Jean Segura to Phillies

[KeithStone53151]

 

I didn't realize the full deal, the Phillies getting those 2 relievers really tips the scales in their favor. The Mariners must really love Crawford. Neither reliever is really anything special. Solid/unspectacular MLB caliber arms.

[Ron Robinsons Beard]

Clancy isn’t going to be happy. He’s long wanted the Brewers to get Pazos.

[wallus]

Anyone else wonder if we could have traded Arcia and Thames in a similar deal?

[KeithStone53151]

Anyone else wonder if we could have traded Arcia and Thames in a similar deal?

 

I'd strongly argue both our guys are better baseball players than the respective players traded. Arcia's contract situation is equal to Crawfords while Thames contract is far superior to Santana's.

[xisxisxis]

Dipito looks like he’s auditioning for MLB networks first reality show titles biggest loser...

 

I feel for the Mariners fans like I felt for the Angels fans when Dipito was their GM... go Seahawks!

[owbc]

;tldr above

 

The Mariners have a plan. It has a higher risk/reward than the Brewers' did. They could completely strike out on this rebuild that takes 3-5 years but their plan is to get high draft picks and have a blank slate payroll in 3 years (and they got some nice players back in these trades regardless). The Astros are the prime example of hitting a home run doing this.

 

I could understand letting Cano and other high $ guys rot on your payroll as you get a slightly better return on Diaz by himself and maybe not rushing a Segura deal. The Brewers were more in line with this. It worked for the Brewers, but I think a lot of other teams have failed doing this...and I'd argue if the "Astros plan" hits, it has a much higher ceiling.

 

I mostly agree, but a big key to the Astros' plan was talent identification and development. It is not clear that the Mariners are capable of the same and the return from some of these trades is questionable.

 

One aspect that I give the Mariners credit for is blowing up the roster at the right time while the pieces still have value.

[clancyphile]

Clancy isn’t going to be happy. He’s long wanted the Brewers to get Pazos.

 

No kidding I am NOT happy.

 

Pazos was a guy the Crew could have used.

 

Get him, sign Andrew Miller, the Crew has a pen to go to war with.

[ClosetBrewerFan]

I dont get this trade at all. If Seattle is just trying to dump salary then why agree to a more expensive, less valuable player in return in Santana. Segura is currently better than Crawford and while older, is still under 30. They did dump Nicasio but he is likely going to have a rebound from his unlucky 2018 season. I would not have traded Segura for Crawford straight up, but then they took on a huge salary for two years and had to give up a useful LHRP as well.

[MNBrew]

I think it's fairly obvious DiPoto has a trade addiction. Quality of the move sometimes seems less important than making a move.

[trwi7]

I think it's fairly obvious DiPoto has a trade addiction. Quality of the move sometimes seems less important than making a move.

 

I think a lot of this kind of talk comes from the mandate of ownership to try to win with a roster that wasn't capable of winning and a farm system that didn't have the talent to get the players needed to make it happen so he needed to make a bunch of trades to improve around the margins and hopefully hit on a big one that put them over the top. Not exactly an easy thing to do.

[jerichoholicninja]

Ya I have no idea what Seattle is trying to do here. Segura and Santana money-wise is close to a wash. In every other way though, Segura is head and shoulders above Santana. Then they are also throwing in 2, not great, but still major league quality arms to get a noodle bat middle infielder who's not even that good of a defensive player and has lost most of his prospect shine.

[LouisEly]

I dont get this trade at all. If Seattle is just trying to dump salary then why agree to a more expensive, less valuable player in return in Santana. Segura is currently better than Crawford and while older, is still under 30. They did dump Nicasio but he is likely going to have a rebound from his unlucky 2018 season. I would not have traded Segura for Crawford straight up, but then they took on a huge salary for two years and had to give up a useful LHRP as well.

Nicasio is going to make $9.5M in 2019; that's like the Brewers dumping Soria, kind of a no-brainer.

 

I was scratching my head at first, but after seeing Nicasio's salary it's about a $30M savings for Seattle. They had to take on Bruce's and Swarzak's contracts to dump Cano. It's all about the long-term savings.

 

Santana will only be 33 next season, and he posted a .231 BABIP last year (career BABIP .265) with more BB than K. He could easily rebound to 2016/2017 numbers, and if he does, the Mariners will likely only have to eat at most $10M of his 2020 salary to trade him, saving them another $10M. Santana is a decent bounce-back candidate who, if he does bounce back, could be flipped for more prospects.

[3and2Fastball]

I think it's fairly obvious DiPoto has a trade addiction. Quality of the move sometimes seems less important than making a move.

 

Agreed. I don't doubt that part of the appeal, to DiPoto, of acquiring Santana & Bruce & Swarzak is that he can trade them later...

[bill hAll Star]

Ya I have no idea what Seattle is trying to do here. Segura and Santana money-wise is close to a wash. In every other way though, Segura is head and shoulders above Santana. Then they are also throwing in 2, not great, but still major league quality arms to get a noodle bat middle infielder who's not even that good of a defensive player and has lost most of his prospect shine.

 

I think a lot of this comes to the debate of "do owners have it as a year-to-year budget or just an overall cost?"

 

I think it's a year to year thing, especially with the luxury tax being an issue for many teams. In which case, getting out of Segura's $ for years down the line is beneficial.

 

So then Segura/Santana is not close to a wash. Nicasio + Segura is $69 million (nice). Santana is $40 million. However, in 2021, the Mariners will have their hands clean of Santana. Their only substantial obligation in that season right now is Seager's $18.5 million in his final year (option the year after). Leake has a $5 million option/buyout. that's pretty much it.

 

That seems to be preferable to the rebuilding team instead of holding Segura. Sure, maybe you can find a better trade...but maybe you can't. And then you're holding the bag of a likely declining SS for $15 million/year for 2021 and 2022.

[JosephC]

This looks like another terrible deal for Seattle after running the numbers.

 

It should be said that J.P. Crawford falls in that grey area, between 1 year and 2 years of service time, where it makes a surplus value estimate nearly impossible. Does one go by his former prospect ranking since his MLB sample size is so low? Or does one go by his MLB performance so far even though the sample size is so small?

 

So, for now, let's just ignore J.P. Crawford. We'll get back to him later.

 

Segura's average bWAR/fWAR over the last three seasons is 4.2. Let's ignore the option year but include the buyout on the option year. So he's under contract for 4 more seasons that includes his age 29, 30, 31 and 32 seasons. No reason to deviate from a 4.2 WAR average over the next three seasons, and then bump it down to 3.7 WAR for his age 32 season. Going with 1 WAR = 9 million and then increasing the 9 million by 3.4% annually over the next few seasons, it would make Segura's total value 154.2 million. He makes 57 million over the next four seasons, and add one more for the option buyout and he's guaranteed 58 million. 154.2 - 58 = 96.2 million in surplus value.

 

Juan Nicasio has averaged 0.9 fWAR/bWAR over the last three seasons and is already 32 years old. Subtract 0.5 WAR from that for a 0.4 projected WAR in 2019. 0.4 * 9 = 3.6 million in value - 9 million salary = -5.4 million in surplus value.

 

James Pazos surprisingly has only averaged 0.4 fWAR/bWAR over the last two seasons and is only 27 years old. His total value for four years at 0.4 WAR per season comes out to 15.2 million. I'd project he'll make 7.75 million over those four seasons, that would give him a surplus value of +7.45 million

 

Carlos Santana has averaged 2.7 fWAR/bWAR over the last 3 seasons. The average fWAR/bWAR fell from 3.2 in 2017 to 1.8 in 2018. But just using the rule of thumb, he had a 2.7 WAR in 2018 so let's project 2.2 in 2019 and 1.7 in 2020. That would make his total value 35.6 million. He will make 35 million so it's nearly a wash. His surplus value is +0.6 million

 

So minus Crawford, here is the breakdown of what teams get:

 

Phillies get:

Jean Segura = +96.2 million in surplus value

James Pazos = +7.45 million in surplus value

Juan Nicasio = -5.4 million in surplus value

Total = +98.25 million in surplus value

 

Mariners get:

Carlos Santana = +0.6 million in surplus value

Total = +0.6 million in surplus value

 

The difference between the two is 97.65 million. So that is what J.P. Crawford would have to be worth to even out this deal.

 

If one goes by the adjusted Point of Pittsburgh prospect surplus value chart that I will be using for 2019, the #1 hitter has a prospect surplus value of 94.0 million.

 

Crawford is at 1 year, 20 days of service time. Average fWAR/bWAR so far is 0.8. Taking 0.8 x the 5 years he's still controlled would make him a 4 WAR player. 4 WAR x 9.65 million (let's say that will be the average WAR value over the next five seasons) = 38.6 million, and when subtracting out his salary would probably push is surplus value down to about 30 million.

 

If one goes back to his pre-2018 prospect rankings on the top 100 list, the average between Baseball America, Baseball Prospectus and MLB.com was #22. That would correspond to 68.7 million in prospect surplus value using the 2018 numbers...and one of those controlled seasons is gone.

 

Anyway that Crawford is evaluated, there is just no way to get his value up to 97 million to make this look like an even trade.

 

I'd guess that the best estimate might be to just take the average between the current numbers (0.8 WAR per season) and his pre-2018 value according to the chart. That would actually put his surplus value at 49.35 million.

 

Phillies get:

Jean Segura = +96.2 million in surplus value

James Pazos = +7.45 million in surplus value

Juan Nicasio = -5.4 million in surplus value

Total = +98.25 million in surplus value

 

Mariners get:

J.P. Crawford = +49.35 million in surplus value

Carlos Santana = +0.6 million in surplus value

Total = +49.95 million in surplus value

 

Note that even though I don't think there is any way one could reasonable get Crawford's value up to 97 million for the purpose of this exercise, it certainly wouldn't be impossible for him to achieve that. 97.65 in value / 9.65 million (roughly what one WAR will be worth over the next five seasons) = 10.1 WAR / 5 seasons = approximately 2 WAR per season. Then one has to figure that he'd probably make something like 11 million over that timeframe, that adds another 1+ WAR to the equation over those 5 years. Overall I think Crawford would have to average out to be a 2.3 WAR player over his five seasons to even this out. That isn't a crazy expectation as it's kind of in the same ballpark as what Starlin Castro has done over the last few years. But if Crawford busts, then the Mariners just gave Segura away, and his contract is actually pretty favorable to the organization considering he's still young and has been a 4+ WAR player over the last three seasons.

 

Bottom line is that the current numbers indicate this is another awful trade for the Mariners.

[bill hAll Star]

Bottom line is that the current numbers indicate this is another awful trade for the Mariners.

 

I love your analysis on these trades. It's a good way of valuing them.

 

That said, you also can't put a value on the ability to tank for the Mariners. Also to be added is the potential signing or acquisition that the Mariners do make with their savings in 2021 or 2022. I know that that is somewhat baked into the surplus value but it's clear in 2018 that many GMs/owners have decided that "you're winning or you're tanking."

 

That can suck for fans at times, but unless there was a much better offer waiting out there for the Mariners or one thinks it was worth waiting out, what's the difference? Are the Mariners fans going to be weeping over the fact that they won 65 games instead of 70 this year without Segura?

 

Maybe this move and ones that the Marlins/Rays made last year are cloaked greed moves by ownership. We'll see in 2-3 years for all 3 organizations. If they start spending with their blank slates in 2021 then I think these trades were good, regardless of what the talking heads think on value. I do think the Rays will never spend that big (but they're well-run at the baseball level) but the Marlins and Mariners are going to start spending when their rebuilds are complete.

 

Also of note, there wasn't really a market for Segura:

https://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/the-phillies-were-jean-seguras-entire-market/

 

So their choice was to keep him around and see if something comes up midseason/next offseason or just do it now. I don't have a problem with what they did.

[brewcrewdue80]

NL will be filled with 88+win projected teams. AL with 4 100+ win teams. Brewers may win 90games finish 7th best record in NL. MLB wont see anything wrong though with Yankees/Red Sox winning 110 each.

[NievesNoNO]

Bottom line is that the current numbers indicate this is another awful trade for the Mariners.

 

That said, you also can't put a value on the ability to tank for the Mariners. Also to be added is the potential signing or acquisition that the Mariners do make with their savings in 2021 or 2022. I know that that is somewhat baked into the surplus value but it's clear in 2018 that many GMs/owners have decided that "you're winning or you're tanking."

 

That can suck for fans at times, but unless there was a much better offer waiting out there for the Mariners or one thinks it was worth waiting out, what's the difference? Are the Mariners fans going to be weeping over the fact that they won 65 games instead of 70 this year without Segura?

 

Yes, I think clearly the Mariners are trying to not be good and that's fine. Making good personnel decisions is more important than the tearing down. Based on the initial moves I question whether or not this is going to work for Seattle. I would agree, I would rather see what can happen with a fully committed rebuild as opposed to being stuck in mediocrity.

 

Whatever plan you use to get there, the model pretty much includes

1. creating an army of prospects either to keep as your own players or use to acquire talent.

2. Align, the infusion of young talent through your minor league system up with financial flexibility in the payroll to fill in the gaps with above average talent from FA.

 

You still have to supplement the top picks "earned" from sucking with other acquisitions for it to work. Obviously the more FA dollars you can use when the time is right, the more leeway you have with step 1.

 

Sorry.. getting off topic at bit here

 

So I guess obviously for them step one is create future payroll space. It's too early to really make a judgement yet I suppose. I just think they could've done a better job combining some of their steps. They have a long climb to infuse that minor league system with talent. It's pretty bare.

[bill hAll Star]

Bottom line is that the current numbers indicate this is another awful trade for the Mariners.

 

That said, you also can't put a value on the ability to tank for the Mariners. Also to be added is the potential signing or acquisition that the Mariners do make with their savings in 2021 or 2022. I know that that is somewhat baked into the surplus value but it's clear in 2018 that many GMs/owners have decided that "you're winning or you're tanking."

 

That can suck for fans at times, but unless there was a much better offer waiting out there for the Mariners or one thinks it was worth waiting out, what's the difference? Are the Mariners fans going to be weeping over the fact that they won 65 games instead of 70 this year without Segura?

 

Yes, I think clearly the Mariners are trying to not be good and that's fine. Making good personnel decisions is more important than the tearing down. Based on the initial moves I question whether or not this is going to work for Seattle. I would agree, I would rather see what can happen with a fully committed rebuild as opposed to being stuck in mediocrity.

 

Whatever plan you use to get there, the model pretty much includes

1. creating an army of prospects either to keep as your own players or use to acquire talent.

2. Align, the infusion of young talent through your minor league system up with financial flexibility in the payroll to fill in the gaps with above average talent from FA.

 

You still have to supplement the top picks "earned" from sucking with other acquisitions for it to work. Obviously the more FA dollars you can use when the time is right, the more leeway you have with step 1.

 

Sorry.. getting off topic at bit here

 

So I guess obviously for them step one is create future payroll space. It's too early to really make a judgement yet I suppose. I just think they could've done a better job combining some of their steps. They have a long climb to infuse that minor league system with talent. It's pretty bare.

 

There may be some ownership push in their dealings of shedding payroll this quickly, who knows. I'm not sure that Segura could've netted a ton more given the market and maybe they should've just dealt Diaz on his own instead of including Cano. Maybe they could've waited on Segura but there's risk to that.

 

That said, I don't think we're talking about multiple extra stud prospects if they had done those things. I'd call it a near wash on including Cano in the Mets deal, especially since the +/- on salary probably favored the Mariners quite a bit.

 

I'm going to just assume that the Mariners got likely the best package out there for Paxton, Cano, Segura, Diaz as of early December, 2018. Could they have squeezed an extra prospect or two out of it in July or next offseason? Maybe. I just don't think any of these guys had a ton of value save for Diaz, who they got some good prospects for. Nobody was giving up much for Segura at that contract as of today. There was not much of a market for him.

 

Dunn and Kelenic is a pretty nice haul for Diaz.

[Ron Robinsons Beard]

I keep pouring over that Seattle roster to see if there's anything of value left to pillage, and unfortunately there isn't much. Dee Gordon might be useful as a 2B I suppose. Haniger is a nice player, but they would have no reason to deal him other than stupidity. Swarzak was solid in his short time here, and would add another good arm to the pen.

 

Part of me wonders what kind of assets they would be willing to give up to a team to take King Felix's contract off their hands. There's only one year left on it, though, so it isn't a huge commitment. I wonder if there is any metric out there that points to any sort of career resurgence from him?

[bill hAll Star]

I keep pouring over that Seattle roster to see if there's anything of value left to pillage, and unfortunately there isn't much. Dee Gordon might be useful as a 2B I suppose. Haniger is a nice player, but they would have no reason to deal him other than stupidity. Swarzak was solid in his short time here, and would add another good arm to the pen.

 

Part of me wonders what kind of assets they would be willing to give up to a team to take King Felix's contract off their hands. There's only one year left on it, though, so it isn't a huge commitment. I wonder if there is any metric out there that points to any sort of career resurgence from him?

 

King Felix has been going downhill and has had some injury issues. He's likely going to ride out that final year unless the Mariners eat $22 or more million of the $27 or give up elite prospects, which as you note, they probably won't be inclined to do with a 1 year commitment.

[KeithStone53151]

I keep pouring over that Seattle roster to see if there's anything of value left to pillage, and unfortunately there isn't much. Dee Gordon might be useful as a 2B I suppose. Haniger is a nice player, but they would have no reason to deal him other than stupidity. Swarzak was solid in his short time here, and would add another good arm to the pen.

 

Part of me wonders what kind of assets they would be willing to give up to a team to take King Felix's contract off their hands. There's only one year left on it, though, so it isn't a huge commitment. I wonder if there is any metric out there that points to any sort of career resurgence from him?

 

King Felix has been going downhill and has had some injury issues. He's likely going to ride out that final year unless the Mariners eat $22 or more million of the $27 or give up elite prospects, which as you note, they probably won't be inclined to do with a 1 year commitment.

 

Agree on Felix. The Mariners seem to generally be ok with taking on contracts that expire in the next 2 years, and clear up future payroll beyond 2020. That makes me think dumping the Felix contract is fairly meaningless to them.

 

Side note regarding future payroll, I wonder if they are trying to trim payroll to make a run at Trout after the 2020 season.

[StearnsFTW]

 

Ya that's a fair point. The contract didn't necessarily hamstring them, but they still had a $35m mistake that they needed to get rid of. You can get Santana's production for about $6m on the free agent market.

 

Must be nice to have a big payroll that allows you to absorb big $$ mistakes.

 

He was a 3 WAR player when they signed him. Pretty sure he was worth a lot more than what you're stating. I agree he wasn't a very good fit there though.

 

Wasn't a bad contract at all. And still isn't.

[502 to Right]

I keep pouring over that Seattle roster to see if there's anything of value left to pillage, and unfortunately there isn't much. Dee Gordon might be useful as a 2B I suppose. Haniger is a nice player, but they would have no reason to deal him other than stupidity. Swarzak was solid in his short time here, and would add another good arm to the pen.

 

Part of me wonders what kind of assets they would be willing to give up to a team to take King Felix's contract off their hands. There's only one year left on it, though, so it isn't a huge commitment. I wonder if there is any metric out there that points to any sort of career resurgence from him?

 

Dee Gordon is owed $28 million over the next two years (which includes a buyout in year 3) and he's not better than what the Brewers had in Jonathan Villar. I'll pass.