Master Index of Archived Threads


Trade Package

Mex17 Oct 09 2007 02:53 PM

Instead of throwing out names that the Mets might want to trade for and then trying to figure out what it would take to get that player, let's start a thread the other way around. If the Mets were willing to put together a package of. . . Milledge or Gomez AND Pelfrey or Humber AND Mulvey or Guerra Whay type of player do you think that they could bring back?

Valadius Oct 09 2007 03:54 PM

We would be fools to trade three top-flight prospects straight-up for one player.

Benjamin Grimm Oct 09 2007 06:17 PM

Not necessarily. Depends on the player.

Edgy DC Oct 09 2007 06:54 PM

I'd rather dream about what they can do than what they can buy.

smg58 Oct 09 2007 07:07 PM

But you need to be realistic about both. And if you don't think the Mets can fill all their needs via free agency (which in itself is a fair subject to debate), then you have to trade somebody.

Edgy DC Oct 09 2007 08:21 PM

If I was realistic, I would've been an engineer.

Vic Sage Oct 10 2007 08:11 AM

We have holes at: -catcher -2b -starting pitching -middle relief - RF While i think we might possibly be able to deal with pitching (giving sustained looks at Pelfrey, Humber and/or Mulvey) and RF (with Milledge, Gomez and chavez) internally, we have no "frontline" starters or position players at "C" or "2b" (i'm not sold on Gotay) on the roster or in the pipeline ready to step in next year, so we either go with FAs and do a patch job at those positions (which actually worked out ok at 2b last year, overall), or we need to make a deal. Looking at the FAs this off-season, there are no names that give me much conidence at those positions (or any positions, really). Therefore, you need to seriously consider trading prospects. I still think a deal with Cleveland makes sense. They've given up on Barfield at 2B, but he's still young and talented enough to take a chance on. And Shoppach is still young enough to be an everyday catcher, but he's sitting behind an All-star. I'd give up some combination that included Gomez and/or Humber for those 2. However, if a top SP somehow came onto the market (Santana anyone?), that would be the first priority.

metirish Oct 10 2007 08:40 AM

I know it means nothing but today Klapisch wrote this in talking about the yankees going after Santana. ] But the Yankees have a Plan B ready, which might include a full-blown pursuit of Johan Santana -- even if it means trading Phil Hughes and Robinson Cano and prospects. Be tough to top that I would think, not that I think Cashman would give those players up for Santana.

soupcan Oct 10 2007 09:02 AM

Cashman has said several times that he's not dealing his young pitchers. If I were the Twins I'd ask for more than Hughes and Cano. They'd have to at least throw in Kennedy if not Chamberlain.

Vic Sage Oct 10 2007 09:18 AM

the problem with getting Santana is you're talking about a 1-year rental. Emptying your system of prospects for a 1-year rental is generally not a smart thing to do. Especially when dealing position players for a pitcher. But iF a deal was contingent on signing him long-term, i'd give the Twins any 3 players in the organization (other than wright, reyes and OPerez... Beltran would cost them too much, so they wouldn't take him anyway; ditto Wagner).

soupcan Oct 10 2007 09:35 AM

I'm assuming any deal involving Santana would be contingent on locking him up long-term. I agree with what Vic said about any three players.

Vic Sage Oct 10 2007 09:40 AM

soupcan wrote: I'm assuming any deal involving Santana would be contingent on locking him up long-term.. not necessarily. there have been alot of deals made over the years for guys in their walk years, with no long-term deal in place. That's how we got Benson, as you'll recall. And Cone used to move around under those conditions, too, as i recall.

soupcan Oct 10 2007 09:42 AM

Right, but I'm saying that the only way I'd deal players of that caliber for Santana is if I've got him locked up. Otherwise, no.

Vic Sage Oct 10 2007 09:48 AM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Oct 10 2007 09:50 AM

Well, without betraying my TiTTS heritage, i'd still consider a 1-year rental depending on what we'd have to give up. I'd trade Gomez and Humber for him even for 1 year, but that probably wouldn't get it done. I don't think i'd go for Milledge and Pelfrey, because i think they have higher ceilings, but i don't think Minny would go for that deal, either. so, realistically speaking, i'd agree with you.

Benjamin Grimm Oct 10 2007 09:50 AM

You would think that a team dealing a player in his walk year would get a better return package if they allow for the negotiating window. Yet most often they refuse to allow it. I'm not sure I understand why that is. The only thing I can think of is fan reaction. "Hey! If the Mets were able to sign Santana before free agency, why didn't the Twins just do it?" I don't think that's a good reason, by the way. It's just the best one I could think of.

Edgy DC Oct 10 2007 09:51 AM

Benson is one example of a guy the Mets got going into his walk year. I think Mike Piazza and Mike Hampton are more illustrative, though.

Vic Sage Oct 10 2007 09:56 AM

i think they generally don't offer the window because: 1) players on the brink of free agency aren't usually interested in signing long-term deals without testing the open market, so 2) if the player doesn't sign a deal with the new team, you've got to take him back after you've publically tried to trade him... which never really goes over well, with either the player or the fans.

smg58 Oct 10 2007 12:40 PM

There does seem to be a trend (Wells, Buehrle, Zambrano) of guys signing early and not testing the market, and I see no reason why a team with the resources can't offer fair market value a year in advance and expect the player to take the offer sitting there rather than risk an injury or an off season crashing his value. So if (huge if) Santana comes here this offseason, I don't think having a deal in place immediately is necessary to keep him.

Frayed Knot Oct 10 2007 12:44 PM

The "negotiating window" - although it winds up thrown into virtually every fan's off-season trade fantasies - rarely occurs. Except for a few veteren players with full no-trade protection who could call their own shots (Schilling to BoSox, Randy Johnson both to and from the Yanx) I can't remember when the last time it actually happened. One problem (in addition to the ones Vic mentions) is that it needs MLB approval, and then once you get that you have to offer it to ALL teams seeking a trade for that player. That puts a serious crimp in the team's ability to deal their player and in the amount of time it takes to do it.

Benjamin Grimm Oct 10 2007 12:57 PM

Yes, it does rarely happen. I wonder, though, if the Twins could say, "Hey, Johann, if we traded you to the Mets would you agree to negotiate with them?" Instead of the 72-hour window, would it be permissible for the acquiring team to get a good faith promise that the player would be willing to talk?

Frayed Knot Oct 10 2007 01:05 PM

Willing to talk, sure -- but the teams and/or the player could not make the trade itself contingent on the results of those talks without getting league permission and the specifics etc which would go along with it. Then all you're left with is a promise that the potential FA won't instruct his agent to refuse to return his new GM's phone calls. And, y'know, oral agreements are barely worth the paper they're written on.

Centerfield Oct 10 2007 01:06 PM

As Vic will tell you, good faith promises to talk are not worth a heck of a lot.

Vic Sage Oct 10 2007 01:14 PM

An agreement to agree is non-binding. An agreement to TALK about agreeing, even less so..

Benjamin Grimm Oct 10 2007 01:48 PM

Oh, I know it wouldn't be binding. But I think a team would be a little more willing to pull the trigger if the player says, "Sure I'd be interested in playing in New York" instead of, "No, I'm going to test the market." The thing is, I don't think they're even allowed to do that much without a blessing from the Commissioner.

Grote15 Oct 10 2007 02:40 PM

out of the six Met prospects listed none may make. don't you always trade potential for proven? Santana is nice but it seems the usual suspects dont turn out to be who you get.. How about Brad Penny? The Dodgers are pretty dumb..Beane loves Milledge..How about Blanton or Nick Swisher.

Vic Sage Oct 11 2007 09:44 AM

i would trade: - Gomez and Humber for Barfield & shoppach, - Burgos back to KC for Bannister, to fill out the rotation, and - Adkins and Johnson back to SD for Ring & Bell to fix the bullpen. Then we're good to go!

John Cougar Lunchbucket Oct 11 2007 09:51 AM

I do believe we have already cut Adkins loose. I'm not so surprised (nor am I the least bit hurt) that Bannister did pretty well for KC. I wouldn't expect he'll have a long strong career, but as a mid-to-lower rotation guy? OK, he can probably do that. But I don;t fault the Mets for flipping him for Burgos, who is younger and more electrtic and might have made the same kind of leap that Duaner Sanchez had. We gambled and lost. The one that gets me was Jason Vargas. Lefty, had some success, seemed to be a good bet to improve and... nothing. What happened there?

Vic Sage Oct 11 2007 10:26 AM

actually, i agree about the burgos/bannister deal. I'm just busting chops. I would like to see the Metsies go after ex-Met A.J. Burnett from Toronto. Oft-injured but good when he pitches, he could "platoon" with El Duque. Each making 15-20 starts, together they'd make one hell of a good pitcher.

smg58 Oct 11 2007 11:14 AM

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: But I don;t fault the Mets for flipping him for Burgos, who is younger and more electrtic and might have made the same kind of leap that Duaner Sanchez had. We gambled and lost. I think the corollary to rushing the front-line guys along in the system is that guys with less "stuff" but good minor-league results (like Bannister and Bell) get lost in the shuffle. It seemed pretty clear (and I remember saying something to that effect) that Bannister had been placed behind Pelfrey and Humber on the depth chart and was therefore expendable. At the time, that made perfect sense to me. In hindsight, it was a difference-making mistake.

User 362 Oct 11 2007 12:28 PM Re: Trade Package

="Mex17"]Instead of throwing out names that the Mets might want to trade for and then trying to figure out what it would take to get that player, let's start a thread the other way around. If the Mets were willing to put together a package of. . . Milledge or Gomez AND Pelfrey or Humber AND Mulvey or Guerra Whay type of player do you think that they could bring back? Not as much as you might think. I don't think other teams value them as highly as the Mets do.

Edgy DC Oct 11 2007 12:36 PM

Who do you think that package is worth?

Vic Sage Oct 11 2007 01:33 PM

Gomez, Humber + Guerra = Barfield, Shoppach + Betancourt

TransMonk Oct 11 2007 01:35 PM

Vic Sage wrote: Gomez, Humber + Guerra = Barfield, Shoppach + Betancourt I would support that deal.

sharpie Oct 11 2007 01:38 PM

Eric Wedge is a big Shoppach supporter. Given that they need a catcher to spot Martinez more than a regular catcher (Victor goes to first when he's not catching), I think they would be loathe to deal him.

Vic Sage Oct 11 2007 01:47 PM

yeah, but backup catchers are not hard to find. I'm proposing a package based on my judgement that he could be a starting catcher. Since he's worth more to us than to Cleveland, they'd be foolish to reject an offer of 3 of our top prospects just because they'd have to find another backup catcher.