RSS Twitter Facebook YouTube
Expand Menu

The DeRosa Deal

Talk shop about the various prospects and teams that make up the Cleveland Indians organization.

The DeRosa Deal

Postby Sol Solis » Wed Mar 02, 2011 12:27 am

I noticed that Chris Archer, a player that we traded to get Mark DeRosa, is now rated as the 40th best prospect in baseball by Keith Law. He's 22 with still a lot of upside, though has command issues at the moment. Still, he's rated better than any pitcher in the Indians organization at the moment. That being said though we did end up trading DeRosa for Perez and Jess Todd.

I guess my question is whether or not it was worth it in the end? I know that at the time of the trade Archer was a long shot to be a major leaguer but with hindsight it becomes an interesting debate. Personally, I would probably still make the trade even today, though I do acknowledge how nice it would be if a FOR starter like Archer was still in our system.
Sol Solis
Undrafted Free Agent
 
Posts: 15
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2011 2:11 pm

Re: The DeRosa Deal

Postby A.Zajac » Wed Mar 02, 2011 12:44 am

Sol Solis wrote:I noticed that Chris Archer, a player that we traded to get Mark DeRosa, is now rated as the 40th best prospect in baseball by Keith Law. He's 22 with still a lot of upside, though has command issues at the moment. Still, he's rated better than any pitcher in the Indians organization at the moment. That being said though we did end up trading DeRosa for Perez and Jess Todd.

I guess my question is whether or not it was worth it in the end? I know that at the time of the trade Archer was a long shot to be a major leaguer but with hindsight it becomes an interesting debate. Personally, I would probably still make the trade even today, though I do acknowledge how nice it would be if a FOR starter like Archer was still in our system.


Absolutely. I would still make the trade today. Chris Perez will anchor our bullpen for years to come. To me, that's all that matters.
Follow me on Twitter!
@AndrewIPI
User avatar
A.Zajac
Triple-A Stud
 
Posts: 3141
Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 10:31 am
Location: Struthers, OH

Re: The DeRosa Deal

Postby TonyIBI » Wed Mar 02, 2011 1:18 am

Good trade for both teams. Indians were still trying to win and they traded for DeRosa. Losing Archer is the cost of doing business. Indians still make out with Chris Perez in the long run, a guy I'd rather have than Archer straight up.
User avatar
TonyIBI
MLB Rookie
 
Posts: 5056
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2008 11:03 pm

Re: The DeRosa Deal

Postby indianinkslinger » Wed Mar 02, 2011 2:17 am

TonyIPI wrote:Good trade for both teams. Indians were still trying to win and they traded for DeRosa. Losing Archer is the cost of doing business. Indians still make out with Chris Perez in the long run, a guy I'd rather have than Archer straight up.

Yeah, both teams came out OK. I remember at the time I thought Archer had the highest upside of the three specs but was the least likely to reach the MLs. Not an evaluation I will remember fondly. :pleasantry:
indianinkslinger
Triple-A Stud
 
Posts: 2493
Joined: Fri Sep 19, 2008 12:11 pm

Re: The DeRosa Deal

Postby Prosecutor » Wed Mar 02, 2011 11:22 am

Bad deal for the Cardinals at this point. DeRo hit .228/.696 for them the rest of the season and they dumped him at the end of the year. The following year he only had 26 major league at-bats for the Giants. At age 36 it looks like he's done. The Tribe got the last little bit of productivity out of him and then moved him for one of the best young closers in baseball.

Maybe Archer turns into another Chris Perez. That would be the only way to save this deal for the Cardinals.
Prosecutor
Single-A Phenom
 
Posts: 977
Joined: Sat Jan 22, 2011 1:51 pm

Re: The DeRosa Deal

Postby GeronimoSon » Wed Mar 02, 2011 11:24 am

The Mark DeRosa trade(s) are good examples of why patience is needed when evaluating trading a prospect for a proven major leaguer..

The First Trade (2008): DeRosa came to the Indians for Jeff Stevens, Chris Archer, and John Gaub. If you recall, Stevens was traded to the Indians as the PTBNL in the Brandon Phillips trade. John Gaub is still with the Cubs at AAA Iowa, I believe. Chris Archer toiled with the Indians for a couple of years, had a big arm.. but, never really put it together. It was only after he joined the Cubs that his career blossomed.. perhaps the "change of scenery" argument has some merit? IDK

The Second Trade (2009): Late in June, the Indians sent DeRo to the Cardinals for Jess Todd and Chris Perez. DeRo stayed with the Cards for the remainder of the year. The Cards offered arbitration which DeRo turned down and then joined the SF Giants for their World Series Championship run.. Pretty good for DeRo..

The net effect of the trades were the Indians gave up on a pitcher that wasn't progressing for a future closer and a bullpen arm. The Cubs were able to more fully develop Archer well enough that the Rays bought into him as part of the Garza deal & The Cardinals got SQUADOOSHE. Cubs Win.. Indians Win.. Cards bend over and grab their ankles.... :shok:
GeronimoSon
MLB Rookie
 
Posts: 3949
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2010 6:17 pm

Re: The DeRosa Deal

Postby Hermie13 » Wed Mar 02, 2011 1:37 pm

TonyIPI wrote:Good trade for both teams. Indians were still trying to win and they traded for DeRosa. Losing Archer is the cost of doing business. Indians still make out with Chris Perez in the long run, a guy I'd rather have than Archer straight up.


I agree, good trade for both clubs. Disagree on Perez vs Archer....unless you think Archer has no shot at starting.

Definitely not upset over this deal though.
Hermie13
MLB All Star
 
Posts: 7120
Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2008 11:34 am
Location: Cleveland, OH

Re: The DeRosa Deal

Postby TonyIBI » Wed Mar 02, 2011 1:59 pm

Hermie13 wrote:I agree, good trade for both clubs. Disagree on Perez vs Archer....unless you think Archer has no shot at starting.


Perez is a pretty well established backend reliever. Those are hard to find. Give me that any day over a prospect, a guy I still have some reservations on to be able to throw strikes consistently enough to have success in a ML rotation.
User avatar
TonyIBI
MLB Rookie
 
Posts: 5056
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2008 11:03 pm

Re: The DeRosa Deal

Postby criznit2009 » Wed Mar 02, 2011 4:08 pm

I think this was a good trade for both teams. Though Archer has the "potential" to impact the ML as a starter (pretty damn important) as of now it's just that, potential. Now on the other hand, if Perez keeps up his performance we have a solid closer for a few seasons. Right now I am more than happy with the trade and no matter what happens with Archer - we still made out pretty darn good. Plus at the time, Todd seemed like he might have some impact as well. Now not so much.
criznit2009
Double-A Hot Shot
 
Posts: 1191
Joined: Tue May 12, 2009 9:27 pm
Location: Portland, OR

Re: The DeRosa Deal

Postby Hermie13 » Thu Mar 03, 2011 1:21 pm

TonyIPI wrote:
Hermie13 wrote:I agree, good trade for both clubs. Disagree on Perez vs Archer....unless you think Archer has no shot at starting.


Perez is a pretty well established backend reliever. Those are hard to find. Give me that any day over a prospect, a guy I still have some reservations on to be able to throw strikes consistently enough to have success in a ML rotation.


Well established backend reliever is a bit of a stretch IMO when talking about Perez. Had a good 2010 but until you do it at least twice, you're not established at anything.

I take the starter over the reliever...but agree on Archer's wildness (then again, Perez still has some too).
Hermie13
MLB All Star
 
Posts: 7120
Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2008 11:34 am
Location: Cleveland, OH

Re: The DeRosa Deal

Postby Prosecutor » Fri Mar 04, 2011 9:55 am

After reading Geronimo's post, I would say the first part of the deal was both a success and failure for the Tribe. They traded three minor league pitchers for a veteran 3rd baseman nearing the end of his career. DeRosa came through as hoped, driving in 50 runs in the first half of 2009. He was exactly the player the Indians thought they were getting, and the player they needed after Andy Marte failed to nail down the 3rd base job. So the trade was an immediate success.

However, the Indians were losers in 2009, so DeRosa's big first half was wasted. Trading three good prospects for the last productive year of an aging veteran's career right before a non-contending season is not a good move. The Indians misjudged their ability to contend in '09 and it cost them three prospects and a lot of money paid to DeRosa.

Fortunately, they salvaged the deal by robbing the Cardinals blind in the Chris Perez/Todd deal. DeRosa was done at that point and hit only .228 the rest of the year. Perez might be the best young closer in baseball and has a chance to be the all-time Indians saves leader if they can keep him around another 7-8 years.

Jeff Stevens made it to the majors briefly the last two years and put up ERA's of 7.11 and 6.11 over 29 total games. At age 26 his time is running out. Jess Todd doesn't look like he'll break out of the pack and Gaub had a 6.52 ERA in AAA last year at age 25.

In the end it looks like the Tribe traded Archer for Perez. We're well ahead at this point but there's a long way to go.
Prosecutor
Single-A Phenom
 
Posts: 977
Joined: Sat Jan 22, 2011 1:51 pm

Re: The DeRosa Deal

Postby TonyIBI » Sat Mar 05, 2011 1:25 am

Prosecutor wrote:Jeff Stevens made it to the majors briefly the last two years and put up ERA's of 7.11 and 6.11 over 29 total games. At age 26 his time is running out. Jess Todd doesn't look like he'll break out of the pack and Gaub had a 6.52 ERA in AAA last year at age 25.


Yeah, right now Stevens and Todd are looking like one and the same pitcher. Both fringe ML relievers.

Always loved Stevens and miss that guy in the org. Funny as hell and one of the really cool guys to talk to. Since leaving the org I have continued to keep in touch with him via text/email. He's still trying to land a spot in the Cubs bullpen this spring and I am pulling for him big time. I often wonder if he were to be put on waivers if the Indians would claim him to get him back as they were always pretty high on him.
User avatar
TonyIBI
MLB Rookie
 
Posts: 5056
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2008 11:03 pm

Re: The DeRosa Deal

Postby OhioBaseball » Sat Mar 05, 2011 7:03 pm

Archer also seemed to blossom when he left the Indians organization. There is no guarantee that had he stayed in the Indians organization that he would have developed the way he did with the Cubs. Getting with the right baseball people can sometimes make all of the difference with young baseball players. It's not a knock on the Indians, but sometimes changing organizations can make a big difference in young players' development.

Regardless, Chris Perez might not have the ultimate upside as Archer does as a potential starting pitcher, but it's tough to argue against this trade. DeRosa didn't work out but getting Chris Perez for him was a great deal.
OhioBaseball
Single-A Phenom
 
Posts: 654
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:00 pm
Location: Chicago, Illinois


Return to Indians Prospect Talk

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron