Adrian Gonzalez

[balfanman]

Yeah, this is getting nasty guys. It's one thing to argue your points, it's another to insult eachother as your concluding sentence for every paragraph.

 

Again, I love the debate here, but keep it civil. You're both intelligent guys, no need to lower the discussion to include insults.

 

I second this. I'm enjoying this thread but....when discussions get nasty is when I for one leave said discussion.

[iamshack]

In all honesty you can say the same thing about any deal.

 

In your previous example what if Nick Johnson spend most of the season on the disabled list and we have to replace him with a lesser bat, wind up losing few 1 or 2 run games, and losing the division by a game or two?

 

What if it takes 2 or 3 seasons before Flowers, Danks, etc. become proficient ballplayers. By that time our outstanding starting rotation will be about gone.

 

The truth is that any way we go has risk involved. Personally, I think that going for it all for the next couple of seasons has less risk than hoping a few of these minor leagers pan out.

Our GM works under the philosophy that a sure thing is better than a few unknown quantities. I also think that in the last 24 months or so, our organization in it's entirety has done a fabulous job of pinpointing the guys with potential that really translates to mlb success from those that don't. I think it's encouraging that Beckham was never available. The same goes for Hudson and Flowers. They have been for the most part "off the table" from what we've heard in recent discussions. Now should a player like AGon truly become available, I am positive Kenny will look into it, even if it means players like Hudson and Flowers must be part of the package. Whether he decides AGon is worth those players, I don't know if any of us can be certain. But all I can say is, better them making the decisions than us...

[Kenny Hates Prospects]

I don't think anyone has said that this is a once-in-a-lifetime chance.

However, it's difficult to ignore how perfectly he resembles the player the White Sox need right now.

 

I see both points here, and again, KHP and Kevin, outside of the jabs you're taking at one another, some great stuff here. I am really enjoying it. I see what Kevin is saying...the prospects and young players we have right now are better than we've had in quite a while, it would be a shame to give them all away for 1 player. However, I also see what KHP is saying. A great farm system is wonderful and all, but in the end, a farm system is a means to an end. It is a tool one uses to help the big league club win. I don't care if the posters of Soxtalk have to fill our minor league rosters if we are winning titles.

But see I would disagree with this though. They all have their faults, just as has been the case in the past. The Sox seem to have gotten a lot better when it comes to scouting amateurs, but they're still going to be hit-and-miss because it's not an exact science and the players have to stay healthy, develop, adjust, and perform under pressure on the biggest stage.

 

I thought Josh Fields was definitely going to hit up here after watching him in 2007, and yet he turned into a throw-in for Mark Teahen. But that doesn't mean Josh wasn't a good prospect or that we were dumb for drafting. In hindsight we should have attempted to trade him for a huge piece, which Kenny did try to do in the failed Miguel Cabrera trade, but the Tigers swooped in and offered two players who were even more "special" at the time, although so far neither Maybin nor Miller have become what the Fish expected them to be.

 

Viciedo has his weight issues and the Sox are trying him out on a new diet plan, but he's my favorite.

 

Jordan Danks is always going to rack up K's and his power is in large part due to his legs, but he's no elite offensive force in CF.

 

Danny Hudson is my 2nd favorite here and I would bet on him as a #3 in the AL, but he doesn't have the stuff Danks or Floyd has, and we've got Peavy and Buehrle right here and now, and a very capable #5 in Freddy. Huddy right now I actually view as a pretty lights-out setup man, because that's what I think he'll be in 2010 if he's still here.

 

And Flowers didn't exactly look like a Major League hitter when he was up here and I think he's going to have issues adjusting to MLB pitching, and the Bill James projection or whatever is very optimistic for Flowers as a rookie in 2010. Plus, there's no way he can be counted on until at least 2011, and he's going to have to earn the trust of a veteran SP staff even before he starts worrying about his bat.

 

None of these guys are sure-fire bets, and when a team like the Padres makes a bat like Gonzalez available - which is something that almost NEVER happens with a large or even mid-market team - then we should view it as a blessing from the baseball gods and do whatever we can to trade unproven players for him.

Edited November 12, 2009 by Kenny Hates Prospects

[Balta1701]

The truth is that any way we go has risk involved. Personally, I think that going for it all for the next couple of seasons has less risk than hoping a few of these minor leagers pan out.

It really does depend on what your team thinks of these minor leaguers. This is where the scouting comes in.

 

Give you some examples. Hudson. Guy jumped 4 levels all the way to the big leagues last year. That's pretty darn rare. We could legitimately have something here, another Danks/Floyd, or even better. Your guys saw him pitch every day, dealt with him in the Locker room, worked out with him, know his brain, know his attitude. If you think he's a guy who's likely to come up and within 1-2 years be able to win 15 games for $400k a year followed by 3 arbitration years...then he's worth Gonzalez on his own. But...without having all those other details, ti's hard to judge.

 

Viciedo is another. Guy struggled at AA last year, but has serious talent. He's a guy who in 2-3 years could come up and give us 40 HR on his own if he develops. But it's hard to say why he struggled last year without knowing how he took to the coaching, what they had him working on, etc.

 

Danks, in a year or two he could be giving us Granderson numbers.

 

But...they could all bust. Entirely possible. If your system isn't producing guys with their head on straight (i.e. Brian Anderson, 2005) then maybe trading these guys is the right move. If you've got confidence in these guys and your scouts, then maybe you hold onto them and in 3 years you've got a team with young talent every bit as good as the Rays but you also have the money to spend to put a Peavy on top of them. And if any one of these guys actually reaches their ceiling...they're literally more valuable than Gonzalez because of how cheap they would be for how long. But you just don't know if they will.

[balfanman]

None of these guys are sure-fire bets, and when a team like the Padres makes a bat like Gonzalez available - which is something that almost NEVER happens with a large or even mid-market team - then we should view it as a blessing from the baseball gods and do whatever we can to trade unproven players for him.

 

Once again KHP, great minds think alike.

 

Will you marry me and bear my children?

[Kenny Hates Prospects]

Still pulled out of your ass, along with the other figure.

 

Yeah, I pulled those salaries out of my ass. Right. It's not like the particulars of those deals have been published or anything. There's something called research, you should do it.

 

And what if Peavy gets hurt and we put Carlos Torres in the rotation? What if (heaven forbid) Danks or Floyd go down and Brandon Hynick has to make eight starts? What if AJ gets hurt and we're starting a replacement level catcher? The problem is you don't care about depth.

 

And what if everyone is healthy? And what if one player gets hurt and we can make a move to replace that player? Stop with the what ifs. Your argument has deteriorated but yet you keep on. This is why I'm putting you on ignore from now on.

 

Ah! One of my favorites! Because player A is a prospect, we must compare him to players B, C, D, E, F, etc. despite the fact that the only things they have in common is that they play baseball. Good argument.

 

Yes, we should look at the odds of prospects reaching their potential. That typically leads to what is called an informed decision.

 

Again, show me one scout who says he can play 3B at the major league level. The Sox will do everything they can to keep him there, but I'm not exactly treating the company line from Bell as gospel. Also, Mat (one T, try to keep up) is a horrendous defensive 3rd baseman. Horrendous.

 

Viciedo at 3rd would continue this organization's sad "f*** defense!" philosophy.

 

Well Buddy Bell knows a s***load more than you about the Sox plans, so stop asking me for these things, go ask him. And who gives a f***? We're talking about him playing for the Padres. What the f*** do you care?

 

Viciedo isn't anywhere near ready.

 

Your opinion, not the Sox opinion. When the Sox come out and say Viciedo is a lost cause at 3B then you can run your mouth. Until then, you're wasting your time.

 

1. Yes, but it takes a long, long time to build a system through international signings. You said one period would get it done. Not happening.

2. Yes. You said 1-2 drafts. Irrelevant to what you originally posited.

3. Depth, depth, depth. Insurance, insurance, insurance.

 

1. No, I said draft AND international signing period. 1-2 good signings interationally in tandem with a strong draft does wonders to resupply the farm.

2. Jesus, use your head please. The point was that the Sox ***DO NOT NEED TO DRAFT A BUNCH OF FUTURE MAJOR LEAGUERS IF THEY TRADE THEM FOR PROVEN PIECES****** because they would still be getting value out of the draft.

3. I talk about the importance of winning and you respond with depth and insurance comments. Starting players are more important than back-ups. You build a team around starters and you hope you don't need to go out and find replacements, but if that happens, you do it. You don't sacrifice your chances at a proven impact player because you're worried about what would happen if everything went wrong.

 

Swing and a miss. This point was specifically about the bullpen, and this organization's propensity for overpaying. Try again.

 

This organization does not have a propensity for overpaying for bullpen arms. Dotel and Linebrink signed during the same general period where guys like Jaime Walker and Scott Schoenweis got paid out the ass to be specialists. Their deals were either market value - i.e. someone else would have offered that - or slightly above, but not grossly above. And those deals were signed during one abnormal offseason. Go look over Sox bullpens for the last decade and then take a look at how we acquired these players and their contracts. The Sox rely heavily an arb, pre-arb, and cheap reclamation types more than anything else. So you're wrong again.

 

Is committing your entire system and depth to one player a bigger risk? Yes.

 

No it's not a bigger risk than giving out a bad contract. Look at the game of baseball for once, you don't seem to do it often. What teams are in the most trouble, those with weak farm systems or those with tons of dollars invested in bad contracts? Why don't you follow the draft and look at how much money these players sign for. Scott Linebrink makes about $6.5M more over two years than he should, and in terms of bad contracts, Linebrink isn't even a pimple on the ass of Vernon Wells or Barry Zito or Alfonso Soriano. It is ****ENTIRELY COMMON****** for an organization to spend less money combined over 50 rounds of one year's Rule-4 draft than what Linebrink is being overpaid by during a two-year span. The difference between a middle-of-the-pack farm system and a bottom-feeding farm system can easily be less than $5M worth of investments. Start paying attention, please.

 

Bulls***. Pitching doesn't grow on trees.

 

Ignorance again from you. No surprise. Familiarize youself with Baltimore's farm system, then realize that is only one team. Then move on to Tampa Bay. Then move on, and on, and on, and you'll realize that pitching prospects with ceilings of a #2-#3 are quite prevalent.

 

Catchers at his level don't come around very often.

 

Start looking at prospects of other teams. Keith Law is a fan and still ranks him 4th. Highly-touted catching prospects are always around, they just usually don't develop.

 

Again, I had you on ignore before and I'm doing it again. Respond if you like, I'm done talking with you.

Edited November 12, 2009 by Kenny Hates Prospects

[qwerty]

Interesting stuff.

Qwerty, I saw the comments about how protection theory has largely been debunked, but how much of the WAR is related to his OBP? I understand the value of Gonzalez being a .400 OBP guy versus a .360 OBP guy, but I am happy as a pig in slop if his HR numbers increase because of the park factors. If Gonzalez hits 48 homers for us because of US Cellular instead of the 40 he hit with the Padres, won't that more than make up for the reduction in walks he's taking because he isn't so easy to pitch around?

 

Great reads on WAR and how it is calculated (simple man terms).

 

WAR for hitters.

 

WAR for pitchers.

 

The primary source of the batting inputs into WAR is wOBA, a stat that was explained wonderfully by Poseidon's Fist in Counting Rocks and in considerably more detail here and by Cameron. At its heart, wOBA is a linear weight formula converted to a rate statistic that is scaled to OBP (meaning that league-average wOBA = league-average OBP) that emphasizes OBP above slugging percentage. What a linear weight formula does is to properly value the different successful outcomes (HR, 3B, 2B, etc.) relative to each other. For instance, wOBA values a HR as slightly two times more valuable than a single.

 

Note: .333 is about the league average. A wOBA below .300 is a very poor hitter, between .300 and .333 is below average, between .333 and .370 is above average, between .370 and .400 is a very good All-star caliber player, and above .400 is a superstar.

 

WAR doesn't use wOBA directly in its calculations, but rather weighted runs above average (wRAA) To get the amount of wRAA produced by a player, you simply have to subtract the league-average wOBA number from the player's wOBA and divide that number by 1.15 and multiple the result by the number of a player's plate appearances.

 

Here's a sample calculation of wRAA for Matt Holliday, using 2008 numbers (MLB-average wOBA = .333):

 

(.418 - .333) = .087 / 1.15 = .0739 x 623 PA = 46.05 wRAA

 

It's a simple calculation that shows that Matt Holliday was worth about 46 runs more to the Rockies than an average player.

 

However, the problem with wOBA and wRAA is that it fails to adjust for park effects. MLB players do not play in neutral parks, therefore their rate stats must be adjusted accordingly. Therefore, to complete the WAR batting component, a player's wRAA value is adjusted with his home park's environment factor using the Odds Ratio Method, which is really complicated. The basic thing you need to know for that is that numbers (and runs) produced in a friendly hitter's environment are less valuable than those produced in a friendly pitcher's environment.

 

For instance, Holliday's Coors-inflated wRAA (and yes, with Coors' 2008 park factor of 1.126 it was inflated) was less impressive than if he had produced that line at Petco Park. This adjustment is one of the few limitations of WAR though--in that his value is not similarly calculated for the numbers Holliday produced on the road (with many different park factors involved). Actually, I'm sure that someone has crunched the numbers by individual park, but I don't have access to that data or the time to calculate it myself.

 

The main takeaway of this component is that a major part of a player's batting value is derived from his OBP, with a smaller emphasis upon his slugging percentage.

 

Value of obp in comparison to slugging... and it's not what many are led to believe.

 

 

Yea I figured the crappy team would inflate his OBP/BB rate, but good find A.J. I would still take a .360 OBP Gonzo if it means his OPS (and OPS+) will rise here, not to mention getting a Nick Johnson to help balance out the lineup with his discipline.

 

For whatever reason i feel the need to mention ops+ is a biased statistical tool.

 

 

 

Die OPS+, die. It’s lipstick on a pig. OPS+ is, under the covers, something like 1.25*OBP+SLG. Here is what those Linear Weights give you:

event 1.25*OBP+SLG

1b 0.46

2b 0.81

3b 1.16

hr 1.50

bb 0.26

out (0.28)

 

The gap between 2b and 1b should be .30 runs, not .35. The gap between the 3b and 1b should be .58 runs, not .70 runs. And the HR value should be 1.40 runs, not 1.50. The BB walk should be .16 runs less than the 1B, not .20 runs.

 

As you can see, OPS+ is biased toward power hitters, notably HR, and biased against guys who walk. Any study that uses OPS+ and doesn’t account for this bias is flawed if it is trying to distinguish between power and walks.

 

.......................................

Edited November 13, 2009 by qwerty

[cornball]

Von Hayes, several years ago was a block buster trade. I believe it was 5:1, 5 prospects for Von Hayes. It was unheard of at the time and few players have been moved prior or since for that many prospects. But it could happen.

[qwerty]

Von Hayes, several years ago was a block buster trade. I believe it was 5:1, 5 prospects for Von Hayes. It was unheard of at the time and few players have been moved prior or since for that many prospects. But it could happen.

 

Several years ago? You have a funny definition of the word several.

 

December 9, 1982: Traded by the Cleveland Indians to the Philadelphia Phillies for Jay Baller, Julio Franco, Manny Trillo, George Vukovich and Jerry Willard.

[Chisoxfn]

Several years ago? You have a funny definition of the word several.

 

December 9, 1982: Traded by the Cleveland Indians to the Philadelphia Phillies for Jay Baller, Julio Franco, Manny Trillo, George Vukovich and Jerry Willard.

I'm glad, I was thinking to myself, who the f*** was Von Hayes and how do I not remember this trade. Than it turns out it was made before I was born.

[eickevinmorris]

Well, KHP had to go and get fussy again. For those that said they were enjoying the debate, I'll carry on and address the points KHP brought up.

 

And what if everyone is healthy? And what if one player gets hurt and we can make a move to replace that player? Stop with the what ifs. Your argument has deteriorated but yet you keep on. This is why I'm putting you on ignore from now on.

What if everyone is healthy? I'd say we got lucky. Filling the high minors levels with Brad Eldred types won't give us much wiggle room with injuries. It never helps to have marginally talented guys at the minor league level, or fallback options like Torres and Hudson (and to some extent Hynick) is essential to a championship team.

 

It's not impossible that we have an injury free season, but I certainly wouldn't bet on it.

 

 

Yes, we should look at the odds of prospects reaching their potential. That typically leads to what is called an informed decision.

Well, yes and no. You should look at a prospect's odds not based on random prospects from the same organization, but prospects with similar skilsets. While Flowers MAY be a player with the dreaded "old player skills" tag, I'd bet on him to be a productive major leaguer. He's neither Fields nor Borchard nor Sweeney nor Young -- just his positioning makes a difference. And, in my opinion, we haven't had a position player with his plate discipline in some time. For me, strike zone understanding is the first thing I look at when evaluating a prospect's progression/potential at the minor league level.

Well Buddy Bell knows a s***load more than you about the Sox plans, so stop asking me for these things, go ask him. And who gives a f***? We're talking about him playing for the Padres. What the f*** do you care?

I just wanted to see one scouting report that said Viciedo would stick at third base. Sure, Buddy Bell may tell Chris Rongey that Viciedo is staying there, but all scouts say that would be a colossal mistake. I would assume the Padres would also want to avoid putting a butcher at third base.

 

Your opinion, not the Sox opinion. When the Sox come out and say Viciedo is a lost cause at 3B then you can run your mouth. Until then, you're wasting your time.

Wait -- I'm wasting my time for having an opinion that is not endorsed by Sox management? I don't understand that at all.

 

 

1. No, I said draft AND international signing period. 1-2 good signings interationally in tandem with a strong draft does wonders to resupply the farm.

I don't agree with this. Farm systems take more time, especially if the Sox intend to follow through with their promise to go after more high-ceiling/high-risk players (similar to Mitchell). Those guys take time, and will not develop for 2-4 years.

2. Jesus, use your head please. The point was that the Sox ***DO NOT NEED TO DRAFT A BUNCH OF FUTURE MAJOR LEAGUERS IF THEY TRADE THEM FOR PROVEN PIECES****** because they would still be getting value out of the draft.

You've lost me here, but I will say that I believe it's always in their best interest to draft good talent -- something they've been woeful at in the last decade.

3. I talk about the importance of winning and you respond with depth and insurance comments. Starting players are more important than back-ups. You build a team around starters and you hope you don't need to go out and find replacements, but if that happens, you do it. You don't sacrifice your chances at a proven impact player because you're worried about what would happen if everything went wrong.

For me, depth is essential to winning. Talented teams win, but so do deep teams. The difference between marquee talent and replacement level talent is huge, and sometimes the best teams are those that can best plug injury holes without using below replacement level talent.

This organization does not have a propensity for overpaying for bullpen arms.

Pena, Tony and Linebrink, Scott.

Dotel and Linebrink signed during the same general period where guys like Jaime Walker and Scott Schoenweis got paid out the ass to be specialists. Their deals were either market value - i.e. someone else would have offered that - or slightly above, but not grossly above. And those deals were signed during one abnormal offseason. Go look over Sox bullpens for the last decade and then take a look at how we acquired these players and their contracts. The Sox rely heavily an arb, pre-arb, and cheap reclamation types more than anything else.

I had/have no issue with signing Dotel. I do have issues with tying up that much payroll in two non-starting arms. Linebrink was given far too long a contract AND a no-trade clause. That's indefensible.

 

We traded a left-handed hitting 1B to get Pena. We could have probably held onto Allen and just throw Nuñez in Pena's role -- would he perform worse? I doubt it. The point is, recently (as in the last 2-3 seasons), we have invested far too much money in the bullpen. We need to draft more arms like Nathan Jones and Kyle Bellamy, and while there will be some Drew O'Neills in there, we've go to keep going after guys like them. Cheap, effective bullpens are essential to winning. That sort of strategy, along with our usual waiver-wire creeping will suit us far better than blowing money in free agency.

 

 

 

 

[eickevinmorris]

So you're wrong again.

Is it really about being right or wrong? Can we have a conversation?

 

No it's not a bigger risk than giving out a bad contract. Look at the game of baseball for once, you don't seem to do it often. What teams are in the most trouble, those with weak farm systems or those with tons of dollars invested in bad contracts? Why don't you follow the draft and look at how much money these players sign for. Scott Linebrink makes about $6.5M more over two years than he should, and in terms of bad contracts, Linebrink isn't even a pimple on the ass of Vernon Wells or Barry Zito or Alfonso Soriano.

Scott Linebrink is not a starting pitcher. Scott Linebrink is not an everyday player. Scott Linebrink is a set-up man. Comparing his contract to those of everyday position players and starting pitchers makes little sense.

 

It is ****ENTIRELY COMMON****** for an organization to spend less money combined over 50 rounds of one year's Rule-4 draft than what Linebrink is being overpaid by during a two-year span. The difference between a middle-of-the-pack farm system and a bottom-feeding farm system can easily be less than $5M worth of investments.

So wait: isn't this an argument for Linebrink being overpaid/having a bad contract that he never should have been given? I don't understand what you're going for here.

Start paying attention, please.

Is this at all necessary?

 

 

Ignorance again from you. No surprise. Familiarize youself with Baltimore's farm system, then realize that is only one team. Then move on to Tampa Bay. Then move on, and on, and on, and you'll realize that pitching prospects with ceilings of a #2-#3 are quite prevalent.

Then why don't we have many in our system? Pointing me to two of the most talented and deepest systems doesn't really endear me to your argument. How many #2/#3 guys in the game showed Hudson's command this season? How many did you see with Huddy's movement on their fastball?

 

 

 

Start looking at prospects of other teams. Keith Law is a fan and still ranks him 4th. Highly-touted catching prospects are always around, they just usually don't develop.

Of course -- but I'm arguing that Flowers is developed, and will produce.

 

Again, I had you on ignore before and I'm doing it again. Respond if you like, I'm done talking with you.

Well, if you want to have a civil conversation, I'm here.

[southsider2k5]

The personal crap stops now. Ok?

[eickevinmorris]

The personal crap stops now. Ok?

Understood. I'm doing my best to be civil.

 

[witesoxfan]

Right, these have all occurred when? In the last how many years?

Now start naming all those that it happened before.

So when I say, how many times has this happened in the HISTORY of baseball, am I really asking how many times it has happened in the last 150 or so years, or practically, am I asking how many times has it happened in the last 10 years?

 

Since it wasn't brought up, I would say much of the huge blockbuster trades that seem to happen atleast once or twice a year are because of increased salaries. Impending free agents who are going to be tough to resign have less value to teams that 3-4 prospects, whereas just 10 years ago the Astros sent Carlos Guillen, Freddy Garcia and John Halama for half of a season of Randy Johnson simply to be a rent a pitcher. Sabathia was the exact same scenario, but I seem to remember the only real big prospect that the Brewers gave up was LaPorta, and they didn't really have anywhere to play him anyways.

 

The best two comparisons I could probably make off the top of my head in regards to value for Gonzalez would be Cabrera from Florida to Detroit and Griffey from Seattle to Cincinnati. Griffey had in fact just come off winning an MVP and putting up a .960 OPS as a CFer, and the two previous years he hit 56 homers in each. I don't know how they were rated, but I know that Cameron was a good prospect and Brett Tomko was a good prospect at one point in time too. I don't know about Jake Meyer (who was originally drafted by the Sox) or Antonio Perez, but they couldn't have been bad. I seem to remember Griffey sort of forcing the trade to Cinci, so that example may not work perfectly.

 

Either way, I think the cost of players has a huge effect on why more players have been dealt recently.

[kitekrazy]

None of these guys are sure-fire bets, and when a team like the Padres makes a bat like Gonzalez available - which is something that almost NEVER happens with a large or even mid-market team - then we should view it as a blessing from the baseball gods and do whatever we can to trade unproven players for him.

 

Then again I wonder why the Padres would give up someone like that.

 

[Kenny Hates Prospects]

Since it wasn't brought up, I would say much of the huge blockbuster trades that seem to happen atleast once or twice a year are because of increased salaries. Impending free agents who are going to be tough to resign have less value to teams that 3-4 prospects, whereas just 10 years ago the Astros sent Carlos Guillen, Freddy Garcia and John Halama for half of a season of Randy Johnson simply to be a rent a pitcher. Sabathia was the exact same scenario, but I seem to remember the only real big prospect that the Brewers gave up was LaPorta, and they didn't really have anywhere to play him anyways.

 

The best two comparisons I could probably make off the top of my head in regards to value for Gonzalez would be Cabrera from Florida to Detroit and Griffey from Seattle to Cincinnati. Griffey had in fact just come off winning an MVP and putting up a .960 OPS as a CFer, and the two previous years he hit 56 homers in each. I don't know how they were rated, but I know that Cameron was a good prospect and Brett Tomko was a good prospect at one point in time too. I don't know about Jake Meyer (who was originally drafted by the Sox) or Antonio Perez, but they couldn't have been bad. I seem to remember Griffey sort of forcing the trade to Cinci, so that example may not work perfectly.

 

Either way, I think the cost of players has a huge effect on why more players have been dealt recently.

IMO the Haren deal is the best comparison because it was recent and involved a star player on a dirt-cheap contract with multiple years remaining going by himself from a rebuilding small market team to a contending one.

 

The Griffey deal, you're right, was pretty much forced by Griffey, so Seattle lost a lot of leverage there. The Padres still have leverage now because they have until midseason 2011 to trade him if they really felt like waiting that long.

 

The Miguel Cabrera deal is close, but there was also the Dontrelle Willis factor, who the Sox (at least) didn't want in the deal. The Marlins wanted to unload that contract as a condition of the deal, but the Padres won't be in any such situation.

[Quin]

Then again I wonder why the Padres would give up someone like that.

 

Fill a ton of holes with their biggest chip. They could fill possibly five holes in their big league club.

[iamshack]

I'm glad, I was thinking to myself, who the f*** was Von Hayes and how do I not remember this trade. Than it turns out it was made before I was born.

I remember Von Hayes playing for the Phillies in the postseason the year the White Sox lost to Baltimore in the AL League Championship series. He had some decent years in the mid-eighties, but never really turned into the player many thought he would be.

[Kenny Hates Prospects]

Then again I wonder why the Padres would give up someone like that.

Because apparently the new owner still has a big mess to clean up. I believe they still have big payments due for the ballpark, plus issues with fans not showing up, and there may be lingering issues from the divorce the previous owner went through which forced the sale of the team. Ownership has given the $40M payroll figure for the future, so it makes the most sense to acquire as many prospects as possible and try to build a contender by 2012, which is probably the soonest they'll be able to compete. Gonzalez is a FA after 2011, and clearly he doesn't fit given what he'd bring in cash on the open market. It makes sense to trade him now because they'll be able to get more, plus they'll be able to let the players they get back develop alongside the current new core they already have in place.

[iamshack]

Since it wasn't brought up, I would say much of the huge blockbuster trades that seem to happen atleast once or twice a year are because of increased salaries. Impending free agents who are going to be tough to resign have less value to teams that 3-4 prospects, whereas just 10 years ago the Astros sent Carlos Guillen, Freddy Garcia and John Halama for half of a season of Randy Johnson simply to be a rent a pitcher. Sabathia was the exact same scenario, but I seem to remember the only real big prospect that the Brewers gave up was LaPorta, and they didn't really have anywhere to play him anyways.

 

The best two comparisons I could probably make off the top of my head in regards to value for Gonzalez would be Cabrera from Florida to Detroit and Griffey from Seattle to Cincinnati. Griffey had in fact just come off winning an MVP and putting up a .960 OPS as a CFer, and the two previous years he hit 56 homers in each. I don't know how they were rated, but I know that Cameron was a good prospect and Brett Tomko was a good prospect at one point in time too. I don't know about Jake Meyer (who was originally drafted by the Sox) or Antonio Perez, but they couldn't have been bad. I seem to remember Griffey sort of forcing the trade to Cinci, so that example may not work perfectly.

 

Either way, I think the cost of players has a huge effect on why more players have been dealt recently.

 

This is exactly the point I'm making. So to ask how many of these 7-1 trades have there been in the history of the game is to actually ask, how many have there been in the last 10 years. That's all I'm saying.

 

Even still, you'd be hard-pressed to find a guy who has proven what AGon has proven in the major leagues to be on the block at his relative cost in terms of dollars. The MCab trade is actually not even close, as I have mentioned previously.

Edited November 13, 2009 by iamshack

[iamshack]

Because apparently the new owner still has a big mess to clean up. I believe they still have big payments due for the ballpark, plus issues with fans not showing up, and there may be lingering issues from the divorce the previous owner went through which forced the sale of the team. Ownership has given the $40M payroll figure for the future, so it makes the most sense to acquire as many prospects as possible and try to build a contender by 2012, which is probably the soonest they'll be able to compete. Gonzalez is a FA after 2011, and clearly he doesn't fit given what he'd bring in cash on the open market. It makes sense to trade him now because they'll be able to get more, plus they'll be able to let the players they get back develop alongside the current new core they already have in place.

I believe they pay $18 million a year on their ballpark.

[Kenny Hates Prospects]

This is exactly the point I'm making. So to ask how many of these 7-1 trades have their been in the history of the game is to actually ask, how many have there been in the last 10 years. That's all I'm saying.

 

Even still, you'd be hard-pressed to find a guy who has proven what AGon has proven in the major leagues to be on the block at his relative cost in terms of dollars. The MCab trade is actually not even close, as I have mentioned previously.

Look, I think I'm the one that started the 7-for-1 talk. That doesn't really matter to me. There's not player on the farm I'd hold back if we were going to get Adrian Gonzalez for 2 years at about $10M combined in return. If we could do 4-5 players, even better. Whatever players that the Padres thought were our 6th and 7th best players probably aren't so awesome that it would be worth going nuts over if we're getting that kind of return.

 

The two best recent examples IMO would be the Haren deal (2 years remaining IIRC and cheap) and the Bedard deal (2 years remaining and cheap). The Haren deal was 6-for-2 and the Bedard deal was 5-for-1.

[iamshack]

Look, I think I'm the one that started the 7-for-1 talk. That doesn't really matter to me. There's not player on the farm I'd hold back if we were going to get Adrian Gonzalez for 2 years at about $10M combined in return. If we could do 4-5 players, even better. Whatever players that the Padres thought were our 6th and 7th best players probably aren't so awesome that it would be worth going nuts over if we're getting that kind of return.

 

The two best recent examples IMO would be the Haren deal (2 years remaining IIRC and cheap) and the Bedard deal (2 years remaining and cheap). The Haren deal was 6-for-2 and the Bedard deal was 5-for-1.

Yeah, I think the Haren deal is as close as you can get.

[SoxAce]

Yeah, I think the Haren deal is as close as you can get.

 

And he's a pitcher of course.. albeit.. a damn good one. Though usually those type of deals revolves more so on pitching a good ace mostly as pitchers are harder to come by, which is why I still commend KW on getting Peavy. Same as the Mets and Minaya basically robbing the Twins on netting Santana.

Edited November 13, 2009 by SoxAce