Jean Segura Has Set a Precedent

[Second Base]

This past week I had the opportunity to talk to someone in the Dodgers organization.  Naturally, being an Angels fan the conversation went to a player the two teams have in common, Zack Greinke.  When asked if he'd consider parting ways with Greinke in return for Jean Segura, his response was candid and measured "I think a lot of teams would give up a lot for Jean Segura".  

 

This led to a fascinating conversation about how he believes the market has finally shifted.  Top prospects have always been viewed as currency for teams that need help at the deadline.  My Dodger contact didn't specifically state that prospects will no longer be dealt, but perhaps an era of top prospects that are in AA or AAA will no longer be commonly dealt.  

 

Then he asks me, could you just imagine Mike Trout and Jean Segura in the same lineup?  This one about made me cry.  

 

To read the full article, click on the link. 

 

http://www.bloguin.com/theoutsidecorner/2013-articles/may/jean-segura-to-set-a-precedent-angels-brewers-zack-greinke.html

 

[austin724]

At the time it was a good trade and we definitely needed someone like Greinke.  You cannot fault the organization for that trade.

[Angel Oracle]

Why are a lot of people forgetting that outside of 2009, Grienke has been decent to solid at best?   His ERA since then is around 3.90.

 

How many here would truly trade a VERY GOOD prospect with potentially 5 tools (Segura) for a rental pitcher with a high 3.00s ERA since 2010?    Knowing that said pitcher would command big dollars for basically having an ERA similar to Vargas since 2010? 

 

All I know is, Stoneman and Disney would never have made that deal.

Reagins would have likely fallen all over himself to make it.

 

Segura ISN'T Wood.   He actually has tools other than just hitting HRs and having poor plate discipline.

Segura's plate discipline was always pretty decent in the minors.

[Johnconrad]

Couldn't they have traded someone else?

[mbn]

Who?

[Chuck]

This is tired conversation on here. Not to mention, this is just another guy's opinion. 

 

I would have traded for Greinke even knowing what Segura would do the following season. 

 

Anytime you have a chance to add a player that can help you get to the playoffs and go far, plus have a good chance to re-sign him, you do it. 

[Angel Oracle]

They could have done nothing, and then dangled Kendrick for some decent pitching (say at the level of Vargas).

[rageous]

In hindsight the trade didn't work in the Angels favor but the Angels had numerous big time prospects that have completely turned out to be flops in recent years.

Remember that the Angels were going to trade for Miguel Cabrera for package involving Ervin Santana, Howie and Brandon Wood.  

Do you think the Angels would have liked to make that trade knowing what they know now?

[Second Base]

Keep in mind gents, this is NOT about whether or not the trade was worth it.  This is about a potential shift in the way teams do business.  Prospects that have higher upside down in A Ball are bigger risks that organizations feel they could recuperate from if dealt.  But when you have an extremely high upside prospect (and though I didn't add it in the article, he specifically said that if national publications weren't so "unreliable" meaning they have an agenda, Segura would've been a legitimate Top 10 prospect) teams will no longer go about trading them away when they are at AA and AAA. 

 

Meaning if these guys are dealt, they'll be on the move down in A Ball, not when they're on the Major League doorstep as Segura was.  Which makes sense because the team that receives such a prospect receives a tremendous amount of value both short term and long term and no one has to wait around and wonder whether or not this kid is going to make it. 

[AZMike]

This is tired conversation on here. Not to mention, this is just another guy's opinion. 

 

I would have traded for Greinke even knowing what Segura would do the following season. 

 

Anytime you have a chance to add a player that can help you get to the playoffs and go far, plus have a good chance to re-sign him, you do it. 

 

I agree only if it's very likely you'll actually win the division, and are adding pieces to help you go deeper into the playoffs (as was the case with the Teixeira trade). In 2012 is was a question mark if the Angels would even get into a wild card (At best a coinflip 163rd game, not the real playoffs). IMO that takes away a lot of the upside of going for an ace for your playoff rotation if there's a good chance you won't see the playoffs.

[Angel Oracle]

Cabrera though was a consistent threat.    Grienke had ONE great season and a bunch of decent to maybe solid ones around it.

And again, Grienke's ERA since 2010 = Vargas' ERA since 2010.

 

Heck, even Kazmir's September 2009 was > Grienke's August/September 2012.

Grienke was decent to solid, but he wasn't a guy who would put you over the top.  

[Second Base]

LOL alright, I give up.  You guys are still going to argue whether or not the trade was good until you're all blue in the face, even though that wasn't the purpose of the article. 

[Angel Oracle]

I get the article, and the new re-emphasis on keeping your key prospects more and more.    I approve of that totally.

 

I just don't get the Grienke love.

 

Back to what the article said, that is essentially what Stoneman did from 2000-2007.

The main question is, did he keep too many too long?

 

I approve of a strong farm system.

I also approve of making a stategic trade here and there, without giving up your prospects who have all of the tools like Segura, and of a strategic FA signing here and there but not taking on big money over 30 players like they are going out of style.

 

In other words, create a good balance of sabremetric players and grit players.

[Second Base]

Again, you're taking the article in a direction it isn't meant to go.  Nowhere did I say or even imply anything about Sabermetric vs grit. 

[Angel Oracle]

But it is true that Stoneman never viewed prospects as currency for trades, which was part of what I was saying.

I did go beyond that, admittedly.

 

And thus, it could be said that MLB in increasing incidence is simply following the path that Stoneman laid out.    

[AZMike]

LOL alright, I give up.  You guys are still going to argue whether or not the trade was good until you're all blue in the face, even though that wasn't the purpose of the article. 

Your article sounds like a cautionary tale for why, say, the Rangers shouldn't deal Profar to get a player like Stanton, but doesn't really have any relevance to the Angels, unless you want to get into second guessing the trade after the fact (what you are complaining about people doing in this thread). The Angels don't currently have a similar blue chip prospect in the system and probably won't for a few years. 

[Hollyw00d]

Cabrera though was a consistent threat.    Grienke had ONE great season and a bunch of decent to maybe solid ones around it.

And again, Grienke's ERA since 2010 = Vargas' ERA since 2010.

 

Heck, even Kazmir's September 2009 was > Grienke's August/September 2012.

Grienke was decent to solid, but he wasn't a guy who would put you over the top.

Dude vargas isn't anywhere near greinke's level, and to compare the two is just stupid.

[gotbeer]

You look at Segura's minor league numbers.  And I would do that trade again in a heartbeat.

 

Rookie Ball 162 AB, .904 OPS

A Ball 515 AB, .829 OPS

2011 looks like he was hurt, only 185 AB in A+ Ball .758 OPS

AA Ball, 374 AB .749 OPS

 

Traded to the Brewers.  148 AB, .652 OPS last year.

 

Then he jumps to a .986 OPS this year.  If anyone could have predicted that, especially many posters, I call Bullshit.

[tdawg87]

Segura has a .394 BABIP. There is no way he maintains that.

[Chuck]

Segura has a .394 BABIP. There is no way he maintains that.

 

Yep. I've seen him get a bunch of bloop hits this year. 

 

But at the same time, he's driving the ball really well to the opposite field. Doing a hell of a job. 

 

I've always viewed him as a nice talent, but you have to give up one of those in a deal to get a pitcher like Greinke. 

[Angelsjunky]

I think Segura is more of a .300/.800 type - still plenty good but not THIS good.

 

As for the actual topic Scotty is trying to bring, it only makes sense. I imagine that we'll still see teams trade top prospects for rent-a-players at midseason, but it already seems this is happening with less frequency. Maybe Segura will be viewed as the tipping point.

[Second Base]

Thanks AJ.  I see that happening too, prospects will still be viewed as currency.  But when you have super prospects, or prospects at key positions with extreme upside, I think we'll start to see ball clubs hold onto those guys more than in the past.  

 

Talking to this gentleman also confirmed what I've suspected for quite a while.  These "experts" with major publication syndicates that produce top prospect lists really do have an agenda or bias.  It's awfully hard to justify a young shortstop prospect with 5-tool talent in AA being hidden somewhere in the depths of a Top 100 list.  Kids like that don't come out every year, teams are lucky to find one every decade. 

 

Also sending their "scouts" to go watch an Angels minor league game, of course these guys are going to be preoccupied with Trout.  They're either looking for something bad to say about him or he's just so over the top good the scouts are left awestruck.  

 

I do my own personal scouting whenever possible, but when it comes to taking any prospect list seriously, what this gentleman with the Dodgers told me just confirmed that if you want the most accurate info, you gotta find the small sites that specialize on a team.  Sure, you have to sift through the bias but at least you're getting a full report and not some filler from some guy that didn't invest any time or energy into understanding a player's capabilities.  Yet that's the product that's being sold as "expertise".

[JB Abell]

Dude vargas isn't anywhere near greinke's level, and to compare the two is just stupid.

Grienke is definitely a more solid pitcher, but to say they are nowhere near is just not true. Have you actually looked at their stats? Grienke, without the 2009 fluke year where he pitched a 2.19 ERA, has about a 4.00 ERA. Vargas has a 4.30 career ERA. And the two have about the same ERA in the years since Grienkes fluke year.

Of course Grienke is a solid pitcher and better then Vargas. Just not by much. He is by far the must overrated pitcher in the mlb. Getting paid 25 million a year, more then any pitcher should get, for not even being the best number 2 pitcher in the league.

[austin724]

AO, if the Angels did nothing we as fans would have all complained that this team threw in the towel last year.  At the time it was the trade that needed to be made. If we had made the playoffs and we did come very close I believe we would have been in the World Series.

[Quinlanforthewin]

Segura wouldn't have been playing anyways.  There's no way Scioscia would have figured out his bat was better than Aybar's or worth moving someone to third.  Segura would have finally cracked our lineup maybe 2 years from now.