WWOD - Cincinnati Reds Edition
by bbdbrandon on Oct 17, 2008 10:30 AM EDT
51 comments
Over at The Outsiders Look I continue a series in which I put myself in the shoes of a Major League General Manager. A recent edition sees me taking over for Cincinnati Reds GM Walt Jocketty.
I suggest three major moves to improve the clubs hitting, starting with the addition of outfielder Willy Taveras, short stop JJ Hardy, and catcher Jeff Mathis.
In order to acquire Hardy and Mathis, the Reds would move Arroyo, and his seemingly affordable contract to the Brewers in exchange for Hardy. Mathis, a backup catcher with pop, would be traded for the still youthful Danny Dorn.
Another move, would be to try Homer Bailey out in relief, see if his stuff can translate into being an end of the game reliever rather then what he has been in the rotation thus far. While this may seem as though I am giving up on Bailey, quite the opposite is true. I feel as though Bailey could be an excellent set up man for years to come.
Check out my entire article and let's begin a discussion of what you would do. Not what the Reds should do or will do, what you would do-try to be realistic.
0 recs |
51 comments
Email
Print
Comments
interesting, but misguided
1. Arroyo for Hardy? i wish. Hardy is arguably worth more than Fielder right now. and he’s easily worth more than a league-average starter.
2. Mathis straight-up for Dorn? i wish. Dorn is one of my favorite Reds’ prospects, but i dont see the Angels giving up an above-average young catcher for him.
3. Willy Taveras? God no. the last thing this team needs is another Corey Patterson.
4. I think Thompson is far better suited for the ’pen than Homer. Thompson has some injury history, which might be alleviated by a move to the ’pen. and Homer has more talent in his left arm than Thompson has in is right. tucking that talent in the ’pen is downright Joba-like.
5. EdE is not “allergic” to walks. he walked 61 times in 502 ABs this past season. not great, but not bad, like Phillips.
6. no way the Reds regret the Volquez/Hamilton deal. yes, there is depth in the rotation, but its not overwhelming. certainly not so much that they should look to deal it. and Volquez is an ace. i make that trade 100 times over and again.
7. Dickerson is a CF. defensively, perhaps top 5 in the majors. his defense at an up-the-middle position is what makes him valuable. i wish people would stop projecting him to LF. thats nuts.
most of your trades rely on Walt taking advantage of desperate teams. i just dont see any scenario where any of these teams are desperate enough to pull the trigger. intriguing read though. thanks for linking it here!
by Charlie Scrabbles on Oct 17, 2008 1:33 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
6) And Josh Hamilton hasn't even had surgery yet
"Aio, quantitas magna frumentorum est."
by jch24 on Oct 17, 2008 1:57 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
You'd Be Surprised
RE: Hardy
It sounds as if this will be the offseason he is dealt. While it sounds as if he is coming on the cheap, I think a team like the Brewers would make a trade like this. Arroyo is a proven innings eater that is going to come at an affordable cost. How much, and how long do you think an equal free agent would cost the Brewers?
That said, the Brewers have a replacement they would love to hand the job to and would presumably rather make this move before their hand is FORCED.
RE: Mathis
He’s essentially their backup. Dorn could be the heir to Vlad and/or Anderson. The club is relatively shallow with outfield prospects and I couldn’t really see Mathis fetching much more on the market, can you?
RE: Bailey
I worry that Bailey is one of those ‘minor league success pitchers’. I’d prefer to see his confidence, at the very least, built up in the pen rather then getting hit hard in the rotation, wouldn’t you?
RE: Encarnacion
That was a stretch, I know.
RE: The Trade
It’s definitely a tough one. I’d like to see another year out of Volquez. While an ace is important, a cornerstone outfielder is probably moreso. Volquez did fall off to a great degree in the second half, while Hamilton looks legit.
RE: Dickerson
That’s fine, swap his defensive position with Taveras. A gain, yes, but how much?
by bbdbrandon on Oct 17, 2008 2:46 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
re: Hardy
You know they can ask the more than 20 teams or so that he would be an upgrade and ask them whether they would be interested. And how would their hand be forced? I’d love to see them keep Hardy and Escobar is still young and raw. We’re not exactly overflowing with great 2nd and 3rd base players and prospects either. I’d put the chance at the Brewers taking Arroyo for Hardy as zero.
by ol Pete on Oct 17, 2008 6:33 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
There's an Issue
While Hardy would certainly be an upgrade for at least 20 teams, are there 20 teams in the market for a short stop?
According to THT’s Win Shares, Hardy ranks tied for 5th among Major League short stops. So we can drop the figure down to 25, as I’m sure Washington could make room for Hardy to replace Guzman.
We then have, Jeter, Peralta, Young, Tejada, Escobar, Furcal (assuming he resigns), Tulowitzki, Bartlett, Drew, Ramirez (ChiSox), and Aviles whom are locks for their specific teams. For these teams, it simply wouldn’t make sense to bring Hardy in and sit the players the teams currently have.
We are now down to 14 possible suitors. Of that 14, we have teams that are ‘fine’ with what they have at short stop, and presumably wouldn’t take on Hardy for anything less then very low level prospects. I’m thinking the Cubs with Theriot and the Angels with Aybar/Izturis. Down to 12.
Then, there is an argument that teams would prefer to give in-house options a chance first. I’m thinking the Jed Lowrie’s, and Khalil Greene’s of baseball. Down to 10.
Now of the remaining 10, you have to think of a team that would not only have the resources to trade for Hardy, but have the resources to sign him as his contract becomes more and more expensive.
Much of this is based on assumptions and speculation, but aside from the Reds with Arroyo and low level prospect, there aren’t a lot of clubs that have the pieces to make this trade. Maybe the Twins? The Giants? The Orioles?
Don’t get me wrong, I really like Hardy, but I can’t see his trade value being as high as some are suggesting.
by bbdbrandon on Oct 21, 2008 12:38 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I believe James rated him 3rd offensively and defensively
That’s a rather extraordinary string of assumptions. I sure don’t agree with all of them, but if I were to accept all of them, the Brewers aren’t forced in any way to get rid of Hardy. Even if the Reds were to trade for him I have a hard time imagining Jocketty playing hardball and saying all he will give up is Arroyo and then Melvin, on a team short on infielders, saying “gosh okay.” This would happen after he called numerous teams including ones like the Red Sox who said they would rather go with Jed Lowrie.
by ol Pete on Oct 21, 2008 1:14 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I really...
Don’t see why you are so low on Arroyo. It would cost more money, and a lot more years to get an equal player via free agency. In other words:
Arroyo+Escobar=$11.5M
Garland+Hardy=$16M
Now that’s $4.5M to spend in other areas of the team, namely, the bullpen. Keep in mind, we’re talking a small market club. Unless Escobar absolutely bombs (and he would have to bomb to the extent where the $4.5M reliever doesn’t make up for the deviation) the Brewers GAIN by making this move.
Again, the Brewers don’t NEED to trade Hardy, you are right. But I’d say it is the smart move to make. While you don’t view Arroyo as a valuable commodity, I do.
As for ‘when’ this would happen, if may happen after the Brewers were denied signing Sabathia, Sheets, Burnett, Perez, etc. In fact, if the Brewers don’t make a trade like this, and don’t bring aboard one of the top 5 free agent pitchers, I would bet that Fielder is gone in the blink of an eye for prospects, with Hardy not far behind.
by bbdbrandon on Oct 21, 2008 5:42 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
You’re dreaming if you think Fielder and Hardy are gone in the blink of an eye for prospects no less. Did you think they need to restock their minor league system while they lose for a few years?
by ol Pete on Oct 21, 2008 8:50 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'll admit it
when I first read the little synopsis you put up here, I wasn’t thrilled with your suggestions. J.J. Hardy? Willy F’ing Taveras? But then I read the whole article, and it was a pretty good read. Here’s my take. Scrabbles style.
1. The thing is, you call this a “realistic” look at what you would do. Would the Reds trade Arroyo within the divison? For J.J. Hardy? Not when they’re paying Alex Gonzalez and Jeff Keppinger. I think they’d be smart to upgrade the SS position, but they’ve already said that Gonzo will get a shot at the starting job. I don’t think it’s very realistic to think that Walt will trade a middle of the rotation starter to bring a guy in to compete for the job. I think it’s much more likely they sign a Cesar Izturis type, or move Phillips over and go after a 2B. Phillips has said in the past that he wants to play the position, and would get the job done defensively.
2. Willy Taveras wouldn’t go over too well in these parts, fresh off of a year of Corey Patterson. It’s probably the most likely of your scenarios though, considering how much Dusty loves speed guys with low OBP. And as Scrabbles said, he’d end up playing LF because Dickerson should be playing CF. I won’t blame you for thinking that Dickerson’s a LF, since that’s where Dusty used him most of the time, even though he’s a better defender than Patterson.
3. I like the Jeff Mathis acquisition, but I don’t think the Angels go for it.
4. Most people on this side don’t think the Reds got shafted in the Hobbs/Volquez deal.
5. I wouldn’t put Owings as the 4th starter just yet. He’s coming off of surgery, and has more experience in the bullpen than a guy like Homer. With Homer’s history here, and the fact that he’s a relative head case, I don’t think he’d have much success as a setup man. The stuff is there, the head isn’t. Also, I wouldn’t rule out Ramon Ramirez as the 5th starter just yet. He showed that he could get major league hitters out at the end of last season, getting 3 QS out of the 4 starts he had. I think he gets a serious shot at it, and has a better shot at making the rotation than Owings does, I think.
6. I like where your head is at with Carlos Fisher, but I think you can substitute Josh Roenicke or Danny Ray Herrera in there and it would work pretty nicely. All three of them seem to be at about the same point, and have shown good stuff. It’ll be fun to watch which one of them makes the club out of ST. My money’s on Herrera.
7. With Walt’s history of not moving guys up fast enough, I don’t think it’s realistic that we’ll see Stewart or Alonso next season, but I do agree that they’re on the fast track and should both be here in 2010. They’ll probably both start in AA next year, and Alonso is already on the 40-man so we might see him sooner than Stewart, but he only plays 1B, and Votto will be playing there everyday. Maybe if Votto makes the move to LF, but not until then, will we see Alonso.
Eiher way, I think you did a nice job, especially with how much you know about the organization. Good job.
"My wife ain't never ran and got me no pheasant." - Fistbands
by BK on Oct 17, 2008 2:08 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Thanks...
1. Gonzalez has no right being on a major league roster let alone competing for a starting job. I more or less assumed if I was in control, I would just eat his salary and cut him loose. That said, I don’t worry about moves within the division if it improves my team.
TO further that, by ‘realistic’ I meant, no Ryan Garko for Albert Pujols. Or Andy Marte for Alex Rodriguez. Those are trades that simply WOULD NOT be done, nor would the Indians be able to afford them.
2. Taveras. I think he’s got another .350-.360 season in him. Patterson would be fortunate to sniff .300.
3. A back up catcher for a ‘next in line’. Also, do you feel the Angels could get more? The Dodgers gave up a highly regarded catching prospect for a rental in Casey Blake.
4. I don’t believe the Reds got shafted. In fact, even in retrospect it was a NICE trade. However, the Reds would look better in the future with Hamilton aboard then with Volquez.
5. Pitchers. Bailey would have to EARN his way into the setup role. I think his stuff translates better as a reliever then a starter, but what I am looking at, and you touched on it, is giving him confidence. He won’t gain it in triple A, and he won’t gain it getting beaten up in the 3rd inning of every game he starts.
I have Ramirez as my LR and a guy that I would shoot into the rotation if need be.
Owings doesn’t have THAT much experience out of the pen. While it is more then Bailey’s, it’s not as if he is a veteran of middle relief. It would, however, be interesting to utilize him as a pinch hitter, then allowing him to stay in the game.
6. There are definitely a lot of very nice bullpen options.
7. Alonso may force the Reds hand, similar to how Bruce did. Jocketty has traditionally been very creative with his prospects so it will be interesting to see what he does in his first full season with the Reds.
Thanks for reading. It was a lot of research.
by bbdbrandon on Oct 17, 2008 2:58 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I will not be surprised to see Taveras in a Reds uniform
but I will be angry(er).
Vote Pops in '08. I promise nothing and I'll do it!
by Pops Daniels on Oct 17, 2008 2:46 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I gotta ask
It sounds as if this will be the offseason he is dealt. While it sounds as if he is coming on the cheap, I think a team like the Brewers would make a trade like this. Arroyo is a proven innings eater that is going to come at an affordable cost. How much, and how long do you think an equal free agent would cost the Brewers?
Arroyo is signed for 2/$22.5 (or 3/$31.5). While not outlandish, it’s also not a steal for a league-average innings-eater. Hardy, on the other hand, is much better than any SS available on the market and is cost-controlled for 2 more years. Like others have said, why do you think the Brewers can do no better than Arroyo?
Taveras. I think he’s got another .350-.360 season in him.
First, he’d have to have one season of .350+ to have another; his career high is .320.
More importantly, why do you think that, and why is that a good thing? The season he hit over .300 he had a BABIP of .370 (which is higher than Ichiro!‘s career average). Also, all of his value is in his BA as he never ever walks (116 in 2170 career PA) and has zero power (career ISO of .054, career best of .062). If Taveres isn’t roster fodder, I don’t know who is.
Gonzalez has no right being on a major league roster let alone competing for a starting job.
Again, why do you think that? In ’07 (he was hurt this year), he contributed a respectable 10 WS. Not earth shattering, but certainly good enough to start in MLB, no?
While an ace is important, a cornerstone outfielder is probably moreso.
You familiar with this guy named Jay Bruce? I hear the Reds expect alot of him.
I don’t believe the Reds got shafted. In fact, even in retrospect it was a NICE trade. However, the Reds would look better in the future with Hamilton aboard then with Volquez.
That’s not what you said in your article. You said: “Their pitching depth also presumably has the Reds regretting the Josh Hamilton for Edinson Volquez trade of last off season.” (emphasis mine) What have you seen, anywhere, from anyone connected with the Reds, that makes you think that? (Full disclosure: At the time, I thought it was a poor trade, and still think so. However, I’m prepared to be pleasantly surprised.)
Often wrong, never uncertain.
by sidnancy on Oct 17, 2008 3:56 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I forgot one point
Mathis for Dorn:
Actually, I think the Angels would do this, as Mathis hasn’t shown any ability to hit major league pitching. The question is: Given that, why would the Reds?
Often wrong, never uncertain.
by sidnancy on Oct 17, 2008 3:59 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Mathis
He’s a guy I’d take a gamble on. 15 home runs in about a season’s worth of at bats in the AL’s LA. It’s laymen’s math, but over the course of a season in Cincinnati, I can’t see why he wouldn’t eclipse 22 home runs.
Also, 25 years old. Young enough to develop.
by bbdbrandon on Oct 17, 2008 5:23 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
OK
15 home runs in about a season’s worth of at bats in the AL’s LA. It’s laymen’s math, but over the course of a season in Cincinnati, I can’t see why he wouldn’t eclipse 22 home runs.
Because according to BBRef, Anaheim’s been as extreme of a hitter’s park as GABP the past 2 years? Also, look a the rest of his numbers – his OPS+ is 57, based on major league at-bats over 4 different seasons; further, his minor league hitting dropped precipitously in each of the two seasons before this (OPS .839/.763/.671 in ‘05/’06/‘07). I don’t see anything that suggests he’s done anything but regressed.
Often wrong, never uncertain.
by sidnancy on Oct 17, 2008 5:39 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Come on...
The last two years? Are we really going to use that as our evidence?
Also, by ‘hitters park’ do you mean ‘homer park’? According to ESPN’s Park Factors, GAB has increased home runs by over .040 the last two seasons.
Let’s also not ignore the improvement a player sees when changing from the AL to the NL.
RE: “Precipitous” drop
The drop from 2005 to 2006 is legitimate and raises an obvious question. We all have heard that many times a player will lose motivation when repeating a level they have ‘mastered’, that could be the reason, or we could simply be looking at statistical errors (HR/FB rate). Keep in mind, his XBH number dropped from a whopping 50 to 45 with nearly 25% of his at bats occurring at the big league level.
The 2007 drop can hardly be discussed given the improper sample size we are dealing with.
The issue is, I’m not talking about an all star catcher. I’m talking about a solid defensive backstop with some decent to solid pop. I’m talking a 25 year old(well, 26 as of Opening Day) that has plenty of room to grow. We aren’t talking about Jarrod Saltalamacchia, for that would cost substantially more then what I suggested.
by bbdbrandon on Oct 18, 2008 1:57 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I like the ideo of calling Ichiro "Ichiro!"
We could really get a lot of mileage out of that nicknaming style. As many problems as we’ve had finding Votto a nickname (Votteaux? Vottomatic? Jo-eh?), we could really solve it just by calling him “Joey!”
...because there's already someone posing as Jacob Brumfield
by Cy Schourek on Oct 17, 2008 4:48 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
We could be like Bronson
And call our young studs Joe Votto and Jason Bruce
"My wife ain't never ran and got me no pheasant." - Fistbands
by BK on Oct 17, 2008 5:07 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I disagree, that is ‘cheap’. What will it cost to sign an equal pitcher? AJ Burnett is probably slightly above Arroyo. Maybe Jon Garland is a fair equivalent? You think he’s going to sign for less then 3yrs at $12M a year?
That said, what type of pitcher do you think a team gives up for Hardy and his growing contract? You think the Angels, for example, would give up Santana or Saunders? I doubt it. The Giants, would they give up Cain? I bet Sanchez would even be a stretch. Also, keep in mind Hardy is going to start getting expensive.
Taveras – We were talking OBP there.
Gonzalez – 2007 was arguably his ‘career year’. It happened to land on his age 30 season, which is fairly typical for hitters. He’s now 32. Keep in mind, 36% of those win shares were based on his fielding. Thus, you take a typical Gonzalez hitting season, and we’re talking ‘bottom third’.
Haha, Bruce is going to be great, probably a cornerstone outfielder. I hear Hamilton already is.
Regretting does not equal ‘shafted’. The Astros probably ‘regret’ letting Santana go, but that doesn’t mean they got ‘shafted’. I suppose it is a simple difference of definition there. I can see regret and not feel as though I got the short end of the stick. Volquez has a lot of upside, but I feel a hitter like Hamilton is worth more to a franchise.
That is, would you prefer the prime years of Rodriguez/Pujols or the prime years of Santana/Peavy? If cost is ignored. Certainly team need goes into that equation, and at this point, I think the Reds are a better team with Hamilton then Volquez.
by bbdbrandon on Oct 17, 2008 5:20 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
A few thoughts
I disagree, that is ‘cheap’. What will it cost to sign an equal pitcher? AJ Burnett is probably slightly above Arroyo. Maybe Jon Garland is a fair equivalent? You think he’s going to sign for less then 3yrs at $12M a year?
First, Garland is 3 years younger than Arroyo, which makes him more valuable. Second, if the Brewers sign him for $12M/yr, it’s still a better deal than trading for Arroyo because they won’t have to give anything up for him (he’ll likely be a type B free agent, not costing draft picks).
If Arroyo was in the same position as Hardy (6 years younger, still only arb-eligible), a trade would make sense. But since he’s not, it doesn’t to me.
Taveras – We were talking OBP there.
Which still begs my questions – since he needed an obscene BABIP to do it once, what makes you think he can do it again; and even if he can, he has zero power, which gives him a similar amount of value as a corner OF.
Gonzalez – 2007 was arguably his ‘career year’. It happened to land on his age 30 season, which is fairly typical for hitters. He’s now 32. Keep in mind, 36% of those win shares were based on his fielding. Thus, you take a typical Gonzalez hitting season, and we’re talking ‘bottom third’.
Well, win shares disagrees. In fact, it was his 2nd worst of the 4 years covered (both in batting WS and in total WS); if he has a season like ‘06 (his worst offensive year) combined with ’07 (his worst defensive year) that would still give him 7 WS. That still isn’t “no right being on a major league roster”.
Regretting does not equal ‘shafted’. The Astros probably ‘regret’ letting Santana go, but that doesn’t mean they got ‘shafted’. I suppose it is a simple difference of definition there. I can see regret and not feel as though I got the short end of the stick. Volquez has a lot of upside, but I feel a hitter like Hamilton is worth more to a franchise.
Still doesn’t answer the question. You said the Reds “regretted” trading him – show me where they said, or inferred, that.
That is, would you prefer the prime years of Rodriguez/Pujols or the prime years of Santana/Peavy?
I’m sorry, but that’s a stupid comparison and not at all indicative of either Hamilton or Volquez. ARod and APoo are both sure-fire, first-ballot HOFers being both Gold-Glove fielders and top-50 ever hitters; Santana will approach their level, but Peavy never will.
Often wrong, never uncertain.
by sidnancy on Oct 17, 2008 6:06 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Replies
RE: Garland
He is 3 years younger, and he will most likely cost a team 4-5 years. Think Carlos Silva.
Also, keep in mind that Garland has a substantially inferior track record then Bronson Arroyo. In other words, Garland would be closer to signing Carlos Silva.
RE: Taveras
To each his own. I know all about BABIP and its flaws. .370 is certainly unsustainable, but so is his .040 of this years. I imagine we’re talking a .330.340 leadoff hitter. Not the best, but not the worst. Better then what the Reds had this year.
RE: Gonzalez
3rd worst? 2nd worst by my count. WSP is a much more accurate statistic, especially when we are dealing with a player who missed 20-49 games compared to the other 3 seasons.
At age 32, expecting him to repeat the numbers he put up in the prime of his career is wishful thinking. He is useless and needs to be replaced. Can a losing team deal with him? Sure! But a winning team cannot.
RE: Hamilton Trade
Please do a better job of reading my article. I wrote, “Their pitching depth also presumably has the Reds regretting the Josh Hamilton for Edinson Volquez trade of last off season.”
No where in there did I say, ‘Word out of Cincinnati is that they got hosed on this trade and wish they could turn back time’. Please explain how you came to that conclusion?
RE: Comps
It is a generational thing. Hamilton should be one of the best hitters in the majors for the next 5-7 years. Presumably not HOF, but still, one of the best. Rodriguez and Pujols are the two (well, two of three) of the best hitters in baseball over the last decade(ish) and Santana has been the best pitcher over the last decade(ish).
The point was, you wouldn’t EVER trade the best hitter even for the best pitcher. Thus, as I mentioned, Volquez needs to prove that 2008 was not a fluke. Most would agree that Hamilton is certainly capable of repeating his 2008 success.
All that being said, I imagine the Reds would probably take back that trade today. I don’t have any evidence from the Reds front office, and for as long as Volquez is a Red, I’m sure we won’t hear about it, however the numbers will tell the story-at this point, you have to agree they certainly favor Hamilton.
by bbdbrandon on Oct 18, 2008 1:44 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Wow
RE: Garland
He is 3 years younger, and he will most likely cost a team 4-5 years. Think Carlos Silva…Also, keep in mind that Garland has a substantially inferior track record then Bronson Arroyo. In other words, Garland would be closer to signing Carlos Silva.
Uh, that has nothing to do with anything I said. Further, YOU were the one who said Garland was a “fair equivalent”. Third, while Arroyo may have a superior track record, it’s based solely on his outlier first year in Cinci; other than that one year, his time as a starter is very comparable – except Garland pitches in the AL, and as you posted above “Let’s also not ignore the improvement a player sees when changing from the AL to the NL.”
At age 32, expecting him to repeat the numbers he put up in the prime of his career is wishful thinking. He is useless and needs to be replaced. Can a losing team deal with him? Sure! But a winning team cannot.
Where did I say I expected him to repeat? You keep saying he’s worthless, but his numbers say otherwise.
Please do a better job of reading my article.
Let me rephrase then. Why would you “presume” they “regret” the trade? Because you don’t like it?
The point was, you wouldn’t EVER trade the best hitter even for the best pitcher.
Really? You wouldn’t have traded Barry Bonds for Roger Clemens or Greg Maddux straight up in 1990?
the numbers will tell the story-at this point, you have to agree they certainly favor Hamilton.
Um, no. While BPro says Hamilton’s VORP is about 57 runs and Volquez’s is about 44, remember that Pythagarus says a run saved is more valuable than a run scored. Adding Hamilton’s runs to the Reds’ RS, but also adding in the extra RA if Volquez didn’t pitch (I know that’s not exactly what would happen, but it illustrates the point) would give the Reds a Pythag record of 72-90, same as it was anyway.
Often wrong, never uncertain.
by sidnancy on Oct 19, 2008 7:40 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Questions/Answers in Reverse
Does BP’s VORP account for defense? I don’t believe it does. Thus, we can give Hamilton a slight uptick due to his above average play in center field. Furthermore, I also believe that Volquez is going to be more 2/3 starter then annual cy young candidate. Conversely, Hamilton looks as though he will be an annual MVP candidate. The story still has a lot of time to unfold, but right now, it looks as though the Reds gave away the better player.
That is, if both players were to be shopped today, who do you think would bring in the better haul?
In 1990? Tough call. Yes to Bonds over Maddux. Bonds’ WPA after the 1990 season was nearly 12 times higher. Bonds v. Clemens, very tough call. Both players were just coming off the best season of their respective careers. Bonds ended up nearly doubling Clemens’ career WPA, which means in hindsight, Bonds was the obvious choice.
I actually liked the trade. Prior to taking a look at the Reds entire system, I thought the trade was just fine. However, now that I see the Reds would be better off with Hamilton and within Volquez, it appears that taking the hit from a talent perspective will hinder the team long term.
Again, a lot needs to unfold still, but at this point, you don’t trade away a guy like Hamilton, a guy who fills seats on a nightly basis, for a guy like Volquez. Maybe it is because I don’t believe that Volquez can have sustained success, but it seems obvious that a team would rather have the better player that is on the field every day then a pitcher.
Which leads to the question, the best player in the league (Albert Pujols) or the best pitcher (Johan Santana), which one would you rather have?
His numbers do not say otherwise. His numbers show that he had an unsustainably strong year once or twice. These two seasons happened to occur in the prime of his career. For those one or two seasons, no, he was not worthless. Today, he is.
Arroyo v. Garland. It is a fair comp from performance. My point, was that Arroyo does not require the same long term commitment that a Garland or any other ‘equal’ FA pitcher will require. Again, the Brewers could easily go after Garland, but then they will be handcuffed with a Jeff Suppan-like commitment. You are paying top dollar for the twilight of a players career, never a good thing.
by bbdbrandon on Oct 21, 2008 8:57 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
VORP does include position adjustment, doesn't it?
So Hamilton would get an advantage just for playing CF. Justin Inaz’s numbers don’t seem to indicate that that he merits another advantage for playing super defense (-0.4 fielding runs, if I’m reading the table right). I don’t know that includes assists, but it doesn’t seem like that would have all that serious an effect.
Everybody's a jerk. You. Me. This jerk.
by andromache on Oct 21, 2008 9:04 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
VORP includes position adjustments, but not defense
I don’t believe Justin’s numbers contain throwing arm, yet. That data comes out in the off-season from THT – probably in the annual. I think he’s planning on adding it in once it’s available.
I don’t believe Hamilton has ever shown to be anything but an average center fielder. I think his only superior skill on defense is his arm. Other than that, he’s fairly pedestrian on defense, if you ask me. He’s got good speed, but he takes bad routes a lot, which pretty much cancels out.
The story still has a lot of time to unfold, but right now, it looks as though the Reds gave away the better player.
That may be true, but they gave away a player at a position that is a lot easier to replace for a very good replacement at a position that is harder to fill. The Reds aren’t going to find somebody to be as good as Hamilton, but they don’t need to since the real goal is to have Volquez + Replacement Outfielder be greater than Hamilton + Replacement Pitcher.
"You never want to give up a 7-0 lead, in your rival's ballpark, that would put them in first place. Never want to do that." - Ron Darling
by Slyde on Oct 21, 2008 9:23 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I Have to Disagree
I feel as though Volquez is much easier to replace then Hamilton.
How many free agents hitters were signed last year that came close to Hamilton’s value? Milton Bradley is behind Hamilton (although it is yet to be seen whether one hitter had an impact on the other). The next FA on the list is Torri Hunter. The deviation between Hamilton and Hunter, 22 points in VORP.
Comparitively, behind Volquez was Spring Training signee Kyle Loshe, by a 5 point deviation in VORP.
In other words, the difference between Hamilton and Hunter was Mike Cameron. The difference between Volquez and Loshe, Joel Piniero.
I think we’ll simply have to agree to disagree however. We each value players at a different level. I see an all star hitter as very difficult to replace. You see a #2/3 pitcher as difficult to replace.
by bbdbrandon on Oct 21, 2008 12:18 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
A couple of things
You looked at one season of Kyle Lohse, a season where he performed at nearly his 90th-percentile PECOTA projection, and assumed that was the level of performance available on the free agent market. However, if you look at the list of free agent pitchers from last season, Lohse is the only one that had any success. And honestly, anybody who says that they expected Lohse to perform as well as he did this season is full of it. You can’t pick the exception and act as if it is the rule of what is available. And for what it’s worth, look what a single year of good performance got him this year – 4-yr/$41 million. That for a guy whose career ERA+ is 97. That’s not a #2/3 pitcher.
And again, I’m not saying that replacing an All Star outfielder is easy, but the Reds are heavy with hitting prospects and light on pitching. This was even more true before the deal was made. Over time they will be able to spread the offensive production around the field. It simply isn’t that easy to go out and pick up a #2/3 quality starter on the open market – not without spending $10-15 million a year. And that’s assuming that Volquez is simply a #2/3 – he has as many all star appearances as Hamilton.
"You never want to give up a 7-0 lead, in your rival's ballpark, that would put them in first place. Never want to do that." - Ron Darling
by Slyde on Oct 21, 2008 1:00 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I fully expected Lohse to do as well as he did
The Reds were no longer paying him and he played for Dave Duncan. DUH.
"Aio, quantitas magna frumentorum est."
by jch24 on Oct 21, 2008 1:07 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
hey here's an idea
Melvin should call up Walt and tell him, hey that Volquez kid is easily replaceable, we’ll trade all-star SS Hardy for him. Heck Walt, Edinson is just a #3 pitcher. If that trade were offered that actually might happen. I doubt Melvin would ever say it, if for no other reason than maintaining a good working relationship.
Seriously, your disagreement is based on VORP? How often have you seen Volquez pitch? Maybe, just maybe, a crude estimate like VORP isn’t that reliable.
by ol Pete on Oct 21, 2008 1:47 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
VORP
I’m not sure it does, according to BP,
Value Over Replacement Player. The number of runs contributed beyond what a replacement-level player at the same position would contribute if given the same percentage of team plate appearances. VORP scores do not consider the quality of a player’s defense.
It sounds as if it is basing the figures solely on what is done with the stick.
by bbdbrandon on Oct 21, 2008 12:20 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
They don't include quality of a player's defense.
It says “replacement-level playerat the same position”
That means there’s a position adjustment.
Everybody's a jerk. You. Me. This jerk.
by andromache on Oct 21, 2008 1:36 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
exactly
That’s the whole point of VORP.
by Red Menace on Oct 21, 2008 2:36 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
evaluating Volquez and Hamilton
goes beyond just looking at numbers. Hamilton represented a significant risk. He still does. He’s also not Albert Pujols.
And the idea that the Brewers would trade Hardy for Arroyo is crazy. Do you think that Hardy isn’t very good?
You also erect a false choice for the Brewers saying they have to take someone like Arroyo or they will have to end up with another Suppan contract.
by ol Pete on Oct 21, 2008 9:42 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Hamilton was and is a significant risk
the big reason the Reds traded him was his injury/relapse risk. he played half a season with the Reds and was on the DL something like 3 times. and the numerous suspensions he has incurred mean that one more slip and he is out of baseball forever.
you make the argument that Hamilton is the more valuable player, therefore the Reds lost the trade. but you take no account of Hamilton’s volatility. even if Volquez is just a 2-3 starter and Hamilton is an MVP candidate (and that all is highly debatable), i would go with the safer choice. the chance that Volquez will be a 2-3 starter for the next 10 years is greater than the chance that Hamilton will be in baseball the next 10 years.
"If you don't get the President of the United States on that phone, you know what's gonna happen to you? You're gonna have to answer to the Coca-Cola company."
by Charlie Scrabbles on Oct 21, 2008 10:10 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Besides with Affeldt in the pen we've got the Athlete's for christ angle covered.
Sgt. McCAin and Sarah The Impaler don't scare me none.
by Madville on Oct 21, 2008 11:12 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Wait...
Hamilton is a ‘significant risk’ and Volquez is a lock?
While Hamilton certainly isn’t out of the woods, he is close. The fact that pitchers are far more vulnerable to career altering injuries is enough to even out the ‘risk’ factor.
by bbdbrandon on Oct 21, 2008 12:05 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I've said this before
And I hope it never happens, but what if Hamilton blows out a knee/shoulder/elbow and requires serious surgery? Do you prescribe him narcotic painkillers after the procedure knowing the risk involved or do you let him suffer what’s sure to be awful pain? THAT’S the significant risk with Hamilton in my eyes.
"Aio, quantitas magna frumentorum est."
by jch24 on Oct 21, 2008 12:18 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I Don't Know Enough
About that to even discuss it. I’ve never heard that an individual who was addicted to a substance and overcame that addiction had to avoid prescription medication…
But again, this is a conversation/debate that I can’t even get into as I simply have zero understanding of the typical outcomes.
If you do have the information, I’d love to read about it.
by bbdbrandon on Oct 21, 2008 12:23 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Nope - just talking out of my ass as usual
I’m not saying he has to avoid prescription medication altogether, I’m simply saying that if/when he is prescribed such things he’d have to be closely monitored. Part of his story is that he abused prescription drugs, so it would stand to reason.
Josh Hamilton is one of the most dynamic ballplayers I’ve ever seen, he’s electric to watch, especially in person. But you have to know that the Reds felt they had to move Hamilton. The Narrons were gone, he didn’t seem to be well-received in the clubhouse, and he stated himself that he should probably move on. I didn’t think the Reds got good value for Hamilton at the time of the trade. I was wrong.
"Aio, quantitas magna frumentorum est."
by jch24 on Oct 21, 2008 12:46 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
i still wouldn't have made the trade...
especially not with knowing they were going to let dunn walk
by chandrathan on Oct 21, 2008 12:54 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
no
i never said Volquez is a lock. i said he has a better chance of being a 2/3 for the next 10 years than Hamilton does of performing at a comsensurate level for the next 10 years.
you have to remember, Hamilton was oft injuried in the minors. the significant downtime is what led to his drug use. you cant just chalk his injuries in ’07 up to being out of shape. his history is much longer than that. Volquez, on the other hand, is a 25 year old pitcher who has never had an arm injury, or any injury as far as we know.
a tremendous MVP caliber outfielder with a history of injuries and drug abuse who is one cross-up with baseball away from being banned for life OR a 2/3 pitcher (who i would argue is probably better than 2/3, but for the sake of argument i’ll use your judgment) who has never been injured and has the kind of raw stuff that garners comparisons to a young Pedro Martinez?
"If you don't get the President of the United States on that phone, you know what's gonna happen to you? You're gonna have to answer to the Coca-Cola company."
by Charlie Scrabbles on Oct 21, 2008 1:36 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Hamilton is out of the woods?
Have you ever known someone with anything approaching his addictive problems? He had addiction to multiple substances. The odds on relapse are high, very high. He’ll never be “out of the woods.” And many addicts won’t take pain medications except in extreme circumstances.
Personally, I find his extreme religiosity as a potential warning sign.
by ol Pete on Oct 21, 2008 1:38 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
According to that ol' opiate of the masses quote.
He’s still just another druggie.
Everybody's a jerk. You. Me. This jerk.
by andromache on Oct 21, 2008 1:39 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
RE: Hamilton
You can’t utilize 2007 as a sample of injury risk. We’re talking a guy who had played 26 games in the previous two seasons. I think the argument towards his ‘injury issue’ has more to do with him not being in playing shape for the 2007 season. He probably won’t ever play 162 games in back to back seasons, but it’s fair to say he is not much more of an injury risk then any other center fielder.
by bbdbrandon on Oct 21, 2008 12:07 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
the other thing about Hamilton is Narron
Hamilton was BFF’s with John Narron, and said that he he and Narron were a package deal. Johny Narron Stuck out 2007, but it would have been awkward for the then new manager to be told he is stuck with the brother of his predascesor.
"It will put a smile on your face to see a Chevy with a Soviet transmission"
by justin007000 on Oct 21, 2008 8:03 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
you think AJ Burnett and Arroyo are about the same?
by ol Pete on Oct 17, 2008 6:37 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Close...
Same age.
Burnett is the better pitcher, but not be a huge amount. I’d say the 5 consecutive seasons of 175+ innings pitched puts Arroyo on par. Comparatively, Burnett has cracked that figure 3 times in his career-never on back to back seasons.
by bbdbrandon on Oct 18, 2008 1:25 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I thought the O was for Obama
ha ha.
i agree with charlie on all of his points.
i still think jocketty’s gonna go after edmonds for CF.
by Daedalus on Oct 17, 2008 4:38 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I wouldn't be surprised to see Matt Holiday in LF
just sayin’….
Sgt. McCAin and Sarah The Impaler don't scare me none.
by Madville on Oct 21, 2008 2:58 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
FanShots
Quick hits of video, photos, quotes, chats, links and lists that you find around the web.
Recent FanShots
Certain photos copyright © 2009 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
