Jump to content

Providing independent coverage of the Minnesota Twins.
The same great Twins Daily coverage, now for the Vikings.

The Store


Photo

Article: Strike While It's Hot: Target The Mariners?

  • Please log in to reply
34 replies to this topic

#1 JP3700

JP3700

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 294 posts

Posted 08 December 2013 - 10:05 AM

You can view the page at http://twinsdaily.co...-Mariners-Trade

#2 YourHouseIsMyHouse

YourHouseIsMyHouse

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 1,235 posts

Posted 08 December 2013 - 01:50 PM

The only major league player I'm interested in getting from Seattle is Brad Miller.

#3 MinnesotaMike

MinnesotaMike

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • 10 posts

Posted 08 December 2013 - 02:13 PM

Not to be negative but no way. There isn't anything there of real value for me to give up a cheap, cheap contract that Perkins has. If you're talking Perkins the conversation has to start with one of their top pitching prospects,

#4 DuluthFan

DuluthFan

    Member

  • Members
  • 105 posts

Posted 08 December 2013 - 02:53 PM

Have to say no to your offering up of Perkins. He is now an established closer being paid at a set-up man price. While you can argue for the need for a closer with our current team, it will not always be that way. He is under contract through 2016 if you include the option year. By that time the Twins' big prospects should be at the major league level and the team should be ready to compete. We could then offer Perkins a closer's contract for 2017 & beyond. Since he is a Minnesotan, he may be willing to sign at a hometown discount. Also consider, the Hughes contract is over after 2016 and the Nolasco contract would be entering the 4th year with the 2018 year an option. There are no major contract commitments other than Mauer at that point. The rest of the roster would be young cheap players at that point (pending a free agent signing).

#5 TheLeviathan

TheLeviathan

    Twins News Team

  • Twins News Team
  • 5,087 posts

Posted 08 December 2013 - 02:58 PM

I'd love Franklin or Miller - Franklin might force us to consider moving Dozier back to SS, which is a good thing IMO. Franklin graded out well by the defensive metrics also.

If the leadership incompetence in Seattle is as profound as the article posted today indicates, this could be a great idea.

#6 JP3700

JP3700

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 294 posts

Posted 08 December 2013 - 02:59 PM

The only major league player I'm interested in getting from Seattle is Brad Miller.


I'd like Miller as well, but that would defeat the purpose. The M's are looking to contend, and you'd be taking away their starting shortstop.

#7 JP3700

JP3700

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 294 posts

Posted 08 December 2013 - 03:04 PM

Not to be negative but no way. There isn't anything there of real value for me to give up a cheap, cheap contract that Perkins has. If you're talking Perkins the conversation has to start with one of their top pitching prospects,


Nothing wrong with negative. I hate giving up Perkins as well, but he's a relief pitcher.

Maurer IS one of their top pitching prospects. If he still had his prospect status that is. He sits at 92-95 and tops out at 99. Also has a wipe out slider, with a curve and a change. His problem is command. He's only 23 though, so there's still plenty of upside there.

I'm also very high on Taylor. As I mentioned, he profiles as an everyday SS to me.

Romero is a little old, but he can hit. His floor should be utility player with some pop. Ceiling is an everyday player with some versatility. Martin Prado like.

If you can just get one above average player, whether it be a pitcher or a position player, it would be more than worth it.

#8 drivlikejehu

drivlikejehu

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 529 posts

Posted 08 December 2013 - 03:10 PM

The Mariners would never consider a trade like that... it's laughably lopsided.

#9 JP3700

JP3700

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 294 posts

Posted 08 December 2013 - 03:17 PM

Have to say no to your offering up of Perkins. He is now an established closer being paid at a set-up man price. While you can argue for the need for a closer with our current team, it will not always be that way. He is under contract through 2016 if you include the option year. By that time the Twins' big prospects should be at the major league level and the team should be ready to compete. We could then offer Perkins a closer's contract for 2017 & beyond. Since he is a Minnesotan, he may be willing to sign at a hometown discount. Also consider, the Hughes contract is over after 2016 and the Nolasco contract would be entering the 4th year with the 2018 year an option. There are no major contract commitments other than Mauer at that point. The rest of the roster would be young cheap players at that point (pending a free agent signing).


I like Perkins as much as anyone. He's a joy to watch pitch, especially compared to the starting pitching we've been throwing out there. But, as I mentioned, he's a reliever. Relievers and their results are highly volatile. To think that he's still going to be the same pitcher, for the next five years, is just not realistic. Plenty of relievers are proven, until they're not.

Dave Cameron wrote a great article on relievers in July this year. Here is an excerpt..

"Let’s just look at where the top 10 under-30 relievers from the 2010 season are now, just for fun? Remember, this is good young relievers, most of whom were under club control for many years.

Carlos Marmol, +2.8 WAR: DFA’d, traded in salary dump, in minors
Brian Wilson, +2.5 WAR: Surgery, hasn’t pitched since start of last year
Hong-Chih Kuo, +2.3 WAR: Surgery, inability to throw strikes, out of baseball
Neftali Feliz, +2.0 WAR: Surgery, hasn’t pitched in 2013
Sean Marshall, +1.9 WAR: Has pitched 7 innings this year due to sore shoulder
Joakim Soria, +1.9 WAR: Surgery, hasn’t pitched since 2011
John Axford, +1.8 WAR: Lost closer job, pitching middle relief, likely non-tender
Daniel Bard, +1.6 WAR: Lost strike zone, sent to AA, now on DL
Jonny Venters, +1.6 WAR: Surgery, out for the season
Juan Oviedo, +1.4 WAR: Surgery, out for the season

This isn’t a cherry picked list of guys who were good and then washed out. This is the top 10 under-30 relievers by WAR just a couple of years ago. There isn’t a single pitcher on that list that has any real value in 2013. The Brewers are likely to trade Axford for a pittance, as some team takes a shot on him finishing strong as a setup guy, but everyone else is either rehabbing or trying to get back to the big leagues in some form. John Axford is the success story of the group."


Just think about it, how many relievers are good, from year to year?.. It's hard to think of many..

#10 johnnydakota

johnnydakota

    Banned

  • Banned
  • 1,498 posts

Posted 08 December 2013 - 03:55 PM

Prefer to trade with San diego for Burch Smith and Wisler ,both played in AA last year with great stats, the Padres are looking for a lefty reliever and a lefty bat , Parmelee and perkins , with maybe Worley or diamond and a 10-20 prospect should be more then enough for these 2 , who would be in the top 7 for the Twins , and should be ready around the same time as Meyer

#11 JP3700

JP3700

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 294 posts

Posted 08 December 2013 - 04:02 PM

The Mariners would never consider a trade like that... it's laughably lopsided.


Is it? Wish you'd give some points to support that. Mine were mentioned in the article, but let me just break it down a little.

Nelson Cruz is the remaining outfielder in free agency, that fits what they're looking for. Bats right handed, and supplies power. He's most likely going to command 4yrs, $60+ million. He turns 34 in July and his career wRC+ is 114. Josh Willingham is owed 1yr, $7M. He's going to be 35 on opening day and his career wRC+ is 123. Which player makes sense to the M's?

The remaning "proven closers" on the market are Grant Balfour(36), Joaquin Benoit(36) and Fernando Rodney(37). All are are seeking multi-year contracts worth at least double Perkins's AAV.

Maurer has upside but he is most likely going to start in AAA coming off his bad year. They can't afford to throw a young pitcher out there to get shelled. That's why someone reliable like Correia makes sense. The fact that he is signed for only one year is a bonus.

Taylor and Romero are both blocked at their positions so they are trading a surplus. As I mentioned in the article, the names are interchangeable. They have plenty of young talent.

The premise of the article is in the last paragraph. It's a combination of things, that make a trade make sense. Not just what's being exchanged. The Shields trade was laughable. The mid-season Garza trade was laughable. The Robinson Cano signing itself, is extremely laughable. It's surprising what teams will do when they are trying to contend, and are limited in options.

#12 Major Leauge Ready

Major Leauge Ready

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 432 posts

Posted 08 December 2013 - 04:21 PM

Prefer to trade with San diego for Burch Smith and Wisler ,both played in AA last year with great stats, the Padres are looking for a lefty reliever and a lefty bat , Parmelee and perkins , with maybe Worley or diamond and a 10-20 prospect should be more then enough for these 2 , who would be in the top 7 for the Twins , and should be ready around the same time as Meyer


I looked them up on the Padres site and I have to say they are attractive targets. Not sure what it would take but it would be great to add AA pitching talent of this caliber to our system.

#13 Kirbek

Kirbek

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • 12 posts

Posted 08 December 2013 - 04:33 PM

Why sell low on Willingham? There is a reasonable chance he will bounce back this year. Perkins and his contract are good enough to get all that for just him. I do like the sell high on Correia is good, but I don' know who would buy.

Thumbs down to this one.

#14 drivlikejehu

drivlikejehu

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 529 posts

Posted 08 December 2013 - 04:39 PM

If the Mariners want to trade away some guys, they have 29 options (per player), not just the Twins, who in fact are less active than many clubs on the trade market. And they certainly have no reason to throw away young players for nothing. Here's what the Oliver projection system says about this proposal:

Twins get:
9.4 WAR over next 5 years from Taylor, minimal salary
5.4 WAR over next 5 years from Maurer, minimal salary
Romero and Wilhelmsen basically worthless.

Mariners get:
0.8 WAR over 1 year from Correia, $5 million
1.8 WAR over 2 years from Perkins, for $7.5 million
1.6 WAR over 1 year from Willingham, for $7 million

So let's see... the Twins get way more production for way less money for way more years. Sounds great. Too bad no GM in baseball is anywhere near stupid enough to make a deal like that.

#15 JP3700

JP3700

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 294 posts

Posted 08 December 2013 - 05:23 PM

If the Mariners want to trade away some guys, they have 29 options (per player), not just the Twins, who in fact are less active than many clubs on the trade market. And they certainly have no reason to throw away young players for nothing. Here's what the Oliver projection system says about this proposal:

Twins get:
9.4 WAR over next 5 years from Taylor, minimal salary
5.4 WAR over next 5 years from Maurer, minimal salary
Romero and Wilhelmsen basically worthless.

Mariners get:
0.8 WAR over 1 year from Correia, $5 million
1.8 WAR over 2 years from Perkins, for $7.5 million
1.6 WAR over 1 year from Willingham, for $7 million

So let's see... the Twins get way more production for way less money for way more years. Sounds great. Too bad no GM in baseball is anywhere near stupid enough to make a deal like that.


I had no idea Oliver projections were set in stone. Why would the Mariners ever trade away Taylor? He's going to be worth $40+ million in surplus value over that time frame. Why would anyone ever trade any prospects?

Why did the Rangers trade 6 years of Edwards(top 100 prospect), Olt(former top 100 prospect), Grimm and Ramirez for 13 starts of Garza? He had put up 1.5 WAR in the first half of the season with the cubs. So let's just say he projected to be worth another 1.5 WAR with the Rangers. They traded how many wins for 1.5 wins? He ended up being worth -.1 by the way. Jon Daniels must be a GM that's "near stupid enough".

The point is, this is what trades involving prospects are all about. The team getting the major league players, are acquiring them to win now. The team acquiring the prospects are banking on those players having more value in the long run. Even if that trio is only worth 3.3 WAR in 2014, that's 3.3 more than they would get out of the trio of prospects. If they're currently a .500 team, that gets them to about 85. That's what you do when you're contending. You add as many wins as possible.

As for there being 29 teams. It comes down to how many teams are willing to move a right handed corner outfielder with a career 123 wRC+? How many teams are moving a top ten reliever making $12M over the next 3 years?

#16 drivlikejehu

drivlikejehu

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 529 posts

Posted 08 December 2013 - 05:53 PM

Deadline deals are obviously different from the off-season. Free agency, for one, and also a much more accurate idea of how much value a marginal improvement can produce.

If guys like Willingham & Correia had any real trade value, they would already be gone. The Twins wouldn't hesitate to trade Perkins for a big return either.

It's not happening because everyone in baseball knows Willingham has no defensive value and is declining as a hitter, that Correia stinks, and that you don't give up good prospects for a good closer.

#17 JP3700

JP3700

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 294 posts

Posted 08 December 2013 - 06:49 PM

Deadline deals are obviously different from the off-season. Free agency, for one, and also a much more accurate idea of how much value a marginal improvement can produce.

If guys like Willingham & Correia had any real trade value, they would already be gone. The Twins wouldn't hesitate to trade Perkins for a big return either.

It's not happening because everyone in baseball knows Willingham has no defensive value and is declining as a hitter, that Correia stinks, and that you don't give up good prospects for a good closer.


Deadline deals are different because trades are generally the only avenue to upgrade your team during the season. It goes back to supply and demand. The Mariners aren't the Yankees or Dodgers. They can't just sign free agents for inflated salaries, on long term deals.

The M's current outfield is Abraham Almonte, Dustin Ackley and Michael Saunders. The demand is clearly there. The only comparable player to Willingham on the free agent market is Nelson Cruz. He is just as bad defensively and on the bases. Steamer has them projected to be the same player next year and Josh will cost $50+ million less.

Where in free agency, or in the trade market can they add a reliever like Perkins, who makes as little as he does? The M's had the second worst bullpen in baseball last year, only because the Astros are still considered a team. Their bullpen ERA was a full run higher than the league average. They need to add multiple relievers, on a limited budget.

Also, keep in mind that not one of the players mentioned have been considered a top 100 prospect. It's not like the suggestion was Walker, Miller and Franklin.

By the way, Willingham did have interest last year at the deadline. Even coming off of an injury. Orioles balked when TR asked for top 100 prospect, Eduardo Rodriguez. It was also reported that TR received plenty of calls for Perkins, but he wasn't interested in moving him.

#18 drivlikejehu

drivlikejehu

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 529 posts

Posted 08 December 2013 - 07:00 PM

Exactly, the Orioles would have been happy to take Willingham in exchange for nothing. That's the point. No one is giving up real value for him.

I haven't seen any reports of significant value being offered for Perkins. Of course plenty of teams would like him- probably all 29 other teams, either as closer or lefty setup man. But none are going to give up long-term value for him.

#19 JP3700

JP3700

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 294 posts

Posted 08 December 2013 - 08:13 PM

Exactly, the Orioles would have been happy to take Willingham in exchange for nothing. That's the point. No one is giving up real value for him.

I haven't seen any reports of significant value being offered for Perkins. Of course plenty of teams would like him- probably all 29 other teams, either as closer or lefty setup man. But none are going to give up long-term value for him.


The O's had also claimed Michael Morse, so they had another option. Albeit, an inferior one. If not for that, who knows what would have happened. Especially considering they still gave up one of their top 10 prospects for Morse. As in the case of Perkins, we just don't know what's been offered for Willingham.

I do know that none of the players suggested are top 100 prospects like Rodriguez is. I also know the market is thin for corner power.

Either way, I think we're going in circles here. Multiple people have already posted that the Twins are getting the short end of the suggested deal. You are stating the opposite. We all have opinions, which makes for good debate. I personally think it's a fair deal.

#20 twinsajsf

twinsajsf

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • 18 posts

Posted 08 December 2013 - 08:16 PM

I had no idea Oliver projections were set in stone. Why would the Mariners ever trade away Taylor? He's going to be worth $40+ million in surplus value over that time frame. Why would anyone ever trade any prospects?

Why did the Rangers trade 6 years of Edwards(top 100 prospect), Olt(former top 100 prospect), Grimm and Ramirez for 13 starts of Garza? He had put up 1.5 WAR in the first half of the season with the cubs. So let's just say he projected to be worth another 1.5 WAR with the Rangers. They traded how many wins for 1.5 wins? He ended up being worth -.1 by the way. Jon Daniels must be a GM that's "near stupid enough".

The point is, this is what trades involving prospects are all about. The team getting the major league players, are acquiring them to win now. The team acquiring the prospects are banking on those players having more value in the long run. Even if that trio is only worth 3.3 WAR in 2014, that's 3.3 more than they would get out of the trio of prospects. If they're currently a .500 team, that gets them to about 85. That's what you do when you're contending. You add as many wins as possible.

As for there being 29 teams. It comes down to how many teams are willing to move a right handed corner outfielder with a career 123 wRC+? How many teams are moving a top ten reliever making $12M over the next 3 years?


This is very well stated. Obviously, if Maurer and Taylor were GUARANTEED to put of those WAR numbers over the next 5 years, this would be a great deal for the Twins, but since Maurer actually put up Gibson-like nimber in his first foray into the ML, this is hardly guaranteed.

Meanwhile, the Mariners can have much greater confidence that Correia, while not having nearly Maurer's upside, will strengthen the back end of their rotation (rather than the Maurer wild-card), and Perkins will be of tremendous value to a team actually competing for a playoff berth.

This makes a classic get-better-NOW (almost definitely) for the Mariners vs. (maybe) cash-in-big-later for the Twins deal, which is how these things are supposed to work.

to say that the Mariners would scoff at this as a horribly lopsided deal is quite laughable. That said, they may well get an even better deal from someone else, or maybe the Twins actually think THEY can compete now and don't want to give up Perkins.

#21 Marta Shearing

Marta Shearing

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 417 posts

Posted 08 December 2013 - 08:43 PM

I dont understand the angst people have with trading perkins. For pete's sake, he's a relief pitcher. He started out hot last year but had his share of lumps as the year went on. Closer's are overrated to begin with, and one of the easiest positions to replace. With his affordable contract, Perkins could be a huge trading chip for this rebuild. Rebuilding teams dont need elite closers!

#22 goulik

goulik

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 360 posts

Posted 08 December 2013 - 08:47 PM

If they need multiple relievers, give them more than one. Duensing, Burton and someone else Instead of Perkins. Fill their loss with Ibarra, Tonkin and someone else like Hendricks. We have a lot of depth at relief pitcher.

#23 jay

jay

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 908 posts

Posted 08 December 2013 - 10:18 PM

Here's what the Oliver projection system says about this proposal


Said no GM in baseball, ever. WAR from Oliver projections? Really? Stuff like this gives WAR a bad name. Kohl Stewart is projected for 0 WAR ever, but he's probably worth more than a utility infielder. Eddie Rosario's 8+ WAR isn't going to get you a sniff of Max Scherzer's contract year and lowly 4.6 WAR projection.

The Twins would never dump all those guys after positive press with the FA signings, but it's not an unreasonable return. Maurer was their #7 last year and Taylor is #9 this offseason.

#24 drivlikejehu

drivlikejehu

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 529 posts

Posted 08 December 2013 - 10:36 PM

Said no GM in baseball, ever. WAR from Oliver projections? Really? Stuff like this gives WAR a bad name. Kohl Stewart is projected for 0 WAR ever, but he's probably worth more than a utility infielder. Eddie Rosario's 8+ WAR isn't going to get you a sniff of Max Scherzer's contract year and lowly 4.6 WAR projection.

The Twins would never dump all those guys after positive press with the FA signings, but it's not an unreasonable return. Maurer was their #7 last year and Taylor is #9 this offseason.


It's just a shorthand to illustrate the difference that service time makes to total return. Of course it doesn't work for a new draftee with like 20 innings pitched... that's just a straw man.

Scherzer wouldn't bring in a massive haul without an extension. Teams have learned not to do that.

Most fan trade ideas overrate their team's players, 2 or 3 times what they are really worth. This is another example, added onto the fact that the Twins aren't going to trade for prospects during this off-season.

#25 jay

jay

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 908 posts

Posted 09 December 2013 - 12:33 AM

It's just a shorthand to illustrate the difference that service time makes to total return. Of course it doesn't work for a new draftee with like 20 innings pitched... that's just a straw man.

Scherzer wouldn't bring in a massive haul without an extension. Teams have learned not to do that.

Most fan trade ideas overrate their team's players, 2 or 3 times what they are really worth. This is another example, added onto the fact that the Twins aren't going to trade for prospects during this off-season.


Bottom line is that projected WAR is an exercise in futility with prospects. Service time absolutely affects value and the concept of surplus value is the key, but your original analysis was woeful in these humble eyes.

I can agree with your last paragraph here generally, but I wouldn't put this one in that category. Look at what 1 year of Morse (compare to Willingham) brought back last offseason (AJ Cole). Look at what Marshall (Perkins) brought back from the Reds (Travis Wood). I would add to your sentiment though that fans draw up far too many multi-player, blockbuster trades and specifically roster dumps like this. Regardless, we both agree this won't happen.

#26 twinstalker

twinstalker

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 166 posts

Posted 09 December 2013 - 01:03 AM

If the Mariners want to trade away some guys, they have 29 options (per player), not just the Twins, who in fact are less active than many clubs on the trade market. And they certainly have no reason to throw away young players for nothing. Here's what the Oliver projection system says about this proposal:

Twins get:
9.4 WAR over next 5 years from Taylor, minimal salary
5.4 WAR over next 5 years from Maurer, minimal salary
Romero and Wilhelmsen basically worthless.

Mariners get:
0.8 WAR over 1 year from Correia, $5 million
1.8 WAR over 2 years from Perkins, for $7.5 million
1.6 WAR over 1 year from Willingham, for $7 million

So let's see... the Twins get way more production for way less money for way more years. Sounds great. Too bad no GM in baseball is anywhere near stupid enough to make a deal like that.


Well, Terry Ryan, for one, would do something like this from the other side (unfortunately) and Bill Smith would have given up more. So maybe you need to correct your statement about GMs to exclude ours. Lucky us.

#27 JP3700

JP3700

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 294 posts

Posted 09 December 2013 - 02:13 AM

Bottom line is that projected WAR is an exercise in futility with prospects. Service time absolutely affects value and the concept of surplus value is the key, but your original analysis was woeful in these humble eyes.

I can agree with your last paragraph here generally, but I wouldn't put this one in that category. Look at what 1 year of Morse (compare to Willingham) brought back last offseason (AJ Cole). Look at what Marshall (Perkins) brought back from the Reds (Travis Wood). I would add to your sentiment though that fans draw up far too many multi-player, blockbuster trades and specifically roster dumps like this. Regardless, we both agree this won't happen.


Correct. Oliver projections of prospects have no merit in this conversation. First of all, there is no major league data to project with. Secondly, the WAR projections are based on an equal 600 AB per season. There are no guarantees that any prospect will ever reach 600 AB in their career, let alone one season.

I agree that this is very unlikely to happen. I don't think I've ever seen a fan suggested trade come to fruition. The premise is not the trade itself. It's that these are the kind of moves that TR should be looking at. Take advantage of a desperate team in need. Give them a call, and see what they're willing to offer. Don't be afraid to add value, even if it doesn't make sense for the short term.

I come to Twins Daily, not only for the great news, interviews and updates. I also like to read those fan suggested trades. I like to read others' thoughts and opinions. No matter how much I disagree with them. They're fun to read. Often times it gets me thinking or I might learn something new.

#28 JP3700

JP3700

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 294 posts

Posted 09 December 2013 - 02:52 AM

Most fan trade ideas overrate their team's players, 2 or 3 times what they are really worth. This is another example, added onto the fact that the Twins aren't going to trade for prospects during this off-season.


Other then the Oliver projections, all I've seen is your own perceived value of the players. Jay just added a couple of other good examples, of trades that directly relate to the value of the players suggested.

There are many factors to trades other than the value of the players involved. Other than the ones I've stated, Seattle is a place where hitters do not want to go. They have never been able to get a big free agent to sign there. That's why they had to outbid the Yankees by $65 million for Cano.

You're also giving this front office a lot of credit. This is the same team, that just last year, traded for Michael Morse. They traded 29 year John Jaso for 31 year old Michael Morse. Jaso had three years of control, Morse had one. Jaso was coming off a 2.6 WAR season, Morse was coming off a 0.0 WAR season. Jaso is a catcher, Morse is a DH acting like an outfielder.

The Nats actually received A.J. Cole (top 100 pitching prospect), Ian Krol (later flipped as part of the Doug Fister trade) and Blake Treinen, if you want to look at it that way. All for one year of Morse.

These are just factors you have yet to acknowledge.

Edited by JP3700, 09 December 2013 - 06:47 AM.


#29 TheLeviathan

TheLeviathan

    Twins News Team

  • Twins News Team
  • 5,087 posts

Posted 09 December 2013 - 07:35 AM

So in one thread we say Meyer = Price but in another we scoff at Taylor = Mauer.

This surplus value argument is all over the place. Part of why it's irrelevant to trade talks is because its dependent upon a teams plan and wholly dependent on the players progress. So it's basically an irrelevant sidebar to analysis of a players ability to play major league ball. That's the real key.

The discussion of Willingham is also flawed because it's totally predicated on comparing him to available free agents rather than available trade targets as well. The whole argument is meant to suggest Willingham is among only a few options available when that a) isn't true and B) would never fly with a real GM. They may indeed have interest (they shouldn't for the record) but it won't be because its only Cruz or Hammer.

#30 JP3700

JP3700

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 294 posts

Posted 09 December 2013 - 09:06 AM

So in one thread we say Meyer = Price but in another we scoff at Taylor = Mauer.

This surplus value argument is all over the place. Part of why it's irrelevant to trade talks is because its dependent upon a teams plan and wholly dependent on the players progress. So it's basically an irrelevant sidebar to analysis of a players ability to play major league ball. That's the real key.

The discussion of Willingham is also flawed because it's totally predicated on comparing him to available free agents rather than available trade targets as well. The whole argument is meant to suggest Willingham is among only a few options available when that a) isn't true and B) would never fly with a real GM. They may indeed have interest (they shouldn't for the record) but it won't be because its only Cruz or Hammer.


Where did I state Meyer = Price? I said Meyer has a good chance to provide more surplus value than Price over the six years that were being discussed. Where is Taylor = Mauer scoffed? I don't see it.

My surplus value argument has stayed quite consistent..

"The point is, this is what trades involving prospects are all about. The team getting the major league players, are acquiring them to win now. The team acquiring the prospects are banking on those players having more value in the long run. Even if that trio is only worth 3.3 WAR in 2014, that's 3.3 more than they would get out of the trio of prospects. If they're currently a .500 team, that gets them to about 85. That's what you do when you're contending. You add as many wins as possible."

The difference is that the Mariners forced their hand by signing Cano. As I mentioned in the article. It is a curious move for a 71 win team.

This would be like the Twins trading for Price tomorrow. As bad as the move would be, you'd be compounding the mistake by not make any additional moves. I would then be willing to trade prospects to add as many wins as possible. This is when you trade that projected surplus value, for current value.

Another thing that you're missing is that you're comparing Meyer to the prospects being mentioned. Meyer is close to big league ready, a top 50 prospect and a good bet to help in the short term. If a player like Meyer would have been involved in this trade suggestion, then it would make no sense. The players being suggested have little to no chance of making an impact on the 2014 Mariners. So the 3-4 wins you've added, is your actual net gain.

Which is what I stated in the other thread..

"The fact that you'd also be trading players that would be providing some of that needed surplus value, also makes no sense. I'm okay with jumping the gun. By assuming Buxton, Sano and Meyer will help the team and making a bold move. But losing their value, to gain Price's defeats the purpose.

That's why the Royals trade for Shields was incredibly stupid. Not just because it was an overpay. They traded Myers, a major league ready contributor. They took away 2.5 wins making the league minimum for 4.5 wins making $12M."


As for the Willingham discussion. Sure, there are available trade targets. However, other than teams like the Marlins, Astros and Cubs, every other team is gearing up to contend. They're unlikely to be willing to trade something that is such a rare commodity. Teams like the Giants, Dbacks and Orioles have all been reportedly seeking a right handed, power hitting, corner outfielder. The market is rather thin.

Of course the M's are allowed to do business with any team they see fit. This is, after all, a trade proposal. However, there are plenty of factors to why these two teams would fit as trade partners.