So as I've said the valuing of prospects is fascinating to me and sometimes hilarious because stat nerds say the funniest things about players they've never ever seen while they're actually trying to be all serious and baseball savvy and stuff. I don't care what anyone says, it's some funny shit.
But there should be an Internet law that prohibits posters from proposing baseball trades where, you know, we get the other team's best player and we give them our second and third level best prospects and talk like it's perfectly logical and we might even be getting robbed. That crap goes on all day long.
All the stat nerds want Chase I'd-be-a-good-player-but-I-play-in-Petco Headley. Honest he would. Just ask the stat boys. They know all about baseball.
OK enough of that. I wouldn't mind Old Chase playing third for the Dodgers for obvious reasons. But the Padres aren't going to trade him to the Dodgers but let's play the game anyway. What is the maximum you would give up - if you were the Dodgers - for Mr. Headley.
Phil Gurnee at TrueBlueLA turned it around and said this is what he would ask for if he was the Padres: "Eo, Webster, Joc P. and Leon Landry."
OK, fair enough. Deal or No Deal?
Underdog: I'm loathe to give up Joc, personally, would maybe give up the rest for Headley, throw in someone other than Joc. He's a single A prospect but I just feel he's really talented, fear losing him to a rival.
Nsxtasy: No deal. That's a major-league starter plus three top prospects, in exchange for a league-average position player. No way in hell. Now, if the Phillies wanted those four for Cole Hamels, and Hamels could be talked into a long-term contract extension as part of the deal, I might give it serious consideration, despite the high price. Same for Greinke.
A fair deal for Headley would be two of those four, and not Eovaldi as one of the two.
TiensyGohan: Now, Headley's overrated, but of course you do the deal if the price is merely one top 100 prospect whose stock is sinking by the day and three fringe pseudo-prospects for a cost-controlled season and a half of an above average major leaguer at a position of need.
Silverwidow: Padres don't accept that deal. Too many question marks. They'll need Zach Lee included, someone else taken out.
JoeyJoe: If the Dodgers offered that package the Padres would be fools to not take it. I just can't see them getting more than that. If I'm the Dodgers, I probably don't offer that much.
G.Scott: I too am not fully aboard the Chase Headley golf cart. I'm not giving up MLB ready players or my best prospects for this guy. It probably means I wouldn't get him but I'd be Okay with that.
So Phil Gurnee made a good call because like a good bookie he got people on both sides of the bet. But it shows how subjective the entire prospect thing is. Especially for people who don't really know the important things about the prospects. Numbers are so meaningless without context.
But everyone here makes a reasonable argument given what they know. I personally would overpay for Headley because there is absolutely no other obvious choices in the near future. I mean it's staggering how tough the third base issue is. I might just give Eovaldi straight up for Headley just because 3B is such a huge hole. I would probably give two prospects for Headley for sure. I wouldn't give both.
Phil is right in saying that's exactly the kind of thing the Padres will ask for in a trade because that's what you do when you negotiate. I can't believe the Dodgers would say yes to it if for no other reason than Stan Kasten's stated philosophy.
But I also say you can't overprice your own prospects that aren't the obvious Harper/Trout/Kershaw type otherwise you'll miss a chance to improve for sure. Where as holding on to every maybe prospect assures you won't get better any time soon.
No comments:
Post a Comment