What would an Archer blockbuster cost ? Aka Thanks for Nothing DBacks

[jimbobim]

Ken Rosenthal ‏@Ken_Rosenthal 15m15 minutes ago
#Rays line up with teams that need pitchers and can offer hitters. #Cubs, #Rockies qualify, among others.

The Rays have an abundance of controlled pitching which is at it's highest cost now as evidenced by this offseason. The most valuable of their collection and maybe the most valuable pitching asset in baseball in Chris Archer.

Dave Cameron at FG went through a Archer to LA proposal.
Obviously, Archer would cost a ton. Over the summer, I rated him as the 10th most valuable trade asset in baseball, ranking one spot behind Andrew McCutchen. He’s a top-tier pitcher signed to an absurdly team-friendly contract, as he’s guaranteed just $23 million over the next four years, or just $38 million over the next six seasons assuming the two team options are picked up.

Besides Chris Sale, Archer should cost more than any other pitcher in baseball to acquire, and the Dodgers should be prepared to pay an even higher price to extract him from Tampa Bay than what it might cost to get Fernandez from the Marlins.

And yes, that means putting Corey Seager on the table. When I worked through a potential Dodgers-Marlins trade for Fernandez nine days ago, I noted that Seager was worth more than Fernandez by himself, but that’s probably not true of Archer. For the trade value list this summer, Dan Szymborski provided five year ZIPS forecasts for all the guys on the list, Seager and Archer included. Archer’s five year WAR projection put him at +20.9, while Seager projected for +20.3 WAR over the next five years. Both players are actually under team control for six years, and Seager is more likely to be a valuable contributor in 2021 than Archer is, but the expected production during the next half-dozen years should be similar.

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/proposing-a-dodgers-trade-for-chris-archer/

The price to trade for 6 years of prime Archer to a division rival would necessarily be astronomical. The Shelby Miller deal makes the market price even worse.

Cameron's proposal was commented upon by in one of Keith Law's chats and he found it to be very light. Theo certainly is going to find out if there's some type of package of Cubs to get Archer but they likely won't do such a deal due to the steadying presence/less of an obvious need due to Arrieta and Lester.

IMHO Sox would be competitive with most offers if they built a package around Devers one of Swihart/Moncada/ Benintendi , Travis and Holt is always useful. Two valuable up the middle MLB pieces in Holt and Swihart for a TB lineup in desperate need of young controllable bats. Devers and Travis both a year or so away. I'm picking Moncada and Benintendi as prefer to keep over the very valuable Swihart and Devers. The rotation for the next 3 years is 1) Price 2) Archer 3) Rodriguez 4) Porcello 5) Buch Buch/injury depth- Kelly ,Owens, Johnson , Wright

Curious to see what packages people would consider offering the Rays. Archer for comparison a much better bet and longer control in comparison to Jose Fernandez.

Edit- another potential bonus to consider is Archer's presence would , one would hope, provide a backstop if/when Price opts out.

 

[Red(s)HawksFan]

The Red Sox price for Archer will be higher than pretty much every team outside the AL East. Prohibitively so. It is folly to think it is even a possibility.

 

[The Price Is Wrong]

True, but that doesn't exclude the possibility of cutting a provisional deal with a third team, who would, if they're able to acquire Archer, promptly send him to us for an agreed-upon package. I've long assumed that a sizable fraction of 3-team deals are actually similar arrangements behind the scenes, simply because the incidence of them is too high (you'd expect that with 30 teams, the odds that 3 teams' surpluses and shortfalls all mutually align shouldn't be much higher than 1/28th of the frequency that 2 teams' interests do).

Is Swihart's stock so low, or Moncada's and Benintendi's so high, that they deserve to be grouped together in trade value? I would have thought the latter two were still viewed as a lottery ticket, what with only one year in the (MLB) pro system, whereas Swihart has 5, including a 90 OPS+ as a ML rookie catcher. Leaving Archer aside, are they really viewed as comparably valuable?

 

[Mighty Joe Young]

True, but that doesn't exclude the possibility of cutting a provisional deal with a third team, who would, if they're able to acquire Archer, promptly send him to us for an agreed-upon package. I've long assumed that a sizable fraction of 3-team deals are actually similar arrangements behind the scenes, simply because the incidence of them is too high (you'd expect that with 30 teams, the odds that 3 teams' surpluses and shortfalls all mutually align shouldn't be much higher than 1/28th of the frequency that 2 teams' interests do).

Is Swihart's stock so low, or Moncada's and Benintendi's so high, that they deserve to be grouped together in trade value? I would have thought the latter two were still viewed as a lottery ticket, what with only one year in the (MLB) pro system, whereas Swihart has 5, including a 90 OPS+ as a ML rookie catcher. Leaving Archer aside, are they really viewed as comparably valuable?

I don't think the Red Sox paid $50 million for a lottery ticket.

 

[The Price Is Wrong]

I don't think the Red Sox paid $50 million for a lottery ticket.

True, but as of 12 months ago, we also valued him more highly than all other teams did. Regardless, what fraction of A-ball prospects have a productive ML career? What fraction of those with a ML rookie year like Swihart's do? I'm just having a hard time equating the two.

I can start to answer the first rhetorical question, though. There's a list of South Atlantic League MVPs. Taking the 32 of them from 1981 through 2013, I went through and categorized them by career outcome.

Flameout (6, 18%). Never rose much beyond that, out of baseball not long after.
High Minors (8, 24%). Had a career in AA, AAA, and the Independent leagues. Never added to the 25-man of a MLB team.
Cup of Coffee (9, 27%). Small bits of MLB seasons, periodically; never stuck on the roster. Total WAR for this group: -3.2.
ML Bencher (5, 15%). Had a career as an MLB backup. Includes Ruben Rivera, Russ Branyan, Brandon Moss*, Eugenio Velez, and Jordan Pacheco. Total WAR for this group: 17.0.
ML Average-plus (2, 6%). Sustained MLB starter, with maybe an all-star year or two in the mix. Includes Kevin Seitzer, a serviceable 3B from 1986-1997, and Marcus Giles. Total WAR for this group: 45.4
ML All-Star (2, 6%). Consistently top quintile of the league. Includes Andruw Jones (62.8, HOF contender), and also J.D. Martinez (7.8 so far), whose age 26 and 27 seasons at 154 and 140 OPS+ suggest this path fits him best.

So, even among the SAL players-of-the-year that now includes Moncada, that still only suggests a ~12% chance of a strong ROI, plus 15% of some recovered value in ML production. Certainly, those outcomes beat the hell out of those for the average A-ball player. But they still shouldn't translate to being an instant top trading chip for MLB talent. Moncada is still far more likely to be a never-were than an Andruw Jones (at a cost of $63M to John Henry).

I'd be interested in looking at the same thing for other minor-league MVPs, though time doesn't permit it for me right now.

* Moss did have a solid 3-year run in Oakland, 2012-2014, including being an all-star in 2013. But he has had partial, if not tiny fractions, of seasons before and since, and has only 4.9 career bWAR in 9 ML seasons. He's a bencher to me.

 

[Hank Scorpio]

I'd have a hard time giving up more than one of those four players, but would probably do two of them if one of them is Devers, who I value somewhat lower than the other three.

I voted Benintendi, mostly on a whim as I think he has a higher ceiling than Swihart, and a higher floor than Moncada (or he's more polished at least). But the three of them are all pretty close in value in my eyes. Swihart would be a bit lower if I had assurances on Vazquez being fully recovered and ready to play MLB games.

 

[Rasputin]

I have a hard time believing there's any Sox trade for Archer that makes any sense.

The Sox aren't in a bad spot with their starting pitching. The top guy is fine. The depth is fine. You'd like more confidence in the second and third guys but literally every guy in the rotation who isn't counted on to be #1 has some reasonable chance to pitch like a two or three.

Archer would certainly be an improvement but getting him would require giving up a lot at a time when the strength of the system is several years away. I don't think that's wise or necessary.

 

[JimBoSox9]

I don't think the Red Sox paid $50 million for a lottery ticket.

Well, think in one hand and shit in the other, and see which fills up first. I dunno a better way to describe a teenager who hadn't played a season on US soil. It's a nice set of numbers, but it's a lottery ticket.

 

[JimBoSox9]

P.S. the Sox are not, I repeat ARE NOT, trading for Chris Archer.

 

[Mighty Joe Young]

Well, think in one hand and shit in the other, and see which fills up first. I dunno a better way to describe a teenager who hadn't played a season on US soil. It's a nice set of numbers, but it's a lottery ticket.

Perhaps its just semantics. But, to me a "lottery ticket" is an A Ball (or lower) toolsy athlete who has the athleticism and makeup to possibly develop further. On the other hand Moncada is probably a top 10 prospect in all of baseball - which is decidedly not the description of a lottery ticket. Virtually all MLB players played A ball at one time or another. How many of them were considered lottery tickets at the time?

But whatever floats your boat.

 

[smastroyin]

The problem with Archer is a very similar problem to Sale. He is young and cost controlled enough to still be on the team as it rebuilds, so all the scenarios of "they are going to be terrible so they may as well get five quarters for his dollar and hope a couple of the quarters appreciates" doesn't quite fly.

On the other hand, there is an issue with Archer which may make Tampa more willing to trade him. That is if he is currently overvalued because you don't expect him to be a guy with a near 11 K/9 and near 4 K/BB going forward. He was still very good before this year and he is at an age that that could be real improvement, but it's not necessarily an established performance level, in fact his 2014 was already better than his previous record would indicate (or perhaps it is better to say his 2014 looks near the top of expectations based on previous record), and his 2015 looks like an outlier compared to his previous record including 2014. Not that he didn't project as a solid starter before, but he never projected as a top of the rotation guy, even when he was (I guess) the centerpiece of the Garza deal. The hope was he could become Garza, not Felix. So, if you have even a single team willing to trade with you as if he were the next Felix, you might want to jump on it now rather than gamble on him regressing to previously established levels.

to answer the question, I think someone will offer a Kimbrel like deal but replacing the Guerra lottery ticket with a more established prospect (like Seager) or MLB player (like Betts). Pretty sure that one of the guys on this list plus a bunch of detritus is not going to get it done.

 

[JimD]

If the Rays are smart, they hold out for Corey Seager or a similar ML-ready player. I don't see what the Red Sox could offer short of Xander or Mookie to even get Tampa to return their phone calls.

 

[moondog80]

If the Rays are smart, they hold out for Corey Seager or a similar ML-ready player. I don't see what the Red Sox could offer short of Xander or Mookie to even get Tampa to return their phone calls.

I'm pretty sure Swihart/Devers would get them to return their calls.

 

[ALiveH]

I only really consider Swihart untouchable because he's actually proven something at the MLB level and is expected to contribute this year / will create a hole if he's traded.

 

[PapaSox]

I don't see the Sox making this trade. Trading guys like Holt, Travis and/or Swihart only create holes among the positional players on the MLB roster. Trading ML players doesn't seem to offer TB enough to make it worthwhile giving up Archer. A three team deal would not work as everyone involved would want Archer to be their prize. They certainly would not replace Archer for Moncada's contract. It sounds like a bad idea looking for a home.

 

[Sampo Gida]

I'd trade Moncada and Swihart in a heartbeat for Archer but I can't for the life of me imagine the Rays trading him to an AL East rival, and suspect they would want more than this (maybe Owens too).

 

[Papelbon's Poutine]

If you're willing to go Moncada and Swihart, how the hell is Owens holding you up? That's like saying you'd pay $1M for something but not $1.05m.

 

[E5 Yaz]

I'd trade Moncada and Swihart in a heartbeat for Archer ...

I stopped reading at this point.

Those are probably the two most valuable non-pitching young assets in the system, and you'd package them for a starting pitcher?

Besides which, Smas's point about Archer being cost-controlled for Tampa Bay really is the key.

Cot's: 16:$2.75M, 17:$4.75M, 18:$6.25M, 19:$7.5M, 20:$9M club option ($1.75M buyout), 21:$11M club option ($0.25M buyout)

They have no reason to let go of that contract

 

[Tyrone Biggums]

In the poll I chose Moncada. The reasons are fairly obvious. Plays a premium position has about a 60 power 60 speed and is the only one in the system that in my opinion has clear superstar tools.

Would I trade him for Archer? That would all depend on how you project Archer. It's not unreasonable to ask. Archer is young cost controlled but the track record outside of last season is lacking. There are players I would deal Moncada for but that list is very small. Probably 3 players max. The rotation is pretty solid right now so I don't see the need. Price, Buchholz, EdRo, Kelly and Porcello have potential to be above average. If one of the two in the Pablo Hanley class rebounds then this becomes a dangerous team in the division. Once you get to the playoffs anything can happen.

 

[moondog80]

I stopped reading at this point.

Those are probably the two most valuable non-pitching young assets in the system, and you'd package them for a starting pitcher?

Besides which, Smas's point about Archer being cost-controlled for Tampa Bay really is the key.

Cot's: 16:$2.75M, 17:$4.75M, 18:$6.25M, 19:$7.5M, 20:$9M club option ($1.75M buyout), 21:$11M club option ($0.25M buyout)

They have no reason to let go of that contract

So your reaction is that both teams are giving up too much?

 

[FinanceAdvice]

Since we're not in Kansas anymore, why not consider a trade for Sonny Gray?
Age ERA+ FIP K/9 BB/9 WHIP HR/9
Archer 27 115 3.36 9.0 3.0 1.18 .8
Gray 26 134 3.36 7.7 2.8 1.13 ,7

I'm still concerned about the rotation. Price, although Pricey, is a huge addition. Buchholz is projected at 120 IP, Hopefully as Jim Leyland says "He (Porcello) will win a lot of games for you." But how well will he rebound from disastrous first year? Similarly, How well will Kelly rebound? There are positive signs for both based on last weeks of '15.. Then we have ERod, While I consider him a steal from the O's and a future ace-like No. 2 starter, he's only has 120 IP and how well will he adjust when hitters adjust to him?

Ultimately, I think we prosper or struggle with rotation as is and in the meantime groom a farm system with pitchers the likes of what Oakland has. Develop the likes of Anderson Espinoza, Kopech, Bell, Owens, Johnson, et.al

 

[Darnell's Son]

Trading for Sonny Gray might be one of the worst things the Sox could realistically do. I have no idea what Oakland would want, but it would be a hell of a lot more than what the DBacks gave up for Miller. Furthermore, our first and third baseman are question marks, as is our center fielder and right fielder. I varying levels of confidence in them all, but there's a non-zero chance all four of them are not good at baseball next year. Which means we just traded the farm for a pitcher and we have holes all over our lineup.

Oh, and .com had an article about Sonny Gray's value in a trade, and there's a compelling case made that he may not be as good as some think.

 

[Minneapolis Millers]

Since we're not in Kansas anymore, why not consider a trade for Sonny Gray?

Because
1. This is a thread about Chris Archer
2. Beane has said repeatedly and directly that he's not trading Sonny Gray
3. Gray's peripherals are not as good as his ERA has been and suggest that he's a merely good not great pitcher
4. We've already talked about Gray in probably 4 other threads this offseason

That's why. And I'm one of the ones who was beating the why-not-trade-for-Gray drum back in October/November.

 

[FinanceAdvice]

And I'm one of the ones who was beating the why-not-trade-for-Gray drum back in October/November.

Fair enough. And you're point about a thread on Archer is well taken. FWIW I also wanted a trade for Gray back in Fall. I hesitated to include the trade for Gray but only added as a point that the Sox are not trading for either one. I rest my case on the belief that for good or bad we enter the season, with Price, Buchholz, Porcello, ERod and Kelly. And we still scour the universe for elite pitchers, develop them in the farm system with the likes of Espinoza and Kopech.

 

[E5 Yaz]

So your reaction is that both teams are giving up too much?

Reading is fundamental.

The Red Sox would be giving up too much.

There's no incentive for the Rays to trade Archer.

 

[Red(s)HawksFan]

Hopefully as Jim Leyland says "He (Porcello) will win a lot of games for you." But how well will he rebound from disastrous first year?

While May/June/July were ugly and made his overall numbers bad, Porcello returned from his DL stint in August to make 8 starts, averaging over 7 innings per with an ERA of 3.14. Outside of Price, Porcello is the one guy on the staff I'm not worried about at all.

 

[johnnywayback]

Our rotation, most likely, is plenty good enough to keep us in contention. Of course, if Buchholz is hurt, Porcello's 2nd half was a mirage, Rodriguez hits a wall, and none of our depth options (Kelly/Owens/Elias/Johnson) are any good, the team won't contend. But in that case, we're screwed regardless of whether we trade for an Archer.

I could absolutely see a scenario in which we get to July in contention but, while the rotation has been good enough given our outstanding offense and bullpen, nobody seems like the guy we'd want starting the second game of a playoff series. That's when you trade for Andrew Cashner or John Danks or whoever's being shopped at a reasonable price.

Of course it would be fun to cash in all of our available prospect depth for a young ace and make the rotation a strength, too. But assuming that Porcello rebounds to be a mid-level guy, Rodriguez continues to improve, and Owens continues to develop, our rotation is going to continue to be "good enough" for a few years to come. Meanwhile, a gaping hole will have opened up in the middle of our lineup with Ortiz retiring, and I think we'd be pretty sorry if we spent the prospect capital on an upgrade we didn't necessarily need rather than to fill a hole we'll definitely have.

Ask yourself this: If we have one of these threads a year from now, who's it more likely to be about: Chris Archer or Paul Goldschmidt? Sonny Gray or Freddie Freeman?

 

[Snodgrass'Muff]

There's a good breakdown of the 2016 Sox roster at fangraphs: http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/investigating-steamers-optimism-for-the-red-sox/

Conclusion? Rotation should be above average, bullpen should be excellent, leaving them with a very good overall pitching staff and an expectation to contend for the division.

 

[smastroyin]

I do think that entertaining thoughts of this trade is venturing into a zone of danger.

 

[Rasputin]

I do think that entertaining thoughts of this trade is venturing into a zone of danger.

I appreciate your phrasing of this matter.

Ask yourself this: If we have one of these threads a year from now, who's it more likely to be about: Chris Archer or Paul Goldschmidt? Sonny Gray or Freddie Freeman?

My guess would be Goldschmidt. All it takes for us to have a gaping hole at first in 2017 is for Sam Travis to stall in AAA and for Travis Shaw to prove he's not really a major league guy. And even if Sam Travis doesn't stall, it's not like he's a stud.

 

[FinanceAdvice]

While May/June/July were ugly and made his overall numbers bad, Porcello returned from his DL stint in August to make 8 starts, averaging over 7 innings per with an ERA of 3.14. Outside of Price, Porcello is the one guy on the staff I'm not worried about at all.

I believe the article I read went on to say that Porcello would become and maintain a No. 2 starter, replacing Buchholz' regression. I think its likely.

 

[koufax37]

True, but as of 12 months ago, we also valued him more highly than all other teams did. Regardless, what fraction of A-ball prospects have a productive ML career? What fraction of those with a ML rookie year like Swihart's do? I'm just having a hard time equating the two.

I can start to answer the first rhetorical question, though. There's a list of South Atlantic League MVPs. Taking the 32 of them from 1981 through 2013, I went through and categorized them by career outcome.

Very interesting summary, but with 32 of them spread over 32 years of a changing player development landscape, I don't think that they are likely to be predictive. I would also be curious about relative age/experience in that group, since it is an age where polish will likely lead to player of the year, and being a year or 100 games further along makes a big difference.

Your initial point about valuing an A-Ball player as highly as someone who has performed in the Major Leagues is still reasonable and worth consideration, but I think each is based on projections, and we are not valuing Swihart for what he did in 309 ML PAs but what we think that could mean about a different player he becomes. And while we gain some more certainty about his floor, and know that he of the two is clearly able to hit major league pitching, we also gain some more certainty about his ceiling, and know he of the two is very unlikely to hit 35 HRs. So while Swihart's actual development is more valuable than Moncada's potential development, we are still evaluating a projection of a future player each might be, and you can make a case that Moncada is as valuable.

Back to the initial subject matter, I'm open to all sorts of trade exploration and discussions until you find one that helps the club, but I remain highly dubious there exists any Archer deal that the Rays would make that would also benefit our ballclub when the dust settles, so I think it is a relative waste of time and isn't going to happen.