Rick Sutcliffe?

by SuddenSam on Jun 29, 2008 10:57 PM EDT

I realize Bartolomania is sweeping LGT. But I wonder if a better model for the Sabathia situation may be the Rick Sutcliffe trade of 1984 Mainly, of course, there is the issue of contraction, which immediately makes the Colon trade non-replicable. But I see some other similarities.

For one, Sutcliffe was also in his walk year (he re-signed with the Cubs after the season) and he was about the same age as CC (27, about to turn 28 at the time of the trade).

Also, and this could be significant, Sutcliffe departed the Tribe as part of a package. And I don't mean with Tim Drew. George Frazier, despite the infamy imposed on him in the 1981 World Series, was a pretty decent reliever. And Ron Hassey was a productive player everywhere he went in his long career. I have a feeling that the best CC deals out there could involve a larger package, if for no other reason than to protect the acquiring team if CC bolts.

Finally, the Indians were not a bad team in 1984, or at least they had a nucleus of solid players and some prospects on the brink. After all, the Indian Uprising was right around the corner. It wasn't a blow-up situation like 2002. And this can be seen in the incoming players. Sutcliffe, et. al. didn't bring in prospects that were due to blossom 2-4 years later. Mel Hall was already a regular in the majors. Carter had gotten some playing time and would become a regular in 1985 and a star a year later. I think that's what we're looking for now, a chance to cash in on our nucleus in 2009-2010, rather than an attempt to reload for 2011 and beyond.

I'm not very good at putting together mock trades. But my conjecture is that we're looking less at Sizemore-Lee-Phillips and more at something along the lines of Hall-Carter. And it will be for CC plus somebody and somebody else. (Hassey notwithstanding, I don't think Shoppach is going anywhere.)

When the trade is done, we should know what Shap really thinks of this team. If we get deep prospects, that means he has given up on the core and we can expect to see Peralta and Garko and Gutz and the like heading out of town. If he brings in players like Hall and Carter (circa 1984), then he is still committed to the near future.

0 recs | Comment 26 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

But my conjecture is that we’re looking less at Sizemore-Lee-Phillips and more at something along the lines of Hall-Carter.

I agree with your line of thinking here, but one conflict I could see has to do with the teams interested in acquiring C.C. If a contender is looking to bolster their rotation for a playoff run, wouldn’t they be less likely to give up any established players on their roster? Unless they’re totally loaded on offense like the Yankees and have some affordable contracts Cleveland could take on, I think it would make more sense for a team to trade away major league ready prospects, rather than players already in the Majors.

Carter does seem like a good example of the type of player on a 25-man roster that could come our way though; not a lot of playing time yet, but could start if he wasn’t blocked on his current team.

by Pronk33 on Jun 30, 2008 1:32 AM EDT 0 recs

I agree. The Cubs found themselves in contention in 1984 and they had plenty of offense, as Dallas Green had helped himself to pretty much everyone but Mike Schmidt from his old team. Carter and Hall were ML-ready youngsters blocked by the veteran ex-Phillies Matthews, Dernier, and Moreland.

Pitching was another story. Weeks before the Sutcliffe trade, Green traded away Bill Buckner for Dennis Eckersley. So that was the Cubs situation – an abundance of hitters and a need for pitching.

Also, if you look ahead from 1984 you find a new wave of young players coming up with the Cubs: Mark Grace, Shawon Dunston, Jerome Walton. So in 1984, they were able to go with a veteran team, trade some prospects for a pitching ace, and not deplete the pipeline. If that description fits a team today (Milwaukee?), we may be in business.

by SuddenSam on Jun 30, 2008 8:38 AM EDT up 0 recs

I don’t understand why the Colon trade is so frequently mentioned in relation to the current situation. That was such a unique situation where the Expos were on life support and Minaya had nothing to lose.

by DixonCayne on Jun 30, 2008 7:03 AM EDT 0 recs

Unique or not, the Colon deal set the standard for dealing a premium veteran player for prospects close to the majors.

I would say it’s not entirely unique in that there are situations when a team is particularly desperate to contend in the present season and also has such a surplus of young players and prospects, hitting and/or pitching, that they can afford to deal off an impressive package. The Brewers, Dodgers, Yankees, Red Sox and D-Rays all may fit that description to some degree.

by Jay on Jun 30, 2008 8:37 AM EDT up 0 recs

I guess one reason I prefer the Sutcliffe analogy was that the trade worked for both teams (eventually). The Colon deal was atrociously one-sided. I can see a GM sitting down with Shapiro and thinking he wants to swing a Sutcliffe-type deal.

by SuddenSam on Jun 30, 2008 8:48 AM EDT up 0 recs

Jay, I wouldn’t call it “set the standard,” I would call it “set the absolute best case scenario, bar none”

by gte619n on Jun 30, 2008 9:05 AM EDT up 0 recs

Even at the time of the Colon trade, there was no way of knowing all 3 of the prospects we got would turn into absolute studs. The outcome would be best case scenario, but netting those kinds of prospects is not out of the question in a CC deal

by Roger Dorn on Jun 30, 2008 10:13 AM EDT up 0 recs

Best case scenario, not in an absolute sense. But certainly considering both the return at the time of the deal and the way those players have panned out, it’s got to be in the top one or two percent.

by Jay on Jun 30, 2008 11:14 AM EDT up 0 recs

“The standard” often is shorthand for “the standard by which all others are judged,” which is how I meant it.

by Jay on Jun 30, 2008 11:13 AM EDT up 0 recs

In 1998 the Mariners traded Randy Johnson, who was going to be a free agent at the end of the season, to the Astros in exchange for John Halama, Freddy Garcia, and Carlos Guillen. This trade seemed to set the standard for star players who were rentals – three highly regarded prospects, all of whom were close to contributing.

Shapiro managed to extract Phillips, Lee, and Sizemore because that’s what the market valued a player such as Colon, and also because of the unique situation that the Expos were in (where they did not know if they would even exist the following year).

The market has shifted to such a point where the vast majority of teams recognize the importance of young players who can contribue, and therefore value them appropriately in a trade. I believe, unfortunately, that the days of getting prospects the caliber of Phillips, Lee, and Sizemore in exchange for a player who is going to be a free agent at season’s end are pretty much gone…

by Peter Bendix on Jun 30, 2008 10:34 AM EDT up 0 recs

I’m not so sure. If two months of Eric Gagne can net you Kason Gabbard, David Murphy, and Engel Beltre, than I think the market for CC could still be very good.

by Roger Dorn on Jun 30, 2008 11:05 AM EDT up 0 recs

I think Andrew (afh4) summed this up pretty well. What we can get for CC is not so much a factor of history or CC, but the market’s preceived value of CC at the moment he becomes available. If any one team with prospects feels like CC can be THE difference maker this year, and they have an extreme sense of urgency, this trade could surpass previous trades.

by elsandito on Jun 30, 2008 11:11 AM EDT up 0 recs

Yes, in particular, to the sense of urgency. I think CC’s value is pretty obvious to most teams.

by peter m on Jun 30, 2008 11:37 AM EDT up 0 recs

“I think Andrew (afh4) summed this up pretty well. What we can get for CC is not so much a factor of history or CC, but the market’s preceived value of CC at the moment he becomes available.”

This statement is true, but in helping us figure out what the market’s perceived value of CC is, we look at history.

by ClarkM on Jun 30, 2008 7:40 PM EDT up 0 recs

Don’t be one of those guys who tries to predict the direction of a market by looking in the rear view mirror.

by elsandito on Jun 30, 2008 7:56 PM EDT up 0 recs

Good point about Gagne

Although to be fair, Gabbard and Murphy were not particularly highly rated at the time (nor are they now).

I think it’s definitely possible that some team (specifically Milwaukee or Los Angeles) will panic and offer up a king’s ransom for the hefty lefty. I just don’t think it’s likely. I hope I’m wrong.

by Peter Bendix on Jun 30, 2008 11:46 AM EDT up 0 recs

CCs gonna bring two high level prospects. Maybe even a Carter/Sizemore/Phillips type. You’ll see. That play-off spot’s worth a lot to the Brewers/Rays/Dodgers and a shot at the WS is worth even more to the Yankees/Cubs.

"the most vehement Yankee-hating guy I know" - Jay

by mauichuck on Jun 30, 2008 12:07 PM EDT up 0 recs

I really hope you're right.

by Peter Bendix on Jun 30, 2008 12:37 PM EDT up 0 recs

We don’t use subject lines ‘round these parts.

Steel Nick

by nickjs21 on Jun 30, 2008 6:41 PM EDT up 0 recs

I miss Hall and Carter.

by JulioBernazard on Jun 30, 2008 8:53 AM EDT 0 recs

But if we keep Carter we don’t get Sandy and Carlos. And if we wouldda kept Hall then we wouldn’t’ve had the good furtune of acquiring Skinner and Ward Turner!

"the most vehement Yankee-hating guy I know" - Jay

by mauichuck on Jun 30, 2008 10:04 AM EDT up 0 recs

Then Skinner wouldn’t have become a coach and Kenny would have scored and we would have won the World Series. Curse you, Mel Hall.

by SuddenSam on Jun 30, 2008 10:27 AM EDT up 2 recs

Dude’s name was Turner Ward.

by JulioBernazard on Jun 30, 2008 10:55 AM EDT up 0 recs

Yeah yer right – it’s the Flomax

"the most vehement Yankee-hating guy I know" - Jay

by mauichuck on Jun 30, 2008 11:00 AM EDT up 0 recs

I’m just amazed you (presumably) had the two pieces we got for M Hall memorized!

by JulioBernazard on Jun 30, 2008 1:29 PM EDT up 0 recs

This thread was way more grounded than I would’ve guessed based on the name alone. I was looking more for a Love in the Time of Unbearable Lightness of Being Rick Sutcliffe of La Mancha.

If anybody wants to get on that.

by fleerdon on Jul 1, 2008 5:17 PM EDT 0 recs