Seattle Sports Insider

Nationals can only play 25 men at a time, I guess

Posted by

12/22/11

..............

Gio Gonzalez and somebody for RHP A.J. Cole, RHP Brad Peacock, LHP Tom Milone and C Derek Norris.

Somebody being a 23-year-old who just posted a 5.04 ERA in the low minors.

=== RHP A.J. Cole and RHP Taijuan Walker ===

Seedlings to Stars has Taijuan at #23 in o.b., with A.J. Cole at #30. Prior to 2011, my fave mag, BaseballHQ's, had Cole as one of the few 9/10 pitchers in the minors, and then Cole went out and posted this line in 2011.

Both Cole and Taijuan are teenaged RHP's with big velocity and excellent results for age-and-level. HQ goes so far as to call Cole "tall and athletic." Both pitchers attack with big fastballs and power curves, with the changeups an afterthought.

You'd be hard-pressed to find a better comp-pair than Cole and Taijuan.

=== LHP Tom Milone and LHP Danny Hultzen ===

Tom Milone is a "spit-polished" LHP who pitches off a devastating ... straight changeup. His results are preposterous: in 2011, he fanned 155 men and walked only 16 -- in AAA. He gave up practically no homers.

Milone doesn't throw as hard as Hultzen, so M's fans will argue that Hultzen's the more desirable commodity. But Milone is a good #60 on Seedlings to Stars' top 100, compared to Hultzen's #46. From a national point-of-view, Tom Milone is the one who has rained atomic death on AAA baseball, not Hultzen.

I wouldn't trade you Danny Hultzen for Tom Milone -- I'd rather have the velocity -- but objectively speaking, they have fairly comparable value in baseball.

=== RHP Brad Peacock and ... Jose Campos? ===

Brad Peacock is an ML-ready pitcher with high % of success and relatively lower ceiling. You could comp him to Blake Beavan .... if Blake Beavan were the best prospect in the Nationals' system other than uber-prospects Harper, Rendon, and Cole.

Peacock is #38 in S2S' rankings, Paxton #43, and from a strict value standpoint (outside Seattle) you could even say that the Nationals gave up a Paxton as the third player.

The M's do not have a commodity that I would comp to Peacock -- a super-Beavan who has a great, great shot of being a good #4 starter in Joe Blanton style. Maybe G can come up with one.

In terms of value, I'd be about as pained in giving up Jose Campos as I would in giving up Brad Peacock.

=== C Derek Norris ===

Remarkable that this guy should be the fourth player in any deal.

Sickels has him as the #6, actually the #3 prospect in the Nationals' organization, after you filter out Harper, Rendon and Cole the way that the M's have filtered out Pineda and Ackley through early promotions.

Norris projects to excellent BB's and good PWR. BaseballHQ, prior to 2011, graded him 8B -- about what you'd have graded Jason Varitek -- and said "throws out 50% of runners, moves well behind the plate, receives the ball, has good arm strength."

At 8B, Norris has a whale of a chance to be the A's number one catcher in a few years. That's the fourth player in the deal.

=== Dr's Diagnosis ===

In Mariners' terms, you could say that to equal the Nationals' package, you'd have given up

Taijuan Walker, and
Danny Hultzen, and
Jose Campos or even James Paxton, and
Vinnie Catricala

For Gio Gonzalez, who is very talented but who right now is leading the AL in walks on a yearly basis. Tolja these GM's were going to pay for Gonzalez' next plateau leap. Washington paid for his leap to "Whitey Ford."

Offhand, I can't think of a deal in which any MLB team paid more for one player. It's one thing to give up 4 of your top 10 prospects; it's another thing to give them up when you have Washington's prospects.

This deal wasn't far off from saying "pick any four." If you'd assumed that Harper and Rendon had been promoted, like Pineda and Ackley were, it actually would have been a "pick any four." From a tremendous minors system.

Ed. - now that I look at it the second time through, and considering the types of players that Beane selected, I bet that the Nationals did say "Pick any four. Except Bryce Harper, of course, and Rendon isn't eligible to trade. And throw us back a scrub for cover."

Is there any player in baseball, you'd give any four M's minor leaguers to acquire? Like, three of the pheenom pitchers and Catricala or Franklin?

..........

Well, at least Washington has one thing straight: the roster allows 25 players at a time.

BABVA,

Dr D

Comments

I'd trade the whole passel of them for

Maybe five years of Jose Bautista
Trading your top prospects to the A's would present a different problem. Could you imagine the next A's rennaissance being led by your star players? Me neither. Also, all former Mariners make a special point of stomping on Seattle when they play against us. Its bad enough watching Adam Jones and the Choo express lighting it up elsewhere when we could really be using those guys. Could you imagine Oakland's Big 3 consisting of Paxton, Walker, and Hultzen, and then facing them for a three game series, and then losing?
Pitchforks would be in order.

Also,

Speaking of Adam Jones,
The Mariners' board of directors was fond of him as well. It fired Bavasi just a few months after Jones and Sherrill were sent off to star elsewhere. I'm sure Jack has this in mind when teams come a courting for his prospects.

Zduriencik has to factor in the owners' favorites?

Interesting you should mention, since Baker's report today quotes the judge,

While not being able to unilaterally hire and fire a field manager (Ã la Steinbrenner) or to prescribe players' facial hair or its absence (Ã la Finley), the local minority owners do retain an unusual level of control over certain key ownership decisions.''

An unusual level of control, vs. that deployed by owners of other MLB teams.
Care to interpret for us, what that is likely to mean, in the real world, Mojo? Other than, be careful whose favorite prospect you are trading?

Speculation

You have directors, who are Mariners fans. Chris Larson and Howard Lincoln control 80 percent of the votes, and go to most of the games. The rest of them are in cahoots as well.
There are things they are sure to like to see:
1. A GM should make them look good, by being productive with the resources that he has, rather than always burning Larson and Nintendo and the minor shareholders for more money and then losing anyway.
Bavasi's famous statement was "The biggest names, the names the fans will be thinking of, those are the names we will be going after in the off season" or something like that.
This kind of statement puts the pressure on the board to sell the coming season, rather than on the GM. And really, there was more pressure on the B.O.D. back then. Remember all of the blogging about Ho'ard hiding the payroll in his mattress? Well, the payroll hasn't changed at all, inflation notwithstanding, and everyone, except Geoff Baker, has stopped talking bad about the board.
Z sells the next season by telling fans that changes are coming from the minor leagues. This means that he is inviting fans to believe in his scouting, rather than the payroll to field a winning team.
It is necessary, when selling a team, or a player, to believe that that player has some sort of superior edge that will help in competition. Bavasi sold the payroll as a signature weapon, while Z sells his own skills, just like Pat Gillick did. It is never good policy to make your bosses look bad or manipulate them in public.
Now, regarding star prospects. Here, we had Adam Jones, who made a splash in September 2007, and got the fans legitimately excited. He was a cheap, club controlled player, that people paid to see. The speedy five tool outfielder, the next Carlos Beltran, and other accolades. He was the kind of guy that the board must have loved, because he took pressure off of them to pay top dollar for a center fielder with similar skills. With the benefit of hindsight, we can talk extra bad about this trade, because Adam Jones has actually lived up to a little bit of this hype, and the M's haven't had a good center fielder since he left.
2. A GM should have a coherent vision to sell to the board and the fanbase.
Bavasi's vision was to make the biggest splash he could every off season, and upgrade immediate needs with what was available at the time.
Need a catcher? Draft Jeff Clement No. 1. Who cares that he won't be ready for years, even if he does work out.
Need a pitcher? Pay whatever it takes to get the deal done.
Bavasi came across to me as shrill and reactionary. He did not have any long term modus operandi.
Now, look at Z. He does nothing but claim that his scouting will pay off in the end. He only makes modest signings, he hypes all of his prospects in every interview, and generally preaches sustained success through superior baseball acumen. This might not actually ever happen, but Z sells it, and he has a lot of capital with Ackley and Pineda being the future stars of the club.
This means that Z may have conditioned fans to watch a losing season, even before it starts, because he is selling something interesting, with promise for long term potential.
If Z were to deviate from his plan by trading all of his prospects for one big splash, then it would unsettle the fan base. "If Gio doesn't work out, then what Z" we would all ask. As it is, Z is set to string us along for years, fielding a team of 25 year olds, and showing that the tease is oftentimes better than the real thing.
The Red Sox are the real thing. They have a great ballclub. Are Red Sox fans happy? Yankees too. Those fans aren't happy, because their shot was better last year than it is next year. Us, we can't grouse. We haven't even seen Taijuan yet.

Brilliant! :guinness:

Had never occurred to me that Zduriencik might be pitching the old-school minors buildup for the sake of putting the heat on himself rather than on his bosses.
Your remarks are 100% legitimate. Have never run into an exec who appreciated having pressure directed his way by an employee, that's for sure. From a political standpoint, Zduriencik's public remarks have been masterly.
Ring of truth there Mojo.