Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 21 to 35 of 35

Thread: Article: Strike While It's Hot: Target The Mariners?

  1. #21
    I dont understand the angst people have with trading perkins. For pete's sake, he's a relief pitcher. He started out hot last year but had his share of lumps as the year went on. Closer's are overrated to begin with, and one of the easiest positions to replace. With his affordable contract, Perkins could be a huge trading chip for this rebuild. Rebuilding teams dont need elite closers!

  2. #22
    Senior Member Triple-A goulik's Avatar
    Posts
    246
    Like
    36
    Liked 14 Times in 10 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    If they need multiple relievers, give them more than one. Duensing, Burton and someone else Instead of Perkins. Fill their loss with Ibarra, Tonkin and someone else like Hendricks. We have a lot of depth at relief pitcher.

  3. #23
    Senior Member Big-Leaguer
    Posts
    847
    Like
    9
    Liked 44 Times in 27 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by drivlikejehu View Post
    Here's what the Oliver projection system says about this proposal
    Said no GM in baseball, ever. WAR from Oliver projections? Really? Stuff like this gives WAR a bad name. Kohl Stewart is projected for 0 WAR ever, but he's probably worth more than a utility infielder. Eddie Rosario's 8+ WAR isn't going to get you a sniff of Max Scherzer's contract year and lowly 4.6 WAR projection.

    The Twins would never dump all those guys after positive press with the FA signings, but it's not an unreasonable return. Maurer was their #7 last year and Taylor is #9 this offseason.

  4. #24
    Senior Member Triple-A
    Posts
    306
    Like
    0
    Liked 29 Times in 15 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by jay View Post
    Said no GM in baseball, ever. WAR from Oliver projections? Really? Stuff like this gives WAR a bad name. Kohl Stewart is projected for 0 WAR ever, but he's probably worth more than a utility infielder. Eddie Rosario's 8+ WAR isn't going to get you a sniff of Max Scherzer's contract year and lowly 4.6 WAR projection.

    The Twins would never dump all those guys after positive press with the FA signings, but it's not an unreasonable return. Maurer was their #7 last year and Taylor is #9 this offseason.
    It's just a shorthand to illustrate the difference that service time makes to total return. Of course it doesn't work for a new draftee with like 20 innings pitched... that's just a straw man.

    Scherzer wouldn't bring in a massive haul without an extension. Teams have learned not to do that.

    Most fan trade ideas overrate their team's players, 2 or 3 times what they are really worth. This is another example, added onto the fact that the Twins aren't going to trade for prospects during this off-season.

  5. This user likes drivlikejehu's post and wants to buy him/her a steak dinner:

    thetank (12-09-2013)

  6. #25
    Senior Member Big-Leaguer
    Posts
    847
    Like
    9
    Liked 44 Times in 27 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by drivlikejehu View Post
    It's just a shorthand to illustrate the difference that service time makes to total return. Of course it doesn't work for a new draftee with like 20 innings pitched... that's just a straw man.

    Scherzer wouldn't bring in a massive haul without an extension. Teams have learned not to do that.

    Most fan trade ideas overrate their team's players, 2 or 3 times what they are really worth. This is another example, added onto the fact that the Twins aren't going to trade for prospects during this off-season.
    Bottom line is that projected WAR is an exercise in futility with prospects. Service time absolutely affects value and the concept of surplus value is the key, but your original analysis was woeful in these humble eyes.

    I can agree with your last paragraph here generally, but I wouldn't put this one in that category. Look at what 1 year of Morse (compare to Willingham) brought back last offseason (AJ Cole). Look at what Marshall (Perkins) brought back from the Reds (Travis Wood). I would add to your sentiment though that fans draw up far too many multi-player, blockbuster trades and specifically roster dumps like this. Regardless, we both agree this won't happen.

  7. #26
    Quote Originally Posted by drivlikejehu View Post
    If the Mariners want to trade away some guys, they have 29 options (per player), not just the Twins, who in fact are less active than many clubs on the trade market. And they certainly have no reason to throw away young players for nothing. Here's what the Oliver projection system says about this proposal:

    Twins get:
    9.4 WAR over next 5 years from Taylor, minimal salary
    5.4 WAR over next 5 years from Maurer, minimal salary
    Romero and Wilhelmsen basically worthless.

    Mariners get:
    0.8 WAR over 1 year from Correia, $5 million
    1.8 WAR over 2 years from Perkins, for $7.5 million
    1.6 WAR over 1 year from Willingham, for $7 million

    So let's see... the Twins get way more production for way less money for way more years. Sounds great. Too bad no GM in baseball is anywhere near stupid enough to make a deal like that.
    Well, Terry Ryan, for one, would do something like this from the other side (unfortunately) and Bill Smith would have given up more. So maybe you need to correct your statement about GMs to exclude ours. Lucky us.

  8. #27
    Senior Member Triple-A
    Posts
    289
    Like
    4
    Liked 44 Times in 30 Posts
    Blog Entries
    5
    Quote Originally Posted by jay View Post
    Bottom line is that projected WAR is an exercise in futility with prospects. Service time absolutely affects value and the concept of surplus value is the key, but your original analysis was woeful in these humble eyes.

    I can agree with your last paragraph here generally, but I wouldn't put this one in that category. Look at what 1 year of Morse (compare to Willingham) brought back last offseason (AJ Cole). Look at what Marshall (Perkins) brought back from the Reds (Travis Wood). I would add to your sentiment though that fans draw up far too many multi-player, blockbuster trades and specifically roster dumps like this. Regardless, we both agree this won't happen.
    Correct. Oliver projections of prospects have no merit in this conversation. First of all, there is no major league data to project with. Secondly, the WAR projections are based on an equal 600 AB per season. There are no guarantees that any prospect will ever reach 600 AB in their career, let alone one season.

    I agree that this is very unlikely to happen. I don't think I've ever seen a fan suggested trade come to fruition. The premise is not the trade itself. It's that these are the kind of moves that TR should be looking at. Take advantage of a desperate team in need. Give them a call, and see what they're willing to offer. Don't be afraid to add value, even if it doesn't make sense for the short term.

    I come to Twins Daily, not only for the great news, interviews and updates. I also like to read those fan suggested trades. I like to read others' thoughts and opinions. No matter how much I disagree with them. They're fun to read. Often times it gets me thinking or I might learn something new.

  9. This user likes JP3700's post and wants to buy him/her a steak dinner:

    Gene Larkin Fan Club (12-09-2013)

  10. #28
    Senior Member Triple-A
    Posts
    289
    Like
    4
    Liked 44 Times in 30 Posts
    Blog Entries
    5
    Quote Originally Posted by drivlikejehu View Post
    Most fan trade ideas overrate their team's players, 2 or 3 times what they are really worth. This is another example, added onto the fact that the Twins aren't going to trade for prospects during this off-season.
    Other then the Oliver projections, all I've seen is your own perceived value of the players. Jay just added a couple of other good examples, of trades that directly relate to the value of the players suggested.

    There are many factors to trades other than the value of the players involved. Other than the ones I've stated, Seattle is a place where hitters do not want to go. They have never been able to get a big free agent to sign there. That's why they had to outbid the Yankees by $65 million for Cano.

    You're also giving this front office a lot of credit. This is the same team, that just last year, traded for Michael Morse. They traded 29 year John Jaso for 31 year old Michael Morse. Jaso had three years of control, Morse had one. Jaso was coming off a 2.6 WAR season, Morse was coming off a 0.0 WAR season. Jaso is a catcher, Morse is a DH acting like an outfielder.

    The Nats actually received A.J. Cole (top 100 pitching prospect), Ian Krol (later flipped as part of the Doug Fister trade) and Blake Treinen, if you want to look at it that way. All for one year of Morse.

    These are just factors you have yet to acknowledge.
    Last edited by JP3700; 12-09-2013 at 06:47 AM.

  11. #29
    Senior Member All-Star TheLeviathan's Avatar
    Posts
    4,093
    Like
    99
    Liked 343 Times in 196 Posts
    So in one thread we say Meyer = Price but in another we scoff at Taylor = Mauer.

    This surplus value argument is all over the place. Part of why it's irrelevant to trade talks is because its dependent upon a teams plan and wholly dependent on the players progress. So it's basically an irrelevant sidebar to analysis of a players ability to play major league ball. That's the real key.

    The discussion of Willingham is also flawed because it's totally predicated on comparing him to available free agents rather than available trade targets as well. The whole argument is meant to suggest Willingham is among only a few options available when that a) isn't true and b) would never fly with a real GM. They may indeed have interest (they shouldn't for the record) but it won't be because its only Cruz or Hammer.

  12. #30
    Senior Member Triple-A
    Posts
    289
    Like
    4
    Liked 44 Times in 30 Posts
    Blog Entries
    5
    Quote Originally Posted by TheLeviathan View Post
    So in one thread we say Meyer = Price but in another we scoff at Taylor = Mauer.

    This surplus value argument is all over the place. Part of why it's irrelevant to trade talks is because its dependent upon a teams plan and wholly dependent on the players progress. So it's basically an irrelevant sidebar to analysis of a players ability to play major league ball. That's the real key.

    The discussion of Willingham is also flawed because it's totally predicated on comparing him to available free agents rather than available trade targets as well. The whole argument is meant to suggest Willingham is among only a few options available when that a) isn't true and b) would never fly with a real GM. They may indeed have interest (they shouldn't for the record) but it won't be because its only Cruz or Hammer.
    Where did I state Meyer = Price? I said Meyer has a good chance to provide more surplus value than Price over the six years that were being discussed. Where is Taylor = Mauer scoffed? I don't see it.

    My surplus value argument has stayed quite consistent..

    "The point is, this is what trades involving prospects are all about. The team getting the major league players, are acquiring them to win now. The team acquiring the prospects are banking on those players having more value in the long run. Even if that trio is only worth 3.3 WAR in 2014, that's 3.3 more than they would get out of the trio of prospects. If they're currently a .500 team, that gets them to about 85. That's what you do when you're contending. You add as many wins as possible."

    The difference is that the Mariners forced their hand by signing Cano. As I mentioned in the article. It is a curious move for a 71 win team.

    This would be like the Twins trading for Price tomorrow. As bad as the move would be, you'd be compounding the mistake by not make any additional moves. I would then be willing to trade prospects to add as many wins as possible. This is when you trade that projected surplus value, for current value.

    Another thing that you're missing is that you're comparing Meyer to the prospects being mentioned. Meyer is close to big league ready, a top 50 prospect and a good bet to help in the short term. If a player like Meyer would have been involved in this trade suggestion, then it would make no sense. The players being suggested have little to no chance of making an impact on the 2014 Mariners. So the 3-4 wins you've added, is your actual net gain.

    Which is what I stated in the other thread..

    "The fact that you'd also be trading players that would be providing some of that needed surplus value, also makes no sense. I'm okay with jumping the gun. By assuming Buxton, Sano and Meyer will help the team and making a bold move. But losing their value, to gain Price's defeats the purpose.

    That's why the Royals trade for Shields was incredibly stupid. Not just because it was an overpay. They traded Myers, a major league ready contributor. They took away 2.5 wins making the league minimum for 4.5 wins making $12M."


    As for the Willingham discussion. Sure, there are available trade targets. However, other than teams like the Marlins, Astros and Cubs, every other team is gearing up to contend. They're unlikely to be willing to trade something that is such a rare commodity. Teams like the Giants, Dbacks and Orioles have all been reportedly seeking a right handed, power hitting, corner outfielder. The market is rather thin.

    Of course the M's are allowed to do business with any team they see fit. This is, after all, a trade proposal. However, there are plenty of factors to why these two teams would fit as trade partners.

  13. #31
    Senior Member All-Star TheLeviathan's Avatar
    Posts
    4,093
    Like
    99
    Liked 343 Times in 196 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by JP3700 View Post
    So the 3-4 wins you've added, is your actual net gain.
    The problem is that it muddles the conversation and gets us into Oliver projections. All prospects have the same dollar attachment to them. So in the end it really comes back to your projection of them as a major league player. Teams that deal established talent for prospects do so because of financial restraints, so the relevant issues are - what are the finances for the team, what is the team's objective, how do the prospects project. Surplus value just deflects into irrelevant tangents.

    They're unlikely to be willing to trade something that is such a rare commodity.
    This is not a "rare commodity". If it was - Willingham would have long been dealt. 34 year olds who have a history of health issues, can't field, and aren't having career years do not possess a lot of value.

    You seem to think the only place to find these type of players is on rebuilders, but teams calling up prospects also move these players. Take Aoki last week. Jason Kubel is available and would fit their park better. Same with David Murphy. They could sign Choo. Corey Hart. Logan Morrison is available. Lucas Duda. I could go on and on.

    Plodding, position-less, aging players are not exactly a rare or premium quantity people are knocking down doors to get.

  14. #32
    Senior Member Triple-A
    Posts
    289
    Like
    4
    Liked 44 Times in 30 Posts
    Blog Entries
    5
    Quote Originally Posted by TheLeviathan View Post
    The problem is that it muddles the conversation and gets us into Oliver projections. All prospects have the same dollar attachment to them. So in the end it really comes back to your projection of them as a major league player. Teams that deal established talent for prospects do so because of financial restraints, so the relevant issues are - what are the finances for the team, what is the team's objective, how do the prospects project. Surplus value just deflects into irrelevant tangents.
    Of course it comes back to how you project them as a major league player. If the Mariners considered any of these guys as untouchable than the point is moot. That's why I stated in the article that the prospects being involved are interchangeable. Although I have a great fondness for Taylor.

    Every team has financial restraints, especially a team like the Mariners. I've touched on every single thing you mentioned. They have $40-50 million to spend, and have at least 5 or 6 positions to upgrade. Their objective is obviously to win now. I didn't supply scouting reports, other than a brief one on Taylor. I didn't want to make it too long, and I felt if someone was that interested, they could look up the other players discussed. They've all made top 10 Mariners prospect lists in various years, with Maurer and Taylor ranking as high as #5 on a couple.

    This is not a "rare commodity". If it was - Willingham would have long been dealt. 34 year olds who have a history of health issues, can't field, and aren't having career years do not possess a lot of value.
    Tell that to Michael Morse. Going into last year, he had only one productive season in the majors. Willingham had 7 straight until last year. Morse is actually an even worse defender than Willingham and even more injury prone. He was also coming off a down year. One year of Morse netted the Nats a package of prospects as good, if not superior to the one being suggested. Just by himself.

    You seem to think the only place to find these type of players is on rebuilders, but teams calling up prospects also move these players. Take Aoki last week. Jason Kubel is available and would fit their park better. Same with David Murphy. They could sign Choo. Corey Hart. Logan Morrison is available. Lucas Duda. I could go on and on.
    It's about lineup construction. Take a look at the Mariners roster. They have a left handed bat at second, short, third, center and right field. Their first baseman Smoak is a switch hitter who can't hit lefties (.548 OPS batting right handed in 2013) . There's a reason why I mentioned right handed. Corey Hart is the only player that fits, and he is coming off two major knee surgeries.

  15. #33
    Senior Member All-Star TheLeviathan's Avatar
    Posts
    4,093
    Like
    99
    Liked 343 Times in 196 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by JP3700 View Post
    Tell that to Michael Morse.
    Except that the year that netted the Nats a nice package for Morse was a career year followed by a good year with injuries. Willingham had a career year and then a garbage year. If this was last offseason, I'd agree with you because that was a career year for Willingham too. He should've been dealt then, but he wasn't so we have to deal with the value as it is. Not as we want it to be.

    It's about lineup construction.
    Their park plays poorly to right-handed power hitters. They tried with Morse and it failed, I'd assume they learned something from that. Willingham is not a rare commodity, not at his age and with his health issues. You're way overplaying his value.

  16. #34
    Senior Member Triple-A
    Posts
    289
    Like
    4
    Liked 44 Times in 30 Posts
    Blog Entries
    5
    Quote Originally Posted by TheLeviathan View Post
    Except that the year that netted the Nats a nice package for Morse was a career year followed by a good year with injuries. Willingham had a career year and then a garbage year. If this was last offseason, I'd agree with you because that was a career year for Willingham too. He should've been dealt then, but he wasn't so we have to deal with the value as it is. Not as we want it to be.
    That "good year with injuries", Morse was valued as a replacement level player(0.0 WAR). The same as Willingham this past year.

    Their park plays poorly to right-handed power hitters. They tried with Morse and it failed, I'd assume they learned something from that. Willingham is not a rare commodity, not at his age and with his health issues. You're way overplaying his value.
    If you've kept up with the reports on the Mariners, their two targets are Nelson Cruz and Corey Hart. So maybe they haven't learned their lesson.

    I used Morse as a comparison to establish their need of a certain type of player and their willingness to overpay. If you read the article I stated..

    Hammer is coming off a down, injury-riddled season. Although I hate the thought of selling low

    Perkins is obviously the biggest piece in this trade


    So in no way have I overplayed his value. There are just other factors involved here, including Perkins being involved in the deal.

  17. #35
    Senior Member All-Star TheLeviathan's Avatar
    Posts
    4,093
    Like
    99
    Liked 343 Times in 196 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by JP3700 View Post
    That "good year with injuries", Morse was valued as a replacement level player(0.0 WAR). The same as Willingham this past year.
    id argue that's an indictment of WAR and its use in this context. But if you believe he's even to a replacement player than more reason not to give up prospects for him.

    Your overall trade was fine, I wouldn't do it but its fine.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
©2014 TwinsCentric, LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Interested in advertising with Twins Daily? Click here.