Jump to content
tigernut

Now tell me we shouldn`t trade Turner

Recommended Posts

Are the pro-Turner folks saying that if Cole Hamels or Zach Greinke were offered up and Turner needed to be apart of that package that you wouldn't do it? I would in a flash for Hamels and if I could be gauranteed that Greinke would stay here long-term, Turner would be packing bags for that deal too.

I'm not sure how much of a "pro-Turner" guy I am. I am, in general, not in favor of trading top prospects for a couple of months of a player. By top prospects I mean guys that have a reachable ceiling of an average or better starting player or pitcher. I think Turner and Castellanos have that reachable ceiling. Bruce Rondon is a reliever, which I think is fundamentally less valuable than a starting pitcher or everyday player. There is almost no relief prospect I wouldn't trade for a 3 month rental of a top player like Hamels/Greinke, including Rondon.

Brantly is on the borderline. I'm not clear he has a reasonably reachable ceiling of an average starter. There is no other player in the Tigers minor league system that I would hesitate to trade for a Hamels/Greinke (or any other big time player) rental.

FWIW, if it was me, and I was trying to trade at this point, I would be after corner OF/DH, not SP. Depending on Boesch/Young/Berry to hit the rest of the year is a high risk approach. It might work, but I don't think any of the 3 will even manage below average or better major league performance over the next 2-3 years.

Rob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
FanDuel Michigan Sports Betting

FanDuel Michigan $100 Launch Offer

Michigan online sports betting is launching shortly ( December 2020 or January 2021). Pre-register at FanDuel Sportsbook and get $50 free sports bets + $50 free online casino bets with no deposit necessary. Claim $100 at FanDuel Michigan Now

I don't like rentals, but Hamels would be tempting. We would be incredibly hard to beat with Hamels added to our rotation and a WS is what we are really after in the end.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DKnobler ‏@DKnobler

Scout who saw Porcello for Tigers Saturday said it's the best he has looked since his rookie year.

Same scout after watching Turner for Tigers Sunday: "They should not trade him."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't like rentals, but Hamels would be tempting. We would be incredibly hard to beat with Hamels added to our rotation and a WS is what we are really after in the end.

There is precious little evidence that shows that good rotations = WS wins. Look no further than the Atlanta Braves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DKnobler ‏@DKnobler

Scout who saw Porcello for Tigers Saturday said it's the best he has looked since his rookie year.

Same scout after watching Turner for Tigers Sunday: "They should not trade him."

I suppose anyone can be traded, but he is back to being an unfinished project right now and both sides in a trade could only guess about ultimate value. Situation probably not optimal for a successful trade.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2010 San Francisco Giants?

2001 Arizona Diamondbacks?

2004 Red Sox?

2007 Red Sox?

Only 1 championship given out a year and rotations don't exist in a vacuum. A team with a good rotation losing more than likely lost to another team with a good rotation.

Conceding that the post-season is a bit of a crapshoot, it is still more likely for a team with a good rotation to beat a team with a bad rotation all else being equal. In theory it's nice to talk about the randomness of the game, but when put in the situation I'd rather have a Cliff Lee on the mound than a Joe Blanton. If the team is dead set on a "win now" mode, of course you'd do what you can to maximize the chances of that happening. There is no "win now, guaranteed!" mode unless you're Rasheed. I kinda feel you're doing a bit of arguing the point for the sake of arguing.

Look at the last 2 decades of world series winners and you'll have a hard time finding many teams that had average to below average rotations. The best rotation doesn't = a world series victory, but the better the rotation the better the chances.

That said, I'm not in a "win now" mode. At least not at all costs. Unless we could get Hamels along with an extension I wouldn't trade Turner. I wouldn't trade him for Garza even if straight up. I don't think as highly of Garza as some other people and think the cost of Turner+ Garza's contract is greater than the cost of keeping Turner and rolling with what we've got.

I like our rotation for the post-season. It isn't the best but it's pretty good. Our bullpen is good too, or at least something I'm happy enough with. If any trades were made to make us a "win now" team, the only positions I think that really, REALLY improve our chances is a corner outfielder and a SS/2B. I like what QB has been doing for us this year but I'm more confident with him coming off the bench as a runner and having Dirks + a bigger bat / better glove flanking the other side of Jackson.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, if you're focused on the post-season, we should absolutely be looking for hitters, not pitchers.

Rob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Tigers have an above average rotation.

Teams with below average rotations don't win the World Series that often because teams with below average rotations are not very good and not very good teams rarely make the postseason.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2010 San Francisco Giants?

2001 Arizona Diamondbacks?

2004 Red Sox?

2007 Red Sox?

Only 1 championship given out a year and rotations don't exist in a vacuum. A team with a good rotation losing more than likely lost to another team with a good rotation.

Any team in the play-offs is more than likely to have a good rotation. I think having a good rotation isn't as much a differentiator in the post-season as many commentators suggest.

Conceding that the post-season is a bit of a crapshoot, it is still more likely for a team with a good rotation to beat a team with a bad rotation all else being equal.

Sure, but one could say the same thing about hitting, fielding or defense as well.

In theory it's nice to talk about the randomness of the game, but when put in the situation I'd rather have a Cliff Lee on the mound than a Joe Blanton.

Sure, but:

a. Lee can certainly crap the bed,

b. Blanton can certainly turn in a good performance, and

c. I don't know as that the choice is between Lee and Blanton

If the team is dead set on a "win now" mode, of course you'd do what you can to maximize the chances of that happening. There is no "win now, guaranteed!" mode unless you're Rasheed. I kinda feel you're doing a bit of arguing the point for the sake of arguing.

Don't know why you feel that way, but I'm not. I don't think I've been pedantic or argumentative in this thread.

8 teams make the play-offs. In a true crap shoot environment each team would have a 12.5% chance of winning it all. I think in a typical year most of the teams that get in have a 10 - 15% shot with maybe one poor team having something like a 5% shot and a dominant team might have as high as a 20% shot.

In any event, I struggle with the idea that adding an ace increases this number more than 5%, and suspect the number is closer to 2% or something. I don't know GM's ever truly adopt the 'Win Now' philosophy fully, because the marginal improvement to chances tend to be small, and at some point one has to strike a balance between current performance and future performance.

I would say, in summary, I think making a move with the aim to get into the play-offs has a much bigger pay-off in terms of deriving a benefit than making a move to increase a team's chances in the play-offs.

Look at the last 2 decades of world series winners and you'll have a hard time finding many teams that had average to below average rotations. The best rotation doesn't = a world series victory, but the better the rotation the better the chances.

Sure, but one could say the same thing about hitting, fielding or defense as well.

That said, I'm not in a "win now" mode. At least not at all costs. Unless we could get Hamels along with an extension I wouldn't trade Turner. I wouldn't trade him for Garza even if straight up. I don't think as highly of Garza as some other people and think the cost of Turner+ Garza's contract is greater than the cost of keeping Turner and rolling with what we've got.

I like our rotation for the post-season. It isn't the best but it's pretty good. Our bullpen is good too, or at least something I'm happy enough with. If any trades were made to make us a "win now" team, the only positions I think that really, REALLY improve our chances is a corner outfielder and a SS/2B. I like what QB has been doing for us this year but I'm more confident with him coming off the bench as a runner and having Dirks + a bigger bat / better glove flanking the other side of Jackson.

I don't disagree with any of this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People have been saying the Tigers are in "win now" mode since 2006.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
People have been saying the Tigers are in "win now" mode since 2006.

Yep, it's a worn out cliche. Every Major League player wants to win now, some team executives may be looking to the future but for the players it's all about today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I can't speak for others, but for myself, I don't trade Turner for any rental. I'd include him in a trade for Shields & Zobrist, but not any for Greinke or Hamels unless we signed them to an extension (which I'd rather save the $ for other extensions than pay another $20 pitcher).

My main reason is I think we win the division w/o any trade and have as good of a chance as anyone in the playoffs if our current players play like they are capable of. The playoffs are about getting hot at the right time anyhow. No reason to give away one of our best assets who can at worst provide a cheap, cost controlled #4-5 for a few years when we are paying big $ to other players. A similar reason why I don't trade Castellanos unless it is a Cabrera type deal.

Revisiting my thoughts, this was a high price to pay, but I like this trade. A couple reasons, it wasn't Turner/Brantly/Flynn only for a rental. They improved the rotation this season and the 2nd base position for this and next. Sanchez is also in a $ range that is possible to extend for a few seasons where I think Hamels and Greinke would be out of our range, so I think there is a real possibility he is here past this season, which like has been said, gives some flexibility in the off-season to move a pitcher for an improvement elsewhere. Brantly was a good chip, but was blocked here and with the other catcher's in the system was going to be traded at some point and to fill 2 needs now is important. The moving up of 30+ spots in the draft is very significant to me, especially adding the roughly $700k to spend in next year's draft. It gives the team a good opportunity to replace a fair amount of the value lost in next years draft.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
People have been saying the Tigers are in "win now" mode since 2006.

You've got an owner that is nearing 100 years old, whose passion and love is baseball, has more money than most third world countries, and a family that could give a rat's rear end about the Tigers after he is dead and gone. "Win Now Mode?" He'll do whatever it takes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You've got an owner that is nearing 100 years old, whose passion and love is baseball, has more money than most third world countries, and a family that could give a rat's rear end about the Tigers after he is dead and gone. "Win Now Mode?" He'll do whatever it takes.

So 83 is

nearing 100 years old?
Then I, at 38 must be nearing 55?!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You've got an owner that is nearing 100 years old, whose passion and love is baseball, has more money than most third world countries, and a family that could give a rat's rear end about the Tigers after he is dead and gone. "Win Now Mode?" He'll do whatever it takes.

We don't know what his family will do after he passes. I assume they like making money and the Tigers are probably fairly profitable, even with the high payroll.

Also, I suppose it depends on how you define "win now". Every team wants to win. To me, it means win now throw the future of the team to the wind, and that's not at all what the Tigers are doing, or ever have done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If you're not in a full blown rebuilding mode, you're in a "win now" mode.

So basically all but maybe 3 teams in MLB are in "win now" mode. Then why bother ever even using the term?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
We don't know what his family will do after he passes. I assume they like making money and the Tigers are probably fairly profitable, even with the high payroll.

Also, I suppose it depends on how you define "win now". Every team wants to win. To me, it means win now throw the future of the team to the wind, and that's not at all what the Tigers are doing, or ever have done.

As I understand it the Tigers are really not profitable with the recent giant payrolls. Ilitch is just a really great owner.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
People have been saying the Tigers are in "win now" mode since 2006.

Interestingly enough, being in the position the Tigers have been in for 7 seasons now is exactly how you win a World Series. You have to put yourself in a position to get in the playoffs as many times as you can. Other than that it's flukey.

EDIT - I don't know if I can express the depth of my contempt for the 'win NOW' phrase. And of course it's a 50/50 chance that it's capitalized like that.

Look at recent WS winners and tell me that they were a preseason favorite.

The only thing you can do is put yourself in a position to play games in October. That's it. And then get hot or lose.

Edited by Eric Cioe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As I understand it the Tigers are really not profitable with the recent giant payrolls. Ilitch is just a really great owner.

I would think that if having a huge payroll was profitable, all teams would have a huge payroll. I believe the Tigers have a large payroll relative to their market size, so I doubt they are highly profitable compared to some other teams. I know some people here insist that Detroit is actually one of the biggest markets, but they just received a draft pick based partially on being a mid-sized market, so that confuses me.

Anyway, I think things will probably change when Illitch dies. How much they will change, I'm not sure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Market size and market penetration are two different measurements. Yes, Detroit is a "middle market" enterprise demographically speaking, but in terms of market penetration I would venture to guess they're in the top third, at least, in MLB.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Market size and market penetration are two different measurements. Yes, Detroit is a "middle market" enterprise demographically speaking, but in terms of market penetration I would venture to guess they're in the top third, at least, in MLB.

MLB seems to think it is in the bottom 15.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MLB seems to think it is in the bottom 15.

I thought it was decided that stadium debt is what got them into the lottery.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


Michigan Sports Betting Offer

FanDuel Sportsbook Michigan - Sports Betting is launching in Michigan shortly (December 2020 or January 2021). If you register before it launches you will recieve $50 dollars at their online sportsbook and online casino!

Click Here to claim the FanDuel Michigan for $50 at Online Sportsbook & Casino Pre-registration Bonus Now

Motown Sports Blog



×
×
  • Create New...