Re: Cleveland Indians DFA Andy Marte

[BigbadB]

Byrnes had a career year and was a team leader for that young team. Meanwhile, Carlos Quentin struggled to hit for the power he showed in the minors at a major league level, and pretty much struggled to do much of anything at the plate while he had the starting job in 2007. All the while Justin Upton was scorching through the minors at age 19 ready to be the second coming of Jesus.

 

So what do you do? Do you bid farewell to a team leader who had a career year or trade the guy who, for all intents and purposes, sucked and was playing a position that was blocking Jesus Squared?

 

They trade him. It makes sense. In the end they got Dan Haren because of Carlos Quentin, which I would say is kind of a wash now. But it would've been a steal. there was no way of knowing that Carlos Quentin was going to produce like he did last year. He dwarfed his best minor league numbers a year after he put up a 63 OPS+ in the majors while playing in "the worst division in baseball" at the time. While none of us would've resigned Byrnes like the D-Backs did, I think if we were faced with the decision at the end of 2007 to keep Byrnes, replace Quentin with Upton, and trade Quentin to complete a deal for Haren, we'd do it in a heartbeat.

 

That being said, Eric Byrnes is on my list of people I want to punch in the face for being a douche

 

Are we sure that Byrnes signed that contract after Quentin was traded? I could swear he signed it before Quentin was traded, and also before Justin Upton got his first call to the majors.

 

I kind of thought Quentin was traded because Byrnes already had a long term deal, Young already had CF locked up, and Upton had the brighter future.

 

IIRC, Upton was called up for a cup of coffee in 2007. He's on the 07 roster on the BR page with minimal at bats. Byrnes signed the extension in August. So yeah, they traded Quentin in the offseason (December, for Cris Carter, who was sent over to complete the Haren deal). Perhaps they intended on trading him after his poor showing to make room for Upton?

 

So in reality, they had already signed Byrnes, so they had a logjam in RF. Either way, they made the right decision at the time. I'd have traded Quentin as well

 

You'd give up on a stud prospect early so you can lock up a below average LF just because of clubhouse presence and intangibles?

 

They didn't do that. They signed Byrnes before they traded Quentin and once Byrnes was signed, it became a bad contract that they weren't going to be able to move. Quentin got them Haren, which in my mind is a pretty good deal.

 

They probably never should have given Byrnes a long term deal, but since the damage was done, they made the best of the situation by trading one of their young stud outfielders for a stud pitcher, which they needed. With Byrnes hurt last year, they were able to move Conor Jackson back to the outfield, so it's not like they were left with no options.

 

What?

 

Eric Byrnes was extended on August 7, 2007.

 

Carlos Quentin was traded on December 3, 2007.

 

So they locked up Byrnes and then 2 months later realized he wasn't worth it?

 

I think it's pretty clear that when they signed Byrnes they had a plan to trade Quentin in the offseason.

 

I think it's pretty clear that they had designs on Byrnes in LF, Young in CF, Quentin in RF and Upton in AA. When Upton impressed with his September call up, they decided to trade outfield depth for a stud starting pitcher.

 

He went .221/.283/.364 in his September callup.

 

So what?

 

You said they planned on Quentin in RF for 2008 and that those plans changed when Upton impressed in his September callup. So his .221/.283/.364 made Josh Byrnes go "man, I really wanted Quentin in RF next season, but I don't see how we can deny Upton that job after his 62 OPS+ in his callup. Screw it, I've gotta trade Quentin... it's the only way".

 

Which is more likely... that scenario, or the fact that they had planned on Upton in right all along and trading Quentin?

 

I'd think a GM has a plan when giving out a 3 year contract. I think it's obvious the plan was to trade Quentin. I don't see any other reasonable theory. They knew Upton was close to being ready and they knew Upton was locked in at center. There was nowhere for Quentin to play.

 

Upton put up those numbers at the age of 19. He was their poster boy draft pick. The fans took to him very quickly with his hot start. He hit a home run in his first game at home. Quentin didn't do anything with the club. Maybe there weren't plans for him to play RF, but he was a back up plan there if Upton wasn't ready. The D'Backs decided Upton was ready. Quentin helped net Haren.

 

Upton is a RFer, not a CFer.

 

If Arizona was my ballclub, Quentin would be in LF, Gonzalez would be in CF and Upton would be in RF, while Young would have been peddled off for a stud SP. Oh, and Byrnes wouldn't be on the team.

[BigbadB]

And with that, maybe we need to get this back to an Andy Marte discussion, since this is really his thread.

[17 Seconds]

If you want to believe that Josh Byrnes didn't plan on trading Quentin when he signed Byrnes (even though there were rumors at the trade deadline of 2007 that they were already shopping Quentin), then that's your choice. I just think we both know what the much more likely scenario was.

 

Edit: BTW that was a typo about Upton in center. It was supposed to be Young.

[Mephistopheles]

They didn't "give up" on him. They traded him in a deal for Dan Haren, which was smart. They had a HUGE logjam in the outfield at the time. They had Eric Byrnes, Justin Upton and Chris Young. They had Carlos Gonzalez and Carlos Quentin waiting in the wings. They had an opportunity to trade for Dan Haren. Byrnes had no chance of being dealt, Justin Upton was untouchable and Quentin can't play center. It was a no-brainer.

 

How is it a no brainer to hold on to the worst of your 5 OFs?

 

Because Byrnes wasn't a prospect with trade value. Young and Upton were the top two of the remaining four. They traded the bottom two.

[SouthSideRyan]

They didn't "give up" on him. They traded him in a deal for Dan Haren, which was smart. They had a HUGE logjam in the outfield at the time. They had Eric Byrnes, Justin Upton and Chris Young. They had Carlos Gonzalez and Carlos Quentin waiting in the wings. They had an opportunity to trade for Dan Haren. Byrnes had no chance of being dealt, Justin Upton was untouchable and Quentin can't play center. It was a no-brainer.

 

How is it a no brainer to hold on to the worst of your 5 OFs?

 

Because Byrnes wasn't a prospect with trade value. Young and Upton were the top two of the remaining four. They traded the bottom two.

 

Did you skip the last 15 posts or so? The issue was choosing Byrnes over Gonzalez and Quentin back in August.

[Mephistopheles]

Which is fine. The Diamondbacks were in a win now mentality. Who knew that Quentin would develop so quickly. Byrnes was an above average player 4 out of the 5 previous years. He was good in 2003, 2004, 2006 and 2007. Was he a star? No. Was he the kind of player good teams need to have to compliment their stars in order to win? Absolutely. No one's saying Byrnes is great, but the DBacks had a chance to win their division then. They had a chance to win their division last year. They wanted to minimize their risk in the immediate future at the cost of the three or four years down the road. At the time, Byrnes was a good bet to be a productive outfielder, not great but solidly above average for the next two or three years. What they couldn't do was have an outfield full of unproven youngsters, like Quentin, Gonzalez, Upton and to a certain extent Young. There's WAY too much risk in that for a team that's trying to win right now. Byrnes had been a consistent producer, so they took the safer route and augmented it with high upside players in center and left. That's the right decision. Keeping Byrnes was the correct move if you're operating in a largely win now move.

 

They then had four guys for two spots. Really Young and Gonzalez could play center, but Carlos Gonzalez at a poor rate. Upton, Quentin and Gonzalez could all play right. The best two to keep around were Upton and Young and there's no questioning that. It's foolish to think Quentin or Gonzalez should have been kept over Upton. They had an opportunity to had one of the top 20 or 30 pitchers in the game, and it cost them two spare parts. Sure, in hindsight Byrnes struggled and Quentin broke out, but at the time it was the right move. It's a pretty obvious one too.

[17 Seconds]

Byrnes had been a consistent producer

 

Consistently mediocre-to-bad. He's a corner outfielder fielder, not a middle infielder.

 

All this "they were in win mode" stuff is making it sound like Byrnes is some great player. You're making it sound like they gave up on Quentin to lock up some really good player that wouldn't be replacable if you let him walk. So let's say you let Byrnes walk and let Quentin start in left. If he sucks, how hard is it to find an .800 OPS left fielder? Not hard at all. The risk of trading away Quentin and then him end up being a superstar was much higher than the risk of letting Byrnes walk and it costing them a chance at winning anything. He's Eric Byrnes.

 

Byrnes is easily replaced. Quentin is not.

 

Either way, the argument is ruined by the fact that they didn't get true value for him when they traded him. Was Carter even in the White Sox top 10 at the time?

 

BTW, A 96 OPS+ is not really good for a left fielder, even with the good baserunning. He was bad the 2 year prior to his 2007, so 2007 was likely the aberration, not the other way around.

[Mephistopheles]

Do you know the probability of Quentin being a superstar prior to this season? The chances were well below 10 percent. He was far from a sure thing. I know what Byrnes is and what he's not. He was more or less expected to be a .280 EqA guy with above average defense and above average baserunning. That's a good outfielder, and production wise is comparable to say, Carlos Lee. He may not have sexy offensive numbers, but he compliments it well and it turns him into a good corner outfielder. Calling him "consistently mediocre to bad" is ignoring reality. I must stress that the risk in him wasn't too high. They had so much risk in other positions, they needed to minimize it somewhere.

 

Again, this was an obvious decision. It amazes me to see people arguing against it.

[17 Seconds]

I'm 95% sure that you don't even believe what you're saying right now.

 

The "Shut up." PM you sent me was a nice touch too. It really made me think.

 

You're right. You should always give up on stud prospects early if you have the opportunity to lock up a league average player. That's just common sense. League average players like Eric Byrnes just don't come around every day. Don't bother trying to get anything good for said prospect either, you don't need to. Just dump him for the other team's number 10 prospect. The priority should be to lock up that average guy long term.

 

Now quick...somebody get Hendry to get Shapiro on the phone. It's only a matter of time before they lock up Garko and give away Matt LaPorta for our 10th best prospect (Shapiro is a good GM so this should happen quickly).

[Mephistopheles]

Arizona didn't give up on Quentin. It's foolish to believe that. To get something good you have to give something up. The Diamondbacks shipped him out in a deal that netted them Dan Haren period.

 

They locked up Byrnes to minimize risk. Period.

[Ding Dong Johnson]

I was going to make a comment about Andy Marte, but perhaps this isn't the ritght thread

[RynoRules]

I was going to make a comment about Andy Marte, but perhaps this isn't the ritght thread

 

LOL

 

I was just thinking to myself, "Why did the Tribe release Marte in the first place? Ishe out of options?"

[badnews]

I think we should get Joel Guzman and GREG MILLER

[sneakypower]

wow, SSR is the only one who makes sense in this entire thread. the rest is a terrible conglomeration of revisionist history.

 

i would have loved it if we had included Fontenot in a Peavy trade so i could proclaim for all eternity that Sosa's rotting corpse netted us el Peavo.

 

and meph, really? really?? Marte's minor league numbers surley portend he has significant talent with which to succeed in the majors, but it's a damn unforseeable mystery why Quentin, with like a .562 career OBP in the minors turned into a successful MLB producer? are you doing more of your rile-the-crowd devils advocate nonsense?

[badnews]

No, it is funny to see what people can be convinced on. Even when Marte was "good" his batting average was crap for an "elite" player.

[17 Seconds]

Arizona didn't give up on Quentin. It's foolish to believe that. To get something good you have to give something up. The Diamondbacks shipped him out in a deal that netted them Dan Haren period.

 

They locked up Byrnes to minimize risk. Period.

 

They minimized reward, not risk.

 

And keep pretending he netted them Haren.

[Mephistopheles]

It's a fact that he helped them get Haren. It's a fact that it minimizes the risk in their season.

[17 Seconds]

which is higher....the risk of not being able to find an average left fielder, or the risk of losing a cheap/young stud hitter?

 

minimized reward.

[Mephistopheles]

You really don't have a clue.

[17 Seconds]

i'll take that as you not being able to defend your argument anymore.

 

really i think the most shocking development in this thread is that murton actually was extremely valuable. i mean afterall, he landed us harden

[Mephistopheles]

No it doesn't mean I can't defend my argument. It means that my defense is too advanced for you.

[Derwood]

No it doesn't mean I can't defend my argument. It means that my defense is too advanced for you.

 

write an article about it

[Guancous]

I'd welcome Andy Marte as Aramis's AAA backup and hope that Marte never needs to see the field.

[TruffleShuffle]

No it doesn't mean I can't defend my argument. It means that my defense is too advanced for you.

 

write an article about it

 

it's coming right after the article about how jr towles actually outproduced soto last year.

[badnews]

Could Chris Young even net a "stud" pitcher in return? About the best Chris Young can hope for is Mike Cameron's career. While Cameron's one of those guys who fluctuates from being vastly underrated to wildly overrated, I don't remember him even in the prime of his career being a super-hot commodity that you could hope to swap for a stud pitcher like a Matt Cain or something.

 

As long as we're chiming in, I think the Diamondbacks would have been best served with an outfield of Quentin, Young, and Upton. Gonzalez not as much.

 

Another question, where are these statistics coming from? Like the one about Carlos Quentin having less than a 10% chance of developing into what he was in 2008? What is the exac percentage? How many decimal places are we talking here?