12-11-2013, 11:32 AM #61
- Liked 190 Times in 108 Posts
- Blog Entries
I think there are more barriers to the trade market than you're aknowledging. Its tricky, especially when the team in question is a playoff challenger and many of the available arms are in the same league.
Bailey would be a reasonable possibility. Or would he? He hasn't been traded yet. And even still, I don't see why 1 year of Bailey is necessarily better than two years of Shields.
Phils are a different problem. Money. Moore is on a tighter budget, and Shields, coming from the Ray, was carrying one of their patented team friendly contracts, not the $20m tag Lee and Hamels have. So I don't necessarily think that's realistic either.
12-11-2013, 11:33 AM #62
12-11-2013, 11:36 AM #63
12-11-2013, 11:37 AM #64
Sure, trades are tricky. You can't always pull one off exactly how you'd like... But there are always pitchers available and at the end of the day, Shields was only worth ~2 wins more than a half season of Myers.
It's entirely possible, maybe even likely, that the Royals are virtually the same team in 2013 if you swap Shields and Myers.
12-11-2013, 11:42 AM #65
This season, they should be league average... Hell, they'd be good if they had Myers.
The Royals had been bad for a very, very long time. Look at how Pittsburgh handled their rebuild and then look at how Kansas City handled theirs. Now tell me with a straight face that Moore's gamble was a good one. Pittsburgh has been more successful by biding their time, making smart moves, and not trading away any good prospects.
12-11-2013, 01:08 PM #66
- Liked 50 Times in 31 Posts
12-11-2013, 03:10 PM #67
- Liked 214 Times in 147 Posts
Another anectdote (and I admit, anecdotes are just that, not proof of anything).....of why teams should love proven MLB players more than prospects, and be willing trade prospects sooner rather than later sometimes:
from Fangraphs today:
A couple of years ago, Logan Morrison was one of the best prospects in baseball. Before the 2009 season, Baseball America rated him the #18 prospect in baseball, and before the 2010 season, he was rated 20th overall. Then as a 22 year old rookie in 2010, he hit .283/.390/.447 in his debut, good for a 129 wRC+. He took walks, he made contact, he hit for some doubles power, and he looked like one of the game’s best young hitters.
And it’s been all downhill since then.Lighten up Francis....
12-11-2013, 03:56 PM #68
- Liked 44 Times in 30 Posts
- Blog Entries
A little late to the party, but I just wanted to thank the OP for the thread and the effort put into it. I like the optimism.
My take on this is that it isn't unreasonable to put a winning team out there. But I wouldn't do it by making huge bold moves that could really harm your future. You just have to cut some corners, spend some money in the short term and think a little out of the box.
Right now, simple math tells me that the Twins project to be about a 76 win team. All I did was project Nolasco and Hughes to be league average pitchers (+4 WAR) who would take up the roughly 380 IP by Worley, Diamond, Hernandez, Hendriks, Gibson, Walters and DeVries (-6 WAR). Easy math tells me that's 10 wins + the 66 from last year. You could go into projecting some growth by some players, but you could also go into possible regression by others. You also take into account that Mauer is losing positional value by moving to first base, I think the 76 win projection is fair.
I know some people will disagree with me and say the Twins could spend more, but I think a reasonable projection is $95-100 million maximum. Currently the team is at about $78.5M. This is what could be done..
First. Be pretty aggressive with Stephen Drew. Offer him a 3 year deal worth $36M and backload it. Say $6M the first year and $15M the two following years.
Then go after a big bat. Someone like Aramis Ramirez. He's 35, but he can still rake. Being able to DH should also help him stay healthy. He's owed $16M this year but $6M of that is deferred so it would essentially be $10M for this season. He has a $4M buyout next year on a mutual option at $14M. The Brewers are very tight on money and would likely want to get out of that commitment. You'd have to offer some value though, in addition to it being salary relief. Say Vance Worley and a young prospect with upside. Someone like Zach Larson comes to mind. A 20 year old toolsy outfielder.
The last piece would be to add a starting pitcher. You could get aggressive with a Matt Garza on a backloaded 4 year deal in the $60M range. Let's say $9M the first year and $17M in the final three years. Perhaps you add a 5th year option to sweeten the deal. You could also wait out the market a bit and hope the price drops on let's say Ubaldo Jimenez. Perhaps somewhere in the 3 year, $39-42M range with an option for a fourth year. You'd also have to backload it. Something like $9M the first year and $15M in the final two.
Somewhere along the way, I'd be shopping Doumit and Burton or Duensing to clear some salary. If you could shed about $5-6M, then you'd be right about $97-98M.
You've lost a draft pick or two and a prospect with some upside but you haven't hurt yourself too, too much. You can use Parmelee and Plouffe as a platoon which would also platoon Ramirez and Willingham in the DH role. When Parmelee starts in the OF, Willingham is the DH. When Plouffe starts at 3B, Ramirez is the DH.
The team looks something like this..
1. SS Drew / 2B Dozier
2. 1B Mauer
3. DH/LF Willingham
4. 3B/DH Ramirez
5. RF Arcia
6. LF Parmelee / 3B Plouffe
7. 2B Dozier / SS Drew
8. C Pinto
9. CF Presley / Mastroianni
SP1 Garza / Jimenez
SP5 Deduno / Gibson
Now you can project a 83-85 win team. With some breaks, bounce backs, growth and help from the minors, you could be looking at buying at the deadline and possibly making a push.
I can't say I'd advocate something like this, nor is it something I think will happen. But a plan similar to this is something I'd get behind. We all want to see the team win ASAP. Just wouldn't want to wreck the future getting there.