Miguel Cabrera = Detroit Tigers
by migueltejada on Dec 4, 2007 4:10 PM PST
137 comments
Miguel Cabrera, and the D Train, are headed to Detroit according to Peter Gammons:
All times ET 6:20 p.m., from Peter Gammons
• The Tigers have won the Miguel Cabrera sweepstakes. Detroit will get Cabrera and Dontrelle Willis for six players -- Cameron Maybin , Andrew Miller, catcher Mike Rabelo and three minor league prospects.
At least he's not going to the Angels. Also, there were rumors that if the A's were going to send D. Haren to Detroit, Beane was asking for Miller and Maybin in return. So, maybe now it is safe to assume Detroit is out of the Haren sweepstakes.
0 recs |
137 comments
Email
Print
Comments
I'm having a hard time telling...
... is that really better than the deal that the Angels offered?
by Joey C. on Dec 4, 2007 4:02 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Probably
Maybin and Miller were rated the #6 and #10 prospects in all of baseball by Baseball America before last season. Detroit's probably going to regret this unless Cabrera leads them to a championship in the next two years.
by andeux on Dec 4, 2007 4:11 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Tigers now the best team on paper?
I'd say.
by Cutthemullet on Dec 4, 2007 5:07 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I don't see
how they're better than the Red Sox if Boston gets Santana. I'm not even sure they're better than the Red Sox w/o Santana.
by andeux on Dec 4, 2007 5:19 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
a tie maybe?
one would have to expect a bit less from ordonez and granderson, so i'd say they're about the same as the red sox.
by xbhaskarx on Dec 4, 2007 5:20 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
for the Sox
Lowell should get worse, though Ramirez should improve. It's a tough call.
by Cutthemullet on Dec 4, 2007 5:23 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Not sure how I'd vote at this point
But I would love to be a fan of either of those teams right now.
by BlameChannel53 on Dec 4, 2007 5:29 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
i'd go with the red sox
they were the best team to begin with, and they still have plenty of prospects whereas the tigers are down to porcello and that's it.
by xbhaskarx on Dec 4, 2007 5:30 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
red sox are deeper...
but for the top 15 guys on the roster, I like the Tigers...if they can mortgage the future a little more and bring in one more reliever or something...
by Cutthemullet on Dec 4, 2007 5:48 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
It's definitely better on the high end ...
the Angels may have offered more talent at the back end of the trade ... but if I'm the Marlins, I'm definitely more concerned about the front of the deal. Andrew Miller is better than Dontrelle Willis right now and it ain't really close.
by devo on Dec 4, 2007 4:23 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
really?
Andrew Miller started 13 games and had a WHIP of 1.75; his limited AAA experience wasn't any better so you get a guy who's only proven as high as AA.
by vk on Dec 4, 2007 4:43 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Absolutely ...
he's got to work on his control some ... and you'd probably be best served by giving him another half season or so in AAA ... but this is a kid who, just over a year after graduating from college struck out nearly 8 MLB batters an innings over a reasonable sample size.
The walks need to be worked on, but the hits will go down when he refines his control and doesn't have to try to groove so many 3 ball pitches ...
A package centered on Maybin/Miller would have absolutely been my preferred choice (assuming the Yankees or Dodgers don't get absolutely stupid and agree to give up Chamberlain and Hughes/Kennedy or Kershaw and Kemp) if we deal Haren ...
by devo on Dec 4, 2007 4:57 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Struck out 8 batters an inning?
I'm impressed with the stuff, but isn't that an awful lot of wild pitches?
by PaulThomas on Dec 4, 2007 5:04 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
My bad, guys ...
8 per 9 innings...
by devo on Dec 4, 2007 5:12 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
That was per inningS
I'm not sure how many overs Leyland was having him bowl, though.
by Nick on Dec 4, 2007 7:20 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I forget
Is he a fast bowler or a spin bowler?
by PaulThomas on Dec 4, 2007 7:37 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Old-school fast -- bodyline! n/t
by Nick on Dec 4, 2007 8:12 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Holy crap! Sign him up! ~72K/9IP!
by JediLeroy on Dec 4, 2007 5:05 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
better than Angel offer
Maybin and Miller both have astronomical upsides, but I have to think the Angel offer was better unless one of the other guys named, i.e. catcher Mike Rabelo, RHP Burke Badenhop, RHP Eulogio de la Cruz and RHP Dallas Trahern, are actually butt-kickers in disguise. Willis sure didn't have a good year this year, and maybe the Marlins were just looking to get him off the books in exchange for some cheap talent. They're always trying to minimize payroll, and this is one way to do that!
by BerkeleyDawg on Dec 4, 2007 4:10 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Eulogio de la Cruz
That's an awesome name.
by oblique on Dec 4, 2007 4:21 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
is that a cognate?
Does his name translate to "Eulogy?" If so, that's amazing.
by Cutthemullet on Dec 4, 2007 5:08 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Yes, eulogy of the cross
Seems less weird when you realize that both come from Greek eulogos meaning "good words". Similarly Eugene is "good birth", Eudora is "good gift", Eunice is "good victory", etc.
My favorite translatable name is Vladimir Guerrero who, by way of two languages, is a warrior for the rule of peace.
by iglew on Dec 4, 2007 5:26 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
wow
thanks for that. I always chuckled at Vlad's linguistic mixture...never knew that's what it translated to.
by Cutthemullet on Dec 4, 2007 5:29 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
What does Eudokia translate to?
Seems like at least 75% of Byzantine empresses were named that.
Re: Vlad: He has to destroy the baseball in order to save it.
by PaulThomas on Dec 4, 2007 5:39 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Lots of Irenes and Theodosias, too
As far as I can tell Eudokia means something like "well-seeming". Doesn't translate as nicely as the others.
Also, I think it's a name they frequently took on later, rather than one they were born with.
by iglew on Dec 4, 2007 5:49 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
according to mlb.com
and based on Kevin Goldstein's Tigers prospect list, the Tigers gave up their #1. #7, and #11 prospects (not counting Miller since he's had mlb experience, or he'd be #3 on that list). Here's the link
That's quite a haul for the Marlins.
by OaklandSi on Dec 4, 2007 4:46 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Huh
Who's #2? Porcello?
by PaulThomas on Dec 4, 2007 5:06 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
How can a guy named Badenhop
not be a slick-fielding middle-infielder?
by Nick on Dec 4, 2007 7:24 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
with a Korean doubleplay partner
Badenhop-to-Bibimbap
by monkeyball on Dec 4, 2007 9:19 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Howie Kendrick is overrated.
Like the DBacks young hitters, the Angels' young hitters' nice numbers in the minors appear to be a result of park effect.
Kendrick doesn't walk at all: 18 BBs in 636 MLB PAs. That in itself is not a problem. But, he Ks at a very high rate for someone who doesn't walk: 105Ks in 636 PAs. His power is unimpressive: 119 iso power, a HR / F rate of ~7%. He isn't fast and GIDPs quite a bit: 20 GIDPS in 636 PAs.
He has made 449 outs in 636 MLB PAs. That is a Juan Pierreian rate.
His defense is Ok, or maybe slightly above average.
I'm not saying that he is bad player. But, to be star, unless he starts walking more, or hitting for more power, or running faster, or King less, or playing better defense, he is going to have to hit for a 350 BA .
by rfloh on Dec 4, 2007 11:30 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
so at this point
do the yankees have to trade for santana, haren or blanton, or risk not making the playoffs at all?
and i know little about the four minor league prospects, but just miller and maybin is a pretty nice haul for the marlins.
by xbhaskarx on Dec 4, 2007 4:17 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Yeah I think the Tigers got jobbed
Cabrera had better be a good 3B and hit like A-Rod for that kind of package.
Willis sucks. He's a replacement level starter.
by MrIncognito on Dec 4, 2007 4:21 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Disagree
Team has all-stars at 7 of 9 positions. And Polanco and Thames/Monroe/Jones aren't bad, either. Bullpen's great if Zumaya's healthy, rotation's solid...this team should beat KC, Chicago, and a Santana-less Twins team ruthlessly.
by Cutthemullet on Dec 4, 2007 5:11 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Now the question is ...
how do they fare against their actual competition -- the Indians the Yankees ... and the Angels (since, naturally, the A's are going to win the West)
by devo on Dec 4, 2007 5:13 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
right now
I like how they fare...but when the dust clears before ST I might not.
by Cutthemullet on Dec 4, 2007 5:33 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Monroe is gone
FYI
by grover on Dec 4, 2007 5:50 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Zumaya is turning into a Harden
except all his injuries are weird off-field goof-ups.
by Nick on Dec 4, 2007 7:23 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Compared with Harden injuring himself
turning off the alarm clock ?
by green star oakland on Dec 4, 2007 8:35 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Agree w/Incognito
Cabrera's a free agent after 2 years, I think, so the Tigers are betting a lot on the next couple of years unless they're willing to pony up quite a sum. I'm not sure I'd want to be investing a lot in Cabrera right off- see how the weight goes over the next year or two! Willis had a bad year, but remember just 2 years ago his ERA was about half of what it was last year (2.63 vs. 5.17). Not sure how much of that's weird BABIP kind of stuff, and how much is serious drop-off, given that the man's not quite 26. He could definitely return to form- time will tell!
by BerkeleyDawg on Dec 4, 2007 4:35 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
makes sense to bet on the present
Sheff and Rogers are two of their key players; Rodriguez is getting up there. They thought Sheff was the missing piece they needed to win it all last year...now they added two more pieces. This is the best team in baseball.
by Cutthemullet on Dec 4, 2007 5:14 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I don't know ...
if rumors are true and Santana is Boston bound, their rotation will be so head and shoulders above everyone else's in the AL (it was already the best, after all), they have arguably the best closer in the league and their offense will score a few runs.
by devo on Dec 4, 2007 5:23 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Well last time I checked
Santana wasn't a Red Sox so at this moment the Tigers are the best team in MLB.
by methodrampage on Dec 5, 2007 8:35 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, I still don't agree ...
w/o Santana, the Red Sox project to at least 100 Pythag wins (based on last year's team) ... adding Cabrera gets Detroit to about 94 ... the health of Rogers/Bonderman/Zumaya might help a bit, but not that much ...
by devo on Dec 5, 2007 9:01 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
If you just add Cabrera's 50 offensive runs
to their RS last year and keep the same RA, this improves them to a 94 Pythagorean win team ... Boston would be at least 100 w/o Santana ...
by devo on Dec 4, 2007 5:28 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
well
Rogers and Bonderman should offer more. Zumaya, also. Tigers had some serious injuries last year.
by Cutthemullet on Dec 4, 2007 5:30 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Zumaya I'll agree with ...
Rogers is winding down and Bonderman has never done anything to justify his hype ... he'll probably pitch a bit better than last year, but I would expect a huge improvement ...
by devo on Dec 4, 2007 5:34 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
if he could learn to pitch in the first inning...
Bonderman, that is.
Rogers might be winding down, but so is Schilling....
by Cutthemullet on Dec 4, 2007 5:40 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
So Cabrera to Det and Santana to Bos, Haren?
What do the Yankees need to do to get Haren? If they offer Hughes, Kennedy, and a third player, do we take it?
It's tough to pass up 2 pitching prospects for one guy.
by MrIncognito on Dec 4, 2007 4:31 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
I would think about it if it was only those two
If the third is someone like Jackson or Tabata then you have to take the deal.
by awesomer on Dec 4, 2007 4:35 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I doubt
that they'll offer two of their top pitching prospects. More likely one of them + Melky Cabrera.
by andeux on Dec 4, 2007 4:42 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Cabrera is meaningless
Is there any way the A's could swing a 3-way deal with Arizona?
What about this:
To Oakland
Hughes
Upton
Tabata
Doug Davis?
To NY
Haren
Tony Pena
Conor Jackson
To Arizona
Blanton
Kennedy
This is just a starter idea; does this do a decent job of filling in what the teams are looking for?
Critiques wanted.
by PaulThomas on Dec 4, 2007 5:16 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Great trade for the A's
Not sure the other teams would do it. Yankees could use Haren and Conor Jackson, but I think they are going to be very reluctant to give up both Hughes and Kennedy in any deal.
Arizona would be giving up one of the most talented players in baseball (Upton), a cheap and moderately effective 1b (Conor Jackson), and a decent starting pitcher for a 2/3/4 starter in Blanton (depending on how AZ's scouts view Blanton) and a prospect who's reasonable ceiling is Blanton. I think Arizona would want more or would want to give up less.
That's a pretty decent starting point for a trade idea, however.
by BlameChannel53 on Dec 4, 2007 5:27 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Re Kennedy
I think he could be better than Blanton. (Not WILL be, but could be.) Much higher K-rate.
by PaulThomas on Dec 4, 2007 5:52 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
"Cabrera is meaningless"
seriously, why the hell does anyone want this guy?
for the "got mekly" t-shirts?
by xbhaskarx on Dec 4, 2007 5:29 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
This would have been a lot funnier
if you had spelled it correctly.
Still pretty funny though.
by PaulThomas on Dec 4, 2007 5:43 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
The same reason,
more or less, that anyone wants Milledge: he's still 23, can play CF, and is holding his own (admittedly just barely) against major league pitching. That seems pretty attractive to me as the second or third player in a deal.
by andeux on Dec 4, 2007 5:53 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
by all accounts...
Milledge has more upside though, no?
by Cutthemullet on Dec 4, 2007 5:56 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
AFAIK, yes
Melky probably won't hit for power. But I think it's way premature to dismiss anyone who's in the majors at that age as worthless.
by andeux on Dec 4, 2007 6:02 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
being in Buffalo...
I do know that Melky was pretty important for that team last year. BlameChannel70 (YES Network) for that.
by Cutthemullet on Dec 4, 2007 6:06 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I don't think the A's are getting enough ...
The front line talent should work ... but there needs to be more (any, really) meat ...
by devo on Dec 4, 2007 5:31 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Hm... well, I'm on the right track
if two people separately say that none of the parties in the deal is getting enough...
Problem is, the more players I throw into this thing, the more preposterous it gets.
We know what else Oakland needs (a shortstop and another potential starter). What are the auxiliary needs of the other two? Would Melillo be attractive to Arizona?
by PaulThomas on Dec 4, 2007 5:47 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
nah
they like Hudson. I almost said Spivey, flashback to '03 or something.
by Cutthemullet on Dec 4, 2007 5:50 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Can they re-sign Hudson though?
He's a free agent after next year.
by PaulThomas on Dec 4, 2007 5:55 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Probably
Won't Unit come off the books? What's the deal with him, actually?
by Cutthemullet on Dec 4, 2007 5:59 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I don't think Melillo would be attractive ...
to anybody ...
The way I figure it, the going rate for Haren is at least two front-line, near ready prospects plus at least two more decent guys ... Blanton should be a bit less than that.
You have the A's getting back three front-line prospects ... but effectively nothing else ...
by devo on Dec 4, 2007 5:51 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Hughes is ready
5 1/3 of no-hit ball against TX before getting hurt last year
by Cutthemullet on Dec 4, 2007 5:53 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I'm happy w/ Hughes, Upton, Tabata ...
I'd just like a bit more too ...
by devo on Dec 4, 2007 6:00 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
if we're giving up Haren and Blanton...
I'd agree.
by Cutthemullet on Dec 4, 2007 6:03 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
The thing is, Upton is a first overall pick
I have to weight that higher than just a standard "front-line prospect." With good reason, too. Top overall picks have an enormously higher success rate than any other draft pick.
by PaulThomas on Dec 4, 2007 5:54 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I thought you meant Miguel
Thinking, wow, Miguel Cabrera's meaningless, Doug Davis isn't.
by Cutthemullet on Dec 4, 2007 5:31 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Davis is just rotation filler
Not really necessary.
by PaulThomas on Dec 4, 2007 5:44 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, I know
Gimme Livan as my D-Back rotation filler...his inning-eating puts Blanton's to shame.
by Cutthemullet on Dec 4, 2007 5:45 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
and they're about equal
for other types of eating. Seriously, can you think of someone better than Livan to give Cupcakes some competition at the buffet table?
Well, we could get back to talking about Miguel Cabrera, I guess.
by colin on Dec 4, 2007 7:16 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Been thinking this over
Arizona's giving up too much. Maybe if they were getting Hughes instead of Kennedy.
I'm torn over Davis, he's signed for 2 more years and I don't know if Arizona would give that up. Which won't matter if you don't send 'em Hughes.
The deal doesn't look so good for Oakland if you do.
by grover on Dec 4, 2007 6:29 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Does Inge's range preclude his playing SS?
by The Dogfather on Dec 4, 2007 4:44 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
he's played C, CF, 3B, don't know what else
he might be obtainable for a reasonable (not Haren or Blanton) price. Marcus Thames is also available, though I don't think he's played CF and he may not be good enough for the A's to care.
by OaklandSi on Dec 4, 2007 4:49 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
didn't they just trade for renteria to play SS?
with guillen at 1b and sheffield as DH, they should keep inge at 3b and move cabrera to LF.
by xbhaskarx on Dec 4, 2007 5:14 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I think he was talking about the A's...
by mikeA on Dec 4, 2007 5:16 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
yup.
by The Dogfather on Dec 4, 2007 5:28 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Inge shouldn't make that 25-man roster
Cabrera at third, Monroe/Jones/Thames in left. Not that Jones is any good, but they did trade for him. Inge isn't any good, either.
by Cutthemullet on Dec 4, 2007 5:16 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Inge is the best defensive 3B in the AL
by mikeA on Dec 4, 2007 5:17 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
do you think he has a place in the lineup now?
Rodriguez
Guillen
Polanco
Renteria
3B
Ordonez
Granderson
LF
Sheff
Cabrera plays one, think Inge will see regular playing time?
by Cutthemullet on Dec 4, 2007 5:25 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
They could keep him at third
and put Cabrera in the OF or trade him. I was just disputing the idea that he isn't any good. He had a bad year at the plate last year, but the previous two years he was an excellent player.
by mikeA on Dec 4, 2007 5:32 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Throw miggy in left
and keep Inge at 3rd. Detroit had the third best offense in the majors while putting up a shockingly bad .240/.279/.394 from there left fielders! Switch that out for Cabrera and youve got some crazy production, even with guys like Ordonez and Polanco falling back to regular career levels. Imagine... (With Bill James Projections)
1-Granderson .294/.359/.523
2-Polanco .312/.360/.423
3-Ordonez .314/.383/.517
4-Cabrera .327/.411/.579
5-Sheff .280/.384/.488
6-Guillen .297/.368/.466
7-Rodriguez .284/.316/.431
8-Inge .240/.311/.394
9-Renteria .294/.357/.451
Thats insane. One hole for a great defensive postion player isnt gonna hurt them nearly enough to warrnat throwing him out.
by SuperBean on Dec 4, 2007 5:55 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, that's sick.
I have to believe this is the best team in the majors right now. Like Mike said, Inge had better years before last year, so he could/should improve, too. As if they need that.
I just didn't realize that the converted catcher was such a good defensive 3B. When talking about the best defensive 3Bs in the AL, you talk about Chavez, Beltre, Lowell, and Crede...Inge is under the radar, apparently.
by Cutthemullet on Dec 4, 2007 6:02 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I think Inge
is on a par with those guys defensively, but I wouldn't say he's the best. Inge makes more flashy plays, but he's less consistent, I think. What made Chavez great was not the occasional omigod play but his consistency. Same for Beltre now.
by iglew on Dec 4, 2007 8:00 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I am pretty sure that Detroit
is planning on Cabrera at 3B, J.Jones in LF and Inge to the trade block.
by AsFanInLA on Dec 4, 2007 9:27 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
C-Mo is in Minnesota now
by PaulThomas on Dec 4, 2007 5:19 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
former catcher...
though I'm pretty sure Shane Halter did play all 8 non-pitching positions for the Tigers a few years ago.
by Cutthemullet on Dec 4, 2007 5:17 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
before I leave for soccer
I just wanted to say that I like that user migueltejada posted the Miguel...Cabrera diary.
by Cutthemullet on Dec 4, 2007 6:08 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
I researched Trahern and de la Cruz a bit
when I was looking at "Crosby to the Tigers" ideas (this was pre-Renteria). I think the Tigers tend to stockpile their minors with pitching precisely so they have leverage to make trades like this - and with Verlander, Bonderman, and Miller already on the scene, they can part with Trahern and de la Cruz and probably not feel it. However, that being said Trahern and de la Cruz were two of their brightest pitchers among those w/o major league experience.
IIRC, Trahern is a Blanton type - 88-90MPH fastball but very good command and knows how to pitch. De la Cruz is the opposite - a flame thrower (high 90s) with electric stuff but spotty command, whom some scouts see having his future in the bullpen.
If the Tigers can lose those guys without really noticing, and can draft some more Verlanders and Millers in the next couple years, this could be a very good trade for them. But if not, they could regret how much talent they lost at so many positions, to get one star and a pitcher on a Zito-esque path to fast-declining stats.
by Nico on Dec 4, 2007 6:15 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Random Zito hate?
Zito's lowest ERA+ is 98. Dontrelle's is 83.
Dontrelle also has a lot less excuse for it, being only 26 and whatnot.
by PaulThomas on Dec 4, 2007 6:19 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Their ability
to draft Verlander (2nd overall) and Miller (6th overall) and for that matter Maybin (10th overall) was due in large part to the fact that their major league team was awful, though they did managed to grab Porcello with a much lower pick this year after Boras scared off other teams.
by andeux on Dec 4, 2007 6:20 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
True, but . . .
to the Tigers credit they had to pick those particular guys, and had to be willing to pay over slot to do it. The Tigers are an excellent example of what a team that drafts the most talented player available can accomplish.
by BlameChannel53 on Dec 4, 2007 6:40 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Ding! Ding! Ding!
Willingness to spend a couple hundred thousand more, even a million on a draft pick and they pull off a huge deal.
by grover on Dec 4, 2007 6:52 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
During this year's draft . . .
and before the Tigers drafted Porcello, I posted a comment that listed the Tigers as one of the teams that were using their willingness to pay over slot as a weapon to acquire more talent. Someone on AN asked something to the effect of "Why Detroit?" This is why. Detroit has paid over slot in 4 straight drafts and has acquired talent to keep and talent to trade while teams like San Diego and Pittsburth have made excuses and have acquired vastly inferior talent.
by BlameChannel53 on Dec 4, 2007 7:03 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
This is why the draft system is moronic
Actually, it's just an offshoot of the fact that the entire financial structure of MLB is moronic. But seriously-- is there any other sport in which teams deliberately pick someone other than the best player available?
I mean, I'd like for the A's to do this, but I'd like even more for it not to even be legal.
by PaulThomas on Dec 4, 2007 7:46 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Hockey is the only other major sport
with both amateur and professional feeder leagues into the major league. I don't really follow hockey, but I seem to remember big-deal Juniors prospects announcing that they wouldn't play for certain teams and affecting the draft.
by Nick on Dec 4, 2007 8:19 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Probably pre-cap
Well, I take that back. There are holdouts in every sport-- Jianlian in basketball, Eli Manning in football, etc. That's not really what I'm talking about here, though. The teams are all willing to sign the pick they get-- it's only a question of whether the pick is willing to sign with the team.
If I understand it correctly, hockey just has one draft point. In other words, if a player goes to college, he's still considered a draftee of the team that took him. I believe Matt Carle (Sharks Defenseman) was essentially "called up" out of college a few years back. It seems much more logical than the baseball system, where teams are basically hosed if the draftees hold out on them.
Even that wouldn't solve this problem though, because the problem here is that there's a "rule" which is routinely ignored by certain teams with no penalty. It confounds me why ANY team pays any attention to it, but they do. It's as if half of the college basketball coaches publicly ignored the new NCAA rule about text-messaging recruits, and the NCAA knew about it but did nothing at all to stop them.
by PaulThomas on Dec 4, 2007 10:00 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
There are a couple of problems
One is that, because of the draft pick compensation for free agents, the draft is officially part of the collective bargaining agreement, and the league couldn't impose an enforcible slotting system without the union agreeing to it.
The second is that, even if the above were changed, either by eliminating the compensation picks or by getting the union to agree, MLB lives in perpetual fear of having their antitrust exemption taken away by congress or weakened by a court ruling in favor of some Boras client who sues them.
So really all they can do to try to keep signing bonuses down is the kind of half-assed collusion they have now. Like you, I find it annoying that some owners are willing to toe the line while others openly ignore it.
There is a much simpler solution that would at least help: allow teams to trade draft picks and/or the players they select. Supposedly the rule preventing this is there to "protect" weaker teams, but it has the exact opposite effect: by making the assets these teams have (high draft picks) illiquid, you make them less valuable. If the Padres didn't want to pay for Verlander or Weaver, at least they could have traded down with a team that did before taking Matt Bush. It still might have been dumb, but at least they would be better off than they are now.
by andeux on Dec 5, 2007 10:15 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Absolutely
I was just pointing out that their drafting "some more Verlanders and Millers in the next couple years" will be even more difficult.
The A's were in a similar position several years back - they took Mulder and Zito with top 10 picks in '98 and '99, but then didn't have a pick in the top half of the round for the next 8 years. It's the price you pay for being successful, but it beats being a Pirates fan.
by andeux on Dec 4, 2007 6:59 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Oh yeah
I wasn't really disagreeing with you, just trying to give Detroit a little credit. I would imagine that Detroit will continue to look for guys like Porcello that drop because of price rather than talent. I sure wish the A's would do that.
by BlameChannel53 on Dec 4, 2007 7:06 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I'm with both of you -
The higher you draft, the easier it is to pick well...And you still have to do it, and it's far from an exact Science.
by Nico on Dec 4, 2007 7:11 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
This past draft...
The A's had a chance to pick the "Best Player" in the draft, but they passed for James Simmons.
If they would have picked Porcello, it would have been easy to draft well in the 1st round.
by Colorado Fan on Dec 4, 2007 11:42 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
He wasn't the best player ...
he was the "best high school pitcher" ... and if the A's had taken him, it would have cost them a guaranteed extra $5 million for a pitcher with less than a 50% chance of ever appearing in the Major Leagues. Not to mention the fact that his Major League contract could have potentially screwed up the timing in his development curve, which, granted, would increase the chance that he makes the Majors, but decrease the chance that he makes it in the Majors ...
by devo on Dec 5, 2007 12:04 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
So, let's see
Signing star pitching FAs is a risk. Signing star players, like Haren, before they hit FA is a risk, since they will want a long term contract in return for not hitting FA. Drafting star pitching prospects, and paying them what they want, is a risk. Signing young star international pitching prospects from Latin America is a risk.
Where then are you going to get great pitchers from? Trades? Sometimes you get Haren, sometimes you get Meyer. So also a risk. Rule V? Yeah, very occasionally you might get Johan Santana. Most of the time you get crap.
So, just field a crappy team?
by rfloh on Dec 5, 2007 1:21 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I'm all for taking risks
But they need to be smart risks. It's one thing to draft a HS pitcher in the 1st round, a whole other thing to give him a major league contract. Because the contract then decides when the player makes it to the Show and not the player's progress. The A's have done this once, you might remember the arm... Todd van Poppel.
He got hurt, missed development time, wasn't ready when his contract demanded him to be in the Show and never recovered.
by grover on Dec 5, 2007 5:40 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I'm sure
that a minor-league contract could have been arranged for the right kind of money. Even Scott Boras doesn't insist on a major-league contract for every client.
That being said, the best use of extra cash in the draft isn't to draft upper-1st-round talent in the lower 1st round, it's to draft lower-1st-round talent in the 10th round. The Angels have been doing that for years. IIRC Nick Adenhart was drafted in like the 15th round-- and got a signing bonus of almost $1 million.
by PaulThomas on Dec 5, 2007 9:35 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Depends on what Boras promised the kid
If he promised the kid he'd land him a big league deal in order to sign him then he's pretty much committed. The money between a minor league deal and a major league deal but I think (not 100% sure on this) a major league deal automatically starts to count towards retirement and benefits, which is a nice insurance package to protect against flame out.
I'm pretty sure I'm right on this because Porcello is on the Tiger's 40 man roster and I know that the length of time a player has on the 40 man affects their retirement and such.
by grover on Dec 5, 2007 9:55 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
that was supposed to include
the money between a minor league deal and a big league deal can be the same
sorry, no edit feature
by grover on Dec 5, 2007 9:56 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
As is always the case,
fringe benefits are certainly a good thing, but enough money will cover for the lack of them. If your employer told you he was cutting out your health insurance, but also raising your salary by $2000 a month, I doubt you'd be complaining.
There's got to be a determinable (and thus, compensable) value to the auxiliary benefits. If you really think a guy needs 3-4 years seasoning, it might be worthwhile to just essentially buy them out.
by PaulThomas on Dec 5, 2007 10:08 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
You also need to factor the prestige
of signing a big league contract. I think you could factor in the benefits but that would mean the team would have to lay out more upfront money to sign the prospect to a minor league contract.
What I think it boils down to is Boras promised him a big league deal which is why Porcello signed with him. I'm also sure that Boras knew he could get his client a big league deal well before the draft while he was "advising" Porcello. Boras will not hesitate to have his client hold out to get the deal they want, would it have been worth the risk of the A's wasting their 1st round pick in 2007 to go after a talent that would not sign unless he received a big league deal? Sure, the A's would get a comp pick in 2008 to make up for the loss but that doesn't feed a famr system in need of immediate help.
by grover on Dec 5, 2007 11:09 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Well, yeah
Todd van Poppel. Dan Meyer. Esteban Loaiza.
Every move has a risk of being a failure. It's just whether the player involved is worth the risk.
by rfloh on Dec 5, 2007 10:04 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Heard this on KNBR..
on the way home today. Shocking! Can we predict AL dominance for the next 5 years now?
by ST on Dec 4, 2007 6:18 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
This is a GOOD thing
Cabrera going to the Tigers means he’s not going to Anaheim, which had previously been his most likely destinaton. Torii Hunter notwithstanding, Cabrera’s bat would have virtually sewn up the AL West division for the Angels for the next couple of years. Without Cabrera (or A-Rod, in an earlier version of pretty much this same scenario), there’s much less reason for Billy Beane to "blow up" the club and rebuild for the future. Cabrera in Detroit is just one more vote in favor of keeping the team together, and perhaps adding an additional cog or two, for a legitimate playoff run.
by CurveballKing on Dec 4, 2007 7:01 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Yup - Time will tell on Aybar,
but Orlando Cabrera had a good enough year in 2007 that losing him while adding Hunter to a crowded OF (which means subtracting ABs from among J. Rivera, G. Anderson, GMJ, Figgins) is not, in the balance, a big upgrade. The Angels look like they're still good, and still not invincible.
by Nico on Dec 4, 2007 7:10 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
then again ...
... if Billy doesn't want to ultimately follow the grover plan (i.e., lock up Haren for 3-4 more years beyond his current commitment), and he has reservations about the long-term efficacy of Blanton, yet the illusion of '08-09 competitiveness vs the Angels keeps him from trading either pitcher this offseason, then we will lose the opportunity to restock the top level of the farm system in exchange for what is at best a crapshoot at legitimate contention the next two years.
by monkeyball on Dec 4, 2007 7:49 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Isn't locking up Haren for 3-4 years
the Jennifer plan?
by Nick on Dec 4, 2007 8:22 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I would hope it was to
lock up Lackey and let Haren pitch.
by Nico on Dec 4, 2007 9:41 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
The counterargument
is that restocking the farm system is also at best a crapshoot. Selling all your good players and rebuilding makes a lot of sense for teams that projects to win 70-75 games. Not only do they have basically zero chance of being competitive now, but they'll have a couple of very high draft picks, in addition to whatever talent they get in the trades. That gives them a good chance of having a very strong team 3 or 4 years down the road.
For an 85ish-win team like the A's, that plan doesn't make nearly as much sense. Even if we traded Haren for a couple of good prospects now, we still wouldn't have a ton of high-ceiling talent in the pipeline, and I would expect the 2011 A's to be closer to the 2008 A's than to the 2008 Tigers.
by andeux on Dec 5, 2007 10:03 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
true
So, basically, we're screwed either way.
by monkeyball on Dec 5, 2007 10:18 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Such is life on the fringe
Most of the time, you're screwed. Better enjoy the occasional good times while they last.
by PaulThomas on Dec 5, 2007 11:02 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Typically
70-75 win teams don't have superstars on their team that they can trade, that's why they only going to win 70-75 games.
It's also possible to make the A's a 70-75 win in Beane so chooses to do so.
by methodrampage on Dec 5, 2007 11:46 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
The Marlins
were a 71-win team. As were the Giants, although Bonds wasn't really a tradeable commodity for a number of reasons.
by andeux on Dec 5, 2007 1:10 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
The A's site
says that Beane is meeting with Street's agent some time during the meetings to discuss a contract extension.
by Helloooo 1st on Dec 4, 2007 8:49 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
doesn't mean he wouldn't be traded
but I still hope that Haren remains an Athletic.
by OaklandSi on Dec 5, 2007 6:47 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Athletics Nation
Related FanShots on Athletics Nation
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.
