BBTF's Newsblog Discussion :: Trading Cabrera makes financial sense for Tigers

Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Sunday, November 15, 2009

Trading Cabrera makes financial sense for Tigers

I’ve even got a possible trade in mind — Cabrera for Red Sox closer Jonathan Papelbon, third baseman Mike Lowell and a prospect, either first baseman Lars Anderson or right-hander Stolmy Pimentel.

No word yet on whether the Tigers would also have to include a unicorn whose kisses cure cancer.

Kyle C welcomes back our OBP Savior Posted: November 15, 2009 at 11:36 PM | 67 comment(s)
Related News: Fantasy Baseball, Boston, Detroit

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

Page 1 of 1 pages

1. Teal & Black Posted: November 15, 2009 at 11:35 PM (#3388370)

Stupid stupid stupid; good Fantasy Baseball tag KC.

2. Tripon Posted: November 15, 2009 at 11:38 PM (#3388372)

Doesn't Illitch have enough money to make the Steinbrenners blush? Why are the Tigers suddenly in bankruptcy mode?

3. willcarrollsux Posted: November 15, 2009 at 11:39 PM (#3388373)

Robothal should stick to straight reporting. This whole thinking thing isn't working for him.

Still, how could you blame Detroit for not wanting to get their hands on Stolmy Pimentel? Opportunities like that just don't come up.

4. Russlan wants Pedro to be a Met again Posted: November 15, 2009 at 11:40 PM (#3388375)

Rosenthal is an awful analyst. He is good at what he does best (breaking news) but he's not even worth a read when he tries to break things down.

5. Joshua Gibsons Ruth (Voxter) Posted: November 15, 2009 at 11:44 PM (#3388377)

I assume the Red Sox would only do this trade if they could manage to stifle their laughter until after they hung up the phone.

6. Russlan wants Pedro to be a Met again Posted: November 15, 2009 at 11:48 PM (#3388382)

Of course, there is one major flaw in my argument: If Cabrera is such a problem, if trading him is such a great idea, why would the Red Sox even want him?

My favorite part of the article.

7. Tripon Posted: November 15, 2009 at 11:50 PM (#3388383)

Yes why would the Red Sox want a player like Cabrera at such a signfificant discount in terms of prospects from when he was initially traded in 2007 to two years later in 2009?

8. Dale Sams

Posted: November 15, 2009 at 11:54 PM (#3388384)

Still, how could you blame Detroit for not wanting to get their hands on Stolmy Pimentel

What's a Pimental?

9. Zuvella! Posted: November 15, 2009 at 11:55 PM (#3388386)

I can't believe that suggestion was offered from someone who is not a Sox fanboy.

10. NYCTigersfan

Posted: November 16, 2009 at 12:45 AM (#3388415)

This is insane:

The Tigers are talking about trading two of the game's best people, Granderson and Jackson, in part because their best and highest-paid player almost certainly was hung over for one of the biggest games of the season — a 5-1 loss to the White Sox in which Cabrera went 0-for-4 and stranded six runners.

11. pkb33 Posted: November 16, 2009 at 12:46 AM (#3388416)

I've been dreaming of Miguel Cabrera on the Sox for two years. I just have been waiting for some potential trade scenario that has a realistic description of why the Tigers would trade him for anything the Sox might actually offer.

And I'm still waiting.

12. akrasian Posted: November 16, 2009 at 01:23 AM (#3388429)

I can see the Tigers wanting to explore what Cabrera would bring in trade. He apparently did go out drinking all night before a key game - I would be upset with him if I were a fan of the Tigers. Might as well at least see if he can bring enough in trade to justify getting rid of him - especially since there has to be some fear that he will eat and especially drink himself into less effectiveness. That doesn't mean they'll give him away, but he likely is tradeable right now. Maybe a change of scenery will convince him to get his bad habits under control.

13. Every Inge Counts Posted: November 16, 2009 at 01:35 AM (#3388431)

14. Walt Davis Posted: November 16, 2009 at 02:30 AM (#3388439)

What's a Pimental?

About 3 pounds.

15. Shooty Did Not Kill McGurk

Posted: November 16, 2009 at 06:13 AM (#3388455)

I look forward to the next article Rosenthal writes about nerds in their basements not understanding anything about baseball.

16. SugarBear Blanks

Posted: November 16, 2009 at 06:18 AM (#3388457)

Doesn't Illitch have enough money to make the Steinbrenners blush? Why are the Tigers suddenly in bankruptcy mode?

Because your (**) fantasy world by which owners should "invest" their own money in their business, otherwise they aren't really "competing" with the Steinbrenners is just that -- a fantasy.

The Ilitch example proves the rule. He's run very generous payrolls and had at least two cycles of subsidizing losses with the Tigers (early 90s, mid-late 00s), but no owner over anything but the very short term is going to operate and subsidize a money-losing business. Grow up.

(**) If not "your," then the plenty of other people who prattle on about "investing in the product," and other claptrap that has nothing to do with the real world and real people. They're everywhere on the board.

17. SugarBear Blanks

Posted: November 16, 2009 at 06:21 AM (#3388458)

Anyone want to count the logical fallacies? I suppose that even if you pin that loss squarely on him, he was responsible for 1 of their 77 losses. So technically when he says "in part," I guess he could be correct.

His dogging on the basepaths had a lot to do with the key loss in Game 163 and his undisciplined drinking had a lot to do with there being a Game 163.

18. SugarBear Blanks

Posted: November 16, 2009 at 06:30 AM (#3388460)

God, if the Tigers made that trade I would quit being a fan of their team. I guess if we trade Miggy and signed Bay and Holliday that same day as well. I don't even want imagine a lineup without Miggy in it, if they did not get anything worth a damn on offense.

They didn't have him in 2006 and smoked the Yankees and went to the World Series. They're not as good now as they were then and getting Cabrera hasn't moved the needle on the field that much.

19. Autobahn Posted: November 16, 2009 at 07:17 AM (#3388469)

They didn't have him in 2006 and smoked the Yankees and went to the World Series. They're not as good now as they were then and getting Cabrera hasn't moved the needle on the field that much.

They were so good in 2006 because they had a really good rotation, the offense outside Carlos Gullien and Mags wasn't that good, as a lot of the hitters were very streaky or just downright poor.

Cabrera was the teams offense this year, what with mags slumping badly and a lot of defensive specialists in the line-up he is the one tiger in the line-up going forward that is a genuine all-star talent.

If the Tigers trade Cabrera now they would be selling very low, on somebody who is still relatively young at 26.

20. SugarBear Blanks

Posted: November 16, 2009 at 07:31 AM (#3388472)

If the Tigers trade Cabrera now they would be selling very low, on somebody who is still relatively young at 26.

We don't know if they're selling "very low" until we see what they get. Assuming of course someone's willing to take on that contract and they actually trade him.

I see him as an old 26. Can't run the bases, already moved to an unathletic defensive position, weight and drinking problems. He's a beer league softball type that's easily replaceable. The Marlins have been just fine since he left.

21. tjm1 Posted: November 16, 2009 at 07:51 AM (#3388477)

There's no way the Tigers can trade Cabrera for full value. If they start shopping him at this point, people will assume that it's because he has a serious drinking problem, the full extent of which has not been reported publicly.

22. akrasian Posted: November 16, 2009 at 07:56 AM (#3388479)

If they start shopping him at this point, people will assume that it's because he has a serious drinking problem,

I would assume that even if they don't shop him. Drinking all night before a big game is never a good sign - and that's just the instance where the police were called.

23. SugarBear Blanks

Posted: November 16, 2009 at 08:04 AM (#3388482)

Maybe the Granderson/Jackson shopping is a cover to make the Cabrera shopping appear payroll rather than booze-driven.

24. Confined to the Halls of Congers (formerly Y...) Posted: November 16, 2009 at 08:31 AM (#3388488)

Trading Cabrera makes sense for the Tigers if they're having payroll issues, but only if they're getting back cheap guys with a lot of upside. Even if we assumed that Rosenthal's proposed package is fair from a talent perspective, isn't Papelbon going to get a bazillion dollars in arbitration next year? Not sure how acquiring him makes much sense if the point is to shed payroll. (Not to mention the fact that one of the tigers' strengths is their bullpen.)

25. Shooty Did Not Kill McGurk

Posted: November 16, 2009 at 08:41 AM (#3388491)

The other problems with articles like this is that no one has any idea what the bottom line is for an MLB team. We don't know and I really doubt Rosenthal knows.

26. SugarBear Blanks

Posted: November 16, 2009 at 08:42 AM (#3388492)

(Not to mention the fact that one of the tigers' strengths is their bullpen.)

Ummmmmmmm ... no. Their bullpen was mediocre at best. Not a single guy there you really trust, from LOOGY to middle men to 8th inning men to closer.

27. Confined to the Halls of Congers (formerly Y...) Posted: November 16, 2009 at 08:46 AM (#3388494)

Ummmmmmmm ... no.

You're right...I just looked up their 2009 stats. I don't know why I thought they had an excellent bullpen.

28. tjm1 Posted: November 16, 2009 at 09:10 AM (#3388505)

You're right...I just looked up their 2009 stats. I don't know why I thought they had an excellent bullpen.

They had a bunch of guys who had been very good in the recent past. They had a terrific bullpen in 2006 when they made it to the Series.

29. NYCTigersfan

Posted: November 16, 2009 at 09:48 AM (#3388531)

His dogging on the basepaths had a lot to do with the key loss in Game 163 and his undisciplined drinking had a lot to do with there being a Game 163.

So his undisciplined drinking "had a lot to do with" the Tigers losing 77 games? Do you know something the rest of us don't about other games he was drunk/hung over? Also, I don't remember any dogging in that game, at least not any that "had a lot to do with" the loss.

They didn't have him in 2006 and smoked the Yankees and went to the World Series. They're not as good now as they were then and getting Cabrera hasn't moved the needle on the field that much.

The relevant comparison isn't the 2006 team, it's what they would be without him, and that would be one of the worst offenses in MLB.

30. Nasty Nate Posted: November 16, 2009 at 09:54 AM (#3388537)

How would one rank the trade-ability of the following contracts (and which have any positive trade value at all): Nate Robertson $10m for 2010, Jeremy Bonderman for $12.5m in 2010, Dontrelle Willis $12m for 2010, or Carlos Guillen $13m each for 2010-11?

31. Shooty Did Not Kill McGurk

Posted: November 16, 2009 at 09:56 AM (#3388539)

Jeremy Bonderman for $12.5m in 2010

This is the only one I can see people taking a chance on.

32. what the hell, just use your initials or something Posted: November 16, 2009 at 10:11 AM (#3388549)

I don't see what's the big deal; the whole "out drinking all night before a big game" thing always worked for Mickey Mantle.

Cabrera is not Illitch's real problem, which is illustrated in [30]. The Tigers have a one year payroll issue, with $100M committed to just ten players. It doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me that all the rumors about how they will address this issue center on trading either relatively young players who represent good values or their one big long-term committment. Straight dumps of Bonderman/Robertson/Ordonez where the Tigers pay half of the salaries would save them as much as they could hope to by moving Granderson, Laird and Jackson. Sure those Tigers aren't worth much in trade, but Ordonez in a contract year at the cost of a B prospect and $9M is probably worth a flyer for some team.

33. regfairfield Posted: November 16, 2009 at 10:25 AM (#3388557)

Then you can trade Jason Varitek and Daniel Bard for Hanley Ramirez. Now you've got yourself a team!

34. Howie B. Posted: November 16, 2009 at 10:32 AM (#3388561)

Cabrera is a ######### ####### and I mean that personally, as he completely blew off my beautiful 5-year-old daughter during Marlins fan appreciation day back in 2006. She was standing there with an 8x10 glossy of him, next in line for his autograph. He suddenly gets up (leaving 15 minutes early after arriving 20 minutes late to a one hour session), using two handlers to prevent fans from getting near him. My daughter is standing there holding out his photo and a sharpie and he just brushes right past her with a condescending smirk. One of her happiest days as a baseball fan was the day I told her that he was traded away from the Marlins. I hope the fat #### drinks himself out of baseball.

35. TVerik and his cavalcade of whimsy Posted: November 16, 2009 at 10:34 AM (#3388562)

Did someone just accuse him of drinking on the bases? That's some great imagery.

36. BarrettsHiddenBall Posted: November 16, 2009 at 10:39 AM (#3388564)

That was Rosenthal? I saw the 'trade' and assumed it was a Sox blogger.

Get it done Theo!

37. John DiFool2 Posted: November 16, 2009 at 12:16 PM (#3388639)

I see him as an old 26. Can't run the bases, already moved to an unathletic defensive position, weight and drinking problems. He's a beer league softball type that's easily replaceable. The Marlins have been just fine since he left.

Right now, his comp list has 6 current and 2 future (Junior, Pujols) HoFers on it, but I'll bet he doesn't make it (Strawberry age 29 had 4, but also Jose Canseco). While last year was hardly a disappointment at first glance, he really hasn't developed at all from his age 22 base (K rate is down tho), and these little stories make you wonder.

38. Edmundo is Super Average Man

Posted: November 16, 2009 at 12:25 PM (#3388649)

Did someone just accuse him of drinking on the bases? That's some great imagery.

I'm sure you have heard of the saying, "The bases are loaded".

39. Tripon Posted: November 16, 2009 at 12:29 PM (#3388653)

I see him as an old 26. Can't run the bases, already moved to an unathletic defensive position, weight and drinking problems. He's a beer league softball type that's easily replaceable. The Marlins have been just fine since he left.

The Mets have had Emilio Bonifacio, and Jorge Cantu play 3rd base. At 1st base, they had Cantu and Mike Jacobs play. Uh... yeah, sure.

40. Confined to the Halls of Congers (formerly Y...) Posted: November 16, 2009 at 12:31 PM (#3388655)

he really hasn't developed at all from his age 22 base (K rate is down tho),

But his age 22 base was that of an MVP-level hitter. How often do players who start off like that actually improve?

41. Yankee_Redneck Posted: November 16, 2009 at 12:38 PM (#3388660)

But if the Red Sox make this trade for Cabrera, where will Adrian Gonzalez play?

42. Tripon Posted: November 16, 2009 at 12:41 PM (#3388662)

Detroit. The Tigers will take the prospects they get for Cabrera, and then trade them alongside of their own prospects for A-Gon.

43. Matt H. Posted: November 16, 2009 at 12:44 PM (#3388666)

Since when is a guy that has an OPB tilted OPS of over 900 every year "easily replaceable"? He might be a drunken #######, but he's a great baseball player.

44. regfairfield Posted: November 16, 2009 at 12:46 PM (#3388667)

We don't need Miguel Cabrera, we can get almost the same production for much less cost.

*Wins 82 games*

45. Shooty Did Not Kill McGurk

Posted: November 16, 2009 at 12:49 PM (#3388671)

I wonder if it makes sense to flip Cabrera to the Mets if the Mets will take on one of their bad contracts. Could the Mets handle the Maggs contract for one year if it means getting Miguel? Maggs might be somewhat useful for the Mets, actually, and their ability to take on the contract will lessen the cost in prospects going to Detroit.

46. BarrettsHiddenBall Posted: November 16, 2009 at 12:52 PM (#3388675)

[42] that's more or less the fanboy trade I've been pimping, except as a proper 3 way. Sox get their bat, tigers keep a bat and save money, padres get prospects. Of course as a sox fanboy, I have no idea if detroit has any prospects to match mighty lars and stolmy.

I still think its far more realistic than what rosenthals throwing out there.

47. Dandy Little Glove Man Posted: November 16, 2009 at 12:54 PM (#3388677)

I like where Robothal's head's at. If they add Lowell's expiring contract to those of Bonderman, Robertson, Dontrelle, and Magglio, next offseason they should be far enough under the cap to sign Wade AND LeBron.

48. Dayton Moore is a Big Fat Idiot (AG#1F) Posted: November 16, 2009 at 12:57 PM (#3388679)

I’ve even got a possible trade in mind — Cabrera for Red Sox closer Jonathan Papelbon, third baseman Mike Lowell and a prospect, either first baseman Lars Anderson or right-hander Stolmy Pimentel.

Along those same lines is this:

Here's my offer for Jackson: Chris Davis (meaning the Rangers would have to be willing to go with Justin Smoak at first base in 2010), Kasey Kiker (because I assume the team won't be willing to deal Holland, Feliz or Perez) and Brandon McCarthy (because it doesn't appear he has a role with this team and still potentially has a future if he can stay healthy and if he pitches in a more pitcher-friendly ballpark). To get it done, the Rangers might have to include a fourth piece and that's where all that minor league depth should come in. Otherwise the Rangers would have to be willing to swap out Smoak for Davis to make the deal more attractive. It might ultimately take Smoak and a premier pitching prospect to get it done and then maybe the Rangers determine that price is too high.

That's not Reggie Jackson, that's Edwin Jackson. And that's from a Rangers blogger.

49. Shooty Did Not Kill McGurk

Posted: November 16, 2009 at 01:03 PM (#3388686)

(because it doesn't appear he has a role with this team and still potentially has a future if he can stay healthy and if he pitches in a more pitcher-friendly ballpark)

Pitcher-friendly ballparks only make pitchers SEEM better, dammit!

edit: Also, there's an internet poster who doesn't overvalue his team's prospects. Huzzah?

50. Tripon Posted: November 16, 2009 at 01:06 PM (#3388690)

Lets trade Shooty for a LOOGY.

51. snapper Posted: November 16, 2009 at 01:10 PM (#3388695)

Pitcher-friendly ballparks only make pitchers SEEM better, dammit!

Is that true Shooty? Couldn't it also make them change their approach, don't nibble, throw strikes, etc. in a way that would actually cause them to improve?

52. Shooty Did Not Kill McGurk

Posted: November 16, 2009 at 01:10 PM (#3388696)

Lets trade Shooty for a LOOGY.

I have a strict no-trade clause and the schools here at BBTF are too good for me to agree to uproot my family.

53. BarrettsHiddenBall Posted: November 16, 2009 at 01:15 PM (#3388700)

I have a strict no-trade clause and the schools here at BBTF are too good for me to agree to uproot my family.

So you're saying we'd have to guarantee the 2012 option to make it work?

54. Shooty Did Not Kill McGurk

Posted: November 16, 2009 at 01:16 PM (#3388701)

Is that true Shooty? Couldn't it also make them change their approach, don't nibble, throw strikes, etc. in a way that would actually cause them to improve?

Maybe, but then doesn't it follow that Edwin Jackson will become worse? Maybe the Rangers and Tigers could flip each other McCarthy and Jackson every year though that might frustrate the Rangers after a while.

Anyway, it's very possible that specific pitchers could improve/worsen in real ways with a change in scenery, but this general notion that pitchers "improve" in a pitching park makes my head hurt.

55. Shooty Did Not Kill McGurk

Posted: November 16, 2009 at 01:17 PM (#3388705)

So you're saying we'd have to guarantee the 2012 option to make it work?

I was thinking more of an extension. I want to feel wanted.

56. Edmundo is Super Average Man

Posted: November 16, 2009 at 01:19 PM (#3388708)

I want to feel wanted.

Take that to oprahfeelingfactory.org

57. Shooty Did Not Kill McGurk

Posted: November 16, 2009 at 01:23 PM (#3388714)

Take that to oprahfeelingfactory.org

I'll have my agent send you a 300 page presentation on why you shouldn't snark a man of my immense talents. Meanwhile, I'm going to do a lot of blow and designer steroids and see how many Salvadoran hookers can sit on me until I have trouble breathing. My estimate is 7 if they do it wrong, and 1 if she does it right...

58. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: November 16, 2009 at 01:27 PM (#3388719)

I'll be glad to trade you Shooty's head, if you want. It's just stinking up the joint here - hardly ever says anything interesting.

59. Randy Jones Posted: November 16, 2009 at 01:28 PM (#3388720)

Lets trade Shooty for a LOOGY.

Another fanboy trade scenario. Even Dayton Moore wouldn't trade for Shooty.

60. Shooty Did Not Kill McGurk

Posted: November 16, 2009 at 01:30 PM (#3388723)

I'll be glad to trade you Shooty's head, if you want. It's just stinking up the joint here - hardly ever says anything interesting.

########! I've still got my head #######! It's true that my ass is the more interesting conversationalist, though.

61. Los Angeles Softballer of Anaheim

Posted: November 16, 2009 at 01:36 PM (#3388731)

Dandy Little Glove Man Posted: November 16, 2009 at 12:54 PM (#3388677)
I like where Robothal's head's at. If they add Lowell's expiring contract to those of Bonderman, Robertson, Dontrelle, and Magglio, next offseason they should be far enough under the cap to sign Wade AND LeBron.

Post of the year.

62. OCD SS Posted: November 16, 2009 at 02:51 PM (#3388824)

I'd much rather see the sox go after Miggy than Gonzalez, just based on the assumption that the talent cost would be less. Robo's deal is silly, but I can see it being easier to sell trading Miggy than Granderson from PR perspective.

63. BarrettsHiddenBall Posted: November 16, 2009 at 02:58 PM (#3388834)

I'd much rather see the sox go after Miggy than Gonzalez, just based on the assumption that the talent cost would be less.

Exactly. A huge amount of Gonzalez' value is his cheap contract, which really doesn't matter for the Sox (unless he's willing to sign an extension immediately).

64. tjm1 Posted: November 16, 2009 at 03:00 PM (#3388839)

But his age 22 base was that of an MVP-level hitter. How often do players who start off like that actually improve?

Actually, of his top 10 comps on bb-ref, all but Conigliaro, Hal Trosky and Cesar Cedeno improved a lot.

65. OCD SS Posted: November 16, 2009 at 03:18 PM (#3388859)

66. tjm1 Posted: November 16, 2009 at 04:05 PM (#3388903)

Actually, of his top 10 comps on bb-ref, all but Conigliaro, Hal Trosky and Cesar Cedeno improved a lot.

Actually, I guess Griffey also didn't really get much better after age 22. Nonetheless, the point is that superstar players in their early 20's are likely to improve, just as average players in their early 20's are.

67. OCD SS Posted: November 16, 2009 at 07:13 PM (#3389059)

65: Still some bugs in the new BlackBerry.

Page 1 of 1 pages

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

<< Back to main

Sunday, November 15, 2009

Trading Cabrera makes financial sense for Tigers

Reader Comments and Retorts

Support BBTF

My Bookmarks

Hot Topics