Well, THAT Happened
December 4, 2007 at 10:08 pm | Posted in Dontrelle Willis, Miguel Cabrera | 12 Comments
So as you’ve probably heard by now, the Fish traded Miguel Cabrera, Dontrelle Willis, and Fredi Gonzalez’ will to live to Detroit for top prospects Andrew Miller, Cameron Maybin, and four other players. I’m not here to dissect who won this deal *coughDetroitcough*, but rather because I’m kind of concerned about the implications this has for the Dodgers.
Let’s just say that Miller and Maybin are equal in trade value to Clayton Kershaw and Matt Kemp. It’s not a perfect comparision – I think the Dodgers pair is slightly more valued – but for the sake of this discussion, it’s close enough. The other four players are an MLB-ready backup catcher, and 3 minor league pitchers, who Keith Law describes as a “bullpen flamethrower”, “possible NL 5th starter”, and an “organizational arm”.
Here’s my issue with this. As detailed here, and here, on this site, amongst many other places, the Fish were asking an astronomical amount for Cabrera alone. For just him, the Marlins were rumored to be asking for “four players from a group that includes pitcher Chad Billingsley, pitching prospect Clayton Kershaw, third baseman Andy LaRoche, first baseman James Loney and outfielder Matt Kemp.”
Yet somehow, the Tigers got both Cabrera and Willis for a package that’s equal to two of the players from that group, plus four much less valuable players. Now, I heard that what the Marlins were asking for from the Dodgers was astronomical from many different sources, so I’m inclined to believe it. So why did they ask the Dodgers for seemingly more for just Cabrera than they ended up taking from Detroit for Cabrera and Willis?
This is actually something I’ve been concerned about for years: that the Dodgers’ superior farm system actually works against them in trades. Too many teams are more worried about how the trade “looks” than in the actual quality of the players they get back. That is, if they get two of the three best players from a team with a weaker farm system, those two players may only be equivalent to the 6th and 7th best Dodger prospects. So then this conversation happens:
GM: “Team X is going to give us their #2 and #3 prospects. Give us your top two if you want to beat them.”
Ned: “But that’s not equal. Our #2 and #3 are wayyyy better than those guys. That’s equal to our B+ guys.”
GM: “But it’s their 2nd and 3rd best. Why would I take your 6th and 7th best? What do you think I am, stupid?”
Ned: “Well, now that you mention it….”
*click*
And that’s how Detroit ends up with both Miggy and Dontrelle for a package far less than what we would have had to pay. And that’s why we don’t make any blockbuster deals.
- Mike Scioscia’s tragic illness 
12 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Leave a Reply
How Many McCourt Sins?
MSTI on the web
MSTI Library
Blog at WordPress.com. | Theme: Pool by Borja Fernandez.
Entries and comments feeds.
Great point MSTI. Every rumor I’ve heard ends up being Kershaw, Kemp, LaRoche, etc. with no indication that the Dodger organization is much deeper than those players. I think the best solution is to not deal ANYONE until the demands become more reasonable. Even the Bedard deal, which on the surface seems reasonable in that it only requires that we give up Kemp and Broxton, is simply too much for one player–even one as good as Bedard. Maybe if Colletti doesn’t trade anyone for a season or two the demands for our front-line starters will come down and people will not think Colletti is an easy mark.
Comment by Westsidedodger— December 5, 2007 #
That’s a very good analysis of the situation. I’d never really thought about it in that light.
Comment by Mike— December 5, 2007 #
Whatever kudos Beinfest had earned in the past for his work with the Fish, he just blew it all up on this deal. Granted, I like Maybin and think he will be a fine player, but the rest of the package seems heavy on potential and light on actual real prospects.
I know Miller is supposed to be special, but he reminds me of Oliver Perez – when he is on, he is terrific, but when he is off, he is Kip Wells lousy. The thing is, I haven’t actually seen him dominate, but I have seen control & concentration issues and a windup that is generously called complicated. I think Dombrowski pulled off a steal that will make history.
Comment by grabarkewitz— December 5, 2007 #
What the heck is going on? I can’t get into the BBWC
Comment by James— December 5, 2007 #
You’re right James, it’s down. That seems to happen pretty often. Bad timing, though. Feel free to discuss trade rumors and whatnot here.
Comment by Mike Scioscia's tragic illness— December 5, 2007 #
I was hearing people saying that they wouldn’t mind trading Broxton to Baltimore. But, he’s going to be a closer, and a pretty damn good one. Who are WE going to replace him if indeed he does go? Takashi Saito is 38 years old now. Mind you, he’s really good, but what happens when he finally gives out?
Comment by James— December 5, 2007 #
In regards to the Broxton trade talk: while he is a dominant set up man, he has not proven that he can be a dominant closer. In the brief try outs he’s had in save situations he has been unimpressive to say the least. So while Broxton is currently very good, and could potentially grow into a closer’s role in the future, he is not a lock to become a dominant closer, over the last decade there have been plenty of great set-up men fail miserably as closers. And again, while Broxton is very good, and mentioned in the same breath as Martin, Kershaw, Billingsley, Loney, & Kemp he is the most expendable of the group. It is always easier to replace a reliever than a starter or a position player. So while we would certainly like to keep Broxton, he is the easiest high-value player to part with.
As far as replacement options, there are a few names rumored to be on the trade market that we could move a lesser prospect or two to get. In house we have Meloan and Elbert, there have been rumblings that the organization is considering converting Elbert to a power left-handed setup man/closer in the mold of Billy Wagner. Both of these guys figure to be in the mix if Broxton is traded, as well as Scott Proctor and Joe Biemel. Moving one or more pieces from our bullpen may also pave the way for Clayton Kershaw to start the season in the bullpen to get his feet wet before slowly easing him into the rotation, much the way Chad Billingsley was handled.
So if the club is considering moving Broxton for a top of the rotation arm it is only because you have to give quality to get quality, and he is the most expendable of our young players.
Comment by CarolinaBlues— December 5, 2007 #
CB, I definitely agree with you about Broxton being the most expendable, and the reasons you put forth are dead-on.
I’d hate to lose him because he’s a killer 8th inning force, but if we want to acquire anyone good (either a bat or an ace), we’re going to have to give up SOMEONE of value. Since I don’t want that to be Kershaw/Kemp/etc etc, I would choose Broxton.
Comment by Mike Scioscia's tragic illness— December 5, 2007 #
I guess your right, but I’d hate to have him go. Any news on the BBWC by the way?
Comment by James— December 5, 2007 #
The BBWC is back up by the way.
Comment by James— December 5, 2007 #
Kemp is not a prospect, he’s a legit major leaguer after the year he’s had. That’s the main problem with trading him, it’s not just potential it’s results + potential.
Comment by Satchel— December 6, 2007 #
This is brilliant analysis! The Dodgers have done so well in the recent years thanks to Logan White who is a phenomenal at noticing talent. If you think about what we could have had if we had signed Hochevar as well. It truly boggles the mind to think of the things that these teams ask for & for as hard as I am on Ned Colletti on PEDROFORDELINO.BLOGSPOT.COM I am actually impressed by him this winter (so far).
Comment by Matty D— December 7, 2007 #