The San Diego Padres made an unsurprising move on Friday. They sent first baseman Anthony Rizzo and pitcher Zach Cates to the Chicago Cubs in exchange for pitcher Andrew Cashner and outfielder Kyung-Min Na. Much of the initial reaction to the trade is negative from the Padres’ perspective. Here are my thoughts (obviously).
I’m not going to get knee deep in the numbers, and I’m essentially looking at this trade for the Rizzo and Cashner pieces. Na’s track record leaves nothing to be excited about, and one season does not a prospect make as far as Cates’ status is concerned.
Geoff Young of Ducksnorts tweeted a nice piece by Jason Wojciechowski to help frustrated fans/bloggers to maintain perspective when they can’t get behind deals made by their teams. It was a nice refresher, but I’m still writing, aren’t I?
I know I don’t hold all the keys to the kingdom and am definitely “armchairing” it as I write about these things, but what Wojciechowski didn’t touch upon is the reason I write despite having little to no insider information. It’s the passion I have for my Padres. I’m not trying to turn this into a thesis on blogging, but I did think it worth mentioning that I am well aware of the knowledge I don’t possess, yet I’m compelled to opine anyway.
Okay…back on topic. The deal is done, and I’ve had some time to digest it (along with a God-awful heaping of Taco Bell that may taint my analysis). I’ve read what others think, and I’m trying to see as many angles as possible here. The conclusion I continue to reach, however, is that this has the potential to be a terrible deal for San Diego.
The thing about trades, though, is the time factor. Hence the use of the word “potential”. Only time will tell how this works out. That’s the funny thing about trades from a fan perspective. By the time a trade’s outcome can be measured, we’ve already focused on other, more pertinent issues at hand, so we don’t often stop to truly evaluate a trade at its most appropriate point. Mental note: write an article about this trade on the last day of the World Series. I think that will be the time we’ll be able to really figure out who won.
In fact, Joe Fan is probably already starting to get foggy about the Adrian Gonzalez trade to Boston. As it stands, we just shipped out the centerpiece position player of this deal in Rizzo. Patterson has already found greener pastures. With Kelly’s stock falling a bit and Fuentes not showing overwhelming numbers, it’s becoming clear that Boston got the better end of that deal.
Why does this matter? Because San Diego’s organization has little to no room for error. It’s imperative for both amateur and professional writers to hold the Padres organization accountable by critiquing trades. Baseball is an odd business because the bottom line for clubs is money; however, the way they make money is ultimately traced back and through its fan base. Therefore, is the team in it for its own bottom line or to appease its fan base? Or is one a product of the other? That being said, can we assume a team has its fans’ best interests at heart? How can you even measure that? I’m not sure of any of the answers to those questions.
My apologies. I feel like I keep going off on philosophical tangents, but I can’t help it. I know I should just toss this toga into the hamper and get back to the trade itself. I suppose it’s a way for me to rationalize the emotional…which may be an effort in futility.
Okay…I promise this time. Back to the trade analysis we go.
I’m going to Nostradamasize here and call this one a dud and will even go so far as to say that it will trump Josh Byrnes’ previous stinker: trading Carlos Quentin to the White Sox. In the future, he’ll be known for trading away Joey Votto 2.0 for a reliever who showed flashes of brilliance but would wind up taking the Aaron Poreda path of all stuff, no location. Then, to top it off, Cashner will get seriously injured and miss significant time. Meanwhile, Rizzo will win the starting gig coming out of Spring Training and will put up the following slash line: .275/.340/.480.
Gulp…that’s a hefty prediction on my part. Now that it’s on the screen, it looks pretty extreme. This would certainly be a worst case scenario for San Diego. While it may be bold, though, it’s not “off the map” bold. This could happen.
Now, this could also happen. Rizzo scuffles as he adjusts to MLB pitching, and finishes out with a line of: .220/.320/.440. He strikes out too much, and doesn’t exhibit the power stroke of a Votto. Meanwhile, Cashner is 100% healthy and remains so, thanks to San Diego’s top-notch training staff. He locks down the 8th inning role, which lifts some of the tremendous pressure on the young, talented bullpen arms. Huston Street is later moved at the deadline for a nice prospect or two, and Cashner, with Black and Balsley’s help, becomes a dominant closer with a propensity for the occasional flameout (as closers do). This scenario is also not “off the map,” but it is extreme in favor of San Diego.
So, that leaves us with the question: which is more likely? Your guess is as good as mine because neither guy is proven. I suppose that’s why it’s been so difficult to keep this article on topic.
Ultimately, my bottom line says that Chicago will benefit from this more than San Diego will. The reason being, we are in a more desperate need of position players with pop, not pitching (I know…you can never have too much pitching). To me, Brynes is looking like he’ll be featured on an upcoming episode of Extreme Couponing. The cameras will follow him as he proudly opens a pantry in the back of the clubhouse that has 50 different bullpen guys in numerical order, sitting on the shelf.
On one hand, you have to watch in awe. But on the other, you’re thinking: at what point is this just plain crazy?
I for one like the trade. Byrnes gave away what he had for what he needed. Every scout on the team says newcomer Yonder Alonso is better across the board, leaving Rizzo on the bench. He couldn’t hit in PETCO but smashed in Tuscon, so its obvious he has ability. Dealing Rizzo now, before his value begins to descend, is a very smart move. As for what they got, Andrew Cashner has shown he can be a bullpen stud. To leave the bullpen as vacant and barren as it was would be more detrimental to the team. The Padres need to play to their strenghts, and I think Byrnes is making moves that are going to do just that.
Although I am not in love with this trade from a value standpoint, I understand why it was made. A few things to consider:
1) The Padres were going to have to send Rizzo back to the minors next year to work on his swing. How long will it take to change his swing effectively? How will the change in swing effect his power numbers(his most appealing attribute)? How would a down year in the minors, while working on his swing, affect his percieved value?
2) The Padres have good reason to call Cashner a reliever with only a possibility of future starting for several reasons:
A) The need relief pitching more than starting pitching heading into 2012.
B) Keeps Cashners earnings down as I understand he is a super 2, while keeping him in the role that is most in need for the Padres(see point A).
C) Tempering fans expectations. Calling Cashner a potential top of the rotation stud will only start the fans clamoring for his move to the starting lineup with every successful bullpen outing.
D) Most importantly, why let Cashner think he is a lock to be a starter for the Padres. He has a plus fast ball and above average slider. Cashner has an “improving” changeup and his control was getting better until his injury. The Padres want this kid to be hungry and feel like he has to earn it. By letting this kid know he could be a future starter but could also be just bullpen, they incent him to work extra hard honing that changeup and command so that he can get back to starting and earn more money.
Just some things to think about when considering this trade. I think the Padres are handling Cashner the best way and in a way that helps the Padres both next year and in the future.
Does this make any sense? As compensation for Hoyer leaving, the Padres were suppossed to have a small group of minor league players to choose from the lower levels of the Cubs system. With Byrnes “throwing” in Cates, to really make this deal look lopsided, could the pool of players he is able to choose from as compensation possibly grown? Now the Padres may have a shot at a player that was previously “off limits”. Possibly a guy like Junior Lake, who has a shot, albeit small, of staying at SS. This may sound like a conspiracy theory, but I’m just trying to figure out why Byrnes would make such a crazy trade, with Hoyer no less, after having such a great off season up until this point. The theory makes sense though doesn’t it?
@Alex: Great comment. Thanks for it. Some things to consider…did Byrnes have a need for Cashner? I think we have several options in-house (Spence, Gregerson, Frieri, Brach…later Quackenbush) and recently acquired (Boxberger, etc.) who could fill the same role. Granted…Cashner might be an upgrade if healthy and accurate with location. As for Rizzo, I’m not sure we have enough AB’s to say he can’t hit in Petco.
@Scott: Excellent points…thanks for them. I’ve heard this theory of Rizzo’s swing before, but I’d love to see the source that points this out empirically. I haven’t come across that read anywhere. The only mention I saw was he was leaning over the plate. If you have a link for his swing, I’d love it.
@Dustin: Thank you for your comment as well. As far as the compensation, I have absolutely no knowledge as to how that works at all. If you learn anything more, please post here.
@Chris – Padresprospects.com offered a pretty good analysis, courtesy of baseball prospectus, on how Rizzo’s performance against increasing velocity declined. They display some evidence that should make you question Rizzo’s swing. Having watched Rizzo in several at bats, I found he had great plate discipline when he was first called up. As he struggled to catch up to fast balls, you could see over time his plate discipline started to tank. The fact that the Cubs intend to put him a AAA tells me they too believe he needs to make some swing adjustemnts. Personally, I think he could be an ok hitter without the swing adjustments… if he doesn’t allow himself to get too frustrated. IMO, without swing adjustments his celing becomes a less powerful Adam Dunn with better defense… not horrible. I think Rizzo has the character and determination to make every effort to improve, but he is a risk at this point. Not saying Cashner isn’t a big risk, but I have to believe the Padres did their homework and were satisified Cashner was going to be fine with command and that the injury was behind him.
I am not a scout, but I could see where the Padres might have had concern. IMO, they likely came to the conclusion that Rizzo would either have to change his swing mechanics to allow him to better catch up to fast balls, or figure out a way to get Rizzo on a program that improves his swing velocity. I was one of the fans that wanted Rizzo at the ML level last year and liked the initial plate discipline a lot. This is just going to be one of those deals that may need a couple years to see if it worked out for either team.
As far as the compensation goes, I know the Padres had a small group of players to choose from from the lower levels of the Cubs system, not one of the better players in the system for sure, that was reported. I’m just hoping that the group got larger, and possibly better, with the deal that went down on the weekend. If it didn’t I just can’t believe that Byrnes couldn’t have gotten someone with more promise than Cashner and Na. of course if Cashner becomes the next great closer for Padres, then I guess we’ll all like this deal. Lets not forget a lot of Padre fans weren’t happy with the Sheffield/Hoffman deal when it went down either. Different scenerio, but you know what I mean.
I commented on this trade over at Chicken Friars and was tempted to continue there, but then I saw their article about the relative importance of acquiring offense and defense for the Padres, based on completely unadjusted stats, and I just don’t have time to talk to somebody who ignores park factors.
It seems to me there are two valid ways to evaluate a trade. One is based on the value of the players involved when the trade goes down. Here we clearly lose. The only possible saving grace is the sort of complicated process suggested by Dustin, and that seems very unlikely. Why not just wait until the compensation talks happen? You could send Cates for whoever then, rather than pre-paying.
The second way is to measure on-field production of the players for the new teams. While there’s nothing wrong with that, it can get into dangerously nebulous territory. Trade Player A for Player X. Player A goes to Thailand, gets an infection from a bad tattoo needle or arrested for running out on a ladyboy bill, can’t play in the majors, Player X is more valuable by default. It tends to give the “winning” GM credit for being able to predict the future when in fact there was probably a lot less rigorous thinking going on. It can be informative, for sure, but we still need to look at it critically.
It’s totally possible that Cashman provides more WAR or whatever measure you want to use than Rizzo, whether we’re talking next season, their pre-arb time, their careers with the Padres and Cubs, whatever. That doesn’t necessarily mean the trade was the right move. We definitely had other options for the hard-throwing RH relief pitcher role (I give Cashner less than a 20% chance of successfully) transitioning to starter in his career), there was no roster pressure that required us to move Rizzo, and there were still multiple interested parties besides Byrnes’ chums in Chicago. Sure, there’s a risk of Rizzo falling apart in Tucson and losing much of his trade value, but would it sink so low that we couldn’t land a reliever with mediocre minor league results, a big-time fastball, and a recent shoulder injury?
Na for Cates makes me queasy. Both are a long ways off, but of the two, Cates had more present value and was a better future bet. Na is the kind of player we might have expected to get for Hoyer / McLeod — nobody the Cubs would miss.
Tom, I agree on the two ways to evaluate a trade. I often struggle with choosing only one, and if possible evaluate a deal using both methods. Obviously, right now we can only use one on this trade.
While the first process — evaluating the deal on what we know at the time it happens — seems to be generally favored, ignoring how things actually turn out isn’t totally fair either.
I mean, if Rizzo’s swing really doesn’t pan out in the majors and Cashner goes onto to be a lights-out closer, we’ve gotta give Byrnes and company *some* additional credit, no?
I still don’t understand why Cates was included, and why it wasn’t simply at one-for-one trade, or Rizzo for Cashner and Na. The scouting reports on Na’s fielding ability appear solid, but he’s a long way off and his bat looks very shaky at this point.
Absolutely Byrnes should get some credit if Rizzo ends up in the Mike Jacobs / Chris Davis range. If he really did have that kind of crystal ball, though, you’d hope that he would use it to leverage the heck out of Rizzo before his shortcomings became obvious.
Epstein/Hoyer/McLeod obviously wanted Rizzo back and the kid, despite his struggles, was still generally considered a Top 50 / A- or B+ prospect. We can’t be exactly sure of what other teams were offering, but many of us have watched baseball trades for a long time, and typically you don’t use a prospect like that to get a player like Cashner. I’m not a big Tim Beckham fan, but that’s the kind of guy you target if you think you’re selling high. Not a reliever with arm trouble and way too many walks.
It wasn’t a massive undersell, but even a small undersell is not the way for a team like the Padres to thrive. To carry over my analogy from Chicken Friars, the Padres can’t afford to be bad tippers. We’re already eating at the lower end of the food chain.
Maybe the compensation for Hoyer/McLeod will be different now than it would have been, but it would surprise me. Too many moving parts when we’re talking C prospects.
Tom, I don’t know if you saw my analysis of the deal a few posts down, but I’m definitely not a fan, and I generally agree with your points here.
God, I love the dialogue going here. I just wish I was smarter to contribute to it in a better way!
All I wanted to add was in reference to how to evaluate trades using Option #1: value at the time. It gets incredibly difficult to measure that value if the information is only partial or incomplete…i.e., few MLB AB’s in Rizzo’s case.
The other problem is how can you tell when a player’s minor league track record will translate to a major league career (have value)? It seems to me that there are plenty of guys with average MiLB numbers who become superstars and vice versa. If we could find a more reliable way to predict future success based on MiLB numbers, then we’d be on to something…of course, we’d probably be making loads of cash advising clubs if that were the case. I suppose there’s just too many variables to predict.
Apologies for the smiley…
@Chris
Rizzo’s value, luckily for us (or should have been), wasn’t just those awful MLB at-bats. Teams now value prospects more than at any time I can recall. The prospect rankings aren’t carved in stone, but they’re based on interviews with scouts and front office personnel. I think we can safely assume that Rizzo was more highly coveted than Cashner by almost every team.
The way many teams value prospects now, it’s likely that Rymer Liriano would bring back more in a trade than almost any Padre major leaguer, and Liriano hasn’t shown anything in High A yet. Bryce Harper has never played in the majors but you could name your price if you were willing to trade him.
@Tom
True points, indeed. I think that the scout level is the level that can get proprietary and certainly not access I have from my couch in the living room, but an area I hope to gain access to on some level as I continue to improve at this writing gig.
That being said…I wonder how often “can’t miss” guys do. I think I just found my next piece…thank you good sir!
@Chris: Great piece. While I’m sure you know by now, I have no problem whatsoever with the trade, I like your thought process. What’d I ask though is how does one decide which outcome is more likely? If you think Rizzo could be a stud and Cashner injury-prone, but you also think Rizzo could flip and Cashner could dominate, how do ultimately come to the conclusion that the trade was bad?
As for Tom’s point about Park Factor, I say this: Park Factor for HR from the left side at PETCO was 59 in 2011. Pretty sure a dead pull hitting Rizzo would struggle until he figured out how to go the other way. Also, to categorically say that I ignore park factor based on an article that was designed to generalize the Padres means to success makes no sense. Because I left the park adjusted figures our of that analysis, does it make the pions any less valid? The Padres went to the play-offs in 2005 and 2006, and had winning seasons in 2004, 2007, and 2010 on the tails of pitching dominance, not offensive dominance.
@Chris- I hope the dialogue continues to pick up here at friarforecast.
@All – I am still a bit puzzled why people keep saying Cashner has big control problems. Don’t get me wrong, I think Cashner has some room for improvement. If you look at his walk rates, they improved each year in the minors. In 2011, after returning from injury had a 0.0 bb/9 rate in 4.2 minor league innings and had 3 walks in 5.1 innings of major league work. Nothing alarming considering his career trend has been year over year improvement. I have far more concern about future injury than I have Cashner’s control.
@ Justin
Yes, it makes the points less valid, because Petco consistently makes the non-adjusted stats for the offense look much worse and the pitching much better. I’ve written this so often I should probably have it saved somewhere so I can just copy and paste it:
Season, OPS+, ERA+
2004, 104, 97
2005, 97, 94
2006, 99, 105
2007, 97, 108
2010, 93, 108
At first glance it might seem that the pitching was way better, even adjusted, but the NL average OPS+ for those years was 94 while the average NL team managed an ERA+ of 101. So the offense was anywhere from well-above average to average in the competitive seasons, while the pitching was really good twice, better than average once, and below average twice. I wouldn’t say the pitching was ever dominant — we were never even among the top 3 among NL squads in ERA+. The most dominant performance was by the 04 offense, relative to the league. The 05 and 06 teams stole a lot of bases, too, which doesn’t show up in OPS+. The 2006 team was the most balanced of the bunch.
The Padres have gone to the playoffs or chased it until the last game of the season with teams built in different ways, and saying that it was always done on the tails, backs, arms, or any other body part of the pitching staff is plain inaccurate. OPS+ and ERA+ aren’t the most advanced adjusted stats in the world, but they’re good enough for this kind of comparison.
@Justin: It’s like I said in the last paragraph. We’re more in need of offense than bullpen help, and just because Petco might suppress HR’s, I still think Rizzo’s bat could have played at Petco. Overall, at all parks, he went the opposite way 33 times and pulled 43…that’s really not enough of a difference to categorize him as a dead pull hitter. Of course, it’s still not enough AB’s to come to many conclusions anyway. He’s slightly ahead of Alonso on most prospect boards, and I just think he has the frame and track record to become a raging success. Now, playing in Wrigley, that seems pretty likely to come to fruition real soon.
Great convo, everyone.
Can’t remember a trade that sparked this much debate. Very interesting.
As others have mentioned, love the conversation/debate! We haven’t received this many comments in a while, and when they are of this quality they certainly help to enhance the site.