Mariners & Braves
Submitted by: centerwingpolitics
Mariners
Name | Age | Level | P1 | P2 | Availability | Years | AFV | Salary | Surplus | Low | Median | High |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Luis Guanipa | 0 | Minors | OF | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4.2 | 3.4 | 4.2 | 5 | ||
Hurston Waldrep | 21 | Minors | SP | 0 | 0 | 0 | 19.8 | 15.8 | 19.8 | 23.8 |
Total Value:
24
Braves
Name | Age | Level | P1 | P2 | Availability | Years | AFV | Salary | Surplus | Low | Median | High |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Luis Castillo | 31 | Majors | SP | Low | 5 | 138.7 | 116 | 22.7 | 18.2 | 22.7 | 27.3 |
Total Value:
22.7
Comments
2Braves need an ace that’s durable. Castillo gives them that. He will be around for a few seasons. Seattle gets to save some future payroll commitments, while also getting a promising arm and outfielder
There was another similar trade posted recently with Castillo going to the Braves. centerwingpolitics, I like many of the things that you've posted on a battery-related website. I'll ask some of the same questions here that I had for the other trade involving Castillo and the Braves. First, Castillo's no-trade clause. Why would he give that up? Second, if the Mariners are cost-conscious then why not have consummated a trade like this already? Third, aren't the M's styling to be playoff contenders? Why make this trade now? Why not see how it goes for them and also for these two very young prospects in Atlanta. Lastly, I believe that Atlanta's club is now, since it's public, more adverse to the next lux tax threshold. Adding Castillo put it past that. Do you figure that's a non-issue? All said, it's an interesting trade idea but because I don't see why Castillo would say yes, why the Mariners would, or why the Braves stockholders would agree, I'm wondering about the rest of everyone.