Omaha announces third trade this week, one including an all-star.(38.56)

[niles08]

The rumors swirling Omaha came to fruition as Omaha announced a pact with fellow Heartland member Des Moines on a trade to acquire Des Moines all-star catcher John Hale.

Hale, 23 years old, has clinched the voting for the starting catcher gig in the all-star game and will make the short 100 mile drive to Omaha when he returns to Des Moines where he will now call home.

Hale has struggled against lefties this season, but dominated right handed pitchers with 17 home runs in only 168 at bats. His home runs totals should only jump higher as Omaha is known to have a very power friendly ball park.

Hale has just over a year of major league service and will be under team control through the 2043 season.

Heading to Des Moines is catcher Benjamin Clark, and prospects Juan Garcia & Pedro Tanon.

Clark was just heating up and had a fantastic june where he had a triple slash line of .333/.377/ but struggled to get it going early on. The 24 year old had essentially the same service time as Hale so the team did not lose out on anything down the road with swapping the catchers.

Where they may miss out is having to include Juan Garcia. Garcia, who was the team’s #3 overall prospect has the potential to be a front end starter and as a 19 year old was pitching in Short-A very well.

Tanon was a recent pick of the club in the 10th round of the 2038 first-year player draft. He is expected to be mainly a relief pitcher in the majors with a 2 pitch arsenal, but does have the ability to make an impact when he develops.

This wasn’t the first trade made between Omaha & Des Moines as just a few days prior the Hawks acquired Gilberto Tovar for $1,500,000 in funds. Tovar has as few years of team control left as well and the club is hoping he can pump some life into the bullpen over those seasons.

How about 2 more pitcfhers? Yes, that’s right, Omaha also acquired 2 pitchers from Brooklyn as they know the weakness begins with the pitching staff from top to bottom.

Neither of the acquisitions are going to shatter the walls, but they at least may get the club through some tough times along with creating some depth at these positions.

Those 2 players are James Heath & Claudio Delgado from Brooklyn. Delgado, immediately slotted into the rotation as the club needed a 5th starter desperately and Heath took his sunflower seeds to the bullpen awaiting his call to the game.

Delgado is expected to remain in the rotation until Carson Stoller returns within the next month. Delgado has some team control left and is expected to remain with the club next season as an emergency pitcher in case of injury to the Omaha rotation.

Despite being 26 years old, Heath has a full 6 years left of team control and without a doubt be with the organization, if not with the Hawks in the Omaha bullpen next season.

Heading back to Brooklyn in the deal were first baseman Eduardo Maez & catcher Geomar Conti. Maes, was a 6th round pick in the 3038 first year player draft and projects to be a league average first baseman with the ability to steal some bases as well, and Conti was taken 12 picks later with the 18th round pick for the Hawks. Conti is going to be excellent behind the plate but may struggle when he has a bat in his hand rather than a glove.

[Ted]

I suppose it's nice to pick up a young, cost controlled all star catcher for a AAAA catcher, a ho hum relief prospect, and a guy who looks like a 4th starter at the moment and isn't developed at all.

[usnspecialist]

At this point when I see omaha in the title of a thread on the completed news forum I hear the jaws theme in my head.

[niles08]

At this point when I see omaha in the title of a thread on the completed news forum I hear the jaws theme in my head.

You guys act like every trade I have made works out. I have made my fair share of bad ones and I personally feel like this is fairly even. Hale is not going to hit lefties and isn't like he has 9/9/9 ratings. He may rake in Omaha however.

Clark has been fairly good so far, and Garcia could be a good pitcher in the future as indicated by his 65 potential alone along with Tanon's 55 Pot.

[Ted]

At this point when I see omaha in the title of a thread on the completed news forum I hear the jaws theme in my head.

You guys act like every trade I have made works out. I have made my fair share of bad ones and I personally feel like this is fairly even. Hale is not going to hit lefties and isn't like he has 9/9/9 ratings. He may rake in Omaha however.

Clark has been fairly good so far, and Garcia could be a good pitcher in the future.

Benjamin Clark is a replacement level player for his career. (Okay fine, he's just barely above). While he has been okay this year, he is on track to be a two win catcher, which is starter level, but nothing exceptional. Over his career, he is replacement level. His raw ratings do not suggest a player who can continue this level of performance. He is a poor contact, poor eye hitter against RHP, which is the majority of pitchers. As such, he is probably a career backup/weak half of a platoon. His BABIP is .314. That is unsustainable. As a high AVK player with 5 contact, his internal BABIP rating cannot be that high. His career rate is .257, even including this eyar which is the bulk of his playing time.

While the nuances of how AVK and BABIP relate to each other may be something many OOTP players do not know (You should. Start paying attention, it's really important), not understanding that 5 con versus right with a 4 eye is a BAD hitter and is not major league talent level is either A)deluding yourself based on a small sample size. B) Not understanding basic game mechanics. or C) Intentionally selling a false bill of goods to another GM.

This is not to say Clark can't be useful. But his defense isn't so great that he can be a defense first player. I have a player in Jesus Flores who is 5 CON, 3 eye versus righties. But he is a BAD hitter versus righties. He can start because of his elite glove at short. I would never try to sell him to another GM as a good hitter. Dale should not be sold as a decent hitter at catcher it's simply not true.

Comparing him in any way as a hitter to Hale, who has hit better numbers against the majority of pitchers (i.e hits righties well) is not sound reasoning. Also Hale's ratings against RHP are far better than Dale's against LHP. Also the game simply tells you Hale is far better, calling him a 60, and Clark doesn't belong in a starting position, calling him a 35.

Saying these players are't light years apart in terms of talent either shows a lack of understanding how the game works, or is being dishonest.

Trading a good player, who we actually know is good. For a player who, in your words "Has been fairly good so far (which is not true. Again, he is just above replacement level for his career) and a player who "could be a good pitcher in the future" is a bad trade.

[niles08]

You realize Clark's career numbers are over very few at bats right? This is the first year where he has appeared in more than 16 games. Clark is most likely a .260 hitter where he will hit 15-20 home runs a season.

I'd like to add that I did not present a list of players in the trade but rather told Des Moines I was interested in Hale, and he came back with 3 players that he would accept for Hale.

[Ted]

You realize Clark's career numbers are over very few at bats right? This is the first year where he has appeared in more than 16 games. Clark is most likely a .260 hitter where he will hit 15-20 home runs a season.

I'd like to add that I did not present a list of players in the trade but rather told Des Moines I was interested in Hale, and he came back with 3 players that he would accept for Hale.

Then it's still a bad trade. If Clark averages .260 for his career with 15-20 homers, I'll buy you a yacht. He's playing unsustainably well right now. The overwhelming majority of his playing time is this year, and he's still not at those numbers.

If I expressed interest in someone's Ferrari, and they asked for a car I had that looked like a Porsche but was really a Honda with a fake logo bolted on, I'd consider perhaps telling them they weren't getting what they thought they were. Unless I didn't care about them or respect them as a person at all I suppose. But hey, maybe I didn't know I had a fake porsche. Look, there are two takes on this deal. Neither of you knows the value of the players you moved. That seems the most probable. The other take is that you let Ed buy a bill of goods.

How this trade works out is irrelevant. Also, I don't really care if you both were just wrong, or if you didn't care that Ed made a poor offer. I don't get to tell you how to operate. I actually don't care how you operate. What I do care about is that this is a bad trade. I want fewer bad trades. They are bad for the league. So when I see a trade that I think is terrible, I'm going to talk about it. That's probably futile, because the involved parties probably just get pissed that someone told them they are wrong. But whatever. I'm a know it all anyway.

[niles08]

Then it's still a bad trade. If Clark averages .260 for his career with 15-20 homers, I'll buy you a yacht. He's playing unsustainably well right now. The overwhelming majority of his playing time is this year, and he's still not at those numbers.

May I ask how Clark is not there right now?

His line currently is .288/.331/.496 with 7 home runs in 139 at bats and 43 games...At this rate he would hit .288 with 27 home runs had he played in 162 games.

[niles08]

To be honest, I honestly tried to negotiate to keep Clark because I feel he is quite valuable. That was the only negotiation that went on. If the league doesn't feel he is as valuable then so be it, however I felt his value and wanted to keep him for that reason.

[Ted]

Then it's still a bad trade. If Clark averages .260 for his career with 15-20 homers, I'll buy you a yacht. He's playing unsustainably well right now. The overwhelming majority of his playing time is this year, and he's still not at those numbers.

May I ask how Clark is not there right now?

His line currently is .288/.331/.496 with 7 home runs in 139 at bats and 43 games...At this rate he would hit .288 with 27 home runs had he played in 162 games.

He's not there right now because you said "averages", and his career line is .252/.287/.426. His career HR per 162 games is 22. As a catcher, he'll never play 162 games a year. More like 125-30. At that rate, he's .252 with 16-17 HR per year, and a sub .290 OBP. That includes a year that is half his total playing time to date where he's .288/.331/.496. So, he's not there now because he doesn't even have enough playing time to know what he is, and his current numbers fall belong your projection, even while including playing out of his mind, as evidence by his unsustainable BABIP. I would suggest cherry picking one good run of hitting that's less than half a season's worth of play is not a good way to evaluate a hitter, especially when the performance doesn't match the ratings.

The only way Clark makes .262 for a career is if he hardly ever plays RHP. And then he's never getting 15-20 homers. Also, did I mention sub .290 OBP? That's flat out bad.

[niles08]

Then it's still a bad trade. If Clark averages .260 for his career with 15-20 homers, I'll buy you a yacht. He's playing unsustainably well right now. The overwhelming majority of his playing time is this year, and he's still not at those numbers.

May I ask how Clark is not there right now?

His line currently is .288/.331/.496 with 7 home runs in 139 at bats and 43 games...At this rate he would hit .288 with 27 home runs had he played in 162 games.

He's not there right now because you said "averages", and his career line is .252/.287/.426. His career HR per 162 games is 22. As a catcher, he'll never play 162 games a year. More like 125-30. At that rate, he's .252 with 16-17 HR per year, and a sub .290 OBP. That includes a year that is half his total playing time to date where he's .288/.331/.496. So, he's not there now because he doesn't even have enough playing time to know what he is, and his current numbers fall belong your projection, even while including playing out of his mind, as evidence by his unsustainable BABIP. I would suggest cherry picking one good run of hitting that's less than half a season's worth of play is not a good way to evaluate a hitter, especially when the performance doesn't match the ratings.

The only way Clark makes .262 for a career is if he hardly ever plays RHP. And then he's never getting 15-20 homers. Also, did I mention sub .290 OBP? That's flat out bad.

Yea, were using this half a year of hitting to base his .288 on, but it's not like he has 1000 at bats prior to this season. He has essentially the same amount of at bats total over the past 3 seasons as he has right now in 2038. I dont see .252 much lower than the .260 I predicted. It's not like he is going to be a mendoza line hitter and he will hit his fair share of home runs.

[agrudez]

Garcia, who was the team’s #3 overall prospect has the potential to be a front end starter

I'm laughing. Laughing too hard. Can't stop. Can't breathe. I'm dead.

[Ted]

I see Juan Garcia as a #3. His negative stuff split against LHP is problematic. An RHP who projects 6/6/7 against LHB can't be a top of the rotation arm. The LHB in this league are too good for that. They won't eat him alive, but he won't be able to shut them down. He'll be solid but not great against righties. So he'll be a solid mid rotation guy, should he develop all the way. His change at 5 is the biggest concern. It's over the hump, but that pitch can stop just about anywhere. Lots of guys stop at 8/10, or 7/9. IT that happens, hes a back of the rotation arm.

He has had some velocity bumps in the last year. If he gets 1-2 more, and ends up 8/6/7, he might be more like a number 2. Velo bumps seems to peak from 18-20. Garcia is almost 20, but some guys get a couple more before 21, sometimes 22.

[niles08]

I think that Garcia could be a#2, which is what I meant by "front end". The front end is #1 & #2 in my eyes and #3 is middle, and #4 or #5 is back end...I would agree it's a riskier move for Des Moines, as it always is when acquiring prospects but if Garcia develops completely, he could be a solid piece for Des Moines

[RonCo]

Yes, I think Garcia is more on track as a good #3. But a good #3 is a good pitcher.

You're statement that all prospects have risk is true, but if Garcia were 20 heading to 21, I'd be more sure of his developing into a real starter. Right now I'd say it's 60/40 (much better than if he were 18 [maybe 40/60], and infinitely better than if her were 17 [25/75?]. If he keeps his ratings through next year, I'd bump it to 75%.

One factor that's in Garcia's favor is that he's already pretty well developed at 19. So, how do you assign value on the trigger. If I were Ed I'd be reasonably worried/skeptical, but I'd still be moderately happy with the deal. He's not going anywhere right now.

That said, Omaha isn't going anywhere right this minute, either, so I'm not really sure Hale is the guy you needed except that I've been watching Omaha for a while, and I know you've been trying to find a catcher.

[RonCo]

If Garcia bumps, then maybe he is a two, which is a possibility, too.

The thing that makes some folks blow up on things is (IMHO) a vast difference in viewing the value of and having tolerance for risk.

The Wulms example noted elsewhere was the case of a very young mid-17 year old pitcher who was pretty far under-developed, but carried 5-star numbers. The chances of him yielding were very low--probably under 20%, to give a number. If you are a rebuilding team, there's real value in dealing that kind of player for young chips that carry some degree of certainty. But you'll never get superstars with certainty in return. So the game theory is complex, and rational people can argue from perfectly legitimate positions that diverge greatly.

If you are an established team, you probably don't want to deal that 17-year-old player at all unless you can find a guy willing to give you solid and stable players that fit perfectly right now. That's a classic trade deadline deal, but you should know you're giving away a guy who has a large chance of crashing. Still, you keep him around because you don't need the young stable chips he's most likely worth, and you can afford the 80% chance of getting nothing for him in hopes of the 20% chance that he does something good. Of course, that 20% is really 10% of being just good, and 10% of being a real impact player.

So, the value of this 17-year-old, underdeveloped wunderkind is fluid in itself, and depends on who you are and what you need.

I get the furor, of course, but there's nothing to do for it. Either you think these ways or you don't. The other question in this deal is whether Des Moines could have gotten more for Hale. I dunno.

[RonCo]

In this deal:

- The performance gap between Clark and Hale is real and fairly predictable--though Clark's defense will hide some of his value, and make the gap a little less than it will appear.
- The risk in Garcia is medium low. The risk in Tanon is still high.

That said, I like both sides of the deal from a pure game theory standpoint. I think it has a maybe a 35% chance being a clear Omaha win, a 35% chance of being a wash (or close enough for government work), and a 30% chance that Des Moines come out a clear winner. So, I'd weight it Omaha's way, but it's not a slam dunk. I can see why Ed would do this.

Others will, of course, disagree and think my view is just slimey. But that's my take.

[Ted]

I'd put the percentages at more like 50 Omaha, 30 even, 20 Des Moines. I see your point Ron, but one of the big things with deals is that you HAVE to get something for trading a young cost controlled starting caliber player. you have to. You don't take risks there. Old vets on expiring deals? Not yet developed highly rated prospects? Sure. But young, developed, starting player caliber players HAVE to net you a guaranteed return. They are the most valuable asset in the game. You can let your franchise lose value in that fashion.

[RonCo]

I've said about all I can say. We disagree on percentages and odds of what can happen in the future. Go figure.

I agree I'd like the deal better from Ed's point of view if the two pitchers were each a year older, but I'm telling you what _I_ think the odds of the deal are. Of course, neither one of us knows the real odds, and Ed and Justin are big boys. And if we're learning anything about the development engine, there are guarantees.

[RonCo]

Though I'll note (so I guess I haven't said it all now, have I?) there's a small chance (5%?) that Tanon could wind up being an interesting SP conversion, and it that happens Ed could win this in a landslide.

It's all about your tolerance of risk and maybe how you see your window.