MLB trade deadline 2012

[SFGRTB]

What do the Giants do?

Who are the Big names across baseball that are on the move?

Are the Pirates serious?


I vote Giants trade for a bench bat (Mark Reynolds?) and some bullpen depth. Nothing major.


Looks like Justin Upton might be traded from the D-Backs.

 

[tzill]

Rays shopping Shields.

Spanks NOT looking for SP, but rather OF.

Doyers with lots of competition for Dempster.

BTW, isn't Dempster Gerald's middle name?

 

[calsnowskier]

Rays shopping Shields.

Spanks NOT looking for SP, but rather OF.

Doyers with lots of competition for Dempster.

BTW, isn't Dempster Gerald's middle name?

Dempsey...

 

[SFGRTB]

Dodgers are trying to make all kinds of moves with their money all sorted out. Cole Hamels, Shane Victorino, Ryan Dempster. Seems like they are trying to turn into the Yankees/RedSox

 

[tzill]

Dodgers are trying to make all kinds of moves with their money all sorted out. Cole Hamels, Shane Victorino, Ryan Dempster. Seems like they are trying to turn into the Yankees/RedSox

Of course they are. Working in their favor is the fact that the rules have changed for draft pick comp for FA losses. A team gets NOTHING unless the FA is on its roster all year long. Should reduce the price of walk year guys.

 

[mistgl]

per MLBTR:

The Blue Jays are willing to trade Escobar, Rosenthal reports. Shortstop prospect Adeiny Hechavarria has convinced Toronto’s decision makers that he can play in the Major Leagues, so the Blue Jays could listen to offers on Escobar

Could be a good get. He has control through 2015 at 5 mil per year.

 

[SFGRTB]

Escobar is one of the better deals in baseball, $5M per season, with the final 2 seasons (2014/2015) being CLUB options. For a guy that would likely make $10M per on the open market, thats a steal.

Though I don't quite see a match, they are looking for starting pitching which isn't something we have to spare right now.

 

[MarcoPolo]

Of course they are. Working in their favor is the fact that the rules have changed for draft pick comp for FA losses. A team gets NOTHING unless the FA is on its roster all year long. Should reduce the price of walk year guys.

It may take a while for the new reality to set in. Selling teams may think "we should be getting more than that, so why should we trade" and not pull the trigger (because they lose the draft picks still, even if the acquiring teams don't get them).

 

[tzill]

It may take a while for the new reality to set in. Selling teams may think "we should be getting more than that, so why should we trade" and not pull the trigger (because they lose the draft picks still, even if the acquiring teams don't get them).

I assume you mean that they don't get compensatory picks anymore. While true, they get a comp pick if they make a "qualifying offer" around $11-12MM to the FA and he rejects it.

 

[filosofy29]

Escobar is one of the better deals in baseball, $5M per season, with the final 2 seasons (2014/2015) being CLUB options. For a guy that would likely make $10M per on the open market, thats a steal.

Though I don't quite see a match, they are looking for starting pitching which isn't something we have to spare right now.

Escobar for Timmy???

 

[msgkings322]

Escobar for Timmy???

Selling high after Saturday!

 

[calsnowskier]

Escobar for Timmy???

Would Chicago be willing to part with Rios?

 

[MarcoPolo]

I assume you mean that they don't get compensatory picks anymore. While true, they get a comp pick if they make a "qualifying offer" around $11-12MM to the FA and he rejects it.

No, what I meant was that the "selling" team still loses a (potential) draft pick if they trade the player away, even though the "buying" team doesn't get the (potential) draft pick. So the selling team IS losing something in the next draft (IF the player is a good-to-great player, of course, and not just filler). Just my musings on how selling teams will react (maybe not pulling the trigger on trades because the return just isn't high enough).

The other thing (that occurred to me this morning, looking at the standings) is that the "two wildcard teams" should increase the number of teams interested in acquiring talent, and reduce the number of selling teams. Teams might be thinking "well, now we just have to be one of the TWO best instead of being just THE best" and stay in the race (and not sell, and maybe try to buy). So the demand might go up and supply might go down, so even if part of the "value" of the traded items (draft pick) has decreased, the price might not be as depressed at it would otherwise.

 

[tzill]

No, what I meant was that the "selling" team still loses a (potential) draft pick if they trade the player away, even though the "buying" team doesn't get the (potential) draft pick. So the selling team IS losing something in the next draft (IF the player is a good-to-great player, of course, and not just filler). Just my musings on how selling teams will react (maybe not pulling the trigger on trades because the return just isn't high enough).

The other thing (that occurred to me this morning, looking at the standings) is that the "two wildcard teams" should increase the number of teams interested in acquiring talent, and reduce the number of selling teams. Teams might be thinking "well, now we just have to be one of the TWO best instead of being just THE best" and stay in the race (and not sell, and maybe try to buy). So the demand might go up and supply might go down, so even if part of the "value" of the traded items (draft pick) has decreased, the price might not be as depressed at it would otherwise.

I'm not quite following the "lost pick" comment. Teams only get comp picks under the new CBA if the make a one year qualifying offer to that FA and he walks. The acquiring team loses its first rounder (top 10 protected), but the losing team doesn't get that pick -- it gets a pick at the end of the first round.

Re: the rest of your post and market forces -- yes. That's been pointed out several times and I agree. It'll be a sellers market mitigated a bit by the new CBA rules.

 

[CameronFrye]

Escobar is one of the better deals in baseball, $5M per season, with the final 2 seasons (2014/2015) being CLUB options. For a guy that would likely make $10M per on the open market, thats a steal.

Though I don't quite see a match, they are looking for starting pitching which isn't something we have to spare right now.

Yunel Escobar is a piece of crap. Pass. While he is an upgrade over Brandon Crawford, that's like saying that getting having someone swing an axe into your leg is better than getting your leg blown off by a land mine. Sure it is, because you will probably get to keep your leg after surgery repairs the damage, but it still sucks. Plus, Escobar is making $5 mil per. Crawford is getting the ML minimum.

Escobar is hitting .247/.293/.333. Is that worth $5 mil? Let me answer that for you - no.

 

[tzill]

Yunel Escobar is a piece of crap. Pass. While he is an upgrade over Brandon Crawford, that's like saying that getting having someone swing an axe into your leg is better than getting your leg blown off by a land mine. Sure it is, because you will probably get to keep your leg after surgery repairs the damage, but it still sucks. Plus, Escobar is making $5 mil per. Crawford is getting the ML minimum.

Escobar is hitting .247/.293/.333. Is that worth $5 mil? Let me answer that for you - no.

Waaaaaaaaaaay to facile of an analysis, Cam. Escobar is having a rough year at the plate, to be sure (67 OPS+). However, he's in his prime (29) and he's a career 100 OPS+ hitter -- i.e. league average. It's to be expected he'll perform to that norm over the course of his contract.

That aside, you overlooked Escobar's greatest asset: his glove. He's already accumulated 2.3 WAR (pace for about 4.2) this year and that's almost ALL from his defense. His three year WAR average is 3.5. For $5MM a year, that's an incredible value.

Now, let's compare that to Fish. He's having a 76 OPS+ year so far, certainly nothing to write home about. His WAR is at 1.0 (pace for about 1.8). He's a career 73 OPS+ hitter. Granted, small sample size and he's only 25 so he's not in his prime yet.

So, would Escobar be an upgrade? Certainly. A decisive one. Would he be cost efficient? Expecting 3.5 WAR a year, for sure. Would he be better moving forward than Fish? Really tough to say, and this is where I don't make the deal. The message the FO would be sending to the Panics, Browns, ToJos, etc. in the minors is: you'd better fucking tear it up in your first 500 ABs in the majors or we will ship you out -- even if you're young. That's not a message I'd want to send. Last, as you point out $500k is a lot less than $5MM, so there's a cost savings with Fish.

I wouldn't make the deal (assuming Fish goes to TOR as part of it) but I can see a rationale for it. Escobar is very much NOT crap. He wins his team 4 games a year with that glove over what he loses at the plate.

 

[MarcoPolo]

I'm not quite following the "lost pick" comment. Teams only get comp picks under the new CBA if the make a one year qualifying offer to that FA and he walks. The acquiring team loses its first rounder (top 10 protected), but the losing team doesn't get that pick -- it gets a pick at the end of the first round.

Re: the rest of your post and market forces -- yes. That's been pointed out several times and I agree. It'll be a sellers market mitigated a bit by the new CBA rules.

I am saying that they lose a (potential) draft pick because the player is no longer with the team and that they won't be able to get that extra pick.

I think that the new comp rules make it *more* likely that teams will get comp picks (for good-to-great players).

In the old system, to get a comp draft pick, the team had to offer arbitration (or lose the player before the arb offer date). By offering arb, they could have to pay a LOT. Dangerous thing to do to offer arb to (say) Bonds or CC Sabathia (or Timmy) - it could cost you 20-30 million if they accepted.

In the new system, all you have to do is offer a contract worth at least the average of the top 125 salaries. What is that? $7M? $8M? So teams can now offer much, much less (and a known amount, not something to be determined by committee 4 months later). I think a lot of teams would do that for a draft pick - it's sort of a win-win for them (if it's a good player). Think the Giants will offer Melky $8M for one year? Sure (supposing they can still negotiate for a longer contract, and his refusal of said contract doesn't preclude negotiations continuing).

So the team trading a good-to-great player away is losing the chance of an extra draft pick the following year. That's what I meant by the selling team "loses a (potential) draft pick". The team trading (say) Melky is losing the chance to offer him $8M/one-year contract and get an extra draft pick.

When I said Selling teams may think "we should be getting more than that, so why should we trade" and not pull the trigger (because they lose the draft picks still, even if the acquiring teams don't get them). I meant that the "selling" team is still losing the (potential) extra draft pick in the suppl round, even though the "buying" team can't get that extra pick (because players have to be with the team all year for the team to get the extra draft pick). The "buying" team may be getting less, but the "selling" team is still losing that (potential) extra draft pick. So selling teams may not accept lower offers, and would rather just get the extra draft pick, instead of a marginal offer.

Is that understandable, or am I missing your point entirely?

 

[MarcoPolo]

Oh, and does anybody else have problems with the board S/W not showing threads as being updated? Your post (the one I replied to and quoted) didn't cause the thread to be marked as "having a new post" last night. It also wasn't marked that way after Cam's post today. It wasn't until your reply to Cam's post that it was marked as having new content.

I also see the opposite behavior - I will read all active threads, and next time I log in, they are still marked as "new content" but they only contain the stuff I've already read. That happens a lot. Sometimes even "mark all threads as read" doesn't solve the problem...

 

[calsnowskier]

Oh, and does anybody else have problems with the board S/W not showing threads as being updated? Your post (the one I replied to and quoted) didn't cause the thread to be marked as "having a new post" last night. It also wasn't marked that way after Cam's post today. It wasn't until your reply to Cam's post that it was marked as having new content.

I also see the opposite behavior - I will read all active threads, and next time I log in, they are still marked as "new content" but they only contain the stuff I've already read. That happens a lot. Sometimes even "mark all threads as read" doesn't solve the problem...

What browser are you using? I check the board on Mozilla at work, and Safari from my iPad. I find that threads are left in the "read" status even though new posts exist only rarely, and usually when I have not been to the board in more than a day or so.

 

[ColinCoby]

Jim Bowden: San Francisco Giants GM Brian Sabean has no plans on making another Zack Wheeler for Carlos Beltran type of deal at this year’s deadline. However, that won’t stop them from trading for another run producing bat or two, as Brandon Belt and Gregor Blanco haven't provided the punch the Giants need.

Kind of what most of us expect. Might be a quiet couple of weeks. I'd be thrilled with adding a top-notch, late-game relief pitcher.