Photo courtesy of Yahoo sports
Reactions came in fast and furious last night, and not all of them were positive on the Yankee side of the fence. As I chronicled last night most MSM types called the deal relatively even for both sides, with a consensus viewing it as a great deal for the Yankees who traded an ill-fitting (albeit very talented) spare part for a 23 year old potential ace. But as with any deal there will be some critics, many of whom raise valid concerns although in some instances I think are missing some important facts and perspective. Here are the most common criticisms of the deal I’ve heard from the Yankee perspective:
You need Montero, the Yankee right handed bats are aging
There’s no doubt that this is true with Jeter and Rodriguez on the downside of their careers. But it isn’t a material concern either this year or in 2013. Russel Martin is 28 and has an facing lefties for his career. In what was an otherwise down year Tex lefthanders in 2011. Curtis Granderson’s previous struggles and recent adjustments are well documented, and he both for more power and a higher average last year. Swisher has a higher OPS against lefties for his and them last year. Robbie Cano hasn’t suffered a significant platoon split over the course of his career. Some do lose power from the right side, but that’s a function of the ballpark as much as anything else. Fans need to remember that this team no longer revolves around Jeter and Alex, it is now built around Cano, Tex and Granderson. That transition has already occurred.
Pineda wasn’t as good away from Safeco and was bad in the 2nd half
This is true, but doesn’t affect the talent level of the pitcher you’re dealing with. Michael Pineda struck out 9.1 batters per 9 IP last year. That was 3rd best in the AL last year and has only been matched by 02 Roger Clemens and 08 Joba Chamberlain on the Yankees in the past 10 years. His 2.89 BB/9 isn’t elite, but is in the upper third for AL starters and very good for someone his age and with his stuff. Both of those numbers have nothing to do with where you’re pitching, those are generated by Mr Pineda himself. He was prone to the long ball, which was the cause of his 2nd half struggles and could be an issue in Yankee Stadium, but his ability to miss bats and not issue free passes should more than compensate for it. Fixing his fly ball tendencies can be something as simple as working lower in the zone and more to the right hand side of the plate facing certain batters. It’s not something that makes you take a pass on someone with his abilities. That’s not to say he’s a finished product, he needs to work on a change or cutter to keep lefties from jumping all over him, which happened at times last year. It’s also worth noting that the 170.1 innings Pineda threw last year was a career high, having thrown just under 140 in 2008 and 2010 in the Mariners farm system. As we saw with Ivan Nova in 2010, young pitchers can hit a wall when they’re working beyond their previous innings high as a rookie.
The Yanks don’t have another Montero in the system
This is just flat out false. They do, his name is Gary Sanchez. Sanchez flashed more power in Charleston last year than Montero did at a similar age, and has a far better chance of sticking at Catcher. The Yanks made it very clear last year that they loved Russel Martin, they have Cervelli backing up at the MLB level and Austin Romine behind him at AAA. There isn’t a need for the MLB club at the position, and by the time there will be they have plenty of options.
If you enjoyed this article, please consider sharing it!
Great post Steve. I’ll miss Montero, but this is the win move now for the Yankees. Three years from now the team could be a .500 club as it works off excessive contracts waiting to shed aging superstars. Before that happens, with or without Montero they will put one of the elite offenses on the diamond. Now, they have every opportunity to compliment that with rotation depth.
The best part of this deal is although it is a “win-now” type of trade it also very much deals in the future of the team as well. This isn’t the Yankees trading for some pitcher in his early 30′s/late 20′s with most of his best years behind him, Pineda likely hasn’t began to scratch the surface of his overall potential.
Also with a rotation of Sabathia, Pineda, Nova, and hopefully either Banuelos or Betances when and if the offense does start to decline due to age we could and should have the kind of rotation that allows us to still compete through such periods. In 08 we suffered the problem of waiting out bad contracts on older players, but we did so with a patchwork of terrible pitchers. Hopefully that won’t be the case next time we face a similar problem.
Hopefully Sabathia can help Pineda with his development of a third pitch and his ability to generate ground balls. Although he is a lefty he broke into the league very similarly to Pineda. Sabathia never had the kind of K numbers Pineda has shown, but he was a fastball/slider power arm who didn’t generate the kind of ground balls he does now. For a time people thought of him as soley a 2 pitch pitcher, now he has one of the best change ups in baseball and works in a 2-seamer regularly. He also has at least one year with Mariano around as well so I’m sure he will be asking about improving and upping the use of his cutter at some point (fangraphs has him with one throwing it under 3% of the time).
My only real concern with Pineda is injury. If he stays healthy I don’t see any reason he shouldn’t be at least a number 2 for years to come, with reasonable upside as an ace. Also for those who love Banuelos and Betances but question this trade, Pineda has more upside than either Banuelos or Betances and it’s really not arguable.
I’m not sure I like this deal because I’m not a fan of trading an everyday potential impact player for a once every 5 days potential impact player. That being said, Cashman appears to be an absolute genius comparing what he gave up for Pineda to what was given up for Latos & Gio.
“…an everyday potential impact player for a once every 5 days potential impact player…”
In my opinion, that argument is valid for MVP voting MOST years. However, in a trade you are always supposed to aim for the best arm available. A potential number one or two is more coveted than a potential super-duper-DH, wouldn’t you agree?
That is a valid point, but in this situation the values aren’t quite that cut and dry. You have to take into consideration that Montero was likely never going to be more than a DH with the Yankees, and even still is more than likely still only going to be that with the Mariners. This impacts his potential greatly. Pineda on the other hand is likely already that of a number 2 starter, with upside to become a legit ace sometime in the near future. As a rule of thumb A top of the rotation starter is almost always going to be more valuable than a DH. The only real way for us to completely lose this deal is if Pineda gets hurt early on and busts out, or if Montero ends up sticking as a starting catcher. The Latter is a very slim, almost to the point of not being a possibility. This is the reason Montero has been available for every top of the rotation starter who’s been dangled in trades.
I’m just not convinced that Pineda is that good. He was great at SAFECO, but not even league average away from there. I’m very afraid of how his fly ball & HR rate will play at Yankee Stadium and Fenway. He does have much better swing & miss stuff than Hughes, but last year’s differential between 1st & 2nd half is very much like Hughes in 2010. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t hate this trade, just not loving it.
His road splits for FIP, xFIP, BB/9, K/BB and HR/9 were either better or very close to his home numbers.
Good point. I just looked those up. The more I’m ready (and looking at stats), the more I’m starting to like this trade.
Also it’s not as comparable between Hughes’ 2010 and Pineda’s 2011 as you make it seem.
Through June Pineda pitched 102.0 innings and posted a 2.64 ERA, he then posted a 5.34 ERA over the final 69 innings of the season.
Through June of 2010 Hughes pitched 88.0 innings and posted a 3.57 ERA, he then posted a 4.80 ERA over the final 88.1 innings of the season.
Pineda pitched extremely well through 3/4 of his season, he then fell off at the end of the year.
Hughes pitched good but not great, almost a full run higher ERA than Pineda, for half a season and then pitched really poorly for the last half of the season. He was never really as good as Pineda was and when you look month by month he was worse longer.
Pineda really had only one really bad month, in July when he gave up 21 earned runs in 28 innings (6.75 ERA). But even in this really bad month he posted a 3.74 FIP and a 3.14 xFIP. So he likely didn’t even pitch all that terribly in that month, especially when you consider his .294 BABIP in that month was the highest of any month that season.
In fact his FIP by month actually looks really good.
Pineda FIP by month:
Mar/Apr- 2.26 FIP
May- 3.15 FIP
June- 3.90 FIP
July- 3.74 FIP
August- 4.20 FIP
Sept/Oct- 3.41 FIP
Don’t ignore the fact that this kid was 22. People give credit to minor leaguers who succeed where they are younger than average. To succeed as Pineda did in MLB at 22 is a phenomernal accomplishment.
Though I am not happy about giving up Zeus, this was a risk the Yanks probably had to take. Even with Kuroda, (and no Pineda) their rotation falls short a bit. Pineda, if healthy, puts rotation in top tier. And don’t overlook the money that can now be saved for 2014. Instead of ultra-expensive free agent pitchers, Yanks can spend on filling holes on field. By 2014, even if Yanks
re-sign both Cano and Grandy (highly questionable, IMO) they will still have to find another outfielder and perhaps a third baseman. DH, too, but those are easier to find on one-year deals. Assuming Pineda is healthy and stays that way, this deal could strengthen Yanks for years — no matter what Monetero does in Seattle.
I don’t think it’s necessary to run down Montero to support this deal, which I do with few reservations. Montero is going to be an impact bat in MLB for a long time (barring injury). Even if he’s just a DH or ends up as a bad fielding 1B he’s going to mash and that’s pretty valuable.
There’s no denying that it stings to lose him and the Yankees are clearly losing a lot of offensive potential. However, that’s what it takes to land a young pitcher with the upside of Pineda who’s already been through his minor league apprenticeship and has had a mostly successful rookie season in MLB.
The key is need. Right now the Yankees need Pineda more than they do Montero. There’s no way to tell how this deal will look 5 or 10 years down the road. Pineda could get hurt (so could Montero) or flame out but that’s a risk you run with any pitcher. Given that this deal helps to turn the Yankees’ biggest weakness into a strength it’s a risk worth taking.
“Right now the Yankees need Pineda more than they do Montero.”
Don’t agree with that at all. With the Kuroda signing, the Yankees addressed any “need” for Pineda, and without costing themselves Montero.
I have to disagree with your analysis. Kuroda is 37 years old and is here for one year. Possibly he might come back for another year if things work out. Pineda will only be 23 this year and the Yankees will get what should be his best seasons for not much more money than they will pay Kuroda for just this season.
I hate losing Montero. However, given his defensive limitations, the availability of a similar replacement (albeit one several years away) in Sanchez and the strength of the Yankees’ offense relative to their starting rotation I have to endorse this deal. That’s not to say I’ll stop wondering what might have been with respect to Montero any time soon.
The fact that Kuroda is here for one year only is by design. The Yankees diligently and successfully waited until last night to get a pitcher to commit to a one-year deal which would maintain the team’s flexibility to possibly pursue a free agent arm from next year’s class.
Re: Sanchez…as I wrote at the bottom of this thread, it’s absurd to count on someone three full levels away from the majors right now as a replacement. That’s just being premature with Sanchez’s development.
But MJ, you can’t count on being able to sign a free agent pitcher next year and even if you do the cost will be > $20 million/year compared to $1-5 million/yr for Pineda who has a decent chance to provide comparable production over the length of any free-agent contract.
With respect to Sanchez you can argue that Montero was more advanced at age 18 – so what? Even if that’s true it’s not by a wide margin as Sanchez hit as many homers last season as Montero did at the same age (and in the same league) and did so in > 200 fewer plate appearances. He put up an OPS+ of .820 compared to Jesus’ .868. I can’t pass up Pineda for that margin.
Yes, Sanchez is at least 3 years away but the issue remains that another big bat is not the Yankees greatest need at this point in time. As good as Montero is, it’s easier to replace what he would do at DH for the next 2-3 years than it is to find as good a multi-year upgrade to the rotation as Pineda right now, especially at the price Cashman paid (consider the Latos and Gonzalez trades).
A lot of people don’t seem to realize that when it comes to the argument over Montero’s ability to catch for the Mariners as part of the equation over the value of the trade, it may well be that Seattle aren’t projecting him in that role anyway, given that their top prospect – even in a heavily laden roster of rookie pitching prospects – is a catcher. So DH may well be we’re they’re looking to play him in the long term – that or first.
This trade makes a lot less sense for them if they think he’s a DH. He still provides value at DH, but if he can’t catch he will almost certainly never provide the value Pineda will even if Pineda is only a number 2 pitcher. DH’s simply can’t provide the same value the way a two way player or top of the rotation starter can. You’d much rather have Granderson last year, or Sabathia than you would David Ortiz. They already have Justin Smoak so I doubt they are going to the 1B route.
As with the Granderson, Kennedy, Jackson trade this trade will take some time to accurately evaluate. On the surface it looks like a steal for the Yankees because good pitching beats good hitting almost every time out. Were all of us excited about Montero’s potential? You bet! On the other hand, a small September sample is no guarantee of a HOF career.
I believe that Cashman got maximum return for Montero and as one observer noted, Cashman got 5 years of a young arm instead of 3 months of Cliff Lee for the same price and that is a much better deal. Personally I hate to see us give up home grown talent but this is a trade that had to be made given the personnel involved.
Given that Montero is not considered a major league catcher, I like the trade. You always have to give something up. We need arms for the playoffs, and the potential is there. If Hughes or Chamberlain rebound, we have something. If both get back on track, wow!
Yes, and I believe Joba and/or Phil will come back big-time this year.
Big fan of Montero’s; luke-warm on Cashman. That said, I think Cashman’s timing was impeccable. Seattle had to do something for that woeful offense, and he was ready to deal the right amount of talent at the right time. Two big, young arms, one a rookie All Star at twenty two for a designated hitter and a fourth starter is pretty impressive. If you look at the roster this morning, they have one of the best pitching staffs, top-to-bottom in the majors, with several seemingly quality arms on the way. And, if this trade and the signing of Kuroda presages dumping Burnett, yesterday might well prove to be Cashman’s best day as a general manager.
I don’t know snatching Swisher for a bag of balls may be the most impressive steal he’s ever pulled off. That has to be up there in best days category. At least a close second for the satisfaction of fleecing the W.Sox like that.
I have just 3 things to say….
(1).-With the history of the Yankees being so hard to get a dominent No. 1 starter (Lee, Halladay, Maddox, Schilling, Santana, etc.) they had to take the shot (with the risk) to get a young, cheap guy on the “ground floor”. Chances to get a young pitcher like this, without giving up key elements of the existing team, don’t come to the Yanks that often.
(2)-that said, I worry about a trade for a pitcher for a dominent offensive everyday player, since pitchers vary so match, year to year, with injuries, etc. examples—the Reds trading Josh Hamilton for Volquez, the Frank Robinson trade for Milt Pappas.
These cases have the dominent offensive player putting year after year of outstanding offensive stats, while the pitcher(s) involved have some good years, then poof.
(3)-Yankee fans better start having some patience with Pineda right now. Young pitchers like this sometimes take 2, 3, 4 or even 5 years to fully develope (Halladay, Lee, Randy Johnson, Grienke, etc. etc.)
I’ll miss Montero, but maybe we can get him back in 6 yrs if he’s real, real good.
The Yankees had to take the chance in this trade. I hope it works out. Will be interesting to watch over next half-decade.
Pineda is much better than Volquez or Pappas. Pappas at his best was a 4-6 K/9 guy and while a nice player who had a long career was not a dominant starting pitcher. Volquez misses a lot of bats but also walks a lot more guys than Pineda and has injury issues.
The Reds traded Frank Robinson for Pappas because they thought Robbie was “an old 30″ (this after a .399 wOBA, 149 wRC+ season) and wanted to get what pitching they could for him before his production fell off the cliff.
The idea to trade Robinson for pitching was not necessarily a bad one but they simply got fleeced in the deal because of one of the greatest player value misjudgements in the history of baseball.
I think Montero will be an impact hitter for a long time in the majors but I doubt he will be as good as Frank Robinson was. Even after the steroid age only 8 guys who ever played have hit more homers than Robinson and outside of the two active players who have already passed him (A-Rod and Thome) no active player is closer than 132 homers to his mark (no, I’m not counting Manny Ramirez as active). He also won a triple crown and was a reasonably good RF (at least early in his career).
There simply is not nearly as much disparity between Montero and Pineda as there was between Robinson and Pappas or Hamilton and Volquez.
OK, I didn’t plan on getting into this much detail,RR, but, here goes– my main idea of point (2)–worry about giving up a dominent offensive everyday force for a pitcher is still valid as stated.
Your arguments about the Robinson trade are completely contemporary -40-yr after-standard hindsight herd-analysis. At the time of the trade it was not so certain that it would turn out as it did. I know—I was there. While I thought the trade was dumb for the Reds, at the time, many people thought that Pappas would be a consistent 16- 20-win, 200+ inning top half of the rotation guy in his prime. Despite a fairly solid couple, but disappointing years, he leveled off and then fell off a cliff, while Robinson immediately, and thereafter went on and on, with monster seasons,leading a young Baltimore team thru a dynasty period. Now it is easy to say–what a dumb, very bad trade–of course it was. But the difference in talent was not as evident to everyone at the time of the trade. Same as Montero/ Pineda now. We don’t know, you don’t know how this will ultimately bear out. Time will tell. However, the danger of trading a good pitcher for a dominent everyday offensive force is still there–and that was my point.
Also, you can’t compare Robinson’s HOF lifetime stats to what Montero could do, then say Montero could never do this, because one is an outfielder and one a catcher. an adequate analysis would be if Montero hits about 315 HR (not 586), and say finishes with a lifetime ave of around .290, and is HOF worthy. Montero consievably could do this. So your analysis on that point is not germane.
Also, you don’t know how good Pineda will be in the next few yrs,–he could be Mark Fidrych or Al Downing or Fausto Carmona, or Ubaldo, so to say that Pineda is so, so much better than Edison Volquez or Milt Pappas, “at the time of the trade” is just wrong.
Also, Volquez was the top Texas pitching prospect at the time of that trade, and everyone was saying “it’s a win/win for Texas/ Cincinnati. Even after Volquez’s one dominent season, how has that worked out?
No, my main point “beware of trading a dominent everyday offensive force for a pitcher” still holds throughout baseball history. (exceptions are there, of course)
Now, we both do not know how this will turn out, and as a Yankee fan I want Pineda to be Whitey Ford, or Pedro Martinez, good almost from the get go, or even JR Richard with a longer career. And I certainly don’t want to knock him. His first half last year was Tim Lincecum stuff, at the start of his first full year.
Pineda could be an all-time Yankee Greatest Steal. I hope so.
But still—beware trading a offensive everyday force (Montero) for a pitcher (Pineda).
Best Regards.
P.S.–As part of our discussion, it would be nice to see one of those analyzes that shows Pineda, at this point, is most similar to which other historical players. Anybody see one?
@Old fan. I agree with virtually everything you have to say on the matter, especially on the point of giving up an every day day hitter of quality for a part time pitcher. I also have doubts about the trade from the perspective that the Yankees do have hitting concerns, especially in the post season. But there’s one salient point that needs to be addressed with Montero, and I think was uppermost in Cashman’s mind when trading him – Montero was uniquely unsuited, a complete misfit, for a team where he was NEVER going to find a place where they could comfortably slot him. For all the hype from Cashman, I don’t think anyone truly projects him as an everyday starter in the catching role, which only left him two options with the Yankees – first base and DH. Tex is going nowhere for the next five years (he has a full no-trade clause don’t forget) while short term both Jeter and especially A-Rod need time at DH to rest their aging bodies. Long term of course the DH is going to be exclusively A-Rod’s, and it might come sooner than many people think as the Yankees try and preserve a body – already showing worrying signs of breaking down – for the long haul of an insanely expensive contract. I think Cashman knew all this, played it very smart, and kept praising up the kid (remember the tongue-in-cheek-comparisons?) hoping to get a suitable bite. He did, and in return for an unusable piece he received two great pitching prospects without having to break the bank or jeopardize the Yankees aim to get under the new 189 million threshold – AND he has Pineda locked up for five years at virtually base salary! Pineda could well prove a bust or get injured with that slightly unorthodox delivery, but it was a gamble worth taking. It would be ironic though if Campo, the make-weight, ended up being the real steal in the deal.
Yeah, I was there too pal. I’ve been following baseball since 1961 so don’t presume that I’m unaware of what was going on at that time.
Why would they think that? He never had more than 16 wins with the Orioles. He was an innings eater and he didn’t walk many guys but he also didn’t strike out many. I’m not saying he was terrible – I did point out that he was a nice player who had a long career. All I’m saying is that he never displayed the kind of stuff Pineda has and he wasn’t a good enough return for Robinson and I don’t think that was impossible to see at the time. Even using baseball card numbers one could see that Robinson’s “off” year would be a career year for most guys and he was on a HOF trajectory while Pappas was good but not great.
As far as Volquez I prefer to rely on the objective evidence rather than what people said. At age 22 his BB/9 K/9 numbers with Texas were 4.6 and 4.1. In his next season, 4.0,7.7. Pineda, in his age 22 season – 2.9, 9.1 – which is consistent with his minor-league record. Yeah, Volquez may have been Texas’ top pitching prospect but he was never as good as Pineda has been.
You’re right – I don’t know how good Pineda is going to be and I don’t really know how good Montero is going to be. I think both will be pretty good but I can’t predict the future any more than you can. But we can, albeit retrospectively, compare Pineda’s numbers to Pappas’ and see that he has abilities that Pappas never displayed – strikes out a batter per inning and doesn’t walk many more than Pappas did, thus he has the potential to be much better than Pappas, who was good.
With respect to Montero, I didn’t say he couldn’t equal Robinson’s numbers because he’s a catcher. My point is that only a handful of guys who have ever played the game have equaled Robinson’s HR numbers. Hell, there are Hall of Famers (including Mickey Mantle) who didn’t match that number. The chances that Montero will match Robinson’s numbers or win a Triple Crown or be as good an overall player are small (as they would be for any player). Is that so hard to understand? Also, my point about Robinson being an OF is related to the fact that Montero will most likely be a DH for most of his career. If the Yankees thought he would make it as a C I doubt they would have traded him or signed Russell Martin last year. They may be wrong but few baseball people think they are. Guys who can play a position are more valuable – that’s a fact.
That’s why it’s silly to fear trading Montero for Pineda because of how the Robinson deal or any other deal turned out. Yes, there’s great risk in this deal but given the strength of the Yankees offense relative to the pitching rotation it’s a risk worth taking in my opinion.
timbo and rr,
Agree with you guys on many things. I’m not against the trade. It had to be taken when offered. I just wanted to point out a little uneasiness with me, based on other trades in baseball history.
On Pappas, hope springs eternal in the human breast. There are dozens and dozens of cases where trades were made based on a pitcher stepping up a notch, from what he has done before. In many cases, it happens. Some don’t. Just a recent example that springs to mind–when the Yankees were signing AJ, after his 18 win season in Toronto, Girardi (who I respect) said something like, “Yeah, we like AJ, he’s just coming out into his own. We think he’s taking it up a level in the league.” Hope springs eternal…..
OK – some additional data on Robinson and Pappas from Baseball Reference.
If you look at WAR (which of course they didn’t in 1965) from the period 1961 – 1965 Robinson placed 8th, 3rd, 20th (injured), 7th, and 27th among all MLB position players. Pappas placed 35th, 151st, 32nd, 31st and 41st among all MLB pitchers. Quite a difference.
If you want a comparison based on the counting stats used at the time you can take a look at the pages for Robinson and Pappas and compare their appearances on the leader boards for various numbers. I think you’ll see that Robinson appears in more categories and generally has higher finishes (mostly top 10) as compared to Pappas for the pre-trade years. Also compare the MVP results for Robinson to the Cy Young results for Pappas. Robinson was a consistent top 10 finisher in MVP voting while Pappas never received any Cy Young votes until 1972!
As for career comparables, Pappas actually comes off pretty well having HOF members Don Drysdale, Catfish Hunter and Jesse Haines in his list. But his top comparable is Jim (not Gaylord) Perry. His comparables by age pre-1966 include HOFers Jim Palmer at age 20, Drysdale at age 22, Waite Hoyt at age 24 and Dennis Eckersley at age 25. Not bad at all.
Now look at Frank Robinson’s list. His top career comparable is Ken Griffey Jr. His by-age list prior to 1966 has three entries for Hank Aaron and four by Griffey (The others are Orlando Cepeda, Miguel Cabrera and Tony Conigliaro) There isn’t a guy on either his career or by-age list list who isn’t a HOF member except for Griffey, Cabrera and Manny Ramirez (who will be as soon as they’re eigible), Conigliaro (what might have been) and Gary Sheffield (who has an argument). That trumps Pappas’ list by a lot.
I realize that no one knew who Ken Griffey Jr. was in 1965 but at that time Robinson was routinely considered along with Mays, Aaron, and Clemente as one of the top batters and outfielders in baseball. I don’t quite remember Milt Pappas being discussed in the comparable stratosphere of pitchers (Koufax, Marichal, Ford, Gibson).
Oh, back in 1965, Robinson was known to all as the best player on the Reds, while Mr. Pappas was “Milt, who” to most baseball observers. No, question.
But slow down, friend. We are getting far, far off on a tangent here. I thought we were commenting and reviewing the Pineda/ Montero trade–not doing a detailed analysis of the 1965/66 Robinson/ Pappas trade, and the relative strength of each participant. For goodness sake, how did this line of reasoning get so invovled? lol
Look you have great data gathering skills, and are passionate baseball person, as am I. We are also both very strong Yankee fans, obviously. I assume you agreed with all or most of my original post, as you haven’t commented on it. So, what exactly is the point that you are trying to make?
If you disagree with the proposition that there is risk or uneasiness with trading a everyday dominent offensive force player for a pitcher, I’m sure that you will find yourself in the small minority of baseball analysts.
Brian Cashman alluded to such in a recent twitter, where he supposedly told Jim Bowen something like, “If Pineda doesn’t develope a changeup, and become a No 1, then this trade will be a failure”.
This line by Cashmen perfectly supports my stated proposition.
Now, if you object to my use of the example of Robinson/ Pappas trade to the proposition, then you should say so. I would then say, that the relative strengths of Pineda to Pappas and Robinson to Montero, are really immaterial to the proposition stated. Going thru the annuls of baseball history to find examples that “perfectly” line up will be immaterial also, as there are so many variables involved. Besides, a perfect match-up isn’t necessary to “prove” my stated proposition. Only a general agreement is necessary to prove the proposition, which is inherently true to the vast majority of people.
I admire your ability and persistence to go to the nth degree to prove your point, but, again, a perfect matchup isn’t really necessary.
Look, I’ve read some of your other recent posts, and they are very insightful and very good. My feelings and viewpoints run very close to your on many issues, I think. We may need to find esoteric points to find some diagreement or debate. This is great that Yankee fans can discuss like this, and it’s a great time to be doing it–right after two new pitchers are acquired.
So, until I hear more about the main issue you have, that’s all I can say for now.
Regards
I don’t disagree – and if you’ve read other comments on this site (including one I made to you) I’ve consistently cited the risk involved in the Montero/Pineda trade but said it was an acceptable risk – in my opinion (and obviously the Yankees’)
You brought up the Robinson/Pappas deal. I did say that it was a bad comparison and explained why (OK, maybe in excessive detail but I got a little hooked on the subject and thought the folks here – including you – might enjoy some of the historical data. I wasn’t trying to offend you).
The relative value of the players involved in the Montero/Pineda and Robinson/Pappas trades is important if you want to use the latter to support your proposition that it’s risky to trade a hitter for a pitcher of comparable value. You can’t simply assume something to be a self-evident truth, cite some examples and then, if the examples turn out to be poor, say that they don’t matter because everyone knows that the proposition is true to begin with. That’s circular reasoning.
My point is that right now I don’t see a big disparity in value between what Montero projects to as a hitter/position player (probably a ceiling of Miguel Cabrera) and what Pineda projects to as a pitcher (probably a ceiling of a RH CC Sabathia). Right now the Yankees’ greater need is for a guy like Pineda which makes the risk acceptable.
Cool. I wasn’t offended at all. I just thought the fixation on the Robinson trade was becoming a laser shot to the moon and beyond. I just wanted to pull it back to the original.
For the record, I believe the examples I cited are good, not bad, but just weren’t the perfect alignment of variables that you were trying to construct to make it seem like a bad example. Good try, though.
Also, if I say, “The wheat grows good in Kansas—like it does in Argentina and Ukraine”. And you say, “Wait a minute, the wheat in Argentina gets x inches of rain less than Kansas, and y less hours of sun per year, and has these differences in vitamin content, and on ave is 1/4″ lower height, with k less seeds per stem, etc. etc. Carrying these arguments ad infinatum, does not change the fact that the wheat grows good in Kansas, like it does in Argentina. The arguments just point out interesting differences and variations that doesn’t change the Truth of the original proposition. Nor is this a circular argument.
Anyway, enuff said on this. Let’s get back to the interesting trade happenings. I look forward to more of your in depth analysis (really) in other talking situations. And I’m sure Mr. Cashman, and his peers, will provide some for us.
“The Yanks don’t have another Montero in the system
This is just flat out false. They do, his name is Gary Sanchez.”
Sanchez, although a good-looking prospect right now, is nevertheless three full levels away from the majors. It’s foolish and premature to count on someone so far away from the majors at this point and to use Sanchez’s presence as a rationale that Montero was a redundancy that could afford to be traded.
And Sanchez, while possessing great power potential, hit .256 as an 18 year old at Charleston. Montero hit .326 under the same circumstances. Sanchez walks at a better clip than Montero but his K rates are astronomical. Sure his BA could improve, it was sky-high in GCL, but Montero was as close to a sure thing bat as I’ve seen, while Sanchez is years away and with some questions that really need to be answered.
Sanchez hit 17 homers in 343 plate appearances at Charleston as an 18 yr old. Montero also hit 17 but in 569 plate appearances. Sanchez put up OPS+/wOBA/wRC+ of .820, .364, 121. Montero’s numbers were .868., .389, 142. Sanchez also did most of his damage in the second half of the season after injuries and a discipline issue tarred his first half.
Yes, Montero had the more successful age-18 season at Charleston but Sanchez was not far behind. The Ks are a problem but, as you pointed out, he did walk at a better rate than Montero at that level and again we’re talking about an 18-year old. It might take him a year or two more to figure it out than it took Montero but not being quite as precocious as Montero doesn’t mean Sanchez won’t make it.
Sure, I just wonder if his ceiling will prove to be not the sort of Cabrera/Edgar Martinez line of .330/30+/100 but rather a three outcome guy who could be a solid catcher. Montero could be an anchor bat, while Sanchez could be Adam Dunn (pre-2011) with a catcher’s mitt. Still valuable, but different.
This is also assuming that Montero ever becomes a .330/30/1000 guy, which I still am not sure of. Also even if he is hitting .300 he seems much more likely to end up like Cano and not Martinez or Cabrera, which means he will have .330-350 OBP’s and the .400+ OBP’s that Cabrera and Martinez regularly posted. Which at the end of the day is much more valuable than the .300 batting average.
People are always in a hurry to say Montero is Cabrera or Martinez yet don’t take into account that at no point in his minor league career has he shown the kind of walk rates those guys post. I tend to think he’s much closer to Carlos Lee than he ever will be Cabrera or Martinez, at which point his overall value while still good isn’t HOF worthy like every seems to want guarantee he will have.
@roadrider:
1) “But MJ, you can’t count on being able to sign a free agent pitcher next year and even if you do the cost will be > $20 million/year.”
The risk is not getting the pitcher you covet (as the Yankees found out with Cliff Lee), that’s certainly true. Nevertheless, that’s the point of signing Kuroda to the short deal. It’s a gamble worth taking because there are always pitchers available for short-term deals, even if you don’t get the big fish you initially sought.
2) “With respect to Sanchez you can argue that Montero was more advanced at age 18 – so what?”
I never said anything about Sanchez relative to Montero. The only thing I said was that you can’t factor a guy in Low-A into the equation and look at his skills as an indication that Montero’s loss is mitigated or that he was made redundant. Sanchez could look like Babe Ruth right now, fact remains that he’s WAY too far from the big leagues to even think about right now. Right now, he’s a lottery ticket.
3) “it’s easier to replace what he would do at DH…than it is to find as good a multi-year upgrade to the rotation as Pineda right now, especially at the price Cashman paid (consider the Latos and Gonzalez trades).”
Gonzalez and Latos had more MLB experience than Pineda has. The price was rightly higher for guys that have 500+ and 400+ MLB IP under their belt, respectively. And that’s more or less my point: the Yankees now assume the risk of Pineda potentially not achieving his ceiling which, to me, is a higher probability than Montero not hitting his own ceiling.
Are you sure the point isn’t to give Baneulos and Betances more time in AAA?
No one is saying Montero was redundant merely that it’s easier to replace him than it is to find a young pitcher with top of the rotation potential like Pineda. This deal stings – no doubt – and there is risk – again, no doubt. But I think it’s right move.
And, thus, fewer years of team control. Also, while Latos is a great comp for Pineda Gonzalez is not in the same league as either one.