Livan Hernandez

Seriously doubtful...

Hernandez was pretty good until he injured his knee last year. Since then, it's been pretty much of a free-fall. I presume the Nats are sending a LOT of money our way in this one (Livian earns $8m this year and $7m next). Hernandez does pitch deep into games, which is something our starters (outside Webb) have been ferociously bad at.

However, I am reminded, horribly, of a certain Huge Manatee, also an "innings eater", whose best days turned out to be very much behind him. But at the very worst, this is only for 1.3 seasons, and the key question is, how much cash are the Nats pitching in. If it's a lot, and we're basically getting Hernandez for pennies on the dollar, this is okay.

It's very interesting to see Washington vacuuming up two of minor-league prospects, given that's where Mike Rizzo now is. Who better to point out the best prospects in our system? To save Ben the trouble, here are the stats - both are at AA Tennessee:

Chico: 7-2, 2.22 ERA, 21 BB, 63 K
Mock: 4-9, 4.95 ERA, 50 BB, 117 K

Looks like Chico would be the main focus of the Nationals' interest. with Mock not doing too much at the moment.

by Jim McLennan on Aug 7, 2006 2:11 PM EDT reply actions

gasp

Byrnes, whatchadoin? The one part of our system we can ill afford to part with is our young pitching, with Chico representing one of the few up and coming stars in our system. Argh! And for what??? A shot at the NL West this year?

by johngordonma on Aug 7, 2006 3:05 PM EDT reply actions

This just in

Josh Byrnes is dumb.

If you absolutely have to trade your minor league pitching, GET SOMEONE GOOD IN RETURN. We already had one Russ Ortiz, don't need another, thanks.

I've not been impressed with Chico, but I think we've tossed away something useful in Mock.

by nihil67 on Aug 7, 2006 3:17 PM EDT reply actions

Chico v. Mock

I actually like Chico better. He may not have the stuff... but to me Mock looks like Juan Cruz: all stuff, no pitching know-how. I think Chico has great pitching savvy. Either way, I don't like the deal. (But I wouldn't classify Livan as a Manatee either. He's merely a league-average pitcher. No better, no worse.)

by johngordonma on Aug 7, 2006 7:37 PM EDT up reply actions

I like it

Actually, I don't mind this trade. Clearly, we needed something to try and fortify the rotation, whose problems were reaching epidemic proportions in light of Webb's injury.

Livan has a history of being able to turn it off and on depending on the importance of the game, so I suspect he might be better than his 2006 numbers indicate. Going from a treading-water season to the thrust of a pennant race would get anyone's competitive juices flowing.

The biggest difference between this acquisition and Senor Manatee is the cost and the commitment. At worst, we get no $$$ from Washington (has anyone been able to find these details), but given we gave up two "prospects" that seems unlikely. But at worst we're on the hook from $10M for this year and next, which is a much more reasonable cost than Ortiz. Additionally, the circumstances of this acquisition are much different; Ortiz was slated as a #2-#3 guy in the rotation, a building block entering a season, whereas Livan is a fix to an existing problem (the rotation), where his faned rubber-armedness will hopefully help an overtaxed bullpen in the short-term.

While dealing young pitching, in the general sense, is not something I would want the D-Backs to do, I think Chico and Mock are reasonable choices to part with.

Chico's strikeout rate has taken a tumble both last year and this year for the Smokies, which I think severely limits his upside. At this point, the top of his range projects to a back of the rotation starter, maybe a #3-#4 at his peak; while keeping these guys in house helps a team to field an affordable core group, the loss of a guy like this isn't something I will lose sleep over, unless it became a habit for Byrnes, which I seriously doubt.

Mock is somewhat intriguing, but has been hit hard (more than 10 hits per 9 innings) in the past two years. He would have to make a major jump in his performance to project as anything but a Lancer Cormier-type of swingman, 3-inning middle reliever.

I like the message this trade sends to the fans and the club, that the D-Backs are 2 games out of the west and a game out of the wildcard, and this season is not just a stepping stone until the Baby Backs are ready, and that the front office is trying to plug holes without sacrificng the future.

I don't know, I need to digest it more before tonight, while I focus my hatred on Jason Schmidt.

by TheMainMan on Aug 7, 2006 3:34 PM EDT reply actions

I don't like it!

Why are we always willing to throw away young talent in our chase of a mirage? Rizzo wasted no time in going for our throats, did he?
What a utter waste of talent....

by unnamedDBacksfan on Aug 7, 2006 3:55 PM EDT up reply actions

I don't mind it, either

If the team was going to go after anything, it had to be SP. I'm not convinced that any real talent was given away, either. This isn't Chris Capuano and our entire infield for Sexson. Besides, if we don't do something to take the load off our bullpen, we're going to shred arms & shoulders, ending up losing that talent. Anyone remember what happend to Oscar Villareal after the way Brenly used him his rookie season? Do we want to see our bullpen end up like that?

Livan is not a top pitcher. He is, however, not the same as his brother. For one, he's younger. He is also something we need not just for this year, but next year, as well. He's neither a 3-month rental nor a longterm investment. He's a stop-gap for just over a year, and that's fine with me. If we'd given up any of our great position prospects, I'd be pissed. We didn't, and I'm not. I'm quite pleased, actually.

Anyway, what are the better options? Does anybody really think we're going to get a top pitcher via FA in the offseason? Does anyone really think there's anyone in the farm system that's going to step in and shore up the rotation? It's not like the team just needs one guy. They really need at least 2-3--maybe even 4 (although I really believe Kiki is going to be just fine). That's not going to happen. Our position players in the minors are all going to be here soon. They can't do anything without pitching, though. Livan is good enough to stop the bleeding until something better can be worked out.

by azshadowwalker on Aug 7, 2006 4:33 PM EDT up reply actions

This isn't Chris Capuano

Was Chris Capuano Chris Capuano when we traded him? I think it's no coincidence that this happens after Rizzo arrives in DC.

by nihil67 on Aug 7, 2006 5:53 PM EDT up reply actions

Livan

Has won his last 4 decisions and had been getting stronger in the last month. His ERA has dropped from 5.94 to 5.34 and has only had one bad outing during that time. He has always been one to go deep into games which is something we lack. Only time will tell if we have traded away Major League talent and we don't know how much many we have coming with Livan. We could get a quality starter for this year and next for next to nothing.

by DiamondbacksWIn on Aug 7, 2006 4:27 PM EDT reply actions

Giving Livan Life

I don't see this as such a bad thing. Two AA propects, no matter what their numbers, are just that: AA prospects. That means they could still be two years off, minumum, from being big league ready. And i've heard it said a few times, and firmly believe it: Livan has been so far stuck in the mire of losing clubs and no playoff races, that stepping back to a post season race may be exactly what he needs mentally. I do aggree that time will tell, but it seems nice to shore up the rotation a bit.

"Pepper needs new shorts!"

by npineda on Aug 7, 2006 4:58 PM EDT reply actions

If we use that logic

Lets trade Carlos Gonzalez and Justin Upton for Steve Trachsel. They're just AA and A prospects.

by nihil67 on Aug 7, 2006 5:59 PM EDT up reply actions

Prospects

I think that's the whole point, that it isn't Carlos Gonzalez and Justin Upton we're giving up. I would presume those guys are borderline untouchable, as they should be. While I am a proponent of stockpiling young arms (i.e., the best way to get three good young starters is to draft fifteen young starters), there are reasons to cut bait on a Grade B and a Grade C prospect and try to help your team right now.

Mock is an intriguing young arm for what he might become, IF his troubling hit rate reverses its trend since leaving South Bend (A-ball) and IF his strikeout rate maintains its growth over that same time (Translation: He is sacrificing location for velocity, which results in more fast, straight pitches, a strategy which typically gets hammered by big league hitters). I think he's a reasonable choice to trade before he proves he cannot handle hitters at higher levels. Mock was rated our #7 prospect by Baseball America, but his peripherals indicate a possibility that he might not progress further.

Chico simply doesn't have the peripherals that make him a good bet to project to contribute at the big-league level.

While it's definitely suspicious that the Nats make this deal just as Mike Rizzo jumps ship, perhaps it's a case where he sees something in either of these players that we haven't developed just yet. Something in Mock's makeup indicate he might be a solid set-up man, perhaps, given his ability to keep the ball in the ballpark.

Has anyone gotten any details about the financial considerations of the deal?

by TheMainMan on Aug 7, 2006 6:24 PM EDT up reply actions

Yup, Just Prospects

Lifes short, and these prospects are making more money then most of us are gonna see in our life. While it's not as rampant in the MLB as the NFL, any prospect is a bad night of drinking, a Sunday afternoon bike ride, or a domestic abuse situation away from being just another used car salesman. I know that we've put a lot of time and development money into these prospects, but we can't horde every kid with a 85+ MPH fastball or 4.4 40 or a .500 batting average in high school. Some guys just get better with age, and are better somewhere else then other places.

Personally, I know that a lot of us on here are smarter then average fans, but doesn't anyone else wanna see us take a magical stab at a championship, even if it seems too daunting when we get there? Or do we want to just forever have potential, and have a log jam when we are trying to get it to the big leagues, making us less likely to succed?

"Pepper needs new shorts!"

by npineda on Aug 7, 2006 6:49 PM EDT up reply actions

Financial

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=2542289

ESPN The Magazine's Buster Olney is reporting that the Diamondbacks also received $2 million from the Nationals in the swap.

by StuckinNH on Aug 7, 2006 6:29 PM EDT reply actions

Don't really like the trade

as the team gave up a bit too much for an average pitcher but I don't think it's as bad as some have mentioned.
It's a risk to expect Livan Hernandez to be the one pushing the D'Backs to the NL West pennant given his earlier injury. And of course there is the matter of his salary.
I love Mock as a prospect and he should bounce back from his poor numbers this year. However, he is projected to be a no. 3 at best and won't contribute until 2008 at the earliest. Chico was arguably the top lefty starting prospect in the organization and has been great in Double A. Yet again, he isn't a front of the rotation starter. These aren't John Patterson or Brad Penny that the D'Backs are trading away here. In Enrique, Nippert, Edgar and possibly Owings, the organization already have pitchers to fill those roles at the back-end of the rotation. The other consideration is that both have to be put on the 40-man roster this offseason to protect them from the Rule V draft.
So, short-term wise I think this won't work and long-term wise, Mock and Chico should flourish under Rizzo in Washington, but by then the D'Backs young hitters will make them a forgotten memory.

by William K @ AZ Snakepit on Aug 7, 2006 9:23 PM EDT reply actions

Bullpen

Who moves to the bullpen to make room for Livan? We have plenty of candidates. Cruz or Vargas?

by DiamondbacksWIn on Aug 8, 2006 5:57 AM EDT reply actions

Cruz

He's too small, he's been throwing his ass off ... if you want to do what's best for the guy profesionally, you make it him.

"Pepper needs new shorts!"

by npineda on Aug 8, 2006 6:51 AM EDT up reply actions

I agree

I have felt all along that Cruz should be in the bullpen. I am not convinced Vargas is a great starter though. I would rather see EdGon back in rotation from Tuscon and send both Vargas and Cruz to bullpen.

by DiamondbacksWIn on Aug 8, 2006 7:10 AM EDT up reply actions

Alright, time to stop the riot

The deal is done. No doubt about it. When I heard it was for Mock, I was fine for it because of the fact that Mock wasn't doing so fine in double-A. But when I heard that Chico was part of the deal, I was horrified. (I am personally sorry for saying that he was HITTING well.) Anyways, we needed an innings eater for about this and next year. Would you rather have a deal for Willis for Upton AND a B prospect in our farm system? Too much. And the arbitration after this year? Okay, Its hard to compare Livan and Willis, but Livan was pitching well for us. Once we have the pitchers, all we need is to know how to use them. Management (I'm looking at you BoMel) has to step it up if we want to win the NL West this year. We have the talent on the team, but our Management dont understand how to use it.

The FA pool for pitchers next year (2007 offseason) isnt that fulfilling that could help our pitching staff. I didnt like the fact that the diamondbacks were going for a person like Jake Westbrook either. But I do like what Byrnes is seeing right now. Its a keep the future, but win now method, something that was excuted poorly last year. This philosophy is somewhat of what the Diamondbacks always did. (Debatable).

Potential Signings for the D-Backs (offseason):

Byung-Hyun Kim: RHP (Has a shaky relationship with the D-Backs, but a potential reunion is on the loose. He has an up and down season thus far with the Colorado Rockies, but his stats during home is incredible. 2.75 ERA 5-3 WL Record.)

Gil Meche: RHP (He knows both manager and pitching coach Bryan Price and BoMel back in Seattle. He has the potential to reach 200 innings this year, and that being said, he has never reached above 150 IP ever since the 2003 season. He has a G/F Ratio of 0.93 lifetime. More of a strikeout pitcher, but I am definitely scared of what will happen if his pitches misses his mark. Safeco isn't Chase.)

Mark Mulder: LHP (I know Byrnes is considering this man in the offseason. Mediocre ever since his last season with the A's and Cards. Injured right now, his shoulder is a big question mark. But the Diamondbacks have a history in signing big names after their injuries. Definitely a ground ball pitcher, in his career. But, Chase and Mulder, not a great fit for the d-Backs)

Tomo Ohka: RHP

I have others in mind, but im too lazy to post more up. Anyways, you get the picture, probably Byrnes is looking for talent with an option for next year because he knows that we can't contend with the likes of the Yankees and otehr franchises with big money.

"very cunning Mr. *VIII*" -- Jim

by Mr. Philosophical on Aug 8, 2006 10:14 AM EDT reply actions

woops

I meant Livan is pitching well as of late.

"very cunning Mr. *VIII*" -- Jim

by Mr. Philosophical on Aug 8, 2006 10:15 AM EDT up reply actions

Baseball Prospectus

Offers their take on the trade. The final paragraph:

Considering Mock's lack of success in 2006--as well as high opponent slugging that one would only expect to increase in the dry heat of major league Arizona, and the uncertainty surrounding Chico's short run of success--it doesn't look as if the D'backs front office can be faulted for making a deal that is more likely than not to help the current team for the remainder of this season, as well as the next one. The most likely scenario is that this deal will help both clubs out in their own way; the Nats receive a few promising arms that they will need in the future, and the D'backs acquire another piece that allows them to both contend and rebuild simultaneously.

by Jim McLennan on Aug 10, 2006 3:36 PM EDT reply actions