Article: The Trade Market For Trevor Plouffe

[TheLeviathan]

 

If Plouffe is likely to make roughly half of $16 mil AAV on the open market in 2 years with no comp pick attached, then why do you think his trade value would be very high now, or appreciably lower next winter? Sounds like he just isn't worth that much, period, which means you're probably not getting many great trade offers and your best course of action might simply be to hold on to him for the time being.. Not a lot of guys with that FA profile get dealt early, or if they do, the return is modest. What did Freese fetch a couple years ago? Bourjous?

 

At the time Bourjos was seen as a fairly attractive asset.

 

Let me make this clear for what appears to be the billionth time - no one is arguing Trevor Plouffe is going to land you Matt Harvey and Noah Syndergaard and a delicious pie on the trade market.

 

No one.

 

No one is saying that.

 

No one.

 

But whatever value he has is at it's height right now and moving him now gives the team the best chance to balance their roster given the young guys coming soon (OFs) and the young stud we have already at the same position.  I don't know exactly what is out there for Plouffe, but the Twins should damn sure be exploring what it is in a FA market with garbage for 3B.

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

I think it funny how everyone talks down Plouffe and then they try to trade him (part of a package) for Lucroy or include 12M in dead money with him in a trade.  He isn't that good.

The same people who are talking down Plouffe are the same people demanding a Jonathan Lucroy in a Plouffe trade?

[TheLeviathan]

 

The same people who are talking down Plouffe are the same people demanding a Jonathan Lucroy in a Plouffe trade?

 

My impression is that the same people saying "he might not be that valuable" want to hand him 16M qualifying offers.

[USAFChief]

My impression is that the same people saying "he might not be that valuable" want to hand him 16M qualifying offers.

Dexter Fowler got a QO. Rasmus got a QO.

 

A one year, $16m contract for a starting infielder isn't that big of a deal. As of today, not even one player has accepted a QO. Ever. Teams don't offer a QO unless there's literally little downside.

 

Besides which, that's a long time, and another MLB-MLBPA contract negotiation away. There might be a different system in place by then.

 

A 2018 QO should be pretty far down the list of things to consider in the "trade Plouffe" discussion. "Does it make the 2016 team better" should be number 1-5 on that list.

[TheLeviathan]

I agree, it really shouldn't be part of the conversation.

 

The reality is that the best way to make 2016, 2017, and on better is to replace Plouffe with Sano and leave DH to Park.  That allows us to play a really excellent OF of some combination of Kepler/Buxton/Hicks/Rosario.

[Otto von Ballpark]

I think Plouffe's value is probably a function of demand as much as anything. Saying he's got 2 years of control is great, but if not a lot of teams are in the market for a 3B right now, or willing to pay much for a 3B, it doesn't matter.

 

And I don't think the 2016 Twins are better off simply selling Plouffe for whatever we can get this winter.

[Otto von Ballpark]

Angels interest in Plouffe reported at MLBTR, Cam Bedrosian being the lead name cited:

 

http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2015/11/angels-interested-trevor-plouffe-twins.html

Edited November 11, 2015 by spycake

[Vanimal46]

Awesome. Let's find Plouffe a new home so the Sano show at 3B can begin!

[Thrylos]

 

Angels interest in Plouffe reported at MLBTR, Cam Bedrosian being the lead name cited:

http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2015/11/angels-interested-trevor-plouffe-twins.html

 

That was not MLBTR, it was the Angel's beat writer Jeff Fletcher (where MLBTR poached it) thinking out loud.

 

But it really is a no-brainer, as you can see here, as well.

[TheLeviathan]

 

And I don't think the 2016 Twins are better off simply selling Plouffe for whatever we can get this winter.

 

Please, just stop making every Plouffe thread into a strawman.

 

I think we all can agree if we can't get something tasty back for Plouffe we keep him.  But his team control and the weak market make for a pretty opportune time to sell.

 

Someone like Nick Tropeano might be a nice target.

[gopherman23]

If we trade Plouffe, it had better not be for Bedrosian as a centerpiece. That would be god awful.

[Otto von Ballpark]

When you make statements like :

 

The reality is that the best way to make 2016, 2017, and on better is to replace Plouffe with Sano and leave DH to Park. That allows us to play a really excellent OF of some combination of Kepler/Buxton/Hicks/Rosario

It does seem to put more emphasis on the subtraction of Plouffe rather than what the return would be, that's all. Not trying to invent strawmen.

 

I suspect we are all in agreement about investigating Plouffe deals, except I just don't think the demand is that strong for Plouffe this winter. If Plouffe is still on the team next spring, I suspect the culprit will be weaker demand rather than the Twins not shopping him aggressively enough.

[Otto von Ballpark]

Let me make this clear for what appears to be the billionth time - no one is arguing Trevor Plouffe is going to land you Matt Harvey and Noah Syndergaard and a delicious pie on the trade market.

 

No one.

 

No one is saying that.

 

No one.

I never suggested that was your argument. Like you, I was speaking of his relative trade value.

[nicksaviking]

Can was among the HS arms I was really hoping the Twins would draft instead of Wimmers.

 

Still, I agree, no way can that be the centerpiece. I'll trade for relievers, but they are the cheapest position to fix through free agency.

[Otto von Ballpark]

But whatever value he has is at it's height right now and moving him now gives the team the best chance to balance their roster given the young guys coming soon (OFs) and the young stud we have already at the same position. I don't know exactly what is out there for Plouffe, but the Twins should damn sure be exploring what it is in a FA market with garbage for 3B.

Sure, explore away. I just think you might be overrating the positive effect of "balancing the roster" by trading Plouffe prior to 2016.

[Otto von Ballpark]

As much as I like our young players, there is still a lot of potential for sputtering or stagnation in our OF and at DH. And we already are committed to a Plan A at 1B who has been the textbook definition of sputtering and stagnation the last 2 years.

 

I'd feel kinda dumb if Sano is costing us runs defensively at 3B while we're stuck with one or more sputtering/stagnant guys in the OF/DH/1B mix.

 

If Plouffe can net, say, a good catcher or a real immediate bullpen weapon, I could see it being a worthwhile risk for 2016. If he nets less than that, say some bullpen options that we could approximate internally or on the FA market, I really don't think we lose anything by waiting a year or even two, and in the meantime we have more confidence in our 2016 projection.

Edited November 11, 2015 by spycake

[gunnarthor]

 

If we trade Plouffe, it had better not be for Bedrosian as a centerpiece. That would be god awful.

Yeah, they'd need to add to that but Bedrosian could be a real piece - maybe him and a good SP prospect? 

 

Not really sure what the Angels have.

[GP830]

I can't help but notice that the Angels currently have 3 youngish/upside-ish players on the roster. Jet Bandy would be a fun get...

 

Also, what is the conversion in regards to a full time starting position player being drafted for a reliever? I.e.- is Plouffe alone enough to snag a Chapman, Storen, or Kimbrel?

[jsteve96]

You're fine with paying Trevor Plouffe 16M? I don't have words.

 

If I'm Trevor Plouffe I see roughly double whatever I'm likely to make on the market and I take that in a heartbeat. Any agent that recommended Trevor Plouffe decline a QO should be fired on the spot.

Trevor Plouffe the past 2 seasons is pretty comparable to Hanley Ramirez and Pablo Sandoval who signed for 22AAV and 19AAV.. No player has ever accepted a QO. And Plouffe would not either, a player at 31 would Much rather have a 3/39 or 4/52 over a 1/16.. Give him a QO if his numbers stay where they're at or better,

[gopherman23]

Yeah, they'd need to add to that but Bedrosian could be a real piece - maybe him and a good SP prospect?

 

Not really sure what the Angels have.

I don't even want Bedrosian at all. He sucks.

[TheLeviathan]

Trevor Plouffe the past 2 seasons is pretty comparable to Hanley Ramirez and Pablo Sandoval who signed for 22AAV and 19AAV.. No player has ever accepted a QO. And Plouffe would not either, a player at 31 would Much rather have a 3/39 or 4/52 over a 1/16.. Give him a QO if his numbers stay where they're at or better,

A lot of that was name value and past success that Plouffe simply doesn't have.

Edited November 11, 2015 by TheLeviathan

[TheLeviathan]

Sure, explore away. I just think you might be overrating the positive effect of "balancing the roster" by trading Plouffe prior to 2016.

Look, it should be a given that we don't know what value is out there for certain, that should be an underlying assumption we all share because none of us, so far as I know, are eavesdropping on conversations.

 

This is reminiscent of a Willingham where people argued he was both valuable to us and yet invaluable on the market. That may well be true, the problem is we pretty much know the Twins never even tried to shop him that first season when he was crushing in July.

 

You can make a case that he has low value, but I think the 3B market, the fact he is a productive two way player, and the fact that you are getting two years of that player will make him an attractive asset.

 

Ultimately, though, that's up to Ryan to find out.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

This is reminiscent of a Willingham where people argued he was both valuable to us and yet invaluable on the market.

I don't think that's an unusual situation at all.  A lot of players are useful if you already have them, but notably less useful if you have to sacrifice resources (particularly in trade) to get them.  Plouffe is probably on the upper end of that spectrum owing to his defensive position, but still firmly in that group, in my opinion.

 

(Willingham had the added complication of being only 20% into a recently signed long-term deal.)

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

Someone like Nick Tropeano might be a nice target.

Tropeano does look interesting on the numbers, kinda like Trevor May.  Although I've seen him called a "finesse artist" who "projects as solid number four starter":

 

http://www.scout.com/mlb/angels/story/1518372-prospect-countdown-5-nick-tropeano

 

http://www.minorleagueball.com/2015/8/25/9175289/los-angeles-angels-top-20-2015-pre-season-prospects-in-review

[TRex]

 

You can make a case that he has low value, but I think the 3B market, the fact he is a productive two way player, and the fact that you are getting two years of that player will make him an attractive asset.

Ultimately, though, that's up to Ryan to find out.

I know it is just a small point, but I haven't seen it mentioned elsewhere, so here goes...

 

While it is undeniable that two years of control are better than one, remember that Plouffe was a super-2. That means that his last year of team control will be his 4th in arbitration. From what I have seen, the discount associated with the 4th year is not nearly as steep as the others. If Plouffe is awarded the projected $8 million this year, he will be $12-14 next year. This is still less than the $16 million qualifying offer, but (IMHO) will be too much for half of MLB teams to pay for a role player.

[Otto von Ballpark]

Cam Bedrosian was a HS SP draftee, but since the start of 2014, he's looked a lot like what we hoped for Burdi/Reed/etc.  Still hasn't successfully transitioned to MLB, but obviously as soon as he does it becomes much harder to acquire him.

 

I wonder what Angel fans would say to Bedrosian plus Tropeano?  (Although I don't think there's a real serious 40-man crunch, that is two 40-man guys for one.) 

[kab21]

 

Look, it should be a given that we don't know what value is out there for certain, that should be an underlying assumption we all share because none of us, so far as I know, are eavesdropping on conversations.

This is reminiscent of a Willingham where people argued he was both valuable to us and yet invaluable on the market. That may well be true, the problem is we pretty much know the Twins never even tried to shop him that first season when he was crushing in July.

You can make a case that he has low value, but I think the 3B market, the fact he is a productive two way player, and the fact that you are getting two years of that player will make him an attractive asset.

Ultimately, though, that's up to Ryan to find out.

I guess I don't understand how the 3B market makes him valuable.  There are at least 20 teams that are set at 3B with a veteran.  For some reason 3B has become a deep position of fairly good players. 

 

Most of the rest of the teams are entering rebuild mode or have a prospect waiting that they might want to try out instead of trading something valuable for Plouffe.  Plouffe's trade market and value is almost entirely tied to 2-3 (possibly 4 teams) and the direction that they want to take.  If the Angels resign Freese and the Padres/Brewers rebuild then there is almost no market for him.

 

And nobody is saying that Plouffe isn't valuable on the trade market.  He doesn't have a lot of demand because very few teams are shopping for a 3B.  That does affect his trade value in the short term though.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

I can't help but notice that the Angels currently have 3 youngish/upside-ish players on the roster. Jet Bandy would be a fun get...

Jett Bandy is a catcher, with a fun name.  Although Iannetta is a free agent, so I'm not sure the Angels would be looking to throw a catcher into this deal.

 

 

Also, what is the conversion in regards to a full time starting position player being drafted for a reliever? I.e.- is Plouffe alone enough to snag a Chapman, Storen, or Kimbrel?

Plouffe?  No.  (Well, maybe Storen, depending on how Washington resolves that mess.)

 

A team that wants Plouffe the next 2 years probably plans to compete those years, but relief aces like Chapman and Kimbrel almost certainly have more value to competing teams.  Not sure if such a trade would ever really make sense for both teams....

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

And nobody is saying that Plouffe isn't valuable on the trade market.  He doesn't have a lot of demand because very few teams are shopping for a 3B.  That does affect his trade value in the short term though.

Yeah.  When we say "market" we often only look at the available players, and in that light, Plouffe looks pretty attractive compared to the alternatives.  But the whole "market" should also include the demand side of the equation, which definitely drops Plouffe down.

 

Indeed, part of the reason there are so few 3B available is that many teams, especially the most aggressive competitive teams, are retaining their incumbent 3B this winter.

[gunnarthor]

Would we take Bedrosian and Hector Santiago for Plouffe?  I've seen that on a few Angel blogs.  Santiago seems like a Milone-like lefty.  I think that's probably a bit light.