M’s make a trade

Dave · June 30, 2006 at 10:34 am · Filed Under Mariners 

The Mariners have traded SS Asdrubal Cabrera to the Indians for 1B/LF/DH Eduardo Perez.

Confirmation here.

Perez is a lefty masher who can help the team (.303/.343/.636 in 99 at-bats this year), but this is way too high of a price to pay. He’s basicalliy a strict platooon player, getting 88 of his 99 at-bats vs lefties. He hit .259/.371/.526 vs lefties and just .231/.355/.346 vs righties last year.

This probably sends Mike Morse back to the minors, and Perez will become the DH vs left handed pitchers. The team gets better, but this isn’t a huge upgrade. It’s a minor upgrade that cost them a top prospect.

The team is better, but the price to pay was too high.

Comments

169 Responses to “M’s make a trade”

  1. dnc on June 30th, 2006 10:39 am

    I love Droobs, so this one hurts me.

    BUT, if this means the exodus of Everett, Perez as the permanent DH versus lefties, and the promotion of Snelling or Choo to the other half of that platoon, I could get used to the idea.

    I do agree that it’s too high of a price to pay, but if we use Perez right it at least shows some creativity and knowledge on the M’s part.

    We’ve struggled against LHP all year, this certainly addresses one of our biggest weaknesses.

    What do you think we could have gotten for Cabrera?

  2. scotje on June 30th, 2006 10:41 am

    Just looked at his splits, and he has been death to LH pitchers. Conversely, RH pitchers make him hit like an old lady trying to fight off a bee with a broom handle.

    vs LH: 330/355/693! (88 AB)
    vs RH: 091/267/182 (11 AB)

    Also, he was white hot in Apr/May and has slipped a little bit this month.

    Mar/Apr: 314/375/714! (35 AB)
    May: 302/333/651 (43 AB)

    June: 286/304/476 (21 AB)

    Seems like we should have at least gotten a low level prospect back outta this as well…

  3. Dave on June 30th, 2006 10:42 am

    I like Perez’s usefulness. I don’t want my “bad trade” comment to sound like I think he won’t help us. He kills left-handed pitchers, and he’ll instantly make the line-up better against southpaws. He also provides some protection late in games against the use of a LOOGY. He’s a pretty valuable reserve.

    But he shouldn’t have cost Asdrubal Cabrera. I knew the M’s were going to deal him eventually, because he’s basically got nowhere to go in this organization, but he’s worth more than a platoon DH. Cabrera could have easily been the main prospect in bringing in a legit arm for the pen and a DH who can actually play vs righties too.

    The M’s overpaid.

  4. Mariner Fan in CO Exile on June 30th, 2006 10:43 am

    Dave,

    Do you just think we needed to get more for a guy like Cabrera, or do you think we need to keep him around as insurance? Betancourt looks like a decent bet to be our shortstop for a good number of years.

    I understand about not mortgaging the future, but is Perez not a good fit or should Bavasi have locked on to a better major league player (regular starter) for Cabrera? Just not clear on your reasoning. It looks like it might mean Everett is on his way out or will see diminished playing time, maybe? That may be good.

  5. Mariner Fan in CO Exile on June 30th, 2006 10:45 am

    Dave,

    You answered it for me. Thanks.

  6. arbeck on June 30th, 2006 10:46 am

    Does anyone know if he can actually play left? Would he be defensively better or worse than Ibanez, or is it a wash?

    Does this mean that the 3 headed monster of Snelling/Ibanez/Perez is soon to take over the DH/LF spot in the lineup?

  7. Dave on June 30th, 2006 10:47 am

    Do you just think we needed to get more for a guy like Cabrera, or do you think we need to keep him around as insurance? Betancourt looks like a decent bet to be our shortstop for a good number of years.

    We should have gotten more. Cabrera as trade-bait doesn’t bother me – the middle infield looks set, and Oswaldo Navarro isn’t that far behind him as a defensive super sub. Cabrera didn’t really have a future in Seattle.

    But trading him for a DH who can only hit 25% of the pitchers in the major leagues? I think Cabrera could have been the key prospect in a deal to Philadelphia for a guy like David Dellucci, who would have helped the club more than Perez will.

    Cabrera had more value around the league than this. It’s why Shapiro jumped on this deal, even though he has Peralta/Belliard up the middle. He knows Cabrera is a valuable prospect. A 36-year-old platoon DH shouldn’t cost this much.

    The M’s just made the baseball transaction equivalent of paying $20 for a gallon of milk. Sure, we needed some milk, but don’t pay that high of a premium for it.

  8. Safeco Hobo on June 30th, 2006 10:48 am

    I don’t get it?!?!?!

    I now like the strength of the platoon/DH hitting (pending the trade/release of Everett and promotion of Doyle), but we still now only have one backup middle infielder, and when Willie is starting in center vs. lefties we are completely empty as far as getting any speed on the basepaths late.

    I kind of figured in the next couple years we would start seeing some of our AAA/AA middle infield depth being promoted and dealed as we actually become contenders and Lopez/Bentancourt have the positions secured for the next 5 years, but this seems a little premature.

    As i ponder on this move further….Everett can’t be real happy about this one….Doyle is starting to hit, we now have our lefty DH, Everett is hitting under .250, i think the writing is on the wall….

  9. Seth on June 30th, 2006 10:51 am

    [Deleted, cursing, general stupidity]

  10. msb on June 30th, 2006 10:53 am

    so, whats the over/under on the first time Rizzs mentions Tany Perez and the Big Red Machine?

  11. Mike Snow on June 30th, 2006 10:54 am

    Is anyone surprised to learn that Perez played for the Angels while Bavasi was the GM there?

  12. eponymous coward on June 30th, 2006 10:55 am

    Actually, Dave, I think Morse’s job is safe. It’s Petagine who’s going to get 86′ed. There’s no way Hargrove’s going with a bench of whoever’s not catching, WFB, and 2 DH/1B types (whoever’s not playing between Everett and Perez, and Petagine). One injury in a game Willie’s already playing and you’re hosed.

  13. Marvin on June 30th, 2006 10:56 am

    I think they will release Petagine. They don’t use him. Everett hits RHPs better than LHPs, so they will likely split the DH duties.

  14. Dave on June 30th, 2006 10:57 am

    Actually, if Willie’s playing center, then Reed is not. If an infielder gets hurt, you put Reed in, move Willie to fill the infield hole, and recall someone after the game’s over. Not that hard.

    That might be beyond Hargrove’s ability to grasp, though. I agree, Petagine’s days are likely numbered. I’m not sure this is the move that knocks him off the roster, though.

    This is probably the first of several moves.

  15. eponymous coward on June 30th, 2006 10:59 am

    And yeah, we could have likely had Perez for the cost of a contract in the offseason as a DH platoon with Petagine, and not blown money on C-Rex’s “intangibles”.

    So we’ve

    - wasted 4 million on a replacement level DH
    - wasted a shortstop prospect to augment said replacement level DH with another replacement level DH

    Sigh…

  16. gwangung on June 30th, 2006 11:00 am

    Actually, if Willie’s playing center, then Reed is not. If an infielder gets hurt, you put Reed in, move Willie to fill the infield hole, and recall someone after the game’s over. Not that hard.

    That might be beyond Hargrove’s ability to grasp, though.

    BWAH HAH HAH HAH!

    Would be funnier if it wasn’t so true.

    Hmph. Heard Morse got sent down to AAA….

  17. Marvin on June 30th, 2006 11:02 am

    Morse won’t be down for long. They will put Petagine on waivers and see if someone will take him.

  18. arbeck on June 30th, 2006 11:03 am

    Marvin,

    Wouldn’t it make more sense though to replace Petagine with Snelling?

  19. Jonah Keri on June 30th, 2006 11:03 am

    No way Asdrubal’s perceived value was that low that only a lefty-masher who can’t play defense was the best they could do. Ugh.

    Here’s a good Adam Jones interview to hopefully cheer things up a bit:

    http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=5257

  20. Marvin on June 30th, 2006 11:04 am

    I think they like Morse’s ability to play infield positions.

  21. gwangung on June 30th, 2006 11:04 am

    Wouldn’t it make more sense though to replace Petagine with Snelling?

    In Bavasi’s mind. Unfortunately, it may be that Hargrove will use him in exactly the same way….

  22. eponymous coward on June 30th, 2006 11:05 am

    What, so Doyle can sit on the bench and pinch hit in months without a vowel in them?

    Seriously, with how Hargrove uses veterans, the only way to get him to use Doyle is to remove Everett from the roster…or have him flail so badly he plays his way off.

  23. arbeck on June 30th, 2006 11:08 am

    Well in my ideal world you DFA Everett. Snelling and Ibanez split duties in left (unless Perez is a better defender than Ibanez) and when we face lefties Perez is in the lineup. We keep Petagine around as the left handed bat. But my guess is that Petagine goes before Everett.

  24. Evan on June 30th, 2006 11:12 am

    With both Petagine and Perez on the team, there’s really no need for Carl at all, anymore.

    Especially if we call up Doyle. Then we could probably move Petagine, too (since we’re not using him).

  25. gwangung on June 30th, 2006 11:12 am

    What, so Doyle can sit on the bench and pinch hit in months without a vowel in them?

    Hey, I expect exactly that.

    I remember last year, when Snelling started hot and the Ms were in an offensive rut. Snelling got called up….and sat for ten days, got a pinch hit, then sat some more.

    And Petagine will leave the team before Everett….

  26. eponymous coward on June 30th, 2006 11:16 am

    Well in my ideal world you DFA Everett

    Is Hargrove the manager in this world?

  27. eponymous coward on June 30th, 2006 11:17 am

    I think they like Morse’s ability to play infield positions.

    As opposed to “play well”.

  28. Aaron on June 30th, 2006 11:18 am

    Wouldn’t it make more sense though to replace Petagine with Snelling?

    No, it would make more sense to replace EVERETT with Snelling/Perez. Doyle gets 75% of the ABs, and gets plenty of off days. Going with a Doyle/Raul/Perez three-headed monster at LF/DH keeps guys rested and lets the team ride the hot hand.

  29. Seth on June 30th, 2006 11:18 am

    Fact:
    Perez’ OPS against LHP is about the same as David Ortiz’ overall OPS.

    Practical result:
    We just added David Ortiz to the lineup against left-handed pitchers.

    Fact:
    Cabrera was blocked by Betancourt.

    Practical result:
    Only diehard Tacoma fans ought to hate this trade.

    Fact:
    I had a mimosa for breakfast.

    Practical result:
    I rambled a bit in my earlier comment.

  30. gwangung on June 30th, 2006 11:19 am

    Well, fortunately, I think Perez is “veteran” enough for Hargrove to play him against lefties. And this way, Carl may not get enough at-bats to vest…

  31. Coach Owens on June 30th, 2006 11:20 am

    Also Perez is really old so he won’t be here long while Cabrera still has his whole MLB career ahead of him.

  32. Dave on June 30th, 2006 11:21 am

    Practical result:
    We just added David Ortiz to the lineup against left-handed pitchers.

    Except the other team can bring in a right-handed reliever in critical situations and turn “our David Ortiz” into “our Carl Everett”.

    Practical result:
    Only diehard Tacoma fans ought to hate this trade.

    And people who care about the longterm future of this club. Or should only diehard Tacoma fans have hated the Lowe/Varitek for Slocumb trade, because it helped the team and only cost “two minor leaguers”?

    The fact that you don’t know anything about Asdrubal Cabrera only proves that you don’t know enough to have a valid opinion.

  33. Phoenician Todd on June 30th, 2006 11:22 am

    When I first read this in the other thread, my first reaction was “ugh.” Now, I didn’t know enought about Perez to have an informed opinion, but I just expected something more for someone that is a legit prospect.

  34. arbeck on June 30th, 2006 11:25 am

    Is Hargrove the manager in this world?

    Of course not, but I don’t think we’re getting rid of him. Because Hargrove is the manager, I think he’s more likely to want to keep Everett than Petagine.

  35. eponymous coward on June 30th, 2006 11:29 am

    Exactly, arbeck…

    In my ideal world, we signed Perez and Petagine to handle DH and kept Lawton around as a 4th OF way back in the offseason, and used the money to grab Millwood instead of Washburn.

    Oh, well.

  36. Doc on June 30th, 2006 11:30 am

    Dave, is there any sense as to when Doyle will be brought up? If this is used to get rid of Everett, then I am better with the trade. The past 2 weeks without him in the lineup have been great.

  37. eponymous coward on June 30th, 2006 11:30 am

    Except the other team can bring in a right-handed reliever in critical situations and turn “our David Ortiz” into “our Carl Everett”.

    Well, to be fair, at that point you sub in Everett or Petagine against the righty.

  38. PLU Tim on June 30th, 2006 11:31 am

    Oh come on Dave.

    This is hardly the equivalent of the Lowe/Varitek deal. Varitek was one of the best prospects in baseball at the time.

    The only impact Cabrera was going to have on the future of the M’s was the player for which he was going to be traded.

  39. JH on June 30th, 2006 11:32 am

    Cabrera told me in an interview that he signed with the Mariners because of Omar Vizquel.

    I guess he gets to follow Vizquel’s career path now.

    Belliard’s contract is up after 2006, so Cabrera could start fighting for major league playing time very soon.

  40. dnc on June 30th, 2006 11:34 am

    38. That’s still plenty of impact.

    And in the meantime, he was nice insurance if something nasty happens to YuBet, Beltre or Lopez.

  41. Dave on June 30th, 2006 11:36 am

    Dave, is there any sense as to when Doyle will be brought up? If this is used to get rid of Everett, then I am better with the trade. The past 2 weeks without him in the lineup have been great.

    I’d imagine Doyle will be up sometime in July. I don’t think we’re going to see Carl Everett as a regular in the M’s line-up down the stretch.

    Well, to be fair, at that point you sub in Everett or Petagine against the righty.

    You think Grover’s going to pinch-hit Petagine for Perez, when he’s been hesitant to have Petagine pinch hit for anyone but the pitcher?

    And Everett for Perez isn’t an upgrade. The point was that we don’t have a David Ortiz in the line-up vs lefties, because “our David Ortiz” can be marginalized so easily.

    This is hardly the equivalent of the Lowe/Varitek deal. Varitek was one of the best prospects in baseball at the time.

    I wasn’t comparing the two trades. I was exposing the myth of the idea that fans should always be excited about trading minor leaguers for major leaguers.

    The only impact Cabrera was going to have on the future of the M’s was the player for which he was going to be traded.

    Unless Jose Lopez or Yuniesky Betancourt get hurt, at which point, there’s a pretty good chance he’d be on the major league club pronto. Depth isn’t a bad thing.

  42. dnc on June 30th, 2006 11:38 am

    Dave, let me reverse my question from earlier – what do you think would have been a reasonable price for us to give up for Perez? Would Navarro have been too much? Rob Johnson? Yorman Bazardo? Luis Valbuena?

    In other words, what tier on the Future Forty would you have tapped into to go after Perez?

  43. Mike Snow on June 30th, 2006 11:42 am

    Belliard’s contract is up after 2006, so Cabrera could start fighting for major league playing time very soon.

    Cabrera’s not ready for major league playing time, certainly not regularly. He’s not hitting well at Tacoma, so planning to plug him into a starting lineup in 2007 would not be a smart move. Having him around as middle infield depth with hopes of developing into a potential starter down the road makes more sense.

  44. Dave on June 30th, 2006 11:42 am

    Guys in the minors I wouldn’t have traded straight up for Perez (not counting ’06 draftees, who can’t be traded yet):

    Clement, Jones, Cabrera, Doyle, Choo, Tui, Feierabend, Cruceta, Lowe, Fruto. Pretty much anyone else would have been in play.

  45. Bob Loblaw on June 30th, 2006 11:43 am

    Dave – With Cabrera now gone who are the M’s most valuable (and possibly expendable) trade chips?

  46. revbill on June 30th, 2006 11:46 am

    …the myth of the idea that trading fans should always be excited about trading minor leaguers for major leaguers.

    It certainly doesn’t help that a lot of media reports of trades will just say “a minor leaguer” (I’m thinking mostly of KJR here) like they’re all the same.

  47. Dave on June 30th, 2006 11:47 am

    Dave – With Cabrera now gone who are the M’s most valuable (and possibly expendable) trade chips?

    Choo’s the obvious one. He’s got no real future here.

    Quiroz could have value to another club, since the M’s won’t use him. Hitting well in Tacoma, not on the 40-man, close to major league ready.

    Cruceta could be bait too, since I don’t think the org. will give him a shot this year.

  48. Mike Snow on June 30th, 2006 11:49 am

    I doubt the Indians would have seen Johnson as enough, certainly not Bazardo or Valbuena. Navarro maybe. I’d imagine a conversation something like this:

    Bavasi: Hi, Mark, what do you want for Perez?
    Shapiro: We’re looking for a middle infield prospect. I understand you’ve got quite a few of those in your system, like that Tuiasasopo guy, so maybe we can do business.
    Bavasi: Ha, nice try, you know I’m not that foolish. But we could give you Oswaldo Navarro.
    Shapiro: No, we’d rather have Cabrera.
    Bavasi: Okay, it’s a deal.

  49. dnc on June 30th, 2006 11:51 am

    Thanks for the response Dave.

    So, looking at the last Future 40, Cabrera was a 7 reward – 7 risk rising (07 projection), while Navarro was a 6-6 holding (08 projection) – how much difference do you see in that?

    Do you think if Bavasi had held out that Shapiro could have been talked into Navarro?

  50. Doug Taylor on June 30th, 2006 11:52 am

    Dave, what do you think we should have been able to fetch for Cabrera if we traded him straight up?

    I do think we paid a little bit much, but, as a buyer this year, teams will be asking a lot from us, so we ended up paying a higher price than it looks like we should on paper. Supply and demand…simple economics.

  51. dnc on June 30th, 2006 11:55 am

    I don’t get this idea that “well, we’re a buyer so teams are going to ask more”.

    That’s ridiculous.

    Yes, we’re a buyer, but there’s more than one seller out there. If Cleveland is going to try and overcharge us than we should make it clear we have other options and are willing to move on. If Cleveland relents, great, if not, get back on the phone.

    Now, Bavasi’s mindset may be “we’re buyers so we have to overpay”. But that doesn’t mean it makes any sense.

    Bottom line, Perez’s trade value is his trade value. If you pay significantly over that just because you’re a “buyer”, well, you’re an idiot.

  52. Spencer B on June 30th, 2006 11:55 am

    #32: I have been watching Cabrera play all year down here in T-town. He’s a decent prospect, no doubt. Please don’t consider what’s to come ill-informed in that sense.

    The M’s needed to do something to make their lineup stronger against lefties. They are what, 8-18 against them now? They were able to sprint through the last stretch, in no small part, because they weren’t facing tough left handed starters. To win their division, though, they need to close that bug.

    Perez is not the perfect player, he’s got no positional value, and his platoon splits are a real pisser. He’s also cheap (under $2 mil, with an option for next year), not so valuable that if you find a better widget he can’t be DFA’d in August, and he’s got some pop.

    With some of the teams who are dying for some lineup pop, it’s a seller’s market for a good bench bat right now. The A’s, for instance, pinch hit with a guy hitting .081 with the bases loaded in the 14th yesterday. The M’s had to move to improve the team, and they did. Yeah, they probably paid too much, but this is a nice upgrade over Mike Morse, DH.

  53. Grizz on June 30th, 2006 11:56 am

    The M’s definitely overspent, but they were probably not the only team pushing for Perez. Of the lefty mashers who were immediately and realistically available, Perez was the one to pick up (1.048 OPS, EQA .311, VORP 10.6 in 88 AB v. LHP, 11 AB v. RHP). He is significantly better than a Dustan Mohr-type.

    The M’s might have landed a better player had they waited until the trade deadline, but then they lose the upgrade for a month’s worth of games. After next week, the schedule looks like the M’s will return to facing at least one LHP starter per series. If Perez helps the M’s go 5-0 or 4-1 versus Nate Robertson, the Big Unit, Ted Lilly, CC Sabathia, and Cliff Lee next month, the trade looks a little better.

    The bench can get along just fine without Morse. Betancourt is the only infielder for whom a pinch-hitter is a possibility (but not a necessity).

  54. Doug Taylor on June 30th, 2006 11:58 am

    I’d like to believe you…what should Cabrera fetch then? What should we have been able to give the Indians for Perez?

  55. Doug Taylor on June 30th, 2006 11:58 am

    Sorry, that was to 51.

  56. Dave on June 30th, 2006 12:00 pm

    So, looking at the last Future 40, Cabrera was a 7 reward – 7 risk rising (07 projection), while Navarro was a 6-6 holding (08 projection) – how much difference do you see in that?

    I don’t think Navarro’s going to hit in the majors. I think, in his prime, he’s Rafael Bournigal or something. He could be a quality reserve, because he’s legitimately good at shortstop, but the stick isn’t going to be there for him to hit enough to play everyday. Navarro’s upside was as a role player. Cabrera had a chance to start.

    Do you think if Bavasi had held out that Shapiro could have been talked into Navarro?

    Probably not. The Indians aren’t big on no-hit fielders.

    Dave, what do you think we should have been able to fetch for Cabrera if we traded him straight up?

    Someone like David Dellucci. A DH who can hit righties is more valuable than a DH who can hit lefties.

    Now, Bavasi’s mindset may be “we’re buyers so we have to overpay”. But that doesn’t mean it makes any sense.

    Bavasi’s entire tenure year has been characterized by overpaying for the guys he wants. They overpayed for Sexson. They overpaid for Washburn. They overpaid for Everett.

    The M’s identify the player they want, then begin negotiating and try to get the best deal possible for that player. It’s not the best way to go about things, and it creates situations where you’re consistently paying too much for what you acquire.

  57. dnc on June 30th, 2006 12:02 pm

    I’m of the mind that Navarro would have fetched Perez had Bavasi held out, but I certainly don’t know that.

    I definitely think Cabrera could have fetched more, especially if you wait for his second half of the year numbers spike that he always seems to have.

    Buy low, sell high. It seems to me with Cabrera we may have sold low.

    I don’t hate this deal, but I’m maybe lukewarm to it at best. But my main argument was against the philosophy that you have to significantly overpay. I just don’t buy it if you’re creative and hard working.

  58. Doug Taylor on June 30th, 2006 12:06 pm

    Thanks Dave, makes sense…I’m not arguing that we didn’t overpay.

    But, in some of the comments, it sounds like 1) this is a trade that will most likely not improve our team, which the jury is still out on; and 2) if we don’t make a trade where we totally rob another GM, then the whole front office should be dismissed.

    The whole front office should be dismissed…but that’s another topic.

  59. dnc on June 30th, 2006 12:08 pm

    58, I’m neutral on getting rid of Bavasi, but adamantly against losing Fontaine.

    So I ceertainly disagree with the notion that the entire FO should be dismissed.

  60. Dave on June 30th, 2006 12:09 pm

    Again, I don’t want to create the perception that I don’t like Eduardo Perez. I do, and he obviously helps the club. I’m just not sure he helps the club enough.

    The M’s have had 2780 at-bats to date, 679 of them against LHP’s. That’s 24.4%. Since we’re basically halfway through the year, we can say that Eduardo Perez will probably be presented with approximately 75-100 plate appearances the rest of the year.

    If Perez hits .300/.400/.600 in 100 plate appearances, and we assume that Morse/Everett/whoever would have hit .250/.300/.350, the difference between the two will be 10 hits and 25 total bases. The run value difference between those two performances is probably somewhere in the neighborhood of 13-17 runs.

    That’s a pretty significant upgrade, but that’s also the absolute best case scenario. Over 100 at-bats, almost anything can happen. Morse/Everett could hit significantly better than that. Perez could hit significantly worse. The real expected value, not best case scenario, is probably more like 7-10 runs.

    So the M’s cashed in Asdrubal Cabrera for about one extra win this year. Maybe it will be worth it, but that seems like a high price to pay.

  61. Ralph Malph on June 30th, 2006 12:10 pm

    Someone like David Dellucci. A DH who can hit righties is more valuable than a DH who can hit lefties.

    To other teams maybe; we’ve already got 3 of those, plus one more in the minors.

  62. dnc on June 30th, 2006 12:10 pm

    Sorry about the “ceErtainly” in number 59. I will make a better effort to proofread and ensure that doesn’t happen, as I know it drives some here a little nuts.

  63. Doug Taylor on June 30th, 2006 12:14 pm

    57:

    I didn’t say you had to significantly overpay. But if teams know you’re looking to help your team, and they need something, they’re gonna try and take you, just like you’re trying to take them. Sometimes we win out (Ken Phelps for Jay Buhner), and sometimes we lose out (Dave Hollins for Big Papi). With our current front office, we’ve been losing out more, and that needs to be addressed.

  64. eponymous coward on June 30th, 2006 12:20 pm

    To other teams maybe; we’ve already got 3 of those, plus one more in the minors.

    Everett BARELY hits righties, though he’s better than Perez).

    Really, the problem is that this is likely viewed as a way to keep Everett around and keep his PAs under 450, as well as adding a RHB to the bench.

  65. Doug Taylor on June 30th, 2006 12:20 pm

    58:

    Agreed on Fontaine…that was too broad a statment.

    I meant more like Lincoln and Armstrong…and if we could upgrade at GM from Bavasi, I wouldn’t be opposed to it. But if we can’t, there’s no sense in getting rid of him only to get a GM who is worse.

  66. Doug Taylor on June 30th, 2006 12:25 pm

    59, I should say. Sorry again.

  67. AK4Sea on June 30th, 2006 12:27 pm

    http://www.ocregister.com/ocregister/sports/abox/article_1197929.php

    Looks like the Angels are planning on designating Jeff Weaver for assignment at some point today. I really hope the M’s follow Dave’s advice and take a flier on him.

  68. argh on June 30th, 2006 12:40 pm

    I floated Dave’s Pineiro-for-Weaver trade idea at the bar yesterday after golf and was mocked unmercifully by some other Ms fans. This, of course, casts no light on whether the idea is good, bad or indifferent, but points up the difficulty of being a voice in the wilderness on these things….

    Their best idea was packaging Guardado and Moyer for somebody high value (no specific suggestions) from the Yankees because the Yanks would for sure kill to get those two. Bar talk and KJR are often indistinguishable.

  69. plivengood on June 30th, 2006 12:44 pm

    argh – You need to start hanging around with better baseball minds. :)

  70. Ralph Malph on June 30th, 2006 12:44 pm

    That ocregister story on Weaver is encouraging (since it says they’re “resigned” to picking up his remaining $4M of salary), but it suggests they wouldn’t take Pineiro for him, since they say they have a surplus of pitching. They might prefer to trade him outside the division, unless they’ve given up altogether on this year (which is possible).

  71. Xteve X on June 30th, 2006 12:47 pm

    56 – Dave nailed it there I think. Perez was the guy he wanted, ergo whatever the cost it took to get him was worth it. Given Cabrera’s youth I agree, you would think at the least they could have found a full time LFer.

  72. arbeck on June 30th, 2006 12:51 pm

    Ralph,

    If they’ve resigned to picking up his salary, how about we offer cash so we pay part of it and some marginal prospect like Yorman Bazardo. Then we can DFA Mateo and make Joel the most overpayed long relief guy in baseball.

  73. Seth on June 30th, 2006 12:53 pm

    32:

    I’ve never hated on the Slocumb trade. If the goal was to win a World Series in 1997, you had to make that trade. Slocumb was surely mediocre, but we never would’ve won the pennant without him. For 1997–great trade. For 1998-2006, terrible. But that was a team with a legitimate shot at a World Series ring.

    Did the Cabrera trade (I know who the guy is, I was being facetious) make sense for the future? No. But you can’t play 2007 now. You can only play 2006.

    Carpe Diem.

  74. Dave on June 30th, 2006 12:54 pm

    Seth,

    Let’s just say that we’re all thrilled you’re not the GM.

  75. argh on June 30th, 2006 12:56 pm

    Focusing on this fall to the exclusion of future years isn’t a good management strategy for General Motors and it’s not for a major league baseball team either. It’s a fairly typical American way to look at things though.

  76. Doug Taylor on June 30th, 2006 12:57 pm

    Was this trade many early enough in the day for Perez to get here today? Or should we expect him tomorrow or Sunday?

  77. Dave on June 30th, 2006 12:58 pm

    He’ll report tomorrow.

    The M’s don’t face a lefty in any of their next five games, though, so his first start won’t come for a while.

  78. Mr. Egaas on June 30th, 2006 12:58 pm

    Harsh! I love Cabrera’s upside.

  79. Ralph Malph on June 30th, 2006 1:02 pm

    If they’ve resigned to picking up his salary, how about we offer cash so we pay part of it and some marginal prospect like Yorman Bazardo. Then we can DFA Mateo and make Joel the most overpayed long relief guy in baseball.

    What makes you think Pineiro is better than Mateo? Mateo has actually pitched OK (not great but OK) since coming back from the DL (14 1/3 innings, 14 hits, 3 non-intentional BB and 7 K). During which time Pineiro has stunk. Mateo is also signed through next year. I think I’d sooner DFA Joel.

  80. Jim Thomsen on June 30th, 2006 1:03 pm

    The M’s identify the player they want, then begin negotiating and try to get the best deal possible for that player. It’s not the best way to go about things, and it creates situations where you’re consistently paying too much for what you acquire.

    This is a good point that shouldn’t be overlooked.

    It’s as if you did baseball analysis by deciding on your conclusion first and then cherry-picking the data and molding your arguments to fit.

  81. arbeck on June 30th, 2006 1:04 pm

    If you’d rather keep Mateo, dump Green. I just feel like as much as Pineiro sucks, he’d have to be an improvement over someone in the bullpen.

  82. Mr. Egaas on June 30th, 2006 1:05 pm

    How true is that. The M’s have always been all about going for “their guy”, that “fits the character” or whatever, instead of seeing potential options and shopping around.

  83. Mr. Egaas on June 30th, 2006 1:05 pm

    Shapiro hustles everybody. He’s the new Billy Beane.

  84. Jim Thomsen on June 30th, 2006 1:06 pm

    #79: There’s an illusion that demoting a guy from the rotation to the bullpen somehow masks his weakness and limits his exposure to harm. That’s true in the case of pitchers who are actually suited to the exacting discipline of relief work, but there’s no reason to think it’s true in the case of Pineiro, who lacks the kind of pitches that would make him effective as a reliever. He doesn’t have a good fastball or a hard breaking pitch or a standout change. He’d get beaten — and beat himself — just as much in the bullpen as he does now.

  85. Safeco Hobo on June 30th, 2006 1:11 pm

    Pineiro has always been a guy who typically sucks worse in the beginning of the game then settles down…..I worry what good he would be in long relief.

  86. thehiddentrack on June 30th, 2006 1:13 pm

    #84: You are probably right. Although it SEEMS Pineiro starts to get hit the worst in the 5-7 innings. Many pitchers start to throw worse when they tire, it wouldn’t surprise me if Joel is one of them.

    I’m not sure if he actually gives up most his runs later in the game, that’s just my observation (that could easily be wrong).

  87. arbeck on June 30th, 2006 1:14 pm

    Pineiro did have some success early in his career out of the bullpen, of course he had better stuff then. In general though, starters get better in the bullpen. Relief pitching is an easier job.

  88. Jim Thomsen on June 30th, 2006 1:15 pm

    #86: Easy enough to check out … ESPN.com’s player stats have splits that allow you to see how a pitcher does both by inning and by 15-pitch increments.

  89. msb on June 30th, 2006 1:15 pm

    speaking of ‘baseball guys’, the Padres have named Paul DePodesta Special Assistant for Baseball Operations

  90. plivengood on June 30th, 2006 1:17 pm

    72, arbeck, wrote:

    “If they’ve resigned to picking up his salary, how about we offer cash so we pay part of it and some marginal prospect like Yorman Bazardo.”

    Doesn’t work that way. During the ten days that DFA rules give LAA to figure out what to do with Weaver, they will be trying to trade him, but whomever trades for him takes on his contract for the rest of the year. If, after ten days, they waive him and he passes through waivers (like Russ Ortiz), then you can sign him for pro-rated minimum (or whatever it takes to get him; he’s a FA then), but LAA is stuck paying his 2006 contract (and anything he is owed in future years).

    The Angels would do well to get somebody to pay somebody to take him on, i.e., if Weaver’s contract is $6M, pay somebody $2-2.5M to take on the prorated portion of his contract (about $3M) and get a marginal (far less than Bazardo) PTBNL in return.

  91. Seth on June 30th, 2006 1:27 pm

    *I’m* glad I’m not the GM, Dave. I would’ve traded the farm for Griffey pretty much every year since 2001.

    78: You are correct. Cabrera has tremendous upside potential.

  92. JMB on June 30th, 2006 1:28 pm

    Nothing all that revealing in Pineiro’s inning-by-inning or pitch splits… he’s just been bad all around this season.

    http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/players/splits?statsId=6549&type=pitching&year=2006

  93. JMB on June 30th, 2006 1:29 pm

    “Tremendous upside potential.”

    Thanks, Hubie Brown.

  94. dnc on June 30th, 2006 1:30 pm

    He’s long.

  95. leetinsleyfanclub on June 30th, 2006 1:38 pm

    I don’t have any problem with this. If there’s one thing the M’s front office has done in the past it’s overvalue their own prospects. This kept the team from pulling the trigger on deals in 2000, 2002, and 2003 when they needed help at the deadline. Look at the guys they refused to trade then now.

    Would it have been nice to keep Cabrera around for depth? Sure. But he likely wasn’t going to help them win anytime soon and Perez will. Could Cabrera have fetched more? We assume so, but since he is one of the M’s most tradeable assets I’ll bet he has been shopped all year and they have a pretty good idea of his trade value by now. May well have been that Perez was the best available option for Cabrera given the M’s current needs.

    Frankly, I’m happy to see some action and a little risk-taking for once.

  96. postfalls on June 30th, 2006 1:41 pm

    Anything that helps get rid of Everett is a good thing.

  97. dnc on June 30th, 2006 1:43 pm

    95, I seriously doubt that the M’s have been shopping Cabrera all year. They didn’t look like contenders for much of the year, and seemed to be in a position to wait until next year. I’d be surprised if they’ve actively been pursuing deals for their prospects for more than 2 weeks.

  98. arbeck on June 30th, 2006 1:47 pm

    plivengood,

    When I said offer cash, that was short hand for we agree to pay some of his salary. If he is owed 3+ million for the rest of the year, we pay 1.5 million and give up Bazardo. That is probably overpaying, but again Bazardo doesn’t look like he has much of a future with the team.

  99. leetinsleyfanclub on June 30th, 2006 1:55 pm

    97, I’ll bet they have been. Remember, Chuck Armstrong said the team was going to win the AL West before the season. That was the expectation. When they were struggling early you can’t tell me they weren’t at least looking into potential trades to help the club. If they were in fact doing so, Cabrera had to be an integral part of at least some of the conversations. Plus, there was talk that they had intended to trade Cabrera this past off season in a couple of rumored deals. Juan Pierre and Florida is the one I remember.

  100. JoeM on June 30th, 2006 1:55 pm

    On the upside, it means they’re trying to build for a run this year so at least we’re contentders again instead of what we were predicting a month ago. Look for the M’s to continue dominating against the Rickies, I predict 1 Ichiro! home run and at least 2 other guys having multi-HR games this series.

  101. plivengood on June 30th, 2006 1:59 pm

    98 – OK, but saying “we pay” is confusing. THEY pay.

  102. Seth on June 30th, 2006 2:02 pm

    Oh–I’d also like to point out that the one win Dave says Eduardo Perez might be worth could be the difference between making the postseason and not. The past three years, a playoff spot’s been decided by one win.

  103. Norm Charlton Fan Club on June 30th, 2006 2:03 pm

    Anybody check out espn’s new power rankings?? We jumped from 21 to 9!!

    http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/powerranking?season=2006&week=14&lpos=spotlight&lid=tab1pos2

  104. dnc on June 30th, 2006 2:07 pm

    Wow. I think we’re pretty good, but number 9?

    I’m shocked the Bristol Boys are giving us that kind of love. I’m not sure we’re deserving.

    But it sure is nice for a change. :)

  105. dnc on June 30th, 2006 2:09 pm

    Well, that’s still only good for 8th in the AL, which sounds about right.

    It’s crazy how bad the NL is this year.

  106. Josh on June 30th, 2006 2:10 pm

    The only way I see this as being fruitful at all is if it reults in Everett’s option not vesting… Perez may be having a decent year against lefties, but his 3-year doesn’t look nearly as good:

    2003-2005
    .288/.397/.561
    76×264

    That’s with the best against-lefties year by far also being the farthest away:

    2003
    .353/.461/.667
    36×102

    What then of the past two years?

    2004-2005
    .247/.358/.494
    40×162

    Remember that this is all against lefties. Oh, and he’s coming into Safeco now.

    I realize this isn’t much of a sample to go off of, but it’s what he has. His entire career has been chock full of a whopping 1700+ AB. Yes, he was performing well for the Indians this year – so? If you believe anything above .250/.350/.500 vs. lefties is reasonable, or even think there are overwhelming odds for those numbers, you may be greatly mistaken.

    Sure, he could come in and put up .300/.400/.600 for us. A lot of people could do that, though.

    Anyway, you probably see that I agree with Dave that Cabrera was too much to offer for Perez. Whatever. If it keeps every away from Mariners 2007 then at least something was accomplished.

  107. Josh on June 30th, 2006 2:18 pm

    Anybody check out espn’s new power rankings?? We jumped from 21 to 9!!

    I’m not familiar with ESPN’s power ranking. Do they update it on Fridays? In other words, did we hop up from 21 to 9 by going 5-1 against San Diego and Arizona?

    Granted, we have scored a very healthy amount of runs lately, but a 5-1 week against mid-level ballclubs (with Arizona basically worse than that if you take current conditions) hardly, IMO, merits going from a bottom-third “fringe” club to a top-third club.

  108. dnc on June 30th, 2006 2:18 pm

    106, what are you talking about? We have over 300 at bats in the past 4 seasons to tell us that Perez is absolutely murder against lefties. I don’t think he’ll give us a 1.000 OPS in Safeco, but I’d say .900 is a safe bet.

    I agree Cabrera is too much to pay, but don’t act like we don’t have enough evidence that Perez kills lefties. We very clearly do.

  109. leetinsleyfanclub on June 30th, 2006 2:24 pm

    If Cabrera was a pitcher, I would agree, it’s too much for Perez. But he’s a middle infielder who is not ever going to start over Betancourt or Lopez. Why keep him around when he can be moved for someone that can address one of the team’s biggest weaknesses right now? And, also, how much trade value does a guy hitting .236 with an OPS of .683 in AAA really have at the moment?

  110. Josh on June 30th, 2006 2:33 pm

    106, what are you talking about? We have over 300 at bats in the past 4 seasons to tell us that Perez is absolutely murder against lefties. I don’t think he’ll give us a 1.000 OPS in Safeco, but I’d say .900 is a safe bet.

    I just gave those stats, with the exception of the current season’s. I admitted that the current season’s are good.

    I also gave an idea of what those stats, combined with this guy’s age, tell me to expect from him over the rest of the season with us.

    I could be off by a lot. Let’s say he garners 100 AB with us this year. Going from .250 to .300 BA is 5 extra hits dropping in. Two more homers and an extra double will bring the SLG from .500 to .600. That’s why I said, anything’s possible.

    His last 4 years, though, certainly are not a portent of the arrival of a lefty murderer. That’s the entire reason why I gave the stats.

    Strictly my opinion, naturally.

  111. Josh on June 30th, 2006 2:34 pm

    If Cabrera was a pitcher, I would agree, it’s too much for Perez. But he’s a middle infielder who is not ever going to start over Betancourt or Lopez. Why keep him around when he can be moved for someone that can address one of the team’s biggest weaknesses right now? And, also, how much trade value does a guy hitting .236 with an OPS of .683 in AAA really have at the moment?

    He may not have a lot of trade value, and certainly there is no imminent opening for him here, but as Dave mentioned, he could command more than Perez. I concur.

    Other factors, such as what you mentioned, should also be considered, though.

  112. dan on June 30th, 2006 2:39 pm

    Garbage. While i like the idea of having another bat, there is already a backlog of people who shouldn’t play anything but 1B/DH on this team (sexson, ibanez, carl, petagine).

    He also does not have a lot of experience in LF. Like 45 games in a 14 year career. He has 100 in RF. It doesn’t instill much confidence that he would be a good pick for every day LF.

  113. Mike Snow on June 30th, 2006 2:44 pm

    If Everett’s option vests at 450 plate appearances, then we have to hold him below 173 the rest of the way. We’re halfway through the season (+/- one game) and he already has 277, so the pace is not good. If you take away the 24.4% figure Dave quoted earlier for the overall percentage of at-bats against left-handed pitching (because all of those are going to go to Perez now), you still have 209 Everett PAs for the second half, which is 37 too many. Not to mention the 22 PAs that went to our pitchers and would have gone to Everett, since we won’t have the benefit of any more interleague road trips.

  114. Mike Snow on June 30th, 2006 2:52 pm

    It doesn’t instill much confidence that he would be a good pick for every day LF.

    I don’t think anyone’s suggesting that we should use Perez that way, he’s a platoon partner for Everett pure and simple. Basically, whatever we may think, the front office is quite content for Ibanez to play every day in left, and isn’t devoting any effort to changing that situation.

  115. Ralph Malph on June 30th, 2006 2:58 pm

    Here’s what’s interesting to me about Pineiro’s pitch number splits:
    From 2003-2005, his OPS against declined the longer he was in a game. From pitch 91 on it was about .560 (I’m too lazy to do the math). In 370 at bats.

    This year his OPS against is pretty well horrible no matter how long he stays in a game. He used to settle in the longer he lasted, whereas now he just sucks all the time.

    None of which suggests a guy who should be in the bullpen. The pattern I think you’d want to see for a starter who’d thrive in the bullpen would be a guy who pitches well early in the game but tires, which has never been Pineiro’s pattern.

  116. Jeff Nye on June 30th, 2006 3:04 pm

    Continuing my tradition of rather vague comments…

    I’m less excited about this move itself, for the reasons that have been broken down, than the fact that the Mariners front office is willing to make a push to try to improve the team for this season.

    I don’t really care if it’s based on a hot streak against bad teams (not saying it is or it isn’t, just saying I don’t care) generating some optimism or not; it’s good to see.

    That doesn’t mean I want to see the FO make /bad/ moves in order to make the team better this year, but this seems like at worst a somewhat-less-than-optimal deal, not necessariliy a BAD deal.

    So, in the larger overall context, I’ll take it. Especially if, as others have said, it hastens Carl Everett’s departure from the M’s clubhouse.

  117. Nick in Taiwan on June 30th, 2006 3:06 pm

    Dave, I luv ya from afar, but this trade rocks.

    a real row of hitters faces lefties from the m’s.

    good luck to the youngster.

  118. John in L.A. on June 30th, 2006 3:10 pm

    “I’ve never hated on the Slocumb trade. If the goal was to win a World Series in 1997, you had to make that trade. Slocumb was surely mediocre, but we never would’ve won the pennant without him.”

    Yikes, dude.

    By that logic, without even exaggerating it, we should trade Doyle, Clement, Jones and everyone else in Tacoma for a nice LOOGY.

    It was a horrible, horrible deal and in no way did anything Slocumb do that year justify it.

    “Did the Cabrera trade (I know who the guy is, I was being facetious) make sense for the future? No. But you can’t play 2007 now. You can only play 2006.”

    You had BETTER play for 2007 now…. baseball doesn’t reset talent every year. Ignoring the future is an excellent way to have a crappy ball club for, well, ever.

    The Cabrera trade is a small example of it, but we don’t really have such an outstanding farm system that we can go giving away legit prospects.

    I liked this deal until I saw what we paid. Not a disaster, but not a good trade, either, IMO.

    Dave, what was the last Mariner trade that you can objectively look at and say “We got the better end of that deal.”?

  119. The Ancient Mariner on June 30th, 2006 3:14 pm

    Youngster? You’re joking, right?

  120. colin_hesse on June 30th, 2006 3:17 pm

    Dave,

    Jeff Weaver just DFA’d…. time for another trade?

  121. Dave on June 30th, 2006 3:21 pm

    Dave, what was the last Mariner trade that you can objectively look at an dsay “We got the better end of that deal.”?

    From an information available at the time standing? Torrealba for Carvajal, Winn for Foppert and Torrealba, Villone for Bazardo and Flannery, Garcia for Reed, Morse, and Olivo.

    From a hindisight is 20-20 perspective? How about Benitez for Nelson, Perez and Piniella for Winn, or Griffey for Cameron, Tomko, Meyer, and Perez.

  122. Seth on June 30th, 2006 3:22 pm

    118. “By that logic, without even exaggerating it, we should trade Doyle, Clement, Jones and everyone else in Tacoma for a nice LOOGY.”

    Absolutely! If I thought we had a legit shot to win the World Series, I’d trade all those dudes for whatever a LOOGY is. Assuming a LOOGY would improve the team.

    This is a sports team, not a publicly-traded corporation. The goal is to win championships, not maintain a healthy competitive balance for the future. Take Keith Foulke. He RUINED HIS ARM to win the Sox a championship, but I’ll bet he doesn’t regret it. That’s what competitors do!

    Carpe Diem.

  123. John in L.A. on June 30th, 2006 3:23 pm

    Keith Law from Scouts Inc. did a write-up on the trade for ESPN. He pretty much agrees with Dave, though for some different reasons.

    Cleveland just turned a spare part into a legit prospect.

    We just turned a legit prospect into a role player. A part-time- part-time player.

    He already sits for half the game, then sits for 3/4 of the other half. I am going to love watching him hit lefties, very excited about that… but that price hurts. Hurts anyone who pays attention, anyway. If you only watch the big club, then anyone in the minors is off your radar and completely expendable.

    It would be easier for people to see if this was football… they can look and say “We just traded a first or second round draft pick for next year for a 37 year-old 3rd down pass rusher?? BOO!”

    But Cabrera is just a name.

  124. John in L.A. on June 30th, 2006 3:26 pm

    121 – Excallent, thanks, Dave.

    122 – “Absolutely! If I thought we had a legit shot to win the World Series, I’d trade all those dudes for whatever a LOOGY is.”

    Y’all can’t see me, but I’m backing slowly away from Seth.

  125. Steve McCatty Nation on June 30th, 2006 3:27 pm

    Dave:

    Just curious as to why you edited the final sentence of your post from “Not a good move” to the less-harsh “The team is better, but the price to pay was too high”? After further review, are you softening your stance on this move? I’m not…

  126. Dave on June 30th, 2006 3:29 pm

    The second sentence is a more accurate view of my feelings. The 2006 club is better, and that counts. That isn’t reflected in a short blurb like “not a good move.” I don’t want people thinking that I’m against Eduardo Perez. I think he’s a nice addition and fills a gaping hole. The team will be significantly improved against left-handed pitching.

    I just think the price they paid for the improvement they got was too high. So my new finishing line says more how I feel than “not a good move”.

  127. F-Rod on June 30th, 2006 3:30 pm

    I like the move…hopefully it is the first move of many….this is an absolutely winnable division and pennant and Cabrara was not going to help us in the future…..Bavasi strikes me as a guy who is gonna go for it and not sit on his hands like Gillick (perhaps because his job is on the line) its NOW Time

  128. Steve McCatty Nation on June 30th, 2006 3:31 pm

    Makes sense. Thanks for the clarification…

  129. C. Cheetah on June 30th, 2006 3:31 pm

    John…slowly?

  130. scraps on June 30th, 2006 3:41 pm

    This is a sports team, not a publicly-traded corporation.

    Non-sequitur.

    The goal is to win championships, not maintain a healthy competitive balance for the future.

    The goal is both. That’s something upon wchih virtually everyone who thinks seriously about baseball agrees. Bavasi would defend this move, and wouldn’t agree with what you have said at all.

    Take Keith Foulke. He RUINED HIS ARM to win the Sox a championship, but I’ll bet he doesn’t regret it. That’s what competitors do!

    Non-sequitur, with bells on.

  131. F-Rod on June 30th, 2006 3:41 pm

    We are a relatively rich franchise so when we get to improve the team for a decent prospect that wont be a star in the future …you make the deal…you can always pay for a free agent later….Cabrara was never going to start for the M’s so who cares….when we do need a backup IF in the future we can pay for one then…If you cant hit in Tacoma…I dont think your going to get a star in return…now we have a young Julio Franco on our team

  132. gwangung on June 30th, 2006 3:45 pm

    #131:

    Now we’re starting to get irrational about this….

    It’s ALWAYS cheaper to go within house than to go outside.

    While Cabrara was blocked, there is depth to be concerned about.

    And there’s always the concern of getting too little for what you’ve just traded….

  133. Ralph Malph on June 30th, 2006 3:50 pm

    now we have a young Julio Franco on our team

    Wait a minute, are you saying Eduardo Perez is a young Julio Franco? Does that mean we can expect 10 more years of production out of 36-year old Eduardo Perez?

    Sign him to a long term extension now!!

  134. JMB on June 30th, 2006 3:55 pm

    Did anyone else notice that in the cleveland.com article, it says Cabrera could compete for a major league job in 2009? For a guy who’s already in AAA, that’s a ton of time in the minors. I know he’s only 20, but geez.

  135. Ralph Malph on June 30th, 2006 4:07 pm

    He should have AAA figured out after 3 years there.

  136. Jim Thomsen on June 30th, 2006 4:08 pm

    If I were the Indians, I’d be grooming him for second base … sooner than later.

  137. leetinsleyfanclub on June 30th, 2006 4:19 pm

    Just my opinion, but there is just too much overvaluing of some of the the talent in the M’s farm system. Is this a function of the A and AAA affiliates being right here in the Seattle metro area? Is it that people fall in love with players they can actually watch and get to know and therefore think the players are better than they are? Cabrera has an OPS of .683 in the PCL for gosh sake. I know he’s very young and has got a great glove but even if he ever made the major league squad, he is being blocked by the M’s two best young position players and would be a back up at best. If there was ever a spare part, he’s it. And he’s totally unproven. Well, they took this unproven spare part and turned it into a guy who inarguably kills left-handed pitching, and addresses a huge need right as the team is entering the race. To me, this is Bavasi’s best trade to date.

  138. Nick in Taiwan on June 30th, 2006 4:19 pm

    good luck, that is, to cabrera 119

  139. Josh on June 30th, 2006 4:20 pm

    If I were the Indians, I’d be grooming him for second base … sooner than later.

    They most likely will, if they have any intent for using him. Cleveland already has Peralta at SS, and although he’s inconsistent, he’s a young and productive player. Of course they could also move Peralta, but from the little I know about him, he isn’t a defensive liability.

  140. SequimRealEstate on June 30th, 2006 4:21 pm

    Got a free ticket for tonights game. Any one want to have it give me a call its in Section 151. I will be on the road so call 360-477-1944
    –Greg

  141. ConorGlassey on June 30th, 2006 4:23 pm

    Jim – Peralta can’t be better than A-Cab, defensively. Why not shift him there instead?

  142. Dave on June 30th, 2006 4:25 pm

    Just my opinion, but there is just too much overvaluing of some of the the talent in the M’s farm system.

    I find this especially humerous considering that I’m often accused of being biased against Mariner prospects.

    Cabrera has an OPS of .683 in the PCL for gosh sake.

    Betancourt had an OPS of .711 in Double-A last year as a 23-year-old. I’m guessing you now think he’s awesome.

    OPS is a terrible way to evaluate minor leaguers. Evaluate skillsets, not results.

    I know he’s very young and has got a great glove but even if he ever made the major league squad, he is being blocked by the M’s two best young position players and would be a back up at best.

    Unless someone happens to get injured. Which, you know, happens occassionally.

    If there was ever a spare part, he’s it.

    Greg Dobbs is a spare part. Asdrubal Cabrera is a valuable player.

    And he’s totally unproven.

    So is Felix.

    Well, they took this unproven spare part and turned it into a guy who inarguably kills left-handed pitching, and addresses a huge need right as the team is entering the race. To me, this is Bavasi’s best trade to date.

    Rephrased more accurately: “I don’t know enough about Asdrubal Cabrera to care why you all think he’s good, so I’m glad he’s gone.”

  143. Mr. Egaas on June 30th, 2006 4:27 pm

    We’ve talked before about how there wasn’t really a place for A-Cab as he was coming up, so we have a “surplus” of middle infielders if you will. Lopez and Betancourt have locked up the middle for years to come, we’re in it now, so it makes a bit of sense.

    He’s no blue chipper, he wasn’t total trash, but at the same time, it’s not a total loss. To get something you’ve gotta give something.

  144. John in L.A. on June 30th, 2006 4:28 pm

    137 – just for the sake of example… in Dave’s Future Forty, there are exactly three prospects with higher reward ratings than Cabrera: Clemene, Jones and Morrow all are rated 8.

    There are only three others with the same rating as Cabrera: Doyle, Tui and Kahn all are rated 7.

    You guys can’t make any generalizations about overvaluing prospects, this is a specific individual.

    If anything, you are guilty of thinking all prospects are created equal and are inherently less valuable or talented than someone who is already in the majors. Just isn’t so.

  145. JMHawkins on June 30th, 2006 5:27 pm

    Well, I’m going with the glass-half-full view and thinking I’m glad to see we’ve upgrades ourselves against lefties. Plus, hopefully this results in moving Evertt, since we really do not need five roster spots devoted to guys best suited for 1B/DH (Ibanez, Sexson, Everette, Petagine, Perez). I too worry that they’ll move Petagine instead, but I can always hope. Considering that Everett’s OPS has been dropping like a Putz splitter, maybe they’ll move him.

    As far as trading Weaver for Pin, Pin, (got to get the spelling right. Let’s see, i before e, except after c. Piniero. No that’s wrong. I before e except after P-i-n. No, wait, there’s Lou Piniella. I before e except on the mound. Oh, I give up…) Weaver-for-Joel would probably get the general fan reaction of “we traded a guy who sucked but we liked for a guy who just sucks.”

  146. JMHawkins on June 30th, 2006 5:29 pm

    Oops for 145. Carl weighs enough not be be an “-ette.”

  147. cSquared on June 30th, 2006 5:35 pm

    Ahh the pieces are starting to come together… Dave’s prophecy might very well come true on another front. Jeff Weaver got designated for assignment today.

  148. Mr. Egaas on June 30th, 2006 5:41 pm

    Word on the street is that Eduardo Perez has a cheap 2 million dollar option next year. Pick that up for a lefty masher, platoon with Doyle/Ibanez?

  149. MarinerDan on June 30th, 2006 5:43 pm

    I’m no big fan of Perez, but I’m not overly bummed by this deal. He will help this year in an area we really needed it — bashing lefties. Zito. Koronka. Halsey. Rheinecker. Meet Mr. Perez.

    Woah, after looking at the AL West rosters, there are fewer LH starters than I thought. Maybe this WAS a bad deal after all…

  150. John in L.A. on June 30th, 2006 5:43 pm

    145 – I think everybody, including Dave, likes good side of this. It was a need and it got filled with someone who can get the job done.

  151. Mr. Egaas on June 30th, 2006 5:52 pm

    Off the top of my head.

    Johan Santana, Francisco Liriano, Scott Kazmir, Kenny Rogers, Randy Johnson, Cliff Lee, Barry Zito, Mark Buehrle, and a bunch of scrubs. Your American league starting lefties.

    We still play the East/Central quite a bit, and lefties have been killing us.

    If you look at the Broussard/Perez combo, it’s lethal. That kind of player combined for those stats would be making like 12 million bucks.

  152. Ralph Malph on June 30th, 2006 6:03 pm

    Some of those “scrubs” on the left side have been killing us. Perez should pound them. Of course they were killing us during the time Beltre wasn’t hitting his weight.

  153. DMZ on June 30th, 2006 6:05 pm

    That’s a really good point — I’ve written about this before, but it made sense for teams to pull late-rotation righties and call up any random AAA left-hander to face the Mariners. If Perez makes that tactic less effective, that’s great news.

  154. Dave on June 30th, 2006 6:14 pm

    Once again, no one is saying that Eduardo Perez isn’t a good addition. Bavasi did a fine job acquiring a guy with a skillset that the Mariners lacked and who can help fill a team need.

    The question is whether 100 at-bats of Eduardo Perez is worth 6-7 years of Asdrubal Cabrera. I don’t think so.

  155. dirk on June 30th, 2006 6:16 pm

    Now, can we trade Carl for a long reliever/5th starter? Any possibilities….

    1 Ich
    2 Beltre
    3 Lopez
    4 Ibanez
    5 Sexson
    6 Perez/Petagine
    7 Johjima
    8 Reed
    9 Yuni

  156. Typical Idiot Fan on June 30th, 2006 10:37 pm

    God damnit. I quote myself replying to Dave’s reply to me:

    Dave replied to me:

    I don’t see anyone arguing in favor of that. I’m arguing that we shouldn’t trade Gil Meche for a Jesse Foppert type prospect. That’s it. No one is advocating Adam Jones and Jeff Clement for Ron Villone.

    I didn’t say anyone was either. My question was that if management gets the ‘winning’ bug will we see it and would that be beneficial to the long term goals. The answer to the second part of that is obvious, it’s the answer to the first one I think I need to hear.

    This… is what I meant, Dave. I realize that Asdrubal Cabrera had literally nowhere to go in the organization, so he really wasn’t a part of our conceivable future, but getting rid of him for this? Ugh.

    I hope the trend doesn’t continue.

  157. Typical Idiot Fan on June 30th, 2006 10:38 pm

    Well crap, that didn’t work. Up to “..I think I need to hear” is part of the original post, and thus, should be quoted.

  158. seattlesporty on June 30th, 2006 11:07 pm

    Man, our FO is so dumb.. He is a 37 year old platoon DH player, and Droob is.. was.. one of our top prospects. We could have atleast put him in another deal that nets us a starting pitcher.

  159. Allen Jacobs on July 1st, 2006 5:40 am

    This trade will be considered one of the nails in Bavasi’s coffin.

    Perez is a 36 yr pinch hitter/DH with a lifetime .250/.327/.441 line. So what if he has had a good 90 ab’s this year. Bavasi gave away a top prospect for a guy with only marginal better talent than we already have…I guy who’s value beyond this year is replacement level at best.

    A better solution would have been to call up Snelling who would likely out hit both Perez and Dinosaur and would have cost nothing.

    This trade will go down as Bavasi’s version of the Jason Varitek deal. Stupid FO moves are getting really tiring.

  160. Grizz on July 1st, 2006 9:47 am

    Perez is going to play only against LHP. His OPS this year against LHP 1.038, which is in line with his career splits. In 785 career AB, Perez has hit .270/.366/.522 — that’s an OPS of .889. That’s the same OPS as the M’s best hitter this year, Ibanez (.285/.357/.532/.889). And against LHP, the only M’s hitter in the lineup with an OPS over .800 is Ichiro at .916 (.375/.439/.477). Perez is nowhere near replacement value — his VORP this year is 10.6 in only 99 AB.

    So the M’s just upgraded their DH spot against LHP from Everett (.169/.258/.288 for an OPS of .546) to Perez (.889 career OPS, 1.038 2006 OPS). That’s huge. We all like Doyle, but it’s unrealistic to expect him to post a .900 OPS against LHP this year.

    The M’s overpaid, but let’s not exaggerate it. While Cabrera is a nice player and solid “B” prospect, the comparison to the Varitek/Lowe deal is just plain silly. In terms of talent, this is the M’s giving up Antonio Perez again. Anyone miss him, much less remember him?

  161. Tap House Dan on July 1st, 2006 11:11 am

    Wow… a lot of you guys are REALLY overreacting to this deal. Cabrera was never going to play a significant role with the M’s… and in my mind this deal is a small piece of evidence that our minor league system is close to being the kind of asset for us that it is for more successful teams. We moved an asset in an area we have a huge surplus, for a piece that might help us win this year beyond most of our expectations. I have absolutely no problem with this move. Cabrera was a nice player who played a position where we’re loaded with nice players.

    Some of you guys need to stop analyzing everything to the point of paralysis and just try being a fan for a few days. The team is finally headed in the right direction, learning how to win with a nice mix of home-grown youth and veteran players, and the minor league system is improving every year to the point that we’ll be able to tweak our major league roster when we need to by making moves like this every year without feeling like we’re gutting our organization. The light at the end of the tunnel seems a lot closer than it did 6 months ago. Just enjoy it.

  162. DMZ on July 1st, 2006 11:25 am

    Some of you guys need to stop analyzing everything to the point of paralysis and just try being a fan for a few days.

    Don’t be jerk, that’s uncalled for.

  163. John in L.A. on July 1st, 2006 12:26 pm

    161 –

    Saying “Nice pick-up, but we paid too much.” is overreacting?

    Saying “Perez is great, but Cabrera is a greater one.” is “analyzing to the point of paralysis?”

    There is a lot of good discussion in this thread, a lot of good analysis – which, by the by, is why most of us come here… not to do the Wave and talk about Hargrove’s favorite cookie recipe.

    “Just be a fan.”

    Sometimes I hate the internet.

  164. LB on July 1st, 2006 4:46 pm

    #161: You can find commentary written with pom-poms on by googling for “Mariner Optimist.”

  165. AK1984 on July 1st, 2006 5:18 pm

    With regards to improving the Seattle Mariners, does anyone on here think that starting pitcher Brade Radke (5.11 ERA; 1.57 WHIP; 53 to 24 K:BB ratio; $9,000,000 salary) and center fielder Torii Hunter (.265 AVG; .342 OBP; .439 SLG; $10,750,000 salary) could help the team?

    If so, then do y’all think that a trade wherein the M’s sent starting pitcher Joel Piñeiro, relief pitcher Eddie Guardado, center fielder Jeremy Reed, and designated hitter Carl Everett to the Minnesota Twins for Radke and Hunter would improve the ballclub?

    The following are four reasons about why the Twins would make the deal:

    1. Piñeiro, unlike Radke, is under club control through 2007.
    2. The Twins lack a left-handed setup man like Guardado.
    3. Reed is cheap and has a lot of potential.
    4. Everett is better than Ruben Sierra and Rondell White.

  166. Allen Jacobs on July 1st, 2006 5:24 pm

    160. Equating Antonio Perez to Cabrera is silly. Perez never had the glove of Cabrera was already in decline as a prospect when the M’s traded him.

    Let’s watch this one but the trade has all the signs of looking very bad 3 yrs from now…strikingly similar to the Varitek deal.

  167. Grizz on July 1st, 2006 6:49 pm

    According to PECOTA, Antonio Perez is Asdrubal Cabrera’s third most comparable player.

  168. Josh on July 2nd, 2006 12:01 am

    I was hoping to get 100 AB out of Perez. After tonight’s blasphemous 8th inning with Everett and Reed(!) swinging away against lefties, I’m not too sure.

    Perez is supposed to be here to hit lefties, but even if the Rox had popped in a righty out of the bullpen, he would have still been a better option than Everett and Reed are against lefties.

    Hopefully it’s just a “day to get acquainted” type of case. As much as it was to pay, if they only end up getting Petagine opportunities out of him (25 AB through 82 games), the cost would relatively become absurd.

    That said, I don’t expect it would be anywhere near that low, because Peta’s stuck at the same side of the dish as Everett’s not-as-bad side is. With 80 games left, what if it ended up being around 80 AB? How much of a waste is that?

    All I can say is, let’s hope he regularly starts against lefties instead of Everett. Maybe good (or even mediocre) things will happen, and he’ll get ~120, which would be just that many less for Everett.

  169. BelaXadux on July 2nd, 2006 11:07 am

    I’m _incredibly_disappointed to hear that they traded Cabrera . . . for _that._ He was blocked, and they probabaly were going to move Asdrubal, but this price is ridiculous. It’s too soon to be sure of his bat, but Cabrera is going to be a regular at the big league level, and quite possibly an outstanding one. To me, this deal has the potential to be a Varitek > Slocumb transaction, in a very similar context.

    The Ms want to ‘do something’ for credibility, and so they burn a prospect of real ability for a fizzle of media sizzle. The Ms had all of last offseason to fill the DH slot. They bungled it, so now in season they have to make a much too expensive move to cover the hole. Simple ineptitude. This is a total rob job by Cleveland, I can’t credit Shapiro enough for picking the lock box of a dumbass, behind-the-curve organization.

    I go away on vacation, and THIS happens. *yechhh*

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.