FORTY. MILLION. DOLLARS. (Give or take 35.)

Get ready for all non yankees fans to go nuts as the Twins trade Santana for Ian Kennedy, Wilson Betamit and Melky Cabrera.

I don't see how Loretta would be an upgrade over Betemit.

If Cano is traded...I don't know what I'm going to do...

Barry, exactly what I was thinking (unless Betemit is part of the Santana trade, in which case, fine).

I wrote this someplace else, and I write it again: I don't understand why the Yankees are not commoditizing Igawa, be it to the Twins, to get pieces that the Twins want or to get middle relief help.

Suddenly first base looks pretty crowded.

Suddenly?

First base looks pretty crowded when Giambi's there all by his lonesome.

Given there are about 150 permutations that could emerge from this, I'm not even going to try to speculate. And of course, that's assuming it actually happens, which isn't carved in stone either.

Genius intro Repoz.

Makes me miss Maxwell's circa Pier Platters still on Newark Street. Saw their first show there, after Perfect Sound Forever but before Slanted & Enchanted was out. For weeks after I wore out my vinyl Summer Babe single. Good times

Makes me miss Maxwell's circa Pier Platters still on Newark Street

Cripes...I lived at Pier Platters. Owner Bill Ryan and I used to be drinking pardners and pour over stinkified tapes of bands that wanted to play Maxwells.

CD's, The pathetic Sam Goody across the street and the ridiculi yuppie explo of Nirvanabees crashing the store killed it off.

there are about 150 permutations that could emerge from this

Exactly. But assuming that this is not a harbinger of something major, what's so bad about getting a righthanded hitting backup infielder, give that Betemit should never be allowed to enter the righty batter's box again, except as a baserunner on his way to touch the plate? Do we really think it's important to save PAs for Andy Phillips? Are we salivating at the prospect of Shelley Duncan as the every day 1B?

Are we salivating at the prospect of Shelley Duncan as the every day 1B?

Compared to Mark Loretta at 1B? Forgive me, but I'm drooling.

from now on I can see the sun
makes me nervous, makes me run

Somehow those lyrics fit my feelings right now. Jesus, dear God that I don't really believe in, please tell me that Cano is not going any where!

Could the logic be:
1)A Loretta-Betemit platoon at 2nd would have a ~800 OPS
2)Which is not that much of a downgrade from Cano
3)So if you trade Cano for Santana, you end up with a substantial short-term upgrade...

Cano is my favorite bisexual Yankee (sorry, Alex!), and I think it'd be a stupid move, but they'd improve in 2008...

Maybe it's just a ruse to get the Red Sox to offer something expensive and rash: "OMG Cano is in play! Someone put Ortiz in a box and ship him to Mpls!!!111!one!!"

Well, I've read optimistic (Yanks fan) theories that this signing would be a contingency plan for Wilson Betemit's inclusion in the deal. Loretta would take over his super-sub role.

or it could all be a realization that you need 2 reserves who can play the infield, and andy phillips and shelley duncan can't handle anything better than first for an extended period....a bench of molina, betemit, loretta, duncan, and somesort of speedy, defense first OF (gardner comes to mind as an in-house candidate here) would be better than they've started the season off with in a while....the only monkey-wrench is that I can see them doing something silly like signed mientkiewicz again as the everyday 1B...meaning one of the OFers gets replace by whoever isn't playing that day in the OF/1B/DH mix...which wouldn't be terrible, aside from the thought of 400-500 PAs fro doug.

i didn't know betemit's splits were that bad.

but didn't you know? everyone on earth has the exact same split ratio of 1.14.

That's if they are lefty. righties are 1.06 or something.

don't know about switch hitters, so i don't know betemit's exact "true" split ratio.

I think Cano for Santana is okay as long as it keeps Hughes and Joba out of the deal.

Cano/Cabrera/Jackson for Santana I can live with.

i didn't know betemit's splits were that bad.

but didn't you know? everyone on earth has the exact same split ratio of 1.14.

He is a switch hitter, so those platoon ratios don't apply.

Compared to Mark Loretta at 1B? Forgive me, but I'm drooling.

I don't recall saying anything about Loretta being the regular 1B either. Assuming that the Yankees will carry twelve pitchers:

Abreu
Cabrera
Cano
Damon
Jeter
Matsui
Posada
Rodriguez

Betemit
Duncan
Giambi
Loretta
Molina

Is this really so terrible? Is keeping Phillips or re-signing Mientkiewicz better? Is it so god-awful important to have a 5th OF if you can throw Duncan out there for a game or two in a pinch and bring up Brett Gardner if somebody gets hurt?

Or what catomi said.

I think Cano for Santana is okay as long as it keeps Hughes and Joba out of the deal.

Cano/Cabrera/Jackson for Santana I can live with.

Seriously? You'd would really rather see Cano traded than Hughes or Joba? Are you a Yankee fan?

I think Cano for Santana is okay as long as it keeps Hughes and Joba out of the deal.

Given that the Twins just traded away Garza, aren't they going to have to get back a starting pitcher if they trade Santana?

I don't understand why the Yankees are not commoditizing Igawa, be it to the Twins, to get pieces that the Twins want or to get middle relief help.

If you don't think Kei Igawa can provide you middle relief help himself, why do you think any other team would be willing to trade you a better pitcher for him?

He is a switch hitter

In name only. He'd be almost 100 OPS points better against lefties if he just batted from the left side all the time and could manage that typical 1.14 split.

Cripes...I lived at Pier Platters.

Man, I loved Pier Platters. One year I was alone for my birthday, so I spent the afternoon there and picked out whatever I wanted for myself.

Plus, it was the only place I've ever been to that carried the Boss Hog album with Cristina naked on the sleeve.

Cano/Cabrera/Jackson for Santana I can live with.

Cano for Santana straight up I could live with. Cano plus anything else worth a damn is way too much.

Girardi and Loretta add much beloved Purple to the hated Yankees. I am getting all sorts of dissonance on this one.

This is a massive upgrade for the Miguel Cairo Memorial Roster Spot.

Seriously? You'd would really rather see Cano traded than Hughes or Joba? Are you a Yankee fan?

Yes, because I think that you have to add less to Cano. He fits the Twins need perfectly.

I think the alternative to Cano/Cabrera/Jackson is probably Hughes/Kennedy/Cabrera/Jackson or Tabata.

I also think Cano's offense is much more replaceable. Offense can be bought on the FA market (Andruw Jones maybe?).

SP is impossible to find.

Insert everything Sam M said about trading Jose Reyes for Johan Santana here, but make corresponding changes such as SS is now 2B and so on.

You Yankees fans on board for this, losing Cano and either one of the big 2 but getting Santana in return?

Categorically No. I'd trade either Cano or Hughes, plus 2 of Melky/Jackson/Tabata/Kennedy, but only 1 SP total (so no Hughes and Kennedy in the same package).

That's way better than any other offer out there.

I also think Cano's offense is much more replaceable.

I didn't realize Chase Utley was on the market.

A Marcel for Mientkiewicz would come out to about .265/.340/.415, which is essentially average (using linear weights, I get exactly 0 RAA). Subtract one win for a positional adjustment, add one win for his defense...he's back to average. In fact, I think MGL has said Mientkiewicz rates as a little above average and deserves $5 million and a starting job. I'd gladly bring him back on another 1/1.5 deal. I'd definitely prefer him to Loretta.

I also think Cano's offense is much more replaceable.

I didn't realize Chase Utley was on the market.

Not at 2B, but by upgrading elsewhere, i.e. CF or 1B. If you trade both Hughes and Kennedy you're looking at paying Carlos Silva 50M/4, and that's just scary.

No, I would not give up a major-league pitcher AND an All-Star, young position player for the right to massively overpay Santana. And I think Santana's great, but I think that's too high a price to pay.

You Yankees fans on board for this, losing Cano and either one of the big 2 but getting Santana in return?

Pass. How about you Red Sox fans: losing Pedroia and Buchholz but getting Santana back?

If you trade both Hughes and Kennedy you're looking at paying Carlos Silva 50M/4, and that's just scary.

It almost makes Pavano's deal worthy. Almost.

I think the alternative to Cano/Cabrera/Jackson is probably Hughes/Kennedy/Cabrera/Jackson or Tabata.

I don't like either of those deals for the Yankees, but I would much rather it be Hughes/Cabrera/Jackson than Cano/Cabrera/Jackson.

I also think Cano's offense is much more replaceable. Offense can be bought on the FA market (Andruw Jones maybe?).

Umm, Andruw plays 2B? Most 2b are basically terrible hitters. Losing Cano means the Yankees would have a hole in the lineup. The upgrade on offense that Jones may be over the Yankees' current OFer's would be totally negated and then some by the downgrade from Cano to whoever replaces him.

You Yankees fans on board for this, losing Cano and either one of the big 2 but getting Santana in return?

I think that would be a poor deal on the Yankees part. Over the course of a season Cano contributes almost as much as Santana, IIRC. Then, you're adding a prospect who could flame out (Yankees win), but also could be average (Yankees lose)or something more (Yankees lose by a wider margin)

I don't get it - why does this mean the Yankees are going to part with Cano? My guess is Loretta's going to be thrown into the mix with Betemit and Shelley for 1b and to backup at 2nd and 3rd (not sure if he can play SS). Assuming its a short deal and not too much money, why not?

Umm, Andruw plays 2B? Most 2b are basically terrible hitters. Losing Cano means the Yankees would have a hole in the lineup. The upgrade on offense that Jones may be over the Yankees' current OFer's would be totally negated and then some by the downgrade from Cano to whoever replaces him.

Umm, No. Mark Loretta put up a 90 OPS+ last year, can probably get that to 100 by platooning w/Betemit see above. Jones expected is probably 115-120, assuminglast year was a fluke (I think so). Cano was at 120, Melky at 90.

It's pretty close, and Johan is a huge upgrade over Kennedy.

So, Cano/Melky/Kennedy for Santana, if you upgrade CF to the 110 OPS+ range, and get a 95 OPS+ at 2B makes the Yankees MUCH better.

Assuming $ don't matter.

My guess is Loretta's going to be thrown into the mix with Betemit and Shelley for 1b and to backup at 2nd and 3rd (not sure if he can play SS).

Yeah, I assumed he was taking the Cairo role, which, IMO, is an upgrade. Cano isn't going anywhere.

Not at 2B, but by upgrading elsewhere, i.e. CF or 1B. If you trade both Hughes and Kennedy you're looking at paying Carlos Silva 50M/4, and that's just scary.

Cano is the 2nd best 2nd baseman in baseball, and it's not just his bat at an up the middle defensive position that makes him special but his defense as well. You simply can't replace him right now unless the Phillies lose their mind (Brian Roberts is right behind him, but is substantially older and Cano has way more upside). I'd much rather have Cano and Silva then Hughes and Kennedy.

Umm, No. Mark Loretta put up a 90 OPS+ last year, can probably get that to 100 by platooning w/Betemit see above. Jones expected is probably 115-120, assuminglast year was a fluke (I think so). Cano was at 120, Melky at 90.

It's pretty close, and Johan is a huge upgrade over Kennedy.

So, Cano/Melky/Kennedy for Santana, if you upgrade CF to the 110 OPS+ range, and get a 95 OPS+ at 2B makes the Yankees MUCH better.

Assuming $ don't matter.

Can Betemit play 2B? Even if he can, how does the combo of his defense and Loretta's compare to Cano's? Also, even if everything you said comes to pass and the Yankees are even on offense and get the upgrade of having Santana, that makes them better for '08. What about '09, '10, '11, etc. Loretta will be 36 next year(I wouldn't be surprised if he failed to match even the 89 OPS+ he put up last year), Cano will be 25...

As an aside, does San Diego have any relievers or useful parts they're willing to deal?

But, OTOH, I wasn't thrilled with the Beckett for Hanley/Sanchez deal at the time it was made either and that one seems to have turned out OK.

One deal involves entirely unproven talent and the other involves talent with ML-verfied reason for hope.

First, kevin, there's no way the Yankees would trade Cano and either Hughes or Joba. No way. Would the Sox trade Pedroia and Buchholz for Santana? Too much.

Second, I'm not sure I even like Cano + Kennedy for Santana. Cano is extremely valuable: cost-controlled plus glove at 2B that hits better than the Yankees corner OF. Trade him, and you need to get a superior glove at 2B AND you need to find replacement offense, because there are no good-glove 2B available who hit like Cano.

I don't mind losing Hughes + Kennedy for Santana, because: a. Santana alone will pitch two-thirds of the innings they would have in 2008; and b. Unlike Cano, Kennedy's probable production can be replaced on the FA market, by signing a Carlos Silva or a Job Lieber. Paying a 4th starter $12M a year or whatever is a hit the Yankees can withstand more easily than giving up one of the two best 2B in the league.

As for other possible trading chips, Igawa is not one. As Kiko pointed out, the Yankees have a dire need for middle relief and if Igawa has any value that's where he'll go first. And any deal that include Melky, Tabata and Jackson seems dubious because it means the Yankees would be cleaning out their system in one fell swoop.

I've said before that any trade to get Santana will exact some pain on the team getting him, but the Yankees shouldn't do any deal that involves enough pain to stun an elephant.

does San Diego have any relievers or useful parts they're willing to deal?

I wouldn't want to get a reliever from the Padres. It would pretty much be a textbook case of buying high. I have no idea what they're going to do with that bullpen.

I wasn't thrilled with the Beckett for Hanley/Sanchez deal at the time it was made either and that one seems to have turned out OK.

The problem is the inherent volatility of pitching, even really good pitching. The Beckett trade looked like a disaster in 2006, but in 2007 Beckett's a god and Lowell is a WS MVP. Meanwhile, Hanley's a major league hitter who needs a new position, and Sanchez is just another injured pitching porspect. Who knows what it looks like next year or three years from now?

But if there was one position where you might seriously consider trading your budding or established star for pitching, wouldn't it have to be 2B, given that even really good players there don't generally have the longest shelf lives?

Yankees are not commoditizing Igawa

Because he sucks an noone wants him. Using big words doesn't make him suck anyless.

Hanley's a major league hitter who needs a new position

That someone ovrstates what it means to be a major league hitter. He's a great major league hitter, and offensive player, regardless of position.

Hmm, I need to be quicker with my posts.

IE, it's true that 2B tend to burn out more quickly, but Cano is only 25. You have to bet he's got 5 or 6 good years at 2B left. Meanwhile, Santana is likely only going to be SANTANA for, at the most, 5 or 6 more years, although probably less. Which means you're trading the good seasons of Cano, who adds as much or more value each year than Santana, for the good seasons of Santana and some of Santana's decline years. Santana is a singular talent but so is Cano. Not worth it.

Well, but let's look beyond the fear factor and focus on the reliability of MLE's then.

Both Ramirez and Sanchez were A to A- type prospects, roughly in the neighborhood of Hughes and Cano (I think Hanley was much more highly rated as a minor leaguer than Cano was so that balances the difference between Hughes and Sanchez).

All I'm saying is that a trade like that can really work, even if it's hard to forsee it at the time, the way I didn't forsee getting Beckett for all that young talent working. And Beckett was nearly as accomplished at the time as Santana is now, despite the WS 2003 performance.

I'm not sure what you're saying here. Isn't the relevant issue what they're worth at the time of trade, or potential trade? Robinson Cano, now, is far more valuable than Ramirez was then. Ramirez was an elite prospect whose star was dimming a bit, Cano is a star player. Hughes is/was also worth more than Sanchez.

EDIT: Granted Beckett v. Santana makes it more reasonable, so maybe that's what you're referring to.

But if there was one position where you might seriously consider trading your budding or established star for pitching, wouldn't it have to be 2B, given that even really good players there don't generally have the longest shelf lives?

Cano is 25 next year. I'm not worried now if he's more likely to fall off a cliff at 32. He's also one of only two or three bonafide stars (Kendrick might make it four sometime soon) at 2nd base. He is the only combination of good hitting and defense on the team. He's the only young player in the infield. He's taken a role of leadership on the team and he, along with Melky, has loosened up the dugout, which I think is pretty important. He, not A-rod or Jeter is the future of this franchise for the the next decade. Trading him for anything would be a disaster for this team because of his value on the field and the value his youth, energy and leadership bring to a team of over 30 veterans.

If you're the Yanks, don't you have to consider "overpaying" to stop him from going to Boston, because if he does, then your chance of winning the WS next year is very low (and god forbid he signs an extension there). With him and Beckett, and the new playoff format, they would pretty much steamroll thru teams in the playoffs.

If you're the Yanks, don't you have to consider "overpaying" to stop him from going to Boston, because if he does, then your chance of winning the WS next year is very low (and god forbid he signs an extension there). With him and Beckett, and the new playoff format, they would pretty much steamroll thru teams in the playoffs.

And that's where Hughes, Chamberlain, and Kennedy come in!!! Don't forget, Horne is coming soon and Brackman and Betances in a couple years!!!

But not if you believe in MLE's, NJASDJDH. Or scouting evaluations. If the scouts were right, then Hanley had mnore value than Cano.

This is true, but it doesn't change the fact that the Marlins were taking the risk that the scouts (and MLEs, and whatever) else weren't right, and that Hanley would be nothing special.

Whereas Cano is right this instant an All-Star caliber player and has been for two full seasons. That's a huge difference.

But not if you believe in MLE's, NJASDJDH. Or scouting evaluations. If the scouts were right, then Hanley had mnore value than Cano. It's a perception thing. You are at once reluctant to trust in the evaluation that was made on Hanley and Sanchez at the time then while at the same time balking at a similar type trade, because you are trusting in the MLE you see in Hughes (or Chamberlain).

Right? Or am I missing something?

My view is taking into account both MLEs and scouting evaluations. At the time of the trade, I can't imagine Hanley's MLEs were any good and I know the scouting evals were down on him from previous years. Taking into account MLEs at the time as well as scouting evaluations at the time, I also don't see any way Sanchez was/is ahead or even tied with Hughes. So...one of us is missing something somewhere...I think.

If you're the Yanks, don't you have to consider "overpaying" to stop him from going to Boston, because if he does, then your chance of winning the WS next year is very low (and god forbid he signs an extension there). With him and Beckett, and the new playoff format, they would pretty much steamroll thru teams in the playoffs.

No. The best team in the regular season rarely wins the tournament, and while the addition of Santana may make the Sox the best team in the regular season, it hardly writes off the Yanks' chances in the postseason in the near term.

Thanks, kevin. I'm tired all the time but I'm totally besotted with my baby daughter.

Skinner, you have a point and I know from yesterday's "Must Stop the Sox" thread that some Yankees fans here agree. A starter like Santana becomes more valuable than most position players in the postseason, and a team will have to overpay to trade for him. But there's overpaying and then there's overpaying.

I'm not putting forth ridiculous fanboy ideas like suggesting Kennedy + Tabata for Santana. But Cano is untouchable, and trading him provides as much of a disadvantage versus the Red Sox as gaining Santana. You can argue that Melky is not worth that much, and so a package of, say, Hughes + Kennedy + Melky + Tabata would not be enough. Fair enough, if you think Melky is just going to be a good 4th OF (I happen to think he'll be worth more), or if you think the Twins need two MLB-ready position players instead of two pitchers. I can accept the idea that the Yankees' trading chips don't fit the Twins' needs. But if the Yankees have to cripple themselves to stop Santana from going to the Red Sox, it's not worth it.

Well, their rookie years went awfully similarly, even down to the no-hitter thing. Sanchez just got hurt. The same could happen to Hughes. It happens quite a bit with young power pitchers.

You're not talking about post-rookie year for Sanchez though. You're looking at the time when he was one of the top 30 or so prospects in baseball. Right now, Hughes is coming off of being, at worst, tied for the top pitching prospect in baseball spot, and having a rookie season that was hampered by a hamstring strain, but also featured a near no-no and a memorable postseason relief outing. I just don't think it's reasonable to say their value is the same at the relevant time periods.

That someone ovrstates what it means to be a major league hitter. He's a great major league hitter, and offensive player, regardless of position.

Wasn't trying to minimize his bat. Should have thrown in an adjective or three.

IE, couldn't the same thing happen with Cano and Hughes? Cano getting fat and Hughes hurting his arm? Wouldn't ou like the security f having a CY-type starter in there every 5 days?

That was my point exactly. And of course, Santana could just as easily be the one who gets hurt next year or the year after. Just as Sanchez could bounce back and Beckett could get hurt.

you're trading the good seasons of Cano, who adds as much or more value each year than Santana, for the good seasons of Santana and some of Santana's decline years. Santana is a singular talent but so is Cano. Not worth it.

I was just making a general observation about 2B, and throwing the question out there. I said I could live with Cano for Santana straight up. I didn't say it was a clear win for the Yankees. IOW, I'm not trying to sell Cano short. Anyway, it's almost certainly moot, because even if the Yanks might offer Cano, the Twins won't trade Santana for anyone straight up.

Right? Or am I missing something?

You're missing that Cano is an established major league all-star, not a guy who might be an all-star some day based on his MLEs.

No. The best team in the regular season rarely wins the tournament, and while the addition of Santana may make the Sox the best team in the regular season, it hardly writes off the Yanks' chances in the postseason in the near term.

You're right that the Yanks would still have a chance, but any team facing Beckett and Santana 4 times in the playoffs is going to be at a significant disadvantage. The Yanks (really, any other team) wouldn't have anything approaching that. The new playoff format would seem to favor those teams with the best top 2 pitchers.

Re: 70

I refer you to post 62.

One that perplexes me is how a skinny White guy liek Mark Loretta can get out-run by David Ortiz.

Re: Post #70. Yes! Of course, you can't give away other postseason starts, so I'd say that for teams that have enough value coming from offense/defense/bullpen, which includes the Red Sox, Yankees and Angels (who could use another slugger but had the 7th best offense in the AL in 2007), you don't need 5-man depth in a rotation. Having the best #5 starter isn't worth it, and you really need 3 big guns and then a load of innings-eaters.

And both the Yankees and Red Sox know that, and so know that Santana has disproportionate value in the postseason. Meanwhile, if the Twins are looking for MLB-experienced pitchers, the Angels have the most trading chips, and a 1-2-3 of Santana-Lackey-Escobar/Weaver would be pretty awesome. It'll be interesting to see how this works out.

You're right that the Yanks would still have a chance, but any team facing Beckett and Santana 4 times in the playoffs is going to be at a significant disadvantage. The Yanks (really, any other team) wouldn't have anything approaching that. The new playoff format would seem to favor those teams with the best top 2 pitchers.


So every team in baseball should do what it can to prevent too many dominant pitchers from congregating in the same place. And that doesn't change, whether that place be Boston, Anaheim, or even NYC.

If the Red Sox FO thought that the acquisition of Santana would lead to an unprecedented string of championships, they'd have done it already.

Re: 70

I refer you to post 62.

From your hyperbolic tone, I thought you were being sarcastic in that post. (Maybe you were?) It would have to be the best case scenario where Hughes/Chamberlain in the near future are as good as Beckett/Santana (unless you expect both to fall apart a bit). I'm not a fan of either the Yanks or Red Sox, but I have to think that the Yanks have much more to lose here if he goes to the Sox then vice versa.

Re: 74 - I agree completely.

Also, Skinner, I agree with you 100% about the spectre of Beckett and Santana in the playoffs. But that's Beckett v.2007, not Beckett in the other half of his Sox career. And that's assuming that both of these guys are healthy come October. Two aces is great, and it can lead to a 2001 Diamonbacks situation, but it can fall apart pretty easily as well.

But again, IE. That's a perception thing. It's easy to predict something that has already happened. the trick is to perceive what is likely to happen in the future and to do that with players, you need to trust in the MLE's. Who's to say Lowrie won't become an AS 3B or 2B? His numbers are as good as Cano's were in the minors

But unless the cost between Cano and Lowrie is the deciding factor--and I can't imagine it would be, since we're exactly talking the difference between A-Rod and Betemit here--why would you ever take Lowrie over Cano?

One could be a great player, one is. This isn't just Cano and Lowrie. To a lesser extent, you could say the same thing about Ellsbury and Austin Jackson.

Angels (who could use another slugger but had the 7th best offense in the AL in 2007)

Weren't they 4th in runs scored?

Re: 75 - What I think is slowing up the dealing for Santana is the fact that he and Cabrera are both on the market at the same time, and the fact that there is the possibility that Bedard and Haren are available as well (and the new GM at Minn likely feeling out the market to determine whether he really wants to deal Santana). It seems unusual that there are this many young excellent players potentially available, and the minority of teams that really are in the market for these guys are all weighing the various scenarios, and the fact that a team like the Angels will only really be in the market for one of the two. I'm sure most think they can get a Haren/Bedard for less than Santana as well.

But again, IE. That's a perception thing. It's easy to predict something that has already happened. the trick is to perceive what is likely to happen in the future and to do that with players, you need to trust in the MLE's. Who's to say Lowrie won't become an AS 3B or 2B? His numbers are as good as Cano's were in the minors.

Well, now I'm confused. I thought we were talking about trading Cano now, not two years ago. The fact that he already is what Lowrie might or might not some day become has a lot of real value. And perception obviously matters a great deal to GMs. First of all, there's the reality that they have to deal with the PR fallout of the moves they make. For Epstein or Cashman, this might be little more than taking crap on talk radio for a couple of weeks, but in many markets, it's about selling tickets, which is a substantially bigger deal.

If the scouting reports projected Lowrie as a better player than Cano, and I looked at the numbers and the numbers didn't overtly disagree, then I would strongly consider taking him over Cano, despite the MLB track record.

Well, we'll just agree to disagree because I think that's madness. At the same age Cano was putting up a .890 OPS season in the Major Leagues, Lowrie was putting up a .896 OPS season split between Double and Triple A. If you'd rather have what Lowrie might be than what Cano is, well, we'll agree to disagree.

BUT LOWRIE IS WHITE!!!

At the same age Cano was putting up a .890 OPS season in the Major Leagues, Lowrie was putting up a .896 OPS season split between Double and Triple A.

Yeah. I think you might be missing the whole same age thing, kevin. Cano isn't just established, he also has to project better going forward. But again, I'm not sure how this morphed into a Lowrie vs Cano debate. In the real world, Cano could headline a trade for any elite player in MLB, and Lowrie would be the second or third guy in the package.

Yes, Iron Chef, the Angels were 4th in runs scored, but the team's OPS+ of 100 ranked seventh. The "true" value of their offense may be somewhere in between, but I was being conservative.

You all don't actually seem to believe in them, when push comes to shove.

I believe in MLEs. But I'm pretty sure they come with bigger error bars than actual MLB performance. So it seems logical to put just a little bit less faith in them. But again, in this specific example, it's not a case of one player's MLE matching the other player's MLB performance. Lowrie's age 23 MLE is clearly not as good as Cano's age 23 MLB line.

kevin, MLEs have value. But MLB numbers have more value, because predictive numbers are not the same as actual performance. Similarly, Pythag record is a nice tool, but the team the W-L record that comes from actually playing the games is what counts.

There are too many times when a prospect peaks in the minors (remember International League Player of the Year Hensley Meulens, anyone?) and for whatever reason just can't hack it in the majors. So MLB numbers should have more weight than MLEs in evaluating a player.

Yes, Iron Chef, the Angels were 4th in runs scored, but the team's OPS+ of 100 ranked seventh. The "true" value of their offense may be somewhere in between, but I was being conservative.

I was actually doing a little research last week. The Angels could easily score a bunch more runs next season. Hunter over GMJ in CF is a big improvement (offensively and defensively), a GMJ/Garret Anderson Platoon in LF instead of Anderson is a huge improvement, there aren't any players that are likely to decline, most of the young players will improve (Kotchman/Mathis/Napoli/Kendrick/Morales)... And they could easily increase their run prodcution by running into a few less outs.

They scored 822 this year. They could easily score 870 runs next year.

Remember, the linchpin of MLEs is that they are as predictive as MLB numbers are, once you make the needed adjustments and interpret them correctly. You all don't actually seem to believe in them, when push comes to shove.

Isn't it a bit disingenuous to make the case for MLE's and laugh at the Yankees' Three Rookie Rotation™? I seem to remember you doing so, but if you didn't, my apologies.

Remember, the linchpin of MLEs is that they are as predictive as MLB numbers are, once you make the needed adjustments and interpret them correctly. You all don't actually seem to believe in them, when push comes to shove.

well neither do you- you are more than willing to take Ellsbury's 120 mlb at bats over his 1000 minor league at bats. I'm sure if Ellsbury had a first 100 mlb at bats like Pedroia you wouldn't be doing that.

You talk about all Sawx prospects the way some Mets fans talk about Carlos Gomez.

Lowrie has 1072 minor league at bats and he's hit .291/.386/.448. He'll be 24 next year.

Cano at age 22 in the majors hit .297/.320/.458, at age 23: .342/.365/.525 and age 24: .306/.353/.488

Cano at age 21 hit .283/.338/.457 in AA/AAA, at 22 he was hitting .333/.368/.574 in AAA when called up. Lowrie at 21 was in the New York Penn League (.328/.429/.448)- actually as a 21 year old former NCAA player he had no business being in the NYPL, as a 22 year old he hit .262/.352/.374 in the Carolina League.

He's certainly behind Cano even if you have 100% faith in MLEs- defensively I've been reading that he won't be able to hold down a middle IF position in the majors- but I'm not going to put too much stock in that because I heard the same thing about Cano- and it wasn't true*.

Actually, based upon his MLEs I'd prefer Lowrie to Stephen Drew...

* I've decided to not take anyone's "word" on prospect defense anymore, so often I've heard that some guy is great defensively- and he's not even mediocre- he's actually bad, or that someone can't play 2B or CF and it turns out they can. I really think that too many scouts look at an 18 year old, look at how a player fields at 18- think about what that player will look like physically in 5 years, then decide he's a good fielder or not- and NEVER revisits and adjusts that thinking. The problem is that a clumsy oaf at 18 may actually figure out how to field, the guy you think will fill out and lose the quickness to play SS- doesn't and vice versa.

Isn't Cano himself an argument on the unreliability of MLEs? Cano was never considered a top prospect. As a minor leaguer he was repeatedly offered to other teams in trade and was passed over. Even here there were a lot of people skeptical of his ability as recently as 1 year ago and yet he is now obviously the second best player at his position.

Isn't Cano himself an argument on the unreliability of MLEs? Cano was never considered a top prospect. As a minor leaguer he was repeatedly offered to other teams in trade and was passed over. Even here there were a lot of people skeptical of his ability as recently as 1 year ago and yet he is now obviously the second best player at his position.

I think Cano is an argument against looking at aggregate minor league performance over performance by level.

Let's say, for example, that Cano hit .285/.354/.480 for the Yankees and Lowrie hit .301/.399/.501 for Pawtucket and when you did the MLE for Lowrie, it came out the same as Cano's MLB performance. Therefore, in predicting future performance, Cano and Lowrie are equivalent players, despite Cano's MLB record, because MLEs are just as predictive, and a trade of one for the other would be equal.

Why should we "let's say" when we know what the players actually did? My disagreement was about the specific comparison, not about the value of MLEs. At age 23, Cano and Lowrie hit almost exactly the same thing; except one did it in MLB and the other split time between AA and AAA.