AGonz trade aftermath - Padres Top 10 Prospects (BA)
For those still silently gnashing their teeth about not being able to pull off the AGonz trade... here's more food for fodder. ;-)
Could we have given the Padres a package that would end up being their #1, #2 and #4 prospects? Because that's how it ended up with what they got from the Red Sox, at least according to Baseball America.
Thanks to MLBTradeRumors for the initial heads up:
"Three of the top four Padres prospects on Baseball America's top ten list arrived in the San Diego organization in the Adrian Gonzalez trade. Casey Kelly (1), Anthony Rizzo (2) and Reymond Fuentes (4) figure prominently into the list of promising young Padres."
over 1 year ago
ballhawk
51 comments
0 recs |
Email
PrintComments
Outstanding point
Well played Mr. Ballhawk
Good Guys Wear Blue
Thanks for the hat tip but I was more raising a question than taking a side
see my response to Doggie for more detail
Lou Brown: "My kinda team, Charlie, my kinda team..."
Not sure that is a fair comparison
The Padres had a HORRIBLE farm system. Last year at this time San Diego dead last at # 30 of MLB teams so honestly it is possible that the Cubs could have made a trade and given them players who would have ranked 1.,2 & 4. I am not saying they should have or that the Boston deal was not better for the Padres, but they did have a bad system so good prospects would have a pretty high ranking.
"I am not ashamed to say I love Greg Maddux" - Jim Hendry
Me either
I wasn't assigning fairness to it one way or another
I’m raising what I think is a legitimate question and I believe we have the smarts here on BCB to provide a reasonable attempt at an answer. Note: I said “we”, not “I”. It will take someone(s) who has a good grasp of prospects from both systems.
Here’s one process that might work:
- Take #1, #2 and #4 out of the rankings.
- Review the Cubs top prospects before the Garza trade
- Come up with a package that would have replaced #1, #2 and #4 with three of the Cubs prospects.
- Or, if you want a slam dunk – come up with three Cubs prospects that would have ended up #1, #2 and #3.
Lou Brown: "My kinda team, Charlie, my kinda team..."
The Cubs could have delivered three prospects
that ended up #1, #2 and #4 but not the same mix of players. Fuentes is a speed guy who plays CF and the Cubs could not deliver a power hitting prospect like Rizzo even though I question his potential. However, a Cubs offer of Jackson, Lee and a pitcher could have been the same rank for San Diego.
John Grabow: $4.8 million in 2011.
BJax, Lee, and Cashner would have been my offer to the Padres
and that’s just as good, if not better, than the offer they received from the Red Sox. After this trade was made some news leeked out that Cashner, BJax, and Castro were off limits in trades. I’m betting the Cubs actually offered something like Archer, Lee, Colvin, maybe McNutt and 1-2 other mid-level prospects, which definitely wouldn’t have been enough
I think Hendry really blew it on this one. It would have been tough to lose both BJax and Cashner, but AGon is the type of player you make that trade for. While I’m neutral on the Garza trade, those Archer and Lee should have been used in trades for a more elite type of player such as AGon or Greinke
I don't think that tops the Red Sox offer
Kelly is a better prospect than any of our guys. Rizzo is pretty comparable to Jackson. Lee might be a little bit better than Fuentes.
I think what this discussion is doing (and I hope it continues - at least long enough for elgato to join in)
is to paint a better picture into how much we would have had to overwhelm the Padres to make this happen. As ripete pointed out above, while we could have easily equaled the overall talent the Red Sox gave up, it’s the mix of that talent that won the day for Boston.
So if I’m the Padres and Cubs don’t have the right pieces I’m looking for but they’re still interested in making a deal, they’re going to have to overpay talent wise to make up for not having the right mix.
I think BJax, Castro and Cashner would have been overpaying but I think that’s the caliber of a package that would have given the Padres pause and rethink their “right mix” approach.
Lou Brown: "My kinda team, Charlie, my kinda team..."
As far as getting A-Gon...
you tell SD…“Take ANY 3 players you want other than Castro or Soto”. Let them choose. Can’t miss then.
"I think part of a best friend's job should be to immediately clear your computer history if you die." - Anonymous
Yeah, you could
"When they signed Fukudome, I knew they were trying to get me fired". - Ron Santo, January, 2008
Well, I'm chiming in.
Gonzalez was the player whom I thought the Cubs should have been all-in for. But the stuff I’ve read since the teeth-gnashing weekend — and some interesting comments about reloading in the wake of the Garza trade — have made me re-evaulate some things.
Gonzalez is just one player, albeit one who fit the Cubs needs better than most and better than all who are or were available. But the Cubs wouldn’t have been more than marginal contenders in 2011 even with him. And the talent they would have had to give up would have made it tougher to contend in 2012 and beyond.
So, should the Cubs have included Castro to get Gonzalez? Well, I would have, assuming the rest of the take would have been a lot less (no Archer, no Cashner, no BJax, etc.). But Cashner, Castro and BJax? Pass — but at least partly because of timing.
It seems as though Boston was a better match for San Diego’s wish list, and that the strong ties between the two front offices helped. But putting that aside, the Red Sox are legitimate World Series contenders in 2011, and the Cubs are extreme longshots. It makes more sense for Boston pay more for a player like Gonzalez NOW.
Things look brighter from 2012 on because the Cubs have talent coming through the system. Now, getting Gonzalez would have made the Cubs better in the short term and he would have been around in the long term (assuming he got a contract extension). But would the Cubs be better 2012-2018 with Gonzalez but no Cashner, Castro and BJax?
I think the opposite may be true — or that it’s worth gambling on, anyway. If even two of those guys comes through to be good major leaguers, they’ll be cost-controlled for most of the time Gonzalez will be making $20 million per. The Cubs can use the money to add to the team elsewhere.
I still wish Hendry could have lived up to his horse trader reputation and found a way to get Gonzalez while keeping the jewels of the system. But maybe I’m asking too much. Hendry has had a decent offseason, and as long as the Garza trade doesn’t look terrible in a year (which is possible) Jimbo will have lived up to my somewhat low expectations of him. He’s a decent GM, but not much more than that.
That’s damning praise, I guess. Sorry, for the Ivy Walls style post. I’m still sorting out my own thoughts, as you might have figured.
I still wish Hendry could have lived up to his horse trader reputation and found a way to get Gonzalez while keeping the jewels of the system. But maybe I’m asking too much.
I think you are. There didn’t really seem to be a way to do both, and as noted by you and others, the connection with the Boston farm system likely sealed the deal.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
I know I'm asking a lot.
Hendry would have had to essentially swindle the Padres to outflank Boston while also keeping the organization’s top young talent.
I’ll say this: I think Hendry’s horse-trader reputation is extremely overstated. His two best moves (Ramirez and Lee) happened a long time ago, and the only recent trade worth bragging about is the Harden deal.
As I said above, I think he’s had a decent offseason, and the jury is certainly out on the moves he’s made. But he also had two really bad offseasons after the Dodgers series.
How is Casey Kelly any better than Cashner?
Cashner performed better at higher MiLB levels than Kelly. Kelly was pretty terrible in his short time in AA last year, while Cashner excelled at AA and then AAA and then the majors, which IMO makes Cashner a more projectable MLB pitcher than Kelly. BJax = Rizzo and Lee > Fuentes and Cashner > Kelly as I believe, then how does that not get the deal done? Hell, the Cubs could have throw in some fillers like Guyer and Chirinos if needed to make the pot more attractive.
I agree with EasyEd below, the Cubs should have just said, take the 3-4 prospects you like most. To say that the Cubs couldn’t have gotten a deal done is just ridiculous, IMO. The Cubs didn’t want to get the trade done, that would be a more accurate statement. Ditto for Greinke (where it appears the Cubs didn’t want to absorb his salary).
Is that your opinion or do you have a link
Kelly may have more upside, but Cashner’s been better and more consistent than Kelly at higher levels in MiLB. Either way, if the Pads viewed Kelly as better than Cashner, well then the Cubs should have just thrown in a couple more 10-20 prospects.
The larger point is that I don’t buy that the Cubs couldn’t get the deal done, I believe they just didn’t want to get the deal done…..
From Keith Law
You are assuming that the Padres cared more about quantity than quality. If they viewed Kelly and Rizzo as linch-pins that weren’t equivalent to anyone that the Cubs had, simply throwing in a couple more prospects wasn’t going to get the deal done.
Would you want to trade Castro? If not, I don’t think the Cubs had the prospects to beat the Red Sox offer. There can be a difference of opinion, but that’s what I think.
Kelly (whom he had ranked 18th last year)
Kelly’s defining attribute as a pitcher is his command, which was unusually good for a high school pitcher (in Sarasota, Fla.) and hasn’t regressed at all since he got into pro ball. He has a chance for three average or better pitches, with a solid-average fastball already, a curveball that frequently flashes plus with good depth and tight rotation, and an above-average changeup with good arm speed and some fade.
Cashner (78th):
It’s a big arm, with a fastball at 93-98 mph even over multiple innings and a hard slider with very good tilt in the mid-80s, with his slider command ahead of his fastball command when I saw him. He has a changeup but rarely uses it; it has some tail but mostly just glove-side run. He gets ground balls but it’s not extreme, and I don’t think his home run rate from 2009 indicates some preternatural ability to keep the ball in the park. What’s odd about Cashner is that for a guy with a power arm, he doesn’t miss a lot of bats, and neither his control nor his ground-ball rate is high enough for him to be a good starter with a low strikeout rate. If he has to return to the pen, he’ll be dominant there, but the Cubs will probably let him continue to start and see if he can improve his command and find a way to miss more bats.
if you look at their MiLB stats, honestly, who would you rather have?
or does performance get trumped by upside?
http://www.baseball-reference.com/minors/player.cgi?id=kelly-001cas
http://www.baseball-reference.com/minors/player.cgi?id=cashne001and
Granted, I’m not a scout, but I’d take the guy that has been better against better competition (Cashner) versus the guy who has upside, but has been terrible in his short time in the upper levels (Kelly).
Maybe Hoyer wanted Kelly, I don’t know. But you and I both agree that
Lee > Fuentes
BJax = Rizzo
The sticking point is Cashner vs Kelly. I think that we can both agree that the difference between the 2 isn’t great (irrespective of what Keith Law says). Why wouldn’t adding a Guyer, Chirinos (Pads lack in catching depth in the minors), or hell even Archer get a deal done with SD? Cashner/Archer/Lee/BJax is a better package than what the RSox gave up.
Granted, I’ve been sort of playing a devil’s advocate role in the many Garza > prospects threads, But If I was the Cubs GM, I wouldn’t have blinked at a Cashner/Lee/BJax/Archer for AGon deal. I know that’s a lot too give up, but I haven’t read a single scout project any of those guys to be on the same level as AGon is right now at the MLB level.
The Cubs need elite bats, its one of the reasons why they have been so terrible in the post-season. 1-8 production depth can only get you so far and most prospects fail, so give me AGon. Well, maybe the Cubs can go overbid for Fielder (annoyed)
AGon >>> prospects, IMHO…….
The Padres
specifically said they wanted quality over quantity.
DEJESUS!!!
You want to believe it
Because it fits your agenda.
"When they signed Fukudome, I knew they were trying to get me fired". - Ron Santo, January, 2008
People keep saying this
But have no real answer for the fact that the Padres front office now has former Red Sox people, and they knew the exact players they wanted all along. It wouldn’t have mattered who Hendry offered.
"When they signed Fukudome, I knew they were trying to get me fired". - Ron Santo, January, 2008
And people keep saying what you're saying.
You’re right that the Red Sox had the upper hand — maybe the extreme upper hand. But the Cubs could have overwhelmed San Diego with an offer. I’m not saying they necessarily SHOULD have done that (see my post above).
But Hendry, through some combination of his much-hyped horse-trading skills and increased depth in our system COULD have landed Gonzalez.
You just don't know that
And the fact that it turned out the way it did suggests the Padres/Red Sox theory is accurate.
"When they signed Fukudome, I knew they were trying to get me fired". - Ron Santo, January, 2008
You just don't know the opposite.
You can’t just assume that San Diego wouldn’t have considered a trade from any other team. In fact, you could easily assume the opposite.
I’m not saying Hendry should have paid through the nose. But the point is that San Diego wouldn’t have just taken offers from the Red Sox.
There's a legal phrase
Res ipsa loquitur- the thing speaks for itself. That the trade happened the way it did doesn’t support your theory very much. You’re making assumptions with no evidence to support them. But we’ll agree to disagree.
"When they signed Fukudome, I knew they were trying to get me fired". - Ron Santo, January, 2008
You're making the same kind of assumption.
Just because one trade happened doesn’t mean the Cubs had no chance at landing Gonzalez. Maybe we’re quibbling over semantics — we both seem to agree that Hendry shouldn’t have overpaid.
But I think saying that he had NO chance at making this deal work is letting him off the hook.
Here's a good write up of the deal and its history
See if Hendry could have stuck his nose in at any point and pulled it off.
http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20101213&content_id=16310460&vkey=news_bos&c_id=bos
"When they signed Fukudome, I knew they were trying to get me fired". - Ron Santo, January, 2008
Like I said, the Red Sox had the extreme upper hand.
But I still don’t think Hendry had NO chance to “stick his nose in,” to use your phrase.
You may be right.
But some here — not saying you are, but some — use this deal as an excuse to bash Hendry again, when the Cubs’ chances of landing Gonzalez were, in reality, extremely small no matter what Hendry did or did not do.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
No, I was extremely critical of him on this one.
I think I’ve toned down the criticism after I’ve learned more of the facts. Hendry, as I said above, would have had to essentially swindle San Diego AND outflank Boson. That’s a tall order.
Here’s the thing, Al. I’m not saying Hendry should be gone because of this lack of a move in this case. I just don’t think he’s done enough to justify the many missteps over the years. Getting Gonzalez would have wiped a lot of the slate clean for me.
I do think this offseason has been decent, and could would out pretty well. But Hendry NEEDS it to work out pretty well to justify keeping him after 2011.
Earth may fly off its axis again.
I do think this offseason has been decent, and could would out pretty well. But Hendry NEEDS it to work out pretty well to justify keeping him after 2011.
I agree with this.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
I don't know if this has been mentioned much ...
but I doubt Kerry Wood would be a Cub for $1.5 million if anyone else was our GM. Now, that doesn’t make up for the numerous and expensive missteps over the years. But we’ve metaphorically patted Kerry on the back over and over for taking a lower price to come home. Hendry should get part of the credit, too, IMO.
Note that I’m not a Hendry defender normally.
Perspective is important on this one.
We are talking about a setup guy — not a No. 1 starter or an All-Star first baseman.
Still, I’ll give Hendry props here.
Well,
First thanks for posting this link. It’s always nice to read a well-researched piece, especially one that delves into how the collective baseball mind thinks.
Interesting though that you sort of sink your own point. Epstein had multiple chances to acquire this player, but couldn’t over the course of a decade. Gonzalez was frequently signed or acquired over that period, and even more often discussed in trade by teams to which Epstein wasn’t affiliated. Sounds like Hendry could have inserted himself just fine, if he were inclined to go, as one poster put it, “All in”.
I’m personally indifferent about this trade scenario for the Cubs. I don’t think it’s a reflection on Hendry professionally that he didn’t acquire a given player at a given time. i will say I’m not sure it’s bashing to ask why a team with obvious long-term problems didn’t address those problems when given a chance. How many years, cash, and/or resources do you spend looking for a big lefty bat, or prototypical lead-off man, or whatever your club is in serious need of before it’s proper to have people question your efforts?
Just because someone says something bad about you doesn’t mean they’re wrong.
by Damen Jackson on Jan 25, 2011 11:16 AM CST up reply actions
What?
Adrian Gonzalez the stud first baseman was available seriously for the first time about a year ago. Hendry had no need prior to that to get him, as there’s been this guy name of Derrek Lee. Yes, Gonzalez was traded a few times, but why would Hendry have gone after him then?
Moreover, if you follow this closely, what makes this trade more than a little incestuous is that the front office people involved weren’t in their respective places until the last year or two. Hoyer was with the Red Sox through the 2009 season. By the time someone on the Padres was ready to actually deal Gonzalez, that someone was Hoyer, and the rest speaks for itself.
"When they signed Fukudome, I knew they were trying to get me fired". - Ron Santo, January, 2008
I think you've read what you wanted to read...
Let me say this again. I’m indifferent about the Cubs efforts (or lack thereof) to acquire Adrian Gonzalez. I do not consider it a reflection on Jim Hendry that they didn’t. And I’ll agree that when player-personnel guys develop this sort of fixation, they usually get their man — for better or worse.
On a longer time horizon, if people want to “bash” Hendry for not addressing a big lefty bat (regardless of what position they might play), I think it’s a fair critique. Or addressing it sooner, if you’re off the mind that Pena could be that bat. And there really has been nothing in my opinion that says another team couldn’t have inserted themselves into this conversation, were they inclined to.
So, I agree that if you’re upset with Hendry for not acquiring a certain player at a certain time, you’re off-base. But I’ve seen comments here that offer a more critical analysis of the front office, and I don’t consider that bashing.
Make more sense?
by Damen Jackson on Jan 25, 2011 11:56 AM CST up reply actions 1 recs
I’m not saying Hendry should have paid through the nose. But the point is that San Diego wouldn’t have just taken offers from the Red Sox.
You don’t know that. And essentially, Hendry would have had to pay through the nose.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
Al, we KNOW that the Padres took offers from other teams.
That was reported. By ‘taken’ I mean ‘listened to.’ Saying Hendry had NO shot at Gonzalez is making an assumption and going too far in the guy’s defense.
Hendry might not have had much of a shot at landing Gonzalez. But assuming he had NO shot makes no sense, IMO.
"Listened to"...
… may have meant a five-minute phone call with a “no thanks”, rather than actual negotiations. Sometimes, agents pump these “reports” up to increase the value of their client.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
We're both using facts selectively.
Which is a sign that this debate should probably end. I’m in the camp that Hendry had at least a shot at A-Gon, so I’m thinking that there was more than a 5-minute phone call involved. You think he never really had a shot, so you’re guessing that “listened to” was a 5-minute phone call.
Let’s end this before we get into hypotheticals and stranger assumptions. I’m game for a Jeff Baker to the outfield debate, if you’re bored. :)
LOL
The way things are going, Baker might actually BE the fifth outfielder.
"You can observe a lot just by watching." ~ Yogi Berra
Why do you say that?
I’m pretty sure the fifth outfielder will be Perez or Johnson. Did I miss something?
This is why i was not upset about the Gonzalez trade
I didn’t think we could match the Red Sox without trading Castro.
If we're going to model the Sawks
We’ve gotta reload our system every June with quality to make trades such as these. Can’t really do that on under $5 mil in draft bonuses.
Were there any fans
of the bonus that Jeff Samardzia got paid for being drafted?
That sure put us over the top!
/sarcasm
"I lof to hit de home ron!"
The problem was the multiple years and NTC
Shark got treated like a MLB vet just to keep him from playing in the NFL. If a team just pays the bonus and retains the right to trade a prospect, they stay out of the box the Cubs got in with Shark.
Kelly and Fuentes...
two of my favorite prospects in the minor leagues. I think they’re going to be stahs….I see Fuentes becoming a legit 5 tool CF but with a ton of 2Bs power in Petco.
Is it not possible that Gonzalez
hits the free agent market after this season? Did i miss the announcement of a contract extension with the sox? I dont ever hear his name mentioned as a free agent but maybe he really wants to test the market. correct me if i am wrong or am misinformed.
It's assumed that the Red Sox will sign him to an extension.
But I don’t thing anything’s official.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
FanShots
Quick hits of video, photos, quotes, chats, links and lists that you find around the web.
Recommended FanShots
Recent FanShots
Cubs By The Numbers
Cubs By The Numbers is a history of the ballclub by uniform number, but the biographies help trace the history of our beloved team in a new way. For everyone who's a Cubs fan, anyone who ever wore the uniform is like family. Cubs By The Numbers reintroduces readers to some of their long-lost ancestors, even ones they think they already know.
Click here to order your copy, available now!
Recent Stories in Chicago Cubs Game Threads
Recent Stories in Ticket Exchanges
Baseball Nation Recent Stories
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- Eric Hosmer redefines the Baltimore chop with infield double (Video)
- College player makes impossible over the fence catch to save tournament game (Video)
- Security!: Camden Yards guard collides with Royals’ Mike Moustakas
- The Juice: Nelson Cruz matches career high eight RBIs, Pujols stays hot in Seattle
- Benches clear at Fenway as Red Sox-Rays rivalry heats up
