It’s the time of year where we get Ridiculous Trade Rumors (RTR). You know the kind … one fanboy throws up a post about what his team should do, suggests trading mediocre player A and marginal reliever B for some team’s superstar. There’s a couple flavors of these:
A) The Overrating My Stuff Trade: Wherein Fanboy completely overrates his own team’s players and underrates the players of other teams.
B) Ignores the Economics Trade: This year, we could call that the “So what if my team has no payroll room? We’re getting Roy Halladay!” trade.
C) They’ve Done It Before Trade: Two past trading partners are linked tenuously from past dealings, leading to a rumor that they “like dealing with each other.”
D) Sabermetric Genius Trade: Someone throws an obscure stat up, presto chango, and they come up with a trade. There’s also the “small sample size” version of this, where random endpoints get involved.
Look, I could go all day with these, but you know what I mean. We’re seeing them everywhere. My favorite so far came from Lone Star Ball, where a commenter (”Josey Wales”) suggested that the Rays should add in a high quality arm in order to even up a deal of Nelson Cruz for Carl Crawford. I’m sure you’ve seen some RTR’s around the web, so add ‘em in and link ‘em up.
"Are you kidding? The Brewers aren't silly enough to think Gomez's defense could possibly make up for his awful, impotent --"
Not to step on the joke, but what if it is? Like (remembering he's only 24 and was terribly mishandled since his 20th b-day) say he just makes minor strides at the plate up to ~.270/.320/.370, isn't is possible his defense can more than make up for it. Saving doubles rather than hitting doubles, more or less?
(Combining a poor man's Ellsbury at the plate with something approaching Gutierrez (18th overall WARP despite meh offensive numbers) in the field would be pretty valuable. That would approach top 100 or so and make him well worth the cost.)
If you're that desperate for defense, sign a Corey Patterson or Willy Taveras and then trade Hardy for a quality pitcher. Even with last year's slump, it's harder to find someone like JJ Hardy than someone like Gomez.
"Even with last year's slump, it's harder to find someone like JJ Hardy than someone like Gomez."
If that isn't the understatement of the year. I get that Gomez is young and everything, but what are the chances he has more career value than, say, Corey Patterson? 10%? 15%? Certainly, it''s not better than a coin flip.
To me, the worst part is that if the Brewers were intent on going in this direction, why not look to Felix Pie? At least he has shown *some* signs of life with a bat in his hands and he's available on a team that badly needs Hardy. I'd still rather have Hardy than Pie, but is there a person alive that would prefer Gomez to Pie?
I think he ought to be available for something like JJ Hardy, but I think the Orioles actually want to keep Pie, and might have asked for more than Hardy.
I'm not sure its necessarily being that desperate for defense, just recognizing that defense is the most undervalued skill on the market. As a replacement level hitter, Gomez is still about 15 runs above replacement for his defense alone. If he gets any better, he's an average major league player. And he'll cost about a million bucks a season, and is controlled for four season. This as opposed to Hardy, who's solid and all, but also going to cost at least $10 million over the next two seasons, and can be a free agent afterwards. The surplus value on both players is reasonably similar, especially since Gomez has more service time left, and if Gomez does become anything resembling respectable offensively, even if there's only a 10-15% chance that's possible, that 10-15% chance is pretty much freeroll. Its pure upside, upside that Hardy didn't have.
I'll make this a general comment and not just about Hardy. Halle Berry is gorgeous, but she's been divorced how many times? Someone once said "For every beautiful woman you see, there's a man that's sick of her bleep." Sometimes, having a player, teams see all the warts. They know if he works well with the coaches, plays nice on the flights, wears deodorant, and every little baseball thing he does, good and bad. It's why "change of scenery" deals work sometimes. A different voice or even just a new voice can help.
This is a case where having inside knowledge -- and most of us don't -- makes a big difference. Before the Dodgers got Padilla, they said that they'd talked to several former teammates and got the impression that he wasn't as bad as his reputation. One GM can call up another and ask if the stories about Joe FreeAgent are accurate. It still may not work out, but you're not forced to judge someone based on their press clippings. (And Padilla worked out pretty well for the Dodgers.)
May I also add that the statement "Defense is the most undervalued skill on the market" is false. If anything these days, defense is overrated because it's the chic thing to throw out there to justify signing a poor offensive player. If defense is undervalued, players like Adam Everett would not have nine-year career. Every would-be baseball analyst tries to make his mark by digging into the defense subject, on the premise that it's not discussed/quantifiable enough. Therefore the gazillions of wannabee professional analysts and bloggers talk about defense WAY too much. An above-average defense contributes to championship teams and you can't win with a bad one, but there's very little statistical proof that an excellent (top 5?) defense leads to playoff success in baseball. Pitching and hitting is ever so much more important. And I have rambled.
I understand what you're saying, but I still disagree. I do think you pay less in dollars for 10 defensive runs than 10 offensive runs. I'm not saying defense wins championships, just that the amount of money paid for quantity of defense is lower than it is for offense. I'm not talking about playoff success, or team-wide defense, just individual player evaluation. And part of this may simply be the arbitration process.
Hypothetically (strictly), lets just say Gomez starts hitting .280 / .320 / .400 for the next two years (or whatever it would take to combine with his defense to make him roughly as valuable as Hardy). Is he going to get paychecks upwards of $5 millon in arbitration? No, he's going to get $2.5-3 mil per year, and he's going to be better than 3 wins above replacement level. Maybe at this point there are enough smart GMs that its just the arbiters who undervalue defense financially, but it is still a way to find excess value.
Also the axiom "pitching wins championships" assigns elements to pitching that properly belong assigned to defense.
Again, I want to emphasize that I don't think defense is underrepresented on the media or blogosphere, or claim that I'm saying something cutting edge or groundbreaking. Simply that the rate of dollars per run is much lower when speaking about a defensive run than an offensive run. That's my thesis. And that's why a guy like Jason Bay is going to make more money than a guy like Mike Cameron ever made (relative to the market anyway), even though for most of his career, Cameron was a much better player than Jason Bay is right now.
I agree with some of your points, but not all. There have been many recent examples of teams with average defenses (by whatever metric you chose to use) and stellar pitching winning championships. Take any Yankees championship team from the 90's. I'm not just making that up either, I've actually looked it up. But this conversation is irrelevant to this thread. I would say if Gomez hit 280/320/400, he'd be worth a lot more than Hardy.
Will,
I think I understand what you're saying, but in relation to this particular deal, I'm not clear on the relevance. Are you saying that the Brewers were just so sick of Hardy that they undervalued him? That the Twins were more willing to buy into his talent as opposed to his recent struggles?
I don't necessarily disagree with either of those points, if they're the ones your making, but I still think Gomez is getting a bad wrap in terms of his value from many would-be pundits. He has a concrete and repeatable skill that makes him, as is, a greater value than the money his organization pays him, and there is some chance he can get better.
Yeah but what can be said about Gomez can be said about a lot of speedy no-hit center fielders, though his defense is better than some of those. On the other hand, kinda hard to find a good fielding shortstop that hits for power and takes some walks.
Right, but here are three things that can be said about Gomez but can't be said about "speedy no-hit centerfielders" from the open free agent market.
A. Gomez isn't just good defensively, he's elite
B. Gomez does have some upside offensively, even if its a slim margin to become just average, it still upside guys on the open market don't have
C. Gomez is under team control, but not guaranteed any particular salary, or even a salary at all, for the next four seasons.
Gomez's contract will either be set by an arbiter, or the team can choose not to pay him at all and let him hit the open market. That's not an option for a fourth outfielder type free agent. And if you look at his offensive numbers, while they may not reveal the same type of upside, they're really not all that different from what a guy like, say, Mike Cameron did at the same age. This isn't to say Gomez will become like Mike Cameron, but it is to say there is some probability that is not infinitesimally small that Gomez can become a respectable offensive player, while a free agent who could provide similar production to Gomez almost certainly will not become such.
Gomez and Cameraon were vastly different players at that age. Cameron hit the same amount of home runs (14) in just in his age 24 season and had the same amount of walks (55) than Gomez did in his age 21-23 seasons and in 600 fewer at-bats. Gomez has never had an OBP greater than .300 or a SLG greater than .360.
If you want a comparable, look at a Brian Hunter type. If Willy Taveras was a better offensive player, you have a _long_ way to go before you become respectable and it's much harder if you've demonstrated no power and no ability to take a walk. Sure, there is a small chance Gomez becomes respectable, but do you gamble a major league shortstop on that?
As far as the defensively elite goes, see my comments about acquiring, or in the case of the Brewers, retaining Corey Patterson (who also is a better hitter than Gomez) or grabbing a Felix Pie, both of which were _freely_ available talent last year without costing a major league shortstop.
Corey Patterson, based on UZR, is no longer the fielder he once was. During his last three seasons, he's played 262 games in CF and put up a 1.4 UZR. He was elite, but it seems that status is more than in question now. He's below replacement level at this point. Pie's career UZR/150 is 8.3 in his three seasons. Good? Yes. Elite? No. Gomez's 14.2 mark IS elite. In total value, I do think Pie is reasonably similar to Gomez, so I suppose its a relevant point, but if the Brewers are willing to pay $1 mil for that type of player, there may be others who are as well.
I wasn't making the Gomez vs. Cameron comp for the sake of saying its likely Gomez will be that good, Cameron had certainly displayed considerably more upside by this age. But, his overall production wasn't that different. I don't know the EqA formula, so I used wOBA. Through age 25, Cameron had a career .305 wOBA. Gomez has only played through age 24, and also came up at a considerably younger age, and has a career .286 wOBA. Cameron had shown better walk rates and more power, yes, but he'd also struck out at least 25% of the time in each of those seasons. Gomez has never struck out more than 25% of the time in a season. Again, I don't think Gomez has Mike Cameron's upside, but he certainly could get better than he is right now, and in fact, its a little unreasonable to expect him not to. The Bill James projections have him posting a .302 wOBA this year, which would be a career high, and combined with +15 defense, would make him soundly 1-2 wins above replacement level.
And as for Cameron's age 24 season, you should also mention that following his age 25 season, the age 24 season looked like the abberation, as Cameron went right back to sub-replacement offensive production, before arriving and staying the following season.
I think the way you state "without costing a major league shortstop" is really the misnomer here. Yes, Hardy is a major league shortstop, and in 2007-2008 incredibly valuable. But in 2009, he was only worth slightly more than the salary he earned. Obviously, I don't think he's as bad as he was in 2009, but probably not as good as he was in 2007-2008 either. He's a valuable player, but his surplus value on the $5+ million he's going to earn isn't as much as a lot of people are making it out to be, I'd guess $10 million at most (~$15 million value - ~$5 million salary = $10 million). Gomez was worth about $10 million in 2008 in a full season, and $3 million in 2009 in about 350 PAs and 850 defensive innings, earning about a half million in each season. Even if you figure his actual value is somewhere in between those marks, if he earns $1 million, he's a pretty safe bet to be worth at least $4-5 million more than that over a full season. Which is similar to the surplus Hardy will give you unless he bounces all the way back to his 2007-2008 level of production, in which case he'll probably have a surplus value in the $20-30 million range over the next two years. Unless he does that, there's a good chance the surplus value on Gomez over the next four years will be greater than that of Hardy over the next two years.
Ok it seems we're doing some cherry picking here. I'll pick back briefly. (Thanks to FanGraphs)
Per FanGraphs, Gomez had a UZR of 16.5 in 2008 and 7.3 in 2009 per fan graphs, so despite the "elite" career 14.2 mark you mention for Gomez, one could say that Gomez is also no longer the fielder he once was.
Gomez hasn't struck out more than 25% of the time, He's struck out 21.86 percent of the time in his career with a peak of 23.1 percent. So basically, we're talking a difference of 10-20 strikeouts a year between him and Cameron.
.302 wOBA would be a projected career high for Gomez since there's little room to go anywhere but up (or to the minors). Cameron's career wOBA is .347 and he has only had one season full season (the aforementioned age 26 season of 1997) where it was at .281. Even with James's projection, Gomez's best isn't within distance of Cameron's second worst season (.329). Or to rephrase, Cameron's one sub-replacement offensive season (during which, you neglect his defense) is still a better season offensively, and perhaps overall, than Gomez has put up to date. I also don't see why two seasons of Gomez don't show a trend to you while one bad season out of Cameron out of 13 major league seasons gives you a straw to grasp for.
I don't know how to argue with your idea that Gomez provided $10 million in value in 2008. I don't know even where to start because that would make Cameron at least a $10 million dollar player in value and I (along with 30 other GMs) have never offered him a contract to reflect that. Thus, I can't see how he'd be worth in the $20-$30 million range over the next two years either.
I also don't understand how a player who earns $1 million is a safe bet to be worth $4-$5 million more.
Besides, comparing a "4-5 million more" surplus between Hardy and Gomez, who play different positions, doesn't reflect concepts of positional scarcity or the value of the player itself. Sure, Gomez might be worth 4-5 million more than replacement, but you could say that of a lot of players sitting on major league benches.
Neither of which addresses the point I was trying to make that there are quite a few minor leaguers who can do what Gomez does (catch the ball and run the bases) and there aren't as many shortstops that can do what Hardy does (play good defense and hit for power) and did (hit for average and draw some walks). A lot of things have to break right for Gomez to justify the trade and Gomez is not a unique enough player where giving up Hardy was worth the gamble. Why not trade Hardy to a team for another no-hit centerfielder and get an arm thrown in, preferably both of which aren't arbitration eligible yet?
Either way, I'm done with the cherry picking. You like Gomez, and for his bank account, I hope I'm wrong. I just like to think the Brewers could've gotten someone like Gomez without giving up Hardy, and at the same time, give up Hardy for something else they need like a pitcher who keeps balls from flying over the centerfielder's head (UZR be damned).
First point aside, when you have a guy who you already think is reasonably similar to Hardy (and considerably cheaper), which in this case the Brewers do in Alcides Escobar, is this point even relevant? It doesn't matter nearly as much how hard a Hardy is to find if you already (at least believe) you have another one.
You bet it's relevant. If you have two players that play the same position, and both have value, you don't throw one in the dumpster. The Braves had Brian McCann and still traded Saltalamacchia in a package for something of value (Teixera. The Brewers had Matt LaPorta though he was blocked at LF/RF/3B/1B and flipped him in a package for Sabathia. Or, if you want to look at it from a major-league ready angle, Delwyn Young was moved for Matt Garza, Josh Hamilton was moved for Edwin Volsquez,etc.
So yeah, just because you have the happy problem of two people on your roster who have the same position and both have value, you use that value in a trade to get the most value back that you can.
Delmon Young, not Delwyn Young. They hit about the same these days anyway. Delmon Young, though he had slumped, had value and was in a position where he was getting squeezed out similar to Hardy.
The Brewers did look around - they tried to obtain one of the Pirates good arms for Hardy, but they were turned down. We only know of that one instance, but it's likely they talked up other teams looking for young arms and determined that nobody was willing to give up a pitcher of sufficient value.
Is it that hard to believe that enough GMs are afraid that Hardy's decline is real and lasting, and afraid of being liable for 10M over 2 years if he continues to struggle, that they don't want to take the risk of dealing a young, controllable arm for Hardy in a down economy with tighter payrolls?
How about Milton Bradley to the Jays, Overbay to the Mets, and Luis Castillo to the Cubs...because the Jays want two overpaid, under-performing outfielders. And who isn't clammoring to get their hands on Luis Castillo and the $12 mil owed to him?
That's why I cringed.. it was believable enough that the Cubs would actually want Luis Castillo... I guess they're still traumatized from 2003 when the Marlins beat them. So, since they already have Derrek Lee and Ryan Dempster along with an indulgence of Juan Pierre, might as well grab Castillo...
I guess I can't argue with that, I've seen it unattributed on a couple of blogs as well. I guess if all three teams get a mediocre player it's not a horrible deal all around...you know if you don't consider money at all.
This wouldn't be that bad for the team that gets somebody else to eat big $$. These guys are overpaid at their current salary, but if you only get stuck with 60-70% of that, it becomes at least reasonable (well, for Castillo at least).
bell is very good, but you bring up a good point - what can san diego realistically expect to get in return for him? if i recall he's arb-eligible for one more year, then likely to hit the open market and cash in. so he's probably a one year rental for your trading partner, and going to cost a bundle to keep after that (though presumably he walks and you get a draft pick).
now i'm not saying edwar ramirez gets a deal done by any stretch. but what's realistic? given that SD needs guys pre-arb players for financial reasons, it seems that a pair of middling prospects wouldn't be out of the question...
Yeah, that's probably about right. It's highly likely that the Padres will want to involve a post-hype guy in the deal — even if he's not the centerpiece — just so it goes over with the fans a little better.
Wouldn't it seem as though the Phillies would be an obvious team to approach about Bell? They're certainly playing for 2010 in a sense, so the short-term nature of the contract situation might not be such an issue.
Teams over pay for the one-inning "proven" closer all the time. Bell, in 2009, was - according to peripherals - a better pitcher than the "record-setting" K-Rod in 2008. And K-Rod got some kind of obscene contract in 2009. I'm not sure which contending teams need a closer - the Angels and maybe Tigers come to mind immediately - but I'm not sure those teams have any kind of prospects that the Padres would be interested in. I think Jed Hoyer's a smart guy and won't take "two middling" prospects for a guy that has a lot of perceived value.
George Sherrill brought back a B+/A- upper level 3B prospect and a B- RHP. Bell has one less year of arb eligibility, but all those pretty saves... I'd expect similar value.
per your initial trade "rumor", we're not really talking about overpaying once bell becomes a FA. it's what hoyer can get now via trade. those issues are entirely different.
The Phillies are the "obvious" team to have an interest in Bell, but that is precisely why these trade speculations persist: "A" team needs a player like "X" and therefore said team is a likely destination for said player. The real issue is who is willing to give up what to get it and there are a lot of complicating factors that most rumour-mongers do not -- cannot -- take into account.
My favorite example of the type A rumor was from 2005, when a Chicago writer (if memory serves, it was a writer and not a fan) wrote that the A's were giving up on the season and going to unload Eric Chavez to them for spare parts. This was back when the A's were still in contention and Chavez hadn't completely bottomed out yet. The irony is that if that trade had actually happened, it would have worked out far better for the A's than anyone would have predicted at the time.
Nice. Reminds me of a similar Eric Chavez-related rumor from a few years before that (2002 or 2003?). Chavez and Mark Mulder to the Pirates for Brian Giles...
Well, to be fair to the rumor, the Red Sox would get Votto only if they also took on Aaron Harang and his 12.5 million dollar salary. Not as far-fetched, but still a bad move if I'm the Reds. Then again, this is how Beckett came to Boston (with Mike Lowell and his salary), but the Red Sox had to give up an awful lot in that deal.
They gave up an awful lot in hindsight ala Hanley Ramirez, but at the time, the deal was looked like as a steal for the Red Sox and a salary dump by the Marlins because Hanley was somewhat of a stalled prospect.
Harang has a floor of a LAIM while showing he can be more than that with past performance. Which, ironically, is worth about $12.5 MM. Let's not act like this is Gary Matthews Jr or Alfonso Soriano. The Reds should expect back a decent player for him, NOT partner him with a top flight 1B.
Agreed, plus apparently Jocketey's reaction to any rumors involving trading Joey Votto was "Oh, God no", which is the sensible response that should make Reds fans feel better and Red Sox fans (like me) go back to the drawing board in solving the "Where is the offense going to come from" problem.
"My favorite so far came from Lone Star Ball, where a commenter (”Josey Wales”) suggested that the Rays should add in a high quality arm in order to even up a deal of Nelson Cruz for Carl Crawford."
CC's got 1 year left at $10M. Cruz has four more years, mostly at cheap rates. CC's better, sure, but the extra years and cost savings make Cruz the much better commodity. The Rays definitely would need to add something to the deal to make it fair.
I don't quite follow that logic. Extra years and cost savings don't make a player a better commodity unless there's an established level of talent there. Cruz has only played one full season in the majors so I am uncertain how established he is. In addition, he's a year older than Crawford so is more likely to reach his peak sooner. I think Crawford's the more valuable commodity than Cruz.
Also, Crawford is seen as a valuable player, and that perception decreases the chance the Rays would have to add something into the deal.
I agree, but also that leaves the Rays with Cruz, Burrell, Upton, Zobrist, Gross, Aybar, and lets not forget Desmond Jennings. Trading Crawford for Cruz doesn't address any need that the Rays have other than saving cost. That's not even to mention Matt Joyce, who still has decent potential as a prospective corner outfielder.
Let's see what that idiot at Lone Star Ball thinks of the "high quality arm" being Neftali Feliz, because that's the only way this deal comes anywhere near reality.
1) anything that comes out of Josey Wales' mouth at Lonestarball is utter crap. And you can take that to the bank. that being said, its a huge shout out to Lonestarball that you, the great Will Carroll, even notices it.
2) At this point, as a Ranger fan, I'm not sure I'd take a straight up trade of Neftali Feliz for Evan Longoria. He's that good. Pedro circa 1993 and onwards good.
On the other hand, I could see Cruz plus a mid-level arm, (say Kiker or Beavan) for Crawford. You get a cheaper guy with more power plus an arm for a guy who's very expensive. The only problem is that the Rangers can't add payroll right now. not until a new owner is announced.
If the Rangers threw in an arm, it would be a possibility... but the Rays do have a ton of arms and also are gearing towards contention... so does it make sense for them to trade down? Perhaps if this was a midseason trade it'd make more sense (CC for Cruz + an arm, or better, a power-hitting prospect).
I know why you say this Sky and I respect that (and you), but this is a deal that isn't even going to get consideration from two very smart GMs. No one's going to use the valuations you're using here and for good reason. They're wrong.
They're not wrong, Will. And you surely don't respect them if you think they are. I'd love to see how you value these three players (CC, Cruz, and The Extra Arm.)
The reason this deal won't go down is because the traditional view of player value says this deal is crazy. So if Tampa tosses in an arm, Friedman comes off appearing stupid, plus he passes pass up the chance to deal Crawford to a team that doesn't demand the extra arm. With how much everyone seems to value one year of CC at $10M, they should be able to return quite a haul.
Yes, CC may cost more, but he is established as an excellent baseball player. Cruz has had one pretty good year, and you don't know where he could go from here. He plays in a bandbox, so his numbers could crash going to many other ballparks. Just look at his home/ road splits: his OPS is 153 points higher at home vs on the road.
Giving up an top rated established player and a good arm for a player that is just a one year park affected wonder is not a good deal.
What do you consider the traditional view of player value?
I'd think the traditional view would overvalue Crawford with that pretty career average and stolen bases more and undervalue Cruz (low average, low career rbi) more than a more statistical analysis. Thus I'd think they'd be even less likely to do the deal.
What would be a similar trade in history that involved a leadoff hitter going from one team to another for a marginal power hitter? Which team added extra players?
On short notice, the first thing I found was the Braves trading Marquis Grissom (coming off a career year) and David Justice to the Indians for Alan Embree and Kenny Lofton. This is obviously not the same, but it is a leadoff hitter for a power hitter. Lofton went on to file for free agency after one season with the braves, while Justice played 3.5 seasons with the Indians.
The difference here is that Lofton was a premier lead off hitter, and Justice was a proven slugger at that point. Grissom was okay, and Embree up to the point was a disappointing reliever.
"Yes, CC may cost more, but he is established as an excellent baseball player. Cruz has had one pretty good year, and you don't know where he could go from here."
Cruz isn't some prospect we're hoping develops into something valuable. He's dominated the minors all the way up through AAA for years and has a career MLB line of .321/.473. Nobody's claiming he's as good as CC. But to project him to drop off a cliff because he's "unestablished" is silly.
Also, you don't REALLY know where CC's going to go from here, either. Just look at 2008...
Exactly. The Rangers are in a worse financial position than even the Rays are right now. Why would they trade 4 years of an inexpensive Cruz for 1 year of Crawford? The Rangers are still rebuilding, and with the uncertainty of ownership this year, don't look for the Rangers to make any win-now moves until 2011 at the earliest.
I hear that Baltimore is ready to give up on Wieters. They've heard a lot of good things about that Twins catcher, Mike Redmond. I haven't looked at the salaries yet, but that seems like a good trade for both sides.
Baltimore seems to be a train wreck, but that's a stretch, even for this set of posts.
Does get you thinking though, Redmond for Wieters, move Mauer to 1st to save his legs, and trade Morneau (since he's Canadian) to Toronot straight up for Roy Halladay.
Atlanta columnist Lewis Grizzard, on the Braves of the mid-late 80's:
"What does Michael Jackson have in common with the Atlanta Braves? They both wear one glove for no particular reason."
As a SD fan, all the talk of Adrian trades make me cringe. If not for Petco, people would be looking at him similar to Pujols. Their road OPS were comparable, but Petco absolutely crushed his home performance.
This is not a proposed trade but just saying "Gee, there is a great ballplayer on a small revenue team, I would like that morsel. They can't keep him, so why not here?"
Home Field "Advantage"
Pujols: -211/ 119/ 016
Adrian: -168/-158/-186
So this year Adrian had a similar (but higher) road OPS than Adrian but Petco killed Adrian. If he got the park neutral OPS boost that teams see (in aggregate, home is 30 OPS points higher than road), his OPS would have been about 50 points below Pujols.
Both are Gold Glove defenders. Pujols runs much, much better than Adrian but that is not a big factor in assessing sluggers.
So, Pujols remains a cut above, in my view, but not head and shoulders the way people place him.
Gonzalez Career
vs RHP: .298/.383/.543
vs LHP: .244/.316/.428
Pujols Career
vs RHP: .330/.419/.622
vs LHP: .346/.452/.646
Pujols is the better contact hitter by a wide margin. Pujols doesnt have a platoon split. Pujols has a 11.1% K rate. Gonzalez K's 19.7% of the time. Gonzalez is a very good fielder, but Id give Pujols the edge there as well. Even though theyre both big sluggers, the difference in baserunning ability is pretty big.
Pujols is a far superior player to Gonzalez any way you cut it. Gonzalez is a lot closer to Ryan Howard.
I'll defer to my Joe Mauer argument... Gonzalez's career year on the road just sniffs at Pujols's career average. Even giving an OPS bump to offset Petco, Gonzalez still isn't close to Pujols. If Gonzalez does it for a few more years, though, then your argument is stronger.. but he hasn't done it yet.
If I'm a Padre fan I'd be angry about the team looking to deal such an incredible bargain such as Adrian. The NL West always seems to be up for grabs, and if the Giants could hold on past Labor Day this year why not SD doing the same in 2010? Do they really lose that much dealing him in July instead of now?
Point taken, they don't have a Lincecum but the arms they got for Peavey plus Correia in a pitcher's park, add in that the Padres have better young talent than the Giants had at this time last year and it's not THAT far fetched, and from a fan's POV all you want is a team that can reasonably compete, which is what SD is with Adrian. Without him you can't give season tix away
Posey, Gillaspie, Villalona, Kieschnick, Crawford, Alderson, Bumgarner, Nick Noonan and Thomas Neal. But Alderson got traded for the remains of Freddy Sanchez, Gillaspie hit for decent OBP but no power, and Villalona is currently trying to beat a murder rap. The Giants also gave up Scott Barnes, who put up decent numbers at San Jose for Ryan Garko who promptly forgot how to hit. Still, Neal, Crawford, and Kieschnick all did a bit better than expected so I guess it all evens out.
(this one was mentioned back in september...... Personally I think its highway robery of Chicago, as I see Millwood going back to his 5+ ERA next year.
Variations include other superstars for a combination of those players and perhaps the best 1B in the game today, Daniel Murphy. Then if Mets fans are really feeling generous, they'll toss in Mike Pelfrey, especially in various Roy Halladay scenarios.
As a die hard Mets fan I came here to say that 90% of all Mets fans on the internet are out of their minds when it comes to proposing trades, and going to any Mets blog will dig up a gold mine.
It seems pretty universal to me, who doesn't dream of their team pulling off a ripoff trade? Some people just don't mind dreaming aloud and in public in this particular way, the rest of us are probably just more afraid of looking foolish.
No problem at all with dreaming about such a trade; the problem is that so many fans lose sight of the line between dreaming versus trying to rationalize a ridiculous trade into reality.
The "spare parts" deals are the best. I love when Phillies fans suggest that some team would take Jamie Moyer back in a trade -- you can just see the thought process of, "Let's bunch together all of our bench guys and C level prospects, and the sum of the parts will net us Roy Halladay."
It worked for Cliff Lee...
Knapp - high upside, high risk, but no higher than a B prospect given the injury concerns and how far away he is
Carrasco - awful -7.08 FIP in 5 starts
Donald - awful - No position, no power (for a corner), no walks, too many SO
Marson - awful- Bad defense, no power, too many ground balls, no bat in general
There is a good chance, not one of these players is a significant major league contributor.
I'm destined to become an alcoholic as the legacy of that pitiful trade for the Twins grows over the years, unless of course the Mets continue to squander his very goodness and don't win with him.
At the time of his trade, Lee had one season of over 3.5 WARP3. Halladay had seven. Lee's inconsistent history probably depressed (rightfully so?) his trade value.
I suggested Michael Bowden for J. J. Hardy in a Christina Kahrl chat a few weeks ago. Looking at their respective MORPs Christina was right in replying that the Brewers should ask for more. Actually, Bowden and Gomez together might equal Hardy's value.
Maybe Boston can scrap together some spare parts to pry Hardy from the Twins. :)
If, however, I worked in the Seattle front office, I couldn't hang up fast enough.
Interestingly, the cumulative MORP of the Boston crew is only slightly less than that of Hernandez. Of course, those MORP values were calculated before the 2009 season, so they don't take into account King Felix's great year or disappointing seasons from Lowrie and Bowden. Still a laugher of a trade.
There was a spectacular one that was rather hazy on a Chicago Tribune-affiliated blog site: Konerko to the Angels, prospects from the Angels and White Sox to the Padres, and Adrian Gonzalez to the White Sox.
If the Angels wanted to trade for someone why wouldn't they just trade for Gonzalez themselves? Unless of course they're not as willing to ship out prospects as KW is, but still, it just seemed ridiculous. Konerko's got some worth, but he's not Adrian Gonzalez, he's more expensive and less good.
I'm gonna go out on a limb and guess that that Dallas beat writer is Evan Grant, the same genius who convinced himself a couple years ago that the Dodgers were going to cough up both Matt Kemp and Clayton Kershaw (and more) for a year and a half of Teixiera.
Other readers have rated this comment below the viewing threshold. Click here to view anyway.
I saw a silly trade suggested somewhere - Joe Bigwiggle for Sammy Perlenstein - and I'm going to come here to tell you guys about it so we can all feel superior.
Ladies and gentlemen, another asshat move Mr. Will Carroll.
155 comments have been left for this post.
JJ Hardy for Carlos Gomez.
Are you kidding? The Brewers aren't silly enough to think Gomez's defense could possibly make up for his awful, impotent --
-- Oh, I'm being told this trade happened already.
Cheerfully withdrawn.
"Are you kidding? The Brewers aren't silly enough to think Gomez's defense could possibly make up for his awful, impotent --"
Not to step on the joke, but what if it is? Like (remembering he's only 24 and was terribly mishandled since his 20th b-day) say he just makes minor strides at the plate up to ~.270/.320/.370, isn't is possible his defense can more than make up for it. Saving doubles rather than hitting doubles, more or less?
(Combining a poor man's Ellsbury at the plate with something approaching Gutierrez (18th overall WARP despite meh offensive numbers) in the field would be pretty valuable. That would approach top 100 or so and make him well worth the cost.)
If you're that desperate for defense, sign a Corey Patterson or Willy Taveras and then trade Hardy for a quality pitcher. Even with last year's slump, it's harder to find someone like JJ Hardy than someone like Gomez.
Worst part is, they'd already HAD Corey Patterson.
I do enjoy getting to see the look on Brewers fans face for this one though.
It's the small things, sometimes.
I guess the corollary of this is that Rickie Weeks won't be moved to center field either.
"Even with last year's slump, it's harder to find someone like JJ Hardy than someone like Gomez."
If that isn't the understatement of the year. I get that Gomez is young and everything, but what are the chances he has more career value than, say, Corey Patterson? 10%? 15%? Certainly, it''s not better than a coin flip.
To me, the worst part is that if the Brewers were intent on going in this direction, why not look to Felix Pie? At least he has shown *some* signs of life with a bat in his hands and he's available on a team that badly needs Hardy. I'd still rather have Hardy than Pie, but is there a person alive that would prefer Gomez to Pie?
I would. The only times I like Pie are after thanksgiving dinner.
I think he ought to be available for something like JJ Hardy, but I think the Orioles actually want to keep Pie, and might have asked for more than Hardy.
I'm not sure its necessarily being that desperate for defense, just recognizing that defense is the most undervalued skill on the market. As a replacement level hitter, Gomez is still about 15 runs above replacement for his defense alone. If he gets any better, he's an average major league player. And he'll cost about a million bucks a season, and is controlled for four season. This as opposed to Hardy, who's solid and all, but also going to cost at least $10 million over the next two seasons, and can be a free agent afterwards. The surplus value on both players is reasonably similar, especially since Gomez has more service time left, and if Gomez does become anything resembling respectable offensively, even if there's only a 10-15% chance that's possible, that 10-15% chance is pretty much freeroll. Its pure upside, upside that Hardy didn't have.
I'll make this a general comment and not just about Hardy. Halle Berry is gorgeous, but she's been divorced how many times? Someone once said "For every beautiful woman you see, there's a man that's sick of her bleep." Sometimes, having a player, teams see all the warts. They know if he works well with the coaches, plays nice on the flights, wears deodorant, and every little baseball thing he does, good and bad. It's why "change of scenery" deals work sometimes. A different voice or even just a new voice can help.
This is a case where having inside knowledge -- and most of us don't -- makes a big difference. Before the Dodgers got Padilla, they said that they'd talked to several former teammates and got the impression that he wasn't as bad as his reputation. One GM can call up another and ask if the stories about Joe FreeAgent are accurate. It still may not work out, but you're not forced to judge someone based on their press clippings. (And Padilla worked out pretty well for the Dodgers.)
May I also add that the statement "Defense is the most undervalued skill on the market" is false. If anything these days, defense is overrated because it's the chic thing to throw out there to justify signing a poor offensive player. If defense is undervalued, players like Adam Everett would not have nine-year career. Every would-be baseball analyst tries to make his mark by digging into the defense subject, on the premise that it's not discussed/quantifiable enough. Therefore the gazillions of wannabee professional analysts and bloggers talk about defense WAY too much. An above-average defense contributes to championship teams and you can't win with a bad one, but there's very little statistical proof that an excellent (top 5?) defense leads to playoff success in baseball. Pitching and hitting is ever so much more important. And I have rambled.
I understand what you're saying, but I still disagree. I do think you pay less in dollars for 10 defensive runs than 10 offensive runs. I'm not saying defense wins championships, just that the amount of money paid for quantity of defense is lower than it is for offense. I'm not talking about playoff success, or team-wide defense, just individual player evaluation. And part of this may simply be the arbitration process.
Hypothetically (strictly), lets just say Gomez starts hitting .280 / .320 / .400 for the next two years (or whatever it would take to combine with his defense to make him roughly as valuable as Hardy). Is he going to get paychecks upwards of $5 millon in arbitration? No, he's going to get $2.5-3 mil per year, and he's going to be better than 3 wins above replacement level. Maybe at this point there are enough smart GMs that its just the arbiters who undervalue defense financially, but it is still a way to find excess value.
Also the axiom "pitching wins championships" assigns elements to pitching that properly belong assigned to defense.
Again, I want to emphasize that I don't think defense is underrepresented on the media or blogosphere, or claim that I'm saying something cutting edge or groundbreaking. Simply that the rate of dollars per run is much lower when speaking about a defensive run than an offensive run. That's my thesis. And that's why a guy like Jason Bay is going to make more money than a guy like Mike Cameron ever made (relative to the market anyway), even though for most of his career, Cameron was a much better player than Jason Bay is right now.
I agree with some of your points, but not all. There have been many recent examples of teams with average defenses (by whatever metric you chose to use) and stellar pitching winning championships. Take any Yankees championship team from the 90's. I'm not just making that up either, I've actually looked it up. But this conversation is irrelevant to this thread. I would say if Gomez hit 280/320/400, he'd be worth a lot more than Hardy.
Will, anytime Halle's ready, I'm willing to take that chance.
Will,
I think I understand what you're saying, but in relation to this particular deal, I'm not clear on the relevance. Are you saying that the Brewers were just so sick of Hardy that they undervalued him? That the Twins were more willing to buy into his talent as opposed to his recent struggles?
I don't necessarily disagree with either of those points, if they're the ones your making, but I still think Gomez is getting a bad wrap in terms of his value from many would-be pundits. He has a concrete and repeatable skill that makes him, as is, a greater value than the money his organization pays him, and there is some chance he can get better.
Yeah but what can be said about Gomez can be said about a lot of speedy no-hit center fielders, though his defense is better than some of those. On the other hand, kinda hard to find a good fielding shortstop that hits for power and takes some walks.
Right, but here are three things that can be said about Gomez but can't be said about "speedy no-hit centerfielders" from the open free agent market.
A. Gomez isn't just good defensively, he's elite
B. Gomez does have some upside offensively, even if its a slim margin to become just average, it still upside guys on the open market don't have
C. Gomez is under team control, but not guaranteed any particular salary, or even a salary at all, for the next four seasons.
Gomez's contract will either be set by an arbiter, or the team can choose not to pay him at all and let him hit the open market. That's not an option for a fourth outfielder type free agent. And if you look at his offensive numbers, while they may not reveal the same type of upside, they're really not all that different from what a guy like, say, Mike Cameron did at the same age. This isn't to say Gomez will become like Mike Cameron, but it is to say there is some probability that is not infinitesimally small that Gomez can become a respectable offensive player, while a free agent who could provide similar production to Gomez almost certainly will not become such.
Gomez and Cameraon were vastly different players at that age. Cameron hit the same amount of home runs (14) in just in his age 24 season and had the same amount of walks (55) than Gomez did in his age 21-23 seasons and in 600 fewer at-bats. Gomez has never had an OBP greater than .300 or a SLG greater than .360.
If you want a comparable, look at a Brian Hunter type. If Willy Taveras was a better offensive player, you have a _long_ way to go before you become respectable and it's much harder if you've demonstrated no power and no ability to take a walk. Sure, there is a small chance Gomez becomes respectable, but do you gamble a major league shortstop on that?
As far as the defensively elite goes, see my comments about acquiring, or in the case of the Brewers, retaining Corey Patterson (who also is a better hitter than Gomez) or grabbing a Felix Pie, both of which were _freely_ available talent last year without costing a major league shortstop.
Corey Patterson, based on UZR, is no longer the fielder he once was. During his last three seasons, he's played 262 games in CF and put up a 1.4 UZR. He was elite, but it seems that status is more than in question now. He's below replacement level at this point. Pie's career UZR/150 is 8.3 in his three seasons. Good? Yes. Elite? No. Gomez's 14.2 mark IS elite. In total value, I do think Pie is reasonably similar to Gomez, so I suppose its a relevant point, but if the Brewers are willing to pay $1 mil for that type of player, there may be others who are as well.
I wasn't making the Gomez vs. Cameron comp for the sake of saying its likely Gomez will be that good, Cameron had certainly displayed considerably more upside by this age. But, his overall production wasn't that different. I don't know the EqA formula, so I used wOBA. Through age 25, Cameron had a career .305 wOBA. Gomez has only played through age 24, and also came up at a considerably younger age, and has a career .286 wOBA. Cameron had shown better walk rates and more power, yes, but he'd also struck out at least 25% of the time in each of those seasons. Gomez has never struck out more than 25% of the time in a season. Again, I don't think Gomez has Mike Cameron's upside, but he certainly could get better than he is right now, and in fact, its a little unreasonable to expect him not to. The Bill James projections have him posting a .302 wOBA this year, which would be a career high, and combined with +15 defense, would make him soundly 1-2 wins above replacement level.
And as for Cameron's age 24 season, you should also mention that following his age 25 season, the age 24 season looked like the abberation, as Cameron went right back to sub-replacement offensive production, before arriving and staying the following season.
I think the way you state "without costing a major league shortstop" is really the misnomer here. Yes, Hardy is a major league shortstop, and in 2007-2008 incredibly valuable. But in 2009, he was only worth slightly more than the salary he earned. Obviously, I don't think he's as bad as he was in 2009, but probably not as good as he was in 2007-2008 either. He's a valuable player, but his surplus value on the $5+ million he's going to earn isn't as much as a lot of people are making it out to be, I'd guess $10 million at most (~$15 million value - ~$5 million salary = $10 million). Gomez was worth about $10 million in 2008 in a full season, and $3 million in 2009 in about 350 PAs and 850 defensive innings, earning about a half million in each season. Even if you figure his actual value is somewhere in between those marks, if he earns $1 million, he's a pretty safe bet to be worth at least $4-5 million more than that over a full season. Which is similar to the surplus Hardy will give you unless he bounces all the way back to his 2007-2008 level of production, in which case he'll probably have a surplus value in the $20-30 million range over the next two years. Unless he does that, there's a good chance the surplus value on Gomez over the next four years will be greater than that of Hardy over the next two years.
Ok it seems we're doing some cherry picking here. I'll pick back briefly. (Thanks to FanGraphs)
Per FanGraphs, Gomez had a UZR of 16.5 in 2008 and 7.3 in 2009 per fan graphs, so despite the "elite" career 14.2 mark you mention for Gomez, one could say that Gomez is also no longer the fielder he once was.
Gomez hasn't struck out more than 25% of the time, He's struck out 21.86 percent of the time in his career with a peak of 23.1 percent. So basically, we're talking a difference of 10-20 strikeouts a year between him and Cameron.
.302 wOBA would be a projected career high for Gomez since there's little room to go anywhere but up (or to the minors). Cameron's career wOBA is .347 and he has only had one season full season (the aforementioned age 26 season of 1997) where it was at .281. Even with James's projection, Gomez's best isn't within distance of Cameron's second worst season (.329). Or to rephrase, Cameron's one sub-replacement offensive season (during which, you neglect his defense) is still a better season offensively, and perhaps overall, than Gomez has put up to date. I also don't see why two seasons of Gomez don't show a trend to you while one bad season out of Cameron out of 13 major league seasons gives you a straw to grasp for.
I don't know how to argue with your idea that Gomez provided $10 million in value in 2008. I don't know even where to start because that would make Cameron at least a $10 million dollar player in value and I (along with 30 other GMs) have never offered him a contract to reflect that. Thus, I can't see how he'd be worth in the $20-$30 million range over the next two years either.
I also don't understand how a player who earns $1 million is a safe bet to be worth $4-$5 million more.
Besides, comparing a "4-5 million more" surplus between Hardy and Gomez, who play different positions, doesn't reflect concepts of positional scarcity or the value of the player itself. Sure, Gomez might be worth 4-5 million more than replacement, but you could say that of a lot of players sitting on major league benches.
Neither of which addresses the point I was trying to make that there are quite a few minor leaguers who can do what Gomez does (catch the ball and run the bases) and there aren't as many shortstops that can do what Hardy does (play good defense and hit for power) and did (hit for average and draw some walks). A lot of things have to break right for Gomez to justify the trade and Gomez is not a unique enough player where giving up Hardy was worth the gamble. Why not trade Hardy to a team for another no-hit centerfielder and get an arm thrown in, preferably both of which aren't arbitration eligible yet?
Either way, I'm done with the cherry picking. You like Gomez, and for his bank account, I hope I'm wrong. I just like to think the Brewers could've gotten someone like Gomez without giving up Hardy, and at the same time, give up Hardy for something else they need like a pitcher who keeps balls from flying over the centerfielder's head (UZR be damned).
First point aside, when you have a guy who you already think is reasonably similar to Hardy (and considerably cheaper), which in this case the Brewers do in Alcides Escobar, is this point even relevant? It doesn't matter nearly as much how hard a Hardy is to find if you already (at least believe) you have another one.
You bet it's relevant. If you have two players that play the same position, and both have value, you don't throw one in the dumpster. The Braves had Brian McCann and still traded Saltalamacchia in a package for something of value (Teixera. The Brewers had Matt LaPorta though he was blocked at LF/RF/3B/1B and flipped him in a package for Sabathia. Or, if you want to look at it from a major-league ready angle, Delwyn Young was moved for Matt Garza, Josh Hamilton was moved for Edwin Volsquez,etc.
So yeah, just because you have the happy problem of two people on your roster who have the same position and both have value, you use that value in a trade to get the most value back that you can.
Delmon Young, not Delwyn Young. They hit about the same these days anyway. Delmon Young, though he had slumped, had value and was in a position where he was getting squeezed out similar to Hardy.
Edinson Volquez
The Brewers did look around - they tried to obtain one of the Pirates good arms for Hardy, but they were turned down. We only know of that one instance, but it's likely they talked up other teams looking for young arms and determined that nobody was willing to give up a pitcher of sufficient value.
Is it that hard to believe that enough GMs are afraid that Hardy's decline is real and lasting, and afraid of being liable for 10M over 2 years if he continues to struggle, that they don't want to take the risk of dealing a young, controllable arm for Hardy in a down economy with tighter payrolls?
So the twinkies may finally see some return on their Santana trade!
It only took them 2 years to turn Santana into a decent replacement for Jason Bartlett.
Yeah. I've had the misfortune of watching Gomez strike out and hack for two years. I'm VERY HAPPY it's the Brewers problem....I mean opportunity now.