Re: Justin Upton Declines Trade to Seattle
posted at 1/11/2013 6:27 AM EST
In response to moonslav59's comment:
In response to hill55's comment:
An offer of Xander Bogaerts, Matt Barnes, Franklin Morales and Daniel Bard would likely fall short of the reported Seattle offer. Based on prospect rankings, Bogaerts-Barnes is the rough equivalent of Walker-Franklin, but years of control and recent performance give Furbush-Pryor more trade value than Morales-Bard.
We could offer more than 4 players, and I think offering them Doubront and Tazawa over Morales and Bard, plus giving 2 from Cecchini, Brentz, Lava or Owens is enough to take Bogaerts or Barnes out of the offer you listed above.
It's hard to know how AZ values our prospects as compared to BA's rankings.
As you know when discussing trading prospects, you have to take into consideration the depth that Arizona has at any one particular position within thier organization...Cleary every team would like to aquire one of Seattle's young arms all of whom have been touted as legit big league prospects.
If the deal reported has merit...I'd say that the Mariners are desparate enough to over pay to land a bat that otherwise would never sign with them and not because it's an armpit, it's hardly that. Does that mean that the Sox have to match what is an overpay for a player that has the potential to be but is not yet worhty of that level of compensation? The short answer is no..
In Uptons case all he and his representitive need do, is look at the cause and effect that playing in Safeco had on Adrian Beltre's value and his stats during his time with the Mariners...In the end Upton has three years remaining on his current contract, given that he's yet to fulfill the promise that many saw as a legit middle of the order hitter. While playing 81 games in one of the better hitters parks. Why would he if given the option, chose to play in a park that's death to righthanded power hitters.
That said, Arizona is trying to sell him based on the promise of more as he enters his prime. They're also using the leverage of his being under contract for three more seasons. In the end if the team aquiring wants to pay for the potential of vs what he's already shown. That's the inherant risk in aquiring him. So if we elimanate his name from the top of the resume and look at his stats...What is the value of a player that is a freakish athlete (which can't be dismissed) who is just entering his prime that with more than three seasons of datas to evaluatem that has not shown any real incremental improvements (see his HM/RD splits). One that today profiles as a solid #5 hitter on a good team and a middle of the road #3 hitter, when compared to the statistics of every ML teams production from those spots in the line-up...A player that also is not or has not shown that he's an asset in the field and is still a work in progress..Therein lyes the conundrum...
I'll add that if we were to make a similar offer, I'd be just fine with it...however I'd hate to make that move only to find out that we spent our bullets to soon and lost on the chance to trade for Stanton...Who I think is worth 4 or 5 top prospects...