Matt Holliday to St. Louis

by erik on Jul 24, 2009 12:52 PM EDT Comment 48 comments

I've been busier and more ubiquitous than a colony of ants today, watching this trade go down. After many whispers, the deal is done: The Cardinals have officially traded prospects 3B Brett Wallace, OF Shane Peterson and RHP Clayton Mortensen to the A's for Matt Holliday.

The Prospects:

Brett Wallace was considered to be the top hitter of the 2008 draft and is already up and hitting in Triple-A. He's not a great organizational fit for St. Louis as he's more of a first baseman than a third baseman due to some limited range. Baseball America ranked him the 21st best prospect in baseball mid-season. He's a shoo-in to at least make their top 50, meaning he has a surplus value in the $22-$25 million range according to Victor Wang's research on the "hidden value of prospects". (See this post for more explanation on how that works).
Shane Peterson is a 2nd round pick from the '08 draft and a "C" grade prospect, as ranked by John Sickels. As someone who closely follows the Cardinals farm system, I agree with that grade. He's hit well in High-A and Double-A this season with a cumulative line of .295/.361/.423, but some scouts call him a tweener. His bat profiles well in center field, but he's defensively limited. As a 22-year old C hitter, his surplus value is $700K.
Clayton Mortensen was supplemental 1st-round pick in the 2007 draft and was considered to be the top starting pitching prospect on the Cardinals. He's had a brief cup of coffee so far in the Show, and has a 4.18 tRA for Triple-A Memphis. He's a sinker-baller who has a ceiling of a #3 starter, but is more likely a #4-5. Sickels gave him a C grade, but I could see him getting bumped up to a B. Let's meet in the middle and give him a suplus value of $5 million.

The Big Leaguer: Not quite what he was in Colorado, ZiPS projects Matt Holliday to hit a .370 wOBA the rest of the season. His UZR/150 over his career is +7. He should be worth about 2 extra wins to the Cardinals and add about 15% to the Cardinals chances of making the playoffs according to our own vivaelpujols and his playoff odds. He's due $6 million in salary, and the A's are kicking in an extra $1.5 mil in the deal. Holliday is also a Type A free agent at seasons' end, according to Victor Wang, that's worth an extra $5M. So.....

The Not-So-Final Analysis: Matt Holliday's value to the Cardinals is worth a total of like $13.5 million when you figure his salary ($6M), wins added ($9M), draft pick compensation ($5M), cash from OAK (1.5) and increased playoff odds ($4M). The A's get a top 50 hitter, a B grade pitcher and a 22-year old C grade hitter, which totals around $28 million. Oakland comes out way ahead here. For St. Louis, this is one heck of an expensive 2-month rental.

Just when folks think Beane has lost his touch, he goes back to the team he stole Dan Haren from, which resulted in more trades. It's a vicious cycle for Cardinal fans, who may be watching history repeat itself. The trade only looks good for Cardinal fans if it results in a flag, but as I said earlier, that's no slam dunk. If they can extend Holliday to an a decent deal, then it looks better, but with Scott Boras, that also is no slam dunk. Lots of wild cards for the Cardinals. Beane looks to have raided St. Louis again.

0 recs | Comment 48 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

You saber guys always create something to give Beane the advantage.

I wonder what this means for Daric Barton.

by R.J. Anderson on Jul 24, 2009 12:56 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Wouldn't you say his situation is unchanged?

He needs to hit for more power to avoid being Sean Casey minus in Triple-A

by Tommy Bennett on Jul 24, 2009 1:12 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions 0 recs

What did the saber guys create?

My Padres Blog

by Melvin Nieves on Jul 24, 2009 8:43 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

It's incredible to see the Cardinals continue to replenish their farm system to make moves like this every few seasons.

Yeah, Beane is pillaging the Cardinals again, but it doesn’t seem to be doing Oakland any good. The A’s are basically a glorified Triple-A team. A bunch of prospects play for them, and when they finally pan out, they get traded to a major league team. Beane needs to find a cornerstone player to build around.

by Wilder. on Jul 24, 2009 1:20 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Hmmm.

Beane needs to find a cornerstone player to build around.

Brett Wallace, anyone?

If not, maybe Brett Anderson, Trevor Cahill, or Vin Mazzaro. I think they’re all cost-controlled for 5-6 years.

Add Carter, Doolittle, Cardenas, etc. and we have a very cheap, potentially very good team until 2014-15.

witty remark

by dtownmbrown on Jul 24, 2009 1:46 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Exactly

And, having a bunch of above average regulars >>>>> having one superstar and mostly mediocrity.

by Blicks on Jul 24, 2009 1:54 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

That's how the Yankees won so much in the late 90's early 00's

I still wonder why they tried to start buying championships after winning all those years with the Brosius’s, O’neill’s, Martinez’s, etc.

witty remark

by dtownmbrown on Jul 24, 2009 2:15 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

It's easier?

by R.J. Anderson on Jul 24, 2009 3:20 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

ehhh

or maybe it’s like, super hard to find cost controlled inner circle hall of fame short stops (Jeter) and hall of fame peak cost controlled Center fielder (Bernie) so that was the only other alternative?

The Yanks in the 90s HAD tthose corner stones. in Jeter / Bernie / Rivera / Posada / Pettitte you essentially have two inner circle hall of famer and 3 borderline guys all under cost controll, in their peak, AT THE SAME TIME (except maybe Posada. though thats more dumb FO management then anything else). that’s why they could afford to carry icky 2B / 1B / 3B / RFs during this span. and it’s not like they didn’t have an awesome bench loaded with former greats (Raines / Strawberry etc) and really. they had Roger Clemens / David Cone / David Wells amoung other big names pitching for them during this span too. it’s not like they didn’t get huge stars on their team during this span and only started after 2001. the difference from 96-00 and 01-08 was that the Jeter / Bernies got expensive (and/ or less good) and they simply havn’t had enough repacements from within . that’s starting to change a bit now. which is why the Yankees chances in the next couple of years (and this one) is probably better than what other people give them credit for.

For the Yanks to win it all, they STILL need to have a good self core like everyone else. the only differnece is that they’re chances of capitalizing on a great core is much much higher than eveyrone else because they can easily build up the surronding cast quickly and consistently through FAs and money dump trades. and their vally is virtually non-existent.

by RollingWave on Jul 24, 2009 11:00 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

See, that's the thing.

These players are cost-controlled for 4-6 years. When they become good in 3-5 years, Beane trades them away for more cost-controlled players. When I say cornerstone player, I mean sign a guy to a long-term deal after they are proven major league players. Until Beane decides to commit to a few players, he is running a glorified Triple-A team.

Maybe the way Eric Chavez’s career went has discouraged Beane from doing this, I don’t know.

by Wilder. on Jul 24, 2009 3:03 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

The team doesn’t have the payroll to sign more than a few players to longterm deals. Chavez hasn’t necessarily discouraged Beane from doing this, but Chavez taking up so much payroll is certainly preventing Beane from signing anyone.

And Beane doesn’t trade away his players when he thinks he has a chance to win. Zito, Tejada, and Giambi all stayed until they hit free agency because the team had a chance to win then. If Beane thinks the team didn’t have a chance to win, then they would have been traded too.

by VictorW on Jul 24, 2009 3:32 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

+1

by DSamonek on Jul 25, 2009 2:09 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I think people REALLY underrated the disadvantage of a small payroll.

Yes, you can win with it. No, not all high payroll teams are good. But if you do the ol’ $4.5M per marginal win thing, the expected difference between a $70M team and a $120M team is 11 wins. That’s a jump from 81 to 92, for example. And there’s really no skill to it, other finding as many free agent deals as you find free agent busts.

Beyond the Boxscore Not a member? Sign up.

by Sky Kalkman on Jul 27, 2009 2:25 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Does that eval include playoff revenue (pro-rated on the increased chance of getting in due to Holliday) in the mix? I’d guess it does, but it’s hard to see the breakdown in the 13.5m summary.

by dannimal on Jul 24, 2009 1:23 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Agree -- maybe a simple graph at the end of the article

Put the values of what each side got in the trade.

Jeff Zimmerman - Protecting the world from RBI's and Wins from my mom's guest house.

by Jeff Zimmerman (TucsonRoyal) on Jul 24, 2009 1:26 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Well this has been a messy day

Derosa.

by vivaelpujols on Jul 24, 2009 1:31 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Yeah, Beane stole Haren from the Cards...

but how did that work out for them? They managed a total of ONE division title the three years Haren was there, then, they shipped him out for?…more prospects. You can collect all the prospects you want to, but at some point, you gotta start winning something. How much closer is Oakland to the World Series after all the moves they’ve made the last few years?

by tbell61 on Jul 24, 2009 1:35 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Well, they're a lot closer than they were in mid-2007...

Linda's in the cold ground, won't see her anymore
Somewhere out on the highway tonight, the drunken engines roar
It's just one of those things, one of those things
-- Al Stewart, "Accident on 3rd St."
In memory of Nick Adenhart and all victims of drunk driving

by PaulThomas on Jul 24, 2009 2:05 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Bingo!

Beane is going to be known for his great trading abilities and talent evaluation, but not building a championship team. Oakland’s success in the early part of this decade can be attributed to the old system that was in place before Beane took over as GM. There were cornerstone players on those teams and Beane filled in the holes with great signings and trades.

Today, Beane continues to rate excellent on trades and talent evaluation, but he is not going to have a championship contender until he signs a cornerstone or two (Dan Haren would have been a good start, even though Beane got a great haul in that trade). I guess there hasn’t been a player impressive enough for Beane to do this already. Maybe that player will be Brett Wallace someday?

by Wilder. on Jul 24, 2009 3:15 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Anyone who makes the playoffs in baseball has a chance to win it all so I’d say Beane made plenty of teams capable of winning championships in the 2000’s and as recent as 2006.

Billy Beane was a scout for Oakland in the early 90’s and became Assistant GM for about 4 years before he became the full time GM in 1998. I’d say that means he had a lot to do with acquiring Tejada, Chavez, Giambi, Zito, Hudson, etc. and the success the team had for the first half of this decade.

by VictorW on Jul 24, 2009 3:37 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Beane likely had a lot to with with acquiring those players, but he didn't run the system.

And the system he has in place now began in 2002 even though he took over in 1998 (according to Moneyball). It takes time for a system to fully integrate and I would argue it hasn’t been successful. But, like you mentioned above, it is probably due to the salary limitations Oakland has that has kept Beane from taking the team and philosophy to the next level. Jack Zduriencik in Seattle appears to be implementing a similar system as Beane, but will have greater flexibility with a larger budget.

Beane is a great GM, I just don’t expect the A’s to become a powerhouse with the current system in place (barring an increase in budget).

by Wilder. on Jul 24, 2009 4:07 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Apparently you're interpreting Moneyball way too literally

There is not, nor has there ever been, a “system” which the A’s have run. This is not Jim Boeheim’s 2-3 zone.

BTW, since apparently it’s OK to buy great players but not to sell them, how are the Diamondbacks doing these days?

by PaulThomas on Jul 25, 2009 4:48 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

wow all the offensive players you named above were on steroids

but i’m sure that’s just a coincidence. Yup Billy Beane is a genius. He built a team around getting three run homers from juiceheads. Too bad, he hasn’t figured out a new strategy befitting the post steroids era

by norm depalma on Jul 26, 2009 2:42 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Umm... Tejada and Giambi are the only ones that I can think of with drugs issues.

@bs_uf15bosox9be:OverTheMonster-ALLERGEN WARNING:May contain PB.

by bs.uf15bosox9bears23 on Jul 26, 2009 8:56 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I'm having a really bad day today!!!!!!!!!!

(Insert expletive here!)

by chuckb on Jul 24, 2009 1:39 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Seriously though?

Wallace wasn’t enough? I have no respect for Mozeliak anymore.

Derosa.

by vivaelpujols on Jul 24, 2009 2:02 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Please, when have you ever seen a prospect traded straight-up for a star?

It’s almost courtesy to include two fringe major leaguers. That balances the likeliness of a prospect not reaching his potential, which happens every so often.

by Daniel Berlyn on Jul 24, 2009 4:02 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Seriously though?

But Mortensen isn’t a fringe prospect. He has a good chance of contributing positively to a big-league rotation, projecting to a #3-#5 starter. Before today, I had been wondering if Wallace for Holliday would be a good deal, or if we’d be better off just sticking Wallace at 3rd for the rest of the season while really waiting for him, Rasmus, and other prospects to develop. Wallace plus Mortensen is definitely too much.

by apack on Jul 24, 2009 11:07 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Wallace has a lot of progress to make before he warrants this kind of fuss.

Mortensen isn’t very likely to become a mid-rotation starter. He’s not exactly dominant and he’s older than a top prospect. He could add some value but the Cards should easily be able to make up for it. Not saying that makes the trade better in that perspective, but he’s probably doing the Cards more good by getting Holliday on the team now. This isn’t “definitely too much”. Holliday is a top player in the game and there are worse deals happening than this all the time.

by Daniel Berlyn on Jul 24, 2009 11:29 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

And for anyone who had the thought cross their mind

Mortensen is no Haren.

by Daniel Berlyn on Jul 24, 2009 11:47 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Is Wallace really a top 50 hitter?

Unless the A’s are confident that he sticks at third, I’m not buying it. 51-75 seems more appropriate.

by PaulThomas on Jul 24, 2009 2:09 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

As a DH, he needs to have at least a .380 wOBA to be a 3 WAR player

Almost everyone thinks he could manage that.

Derosa.

by vivaelpujols on Jul 24, 2009 2:11 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Could, sure... will?

Not so obvious.

Anyone: what does a .380 wOBA add up to in terms of runs above average? I still don’t intuitively understand how to make that conversion.

by PaulThomas on Jul 24, 2009 2:32 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

The formula for converting wOBA to runs above average

is ((wOBA-league wOBA)/1.15)*PA.

Fuck Billy Beane

by vivaelpujols on Jul 24, 2009 2:38 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Remember though, he's going to play in a pitcher's park.

So his raw wOBA is going to be less than .380.

by R.J. Anderson on Jul 24, 2009 3:21 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Does it matter after park adjustments?

F%#& Billy Beane. Actually... I kinda like Holliday

by vivaelpujols on Jul 24, 2009 10:47 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

BTW, I'll post the updated playoff odds tomorrow

It’d be too messy to post it right now.

Derosa.

by vivaelpujols on Jul 24, 2009 2:13 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

That's why the links broke...

@bs_uf15bosox9be:OverTheMonster-ALLERGEN WARNING:May contain PB.

by bs.uf15bosox9bears23 on Jul 24, 2009 3:43 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I feel like this trade is worth more to the Cardinals than what can be said in a vacuum.

Especially if Holliday keeps picking up steam and it helps fortify the Cards lineup. Seriously, with Houston and Chicago snuggling up with St.L, this could mean millions in win-now for the Cards. Also, I can’t help but believe the adjustment really sapped his numbers. I saw him hit a single the other day in the Coliseum that would have cleared the fence in Coors easily. But I digress, I just really think this could be a bombshell for the Cards. Consider how much DeRosa and Holliday will mean taking over for the likes of Barden, Thurston, Duncan and Ankiel up to this point.

I can’t say the Walrus loss doesn’t hurt, but I really like the aggressiveness because Holliday was easily the best hitter available. You can also make up for it in the draft because he’ll be type A and there’s no way he accepts arb. I think the A’s fans should be pleased with the coup and Cardinals fans should be happy they just made their lineup a whole lot scarier.

by Daniel Berlyn on Jul 24, 2009 4:08 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

This was kind of like the comment I made to Fantasy411 on Twitter. I said that it really felt like a “Flags fly forever” trade, because it’s an overpay. I was thinking of it as similar to (but not more than that) the Doyle Alexander/John Smoltz trade in ’87.

His reply, which I never even thought of, was that he agreed and that the Cards need every $ they can get to re-sign Pujols in 2011. And if the Cards do make the playoffs, they’ll generate a fat sack of cash with no long term salary expense (Holliday leaving in the off season).

In that context, and considering they’ll get two draft picks if Holliday does sign elsewhere, this is a brilliant gamble. Trading future potential for an increased chance to make the playoffs (and as 2006 shows, even the worst of 8 teams to get in can win the WS) AND help keep the best player in the game (much more valuable than potential) long term is worth overpaying with potential.

Maybe Oakland keeps getting more from St. Louis than it gives back, but St. Louis happens to have won a WS on their side of the ledger. Luck or not, that matter.

by dannimal on Jul 24, 2009 11:00 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

It strikes me that what Billy Beane did was a bit of chronological arbitrage in the market for corner outfielders. He was traded November 12, 2008, which was about the same time that people were stockpiling bottled water and duct tape. Now the value of a corner outfielder is much higher—especially to a team on the playoff bubble, as the Cardinals are.

by Tommy Bennett on Jul 24, 2009 7:52 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

I don't really see how this is better than what he gave up to get him.

by Daniel Berlyn on Jul 24, 2009 9:42 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Using the "best player in the deal" method of evaluation

Whom would you rather have: Carlos Gonzalez or Brett Wallace? By no means is there consensus, but I’d take Wallace.

by Tommy Bennett on Jul 24, 2009 10:19 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Well, I'd call it a draw for now. Gonzalez has the more potential.

I think Street tips the scales at least for now.

by Daniel Berlyn on Jul 24, 2009 10:37 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Given it's somewhere near a draw, doesn't that mean Beane somewhat came out ahead?

I mean, it didn’t really cost anything besides a little money to take a shot at winning a supposed weak division, right?

Beyond the Boxscore Not a member? Sign up.

by Sky Kalkman on Jul 27, 2009 2:23 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I'd much rather have the original three players back

by PaulThomas on Jul 25, 2009 4:51 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Well, the Cards looked amazing tonight

Of course we would have to win the world series for the deal to be worth it, but with Waino-Carp and Pineiro at the top of the rotation (not to mentioned Lohse who is a solid 3 starter), and a 2-3-4-5 of DeRosa, Pujols, Holliday and Ludwick; the Cards look pretty stacked.

F%#& Billy Beane. Actually... I kinda like Holliday

by vivaelpujols on Jul 24, 2009 10:46 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

The raw power of win-now is intoxicating, yes?

Think of what this could potentially mean for the Cards if they do make the playoffs, especially if Holliday is the difference and then propels them. Either way, with the Cardinals fanbase, they should be able to sell out a lot of games in September and all of them in October if they get that far. Tens of millions, that’s what. I don’t agree with everything Moze does, especially PR-wise, but I love how he’s gone all out this year without mortgaging too much. They don’t have to win the World Series for the deal to be worth it… every opportunity to seize a playoff birth should be cherished. Try to stash your prospects, get the best deal and the rest takes care of itself as long as the organization scouts and drafts well. Not that I’m saying you shouldn’t be prudent, but cautiously aggressive. Even the top prospects fizz out all too often to shed tears.

by Daniel Berlyn on Jul 24, 2009 11:45 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs