It’s A Good Deal (IMHO)

by ~ January 13th, 2012 at 11:02 pm

I’m pretty excited about this deal.

First, in principle, the Mariners were wise to flip a young pitcher for a young hitter of equal or greater caliber. Long story short: we have enough pitching that the drop off between a Mariner starter and their replacement is considerably less than that between a Mariner hitter and their replacement.

Second, in practice, I think there’s plenty of reason to believe that Montero is a young hitter of equal or greater caliber to Pineda.

Look, Pineda was great. He was one of our few bright spots over the last few years. But I’m not sure that Pineda will be better than a #2 starter. First, Pineda doesn’t have a third pitch, let alone fourth, and that really hurts, especially when it comes to left handed hitters. Second, he’s quite dependent on plus plus fastball velocity, and there’s no guarantee that he holds it over the medium run, even if he doesn’t get injured. If you don’t believe me, check out Felix’s declining fastball velocity over the last few years. Now, Pineda could become a #1 starter given his age, uncanny fastball control, and room for improvement, but I would have liked to see more improvement in his change up.

I look at it like this: if you believe that Pineda is already an occasional All Star, with the potential to contend for a Cy Young (if everything goes right), then I think we would want a hitter who we can *expect* to become an occasional All Star, with the potential to contend for an MVP.

I believe Montero is such a player. Even his (relative) detractors, like David Cameron, compare him to Carlos Lee, a career .286/.339/.491 hitter. Now, if Montero does that at DH, that might make him an All Star once in a career year. But Montero’s advocates have a much more ambitious vision of his potential. Both tonight and in the past, I have read comparisons to Miguel Cabrera and Carlos Delgado. Now, even if Montero doesn’t put up a career .929 or .950 OPS, that’s the type of hitter who will flirt with an MVP in a career year. If Montero matches those formidable hitters, then we really are talking about an MVP caliber player. I don’t pretend to know whether Montero is a true talent .840 OPS or .940 OPS hitter. From a stats perspective, his last two minor league seasons have been a little short of what one might expect from the latter. That said, minor league stats aren’t perfect, and there’s a reason (besides false hopes of catching) why he’s been ranked at times as the best pure hitting prospect in the minor leagues.  

The best reason to be upset with this deal, as far as I can tell, is that we didn’t screw over the Yankees like the Padres screwed the Reds. At the time, the baseball punditry universally condemned the deal as an overpay, but somehow an “overpay” has suddenly become “market value.” That’s not what “market value” means.  Market value rises and falls with supply and demand, not in the context of opportunities lost in December. Unless someone can demonstrate that the Mariners had a better offer on the table, or could have had such an offer, the “market value” argument doesn’t hold. Just because the Reds went a little off the deep end doesn’t mean that the Mariners should refuse to accept any offer which doesn’t commensurately overpay.

For the record, I’m disappointed by the decision to include Campos-Noesi. That said, I’m pretty impressed by what I’ve read of Noesi’s combination of control and fastball velocity, and I don’t think it’s as bad as some make it out to be, given that Noesi can compete for a job this spring and the risks involved with 19 year old pitchers. At the very least, it’s not bad enough to outweigh the relative benefit of re-balancing the organization somewhat more in the direction of hitting.

The bottom line is that the range of possibilities for both Montero and Pineda are relatively comparable. Given the Mariners organization needs, trading a pitcher for a comparable hitter is a win. If you’re not quite convinced, you can revisit my case here, where I elaborated on the logic underpinning this type of deal, including the possibility of trading Pineda for Montero in the comments.

 


  • http://twitter.com/95MiracleMs Lance Miller

    My biggest problem with the trade is simply that we are so far behind the rest of the division in talent that you cannot catch up by taking one step forward while taking one step back. We need to add at some point w/o subtracting.

    • Anonymous

      While I do not believe that you are wrong, I do not believe you are right, either. I believe you just added nothing to this thread while subtracting nothing, Mariners style…
      Balance is a lot more important than having one bright spot with several dim spots, ie: Pitching vs everything else…
      I thought Pineda was awesome. I loved watching him pitch. I was sad to see him go. But, I firmly believe that trading an area of great strength to get strength where there is NONE makes complete and utter sense. That would be like having your front door reinforced/locked so strongly, but having your back door wide open to the world.

  • http://twitter.com/hxchairstylist Jake Gravbrot

    I don’t believe this trade is a “subtraction” for us as Lance mentions.  For one, I don’t believe that Pineda is a lock to have a great season in ’12.  For another, I see the bevy of young talent only a year below where Pineda is/was at, and I don’t cringe at the thought of losing him.  

    • http://twitter.com/95MiracleMs Lance Miller

      Yes, I can see where you are coming from because 22 year old All-Stars can be found everywhere. It is ‘subtraction’ in every sense of the word. The question is: Can it be replaced from someone outside the organization? You can’t replace it from within the organization because you already have that talent.

      This is like trading one $1000 stock for another $1000 stock. Your portfolio still shows $1000 worth of stocks. You are just gambling on the futures of each stock which is okay, but you can’t say there wasn’t any subtraction.

      • Anonymous

        So just to go on with your stock metaphor. We are trading $1000 worth of stock that can fluctuate, go up or down, for $1000 dollars of another stock that can fluctuate as well. As far as trades go, that’s all you can hope for. If you know a place to trade $1000 of stock for $5000 of stock, uhh, lemme know

      • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_2OIZ52FCWMKL34WWXHGZS3XDBU jeff p

        Your analogy is terrible.  Your stock portfolio doesn’t have a minor league system.  We were going into a season in which we would have 3 major league starting pitchers rotting in AAA while filling out the major league lineup with minor league hitters.

        What’s the point in having 8 starting pitchers in your system when you can only play with 5 and you don’t have 9 legit hitters to put in the lineup.

        If you still want to force the stocks analogy, our pitching portfolio lost a little while our hitting portfolio gained a ton.

        • http://twitter.com/95MiracleMs Lance Miller

          I didn’t realize we had 3 major league pitchers rotting in AAA. I know we had a guy who has never even pitched a minor league game, but pitched in AFL. I know we had two other pitchers who have never pitched above AA.

          I think Mariners fans more than any other fans should understand the difference between minor league success and major league success.

          As far as the analogy goes, it stands in my opinion. A person investing the same $1000 over and over but just moving it around has less chance of success as as an investor investing more money on different stocks. Therefor, the Rangers and Angels adding talented players without dealing away from a point of strength are more likely to succeed longer than a team trading for talent with talent. It does balance the team better no doubt, but has is it a better way to succeed? If this plan is the way to go, then trading Felix for even more talent seems like the way to go. It would also add more payroll flexibility.

          I am not against the trade because I like Montero and I think young SP’s are a greater flop risk, but my big point is that adding talent without giving up talent gets you further than doing a talent swap especially for a team already miles behind in MLB talent from their divisional rivals. 

        • http://twitter.com/95MiracleMs Lance Miller

          I didn’t realize we had 3 major league pitchers rotting in AAA. I know we had a guy who has never even pitched a minor league game, but pitched in AFL. I know we had two other pitchers who have never pitched above AA.

          I think Mariners fans more than any other fans should understand the difference between minor league success and major league success.

          As far as the analogy goes, it stands in my opinion. A person investing the same $1000 over and over but just moving it around has less chance of success as as an investor investing more money on different stocks. Therefor, the Rangers and Angels adding talented players without dealing away from a point of strength are more likely to succeed longer than a team trading for talent with talent. It does balance the team better no doubt, but has is it a better way to succeed? If this plan is the way to go, then trading Felix for even more talent seems like the way to go. It would also add more payroll flexibility.

          I am not against the trade because I like Montero and I think young SP’s are a greater flop risk, but my big point is that adding talent without giving up talent gets you further than doing a talent swap especially for a team already miles behind in MLB talent from their divisional rivals. 

        • http://twitter.com/95MiracleMs Lance Miller

          I didn’t realize we had 3 major league pitchers rotting in AAA. I know we had a guy who has never even pitched a minor league game, but pitched in AFL. I know we had two other pitchers who have never pitched above AA.

          I think Mariners fans more than any other fans should understand the difference between minor league success and major league success.

          As far as the analogy goes, it stands in my opinion. A person investing the same $1000 over and over but just moving it around has less chance of success as as an investor investing more money on different stocks. Therefor, the Rangers and Angels adding talented players without dealing away from a point of strength are more likely to succeed longer than a team trading for talent with talent. It does balance the team better no doubt, but has is it a better way to succeed? If this plan is the way to go, then trading Felix for even more talent seems like the way to go. It would also add more payroll flexibility.

          I am not against the trade because I like Montero and I think young SP’s are a greater flop risk, but my big point is that adding talent without giving up talent gets you further than doing a talent swap especially for a team already miles behind in MLB talent from their divisional rivals. 

          • Anonymous

            I also believe that having a Montero (as projected) in the lineup will make it easier to sign other hitters here. What protection would a hitter have in our previous lineup? We can slot power in front of, and behind Montero.

  • http://twitter.com/bgawtheidahofan Brendan Gawlowski

    You can’t add without subtracting. Adding someone like, say, Prince Fielder, would mean you were adding Fielder and subtracting $150+ million from the budget over the life of the contract, as well as a roster spot that’s relatively easy to fill on the cheap (either DH or 1B.) 

  • Scot Forler

    Historically, big money free agents are not typically worth the contracts they sign. I am not saying that none work out or aren’t worth what they are paid but giving Fielder a $150 million dollar contract would handcuff the M’s for years on spending.
    I like this move. A lot! I have never been sold on Pineda as being an ace. Right now he is a solid number 3 starter. He could be a number 2 but I don’t think he will ever reach “Ace” status.

    • Anonymous

      I agree Scot, if this deal keeps Fielder off Safeco Field that’s good news indeed.

  • Duane O

    All I know is the M’s will not be the most boring team to watch in baseball history for a 3rd year in a row and that makes this trade a win IMHO.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_K75PODA4HTAD2SK25N727KBMTA Ganesh

    Mariners fans – relax you guys got the better deal.  Pitchers are always risky.  Just think Volquez for Josh Hamilton 3 years ago.  Hitters are less injury prone and minor league numbers translate better to majors.

  • http://twitter.com/I_Got_No_Skills Robert Alan Brant

    Comparing what the Rangers and Angels have spent to what we should spend is silly. There Mariners market size isn’t even close to the Rangers or Angels market which means they have a lot more cash that they can afford to spend. We could probably spend the same amount the difference is that because we have a smaller market the risk of those huge contracts can hurt us much more. Teams in small and medium sized markets have to be much smarter with payroll then do teams in large markets.