Ranking the deals
by cmathewson on Jan 5, 2008 1:29 PM EST
in News
25 comments
In know this is the umpteenth ranking of proposed deals on the table for Johan Santana, but there seems to be lack of consensus on who's offering the best deal. LEN3 just posted a blog entry that got more than 700 comments in one day on the subject. According to LEN3, it's down to the Red Sox, Yankees and Mets. Each team is offering four players, including a major league center fielder and three prospects.
The trouble is, how do we evaluate the rumored deals side by side when there is such a lack of consensus on the prospects involved. Seth Stohs ranks the prospects bandied about. His ranking differs greatly from John Sickels' rankings of the Yankees , Red Sox, and Mets. I could go into other subscription sources, which differ from both rankings, but Seth and Sickels will suffice for this discussion. The only difficulty is several of the players are no longer prospects, so I will have to slot them in based on my own appraisal because neither ranks them. Feel free to dispute my slotting of the major leaguers involved in the comments section.
First, let's examine whom various media reports have identified as trade targets:
Red Sox
There are two packages on the table: One involves John Lester, Coco Crisp, Jed Lowrie and Justin Masterson. The other involves Jacoby Ellsbury, Lowrie, Masterson, and a fourth prospect--either Michael Bowden or Ryan Kalish. I don't think the Sox will hold up the deal if it's over Bowden versus Kalish.
Yankees
The two solid names are Melky Cabrera and Philip Hughes. At one time, talks broke off because the Twins demanded Ian Kennedy and another prospect and the Yankees would only part with one mid-level prospect and certainly not Kennedy. Well, talks are back on and they have come to the middle somewhat. The Twins have backed off their demands for Kennedy and the Yankees have agreed to offer two prospects somewhat above midlevel. The best we can guess right now is it's pitcher Jeff Marquez and either Jose Tabata or Austin Jackson. Rumor has it the Yankees are higher on Tabata than the Twins, so I would finger Jackson as the fourth element.
Mets
There is a lot less clarity on the Mets because of persistent rumors that the Twins are demanding Jose Reyes in a trade despite Minaya's adamant refusal and the Twins acquisition of Adam Everette. I dispute these rumors on another diary on this site. So I'm going to set them aside and go with a more credible list.
The list I've seen starts with Carlos Gomez and Fernando Martinez and two pitchers from a list of four: Mike Pelfrey, Philip Humber, Kevin Mulvey and Deolis Guerra.
Now let's examine the two rankings. Seth ranks them thus (with the Twins own prospects sprinkled in for reference and some mind blowingly optimistic upside projects to go along with them):
Philip Hughes - New York Yankees - Roger Clemens
Fernando Martinez - New York Mets - Ken Griffey Jr
Carlos Gomez - New York Mets - Carlos Beltran
Jacoby Ellsbury - Boston Red Sox - Johnny Damon
Deolis Guerra - New York Mets - Pedro Martinez
Jose Tabata - New York Yankees - Andre Dawson
· Tyler Robertson
· Anthony Swarzak
Jon Lester - Boston Red Sox - Andy Pettitte
Jed Lowrie - Boston Red Sox - Dustin Pedroia with more pop
Ian Kennedy - New York Yankees - Kevin Slowey
· Trevor Plouffe
Kevin Mulvey - New York Mets - Jon Garland
Jeff Marquez - New York Yankees - Freddy Garcia
· Brian Duensing
· Jeff Manship
Michael Bowden - Boston Red Sox - Jake Peavy
· Chris Parmelee
· Danny Valencia
· Alex Burnett
· Joe Benson
Ryan Kalish - Boston Red Sox - Austin Kearns (the good year)
Austin Jackson - New York Yankees - Jason Bay (at best)
· Erik Lis
· Eduardo Morlan - traded to Tampa
· Oswaldo Sosa
· Ben Revere
Justin Masterson - Boston Red Sox - Carlos Silva
· David Winfree
Just going on Sickels' preliminary ranking and assigning my own ranking for the non prospects in parentheses:
Philip Hughes: (A)
Jacoby Ellsbury: A-
Jed Lowrie: A-
Fernando Martinez: B+
Jose Tabata: B+
Ian Kennedy: B+
John Lester: (B+)
Deolis Guerra: B+
Carlos Gomez: B (might go to B+ in the book)
Kevin Mulvey: B (might go to B+ in the book)
Melky Cabrera: (B)
Coco Crisp: (B)
Michael Bowden: B
Justin Masterson: B
Ryan Kalish: B
Austin Jackson: B-
Philip Humber: B-
Jeffrey Marquez: C+
I tend to side with Sickels' ranking based on esoteric analysis from my new favorite site: firstinning.com, which I urge you to do on your own time. I know Sickels pays attention to such things as FIP, GB%, BAPIP and LD%, which are the gold standard of my evaluations. Seth pays more attention to ERA, age, and walk rate, which are important too, but less so, IMO.
The other thing to consider is how well the three packages fit into the Twins short and long-term plans. All things considered, I would rather have the package that helps this team win a championship in the new ballpark as opposed to competing for the wild card in 2008. Your mileage may vary. I pick the best deals without really knowing whether the teams would give up these packages.
- Red Sox: Ellsbury (A-), Lowrie (A-), Bowden (B) and Masterson (B).
- Mets: Martinez (B+), Guerra (B+), Gomez (B), and Mulvey (B).
- Yankees: Hughes (A), Cabrera (B), Jackson (B-) and Marquez (C+)
Conclusion
If I were Bill Smith, I would take any of the three offers. But I think the Red Sox's offer gives the Twins the best chance long term while the Yankees offer gives the Twins the best chance short term. The Mets offer gives better long term value than the Yankees but little short-term value.
0 recs |
25 comments
Email
Print
Comments
Hughes might be as good as Roger Clemens?
"mind blowingly optimistic" and that might still be a bit of an understatement.
by montanatwinsfan on Jan 5, 2008 1:52 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Ultimately, I voted for the Yankees package
Today, I'm feeling like the best move is to take the best player, the guy who could be competing for post-season awards over the next 5 years. That's Hughes.
by Eric in Madison on Jan 5, 2008 2:54 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
I know it's illogical, but...
You also seem to have forgotten about Pelfrey. Wouldn't he be a valuable short term player from the Mets? I would probably switch him out for Mulvey in the deal.
by eahnpurato on Jan 5, 2008 3:02 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Yankees
Hughes is the best player on the board. Cabrera has proven he can hold his own at CF in the majors over two full seasons, and will still only be 23 this year. Tabata is also raked as one of the top pitching prospects. That's a nice deal already right there. Jeff Marquez is a great "toss-in." he hasn't torn the world apart like some of the top prospects, but he has pitched fairly well at several levels, including a good performance in AA this year as a relatively young 22 year old. A pitcher who has performed pretty well while being pushed semi-aggressively through the minors after playing no college ball is a good talent, especially when he was a former first round pick.
Any time your toss in is a first round pick, well, that's pretty good.
by AdamOnFirst on Jan 5, 2008 4:55 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Tabata
He had a .360 BABIP with a GB% of 60% and LD% of 10%. So he was a chop-and-dash hitter, which doesn't project to much of a major leaguer with his size.
It resulted in the following line:
Age 19, 460 PA, .307/.379/.392. 33BB, 70K, 21XBH
Compare it to Player A:
Age 21, 225 PA .339/.410/.403. 22BB ,25K 7XBH
Quick Quiz, who is player A? Here's an anagram: Nards Pane. This chop-and-dash center fielder had a line that made him look like a good prospect. He could get away with little power because he played a premium center field position.
Not so for Tabata, who might have the tools, but he didn't play center at all last year.
Personally, I'd rather have Austin Jackson, who does play center field, and sported this line as a 20 year old in A+ last year: 284 PA .345/.398/.566. 22BB 48K
He 31 XBH in half teh PAs of Tabata in the same league. He did have similar BABIP (.395), LD% (11), and GB% (50) numbers. So there is some concern there. But at 6-1, 185 playing a premium defensive position, he at least has a good chance to be a major leaguer. I'm not so sure about Tabata at this point.
by cmathewson on Jan 5, 2008 5:55 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
A Jack
3. Austin Jackson, OF
DOB: 2/1/87
Height/Weight: 6-1/185
Bats/Throws: R/R
Drafted: 8th round, 2005, Ryan HS (TX)
2007 Stats: .260/.336/.374 at Low-A (60 G); .345/.398/.566 at High-A (67 G); .333/.600/.667 at Triple-A (1 G)
Year In Review: The athletic outfielder was struggling again at Low-A until some mechanical changes in his swing helped him suddenly take off.
The Good: Jackson is loaded with tools, possessing above-average speed and power. The Yankees rebuilt his swing, shortening his stride and trying to add more balance by reducing his exaggerated step. This led to a quicker bat and a much more level swing plane, while also allowing him to tap into his power. He's an excellent baserunner who gets great jumps on steal attempts, while also showing good defensive instincts.
The Bad: Jackson still lunges at some breaking balls, especially on the outside half. As a player who needs to hit at the top of the lineup, he needs to develop a more patient approach and improve his pitch recognition. He's lost a bit of speed since his high school days, and some worry that if he continues to fill out, he'll slow to the point where he has to move to a corner.
Fun Fact: Jackson was arguably better at basketball than baseball in high school. One of the top hoops prospects in the country, he'd committed to Georgia Tech, and possibly would have been the starting point guard as a freshman.
Perfect World Projection: A star-level outfielder who contributes 20/20 seasons annually.
Timetable: Jackson's second-half surge was one of the more pleasant surprises in an organization full of them. With his previous struggles, he still has some doubters, and Double-A will be a test for him that everyone will be watching closely.
4. Jose Tabata, OF
DOB: 8/12/88
Height/Weight: 5-11/160
Bats/Throws: R/R
Acquired: NDFA, 2005, Venezuela
2007 Stats: .307/.371/.392 at High-A (103 G)
Year In Review: The top-notch hitting prospect more than held his own at High-A as an 18-year-old before his season ended prematurely due to hamate bone surgery.
The Good: Tabata is a gifted hitter with outstanding bat speed and hand-eye coordination, showing the ability to hit any pitch, anywhere, from both lefties and righties. He's an average runner and a good right fielder with the arm strength for the position. He plays under control and with a confidence far beyond his years.
The Bad: While Tabata's hand problems were a year-long issue and mitigating factor, scouts are beginning to question his power ceiling. He's not especially big, and his swing is on a level plane--so while the ball flies off his bat, it's not overly loaded with loft or backspin. If he doesn't develop power, he doesn't really match the profile normally associated with the position. He could also use a more patient approach.
Fun Fact: When playing right field, Tabata hit .335, but when playing designated hitter only, Tabata hit just .169 in 71 at-bats.
Perfect World Projection: Most are convinced that Tabata will hit .300+ in the majors. It's the development of his secondary skills that will define whether or not he ends up as an impact player.
Timetable: Tabata is expected to be healthy for spring training, and once again, he'll be extremely young for his level, playing in Double-A as a nineteen year old.
Personally though. I would rather have a deal with Boston and instead of Bowden I would like Ryan Kalish, who could play Center or move to left, or Instead of Masterson I would love me some Lars Anderson.
Bottom line is that Morneau is going to be around for three more years, if we could get a Lars Anderson to replace Morneau in 2011, or a Ryan Kalish who projects as a 15-20 HR with 40sb's to fill CF in 2011 they should go for it. We always develop great pitching, but lack the quality position players to make the Jump from Division winners to World Series Champs.
How many times have we hear that the TB Rays are gonna win the World Series in 2010-2011. It's because their awesome young arms (Which we have), and their position prospects (Which we don't). And they have to play NY and Boston 19 times a year. If we had those position prospects to step in 2010, we will easily contend with an Aging Tigers club (Who have no one left in the Minors besides Porcello), a White Sox club that can't decide if they are going to rebuild or try and contend each year, an Indians club that won't be able to retain guys like Sizemore, and a Royals club that is getting better and should be a lot better than they are now.
I really like what Bill Smith has done so far, and the more I read the more excited I get, but I don't want to try and contend till 2010, I want a plan and I want to win when the new Stadium is built. I read somewhere that having 85 wins isn't any better than having 75 wins if you don't make the playoffs, and having 75 wins isn't any better than 65... probably worse because you have a better draft pick with only 65 wins. Right now we are an 85 win team. Thats like Betting on the Jags over the Steelers, giving up 3 points, and they don't try and score a TD in the final two minutes of the game.... Doooooh!!!!! Damn Odds makers....
Hook it up Boston.... and I think if the Yankmees are going to upgrade to Jackson or Tabata, we should get a litle more from the RedSox... Maybe Lars, Maybe Kalish?????
I don't really like anything the Mets have to offer... I loved Carlos Gomez, till I saw him try and hit Major League Pitching. And F Mart... Not sold... Pelfrey looked good before the start of the season, horible during, and Humber would be a buy low type of guy... But there is no Lester, Hughes type there....
by trap11 on Jan 6, 2008 7:48 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
deals...
I've read a couple of times that the Twins and Red Sox are both willing to expand the deal (presumably so that the Twins can get both Ellsbury and Lester). But it's hard to imagine how that would work. The Red Sox hardly have any need for whatever position players that might be available from the Twins; and the Twins aren't exactly well-positioned to give up more pitching.
We'll see.
Also, I disagree the Twins don't need to worry about the pitching. Presuming Johan's dealt, the Twins will have lost Santana, Silva, and Garza, three guys who combined threw 504 quality innings (ERA+ over 100) last year. That's an enormous blow to the pitching staff, I don't care who you are. And it's not like the Twins can go out and buy pitching on the market.
And I think the in-house pitching depth is a little bit oversold right now. How many guys do they have who you can really expect/hope to be an above average starter? Scott Baker. That's one. Certainly when healthy Liriano was dominating, but we A) Don't know exactly how he'll be post-surgery, since he has yet to throw a competitive pitch and B) Aren't sure when he'll be ready to help the big club. Slowey might be decent and will get a shot, Bonser might be so-so, Perkins...Blackburn... see where I'm going? These guys might all turn out alright--maybe Liriano, Baker, and Slowey all join to form a decent 1-2-3 at the top, each tossing 200 innings annually, with formidable guys battling it out for the bottom two slots--but that's best-case scenario.
I think if they had waited on dealing Garza until after Johan was dealt, they maybe could have been happy with, say, the Ellsbury deal. But right now I think they need to get at least one guy they like who they can start.
That's part of why I'm starting to think maybe the Mets have a decent shot. If the Twins could get two starters (say, Pelfrey--who, although he's not my favorite, has been considered to have front-end potential in the past--and Mulvey) to help restock the rotation plus a toolsy boom-or-bust center fielder in Gomez plus a teenage blue-chipper in Fernando Martinez (who would instantly become the Twins best position prospect), that wouldn't be terrible. It would require a serious shift in strategy on the part of the Twins, since that deal's more about potential than MLB-ready guys, but sometimes to get the best return, you need to find the "untouchable" guys before they become "untouchable." (Grady Sizemore was 19 and toiling in the lower minors--not showing much power--when he was the third player included in the Bartolo Colon deal.)
I agree with cmathewson, though. I think all 3 (or 4) potential deals have their merits. They're probably not what most of us expected when this whole thing started rolling, but with Santana's contract demands dampening everything, it is what it is.
Also, historically, trading pitchers of Johan's stature doesn't always lead to dream packages:
-Expos dealt a young Pedro to the Red Sox for Tony Armas, Jr. and Carl Pavano. (Probably a good lesson about the dangers of hinging the entire deal on pitching prospects.)
-Mariners dealt Randy Johnson for Freddy Garcia, John Halama, and Carlos Guillen. Turned out to be a pretty decent deal for the M's (although Guillen didn't become Guillen until he went to the Tigers). The M's certainly didn't get hurt by it, as all 3 guys were big-time contributors to a 116-win season.
-A's dealt Tim Hudson for Charles Thomas and Juan Cruz (and some more riffraff, I believe). Not a good deal.
-A's dealt Marc Mulder for Dan Haren and Daric Barton. Great deal.
by jianfu on Jan 6, 2008 1:09 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
On the pitching
So while I agree that the staff is taking a Major League Dip losing Santana, Silva and Garza... In trading Santana and getting back high quality pitchers back that in the future have a great chance to be as good or better than 2 of the 3 we lost.
All this is leaving out the fact if Santana is gone Nathan will be close behind and his trade Value, with his 6 Million dollar contract, is very high right now and I am sure we will get back some very good prospects for him.
So just losing Santana and getting nothing in return, I agree 100% with your post, but that isn't the case unless we don't trade Santana and get nothing in return (Besides a draft pick).
Also... Thanks for the Fact on Sizemore... I never knew that....
Happy New Year
Travis
by trap11 on Jan 6, 2008 10:28 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I think you guys...
And if we deal Johan, we're getting one back, so we're still down just 1.
And it's not like the replacements are chop liver. They figure to be just as good as Silva, and remember that we're also replacing those awful innings from Ortiz/Ponson earlier in the year.
I think this whole "losing 3 starters from the rotation" line of logic has been way overhyped, personally.
by djskilbr on Jan 7, 2008 12:49 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
pitching...
I think they're working to get Ellsbury and Lester together (either by expanding the deal, or perhaps conceding some on the back end). That would be the most "complete" offer, and would set them up well for the forseeable future. Lester adds a quality starter, and Ellsbury and Lowrie would be the tablesetters for the Mauer/Young/Morneau/Cuddyer/Kubel young core. That's got potential to be the best offense we've seen here for a long time. A guy to follow like Bowden, Masterson, or Kalish would be gravy.
But separately, the two Boston offers are rather incomplete, and I could see the Twins sending him to one of the NYs if they can't get the Red Sox to merge the offers. Those are both "incomplete" offers, as well, but the star potential's higher.
Whatever happens, I'm sure there will be surprised in the actual return if/when it happens. Seems like higher profile trades that take a long time to develop always have a bit of surprise that way.
by jianfu on Jan 7, 2008 1:55 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Here's a wild-eyed thought
If the Twins get Ellsbury and Lowrie, it renders Span and Casilla unnecessary.
The thought of getting Ellsbury, Lowrie and Bedard for Santana and spare parts is pretty exciting. I know the Orioles probably wouldn't go for it, though.
If the Twins don't get that major league arm out of the deal, they would need to sign a veteran free agent such as Colon or Jennings. I'd rather get a young pitcher, though.
by cmathewson on Jan 7, 2008 2:23 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
'Cisco'
believing Liriano will be a 200+ innings eater in 2008 is like believing Morneau, Mauer, and Cuddyer will all three return to their 2006 numbers; overly optimistic.
believing Liriano will be a number 1 starter and a dominating pitcher for the entire 2008 season (which I understand you are not doing djskilbr) is like believing Morneau, Mauer, and Cuddyer will all three show improvement over their 2006 form (which some people actually believed would happen in 2007); foolish.
We cannot realistically trade away Sanata without a starter in return.
by montanatwinsfan on Jan 7, 2008 4:26 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
How
by AdamOnFirst on Jan 6, 2008 3:15 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Red Sox
by realfan on Jan 7, 2008 8:20 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
The Red Sox deal....
Ellsbury would be nice. The Twins should be able to hold onto him for hopefully six seasons minimum. Crisp would be worable, the Twins get two (hopefully) decent seasons before someone steps forward in the minors. But, like Lester, the Red Sox aren't losing anyone. They have Ellsbury to take Crisp's palce and would then sign Kielty as the backup.
Not sure if we still need Lowrie. Though he probably projects far better than any of the nuber of infielders in the Twins current system (Buscher, Watkins, Macri, Basak, Macahdo, Clark, Punto). Do you keep him as the second reserve? Hope that Casilla and Lowrie take the palce of Everett and Harris in 2009?
Masterson and another pitcher would be nice.
Like others, it seems, I'm stuck on the Red Sox offering a nice package for Johan, but not giving us anything that they would truly miss. I don't think we need to care about how the players dealt will affect their organization charts, just how they fit into making the Twins stronger.
Hughes could be a stud. Melkey would give us one year less than Ellsbury, but most know what he can do. Imagine Hughes, like Ellsbury, would hapily walk if their numbers permit when free-agency comes about.
by twintown on Jan 7, 2008 12:16 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
The sox players
by realfan on Jan 7, 2008 8:45 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I'm warming to the Yankee deal
by cmathewson on Jan 7, 2008 1:17 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Bedard
I like this line of thinking, so lets see where it goes, and how much it would take. I propose the following as at least plausible:
We trade Santana and Revere for Lester, Ellsbury, Lowrie and Bowden and Masterson. I have no idea how high Boston is on Revere, and maybe we have someone they prefer, but he is a younger, ableit less good version of Ellsbury, making it easier for them to justify giving up both.
We Trade (One of Bonser, Baker, Duensing or Blackburn), Cuddyer, Casilla and Span for Bedard and a corner outfield or corner infield prospect (who do they have?). We offer Bedard a four year 3 year extension (in addition to the 2 he already has) at $15m / yr. Don't know if he'll take it, if not, trade him next year. Trading Cuddyer isn't that big of an issue, if you think that Kubel's knees can play 4-5 days a week. Bedard is excited because he gets to play for a team with hope, though its not the big market team he was hoping for.
Rotation: Bedard, Baker, Bonser, Liriano, Lester
Lineup: Ellsbury, Kubel, Mauer, Young, Morneau, Lamb, Monroe, Harris, Everret
Bench: Redmond, Punto, Morales, Pridie
Pen (depends on Nathan): Neshek, Crain, Rincon,
Blackburn, Reyes, Slowey, Guerrier
That's a damn good team. Granted one of those starters might go to the O's, but they're replaceable by Slowey/Guerrier/ with Masterson/Duensing etc. available for the spot in the pen. This would, however, leave us a bit shorter in AA and AAA, depending on whom we get for Nathan. I'm assuming here that he provides a couple of AA and AAA prospects, but not ML ready ones, to help get the best value.
So, is this even feasible? Is it a wildly unlikely dream, or complete, baseless fiction?
by snolls on Jan 7, 2008 5:21 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
o's
by doofus04 on Jan 7, 2008 6:27 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I forgot Lowrie
by snolls on Jan 7, 2008 5:23 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Markakis
Lastly, not that it would happen, but the O's could always put Cuddyer back at 3rd, depending on a) what happens with them at 3rd, and b) his willingness.
As for you're proposed deal, if one of Bonser/Baker and any one pitcher currently in the minors, and Cuddyer along with Span or Casilla would net Bedard, I'm for it. I have no concept of how Twins/O's/Others measure the relative values of these players.
by snolls on Jan 7, 2008 8:06 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
o's again
by doofus04 on Jan 8, 2008 12:36 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
as for the 4 scenarios up there
by doofus04 on Jan 8, 2008 12:39 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
I do kind of wonder...
I hate to give him up because I think he will be very, very good, but if it meant him and Rincon to get a package like that, I might go for it.
He's exactly what Boston has been trying to get; a young C to groom behind Varitek with high upside. How many other guys like him are out there? Not many that I can see that are obviously available (we have Mauer and he isn't going anywhere).
I wonder if that could work.
by djskilbr on Jan 8, 2008 4:48 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Morales
by cmathewson on Jan 8, 2008 6:08 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2009 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
