29 Trades for 29 Teams: Seattle Mariners
by WestcoastO'sFan on Dec 11, 2011 6:29 PM EST
Email
PrintThe Mariners have pitching, the Orioles do not. The Orioles have hitting, the Mariners do not. Let's make a deal.
Let's start out with what each team will put on the table:
Seattle
James Paxton
Taijun Walker
Baltimore
Jake Arrieta
L.J. Hoes
Jonathon Schoop
Now let's break it down. First we start with Paxton. To quote John Sickels from earlier this year, "There have been a few rumbles that Paxton could be promoted for September, but it seems more likely that he'll be a candidate for 2012. He is one of the top pitching prospects in the game, and profiles as a number two starter if he continues to progress with his command" Paxton is a big lefty with above average velocity, good breaking stuff, and while his command is scouted as spotty it has been just fine in pro ball thus far. He is 23 years old and just appeared in the Futures game. Given the immediacy of his call up and his success in pro ball I would say his trade value is high.
Next, Blake Beavan, a 22 year old right handed starter who came to Seattle in the Cliff Lee deal. A 2007 first round draft pick, Beavan has met with average success in the minors and had a short 2011 cup of coffee. That short MLB appearance was once again average, 1.3 WAR and 90 ERA+, so maybe slightly below average. Was ranked 16th in the Mariners system by Sickles this year, but would probably be a solid 4th starter for a few years in the O's rotation. Trade value, medium.
Taijuan Walker. Tall righthander who was drafted 43rd overall in 2010. Was dominante last year in single-A. Described by Sickels as an "elite pitching prospect." Good strikeout to walk ratio in A ball and he is a strikeout and ground out pitcher which is huge if he is going to play in Camden Yards. Trade value, very high.
Shawn Kelley. Bullpen filler, 27 years old. Low salary guy, worth a shot. Trade value, minimal.
So in total the Mariners give up two highly valued pitchers and two decent pitchers. Now for what the Orioles give up.
J.J. Hardy. Orioles recently signed him to a long term deal, but with Manny Machado waiting in the wings and Hardy coming off of a career year this might be the best chance to deal him. The Mariners have no one to play shortstop now and they don't know when Nick Franklin will be ready. They would love to have a good SS to compliment Liddi at 3rd and Ackley at 2nd. Giving them Hardy would allow them to have a real infield. Trade value, medium.
Nolan Reimold. Will probably end up being an above average outfielder at best, but would easily have the DH spot if he were with Seattle. At the very least he could platoon with Trayvon Robinson in LF, if not start the year taking all the at-bats in LF. Trade value, medium.
Jake Arrieta. Unproven at the MLB level. Potential for innings and medium success at Safeco. Gives the Mariners some replacement at pitching depth. Trade value, Minimal.
Luke Scott. Lefty power hitter. Sign him, trade him to Seattle. Could be a 20 HR guy as a platoon in Safeco. Salary and baggage make him unattractive though. Trade value, zero.
LJ Hoes. I don't really feel like breaking him down, because that has been done a million times on this site, literally. Anyway, the Mariners need outfield depth and Hoes has played more MiLB games in LF than at 2B. Also, speed and contact make him a good fit for Safeco. Trade value, medium.
Jonathon Schoop. After thinking for a while it was clear the O's would have to give up another piece in this deal, although I was tempted to throw in Markakis or Jones or Reynolds, I decided to go with Schoop. Another guy who is mentioned a lot on CC, decent bat and can play 3 IF positions. Gives the Mariners much needed depth on the left side of the field. Would allow them to back up Liddi if he doesn't work out or flip Hardy at the deadline to a team in need. Trade value, medium.
In the end this deal allows the O's to bring in 3 solid starters while giving away hitting depth. It is borderline as to whether or not it would be a good deal for the M's to take. I was considering building a Markakis plus others for Pineda deal, but decided not to. I for one really like this deal. It gets us back to growing the arms and buying the bats. We can always sign a LF to replace Noldy, but getting 2 potentially great starters is going to be much harder. What do you guys think of it? Take the poll, tell me your thoughts.
FanPosts are user-created content and do not necessarily reflect the views of the editors of Camden Chat or SB Nation. They might, though.
21 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Wow.
This is pretty crazy. There’s no way we’re going to give up Hardy, but I like where you’re going with this. I would LOVE to move crazy Scott, but yeah. It would be hard. I think Reimold should get his real shot this year, but he would be a good trade chip. I strongly disagree that Arrieta’s value is “minimal”, but given the arms you’re proposing we trade for, I kinda wonder why he is in the mix at all. If anything, give them Reimold, Andino and one or two of the throw aways (please take Scott) and try for Paxton and Walker. THEN everyone wins and no one gets confused by why their entire team got traded.
Moldy
Is a player that could significantly increase his value with a full year next year. The BABIP monsters weren’t even on his side last year and he had 1.5 WAR in ~300 AB. Good Walk Rate, plenty of power. Selling him now would be almost as bad as selling him after last year.
I think you're getting too ambitious here.
Six players on one end of a trade and four on the other is a lot of moving parts. I don’t see that happening just on that basis alone, without even getting into specific names.
I also don’t see the O’s giving up that many guys off the MLB club in one single trade.
"So I said, 'Looks like they've finally got Ogea in the pen. I wonder if the glove fits.' I thought I was going to get fired." - Mike Flanagan, RIP
by Eat More Esskay on Dec 11, 2011 8:15 PM EST reply actions
As I see it we are only giving up 2 guys off the ML Club.
But perhaps cutting down on what goes to Seattle and excising Walker or Paxton would make it work better.
When Andino finally emerged, he looked up at the Red Sox fans filing out. "I just wanted to see them go," he says
by WestcoastO'sFan on Dec 11, 2011 9:08 PM EST up reply actions
I don't really understand why we're giving up young guys who could still be something if we're trying to build our farm system
Sure, we desperately need pitching, but we’re still going to need that player of the future in our farm system at… just about every single position on the field except SS and C. So I don’t like the dea of giving up Schoop and Hoes
Empty your mind, be formless, shapeless - like water. Now you put water into a cup, it becomes the cup, you put water into a bottle, it becomes the bottle, you put it in a teapot, it becomes the teapot. Now water can flow or it can crash. Be water, my friend.
by Astronaut Mike Dexter on Dec 11, 2011 9:48 PM EST reply actions
Non-prospect?
In a prospect chat earlier today, Nick of CamdenDepot said this: " I think the narrative on Hoes right now in the blogosphere (light power for a corner outfielder) is inherently flawed. There is value in a good bat — particularly one that comes with an on-base skillset."
http://camdendepot.blogspot.com/2011/12/2012-top-25-prospect-chat.html
I think you’re jumping the gun here by calling him a non-prospect.
I don't see how Hoes' minor league numbers suggest he is a good bat.
His OBP numbers are good with a career .354 (Caveat: but over only one season’s worth of ABs (500) over a three year time span and five different levels). In that same span, he has hit for almost no power with career SLG of around .390. Those things combined make him about an average minor league hitter and a below average corner outfield minor league hitter. If he makes up for that in defense (I haven’t heard anything about this), then he might have added value.
Even though he may be a slightly below average hitter, it does not necessarily mean he is a “non-prospect.” Baseball Prospectus still ranks him as a two-star prospect and number 10 in our system. He is only an also-ran in Sickels’ rankings as Hoes does not crack his top 20 list but is mentioned as an “other prospect.” There just doesn’t seem to be much to get excited about with Hoes.
Mother, did it need to be so high.
yeah, I'm with salvotion
I’ll accept that “nonprospect” may be dramatic overstatement — but not by much. Hoes has good tools (which is why Faleris likes him), but he’s now in the upper minors and has never translated those tools into performance AND his defense has taken a major step backwards.
There is absolutely nothing in Hoes’s history that suggests he can be the .290/.350/.420 bat that I think Faleris pegged him at.
by AndrewTorrez on Dec 13, 2011 10:09 AM EST up reply actions
Where is option G
“Wouldn’t happen because this is crazy”
I don’t have much tolerance for stupid. Or cheese on food that doesn’t need it. -duck
I voted "wouldn't happen, Mariners give up too much"
But I don’t think those things are necessarily related. I voted “wouldn’t happen” because (a) I don’t see how you can have a 10-player deal that doesn’t involve at least one superstar, and (b) I don’t see the Mariners giving up two top prospects AND more without getting a superstar in return.
I voted “Mariners give up too much” because despite the volume of players going back, these aren’t really players I can envision an organization targeting in trade. Scott is a non-tender candidate. Hoes is a fringe prospect at best. Reimold and Arrieta are going to be viewed by other organizations as failed minor-leaguers and potential waiver-wire guys (even though I think they’re worth more than that). Those four guys literally add zero to the trade.
So essentially, you’re asking: what would the Mariners give up for J.J. Hardy? I do not think you could get either Walker or Paxton for him, and I’m not sure that tossing in Schoop gets you there.
So my friendly edit would be: Beavan and Kelley for Hardy. That’s probably not enough value back to the O’s, but it’s a deal that could at least happen.
I don't think the Mariners would give up 2 of their top 3 pitching prospects,
so I voted that they are giving up too much. Schoop is around a top 100 guy, Hardy I think is pretty valuable, and while I really like Moldy, he’s not that exceptional that he would have a lot of trade value. His value is probably similar to that of Mike Carp, so I’m not sure how necessary Reimold is. As you point out, Luke Scott’s trade value is pretty minimal. I think Hoes has some positional problems, though it will be interesting to see if he plays second with the regime change in Norfolk (which of course assumes Adams is in the majors. But if the Orioles plan on dealing Jones, maybe Hoes can be groomed to play center? Anyway, that’s not relevant here!)
In sum, it seems like what the Mariners have is OF depth, and thus adding Moldy, Scott and Hoes to the deal doesn’t make a lot of sense, especially at the price of Paxton, Walker and Beaven.
Really interesting proposal all the same!
Sorry :(
If you look at those UZR ratings or whatever
I can't imagine Paxton being traded.
He’s probably untouchable unless an established star is going to Seattle.
Kevin Gregg-"You obviously haven't acquired my taste for pitching yet"
Re. Paxton
I have trouble with the idea that a 4.1 bb/9 in a year of A/AA ball qualifies as “just fine in pro ball thus far.” He also had severe command problems at Kentucky and he’s been rushed, and that’s not good for developing command. I could be higher on Paxton, guys who struggle to throw strikes struggle to succeed in the big leagues, and I absolutely disagree with what seems to be the common feeling that this guy should be in the major leagues this year (I actually think he should have a full year or more at AA, because if he’s walking 4 guys per nine innings and can’t spot his fastball, he’s a disaster waiting to happen when he’s facing big-league lineups). I understand his “stuff” is excellent, which makes him a high-potential pitching prospect, but I’m wary. He’s just not the kind of pitching prospect I’d like to see us target (particularly if we’re giving up valuable pieces like Hardy, Schoop, and Arrieta. In fact, he kind of profiles as an Arrieta-esque pitcher (see also David Hernandez), so while I’m not totally against having a guy like this in the rotation (particularly with the upside of Paxton or Arrieta), I also am not sure what advantage there would be to giving up Arrieta and other valuable pieces to get the second coming of Arrieta as the primary piece in the deal. The Mariners would be giving up a lot here, perhaps too much from their perspective, and I don’t know that this would improve our organization that greatly. Beavan seems a lot like Joe Saunders to me, and that might be his ceiling. Walker would be the gem of the trade, but he’s pretty high-risk. I guess your idea is that if you trade a bunch of moderate value for two high-potential guys (Paxton and Walker) and one of the two ends up working out, the you have succeeded; it’s just a whole lot of risk for me. Again, I think the perception would be that the Mariners would be giving up too much here, but I actually don’t really like the odds for us ending up with the better end of the deal (or even one TOR starter of the two). So I’d have to vote “no” on this one. Given the guys in their organization, I actually think that either Paxton/Walker and Hultzen as the centerpieces would make much more sense, given that Hultzen is a much easier projection and profiles as a 2/3 starter in the big leagues. I don’t love the Mariners organization though, and I understand the idea of 29-for-29 is to come up with an idea for even the least-attractive organizations. I appreciate the series and its thought-provoking nature, so thanks!
Hultzen can't be named in a trade until August 2012
and can’t be a PTBNL until February 2012. And in any event, there is no chance the Mariners give up Hultzen without getting elite talent in return.
by AndrewTorrez on Dec 12, 2011 10:09 AM EST up reply actions
Yeah, I know he can’t be included in a trade as anything other than a ptbnl, although I thought the new cba moved it forward (January, maybe?), but i could be making that up.
Do you really think that they value Hultzen over Paxton and Walker? I know Hultzen is polished and should fly through the minors, but it’s hard to imagine his ceiling as anything other than a 2/3. He’s very Matusz-esque, at least Matusz circa 2010. Still a great pitching prospect, but hard to imagine being a legit mlb ace (where as the other two guys could be … albeit it with a lot more “if” language thrown in there).
I don't see the Mariners trading any of those guys without getting elite talent in return.
It does happen sometimes — witness the Diamondbacks sending Jarrod Parker to Oakland for Trevor Cahill — but I can’t imagine the Mariners giving up on an A-level prospect for J.J. Hardy and chum.
by AndrewTorrez on Dec 12, 2011 1:30 PM EST up reply actions
It wouldn't matter anyways.
They aren’t trading him period. It is ridiculous to even speculate they would.
I don’t have much tolerance for stupid. Or cheese on food that doesn’t need it. -duck
by twistedlogic on Dec 12, 2011 7:01 PM EST up reply actions
2 things...
I think you’re slightly undervaluing Arrieta. A lot of teams see a guy with a good pitcher’s body who just needs a good pitching coach to unlock #3 starter status, possibly #2. I think the Mariners would be pretty happy with Hernandez, Pineta, and Arrieta headlining.
I also think you’re undervaluing Schoop overall, but perhaps overvaluing him for the Mariners. They would have Hardy at SS, Ackley at 2B, and Seager at 3B. I’m not sure Schoop would fit them as well as Andino would (as a super-utility who could spell the young guys when needed).
I agree.
There’s a lot to like, still, about Arrieta. This is an important year for him in terms of getting his K numbers back up into the 8-9 range, improving his bb/9 numbers into that 3.5 range (at least sub-4), and if he can do that by throwing strikes early in counts I think he’ll be a productive MLB starter.
I’m not sure what good comes from trading Schoop. He still would be at shortstop if he weren’t progressing level-by-level with Machado, even if he rated below-average defensively (if he is remotely good enough to play short, his bat profiles as excellent for the position), and trading away quality hitting shortstop prospects isn’t a good move. Regardless of whether Schoop ends up at third base, second base, or shortstop, he’s not someone we should be looking to involve in any deal at this point. He’s part of the solution, he’s part of the 2014 team.
I thought a lot of prospect mavens foresaw a possible bullpen role for Arreta because of his control issues?
Kevin Gregg-"You obviously haven't acquired my taste for pitching yet"
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Camden Chat
Related FanShots on Camden Chat
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
Official Sponsor of Camden Chat GameThreads
