Why Seattle Chose Smoak Over Montero

If we are to assume the Yankees reported offer – Jesus Montero, David Adams, Zach McAllister – was on the table, it would follow that the Mariners brass ultimately made a not-so-simple calculation, and ended up with this: Justin Smoak > Jesus Montero. The comparison is a significant stance because it runs counter to the majority of offseason opinions. Only ESPN’s Keith Law, among analysts I can find, ranked Smoak over Montero this winter.

And not much has changed since then; Montero has less-than expected numbers at 20 years old in Triple-A, Smoak had less-than expected numbers at 23 years old in Arlington. Ultimately, I can pinpoint three significant reasons that Jack Zduriencik used to reach their Rangers-favored conclusion. Two are reasons that have been (and will be) well-documented elsewhere:

1. The Mariners don’t believe Montero to be a viable option at catcher, even in a diminished capacity. As a corollary, they believe Justin Smoak’s long-lauded defense at first will outpace Montero’s eventual contributions there.
2. The understanding that Safeco Field would be a better fit for the switch-hitting Smoak than the right-handed Montero. This is no revelation: “Know Thy Park” is practically a commandment of front-office work.

Yes, these were surely factors that ultimately supported the M’s decision. But I think there is a third, significant reason that you won’t hear talked about much that led to choosing Smoak over Montero:

The Mariners evaluate potential commodities from the context of potential performance during team-controlled seasons only.

The two players in question have close-enough offensive profiles that I don’t think you could make the case for trading the 20-year-old Montero for the 23-year-old Smoak (in a vacuum). Montero has a decent chance to be in the Major Leagues next season, and thus, should have the longer Major League career. But if Montero does play in the Majors next season — and considering he’s hit .312/.377/.550 since June 7, I submit that it’s likely (especially if he had gone to Seattle) — his team-controlled seasons will come at ages 21-26. The remainder of Smoak’s will come at ages 24-28.

Seattle, I think, is betting that Montero will take a couple years to find his footing in the Major Leagues. I don’t think they would question his potential, just gambling that he’s most likely to reach it after he hits free agency. They look at a guy like Paul Konerko, who before the season, I listed as a nice median outcome for Montero’s career. Konerko, from ages 21-27, hit a combined .279/.342/.470, posting an OPS just 8% above league average. Since then, he’s hit .278/.363/.513, showing more patience and power, with an OPS+ of 125.

The opposite part of that argument is Miguel Cabrera, who is clearly the top-end of what Montero could become. Miggy hit 33 home runs at age 21, and was a cumulative .311/.383/.542 through age 26. At age 20, before being called up, Cabrera had a similar number of plate appearances in Double-A that Montero has had in Triple-A. In the Southern League, Cabrera hit .365/.429/.609, with 31 walks, 29 doubles and 10 home runs. In the International League, Montero is batting .252/.328/.415, with 33 walks, 19 doubles and 7 home runs.

The Mariners are essentially gambling on Montero to be more like Paul Konerko than Miguel Cabrera. And Smoak, meanwhile, will have the ages where most hitters hit their prime at the tail end of his arbitration-eligible seasons.

Montero is a great prospect, but almost every part of his game is still projection. The power is still of the gap variety. He’s yet to play his Major League position. Smoak has struggled in the big leagues, but the skills are there. Defense, patience, power. The Mariners don’t care whether Jesus Montero or Justin Smoak will have a better career, like Baseball America does. They care about which would provide the best value while still coming cheap.





97 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Resolution
13 years ago

What do we think is the value of weakening a division rival? That may have had something to do with this trade…

Rondo
13 years ago
Reply to  Resolution

By weakening ?? You should at least note the Ms are shippin them Cliff Lee for a half a year which could lead to a chance to get far in the playoffs, extra revenue from home playoff games (not insignificant for a team in bankrupcy court), and then 2 draft picks for losing a type A to the free agent market…Plus the team already has another 1B type player in the minors in Carter. Further what team should know more about Smoak? The rangers or the Ms? Probably the rangers since they have controlled his rights for quite a while correct?

I don’t know see any real support about weaking a division rival, your looking for like a third order thought process here and it can quickly break down.

Kenny
13 years ago
Reply to  Rondo

Taking Smoak and Beavan from the Rangers is not entirely insignificant.

Steve
13 years ago
Reply to  Rondo

I think the point about weakening the Rangers is ignoring 2010, which is by any measure a lost season for the Mariners. Given the Rangers’ ownership situation (and the Yankees’ apparent interest in Lee), it’s close to a given that Lee will not be a Ranger next year, while their young first baseman will be playing for Seattle.

The draft picks are a valid point, but I do think the argument about weakening the division rival has some merit.

Brian Chase
13 years ago
Reply to  Rondo

It could also be possible that if the Yankees sign Cliff Lee as well as another Type A free agent (like Carl Crawford) that Lee might not be the top Type A free agent and therefore the Rangers would get a second round pick from losing Lee.

Rondo
13 years ago
Reply to  Rondo

@Kenny — Taking Cliff Lee from the Ms is not insignificant either. We are talking about a team projected to win 65 games getting better by slowly bleeding someone to death by single paper cut. This is assine. Let me ask you a question: Do the ranger have a better farm system then the Ms? Do the rangers have a better current team than the Ms? How old is the Ms most product everyday player?
@Steve — really ignore 2010? Do you think a win today is not equal to a win tomorrow? that is like the back wards time value of money theory
@Brian — I never said a 1st round pick, you are putting wordsin my mouth,err on my keyboard, oh whatvever. I said the ranger will get 2 draft picks, whereever they end up being slotted, for losing Cliff after a half year, which is not insiginficant

Rally
13 years ago
Reply to  Rondo

“really ignore 2010? Do you think a win today is not equal to a win tomorrow? that is like the back wards time value of money theory”

From whose standpoint? For the Mariners it makes virtually no difference at this point whether they win 65 or 68 games for 2010. In fact, they are better off winning fewer, and getting the better draft pick. Any hope of getting back into contention this year is long gone, and even avoiding last place looks very unlikely.

Boxdfrn
13 years ago
Reply to  Rondo

Tell that to the Ms fans that pay to go to the game because they thought the team would be good this year and blunked down money for ticket package. Tell that to an Ms fan that is thinking about wether to renew for next year. Because a draft pick next June isn’t going to improve the 2011 Ms. I for one am tired of being the worst team in division, and I don’t think worrying about some perceived devaulation of the best team should have been in the thoughts of the Ms front office. They should focus on getting the best player to improve a 65 win team. They should focus on better roster contruction so they don’t carry 6 DH/1B/no Def LHs. If they think Smoak is better than Montero fine, but if they Montero is better but took Smoak as a way to devalue the Rangers than that is dumb, worry about making your own franchise viable first, then work on these secondary things. And yes, a win is a win is a win, taking out 2010 for any consideration is not logical.

???
13 years ago
Reply to  Rondo

2010 is a lost cause, and there is no benefit between being in last place by 5 games or by 1. You can’t think of this from a fan’s perspective and want them to field the best team this year, it would be for naught. An extra win in 2010 for the Mariners is useless. It is quite logical for them to be looking long-term, the span in which the Cliff Lee trade almost certainly benefits them and weakens the Rangers.

zzzz
13 years ago
Reply to  Rondo

This isn’t going to work for a fan that paid money to go to a game, we can sit here in our basement and type away, but a payin customer is basically getting shat on. And given how young the Rangers are, and that the Ms are older at the spots they’ve invested the most cash, I’m not sure removing one young guy from Rangers is really ‘weakening’ a rival. Maybe if they had taked two or three young players I’d get it, but the Rangers loss of Smoak is partially offset by Carter + draft picks + expected additional revenue from more fans and longer playoff push. Realistically, when do you expect this team of Rangers, without Smoak, to stop being competitive and the Ms, with Smoak and no Lee, to start being competitive? Not any time soon if your realistic. This trade should have only been about getting the best player, this talk about ‘weakening’ a division rival is dumb.

ryan
13 years ago
Reply to  Rondo

I think it is foolish to not think that weakening a division rival does not at least play into this decision. Montero is deemed to have a higher ceiling; however, Smoak generally has everything else in his favor. So as is, it seems like a tough differentiation, but add that you are taking from a division rival, it seems to make Smoak the better choice.

Of course, it isn’t going to destroy the Rangers prospect-rich farm system, but think how losing Adam Jones and Chris Tillman have affected the Mariner’s organization. They are just recovering from that trade. If the Mariners were in the AL East, you bet they would be doubly damaged long-term by there short-term trade.

So to say that weakening the division is insignificant is just wrong. This trade (for the Mariners) has nothing to do with 2010. The trade will, however, positively impact the Mariners in 2011-2014 and negatively impact the Rangers during that same timeframe. And in addition, the compensation picks will not hit the MLB roster until at least 2014, so following this season this trade the Rangers will be left with nothing in the near future.

zzzz
13 years ago
Reply to  Rondo

Ryan, i’m not following what you mean by your last sentence, the rangers will have nothing following this trade? They already have a young team, a good farm system two extra draft picks, and extra revenue. I still thnk losing 1 minor leaguer (which is what the article focused on) hasn’t really seriously devalued the rangers vs the Ms to the point that it makes up for the difference in talent, and therefore the point about weakening the division rival (again vs the Ms as the comparison) is insignififanct.

ryan
13 years ago
Reply to  Rondo

zzzz, I meant the Rangers have nothing from the trade. Yeah, they have their existing prospects, but if Smoak is their best young hitter, he can’t be replaced by some other prospect. Furthermore, the draft picks are so far off from seeing the major league roster (if ever), that they have little value in my eyes. So you are saying that additional revenue outweighs 5 years of run production being extracted from Texas and given to Seattle. I don’t buy it.

My point is that, weakening a division rival while strengthening your team cannot be discounted. If Chris Davis comes up and dominates for Texas for years to come, then Texas made a stellar trade. But if Smoak dominates, and Davis becomes an average major leaguer (like many suggest to be the case), then the trade has the double effect of strengthening Seattle while weakening Texas. The point is that this is a real possible outcome and one that must be considered when evaluating trades. To just brush it off as an asinine consideration, is, well, asinine.