Trade Otsuka?

by BAC on Dec 1, 2006 3:16 PM CST Comment 38 comments

Fist, I'm not a super good with the stats, so if someone better wants to provide some insight or correct my 1,000 errors, feel free.

Anyway, here's why I'm alright with trading Otsuka: I'm not convinced he is going to have an other good season next year.

When Otsuka came over to the Padres in '04, he was really good. He had an ERA+ of 238, Win Share of 11.4, and a VORP of 32.5; went 7-2 with a 1.75 era.

But in '05, he had an ERA+ of 108 (down 130), Win Share of 4.2 (down 7.2) and a VORP of 9.2 (down 23.3); went 2-8 with a 3.59 era. That's a HUGE drop.

In '06, he was back to an ERA+ of 227, Win Share of 11.1, sorry don't know the '06 VORP; went 2-4 with a 2.11 era.

Why the precipitous drop in '05? Well, one thing I heard tossed around after the CY trade was that Otsuka would have a good year for Texas because the AL hitters wouldn't be ready for his quirky delivery.

Otsuka has that unusual hitch in his motion and I think it throws a lot of hitters off. This could be one of the reasons he was so successful in '04: hitters weren't ready for him. However, in '05, the NL hitters had time to study his delivery in the off-season, and had also seen him several times.

Then, when he came to the AL in '06, he was facing new hitters again. I haven't heard anything about any injuries in '05, so I have to think this may be a plausible explanation.

I really wish I could find Otsuka's stats against the AL during interleague play in '05. Anyone got anything?? If he was stellar during interleague play but weak during division play, I think it may prove my point.

Anyway, 3 years are hardly enough to establish a pattern, but I am still a little worried about next season. I think that if we can get a good return for Otsuka, especially considering the depth of our pen, we should take it.

0 recs | Comment 38 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Drop in 2005

I don't really like to omit stats to make a point but...

For some reason, he got lit up in 3 games in Arizona. Those games really messed up his numbers. Of course, those games still count but in the vast majority of his appearances he was very good.

Having said all that, I have no problem trading him (or anyone else for that matter) in the right deal.

Give me a diablo sandwich, a Dr. Pepper, and make it quick, I'm in a god-damn hurry.

by Chris Martin on Dec 1, 2006 3:11 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

uh-oh

Requiem is going to take your ass out.

CJ Wilson on Jeff Weaver: "Dear God please don't sign this guy."

by trza on Dec 1, 2006 3:41 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

His peripherals....

were still mediocre in the other games, which IMO is more important than ERA for relievers.

As long as you admit and know that you're cherry-picking, I'm fine with that.

As to what Otsuka's problems might have been:

It could be a sophomore slump (or a bad year).
He might not be as good as he was in 2004 (though 2006 would suggest, otherwise).
He might be in decline (he was 33), but it's unlikely now since in 2006, he had an awesome year.
It takes a while for batters to adjust to his funky delivery. It's possible that in '05, NL batters finally had seen it enough times that they could pick the ball off better when he threw it.

Or it could be some inexplicable reason that we have no way of figuring out.

That being said, since he's starting to become expensive, if we get a good trade offer for him, I'd do it in a heartbeat.

Req

by Requiem on Dec 1, 2006 3:49 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Heh...

and I didn't read the second part of the diary post which goes into detail with my 4th explanation.

That's pretty much what I feel, and since relievers are more fungible than almost any other regular position, I'd be pretty aggressive in exploring a trade for Otsuka.

Still, if nobody is offering anything good for him, you just keep him and pray that 2005 is an aberration.

Req

by Requiem on Dec 1, 2006 3:54 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

#4

and your last sentence are what have me very open to moving him.

by Brett Perryman on Dec 1, 2006 3:55 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Win Shares

Well, he did close a lot of games in '06, which would count more towards Win Shares. This could explain the rise in numbers. Some more important numbers are K's/9.

2004 - 10.13
2005 - 8.61
2006 - 7.09

Not a good trend. This doesn't mean that he can't be effective, Danny Kold made an All-Star appearance. What it does mean, is that he could be very ineffective very fast (see Danny Kolb again). Trade him while his stock is high.

P.S. - there was also that thing with the headaches at the end of the season as well.

by Excel Hearts Choi on Dec 1, 2006 3:43 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

Best stats for relievers, IMO

K/9, like Excel said
BB/9
GB/FB ratio.

I dislike ERA for relievers since it can be warped by a couple of bad outings (and since some of the time, it's not completely the reliever's fault).

I'm also not a big fan of WS and I don't really trust any BP stat that I couldn't calculate myself.

Req

by Requiem on Dec 1, 2006 3:52 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

As an example....

Take Cordero....

ERA by month
11.45 - April
2.51 - May
2.08 - June
3.55 - July
0.00 - August
2.70 - September

K/9 by month
9.00 - April
10.05 - May
8.31 - June
12.79 - July
9.58 - August
9.45 - September

BB/9 by month
3.27 - April
4.40 - May
1.38 - June
2.84 - July
6.97 - August
4.73 - September

It's much easier to see in the K/9 and BB/9 that Cordero actually was pretty good most of last year.

He was just unlucky at the beginning, but that's unfortunately, what most people remember.

In addition, Cordero was actually WORSE for the Brewers than he was for us. He was just more fortunate (and/or had a better defense behind him).

Req

by Requiem on Dec 1, 2006 4:06 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Aki

I think it's a forrgone conclusion that he will be traded sometime this offseason.

by Longhorn on Dec 1, 2006 3:45 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

david brent

http://youtube.com/watch?v=VVhjI-yWGiQ

Sorry, just could not resist.

The British version is just brilliant.

by alon91 on Dec 1, 2006 4:51 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

If we get a good return

Personally I think we should look into dealing Otsuka. I think a lot of people share this thought.

I also think that we should look to deal Gerald Laird, as I think he and Aki might be our most overrated (by others) commodities. But I'd only trade them in a package to get a big bat (Manny/Dunn-type), a solid starter or a good young CF.

Would we be better bringing back Rod Barajas to catch and using Laird as bait to get someone Baldelli?

A Noble Spirit Embiggens The Smallest Man.

by thedirkatron on Dec 1, 2006 3:51 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

I agree....

Laird and Otsuka are likely our two most overrated commodities.

If you can get a Baldelli for Laird deal, I think you have to look into it.

That being said, I don't think there's a snowball's chance in hell that TB will do that deal or even something near it....

Req

by Requiem on Dec 1, 2006 3:57 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Yah

Baldelli>Laird. I didn't mean to imply we could a one-for-one, but I was just saying that he might be a nice chip if we want to put together a package for a good player.

A Noble Spirit Embiggens The Smallest Man.

by thedirkatron on Dec 1, 2006 4:01 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

True...

I was more commenting on the Baldelli aspect.

TB already has a pretty decent young catcher in Navarro, plus I think they really like Baldelli.

Which makes it really unlikely that they'd give up Baldelli for a package around Laird.

Dukes on the OTOH, might be gotten cheap off of them. I don't know if he'd be worth the headaches, though....

I dunno, there aren't that many teams looking for catchers (as the Barajas sweepstakes show), and I don't know if Laird would bring back that much in trade right now.

Given the likely market for Laird, I'd guess we'd probably hold on to him (which isn't necessarily a bad thing).

Otsuka, though, should be a fairly hot commodity. You'll almost always find someone who'll overpay for a "proven closer."

Req

by Requiem on Dec 1, 2006 4:11 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I agree with you guys

on Otsuka and Laird. I'm not sure exactly what they do at catcher if they did move Laird, and I do think that there is room for him to grow as a hitter against RHP. But in theory I can see his value at a crest.

Baldelli is a pipe dream though, as was said.

by Brett Perryman on Dec 1, 2006 4:21 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Laird

I guess I think more of him than you guys do. I don't think he'll be spectacular, or anything, but solid. And he has a little speed.

by Dustin on Dec 1, 2006 4:47 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I like Laird

The reason that the idea might hold water is if some team views him as a borderline frontline catcher, which I don't think is out of the realm of possibility, then you could get value above what he probably is. I think he's a pretty good player too, though. I think his defense is very underrated by the likes of Buck and Gerry Fraley, and he's a really good athlete, especially considering his physique.

Really what gives me pause is that split versus righties, and as I said above I do think there is room for growth there. I just am disappointed that it didn't coming August and September when he got ample chances against them. Even if he doesn't improve all that much, a catcher who keeps the other team's running game in check, who's pretty solid otherwise defensively in my book, who's among the leaders in bunts for hits and who hits .296/.332/.473 isn't half bad.

by Brett Perryman on Dec 1, 2006 5:20 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

As much as all of us

complained about him not starting, it would be almost painful to watch him leave, depending on the return.

Seems like there is not much of a market for catchers this offseason, though.

by t ball on Dec 1, 2006 5:32 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

That's true

Not many teams are really looking for catchers right now, and the whole idea would be based on a big return, at least as far as I'm concerned. Laird is definitely a big league catcher.

by Brett Perryman on Dec 1, 2006 10:31 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Sooner or later

...you have to keep your good players. I'm not saying I wouldn't trade Laird if the right deal came along, but I wouldn't shop the younger guys unless I had a reason not to believe in them.

by Dustin on Dec 1, 2006 6:02 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

but

once you have a reason not to believe in them why does anybody else have a reason to believe in them enough to give you anything of value?

by jtts on Dec 1, 2006 9:18 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Put another way

You don't mind giving up talent if the player(s) coming in fix a weak spot for you. I don't need to believe in a guy who has earned his way to AAA or part time major league callup. His management has decided to advance him, which should say enough.

by Ed Coffin on Dec 1, 2006 9:23 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Well

...hopefully you'd know your own players a little better than other teams do. Anyway, the objective is to win, and to do that you need good players. So if you have a good, young player you should keep him as long as he has a place to play. In general, anyway.

Laird is a keeper because he's young, cheap, good, and the only catcher they have. It really doesn't make sense to trade him unless some team offers you somebody that's more valuable than he is to the Rangers. And who's going to do that? I guess something could come along, but probably not.

by Dustin on Dec 1, 2006 10:26 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Don't EVEN suggest that!

booo

Your Texas Rangers...laying the foundation for 2009...ok, who am I kidding? 2012.

by RangerMoto on Dec 1, 2006 3:58 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Don't care about Otsuka's stats

Trade him while the market for bullpen/closers is so high. I am fine with trading Otsuka in a deal for a solid starter - no matter what Otsuka does next year.

I would be much less sure of trading Laird. Not because I think he's Johnny Bench reincarnated, but because then who is our catcher, Barajas?

by t ball on Dec 1, 2006 5:18 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

There are worse things....

than having Barajas back as starting catcher and trading Laird for a good player.

My only issue with Barajas was that I felt that Laird was better than Barajas would be in 2006 and therefore should have been starting.

But if you can upgrade your team in another area by trading Laird, then I'm perfectly fine with re-signing Barajas and batting him 9th.

Req

by Requiem on Dec 1, 2006 5:31 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Couldn't have said it better myself

Barajas isn't horrible, it was the decision to play him over Laird that was horrible.

I'd be happy with Popup back on a two year deal if a deal comes along where Laird can help us get a solid starter or maybe a big bat.

A Noble Spirit Embiggens The Smallest Man.

by thedirkatron on Dec 1, 2006 7:03 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Your point is moot, however,

since there don't seem to be any teams chasing catchers (so to speak). Laird only has trade value if other teams are aggresively seeking starting catchers. None are.

I didn't mean Barajas was not an option for a starting catcher, but it sure would be a strange turn of events for him to return here next season.

by t ball on Dec 1, 2006 11:50 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

One thing about that

There might be more teams interested in making Laird their starting catcher than Barajas, especially given their price tage. The catching market is pretty dry, but that has a little to do with guys like Barajas and Zaun being the class of it.

If Eliezer Alfonzo is your starting catcher, his .266/.302/.465 line and defense makes it pointless to pay Barajas a bunch of money just to match or be worse than that. But Laird could be considered an upgrade.

I don't disagree in general about the catching market. It's not as desperate as the CF market, which is a little unusual.

by Brett Perryman on Dec 1, 2006 11:55 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I was just looking over

the list of free agents by position. It made me VERY glad that the Rangers are set in the infield. As sorry as the market is for pitchers, it's that much worse for infielders.

by t ball on Dec 2, 2006 12:00 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

No one...let me repeat, No one

is trading a SOLID starter for Aki.....maybe Rivera, but not Aki !

by tklawless on Dec 2, 2006 11:42 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Why not?

JD did.

Give me a diablo sandwich, a Dr. Pepper, and make it quick, I'm in a god-damn hurry.

by Chris Martin on Dec 4, 2006 4:10 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Closers

are generally overrated, unless we are talking about a guy like MO or even BJ Ryan who appears to be money for a lot of years. Anyways, if we can trade Aki and an average to good prospect for Westbrook I say let's do it. However I hope if we do such a move we also get Zito, because then we have an above average rotation!

"I'm sick of hearing about the DVD and how they are untouchable." - Dan McDowell

by Agreen07 on Dec 1, 2006 9:44 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

Yah

Especially if we decide to spend a ton on pitching and bring back Padilla too.

Someone else already listed it, but it looks so sweet I'll go ahead and post it again:

Millwood
Zito/Schmidt
Padilla
Westbrook
Tejeda/Rupe/Other

Now THAT is a rotation.

A Noble Spirit Embiggens The Smallest Man.

by thedirkatron on Dec 1, 2006 10:17 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Millwood #2 in that rotation?

by a bebop a rebop on Dec 1, 2006 11:32 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

i have seen nothing to suggest

that the rangers have even talked to schmidt. Obviously the rangers are probably kicking the tires on everything out there as far as pitching, but as far as indicators go it seems like he is gonna end up with someone like seattle. I like the idea of him coming here on a 3/45 deal because it involves less longterm risk and schmidt has proven he is lights out WHEN HEALTHY.

by jacksastud on Dec 2, 2006 4:08 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

by the way....

if u sign zito, u make him #2 in rotation and sandwhich the soft tossing lefty in between a couple of hard throwing righty's likd millwood and padilla.

by jacksastud on Dec 2, 2006 4:10 AM CST reply actions 0 recs