Comments on: The Mariners tried to trade Michael Pineda for Brett Lawrie

By: damnyankee13

damnyankee13 — Wed, 01 Feb 2012 02:25:03 +0000

I thought Seattle wanted Montero for his bat because they had a crap offense and he could help improve it< If you have a crap offense you cant score runs. If you cant score runs and the other team can and scores 1 more, you lose.An unearned run can be scored by team A and if team B cant score 2 runs, unearned, earned, birthday presents,team B loses if if the best pitcher in MLB was pitching for team B, he loses. The Yankees have a better offense then the Mariners so Pineda should be fine.. With respect to the Mariners, I am looking forward to the Yankee pitching staff more this year then I have in the past.

By: churchoftheperpetuallyoutraged

churchoftheperpetuallyoutraged — Tue, 31 Jan 2012 20:20:04 +0000

Thanks for responding with something I addressed over 3 hours ago.

By: churchoftheperpetuallyoutraged

churchoftheperpetuallyoutraged — Tue, 31 Jan 2012 20:19:07 +0000

He simply did not pitch well in the

So everything he could control, K rate, BB rate, HR rate stayed essentially the same but because he gave up more runs, possibly due to things out of his control, he pitched worse in the second half.

Got it…

By: farvite

farvite — Tue, 31 Jan 2012 19:44:10 +0000

.. But I am excited about Montero. I mean Yankee prospects are the greatest things since sliced bread, right?

By: farvite

farvite — Tue, 31 Jan 2012 19:42:21 +0000

Yes, I can fault the Ms for asking.

By: Ben

Ben — Tue, 31 Jan 2012 18:59:11 +0000

By: seattletony

seattletony — Tue, 31 Jan 2012 18:54:21 +0000

Probably worth pointing out that the Mariners currently have Chone Figgins playing third base. Now, Lawrie or Montero?

By: yettyskills

yettyskills — Tue, 31 Jan 2012 18:40:54 +0000

Not
Even
Close

By: yettyskills

yettyskills — Tue, 31 Jan 2012 18:39:05 +0000

Lawrie can play the field?
Montero can’t?

Huh?

By: Ben

Ben — Tue, 31 Jan 2012 18:35:30 +0000

I’m with churchoftheperpetuallyoutraged here. Pineda’s a stone-cold beast. His K% and BB% stayed pretty much the same, the only fluctuation was his LOB% and his BABIP.

By: cur68

cur68 — Tue, 31 Jan 2012 18:33:22 +0000

This.

By: Ben

Ben — Tue, 31 Jan 2012 18:32:42 +0000

For what it’s worth, Lawrie appears to be the overwhelming choice. http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/montero-or-lawrie/

By: hardheadcountryboy

hardheadcountryboy — Tue, 31 Jan 2012 18:02:11 +0000

Don’t forget what Lawrie means to the fan base here – the first true potential Canadian superstar to wear a Jays uniform…AA would have been dragged out of his office by a mob and lynched on Harbourfront had he made that deal and he knew it…Lawrie’s merchandise sales here are almost equal to Bautista’s, he’s that popular here…..having said that, time may prove that may have been the right deal to make but now…….no way!!!!

By: proudlycanadian

proudlycanadian — Tue, 31 Jan 2012 17:43:35 +0000

Peripherals mean little when you cough up a lot of runs. He simply did not pitch well in the second half and the Mariners obviously concluded that he was not a long term keeper.

By: churchoftheperpetuallyoutraged

churchoftheperpetuallyoutraged — Tue, 31 Jan 2012 17:32:56 +0000

Yes, if you base your entire analysis off ERA he faded during the second half. By all other peripherals he didn’t.

By: phillyphreak

phillyphreak — Tue, 31 Jan 2012 17:24:41 +0000

Ben,
So then, your argument is value and not straight production? For one, I didn’t say that Lawrie wouldn’t be more valuable to a team than Montero. Of course adjusting for positions helps a 3B and hurts a DH. But, if I’m not mistaken, some people are predicting that Lawrie will be moved to a corner outfield slot, which while still more valuable than a DH from an adjustment standpoint, not nearly as much so when doing the comps as a 3B. I get what you are saying though I don’t think you are accurately projecting Montero’s offensive abilities.

“Add in Lawrie’s head-and-shoulders better wRC+ at AAA ”

329 plate appearances is still a small sample size alert right? I can’t remember off the top of my head but it’s a higher number (500? 600?) before true “skill” becomes apparent? (Note: I’m not saying this to imply he’s not going to be good, just that small sample size gets thrown around a lot).

By: proudlycanadian

proudlycanadian — Tue, 31 Jan 2012 17:11:18 +0000

Actually, the Mariners did quite well out of that trade. Pineda did not pitch well after the All Star break. The Mariners saw his fade first hand. The Yankees were willing to overpay for him, and the Blue Jays were not.

By: seattlej

seattlej — Tue, 31 Jan 2012 16:43:15 +0000

League average DH? That’s a .268/.342/.431 (wOBA of .337) for 2011 — or basically a little worse than what Damon has done as a DH over the last couple of years.

I could certainly be wrong, but I don’t think you’re giving Montero’s bat enough credit.

By: cur68

cur68 — Tue, 31 Jan 2012 16:32:10 +0000

Hang on fellas while I clear my throat and prepare to deliver (for only the 2nd time) my new meme…*AHEM*…ok, here goes:

Leave Jesus Alone!

..There. Carry on.

By: Mark

Mark — Tue, 31 Jan 2012 16:25:49 +0000

Sorry in the second last paragraph that should say even if Montero outhits Lawrie as a DH/1B.

By: uwsptke

uwsptke — Tue, 31 Jan 2012 16:24:28 +0000

Huh. Too bad Jack Z. didn’t offer that deal up to the Brewers last offseason when Lawrie was still their property. Would obviously rather have 5 more years of Pineda than 1 more year of Marcum. Greinke/Pineda/Gallardo/Wolf/Narveson wouldn’t be too shabby for this season. It looks like the Brewers will do OK on the Greinke trade, but that Lawrie for Marcum (straight up) deal will look pretty bad down the road. Turns out the Brewers could have used him already at 3B since McGehee disappeared and has been replaced by an aging A-Ram. May have had more $$ available to ink Greinke to an extension as well if you had Lawrie instead of A-Ram.

Woulda, coulda, shoulda, I guess.

By: Mark

Mark — Tue, 31 Jan 2012 16:24:21 +0000

Let’s assume for the second that they’ll be similar hitters, just to make it simple.

Obviously if Montero sticks @ C he’s much more valuable. But pretty much nobody expects that to happen. So he’s limited to 1B/DH.

In fairness, nobody expected Lawrie to adapt to 3B either. But he did look pretty damn good at third last season, and SSS be damned, every metric backs that up. At this point I’d be very surprised if Lawrie moved off 3B. I can see why they said he couldn’t stick at 2B, but his reactions/arms/range is very good for 3B.

Course, we do have to give Montero the same opportunity to prove he can play C. I haven’t seen him catch, and I’m no scout, so I’m just going by what I hear, and pretty much everyone agrees he’s either a DH or a 1B.

So Montero is only more valuable if he sticks at C. Even if you adjust for park and he outhits Lawrie, the fact Lawrioe could/should be a plus defensive 3B makes him much more valuable than Montero.

It’s also important to note how shallow 3B is right now as well. So I’d argue at least heading into 2012, the positional argument is stronger at 3B then it’s been in the past.

By: paperlions

paperlions — Tue, 31 Jan 2012 16:09:20 +0000

Heading into last year, Montero was ranked far ahead of Lawrie in prospect rankings….and EVERYONE already thought he would have to move off of catcher. Obviously, that doesn’t mean Lawrie isn’t the better prospect now, the primary concern about him was attitude….but there doesn’t seem to be much that distinguishes their offensive abilities….though the parks they play in will make their numbers look quite a bit different.

By: Ben

Ben — Tue, 31 Jan 2012 16:07:33 +0000

Phillyphreak–there’s no question that using unadjusted stats Montero is better than Lawrie. But those are unadjusted, and they’re also not taking into account positional adjustment. So I’ll give you the slash lines, but it’s still nowhere near equal. The difference between a 3B and a DH is 19.5 runs/600 PA. And then you add in Lawrie’s above-average defense and you’re looking at at least a 2 WAR advantage to Lawrie, probably more. Add in Lawrie’s head-and-shoulders better wRC+ at AAA and I’d take Lawrie any day of the week, no hesitation.

By: paperlions

paperlions — Tue, 31 Jan 2012 15:57:30 +0000

AA also noted that at least 2 players took fewer years and dollars to sign elsewhere; one being Carlos Beltran….with some comment about how some players didn’t want to play on astroturf or DH no matter how much you paid them.

By: Ari Collins

Ari Collins — Tue, 31 Jan 2012 15:39:54 +0000

Most prospect mavens think that Montero could be an even better hitter than Lawrie.

That said, Lawrie’s positional advantage is huge, even if he ends up a corner OF, as many think.

By: phillyphreak

phillyphreak — Tue, 31 Jan 2012 15:33:42 +0000

Ben you said
“No dood, 171PA is nowhere near a large enough sample size. That’s the point. Look at their minors track record, scouting reports, etc”

But even before that Church posted:

“MiLB lines

Lawrie – .296/.360/.492
Montero – .308/.366/.501″

Just pointing that out.

By: proudlycanadian

proudlycanadian — Tue, 31 Jan 2012 15:29:24 +0000

Once he was called up, Lawrie was a better and more exciting third baseman than that other #13 in New York.

By: Alex K

Alex K — Tue, 31 Jan 2012 15:27:49 +0000

Ben- What about the MiLB lines where Montero was a better hitter? That sample size is big enough.

If we’re talking total value then Lawrie should be higher because he can play a position. But based only on hitting Montero is a better prospect.

By: Ben

Ben — Tue, 31 Jan 2012 15:23:33 +0000

No dood, 171PA is nowhere near a large enough sample size. That’s the point. Look at their minors track record, scouting reports, etc. The history suggests to me that Montero is only valuable if he’s a catcher, otherwise he’s a league-average DH. Which is a nice bit, but not worth a stud pitcher.