Turning from Bay

by Boz_Paladin on Dec 21, 2009 3:30 PM EST Comment 34 comments

Bay obviously doesn't want to come. So to my thinking, we're down to Holliday and/or making a trade. Does anyone have a sense if Miguel Cabrera is available? Would the Tigers take Murphy, Ike Davis, and Mejia?

In Cabrera, yes, he's got warts and is not cheap, but he turns 27 in April and has a 3-year average line of .311/.383/.549 with 35 home runs and 116 rbi playing entirely in pitchers' parks. He would be a pretty solid bet to put up some big offensive numbers.

0 recs | Comment 34 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

i'd take cabrera in a heartbeat

but he’s got an attitude problem and i have a feeling he doesn’t like the mets. i’d make virtually any trade for him though, as long as someone sit him down and straightened his shit out.

"I only wanted a few things out of life -- a wife, children, to play baseball and to hunt deer." - Turk Wendell

by Rey-O on Dec 21, 2009 3:38 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

That trade is nowhere near enough to get him

Gas prices today are a lot like a pitcher's ERA. Anything under 3 is amazing, under 4 is pretty good and anything 5 and up is something you want to avoid.

by Bobby Baseball on Dec 21, 2009 3:49 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Are you sure

The tigers are in a weird situation, they can’t necessarily afford to keep Cabrera, and teams know that, but they can’t trade him, especially after trading Granderson without having a revolt from the fan base, which will only hurt them more financially.

"We have a plan, and our plan, I like our plan'

it's Omar's world, we're just livin in it.

by Gina on Dec 21, 2009 4:01 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Also with the size of his contract

the number of possible trading partners is significantly shrunken, unless they take on a major percentage of it.

"We have a plan, and our plan, I like our plan'

it's Omar's world, we're just livin in it.

by Gina on Dec 21, 2009 4:02 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

This should be a fanshot or comment

And so what if Cabrera has warts?

"We're investigating the investigative procedure of the investigation of Tony Bernazard"---Omar Minaya (he really didn't say it but he would"

by firejerrynow on Dec 21, 2009 4:12 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Yeah

Check out the FanShots or comments section on basically any post. This certainly didn’t warrant a FanPost.

by James Kannengieser on Dec 21, 2009 4:21 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Detroit would do that in a NY minute

it’s not wise to trade Mejia and Davis for someone making 126 mil….otherwise it’s perfect.
So, NO.

by 1969met on Dec 21, 2009 4:30 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

wait what?

You wouldn’t trade Mejia and Davis, who while pretty good prospects are still prospects for someone who has a 5-4-3-2 weighted WAR of 4.9? (BTW, that means he’s worth $22 mm a year)

"We're investigating the investigative procedure of the investigation of Tony Bernazard"---Omar Minaya (he really didn't say it but he would"

by firejerrynow on Dec 21, 2009 6:10 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

do not give up Ike Davis in any deal like that

by Endys Game on Dec 21, 2009 5:32 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Ike Davis would be useless if Miguel Cabrera was on your team...

by vivaelpujols on Dec 21, 2009 7:33 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Not neccessarily

It’s still possible he could play in the outfield.

"We have a plan, and our plan, I like our plan'

it's Omar's world, we're just livin in it.

by Gina on Dec 21, 2009 7:34 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

We hope that Davis becomes 3/4ths of the player

Cabrera already is and he’s not even 27 yet. I like Davis and though I’d be wary of giving up so much value when Cabreras owed so much money, I probably wouldn’t have to think twice if Davis was all it cost to get Cabrera. I’d be more wary of Meija AND Davis, cause they’re really our only prospects, outside of F-mart, with high ceilings and who aren’t years and years away, but I think I’d probably do it. I mean they’re good prospects but they are just prospects, and it’s entirely possible that combined they’ll never reach the value of a player like Cabrera.

"We have a plan, and our plan, I like our plan'

it's Omar's world, we're just livin in it.

by Gina on Dec 21, 2009 7:40 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Wow that should have started with that being said we hope Davis becomes...

"We have a plan, and our plan, I like our plan'

it's Omar's world, we're just livin in it.

by Gina on Dec 21, 2009 7:41 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Several things to consider

Why the Cabrera deal is a no-go:

1) Cabrera will be out of price range, and making such a trade would put the Mets in a budget deficit
2) There is more potential to be had in the younger Ike Davis, Jenrry Mejia and Fernando Martinez
3) GM Dave Dombrowski would not pull the trigger on this kind of deal, and I feel that he’s confident that his team can make the playoffs with their current team NOW, with a shot at the WS.
4) It would only be worth spending all that money if it considerably increases your chances of playoff contention. Given the current state of affairs, this deal would be somewhat wasteful. Yeah, things could change for the better and some players could emerge, but that’s a chance we simply can’t take.
5) $$$ vs. breakout potential – in this case, I would settle for the latter, seeing as how having our farm system being bought out by trades depleted the franchise of worthy farm system players. And to add to that, the hefty price tag may not even be worth it, even with a little added production, when we could get more production for the same amount of $$$ in several players!

"The picture looked like I was in the dugout, but they got it all wrong. I absolutely was never in the dugout."

- Mr. B.V. Incognito

by sj10689 on Dec 22, 2009 5:32 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Cabrera shouldn't put them in a budget deficit

they’re nearly 40 million under the luxury tax, and Cabrera’s only making about 4.5 million more than what they offered to Bay. And there’s potential to be had with the younger guys but with them it’s also a risk, Cabrera is already a super-star Davis/Meija/Martinez, less with Martinez because he’s much closer, could be stars, they could be average or they could completely flame out. I imagine the most likely scenario for Meija and Davis still doesn’t bring them to equaling Cabrera’s value.

Plus you can only play so many players a year, sure you could get 6 players who all equal Cabrera’s value but you can’t play all 6 at once, plus it’s not like Jerry has shown the ability to use players intelligently like that.

"We have a plan, and our plan, I like our plan'

it's Omar's world, we're just livin in it.

by Gina on Dec 22, 2009 5:44 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Good points

However,
1) Cabrera is also out of shape and is prone to a breakdown before 35 at this pace
2) I still don’t think Dombrowski would pull off any deal of this sort, so it will almost certainly never happen
3) Quality over quantity is usually the way to go, but I would hate for the team to rely on one player making nearly $20 million, when a few others could produce more collectively and be of lesser risk (as per point no. 1), for a fraction of the cost.
4) We can’t trade for Cabrera anyway – the price is too high: our farm system.

"The picture looked like I was in the dugout, but they got it all wrong. I absolutely was never in the dugout."

- Mr. B.V. Incognito

by sj10689 on Dec 27, 2009 2:40 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Well for 1 and 4

Cabreras contract will run up way before then, it only goes through 32 I think. And as for 4 my point is because of the dire financial situation the tigers are in and the massiveness of his contract I don’t think they could ever expect to get a teams farm for him, they either keep him and take the loss or take a small package for him to get the financial relief, i imagine for now they’ll stick to the former, especially with some bad expiring contracts, but if things start to get worse they’re going to have to move him for whatever they can get. And for #3 the problem is the few players that could produce at a fraction of the cost also aren’t going to come near his production, an Evans/Murphy platoon might be able to be league average, but no where near Cabrera 5+ WAR production.

But just for the record I would never advocate trading the farm for him, just being in if the Tigers get into a position where they have to trade him for a smaller package. I think a comparable situation would be the Braves trading Tex for like Kotchman and some bullpen prospects, though I imagine even in dire financial straits the tigers would have to get more than that to keep the fans from rioting, but a similar, though likely better, package.

"We have a plan, and our plan, I like our plan'

it's Omar's world, we're just livin in it.

by Gina on Dec 27, 2009 2:55 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

"We hope that Davis becomes 3/4ths of the player Cabrera already is..."

You want Davis to put on a hundred pounds?

[rimshot]

But seriously, folks, Murphy, Ike Davis, and Mejia are too much for what’s essentially a salary dump by the Tiggers. Cabrera’s owed something like 6/126. In his best season he’s put up $24.9 worth of WAR, and that was 2006. In 2008 he put up a season worth a measly $13 million. The Mets would be buying his age 27-32 seasons so we can expect some decline, particularly from a player who’s not known for his diligent physical regimen. I could see giving up Davis (though I’d like to keep Murphy—he’s a useful spare part and if Wright’s defensive problems worsen and he needs to move to 1b Murphy moves smoothly into 3b), just barely, but not Meija too. That’s way too much.

by SeanSchirmer on Dec 21, 2009 8:21 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

I'm pretty sure 26/27

Are when a player is just reaching his peak, so we probably would be getting his best seasons and be getting out just before he hit a big decline, the hardball times actually did an article about this today, so more than likely we’d be getting full value for the life of the contract. And I can understand how it might be too much because of the situation the Tigers are in but I imagine unless they got back a package like that they’d be better off keeping him than trading just because of the marketing hit they would take with the fan base.

"We have a plan, and our plan, I like our plan'

it's Omar's world, we're just livin in it.

by Gina on Dec 21, 2009 8:29 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I think we'd be better off playing Moneyball

and building the franchise from the bottom-up for considerably cheaper, so as to culminate in a dynasty, like the Red Sox and now the Rangers; that one big trade and tons of money could only deliver, merely, a short-term benefit.

"The picture looked like I was in the dugout, but they got it all wrong. I absolutely was never in the dugout."

- Mr. B.V. Incognito

by sj10689 on Dec 22, 2009 5:37 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Well the Red Sox do both

you can play money ball with money, like spending big on JD drew, or the trade for Beckett. You can make big trades like this for guys who will be a part of the team core for multiple years and still play money ball. It’s not like the Red Sox didn’t spend money, they also tried to get Tex last year. And the Rangers are just broke they don’t have money to spend at this point.

"We have a plan, and our plan, I like our plan'

it's Omar's world, we're just livin in it.

by Gina on Dec 22, 2009 5:41 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

The Red Sox have the best of both worlds here

The Rangers no longer have Millwood or Andruw Jones, so that frees up some $$$ – I don’t know how broke they are now, but this review by Forbes is discouraging:

Hicks owns 95% of the club, but announced in March that he was looking to sell a minority stake in the Rangers. Shortly after the announcement came news that Hicks’ sports team holding company (which includes the NHL’s Dallas Stars) had defaulted on $525 million in loans.

The defaults include other sports franchises, and not just the Rangers, so the debts incurred from the Rangers franchise could not be ascertained.

The Rangers do have one of the best farm systems, but how will they get out of that deficit!?

"The picture looked like I was in the dugout, but they got it all wrong. I absolutely was never in the dugout."

- Mr. B.V. Incognito

by sj10689 on Dec 27, 2009 2:54 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

He only owns 1 or 2 other sports franchises right?

And I’m pretty sure the Rangers are by far the most valuable, because they come with the rights to a shit ton of surrounding land that I don’t think has been developed yet, so it would be hard to imagine the bulk wasn’t borrowed against them.

"We have a plan, and our plan, I like our plan'

it's Omar's world, we're just livin in it.

by Gina on Dec 27, 2009 2:57 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Particularly after trading Grunderson and Jackson.

Also, to support your point, I noticed a couple of articles today putting player peak around 29, whereas we used to think it was 27 or so.

by SeanSchirmer on Dec 21, 2009 9:48 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Bay or Cabrera

To those who don’t want to trade Davis and Meija, would you rather have Bay (who again clearly doesn’t want to be a Met) at $16mil a year from 32-35 years old, and keep 2-3 prospects who might turn into something good, or Cabrera, who we know can mash the ball? Yes, Cabrera is fat, below average defensively and picked up a DUI during a pennant race last year. But I think he’s the best bat available.

Unless I’m missing something, I think the choices are: Option A, overpaying for 30+ year old outfielders Bay or Holliday and keeping the kids or giving up a couple kids, Option B, getting a 27-year old hitting machine, or option C, which is where the Mets will probably end up: overpaying for Bengie Molina, Mark DeRosa and Ben Sheets and making a run at 3rd place next September.

by Boz_Paladin on Dec 22, 2009 8:30 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

13.9 versus 19.8

That’s Cabrera’s versus Holliday’s WAR over the last three years, and it’s not close. Given that, and given that Holliday has room to move on the defensive spectrum as he enters his 30s while Cabrera only has the DH slot left after he gets too fat to play 1b, I’d much rather have the cheaper, better Holliday for whom I don’t have to give up good minor leaguers.

To me that’s a very, very easy choice.

Bay, on the other hand, would be a mistake for the Mets (or any NL team) to sign.

by SeanSchirmer on Dec 22, 2009 12:16 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Holliday is also older and more likely to begin declining if he hasn't already started

Where as Cabrera is likely just about to hit his peak.

"We have a plan, and our plan, I like our plan'

it's Omar's world, we're just livin in it.

by Gina on Dec 22, 2009 1:09 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Cabrera was actually average at 1b the last 2 years fwiw.

"We have a plan, and our plan, I like our plan'

it's Omar's world, we're just livin in it.

by Gina on Dec 22, 2009 1:09 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Whoa.

From 2004 on, his UZRs have been

-17.0, -4.7, -4.5, -8.0, -8.9, +(!)2.8.

That’s a below average fielder. It’s not Adam Dunn bad, but it’s not a good sign in an overweight guy coming to the NL who has nowhere to move defensively. Take all the solace you like from that 2009 uptick, but the overall numbers are something that would concern me a great deal were I to be taking on his 6/126 contract.

Btw, have you ever heard of a scale that translates UZRs into OPS+? It would be handy to be able to look at a guy with a 140 OPS+, see that he’s also a -8.0 fielder, then be able to translate that into, "he has the same value as an average fielder with a 130 OPS+.

by SeanSchirmer on Dec 23, 2009 12:29 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

careful

Only two of those years are data from Cabrera playing first. He’s got over 2500 innings there and is only -2.1 with no other experience at the position. We’ll have to see if he’s actually improved with the 2010 data, but I don’t think what he did at third, left, or right matter.

ain't had enough...

by BlackOps on Dec 23, 2009 12:42 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I wouldn't say they should govern,

but a player’s overall defensive profile shouldn’t be treated as irrelevant either, and that he’s been below average at every postion he’s played is noteworthy.

At the same time, I take your point. It may be that Cabrera has found a position where he can be roughly average. In fact, I probably shouldn’t penalize him for the possibility that his teams have miscast him as other than a 1bman. Still, I’m skeptical about him going forward. The before and after (the buffet table) isn’t pretty:

http://art.allayers.com/images/large/miguel_cabrera3.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/24/Miguel_Cabrera_on_May_9,_2008.jpg

by SeanSchirmer on Dec 23, 2009 3:08 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

There's a major difference between 3rd and 1st

"We have a plan, and our plan, I like our plan'

it's Omar's world, we're just livin in it.

by Gina on Dec 23, 2009 1:57 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

True, that

although if he’s still only 5 runs worse at third than first his teams are better off putting him at third. The problem is it looked like he fell off a cliff there, and given his training regimen I wouldn’t be all that surprised if he repeated that steady, steep decline at first. If Cabrera is a guy I’m signing to a 3/60 deal I’m not going to worry about it too much, but the history of the major leagues is chock full of guys who fell off cliffs in their early thirties—and those were the guys who worked hard at staying in shape.

by SeanSchirmer on Dec 23, 2009 3:14 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Well the numbers, small sample size as it may be, say

he’s 11 runs better at first then at third, which is a big deal. And Cabreras contract will be over by 33, so even if he falls off a cliff in his early 30s you’re still looing up 3-4 years of 5+ WAR production.

"We have a plan, and our plan, I like our plan'

it's Omar's world, we're just livin in it.

by Gina on Dec 23, 2009 3:51 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs