Jones, Triunfel, plus, for Bedard?
Odd that a week or two ago, Jones + Morrow + #3 was generally considered (outside D-O-V) a little light compared to the Reds', Red Sox' and Yankees' offers.
An O's insider, with a good track record, claimed that was indeed the M's offer and that the O's were balking. The Seattle blog-o-sphere said that made sense. Bill Bavasi said something else: the Morrow gossip could take a hike.
A few weeks on, the rumored offer has been lowered to Jones + Triunfel + ?, and a strange thing has occurred: the Seattle blog-o-sphere now considers this discounted offer to be a huge ripoff in BALTIMORE's favor.
Say WHAT? :- )
Don't stop there. The Seattle 'net has suddenly decided, after weeks of even-handed discussion over the Jones + Morrow trade … that Adam Jones is worth more by himself than Erik Bedard!?
By that logic, Jones is among the 20 or so most valuable commodities in baseball — more valuable in terms of net wins than Alex Rodriguez His Ownself, right?
Right.
Or not.
.
Q. If Dr. D were GM, would he prefer to give up Carlos Triunfel or Brandon Morrow in this trade?
A. Ask any Ultra roto champ which one he would prefer to give up.
(1) The class-A hitter who puts visions of Miguel Cabrera in your head? … or (2) the 2nd-year MLB pitcher Philip Hughes, Scott Kazmir type who has shown outstanding talent in the majors, and who will be parachuting into the MLB rotation this coming April?
It is a no-brainer. You'd never find a real good Ultra player who would give you Brandon Morrow, for this coming year, so that he could keep Carlos Triunfel.
Roto isn't everything. But I would hope that an ML manager wouldn't get embarrassed at Strat-O-Matic because unaware of the right timing for switches. And I would hope that an ML GM (or blogger!) would not make wrong recommendations because unaware that only 25 men go onto the active roster at a time. :- )
…………………
Carlos Triunfel's upside looks like Honus Wagner's precisely because he is much farther away from the majors than Brandon Morrow. It will take exactly one so-so year for everybody to wander away from the Triunfel-is-ARod bandwagon.
What is remarkable is that Brandon Morrow maintains his franchise-player upside despite being so close to the goal line.
…………………
Take no thought for the morrow; sufficient unto today is the evil thereof. In other words, you've got enough problems just cashing in Brandon Morrow's potential, with him one yard from the goal line, without assuming you're going to be able to capitalize on a teenager who has the ball on his own 12.
.
Q. Do you agree that you should fight to keep Triunfel out of the deal?
A. Of course.
The Mariners should fight to give up Willie Bloomquist straight up. :- ) If the Mariners can possibly keep Triunfel out, they will. You think that WE know better than the MARINERS who Carlos Triunfel is?
How much does Jeff Clarke, or Jason Churchill, or Dave Cameron, know about Carlos Triunfel? Have any of us seen him even a single time? If we had, would we be the men to tell you what an 18-year-old projects to, at 23?
The Mariners HAVE seen Triunfel, not once but many, many times. And they have the men, the Fontaine types, who ARE the guys to tell you what an 18-year-old projects to.
We've heard a bunch of quotes that he's special. And we've seen him hit .288/.333/.356 at high-A, at 17. That's cool.
…………………
To be where ARod was, Triunfel will have to slug .588 in AAA this year, debut in the majors this September. He'll have to slug .435 (adjusted) in the AL in 2009, and he'll have to slug .631 in the majors the year after, at 20. You think?
To be where Junior was, Triunfel will have to slug .500 in AA this year, and be an above-average AL ballplayer NEXT YEAR, in 2009. You think?
Triunfel's cool. But if you're assuming he's going to be an epic pheenom like ARod or Junior, you're betting your salary on a Lotto ticket.
Now to be fair, lots of guys took the Miguel Cabrera track — nothing amazing at 18 and 19, great minor leaguer and solid MLB at 20, star in the majors at 21. It is reasonable to hope that Triunfel becomes a Cabrera (20%, 30% chance) but it is not yet reasonable to hope that he becomes a Junior.
…………………….
As it relates to Carlos Triunfel, let's get this straight: the Mariners have the intel, and bloggers do not. You and I don't know a blinkin' thing about the kid worth talking about. So let's slow down just a tadbit, on his being worth more than Brandon Morrow.
.
Q. But Brandon Morrow is a cheeseball who was ruined by not pitching 12 games in the minors.
A. Refer to the quotes you've been seeing from other baseball franchises on Brandon Morrow, the ones that say stuff like "I can't believe Bill is going to give up The Arm in a panic trade for Erik Bedard."
Ask the Seattle blog-o-sphere, and Morrow is a bum. (Well, y'know. We're tweaking 'em a little on this one. But they don't expect a lot of impact from him, that I can see.)
Ask the general baseball consensus, and Morrow is (more or less) the age-21 Scott Kazmir of 2008, with about the same range of possible baseball futures that Kazmir had at age 20 or 21.
Go with the objective crowd on this one. That's the crowd that isn't ticked out of its mind at the Mariners over their handling of Morrow.
.
Q. So let me get this straight. You'd swap Carlos Triunfel into the deal to replace Brandon Morrow if you could.
A. Yes.
I would. If my baseball life depended on it, I'd do the surgeon-cool thing. And that is to give up the teenager who is a longshot to be a superstar, and keep the special talent who is one week from paydirt.
And besides: that is my shot at a Hudson-Zito-Mulder big three — Bedard, Felix, and Morrow. Hudson & Co. made Billy Beane look very smart, for a long time.
I keep my Arm, I am one Brandon Morrow dice roll away from looking very, verrrrrrrrrrrry smart, for a long time. You're keeping the pitcher here.
.
Q. Okay, can you pull the sword from the anvil on this Jones > Bedard thing?
A. The truth is, I don't read much in the Seattle blog-o-sphere any more, but after seeing it linked via SportSpot, I did study the USSM piece carefully.
I do agree with the basic idea of this statement:
What follows is my calculations of the value of Adam Jones and Erik Bedard from a win value standpoint. You don’t have to believe that this is the be-all, end-all of analysis, but if you’re serious about having an opinion on this issue that anyone should care about, you at least have to understand what win value analysis is telling you.
I wouldn't have used this "if you're serious" paradigm. Once again, we get the charming little insinuation that USSM is serious, expert, legitimate, etc., and the Mariners are not.
But yeah, if I'm GM that is one of the fifteen reports I want on my desk — projections of Win Shares vs Win Shares in UP, MID, and DOWN projections for the minor leaguers, and the tangential "net wins against salary" report.
If the Mariners aren’t looking at this kind of information (and, let’s be honest, they’re not),
I'd be floored if Bill Bavasi wasn't getting Exec Sums on this from Olkin or any of his interns. The Mariners don't have a single intern who likes to score points by putting stuff like this up the chain?
The Mariners don't read USSM? Since when?
.
Q. Start with something good to say about USSM.
A. Can do. :- )
As mentioned earlier, being aware of the Net Wins figures is important. Bill James invented Win Shares precisely for the purpose of evaluating trades like these. You'd better believe that the Red Sox carefully review this kind of information. (I'm not sure any ML org does not.)
USSM stated it perfectly, that you need to be aware of this comparison.
………………..
And I love the first part of the following statement, which is light-comes-on AHA enlightening:
I’m all for acquiring Erik Bedard, and I’d give up practically the whole farm system to get him. But Adam Jones is the kind of player that good organizations just don’t trade.
Again, we could all do without the language like "good organizations" don't make "horrible trades" like this. It's a gratuitous swipe about the Mariners obviously not being able to perceive simple things that average people can. Ugh.
But the point is, USSM is clearly establishing that their argument stands or falls with the evaluation that Adam Jones "is one of the most valuable players in the game."
Not one of the best minor leaguers.
Not one of the most exciting MLB-ready hitters.
But, like Felix, one of the 20 (?) most valuable properties in the game — Harens and Cabreras and Ichiros all included, USSM's evaluation is that Adam Jones is one of the 20 or so most important baseball commodities alive. That Jones is (by necessary inference) more valuable than Ichiro, more valuable than Santana (right?), more valuable than Albert Pujols.
Adam Jones, 2008 net value: $8.7 million
Erik Bedard, 2008 net value: $12.5 millionAdam Jones, 2009 net value: $14.0 million
Erik Bedard, 2009 net value: $9.0 millionAdam Jones, 2008-2013 net value: $61.0 million
Erik Bedard, 2008-2013 net value: $33.1 million (assumes 3 year, $60 million extension after ‘09)
………………
That really crystallizes it for you, so kudos to Cameron for being fair about the implications of his argument.
If Adam Jones is that good, if he's essentially the position-player equivalent of Felix, then you bet. There's a solid argument that Jones > Bedard, because Jones is cheap.
But then USSM should be the very first to concede the other side of this one. Cameron should be the first to concede that Jones could easily become a disappointment. And that if Jones doesn't emerge as a top-20-in-baseball commodity very quickly, then you don't have to even read the rest of their argument.
Their position turns out to be mistaken if Jones isn't a $14,000,000 ballplayer next year, 2009.
Make your own judgment as to the likelihood of that. Then you have made your own judgment as to the validity of the Jones > Bedard argument.
*D-O-V* will cheerfully concede, too. If I know for a fact that Adam Jones will be a $14,000,000 ballplayer in 2009, I've got to think very carefully before trading him for ANY post-arb superstar.
.
Q. Would it be a STUPID trade if that happened, and Jones hit his best-reasonable-case scenario?
A. No!
IF it is the case that Jones' net salary savings against market is 2x Bedard's, that is an important factor — but salary savings is not the most important factor.
In other words, even if you grant the numbers, it still doesn't mean that you don't trade Jones for Bedard. You make the trade even if you agree with those numbers (which I honestly do not).
…………………….
Bill Bavasi understands that his job is NOT as simple as, "most salary savings against market" wins the pennant.
Not trying to be snotty, but as far as I can tell, USSM honestly seems to believe that there is (just about) nothing more or less to GM roster decisions, than how much $ per VORP at each roster slot.
That is too simple, and it is mistaken, in my view. Even a couple of years of playing (winning at) roto will teach you that roster building is much, much more complicated than simply getting a $15 performance for $11 at your #5 roster slot.
.
Q. What do Mr. Miyagi and the Tao say? :- )
A. Nature rule, Daniel-san. Not mine. Make sure you're happy with what you got, and you'll never worry much what you paid.
.
Q. Give us something REALLY complicated now, why don'cha.
A. It is critical to understand that you cannot "shop" for VORP/$ at all 25 roster slots, as though it were a national NFL pool game.
If you COULD shop $$$$ at every single one of the 25 roster slots, the equation would change. But you can't.
USSM, taking over the roster tomorrow, could go get its cherished VORP/$ bargains at roster slots 4, 9, 12, 15, and 20-25. But the other roster slots are driven by factors other than VORP/$ — factors like how good is the lefty catcher in Tacoma.
You've got to weigh your VORP/$ savings at slot 6 against how it sets up all your other roster slots.
Is that as clear as mud? VORP/$ shopping doesn't work, in and of itself, because the complexities of the other slots foul up your dollar-efficiency plan.
.
Q. How do you mean?
A. The Stars & Scrubs paradigm recognizes that you have access to 100's of players — but you have to cram these resources into 25 (count them, 25) roster slots.
You have to get into the mentality that player #33 is a ghost — he's worth zero, that year.
True roster-building is an attempt to convert — E=MC2 convert — 100's of available non-real players into the most possible horsepower in the 25 real slots.
Your resource pool is a huge pyramid — but your usable pyramid is just the little top section. Baseball is a fight to get that top section as large as possible.
……………………
You have to remember that if you keep Jones, then Wlad Balentien's value is zero. But that if you trade him, Wlad Balentien's value goes way, way up: he joins the top 25 and he starts hitting home runs.
It's not Bedard for Jones. It's Bedard and Wlad for Jones. You feel me?
It doesn't help you to say that you're giving up Jones, and that will cost you $5.00. You have to figure the delta between Jones and the next player into the "Real 25." What's Wlad going to be worth? $4.20? Then you have given up 80 cents, not $5.00.
Of course, you have to do the same with Bedard. Bummer. We have to deduct Horacio's value from Bedard's. ;- )
.
Q. OK, point taken: it's Bedard + Wlad / Tuiasosopo / The Field vs Jones. What else about Stars & Scrubs?
A. The entire point of Stars & Scrubs is that you want your 18-25 slots to be fungible, at all times.
It isn't just Wlad you're getting "for" Jones in the top 25. It is THE BEST OF Wlad, Tuiasosopo, the Field, etc — and it is having the agility to deal for Jason Bay if you get an opportunity there.
As you pile your horsepower into the top 10 slots of your roster, your roster de-ossifies. You can adapt to problems. You can respond to the emergence of a Clement or a Mangini. etc etc etc etc, ETC.
.
Q. I'm getting punch-drunk.
A. One last. Does USSM's article address the issue of Game 7 in the ALCS?
Stars & Scrubs rosters give you the big players who win big games.
MY goal is not to say that I was efficient with my money — that I won 87 games with 79 wins' worth of money. MY goal is to beat the Boston blinkin' Red Sox in a 7-gamer.
Then the revenue will take care of itself, kiddies. As I compete for championships Seahawk-style, my ballclub has a soul, it has a bone-deep health to it, my customers are delighted and I can watch the sea lap gently at my feet…
.
Q. DO you agree with the numbers?
A. Do I agree that it is "conservative" to assume that Adam Jones will be a $14,000,000 ballplayer in 2009? I dunno, what's the "optimistic" assumption?
I like Jones. For three years I argued against the blog-o-sphere that Jones was a real blue-chipper, while they were saying he was a busted draft pick, and then that he wasn't nearly ready for the majors, that he hadn't done much in Cheney, etc.
Now, I'm on the other side. I still believe what I always did: Adam Jones is a Grade A prospect. Not a mortal lock to become a franchise player.
………………….
I've told you many times that K/BB is the first thing to look at on a blue-chip hitter. (That applies if he's not Latin, because Latin players choose to hack. Those lousy K/BB's don't reflect late reads of the pitches; they reflect aggression.)
I remember holding an epic Jose Lopez -vs- Dallas McPherson argument with an Angels' fan, around the time that McPherson slugged .680 in AAA (but with a 95/23 eye ratio in half a season).
Dr. D will take this protest to his grave: when a AAA ballplayer is fanning that much against AAA pitching, you cannot take his transition for granted.
Adam Jones has a lousy K/BB ratio: 106/36 last year against MINOR LEAGUE pitching.
There is a very real possibility of Jones' disappointing. He will probably be something less than a hitting star. He also has a very real possibility of becoming Carlos Beltran, or something.
.
Q. Do you like Erik Bedard's potential?
A. Yeah. I think Bedard has a good % chance of becoming an MLB star.
.
Q. Can you sum it up coherently? You may lose some arguments, but you've never lost a typing contest. :- /
A. Yeah.
There is a paradigm that champions use, in roto as well as in Boston and New York and Oakland and Chicago.
You're always standing underneath that 25-man roster, like the hero trying to push that big lady up through a vent duct. You're always trying to cash slots 19 and 22 in, if you can do it so as to increase the value of your #5 player from $23 to $29.
You'll give up two $10 players in order to increase your #5 slot by only $6 — because you can very easily go find more $10 players later. (You'll always trade Kelvim Escobar and two quality players for … well, for Erik Bedard.)
………………….
Smart owners are all trying to do the same thing — everybody wants the 1 in the 1-for-3 — so the value of the 3 is always going up. You'll take the 3, after it becomes an "overpay." (Which, as you now understand, isn't an overpay.)
In a good league, all the trade negotiations revolve around this axis: how much does the guy with the 3 have to overpay, and when is enough enough? All the owners have good judgment about this 3-for-1 tipping point and all major league GM's work with an understanding of this 3-for-1 "overpay" tipping point too.
…………………..
The Mariners have Triunfel, and Jones, and Clement, and Wlad, and Tillman, and Morrow, and Ramirez, and Martinez… and they already have no place to put Clement (much less Tui and Co.) even after they deal Jones.
and they have Fontaine's June draft picks, and they have the international teenagers they're going to sign this year too.
What the Mariners don't have, is they don't have the MLB stars they need to fight for the pennant. Go get the franchise pitcher. I'll get you another blue-chip rookie next year.
.
Q. At what point IS this ballclub paying too much? What's the reductio ad absurdum here, the point at which Dr. D would concede we're paying too much?
A. I (and Taro, and Justin, and Mikey, and Cool Papa) could win roto pennants by paying literally 4x or 5x or 7x what an MLB superstar is worth. If we're using guys who aren't in the top 25 anyway.
I don't know what is too much to pay for a Cy Young lefty, for this team. But it is a LOT more than Jones & Triunfel.
A Game One SP, a heart transplant, a shot at the terrifying Big Three, a second-cousin shot at a dynasty if other dominoes fall … I don't know how many of those Slot 20-150 scrubs the #1 guy is worth. But I suspect he's worth a lot of them. ;- )
.
Q. Strong finish here, babe.
A. Bedard, Felix, and Morrow? :- )
Let's see WHO was two steps ahead of WHO, 18 months from now.
C'mon. You get the job done on Bedard, and you find a way to keep Morrow to go with him? And the primary cost is, you "downgrade" from Jones to Wlad in RF?
Pull the trigger Billy,
Dr. D
January 8th, 2008 at 5:41 pm Quote
.
You know the funny thing is here…
If Morrow hadn’t been naysayed so much — if he had Kazmir- or Hughes- or Liriano-level hype…
M’s fans would be simply thrilled with the idea of holding out our Kazmir to combine with Bedard.
………………….
We’ve been told, over and over, that Morrow is no good. By Mariners’ fans. It’s weird.
Morrow IS good. He’s a #5 draft pick — actually #1-worthy — who stepped right into the majors and showed huge, huge strikeouts over the course of a whole season.
He’s starting in winter ball precisely as the Heir Apparent, the guy who’s supposed to give us our Mark Mulder or Justin Verlander or whoever.
Nobody is excited. That’s a real bummer.
…………………
Well, they will be. :- ) Bavasi knows that time will be on his side in a Bedard-Felix-Morrow scenario. After the initial howls, they’ll start playing the games…
January 8th, 2008 at 5:48 pm Quote
Plan C: Bedard hits free agency as planned in 2010 and is signed by the Ms, who also have developed/ing Adam Jones and Morrow and Triunfel, etc.
January 8th, 2008 at 6:03 pm Quote
Doc said, “Q. At what point IS this ballclub paying too much? What’s the reductio ad absurdum here, the point at which Dr. D would concede we’re paying too much?”
I think your answer can be assessed from the strategy to describe. The goal is to try and convert as many ‘MLB contributors’ into ‘MLB stars’ as possible, to trade like the Yankees. They have a tradition of converting the Hitchcock and Davis class players into career prime Tino Martinez players. So too far is when you give up so much that when you project your NEXT deal, say Guzman/Milton for Knoblauch, you already had to give up Guzman and Milton. In short, you need to leave enough for the next deal, with the expressed understanding that you never quite know when that will happen. The M’s are a Betancourt blown ACL away from 130 game starts for Bloomie. So while keeping viable back-ups at all positions in lieu of star quality first-stringers makes no sense, stripping the farm of so much talent that when the inevitable injury at an unknown position occurs, you aren’t stuck with AAAA fodder. As an aside, I think it is funny that the same person can argue about the quality of freely available talent while also wringing their hands over converting two Civics into a Lexus…
January 8th, 2008 at 6:07 pm Quote
I don’t think he deserves hype quite on that level.
The age (21) Morrow began being a full-time starter in NCAA with a 9.03 K 3.63 BB rate..
-Scott Kazmir started 32 games, putting an an 8.42 K, 4.84 BB rate and a 3.77 ERA in MLB
-Phil Hughes got his first taste of MLB after a minor league career with a 10.16 K rate and a K/BB ratio of almost 5, and put up a 100 ERA+ in 13 starts in the AL East
-Liriano puts up 11.28 K, 2.37 BB, 0.40 HR, 5.55 H rate in AAA before going to MLB and striking out 33 and walking 7 in his first 23.2 MLB innings (4 HR however)
The age (22) at which Morrow put up a 4.12 ERA in relief with 9+ K, 7+ BB numbers…
-Scott Kazmir started 24 games in MLB, putting up a 10.14 K, 3.24 BB, 0.93 HR rate
-Francisco Liriano is hands-down the best pitcher in all of baseball bar none before he gets hurt
Morrow’s good, but the three you mention were super-hyped at those ages for a very good reason.
January 8th, 2008 at 6:25 pm Quote
Fair enough Fett — if that’s your judgment I wouldn’t disrespect it.
But I do indeed judge Morrow to be around the level of a Kazmir or Hughes after their ROOKIE years.
Kazmir as an MLB rookie — in his first 33 innings, compared to Morrow’s first 63 — had an 80 ERA+ and walked 6 men a game.
Age isn’t as much the point for a pitcher, especially considering that Kazmir had a good bit more experience than Morrow at their MLB debuts.
…………….
But if somebody says, “I think Kazmir as a rookie looked significantly better than Morrow did last year,” that’s a reasonable position.
And yeah, Liriano is a special case. Probably he’s not the right guy to bring into the discussion.
…………….
But after you go a notch down from Kazmir — to whichever high-K rookie could have been the #1 pick in the draft — the point remains. Most fans would be happy to have him stick around, not hoping he got powerflushed. :- )
January 8th, 2008 at 6:26 pm Quote
Good analysis Kelly.
You’re expecting so many post-Bedard blockbusters that you think we better leave this one alone? :- )
January 8th, 2008 at 6:32 pm Quote
Not to be snide, Fett..
1) We will see on Hughes. Looks solid if unspectactular to me, might be missing a real good heater.
2) Liriano was traded, no? Seems the Giants didn’t project him as mightily as they should, but to let him go as if memory serves, the third piece in a deal? Sometimes guys just blossom at different rates, sometimes not at all.
3) Kazmir- see #2, again, he got traded for a short-term fix, and both players had questions regarding control going into the deal.
Point is, its hard to truly project minor league talent. Lately, we have been besieged by hundreds of experts locally who seem to have a gift for doing this. While I’m certain that much of this is derived from a few opinion makers, I am concerned that many of the faithful are looking at some silly over-simplified econ principles and some stat spreadsheets and deciding that they are experts in the field. Prospects are an in-exact science. Any claims to know more are not demonstrably true.
January 8th, 2008 at 6:42 pm Quote
Yeah, except it is not Truinfel vs Morrow. Morrow is an absolute untouchable to the point where Bavasi’s probably going to kill the deal over him. It’s Triunfel vs Tillman or Butler or Tuiasosopo. Even if it meant giving up all three of the others, I’d fight handing off Truinfel as a complimentary piece tooth and nail. Keep your elite talents at all costs, even if it means significantly overpaying with the B-prospects.
You left out the biggest joke of that posting: where the $14,000,000 figure is coming from. USSM has consistently used statlines and projections to rip apart (and a year later, deify) Jones’s talents. Those same resources do not serve their purposes for today’s ‘analysis’, so what do they do?….. randomly create ‘conservative’ statlines for Jones that they came up with out of thin air. They might as well have been pulling numbers out of a hat. They don’t even post the projections they were using, though admittedly they will “try” to if they have time later.
“Let’s give him 15 HR’s here…. 30 doubles there…. 80 runs over there…. wow, at a minimum salary, he’s more valuable than any veteran player in baseball!”
Time and again, it is this kind of biased ‘analysis’ that has exposed the M’s blog-o-sphere as the very monkeys they assert the M’s front office to be.
January 8th, 2008 at 6:55 pm Quote
Right … in an effort to keep the main article super-concise, we glossed over those permutations…
*I* would trade Jones, Morrow, and a 3rd player for Bedard, as we all hashed out the last couple weeks.
………………
Am sure you can be confident that if the Mariners can trade ANY of those other three players in lieu of Triunfel, they will.
As YOU appreciate, the Seattle Mariners know more about Carlos Triunfel than the bloggers do.
………………
Agreed 1000% — if you can give six or even eight Grade B prospects to keep your uberprospects, that’s what you do. I wish we were dealing with Oakland.
January 8th, 2008 at 6:57 pm Quote
#8b …
What can I add to that.
Sometimes I miss the AOL STATS board where we could give the response deserved…
And nobody is better at calling baloney on the analysis-to-serve-today’s-purpose than thou…
January 8th, 2008 at 6:58 pm Quote
And most importantly, the 900 runs saved defensively, which are by themselves close to as important as Bedard.
Sorry, couldn’t resist …
January 8th, 2008 at 7:01 pm Quote
And most importantly, the 900 runs saved defensively, which are by themselves close to as important as Bedard.
Sorry, couldn’t resist …
January 8th, 2008 at 7:06 pm Quote
All we need is 25 mediocre rookies, babe…
……………….
Roto owners are as clear as crystal on WHY you want cost savings at slot 19.
It is so that you can acquire Erik Bedard at slot 2. < --- this critical point is completely lost on most analysts.
Saving $9 on every slot at roto, so that you have a $23 ballclub that finished .500, would be mathematically supergeeky cool, but is not the point of the game. The entire reason you pursue cost savings is so that you can pay a FAIR price for extra star power at the top.
Translated to the American League: you keep Adam Jones IF that means you’ll be able to fit an extra Erik Bedard onto your roster.
………………..
When we start passing on Erik Bedard slot 2, so that we can save at slot 19, we are slightly confused as to what the idea is here…
January 8th, 2008 at 7:10 pm Quote
Billy,
The fact that Liriano was traded doesn’t mean too much considering it was the Giants who did it (and as you should know I’m a huge Giants fan). It probably speaks more that the Twins insisted on having him. I can’t think of the last succesful above average player the Giants turned out of their farm system other than the recent additions of Matt Cain and Tim Lincecum. You could probably argue for Lowry as well.
Bottom line though, is its hard to argue Morrow deserves the hype of Liriano.
I think the most important thing however is that the three pitchers mentioned all had at least one undeniably plus (at least) offspeed pitch,
January 8th, 2008 at 7:21 pm Quote
#7 - a real gem as usual …
It’s ironic — there is a lot of study required before you get to the point where you realize you are dumb. :- )
………………………
When you can’t get your arms around a problem mathematically, you are left with intuition (chess drives this point home with crystal clarity).
And it has been the case in the past that once BP or HBT finally did ’solve’ a problem with any exactness — $$ per win above replacement or whatever — they found that the GM’s intuition was right where it needed to be.
Never underestimate the judgment of the grandmaster (and ALL major league GM’s are grandmasters/10th dans/etc compared to fans).
……………..
On this Jones/Triunfel for Bedard deal, the local bloggers are going to be much, much harder on the M’s than the rival GM’s will be.
January 8th, 2008 at 7:22 pm Quote
#7 - a real gem as usual …
It’s ironic — there is a lot of study required before you get to the point where you realize you are dumb. :- )
………………………
When you can’t get your arms around a problem mathematically, you are left with intuition (chess drives this point home with crystal clarity).
And it has been the case in the past that once BP or HBT finally did ’solve’ a problem with any exactness — $$ per win above replacement or whatever — they found that the GM’s intuition was right where it needed to be.
Never underestimate the judgment of the grandmaster (and ALL major league GM’s are grandmasters/10th dans/etc compared to fans). They can make bad moves, but their *understanding* of the problem is not to be taken lightly.
……………..
On this Jones/Triunfel for Bedard deal, the local bloggers are going to be much, much harder on the M’s than the rival GM’s will be.
January 8th, 2008 at 7:25 pm Quote
Already conceded. See post #5 again.
………………
Nobody is hyping Brandon Morrow to call him a top-5-overall draft pick.
And nobody is hyping him to say that in his MLB debut, right out of college, big league hitters had alllll they could handle.
It’s not hype to consider Brandon Morrow one of the game’s best young arms. That’s what he is.
January 8th, 2008 at 8:20 pm Quote
Hopefully this won’t be a duplicate post. I’ve lost two of my odd socks posts in the internet dryer today…
So the M’s just acquired a Bloomquist clone (Cairo), only not as good.
The only thing that makes any sense to me is this could be a contextual move for something else…
Who knows?
January 8th, 2008 at 8:47 pm Quote
well with this quote from Bavasi i doubt it
Miguel strengthens our bench by giving us another player, along with Willie Bloomquist, who can cover all four infield spots and, in a pinch, the corners of the outfield,” Bavasi said. “This should allow Mac more flexibility to use Miguel or Willie earlier in a game, if he wants, and still be covered late.”
January 8th, 2008 at 9:20 pm Quote
For next year, isn’t your proper comparison Bedard minus the value of Morrow vs. Jones minus the value of Wlad? Given how high you are on Morrow and how low you used to be on Wlad (something about him being the kind of prospect which most teams have just sitting around) isn’t there still something to the USSM analysis even granting your general point that the proper comparison is not just between the player’s value but the player’s value minus his likely replacement.
January 8th, 2008 at 11:27 pm Quote
Sorry ’bout the dryer Russ. We’re workin’ it, albeit kinda leisurely…
January 8th, 2008 at 11:30 pm Quote
.
Yeah, Russ, Fred. It’s another one of those moves we’ve talked about, ad nauseum, an MLB manager’s phobia about ever getting caught with his pants down.
I grew up in an age where it was cool for an Earl Weaver type to have a hammer (LH home run bat), a screwdriver (RH contact bat), tape measure (defensive wizard/SB threat), and two other specialized tools on the bench. Then they would try to actually win close games with their #10-14 position players. (Earl, in fact, did.)
James once claimed that Weaver never had a “versatile” benchie, a guy who did everything kinda lousy-to-mediocre but nothing well.
…………………..
But a lot of modern managers would have three switch-hitting middle infielders plus the backup catcher, if you’d let them. IIRC, Lou at one time had Mark McLemore, plus Desi Relaford, plus another middle infielder on his bench, all at the same time.
…………………..
Earl accepted his responsibility as a manager to match his players to specialized situations, while thinking ahead. But with the advent of the 13-man pitching staffs these days, you’ve got to sympathize to some degree.
Maybe if I had a 4-man bench, including the backup catcher and backup SS, I’d want four 2″ swiss army knives as well.
January 9th, 2008 at 12:40 am Quote
This is where Dave lost me:
And here silly old me thought baseball was about WINNING GAMES. DUH! ::Head slap::
I sure am glad that I have been edgeumacated to understand that baseball is actually about getting the best deal and saving money!
Huh, I guess that means my flea market loving mother would make a tremendous GM! Hey Mom, Dave is on the phone for you…
January 9th, 2008 at 12:54 am Quote
LOL. Well, to be fair amigo, he’s implying that you win 17 with Jones, and then spend Bedard’s salary to win more than 9 other games. It’s the 17 vs 26 number that I don’t accept.
Is [Jones’ delta over Wlad-Tui-Field] going to be [65%] of [Bedard’s delta over Horacio]?
J - W = (B - H)*.65, huh?
If that equation is true, a lot of teams need to get rid of their ARods and Santanas.
USSM is a True Believer in the Honda Civics, “win 90 and see what happens,” all-players-are-created-more-equal-than-you-think mentality. They’d be floored if they realized that they are more Gillick than Gillick is. Pat Gillick is a thrillseeker by comparison.
January 9th, 2008 at 12:55 am Quote
Oh, also, I sure am glad Dave is so concerned about the M’s and Nintindos Bottom Line. It would be a shame for Nintindo to have to sell a few hundred more Wii’s to cover the cost of Bedard (what’s that you say Wii’s have been sold out consistently for how long???)
On a serious note I think that economic analysis is a very cool and important thing to do, but I think it makes more sense on a Team basis and not on an individual player basis. I think that if instead of doing Bedard vs. Jones an analysis of the Seattle Mariners + Bedard + Wlad + Morrow - Jones - Triu - Sherril vs The Seattle +Morrow + Jones would have been more enlightening, plus does all of this take into account things like extra revenue the M’s get on nights Bedard pitches, or extra merchandise sold because a playoff hungry fan base sees the light at the end of the tunnel in Bedard, but another “rebuild” with Jones. Does Jones’ value take into account apossible Cruz Jr. career? (remember when he was the next Griffey Jr?)
This all of course stems from bloggers making outreagous comments like Jones plus Washburn IS Santana, and then having to back them up for years out of foolish pride instead of rational thought.
I really really like Jones, but as I have said before, For the Mariner specifically he may only be our #3 prospect, Clement and Morrow are *probably* more important and needed down the road.
Just do it Bavasi Jones plus Triu plus Sherril; do it now and smile all the way to the playoffs. Plus it would be fun to see the M’s Blog-o-Sphere have a melt down to rival Mt. Vesuvius!
January 9th, 2008 at 12:57 am Quote
#23 Seeing as how the the value of H in that formula is actually negative, I can;t see how that is possible
January 9th, 2008 at 1:03 am Quote
LOLOL! And that’s true, too! :- )
Heh :shaking head:
……………….
In baseball terms, that point definitely does resonate. Because the #5SP slot can cost you dearly.
January 9th, 2008 at 1:07 am Quote
It is very important, and the article starts off on that note. But before long, there’s the implication that it’s brainless to use anything other than the golden Econ 101 guideline.
………………..
One thing that fans have never quite grasped, in Seattle, is that the payroll flexes, depending on how enthused the ownership is about a scenario.
That has been true since the days of Junior and ARod — when both left, the $17m/year salaries went largely unspent in following years.
The VORP/$ paradigm has much less meaning when the total $ figure is indeterminate — as it is in Seattle.
If the Mariners don’t add Bedard, they won’t spend the money at all. The bloggers neglect this point constantly.
But I have a hunch that even if the Mariners specifically stated this, if the Mariners announced for the hard-of-hearing, “HEY! NOW HEAR THIS! Our payroll is $102m without Bedard or $109m with him!,” that naysayers would just keep on calculating their VORP/$ comparisons to the fourth decimal point…
My suspicion is that math guys simply enjoy playing at roster decisions as purely VORP/$ exercises.
………………..
But as mentioned before, even if this year’s crop of rookies were going to save a bunch of money, that wouldn’t address the point of the game. You need great players to win, in today’s game.
January 9th, 2008 at 2:18 am Quote
I’d love to see one quote from another Ms blogger from the past 3 years that suggests they viewed Adam Jones as a “busted draft pick.” Just one from one of the names that’s been active in the blogosphere over the past few years.
January 9th, 2008 at 2:32 am Quote
Oh, it was EVERYBODY, early on, JH.
I’m not going to google it for you. But USSM led the charge on that one. I’m sure half the guys here remember the jeering at Adam Jones in … well, let me see … okay, 2003 and 2004.
Now that I check it, it was in 2005 Jones began to blossom, and at that point we all remember the reaction then. It was similar to what it is on Tuiasosopo now (the jeering has stopped cold, followed by an awkward silence while people wait to see what Tui does next). G-Money will be able to recite it all in sordid detail, if he’s so minded.
So yeah, if you want to check me on that, it was 4 years ago, rather than 3, that the entire Seattle ‘net was jeering at Adam Jones. Good catch.
………………………….
Bloggers have very short memories. I could swear that I was arguing Jones’ merits to the bloody death, just a few months ago. But I seem to remember most of my debates wrong :- )
January 9th, 2008 at 6:54 am Quote
I’m happy to google it! Actually, you can’t, because none of the full text of the old USSM blogspot posts are available any more. You have to archive.org it, or look at the tiny little clippings they have in their archives.
To begin with, he´s ‘a pretty clear overdraft’.
A year later, he’s “last years[sic] ridiculous #1 pick”, and “[not] the kind of prospect you want to be the best guy in your system.”
In the May 2004 Future Forty, he’s “another top draft pick who can’t hit! Just what we needed.” He was ranked below Feierabend, Josh Womack and Thomas Oldham among Wisconsin players.
By August 2004, Dave says “I’ll say something nice about him for once; 29 extra base hits a good sign.” He’s now above Oldham and Womack, about whom he says “His performance mirrors teammate Adam Jones’. That’s not a compliment.”
In October he says “Showing flashes of power, but approach still poor. Defense isn’t much better.” That last bit makes me chuckle.
In Feb. 2005, he starts getting respect: “If he can take a step forward with the bat, he’ll move up quickly.”
In March 2005, we lose the clever comments. Instead, he’s rated as having “some potential, still several years away”. His “reward” on the 10 point scale? A 6.
By August 2005, Jones is up to “potential regular”, and ranked an 8. That’s pretty much how things stay until he is promoted to the majors. Sometime last season he went from being an 8 to a 9.
Does that satisfy, JH?
January 9th, 2008 at 7:02 am Quote
I just posted a link-full history of USSM and Jones, and it’s waiting patiently in the spam filter, if anyone is curious.
January 9th, 2008 at 7:38 am Quote
JH wrote:
Here’s one from within the past 3 years….
http://ussmariner.com/2005/03/03/the-draft-moyer/
USSM reader comments:
DMZ responds:
And here’s another one within the past 3 years where David Cameron admits he criticised the Jones pick (though the criticisms obviously occurred prior to that posting)….
http://ussmariner.com/2005/06/02/june-future-forty/
January 9th, 2008 at 11:24 am Quote
Maybe we could trade him to the NL and get more for him because he could be an ace pitcher AND be an MVP hitter. How’d these numbers be?
20 wins, 3.00 era, .330 avg, 40 hr, 120 rbis
He could be a pitcher that bats 3rd and on offdays for pitching, he plays center. Wouldn’t that be incredible?
January 9th, 2008 at 11:26 am Quote
Just a joke…
January 9th, 2008 at 12:02 pm Quote
OBF wrote:
This is actually somewhat germaine to the disucussion. Wii definitley has an impact to Nintendo and their ability indirectly to take risks.
On a side note, what a great gaming system. I’m not a real gamer per se, but the motions add a ton to the game. Wife got me Madden 08 and being a total novice, I absolutely love the game. Makes you really appreciate the game, especially the QB position and the quick reads and decisions they have to make. Glad we shopped early for Christmas on that system…
January 9th, 2008 at 12:17 pm Quote
Sorry about the spam filter, guys. I’m going to go try to rescue whatever I can … D-O-V’s loading and spamblocking is a joke.
Jimmy Mac hasn’t had time the last few months to maintain, but is getting on this one.
……………….
1. Anyone interested in taking the baton handoff from Jimmy, as to volunteer admin help, please drop a line.
2. Jimmy had the good suggestion that maybe the pages are loading slowly because our DB at godaddy is large. It might well help to go back and delete the earliest 50% of posts and comments. Thoughts?
January 9th, 2008 at 12:29 pm Quote
One thing I’d like to see is the same sort of win vs $ comparison on the Beckett / Hanley Ramirez trade for the Red Sox.
I wonder if that sort of analysis would yeild a “horrible” trade for Boston. Ramirez is one of those prospects that really did pan out as hoped for. Do you think the Red Sox regret having Beckett because Ramirez is so good?
January 9th, 2008 at 1:12 pm Quote
This was the Red Sox Hanley deal:
Nov 24,2005 - Traded by Red Sox with Anibal Sanchez, Jesus Delgado and Harvey Garcia to Marlins for Josh Beckett, Mike Lowell and Guillermo Mota.
Of course the Marlins were in a salary dump mode so they were willing to throw in a little more, but one thing it does show is that of the 4 guys the Red Sox traded, one has blossomed, another has had some success plus some injury, (and at first glance) another is a fringe prospect and another looks like a non-prospect.
Sanchez could yet be a star, but so what if he is? Do you think that if Sanchez becomes an ace for Florida that the Red Sox will be unhappy to have picked up their ace? At the time of the trade, Sanchez was a legit top prospect type, Ramirez was a tools guy but with obvious upside.
As the Doc repeats so often, there is no way to know with prospects, but we do know we are paying for.
Bedard fits. I’m guessing it happens. And I’m guessing it will be a combination we’ve not heard about that goes out.
January 9th, 2008 at 9:50 pm Quote
I only bothered to look up Zips since I no longer have BP access, and couldn’t find the Chone projections in the few minutes I spent searching. Zips has Jones as the third best offensive player on the team next year at .276 .335 .477 with Wlad at .247 .319 .430. That’s a significant dropoff, and if you add in defense a huge dropoff (provided you believe the Adam Jones defensive hype even partially). As I understand it, this is a weighted mean, and as such should be a basis for a calculation of expected utility for Jones vs. Bedard. I take your point about the payroll being flexible rathered than fixed, but never the less, I’m still not at all sure that Jones at the Zips projection plus whatever you can get for the difference of salary between the two plus Clement/Sherill/Whatever minus their replacements (assuming they are in MLB which is a lock for most of the names we’ve been talking about in the trade) doesn’t get you a MUCH better team than Bedard minus Morrow (since he’s the obvious fifth starter rather than Ho Ram.) I appologize to the length of that sentence.
My probably uninformed opinion is that USSM has a tendency to overrate close to MLB prospects and this site has a tendency to undervalue them.
To be fair, USSM was never in favor of trading Jones for Bedard despite the implication in the main post here (ie. you start talkinga bout the “mariners blogosphere” and end up talking about USSM, the implication being that USSM is a part of that very same blogosphere that was in favor of trading Jones)
January 9th, 2008 at 11:01 pm Quote
My view is that the entirety of the Seattle Blogs (and let me be careful, for once not to single anyone out) values prospect projection more than its deserved. I think that happens here as well as anywhere else… but, here you find a guy who obviously wheels and deals a bit in life and is willing to move chips if the opportunity to upgrade now presents itself.
That fits my perspective. I like moving pieces, and positioning the team for next year. I believe that we should count on the drafting team to keep us flush with those pieces to move if neccessary. I don’t think it wise to toss away good chips for diminishing returns. Bedard can’t be viewed as that. Obviously, the M’s see something, however minor, that leads them to believe that Jones can move without him becoming Griffey. You don’t trade Griffey at a young age.
As a side note, did the Rays (darlings of the local internet) not just trade a prospect who probobly rates higher than Jones (Young) for a guy who projects as a #3 maybe #2 on a bad team?
January 9th, 2008 at 11:17 pm Quote
Good point, Billy. Not a perfect comparison, but valid enough to make it part of the discussion.
Bedard >>> Garza based entirely on talent and track record. Young > Jones, but it’s not by as wide a margin as the difference in pitchers. Lots of people see Young as a Sheffield-type bat in the long run, but he plays COF while Jones plays CF.
Yes, you get more club-controlled years out of Garza, but he’s also the worse talent of the two. For a team like the M’s, you probably have to prefer taking on Bedard to taking on Garza.
January 9th, 2008 at 11:17 pm Quote
I think Jones is being way over-hyped defensively in his current state. He has the tools to be an excellent defender but he isn’t there right now. Mike Cameron wasn’t great in CF because he ran fast, he was great because he instinctively knew where the ball was going to go off the bat and how to get there efficiently. Remember, Jones was a pitcher and a SS. His OF skills aren’t developed and Cameron-like skills are the kind of thing honed over a very long period of time. He could easily top out as an above-average-but-not-great defender.
January 9th, 2008 at 11:26 pm Quote
Morrow is a Phil Hughes/Scott Kazmir type the same way I am a Brad Pitt/Matt Damon type.
January 9th, 2008 at 11:35 pm Quote
Good post Ted…
Which could easily be the case, next year… that would be not only significant, it would be the difference between a really mediocre hitter and an impact hitter.
Something tells me that, contrary to popular opinion, Jones is quite a bit more ready for the bigs in 2008. Just a general impression of the way they manage the batter’s box and the strike zone at Cheney.
It wouldn’t surprise me if Jones was considerably better NEXT year.
……………….
Do we see Jones and Wlad as being that disparate in hitting talent, generally?
If you see Jones and Wlad as being roughly-comparable hitting talents (and I do) then the fact that one arrives a year later, isn’t critical to the longterm VORP/$ penalty that was the crux here…
Reminds me of Paul writing Colossians 1 in a single* sentence. ;- ) You guys don’t know from long sentences until you’ve seen Greek. :- ) It’s like something you’d expect to see in a SETI transmission.
So we’ll let the 30-word sentence go :- )
January 9th, 2008 at 11:36 pm Quote
Morrow is a quality arm, and a very valuable chip. I’m sorry but that pitch that can’t be taught has more money in front of it than any curve-ball ever did. And Hughes does not rate out as a Kazmir comp. The stuff question starts and stops with a get ahead pitch that can’t easily be hit.
January 9th, 2008 at 11:54 pm Quote
Another good example — you run Young and Garza through the “net wins against salary” lens and it will show a huge VORP/$ penalty. IF you isolate it to Young and Garza without factoring in the way that it sets up the other 24 roster slots.
The D-Rays, however, are looking at (1) molding a shapless mass of talent into a ballclub, and (2) the fact that Young is a redundant resource against their other young hitters.
January 10th, 2008 at 12:00 am Quote
.
GM’s are aware that non-arb talent is very efficient dollarwise … yet, you can multiply these Garza-Young examples as long as you want.
You can find any number of great GM’s trading away terrific young players for supporting cast, making deals that actually do look “horrible” to the CPA’s (even based on fair assumptions about whether the prospect will be worth $14m as a soph).
That’s because GM’s get the idea of redundant prospect talent, and get the idea that org players 30-150 are there for the purpose of serving the top 25…
……………….
GM’s make horrible CPA trades and they should. But guess what. The Erik Bedard / Adam Jones trade is not one of those trades. :- )
January 10th, 2008 at 12:09 am Quote
Yet another point that has failed to gain traction …
It used to be that a Cha Seung Baek could compete well, at least in the NL, by tossing three or four “50″ pitches, mixing them up — success through sheer craftsmanship.
Nowadays if a “craftsmanly” pitcher comes through Cheney and he doesn’t have a signature weapon — 95+ fastball, or plus-plus command, or something — he’s just a quad-A pitcher for us.
You can’t bring a knife to the AL gunfights any more. To be an above-average SP in the AL, you need some magic sparkle dust…
…………………
Brandon Morrow is one of the rare birds who brings that magic sparkle dust. The rest can be worked from here.
Verrrrrrrrrrry tough to put that into numbers that saberamigos will accept, however… how do you quantify the idea that real soon, a pitcher’s going to leap a big plateau?
January 15th, 2008 at 3:40 am Quote
Of the arguments we’ve seen against Bedard … Lookout Landing has (as usual) the sensible, even-handed case against.
At bottom, their argument returns to the two-dimensional “VORP per dollar” paradigm. We answered that in this thread.
…………………..
EXEC SUM:
1. In Roto and in real baseball, you save money at lower roster slots SO THAT you can afford MORE STARS (um, a HIGHER NUMBER OF stars) at the top of your pyramid.
You don’t save money just to save money. The object isn’t to win 79 games for 62 wins’ worth of money. After you save money on scrubs, you spend the surplus on stars. THOSE guys cost you even money.
….
2. You can’t VORP/$ shop at all 25 slots. That’s why a simple 2-D “national football player pool game” approach to salary does not solve real MLB problems. A VORP/$ bargain must POSITION you to improve at slots not subject to VORP/$ bargains.
….
3. You’re not getting Bedard for Jones. You’re getting Bedard and Wlad for Jones.
THAT is the essence of Stars & Scrubs. You don’t lose Jones! You lose the delta between Jones and Wlad. Get that straight.
Learn to sell your #1 and use your #2. That’s S & S.
…
4. The real pro sports team is affected by a “legitimizer,” whether it be the great QB or the Randy Johnson/Pedro Martinez, etc.
Bill James wrote, as a historian, that Cinderella seasons happen when two or three stars have big years and all the support players get caught up in the excitement and have good years around them.
You can’t measure the reasons that teams have players synchronizing their good and bad years, but they do. And MLB vets will tell you why: you get some winning going, and it’s contagious.
Yes, Virginia, the winning culture does exist.
It’s my ballclub, I install it with a 10k, groundball pitcher. But if you want to try the Scott Hatteberg VORP/$ approach, that’s okay too.
January 15th, 2008 at 7:53 am Quote
Actually, you are getting Bedard and Wlad for Jones and whatever you would have spent Bedard’s salary on. So technically it’s Bedard + Wlad for Jones + Washburn contract extension + renovations to the executive washroom at Safeco Field. That deal is looking better all the time
January 15th, 2008 at 4:02 pm Quote
Ya EA. :- ) You give up (Jones - Wlad) … and gain the number (Bedard - Horacio) … . Since the last one is a negative number…
Sounds funny but there’s an underlying truth there …
January 15th, 2008 at 9:26 pm Quote
Aren’t you gaining (Bedard - Morrow)…?
January 15th, 2008 at 9:37 pm Quote
.
You mean if you keep Morrow but Morrow doesn’t pitch in the 5 slot?
1. Good pernt.
2. Not exactly, cause Bavasi figures you use more than 5 SP’s in a year, and 100-150 IP would be the 2008 preference anyway.
3. And Morrow as reliever is an important plus.
4. In 2009 and following you’d have the both of ‘em.
……………….
3. Still, your point is well taken. That *is* a consideration in my view — if you don’t deal for Bedard, and you let Morrow pitch in the 5 slot, that delta could be smaller than people assume.
Other blogs have absolutely zero right to worry about Morrow’s effectiveness as a starter, however :- )
January 15th, 2008 at 9:50 pm Quote
I just can’t believe the M’s could be foolish enough to throw Horacio out for another season… if we keep Morrow I’d expect you’d see the 34 starts something like 20-25 Morrow and 10-15 RRS, etc.
January 15th, 2008 at 10:17 pm Quote
What appears to be an oversight, is not that we’d like Bedard as our #2 roto player on our roster, but that there is a scarcity of aces out there. Few are available, and when they are, you grab them when you can. You don’t want to be the owner that has the next pick, after the last ace is gone in the draft. That’s the position we were in last off-season, so Bill dug deep to grab Weaver and HoRam to fill out the rotation. We can’t be afraid that to obtain Bedard, we might give up prospects that might actually pan out for the Orioles. So what? If the Orioles got better, it would only hurt the Red Sox and Yanks. What could be bad about that?
January 15th, 2008 at 10:36 pm Quote
GREAT point! Hadn’t thought of that…
Framed in that context, the more we give for Bedard, the better! : )
January 15th, 2008 at 10:40 pm Quote
I’m really digging M’s Watcher’s strategy, attacking the Yanks & Red Sox via Baltimore. And I’m only half kidding. OK, maybe 90% kidding. But with the Rays as stacked with talent as they are, maybe we can facilitate a balance in power in the AL East where all the teams are strong, but not too strong, and they just beat each other up all year.
January 15th, 2008 at 11:06 pm Quote
Muskie,
That’s obviously not my point, to help Balmer. Rather, that’s the worst that can happen with players we give up in trade. My point was that you obtain the rare ace when you can, if nothing else, to keep him away from your competitors and dominate them when they have to match him with a second rate pitcher. You didn’t think we could get Bedard by offering Vidro, Sexson, and HoRam, did you?
January 15th, 2008 at 11:36 pm Quote
No of course not… I’m being facetious, and having a little fun with the idea is all. I’m with you on seizing the opportunity to get the ace.
January 16th, 2008 at 12:47 pm Quote
I have a fondness for “simplified” numeric analysis - things that don’t require statistics PHDs to comprehend. So, I was wondering how much of a boon Bedard can be expected to be for the Ms. Well, it just so happens that if you double HoRam’s 2007 innings, they end up pretty much dead-even with Bedard’s *2006* innings. The result:
HoRam (2007 X2): 196-IP; 278-H; 172-R; 156-ER; 26-HR; 84-BB; 80-K; 7.16-ERA
Bedard (2006 ) : 196.3 ; 196-H; 92-R; 82-ER; 16-HR; 69-BB; 171-K; 3.76-ERA
Note: This is a difference of EIGHTY (80) runs, (74 earned runs).
Note also that in 2006, Baltimore’s DER was 26th in baseball, (Ms 27th in 2007).
So,
Ignoring the career year in 2007.
Ignoring park adjustment, (certainly in Bedard’s favor).
The basic gain in runs allowed going from HoRam to Bedard is 80.
Anyone here think that lowering runs allowed by 80 will NOT give the Ms a playoff shot?
If Silva managed to be only 20 runs better than Weaver, (and Weaver set the bar pretty low), that translates into a 100 run improvement BEFORE we begin discussing things like Felix or Morrow (if he’s around) improving.
You want a third-grade-math question for how big of a difference Bedard is “likely” to make? I’d set the bar at 80 runs. If you want to buy into 2007 as more than a career year and/or you want to start believing the Ms defense will improve, (regardless of who plays RF, don’t they HAVE to be better than Guillen?), then a 100 run swing is completely plausible.
Anyone here think Jones is going to be 100 runs better than Wlad, (or whoever they can find off the OF scrapheap)?
January 16th, 2008 at 2:54 pm Quote
And BTW Sandy…if you do some probabilities on guys like Sexson and Ibanez and Lopez and Betancourt and even Johjima…the offense might improve even with the loss of Jones and downgrade to (say) Luis Gonzalez.
January 16th, 2008 at 3:03 pm Quote
When you gonna take that key to the taco stand, Sandy :- )
A fun fact, not a lawyer’s proof: the Orioles were 19-9 (+10) in Bedard’s starts last year, despite their 95 OPS+ and unimpressive bullpen.
……………………..
Everybody who is transfixed by the M’s Pythag “correction” … ought to be just as transfixed by the possibility of replacing -6 in the #5SP slot with a +10. :- )
What were the M’s in games started by a 5, anyway?
January 16th, 2008 at 3:04 pm Quote
When you gonna take that key to the taco stand, Sandy :- )
A fun fact, not a lawyer’s proof: the Orioles were 19-9 (+10) in Bedard’s starts last year, despite their 95 OPS+ and unimpressive bullpen.
(This is not flukish: IIRC the M’s were 27-3 and 18-2 in a couple of consecutive Big Unit seasons. You can easily run lopsided records in games a Cy Young pitcher starts.)
……………………..
Everybody who is transfixed by the M’s Pythag “correction” … ought to be just as transfixed by the possibility of replacing -6 in the #5SP slot with a +10. :- )
What were the M’s in games started by a 5, anyway?
January 16th, 2008 at 4:16 pm Quote
HoRam went 8-7, Feierabend was 0-2 I think, Baek was like 4-2 or 4-3. Our #5s didn’t ahve a bad year i terms of wins and losses but only because the Mariners always seemed to have their best offensive days right when it was called for…or in the case of Weaver, when the pitcher had a terrible day, the offense scored next to nothing and it was a blowout so the run differential looked worse than it was.
January 16th, 2008 at 4:19 pm Quote
We’re talking the team’s record in those games… still, sounds like about .500. Cool.
If you take the games Weaver started, and Weaver’s replacements? I notice he and Fire were a combined 8-19 personally.
January 16th, 2008 at 4:55 pm Quote
Well the club was like 5 games over .500 when Felix pitched, 7 games over when Batista pitched and even par when Washburn pitched, so I don’t know how the 4/5 slots could have been under .500
January 16th, 2008 at 5:50 pm Quote
I still think you have to look at the improvement in terms of Bedard over Morrow/RRS rather than over Horam. Then you have to consider what you might think Morrow’s bullpen replacement would do (I don’t think a sub 4.00 ERA is too much to ask from ________, which could actually make an improvement there too).
January 16th, 2008 at 6:26 pm Quote
#68: You’re talking past the point, probably unknowingly, Fett.
The point that Doc/Sandy are discussing is the improvement Bedard would represent over 2007, not the improvement he would make over available in-house options for ‘08.
You’re point is valid from the perspective of establishing how much of an improvement Bedard would be in ‘08 over theoretical performances by in-house options. But that’s not what was being discussed. They were talking about pythag, and trying to establish a way to present the case to the naysayers (most of whm cite the ‘07 pythag as a .500-record-inducing #) going into ‘08.
Your point is valid, just not to that particular exchange.
January 16th, 2008 at 6:38 pm Quote
We can take another crack at the guesstimates on runs gained and lost, and as Cameron initially emphasized, that IS important to be aware of.
Maybe we’ll re-print Sandy’s numbers as a main article and ask him and Matt to manage the thread for us … Matt, maybe you want to fire up an article on that, using either your own #’s or headlining Sandy’s recent post?
…………….
Another thing to be aware of, is James’ rule of thumb that Cinderella seasons happen when two or three club pillars have great years, and *the other 22 players have good years* as they are caught up in the confidence and momentum.
James actually traced this phenomenon, via Win Shares, by comparing Cinderella teams and their C-Y1 counterparts. He found that there was a very noticeable tendency for the 10-WS guys to pull 14 WS in the Cinderella year … keyed by two or three 20-WS guys having 34-WS seasons.
So let’s say that Bedard PERSONALLY adds “only” 40-50 runs, 40-50 MARGINAL runs, to a team on the bubble. That still wouldn’t close the books, for me, on what a Josh Beckett adds to a ballclub.
……………
If it’s my club, I’m not worried in the least about *proving* to the math club that a Schilling and Johnson can instill improved focus and performance from their teammates. I simply proceed on my belief that it can happen.
It’s no more than a thumb on the scale for me, the idea that an overwhelming ace can change a club’s personality. But I would caution the math club (no disrespect) from believing that they can “capture” a complicated human endeavor with a few simple math equations. :- )
Respect for the complexity of the problemo, babe.
January 16th, 2008 at 7:20 pm Quote
I’ll grant there’s some sort of ‘intangible’ effect that’s difficult to measure precisely. I guess one just has to decide how much of a difference they think that makes…
January 16th, 2008 at 11:32 pm Quote
Absolutely.
I wouldn’t blame a GM for being skeptical of the Randy Johnson effect, and wouldn’t blame him for being a big believer in it. It hasn’t been “solved” by sabermetrics or really even attacked by it, so it becomes a matter of intuition.
Myself, I have *always* been a huge believer in the club-wide effect of a legit “bully” in the #1 slot.
January 19th, 2008 at 5:03 pm Quote
Wait, shouldn’t that not be Wlad and Bedard for Jones, but Wlad and Bedard for Jones and Morrow, since Morrow will be replaced by Bedard? And since Morrow is a Scott Kazmir type, wouldn’t that not be that big of a pitching improvement?
January 19th, 2008 at 5:49 pm Quote
Could be, except that Morrow doesn’t stop contributing to the M’s in 2008, in a Bedard rotation.
Aside from his value in the bullpen, there’s his contribution as a #6 starter when one of the first five are hurt. (If it’s up to me, Miguel Batista’s rubber arm goes back to the bullpen where he has been valuable in the past, and both Morrow and Bedard are in the pen.)
And, of course, his contribution can go to 200 innings as soon as Washburn’s contract is up.
January 19th, 2008 at 11:56 pm Quote
I’m sure I’m missing something here. We’re sending our ambassador to the sandy beach to hold a par-lay, a la Davy Jones and Cap’t Jack in that pirate movie.
I think I whiffed on something, first time ’round.
We were told that a radio interview, of the captain of the no-Jones team, went:
First time round, skip-reading, I missed the MORROW part of that position statement. :- )
So do I read this right, that the other debate squad wouldn’t trade Adam Jones, alone, for the next four guys (other than Clement) in our glam-heavy system?
…………………….
It seems the real pivot point of the debate was really just Adam Jones. Man, I hope he’s as good as THAT. LOL.
January 24th, 2008 at 5:38 pm Quote
Geoff Baker at the Seattle Times quotes Bavasi at M’s function today:
Bavasi goes on to say that he thinks a deal will get done. Baker is convinced he’s talking specifically about Bedard.
January 24th, 2008 at 5:47 pm Quote
.
Geoff Baker again with outstanding information on his blog.
Baker is consistently providing the best reads that I have ever seen on Seattle baseball. Among the things that he delivers on a day-in, day-out basis:
1. His sources are the best. Other blogs are, at best, offering hints about e-mails from who know who. Baker isn’t claiming extra credibility unless he is going off of a quote from Bill Bavasi or similar.
Today’s column is an example. Blog-o-sphere guesswork: this weekend or bust. Baker’s column quotes Bavasi to exactly the opposite effect: Bavasi says the best offer is out there, “it’s now a waiting game,” and it will probably work eventually.
…………………
2. Baker’s ability to put his finger right on the critical facets of the issue.
How much are the M’s willing to give up? Point A, Baker points out nimbly, is that the Mariners are the ones offering the glamor prospects, as opposed to the Reds et al who are “genuinely reluctant” to part with glam kids.
Point B, sourcing Bill Bavasi (not a friend from Tuskeegee): “We can move a premier prospect and numbers (of players), but we’re not going to move a number of premier prospects.”
In other words, Trea & amigos, Bavasi’s best offer is still Jones, Tillman, third guy, Sherrill, or maybe Jones & Triunfel and little else, and it’s up to the O’s now…
………………..
3. Baker’s sound judgment, stemming from his own on-field perspective as an accomplished athlete.
It didn’t take long for Baker to see the problems with the Toronto 07 argument. Also for example, Baker is zero’ing in on SP innings munched — a topic that would be opaque to desk jockeys (no disrespect) but a topic that carries obvious weight with Baker, Schilling, Putz, etc.
…………………..
4. His easygoing, professional, friendly style.
…………………..
5. etc.
…………………..
Roses to the living. Baker has the best Mariner reads going. Well, in the top two anyway. ;- )
Kudos,
Jeff
January 24th, 2008 at 5:55 pm Quote
Just beat us to it, Dixarone. Yeah, that’s intriguing stuff.
Right now, it seems like McPhail is getting legit offers from the M’s and… that’s about it.
…………………..
Sounds to me kinda like McPhail is sitting there forlornly hoping that the miracle, no-brainer, deal falls in his lap so that he won’t have to make a tough decision.
Bavasi clued us in that the Orioles want it done “on their terms.” I have a real problem with a negotiator who is so unsure of himself that he has to (A) dictate all the terms or (B) back out because afraid of making a mistake.
Gimme a guy who is smart, confident, and decisive. That guy can navigate waters that aren’t sitting right off the pier of his own condo.
January 24th, 2008 at 6:37 pm Quote
The good news is…Bavsi isn’t the one forlornly hoping the miracle happens and he’s not the one afraid to make a deal.
The bad news is…McPhail isn’t the problem witht he Os. Peter Angelos is a tool and he continues to prove that with every passing day. Eventually, he will either give in or he will keep Bedard and tank the Orioles’ future just to prove he won’t be pushed around.
January 24th, 2008 at 10:19 pm Quote
Believe it or not, but the people with connections to the FO have said Angelos is keeping his nose out of this offseason. He hasn’t vetoed any deals and doesn’t plan to. He basically hired himself. MacPhail is his own Angelos, so Angelos doesn’t have to veto anything…
January 24th, 2008 at 10:45 pm Quote
i watched bavasi’s press conference and he hinted many times that made it seem like triunfel was untouchable.
January 24th, 2008 at 11:24 pm Quote
I would bet that the M’s consider Triunfel to be among their top tier of prospects along with Jones, Morrow and Clement. So when Bavasi says “one premier player” he probably means he’d being willing to part with Adam OR Carlos (if he’s willing to trade Triunfel at all), not both. The next step down would be Wlad, Tillman and Butler.
I think the O’s are in a legitimately tough spot. They have an elite player who has not one but two discounted years left before he becomes a free agent and they think they deserve a huge haul for him but there is only a single team willing to part with even one elite talent. You say you would part with just about everyone to get Bedard, well think about if you were in their shoes. Wouldn’t you think that you should get at least two of the M’s top prospects for the very same reason that you want the M’s to give them up; because they aren’t stars yet and have a lot of risk associated with them?
January 25th, 2008 at 4:56 am Quote
I’d give ‘em Jones+Triunfel right now. I’d probably even throw in Sherill. It’s when they start insisting on Morrow to make it four that there’s reason to wonder who it is you’re bidding against..
I know what you mean about them being in a tough spot, Papa. But the longer they go, the lower his value goes, and everyone knows that. It’s hard to see a deadline deal that will better what we’ve been rumored to have already offered. Or maybe I’m way off-base..could be they’ve got a mega-deal worked out with the Cubs.
I do think they’re hurting themselves by waiting this long.
January 25th, 2008 at 8:56 am Quote
1. The merger of blogs and real journalism is a huge change, and Baker is one of the very best examples of what it can produce.
2. Bavasi seems to have a real good sense of the market (which is a huge part of being a GM), and is showing a very cool (as in even-keeled) unwillingness to bid against himself. Which makes it seem that all of the agitation (resulting in Jones pulled, then un-pulled) is on the Os side. Also makes it seem that Jones-Clement-plus or Jones-Triunfel-plus or Jones-Morrow-plus was mostly hype, also coming from the Os side.
3. Also nice message-sending (no doubt already sent, but packing a little extra oomph when sent through the media) that the Ms might be the Os only dance partner left, and he thinks they will eventually have to come to him and get the deal done or else they just have to fold their tent and go home. So, “what’s it gonna be boy?”
4. Jones is the one guy on which the anti-trade blogosphere has drawn the line in the sand. It will be interesting to see where things fall if it is Jones and none of Clement, Morrow, Triunfel, Wlad or Tui. To me, (given the usual cavaets that Jones won’t play CF or, apparently, LF and he seems like a less-than-ideal fit for Safeco offensively) giving up only Jones from the top tier would be a huge coup for Bavasi.
January 25th, 2008 at 1:42 pm Quote
Spec,
I was thinking along the same lines. If Bavasi pulls off a deal giving up only one of Jones, Morrow, Clement, Tri… and especially if Morrow stays in Seattle… Props must be given to Bavasi for being a shrewd negotiator.
Actually, he’s shown in the past that he’s more than willing to walk away from a deal if he’’s not comfortable with the price he’s paying. Zito, Delgado, Schmidt, et al, there are a number of FA’s where he said ‘no mas’. Agree or disagree, he seems to stand firm in his evaluation and/or budget.
B
January 25th, 2008 at 3:08 pm Quote
I knew Baker’s entry would spurn some new discussion and of course this is the place!
I appreciated Bill’s put that it was either 1 quality and then some quantity but not both. CPB, your take is spot on as to who is top tier. Of course BB has just shown his hand a little bit because now if the deal goes thru with more than one top spect we will know he blinked!
As for the O’s waiting for the deadline, the problems are twofold. One, Bedard could get hurt and their leverage flies out the window. Two, even if he is healthy, the premier prospects in most organizations are already called up by then so what they could get in return is diminished. For example, Seattle would have Jones playing RF for 4 months and that would pretty much take him out of the mix, so now they are dealing with lower level guys like Wlad and Triu. So the risk really outways the reward unless they believe the package the M’s are offering really stinks.