The Diamondbacks' Thought Process
I posted this on the original thread on the topic, but I thought I would bring everyone's comments together to one singular, hopefully competent thought.
This is what the Front Office was thinking.
Max Scherzer- POTENTIAL future all-pro pitcher who’s lack of a complete 2nd pitch, coupled with his mechanics is a health risk and most likely bound for the bullpen due to his strikeout or no out capabilities. He is under team control for the next 5 years.
Daniel Schlereth- Son of former Broncos lineman Mark Schlereth who’s absolutely filthy curveball is nullified by his inability to actually hit the strike zone with it. First round college relief pitcher who wasn’t even the closer on his college team, yet has closer potential. Also a major health risk due to mechanics. (Trade throw-in)
for
Edwin Jackson- 26 year old starting pitcher with 2 years of team control left. He established himself as a good 2-3 starter with the Tigers last year, but ran out of gas late in the season. His fantastic numbers in the AL would translate better to a weaker hitting NL West, I think with a bit of regression (as his last season would be hard to replicate) would basically keep him around a 3.5 ERA, conservatively. He would slot into Max’s spot in the rotation at 3 and has proven to be durable.
Ian Kennedy- Yankees starting pitcher (which immediately gives him more value than Schlereth) who has struggled in his 12 major league starts in the heavy hitting AL East. He missed all of last year with an aneurysm. However he came back in the AFL and was lights out against a plethora of future MLBers. The entirety of the front office scouted one of his AFL starts. He has an absolutely filthy changeup and immediately slots into the vacant 4 spot in the rotation.
SO here is what this trade initially boils down to. The Arizona Diamondbacks are a very budget conscious team and if they plan to compete within the next year or two a trade like this had to be done. They give up Max Scherzer who provides at least one year as an unproven starter and as a whole 5 years of uncertainty, whether its 5-6 innings per start, injury or fireballing out of the bullpen. Danny Schlereth is a run of the mill hard thrower out of the ’pen, dime a dozen.
We trade them both for two starters. One, Jackson, is a proven pitcher who can more than handle a role as a number 3 in a NL rotation. Ian Kennedy is unproven but talented enough to be a career 4-5 starter in the AL, perhaps better in the NL. Take Kennedy out of the pressures of pitching in NY and he wouldn’t be the first to improve.
Now the key part of this trade isn’t the players sent or players received it is the personnel transaction. The DBacks have turned one uncertain #3 starting pitcher and middle reliever into a guaranteed #3 starting pitcher and a #4 starting pitcher. Without this they would have to go out and get one in FA. After the Penny signing it looks like the price of a #4 caliber pitcher is $7.5 million a year guaranteed. After a bit of swapping for pitchers and salary they save roughly $4 million dollars and fill a necessary role.
Those saved funds can then be turned towards a bat that can hit left handed pitching and platoon/play 1B or LF. So assuming they do go out and get that bat, the DBacks, achieve two things with this trade. They get a #4 pitcher and a very needed bat. If this trade did not happen the Diamondbacks, with limited funds, would probably have to pick one or the other. Both are essential to compete next year. Without one of these next year would be more of the same of this year. This trade gives them the possibility to compete next year and the year after where without it they would basically be waiting on Jarrod Parker to get healthy again (2 years).
All of this essentially boils down to what you value for Max Scherzer. Do you value the next two years of potential competitiveness, or would you prefer 2-3 year of gross uncertainty and 2 years of competition in 2012? That's for you to decide and next season to reveal. If the Diamondbacks make the playoffs this will all be forgotten or even claimed to be a good move. Especially if everyone's favorite heterochromatic misses significant time to injury or is forced into the bullpen.
2 recs |
51 comments
|
Comments
I agree with a lot of what you are saying...
but how can you call Scherzer an uncertain #3 starter, and then act like Kennedy is a certainty at the #4 spot? No doubt the thought process is that they are turning one starting pitcher into two, but that second starter is a huge question mark
didn't mean for it to sound that way
Kennedy does have a history of injury which in my billions of thoughts swirling through my head I must have glossed over. The plus side on his propensity to injury is his aren’t necessarily mechanics based. He just seems to have a run of bad luck such as arm aneurysms under his armpit.
Indianapolis Colts, taking focus away from my DBacks every Sunday.
But they move their risk
From the #3 to the #4. That’s a much safer rotation, especially since questions surround Webb already.
Most Depressing Math Question Ever courtesy of Probability class: "Clark and Anthony are two old friends. Let A be the event that Clark will attend Anthony's funeral. Let B be the event that Anthony will attend Clark's funeral. Are A and B independent? Why or why not?"
by IHateSouthBend on Dec 9, 2009 8:36 AM EST up reply actions
well you already had positions 4 and 5 open
on the rotation. The guys slated to vie for those spots consisted of Buckner, Augenstein and Mulvey. By turning around Scherzer who was 9-11 last year and struggled consistently to get out of the 5th inning for two guys who can start. Naturally there are no guarantees that Kennedy works out immediately, but we get him on the cheap and he’s another guy to compete for a rotation spot. The uncertainty factor is that the club, after watching max come through the system and not develop an additional pitch, looked like they were having to project him into the bullpen. Quality stuff he has, just not enough to last as a SP in the club’s POV.
I used to be disgusted, now I try to be amused....
The thought process - simplified
Look at EJ’s ERA – 3.60 OMFG, he’s an ACE!
Seriously, there are two things at play here. One is that this FO overvalues ERA WAAAAY too much. Another example of this is the Schoeneweis deal last year. He came off a season in which his ERA was in the 2s and his peripherals were terrible. Everyone knows what happened with Schoeneweis, but he was terrible before that and it was really easy to predict.
Thing number two is that they place WAY too much importance in innings. Like a guy with a 4 ERA who pitches 210 innings is better than a guy with 3.5 ERA who pitches 180 innings.
This simply isn’t true, and here’s why. The first guy will allow 93 runs in his 210 innings. The second guy will allow 70 runs. Now all you have to do is get a reliever who will allow less than 23 runs in 30 innings and the second option wins. That means you have to find someone to pitch 30 innings with an ERA under 7. SEVEN. Mark Grace could manage that :)
In practical terms, that means that Scherzer pitching 5 innings and allowing 1 run is better than someone else pitching 7 innings and allowing 3 runs.
Gabrielle Schoeneweis
Was found dead May 20. At that time, Scott Schoeneweis had an ERA of 2.53 for Arizona. Don’t know where you got that one.
How about Scherzer with a bigger injury risk, projected as a reliever, with no sign of becoming any more dependable of a starter than he was last year because of his need for better secondary offerings for a guy whose breakout year has been long expected because of his ridiculous talent after honing in his control (even you have to admit his drop in walk-rate signifies this improvement) and coming from the stronger league with a better track record of durability? It’s a safe trade, you remove the reliever downside of Scherzer for the safe bet of two years of Jackson and an upside shot at Kennedy.
Most Depressing Math Question Ever courtesy of Probability class: "Clark and Anthony are two old friends. Let A be the event that Clark will attend Anthony's funeral. Let B be the event that Anthony will attend Clark's funeral. Are A and B independent? Why or why not?"
by IHateSouthBend on Dec 9, 2009 8:48 AM EST up reply actions
Bad Example
Since when does Scherzer have a 1.80 ERA? More like Scherzer giving up 3 runs in 6.1 IP is worse than someone else giving up 3 ER in 7.1 IP.
Your previous example of the 210IP/4.00 ERA vs. the 180IP/3.50 is valid, but might not be the relevant choice.
Especially since it was Scherzer with the approx 4 ERA and Jackson with the approx 3.5 ERA.
"Love is the most important thing in the world, but baseball is pretty good too. " ~Greg, age 8
FIP < my balls
How is Tiger Woods like a baby seal?
They both get clubbed by Scandinavians.
by DbacksSkins on Dec 10, 2009 12:09 PM EST up reply actions
Baseball According to paqs:
FIP > sex
I would know, we’ve been debating this deal on a giant FB inbox thread for the last couple of days. Not saying that FIP is bad, it’s just a tool.
"I've had Bailey's out of a shoe, though."
by IHateSouthBend on Dec 11, 2009 12:45 AM EST up reply actions
:-)
We balance each other out in a totally non-sensical way. Kind of. But not really.
"I've had Bailey's out of a shoe, though."
by IHateSouthBend on Dec 11, 2009 4:08 AM EST up reply actions
....
Now I’m kinda disturbed at what, exactly, you’ve been debating.
How is Tiger Woods like a baby seal?
They both get clubbed by Scandinavians.
by DbacksSkins on Dec 11, 2009 10:08 AM EST up reply actions
Don't put your mind in the gutter
I could have just as easily said “FIP > Puppies and/or America.”
"I've had Bailey's out of a shoe, though."
by IHateSouthBend on Dec 12, 2009 1:11 AM EST up reply actions
Sheer lies
Nothing is better than puppies. Among the text messages I’ve got saved on my phone, I have random pictures of puppies my wife sent me one day to cheer me up.
Nothing is better than puppies.
"I can just see it: Post 'Intervention? Why would I need an intervention?' And then he'd +1 himself."
Whoa, whoa, whoa,
I agree with you.
"I've had Bailey's out of a shoe, though."
by IHateSouthBend on Dec 12, 2009 1:39 AM EST up reply actions
Hmmmm.....
I belong to a Facebook group called, “Ice Cream sucks and so do puppy dogs”.
How is Tiger Woods like a baby seal?
They both get clubbed by Scandinavians.
by DbacksSkins on Dec 12, 2009 11:44 AM EST up reply actions
+1
Except I love both ice cream and puppies…
"I've had Bailey's out of a shoe, though."
by IHateSouthBend on Dec 12, 2009 4:31 PM EST up reply actions
::whimpering:::
I want a puppy.
But yes, yes… I agree with you. Nothing is better than puppies.
we're like a borg ship; resistance is futile-- soco via twitter.
Wow
It seems my browser has taken me back in time!
FIP is for guys in their mother’s basements who have never seen the light of day, let alone a baseball game.
And it's more space-efficient than a Dolorian!!!
"I've had Bailey's out of a shoe, though."
by IHateSouthBend on Dec 11, 2009 4:09 AM EST up reply actions
Except
minus the DeLorean’s stainless exterior.
How is Tiger Woods like a baby seal?
They both get clubbed by Scandinavians.
by DbacksSkins on Dec 11, 2009 10:13 AM EST up reply actions
What is this...
“light” you speak of?
by Counsellmember on Dec 11, 2009 12:12 PM EST up reply actions
I think
Jackson is being overvalued. Last year he was pitching in a much larger park than Chase. I think last year was a statistical outlier. His Tampa stats scare me because the ball really seems to fly out of Chase around the power alleys.
by Reynolds rapper on Dec 9, 2009 10:16 AM EST reply actions
I still think
That any of those “outlier” scares are softened, if not removed, by the AL/NL switch.
Most Depressing Math Question Ever courtesy of Probability class: "Clark and Anthony are two old friends. Let A be the event that Clark will attend Anthony's funeral. Let B be the event that Anthony will attend Clark's funeral. Are A and B independent? Why or why not?"
by IHateSouthBend on Dec 9, 2009 3:37 PM EST up reply actions
agreed with that sentiment
2007 was Jackson’s baptism by fire with Tampa after they got him from the Dodgers, who in their infinite wisdom chose not to wait for him to develop. 2008 he helps the Rays to the WS and has a winning record. 2009 he gets traded to Detroit, posts another winning record and his numbers, such as K’s, trend upwards and his walks trend down. Everyone seems to think this guy has peaked… based on what? He’s got a freaking career of three full mlb seasons thus far. Anyone think Mark Reynolds has peaked? Haven’t plenty of pitchers “blossomed” after a few years in the league? (Randy Johnson anyone? or maybe Tom Glavine or John Smoltz?)
As for the knocks against Scherzer, who knows him better, the guys who saw that he was a number one draft pick a few years ago, or the guys in place who have watched him throughout the minor leagues and into the majors to where he is now? I don’t want to imply he’s damaged goods, but I think these guys took a good long hard look and asked themselves a tough question and made a move based on what they have seen, not what they hope.
A fair number of the scribes are looking at this deal without putting it into proper context it seems. Webb comes back, hopefully healthy. Same applies to CoJack, so now 1B and LF defensively and the contact hitting issues are being addressed with his return. There’s hope that Young can’t have as abyssmal a season as he did last year. Who knows who progresses or regresses, but I can see the club thinking that they have a window now, so take it while they can. Contenders put buts in seats and generate revenue, so they are going for it, as cost effectively as they can.
I used to be disgusted, now I try to be amused....
CY really has nowhere to go but up
same with CoJack due to the plague. You’ve gotta think that the offense will improve solely off the idea that some guys can’t perform as poorly or non-existent as they did last year. I believe BA will play better than our platoon at 1B last year. 2B will probably regress. SS surely will improve. C and 3B may see a bit of regression. LF will improve. CF has nowhere to go but up. RF is a stud.
As for pitching. #1 is Danny Haren. #2 is a B-Dub with something to prove. #3 is more innings with a slight better performance. #4 is unproven but just as capable as Garland and because there is no MadMax needing arm protection the 8 headed monster of suck becomes our #5 and pitches as little as possible.
Indianapolis Colts, taking focus away from my DBacks every Sunday.
There's reason to think we have a window too
Since the Dodgers, usually the most formidable foe of the division, are stuck in a financial stall. They couldn’t even offer arbitration to Wolf or Hudson even though neither had a 1% chance of accepting. That says a lot.
"I've had Bailey's out of a shoe, though."
by IHateSouthBend on Dec 9, 2009 8:10 PM EST up reply actions
Unless he gets a dominant third pitch
Scherzer will end up a closer. A damn good one.
Two excellent pitches + high pitch counts + violent motion + high strikeout ability = back of the bullpen
Sure there are starters that don’t manage pitch counts well or have violent deliveries, but they most definatelly have more than two pitches. As is he’s a manageable 3 at best, not the ace everyone’s making him out to be.
Perception is Everything
I have absolutely no problem with the AZ FO deciding that Max was a bad bet to remain a starter for our team. There are plenty of indications to support this, and in all likelyhood he was destined for the bullpen. Management knows better about this stuff than any of us.
But when considering a trade, you don’t proceed with a “worst case scenario” mentality. Regardless of what inside info the FO has, the baseball industry views Scherzer very very highly. ESPN, Fangraphs, beat writers, all seem to think that he has much more value than our own team has attributed to him.
THAT is the dagger in the back here. I have no problem with trading him, but a player’s own team should not be the one with the lowest estimation of his talents.
But if you're down on a guy
And you feel you can get better value in return for him, then why choose not to because other people are higher on him? If you’re getting what you can get, you get it. There was a recent quote from a former GM or some sort of executive who discussed a trade in which he dealt three prospects, including Curt Schilling, to Philadelphia for a power bat. Everybody loved the trade. The fact that everybody loved the trade is exactly what worried him about it. JByrnes has said along these lines as of late about some of his moves that have wound up working out, especially when acquiring pitchers in nearly any fashion.
Most Depressing Math Question Ever courtesy of Probability class: "Clark and Anthony are two old friends. Let A be the event that Clark will attend Anthony's funeral. Let B be the event that Anthony will attend Clark's funeral. Are A and B independent? Why or why not?"
by IHateSouthBend on Dec 9, 2009 3:41 PM EST up reply actions
I mean looking back at the Quentin trade
3 years later that isn’t near the catastrophe people thought it would be. 1 good season and mediocrity from there on out. In turn the guy we got for him is in the 99th percentile of offensive prospects and we turned him into Dan Haren. If anything the Dan Haren trade turned out worse for the DBacks than the Quentin trade did.
Indianapolis Colts, taking focus away from my DBacks every Sunday.
True
This trade will probably never amount to anything. All four pitchers will probably never make it out of Spring Training and we’ll all lament the wasted time fretting about it. :)
Or, we win the WS. One or the other.
by Counsellmember on Dec 9, 2009 6:41 PM EST up reply actions
Also
In that one good season, he punched a cooler and broke his hand, taking his team out of playoff contention. And yes, Chris Carter is awesome. It’s a shame we couldn’t have flipped someone else in the Haren deal, but that one was pretty even in terms of WAR and estimated prospect values, and we have few complaints about what Danny Haren has done for us (making it really hard to say we got fleeced at all in that trade).
"I've had Bailey's out of a shoe, though."
by IHateSouthBend on Dec 9, 2009 8:13 PM EST up reply actions
I see it completely the other way
If you don’t like him, and the market loves him, by all means you move him!
When the FO didn’t extend Webb because they had inside information on his bad shoulder, yet all the experts were wondering how we weren’t getting it done, the FO was on the wrong side? He could definately change our mind this year, but after last year that non-extension is looking like the right move.
If anything inside information should trump the talking heads. If you know he’s gonna blow up and end up in middle relief, but the team you’re trading him to thinks he’s an ace in the making, by all means you move him and get more than you value him for.
There’s a reason insider trading is illegal. Pundits are not always right, and don’t know the whole story.
Sorry
Both of you misunderstood my premise.
If you don’t like him, and the market loves him, by all means you move him!
We didn’t get value reflecting this “love” that the market clearly shows for Scherzer. The predominant feeling out there is that Max had upside near equal to that of Jackson, but we walked into negotiations viewing our own player as damaged goods, and took a trade for him that matched that perception.
Clearly we were “down” on Scherzer. But if everyone else is “high” on him, you should get value commensurate with that viewpoint. If the Tiger’s shared our FO’s estimation of Max, then shop him elsewhere to see who does like him. With the outrage over this trade, there must be some team out there that thinks Scherzer has the talent to be a top starter, which is more than we traded him for.
by Counsellmember on Dec 9, 2009 4:10 PM EST up reply actions
We did though...
We got a #3 starter for two years at cost-controlled prices and a guy who we feel is a future #3 guy with six years of control. Every team in baseball, including us, feels he could be an ace, but everyone also knows the injury risks, and the hurdles in his way. They know of his chronic elbow problems, and they know of his TJ surgery. They’re not going to make a trade without knowing that kind of vital information.
"I've had Bailey's out of a shoe, though."
by IHateSouthBend on Dec 9, 2009 8:14 PM EST up reply actions
man if all our pitchers play like they're capable of
our rotation next year will be a #1, #1, #2, #3, #9
Indianapolis Colts, taking focus away from my DBacks every Sunday.
That fifth day
Just have it be bullpen tryout day. Give 4 guys two innings and one guy the ninth, trying to mix up pitching styles as much as possible on every change. Replace a mediocre five innings with as much variety and unpredictability as is possible.
It could happen :p
Spahn and Sain
then pray for rain?
Indianapolis Colts, taking focus away from my DBacks every Sunday.
RJ and Shill
then OH MY GOD THEY’RE LETTING ALBIE LOPEZ PITCH AGAIN?
Wait...
Is this going against what I was saying, or with it?… I want to say with… But I’m not sure because of the strong sense of sarcasm.
"I've had Bailey's out of a shoe, though."
by IHateSouthBend on Dec 11, 2009 12:47 AM EST up reply actions
Not alone
I think we’ve all contradicted ourselves over the last couple of days. Emotions can rule the day, and this was an emotional sucker punch to the team and fans. But I think the rollarcoaster is finally slowing down.
by Counsellmember on Dec 11, 2009 12:11 PM EST up reply actions
OIC
Your point makes a lot more sense now :)
Maybe they thought this was the best they could possibly do? If he really is damage goods and they know it, there’s probably two scenarios running through their heads.
1) Openly shop him now, which would probably turn some heads as to why he was being openly put on the market. As far as I can tell this deal fell in their laps. Teams would be wondering why a potential ace was already being abandoned.
2) Pitch him this year and show off his damage. Then they’re getting nothing for him.
Best they could do?
Maybe this is the best they could do, and if that is the case I think they made the wise decision.
However, based on the industry reaction to the trade, I just can’t believe they traded Scherzer at full value (injury potential and all).
Despite all the chaos, I am finally coming around on the trade as well. Like I said, I’m a little disappointed in the return on Scherzer, and I’m definately not happy about Schlereth being included in what seems like an after thought. But the FO did manage to get us that fourth starter for a low net cost. And now we have two guys on which to pin our hopes rather than one. I really do like outside the box thinking, and this was a creative way to solve a big hole.
I am very excited to see what happens with the remaining 6-7M.
by Counsellmember on Dec 11, 2009 12:08 PM EST up reply actions
Good piece from Nick P
The Diamondbacks’ thought process appears to be more along these lines: He might break down, he might stay healthy, but with their resources — i.e., with the limited amount of depth a mid-market club often is afforded, especially their club right now — they don’t think that absorbing that risk is the smart play. They don’t think they can survive if Scherzer does go down at some point.
Even if it’s not an all-out blowout and it’s more like weeks instead of months on the disabled list, that too would be difficult to overcome from their No. 3 starter, particularly with Brandon Webb’s health unproven. Whether or not that justifies trading him away, well, that’s open to debate.
"Win, or die" -- Marquise de Merteuil

by 























