The Haren trade. . . .2 years on.
by golfmanthee on Dec 17, 2009 12:56 PM EST
Email
PrintOn December 14, 2007 the DBacks traded the 2nd Chris Carter, Brett Anderson, Aaron Cunningham, Dana Eveland, Carlos Gonzalez & Greg Smith for Dan Haren & Connor Robertson in a blockbuster trade. Obviously Haren has been outstanding but after seeing Carter's name in Rob Neyer's column today, I thought I'd look at how the trade has worked out by the numbers.
OK, I started working on this post and my computer dumped on me so I'm going to abridge this some. All stats from fangraphs & baseball-reference
Let's look at the DBacks' side of the ledger 1st.
Dan Haren
2008 16-8 3.33 ERA 6.5 WAR
2009 14-10 3.14 ERA 6.1 WAR
2010 (proj) 16-9 3.38 ERA which sounds a lot like 6-6.5 WAR again
Connor Robertson - Robertson pitched 2008 for the DBacks and in the minors before being flipped for Scott Schoeneweis before this season. I believe the Dbacks just let Schoeneweis go after the season.
2008 MLB 0-1 5.14 ERA -0.1 WAR
2009 (Schoeneweis) 1-2 7.13 ERA -0.7 WAR
So that is 11.8 WAR over the last 2 seasons (12.6 for Haren & -0.8 from Robertson/Schoeneweis). How about the players traded for Haren?
Chris Carter - impressive minor league numbers and probably the reason the A's flipped Brett Wallace for Michael Taylor in the Roy Halladay/Cliff Lee/prospects extravaganza
2008 A 596 PA 930 OPS
2009 AA-AAA 651 PA 992 OPS
Brett Anderson - 21 YO (22 for 2010) lefty starter who posted a 108 ERA+ last year. Impressive
2008 A-AA 11-5 3.69 ERA
2009 MLB 11-11 4.06 ERA 175 IP 3.8 WAR
2010 (proj) 11-10 3.76 ERA 189 IP which sounds like a little over 4 WAR
Aaron Cunningham - decent enough minor league stats, not so much in the majors
2008 AA-AAA 490 PA 932 OPS
2008 MLB 87 PA 710 OPS 0.1 WAR
2009 AAA 375 PA 851 OPS
2009 MLB 57 PA 456 OPS (ouch!) -0.5 WAR
Dana Eveland - 26 YO lefty starter
2008 AAA 3-0 2.57 ERA 21 IP
2008 MLB 9-9 4.34 ERA 168 IP 2.7 WAR
2009 AAA 8-6 4.94 ERA 124 IP
2009 MLB 2-4 7.16 ERA 44 IP 0.2 WAR
2010 MLB (proj) 2-3 4.69 ERA 48 IP
Carlos Gonzalez - Speedy, toolsy OF, CarGon made a national name for himself by having a monster NLDS (1514 OPS) this year for the Rockies after a very nice regular season (878 OPS). Tracking Gonzalez is trickier because after a disappointing 2008, the A's flipped him (& Greg Smith & Huston Street) for Matt Holliday and then flipped Holliday for prospects (Brett Wallace, Clayton Mortenson & Shane Peterson) and then flipped Wallace for Michael Taylor, but I'll give it a shot.
2008 MLB (Gonzalez) 316 PA 634 OPS 0.8 WAR
2009 MLB (Holliday) 400 PA 831 OPS 3.0 WAR
2009 MLB (Mortenson) 2-4 7.81 ERA 27 IP -0.1 WAR
2010 MLB (Mortenson - proj) 2-5 5.84 ERA 57 IP
2009 A-AA (Peterson) 571 PA 768 OPS
2009 AA-AAA (Taylor) 491 PA 944 OPS
Greg Smith - Another 26 YO lefty starter. As noted above, Smith was traded to Colorado in the Holliday deal
2008 MLB 7-16 4.16 ERA 190 IP 1.5 WAR
So adding it all up is tricky because to get Holliday, the A's gave up Huston Street who wasn't directly part of the Haren deal so I'll post it both without Street and subtracting Street's 2009 WAR of 1.5:
DBacks 11.8 WAR
A's 11.5 WAR
A's (minus Street) 10.0 WAR
I'm not going to dive into a WAR per $$$ analysis but roughing it out it's probably pretty even. The Dbacks have paid Haren $11.55M and the prospects have made next to nothing but Holliday made $13.5M last year (which was a partial year although I think the A's paid some of his salary for the Cards) so I'm guessing the salaries are pretty close.
Going forward though, this deal could start to tilt heavily in favor of the A's. Haren seems a good bet to be a 5-6 WAR pitcher for the next few years but Anderson is projected for 4+ WAR himself next year. Toss in 6 prospects (Taylor, Peterson, Mortenson, Eveland, Cunningham, Carter), some of whom seem to be good bets to be contributors this year and this starts to tilt in favor of the A's and that's before you get into salary considerations. If you assume the DBacks pick up Haren's 2013 option, he will make $49.25M over the next 4 years. I believe every single player for the A's makes MLB minimum and is under team control for at least 4 years. Even if they all made the roster and stayed on all 4 years, they would make a combined $9.6M. Now if any of them do well (like Anderson), they would be in line for arbitration awards but not until 2012 at the earliest so the salary figure might go as high as $15M. The upside for the DBacks is the certainty factor - Haren is almost certain to be good next year, prospects are not quite so certain.
Haren has been fantastic and the DBacks are lucky to have him (and here's to a return to health by Webby and a big 1-2 punch at the front of the rotation) but let's acknowledge that they did pay a high price to acquire him. . . .
56 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Can people please
Stop factoring in Schoeneweis’ numbers into things from ’09 when that as totally unforeseen circumstances and impossible to predict or cope with for the guy? Good lord… He was great prior to the tragedy.
"I've had Bailey's out of a shoe, though."
by Dan Strittmatter on Dec 17, 2009 1:40 PM EST reply actions
We could also not have forseen
Jackson getting valley fever, but it still had a significant effect on the team and will be taken into account for arbitration purposes, say. It would be unfair to judge SS and condemn him for his post-May 20th performance – heaven knows, I’d fall apart completely in his shoes. But, tragic though it was, what’s relevant here are the results, not what caused them..
"Win, or die" -- Marquise de Merteuil
by Jim McLennan on Dec 17, 2009 1:49 PM EST up reply actions
Flags (would) Fly Forever
When we picked up Haren, the Dbacks were the toast of baseball. We were the legitamate favorite for the WS on 1 of every 3 experts’ ballots. And it looked like the team would only get better for the following 3 years with Webb and Haren at the top, and a core group of young, high upside position players. It was a bold move, but one that had an outside chance of resulting in a mini-dynasty for AZ fans.
2008 ended in disappointment as we just lost out to the Dodgers and their roid-fueled Manny.
2009 started in disappointment, as Webb went down and we didnt get to see the 1-2 punch for which we paid so dearly.
2010 is the time to be excited again. The league has forgotten what these two guys can do at the top of the rotation. We’ve still got a lot of upside, but it’s more tempered by the reality of the numbers from our “core” group.
If I could have the trade back at this moment, yeah, I’d do it knowing that not even a post season resulted in the first 2 years and the prospects have done very well. But at the time we were making the push to be long term winners. And that window has not closed yet. One WS and the trade would have been worth twice the value of prospects.
One more year of Webb/Haren! Let’s get it done!
Weaker now
The D’Back front office has consistently acted to weaken the pitching corps, to the effect of dumping a competent number three in Davis, a potential all star in Scherzer to obtain yet another competent number three starter. Given the consistent and proven inability of the FO to judge pitching, I’m not holding my breath that 2010 will be the season that sees me buying season tickets.
by NASCARbernet on Dec 17, 2009 9:51 PM EST up reply actions
They didn't "dump" Davis.
They let him walk, because he was going to command a salary of probably over $12 million /year, and his peripherals suggested that he wasn’t going to be able to repeat his 2009 performance. Instead, they’re paying half that for TWO starters.
And I don’t have any idea where you get that the FO has a “proven inability to judge pitching”. Given that Josh Byrnes, over the past few years, has gone and gotten good production out of Livan Hernandez, Doug Davis, Randy Johnson and Jon Garland and dumped Hernandez and Johnson (coincidentally or not) right before they turned in terrible seasons. They also put a ton of talent and their reputation on the line by going out and getting Danny Haren RIGHT after the best season of his career — and not only did he replicate his performance, he’s actually IMPROVED since his first year. Two of the three pitchers they traded to Oakland have underperformed thus far. and Dana Eveland was DFA’d by the A’s.
If anything, I’d say our FO is BETTER than average at judging pitching talent.
If you’re going to criticize them, it should be for offense — the aspect of our team that has consistently underperformed.
"The existence of flamethrowers is proof that someone, somewhere, said to himself, 'I want to set those people over there on fire, but I don't feel like walking over there to do it.'"
by DbacksSkins on Dec 17, 2009 11:03 PM EST up reply actions
Agree completely
I thought the same thing after reading this article and remenicing about the Haren trade; our FO does a good job evaluating pitchers.
by Counsellmember on Dec 17, 2009 11:44 PM EST up reply actions
Well....
I would agree that we’ve got a pretty good track record, so now we’ll have to see how this year’s big trade turns out.
"The existence of flamethrowers is proof that someone, somewhere, said to himself, 'I want to set those people over there on fire, but I don't feel like walking over there to do it.'"
by DbacksSkins on Dec 18, 2009 12:11 AM EST up reply actions
Didn't mean to go overboard
There was a lot more to that post that was erased.
I still am not on board with the Scherzer deal, but I’m willing and excited to see what the FO thought was so important in Edwin and especially Kennedy to go out and target.
I think they’ve made the correct decision more times than not when evaluating pitchers’ talents and value. I hope the trend continues.
by Counsellmember on Dec 18, 2009 12:18 PM EST up reply actions
Now if they could just evaluate hitters
We’d be all peachy
Completely disagree
I don’t base my assessment on stochastics, but rather on what I see and my experience. There is no way Davis is going to get 12 million in this market, or the next. However, he is a solid and reliable number three, and so is Jackson apparently (at least on this team). But that’s irrelevant to the argument. JB did not bring in Webb, and his moves since Haren have been harrowing at best. The bottom line is two experienced major league starting pitchers are gone essentially in exchange for one that is of roughly the same quality, even if he has a little more ability, as Davis. And as for Scherzer, well, maybe there were things about his mechanics that cause concern. I don’t know, I didn’t see anything that suggested a catastrophic arm injury was inevitable. But come on, quit apologizing for the overrated GM and his Fantasy League impulse moves. One does not trade away a blue chip prospect like Scherzer for a number three. Yes, it could be argued that Jackson is a number two on some other teams, but Scherzer will be a number one in a season or two, and probably for a long time to come (with the proper coaching and a good pitcher’s catcher).
Don’t get me started on the bizarre Garland give away to a division rival – a starting pitcher for a PTBNL, an infielder at that. Weird. Very, very weird.
by NASCARbernet on Dec 18, 2009 1:51 AM EST up reply actions
You’re crrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrazy.
Being angry about this trade is fair game. You may well be right that the deal blows up in Byrnes’ face. Time will tell. But how in the world would you rate Byrnes’ pitching moves as “harrowing at best.” Huh? What supports that?
And how can you call his moves “harrowing at best” and then say in the next paragraph: “Don’t get me started on the bizarre Garland give away” — so, you liked Garland — thought he was a valuable member of the team, and yet Byrnes doesn’t get credit for his signing. And why in the world would you be mad about him being traded away? The season was over. Garland wasn’t coming back. And we picked up a very highly rated 2B who is 2010 MLB ready — one of our areas of need. Abreu wasn’t a PTBNL because he wasn’t any good. He was a PTBNL because of typical MLB craziness with waiver/minor league/contract rules.
"Love is the most important thing in the world, but baseball is pretty good too. " ~Greg, age 8
Well then...
Scherzer will be a number one in a season or two, and probably for a long time to come.
There’s a reason you still referred to him as a “prospect,” right? I’m not disagreeing with you on that, despite the technical incorrectness, because in many ways it is extremely fitting. The reason it’s fitting is that he still has a ton of developing to do before reaching that talent, and, as is the case with all prospects, only has a slim chance of reaching that potential. Not only the injury risk, but also the fact that he just might not improve enough. His secondary stuff is fringy with flashes of solid and his ability to pitch to contact and last in a game is horrific. He has a lot more work to do to be a number one than you give credit to.
"I've had Bailey's out of a shoe, though."
by Dan Strittmatter on Dec 18, 2009 9:55 AM EST up reply actions
Garland to rivals
I really dislike the “rule” that states you can’t trade within the division. I can see the point in being cautious if it’s a player like Halladay or Pujols for multiple years, but that was not the case. It was for a couple months and we got a good piece in return.
You don’t make your team better by refusing to play with the neighborhood kids out of spite. Now the Dodgers don’t have Garland or Abreu to play 2b. I see it as a clear win for AZ, regardless of what it was for LA.
by Counsellmember on Dec 18, 2009 12:14 PM EST up reply actions
Garland was gone at the end of the season anyway
A much-richer club in the Dodgers didn’t exercise the 2010 option, so what makes you think we would have? We converted two months of Garland into a player who could [admittedly, could] be a starter in Arizona for the next five years. Given we were completely out of the race in 2009, trading him to a divisional rival did us absolutely no harm at all. Abreu was a PTBNL, simply because it was after the deadline and he’d have to pass through waivers (and would certainly not have).
Really, this might end up being the best trade of the Byrnes era.
"Win, or die" -- Marquise de Merteuil
by Jim McLennan on Dec 18, 2009 1:24 PM EST up reply actions
Okay....
I don’t base my assessment on stochastics, but rather on what I see and my experience.
Translation: “I don’t know what I’m talking about, nor what you’re talking about.”
There is no way Davis is going to get 12 million in this market, or the next.
37 year old Andy Pettitte just signed a 1 year contract for $11.7 million. Andy Pettitte’s 2009 ERA+? 103.
How much do you think a 34 year old with a 2009 ERA+ of 111 is going to command??
However, he is a solid and reliable number three, and so is Jackson apparently (at least on this team).
Because, you know, replacing a guy with a 2009 ERA+ of 111 with a younger AND cheaper guy with a 2009 ERA+ of 127 is NO upgrade whatsoever…. especially since those numbers would make Jackson the ace on a lot of teams, and were posted in the American League.
JB did not bring in Webb, and his moves since Haren have been harrowing at best.
If you consider Josh Byrnes’ moves “harrowing”, then you must be the kind of person who is terrified of things like socks, toothbrushes and bowls of oatmeal. Care to list one of these “harrowing” moves and explain why??
The bottom line is two experienced major league starting pitchers are gone essentially in exchange for one that is of roughly the same quality, even if he has a little more ability, as Davis.
Doug Davis leaving had absolutely NOTHING to do with the Scherzer-Schlereth trade, and a guy who, on average, can’t even get out of the 5th inning, and has pitched only 12 innings more in his ENTIRE CAREER than Jackson pitched just LAST SEASON is NOT exactly what I would call an “experienced major league starting pitcher”.
And as for Scherzer, well, maybe there were things about his mechanics that cause concern. I don’t know, I didn’t see anything that suggested a catastrophic arm injury was inevitable.
You mean like the fact that he’s had shoulder issues nearly every year he’s been a professional? Or the fact that he has what some analysts have called a “ticking time bomb” of a delivery? This stuff isn’t very hard to find. Just google “max scherzer mechanics”.
One does not trade away a blue chip prospect like Scherzer for a number three.
I quote one of the writers at DRaysBay: “Do you fault them for taking a guy that has, hypothetically, a 15% chance of being injured at 2.5-3.5 WAR over a guy that has a 50% chance of being injured at 3.5-4.5 WAR?” Given that Webby’s shoulder damage torpedoed any chance we had to compete in 2009, I don’t think that’s such a terrible tradeoff.
but Scherzer will be a number one in a season or two, and probably for a long time to come
Please find me a single reputable baseball analyst who believes Max Scherzer will EVER be “a number one”. First of all, the guy’s only got one above average pitch, and that’s his fastball. You can’t get away with just throwing fastball after fastball in the Majors. Do you know what happens to guys like that? They end up in the bullpen. That’s why the vast majority of observers believe Scherzer’s ceiling is as a closer at best. Finally, given that we’ve already established that Max is almost certainly going to suffer severe shoulder problems in his career, please find me a single reputable baseball analyst who believes Max will even be in MLB “for a long time to come”.
Don’t get me started on the bizarre Garland give away to a division rival – a starting pitcher for a PTBNL, an infielder at that. Weird. Very, very weird.
I still can’t tell if you just don’t understand what a “player to be named later” even MEANS. It only means that some other team tried to claim Tony Abreu away from the Dodgers after the trade deadline, so the Dbacks had to wait to get him until the end of the season.
Now, explain to me how giving up 36.1 innings pitched (the entire length of Garland’s Dodgers career) from a guy with a career 4.42 ERA is worth less than 1800 plate appearances (600PA/season * 3 seasons) from the Dodgers’ top middle infield prospect? Especially at a point in the season when the Dbacks were already 20 games behind the Dodgers in the standings? Do you REALLY think that 36 Jon Garland innings in a lost season are worth 3 years of a starting 2B in the future when we ARE competitive? If so, you’re either insane, or Jon Garland’s mother.
You’re right. It WAS bizarre, and very, very weird. For the Dodgers. Josh Byrnes took advantage of Ned Colletti’s desperation.
But you don’t have to take MY word for it. Howzabout THIS quote, from Eric, the guy who runs TrueBlueLA? (Made BEFORE the PTBNL was announced to be Abreu)
There’s no way in hell I would give up Tony Abreu for Garland, but I’ll reserve that outrage until the other shoe drops.
Second of all, we know that Ned Colletti and his cheapskate boss Frank McCourt are not at all afraid to trade a really good player just to save a bit of money. Although the Diamondbacks probably would have taken just about anybody for Garland if the Dodgers paid the rest of his money, it would not be strange to see the Dodgers give away Abreu, despite the fact that he posted a .991 OPS at Triple-A this year, just to save a few million bucks. That would make no sense for most teams, but we’ve seen the Dodgers do stupid shit like this before, as when they "threw in" rock god grade-A catching prospect Carlos Santana into the Casey Blake trade, just to save $2 million.
You don’t have to take my word for it. Just look at how the Dodger fans responded at the time.
"The existence of flamethrowers is proof that someone, somewhere, said to himself, 'I want to set those people over there on fire, but I don't feel like walking over there to do it.'"
* 5 years, not 3 years
make that 3000PAs.
"The existence of flamethrowers is proof that someone, somewhere, said to himself, 'I want to set those people over there on fire, but I don't feel like walking over there to do it.'"
For a second there towards the end, I thought this post was from LeVar Burton.
"I can just see it: Post 'Intervention? Why would I need an intervention?' And then he'd +1 himself."
+1000
"The existence of flamethrowers is proof that someone, somewhere, said to himself, 'I want to set those people over there on fire, but I don't feel like walking over there to do it.'"
To be fair
The Yankees gave Petitte that money because he can pitch in Yankee pressure. But Davis’ arbitration figure would have been around $12M, and when we didn’t offer him that I don’t imagine how he doesn’t ask for about that from us.
You neglected Scherzer’s TJ surgery in HS. Pretty scary when that’s the injury you neglect to mention, eh?
Also, it amazes me just how penny-wise and dollar-stupid the Dodgers really are…
"I've had Bailey's out of a shoe, though."
by Dan Strittmatter on Dec 19, 2009 11:22 PM EST up reply actions
Re: the Dodgers. Their fans have to really been freaking out right now. Sure they have a nice stable of young athletes, but if the McCourts haven’t been stupid enough with money already, things are about to get really ugly. I wouldn’t be surprised at all to see them slip to 3rd or 4th in the division.
"Love is the most important thing in the world, but baseball is pretty good too. " ~Greg, age 8
Ahhhh, yes.
Forgot about TJ.
And if you check some of the links I posted, Dodger fans completely agree.
"The existence of flamethrowers is proof that someone, somewhere, said to himself, 'I want to set those people over there on fire, but I don't feel like walking over there to do it.'"
Doug Davis
Is NOT a competent #3. He’s a 4 guy because he relies on a lot of risk-taking because of all of those walks he issues. He perhaps got lucky in ’09 to not have it totally wreck his season, but if he continues to do so in 2010, whoever he signs with could really be unhappy.
"I've had Bailey's out of a shoe, though."
by Dan Strittmatter on Dec 18, 2009 9:49 AM EST up reply actions
He's pretty much a definition of league average
So, yeah, I’d say that’s pretty much a no. 3.
Yes, he walks too many guys, but it doesn’t hurt him much. He’s been doing this for a LONG time, so predicting a sudden implosion is baseless.
If the point is that his arbitration would be too expensive for us, then yes, I agree.
Close,
But not quite. DD’s walk totals in his three years in Arizona:
2007: 95 in 192.2 IP, 4.44 BB/9
2008: 64 in 146.0 IP, 3.95 BB/9 (missed some time w/ injury)
2009: 103 in 203.1 IP, 4.56 BB/9
He added a half of a walk per nine innings in ’09 from ’08, despite seeing his ERA drop 20 points. He also had an ERA 13 points lower than he did in ’07 despite a slightly worse BB/9. Also, his K/9 when compared from ’07 to ’09 indicates he ought to have had less success in ’09 than he really did. Since you love FIP so much, you should know this: ;-)
2007: 4.64 FIP
2008: 4.14 FIP
2009: 4.88 FIP
Seeing the metrics decline, the innings remain fairly constant, and the FIP agree with the metrics shows that Davis is regressing and was lucky to be a #3 in ‘09, and won’t be anything but a #4 in ’10.
"I've had Bailey's out of a shoe, though."
by Dan Strittmatter on Dec 22, 2009 1:35 AM EST up reply actions
The peripherals might not have been there IHSB, but you can’t argue with the success. He may not be a competent #3 going forward, but he’s certainly been a competent #3 the last few years. Just compare his numbers to league average at #3 and I’d say he’s done just fine.
"Love is the most important thing in the world, but baseball is pretty good too. " ~Greg, age 8
A few points:
- my post wasn’t meant to disparage the trade. I would do it again in a heartbeat. Haren has been fantastic and is almost certain to be some level of very good the next 3-4 years. The prospects? Maybe, maybe not. Anderson looks good but history is full of guys who started big and flamed out. I just thought it would be interesting to track the guys traded away. Often they get forgotten. I knew Eveland pitched decently last year but I had missed Anderson’s good performance this year. Meanwhile Carter looks like potentially a big bat at 1B – wonder if there are any teams out there that could use a good 1B? Hmmmmm. . . . . (to be fair, Brandon Allen’s minor league numbers are similar to Carter’s so who knows)
- a more detailed comparison would be quite a bit more involved. For example, the Dbacks got their WAR from 2 roster spots (actually 4 out of 50 spots if you figure 2 years) while the A’s got theirs from 5 roster spots (8 over 2 years). What sort of production did the Dbacks get from the 3 spots they didn’t have to spend on middling prospects like Cunningham for example? This is just generally the simple, straight-forward method people usually use to figure out whether trades favored one team or the other. My point is that while Haren has been fantastic, the players traded have contributed too.
- IHateSouthBend – no disrespect meant to Schoeneweis. I wouldn’t wish what happened to him on anyone and I hope he & his kids recover from it. I was surprised he even tried to come back this year. However, he was related to this trade in a peripheral manner and thus included in this analysis.
Tracking Gonzalez is trickier because after a disappointing 2008, the A’s flipped him….
I dont think subsequent ‘flips’ particularly clarify the merits of an originating trade. In this component of the Haren deal, JB is probably better judged by CarGo’s actual performance, rather than trade value, which is a function of performance but also of third party judgements that JB cant be responsible for.
Here’s what I think of the Haren trade:
- JB knowingly gave up long term value to acquire a targeted, “Win Now” asset
- Danny’s pitched better than almost anyone predicted
- Danny will be the most expensive acquisition in franchise history
If the FO is the focus of anything, something is seriously wrong with the picture ! - unnamedDBacksfan 2/20/09
Here's what I think to supplment your thoughts:
- Going “win now” made a ton of sense at the time.
- If I was back in winter ‘07, I’d do the same deal if I could.
- Danny, while the most expensive acquisition in franchise history, is also meriting of the most expensive acquisition in franchise history given his low-cost-for-production value.
"I've had Bailey's out of a shoe, though."
by Dan Strittmatter on Dec 17, 2009 5:56 PM EST up reply actions
If they only looked at Pythag
They would have realized they’re not in win now mode.
Still, the trade made sense at the time.
Pythag can tell a lot
but doesn’t cover the whole story.
Our final W/L record may have been a bit lucky in 2007, but we had awesome seasons from a slew of young guys who only looked to get better. BA may regress to the mean, but SLG and stolen bases do not, and we had a fast, hard hitting team that year.
The addition of Haren at that moment was a blockbuster. It was bad luck that we missed the post season that year, just barely. It was bad luck that the Dodgers had Manny fall into their laps, paying a pitance for his services. Without him they would never have caught us.
I support the win now mode two years ago, and with Webb/Haren back for only the second time, I think we are there again, for 2010.
by Counsellmember on Dec 18, 2009 12:09 PM EST up reply actions
I support the win now mode, too,
and I think our offense is much improved, but the rest of the division has gotten better, too.
"The existence of flamethrowers is proof that someone, somewhere, said to himself, 'I want to set those people over there on fire, but I don't feel like walking over there to do it.'"
Except, potentially...
last year’s division winners; the Dodgers. They lost some important pieces and have not really replaced them yet.
I thought last year’s Dodger rotation was suspect. Now, without Wolf, I see them as not terribly deep, and very light on top. Surely, they will have to pick up another starter, so it’s too early to know for sure.
by Counsellmember on Dec 18, 2009 1:52 PM EST up reply actions
Yeah, true.
"The existence of flamethrowers is proof that someone, somewhere, said to himself, 'I want to set those people over there on fire, but I don't feel like walking over there to do it.'"
Danny will be the most expensive acquisition in franchise history
Though on a cost per year basis, Haren’s $49m/five years will be rather less than we paid for the return of the Big Unit, which was $24m/two years. Indeed, it’s also less per year than the Eric Byrnes contract extension…
"Win, or die" -- Marquise de Merteuil
by Jim McLennan on Dec 17, 2009 5:59 PM EST up reply actions
Most depressing post EVER
"I've had Bailey's out of a shoe, though."
by Dan Strittmatter on Dec 17, 2009 6:24 PM EST up reply actions
Clarifications
1. In addtn to Haren’s salary, I’m including the realized and potential value of departed prospects in Haren’s “cost”.
2. When I say the most expensive acquisition in franchise history, I’m just talking gross cost, not making a “net” cost/benefit edict. There is, as they say in Glendale, plenty of hockey still to be played.
What makes the deal worth discussing, it seems to me, is Haren’s magnificent performance to date. I mean, it’s easy (and not terribly instructive) to lay into a FO when their player gets hurt (Sexson) or stinks worse than even the deal’s worst critics envisioned (EByrnes). But Haren’s pitched as well, or better, than JB had any reasonable right to expect. So, weighing that individual ‘best case’ (that JB boldly engineered) against the team’s various opportunity costs (salary + prospects) seems like a reasonable case study by which to evaluate JB’s application of his strategic vision.
If the FO is the focus of anything, something is seriously wrong with the picture ! - unnamedDBacksfan 2/20/09
by Diamondhacks on Dec 17, 2009 9:50 PM EST up reply actions
Good point. . . .
on the value of the CarGon trade to Colorado. It wasn’t a straight-up trade on current value but a trade of current value for Colorado (Holliday) for future value for Oakland (CarGon). So to even it out, I suppose you have to dock Holliday’s performance for Oakland this year down from 3.0 WAR. How much, I’m not sure. CArGOn put up a 2.4 WAR but that’s for a full year v a partial year fro Holliday. Of course one of the players Holliday was traded for played too so. . . . .
I agree and that’s why i said I thought it was a simplistic approach but is the type of approach most commonly used when discussing deals like this. I think it also makes the central point that even though the DBacks got an All-Star out of the deal and Oakland didn’t, the difference isn’t as great as one might think and furthermore, Oakland might actually come out ahead in the end.
There are really on two players i'm sad we gave up
Brett Anderson, and Chris Carter…. I actually think if we didn’t do this trade, we would have contended the last two years.
by C. Wesley Baier on Dec 17, 2009 7:10 PM EST reply actions
I'm a little upset
we gave up Carlos Gonzalez, especially now that he’s been traded back into the division.
Why do you think we still would have contended, though?
"The existence of flamethrowers is proof that someone, somewhere, said to himself, 'I want to set those people over there on fire, but I don't feel like walking over there to do it.'"
by DbacksSkins on Dec 18, 2009 12:18 AM EST up reply actions
Well
We did contend last year.
But all the Carlos Gonzalezes in the world wouldn’t have us contend without Webb and Jackson this year.
Yeah.
We contended in 2008 WITH HAREN.
"The existence of flamethrowers is proof that someone, somewhere, said to himself, 'I want to set those people over there on fire, but I don't feel like walking over there to do it.'"
We’d have a lot of extra pitching, we’d have either quentin or carter(who’d be ready this year), and we’d have carlos gonzales. Most of our problem has been offense, and we gave away some serious offense in CarGo and Quentin.
by C. Wesley Baier on Dec 18, 2009 12:44 AM EST reply actions
The Quentin trade
Would probably still have happened even if we didn’t go get Haren afterwards.
"I've had Bailey's out of a shoe, though."
by Dan Strittmatter on Dec 18, 2009 9:59 AM EST up reply actions
Yeah.
I think the Quentin trade was precipitated by the Byrnes extension, NOT the Haren trade.
"The existence of flamethrowers is proof that someone, somewhere, said to himself, 'I want to set those people over there on fire, but I don't feel like walking over there to do it.'"
by DbacksSkins on Dec 18, 2009 10:15 AM EST up reply actions
I just can’t get over how close we were to getting Greinke for Quentin. I’d pay good money to get the tapes of those GM conversations and see what the straw was that broke the camel’s back on that trade.
"Love is the most important thing in the world, but baseball is pretty good too. " ~Greg, age 8
Ugh....
"The existence of flamethrowers is proof that someone, somewhere, said to himself, 'I want to set those people over there on fire, but I don't feel like walking over there to do it.'"
Sad....... Ness..........
"I've had Bailey's out of a shoe, though."
by Dan Strittmatter on Dec 19, 2009 1:11 AM EST up reply actions
If you wouldn't mind an A's fan perspective
I think this trade has worked pretty even for both sides so far, but it has a potential to turn into a horrible deal for Diamondbacks over next few years.
When you trade a proven #1 starter for a bunch of prospects you do expect the team that got the ace to get much more value during first two years, but as WAR shows, this has not really been the case with Haren trade. Part of this is of course Eveland and Smith, the two least coveted players A’s acquired in this trade, having completely flukey, impossible-to-predict seasons in 2008, but still you would expect that Arizona would have a much bigger WAR edge, especially since Haren was so good last two years.
Now you have three players from the package – Anderson, Carter and Gonzalez (fact that he was turned into Holliday, then into Wallace and then into Taylor from our standpoint is irrelevant for you guys – it’s actually even worse since he ended up back in NL West) on the verge of stardom. Anderson and Gonzalez already showed flashes of their abilities on major league level and if they are both All-Stars and getting Cy/MVP votes next year, I won’t be surprised. Carter hasn’t played in majors yet, but this guy is perhaps the most exciting player from the package, he has as much raw power as any player in baseball right now. If he can put his stuff together on the next level, sky is his ceilling.
I would say that Haren gave you a better shot at winning World Series in ’08 and ’09, but not keeping those three above-mentioned guys has costed you a chance to field one of the most talented young teams ever in 2010 and near future.
dammit!
Close the door! We can’t stands the light!
by Counsellmember on Dec 19, 2009 12:38 PM EST up reply actions
Good analysis, Manstein. I think the take away of the trade for DBack fans is this:
1) Byrnes has to be credited for good scouting of Haren.
2) Byrnes has to be credited with an agressive approach, aiming hard for a perceived ‘08/’09 window of opportunity for the franchise.
3) Byrnes has to be hit a bit for allowing Beane to sniff out and take away such good second tier prospects in the trade (it’s not Carlos Gonzalez who hurts, it’s Carter).
4) Byrnes has to be hit a bit for misjudging when our window of opportunity was.
In the end, it’s a trade Beane probably looks smarter for than Byrnes, but had we been able to put the other pieces around Haren and take the division in 2008 or 2009, then I’d render a different judgment.
"Love is the most important thing in the world, but baseball is pretty good too. " ~Greg, age 8
Good post
If the FO is the focus of anything, something is seriously wrong with the picture ! - unnamedDBacksfan 2/20/09
by Diamondhacks on Dec 23, 2009 2:18 AM EST up reply actions
Carter
We got him one-for-one for Quentin, who, despite his struggles, was still highly-regarded. He wasn’t as highly-regarded as CarGo, but we knew we were giving up a good player.
"I've had Bailey's out of a shoe, though."
by Dan Strittmatter on Dec 23, 2009 4:38 PM EST up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
Baseball Nation Recent Stories
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- Marlins agree to unretire No. 5 for Logan Morrison, who will honor his father’s favorite player
- Weatherman Derek Holland does Dallas TV
- Ask Alex: Will Julio Teheran or Matt Moore win rookie of the year?
- Ku Klux Klan, umpires and bowling: Why the minor leagues tossed out Jim Evans academy
- The Cardinals Hall of Fame can now be found at Bill Clinton’s library in Arkansas (Huh?)
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
