Some more rosterbation fun

by raysfaninminnesota on Nov 10, 2009 4:24 PM EST Comment 12 comments

In addition to all the rosterbation rumors of Milton Bradley (and the soon-to-be rumored 3 way between Mets, Cubs and Rays) when looking around the league one team sticks out like a sore thumb who matches up best with the Rays needs...and that team is the Oakland Athletics.

Currently they have amazing (and cheap) bullpen depth. They have a young catcher who would look good in a Rays uni. They have SS needs and maybe OF needs. Those happen to be areas of depth for the Rays.

If the Rays truly don't believe they can resign CC or don't think that's the best use of resources, maybe him and Brignac could make a nice package to bring in Kurt Suzuki, Michael Wuertz, and Andrew Bailey. The Rays may have to send along someone like Nick Barnese to complete the deal, but this would be an extremely cheap deal to make, as those three are not likely to bank over 3-5 million combined next season.

Oakland has Joey Devine coming back from Tommy John surgery and latest reports have him way ahead of schedule. They have other young arms that have performed pretty well last year. CC could be Matt Holliday version 2.0 for them, and they'd have their shortstop of the future under lock and key for 6 team-controlled seasons. And if it cost the Rays Nick Barnese to make the deal happen, it would still be worth it, especially if the Rays wanted to dabble in the free agent market. (They'd still have up to 6 mil of what they had budgeted for CC and whatever they were willing to spend in free agency if they didn't make the trade).

Just for fun, this would give the Rays a bullpen of:

Bailey, Howell, Wuertz, Wheeler, Balfour, (Choate), Cormier/Sonny.

Not to mention a catcher who hit for over 50 extra base hits while playing solid defense behind the plate.

The depth for both teams matches each other's needs. And with two free-wheeling GM's in Friedman and Beane, it seems like it might make for an excellent deal waiting to happen. Thoughts?

0 recs | Comment 12 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

The Rays giving up Crawford and Brignac for those three players would already be far too much, let along adding Barnese

by Erik Hahmann on Nov 10, 2009 6:02 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

i figured I was overshooting it

And if it can be done by just two, then by all means, whatever combo works should make sense.

by raysfaninminnesota on Nov 10, 2009 6:04 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I share the feeling

Only from the opposite side. The A’s would be insane to part with their three to land those two.

The A’s are nowhere near competing in 2010, so this trade would quickly boil down to 3 months of Crawford + Brignac + whatever Beane could get in a July trade for Crawford for the fore mentioned Oakland package. Plus the A’s would get to pick up roughly $7 million in salary.

I love love coming up with trade ideas as much as the next guy but you need to ask yourself why in the wide, wide world of sports how your idea could make the A’s a better team in 2010 and beyond. Especially the beyond part ‘cause the A’s have a lot of holes in the roster.

The monster at the end of this blog.

by grover on Nov 10, 2009 7:12 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

then Barnese, CC, and Brignac suffice, no?

shortstop of future, All-Star LF who can become a tradable commodity, and a top pitching prospect. I’m assuming if it were for those three, instead of just two, that would seal the deal, right?

by raysfaninminnesota on Nov 10, 2009 7:29 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Not even close

Crawford buys the A’s nothing.

OK, you argue he’s a tradable commodity in July. Sure, unless he completely tanks (which I doubt would happen) the A’s could try to pick up a couple prospects for the future. Let’s say that they pick up a couple guys in AA, names don’t matter but they’re B/B- quality prospects. The A’s could expect a return on their investment by the middle of 2011 at the earliest. Assuming those guys pan out.

Or…

The A’s could have Suzuki catching and Bailey closing all through 2010, 2011, 2012 and (hopefully) beyond because they are young and cheap, established big league players. Crawford buys the A’s nothing in 2010 (in terms of winning the division, ‘cause they ain’t) and only hope for 2011 and beyond. Suzuki and Bailey aren’t going to help the A’s win the division in 2010 (‘cause they ain’t) but barring injury they guarantee legitimate production in 2011 and beyond.

So Crawford makes no sense for the A’s and he adds very little practical help to achieving the A’s 2010 plans. Although he is a Hell of an outfielder.

Brignac… is not a favorite of mine. But let’s ignore my bias and assume that he’ll be that 2.5-3 WAR SS you probably expect him to be. Couple things to consider here. The A’s believe that Brett Wallace can play 3B. It doesn’t matter if you think otherwise, that is the flavor o’ kool-aid they’re drinking. They just drafted Grant Green in the 1st round of the 2009 draft and he was instantly tabbed as the A’s starting SS of the (near) future. The FO has already talked about starting him in High-A Stockton next season and their hope is he’ll be ready by mid-2011. Now I don’t know if Green will pan out or not, but that’s where the A’s see themselves sitting. They need a SS in 2010, but they think they’ve got their long term answer already and THAT knocks some of the luster off of Reid Brignac.

The A’s have already made significant investments at 3B, 2B and SS. They are going to be more tempted to let those investments play out than to dig a new hole a Catcher in order to acquire Brignac.

If you want to make a serious push for Suzuki and Bailey you’re going to have to come up with a more long term package of talent. The recently injured Barnese and Brignac are too light to carry the deal.

The monster at the end of this blog.

by grover on Nov 10, 2009 7:53 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

wow you are vastly underestimating CC's worth

Even if you think he doesn’t have much value for the A’s, he definitely carries much more value elsewhere. If that is the case then perhaps he is part of a three-way deal with the A’s netting whatever he gets in trade. whatever you think CC doesn’t help in achieving for A’s 2010 plans, i’m be surprised if what you can get for him doesn’t adequately suffice. He would at least get Brett Wallace type return if not more, depending on when you traded him.

That’s a pretty accelerated track you have Green on. While mid-2011 is possible, i would assume 2012 is more probable, without rushing. I guess the A’s interest in Brignac depends on what they think of him compared to Green. What Brignac has going for him is excellent defense and MLB-ready. But Brignac for Suzuki is a pretty fair trade, with premium position for premium position. And the fact that Suzuki is only a year away from arbitration.

Barnese was a high school draft choice with loads of potential. He has performed very well whenever he’s been on the field and has no bad history of injuries. He’d be a top pitching prospect for nearly any other team but the Rays.

It really is a pretty fair trade for both sides. Now the A’s may have others they prefer in their own minor league pipeline and then it may not match up. But that’s not the same as calling it an unfair trade. Valuewise, it is. But obviously value isn’t the only part of a trade, but needs factor in as well. Speaking only on the first part, it’s a pretty fair shake.

by raysfaninminnesota on Nov 10, 2009 8:07 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Hmm...

You obviously have a much more favorable view of Reid Brignac than I do.

Reid Brignac is an unproven minor leaguer heading into his age 24 season sporting a career 732 OPS in 767 AAA at bats. Kurt Suzuki is heading into his age 26 season with a 727 OPS in 1313 ML at bats. Suzuki is under team control for the next 4 years and earned a 3.7 WAR score (defense included) in 2009.

In short, I see very little to support your claim that a straight up swap of the two would be a fair trade.

I meant it when I said that Crawford is a Hell of an outfielder. He was worth 5.5 WAR last year, his best season ever by that metric. However, Suzuki and Bailey combined for 6.1 WAR in 2009 and even if we assume that everyone matches last year’s performance I’m not seeing a compelling reason to spend 10 times the money for half a Win less in 2010 and potentially ZERO wins in 2011. Crawford is a fine player but he doesn’t fit what the A’s need next year.

Maybe they’ll sign him as a FA after next season!

I like Barnese, no need to sell him to me. But why would the A’s need another SP, especially one who spent 2009 hurt and in Low-A? The A’s are very happy (some on AN say too happy) with Cahill, Anderson and Braden at the top of their 2010-2013 rotation and have plenty of arms coming up behind them.

I’m not knocking Barnese or Crawford in the slightest, simply pointing out that they do not fit in with Oakland’s long term needs. It’s like me trying to sell you on a 3B prospect… it’s not like Tampa has a glaring need at the position!

The monster at the end of this blog.

by grover on Nov 10, 2009 9:10 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

needs don't match up

but i’m sorry the Longoria comp doesn’t work. He is actually at MLB level and has proven himself at an early age.

Maybe Rays/A’s can work out a smaller deal. I still think they match up pretty well.

by raysfaninminnesota on Nov 11, 2009 8:58 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

needs don't match up for big deal, but perhaps smaller deal

that makes a little more sense

by raysfaninminnesota on Nov 11, 2009 9:03 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

You're a little late to the party

http://www.draysbay.com/2009/11/10/1124144/comparative-advantage-a

I'm not really a NUMBERS guy!!

by Andy Hellicksonstine on Nov 10, 2009 6:12 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

I would like this deal if it would happen

We would get 3 talented players of positional needs for us and it would open the door for Jennings. Better yet it would mean we would keep Bartlett. Oakland would end up trading Crawford again before deadline though probaly.It would also get Crawford away from the artificial terf I always hear about.

Then again I never said I was a genius.....

by thedudeofdudes on Nov 10, 2009 6:24 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

These trade proposals tend to make very little sense when you don't sit down and calculate how much each player is likely to be worth to his team over his period of contractual control

Right now, I’d expect Suzuki to be worth around 13 WAR to the A’s, and Bailey and Wuertz to combine for another 9 or so.

Crawford is worth maybe 5 (even that’s pushing it— regression to the mean is important), Brignac 10-ish.

Your valuation is just off. (There’s also the problem that Crawford would be providing his in a season where the A’s look like a non-factor [which would be aggravated by suddenly not having a starting catcher— in fact, this trade might actually make the 2010 A’s worse], but that’s the least of this deal’s problems.)

One last thing— with what Carlos Gonzalez did this season, I don’t think suggesting “Holliday trade 2.0” to most A’s fans is likely to result in a favorable reaction. The A’s got taken for a ride in that deal.

Linda's in the cold ground, won't see her anymore
Somewhere out on the highway tonight, the drunken engines roar
It's just one of those things, one of those things
-- Al Stewart, "Accident on 3rd St."
In memory of Nick Adenhart and all victims of drunk driving

by PaulThomas on Nov 11, 2009 6:26 PM EST reply actions 0 recs