’t have already is a proven ace. They’ve developed pitching prospects recently, but it’s been awhile since they developed an ace. If you still find it necessary, here is where the track record most comes into play.

You don’t trade a young impact bat like Davis for more prospect depth at a position that is already loaded with prospects. It’s just not logical.

by naropean on Sep 5, 2008 2:09 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

so does that mean

we can expect the As to trade Trevor Cahill for Engel Beltre? After all, their organization has an extremely poor record of developing ML level hitters and they should really add to their supply?

This whole organizational history argument never jived for me, especially since the difference between a good organizational history and a bad one is one or two injuries to good prospects.

by FirebatM3 on Sep 5, 2008 10:51 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Not true

If I asked you to name every decent or better starting pitcher the Rangers have developed, you could probably do it. The A’s have had a dry spell with hitters of late, but the comparison isn’t remotely close.

by aap212 on Sep 5, 2008 10:58 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I think you're missing his point.

That point, in short, is that the past ignores the present. This is a logical fallacy, as demonstrated by the following statement: “My town has never been hit by a tornado, so it never will be hit by a tornado.” Obviously, your point is on a different track, but I believe it is a parallel track to the tornado statement. And guess what? The entire Rangers minor league system is under a severe tornado watch as we speak.

by naropean on Sep 5, 2008 12:03 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Different analogy

I might liken it more to Seattle’s recent history of pitcher injuries. They’ve clearly had a lot of turnover in players and behind the scenes personnel, but I still have a little less faith in them on that count than I have in other teams.

With the Rangers, there’s also the issue of the ballpark, which will always make it more difficult to develop pitchers. I’m not saying I don’t like the Rangers pitchers—quite the opposite. If you told me that one day Feliz, Holland, and Hurley would be a solid 1, 2, and 3 starter, I wouldn’t be shocked, and I like several of their other guys. But to more aptly reverse your analogy, if my town had a serious history of tornadoes, I would do everything in my power to make my foundation stronger.

The Rangers can’t get full value out of all their catchers by keeping them all, but they can increase the probability of a strong homegrown pitching staff by building depth.

by aap212 on Sep 5, 2008 12:27 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

With all due respect

I think the reason you don’t see a history of great pitchers developed by the Rangers is because they never had a history of great pitching prospects. The last time they did was probably when Kevin Brown and Bobby Witt were hot stuff, and even then they lack the depth they have now. The point I’m making is you can no more judge an organization by judging its graduation of good pitchers than you can judge one by its graduation of good hitters.

Just because Texas has not had a Minnesota Twins like run of good pitching does not mean there’s an inherent flaw in the organization, it merely means that, most likely they’ve simply lacked the pitching prospects they had until now. Similarly, just because the Oakland A’s have had a string of bad luck with their recent OFs and 1B (good god, what happened to Travis Buck?), doesn’t mean that there is an inherent flaw in their developmental philosophy.

by FirebatM3 on Sep 5, 2008 12:45 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Unlike Engel Beltre, Vince Mazzaro doesn't suck

It’s a preposterous comparison.

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Sep 5, 2008 6:35 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Dude

Mazzaro’s closer and has greater probability, and I think he’s being underrated on this board, but Beltre’s pretty young to be dismissed like that.

by aap212 on Sep 5, 2008 6:41 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

It is possible

although, I think, unlikely, that Beltre will not suck at some future date. Right now, there really isn’t anything else to be said on the issue. He sucks. 7:1 K:BB ratios in low-A ball do not fill me with confidence as to a player’s abilities.

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Sep 6, 2008 12:24 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

You know

I think the goal with this sort of deal is to make it fair and equitable for both sides, because otherwise why would the other team do it? I was trying to think of a deal which would work, and I realized that, you know, the Brewers could use another pitcher, and the Yankees need some hitters. So why not Ian Kennedy goes to the brewers for Ryan Braun and Prince Fielder?

Fair for everybody, no?

www.loftylantern.com

by OldProspects on Sep 3, 2008 4:35 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

nope.

by pst2 on Sep 3, 2008 4:37 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Im just glad you made a joke of this now

Because there are other posters who would have seriously suggested some version of this soon enough… like Melky, Kennedy and Cervelli for Fielder or something insane like that.

by alskor on Sep 3, 2008 4:44 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yea

Let’s try to avoid “bagful of crap we’ve given up on for your stud” type trades. I’m looking for “stud for stud” type trades.

Chris Davis for say Jonathan Sanchez would make some sense (probably not fair to Texas though)

Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com

by RoyalsRetro on Sep 3, 2008 5:01 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

craziness

Rangers also need Chris Davis

by ACtheStud1980 on Sep 3, 2008 9:24 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Who was joking?

www.loftylantern.com

by OldProspects on Sep 3, 2008 7:03 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Damn

So my Javier-Herrera-for-Jason-Heyward idea is out?

by ozzman99 on Sep 6, 2008 4:26 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

See that isn't fair

It’s not so easy to come up with a deal that works for both teams. You can’t just, you know, pick your favorite team and have them deal one minor person and get the best prospect on the other team. It has to be fair.

Maybe if the Braves added Freddie Freeman and Jeff Locke this deal could work?

www.loftylantern.com

by OldProspects on Sep 7, 2008 11:08 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Overrated young hitter for underrated young pitcher?

Is that what we’re looking for? Because Delmon Young didn’t look good last year, and this year he’s slugging under 400. The Twins blew it, and anyone willing to look past Young’s fame and pedigree saw this coming.

by aap212 on Sep 3, 2008 5:02 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Nah

Delmon has come alive after an awful first half. He’s improved his walk rate… the power will come. He’s still one of the youngest players in MLB. Very bullish on his future.

by alskor on Sep 3, 2008 5:08 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

+1

In two years I expect Delmon to be the better of the two players. People forget that he is only 23 and is already close to a .300 hitter. The power will come and Delmon will be a star by the time he is 25.

"When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him."
-Jonathan Swift

by King Billy Royal on Sep 3, 2008 5:12 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

It is very rare that someone who is performing this well

at this young an age in MLB doesnt become a star. That doesnt mean Delmon is doing great, he’s not. The lack of power has been a big problem. BUT he has hit consistently for average and has become a more patient hitter pretty quickly(and in atmosphere that doesnt exactly support it, playing for an imbecile manager). I have zero doubt he will hit for power. It may still be two years or so before we see him explode, but look at Andruw Jones… power will come, Delmon has the swing and tools for it. He just doesnt know what he’s doing yet.

I think we’ve already seen exactly what Garza is… and while he has performed well this year, his components dont thrill me. He’s not striking out that many guys. Tampa has played crazy good defense this year and that makes his ERA look better than it should. He’s been good, but he’s slightly over his head numbers wise. He’s a middle of the rotation guy, which is very valuable, dont get me wrong… but I would still take Delmon.

aap212 is right, Garza obviously has had the better of it so far, but for the future my money is still on Delmon.

by alskor on Sep 3, 2008 5:19 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Also

Delmon is only 22, not 23

He turns 23 this month, but next year will be his age 23 season.

by alskor on Sep 3, 2008 5:22 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Not convinced

He’s slugging 419 since the all-star break and his plate discipline is still poor. I’m still not buying it.

by aap212 on Sep 3, 2008 5:56 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

He's going to hit and hit well. His bat speed is absolutely insane.

Tools Whore

Sign Bonds!

by Tyler on Sep 3, 2008 7:38 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

That's what Rickie Weeks fans say

And at least Rickie Weeks draws walks and hits for power. Delmon Young doesn’t do either of those things, and he isn’t exactly Ichiro in other facets of the game. Say what you want about the man’s bat speed, but I see a pudgy young guy with almost two full years of at bats, and no statistical sign of impending stardom whatsoever.

by aap212 on Sep 3, 2008 8:24 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Rickie Weeks isn't a fair comparison for Delmon

Weeks was nowhere near as advanced as Young in his first year. He had power and took a ripe amount of walks, but that’s pretty much it. And since then he’s been on and off the DL and he’s been kinda shitty. Young on the other hand is batting for average, and as of late, some power. He’s also still 22. He would be a senior in college, or he would have just been drafted had he gone to college. It’s crazy enough that he’s in the majors already. He’ll definitely get better.

by boonitez on Sep 3, 2008 9:02 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Power of late?

He slugged under .400 in August, and even in June and July, when his batting average spiked, his ISO’s were 155 and 124, respectively. And again, poor walk rates.

The Weeks comparison is just to bring up another player people keep making excuses for. In Weeks’ case, he just can’t keep his average at a respectable level. In Young’s case, it’s a total absence of secondary skills. He’s simply not hitting for power or showing any plate discipline.

by aap212 on Sep 3, 2008 9:17 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

he hit his first homer in like late july

His first half was pretty horrible, but he’s doing okay right now. He’s at least holding his own. For his age, he’s doing excellent. 22 year olds generally can’t hold their own against ML pitching.

by boonitez on Sep 3, 2008 10:29 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Define holding his own

His second half hasn’t been good either. Again, he slugged under .400 in August, and had an OBP just over .300. In June and July, his numbers looked okay, in large part because of flukishly high batting averages on balls in play. So what’s holding his own? Outhitting one or two leftfielders who have also kept starting jobs all year?

by aap212 on Sep 3, 2008 10:44 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

this is what I mean

when I talk about folks who know what the numbers are but don’t have a clue as to what the numbers mean. Delmon’s performance in MLB at this point DOES, in fact, strongly hint at possible future stardom because, as others have tried to point out, guys who are full-time players, and averagish at that, at his young age often do great things later.

There are very few guys who have been good enough to even get the chance to put together 2 seasons, plus 1 month, of mediocre starts before they turn 22. For instance half of Youngs BBRef, by age, comps are turn-of-the-century guys because you simply don’t see many guys have the skills, and get the chance, to do what he has done so far. It is obviously frustrating that Delmon still has adjustments to make at the MLB level but if you really look at the stats they say the EXACT OPPOSITE of what you are claiming they say.

by nms on Sep 3, 2008 9:35 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Robb Quinlan, turn of the century icon

Most of his BBref comps and PECOTA comps are players with short careers and players who had a couple of very good years in otherwise bland careers—plus Vlad Guerrero. The guy has a chance to be a star, and yes, I understand that age and level are often the best indicators of star potential, but performance like his this year would earn most players a demotion to the minors. Because of his fame and what they traded for him, they won’t. But before you pull out the Justin Upton principle on me, and tell me it’s such an accomplishment to have logged so much big league time at his age that he’s still a star in the making, offer some sign that he hasn’t been overmatched in his second full season in the bigs.

I’m not saying the guy’s the next Mike Kelly, but tell me why he isn’t the next Jose Guillen or the next Jeff Francouer. Both those guys had great tools, were called up before they refined their game, and logged over 900 plate appearances in the majors before they turned 23. That’s better than Mike Kelly, but it’s no kind of star.

by aap212 on Sep 3, 2008 10:09 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

You're misusing the BBRef comps

Even though they’re often misused (because they don’t adjust for anything, they just go by raw numbers), you seem to be looking at his career comps (Robb Quinlan), not his comps thru age 21 (#1 Tris Speaker, # 3 Roberto Colemente, #4 Joe Kelley – pretty nice group). Of course, because his career has been so short so far, his career comps are going to be…short career guys.

But really, you’re complaining about a 22 year old with an OPS+ of 97, calling him “overmatched”?

Often wrong, never uncertain.

by sidnancy on Sep 4, 2008 1:41 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

You're misusing OPS+

OPS+ doesn’t adjust for position. He’s the worst hitting regular leftfielder in baseball who’s kept his job this year, basically. Everyone else who has made at least 80 appearances in leftfield this year has out-VORPed him.

For what it’s worth, he’s also underperforming his 2008 projections from ZIPS, Bill James, PECOTA, and John Sickels, and none of those guys had him setting the world on fire.

by aap212 on Sep 4, 2008 4:25 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Not at all

I know exactly what OPS+ does and doesn’t do.

He’s 22, and getting on base 1/3 of the time. That doesn’t sound like “overmatched” to me.

Often wrong, never uncertain.

by sidnancy on Sep 5, 2008 10:19 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

A third of the time

Is the best thing you can say about him. He seems to have left his secondary skills in Double-A.

That’s part of the problem: He was promoted like a Mets prospect. He had that dominant run in AA, but did he ever really hit his way out of AAA?

by aap212 on Sep 5, 2008 11:02 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Frankly

If Delmon had stepped up and hit like his detractors would like he would be on track for the HOF.

by alskor on Sep 3, 2008 11:40 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

That's a thoughtful response

Sorry, it’s clearly too much to demand that a guy not be the least productive hitter to play his position 100 times this year in his second year in the majors. Anyone who’s been a starting leftfielder this year and hit nearly as bad as him has either been injured, traded, demoted, or released. I’m not saying he has to star the second he gets to the majors. I still like Bruce and Upton a whole lot, and neither of them is an all-star yet. But however you want to phrase it—making strides, holding his own, showing signs—Young isn’t doing it at the big league level. He’s been bad and he belongs in the minors. He has potential, but he’s not performing.

by aap212 on Sep 3, 2008 11:56 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

No,

I was dead serious. If he was hitting .300 with 25 HRs at age 22 he would have to be on track for the HOF. Very few players do that, historically. I said I would characterize his performance so far as a dissapointment – BUT I believe there is still enough here to show that he looks like an excellent bet for the future.

by alskor on Sep 4, 2008 12:42 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

And really

you are ignoring ARL too much. If by age 25 he becomes a .300/.365/.520 25 HR hitter that would make him a pretty valuable player and still on track to have a great career… and that could mean two more years of subpar performances.

Youre comparing him to other first year players, but those guys all debuted at older ages than Delmon and you simply have to account for it. We’re not arguing about value to his team, just career path.

by alskor on Sep 4, 2008 12:47 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Debuted at older ages?

Young debuted when he was a couple of weeks shy of 21.

Guillen debuted when he was a few weeks shy of 21.

Francouer debuted when he was 21 by a few months.

And who said anything about .300 with 25 HR? I’d just like to see him be more than a hair better than replacement level.

Of course, when you bring up those sorts of numbers for someone so young, and talking about young power prospects with poor walk rates, Delmon Young really had his chi stolen by Matt Kemp, didn’t he?

by aap212 on Sep 4, 2008 1:03 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Despite Francoeur's flukey age 21 half-season

I’d much, much rather have Young. I think he’s just so far beyond Francoeur it’s silly to even make the comparison. I wouldn’t be surprised if Francoeur is out of the league within 3 years. Young could very well be an All-Star by then.

by thejd44 on Sep 4, 2008 2:21 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Well...

I’m not saying I’d touch Francoeur with a ten foot pole either, but I still have no confidence that Young will be better than a Jose Guillen, Juan Encarnacion caliber player.

Sure, Young could very well be an all star by then, but people held that confidence about the guys I mentioned when they struggled in their early 20s. Heck, a lot of people thought Francoeur was a breakout candidate going into this year.

by aap212 on Sep 4, 2008 2:35 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Francoeur

I’m surprised there’s so little credit given to Frenchy in these parts. He remains a tools beast who already has 2.5 big seasons under his belt as a middle of the order power type. He had a very crummy 2008, but I see a player who’s suddenly sprouted plate discipline (.075 ISO – a quantum leap – and his K’s are down). It seems to me that Francoeur is revamping his swing and his approach at the plate. Efforts like these take time, but it’s hardly out of the realm of possibility that Francoeur will rebound next season back to a good run producing bat with added value due to his terrific defense.

by GuyinNY on Sep 4, 2008 12:15 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Frenchy

I still think both Francoeur and Young are likely to be adequate regulars, if nothing more, and if I had to pick one to be much more than that, I would actually pick Francoeur, due to the power he’s shown at the big league level and his defense. But in terms of either of them approaching stardom, I’ll believe it when I see it.

by aap212 on Sep 4, 2008 12:34 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

not much of a point in

prospecting if you don’t believe in things until they’ve already happened.

by nms on Sep 4, 2008 1:32 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

That's not what I'm saying

I believe in the future stardom of lots of guys who aren’t there yet. I just don’t believe Young and Francoeur are on that trajectory.

by aap212 on Sep 4, 2008 1:34 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

2.5 big years?

I call it one big half-season, a bad second season (you better slug .600 if you’re not going to OBP above .300), a meh third season, and a replacement-level third season.

Francoeur strikes out only 2% less, but I don’t care much about strikeouts. He doesn’t walk more (ok, he walks 6.2% of his PA this year compared to 6.0% last year). And he’s lost his power.

He’s still young, but I just don’t see him as being more than a marginal regular on a team that doesn’t much care about how often a guy gets on base as long as he can hit 20-25 homers a year.

by thejd44 on Sep 4, 2008 4:46 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Next year, shmext year

What about the fact that the Twins may have gifted the Rays a World Series (while simultaneously costing themselves a chance at one!) Young better be all kinds of good and Garza all kinds of bad to balance that out.

by clubberlang on Sep 3, 2008 7:55 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Soothsayer, speaketh!

I wasn’t aware the Twins were eliminate. Someone better tell their stupid manager.

by Lunkwill Fook on Sep 3, 2008 7:59 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Hah!

That should be a “better chance at one!”

by clubberlang on Sep 4, 2008 7:40 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

?

And how many more games would Garza, Bartlett, and some Tyneresque player give us over Perkins and Young? Seriously, even though Young has disappointed, I think this trade has been exactly what both teams wanted from it.

by diehardtwinsfan on Sep 5, 2008 1:44 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Hmmm

Dayton Moore really flips out about the Royals lack of offense and sends Luke Hochevar and to the Angels for Brandon Wood. Wood either takes third base and bumps Alex Gordon to a corner OF spot, or steps in at SS and Mike Aviles moves to second base. Hochevar steps in to replace Jon Garland in the Angels rotation and benefits from having an improved infield behind him.

True. Blue. Third Place in 2008.

by DC Royal on Sep 3, 2008 5:18 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Hochevar

couldnt bring back Wood. Not even close, IMHO. Wood wouldnt be an ideal fit for KC for the reasons you mention. Though, if they did trade for Wood theyd probably try him at SS…

Besides, LAA never trade young players for some reason… and now they have their own issues on the left side of the infield…

by alskor on Sep 3, 2008 5:21 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Really?

I would’ve said there’s no way Wood could bring back Hochevar.

The 40 Trumps All!!!

by thedirkatron on Sep 3, 2008 5:49 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

+1

"When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him."
-Jonathan Swift

by King Billy Royal on Sep 3, 2008 6:11 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

-1

Only Royals’ homers think that.

I reject your reality and substitute my own.

by WayneCampbell08 on Sep 8, 2008 10:10 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Considering the above two aren't Royals fans...

Rowdy Hardy Fan Club member.

by doublestix on Sep 8, 2008 6:05 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Salty for Homer Bailey has been a popular message board rumor

and it could conceivably make sense for both squads.

Though I doubt i has any legs.

The 40 Trumps All!!!

by thedirkatron on Sep 3, 2008 5:52 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

A Few

Obviously this is all bs but…

Francour for Josh Johnson – ATL has the oldest pitching ever, FLA has a slight abundance. And OF of Hermida, Maybin, and Francour would be nice. Put Willingham at first because Jacobs is gone.

Matt Cain for Hunter Pence – Giants have no hitting (Team OPS+ of 87), Houston has 1 pitcher under a 3.66 ERA and the ERA for Starters is 4.68 vs the NL avg 4.43

Brandon League for Chris Davis(or)Max Ramirez – League has been good when healthy, and Texas has a little lock jam currently (I realize this would never happen, and Texas is giving up to much)

Remember: baseball guys... baseball...

by Metty5 on Sep 3, 2008 6:02 PM EDT reply actions 1 recs

No way

Johnson’s way too much for Francouer, especially after Frenchy’s terrible year.

Cain is way too much for Pence, especially after Pence’s mediocre year.

League isn’t enough for Ramirez or Davis.

by aap212 on Sep 3, 2008 6:09 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

like i said its all BS, as is the entire discussion

Remember: baseball guys... baseball...

by Metty5 on Sep 3, 2008 6:10 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

What about Sanchez?

The fit isn’t ideal, but perhaps Sanchez for Pence?

by mraver on Sep 3, 2008 8:56 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

the Giants have a bit of an abundance in the OF

Lewis, Rowand, Schierholtz, Winn, and Roberts. Pence wouldn’t really fit for SF. They’d want an infielder, as they’ve got a shitload of holes in there.

by boonitez on Sep 3, 2008 9:07 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Phil Hughes

for Max Ramirez

by FirebatM3 on Sep 3, 2008 6:17 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Hughes

Is too much.

http://yankeesmtom.blogspot.com/

by hallofamer2000 on Sep 3, 2008 10:13 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Hmmm

Billy Butler and Mark Teahen for Delmon Young…not quite 1 for 1…

by killa on Sep 3, 2008 6:22 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Why would KC do that?

by aap212 on Sep 3, 2008 6:39 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Because Young is a plus-OF

Who projects to be a very good hitter (and an upgrade over Teahen all around immediately). It remains to be seen if Butler will ever be more than an ok DH-type. Plus, Butler’s SLG is only 11 points higher than Young’s this year.

Why would Minnesota do it?

by thejd44 on Sep 4, 2008 2:24 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Because Young isn't a plus OF

Left fielders who struggle to slug .400 aren’t what KC needs.

by aap212 on Sep 4, 2008 2:32 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

For some reason I thought Young was good defensively

But that could just be because he has one of the best throwing arms in the league. It might be the strongest. He’s still a huge upgrade over Teahen. The real reason I asked why would Minnesota do the deal is that they have guys who can do what Butler would do (I’m not sold on Butler ever being a better hitter than a guy like Kubel), and they’re giving up the better outfield option.

I think this would be a bad trade for both teams.

by thejd44 on Sep 4, 2008 4:49 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Fair enough

I’m also down on Teahan and don’t like Butler significantly more than Kubel (although I do prefer Butler). Young doesn’t look so good in the outfield these days, and he looks like he’s putting on some weight, which doesn’t bode well for the future.

by aap212 on Sep 4, 2008 5:21 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

What's Butler's SLG in the second half compared to Young's?

Rowdy Hardy Fan Club member.

by doublestix on Sep 4, 2008 2:40 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Better

Butler’s slugging percentage after the all-star break is .526, with an ISO just under .200. Young’s is .421 with an ISO just under .140.

by aap212 on Sep 4, 2008 2:46 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

There ya go...

I suppose one could call this nitpicking, but I’d expect young players to get better over the course of a season and this shows that Butler has done just that. I don’t like the fact that he’s limited to 1B/DH, but as a hitter I’d take him every day over Young (Butler’s doomed to go in some 0-for-25 slump now). Young isn’t a particularly good OF from what I remember anyways.

Rowdy Hardy Fan Club member.

by doublestix on Sep 4, 2008 2:49 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I'd probably puke and quite following baseball

Rowdy Hardy Fan Club member.

by doublestix on Sep 3, 2008 6:45 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

How about

Chris Davis for Max Scherzer

by Take3 on Sep 3, 2008 7:04 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

+1

I like this one. Arizona’s got enough pitching and Texas has enough hitting, so this looks good to me.

by journeymen on Sep 3, 2008 11:59 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Where does Arizona put Davis?

by aap212 on Sep 4, 2008 12:07 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

doubt it

I don’t think the Rangers will trade Davis unless they get a proven young ace in return. He’s worth more to the Rangers right now than a young #2/3 starter.

by naropean on Sep 4, 2008 10:54 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Edison Volquez for Josh Hamilton

Tex needs the pitching.

ProjectProspect.com - Sullivan10x@yahoo.com

by sully10x on Sep 3, 2008 7:06 PM EDT reply actions 1 recs

hehehe

Rowdy Hardy Fan Club member.

by doublestix on Sep 3, 2008 8:26 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Taylor Teagarden or Salty for Justin Masterson

by demondeaconsbaseball on Sep 3, 2008 7:34 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Make this happen

Unless Kottaras is planning on becoming a golden god next year…

"...and the only things I've found better than listening to Vin Scully are listening to Keith Jackson and uncut cocaine." (bleedjaxblue)

by drjayphd on Sep 3, 2008 8:41 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I've been pimping this trade for a long time

It’s perfect for both sides. Now all Theo and Jon have to do is listen to me…

by demondeaconsbaseball on Sep 3, 2008 9:47 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

i really think

some kind of trade between Boston and Texas is going down this offseason involving Texas abudance of catchers, its just a matter of which one for which young arm. Boston is in need of a young catcher, really one of their only needs, and Texas cant get enough young pitchers.

by blalock84 on Sep 4, 2008 12:39 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yankees

Are probably in the same situation as Boston. They probably need a near ML ready catcher and have pitching.

The Yanks have Francisco Cervelli, but I don’t think they can rely on him. Romine and Montero are a few years ago too.

Maybe some huge trade for one of the catchers AND Chris Davis could work out.

http://yankeesmtom.blogspot.com/

by hallofamer2000 on Sep 4, 2008 11:28 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Hughes

I would have to think the Yankees wouldn’t have a problem centering a deal around Hughes if they could get that.

http://yankeesmtom.blogspot.com/

by hallofamer2000 on Sep 4, 2008 11:30 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Sure

but the Rangers would have a problem with it, IMHO. No way they give up a catcher and Davis for anything short of Joba.

by alskor on Sep 5, 2008 12:22 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Clearly

Not just Hughes….

http://yankeesmtom.blogspot.com/

by hallofamer2000 on Sep 6, 2008 1:52 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Bryan Anderson for Jeremy Hellickson

The Cardinals have a long term catcher already and could use another young arm.

by thefordhamflash on Sep 3, 2008 9:16 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

The Rays have Jaso and Navarro

Why would they need another catcher?

Anderson for Masterson or Anderson for Bailey may be legit, but I don’t see the Rays making that one.

by demondeaconsbaseball on Sep 3, 2008 9:48 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

The Rays need a RF. Like demondeacon said, we don't need another catcher. Now, if you want to talk Rasmus for our pitching prospects, that might make more sense.

Tools Whore

Sign Bonds!

by Tyler on Sep 3, 2008 11:17 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

rasmus for edwin jackson,andrew sonnanstine and jason hammel? i wish

Longo=ROY. Friedman=Executive of the year. Maddon=Manager of the year. Gabe Gross= clutch.

by RaysOfHope on Sep 4, 2008 12:35 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Might need to add a player to be named later.

by aap212 on Sep 4, 2008 12:38 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

as long as it isnt a key prospect for the rays then ok

they have said that price,davis,hellickson and brignac are untouchables, stl looking for a ss? add in bartlett then, and give brignac the ss job next year

Longo=ROY. Friedman=Executive of the year. Maddon=Manager of the year. Gabe Gross= clutch.

by RaysOfHope on Sep 4, 2008 12:42 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

ROFL

at the prospect of that pile of poop bringing back Colby Rasmus.

There’s no way he’s even on the table without one of the big pitching prospects being involved. The Cardinals wanted Rich Harden and Ryan Sweeney for him from the A’s. You think they’re going to trade him for 3 sub-mediocre pitchers and an average shortstop?

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Sep 4, 2008 1:33 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

RaysofHope didn't realize I was joking about the PTNL

But if the Cards were willing to trade Rasmus for Harden and Sweeney, why in the world isn’t Rasmus an A by now?

And yeah, obviously the Cardinals aren’t going to trade their best prospect for a bunch of guys who are about to be forced out of the Tampa rotation by prospects.

by aap212 on Sep 4, 2008 1:51 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

You Forget

That Dave Duncan is the Magic Man. He’ll turn them all into Chris Carpenter. :)

I reject your reality and substitute my own.

by WayneCampbell08 on Sep 8, 2008 10:15 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Butler for Hughes

Both have somewhat underperformed. Kansas City could use a pitcher more than a glorified DH, while Butler’s bad glove could fit in okay in NY as long as he hits. They’d just go get an experienced free agent to more than make up for Hughes.

by journeymen on Sep 4, 2008 12:03 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

M's and Reds

Clement & Triunfel for Votto & Bailey.

by StickRat on Sep 4, 2008 12:30 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

I doubt Triunfel

But I think you’re barking up the right tree. Easy to see Cincy parting with one of those guys, and Seattle obviously screwed the pooch with their catcher situation.

by aap212 on Sep 4, 2008 12:37 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Hardy for Cain

been a pretty popular trade “rumor” out there…not quite sure if Hardy is entirely enough for Cain, who has been touted as one of the next great pitchers? But Hardy is 3rd in the NL in OPS I believe, and Cain’s numbers might be helped by AT&T Park a bit…

But is Escobar ready for the full-time gig? Or would they dare slide Bill Hall and his .200 AVG back to SS?

Fun topic. Would love to see another Garza/Young type deal go down.

by mjwelch11 on Sep 4, 2008 11:52 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

You mean 3rd among shortstops in NL OPS?

Because Hardy wouldn’t even be third in OPS on the Mets.

Anyway, Hardy isn’t really enough for Cain, especially given that he might be expensive and about to hit free agency by the time the Giants are ready to compete again. The same could be said for Cain, but he has higher upside, plus if you’re going to trade him, you presumably want someone who isn’t equally close to bolting.

by aap212 on Sep 4, 2008 12:05 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I thought fielder for cain?

That’s what MLB Trade rumors is talking about at least – That also seems to make much more sense for both teams. Trading Fielder would open up a spot for Gamel for the Brewers, and Cain is relatively replaceable for the Giants as well.

www.loftylantern.com

by OldProspects on Sep 4, 2008 1:30 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

+1

That does make much more sense. Although now it might tip a little in the other direction. Is there enough risk factor with Cain, and little enough with Fielder, that you would be hesitant about that move as the Brewers?

by aap212 on Sep 4, 2008 1:31 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I'd be hesitant

about it for both sides. They’re both giving up a load of talent; but they’re also both receiving a load of talent. I think this would be an okay deal for both sides, though I don’t know if I’d actually do it either.

www.loftylantern.com

by OldProspects on Sep 4, 2008 2:03 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Prince Trade?

The only two pitchers I could see Prince being traded for would be Roy Halladay or King Felix. Players with his balance of power and patience at such a young age are once in a generation. Obviously, if you were going to trade for either, it would also have to include a bit of Splenda going to the BJays or the Sea-farers, but a player of Prince’s caliber could elicit more than a pitcher who benefits from pitching at AT&T. But as a Brewer fan, the player who would match up well with what the Giants were once rumored to be pursuing (Rios for Cain anyone?) would be Corey Hart.

by ILuvDaBush on Sep 4, 2008 11:50 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Going a little far there

1) Maybe slow down on calling a guy once in a generation when he’s having a down year (not by much,, but still), plus he’s about to get very expensive, and he’s a guy I wouldn’t want in his 30s anyway.

2) I like Hart, but in exchange for Cain, the Giants would want at least a potential cornerstone player, and that ain’t Hart.

3) King Felix isn’t getting traded for anything.

If you want a Fielder trade that makes sense for everyone, how about if the Angels don’t resign Tex, trade him there for Wood and Adenhart or something akin to that? Maybe something a little bit more. I know the Halos don’t trade prospects, but they’re also starf—-ers, and this one at least makes sense.

by aap212 on Sep 5, 2008 12:17 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

That makes sense?

I am sorry but there is NO CHANCE that the Brewers would even consider Wood and Adenhart for Prince. First off the Brewers are deep at short. Second, Adenhart’s value has plumetted this season. Thirdly, you don’t trade a player whom you have control over and you know is an impact hitter for a guy who is still struggling to show he can even play in the big leagues and isn’t a AAAA hitter (Wood). For Prince to get traded it would really have to be for a top young arm who has shown he can get results in the major leagues at a close to All Star level.

"When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him."
-Jonathan Swift

by King Billy Royal on Sep 5, 2008 9:53 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I mostly meant the Angels part

I think the Angels make sense as a destination. That package is definitely light and needlessly risky, though, you’re right.

With that said, I think the Angels certainly have the pieces to put together a package, and they’re a team that would have room and money for Fielder (Assuming Tex leaves).

by aap212 on Sep 5, 2008 10:13 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I don't think the Angels have the chips unless the Brewers are willing to take quality over quantity

a la the Johan Santana deal.

I suppose something like Morales, Wood, Adenhart, Walden could get it done, but I don’t really see what the point is for Milwaukee, unless they’re trying to slash their payroll.

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Sep 5, 2008 6:39 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yeah, I could see this if

The Giants included Ishikawa in the deal. After all, they wouldn’t need him anymore…

Maybe give a year to Travis at 1B while the likes of Gamel, Errecart, Salome(?) hone their 1B skills…

by mjwelch11 on Sep 5, 2008 11:31 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Salome would be the shortest first baseman ever

And it would be awesome. Have you seen what the guy looks like behind the plate? If he were only white and an alcoholic with really small feet, he would look like the catching reincarnation of Hack Wilson.

by aap212 on Sep 5, 2008 11:41 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

BlueJays and Rangers

Bluejays had one of the better rotations in the league this year. I would like them to dangle Brett Cecil to the Rangers.
Cecil is a groundball pitcher who is awfully close to being ready

How about a Cecil for Andrus trade

by JJACK on Sep 4, 2008 1:15 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Not enough....

The only way Texas will deal Andrus at this point is for already proven SP, not near ready guys.

Texas has a large contingent of Almost ready guys that are one par on with Cecil…

Dustin McGowan would be a more likely target.

With Cecil look to get a guy like Marcus Lemon not Andrus

by laxtonto on Sep 4, 2008 3:41 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

That's not enough for Cecil

But of course, now we’re just getting into the many reasons why trades like this don’t normally happen.

by aap212 on Sep 4, 2008 4:06 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yeah, its hard to get young SS as it is right now, and equally diificult to get MLB proven young SP

Its very doubtful to see either traded, and especially for each other.

It falls to the semi cyclical nature of position player development. After going through the Golden Age of SS at one point, now its 3B. Add that with now a league wide dearth at C and 1B.

It is kinda strange though to see how few true high end SS prospects make it to the “MLB Ready” label though.

by laxtonto on Sep 4, 2008 4:41 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Lax

dude, come on. Brett Cecil is pretty freakin awesome.

JJack kinda undersold him by saying “he’s a gb pitcher”, his GB% is something like 65% for his career, mixed with 28% K and about 7% BB. That’s an awesome pitcher, and he’s a lefty. I love Elvis, but I’d probably do that deal in a second.

by FirebatM3 on Sep 5, 2008 12:42 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

A's & Brewers...

I don’t know the deal for sure (tossing this out there) but the Brewers need to replace Sabathia and Sheets (not to mention need bullpen help) and the A’s are deep in pitching.

Huston Street, Dana Eveland and Greg Smith for Bill Hall, Alicedes Escobar and Cole Gillespie (seems like a Beane type guy)

"God, I'm from Cleveland. When is it going to be our time?"

by BStal11 on Sep 4, 2008 6:36 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Bill Hall

I can definately see him in Oakland.

by StickRat on Sep 4, 2008 6:57 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Remove Escobar

The Brew Crew won’t deal him. Slide Hardy or another prospect in there, maybe, but they’re not getting rid of Escobar.

Otherwise, I like that deal.

by demondeaconsbaseball on Sep 4, 2008 8:47 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Don't see it

Hall turns 29 and hasn’t hit well in two years. I still think his bat could recover if he wasn’t moved around every year, but I doubt the A’s would see him as part of their next good team. Also, I don’t think Smith and Eveland are any great shakes, but why would the A’s trade Street, their best remaining veteran trade chip, without getting back a top prospect, and then throw in two major league-caliber pitchers making near the minimum on top of that?

by aap212 on Sep 4, 2008 9:30 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Thoughts on that...

I get the Hall argument, but I still think he has value, he is versatile and that power couldn’t have completely disappeared right?

In regards to Street and the top prospect, that was why I included Escobar, although maybe he isn’t as big of a prize as I thought he was?

"God, I'm from Cleveland. When is it going to be our time?"

by BStal11 on Sep 4, 2008 10:07 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Hall's value

I don’t think Hall as any above-salary value at his current price. He’s owed 15.2 mil over the next two years, plus 500k to buy out his 2010 contract.

by BobbyMac on Sep 4, 2008 11:04 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

oh...

I can’t see Bill Hall in Oakland anymore.

by StickRat on Sep 4, 2008 11:20 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I could see an A's-Milwaukee deal

Although I think it would look more like JJ Hardy and Corey Hart for Street, Smith, Mazzaro, Ryan Sweeney and Henry Rodriguez. Obviously it would signal away from the A’s rebuilding but with most of the A’s top prospects in AA next year, Anderson/Cahill in AAA, and Gio/Cunningham on the big team, the A’s may not be too far away from a playoff team. Sign a Giambi and combined with Hart/Hardy the A’s offense would be very good the next couple years.

"Loyal? I'm the most loyal player money can buy." - Don Sutton

by vignette17 on Sep 5, 2008 3:55 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

If the A's and Brewers dealt were to have trade talks....

You gotta believe they wouldnt do anything unless they got Escobar or Gamel….

Never, Never, NEVER give up

by hero66 on Sep 5, 2008 11:41 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

You're not very familiar with Billy Beane's operations, are you

He almost never goes after “big name” prospects.

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Sep 6, 2008 12:28 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yes, but...

He’s not going to sell himself short. He knows as well as we do that we need a big time SS or 3B guy.

Never, Never, NEVER give up

by hero66 on Sep 6, 2008 1:56 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Don't know if you know this, but Eveland was originally a Brewers prospect...

Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.

by PaulThomas on Sep 5, 2008 4:45 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Marlins have lots of arbitration eligible players after this year...

Ricky Nolasco and Scott Olsen to the Yankees for Phil Hughes, Ian Kennedy and????

Jeremy Hermida on the move? He was part of the Manny rumors at one point.

Not to mention Dan Uggla and Kevin Gregg

"God, I'm from Cleveland. When is it going to be our time?"

by BStal11 on Sep 4, 2008 10:18 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

What?

To quote the movie Face/Off, “No more drugs for that man.”

by aap212 on Sep 4, 2008 10:20 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Just throwing it out....

Just tossing it out for ideas, there have to be trades coming from MArlins world, no way they start paying all those guys

"God, I'm from Cleveland. When is it going to be our time?"

by BStal11 on Sep 4, 2008 10:23 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Id like to see Votto for Hughes

by mrathburn on Sep 5, 2008 12:17 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Three-Way Trade Idea!

Obviously this would never happen, but for fun:

Ian Kennedy to the Angels
Brandon Wood to the Cubs
Felix Pie to the Yankees

Everyone gets something they could potentially use next year, everyone gets rid of a piece whose value they’re driving down with each passing second.

by aap212 on Sep 5, 2008 12:25 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Angels

LAA totally gets the shaft in this deal. They give up the best guy and get the worst.

by aCone419 on Sep 5, 2008 10:48 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

The problem is

They’re begging to get pennies on the dollar for Wood because they show no confidence in him at all. The same is true of Pie.

by aap212 on Sep 5, 2008 10:59 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I really dont see that

Wood’s line this year:

.296/.375/.595 (.970) 31 HRs

I think youre reading a heck of a lot into the way theyve used him, especially for a team that always has these strange usage patterns for their prospects and young players.

by alskor on Sep 5, 2008 1:33 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Also

Even if they have shown a lack of confidence, that doesnt mean either team is going to turn around and trade Pie or Wood for pennies on the dollar. Theyre still aware of the value of those two. Neither would take Kennedy back because, frankly, they both have mutliple internal options that are better than Kennedy.

by alskor on Sep 5, 2008 1:36 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs