Joe Sheehan & The Lost Prospects
Blake Beavan - Photo courtesy of Scott LucasEvery now and again, a particular viewpoint espoused by some other baseball writer will stick in my craw, and it takes days to properly extricate it. Or weeks, on very rare occasion. I typically bottle up these feelings of dissent and let the matter slowly fade away, but for some unexplainable reason I just can't do it this time. Maybe it's because of the purported implications for the Rangers' off-season plans. Maybe it's because I'm running low on sleep. Or maybe it doesn't really matter why.
The offending passage in question was dropped in a column by SI.com's Joe Sheehan about a week ago, and stated the following: "The Rangers have some depth from which to trade, but remember that they surrendered a lot of value this summer to make acquisitions without paying out 2010 salaries, so crafting an offer for, say, Zack Greinke or Matt Cain won't be as easy as it might have been." This appears perfectly innocuous until you absorb its meaning and realize that what Sheehan is actually asserting is that the Rangers' need for cash-subsidized trades this past summer might in some way impair their ability to swing a deal for a top-of-the-rotation piece this winter. Sheehan's working premise, then, is that Texas had to kick in substantial talent in order to compensate for their dearth of payroll flexibility.
And you know what? I can see how somebody might form that impression. The Rangers completed six trades that included cash inflows in a two-month span, the first five of which were completed before the July 31st non-waiver trade deadline and brought back a grand total of $7.2 million; I couldn't track down an exact figure on the subsidy which Texas received in the Jeff Francoeur trade, but I'm inclined to believe it was something in the $600,000-800,000 range. Heck, let's just go ahead and call it a round $8 million. That's practically unheard of in the context of single-season payroll relief, and I can understand why it might logically follow that an abundance of young talent was the cost of that relief.
But when you parse the numbers, you find that this isn't exactly the case. The payroll relief in the Jeff Francoeur trade was essentially cost-free, thanks to the Mets' astonishingly low asking price: Joaquin Arias. A pure player-for-player dump. Florida kicked in $600,000 in the Jorge Cantu trade, with the Rangers yielding right-handers Omar Poveda and Evan Reed; the former succumbed to Tommy John surgery well before the deal was completed and even assuming a setback-free rehab will profile as a No. 4-5 starter, at best, whereas the latter was a decent but unexceptional Double-A relief prospect. We can't say definitively which player was the price for the salary relief, but I think it's abundantly clear that neither remotely resembled a major loss in talent.
Texas received $350,000 in the Jarrod Saltalamacchia-to-Boston trade, but this did not represent accompanying salary relief for any single component of the deal -- the Rangers recouped only minor leaguers, and diverted that six-digit fund towards their draft-signing budget. Twenty-four hours earlier, Texas received $2 million from the Nationals in the Cristian Guzman deal, but again only relinquished a pair of fringy right-handers in Ryan Tatusko and Tanner Roark. We've already accounted for nearly $4 million in salary relief, and the most significant prospect yielded by the Rangers to this point is probably Tatusko or Reed -- guys who are unlikely to ever meaningfully contribute in the majors.
Which brings us to the two trades that Sheehan is most likely referencing -- the trades that summoned 2010 post-season heroes Bengie Molina and Cliff Lee to Arlington. The latter deal nourished the Rangers' coffers to the tune of $2.25 million, but who did this subsidy cost the Rangers? It's virtually impossible to say, but I find it entirely plausible that Blake Beavan was a non-excludable trade piece (particularly if former Rangers minor league pitching coordinator Rick Adair had any say in the matter), and that Josh Lueke constituted much of the cost. I would note at this point that Lueke ranks merely 15th in Kevin Goldstein's newly released Mariners prospect rankings; he's a good relief prospect with a powerful arm, but one with well-documented makeup problems, and the thing about it is that relief-only prospects sans elite upside just aren't that special or unique or, hell, excessively valuable.
Which finally brings us around to Michael Main, the point of extreme contention when the Molina trade was finalized and people realized that a former top prospect was apparently included in exchange for the sum of $2 million -- emphasis on former. I will freely admit to being partial towards Main, and in hindsight this may have spurred a more emotional response than what was warranted at the time; when you're one-half of the duo that dared to rank him as the top prospect in the Rangers' system in 2008, I guess you begin to feel an attachment towards that prospect that transcends rationality. Unfortunately, he had already sunk to mid-level prospect depths and his ceiling had fallen into "solid-average starter" territory at the time the deal went down, but he was still a decent pitching prospect in his own right. Now? After an abysmal four-start run at Double-A Richmond and a season-ending hip injury, the clock is beginning to tick.
In sum, the only "significant" talent the Rangers likely relinquished for that $8 million in salary relief was an increasingly maddening Michael Main and Josh Lueke, whose name alone is sufficient cause for concern. Even if you're of the belief that it was Blake Beavan and not Lueke who was the necessary cash-securing piece (and it definitely wasn't Justin Smoak, whose inclusion was necessary just to keep Jack Zdurienick listening), he's a back-end rotation piece with limited upside -- the kind of guy you're happy to ride through his pre-arbitration years for league-minimum production, but may not keep around for the full six years of club control.
Any one of these prospects would make for a fine complementary addition to a larger and/or more complex deal with a bigger payoff, but they're all relatively replaceable -- and that's where my disagreeance with Sheehan comes to a head. You miss out on a blockbuster trade opportunity for a top-of-the-rotation piece because you don't have a Martin Perez, or a Tanner Scheppers, or an Engel Beltre in your system. That sort of deal doesn't hinge on the presence of a fungible mid-level prospect. And even if you're of the mindset that Michael Main, Josh Lueke and the rest of those fringe-average arms together constitute "a lot of value," I don't think it's enough value to make things as difficult as Sheehan implies them to be ... as if trading for Zach Greinke or Matt Cain wouldn't be difficult enough, already.
Analysis, Prospects, The Off-Season
Reader Comments (36)
The Rangers could easily pull off a trade for someone like Greinke and still retain a top 10 level system in my view. There is a lot of depth there, with a lot of lower level guys who could break out.
Agreed. Depth is the strongest part of the Rangers' system. I loved seeing Marte brought in- just keep adding potential trade chips.
Joe Sheehan is some East coast hack. See what he wrote about the Rangers in his playoff preview in SI last month. Oh wait, he didn't write much. Instead he saw a Rays-Yankees ALCS while dissing the Rangers with a sentence or two.
UNLESS THE RANGERS CAN PULL OFF A REAL BLOCK BUSTER TRADE I AM IN FAVOR OF KEEPING MOST OF OUR TOP PROSPECTS SUCH AS PEREZ, SCHEPPERS, BELTRE, AND PROFAR. IT WOULD HAVE TO BE KING FELIX, CAIN, OR PRICE FOR ME TO WANT TO GIVE UP A COUPLE OF THE TOP PROSPECTS AND A COUPLE OF MID LEVEL PROSPECTS. I HAVE NOT HEARD MUCH ABOUT VERLANDER, IS HE A PITCHER THAT WE MIGHT BE INTERESTED IN AT THE RIGHT PRICE? I HAVE ALWAYS LIKED HIM AND WOULD NOT MIND SEEING A TRADE INVOLVING HIM. I DO AGREE THAT ON LEE IT COMES DOWN TO RANGERS AND YANKEES. I WANT LEE AS A RANGER BUT NOT AT THE EXPENSE OF OUR WHOLE GROUP OF YOUNG TALENT AND THE CURRENT TEAM.
@t ball - I think perhaps a trade for Greinke might knock the Rangers' system out of the top 10. It's possible that it doesn't, but dropping to 11-12 wouldn't be out of the question. I think your point still stands - they have very nice depth. However, it would probably thin out their high end depth enough to knock them down a bit. Having said that, it's entirely possible that the Rangers have an excellent draft in 2011 and go crazy with the international free agents and pop back into the top five even after a big trade (not to mention the possibility that that it all comes together for someone like Matt Thompson or Wilmer Font).
@Ranger Mike - I don't really have much to add about Sheehan. He seems to think of the Rangers as a piece of gum someone placed under his table at Denny's. Screw him.
@BILL M. - Can you elaborate on that last sentence?
The key is not so much as in who is given up, but in who is added.
Lat year's draft was uninspiirng to say the least compared to prior years.
Now that they club is adequately funded I fully expect a return to form.
Why do I keep seeing mention of the Rangers trying to trade for Matt Cain? This is the 2nd time I've read an article that suggests such a thing.
Does anyone really think that the Giants will give up a great number 2 starter that just posted a whopping 0.00 ERA all the way through the World Series? I'd love to have him, sure, but it's not much of a possibility.
I still can't believe what the Rangers were able to get, in players and money, for what they gave up (Or DIDN'T give up) last year in trades. The only sig. piece was Smoke, who will probably be nothing more than an average first baseman. John-boy did a HELL of a good job.
Great piece Joey. This is the package I have been putting forth for about a 2 months, for Greinke:
Perez
Beltre
Hunter
Harrison
Davis.
Hunter gives them a major league pitcher they can plug in to eat innings and earn serf pay for 2 (1?) more year. Moore was with Atlanta when Harrison was drafted there and presumably likes the player. Davis is the sweetener and the "meat" is Perez (though they can choose Scheppers if they want him instead) and Beltre. Beltre may be a star, but there is a great chance that his value is never higher than it will be this off-season. As to Perez, for some reason I don't have the same attachment there that I do with Holland. When I saw Holland make his first start in Frisco, I was utterly and completely blown away by what I had just seen. The performance prompted Newberg to state that it was one of the best 2 or 3 minor league pitching performances he'd ever seen. He was just simply over-powering. I've seen Perez twice and I still don't think I've seen a batter swing and miss at a fastball. I defnitely see his promise, but I would move him before Holland in a heartbeat.
So, that's my package for Greinke and I do it regardless of what happens to Lee. I have to believe (if you believe Perez is a top 3 LH arm in minor ball) that is package that would be hard to top and probably impossible to top if KC is one of the organizations that still thinks Davis is a legit prospect. Finally, i assume they know Beltre pretty well, having shared a complex with us.
Thoughts?
"Smoke, who will probably be nothing more than an average first baseman"
Anyone else wanna question this claim? Smoak had a rotten slump while he was up last season, yet arguably he was coming up a year too soon - or at least he might have been a Sept. call up. He held his own though, and he did have one very good month where he was walking, hitting with power, and driving in runs. When he returned to Seattle in September he was much better, too. If Smoak can just hit .250 with a .390 OBP, and can produce 25 homers or so, with around 90 RBI - he's definitely not an "average" first baseman. And he will get better - his swing is too good for him to hit .230.
Without Lee, no way Texas goes to the WS, but losing Smoak hurts, especially to a division foe. The reason why Texas could afford to lose Smoak is because of the emergence of Mitch Moreland - so in that respect I think the trade was worth it.
@Jack Daddy - I do have some issues with that trade package. KC's farm system has come a long way. As it stands, I would guess they'll be top two in most people's offseason farm system rankings.
Their depth is in pitching and on the corners. 1B/3B/RF/LF are not really positions of need in their system. I'd say that even if they do still consider Chris Davis a legitimate prospect, he has very little value to their organization. I'm sure they'd love to have him, but he doesn't really sweeten the pot for KC. I think Beltre would be the centerpiece of this deal for KC since they don't really have a high-end prospect who's guaranteed to stick in CF. Martin Perez is attractive to any team, but KC has four LHPs (Dwyer, Duffy, Lamb, & Montrgomery) who should rank in the Royals top ten prospects this winter. I do think that Harrison has more value to KC than most organizations given Moore's familiarity, and I think Tommy Hunter would be valuable to the Royals.
I think KC might have as much interest in Scheppers as Perez. I also think that Sardinas/Profar have as much or more value to KC as Beltre.
Does anyone think that we could trade them Omar Beltre as part of the package and convince them they were getting Engel?
Jack - isn't Greinke a FA after the 2012 season? If so, he's going to test the market for a big contract, so I think your proposed trade is overpaying a bit. I'd offer Scheppers, Hunter, Castillo and Borbon, and if they didn't take that, I'd offer Scheppers, Holland, Castillo and Borbon. I can't imagine they'd get anything better than that deal...
lol Dave! They should try it!
I couldn't agree more, Joey. The loss of Main and Lueke is disappointing, but in the long-run, not a major setback at all. This team has the prospects to make a major trade for a TORP this off-season, if need be. Kansas City isn't going to cut off negotiations for Greinke because we can't offer another Evan Reed or Omar Poveda level prospect.
@Diogenes - I do believe that Smoak will (eventually) be an above average first baseman. However, I wanted to remind you that the average first baseman is actually an above average hitter in the first place. .275/.360/.450 is probably the slash line for your average (perhaps I should say median) first baseman for any given year. .250/.390/.500 might be above average for 1B, but not by a whole lot. I also think that in a couple of years we'll see something more like .280/.385/.475 our of Smoak.
I like what Jack Daddy is offering there... and although I don't think it's nearly enough, it's a good starting point and fun to think about.
The Royals are pretty much set at 1B and DH. .. so Davis is probably not going to be appealing to them.
I would think that they'd AT LEAST want a starting position player, starting pitcher and your top pitching prospect...
What if If the Royals told you that you could have Greinke for the following... would you do it?
Tommy Hunter
Martin Perez
Nellie Cruz
Matt Harrison or Michael Kirkman or Julio Borbon (I realize this is not apples to apples but you get my point)
Would you be willing to also add Ogando or Scheppers to make it work?
@Scooby Dude - what do you mean by this "I loved seeing Marte brought in- just keep adding potential trade chips"... who is Marte and when was he "brought in"... I must have missed something.
The more I read about the potentially disasterous bet made on signing a $20M per yr pitcher (that's really on the back side of his career), the more anxiety I have with signing Lee. I know it's only money... but the thought of Lee throwing out his arm in yr 2 of a 5 yr contract scares the heck out of me... not to mention the liklihood of tying JD's hands for future signings/trades. I love the guy and he's really the anchor of this Worled Series contender... but man, it's freaking me out a little.
If Lee goes elsewhere, what do you think of signing another bullpen arm like Rafeal Soriano? It could be viewed 1 of 2 ways; 1) bring him in as closer and give Feliz at shot at the rotation or 2) add him as the set up guy in between Ogando and Feliz. Good Lord... imagine turning over the game to Ogando, Soriano, and Feliz . Scary!
Another thought would be to sign Crawford and discreetly dangle Cruz to an offensively starved team. Maybe JD kills 2 birds with 1 stone by pulling off a 3 way trade with the A's. We get one of their studs; Cahill, Gonzalez, Braden, Anderson, etc... and they get a 30 HR 100 RBI monster in Cruz.
"Davis is the sweetener..."
Jack Daddy, how can a guy that the Royals will have less than zero interest in be the sweetener? Four reasons that Davis is a no-go: Billy Butler. Eris Hosmer. Kila Ka'aihue. Clint Robinson. Want a fifth? Ok. If you think Davis can be a third baseman instead, a fifth reason is Mike Moustakas.
And Diogenes, if Greinke is happy in Texas - and if we're winning, he will be, because that's the only reason he has a problem with KC right now - he'll sign an extension. Like Roy Halladay, who happily signed with Philly for less than his market value because that's where he wanted to be, Greinke is not at all money motivated. He won't bolt just to get a big contract
@Pabloesque, I realize that you feel Cruz is the real prize here, but I honestly don't think the Royals would be interested. I love Nelly, but he's 30 years old and already showing signs of having problems staying healthy. Plus the Royals have said they're looking for young guys who will "grow up" with their young guys. I don't know that they are that hung up on having a starting position player AND a starting pitcher to plug into the majors right now.
@Pabloesque - if you think signing a FA starter is a bad idea/big risk, then you really shouldn't be interested in a FA bullpen arm. Relief pitchers are usually inconsistent year to year and are historically overvalued in free agency. Would you trade a first/supplemental round picks for Soriano? Even if he does pitch as well as he did this year, he won't be worth the contract he receives. The issue with Cliff Lee is that even if he falls back to Earth (into the ~4 wins above replacement range), he'll put enough people in the stands to pay for the difference between his production and his salary. Rafael Soriano isn't going to put any more butts in the seats.
As far as your opinions on a potential trade for Greinke, I'm glad JD is making the decisions. Cruz has no place in a trade like that. If you're trying to assemble a package for Greinke, look at the packages for Ace-caliber pitchers in the past few years (Sabathia, Halladay, Haren, Lee). I would say that the strongest player packages were what the Rangers gave up for Lee and what the Brewers gave up for Sabathia. Realistically both teams CLE/TEX traded away one 4-5 star prospect and two 2-3 star prospects. LAA essentially gave up Tommy Hunter and some spares to get 2.5 years of Dan Haren. There was nothing special in the package SEA gave up for Lee. Toronto received a nice young arm in Kyle Drabek plus D'Arnaud and (essentially) Brett Wallace for Halladay. D'Arnaud basically has a similar profile to the 2008 version of Taylor Teagarden (a nice defensive backup catcher).
There isn't a single player in any of those trades remotely comparable to Nelson Cruz. Tommy Hunter is pretty comparable to Joe Saunders. Perez easily outclasses any other pitching prospect included in any deal - the only pitcher remotely close is Drabek. I'd argue that Scheppers or Ogando has as much (if not more) value as any pitcher on the prospect side of any of those deals.
I'm just trying to say not to get carried away with the perceived value of Zach Greinke. He's not as valuable as Roy Halladay, and a lot of these trade packages being thrown around are better than what it took to acquire him.
I think Rob and Joey both make their points. Despite the fact the Rangers didn't trade away all their top shelf prospects, Texas did in fact trade a fair aount of their serviceable minor league depth. Where they go from here can be projected by Joey and others, but it's really up to them. It's too early to judge most of these trades and the fortunes of some of these prospects. Kirkman climbed back, Cruz developed after all, maybe these guys will too. Could the Rangers go on the same trading spree next year that they did this year? I think they still could, to Joey's point, but at the same time they have already traded players that interested other teams - Beavan, Main, Smoak, and maybe you could throw Lawson, Lueke, Tatusko and Roark in there as well. The Rangers will have to offer other players that generate interest from other teams. It can be done, but there eventually is a tipping point where they will have to back off a bit and rebuild the system (I don't think we are there yet).
As for Greinke - I would be careful of that guy. His performance dropped off a bit last year. Is he wearing out? Assuming you sign Lee, how much to you really want to give up for a guy that may actually line up as the #3 starter in your rotation after Lee and CJ (and you could make an argument for putting Colby in front of him as well)? If the Royals want to be "overwhelmed", I pass.
Agree on Davis. Didn't think through the royals depth at those spots. Though talent is talent. That being said, he could be used for another piece that is flipped. I would not part with Cruz or holland. Nor would I give scheppers and Perez. I don't think my package is overpaying, as I think hunter will regress and think Harrison is just a guy. I think b/c greinke is fa after 2012 is precisely why a package like his gets him. I just don't think beltre will walk enough to be a star and don't believe Perez will be a future #1. If I was more bullish on beltre or Perez, I wouldn't do it.
Greinke is much better than haren.
Yeah, I am not sure what the Rangers would have to do to have guys like Sheehan take them seriously and give informed opinions about them. Perhaps no matter how much success they ever have there will be a faction of the baseball writers that just don't take the Rangers seriously, old habits die hard.
I don't feel like we gave up anything except Smoak last year. In hindsight only the Molina and Lee trades needed to happen, but at least the one truly good upside player we gave up was for the one trade we would all gladly do again.
The Rangers would have lost some of those players to Minor League FA anyway. They had to put some of them on the 40 man or let them walk.
So, wasn't it better to trade a few of them for immediate help?
Sheehan needs to think about this a little harder
@ Pabloesque: Marte is a well regarded 17-year-old Latin SS the Rangers landed for ~$200K this week. Just keep adding trade chips. Adding a Marte means Profar and Sardinas become even easier to part with. The strength of this farm system is that it may be the league's deepest, even though it may not be as top-heavy as some other systems. The Salty deal was another I loved. It's not incoceivable that 10 years from now the best prospect involved in any of the Rangers' trades this summer was one we ACQUIRED (Ramon Mendez- young, wild, but with TORP upside if his development catches the inside straight draw).
@ Dave H: that's the kind of analysis we need. Look at the market for TORPs from the perspective of the trading team (Royals in this case). Don't get wide-eyed at the thought of fleeting short term glory.
Scheppers, Profar, Hunter, another one of our deep stable of MORP-level prospects (Erlin, Font, Ross, Thompson, Weiland, Boscan, Grimm, even Omar Beltre, who I like a lot) and a kid or 2 who need a change of scenery, a la Chris Davis, except, at a position of less depth for KC (Max Ramirez/Pedro Strop). That's more than anyone else will offer for Greinke, and would be well worth the trade.
I don't think we should worry about Greinke "wearing down". He's 27, and slipped a bit from Cy Young winner to merely an All-Star. No way he slots behind Wilson and Lewis here. He might even slot ahead of Cliff Lee. He certainly slots ahead of Lee (or anyone else in baseball whose name doesn't rhyme with Flim Flincecum) if he returns to 2009 form. Look at now as a time to buy his services at a value price off a SLIGHTLY down year.
@Scooby Dude - IF Greinke returns all the way to his 2009 form, nobody slots ahead of him. He was off-the-charts good in 2009. Now personally, I don't think he'll ever post another season that is quite on that level. That's not to say that he won't be good, but I think 2008 and 2010 are more indicative of what we should expect. 2010 didn't look great from Greinke on the surface, but he was pretty unlucky. I would argue that 2010 was his second best season just ahead of 2008 and far behind 2009. With close to neutral luck I think Zach would put up over 200 IP with an ERA between 3.00-3.50. That's a pretty damn good pitcher and would definitely slot well ahead of CJ Wilson, and he would edge Colby Lewis too (though not by as big a margin as you might think). Cliff Lee is a better pitcher than the 2008 or 2010 Zach Greinke. If absolutely everything comes together for Greinke again ala 2009, then there's not another pitcher I would prefer. I just think with Zach's anxiety issues, he's much less likely to be 2009 than 2008/2010.
Regardless, Greinke is an ACE - a true ace. Felix Hernandez, Roy Halladay, and Lee come first in my book. I consider Greinke and Lincecum to be a coin flip. Josh Johnson, Ubaldo Jimenez, Wainwright, Verlander, Liriano, Lester, and Oswalt are ace caliber pitcher, but I'd have them slotted behind the first five. I'll throw Jered Weaver, Dan Haren, and CC Sabathia in the mix too. That's 15 aces for 30 teams. That's not a lot of true aces out there. I'd say he's conservatively one of the top ten pitchers in all of baseball - and that's without his 2009 form as the norm.
@Scooby - so you think the Royals would take a package of Scheppers, Profar, Hunter, and one mid-level propect? I think you're nuts... but hey, that's why I'm sitting here and JD is sitting there.
Scheppers has a history of injuries and even if thats been blown out of proportion, he still comes with a warning sing. Profar is 16 or 17 yrs old... and won't see a MLB dugout for at least 3 or 4 years. Hunter is a nice pitcher but still... if the Royals accepted that trade, they would be the biggest suckers of all time.
I do appreciate the info on Marte. Now that you mention it, I do recall seeing a note about him signing...thank you!
@Dave - I always respect your opinions but I don't think you're comparing apples to apples when you compare a trade for Sabathia, Lee, Haren, and Halladay to one for Grienke. Sabathia and Lee were 3 month rentals. Haren comes with an extra year but still, you can't compare him to Grienke talent wise. I don't recall the situation with the Halladay trade but I believe he too was a rental that ended up signing at the end of that season. Greinke is signed through 2012 at a very reasonable price. That alone adds at least 1 more top prospect to the package. And I also disagree with you that Halladay is worth more than Greinke. Granted, Halladay is a work horse, stud that will probably pitch into his late 30's and maybe even into his 40's... and still be effective... but Greinke's stuff is on par with Halladay's and he's what, 6 years younger (isn't Halladay is 34 and Greinke 28?... regardless, Greinke is at least 4 or 5 younger than Halladay)? If both players were signed for say the next 5 or 6 yrs... and you offered a straight up swap, I'd take Greinke and wouldn't think twice about it. I love Halladay... I think he's awesome... but Greinke is probably 1 of the top 3 pitchers in the AL. As far as his down year is concerned, the guy pitches for KC for crying out loud. Don't you think that you would be somewhat demoralized pitching for a 50 or 60 win team?
I'm not sure I follow you on Cruz. Are you saying that he's way too valuable to be included in a trade for Greinke?
It's funny because everyone on this site (excluding the authors) is always willing to trade our has-beens... and not our top flight guys. Don't you think the GM on the other side of a trade would do their homework and know/understand the upside of the prospects being offered?
I think (and Dave, you're correct in being thankful JD is the GM and not me) that if you took Cruz out, you would have to offer something like this:
Perez
Profar or Sardinas or Beltre
Hunter
Borbon
Ogando
You're giving up your top pitching prospect, probably a top 3 position player prospect, a back of the rotation starting pitcher, a semi-regular CFer, and a top bullpen arm in Ogando (albeit a bullpen arm in his late 20's).
Maybe you can remove Profar/Sardinas/Beltre from the mix... but in using the Texiera deal as a model, I think it would require a package like this or very similiar to this... and don't tell me that the Tex deal is different because he plays everyday, is a power hitting firstbaseman, blah, blah, blah... we're talking about acquiring what is arguably a #1 ace that's in his prime and has no injury history (fragile psyche but he seems to have overcome it).
Tim's site has a post from 2 days ago that says those close to the KC GM are sure that he will only trade Greinke for a "bunch of front line players," including at least one guy who is likely to be as good as Greinke. If that's true, then you'd probably have to empty the farm to get him: Perez, Scheppers, Holland, and Hunter, for instance. Would you guys do that?
I wouldn't.
@Dio - I wouldn't do Perez, Scheppers, Holland, AND Hunter... but I would do Perez, Scheppers and either Holland or Hunter. I would definitely do it... without hesitation.
From Jayson Stark:
"...according to clubs that have spoken with them, they're telling bidders up front that (A) they would need to "win" the deal, (B) they would have to get the kind of four-for-one haul the Rangers got for Mark Teixeira to pull the trigger, (C) they need a bunch of "front-line, winning, quality players" in return, and (D) at least one of those players has to be a pitcher capable of turning into the next Zack Greinke in a couple of years."
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/columns/story?columnist=stark_jayson&page=rumblings101110
Now yes, that's a lot to ask. But if you're the Royals, why not ask for a lot, and more than you think you'll get? The more you ask for the more you get offered. Plus, if the deal gets done, the other team feels like they were able to talk you down, when actually you got what you really wanted. It's called "negotiating," and that's how the good ones do it.
And no, Scheppers, Profar, Hunter, and a mid-level prospect is NOT an exampe of what they actually believe they are going to get.
Yah, geo - that's the same report I saw too. I think Texas has the peeps to make a deal acceptable to KC, but it would be a huge gamble because essentially you would empty the farm system of just about all your top-tier talent. Financially speaking (since Greinke is nearing a big payday), it may be more prudent for Texas to stick with all these young guys and let them develop, hoping that 1 or 2 of them will turn into something comparable to Greinke. It's much cheaper and you get a lot more for your money if the players develop into what they project as.
Just think of this - how devastating would it be to lose all your top prospects and then have Greinke blow out his arm in his first season here?
JD has been getting the job done, and I have confidence he's got the long-term health of the club in mind, as well as the "now" of success in 2011.
If KC sticks to that position then the Rangers should wait and sign him as a Free Agent.
Why would any team trade "The next Grenke" for the older version?
If they are even halfway serious with those demands (which I don't believe they are) then Greinke opens the season in a Royals' uniform. no one will meet those demands. Hell, even the Tex trade didn't have multiple "can't miss" prospects in it. It had Salty (who was thought to be can't miss, and then missed, so he obviously wasn't can't miss), Harrison, who was always a low ceiling/high floor prospect, and a couple of high ceiling/high risk kids in Andrus and Feliz.
And the market is not as lucrative as it was when Tex was dealt, because the economy has tanked and teams are less willing to trade their cheap, controllable talent for highly paid stars.
If that's the case, wait and see if they change their tune at the trade deadline. As I've said before- the longer they wait, the less they'll get, and they would be enormous suckers to do what Toronto did and wait until the last minute to attempt to trade their Ace, despite being non-competitive.
@Pabloesque - I just have a couple of points for you.
1) Cliff Lee was traded THREE times. The only time he was a one month rental was the trade to the Rangers. Philadelphia traded for Lee at a time equivalent to trading for Greinke at the deadline this year. I don't see any reason whatsoever I should avoid comparing that trade to a potential trade for Greinke. So hear we go. PHI traded Carlos Carrasco, Jason Donald, Lou Marson, and Jason Knapp for Cliff Lee AND Ben Fransisco. Note that PHI received an additional player in this deal. Ben Fransisco isn't a great player, but he's a decent hitter (just a tiny bit above average) and a decent fielder. He may be a 4th OF, but he more than cancels out Jason Donald (a spare backup SS). Now for the other prospects:
- Marson is a catcher who seems to call a decent game. He seems to be a slightly more polished version of Taylor Teagarden with more bat control but less power and a weaker arm.
- Carrasco is probably the top prospect of this group, but he's never had the potential to be an ace. If he absolutely puts everything together he could be a solid #3 starter. He's most likely going to be a decent fifth starter like Tommy Hunter. He also reminds me of Guillermo Moscoso with a couple ticks more velocity.
- Knapp is a young flamethrower. Think of him as somewhere between Wilmer Font and Roman Mendez. He's got an electric fastball and usable secondaries but he's got some major control problems a well. He could be the best prospect in this group, but he's easily the most likely to flame out. He also has some major injury concerns.
Just keep in mind that there is no pitcher who generated a haul remotely close to what KC wants out of Greinke.
2) Dan Haren is a lot better than you seem to think, and Greinke may not be quite as amazing as you think. Since he got to the A's in 2005, Haren has never put up less than 216 IP, had a K/BB of less than 3.08, or had an ERA+ of less than 107.
Here are Some stats for both pitchers over their 6 full seasons as pros chronological for each pitcher:
K/BB
Greinke - 3.85, 2.15, 2.94, 3.27, 4.75, 3.29
Haren - 3.08, 3.91, 3.49, 5.15, 5.87, 4.00
ERA+
Greinke - 120, 76, 124, 126, 205, 100
Haren - 117, 108, 138, 139, 146, 107
tERA
Greinke - 5.29, 5.35, 4.13, 3.77, 2.59, 3.51
Haren - 4.40, 4.12, 3.45, 3.60, 3.77, 3.96
xFIP
Greinke - 4.28, 4.64, 4.28, 3.76, 3.15, 3.76
Haren - 3.66, 3.83, 3.87, 3.21, 3.08, 3.67
WAR
Greinke - 2.2, 2.6, 2.5, 4.9, 9.4, 5.2
Haren - 4.0, 4.0, 4.9, 6.5, 6.1, 4.5
I am by no means saying that I prefer Haren to Greinke, but by many measures, Haren has been a true ace who is more consistently good than Greinke. Greinke's 2009 season was arguably a better season than any other season posted by an active player. I would argue it was the best season for any pitcher in the last 20 years not named (Greg) Maddux or (Pedro) Martinez. Outside of that one big spike in production, Haren might be the better pitcher. I still personally believe that Greinke is the better pitcher; however I hope I at least done a little bit to back you off of this statement: "Haren comes with an extra year but still, you can't compare him to Grienke talent wise."
DH - touche'...
@Pabloesque - I do want to make sure you know that I'm not trying to come off like an ass or anything. You've generally seemed receptive to analysis, and I wanted to give you my take on the subject. It seems like you took a break from commenting over here for a while. I hope you're back to stay.