GatewayRedbirds.com

if we r trying to win this year we can not give up craig. . . That being said king felix with birds on the bat m his chest sure is a nice dream

haltz wrote:

FallenFromGrace wrote:It's laughable that you guys think you can possible get Felix Hernandez for Allen Craig. There is.a laundry list of reasons why this is crazy. Heck, I'm not sure if Craig nets you James Shields much less Felix Hernandez. My guess Seattle would ask for Craig AND at least two of the Cards big four prospects plus a couple of low level prospects for Felix. Allen Craig for Felix Hernandez gets you laugh at before the Seattle GM slams the phone.

You trade contracts, not players. How much surplus value does Hernandez have beyond 2y/$40m?

Just to add in to what haltz said, this isn't fantasy baseball. Craig is cost controlled and is a pure hitter. Right now Seattle is marching Justin Smoak out to 1b every day, and he's about the worst hitter in baseball. I don't think Craig alone can get it done, but Craig + Miller would be tempting for Seattle. They get to save nearly $40 mil over 2 years while netting a good hitter and a potential front line starter, both young and cost controlled.

And they give up one of the best starters in baseball.

Vidor wrote:And they give up one of the best starters in baseball.

I don't think the M's are going to be making a run over the next 2 years. They don't need him.

So should they just cut him?

The contract is important, but the value relationship is not linear. There are maybe 5 other guys at Felix's level, and he's at least 2 years younger than all of them. Craig is a nice bat, but he's positionless, injury prone, and his MLB numbers are inflated a bit due to platoon advantages. I'm not saying that Craig + Miller is a laughable package, depending on how a team values each that might be exactly right. But when you're trading for perhaps the rarest commodity in the game, the value proposition is not the simple math that it would seem. Plus, if anything, this deadline has seen a pretty sizeable shift towards guys netting more/better prospects in trade than in recent years.

He's also being paid like one. A $25m house with a $20m mortgage is worth $5m, to borrow an analogy from tango. Allen Craig rakes and you pay him nothing. A $10-15m house that you own outright, for at least a couple of years.

Transmogrified Tiger wrote:The contract is important, but the value relationship is not linear.

It's nice to have that many wins coming from one roster spot but that is mitigated by the risk of $20m tied up in a fragile asset. Everything I've seen suggests that it is pretty linear.

Well he's still providing 20+ mil of surplus value over those two years, without considering excess value of getting that much production from one spot.

But really, it's two separate arguments. If they're unwilling to go beyond that break-even point to acquire Felix, then that's not an irrational decision. In the same way, odds are Seattle would be choosing from offers that are willing to go beyond that point, so there shouldn't be any expectation that Felix could be had for that break-even price(much like free agency).

haltz wrote:

Transmogrified Tiger wrote:The contract is important, but the value relationship is not linear.

It's nice to have that many wins coming from one roster spot but that is mitigated by the risk of $20m tied up in a fragile asset. Everything I've seen suggests that it is pretty linear.

So what in your opinion is a fair trade for Felix? What would you dangle in front of the M's if you were Mo?

jim wrote:

haltz wrote:

Transmogrified Tiger wrote:The contract is important, but the value relationship is not linear.

It's nice to have that many wins coming from one roster spot but that is mitigated by the risk of $20m tied up in a fragile asset. Everything I've seen suggests that it is pretty linear.

So what in your opinion is a fair trade for Felix? What would you dangle in front of the M's if you were Mo?

Fair is so tough to define though. As the article you posted last night addressed, you can't judge a trade the day it was made.

Will Miller go on to be a #1 front end starter that it appeared he was destined to be? If so, even if he is slightly inferior to Hernandez in performance, Miller alone with all 6 cost controlled years would be a great deal and fair for the M's especially since what they'd be losing, a true ace, isn't really needed this year or next for them....the opportunity cost for them is selling less tickets on days he starts for a year and a half. And, really, you've got to think it would be fair to the Cardinals since they are perpetually in a win now mode and getting one of the best pitchers in the game w/o having to sign him to a contract that would be bad for the club. The opportunity cost for the Cardinals is losing a top tier prospect but had they gone the other route, it would have been diminished chances at a WS championship for two year....

But, let's be real, no way in sam hell miller for Hernandez happens straight up because of the uncertainty of Miller. If I was going to say what would a fair trade be, however, for both sides, I've got to think that is it though it's unrealistic.