Re: Right handed Power Hitter?
posted at 1/6/2012 10:52 PM EST
In Response to Re: Right handed Power Hitter?
Mac, you get it. Notin, you don't own anything in this State. You are unable to comprehend basic issues that are clear as a bell. The DBacks don't become non-contenders by making the move, nor is it deal for Ellsbury for Upton. It is deal for 2 or 3 more upper tier prospects that may fit the DBacks better than the Red Sox, called blocked prospects. If trades taking place were the basis of the crediblity of the trade offers, then InEpstein and every other small mind would be a baseball genius. Mac gets it. The Dbacks did not have what it took to win another title. They have balloon payments coming. If they can get more players and a better fit and win now, Ellsbury plus Young for 2 years, vs. Upton and Young for 1 years plus 3 balloon payment years, and net 2 or 3 solid prospects that provide immediate and near future help, it most certainly is a deal that works well for both teams.
Posted by hankwilliamsjr
Actually, you are the one who does not get it.
You do realize that the first year of Upton’s “balloon payments” is still right in the range – and possibly less – than what they would be paying Ellsbury, right? And even those balloon payments themselves are hardly outrageous. Upton could easily escalate himself into the upper stratosphere of MLB hitters in that time while still being paid Bobby Abreu-type money. He’s one of the best bargains in MLB, balloon payment or not. The Dodgers just extended Kemp for $20mill per Kemp put up a .799OPS when he was the same age Upton was last year, a number that was a full 100 points below Upton. Replacing Upton’s bat at will cost significantly more than what he is going to cost at the contract’s peak value.
Merely saying “blocked prospects” is a nice blanket enticement without any commitment. But really, who? Pitchers are never really “blocked” since there are always enough spots on the staff, so you would be limited to position players. Who are these Sox “blocked prospects”? Oscar Tejada and Lars Anderson? Middlebrooks (who isn’t “blocked” since the Sox have no long term commitment to a 3B above him)? Or some of the A-ball infielders, like Bogaerts and Cecchini, who also are not “blocked” yet? Are any of these guys any better than what the Dbacks already have in Matt Davidson and Bobby Borchering? (Did you do any research?) While I agree you cannot have too many prospects, there are very, very few players like Upton, and the chances of whoever replacing him border on nil.
I can’t even imagine the sales pitch to Arizona. “OK, how about a deal where you get worse short term. And long term. But hey, if one of the prospects we deal you is a once-in-a-lifetime player, you could break even! And if not, all you have to do is spend more money than you already had committed to get right back to where you are today!! We both win! And by both, I mean just me.” And arguing that the Dbacks need to shake things up because they “did not have what it takes” to win a title is a huge oversimplification and poor reason to take extreme measures. They came closer than Boston did, and have already made moves to shore up some weaknesses.
If the Sox could get Upton for Ellsbury, Middlebrooks and anybody then do it and don’t look back. But that deal hurts the Diamondbacks both short term and long term. Short term, Ellsbury is nowhere near Upton. And any package of “blocked prospects” won’t make up that difference. If they wouldn’t deal Upton when they were a last place team, and it makes less sense to deal him as a first place team, especially for a lesser, older player with short term commitment and a couple prospects you feel are expendable, and probably less than what the Dbacks already have.
I’d love for the Sox to deal Ellsbury for Upton, but it is not going to happen. And it does not make sense for the Diamondbacks to even think about it. Teams near the top – or even teams that think they are – rarely dismantle. Bad teams bolstered by one good player are more likely to move top talent to rebuild. Just like the Dodgers felt it was more important to keep Kemp than to think about dealing him, a situation that played out EXACTLY like I told you it would, despite insistence to the contrary that it made sense for them. Ironically, it actually STILL makes more sense for the Dodgers to deal the recently-extended Kemp for Ellsbury and prospects, because they would be saving A LOT more money than the DBacks would with Upton, and have a lesser farm system as well. Have you seen Kemp's "balloon payment" after 2012? Massive!!! Makes Upton's look like a tip at the IHOP. Clearly, they need to unload it and fast!
I'd like to think we can both agree the Dodgers, a worse team than the DBacks by a lot both now and in the immediate future, are not going to move Kemp any time soon.