A's Trade 3B Donaldson to Toronto

[Mike Sixel]

Well, $30MM ain't what it used to be.......and yes, he did sell high. That is what Beane does a lot. Sometimes it works, and sometimes it doesn't. But, he doesn't usually hold assets until they have no value and then just DFA them. That's not his style.

[jokin]

Well, $30MM ain't what it used to be.......and yes, he did sell high. That is what Beane does a lot. Sometimes it works, and sometimes it doesn't. But, he doesn't usually hold assets until they have no value and then just DFA them. That's not his style.

 

Whose style is it then....?

[Mike Sixel]

Whose style is it then....?

 

I'm not derailing the thread to talk about other GMs. Was just talking about Beane.

[jokin]

I'm not derailing the thread to talk about other GMs. Was just talking about Beane.

 

You may as well embrace it Mike. You're the master of the dallying dangle, and I enjoy reading between the lines (whether it's there or not  ).

[TheLeviathan]

Well, $30MM ain't what it used to be.......and yes, he did sell high. That is what Beane does a lot. Sometimes it works, and sometimes it doesn't. But, he doesn't usually hold assets until they have no value and then just DFA them. That's not his style.

 

No, 30M isn't, but that's not much less than what retaining Donaldson through his arb. years was likely to cost either.  That's the part that gets me.

 

I like that Beane is aggressive and sells high, I just think this one is a head scratcher.  Especially in light of giving a mediocre DH that kind of money.

[Mike Sixel]

I admit to not understanding how those two events match up either, TheLeviathon.

[biggentleben]

Can you please explain this distinction further? I'm having a hard time understanding why there would be a huge difference between trade valuation and prospect rankings. Also, I'd like to know who the 5-10 prospects are in the first tier. I don't really know anything about prospects, but I think that if my team had Barreto, there are at least 5 shortstops I would rather have. Just off the top of my head:

Addison Russell

Francisco Lindor

Carlos Correa

Cory Seager

JP Crawford

 

I'm sure there are other shortstops that I'm not even aware of that could be added to this list. 

 

My apologies for not responding to this sooner.

 

I will admit I exaggerated the 5-10 mark.  There's roughly 20ish guys in that first tier.  I'd have all but Crawford ahead of him, as you do, but Seager I wouldn't assume as a shortstop, unless you also consider Hanley Ramirez a shortstop.  He's a great offensive prospect who can play passable short, so he'll stay there for now.  Miguel Cabrera played short until his last full minor league season as well, and he even played outfield for three seasons before moving back to 3B.  Seager's a passable shortstop, but he's most likely moving off the position quickly, if not this year, then before he hits the major leagues.

 

To the point, the main difference is the amount of time left that a team can develop a guy.  I'd actually knock someone down in trade value somewhat if they've already done one of two things - 1. hit AAA, or 2. lost some significant upside potential.  Lindor has actually lost some of #2, but not to a significant enough level to knock him down too much as he's shown some exploitable holes in his offensive game.  A guy like Barreto is so supremely talented, provides power and speed offensively at a very high level, and he's done "stathead" things like drop his K rate by 5% and raise his BB rate by 4% in his first year of full season ball at age 18.  The only question about him at this point is future position, but he has the arm and range to play SS/CF but the size that normally translates to 2B/CF long-term.  In scouting, the closer to the majors a guy gets, the better his 20-80 scores get because there's more surety, and scouts hate to be "that guy" who put a 70 on a fastball that in the end is really more of a 55, so there's err on the side of caution.  Barreto already is receiving 55+ ratings on his speed, arm, and bat control, which is essentially saying that he's at MLB starting caliber level with those tools.  Now, that alone does not a baseball player make, but it's a huge mark forward.

 

When a team has little time to work with a player, there's lesser value to them as they cannot teach their system's philosophy to the player.  A guy traded at AAA has usually had 2-5+ years of training in an organization, and if the approach of that organization is to work the count and strikeouts are okay as you wait for your pitch and then moves to an organization where there's a pointed focus to reduce strikeouts, you often see a year or two step back for that player as he adapts the years of training he's had to the new approach.  It's also why you often hear of prospects that were hyped being traded multiple times and becoming late bloomers because they need time to put it all together.  I personally believe that Jason Heyward would benefit from a couple of years with the same hitting philosophy as he's had three hitting coaches in his five year career.  His best season may still be his rookie season when his MLB hitting coach was the same coach who had set the Braves' hitting philosophy for all of Jason's time in the minors.  Teams value the ability to put their print on a guy, and Barreto's 2-3 year likely window before he's in the majors is in that perfect window of development on an 18 year-old kid to make his trade value skyrocket.

 

I'll use an example from the Braves farm system.  Right now, the clear #1 prospect in the Braves system is 2B Jose Peraza, but I would wager that it would take as much or more to pry SS Ozhaino Albies away from the team in trade right now.  He's going to end up a top 5 prospect in the system and at 17 blew through the two rookie league teams in his first experience stateside while striking out at a sub-10% rate and walking at about a 12% rate while showing a ton of baserunning ability and surprising power.  Peraza is only 21 next season, but he's already been moved off of SS and his power has shown to be in gap/ally power only, not really over-the-fence power.  Still useful, but taking a possible skill off the table does lessen what a trade value for a player is when they're early in development.  Peraza's also already reached AA, so he's hit the high minors while Albies is going to his first full season club this year.

 

I know this is TL;DR, but I think I explained stuff a bit better.  I will say that this concept had to be explained to me by a former scout I sourced for a story a few times over before I got it.

[TheLeviathan]

Ben, by many accounts I've heard Barrerto may end up as a 2B, which is an impact on his value IMO.

[maxisagod]

Ben, by many accounts I've heard Barrerto may end up as a 2B, which is an impact on his value IMO.

 

I've only read one account, but this has more to do with his hitting being more advanced then his fielding. In other words, you want him up in 2 years move him to 2nd. If you want him to stick at short 3-4 years might be more plausible. He so young, and SS is so important I'd have to imagine they keep him at SS all through the minors. 

[biggentleben]

Ben, by many accounts I've heard Barrerto may end up as a 2B, which is an impact on his value IMO.

 

The scouting reports I've seen have all gauged his arm at a 55, which is MLB starter level present, let alone what it could be if shifted from shortstop.  His arm and speed have kept him at short so far, and Kiley McDaniels' write up on Fangraphs mentioned a scout who basically said that he could be 2B/SS/CF at the major league level depending on what the team he was with needed due to his defensive skills, so there actually may be more value for some teams in that flexibility than a pure shortstop as well.  He would only move off shortstop because his hit tool and offensive skills carry him to the major leagues before his defense can catch up.  With Robertson in the fold for the Athletics, they may have an elite defensive shortstop and choose to move Barreto, but if Robertson doesn't pan out, he could stay at the position as well.

[markos]

I know this is TL;DR, but I think I explained stuff a bit better.  I will say that this concept had to be explained to me by a former scout I sourced for a story a few times over before I got it.

Thanks for the long and thorough response. Your explanation does make a lot of sense - I'm not saying I necessarily agree with the logic, but I can definitely see how teams would value the time to mold a prospect to their liking. My own personal opinion is that young, low-level prospects like Barrerto have enough risk to cancel out the benefit of having the time to development them in your system. It requires a lot of faith in your own scouts and player development personnel to correctly identify the player's upside and actually reach his potential. I would rather have an older, closer-to-the-majors prospect with some warts rather than a young prospect that hasn't had a chance to fail yet.

 

As I've been trying to make sense of the Donaldson trade, I've been thinking a lot about two potential factors that may help the trade make more sense. First, it is possible that Donaldson's isn't the elite player that I (or the advanced stats) make him out to be (or, more importantly, that he doesn't project to be an elite player going forward). I've been thinking about about potential biases in the accounting that may make stats like WAR overrate him. Second, it is possible that I am underrating the return the A's received. This line of thinking touches on what you explained, as it made me rethink the David Price trade. One of the pieces in that deal was a player very similar to Barrerto: Willy Adames. It certainly seems probably that I'm underrating that kind of player.

[TheLeviathan]

Time will tell, but as a general rule (and what boggles my mind in this debate is that many of the people pro-trade would generally not advise such a move by the Twins for precisely this reason) I think dealing a high performing player for a bunch of low ceiling AAA and low minors/high upside guys is an easy way to get burned.  

 

Most of the people lauding this move would similarly laud the Twins for doing the opposite: moving high rated A ball prospects for an established star because, in general, prospects bust.  And the rate of it increases the further from contributing that they are.  Couple that with the near-ready players being universally classified as low-ceiling players and you have a recipe for a disaster.  Right now, if Terry Ryan had dealt Brian Dozier for Dustin Ackley, two AAA guys that look a lot like Anthony Swarzak, and one low A ball prospect we'd probably roast them for it and rightfully so.  But because Beane did it, it's some kind of sacred cow.

 

Also, you don't have to think highly of Donaldson based on WAR - there is basically nothing about him that isn't elite.  (I'm quoting from an article I largely disagree with, but they lay out just how freaking good Donaldson is in decent detail)  However, I too share the sneaky idea that they know something about him the rest of us don't.  Then again, people would've made the same argument about Tim Hudson and that was an utter disaster of a trade for Beane.

[biggentleben]

I do believe that Donaldson will be a monster in that park.  I just disagree that it was a completely one-sided trade.  I think it's a very high-risk trade for Oakland, but I don't think it's the one-sided disaster that the initial reaction was.

 

The big difference with the Hudson deal and this one was that any Braves fan out there would tell you they fleeced the A's at the time.  Meyer was a backend starter who flamed out, but Thomas was crap, and Cruz, in spite of his cult following, was terribly inconsistent in the pen and only a pen arm.  Blue Jays writers I've talked with are genuinely miffed about losing Barreto and Graveman, though, which the latter intrigues me.

[Mike Sixel]

Interesting article on Fangraphs today about how maybe teams a: don't get elite players like we think; b: reactions may be highly biased based on "prospect names". No real conclusion is drawn, it's just a talker piece.

[jokin]

I do believe that Donaldson will be a monster in that park.  I just disagree that it was a completely one-sided trade.  I think it's a very high-risk trade for Oakland, but I don't think it's the one-sided disaster that the initial reaction was.

 

The big difference with the Hudson deal and this one was that any Braves fan out there would tell you they fleeced the A's at the time.  Meyer was a backend starter who flamed out, but Thomas was crap, and Cruz, in spite of his cult following, was terribly inconsistent in the pen and only a pen arm.  Blue Jays writers I've talked with are genuinely miffed about losing Barreto and Graveman, though, which the latter intrigues me.

 

Any time, at age 23 and in your second year of pro ball, you:

 

-blow through FIVE levels in one season,

-throw 172 total innings,

-and then dominate at each level,

-including the Major League level

-with stuff that tops out at 93MPH,

 

you have to be an intriguing prospect.

[diehardtwinsfan]

Put me in the category with Thrylos, Jokin, and RB. This was a good trade by the A's. yes, there's risk here. I get that, but I'd do this same trade 100 times over if the offer came in for Plouffe. The reward makes it worth accepting the risk. The reason I've largely been against trading Trevor is b/c I don't think he'd net that type of a deal. With that said, Donaldson is better player, but both are similar in terms of financial impact. With this setting the market, what could we expect for a guy like Trevor?

[biggentleben]

Put me in the category with Thrylos, Jokin, and RB. This was a good trade by the A's. yes, there's risk here. I get that, but I'd do this same trade 100 times over if the offer came in for Plouffe. The reward makes it worth accepting the risk. The reason I've largely been against trading Trevor is b/c I don't think he'd net that type of a deal. With that said, Donaldson is better player, but both are similar in terms of financial impact. With this setting the market, what could we expect for a guy like Trevor?

 

Honestly, if the Twins got half this return, they should do backflips.  I think Lawrie's talents are being vastly undersold in the trade evaluation.  Save Lawrie would be a solid return for Plouffe, to be honest.

[TheLeviathan]

I continue to be flabbergasted people think Plouffe and Donaldson are anything near the same thing.

[Rosterman]

Plouffe and Donaldson are not anywhere near the same player. But I keep thinking what Plouffe will be like when he hits age 30, or 32. I doubt we will see him in Minnesota, though.

 

Also, the trading of this high-powered chip by a team that made the playoffs, sending it now towards a rebuilding mode (especially if pitchers they acquired this year also walk), probably works in the longrun. If Beane sees himself not winning next year, he is looking beyond. 

 

I don't know what Butler and his $30 million brings to the table, though. A totally one-dimensional player at a high pricetag and for three years. Not that HE'S blocking anyone from play.

 

But you get prospects by drafting or trading the Big Guys. 

 

But, again, the confusion is the throwing around of money on player's you don't need (include Ike Davis here). If Beane didn't spend THAT money, I would look at the trade differently, in some ways. A;though I am also of the school that would take more chances on players like Butler with the hopes of trading them down the line...which also doesn't always work.

 

Oakland has to be one of the more entertaining to watch franchises in baseball beyond what happens on the field. Moneyball made Beane an armchair fan star, Brad Pitt made him a name, but is he ultimately good for the game?

[USAFChief]

I continue to be flabbergasted people think Plouffe and Donaldson are anything near the same thing.

Nobody thinks that.

 

Nor are they miles apart.

[TheLeviathan]

Nobody thinks that.

 

Nor are they miles apart.

 

Is Mike Trout "miles apart" from Jayson Werth?  Because the number disparity over the last two years is very similar.

 

I think I can safely say "yes" to that, plus the fact that "not anything close to" and "miles apart" seems to be needlessly splitting hairs.  Donaldson is a significantly better and more valuable player by basically every measure known to us.

[markos]

Also, you don't have to think highly of Donaldson based on WAR - there is basically nothing about him that isn't elite.  (I'm quoting from an article I largely disagree with, but they lay out just how freaking good Donaldson is in decent detail)  However, I too share the sneaky idea that they know something about him the rest of us don't.  Then again, people would've made the same argument about Tim Hudson and that was an utter disaster of a trade for Beane.

Here is the case against Donaldson being elite (or projecting to be elite in 2015):

1) His hitting dropped by 20 runs between 2013-2014, which included a steep drop in his line-drive rate. Will this drop continue?

2) He is a great defender, but that is often the first skill to deteriorate. 

3) There are a ton of good-to-great players at 3B right now, which makes him less valuable relative to the rest of the league. When a 3 WAR player barely gets you to league average for the position, it skews the relative advantage.

 

Basically, if his offense and defense both slip just a little bit, he is essentially Todd Frazier, and I don't think anyone would be shocked by this trade if it involved the Reds and Frazier instead of the A's and Donaldson.

[markos]

Put me in the category with Thrylos, Jokin, and RB. This was a good trade by the A's. yes, there's risk here. I get that, but I'd do this same trade 100 times over if the offer came in for Plouffe. The reward makes it worth accepting the risk. The reason I've largely been against trading Trevor is b/c I don't think he'd net that type of a deal. With that said, Donaldson is better player, but both are similar in terms of financial impact. With this setting the market, what could we expect for a guy like Trevor?

Before the Donaldson trade, I had hoped Plouffe would fetch one league-average-ish player and one decent prospect. Now I'm not sure that is possible.

[USAFChief]

Is Mike Trout "miles apart" from Jayson Werth?  Because the number disparity over the last two years is very similar.

 

I think I can safely say "yes" to that, plus the fact that "not anything close to" and "miles apart" seems to be needlessly splitting hairs.  Donaldson is a significantly better and more valuable player by basically every measure known to us.

I'll bet you a beer there isn't much difference between the two in 2015, and we can use WAR to measure if you want. Say, 1 or less. Deal?

[TheLeviathan]

I'll bet you a beer there isn't much difference between the two in 2015, and we can use WAR to measure if you want. Say, 1 or less. Deal?

 

I hate WAR, would much prefer OPS+.  Either way, your arguments against Donaldson do nothing to level the difference between him and Plouffe.  

 

Call Donaldson whatever you want - elite, very good, whatever - by every measurable we have it's still MUCH better than Plouffe.

[big dog]

I'll bet you a beer there isn't much difference between the two in 2015, and we can use WAR to measure if you want. Say, 1 or less. Deal?

Hey Chief, I don't have a dog in this hunt, but I'll take your bet because maybe someday we can have a beer together (and because I think Donaldson's markedly better).  OK?  Pick whatever measure you want.  I'll take Donaldson and give you a cushion.

 

I wish there were some way to objectively measure the value of this trade to the A's in 3 years.  I'd bet on that, too.

[USAFChief]

Hey Chief, I don't have a dog in this hunt, but I'll take your bet because maybe someday we can have a beer together (and because I think Donaldson's markedly better).  OK?  Pick whatever measure you want.  I'll take Donaldson and give you a cushion.

 

I wish there were some way to objectively measure the value of this trade to the A's in 3 years.  I'd bet on that, too.

You pick the measure, and we're on.

 

Just to be clear, I don't like the trade much for the A's. I just think the difference between Donaldson and Plouffe has been overstated, and I'm confident enough in that opinion to wager one (1) beer.

[Brock Beauchamp]

Oakland has to be one of the more entertaining to watch franchises in baseball beyond what happens on the field. Moneyball made Beane an armchair fan star, Brad Pitt made him a name, but is he ultimately good for the game?

I don't know why that's even a question.

 

Of course Beane is good for the game. He has crafted the modern game more than any other GM in baseball.

 

With that said, this situation is a head-scratcher. I'll just sit back and watch it play out. One can never tell if Beane is two steps ahead of the the rest of the world or just completely insane.

 

Either way, it's fun to watch.

[big dog]

You pick the measure, and we're on.

 

Just to be clear, I don't like the trade much for the A's. I just think the difference between Donaldson and Plouffe has been overstated, and I'm confident enough in that opinion to wager one (1) beer.

All right, I'll go with the original terms you proposed- WAR, spotting you +1.  Hopefully Donaldson puts up a +5 and Plouffe ties him.  I'll be ecstatic to pay up.

[USAFChief]

All right, I'll go with the original terms you proposed- WAR, spotting you +1.  Hopefully Donaldson puts up a +5 and Plouffe ties him.  I'll be ecstatic to pay up.

I'm counting on Donaldson's UZR fluctuating downward (which it will, because it always does and he's moving out of Oakland onto turf), and Plouffe continuing to develop, and they both end up around +3.5.

 

I like Corona, with lime.