A Scorched Earth policy in Oakland: What would Tampa pay to acquire Kurt Suzuki?

by grover on Nov 16, 2009 2:36 PM EST Comment 22 comments

Greetings!

I'm bored.

A friend of mine, a fellow A's fan, said that he'd like to see the A's trade any and every vet off the current roster and load an already fairly decent farm system with even more prospects. I thought that sounded intriguing, so rather than waste my time over on AN talking about what kind of package the Rays would have to put together to get the A's to part ways with Zooks (proposals which would undoubtedly feature a decidedly pro-Oakland slant) I figured I'd come here to this bastion of Rays dedication to hear what you guys think would be a fair proposal. This is meant for fun and to wile away the hours while I sit at home taking care of my ill son. If trade speculation isn't your thing than thanks for checking out my post and enjoy the rest of your day. For everyone else... let's chat.

I've decided to set some ground rules before I begin.

Rule #1: I will not try to sell anyone on the merits of Kurt Suzuki. I'm just going to lay out the facts.

Suzuki is heading into his age 26 season and is under team control for the next 4 years. He will make just over league minimum in 2010. According to Fangraphs he was worth 2.8 WAR (not including defense) in both 2008 and 2009. According to this metric his defense was worth .9 WAR, meaning his total WAR value in 2009 was 3.7 Kurt bats right handed and has started 268 games behind the plate over the past two seasons.

Rule #2: Do not assume that this is happening in a vacuum. If the A's were to shop Suzuki the Rays would not be the only team interested in acquiring him.

Tampa just happens to be #1 on the speed dial. Please don't waste time trying to low-ball as I'm not interested in an unfair deal on either side. I'm not going to demand that the Rays give up David Price to land Suzuki. Matter o' fact, I'm not going to insist on any one Ray's player or prospect being a part of this discussion. All I'm going to do is tell you what it is I think the A's are shopping for in return.

So now that the rules out of the way, let me tell you what I think the A's would be looking for in a deal for Suzuki.

The Oakland outfield has far more question marks than answers. But let's be realistic here folks, if the A's are trading Suzuki they're looking at improving their team in 2011 and beyond. Carl Crawford is a good player but he doesn't meet the 2011 requirement, does he?

A quality SP prospect is always appreciated, but the A's have depth in Oakland and the upper minors so any arm you offer up is going to be nice but probably not jump-up-and-down-in-joy special.

The A's hope Brett Wallace is going to be their 3B of the near future. If that doesn't work out there's no one in the system who jumps out as a Plan B.

I don't think Billy Beane was bluffing when he said he was willing to go into 2010 with Cliff Pennington as his starting SS. I'm not Beane and while I've been one of Moneypenny's longest supporters I would mind other options. That said, I absolutely positively hate Reid Brignac's bat and I don't think he'll ever hit enough in the bigs to be a starter. You don't have to agree with me on this. I'm fine with that. I just don't want anyone to waste their time by coming up with a suggestion that includes Brignac as the centerpiece.

The A's have invested heavily at 2B, with Ellis in Oakland, Adrian Cardenas in Sacramento and Jemile Weeks in Midland.

Similarly, if Wallace doesn't work out at 3B the A's will have more than enough options at 1B in Chris Carter, Daric Barton and Sean Doolittle.

The Catching, ironically enough, could be a little thin.

The bullpen has more arms than they know what to do with.

So that's the A's depth chart in a nut shell. Now what will you give me for Kurt Suzuki?

0 recs | Comment 22 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

::hands empty envelope::

In that envelope is some payoff money. Suzuki’s moving on to some greener pastures. We’re not negotiatin’. I don’t like to barter. I don’t like to dicker. I never have fun in Tijuana. That price is non-negotiable. What’s in that envelope is for my peace of mind. My peace of mind is worth that much. Not one penny more, not one penny more.

I'm not really a NUMBERS guy!!

by Andy Hellicksonstine on Nov 16, 2009 2:57 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

I don't think we make good partners based on your needs.

We both have similar mindsets in that what we’re looking for is primarily in the future. You’re unlikely to the FO mortgage the future for a piece of the present. granted Suzuki seems like a good option going forward, but i doubt you’d get much high-level talent from us for him. Most of our upper-level prospects are arms (save Brignac who you’ve ruled out). Maybe we could pull a three-way trade off, but that is highly unlikely. The only way I see a trade working under your set of rules is that we move some of the position prospects in the lower levels with one of the cheap cost-control starters. STill don’t see much of a match there, though.

by rglass44 on Nov 16, 2009 3:08 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Agreed.

by R.J. Anderson on Nov 16, 2009 3:10 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

So Catcher isn't a current need in Tampa?

I guess I read those tea leaves wrong.

The monster at the end of this blog.

by grover on Nov 16, 2009 3:18 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

The Rays aren't going to hand over anything worth it to the A's off their farm system.

In addition, frankly, I don’t like your tone. We’re not the Rays, and you’re not the A’s. We’re both fans of these respective teams and the condescending nature of your post annoys me.

I can't wait until we trade him for a reliever.

by kericr on Nov 16, 2009 3:38 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I'm not sure where I came across as condescending, but I apologize for the offense

None was intended.

And I understand that not everyone enjoys talking about what might happen or what they’d like to see happen with their team… they prefer to keep the discussion on what has happened… and if you’re one of those types then like I said originally, thanks for checking out the thread.

The monster at the end of this blog.

by grover on Nov 16, 2009 3:50 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

That's exactly what Glass is saying.

by R.J. Anderson on Nov 16, 2009 3:38 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

OK

So do you expect the Rays to offer Navarro arby again and hope for a rebound or will they bring Zaun back or both?

The monster at the end of this blog.

by grover on Nov 16, 2009 3:54 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I'd rather acquire Towles and platoon him with Zaun.

But the club obviously has alternatives in mind by declining Zaun’s option.

They don’t like letting pieces leave for nothing, so I’m not even sure they’ll non-tender Navarro unless the trade market for him is absolutely void of a warm body.

by R.J. Anderson on Nov 16, 2009 3:57 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Towles? Haven't heard that name in a while.

I haven’t been keeping track of Houston’s intentions for next year, Towles might come cheap if the Astros are interested in bringing Ivan back.

So if fantasy meets reality the 2010 Rays would feature Navarro and Towles behind the plate? There could be some value there if Navarro bounces back a bit. Thnks for the info.

The monster at the end of this blog.

by grover on Nov 16, 2009 4:08 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

GEOFF ZAUN iz a catcher?!

Gerald Wallace is the best player the Bobcats will have..... EVER

by raysfan81 on Nov 16, 2009 5:21 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I'm not well-versed in the A's farm system

But behind Anderson and Cahill, where are the impact arms? Mazzaro and Gonzalez don’t exactly thrill me, James Simmons went in the tank in 2009, and Michel Ynoa hasn’t pitched in a pro game.

The Rays won’t be giving up Hellickson, Davis, or Moore in a trade. What about Nick Barnese and Kyeong Kang? Neither is a world-beater and both played in the SAL in 2009, but Barnese is a buy-low guy who could break out and Kang finished the season really hot.

Vroom vroom party starter
www.raysprospects.com

by Imperialism32 on Nov 16, 2009 3:37 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

I actually thought about that pairing.

by rglass44 on Nov 16, 2009 3:44 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I don't need Aces at every turn in the rotation... although that was nice back in the day

With Braden, Cahill and Anderson the A’s have a solid core and in this market a veteran arm to slot in the middle/back end of the rotation shouldn’t be too hard to come by. That leaves Mazzaro/Gio/Mortensen to fight it out for the 5th spot in 2010. Continued development from the young arms, Outman back in 2011 (I’m a believer) and I think Oakland can have a well above -average homegrown rotation in 2 years.

That’s the hope anyways!

And I think people misunderstand what I was trying to say about the Rays’ pitching prospects. The A’s aren’t like the Brewers, a team desperate for young, MLB ready pitching that they’d jump (and probably over-value) a guy like Wade Davis. The A’s are in a position where they can look at a quality arm and give him full credit but the real pay-off is going to be in the 2nd or 3rd guy that’s part of the package.

I’ve got no problem with considering guys on the lower end of the minors (in fact I was kind of expecting it) but I’d expect higher upside potential than if we were talking about guys who were closer to the Show. I’ll have to look up Kang, he hasn’t been someone I’ve followed much. I like Barnese but I can’t recall why he missed half the season. Kang started late as well. What’s the deal with those two?

Even if I like Kang I’d still expect more for 4 years of a young, better-than-average and cost controlled Catcher.

The monster at the end of this blog.

by grover on Nov 16, 2009 4:24 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Looking at Wade's 6 starts to the end of the season and his track-record on the farm, I can see a lot of teams over-valuing him,

which may actually be his value. Guy has looked flawless outside of the second start against Boston.

I'm not really a NUMBERS guy!!

by Andy Hellicksonstine on Nov 16, 2009 5:57 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Meant to say... thanks for the response

The monster at the end of this blog.

by grover on Nov 16, 2009 4:25 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

That seems like quite the absolute

Even if Moore turns into a monster, it’s unlikely that the upgrade between Moore and whoever he replaces would be as great as the difference between Suzuki and the guy he would be replacing.

Bad Left Hook - The SB Nation boxing blog
"Baseball is played on the field, not on a calculator."

by Brickhaus on Nov 17, 2009 1:40 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs