Which Deal? (Carlos Gonzalez or Carlos Gomez)
by DodgersBacktoBrooklyn2011 on Feb 3, 2010 1:43 PM EST
Email
Print
Which deal is better at face value, I'm seeking a CF (CGonz or CGomez). & ultimately where do you think CGonzalez projects (CF or LF/RF)??
Thanks in advance for thoughts:
or
Bailey, Volstad, Kurt Suzuki, Matt Dominguez
for
Carlos Gonzalez, John Baker, Michael Iona
(Additional Info regarding deal: Bailey and Volstad are low on my totem poll on my staff, I have a good staff and Morrow/Carmona as young SPs for the 7-8 pitcher on staff. I have Mauer as my #1 C, so I like Suzuki a lot but it's not a huge loss.)
Thoughts on Iona?
83 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
+1
The only deal you should consider is Bailey & (possibly) change for Carlos Gonzalez. Bailey & Dominguez for Gonzalez MIGHT be a decent deal.
Damn...
Thanks, seems like the early verdict is, I’m about to make an awful deal… ha!
by DodgersBacktoBrooklyn2011 on Feb 3, 2010 2:06 PM EST up reply actions
I wouldn't do them either...
You’re just not getting enough on return
"When Justin Upton faces Lincecum, I think Christ might appear in the heavens, and the world will end." -JakeFree
Yeah
I can see the imbalance,,, the introcacies of my team, it’s not as bad as it looks… I also help a lower team out alot, which should make the league more competitive.
I made the move for CGonzalez, now it’s just hoping he becomes the player I think he’ll be. Bought “a lot of stock” in him…
by DodgersBacktoBrooklyn2011 on Feb 4, 2010 2:48 PM EST up reply actions
Scouting young SPs
Plus, it’s fun now i have manuever room to start looking at young SPs in the rough…
Here’s what’s out there FA in my league, that I’m watching their career path:
James McDonald
Franklin Morales
Jeremy Jeffress
Eric Hurley
Jeremy Sowers
Charlie Morton
by DodgersBacktoBrooklyn2011 on Feb 4, 2010 2:57 PM EST up reply actions
CGonzalez
You don’t think Gonzalez is going to be a 30/30 guy? I see it.
Carlos Gomez, cheap steals, top of the Brewers order. Still has potential. I do like Bailey and think the deal is tainted, but have a very solid SP staff (Lincecum, Verlander, Saunders, Sheets, Harden, Morrow, Westbrook, Carmona, Pedro) even without him. Yes I know I have a lot of ?’s in there, but so is Bailey, right?
by DodgersBacktoBrooklyn2011 on Feb 3, 2010 2:02 PM EST up reply actions
Concurrence
love me some Gonzalez, and if his late ’09 push is any indication of his power potential, he could approach 30/15 and beyond.
More than 15 SBs
Gonzalez had 16 SBs last year in 80-someodd games…
Yeah that CGonz deal just kept getting bigger and more unbalanced as I made offers for him.
by DodgersBacktoBrooklyn2011 on Feb 3, 2010 2:30 PM EST up reply actions
I'm on the opposite end,
I see him as a 20-25 hr, 30-35 sb guy…
"When Justin Upton faces Lincecum, I think Christ might appear in the heavens, and the world will end." -JakeFree
by JT12340 on Feb 3, 2010 7:16 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Nice
That’s exactly what I’m looking for…
I just need him in CF for this year… I have F-Martinez & Ben Revere iN ML, and hopefully can slide one of them in as a CF of the future in 2011…
by DodgersBacktoBrooklyn2011 on Feb 3, 2010 7:26 PM EST up reply actions
Where the heck are you people getting these stolen base projections from?
The guy stole 54 total bases in the minors – never more than 16 in a season!
Its not impossible for his SB totals to jump (and we would expect a little jump with more playing time)- but mid 30s? Highly unlikely, IMO.
16 SBs last year in majors
…. in 87 games (80 starts)
by DodgersBacktoBrooklyn2011 on Feb 3, 2010 8:33 PM EST up reply actions
Tracy
Tracy loves to run, so I see a green light… plus, it appeared from last year that he was fine tuning his SB/leadngi skills…
As you mentioned, he didn’t run much in the ML, so I think he is still learning…
by DodgersBacktoBrooklyn2011 on Feb 4, 2010 11:03 AM EST up reply actions
John's 2007 Hitter List...
CGonzalez is among some fine company… this list turned out pretty strong so far…
by DodgersBacktoBrooklyn2011 on Feb 4, 2010 7:41 PM EST up reply actions
psh, Bailey looks like your 3rd best pitcher to me
I do like the upside of C-Gonz, but I wouldn’t do this deal personally. Your staff has a ton of injury question marks as it is [sheets, harden, morrow, holy dr. andrews phone calls batman]
Saunders
Saunders is great, VERY undervalued… his upside is a poor man’s Greg Maddux for years to come. He does drop off later in the year, but I think he has a long successful career ahead of him…
It’s a 16-team league, so the staff is not that great but it’s very formidable in the league.
Bailey is a ? as well though, right?
by DodgersBacktoBrooklyn2011 on Feb 3, 2010 2:48 PM EST up reply actions
I don't question Homer
I do like Saunders, but I never comp anyone to Maddux.
also, Homer’s upside is pretty significantly higher than Saunders, imo
Personally, I consider Saunders JAG
Id take Bailey both going forward and for just 2010.
Slight edge in 2010, big advantage going forward.
Bailey
So you think Bailey is on the cusp of breaking out then…
by DodgersBacktoBrooklyn2011 on Feb 3, 2010 3:34 PM EST up reply actions
Actually, I think Im not as high on him as many here
Saunders is just a middle of the road guy. His ERA and WHIP are gonna be pretty mediocre. He’s a below average strikeout source. Wins are fluky.
Bailey will probably be at least as good ERA and WHIP-wise. In terms of Ks he should surpass Saunders by a good margin. Wins, again, are fluky… but I dont see much reason to think Saunders is a better bet there than Homer.
Small sample size
He did pitch well in Sept last year, but needs to have a full season of success to be considered ‘broken out’, imo
by DodgersBacktoBrooklyn2011 on Feb 3, 2010 3:52 PM EST up reply actions
by then its too late
isn’t the point of catching a ‘break out’ pitcher as early as possible? for a young pitcher with Bailey’s stuff, a year and a half of good production is ‘established’ imo.
but, if you wanna be the guy who trades the next Greinke, which it sounds like you do, then be my guest
"a year and a half of good production"
I like Bailey, a lot, but there has not been a year and a half of good production, maybe a month and a half so far…
He was 0-6 with a 8 ERA in ’08.
by DodgersBacktoBrooklyn2011 on Feb 3, 2010 7:28 PM EST up reply actions
i know
i’m referring to if you wait til he " needs to have a full season of success to be considered ‘broken out"
i see
My bad, I read it wrong…
so, going back to my original comment, he is on the cusp of breaking out in your opinion, cause this would be his break-out year. Tomatoe, tomato… thx for the time to give your opinions.
by DodgersBacktoBrooklyn2011 on Feb 3, 2010 8:31 PM EST up reply actions
i'm saying his last 2 months of pitching should've convinced you
but hey, its up to you. if you aren’t convinced then that’s fine
I see
Yeah I am convinced he will be solid, a great one is still up in the air, but unfortunately became expendable…. it’s tough with a 25 man roster…
Plus pitching in Great American Bandbox is a tough task.
by DodgersBacktoBrooklyn2011 on Feb 4, 2010 10:58 AM EST up reply actions
Saunders
Thanks for the input on Bailey.
“upside” is “Poor man’s” Maddux —> Durable, stays in the strike zone and gets outs, wins games
I think Saunders is under-rated cause he never was a huge prospect and pitches in Anaheim
by DodgersBacktoBrooklyn2011 on Feb 3, 2010 3:33 PM EST up reply actions
Saunders isn't well thought of because almost all of his success has been due to good luck on balls-in-play and stranding baserunners.
Add in the fact that he doesn’t strike anyone out, and I can’t see why you wouldn’t be able to find a similar guy on the wire in 75% of leagues.
"Rodney Saunders"?
No respect:)
17 Ws in ‘08
16 W’s in ’09
Very few SPs that have those #’s, and definitely none on the wire in my league.
by DodgersBacktoBrooklyn2011 on Feb 3, 2010 3:45 PM EST up reply actions
Saunders at the end of '09
6-0, he really put it together… again as a west coaster, I think he’s under-valued by those that don’t watch him pitch…
Date Opp W L IP HA ER BBA Ks
08/31 SEA 1 0 7.0 3 0 3 4
09/06 KC 1 0 5.1 10 2 1 2
09/11 CHW 1 0 7.0 3 1 1 3
09/16 BOS 0 0 5.2 8 2 3 5
09/21 NYY 1 0 8.1 7 2 0 3
09/27 OAK 1 0 6.0 7 3 1 3
10/04 OAK 1 0 0 5.0 6 2 2 3
by DodgersBacktoBrooklyn2011 on Feb 3, 2010 3:51 PM EST up reply actions
3.41 ERA in 2008
17 Ws and a 3.41 ERA in ’08
Had a rough stretch in summer ’09 but still finished with 16 Ws.
That is the same sample size that another poster claims is a breakout for Bailey. I just think Saunders is fully established, with a full career ahead.
Also look into the #’s (even though my paste is hard to read), went into the 6th vs. Red Sox and then into the 9th vs. Yankees, 3 total runs…
by DodgersBacktoBrooklyn2011 on Feb 5, 2010 1:25 PM EST up reply actions
3.41 ERA is deceiving; he was one of the luckiest pitchers in MLB that year
In 2008 Saunders had an FIP of 4.43, last year it was 5.23. See his stats here.
He’s not good.
Wins are a really poor way to evaluate the quality of a pitcher
Youre going to run into a lot of trouble if you continue this way of thinking – even though it is a fairly common method.
Saunders was the beneficiary of luck and good defense. He does many important things worse than lots of other starting pitchers in the majors.
While he brought you good value in the past, if we look at his components our prediction of what he will do in the future isnt all that positive.
Simply put, if Joe Saunders continues doing the exact same things he has been doing the odds are strongly against him winning that many game or having an ERA that low again.
I'm not sure if that came out right...
But..my point is…Joe Saunders is not that good. He is not a poor man’s Maddux. He’d be lucky to be a poor man’s Jamie Moyer. A very poor man’s.
HA
I knew the Maddux comparison was a risky one, since Maddux was one of the best ever. But for as much as you all think I’m over-rating him, respectfully I think you’re under-rating him… (again, I said the ‘upside’ was a ‘poor man’s’ Maddux.
I suppose the next few years will show, if he wins 15+ for the next 2 years, like the last 2, I think most will have change their viewpoint, irregardless if W is the key stat for evaluation, it’s truly the most important one for an SP. Maddux won 15+ what… 15 years in a row, if Saunders extends for a few more years, I stand by the “poor man’s” status.
by DodgersBacktoBrooklyn2011 on Feb 3, 2010 7:11 PM EST up reply actions
If you keep using wins as a point of argument, no one is going to take your opinions seriously.
That is all.
I understand
I never noted that the only stat in this particular league is W’s for SPs…
I know<— it’s just the rules of this dynasty league, the draft leagues I do take the full complement of stats.
by DodgersBacktoBrooklyn2011 on Feb 5, 2010 1:26 PM EST up reply actions
Just hang on to Bailey
Both these deals are bad.
I would take Gonzalez over Gomez, for reference. I just have zero faith Gomez will ever hit. He’s a one trick pony and a major drag in BA. Gonzalez is pretty good across the board and has plenty of upside.
The only concern positionally isnt that Gonzalez can’t handle CF – but that Fowler might push him out. I personally think Gonzalez is a slightly better fielder, but its impossible to predict what the Rockies will do.
Thanks
Good input, appreciated… I have no CF at all, so have to do an unbalanced deal to get one.
I like the way Tracy uses his OFs, with Hawpe, Fowler, CGonz, Smith (and Spil), I think CGonz will see all the OFs this year, projecting to the future not so sure… thanks again.
by DodgersBacktoBrooklyn2011 on Feb 3, 2010 2:04 PM EST up reply actions
Yeah... depending on your format, Gonzalez should still qualify as a CF going forward.
I still wouldnt do quite so unbalanced a deal, though. Wait it out if you have to. Don’t go trading assets for Carlos Gomez out of desperation.
I (try to) get it
I know I’m giving up a lot of talent, and a lot of “potential”, but I have young SPs and the roster is pared to 25-man roster in April, so it makes it tough to hold onto a lot of youth.
If anything I have Morrow and Fausto, I still think it’s anyones call who has the best career betwen Morrow-Bailey-Volstad-Fausto. I also may pick up James MacDonald who i think could be a sleeper.
My hitting gets a boost with Carlos Gonzalez,,, I think he’s going to be a good one. And I’m not giving up any starters.
by DodgersBacktoBrooklyn2011 on Feb 3, 2010 7:05 PM EST up reply actions
Morrow and Carmona
Carmona hasn’t pitched more than 130 MLB innings in either of the last two years and has had nothing other than one season that was way out of norm.
Morrow has had trouble staying out there as a starter. Also, neither guy is super “young” as one is 26 and the other is 27. That’s not bad, but by no means young.
by The Gottfather on Feb 3, 2010 11:23 PM EST up reply actions
Exactly, thanks
That is why it would be impossible to trade Morrow or carmona, while Bailey and Volstad had value. Volstad actually was a train wreck at the end of last year, but the owner I traded him to is a Marlins fan I think.
I believe in both Bailey & Volstad, but it still is a coin flip whether they will outperform Morrow & Fausto… I would love to see Fausto pull it back together (another coin flip).
by DodgersBacktoBrooklyn2011 on Feb 4, 2010 11:00 AM EST up reply actions
I believe in both Bailey & Volstad, but it still is a coin flip whether they will outperform Morrow & Fausto
I think you’re way off on this. I wouldnt trade Bailey for Morrow AND Carmona.
In no way is this a coin flip. Bailey is clearly a much better prospect and pitcher. You could make a case for Morrow being kind of close – though I wouldnt buy it. You absolutely can’t even make a case for Carmona. He’s junk. He doesnt strike anyone out and is just a bad pitcher. Its a “coin flip” whether Carmona is in MLB a year and a half from now.
Maybe
I did pick Carmona off the scrap heap this winter,,, after trading him 2 years ago after his 19 win season, for Delmon Young…
I guess I still have the fond memories of his 19 win season. Thanks.
Bailey definitely garnered trade interest this winter, while Morrow had none… I’m hoping he’s a diamond in the rough, his heat is dynamite.
by DodgersBacktoBrooklyn2011 on Feb 4, 2010 12:25 PM EST up reply actions
loss/loss?
I think you mean loss/loss,,, both owners left bummed out
by DodgersBacktoBrooklyn2011 on Feb 4, 2010 6:53 PM EST up reply actions
He was on the wire for a reason.
He’s one of the worst pitchers in MLB.
Look at that K/BB ratio. It will make you cringe.
Control
Yes, if he finds his control he’ll be good for me,,, if he loses it I’ll just drop him… right now there is a 29 man roster, then it goes down to 25 in mid-April.
But again, all your points are valid!
by DodgersBacktoBrooklyn2011 on Feb 5, 2010 1:28 PM EST up reply actions
Appreciate it
I have pitchers ahead of Volstad, in my opinion.
I have Mauer ahead of Suzuki.
Dominguez is tough to give up.
Ultimately I get a starting CF, w/o giving up any of my current starters. I know I’m giving up a lot, but it’s to a weaker team in the other division, so helps them get stronger too…
by DodgersBacktoBrooklyn2011 on Feb 3, 2010 6:47 PM EST up reply actions
Just because you can replace guys does not mean you should give away talented players
And pitchers are famously volatile anyway, plus injury-prone. SP depth is a good thing, not a throw-in to get a mediocre outfielder who cant hit like Gomez.
Shoot, Suzuki for Gonzalez straight up is not a terrible deal for the other guy and it is a fantastically better one for you.
I'll add a real life example to back me up
Remember when the Rangers “had” to trade AGon because he was blocked at 1B? They made him a throw-in in an already bad deal — Chris Young (plus AGon) for Adam Eaton and Aki Otsuka. AGon being blocked by Tex made AGon seem unnecessary to the Rangers. So instead of 1) keeping him, as they should have done or 2) trading him as the centerpiece of a package for an elite player, they gave him away for nothing.
CGonzalez
I see your rationale.
I think we just have a drastically different estimation/valuation of where CGonzalez will be going in his career. I really believe up…
I’ve been trying to get him since he was ML with the D-backs (traded in Haren deal, pretty good company), and there was an owner change, so I tried to get him in the offseason before his value pops. I think it will, obviously i could be wrong, that’s the fun of it.
And as for the real world/fantasy world, the Rangers org has a full AAA team along with the 25 man roster… I just have 25 man roster and 7 ML’ers… so Bailey/Volstad were lower half of my SP totem pole. Suzuki was behind Mauer, so just a bargaining chip… I did give too much, but otherwise I wouldn’t have got CG at all.
by DodgersBacktoBrooklyn2011 on Feb 4, 2010 7:00 PM EST up reply actions
I like CGon too...
And am not saying you shouldn’t try to get him. But if your trading partner wants Suzuki, then honestly Suzuki for CGon is pretty fair. All else equal I would definitely take Suzuki but it’s not a total bilking like the proposals above.
That would have been nice
Suzuki for CGonz… he refused that early on… and Baker may prove to be a decent back-up catcher, especially if he finds his way to the 2-hole, he did see some time there last year…
by DodgersBacktoBrooklyn2011 on Feb 5, 2010 10:41 AM EST up reply actions
If yr desperate for a CF and steals
offer Saunders for C. Gomez, or package something w/ Saunders for Gonzalez.
meh
I’m not excited by either package.
that said, I like Carlos Gonzalez more. Carlos Gonzales is the more complete package and Carlos Gomez stinks. He’s worse than Willy Taveras, and that’s saying a lot. Just remember, the Brewers have so much confidence in Carlos Gomez they signed 39 year old Jim Edmonds…
"Fantasy, reality, science Fiction. Which is which? Who can tell?"
oops sorry for typo
I meant to retype Carlos Gonzalez, oh well.
"Fantasy, reality, science Fiction. Which is which? Who can tell?"
Thanks
And thanks all, I took the Carlos Gonzalez deal… I know it looks bad on paper, but it helps both teams (probably his more!, but I get a starter and gave up none of my starters, and helps make my decisions for me when rosters pare down to 25).
Wow, everyone thinks Gomez is terrible, he’s still way young @ 23 and may surprise some people, but you convinced me that CGonzalez was a better target.
by DodgersBacktoBrooklyn2011 on Feb 3, 2010 8:38 PM EST up reply actions
Iona
who knows? he can be a boom or huge bust…or somewhere in between, I know that’s a cliched answer, but that’s the truth.
Until we see some true pro data on Mr. Iona no one really knows, all we have are scouting reports.
"Fantasy, reality, science Fiction. Which is which? Who can tell?"
Iona
Thanks, guess no one really knows yet… he’s years away from MLB even in the best case scenario, so I’ll stash him at the bottom of my 7-man ML roster and just kind of wait to see what John and others report on him….
by DodgersBacktoBrooklyn2011 on Feb 4, 2010 11:02 AM EST up reply actions
Iona
Seems to be Iona, per John’s site here, as well as others…
by DodgersBacktoBrooklyn2011 on Feb 4, 2010 12:22 PM EST up reply actions
Here is John's take & spelling
by DodgersBacktoBrooklyn2011 on Feb 4, 2010 7:02 PM EST up reply actions
Yup, John changed it as well
http://www.minorleagueball.com/2009/12/28/1222719/oakland-athletics-top-20-prospects
14) Michael Ynoa, RHP, Grade C+: Impossible to rank or grade accurately at this point. Still has all-world potential, but we need to see him take the mound against real hitters.
by DodgersBacktoBrooklyn2011 on Feb 4, 2010 7:03 PM EST up reply actions
Nope
It was initially misreported as “Michael Inoa.”
It was actually “Michel Ynoa”, but he decided to go with “Michael Ynoa” once he got over here.
Michel Ynoa is the original spelling of Michael’s name. His first name was anglicized to “Michael” after he signed with the Oakland Athletics in July 2008. 4 Although Michael’s last name is more commonly spelled with an “I,” as of February 2009, he will be using the original spelling “Ynoa.” “According to A’s director of player development Keith Lieppman, [Y]noa will start going by the original spelling of his last name, ‘Ynoa.’ Somewhere along the line, there was a mixup on the spelling, and the pitcher’s name made its way into the public forum with an ‘I.’” 5
haha/ Inoa-Iona--tomato-Tomatoe
yeah I kinda thought it was INOA, but I just went with the popular spelling. we’ll know for SURE when and if he succeeds in the Pros.
"Fantasy, reality, science Fiction. Which is which? Who can tell?"
Well hopefully he doesn't pull a "Tony Pena"
And wind up being in his , with a totally different name
by DodgersBacktoBrooklyn2011 on Feb 4, 2010 12:58 PM EST up reply actions
Well hopefully he doesn't pull a "Tony Pena"
And wind up with a totally different name, and in his 20’s…
by DodgersBacktoBrooklyn2011 on Feb 4, 2010 12:58 PM EST reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
