2008 ace trade review: boom or bust?

by Asfan4ever723 on Sep 1, 2009 9:40 PM EDT Comment 55 comments

SO i was curious around a yr + later, how the santana/harden trade returns for 2 small market teams look Twins and A's look so far

Santana kind put Minn in a corner and forced their hand, to trade 1 season of a cost controlled to the mets

gomez- still has superstar potential?

humber- i believe DFa'd or off 40 man

mulvey- PTBNL in rauch deal

guerra- mixed results but lots of projectability, only 20 in AA

A's traded harden/gaudin. They opted to get something of value for the injury prone pitcher.Harden has pitched just as many starts in 1+seasons around 35+ than he did in 3 seasons combined with A's. Gaudin was released by cubs, then later sold from padres to yankees

gallagher- injuries, poor performance, later traded for scott hairston

donaldson- lots of double/walks in AA, not a ton of power, solid yr

patterson- a AAAA superstar, destroys the minors, but doesnt carry over to mlb. A's trying to make him a wanna be figgins

murton- later traded for corey wimberly

So will either team salvage much value out of these trades or it will likely be major non factors eventually?

0 recs | Comment 55 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Santana trade

seem to be a lose / lose trade for both side. Gomez seems likely to learn how to hit . Guerra could still turn out ot be good but we’ll have to wait and see. on the other hand. Santana’s put up a FIP of 3.51 and 3.78 over the last couple of seasons and a TRA of 4.22 and 3.85 , both figures are almost a run higher than his 3 really dominent year.

Hell, just looking at value. Santana have been worth 7.8 WAR in two season while making 39M according to Cots. so if we use the 5M a win logic he’s been right at his worth of money. but what’s more worrying is that it’s a downward trend.

So it would seem that going foward. Santana in his best case would be worth right around his contract. which means he’s just another big FA. while there’s a realistic possibility that he would be overpaid. so the Mets traded a bunch of guys for basically 1 year of Santana where he was worth about 2M more than his actual pay, and then the rights to pay him at exactly his talent level or more.

So it seems like a meh trade for both side. for the Mets. the prospects they gave away so far doesn’t look like they amount to much (if anything) , but the guy they got back while is still very good. isn’t giving them any signfiicant bang for the buck advantage that other FAs wouldn’t give. For the Twins , they were going to lose him anyway. but they didn’t get anything worthwhile (so far) in return. espically when even Jon Lester’s name (who has beaten Johan in BOTH season so far in terms of WAR) were floated around in the trade talks.

THe ultimate win / lose will depend on
A. the durability of Santana going foward
B. How Delios Guerra does

by RollingWave on Sep 1, 2009 11:12 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

gomez- still has superstar potential?

No. Not at all.

Twins got rooked badly. They should probably fire the GM over that trade in all honesty. Completely inexcusable to a) play it that way; and b) pull the trigger on that crap package as a return. They 100% would have been better off getting a year and a half of Santana, letting him walk and then collecting the draft picks.

A’s did okay. Not great. Harden never really had the value one would have though given his health issues.

by alskor on Sep 2, 2009 12:14 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Agree mostly about the Santana trade

In hindsight, they definitely should have kept him for a year + the draft picks. But Gomez and Guerra aren’t total busts. Guerra’s doing well in AA this year, and he probably has #3 starter upside. Gomez is never going to be a superstar, or even an All-Star for that matter. But he is very nearly a league-average player right now, and if the Twins played him every day, he could become something like a 3 WAR player at his peak. Those two have value. It’s probably not even one of the 3 worst things Bill Smith has done as GM.

by Mike I on Sep 2, 2009 3:52 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I blame the Twins for Gomez’s lack of development offensively. It was clear as day that he needed to be in AAA last year, but they insisted on making him their everyday Centerfielder and he’s suffered because of it. It’s hard to say where Gomez would be right now if he had been allowed to properly develop, but I don’t think there’s any question the Twins stunted his development by rushing him to the majors.

Mulvey should have a nice career as a 4 or 5 starter. Humber? Not so optimistic on him.

Guerra is the real disapointment in the group, his velocity dropped, he’s struggled. There’s still time for him to figure it out, but he better get started soon.

by adropofvenom on Sep 2, 2009 11:57 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Guerra is far and away from the disapointment in that group

To me Mulvey, and especially the Tommy Johned Phillip Humber are bigger disapointments, you may even be able to argue that Carlos Gomez is a bigger disapointment than Guerra.

Look Guerra is 20 about to be 21 years old and is in AA…..his Velocity may never be where it once was but he is throwing at least 90 MPH right now…. and is showing that he definately belongs in the starting rotation for the Twins within 2 years.

by SteveHoffmanSlowey on Sep 2, 2009 5:26 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

With Guerra, consistent velocity is probably more important than velocity

When he was on the Mets he could really dial it up sometimes (95ish), then his next start he’d sit at 85. Throwing 90 consistently is better than having that kind of variation.

by Fanon on Sep 2, 2009 10:11 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

The Twins development and rushing him to the majors surely hurt, but lets not kid ourselves – he was overrated all along. There were a lot of arguments about him before the trade on here about him. He never really hit. You really had to squint and stretch the numbers to see a hitter developing there. I never bought into him.

Guerra is interesting, but nothing special. I was more concerned with his inability to miss bats than I was with his velocity. Humber and Mulvey? Low ceiling guys who were little more than glorified organizational filler. Stupid, stupid trade.

by alskor on Sep 3, 2009 4:55 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

On Gomez

To say he never really hit is a bit of a stretch. If he replicated his Double-A line (the one he put up at 20 years of age) at the major league level (particularly the .349 OBP), he’d be an extremely useful player. Granted, his OBP was always boosted by an inordinate number of HBPs, but he’s not alone in that. He followed that up with a .363 OBP in a limited sample size in Triple-A in ‘07, before being rushed to the majors due to injuries. With his speed and defense, that’s a pretty decent player even if he’s slugging under .400.

by Fanon on Sep 3, 2009 6:02 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

His career minor league line is .278/.339/.399 with 18 HRs total in 1436 PA’s.

If he replicated his Double-A line (the one he put up at 20 years of age) at the major league level (particularly the .349 OBP), he’d be an extremely useful player.

And he’d still be a pretty shitty hitter with the lion’s share of his value being in his glove. That AA line was .281/.350(with the HBP caveat)/.423.

The guy could never hit, still can’t hit and won’t ever hit. All he ever had was a kind of lucky, not so great AA season as a 20 year old.

It seems like you actually agree with me too, b/c you start off saying

To say he never really hit is a bit of a stretch

and finish with

With his speed and defense, that’s a pretty decent player even if he’s slugging under .400.

by alskor on Sep 3, 2009 2:16 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Eric Patterson really deserves some actual playing time.

I think the A’s did fine with the Harden trade. Harden was basically a ticking time bomb, and they needed to salvage any value they could. Donaldson could be the jewell of the trade, and hopefully a big piece of the A’s future.

Founding member of the Eric Patterson fan club.

by travdog6 on Sep 2, 2009 2:36 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Re: Eric Patterson fan club

I’d like to inquire about a membership. Not that I think Patterson is the bee’s knees or anything, but to read some of the comments over at AN you’d think he’s been a Bobby Crosby type failure. The dude’s gotten less than 200 ML PA! That’s not nearly a sufficient sample size to write him off, especially with his track record of handling AAA pitching. He’s versatile, has plus speed, and doesn’t appear to be the butcher some have made him out to be defensively (I say this with a bit of hesitation since I’m going off TotalZone numbers which, admittedly, has its limitations).

by CapgrasDelusion on Sep 2, 2009 12:03 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

For what it's worth, I think Bobby Crosby would put up better AAA numbers than Patterson has put up.

by thejd44 on Sep 2, 2009 1:57 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Eric Patterson needs to not get any more at bats in an A's uniform.

I am so done with him looking like a child at the plate every single time he comes up. Yeah, his numbers are the result of a small sample size. But those sample sizes are terrible. He looks terrible. He gets to the plate and it’s as if each time is the first time he’s ever held a bat.

His only real use to a team is pinch running.

by thejd44 on Sep 2, 2009 1:55 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

A month and a half ago Rajai Davis looked like a blind child at the plate as well.

Now look at him. I doubt that a guy who puts up such good minor league numbers could really be that bad in the bigs. I think he deserves at least a fair look to determine what kind of player he really is. Plus, we’re still running Adam Kennedy out there at third.

Founding member of the Eric Patterson fan club.

by travdog6 on Sep 2, 2009 3:14 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

The Haren trade would be a more interesting discussion

Particularly considering it wasn’t made mid-season, so is more easily comparable to the Santana deal.

by Fanon on Sep 2, 2009 4:07 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

??

the Harden trade was last July, one day after the Brewers acquired CC Sabathia.

by philadelphiacub on Sep 2, 2009 8:57 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

??

Haren was last offseason, Harden was last midseason. Haren is a better comp to Santana, as they were traded at the same time.

by Fanon on Sep 2, 2009 9:59 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

ahhh, my bad. that 'd' eluded me there

by philadelphiacub on Sep 2, 2009 1:05 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Well, that one isn't too difficult to figure out

A’s got a haul, D-Backs overextended and screwed themselves.

Linda's in the cold ground, won't see her anymore
Somewhere out on the highway tonight, the drunken engines roar
It's just one of those things, one of those things
-- Al Stewart, "Accident on 3rd St."
In memory of Nick Adenhart and all victims of drunk driving

by PaulThomas on Sep 2, 2009 12:46 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

They also got a starting pitcher with a WHIP under 1.00

by Fanon on Sep 2, 2009 1:26 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Last time I heard, the objective of a baseball season was not "having a starting pitcher with a WHIP under 1.00"

by PaulThomas on Sep 2, 2009 2:26 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I don't think you can judge the trade just yet

Considering Haren has emerged as a top 5 starter and the D-Backs have been plagued by injury and regression this season. Valley fever? C’mon.

by Fanon on Sep 2, 2009 10:09 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I'm not saying it was unjustifiable at the time

It looked like the D-Backs had a full outfield (Byrnes, Young, Upton), a full infield (Reynolds, Jackson, Drew, Hudson) and a good staff which would become great with the addition of Haren.

Turns out a lot of those guys weren’t actually as good as was thought. In retrospect, they overextended and screwed themselves.

by PaulThomas on Sep 3, 2009 12:34 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Haren is nasty

But I’m going to predict that the package they gave up for him will turn out to be the most ever given up from one side of a trade in recent memory, maybe ever — at least up there with Sizemore, Lee and Phillips.

Brett Anderson is a future cy young winner, Gonzalez is looking like a perennial All-Star, and we all know about Carter. I think Cunningham will be a solid regular, and Eveland and Smith both have some value as back-of-the-rotation starters. Unbelievable package.

by T Pac on Sep 3, 2009 12:55 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Bedard?

by Fanon on Sep 3, 2009 1:05 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I would take Anderson and Gonzalez over Tillman and Jones — and I’d take the rest of the A’s package (Carter alone, really) over Sherrill and Mickolio. You can’t count Bell and Johnson instead of Sherrill (and even then, I’d take the D’Backs package)

by T Pac on Sep 3, 2009 1:54 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Why can't you count them?

That’s Sherrill’s value. And by all accounts, they asked for Sherrill essentially so they could proceed to flip him.

by Fanon on Sep 3, 2009 2:09 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

brett anderson is a future ace.. tillman is not as good

gonzalez looks like hes going to be an all star for years…same with jones

carter is better then bell…

steve johnson<eveland and smith

by matthewmafa on Sep 3, 2009 2:13 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I'm not saying for sure one way or the other

Just that I don’t think the Haren trade is without the doubt the most talent given up, when you consider the Bedard trade.

by Fanon on Sep 3, 2009 2:36 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

You can't count them as part of the M's package

Because Seattle didn’t give them up — the O’s pulled off a coup getting Bell and Johnson for Sherrill, but that’s a different deal altogether.

by T Pac on Sep 3, 2009 2:27 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Maybe, but I think you're discounting the value that Sherrill had as an All Star closer

I guess it’s not as relevant to this discussion, but at the same time, the M’s theoretically could have held on to Sherrill and flipped him for the same package.

by Fanon on Sep 3, 2009 2:35 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

maybe

But that’s almost like saying the Mark Mulder trade was the best package of all time, because they got Daric Barton, Kiko Calero plus all the guys in the Haren trade.

by T Pac on Sep 3, 2009 2:49 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

great point...

by matthewmafa on Sep 3, 2009 2:57 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I'd agree with that

Except to say that the As also got 4 years of Dan Haren pitching for them, plus all of that

TheSouthWing.com - A Magazine of essays, prose and poems

by OldProspects on Sep 3, 2009 9:03 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

3 years

2005-2007.

by PaulThomas on Sep 3, 2009 3:34 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

But they've got him signed to a reasonable contract through what, 2012?

There’s plenty of time for that trade to look good for both sides.

by Fanon on Sep 3, 2009 1:05 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

His original contract only ran through 2010

He signed an extension at some point. I suspect he probably would have signed the same extension had he stayed in Oakland, but I suppose there’s no way to know for sure.

by PaulThomas on Sep 3, 2009 4:06 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Beane

It is good for Beane to get a steal of a trade like this every so often so that people overlook all of the talent that he has traded away and gotten little return for.

by MADness on Sep 2, 2009 4:50 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Like?

"Chicks dig the long ball, although fat chicks will settle for warning track power" - Nick Diamond

by hero66 on Sep 2, 2009 4:56 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Now this is the time someone brings up Ethier

and dont ring him up A’s won in that trade and got to ALCS because of bradley

HILLIS

by robbo650 on Sep 3, 2009 12:05 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I just expected no answer

The only real valid answer here is the Hudson trade, and that was easily justifiable at the team.

"Chicks dig the long ball, although fat chicks will settle for warning track power" - Nick Diamond

by hero66 on Sep 3, 2009 12:48 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Who did we get for Hudson?

HILLIS

by robbo650 on Sep 3, 2009 9:32 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Dan Meyer, Charles Thomas...

I know there’s more.

by PissedMick on Sep 3, 2009 9:40 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Ah

and Juan Cruz.

by PissedMick on Sep 3, 2009 9:40 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Santana

Was hurt this year. If he recovers he should be back to being one of the best pitchers in the game.

I am beginning to lose patience
With my personal relations.
They are not deep
And they are not cheap.

W.H. Auden

by jimduquettesucked on Sep 2, 2009 12:24 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

that would explain

why his 3 year FIP and TRA are all about the same .. which is about 1 run higher than the 3 years before that

by RollingWave on Sep 2, 2009 11:50 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Baltimore got the best deal!!!

http://4parl.wordpress.com/ Check it out!

by Markakis and Wieters 4 Life on Sep 2, 2009 4:16 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Thank you for gutting the Mariners on that one

Really appreciate it, keepin Adam Jones out of the west.

"I feel like we are sending Danny Haren for Mulder all over again." - Cardinal fan on the Matt Holliday trade

"But at this time of year, two plus two doesn't always add up to eight. Sometimes, it equals four." - Geoff Baker, Mariners beat writer.

by Orodawg on Sep 2, 2009 4:37 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

+1

by SteveHoffmanSlowey on Sep 2, 2009 5:27 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I'd say the Haren trade GROUP was better, but considering the relative value of what they gave up, this is probably correct

since Bedard was much less valuable than Haren.

by PaulThomas on Sep 2, 2009 8:19 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Said it then and will say it now

The Twins deal was horrible. Especially considering some of the other rumored offers. I still can’t see how they moved Santana in a deal centered around Carlos Gomez. And Carlos Gomez never really had star potential, he was just fast, tall, and super overrated.

by nyy601 on Sep 3, 2009 4:03 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs