The morning after the night before
by Jim McLennan on Dec 15, 2007 1:43 PM EST
in News
30 comments
Okay, it has become painfully apparent that picking over the bones of this, is clearly going to take more than ten minutes of Googling - which usually passes for research as far as I'm concerned. Memo to Josh Byrnes: the next time you do trades involving fourteen players in one day, I would appreciate an email from you, listing the players a week in advance, so that I am fully prepared. Thank you for your attention to this matter. :-) In the meantime, however - and to avoid having one post which fills up all the pipes of the InterWeb thing - here are some other comments on the trade, ranging from our GM to those on the other side of the trades through our divisional rivals to neutral journalists:
-
Dayn Perry, FoxSports.com - "The Arizona Diamondbacks are now, without question, the power team in the National League. After pulling off a trade with the Oakland A's for right-hander Dan Haren, the Snakes are now clearly the best club in the senior circuit. Keep in mind that last season Arizona had the most wins of any NL team, and now they're adding to the fold one of the best starting pitchers in baseball... The addition of Haren makes them a legitimate threat to win the World Series"
-
Keith Glab, Scout.com - "Once we learned the final names involved in the eight-player deal between Oakland and the Arizona Diamondbacks, we became aghast... On December 14th, Oakland Athletics GM Billy Beane showed why he's still the top dog when it comes to making trades... It doesn't take a psychoanalyst to determine that this trade was unbalanced. At the very least, this six-player package offered by the Diamondbacks here matched the Detroit Tigers' package of six sent to the Florida Marlins to acquire Miguel Cabrera and Dontrelle Willis. Does anyone really think that Haren and Robertson are worth as much as Cabrera and Willis?"
-
Scott Bordow, East Valley Tribune - "Is it possible to pat the Diamondbacks on the back with one hand while scratching your head with the other? Because that's how I -- and, I'm guessing, a good number of fans -- feel this morning. Arizona got pitcher Dan Haren from the Oakland Athletics for a bunch of prospects? Great deal. They traded closer Jose Valverde to the Houston Astros for three players? What were they thinking?"
-
Ryan Fagen, Sporting News - "Haren immediately becomes a 2008 Cy Young favorite. He's that good. He was third in the American League in ERA, ahead of guys named Beckett, Santana and Sabathia. That's pretty solid company, eh? Haren was 15-9 for a team that finished 10 games under .500. With Haren and Brandon Webb atop the rotation, the D-backs will have baseball's best one-two punch and makes a young, but flawed (much less so now) team a favorite to win the N.L. crown."
-
Josh Byrnes speaks about the trades on KTAR [MP3, 3.8 Mb] - discussed what appeals for Haren, why they kept Scherzer and Bonifacio, the loss of Carlos Gonzalez and how Geraldo Parra's arrival in the majors likely fits in better, timing-wise, and why they got rid of Valverde
-
Nico, Athletics Nation - "It really doesn't make sense to try to judge this trade now, because it all depends on how well the A's have scouted. Players generally turn out to be better or worse than projected, and the key is to identify which players are sleepers (like Mark Ellis) and which are talented but over-hyped (like Crosby). Beane accepted the deal because he and his top scouts believe that these top-ranked players are actually as good as they seem and that these "throw-ins" actually have a chance to be hidden gems. Time will tell... I'm not suggesting this is the case, but last year Danny Haren had about 10 pitches where something gave (ankle or hip) and he fell off the mound in his follow-through. If this were to turn out to be a budding injury, the deal could wind up looking tremendous for Oakland."
-
Jon Weisman, Dodger Thoughts posts a position by position comparison between the Los Angeles Dodgers and the Arizona Diamondbacks after the trade. It's an interesting match-up, with the teams close in most areas: the Upton vs. Kemp in RF is perhaps the most fascinating. To quote a commentator on the thread, "It will be interesting over the next few years to see who reaches their potential quicker and stays there longer."
-
Toy Cannon, True Blue LA - "This makes the Diamondbacks very, very scary. Without giving up anyone that would have been on their team except for maybe Cunningham and Callapso, the Diamonbacks have acquired a close to elite level pitcher giving them a one-two punch that rivals the Padres and far out classes any pitcher in our organization... Arizona leveraged the advantages of their farm system to give themselves one of the top arms in the game without giving up anyone that would help the team before 2010. A great deal for them, and one that brings them right back in line with us. The next two years is Arizona's time to shine while their college drafted players reach their peaks."
-
Rox Girl, Purple Row - "I think the moves added a lot to the surface value of the club for the next couple of seasons, but an issue of pitching depth remains. Last year, I thought they were an overrated team with a too young and inconsistent offense (which I was right about) and a pitching staff that lacked any serious teeth beyond Brandon Webb (which I was wrong about). For 2008, I think they are a scary and serious contender that we'll have to deal with. I think the Rockies still catch up in 2009 and 2010, frankly, as they are married to Eric Byrnes in left field for the duration of his contract... I'd give the Snakes the edge in the division for next season at this point; right now I'd rank the teams like they finished last year with the exception of switching Los Angeles and San Diego."
0 recs |
30 comments
Email
Print
Comments
Valverde...
The Scout.com chap also seems to miss the key point that Arizona could be starting five position players 26 or younger; just where the hell were all those top-tier prospects going to play, anyhow? Better to get something valuable for them now, rather than let them rust away in Tucson waiting for a spot to open up in the bigs.
by peachy rex on Dec 15, 2007 2:26 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
I was thinking the same thing....
by seton hall snake pit on Dec 15, 2007 5:32 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Dan the Man
by hotclaws on Dec 15, 2007 8:58 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Revisionism.
78 SO, 26 BB, 2.66 ERA, 1.17 WHIP
Obviously, he's a far cry from a sure thing to repeat those numbers next year, but to think that he just lucked into all of those saves this year is patently ridiculous. His 2007 numbers are about as close as you'll get to shutdown reliever numbers (which bodes well for Pena's future success as a closer as his numbers numbers are very similar). However, anyone who thinks that every one of his outings last year was a roller coaster ride is influenced more by preconceived biases than objective evaluations of on-field results. It's like BK Kim all over again. Valverde's on-field countenance and frustrations don't inspire confidence like a stoic Mariano Rivera would so you fear every walk or single until it eventually becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Now you want a pitcher who would actually be overrated if someone acquired him think he was a stopper - someone who really was the best in the league at turning a three-run lead into a one-run victory - you need only look at the 2007 AL leader in saves Joe Borowski:
65.7 IP, 5.07 ERA, 1.431 WHIP, 45 saves
by dahlian on Dec 16, 2007 2:22 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Without going to...
In any case, I believe the progressive Moneyball/Baseball Prospectus opinion is that closers as a group are generally overvauled; if your closer has an excellent year the sensible thing to do is find someone willing to overpay for him, and ship him out - unless, you know, he actually is the next Mariano Rivera.
Now, I don't think Houston did overpay (although I'm also not sure how many leads they're going to get to the ninth inning next year), and perhaps Arizona would have better off waiting until someone got really desperate. But it strikes me as a break-even trade, and I understand why Byrnes wanted to balance the exodus of prospects in the Haren trade with an influx of quality spare parts. (That was part of the explanation he provided in the interview linked to in the previous post.)
by peachy rex on Dec 16, 2007 5:49 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
What it says
The fact is, there is no standard by which Valverde pitched worse this season than either Lyon or Pena (other than innings pitched). Valverde had 13 outings in which he gave up one or more runs out of 65 appearances. For Lyon it was 15 outings in 73 appearances and Pena had 18 in 75 games. Moreover, it's not as if Valverde was constantly getting into and working his way out of jams. He had the lowest OBP and OPS allowed of the three. Just look at their stats:
Valverde - .196/.283/.328
Lyon - .251/.306/.355
Pena - .207/.289/.342
Let's see, he gives up fewer hits, fewer baserunners and fewer total bases than Pena and Lyon yet the opinion of you and many others is that he was still "reliably inconsistent" this season. How is this even close to reasonable? The man had a .633 OPS allowed with the bases empty, .579 with runners on and .552 with runners in scoring position. The only thing he did "worse" than Pena or Lyon was that he threw on average more pitches than plate appearance than the two of them. I think we can forgive him, though, considering that it was because he was striking out four more batters per inning than Pena and over twice as many as Lyon.
There's a reason that the subjective is being meted out of baseball, because it relies on your preconceived notions and let's your internal biases disproportionately affect how you evaluate ballplayers. Just think about in terms of abstract notions like "inconsistency". Is it more inconsistent to pitch a 1-2-3 inning several nights only to have one big blow up every now and then, or is it better to consistently give up baserunners and allow runs more often, but never in any large quantities? The point is, anyone can pick out whatever numbers or experiences they like or don't like and try to paint it off as "inconsistency" and thus a reason to detract from a player's performance. You can't do that with baseball. The aggregate numbers tell you who was a better pitcher which is a hundred times more important than "consistency".
To be honest, I have no idea why you would have consistently felt more comfortable with Lyon on the mound than Valverde this season. He is a pitch to contact guy that often pitched himself into jams and relied on the double play to get himself out. Batted balls in play are the opposite of consistency (to a degree, I mean, Mr, McCracken). Of course in hindsight that doesn't take a single damn thing away from the excellent season that Lyon had. I may have been uncomfortable watching Lyon because of the feeling that he was always in need of a double play, but I know that was my fault and not Lyon's. Those were my biases resulting from years of having it ingrained in my head that low K-rate pitchers never last long.
by dahlian on Dec 16, 2007 8:17 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Consistency
What I do know is that a player has to be evaluated based on more than their individual ability. Given the improvement in the starting pitching, the distributed strength of the bullpen, the lack of depth at the AAA level, and his future price-tag, trading Valverde was a sensible move. Arizona possibly could have gotten more for him by waiting, but as I said, this strikes me as at least a break-even trade for us, replenishing some of the depth we sacrificed for Haren in a more immediately usable form. And given the necessity of acquiring that depth, a five-million dollar closer-to-be was the most expendable chip.
by peachy rex on Dec 16, 2007 9:04 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I'm not going to say
The aggregate stats and every single peripheral show that Valverde had a season that was as good as if not better than Lyon (except of course for innings pitched). They had virtually the exact same percentage of appearances in which they allowed runs (20% for Valverde and 20.5% for Lyon) and within those outings they gave up runs at a nearly identical rate. In doing so Valverde consistently allowed fewer baserunners, gave up fewer hits and allowed fewer total bases. It's simply not a matter of choosing between "mixing brilliance with catastrophe, or through reliable mediocrity" it's a choice between reliably good and reliably good to great.
I honestly don't understand how you can look at all of the numbers and still believe that Valverde was an inconsistent pitcher this season. I can understand having that impression before hand given his past struggles as a closer, but you can't continue to carry this bias into an analysis of the past after it's clearly shown to be erroneous. Valverde may not be as stoic as Lyon on the mound and he may get visibly down on himself sometimes, but that doesn't mean jack shit when it comes to player evaluation and performance analysis.
by dahlian on Dec 16, 2007 2:56 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
McCovey Chronicles is too busy...
by Jim McLennan on Dec 15, 2007 4:43 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Holy crap!
Still, perhaps it's because great minds think alike, and that's the final piece of the puzzle keeping the Dbacks from being a great team?
The average Joe fans, the ones that jumped up and down with joy when we resigned Eric Byrnes, are going to be pissed that Valverde's gone, and even though he started the All Star Game, Haren isn't yet a recognizable star or a familiar face. I sure hope the mainstream fan base doesn't see shades of Luis Gonzalez and Russ Ortiz where they shouldn't.
by DbacksSkins on Dec 17, 2007 5:37 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I like the Haren deal...
Great trade!
Webby, Haren, RJ, DD, Micah looks really good to me.
Sweet!
by foulpole on Dec 15, 2007 4:24 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
If Haren sustains his established level
Agent Mulder - had one solid year(116 ERA+) with StL, then fell off the earth.
T-Dog Hudson- while still obviously a very good pitcher, his relative annual value( ERA+ x IP) has declined since the move to Atlanta.
Barry "White"- too early to say for sure, but at age 29 recorded career worst season, his first away from OAK.
And much earlier in Beane's tenure, he traded Kenny Rogers, who had several good subsequent seasons, but none equal to his one excellent yr in Oakland.
Again, these evaluations are already park adjusted.
There's alot of good things to say about Haren, as has been made obvious in the last 24 hours, but we should keep in mind that prior to 2007, he was a sub .500 career pitcher.
In principle, I'm glad to see the Dbacks finally swap a chunk of their cheap, redundant future for some competitive present, even if it's on the pitching side. There, now that didnt cost too much money to pull in a big name starter, did it? Obviously, on paper, Haren v Livan improves the rotation, by about 4 gms per my estimate.
Time will tell who got the better of the deal, but my impression is that Beane exploited Byrnes' general obsession with pitchers and specifically with proven innings eaters, to leverage quite a coup. Alot of teams had their eye on Haren, but apparently nobody gave Beane what Josh did. If Haren bucks history and manages to sustain last year's performance, this'll be a good trade for both teams. If he flames out, ala Mulder or possibly Zito, this could be the worst trade in Dbacks history.
by Diamondhacks on Dec 15, 2007 11:11 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Many people
I'm pretty confident that our FO has landed a keeper in Haren.
by foulpole on Dec 15, 2007 11:35 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
O RLY?
And before 2005, Russ Ortiz was a well-over .500 career pitcher: 103-60, to be exact. So, your point here is...?
Wins are basically utterly useless as far as judging the quality of a pitcher - it's utterly dependent on run support. I'm really surprised to see you bring it up at all, would have thought you'd have known better. But if it makes you any happier, since becoming a full-time starter in 2005, he's 43-34.
by Jim McLennan on Dec 16, 2007 2:45 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Haren
Lol. Tell that to Greg Maddux or Livan Hernandez.
[Wins are] utterly dependent on run support. I'm really surprised to see you bring it up at all, would have thought you'd have known better.
I've heard mention of this exotic (I'm guessing French), 'runs au port' you speak of. Thanks! :-) Didnt bother to drag it into the discussion cuz Dan's 05-07 RS was actually better than average. It was low in 2006, but more than compensated by park effects and 05 & 07 - he's not a tough luck pitcher as much as an impressive statistical horse who, with better than average support, wins 56% of his games, on a team that wins 52% without him. Solid and valuable, but hardly great or franchise altering.
Ortiz was a decent if overrated pitcher (not quite as good as Haren), who got dumped to another team during his decline phase. It's certainly not a foregone conclusion that's what's happenening with Haren, but I'm bringing up Hudson, Mulder and Zito to entertain that possibility, bolstered by Nico's anecdote about Haren's aborted deliveries. Nico(& Beane) see alot more of Haren than we do, and likely more than Josh Byrnes has. It's precisely this type of delicious grassroots observation that led to my 5-4 broken bone prediction for Randy, when most of you guys robotically extrapolated what turned out to be a pie in the sky 2006, from RJ's NYY stats, ZIPS, etc. There's a human element here, away from the keyboard, that Beane has in spades, like the time he acquired Haren, and others, for an essentially washed up Mark Mulder.
I'm not directly refuting the nice things being said about Danny, nor asserting this is a bad trade. Just trying to add some perspective to the rather uniform, and I think slanted, giddiness here. He obviously had an excellent 2007 and he might do even better here. That'd be very cool, but based on Billy Beane's history of dumping studs, I wouldnt bank on that.
I also find it amusing how there's almost lockstep support here for selling Valverde "high" (kudos to dahlian, btw, for breaking the mold), but no mention of the fact a) we acquired Haren off his career year, and b) no doubt threw a sea of top prospects at Beane based largely on that gaudy seasonal evidence.
As for the pundits above (thx for linking them, btw), I think Rox Girl & Nico offered the most credible perspectives; Dayn Perry and the guy from Sporting News the least.
by Diamondhacks on Dec 16, 2007 4:26 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Oh come on
I really think you're confusing Beane for Scheurholz on this one. Now if Scheurholz was the one dealing Haren out of the blue while his team is looking to make a playoff run then I would be extremely suspicious. But not when Beane's dealing them to blow up the team and hope to contend when a new stadium deal is approved.
The question is, if not Haren, who? This team is poised for success over the next 3-5 years. We need a starter now. For our needs Haren is the best possible fit. We're not overpaying for him because of his career year. We're overpaying for him because he's one of the best young pitchers in the league and he comes cost-controlled for three years. He also has the tools, the age and the performance history to suggest that 2007 wasn't so much a career year as evidence of a new level of performance. This isn't like paying $60 million for Aaron Rowand's 2007, or $30 million of Eric Byrnes' April-Jun - young players progress. Twenty-six year old pitchers with impeccable minor league numbers and above average performance for two years in the majors progress.
My prediction for Haren is something along the line 220 innings of 115-120 ERA+ pitching, which is incredibly valuable in this market and especially to this team. I think his true talent lies somewhere between his '06 season and his '07 season, but I would still expect to reel off at least one dominant 130+ season. I don't think that'll be next year though.
And you misunderstand my position elsewhere - I agree that it's not a big deal to sell Valverde high. I just thought it was ridiculous to see the people here talk about how they didn't think he was dependable last season. In the long run all relievers are prone to epic ebbs and flows and investing large amounts of money into a reliever not named Rivera (circa 2000) or Nathan is a fool's errand. Closers are fungible. Arms are important. The simple truth is that the difference between even a top-flight closer and a good one isn't that much. It is most definitely not worth a starter of Haren's caliber which is where that money is going.
It would be nice to have them both, but that's not going to happen so long as we're still paying off deserved money. In the real world of the DBack's limited resources I would much prefer that they put their money into top flight starting pitching and look around for cheap live arms to round up the bullpen. I mean, it's what Billy Beane would do, so by your logic it must be a good thing. Just look at Billy Koch.
by dahlian on Dec 16, 2007 5:47 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
"there is no mythical Beane effect..."
Many made that same type of argument when we got Estrada from Atlanta. We came out ahead on that one.
by foulpole on Dec 16, 2007 8:38 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I wouldnt necessarily characterize
Hudson, Mulder and Zito left for greener pastures at ages 29,27 and 29, respectively (Haren will be 27 on Opening Day), and in each case (3 yr before-after comp), Hudson, Mulder and Zito declined in ERA+, and in every case, each threw fewer IP. Whether they're airtight comps for Haren is an open question, but there's nothing 'mythological' about the declines in both quality and quantity. Some drops are subtle, but all six categorical measures across three similarly aged, high profile power pitchers, are down. Given how dramatically Haren has faded the last two Septembers, I think that's fairly intersting data. As far as predictions, I think he has less than a 10% chance to throw 220 innings next year.
I'm with you on Valverde (ie valuing top flight SPs over bullpen arms while also acknowledging it would be nice to still have him), however I reject the club mantra lamenting these "real world" choices between the likes of Haren and Valverde. Given recent revenue windfalls, the $7M they saved from dropping Livan, and their enviable projected cost structure, this either/or "choice" between a top starter or a top closer, seems - at least to me - more like a conservative, investor driven construct than a daunting financial limitation.
by Diamondhacks on Dec 17, 2007 2:27 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Arms and the Men
Lol. Tell that to Greg Maddux or Livan Hernandez. ]
Fortunately, we are not relying on their opinions to decide who is on our pitching staff. ;-) By your reckoning, Jeff Francis is a better pitcher than Brad Penny, because he won more games last season. Never mind that his ERA was far worse [4.22 to 3.03]. Not that your opinion is rare, of course: witness the 2004 Cy Young where Johnson got screwed in favor of Clemens, despite kicking Roger Roidman's ass in every category save wins - simply because Randy was on the 111-loss D-backs. But wins for a pitcher are like RBI for a hitter; far too dependent on your team-mates to be of much significance.
The difference between Valverde and Haren is consistency. Sure, Haren is coming off the best year of his career; but that's what you'd expect from a pitcher who is basically coming in to his best years [a little over 28 is estimated as the peak of performance for them]. On the other hand, Valverde's ERA+ went from 81 in 2006 to 177 last year; a far greater swing than that shown by Haren over his entire career. Relief pitchers, being used for less innings, are also much more subject to random swings in performance than starting pitchers. Over the past three years combined, Valverde has thrown about 180 major-league innings; Haren north of 660. Which is the more reliable predictor of future performance?
With regard to opinions...well, you know what they say about those. However, there is an inevitable backlash after a trade; no-one wants to think they got hosed, so any fan of a team [and I'm as guilty of that myself] will inevitably come up with reasons to feel optimistic. I am more inclined to trust those without any particular irons in the fire, on either side, but in the end, if the argument is convincing, it doesn't matter who makes it.
by Jim McLennan on Dec 16, 2007 6:50 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Where did everybody go?
Oh, please. You're throwing out a bunch of seasonal, cherry picked examples, Jim. I was using a three year sample for one guy. The correlation between 'pitcher quality' and Wins is relatively weak in small game size samples, but as the samples grow, the correlations get stronger. By the time a career's worth of seasons are gathered, we usually get a very solid feel for who the best pitchers are, based solely on Wins and Win %, better I imagine than if we looked solely at ERA, or any other traditional pitching stat.
Haren's good. It should be obvious I'm searching for a downside here, partly to intellectually counter that kneejerk optimism you cited, but also because, frankly, I'm kinda shocked we got him, and am trying to understand, or perhaps justify, how that happened. I understand why we want him and why he's such a good fit, but I dont understand why another team with more resources didnt grab him instead.
I understand Beane's looking for good prospects and not everyone has a slew of those, but Beane reportedly asked about MLB ready talent as well, and everybody has that. Is there one team out of 30 that couldnt quickly and efficiently improve their staff by adding Danny Haren without breaking the bank?
Maybe we simply had more of what Beane wanted in return. Maybe we wanted Haren more than other teams did. Maybe these other big market teams had better things to do with their time than pursue a 27 year old, 220 IP 137 ERA+ for $5M. I dont know. I just dont get it.
by Diamondhacks on Dec 17, 2007 3:48 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Wins and Things
Actually, your claim Haren was a "losing pitcher" is based entirely upon his record in his rookie season: take that out, and hey presto, his record shoots above .500. Of course, the best pitchers win more games: they a) tend to have much longer careers than Casey Daigle, and b) gravitate towards the best teams. These are likely to increase both their win total and their win percentage. There are many better measures of how good they were, that don't depend on the offensive productions of their team-mates.
Most D-backs fans are looking for reasons to love this trade, but I think it's somewhat interesting that you are looking for flaws, and unwilling to accept that the new management might have pulled off a trade far superior to anything ever managed in the Joe and Jerry era...
by Jim McLennan on Dec 17, 2007 3:37 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
"...unwilling to accept that the new
The Gonzo and Schilling deals worked out pretty good. No?
by foulpole on Dec 17, 2007 6:53 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Well, don't forget...
by Jim McLennan on Dec 17, 2007 9:48 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I like the Haren...
Time will tell about the Haren deal but we only gave up Travis Lee, Omar Daal, Vicente Padilla and Nelson Figueroa to get Schilling and wasn't there cash involved too ( i could be wrong on that )?
I guess my point is that the old FO does deserve some credit for the positive things that they did and keep in mind that most of the "young guys" on our roster were drafted and developed by them as well.
by foulpole on Dec 17, 2007 10:05 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Haren
My claim is based on his cumulative four year record - his rookie record plus the fact he didnt overcome that initial minus four over the next 3 seasons (two full). "Take that out" is bolded to highlight another example of seasonal, results oriented cherrypicking.
"Sub .500 pitcher" wasnt to say he was a bum or not progressing from that rookie year (we can all see he was), but to soften the notion he's been a monolithic stud three years straight with the idea that 2007 was more of a quantum leap. Just an alternate view of the same data.
...unwilling to accept that the new management might have pulled off a trade far superior to anything ever managed in the Joe and Jerry era...
Good lord :-). I've said it improves the rotation. I've refused to call it a categorically bad trade - but apparently, if I'm not goosestepping to the beat that this might be the best trade in team history, "by far", I'm being unreasonable. I've got news for you, Jim. It's not the best trade in Dbacks history - not by a longshot. Not unless one is so consumed by salary considerations as to fail to appreciate the present and future flow of human capital and performance that drives team results.
To foulpole's point, it's virtually certain Haren will cost the Dbacks more than Schilling ever did, perhaps far more, after these half dozen prospects have their days in the sun. And while Haren has an outside shot to win 53 games in 3 years, he'll never touch Schilling's 53-22 mark in those seasons you cited. So, yeah, you're right, even though I think Haren's a very good pitcher, your cry that this might be the best trade "by far" seems based in a loyalty to something other than the truth.
by Diamondhacks on Dec 18, 2007 3:04 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Addressing Scout.com
"Once we learned the final names involved in the eight-player deal between Oakland and the Arizona Diamondbacks, we became aghast... On December 14th, Oakland Athletics GM Billy Beane showed why he's still the top dog when it comes to making trades... It doesn't take a psychoanalyst to determine that this trade was unbalanced. At the very least, this six-player package offered by the Diamondbacks here matched the Detroit Tigers' package of six sent to the Florida Marlins to acquire Miguel Cabrera and Dontrelle Willis. Does anyone really think that Haren and Robertson are worth as much as Cabrera and Willis?"
I feel that somebody has to address this jab. Does Glab have a better perspective because he's more connected to the minor leaguers or is this position distorted? I'd say it is distorted.
First, it's distorted because while it seems at first that Cabrera-Willis would be a far better haul than Haren, as second glance I don't think that is the case.
Second, Glab's take is distorted because he assumes that the six we sent to the A's are equal in value to the six sent to to the Marlins.
The first issue, then.
Cabrera is brilliant, obviously.
His OPS+ numbers are as follows:
106, 130, 151, 159, 150.
However, his defense and conditioning are shaky, making him a prime target to be a DH in a couple seasons. His contract is $7.4M.
Dontrelle Willis' ERA+ numbers are as follows:
127, 102, 151, 112, 83. His salary is about $6.5M.
Dan Haren's ERA+ numbers are:
81, 95, 117, 108, 137. His contract will step from $4.5 to $5.5 to $6.5 in the next three years.
So, you've got an elite hitter who is just that, a pure hitter, and you've got yourself a pitcher who showed brilliance three seasons ago, a steady performance two seasons ago, and not even a rotation-worthy performance last year. On the other hand you have one pitcher who had two steady seasons followed by a brilliant season last year. The package of Willis and Cabrera is better, but I wouldn't say it is leagues better. In fact, if you were to give me the option right now to give up Haren for Cabrera and Willis I have to say I'd pass. I realize most wouldn't agree. I just think there is an argument to be made that you take the pitcher who continues to improve and who is coming off a dominant season over the incredible pure hitter plus a faltering pitcher.
Second, in term of the prospects received, I disagree that the two packages of six is a wash. I don't think it is even close.
The top two players the Tigers gave away: Miller and Maybin, who, by most accounts, are better than the top player we gave away: Gonzalez. Looking at the reports it seems that some believe the final four we offered were stronger than the bottom four the Tigers offered, but these deals are all about the top prospects, not the second catches.
The Tigers can take Cabrera and Willis. I'm very happy with Haren, Mr. Glab.
by johngordonma on Dec 16, 2007 2:32 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
I think some people
by soco on Dec 16, 2007 6:04 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
"I think some people
According to the Mitchell report, FWIW, it looks like he's near the top of the list of GMs in PED using players.
Do you think that he knew that was going on? ; )
by foulpole on Dec 17, 2007 10:38 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2010 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.
