User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
|
Demarini, Easton and TPX Baseball Bats
|
AllianceTickets.com has cheap MLB Tickets. Get all your Colorado Rockies Tickets, Seattle Mariners Tickets, San Francisco Giants Tickets and all your favorite baseball tickets here. We also carry cheap Denver Broncos Tickets, Seattle Seahawks Tickets and Denver Nuggets Tickets. |
For wholesale prices on baseball gifts and equipment, check these stores out! |
Page rendered in 0.6750 seconds
54 querie(s) executed
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.
1. bobm Posted: May 13, 2012 at 01:33 PM (#4130623)Garza - CAA Sports (Nez Balelo)
Danks - CAA Sports (Jeff Berry), previously: Scott Boras
Wilson - Bob Garber
Cain - Len Hardison, Kyle Rote Jr
Dempster - Craig Landis, previously: Jim Lindell
Samardzija - Mark Rodgers
Garza 2009-11: 606 IP, 108 ERA+, 536/205 K/BB, 67 HR
Edwin Jackson: 623 IP, 108 ERA+, 490/210 K/BB, 64 HR
They're the same age. Garza probably is a shoo-in for 5/$80 or so while Jackson (a Boras client!) had to settle for 1/$11.
Josh Johnson 158 (bad start to the comeback)
Lincecum 136
Lester 131
Greinke 126
Jimenez 126
Hamels 120
Fister 114
Sanchez 111
Not to mention the 13 younger pitchers also ahead of Garza on that list.
No, but I have no problem with them doing it in this particular two-year cycle.
Well, picking the three year time frame is the kindest possible way to measure Edwin Jackson against Garza. A most other alternate time-frame comparisons don't fare as kindly to Jackson.
Garza has been remarkably consistent in being an above-average starter since his first year in the majors, which may be why teams would see him as the more valuable property. Of course, whether they should value consistency this much is another question entirely.
Well, of course not, but I guess I just think that there's a good chance that Garza's next two years are going to be the best of his next five.
I would think that view is a bit shortsighted, given that these are the Chicago Cubs, third or fourth richest team in baseball. You can afford market rates for a pitcher.
At 4 years it's 806 IP and 106 ERA+ for Jackson vs. 790 and 111 for Garza. Still perfectly similar. Make it 5 years and Jackson's ERA+ does drop to 100 but his IP gap grows to 90.
Projection systems use 3-4 years with heavy weighting towards the most recent. A simple 3-year Marcel makes it 110 vs 107 in Garza's favor.
Except 16 per over 5 is NOT what pitchers of Garza's caliber are paid... He's a fine #2, but he's not an ace.
5/80 was the very upper limit I'd consider - if that was the upper limit, with some incentives included - then I suppose maybe I'd pull the trigger... but I'd be playing hardball at 5/70. Acquiring Garza costs a young, wild arm, a raw SS and a bunch of flotsam. The Cubs will have that to trade again when they're ready to make use of a fine #2.
I won't be unhappy if they paid 5/80 for Garza, but neither will I be crestfallen if that's what he gets from someone else after being traded for something of value this summer.
If everyone keeps locking up their young stars, it's going to cost a hell of a lot more than what the Cubs paid for Garza to get a new one of him. At some point the team needs to have good players. Garza is one of those(and has been very good in his time with the Cubs). But no, let's rush out trade him for prospects and be bad for a few more years.
5/80 was the very upper limit I'd consider - if that was the upper limit, with some incentives included - then I suppose maybe I'd pull the trigger... but I'd be playing hardball at 5/70. Acquiring Garza costs a young, wild arm, a raw SS and a bunch of flotsam. The Cubs will have that to trade again when they're ready to make use of a fine #2.
I won't be unhappy if they paid 5/80 for Garza, but neither will I be crestfallen if that's what he gets from someone else after being traded for something of value this summer.
He's very much pitched like an ace since joining the Cubs (ERA, FIP and xFIP all in the low 3.00's.
If you like him as a pitcher, I can't see why you'd stress over the difference between $14M per and $16M per. The odds are >95% that he'll either be a bargain at either price or a bust at either price. The extra $2M isn't going to hamstring the Cubs.
With their financial resources the Cubs should be about acquiring talent whenever the opportunity presents itself.
there has been recent inflation. i think you need to re-calibrate upwards
sorry
Garza also has the big spike in component numbers that began with his move to Chicago.
I don't know if that's true for good-but-not-ace pitchers...
CJ Wilson signed for 5/77 - and that's out on the open market, with at least one big spender (NYY) presumably in the mix. As noted above, Edwin Jackson had to settle for 1/11. John Danks just resigned for 5/65.
Greinke, to me, is a clear notch above Garza -- I might go somewhere in the neighborhood of 20 per for him, but I just cannot see Garza as more than a 15 per year pitcher... I'm not saying it would be a disaster to go 5/80... but I think that's a slight overpay. Sometimes you have to slight overpay, so not the end of the world -- but if Garza won't stay closer to 5/70, then I'm seeing what's available on the trade market. If I can find a good deal on the trade market - then I'm pulling the trigger. The Rangers in particular seem like they could probably use a SP -- let's say they offer up, say... Martin Perez, Jurickson Profar, and some other baubles? I pull that trigger without thinking twice.
when i mean recent i mean recent. teams are feeling flush, locking up guys and that squeezes the market to the players advantage.
i think you will be shocked at the price tag for garza
Garza is pitching like an ace since getting to Chicago.
By the end of 2012, his Chicago tenure will be longer than CJ Wilson entire career as an SP when he hit the market. He's also 3 years younger than Wilson.
And he already makes $9.5M. Wilson's deal seems like the absolute floor for Garza, unless he regresses significantly.
I get your point, but if that's what the Cubs are asking for in exchange for Garza, then they aren't trading Garza.
Ace as in the #1 on a bad team maybe... I guess it all depends on how you define "ace" - to me, that means clearly one of the 20 best pitchers in baseball and an even money bet to post one of the 10 best seasons in either league in any given season. I think Garza is outside that criteria. He's maybe just outside that criteria (and yeah, 5/80 doesn't buy you that criteria either) - but he's not someone I'm overly concerned about keeping. I'm not saying I wouldn't do 5/80 -- in the Gonfalon thread, I called 5/80 my top limit and I'll stick there -- but at that price, I'm still going to wait and see what things look like in July.
Sure, presumably - getting BOTH Perez and Profar in a trade with Texas means more going to Texas... Let's Marmol comes back and returns to fits of nastiness.... Let's say it then becomes Garza + Marmol + some other pieces... Then? I still pull that trigger.
In fact, if Texas would be interested in Soto+Garza for Profar+Perez+more -- I probably say yes yesterday...
Since he's arrived in Chi, he's gone 236.2 IP, 3.19 ERA, 121 ERA+, 1.21 WHIP, 9K, 3BB, and 0.6 HR per 9IP.
In what world is that not an ace?
If they think their window is now -- and it is...
I'm not talking about a random bullpen arm and Jeff Baker here... I would presume more going with Garza, something on the order of a revitalized Marmol (which, granted, may not exist) or a Soto.
Top 5 prospects don't get traded for rentals in today's game.
I would say a world with Halladay, Lee, Sabathia, Verlander, Price, Cain, Lincecum, Strasburg, Hernandez, Greinke, Peavy, Kershaw, Weaver, and few others -- not counting some younger guys whom I think will be better than Garza in a year or two (Hanson, Zimmerman, Beachy, Feliz, etc).
I'm just saying that I could get to 20 SPs I'd rather have fronting my rotation ahead of Garza without too much thought. That's nothing against Garza - I'm just saying he's in the next grouping, not that grouping.
If it Perez+, I'd consider it straight away for Garza... But - something like Soto allows Napoli to play 1B full-time. Heck, I'd even soak up a Cruz or Young salary (not that I would expect the Rangers to trade Young in particular, since he seems to be Mr. Texas).
These trades make no sense at all.
Cleveland and Detroit could use him but they have nothing to offer in return.
Perhaps Angelos in Baltimore gets an itch that he just can't scratch but that looks to be about it.
You don't want to pay him 16mm per year, but you think that he's worth a premium prospect in trade. This view is not internally coherent.
According to your view of Garza, he's currently being paid close to FMV. That should mean that he's worth very little in trade.
To be clear, I think that by far the best thing for Chicago to do is re-sign Garza. It's very hard to rebuild by trading away guys this close to free agency, and five years of Garza at around market value will add more wins than the cost-controlled years of Turner or Castellanos or Perez. The Cubs have money, and they should use it to win games.
You don't want to pay him 16mm per year, but you think that he's worth a premium prospect in trade. This view is not internally coherent.
According to your view of Garza, he's currently being paid close to FMV. That should mean that he's worth very little in trade.
Or it's just a weird mis-understanding of baseball's salary structure to think that a "near-ace" pitcher should sign for 5/70.
I think the CJ Wilson contract might be skewing opinions. It's an incredible bargain and should probably be ignored in any comp situation.
And that a team should walk away from the deal if the player will sign for 5/80.
If he keeps it up this year and has his 130-140 ERA+ breakout season, then maybe, but he hasn't done that yet.
He's currently being paid probably less than FMV. He's also not tied up for 5 years, during which time his FMV may fluctuate (See Lackey, John... among plenty others).
I just think everyone is ignoring context here...
Yes, the Rangers ought to win the West handily... they might even be the slight favorites to come out of the AL, if not win the WS. But - adding a SP the caliber of Garza (perhaps with a solid catcher like Soto and some other bits and pieces) makes them probably the clear favorite for both. The fact that they do still have a youngish rotation - and a big possible payday for Hamilton - means that they might prefer someone that doesn't come with a long-term commitment.
I'm not against keeping Garza, either - but at this point, I have no idea when the Cubs will next be any good... The OF is a disaster area, and beyond a guy who hasn't yet had a full season of AAA -- there isn't much on the way. Other than SS and 1B, there are significant holes in the IF, too. The bullpen is a mess. The rotation has actually been solid - but we can't count on BPJ yet as a long-term part of it. Yes - keeping a pitcher the caliber of Garza certainly helps, but Volstad has been enormously disappointing (and I liked him a lot coming in) and Travis Wood hasn't exactly pitched himself into long-term plans either.
I'll reiterate again - I am not against paying Garza 5/80 (but that's my absolute ceiling)... I'm just saying that at that price, I'd be interested in knowing what he could fetch before I said yes. If he doesn't fetch some significant young help, then I'm much more willing to pay 5/80. If he'd sign for significantly LESS than 5/80 -- say, 5/70 -- then I'd probably hand him the contract.
IIRC, Garza still has another year of arb eligibility -- so it's not as if I need to be in any rush to give him more than I want to give him.
Even if there were going to be 5 equivalent pitchers on the market who would sign for 5/70, there's no guarantee one of them picks your offer over the 25 other teams that will offer 5/70 for a Garza level pitcher.
The certainty of having him locked up, vs. getting into bidding wars, has value.
I find it hard to believe that Michael Young is 'above average' at those numbers, at the position he currently plays (DH), and especially his current price... I was just saying to get Profar included and give the Rangers more $$$ resign Hamilton and perhaps even Garza (and/or Soto), I'd be willing to take a bad contract... and both Young and Cruz are overpaid by a pretty decent stitch.
And both were much older, and with significant inury issues.
He put up 2.2 WAR last year, even with horrible fielding. He gives them a very good backup at 2B and 3B (where the starters are very injury prone), and can play 1B as well.
A contending team, that's raking in money from high attendance and a huge new cable deal shouldn't be dumping that b/c he's $5M overpaid.
2) You're the one arguing that "context" is why the Rangers might give up a bit more than is prudent for Garza. In the context of the Rangers trying to win a championship, why are they giving up average or above average major league talent in order to save money in the future? Is the context important or isn't it?
He's also 35 - and I'd say he's more like 7-8-9 million overpaid. Look - I'm not saying I want Young by any stretch of the imagination... I'm just saying that if the Rangers would also like some payroll relief in order to resign Hamilton or perhaps keep Garza after acquiring him, I'd be willing to take on a bad contract in order to get more prospect value in return. I don't WANT Young at all - if Texas feels that they have no need to also shed salary in such a proposed deal, then fine -- don't send me any contracts back... I'm just saying that if it gets me additional pull in the prospect pile, or, if it allows me to add in another decent-sized contract ala Soto or what not to get something on the order of Profar... then I'll take on that contract.
Plus it seems kind of weird that you are willing to have the Cubs spend a ton of money picking up a bad contract from the Rangers on a chance that one of their prospects will pan out but you won't spend just a little more money to keep the bird in hand already.
Young is owed 16 million dollars next year and at least 8 million this year. Garza is making 9.5 million this year so we'll say the Cubs have to end up spending 20 million dollars to move Garza, pickup Young, and get your young prospect or two. How is that better than spending 80 million on Garza instead of 70 million?
Well, I have no influence on the trade - so there's not a whole of incentive for giving up on fanboy pipedreams ;-).... I'm just saying it doesn't hurt to ask. The Rangers might well say "not a chance"... They might say "hahha, sure - toss in Castro".... I might counter with "OK, Garza, plus take you pick of anything not named Castro" (and yeah, I'd consider including something on the order Jackson or Rizzo in a megadeal). I understand Profar is a top 5 prospect... but he's also just 19 and this is first taste above Sally ball (where granted, he's still raking... in the offense inflating Texas league... but whatever). Texas has NEVER won a WS - and this looks to be their best chance to win one. If you're ever going to acquire a prospect on the order of top 5er - this is probably as close as it gets to such a scenario.
As for 2), as I said above -- I don't want YOung (or Cruz, for that matter) back -- I was simply saying that if Texas wants more than "just" Garza for such a package... say a Soto, a Marmol who comes back and looks serviceable, a DeJesus, a whatever -- and they need to move a contract to offset it, I'd take on such a contract. It doesn't have to be Young or Cruz -- they were just what popped into my head when I was thinking "Who is overpaid on Texas?" Murphy? Feldman? Whatever... Or - if they just want cash, I'll write a check. I was solely thinking about the ongoing Hamilton negotiations. If Texas doesn't feel it needs to ditch any contracts to get that done, then so be it -- I'm not insisting on getting any "major league talent" back in any deal.
then the brewers trade a starting ss and two minor leaguers for 2 years of greinke and of course the draft pick once zack leaves
that is in line with the market i think
I don't think Soto+Garza is all that far off a reasonable offer for a Profar-centered package. It moves one of the (granted, fairly hole-less) weaker links in the Texas lineup (either Young or Moreland) to a utility role, it gives them a proven #2 (granted, into a rotation that is made up of #2s), and besides... With Andrus and Beltre locked up longterm -- where are they going to play Profar anyway? Sure - he looks like he'll hit enough to play anywhere, but he's most valuable somewhere in the IF not named 1B. The Rangers are pretty set at 3B-SS-2B for the next many seasons.
Frankly, Profar is precisely WHAT they ought to be dangling in win now mode... Now, sure -- THEY ought to be seeing if they can get something better than Garza (like calling Philly and inquiring about the possibility of Doc or Lee)... but if the Phillies can somehow right the ship, I think there's an excellent chance that Garza is the best available SP on the market.
And that was a bad trade... I think most folks thought so at the time. It's not among my guideposts in working out a potential Garza deal.
Again - it's not like I'm desperate to move Garza... I'll go to arbitration with him again this offseason. I've already said I'd pay him 5/80 if it came to that.
In such a situation, I'm making the acquiring team pay through the nose -- and given that I have a number of other relatively worth-something pieces that I can move, I have the flexibility to send some legitimate other pieces along as well.
It looks to be their best chance because they have a staff ERA of 3.34, best in the league even without taking their home park into account. Their #6 starting pitcher (Scott Feldman) takes the mound tonight with an ERA+ of 104. I would be the first to say that you can never have enough pitching, but what mad exigence is going to drive the Rangers to add a seventh decent starting pitcher?
poor trade?
that wasn't the take i recall. most folks thought it was pretty fair unless there is now revisionism in play as lawrie continues to show he is major league quality
i just checked. i don't see a single site claiming the brewers got swindled
Well, injury, for one -- Neftali Feliz has already missed some time... Regression for another (Colbey Lewis, Feldman). Matt Harrison hasn't been great.
I agree that Texas has gotten some stellar pitching - but other than really Joe Nathan, I just don't see the track record to expect it to continue at the current league-best pace.
Well, I thought it a was a poor trade ;-)
Marcum just isn't the sort of pitcher I generally like... Unimpressive K rates, significantly checkered health record... fat... I guess "like" isn't the right word, because I love Rick Reuschel types -- let's say "the sort of pitcher for which I like to trade". I also thought Lawrie was a legit A prospect, perhaps a tick -- but not a whole lot more than a tick, if that -- below Profar. In fact, I think strictly from an offensive standpoint - I think their bats are pretty close. Profar is just a lot more athletic.
marcum is a changeup artist so its hard to appreciate what he does. But in a year plus in Milwaukee he's striking out 7.5 per nine innings, he fields his position well and he keeps taking his turn. I wish he went a bit deeper into games but he's no Doug Davis either.
everyone in milwaukee was convinced marcum was done after his awful finish/playoffs thinking his shoulder was hurt. but he looks just fine.
my hope is that he is a true mercenary and is going to excel being its his walk year
Yeah - I know... the thing is that it just seems like pitchers like Marcum - and I do appreciate the changeup artist types - tend to have a smaller margin of error. Once the stuff declines just a bit, the wheels can come off in a hurry. I'm probably underrating Marcum a bit, but I'd say he's probably the group below Garza... a solid #3 type. The Brewers were certainly in win now mode, though - so I understand why they made the trade.... Given Weeks in-house and what seems like a gaggle of 3B options (how quickly that worm has turned), I can also understand why they would move Lawrie. I just would have wanted more than Marcum for him.
Because I think Garza is a clear level above Marcum - both in terms of ability, but also - in terms of health and durability.... but the fact that it did happen, I think, speaks to why I think Garza (PLUS MORE!!!) would be a legitimate Profar-level package.
Lawrie may not have been a top 5 prospect, but he was a top 20 guy (IIRC) twice.
OK - other lists had him in the 20s, though.... and again, are we all in universal agreement that Matt Garza is step above Shawn Marcum?
i know everyone thinks it was a different guy in 2011 but lawrie was coming back from injury in 2010 and still had over 50 extra base hits in a tough hitters park in double a at the age of 20
so yes i understand why others think 2011 was a breakout year but it didn't surprise anyone around the crew.
You have an extremely narrow view of Matt Garza: better than Marcum, Harrison, Colby Lewis, etc. by such a degree that he's worth a big prospect, but not good enough to deserve 5/80. This is a bit odd.
Might have considered other possibilities such as Warren Spahn/Don Mossi and Randy Johnson/Ezequiel Astacio, but it looks they didn't pitch in the same league together. And the latter pair apparently never faced off in an interleague game, either.
I'm not saying he isn't worth 5/80. I've repeatedly said I would pay him 5/80. I'm simply saying that if 5/80 is the price, I would be more interested, given where the team is at the moment, in seeing if he could fetch a big return ala a Profar or something similar as an outbound centerpiece.
He's probably worth 5/80. There's just a difference between what he's worth and what I'd want to pay him at this particular moment. Two months from now, if Thed asks for a Profar and they get laughed out of the room -- and if they can't get, say, a Turner/Castellanos or something like that from someone else... well, OK, then I'm a bit more interested in going up to 5/80.
I'm neither looking to trade Garza nor am I particularly looking to extend him at the moment. I want to see what my options are -- and if someone will give me a package that includes a couple very good prospects, then I'll trade him. If not, then I'll sign him up to 5/80. If he won't sign at 5/80, then we have this whole discussion again under new parameters.
melvin stated before the trade he considered lawrie a top prospect and has stated since he would still make the trade. and yes i know the latter comments are likely a gm merely justifying his actions
i think you are wrong in stating the brewers would not have made the trade. the brewers were in a win now mode and were desperate to bulk of the pitching staff. and that it was some kind of desperate
you are neither getting good prospects nor signing him at 5/80
i have been out of the loop for almost five months and i know that
the market has changed
We'll find out, I guess... Again, the decision doesn't need to be made today, or even this season (I checked, from what I can tell, Garza still has another year of arb). Sooo... in the meantime, I'll be shopping Mr. Garza's services up until/unless he decides he'd like to sign a contract for something under 5/80.
the brewers did not believe they needed offense. they believed they needed pitching.
casey had a strong hold on the brewers front office as evidenced by winning the team mvp after the 2010 season
i know we are discussing hypotheticals but i know doug melvin and that front office
lawrie was considered blocked by casey and rickie and hart so even though everyone thought he was going to be awesome he was deemed expendable
i know you are wrong.
sorry
I realize that there are problems with "keep all else equal and change entirely this one thing" reasoning. If Lawrie had been a year ahead of schedule all along the way, the Brewers would have looked at their team differently each year along the way, and probably wouldn't have felt nearly as committed to McGehee because Lawrie wasn't some pipe dream, he was the kid in the high minors tearing it up. So, I don't dispute that you know Melvin way better than I do, but I think that the Melvin you know wouldn't have been the Melvin in this hypothetical 2010 offseason. He'd have seen the team differently because circumstances would have been different.
I don't have any real opinion on whether this is right or wrong, but it seems to describe a dysfunctional market - one where teams are perfectly willing to throw something near a 9-digit salary at Garza but yet don't value him enough to give up anything of value in a trade. In practice, this makes a player inside the last two years of arb eligibility valueless to anyone except the team that happens to employ him at the time.
I guess it's possible that this is the case, but if so, I think we're in for a market correction in some way or the other, though I'm not sure what form it would take. Perhaps we may yet still see teams being allowed to trade draft picks at some point - that would break the logjam, I think.
You can't get one of the best prospects in the world at the trade deadline anymore, but top 50ish guys are a pretty normal price for good players, especially when that player in under team control for another year.
the brewers allowed 804 runs to score in 2010
why you refuse to acknowledge that more offense wasn't going to help the brewers run prevention puzzles me
even when braun was awesome the brewers tippy tapped about bringing him to the majors
braun hit .303 with 15 homers in a half season at double a and the brewers were playing guys like tony graffanion and joe dillon at 3rd to start 2007 and braun had to slug .700 to get the call when someone got hurt
the brewers always go slow with new guys. it's a melvin thing
How about this? If the Brewers had 2012 Brett Lawrie in their system, I can accept that you're right that they still would have traded him for pitching, but I maintain they would have gotten someone much better than Marcum in return.
Uhm, the fact that he is already basically getting a nine digit salary is WHY teams won't pony up much of value for him. If Garza is worth around 18m a year, and is getting 9 this year, and about 12.5 next, then for half of 2012, and 2013, you are basically acquiring 10m of surplus value. 2 wins, that's the value of Garza to an acquiring team. A Profar level prospect should be expected to blow past that number before he even hits arb.
i have patiently explained why you are wrong in your assessment and then you toss out snark
and while i am no fan of casey's defense the metrics say he was adequate. so i doubt the numbers agree with you there either
it cost the brewers one major league starting ss and 3 minor leaguers to get zack greinke.
say you have lawrie 2011 in december 2010. you get zack for lawrie? No. it's lawrie and something still
but this is so much hypothesizing
short version is that you are not considering melvin's intense focus on run prevention and winning the division at any cost in 2011 knowing prince was gone after 2011
Apologies if it read as snark.I think you definitely do. I'd trade 2011 Lorenzo Cain, Alcides Escobar, and Jeremy Jeffress for 2012 Brett Lawrie without a second thought.
it was escobar, cain, odorizzi and jeffress
i cannot speak for the royals management but i think part of the appeal of melvin's offer was that it proposed to fill multiple holes on the team. just lawrie would not do that
and you keep writing 2012 lawrie and that guy is a major leaguer hitting as a major leaguer who has made the jump and so far so good
2010 hitting as 2011 lawrie was still a minor leaguer with the usual doubts about making the transition
justin smoak was deemed uber awesome at one point and it took smoak and stuff to get cliff lee
if i am reading you correctly you are suggesting that the mariners would have accepted 2010 lawrie hitting as 2011 lawrie straight up?
nope
Delmon Young was a consensus top 5 prospect for two years. The Cubs current 3B was a top 5 prospect (Ian Stewart). Here are some other names from the top 10 BA lists just from 2001 to 2005... Joel Guzman... Casey Kotchman... Andy Marte...Hank Blalock...Wilson Betemit... Drew Henson... Ruben Mateo... Sean Burroughs...Nick Johnson...Corey Patterson... In fact, I think it would be fair to say that the number of "top 10 prospects" who panned out is less than those who didn't.
I understand what "level of a prospect" Jurickson Profar is... but let's not go ordering his HoF plaque just yet.
Sometimes prospects bust. Everyone knows that and no one has ever said anything different. At the same time, top 5 or top 10 prospects are rarely ever traded at the deadline, and they're almost never traded for sub-elite talent - and if they are, we tend to point and laugh at the stupid GM. Hoping to get a top 5 prospect for a sub-elite pitcher (you wouldn't even pay him John Lackey money!) is nothing more than fanboy wishcasting.
Well, sure -- but when we're talking major leaguers for prospects, it's still a crapshoot and the potential prospect fizzle needs to at least be acknowledged as a downside.
Heck, I traded FOR Jason Heyward two years ago in a keeper league when he was a "prospect" -- if memory serves, I gave up Brandon Phillips for him. Thus far, I've absolutely lost that deal. It was a risk I was willing to take and probably would again, but unless Heyward keeps doing his Vince Coleman to go with his still developing power and consistency, I'd probably lose that trade again.
I'm just talking about the value of prospects, which is obviously a balance of upside, downside, certainty, and risk. And as that value is weighed today (I'd say about rightly) players like Profar do not get traded for players like Garza.
He's not saying that (as far as I read) - he's saying that if 2011 Lawrie were available to be traded in 2010 he would have gotten a better SP straight up than Marcum. Not Lee or anyone specific - just a better than what he was traded for in 2010. Which I think is unequivocally true - Lawrie was a better prospect in 2011 than 2010, and therefore worth more. Nobody's debating whether our new and improved 2011/2010 Lawrie would have been available, he just would have cost a whole lot more.
Haven't been following the Braves closely this year, so I had to check if you meant he was hitting .270 with no power or walks but blazing speed, while hurling M-80s at fans in the parking lot. As a Met fan, I was kind of pulling for that to be the case.
Were you paying Brandon Phillips 72.5m?
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main