Trade Everyone! - The Starters
| TRADE EVERYONE! an epic survey in six parts |
|
| 1 | The Starters by Ryan |
| 2 | The Infield by Jay |
| 3 | Wait. What? by Andrew (afh4) |
| 4 | The Prospects by Adam (APV) |
| 5 | The Outfield + Pronk by Ryan |
| 6 | The End by Jay |
It is time to bring back everyone's favorite bit of cathartic therapy. Two years ago, the Indians were so disappointing that a lot of us wanted to just blow up the whole thing and start over. Yeah, it didn't make a lot of sense, but it made us feel better.
Well, the time has come to dig up this irrational concept again. And where better to direct the wrecking ball first to than the rotation?
(For contract details, see Cot's Contracts' Indians page )
C.C. Sabathia
2008 Salary: $9.0M
Signed Through: 2008
Controlled Through: 2008
PRO: Most of the contenders' General Managers would be willing to crawl over two miles of broken glass while having Barney the Dinosaur piped directly into their temporal lobes just to have Mark Shapiro listen to their proposal for Sabathia. For those with deep pockets, they'd have 4-5 months to try to get Sabathia to sign an extension, and for any team, they'd add one of the best pitchers in baseball to their rotation. So no prospect would be off-limits to the Indians, and even players normally not even talked about would at least come into the conversation.
PRO: The Indians aren't going to keep Sabathia past this season, and the major reason didn't trade him was because they thought they would contend again. So if we remove that little impediment, why wouldn't you trade the best pending free agent in baseball?
PRO: Even if a tiny part of you thinks that Sabathia would re-sign with the Indians, and if the Indians found room on their payroll, wouldn't a Santana-like deal be too much a risk to take for team that's already sunk a lot of coin into extensions for Travis Hafner and Jake Westbrook?
CON: There's still a chance albeit a tiny one, to keep CC around, and most fans wouldn't look too kindly on the Indians punting on Sabathia this soon.
CON: As bad as the Indians have played, they're only 4.5 games back in the division race.
Cliff Lee
2008 Salary: $3.75M
Signed Through: 2009
Controlled Through: 2010 (Team Option)
PRO: Perceived value probably won't get any higher after a magical run to start the season.
PRO: Has a ridiculously team-friendly contract, so any team not named the Marlins would be in the running for him, driving up the asking price.
PRO: Recent history has been mediocre to terrible, so now may be the time to sell high.
CON: Has a very reasonable contract, and the Indians are probably losing two of their starters to free agency after the season.
CON: Why trade him now just when he's finally figured things out? He's had no history of arm problems, and has always had pretty good stuff.
Fausto Carmona
2008 Salary: $500K
Signed Through: 2011
Controlled Through: 2014 (Team Options)
PRO: Did I say Cliff Lee's contract was ridiculously team-friendly? Whoever trades for Carmona could have another six dominant seasons without having to negotiate a thing with Carmona's agent. And while a team willing to give up value enough to for that pitcher/contract combination may not exist, it only takes one GM and one moment of insanity to give the Indians an entire farm system.
CON: OK, back to reality. Carmona's got the best sinker in baseball, a great attitude, and he's just 24 years old. And did I mention the contract?
CON: There is no package of players out there that could get the Indians full value for Carmona and his contract.
Jake Westbrook
2008 Salary: $10M
Signed Through: 2010
Controlled Through: 2010
PRO: It may sound like a broken record, but even at a quasi-market salary, Westbrook's contract is very friendly. The remaining length of the contract is just about perfect for a trading club; there's only two years left, so the risk isn't that great, but you'd still have two years until he could become a free agent.
PRO: Westbrook's now been on the DL for two straight seasons, and he's probably at his peak right now. Those two years left on his contract may be for at best a slowly declining and injury-prone pitcher with a low strikeout rate to begin with.
CON: Westbrook has been a very reliable innings-eater for five seasons now, and he just signed an extension that was a bit below market-value. And he likes it in Cleveland, something that hasn't been a commonplace happening in recent years.
CON: Other teams may not think Westbrook is that good, and those are the GMs you want to be talking to.
Paul Byrd
2008 Salary: $7.5M
Signed Through: 2008
Controlled Through: 2008
PRO: Even if the Indians get back into the race, they'd have to think of Byrd as a nice trading chip. Even if they don't bring back Sabathia, the Indians probably aren't going to make a huge fuss of re-signing Byrd, at least not at what the free market will dictate.
PRO: At this stage in his career, Byrd is living off preparation and pinpoint control. There's not a whole lot separating Byrd from a starting spot and being out of baseball. And the longer time frame the Indians begin to think in, the more risk keeping Byrd around brings.
PRO: With Byrd being linked to the PED scandal, keeping him would be a bad example to the children of America. And no amount of plush hot dog giveaways would overcome the stain of devastation the children of Northeast Ohio would have burned upon their minds if the Indians would even think about bringing Byrd back.
CON: He's one of the best 5th starters in baseball.
CON: Now that Carmona is on the DL, the Indians still need him in the rotation.
Aaron Laffey
2008 Salary: $393K
Signed Through: 2008
Controlled Through: 2013 (assuming he stays in the majors from now on)
PRO: Young left-handed ground-ball machine that's had some success but still with less than a year of service time? This time even the Marlins are interested. He may not be worth Garret Atkins, but then again, who is?
PRO: As with any young player, will he survive the first wave of adjustments teams will make to him? Perhaps once hitters stop trying to pull his sinkers, he'll quickly become a lot less effective.
CON: Even if the Indians would undergo a 2002-style rebuild, he's the type of player the Indians would be trying to stockpile.
In General: The Indians are facing the loss of both Byrd and Sabathia, so those two would definitely be on the table if the Indians fall out of the race. If the Indians get some semblance of an offense and if they aren't down 10 games by the All-Star Break, they'll hold on to Sabathia, though there could a couple scenarios where they'd deal Byrd,.
And because Sabathia and Byrd probably won't be here next year, the other four guys mentioned above won't likely be traded. The Indians don't like to use free agency to fill holes, and especially don't like filling a rotation hole with a free agent.
1 recs |
49
comments
Read Related
Comments
Good post. One thing though—please, could everybody just stop with the Garret Atkins speculation?
Let’s just say that the LGT/Tim Dierkes thing never happened, and that no rumormongering even occurred up until this point. The fact of the matter is that Atkins is just not that good.
Like many players who made a name for themselves at Coors,
he’s posted horrendous home/road splits: looking at the last three years’ worth of numbers (2005-2007), his home line has been 345/.407/.541 while his away line has been a very pedestrian .270/.346/.446. Last year, during his age 27 season, he posted a .936 home OPS and a .773 away OPS. He’s also a crummy fielding third baseman, at least according to THT and Baseball Prospectus, although I don’t know what kind of effect Coors has on fielding metrics.
Right now he’s signed to a one-year, $4.4. million deal, so he’d be a three-month rental that we’d have a good chance at extending. However, why would we give up Miller, Laffey, or Sowers, two of whom MUST be in our starting rotation next year, to acquire a peaking, already mediocre 3B who made a name for himself in the most extreme hitters’ park in existence? No thanks.
by Cap'n Snegiryov on May 26, 2008 1:37 AM EDT 0 recs
I appreciate the analysis, but the Atkins comment is a joke. See the following link for a LGT roundup of the topic. It predates your account creation by a couple days so I assume you missed it.
http://www.letsgotribe.com/2008/5/16/510364/non-transactions
by pandroid on
May 26, 2008 4:08 AM EDT
up
0 recs
ok, yeah, I can see that now. . . especially with the “well he may not be worth Garrett Atkins, but who is?” comment.
Sorry dude—wasn’t trying to be a know-it-all douche. This Atkins speculation (of which there is plenty, as you know if you watch STO or listen to talk radio) just eats at my very core.
by Cap'n Snegiryov on
May 26, 2008 10:08 AM EDT
up
0 recs
Since most here on LGT feel that trading for Atkinds is a bad idea, I’m curious as to the alternatives for upgrading at 3rd. Blake is done as a regular. For argument’s sake, we’ll assume that the Indians don’t view Marte as a full-time option. As Ryan pointed out in his post, the Indians don’t like to fill holes via free agency, besides, we have a hole right now.
With the Mariners free falling, Adrian Beltre may be availible, though he is owed a prorated salary of 12M for the rest of the year and 12M next year. Beltre is a low OBP, decent power, and plus defender. He’d be under control for his age 29 and 30 seasons. The price and availibility of Beltre are potential roadblocks. Bavasi, even with their poor record, is probably unlikely to make a move designed toward the future, so this probably isn’t a legitimate option, even if we felt like it was one on our end.
Another potential option, could be Andy LaRoche, http://minors.baseball-reference.com/players.cgi?pid=8101. Blake Dewitt as gotten off to a good start for the big league team, which for our sake could make LaRoche availible. LaRoche is seemingly ready to step in right now, and would be under team control for a long time to come. LaRoche would likely provide great value over the course of his stay, but not as likely as Beltre or Atkins to provide immediate value.
by ClarkM on
May 26, 2008 12:03 PM EDT
up
0 recs
My thinking exactly, re -Laroche. Also Matt Gamel of the Brewers system. Both will already hit better than Blake or Marte by the end of the season, and both of those teams will be looking for SP help.
by mcrose on
May 26, 2008 12:11 PM EDT
up
0 recs
I don’t know that people think acquiring Atkins is such a bad idea, it’s just that he’s likely to be overvalued by some other team in the bidding, and the idea that he’s worth a very young starting pitcher who already is succeeding in the majors is … well … “laughable.”
Atkins is in his prime and has been a good hitter. The contract situation is a plus — two years of arbitration is essentially like having two club options at reasonable salary — but not a big plus. But there is some risk inherent with the home/road splits and the league difference. Also, his range has been pretty poor, at least per RZR.
So while Atkins might be a nice acquisition, he’s probably not a good candidate to get value on a deal.
by Jay on
May 26, 2008 12:44 PM EDT
up
0 recs
“Since most here on LGT feel that trading for Atkins is a bad idea if the asking price is Aaron Laffey.”
Better?
by ClarkM on
May 26, 2008 1:51 PM EDT
up
0 recs
“it’s just that he’s likely to be overvalued by some other team in the bidding”
You could be right, but here is something to consider:
Bos-Lowell
NYY-ARod
Tor-Rolen
TB-Longoria
CHW-Crede and Fields
Det-Guillen
Min-Nobody
LAA-Figgins, though he’s very flexible.
Oak-Chavez
Atl-Chipper
NYM-Wright
Phi-Feliz
Fla-Cantu, not much of a roadblock, but probably not much of a chance of getting in on the bidding for a variety of reasons.
CHC-Ramirez
STL-Glaus
Hou-Wigginton
Arizona-Reynolds/Tracy
LAD-Dewitt/LaRoche/Nomar
Most of the contenders are seemingly set at third, either by contract or young stud prospect. As we have seen in the past though, just because a team is seemingly set at a position, it doesn’t mean that they aren’t going to be a player. And, it only takes one to drive up the price to the point where it isn’t worth it. Also, as Atkins is under control for a couple of more years, his pursuit may not be limited to those in contention.
by ClarkM on
May 26, 2008 2:35 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Silly me, how did I forget Marte, I should have mentioned him in my original comment.
by ClarkM on
May 27, 2008 8:49 AM EDT
up
0 recs
Blake isn’t done as a regular as long as Eric Wedge is managing this team.
-Erik
by drerikbrady on
May 27, 2008 10:53 AM EDT
up
0 recs
While of course his opinions would be considered fully, I don’t think Wedge has anything close to a vote on whether to offer a new contract to an impending free agent, or on how far to go to keep him.
by Jay on
May 27, 2008 1:05 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Blake isn’t done as a regular as long as Eric Wedge is managing his team.
-Erik
by drerikbrady on
May 27, 2008 1:10 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Atkin’s away splits: “a very pedestrian .270/.346/.446,” would look pretty good in the Tribe lineup.
by odradek on
May 26, 2008 1:08 PM EDT
up
0 recs
right, but that’s the result of our extremely low expectations, not really a testament to Atkins’ greatness.
I guess I’m with Jay on this one-given the fact that we have ONE regular with an OPS above .800 right now (not counting Ben, of course), that kind of line looks great to us right now. The problem is that-as Jay pointed out—Atkins is a likely candidate to be overvalued.
by Cap'n Snegiryov on
May 26, 2008 1:50 PM EDT
up
0 recs
I for one think the team is still ok. Eventually the “tight booties” will go away and this team will rip off a 20-8 streak in one of the summer months and all this will be a memory. That’s just my opinion.
That being said, I would like to see the Indians pursue a true #1 hitter (speed and .400 OBP) which would finally force Grady down into the 3 hole. If Victor isn’t going to hit for power anymore, we need to find an answer (Ben Fransisco is not it).
I really have no idea who that guy could be (Pierre, with the Dodgers eating part of the contract?)
by Toxicadam on May 26, 2008 1:38 AM EDT 0 recs
Pierre has speed, but his OBP has never been anywhere near .400. He should not be hitting at the top of the lineup.
by Buckeye Brad on
May 26, 2008 9:52 AM EDT
up
0 recs
Pierre has no business anywhere in a big-league lineup. He’s a CF, and CF are supposed to be league-average at the plate, and he’s way below average.
by Jay on
May 26, 2008 12:46 PM EDT
up
0 recs
I agree. Juan Pierre is a laughingstock, in my opinion, one of the worst regulars in the bigs.
by odradek on
May 26, 2008 1:10 PM EDT
up
0 recs
You know that you can’t go by what a position is supposed to hit. Juan Pierre is absolute garbage, but he isn’t garbage because he’s a center fielder.
by gahnki on
May 26, 2008 1:15 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Sure I can, and of course he is.
If he were a standout defender in the middle infield, he’d be worth having a lineup.
by Jay on
May 26, 2008 4:22 PM EDT
up
0 recs
I’m glad I’ve been out of contact the past week and am missing most of this. I am reading this and thinking…”hmm…maybe we should trade C.C.”. If I was actually in the states, who knows what I’d be thinking.
It smells like burning.
by APV on May 26, 2008 6:35 AM EDT 0 recs
I mean, the fact of the matter is that, during this current slide, we’ve given up:
1, 2, 9, 1, 2, 1, 4, 2 and 3 runs.
Now, with an AL average offense, we should win 6 of those 9 games with two others being completely winnable.
If someone wants to give us a hitter for Paul Byrd, I say go for it, otherwise, we’ve just got to grit our teeth, grind it out, take one day at a time, focus on the next game, etc.
by gte619n on May 26, 2008 10:10 AM EDT 0 recs
Also, another fun fact, apropos of absolutely nothing:
The Indians are on pace to give up 610 runs this season. If we had last years average offense, we’d go 103-59, according to the Pythag.
BASEBALL, YOU ARE A COLD COLD BITCH.
by gte619n on
May 26, 2008 10:17 AM EDT
up
0 recs
That made me tear up a little bit.
Tribe fan from far, far away
by LGT Patrick on
May 26, 2008 12:15 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Huh? I distinctly, and painfully, remember a 13-run outburst by Texas in the recent past.
Runs allowed, last nine games in reverse order:
2, 2, 13, 3, 7, 4, 6, 4, 4
So clearly I’m misunderstanding something, although I agree that six of those are completely winnable. Are those just the runs allowed by the starters?
"A good body with a dull brain is as cheap as life itself."
by Fiddlesticks on
May 26, 2008 1:32 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Yeah I was wondering about that too. And when did we have a starter give up 9 runs (recently)?
by supermarioelia on
May 26, 2008 4:27 PM EDT
up
0 recs
I’m mulling a couple of theories:
A)Welcome to Ozzie’s 07 nightmare, Eric, cozy up to the suck.
B)Eric is better suited to managing in the minors where he can focus on developing players. MLB managers should excel at motivating and in game decision making.
by elsandito on May 26, 2008 11:40 AM EDT 0 recs
Developing like Marte, right? Developing players seems to be the last thing he would want to do.
Tribe fan from far, far away
by LGT Patrick on
May 26, 2008 12:16 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Wedge’s overall track record for having young players flourish is pretty excellent.
I don’t know how he could be better at something in the minors than he is in the majors. How many managers got their teams to 93 wins in two of the last three seasons?
I don’t see the Ozzie 07 comparison, either. Ozzie’s team was projected to be bad — I think PECOTA called 72 wins. Ozzie had a talent shortage, but it’s not really clear what Wedge has.
by Jay on
May 26, 2008 12:49 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Agree that CC and Byrd are the prime candidates to be traded since they won’t be here next year. If everyone’s healthy during the typical post All-Star trade period, then trading Byrd actually makes our team better, as we would have superior internal options for the 5 spot. As long as Byrd is here and semi-competent, he will have a rotation spot.
Also, just wanted to point out that if we trade a starter, there’s no rule that the guy need have nobody to talk to on his way to another team. We have enough depth to trade say, Byrd plus a good prospect, that might turn the return value from “so what?” to “all right!”
by mcrose on May 26, 2008 12:02 PM EDT 0 recs
I can’t see how we could get anything but a prospect for Byrd. Only a contender would want a 38-year-old pitcher in his walk year. And no contender is going to give up a proven bat. I have no problem with trading Byrd (assuming Westbrook and Carmona are okay), but I see it as getting something for a guy who’s gone anyway, not as getting help for this year’s team.
by SuddenSam on
May 26, 2008 1:29 PM EDT
up
0 recs
I agree that any contender that would want Byrd isn’t going to trade a good bat that’s already contributing to their ML lineup. It would be a trade for a ready/near ready prospect who would be an upgrade for us.
As mentioned before, someone like Andy Laroche would fit the bill.
by mcrose on
May 26, 2008 1:43 PM EDT
up
0 recs
What’s the Dodger pitching situation like? They seem like the ideal team to talk trade with.
by gahnki on May 26, 2008 1:20 PM EDT 0 recs
numerous young, high-upside pitchers, though decreasing with guys graduating to ML (Billingsley, Kershaw)
http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=7094
by DocNo on
May 26, 2008 1:34 PM EDT
up
0 recs
laroche / dewitt + pitching prospect + kemp … let me dream …
by Gradyforpresident on
May 26, 2008 1:47 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Hmmm.. if we were to trade CC now I wonder what the Dodgers would be willing to offer. If Matt Kemp and Kershaw were offered we would have to bite, wouldn’t we?
by gahnki on
May 26, 2008 2:11 PM EDT
up
0 recs
I think this is the kind of comment that the other team’s fans would lash out against. We’d have to bite if it was Matt Kemp alone, and it won’t be Matt Kemp.
by hans on
May 26, 2008 3:13 PM EDT
up
0 recs
The Dodgers might be interested in getting Gutierrez back, too.
by Jay on
May 26, 2008 4:23 PM EDT
up
0 recs
I agree that Byrd has been more than adequate as the fifth starter, but could he become a valuable trade piece once Westbrook is back at 100%? Or is the timing (waiting for Jake and Fausto) and the fact that two of our workhorses went down relatively early in the season (not a major issue because of depth) already counter any argument for trading Byrd?
I’m always really bad at equating what a realistic trade return would be, but what could we expect back for Byrd and a couple players/prospects of medium value?
by Pronk33 on May 26, 2008 1:28 PM EDT 0 recs
The thing with Byrd that I find interesting first off, do we think he’s going to be listed as a Type A Free Agent? My guess is probably not, but I guess the jury is still out.
Secondly, with him being in his late 30’s and kind of sort that doesn’t strike me as chasing every last dollar, values a comfortable situation, etc, how sure are we he wouldn’t just accept arbitration if offered?
It’s kind of like the Wickman situation in 2006, although without the threat of retirement that forced our hand.
by cheech99 on May 26, 2008 2:16 PM EDT 0 recs
Doesn’t matter. Any significant return in terms of a player or a prospect has got to be considered significantly more valuable than a draft pick or even two. What we’re looking at is a Max Ramirez type return — not considering his performance this season, but as of when we traded him — and most draft picks, in the overall-30’s range do not become that valuable at any point.
by Jay on
May 26, 2008 4:25 PM EDT
up
0 recs
We should look to re-acquire Max Ramirez again, just to make his head spin like a top.
by supermarioelia on
May 26, 2008 4:29 PM EDT
up
0 recs
The Indians don’t like to use free agency to fill holes, and especially don’t like filling a rotation hole with a free agent.
This quote confused me a bit since Byrd himself was a FA acquisition, and so was Millwood. Granted neither one was a top level FA, but FA nonetheless.
by talonk on May 27, 2008 3:12 PM EDT 0 recs
Well, in those instances, they were forced to go out on the market because they had no choice. I’m not saying that they won’t do it, but they’d rather not if they can help it.
by Ryan on
May 27, 2008 4:50 PM EDT
up
0 recs
I guess the larger point is that they’d rather not have to sign any major-league free agents, and in particular would rather not have to fill any key position that way — i.e., an everyday player, starting pitcher or closer.
With 1024 games so far in the Shapiro era, only 166 games have been started by major league free agents:
72 – Paul Byrd (2006-08, more than all the others combined, should get another 10-12)
30 – Kevin Millwood (2005, ERA champ with a losing record)
26 – Danys Baez (2002, signed by Hart, two years before Shapiro took over)
24 – Brian Anderson (2003, traded at the deadline to the Royals)
14 – Jason Johnson (2006, sorry to have to bring it up)
by Jay on
May 27, 2008 5:48 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Well the man better start thinking of creative trades to infuse talent into this organization
by hans on
May 27, 2008 6:02 PM EDT
up
0 recs














