Over the coming weeks, you're going to hear a lot about how certain teams are listening to offers for certain players, and how certain other players are untouchable. We've already been told that the Tigers are listening to offers for Edwin Jackson, the Blue Jays are listening to offers for Roy Halladay, the Marlins are listening to offers for Ricky Nolasco, and on and on. Meanwhile, the Braves supposedly aren't listening to offers for Tommy Hanson. The media is going to report that some big names are available for trade, while other big names are not.
Ignore all that stuff. It's meaningless.
Here's the bottom line: every team will listen to offers for every player at any time. To listen to an offer doesn't mean you have to initiate anything or even actively participate in conversation. All listening to an offer entails is holding the phone to your ear while another guy talks to you. That's it. It's a zero-risk activity, with the possible upside that the GM on the other end will offer more than your player is worth. And when you're faced with an all-upside/no-downside opportunity, it doesn't make sense to turn it down. Of course the Tigers are listening to offers for Curtis Granderson. Why wouldn't they? What benefit would there be to telling other teams not to bother?
And as far as a situation like Hanson's is concerned...the only difference here is that the team is being more private. If someone were to call the Braves and make an offer, Frank Wren wouldn't tell him to shut up. Just in case, he'd hear him out. He'd hear him out, because there's no such thing as "untouchable" - for any given player in the league, there exists a trade package that could lure him away, and as such every player is always available for the right price. It's just that some have such a high price that the odds of their being traded are effectively zero. Tommy Hanson almost certainly isn't going to be traded, because he's really good and really cheap and really young, but as long as you can envision a scenario in which Andrew Friedman gets desperate for pitching and offers, I dunno, Evan Longoria, then Hanson isn't untouchable. He's just expensive.
If a team is said to be listening to offers for some of its big-name players, then that isn't news. That's always happening, whether it's reported or not. And if a team is said to not be listening to offers for some of its big-name players, that isn't news either, because they are listening, and only suggesting that they aren't to give their players and fans some peace of mind. Jack Zduriencik has indicated that Felix won't get dealt this winter, but do you really believe he's off the table entirely? Of course not. He's just trying to keep Felix content and the fans relieved. If someone calls and offers an incredible package, then Jack will be able to sell it as something the team simply couldn't pass up.
There's no benefit to making certain players untouchable. None. And though a lot of GMs do a lot of weird things, none of them are complete idiots. For the right price, everybody - everybody - is always available.
0 recs | 24 comments
I always assumed that when players were referred to as 'untouchable' it meant 'yeah I'll trade him for something completely ridiculous but otherwise I would like to keep him'
I would imagine even the dumbest GM would not go, “Hey, he’s asking about Tommy Hanson. Didn’t I tell that doofus he was untouchable?” click
Gihyou - November 25, 2009
Just gotta think of Bill Simmons trade rankings
Or the ones Dave does. Sure a team might say “player X is unavailable” but if another team offered them say “player Y and something else useful” where player y is of similar value.
bluemax - November 25, 2009
Ack
didn’t finish my thought. If team be offered the package with player Y then team A would probably at least stop and think about it.
bluemax - November 25, 2009
Griffey's old ass is untouchable
lemonverbena - November 25, 2009
So we're not getting Miguel Cabrera?
Awwwwwwwwwwwwww…
Crystal for DH - November 25, 2009
We might!!
CapSea - November 25, 2009
I for one would not want to touch Carlos Silva.
killer_ewok18 - November 25, 2009 via mobile
We didn't mean "untouchable" in the Hindu sense.
philosofool - November 25, 2009
"And though a lot of GMs do a lot of weird things, none of them are complete idiots."
Even Dayton Moore? :)
ARock - November 25, 2009
"And though a lot of GMs do a lot of weird things, none of them are complete idiots."
…anymore.
sirbrianwilson - November 25, 2009
"Hi, Jack, this is Frank Wren...."
“Yeah, yeah, Frank Wren in Georgia.”
“Right, with the Braves.”
“So anyway way, I’ve got these two kids, Brian and Tommy.”
“Uh-huh, that’s right, the catcher and the pitcher.”
“Oh you bet they get along.”
“Well anyway, the thing is, I really like that Felix kid.”
“Hello? Hello? Jack? Are you there Jack…. Oh well, guess the Felix kid is off the table.”
philosofool - November 25, 2009
And isn't this conversation...
… the type of thing which makes its way to the media as “Felix is untouchable”?
I wonder if the reports of “untouchability” are less due to the manager of team A saying player X on team A is untouchable, but rather managers of teams B, C, D inquiring about player X and being told “it would take a lot more than that to get him.”
cyberwulf - November 25, 2009
If GMZ turned down McCann and Hanson I would be extremely PO'd.
CapSea - November 25, 2009
That's my point.
Felix is touchable, because that’s an absurd amount of value to give up for 3 years of an ace pitcher who will make 40-80% of his free agent value the next three seasons.
philosofool - November 25, 2009
2 years
CapSea - November 25, 2009
Jack Z would not hang up the phone at the end of that.
philosofool - November 25, 2009
I would think about trading Felix for Hanson and McCann.
I would try to give them Saunders and steal Heyward but it’s not like that would be a terrible package
Graham MacAree - November 25, 2009
What about Ichiro?
Corco - November 25, 2009
Are these comments serious?
I can’t tell if people are just joking about this or serious.
Justin Upton for Ichiro straight up. You’d have to be motherfucking nuts to say no to that.
More contentious but still a great trade: Colby Rasmus.
philosofool - November 25, 2009
I don't mean this from a baseball standpoint so much as from an
“ownership who never actually watches Mariners games says Ichiro doesn’t go” standpoint
Corco - November 25, 2009
He watches Mariners games.
He just doesn’t watch them here.
msb - November 25, 2009
On a pure talent level, yeah sure.
On a marketing level, Ichiro is worth a boatload more to this team. When you combine the value of Ichiro’s talent and Ichiro’s marketing, you’d have to get Rasmus and Upton in the same deal.
Wilder. - November 25, 2009
I don't think you're counting the money that wins make.
Yeah, Ichiro is a franchise player who makes tons of money in merchandise, etc. for the team. But you can’t ignore the total equations:
Ichiro plus merchandise, etc., plus wins Ichiro makes over his contract (4 years?) – his salary.
Upton plus wins Upton makes over 4 years – his salary.
Rasmus plus wins he makes over 5 years – his salary.
I’m pretty sure that the equation balances in favor of the youngsters.
philosofool - November 25, 2009
So, in this scenario,
Ichiro plays half the year for St Louis and the other half for Arizona?
killer_ewok18 - December 1, 2009 via mobile
You must Login with your SB Nation account and be a member of Lookout Landing to post a comment.