Reyes for Carlos Quentin

by maurerdj on Sep 29, 2007 5:13 PM EDT Comment 29 comments

A good friend of mine lives in Arizona and says that Quentin is viewed much like Reyes is here. A guy with a lot of talent who's pretty much been a bust. My question is would you like to see Reyes traded for Quentin and give both guys a change of scenery?

Reyes - 25
Minors: 16-9, 3.23 ERA, 1.04 WHIP: 81 ERA+
MLB: 8-23, 5.42 ERA, 1.35 WHIP

Quentin - 25

MLB performance: .229/.316/.345: 84 OPS+
Minors: .313/.413/.527: .940 OPS (sorry couldn't find any equivalence stats)

Very similar track record; both were very good college players, had very good success in the minors, but have struggled at the MLB level. Quentin is pretty much out of a job with Brynes, Young, Upton all coming back. I think the D-backs may be willing to pull the trigger on such a trade, what do all of you think?

0 recs | Comment 29 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

As a Cardinal fan I love it

but I'd be surprised if the D-Backs would go for it.

500- What it takes enough to win at Rummy, at Indy and in the NL Central.

by Zubin on Sep 29, 2007 5:43 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

I would love it too

This would potentially give us an outfielder with some star potential. The guy's never had a minor-league OPS below .900, which is pretty stellar.

Here's some other interesting info concerning the comparison. On Baseball America's top prospects list, both Reyes and Quentin made the list in 2005 and 2006. Reyes was #47 in '05 and #41 in '06. Quentin was ranked higher at #22 in '05 and #20 in '06.

by mtalken on Sep 29, 2007 5:53 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Why trade what we need for what don't need.

We need starting pitching. Like reyes or not, he can fill that role.

We have a glut of outfielders. We don't need another one unless they are of the 950OPS + types.

by DriverZn on Sep 29, 2007 5:59 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Assuming

JEnc comes back healthy, it would allow us to deal him and get rid of his $6 mil so we can use it for a pitcher. But then again, I have no idea what his status is.

On with the youth movement!

by aet15 on Sep 29, 2007 6:26 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

We already have

Duncan
Ankiel
Edmonds
Ludwick

Duncan, Ankiel, and Ludwick all project to be equal or better hitters. I don't see the need.

by DriverZn on Sep 29, 2007 6:42 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Actually

we would have to resign Ludwick for next season.

by spants on Sep 29, 2007 7:19 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

What about Rick?

I didn't think he was under our control.

500- What it takes enough to win at Rummy, at Indy and in the NL Central.

by Zubin on Sep 29, 2007 9:52 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Lud

Ludwick is a career .251 .319 .447 .766 hitter. Let's not get carried away, he's a 4th outfielder.

Cheeseburger in paradise.

by joker24 on Sep 29, 2007 10:00 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

just out of curiousity

I'm pretty much done with posting stats as I've done 200 times so far, as I feel his performance this season speaks for itself at this point, but given what we know about the history that makes the man a .766 hitter (and I'll let you do the googling to find out what that is) do you really still believe he's just a 4th outfielder at this point?

anyway someone earlier in the season pointed out that he is under club control for next year. For the life of me I can't figure out the minor league free agentrules; I thought we'd have to resign him, but whoever it was that made the argument was convincing. Let's really hope he comes back. If we signed him to 3Y/20M we'd get a hell of a deal imho...

"but the rain is so real, lord; and the rainbows pretend..."

by SleepyCA on Oct 1, 2007 12:14 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

wait a minute

Ludwick? You want to give Ludwick 3 years and 20 million dollars? I like the guy too, but don't out-bid yourself on this one. He is not going to command upwards of $7 million/year on the open market.

by Irishman on Oct 1, 2007 2:52 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

not saying that is what I want to happen

Just saying that 3Y/20M would be a good deal for .850-.900 OPS production and plus OF defense. Imho Ludwick is a modest upgrade from Carlos Lee, who got6Y/100M, and is a huge upgrade from J. Encarnacion, whom we gave 3Y/$15M.

"but the rain is so real, lord; and the rainbows pretend..."

by SleepyCA on Oct 1, 2007 4:21 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

OK, I lied

bored at my desk so I decided to do the math. This table probably under-rates Ludwick significantly based on the amount that he improved over the course of the season (check his BB/PA rates pre- and post- all star break and/or monthly OPS splits for evidence of this).

PA WARP1 WARP3 HR GIDP Encarnacion 307 0.6 1.1 9 11 Ludwick 336 3.0 3.9 14 1 (!!!) Carlos Lee 697 5.3 6.8 32 27Enc Projected 697 1.4 2.5 20 25 Lud projected 697 6.2 8.1 29 2.07 (!!!) Carlos Lee 697 5.3 6.8 32 27

"but the rain is so real, lord; and the rainbows pretend..."

by SleepyCA on Oct 1, 2007 5:39 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Ludwick does not have

6 years of major league service time, so he is not eligible for free agency (unless the Cards don't offer him a contract at all). So they would only be bidding against themselves, which is my point. they will give him $750k next year, imo. And if they pay him more than that they are crazy. I am not saying that he isn't "worth" more than that, I am saying that is what you pay a player like him (with as short of major league service time).

by Irishman on Oct 1, 2007 6:13 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

6 years = free agency

isn't true. Once you're released from your original pro contract, I believe you're a free agent.

Well, let's go to the old mill anyway -- get some cider!

by Alxfritz on Oct 1, 2007 6:28 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I believe

that is true once you are released from the contract, but when you sign with a different team you are under that team's control until 1.) your contract is up and you are not offered another or 2.) you hit 6 years of major league service time.

But, admittedly I could be wrong on that.

Regardless, my point remains the same. Ludwick's value on the market, imo, will be closer to 750k - 1M, rather than getting a multi-year, multi-million dollar contract. No GM is going to commit that much time or cash to a guy who only has 637 career major league at-bats.

by Irishman on Oct 1, 2007 6:58 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I agree w/ your point

re: Ludwick. The cards should be able to have him for 750-ish. And he'd be worth exactly that.

The whole minor league free agent situations are ridiculously complicated; I only (think ) I know what I said on anecdotal evidence form a minor/major leaguer who I am friends with and following his life; his situation may be much different from others, so who knows; I may have it messed up.

Well, let's go to the old mill anyway -- get some cider!

by Alxfritz on Oct 1, 2007 7:27 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

OK

I emailed Matt Leach and asked him to look into the contract thing. He replied that Ludwick is definitely under club control, just like Skip and TJ, and probably not arbitration eligible yet. Adding him to the 40-man removed his minor league free agent rights.

Whew. I still think we should lock him up as early as possible to keep him from being very expensive down the line- I'd rather give a bad contract to someone having a fluke season (which he isn't, imho, but the chance is there) than pay market value or sign someone like Encarnacion...

"but the rain is so real, lord; and the rainbows pretend..."

by SleepyCA on Oct 2, 2007 1:01 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

There

really is no need, but adding Quentin gives us more leverage if say Edmonds is injured again and any of those three have a sophomore slump.

The funny thing is that I actually agree with you, I'm just saying why it wouldn't be a horrible move. In my opinion, if we're going to add a hitter, I'd rather them be proven. I would like to see Reyes trraded, but I'd rather it be for another young struggling pitcher (such as Ervin Santana).

On with the youth movement!

by aet15 on Sep 29, 2007 9:14 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

If Edmonds is injured again.......

he's going to be injured again......he has been for the last few years. I don't know anyone who's injury history improves as they age. Ervin Santana is as poor a fit for this current coaching staff as Reyes is-he is an extreme flyball pitcher. I really don't see the Angels dealing him anyway-they tend to keep the youngsters and deal their veterans, and Santana is still pretty young.

by jillsinmo on Sep 30, 2007 7:56 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

a

My reasoning for going after a hitter rather than a pitcher is that it seems that it is an extreme seller's market for pitchers. Realistically, is there anyone available who you think can be significantly better than league average and won't require trading half of our prospects to acquire? We have several starters who I think who have shown the y can give us 5-6 innings each start and have an ERA between 4.5 - 5. I don't think we can net much better through the trade market.

by maurerdj on Sep 29, 2007 9:45 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

If the D'backs would do it

I'd take it. Normally I wouldn't think that trade could be made straight up, but even the most beleaguered pitcher is going to be overvalued this offseason.

That trade would open us up to trade Duncan. I don't see how else the OF is going to work out next season. A Duncan/Edmonds/Ankiel OF is L/L/L. Duncan and Edmonds both sit against lefties. That would give us Ludwick/Ankiel/Schumaker, which is to say the least, uninspiring. Quentin has a pretty heavy upside and is right-handed.

As far as pitching is concerned, it would help if we could sign Shilling on the FA market. Pitchers that are rumored to be available for trades include Carl Pavano, Jose Contreras, Kei Igawa, Matt Morris, Jon Garland, Bronson Arroyo, Nate Robertson, and Joe Blanton. I'd imagine we'll at least kick the tires on Morris, though as much as I love the guy I think his best days are behind him. Arroyo could be interesting. If Adam Dunn leaves Chris Duncan could be pretty attractive to them. The ChiSox are looking for two relievers for Garland, we could probably swing that. Joe Blanton's the best available out of that bunch, but quite frankly I'm scared to trade with the A's.

by stl tyler on Sep 30, 2007 1:12 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Nate Robertson may be available? Well,

now, the Tigers might be interested in Reyes; they did draft him at one time and he returned to school instead. I'm not sure he's the answer, but it's a place to start.

by jillsinmo on Sep 30, 2007 10:35 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs