Boston/DevilRays Trade protest

[Royals]

The Following Trade
Boston gets Curt Schilling
Tampa Bay gets Michael Bourn, Blake Hawksworth and Alberto Gonzalez
has been approved by the TRC but challenged by some of the general membership. It is up for a vote. A 2/3 majority (20 votes) is required to overturn the trade.

Trade Defense
1. TB shopped Schilling actively and vocally for over two weeks... no one else wanted him and certainly no one was going to give up a top 100 prospect as someone argued Schilling was worth. If someone thinks Schilling was worth more, he should have offered it. No one wanted to make an offer for Schilling. Except Boston.
2. It was also claimed that prospects of equal value are available as Free Agents. Pure bullcrap. Hawksworth is StL's #4, Bourn is Philly's #7. How many top 10 prospects are available as free agents right now? None, because Prospect values are high right now while the value of old farts with just a few miles left on the odometer is very low. None of the prospects will be superstars, but NO ONE will give up superstar potential for a 40yr old arm. They're solid prospects with opportunities to contribute.
3. This is a deal that just flat out makes sense for both sides. Boston gets an arm to try to keep pace with NY for a little longer, Tamp Bay gets some young guys to build with.
Curt Schilling is a very good pitcher, but he's 40 years old and probably has 2 years left in him, at the maximum. Of the last four seasons, he has missed significant time in two of them and if he suffers another injury this season it wouldn't be surprising to see him call it a career. He'll be Boston's counter to JB's Clemens, but like Clemens, who knows how long he'll be around.
Will Carroll (the pre-eminent writer on baseball player health and injuries) called him a Red injury risk (Red being the worst of Blue, Green, Yellow and Red) and had this to say about him:
It took him until midseason to really be stable on the legendar ankle. Add his age and all of his offseason interests into the equation, and I think his conditioning and desire have to be called into question. I think he has answers to those questions, but he?s supremely risky, especially early in the season.
There is enough question about Schilling's future (and his physical conditioning this past offseason) that the Boston Red Sox are prepared to let him hit Free Agency after this season. In the IBC, no one wanted to make an offer for Schilling. Except Boston
Blake Hawksworth had ace potential before he got injured. He's healthy again now and in spite of his velocity dropping a couple ticks, his curve and changeup remain very good and BA rated him as the #4 prospect in St Louis. He still has #3 potential and even if he ended up as a reliever, that's more than Schilling will be doing in 2009.
Michael Bourn is Philly's #7 prospect according to BA. He is an excellent defender, one of the fastest players in the minors and has good basestealing ability, with an 85% career success rate. He doesn't have much pop, but unlike say, Joey Gathright, he usually works within his skill set and doesn't try to become something he's not. He makes good contact, walks and has a solid k/bb ratio. The most common comparison for him is Kenny Lofton with less pop or Juan Pierre. .280/.360/.400 with 30-40 steals a season isn't unreasonable.
Kevin Goldstein, who left BA for Baseball Prospectus, had this to say about Bourn:
Prototypical centerfielder/leadoff man who one scout refers to as "Kenny Lofton lite" and has no glaring weaknesses for the type of player he is. Solid hitter who uses the gaps well, as evidenced by nearly 14 triples per 600 at-bats in the minors. Draws walks at a decent clip and has a career stolen base success rate of 85%. Outstanding centerfielder with an arm that as at least average, if not a tick above.
Alberto Gonzalez went from the Midwest league in 2005 to AA and AAA in 2006. Like Bourn, he doesn't have a lot of pop, but plays great defense and is a very good contact hitter. He could draw more walks, but his strike out rate is very low. He'll never be a superstar but he could be a decent regular if he gets traded (as the Yankees will ultimately do to acquire a superstar to replace whatever superstar gets injured in the first half of the season) since there's absolutely no chance of anyone ever getting past Derek Jeter's Ego no matter how bad his defense is or even if the best shortstop in history joins the team.

Two weeks of shopping Schilling, nobody wanted him. Nobody else wanted him because as talented as he is, he's old, he's been injured, he came into camp in questionable condition and as such he's a HUGE gamble. The prospects are also gambles, but TB doesn't need a 40 yr old gamble, he needs players for the future. Boston needs a guy to roll the dice with to keep up with NY. This protest is a perfect example of GM's saying a player is worth more, but no one actually being willing to offer it.


Trade Protest
I am strongly opposed to the trade of Curt Schilling for Alberto Gonzalez, Michael Bourn and Blake Hawksworth. I'm not a contender. I'm not in the division with these teams. I have no vested interest. I just feel this trade is utterly unacceptable. My critque below cites statistics, experts sources and common sense.

Curt Schilling: Everyone is familiar with Schilling's credentials. Consistently outstanding WHIP, K/BB and K/9. He's a quality start machine in DMB. On Jan 29 the Boston Globe reported that Schilling does not plan to retire after 2007 so you can evaluate this deal as if Bren is getting two years of Schilling. Yes, he is old and he did have an injury marred 2005. But DMB has shown with Unit/Rocket/etc that it will give very good projections to 40 year old pitchers who have been consistent performers. Curt was healthy for 30 starts in 2006 so his 2005 injury (which wasn't an arm injury) doesn't make him any more of an injury risk than any other pitcher. For the next two years he'll be one of the best 25 starting pitchers in the IBC.

In return for a great pitcher the DRays are getting 3 low ceiling non-premium prospects. If Trade Review won't block a premier starting pitcher being dealt for no major leaguers and 3 suspect prospects then what are we doing here?

John Sickel's grades (and comments):
Michael Bourn, OF, B- (good speed, but will he hit enough?)
Alberto Gonzalez, SS, C+ (good glove)
Blake Hawksworth, RHP, C+ (seems to have overcome shoulder trouble but doesn't throw as hard)

Bourne and Hawksworth did place in BA top 10s for their organizations. However, their orgs are also rated by BA among the 5 worst in the minors. Neither player ranked in any top100 list and I feel confident they would not place in a top 200 list either.

Michael Bourn: A college draftee from the University of Houston. Had an outstanding campaign in 2004 in the lowest level of full season A-ball (.433OBP/.903OPS). That made him a hot prospect. Rising up the ladder the OBP fell into the .350 range and the power completely vanished. He doesn't have over the fence power and by hitting only 10 measley doubles in 470 ABs during 2006 he pretty much offset the 13 triples. It's tempting for people to try to label a flyswatting speed demon CF as Juan Pierre. But Pierre walked more than he struck out in the minors and hit .326 in his first exposure to Double-A. Repeating AA Bourne only hit .274 with a .715OPS. Bourne struck out 100 times in 2006 which doesn't bode well for his make contact and use his speed Pierre comp. Check out the list of his top 10 PECOTA comparables if you want to see what he's likely to become: Adam Greenberg (2005), Mike Curry (2001), Gene Richards (1978), Tim Raines Jr (2004), Donzell Mcdonald (1999), Jermaine Clark (2001), Sebastien Boucher (2006), Nathan Haynes (2004), Jamal Strong (2003), Mckay Christensen (2000). You can get guys like Bourne off the free agent wire all the time.

Alberto Gonzalez: Sickels grades him a C+ prospect. 23 year old 5'11 160 lb shortstop. Traded by the Dbacks to the Yankees. Not much with the stick. You can use the link to see the stats. With his weak offensive profile and Cano & Jeter ahead of him he's never going to be a starter. As of this writing Danny Richar is a free agent infielder and has just as good or better future and Brooks Conrad is also a free agent and will sim far better.

Blake Hawksworth: Sickels grades him a C+ prospect and comments that his post injury stuff isn't as good. Was injured most of 2005 and 2006. PECOTA doesn't think much of him labeling these as his top 10 comps: Ryan Glynn (1999), Kevin Beirne (1998), Jon Mcdonald (2002), Josh Hancock (2002), Brian Bannister (2005), Cam Spence (1999), Chris Gissell (2002), Eric Ireland (2001), Tim Manwiller (1999), Landon Jacobsen (2003). Who?

In summary, I don't feel these prospects even close to warrant Schilling. Bourne and Gonzalez aren't even guys I would claim if they were free agents. I urge you to side with the protest and make these two teams rework their deal.

Quite frankly if Tampa did not leave 14 roster spots vacant during the bulk of 2006 season he could have signed minor league free agents that are better than the 3 players he is getting in this deal. Block this trade not to protect Tampa from themselves but to maintain integrity in a league that has over 20 owners who pour alot of effort into it.

[Mariners]

"Blake Hawksworth: Sickels grades him a C+ prospect and comments that his post injury stuff isn't as good. Was injured most of 2005 and 2006."

What? Injured most of '06, with 27 starts, I hardly think so!
He was the Cardinals Minor League Pitcher of the year in '06!

Hawksworth - 2006:

W-L ERA G GS IP H ER HR BB SO AVG
11-4 2.92 27 27 163.1 147 53 8 50 121 .247 (AA/A+)

I had to pop in because I can't sit back and listen to someone downgrade a "Northwest Player" (Eastlake H.S. - Redmond, WA.).

For a pitcher coming back from injury to get a C+ grade in Sickels book is nothing to sneeze about. Tim Hudson was a C+ prospect the year he came up, in Sickels book.

Sickels quote: "I'm a tough grader; Grade C+ is actually good praise coming from me, and some C+ prospects turn out very well indeed.

Someone let me know if my comment is against the rules, and I will delete it, but for the record, I thought it should be corrected. Pretty big detail.

[Guardians]

"Blake Hawksworth: Sickels grades him a C+ prospect and comments that his post injury stuff isn't as good. Was injured most of 2005 and 2006."

What? Injured most of '06, with 27 starts, I hardly think so!

Sickels quote: "I'm a tough grader; Grade C+ is actually good praise coming from me, and some C+ prospects turn out very well indeed.

Typo, 2004 and 2005.

As for C+ being good praise... he just doesn't want to piss off his readers. You saw how much shit he took for "Melky can't hit".


http://www.baseball-reference.com/s/schilcu01.shtml
http://www.thebaseballcube.com/players/ ... ourn.shtml
http://www.thebaseballcube.com/players/ ... alez.shtml
http://www.thebaseballcube.com/players/ ... orth.shtml

[Mariners]

"Blake Hawksworth: Sickels grades him a C+ prospect and comments that his post injury stuff isn't as good. Was injured most of 2005 and 2006."

Typo, 2004 and 2005.

Thanks for clarification.

[Cardinals]

also chiming in , the Cardinals system is not ranked as one of the worst five in the minors by BA. It's ranked at #21.


A:

Derrick Goold: Rasmus is the headliner for the organization, that's for sure. And the last two drafts have done a lot to replenish the talent in the Cardinals' system and change the outside assessment of the organization's talent. This year, Baseball America ranked the Cardinals' 21

[Giants]

Since there are currently only 28 GMs, how many votes does the veto need to pass?

[Dodgers]

29.

[Rangers]

With 18-9 right now, looks like it's vetoed unless one of the last two vote to uphold the trade.

[Royals]

29.

Uh, how do you get 29? I'm only aware of 28. I'm talking to two new possible GM's, but having them vote would seem inappropriate.
As for the final count, it would need to be 19 of 28. 18 is less than 2/3 of 28. I'm not sure who the last remaining un-cast vote is, perhaps Shawn can give that member a tap on the back of the head.

[Rangers]

It's going to be funny - and quite telling - if nine out of 27 or 28 votes upholds Bren's trade.

[Royals]

It's going to be funny - and quite telling - if nine out of 27 or 28 votes upholds Bren's trade.

What's really funny is that no one was willing to make an offer over two weeks of vocal Schilling shopping and when someone finally did, people started pitching a fit saying it wasn't enough.
I wonder how many of the people who voted against it are hoping to get him if the deal gets vetoed.

[Rangers]

What's really funny is that no one was willing to make an offer over two weeks of vocal Schilling shopping and when someone finally did, people started pitching a fit saying it wasn't enough.
I wonder how many of the people who voted against it are hoping to get him if the deal gets vetoed.

I think that's a good point, as it's the one I made on Jared's behalf in the Millwood deal. It doesn't change the fact that you're giving utter crap here, but it's a good point.

[Royals]

Well, there are only 100 top 100 prospects in baseball and no on, including myself, was going to move one of them for Schilling.
Calling Bourn and Hawksworth crap is doing them quite the disservice, Both have good chances at becoming regulars in the majors. People here focus entirely too much on the elite prospects, ignoring those who aren't Hall of Fame superstar potential and, in fact, acting like they're crap. I dropped and re-signed Gomes several times without anyone else even blinking at the guy before he hit the majors. I know for a fact I wouldn't have been able to do the same with Bourn or Hawksworth, I'd had multiple GM's ask for each of them in parts of trades in the recent past.

[Phillies]

we have 2 open teams?

[Dodgers]

What's really funny is that no one was willing to make an offer over two weeks of vocal Schilling shopping and when someone finally did, people started pitching a fit saying it wasn't enough.
I wonder how many of the people who voted against it are hoping to get him if the deal gets vetoed.

I think that's a good point, as it's the one I made on Jared's behalf in the Millwood deal. It doesn't change the fact that you're giving utter crap here, but it's a good point.

There is no reason you HAVE to pull the trigger on the "best deal" if it's a shit deal. If you can't get a good deal you wait until you do, not deal the guy for way below market value.

[Royals]

What's really funny is that no one was willing to make an offer over two weeks of vocal Schilling shopping and when someone finally did, people started pitching a fit saying it wasn't enough.
I wonder how many of the people who voted against it are hoping to get him if the deal gets vetoed.

I think that's a good point, as it's the one I made on Jared's behalf in the Millwood deal. It doesn't change the fact that you're giving utter crap here, but it's a good point.

There is no reason you HAVE to pull the trigger on the "best deal" if it's a shit deal. If you can't get a good deal you wait until you do, not deal the guy for way below market value.

1. The market sets the market value, so it clearly wasn't under market value since the only market was me and Dave.
2. If you feel that a players market value is not likely to increase then it is a good idea to move that player. In the case of Schilling, his value is not going to increase because he isn't going to get better, he isn't going to get younger and he isn't going to get any healthier. There isn't a high demand for old pitchers with health questions (just young pitchers with questionable mechanics. Sorry, couldn't resist).

[Royals]

There is no reason you HAVE to pull the trigger on the "best deal" if it's a shit deal. If you can't get a good deal you wait until you do, not deal the guy for way below market value.

Oh, and the last time I heard this argument, I got John Maine (another unspectacular prospect) for Hideo Nomo with people complaining I had been ripped off. Good call chaps.

[Rangers]

1. The market sets the market value, so it clearly wasn't under market value since the only market was me and Dave.
2. If you feel that a players market value is not likely to increase then it is a good idea to move that player. In the case of Schilling, his value is not going to increase because he isn't going to get better, he isn't going to get younger and he isn't going to get any healthier. There isn't a high demand for old pitchers with health questions.

I really do agree with this in principle. Obviously you have to look at each case individually, and if you're not getting anything back you might as well not dump a guy. But there are a lot of cases where guys have a certain presumed value, but when it comes right down to it that value is not realistic. When you're talking about a guy who you have no use for (usually in the form of a solid to mediocre older player on a young, building team) and whose value only figures to decline for whatever reason, the market really is the market in many respects. And it frustrates me to see guys held hostage with players that they don't want because rival GMs don't want to pony up but also don't want to see their opponent get someone at a good price.

As I said, I really don't think that's the case here, I think that Dave really could get something better than Bourn or Hawksworth, and in fact there are players right now in FA who are pretty eqquivalent (who shall remain nameless for obvious reasons), but that's just my opinion. I feel much stronger about the general situation in principle, that we treat GMs in Dave's situation or previously Jared's or JP's or any number of others unfairly like an unimportant pawn in the arms race between the top teams. If he really were getting anything worth a crap and isn't giving a league altering player, I'd say let the guy work his plan.

[Rockies]

Seems like the general consensus is that the TC's mandate blows (I'm not saying the TC blows).

Why not rework it as a league.

[Royals]

Wow, JP as a pawn? if anyone has been one of the biggest players, one of the biggest movers and shakers in the league the last few years, it's been JP. Pawn is the last label I'd apply to JP.
As for better players on the Free agent market, again, I'd say Dave would disagree, as would I and the people who have asked about Bourn and Hawksworth (including JP who was asking for Bourn right as I was negotiating with Dave).

[Royals]

Seems like the general consensus is that the TC's mandate blows (I'm not saying the TC blows).

Why not rework it as a league.

Again? You're fairly new Jared so to fill you in, we've had more iterations and processes for trade approvals than we've had seasons. I wish I was kidding. The league as a whole wanted to see the trade process loosened and less restrictive involving MLB players and prospects who are close to MLB ready and we made such an adjustment, the tradeoff being that prospects who are much further away are considered at a discount (as ridiculous as the values of prospects have become, they'd be even higher if not for this stipulation).
I haven't agreed with all the decisions of the TRC or the results of all the votes but I think it's as good a system as we've had.

[Athletics]

I honestly couldnt find a better deal than Brens at the time. I had alked to Jb about a deal but he didnt want to do anything until, at the very least, april. I cant wait until april to field together a team and plug holes where i need to. I had shopped schilling for almost 2-3 weeks before I was even approached about a deal for Schilling. The only "offer" i received was fro m Balt and he wasnt offering more than Koshanksy for him. So yes, this was the best deal available at that time. I know what direction I want to move in and having Schilling on my team wasnt where I needed to be.

[Rangers]

Wow, JP as a pawn? if anyone has been one of the biggest players, one of the biggest movers and shakers in the league the last few years, it's been JP. Pawn is the last label I'd apply to JP.

I'm not calling JP a pawn obviously. I'm saying that they way he was treated was as one, because he wasn't allowed to make certain trades that he felt were in the best interest of his team because of the approach you've told the TRC to take toward prospects.

But nice try attempting to turn my support for JP into me calling him names.

[Rangers]

Seems like the general consensus is that the TC's mandate blows (I'm not saying the TC blows).

Why not rework it as a league.

We don't do that here. Bren has described himself as a benign dictator, and the agenda only moves where he wants it to.

[Rockies]

Seems like the general consensus is that the TC's mandate blows (I'm not saying the TC blows).

Why not rework it as a league.

We don't do that here. Bren has described himself as a benign dictator, and the agenda only moves where he wants it to.

So this is a Simtatorship and not a simocracy?