Trading Prospects for Pitchers
by spurdynasty on Oct 9, 2008 11:45 AM CDT
Email
PrintDuring a discussion with oc several days ago about whether it makes sense for the Rangers to trade near-ready prospects for Zach Greinke or Matt Cain, I looked up how a similar trade from last offseason has worked out for the D’backs. You’ll recall that Arizona traded 6 prospects for Dan Haren and Connor Robertson following the 2007 season. The D’backs appear to have gotten what they were seeking in the trade as Haren started 33 games and posted a 16-8 record with a 3.33 ERA in 216 IP. However, Arizona finished the season out of the playoffs with an 82-80 record. The team’s overall record in the 33 games started by Haren was 19-14 which pushed the team’s record from being slightly below 500 to slightly above.
The most major league-ready player that the A’s received was Dana Eveland, who entered 2008 having pitched in 41 major league games primarily out of the bullpen. As a full-time starter for the A’s in 2008, Eveland pitched 168 innings in 29 games and produced a 9-9 record with a 4.34 ERA. The A’s finished the season 75-86, but they were 16-13 in games that Eveland started. While Haren certainly provided the D’backs with more starts and more innings, it’s not completely clear that he substantially improved the D’backs record in 2008 relative to what Eveland provided to the A’s. And Eveland was probably no better than the 4th best player that Oakland received in the trade.
So what about the other six players involved in the trade? At the age of 26, Connor Robertson pitched 7 major league innings in 2008 and appears unlikely to be on the D’backs 40-man roster this winter. The A’s on the other hand received five players who appear destined to play significant roles on future Oakland teams:
Greg Smith – 24 yo rookie tossed 190 innings in 32 starts for the A’s with a 4.16 ERA.
Carlos Gonzalez – 22 yo CF/RF was apparently excellent with the glove but subpar with the bat (634 OPS) in 85 ML games. BA ranked Gonzalez among the top 40 prospects in baseball prior to the 2006, 2007, and 2008 seasons and he is expected to develop into an above average major league hitter.
Aaron Cunningham – 22 yo rookie posted a 710 OPS in 20 major league games after posting a better than 900 OPS in AA and AAA in 2008.
Brett Anderson/Chris Carter – Neither Carter nor Anderson played in the major leagues in 2008, but both will be ranked among the A’s top prospects going into 2009 and Anderson seems likely to be in the A’s rotation within a year.
The Diamondbacks recently signed Haren to a contract that will keep him with the team through the 2012 season (Arizona also has an option for 2013). In exchange for a pitcher who will soon be earning $15.5M per year, the D’backs gave up 35 pre-free agency years of what appears to be three starting pitchers, a starting CF, a 4th OF, and a 1B/DH.
This type of deal has to be unusual, right? I mean, why would a GM ever trade for a young, proven, top-of-the-rotation starter if he had to give up so much in the deal? To address the former question, I pulled data for the eight off-season trades since 2004 that have involved exchanging an accomplished, pre-free agent starting pitcher for multiple prospects and/or unproven major leaguers. To simplify the analysis (and reduce the investment required for you to get through this FanPost), I used win shares to measure the major league production per year for each of the players following the trade. My thoughts on the trade are provided below the player information.
2008
Erik Bedard (SP) – Win shares: 6
for
Adam Jones (OF) - Win shares: 9
George Sherrill (RP) - Win shares: 5
Kam Mickolio (RP) – Win shares: 0 in 7.2 ML innings
Chris Tillman (SP) – No ML time; 10.2 K/9IP, 1.33 WHIP, 3.18 ERA in AA
Tony Butler (SP) - No ML time; 20 yo in SAL
Comment: An injury to Bedard combined with solid progress from Jones and 31 saves by Sherrill resulted in more win shares for the Orioles in the first year after the trade. The gap in the return for the two teams is likely to widen as Jones continues to develop during the 5 years that he is controlled by the Orioles and the most talented player involved in the trade, Chris Tillman, takes his place in the Orioles rotation.
Johan Santana (SP) - Win shares: 21
for
Carlos Gomez (OF) - Win shares: 13
Philip Humber (SP) - Win shares: 0 in 5 relief appearances
Kevin Mulvey (SP) – No ML time; 7.4 K/9IP, 1.35 WHIP, 3.77 ERA in 27 AAA starts.
Deolis Guerra (SP) – No ML time; Poor 19 yo season after being ranked #35 by BA in February ’08.
Comment: This trade currently favors the team receiving the young veteran pitcher. Santana produced like an ace in 2008, though the final result was not what the Mets had expected since they failed to qualify for the playoffs. The Mets signed Santana to a 6 year extension, though they are paying $22.5M per season for the privilege of having him in their rotation. The Twins have 6 years of a relatively inexpensive centerfielder who produced 13 win shares in his rookie season. They also have 11+ years of control over two near-ready starting pitchers plus a lottery ticket for a talented 19 yo pitcher.
2007
Dan Haren (SP) - Win shares: 20
Connor Roberston (RP) - Win shares: 0 in 6 games
for
Dana Eveland (SP) - Win shares: 9
Greg Smith (SP) - Win shares: 10
Carlos Gonzalez (OF) - Win shares: 6 in 85 games
Aaron Cunningham (OF) - Win shares: 3 in 22 games
Brett Anderson (SP) – No ML time; 11K/9IP, 1.16 WHIP, 2.61 ERA in AA
Chris Carter (1B) – No ML time; 259/361/569/930 with 39 HR in A+
Comment: As noted above, this trade slightly favors the prospects after one year and should get much worse for the D’backs as some of the prospects grow into roles on the next few A’s teams.
2006
Brandon McCarthy (SP) - Win shares: 4, 1
David Paisano (OF) – No ML time; unlikely to see ML time.
for
John Danks (SP) - Win shares - 4, 17
Nick Massett (RP) - Win shares - 0, 4
Jake Rasner (SP) – No ML time; unlikely to see ML time.
Comment: At the time of this trade, McCarthy had 1.5 years of major league experience and was deemed by many to be a breakout candidate as a starting pitcher in 2007. The prospect in the trade, Danks, has become a stalwart in the ChiSox rotation in just his second season.
Jason Jennings (SP) - Win shares: -1, N/A left as a free agent.
Miguel Asencio (RP) – No ML time; pitched 2008 in Boston’s minor league system.
for
Willy Taveras (OF) - Win shares: 12, 7
Taylor Buchholz (RP) - Win shares: 5, 9
Jason Hirsh (RP) - Win shares: 4, 0
Comment: Jennings and Asencio did nothing for the Astros in the one year that they played for the team. Taveras has settled in as the Rockies starting center fielder and Buchholz is playing a significant role in the Rockies bullpen.
2005
Josh Beckett (SP) - Win shares: 12, 19, 11
Mike Lowell (3B) - Win shares: 18, 24, 13
Guillermo Mota (RP) - Win shares: N/A; traded prior to 2006 season
for
Hanley Ramirez (SS) - Win shares: 25, 29, 32
Anibal Sanchez (SP) - Win shares: 11, 1, 0
Jesus Delgado (SP) – Win shares: 0 in 2 games in 2008
Harvey Garcia (SP) – Win shares: 0 in limited ML time in 2007
Comment: This trade is difficult to grade since it featured two players (Lowell and Mota) whose salaries far exceeded their 2005 production and whom Florida was simply lookiing to dump. Taken in its entirety, the trade is essentially a wash at the end of three years (97 win shares for Boston; 98 win shares for Florida). If you eliminate the salary dump portion of the trade, then you wind up with Beckett for Ramirez/Sanchez and a clear win for the prospect side. In addition, Boston has paid Beckett and Lowell ~$50M in the three years since the trade while the Marlins have paid Ramirez et al less than $5M.
2004
Mark Mulder (SP) - Win shares: 12, 0, -2, 0
for
Dan Haren (SP) - Win shares: 15, 15, 19, N/A traded to D’backs
Daric Barton (1B) - Win shares - N/A, N/A, 3, 9
Kiko Calero (RP) - Win shares - 5, 7, 1, 0 in 5 games before being released
Comment: This trade is a win for Oakland until you account for the fact that Haren begot Eveland/Smith/Anderson/Gomez/Carter/Cunningham whereupon it becomes an extraordinary haul that Beane received in exchange for one pre-free agency year of Mark Mulder.
Tim Hudson (SP) - Win shares: 13, 7, 19, 11
for
Dan Meyer (SP) - Win shares: N/A, N/A, -1, -1
Juan Cruz (RP) - Win shares: N/A, N/A, N/A, -1
Charles Thomas (OF) - Win shares: 0
Comment: The reason that I went back four years and eight trades for this FanPost is because that is the last time that a young starter for prospects trade clearly favored the team receiving the pre-free agency, proven pitcher. Hudson has been a solid, though oft-injured, member of the Braves starting rotation while Oakland’s key return, Dan Meyer, was injured and is just now receiving an opportunity to pitch in the major leagues.
Overall comment: Injuries to the young, proven starters have significantly impacted four of the eight trades presented above which points out the problem with trading multiple players for a single pitcher. In three of the four trades where the young veteran pitcher has remained reasonably healthy, the prospects have been as productive as the veteran and they’ve done so at a much lower cost to the team. Given the historical data, does it really make sense for the Rangers to swap Saltalamacchia/Hurley/Andrus for Greinke or Davis/Holland/Harrison for Cain or Kinsler/Feliz/Teagarden for Peavy?
Special thanks to oc for inspiring the research that led to today’s FanPost.
95 comments
|
11 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
great post, as usual
"I don’t know of a single thing Obama’s done except talk and write." - Newt Gingrich
Fundamental Problem with Greinke
I have been extremely vocal against making a move for Greinke, and here is why. If we trade for him, we are saying that, for SURE, two things are true:
1) Greinke is top of the rotation material (he’s not); and
2) The Rangers are not ready to contend, but to WIN in 2009 or 2010. That’s the window.
I think both those statements are equally as ridiculous, so I hope hope hope we do not trade for Greinke. I also hope the front office doesn’t share Mr. Newberg’s flat out obsession with the guy. Newberg is a smart guy, for sure, but giving up what he proposes for Zack Greinke? Sigh.
This one?
Saltalamacchia, Harrison (or Hurley), Mayberry (or Cruz), Arias, and one of Phillips/Pimentel/M.De Los Santos/Grullon /J.Santana/Nevarez.
For Greinke and Ramon Ramirez.
You wouldn’t make that deal?
by Jamey Newberg on Oct 9, 2008 12:13 PM CDT up reply actions
Hmmmm...
Salty, Hurley, Cruz Arias one of the others (pick one) I would be ok with.
Problem is, I believe that if we trade for him it’s because the Rangers think they can sign him long term, and I sincerely doubt they can. It goes back to IF the Rangers trade for him, they are not making a play to win the series, they are making a play to have a winning record. I’m not so cool with giving up good prospects that we have under our control for a long time to simply get over the 82 game hump.
That said, anyone can have Arias and Cruz; I’m not high on either of those guys. Hurley hurts a little.
Greinke + Ramirez
That trade proposal is at least interesting because you get four years of Ramirez in addition to 2 years of Greinke while giving up only one pitcher. Unfortunately, the only way that I see KC doing that deal is if they are looking to get rid of Greinke.
I am opposed to almost any trade that involves giving up Hurley or Harrison + a significant prospect for 2 or 3 years of one pitcher.
why does hurley hurt?
hes not a feliz/holland type, hes on the same level as hunter/harrison/etc isnt he?
the better question, why would you PREFER to hold on to hurley over the other two?
"I don’t know of a single thing Obama’s done except talk and write." - Newt Gingrich
by knockoutking on Oct 9, 2008 12:37 PM CDT up reply actions
It's a question of control, not ceiling.
Hurley is already holding his own in the majors as of last July, and we have him for more than two seasons. Rookie pitchers, for the most part, take their lumps until they have about a full season’s worth of starts under their belts. Hurley may very well just figure it out and be a really decent 3 guy.
Again, Greinke is gone September, 2010 unless we make the playoffs. Then, he is gone November, 2010.
ahhh i agree btw – i just dont see hurley becoming that #3 guy here. not with his HR tendencies, etc
id also prefer to have hunter/harrison
"I don’t know of a single thing Obama’s done except talk and write." - Newt Gingrich
Hurley vs Harrison vs Hunter
Hurley has the best k-rate, the best fastball, and a very good secondary pitch.
Harrison is left-handed with 3 solid pitches and a track record of producing ERAs in the 3.00-3.50 range.
Hunter has the best control and the potential to be excellent if he masters the 2-seamer.
It is a complete mystery to me who among these three is going to be the best major league pitcher. Anyone of them could be significantly above average and anyone of them could fail to be effective at the major league level. If I had more confidence in the Rangers’ ability to predict who will be good and who will not, then I woudl be happy seeing one of them included in a trade. As it stands, I cringe everytime that I see their names tied to a trade proposal.
It is a question of identification
…and a poor history of doing so for pitching. So, when and if the Rangers inevitably trade any of our beloved pitching prospects, I am going to have sweaty palms reading about it. I will be nervous as hell, but the good thing about JD is that despite the past, he can still pull the trigger.
salty, hurley, mayberry, arias, any of the guys you listed i would be ok with for greinke MAYBE
kind of like before though, i would want to make sure he signed an agreement before trading for him but that wont happen
"I don’t know of a single thing Obama’s done except talk and write." - Newt Gingrich
by knockoutking on Oct 9, 2008 12:22 PM CDT up reply actions
I gotta say
if the Rangers were offered that and turned it down, I would be furious.
At the same time, I highly doubt the Royals would have any interest in that. I’m sure they would want either Saltalamacchia and Andrus or they would want Davis. (Something I would only be okay with if the Rangers were given a window to guarantee an extension with Greinke, which seems highly unlikely).
If we got Greinke and Ramirez for Salty, Harrison/Hurley, Mayberry, Arias, and say Phillips, that would be a steal. We wouldn’t be hurting the strength of our farm system virtually at all, and we would be getting a top of the rotation starter.
by Stephen Rushin on Oct 9, 2008 12:28 PM CDT up reply actions
Yeah
For what I would probably agree to, I am 100% certain that the Royals would say no. But, I’m trying to undervalue Greinke because I’m just not blown away by the guy, and the Royals would want to overvalue him because they are in “win now” mode. Or something. I’m still unclear about their comments the other day.
Yeah those comments
Are a little confusing. Quite frankly, the Royals need a serious offensive improvement. I could still imagine them dealing Greinke and staying in “win-now” mode. They have talked about moving Soria to the rotation, as well. If we offered them an improvement in two offensive positions and opened up a rotation spot for them to move Soria into the rotation along with Meche, Davies, Hochevar, and Bannister, I could imagine the Royals viewing themselves as improved and even more competitive.
But who knows. And it seems like a lot of people view Greinke very differently. For whatever reason, I have always liked Greinke, which might make me a little biased.
by Stephen Rushin on Oct 9, 2008 12:37 PM CDT up reply actions
what
an improvement on john buck and his 75 ops+??? lol
"I don’t know of a single thing Obama’s done except talk and write." - Newt Gingrich
by knockoutking on Oct 9, 2008 12:38 PM CDT up reply actions
You have to make that deal
The Rangers have several tiers of prospects (by trade value)
Tier 1: The 4 premium prospects – Davis, Feliz, Holland, Andrus.
Tier 2: The 4 catchers, Beltre, Kiker, 2007 draft class
If you can get away with trading only one of the second tier and none of the top tier for ANY young stud pitcher, then you have to do it.
Personally, I think the Royals would strongly benefit from that deal. This is a team where filling the 25 roster spots with major league average talent is very hard. They get 3 guys who have that potential (Salty, Harrison/Hurley, Cruz/Mayberry), a strong utiltity guy, and a prospect. I don’t know if they need a premium talent – though they’d definitely ask for one.
Why is Greinke not top of the rotation material?
24 years old, ERA+ of 127 and 131 the last two years, incredible pure stuff, former first round pick (#6 in the nation), and ERA of 3.47 last season.
Admittedly he had a 3.93 ERA on the road this year as opposed to a 2.92 ERA at home. Nevertheless, in 2007, he had a 3.40 ERA at home and a 3.91 ERA at home.
He also has very low walk rates. Many people have said he is not ace material, and I cannot understand why. It seems that from both a scouting and a statistical perspective, he is a potential #1 starter/ace.
by Stephen Rushin on Oct 9, 2008 12:34 PM CDT up reply actions
I wouldn't classify it as...
…“incredible pure stuff.” He’s good and I would love to have him for many years to come, for sure. Is he a 1 or 2 guy? No. Not yet, at least. And in all likelihood, he won’t be a 1 guy by September, 2010, either, which is when he will hand the Rangers his walking papers and file for free agency.
also
people are worried about his previous mental health issues
from wikipedia
Greinke left the Royals spring training camp for personal reasons in late February, 2006.2 It was later revealed that he was suffering from social anxiety disorder and was having trouble working with others.3 He reported back to the Royals’ spring training facility in Surprise, Arizona, on April 17, where he has been undergoing pitching sessions. He was placed on the 60-day disabled list due to psychological issues and took time away from baseball entirely until returning on a rehab assignment with Wichita.
personally im not that worried about it but some are…
"I don’t know of a single thing Obama’s done except talk and write." - Newt Gingrich
by knockoutking on Oct 9, 2008 12:40 PM CDT up reply actions
As weird as it sounds
I view that as a plus. Like Hamilton, I would hope that his battles with social anxiety might make the Royals more willing to trade him. I have read some interviews he has given to various media outlets. He fully admits that when he doesn’t take his medication he suffers from social anxiety. Nevertheless, when he does take it, he seems to have few problems.
Like Hamilton/Bradley, his past personal problems could potentially make the Royals more likely to deal him. Getting a top of the rotation pitcher at age 24 is hard, so I would be willing to take a risk on his mental stability to improve this organization.
by Stephen Rushin on Oct 9, 2008 12:44 PM CDT up reply actions
wait, your saying you see it as a plus because it make the team more likely to trade him, right?
"I don’t know of a single thing Obama’s done except talk and write." - Newt Gingrich
Yeah, I guess that was a little confusing
But I think it could be a positive for us, because like Hamilton, he might come cheaper. That’s all.
by Stephen Rushin on Oct 9, 2008 1:37 PM CDT up reply actions
Mental health issues...
…is not something I’m concerned about with him. That is a non factor in my concern about trading for Greinke. Even better, if you take out the depression season, his career WHIP goes down quite a bit.
right
but my point was that some HAVE been worried about it
"I don’t know of a single thing Obama’s done except talk and write." - Newt Gingrich
I gotcha
I’m just saying that my very voiceiferous concerns about getting Greinke have absolutely nothing to do with his mental health.
93+ mph average fb velocity, a great curve, almost a K per inning while not walking a lot of guys...
Man, I’d hate to see what you think of as top of the rotation stuff.
Your Greinke hate is coming off as kind of sad at this point. Every time someone comes at you with stats you just drop some ambiguous “not top of the rotation” comment and expect us to trust your scouting eye.
The stats say the guy’s at worst already a very good number two, and he’s young enough (doesn’t turn 25 for a few more weeks) to push that up a notch or two.
The 40 Trumps All!!!
by thedirkatron on Oct 9, 2008 12:57 PM CDT up reply actions
hes not an ace. period
he probably isnt going to be
hes young, and i would almost for sure do the deal about
but am i trading any of feliz/holland/davis/smoak/andrus for him? no.
"I don’t know of a single thing Obama’s done except talk and write." - Newt Gingrich
Oh, okay
hes not an ace. period
Now that you say it and offer nothing to back it up, I see that it’s obviously the truth.
I know when I’ve been ownershipped super hard by superior logic. I’ll move along and bother y’all no more.
The 40 Trumps All!!!
I've looked at his stats
…and they are impressive. His WHIP is good, his K/9 is good, his BB ratio is good. That said, those numbers aren’t off the charts, I’ve seen him in action, and I just do not think he will ever achieve status as a real #1 guy – but most importantly – he won’t acheve status as a #1 guy in 2009 or 2010.
You have to weight what Greinke will do in those two years ONLY because that is it for the Rangers with Greinke if they trade for him. I promise you, after 2010, he’s gone.
But, since you ask, here are some of your categories of numbers for Greinke #s vs. Aces (career – yes, a little skewed as he is so young but I am exceedingly lazy):
Greinke
WHIP: 1.338
K/9: .771
BB/9: .264
Nolan Ryan (plus don’t forget TEXAS HIGH HEAT YEEEHAW)
WHIP: 1.247
K/9: 1.061 (Jesus)
BB/9: .519
Johan Santana
WHIP: 1.102
K/9: 1.029
BB/9: .277 (JeSUS)
CC Sabathia
WHIP: 1.244
K/9: .840
BB/9: .315
BB/9:
We can keep going for pitchers whom we all consider to be “Aces” and as is painfully clear, Greinke is no ace. At least not yet. And he won’t get there by 2010, and on top of all that, we won’t be headed to the series in 2010 anyways, so why not hang on to the guys who we will have control over for longer than simply two seasons?
Skewed
and I see nothing above that leaves him out of top of the rotation talk. He’s coming into his prime, and will likely improve those numbers a tad. His K’s per 9 have increased each of the last 4 seasons, and was 8.14 last year – which is above Sabathia’s career mark. His GB/FB rate improved this year as well.
Greinke is not ready to break out – he already has and is a good bet to get better as he enters his prime.
G G G E-flat_______ F F F D__________....
Is Greinke coming into his prime? Will it be before 2010 ends? Will the Rangers have use for a top flight guy in 2009 or 2010 IF he comes into his prime by 2010? Probably not. Will we have use for pitching after 2010? Count on it.
Do I want to give up guys we control for someone for 2 years that will make a nice, but not critical addition to the rotation? No way in hell. Especially if we are not ready to win the Series, which we won’t be.
options
For 2009 you’ve greatly improved the pitching rotation
For 2010 you have either a top of the rotation guy helping you contend that you can then collect a draft pick or two for; or an amazing trade chip if disaster strikes.
Or you can extend him.
Look, I’m not advocating selling the entire farm to get him, and I think they’re much more likely to deal with someone other than KC. I’d be very careful in negotiating and only buy if the price is not too dear. But I just do not see the downside in having Greinke for ONLY two years. A lot can happen in two years. Think about where the Rangers farm system was two years ago. Even one year ago it looked like the upper levels were bare. A lot can happen in two years. I fully expect the Rangers to be in contention in 2010. 2009 is an outside possibility.
G G G E-flat_______ F F F D__________....
True
In that if disaster strikes (the team, not the pitcher) and we are unable to extend him we can flip him for some prospects. But that puts us in the boat of having prospects at a time that we are supposed to be contending (2010-2012)…
Forgive me if I am simply pessimistic about two years of this because it does not look like we’ll be ready by 2010.
I'm not opposed
to having prospects at a time that we are supposed to be contending… that would seem to extend the amount of time we spend in contention, no?
"They shouldn't throw at me. I'm the father of five or six kids."
-Tito Fuentes, after getting hit by a pitch.
So why are you so sure he's leaving after two years?
And why does him not matching up with one of the greatest pitchers of all time and two of the best pitchers of our time mean he’s not a top of the rotation starter? Above you said he’s not even a #2, and now you’re saying that if he doesn’t match up to Nolan Freaking Ryan, you don’t want no part of that second-rate shit.
And, seriously, your obsession with him being so certain to leave via FA befuddles me. Are there a lot of quotes saying he’s going to test the market no matter what that I’m not aware of? Most pitchers welcome set-for-life contracts and are eager to sign away the risk of serious arm injury to get the security of a long term deal.
Sheesh and a half, brother. Talking with you about acquiring pitchers is like dating a chick who just got dumped by her last boyfriend.
TheDirkatron: So, are you having a good time on this romantic date I’m taking you on and paying for?
Recently Jilted Skank: Why should I even bother having a good time? Huh!? You’re just gonna break my heart!
The 40 Trumps All!!!
there is the ray of hope
that by 2010 he could be leading a rotation that also includes Holland, Feliz, and some combo of the other 3 H’s, McCarthy, Feldman, etc (less the guy(s) we trade for Greinke).
But overall, it is my opinion that a trade like this should not happen until next year’s offseason.
im a believer that there are very few “aces” in the game. not a #1 on a team, a TRUE ace (and this is also the feeling of some of the guys at BP)
Ron (Tacoma): Kevin, Phillipe Aumont looked very sharp again last night. In reading your column, and hearing what the scouts thought, I wasn’t that encouraged about his upside in developing in an ‘ace’. In two years time, do you think a plate of crow will be in order for those scouts?
Kevin Goldstein: He certainly COULD. Like one of the scouts said, it’s a helluva starting point. The arm angle bugs me, and the slider could be better, but there’s definitely a lot to like there. It’s not like he stinks or anything. That’s said — an ace? How many aces are there in baseball? 10? maybe, using a liberal definition. So chances are overwhleming that he won’t be that, but he could be pretty damn good.
hes not one of the 10 best pitchers in the game. do you REALLY think he is? even if you expand it to the top 15…is he a top 15 pitcher?
"I don’t know of a single thing Obama’s done except talk and write." - Newt Gingrich
You think the Rangers
can get one of the top 10-15 pitchers in the game?
Crazy, Foo!!!
"...my balls are really like a veiny flesh color" blueballlefty on Jun 4, 2008 7:44 PM EDT
"you gonna lose your horse. seriously." FX2
No
he’s not an ace. period.
"Oh well, McCain is pretty communist anyway,... we can be 70% communist with McCain,"-Sharky
I happen to think there is a difference
between an “ace” and someone labeled as having top of the rotation talent, but whatever.
Just wanted
to employ KoK’s superior logic and arguing skills. Your post seemed to be the most obvious one to test it out on.
"Oh well, McCain is pretty communist anyway,... we can be 70% communist with McCain,"-Sharky
Why do fairly
knowledgable people advocate these deals? Liking action over inaction?
Why does baseball management make these deals? To salve the fan base?
Based on the trades that have been made,
it appears that GM’s who do these trades believe that they are one or two players away from fielding a contender. Based on historical data, it appears to me that the prospects are typically as productive in the first year after the trade as the veteran for whom they were traded.
Yeah, I think/hope
that in most cases, both GMs know that the opposing team plans to make a playoff/WS run. So they demand a king’s ransom in exchange for the player they both think will put the contending team over the top.
Even though I think the Marlins win out in the long run with the Beckett/Lowell trade, Boston got a World Series win out of that.
If I were the GM of a team,
I would seek out other GM’s who thought that they were on the cusp of winning a championship and look to convince them that I had THE player that would push them over the top. Essentially anyone on my roster could be had for the right combination of young players. Undoubtedly, I would be reviled by Joe Fan, but I bet I could have a perennial contender within five years.
Based on historical data…
…the microsemantic analysis of the quadratic formula for the adjudicated sythesis is hypothetical in that it is manifested through petrographical ions of dissention…
Thus, void of any omniferous calabrations.
by oc on Oct 9, 2008 9:40 PM CDT up reply actions
With all the talk about Greinke
I can’t cannot believe the Rangers could get Greinke for anything less than a combo or Saltalamacchia and Andrus or a package involving Davis.
Here is a hypothetical case. Let’s say the Rangers were offered the following deal:
Chris Davis, Jarrod Saltalamacchia, and Warner Madrigal for Zack Greinke and Billy Butler
and as part of the deal, the Rangers are allowed to negotiate a 4 or 5 contract extension with Greinke. Would you consider such a deal?
The reason I bring that up is because I really believe that is the kind of package it would take to get Greinke. I know most people would not trade Davis under any condition, but if you agreed to include Davis along with Salty and they agreed to let you negotiate a long-term extension and include Butler, do you consider a deal like the one mentioned above?
Of course all of this is prefaced on the belief that Greinke is a top of the rotation starter. Many here, it appears, do not agree with me on that issue, so they would obviously in no way consider such an offer.
If they really think
that MY is gonna play SS throughout his contract (a thought that makes me throw up in my mouth a little), they really should do Salty and Andrus. I doubt KC goes that cheap though.
I don’t think KC makes many of your deals. I’m not sure Greinke will even be offered this year.
"Oh well, McCain is pretty communist anyway,... we can be 70% communist with McCain,"-Sharky
It's all kind of pointless
The Royals are not a good match, they are trying to get the same place at the same time the Rangers are. I just don’t see them dealing one of the best hopes they have for contending in the near future. If they were open to dealing him for some reason it will be for the kind of package AZ gave up for Haren, and will almost certainly have to include a strong bat like Davis along with top pitching.
Better off dealing with a team with a real obvious need at catcher.
G G G E-flat_______ F F F D__________....
You are probably right
In that KC is in a similar position to the Rangers. Ultimately they are unlikely to even consider a deal involving Greinke. Nevertheless, they certainly do have a need at catcher.
by Stephen Rushin on Oct 9, 2008 2:39 PM CDT up reply actions
Furthermore
if anything I think the Royals are trying to add one more pitcher to the rotation, let alone get rid of their best one.
G G G E-flat_______ F F F D__________....
Possibly
But the Royals allowed 720 ER, with a 4.48 ERA. They scored 691 runs, third worst in the AL. Neither their pitching not hitting is really spectacular, but their hitting was their weakest component in 2008. I’m not saying I disagree with you, but its not unreasonable to say that their biggest weakness going forward is offense. They do not have any excellent offensive players.
by Stephen Rushin on Oct 9, 2008 2:58 PM CDT up reply actions
Totally
And the package courtsey of Jamey that I can stomach to part with for him (Saltalamacchia, Hurley, Cruz, Arias, and one of Phillips/Pimentel/M.De Los Santos/Grullon /J.Santana/Nevarez) is not going to get him. Royals are going to have to be KO’d by an offer. So, more like:
Teagarden, Feliz, Davis, one of Phillips/Pimentel/M.De Los Santos/Grullon /J.Santana/Nevarez
That's unreasonable
"They shouldn't throw at me. I'm the father of five or six kids."
-Tito Fuentes, after getting hit by a pitch.
Your analysis is great. My only question is whether you include VORP. Anytime you give up several decent players for 1 potential (or actual) star, you are going to lose based on win share I would think- assuming those other players become serviceable. On the other hand, the question that I find most pertinent is whether all those decent to good players have replaceable parts in the organization trading them.
For example, let’s say we trade Salty, Hurley, Mayberry, Arias and a young pitcher for Greinke. If all of those players become what we expect them to become, they will be pretty good for a team that has holes in those positions. On the other hand, given our depth at those positions- they might not have ever really made it to the big leagues. We have Teagarden/Ramirez, Harrison/Hunter/Feldman/Holland/Feliz (etc), Cruz/Boggs, and Duran/Andrus who all project at or above the levels of these decent players. We are missing a current #1 and the drop off of players lost given the depth of our team wouldn’t seem to be much.
So… to give a more complete picture, I would argue you need to include what the position player that replaced the loss did for that team.
Win shares vs VORP
For the analysis, I wanted a number for each player that represented their value as major leaguers that could be readily reviewed and understood. In my opinion, win shares is the best single unit measure of a players’ performance during a season that minimizes the differences between pitchers and position players. VORP is nice, but it doesn’t allow you to add up a group of numbers and say, “The value on this side of the trade is greater than the value on that side.” As you point out, the downside to such a comparison is that it fails to ackowledge that in some cases, there are more players on one side of the ledger than the other. Regardless of the flaws in the presentation, I think you can safely say that most prospect-for-pitcher trades favor the team receiving the prospects.
I would agree completely with your suggestion that trading players that are in areas of strength for the Rangers for someone who can fulfill one of their needs is a great approach as long as you can find another team that desires the Rangers’ average players. I would be thrilled if the Rangers could turn any combination of Byrd, Blalock, Arias, Mayberry, 2 catchers, Loe, Littleton, Mendoza, and Nippert into a good young starting pitcer or two. I begin to have problems when the suggestions include a top young position player like Kinsler, Davis, or Andrus or two pitching prospects that are at AA or higher.
My problem
with this is that the value of wins added is not well represented in the analysis. You bring it up with Haren and Santana – they were guys who the acquiring team was getting to win this year. In both cases they performed, but their team didn’t move to the next level.
Basically, you can overpay if it gets you to the next level. Hanley Ramirez for Josh Beckett and Mike Lowell was overpaying. But it got Boston a World Series – its no question they make that deal again, even if Hanley wins 5 MVPs in his career.
I’d trade Feliz, Davis, and Andrus for Matt Cain if I knew Cain was the last piece needed for a championship team. Who cares if long term our guys will be more valuable if you win a World Series? Obviously that isn’t the case though – which is why trading when you are ready is important.
Most times, the team trading prospects knows that they aren’t getting even money on the deal, but they are trading for NOW, whereas the team getting prospects is trading for the FUTURE. You should include a factor discounting value going into the future (year 1 = 100, year 2=80, year 3=60%, etc).
Also
One last thing:
A player who gets 20 WS is more valuable than receiving two guys who get 10 each – why? Because guys who get 10 WS are far easier to find. The dBacks gave up 3 guys who averaged 8 WS for Haren’s 20 WS. But the DBacks could then easy find two guys who provide 6 WS on the street – who cares where they come from – to give Haren + 2 scrubs ~32 win shares. You only have 25 roster spots, so any time you can concentrate WS in any one spot means that your chances are winning are that much higher.
Sorry for the delay in responding
I’m not sure that I understand the first complaint. Are you requesting that each player’s contribution to the team’s record be estimated or simply suggesting that whether the team makes the playoffs the following year should be how you measure whether a trade was successful? If it is the former, then I think win shares provide the best method for comparing the contributions of players at different positions. If it is the latter, then only one of the trades (Hudson to Atlanta) can be graded as a success for the team acquiring the veteran pitcher.
If the true measure of a trade is defined by whether it produces a championship, the I suppose that the Beckett trade wherein the Red Sox won in Beckett’s second season would be graded a success. The problem with that method is that it is unclear to me which trade you rate as being critical for the championship. Brendan Donnelly was acquired via trade prior to the 2007 season that culminated in a championship – who is to say that he was not the key piece that resulted in a title. In addition, if you use this line of logic, then the Mulder trade was also an outstanding success since the Cardinals acquired the pitcher less than 2 years prior to their 2006 championship. Of course, Mulder didn’t pitch in the playoffs that year after missing much of the season due to injuries.
The problem that I have with overpaying in order to take advantage of a near-term opportunity is that there are no guarantees. Entering the playoffs this year, most experts were picking the Angels and Cubs to get to the World Series. And that was at the end of the regular season! In my opinion, the only way to improve your odds of winning a World Series is to increase the length of time that you are a legitimate contender. You don’t do that by trading talented guys whom you can control for multiple years. Trade Davis, Feliz, and Andrus? No thanks.
I’m sorry, but I do not understand your suggestion for discounting future years. I would certainly be interested in seeing your analysis of a group of trades that involved young veteran pitchers for prospects.
As noted in my response to AggieCurt, I understand the limitation in using win shares to evaluate trades wherein different numbers of players contributed at the major league level for the two teams that were involved in the trade. However, I think you underestimate how difficult it is to find players who can net 6 win shares. For example, Frankie Francisco earned 6 win shares in 2008. Eddie Guardado earned 5. Justin Rupe and Scott Feldman both earned 4. CJ Wilson earned 1. Mendoza was a -3. Haren + 2 guys off the street might net 15 win shares if you have an excellent eye for talent.
by spurdynasty on Oct 10, 2008 12:12 AM CDT up reply actions
Discounting for future years
I acknowledge that this is a big challenge – it has to account for when teams are trading for. Of course there are no guarantees of moving to the next step, but there aren’t with anything trades
If a team is trading for a short-term solution, then you have to factor that into the equation. If a team is trading for a long-term development, then that should be factored in.
An example: A bad 100 loss team, imagine Kansas City, has Player X who is very good (~25 WS/year) under contract for two more years. But the rest of the team is bad with little hope of getting better.
Meanwhile, a good team (we’ll imagine Texas, for fun), just won 90 games, barely missing the playoffs or losing in the first round. Player X fills a nice hole and would improve from a guy with 5 WS – a direct benefit of 20 WS.
The Rangers trade 3 top blue chip prospects (players A,B,C) to get Player X. They aren’t ready yet, but everyone believes they will be 15-20 WS/year guys 2-6 years out. Lets say that over the next 6 years, prior to free agency, they give a cumulative 225 WS (3 playersx15 ws/year x 5 years)
So by trading for Player X, the Rangers will add 20 WS, which is about 7 wins for the next two years. Now a 97 win team, the odds the Rangers will go deep into the playoffs over the next two years are much greater. But the cost may be huge – almost a 200 WS difference. By an objective measure (most WSs returned), the Rangers got killed in that deal. But they would never regret it if they won or went to a World Series.
Meanwhile Kansas City gave up a 25 WS/year guy, but he wasn’t going to help them the next two years anyway. But now they get 3 strong (not quite as good) players for a long time going forward to build around.
This is a win-win deal which by your metrics is a blowout. I’m simply saying that just summing all win shares is going to almost always bias you to the team receiving prospects – you have to factor in the motivation for making the trade.
Thanks for the explanation
I can understand the rationale for taking a win-now approach if a team is obviously at the end of its window for contending, but I have a hard time accepting it.
The best recent examples that I can come up with for teams that were in that position were the 2007 Braves and the 2008 Brewers. The Braves ill-fated attempt to make the 2007 playoffs has left them facing rebuilding without a couple of great prospects (Feliz and Andrus) and a couple of good trade chips (Saltalamaccia and Harrison). In exchange for making the playoffs and fizzling, the Brewers gave up three decent prospects and one very good one. So even in the best case scenario (trading future results for a near-term opportunity in a backdrop of a closing window), I fail to see how either of these trades can be justified.
As a fan, I hope that the GM will always take the long view in evaluating how to improve the team.
Taking the long view
I think most people here would agree is a generally wise option. But to be exclusive – to never change gears and go for the win now – can be limiting. Look at the post 2002 Angels – a team that Bill Stoneman was perpetually building with long-view to be a dynasty. Year after year they sat on the cusp of having a great team, yet they refused to part with their “untouchable” prospects like McPhearson, Santana, Kotchman, Kendrick, and now Wood and Adenhart so they never made the necessary move to win. And year after year they lost in the playoffs, never repeating the 2002 championship. Do you think the Angels would go back and trade Dallas McPhearson for Beltran in 2005 or Soriano in 2006?
I agree that you want our GM to be mostly conservative. But when the opportunity comes, I want him to leap for it. 80% long view, 20% win now, with the wisdom to know when to switch.
My hang-up is with the notion that you can add a piece to win a championship
When reviewing what has happened, it is easy to suggest that specific trades were important to a championship run – Lowell and Beckett for the 2007 Red Sox, possibly Manny for the Dodgers this year. But I would bet that the trades that failed to produce a championship out-number the ones that succeeded by 20 to 1. This year, for instance, the Cubs, Brewers, D’backs, Mets, and Angels all made significant trades that netted short-timers that failed to win them championships. Of the four teams that remain in contention, only Manny-to-the-Dodgers appears to have provided a significant, championship-enabling benefit. And the odds remain against the Dodgers winning a championship. For me, I can see adding a player or two at the trade deadline so long as it doesn’t cost me a prospect that I have ranked in my Top10 and it seems obvious that I am going to make the playoffs. Other than that, I would much rather take the long view.
As for the Angels example, if Stoneman could have foreseen that McPherson was going to be injured and ineffective, then of course he would have traded him. Would you feel differently if you replace McPherson with Santana and Kendrick in your trade hypotheticals for Beltran or Soriano? In my opinion, the odds of the Angels winning the championship in any given year do not go up enough when they make a significant trade (Texeira this year, for instance) to justify giving up a year or two of being a contender by trading away a potential star or two.
by spurdynasty on Oct 13, 2008 11:53 AM CDT up reply actions
And one more thing, JBImaknee
Thanks for the discussion. Your counter-points to the “conservative GM” approach that I advocate have been excellent and fun to work through.
by spurdynasty on Oct 13, 2008 11:59 AM CDT up reply actions
Agree with a lot of that
which is why I’m glad that all the trade talk surrounding the Rangers is about guys who can also help next year and/or beyond.
I think if a team has an obvious hole and identifies the guy that can fill it, you can target a rental in a win-now situation. But, obviously, you do that knowing the risks. On a strict cost-benefit analysis it might not make sense, but you also have a team full of guys that want to win and fans you want to please as well. Your caveats above make sense, but every once in a while I think a team is justified in going for it even if all those conditions are not met.
Half the fun is in getting there. Fans will remember the team went all out, the teammates are psyched, and who knows, it might actually work.
G G G E-flat_______ F F F D__________....
Don't we risk turning into the A's?
Not that they’re a horribly-run franchise or anything, but this sounds a lot like what they do (with the addition of trading away their premium stars with 1-2 years left on their contracts for prospect loads).
I think the A’s method works well for the A’s because they’re small market. As has been said previously, the Metroplex is anything but a small media market, and the Rangers should do better in attendance and TV ratings than they do. The thing that I worry about is that without the Rangers taking the risk of a deep playoff run, they’ll never make inroads against the other DFW sports franchises.
A's vs Rangers
In my opinion, Billy Beane is the best GM in baseball when it comes to maximizing the value of his player portfolio. He targets players whose true value exceeds their perceived value and as you point out, he has recently begun trading players at their peak value (1-2 years prior to free agency) to maximize their return. This has allowed Oakland to extend the number of years that they contend for the playoffs and I believe that it will allow them to significantly reduce the length of time between their contending years.
Two ways that a team like the Rangers can improve upon the Beane method are:
(1) When possible, sign your young stars to team-friendly contracts. With few exceptions, Beane seems averse to this tactic but I think it provides a powerful way to support year-to-year continuity and facilitates deep runs in the playoffs.
(2) Invest heaviliy in your farm system. The one area where I would fault Beane is in his lack of aggressiveness in bringing in large numbers of young, high ceiling players to stock the lower parts of the A’s farm system. Had he committed to that approach 8-10 years ago, then I think that the recent A’s down period would have been averted.
by spurdynasty on Oct 14, 2008 11:37 AM CDT up reply actions
As for the multiplayers thing
I agree that WSs are probably the best you can do. But I think there is definitely a supra-linear marginal benefit curve for the values guys with win shares. In other words, a guy who gets 10 WS is more than twice as valuable as a guy who gets 5 win shares. A guy who gets 20 win shares is more than twice as valuable than a guy who gets 10. And so forth.
I would guess that a guy with 30 WS is probably 10 times more valuable than a guy with 5 win shares. I don’t think there is any combination of even WS=15 guys that could get such a player. For a team to trade 30 WS in a single player, they HAVE to receive several guys capable of putting up 20/year. That isn’t overcharging – that’s fair value.
The impact of injuries and extended slumps
The primary issue that I have with the notion of concentrating your major talent in a few star players (ie high win share guys) is the potentially crippling effect of injuries and unexpectedly poor performances. A 90 win team with five 30 win share guys + 20 players who average 6 win shares apiece is far more susceptible to injuries and slumps than a 90 win team with 25 players who each average ~11 win shares.
regarding the ace comment
im a believer that there are very few "aces" in the game. not a #1 on a team, a TRUE ace (and this is also the feeling of some of the guys at BP)
Ron (Tacoma): Kevin, Phillipe Aumont looked very sharp again last night. In reading your column, and hearing what the scouts thought, I wasn’t that encouraged about his upside in developing in an ‘ace’. In two years time, do you think a plate of crow will be in order for those scouts?
Kevin Goldstein: He certainly COULD. Like one of the scouts said, it’s a helluva starting point. The arm angle bugs me, and the slider could be better, but there’s definitely a lot to like there. It’s not like he stinks or anything. That’s said — an ace? How many aces are there in baseball? 10? maybe, using a liberal definition. So chances are overwhleming that he won’t be that, but he could be pretty damn good.
hes not one of the 10 best pitchers in the game. do you REALLY think he is? even if you expand it to the top 15…is he a top 15 pitcher?
now lets look at ERA+
top 20 in baseball this year:
Adjusted ERA+
Lee-CLE 175
Lincecum-SFG 164
Santana-NYM 163
Matsuzaka-BOS 158
Halladay-TOR 155
Dempster-CHC 152
Hamels-PHI 145
Lester-BOS 143
Billingsley-LAD 141
Sheets-MIL 141
Volquez-CIN 140
Webb-ARI 138
Danks-CHW 138
Peavy-SDP 137
Haren-ARI 137
*Greinke-KCR 131
Mussina-NYY 128
Saunders-LAA 128
Santana-LAA 125
Shields-TBR 122
plus guys like:
John Lackey
CC Sabathia
Josh Beckett
Scott kazmir
so you would take only 10 of those guys over greinke? no way in hell
i think basically EXACTLY what KG says above is true. ARe tehre 10 true “aces” in the game today? maybe
but is greinke one of them? not only no, but hell no. not right now.
"I don’t know of a single thing Obama’s done except talk and write." - Newt Gingrich
The question should be:
Given the fact that Greinke is already considered one of the better starters in the game (based on the era+ numbers from above) and that it can be argued that he has yet to even reach his peak performance years, doesn’t it makes since to trade for him now when he is more affordable in both trade pieces and salary than if he were already considered a legit “ace”?
what do you think jumps him into the lee (this year)/lincecum/sabathia/beckett/halladay class?
"I don’t know of a single thing Obama’s done except talk and write." - Newt Gingrich
by knockoutking on Oct 13, 2008 8:09 AM CDT up reply actions
I didn't say that Greinke would jump into that class....
I just said that he is already considered a very good pitcher (specifically based on the era+ numbers from above) and given that his age puts him on the doorstep of his peak performance years and the attrition factor of the other “aces” in the league, Greinke is a viable candidate to become more than he already is.
Specifically, I think Greinke can move into a higher class by trusting in his own ability. His stuff is just filthy, but he doesn’t always seem to believe it in.
I hate this
“true” ace argument. If a guy pitches like a #1 starter he’s an ace. If he’s one of the best 14 pitchers in the AL, he’s an ace that year.
G G G E-flat_______ F F F D__________....
When I think of ace
I think of year-in and year-out dominance: consistency is the implication. There are probably no more than 10 pitchers who you could count on to produce that way in the next 3-4 years, imo.
"until they are good, they are not good" - seth
by inactive lsb user on Oct 12, 2008 12:41 PM CDT up reply actions
+1
and i doubt that greinke is one of them
"I don’t know of a single thing Obama’s done except talk and write." - Newt Gingrich
by knockoutking on Oct 13, 2008 8:09 AM CDT up reply actions
Hey Dirkatron
Isn’t it about time to fire up the LSB Prospect Rankings?
Nah, not yet
I’m going to wait until the post season is over. That way it gives us more time to gather new info (AFL and FIL reports and other things like that), gets us further away from the mid-season list, and also gives us something to do once there’s no baseball left at all.
The 40 Trumps All!!!
by thedirkatron on Oct 10, 2008 6:44 AM CDT up reply actions
Are you targeting a November 1 start date?
I’ll have my “Holland is #1” and “Boscan is a top 10 prospect” arguments ready to go.
Have you figured out how you are going to explain away Lemon’s August crash?
by spurdynasty on Oct 10, 2008 10:42 AM CDT up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
