Pirates interrested in David Price

[thecrow124]

In the biggest story of the day, Tampa is listening on David Price. Multiple reports have surfaced saying that the Pirates interrest ranges from "not at all, too expensive in dollars and prospects", to "very interrested, willing to include Jameson Taillon."

I will say this, the first report is partially accurate and the second report is probably pretty accurate. However, this is the biggest waste of time out there. Every team in baseball is interrested in David Price. Every single one, even the one that currently employ's him. Tampa doesn't need to trade him, they can afford him for one more season, and could possibly get a bigger return by holding on to him until the trade deadline. But conventional wisdom says they could get a bigger return by trading him before the season starts.

Here is the problem though, at either point, now or midseason, the cost of this trade in prospects alone is just going to be too steep for the Pirates. Don't get me wrong, the Pirates could put together a package of prospects that could win any bidding war, but would it really be worth it?

You would be looking at a package of Jameson Taillon, and/or Gregory Polanco, and then one of Nick Kingham, Tyler Glasnow,, Austin Meadows or Alen Hanson. Then probably 2-3 of the next tier prospects. You would be talking about depleting the farm system it took 5 years to build. I am not of the "hold onto prospects at all costs" way of thinking, but there is no way I would be trading 4-6 of my top 10 prospects for 2 years of anyone. Even in a bad farm system, that is just too much to give up.

 

[Illinest]

I've been following the speculation on this as well but I don't buy it. I saw one somewhere that suggested that the Pirates may be willing to move Taillon because of the emergence of Kingham and Glasnow, but that they wouldn't be willing to include Polanco as well.

If Taillon is the centerpiece of a trade for Price I'd be fine with that.

Aside from that - I expect a trade like that would hurt pretty bad but it makes sense if we don't have to give up the "wrong" prospects.
For example if we're only going to have to give up Taillon and get to keep Glasnow and Kingham then that's very different from having to give up two of the three. If we don't have to give up Polanco then that's even better.

So what if we go Hanson, Taillon, Heredia, Meadows? It's a lot to give up but Price is a guaranteed ace whereas even the best of our group is nothing more than potential.

We'd still have a top 5 of Polanco, Glasnow, Kingham, Bell, McGuire (or something like that) and that's not bad at all.

Price, Cole, Liriano would be a nasty top 3. It would make me feel much better about losing Burnett, that's for sure. In such a scenario we'd be very dependent on Polanco to fulfill his potential though.
We do need to sign him to an extension to make it worth our while though.

 

[sychmd]

if we only get price for 2 years and he is gone, not worth trading high ceiling stars.
if it was taillon for price, maybe if we really think we can win this year.
i don't think we can win it this year, but 15-18, we have legitimate shot with the right additions.

wandy is on fade and liriano is gone after this year, morton hopefully will be around and healthy.
locke, who knows which version we get.
we need ALL or promising studs to perform and can't trade multiples and get only one in return.
can't even trade more years (6) and get less (2) in return.

injuries to pitchers are so random as well, never know when we lose one of those 2 years to fluke land.

 

[element1286]

Don't buy the Pirates would be willing to deal Taillon for Price, makes no sense to their overall plan.

To me it's much more likely a trade centers around guys in the lower minors, Glasnow, McGuire, Meadows, and then maybe a lesser prospect in the high minors.

Also, I have no interest in seeing NH go toe to with Freidman on a major trade negotiation.

 

[element1286]

I've been following the speculation on this as well but I don't buy it. I saw one somewhere that suggested that the Pirates may be willing to move Taillon because of the emergence of Kingham and Glasnow, but that they wouldn't be willing to include Polanco as well.

If Taillon is the centerpiece of a trade for Price I'd be fine with that.

Aside from that - I expect a trade like that would hurt pretty bad but it makes sense if we don't have to give up the "wrong" prospects.
For example if we're only going to have to give up Taillon and get to keep Glasnow and Kingham then that's very different from having to give up two of the three. If we don't have to give up Polanco then that's even better.

So what if we go Hanson, Taillon, Heredia, Meadows? It's a lot to give up but Price is a guaranteed ace whereas even the best of our group is nothing more than potential.

We'd still have a top 5 of Polanco, Glasnow, Kingham, Bell, McGuire (or something like that) and that's not bad at all.

Price, Cole, Liriano would be a nasty top 3. It would make me feel much better about losing Burnett, that's for sure. In such a scenario we'd be very dependent on Polanco to fulfill his potential though.
We do need to sign him to an extension to make it worth our while though.

You'd really give that much up? Taillon and Meadows are untouchable, IMO.

 

[Illinest]

Yeah I'd give that much up. It's David Price. But I did stipulate that it only works if he signs a contract extension.

As far as judging the trade - it's impossible to know what's fair until after we see what other teams are willing to give up. All I can do is evaluate the effect on the team's plans. To that end:

Taillon is not untouchable in my view. I like to compare him to Glasnow. I think that Glasnow's improved arsenal gives him a potentially higher ceiling. I'm not saying I'd prefer Glasnow, but Glasnow isn't that far behind Taillon in my eyes. Just a bit riskier.
I equate Kingham and Heredia in a similar manner except that Kingham is a nearly finished project that we're all looking forward to and Heredia has yet to make the leap to the next higher level that we were all hoping to see from him. I think that Kingham is definitely a good guy to pin our hopes on.

Meadows is the one out of that group that makes me the most nervous but I have a lot of faith that Polanco will work out, and at that point you're comparing Meadows to an outfield that's already filled with very good outfielders. Meadows might be better than Polanco or Marte but there's a pretty good chance he wouldn't be. The only other position that we're going to need to fill is 1B, and there you've got a competition with Josh Bell. I like Bell and I'm expecting him to break out this coming season.

Hanson is a question-mark. I would prefer not to give up on him but when I look at competing packages that start with Taijuan Walker I realize that we might need to make a sacrifice here and there. In this case I'm willing to give Mercer some time at the position and perhaps in the worst case fill it with another all glove kind of guy.

So I do think we can afford to give up that much. I'd love to substitute Glasnow for Taillon but I don't know if they'd bite on that. It would be great to take Hanson out of the deal and offer some lesser prospect but at some point we're not going to have a competitive offer anymore.

 

[element1286]

Yeah I'd give that much up. It's David Price. But I did stipulate that it only works if he signs a contract extension.

As far as judging the trade - it's impossible to know what's fair until after we see what other teams are willing to give up. All I can do is evaluate the effect on the team's plans. To that end:

Taillon is not untouchable in my view. I like to compare him to Glasnow. I think that Glasnow's improved arsenal gives him a potentially higher ceiling. I'm not saying I'd prefer Glasnow, but Glasnow isn't that far behind Taillon in my eyes. Just a bit riskier.
I equate Kingham and Heredia in a similar manner except that Kingham is a nearly finished project that we're all looking forward to and Heredia has yet to make the leap to the next higher level that we were all hoping to see from him. I think that Kingham is definitely a good guy to pin our hopes on.

Meadows is the one out of that group that makes me the most nervous but I have a lot of faith that Polanco will work out, and at that point you're comparing Meadows to an outfield that's already filled with very good outfielders. Meadows might be better than Polanco or Marte but there's a pretty good chance he wouldn't be. The only other position that we're going to need to fill is 1B, and there you've got a competition with Josh Bell. I like Bell and I'm expecting him to break out this coming season.

Hanson is a question-mark. I would prefer not to give up on him but when I look at competing packages that start with Taijuan Walker I realize that we might need to make a sacrifice here and there. In this case I'm willing to give Mercer some time at the position and perhaps in the worst case fill it with another all glove kind of guy.

So I do think we can afford to give up that much. I'd love to substitute Glasnow for Taillon but I don't know if they'd bite on that. It would be great to take Hanson out of the deal and offer some lesser prospect but at some point we're not going to have a competitive offer anymore.

If they went for Hanson, Glasnow, and few lesser prospects that would be ok, and make sense. I just can't buy trading a guy in AAA who has ace potential for an ace as a good deal. Trading the guy with ace potential in A ball makes sense though.

Would the Pirates even want to sign him long term, he's at the age that he would be getting 20+ million per year for 5 years, it's much different than signing Cutch to an extension pre-arb. I don't see him accepting a deal that is less than 5 years 100 million.

 

[thecrow124]

I didn't start this thread intending for it to be what would it take to trade for Price. I intended it to be that it was a no brainer that we were interrested, every team is interrested. There are very few, however that could put together a package of prospects good enough to entice Tampa to trade him, which they really don't need to.

If you look at what starting pitchers get in trades, you can see that it would cost a fortune and I am in no way in favor of paying that much. For two months of Zack Greinke, the Brewers got an All Star SS in Jean Segura. For 2 years of James Shields, the Rays got Wil Meyers and Jake Odorizzi. The one exception seems to be Doug Fister, but that was a complete salary dump by Detroit, had they even looked around a little they could have easily got a big return.

I guess what I am saying is that if we were to give up more than one top five and two top 10 prospects in our system, I wouldn't do it, and that isn't going to get it done. So while we are interrested, who isn't, I don't think it would really be worthwhile to trade for Price.

Another way to look at this, for the dollar cost that it would take to pay Daivd Price for the next 2 years, we could sign AJ Burnett and give up nothing. So the only prospects I would be willing to trade would be the excess value in the difference between the two. That value isn't as much as you might expect, depending on what site you utilize. Per fangraphs, it is only about a 1-2 win difference, and a little more at baseball-reference. So looking at that, on the high end you are looking at $25 million in prospect value. That value is not enough for even one of our top prospects. Even when there are other things to consider, I don't think there is that much value in trading for Price.

 

[element1286]

I didn't start this thread intending for it to be what would it take to trade for Price. I intended it to be that it was a no brainer that we were interrested, every team is interrested. There are very few, however that could put together a package of prospects good enough to entice Tampa to trade him, which they really don't need to.

If you look at what starting pitchers get in trades, you can see that it would cost a fortune and I am in no way in favor of paying that much. For two months of Zack Greinke, the Brewers got an All Star SS in Jean Segura. For 2 years of James Shields, the Rays got Wil Meyers and Jake Odorizzi. The one exception seems to be Doug Fister, but that was a complete salary dump by Detroit, had they even looked around a little they could have easily got a big return.

I guess what I am saying is that if we were to give up more than one top five and two top 10 prospects in our system, I wouldn't do it, and that isn't going to get it done. So while we are interrested, who isn't, I don't think it would really be worthwhile to trade for Price.

Another way to look at this, for the dollar cost that it would take to pay Daivd Price for the next 2 years, we could sign AJ Burnett and give up nothing. So the only prospects I would be willing to trade would be the excess value in the difference between the two. That value isn't as much as you might expect, depending on what site you utilize. Per fangraphs, it is only about a 1-2 win difference, and a little more at baseball-reference. So looking at that, on the high end you are looking at $25 million in prospect value. That value is not enough for even one of our top prospects. Even when there are other things to consider, I don't think there is that much value in trading for Price.

Yep, this is what strikes me as inconsistent about the Pirates going after Price.

 

[thecrow124]

Yep, this is what strikes me as inconsistent about the Pirates going after Price.

Yep I read an article today that said something to the effect that David Price could provide $30 million dollars in value over the next 2 seasons. The author brought up Gregory Polanco as a trade option. Polanco's value over the next 6 years, assuming lague average bat and above average defense, would provide $90 million in excess value over his projected salaries.

The premise, you don't trade prospects ready to contribute, however, prospects in the lower levels that may contribute the same value would be ok, since they are so far away and harder to project. In essence, Polanco for Price, no way, but if Tampa would take Meadows or Bell then it would be ok. Which I guess makes sense, but I would still be hardpressed to include either of those 2 in a trade either since both are the types of players that could move quickly.

 

[Illinest]

Hold the phone.

AJ Burnett and David Price are not comparable. If you sign AJ Burnett you do so because you know that he gives you a better chance of making the playoffs this year. David Price is a long-term solution. Completely different.

Let's count the number of good long-term Starters currently on the roster:

1. Cole

And that's it afaic.


This is a little different from the failure to address other positions because I do believe that the team has made a genuine effort to acquire talented pitchers, so I'm not going to be upset if they fail to trade for David Price. But let's not confuse the issue. We've acquired all of these prospects in the hopes that maybe one of them might be as good as David Price someday. Most likely none of them ever will. I would be shocked if 2 of our young pitchers manage to win a Cy Young award, and to be honest I'd be thrilled if 2 of them manage to have 2nd starter types of careers.

If you're the GM of Rays then you've probably got the adage "A bird in hand is worth two in the bush" going through your mind and we ought to have that in mind as well, because we know what David Price can do.

 

[thecrow124]

Hold the phone.

AJ Burnett and David Price are not comparable. If you sign AJ Burnett you do so because you know that he gives you a better chance of making the playoffs this year. David Price is a long-term solution. Completely different.

Let's count the number of good long-term Starters currently on the roster:

1. Cole

And that's it afaic.


This is a little different from the failure to address other positions because I do believe that the team has made a genuine effort to acquire talented pitchers, so I'm not going to be upset if they fail to trade for David Price. But let's not confuse the issue. We've acquired all of these prospects in the hopes that maybe one of them might be as good as David Price someday. Most likely none of them ever will. I would be shocked if 2 of our young pitchers manage to win a Cy Young award, and to be honest I'd be thrilled if 2 of them manage to have 2nd starter types of careers.

If you're the GM of Rays then you've probably got the adage "A bird in hand is worth two in the bush" going through your mind and we ought to have that in mind as well, because we know what David Price can do.

David Price is not a long term solution, he is controllable for 2 years and then he would be gone. He is not signing an extention and he is after the money, otherwise he would sign a team friendly deal with Tampa, where he admittedly loves playing.

Also, I never compared AJ Burnett to David Price. I said at the dollar cost of Price over the next two years, we could sign AJ for the same money and not give up a single prospect. However, Price's total value is twice that of AJ, just based on WAR over the last 3 seasons.

I think any organization would be beyond thrilled if they were able to draft, develop, and have on their roster 2 Cy Young award recipients, so I don't understand that comment. As for having 2 #2 starter types out of our young arms, that would also be good, but I think you are devaluing the talent that is there. If you look beyond records and ERA, Jameson Taillon has been better than I would have hoped since the team changed his pitch delivery and took away his best pitch for a year. He is already good enough to be a #3 starter for us next year, so it wouldn't be a stretch to see him put up some dominant seasons once he breaks into the majors. I think we all saw just how good Gerrit Cole can be last season. That still leaves us a lot of other options that could all top out as #2 starters.

Regardless, I was off on a tangent. Would I love to have Price, of course, would I trade any prospect of value above High A for him......probably not. I would also have a very hard time adding Bell, Meadows, McGuire, or Glasnow. So basically I would be building a package around Heredia and Clay Holmes and possibly one of our young catching prospects.

 

[element1286]

In my mind the Pirates future aces are already in the system, they don't need to trade potential aces to get a current ace. And I think it's debateable if Price is actually an ACE, or just a really good #2, a la James Shields/Mat Latos/Zach Greinke.

Anyway, I'd rather hold onto our current high upside ground, see how they develop, and supplement them with pieces in the Gavin Floyd, Scott Feldman, Roberto Hernandez mold.

 

[Illinest]

The Smoltz, Maddux, Glavine and Avery in our farm system could turn out to be Benson, Bullington, Bradley and Van Benschoten.
I don't care if we don't make the trade but it better be for the right reasons. Hoarding prospects is not the goal. .

 

[thecrow124]

The Smoltz, Maddux, Glavine and Avery in our farm system could turn out to be Benson, Bullington, Bradley and Van Benschoten.
I don't care if we don't make the trade but it better be for the right reasons. Hoarding prospects is not the goal. .

Neither is trading away your minor league system to bring in one player, even if that player were Mike Trout, you can't trade away your entire future for a small window of opportunity, ask Milwaukee how that is working out for them.

 

[Illinest]

David Price is a power lefty and he's not yet 30. That's not a small window. Even if we couldn't sign him to an extension I'd like to point out that two years is a much bigger window than zero years, which is a possibility with every single one of our prospects.

BTW I would totally trade our entire system for Trout. That kid is ridiculous.

 

[thecrow124]

David Price is a power lefty and he's not yet 30. That's not a small window. Even if we couldn't sign him to an extension I'd like to point out that two years is a much bigger window than zero years, which is a possibility with every single one of our prospects.

BTW I would totally trade our entire system for Trout. That kid is ridiculous.

I understand your point, prospects are prospects until they aren't anymore. However, the closer to the major league that prosect gets while still maintaining his abilities, the more valuable that prospect becomes and the more likely that prospect is to fulfilling their potential. Even still, Price could blow out his elbow in ST and miss this entire season, and we would be without him and the depth option we traded for him. That could be said for any pitcher though, but the pitchers in our system we would not have to trade to get. Like I said earlier, I would be ok with moving Heredia or Holmes or most any good pitching prospect from High A down other than Glasnow, but the ones at Altoona and Indy would be off limits in a Price trade.

As for Trout, that was a bad example, I myself would give up way to much myself to try to trade for him. Even still there would be a point where I would have to call uncle. And there is just no more reason to discuss him, he isn't going anywhere.

 

[DragonfromTO]

I didn't start this thread intending for it to be what would it take to trade for Price. I intended it to be that it was a no brainer that we were interrested, every team is interrested. There are very few, however that could put together a package of prospects good enough to entice Tampa to trade him, which they really don't need to.

If you look at what starting pitchers get in trades, you can see that it would cost a fortune and I am in no way in favor of paying that much. For two months of Zack Greinke, the Brewers got an All Star SS in Jean Segura. For 2 years of James Shields, the Rays got Wil Meyers and Jake Odorizzi. The one exception seems to be Doug Fister, but that was a complete salary dump by Detroit, had they even looked around a little they could have easily got a big return.

I guess what I am saying is that if we were to give up more than one top five and two top 10 prospects in our system, I wouldn't do it, and that isn't going to get it done. So while we are interrested, who isn't, I don't think it would really be worthwhile to trade for Price.

Another way to look at this, for the dollar cost that it would take to pay Daivd Price for the next 2 years, we could sign AJ Burnett and give up nothing. So the only prospects I would be willing to trade would be the excess value in the difference between the two. That value isn't as much as you might expect, depending on what site you utilize. Per fangraphs, it is only about a 1-2 win difference, and a little more at baseball-reference. So looking at that, on the high end you are looking at $25 million in prospect value. That value is not enough for even one of our top prospects. Even when there are other things to consider, I don't think there is that much value in trading for Price.

The difference isn't huge in terms of overall win value, but the big question of course is what that difference ends up meaning. Like if you have a 105 win team with Randy Johnson and you replace him with Al Leiter you've still probably got a 100+ win team. But in a short playoff series against another elite team that difference can sometimes be magnified. In my sim league this year (yes, I know I know, call me a nerd) I traded for David Price (circa 2012) about 20 games into the season even though I already had the best team overall, one that was good enough to win 105-110 games, because I needed to be able to throw that type of elite talent against a really good team in a short series rather than just hoping that 2012 Matt Harrison got good defense behind him, was able to handle RH batters for a game or two who specialize in pummeling LHPs and just generally had one of his good games instead of one of his bad ones. You've still gotta try to have the best team overall of course but it helps to have that kind of elite individual talent too, because it's more reliable (for lack of a better word) in those really difficult and important situations.

 

[Illinest]

The difference isn't huge in terms of overall win value, but the big question of course is what that difference ends up meaning. Like if you have a 105 win team with Randy Johnson and you replace him with Al Leiter you've still probably got a 100+ win team. But in a short playoff series against another elite team that difference can sometimes be magnified. In my sim league this year (yes, I know I know, call me a nerd) I traded for David Price (circa 2012) about 20 games into the season even though I already had the best team overall, one that was good enough to win 105-110 games, because I needed to be able to throw that type of elite talent against a really good team in a short series rather than just hoping that 2012 Matt Harrison got good defense behind him, was able to handle RH batters for a game or two who specialize in pummeling LHPs and just generally had one of his good games instead of one of his bad ones. You've still gotta try to have the best team overall of course but it helps to have that kind of elite individual talent too, because it's more reliable (for lack of a better word) in those really difficult and important situations.

Oh yes. I'm thinking back to the playoffs this year when we were all worried about Burnett starting game 5.

 

[thedddd]

To be honest if they made the move without giving up both Palanco and Taillon I wouldn't mind it. But I know two years from now when he walks I will say "Stupid Pirates for making such a bonehead deal...."

The thinking above about this team being a playoff team, they still need to prove that they are playoff caliber again and having Price vs a mid summer call prospect call up their chances are greater.