Astros send Sutton to Reds
by clack on Apr 16, 2009 4:31 PM CDT
30 comments
The Houston Chronicle reports that Drew Sutton is the PTBNL for Keppinger who will be sent to the Reds. Sutton is scheduled to report to the Reds' AAA affiliate. That stings a bit. Maybe the fact that Keppinger has gotten off to such a good start will reduce any "buyers' remorse."
0 recs |
30 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
This makes no sense
1) The Reds don’t need Sutton, they have Brandon Phillips
2) The Astros just gave up who we could arguably call the number one hitting prospect in the system, at least in terms of MLB readiness.
3) They did all this at time when Kaz Matsui is having back problems.
This team kills me.
The Crawfishboxes
A good friend of mine used to say, "This is a very simple game. You throw the ball, you catch the ball, you hit the ball. Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose, sometimes it rains." Think about that for a while.
by Stephen Higdon on Apr 16, 2009 4:49 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
I got the impression that Cooper didn't like Sutton's
lessor defensive skills, relative to Maysonet and Manzella. Also, Dusty Baker’s comments on the day of the transaction made it sound like Cooper was pushing him to select Sutton. That’s just a guess.
I wonder if they found a way around the “change of league” requirements for a PTBNL? Maybe they put him through waivers first or something, to take him off the 40 man roster.
It’s disappointing, but I think the Astros must have felt like Keppinger replaces an immediate/future role for Sutton.
by clack on Apr 16, 2009 4:52 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
please tell me
Cooper has nothing to do with trades/roster makeup. he’s a nice guy, but we don’t want him anywhere near that stuff.
by lnewcomer on Apr 16, 2009 8:46 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
My reactions
1. We just traded youthful potential for platoon certainty. It’s hard to compare the two, but Sutton was pretty high ranking in our system.
2. On the other hand, Sutton’s track record in the minors was relatively recent…this could be a gamble on Ed Wade’s part that Sutton’s breakthrough wouldn’t be sustained.
3. How much longer will Keppinger be under our control? We get another year, right?
4. Kazuo’s contract was blocking Sutton from putting any significant time in at the major leagues. Any time he would have gotten would have been in a utility role, and that job is a lot tougher than those guys get paid for.
5. I’ve always been worried about Sutton’s defense, and now I won’t be worried about that anymore.
6. Now we’ve got to cross our fingers on Maysonet and Manzella, arguably better defenders up the middle but not as impressive with their bats.
by AstroAndy on Apr 16, 2009 4:53 PM CDT reply actions 1 recs
I figured something was going to happen to the infield situation at Round Rock...
The team had too many players to share playing time at the middle infield position.
by clack on Apr 16, 2009 4:57 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Contracts don't block players
They are fixed costs, paid no matter where or how much a player is on the field. The only thing that blocks a player from significant PT are the inflated egos of management.
by natrix964909 on Apr 16, 2009 11:39 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
and irrational thinking
as much as we like to point to sunk costs, virtually everyone in the world still factors them into evaluations.
by Only_A_Lad on Apr 17, 2009 12:00 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
And that kills me
That’s like week one of Econ 101.
The Crawfishboxes
A good friend of mine used to say, "This is a very simple game. You throw the ball, you catch the ball, you hit the ball. Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose, sometimes it rains." Think about that for a while.
by Stephen Higdon on Apr 17, 2009 12:45 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
speaking of irrational thinking
I’ve got a intermed. microecon exam tomorrow morning that I’m pretty much guaranteed to be fucked on.
The relation to baseball being… allocation of resources between teams aren’t Pareto efficient? Hell if I know.
by Only_A_Lad on Apr 17, 2009 2:50 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Maybe.
I don’t think it would be a too much of a stretch to say that the Red Sox, Yankees, Rays, Mets, Phillies, and Cubs have 80% of the talent.
by natrix964909 on Apr 17, 2009 3:57 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I hope that went well
Intermed Micro was intense. Since it’s nearly the end of the semester, was it oligopolies and monopolistic competition?
The Crawfishboxes
A good friend of mine used to say, "This is a very simple game. You throw the ball, you catch the ball, you hit the ball. Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose, sometimes it rains." Think about that for a while.
by Stephen Higdon on Apr 17, 2009 1:23 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
nah
we’re only started on imperfect competition models this week. The exam was pretty much just over models of long-run production and exchange. Much easier that I thought.
by Only_A_Lad on Apr 17, 2009 3:03 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Another lesson from Econ 101
Is that people tend to overvalue that which they already have.
by AstroAndy on Apr 17, 2009 8:36 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I wouldn't say that contracts are blocking Sutton...players might be blocking him, though.
I can’t argue with a conclusion that Matsui and Keppinger are likely better second basemen next year.
As for sunk costs, if you ignore sunk costs, then Matusi is essentially a free resource next year. Given that “advantage,” he would have to fall off a cliff to be cut.
by clack on Apr 17, 2009 6:09 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
When I was in the press box the other night
They were talking about Sutton being the PTBL, but I was asked not say anything about it.
The sense was that the organization just didn’t like him, which makes no sense. From what I saw of Manzella’s defense at the game, he’s not a stellar fielder.
Apparently the deal was conditional on how well Keppinger performed and there was a player in column A, and a player in column B. With Keppinger raking thus far, it was pretty much a fore gone conclusion that Sutton would be sent away.
This is just depressing. When is the organization going to learn?
The Crawfishboxes
A good friend of mine used to say, "This is a very simple game. You throw the ball, you catch the ball, you hit the ball. Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose, sometimes it rains." Think about that for a while.
by Stephen Higdon on Apr 16, 2009 5:03 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
They were unsure
But it was conjectured to be Maysonet.
The Crawfishboxes
A good friend of mine used to say, "This is a very simple game. You throw the ball, you catch the ball, you hit the ball. Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose, sometimes it rains." Think about that for a while.
by Stephen Higdon on Apr 16, 2009 5:15 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
that's an awfully short time window
so if he has a great first 9 days the trigger gets pulled. weird arrangement.
by lnewcomer on Apr 16, 2009 8:47 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
true...my reaction too.
that’s almost like making the trade ategory dependent on a coin flip. As I said in another thread…maybe the Astros wanted some reassurance that his poor spring performance wasn’t a harbinger of continued injury effects.
by clack on Apr 16, 2009 9:47 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
The deadline for naming the PTBNL was May 1…we had two more weeks to evaluate Keppinger. The only thing I could think of is that there were some unsolveable roster issues in RR due to Moehler and Brocail going on the DL and having to call Fulchino and Arias up.
RR recently signed Casey Daigle (the husband of softball phenom Jennie Finch). This was probably to fill in as a starter while Arias and Fulchino came to Houston. They activated him earlier today, I’m assuming because moving Sutton to the Reds freed up a roster spot. At first I thought the move was happening because the Reds are coming to Houston for the homestand, and it’d be easier for Sutton to hook up with the Reds, but I think the early-injury theory makes more sense.
by AstroAndy on Apr 16, 2009 10:07 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Im not really worried about it...
…Sutton isnt much younger than Keppinger and isnt as talented as him either. I liked the kid but he wasnt really gonna be the next Craig Biggio so its not really that big of a deal. I think this means we keep Keppinger around longer than I thought we would. As long as the Astros have a good draft this year ill be happy.
by The Bourn Believer on Apr 16, 2009 5:11 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
I tend to agree
with Bourn Believer…Sutton was not going to be this team’s savior. In fact, before last year he was hardly a prospect at all. The way I look at it, Wade and the Astros took advantage of a player’s stock and sold high. The improvement of the farm system will come through several consecutive solid drafts.
by captain_bomb_2000 on Apr 16, 2009 6:14 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Good Transaction
This is a good transaction for the Astros. Aside from the anamolous year at Corpus, Sutton is a marginal major league prospect. He can play defense, but his hitting is not, and may never be, major league ready. Sutton may at best become another Keppinger down the road. Meanwhile, Keppinger is a younger Loretta. Though it would have been nice to see how much Sutton developed, Sutton is only a “top prospect” in a thinly talented farm system. In a more robust farm system, Sutton would find it hard to make the cut as a “top prospect”. The loss of Sutton does NOT really make the Astros farm system worse (though it reduces depth), but adding Keppinger certainly does make the Astros infield better (at short, 2B, and 3B) in the short and medium runs. Good job Wade.
by ekervack on Apr 16, 2009 8:36 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Be wary of the national media's view of the trade
Some of the same ones who were saying that Sutton’s ceiling was as a utility guy are calling him an “everyday 3B” now that he’s no longer in our system. Same thing happened last year with the Paronto/Wolf trade, with Paronto becoming the second-coming of Chad Qualls by virtue of leaving our system.
This, to me, is some of the strongest evidence that these reporters do their analysis based on narrative and not on analysis. Which is shameful, considering how many of them made their names by developing their own proprietary evaluation methods.
by AstroAndy on Apr 17, 2009 9:01 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Of course, when I say "national media"
I mean national “baseball” media, like BP, BA, etc.
by AstroAndy on Apr 17, 2009 9:02 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm glad you're that immersed in baseball nerdery
That ESPN doesn’t, etc. no longer is the national media in your mind.
I agree with your points. It’s ridiculous.
The Crawfishboxes
A good friend of mine used to say, "This is a very simple game. You throw the ball, you catch the ball, you hit the ball. Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose, sometimes it rains." Think about that for a while.
by Stephen Higdon on Apr 17, 2009 1:24 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
And when I say Paronto, I meant Reineke
I need to drink coffee first, post comments second.
by AstroAndy on Apr 17, 2009 9:12 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I thought this team was supposed to have more talent than last year?
First of all, why we let Wiggy and Loretta walk is beyond me. Wigginton was 10x the 3B that Blum will ever be and he was dirt cheap. He may not have been electric, but there were stretches after Caballo went down that Wiggy carried the team on his back. And Loretta was one of the most solid, versatile, and consistent utility players in the league, even at his age. And he didn’t cost much. We keep those two bargain-basement value guys, and Ty Wigginton is your starting 3B instead of journeyman Blum, and Loretta is there for you when Matsui goes down with another anal fissure. The team keeps trying to feed us the BS that this team cost MORE than last year’s edition, and that it has more talent. They also tried to sell me some ocean front property in Arizona!! And the latest trade just seems a stretch, especially for a team that has had no talent in it’s farm system for YEARS and considering that Ed Wade’s calling card is building farm systems.
by bmack213 on Apr 17, 2009 5:09 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
This year's team does cost more
But don’t take my word for it.
Substantially more.
Mostly because of back-ended contracts like Carlos Lee’s ($6.5 million increase) and Roy Oswalt’s ($1 million increase). And there are some guys who were under team control that were going into their arbitration years like Valverde ($3.3 million increase) and Wandy (~$2 million increase). And these were not costs that Wade could have avoided, and if he could, it would have made the team worse.
We let Wiggy and Loretta walk because the stock market crash put the fear of God into Drayton and he scaled back Ed Wade’s budget in reaction to that. Wade then had to reformulate his plans on the fly, and they didn’t include a $3 million+ aging utility player (Loretta) or a 3B who would have probably cost us more than $5 million a year because he almost certainly would have accepted arbitration had we offered it. Arbitration was much more generous to players this year than the free agent market.
by AstroAndy on Apr 17, 2009 6:28 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
THE CRAWFISH BOXES GETS SOCIAL
Current Series
3 game series vs Giants @ Minute Maid Park
|
San Francisco Giants
Monday, Apr 5, 2010, 6:05 PM CDT |
||
| Tue 04/06 | 7:05 PM CDT | |
| Wed 04/07 | 1:05 PM CDT | |
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- Random photos: Baseball celebrates St. Patrick's Day
- CC Sabathia mocks Hamels' video grenade ad with one of own
- Spring Snapshot: Angels look to retain their iron grip on AL West
- Mathis hopes strong postseason will translate into better at-bats
- Rangers manager Ron Washington regrets cocaine use in '09
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
