Josh Beckett vs Hanley Ramirez
Silentpadna's point here is so illustrative that it needs to be separated out:
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 yield 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?
Let's leave aside, for a moment, the fact that other players were involved in the deal, such as Lowell and Sanchez.
In the event that Josh Beckett WAS traded head-up for Hanley Ramirez, you've got a perfect illustration of the difference between
(1) the Seattle 'net's f(x) = VORP/$ focus as applied to all roster slots org-deep, and
(2) D-O-V's interest in building a championship 25-man ballclub.
If you ran a Beckett-Hanley trade through exactly the same logic at exactly the same sites, it would come out as more than "borderline" insane.
In fact, if the Mariners had offered anything important for Beckett at all after 2005, considering his salary and injury risk, it's easy enough to picture the Seattle 'net calling for the cuckoo trucks. ;- ) In January 2006, if we'd heard a rumor that Bavasi was considering dealing Hanley for Beckett, D-O-V would certainly have been calling for the deal, and the rest of the Seattle 'net would certainly have been calling it insane.
So as Russ notes, it's a topical example. "Good organizations don't trade players like Adam Jones"? I don't know about you, but I count Boston as a good organization. What good organizations don't do, is de-emphasize the pennant race that is happening this year.
Epstein isn't alone in this mindset. Try finding a real GM who will blast Epstein for giving up Hanley Ramirez in order to construct the 2007 Red Sox?
………………………
The fact that Boston won a World Series? That becomes the cognitive dissonance that should give the Seattle 'net pause for thought. Note very carefully that winning the WS has precisely no presence whatsoever in the f(x) = VORP/$ calculations.
Lowell, Sanchez, etc notwithstanding — a 2005 Beckett-Ramirez trade would STILL be evaluated as mindless, because Ramirez IS producing FAR more "net wins vs salary" than Beckett. A BP author would go screaming into the night at losing Ramirez, who is playing SS and posting 145 OPS+'s … for $407,000 per year.
And that's precisely what illustrates the difference between USSM's paradigm and D-O-V's: Boston gave up theoretical net salary wins — but won the World Series. Boston has achieved its goals.
I can tell you for a fact that Bill James and Theo Epstein, if you wound the clock back to 2005, would cheerfully pay Hanley Ramirez to add a (moneyed) #1 starter to their ballclub.
…………………
Even if Adam Jones plays SS and hits .332/.386/.562 for Baltimore in year 2 … if the Bedard trade accomplished the Mariners' goals, it would still be a winner for SEATTLE despite a "net wins" deficit. As the Beckett deal was for Boston.
And of course, a 2006 Beckett-Hanley deal illustrates the worst case scenario for a 2008 Bedard-Jones deal. (1) Erik Bedard is a much better pitcher right now than Beckett was then, and (2) I doubt you're betting on Jones to play SS and hit .332/.386/.562 in 2009.
But if Jones did do that, that'd be okay. Make sure you're happy with what you get, and you'll never worry about what you paid.
Cheers,
Dr D
January 9th, 2008 at 1:20 pm Quote
Well, salary aside, considering Boston’s got Clay and Lester and Wakefield fighting for one rotation spot, the difference (performance, not salary-wise) between them and Beckett is probably alot less than Hanley and their SS.
In all honesty, Boston probably wins the WS no matter what in 2007 whether or not they replace Becket with a 145 OPS+ SS.
January 9th, 2008 at 1:22 pm Quote
And if this is how Boston thinks why on earth would they not trade Lester+Ellsbury+ for JOHANN SANTANA…?
January 9th, 2008 at 1:35 pm Quote
Good puts Fett. Especially #2… Boston’s public posturing on Santana *is* inconsistent with the Beckett deal.
But we can tell you for sure that Boston’s decisionmaking processes are sophisticated. You know that they are factoring in (1) the crowding that they now have in their rotation, vis-a-vis 2005, and (2) Santana’s performance vs salary.
Those things may have tipped the scales gently the other way in this particular case.
……………………….
Boston does have rookies and good solid pitchers fighting for a rotation spot, but again we run into the idea that a Cy Young pitcher brings more than his statistics to the table…
……………………….
It is also true that they have a strange paradigm in Boston. They think in terms of winning playoff series, not in terms of participating in them.
Boston doesn’t have to get better than they are … and if the Mariners were that good, they would certainly NOT sacrifice anything important in order to get even better.
Boston wants to get better because it values the PENNANT as opposed to the playoffs. That they are pursuing Santana at all, with a $20-25m annual salary, is interesting. But they are so good that they are now positioned to weight longterm factors and sustainability more heavily than they did before they arrived at the top of the heap.
January 9th, 2008 at 1:52 pm Quote
Fett, BOS is resistant to overpaying for Santana precisely because he would be replacing either Clay, Lester or Wakefield and the net difference isn’t worth the price in prospects and $ that it would take. Their situation now is much different than it was in 2005 wrt their rotation precisely because they made the move for Beckett when they had the chance.
Ironically, they would probably make a better offer for Hanley (even if he weren’t under club control) than they are currently said to be offering for Santana because the improvement at the position would be much greater. What BOS didn’t have when they made the deal was an almost as good prospect (Wlad) to replace Ramirez with and they went out and traded for Renteria instead. If they had a Wlad behind Ramirez they probably wouldn’t have blinked at the request from FLA.
Revisionist history note* Lowell was a salary dump that BOS absorbed so the deal was actually Beckett for ~$30mm of Lowell, Ramirez, Sanchez +. BOS overpaid bigtime, much more so than Seattle is rumored to be offering in Jones/Triu+.
January 9th, 2008 at 1:55 pm Quote
Yep. Unless something happens to upset the balance of power, the Red Sox can take their existing roster into the 2008 campaign confident that they are the best team in baseball - probably by a significant margin. With the Yankees sidelining themselves in the Santana auction, there is no need for the Sox to bid against themselves.
They have a very different risk profile now than they had when they made the Beckett deal. Still baffled why they would deem Elsbury untouchable but be willing to trade Lowrie, though.
January 9th, 2008 at 1:59 pm Quote
I wasn’t following the NL much. Is that right?
If Lowell really was viewed as a salary albatross at the time, you can see how focused Boston was, on adding a dominating ace.
……………….
This is probably one thing on which baseball men and saberdudes will always talk past each other … how much a great SP is worth.
January 9th, 2008 at 2:14 pm Quote
Seattle businessman in Boston in late October, about 2011:
“So what’s all this fuss about?”
Boston businessman taking the morning off:
“Parade time! Sox just knocked off the Mets for another World Series title!”
Seattle businessman:
“Yeah I heard about that. You guys gotta be concerned though that your payroll is so high and some of your best young players are now playing for other teams. The future’s so bright out in Seattle, that you gotta wear shades my friend”
Boston businessman:
“I hear Felix Hernandez may be on the block…”
Seattle businessman:
“Yeah, I heard that too. He’d sure bring a great haul of young prospects, wouldn’t he? It’s great to be a baseball fan in Seattle. Watch out for the M’s in ‘16.”
January 9th, 2008 at 2:15 pm Quote
Heh :- )
January 9th, 2008 at 2:18 pm Quote
A couple of other deals I was thinking of yesterday besides Beckett were made by or included USSM darling Billy Beane.
1)At the trading deadline four years ago, the A’s traded Aaron Harang, Jeff Bruksch and Joe Valentine to the Cincinnati Reds for Jose Guillen.
2)Detroit got Carlos Pena, Franklyn German and a player to be named (Bonderman!) from Oakland, which received Ted Lilly, John-Ford Griffin and Jason Arnold from New York. Bleach.
I am sure there are other trades worse than these, but these came to mind immediately. Point is, ALL GM’s, even the vaunted Billy Beane, overpay to get the guys that improve their rosters the most.
January 9th, 2008 at 2:23 pm Quote
Exactly, they seem to be EXTREMELY confident that Santana’s salary and location preferences knock out any competition. With the Twins holding out for so long for a better deal, and so far failing miserably, the Sox’s confidence is apparently well-founded.
January 9th, 2008 at 3:16 pm Quote
Very interesting examples Bilbo.
…………….
You could reply (or not) that those trades backfired … but the broad point is, good GM’s can and do de-emphasize the “net wins against salary” compass. If they view an MLB vet as key to that year’s, or the next few years’, pennant races.
Beane is certainly no exception.
…………….
You have 25 slots that are much more important than slots 35-150, and this year’s pennant race is always important.
It’s fine to talk about stockpiling resources, but the time comes to convert those redundant resources into actual work output.
January 9th, 2008 at 3:20 pm Quote
I’m perhaps not the guy to talk about this since I always viewed Hanley Ramirez as another east-coast hype job. I remember talking about this guy at Sickels’ blog and saying that he was a .270/12HR guy in the bigs. ooooops.
But I do want to add a caveat here:
“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.”
The difference is that Boston played in the ALCS in 2003. They were quite obviously a good, 90 win team that needed to overpay to get wins 93-4-5. NOBODY is arguing about the validity of that calculation. NOBODY is saying that Boston was dumb to do that. Everyone admits that the marginal value of those wins above 88 (or 90 or 85 or whatever you want to say) is huge, and that it is often wise to forego 10 wins down the line for 5 wins now.
For this comparison to work however, you need the M’s to be in the same position as the 2003 Red Sox. Personally, I don’t see it. If you think they *are* (and I think some people may point to their W/L and say it’s fairly close), then fine. But that’s an important piece of the argument that’s left out when we’re just arguing about the good that can happen when you acquire an ‘ace.’
January 9th, 2008 at 3:45 pm Quote
Well-reasoned argument IMHO…
But I disagree with this as well.
I don’t think you need to be the bigger man, to be willing to fight for what you believe in.
That is my definition of a bully: a man who likes to fight when the odds are stacked huge in his favor, and who is scared spitless of a fight when he has no guarantees.
I’m not calling the posters here bullies, of course. But in all realms of life — blogosphere censorship, baseball pennant races, barroom confrontations, whatever — that’s the trap we fall into if we don’t watch out: we relish a fight in which we have the upper hand, and run away from those fights that we could easily lose.
……………..
If the 2008 Mariners were a lost cause, that would be something else. But they’re not. They should fight. For the 2008 pennant.
January 9th, 2008 at 4:04 pm Quote
.
I understand that there is an intelligent argument to be made here … that you should ‘rationally’ weigh your chances and not spend your bullets a target you’re incapable of hitting.
Billy Beane, for example, (after years of bare-knuckle fighting against bigger men) now is spending a year cutting his losses so as to attack next year. He’s going to admit, for one year, that the fight is just not winnable.
There’s a time and a place for that.
…………………..
But I think that the primal ‘bully’ mentality is one that affects us in many more ways than we realize.
MOST tournament chessplayers, and MOST martial artists, are insufferable bullies. If a chessplayer outrates his opponent by 200 points, he’ll sit through the game the whole four hours with a smug smile on his face, savoring his opponent’s pain … if the same guy sees that a rival outrates him 200 points, he’ll literally withdraw from the tournament.
Martial artists are usually similar. Give them a situation in which they are sparring with a beginner and they’ll beat the guy black and blue. Give them a situation in which they could get hurt, and they’ll run.
IMHO, if analysts had more fighting spirit, it would color their judgment on the 2008 bailout.
………………….
27-year world champ Lasker said:
Again, if you’re a 50-1 underdog against even being there in September, that’s one thing. But if you’ve got reasonable chances, with Bedard, to be in the race come September … IMHO it’s disgraceful to quit before you start.
January 9th, 2008 at 4:17 pm Quote
But Doc - no one’s saying the M’s shouldn’t fight. The argument is over how, and what the best way to marshal your resources.
Their statement is that above average D in left adds a few runs to every pitcher’s line and can be as important as adding a good pitcher. Now, next year, that sum is going to come up less than the wins added by Bedard. But the wins added are real, and they’re added for virtually no money. Over time, that set you up right nicely.
As a corollary to that, they’re arguing that a win’s a win. A win saved via D or offense is the same as a win added by an ace lefty. So let’s ask this - does the team DER change at all from 2007 if they give up Jones and add Bedard? Does that affect the team’s playoff odds?
Your argument in 13 is simply that they should go for it right now. That’s fine - they were an 80+ win team last year after all. But I just want to get a feel for the parameters of your willingness to fight, fight, fight.
If giving up Triunfel+Jones+Sherrill is easy enough, what is too much? What level of cost overrides the benefits of fighting now? I think we all agree that there’s an acceptable price; your ‘walk away’ price seems much higher than others, USSM’s is much lower than most. I just want to get my arms around this….
January 9th, 2008 at 4:19 pm Quote
marc w. wrote:
I do understand your argument, let’s go back and look at 2003, at what the Sox did then.
That was their move for Curt Schilling. Although I agree with the basic point that the M’s are not where the Sox were then, or now, at some point when the opportunity comes to pay for that ace, and you have a shot, you gotta take it. There will be more prospects. How do the Red Sox keep coming up with more prospects?
At some point they started.
Once the M’s move for Bedard, who says they stop there? Why should they? Who says there’s not another Adam Jones coming from somewhere? Is that factored into the equation? Hint to the other bloggers: it should be.
January 9th, 2008 at 4:47 pm Quote
#15 - fair enough Marc.
As to a Bedard trade being a short-term move, and as to whether amigos indeed believe that the M’s should fight *for the 2008-09 pennants* … we’re talking past each other a bit, and it’s mostly my fault probably.
Keep the arguments comin’ mate. Right now I better get a little work in, at least, before my wife smites me. Maybe Russter can pitch a coupla innings :- )
January 9th, 2008 at 5:04 pm Quote
Yeah padna, that’s true - another year, another big trade. I’d say the schilling deal was definitely quality over quantity (though Fossum always had his fans). But here’s the thing: the Red Sox won 93 games. In 2002. They were in the exact same position as they were in 2003 - a great team who desperately needed that last little push to separate them from the Yanks. Even with Schilling, they didn’t get it in 2003, but they got it with Beckett (and some luck) in 2004 - they still didn’t best the Yanks in the regular season.
Not only that, but the Sox had the extra advantage of a nearly unlimited budget. Look at their 2004 roster (or 2003) and see how few guys they developed. Their entire strategy was based on trades, and Epstein made it work (though he immediately put in place a vastly different system). Not saying the M’s can’t make trades, but they don’t have quite the budget to paper over mistakes that the Sox did. If Hillenbrand or Walker weren’t cutting it, there’s always a Mueller or a Bellhorn lying around if you can afford them.
“Once the M’s move for Bedard, who says they stop there? Why should they?”
Because they’ll rapidly start running out of ammunition for moves of that nature. You can argue they’ll add to the defense through free-agency or further trades, but let’s see what that looks like. What I want to see is a thorough, thought-out plan. I want the DER to move - a lot - from where it was in 2007. I want the back of the rotation improved dramatically (which should be easy). At some level, these goals are going to conflict, just as roster flexibility and ‘win now!’ conflict. I’m not saying it’s crazy to balance these views one way versus the other. I’m just trying to point out that reasonable people balance these things differently. It’s not being a ‘bully’ to want to build a team around Jones/Beltre/Felix + free agents, just as it’s not idiotic to build a team around Bedard/Beltre/Felix.
January 9th, 2008 at 5:16 pm Quote
Good stuff the past two days.
January 9th, 2008 at 5:24 pm Quote
I’d also point out that Beckett’s first year with the Sox did not go so well - ERA over 5, K rate WAAAAYYY down, etc.
He had a nice bounce-back year, but for all the talk about how no one knows how prospects are going to do, the same is true of ‘veterans.’ Keep in mind that 2006 was Beckett’s healthiest year ever.
January 9th, 2008 at 5:50 pm Quote
marc w. wrote:
Point cheerfully conceded and agreed that reasonable people can disagree on the how-to. I think the general point is that making a trade like Jones+ for Bedard has its meits too. The purpose for these posts IMO is to counter the blog’s general sentiment that a trade like this would “horrible” and the hyperbole that has generally gone with it.
I would also say that until prospects are proven MLB producers, they are a crapshoot and that there are always chances to restock your ammunition. Boston is a perfect case in point. They made two major moves and are poised to make another, yet they keep reloading their ammo because they can scout talent. I think the M’s are in a situation where they are now doing the same in terms of finding signable young guys and making sound draft picks. But all you have to do is look back at all the drafts and see how many of the picks DON’T pan out to realize that there are no guarantees. In this specific M’s scenario, the closest thing to a guarantee of all the players mentioned is Bedard. The trade is less risky to me than standing pat on that basis alone.
If the move isn’t made, I’m still gonna be excited about the young talent the M’s have; but I’ll also understand that the chances of Morrow, Jones, Clement, Balentien, et. al. all panning out are slim. In fact the chances that 2 of them become stars are probably relatively thin.
As Doc said, we may be talking past each other - but if it’s me, I go back to the fact that aces that are available in trade are few and far between. Who says the next tradeable ace is on a team that fits in terms of trading pieces?
January 9th, 2008 at 6:25 pm Quote
“I would also say that until prospects are proven MLB producers, they are a crapshoot”
I would tend to disagree with this. There have been studies done on this, and it just doesn’t seem to be true, at least for those with high-minors experience. If you’re aware of some new research that’s cast doubt on the work of James and others, cool - I’ll check it out. But Beckett’s weird 06 and 07 show that MLB vets are nowhere near as consistent as people think.
Yes, the chances of all the M’s spects panning out is low, but you’ve got to admit: the teams you fear are the ones built around some homegrown talent mixed with FA studs. The Angels right now are an example, as are the 2007 and beyond Red Sox, or the Yanks in a year or two, or the D-backs. This is, I would argue, the *ideal* method of roster construction. So if we’re to forego the possibility of doing that, I want to know 1) I’m one/two players away from a WS title and 2) player A/B is the RIGHT player.
I don’t simply want to trade a guy because this free agent is better than someone else on the roster. I don’t want to trade my top ’spect for an improvement in the rotation. The number of players who fit those criteria are waaaaay too many.
Just because ‘aces’ are rarely available in trade doesn’t mean it’s always right to trade for one; scarcity isn’t a trump card here (not one they’re available other ways, or through development). Neither is the ‘ace’ designation. It can’t always and everywhere be right to trade for an ace, consequences/price be d*!#ned. I don’t think you’re actually arguing that, which is why I’d love to hear some specifics about what’s too much for Bedard.
January 9th, 2008 at 7:38 pm Quote
It really is a contextual thing with me. This particular franchise in this particular position simply has to pay more than is comfortable, IMO. I think we see this a lot with the whiffs on free agents over the years and the inability to keep the glamour guys even when they want to.
It takes a lot more force to start moving the weight than it does to keep it moving. The M’s have a lot of natural factors working against them - geography, weather, losing culture to name a few.
My own opinion is that once you get to the point of moving all three of your top prospects (assuming you include Jones and Morrow both), you’re probably past the tipping point for me.
But I would understand that the chances of actually signing a Bedard after the ‘09 season, or a Sabathia are really slim. You end up hoping that a couple of Morrow, Tillman, Butler, Aumont, etc. really turn into something. That can be a long wait. The M’s with their revenue streams are not in a position where they have to wait.
I would also agree that it’s not “always” right to trade for an ace because of opporunity alone. Obviously, I wouldn’t do this deal after the ‘04 season, all other things being equal. There were too many holes to fill. Bedard may not take them to the promised land *this year*. But he gives you a much better chance of it - and there is always the chance that some new in-org talent explodes into elite status. It happens in most organizations.
January 9th, 2008 at 9:45 pm Quote
The Hanley Ramirez example is not a good counterpoint. Ramirez may have been super-hyped and then made good on that hype, but that’s not the whole story. At the time of the trade, Ramirez had just hit .271/.335/.385 in AA. He also had serious questions about his makeup and character. He was a megaprospect based on tools only and was actually getting dangerously close to ‘bust’ territory. A sabermetric team like Boston probably considered him to have much more trade value than actual value and decided they needed to cash him in before his stock crashed. That’s not the case with Adam Jones. At the same age, Jones crushed AAA and should have been in the majors. His focus and drive are also beyond question. The difference in positions is not an issue because they are very similiar defensively, since Hanley is a terrible shortstop who should be playing center.
Jones is a much better prospect now than Ramirez was at the time he was traded and it’s not really close. Furthermore, the BoSox had no intention of using him in the majors the following season. They probably thought he was at least two years away, and that’s if he ever became starter material. So they weren’t taking anything away from the major league club by trading him. Jones, on the other hand, is going to be our full time right fielder and should be at least average overall. If Hanley had pummeled Triple-A pitching in 2005, they would have been much less likely to trade him, especially when they had a gaping hole at short.
As for Triunfel, he was holding his own in High-A ball at the age of 17. When he was 18, Ramirez was in short-season leagues. At that point, I again doubt Boston would have given him up, and Carlos is TWO YEARS ahead of where Ramirez was. Yes, Triunfel isn’t a Hall of Famer yet, but he is at least as good a prospect as Ramirez ever was, probably better.
While I would trade Jones for Bedard, I won’t trade Triunfel for just about anyone and there is absolutely no way I’d give up both of them. Not for Erik. I bet the Red Sox would think the same way if they had them.
January 9th, 2008 at 10:20 pm Quote
As a counterpoint, you may be right. The example was more to show that despite how good the pieces were that the Sox gave up, they still were happy to get Beckett for it. Lowell’s productivity was a bonus. At the time of the trade, Sanchez was the bigger prospect anyway - at least numbers-wise. The argument is not meant to be an apples to apples comparison, but more of an illustration that despite the high price that Boston paid, it was win-win for both sides. Especially if Sanchez comes back from injury as the solid pitcher he appears to be.
January 9th, 2008 at 10:26 pm Quote
New guy here, actually a Sox fan that clicked into this discussion. I’ve got to admit, this is a fantastic discussion, and although I don’t know all the M’s prospects, I’m following along. Really intelligent stuff here.
One quick correction on the above quote though: the Sox lost to the Yankees in the ALCS in 2003, then went out and acquired Schilling. They obviously won in 2004. Then, after letting Pedro and Lowe walk after 2004, had a tough starting pitching year in 2005 (Wells did not pan out) and they went and traded for Beckett. Beckett had a tough time in 2006, adjusting to the AL, but then obviously dominated in 2007 and won them another title.
January 9th, 2008 at 11:10 pm Quote
LOL, I remember arguing with one of the more vocal members of the old PI board a few years back (I can’t remember the guy’s name but he was an obnoxious old fella) and telling him that Hanley Ramirez looked to be a real deal along with Jon Papelbon. He wanted to argue with me because he said Boston had a poor farm system and I felt Ramirez was real due to some analysis I was running at the time.
LOL on them. I remember finding that deal to be a curious one since I felt Lowell was an okay expensive pickup but Ramirez for Beckett was a mistake. Seems to have worked out for both sides.
January 9th, 2008 at 11:18 pm Quote
Yeah, thanks J - you’re right. They got Beckett later, after that 2005, not 2004.
The Sox had a really tough pitching year both in 2005 as well as 2006. 2006, Beckett’s down year, was so bad, it turned the team into a pythag 81-81 team. Their actual record was better than that, largely due to Papelbon’s sub 1.00 era. But the point is, they’ve made trade after trade, FA acquisition after FA acquistion. Some don’t work, some do - some don’t work right away.
Just getting an ace isn’t some sort of guarantee, just as sticking with your #1 spect isn’t a guarantee.
CPB: “Jones is a much better prospect now than Ramirez was at the time he was traded and it’s not really close.”
I was going to say something similar in regards to the initial comment, but after looking at it, I’m not sure it’s true.
IMMEDIATELY before the trade, the shine was off of Ramirez a bit. He was Baseball America’s #30 prospect heading into 2006. That compares to Adam Jones’ being #28 going into 2007 (Jones is no longer a prospect according to most systems). But Ramirez was #10 going into 2005. What do we do with that? I mean, Jones may be #10 or so right now, if you bend the rules to make him eligible. And yes, Ramirez was a top 10 guy *before* he had a down year. But Jones had ‘down’ YEARS, which is why he was written off by so many around here. Both undoubtedly had their backers, and both definitely had their detractors (me, in the case of Ramirez). All in all, I think the comparison’s actually fairly close. (and yes, Ramirez wasn’t in the US at age 17, and he was at a lower level at 18, but at least he put up a .950+ OPS while there - he’d shown glimpses of power at 18, which is probably why the tools scouts all drooled over him). I probably say Jones is better at the time of the trade, but then, Bedard might be better at the time of the trade as well - Beckett never being able to make it to 30 starts due to the blister issues probably tilts that back towards Bedard, but again, it’s an open question.
Finally, though Anibal Sanchez had better numbers, almost no one viewed him as a better prospect - many thought his stuff would never be #1 quality. He was 10 spots or more below Ramirez at the time of the trade.
January 9th, 2008 at 11:25 pm Quote
A few of the above posts seem to minimize the impact of a great pitcher on the rest of the team, let alone rotation. Again, it is an esoteric part of the game. But the effect is real. Back when the Beckett deal was tossed around, I found myself on an island wanting him, and read many comments about the NL, the injuries, the whatever. What happened though, I think, was that the on-line community could not quantify his importance, and stuff (though that should have been a scouting observation), and deemed him trash that was over-paid for. He is now at the place where Felix hopes to get to. A stuff pitcher that thinks a bit.
Setting up the rotation for a series with 2 guys that can beat your #1 is a good deal. The Sox made the trade and like Doc says, the worst case scenario with the prospect came of it. So what, Josh Beckett just destroyed the competition in the playoffs. No such thing as a clutch player? I give you Josh Beckett.
January 10th, 2008 at 12:04 am Quote
By the way J, howzit goin’ :- ) Good to see yer …
Tough to be a Sox fan in Seattle but they are my #2 team. :- ) Wish I lived in Boston.
……………….
January 10th, 2008 at 12:16 am Quote
CPB, Marc, interesting posts amigos. :daps:
Point well taken about perhaps Hanley Ramirez being perceived as not quite up to where Jones is perceived right now. Debatable but plausible. :- )
…………………..
There’s quite a gap between where Beckett was then, and where Bedard is now, however. Am sure that if you guys put your 9-inch saber cannons onto that one, you’ll have no problem.
Josh Beckett at the time was a past #1 draft pick, a mild disappointment, injuries, just coming into FA, and would *probably* have been somewhere in the top 25 ML pitchers.
Bedard probably had the best season of any AL pitcher last year. You couldn’t ask for more than Erik Bedard.
January 10th, 2008 at 12:17 am Quote
CPB, Marc, interesting posts amigos. :daps:
Point well taken about perhaps Hanley Ramirez being perceived as not quite up to where Jones is perceived right now. Debatable but plausible. :- )
…………………..
There’s quite a gap between where Beckett was then, and where Bedard is now, however. Am sure that if you guys put your 9-inch saber cannons onto that one, you’ll have no problem.
Josh Beckett at the time was a past #1 draft pick, a mild disappointment, injuries, just coming into FA, and would *probably* have been somewhere in the top 25 ML pitchers. When the Sox got him, it was a somewhat speculative move.
…………………….
Bedard probably had the best season of any AL pitcher last year. You are getting the best in the business, young, lefty, 11 K a game and all the trimmings. You couldn’t ask for more than Erik Bedard.
January 10th, 2008 at 3:42 am Quote
Bedard’s injury question are / were also more serious than Beckett’s was at the time, Beckett’s struggles were mostly against blisters. where as Bedard had shoulder (gulp) woes this season.
His injury history is pretty scary, he missed most of 02 and 03, almost the entire 04 season. and only really started to get back on track in 05. his risk is very very high.
The bigger problem with the comparason is also a. the financial difference of the two team. the M’s clearly isn’t in Boston’s caliber of spending, thus they can’t plug extra holes as effectively through FA.
The overall strength / weakness . the Red Sox in the first half of the decade was one of the most dominant offensive teams in the league, they were about as dominant as the Yankees have been in the last 3 season. (aka before they got A-rod ) they could afford to lose some on the offensive side . the Mariners mean-while are clearly not dominant in either side of the ball. and their roster figure to open up several huge craters (if they havn’t shown up already, aka Richie Sexson ) in the next few season. combine that with the M’s more limited ability to score in the FA market and you’ll likely end up with some variations of the 03 Dodgers. a team that was completely lights out, but can’t score a run to save their life.
I have to agree with some other people here that the M’s certainly isn’t on the brink of pushing for those couple extra wins. combined with the immensly high risk of Bedard and the overall weakness of the lineup doesn’t really suggest they should go for such a trade, espically if it involves more than Jones, (rumors we heard was Jones + Clement + more . OUCH)
Dr. I think your debate is good but your really still taking stance and then finding the debate to back it. you could similarly find less than ideal cases that go the other way (such as a very similar trade pulled by the Yankees just 2 years prior to the Beckett trade, Johnson / Rivera / Choate for Vazquez , the Yanks probably wished they had that one back, espically considering the subsequent trade sucked even more. )
Every trade has it’s potential ups and downs, and just because the trade profile might be similar (aka trading a young established star pitch for very promising kids) doesn’t mean that they’re exactly the same. they could just as well end in the two extremes.
My real beef with pulling this trade is that the M’s are essentially leaking all around, and in such cases quality over quantity isn’t the answer.
You must make a real accessment of where you stand and ack on a plan from there, in this sense it would seems that the A’s win big time in their trade against the White Sox not neccesarily because the prospects are going to be awsome or something, but becaues they more correctly assesed their situation than the Pale Hose (seriously, anyone here be seriously shocked if the White Sox fall closer to last than first next season?)
As for the Red Sox getting 2 rings. a lot of luck also came through their way. comming back all the way in the 04 ALCS, and comming back down 3-2 against the Indians.. would you still think this way if those two events turned the other way?
January 10th, 2008 at 3:53 am Quote
Thx for the post rollingwave.
Justin, a crack DOV denizen who lives in Balmer, gave us his rundown on Bedard’s injuries too. He feels like Bedard just doesn’t want to pitch through much stiffness at all for the Orioles, considering the situation they’re in.
In the second half last year, Bedard pitched better than he ever has in his life. Have you heard *anybody* worry about Bedard’s health going forward? The Reds? The Red Sox? Anybody?
.
.
Fair enough.
Do bear in mind that (on an absurdly smaller scale) it’s more like Galileo doing his research, coming to believe that the earth revolves around the sun … and then getting into a debate where people say “you’ve picked a position and now you’re seeking data to back it up.” ;- )
I’ve argued this stuff for 15-20 years, and the reason I came to believe it in the first place is because investigation took me there.
……………………
For SURE a deal like this can backfire. As Bill James wrote 20 years ago, “most of the worst trades in MLB history were a young Lou Brock for an old Ernie Broglio” — a talented young player for a role-player who wasn’t going to contribute anything much.
Am well aware of the downside scenarios.
But if you’re not willing to pay the price for Erik Bedard, you should be in a different business. If not THAT dude, then when are you going to find the marquee player that you feel safe in paying for?
January 10th, 2008 at 3:58 am Quote
How do you feel about the 1995 Mariners?
Actually winning the World Series hardly matters. What matters is a thrilling, full-throated attempt to win the World Series.
The 1995 Mariners gave us an unsurpassable ride. They showed true human heroism. Whether the knight gets the dragon or the other way around, I want the drama.
The Red Sox provide their fans with actual pennant fights. I want one too.
January 10th, 2008 at 12:32 pm Quote
FACT: A major-league ‘adequate’ outfielder is ALWAYS available on the free agent market, generally for next-to-nothing pricewise.
FACT: TOR starters are scarce as hens’ teeth and this leads not only to their prices being outrageous - but also the prices for BOR plug-ins - who are often NOT major-league adequate.
One only has to look at the 2006 off-season to understand the reality. The Ms went out and snag OF replacements (and 1B backups), for pennies on the dollar without breaking a sweat. But, when they couldn’t land the either of the two juicy FA TOR starters (Zito and Schmidt), what did they *HAVE* to settle for? Three scrap heap choices - where they went, (predictably, IMO), one for three.
This reality has not changed. The truth is - yes, pitchers (as a group) ARE much more volatile than hitters. Age, experience, injury history does almost nothing to negate this reality. ANY pitcher choice - be it by trade or promotion - is fraught with danger. But risk did NOT prevent Weaver from getting 8 million from Anaheim/St. Louis, and then doing so again with the Ms. THAT is what the market says about the value of BOR starter with even a tiny hope of maybe being a MOR starter, if things break just right.
Meanwhile, you pick up Kenny Lofton for 3-6 million. Or Mike Cameron for 7. Outfielders are ALWAYS cheap and plentiful.
The sad part in all this is that so many people are treating shortstops “as if” they are outfielders or pitchers. They aren’t. Though offensively gifted shortstops are getting a bit more common, the defensive demands of the position haven’t changed. BJ Upton was considered an uber-spec specifically because he was projecting as an 850+ offensive SHORTSTOP. That’s gold. But, an 850+ OF, while plenty valuable, is simply not AS valuable - nor as rare. Now, if Upton maintain’s a 900+ OPS, he could eventually turn into Manny with speed. But, value *IS* inherently linked to position, and the rareness of similar (or better) talent at THAT position.
The Bedard vs. Jones (or Hanley vs. Beckett) discussions MUST address the ‘other’ player not directly involved — the replacement for the traded player.
If Bedard doesn’t join the Ms, then it’s HoRam and worse all over again. Why? Because that’s what is available. While one can hope that Morrow develops, (and he might), but the SP scrapheap is a compost heap. The Ms are no better off than Braves, who had to go and hire Redman in 2007, when injuries smacked them around. You think Mark Redman will come in and be the savior for 2008?
On the other hand, what could the Ms pick up in terms of OFs? Well, Mike Cameron was given the heave-ho by San Diego. Anyone here think Cameron could be a defensive plus in Seattle?
Of course, positional scarcity isn’t the end-all, be-all anymore than $/VORP. It’s only A factor. But it is a factor - and one largely lacking from the discussion. The truth is, not only is the evidence clearly available in the FA choices out there. But the very fact that Seattle has MULTIPLE OF specs to covet is evidence to support this contention. The fact that Tampa is tossing away OF specs like bottle caps supports this.
Now, if Jones were still a SS spec, he would be more valuable. But he’s not. And Hanley Ramirez was and is a SS.
Why was Beckett so valuable to the BoSox after the 2005 season? Well, because they didn’t have a starter with an ERA under 4.45, excpt for Wakefield. They had an enormouslly potent offense, and dreadful pitching. And that offense had managed quite well with a shortstop posting a .720 OPS. THEY didn’t need Hanley nearly as much as they needed pitching.
That’s the same place that Seattle happens to be at the moment. The offense is good, pretty young, and mostly filled with either reliable veteran production, or adequate youthful production, which still has additional upside. What they lacked in 2007, (and still lack), is starting pitching.
The most basic rule of sim-league baseball is the EASIEST way to improve your team is to replace your WORST production as much as possible. Now, Guillen was solid production, (116 OPS+). But, the easiest position in baseball to find a 110+ FA is the outfield. You go fishing for a shortstop, you often wind up with Alex Gonzales, hoping to squeak out an 80+ OPS+.
I think the key variable that is missed is what exactly the “replacement” level happens to be at a given position. Well, the replacement level at SP is Horam and Weaver and Baek and Feierabend. The club has already tried that route.
I don’t believe it will be any more difficult to get an Ibanez or Guillen off the OF scrap heap than it was to get them previously. Me, I’m thinking Bedard/Cameron is going to be a TON better than Jones/Odalis Perez — which is what the choice really is.
January 10th, 2008 at 12:39 pm Quote
agreed Sandy. I love Cammy still too…he’s good enough defensively to save us as many runs as Guillen earned with the bat. Easily.
January 10th, 2008 at 3:47 pm Quote
“Me, I’m thinking Bedard/Cameron is going to be a TON better than Jones/Odalis Perez — which is what the choice really is.”
That’s what the choice is for 2008, most likely. Or rather it’s Bedard/Cammy or Wlad vs. Jones/Morrow or something. All things equal, you’d probably rather go into battle with the former pair than the latter.
But you of course understand that a young players under team control are *incredibly* valuable. In your mind, is this team one Erik Bedard away from a WS run? THAT’S the key question. Many say that they are, pointing to their OPS+/ERA+ last year. Others say that they’re not, given the number of teams that are, on paper, a bit better (and they may say that the OPS+ from last year is unsustainable). Doc or billy1 may say that it doesn’t really matter, and that getting an ace is its own reward.
Why this matters is that a team with even league-average performance from young/club controlled players really is in an enviable position. Bedard’s already said he’s going to test free agency after ‘09. If you’re the M’s, would you rather have Jones+Bedard+ and make yourselves the Red Sox west in 2010, or would you go all-in for 2008? As we’ve all said, there’s no wrong answer here, but some might reasonably prefer the 2010 chase. As you noted, pitchers are much more variable, and if Bedard can’t put the M’s over the top, they’re in much worse shape after 2009 - and with the M’s DER woes, Bedard underperforming due to ‘luck’ is not exactly a remote possibility.
Sure, a team can always get a league ave corner OF in free agency. But top prospects have incredible value in allowing you to concentrate your resources elsewhere. If the M’s acquire Bedard in 2009, NO ONE will complain.
January 10th, 2008 at 3:51 pm Quote
I think there’s one VERY wrong answer…and that’s to always be planning for 2 years from now.
That’s a completely wrong answer…always.
2010 is 2 years away and Felix Hernandez will be on his last full season as a Mariner by then.
Play for now. ALWAYS play for now. Bedard will test FA in 2010…so what? We’ll resign him or we’ll get someone else. Fontaine is a mastermind…we keep getting lots of good young arms in the draft. By then, Phillippe Aumont should be ready to go.
January 10th, 2008 at 5:00 pm Quote
Marc, my only problem with the 2010 scenario is the opportunity issue. If you don’t know whether you’re good enough now, fine.
But not tackling the opporunity to get that #1 when it’s there could ultimately be a bigger risk than holding your chips in the hopes that there’s another Bedard you can get or one in your system coming up (who, like Bedard, could take a few years to be that level pitcher even after getting to the bigs). Wow, that sentence is too long…sorry about that. What might happen when your young prospect position players are all storming the beach, yet you have to go to battle with Silva as your #2 instead of your #5 and not having that #1 guy available. The track record of signing those type of guys here is not enviable. The guys in the system are all years away from making an impact (including the ones we’re not aware of yet).
January 10th, 2008 at 5:53 pm Quote
“ALWAYS play for now.”
Really? Everyone should always play for now? Is this poetic license, hyperbole borne of a deep respect for Bedard’s talent or what?
“What might happen when your young prospect position players are all storming the beach, yet you have to go to battle with Silva as your #2 instead of your #5 and not having that #1 guy available.”
Yeah, that’s possible if you’re horribly outmaneuvered by every GM; that’s a real worry with the incumbent. But I really think people are missing the value of having league-average or above players who are paid peanuts. If you’ve got that, you can do anything - that’s the situation that allows you maximum flexibility, and by that I mean that you can build a WS winner in any number of ways (hope the youngsters improve, surround them with a few FA stars; trade the youngsters for stars; build around the youngsters by patching holes as needed, etc.). If you’re wrong about where you as a franchise are and you trade off your best young talent for a shot NOW, you better be right.
It occurs that at least part of this discussion centers on how valuable people think AJ is. If he’s a 1 in 5 chance at an all-star, then that’s one thing. If he gets better odds, it had better change the calculus in hypothetical trades.
January 10th, 2008 at 6:07 pm Quote
marc w…yes really. Well always play for now if there’s any chance of winning now. No one here should be thinking the Mariners have ZERO chance to win now. They have a SOLID chance to win now with the right pieces.
January 10th, 2008 at 7:58 pm Quote
.
Another interesting thing: Joe Sheehan of BP (hardly a close amigo of Cameron) has picked up on the USSM proposal that Bedard-for-Jones straight up, would be a win for the Orioles.
I’m actually smiling as I type that, but now the Orioles’ monster message boards (often 200+ on at a time, compared to 30-40 for SportSpot and DOV) are wavering as to whether that might not be true.
And in another thread, they are a little wild-eyed about Churchill’s little media campaign to prevent the Mariners from acquiring Bedard. :- )
First blog that unwittingly scares the O’s into a Jones scenario, gets flowers from me. :- )
January 10th, 2008 at 9:10 pm Quote
LOL!!
YES! Let’s drum up negative spin on this Jones for Bedard deal…make everyone think we’re getting ripped off! That’d be sweet!
January 10th, 2008 at 9:19 pm Quote
ssssshhhhhhhhhhhhhhh don’t tip off the OH amigos
:- )
January 10th, 2008 at 9:25 pm Quote
LOL! Sorry…my bad.