Bruce Levine update on Tejada 12/13/05

[don_kessinger_was_good]

Other GMs hold Jim Hendry's feet to the fire because they know he's in a tight spot. It's basically extortion, but Hendry has no one to blame but himself.

 

Recent events also make it very clear that GMs around baseball value the Cubs prospects much MUCH lower than most folks here.

 

Time for a GM change, seriously. Clean house.

 

 

Yes, let's fire a guy who actually got us finally competitive and a guy who netted us Ramirez, and Lee along with drafting Prior if I recall right.

 

Let's clean house on a team that's really close to being a playoff team (barring any injuries) because we had one bad year last year and are trying to fix the problems.

 

If you have a $100MM payroll, and your team has gotten WORSE in every year of your tenure, then you are part of the problem and not part of the solution. Hendry needs to go. Now. And take his pet manager with him.

 

You were all aboard the Hendry "bandwagon" if I remember right... what happened to change your mind?

 

I've never been a supporter of Hendry's, but I applauded him early in the offseason with his bullpen moves, which was an initiative I did (and still do) support. The problem is that bullpen was just one of five critical need areas for the Cubs this offseason, and since then, Hendry has accomplished nothing but trade three pitching prospects for an OK, but not ideal leadoff man/CF solution (Pierre).

 

Now, things look pretty bleak, and the two big holes on this team remain unfixed and it looks increasingly like they WON'T get fixed--namely, a middle-of-the-order slugger for RF, and a middle infielder that will keep Neifi F. Perez' at-bats under 200 for the season.

 

This team is looking even worse on paper than 12 months before with the 2005 Cubs team, and that is all on Hendry's back. Teams like Atlanta have a problem, a hole, and presto--the GM goes out and fixes it. "I need a veteran SS like Renteria, you want my top prospect, OK, let's get this done." Boston needs a starting pitcher, "you want me to take a bad contract and give you one of my top prospects too? OK, let's get this done."

 

Meanwhile, our GM fiddles away, getting out-maneuvered time and time again by more savvy GMs around baseball. He lets his manager dictate personnel choices. He has tunnel vision and cannot think "outside the box."

 

Hendry sucks. Plain and simple. I'm not interested in any canards about "But he got Aramis, he traded for Lee, he moved Turd Hundley..." He also screwed up or missed out on three times as many deals. He wastes signficant portions of his ridiculous $100MM+ payroll on deadbeats and discards and detritus.

 

Yeah, I'm on a Hendry bandwagon alright--the "Where's the Rope" Bandwagon. Talk to the sig...

[xecuter83]

how is insisting on Prior or Zambrano not reasonable? Tell me if im wrong but when we go back to last year who made it to the All-star game? Oh thats right it was Abreu, not Prior or Z. So dont say that what the Phillies are asking for in return is not reasonable. They have every right to demand one of those players for an all-star like abreu!

[sethuel1]

how is insisting on Prior or Zambrano not reasonable? Tell me if im wrong but when we go back to last year who made it to the All-star game? Oh thats right it was Abreu, not Prior or Z. So dont say that what the Phillies are asking for in return is not reasonable. They have every right to demand one of those players for an all-star like abreu!

 

1. All-Stars are voted on by the fans, and don't really count for squat.

2. You don't just trade players based on what they did last year, you trade them based on their future projections.

3. You don't just trade players, you trade contracts.

[Diffusion]

I'm not sure how Floyd is a realistic possibility if the Cubs are sending every single frigging possible trade chip they own to the O's for Tejada!

 

Get Abreu, stick with Walker and Cedeno up the middle.

 

 

Abreu is only a possiblity if Philly lowers their trade expectations. Insisting on Prior or Zambrano is not reasonable.

 

Except they're not, for the millionth time, insisting on Prior or Zambrano.

 

In talks with other clubs, including National League clubs, they've been reported to have asked for Matt Clement, Barry Zito, Erik Bedard, Derek Lowe, Brad Penny, Jason Schmidt and Jason Marquis amongst others. None of those pitchers are anywhere near as valuable right now as Prior or Zambrano, though a healthy Schmidt and an on-form Zito aren't too far back, and Bedard in about eighteen months could be damn good.

 

What's going on here is that the Phillies are making it known that they want a good starting pitcher for Abreu, they're trying their luck with a few names, and every single team they're talking to is saying no.

 

The reason that the A's said no to Abreu was almost certainly the money and not, despite Beane's insisting otherwise, that he doesn't want to move Barry Zito. Beane's clever enough to know that in Zito he has a widely overvalued pitcher that's going to hit free agency in one year's time, and the A's aren't going to be able to re-sign him. And the pitching market this winter is making a lot of teams desperate, pushing Zito's value up even more. Beane saying he's not going to trade Zito only gives him an even better trading chip. So what Hendry needs to do here is get in the middle of things...

 

Phillies get: Barry Zito, Rich Hill

A's get: Jerome Williams, Ryan Madson, Adam Greenberg

Cubs get: Bobby Abreu, $5m towards 2007 from Phillies

 

Something like that. Obviously, if the Cubs hadn't made the awful trade with the Marlins for Pierre, and had instead traded for Bradley on the ridiculously cheap as it turned out (Ethier isn't even equivalent in prospect status to Renyel Pinto in my opinion, and the Dodgers threw in a decent backup middle infielder), they'd be much more able to afford the pitching they're giving up to net Abreu, and this would leave us skating on thin ice a bit come next year. But we need Abreu, and it's as simple as that.

[WrigleyinEngland]

$ are not an issue for me, i would take on a whole contract if the player gave us a major upgrade.

[Diffusion]

$ are not an issue for me, i would take on a whole contract if the player gave us a major upgrade.

 

Abreu's is slightly onerous though. We are talking about a guy that's pegged to earn $13m this year and $15m next, with a $2m buyout of a $16m option for 2008, that'll be 32 come Opening Day next year and that did just .260/.376/.411 after the All-Star Break in 2005, with just 6 home runs and 10 stolen bases in 15 attempts.

[CubinNY]

I'm not sure how Floyd is a realistic possibility if the Cubs are sending every single frigging possible trade chip they own to the O's for Tejada!

 

Get Abreu, stick with Walker and Cedeno up the middle.

 

 

Abreu is only a possiblity if Philly lowers their trade expectations. Insisting on Prior or Zambrano is not reasonable.

 

Except they're not, for the millionth time, insisting on Prior or Zambrano.

 

In talks with other clubs, including National League clubs, they've been reported to have asked for Matt Clement, Barry Zito, Erik Bedard, Derek Lowe, Brad Penny, Jason Schmidt and Jason Marquis amongst others. None of those pitchers are anywhere near as valuable right now as Prior or Zambrano, though a healthy Schmidt and an on-form Zito aren't too far back, and Bedard in about eighteen months could be damn good.

 

What's going on here is that the Phillies are making it known that they want a good starting pitcher for Abreu, they're trying their luck with a few names, and every single team they're talking to is saying no.

 

The reason that the A's said no to Abreu was almost certainly the money and not, despite Beane's insisting otherwise, that he doesn't want to move Barry Zito. Beane's clever enough to know that in Zito he has a widely overvalued pitcher that's going to hit free agency in one year's time, and the A's aren't going to be able to re-sign him. And the pitching market this winter is making a lot of teams desperate, pushing Zito's value up even more. Beane saying he's not going to trade Zito only gives him an even better trading chip. So what Hendry needs to do here is get in the middle of things...

 

Phillies get: Barry Zito, Rich Hill

A's get: Jerome Williams, Ryan Madson, Adam Greenberg

Cubs get: Bobby Abreu, $5m towards 2007 from Phillies

 

Something like that. Obviously, if the Cubs hadn't made the awful trade with the Marlins for Pierre, and had instead traded for Bradley on the ridiculously cheap as it turned out (Ethier isn't even equivalent in prospect status to Renyel Pinto in my opinion, and the Dodgers threw in a decent backup middle infielder), they'd be much more able to afford the pitching they're giving up to net Abreu, and this would leave us skating on thin ice a bit come next year. But we need Abreu, and it's as simple as that.

I vote Diffusion for GM

[CUBZ99]

I'm not sure how Floyd is a realistic possibility if the Cubs are sending every single frigging possible trade chip they own to the O's for Tejada!

 

Get Abreu, stick with Walker and Cedeno up the middle.

 

 

Abreu is only a possiblity if Philly lowers their trade expectations. Insisting on Prior or Zambrano is not reasonable.

 

Except they're not, for the millionth time, insisting on Prior or Zambrano.

 

In talks with other clubs, including National League clubs, they've been reported to have asked for Matt Clement, Barry Zito, Erik Bedard, Derek Lowe, Brad Penny, Jason Schmidt and Jason Marquis amongst others. None of those pitchers are anywhere near as valuable right now as Prior or Zambrano, though a healthy Schmidt and an on-form Zito aren't too far back, and Bedard in about eighteen months could be damn good.

 

What's going on here is that the Phillies are making it known that they want a good starting pitcher for Abreu, they're trying their luck with a few names, and every single team they're talking to is saying no.

 

The reason that the A's said no to Abreu was almost certainly the money and not, despite Beane's insisting otherwise, that he doesn't want to move Barry Zito. Beane's clever enough to know that in Zito he has a widely overvalued pitcher that's going to hit free agency in one year's time, and the A's aren't going to be able to re-sign him. And the pitching market this winter is making a lot of teams desperate, pushing Zito's value up even more. Beane saying he's not going to trade Zito only gives him an even better trading chip. So what Hendry needs to do here is get in the middle of things...

 

Phillies get: Barry Zito, Rich Hill

A's get: Jerome Williams, Ryan Madson, Adam Greenberg

Cubs get: Bobby Abreu, $5m towards 2007 from Phillies

 

Something like that. Obviously, if the Cubs hadn't made the awful trade with the Marlins for Pierre, and had instead traded for Bradley on the ridiculously cheap as it turned out (Ethier isn't even equivalent in prospect status to Renyel Pinto in my opinion, and the Dodgers threw in a decent backup middle infielder), they'd be much more able to afford the pitching they're giving up to net Abreu, and this would leave us skating on thin ice a bit come next year. But we need Abreu, and it's as simple as that.

 

What is your opinion based on? Ethier slaughtered AA pitching in his first go round and continued to mash in the fall league. Pinto on the other hand was in his second tour of Duty in AA and showed last year he was unable to handle AAA batters. Ethier takes walks and hits for power at a league appropriate age.

 

There seems to be a disconnect between fans lofty expectations of the Cubs prospects and reality. Also, it is possible that Dodgers were looking for a higher level OF prospect to replace Bradley and if that was the expectation, the Cubs didn't have a prayer of landing Bradley in the first place.

[Guest]

Something like that. Obviously, if the Cubs hadn't made the awful trade with the Marlins for Pierre, and had instead traded for Bradley on the ridiculously cheap as it turned out (Ethier isn't even equivalent in prospect status to Renyel Pinto in my opinion, and the Dodgers threw in a decent backup middle infielder), they'd be much more able to afford the pitching they're giving up to net Abreu, and this would leave us skating on thin ice a bit come next year. But we need Abreu, and it's as simple as that.

What is your opinion based on? Ethier slaughtered AA pitching in his first go round and continued to mash in the fall league. Pinto on the other hand was in his second tour of Duty in AA and showed last year he was unable to handle AAA batters. Ethier takes walks and hits for power at a league appropriate age.

The same level and the same age at which Pinto put up great numbers as a pitcher. (Technically, Pinto is a few months younger than Ethier and put up similarly good numbers in 2004.) Yes, Pinto stuggled in his brief AAA callups, but the fact remains he's had just as much success at as high a level as Ethier has managed to reach all at a younger age. Ethier only managed a .686 OPS in his AAA callup, but that doesn't mean I'd write off his success at lower levels based on 17 PA just as I wouldn't write off Pinto because of his struggles in 30 AAA innings.

[gflore34]

I'd give and take on whatever is necessary to aquire Tejada. I'd approach the O's and tell them this who I won't trade - Lee, Ramirez, Prior, Zambrano - eveyone and everything else is available. I'd even take Lopez' bad contract if that's what it took. What I don't get about Hendry is this waiting game he's playing, what the hell is he waiting for? Some other team to wow the O's and grab Tejada?

[Bull]

He said the Cubs would probably send 5 players...Hill, KPat, Williams, Cedono, and Guzman to get it done.{quote]

 

shock: 5 players for Tejada? Levine must be higher then a kite in the sky. No way is Tejada WORTH 5 players. He isn't Bonds...or Pujols, ohree r Vlad, to which it would need to t5ake 5 players to get a trade done. Three very good young players or the Orioles adding Penn or Cabrera in the deal, would get it done. No need to overpay with 5 CHEAP players for a 1 EXPENSIVE player.

 

Not only that, but the O's will want quality not quantity. You try fitting 4 extra players on their 40 man.

[UK1679666180]

Something like that. Obviously, if the Cubs hadn't made the awful trade with the Marlins for Pierre, and had instead traded for Bradley on the ridiculously cheap as it turned out (Ethier isn't even equivalent in prospect status to Renyel Pinto in my opinion, and the Dodgers threw in a decent backup middle infielder), they'd be much more able to afford the pitching they're giving up to net Abreu, and this would leave us skating on thin ice a bit come next year. But we need Abreu, and it's as simple as that.

What is your opinion based on? Ethier slaughtered AA pitching in his first go round and continued to mash in the fall league. Pinto on the other hand was in his second tour of Duty in AA and showed last year he was unable to handle AAA batters. Ethier takes walks and hits for power at a league appropriate age.

The same level and the same age at which Pinto put up great numbers as a pitcher. (Technically, Pinto is a few months younger than Ethier and put up similarly good numbers in 2004.) Yes, Pinto stuggled in his brief AAA callups, but the fact remains he's had just as much success at as high a level as Ethier has managed to reach all at a younger age. Ethier only managed a .686 OPS in his AAA callup, but that doesn't mean I'd write off his success at lower levels based on 17 PA just as I wouldn't write off Pinto because of his struggles in 30 AAA innings.

 

Ethier projects to be a poor man's version of Murton (from the LH side), his power was increased due to the Texas League, if you put him in the SL, his power would've dropped. I don't think he's anything special, plus he's behind Putnam and Herrera as far as Oak. OF prospects. I'd rank Pinto higher as well.

[Guest]

Something like that. Obviously, if the Cubs hadn't made the awful trade with the Marlins for Pierre, and had instead traded for Bradley on the ridiculously cheap as it turned out (Ethier isn't even equivalent in prospect status to Renyel Pinto in my opinion, and the Dodgers threw in a decent backup middle infielder), they'd be much more able to afford the pitching they're giving up to net Abreu, and this would leave us skating on thin ice a bit come next year. But we need Abreu, and it's as simple as that.

What is your opinion based on? Ethier slaughtered AA pitching in his first go round and continued to mash in the fall league. Pinto on the other hand was in his second tour of Duty in AA and showed last year he was unable to handle AAA batters. Ethier takes walks and hits for power at a league appropriate age.

The same level and the same age at which Pinto put up great numbers as a pitcher. (Technically, Pinto is a few months younger than Ethier and put up similarly good numbers in 2004.) Yes, Pinto stuggled in his brief AAA callups, but the fact remains he's had just as much success at as high a level as Ethier has managed to reach all at a younger age. Ethier only managed a .686 OPS in his AAA callup, but that doesn't mean I'd write off his success at lower levels based on 17 PA just as I wouldn't write off Pinto because of his struggles in 30 AAA innings.

 

Ethier projects to be a poor man's version of Murton (from the LH side), his power was increased due to the Texas League, if you put him in the SL, his power would've dropped. I don't think he's anything special, plus he's behind Putnam and Herrera as far as Oak. OF prospects. I'd rank Pinto higher as well.

I thought about mentioning something about the hitter-friendliness of the Texas league as well, but you could say the same thing about the Southern League and Pinto; I'm pretty sure the SL is kind to the pitchers just as the TL is kind to the hitters.

[JeffH]

In assessing their relative value, one must consider that Ethier has three option years remaining, while Pinto has only one.

[UK1679666180]

I thought about mentioning something about the hitter-friendliness of the Texas league as well, but you could say the same thing about the Southern League and Pinto; I'm pretty sure the SL is kind to the pitchers just as the TL is kind to the hitters.

 

The FSL and the SL are very pitcher friendly, while the MWL is neutral and the PCL is very hitter friendly.

[anemic offense]

That deal, today, doesn't look too bad. However, Guzman has the chance to make it look horrible. I wouldn't worry a lot about Hill and Williams since 1) we'll never see them, and 2) they are middle to back of the rotation guys. We know what we have with Corey, and Cedeno would be redundant. Guzman, on the other hand could change the look of this deal if he figures out how to stay healthy. If not, he's no great loss, either.

 

Personally I don't like it at all. The Cubs have arlready given away 2 near major league ready pitchers to the Marlins, and our system isn't exactly loaded with talented, major league ready prospects. If you throw Cedeno, Guzman, and Hill in there, about the only prospects who could make an impact on this club (in the next year or two) are Murton, Pie, and E Pat. Conventional wisdom tells me that at least one (maybe 2 ) will never be better than average so that leaves this team with one impact young player. Now factor in the fact the Cubs have SEVERAL key players with contract years/big rasies in the offing (Pierre - if they keep him, DLee, Prior, Zambrano, A-Ram, Wood - if they keep him, possibly Barrett, etc.) and you realize they simpley CAN'T afford to make this trade. That would mean (assuming DLee is extended) a good $30 mil would be allocated to the infield, with RF still being a gaping hole. Although TribCo Could find the money if they wanted to, we all know that they limit their spending.

 

What I'm trying to say is at some point the Cubs (I'm talking to you Dusty) have to bite the bullet and play some of their younger players. You simply can't afford to have no infusion of young talent and expect to succeed. The Cardinals may be an exception, but look at the Yankees. Although we all know they've spent their money rather foolishly, much of their demise is associated with their inability to groom and foster their young talent. Once their mid 90s prospects began to age (and decline), we've seen the toll its taken on this team. Now they're to the point where even THEY can't afford to keep signing the "best" free agents out there. It's pretty much ruined there team. And, believe it or not, the Cubs are quickly approaching the quagmire. In 2 years most of our current key players (Lee, Aram close, Pierre, Walker - if he stays, Miggy - if he comes, possibly RF) will be on the wrong side of 30. Imo we need young players and we need some NOW. Besides, I have the feeling Cedeno is going to be the real deal. It would be a shame to throw him in a deal now.

[BigbadB]

That deal, today, doesn't look too bad. However, Guzman has the chance to make it look horrible. I wouldn't worry a lot about Hill and Williams since 1) we'll never see them, and 2) they are middle to back of the rotation guys. We know what we have with Corey, and Cedeno would be redundant. Guzman, on the other hand could change the look of this deal if he figures out how to stay healthy. If not, he's no great loss, either.

 

Personally I don't like it at all. The Cubs have arlready given away 2 near major league ready pitchers to the Marlins, and our system isn't exactly loaded with talented, major league ready prospects. If you throw Cedeno, Guzman, and Hill in there, about the only prospects who could make an impact on this club (in the next year or two) are Murton, Pie, and E Pat. Conventional wisdom tells me that at least one (maybe 2 ) will never be better than average so that leaves this team with one impact young player. Now factor in the fact the Cubs have SEVERAL key players with contract years/big rasies in the offing (Pierre - if they keep him, DLee, Prior, Zambrano, A-Ram, Wood - if they keep him, possibly Barrett, etc.) and you realize they simpley CAN'T afford to make this trade. That would mean (assuming DLee is extended) a good $30 mil would be allocated to the infield, with RF still being a gaping hole. Although TribCo Could find the money if they wanted to, we all know that they limit their spending.

 

What I'm trying to say is at some point the Cubs (I'm talking to you Dusty) have to bite the bullet and play some of their younger players. You simply can't afford to have no infusion of young talent and expect to succeed. The Cardinals may be an exception, but look at the Yankees. Although we all know they've spent their money rather foolishly, much of their demise is associated with their inability to groom and foster their young talent. Once their mid 90s prospects began to age (and decline), we've seen the toll its taken on this team. Now they're to the point where even THEY can't afford to keep signing the "best" free agents out there. It's pretty much ruined there team. And, believe it or not, the Cubs are quickly approaching the quagmire. In 2 years most of our current key players (Lee, Aram close, Pierre, Walker - if he stays, Miggy - if he comes, possibly RF) will be on the wrong side of 30. Imo we need young players and we need some NOW. Besides, I have the feeling Cedeno is going to be the real deal. It would be a shame to throw him in a deal now.

 

A lot of what you say is true. However, Dusty is still the manager of this team, and he has no use for youth. It seems to me that they really like Dusty, because they are molding this team to give Dusty exactly what he wants. They've messed up this team so bad at this point, all they really have left to do is trade what little prospects remain to fill the huge holes this team still has. When the next GM comes along, they too will have to start from scratch. I would at least hope that the next GM will progress the team forward rather than continue moving backward.

 

Can anyone begin to imagine how bad this team would look right now if Derrek Lee had a typical Derrek Lee year rather than an MVP-like season?

[mg420]

That deal, today, doesn't look too bad. However, Guzman has the chance to make it look horrible. I wouldn't worry a lot about Hill and Williams since 1) we'll never see them, and 2) they are middle to back of the rotation guys. We know what we have with Corey, and Cedeno would be redundant. Guzman, on the other hand could change the look of this deal if he figures out how to stay healthy. If not, he's no great loss, either.

 

Personally I don't like it at all. The Cubs have arlready given away 2 near major league ready pitchers to the Marlins, and our system isn't exactly loaded with talented, major league ready prospects. If you throw Cedeno, Guzman, and Hill in there, about the only prospects who could make an impact on this club (in the next year or two) are Murton, Pie, and E Pat. Conventional wisdom tells me that at least one (maybe 2 ) will never be better than average so that leaves this team with one impact young player. Now factor in the fact the Cubs have SEVERAL key players with contract years/big rasies in the offing (Pierre - if they keep him, DLee, Prior, Zambrano, A-Ram, Wood - if they keep him, possibly Barrett, etc.) and you realize they simpley CAN'T afford to make this trade. That would mean (assuming DLee is extended) a good $30 mil would be allocated to the infield, with RF still being a gaping hole. Although TribCo Could find the money if they wanted to, we all know that they limit their spending.

 

What I'm trying to say is at some point the Cubs (I'm talking to you Dusty) have to bite the bullet and play some of their younger players. You simply can't afford to have no infusion of young talent and expect to succeed. The Cardinals may be an exception, but look at the Yankees. Although we all know they've spent their money rather foolishly, much of their demise is associated with their inability to groom and foster their young talent. Once their mid 90s prospects began to age (and decline), we've seen the toll its taken on this team. Now they're to the point where even THEY can't afford to keep signing the "best" free agents out there. It's pretty much ruined there team. And, believe it or not, the Cubs are quickly approaching the quagmire. In 2 years most of our current key players (Lee, Aram close, Pierre, Walker - if he stays, Miggy - if he comes, possibly RF) will be on the wrong side of 30. Imo we need young players and we need some NOW. Besides, I have the feeling Cedeno is going to be the real deal. It would be a shame to throw him in a deal now.

 

i agree with this. with all the tejada talk i would be happy if the cubs signed mueller to play 2b & traded wuretz, walker, & a prospect like ryu to the rangers for wilkerson and kept hill & guzman. after 2006 wood & maddux will most likey be gone and starting pitching will be a concern. i have no doubts that cedeno & murton will do well if given the chance to start every day in the majors.

[CubbieSouthpaw]

If we get Miggy I don't think we will need to trade for Floyd. I'd be more than happy to sign Juan Encarnacion to play Right. Plus if we trade for Floyd there is no doubt in my mind we would have to give up Todd Walker. I'd hate to see Walker go, he is the perfect number 2 hitter. In all honesty, I wonder if Hendry has offered that up already. It actually seems to make sense for both teams.

 

IF and thats a BIG IF the Cubs get Tejada. I'd rather have Kotsay's defense in RF then Juan. Don't know exact #'s. But I believe Kotsay has the better glove and a more consistant bat.

[Diffusion]

Ethier isn't even equivalent in prospect status to Renyel Pinto in my opinion, and the Dodgers threw in a decent backup middle infielder

 

What is your opinion based on? Ethier slaughtered AA pitching in his first go round and continued to mash in the fall league. Pinto on the other hand was in his second tour of Duty in AA and showed last year he was unable to handle AAA batters. Ethier takes walks and hits for power at a league appropriate age.

 

There seems to be a disconnect between fans lofty expectations of the Cubs prospects and reality. Also, it is possible that Dodgers were looking for a higher level OF prospect to replace Bradley and if that was the expectation, the Cubs didn't have a prayer of landing Bradley in the first place.

 

Ethier hit .319/.385/.497 in 505 at-bats at AA his first time around, which I wouldn't classify as slaughtering anything considering that the Texas league is very hitter friendly and a lot of Ethier's average was driven by hitting .356 on balls in play. I would certainly say he had a very nice season, but let's not get carried away. In the Arizona Fall League, playing in extreme hitter's parks against probably less advanced pitching than he faced in Double-A (no-one sends their best arms to Arizona), Ethier hit .366/.495/.598 in 82 at-bats. Good for him is all you can say to that, because you certainly can't draw any conclusions from such a small sample size in such abstract baseball conditions.

 

Meanwhile, last year, Ethier hit .313/.383/.442 (.354 on balls in play) in his first go at the equally offensive California league (High-A). Solid but far from spectacular numbers that fit with him being a line-drive hitter with nothing more than gap power, decent but not great plate discipline. Defensively he's limited to the corners in the outfield.

 

In the long-term, in a neutral environment, I think that Ethier projects as something like a .280/.340/.430 hitter, which isn't bad, but it isn't particularly great either. Right now he's essentially Matt Murton with a good chunk less average, a bit less patience and a bit less power, and without any success at Triple-A or the major leagues. And with prospects, especially ones without a spectacular skillset like Ethier, the next step up the ladder could always be their last. He's six months younger than Murton, and was taken in the same draft, 30 picks after Murton. He's Matt Murton-lite. And Murton isn't the greatest prospect that's ever lived either.

 

Renyel Pinto is a big strong young lefty with three true plus pitches in his low nineties fastball, slider and changeup, plus he has a somewhat deceptive action, and so he has a really high ceiling. What's holding him back is just his ability to locate those pitches (which is why he didn't succeed at Triple-A, and ended up repeating at West Tenn). That's not to say that that's not a significant problem, but it's a lot more likely he overcomes that and so becomes a fine major league number three starter than it is that Ethier suddenly develops corner outfield power. Ethier has the higher floor though, he's probably more likely to fashion a worthwhile major league career than Pinto. Pinto has just one option year left (well done Hendry for absolutely wasting the first one), Ethier was only just added to the forty man roster this November. Starting pitching is a much more valuable commodity than corner outfield hitting, especially with the way that the SP market has gone these last two offseasons. The Dodgers may not have wanted a pitcher in return for Bradley. But all in all, I'd say that Pinto is the better prospect and the better acquisition, and I don't think it's particularly close.

[mhuber92211]

just kinda an off topic question of sorts but in order to high a high BA don't you have to have a high BABIP? Logically I would think so (admittingly not knowing how BABIP is calculated) so why is this a bad thing?

[Guest]

just kinda an off topic question of sorts but in order to high a high BA don't you have to have a high BABIP?

Yes and no. It's difficult to maintain a high BA without a high BABIP unless you hit with a lot of power (many HR) and don't strike out much. (So all those outs you make on balls in play are more or less the only outs you make.) Since most power hitters also tend to strike out quite a bit, most hitters with high averages will tend to have better than normal BABIP.

 

Logically I would think so (admittingly not knowing how BABIP is calculated) so why is this a bad thing?

A high BABIP isn't a bad thing in and of itself, what makes me nervous is hitters who are heavily-dependent on high a high BABIP as part of their value. The reason for this is that BABIP isn't the most consistent stat year to year. If a few extra ground balls find their way into fielder's gloves or a few of the hitter's line drives are right at a defender his BABIP can drop significantly. A good example of this phenomenon is Juan Pierre in 2002 or 2005. Career-wise he has a very good BABIP (.323) because his skills help maximize it; great speed, lots of ground balls and soft liners, not much power, etc. Because of the variability of BABIP, however, he's prone to having seasons where his BABIP is much lower than normal (.294 in 2005). Because Pierre's value is so dependent on his batting average and consequently his BABIP, in those seasons he's a very, very poor hitter. In short, hitters who are heavily reliant on BABIP for their won't be as consistently good as players who derive much of their worth from more stable traits, such as patience and power.

 

As for Ethier, it's unreasonable to expect him to maintain a BABIP of .350+. Juan Pierre is about as perfect a player as it gets when it comes to a skillset conducive to a high BABIP, and his career BABIP is 30 points lower than Ethier's the past couple years. Would Etheir look so good if had a more sustainable BABIP of .310 and put up lines around .280/.345/.450 the past couple years?