Understanding the Michael Pineda Trade

by ~ January 14th, 2012 at 8:50 am

PHOENIX, AZ - JULY 10: World Future's All-Star James Paxton #47 of the Seattle Mariners throws a pitch against the U. S. team during the 2011 XM All-Star Futures Game at Chase Field on July 10, 2011 in Phoenix, Arizona. (Photo by Christian Petersen/Getty Images)The Seattle Mariners have been a horrendous offensive team for several seasons.  Despite consistently above-average (and occasionally excellent) pitching, the M’s have been weighed down by a slap-hitting, defense-first lineup.  In 2010, the Mariners scored only 513 runs, which was the lowest total since the American League instated the designated hitter over 37 years ago.  In 2011, the Mariners scored 556 runs, again the worst of all 30 major league teams.

Some teams can overcome an unsavory offense with stellar pitching and defense and contend for a playoff spot.  Unfortunately, the Mariners have not performed at an elite enough level on the mound and in the field to make up for their woes in the batter’s box.  The front office came to the conclusion that the team needed a hitter, so the M’s traded hard-throwing RHP Michael Pineda to the Yankees for slugging C/DH/1B Jesus Montero.

Yeah, the Mariners have a critical deficiency in hitting talent at the major league level. The M’s also, however, currently have a wealth (if not a surplus) of pitching talent in the minors. To acquire hitting talent, it makes sense for the M’s to trade something they already have a lot of – pitching talent. The organization’s abundance of young, quality starting pitchers increases the probability that one of them will pan out and the Mariners will end up with a solid #2 pitcher to slot behind Felix in the rotation for years to come.  

The M’s traded from a position of strength and augmented a position of weakness.  Even without Pineda, the Mariners retain excellent pitching depth in the minors.  Neither Hultzen, Paxton, nor Walker has a significant history of injury, while Pineda pitched only 47 innings in 2009 due to injury and faltered down the stretch last season due in large part to his never having pitched more than 140 innings in a season before.  Hultzen may be major-league ready as soon as May, and Paxton as soon as September.

The Mariners get an impact bat and they lose an impact arm.  They gain home runs from Montero and they lose strikeouts from Pineda.  On its own, the deal seems like a wash, but it makes a whole lot of sense for the M’s in context, who add a .270/.330/.460 bat to their lineup and will likely pursue a quality starting pitcher in the free agent market.  Four years and forty million for Edwin Jackson doesn’t look so crazy anymore.

«
»

  • Anonymous

    Well put.  Pineda was fun to watch, but one makes this trade without pause for the reasons you state.  I believe Montero will eventually produce better than .270/.330/.460 though.

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

    If we really have Fielder money to spend, then let’s give up the chase and use it to sign Jackson as you mentioned and talk Oswalt into that one year deal he is looking for. He has to know that pitching part of a year in Safeco will increase his value. We deal him at the deadline if healthy and pick up another young bat from a contender.

    I don’t know if the rumors a few weeks back were true, but I would look into the League for Trumbo trade if Trumbo has 3B potential like the Angels mentioned he does. We could still sign the two pitchers I mentioned and a closer type with the Fielder money we might have.

  • Anonymous

    I don’t think the team had Fielder money, hence the trade route.  With our near major league ready pitching depth I’m not in favor of giving any of the unsigned pitchers, especially Jackson multiple years or seven figures. Oswalt for one year seems a decent deal and I’m not adverse to them signing Moyer to a non-guaranteed contract.  I think JZ still has some moves in mind.

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

    A 4 year, $40M deal for Jackson isn’t bad at all in today’s market for SP’s. He has averaged over 200 innings a year for the last 3 years and just recently turned 28. Not too many of those type pitchers available, and 2008 was the last time he had over a 4.00 ERA in the A.L. Not an ace, but a solid #3.

  • Duane O

    This is the year to play all of these young guys, assess what we have and augment our needs next year with trades and FA signings.  Now we have a 3, 4, and 5 hitter to build around with Ack, Montero and Smoak.

    • Anonymous

      Don’t forget Carp too, he’ll come in handy if Ack goes in the 1 or 2 hole.

  • Anonymous

    I don’t think we should talk about fielder as a part of our past for this offseason quite yet. We still might have a chance to go get him if we get rid of some cap like say ichiro or figgins. Montero could serve as bait to real the big guy in. Montero C/1B/DH, Smoak 1B/DH/3B, Fielder 1st/DH.
    Would be great platoon combo at first. Smoak needs to learn third of course. 90% chance it will not happen but you never know

  • Paul Bartucca

    Isn’t Smoak left handed?

    • Anonymous

      Yes.

      • Paul Bartucca

        Then correct me if I am wrong, but wouldn’t Smoak only be playing 3rd base (as the above comment suggested) if this were a Little League game?

  • Alexander Neilson

    Trading to fill a need only makes sense when a team is already good — when a team is as bad as the Mariners I don’t think that approach makes much sense.  Bad teams just need to up their overall talent level, not make talent neutral trades just to fill the spot they’re worst at.

    I think this actually applies most to starting pitching in MLB, where the ‘you can never have enough starting pitching’ cliche is totally accurate.  “Surplus of pitching talent???” — I’ve watched enough baseball to know that there’s no such thing.

    I’m not saying I don’t like the trade, I’m just questioning the logic presented for it in this article.  To me, the trade only makes sense if you think that overall, Montero is a better prospect than is Pineda.  Bottom line.  If you don’t think that, hold on to the stud you’ve got and leave the roster tinkering to the teams building for a WS run this year.

    • Anonymous

      I think every team has the need for an elite hitter, not just the good teams. Montero has the right handed power requisite for safeco, smashes to opposite field, and is young and cheap for a long time. This was our opportunity to grab a guy like this– not every day (year) does this player become available. We have nothing that resembles this guy in the system.

      Now a good, young SP with upside, we have a few of those.

      Good trade. As much as I would have liked to see Banuelos coming our way as well, I’m satisfied.

      • Alexander Neilson

        Yeah, just to reiterate, I’m not saying it’s a bad trade, I just don’t like the logic of “trading a strength for a weakness” when a team is this far from competing.

        If you’re going to tell me “I believe Montero is the best player in this deal,” then fine, it’s a good trade, but if you’re going to tell me “we’ve got enough starting pitching, we need a bat” then I disagree with the rationale (particularly as it applies to starting pitching, which you can never, ever have enough of, and especially because most of the starting pitching we supposedly have a ‘surplus’ of has minimal MLB experience.  Having lived through the Mets’  “Generation K” I can tell you that that’s a pretty dubious proposition).

        It’s like the NBA draft — early (bad) teams draft the best player available, regardless of roster needs, in an effort to build a base of talent.  Good teams later draft to fill holes, presumably to make a run that year.

  • Anonymous

    Jose Montero? Really??

    • Anonymous

      Really.  Thanks for pointing it out. 

    • http://twitter.com/TaylorRobot Taylor

      You didn’t hear?  We flipped Jesus Montero for Jose Montero!

      • Alexander Neilson

        And oddly (and only in Seattle) no matter how well he plays he won’t be more than the the second most famous Montero on the city’s sports scene.

        • http://twitter.com/TaylorRobot Taylor

          Sounders ’til I die!

  • Jake Fishman

    I’m thinking this is a good way to look at if we “won” this trade: take whatever position Montero ends up playing and see how many more WAR he racks up than the guy he replaced (olivo if its catcher, mike carp i guess if its DH), and then compare that with how many more WAR Pineda racks up than our fifth-best starter (the guy who, if Pineda were to suddenly re-enter our rotation, would lose his spot).

    Maybe in 2012 when we’re fresh off of losing Pineda, Fister, and Bedard and Vargas goes from our #5 to our #2 or 3 it won’t look great, but in a year or two when Paxton, Walker, and Hultzen all come up to the bigs and we again have a #5 that could serve as a #3 in most rotations we’ll look pretty well off, especially if Montero ends up playing catcher and/or hitting like the second coming. 

    What do you guys think about comparing trades that way?