- This topic has 398 replies, 43 voices, and was last updated 7 years, 2 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
I would not give up six years of those two (both clearly in the system’s top 10) for one year of Machado. I am not convinced the Cardinals will be World Series contenders in 2018, with or without Machado. And if they don’t make it to the very top this year, this trade would not be a positive, assuming he walks. I no longer have confidence that players want to stay with St. Louis.
What’s Kelly’s future right now? A backup for two years at a minimum.
What’s Hick’s future? I’m positive he’ll end up in relief and probably not until the end of the year.
Machado is a superstar. We have so much depth right now that I don’t really mind parting with it. In 2011-12, it was different as we were very limited, but they built the team around role players and depth, time to cash it in.
This could be an interesting process with Machado. His contract status makes negotiations unique and possibly drives several teams away. Reports already state the White Sox are not offering any of their highly rated prospects and I imagine a few other clubs feel the same way. I am curious how that factors into trade discussions.
Personally, I think i would hold steady and see if the asking price declines. At this point, I think the Orioles have pretty much decided they are going to move Machado, understanding a losing season is probably in their future. The primary question is if they believe they can wait until the season starts and hope to get a desperate team to make a move at the deadline. I am of the belief, smart teams understand how to maximize a players value and Machado’s peak value for the Orioles is this offseason. Losing him to free agency after next season will only net the team some compensation picks that will require several years to develop in a best case scenario. Holding onto him until the season starts could result in less interest, as teams fall out of contention and the value of acquiring him decreases with no window to negotiate an extension. Their best case at getting value out of Machado beyond 2018 is moving him in the next couple weeks, even if it only nets them a couple decent prospects.
On an MLBTR chat, they suggested a framework like that of the Heyward deal. There, we gave up a #3 starter and a reliever for one year of Heyward and a reliever.
What about Hudson & Grichuk for Machado and a reliever?
We’d really only be losing Hudson, as Grichuk is not in our plans. And Baltimore likes guys with power who strike out a lot and they need a CF.
Pads, I am curious why are you “positive” about Hicks becoming a reliever? He will pitch this season at 21 with zero career innings at Double-A. Seems to me like every guy who hits triple digits these days gets tagged as a future power reliever. Hicks has three good pitches. Rumors were that the Cards were keeping him out of the Miami talks. If true, that tells me they are betting on a starting future for him.
Heyman believes the Orioles are looking for two near-ready pitching prospects. Given who he thinks the clubs are – I don’t see that happening. The only way I see the Cardinals giving up two is if one of them is Mike Mayers or John Gant.
I have kind categorized the trade potential of the prospects into buckets and look at these deals with Os, Rays, or Blue Jays on what bucket and how many from which bucket would I be willing to offer. For pitcher buckets:
Reyes in the top level alone – do not see a current scenario where this bucket gets touched.
Next bucket: Flaherty, Weaver, Hudson, Hicks
Another step down: Fernandez, Hensley, Gomber, Woodford
For outfielders I kind of leave them all in one bucket with O’Neil being considered ahead of the rest of Bader, A Garcia, Arozarena, Mercado. Kind of leaving Carlson out of this focus on ready or 1 year away guys.
For a Manny M. 1 year rental I would be fine with combo of 2 prospects 1 OF from the bucket not named O’Neil and 1 pitcher from next bucket below Reyes group. If it takes 3 prospects involving 2 pitching prospects I would want them both to come from the last bucket to go with an OF.
Tampa would be different in I would see major league talent (Grichuk, Kelly, Jedd G, Sam T.) being in play lumped with combo of prospects depending on what combo of the closer, Archer, or Evan L. are involved.
I would be with fine with giving up either Hicks or Kelly for one year of Machado. That is in line with what teams pay for a couple of months of difference makers at the deadline. Worst case, we flip him at a deadline or get a high draft pick for him.
Interesting…very interesting:
A discussion about the Cards & Machado – and author recommendation Cardinals should instead target Tampa Bay.
I think the Cardinals should avoid both unless the cost comes down, but we’ll see.
Why would we not be trading Gyorko, Wong, or DeJong for Machado? That seems obvious to me. If we don’t trade one of them, then perhaps we can trade them after Machado to pick up a prospect to replace whoever goes to Baltimore.
Orioles beat writer Roch Kubatko names Flaherty, Weaver, Hicks and Kelly as the players Baltimore is interested in. They won’t get any two of them for one year of Machado, IMO. And we already know there will be no negotiating window to try to extend Machado.
https://www.masnsports.com/school-of-roch/2017/12/random-rumblings-rumors-and-thoughts.html
I don’t see either scenarios working out (Machado or the Tampa deal). Tampa is more likely, unless the price for a one-year rental of Machado comes down. The problem with the Tampa deal, is Gyorko is likely to be better than Longoria at this point, so you are probably weakening a position to get solid closer. How much can you give up for what is probably only a marginal improvement in your club?
One difference in today and when we made the Heyward deal, is at that time the club had a good history of retaining players. Mo even said after the deal was made, that once a guy experiences playing in St. Louis, they are motivated to work out a deal. That no longer seems to be the case. And it’s hard to imagine Machado signing with any team he plays with in 2018. He owes it to himself, especially if he has a good year, to test the market.
Here’s a question for anyone with insight to Machado’s performance drop in 2017, especially the first half (I didn’t see the Os play much at all in 17). I’ve read and heard it attributed to some degree to being unlucky (BABIP). I’m also wondering if defenses figured some things out and made adjustments in positioning, and Machado didn’t re-adjust quickly and even at all. Or did the pitching book on him change significantly? Regardless, I’m not in favor of giving up two top level prospects for one year.
If we could send Baltimore Gyorko, Grichuk, and Wacha it would almost be a revenue neutral deal for 2018.
I think it takes at minimum Flaherty, Hicks and one other player to get the deal done. I think that 3rd player could range anywhere from Kelly to Gyorko to Gomber depending on how many teams are in it and how serious their offers are.
He’d only be a rental if we couldn’t sign him to an extension during one of those two seasons or in the offseason between the years, so he’s not really a true rental…
Who gets to define what a “rental” player is or isn’t? 😉
I guarantee you that there would be plenty of fans up in arms about Ozuna being a rental – 2 years of control vs. 24 years sent away – except for the fact that quality of players sent the other way was not deemed overly steep.
The difference here is that no one (in their right mind) thinks Austin Gomber and Connor Jones (for example) would get the job done for Machado. It would likely hurt a lot more. Not all years of control are equal.
I know I said this before, but if I truly felt that the addition of Machado was the final piece needed to make the 2018 Cardinals a viable World Championship contender, I might feel differently about paying the high acquisition cost. The reality though is that the Cubs aren’t done adding pitching and they are not going anywhere any time soon. So why risk damaging the future to go all out on 2018 when the most likely best-case destination is Wild Card?
A rental player to me is on a one year deal like a movie that is a one night rental, anything more than that and you know that the player will be back next year at the very least, not sure about damaging the future given that there really isn’t an heir apparent in our system outside of our up and coming pitchers…aside from that we have guys that could be good, not Machado good just more support guys that can help a superstar…just not sure who we’d be losing apart from pitchers in a trade that would be so great of a player for us in the future that isn’t like 5 years away…
If you go along with DangerZone’s post above, Flaherty, Hicks and Kelly would be the huge price to pay. Three of the top six or seven prospects in the system, with all indications that Machado plans to test the market in the fall.
I don’t think the Cards would go there.
If we’d only get him for a rental of one year and then lose him yeah that’d be to much to trade away…
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.