| By Chris Crawford |  | By 01-29-2010 |
As everyone is well aware, the Mariners didn't get Ben Sheets. It's looking more and more likely that if Seattle wants to gain a decent middle of the rotation starter, its going to have to go the trade route.
A little while ago, there was some speculation that Seattle was debating internally about adding Francisco Liriano. Liriano of course showed enormous potential early on -- and then unfortunately has battled injuries and a lack of command to some less than stellar results.
Despite the lack of sucess, Liriano is an interesting risk. He won't turn 27 til October, and still has a plus fastball a slider and change. It's also important to keep in mind that it's the second year after his Tommy John surgery. It generally takes that second year of recovery before you see a pitcher's command and velocity come back to near the levels prior to the surgery.
If Liriano is going to come back to a top-end starter, it's going to be this year. He has been pitching very well in the Dominican League, and if the cost isn't crippling hes an interesting idea.
The option that hasn't been discussed -- at least not at great lengths -- is Fausto Carmona. Currently there are reports that the Indians might be thinking of signing Orlando Hudson, and would need to clear salary in order to do that. Carmona, like Liriano, was not very good in terms of superficial stats (wins, ERA), but a lot of his sucess or lack there of was due to a ridiculously high BABIP despite having a ground ball percentage of 55. Yes, he was hurt by the fact that he still struggles to throw strikes (70 walks), but he -- like Liriano -- is only 26.
Where this really gets interesting though, is the possibility of with the addition of Hudson that Luis Valbuena might be available. It's certainly possible that Hudson is being brought in to tutor Valbuena, but if not -- hes someone that Seattle should absolutely be looking at. If the Mariners could find a third team to partner up with, the possibility of moving Jose Lopez to the third team, a young player to Cleveland, and Valbuena and Carmona to Seattle is probably as good as Seattle is going to do at this point. That's probably better than Liriano, and thats certainly better than Alberto Collaspo.
Interesting.
trade-options-with-the-al-central
Comments
The following 30 comment(s) for this article are shown below:
| 1. By: CrustyJuggler on 01-29-2010 14:05:02 Really having trouble processing how Carmona and Valbuena would be better than Liriano. Carmona is a human piņata that can't throw strikes. At least with Liriano you know he has a plus fastball and plus slider. Carmona has plus nothing. If his sinker isn't on, he gets lit up. That's been the case the last 2 years. Please pass on Carmona. I would rather see a Washburn sign than give up Lopez for Carmona and Valbuena. Yuck! |
| 2. By: FatBat on 01-29-2010 14:15:18 CrustyJuggler...Agreed! And I thought Carmona's 08' season was bad. Nope! He toped that off with an even worse 09'. Are best bet is still Harang or Liriano. Luke Scott and Willingham. As for Calaspo, I like his avg. but I heard that his D wasnt good. but, his bat wouldnt be bad as a cost saving move if we take on more of Harang's salary in exchange for giving up less in trade value if lopez is moved. Please Pass on Carmona. |
| 3. By: Chris Crawford on 01-29-2010 14:24:08 This is just silly. A human pinata? He's 26 years old and has had sucess that wasn't based on luck (Jarrod Washburn) but on actual ability to pitch. He still has good velocity, he just hasn't had any luck and hasn't thrown strikes. There's a chance he isn't good, and if he's not? All you did was give up Jose Lopez. You'd get a better second baseman than Lopez and potentially a decent member of the rotation for a guy who had an OBP of under 31 percent. Liriano is a good option too, but getting a good 2B back is better than not getting one back. |
| 4. By: Chris Crawford on 01-29-2010 14:29:59 To be perfectly clear. I don't think Fausto Carmona is as good as Ben Sheets. But treating him like he's Carlos Silva is just flat stupid. Take a look at his BABIP, his FIP, and his LD rates. Stop using Era and wins and losses as a judgment for if a pitcher is good. Every stat is flawed, but no statistic is as worshiped and flawed quite like ERA. Ridiculous. |
| 5. By: DKulich44 on 01-29-2010 14:51:51 I'm no fan of Jose Lopez, but Valbuena better? Not sure on this one, Chris. Not much for defensive numbers out there, but he looks below average there, not sure on the scouting side. But his bat isn't anything special either, he's run Lopez like OBPs without the power to compensate. Maybe I'm missing something here but he just doesn't seem all that impressive. And Carmona would be a reclamation project just like Ian Snell, I think one of those is enough for the rotation? |
| 6. By: masonb on 01-29-2010 14:52:17 I read over at MLBTradeRumors that the Royals have told teams that Gil Meche is available. I wouldn't mind seeing Meche and Callaspo in a deal with some of the money being paid on Meche's deal. I think that would be a better return than Carmona and Valbuena |
| 7. By: Jason A. Churchill on 01-29-2010 15:02:17 I can assure you that Valbuena is a better defensive player than his UZR says he is. He's not Roberto Alomar, but right now he's already as good as Lopez and with another year or so of experience, he'll be comfortably above average. One thing we should all remember... okay, two: One, we're just talking here. Nobody is reporting rumors with this. Just something we thought about. Two, in comparing Carmona-Valbuena versus Liriano-Callaspo, we have to remember that one package comes in one trade, the other comes in two separate deals. Two trades for similarly valued players WILL COST THE MARINERS MORE it would in one deal. On Valbuena at the plate. Please stop. Just, freaking stop. first of all, nobody said he was a world beater. And nobody said he was a better hitter than Lopez RIGHT NOW. But his on-base skills are better and he does have some pop -- and from the left side, which fits Safeco much better. So, DKulich, remember that 24 year olds with less than one year of big-league experience that have shown physical tools and some performance in the minors have a good shot to improve their performance results in years two and so on. He was 23 all last season, his first in the majors, and still showed some raw power -- 10 homers in 368 ABs -- and his BABIP was a bit low at .298. He'll make a little more contact as he develops, raising his batting average a bit, and I think CHONE has a good idea of what to expect from Valbuena in 2010 -- .266/.328/.400 with 40 walks in 131 games. In a 150-game season, that's a 11-12 homer year, and like I said above, his defense will not disappoint you. More range than Lopez, better feet, and he's a lefty bat to boot. No a star, not even necessarily a long-term solid regular... but a cheap 3-year upgrade in OBP and defense over Lopez, AND Callaspo. |
| 8. By: Jason A. Churchill on 01-29-2010 15:04:22 Re: Royals and Meche Two key things here. One, KC isn't going to pay toward the salary. Two, Meche isn't worth $11 mil per. End of that idea. |
| 9. By: CrustyJuggler on 01-29-2010 15:15:45 I get wanting Valbuena. He looks like he could develop into a useful player. I don't, on the other hand, get Carmona. Seriously the guy has walked more batters than he's struck out the last two years and there really isn't any apparent reason to hope he becomes even a league average pitcher at this point. If he was on this team right now, he would be in that Vargas, Fister, etc group fighting for that 5th spot in the rotation. I'm no so sure the Silva comp is out of the question. |
| 10. By: DKulich44 on 01-29-2010 15:38:23 Thanks much Jason, that's exactly what I was looking for, I for some reason thought he was a little older too. I guess because I remember him kicking around our system as a teen. I figured the case was UZR not telling the whole tale, and another story with the bat. Sorry if I came off as being a know it all, I really was just asking the question, not sure if I gave a different tone. Again, thanks for the clarification. |
| 11. By: Jason A. Churchill on 01-29-2010 15:41:08 Liriano 2008 -- 7.93 K/9, 3.79 BB/9, 18.1% LD, 41.6% GB, 0.83 HR/9 2009 -- 8.03 K/9, 4.28 BB/9, 18.6% LD, 40.2% GB, 1.38 HR/9 Carmona Pitcher B 2008 -- 4.33 K/9, 5.22 BB/9, 15.0% LD, 63.5% GB, 0.52 HR/9 2009 -- 5.67 K/9, 5.03 BB/9, 17.8% LD, 55.0% GB, 1.15 HR/9 Here's the thing. Yes, Liriano is better than Carmona and has a better chance to be a No. 3 type guy in 2010 and beyond. But, in a vacuum, he'd also cost a hell of a lot more to get than Carmona. But he's also much more of an injury risk having had TJ surgery after the 2006 season. But don't look at the numbers above and fall in love with the strikeouts. Look at the trends, look at the other repeatable skills portrayed in those numbers, namely ground ball rates and the home-run effect. If it takes giving up, say, Saunders and Lopez to get Liriano, but it'd only take giving up Luke French at most to get Carmona, you have to consider that a near-wash. Neither pitcher is ideal, both are big risks for differing reasons, but if Carmona comes with Luis Valbuena and the M's would have to trade additional player(s) to get Callaspo, the Cleveland deal is probably better. And stop comparing Carmona to Silva. The difference? Silva was NEVER as good as Carmon was in 2007, was a conditioning nightmare and never had a chance, in his tenure in Seattle, to continue development. He was beyond that point. Carmona is not. You can prefer Liriano or to pass on Carmona, but stop ignoring the evidence against you and citing those that support your argument. It really makes you sound like an idiot, and some of us here are going to start calling you out on those things. |
| 12. By: brianc1279 on 01-29-2010 15:49:49 It seems to me that with the amount of money they gave Ackley they are locked in on him being either the Second baseman or Center fielder of the not to distant future for the team. With the contract they gave Gutierez I have to think that the team isnt looking to trade for a young second baseman because Ackley is their guy. |
| 13. By: DKulich44 on 01-29-2010 15:54:24 12 - I think most would agree that the money they gave Ackley would be worth it even if he ends up a corner outfield, no? He was the consensus number 2 pick, and it would have been a big time failure to not sign him, no matter where they envision him playing. And his possible flexibility is what makes this work out, he could possibly end up at 2B in the best case, but if you can get a young player with upside now at a decent cost, you make that move and sort out where Ackley plays later, I would think. |
| 14. By: jgstecker on 01-29-2010 15:56:30 Odds are good Washburn puts up better numbers than Carmona in 2010. And odds are good he'll sign for less than the $4.9 Carmona is owed. I think Washburn would sign this afternoon if Seattle offered him $ mil. Kind of an easy call if Carmona is your only option, in my mind. |
| 15. By: Jason A. Churchill on 01-29-2010 15:56:47 They aren't even sure Ackley can play second, brian. If they get a shot to add a young 2B, they will. If Ackley proves he's better than the guy they get, they move that guy in a deal for something else. It's pretty simple stuff. Nobody is suggesting that Seattle gives up four prospects for a still-developing infielder who may only be a regular for a year or two. |
| 16. By: Edman on 01-29-2010 15:58:46 Why in the world couldn't Ackley be in LF? You think a CF gets more money than a LF in the draft? They didn't draft Ackley to force fit him to fit somewhere, so they can justify what he was paid. He was drafted because he was a pure hitter. Where he fields, isn't that important. |
| 17. By: Edman on 01-29-2010 16:07:55 If Cleveland wanted to pay a chunk of Carmona's salary, I'd listen. But I wouldn't give up a lot for a project. What I can't figure out is why Cleveland wants Hudson. They have a long way to go to be competative. And Cabrera is a far better long-term option. |
| 18. By: Lailoken on 01-29-2010 16:10:36 I like Valbuena but love Cabrera. If we can get Cabrera in a deal that doesn't involve Ackley, Saunders, Triunfel, or Pineda I'm all for it. |
| 19. By: Jason A. Churchill on 01-29-2010 16:31:39 You wouldn't trade Pineda for Cabrera? I'd deal Saunders for him in two seconds. Edman, That's a good question. Perhaps it's to tutor Valbuena for a half year then deal him for a young player or two. Not sure. And I wouldn't say where Ackley fields isn't that important. It is. It's not more important than his bat, which is why I hate the second base idea. |
| 20. By: jkcmason on 01-29-2010 17:09:39 Hey Jason, I think I have to disagree with you on this one. I would much rather have Francisco Liriano alone than the Carmona & Valbuena combination. Even with the Cost difference. Carmona appears to be a large project that has too big of a chance to fail. For the past 2 years he hasn't even been a 1 WAR pitcher. Liriano is making steps to improve and as Lefty Flyball pitcher he is built for Safeco. I don't see a big need for an OFer is Minn and would see a Lopez & Triunfel combo as more likely. I understand your cost argument, but there is a large push for team improvement now. While Carmona and Valbuena would improve the team, I don't think tha tit has the impact needed. Another point is that just because we trade for Liriano doesn't mean we have to deal for Callaspo. I am a lot happier with a Liriano & Tuiasosopo or Felipe Lopez combination than I am with a Carmona and Valbuena duo. |
| 21. By: JohnMcD on 01-29-2010 17:35:03 Three team deal where we send lopez somewhere, saunders to clevland, and carmona and cabrera come to seattle. Third team sending something to Cleveland? |
| 22. By: JohnMcD on 01-29-2010 17:44:45 Looks like we signed Eric Byrnes |
| 23. By: Chris Crawford on 01-29-2010 17:46:30 Can I ask everyone a question? Why do they argue with Jason about things like what it would take to get a player. It'd be like me arguing with Paul about photography our Ricky Henderson about base running. You have every right to disagree with us about whether Carmona fits, he was awful the last two years ago, I get that. But saying things like "It wouldn't take that much" or "it would take more than that" is stupid. Say it to me, I know nothing. Not to Jason, not if you wanna be taken seriously. |
| 24. By: FWBrodie on 01-29-2010 19:21:13 I saw something interesting on the bottom line of ESPN last night. It was like: Liriano 5IP 10K 1H 0ER. What is the level of competition down there? Looks to me like he's got some nasty back. |
| 25. By: CrustyJuggler on 01-29-2010 19:29:28 "And stop comparing Carmona to Silva. The difference? Silva was NEVER as good as Carmon was in 2007, was a conditioning nightmare and never had a chance, in his tenure in Seattle, to continue development. He was beyond that point. Carmona is not. You can prefer Liriano or to pass on Carmona, but stop ignoring the evidence against you and citing those that support your argument. It really makes you sound like an idiot, and some of us here are going to start calling you out on those things." Um..er.. was that directed at me? Not sure what I did to earn the "idiot" tag but if calling Carmona a crap pitcher makes me and idiot, I guess let it be so. Comparing him to Silva or Liriano or whomever doesn't take away from the fact that a 5K/9, 5BB/9 pitcher is going to find it a hard time having any success in a ML rotation. Let alone be the dependable #3 we need on this team. And the original proposition that I was responding to was dealing away Lopez to get Carmona and Valbuena. Not Luke French. If that was the case, I'm all for taking a chance on Carmona. But its hard to rationalize dealing away Lopez for another project pitcher. |
| 26. By: jkcmason on 01-29-2010 19:38:07 Chris, Are you referring to my post? |
| 27. By: shadow_watch on 01-29-2010 23:01:27 Although Lopez doesn't look great in advanced sabermetrics, his classical avg, HR, RBI look pretty darn good for a second baseman. His ocntract is up this year, with a club option in 2011. If Lopez has another year of .280, 25, 100 will he be a Type A free agent? If yes is he worth keeping for that reason? How does the option fit into this equation. If the M's decline the option, I assume he becomes a free agent. Would the M's lose their right to get the extra drat picks, or would they have to offer arbitration. How does it work with the option? |
| 28. By: Boise M on 01-30-2010 11:39:32 "But saying things like "It wouldn't take that much" or "it would take more than that" is stupid. Say it to me, I know nothing. Not to Jason, not if you wanna be taken seriously" CC, you've got a little schmutz there on your nose. |
| 29. By: Chris Crawford on 01-30-2010 16:23:47 LOL Now that is funny. |
| 30. By: Lailoken on 01-31-2010 00:16:32 Jason, you're right of course in asserting that Cabrera is more valuable than Pineda. I just have trouble envisioning the M's minor league system without a starter who projects to at least a #3. Hard to see Blandford, Cortes, Hill, or Valdivia becoming a #3 at this point but scenarios where Pineda becomes a 3 are easy to envision. Until there is minor league depth there the thought of trading Pineda sickens my stomach. Picking 43rd in the next draft doesn't help that either. |
Haven't created a Prospect Insider account yet? Sign up!
| Copyright 2010 Prospect Insider | Created by AQ Central Prospect Insider is optimized for Mozilla Firefox |