All Purpose Mid-Season Trade Speculation Thread

[Guest Edgy DC]

So you've said, but so far this year, the Mets wouldn't have been so screwed by such a misidentification:

Player	TEAM	W	L	ERA	G	GS	CG	SHO	SV	SVO	IP	H	R	ER	HR	HBP	BB	SO
C Zambrano	CHC	5	4	3.85	17	17	1	0	0	0	107.2	82	47	46	10	6	47	101
V Zambrano	NYM	4	7	3.80	15	15	0	0	0	0	90.0	85	44	38	5	9	49	58

The Mets problems this season -- since 2000 -- in fact, have been primarily offensive, and time spent trying to quickly refine a pitching staff that has been more or less good enough, with plenty of young arms in development (if we allow them to develop) is time ill spent, I think.

[metirish]

]What if they trade him for somebody really really good?

It would need to be a real big name pitcher, and I mean big, but seriously imagine the crap Peterson would have to listen too if they traded Zam for prospects, he'd get hammered.

[seawolf17]

Edgy DC wrote: So you've said, but so far this year, the Mets wouldn't have been so screwed by such a misidentification: Player TEAM W L ERA G GS CG SHO SV SVO IP H R ER HR HBP BB SO C Zambrano CHC 5 4 3.85 17 17 1 0 0 0 107.2 82 47 46 10 6 47 101 V Zambrano NYM 4 7 3.80 15 15 0 0 0 0 90.0 85 44 38 5 9 49 58

Wow. And if Vagina Boy had struck out as many guys as his long-lost half-brother Carlos has, his overall numbers would probably look even better. Good post.

[Guest Rotblatt]

]What is your definition of a "B prospect" and why is dealing Zambrano for one a good move?

"B" prospect for me: a Shoppach or Huber. I'm sure I could find a non-catcher one out there, but none are immediately springing to mind. And it sounds like Shoppach might even be a "C" prospect after his troubles for the Sox during his call up . . .

"A" prospect: a Ryan Howard type.

As for why dealing Zambrano would be a good move: we have plenty of cheap pitching with which to replace him and starting pitching looks like it will be at a premium this year, since so few teams have surplusses. What we don't have are viable options at 1B & C in 2006. We COULD try and sign a FA or 2 in the off-season, and I don't think that's a bad option, but it makes so much sense for us to deal pitching when every contender and its mother wants pitching right now. Doesn't have to be Zambrano, but I have to say I like that we're thinking about it.

Glavine or Ishii probably won't net us much, and while Heilman or Seo might yield as much as Zambrano (doubtful, IMO, since they haven't been starting against major leaguers this season), they're also younger and cheaper, so I'd rather keep them than Zambrano. A $2M Zambrano who's pitching well might be very attractive to a smaller-market team with prospects to spare . . .

]I was wondering the same thing. Especially with the "if he turns in 2 or 3 starts like his last one" part. If a pitcher starts pitching consistently well, that may be the point where you might want to think about keeping him.

Sure, if you think he has the potential to keep it up long term. I have my doubts, especially since his peripherals don't look that good to me.

1.18 K/BB, compared to 1.29 career; 1.49 WHIP--right on target for his career . . . His BB/9 is down to 4.9 from 5.3, but that's still atrocious. And his HR/9 is way down to 0.5 from .92, but I suspect a lot of that is due to Shea (1 HR given up at Sea, 4 elsewhere)

He's also not really young anymore--he'll turn 30 in August, and his price tag is just going to keep going up . . .

I don't think hanging on to him and moving someone else would be BAD, but I don't see why we should view him as untouchable. He's been extremely mediocre throughout his career and one good month isn't enough to make me think he's turned a corner. It is enough, however, to raise his price . . .

[Guest Rotblatt]

I'd take Carlos in a fraction of a heartbeat. He's pitched 17.2 extra innings, don't forget, which means that despite their similar hits and walks, their WHIPs are vastly different. Carlos: 1.22, Victor: 1.49. DIPS ERAs is at 3.92 for Carlos & 4.61 for Victor.

And having nearly twice as many K's is a very large deal . . .

And I'm almost positive that if you factored in the park factor, you'd get another big discrepency. Unfortunately, I'm not sure how they do that, but Wrigley's at 1.123 for runs & Shea's at 0.974.

Is it as simple as dividing by park factor? If so, that would give Carlos a 3.42 ERA and Victor a 3.90, but I suspect it's a little more complicated . . .

Anyway, my point is that despite similar ERA's, Carlos has been a vastly superior pitcher this year.

on edit: changed "over" to "nearly" after rereading previous post.

[MFS62]

]Glavine or Ishii probably won't net us much

It depends on how good your minor league scoutring/ player evaluation is.
A good example was when "Veteran", "Steady" Doyle Alexander, needed for the stretch run, was traded by Atlanta to Detroit for a kid pitcher named John Smoltz.

You never know.

Later

Edit: typos

[Frayed Knot]

]"B" prospect for me: a Shoppach or Huber

Yeah, that sounds about right -- but you have to realize that guys like that are only somewhat likely to of ever become full-time ML starters. There's no way I'd deal an established (and currently good) starting pitcher who's reasonably young & priced, quite possibly improving, and under team control for the next 2+ seasons for guys that iffy.

Refer back to the 'Top Prospects of 2002' thread and check out the success rate of that crew and realize that guys like these aren't considered anywhere near at that level.

[Guest Edgy DC]

Why would it have to be a pitcher? Why not a hitter? Why not a hitting prospect?

And peeps who want to scapegoat Peterson should be the last things the Mets should concerned about. I hope they are.

[metirish]

]Glavine open to trade talk BY DAVID LENNON STAFF CORRESPONDENT July 6, 2005 WASHINGTON -- When Tom Glavine takes the mound tonight against the Nationals, he does so with the knowledge that his days with the Mets could be numbered. The whole point of signing Glavine during the winter of 2002 was to get the Mets into the playoffs, specifically by making him the ace of the rotation and to a lesser extent, weakening the Braves by his departure. That vision of the Mets' future never materialized, and unless they climb back into the NL East race, Glavine could be among those shipped elsewhere by the July 31 non-waiver trade deadline. There's a twist with Glavine. His three-year, $34-million contract includes a full no-trade clause, but don't expect Glavine to throw a Gary Sheffield-type tantrum if and when the Mets approach him about a deal. "I've thought about it," said Glavine, who has not had that discussion yet with the front office. "Obviously there's a real short list of teams I would even consider. I have no intention of wanting that to happen, but if they came to me and said look, 'We feel like we're better without you or whatever,' I'm not going to be like, 'Absolutely not.' Especially if it's a team I could see myself going to." Glavine lives in Greenwich, Conn., during the season, but his permanent home is in Alpharetta, Ga., and he was raised in the Boston suburbs. Staying east of the Mississippi is important, but it's unlikely the Mets would send him back to the Braves. The Yankees seem to match his criteria, along with having the need and the resources to pull it off. The Red Sox appear to be brimming with starters, especially with Curt Schilling's return imminent. Another obstacle is Glavine's $10-million option for 2006, which is almost guaranteed to kick in now that he already has logged 96 1/3 innings. The Mets aren't thrilled about investing that much of next year's payroll for Glavine, who has a 25-35 record as a Met and will be 40 by Opening Day of next season. But a contending team, in the market for an experienced starter and a borderline Hall of Famer, may think differently. Glavine has an eye on 300 wins - an automatic ticket to the Hall - and that could prompt him to want an extension for 2007. He currently stands at 267 wins. "I have concerns beyond just being traded for this year," Glavine said. "If I'm going to be traded and spend two more years somewhere then it's real important as to where that is. "So much of it depends on how I feel. A lot can change obviously, but from my standpoint, I haven't really made up my mind beyond pitching next year."

[Guest Yancy Street Gang]

Maybe Glavine can go to Baltimore?

[Guest Edgy DC]

]I'd take Carlos in a fraction of a heartbeat.

Yeah, but I'm not asking who you'd take, or what their peripherals project. I'm just narrowly pointing out that you wouldn't have been so screwed this year if you had Victor instead of Carlos.

From this point on certainly looks better for Carlos, to say nothing of his performance last year while Victor was disabled. (Carlos went 6-2, 2.37 in 83 2/3 innings after the trade deadline.)

But I'm still going to give credit where it's due.

[Frayed Knot]

I wish someone with actual info would spell out the story with Glavine's option.
The way I read it, it kicks in wtih 'X' numbers of innings pitched over the 2003-2005 seasons AND 200 IPs in '05. In other words, if he doesn't reach that 200 plateau this year (and he's slightly off it) then next year becomes a mutual option (w/a buyout if not picked up) not a guarantee.
If it's 'X' innings OR 200 this season then that's a different story.

If the 200 IPs is reached, then the contract kicks in a various price
levels depending on the total 2003-2005 IPs.
560 total + 200 this year = $6.5mil,
580 + 200 = somewhere in the $8.5 - 9.0 range
600 + 200 = $10.5mil (the max amount).

Whether that option is definite, only somewhat likely, or not probable could make a big difference as to how easy he'd be to deal.

[smg58]

The Mets do need hitting more than pitching, but I don't see where a real second ace would hurt if the Mets could get one.

Plus, it's not clear what's out there, and the pickings so far appear to be slim. I've already given my opinions on Dunn, and I'm not sure what other hitters out there would command more attention. I can understand why Minaya was interested in Sheffield, even if the Mets are probably better off not going there. Sean Casey would help, but he wouldn't put us near the top, much less over it.

Which brings us to pitchers. If the Mets could trade some quantity for quality, that would be ideal, but who? It would have to be someone they'd control next season, so anybody in their contract year is out. I'd be willing to gamblle that Jason Schmidt will be the old Jason Schmidt by April, but I'm not convinced he'd help us now, and the Giants may ask for the moon.

As for whom to trade? Well, we'll have eight guys capable of being in some team's rotation once Trachsel gets back. The Mets don't need to get much for Glavine if somebody else pays his salary next season. I'd like to see Ishii work out of the pen before I did anything with him, unless somebody surprises me with a good offer for him. You couldn't trade Zambrano for "B" prospects, for obvious reasons, but I'd consider packaging him to get a clearly better pitcher on this level. I see no point in keeping Seo if you can't find room for him up here; deal him while he has value.

[smg58]

The escalators on Glavine's salary require 200 IP this year; at the halfway point he's at 96. He could make 200 if he pitches even a little better, but would that be good for the Mets or bad?

[patchyfogg]

Last night, Buster Olney told me on my show that he thinks the "Surprise Guy That's Available" is Soriano, and that the Mets will "go hard" on him--and Reyes would "have to be" part of the deal.

He also had a good line on the Mets trades last year: Their moves "didn't buy them a second longer of contention time."

[Guest cooby]

I would not trade Reyes for anybody

[Guest Yancy Street Gang]

I don't mind them probing Soriano.

I don't like the idea of Reyes being part of that deal.

Didn't we have this same discussion two years ago?

[seawolf17]

I would not, under any circumstances, deal Reyes for Soriano. I would deal Diaz, Heilman, Seo, Cameron, Glavine, Daubach, David Cone, Juan Samuel, Scott Kazmir, Victor Zambrano, a box of Robert Alomar bobbleheads, and Fred Wilpon's left nut for Soriano; but I would not deal Reyes.

I think Glavine's option vests earlier than 200 IP this year, because it also vests if he pitches a certain number of innings over the three years, and he's a lot closer than that. I think it's somewhere around 165 IP that locks the option this year.

[Guest Rotblatt]

="smg58"]You couldn't trade Zambrano for "B" prospects, for obvious reasons, but I'd consider packaging him to get a clearly better pitcher on this level.

What are the obvious reasons?

I mean, the most obvious reason is that it would hurt us in the PR department, but IMO, every time Kazmir pitches without getting hurt or outperforms Zambrano in any given start, we're going to take a PR hit anyway.

If we can get a valuable prospect from him in return (and I definitely consider B prospects valuable), why not take our lumps and deal with whatever fallout we get?

Zambrano's ERA is tasty right now and I suspect several GMs will look at that, his career W-L record, and his salary and think "We got ourselves a gamer here," which, after all, is what a lot of us seem to think too. Maybe we can get 2 B prospects or a B prospect and a slumping youngster with upside. Hell, maybe even an A one.

It's my personal opion that gameness aside, Zambrano's not going to be able to keep up the Houdini act any more than Glavine or Leiter did last year. Wouldn't we be happier right now had we traded Glavine last year after his amazing April-June (ERA in mid 2's, WHIP in low 1's, but no K's) for a B prospect? And estatic if we had gotten an A prospect for Al last June (low 2's in ERA, low 1's in WHIP, but low K's and high BB)?

They both crashed and burned the rest of the season, and it was totally predictable for each of them. Zambrano's value might not get much higher than it is now, and we have about three replacements for him waiting in the wings.

Hell, if we could blow up the bottom 3/5 of our starting rotation and start over using Heilman & Seo, I'd be estatic. Not that Benson's K rate is much better (4.85 K/9 overall and 1.97in June.), but at least he's keeping the walks down.

I realize that trading off 2 or 3 of our starting pitchers would make us look like we're giving up, but I honestly believe that our other options--Heilman & Seo--are superior to Zambrano & Ishii and will help us even in the short run. Depending on how Trachsel looks in his rehab starts, I'd guess that he'd be better than Glavine down the stretch as well.

If we have to keep one of Glavine, Ishii & Zambrano, I'd keep Zambrano, but I really don't think he should be untouchable just because we made a retarded trade for him, especially when we have other options.

[metirish]

]He also had a good line on the Mets trades last year: Their moves "didn't buy them a second longer of contention time."

IIRC The Mets lost 3 of 4 after the trades, patchy I can't get your station from Westchester County, are you on the 'net by any chance, your guest list is impressive.

Say no to any deal that includes Reyes.

[Frayed Knot]

]I think Glavine's option vests earlier than 200 IP this year, because it also vests if he pitches a certain number of innings over the three years, and he's a lot closer than that. I think it's somewhere around 165 IP that locks the option this year.

Except that everything I read says 'X' innings over the 3 year period AND 200 this year, not either/or ... which certainly implies that the 165 this year only satisfies half the equation.

What's frustrating is that with all the info floating around these days I've yet to hear anyone definitively state the correct answer to this one.

[Guest Rotblatt]

Ugh. Reyes for Soriano would be terrible. Soriano's stats look nice this season, but it's all about Arlington. His splits:

Home
.325 AVG/.356 OBP/.693 SLG/1.050 OPS

Away
.222 AVG/.257 OBP/.370 SLG/.628 OPS.

Plus, he should still be moved out of 2B into the outfield, and his total .840 OPS wouldn't be an upgrade for us.

I'd stay away from Soriano alltogether. He's one of those "He's a former Yankee, so he must be good" guys.

[Guest sharpie]

Agreed. That would also leave us without a viable starting shortstop.

[smg58]

I'm not sure why Texas would make that deal if they stayed in the wild card hunt, and unless the Mets really like Anderson Hernandez, I'm not sure why they'd do it either.

Given the ballpark boost, Soriano actually hasn't been all that good since he left the Bronx. Stay away.

However, if the Mets really do like Anderson Hernandez, and Reyes can get us somebody really good (i.e., better than Soriano), I'm for it at this point. Reyes hasn't shown any improvement over what he did last year when his season kept getting interrupted. He might never have more value than he has now, and I wouldn't say no out of hand if somebody asks.

I wanted to clarify something on Zambrano while I'm at it. I absolutely agree that he has his maximum value right now, and yes I'd listen to offers. I just wouldn't expect the Mets to deal him for a prospect who doesn't have comparable stature to Kazmir.