Trade Peralta?
by hans on Jan 15, 2010 12:38 AM EST
Email
PrintIn reading some articles about Mike Lowell being almost assuredly traded this offseason (the Red Sox signed Adrian Beltre recently, and have already tried unsucesfully to trade Lowell to Texas), and hearing something reported about Peralta not actively being shopped, I wondered if it would be a good idea to trade Peralta before this season. For this season alone, Peralta's contract ($4.6 million) is quite reasonable if he rebounds somewhat from last season's performance and hits his CHONE projection (wOBA .324 with average defense at 3B), but certainly not great bargain. But the final year of his contract (2011) is a team option for $7.0 million, which is worth picking up if Peralta can be expected to produce roughly as well as he did in 2008 (.347 wOBA), not if he is coming off another season like last year's .304 wOBA and no longer at shortstop.
The Minnesota Twins are still in the market for a thirdbaseman as they really don't have many good options currently, and of course there's Mike Lowell and his .346 wOBA in 2009, but entering his age 36 season and under contract for $12 million next season, almost three times the amount it would cost to pay Peralta. Lowell's defense fell off last season, (age, injury) and having to have surgery (which nixed the deal to Texas) this offseason he's not really that good of an option for the Twins. So I'm seeing some room here for us to swoop in and explore what the Twins would be willing to offer in trade.
Now the reason why I wouldn't see a trade happen would include the fact that they are in our division (but I don't think it matters as much this season being that the Indians are rebuilding), and that they'd perhaps be selling low on Peralta. There may be incentive to see if Peralta can turn it up during the first half of this season (his age 28 year) and improve his perceived value. I am wondering if there is a situation where the Indians do pick up that option for 2011? The only way I see that happening is if the Indians demonstrate enough improvement to put us in contention for that season, and Peralta hits like he did in '08. That's alot that has to go right for that to happen. Keeping him through this season and declining his option is possible, but brings nothing in return. Considering Lowell was on his way to netting Max Ramirez who only at 24, but has never been able to hit above AA, though he has reached the majors last season, I'm not sure if Twins would be willing to give up much more than that for Peralta. I feel stuck between not wanting to keep Peralta only to see his option declined and leaving the team without any return vs. selling low on him.
136 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I’m officially on record here – although I’ve said it before – that we should trade Peralta, and it should be sooner to maximize his value. I’d be fine trading him to the Twins (or whomever) as long as we get some solid prospects in return. Honestly, I’d rather get some positional prospects than additional pitching. I think this might allow us to get more in return and add to our positional depth. For instance, I’d love to get a single-A catcher (just in case something happens to Santana), additional OF and MI. Once again, I think it’d be better to get lower level prospects with higher ceilings in order to start building the next “wave of prospects” – the post-Choo/Cabrera/LaPorta level.
I completely agree we’re rebuilding, we’ve got our 3B of the future (with his nifty Spring Training invite) and we have a player who can legitimately cover the position. I just remember when we did the early aughts rebuild and initially tried to contend and rebuild at the same time. Granted, we’ve got a lot of pieces in place on the ML roster – but those pieces are long-term solutions who are still growing (just think – Choo and Cabrera still growing into their careers! I’m excited about what they might become…). Peralta is not a long-term solution. Even if we don’t trade him, odds are that he won’t be our 3B two years from now.
Beyond those reasons – there is the strategic potential as well. If we trade Peralta, the 3B job will most likely go to Marte. I know more than a few shudder at that prospect, but history has shown that with regular playing time he can be a serviceable option. He may never be the All-Star we hoped we’d get a few years ago, but he has always been rated as playing decent defense and has shown some power potential. But without regular playing time he probably won’t produce so we’re likely to get nothing whenever we do drop him off the 25-man roster. If we trade Peralta, that gives 1-2 years for Marte to develop into a serviceable starter. That, coupled with his low salary, can be flipped for a prospect or two when Chisenhall is ready. While they may not be the best prospects – something is better than nothing.
And even if a Marte experiment fails, Hodges is waiting in the wings and the same scenario holds true. If the premise is that in two years Chisenhall will be going into Spring Training as the presumptive 3B, it only makes sense to get what we can in return prior to this. Otherwise, we eventually lose Peralta and Marte/Hodges and have nothing to show for it.
I just wanted to believe.
I think I disagree with you on Peralta’s value, and so, on how we should deal with him in 2010. If we had to pay somebody to take Kelly Shoppach — most recently seen as roughly a league-average hitter at catcher — then moving Jhonny right now could very well be a trade for, at most, a few million in payroll relief. And once you concede that you’re going to have to pay Jhonny a couple million in 2010 whether you trade him or keep him, why not let things play out and hope for the best? Worst-case scenario is that you eat the remainder of the last year of his contract, only a few million more than you’re losing on him anyway.
To my thinking, there are two variables at work here: Peralta’s performance, and the Indians’ performance.
1. Jhonny does well, the Indians (miraculously) do well: We play him, and reap some late-blooming benefits on his long-term deal.
2. Jhonny does well, the Indians do poorly: We move him closer to the deadline, getting maximum available payroll relief, and possibly a low-level prospect or two.
3. Jhonny sucks, the Indians suck: We shrug, and dispose of him in whatever way seems best.
by fleerdon on Jan 15, 2010 11:03 AM EST up reply actions
I completely agree we’re rebuilding
I worry that we might be executing what in diplomatic circles is called a “preemptive cringe.” In 2008 and 2009, our expectations for the team’s performance were entirely wrong-headed. We could be wrong again.
Yes, it would take some breaking out on the part of a couple of starting pitchers, but, you know, that does happen sometimes. Lee’s value in 2007 was roughly the same as Sowers’s value today. The 2007 version of Fausto could return. That’s all it would take.
by ken from alexandria on Jan 15, 2010 11:55 AM EST up reply actions
I don’t necessarily disagree with you in this… I’ve posted extensively in the past that the offense/position players should be pretty well set and the ‘pen could potentially be dominating. If Westbrook has returned to pre-surgery self and Carmona begins to resemble the 2007 variant, we’ve got a great 1-2 punch. Carasco has been touted in multiple places as a potential boom/bust candidate (boom being ROY candidate) and Masterson has long been a solid prospect. Beyond that, we’ve got Laffey, Sowers, Rondon, Huff, Pino, Talbot, et al. – and who knows who might pull out a decent season. There’s depth and there’s upside in our rotation to match all the doom and gloom.
I think writing off 2010 for the Tribe is a bit premature.
And yet, I still favor trading Peralta within the framework of my analysis above.
I just wanted to believe.
I’ll grant you that. But even there I see reason for guarded optimism. I’m very high on Chris Perez and Tony Sipp, for example.
by ken from alexandria on Jan 15, 2010 2:24 PM EST up reply actions
I think they finally have the makings of a decent bullpen but, Christ, how many times have I said that before? I’m ready to admit that I especially don’t squat about bullpens.
Yeah, I’m with ya. I know a good bullpen when I see one—Cleveland 2007 or Cleveland 1954 (Mossi and Narleski), for example. Other than that, everything I know about bullpens I learned from Steve Buffum: Great googly moogly, throw strikes, fer crine out loud!
by ken from alexandria on Jan 15, 2010 6:30 PM EST up reply actions
I’m thinking of the two Raffies, of course. But the other guys—Mastny, Fultz, et al, even JoBo—were decent enough to get us to where we wanted to go.
by ken from alexandria on Jan 16, 2010 10:09 AM EST up reply actions
We had one miraculous full-season performance and two miraculous half-season performances. Other than that, the bullpen basically sucked.
Borowski was entertaining, at least.
Though I look right at home, I still feel like an exile
by Manhattan Tribe Fan on Jan 16, 2010 9:13 PM EST up reply actions
No, I think the correct adjective for Borowski was “interesting”, as in the Chinese curse “May you live in interesting times.”
"Nobody ever thinks, 'Hey, maybe I’m actually an idiot.'" - Jay
by woodsmeister on Jan 19, 2010 10:07 AM EST up reply actions
When you only have to use a sixth starter four times, that’s gotta help the bullpen. And that kind of performance and luck could be very flukey.
by kennesawmountainwahoo on Jan 20, 2010 8:03 PM EST up reply actions
I think you wait til midseason and hope that 1) Peralta increases his value 2) a team out there is in desperate need of a SS/3B.
I really dislike the idea of trading him to the Twins, because there is still a chance that Jhonny could breakout and put it together. I shudder to think about their lineup if it is M&M, Peralta and Hardy in the middle. That’s damn good for an AL Central team for two seasons.
Speaking of Hardy, he’s probably the closest current comp to Peralta and the Brewers only netted Carlos Gomez for his services. Not really the kind of position player value I would want back for the Indians. That’s why I think waiting until mid-season would be better because we could get back something more (in prospects).
Agreed. See where we are at the trading deadline and mor importantly, how Jhonny has performed and try moving him then. There are bound to be teams out there who’ll need a 3rd baseman and hopefully some team will view Peralta as a potential SS as well.
Either way, I don’t think his option will be picked up after this season.
Regarding what the Brewers netted for Hardy – this is why I would espouse focusing on lower level prospects with higher ceilings. There’s more chance to get a solid contributor out of the deal. I’d also add that I think Peralta would net more. Maybe I’m just overvaluing him.
I just wanted to believe.
I just don’t think there is all that much value in Peralta the 3B right now. A lot of the smarter teams are making a strong effort to acquire the defense-first infielders making Peralta less valuable than in past offseasons. We are probably stuck with him until he rebounds offensively.
A lot of the smarter teams are making a strong effort to acquire the defense-first infielders making Peralta less valuable than in past offseasons. We are probably stuck with him until he rebounds offensively.
It bothers me that we are not one of those teams.
Likewise, it upsets me that they’re aren’t many teams out there that value Jhonny. What’s different about us?
I hope that neither of those things are true.
Ha ha, yeah, maybe he’s the guy. We could move Cabrera to DH.
by dgcambridge on Jan 20, 2010 11:24 AM EST up reply actions
Does this mean we’ll never see Redmond in LF?
I just wanted to believe.
by mjmarble on Jan 15, 2010 11:32 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Against tough RHP, Jhonny and LaPorta can take the day off, Redmond can play third and Brantley can move back to his natural position, first base.
by xrickx on Jan 22, 2010 1:24 AM EST up reply actions 2 recs
Later in the year, Santana gets the nod at third.
"Nobody ever thinks, 'Hey, maybe I’m actually an idiot.'" - Jay
by woodsmeister on Jan 22, 2010 8:11 AM EST up reply actions
The A’s just traded for Kevin Kouzmanoff, according to ESPN. The main return the Padres got, is Aaron Cunningham, an outfield prospect with good minor league OPS numbers, but who actually looks to me as if he slipped significantly last year (the ESPN article gets it backwards by focusing on BA). Kouzmanoff’s year, last year, was actually a lot like Peralta’s — not very good. If this is a measure of what you can get for a late-20s 3rd baseman coming off a poor year, trading Peralta probably isn’t a great idea.
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=4830471
'If I'm not here, 'I'll be somewhere else.'' Andy Marte
by peter m on Jan 16, 2010 11:40 AM EST reply actions 1 recs
Agreed. Is Feliz still out there as a FA? Potentially still Uggla via trade (although it looks like Fla will keep him) and potentially Lowell if he gets healthy. Crede is still hanging around. There’s zero trade market for Peralta right now. You think we wouldn’t have dumped him by now if we could have even gotten Mitch Talbot (v2) back?
You meant Brady Anderson, because he was a baseball player, and this is a baseball forum, right?
No, not you. Your helmet!
by PatBordersHelmet on Jan 18, 2010 7:24 PM EST up reply actions
No. in the sense where he is very talented, had one career year, and hasn’t lived up to it since. in that sense, he is like DA. but in the years where he didn’t have a career year, he was better than DA was.
can you guys not comprehend what football is??
I say one football name and you cannot understand it??
can you guys not comprehend what football is??
I say one football name and you cannot understand it??
Speaking for myself, I don’t come here to talk about sports other than baseball. Baseball has a pretty rich recorded history that spans nearly 150 years, so there’s no reason to stray into other sports for analogies on this site. As you should know, there’s plenty of other places in the SB Nation to talk football if that’s what you’re into. I doubt you’re making baseball analogies over there.
No, not you. Your helmet!
by PatBordersHelmet on Jan 18, 2010 9:30 PM EST up reply actions 3 recs
I have made baseball analogies i think once or twice at DBN.
I am not a one sport person. I like to broaden my mind and broaden my horizon.
It is like someone who gets confused because I talk about salvador dali and surrealism and they only know impressionistic works like monet or matisse.
Your also forgetting that many people, myself not included, might also have no clue about Derek Anderson because even though they might love football, they might care less about the Browns.
I mean, I got it, but it’s a safer bet to stick the old bat and ball.
Welcome back, Sandy! ATALECG...
That doesn’t stop us from having entire threads about TV shows which some people on this site may not watch
"You are an LGT success story" -- Jay
by Turkmenbashi on Jan 19, 2010 11:42 PM EST up reply actions
If you posted an analogy about classic painters, I’d welcome it. They’re are some amazingly intelligent people on this site who share some pretty cool stuff. I hope you start going in that direction instead.
I’m actually a Browns fan, I tailgate and go to games (even this year), however, my point is, talking about the NFL in a MLB site isn’t necessary. That isn’t broadening anyone’s horizons. In my opinion, it’s actually dumbing down the conversation. That’s great you know a ton about football. Most of the people on this site do as well, but we’re here to talk baseball—intelligently.
No, not you. Your helmet!
by PatBordersHelmet on Jan 19, 2010 9:03 AM EST up reply actions
And talk about Friends, Seinfeld, Late Night TV, The Simpsons, Arrested Development, Avatar, uniform design, the quality (or lack thereof) of sports reportage, jackasses, and Lauren Conrad, among other things.
I've really got to change my signature.
Doesn’t mean the amazing isn’t still there, locked in a beautiful little capsule of audio and video.
Welcome back, Sandy! ATALECG...
Wrong
"You are an LGT success story" -- Jay
by Turkmenbashi on Jan 19, 2010 11:43 PM EST up reply actions
Point me to one show that’s even close to being that funny
"You are an LGT success story" -- Jay
by Turkmenbashi on Jan 20, 2010 4:56 PM EST up reply actions
Nothing is objectively funny, that’s sort of the whole point of those 700 comments over yonder.
However, just off the top of my head, Fry and Laurie, The Cosby Show (with Rudi as a baby), Freaks and Geeks, mid-peak Seinfeld, those are all at least as funny. A bunch more too. There’s been a lot of great funny television.
yes…finally a freaks and geeks appreciator. they are so rare and it is such a genius show…apatow before apatow.
I have not found one person that I have shown that show to that hasn’t been hooked.
also, fry and laurie is great and does not get a lot of attention. you should also maybe include blackadder on there. I love it and it is both of them teaming up with rowan atkinson…
I’m mostly messing with Brad. I don’t really find any of the shows you listed funny but, as you said, it’s all subjective.
"You are an LGT success story" -- Jay
by Turkmenbashi on Jan 21, 2010 11:31 AM EST up reply actions
Look up Peep Show on Hulu. The League also has its moments.
by cleveland teamer on Jan 22, 2010 11:32 AM EST up reply actions
Okay.
The point of the analogy is a decent career year, one career year. hasn’t been able to completely live up to it before or since.
I don’t see though how talking about football is dumbing things down honestly. is baseball that march smarter in your opinion??
i’ll speak for myself now.
the biggest point, for me, is that if the only example you can think of is a player’s career from another sport, then it might not be relevant. there should be an example(s) in this game that is more germane – and more interesting and easy to compare – for you and for others. perhaps it’s a guy who’s career profile really does align and you can start to see what that might mean. this wasn’t the best example – as it was more of a joke, but for other example.
I think the main issue in dumbing down is trying to reduce every situation to some mega-obvious recent example in the local sports landscape. Only slightly amending your statement, if the only example you can think of is a player’s career from another sport, it’s probably a ham-fisted and weak analogy in the first place.
Not to mention that it derails the conversation for people like me, who stopped following pro football to any significant degree in 1995. I mean I know who Derek Anderson is, but that’s about it.
Of course, I’m hardly one to complain about derailing conversations with obscure information, but still.
Its not that obscure. If I compared shoppach to an 18th century sculptor, that would be obscure. yes it is a different sport, but it is still sports. it is still in the same ballpark as baseball, but something like art, music, or arrested development/everybody loves raymond really isn’t.
Though the point being that you are better off sticking with baseball analogies if your purpose is to “succesfully” demonstrate an analogy in a basebal blog. As Fred just said, not many here really follow the Browns all that much, and most of the posters on here don’t actually live in the Cleveland area. (for future reference).
also, it is one of the more relevant things said here…some of these conversations had…
it is just the pot calling the kettle black
No, this is a long standing dislike for many on LGT. I happen to see your point here, but at this point you are kicking just to kick.
I am not kicking anymore…I am being kicked, but I really don’t care anymore…
I am kicked and kicked for saying stuff that is not on topic about baseball but there is so much people are saying that isn’t
…I am being kicked, but I really don’t care anymore…
And that, my friends, is the whole point of hazing!
No, not you. Your helmet!
by PatBordersHelmet on Jan 19, 2010 10:51 PM EST up reply actions
Shall I compare thee, Shoppach, to a summer’s day?
Thou art more brawny and more obdurate:
Tradewinds hath turn’d our darling to a Ray,
Yet winter’s blogs rehash thine trips to plate:
Sometime too hot thine batter’s eye doth shine,
And often doth pitch elude thy truncheon;
And fair though thy bapip sometime decline,
By chance, there’ll still be ham and swiss luncheon;
Contract extensions, thy summer shan’t fade,
Nor lose thee possession of starting job;
For thy handsome OPS+ thou willst be paid,
When between white lines, before howling mob;
So long as men can post, that can be read,
So shall our Kelly live, within this thread.
by YoDaddyWags on Jan 21, 2010 5:20 PM EST up reply actions 10 recs
Yes, in my opinion, much smarter.
Football is easier. Not inferior, just less games, history and personnel depth. Many football fans are very intelligent people and many baseball fans are dolts. In my 30 plus years of trying to hold up my end of sports conversations, the football conversationalists have been overwhelmingly far less insightful or nuanced with history. Football is fun, but it isn’t the metaphor for life that baseball is—to me.
Part of what gets me it is that we as baseball fans can be conversant on football, but in my finding only a minority of football fans know much about baseball. (I have long-winded examples if need be.)
No, not you. Your helmet!
by PatBordersHelmet on Jan 19, 2010 12:57 PM EST up reply actions
I don’t think any sport is any better or any sport is the “metaphor for life”
I am a hardcore fan but I DO have other things going on in my life.
I guess I am somewhat of the exception among Football fans. technically it is my favorite sport but not by much. I like all sports and know the history of them all. I know about Napoleon Lajoie and I know about Otto Graham (and Bingo Smith).
All sports? NASCAR? Test cricket? The, gulp, NHL?
No, not you. Your helmet!
by PatBordersHelmet on Jan 19, 2010 1:09 PM EST up reply actions
yes nascar.
and the NHL. hockey is a great sport and is amazing live. I just has never translated well onto TV. hockey has a great history and is very entertaining. the reputation outside of people who have actually ever watched hockey is that it is played by violent, drunk canadians.
I don’t know exactly what test cricket is, but I do watch cricket sometimes when it’s on (though rugby is more entertaining)
I agree. I was talking about the stereotypes of hockey. and the players are never drunk, the fans are (but no more drunk than nascar, football, or baseball fans…yes baseball)
It’s pretty weak to agree with someone who used one sentence to disagree with you. Either you don’t have any conviction in what you said, or it wasn’t that well thought out in the first place.
Everybody should get ice cream every day.
Agree wholeheartedly. It’s not the sport that’s smarter, it’s the fans. And yes, baseball is in every respect the perfect metaphor for life.
Here’s some red meat: baseball fans are far and away the most intelligent group of sports fans on the planet. And yes, I’m including soccer fans here.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
I disagree…this is obvious bias and subjective thought
I have witnessed fans in all sports. there are some very dumb baseball fans and very smart hockey fans. from my experience from sporting events, baseball fans might not be that much smarter. maybe the people on here are much smarter than the average baseball fan but that doesn’t mean that because you guys are smarter than most sports fans, that all baseball fans have superior intellect.
and I would not say any sport is a perfect metaphor for life. life is too complicated and diverse to be categorized by one sport.\
maybe to you, baseball symbolizes YOUR perfect metaphor for life but that is completely objective. huge baseball fans would think that.
If you posted an analogy about classic painters, I’d welcome it. They’re are some amazingly intelligent people on this site who share some pretty cool stuff. I hope you start going in that direction instead.
This comes across a bit pompous. Can’t intelligent people post an analogy about football? And if an analogy is made about football over classic painters does that mean that the person is less intelligent? or maybe is it perhaps the poster is making a logical assumption that on a sports blog the most effective analogy would be that of another sport vs. that of an art?
I think all anyone was trying to say is that the football act, which is not a new one here, gets old. Lots of us don’t really love football and are tired of hearing about how Bill Belicheck is similar to Walt Jocketty.
That said, I don’t know what anyone is talking about in this comment thread.
I think all anyone was trying to say is that the football act, which is not a new one here, gets old. Lots of us don’t really love football and are tired of hearing about how Bill Belicheck is similar to Walt Jocketty.
I can see this, and I agree that it is has “gotten old”, but I don’t think it’s fair to suggest that a new poster be privy to the social norms of this site from the beginning. Hey, if the guy can follow the basic set rules of posting on this site than he’s already gotten farther than most of the newest posters in the past year.
Now that said, I’m going to ride this " Does anyone want to talk about Kelly Shoppach?" thing into the ground this year, I’m not sure I’ve seen a subject like Shoppach morph into the so many aggravating arguments. Amazing.
Logical assumptions are boring. I expect better on LGT.
No, not you. Your helmet!
by PatBordersHelmet on Jan 19, 2010 2:34 PM EST up reply actions
Cheers, Junk!
No, not you. Your helmet!
by PatBordersHelmet on Jan 19, 2010 10:53 PM EST up reply actions
Ok let me throw this out there…
Should Andy Marte get more playing time than Johnny Peralta at third-base for the Indians next season?
This assumes Peralta’s option is not going to be picked up for the following year, and thus who will be the Indians starting 3B in 2011?
Andy Marte should be back in the Dominic helping with the sugar harvest.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
Is it because it sounds a little bit like Marte is dating an Italian guy?
by Brad D on Jan 19, 2010 8:35 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
If Peralta’s option is not picked up, I think we can assume that The Chiz © will be patrolling the third base line.
"Nobody ever thinks, 'Hey, maybe I’m actually an idiot.'" - Jay
by woodsmeister on Jan 19, 2010 9:28 PM EST up reply actions
Marone! I’m surrounded by lawyers! This must be what hell is like.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
by mauichuck on Jan 20, 2010 12:31 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Cleveland Indians and lawyers. Yes, your are correct. That IS hell.
I've really got to change my signature.
by emd2k3 on Jan 20, 2010 3:16 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Thanks. I couldn’t remember how to do the TM mark.
"Nobody ever thinks, 'Hey, maybe I’m actually an idiot.'" - Jay
by woodsmeister on Jan 20, 2010 8:45 AM EST up reply actions
How is it done?
No, not you. Your helmet!
by PatBordersHelmet on Jan 20, 2010 8:56 AM EST up reply actions
If it’s a given that Peralta’s option won’t be picked up, the FO would most likely want to trade him at some point in the season rather than let him walk. As such, he would have to be played more as a showcase (might be an optimistic word to use) for possible suitors.
played more as a showcase
The ol’ “If we give him a few starts in left field, maybe another team will believe he’s better than he really is” plan.
Is this the whale section?
It kinda worked for Ryan Garko (if you don’t get opinions from David Huff and Cliff Lee).
"Nobody ever thinks, 'Hey, maybe I’m actually an idiot.'" - Jay
by woodsmeister on Jan 21, 2010 8:06 AM EST up reply actions
If I had to guess, I’d say that neither one of these guys likely has a future with Cleveland beyond 2010. In that sense, it probably doesn’t matter. I think Peralta has shown himself to be a far superior player, and therefore represents more of a valuable asset for Cleveland, and therefore should play more. Marte’s 2009 was strange because he all of a sudden reversed his platoon split and became a dead-pull hitter effective against RHP. I think very few guys are able to pull off that skill set for long.
I think you are dead-on in regards to Peralta showing himself to be a superior player over Marte, but the contract/service time issues cloud the evaluating a bit. I’m proposing it as, "In a non-contending season, do you give the majority of playing time to the player with the $4.6 million + 2011 tm option for $7 (that is unlikely to be picked up) or to the player with under 3 years service time?
I think what fg28 said about hoping that an expected moderate bounce-back for Peralta may lead the team to hold on to him until the trade deadline and hope to get more out of him then. He seems like this inbetween player, not part of the team’s future, yet not actively being shopped (at least as far as been reported).
He’s not being shopped only because there is no market for him.
We can trade him now and eat half his salary, or we can trade him mid-2010 and pay the same half of his salary in the meantime. So what’s the difference? (a) short-term depth, which is a small plus, and (b) Peralta’s value could go up over that time.
In the first half, Peralta hit 14 HR in 2007, 16 HR in 2008, and only 6 HR in 2009. OPS was 812, 787, 710. If Peralta puts up his more typical first half, he will get a little trade value, and he will be traded.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
Featured Stories
FanShots
Quick hits of video, photos, quotes, chats, links and lists that you find around the web.
Recent FanShots
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- U.S. Cellular Field: Home of the Chicago Cubs?
- MLB Fan Cave candidate explains the stories behind his 30 MLB mascot tattoos
- Kate Upton’s new MLB 2K12 ad is really something
- Five tips for Showtime’s second season of ‘The Franchise,’ featuring the Miami Marlins
- The 10 best things about being a Detroit Tigers fan
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
