October 23, 2008
The Fantastic Four: Assessing Four Top Rangers Pitching Trade Targets
Should the Texas Rangers pursue San Diego Padres ace Jake Peavy? - SD Dirk/Flickr.com
As the long-anticipated onset of Major League Baseball's hot stove
season draws enticingly nearer, a tantalizing collection of names
continues to arise in connection with the pitching-bereft Texas Rangers
-- some of which are probably attainable in the right deal, and some
not so much.
In recent days, we've heard of the supposed
availability of San Diego Padres ace Jake Peavy (a power pitcher
regarded as a true number one starter in virtually all but the most
narcissistic of baseball circles), who has generously consented to back
off his demands of either being traded to one of his five pre-selected
National League clubs (the Astros, Braves, Cardinals, Cubs or Dodgers)
or staying put -- provided, mind you, that there's also something in it for
him.
Long before this recent rash of trade speculation broke
out, the incomparable Jamey Newberg proposed the names of Kansas City's Zach Greinke and
San Francisco's Matt Cain as young, controllable commodities with
enormous upside that the Rangers would be wise to investigate as they
actively sought out -- and, to that end, continue to seek out -- a
satisfactory resolution to their big league pitching conundrum.
Around
the same time, I became similarly enamored with Florida's Ricky
Nolasco, who brought the blinding glare of the national media spotlight
to Miami in 2008 with a breakout 15-win campaign -- backed by
jaw-dropping peripherals -- in just his second full season in the
majors.
The price tags on these four immensely talented hurlers
varies from merely high to virtually astronomical, but one thing is
blatantly obvious: Rangers general manager Jon Daniels, armed with the
deepest and most potent repository of minor league talent in the game,
could swing a deal for any one member of this high-powered quartet if
he so desired.
Heck, he could conceivably swing a deal
for two of what I will refer to from here on out as the "Fantastic
Four." It would unquestionably ravage the top tier of this
painstakingly constructed farm system, but it could be done.
That,
however, is not the point. Let's pretend for a moment that Cain,
Greinke, Nolasco and Peavy have all been deemed available by their
respective general managers in the so-called "right deal." How do they each stack
up in a myriad of performance- and non-performance-related areas? And
which of the Fantastic Four would the Rangers be the wisest to
fervently pursue?
Listed below is a chart that attempts to
illustrate both the contractual and statistical aspects of each
pitcher's all-around profile. "Age" lists each pitcher's age as of
Opening Day (April 6th) 2009, "Club Control" lists the number of
guaranteed years remaining on each pitcher's contract after the 2008
season (Cain possesses a 2011 club option worth $6.25 million, while
Peavy has a 2013 club option worth $22 million -- neither of which has
been factored in), and "'09 Salary," shockingly enough, lists each
pitcher's 2009 salary; these have been roughly calculated for
arbitration-eligibles Greinke and Nolasco based off their recent comps:
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Although each statistic I've employed in the above chart
should be relatively familiar, not every abbreviation might be; "S%"
represents each pitcher's strike percentage during the 2008 regular
season (all of the statistics are from 2008, in fact), "xFIP" refers to
each pitcher's expected fielding-independent ERA, which normalizes the
home run component of each pitcher's peripherally-calculated ERA and is
theoretically a better predictor of future performance than vanilla ERA
or even fielding-independent ERA, and "VORP," of course, refers to the
number of runs each pitcher prevented from scoring that a replacement-level pitcher would have allowed. The leader in each column has been
bolded for emphasis.
So, there you go. A one-year statistical
snapshot probably isn't entirely optimal, but it's good enough for
our purposes, and quickly shows where each pitcher particularly
excelled in 2008.
Indeed, which of these qualities do you most highly covet: Nolasco's ability to persistently hammer the strike zone and post a stunning strikeout-to-walk ratio, or Greinke's grounder-inducing tendencies and strong all-around game, or Peavy's superb strikeout rates and long-term controllability, or Cain's unbeatable combination of youth and durability?
And then after you're finished answering that question, tackle this one: just how much talent are you willing to relinquish to bring one of the Fantastic Four into the Arlington fold?
Whoa there, not so fast. Time to play a quick early-morning game of devil's advocate.
Matt Cain? Giants general manager Brian Sabean deemed both Cain and Tim Lincecum "untouchable" in late September, and though that certainly doesn't preclude the Rangers from making attractive overtures for his services, it also doesn't mean that Sabean has the slightest bit of interest in listening to Daniels' proposals.
Zach Greinke? Aside from the "just two years of guaranteed club control" thing that essentially makes a multi-year contract extension a must for Texas if any deal is to be consummated, all indications are that Royals general manager Dayton Moore is demanding a king's ransom for the centerpiece of his starting rotation -- a centerpiece that could require the Rangers to cough up three of their top five or six prospects, if we are to believe T.R. Sullivan's veiled suggestion of the Royals' asking price.
Ricky Nolasco? According to a blog entry published last Wednesday by ESPN.com's Buster Olney, the Marlins, in spite of their remarkably stingy owner and a 2008 payroll that clocked in just beneath the $23 million threshold, have no intentions of dealing away their arbitration-eligible pieces at wholesale prices just to maintain a low payroll, for ownership has given Marlins general manager Michael Hill permission to retain said pieces if the front office "deems that to be the direction it wants to go."
What does that mean for Texas? It means coughing up fair value for a tremendously valuable young pitcher without the benefit of any shortcuts. And, to be certain, there has not been even the slightest modicum of speculation with regard to Nolasco's availability to this point, which is probably a clear indication that we shouldn't even be discussing him quite this early in the game.
And, of course, what of Jake Peavy? Aside from the fact that he'll be nearly 28 years old on Opening Day 2009, is trending in the wrong direction in the critical strikeouts-to-walks department, has dubious mechanics,
will probably require a lucrative monetary incentive to waive his
no-trade clause on top of the $56 million he's already owed from
2009-2012 (which, again, doesn't account for his 2013 club option worth
$22 million) and is probably Atlanta-bound regardless, Peavy would almost certainly require the biggest package of premium
prospects. You're paying for a pitcher with the reputation of a true
number one starter, and you're going to pay through the nose for that
reputation.
Baseball America's Jim Callis hypothesized on Wednesday that a three-piece package consisting of Neftali Feliz or Derek Holland, Elvis Andrus or Engel Beltre, and Taylor Teagarden could match or exceed the Braves' purported offer of center fielder Jordan Schaefer, pitcher Tommy Hanson and second baseman Kelly Johnson.
The Rangers' massive quantity of minor league depth lends itself to pulling off huge trades that immediately upgrade the big league squad. But if you get carried away and relinquish too much of that top-tier depth to acquire a pitcher that has some notable blemishes attached to his exorbitant asking price, how much do you really stand to gain over the long haul? Particularly when you're probably not positioned to legitimately compete for a playoff spot in 2009, regardless of whether or not you go out and pick up a Cain or a Greinke or a Nolasco or a Peavy?
All worthy questions to keep in mind as we rocket towards what is arguably one of the most crucial Rangers off-seasons in
franchise history -- a crucial, momentous off-season with huge
long-term implications for the franchise that now looks to justify 37
years of futility with just one magical run to the pennant.
It can happen, folks. But it's going to take patience.
Discussion
9 Comments on "The Fantastic Four: Assessing Four Top Rangers Pitching Trade Targets"
#1
Posted by Jon Page, October 23, 2008 10:12 AM
Wow... just as I get done chewing on Mike Hindman's wonderful interview with Jon Daniels, I swing over here and find this exquisite peice of work. It's been a good morning for reading - now hopefully my following comment will go through this morning.
About the only guy there that doesn't really impress me that much is Peavy - aside from the fact that he's the oldest and most expensive of the bunch, his dramatic home/road splits this year concern me. Perhaps I'm reading too much into one year of splits (though his career home/road splits show some of the same trend as well) but itseems to me that with Peavy drawing nearer to then downturn of his prime years, a switch from the NL to the AL, and more importantly from the spacious PETCO park to the jetstream of the RBiA could potentially wreak havoc on his heretofore sterling career.
That's why he's really the only one of the above-mentioned four pitchers whom I really wouldn't feel too comfortable giving up a sizeable package of prospects for - and therefore am rooting for the Braves where that deal is concerned.
#2
Posted by michael gleason, October 23, 2008 10:51 AM
Yesterday I wrote:
"Aha!
I've cracked the system! (Yesterday I posted to no avail). Here's "Take 2"."
Make this Take 3:
I agree that we shouldn't break the farm's bank for Peavy, but only get him if we can do so, for the most part, w/ players we can afford to trade anyway. Even better, however, might be to trade those same players for at least 3 potential "Jake Peavy"s, while their teams value them relatively low, in hopes that at least one of them pans out.
My first proposal might sound strange, in that it involves ACQUIRING a catcher! But not only would it allow us to trade all 3 of our non-Taylor-Teagardens to get the other future "Jake Peavy"s, it would actually give us a good (LHP-hitting) back-up for (non-LHP-hitting) Teagarden: Kevin Cash, whom the Red Sox will want to trade if they both re-sign Varitek and trade for Salty.
Doing all 4 deals would also lock us in to bringing up Borbon as our (defensive) 4th outfielder, but I think being w/Rudy could help him be MLB-ready, and we need his defense anyway.
Let me know if you see these 4 trades as a) realistic; and b) wise. I'm thinking this is our last year to test a lot of young pitchers who are on the bubble, so moving Padilla and Millwood would actually be a blessing in the long-run.
To Milwaukee: Millwood and cash for (injured) Capuano
To Boston: Salty, Byrd, and cash-plus-Cat (whom they actually need) for Buchholz (or Bowden) and KCash.
To Detroit: Laird, Arias, Padilla & Benoit (or Wilson) for Porcello and (injured) Bonderman
To Cincinnati:MaxRam, Boggs,and Mayberry for Bailey and Keppinger.
So we'd get 3 potential aces, 2 potential #3 SP's, a defensive 3rd baseman/UIF, and a (not better, but) more suitable back-up for TexasTea,... all without (necessarily) changing our starting line-up (if Murphy is our LF of choice until Borbon pushes Hamilton over there) and only changing our rotation and pen in a way that makes room for youth.
If any of the deals would require the addition of a low level pitching prospect, whom do you see as able to sweeten the deal without being felt as a loss on our end? Would you do these deals? If Boston required Tea instead of Salt, would you still?
Please fire away!
#3
Posted by Joey Matschulat in reply to comment from Jon Page, October 23, 2008 12:42 PM
Thanks for the kind words, Jon. I'm just thankful the ability to comment has, for the moment at least, been restored, and that some people have stuck with us through this absolute mess of a transition.
Jason and I have both talked a lot about this and agree that Peavy would not be the same pitcher in the AL, much less in the Ballpark (which was again a pretty homer-friendly venue in '08, according to ESPN.com's park factors). And then there's the widely acknowledged concerns over his delivery, and his irksome K/BB numbers on the road...factor in the enormous commitment you'd be making in terms of money/talent to bring him here, and you've got an extremely dangerous proposition on your hands.
The Rangers don't need to be engaging in trades quite this dangerous at this point in their development. Any trade they make is going to be a risk, but this strikes me as an unconscionably risky play, and one the Rangers would probably be wise to stay away from.
#4
Posted by Stephen Rushin, October 23, 2008 1:16 PM
Out of those four pitchers, I would want Nolasco. Florida has said they will keep their payroll around 30 million in 2009 (up about 7.5 million from 2008) but they have something like 15 arbitration eligible players.
They also are probably hoping to contend in 2009. They also don't have many big holes. They have a plethora of talented outfielders (Hermida, Willingham, Ross, and Maybin) and their infield is one of the best in baseball. They have probably 7 or 8 major league quality starters and two players (Gregg and Lindstrom) who can close.
Ultimately, it seems that if the Marlins have to pick which arbitrtion eligible players to trade, Nolasco makes some sense. He was initially projected as a #3 type starter when in the minor leagues. He probably has more value now than he ever will in the future. He also could be easily replaced in the rotation by Andrew Miller. He might not be as indispensable as other arbitration eligible player such as Dan Uggla, who has no obvious replacement in waiting.
Florida's biggest needs are improvements at C, 1B, and team defense. Jacobs is a very bad defensive first baseman and Baker is below average himself. Jacobs is also arbitration eligible and due for a good sized raise.
In order to get Nolasco, the Rangers would probably have to be prepared to give up Chris Davis and one of our catchers along with a few second-tier prospects. The Marlins might also want to throw in Kevin Gregg, who is becoming expensive. That would be a very tough move to make, if you ask me.
Ultimately, I think that would be a fair deal. Davis is an all-star level first baseman, but he also strikes out too much and could improve his patience a bit. He isn't worth as much as say Hamilton or Kinsler because of the position he plays. But, from Florida's perspective, Davis would be a substantial defensive upgrade over Jacobs, who could be pawned off for payroll relief.
Nolasco is an all-star level pitcher, although maybe more of a strong #2 than a shut-down ace. Nevertheless, he would be under the Rangers control for 4 years. He was better on the road than at home in 2008 and his peripherals are strong enough to suggest he would still be very good at our ballpark.
I think Nolasco, although not being talked about, might be the most realistic possibility. The Rangers probably don't want to give up any of their top pitching prospects (as Daniels indiciated in his interview with MJH) and the Marlins are one of the few teams with the pitching depth to trade a starter and not get a starter back in return.
#5
Posted by michael gleason, October 23, 2008 2:06 PM
Of the 4, Nolasco does look best for our purposes. Is he really the starting pitcher FLA is most likely to trade?
If MY is eventually headed to 3rd, and Hank can hold down 1st until JSmoak arrives, then CDavis is most likely our future DH/Back-up 3B/1B. So his value is probably almost as high now as it will be next year, and thereafter it will dip a little due to fewer years left under contract and diminishing fielding.
So if trading Davis plus FLA's choice of catcher, plus their choice of Benoit/Wilson would net us Nolasco and Gregg, we should do it. They would probably require we take on some of their salary dump, and would prefer we take Wes Helms (as our back-up 3B) instead of Jacobs, whom they could trade for more or even use in conjunction w/ Cantu, since Davis could switch between 1B and 3B when they made pitching changes in those spots.
#6
Posted by JDolla$, October 23, 2008 3:11 PM
Nifty new format! Let's see if this actually gets posted.
After reading the Q&A with JD today, I came away with the impression that unless a talented young pitcher can be had for the likes of superfluous catchers or offensive bits and pieces (insert names of usual trade suspects here), it ain't gonna happen. And that actually makes me very happy. If I have to watch Derek Holland or Michael Main or Kasey Kiker striking out batters and winning games for another team, I am going to be very very sad. So stick with the plan, JD!
#7
Posted by michael gleason, October 23, 2008 4:00 PM
I agree, JD$, and yet wonder who's superfluous.
It could be argued that in the long run a departing CDavis is more superfluous than an incoming ace, either Nolasco or a combo of possible aces, such as Porcello, Bailey & Buchholz.
What do you think of the above trades that involve none of our big "prospects" but some of our excellent "extras" for guys we could control for a long time (mainly hitters for pitchers, that could clearly benefit both teams, like the Hamilton/Volquez trade in reverse)?
[I know Wilson & Benoit aren't extras, but each would be a known commodity traded for a known commodity in return (e.g. Gregg), to help ease the financial discrepancy on the other team's side, and Benoit, like Byrd, is at higher value now than he will be when the rest of our team is expected to peak.]
#8
Posted by JDolla$, October 23, 2008 7:02 PM
Michael:
I'll chime in, though I'm certainly no expert, and hopefully Jason & Joey will help me out. I have to believe that they'd be loath to trade Davis, since he's was already so good last year, and he'll probably only get better. Corner guys who can hit 35 homers and drive in 100+ runs don't grow on trees. So you'd have to get someone really special if you're going to consider moving him. I keep going back to the problem that even getting Nolasco isn't going to propel us into the playoffs next year, so it doesn't really make sense to sell the farm to get him. To me that's just a case of 2 steps forward, one step back.
My extremely uneducated, outsider guess is that the following players will be available: Laird, Salty, Arias, Blalock, Boggs, Mendoza and Mayberry.
Other guys who MIGHT be available are: Max, Cruz, and Davis.
I didn't include Padilla, Millwood, Benoit, or Cat, since I would be really, really surprised if there were folks out there willing to take on those ridiculous salaries.
Boy, I'd love for them to steal Nolasco & Gregg away from Florida for some of our spare parts, though...
#9
Posted by Joey Matschulat, October 23, 2008 7:53 PM
Quick advisory: The domain has just switched over to its permanent home at the far easier to remember rangers.mvn.com, so comments/recommendations will be a bit wonky for the next few hours. All indications are that it'll be smooth sailing from here on out, though.
Going point by point, since the ability to reply to other comments is temporarily unavailable:
Michael: Teagarden struggled against LHP during his brief stint in the majors, but his minor league numbers suggest he can handle them just as well, if not better, than RHP...of course, if you're intending to make him the starter straight out of the gates in '09, he's going to need a somewhat capable backup regardless, and there are probably worse backups than Cash, so there's that.
Millwood-for-Capuano? Push, though I'm not sure how motivated Dough Melvin is to do that deal. The Buchholz deal seems to favor Boston a bit (though perhaps not, because I have my doubts that Salty is enough to get Buchholz solely on his own merits), the Detroit deal is implausible because Porcello's nigh-untouchable (though Bonderman can probably be had for a lesser bounty), and the Cincinnati deal...well, Keppinger really doesn't interest me at all (29 next year, bad offensively, passable with the glove -- except at SS where he's absolutely atrocious), because you can probably get something similar out of Duran next year without relinquishing one of Boggs/Mayberry, and I'm not sure Bailey's actually worth MaxRam at this point, given how far his stock has plummeted. Doesn't mean I wouldn't love to see the Rangers get a shot at turning his faltering career around, but I get the distinct feeling that there's a big disparity in opinions on his value.
A creative and aggressive set of ideas, in any event...I'm still conflicted on Saltalamacchia/Teagarden, but my sense right now is that Texas would be better off sticking with the latter over the long haul, for what that's worth.
Stephen: Salient points all around. I don't have much to add, except that Jason saw Smoak in Arizona a few weeks ago and believes he could reach the majors as early as next September. He's going to move fast, and if you adopt the mindset that Smoak is your franchise first baseman, Davis becomes somewhat expendable -- extremely valuable, but expendable nonetheless.
Perhaps the Rangers shouldn't count their chickens before they've hatched, but given what they appear to have waiting in the wings in Smoak, I'd have to think long and hard about any deal for Nolasco that didn't require Texas to ship away one of its top five or six prospects. That would be a rare opportunity.
And of those four pitchers, Nolasco offers the best balance of long-range affordability and controllability (though his later arbitration seasons will no doubt get very pricey if he continues to pitch like this going forward). The Rangers probably won't legitimately compete for the playoffs in '09, but '10 is a realistic possibility, and a young, dynamic starting rotation fronted by Nolasco -- now in his second year in Arlington -- and amplified by the likes of Matt Harrison, Derek Holland, Eric Hurley and whoever else winds up sticking would be quite a treat to watch.
Just some random thoughts.
Recent Posts
- NEWSFLASH: Texas Rangers To Name Mike Maddux As New Pitching Coach
- Rangers Rumor Roundup: Sunday Kickoff Edition
- Saturday Morning Rangers Notes: Halloween Hangover Edition
- NEWSFLASH: Elias Rankings Prove Unfriendly To Rangers
- NEWSFLASH: Rangers' Pursuit Of Maddux Reaches Crossroads
- On Mike Maddux, Rick Peterson And The Texas Rangers' Pitching Coach Search
More rangers Posts
Division Rivals
Regional Teams
Leave a comment