Trade thread

[tzill]

Well, most of the players being mentioned are multi-year guys. Price has another year, Zobrist has another year, Jeff Samaffhvvfa has 2 more years, Murphy has another year, Jonathan Niese has 3 more years. I'd be more okay with multi-year guys than rentals.

What are some rentals that could be possibilities?

Josh Beckett (35)
Joe Blanton (34)
Chris Capuano (36)
Kevin Correia (34)
Jorge De La Rosa (34)
Ryan Dempster (38)
Gavin Floyd (32)
Jason Hammel (32)
Aaron Harang (37)
Roberto Hernandez (34)
Kyle Kendrick (30)
Hiroki Kuroda (40)
Jon Lester (31)
Colby Lewis (35)
Francisco Liriano (31)
Paul Maholm (33)
Justin Masterson (30)
Brandon McCarthy (31)
Jake Peavy (34)
Wandy Rodriguez (36)
Ervin Santana (32)
Joe Saunders (34)
Max Scherzer (30)
James Shields (33)
Carlos Villanueva (31)
Edinson Volquez (30)
Jerome Williams (33)

Some intriguing names there.

 

[calsnowskier]

I dont think we have to worry about another Wheeler/Beltran trade.

We dont have anyone even close to a Wheeler in the system right now. I would be fine dealing Crick for a #3 type who is under team control next year.

A Crick/Susac/+++ for Price/Z would be great, but I doubt we can make that happen.

 

[Stokes1931]

I think we CAN afford to trade Hacktor...the Susser is just about ready to come up. He's a superior receiver and can hit enough to get it done.

Crick is the shiniest trade chip, but we'd be selling low on him. Ditto Eskie, Stratton, Mejia. The top four SP prospects are all struggling this year, so that's disappointing.

Williamson is hurt (TJ surgery), Arroyo just came off the DL, so neither are going to draw much interest.

That leaves Hembree, Blach, Panik, and Blackburn as legit trade chips, along with Hacktor and maybe EA.

Not sure we have enough to get a Price. I don't see us upgrading the rotation this year, Broken Cain and Broken Timmy will just have to figure it out. And Bum, Tron, and Huddy will need to continue to pitch well.

There is an outside shot that Eskie figures it out and replaces Broken Timmy.

I recall that recently a AAA pitcher with a 7.61 ERA tossed an 8 inning shutout against the Giants. AAA pitching numbers mean next to nothing.

 

[Stokes1931]

Scrabble is an interesting guy; 29 and might be figuring it out. He's on an all-star pace this year, and has been a 2.5 - 3.0 WAR guy before. Mid threes FIP, sub three this year.

It's just difficult to know if this is a breakout or a career year.

He would be under team control through 2015 (arb 3), so that's a plus, but it will drive his price up.

I'm glad I'm not SabeySabes.

If the Dogs sign him (can't have too many all-star starters, right?), it's a breakout year.

If the Giants sign him, it is a career year. How career depends on how long we sign him for.

But then, I'm an optimist.

 

[msgkings322]

Stokes, we get it, can you just assume that we know that the Giants all suck and all of their moves don't work?

 

[Stokes1931]

Stokes, we get it, can you just assume that we know that the Giants all suck and all of their moves don't work?

Nah.

Wonder if the Pittsburghians would give up McCutcheon like they gave up Bonds way back when.

So hard to watch/listen to this team right now.

:gah:

 

[calsnowskier]

Nah.

Wonder if the Pittsburghians would give up McCutcheon like they gave up Bonds way back when.

So hard to watch/listen to this team right now.

:gah:

Pit didnt trade Bonds. He walked as a FA.

Bonds was only going to be a Spank or a Giant. Pit never was in the running. In today's game, teams have a bit more say in who the keep and who they let walk. McCutchen aint going anywhere.

 

[MarcoPolo]

Pit didnt trade Bonds. He walked as a FA.

Bonds was only going to be a Spank or a Giant. Pit never was in the running. In today's game, teams have a bit more say in who the keep and who they let walk. McCutchen aint going anywhere.

Compared to when teams now have more say?????

 

[calsnowskier]

Compared to when teams now have more say?????

Well, any team that wants to keep a player can give the QO, and they ultimately can pay a player to stay. Even TB or Pit CAN pay their players if they like (maybe not LAD or NYY money). They just claim poverty and chose to nt field a contender.

 

[MarcoPolo]

Well, any team that wants to keep a player can give the QO, and they ultimately can pay a player to stay. Even TB or Pit CAN pay their players if they like (maybe not LAD or NYY money). They just claim poverty and chose to nt field a contender.

That doesn't make it easier at all. It's HARDER now.

Before, a guy that you would give a quality offer to would almost certainly have qualified as a type A free agent and the team would have *automatically* (without any financial risk) caused the signing team to lose their first (and maybe second) draft pick. There are now FEWER guys every year (many, many fewer) whose signing will lose the signing team a draft pick. So it's less expensive (in terms of draft picks) for the signing team now than it was in the past, so it's harder for a team to hold on to a prospective free agent.

And teams have always had the choice to sign their outgoing free agents, so that argument is null.

 

[calsnowskier]

That doesn't make it easier at all. It's HARDER now.

Before, a guy that you would give a quality offer to would almost certainly have qualified as a type A free agent and the team would have *automatically* (without any financial risk) caused the signing team to lose their first (and maybe second) draft pick. There are now FEWER guys every year (many, many fewer) whose signing will lose the signing team a draft pick. So it's less expensive (in terms of draft picks) for the signing team now than it was in the past, so it's harder for a team to hold on to a prospective free agent.

And teams have always had the choice to sign their outgoing free agents, so that argument is null.

Did the compensation exist back in '93?

Also, as much as the draft is a crapshoot today, it was much more-so 20 years ago. First rounders have more value today then they did back then.

 

[MarcoPolo]

Did the compensation exist back in '93?

Also, as much as the draft is a crapshoot today, it was much more-so 20 years ago. First rounders have more value today then they did back then.

I'm glad that you agree that the "QO" and "they can always just sign them" were non-starters as justification.

To answer your question, yes, the compensation existed back in '93. In fact, Torii Hunter was drafted by the twins using the Reds' first-round draft pick, as compensation for losing John Smiley.

Could you explain (using small words, because obviously I'm just not getting it) when and why teams had a bit more say in who they keep and who they let walk? Personally, I can't think of any period when that was true. (Well, since free agency started back in the '70s, of course. Before that teams kept who they wanted and tuff tamales for the players.)

 

[MarcoPolo]

Damnit, my wife walked in and distracted me and I got it backwards. Above post should have ended with :

Could you explain (using small words, because obviously I'm just not getting it) when and why teams had less say in who they keep and who they let walk? Personally, I can't think of any period when that was true.

Edit: And can the board "time limit" get changed back to 10 minutes to allow an edit to a post??? I must have been 10 seconds late in fixing the original post - 5 minutes is just too short.

 

[calsnowskier]

First off, enough of the snippiness, seriously. This board is losing its appeal.

Second, when I say teams can keep who they want, I mean realistically. Not necessarily by rule. All teams make enough money that they can keep one of their players if they really want to. The rays signed longoria to a long contract early. The giants signed bum and posey to long contracts early.

If a team lets a player walk (especially via FA) that is essentially by choice. If they really wanted to keep the player, there is enough money in the team coffers to make it happen. I believe this is the case in ALMOST every situation.

20 years ago, that may not have been the case.

 

[MarcoPolo]

First off, enough of the snippiness, seriously. This board is losing its appeal.

Second, when I say teams can keep who they want, I mean realistically. Not necessarily by rule. All teams make enough money that they can keep one of their players if they really want to. The rays signed longoria to a long contract early. The giants signed bum and posey to long contracts early.

If a team lets a player walk (especially via FA) that is essentially by choice. If they really wanted to keep the player, there is enough money in the team coffers to make it happen. I believe this is the case in ALMOST every situation.

20 years ago, that may not have been the case.

I agree to a certain extent, but also disagree. Most teams today can probably pay ONE player to keep (superstars excepted). Mid-revenue teams and above can probably keep a couple, more as one moves up the revenue ladder. But I don't think that has changed much from the past (20 years or so). I still think that the lowest-revenue teams still can't keep a Mike Trout or David Price from leaving, because if they pay them market value, one player will be getting 25-30% of the team payroll for the next 7-8 years.

I think that about the lower 25% of teams today (in revenue) probably couldn't afford to pay to keep even one superstar youngster leaving in free agency (or at least not if they want to field a competitive team) - unless the youngster really wants to stay and gives a discount. That has slightly changed in the last 10 years in that I think that those teams absolutely couldn't afford to do so in the past.

I think that "teams have more money now" is offset pretty equally by "players are getting paid a lot more now" (especially the recent meteoric rise in the price of just "good" players). As more money became available, salaries rose to compensate. And the really rich teams priced the super-stars and "almost super stars" out of the range of any but the craziest teams (or those who thought they were poised for a 2-5 year "sweet spot" for championships).

I really don't think that much has changed at all, salary-budget-wise.

 

[xxERICSMITHXX]

I agree to a certain extent, but also disagree. Most teams today can probably pay ONE player to keep (superstars excepted). Mid-revenue teams and above can probably keep a couple, more as one moves up the revenue ladder. But I don't think that has changed much from the past (20 years or so). I still think that the lowest-revenue teams still can't keep a Mike Trout or David Price from leaving, because if they pay them market value, one player will be getting 25-30% of the team payroll for the next 7-8 years.

I think that about the lower 25% of teams today (in revenue) probably couldn't afford to pay to keep even one superstar youngster leaving in free agency (or at least not if they want to field a competitive team) - unless the youngster really wants to stay and gives a discount. That has slightly changed in the last 10 years in that I think that those teams absolutely couldn't afford to do so in the past.

I think that "teams have more money now" is offset pretty equally by "players are getting paid a lot more now" (especially the recent meteoric rise in the price of just "good" players). As more money became available, salaries rose to compensate. And the really rich teams priced the super-stars and "almost super stars" out of the range of any but the craziest teams (or those who thought they were poised for a 2-5 year "sweet spot" for championships).

I really don't think that much has changed at all, salary-budget-wise.

Don't some of those lower teams start the year with something like $70-80MM from revenue sharing before selling tickets, concessions, ad space, etc? Wasn't that the case a few years ago when one of the teams (was it the Pirates?) that said they were losing all of this money were actually raking in the cash.

 

[calsnowskier]

Don't some of those lower teams start the year with something like $70-80MM from revenue sharing before selling tickets, concessions, ad space, etc? Wasn't that the case a few years ago when one of the teams (was it the Pirates?) that said they were losing all of this money were actually raking in the cash.

That's my point.

Teams CAN keep guys if they want. They just all play Sterling/Clipper-ball instead.

 

[MarcoPolo]

Does anyone have a link they can provide that shows the revenue sharing amounts?

 

[Stokes1931]

Does anyone have a link they can provide that shows the revenue sharing amounts?

This might help:

MLB Team Valuations - Bloomberg

 

[MarcoPolo]

Don't some of those lower teams start the year with something like $70-80MM from revenue sharing before selling tickets, concessions, ad space, etc? Wasn't that the case a few years ago when one of the teams (was it the Pirates?) that said they were losing all of this money were actually raking in the cash.

I would be very surprised if any team except the absolute bottom-feeders (I mean that in both a metaphorical and a salary context) was pocketing enough money from revenue sharing to be able to add a star to their team (over $20M for a long contract).

The bottom-feeders are obviously the Marlins (Jeffrey Loria is absolute scum) and, now, the new owner of the Astros (who has drastically cut the salary budget since buying the team). I would NOT be surprised to learn that both teams are receiving more from revenue sharing than they are spending on players (which is against the rules, BTW).