Prospect Insider - Five Pineda trade ideas

Five Pineda trade ideas

By Jason A. Churchill

By 12-27-2011

We've talked all offseason about Prince Fielder, Yu Darvish, Joey Votto and even Hanley Ramirez. The Seattle Mariners, however, have not added any of them, at least not yet, but there are moves I think the Seattle Mariners should consider.

I'm not all about shopping Michael Pineda -- or Felix Hernandez, for that matter -- for the best bat the club can get in return. The M's shouldn't change their approach just because their division rivals in Texas and L.A. have added big names.

When the offseason began -- before, actually -- GM Jack Zduriencik told me that the club is planning to stay the course and build a sustainable winner. So, any moves made will have that in mind. If signing Fielder doesn't make sense in three years, they won't do it. If trading Pineda won't make sense in three years, they won't do it. That doesn't mean they aren't trying to win right now, though.

In that light, among others, including the market price on specific talents, here are five ideas the M's should consider, and then five trade ideas in regards to Pineda.

1. Trading players at 75 cents on the dollar -- or less
The problem with trading players such as Franklin Gutierrez is that health or lack of performance has negated much of the value attached to the player in the first place. Gutierrez is signed through 2013 at an average of $6.25 million. He missed chunks of 2011 with a stomach ailment and even when he did play he didn't hit.

That doesn't mean he's without value, however. Gutierrez likely has enough value to polish off a bigger trade package. Generally, and almost always, players are more valuable when traded by themselves than as part of a separate package, but in Gutierrez's case, that may not be true.

Clubs that may like Gutierrez as a piece include the Washington Nationals and Texas Rangers, but if the Tampa Bay Rays deal B.J. Upton, they could use a two-year stop-gap like Gutierrez to fill in until Mikie Mahtook is ready to take over.

The Reds, Indians and Royals could also have interest. Pitching plus Gutierrez could net the Mariners a legitimate 3-4-5 type bat. The better the pitcher, the better the bat coming back.

2. Every player should be available
Yes, even Felix Hernandez should be available, but like every other player -- in the right deal. Like I spoke about last week for subscribers, a deal that nets Miami right fielder Mike Stanton, plus other young talents, would at least get my attention, if not get a deal done.

Stanton has huge raw power and despite 166 strikeouts last season, he also drew more than his share of walks and spent the entire season at 21 years of age. He's a solid athlete with a strong arm and could land in the Hall of Fame in 20 years.

And when I say huge raw power, I mean the most in all of baseball, and it's not all undeveloped, as he smashed homers every 15 at-bats this past season.

Ichiro is highly unlikely to be dealt, and he's certain not to be traded without his approval -- partially due to his 10-5 rights that kicked in last year and partially because the M's will want to treat him like royalty, and as much as I think Ichiro has been overrated for years, I wouldn't blame them for such a tactic.

Brandon League is available, as is Jason Vargas and Miguel Olivo, among others. Mike Carp has drawn some trade interest, too, though not enough to jump all over any club's overtures.

The M's real window for legit contention never included 2012, so the club is still on track. Within the next calendar year or so, the M's will graduate prospects Danny Hultzen, James Paxton, Vincent Catricala, and possibly Nick Franklin, while another year and a half may produce Taijuan Walker and catchers John Hicks and Jack Marder. Ready talent is worth a lot more to potential trade partners than those that are two years away.

3. Keep Justin Smoak, even if Prince Fielder signs
Trading Smoak after an injury and personal-matter plagued season is selling low, and Smoak's upside is too valuable to trade for 60-75 cents on the dollar.

He might be worth a reliever or a B-level Class-AA prospect right now, but it won't be difficult to get him 500-plus plate appearances at first base, DH and pinch hitter. Sure, he won't be happy at DH, but if he's healthy he will hit and become much more of a commodity on the trade block.

With Fielder and Smoak in tow, Carp and Wells, barring an additional acquisition, would handle left field on a platoon-type basis.

4. Consider moving Brendan Ryan
This may be a better idea for July, but Ryan's market value isn't going to get much higher than it is right now. Every weak-hitting, plus-fielding shortstop was handed contracts of two years or more and at more than $2 million per season on the average. Jamey Carroll received $6.75 million over two seasons and Ryan could help a club not willing to spend that kind of money.

I'd call Atlanta and propose some sort of deal involving Chone Figgins and Ryan. Figgins would certainly benefit from a change of scenery, the move to the NL and less exposure (from less playing time, but in a solid lineup), and Ryan could serve as the Braves' one-year filler until prospect Tyler Pastornicky proves ready for the everyday job.

Sending Ryan along is certain to remove some of the financial obligation from the M's in moving Figgins. Boom. Just a thought.

5. Continue to look to take advantage of the market
Despite the club's sore need of offense, the M's would still be wise to keep an eye on the starting pitchers still available. Edwin Jackson, Roy Oswalt, Rich Harden, Paul Maholm, Aaron Cook, Joe Saunders and Hiroki Kuroda are still free agents and could become good values.

Adding any one or more of them gives the M's further assets from which to work -- and ultimately add offense.

I like the idea of Harden or Jackson. Harden is a bit like Erik Bedard, and is probably worth a Bedard-like contract of around $5 million guaranteed.

Trading Pineda

There's always something wrong with a trade proposal, but I suggested each of these via email to about 4-6 pro scouts. The responses were anything from "I wouldn't make that deal if I were Seattle," to "The Mariners are robbing them," and everywhere in between.

In reality, all below would certainly need some tweaks, so keep that in mind.

Trade Proposal 1: CF Franklin Gutierrez, RHP Michael Pineda, to Cleveland Indians for 3B Lonnie Chisenhall, RF Shin-soo Choo
The M's may have to sweeten this since Gutierrez's value is low and he has guaranteed money attached, but being able to fill two positions with an established bat and a unique lefty-hitting third baseman with upside would be extremely valuable.

The Indians traded their top two pitching prospects in Alex White and Drew Pomeranz to Colorado for Ubaldo Jimenez. The rest of their farm system is, well, terrible in that area and Pineda would cover some wounds for the next few years and sit behind Jimenez in their rotation.

Trade Proposal 2: Pineda, LF Casper Wells, IF Kyle Seager to Toronto Blue Jays for OF Anthony Gose, OF Travis Snider, OF Jake Marisnick, C Carlos Perez
I might prefer to get a young pitcher back, too, so perhaps Asher Wojiechowski fits in for one of the outfielders, but in general a deal like this could work. Like all of these proposed trades, it just depends on how each club values each player suggested.

Trade Proposal 3: Pineda, Gutierrez, to Miami Marlins for SS Hanley Ramirez, LHP Chad James, 3B Matt Dominguez
People will ask "then who plays third for the Marlins?" The answer is probably Chris Coghlan -- with Gutierrez manning center -- in the short-term, but there is also time to fill that position before the season starts.

Trade Proposal 4: Pineda to New York Yankees for C Gary Sanchez, LHP Manny Banuelos, RHP Hector Noesi
This is my least favorite deal, and I might demand a Noesi-Nova swap here. I see Pineda as a potential future ace with a solid No. 2 at present and five years of control ahead. That's a better profile than Mat Latos, and the Padres got a much better haul.

Trade Proposal No. 5: Pineda, Gutierrez, RHP Yoervis Medina, OF Vincent Catricala to Kansas City for 3B Mike Moustakas, OF Wil Myers
This is a deal I think both clubs may balk at, but mostly KC, because two of their future nine position players are included. Removing Myers and replacing him with a lesser piece, however, kills the deal on the M's side, IMO.

Just some thoughts on which to chew.

Follow Prospect Insider on Twitter here.

five-pineda-trade-ideas

Comments
The following 32 comment(s) for this article are shown below:

1. By: AntsInIn on 12-26-2011 22:29:21
No chance of getting Montero in a Pineda swap, even if it's a 1-for-1?

2. By: Gibbo on 12-26-2011 22:43:26
Yes you could get Pineda for Montero straight up, but the M's would be mad to make that deal. Montero is not going to stick at C, so you are probably trading for a DH,so do you think it is really worth it?

I like the Indian trade, Choo plus Chisnel, give you a decent bat now and decent upside. Then sign Fielder, trade for Seth Smith and sign one of the SP that becomes cheap to cover while Hultzen and co are coming through.

I do hope we keep Wells as I think he could become a decent contributor.

3. By: Jason A. Churchill on 12-26-2011 22:45:04
Would never ever do that.

What is the fascination with Montero? He can't catch, and hasn't ever played first, so he'd even be a work-in-progress there. His numbers would be truncated at Safeco, since he's right-handed and not an 80 power guy like Mike Stanton.

He'll hit, but Smoak is still a good bet to hit, too, and he can handle first, is a switch hitter.

4. By: The Great Pumpkin on 12-26-2011 22:49:13
I have no fascination with Montero...

But I do like that Toronto and KCZ package.... Especially the kC del.

5. By: Gibbo on 12-26-2011 23:33:54
The fascination with Montero seems to be because he is Yankees prospect, so many of their prospects get overrated, and many seem to buy into it.

I totally think Smoak stays.

Jason, do you think Carp stays or goes?

6. By: Timberwolf on 12-27-2011 00:04:39
I am totally opposed to giving up on Smoak or trading him for 65 cents on the dollar. I think Smoak and Carp hit if there is a feature bat in the middle of the lineup. Ackley/X/Smoak/Carp sounds like a real major league MOTO.I don't know how other teams value Carp, but I don't see us getting real value for him at this point. July could be a different story.

7. By: Gibbo on 12-27-2011 00:38:57
Yeah but if we get that big bat (fielder) I don't see an ideal place for Carp, a platoon of Carp and Wells in LF could work but I just think his upside is limited.

8. By: Lamda on 12-27-2011 00:52:43
My question regarding some of these is do you consider the 3B prospect we got from Detroit to not be someone we can count on to be our 3B of the future?

9. By: rth1986 on 12-27-2011 03:03:27
Great article...I like hearing these ideas. I'm not crazy about trading Ryan right now. He provides rare stability on the field and there just isn't anyone who can fill his shoes right now. Plus, Wedge and the front office seem to love him. I think he's an essential part of the positive team chemistry right now, whether that matters or not.

As for the trade scenarios...I love the Cleveland proposal, but wonder who could fill in at center field. Robinson isn't ready and Wells is a better fit in the corner. With Choo and Chisenhall, the Mariners could get dangerously left-handed though.

Hate the Blue Jays trade. Way too much for too little. Would require Travis D'Arnaud in the package. Perez is interesting, but the Mariners need upper-level minor league catching depth.

The Marlins trade makes more sense if the Mariners plan on trading Brendan Ryan. Although I would rather add Hanley Ramirez as a third baseman.

The New York deal is okay, but I'd ask for Brandon Laird in the deal. I'd do the deal if he was included.

Moustakas and Myers is a big haul, but, like you, I think both sides would stall on that deal. That means it's probably pretty even.

I'm seeing Boston more and more as a good suitor for Pineda. How about trading Pineda to the Sox for Ryan Lavarnway, Ryan Kalish, and Jose Iglesias? Maybe add in Liddi and Middlebrooks if you want to mix it up a bit. That trade seems to fill the Mariners with a bunch of major-league ready talent.

Hoping for an interesting January for the Mariners...

10. By: jgstecker on 12-27-2011 06:32:29
I like the trade with Toronto if you mix in Gutierrez and Rasmus. One way or another, I'd love to get Travis Snider here.

11. By: John_S on 12-27-2011 06:41:47
Jason -

How about Martin Prado and Jason Heyward for Pineda, Seager and Catricala?

They are shopping Jurrjens. Prado it arby eligible and is getting too expensive for them.

You can plug Prado into 3rd and Heyward into LF until Ichiro is gone next year.

12. By: valencia on 12-27-2011 07:28:02
We have no reason to trade Ryan. There are no good FA SS on the market right now, we have no backup, and Franklin is at least a year away, if not two.

I honestly don't understand the fascination with trading Pineda for a group of prospects. You need to keep the players who will give you 5+ WAR yearly, not trade them away. You don't trade a guy like Pineda for a bunch of B+ prospects or expensive MLB players and hope it works out. We have depth at every position - the plan is to wait for it to develop now.

And finally, the fascination with platoons. Wedge has said he's not willing to play platoons, especially for young players who need a chance at developing hitting skills against both sides. I don't know what they plan to do with Carp/Wells/Gutierrez, but platoon is a last resort, not a favorable outcome.

13. By: maqman on 12-27-2011 09:59:26
Good points valencia. Like Jason I would have to listen if the Marlins ever mention Stanton, but not Ramirez, he's a Manny in waiting. Stanton is about the only right handed batter that could master The Safe.

14. By: cdiggins@whidbey.com on 12-27-2011 10:06:33
valencia, totally agree...unless some of our prospects can be traded for an established power bat(s) then do not consider giving away our potential TOR pitchers for more prospects...we already have great prospects and don't need more...even the two KC players talked about are not worth the cost.

Stanton from Miami sounds like he is worth it but they are not going to give him up for prospects.

And Smoak has shown when he is healthy that he can be formidable player and I believe he will. He might not hit up to Fielder numbers but he may be 100 rbi, 30 hr numbers. And without the huge contract.

I would be fine if Jack Z stands pat here. Last year M's were in the running up until 17 game losing streak and I think that was when Smoak went down. What if he plays up to expectations? And Guti does? And Ichiro does? And pitching is very good?

All of these are possible. Here's dreaming!!!

15. By: Timberwolf on 12-27-2011 10:19:09
With as dreadful as our offense has been the last two years, I'm just not believing that we are going to get any trade value for our position players this winter. I'm reminded of the old poster, "it's hard to soar like an eagle when you are hanging around with a bunch of turkeys". I think we have to be in a more advantageous position in July.

16. By: DMac33 on 12-27-2011 11:50:03
Some interesting ideas in here ...

There are a lot of ways to win championships ... but ultimately a championship caliber team will be a team with strong starting pitching, a strong closer, and at least 1-2 bats in the lineup that will directly impact how the opposition pitches them ... and hence puts your team in a better position to win.

Regarding Pineda, the questions that need to be asked are as follows:

1) For as long as Felix is here, Pineda will never be more than the #2 pitcher in Seattle. How does he project as a #2 starter compared to the #2 starter for contending teams around the AL?

2) If he projects as a top echelon #2 starter, as a team, are you prepared to pay him as a #1 starter to retain him when you lose club control?

3) Where do the pitching prospects behind Pineda rank on the scale and is the team looking potentially at having "too many" resources tied up with #1-#2 caliber arms?

Regarding the bats and the potential trades, I think that there are some interesting ideas.

1) Guti to me does not project to be in the long-term plans for Seattle. Jason is right that he won't fetch much by himself. But his inclusion as a piece could complete a deal. I would look towards this route.

2) At this point, regardless of Fielder coming on board, Smoak is going to be undervalued in a trade. If you think he rebounds, you keep him. If you think he can't cut it at the big league level, you move him now.

3) I don't think you win anything with Brendan Ryan as a starting player on your team ... but I do think he's the kind of player that can definitely help out a team. Good chance you don't get enough value in a move with him to replace what you lose from moving him.

Finally, I think that there are a few things worth keeping in mind going forward:

1) Roster construction DOES MATTER. It kills me when I hear people throw out WAR this and WAR that. Having strong defensive players matters MORE when you have a pitching staff that is going to have more balls put into play against it than a rotation that strikes out a higher percentage of guys. Slotting guys to hit in their proper place in the order does matter. There's a bit difference between having a guy hit 3rd or 4th in an order versus 5th or 6th.

2) Barring an unforeseen change, move Chone Figgins along and cut your losses there as a sunk cost. He's not part of the future and at this point it's not even clear whether or not he contribute anything in the present.

3) Continue to focus on the strengths of the organization ... the development of young players and the payroll flexibility that the organization will have in 2013.

4) Taking off of something from Geoff Baker's blog (who I almost never agree with), the organization is well positioned for a potential sale and a new owner to come in with a very blank canvas from which to work with. That could be a very positive development as new ownership looks to supplement the assets already in place with improvements.

17. By: Adam H. Wong on 12-27-2011 14:45:30
valencia,

Would you want one player who would generate 5+ WAR every season, or three players who could generate 2.5+ WAR every season?

If we're using WAR as a barometer for team success, the goal is attaining more wins, not keeping the player worth the most WAR.

In 2010, the highest contributor to the Cardinals team WAR was Albert Pujols, when was worth a monster 7.4 WAR. That year, the Cardinals only had six players contribute more than 2.5 WAR. They barely missed the playoffs.

This year, Pujols was worth 5.1 WAR, and the team had 10 players that contributed more than 2.5 WAR. They barely made the playoffs, but won the World Series.

I don't disagree with trading Pineda, but I'm not gung-ho for it, either. The goal is to make the team better. If Seattle could get a haul like San Diego did, and the cache of players would be better than what the Padres got, it would be worth it.

I would deal Pineda if it meant it brought the team closer to a World Series appearance.

18. By: ripperlv on 12-27-2011 14:52:24
My biggest issue with trading Pineda, is that I'm not convinced we have that much depth at SP to begin with. I mean it thins out rapidly after Felix and Pineda. I know all about the talent coming up, but it still ain't here. However, I would trade Pineda yesterday for Brett Lawrie from up the road in Langley. I don't even know if it's an even trade, but they are both very talented kids.

19. By: valencia on 12-27-2011 19:59:09
@17

One player. You're making a HUGE assumption, that those three players will replace three 0 WAR players. Just look at our team. Who are the three 0 WAR players we're replacing?

If you can find 2 WAR players at every position (basically necessary to contend) would you rather have three 2.5 WAR players or one 5 WAR player?

You have to keep the 5 WAR guys and find 2.5 WAR guys to put around them. You don't trade the 5 WAR guy for 2.5 WAR pieces. I don't care if we could get a SD-like haul, I wouldn't trade Pineda at this point. We're not so poor and so far away we need to trade our 5 WAR piece for more magic beans like Oakland and San Diego.

Trading Pineda won't bring you closer to the WS - it'll move you farther away. You don't trade Longoria (6.1 WAR) for Kotchman, Jennings, and Rodriguez (7.5 WAR). You keep Longoria and find Kotchman, Jennings, and Rodriguez. Because finding 3 guys who can put 2.5 WAR is easier than finding one guy who can put 5 WAR.

20. By: titans12 on 12-27-2011 20:20:51
Sign Prince and trade for Prado. Then trade Smoak for Rasmus plus.

1) Ichiro RF
2) Prado 3B
3) Ackley 2B
4) Prince 1B
5) Carp/ Guerrero DH
6) Rasmus LF
7) Gutti CF
8) Jaso/Olivo C
9) Ryan SS

B Kawasaki
B Wells
B Figgins/ Seager

21. By: afortunada on 12-27-2011 22:55:29
I'm a big fan of the Marlins trade but i can't see the Marlins agreeing to that. If we threw in Seager and got rid of James maybe. So, Pineda, Guti, Seager for Hanley, and Matt Dominguez. I guess i'm really high on Matt Dominguez but i think he could be one of the best defensive third basemen in the league. Not a fan of the proposed Yankees deal... I'd rather keep Pineda in that case.

22. By: KingFelix on 12-28-2011 06:37:49
If I had to pick a deal it would be number 1, we get Choo and Chisenhall. We then move Ichiro to CF and Seager can be a super utility player. Then if we signed Fielder and Jeff Francis we would have a chance in 2012 and moving forward.

CF Ichiro
2B Ackley
RF Choo
1B Prince
DH Smoak
LF Carp / Wells
C. Olivio / Jaso
3B. Chisenhall
SS Ryan

23. By: okdan on 12-28-2011 12:30:31
The benefit of keeping your 5 WAR guy, instead of cashing him in for a bunch of 2 WAR guys, is that it leaves you more slots into which you can cram more WAR.

24. By: FelixElRey on 12-28-2011 13:40:50
Dave Cameron tackled that misconception back in November:

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/linear-dollars-per-win-again/

Makes sense, but just not supported.

25. By: StandinPat on 12-28-2011 14:48:46
@16
"1) For as long as Felix is here, Pineda will never be more than the #2 pitcher in Seattle. How does he project as a #2 starter compared to the #2 starter for contending teams around the AL?"

I'm not following the logic here at all. Pineda's value is tied to how HE pitches, not those SPs around him.

"2) If he projects as a top echelon #2 starter, as a team, are you prepared to pay him as a #1 starter to retain him when you lose club control?"

Why even begin to worry about that now?

"3) Where do the pitching prospects behind Pineda rank on the scale and is the team looking potentially at having "too many" resources tied up with #1-#2 caliber arms?"

Again, why are you worrying about this now? Hultzen, Paxton and Walker have no even made the majors yet, and are all still several years away from making any kind of significant money.

"3) I don't think you win anything with Brendan Ryan as a starting player on your team"

Cardinals won the WS with less production out of SS than what Ryan gave the Ms.

"1) Roster construction DOES MATTER. It kills me when I hear people throw out WAR this and WAR that. Having strong defensive players matters MORE when you have a pitching staff that is going to have more balls put into play against it than a rotation that strikes out a higher percentage of guys. Slotting guys to hit in their proper place in the order does matter. There's a bit difference between having a guy hit 3rd or 4th in an order versus 5th or 6th. "

Yikes...so much of this... I'll just address the issue of WAR, defense and Pitching. Pitchers WAR is defense independent, so building a team via WAR would have no additional gain or loss depending who is on the mound or in the field. Basically this assertion couldn't be more wrong.

@17

Adam, Valencia already started to address this, but the 5 win player is considerably more valuable than the three 2.5 win players as they are much more difficult commodities to find. You could couple the 5 win player, with two even below average players and still get more value than the three slightly above average players.

Oh, and your sample is looking at two years of varying roster construction for one team. 1) Its a tiny sample, 2) One year was with a 5 win Berkman, one was not 3) No team is simply dependent on one players performance

@24

That article has nothing to do with the actual value associated with a higher win player. It addresses the 'Market" value. Just because those players aren't paid exponentially more, doesn't mean they aren't exponetially better players.

26. By: valencia on 12-28-2011 16:37:49
@24

Cameron makes the wrong assumption that teams don't pay more for stars. In fact they pay more by giving more years (or more risk). Cameron completely ignores this argument because it goes against his $/WAR philosophy.

27. By: Adam H. Wong on 12-28-2011 20:07:09
WAR isn't predictive, and shouldn't be used as gospel.

WAR definition

Obviously, a 5 WAR player is more valuable than a 2 WAR player. Thing is: players that can contribute more than 2 WAR are also a rare thing.

Out of 944 players in 2010, only 147 players were worth more than 2 WAR. That accounts for 15% of the player pool that year.

Team success isn't contingent on one player's success. Thus, if Pineda is traded, then it should--and will--be to increase the performance of the team as a whole.

Since we're using WAR: trading Pineda, who might end up a perennial 5 WAR player, would be more than worth it if the players acquired contributed at least at the league average level, 2 WAR.

28. By: valencia on 12-29-2011 08:31:49
I know it's not predictive, but it also has the highest correlation with future success. If there's any single stat to use to predict future success, it's WAR.

And I never said, or even implied team success is contingent on one player's success. Although it kind of is depending on which player and which team - if Longoria is out then the Rays don't make the playoffs, no matter how many 2 WAR players they sign because they already have 2 WAR players everywhere.

What I'm saying is, it's impossible for three 2 WAR players to beat the contribution of one 5 WAR player unless the three players being replaced are 0 WAR, which is highly unlikely after 3 years of rebuilding.

Replacing Pineda with a 5th starter like Furbush will lose you 3-5 WAR. Replacing Wells/Carp, Seager, and Olivo with 2 WAR players will gain you at best, 3 WAR, and at worst, net you a loss.

The point is we already have those 1-2 WAR players in place, so there is zero need to trade Pineda.

And before anyone points out to last year, if that happens again this team is screwed and we should blow it all up again like the A's.

Not to mention the cost of three 2 WAR players is significantly less (Cuddyer, Wililngham, Beltran = 2-3 year commitment, at $30M~ year) than one 5 WAR player (Fielder = 8 year commitment, at $22.5M~ year) on the market. And anywhere from 10-15 2 WAR player hit to market each year, while maybe 1-3 5 WAR players hit the market. Fact is we need 5 WAR players to make the playoffs, and trading young, cheap, club controlled ones for things you can get for cheap on the market is the worst thing you can do.

29. By: DMac33 on 12-29-2011 10:51:17
@25:

Regarding Pineda's "value," there's no questioning that his value is tied to how he pitches. That's a no brainer. The point that I was trying to make was that his value is also tied to what is around him as well. Let's say for example you have a rotation that is built with say 4 (or even 5) pitchers capable of being #1 or #2 starters, your "need" to have all of those pitchers in your rotation may not be 100% necessary. It may not be efficient to place the balance of your resources there when you could potentially move one of those assets at some point to help fill a hole (or holes) elsewhere that makes the collection of the sum of the parts better than what it was prior.

Now, I absolutely believe that prospects, and in particular pitching prospects, are hit and miss and I'd almost always prefer a proven major league player to that of a young, unproven player, all else being equal. There are instances where you see a young player and say he's a can't miss prospect and those players you don't move. But your average prospect, not the case at all.

So, my point with Pineda being that if you get to a point somewhere along the line where you realize that a) you have a number of top-level of the rotation starters, b) you have other holes to fill on your roster that could potentially be filled in a trade involving a high caliber player at a position of excess for you, and c) the depth of talent that you have suggests that you aren't going to pull what the Phillies did and have 4 starters in their rotation making obscene amounts of money, then the thought of potentially moving a player to a team that may place more value on that player than you do (given their needs) may in fact be very prudent.

Does that need to happen this offseason? I wouldn't be making that move at this point until I knew what I was getting out of the young players coming up through my system.

Moreover, your comment regarding "money" I think is a little off base. If you have high caliber players, even if young, you do everything in your power to get them signed to positive contracts for both sides as soon as possible as I do think that that's the best chance to keep players within your organization long-term as free agency is inevitable.

And regarding your comment on the Cardinals, are you trying to tell me that Brendan Ryan is comparable to Rafael Furcal?

Finally, I don't get why you seem so bent out of shape about the concept of roster construction and it mattering. I can throw out WAR stats all day long and try to sound smart. But there are other things that go into the equation that aren't captured by WAR. One thing is team chemistry. When you have good chemistry, you can outperform your expectations. When you have bad chemistry (see Red Sox, September collapse), you find ways to lose. Same type of thing with roster construction. Not every hitter is capable of being a #3, #4, or even a #5 hitter. Same thing with being a top of the rotation starter. There are certain expectations that come with playing in those roles and some people thrive under that pressure and intense microscope while others would rather be cast back as a supporting player. Making sure that you have players slotted in the right position that fits not only their skills, but their makeup, personality, etc. is very, very important. The goal is to put players in a position to succeed. And to that regard, knowing the players on your roster and constructing that roster in a manner that allows for the greatest likelihood of success is tremendously important.

30. By: Madison Mariner on 12-29-2011 16:25:17
Nice article, Jason, with some nice trade ideas.

I like the idea of trading with Cleveland the best, but share the concerns of who would play CF if such a deal sent Franklin Gutierrez away.

I'd propose a slightly altered trade in which SP Michael Pineda, 1B/OF Mike Carp, and a prospect(Erasmo Ramirez, perhaps?) were sent to Cleveland in exchange for SP Justin Masterson and OF Shin-Soo Choo. Not sure if were sending away enough to get both Masterson and Choo, but we could always include another prospect if needed(perhaps Alex Liddi?) Or, maybe the M's get back another prospect instead and only give up Pineda and Carp.

The idea here is 3 or 4-fold:

--That the M's and Indians would exchange RHP in Pineda and Masterson. Masterson is a step down, to be sure, but he'd be a nice sinkerballer and could fill in nicely for the next 3 seasons as a mid-rotation starter while the young lefties such as Paxton and Hultzen come up. Pineda will be a very nice #2 starter behind Ubaldo for the next few years in the Indians' rotation, and perhaps ascend to be their #1 starter once Ubaldo departs via free agency? They'll have time to develop other young starters over the next 2-3 years, meanwhile.

--Carp would be another 1B/OF for the Indians, who already have Matt LaPorta as a 1B/OF. LaPorta and Carp would switch off at 1B/LF for the tribe, with Sizemore moving to RF for at least 2012 and Brantley going to CF.

--The M's could put Choo in LF in 2012 and if they lose Ichiro after 2012, Choo could go back to right(with Vinnie Catricala getting a shot at LF in 2013). Ideally, we'd lock up Choo long-term next offseason when Ichiro's contract was off the books. For 2012, we'd have Choo in LF, Gutierrez in CF, and Ichiro in RF, with one of Wells/Robinson as the 4th OF.

Of course, this still doesn't address 3B--I'd be happy to go with Seager/Liddi myself, but many others aren't content with that. Also, Choo and Masterson will get arbitration raises and likely raise the payroll, which might make it difficult to get Prince Fielder for 1B/DH. But, if we could still swing Fielder(possibly after a trade of Brandon League to accomodate the payroll increase we'd have after trading for Choo and Masterson), we'd have a nice core of hitters in Ackley, Choo, Fielder, and Smoak to build around for the forseeable future. ;)

31. By: rightwingrick on 01-04-2012 09:35:05
Another Gutierrez thought:

Baltimore desperately needs both SP and RP, as well as a leadoff hitter (and maybe a second baseman).

How about Gutierrez, Jason Vargas, Chone Figgins (we carry all but $1 million in salary), and Furbush or Ruffin for Adam Jones?

Personally, I'd rather trade Beavan than Vargas, but with left-handers Hultzen and Paxton close, and Vargas being more highly valued, it would probably take Vargas to get the deal even on the table. And even that might have to wait until Gutierrez arrives healthy at spring training.

By making this deal, we would then have back Tony Butler (back last year in our minor league system), Sherrill, and Jones from the Bedard deal ! Hey, maybe Baltimore would throw in Chris Tillman...he sure can't pitch in Baltimore.

Maybe we should also figure out how to get back Rafael Soriano, Greg Dobbs, Shin-Soo Choo, Asdrubal Cabrera, Carlos Guillen, and Matt Thornton, all let go for nothing during the Bavasi era. Things are looking up!

32. By: AntsInIn on 01-15-2012 14:53:40
So do I get partial credit for calling this Montero/Pineda trade way back on 12/27? Funny how people thought it "mad" back then yet now they are all for it.

You are not currently logged in. If you'd like to comment on this report, please log in.
Haven't created a Prospect Insider account yet? Sign up!