Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Login-facebook
Around SBN: Win or Lose, Boston Celtics' New Big 3 Era A Success

The Case Against Gaby Sanchez

You've heard the case for keeping Gaby Sanchez. But is there a case for trading him now and cashing in on his maximum trade value?  (Photo by Kevin C. Cox/Getty Images)

Earlier today, Eric Ely made the case for the Miami Marlins retaining Gaby Sanchez. It only makes sense for me to play devil's advocate here and give the reasons against retaining Sanchez and, more importantly, for trading him for resources. What is the argument for such a move? Well, I introduced the idea of trading one of the team's first basemen before, so this should not be too foreign a concept for Fish Stripes readers. However, let us delve into the reasons why trading Sanchez in particular would not be a bad idea.

What are those reasons, you ask? Ironically, many of the reasons for keeping Sanchez that Eric E. mentioned earlier today are also reasons for trading him.

Cost-Controlled Talent

Sanchez currently has four seasons of team control remaining, including one season at pre-arbitration prices. That in and of itself makes him a valuable asset given that he is also a decent player. However, at age 28, Sanchez is not young enough to be a "core" member of the team for more than his team-controlled years. He is one of those players that teams like the previously cash-strapped Marlins would hold onto for their team-controlled years and let go to free agency when his time is up.

Of course, the only other option with a player like Sanchez is to trade him before he becomes expensive so that you can attain the most trade value. After all, his arbitration years are likely to net decent surplus value and his final pre-arbitration season is going to add even more gravy to his trade value. Again, the cost-controlled aspect provides a significant trade asset to the Fish. If you project Sanchez to be a two- to 2.5-win player over the next four seasons, here is what you might see for surplus value right now:

Star-divide

Sanchez, Year WAR $ Value ($Mil) $ Salary ($Mil)
2012 2.0 9.0 0.4
2013 2.0 9.4 3.5
2014 2.5 12.5 6
2015 2.5 13.3 9.5
Total 9.0 44.2 19.4

This sort of setup yields a surplus value of $24.8 million over the next four seasons. With some guesswork involved, I would say the range in value is between $20 to 25 million for Sanchez's trade value.

The First Base Surplus

Of course, the Marlins would be silly to do this if they did not have a first baseman already in line, as it would just be transferring a hole from one position to another. But the Marlins do have a first baseman waiting in the wings in the form of Logan Morrison, whom many believe is not athletic enough to remain at the first base position. If the Marlins are in agreement with that position, they could move Sanchez and simply slide Morrison to a more appropriate position. This move would not only replace a terrible defensive black hole in left field, but would also move a "solid defender" at first base to replace the good defense from Sanchez.

More importantly than moving Morrison for defensive purposes, the trade likely also allows the Marlins to keep Morrison healthier and more comfortable working at an easier position, which could pay off with extra PA over the next five seasons of team control. Last season, he suffered a lisfranc strain in his left foot and missed more than 20 days, and he also lost a few more days here and there with minor leg injuries involving his defensive play. He is a good enough hitter than he can still be valuable while missing time, but combine that with his potentially terrible defense and it may be a wise move to put Morrison at a position where he will likely be average. Saving two to four runs on defensive and positional value is nice, but getting Morrison to 600 PA and beyond may add an additional three runs of impact, totaling more than half a win in additive value to the move.

Then What About the Outfield?

Of course, moving Morrison simply opens up a hole in the outfield, but unlike in the case of pitching, there are even cheaper or attractive options available in the outfield for the Fish. There are two center field names the Marlins could consider in case of a Gaby Sanchez trade: Yoennis Cespedes and Coco Crisp.

In the case of Cespedes, the Marlins are already involved, as the team should be more than interested in bringing in a Cuban-born player to a franchise trying to establish its deep Miami roots. Despite Cespedes's likely high price tag and multi-year commitment, you can expect the Fish to be more than interested in nabbing him as part of the team's future core, no matter what the potential downside may be. As I have mentioned numerous times, Cespedes is likely worth the risk for the Fish, though certainly the number of years he is looking for will have a significant impact on that statement.

If risk is not your cup of tea, then the Marlins can at least consider a shorter-term player in Crisp. Take a look at his numbers since 2009:

Crisp. 2009-2011 PA AVG OBP SLG wOBA Avg WAR
2011 583 .264 .314 .379 .317 2.5
2010 328 .279 .342 .438 .361 3.0
2009 215 .228 .336 .378 .328 1.0
2009-2011 1126 .262 .326 .396 .331 6.5

The batting numbers may not look fantastic, but they are more than acceptable for a player who is known for good center field defense. Despite missing significant playing time, Crisp still averaged more than two wins a season over the last three years. He would likely be seeking a three-year contract for a somewhat similar value to David DeJesus's two-year, $10 million deal. In essence, Crisp would probably cost the Marlins no more than $8 million a season for the next three years, which would be a small price to pay to solidify center field for the next few years while waiting for Christian Yelich to be ready.

So the Marlins have at least two outfield options available to them in free agency that would allow them to keep Emilio Bonifacio and Bryan Petersen as third and fourth outfielders (not necessarily respectively) and not require both of them to start at the same time.

What Can They Get For a Trade?

The Marlins can find adequate offensive replacements for a Sanchez trade; signing one more free agent contract will likely give the Fish equivalent production for Sanchez on the position player side. The question, again, is whether they can find the appropriate return for Sanchez. As we pointed out above, it turns out Sanchez is still quite a valuable piece, but I have yet to hear anyone offer a significant return for the first baseman. As of right now, one suspects that the Marlins could have a deal in place with the Tampa Bay Rays for Wade Davis and other parts if they want it. Outside of that, I have yet to see any interested parties, and I suspect teams with significant first base gaps will not be interested until after Prince Fielder is signed.

With the Marlins' steadfast refusal to move pieces from their starting lineup, it looks like the more logical conclusion would be to sign a three-win free agent starter and improve the club in that respect. However, given the right return, the Marlins should not pass on the idea of trading Sanchez given the availability of useful replacement parts in free agency.

Comment 11 comments  |  0 recs  | 

Do you like this story?

Comments

Display:

Miami/Angels

Why not trade—Hanley to the Angels for——-Trumbo-Calaspo & Bobby Abreu?—The money would be about equal and the players would certainly be better for both teams?

by spc7 on Dec 29, 2011 5:58 PM EST reply actions  

That's not even close to an acceptable deal

Trumbo is a nice player in the same vein as Gaby Sanchez. Callaspo is an acceptable stopgap. Abreu has one foot out the door and into retirement. There’s no way that deal works.

by Michael Jong on Dec 29, 2011 6:35 PM EST up reply actions  

I completely agree with you.

And where would you play Abreu?
His defense has seen better days long long long time ago. He can only play if he is a DH, and can hit. I rather have Morrison patrolling the outfield than Abreu. And where would Gaby play in the Angels? They have a 25 million dollar guy on first already, and also have Kendry Morales (Very likely to be traded). What would the Marlins do with Callaspo? He is an infielder. Marlins have plenty infielders.

A life spent making mistakes is not only more honorable, but more useful than a life spent doing nothing.

by JofpGallagher on Dec 29, 2011 7:01 PM EST up reply actions  

You mean Trout not Trumbo, right?

Though I doubt the Angels will part with Trout anytime soon.

by whambam on Dec 30, 2011 6:40 AM EST up reply actions  

Trout would be overkill

But the above deal is clearly low-valued.

by Michael Jong on Dec 30, 2011 9:30 AM EST up reply actions  

nice post

First off, congrats on taking over Fishstripes (used to love your analysis on Marlins Maniac). Now let me rant like I’m the Maniac :)
i agree that the marlins are stupid for not trading either Gaby or Lomo. but because for whatever reason they would get a significantly smaller return for Gaby than Lomo, possibly even belying their current value (though lomo may have more upside in the future), i think trading Lomo may be a better move than trading Gaby. We could get a top 2-3 starter for lomo, and maybe a 5 for Gaby.
Combined with the fact that Gaby appears to be a better bet defensively at first (+he had a year of Bone Perry’s tutelage) and we could expect about the same overall WAR production for either of them at 1b over the next 3 years (i could be totally wrong, but that’s my naked eye estimation based on hard to understand defensive metrics + gaby’s defense, reflexes and hand-eye coordination for scoops), why not just go for a better starter right now, and then worry in three years when Mark Canha (http://web.minorleaguebaseball.com/milb/stats/stats.jsp?pos=&sid=t477&t=p_pbp&pid=592192) is hopefully ready at 1b, or just pick up someone through free agency (assuming we have more revenue due to a better team with more overall WAR from LF and the extra starter for the 3 years).

What it comes down to i think, is you need to show me why LoMo is so much more valuable right now and in the near future, especially after his sub-par offensive season with unusually low OBP (though a nice, possibly unusual power pick-up), combined with his irritation of Hanley (and the front office, who may send him down again anyway). OPS+ for each last year was about the sam, and i’m scared that the spotlight has made him want to hit dingers all day like Stanton so he can pick up chicks, and he has forgotten about taking pitches (struck out looking 27% this year vs. 35% last year0 and swung at more pitches (3% more). Hard to find the best stats such as if he’s swinging out of the zone more, maybe u can help with that. but Lomo really just isn’t what we were projecting him to be.

In sum, I’ve had enough with “Patience”, if he bangs into some more walls while missing fly balls Boni or COndor would have caught, maybe we can change the nicknames to Patient and Power, and maybe u could be his regular Dr. (i of course still love Stanton (Power), and stand by my prediction of him breaking all sorts of records, and posting a near-400 OBP in a couple years once he inspires fear like bonds).

by Milhouse Trabajo on Dec 29, 2011 9:12 PM EST reply actions  

Love that you brought back up the nicknames

and glad that you followed me over to Fish Stripes as well! Really appreciate it.

I do suspect LoMo will be a better player over the next four years than Sanchez; in fact, I have almost no doubt. His tools are better, he’s younger, and he’s been an overall better hitter for his career so far, so the value is all there. The plate discipline numbers changed, but not so significantly that I would be really concerned. He did swing more often, but it did help in gaining some power, and it’s likely that he just needs a little BABIP luck to swing his way next season and beyond. He did, after all, hit .265 on balls in play, a mark that is not likely to stay so low.

The question, as you brought it up, is whether the return for Sanchez is good enough to be worth trading him over trading LoMo. The other problem, of course, is that the Marlins are (rightfully, in my opinion) valuing Morrison highly, but (wrongly) valuing him so much so that they won’t consider him in trade offers.

As for his off-field stuff, I’m not going to sweat it much. Like Hanley, he’s just a character, and he hasn’t done nearly so much to get me incensed about it. If moving him to first base and getting a decent return for Sanchez is viable, that would be my preferred choice. I’m just not sure whether that scenario is available or, if it is, whether the Marlins will take it.

by Michael Jong on Dec 29, 2011 9:45 PM EST up reply actions  

OK...

Let’s refer to this article: http://www.fishstripes.com/2011/11/7/2541841/2011-marlins-season-review-first-base

Here’s part of what I said back then:

Even if Sanchez is simply a better first-half player, the overall package that he has provided the last two seasons has been worthwhile to the Marlins. Sanchez has accumulated between two and three FanGraphs Wins Above Replacement (fWAR) each of the last two seasons, and though the beginnings of each of those years pointed to better performance, the team should be happy with receiving an above average starter in both years. Combine that with competent and possibly even good defense at the position and Sanchez is still a valuable commodity to the Fish going forward.

That doesn’t sound like I “don’t like” Sanchez. But what I have been saying is that Sanchez is likely not as good as Logan Morrison and could be traded for value right now. He won’t be able to get much once he enters his arbitration seasons, and with a first baseman already on board, the club should consider dealing Sanchez if the return is right. The question has always been about the return.

I’d like to know why you think I’m wrong. Where have I said that I don’t like him or think he’s a bad player. The fact that I presumed he has plentiful trade value implies that I think he’s a decent player. I said so myself that he is an average to above-average first baseman. Where am I wrong there?

by Michael Jong on Dec 30, 2011 7:09 PM EST up reply actions  

Don't worry Michael

That must be Gaby’s parents account

by OraNge DusTT on Dec 31, 2011 10:05 AM EST up reply actions  

yeah why not go for a trade. Its always beneficial for a team and for an athlete to have these kind of trades. I’ve read a book “From Athletics to Business” and I got to learn this could be really good for a good athlete.Obviously he’ll focus more on his play other than his bills.

by Kevin Michaels on Dec 30, 2011 10:23 AM EST reply actions  

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

Welcome to the SB Nation blog about the Miami Marlins.
Yahoo_full_count

Managers

Doranthumbnail_small Michael Jong

Authors

P5080019_-_copy_small tedhill

Fnf_small FishNFinz

Marlins_small scootertum

Img_0065_small Eric Ely

Jose_reyes__8__small Terrence Hunley

Winstonchurchill_small EricW

330px-marlinsballparkrendring2010_small Brian Mati

Small SamEvans

Headshot_small Zach James