Sanity check - giving up Tommy hansen

[FBP]

NL 5x5 keeper league 10 teams. I am in first by a very narrow margin. I need HRs. A dumping team has solicited an offer for both Fielder and Lee (phillie pitcher). Neither are at keeper prices.

I am considering a trade whereby I give Tommy Hansen 13a and Lucroy 1b for fielder and lee. I see Hansen and lee as equivalent but giving up the keeper to garner fielder seems worthwhile. Opinions please.

[Todd Zola]

The keeper "math" works out as you suggest, you are receiving more present day value back than you are losing.

There is no way we can tell if you are getting back "enough", only you know league dynamics and history when it comes to these kinds of deals.

That said, the three thoughts I have are

1. Have you shopped Hanson around?

2. Why include Lucroy? Who backfills catcher and while we are at it, who does Fielder upgrade?

3. Would you lose Fielder if he happened to be traded to the AL? If the answer is yes, I would still be inclined to trade for him as the chance he is dealt is slim, but I would use that as leverage to drive down the price.

[FBP]

Todd to answer your question I am not looking to trade Hansen. I effectively trade him for Lee who is at an inflated price. Stats should be comparable. I end up giving up 2 more years of control at a very good salary.

Fielder is the compensation for giving up such a good keeper. HRs is a stat where I can gain the most points to keep my lead. It is a pretty competitive league so I can't sit on a modest lead. If I don't do this trade I will have to continue to look for power help. fielder doesn't real ly replace anyone other than Lucroy.

In our league you have to trade pitcher for pitcher and offensive player for offensive player. I selected Lucroy even though I like him and consider him a keeper, but he is probably my least valuable player. I have 2 other catchers: Molina and Soto, and my other least valuable players are Infante, Dan Murphy, and Torres, all at keeper prices. Trading any of those other than Torres gives me position issues. I could conceivably move one of them for a final year MacGahee to the same owner, but Mcgahee has been very unproductive.

This is a this year emphasis, although it still gives me pause to give up Hansen so iwas was looking for input.

[Todd Zola]

Trust me, I understand the dynamic of dump trading.

My point is, if you are willing to deal Hanson for Fielder, it may be worth shopping him to see if he fetches someone better.

I have been in leagues where you could get more, some where you get less.

The pitcher for pitcher, hitter for hitter caveat is almost like a means of policing dump deals, so you do not get a 3 for 1 or 4 for 1.

Again, with the caveat that only you know your league, with this additional information, it appears as though you have put together a nice package.

[da_big_kid_94]

So what makes you think the other owner will bite on this. As you state, he's solicited offers - what makes you think he'll find this one palatable? Lee and Fielder for Hansen is a little light on his return, don't you think?

[Todd Zola]

So what makes you think the other owner will bite on this. As you state, he's solicited offers - what makes you think he'll find this one palatable? Lee and Fielder for Hansen is a little light on his return, don't you think?

In a vacuum, I don't think so, but everything is relative to the quality of keepers the contending teams have to deal and the quality of present help the rebuilding teams have to deal.

[da_big_kid_94]

So what makes you think the other owner will bite on this. As you state, he's solicited offers - what makes you think he'll find this one palatable? Lee and Fielder for Hansen is a little light on his return, don't you think?

In a vacuum, I don't think so, but everything is relative to the quality of keepers the contending teams have to deal and the quality of present help the rebuilding teams have to deal.

True, but this deal boils down to Fielder for Lucroy (Lee is worth now, Hansen is worth later - it's a wash) IMHO - and I can't see very many owners thinking they are getting anywhere near adequate compensation in that scenario if they're just getting Lucroy. In fact, if I'm the guy soliciting the offer, and this is how it's presented to me, the first thing I do is peddle Fielder someplace else. Especially when one considers that the other owner feels Lucroy is his least valuable player. And since you have to trade pitcher for pitcher, as the Fielder owner? I'd take Hansen for Lee and be happy. So why put Prince it the mix? If FBP can sell it, mazeltov. I'd be interested to see how he could pull it off, if he does.

[Todd Zola]

But the deal is not Fielder for Lucroy. It is FBP getting Fielder this year and the other guy getting Hanson next year.

There is a chance the other guy feels he can get more than Hanson for Lee and Fielder, and he may be right.

But in a vacuum, this is a classic present for future dump deal.

[da_big_kid_94]

But the deal is not Fielder for Lucroy. It is FBP getting Fielder this year and the other guy getting Hanson next year.

And Cliff Lee is chopped liver? One helluva throw-in there, Todd. Of course it's Lucroy for Prince. Since he has to trade pitcher for pitcher and hitter for hitter, if Prince was off the table, Lee for Hanson isn't enough for Hanson? And as I read, this is FBP's proposal - no word if the other guys has even HEARD it yet, much less considered it.

[FBP]

I would never give up Hansen for lee. Both are 30 dollar pitchers and I have Hansen at 13 for two more years carrying 20 dollars of profit for 2 years. The offer is out and I will see if he bites.

[Todd Zola]

But the deal is not Fielder for Lucroy. It is FBP getting Fielder this year and the other guy getting Hanson next year.

And Cliff Lee is chopped liver? One helluva throw-in there, Todd. Of course it's Lucroy for Prince. Since he has to trade pitcher for pitcher and hitter for hitter, if Prince was off the table, Lee for Hanson isn't enough for Hanson? And as I read, this is FBP's proposal - no word if the other guys has even HEARD it yet, much less considered it.

The 2010 value of Lee and Hanson is a wash. The reason Lee for Hanson is not a fair trade is Hanson is a keeper, Lee is not. The addition of Fielder, another non-keeper balances the keeper value of Hanson.

The upgrades/downgrades each realizes are

FBP -- upgrades Lucroy to Fielder, downgrades keepers next season losing rights to Hanson

Other guy -- upgrades keepers next season with Hanson, downgrades to Lucroy this season

FBP is willing to sacrifice a bit of the future, the other guy doesn't care where he finishes this season -- classic dump deal scenario

[da_big_kid_94]

NL 5x5 keeper league 10 teams. I am in first by a very narrow margin. I need HRs. A dumping team has solicited an offer for both Fielder and Lee (phillie pitcher). Neither are at keeper prices.

I am considering a trade whereby I give Tommy Hansen 13a and Lucroy 1b for fielder and lee. I see Hansen and lee as equivalent but giving up the keeper to garner fielder seems worthwhile. Opinions please.

But the guy he needs is Fielder, not Lee. Nowhere does it say he can't KEEP Lee - it's as of right now, he's not at a "keeper price". But if circumstances change as the season goes on, that viewpoint may be altered. So if the other guy wants to trade, why would he want to move something as valuable as Cliff Lee in this deal, where he's relegated to being a throw in (FBP is pitching this - doesn't mean the other guy will buy into it) - why isn't it Johan Santana (or insert name of stiff pitcher here) and Prince for Hansen and Lucroy? I'd be shocked if the other owner took more than 30 seconds to consider this proposal before coming up with a more palatable counter. After all, the title of this post is "Sanity Check". Again, I realize this is only a proposal and the other party hasn't been heard from yet - but this is being made to sound that trading Hanson and Lucroy for Fielder and Cliff Lee is doing the other guy a big favor.

[Todd Zola]

NL 5x5 keeper league 10 teams. I am in first by a very narrow margin. I need HRs. A dumping team has solicited an offer for both Fielder and Lee (phillie pitcher). Neither are at keeper prices.

I am considering a trade whereby I give Tommy Hansen 13a and Lucroy 1b for fielder and lee. I see Hansen and lee as equivalent but giving up the keeper to garner fielder seems worthwhile. Opinions please.

But the guy he needs is Fielder, not Lee. Nowhere does it say he can't KEEP Lee - it's as of right now, he's not at a "keeper price". But if circumstances change as the season goes on, that viewpoint may be altered. So if the other guy wants to trade, why would he want to move something as valuable as Cliff Lee in this deal, where he's relegated to being a throw in (FBP is pitching this - doesn't mean the other guy will buy into it) - why isn't it Johan Santana (or insert name of stiff pitcher here) and Prince for Hansen and Lucroy? I'd be shocked if the other owner took more than 30 seconds to consider this proposal before coming up with a more palatable counter. After all, the title of this post is "Sanity Check".

This is sort of the the very essence of dump trading -- my initial reaction was "I would want MORE for Fielder if I was dealing Hanson". Not to put words in DBK's mouth, but his reaction appears to be "I would want more for Fielder plus Cliff Lee."

The other guy can perhaps deal each individually. Maybe he gets a cheap Jamie Garcia/Mat Latos for Lee and a cheap Ike Davis/Gaby Sanchez for Fielder.

In his mind, he needs to decide if two lesser keepers is better than the one killer keeper in Hanson.

[da_big_kid_94]

This is sort of the the very essence of dump trading -- my initial reaction was "I would want MORE for Fielder if I was dealing Hanson". Not to put words in DBK's mouth, but his reaction appears to be "I would want more for Fielder plus Cliff Lee."

Bingo - we don't know if the other guy is even AWARE of this proposal ... much less considering it. To me, it boils down to a guy in first trying to win asking about making a trade proposal for two proven vets and giving up Tommy Hanson and a guy who's his 3rd catcher right now. Putting Lee in the deal is priming the pump when any pitcher will serve the same purpose considering you really don't say you need Lee. If you insist on Lee when it was really Fielder you needed, and the deal doesn't happen because of Lee? Then what?

[FBP]

A post script:

Original dump trade fell through. Now have a proposal whereby I give up Hansen for both Latos and Chris Carpenter. Hansen is under control for 2 years, Latos one and Hanson two. Effectivley giving up two years of Hanson for the rest of the year for Carpenter and one year of Latos. Really need the pitching as have lost 5 points in Ks due to loss of Wandy (now back), Josh Johnson and Oswalt (who knows?). I think this trade worthwhile but again interested in opinions.

[Captain Hook]

I would NOT make that trade - Hanson is back (it's not like you are losing more time) and he is by far the best player in the trade

[Todd Zola]

I'm not as against the deal as Perry is -- as I talked about in a recent column, I don't care if I am giving up the best player if the package improves my team.

Who is the pitcher being replaced on your team? The deal is Hanson & X versus Latos and Carpenter. To me, the whole thing revolves around "X".

[FBP]

x will be my chocie of Kuo (1B), Collmenter (5A) or Parnell (3A). I am leaning to Kuo as I need SP and both of the other two are tied to pitchers which may be coming back later this year (J. Johnson and Oswalt) while Kuo is unfettered. I have until Monday to decide.

I fully understand that I am giving up the best player, but this should gain me 4 to 5 standing points and at least return a keeper for next year in Latos.

[Todd Zola]

Then there are two more questions....

1) Is this the best you can fetch for Tommy H?

B) If yes, are 4-5 points worth the loss of Hanson?

[FBP]

Todd:

I wasn't really shopping him but trading is very difficult in my league and when my oringinal dump trade fell through I approached another dumper. I really need SP as I only have 4 out of 10 pitchers (Hansen when activated on Monday would make 5) . There is very little on the waiver wire as we roster 10 pitchers--best avialabe is James McDonald and after that it is Duke and the like. I dont wnat to roster mediocre starters as I am first in WHIP?ERA and don't want to lose ground there to stop the K bleeding. Consequently, there is no better starting pitching avialable than Latos/Carpenter who have both been pitching better of late, so I doubt that I could do more on that front. The only other pitchers on the block are Dempster and Nolasco. At this time I think this is the best I could do. My alternative is to sit tight and wait for a trade from the AL, hope that JJ and Oswalt come back helathy (skeptical as to both) however by doing so I would continue to lose ground in Ks and wins.

[Todd Zola]

Going back to the original post, you needed HR. Is this still an issue? Something else to consider is doing the deal and once some other pitchers come off the DL, you may be able to deal Latos if it helps lock down the title.

[FBP]

I was thinking very much along the same lines. Either that or trade a Murphy (perhaps with a minor leafuer for the next dumper to come on line--he is holding Matt Holliday. In the meantime, Both Soto and Aram have picked up the power a bit which takes some immediate pressure off. I have picked up one point in HRs and ralasitically can garner one or two more without a trade.

On another note, an owner waived McLouth. I was thinking of doing a small FAAB on him and letting Fukadme go. Thoughts?

[Captain Hook]

H-A-N-S-O-N

[Todd Zola]

W - I - N

[Todd Zola]

On another note, an owner waived McLouth. I was thinking of doing a small FAAB on him and letting Fukadme go. Thoughts?

I think Fukudome is the safer play with McLouth the slightly higher upside, but in this instance, unless I am desperate for the upside, the risk outweighs the reward.