Mike Napoli Trade
by bluejays13 on Feb 10, 2012 9:03 PM EST
Email
PrintWell by now I would assume that all of you now how bad the Mike Napoli for Frank Francisco trade worked out for us, you know with almost winning the world series mvp and all. But honestly I dont look back on it that bad, as we go rid of Vernon Wells for Napoli. I know these are different trades but its not like looking back I really regret the trade, unlike the BJ Ryan contract. Wells probably could not hit a beach ball for .300 last year, and we were able to resign Jose Bautista. I view it as that one trade completely offsets the other and more. I really do not think that Alex made a really bad move here. I almost view it as a three-way trade rather than two different trades if you understand what I mean. As I type I find it hard to really convey my message, but I hope you understand.
So, what do you think of the Napoli trade?
74 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
How about "I really despise the trade because we could have used Napoli and because Francisco worth as much as Napoli
but I forgive Anthopoulos because of the Wells contract"
His 2011 wRC+ is 26
you can't really look at the two deals like it's one thing, is what I mean
It wasn’t like the Jays HAD to trade Napoli for Francisco once they sent Wells to Anaheim. They could have made a better deal, or used Napoli as a 1B/DH
His 2011 wRC+ is 26
by Pikachu on Feb 10, 2012 9:08 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
I understand where you are coming from...
but i view it as we ripped off the Angles big time then the rangers ripped us off (a bit less mind you) so it sorta like mini karma
In AA we trust.
that's a silly way of looking at things
then that means I could say the Vernon Wells trade wasn’t that great because we gave away Napoli for a worse player
His 2011 wRC+ is 26
agreed with Pikachu above
I don’t hate AA at all, because the proportion of good moves to bad moves he’s made is overwhelmingly positive for the team, but it was still a poor trade
Right
But there’s a distinction to be made that most don’t make:
It was a suboptimal trade at the time, for the reasons you point out: Position player for reliever
In hindsight, it turned out much worse than that, because FF was bad in the first half and Napoli had a monster season out of nowhere
would you rather have wells and napoli or neither?
the point i am getting at is the wells trade was more beneficial to the club than the Napoli trade was harmful. If wells was still here, bautista most likely would not have got that 5 year contract and bautista might be a very rich man somewhere in the US.
In AA we trust.
that's not relevant
the Wells trade was unbelievably fantastic. that doesn’t make the Napoli trade good, because it wasn’t.
the whole point of me writing this fanpost was about...
how i dont feel bad about the Napoli trade because of the Wells trade.
In AA we trust.
its hard to explain..
i feel like because we ripped someone else off, being ripped off doesnt feel so bad. Unerstand??
In AA we trust.
I kinda feel bad, and I'd love to undo the trade.
But it’s when people try to rationalize the Napoli trade by tying it to the Wells trade that make me slightly annoyed.
His 2011 wRC+ is 26
not out of nowhere..
out of Anaheim.. LAA fans saw this developing, talent evaluators thought he was better than his (bench-player) numbers in LA, fwiw I had a hunch
It turned out to be a poor trade.
But i dont think anyone saw NapolI’s season coming and i doubt he repeats it.
Lots of dudes in the south wear Jays hats. I yell "Go Jays". They respond. "Canada has baseball?"
by jay_fan_inda_swamp on Feb 11, 2012 12:22 PM EST via mobile up reply actions 1 recs
he doesn't have to play like 2011
he could play like 2009 or 2010 and still be worth more than Francisco
His 2011 wRC+ is 26
None of the above
“Nobody foresaw Mike Napoli’s breakout and therefore it’s a lot of hindsight bias to regret it, just as there’s a lot of hindsight regret in Pittsburgh for trading Bautista for nothing but there was no reaso to think that what happened in 2010-11 would happen”
by MjwW on Feb 10, 2012 9:11 PM EST reply actions 1 recs
even before 2011
Napoli averaged roughly 3.5 fWAR per 500 PA. I don’t see how trading 2 years of a player of that calibre for 1 year of an above average reliever makes sense.
His 2011 wRC+ is 26
The opportunity cost of playing time that Mike Napoli would have taken is a mitigating factor, though a small one
Sure
But that’s with hindsight. Remember we had Juan Rivera on the roster, were counting on a Lind bounceback, etc
that's what we have mlb scouts for
They could have seen that Napoli was better than our 1B/DH options by looking at his peripheral history.
it makes sense because we had lind who was going to play full time at 1st and EE who was going to full time at DH. We had a catcher who needed playing time and we needed a reliever. I can’t imagine Napoli being happy to strictly DH or sit on the bench and nobody saw the year he had coming
Did it work out in hindsight? Nope but thats why its hindsight.
by Sniderlover on Feb 11, 2012 12:31 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
you could argue AA should have gotten more but Napoli was coming off a horrible season and was considered bad defensively.
by Sniderlover on Feb 11, 2012 12:32 PM EST up reply actions
This isn't hindsight
Hindsight makes it a terrible trade. At the time, the Jays gave away a 3 WAR/400 PA player for an above average reliever, which is like 1~1.5 wins a season. Not to mention that Napoli was under control for 2 years and Francisco only 1.
I get that the Jays didn’t have space for Napoli, but the point is that the return they got for him was underwhelming for a player of his calibre.
His 2011 wRC+ is 26
maybe but I’d think AA tried to do the best he can to get as big of a return as possible. Maybe he just wasn’t valued much around the league?
by Sniderlover on Feb 12, 2012 1:05 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
I don't really care about the WS MVP
considering David friggin Eckstein has one to his credit. the trade wasn’t the absolute worst idea, but the return was underwhelming and trading a pretty good position player for any reliever is pretty much universally a bad idea.
Pat Borders won one.
Follow me @Minor_Leaguer
by Minor Leaguer on Feb 10, 2012 10:11 PM EST up reply actions
hindsight
I was ambivalent about the trade at the time. I wanted JPA to catch the majority of the games and Molina was certainly a capable backup. I also thought Lind would have a better season than he did (a position that looked pretty good until mid-May). If Francisco had pitched in the first half like he did down the stretch it wouldn’t have looked so bad when Napoli was tearing the cover off the ball in Alrington (during what seems to me was a pretty obvious career year). I don’t subscribe to the view that AA gave up a perennial all-star in the deal. He has set a high standard for himself so any mediocre transaction looks bad by juxtaposition.
by icemanDan on Feb 10, 2012 9:55 PM EST reply actions 1 recs
that wasn't a bad trade at all. Who knows how Napoli would have played for us.
Arencibia wouldn’t have started as many games, Napoli went to a great ballpark hitting in a great lineup. You can’t look back at deals like this and be mad. It was a good deal at the time, we needed a closer, we didnt need a catcher/1B/DH.
by boltspeedman on Feb 10, 2012 10:28 PM EST reply actions 1 recs
because Napoli would have somehow been terrible
in another great hitter’s park? that doesn’t make sense.
you’re correct we didn’t “need” a C/1B/DH. but even if just as a platoon partner, Napoli was likely to be more valuable than Francisco even if he didn’t take that quantum leap forward in 2011. then he did take a quantum leap and it became a brutal trade
he was a career +120 wRC+ at the time, under control for 2 years, who could occasionally play catcher
you don’t give that up for an equally expensive reliever under control for 1 year
His 2011 wRC+ is 26
all he had to do was hit exactly like he did as an Angel
to be worth a lot more than Francisco was
His 2011 wRC+ is 26
well i thought it was a good deal at the time. We needed a closer and I thought Franky was a good pickup. Hey at least we got Jeff MAthis, maybe he’ll put up the same numbers as Napoli did last season when he changed teams, but thats just wishful thinking.
We still have a draft pick coming
from Frank Francisco. At the time of the trade a draft pick from FF would have appeared more likely than a draft pick from Napoli. We also needed a closer a lot more than an extra 1B/DH or 3rd catcher.
by JaysSaskatchewan on Feb 11, 2012 11:31 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
forgot all about the pick
Now Im even more fine with the trade. Hindsight is always 20/20. At the team it seemed like a good move for both sides. We needed BP help and Texas had a cluttered pen. The fact that we had good odds of obtaining a draft pick for Franky just made it look even mre appealing
by STZ513 on Feb 11, 2012 1:06 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
The Trade Sucked
Looking at the facts that is the only conclusion to be made. I think AA was on record as having previously inquired about Frank Francisco. Must have liked him/scouted him fairly heavily and when he got the ammo he pulled the trigger. Nothing wrong with that, you aren’t going to win them all.
There isn’t another GM in MLB that I would take over AA. Total confidence in that guy.
Go Jays!
I would
take Andrew Friedman or maybe Jon Daniels over AA. Although I’m not sure how much of the Rays’ success can be attributed to their GM. But AA certainly is one of the best, with still lots of time to learn.
Jon Daniels traded away Adrian Gonzalez for Adam Eaton and Akinori Otsuka
He’s not without his mistakes either. And yes, that is the Adrian Gonzalez now with the Red Sox, who was a #1 overall pick. He also traded away Alfonso Soriano for next to nothing when Soriano was still good.
As for Friedman, his only mistake I can think of was taking Tim Beckham #1 overall.
Hic sunt fortuna dracones
There is only 1 "n" in Hutchison
All things considered
A very odd series of trades.
"We are all agreed that your theory is crazy. The question that divides us is whether it is crazy enough to have a chance of being correct."
- Niels Bohr
Sorry, unauthorized hotlinking of copyrighted material not permitted.
The trade at the time made sense to me, but obviously the Rangers won it
His 2011 numbers were heavily influenced by a .344 (ish) BABIP.
Not to say he wasn’t a good hitter. He was, but that is something to think about. Been researching catchers this week.
In honor of the Jays 2nd Baseman who played with fire in more ways than one.
by Damaso's Burnt Shirt on Feb 11, 2012 7:44 PM EST reply actions
but the point MjwW Pikachu and I have been trying to emphasize
is that even if Napoli played as expected in 2011 (that is, good platoon partner, 350-400 PAs, 120 or so wRC+) he still would have been quite a bit more valuable than Francisco, and thus it was a bad trade at the time as well (though not outrageously awful). then Napoli somehow took a quantum leap and the trade became a disaster
I wouldn't call it a disaster
Trading for Vernon Wells and his contract is a disaster. Instead of being merely a bad trade, it was a very bad trade. I could even go to horrible, awful is maybe a bit much for me but I could live with that descriptor.
by MjwW on Feb 11, 2012 8:53 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
None of the above
It was a trade that made sense at the time that turned out badly for the Jays in the end. At the time of the trade, the Jays had Lind locked at first, Bautista at third, JPA starting with Molina as his backup, and EE in the DH hole. They also had on the bench a utility man, a defensive specialist, a 4th outfielder, and a backup catcher. They also had a weak bullpen and a young rotation.
So when they pciked up Napoli, they had a guy that was projected to maybe get 200ABs unless someone was injured, versus picking up a quality bullpen piece.
by dexfarkin on Feb 12, 2012 4:08 PM EST reply actions 1 recs
Also, AA was still gaming the draft system, he wanted that pick that Francisco would give them
Hic sunt fortuna dracones
There is only 1 "n" in Hutchison
by JaysfanDL on Feb 13, 2012 10:42 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Good Point
I totally forgot about that.
See, I’ve always liked Napoli and wanted the Jays to get him in 2010 when the Angels were supposedly ready to sell low. And in hindsight, it would have been a very valuable piece to have kept. But I don’t think keeping him made any sense in the 2011 off season, and we just don’t know whether or not there was a bigger market for him that could have netted more than Fransisco.
Napoli was not worth much at the time.
There was absolutely no reason to assume his bat would play at first as anything more than a platoon.
2010 vs. R: .208 / .277 / .423, BABIP: .243, wRC+ 87
2009 vs. R: .253 / .327 / .455, BABIP: .296, wRC+ 105
You could also argue that having Francisco freed the Jays up to move other nice bullpen arms (e.g., Frasor) and may have enabled them to acquire Rasmus. Now, that’s not to say, of course, that the trade worked out well for the Jays because it obviously didn’t.
But I think people seem to forget that the Jays were in a bit of a bind with Napoli — he didn’t fit into their plans very well (as was said above, they were pretty clearly trying to get Arencibia reps behind the plate and Lind reps at first) but he was obviously not valued very highly across MLB.
"Look at me! I'm Tomokazu Ohka of the Montreal Expos!"
Isn't that cherrypicking?
Before 2010 he was always better than average against RHP, which is extremely valuable for a guy who can play 50~60 games at catcher. And he absolutely demolished LHP at the time
His 2011 wRC+ is 26
If the Jays were actually going to use Napoli at catcher, that might be true
it seems pretty likely that they weren’t entertaining using Napoli as a catcher at the time.
And, no, I don’t think that using his two most recent seasons is cherrypicking. Yes, he demolished lefties and would have been a nice platoon partner for Lind, but I would not even have considered starting him as an everyday first baseman at the time.
Also, if you note, I say that the trade didn’t work out for the Jays but it really was not nearly as bad of a trade at the time as people seem to think it was. It probably wasn’t a trade I’d have made at the time but it’s not like I was furious; nor were most of us.
"Look at me! I'm Tomokazu Ohka of the Montreal Expos!"
by jessef on Feb 13, 2012 11:39 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
I like the trade.
Napoli was gonna be on the short end of a platoon. Maybe 200 ABs. We saved $11 mill ($15 mill for Napoli vs $4 mill for Francisco). We got a sup that probably wouldn’t got gotten for Napoli.
by Matthew Mueller on Feb 13, 2012 2:44 PM EST reply actions
Napoli will likely still bring back compensation
Of course, this is with hindsight. That was not foreseeable at all at the time (didn’t know what things would look like under the new CBA). But even if the old CBA had stated in place, as a C Napoli’s numbers would be very good, he’s easily be rated a Type B
Perhaps the new CBA was a reason AA flipped Napoli
He knew the draft compensation system was going to be changed. I think getting Francisco was one last chance to game the system.
Plus, nobody figured Napoli would do as well as he did last year. Texas is a great place to hit, maybe his numbers in Toronto wouldn’t be as good and he wouldn’t meet the compensation threshold under the new CBA.
Hic sunt fortuna dracones
There is only 1 "n" in Hutchison
oic
but you aren’t forced to pay him. If you don’t want him you can trade him or non-tender him.
His 2011 wRC+ is 26
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Bluebird Banter
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
Baseball Nation Recent Stories
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- Giancarlo Stanton misses cutoff man, and Logan Morrison is thankful he did (Video)
- Snoop Dogg delivers memorable first pitch at U.S. Cellular Field
- The Juice: Mesoraco’s grand slam helps Reds complete four-game sweep of Braves
- Please hold: Indians’ Joe Smith jumps the gun on relief appearance
- Local radio host honors Cubs’ Tony Campana with parody song
