Let's Go Tribe!: An SB Nation Community

Navigation: Jump to content areas:



Around SBN: Myers, Phillies Top Dodgers Bar-right-arrows



Transactions: The Big Trade, Part I

Traded LHP CC Sabathia to the Milwaukee Brewers for 1B/OF Matt LaPorta (AA), two unnamed prospects, and a PTBNL

Trading Sabathia was not a difficult decision to make. Sabathia has been pretty steadfast in his willingness to test the free agent market, and even if the Indians are still interested in signing him, there was no point in keeping him around to pitch for a last-place team when there were impact prospects to be had. The one real advantage to keeping a free agent through the end of the season is that you can get early-round draft picks, but if you're out of the race and the player's good enough, you might as well deal him for a more advanced prospect or three. Keep in mind that Brad Snyder and Adam Miller, the prospects the indians drafted with the compensatory picks from losing Jim Thome, still haven't spent one day on the major-league roster; they were drafted five years ago. 

Those who've followed the Indians know how valuable a pitcher CC Sabathia is. He's always been a durable pitcher (at least 28 starts every season since 2001), but in the past 3-4 seasons, he's become a dominant one. Last season, he refined his command, which did two things: it allowed him to go deeper into games, and upped his strikeout rates. He's a godsend for a team with a shallow bullpen, and makes a team with a good bullpen almost unbeatable on that given day. He's had zero arm problems in his career, and is now well past the injury nexus for young pitchers. Unlike Barry Zito, Sabathia is getting better heading into free agency. Whoever signs him will be getting four or five seasons of the best pitcher in baseball.

But even with such a valuable player to trade, you still have to find a team with both the motivation to deal and the prospects you want. Unlike the Dodgers, who had prospects but other priorities, or Philadelphia, who wanted Sabathia but didn't have the prospects, the Brewers filled both requirements. Brewers GM Doug Melvin has made it perfectly clear that he views 2008 as a real opportunity for his team to win it all. Staff ace and oft-injured Ben Sheets is healthy, but in the last year of his contract. For a small-market team, it's difficult to gather and keep a talented core together, and Melvin has decided to use his deep farm system to win now.

But even a team with a deep system would normally be reluctant to trade a prospect like Matt LaPorta. The Brewers drafted LaPorta in the first round (7th overall) of the 2007 draft, and Matt's done nothing but hit, and hit, and hit. He started his first full professional season in AA Huntsville, and he's put up a .988 OPS with 43 extra-base hits in 296 at-bats. Keep in mind he ended 2007 in the South Atlantic League. The way I see it, he looks like he'll be ready for the majors by early 2009 at the latest. The major reason an advanced hitting prospect like LaPorta was even made available is the logjam ahead of him. The Brewers (and probably the Indians as well) view him as a first baseman, and in the Brewer organization, that means he's blocked by Prince Fielder. The Indians' organization is deep on pitching prospects but very thin in high-level hitting prospects. And there's more of speed bump (Ryan Garko) than a road block at first base. If the Indians feel that LaPorta is really an outfielder, there is effectively nothing preventing him playing in the majors this season.

Now that these crucial pieces were in place, just the details remained in order to complete the deal. The Brewers understandably wanted to finalize the trade as soon as possible in order to get as many starts for Sabathia possible before the end of the year. And with Sabathia due to pitch on Tuesday, Sunday night became a de facto deadline for both teams: for the Indians, to maximize the return on the deal, and for the Brewers, to get two Sabathia starts in before the All-Star Break.

So, in review, how did this trade get done so quickly?

The Indians were committed to trading CC Sabathia

The Brewers were committed to winning now, and had position prospects to trade.

The Indians need position prospects.

Top prospect Matt LaPorta was very close to the majors, but blocked at first base by Prince Fielder.

A de facto deadline of Sunday evening was in place because of Sabathia's pitching schedule.

 

 

 

1 recs | Comment 151 comments

Read Related

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Display:

Jay is reporting that we traded CC for 3 baseball cards and a baseball card to be named later.

by elsandito on Jul 6, 2008 11:13 PM EDT   0 recs

What series and year are we talking about? That makes all the difference.

by Ryan on Jul 6, 2008 11:25 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Billy Dee Williams was PTBNL.

Steel Nick

by nickjs21 on Jul 6, 2008 11:31 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

The brewers are stacked in that department too. 1989 Upper Deck.

by KevinV on Jul 7, 2008 8:07 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Ryan, excellent write-up on short turn-around. As always

by Roger Dorn on Jul 6, 2008 11:15 PM EDT   0 recs

thanks

by Ryan on Jul 6, 2008 11:35 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Yeah good stuff. But Christ, Ryan. Like I don’t have enough to read right now.

Steel Nick

by nickjs21 on Jul 6, 2008 11:21 PM EDT   0 recs

Well, there’s plenty of garbage time left in the season – you don’t have to cram it in in one night.

by Ryan on Jul 6, 2008 11:26 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

I don’t know if this has already been reported elsewhere, but Haudricourt has the other players as Zach Jackson, Rob Bryson, and the Indians are still scouting Taylor Green as the 4th.

by APV on Jul 6, 2008 11:30 PM EDT   0 recs

Hello APV,

I mentioned this in the other thread, but did not realize you had posted it here first – sorry about that.

As I mentioned there, if it’s true Jackson was included, I’ll be disappointed – realize that this guy in his first AAA season at age 23 (same age as Sowers) had a LOWER K rate than Sowers’ 4.99 K/9 IP rate – it was 4.88 K/9 IP. Never mind that the H/9 IP and BB/9 IP rate were considerably worse than Sowers’ rates.

I thought the idea was to get young, useful talent for CC – Jackson doesn’t seem to qualify to me – to me, he reminds me a lot of LHP Jeriome Robertson, who was virtually worthless (and threw maybe 1-2 decent to good starts for us, at most) after a brief period with us, went back to AAA for a brief period, and then disappeared entirely from baseball. I could see a similar thing happening with Jackson.

Just my 2 cents – no offense.

The "cream of the crop" doesn't always rise to the top.

by indiansfan on Jul 7, 2008 1:49 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

I was under the impression that Jackon was included to fill out the AAA rotation? Basically, he’s a warm body with little-to-zero chance of helping the MLB club.

by gte619n on Jul 7, 2008 9:02 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Jackson’s a lefty (soft-tossing? I don’t actually know) who’s pitched mostly in relief this year (only 6 starts inn 22 or so appearances). Maybe the Indians see him as a possible lefty out of the pen? He’s struggled this year, according to the Milwaukee media, so he’s obviously not the key to the deal.

by peter m on Jul 7, 2008 10:27 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

There shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

by maledicta on Jul 6, 2008 11:31 PM EDT   0 recs

Favorite comment: “CC could hit 65-70 homers a year if they moved him to first base.”

by maledicta on Jul 6, 2008 11:37 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

On a more “serious” note – over/under on the number of additional homeruns C.C. hits this year: 2

by Voltaire on Jul 6, 2008 11:39 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

I like that people are calling for Crowe, or worried that we won’t have room for him. I mean, we’re all very excited about his big jump, but how can a person be both aware of his current numbers and yet unaware of how inconsistent he’s been??

Speaking of which, where was the guy this weekend?

by dgcambridge on Jul 7, 2008 12:02 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Hello Ryan,

I’m mourning the fact that Jackson may be included in this deal – I was expecting all the pieces to have some promise, something I really don’t see for Jackson. He very much reminds me of a Jeriome Robertson, who really did nothing for us when we acquired him for Taveras and Scott (but at least, they were unknown prospects; we are currently trading the reigning AL Cy Young pitcher and one of the best pitchers in baseball – shouldn’t all the pieces have some potential, something Jackson does not have?)

Just my 2 cents.

The "cream of the crop" doesn't always rise to the top.

by indiansfan on Jul 7, 2008 1:52 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

And now I’ve got to stick up for Jackson, eh? Grant me a little time to build a case. Rest assumed we’re not taking him in the place of an Escobar or whoever.

Like you say, Indiansfan, the “cream of the crop [don’t] always rise to the top.”

by jhon on Jul 7, 2008 1:59 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Hello jhon,

Like I said, Jackson just doesn’t do much for me – while he improved his K/9 IP rate in his second season at AAA, Sowers also did (though not as much as Jackson, who was over 6.5 K/9 IP, compared to Sowers’ 5.5 K/9 IP). Plus, Jackson faltered again at AAA this season (57.1 IP/81 H/54 R/50 ER/10 HR/18 BB/34 K, 1.82 GO/AO, .329 BAA).

If Jackson was just a throw-in, and the other three guys were the main parts of the deal, I guess it’s okay (especially if Green is the PTBNL), but I’m guessing that Jackson was the third guy in the deal, with the PTBNL to be identified later. I just thought the third guy in the deal would be more useful or have more upside than Jackson (Bryson would fit as a third guy, as would have Lucroy, Brantley, or Cain), but Jackson is not what I had in mind for trading our #1 pitcher, even with a super-prospect like LaPorta coming back in the deal.

Just my 2 cents – no offense.

The "cream of the crop" doesn't always rise to the top.

by indiansfan on Jul 7, 2008 2:10 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Hello again Ryan,

Mind you and everyone else, I’m NOT disappointed with the other three pieces in the deal (presumably LaPorta, Green, and Bryson), but unless this was a salary dump (and I don’t think Jackson is making that much like a Lee Stevens, is he?) I don’t see why we would take Jackson over a young, no-name prospect who has a higher ceiling, but may not have much chance of reaching it.

I would think we’d want to gain potentially useful players from trading our #1 starter, not guys who probably won’t be better than AAAA starters at best, even if he’s only the third guy in the deal. I was thinking they’d all be young and have a moderate to high-ceiling, with varying degrees of reaching it, but not someone who is virtually another Sowers or even worse than Sowers. That’s the part I’m not fond of regarding this trade.

Just my 2 cents – no offense.

The "cream of the crop" doesn't always rise to the top.

by indiansfan on Jul 7, 2008 2:01 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

I think Jackson is a throw-in even if he isn’t a salary dump.

The deal is one elite prospect and two other good prospects — and while you’re at it, why don’t you throw in a depth starter for our Triple-A club?

You shouldn’t look at Jackson as downgrading the quality of the deal — if it were just the other three guys, you’d like it, right?

by Jay on Jul 7, 2008 9:56 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

We are just going to analyze this thing to death. And then keep right on analyzing it.

by Jay on Jul 6, 2008 11:43 PM EDT   0 recs

Yep, we’re no Mel Brooks.

by Ryan on Jul 7, 2008 12:33 AM EDT to parent up   1 recs

I think its also fair to note that this trade is essential CC for the LaPorta package PLUS whatever we might be able to fetch for Garko, and to a lesser extend Brown. This is of course based on the assumption that Garko is likely out of the door this year or next year at sometime.

Fair assumption?

by world dictator on Jul 6, 2008 11:57 PM EDT   0 recs

Yes. But it’s more about Garko playing himself off the team.

by dgcambridge on Jul 7, 2008 12:13 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

I can’t see us getting anything for Garko at the moment.

Frankly, he should be in the minors by now. He’s become this year’s Barfield.

by Jay on Jul 7, 2008 12:14 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

what is with the sophomore slump? Garko, Barfield, Cabrera, Gutz, Sowers,

by DaytonDogg on Jul 7, 2008 12:16 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Well, that’s why they call it that.

by Jay on Jul 7, 2008 12:32 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Roommates again.

by odradek on Jul 7, 2008 1:15 AM EDT to parent up   1 recs

I’m still holding with the traumatic roommate separation anxiety. Garko can be good, but he needs Barfield as his roommate. For the Indians to get a good Garko, they need to put up with a bad Barfield.

In games in which Barfield played in Cleveland this year, Garko put up a .300/.417/.600 line.

by APV on Jul 7, 2008 8:50 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Good Garko is not good enough to put up with Bad Barfield.

by Jay on Jul 7, 2008 9:57 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Can’t Barfield just room in Cleveland and commute to Buffalo? That would show the FO he’s willing to do what it takes to help the team.

Steel Nick

by nickjs21 on Jul 7, 2008 10:04 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

I don’t know. Garko’s value is at its lowest in a couple years and he is still under control for some time. I think he has the rest of the year to be analyzed by Wedge/Shapiro… I think Shapiro said as much a few days ago.

It will be interesting to see what we do with LaPorta too. Does he go straight to Buffalo or to Akron? Does he start playing 1B every day or stay in the OF?

by DaytonDogg on Jul 7, 2008 12:15 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Screw that. Demote his ass.

636 OPS for the past three months, something like 404 over the last three weeks. I need to see more of this?

by Jay on Jul 7, 2008 12:33 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

I’d agree—- but who would you rather get a long look at? You don’t think they’ll throw LaPorta in there, do you?? Maybe Brown or Aubrey? I think Garko is still the better prospect of the three.

by DaytonDogg on Jul 7, 2008 12:36 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

I think Aubrey is the no-brainer. He’s an upgrade defensively too (not that it really matters for this season).

by Toxicadam on Jul 7, 2008 12:55 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Isn’t Aubrey hurt again? It’s hard to keep up, though I think it’s a safe assumption.

Railing against the sacrifice bunt since 2000.

by jdudas on Jul 7, 2008 9:24 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

lol, I don’t think so. I believe I saw his name in a few Bison box scores this weekend.

by Toxicadam on Jul 7, 2008 9:34 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Does it matter?

Going to the minors might be the best thing for Garko.

by Jay on Jul 7, 2008 10:16 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

no no. he might get bored.

by Brick. on Jul 7, 2008 10:59 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

I’m thinking that this pretty much ends Garko’s run as the Indians first baseman.

by Cols714 on Jul 7, 2008 12:04 AM EDT   0 recs

In the short term, that would be because of Blake, not LaPorta. He still get some ABs in July and August depending
on the next trades. If Blake gets traded first, Garko might play more in the short term.

by palcal on Jul 7, 2008 12:25 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Not to repeat myself, but it’s because of Garko.

by dgcambridge on Jul 7, 2008 12:36 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Ryan, I’m soliciting opinions here. What do you see in Garko’s tea leaves these days?

by fleerdon on Jul 7, 2008 12:05 AM EDT   0 recs

He has a month or two to get back on track. If that doesn’t happen, and LaPorta progresses as hoped, he’ll be back riding the bus next year.

by Ryan on Jul 7, 2008 12:31 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Really? He gets the rest of the summer?

by fleerdon on Jul 7, 2008 12:52 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Yeah why wouldn’t he?

It costs us nothing, other than possible production. At this point I’d rather see prorgress from players, but consistent losing from the team until say September. If we tank hard enough we get a higher draft pick and thus another high level prospects next June.

Besides with LaPorta’s MLB experience clock sittign firmly at zero, Shapiro will be very careful to manage it properly. I think he could even start off 2009 in AAA until early June or so to avoid the whole Super-Two thing.

by KevinV on Jul 7, 2008 8:18 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

I doubt that, I think Shapiro is much more interested in winning next year than in managing someone’s service time. Look at what the Indians have at 1B. LaPorta could out hit Garko right now.

by Cols714 on Jul 7, 2008 9:40 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

If LaPorta makes it clear-cut with his Triple-A performance, then he’ll be in the majors right away.

If it’s a close call, he’ll be in the minors.

They won’t prioritize service time, and LaPorta will turn 24 in January. Service time considerations might save us a few million in 2012 and allow us to keep him for his age 30 season in 2015 — but in both cases, that’s only if he plays well, and 2015 is a long way off.

by Jay on Jul 7, 2008 10:21 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Yeah, in this case, the Indians are probably getting the best years of his career even if they call him up tomorrow.

by Ryan on Jul 7, 2008 10:23 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Exactly. It’s especially pertinent for 21- and 22-year-old position players, less so for pitchers because of attrition, and less so for guys at 23+. You’re in damned good shape getting those age 25-29 seasons.

by Jay on Jul 7, 2008 10:36 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

I think Shapiro is much more interested in winning next year than in managing someone’s service time.

you are way under-estimating how much shapiro loves managing someone’s service time.

by Brick. on Jul 7, 2008 11:01 AM EDT to parent up   1 recs

Kidding, I think, right?

by Jay on Jul 7, 2008 11:36 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

yeah. he plays that game better and more than probably anyone, but he never does it as a first priority, obviously.

by Brick. on Jul 7, 2008 12:34 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Look, I don’t really care if he does or he doesn’t.

But if Phillips only got three months in 2003, I don’t see why Garko gets more than three months in 2008.

by Jay on Jul 7, 2008 10:17 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

trades! trades! we are saved!

by Gradyforpresident on Jul 7, 2008 12:07 AM EDT   0 recs

I’ve really enjoyed your glee tonight.

by fleerdon on Jul 7, 2008 12:48 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Man, Brewers fans have a right to be excited. They get to really go for it in 2008, then (potentially) get 5 draft picks (in the first 35 picks) next year as compensation, regardless of the outcome.

by Toxicadam on Jul 7, 2008 12:19 AM EDT   0 recs

In a way, it’s a Beane-type move – go for it this year, but at the same time, re-stock the minors in preparation for the next mini-rebuild.

by Ryan on Jul 7, 2008 12:32 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

It is a fascinating situation really. They have have a great chance to win this year. At the same time, they might have an even better farm system a year from now. Besides the 5 draft picks, there is plenty of speculation that they will try to move Prince Fielder for a variety of reasons. I kinda envy them.

by DaytonDogg on Jul 7, 2008 12:39 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Not to mention a pretty good crop of AA guys that should all be in AAA/ML next year, plus a team with a lot of young talent at the ML level both in the rotation and position players (Braun, Hardy, Weeks, Hall, Hart)... man, I don’t know which NL Central team I like better, the Reds (I’ve lived in southern ohio for 7 years now so I haven’t had much choice but to hear about them and they have some sick young talent themselves), the Pirates (I grew up with them as my NL team and now they have a guy running things with a clue… and I know one of their players personally), or the Brewers.

by DaytonDogg on Jul 7, 2008 12:44 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Keith Law has a post up now, thinks that Bryson has the potential to be a dominant closer. Surprised that we didn’t wait until the trade deadline to drive up the price further (which is debatable)

by Roger Dorn on Jul 7, 2008 12:31 AM EDT   0 recs

Showing again why Law has a lot of great info and insight and yet is not employed by a major league team.

by Jay on Jul 7, 2008 12:34 AM EDT to parent up   1 recs

He really is maddening. Outstanding scouting insight, yet always manages to throw out some puzzling comments

by Roger Dorn on Jul 7, 2008 12:37 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

I don’t think that comment shows that at all.

by TonyH on Jul 7, 2008 2:12 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Well, we disagree.

Trade value pivots around on-field value and off-field leverage. Sabathia’s on-field value would have diminished every five days, and our off-field leverage was AT LEAST as likely to diminish (with teams dropping out) as it was to increase (with teams coming in).

The idea that there was this big pot to stir is just soap opera drama. Any team that would want him at the end of July was already on the phone to Shapiro at the start of June.

And oh-by-the-way … C.C. could have sustained a minor injury at any time — end of deal, we’re settling for draft picks. That alone is reason enough to strike early.

by Jay on Jul 7, 2008 10:41 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Yes. For example, Erik Bedard had his next start moved back due to some vague ailment. I’m sure that will do wonders for his trade value!!

by peter m on Jul 7, 2008 10:45 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Yea, because in 3 weeks the Brewers could fall out of the race, then we are stuck with whatever dregs the Phillies have left.

by Toxicadam on Jul 7, 2008 12:51 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Law compares this swap to the Colon trade:

... the Colon deal, at the time it was made, had more probability … this trade has significantly more risk for Cleveland.

Seems like a poor comparison, if for no other reason than Colon had a full year and a half left on his deal.

by scripteye on Jul 7, 2008 1:09 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Despite the hefty draft bonus he took to sign w/ Montreal, Sizemore was pretty far from a sure thing at the time of the trade, and Lee looked like he had a little way to go. Sizemore was the “intrigue” piece. Phillips was the surefire MajorLeaguer w/ upside in much the same way as Laporta. If the fourth player in this deal is Green or some other player with significant upside / intrigue, the returns (from the perspective of the moment of the deal, not in the results) for Colon vs. Sabathia are comparable. I think we’ve made out very well here, and that we’ve acquired a well hedged cluster of talent for the Big Guy.

I’m not sure what Law is getting at. Is there something I’m missing? Isn’t Laporta a close n’ safe prospect? We got a AAAA starter, a potential relief ace, and an exciting 4th guy——I dunno about Law, but I see an intelligent risk / return structure in this package.

by jhon on Jul 7, 2008 1:30 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

LaPorta is considered close’n’safe. I think he’s comparable to Phillips at the time of that deal.

by Jay on Jul 7, 2008 10:42 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

So, who’s up for a Lookout Landing style raid of BrewCrew whatever on Tuesday night?

by Roger Dorn on Jul 7, 2008 1:02 AM EDT   1 recs

Kind of redundant, no? Us and BCB at this point, it’s like finding out your bunkmate at camp is actually that neighbor kid you’ve never hung out with, and it turns out he’s got a Nerf armory in his basement that you get to share when you go home.

by fleerdon on Jul 7, 2008 1:07 AM EDT to parent up   2 recs

Well if anything I will be reading to share in their excitement of having The Man on the roster

by Roger Dorn on Jul 7, 2008 1:08 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

i like it.

by DaytonDogg on Jul 7, 2008 1:18 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

No, I think we should just have a game thread here and only talk about the Brewers. It’s certainly the game I’ll be watching.

Steel Nick<