Trade Bautista (i guess)

[UN-Owen]

2 years ago on Dec. 21, 2011, I said:

Yes, we know. You already created a thread about it and have repeatedly made posts about it since.

Selling high on Bautista would have been a viable strategy. So was keeping one of the best players in baseball on a great contract and trying to win.

At the time you were quite vocal that it wasn't a viable strategy

There is no value to be gained in trading Jose Bautista for prospects.

But here's where it gets fun:

Well, I wouldn't trade Bautista for anybody...said that earlier in the thread. If I was going to do it for a pitcher, though, it would be for Doc. The rest are either worse (well...they're all worse), more risky (injuries, consistency issues), or haven't proven they can pitch in the AL East.

Since 2011, Halladay (36) is 15 - 13 with a 5.15 ERA and 1.30 WHIP

I'd never trade a hitter like Bautista for a young pitcher like Kershaw. You just never know if they'll have a debilitating arm injury at some point, so you'd be taking on some major injury risk

Since 2011, Kershaw (25) is 30 -18 with a 2.17 ERA and 0.97 WHIP

[Randle McMurphy]

At the time you were quite vocal that it wasn't a viable strategy

Due to the direction of the team it wasn't, yes. You don't trade one of the best players in baseball away for prospects if you're trying to win.

If they were trying to rebuild at the time instead of contending, my answer would have been a different one. That would have been obvious from the context of my post that you conveniently cut off here:

There is no value to be gained in trading Jose Bautista for prospects. If you're going to do something like trading perhaps the most valuable player in baseball, you better be damn sure that the team has no chance of contending for the foreseeable future and that the players you get back in such a trade are going to be major contributors. There's no reason to think the Jays will make such a move right now.

viewtopic.php?f=123&t=1152892&start=15#sthash.Y49yEPCr.dpuf

Since 2011, Halladay (36) is 15 - 13 with a 5.15 ERA and 1.30 WHIP

Nice to be able to know these things in hindsight. Do you have any posts that predicted Halladay's immediate decline in 2012 too?

Since 2011, Kershaw (25) is 30 -18 with a 2.17 ERA and 0.97 WHIP

Haven't changed my mind on that front at all. Still would never trade an elite position player straight up for an elite young pitcher considering the injury risk there. Kershaw has been one of the lucky ones so far, but several other elite young pitchers (Strasburg, Harvey) haven't been.

[Randle McMurphy]

I also now get why you didn't post the link to that thread in your little hindsight attack on me.

You wanted to trade Bautista partially for Tommy Hanson and referred to him as being as good as Ricky Romero to justify it. Hindsight-based arguments are the best, aren't they?

[UN-Owen]

I also now get why you didn't post the link to that thread in your little hindsight attack on me.

You wanted to trade Bautista partially for Tommy Hanson and referred to him as being as good as Ricky Romero to justify it. Hindsight-based arguments are the best, aren't they?

I don't need to defend my interest in Hanson

He was one of the best young starters in the NL and with due diligence our team doctors would have had an opportunity to examine his shoulder and detect any concerns

I later suggested a trade of Heyward/Teheran for Bautista after it was clear that Hanson was damaged goods

Teheran finished this season with a 3.20 ERA and a 1.17 WHIP in 211 innings


The truth is, I don't think Atlanta would have traded a healthy Hanson plus Heyward for Bautista

That's why I thought Trout was a more realistic target


But the fact is, you would have rather traded Bautista for a 34 year old Halladay instead of a 23 year old Cy Young winner coming off a Triple Crown season

That's ridiculous

[Randle McMurphy]

I don't need to defend my interest in Hanson

Not to me you don't. Because I don't try to ridiculously trap people years later using hindsight-based arguments.

He was one of the best young starters in the NL and with due diligence our team doctors would have had an opportunity to examine his shoulder and detect any concerns

Thanks for providing yet another example of how good young starters aren't sure things due to their latent injury risk.

That's ridiculous

Except at the end of the 2011 season it wasn't. I noticed you didn't answer whether you had any posts predicting Halladay's immediate decline then.

[UN-Owen]

I don't need to defend my interest in Hanson

Not to me you don't. Because I don't try to ridiculously trap people years later using hindsight-based arguments.

He was one of the best young starters in the NL and with due diligence our team doctors would have had an opportunity to examine his shoulder and detect any concerns

Thanks for providing yet another example of how good young starters aren't sure things due to their latent injury risk.

That's ridiculous

Except at the end of the 2011 season it wasn't. I noticed you didn't answer whether you had any posts predicting Halladay's immediate decline then.

Bautista = 210 games played since 2011

Halladay = 38 games started since 2011


ALL players can get injured, the younger ones tend to recover faster


As for Halladay, there's a reason I didn't include him in this thread: viewtopic.php?f=123&t=1134768

It's not that I was predicting an injury, it's just that IF he gets seriously hurt and is forced to miss a year or so, then what you're left with is a 35 or 36 year old coming off a major shoulder/elbow injury


Do you think the Nationals care that Strasburg missed a year?

Of course not, they've got a 25 year old ace to build with going forward

[Randle McMurphy]

ALL players can get injured, the younger ones tend to recover faster

Guys with long track records of good health tend to have a better chance of staying on the field than others.

It's not that I was predicting an injury, it's just that IF he gets seriously hurt and is forced to miss a year or so, then what you're left with is a 35 or 36 year old coming off a major shoulder/elbow injury

You can say pretty much the same thing about pitcher risk no matter how old they are, which was exactly my point. Although at the time was simply no reason to expect Halladay would have experience such a precipitous decline and injury at the end of 2011 due to his tremendous track record.

Do you think the Nationals care that Strasburg missed a year?

I suspect they care that he's building a fairly significant injury history and has not shown himself as somebody that can be relied upon for 200+ innings a season yet, yes. With very few exceptions, young pitchers are pretty much ticking time bombs for arm injuries and many careers have been derailed as a result (see your prime example of Hanson).

[satyr9]

I'm not gonna go into the past and check, but I'm pretty sure I would've agreed with Randle on most of the points except for Kershaw, who I've always loved. The principle is right, but there are always a few young arms I'm just a little too googly-eyed over to pass up in my hypothetical dream trade scenarios.

If there was a story that could be at all relied upon that Heyward or Trout plus a premium starting prospect were to be had and AA refused, then there'd be something worth discussing in this thread, but there isn't, so just 'cause you liked the idea then means squat now. I don't think it's anywhere near a given ATL or LAA would've moved either of those guys for Bautista. LAA is harder to evaluate due to Moreno's insanity obviously.

Even so, taking a top five player at worst and dealing for potential is never a slam dunk move, even when a couple years later it looks like it. You can always pick the right ones after they've emerged, but those deals rarely happen and they rarely happen because the team with the known quantity doesn't pull the trigger rather than the reverse.

Imagine if they'd done it for Ackley or Moustakas instead of Heyward or Trout, how smart would that look? Ackley/Pineda for Bautista would've looked like quite the haul at the time and AA wouldn't have a job anymore.

I really don't have any point to this, but it's a pretty pointless argument you're having so I'm in good company.

[UN-Owen]

If there was a story that could be at all relied upon that Heyward or Trout plus a premium starting prospect were to be had and AA refused, then there'd be something worth discussing in this thread, but there isn't, so just 'cause you liked the idea then means squat now. I don't think it's anywhere near a given ATL or LAA would've moved either of those guys for Bautista. LAA is harder to evaluate due to Moreno's insanity obviously.

I was pretty clear that I didn't think the Braves would move Heyward

Said the same thing about Stanton down in Miami


But after Wilson and Pujols signed, I thought the Angels might be willing to part with Trout for a "a top 5 player" since they had their sights firmly set on a World Series appearance

I'm not just picking random names and saying there is a deal to be made


Conversely, I don't think the rebuilding Mariners would have parted with Ackley and Pineda for a 31 year old


And I think the discussion to be had is: SHOULD AA have been looking for that type of deal or was the right play to build around a 31 year old, even though the Jays were not yet a contender