• March 2010 Survey Question #1

    Posted by on March 3rd, 2010 · Comments (19)

    Please consider taking the following poll:

    {democracy:93}

    Thanks in advance. And, please feel free to add comments on your opinion in the comments section below.

    Comments on March 2010 Survey Question #1

    1. MJ Recanati
      March 3rd, 2010 | 4:02 pm

      Why would the Yanks trade one cost controlled player for another when one is an outfielder and the other is a guy that will mash irrespective of whether he’s a catcher or a DH?

    2. March 3rd, 2010 | 4:15 pm

      @ MJ Recanati:
      Why? Simple in my mind – the Yankees have no place to play Montero for the next 2 years at the big league level and DJ is a can’t miss, major league ready, impact player in the OF – and the Yankees have no OF in their system close to being ready for the majors. (And, Swisher should be gone soon and who knows about LF?)

    3. Corey Italiano
      March 3rd, 2010 | 4:17 pm

      Nope, I wouldn’t. I don’t think they would either, actually.

    4. MJ Recanati
      March 3rd, 2010 | 4:21 pm

      @ Steve Lombardi:
      First, straight-up, that’s a bad trade for the Yanks given the inherently greater value a hitting catcher has.

      Second, the Yanks don’t need “a place” to play Montero. He can DH. If he’s the hitter every single scout says he is, the Yanks lose nothing by paying Montero $340K to provide value in the tens of millions.

      Outfielders — even potentially good ones like Jennings — grow on trees. Crawford will be available next year in large part because of Jennings’s emergence in Tampa. Why trade Montero for what you can just spend money on?

    5. Corey Italiano
      March 3rd, 2010 | 4:28 pm

      MJ Recanati wrote:

      Why trade Montero for what you can just spend money on?

      Plus, why would the Rays trade their Crawford replacement? They already have money spent on a DH so it doesn’t make sense for them, either.

    6. March 3rd, 2010 | 5:05 pm

      MJ Recanati wrote:

      Second, the Yanks don’t need “a place” to play Montero. He can DH.

      Isn’t Nick Johnson under contract thru 2011?

    7. March 3rd, 2010 | 5:06 pm

      Corey Italiano wrote:

      Plus, why would the Rays trade their Crawford replacement?

      Agreed, to me, this would be an insane offer for Tampa to make. I’m just playing WHAT IF with the question.

    8. MJ Recanati
      March 3rd, 2010 | 5:18 pm

      Steve Lombardi wrote:

      Isn’t Nick Johnson under contract thru 2011?

      Through 2010 with a $5.5M option or a $250K buyout. But even if Johnson is on through 2011, it doesn’t take much to trade Nick Johnson to a team that could use an economical 1B/DH option like him for one year in order to clear the spot for Montero. Nick Johnson will absolutely not stand in the way of Montero’s future as a big leaguer, I assure you.

    9. Eric R
      March 3rd, 2010 | 5:52 pm

      There’s also the chance that Montero can learn to be a servicable corner outfielder, or even that he can improve his defense enough to stick at catcher at least part-time. If either of those things happen, Montero will be far more valuable to the Yankees than Jennings.

      Position aside, Montero is a better hitter right now than Jennings, despite being two years younger. I don’t see how you can make that trade unless there’s a desperate, immediate need for another OF that can’t be filled without dealing Montero.

    10. pete
      March 3rd, 2010 | 6:23 pm

      I would absolutely make that trade. I love Montero, don’t get me wrong, but people don’t seem to realize just how good Jennings is. Defense does count, and having an elite defensive centerfielder is valuable in and of itself (i.e., there is quite a bit of guaranteed value in Jennings, even if he hits at replacement level – if Montero doesn’t hit, he contributes essentially nothing). That said, Jennings is also an offensive stud. He doesn’t have Montero’s bat, but he’s drawn a lot of comps to crawford – moderate power and OBP ability combined with elite baserunning. I just think that there is so little risk in Jennings as a player (although injuries are, I suppose, another story) whereas there is so much in Montero that you would have to take Jennings. Montero’s worst case scenario is a .340-.350 OBP and a .450 slugging line as a DH. Basically a 2.5-3.5 win player. Jennings’s worst case scenario is somewhere around franklin gutierez – basically a 4-5 win player.

      Obviously Montero’s got more upside – if everything goes right, he could turn into the next Pujols. But that’s not likely. Even the Miguel Cabrera comps are setting the bar a little high for a guy who has only two full seasons under his belt, has never hit more than 17 HRs in a season, and has never played above AA. I think Paul Konerko is probably the most reasonable comp to make at this point, and if you’re asking me who i would rather have on the current (or prospective nearish future) Yankees team, Paul Konerko or Franklin Gutierez, I’d take Guty ten times out of ten.

    11. Pat F
      March 3rd, 2010 | 9:40 pm

      Steve Lombardi wrote:

      @ MJ Recanati:
      (And, Swisher should be gone soon…)

      i can’t wait to hear what the basis for that statement is.

    12. March 3rd, 2010 | 10:27 pm

      @ Pat F: I meant when his contract is up Pat.

    13. March 3rd, 2010 | 10:27 pm

      @ Eric R:
      Most report say that he’s WAY TOO SLOW to be a corner OF.

    14. March 3rd, 2010 | 10:28 pm

      @ pete: Great post.

    15. MJ Recanati
      March 4th, 2010 | 6:28 am

      @ pete:
      First, you compare Jennings to Crawford so, considering Crawford will be a free agent, why would the Yanks trade Montero when they can keep him and still have Jennings’s closest comparable player via free agency?

      Second, while you correctly hedge on Montero’s prospect status by adding some risk to his upside, you somehow fail to do the same for Jennings, essentially labeling him “an offensive stud” with “so little risk.” I’m not understanding this dichotomy. Risk in prospects exists across the board. Some prospects are obviously riskier than others but I don’t see anything in Montero’s profile that would project any risk of him not hitting. Scouts have raved about his advanced batting eye, his ability to get on base, his hand-eye coordination that allows him to square up on every ball and to make mid-pitch adjustments, which means that he’s got quick hands for a man his size.

      Montero seems destined to end up as a DH whereas Jennings obviously will provide some level of value simply by being a fielder. But I still wouldn’t trade that kind of offensive upside when you can just sign Randy Winn’s glove for $1.2M. Defense counts, yes, but so does a Pujols/Cabrera upside. Jennings’s upside is Carl Crawford and it’s a lot easier to find those guys…

    16. March 4th, 2010 | 9:53 am

      MJ Recanati wrote:

      Then why don’t the Yankees have one of those guys playing LF for them this season?

    17. Pat F
      March 4th, 2010 | 9:58 am

      @ Steve Lombardi:

      in that case i apologize for the presumptive nature of my comment. i guess i just assumed you meant something else since swisher is signed through 2011 and has an option for 2012 that will be very good value if he continues to play near his career averages in his upcoming age 29 and 30 seasons. three years isn’t that soon in my opinion – especially since it ignores the possibility of extending a player in his early 30′s if you can do so reasonably – but i guess it depends how you’re looking at it.

    18. MJ Recanati
      March 4th, 2010 | 10:01 am

      Steve Lombardi wrote:

      Then why don’t the Yankees have one of those guys playing LF for them this season?

      What guys?

    19. March 4th, 2010 | 10:05 am

      MJ Recanati wrote:

      What guys?

      The Carl Crawford types that you say are so easy to find.

    Leave a reply

    You must be logged in to post a comment.