Trade Ender?

[sundevil04]

Rumors are out there that he may be available. Would you?

 

[Dback Jon]

Depends on for whom.

He is a great piece, but if he can be flipped into a better piece, then not opposed.
Dbacks have good young outfielders, and 4 of them. I love Ender's hustle, and would hate to lose that though.

 

[GatorAZ]

Yes. His D is overrated despite the metrics and maybe some team will overpay for the grit/hustle.

 

[BC867]

I wouldn't trade Ender until Yasmany Tomás has time to prove himself. At the least it is going to take the rest of the season, if not longer.

-- His .300+ batting average is great, but until he becomes a power hitting corner outfielder, we don't know what his future is.

-- Is he going to be able to keep his weight under control?

-- Although he is fielding better than expected in RF, he is a bit of a flake in the field.

Although I would like the traditional approach of three lead outfielders, I am getting accustomed to four lead outfielders playing 3 out of every 4 games, with Ender moving from LF to CF to RF to his day of rest. I don't think a Major League team has ever tried it.

As we saw when Ender was injured, it still left us with 3 lead outfielders.

The benefits of keeping Ender outweigh those of trading him. Especially with him as our only real leadoff hitter.

 

[82CardsGrad]

Rumors are out there that he may be available. Would you?

Tough call... We of course dumped a truck load of $$ onto Tomas' lap. And at this point, is there really any material difference between Ender and Yasmani, other than Ender being a better base stealer?
In the ideal world, Tomas would be more of a power threat than Ender, but that hasn't materialized...
Still, if we can upgrade the team with an Ender trade, I'd back it...

 

[Phrazbit]

I think Tomas' power numbers will go up over time as he adjusts to the pitching here. As he gets more comfortable I think he will start pulling the ball a lot more and as a result his power numbers will go up, his batting average will probably dip some.

Ender is very expendable. I suspect between O'Brien and whoever else we'd be fine without him. And I don't think he has the makings of a decent leadoff hitter. He is way too impatient at the plate. He does not see many pitches and he does not draw walks, therefore he also has a low OBP.

He is an alright player but really should not be an everyday starter. Tomas is a significantly superior player. Even in one way (purely statistically speaking) that is stunning... he has a higher stolen base percentage than Ender.

 

[az jam]

I think everyone but Goldschmidt should be available for trade. IMO he is the only untouchable.

 

[BC867]

I think Tomas' power numbers will go up over time as he adjusts to the pitching here. As he gets more comfortable I think he will start pulling the ball a lot more and as a result his power numbers will go up, his batting average will probably dip some.

Which is why I said I wouldn't trade Ender until Yasmany Tomás has time to prove himself.

 

[Phrazbit]

Which is why I said I wouldn't trade Ender until Yasmany Tomás has time to prove himself.

I don't see why, Tomas is already significantly better. Even if Tomas were to fall apart I don't think Ender would provide the answer to that hole. IMO their fates are unrelated.

The only thing that should limit trading Ender is the offers. I wouldn't dump him just to dump him, we've done too much of that with younger players, but he is clearly nothing more than depth and its more likely that he is blocking better players than that losing him would effect us.

 

[AZ Native]

I think everyone but Goldschmidt should be available for trade. IMO he is the only untouchable.

Hard to argue this.

 

[BC867]

I think everyone but Goldschmidt should be available for trade. IMO he is the only untouchable.

Hard to argue this.

'Also hard to argue that Pollack should be in this category. He is not #1, but he is #1a in the D-backs lineup.

Great fielder in CF. Base stealer. .300 hitter. Hits anywhere from leadoff to cleanup in the batting order.

And chosen as an All Star.

 

[az jam]

'Also hard to argue that Pollack should be in this category. He is not #1, but he is #1a in the D-backs lineup.

Great fielder in CF. Base stealer. .300 hitter. Hits anywhere from leadoff to cleanup in the batting order.

And chosen as an All Star.

Agree, he is solid and just 27 years old.

 

[overseascardfan]

'Also hard to argue that Pollack should be in this category. He is not #1, but he is #1a in the D-backs lineup.

Great fielder in CF. Base stealer. .300 hitter. Hits anywhere from leadoff to cleanup in the batting order.

And chosen as an All Star.

Agree, he is solid and just 27 years old.

ARZ made the right move keeping Pollock over Eaton however the trade was bad overall as the Mark Trumbo acquisition didn't exactly pan out. Skaggs hasn't been able to stay healthy in order to make ARZ look foolish in dealing him.

 

[Matt L]

ARZ made the right move keeping Pollock over Eaton however the trade was bad overall as the Mark Trumbo acquisition didn't exactly pan out. Skaggs hasn't been able to stay healthy in order to make ARZ look foolish in dealing him.

I agre with your assessment of the trade but that really does not have anything to do with Pollock. He is a top ten outfielder this season and won't be a free agent until 2019. Dbacks would need to receive a lot of talent if they were to trade him away.

 

[Dback Jon]

ARZ made the right move keeping Pollock over Eaton however the trade was bad overall as the Mark Trumbo acquisition didn't exactly pan out. Skaggs hasn't been able to stay healthy in order to make ARZ look foolish in dealing him.

Not sure you can call it a bad trade, as trading Eaton opened up CF for Pollock, who is better.

We didn't lose anything in Skaggs, and I have a feeling we will like the Trumbo to Seattle trade in the long run.

 

[Phrazbit]

Not sure you can call it a bad trade, as trading Eaton opened up CF for Pollock, who is better.

We didn't lose anything in Skaggs, and I have a feeling we will like the Trumbo to Seattle trade in the long run.

Trumbo to Seattle was a deal down the road by a different GM. I don't find much merit or satisfaction in looking at trades like that because its never as though the Dbacks said "lets flip Skaggs and Eaton for a terrible player in the hopes that we can later flip that guy for something usable!"

The Trumbo trade on its own merit was a train wreck. They traded two valuable young players for a bad player without a position on the roster.

We certainly are a massive victors in the Trumbo to Seattle trade but because we were fortunate to find a front office as archaic and dumb as the Kevin Towers regime.

 

[Dback Jon]

Trumbo to Seattle was a deal down the road by a different GM. I don't find much merit or satisfaction in looking at trades like that because its never as though the Dbacks said "lets flip Skaggs and Eaton for a terrible player in the hopes that we can later flip that guy for something usable!"

The Trumbo trade on its own merit was a train wreck. They traded two valuable young players for a bad player without a position on the roster.

We certainly are a massive victors in the Trumbo to Seattle trade but because we were fortunate to find a front office as archaic and dumb as the Kevin Towers regime.

Valuable young players that haven't panned out?

Pollock >>>>> Eaton
Skaggs hasn't done a thing.

 

[overseascardfan]

Valuable young players that haven't panned out?

Pollock >>>>> Eaton
Skaggs hasn't done a thing.

At the time it seemed like a lot to give up for Trumbo. I meant keeping Pollock was the right choice but Eaton & Skaggs at the time probably could have gotten a better player than Trumbo but it's hard to know that now. As I also mentioned in my last post Skaggs bad luck with injuries has made the trade a wash as LAA hasn't gotten much out of him, Trumbo is now with SEA & Pollock has been more productive than Eaton up to this point.

 

[Phrazbit]

Valuable young players that haven't panned out?

Pollock >>>>> Eaton
Skaggs hasn't done a thing.

That does not change that they were more valuable than the rubbish we acquired. And we didn't trade Eaton for Pollock, its a straw man's argument to even include him.

This is about Eaton and Skaggs of 2 years ago vs Trumbo of 2 years ago. Two premium prospects for a bad player with no position in the NL. We wasted value acquiring a bad player who did nothing but hinder us for the roughly 1 1/2 years he was on our roster.

 

[Dback Jon]

That does not change that they were more valuable than the rubbish we acquired. And we didn't trade Eaton for Pollock, its a straw man's argument to even include him.

This is about Eaton and Skaggs of 2 years ago vs Trumbo of 2 years ago. Two premium prospects for a bad player with no position in the NL. We wasted value acquiring a bad player who did nothing but hinder us for the roughly 1 1/2 years he was on our roster.

If we had kept Eaton, Pollock would not have had the opportunities he did. they play the same position.


And they were PROSPECTS. Some prospects prosper, others tank.

 

[Phrazbit]

If we had kept Eaton, Pollock would not have had the opportunities he did. they play the same position.


And they were PROSPECTS. Some prospects prosper, others tank.

In 2013 when Eaton and Pollock were both on the roster Eaton played LF more often than center and they were often in the lineup together... and even so, we didn't need to keep Eaton, we just shouldn't have traded him for a position-less and bad player.

Yes, there are some prospects that pan out, some don't, when you trade them while they're still prospects there is an 'opportunity cost' that you're surrendering. We gave up real value, value that could have been used to help the team in a meaningful sense, instead we got a player with no purpose on the roster, unable to field a position and unable to make up for that inept fielding at the plate. And worse, these were issues that should have surprised no one. We gave up potential for a known quantity in Trumbo, and what anyone without blinders on knew about him is that on a team that played in the NL and already had a good 1B he would be useless.

Compounding the idiocy was the philosophy the team had been employing. The front office had thumped their chest in pride of the ditching of high strikeout, low OBP, players... then they go and acquire another version Mark Reynolds... only this time he doesn't even have a position. But that's a tangent... the trade is bad enough on its own merit without factoring in the Front Office's moronic inconsistent philosophy.

 

[devilalum]

I think everyone but Goldschmidt should be available for trade. IMO he is the only untouchable.

Thats fine but why is somebody elses garbage any better than ours?