A's trade Trevor Cahill to D-Backs for Jarrod Parker

Post #1 » by **Schad** » Fri Dec 9, 2011 11:59 pm

There are other particulars involved (reliever Craig Breslow to Arizona, fringy outfield prospect Collin Cowgill to Oakland), but this looks like a potential fleecing by Billy Beane. Cahill is merely solid, while Parker could be a front-of-the-rotation guy.

Guess Arizona has an abundance of great pitching prospects, but I'm not certain that Cahill is better than what Arizona sent out there last year.

Weems · Post #2 » by **Weems** » Sat Dec 10, 2011 12:08 am

Cahill has better stuff than his peripherals indicate imo, but this still looks awful. People love Parker iirc.

Praying Gio is no longer available.

Wally West · Post #3 » by **Wally West** » Sat Dec 10, 2011 12:10 am

Schadenfreude wrote:There are other particulars involved (reliever Craig Breslow to Arizona, fringy outfield prospect Collin Cowgill to Oakland), but this looks like a potential fleecing by Billy Beane. Cahill is merely solid, while Parker could be a front-of-the-rotation guy.

Guess Arizona has an abundance of great pitching prospects, but I'm not certain that Cahill is better than what Arizona sent out there last year.

Cahill's solid but he's only 23 and still has the potential to be a front of the rotation type pitcher. It's still unbelievable that Cahill and Parker were both in the same year. One guy's already been through 3 years of service time and the other is a top prospect. I like the deal for Oakland more than Arizona because with Cahill, you don't know what you're getting year in and year out.

Homer Jay · Post #4 » by **Homer Jay** » Sat Dec 10, 2011 12:15 am

Schadenfreude wrote:There are other particulars involved (reliever Craig Breslow to Arizona, fringy outfield prospect Collin Cowgill to Oakland), but this looks like a potential fleecing by Billy Beane. Cahill is merely solid, while Parker could be a front-of-the-rotation guy.

Guess Arizona has an abundance of great pitching prospects, but I'm not certain that Cahill is better than what Arizona sent out there last year.

In a couple of years, Cahill starts getting paid like a front of the rotation pitcher, 8m il in 14 and 12 mil in 15. I hope he emerges, if not that's a real albatross. Hard to believe a 23 year old wrangled that much money. Maybe that's why Beane was looking to dump him now.

LBJSeizedMyID · Post #5 » by **LBJSeizedMyID** » Sat Dec 10, 2011 12:33 am

Sounds like a fair deal. Cahill still has a lot of upside in my eyes, and Cowgill could turn into a useful player.

Post #6 » by **Schad** » Sat Dec 10, 2011 12:37 am

blackflash234 wrote:Cahill's solid but he's only 23 and still has the potential to be a front of the rotation type pitcher. It's still unbelievable that Cahill and Parker were both in the same year. One guy's already been through 3 years of service time and the other is a top prospect. I like the deal for Oakland more than Arizona because with Cahill, you don't know what you're getting year in and year out.

Cahill throws 89-90 mph, and while he gets his fair share of grounders, his peripherals are otherwise pretty mediocre. His changeup and fastball work well together, and I could be wrong (I often am), but I don't see front-of-the-rotation stuff there; just doesn't have the breaking stuff or velocity of a top tier guy.

Al_Oliver · Post #7 » by **Al_Oliver** » Sat Dec 10, 2011 1:18 am

makes little sense for arizona with their prospects and current staff. they have bigger holes elsewhere...

Lateral Quicks · Post #8 » by **Lateral Quicks** » Sat Dec 10, 2011 2:06 am

Fortunately Oakland's number of players with last names ending in "ill" is unchanged by this move.

StringerBell · Post #9 » by **StringerBell** » Sat Dec 10, 2011 8:22 pm

I like this trade for Arizona. Parker is all potential. He hasn't dominated at any level, his stirkeout rate has decreased every year (he missed 2010 with an injury) and from what I've read he may need some time in AAA. He's far from a sure thing. Cahill onthe other hand is the same age and is a decnt #3 starter. Not to mention the Diamondbacks are loaded with arms in the minors(they still have Bauer) - good move for them.

Arizona also received a pretty good releiver in Breslow while the A's got 4th outfielder Collin Cowgill and reliever Ryan Cook. If anything this looks like an even trade.

From a Jays point of view looks like we maybe could have had Cahill for McGuire, Thames and Carreno. Would you offer those three for say Gonzalez?

flatjacket1 · Post #10 » by **flatjacket1** » Sat Dec 10, 2011 9:04 pm

blackflash234 wrote:Cahill's solid but he's only 23 and still has the potential to be a front of the rotation type pitcher. It's still unbelievable that Cahill and Parker were both in the same year. One guy's already been through 3 years of service time and the other is a top prospect. I like the deal for Oakland more than Arizona because with Cahill, you don't know what you're getting year in and year out.

I agree. Cahill is solid at age 23 and has shown good (actually great) ground ball rates through most of the minors. He still should be listed as a possibility of being a front of the rotation starter, but I kind of agree with schad that its more likely than not he ends up in the back.

Both years as a pitcher in the MLB (2010, 2011 500+ BF) he has pitched with at least 55% ground balls. That's incredible.

Avenger · Post #11 » by **Avenger** » Sat Dec 10, 2011 10:21 pm

StringerBell wrote:I like this trade for Arizona. Parker is all potential. He hasn't dominated at any level, his stirkeout rate has decreased every year (he missed 2010 with an injury) and from what I've read he may need some time in AAA. He's far from a sure thing. Cahill onthe other hand is the same age and is a decnt #3 starter. Not to mention the Diamondbacks are loaded with arms in the minors(they still have Bauer) - good move for them.

Arizona also received a pretty good releiver in Breslow while the A's got 4th outfielder Collin Cowgill and reliever Ryan Cook. If anything this looks like an even trade.

From a Jays point of view looks like we maybe could have had Cahill for McGuire, Thames and Carreno. Would you offer those three for say Gonzalez?

definitely, Gonzalez despite all his flaws is a decent pitcher that has monstrous potential. Thames' ceiling seems to be a decent everyday outfielder while most likely outcome is 4th outfielder, i like Carreno but you can't fall in love with unproven relievers and nothing about Deck McGuire intrigues me.

flatjacket1 · Post #12 » by **flatjacket1** » Sat Dec 10, 2011 10:30 pm

Avenger wrote:nothing about Deck McGuire intrigues me.

What? He is considered a top 10 prospect by most (in our farm system) and was rated 95th best prospect according to baseball America before the season started. Hes good, trust.

lilneige · Post #13 » by **lilneige** » Sun Dec 11, 2011 2:38 am

Lateral Quicks wrote:Fortunately Oakland's number of players with last names ending in "ill" is unchanged by this move.

this, just name a few,

Dallas Barden
Justin Duchscherer
Brett Anderson
Travis Buck

I want no part of Cahill because of that, and he pitching mechanic looks risky to me.