What is your opinion of the A.J. Pierzynski signing?
MJH on accountability
grimm and borbon to the cubsmarmol to the tigersporcello to the rangers?
That actually seems decent
Detroit is looking for a closer not named Valverde. They named Bruce Rondon as their closer.He has struggled in camp. They have Coke,Benoit and Dotel.
Seems like the Squiggly W's would be a likely trade partner--with Storen and Clippard expendable after the Soriano signing..Both these teams know how to get trades done.
Look for the Rangers to make the second best offer-----again.
Both Detroit's and Washington's area of strength is their rotation (Det & Wash) and bullpen (Wash). Detroit would like to trade from their strength, as would Washington.
As such, maybe a hypothetical three-way trade? The Nats presumably don't want more starting pitching. They have a very deep rotation. Anyway here goes:
Detroit: Gets a closerRangers: get PorcelloNationals: get something from the Rangers (pitching propsects? Borbon?)
Borbon could possibly be a 4th OF for the Nationals. No idea what the Nationals want though.
They also need infield defense/bat- 2nd Baseman. Good time to dump Kinsler- fit Profar into 2B.Rid the Kins inflated salary, which JD ought to love. I'm sure we could find a couple of prospectswe'd take from Detroit to finish a win/win deal out. As much as we could fit in Porcello to staffperfectly now, I'm still not convinced JD will slim the farm down to make the trade. No loss of draft! Detroit's not really sold on Peralta/SS or Infante/2B. Detroit has big bucks to absorb Kinsler's contract.
So much facepalm, so little time...
Trading Kinsler to make room for Profar makes sense...IF you can get Andrus to sign a long term contract.
You also have to remember, Colby may not be around for another 3-4 years. He does have that degenerative hip problem. If we pick up Porcello, I see moving Ogando to the pen when Colby returns, then moving Ogando or Perez into the rotation after Colby leaves (presumably in a year or two). Porcello is under control until 2016 IIRC, so he may fit into our plans. Having 4/5 of our starting rotation as young players controlled through 2016 is a great strength.
In terms of moving Kinsler, I'm still not sure I see it happening. He's a Rangers icon, and you saw what JD did with the last Rangers icon (Micahel Young). He signed him to a nice contract (same as Kinsler) and dumped him when he was absolutely no use to the team (I think Kinsler can be of great use to this team as a bounce-back player from last year and as part of the team's "core").
If we trade Kinsler, I'd like more than Porcello out of the deal. A young COF prospect would be a good get. Notihng too crazy because let's face it, we're trading Kinsler for Porcello+ in that situation. I'm not even sure that ian's contract allows us to get anything more than Porcello OR prospects tbh. Not great at projecting trades anyway.
Yeah let's trade our crap-great idea. NOBODY wants Borbon you idiots.
I like the idea of acquiring Porcello, but it has to be at the right price. He's a young arm that is suited for our team (ground ball pitcher, we have a strong infield defense).
24 years old with 3 years of control is no small matter.
The problem is we are not well alinged for a trade of this type. There is no way Porcello is worth any of our top IF pieces (Olt, Kins, Elvis, Profar). Would DET take a prospect package? I suspect not as they are in full on "win now" mode with Miggy, Prince, Verlander, etc. in their primes.
Who do we have that would help with "win now"? Could we swing a deal with Joe Nathan and trust Nefi/Soriano to close? Could we work a multi team trade to give an OF to a team that has a more suitable IF to trade? It doesn't make sense to give up pitching here as that is what we need to acquire unless it's a prospect arm that is a year away...but again I don't think DET wants to trade Porcello for something like that.
I could possibly evision a deal that brings Porcello + a quality OF for Elvis or Kins. Better be a good piece with Porcello though and I don't know what DET has well enough to slot a name in there.
I think Scheppers plus a + mif could get it done...preferably not sardinas but it is a young controlled SP with good upside so it's understandable...to be honest im all for it...i think Porcello would be a great fit here
Tigers will ask for Nathan. Rangers will counter with Scheppers. Tigers will say okay, but also Garcia for defense in their infield. . Hopefully, the answer is No. JD has very good repertoire with Epstein, and Trickydick's suggested deal works except Epstein also wants to get rid of Soriano's contract [ will eat some of the contract] , and the Tigers want to move Boesch and get a another right handed bat in the outfield. The Rangers feel that Martin can be regular center fielder. End result: Cubs get Boesch, Borbon, Grimm and Scheppers: the Rangers end up with Porcello and Soriano and the Tigers get Gentry and Marmol. Preference would be for the Rangers and Cubs to cut the Tigers out of the trade. Thus slot Marmol into the 8th inning set up, and move Ross into #5 starter with Ortiz taking over for Ross in the 7th/8th inning loggy post. And if the two teams want to get creative also include hurt arm for broken arm.
Guys, Dave Dombrowski isn't stupid enough to trade a young pitcher with three years of team control for a reliever.
Starting pitching = extremely valuableRelief pitching = the least valuable position on the roster
I like the idea of adding Porcello, but not for any of our infielders. No on Kins or Elvis. No on Profar. No on Olt.
I would be willing to give up Luis Sardinas for him straight up. It gives Detroit a true SS in two years, and the Rangers a MORP.
I'd love to give up Sardinas for Porcello straight up. Based on the Tigers immediate needs, I don't see it thought. They want relief help, which probably means they're going to trade prospects to the Nationals (one of the best BP's in the Majors).
If they would take Sardinas + scrub, I'd do it. Would be nice to have Porcello for that. I agree Kinsler, Andrus, Profar are off the table, as is Olt unless they do a 3-team trade.
That raises an interesting question. Would you do a 3-team trade and give up Olt and get Porcello? Not sure I would, but I wouldn't have a problem if it worked out that way.
The fact is, you just don't see very many three-way trades in baseball. Yes, there was the AZ/CLE/CIN swap a couple months ago, but that's the exception, not the rule.
It's just tough to split equitable value three separate ways. For instance, I don't think the Rangers would be getting fair value if they traded Olt for Porcello straight up, therefore I wouldn't be okay trading Olt to a third party if Rick Porcello was all we'd be getting in return. There lies the problem with three-team trades.
Also -- in regards to "Based on the Tigers immediate needs, I don't see it thought. They want relief help..." -- I don't see it that way. Right now the Tigers have a pretty loaded (albeit defensively handicapped) lineup, and six serviceable starting pitchers. I don't think the FIP-win difference between Porcello and Smyly is all that severe. If somehow JD could get Porcello for a relief pitcher like Nathan or Scheppers, the deal would already have been made.
Guys, the Cubs need pitching worse than the Rangers. They may steal Porcello before Daniels blinks.Daniels needs to make this trade 1] because we need his arm 2] Porcello's a good fit here 3] quell all therumors of JD/Ryan turmoil. That trade gets the Ranger train back on the track. Sardinas? Excellent choice,but Kinsler gone would be a major coup. Of course, Nolan would agree with Daniels on that big one. It'sno secret the Rangers want to resign Elvis. It'll get done, if he rock n rolls this year.
The Tigers do have a huge need for a closer. That's a fact. And they do have Porcello as a feasible trade chip. But whether that is their chosen path to solve that need, who knows?
But the need isn't one to dismiss. The mindset that "relief pitchers don't matter" can kill an otherwise strong team, as that weak link changes the entire nature of everything the team tries to do. The manager feels like he has to pitch his starters longer when they are in trouble, which reduces their value; the hitters feel the pressure of having to do too much every time up, knowing no lead is safe; and the demoralizing effect of seeing wins get turned into losses eats at a team The Angels last season were a prime example of how a bad bullpen can destroy the chances of a team.
I think the Tigers would love - and Rangers would be the ones to decline - a Porcello-Nathan swap. While relief pitchers are generally less valuable than starting pitchers, that concept would only apply to pitchers of equal standing. But in this theorized swap, Nathan is producing at an all-star level, while Porcello is at the bottom of the Tigers' rotation (or worse).
^^^^^Sounds like a fantasy baseball view from a 16 yr old with no play experience
Relief pitchers occupy an interesting place on the value scale.
Consider a couple of recent ones. We got a year and a half of Koji for Chris Davis and Tommy Hunter, and that much of Adams for 2 pitching prospects. Did we give up equal value to Baltimore and San Diego?
Marmol is good, but not elite. What do you give up for a good but not elite closer? Is a #4 pitcher (with possible higher upside) worth it?
I don't want to trade Sardinas right now because I think he's primed to make a major jump. I honestly just don't see Porcello as a good enough player to empty the farm for, which I think we have to trade at least one and maybe two of the grouping of Sardinas/Guzman/Brinson/Gallo/Mazara to get him. Maybe Porcello takes that step forward and becomes the TORP that he was thought to be when he was drafted, but he has looked much more like a #4-#5 type. The idea of Grimm + something lesser to get a piece to send for him I like, but not sure it works out. I will say that I think Borbon is someone much more valuable to a NL team then he is to an AL team, good 5th OF/PR type.
Yeah let's hold onto all of those minor leaguers until they have no value.
I think the Tigers would love - and Rangers would be the ones to decline - a Porcello-Nathan swap.
Nathan -- signed through 2013 for $7 millionPorcello -- under control for 2013, '14 and '15, making $5 million this year
Nathan was one of the best closers in baseball last year, and generated 1.8 fWAR. Porcello, who is only a MORP, mind you, posted a 2012 fWAR figure of 2.9. So you are telling me the Rangers would turn down a trade for a younger pitcher with more FIP-win upside, who's also controllable for two years after this one, for their aged closer who is making more than Porcello in 2013? I can't buy that.
I honestly just don't see Porcello as a good enough player to empty the farm for, which I think we have to trade at least one and maybe two of the grouping of Sardinas/Guzman/Brinson/Gallo/Mazara to get him.
I'm certainly not willing to give up the farm for him. For instance, I wouldn't move Brinson or Gallo or Mazara for Porcello. Because those guys have big win potential.
With Sardinas, I know I'm giving someone up from a position of surplus (shortstop) for a pitcher we kind-of-but-don't-really need. To me -- and Sardinas will be a top-75 prospect heading into 2014 -- I make the deal, acquire the cheap, controllable asset (Porcello), and reevaluate the situation once Colby Lewis returns. Things I would consider:
1. If Alexi Ogando for whatever reason can't hack it in the rotation, you move him to our suspect bullpen collection. Then our rotation would read: Darvish/Harrison/Holland/Porcello/Lewis.2. You get the marginally added flexibility of not having to rush Lewis back with Porcello in the rotation, rather than a guy like Grimm or Perez, whom I would comfortably imagine to be inferior options to Porcello.3. If Derek Holland can't outpitch Alexi Ogando, we either move him to the bullpen or trade him. The rotation would then be Darvish/Harrison/Ogando/Porcello/Lewis.4. If Lewis comes back and the entire rotation has been solid, we trade Porcello in June, and recoup another prospect to compensate the loss of Sardinas.
That's how I see it.
When you make it all about WAR, you lose sight of the point I was making: that the difference between a great bullpen and a lousy one tends to transcend the numbers.
Also...a - Porcello's bWAR for the last 3 seasons IN TOTAL was 1.3 ...which means by the averages (0.43 WAR/season), he isn't worth the $5M+ he'll get. If WAR is our guide, since his rookie year (2.2 WAR), he has regressed. ...Or, if we simply compare last season, bWAR for Nathan was 1.9, and for Porcello 1.4. b - The two following years of "team control" for Porcello may end up expensive, since he's arbitration eligible both years. He's already passed the stage where his youth makes him almost free. In contrast, if Nathan is still dominant this season, his cost next year is capped at $9M.c - There is no "long-term future" that comes with Porcello, even though he's younger. Once he hits free agency in the fall of 2015, he's fair game for whoever has the deepest pockets. d - For both Detroit and Texas, the "future" is 2013. Win now, when there's a prime opportunity. Of the two, Nathan is much more of a "sure thing" for providing what you need to win a title in 2013 (Porcello, on whichever team, probably wouldn't pitch in the playoffs, where your closer becomes HUGE.)e - I don't think GMs, when considering trades, are nearly as tied to WAR concepts as you assume. Nor do I think they should be, because "replacement value" is not the same within the confines of a particular team as it is in a universe of all MLB players, and "team weakness" (especially an Achilles heel) on a contender can alter equations dramatically.
In any event, I see this as entirely academic, as I don't think Nathan is even remotely in danger of being traded from the Rangers.
Eric, you'd offer Sardinas and I wouldn't (my offer would be Grimm - don't know whether you think he's more valuable or less, but I value Sardinas more highly, even with the Rangers' depth in middle-infielders). I'd be open to Leury Garcia if MIF is somehow a priority for the Tigers.
But it's interesting to me that, despite the fact it seems to me you'd offer more, I think the Rangers "need" level for Porcello is much greater than you think it is. Last season the Rangers began with way more SP depth than now (they had Ogando and Feldman in the BP waiting a turn, Perez in the minors, and Oswalt waiting for a call) ...and ultimately still ran very very short despite adding Dempster along the way as well. Their inability to effectively cover the 5th slot in the rotation over the last half of the season cost them tremendously.
Yet this season, they are beginning the season already down to 4, with nothing more than duct tape and a prayer to try to hold things together until some vague time down the road. Problem is, they get no guarantees that Lewis returns as hoped, or that another pitching injury doesn't occur. It's way too early to have to count on everything going just right - when it never does. To me, the need is pretty big, and having a "spare starter" or two (should no one else get injured, and Perez and Lewis come back at 100% to supplant Porcello or someone else) is something more of a necessity than a luxury. Because it never goes according to plan.
David go back to your grocery sacking job at Krogers.
Porcello is relatively expendable to Detroit because they currently have an abundance of starting pitching. How about a trade that makes Porcllo unexpendable to them, by trading Doug Fister to get Elvis? Tigers don't have a spot for Porcello? Now they do, and in return they get one of the best SS's in baseball for the next 2 years. This would increase Porcello's value to them because suddenly their IF defense gets exponentially better and all those ground balls start turning into outs. Fister's right-handedness would be perfect for our rotation. The Tigers would also likely have to throw in an above-average outfield or catching prospect to get this deal done. Now both Profar and Kinsler get to play in their natural positions and we get to keep all our blue-chip MI prospects.
Notify me of follow-up comments via email.