Gil Meche to the Cubs for Patterson?
Caution, Gil Meche fans. Just because your epic Babylonian hero is being tendered a contract does not mean he will be a Mariner this season.
Jon Paul Morosi of the P-I reports on a rumor that the team may ship the right-hander to the Cubs in exchange for Corey Patterson.
I’m certainly not averse to jettisoning Meche if the team can something useful in return, but this is not that scenario. Acquiring Patterson as a reclamation project might be worthwhile on its own merits, but that doesn’t appear to be what would go down.
A Meche-for-Patterson deal would make Seattle more willing to part with center fielder Jeremy Reed, given Reed’s market value in the wake of Johnny Damon’s defection from Boston. …That shift could help the Mariners have their pick of a pitcher in return — Bronson Arroyo or Matt Clement — and ensure that the Red Sox assume some of Clement’s remaining salary if that’s who is dealt.
Trading Jeremy Reed to install Corey Patterson as the starting center fielder is like selling off a young thoroughbred so you can concentrate on racing your adopted greyhound. Simply put, Reed is more valuable than Patterson in just about every way you can imagine.
Were you disappointed with Reed’s offensive performance last year? Well, as a rookie in a pitcher’s ballpark, he outpaced the career numbers Patterson has amassed playing half his games in Wrigley Field. Reed’s plate discipline is dramatically better than Patterson’s; he’s also two years younger and makes less money.
The past two seasons, Patterson has struck out 286 times and walked 78 times, posting a robust OBP of .254 last year. .254! That was Reed’s 2005 batting average. Lest you think I’m cherry-picking stats, Patterson has had 2,200 major league at-bats — and his career OBP is still less than .300.
I doubt a Clement deal is in the works because of the salary involved. It strikes me as unlikely that the team could get Boston to pick up enough of his paycheck to make the deal work, and even if that were the case, I still would be loath to give up Reed.
As for Arroyo, well, that would be even worse. Dave already did an admirable job of explaining why Reed-for-Arroyo doesn’t make sense for the M’s. Arroyo isn’t that hot a commodity, and to give up a guy with his career arc pointing in the right direction would be folly.
Essentially, the question is this: would you rather have Jeremy Reed and Gil Meche or Corey Patterson and Bronson Arroyo?
For me, the answer is easy.
Comments
81 Responses to “Gil Meche to the Cubs for Patterson?”
I know the two scenarios are totally different, but these trade discussions are starting to scare me in a Carlos Guillen/Omar Vizquel/Rich Aurilia musical chairs sort of way.
I’m probably just being paranoid, but I fear the M’s will become so hell bent on obtaining pitching from the Red Sox that we’ll put ourselves in a corner and lose our leverage with Reed. Or, we’ll complete the Meche-Patterson deal first, and then the FO will make a panic move (“Oh no, now we have TWO center fielders! Make the Reed deal quick!”).
I just wish all these rumors would go away.
Do I want Patterson and Arroyo? No.
Patterson and Clement? I could live with it.
Adam Jones and Clement, though, in 2007 would look pretty good.
I hate the typical rumors that get inflated from one source to the next then get printing in a newspaper hungry for a story, but this one from the Chicago Tribune caught my eye….
“More than one source has claimed the Cubs dangled pitcher Mark Prior in multiteam trade talks that would land them premier Baltimore shortstop Miguel Tejada and eventually send Prior to a team in the American League West.”
— Chicago Tribune
Could that “american league west team” be Seattle…..Could they be proposing a block buster dangling Beltre, Sexson, or Ichiro. I doubt it. The team is probably texas or possibly the angels. Just another wet dream of a rotation, with Felix and Prior.
How far out are T.J.Bohn and Adam Jones?( as an OF) I see they’re projected as 2006 and 2007, repectively on the future forty. Is this still accurate? Also where will they play?Replace?
You may have covered this already, I so I am sorry I missed it.
#53 I’d lay money down that it’s Texas. I could see Texas offering Blalock. Blalock goes to third for the O’s and Mora moves back to short.
There you go, clear as day: It’s Reed to the Red Sox, Beltre to the Cubs, and Prior and Andy Marte to the Mariners. How could it be more plain? I’m just waiting for it to hit the wire any minute now….
Oops, forgot about Tejada. Okay, we’ll have to route Beltre to Baltimore, which sends Tejada to the Cubs. Okay, all better. I can’t wait….
Rosenthal goes into the trade possibilities — the Mariner name, however, never comes into it….
why do I do this to myself. sigh. Fain & Mahler think it would be great if they could “upgrade from Reed to Patterson”, and then “upgrade from Meche to Arroyo”…. oh, and “the upside on Reed is he’s never going to have outstanding power, never going to have outstanding defense… “
Re: #38, I suppose you could work trades that way, DMZ, but I fail to see the “logic” you mention. Are you advocating a farm system made up completely of catching prospects?
I’m pointing out that “each trade on its own merits” doesn’t make sense, because it neglects the larger picture… in the same way that trading pitchers when you need pitchers for center fielders you don’t need doesn’t make sense even if on a strict talent-for-talent basis it might be better.
That’s assuming you can’t easily replace Gil Meche with any number of available options like say Kevin Brown, BH Kim, Foppert, Nageotte, Carvajal, Ishii, whatever.
I like the Meche for Patterson idea as long as it’s on it’s own. Maybe being back with Pentland will help Patterson, and it does give us somebody to defense LF well. We could then ship Ibanez out for a starter or sign one of the still available low cost guys mentioned.
Oh, and there’s just no way Reed nets only Clement or Arroyo. Bavasi may not be creative, but he’s not Jim Bowden. Relax, it’s just not happening.
#5 – Ishii????
If the Ms signed Ishii, I would take that as a sign of contempt for the fan base. That’s positively insulting.
Hey guys, I’m not trying to be pessimistic here, but this off-season has been our worst thoughts realized. I’m frustrated and exasperated with the Ms, and at this point I wouldn’t put anything past them.
As for the whole “if you were Ichiro” comment, I’ll stand by that. If you were a 32-year-old superstar with a pronounced affection for winning, and you thought you weren’t going to win with your current team, wouldn’t you want to move on? (If the company you work for was about to launch a sucky product that resulted in the firm’s bankruptcy, wouldn’t you at least think about bailing while you could.)
One thing is for sure, if the Ms are on track for another 90-loss season by July 15, then there is a going to be a “come-to-Jesus” meeting at Safeco.
Re: #40. It is entirely possible that the M’s FO is planning the Meche-for-Patterson trade just so they can turn around and trade Reed. That doesn’t make the trade Reed for Patterson.
Meche for Patterson is a perfectly reasonable trade. Neither has lived up to expectations, Patterson’s defense is needed for the M’s pitching staff.
Now, if the M’s flip Reed for Arroyo, that’s just stupid, but it effects the analysis of the Patterson trade not one wit.
I get your point, and so many others, that there may be a larger plan involved, and if so, it is perfectly valid to weigh the full effect of the plan, but even that is not “Reed for Patterson”. It is likely not even, “Reed and Meche for Patterson and Arroyo”, an unqualified disaster, because, as you pointed out, it would have been done already.
We don’t know what the 2nd move in this plan is, yet. So, how do you analyze it? You can’t.
So all trades should ignore current roster realities and talent considerations because the future is ultimately unknowable?
Got it.
We don’t know what the 2nd move in this plan is, yet. So, how do you analyze it? You can’t.
Sure you can. One way you can analyze it is to say this:
“I’m certainly not averse to jettisoning Meche if the team can something useful in return, but this is not that scenario. Acquiring Patterson as a reclamation project might be worthwhile on its own merits, but that doesn’t appear to be what would go down.”
In other words, while trading Meche for Patterson in and of itself might be good, if they do what it appears like they will and flip Reed to the Red Sox, it will be bad.
That’s how I analyzed this, and it seems to match what you’re saying exactly.
What if we are putting the wrong move first? You say on the surface Patterson for Meche wouldn’t be that bad. We all are assuming that IF the M’s do Patterson for Meche, then they will do Reed for (insert pitcher name here). What if it is the other way around? What if they are GOING to do the Reed for Arroyo/CLement deal anyway? Then does Meche for Patterson seem to make more sense?
Sure, in the sense that it makes sense to buy a Yugo for $1,000 after you sell your brand-new Subaru for $1,000. You’ve created a need for a car, right?
Jeff,
Isn’t this all just time-deliniated thinking unfairly bound by the constraints of outmoded utilitarianism? Who is to say that winning is better than losing, or that this move doesn’t in some sense result in the 2001 M’s winning 116 games?
#63 said “If the Ms signed Ishii, I would take that as a sign of contempt for the fan base. That’s positively insulting.”
If they signed Ishii it would either be as an NRI or a low dollars deal ($1 mil, $1.5 mil) and he’d compete to be the #5 starter or for a bullpen role. How is that more insulting than offering arbitration to Gil Meche and potentially paying him $4 million? If Meche isn’t traded before the season starts and they have to pay him $4 mil to be the #5, that’s really insulting…
Ishii walks too many batters and his K rate has fallen, but at this point in their careers he and Meche are pretty similar — except Meche is younger, has been pitching in a pitchers park and Ishii is left-handeded.
Re #61, Actually, DMZ, you weren’t.
At no time did I advocate analyzing all trades without regard for a larger picture. Certainly not to the point of absurdity that you proposed.
What I did say was:
a) the Meche for Patterson trade makes sense on its own. It does.
and,
b) The Reed trade will be a separate deal and should be evaluated separately.
This is where the discussion goes awry. You seem to assume that evaluating these deals separately, is semantically equivalent to analyzing them without context.
I, quite consciously, assumed that the majority of folk on this board would not require the basic instruction to conduct their evaluations of each trade in the context that it was made…including the construction of the M’s roster and the stocking of their farm system.
49
While I understand you aren’t being serious, I think using caution when referring to the religion of others in a negative fashion might be a good idea.
DMZ and Jeff, is there any chance that you two could stick to arguing with what I have written, rather than whatever is easiest to argue with?
Okay, you can’t concede something and then go back and argue someone’s intent. What’s the point in trying to make a point then? I could go back and argue that you originally meant that Meche had rabies at this point, and it would make as much sense as the rest of the argument.
So
a: Meche for Patterson doesn’t make sense because it doesn’t help the team
b: evaluating deals without paying attention to where they leave the team is silly
c: w/r/t my assuming something: you’re wrong here and use the terms wrong, which kinda undermines your point anyway
And that’s that. I will now go attempt to argue the sonnets of Sir Philip Sidney with a toaster.
What annoys me the most about this is had we pulled the trigger on a Meche trade BEFORE we signed Everett, I’d be prefectly happy with this. Patterson in LF is exactly one of those wacky gambles the M’s should be making- a young player available for relatively cheap, with the upside potential being a decent answer in LF. I’d much rather bet on Patterson coming up with a .260/.320/.450 season than Everett, all things being equal (and they wouldn’t be, because Patterson or Reed would probably be a reasonable defensive option in LF and keep Raul at DH AND could give some speed).
But no, we have to have “proven veterans who will shake up the clubhouse”. Aaargh.
ajp – what you wrote in #37 was that we should trade Meche for Patterson no matter what we decide to do with Reed. While that would be somewhat debatable if we hadn’t signed Everett, it would leave us with five left handed hitting outfielders and no fifth starter.
Re #67, Jeff, you write:
“Sure you can. One way you can analyze it is to say this:”
and, then go on to avoid analysis, instead substituing the apparent belief that nothing we can get from Boston is worth surrendering Reed.
What’s really funny is, I’m not even arguing with you. I wrote:
“I’m certainly not averse to jettisoning Meche if the team can something useful in return, but this is not that scenario. Acquiring Patterson as a reclamation project might be worthwhile on its own merits, but that doesn’t appear to be what would go down.â€Â
This says that I would support the Meche-Patterson deal on its merits if the team stopped there. But it looks like they’re not going to — it looks like they’re going to use this deal as a stepping stone to another, terrible deal.
I said this in the initial post. How is this any different than what you are saying?
I never said that nothing we can get from Boston is worth surrendering Reed.
I said that neither what we’re asking for from Boston nor likely to receive from Boston is worth surrendering Reed.
So… let’s say we manage to talk the Sox into making Papelbon or Lester the player we get back for Reed, instead of Arroyo (“Hey, you want one of our best young players? Fine. Give us one back.”). That change anyone’s perception of the deal?