Just now, Sleepy Harold said:

 

Jinx again lol

I would be rioting in the streets if I was a Mets fan. The Mariners straight up fleeced them.

5 minutes ago, Whitesox27 said:

I would be rioting in the streets if I was a Mets fan. The Mariners straight up fleeced them.

Seriously.  Seems the Mets gave up a shitton for very little in return.

1 minute ago, Whitesox27 said:

I would be rioting in the streets if I was a Mets fan. The Mariners straight up fleeced them.

I disagree. The $20m cash knocks Canos cost down to $100m or $20m/yr.

He has to be worth about 2-2.5 war per year to meet that cost or about 11 over 5. He was worth 2.9 war in half a season last year, so I still think he's a 4-5 war player next year. Swarzak and Bruce will cost the same in 2019 but might be worth 1-2 war. Diaz was a 3.5 war player last year.

So say Swarzak and Bruce are worth 2 war combined in 2019 and Cano+Diaz is 7 war. They cost the same, so the Mets added 5 war for $0.

Kelenic and Dunn are a coin toss. Sure they could pan out,but why wait when you have 2 of the best pitchers in baseball.

There are two player in free agency that can give you 5 more WAR next year and they will cost you $350m.

Cano at 5yrs/63M.  A little over 12M a year has plenty of potential for surplus value all over the place.  

Diaz for the prospects seems pretty fair

 

I don’t see the huge Golden Fleece here ?

ESPN is reporting just $20 million to NYM.

That would leave 5 years at $100 million, not likely to be a bargain.

17 minutes ago, Whitesox27 said:

I would be rioting in the streets if I was a Mets fan. The Mariners straight up fleeced them.

This is the worst fleece job since the RA Dickey trade. Cano has almost a zero chance of being worth 100 milllion over the next 5 years and I'd be confident he at best would get two years if he was a FA. Crazy.

3 minutes ago, striker said:

I disagree. The $20m cash knocks Canos cost down to $100m or $20m/yr.

He has to be worth about 2-2.5 war per year to meet that cost or about 11 over 5. He was worth 2.9 war in half a season last year, so I still think he's a 4-5 war player next year. Swarzak and Bruce will cost the same in 2019 but might be worth 1-2 war. Diaz was a 3.5 war player last year.

So say Swarzak and Bruce are worth 2 war combined in 2019 and Cano+Diaz is 7 war. They cost the same, so the Mets added 5 war for $0.

Kelenic and Dunn are a coin toss. Sure they could pan out,but why wait when you have 2 of the best pitchers in baseball.

There are two player in free agency that can give you 5 more WAR next year and they will cost you $350m.

There is so much wrong in that post. First of all there is cost opportunity to consider what is "cost" and "market value" are two totally separate things. Neil Walker was worth 2.2 WAR for example in 2017 or 17.3 million fangraph dollars but as a 2 WAR 2B he didn't have a whole lot of value to teams. So he had to sign a 1 year 4 million deal.

Two he's 36. When you reach the fringe areas of age of MLB baseball player it gets much harder to project a decline because of how much of an outlier you are to begin with are essentially advocating a gradual decline until he reaches age 41. That's nuts. It may happen but likely won't. Most players experience a major loss of skill well before they reach that age. For example there was no hitter in MLB age 40. Three age 39 Beltre, Utley, and Martinez. Of those three Beltre is the only one who posted a positive WAR and had a 99 WRC+. 38 years old or later there were six and once again Beltre was the only player with a WAR above 0.2. Two of those players were perennial allstars earlier in their career Pujols and Holliday.

Maybe he can continue to play well later but we know he was doing roids which makes these numbers he was putting up that you are basing the decline on suspect. It is likely his fall happens hard and fast.

 

2 hours ago, aeichhor said:

Jinx again lol

We're both on it, gotta love that

15 hours ago, wrathofhahn said:

Because 2B is a physically demanding position and he's 36? Also some of his other seasons were likely enhanced. Betting on someone to continue to defy normal aging curves is bad bet sure there is a slight possibility Cano continues to defy the historical odds against him but why make that bet unless you have to? Especially when you have no DH to hide him should his defense decline to an unacceptable level.

Here are the normal aging curves for offense:

 

 

But if he hasn't followed the aging curve up to this point, I dont think it's safe to say he will automatically jump on the curve and fall of a cliff tomorrow. That would completely ignore what he has done the past 5 years and he still hit after the suspension.  A guy like Pujols was already showing decline at age 31/32 along with nagging injuries.

This is not support for the trade from the Mets end, just wondering why Cano is all of a sudden considered a garbage player simply because he has a high salary. Even as he declines, he can still have value.

Garbage player and significant regression risk at $20 million per year through age 40/41 are two quite different things.

Part of it’s marketing-related for the Mets, they’re simply fighting to stay relevant in that NYC market and also squaring up against the long odds the Braves and Phillies represent in the future.

This sorta feels like the kind of move the White Sox would have made from 2014-2016...also not unlike the move for Thome in 2006.

25 minutes ago, LittleHurt05 said:

But if he hasn't followed the aging curve up to this point, I dont think it's safe to say he will automatically jump on the curve and fall of a cliff tomorrow. That would completely ignore what he has done the past 5 years and he still hit after the suspension.  A guy like Pujols was already showing decline at age 31/32 along with nagging injuries.

This is not support for the trade from the Mets end, just wondering why Cano is all of a sudden considered a garbage player simply because he has a high salary. Even as he declines, he can still have value.

Like I said in the earlier post for alot of these guys who are outliers in the age category they experience a major loss of skill then fall off a cliff you can even sort of see it on the graph with how much steeper the slope is after 35.

The other thing that I didn't mention is his bat profile and the role it plays. Cano is not a guy whose ever been an OBP guy. Much of his value has been driven by BA and SLG which makes him more susceptible for that steep decline once his bat speed reaches an unacceptable level.

I also think you are discounting the effects of roids and how it is used by older players to prolong their careers. The thing about Cano is he already has his money unless he's a total idiot he'll stop using it moving forward as he is putting 120 million at risk with literally no reward.

Edited December 2, 20187 yr by wrathofhahn

8 minutes ago, caulfield12 said:

Garbage player and significant regression risk at $20 million per year through age 40/41 are two quite different things.

Part of it’s marketing-related for the Mets, they’re simply fighting to stay relevant in that NYC market and also squaring up against the long odds the Braves and Phillies represent in the future.

This sorta feels like the kind of move the White Sox would have made from 2014-2016...also not unlike the move for Thome in 2006.

Good point.  It also reminds me of the Shields trade.  The only reason you trade your top 2 prospects for a reliever is cuz you think you're going to win now.  No one thinks the Mets are going to win now except the Mets' front office.  If they win the division, probably a good trade.  If they don't, it's a potential disaster like the Shields trade.  I'm thinking closer to the second outcome than the first.

It looks like they got the Cano money down to reasonable levels.
But I certainly would trade 2 excellent prospects for the "proven closer."  I didn't like trading  Narvaez for a "proven closer"

11 hours ago, caulfield12 said:

ESPN is reporting just $20 million to NYM.

That would leave 5 years at $100 million, not likely to be a bargain.

He’s counting Bruce/Swarzak but I’m not that big of a fan of doing that at this point because money will have to be spent to replace those spots. Will be easier to do in March.

I like trade for Seattle but I still think they would be better off uncoupling Diaz and Sending same cash they acquired with Bruce/swarzak

27 minutes ago, GreenSox said:

It looks like they got the Cano money down to reasonable levels.
But I certainly would trade 2 excellent prospects for the "proven closer."  I didn't like trading  Narvaez for a "proven closer"

Diaz is arguably the most valuable reliever in baseball and not just some “closer” like you’re making him out to be.  I also think it’s a bit disingenuous to call both these guys “excellent” prospects and I say that as a big Kelenic fan.  I honestly believe the Mets could turn around right now and trade Diaz for a much better package with at least one true blue chipper.  Whether taking on Cano at effectively $60M offsets that I don’t know, but it definitely helped them get a discount on the prospect capital.

1 hour ago, Timmy U said:

Good point.  It also reminds me of the Shields trade.  The only reason you trade your top 2 prospects for a reliever is cuz you think you're going to win now.  No one thinks the Mets are going to win now except the Mets' front office.  If they win the division, probably a good trade.  If they don't, it's a potential disaster like the Shields trade.  I'm thinking closer to the second outcome than the first.

The only difference is almost nobody expected the White Sox to be leading for most of the first five weeks of the 2016 season...it was a bid to stay in the race, rather than trying to become relevant again after the huge success of 2015 and then falling off a cliff again (Cespedes, Harvey and Wright falling apart simultaneously didn’t help much.)

2 minutes ago, Chicago White Sox said:

Diaz is arguably the most valuable reliever in baseball and not just some “closer” like you’re making him out to be.  I also think it’s a bit disingenuous to call both these guys “excellent” prospects and I say that as a big Kelenic fan.  I honestly believe the Mets could turn around right now and trade Diaz for a much better package with at least one true blue chipper.  Whether taking on Cano at effectively $60M offsets that I don’t know, but it definitely helped them get a discount on the prospect capital.

Yeah, he’d have to rank up there just a notch below Kimbrel, but not by much.

The main unknown is how he’d perform in a playoff atmosphere.  The pressure in NY, Boston or Philly is a different beast altogether.

11 minutes ago, caulfield12 said:

Yeah, he’d have to rank up there just a notch below Kimbrel, but not by much.

The main unknown is how he’d perform in a playoff atmosphere.  The pressure in NY, Boston or Philly is a different beast altogether.

He may be slightly below Kimbrel production-wise, the difference is that Diaz basically makes the league minimum.  As an asset, he’s about as valuable as a reliever can get.  

I really think the Mariners should have dealt with Cano separately from Diaz to maximize the prospect return.  Teams are very hesitant to give up blue chippers nowadays, but rare assets like Diaz can land a centerpiece like that and at the beginning stages of a rebuild that should be the priority.

1 hour ago, Chicago White Sox said:

Diaz is arguably the most valuable reliever in baseball and not just some “closer” like you’re making him out to be.  I also think it’s a bit disingenuous to call both these guys “excellent” prospects and I say that as a big Kelenic fan.  I honestly believe the Mets could turn around right now and trade Diaz for a much better package with at least one true blue chipper.  Whether taking on Cano at effectively $60M offsets that I don’t know, but it definitely helped them get a discount on the prospect capital.

Kelenic and Dunn are top 50-100 prospects; does "excellent" really overstate that?
Kimbrel went for 2 25-50 prospects; he had a far greater track record of dominance.
Doesn't seem that out of whack to me.

On a side note, the Padres GM did a nice bit of arbitrage with Kimbrel and has done a good job of undoing the bad moves he made in his first year.  I don't know whether he can build a team, but he can acquire prospects.
 

12 hours ago, GreenSox said:

Kelenic and Dunn are top 50-100 prospects; does "excellent" really overstate that?
Kimbrel went for 2 25-50 prospects; he had a far greater track record of dominance.
Doesn't seem that out of whack to me.

On a side note, the Padres GM did a nice bit of arbitrage with Kimbrel and has done a good job of undoing the bad moves he made in his first year.  I don't know whether he can build a team, but he can acquire prospects.
 

Kimbrel went for prospects #25 and #76. He had 3 years left at $37M. 

Chapman went for prospect #2 Gleyber Torres, former top 100 prospect McKinney, Adam Warren, and Rashad Crawford (now in Yankees AAA team). He had 2 MONTHS left.

Diaz went for prospects #62 and #89. He has 4 years left, 3 of them in ARB. 

 

Mariners got hosed if you want to break the trade down in to two parts. 

 

4 minutes ago, ChiliIrishHammock24 said:

Kimbrel went for prospects #25 and #76. He had 3 years left at $37M. 

Chapman went for prospect #2 Gleyber Torres, former top 100 prospect McKinney, Adam Warren, and Rashad Crawford (now in Yankees AAA team). He had 2 MONTHS left.

Diaz went for prospects #62 and #89. He has 4 years left, 3 of them in ARB. 

 

Mariners got hosed if you want to break the trade down in to two parts. 

 

Yeah I agree that they should have waited on Diaz. 

And it looks like the M's are going to botch the Segurs deal too.

Edited December 3, 20187 yr by soxfan2014

I like the trade for the mets. They are going to suck anyway in 4 years and kelenic and Dunn don't really fit their timeline.

Diaz for 2 50fvs is fair value and the money the Mariners eat make the deal almost cash neutral albeit probably not quite.

Decent trade for both teams. The last 1-2 years might not be pretty for the mets but if they have a window it is now. Only works if pitchers stay healthy though.

6 hours ago, soxfan2014 said:

Yeah I agree that they should have waited on Diaz. 

And it looks like the M's are going to botch the Segurs deal too.

This is just crazy talk they got out from under one the worst contracts in ML and got two legit top 100 prospects for a closer.

This trade was a huge win for them.