| By Jason A. Churchill |  | By 12-08-2011 |
We chatted for 90 minutes on rumors, prospects and more. Click here to watch the replay!
With the news that the Los Angeles Angels signed first baseman Albert Pujols -- and left-hander C.J. Wilson -- it seems fans of the Seattle Mariners are emotional and in a state of panic. I'm here to tell those that are freaking out to relax. Sure, the American League West is now a two-team race and for the immediate future the M's have to battle two clubs that are significantly better than they are at present.So why not freak out?
The Angels and Rangers are both far from perfect
Even with the addition of Wilson and Pujols, the Angels have major concerns, mostly on offense. Certainly Pujols is a huge help and they may be set to win 95 games. Torii Hunter and Vernon Wells, however, are on the decline, and their bullpen is far from dominant, which is why they are interested in Andrew Bailey.
The Rangers need pitching, and if they get Yu Darvish, they'll be in good shape. If they don't, I can't imagine the Rangers winning the west.
Long term, the Angels may be in a tough spot. They do have money, lots of money, but they aren't the Yankees and can't continuously cover up bad contracts. Pujols is 31, had the worst year of his career in 2011 and even showed some wear and tear with the heel problem he suffered through late in the year.
Aside from the steroid era, since when did 35-plus year olds win MVPs, and produce like a superstar? They don't. He'll perform, but he's unlikely to be the great hitter he's been the first 11 years of his career over more than a third of his new deal with the Angels, which runs for 10 seasons.
Wilson is far from an ace -- he's more of a No. 3, maybe a No. 2 on good days -- and he got $77.5 million, which is right about what the Mariners will have paid Felix Hernandez over the same number of years.
So what the Angels did Thursday was add a great hitter and a No. 3 starter to their roster, both age 31, who have three or four solid to good years in them -- perhaps a prime year or two left for each -- for the bargain price of $331 million guaranteed. Isn't that like paying a thousand bucks for a round trip ticket to Australia and the plane landing in a field in Temecula, California and calling it good?
The Halos do not have the kind of farm system right now that projects to produce several everyday players over the next five years, and they don't exactly have a great track record of scouting and player development. Their current roster is built largely on trades and free agency, too. Maybe that changes under new GM Jerry DiPoto, but the new draft rules won't help them in that way, either.
They'll win some games the next 3-4 years but I'm not sure what happens when Pujols is hitting 270/350/480 in 2016 and still has five years and roughly $125 million left on his contract.
Wilson could be a back-end starter by the time he hits 35, or he could end up back in the bullpen. The Angels didn't sign Cliff Lee, they signed a mid-rotation arm with two years of big league success as a starter.
There's little to no doubt that at some point this decade these deals will come back to haunt the Angels.
The Rangers have a better farm system and more affordable young talent, but they will always have problems with pitching depth because of the region and ballpark in which they play and they, too, have some big questions looming on Josh Hamilton, Nelson Cruz, Neftali Feliz, Derek Holland and Elvis Andrus, as they hit arbitration and/or near free agency and become pricey.
As a result, the M's will have a window to win the AL West.
The Mariners are sitting pretty for the long haul
Not only do the M's have room to add proven players this winter, but they have just $39 million committed for 2013, $22 million for 2014 and zilch for 2015 and beyond.
That doesn't mean they will -- or should -- simply throw money at free agents, but they can choose players to go after and the right player may even be worth overpaying for in the proper circumstances.
Maybe that's Prince Fielder, maybe it's not, and there's certainly a chance Fielder doesn't want to play here. Still, Fielder isn't the only great hitter in the big leagues and the Mariners would not be wrong, nor cheap, if they ultimately passed on Fielder, despite the lack of bats on the free agent market this winter.
The club's farm system is inching toward a top-10 system in baseball and they possess a lot of starting pitching depth that teams covet. Whether that culminates into a trade for a hitter this winter or not remains to be seen, but we've witnessed similar moves made by the Milwaukee Brewers (Zack Greinke) and Boston Red Sox (Adrian Gonzalez) the past year or so, both largely based on young talent being moved.
The M's have assets, payroll flexibility both present and long-term and already have three key players with which to start in Hernandez, Michael Pineda and Dustin Ackley. Justin Smoak could still be a fourth piece to the puzzle, too -- Fielder or no Fielder.
The Price for Fielder
With Pujols getting $254 million as a 31-year-old, Fielder's agent, Scott Boras, is certainly thinking 10-plus years and well over $200 million, too. He's four years younger than Pujols and while he's not quite the overall bat Pujols has been, he's in his prime, while Pujols is coming out of his.
In other words, Boras has the ammo he didn't really need, which makes things more difficult for Seattle. Thing is, there may not be another team out there that wants to emulate what Arte Moreno and the Angels just did.
A Marlins source told FOXSports.com earlier Thursday that they aren't in on Fielder and won't be, and if that is the case, the M's have four contenders about which to worry.
Those four are the Chicago Cubs, Washington Nationals, Texas Rangers and Toronto Blue Jays. The Baltimore Orioles have also been linked to Fielder, but it's almost ridiculous to think the O's are serious about Prince, or that Prince would consider Baltimore, who are years further away from contention than even the Mariners.
Signing Fielder to a deal for eight or more years at $20-25 million per does not seem to be the MO of the new Cubs' regime, who know they have a lot of work to do to turn their club into a sustainable winner. Many seem to think they are the front runner, but I think a lot of that has to do with Fielder's likely preference for the Cubs, due to proximity, ballpark and overall familiarity with the league and division.
The Nationals may be the next best bet to break the bank on Fielder, the way they did Jayson Werth last winter, but they owe Adam LaRoche $9 million and would be better off not using Mike Morse in the outfield too much, or at all.
Washington has yet to add a pitcher, too, and they may crack said bank for Yu Darvish, who was posted Thursday and is expected to cost more than $100 million in salary and posting fees.
Not that such facts rules them out on Fielder, but it might mean they're only in if the market falls from what I believe will start at 10 or more years and over $200 million.
It also make less sense for an NL club to sign Fielder since the DH is not available to them when it becomes necessary later in Prince's career. They could always try and trade him at that point, but in a decline, and at that rate, it might be tough. And that's assuming there isn't a no-trade clause involved, and it couldn't be after year five of the deal or Fielder would have 10-5 style no-trade rights.
The Blue Jays can afford Fielder, but it seems to surprise every scout and exec I ask about their interest that some believe they'd spend that kind of money on Fielder with the offensive firepower they already have and the need for starting pitching still clear.
The Brewers are still a player here because if it any team might get some sort of discount it's Milwaukee, and their owner has deep pockets. It seems GM Doug Melvin has other plans, however, and even $175 million might be too steep for Attanasio, the managing partner and principal owner. Plus, the Brewers need a third baseman and more pitching more than they need Fielder, and still have Rickie Weeks, Corey Hart and NL MVP Ryan Braun to drive in runs.
There's reason to buy and sell the interest and chances for each team, but the M's seem to have fewer reason NOT to go hard after Fielder. If they want to stay in it, even up over $200 million, they can afford to do so. Whether they believe it's the right move, however, is another story.
Yu Darvish
The M's do not appear to be interested in bidding on Darvish, and I think we can all understand why that may be. The club doesn't have a sore need for starting pitching, and Darvish's overall financial commitment takes a big bite out of what the M's would prefer to spend on payroll.
Since they need offense, I fully expect that available payroll to be aimed mostly at bats.
There is the argument, however, that adding Darvish makes it a lot easier to dangle Michael Pineda in a trade and still expect to contend in 2012. In that light, and in the manner that it may drive the bidding price up for AL rivals like the Rangers, Blue Jays, Yankees and Red Sox, we may hear the M's mentioned, I just don't expect them to win the bid.
He's terrific, though, and a full grade better on the mound and athletically than Daisuke Matsusaka when the Red Sox paid about $100 million to bring him to the states.
He'd fit nicely near the top of anyone's rotation.
Lucas Luetge, LHP
The M's selected left-handed reliever Lucas Luetge with the No. 3 pick in the Rule 5 Draft early Thursday morning. The club lost Efrain Nunez in the Double-A phase.
Luetge was a 21st round pick in 2008 by Jack Zdurencik's Brewers and has worked primarily as a reliever in his pro career. He can miss some bats and at 6-foot-4 and 210 pounds you'd expect more than 85-89 mph velocity. His curveball flashes as above average in the 71-74 mph range with good shape and depth, and he occasionally pulls out a 40 changeup.
Most Rule 5 picks do not stick, and I don't expect Luetge too, either, but Zduriencik knows him well enough to give him a shot.
The M's have kicked the tires on free agent left-handers Arthur Rhodes and George Sherrill, but could go with Charlie Furbush and Luetge if they feel he can get lefty bats out enough.
He does have good MiLB numbers against them, holding them to a .175/.215/.204 triple-slash in 2011. The year before he gave up just nine hits in 57 at-bats (.158) while whiffing 27 against lefties at Double-A Huntsville.
rumor-mill-continues
Comments
The following 59 comment(s) for this article are shown below:
| 1. By: Shawnuel on 12-08-2011 21:42:38 Terrific article, as usual, Jason. It is encouraging to hear you so bullish on the Mariner's future. I actually like the idea of Furbush & Luetge as the LH bullpen options. Would rather the team allocate more funds to the offense, especially with how easily Zduriencik has cobbled together cheap, decent bullpens in the past. I will go on record as being slightly against signing Fielder. If Z can get him at 6 seasons in the $135 to $150 million dollar range that is one thing (that I'd definitely be in favor of) but I doubt that will be the case and his body type does give me pause. Regardless, it seems the team's impending payroll flexibility will open up opportunities for Jack to wheel and deal in the coming years. I just hope the M's do well enough this year that he will see his work come to fruition firsthand. |
| 2. By: Jason A. Churchill on 12-08-2011 21:49:18 Just like the Pujols deal in L.A. ... if the owner wants to spend money to make up for the hole the huge contract creates later, spend away, fellas. The M's are in a better position to avoid a $200 million contract being as big a problem because they have so little money committed for future years and have a better farm system. If the team starts to win and people start showing up in droves like 1998-2004, the payroll is going to continue to climb. |
| 3. By: rjfrik on 12-08-2011 23:28:15 Sure would love to get Darvish. He would look so good penciled in behind King and Pineda and he would actually give us the flexibility to let Hultzen and Paxton develop a little more if need be before coming up to the bigs. It could actually give us a one year buffer for their arrival and add another year of value to Pineda. Then next year Pineda or Paxton could be dangled for a big bat like you suggest. I just think he's going to be special. The Ichiro equivalent of the pitching side. Plus it would be fun having the two biggest Japanese stars and personalities on the M's. |
| 4. By: valencia on 12-09-2011 00:17:41 I think Darvish actually would make Felix expendable, not Pineda. Similar age, similar cost, potentially similar performance, but 1. Darvish will be locked up longer and 2. teams covet Felix much much more, giving us additional assets we can combine with Fielder for a run. Would the Reds consider a Felix for Bruce, Mesoraco, Alonso trade to make a run with Votto while they have the chance with Pujols/Fielder leaving the NL Central? |
| 5. By: Jason A. Churchill on 12-09-2011 00:19:38 No, he'd make Pineda expendable. Felix is the ace. We don't even know how Darvish is going to adjust, let alone whether he'll be an ace. That's different if it's Josh Johnson or another No. 1 we're talking about. |
| 6. By: valencia on 12-09-2011 00:30:38 What makes Felix special again? That our marketing campaign is based around him? Dice-K was a 4 WAR pitcher his first year, and by every account Darvish is younger, better, smarter, and healthier. I don't know if he'll be as good as Felix, but he doesn't have to be if the return Felix gives + Darvish outweighs just Felix. Isn't that Moneyball - having stars doesn't matter, only winning matters? Bruce, Mesoraco, Alonso, Darvish probably gives us a better chance than just having Felix, short term and long term. If the Reds would actually consider it, I would think it would be the right move. |
| 7. By: StandinPat on 12-09-2011 00:45:44 How many championships, or even playoff games for that matter has Moneyball won again? |
| 8. By: valencia on 12-09-2011 01:06:01 Does it matter? It's basic sabermetric thinking - Aces are only worth the runs they save, no more no less. If our $20 million Ace saves 60 runs, the $20M pitcher on the market saves 40 runs, and we can get a cheap, young OFer who'll add 30 runs, a young #1 catcher who'll add 30 runs, and a young 1B/DH type who'll add 20 runs, for the Ace we have, then make the trade. How many championships, or even playoff games for that matter has sabermetrics won again? |
| 9. By: aerichner on 12-09-2011 01:09:44 What makes Felix special is that i can only count on one hand others players at his position that are better than him...oh and he's only 25 years old. Felix's age is what allows us to keep him until we fix this, which Id say we're well on our way. The prospects will either graduate to the big club or be traded for players we need. We need Felix, no need to deal him (right now). Still think you get the same package for him this year, next year, or the year after so I dont see the need to deal him NOW. |
| 10. By: StandinPat on 12-09-2011 01:16:47 Ok, that made no sense. You are just making up numbers for players that have never accumulated that level of success, on top of which you are completely negating the extended value of every win. So Darvish is already a guarantee to be a 4 win player? Adding a 2 win 1B/DH in the trade? Is that really anything of value? Isn't that basically Mike Carp? "It's basic sabermetric thinking" "How many championships, or even playoff games for that matter has sabermetrics won again?" Not sure that the first thing and the second thing are really making your point seem any more logical. |
| 11. By: valencia on 12-09-2011 01:45:24 Darvish is also 25 years old. How big of a talent difference is there between Darvish and Felix? Big enough that you'd turn down Jay Bruce, Devin Mesoraco, and Yonder Alonso to keep Felix over Darvish? How much is enough until you trade Felix? "Making up numbers" it's called projection. I gave Darvish the exact same WAR Dice-K put up his first year in the MLB. I gave Jay Bruce last year's WAR, even though he's probably good enough for more. I gave Mesoraco what I thought a #1 Catcher prospect would produce. You overestimate Carp if you think he's a 2 WAR player - 1B is the hardest to play, and for a 24 year old top prospect, 2 WAR isn't bad. Sabermetrics, or Moneyball, is about relying on statistics over "marketing." Attacking Moneyball is attacking basic sabermetric philosophy. Sorry you can't understand something so basic. Felix is a 6 WAR player making $20M, no more no less. How good do you think Darvish will be? 2 WAR? 4 WAR? 6 WAR? He's the same age. He's nearly just as talented. We can get a boatload for Felix just because he's "established." If all you want are established players, taking zero risk, no foreign players, no prospects, no trading your stars, you'll never build a contender. |
| 12. By: johnfree on 12-09-2011 02:10:23 Valencia, I don't think you understand Moneyball either. Why would the Reds trade all those players(and their Runs created)rather then just signing Darvish themselves, if Darvish and Felix are essentially the same as you stated "Similar age, similar cost, potentially similar performance". Hell, why don't the M's just sign Darvish and then trade him to the Reds? |
| 13. By: Juan Valdez on 12-09-2011 02:11:37 I wonder if Jack would even be allowed to trade Felix. My sense of the situation is that he would not. But, what do I know? |
| 14. By: k0o56 on 12-09-2011 02:40:39 #12, I'd click 'Like' if the option were available. |
| 15. By: pwhit44 on 12-09-2011 03:13:42 "He's nearly just as talented." Felix is the most misunderstood talent on the Mariners. By his own fans. |
| 16. By: valencia on 12-09-2011 03:34:24 @12 - because Felix is an "established" Ace while Darvish isn't. Teams overvalue "established" Aces more than they should, so while the Reds might not covet Darvish at $20M, they might covet Felix for $20M. The whole point of moneyball and sabermetrics is to exploit perceived value and actual value. Felix's actual value is a 6 WAR pitcher making $20M. His perceived value, is much higher. Otherwise why would you pick Felix for 3 years, over 6 years of Darvish, Bruce, Mesoraco, and Alonso? |
| 17. By: Edman on 12-09-2011 04:28:21 Screw WAR!!! I'm so sick of it used to justify a player's value. It's ONE stat, not THE single tell-all stat. Felix IS better than Darvish, because he has actual value, while Darvish has apparent value. You talk about him as if he's got established talent that is at a Major League level. He's never thrown a single pitch in the Majors, and you talk as if he has. There's a reason that teams use scouts, and don't simply build a roster with statistics. I don't need a single stat, to know that Felix is one of the very best pitchers in baseball. WAR doesn't deplete his value. Dice-K was suppose to be an overwhelming pitcher when he came to the US. He never came anywhere close to his promise. And, I'm not ready to hand Darvish an ace title, either. He may be a great pitcher in the Majors, but there is nothing to suggest that he absolutely will. He still has to prove it. One thing we do know is that Felix can be depended on every fifth day, that's a given. Moneyball appeared successful, and it certainly helped lead the charge for better statistics. But, I haven't seen that it by itself has made any team a great team. If it did, every team would be doing it. |
| 18. By: Juan Valdez on 12-09-2011 05:23:51 My understanding of WAR is that it is, in fact, supposed to be the closest thing we have to a single tell-all stat. I don't think anyone is claiming that it's perfect, but Dave at USSM seems to think it's pretty darn close. Valencia's reasoning is solid. The reason you trade a player like Felix is to exploit the difference between his perceived value and his actual value. It's the value he is assigning to players like Darvish that seem to be at question. I believe the Mariners have 3 years of Felix left on his current deal. Is that correct? They have holes right now in the outfield, at catcher, and at third. Shortstop is temporarily occupied by Brendan Ryan, and while everyone hopes that Nick Franklin will take over that spot in the next two years, this is far from guaranteed. First Base is still a question mark as well. It's going to take time to fill these holes. We all know this. Are we holding on to Felix now because the plan is to make a run in 2014, the final year of his deal? |
| 19. By: docsmith on 12-09-2011 06:02:34 Thanks for the article Jason and I couldn't agree more. As the news sank in yesterday, the less I cared. It seems that the Angels took thems from an ok to a good team, with a really solid rotation, and weakened Texas in the process because Texas lost their "ace." The M's just need to focus on improving ourselves. |
| 20. By: John_S on 12-09-2011 07:37:40 Preach on Edman!!! |
| 21. By: Galway on 12-09-2011 09:44:30 IF Fielder does sign would Stl. be a potential trade partner in Smoak, not that Smoak should be traded but a possibility. Caution to use any one stat as an answer. Use them as a question. What stat captures the value of an Ace which is limited most teams don't have one. Is there an impact on the rest of the rotation and team knowing you have that backstop. Structure does impact the value individuals have on each other. Still think WAR is a great stat but still a question not necessarily an answer. |
| 22. By: KingFelix on 12-09-2011 10:07:35 If we miss out on Fielder should we make a run at Darvish and then move Pineda for a bat? |
| 23. By: Adam B. on 12-09-2011 10:08:43 I don't quite understand the "Sign Fielder, Trade Smoak." camp. Are the Mariners that loaded with power-bats that Smoak would be a trade chip? And for what commodity? More pitching? More established power at a more premium position? There just aren't any good fits. |
| 24. By: VikingArthur on 12-09-2011 10:48:31 Easiest reply to the WAR junkies.. Franklin G had a 5.4 WAR in 2009. Ha, ha.... |
| 25. By: Edman on 12-09-2011 11:43:11 Juan Valdez, Dave Cameron thinks so, because he's selling it. He has to justify sell it to justify. The fact that you're calling it "supposedly" implies that you're not even certain. If WAR says that Felix's value isn't very high, then it's flawed. There isn't a GM in baseball what would hesitate to get Felix. Not one of them would look at his WAR value and pass. Why? Because they know his true value. Why is Valencia's opinion flawed? Because he's doing exactly what he's using WAR for with argument aboutFelix. Nobody knows what Darvish's value actually will be. There is a ton of speculation, but he's done nothing yet. So, he assigns him an equivalent value to Felix. Nothing says that will become a reality. Then, he does the same with Jay Bruce, Devin Mesoraco, and Yonder Alonso. He assigns his "perceived" values to them. And, evidently, Valencia believes that long all MLB baseball organizations are flawed, because they value "preceived", which is naive at best. Most baseball teams have stats guys who spend their entire day, breaking down the numbers. As far as I know, no team relies on "perception". I guarantee you, they know more about any player you want to talk about, than all the amature internet gurus on the internet. And, the both of you down-grade the value of Mariner prospects. Which is it? Are the Red's prospects underrated, and the M's prospects overrated? Because it's homegrown, doesn't discount their value. Not everyone else's grass is always greener. WAR is one stat. Seattle uses much deeper statistical analysis than WAR to evaluate its minor league system. And, I assume they do the same at the major league level. WAR is not nor ever will be close to a tell-all stat, IMO. |
| 26. By: Edman on 12-09-2011 11:45:13 Yikes.... "Juan Valdez, Dave Cameron thinks so, because he's selling it. He has to justify it to sell it." not "Juan Valdez, Dave Cameron thinks so, because he's selling it. He has to justify sell it to justify." |
| 27. By: gwangung on 12-09-2011 11:58:04 #24: Yeah? That's not a particularly good reply. Expand. |
| 28. By: skyway park on 12-09-2011 12:59:44 off topic, Jason are you planning on a write up on some of the 2012 draft prospects in the next couple months? I realize that's the last stuff on peoples minds during the hot stove months but was wondering your opinion on the C from Florida I think Zumino is his last name on K law's chat today he said as of right now he is a top 3 pick and was wondering if you had any insight on if there should be any position players worthy of the 3rd pick? looks pretty P heavy at the top once again even though i'm sure plenty will change between now and June. |
| 29. By: JonathanAicardi on 12-09-2011 13:06:48 Tampa Bay continues to earn my respect. |
| 30. By: VikingArthur on 12-09-2011 13:27:58 #27 I'll spell it out simply for you. Guti 2009- 5.4 WAR Griffey Jr 1998 - 6.1 WAR Go look at those seasons and if you believe that Griffey was worth .7 more wins over a full season vs. Guti 2009 you are insane. Is WAR interesting? Sure. It is remotely capable, in and of itself, of telling you how to build a baseball team? No. Oh yeah.. Felix was 4.6 WAR this year. Would you trade last years Felix for Guti in 2009? I didn't think so. |
| 31. By: Lailoken on 12-09-2011 13:46:39 Felix & Junior are/were definite superstars but DTFT is the greatest defensive CF of the modern era. If you don't see that with your own eyes I don't know what to tell you. |
| 32. By: Edman on 12-09-2011 14:01:55 I disagree. Griffey in his prime, was as good if not better, than Guti. I take nothing away from Guti, but his defense doesn't drive in runs. When a team is lacking offense, WAR won't help you. It's too general a stat. Not to mention that it is blind to some things. For instance..... How does WAR differentiate between a player who plays 81 games a year in Fenway Park and one who plays 81 games at Safeco? How does WAR differentiate from those players who play a majority of games in a division with superb pitching overall? How does WAR differentiate hitters who get a majority of their hits off of lesser competition, from those who can hit the higher caliber pitchers. It's a good stat, but it's not everything. You can't simply add up WAR and declare that you have a great team. It just is not that good an indicator. It's a good general evaluator. But depending on the need or your team, you have to look further. |
| 33. By: rjfrik on 12-09-2011 14:11:40 What Lailoken said. You can't read defense in the box scores the next day or on the 6 o'clock news sports report. Franky's 09 season, hands down, was one of the greatest defensive seasons of the modern era. It was flawless, a thing of beauty. That entire 5.4 WAR was made up of mostly defense. If the kid had any stick what so ever he could be in the same class as a young Griffey, but he doesn't. There's more then one metric to lean on when it comes to WAR. It's a collective of offense, defense and base running. That is why it is so highly regarded. As Edman said, It's not the end all be all, but it comes pretty darn close into giving you an accurate value of a players entire skill level. Are there other ways you should evaluate a player? Hell Yes. Should you discredit the value of WAR in any way? Only if you're a fool. There's a reason that every team in the MLB has a sabermetric staff, stuffed in a cubicle, counting stats. Because it's a very useful tool. And I have to put agree with AdamB. Why in the heck are you guys so hell bent on sending Smoak out the door. His last season was a lost season due to injury and the death of his dad. The kid is a player. He will come back and have big seasons for the M's and rake. He is the kind of batter we want here, not the kind we can afford to ship away. He is GOOD!!!! You would be selling at his all time low, which is moronic. If you really want to ship some one out, send Carp packing. He's actually at his all time high in value. |
| 34. By: VikingArthur on 12-09-2011 14:13:43 Well Edman... you know if you had a bunch of 3.0 dWAR players at every position you could have a team who scores 2 runs a game and they'd be unbeatable!! :) :) I think it is really the dWAR that is flawed or at the very best, severly fluky. |
| 35. By: JonathanAicardi on 12-09-2011 14:32:04 Defensive runs saved comes from standardized models of range for each position based on historical data, the same way that runs created comes from historical data about the probabilities involved in the scoring of runs. It's state and situation dependent and solves for what runs are saved based on the plays that players make both within and outside of their "defensive zone." These runs are weighted based both on the situation (runners on, outs in an inning) and the chances that an "average" player would make a similar play. This standard zone can absolutely be defined using video and statistical data and can also be developed for each stadium for the purpose of normalization. None of it is perfect, but it's a reasonable way to assess so long as it's uniform across the league. The idea surrounding Franklin Gutierrez's season is that he made so many plays outside of his "defensive zone" compared to the league average that he piled up "runs saved." And why not? Guti making a play that most centerfielders don't means an out instead of a run or multiple runs. It's more than reasonable to suggest that he simply made a TON of these plays over the course of a full, healthy year and combined with a solid wOBA from a CF, put up a 6 win season. |
| 36. By: JonathanAicardi on 12-09-2011 14:39:03 It should also be noted that Guti's 2009 wasn't just some stand alone number that was pretty to look at. His 6-win season showed up in the standings. The Mariners were a winning team that year despite an offense that still wasn't very good. There has to be a reason beyond Jose Lopez's solid year and Branyan's 31 homers to explain the difference between 87 wins in 2009 and the 60-win debacles we've seen in the last two. |
| 37. By: Edman on 12-09-2011 15:28:50 Jonathan, I get it, and I assume many others do. We don't need WAR explained to us, as if somehow we don't get it. There were a lot of factors to winning in 2009. Guti had a great year, but it goes way beyond just his WAR. Trying to match up wins to his WAR is too simplistic. It helped, but don't overstate it. I get WAR, but show me anywhere in the calculation that it absolutely attributes games that Guti won with his glove. It's an average. And I think it's a fair assessment. But, what if 75% of his great catches came at a point where nobody was actually a threat to score? It's based on hypotheticals. I'm good with that. But it's not an absolute. |
| 38. By: Edman on 12-09-2011 15:47:00 Also, how many do the extra research with WAR? They typically quote the most favorable years that support their assumption. How many do career WAR. Or WAR over the last 3, 5, 7 years? Guti is a great example. Do you assume that Guti in 2009 is a representative WAR, or Guti in 2011? It's still a guessing game with a little more refinement. I find it funny that some use WAR at the end of the season to look back and prove its value. How many compared it to the previous year's WAR to conclude the roster construction was correct? Of course WAR is going to be validated, because it is a reflection of what has already occurred. Let's use Fielder for an ezample. His WAR in Milwaulkee may be very different from what it might be at Safeco Field. The ballpark and general conditions are different. You can't simply plug in this year's WAR and conclude he adds X number of wins. Certainly he should be similar, but there is no guarantee that he will. |
| 39. By: JonathanAicardi on 12-09-2011 15:58:23 But that's the idea. Runs saved is derived from the situation. A play made with no one on and two out is worth much less in terms of runs saved than a play made with runners on first and second and nobody out and that's a difference that is being measured. The problem with WAR is the confusion people get when converting WAR to actual wins. We suggest that 10 runs (either saved or created or a combination thereof) approximates 1 WAR. Does this translate with perfect fidelity to the win column? Of course not. But when measured uniformly across the entire league, it CAN explain the different ways in how players contribute compared to their peers. In 2009, Gutierrez led the AL in plays outside of his zone AND the majors for percentage of plays within his zone. To do both at the position with the most ground to cover is astonishing, to say the least. It's possible those numbers were inflated by the fact that Safeco's expansive field gives him more balls in play and therefore more opportunities to make plays, but that doesn't change the fact that he DID make them, whereas the average CF probably doesn't, certainly not to his level. It's to say that his kind of defensive play, consistent over a full year like he did in 2009, can absolutely add up. The comparison to Griffey's 98' is also flawed in that WAR comes from a direct comparison to what's happening that year. I assume that the argument is that Griffey hit 56 homers compared to Guti's 19 and so on. But whereas Griffey's .411 wOBA would've crushed his CF peers in 2009 (by over 30 points!) in 1998 it was only 3rd best among CF. Griffey's offensive numbers were amazing, but much more common compared to now. The point I think people are trying to make about Guti's year is that he showed the kind of talent over a full season that makes him extremely valuable, a 6-marginal win value. He may not be. He might be more of a 3-4 win player. But it doesn't change what he has done. You have to give him credit. |
| 40. By: JonathanAicardi on 12-09-2011 16:14:58 By the way, the stats used in WAR are normalized for park, league, and position factors and changes in replacement level from year to year. Statheads recognize the differences in offensive and defensive ability for each position and normalize for them accordingly. They also recognize the disparity between Safeco and Coors (although, that's an extreme case). This is accounted for in the calculation using the odds ratio method, which compares offensive environments across parks using ratios. (in 2008, SD was 0.92, coors was 1.09) |
| 41. By: rotoenquire on 12-09-2011 16:53:43 WAR talk aside. There are a couple things that can happen here. #1 Fielder goes to another team such as Cubs, Card, Brewers. #2 M's get Fielder to appease the fan base. #3 M's get Fielder. M's get Darvish. Then Trade Pinieda to acquire more and better option to put onto the field. #4 M's go After Darvish and do a Pinieda trade. #5 The M's stay pat. I think getting Darvish and trading Pinieda is the most likely of these. But then again if there is a big enough up roar maybe more can happen. Everyone also needs to remember that Japanese ownership needs to give the OK on a lot of this. And that is where the problem and most of my reasoning comes from. Mr. Nintendo is not your normal owner. |
| 42. By: valencia on 12-09-2011 17:08:01 Do you actually think the system teams use is more complex than WAR? Tom Tango, the creator of WAR, works as a consultant to the Jays and Mariners. I'm sure they use more complex systems that take more time to analyze, but WAR isn't very far from what teams use, otherwise Tom Tango wouldn't be hired by teams, and he wouldn't still believe WAR as the best measure of value. And you don't think "established value" is overvalued? Tampa Bay just let Carl Crawford, established star LF, walk and traded their established #2 Matt Garza and they still made the playoffs. Tampa Bay is the poster child of Moneyball, sabermetrics, and trading players with "established" value for players with "perceived" value and making it work every single time. Established value IS overvalued. That's how Tampa Bay is exploiting every team in the league into giving them 3-4 top prospects for their "established" pitchers, and still contending year to year. The only difference is Tampa Bay has the balls other teams don't in trading their "established" players, and we (along with the rest of the league) don't. |
| 43. By: Edman on 12-09-2011 17:30:14 I'm well aware of who Tom Tango is, and yes, I know that in fact they do use more advanced analysis. The value of WAR isn't in dispute. The constant use of it to justify every opinion, is. Personally, I'm sick of its constant overuse as though it's the perfect tool. Your assessment is somewhat in error. They did not let Carl Crawford go because of WAR. They let him go because the were not going to pay him the going rate for his value. WAR had little to do with it, money did. They didn't trade Matt Garza because WAR told them to. They traded him because it was a position of depth within the organization. Tampa Bay is a well run organization. Moneyball didn't get them there. Several years of high draft picks did which allowed them low-cost talent. Yes, they made some smart moves. They also made some not so amart ones as well, just not as many. Their "balls" come via necessity, not because they established it was the only way to do business. They don't have the payroll flexability to allow them to retain all of their best players. So, they make calculated choices. I admire what they have done, but it didn't come souly by the use of Moneyball and sabermetrics. It came from having a fruitful farm system that allowed them to make the moves they did. The same thing that Jack is trying to build in Seattle. |
| 44. By: Edman on 12-09-2011 17:47:22 Some need to stop looking at Darvish simply being a matter of the M's wanting him. It's not at all, that simple. It's a sealed bid process. There is no way to know what other teams will bid. They can have all the intent in the world, but if another team really wants him, they'll do their best to outbid everyone else. It isn't like negotiating with a Free Agent. Nobody knows what the other is bidding. So, all this talk is fine and well, but until Darvish is in hand, there's no reason to get too hyped up. |
| 45. By: JonathanAicardi on 12-09-2011 17:51:45 Yeah I agree with Edman there. TB is playing to what their market allows and playing it to perfection, but if they could afford to be the team on the other side, i.e. signing the big name or trading for the stud at the deadline or to retool in the offseason, they probably would, at least from time to time. Crawford's bad season was neither here nor there and TB could not have predicted such a sharp decline. They let him walk because he cost too much and if they had the money, they probably wouldn't have let him work. With Desmond Jennings in tow and plenty of firepower otherwise, why break your bank to retain Crawford? Same goes for Garza. He was getting expensive and they had shields and price with davis and hellickson coming around. We don't yet know what the haul TB got for Garza will turn out to be worth, if anything, but you can bet TB would've kept him around if they thought they could. The bottom line is that TB operates this way because they don't have a choice. You could argue (interestingly) that the Rays play moneyball by taking advantage of the current market inefficiency: prospects. You flood your organization with prospects and young talent and some are bound to turn out on probability alone. Boston plays this game too, only they use it to trade as well as produce. |
| 46. By: rjfrik on 12-09-2011 17:54:53 I think the one area that you are overlooking Valencia on trading Felix, isn't his value, perceived and established. It's not the haul that he could bring back on a baseball diamond. It's not the WAR that Felix or those that we acquire for him have. It's Felix's value off the diamond. Baseball is a business. It's an entertainment business. A movie (even low budget indies) needs a star/s to carry it, to make it profitable. Felix is our star and he's signed for nothing (comparable to other contracts for players of his value). His value goes far beyond the baseball diamond. It stretches commercially out to television contracts, merchandise and public appeal. These are all important avenues of revenue someone has to consider when running an entertainment business, which baseball is. I don't think anyone would go against trading Felix if the right package was offered, but the M's would have to get legitimate star/s back to take his place in marketing. There are very few of those players to be had. Any trade of Felix would have to start with a Braun, Upton, Kemp, Cabrera. Problem is the list is short. Very short. We are better off keeping him and building around him vs shipping him off. Sign Darvish, then next year trade Pineda for your Reds package. That makes a lot better sense then trading Felix. Felix is a star. Bruce and the rookies are not and I'm not sure they ever will be. |
| 47. By: rjfrik on 12-09-2011 18:01:22 #44 That is true Edman, another team could outbid them. But my guess, just an educated one by me, is that the brass, the real brass back in Japan, really want this guy. They know that their Japanese star out here is fading and in my opinion they are of the mindset being Japanese owners, to always have the best Japanese star on their MLB team. They grossly beat out every other team in the bid for Ichiro. Why? Because they knew what he was back in Japan. I think the same very well could happen here. It's a real possibility that can't be ignored. Also, this is just a conspiracy theory, but i wonder how "sealed" those bids are within the Japanese elite society. I could very easily see an owner of a Japanese team leaking out how much another Japanese MLB owner needs to bid. Once again just a conspiracy theory. |
| 48. By: rjfrik on 12-09-2011 18:06:25 #45 With the amount of possible big league talent we have in our pitching depths. I could very well see the M's be a TB of the west. Shipping off pitchers who are great because we have such depth of pitching talent coming up that we can afford to. It will be a nice change of pace adding pieces we need and prospects for pitching every few year. We've actually been doing that to a lesser extent the last few years. Washburn, Lee, Fister, Bedard. Felix, Pineda, Hultzen, Paxton, Walker, Campos. All are either aces or have potential to be aces. Good problem to have. And that's not counting all the secondary pitchers we have just sitting around, Vargas, Beavan, Furbush, ect. |
| 49. By: Edman on 12-09-2011 19:01:31 I'm not sure how important having a Japanese star is to the Mariner's image in Japan. I suspect you're more hoping, than guessing. As for the process of bidding for Ichiro, the value of Japanese talent prior to Ichiro's coming to America, was relatively unknown. There wasn't a large history of success a the time. Now, everyone is tuned in and doing a lot of scouting. I hope you're right, but I don't believe that will be the case. Would I be surprised if they did? Yes, because pitching isn't a great need for the team. It would be great if they did win the bid for Darvish. But for the money that they'll commit to him, it could be spent better, elsewhere. We'll see in a few days. But, until Darvish is a Mariner, you can't really plan on it. Best you can do is hope that they do. It's a 1/30 proposition. Better odds than the lottery, but not enough to get me to buy a new car, because I think that I have a winning lottery ticket. |
| 50. By: DKulich44 on 12-09-2011 20:12:57 Edman, I don't think you'll find a true stat lover that think WAR is a be all end all, an scouting doesn't matter. That line of thought is just as much rubbish as thinking scouting is the be all end all. It's a mix of scouting, statistics, economics, and business sense that go into building a roster. Dave speaks in stats and economics because he's good at it, it's his "thing" if you will. John Sickels on the other hand, is just as awesome, but mostly from a scouting aspect. Neither is "more right" or thinks they know everything. They use their talents to bring information to the table. As far as what Valencia did, it's far from WAR. WAR doesn't make up arbitrary values and assign them to players to prove points. It uses actual data, every at bat, fielding play, base running play to create a value. WAR is what happens on the field. In fact, it's what happens on TE field adjusted for all those things you said WAR doesn't do, really. Now, how you apply WAR is the true kicker. It's a model, a construct, and it gives you good information. You can use that information to make extrapolations about players values. Anyone can look at Franklin's 2009 and say it was an outlier. Any good stat person would say it was, including Dave who warned not to expect that kind of season ever again. His numbers in CF were so far away from the mean, and needed to be regressed. When you do that, you get exactly the type of player Franklin "should" be. (Obviously injuries/illness have taken their toll on him, and the baseline may need to be changed with that in mind). I appreciate your comments, and generally agree with your overall point, but you're applying how WAR should be used incorrectly in order to prove that it's limited in its use. Sure, defensive value needs work, but it's at a good starting point, and lots of smart people work hard to advance it. Keith Law says every team uses their own version of WAR, it would be foolish nt too. It's just the fact that WAR needs to be combined with proper economics, market trends, scouting, etc. It's a great tool, that can easily and quickly help make decisions when applied correctly. |
| 51. By: JonathanAicardi on 12-09-2011 21:09:28 Seattle will never be Tampa Bay of the west and I think that's a good thing. TB is a very limited team that has to be virtually flawless with its operations to succeed. That they have is about them, not about us. They have a very small margin for error and while we would like the same kind of results on the field that Tampa has enjoyed, the M's market is way too big to ever have to resort to their level. There are certainly things we should take from TB as an organization, but we have the funds to go and get our man when the situation warrants it. We have the room in the budget to take on a big name at the deadline. We have those abilities if and when it becomes prudent to use them. |
| 52. By: titans12 on 12-09-2011 21:24:23 Yea hate to be a successful team that makes it to the playoffs.Do you think Aramis Ramirez and Carlos Beltran on 2 year deals would be a good plan B if we can't get Prince. |
| 53. By: rth1986 on 12-09-2011 21:32:59 In terms of player development, then sure, it'd be nice to be considered the "Tampa Bay of the West." However, the Mariners are obviously much better off. The Mariners can and will be big spenders when the time is right. Unless the front office has a three or four rabbits up it's sleeve, 2012 is probably already out of the question. 2013 should be more interesting. |
| 54. By: rotoenquire on 12-10-2011 00:17:30 What about bringing in Ramirez and Rollins to go with Darvish? Or just the 2 bats? Ramirez would be a good 3B option till Martinez is ready say a 3 year deal. Then Rollins for a 4 year contract. Load the front of the contracts. So it give more money to spend as they get older. RF Ichiro 2B Ackley SS Rollins 3B Ramirez 1B Smoak CF Guity/Robinson DH Carp LF Wells/Robinson C Olivo/Jaso Then next year you go after Upton in F/A SP Felix SP Pineada SP Darvish SP Vargas SP Hultzen/Paxton/Beavan/Moyer CL League That is without trading Vargas or League which still could happen. And also net you some more pop making Carp and Wells expendable in a trade. |
| 55. By: Edman on 12-10-2011 00:32:41 DKulich44, I don't have a problem with WAR, as a stat. It's a very good stat. I get tired of people who use it constantly, and leave it at that. They treat it as the only thing necessary to justify their position and they use it as an absolute. It's the first response for some. "His WAR is........" That's not the only response that should be required. |
| 56. By: rjfrik on 12-10-2011 01:48:50 First off, Ramirez playing third base in Safeco would be god awful. His bat could barely play in Wrigley, somehow it's going to all the sudden play in Safeco? No way. When I mention Tampa Bay of the west I was just comparing the way they can trade away a good pitcher for prospects or other needs because they have an abundance of pitchers in the pipeline. That is all. No other comparisons. |
| 57. By: Jackson on 12-10-2011 02:00:28 As Dave Cameron noted today, (with regard to the Prince Fielder merchandize brought up in the chat) "The merchandise argument is almost a total non-starter, in fact. As part of MLB’s revenue sharing plan, the profits from sales of jerseys, hats, and the like are pooled into the central fund and distributed equally to each team around the league." http://www.forbes.com/2006/04/17/06mlb_baseball-team-valuations-cx_mo_0420sports.html "And the Yankees account for 27% of all league merchandise sales, the profits of which get shared equally throughout the league to the tune of more than $3 million per franchise." http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=2464680 "And the amount of money earned from the sales of new Clemens merchandise won't line the Astros' coffers any more than it will the bank accounts of the Tampa Bay Devil Rays, since teams split merchandise revenue equally." |
| 58. By: Edman on 12-10-2011 04:13:44 Jackson, I do not think that your statement is completely accurate. There is no way that the Mariners would set up team shops and share their profits with all 30 MLB teams. It is true in regard to International merchandise sales. That's why when people taut about the extra merchandise revenues benefiting the Mariners in Japan, if they signed Darvish, that it is not at all correct. And certainly, merchandise sales made through MLB.com would be shared. But those sold in their team stores both at the Stadium and in malls, would mostly benefit the Mariners directly. So yes, Jersey sales for Fielder, Darvish or anyone else, sold by the Mariners adds to their revenue. I'm not 100% certain, but I cannot imagine any team setting up team stores, then sharing their profits with all the other major league teams. And certainly, teams like the Yankees and Red Sox wouldn't allow it to happen either. |
| 59. By: valencia on 12-10-2011 16:24:43 @46 - you overestimate the marketing effect from keeping Felix. Felix adds 2,000 fans per game per home start over another starter - over 16 starts. 32,000 fans extra. Casual baseball fans, all 2-3 million of them, don't care about Felix Hernandez. They just care if we're winning or not. Ask them to name a Mariner outside Ichiro and they'll look at you dumbly - this is the crowd we're trying to get going to games. @43 - Of course teams have more advanced analysis than Fangraphs, that's not the point. The point is WAR is the best stat "we" have as fans to evaluate players using numbers. We have to use something. Or I guess in your opinion we just use nothing to evaluate these players? As for Crawford, you can think they let him go for $ reasons, but even if they had the money, I think they let him go because he was old and asking for a long contract. They've realized players decline starting age 31-32 almost always. Acquiring youth, developing them in your elite system, having them peak for you cheaply, extending them to age 30 when you can, then trading/dumping them for more youth. This is a cycle that exists everywhere. The Patriots and the Lakers do it to perfection, and they're 2 franchises that win constantly. I'm not going to respond to the rest because I don't care anymore. You can think what you want, but Oakland and Billy Beane have caught on - they're trading everyone for more youth. The new inefficiency is having elite development, and trading established players for youth, until you have enough talent to compete. In a race to the top, I take 4 potentially elite players over 1 definite elite player any day. |
Haven't created a Prospect Insider account yet? Sign up!
|
|
 |
|
|
| Copyright 2010 Prospect Insider | Created by AQ Central Prospect Insider is optimized for Mozilla Firefox and Google Chrome |