C Young to Athletics

[Sammy Sofa]

If it gets [expletive] on, so it gets [expletive] on:

 

A's get:

-Barney

-Vogelbach

-Marmol: Cubs eat 75% salary

-1 of: Szczur/Jackson/Lake

-1 of: Alcantara/Amaya/Hernandez/Villanueva/Candelario

-Hayden Simpson (throw in)

 

Cubs get

Reddick

Ian Krol: high ceiling with Hx injury, douchebagery.

Michael Taylor ( reclamation)

 

http://gifsoup.com/webroot/animatedgifs7/2736642_o.gif

[Little Slide Rooter]

If giving up three legit prospects plus two quality big leaguers for Reddick, 21 year old damaged goods, and one time top prospect who would have been traded by now if he really had any significant value, I guess we won't be getting Reddick without giving up Baez, Almora, and Soler, each of whom I'd just as soon keep and try our luck on the free agent market.

[Clem Fandango]

I don't know how they see it, but I see that proposal as us giving up too much for too little.

[toonsterwu]

Maybe I'm just a bit bored right now with a few minutes to kill, and maybe I'm a bit brain-dead after lunch (chicken salad and soup), but I don't see why that trade should be [expletive] on, other than that it's another mock trade scenario (and the fact that, a, SCS posted it, and b, SCS basically asked people to [expletive] on it).. It doesn't look that bad on the surface (how each team individually values players, that's something we don't know). I'm not sure either team does it, but on the surface, doesn't look that bad.

 

I really don't see the A's moving Reddick or Cespedes unless it's a really, really good deal. Is this good enough for them? I'm not sure, but

 

a) Barney could slide in at 2nd. I guess it's possible they move him to short, but it wouldn't surprise me if they kept Stephen Drew. With their emphasis on defense, and the fact that their offense ... sucks, this is a landing spot for Barney, if we moved him, that makes sense and the team has a need.

 

b) The A's have always valued trading for power bats, as it's hard for them to get the guys in FA. Is Vogelbach someone they like? Don't know, but makes sense.

 

c) The A's don't really need Marmol, but if the Cubs eat enough, they could shop him, or shop another pen arm.

 

d) Jackson/Szczur/Lake - I don't see any way they'd take Lake, unless it's to transition him to pitching. But getting another upper level OF makes sense for them if they think that they might move on from another veteran OF in a year or two (and maybe they think they can fix Jackson's swing).

 

e) Alcantara/Amaya/Villanueva/Hernandez/Candelario - I really can't see the A's taking a huge interest in Hernandez, with Addison Russell on a similar level. Alcantara/Villanueva make some sense - the former a couple levels higher than Russell, the latter an upper level 3rd baseman. The upside of Candelario/Amaya could be intriguing for them.

 

f) The Throw-in doesn't matter, but I doubt they'd take Hayden on.

 

So, there's plenty of reasons for the A's to consider that. I think it's fair to question if the potential impact of the trade, the Vogelbach's and part e, is enough for the A's to make this deal, but there's a lot for them to like. Does it make sense for the Cubs? On the surface, it seems like a lot to give up, but trading for someone like Reddick is going to be costly. We do know that our FO likes him (IIRC, they held off on trading him for many years in Boston, as teams did call about him). He would add a good, young corner OF to the mix, someone with some pop. Dealing Vogelbach/part d/part e would be a lot, but we'd presumably have one upper level CF option around, and the part e guys are far away. Krol's a very nice lefty arm that would start in AA, giving us needed pitching depth, and Taylor is a decent upper level OF prospect to add to the mix (not really potential starting material, and might not even make it as a 4th OF type with his lack of pop, but a decent prospect with some ability).

 

I don't know how I'd feel about it (I think I'd probably lean slightly to the no side), and again, I doubt either team would do this, but it doesn't look bad on the surface. And wow, I just wasted time assessing this ...

 

As for giving up Baez (in a package) if we could get Anderson/Reddick ... yeah, that's the type of deal you'd consider moving Baez in (presuming the package isn't insane, I guess). That said, it's a tough situation to deal Brett his offseason for the A's - he logged limited innings, and next year is his final year before 2 option years at a relatively high price. I am a fan of Anderson, always have been, but it's hard to see the A's netting a really good package for him this winter. That said, if a team came calling with a good package, gotta think Beane would at least consider it.

[davell]

I think it's way too much to give up for Reddick and I like him a bunch. I think a Barney, Vogelbach, Marmol, Jackson, Villanueva, and one of Alcantara, Amaya, or Candelario is enough to get Reddick AND Anderson. I mean, you'd be sending them a very cost controlled starting MI who's league average offensively and as good as anyone in the league defensively. Vogelbach is a future top 100 guy, likely within a year, with bigtime upside. Marmol has solid value, at a cost reduction, especially if he's a set up guy. Brett and Villanueva are both borderline top 100 guys that seem relatively safe to have ML careers. 100 at bats in the majors isn't going to kill Brett's value. The last group has excellent potential as well. It's like trading 3 B prospects, and a B- with upside(Sickels grading scale guesses) plus a starting SS and a very solid pen arm. Personally, I think thats enough to get those guys. Especially with the injury issues on Anderson, who I doubt has the same value currently, as Harden did, when we dealt for him. That being said, I seriously doubt Beane would package those two together.

[treebird]

Maybe I'm just a bit bored right now with a few minutes to kill, and maybe I'm a bit brain-dead after lunch (chicken salad and soup), but I don't see why that trade should be [expletive] on, other than that it's another mock trade scenario (and the fact that, a, SCS posted it, and b, SCS basically asked people to [expletive] on it).. It doesn't look that bad on the surface (how each team individually values players, that's something we don't know). I'm not sure either team does it, but on the surface, doesn't look that bad.

 

I really don't see the A's moving Reddick or Cespedes unless it's a really, really good deal. Is this good enough for them? I'm not sure, but

 

a) Barney could slide in at 2nd. I guess it's possible they move him to short, but it wouldn't surprise me if they kept Stephen Drew. With their emphasis on defense, and the fact that their offense ... sucks, this is a landing spot for Barney, if we moved him, that makes sense and the team has a need.

 

b) The A's have always valued trading for power bats, as it's hard for them to get the guys in FA. Is Vogelbach someone they like? Don't know, but makes sense.

 

c) The A's don't really need Marmol, but if the Cubs eat enough, they could shop him, or shop another pen arm.

 

d) Jackson/Szczur/Lake - I don't see any way they'd take Lake, unless it's to transition him to pitching. But getting another upper level OF makes sense for them if they think that they might move on from another veteran OF in a year or two (and maybe they think they can fix Jackson's swing).

 

e) Alcantara/Amaya/Villanueva/Hernandez/Candelario - I really can't see the A's taking a huge interest in Hernandez, with Addison Russell on a similar level. Alcantara/Villanueva make some sense - the former a couple levels higher than Russell, the latter an upper level 3rd baseman. The upside of Candelario/Amaya could be intriguing for them.

 

f) The Throw-in doesn't matter, but I doubt they'd take Hayden on.

 

So, there's plenty of reasons for the A's to consider that. I think it's fair to question if the potential impact of the trade, the Vogelbach's and part e, is enough for the A's to make this deal, but there's a lot for them to like. Does it make sense for the Cubs? On the surface, it seems like a lot to give up, but trading for someone like Reddick is going to be costly. We do know that our FO likes him (IIRC, they held off on trading him for many years in Boston, as teams did call about him). He would add a good, young corner OF to the mix, someone with some pop. Dealing Vogelbach/part d/part e would be a lot, but we'd presumably have one upper level CF option around, and the part e guys are far away. Krol's a very nice lefty arm that would start in AA, giving us needed pitching depth, and Taylor is a decent upper level OF prospect to add to the mix (not really potential starting material, and might not even make it as a 4th OF type with his lack of pop, but a decent prospect with some ability).

 

I don't know how I'd feel about it (I think I'd probably lean slightly to the no side), and again, I doubt either team would do this, but it doesn't look bad on the surface. And wow, I just wasted time assessing this ...

 

As for giving up Baez (in a package) if we could get Anderson/Reddick ... yeah, that's the type of deal you'd consider moving Baez in (presuming the package isn't insane, I guess). That said, it's a tough situation to deal Brett his offseason for the A's - he logged limited innings, and next year is his final year before 2 option years at a relatively high price. I am a fan of Anderson, always have been, but it's hard to see the A's netting a really good package for him this winter. That said, if a team came calling with a good package, gotta think Beane would at least consider it.

 

tell me more about this chicken salad

[KingCubsFan]

I think Vogelbach is being a bit overrated in these scenarios. He's one of those guys that could have much more value as he moves up the ladder, but right now he's a guy who has never played in a full-season league and is already relegated to 1B/DH.

 

And I have no idea why Hayden Simpson would even be mentioned. At this point, he's not even worth a roster spot for a minor league team.

[toonsterwu]

 

tell me more about this chicken salad

 

Garden variety chicken salad (that is, bought it at the grocery store in the morning as I couldn't go out for lunch). Nice big chunks of chicken, but lacked something in it.

 

The soup, on the other hand, was very good. Cream of Mushroom.

[toonsterwu]

I think it's way too much to give up for Reddick and I like him a bunch. I think a Barney, Vogelbach, Marmol, Jackson, Villanueva, and one of Alcantara, Amaya, or Candelario is enough to get Reddick AND Anderson. I mean, you'd be sending them a very cost controlled starting MI who's league average offensively and as good as anyone in the league defensively. Vogelbach is a future top 100 guy, likely within a year, with bigtime upside. Marmol has solid value, at a cost reduction, especially if he's a set up guy. Brett and Villanueva are both borderline top 100 guys that seem relatively safe to have ML careers. 100 at bats in the majors isn't going to kill Brett's value. The last group has excellent potential as well. It's like trading 3 B prospects, and a B- with upside(Sickels grading scale guesses) plus a starting SS and a very solid pen arm. Personally, I think thats enough to get those guys. Especially with the injury issues on Anderson, who I doubt has the same value currently, as Harden did, when we dealt for him. That being said, I seriously doubt Beane would package those two together.

 

Well ... I don't think that would be enough to net Reddick AND Anderson, but as to whether or not his original trade proposal (with Krol and Taylor) might be too much, that's a fair question.

 

From the Cubs perspective, the argument that it's too much is easy. Let's take the most basic argument - if the Cubs believe that Brett Jackson can adjust his swing enough to hit in the .240-.250 range ... you could basically have Josh Reddick right there. Now, it's a fair question if Brett can adjust, but that would be the starting point of any "is this too much" conversation in this hypothetical. Add in a solid major leaguer in Barney who fills a need and fills their emphasis on defense, and 3 talented youngsters, it's not hard to buy that it's too much.

 

The flip side is this, and maybe I didn't articulate it well enough in the drive-by posting - why the heck would the A's do this, though? They emphasize defense, and Reddick has been excellent in RF. They are always on the search for power. Reddick is young, cost-controlled (4 more years). Their system is strong. To give him up, it'd have to be a monster deal. Vogelbach is a nice piece, but far away. The need for Brett Jackson isn't high, as their OF is packed, with pieces in the system. Would quantity entice an organization coming off such a surprising surge in the 2nd half? I'm also of the opinion that Barney is a guy that, if he's on your team, you value him a lot, but if he's being dealt, I'm not sure another team would necessarily value him that high. Marmol is an unnecessary asset for them.

 

Like I noted, I doubt either team would seriously consider such an option, and was simply saying I think the value of it, IMO, looks okay, but I think there's an easy argument for the A's as to why they wouldn't do this.

[davell]

To me, the reason the A's would do it(trade Reddick, not necessarily both) is they just got Young, could add a very solid starter at a position of need, in Barney, and add to their system as well, possibly selling high on Reddick. I guess he'd bring more of a return than Cespedes, but Cespedes' contract would probably make him the likelier of the two, to be dealt. But having Crisp, Cespedes, Reddick, Young, and Smith makes it very likely they move someone.

[toonsterwu]

Oh, leaving SCS' hypothetical aside, as I noted above, I think they definitely move someone. I just have high doubts that it's Cespedes or Reddick unless it's a monster deal, and while I think SCS' hypothetical could be considered too much for the Cubs, I can also understand why the A's. coming off the excellent year they just had, might not consider it as enough.

 

I tend to think they'll move Crisp (despite Beane's recent comments). I don't think they'll net much in return, but that'd be my bet. Actually, one thing I wouldn't rule out - considering how early this trade was, I wouldn't necessarily rule out the A's from considering their options with Chris Young, including listening to offers involving him. I doubt it, but I wouldn't rule it out. Seth Smith has such big platoon splits from this year, and for his career, that I don't think he really factors in that much.

[Little Slide Rooter]

I don't know how they see it, but I see that proposal as us giving up too much for too little.

 

Personally, I agree, but people were suggestion a "Gio Gonzalez" like package for Reddick.

[TheClash]

Josh Reddick....really?

 

 

Really.

[Guest]

Josh Reddick....really?

 

 

Really.

 

Yea, you know... that 25 year old who just had a 4.8 WAR season. Really.

[Clem Fandango]

Josh Reddick....really?

 

 

Really.

 

I'm not nearly as high on Reddick as some of the others here, but to dismiss the opportunity to have him on your team is pretty shortsighted. He's a very good player given his age, and he doesn't reach arbitration until 2014, and is under team control through 2016. He's an absolute steal right now for the A's, and even after arbitration he should be well worth the money. He's worth looking into acquiring.

[TheClash]

Josh Reddick....really?

 

 

Really.

 

Yea, you know... that 25 year old who just had a 4.8 WAR season. Really.

pardon me for not wanting a right fielder who is an out machine.

[Clem Fandango]

Josh Reddick....really?

 

 

Really.

 

Yea, you know... that 25 year old who just had a 4.8 WAR season. Really.

pardon me for not wanting a right fielder who is an out machine.

 

J.J. Hardy

Ian Kinsler

Derek Jeter

Starlin Castro

Elvis Andrus

Jimmy Rollins

Jose Reyes

Adam Jones

Hunter Pence

 

How many of those players would you a) like to have on your team b) be indifferent if they were on your team or c) would adamantly oppose them being on your team?

[TheClash]

Josh Reddick....really?

 

 

Really.

 

Yea, you know... that 25 year old who just had a 4.8 WAR season. Really.

pardon me for not wanting a right fielder who is an out machine.

 

J.J. Hardy

Ian Kinsler

Derek Jeter

Starlin Castro

Elvis Andrus

Jimmy Rollins

Jose Reyes

Adam Jones

Hunter Pence

 

How many of those players would you a) like to have on your team b) be indifferent if they were on your team or c) would adamantly oppose them being on your team?

 

 

Oooh, the I'm going to create a list of players with name recognition who were outperformed by Reddick's WAR last year so I can trick him or her into a corner and counter with Reddick being better than that player argument. Sorry Logan, I'm not stupid and can see right through your feeble children's games.

 

My point is quite simple. Sabermetric research on offense is quite advanced. If a player has a season that is worth five wins on offense, there's a pretty good chance that a player with those statistics is actually worth five wins. Sabermetric development on defense - while a lot better than it was five years ago - is still rudimentary and in its infancy.

 

If we were to define the progression in offensive statistics as something like RBIs, AVG, OBP, OPS, OBA. Or if we were to define the pitching progression from W, ERA, RA, FIP, xFIP. The most advanced fielding statistics would fall somewhere between RBIs and batting average or wins and ERA in terms of accuracy. (Im not including at relative defensive position weights)

 

Our understanding of what maps defensive ability into wins is pretty weak. In fact, there may not be an OBA or xFIP equivalent. It very well could be that the difference in true talent level between the best and average at a position is only 10 runs, the rest is pure randomness. Past defense is still a pretty terrible predictor at future defense for one thing.

 

The point is that if given a player who has a nice WAR, but a ton of that WAR is tied up into his defense - at a non-defensive position no less - I'm going to pass. Offensively, we're looking at a right-fielder with a career .300 OBP. For him to be worth it, we better be damn sure that his defensive WAR is legitimate.

 

Odds are its not.

 

Of course if we can get him for fair value excluding his defense, that's one thing. There's no reason to give up a decent package for him. It's not like we're going to be good during his cheap years.

[Clem Fandango]

Actually those are list of players who created more outs than Josh Reddick

[TheClash]

Actually those are list of players who created more outs than Josh Reddick

 

And hence likely also to have a lower WAR. They're also a bunch of guys who merely stepped to the plate more than Reddick. Jeter went to the plate 70 more times...

 

Reddick contributed to some 541 outs in 671 PAs, or about .81 outs per PA.

[Clem Fandango]

Reddick also had a .221 ISO, which was 15th best in the AL and 27th best in the majors (3rd best among RF's). That's higher than Prince Fielder, Buster Posey, Adam Jones, Yoenis Cespedes, Jason Heyward, Carlos Gonzalez, Billy Butler, Nelson Cruz, Nick Swisher, Paul Konerko, David Wright, Hanley Ramirez, Hunter Pence, Ian Kinsler, Adrian Gonzalez.

 

I mean I can keep going but you get the picture. Reddick's value comes in his ability to hit for power, which he can do better than some of the other major leaguers who are known for hitting with power. I really don't care how many outs Josh Reddick creates as long as he's able to consistently hit for power. Unless Reddick is a slap happy singles hitter who hits at the top of the lineup because his manager puts him there based on some preconceived notion that he needs to because he's fast, outs created is a ridiculous reason to NOT want Josh Reddick, and to ignore the factors of age, cost, and team control when evaluating whether or not you want the guy is equally as silly.

[Guest]

Reddick also had a .221 ISO, which was 15th best in the AL and 27th best in the majors (3rd best among RF's). That's higher than Prince Fielder, Buster Posey, Adam Jones, Yoenis Cespedes, Jason Heyward, Carlos Gonzalez, Billy Butler, Nelson Cruz, Nick Swisher, Paul Konerko, David Wright, Hanley Ramirez, Hunter Pence, Ian Kinsler, Adrian Gonzalez.

 

I mean I can keep going but you get the picture. Reddick's value comes in his ability to hit for power, which he can do better than some of the other major leaguers who are known for hitting with power. I really don't care how many outs Josh Reddick creates as long as he's able to consistently hit for power. Unless Reddick is a slap happy singles hitter who hits at the top of the lineup because his manager puts him there based on some preconceived notion that he needs to because he's fast, outs created is a ridiculous reason to NOT want Josh Reddick, and to ignore the factors of age, cost, and team control when evaluating whether or not you want the guy is equally as silly.

I have to quibble a bit here.

 

Reddick making outs at a high rate (I don't care about the absolute # of outs) is a very good reason not to want him.

 

That is, of course, counterbalanced by at least a few good reasons to want to get him on the Cubs.

 

But unless you're seriously mean that you don't care at all about OBP any longer, it's absolutely a reason not to like Reddick.

[TheClash]

Reddick also had a .221 ISO, which was 15th best in the AL and 27th best in the majors (3rd best among RF's). That's higher than Prince Fielder, Buster Posey, Adam Jones, Yoenis Cespedes, Jason Heyward, Carlos Gonzalez, Billy Butler, Nelson Cruz, Nick Swisher, Paul Konerko, David Wright, Hanley Ramirez, Hunter Pence, Ian Kinsler, Adrian Gonzalez.

 

I mean I can keep going but you get the picture. Reddick's value comes in his ability to hit for power, which he can do better than some of the other major leaguers who are known for hitting with power. I really don't care how many outs Josh Reddick creates as long as he's able to consistently hit for power. Unless Reddick is a slap happy singles hitter who hits at the top of the lineup because his manager puts him there based on some preconceived notion that he needs to because he's fast, outs created is a ridiculous reason to NOT want Josh Reddick, and to ignore the factors of age, cost, and team control when evaluating whether or not you want the guy is equally as silly.

 

 

So in other words he's Alfonso Soriano with more outs.

[Clem Fandango]

Reddick also had a .221 ISO, which was 15th best in the AL and 27th best in the majors (3rd best among RF's). That's higher than Prince Fielder, Buster Posey, Adam Jones, Yoenis Cespedes, Jason Heyward, Carlos Gonzalez, Billy Butler, Nelson Cruz, Nick Swisher, Paul Konerko, David Wright, Hanley Ramirez, Hunter Pence, Ian Kinsler, Adrian Gonzalez.

 

I mean I can keep going but you get the picture. Reddick's value comes in his ability to hit for power, which he can do better than some of the other major leaguers who are known for hitting with power. I really don't care how many outs Josh Reddick creates as long as he's able to consistently hit for power. Unless Reddick is a slap happy singles hitter who hits at the top of the lineup because his manager puts him there based on some preconceived notion that he needs to because he's fast, outs created is a ridiculous reason to NOT want Josh Reddick, and to ignore the factors of age, cost, and team control when evaluating whether or not you want the guy is equally as silly.

I have to quibble a bit here.

 

Reddick making outs at a high rate (I don't care about the absolute # of outs) is a very good reason not to want him.

 

That is, of course, counterbalanced by at least a few good reasons to want to get him on the Cubs.

 

But unless you're seriously mean that you don't care at all about OBP any longer, it's absolutely a reason not to like Reddick.

 

To be fair, I'm not sure where the 541 outs in 671 PA's came from. B-R has him listed as creating 484 outs in 673 PA's, which is .72 outs per PA. Also, Reddick has the ability to draw walks. His AVG may be slightly skewed by a .269 BABIP, which was the 17th worst in the majors. His BABIP the previous season in half as much time was .318. It's too early in his career to determine which is the outlier given this is his first full season, but I'm willing to bet he's a much better hitter than that, or at the very least he will develop into a much better hitter than that. His BABIP in the first half was .292, when he had an .880 OPS and a triple slash of .268/.348/.532. His BABIP in the 2nd half was .244 with a triple slash of .215/.256/.391. He drew 38 BB in the first half in 83 games... 17 in 73 games in the 2nd half.

 

Reddick's primary culprit is an abysmal September. Through August 31st Reddick had a .262/.327/.505/.832 slash line with 28 homers and a .294 BABIP. His BABIP dropped 25 points in September. His September BABIP was .174. His BB and K rates that month didn't deviate all that much from the rest of his season's trends. Actually his K% in September was the 2nd lowest month of his season (first being April). Josh Reddick just couldn't buy a hit in September, and his overall numbers suffered for it.

[TheClash]

grounding out into doubleplays is a 'skill', we should treat it as one.