Recap on the Durham Trade
by Jeff Sackmann on Jul 21, 2008 12:20 PM CDT
Email
PrintAs you probably know by now, the Brewers sent the Giants lefty pitcher Steve Hammond and olympic sprinter Darren Ford in exchange for Ray Durham and about $1.5MM. If you want to read some immediate opinions on both sides of the aisle, here you go.
In that thread, I made it pretty clear I was against the deal. I want to also make it clear that while guys like me tend to get worked up about roster tweaks, I recognize that the overall impact here, whether good or bad, is likely to be small.
First off, I view Darren Ford as no more than a throw-in. If he has a major-league future, it's not even as a fourth outfielder--he'd be a fifth-outfielder/pinch-runner/25th-man type guy. That is probably his upside. He's exactly the sort of player that should be included in a deal like this, since the Giants seem to like that sort of guy.
The debate in the thread I linked above was more about Steve Hammond. Nobody thinks Hammond is likely to be a difference-maker in the bigs; it might even be optimistic to think he's likely to crack the Brewers starting rotation. The question is: In a deal where we pay $1.5MM for very little return (more on that in a minute), should we be giving up anything of possible value?
As long-time readers know, I'm fixated on the importance of rotation depth. The Brewers had it this year (though I didn't realize McClung would be it), and it paid off. Mark Shapiro, the Indians GM, has said you need to go into a season 7 or 8 deep, and he's absolutely right. We could've kept Hammond in the minors as insurance through 2010, and while he'd never be more than a 5th starter, he would make it that much less likely we'd need to turn to next year's Jeff Weaver, Sidney Ponson, or Nelson Figueroa. Maybe we can replace him on the cheap; maybe he's not any better than guys like DiFelice and Lindsey Gulin; but I think there's a reasonable chance he's better than the other options.
Obviously, we're splitting hairs here. But if we're measuring the value of acquiring 36-year-old Ray Durham...well, hairs need to be split.
We're bringing in Durham to replace Joe Dillon. That certainly improves the team in terms of veteran savviness and name-recognition, but what does it do on the field?
Durham is a switch-hitter, which is nice for late-inning strategery. However, I keep hearing that he's the "lefty bat" that we need off the bench. Sorry--no. He does stand on the correct side of the plate against right-handed pitchers, but that isn't what matters--I could do that, too. This year is the first season since 2002 that Durham has hit better against righties. Given the last three, or five, years of data, Durham's splits look a lot like those of a typical right-handed hitter.
You might also hear that Durham is a "proven on-base guy," and hence a good option to sub for Weeks in the leadoff spot. This year, indeed, he has been, with a .385 OBP. His career OBP is .352--worse than Rickie's second half Marcel projection.
Further, all of this year's numbers are BABIP-inflated. His batted balls have been dropping at a .349 rate compared to a .306 career average. If anything, I'd expect him to be *below* career average, since he's older and slower than he used to be. If you assume his BABIP should be at his career average level, he's gotten 9 extra hits this year. Take those away, and his season line is 259/355/369. The OBP is still hanging in there, but...we're spending money on this?
Turning all of this into a mini-projection, I can borrow battlekow's work and give you Dillon's and Durham's Marcel projections for the rest of the year:
- Durham: .259/.335/.412
- Dillon: .262/.338/.399
Dramatic, eh? Durham has virtually no defensive value--he's a below-average second baseman in the field, and we have Counsell as a backup at that position. Heck, *Counsell* is OPSing .705 against righties which, if you assume Durham has an even platoon split (that's generous) is only a bit less than what we can expect from our new acquisition.
In a nutshell, it looks to me like we got ourselves a left-handed pinch-hitter who isn't really a lefty and isn't much of a hitter. Since we're just as well off plugging in Counsell two days a week (his defense more than makes up for a 30-50 point OPS advantage), we could take our pick of defensively-challenged lefties on the market. In fact, we wouldn't have to turn to the market--Brad Nelson's MLE versus righties is 276/358/423. I don't want Nelson playing second base, but I don't particularly want to see Durham out there when Counsell is on the bench, either.
And that brings me (blessedly) to my last thought. When I was thinking through the various trade options at second base, I realized that I left out one possible replacement...yes, our very own Craig Counsell. He's a lefty, he's a great fielder, and if we need to give Rickie a little extra motivation (that's been cited as a reason for the trade), giving Craig 3-4 starts per week would do that just as well as giving Durham 2.
Counsell isn't as good a hitter as Rickie, but his OPS against righties--705--is better than Rickie's this year, and it's pretty close to Rickie's career numbers vRHP.
In my view, then, we gave up a potentially useful player plus a decent chunk of change for a guy that isn't as good as players we already have. As I said at the outset, it's not going to hurt us much even if it does turn out negative. But it would be nice if our postseason-directed moves actually made the team better *now*. I'm not at all sure we did that.
48 comments
|
1 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
one think i think you left out
While Durham is a better hitter against lefties than righties and he is indeed weaker as a lefty, remember that the pitcher plays a part in any matchup as well.
If there is a righty pitcher who eats up righties but struggles against lefties, that matters and you will want to get a lefty stick up there.
Every batter/pitcher matchup is not JUST about about the hitter’s strengths and weaknesses, but the pitcher’s strengths and weaknesses as well.
Let’s say the Brewers are facing Marmol. While Dillon or whomever may have the same overall success as Durham against righties, it is important to realize that RHB are hitting .114 against Marmol this year and lefties have an OPS 350 points higher. So, that “evenness” is not going to hold up when you factor in Marmol’s ability to dominate righties.
In that situation, it will be nice to have a lefty to use situationally.
That might mean *a lefty* has a small amount of value
but
a) be wary of reliever platoon splits-the sample is really small. Most batters and pitchers, unless they have wacky motions, like Shouse or Bradford-tend to end up with “typical” platoon splits.
b) all of what you say is true for any lefty. we could’ve replaced Dillon with Brad Nelson anytime.
Also, cheese.
by Jeff Sackmann on Jul 21, 2008 12:53 PM CDT up reply actions
Perhaps Counsell isn't put in place
because Doug M or Mark A value using him in bases-loaded late-inning opportunities, where he is batting 1.000 (with at least one sacrifice).
If he’s a starter, you can’t sub him in in such gritty/clutch situations.
However, those opportunities are few and far between, so what’s the point in having him ride the pine all day for about 15 opportunities a season…
The manager worries about running into triple plays
So probabilities aren’t an organizational strong point.
by Getting Yosted on Jul 21, 2008 12:50 PM CDT up reply actions
Another reason Counsell might not be used
If another one of the infielders went down, Counsell would have to move off second and fill in at the other position. Taking Counsell off the bench could mean having to shuffle the entire infield around late in the game. At the very least, Dillon was the first pinch hitter off the bench regardless of the pitcher’s handedness because he’s limited defensively compared to the other bench guys. I wouldn’t be surprised if Durham is the first pinch hitter off the bench now whenever he’s not starting.
Obscure baseball records and more at my blog, Recondite Baseball.
I think that's accurate in terms of how Ned *does* manage
...kind of along the lines of non ph-ing your backup catcher.
Whether one should manage that way…seems a bit ridiculous. In-game injuries happen so rarely, even more rarely in close games, even more rarely in the situations when you wouldn’t be prepared to deal with them. And really, if three guys collide and Corey Hart has to play third and McClung goes into right for two innings…we’ll survive.
Also, cheese.
by Jeff Sackmann on Jul 21, 2008 1:18 PM CDT up reply actions
why so high on hammond? i don’t see it. the success that seems implied here.
also, i can probably find 4 or 5 guys i’d stick on the 25 before hammond.
i’m hoping that durham’s greatest contribution is to explain to weeks how to put up season’s like ray durham the allstar. the talent osmosis effect. and i still think the likelihood of that, and its value together are worth more than hammond.
Bring Back The Old Logo!
i dont
see much to get strong feelings for either way on this trade. I dont know if weeks has some LHP/RHP splits that could lead to a platoon of sorts or if Durham is going to just be a bench guy.
Maybe Durham will catch the Gabe Kapler/Branyan fire and have a hot month or so
I'm not that high on hammond
but I think he has positive value, and I’m not convinced that Durham adds anything at all to this team. Certainly not more than the salary relief we’re giving the Giants.
I wouldn’t put Hammond on the 25-man right now, either, but that’s not what I’m talking about. He would’ve been rotation insurance next year and the year after.
Also, cheese.
by Jeff Sackmann on Jul 21, 2008 1:21 PM CDT up reply actions
No one is "so high" on Hammond
The point is, if there is even a 1/50 chance that Hammond even just brings Doug a cup of coffee and bagel every morning, that’s worth more than the difference Ray Durham makes to this team in 2008, compared to the other parts we already. Counsell, Dillon, and Nelson were already in the organization, and they could/did fulfill every conceivable role you can invent for Ray Durham, with no appreciable drop-off in talent.
BCB's "very own marginally deserving all-star!"
ok, i see, for you, that it’s not so much that hammond has value, but durham has none.
but durham has 3 post season HRs…
seriously, i buy into the leadership hocus-pocus. i think this young team, trying to be all playoff bound and stuff benefits more from having durham as backup 2b than they do having dillon as backup 2b, even if they were to hit exactly the same for the rest of the season.
i’d put 14 years experience and a couple all-star seasons at about the same value level as the 1/50 shot hammond has at contributing, meaningfully, at an ML level. call it 1 run over replacement if you want to measure it on the same scale.
nobody agrees with me, huh?
Bring Back The Old Logo!
It's both
I’m higher on Hammond than most people, admittedly. I just don’t think Melvin is properly weighing what Durham brings to the team this year versus the potential benefit that Hammond brings over the next half-decade. Like I said, I think that potential is higher than most, but it would have to be zero for anyone to be rationally in favor of this trade.
This argument, of course, excepts leadership and talent osmosis and whatnot. I don’t really find it useful to argue about those things since none of us have any shot in hell of proving anything, even if we’re right.
BCB's "very own marginally deserving all-star!"
i'm not so sure about the veteran leadership stuff
You could be right though.
The trade could be worthless or slightly harmful as described, but if Durham hits this year at the same pace and Rickie does as well, it has the potential to be a difference maker.
I think Counsell + Kapler is all the postseason experience this team needs
I’m not willing to write it off entirely, but it’s not like we’ve got the Marlins roster, here. All of these games have played at least one postseason series:
Counsell
Kapler
Suppan
Sabathia
Kendall
Cameron
Mota
Gagne
Riske
Also, cheese.
by Jeff Sackmann on Jul 21, 2008 2:19 PM CDT up reply actions
ok, fair enough, but add ray durham to the list and ask rickie weeks to pick one guy off the list who’s career he’d most like to emulate. i honestly believe that quality is worth about the same as steve hammond.
Bring Back The Old Logo!
weeks
when is this guy going to break out? he was my sleeper pick for my fantasy team this year and it didnt quite work out
you're neglecting the impact
...of Dillon’s bats on Fielder’s HR numbers.
by PagsBrewCrew on Jul 21, 2008 4:12 PM CDT up reply actions
The salary portion of it is of little value to me.
This team is almost literally throwing money away on Gagne, Turnbow, and Mota and guys like that. If wasting 1.7 million on Durham makes people angry, you should be over 10 times as angry IMHO wasting money on the guys above. (See, also: Contracts-Hall, Bill. See also: Contracts-Suppan, Jeff)
As for the upgrade offensively, or lack there of apparently, I am on board with any decision that steals time from Rickie Weeks. If this is just a small step towards severing our ties with him I am OK with it. Durham might not be an upgrade over Weeks/Dillon/whoever you compare him too, but at least I won’t have to read 10 articles prior to the 2009 season that says Durham is “due for a breakout year” or “is a potential 30/30 guy” or stuff like that.
Also, agreeing with Jacob above whole-heartedly. Where was Hammond on the depth chart early in the season? 1) Sheets 1a) now CC 2)Gallardo 3) Suppan 4)Bush 5)Villy 6)McClung 7) Capuano 8)Vargas 9)Weaver 10) maybe Narveson or some other guy from AAA 11) then maybe Hammond? Maybe? I mean putting Hammond as a #5 starter would be an ENORMOUS leap for him. I don’t see how he isn’t viewed a “throw in” also.
It is dangerous for an athlete to believe his own publicity, good or bad - Bob Uecker, 1982.
I'm not talking about Hammond *now*
I’m talking about Hammond possibly next year, and probably in 2010.
Also, cheese.
by Jeff Sackmann on Jul 21, 2008 1:19 PM CDT up reply actions
OK, still.......(Forgive my weird numbering)
Most everyone here has explored the possibility of trading for Cain, or Sanchez, or someone like that for next year, it’s still 1) and maybe 3) guys you trade for (bye Prince), 2) Gallardo 4) Suppan 5) McClung 6) Bush 7)Villanueva 8)again, maybe Hammond in 2009.
They flat out released Vargas this season, so at the very least it doesn’t seem that Melvin shares the view on Hammond and guys like that having positive value. He sees them as a dime a dozen apparently, and maybe that’s due to the team’s increased payroll and willingness to spend as of late. Melvin may be wrong too, so I’m by no means saying it’s right.
It is dangerous for an athlete to believe his own publicity, good or bad - Bob Uecker, 1982.
Melvin thinks back of the rotation arms are a dime a dozen and Alex Rodriguez is $252M a pop
There’s a discrepancy in the logic there somewhere.
BCB's "very own marginally deserving all-star!"
Cheekily expanding my math joke
That means that Claudio Vargas is worth 8/10 of a cent, or 30,240,000,000 times less than A-Rod.
BCB's "very own marginally deserving all-star!"
Vargas
Releasing Vargas wasn’t saying he was worth zero, it was saying he wasn’t worth a couple million + a roster spot. Guys like Hammond are neither.
Also, cheese.
by Jeff Sackmann on Jul 21, 2008 2:20 PM CDT up reply actions
my guess
They start him against RH pitching. Ned loves to have those lefties in there against RH pitching. He also loves that late inning chess match with pinch hitting versus relief pitchers. With Cardinals setting their lineup to have 4 RHers this series and LaRussa being the epitome of multiple pitching changes, I won’t have to wait long for a serving of crow pot pie.
As a miscellaneous wishful positive thought, perhaps the regular at bats will help Dillon and he’ll be hitting better in September assuming he’s called up.
My issue
with this trade is I still wonder whether we got the best possbile 2B we could have got. Durham’s value will remain to be seen over the next couple of weeks (no pun intended) as will Hammonds future. If at the end all this does is gives Weeks a kick in the A$$ and we lost upside on Hammond it makes no sense, we should have just used a boot to deliver the message.
What ever happen to all the discussion about Brian Roberts? Sure the price would have been higher but I guess I don’t see that Melvin walked all that far down that trail. How sure are we that Roberts was not obtainable?
The Wallbangers won because they played the game like kids! Let's do that again!!!
I think Roberts was obtainable, but it would have take Steve Hammond and Mat Gamel (Powell joke) to get him
BCB's "very own marginally deserving all-star!"
The Baltimore Sun (?) beat reporter described the price for Roberts as “extreme.” Melvin described him as “not available.”
Not that it is meaningful, but their fans thought Escobar, Weeks and some premium pitching prospects or some similar variation was about right.
Way out oddball thought.
I wonder if there is any possibilty that we are shopping Rickie Weeks?
He’s at a crossroads, where some people think that he has such a quick swing and good speed, that he will eventually put it all together.
Others (like Brewers management?) may think that he is a bust that will never ever be a good hitter.
Maybe the Brewers have a GM that think Rickie can still become a good and will offer something useable (bullpen arm?)
The Brewers would use Durham as a stopap to get to Green perhaps.
Ok…told you it was way out there
I'd be *shocked*
if that were the case right now.
But…it’s very plausible in the offseason.
I think everybody except for Braun and Gallardo and maybe Parra will be on the table in some way or other. That might only result in one major trade, but while Hardy is the obvious trade bait (with Escobar coming up), Weeks could be viewed as expendable, with an eye on moving Hardy to second, or swapping him for a younger, maybe lower-risk but lower-ceiling 2B. I don’t know who that would be, but it would make sense if such a guy were out there.
Also, cheese.
by Jeff Sackmann on Jul 21, 2008 4:02 PM CDT up reply actions
Weeks was rumored to be included in a "blockbuster" deal prior to this relatively minor one
Both SF and Milwaukee papers reported it, so I’d imagine there’s some truth to it.
BCB's "very own marginally deserving all-star!"
Durham's value and bunts
I know that Jeff and battekow keep talking about Durham having zero value, and I don’t agree.
I sort of view Durham the way I view bunts. Statistically speaking, they really don’t impact your winning or losing when looking at a season via the macro level.
However, on the micro level, it CAN help you win a particular ballgame, say, a 2-2 game in the 9th inning.
I think Durham is better than Dillon, and while the difference isn’t really big enough to show up when looking over the long term, I think on an individual game level, I think it could make the difference in winning or losing A game.
As has been noted, I don’t think Hammond has any value. His MLE ERAs the last two years are between the high 4.00’s and the mid 6.00’s. Giving him up in exchange for possibly winning just one extra game because we have Durham to hit instead of Dillon when facing Kerry Wood or Brad Lidge or whomever is enough for me to make the deal.
if Milwaukee's willing to trade Weeks, they should at least go after Ellis
he’s a big upgrade over Weeks and wouldn’t cost as much as Peter Angelos’ favorite player.
I’m due to interview both Hammond and Ford in Fresno and San Jose respectively next month. I give the people what they want—quotes from the “hey who’s that?” guys in the salary dump trade.
Obviously I like the Durham trade because it certainly beats DFA and getting nothing in return, and I’m not even sure Durham would garner much in returns if the team let him go as a free agent. I knew the team wouldn’t get anything huge in a trade. Though a friend tells me that Ford has tools and hey, Hammond is a local guy. His parents live not too far from where I am situated.
"While conservatives tell you 'leave things alone and no one will lose,' and liberals tell you 'interfere a lot and no one will lose,' baseball says 'someone will lose.' Not only says it - but insists upon it! ... Democracy is lovely, but baseball's more mature." BVCE supports SF Dugout and Manny Burriss.
by BaronVonCurrentEvents on Jul 22, 2008 10:45 AM CDT reply actions
Ford is a tools whore
He’s one of the fastest players in the minors, a great defensive CF, has some power, and will take a walk. The only problem is that he can’t really hit, or at least couldn’t hit at Space Coast Stadium. We’ll he see what he does in a new environment.
Would you mind posting those interviews over here too? That would be great.
BCB's "very own marginally deserving all-star!"
Guess it's better than just being a tool
The best I can do is link to the interviews at SF Dugout. All the interview pieces are premium content on the site and those require paid subscriptions to read. Being a shill is hard work…
"While conservatives tell you 'leave things alone and no one will lose,' and liberals tell you 'interfere a lot and no one will lose,' baseball says 'someone will lose.' Not only says it - but insists upon it! ... Democracy is lovely, but baseball's more mature." BVCE supports SF Dugout and Manny Burriss.
by BaronVonCurrentEvents on Jul 22, 2008 2:46 PM CDT up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
NL Central Standings
| W | L | PCT | GB | STRK | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Chicago
|
0 | 0 | .000 | 0 | Lost 0 |
|
Cincinnati
|
0 | 0 | .000 | 0 | Lost 0 |
|
Houston
|
0 | 0 | .000 | 0 | Lost 0 |
|
Milwaukee
|
0 | 0 | .000 | 0 | Lost 0 |
|
Pittsburgh
|
0 | 0 | .000 | 0 | Lost 0 |
|
St. Louis
|
0 | 0 | .000 | 0 | Lost 0 |
(updated 2.13.2012 at 7:02 PM CST)
Baseball Nation Recent Stories
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- Five tips for Showtime’s second season of ‘The Franchise’
- The 10 best things about being a Detroit Tigers fan
- Surprise! A’s finally end the Yoenis Cespedes derby with $36 million deal for Cuban star
- The time Whitney Houston sang to Jim Bowden
- Pitchers and catchers! Mariners get early start in Arizona
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
