FG On Fox: How the Rays Made the Most Rays Move They Could

by
August 1, 2014

The Rays traded David Price and people don’t like it. Everyone, for the most part, accepts the position the Rays were put in. But consensus seems to be the return is underwhelming. There is no Addison Russell. Perhaps there could’ve been an Addison Russell. An ace was turned into non-ace-level talents, but when you’re able to step back and separate yourself from the initial shock, you can see sense in the move that was made. You can see how it addresses the Rays’ goal to keep winning on a budget.

When you talk about moving a player like Price, you’re always looking for that key to the return. You figure he ought to be worth a top-level prospect and change, and there was talk the A’s made Russell available to the Rays shortly before they shipped him to the Cubs. Russell’s quite probably a top 10 prospect in the league, and you can’t say that for Drew Smyly, or Nick Franklin, or Willy Adames. The Rays didn’t end up trading for a potential young superstar. What they traded for instead was greater certainty, greater odds of lower ceilings. The value they got is the value of being young and major-league ready.

The most valuable asset in baseball is the young and cheap star. That’s the guy who delivers a great performance for something close to the league minimum. Then you’ve got the high-level prospects who are knocking right on the door. This is a player like Oscar Taveras, but based on reports, the Cardinals didn’t make Taveras available, and in fact they cleared the path for him to play more often by subtracting Allen Craig. After that you’ve got a choice to make. You can look for greater talent at a lower level, or you can take lesser and more polished talent high in the system. With the former, you’ve got higher ceilings and higher bust rates. With the latter, you’ve got safety and projectability.

Read the rest at Just A Bit Outside.





 

Jeff made Lookout Landing a thing, but he does not still write there about the Mariners. He does write here, sometimes about the Mariners, but usually not.

95 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Chris
9 years ago

Would the Cubs trade Addison Russell for Smyly, Franklin and Adames? No. Would the Rays accept an offer of Addison Russell for the same? You would think so. You offer Tavares as an example of the most valuable commodity there is – he wasn’t offered, but Russell was and is a very similar prospect at a far more premium position (they both were/are Top 5 prospects in the game).

It seems to me that the likely explanation is that Russell was offered early and the Rays held out hoping to get other similar/better offers. The Cubs pounced on it, and then the Rays never got an offer that good again. They didn’t want to pay Price $20 million next year and/or see his value decline so took what they could.

4
Antonio Bananas
9 years ago
Reply to  Chris

I don’t think Russell and Taveras are the same. Top 5 prospects can be that way for a variety of reasons. Taveras has more proof at the higher levels.

I’m actually not convinced the Rays would trade their package for Russell. They want guys who are ready to play in the bigs now and, it seems that Smyly and Franklin’s floors are decent big leaguers each with upside.

Other side of the coin I don’t think the Cubs want the Rays’ package. They are looking for higher upside even if that upside may not show up until 2016 at the earliest. It’s all about windows. Think about it like retirement and investing. The Cubs are like a 25 year old. They are investing in high risk, high reward stocks. The Rays are like a 40 year old who needs to keep it moving with somewhat safe, but still higher growth investments (like ETFs I’m thinking), the Tigers are the 65 year old looking to retire and wanting bonds.

19
tz
9 years ago
Reply to  Antonio Bananas

And another thing – the A’s may not have not had any interest in Price unless the Rays kicked in enough money towards the 2015 salary to make him fit their payroll. Which is exactly in opposition to why the Rays had to consider trading Price in the first place.

And the A’s most likely weren’t comfortable with the “get Price, then trade him in the off-season” option that gets posted a lot. There’s a real risk that the A’s would get lowballed by teams knowing that they couldn’t afford Price.

So, in short, Addison Russell was never a real option for Tampa Bay, short of a creative three-way deal.

4
jdbolick
9 years ago
Reply to  Antonio Bananas

Franklin’s floor is not a “decent big leaguer.” His first 464 major league PAs were pretty ugly.

0
Jason
9 years ago
Reply to  jdbolick

But that’s not even a whole season’s worth of PAs. Is that really a large enough sample size to demonstrate what his floor is?

2
jdbolick
9 years ago
Reply to  jdbolick

Yes.

-3
ValueArb
9 years ago
Reply to  jdbolick

At age 22? When a plus defender?

2
Ruki Motomiya
9 years ago
Reply to  jdbolick

Your floor is about the minimum you can be expected to do at the big league level within reason, right? (IE any player could have a theoritical injury that kept them from playing baseball again, but you don’t project that as the floor because it is not reasonably likely)

“The lowest expectation that an expert has for a player’s major league career is called their floor, and the highest level of success they can reasonably foresee for a player is termed that players “ceiling.””

464 isn’t a whole season’s worth of PAs, but it is getting close (119 games played). We can assume that his “floor”, AKA what can be reasonably expected without upside, is something similar to what we have seen, perhaps slightly better (If you bump his .283 BABIP to .300). How LIKELY his floor is would be up for debate, but with a near-full season we can assume that his floor is probably something like that. On the flipside, for example, Smyly’s “floor” is likely something like an average major league pitcher or a bit better.

0
Ruki Motomiya
9 years ago
Reply to  jdbolick

Also, it seems more likely Franklin would be a – than a + defender, going purely by the stats/sample size so far: He was a -6.0 defender (-4.3 after positional adjustments) in the 102 games he played last year, while his 4.3 defense (4.3 after positional adjustments) has come in only a 17 game sample size.

0
a eskpert
9 years ago
Reply to  jdbolick

he’s also playing out of position though.

0
Ruki Motomiya
9 years ago
Reply to  jdbolick

I thought his natural position was 2B? Because that’s what he primarily played in his poor year.

0
Craig Kline
9 years ago
Reply to  Antonio Bananas

How does Tavaras have “more proof at the higher levels?”

As Dave Cameron just pointed out, Tavaras has a 117 RC+ at AAA, with a 6% BB rate, and a .172 ISO. For a corner OF, those numbers are hardly proof of high-level big league potential.

At AA, which I’m not sure if you’ve included in higher levels, Russell has hit just as well at the same age, with nearly identical wOBAs: while playing SS. That makes Russell’s performance more predictive of future success.

And that ignores Tavaras’ struggles in the majors, where he has put up a 55 RC+ in 109 PAs.

So it is incorrect to say that Tavaras has proven himself moreso than Russell at multiple high levels: Russell gets the edge at AA, Russell hasn’t played AAA but Tavaras didn’t impress at that level, and Tavaras has bombed so far in the majors.

I think most commentators who like this article/trade are simply unaware of how well Russell is hitting and how close he is to producing serious value at the MLB level.

-2
Peter 2
9 years ago
Reply to  Craig Kline

Russell hasn’t played AAA (besides a short stint last year in which he struck out in 9 out of 13 plate appearances) and Taveras was a well above league average hitter (according to the wRC+ you cite) over 100+ AAA games.

Sure, Russell has hit well at AA—if you squint, just as well. Except he’s done it over 36 games, whereas Taveras did it over 124 games.

Fairly straightforward to see why someone would call a player with 225+ games of well above average offense in AA/AAA more proven at the high minors than another with 36 games at AA…

3
Cason Jollette
9 years ago
Reply to  Chris

All dependent on where you on the win curve. Players like Smyly and Franklin are able to contribute right away and based on most projection systems, at an above average rate. Like the author states, even top prospects come with a level of risk. It’s the same reason the Athletics were able to afford losing Russell, with their position on the win curve, present wins carry more value than “potential” future wins. So yes, you could argue that Smyly and Franklin are more value than Russell for a team that is trying to conpete for the next few years.

0
KK-Swizzle
9 years ago
Reply to  Cason Jollette

Yep…key words: “for a team that is trying to compete for the next few years.” Deriders of this trade are ignoring team context. In a vacuum, Addison Russell is more valuable than Smyly, Franklin, and Adames. But not for this team at this time. The way this went down, you can be sure that it was exactly what Tampa was looking to get for Price: a safe, projectable rotation piece, a cost controlled position player with upside, and a bit of organizational depth. The trade package sent to the Cubs doesn’t help them recoup lost performance from giving up next year’s David Price, so they didn’t to it. Plain and simple. It wasn’t a panic move or misplay, per se, it just doesn’t fit either of the standard models for deadline treads: superstar acquisition and prospect hoarding.

1
Craig Kline
9 years ago
Reply to  KK-Swizzle

KK Swizzle,

This comment of yours could hardly be more incorrect-

“The trade package sent to the Cubs doesn’t help them recoup lost performance from giving up next year’s David Price, so they didn’t to it. Plain and simple.”

Russell is mashing AA this year, with a wOBA well over .400. As JDBolick pointed out, his ETA was this year until he tweaked his hamstring, and is now early next year: depending on how the Cubs want to play the Super2 game.

It appears that you made this comment without checking out how Russell is doing this year.

0
stuck in a slump
9 years ago
Reply to  KK-Swizzle

But we all know that the Rays were going to play the super two game and don’t like rushing prospects. So, for the Rays, Russell’s ETA may have been September 2015. That would mean a significant drop in overall WAR until then.

0
jdbolick
9 years ago
Reply to  Cason Jollette

Whoa. Did you mean to say “above replacement” instead of “above average”? Because I’m not aware of any projection system that had Franklin being an above average major leaguer in 2014 or 2015. Also, you seem to be under the mistaken impression that Russell is far away. He was expected to make his major league debut this season until he injured his hamstring, and he should definitely be contributing next season.

-2
Cason Jollette
9 years ago
Reply to  jdbolick

Depending on how much weight you want to put into particular projection systems, Oliver has him as a 3+ WAR player and ZIPS has him projected similarly going forward. It’s amazing how quickly we write off a prospect. A year ago Franklin was the second best prospect in the Mariners system and a top 50 overall talent. Now people are relegating him to being a replacement level player? While he has never been a top 10 overall player like Russell, you can’t possibly write him off after a 400 PA

1
jdbolick
9 years ago
Reply to  jdbolick

You’re right about Oliver, my mistake. I don’t think anyone is writing Franklin off, merely being realistic about his probable outcomes given what we’ve seen so far.

0
Ruki Motomiya
9 years ago
Reply to  jdbolick

ZIPs actually, at least if you take his numbers given ATM and prorate them to a full season (I will admit I do not know where to just find full season projections that are updated), has Franklin as closer to 2.5 WAR. Which I find kind of hard to get, actually, because it projects him to be a below average hitter (98 wRC+) and a scratch fielder wotj 0.1 bSR. Shouldn’t he be projected to be a bit lower than average?

(I actually don’t think Franklin should be written off, but I do think his floor is definitely not an average major league player.)

1
a eskpert
9 years ago
Reply to  jdbolick

He’s being projected as a 98 wrc+ second baseman. He doesn’t have to hit that well to be above average.

0
Craig Kline
9 years ago
Reply to  Cason Jollette

Russell will be ready next year, he is mashing at AA right now.

This is a ridiculous article, Fangraphs has really gone down hill since it started working for Disney Sports and News Corp Sports.

-4
jpg
9 years ago
Reply to  Chris

I agree 100%. Friedman misplayed this. Badly.

-2
semperty
9 years ago
Reply to  Chris

They Cubs say no to that because they’re not ready to win in 2015. They can afford to have a prospect sit in the minor leagues for the next year or two while they continue to assemble their roster.

The Rays don’t have that luxury. They’re ready to win in 2015, and subtracting Price while adding nothing to the ML roster doesn’t help them in any way, shape, or form. Like Jeff said, they could’ve chose a lower floor with a high ceiling or they could’ve chose a higher floor with a lower ceiling. Given their position to be winners immediately, they went with the option that will help their teams do so.

0
Jeff Sullivanmember
9 years ago
Reply to  Chris

To my knowledge, nowhere is it stated that Russell was certainly available for Price. Russell was moved, and Price was moved, but all I’ve seen is that the A’s and Rays talked, and Russell might’ve been involved. There very easily could’ve been other parts moving around that change the equation. Not something you can dismiss.

0
jdbolick
9 years ago
Reply to  Jeff Sullivan

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/after-failed-bid-for-david-price–a-s-strike-with-deal-for-jeff-samardzija–jason-hammel-060544823.html

They considered, for example, David Price. Once they steeled themselves to trading Addison Russell, the precocious 20-year-old who was going to be their shortstop for the next seven years starting in 2015, the A’s knew anyone was in play, including Price. They talked with the Rays. Permutations of a deal went back and forth. It never materialized.

0
Jeff Sullivanmember
9 years ago
Reply to  jdbolick

Right, I know. That doesn’t say Russell was available for Price straight-up.

4
jdbolick
9 years ago
Reply to  jdbolick

Well sure, we won’t know exact offers unless Oakland has their own Ground Control leak. But you said “To my knowledge, nowhere is it stated that Russell was certainly available for Price.” Now you know that it was stated that Russell was certainly available for Price. Whether Tampa wanted more or Oakland wanted more, we obviously don’t and presumably won’t know, but it was reported that Russell was on the table for Price.

-3
Plucky
9 years ago
Reply to  jdbolick

I’m a little skeptical this would have really worked for the A’s- They are in a similar financial situation as the Rays, and I don’t see how they could afford Price’s $20m-ish arb next year. Samardjiza’s only $5.3m this year, and his arb next year will be much better value than Price.

The A’s have 10(!) (11 now with Shark) guys up for arbitration raises next year and will need to replace Jed Lowrie. If they had traded for Price they’d have probably needed to flip him this offseason

2
jdbolick
9 years ago
Reply to  jdbolick

Why do people keep saying this when we just saw Oakland pay $10 million to a closer?

0
a eskpert
9 years ago
Reply to  jdbolick

Because it seems that the Johnson deal was to suppress Doolittle’s Arbitration earnings.

0
ValueArb
9 years ago
Reply to  jdbolick

If the As asked for $10M to cover sone of Prices arb costs the deal isn’t as good.

1
Craig Kline
9 years ago
Reply to  Jeff Sullivan

Jeff Sullivan-

You stated “all I’ve seen is that the A’s and Rays talked, and Russell MIGHT’VE been involved.” [emphasis mine]

The posted corrected you by making it clear that, “the A’s and Rays talked, and Russell WAS involved.”

-1
stuck in a slump
9 years ago
Reply to  Craig Kline

But the question was not could it have happened or would it have happened as much as what would it have taken? If the Rays had to eat salary, it makes no sense for them. If the Rays had to give up another MLB piece to get the deal done, it may not have made sense. You’re assuming to know that this would have been Russell for Price straight up, but Price without some salary relief wouldn’t have made too much sense for the A’s either.

0
vonstott
9 years ago
Reply to  Chris

“You offer Tavares as an example of the most valuable commodity there is –”

Read it again.

“The most valuable asset in baseball is the young and cheap star. That’s the guy who delivers a great performance for something close to the league minimum. Then you’ve got the high-level prospects who are knocking right on the door. This is a player like Oscar Taveras.”

Taveras is clearly part of the second group, not the first.

1
BubbaBiscuit
9 years ago
Reply to  Chris

The Cubs would certainly consider trading Addison Russell for Smyly, Franklin and Adames depending on how much money is included, how badly that money is needed to them, where they think they are on the win curve this season and the near future, and how much they, internally, value the 4 players involved individually and in comparison to players they currently have.

1
Craig Kline
9 years ago
Reply to  BubbaBiscuit

No the Cubs certainly would not consider trading Russell for Price/Franklin/Adames.

Russell is going to debut in the bigs next year. The Cubs are no in any place to compete this year, so the soonest they would look to compete is next year. Oliver projects Russell to be a 4+ WAR starting in 2015 and going forward, becoming a 5+ WAR player in 2017.

You can’t logically argue “the Cubs would make ‘X-crazy trade’…depending on how much they need money and how much money was thrown in” when you know that they do not need the money. Sure, any club would make a terrible trade if $400M were thrown in, but that is an unrealistic amount of money. It is obviously not true that a few million could cause the Cubs to trade Russell for Smyly/Franklin/Adames.

1
Ruben Amaro Jr.
9 years ago
Reply to  Chris

Also, you like a lot of other people seem to be forgetting that Hammel was part of that trade too. And he wasn’t an insignificant part.

0