T-Minus 16 Hours
The trading deadline is at 1 pm local time tomorrow. If you’re looking for good news, well, don’t read below.
Melvin said he talked to clubs about “10 or 12†starting pitchers this week without coming close to a trade. He checked in one last time with Seattle general manager Jack Zduriencik about lefty Jarrod Washburn but talks did not progress.
“It looks like he’s going to keep Washburn,†said Melvin. “He’s going to try to win as many games as he can. Arizona appears to be that way, too, (with pitchers Doug Davis and Jon Garland).â€
Please be posturing. If Washburn is still here tomorrow afternoon, it’s an organizational failure. They have to move him – this is the easiest decision the new front office has had to make. Keeping him for a stretch drive that doesn’t matter would be a really, really poor decision. It’s been nice not having those this year. Let’s not screw that up.
If you want to be encouraged, the upside is that this M’s front office is about as leak-proof as any in baseball. The Mariners just don’t tip their hand to the media, and all of the information about their potential moves is based on information from other clubs. So, none of the rumor journalist types really knows what Jack and the gang are going to do. Here’s to hoping Doug Melvin doesn’t either.
Betting is still pretty even. NY money always overweights, so, they want, but won’t get, Washburn.
Personally (and don’t you believe I’m very in-line with the rest of the USS Mariner, but whatever), some prospect that doesn’t just grow on trees. What prospects grow on trees? Relievers, 21-year-old potential 5th starters pitching in Low-A ball, utility guys, 4th outfielders, journeymen starters. None of those would be enough for Washburn.
Your idea of what a player is worth means nothing to whether you make a decision to trade them or not. Take Washburn. Your alternative to making any deal is you keep him for the rest of the season and see what happens. If you seriously believe there’s no luck (or defense) involved in his performance so far, that’s worth $8-10m just to keep him around and win games knowing the team’s not a contender. And Washburn’s salary knocks $4m or so off that, so it’s +$3-6m.
So yeah, you don’t take anything that’s worth less than that. But if you believe that he’s worth 3 blue chip prospects and the best offer on the table is two, those two being worth $20m in future value… you take that deal. It doesn’t matter that it’s not what you think you should get — it’s that it’s better than not making any deal at all.
All of this talk about not taking the deal on the table because it’ll affect future negotiations (or whatever) is at best speculative hooey.
I believe many agree with your analysis. Where does the minimum talent-value lie with Washburn, where accepting whatever presented offer becomes better than ‘not making any deal at all’? If its the ‘+3m-6m’ number you stated, where does that line up with prospect values? One thing I’ve yet to study is the projected dollar-value of prospects (I’m guessing it varies greatly from club to club for each player, but there might be a relative figure based on talent ‘grade’).
There is some great dollar value of prospects research here:
LINK
Thank you kindly.
Sure. Basically the way I read it (and someone please correct me if I’m wrong) is that any prospect in the top 100 would have a value of at least $8M or so.
Not making a deal would be the absolute worse.
I’m betting that Wash stays and the M’s sign him to an extension in the next few days.
I was arguing against the people who stated things along the lines of “Anything of value Jack, fringe guys, guys with upside, guys who make David Segui look like tremendous human beings, anything.”
Don’t get me wrong, I hope Washburn gets traded within twelve hours. As much as my heart wants to tell me the club has a chance, my head reminds me we’re not close to being tied for a playoff spot and everything has to break right (that includes at least 6 good starts from Bedard — I tried charting the path in my head. It’s really narrow).
But the last thing I want to see tomorrow is that Washburn got traded for a small return that wasn’t worth him.
This is a relevant point: If Washburn stays, his presence adds wins to the ledger as compared to his replacement. Having just seen Olson’s start yesterday, probably several wins (regardless of whether there is luck involved or not).
Even if the M’s don’t make the playoffs, those wins have a monetary value. You should only trade him if the prospects offered outweigh this value. Whether you factor in Washburn’s salary into this evaluation or not is up for debate IMHO. Since the M’s don’t carry over salaries saved this year into next, his salary is sunk cost to me. We do not know what kind of prospects have been offered for Washburn but it seems unlikely to me that any top 100 prospect has been.
Anyway, what I am trying to say is: If the prospects offered for Washburn are of low quality, than it is worthwhile to keep him even if our chances at the playoffs are small. And I defer to Zduriencik’s judgement as to whether the prospects offered are good enough.