The Trade That Didn't Happen
This past weekend may have comprised the rare and unusual off-season Rangers trade (one which saw recently DFA'd Guillermo Moscoso shipped to Oakland in exchange for minor league power reliever Ryan Kelly, who may not ever contribute to the Rangers' bullpen but at least furnishes more in the way of potential to help Texas than Moscoso did for the better part of his tenure here), but as is often the case in the hot-stove universe, the real story ended up being the trade that didn't happen, and the (misguided?) sentiment of a fan base perturbed by the total value of the Rangers' investment in that not-quite-actualized deal.
If we are to believe Peter Gammons' account of what went down behind the scenes (and while Gammons unquestionably ranks among the most respected baseball journalists in history, I would caution that there is always an element of uncertainty involved in the reporting of trade rumors that prevents us from ever interpreting any single rumor as outright gospel), the Rangers were close to swinging a deal with the Rays that would have sent Matt Garza to Texas in exchange for left-hander Derek Holland, right-hander Frank Francisco, minor league outfielder Engel Beltre, and Cubs catcher Robinson Chirinos (who would have been acquired in a separate deal), but the Cubs themselves upped their offer for Garza, knocked Texas out of the running, and, well, that was that.
The prevailing response to this revelation among Rangers fans appears to be one of relief intertwined with subtle dismay, as Holland is still a young, talented left-hander with quality stuff and potential that has yet to be fully tapped (although the scenario where he evolves into anything more than a mid-rotation starter is beginning to resemble more of a long-shot scenario), Francisco is a solid late-inning weapon who is still more than capable of closing games elsewhere in the majors, and Beltre is a top-100 prospect, albeit not the sort that can carry a major trade on his own merits due to the heightened bust potential. Why would Texas move that sort of package, plus whatever assets might have been required to procure Chirinos (let's just pretend the cost would have been Chris Davis), for a pitcher coming off a mediocre 1.8-win campaign last season?
Any intelligent discussion about this subject has to begin with two things: (a) a pragmatic examination of both Holland and Garza, who -- make no mistake -- would have been the principal pieces in this exchange, and (b) separation of the wheat from the chaff, the latter of whom is Davis and, to some arguable extent, Francisco. It is difficult, if not virtually impossible, to envision Davis doing enough to unseat Mitch Moreland at first base after repeated high-profile failures, and, even in the event of a dramatic performance drop on Moreland's part (or a trade), Texas would seem likelier to allocate that playing time to Michael Young and roll with exponentially more reliable options at designated hitter than Davis. The loss of Francisco would sting, but he's not wholly irreplaceable and will cost somewhere in the vicinity of $4 million next season, which is a hefty chunk of cash for a good, but not great set-up man.
This leaves us juxtaposing Garza against Holland and Beltre, all three of whom have drawn their fair share of divergent opinions. Full disclosure: I have never seen Beltre play in person, and frequently defer to the knowledge of those who have actually done so and possess extensive scouting expertise when it comes to prospect evaluation. We're all very clear on the plus defensive projection and plus offensive tools (do note the distinction between projection and tools), but the list of red flags (via Jason Parks) is considerable: "Still transitioning from athlete with raw tools to baseball player with on-the-field skills; lacks mature approach at the plate and is overly aggressive; needs refinement with routes in centerfield; needs overall maturity; has yet to produce at Double-A level."
My point? It's very easy to talk in the declarative sense about what we believe a high-upside, moderate-bust potential prospect like Beltre is going to do and what he's going to be worth, but here's the reality: he could break out and establish himself as a serious upper-echelon prospect with huge trade value by as early as mid-season, or he could stumble performance-wise -- as so, so many prospects do at or before the Double-A level -- and move backwards. I do buy into the Parks-advanced school of thought that overwrought anxiety about the state of the farm system at this point in the Rangers' development cycle is really not necessary, and that dealing a top-100 prospect or two or three is justifiable if done to acquire the right major league player -- particularly if that prospect is something of a long shot to help Texas in a meaningful way in the next couple of years.
Setting aside -- but not forgetting -- the Davis/Francisco/Beltre component of this deal for a moment, we arrive at the Holland/Garza component, undoubtedly the greatest point of contention. With many already penciling Holland into the Opening Day rotation, it's apparent that Garza wouldn't represent depth improvement so much as he would quality/stability improvement, and even then that improvement is not completely assured -- there is a greater-than-zero chance that Holland performs better than Garza next year, and in 2012-13 as well, when Garza is playing out his final two pre-free agency seasons. I don't think that probability extends too far beyond 20-30 percent, if at all, but it's there.
Since I'm tired of dealing in vague generalities, here's a conceivable scenario with some hard numbers to digest: imagine that Garza was traded to Texas, and posted three consecutive above-average three-win seasons from 2011-13 before embarking upon his free-agent journey, and also imagine that Holland, after being traded, posted 1.5-win seasons in 2011-12, and then averages out as a solid-average two-win pitcher from 2013-15, during his age 26-28 seasons. Using $4.5 million per win as your benchmark in 2011 and assuming an inflation rate of five percent, Garza's total worth comes out to $42.6 million over three seasons against Holland's $45.1 million over five seasons, with Garza perhaps banking $20 million in that three-year span against Holland's $11-12 million over a five-year span (although it could obviously work out a larger sum).
Holland, of course, works out to be the better overall value on paper in this scenario (which is likelier than many want to admit), but the extra wins today during the apex of the Rangers' competitive window merit special consideration, as another 1-2 win enhancement to the present team and beefed-up rotation could mean the difference between another deep October run and second place -- yes, this is true despite the fact that the Rangers are division favorites. Being a favorite is not equivalent to being a favorite to win your division by a sizable margin. Despite the additional years of club control at what will likely be cheaper prices, there's little question as to which pitcher I would take, leaving Beltre, Francisco, and Davis to constitute enough value to compel Tampa Bay to accept the Rangers' offer (which they obviously didn't).
I know fan sentiment is largely against this configuration of the Garza-to-Texas deal, and I know the valuation of the Holland/Garza component could swing one way or the other depending on your aggressiveness with Holland's projection, and I know I may be too dismissive of Beltre/Francisco/Davis, and I know my viewpoint is colored by my continued concerns over the state of the starting rotation, and I know there's a reasonably decent chance that this rumor isn't even accurate, or is missing crucial pieces of information. If you do buy into it, however, it provides some interesting insight into the Rangers' thought process vis-a-vis the current pitching trade market, and, if nothing else, it provides us with something of legitimate interest to talk about on these snowy January days.
Analysis, Hot Stove Season, The Off-Season
Reader Comments (41)
I'm rather high on Holland, as I have been for a couple of years, and I think he very well could be better than Garza in 2011. But, having said that, and while I'm glad he wasn't dealt for Garza, it would not have been a ridiculous overpay, and Beltre is complete wild card at this point.
That Davis for Chirinos component should be taken with a grain of salt. That rumor goes back a long while, and I don't think we can say for certain that the Cubs were going to accept the deal. Perhaps they asked for more and TX balked and that led to direct Cubs-Rays talks.
Perhaps the Cubs were willing to accept Davis and the Rays just decided to cut out the middle man, but I don't think we can just assume that was so.
I've said this already, but you don't really discuss the potential harms of giving up Frankie frank. First of all in the rumors I read it has the Rangers sending $$$ to the Rays for Frankies salary... So who knows what amount we would have subsidized, but it's a significant piece of the calculations. Plus it would all but gurantee that Feliz would be staying in the bullpen, which I think would be a huge mistake. IMO feliz has a great shot at outperforming Garza over the next 3 years if we move him to the rotation.
Actually we have all been looking at this the wrong way... Holland is a lot less valuable to the Rays than he would be to other teams. The reason they wanted to trade Garza is so Hellickson could have a spot in the rotation. Adding Holland as their 6th starter/insurance/long man simply is not as valuable as the prospect package they added from the cubs.
I'm glad this trade did not take place. Holland is about ready to show something and it could be very good. And he is a left-hander, which is a real plus. Even if you think JD and company are the cat's meow, the Rangers just do not have a good record of trading young pitchers successfully.
In an odd way Holland/Belre - Garza makes me think of Danks - BMac.
Trading future for now. The Rangers have just not had good luck when they go down that road.
Better to wait for the break and then trade pieces for a true TORP to make the play off run. The Rangers will have a better understanding of their needs and what the market has to offer. IMO Greinke has a good chance of being back on the market at the break. I think the Brewers will be sellers not buyers at the break.
This year is crucial for Holland's development. The guy has great stuff but it is time for it to click. When he is on he can shut down any lineup. His relief appearances against the Yankees showed how filthy he is. We need him to harness that potential and be a solid number 4 this year.
I think the biggest factor that you didn't mention in considering the Garza vs. Holland scenario is that Holland is a lefty. The Ballpark has always been better to LH hitters and thus tougher on RH pitchers. Holland being a lefty is a huge bonus then.
I just looked up Garza's numbers and he has been a little better over his career in retiring LHBs than RHBs. So maybe he wouldn't be a pitcher who would be hurt by the Ballpark's dimensions as much as some other RHPs.
But I think that Holland will improve this year and into the future. So I am glad that this deal didn't happen.
I'd rather have Bonderman!
I wasn't terribly high on Garza. I think he's no better than a #3 on a division winner. He pitches significantly worse outside the pitcher friendly Tropicana. He's also the worst type of pitcher for RBiA with a poor GB% and tendency to give up the home run. He's good for 200 IP, and therefore worth having, but I wouldn't expect him to be much more than a solid rotation cog.
As far as Derek Holland... I'm willing to give him more time before making a pronouncement on how good he can be.
Name IP ERA FIP K/9 BB/9 WAR
Roy Halladay 179 6.23 5.68 6.99 6.18 1.1
Johan Santana 129 5.90 5.13 6.41 4.88 0.4
Jon Lester 142 4.74 4.91 6.83 4.48 1.7
John Danks 139 5.50 5.54 7.06 3.50 0.8
Derek Holland 195 5.52 4.78 7.41 3.27 1.9
Should have dealt Holland and Smoak for Doc Halliday at the '09 deadline when we had the chance to.
Good post matchs1ck. Even though 195 innings is greater than any of those other totals, I think it's possible Holland was negatively affected by being yanked between different roles in the last couple of years. I'm hoping he wins a rotation spot and the Rangers leave him there without overreacting if he has a couple bad starts. You have to find out of he can really succeed or not.
rangerjake has a good point about Holland being of less use in Tampa than Hellickson or Archer in the long run.
I have to disagree strongly with Jon, though. This is not 2006-2007. The Rangers are defending AL champs and should be in win now mode, not waiting for the future.
Matchstick, I assume those are early career numbers for those pitchers, correct?
So this post was just plugged by Sean Bass on the Ticket.
When I 1st heard of the trade rumor and what Texas was seemingly prepared to give up, I was not in favor of it... particularly after I looked at Garza's somewhat mediocre stats. BUT, after reading your analysis, I think the Ranger's odds of winning for the next 2 years, supercedes the value in holding onto hope in Holland, Beltre, and Davis' future. Francisco is the only proven commodity in this package and if we have 1 position/spot with high end depth, it's the set up reliever role... making Franciso expendable... especially at his salary.
Holland could very well be a bust... and if we rewind to 09, Beltre was certainly not on the cusp of being a highly touted prospect. Davis is Davis... but if Davis replaced Carlos Pena at 1B, the production may have been the same (very low batting average with a ton of K's but also alot of power).
I think the trade would have definitely upgraded the roster... which is what we expect in any case with JD and the FO. However, the #3 or #4 spot in the rotation (which is where Garza would like pitch in) is MUCH different than the #1 or #2 spot... which is where I think we need help.
What if the Rangers sent the same package to Tampa but included Borbon + Moreland + another mid level pitching prospect and asked for Garza AND Upton... would the Rays have bit... or laughed at us?
E. Beltre
Francisco + cash
Holland
Moreland (or Davis... whichever one they'd prefer)
Borbon
Omar Beltre
For:
Garza
BJ Upton
CF would be covered for several years, MY could play 1B full time with maybe Jim Thome on the bench, Ogando or Scheppers easily replaces Francisco... and Garza obviously slides into #3 after CJ and Lewis. Meanwhile you give the Rays a guy who can play CF now, with the hope Beltre replaces him in the next 2 or 3 years (or whenever Borbon starts making the big bucks, etc... + a bullpen arm that can close games, + a 1B , + 2 pitchers with somewhat high upside... one of which could possibly replace David Price when he's also due a BIG contract.
To me, that's a win-win for both teams.
Holland is a bust. We have a couple years left to win, we need to make a trade.
My recollection is that Halladay would not approve a trade to Texas back in 2009.
Joel is right. Holland first needs to be more consistent, but the Rangers also need to figure out exactly what role Holland will play on this team(Starter or Middle Reliever). We don't want to screw him up similar to how the Yanks have ruined Joba the hut.
Do we get the Holland on Aug. 9th, 2009 against the Angels...shutout, three hitter...or do we get the Holland from Oct 28th, 2010 against SF, in which we all know what happened this day!
Those are the early career numbers for those pitchers before they had a breakout season.
Sean, it's much too soon to call Holland a bust.
Rangers do need to figure which roles people should play. Also, need to trade some talent or the pool reaches capacity and many new kids never get a chance to play.
Does it bother anyone else that the Rangers made huge offers and arguably better offers for both Grienke and Garza than the teams that actually traded for those pitchers and they got turned down? It seems to me like the Rangers offers were just as good if not better.
Most of the posts focus on what Holland is or will be instead of paying particular note to what Garza is and will likely be. If the Rangers are going to deal Holland, Francisco, Beltre and so forth, they need to get somebody back that is a sure bet to improve the team immediately. In my opinion, I'm doubtful that Garza, if making half his starts in Arlington (and the rest away from the Trop), is that guy. In looking at his home and away splits for the past 3 seasons, there's a sizeable gap between the pitcher he's been in Tampa and the pitcher he's been when starting on the road.
In Tampa, he's pitched like Roy Halladay. On the road, he's pitched more like Scott Feldman. His home ERA's for the past 3 years (2010,2009,2008) are 3.51, 3.24 & 2.89. Road ERA's are 4.27, 4.85 & 4.53 for the same timeframe. His HR splits for those same seasons is 17/11, 14/11 & 14/5 and his road WHIP has averaged 1.32 to 1.19 at the Trop.
In light of his splits, if he had been traded to the Rangers, it's not too difficult to assume that he'd continue to be a mid 4's guy on the road and likely not any better at The Ballpark and considering how homer prone he's been away from Tampa, he'd probably be a launching pad in Arlington as he's predominately a fly ball pitcher. Count me as one of those that's thankful the Cubbies won the deal. That's not to say that I think any of the Rangers reported package should be untouchable, just that Garza wouldn't have been the right return.
If our 3-4-5 starters gave us ERAs of 4.27, 4.85, and 4.53 I'd be very, very happy. It's the worry that you'll be lucky to get those #s from Hunter, Feldman, Harrison, etc that has us looking for a #3 if we can get one.
Scooby - Considering Garza's proclivity to surrender HR's and unfavorable GB/FB ratio, it's questionable he could equal or better those road ERA's while making half his starts in Arlington. IMO, giving up Holland, Francisco, Beltre, etc is too much for a 4.5 to 5+ ERA starter.
Matchst1ck may be on to something. I did a little statistical compilation on 7 different pitchers comparing IP, ERA, FIP, K/9, BB/9, and WAR for the years they turned 23, 24 and 25. The point of this exercise was to determine were Derek Holland compares to some the best in the game at the same age. Here is what I found:
Age23 IP ERA FIP K/9 BB/9 WAR
Holland 138.1 6.12 5.1 6.96 3.06 1.1
Halladay 67.2 10.64 6.47 5.85 5.59 -0.1
Santana 108.1 2.99 2.66 11.38 4.07 3.6
Lester 63 4.57 5.24 7.14 4.43 0.5
Danks 195 3.32 3.44 7.34 2.63 5.2
Lee N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Johnson 15.2 7.47 4.58 8.04 6.89 0.2
Age24 IP ERA FIP K/9 BB/9 WAR
Holland 57.1 4.08 4.02 8.48 3.77 0.8
Halladay 105.1 3.16 2.34 8.2 2.14 4.3
Santana 158.1 3.04 3.24 9.61 2.67 4.1
Lester 210.1 3.21 3.64 6.5 2.82 5.1
Danks 200.1 3.77 4.59 6.69 3.28 2.9
Lee 10.1 1.74 4.12 5.23 6.97 0.2
Johnson 87.7 3.61 3.37 7.94 2.78 2.1
Age25 IP ERA FIP K/9 BB/9 WAR
Holland N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Halladay 239.1 2.93 2.97 6.32 2.33 7.8
Santana 228 2.61 2.92 10.46 2.13 7.7
Lester 203.1 3.41 3.15 9.96 2.83 6.3
Danks 213 3.72 3.7 6.85 2.96 4.3
Lee 52.1 3.61 4.35 7.57 3.44 0.7
Johnson 209 3.23 3.06 8.22 2.5 5.6
A couple of notes about these stats. The seasons listed are the years each player turned the age listed. Both Holland and Lee were born after August 1st while all the other pitchers listed were born before May 15th which means that Holland and Lee are effectively a year younger in baseball terms than the other five in this comparison. Finally if Holland is going to become a TORP like many believed he was capable of a few years ago we should know this year. Holland was essential 23 this year which means he still has one full year before he should be ready to show his true potential. I think a reasonable progression would be around 150 IP with an ERA of 3.75 and WAR of around 2.5 to 3.5.
Also look at the differences between age 23 and age 25. It's remarkable. Maybe I'm to high on Holland but I see the growth the other pitchers had from 23 to 25 and it makes me excited about the possibilities in 2012.
What do ya'll think?
I don't see that kind of development as outside of the realm of possibility. The problem is, if you start with a list of only great pitchers, and then list their mediocre stats as youngsters, it's easy to think any mediocre young starter is going to be great. The list of guys who had similar stat lines and then turned out to be just-a-guy or worse is probably a mile long. Holland might be great. Or just a guy. But it is hard for me to be okay with that kind of risk-reward type being the #3 starter on a team with the kind of expectations that the 2011 Texas Rangers have.
JIM THOME? Buster Olney says we're trying to land Thome. How does MY fit into the picture if that happens, for that matter, Moreland?
It's just gut instinct backed up by decades of watching and studying baseball, but I think Holland is on the cusp of at least being the equal of Garza, plus a hell of a lot cheaper to boot. That 8 and 2/3rds inning one hitter he had (and a few other outings) showed he has the stuff and then some. Last year proved he's too good for AAA. The only thing to do is throw him into the deep end and see what happens. I think at worst, he can be our Dustin Nippert this year and still be better years from now. At best, he's real real good real soon, and we'll thank the baseball Gods we didn't trade him for Garza.
As bullish as I am on Holland, I'm as cold on Francisco. His throwing motion just makes me think (A) We've seen his best fastball, and (B) he'll be a DL regular from here on out. Definitely not worth $4 mill. I say trade before his value falls off the cliff.
The best two moves of the off season not getting Greinke and Garza.
Garza is statistically no better than Holland (although in limited playing time) or Hunter. Giving that much up for a 3rd 4th or 5th starter is crazy. Oh and he's 3 years older than both.
Arp - scooby is right, you need a control in your "experiment".
2011 is the put up or shut up year for Dutchy. If he is going to be, what he can be, he needs to do it now.
So here's some more numbers. I picked guys off the top of my head and I think that the key ingredient to the success, which Bill James preaches, is K/9.
I chose Wood because he was going to be a stud SP, Price because I think people bullish on Holland will look to him as nice comp (and a year younger) , and Maholm because that is the epitome of "Just a Guy". I threw in Buerhle for a not so high K/9. Also curious on how Pavano looked.
Age 23 IP FIP K/9 BB/9 ERA WAR
Buehrle 239 4 5.05 2.3 3.58 4.8
Millwood 51.1 3.07 7.36 3.68 4.03 1.3
Pavano 104 3.91 6.06 3.03 5.63 2.2
Price 14 3.42 7.71 2.57 1.93 0.2
Maholm 41.1 3.84 5.66 3.7 2.18 0.7
Wood 137 4.92 8.67 5.72 4.8 1.3
Wandy 128.2 5.12 5.6 3.71 5.53 0.3
Myers 193 4.22 6.67 3.54 4.43 2.5
Age 24 IP FIP K/9 BB/9 ERA WAR
Buehrle 230.1 4.1 4.65 2.38 4.14 4.4
Millwood 174.1 3.63 8.41 2.89 4.08 3.4
Pavano 97 4.19 5.94 3.15 3.06 1.8
Price 128.1 4.59 7.15 3.79 4.42 1.5
Maholm 176 4.81 5.98 4.14 4.76 1.4
Wood 174.1 3.51 11.2 4.75 3.36 3.8
Wandy 135.2 4.86 6.5 4.18 5.64 1.1
Myers 176 5.18 5.93 3.17 5.52 0.9
Age 25 IP FIP K/9 BB/9 ERA WAR
Buehrle 245.1 4.17 6.05 1.87 3.89 4.9
Millwood 228 3.53 8.09 2.33 2.68 5.7
Pavano 42.2 4.76 7.59 3.38 6.33 0.5
Price 208.2 3.42 8.11 3.41 2.72 4.3
Maholm 177.2 4.6 5.32 2.48 5.02 1.8
Wood 213.2 3.86 9.14 4.09 3.66 3.2
Wandy 182.2 4.18 7.78 3.05 4.58 2.7
Myers 215.1 4.06 8.69 2.84 3.72 3.4
So there it is. Give me the dutch oven over Garza and the Trop.
If we get Thome it probably means Moreland to the minors or a trade of Murphy or MY somewhere. I just don't see our MLB team next year having Murphy, Moreland and Thome all on the roster at once. The problem is we have way too many defensively limited players who all hit from the same side. Moreland, Thome and Murphy would all be DH/1b/COF types. I don't think you can have 3 people for those spots honestly, especially if you aren't trading Young, which makes the obvious causality Moreland since he can be optioned down, though that leaves us lacking a LH 1b option, as I assume in this scenario Young is the full time 1b. Honestly, the best option, from a positional stand point would probably be trading MY but it would cost too much and might hurt team chemistry too much. I would also say a decent amount of the decision would be dictated on what the Rangers think of Borbon.
Would be interesting to see what comes down the pipe.
It’s not actually an experiment. The point was to demonstrate were some of the current top of the rotation guys started and how long it took them to get there. None of them come straight out of the minors without some growing pains. Even Danks who progressed the farthest at the earliest age had a less than stellar rookie season going 6 and 13 with a 5.50 ERA and 0.8 WAR. The point was not to predict what Holland might or might not become but rather to provide some perspective on how long it takes to get there. Because virtually every starting pitcher starts out at the same point there’s not much sense in having a “control”. Danks was traded at age 22 and I think everybody wishes JD would have given him at least another year to see what he would become. How about Edinson Volquez? The year he turned 25 was his first year with the Reds. Here are his stats from 23 to 25.
Volquez: IP ERA FIP K/9 BB/9 WAR
Age 23: 33.1 7.29 6.6 4.05 4.59 -0.1
Age24: 34 4.5 4.56 7.68 3.97 0.5
Age25: 196 3.21 3.6 9.46 4.27 4.2
Had JD waited till 25 on both Danks and Volquez I think everyone would have been okay with that starting rotation. Since Garza was the subject of the latest trade rumors here are his 23 -25 stats.
Garza: IP ERA FIP K/9 BB/9 WAR
Age23: 50 5.76 4.57 6.84 4.14 0.7
Age24: 83 3.69 4.18 7.27 3.47 1.4
Age25: 184.2 3.7 4.14 6.24 2.88 2.9
Seeing a trend yet? The point is that while Garza is a known quantity and a valuable one at that he is still a middle of the rotation guy on a WS team and maybe a #2 on a solid playoff contender. He’d be a number three here. Holland may only be a #3 or 4 here this year but his skill set suggests he could be at least Garza’s equal in two years but more than likely will surpass that. Left handers with a mid 90's fastball and plus offspeed pitches are exceedingly rare and his effectiveness during the ALCS would suggest that he is starting to mature on the mound which would set him up nicely for very successful years both this year and next. It's not a given but having recently seen Danks and Volquez get traded too soon I'd prefer to not watch it happen with Holland as well.
Arp - Um I was agreeing with your premise that Holland will end up being better than Garza and on your timetable. I was adding to your data set with more variables. And gimme a break, I understand it's not an "experiment" hence the "". The Socratic method will prevail.
Scooby - any just-a-guy's you want to compare. I'm also curious.
JFritz,
My apologies. I was still typing my response when you posted your list of pitchers and I misinterpreted your use of " " from the previous post. Not to mention I can tend to be a little overzealous sometimes.
By the way I remember Buerhle being young when he got his chance but I don't think I recall it being that young. Even his stats from age 22 were impressive.
@JKolar
Olney thinks Murphy will lose the most at bats, which suggests he would the one to be traded. I think he' s assuming Moreland is the everyday 1B.
Nevertheless, Murphy just agreed to a 1 year deal so why would they trade him? Plus, he could be the left-handed DH to platoon with MY, even though Thome would be more feared.
Regarding Holland, I like him. As I said in this thread, top end projections are not beyond the possible for him this year. And as I've said in other threads, my gut tells me he'll be good this year. I just make a policy of not trusting my gut. My gut told me Vince Young would reinvent the QB position at the NFL level. I prefer to listen to my head.
Not going to search through hundreds of scrubs to find comps. Would rather watch Tigers/Ducks. But I'm quite confident in saying that someone with an eye for databases could find a few dozen good comps over the last 10-20 years.
As for Murphy, the fact that you reached an arb settlement with a guy should not prevent you from dealing him. Signing Thome, trading Murphy (for pitching? Or a prospect who could be flipped for pitching at the deadline?), using Young as the vsLHP DH and primary 1B, and using Moreland both as the backup 1B and 3rd COF, and then calling up a guy lie Gentry to platoon with Borbon in a classic righty/lefty situation might be a fantastic way to get the most out of your available parts.
Why not compare Derek Holland to Clayton Kershaw? He's another young lefty.