I see what you are saying w/r/t folks desperately needing to see Jack Z in a positive light having gushed so much about him. That stems in part to the claim that he and his buddies in the F.O. are somewhat uniquely Saber-friendly and would only build the roster using the principles laid out on the internet. Its become a pretty smug and self-satisfied group and there's no doubt that Seattle has the most active on-line fan base.
I can deal with the trade, but I don't love it. I feel like the Lee move put us in a position where we weren't painted in a corner with Morrow. He could either prove his worth early in the year or work out of the bullpen. I don't see League (who I've seen pitch, nasty stuff) as a starter, more of the 8th inning guy and that can be valuable too. Aardsma is no sure bet to repeat so some redundancy is nice in the pen.
I love your thoughts on Bay, he may end up too expensive but I agree, a clean-up hitter is just the thing at this point to make us odds-on-favorites.
A couple of the best analysts on MC/SSI like the idea that Morrow was traded for Lee. ;- ) The fact that such crack analysts like it, that lends credence to the thought...
..............
FWIW, I have never seen business work that way.* There is a boatload of paperwork involved with million-dollar deals, and you don't let contingencies get away from you at the closing table.
You don't sign 45 pages of a million-dollar deal, and wink, and say, okay, we'll probably do that one that YOU like, next week. You get everything signed at the same time.
If you did try that? Sure, I'll give you $100,000 off my 8-plex this week, and then you give me $125,000 off the 4-acre lot next week?
I'll tell you what happens next. And you had better believe jemanji is talking from sad experience here. Your business partner calls with a V-E-R-Y plausible excuse as to something that has gummed up the second deal. Oh no! The zoning official wants to survey the grade on the driveway! They're holding up the deal ... I wanted this sooooo bad...
..............
So, why do two teams make several trades in succession?
You guys are good at roto: you know that negotiations can encompass a number of players, and you go, "OK, let's get this one wrapped up, and then we'll talk about the 1B-for-SS thing.
The fact that they made two deals involving the Jays, proves this: it proves that they talked about a number of players. They might make another couple of deals this winter, based on the talks they've had.
..............
Cognitive dissonance: "an uncomfortable feeling caused by holding two contradictory ideas.
"The theory of cognitive dissonance pr0poses that people have a motivational drive to reduce dissonance by changing their attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors, or by justifying or rationalizing their attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors.
Idea 1: We now have a GM who has a high IQ, and people with high IQ's know the difference between correct and incorrect trades.
Idea 2: Morrow for League is an incorrect trade.
Rationalization: The second deal was a condition of the first one. QED: I can now retain both of my previous beliefs.
SSI: never believed either idea 1 or idea 2. No pain occurred for SSI. ;- )
..............
Zduriencik told us what the deal was. He said, "We met a need that the Jays have, and they met a need that we have."
Zduriencik wanted to trade Morrow for League. That's all.
Cheers,
Jeff
.
*with people who know what they're doing. Jemanji has tried it a couple of times.
Comments
I agree here.
Toronto GOT what they wanted from Philly during the deadline in '09 (Drabek). The Morrow rumors to Milwaukee couldn't have materialized. The timing makes no sense either.
No way in the world I give up Brandon Morrow except in a deal for an impact ML starting pitcher or MOTO bat.
Glad to see that voice-of-reason insider CA is on the same page... wouldn't have done it, but understands the thought process...
If League turns into Bryan Harvey, and Morrow continues to disappoint, the trade will look like genius in the World Series year...
I will admit that my take on the Lee trade was one where it seemed like Toronto's take "smelled" financially desperate. (seems like an awful little return for trading a likely Hall of Famer in his prime). That initial trade to me really did feel like Phillies take was about right -- but Seattle won large, and all Toronto netted was salary relief.
More likely, I'm just channeling ego-driven echoes from the greatest "called shot" of my baseball trade history - (calling Beltran to Houston after they swapped Hidalgo for Weathers, when none of the Houston press was even murmuring about Beltran as a possibility).
Of course, in that scenario, the Houston/Mets trade didn't involve anyone from the trade which came through exactly one week later. But, when Houston dumps a salary-stupid OF, for a completely unneeded reliever and the next week adds an All Star OF, while sending away one of its two closers ... well, kinda hard to NOT believe the two deals were not only linked, but that the details for that second trade (as far as Houston was concerned) had been pretty clearly laid out.
You're correct that in the real world, there would be a temptation to double-cross or attempt to excuse your way out of the vaporish "other" trade mentioned, but not solid. But, that would be a move that you get to employ precisely once. And historically, if a GM is viewed as acting in bad faith -- the damaged party WILL make his displeasure known publically. (Atlanta recently had a flare up with the Dodgers.) Different scenario, of course, but when your entire pool of negotiating partners is 29 deep, a reputation for acting in "bad faith" could become a major hinderance.
Ultimately, it doesn't matter whether he was part of the original deal - or a completely separate item that just arose during talks. In the end, both trades were made, and all the exchanged parties go into the pool of receipts and outlays for Captain Jack.
that there is a subtext, every single move, "hey they're doing it our way! They're geniuses!" :- )
I dunno what you think CA, but I don't see this admin as particularly doing it the cyber-Seattle way at all.
This trade is a case-in-point. The admin just as frequently uses tools scouting and intuition to choose its players. It departs from $/WAR paradigms as circumstances warrant. It acquires players with chemistry in view. etc.
...................
And there are a number of attempts to pound square pegs into round holes: the Bedard trade was anti-sabermetric based on Adam Jones' projected ML totals, but the Lee trade was sabermetric based on Aumont's and Ramirez' super-low minor league values...
I can understand the desire to identify with the winning. When it becomes a day-in, day-out syndrome, it can get a bit wearisome.
If that's what happened with Beltran, then that's a great counter-example, and weighs heavily.
..................
Agree also that the best way to judge a GM, also, is by the pool of credits and debits. No doubt.
..................
Where are you, Sandy, on the idea of dealing a #11 overall, a blue-chip SP, and Gillies (and Morrow?!) for Cliff Lee in his walk year?
You're correct that in the real world, there would be a temptation to double-cross or attempt to excuse your way out of the vaporish "other" trade mentioned, but not solid. But, that would be a move that you get to employ precisely once.
Right, but it's not even that you expect them to double-cross you. It's just a matter of getting everything signed at once.
Why do you put money in escrow on a real estate deal? A third party transfers the title deed and the funds at the same time. It's just the right way to do business.
It's not feasible to give him the $$$ on Tuesday and ask him not to forget to transfer the title on Friday. Why open yourself up to a catastrophe --even if it will probably never occur?
If Morrow be the key to the Lee deal, why not just sign those papers and hold back the name of the prospect for a week? There is wayyyyyyy too much at stake, to leave one party's name unsigned at the closing table.
Honestly, my view on walk-year issues is likely skewed from the general perception. Majority of contracts are 3-yearish (after the 3-year slavery and 3-year arb periods). Baseball loves threes, what can I say? So, most players are in their walk year 1/3 of the time.
Players are traded in their walk year to get "something". But, the type "A" rules mean that even if Lee does walk, the club gets back some portion of the specs it lost -- (they're time-shifted backwards). For me, the Bedard issue was never 2 years, and then he walks - it was always the health question - (which in hindsight was the right question).
Phillies traded a Bedard-esque cache of specs to get Lee for 2-years, got their title in one year, and flip him to get most of their specs back. It's only slightly short of having picked him up dirt cheap in FA. For 2009, Seattle gets 4 months of Lee that nobody else will ever get. If on July 29th they are out of the running, it is quite likely that they'll be able to trade him for deadline prospects just like happens every season.
They traded for a CY winner with a (what is it - 9 million salary)? If Lee was ALREADY getting 23-25 million, the landscape changes. But, he isn't.
But, ALL of that aside ... the Zig here is getting the guy into pitcher-heaven for a season and getting a year to seduce him to the Emerald Side. "King and Kong! You, gentlemen, have the opportunity to be the first best teammate aces of the 21st century. Unit and Schilling only had a couple of years. I'm talking about Maddux, Glavine and Smoltz type fame. The kind where people argue over which pair of aces were the best ever over a decade. From 2010 to 2020, boys. You could be the next Koufax and Drysdale. Spahn and Sain. Ruth and Gehrig. Okay, those guys were hitters, mostly. But, we aren't just trying to win this year. We're building a dynasty here, fellas, and with the two of you anchoring the rotation for the forseeable future, I can GUARANTEE you'll have the best defense you could hope for allowing you to post ERAs those guys back in the 60s would envy. Whadya say, Mr. Lee? Do you want to just go make a few extra million elsewhere -- or do you want to make HISTORY?