Open for business (part 2)

[JohnBriggs12]

Segura is under contract for awhile. Depends on how long the rebuild lasts. Gennett is still barely hitting .100 vs LHP .... I like the possibilities of a Segura/Gennett platoon at 2B in the future with Arcia at SS

 

Gennett is batting .268/.305/.482 vs. ALL lefties he's faced this season including those he saw at AAA. After getting off to such a slow start against RHP, they scrapped plans to play him vs LHP almost immediately (he made 2 starts vs. LHP). Understandable since the entire team wasn't hitting but a stunning lack of patience considering they spent all winter and spring saying he'd play everyday especially after he hit them so well at Colo Springs. He has just 21 PA against them in the ML. He was raking against them in AAA (.375/.412/.688), but he's only had a handful of AB's against them since his return, all against lefty specialist relievers who's job it is to dominate lefty hitters. I still think if they gave him consistent starts vs. LH starters who don't have hugs splits vs. LH hitters, that he'd do all right against them.

[Pugger]

Parra is just going to get us a better prospect than most thought.

 

I know we will be moving him soon but I will miss him big time.

[MrTPlush]

Parra is just going to get us a better prospect than most thought.

 

I know we will be moving him soon but I will miss him big time.

 

Don't forget that should pave the way for a Logan Schafer return!!!

[Hammer]

Parra is just going to get us a better prospect than most thought.

 

I know we will be moving him soon but I will miss him big time.

 

Don't forget that should pave the way for a Logan Schafer return!!!

 

Thanks - I just threw up in my mouth a little. There has to be a better option than Logie-poo. Been there, done that...WAY TOO MANY TIMES.

[Daubs]

He was raking against them in AAA (.375/.412/.688)

 

I'd take any SSS splits in Colorado Springs with a serious grain of salt, considering how tough it is to spin any breaking balls in the environment.

[Jenkins5]

Parra & Gomez stock is about to reach peak. Gomez is healthy finally and mashing, Parra has been playing out of his mind. The value we will get back for Parra is much more than what we were thinking a month ago.

[MrTPlush]

He was raking against them in AAA (.375/.412/.688)

 

I'd take any SSS splits in Colorado Springs with a serious grain of salt, considering how tough it is to spin any breaking balls in the environment.

 

[sarcasm]Are you saying I should cancel my Elian Herrera jersey order and the near 1.000 OPS isn't going to translate?[/sarcasm]

[brewcrewdue80]

Just to understand the Segura hate. Of qualified SS's he's 14th in OPS. 50pts from .700 and 7th best in baseball. So Terrible Segura is in the top half of OPS at SS and he's worth little? Segura has the most SBs over everyone above him. There's just not a lot of SSs with strong batting profile, Segura included. This isn't a Corner OF position where it's .800+OPS or you're dirt.

 

He's proven himself defensively at the position now. Do I expect him to improve? No not by much. .650-.700OPS seems about right in expectations. That's top 15 in all of baseball at SS, I'd expect a top 75 type prospect in return. Which is like 65-125 in rankings as the quality is likely the same with worts and who's hot/fresh in the prospect ranking individuals' minds to rank one 65 vs 115.

 

It's weird to me the Mets are looking back at Segura/Ramirez again, after they did so supposedly in the Minnesota series, and left with the impression, they aren't trade targets. So part of me wonders is any of the recent is even true or some one just drumming up the same rumor that was a month old.

 

Adam Lind to an AL team, it has to happen. 8games separates worst to 5th team in the playoffs.

[FVBrewerFan]

I think far too often we evaluate players based on OPS from a few years ago. I fall into this trap at times. We need to always remember OPS is down across MLB at every position.

 

In fact, 25 players in the NL have an OPS over .800. Only FIVE are corner OF. Not mentioning this to call you out or anything, just to bolster your point that our old way of thinking doesn't hold up in 2015.

[tmwiese55]

My take on Segura is that if you really get blown away by a deal then go for it. Otherwise I'm fine with keeping him as he could have a long term future at 2B after Arcia comes up. What I mean is that you don't have to trade him like say a Lyle Overbay when Prince was coming, he can switch positions. He'll likely never be the star he looked like in the first 3 months but he's a young, cost controlled, useful MLB player and has shown signs of improvement this year

[trwi7]

Interesting comments from Neal Huntington about prospect values based on which levels they're at. Something many of us (led by TheCrew07) have been saying.

 

What surprised the Pirates, and many industry observers, was the Tampa Bay Rays preferred a return of young, major league players. The Boston Red Sox also traded their ace, Jon Lester, for a major league player in Yoenis Cespedes prior to the deadline. Huntington said the focus of the sellers has again been on major league talent — not prospects — as the July 31st trade deadline approaches.

 

Why the change?

 

“It's a seller's market, so there are fewer teams that are looking to trade established major league players for prospects,” Huntington said. “The impatience of the industry. The expectation that you can turn an organization around in a year. Rather than (targeting) the best prospect in the system that may be in A-ball, teams are starting to look for the guy in Triple-A that might have an impact in a year or two.”

 

http://triblive.com/sports/pirates/8712443-74/huntington-pirates-trade#axzz3fieWnlDA

[Fear The Chorizo]

I think the other reason people see fewer low level prospects switching teams via trade is that organizations want to give those players time to develop in their own systems to evaluate whether they're going to be quality big leaguers or wash out. I think teams value their prospects to the point of not wanting to part with them if there's uncertainty to their potential - they're rather keep them in A or AA another season to see if it clicks and they become a top tier prospect. A team would much rather deal a developed, pre-arbitration prospect who's major league ready and who profiles as a MLB regular for veteran help at the deadline than trading a talented but undeveloped player in their low minor leagues who could potentially become a perennial all star or flame out before ever reaching the bigs. Teams want as much certainty as possible when evaluating whether a trade is good or bad for the organization.

 

I think that's why you don't see many of the "bench bat/backup IF" veteran trades for a low minors kid with a big arm that might develop anymore. Organizations value the boom potential of their young prospects more than the benefit a veteran bench bat can give the MLB club for a playoff push. They'd much rather wait until after that same player clears waivers in August and simply take on that vet's salary and give up a low level prospect who doesn't have the high ceiling.

 

Most trades for even the best MLB-ready prospects are from organization who have positions for them blocked at the MLB level - this is something the Cubs will be dealing with over the next few seasons when trying to use their deep system to acquire more pitching via trade.

[jerichoholicninja]

Interesting comments from Neal Huntington about prospect values based on which levels they're at. Something many of us (led by TheCrew07) have been saying.

 

What surprised the Pirates, and many industry observers, was the Tampa Bay Rays preferred a return of young, major league players. The Boston Red Sox also traded their ace, Jon Lester, for a major league player in Yoenis Cespedes prior to the deadline. Huntington said the focus of the sellers has again been on major league talent — not prospects — as the July 31st trade deadline approaches.

 

Why the change?

 

“It's a seller's market, so there are fewer teams that are looking to trade established major league players for prospects,” Huntington said. “The impatience of the industry. The expectation that you can turn an organization around in a year. Rather than (targeting) the best prospect in the system that may be in A-ball, teams are starting to look for the guy in Triple-A that might have an impact in a year or two.”

 

http://triblive.com/sports/pirates/8712443-74/huntington-pirates-trade#axzz3fieWnlDA

 

I just happened to be looking at Cliff Lee's BRef page today and remembered he's been traded as a rental probably more than any other player. Let's take a look what he's been traded for.

 

Philly sent Cleveland:

Jason Knapp (was in A when traded, Reached A+ last year, is no where this year) 0 career WAR

Carlos Carrasco (was in AAA when traded, now solid ML starter) 4.8

Jason Donald (was in AAA when traded, spent a few years in ML with Cleveland, may be out of baseball) 1.3

Lou Marson (was in AAA when traded, a few years in ML for Cleveland, now AA for Cin) 1.6

 

Seattle sent Philly:

Tyson Gillies (spent year prior to trade in A+, has yet to reach bigs, now in AA for SD) 0

Phillippe Aumont (spent year prior to trade in AA, less than mediocre ML numbers, bouncing between AAA and Philly) -.7

JC Ramirez (spent year prior to trade in A+, a few cups of coffee with Philly and AZ, now in AAA for AZ) -.7

 

Texas sent Seattle:

Matt Lawson (was in AA when traded, never reached bigs) 0

Blake Beavan (was in AA when traded, 4 years with Sea, just released from AZ AAA) 1.5

Josh Lueke (was in AA when traded, put up pretty bad numbers as reliever for Sea and TB) -1.1

Justin Smoak (was in ML when traded, 4.5 average-ish years in Sea, now seems to have figured it out in Tor) 1.5

 

The players who have been solid major league contributors (Carrasco and Smoak, maybe you could make an argument for Larson) were all at AAA when traded. Everyone else was AA or below and they turned into pretty much nothing. Teams want to hold on to and acquire those AAA/major league ready guys because they are more likely to turn out. At the time of all of these trades, Lee was one of the best pitchers in baseball and only one of the players whom he was traded for is actually currently helping the club that traded for him.

 

I think this also speaks to how often the team that gets the prospects in a rental trade actually has it work out for them. Lee was traded for a total of 11 players who have averaged .74 WAR between them. Even in the year's he was traded mid-season, Lee never gave the team that just acquired him less than 1.1 WAR.

 

Also, Lee's middle name is Phifer. I felt that was important to note.

[tmwiese55]

Thanks for the info. Backs up my opinion that prospects are usually overrated and trades for them usually don't get the return you expect, and generally the folks on this board overrate them too. The true 'can't miss' types like a Braun, Harper, Trout just don't get traded so you're taking chances. Cubs did seem to get a few of the near 'can't miss' types so we'll see how many of them work out. Of course it's an impossible argument to settle either way so thanks for the info. And yes I still agree that we should trade Gomez and Lucroy for as much as we can get, it's a numbers game so hopefully you get 6 promising guys back and 1-2 really produce. Or one of them gets back one 'can't miss'.

 

If I recall Cleveland traded Bartolo Colon to Montreal and cleaned up in that one, I think Lee was one they got back for him. Brandon Phillips and Grady Sizemore I think too. I think Lee took a long time to pan out though.

[CheezWizHed]

“It's a seller's market, so there are fewer teams that are looking to trade established major league players for prospects,”

 

So in a true "Moneyball" mentality, might it be wise to attempt the opposite? When the market was trying to get prospects, that established a higher demand and dried up the supply. So now that the demand is on MLB players, would we have a better selection of prospects to choose from?

 

Is the failure stated above because people settled for middling prospects included in trades in the past?

[Thurston Fluff]

“It's a seller's market, so there are fewer teams that are looking to trade established major league players for prospects,”

 

So in a true "Moneyball" mentality, might it be wise to attempt the opposite? When the market was trying to get prospects, that established a higher demand and dried up the supply. So now that the demand is on MLB players, would we have a better selection of prospects to choose from?

 

Is the failure stated above because people settled for middling prospects included in trades in the past?

 

Money ball still requires two willing parties for trades. Nobody rents an apartment by selling their house even if there are a lot of houses to buy and few apartments for rent. The intrinsic value of each is so different it makes no sense regardless of relative scarcity.

Teams who are looking for prospects might want legit five tool, can't miss prospects in return but I don't think a single contending team is willing to give that up. If you have a legitimate can't miss prospect you do not give up six years of that for half a season of even the greatest player. AS the Houston Astos acquisition of Randy Johnson in his prime shows, one single player, no matter how great, does not guarantee you a ring. No matter what the market is, giving up six years of can't miss production for anything but can't miss short term results is giving up a house for an apartment. There is never a point in which the former's value is lower than the latter.

[CheezWizHed]

My head just blew up. Thus, my house is available for rent....

 

I'll skip to the 5-tool part. No one was going to trade away Mike Trout, so we can take the A+ and maybe A guys out of the conversation. However, people have been willing to part with Jake Odorizzi. Twice. He was a B+ prospect.

 

So, if the OP was correct that people are pushing for more MLB talented guys, there is less "competition" for a prospect in the A-/B+ range. Thus, if MLB team A has a few options to fill a 1B spot. And two teams are asking for MLB players, but we ask for a prospect (or two) for Adam Lind two things happen:

1) Its harder for the MLB team A to compare the offers. If all teams are asking for prospects, its easier to gauge the packages. If only we are asking for prospects, it gives us an advantage to ask for more.

2) We give them another option. Flexibility. Someone else's shortsightedness can be our benefit.

 

Remember that the OP said that it was the sellers asking for MLB talent and not the buyers wanting to give up MLB talent. So if we give them the option, we might get a better deal.

 

Of course, we have to be smart about what we are asking for too. We don't just ask for one C level guy if another team is getting MLB level players.

[CheezWizHed]

Another way to look at it is the Grienke trade. If KC wanted MLB talent back, we would have balked at the trade. We needed our MLB talent because we were in "go for it" mode. We didn't have guys to spare. But we did give them a nice package of prospects for him.

 

So, if other teams are playing hardball with asking for MLB talent in return, we might gain by going for something that is equally (or more so in the future) valuable but less sought after right now.

[reillymcshane]

Another way to look at it is the Grienke trade. If KC wanted MLB talent back, we would have balked at the trade. We needed our MLB talent because we were in "go for it" mode. We didn't have guys to spare. But we did give them a nice package of prospects for him.

 

So, if other teams are playing hardball with asking for MLB talent in return, we might gain by going for something that is equally (or more so in the future) valuable but less sought after right now.

Wasn't most of the package we sent KC 'major-league ready'?

 

Escobar had played close to a 100 games under his belt in Milwaukee. Lorenzo Cain had about a 1/3 of a season under his belt. Jeffress had appeared in a dozen or so games. Odorizzi was the only guy not ready for the majors. He had just finished A ball, if I recall.

 

KC got our players at a perfect time - with 1 or less years of ML service but still ready to contribute in the majors right away. Things didn't work out perfectly for them. Jeffress had personal issues that held him back. Cain got hurt his first year, but then came around.

 

No, the Brewers didnt' give up more established veterans, but I think the majority of the package qualified as major league ready.

[paul253]

Why don't we see more prospect for prospect deals? A team like Milwaukee would be on perfect position to do that. We are loaded at SS but have nothing at 1B and 3B. Meanwhile we aren't really in position to be trading for an established player. So why not move a guy like Rivera, Sardinas or even Gatewood for a prospect at first or third base?

[gregmag]

Gatewood is likely to end up as a prospect at first or third base. I don't think you want to trade promising low-level shortstops, because often they're just at ss because they're good.

 

I like your prospect-for-prospect idea generally, just because it's unorthodox and potentially useful. At the same time, I hesitate to focus too much on positional need.

[monty57]

Why don't we see more prospect for prospect deals? A team like Milwaukee would be on perfect position to do that. We are loaded at SS but have nothing at 1B and 3B. Meanwhile we aren't really in position to be trading for an established player. So why not move a guy like Rivera, Sardinas or even Gatewood for a prospect at first or third base?

 

Probably because GMs don't want to look foolish, and if the guy you traded away becomes good and the guy you get never makes it, you'll look foolish.

 

Far less risk in trading away a short window of "team control" for multiple prospects, at least one of which will likely make the majors. Less risky still if the guy you get back already has some MLB experience. For the team getting the vet, most fans will always love the GM/owner who trades away unknown prospects for "an upgrade" mid-season.

[paul253]

I'm not saying you're wrong but if that is true that is pathetic. You won't trade a prospect for a prospect because you're afraid to look bad if you end up losing the trade? If you're that thin skinned you should be in no position to make trades to begin with.

[tmwiese55]

I think it's a factor. but also because a GM would wonder what's wrong with the other team's prospect if the GM is willing to give up on him for just your prospect. Mostly this comes down to no matter how set you think you're at a position in the minors chances are they're not all panning out. And if they do they can usually change positions, other than some 1B. And if you're set at the MLB level with a star and someone is banging down the door, you just switch one of their positions and give the young guy a chance. Or you trade the prospect for a position of need. Or you do the Lyle Overbay type trade. Basically, you don't trade them until you know what they are, unless you secretly know the guy isn't that good and want to rip someone off (which is what the opposing GM is fearing). I know that was a ramble, but hope it made sense.

[FVBrewerFan]

I think it comes down to trading equal talent in the minors doesn't accomplish anything 99% of the time. If you make a trade like that, you end up in the same position you started. Sure, the positions may be different but the talent is the same. And for me personally, I don't pay much attention to position.

 

Look at 1B a few years ago. This would have fit your argument. They had Gamel, Green, and Morris...in the high minors and other legit temporary solutions. . Guess what? None of them panned out. So the depth you think you have at a position can change very quickly.

 

At SS for example, Rivera and Sardinas are nice players but are in no way proven to be every day starters. Arcia may very well be. After that, you have extremely young players that may never see the show- or may need to change positions anyhow as they develop.