Ten potential trades (trades 1-2)

by buccobat on Dec 3, 2011 2:05 PM EST

I will be making ten trade proposals and will give my opinions on wether or not I would accept them if I ran both teams. Here’s 1-2.

1. Pirates get: Zach Britton. Orioles get: Kevin Correia, Robbie Grossman and $1 million

Analysis: This trade would allow the pirates to get a 23 year old left handed pitcher who is MLB ready or close to that and has lots of potential. He was rated the 28th best prospect prior to the 2011 by BA but struggled during the season for the Orioles. The Orioles would get a pitcher who would give another option for their rotation and a likely top 100 prospect for their farm system that lacks top outfield prospects. If I were the pirates I would do this because we get a potentially good left handed pitcher and give up what we have in excess; that being outfielders and mediocre pitchers. Grossman is a good prospect, but outfielders are not as big a need as left handed starting pitching for the pirates. We also would save $ 2 mil by getting rid of Correia. If I ran the Orioles I would also do this trade. It would be hard to part with Britton, but I would because Correia would likely put up similar if not better numbers than Britton if they both started for the Orioles in 2012 and would cost them a reasonable $2 Million. They would also be getting a good high floor prospect in Grossman which would give them a good prospect in a position where they lack much talent.

Conclusion: The pirates would get the most talented and valuable player in the deal in Britton and fill their need for a quality left hander who will be with the pirates sooner rather than later. The Orioles on the other hand get a mediocre pitcher to help their rotation and a quality prospect.

2. Pirates get: Henry Owens and Jose Iglesias. Red Sox get: Joel Hanrahan

Analysis: This trade would net the pirates a 21 year old short stop with amazing defensive talent who has not hit at all yet but has bat speed and quick wrists to hit decently in the future. He was rated the 52nd best prospect by BA going into 2011 but put up a pitiful .554 ops in AAA this past season. His value has dropped a lot and this gives us a good opportunity to grab and hope he bounces back. We would also get Henry Owens who is a talented lefty who was selected 36th overall in the 2011 and has a fastball that sits in the mid 90’s. At this point Owens is likely a better prospect than Iglesias. The Red Sox would get a top ten closer in my opinion. He will likely cost them only a total $9-12 mil over the next two years. If I ran the Pirates I would do this deal because an elite closer is not necessary for a team like the Pirates and we need to continue to look towards the future. We would get two good prospects to help our farm system. They both have high upside and could be great players but have relatively low floors. I ran the Red Sox I would do this deal because after committing so much money to free agency without great success they would be smart to not overpay a closer and risk wasting another $50 mil. They would give up good prospects but not top prospects and get very good closer. They also would probably like to get value out of Iglesias if they don’t think he can bounce back.

Conclusion: The pirates would get two talented prospects and give up Hanrahan who is a luxury for the pirates. The Red Sox would get a talented closer for a reasonable salary over next two years for two prospects.

This is a FanPost and does not necessarily reflect the views of the managing editor (Charlie) or SB Nation. FanPosts are written by Bucs Dugout readers.

Tweet Comment 57 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

I saw

Birtton on the block. He’s interesting. I’ll have to think about moving Grossman for him, but at the moment it sounds right.

Owens and Iglesias seems like a decent return for Hanrahan, although I doubt the Red Sox would be willing to move Henry Owens so fast. I mean, he’d have to be a PTBNL.

Solid proposals.

Da'Sean Butler - A Mountaineer Legend

by McCutchenIsTheTruth on Dec 3, 2011 2:39 PM EST reply actions

I'm a pretty big fan of Britton

But I think that’s probably me overvaluing him a little bit more than anything else. I think he’s gonna turn out alright, and he is very young. I’m a pretty big fan of the proposal, mostly because I don’t know what I think about Grossman going forward. I’m ecstatic about his performances as of late, but there’s still some questions about how he comes back from the hamate injury. I’d definitely pull the trigger on this one.

As for the Red Sox deal, I don’t know how I feel about that. Last year, I would’ve taken Iglesias straight up for Hanny and laughed myself all the way to the bank while celebrating. Now? His AAA OPS makes me want to cover the eyes of young children. Yikes. He makes me a very nervous fan if they acquire him. But, the MLB is very short on SS prospects in general right now, and he’s probably a pretty good one to take a chance on. So I think I’d probably go ahead and pull the trigger (on Feb 17th as mentioned below), but I’d definitely bite my nails a little bit in the first place.

The glare of the spotlight is harsh, and the pressure that success breeds immense. We revere our heroes, but expect much. And criticism can come as easily as praise.
Perspectives become reality.
Twitter: @shanecglass

by glass0941 on Dec 3, 2011 6:35 PM EST up reply actions

I like the Orioles proposal

I’m not sure how the O’s would feel about it. Ultimately, I think it depends on how Baltimore feels about Grossman. If they are fans of his, it might work because it seems like a pretty even deal. However the baseball scouting world seems pretty split on him so there’s no way to know what kind of return they would see him as.

I’m not as excited about the Red Sox deal. Personally, I’m pretty underwhelmed by Iglesias. I know he’s supposed to be a stud defender but he just hasn’t hit at all. Owens also can’t be dealt yet because he was just drafted last year (unless that changed in the new CBA and I didn’t notice). In all fairness, I might just be hoping from too much out of a potential Hanrahan trade. I just can’t help but think that his trade value is increased by the absurd market for closers right now.

by KentuckyPirate on Dec 3, 2011 3:44 PM EST reply actions

I wasn't aware owens could not be traded.

My bad, but weren’t people suggesting trading Allie last ofseason.

by buccobat on Dec 3, 2011 4:23 PM EST up reply actions

He

can be traded, but he will have to be a PTBNL, and I think we’d have to wait a few months.

A player can’t be traded for exactly one year after he signs (not sure exactly when Owens signed). In addition, I believe (I’m not 100%) a PTBNL must be chosen 6 months after a trade happens. As such, we would have to wait until mid-February (February 17th to be safe) to make the trade, so Owens can be traded within the 6 month window. That doesn’t seem like it would be a problem.

Da'Sean Butler - A Mountaineer Legend

by McCutchenIsTheTruth on Dec 3, 2011 4:39 PM EST up reply actions

I've wondered about the PTBNL approach

To be honest, I don’t feel like doing the legwork to find the actual rule so I’ll just ask. As I understand it, when teams negotiate a trade that includes a PTBNL, they have to first submit a list of players that both sides will agree upon if/when one of them is “named.” Are you sure that players that are ineligible to be traded can be included on one of these lists? I know this idea has been thrown around on here before but I can’t think of an example of when it has actually happened before. Just wondering…

by KentuckyPirate on Dec 3, 2011 5:38 PM EST up reply actions

Yes

Tyler Skaggs. 2009 draftee by the Angels. Traded as part of the package for Dan Haren to the Diamondbacks.

Skaggs signed August 7th, 2009. (Here)

Haren was traded on July 25th, 2010, for 4 players, Joe Saunders, Pat Corbin, and Rafael Rodriguez, along with a PTBNL, who turned out later to be Skaggs. (Here)

In that trade, I wouldn’t be surprised if both sides agreed on it being Skaggs privately, but could only announce it as a PTBNL per the rules.

Da'Sean Butler - A Mountaineer Legend

by McCutchenIsTheTruth on Dec 3, 2011 6:37 PM EST up reply actions

I guess we would have to wait a while to get Owens in a deal like this

by buccobat on Dec 3, 2011 6:41 PM EST up reply actions

Well

we could make the trade in mid-February, but yes, he couldn’t join the organization until August.

Da'Sean Butler - A Mountaineer Legend

by McCutchenIsTheTruth on Dec 3, 2011 7:00 PM EST up reply actions

That's what I meant

It would be intersting to see what the Sox would do with him if they knew we were getting him

by buccobat on Dec 3, 2011 7:48 PM EST up reply actions

I'm

pretty sure there are rules against “ruining him” for lack of a better word.

Da'Sean Butler - A Mountaineer Legend

by McCutchenIsTheTruth on Dec 3, 2011 8:28 PM EST up reply actions

the trouble here is

its also a lost season for him… i wonder if there’s precedent for such a trade timing and what happened to the prospect in terms of handling…

by BurgherKing on Dec 3, 2011 9:48 PM EST up reply actions

Ya

if he were the only name put on the PTBNL, the Pirates would want to keep him out of games to prevent injury (I’m assuming that’s what you mean).

I dunno. I’d think that the Red Sox and Pirates could come to an agreement on how to have him progress while still in the Red Sox system and professionalism would allow that to happen.

Would be weird for sure.

Da'Sean Butler - A Mountaineer Legend

by McCutchenIsTheTruth on Dec 4, 2011 12:57 AM EST up reply actions

I was kinda thinking that too

I feel like if the deal were put together and he were the unofficial player that would be named later, then I think the Sox would be professional enough to meet our wishes with him (within reason). But I also suspect there are organizations that wouldn’t be so kind.

by glass0941 on Dec 4, 2011 1:56 AM EST up reply actions

Ya

if he were the only name put on the PTBNL, the Pirates would want to keep him out of games to prevent injury (I’m assuming that’s what you mean).

I dunno. I’d think that the Red Sox and Pirates could come to an agreement on how to have him progress while still in the Red Sox system and professionalism would allow that to happen.

Would be weird for sure.

Da'Sean Butler - A Mountaineer Legend

by McCutchenIsTheTruth on Dec 4, 2011 12:58 AM EST up reply actions

eww

double post.

Da'Sean Butler - A Mountaineer Legend

by McCutchenIsTheTruth on Dec 4, 2011 2:20 AM EST up reply actions

Jeremy Bonderman

The mega-3-team-deal inolving Jeff Weaver is always my go-to for the PTBNL/player can’t be traded for a year example.

by SuperBaes on Dec 4, 2011 1:05 AM EST up reply actions

It would take more than Grossman to get Britton. I’m not sure why the O’s would deal him at all though, he and Guthrie are about the surest things in that rotation. Getting Matusz on the cheap sounds more realistic to me

by Mr. E on Dec 3, 2011 6:03 PM EST reply actions

I wouldn't call Britton a sure thing for 2012

He could use some more time in the minors and I don’t find him much more valuable than Grossman and when you throw in Correia to give them another option in their weak rotation I think it evens out. But as McCutchenisthetruth said earlier it all depends on the O’s perception of Grossman

by buccobat on Dec 3, 2011 6:36 PM EST up reply actions

surest for one of the worst rotations in the league. Britton should be a good #3 for 5 more years. I’d take that over a POSSIBLE above average COF. Grossman hasn’t even hit AA, where tools tend to start to matter more. Correia has basically no trade value, need or not.

by Mr. E on Dec 4, 2011 5:06 AM EST up reply actions

If the O's like Grossman...

He’s a top 100 prospect and is rising coming off his great year. Britton pitched solidly in his first few starts then fell apart was demoted. He then got recalled and struggled some more. If he still was prospect he would be probaly ranked around 60. Since hitting prospects are more valuable than pitching prospects, their value is simaler. Correia just adds a little because they need more starters and Correia’s not terrible. I understand you would not accept this trade if you ran the O’s and I would have to think about it but if they like him alot like many others do, it’s a fair trade.

by buccobat on Dec 4, 2011 9:36 AM EST up reply actions

It doesn't hurt to ask

But some people over there really like Britton. BA certainly thought highly of him:

Britton has the best sinker in the minor leagues and generated a 2.8 groundout/airout ratio last season. Showing more than just good action, his fastball sits in the low 90s and peaks at 94 mph. His slider is also a plus pitch,

I guess I don’t see why this would meet a need for the Os.

Viva Clemente!

by Roberto on Dec 4, 2011 12:53 PM EST up reply actions

do you think Matusz would be worth the risk?

by white angus on Dec 3, 2011 8:14 PM EST up reply actions

in a vacuum, i think yes

but they need to make some evaluations on what is wrong with him and what they can fix.

by BurgherKing on Dec 3, 2011 9:49 PM EST up reply actions

It all depends on the cost to get him

He has always had good stuff but right now he’s a mess. At the right price it would be a great trade, but I wouldn’t want to overpay because there’s a good chance he never rcovers. Remember, just a couple years ago he was a top 25 prospect.

by buccobat on Dec 3, 2011 10:53 PM EST up reply actions

Yep, always depends. I think it was injury and when he came back, inconsistent mechanics? They’d probably want more for him than we should give at this point.

by Mr. E on Dec 4, 2011 5:10 AM EST up reply actions

I'd

probably trade Grossman for either of them at this point if it was basically 1 for 1. Ya Grossman is solid, but he still has plenty of time to bust, and we actually have some OF depth.

The only real issue is service time and team control. Matusz would exit the same time McCutchen would, and that’s a big issue. The main reason I, and I believe, many others want to extend Cutch, outside of the fact that he’s just an excellent, exciting ballplayer, is that we feel the window with him closes a tad too soon for Cole and Taillon to be a part of it. The same thing would happen with Matusz.

Britton on the other hand, if I’m reading Cot’s correctly, would be around through 2017, giving us plenty of time to become a winner with him on our team, especially if we are able to extend McCutchen. For the record, I could be reading it wrong, but he’s definitely under team control through 2016, an extra year and one that may be crucial.

Da'Sean Butler - A Mountaineer Legend

by McCutchenIsTheTruth on Dec 4, 2011 12:31 PM EST up reply actions

I'd like to get Alex Wilson and Ryan Lavarnway for Hanrahan

by BadAndy on Dec 4, 2011 11:35 AM EST reply actions

No way would the Os deal Britton for Grossman

Correia basically has no value at all, or maybe negative value. Anyway, it’s an absurd propsition

by maguro on Dec 4, 2011 1:14 PM EST reply actions

Maybe

not Grossman straight up, but throw in a few fairly interesting chips we’d be willing to give up

What about Grossman, Holt, and Ryan Hafner?

Da'Sean Butler - A Mountaineer Legend

by McCutchenIsTheTruth on Dec 4, 2011 3:18 PM EST up reply actions

I'd be fine giving that up if they did not want Correia

Again, I doubt Correia has negative value. I just used him as a throw in just to close the slight talent gap. If the O’s would prefer mediocre prospects then fine. Grossman for Britton was the frame work of the deal.

by buccobat on Dec 4, 2011 5:42 PM EST up reply actions

Britton is much more valuable than Grossman

If we had a 25 year old lefthanded starter with 5 years of team control that sat at 92 mph and just put up a 2.5 WAR season in the AL East, no one on this board would be interested in trading him for a guy like Grossman.

by maguro on Dec 4, 2011 6:32 PM EST up reply actions

BB-Ref

didn’t like him nearly as much and only gave him 1.3 WAR. Britton’s year was uneven and could, for all intents and purposes, still be viewed as a prospect. He was #28 last year. If you assume that his value would be about the same (the validity of this assumption is obviously up for debate) then he would be worth about $15.9M. If the O’s consider Grossman to be a 76-100 hitting prospect, he would be worth about $12.5M. This means the Pirates would have to come up with an additional $3.4M in value.

Now, I don’t think Baltimore would really care about cash in a deal involving prospects/cheap players so I don’t think the million bucks helps. I also don’t think they care about Correia because, even if you assume that he puts up the necessary 1.5WAR next season to cover the difference, a 1-year rental on a back of the rotation starter doesn’t help a team that isn’t likely to contend in that season. The Pirates could make the deal plausible by adding a couple of C-grade pitching prospects.

At least in terms of value, Grossman, Pounders and Dodson for Britton could be about right…

by KentuckyPirate on Dec 4, 2011 7:05 PM EST up reply actions

The issue is that most people don't view Grossman as a Top 100 prospect

by maguro on Dec 4, 2011 7:34 PM EST up reply actions

I think that's debatable

and it’s why I said above that it would depend on the O’s opinion of Grossman. Most of what I’ve read shows that industry opinions on Grossman are sharply divided. The AFL didn’t really resolve the issue either because Grossman tore the league up (which could increase his stock) but he also got hurt (which might hurt his stock). Without knowing how Baltimore views Grossman, it’s tough to really gauge whether this proposal would have any traction.

by KentuckyPirate on Dec 4, 2011 7:45 PM EST up reply actions

I don't think his likely ceiling is high enough to get the O's to bite

Grossman would look nice in RF in a couple years if they move Markakis by then but I think a CF would be their target.

Adam Jones has 2 years left and they are on the fence over extending/trading him. Starling Marte could replace Jones without skipping a beat, providing similar production, though less power and more defense.

I think Marte for Britton straight up is pretty close to fair but again, it doesn’t make sense for the O’s because their SP is so weak and Britton has years of control left. If they were to deal a guy like Zack they should only do it for multiple pieces with legit upside. Maybe something like Grossman, Allie + and a lotto ticket if they thought Allie will make it as a starter.

by Mr. E on Dec 5, 2011 12:11 PM EST up reply actions

I don't want to see Allie

traded right now for the same reason I don’t want to consider dealing Pedro. After a really rough 2011, his value couldn’t really be much lower. A year ago, Allie was an elite prospect himself, so I don’t like the idea of dealing him as a toss in (admittedly, you have him as a little more than that, but still).

by KentuckyPirate on Dec 5, 2011 12:33 PM EST up reply actions

agreed

and below, I applied this same principal to the O’s trading Britton — after years of performing quite well in the minors, he hit a bump at the ML level last season.

Britton showed flashes of brilliance last season, and at 23…I would say is only available if the O’s are handed an offer they couldn’t refuse.

by insane_sanity on Dec 5, 2011 12:44 PM EST up reply actions

The million was to make Correia's salary only 2 mil making him more apealing...

not to offset the value differential

by buccobat on Dec 4, 2011 8:21 PM EST up reply actions

Money is money

regardless of whether it is meant to decrease Correia’s salary (I’m not sure he’s that much more valuable at $2M than $3M FWIW) sign prospects, sign FA’s, pay a new hot dog vendor or to buy a summer home for Peter Angelos. It is just another part of the deal and will provide additional value for one side. My point was that in a trade that doesn’t include a player making a ton of money, Baltimore doesn’t really have a need to just pocket some extra cash and I’m sure they would much rather have a C-grade prospect than a million bucks.

by KentuckyPirate on Dec 4, 2011 8:47 PM EST up reply actions

you're right I'm just clarifying why I threw it in.

by buccobat on Dec 4, 2011 10:07 PM EST up reply actions

Again, I doubt Correia has negative value.

He’s not cheap, and he was right at replacement level in each of the last two seasons.

by Vlad on Dec 4, 2011 7:42 PM EST up reply actions

I threw to make Correia's salary only 2 mil.

He fallen apart at the end of the last two seasons, but he had a good 2009 and his collaspe in 2010 can be blamed on his brothers unexspected death. He pitched very well at the begining of the last two seasons and if he can keep it somewhat together for the whole 2012 season he’s a valuable pitcher. I don’t call that negative value.

by buccobat on Dec 4, 2011 8:32 PM EST up reply actions

His collapse in 2011...

likely suggests that his collapse in 2010 had less to do with his brother than his ability to start. He was worth 0 WAR this year and last. Unless the Pirates pick up all of his salary he has negative trade value. Plus in the trade scenario above he’s going to the AL east. The deal looks better without Correia in it at all from the Orioles perspective, imo.

#AlltheBuntsAreBad

by Slick1 on Dec 4, 2011 8:42 PM EST up reply actions

unless they deal Guthrie, Matusz struggles out of the gate, Arrieta continues to have BB and HR issues and gets moved to the pen and then they are stuck starting Jakaubauskas’ again. Replacement level for $2m isn’t a terrible deal for the Orioles this year but I agree it doesn’t really add much.

by Mr. E on Dec 5, 2011 12:19 PM EST up reply actions

I think you just made an argument for the Orioles keeping Britton!

by Slick1 on Dec 5, 2011 8:33 PM EST up reply actions

I have been in general, they have no reason to deal him

by Mr. E on Dec 6, 2011 3:57 AM EST up reply actions

if he can keep it somewhat together for the whole 2012 season he’s a valuable pitcher

I don’t believe that he can, and I don’t believe that other teams believe that he can, either.

I guess we’ll have to wait and see.

by Vlad on Dec 5, 2011 3:41 AM EST up reply actions

might work, with some tweaking (since I see Correia as having negative trade value at this point).

is a non-starter for me, because I don’t think Iglesias is going to hit.

by Vlad on Dec 4, 2011 7:43 PM EST reply actions

Grr.

The first line is about proposal #1, and the second is about proposal #2.

by Vlad on Dec 4, 2011 7:43 PM EST up reply actions

IMO

I see #1 being very similar to OUR situation with Pedro Alvarez.

They have a 23 yr old LHSP who hit a bump in the ML. With Alvarez, we say “it is too early to give up on him”. I’d argue that, with Britton, they say “it is too early to give up on him”.

If I was Baltimore, I don’t give up Matusz/Britton/Guthrie — young pitchers ready to contribute NOW. They would have to put considerable value on Grossman, and be convinced he’ll come back after injury as the same hitter, for this to even be considered….but I’d say they’d have to be absolutely blown away, and the offer above doesn’t do it for me.

by insane_sanity on Dec 5, 2011 9:51 AM EST reply actions

Guthrie is 32 yrs old, just a FYI

if the orioles were smart, and theyre not, they would try to move him for some youth.
i dont see any contract information listed for Guthrie in 2012, so im not sure about his status.

by white angus on Dec 5, 2011 11:12 AM EST up reply actions

damn

he is old — didn’t realize that as only heard about him the past few years.

Looks like he’s in his last year of arbitration — no control = no thanks.

Just strike him from my argument, and go with yours — see if they can turn him into something younger, just not from the Pirates.

by insane_sanity on Dec 5, 2011 11:38 AM EST up reply actions

Maholm 2.0

He’s not really good enough to fetch something good in a trade so he has more value to the current team since they have no rotation depth and Guthrie actually gets 200 IP per year

by Mr. E on Dec 5, 2011 12:22 PM EST up reply actions