Royals not interested in top 5 prospect in all of baseball
by billski8 on Jul 26, 2010 12:35 PM EDT
Email
Print11:23am: The Yankees dangled Jesus Montero in talks for Joakim Soria, reports ESPN's Jayson Stark, but the Royals weren't interested.
So the re-building Royals aren't interested in a consensus top 5 prospect in all of baseball. I personally hope that this report isn't valid because this makes no sense. The Yankees appear willing to put a big package together for Soria and the Royals appear to not be willing to make the move. If the Royals plan on converting Soria to a starter then I understand this move, however, holding onto a closer with huge value on a 70 win team seems ridiculous to me. This is the same Jesus Montero that the Mariners about traded Cliff Lee for right? Am I missing something here?
197 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I'm not blown away by Montero's line
am I missing something?
The Kansas City Royals; Successfully failing since 1986
He is 20 in AAA
and has a good bat. It is not clear to me personally will be any/much better than the logjam of upper MiLB prospects we have at 1B/DH already. He is a good prospect, but does not fit a need for us.
To hell with DH Montero
The guy is NOT a catcher. Not a catcher. He is a DH dressed in drag. Might be a 1B, but the NYY, rather than developing him into something that could be useful in the field, are setting back his development in order to create an image that he is a such a great “up-the-middle” prospect.
If we actually put Soria on the market, other teams would likely pay with a prospect that might (even with a lower BA ranking) stick at a position of need for us.
If he is so damn good, why do the Yankees want to trade him? The real issue is that Montero does not have value to them, either. And they often screw up the development of players to make them look good for trades, or to serve a short-term goal (see Chamberlain, Joba).
I personally would be very wary of trading at all with the NYY. When it comes to them, the prospect media hype often does not match the reality. Buyer beware!
by bas on Jul 26, 2010 12:42 PM EDT reply actions 1 recs
Austin Jackson
Seems to have worked out for the Tigers so far… Even if Montero is a 1B/DH he is still a huge piece. He won’t be the only prospect involved in the deal. Ivan Nova and Zack McAllister could also be part of the package.
If he is so damn good, why do the Yankees want to trade him?
Because they are in win now mode. They trade good prospects all the time for established players.
Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com
by RoyalsRetro on Jul 26, 2010 12:48 PM EDT up reply actions
Agreed
Although I agree that the Yankees do make players look better than they really are, and that the media will hype up Yankees players.
I think the Royals are just waiting, and I’m not convinced Montero is available straight up or for a package. If I were to guess, we may be giving up more than just Soria in this supposed ‘offer’ or ‘deal’ or ‘dangle’, whatever the case may be.
by Boots 58 on Jul 26, 2010 12:51 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
I figured we'd be looking for Montero + Gardner
…and maybe more. But I haven’t kept up on Montero’s catching abilities…
wayyyyyy to much
not happening. Let’s be realistic.
Coffee. The NEW Performance Enhancing drug for Sport's Writers. Just ask Ken Rosenthal.
I don't
understand the reason for dangling Soria in the first place.
He’s a dominant pitcher, who is only 26 years old. He’s just getting started and the Royals control him, reasonably for the next few seasons.
Seems silly to me to trade one of the few effective pitchers the Royals have.
Because a closer for a bad team
Is as useless as a third nipple.
Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com
by RoyalsRetro on Jul 26, 2010 12:48 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Also
I makes sense that they trade for player(s) that can contribute MORE for the team than a single reliever. Obviously Soria is useful, but there are players that can add more to the team than he can out there, and there are teams that think Soria can add more to their team.
And
if we can trade having one relief pitcher for having 2 or 3 great prospects for the future, that’s an overall win.
"Strikeouts are boring! Besides that, they're fascist. Throw some ground balls - it's more democratic."
by MinnesotaRoyal on Jul 26, 2010 12:51 PM EDT up reply actions
Exactly
We just can’t turn down an offer for a reliever that nets us multiple players that can contribute in the future.
A third nipple is handy
for identifying an assassin with no other known distinguishing features.
Chaim Mattis Keller New York City's # 1 Royals fan!
by cmkeller on Jul 26, 2010 12:58 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
He's a releif pitcher
Throw out the syupid “closer” media construnction and look at it for what it is. He’s a reliever.
by kcbottom9th on Jul 26, 2010 12:50 PM EDT up reply actions
Montero has a bat unrivaled by any current minor league hitters. His power ceiling is so enormous, it’s ridiculous. He won’t stick at catcher, but his bat will play anywhere you put him. He’s the type of bat that you find a place in the lineup for, I don’t care if you have to move Hosmer to right field.
That being said, I doubt this was actually how the trade talks went down. Jayson Stark has never been good at knowing what’s going on in the Yankees organization. His best contacts are in the Phillies organization, but he’s really hit or miss with other places.
Montero has a bat unrivaled by any current minor league hitters.
Really? That’s not what his line says…. That’s all I have to go by.
The Kansas City Royals; Successfully failing since 1986
He's 20
And in AAA. If he was in Low-A like most of his agemates, I think we can assume he’d hitting far better and people would be creaming themselves about getting him.
he's also in the Yankee system
and “prospects” there rarely pan out
The only measure of true success in the NFL is the Vince Lombardi trophy. Anything less is a rationalization.
“Prospects” on the whole rarely pan out in general.
Phil Hughes has turned out pretty good, Brett Gardner is a great asset, Derek Jeter turned out OK, as did Jorge Posada, Andy Pettite, Robinson Cano, Mariano Rivera, etc. etc.
by drdonkeypunch on Jul 26, 2010 1:52 PM EDT up reply actions
We can take the Jeter, Posada, Pettitte, Rivera guys off the table
organizationally that was a century ago and hardly indicative of the Yankee system instant. Hughes was almost run out on a rail before this year. I would like to see him do this again. I don’t think he can. Gardner is hardly someone you buid a team around.
That leaves Cano. So that’s one, really in the last, what 15 years?
The only measure of true success in the NFL is the Vince Lombardi trophy. Anything less is a rationalization.
Gardner is having a great season and has turned into a really good asset for them in LF. He plays stellar defense, and while he doesn’t hit for much power, he’s absolutely a guy you want on your team.
Hughes is having a great year in by far the toughest division in baseball, and is still young and has filthy stuff. Yet again, a very good player.
And I still fail to see how past Yankees prospects not becoming Hall of Fame caliber players has to do with Montero and his potential. Scouting reports from unbiased sources say that his bat is just massive. I don’t know what more you want.
by drdonkeypunch on Jul 26, 2010 2:10 PM EDT up reply actions
Fine, let Hughes do it again, and I might believe
our statistical friends talk about “outliers” For Hughes, at the MLB level, THIS year is the outlier.
Gardner has no power…jeez, sounds like he’d fit right in with the punchless Royals….
The only measure of true success in the NFL is the Vince Lombardi trophy. Anything less is a rationalization.
He'd Be +Defense
In CF for us, and his bat fits the K well. If we wind up with DDJ, Gardner and Gordon with Maier on the bench for OF’s in ‘11, I’ll be happy.
I used to be an A's fan until they left town and got good.
by philofthenorth on Jul 26, 2010 5:20 PM EDT up reply actions
Ditto
That would be a pretty good outfield, with each person contributing differently offensively (Im assuing Gordon gets more of the power he showed in AAA) and defensively.
I'm Also Figuring
Kila finally gets his shot and Mous comes up in June. Butler, Kila, Mous and Gordon make a good middle of the order.
Gardner CF
DDJ LF
Kila 1B/DH
Butler 1B/DH
Gordon RF
Aviles SS
Mous 3B
Kendall/Brena C
Getz 2B
This is Pretty LH heavy, but none of the top 3 have horrible platoon splits. Of course, Yu-Bet makes this impossible anyway.
I used to be an A's fan until they left town and got good.
by philofthenorth on Jul 26, 2010 5:56 PM EDT up reply actions
You two are talking about Yankees...
…when the issue is prospects traded FROM the Yankees.
Soriano makes a better benchmark for that conversation than Jeter, or, at least, belongs in this conversation. So do Mike Lowell, Christian Guzman, Dionar Navarro, etc…
Some more:
Alfonso Soriano
Nick Johnson
Dioner Navarro
Juan Rivera
Cristian Guzman
Eric Milton
Ian Kennedy, Austin Jackson and Jose Tabata look encouraging early on
Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com
Nick "I can't stay healthy" Johson?
Really. Soriano? Seen his production the last two years?
The only measure of true success in the NFL is the Vince Lombardi trophy. Anything less is a rationalization.
Are you being intentionally obtuse?
Soriano has had a career that 95% of major leaguers wish they had. You’re just cherrypicking ridiculous things to use as arguments.
by drdonkeypunch on Jul 26, 2010 2:20 PM EDT up reply actions
Talk to a Cubs fan
and see how happy they are with him
The only measure of true success in the NFL is the Vince Lombardi trophy. Anything less is a rationalization.
The dude is mid thirties
He hasn’t been that bad this year
you forgot to beat him up, too
or is that my job?
The only measure of true success in the NFL is the Vince Lombardi trophy. Anything less is a rationalization.
Let's go farther
at best Navarro, Milton and Guzman have been serviceable MLB types, good role players, but hardly ones we build teams around.
The only measure of true success in the NFL is the Vince Lombardi trophy. Anything less is a rationalization.
What do the last two years have to do with anything?
From the day he was traded by the Yanks until he was granted free agency (and that is exactly what you are trading for when you make a trade), Soriano put up the following line:
.275/.329/.519
Then he hit free agency, was signed by the Cubs, and kept producing at a similar level…but like I said, that’s irrelevant, since the Rangers weren’t trading A-Rod to the Yanks so that the Cubs could eventually sign Soriano… they were trading for the three years he would be under their control.
It’s what scouting reports have consistently said over the past few years. Sometimes you have to combine the two to get a good picture of what kind of talent you’re dealing with.
by drdonkeypunch on Jul 26, 2010 1:50 PM EDT up reply actions
Just have Kendall teach Montero
How to be the baddest catcher of all time…
And Yuni teach him how to live up to his potential
Reminds me of the NFL Draft
Where you have the Best Player Available theory and the Best Player at a Position of Need philosophy. I think the Royals need to acquire as much “talent” as possible, and this type of prospect is a must-have if available. The problem lies in the Royals’ ability, or perceived inability in this instance, to trade a surplus for an equal return.
In other words, acquiring a 4th 1B/DH type is fine if you have the ability to trade 2 of them for what they’re really worth. If not, it might be better to go with the 3 1B/DH’s you have and take a prospect, albeit with less overall talent, at a position of need.
Conclusion: if DM were a competent GM or desired to be such a GM, he would pull the trigger.
I agree on the theory
You have to take the best available as the Royals… you fill positions later.
Coffee. The NEW Performance Enhancing drug for Sport's Writers. Just ask Ken Rosenthal.
it has nothing to do with belief in his abilities
It has everything to do with value. A relief pitcher, even one of Soria’s talent and with the “proven closer” tag, simply isn’t nearly as valuable to a team as a catcher that can hit like Montero is project to hit. A big part of that value is tied into the fact that Soria’s role is so limited – he can only help the Royals 70-80 innings out of an entire season, and only in certain circumstances. A batter can play almost everyday, and therefore has more opportunities to help out the team.
Put it this way – which is harder to find? A top-five closer, like Soria? Or a top-ten hitter, regardless of position?
Follow me on twitter.com/SteveCusumano
I would argue
that a 26 year old closer, who it appears to be dominant, would be harder to replace.
Would the Yankees be as dominant without Rivera that last decade?
They would be less dominant than they are now
But they would be even less so without Arod or Jeter
Let's worry about .500
before we worry about becoming dominant. A closer is a luxury on a team that can’t sniff .500.
This
It’s great to have a closer, but you need games to close at a frequent clip before you really need to worry about the shutdown closer.
"Strikeouts are boring! Besides that, they're fascist. Throw some ground balls - it's more democratic."
by MinnesotaRoyal on Jul 26, 2010 2:13 PM EDT up reply actions
But when it's down to crunch time at the end of the season
I WANT that 72nd win.
"Now…put that in your [BLEEP]ing pipe and smoke it." -Hal McRae
"I was doing this when BJ was in his father's nutsack." -Renzo Gracie
by Sweep_the_Leg on Jul 26, 2010 2:20 PM EDT up reply actions
If you had said 82nd, then maybe I'd think you're serious.
"Strikeouts are boring! Besides that, they're fascist. Throw some ground balls - it's more democratic."
by MinnesotaRoyal on Jul 26, 2010 2:25 PM EDT up reply actions
I didn't think the sarcasm font was warranted there
it was self-evident.
"Now…put that in your [BLEEP]ing pipe and smoke it." -Hal McRae
"I was doing this when BJ was in his father's nutsack." -Renzo Gracie
by Sweep_the_Leg on Jul 26, 2010 2:28 PM EDT up reply actions
No, it wasn't needed
Loud and clear.
"Strikeouts are boring! Besides that, they're fascist. Throw some ground balls - it's more democratic."
by MinnesotaRoyal on Jul 26, 2010 2:29 PM EDT up reply actions
If we had a good closer in 2006
We could have been sniffing .500. That’s with Emil Brown as out best hitter and Mark Redman and Scott Elarton our 1-2 pitchers.
Good closers – or, if you “there’s no such thing as a closer folks” prefer, an awesome reliever who can relegate the lesser arms in the bullpen to lesser duty – are an important part of any team. I’d hate to see Moose and Hosmer and Wil Myers and Christian Colon become the 2010s equivalent of Dye and Damon and Beltran and Sweeney and Randa, unable to get us a .500 season because instead of Soria Mexicuting the games for us, they get blown by the 2010s equivalent of Ricky Bottalico or Roberto Hernandez or Mike Macdougal outside of his two good months.
Chaim Mattis Keller New York City's # 1 Royals fan!
Just a couple decent relievers could make a team better.
The magical closer tag has given Soria more value than he should have. When you have an overvalued asset you should take the profit and plow it back into something undervalued or something for the long term.
I understand the angst....
but the bottom line is that closers are much easier to find than stud bats . . . . for one meaningless example, look north to God’s own team, the Minnesota Twinks . . . Nathan (who arguably is more dominant than Soria) goes down, and jump down turn around, Jon Rauch is plugged into the by god hell breech, and whaddyaknow, he’s got just about as many goddamn saves at Soria. I freaking love Soria. He’s got a great arsenal of pitches, he’s apparently w/out an ego, and I saw him give a ball to a fat kid in Spring Training…..it would hurt to lose him. BUT, its the right move if a package including propspects like Montero are in the mix. I maintain that GMDM doesn’t have the balls to make the move. Billy Beane can trade Tejada, Hudson, Mulder, Holliday, etc.. etc..etc..but our own GMDM simply couldn’t bear to trade the most plentiful and easily replaceable commodity in MLB. Sad. I also have some nagging doubts about Soria’s durability. Lets hope were not crying in our beers a few years from now, when Montero is the latin Johnny Bench and Soria is a shadow of his former self because of injuries or the simple year to year fluctuations in effective closing.
by Nighthawk at the Diner on Jul 26, 2010 3:40 PM EDT up reply actions
If we won't make Soria a starter because of durability issues and injury concern
It really baffles me as to why he’s also then labeled as untouchable. I’d think you’d want to trade a guy like that before he breaks down.
After 10 years of watching Montgomery torch games
I don’t ever want to return to the days of getting a nauseated feeling when the Royals bring in the closer.
a closer's value is really maximized in "close games"
since no matter how good the closer is, he’s not going to see the field if you’re winning or losing by a bunch. In my opinion (without doing the legwork or true research on this), a closer posses more value for a championship-caliber team for a number of reasons…
1) they are more likely to be in a position to win a game late, so there’s more opportunity to call on your closer
2) you’re more likely to face close games in the postseason, when the disparity of talent between two teams is less than it would be in the regular season.
Yes, the Yankees have been great, and yes, Rivera is a part of that. But based on his usage (and the idea of a “closer” in general), his value is almost entirely wrapped up in helping the Yankees win AFTER they’ve reached the postseason. During the regular season, when facing lesser teams, Rivera’s role is marginalized – he’s just not needed as often, and therefore provides less value.
The good teams aren’t the ones that “find a way to win close games” – there’s too much luck involved in baseball to survive only by winning close games.The good teams are the ones that keep the pressure on the other team, often blowing them out and making the “role of the closer” meaningless.
Follow me on twitter.com/SteveCusumano
Maybe
DM liked the Montero part of the dangling but the rest of the deal was not good enough. There is not much information here.
Montero alone should be more than enough for any closer in baseball.
Unless what you’re saying is that the Royals had to send more than just Soria, in which case I agree with you.
The point still stands that this offer was probably not made because Jayson Stark is terrible when it comes to Yankees rumors. Sherman and Olney have better Yankees connections, so if they confirm that the offer was made, then I’ll believe it.
by drdonkeypunch on Jul 26, 2010 1:20 PM EDT up reply actions
Basically
Yeah, there are more players involved than just Soria. They keep saying they want bench help and we have plenty of guys that belong on other teams benches. I think if he deals Soria it will be a little bigger trade than just 1 player for another teams top prospect. That doesn’t seem to happen very often.
I'd happily give them Soria +
Willy Boom-Boom, or JoGui, or Betemit, or Getz, or Pods for Montero. I’d even consider Aviles or MITCH.
Personally, I'd take Romine and more as opposed to Montero and less.
C is still a strong organizational need. We can only play 1 First Baseman and 1 DH. Between Butler, Kila, Hosmer, and Clint Robinson we seem to be “set” for a little bit.
Montero’s talent is obvious, but we should be acquiring players that do not displace our current ML prospects who will need to be up in 2011-2012.
Obviously, if you scout Montero and think he’s the next Pujols or Prince Fielder then you take the deal, no question. However if you think Montero is comparable to Hosmer, I’d be much more inclined to get some up the middle prospects.
we dont want arguably the best hitting prospect in baseball...
b/c of clint robinson and kila?
Fire Everyone
by billybeingbilly on Jul 26, 2010 5:47 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
goodness
It’s just to shown depth at the position, not a reason to not accept the player.
And not because of them, but more because of Butler and Hosmer, plus the readily available Kila (now) and Clint (in the future, maybe).
There is a valid argument that it would be more beneficial to grab a player where there is less depth than 1b/dh (DH is relatively easy to fill in FA). I don’t necessarily agree, talent is talent, but I dont think it should be ignored, and I don’t think you should only pick parts of the argument out of the entire context.
nobody is arguing that they'd ideally trade soria for a 1b....
but i dont see/read about other teams knocking down our door offering the top SS prospect in baseball for soria…
Fire Everyone
by billybeingbilly on Jul 26, 2010 5:56 PM EDT up reply actions
TBH I haven't seen any other players named being 'offered' for Soria
For the Yankees, 1B/DH is covered for years so they don’t need a young player there, and that’s the position of their top prospect at the peak of his trading value. However, they would love to have an experienced RP/Closer.
For the Royals, 1B/DH is not a top area of need, but that’s simply the best of what the Yankees have to offer (and that is in their surplus). However, they have a reliever coveted by other teams, and could probably benefit from the haul this reliever would bring.
Not sure that a team with a stud SS would be willing to trade him, but maybe they would. It just happens this is the best package it looks like the Yankees could offer, if we only stay in the minors (no Gardner, etc).
Even if Montero can't stick at catcher,
he/Hosmer/Butler could bring back something else needed in the future.
Glad I came, just wish I hadn't stayed so long.
People ask me what I do in winter when there’s no baseball...Rock Chalk Talk
With all prospects, the evaluation is somewhat up in the air.
Reasonable people can disagree over whether Montero, or any prospect for that matter, will pan out. The Royals should trust their scouting department.
The reasonableness of accepting Montero is substantially affected by the Royals own scouting reports. I agree that we can always work out deals with prospects for players who will fill positions of organizational need, but that only works if we feel we have a great, great asset. If the organization projects Montero as a league average DH, instead of a Top 10 hitter, that would dramatically change the equation, no?
a league average DH for the league minimum for 3 years....
would still make the deal a win for the royals
Fire Everyone
by billybeingbilly on Jul 27, 2010 4:40 PM EDT up reply actions
Montero, Gardner, and Phil Hughes
Now we’re talking
"We're gonna win with pitching and defense" General Manager Dayton Moore, circa winter 2009
"Where did all these Indians come from?" General George Armstrong Custer, circa summer 1876
Melville?
I used to be an A's fan until they left town and got good.
by philofthenorth on Jul 26, 2010 1:22 PM EDT up reply actions
It's the Yankees
They routinely overpay.
Gardner and Hughes, while actually being good players, are most likely viewed in New York as mere stopgaps until another ace and another stud power hitting OF are obtained via free agency in the offseason.
I could be wrong on how the Yankees operate – but if they are the ones initiating the Soria-lust, might as well start big and gage how they respond to a steep demand.
"We're gonna win with pitching and defense" General Manager Dayton Moore, circa winter 2009
"Where did all these Indians come from?" General George Armstrong Custer, circa summer 1876
gardner yes, hughes no....
theyve refused to deal hughes over and over again b/c he’s a huge part of their future plans.
Fire Everyone
by billybeingbilly on Jul 26, 2010 5:47 PM EDT up reply actions
Montero And A
Decent prospect should get this done. I don’t care if he’s a 1B/DH, if he’s better than Butler we can trade Billy. We need talent and a GM who knows how to construct a roster.
I used to be an A's fan until they left town and got good.
Am I the only one
having trouble getting any actual (office) work done until after the trade deadline passes?
I'm right there with you guys.
Ned likes Kendall in the 2-hole!
by mitchfreakingmaier! on Jul 26, 2010 4:21 PM EDT up reply actions
Yeah, I see no reason at all why we should be interested in one of the top hitting prospects in all of baseball.
Killing time until time kills me
Montero’s a DH/1B type and we have a lot of those? Fine – do the trade then flip him for a dominic brown or mike trout or desmond jennings type. Kind of like when Toronto traded one of the prospects they got from Philly in the Halladay deal to Oakland for Brett Wallace – my prospect at a crowded position for your prospect at a crowded position.
Let's just trust the process.
by trusttheprocess on Jul 26, 2010 1:44 PM EDT reply actions
We have a lot of DH/1B types??
I see Butler, Kila…then……..who else? I mean…we can’t seriously be making the argument that we have TOO MUCH OFFENSE at one of the most DEMANDING OFFENSIVE POSITIONS…right????
Killing time until time kills me
I’m not even saying that we ARE loaded at 1b/DH, that just seems to be a lot of people’s perceptions. Even if we ARE loaded there, you STILL make the trade is all I’m saying.
Let's just trust the process.
by trusttheprocess on Jul 26, 2010 1:48 PM EDT up reply actions
Exactly.
Should have kept reading before I commented.
Glad I came, just wish I hadn't stayed so long.
People ask me what I do in winter when there’s no baseball...Rock Chalk Talk
Hosmer, Clint Robinson, maybe Moose
That seems like quite a few
Moose plays 3B. Clint Robinson?? LOLOL. Hosmer is barely into his AA career.
Montero is ready for the majors in 2011 and again, is widely considered to be a MONSTER hitting prospect. Not making this trade because you have Clint Robinson in AA….laughable.
Killing time until time kills me
if he's that good, considering that Posada is about
ready for Social Security, why are the Jankees so ready to trade Montero off?
The only measure of true success in the NFL is the Vince Lombardi trophy. Anything less is a rationalization.
Montero is not a catcher, so Posada leaving soon is irrelevant.
The Yanks view Montero as expendable (for the right return) becasue Teixiera and A-Rod are going to be Yanks for a long long time.
Killing time until time kills me
I'm sorry, what position is Montero playing in the minors?
just asking
The only measure of true success in the NFL is the Vince Lombardi trophy. Anything less is a rationalization.
Oh I see, then it doesn't matter what position he plays
I had no idea
The only measure of true success in the NFL is the Vince Lombardi trophy. Anything less is a rationalization.
It doesn't matter what position he is projected to play in the major leagues
That doesn’t matter? It only matters what position he plays at right now, and not where he will most likely be playing in the future?
Um...Cervelli?
Ned likes Kendall in the 2-hole!
by mitchfreakingmaier! on Jul 26, 2010 4:22 PM EDT up reply actions
Ding Ding Ding!
I used to be an A's fan until they left town and got good.
by philofthenorth on Jul 26, 2010 5:29 PM EDT up reply actions
I think we'd all make the trade
But you don’t really want to find yourself sitting in July 2011 with Butler, Kila, Hosmer and Montero all MLB-ready at 1B/DH. You’d be forced to make more moves which could be fine, but you don’t tend to get even value when your hand is forced.
Then get a third team into the mix so that the prospect-swap is part of the original deal, not forcing out hand later?
Let's just trust the process.
by trusttheprocess on Jul 26, 2010 1:55 PM EDT up reply actions
Yes
This is the answer. In order to do that, you got to find the interested party that wants to trade up the middle prospects for a corner bat.
Because the market was flooded this last offseason with over the hill, cheap 1B/DH guys, teams are thinking they can buy a position-less bat without having to pay the prospects.
Now, if Montero (or Butler/Kila/Hosmer/Robinson) actually could be guaranteed to put up the numbers of the “Cabrera” projection, they would be worth a lot more. There is a lot of risk in trying to find an above average bat at that position PRECISELY BECAUSE the offensive expectations are so high already. You have to max out your projection to be of much value at all.
It has been rumored that Moose may not be able to stick at 3B
But thats just according to reports. Unlike Montero’s offensive abiltiies.
And I didn’t say we shouldn’t make a deal because we have Clint Robinson (LOLOLOL). Just saying that we have 1B/DH types doing well.
And I don’t see how Hosmer being in AA discounts him from discusion. He is a top 25 prospect ONE level lower than Montero, who clearly has a future with the Royals.
I am not even saying we shouldn’t make this supposed deal, which we have no real reason is real by the way. I am just pointing out 1B/DH is a position of depth in our system
Hosmer and Kila
also have better OBP skills. Montero does not walk all that much given his threatening bat.
True, but that's not his skillset
If the ball leaves the park, that’s more useful than a walk, and Hosmer or Kila aren’t projected to be 30+ HR guys.
Don’t get me wrong, I like Hos and Kila a lot, and like their potential, but they aren’t the same type of player in my mind. I think Moose is more of a comp.
But if you cannot walk
you are not going to get a pitch to hit in the MLB. Period.
It's not like he doesn't walk at all
And slugging will outweigh an average walk rate
Kila is simply way above average at taking a walk, and Hosmer appears pretty good so far
Um...
how is this responsive? I will repeat: against smart pitchers that have a major league job and know how to not get rolled by a hacker, how will he get a pitch to hit out of the park or two the wall? You have to take bad pitches to see good pitches in this game…
From Low A to Double A, Montero walked enough to add .050 to his OBP. This year it is .075 (a difference he had not had since rookie ball). That rate is roughly Jeff Francoeur territory, though not quite as bad as Yuni.
To be useful at such a demanding offensive position, he must put up a .300+ batting average with quite a bit of power. And as mentioned above, the walk rate can signal loss in batting average, as he will not get thrown anything to hit by a smart pitcher.
um...
You’re wrong on quite a few points.
1.) That is not how you figure walk rate.
Here is Jesus: http://www.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx?playerid=paJ07537&position=C/DH
Here is Francoeur: http://www.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx?playerid=4792&position=OF
Jesus has better walk rates and better K rates.
2.) Also, Montero has a much higher ISO rating, as well as wOBP which takes power into account with his OBP. Primer: http://www.insidethebook.com/woba.shtml
3.) And lets see if a 1B has to have over .300 batting average to be ‘usefull’
http://www.fangraphs.com/leaders.aspx?pos=1b&stats=bat&lg=all&qual=y&type=0&season=2010&month=0
Players below that threshold include Adrian Gonzalez, Adam Dunn, Prince Fielder, and Mark Texeira, not to mention several other players that are useful to their team.
I don’t think it’s likely (but it’s possible) Montero bats over .300 in the majors. His walk rate will not be excellent, but it won’t be horrible.
All of this is speculation.
Yes
I was being a bit lazy in the comparison. Montero’s walk rate is better than Francouer. However, it is still low for a 1B/DH. You could tolerate it if you were sure he could play the field.
And no, you do not have to be a .300 hitter in the MLB to be useful. I did not say that. But, if you do not do that, it is best to make up for it in other ways like having a really high ISO or walk rate. You have to get on base/drive in runs/extend innings somehow. The guys you cite as productive MLB 1B people under .300 walk about 12-15% of the time AND have an ISO above .220. The guys that walk under 10% and hit under .300: James Loney (barely), Jorge Cantu, Adam LaRoche, Garrett Jones, Lyle Overbay, Ty Wigginton, Mike Napoli. It is hardly a “who’s who” of hitters. Add the DH position, and you get Jose Guillen and Adam Lind.
So, to sum up, I think there is some serious risk with Jesus Montero, with three possible career paths where he could be productive: 1) if he sticks at catcher, then this discussion is moot (but nobody seems to defend this as particularly likely); 2) he learns to walk and play defense at 1B, making a really solid player (assuming to can teach plate discipline at this stage); or 3) he can light up the scoreboard without walking like Vlad Guerrero or Ryan Howard — good players that hit a ton, hit above .300, but cannot walk all that well.
I personally think, from the evidence, #3 is the most likely option. But none is guaranteed. And it is still equally possible that the inability to wait for good pitches will ultimately effect all the other numbers. Very few can hit bad pitches like Vlad Guerrero…
I see what you're saying now
And I agree, at 7-8% BB rate he will struggle. But we should remember that he is 20 years old. He could walk a bit more, and we’ll see if he does. However, I would agree that he may be more like Ryan Howard maintaining a low walk rate but doing well.
I don’t know if it’s significant, but his K rate is pretty low for a 1B and he has a high BABPIP, so perhaps he can produce at .300 or greater, walk 7% of the time, and maintain a high ISO.
There is certainly risk, but there is with any prospect.
Yes, this is true
It is why Moose is still a bust risk too. It is probably why right now he is struggling in AAA. We are not trading for Moose, or even for another 3B prospect.
Also, Moose has the benefit of actually having a defensive position that he has practiced and that people are at least divided on whether he will stay long term. Montero is not likely to stick at catcher, and has not spent anytime developing in either the infield or the outfield.
Also, when you write comments like those.....
it makes you seem not-very-smart.
It’d probably be best to ditch the CAPS LOCK phrases and tone down the confrontational language.
Clint Robinson and Eric Hosmer are both 1B/DH in the upper minors that could soon be MLB ready players. That’s 4 for two spots and I didn’t even name the inevitable over the hill national leaguers that Moore will sign in the off-season. Is Sean Casey available?
So was Alex Gordon, how's that working out?
You don’t pass on elite prospects for the price of one reliever (while also saving a lot on payroll…) just because you have one good prospect in AA and one fringe prospect there. You stockpile young talent while rebuilding and IF it becomes a problem later on, then you can make some moves. Not all prospects work out..so acting like we are already “set” at 1B and DH for the next five years is ridiculous.
Killing time until time kills me
boy, trading Soria for a Gordon clone would be a sweet deal
wouldn’t it
The only measure of true success in the NFL is the Vince Lombardi trophy. Anything less is a rationalization.
Yeah, because when people talk about Montero, they definitely reference Gordon every single time.
I mean, other than being very different players, they are pretty much the same.
Killing time until time kills me
gordon had every bit the hype Montero did
“elite prospect, can’t miss”, etc.
Well, he did miss.
The only measure of true success in the NFL is the Vince Lombardi trophy. Anything less is a rationalization.
Except for not skipping AA
And for being 23 when he hit the pros, whereas Montero is 20 right now and is raking in AAA lately. Not saying all prospects turn out well, but you can’t apply one to the other.
And Clint Robinson is fairly close to a non-prospect at this point unless he really kicks into gear now and later in AAA/KC.
"Strikeouts are boring! Besides that, they're fascist. Throw some ground balls - it's more democratic."
by MinnesotaRoyal on Jul 26, 2010 2:16 PM EDT up reply actions
I never said that Robinson was any kind of major leaguer
nor am I likely to
The only measure of true success in the NFL is the Vince Lombardi trophy. Anything less is a rationalization.
“Clint Robinson and Eric Hosmer are both 1B/DH in the upper minors that could soon be MLB ready players. "
"Strikeouts are boring! Besides that, they're fascist. Throw some ground balls - it's more democratic."
by MinnesotaRoyal on Jul 26, 2010 2:26 PM EDT up reply actions
was that my post?
I don’t think so
The only measure of true success in the NFL is the Vince Lombardi trophy. Anything less is a rationalization.
My bad
Don’t get so defensive, though. Chill.
"Strikeouts are boring! Besides that, they're fascist. Throw some ground balls - it's more democratic."
by MinnesotaRoyal on Jul 26, 2010 2:32 PM EDT up reply actions
So are you saying that the Royals
shouldn’t trade for any prospects? Since none of them are guaranteed?
"Now…put that in your [BLEEP]ing pipe and smoke it." -Hal McRae
"I was doing this when BJ was in his father's nutsack." -Renzo Gracie
by Sweep_the_Leg on Jul 26, 2010 2:23 PM EDT up reply actions
That's the Process
Wait til we see if they are good or not. Then, once they get old and sucky, make them an offer they can’t refuse. That way you can keep all the unproved prospects in the minors where they belong!
sure, I said that
absolutely.
No I didn’t say that. I do believe in trading with organizations that actually develop some pretty fair major leaguers within the last century
The only measure of true success in the NFL is the Vince Lombardi trophy. Anything less is a rationalization.
hughes and cano would be our 2nd and 3rd best players....
gardner would be right up there as well…not to mention the guys theyve traded….
Fire Everyone
by billybeingbilly on Jul 26, 2010 5:51 PM EDT up reply actions
this year's Hughes would be second
maybe. Assuming he got the same kind of support out of the Royals, which is doubtful. Other years….not so much. 3rd or 4th guy in the rotation at best.
Gardner? We already have guys who slap the ball around with no power in the outfield. We don’t need another one
The only measure of true success in the NFL is the Vince Lombardi trophy. Anything less is a rationalization.
You're right
We have tons of CFs with good defence, 11% walk rate, .368 wOBP, and will steal ~40 bases a year.
Butler, Ka'aihue, Hosmer, Moustakas, Clint Robinson
1B/DH is not a good place to stockpile talent. You do it for an elite level talent, but it’s less than ideal.
I would think Butler would be very marketable
Here is Denver, I know they would love a RH bat at 1st base—Butler for Ianetta and Jhoulys Chacin
Butler is a good, but not great hitter for a 1B. Kila is clearly a question mark and is already 26. Hosmer and Moose are still just prospects and far from a guarantee. Clint Robinson is a fringe prospect at best.
The only way this would become a problem is if we got incredibly fortunate and all of them “panned out” at the same time…which would be extremely rare…and if it happened, I’m sure we’d have no problem trading an elite hitting prospect for something else of value.
Killing time until time kills me
But what if instead of another 1B/DH type that we might not have room for on the MLB team, we could have an cheap, elite young player at another position. Like a pitcher or something.
I’m done arguing about this. I’d make the trade because I’m in favor of getting maximum talent in the system. But it would create a logjam at the low end of the defensive spectrum. And that would be a real downside of the move. I’d still do it, but I could imagine better deals.
by kcdc1 on Jul 26, 2010 2:03 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Well, if the Cubs offer us Starlin Castro for Soria tomorrow of course I'd take that, but I'm not going to pass on Montero for other hypothetical deals.
No, I don’t think Montero is the #1 player I’d trade for in all the minors, but for Joakim Soria…you don’t pass on an elite prospect like that, Clint Robinson/Hosmer or not.
Killing time until time kills me
and I disagree with the elite prospect
once he gets out of the Yankee system
The only measure of true success in the NFL is the Vince Lombardi trophy. Anything less is a rationalization.
One, he's in the Yankee system
that specializes in hype
secondly he really doesn’t have a position
The only measure of true success in the NFL is the Vince Lombardi trophy. Anything less is a rationalization.
no but their noise machine sure contributes to it
and this is not recent news
The only measure of true success in the NFL is the Vince Lombardi trophy. Anything less is a rationalization.
Right
All those independent talent evaluators. BA, BP, Sickels, Fangraphs etc have all been sold a crock.
sure, cause its not like they talk
to other people when they compile those list
Look the Alex Gordon deal should have wised us all up. A prospect is just that…a prospect. And with more of a chance to fail than succeed.
The only measure of true success in the NFL is the Vince Lombardi trophy. Anything less is a rationalization.
Its because
they fly around to see all the major MiLB talent multiple times per year. In fact, I don’t know where they find the time to write.
Does he have plus hands?
Ned likes Kendall in the 2-hole!
by mitchfreakingmaier! on Jul 26, 2010 4:24 PM EDT up reply actions
AND SO IS MONTERO
he doesn’t get us farther along at a position of need, he comes from an organization built on hype and blather. This is too risky of a deal
The only measure of true success in the NFL is the Vince Lombardi trophy. Anything less is a rationalization.
by sm7600 on Jul 26, 2010 2:05 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
I think this should be highlighted
Monetro is still a prospect.
Not sure that doesn’t mean we make this deal (if it’s real), but its worth noting he is not guranteed
what good is Soria doing us now?
exactly. the question is, can we get more than montero?
I think trading Soria is the right move
if we can get more than just Montero
by I need more Esteban on Jul 26, 2010 2:10 PM EDT up reply actions
understand, I don't disagree with trading Soria as a concept
I just want something ultimately useful
The only measure of true success in the NFL is the Vince Lombardi trophy. Anything less is a rationalization.
so it comes down to scouting
which none of us are.
and, when it comes to evaluating MLB talent
I’m reasonbly sure the Royals aren’t either
The only measure of true success in the NFL is the Vince Lombardi trophy. Anything less is a rationalization.
I think all the "every Yankee prospect is overrated" stuff is a load of crap.
Killing time until time kills me
then I guess we're even
apart from notable bursts of production, they generally don’t do much but fleece suckers
The only measure of true success in the NFL is the Vince Lombardi trophy. Anything less is a rationalization.
What does this sentence mean?
apart from notable bursts of production, they generally don’t do much but fleece suckers
So… they’re awful… except when they’re good…
I see… ?
no doubt the Yankees system of the early 90s produced some
fair playes (understating here…don’t jump me) at a level and in numbers that most teams would envy. they haven’t been close to that level of production since.
THAT is what I meant
The only measure of true success in the NFL is the Vince Lombardi trophy. Anything less is a rationalization.
Well I agree there could be some level of overrated-ness
But when people are saying your bat is unrivalled by anyone in the majors, that leads me to think there could be some hyperbole. However, that doesn’t mean he still wont be very good.
a ton of prospects are overrated...
the Yankees prospects just make a louder thud.
by Bart41 on Jul 26, 2010 2:21 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Montero not a catcher?
75 games at Catcher this year, 14 at DH. 13 Passed balls and a 23% CS rate (not much worse than Kendall, but better than Buck and Olivo were IIRC). 39 Career Passed Balls in 228 Career MiLB games caught and a 23% CS rate.
Doesn’t sound terrible to me if he’s a legitimate 30-40+ homer bat.
Mike Piazza couldn't handle it defensively
That’s why the Marlins shipped his sorry ass out of town.
Killing time until time kills me
Exactly what I was thinking.
Though his MiLB numbers for fielding weren’t available, so I couldn’t compare.
The Yankees need to just realize that the way to get Soria is to make this
a three team deal with the Mets and then make sure DM gets his FRANCOUER… that is how trades are done with jackass DM
Todd Haley's kids know more swear words than I do.
by kcisbetterthanstlateverything on Jul 26, 2010 3:22 PM EDT reply actions
Like it was mentioned above..
This is an ongoing negotiation, and the article was vague on details. Montero may have been off the board when NYY inquired on Soria before. Now maybe NY came back with “well we’ll cave in and make Montero avail, Montero for Soria straight up.” Then KC could have said “not interested,” and then the story gets reported as “KC not interested in Montero!”
I personally think that KC wants Montero + for Soria. If they can get that then I would for sure do it. Between now and Saturday that could be expanded and be Soria + Guillen + some $ for Guillen, for Montero + a couple pitching prospects. But if Moore wants Montero, at least the Yanks have given in a little by making him avail.
I've seen this Soria + Guillen to the Yanks proposal
multiple times on RR, and I REALLY fail to see how adding Guillen to the equation helps the Royals. The Yankees already have a better Guillen on their bench (his name is Marcus Thames). Why would NY want Guillen at all? Does it make any sense to have TWO no-defense, corner OF/DH RH bats on your bench?
"Now…put that in your [BLEEP]ing pipe and smoke it." -Hal McRae
"I was doing this when BJ was in his father's nutsack." -Renzo Gracie
by Sweep_the_Leg on Jul 26, 2010 4:36 PM EDT up reply actions
Heyman just said on Path to the Trade Deadline the Yanks might have offered the same package as they did for Cliff Lee
If true and GMDM passed then someone needs to track him down in KC and take him out
Checkout Royals minor league notes at www.14for77.blogspot.com
Is everyone still feeding off the Stark report?
Or does Heyman have his own sources?
For all we know, Heyman may have just made a random educated guess that goes along with that report.
And I really don’t see any reason DM should be in a hurry to move Soria. What other closer of Soria’s caliber is on the market? With the same type of contract?
Heyman was actually the first to report this I believe, Stark mentioned it this morning in his blog
Checkout Royals minor league notes at www.14for77.blogspot.com
Don't the Royals have a bunch of budding closers in the minors?
Blaine Hardy, Louis Coleman, or any of the starters who might convert to reliever? By the time the Royals need a closer (i.e. contend), there will be some to step up.
Um...
Now we are reaching the land of the absurd. Several possibilities: 1) these rumors are total bullshit 2) nobody wants the Yankees prospects because they are not good/high risk or 3) Cashman broke the rules of the GM club by sodomizing someone’s mother.
You can draw your own conclusions.
Wasn't one of the keys to the Kendall signing that he would be a tutor to our young catchers
Couldn’t he supposedly teach Montero some things, I know that was a line of BS but GMDM used it.
Checkout Royals minor league notes at www.14for77.blogspot.com
Not going to happen how would GMDM fit Frenchy on the roster if he has to add
Montero.
Soria is useful to a 65-97 team
Checkout Royals minor league notes at www.14for77.blogspot.com
Here's hoping DM's guys run us into 100 losses this year.
If we’re not competing we might as well tank.
There are a 100 reasons
Why we need a new GM, but this is one that is obvious. Dayton will be afraid of another Leo Nunez/Jacobs trade. He should trade Soria for several pieces. No way do I see Soria going for anyone straight up. While this could be a good thing, it could also be bad
NY Times reports
The Yankees have been linked to Kansas City closer Joakim Soria, but they have not made an offer
Link
according to that, the Yanks haven’t made an offer.
Looking at
Montero’s overall line this season doesn’t do him justice. He took 2 months to get adjusted to AAA, which is completely fair for a guy who was only given 180 ABs in high-A and 167 ABs in AA. The Yankees would have liked to give him more time in high-A, but they had to separate him and Romine so the two of them can catch everyday and improve defensively. Not to mention that he is just 20 years old in a league of 24+ year olds, while focusing more on his defense than his offense.
On June 10th, he was hitting .216 (40 for 185) with 3 homers, 10 doubles, and a 21/37 BB/K ratio. Since that date, he is hitting .368 (46 for 125) with 7 homers, 11 doubles, and a 16/21 BB/K ratio.
Reports have come out that the Yankees did not offer him for Soria. Would anybody trade a potential Miggy bat (even if he has to DH) for any reliever in baseball? I don’t think so. It would be absurd to think that the Yanks would deal him for a reliever, and it would be even more crazy to think that the Royals wouldn’t be interested.
its entirely possible the yanks did offer him....
they have Teixeira for the next 7 or so years to play 1st and Arod and Jeter are going to need more and more days at DH. I dont see the yanks committing to a full time DH anytime soon.
Fire Everyone
by billybeingbilly on Jul 27, 2010 4:42 PM EDT up reply actions
I agree
It isn’t unlikely that the Yanks would consider trading him, but I just feel they would not consider it for a reliever. I mean, they offered him up for Cliff Lee, now they are going to off him up for somebody that is going to be their 8th inning guy? Not likely IMO, and it is even less likely that the Royals wouldn’t be interested.
Soria has a no-trade list that includes NYY
so he would have to accept any deal
Right
But the rumor which came from Stark (first red flag) was that the Yanks offered Montero and the Royals weren’t interested, not that Soria wasn’t interested.
the NY post article said they hadn't made an offer for Soria yet
R.I.P. cwhitman412, Frederick0220, & Mets2k9
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
