Take Greinke off the board?
by Adam J. Morris on Oct 6, 2008 10:30 AM CDT
118 comments
Joe Posnanski had an item up over the weekend about Royals g.m. Dayton Moore, who has trying to set a new tone in Kansas City and who has let some folks go as part of an effort to make it clear that things have to change.
Some quotes:
Moore’s main point is this: Things are going to change around here. He’s had enough.
“That’s it,” he says. “We’re at a point now where you will never, ever hear me say again that we have young players who are improving. You will never, ever hear me say again that we are rebuilding. That stuff is over. I’m sick of all that.
“We’re not a young team anymore. We’re not an improving team anymore. There are no more excuses. It’s not like we made a lot of excuses before, but I’m sick of all that. It’s time now.”
Now we get to the heart of things: Dayton Moore is tired of conceding. He’s tired of telling people that winning will take time. He came to Kansas City to make the Royals a proud organization again. He came to Kansas City to make the Royals the team, to make everyone, in and out of town, look at the Royals and say, “Man, those guys know what they’re doing.”
That hasn’t happened yet. Nothing close. Until a big finish, the Royals seemed destined for another last-place and another dreadful year. The big finish moved them out of the basement (first time in five years) and offered a bit of hope — but this is the point. Moore doesn’t want that kind of hope anymore. Moore doesn’t want moral victories.
A team selling the idea that winning takes time is the type of team that might be willing to package Zack Greinke for a collection of prospects, as has been discussed here.
A team that is tired of that, that says that it isn't a young team or an improving team, a team that feels it should win now, isn't going to do that.
If Moore is sincere, and this is the mindset, I can't imagine that Greinke is going to be available...at least, not for the type of minor league talent we've been speculating about. For a Josh Hamilton or Ian Kinsler, a proven stud who can step in now? Maybe.
But for a Salty/Andrus/Harrison type package? Probably not, I wouldn't think...
0 recs |
118 comments
Email
Print
Comments
The royals
Are so far off from being good, I don’t know why he would say this, unless he just wanted to get the fans off his back for awhile.
Also the Royals farm system is looking more and more like Iraq everday. Bombed out and depleated.
by SaltyGoesYard on Oct 6, 2008 10:34 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
not true
their farm system took a huge step forward over the past year, with guys like Duffy and Moustakas solidifying their status as elite prospects, and the best draft class of any team in baseball.
Dayton Moore is a Schuerholz guy (who, as far as I am concerned, is the gold standard among GMs in the current era). He knows what he is doing, especially on the farm.
by clark on Oct 6, 2008 10:43 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Wow.
That topical Iraq analogy-slash-hilarious joke was pretty awesome.
Do you do corporate events?
The 40 Trumps All!!!
by thedirkatron on Oct 6, 2008 10:44 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
That dovetails nicely with barbs at cancer patients
"until they are good, they are not good" - seth
by Chase Irwin on Oct 6, 2008 10:56 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
From the pic thread
"until they are good, they are not good" - seth
by Chase Irwin on Oct 6, 2008 10:58 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Actually
I just ripped it from the Chapelle show. He says it during the player haters ball sketch.
by SaltyGoesYard on Oct 6, 2008 11:20 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
She wears the underwears...
…with the dickholes in ’em…
by Adam J. Morris on Oct 6, 2008 11:22 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
have you seen the time hater sketch?
“reach for the sky honky”
slave: “whens we gonna be free?”
silky johnson: “that is a good question my man, how about now-ish” shoots slavemaster
link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V_RdX-8k3gQ
"I don’t know of a single thing Obama’s done except talk and write." - Newt Gingrich
by knockoutking on Oct 6, 2008 12:20 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
i found the following chapelle skit to be the funniest
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fc6yLmQjyPo
In reference to how good the Steelers have been in their history: "No one is even close to them."- Steal Home
by hinduplaya on Oct 6, 2008 1:13 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
lol
great skit
3 daves is good too
player hater ball, racial draft, clayton bigsby (black white supramicist) all are awesome
"I don’t know of a single thing Obama’s done except talk and write." - Newt Gingrich
by knockoutking on Oct 6, 2008 1:29 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Love the 3 daves.
“Who? Jackie Chan? That motherf***er can’t even speak English!”
Fire Todd Dodge. Seriously. 42-10 to FIU? Come on.
by sprite on Oct 6, 2008 1:54 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
credit goes to chapelle show
“what can i sayabout that coat that hasnt been said about afghanistan….”
"I don’t know of a single thing Obama’s done except talk and write." - Newt Gingrich
by knockoutking on Oct 6, 2008 12:13 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Curious take
I understand Dayton Moore’s frustration. And wonder what the heck he thinks he can actually do? One would suppose that there is some limit to his player budget. And that the people he has on the 40 might bring some talent back, but individually and collectively, his treasure chest for trades is pretty shallow. The free agent position players (not to mention pitchers) over the next couple of years are few in top talent, and plenty in relatively high price/performance investment.
Doesn’t trumpeting “change” put Moore into territory he may not be able to navigate? (It usually does, not just in baseball)
"He uses statistics as a drunken man uses lamp-posts... for support rather than illumination." - Andrew Lang (1844-1912)
by Ed Coffin on Oct 6, 2008 10:38 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
I'm with you on this.
This online posting is actually a small snip of a really detailed printed story that ran on Sunday, Sep 28 (11 days ago) in which the staff analyzed all outlets for improvement… trade, farm, free agents, rule 5, etc. I almost posted that we should forget about Greinke after reading that article, but it’s hard to reference print material on a blog.
The quote AJM found was one of the highlighted quotes, not surprisingly. I don’t know where Dayton thinks he’s gonna get better, but the article said that a long-term deal for Greinke was on Dayton’s mind. He doesn’t think they can get better by dealing Meche or Jose Guillen. Guillen is kind of KC’s clubhouse version of Uncle Milt.
Look for massive overpay for a pitcher (Wood, Burnett, Garland, Sheets), and Soria to move to the rotation. Most of the trades KC might make would involve either second tier players or a swap of disappointing-but-talented palyers (like Volquez for Hamilton, which in this year’s market would be something like Bannister for Blalock). They’re hoping Hochevar, Gordon, and Butler each take a massive step toward All-Stardom.
He’s taking a hard stance primarily, I believe, to get the players riled up. He was quoted as saying the manager is not the problem and he will purge those who are. He’s setting himself up for a very high level of scrutiny, and he’s gone if the Royals don’t respond in the next year or two.
However, if he’s tired of being in KC, I think this is an ingenious way to get out without totally killing his career.
Go Rangers!
by rooster on Oct 6, 2008 11:46 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
fwiw
moving soria may be a good idea actually
they can move ramon ramirez or leo nunez to the back of the pen
and brian bannister is an intersting guy
25- 102 era+
26- 121 era+
27- 79 era+
i wouldnt want him for blalock though
"I don’t know of a single thing Obama’s done except talk and write." - Newt Gingrich
by knockoutking on Oct 6, 2008 12:22 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Bannister for Cruz or Cruz+Arias?
Go Rangers!
by rooster on Oct 6, 2008 12:29 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
hmmm
thats an interesting idea actually but it boils down to what you want to do w/ arias this year, can he be the backup IF or no? can he ever play SS again or no?
and same w/ cruz, im in favor of keeping him for now so i would pass?
"I don’t know of a single thing Obama’s done except talk and write." - Newt Gingrich
by knockoutking on Oct 6, 2008 12:33 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
As a Royals fan
I’d jump on that like white on rice. Not sure if Cruz fits in the Royals philosophy though. He hits too many rally-killing home runs and strikes out. We need guys that steal bases, reach base almost 30% of the time and can bunt, bunt, BUNT!
Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com
by RoyalsRetro on Oct 7, 2008 11:37 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don't think that they have do to
much in terms of outside additions to continue to get better.
They’re in a real tough division, but they have talent on their roster and a little more on the way. You have Greinke and Meche, and Hochevar should take a big step forward. Bannister should be better, for whatever that’s worth. Davies finally started to turn things around. That group has promise to be a quality rotation, and Daniel Cortes and Blake Wood are good prospects who are close. Their pen should be solid, and they have Rosa, who should add to the back end, ready.
Positionally, they should easily see improvement from Gordon, Butler, Guillen and Teahen, and Callaspo and Shealy playing more could help a good deal. Aviles could go the other way, but he’s about the only one who should.
If they decided to deal guys like Moustakas, Duffy and Mitchell, those guys would bring back something nice, but I think that they have the potential to be a nice major league team – next year – with minimal player movement.
by Brett Perryman on Oct 6, 2008 1:13 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
callaspo
always wanted to see what the guy could do with a full year of starting under his belt
did nothing but hit in the halos farm system career .316 minor league hitter (7 seasons)
career .266 major league hitter, 34 bb, 32 k, never had more than the 213 AB he had last year and is still just going to be 26
can play all over the field as well (10+ games at 2b, 3b, ss, of)
"I don’t know of a single thing Obama’s done except talk and write." - Newt Gingrich
by knockoutking on Oct 6, 2008 1:32 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don't have as much hope
for Bannister, Davies as you do, but yeah I can see that. Bannister isn’t as good as he was last year and he’s not as bad as he was this year. Aviles will come back to earth in a big way next year.
I think the Royals are about a year behind TX in some ways, the system is younger. I see them winning about 80-82 games next year. All of that, plus Moore’s tantrum makes me think there is just no way they deal Greinke.
In essentials, unity. In non-essentials, liberty. In all things, love.
by t ball on Oct 6, 2008 2:27 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I agree that Bannister, even presuming that he does come back, isn’t as good as his 2007. But I do think that the top three can be pretty darn good, and I think that there is a lot of room for growth in that lineup, as is. And the pen is good if everyone stays healthy. Davies I’m not sure about, but I do think that he has talent, and he pitched pretty well later in the season.
As far as comparing them with us, I don’t know that I think that they’re behind us, because they have more going for them at the front of their rotation and pen and because not much of what they’re counting on isn’t either there or real close. It’s pretty much Moustakas who is possibly more than about a half season away. Cortes is close and he’s good. Where I think they differ is that they don’t have a second calvary coming like the Rangers do.
by Brett Perryman on Oct 6, 2008 2:41 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Good
I just posted in the other thread that I do not understand the obsession (particularly Newberg’s) with Greinke. Two years for a middle of the road guy for several prospects? Pass.
by FuturePants on Oct 6, 2008 10:39 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
He's not middle of the road at all, though.
The 40 Trumps All!!!
by thedirkatron on Oct 6, 2008 10:43 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
For having him for 2009 and 2010 only he's certainly not good enough.
by FuturePants on Oct 6, 2008 10:47 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yes he is
And he’s young, too.
What makes you think you could sign him long term?
The 40 Trumps All!!!
by thedirkatron on Oct 6, 2008 10:48 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
* "Couldn't"
The 40 Trumps All!!!
by thedirkatron on Oct 6, 2008 10:48 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
What makes you think we could?
And if we don’t, it’s a waste of prospects.
by FuturePants on Oct 6, 2008 10:49 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
That is...
…unless you believe Tom Hicks, and 2009 is THE year.
by FuturePants on Oct 6, 2008 10:51 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well, 2009 or 2010, since he's arb eligible for two more years.
But in terms of signing him long term if we did somehow get him, we have money to spend. And both Millwood and Padzilla’s contract will be up by ’11, which is when any Grink extension would kick in.
I have to think if we traded for him and offered him a “set for life” contract, he’d have to seriously consider it. Something that took care of both his remaining arb years, his first three FA years and maybe an option year.
And did you see the responses me and TBall gave to you in the other thread about Grink? I’d LOVE to get my grubby little man hands on him. It’s seriously bumming me out that it’s looking like he’s staying put this winter.
The 40 Trumps All!!!
by thedirkatron on Oct 6, 2008 10:56 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Didn't see that...
…or at least can’t find it. I have expressed a lot of confusion with the obsession to trade for Greinke on many many threads, so it’s a little, uh, hard to find.
If we could sign Greinke to a long term extension, and I knew we could, I would be totally down for putting together a nice package for him, within reason. But that is not how a trade for him would go (a la the Santana deal w/ the Mets), and that is essentially my problem. You give up a ton for a guy for two years and you possibly get a Bedard (not the injury part, the part where it’s clear Bedard is not going to re-sign with the M’s) or a Teixeira on the Braves type of deal.
I mean honestly – where is any indication that Greinke would be any different from any pitcher and want to re-sign with us, barring an exorbitant contract, way over his value?
Two years is all we get with Greinke. That’s the window.
by FuturePants on Oct 6, 2008 11:03 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
It is not that he is
a middle of the road guy. Since things have “clicked” for him, he has established himself as an elite pitcher. But acquiring an ace is a HUGE risk. When they don’t pan out (like Bedard) the result is catastrophic, and when they do (like Haren) it is no guarentee that it will put an org over the top. I am a much bigger fan of building from within and taking flyers on low risk/high reward guys as they become available.
by clark on Oct 6, 2008 10:46 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Greinke, Bedard, Haren
I don’t like it when people lump Bedard and Haren together and assume that every pitching trade acquisition is going to be like Bedard.
There were severe warning signs about Erik Bedard. He was obviously talented, but that talent never fully materialized until under Leo Mazzone, whose effects are often temporary (warning #1). He was often dealing with nagging injuries (warning #2), and he was shut down for most of September just before Seattle traded for him (warning #3). If he did well, he was going to demand a lot more money than Seattle should be paying out to any one guy (warning #4). Had Seattle looked before they leaped, then they would have hesitated.
By no means are all potential pitching targets that scary. Haren’s history indicated that he’d be a far safer pick-up. Few are perfect (Lincecum has too many innings, for example), but few are as sketchy as Bedard was. The point is, you have to assess each pitcher and each trade possibility independently.
Of course, Greinke has his own warning signs, though the talent is real and his physical health is good. I would never trade Hammy or Ian for him, and I doubt anyone else would either. The warnings have to be discounted from the return value.
by JBImaknee on Oct 6, 2008 11:05 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Seeing as how a few of the "baseball experts"...
predicted that the Mariners would win the World Series or be in it with the acquisition of Bedard, you could see why the Mariners took that chance.
If we got CC somehow, most folks still wouldn’t predict us to make the playoffs.
I know if we got in that situation where the Mariners were around the time of them getting Bedard, there would be tons of folks here on LSB screaming for us to get him and go for it.
It would have been awesome to be a Mariners fan at that moment, but it would suck right now….haha!!
i like baseball too
by bspate on Oct 6, 2008 11:17 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
who predicted that?
"I don’t know of a single thing Obama’s done except talk and write." - Newt Gingrich
by knockoutking on Oct 6, 2008 12:24 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
and talk about getting fleeced
not only did they trade adam jones and chris tillman
but also their best LHP guy in the pen who ended up an allstar? HA
"I don’t know of a single thing Obama’s done except talk and write." - Newt Gingrich
by knockoutking on Oct 6, 2008 12:25 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Many visible sources
a la ESPN et al. I thought it was ridiculous at the time, but they were saying the Mariners were in the running to at least take the AL West title.
by FuturePants on Oct 6, 2008 12:29 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
wow
one more reason to not listen to them lol
"I don’t know of a single thing Obama’s done except talk and write." - Newt Gingrich
by knockoutking on Oct 6, 2008 12:32 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
absolutely
i did not mean to make it sound like each individual pitcher came with equal amounts of risk, but to illustrate how difficult it is to assess each player’s risk, look at McCarthy. He was considered a healthy pitcher with little “arm mileage” who had achieved some major league success (although not nearly as much as the players we are discussing) when we acquired him, and now he has suffered through two straight years of health issues.
When it comes to pitching, winning teams have depth (and luck) more than anything else. The parallel with Bedard is that the Mariners fooled themselves into thinking they were one solid pitcher away from making a serious run after a fluke second place finish, despite an obvious talent gap between them and the first place Angels. The Rangers are now in that position. I would much rather let this team continue to let their own young pitchers develop.
Consider this: By opening day 2010, we should be fielding a rotation from a pool of guys that includes Feliz, Holland, Hurley, Hunter, Harrison, McCarthy, Feldman. Then there is always the offchance that someone pulls a Feldman and comes out of the blue (Mendoza is a candidate).
by clark on Oct 6, 2008 11:17 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
that last paragraph
was not really a complete thought. The point is, we have a lot of pitching that is very close, and honestly, there are probably five guys in that list who have the potential to realistically match Grienke’s production over the next six years.
by clark on Oct 6, 2008 11:24 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
one pitcher away
I completely agree – that is my big reason for not wanting to make a big move right now – this team needs more than one starting pitcher to get to the playoffs. I would rather wait for some of these young kids (Harrison, Hurley, maybe Feliz or Holland) to get secure in the rotation as legit #2-#4 types, and then you make a move to get a legit ace. But now, even with a real ace, you’d have a #1 and three #4s.
I do think that assessing risk is easier than people realize. The problem is that most people over-value upside potential with guys like Bedard. A lefty with big K numbers? Those guys are always overvalued…
I actually think the Rangers properly assessed the risk in the Danks/McCarthy deal. But risk assessment does not mean immunity from risk. In that deal, the ChiSox got lucky and we didn’t. It happens. Doesn’t mean that making trades is inherently bad.
by JBImaknee on Oct 6, 2008 11:34 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
nice post.....
great examples with Bedard and Haren….to show how there are no guarantees in sports.
i like baseball too
by bspate on Oct 6, 2008 11:09 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
For a lawyer
you sure do fall for the posturing stunts by these guys. These guys are where they are in life because they know what to say, when they should say it, and who they should say it to. You have to read between the lines.
When a Dayton Moore goes out and says “we’re not rebuilding anymore, its time for us to make moves to win,” it doesn’t mean he wouldn’t accept a Chris Davis for Zach Greinke deal. It simply means he’s raising the stakes – he’s not going to be bullied around like Royals GMs of the past (as in Moneyball). He wants every other team in baseball to start viewing KC as they have viewed Tampa Bay recently – that difference in perception will help him at the negotiating table.
This is the same thing as Tom Hicks saying “We’re not going to trade first rounders anymore.” Its a PR statement that signals to other teams that the Rangers are adding a premium to all of their first round talent because of the success of John Danks. Basically, because Danks worked out for the ChiSox, if you trade for Kasey Kiker, we have to be compensated accordingly. Are any of them literally untouchable? Of course not. Its business meant to change the dynamic of the conversation.
by JBImaknee on Oct 6, 2008 10:54 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
When Hicks says
…that he won’t trade first rounders EVAR AGAIN, I think it’s just because Hicks is a dumbass and not posturing.
by FuturePants on Oct 6, 2008 11:09 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Tom Hicks is a business man
whose company has made billions by posturing, negotiating, and generally making people believe what he wants people to believe. He may not be a baseball genius, but he knows how to manipulate the demand for his goods.
Its easy to dismiss his abrasive comments as just being naive and stupid. But I believe that is far, far from the case.
by JBImaknee on Oct 6, 2008 11:38 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Hicks can't have it both ways.
In that he can’t say, in one breath, Nolan Ryan is in charge, then in the next sentence state that he says that first rounders won’t be traded ever again, because if his first statement is to be believed, any other GM would understand that it doesn’t matter what Hicks says; Ryan is the one to worry about. Hicks certainly understands that. It isn’t posturing; Hicks is not as clever as you give him credit for.
That’s why I think Hicks’ comments are yet another example in the long line of Hicks saying stupid crap to the media which serves no function other than to piss people off.
Great businessman, yes. Savy with the media? Not a chance.
by FuturePants on Oct 6, 2008 11:57 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Wow
That’s some pretty questionable logic there.
The 40 Trumps All!!!
by thedirkatron on Oct 6, 2008 7:16 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
That's exactly it
He wants to assert his leverage vis a vis other teams. He wants to let everyone know he is no Allard Baird who will give away his top players for free because he can’t afford them.
Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com
by RoyalsRetro on Oct 7, 2008 11:39 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Its hard to really change your perspective
but I think If I were a royals fan I would be fine with a salty/andrus/harrison for greinke package. at least if they still needed a shorstop, maybe avilles has changed their mind.
the preceding post was a great success.
by DSheppard on Oct 6, 2008 11:06 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
I agree
I have a hard time believing that a package of Salty/Andurs/Harrison wouldn’t still be something Moore would have to seriously consider. They could move Aviles to second, where they have a big hole to fill anyways. They could also move Moustakas to 3B, play Salty at C, and Andrus as SS. That would set up a very nice infield going forward, with Butler/Gordon/Ka’aihue splitting time at at the corners and DH. That is a pretty nice group of young offensive players, and almost an certainly a serious improvement for a team that scored only 691 runs this season.
Not to mention that they could move Soria into the rotation. If I were the Rangers, including a player like Francisco might make a lot of sense. They might prefer a high upside reliever over Harrison. That way the Royals could shore up the bullpen, since according to Ken Rosenthal, they are seriously considering moving Soria into the rotation.
Speaking of Rosenthal, Jamey Newberg quoted him this morning saying that the Rangers made a serious offer for Greinke at the deadline. Something to keep in mind.
by Stephen Rushin on Oct 6, 2008 11:21 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
The feedback I got from Royals Review is that this package would not be in the ballpark.
They felt a smart move would be a swap of Greinke for someone like Hamilton. They want young All-Star level players that can be under their control and cheap for the next few years as Gordon, Butler et al. grow up.
Go Rangers!
by rooster on Oct 6, 2008 11:24 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
if that is the case
You got to know when to hold em, know when to fold em,
Know when to walk away and know when to run.
by clark on Oct 6, 2008 11:26 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
eh
that’s just idiotic. That is like saying that the Rangers shouldn’t trade Salty or Tea to the Red Sox unless they get Papelbon or Lester back. Obviously you can dream, but you can dream of lots of things.
That is the problem with Adam’s argument. If you are the Royals, and you want to trade Greinke, then you are definitely willing to trade him for a Salty/Harrison/Andrus package (that is as good a package as anyone will get for anyone). If you don’t want that, it means you don’t want to trade Greinke. Which is fine of course. But there will never be a Greinke for Hamilton offer from either side.
by JBImaknee on Oct 6, 2008 11:44 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
That's the thing though
They don’t want to trade Greinke. They will only trade him if it would be foolish not to.
Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com
by RoyalsRetro on Oct 7, 2008 11:43 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Maybe I should say if I were an impartial GM judging a trade it would be reasonable.
4 years of hamilton for 2 years of greinke is simply unreasonable. But I think an unbiased intelligent judge would view the original package as solid.
the preceding post was a great success.
by DSheppard on Oct 6, 2008 12:33 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I really feel like
We need to get an impact player for Greinke, otherwise he’s not worth dealing.
We’re not in a position where we NEED to deal Greinke, so we’d have to be overwhelmed to consider dealing him, and that probably means Chris Davis would need to be involved.
Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com
by RoyalsRetro on Oct 7, 2008 11:41 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
What about Hughes?
Yankees need a first baseman, we have two of them (assuming Blalock’s option gets picked up). Have we discussed Davis + for Hughes at all? I know opinions on Hughes seem to vary wildly; when is his contract up? I confess I know very little about him other than he is young and the Yankees won’t give him up easily.
by FuturePants on Oct 6, 2008 11:15 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
With Hughes
it wouldn’t be Davis +.
It may even be Hughes +.
by clark on Oct 6, 2008 11:20 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
which is a far cry from this time last year
when hughes was about as untouchable as any player in the game
"I don’t know of a single thing Obama’s done except talk and write." - Newt Gingrich
by knockoutking on Oct 6, 2008 12:27 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I disagree
It would still be Davis+. Hughes is still a HUGE asset and a potential ace.
by Brett Perryman on Oct 6, 2008 1:19 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I place a high value
on proven major league success. Davis has shown that he can hit at the highest level for power and average, and historically he has taken massive steps forward after he gains experience in the league. He may not be a Ryan Braun or an Evan Longoria, but he is a very small tier below them.
Now, if Hughes goes out there next season and proves he is healthy and pitches the way everyone thinks he can, then his value sky rockets as well. But there is a huge gap between minor league success and major league success, and there is a huge boost in value when a player proves he can make that jump and sustain his level of performance.
by clark on Oct 6, 2008 1:49 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
wow
"I don’t know of a single thing Obama’s done except talk and write." - Newt Gingrich
by knockoutking on Oct 6, 2008 1:59 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
you do realize that hughes is a hell of a pitcher right?
he was hurt this year
he kept the yankees from trading for santana
he is one hell of a piece
and if the rangers could get him for daivs i would DEF. think they would think about it long and hard.
"I don’t know of a single thing Obama’s done except talk and write." - Newt Gingrich
by knockoutking on Oct 6, 2008 2:23 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
If I could have Hughes for Davis only...
….I do it right now.
by FuturePants on Oct 6, 2008 2:27 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I am well aware
of Hughes’ status as one of the best pitching prospects in baseball. I am also aware of his injury situation.
by clark on Oct 6, 2008 2:49 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I just don't understand
why people think that any young pitcher that has struggled (Hughes, Buchholz) is going to be given up on by that team and sold undervalue. That’s just wishful thinking. This is the same mentality that causes people to want to dump McCarthy, Feldman (last year), etc. at the first sign of struggle.
Homer Bailey has maybe had enough trouble that he might be available at a good price. But guys like Hughes will be given every chance by their present teams unless they receive a very rich offer.
In essentials, unity. In non-essentials, liberty. In all things, love.
by t ball on Oct 6, 2008 2:30 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
eh hughes has been hurt more than struggled
buchholtz has struggled but he no doubt still has the stuff
bailey is a guy thats probably a buy low
and if the yankees wouldnt trade hughes to get santana i SERIOUSLY doubt they move him now
especially with cashman stilli nplace
"I don’t know of a single thing Obama’s done except talk and write." - Newt Gingrich
by knockoutking on Oct 6, 2008 2:40 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Bailey
The one concern I’d have in thinking I’m buying low there is that there has always been a serious question about his mental toughness and dedication to the game. He admitted that this was a profession for him and not a love, and that was while he was having success. You may have a question of mental makeup with Buchholz, but I don’t think there is a question about whether he has the heart to succeed like there is with Bailey. And Hughes has none of that. He just wasn’t healthy this spring.
by Brett Perryman on Oct 6, 2008 2:48 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Bailey
He just needs a change of scenery. He has clearly fallen out of favor with the Reds’ brass. There were many questions about the mental aspect of Volquez’s game after he failed for the third straight year to solidify his status in our pitching starved rotation. It may sound idealistic/cliche, but I would imagine the opportunity to come home to TX and get a little one on one time with Nolan Ryan (not to get into a big debate here, I love Adair as much as anyone) could help get Bailey out of this funk he is in (in terms of his performance and his attitude/receptiveness to coaching).
by clark on Oct 6, 2008 2:56 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
That seems over-speculative to me
I never heard the sorts of criticism of Volquez that I hear on Bailey. In fact, it was Dominguez whose criticisms are more reminiscent of Bailey. Volquez got some immature and stubborn comments, but there were also loads of praise heaped on him for his character and leadership by Rangers brass. You didn’t hear that about Dominguez, and you don’t about Bailey.
I’m not saying that a change of scenery, especially closer to home, wouldn’t do Bailey well. And he’s so talented that a gamble on him is certainly enticing. I just think that it’s pure speculation, not based on anything in particular, because we don’t know how it would alter his actions. It’s more of a shot in the dark thing.
The people who salvaged our stud pitchers did so because of mechanical ideas. The Reds immediately changed Volquez delivery. The White Sox immediately set in teaching Danks a cutter. This is just “let’s get him home and whisper sweet nothings in his ear and he’ll do fine.”
by Brett Perryman on Oct 6, 2008 3:10 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Goodness yes
I’m really not arguing with the idea of taking a shot at him, just that the notion is anything more than a roll of the dice. I don’t know of a concrete reason that he should be better for Texas than Cincinnati. Of course I didn’t know of a reason (aside from leagues, parks, etc) that our guys would be different and there turned out to be good, concrete ones. I just don’t see a track record of that in Texas outside of Chris Young.
by Brett Perryman on Oct 6, 2008 3:22 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
i don't really
ever get on here to argue, but rather to converse, which is why i am quick to concede on a point when i have heard a valid argument.
that said, the potential return for Laird intrigues me. I think a high risk/high reward return like Bailey might actually be realistic, as would a slightly lower risk/return guy like Scott Olsen. But I am not sure which of the two I would prefer.
by clark on Oct 6, 2008 3:59 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah that's tough
Olsen’s walks would be a big concern here, but I might lean toward him.
by Brett Perryman on Oct 6, 2008 4:03 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
any chance
that Florida could be enticed to move Andrew Miller?
"So he tore it up in AA. Yippee. ...Max Ramirez be damned." - bigsteve
by tricer on Oct 6, 2008 4:29 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Personally
I think they may be more willing to talk Miller than Olsen, but I could be wrong about that.
by Brett Perryman on Oct 6, 2008 4:42 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Olsen
is up for arbitration for the first time, so his name has come up in a lot of trade speculation of late.
Miller is an interesting name. He is not far removed from his uber-prospect status, so he strikes me as the pitching equivalent to Salty in terms of age and lost luster. He has struggled mightily with command and was eventually relegated to the bullpen last year. On the other hand, he is a lefty and his minor league numbers were crazy, so I doubt they are ready to write him off unless some team is willing to grossly overpay.
by clark on Oct 6, 2008 5:07 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Olsen's arb status
probably does make him much more available. I don’t know what to make of Miller. He was an elite prospect, but that was mostly based on his draft status and was before he’d thrown more than a few professional pitches. He was rushed, but his status has slipped every year he’s been in pro ball. On the other hand, he’s undoubtedly a talented guy and he’s a power lefty.
by Brett Perryman on Oct 6, 2008 5:13 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Miller
His scouting report sounds almost as if he was in the Rangers org. Plus fastball and slider, but was rushed, especially through the upper levels, and he failed to develop an adequate change up. He could probably use some time in AAA, but when/if it clicks, it could do so in a Volquez sort of way.
by clark on Oct 6, 2008 5:39 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Oh and
I’m definitely not interested in an argument either, especially not with someone like you that I respect. Just debating on Hughes’ behalf and still a little concerned about where Bailey’s head is at.
by Brett Perryman on Oct 6, 2008 4:05 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
another question
and any “baseball guy” can feel free to answer this, but how difficult is it to learn a cutter the way Danks did in Chicago? It clearly had a profound effect on his results. I remember when Orel was here there was an organization wide effort to teach the sinker, which was most notably successful with Drese. It seems like if adding a sinking fastball to one’s repertoire is such an elixir, it would be done more often, unless it is just downright difficult to add…
by clark on Oct 6, 2008 4:23 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I am not qualified to answer this
but I think that both pitches have very high degrees of difficulty. I think that the reason that Chicago has so much success with it is that Don Cooper is probably the best in the world at teaching it, and he has disciples like Buehrle that are excellent tutors in their own right, after learning it from him.
by Brett Perryman on Oct 6, 2008 4:44 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Blurg
First of all, this is all just fun speculation, because these are two guys who are not going anywhere. You just don’t see young players like this traded, especially not for each other. Would I trade Davis for Hughes? Yes. But only because this team is pitching starved and has Smoak coming up behind Davis.
The point of the above post was to voice my opinion that there is a clear increase in a player’s value when he proves he can perform at the major league level. Davis made a nearly seamless transition into the major leagues this year and sustained a spectacular level of performance for over 300 PA at the age of 22. Hughes, because of his injuries, did not make that next step, and I would say his value actually decreased over the course of the year…but a) not enough to make the Yankees give up on him (as is perhaps the case with Bailey) and b) SMART orgs do not trade players at they’re lowest value.
by clark on Oct 6, 2008 2:46 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Where I'd take issue with you
is in saying flatly that Hughes hasn’t had success in the majors. In 2007 he had 13 very successful starts, easily in line in terms of promise with what Davis did this year. So it’s not like this spring was his first opportunity to have success in the majors. Then, he has six poor starts where he was clearly not healthy, folloed by two excellent starts this fall where he was. I don’t see how you can throw out the 15 starts where he was healthy and performed quite well and pick out the six where he wasn’t and didn’t and declare all of that as failure.
by Brett Perryman on Oct 6, 2008 2:53 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
performed at age 21 nonetheless
"I don’t know of a single thing Obama’s done except talk and write." - Newt Gingrich
by knockoutking on Oct 6, 2008 3:10 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
looking back at his '07 stats
I will concede on this argument. Bailey did sport a very nice WHIP over the course of his first 13 starts against a tough division pitching in meaningful games.
But looking at the number of team’s looking for big bats right now, I still don’t think the difference in value between a Chris Davis and a Phil Hughes is what some people around here seem to think it is. I think it all depends on what your team needs more.
by clark on Oct 6, 2008 3:14 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
In terms of quality of player, I agree
I think Davis is a star. It’s just that so many more teams do need the SP than the 1B that I think creates the difference in value.
by Brett Perryman on Oct 6, 2008 3:24 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
+1
boils down to who would you rather have in a perfect situation
barry bonds circa 2001-2004
pedro martinez 1997-2001
the best hitter or the best OF
thats another question all together lol
"I don’t know of a single thing Obama’s done except talk and write." - Newt Gingrich
by knockoutking on Oct 6, 2008 3:33 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
this is hard to communicate
but how close each player appears to be in reaching his undeniable “star” potential also played a part of my above comments. Davis sported an .880 OPS this year while hitting primarily in the 9 hole with absolutely no protection. If he can continue his trend of improving his OBP after he acclimates to a new level, and if he lands somewhere closer to the 4-6 hole where he belongs, it is reasonable to believe that his OPS will jump up to the .900 to .950 range and remain there throughout his prime.
Hughes has shown flashes of dominance at the big league level, but he still seems further away from achieving his star potential than Davis. The same could be said, I suppose, for Jay Bruce. It is truly special when a kid comes to the big leagues and immidiately performs at or near his perceived potential (Braun, Longoria, Lincecum, etc) and when it happens, it is usually a better indication that the player’s performance will remain at that level or improve. I guess I am saying that the variance of what we can expect from Hughes over the remainder of his career remains greater than the variance of the projections for Davis.
by clark on Oct 6, 2008 3:55 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
the difference between
the group of Davis, Hughes, and Bruce and the group mentioned above is the experience/age they had when they broke in. The above group consists of three year major college guys, whereas Davis, Hughes, and Bruce broke in at an earlier age and without major college experience. Davis, I suppose, needs an asterick because he was slightly older and did have some college experience, but I think the argument still holds.
by clark on Oct 6, 2008 4:03 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
from BP chat today
Tim (Sonoma, CA): Would a Phil Hughes for Nate McClouth challenge trade much like the Hamilton/Volquez trade be a worthwhile idea or would prospects have to be involved?
Joe Sheehan: That…would not be a good idea for the Yankees. McLouth is a career fourth outfielder who had a big half. He’s a decent third OF, can probably play center for two more years. No way you trade Hughes for that.
"I don’t know of a single thing Obama’s done except talk and write." - Newt Gingrich
by knockoutking on Oct 6, 2008 3:09 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Moore
Whether it’s posture or reality, Dayton Moore makes it sound like Davis is the guy who gets your phone call returned.
I could see that price fluctuating where orgs have more patience. After all, look where “win now!!!!” got John Danks.
Go Strangers.
by hightowersmith on Oct 6, 2008 11:29 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Good luck with that, there
Mr. Moore.
In essentials, unity. In non-essentials, liberty. In all things, love.
by t ball on Oct 6, 2008 12:01 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
No thanks.
If the Royals will not take the Salty/Andrus/Harrison offer, then I walk away and make a call to San Francisco or Florida. At least sending them to the National League means we would not have to play those three much.
I am really wanting to hold onto to Davis for the long-term. He is a Texas boy who liked the Rangers growing up, that looks like he has some intellegence and tons of ability that he has only begun to start tapping into.
rooster mentioned a Bannister/Blalock deal as this year’s Volquez/Hamilton type deal. I don’t think Blalock would be enough for KC, but I would be in favor of that deal. Mainly because WE would get the pitcher this time.
Yes Bannister was 9-16, but he lost or got a no decision in TEN games where he gave up four runs or less. With our offense, you could easily have reversed the record. His K/BB ratio took a positive step this season but he gave up too many hits.
I would be up for a Blalock and Mendoza for Bannister and a lower level prospect. Could be a nice deal for the Rangers even if Mendoza finds his way in KC.
Go Cubbies and Go Rangers!
by pbpsean on Oct 6, 2008 12:15 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
bannister stats
http://www.baseball-reference.com/b/bannibr01.shtml
5.76 era
29 hr
182 ip
58 bb
113 k
1.49 whip
32 starts
april-may: 7 HR, 4.97 era, 17bb: 41 k, 67 ip, 11 starts
june-july: 9 hr, 6.18 era, 18bb:32 k, 51 ip, 9 starts
"I don’t know of a single thing Obama’s done except talk and write." - Newt Gingrich
by knockoutking on Oct 6, 2008 12:32 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Speaking of the Royals
where does Tony Pena’s season rank among the worst ever for 200+ AB?
.169/ .189/ .209 in 225 AB with a 6/49 BB/SO ratio.
by Brett Perryman on Oct 6, 2008 1:18 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
OT
But what were your thoughts on the Boys yesterday?
Right now they look like the third best team, but I’ve got to believe this is more funk than fact.
by brettgardner on Oct 6, 2008 1:22 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think it's definitely part funk
I also never understood why people thought that they were clearly better than the other teams in the division or why anyone thought that anyone in the division was much worse than the others.
I still maintain that not having a viable #2 WR hurts them, and it amazes me how stubborn Jerry is and fans are in rejecting that. For goodness sakes just look at coverages the last three weeks. They have a man up on Owens and a safety directly over the top on almost every play, and they’re giving the requisite attention to Witten, which just leaves things WIDE open for a quality WR on the other side. Unfortunately, we don’t have one.
The lack of pressure is disappointing, and Newman not being healthy yet this year has hurt quite a bit, because the other guys are okay but not especially good. I do think that Jones will continue to get better on his side, which will help, and hopefully Newman will get close to 100%.
by Brett Perryman on Oct 6, 2008 1:43 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
holy cow
ozzie smith had an OPS+ of of 48 in 1957.
omar vizquel ops+ of 46 this year
michael bourn had an ops+ of 56 this year, which according to USAtoday (when his ops+ was 54) was “of the lowest among players with at least 500 plate appearances in the last 35 years”
from USS mariner
From April 25th, 1997 to June 16th, 1998, Mike Mordecai not only didn’t get an extra base hit, but he played in 71 games and went 15 for 127. Fifteen for One Hundred Twenty Seven. He tossed in 3 walks and 25 strikeouts for good measure. That’s a .118/.137/.118 line.
I can’t even fathom keeping a position player around long enough to go 15 for 127 without an extra base hit and three walks. Every time he went to the plate, you’d have been better off with a random pitcher.
juan pierres rookie year:
200 AB, 26 hits, 24 1b, 2 2b, 13 bb/15k – 203 ABs with ZERO XBH.
with bseball reference’s play index the worst player in history, with 200 ABs OPS+ wise was:
bill bergen: -4 OPS+ in 227 AB in 1911 – link below
however since 1950 tony pena jrs 5 ops+ in 2008 was the worst
"I don’t know of a single thing Obama’s done except talk and write." - Newt Gingrich
by knockoutking on Oct 6, 2008 1:58 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
OT: Would you trade...
Gerald Laird and Elvis Andrus for Rick Porcello?
(suggested in MLBTR)
by chrisR on Oct 6, 2008 1:53 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
the thing is
they need a SS who can play now. Elvis is still a year away. If Arias had a healthy arm, he would be an option, and Young’s contract does not jive with the Tigers’ desire to reduce payroll. A Laird/Arias package would be enticing to them, but that is not worth Porcello and there is little else they have to offer. I don’t see a good fit with that team.
by clark on Oct 6, 2008 1:58 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I probably would
As clark says, that’s pretty hypothetical, considering the makeup of their roster and the fact that they need help now.
by Brett Perryman on Oct 6, 2008 2:02 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
almost in a heart beat you would think
but there is no reason for det to make the trade (and i answered your OPS+ question above lol_)
"I don’t know of a single thing Obama’s done except talk and write." - Newt Gingrich
by knockoutking on Oct 6, 2008 2:03 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don't see the Tigers doing that. I see them talking about Bonderman when Andrus is mentioned.
I don’t think it’s a good idea for the Rangers either. They really need guys who can do damage the next three years. They’ve got a good cache of talent in the lower and mid minors.
I was very excited about Bonderman after the 2006 season. I’m not nearly as excited. He seems like a risky bet when the Rangers need something more predictable for the next few seasons.
Go Rangers!
by rooster on Oct 6, 2008 2:04 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Porcello is very close
He’ll be ready for the majors surprisingly soon. Adding him to Holland and Feliz, with Main behind them, you’d really have something.
by Brett Perryman on Oct 6, 2008 2:08 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yup
And, plus you have to realize that Laird/Andrus for Porcello is just plain old great value. I’d do that deal even if I wasn’t all that enamored with Porcello just cause I think you could turn around and deal him for more than that to another club in a deal for someone who could help you sooner.
The 40 Trumps All!!!
by thedirkatron on Oct 6, 2008 7:36 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
It'd be a great idea for the Rangers
Anytime you can get a talent like Porcello for a couple of nice players you have to do it. Also, I’m pretty sure Porcello can make an impact in the next 3 years, he’s closer than you apparently think.
I completely agree on Bonderman…not interested.
by jcir454 on Oct 6, 2008 2:09 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
lol
ill never forget reading about beanes reaction after they picked bonderman
which may or may not be true now we learn:
At one point, according to Lewis, Beane was so furious with Fuson for selecting high school pitcher Jeremy Bonderman, that he threw a chair through a wall. According to both Beane and Fuson, that account was incorrect — Beane threw a chair, but it was before the Bonderman pick; he was upset because the top 24 players on the A’s draft list already had been selected.
“What you read is so full of mis-truths, the Bonderman thing wasn’t even close. But to some degree (at that time), Billy kind of threw me under the bus with the owner (Steve Schott, who disliked the pick),” Fuson said. “The funny thing is the kid is 20, pitching in the big leagues (with Detroit) and got his first win against Oakland.”
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2003/05/14/SP118527.DTL
"I don’t know of a single thing Obama’s done except talk and write." - Newt Gingrich
by knockoutking on Oct 6, 2008 2:09 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
In about three seconds
The 40 Trumps All!!!
by thedirkatron on Oct 6, 2008 7:34 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2009 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
