Don't like the Hardy/Gomez trade?
by roguejim on Nov 27, 2009 3:00 PM CST
50 comments
Then don't read this:
Barring a major surprise, the Blue Jays' signing of free-agent shortstop Alex Gonzalez leaves the Red Sox with virtually no choice but to sign Marco Scutaro.
No quality shortstops are known to be available in trade, and the free-agent market is thin on quality defenders at the position.
Originally, the Red Sox balked at our request for young, top-of-the-line pitching. However, when your only choice is to sign an inferior, Type A free agent, maybe you're a little more amenable to the Brewers' offer of J.J. Hardy.
At the very least, it sure looks like we didn't help ourselves by trading Hardy so quickly.
0 recs |
50 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
No matter how desparate the Sox are
we still wouldn’t have gotten Buchholz or Bard for Hardy. Maybe they’ll sign Counsell.
"A D+ Grade? That must have been a Wittardo grade"- @73_MC
Completely agree
I also think that Melvin had unreal expectations in dealing with the Sox. If they had talked him down to a Michael Bowden trade for Hardy and maybe another prospect it would have been a very good deal for the Brewers.
I dont think the trade was awful, at the very least it closed up CF to allow Cameron to go elsewhere saving the team $10 million.
As mentioned before on this site, it sure does seem like DM is working on a rebuild. Of course he couldnt publicly admit to this while season ticket sales/renewals were in full swing.
I don't either
I’m somewhat optimistic about Gomez - really, my main complaint about the trade had nothing to do with Gomez and everything to do with the FA pitching we were resigning ourselves to. If Sveum can teach Gomez to hit, this could be a fantastic trade for us, though that is one gigantic IF.
I guess, although my faith in Doug Melvin the FA Dumpster Diver Alchemist remains strong, my faith in Doug Melvin the Crafty Horsetrader sinks lower and lower with each passing day.
"I will agree that the attitude [at BCB] is ridiculous and they have done so much to instigate animosity and then block us from responding. Real mature!"
by roguejim on Nov 27, 2009 10:16 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs
Well maybe not
But it’s not like we HAD to do a one-for-one trade - we could have done Hardy and a pitcher (Jeffress?). Either way, if they sign Scutaro, they’re essentially trading a 1st round pick to Toronto for him (something that may not have been considered when DM and the Sox talked last).
I guess, I’ve seen no indication that we had to do the deal right away or risk losing Gomez. More to the point, having the Red Sox that much more interested (or desperate) certainly wouldn’t have hurt, whether Hardy ended up in Boston, Toronto, or Minnesota.
"I will agree that the attitude [at BCB] is ridiculous and they have done so much to instigate animosity and then block us from responding. Real mature!"
I was wondering about that...
"I will agree that the attitude [at BCB] is ridiculous and they have done so much to instigate animosity and then block us from responding. Real mature!"
You'd think
they’d at least explore the option.
I don’t have a category for "washed-up guys who may or may not be dominant big-league closers sometime soon."
~Jeff Sackmann
by Charlie Marlow on Nov 27, 2009 4:25 PM CST up reply actions
If the Twins traded Hardy to the Sox for Buchholz
I would personally lead the agrarian revolt, complete with spades and pitchforks, onto Miller Park.
Seriously, that hypothetical non-Brewer-related event might end DM’s tenure in Milwaukee.
"I will agree that the attitude [at BCB] is ridiculous and they have done so much to instigate animosity and then block us from responding. Real mature!"
There would be blood.
I don’t see how it could be avoided…
Taking shallowness to new depths -- FtJ's blog
by Fatter than Joey on Nov 28, 2009 9:15 AM CST up reply actions
I DRINK YOUR MILKSHAKE
Cards Announcers On Gamel's First Career HR, "That’s all they need is another home run hitter".
by tcyoung on Nov 28, 2009 4:59 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs
does it bring all the boys to the yard?
I didn’t think you felt that way about large men.
by PagsBrewCrew on Nov 30, 2009 11:33 AM CST up reply actions
There Will Be Blood?
Cards Announcers On Gamel's First Career HR, "That’s all they need is another home run hitter".
geez
I guess see also: http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/2009/06/10/top-10-rap-sex-euphemisms/ but that’s saying that the interpretation I heard is not the public disclosure ;)
I know the song,
I was just commenting that you seemed to miss my reference completely
Cards Announcers On Gamel's First Career HR, "That’s all they need is another home run hitter".
I rec'd it
not only because the film is awesome, but because if Bill Smith did that he certainly would be the Daniel Plainview to DM’s Eli Sunday. Totally apt.
"I've had the time of my afterlife." --Patrick Swayze
If they weren’t willing to give up decent pitching when their only options were Marco Scutaro and Alex Gonzalez, I don’t think they’re in any worse of a position now.
Ryan Braun: He loves it. *Secretly, I am Carlos Gomez*
except now they have to give up their 1st round pick if they want Scutaro.
So…I’d say that’s a worse position.
I don’t have a category for "washed-up guys who may or may not be dominant big-league closers sometime soon."
~Jeff Sackmann
by Charlie Marlow on Nov 27, 2009 4:30 PM CST up reply actions
Not if the Jays don't offer him arb.
Which could happen, even if it’s not likely.
If that’s the case, I’d say the Jays did Epstein an error in forcing his hand, b/c Scutaro is better than Gonzalez anyway.
"I've had the time of my afterlife." --Patrick Swayze
Right, I was working under the assumption they would offer it.
I don’t have a category for "washed-up guys who may or may not be dominant big-league closers sometime soon."
~Jeff Sackmann
by Charlie Marlow on Nov 30, 2009 4:46 PM CST up reply actions
I think they probably will.
He’s the only SS on the market, pretty much, so someone should sign him regardless. Like the Sox. Plus, if the Sox sign Holliday instead of Bay, they sort of make up for the loss of draft picks by gaining a first rounder and a supplemental pick. The first round (#29 overall) and second round picks lost by signing Holliday and Scutaro, respectively, would actually be improved upon by the compensation for losing Bay: they’d likely get a higher 1st rounder, and a supplemental pick beats the 2nd rounder they’d lose.
"I've had the time of my afterlife." --Patrick Swayze
Yep, great point
I don’t have a category for "washed-up guys who may or may not be dominant big-league closers sometime soon."
~Jeff Sackmann
by Charlie Marlow on Nov 30, 2009 4:59 PM CST up reply actions
Bend over Doug
Melvin totally got screwed in this deal. What was the hurry to trade Hardy unless he wanted to send him up to Siberia as a punishment for being the best shortstop the Brewers have had since Robin Yount. Escobar could be better, who knows, but it’s unforgiveable that Melvin got nothing in return for one of the best all around shortstops in the game who had one bad year at the plate.
Red Sox shortstops are cursed
Not just the current lot, either. They haven’t had a shortstop start the majority of games at SS for six years in a row since Rick Burleson. He ended his string in 1980 when they traded him (and started Glenn Hoffman instead—looking at Hoffman’s lifetime stats, perhaps someone should have made him a pitcher too.)
Theo Epstein has been proven (sort of) to be a rather crappy evaluator of shortstops. I had wondered why Orlando Cabrera, despite poor quality, wasn’t in this list until I remembered they traded for him in 2004 and he didn’t catch on.
Hmmm
That’d be interesting to look at. I wonder what is average for each position. Six years with one guy at the same position seems like a longer-than-average time to me.
"I will agree that the attitude [at BCB] is ridiculous and they have done so much to instigate animosity and then block us from responding. Real mature!"
It excludes him, but not conveniently
I was trying to find a long, continuous stretch without injuries. Basically, Garciaparra and Burleson were the only SS with any staying power. Nomar just dissolved in ’04 and they kept throwing shortstops out there to see if any would stick (looks a lot like ’09) I really should have dug deeper as I forgot the Sox kept John Valentin when Nomar came up, they just moved him to 3B.
I’m really not sure what the Sox are doing with their SS position, recently or historically. What really bit them this year is that Jed Lowrie was hurt for most of the year. Lowrie was their first genuine SS prospect, IIRC, since Nomar. That’s over 10 years. I was looking up their middle infield depth in their minor league system and it’s horrible. They presumably traded for Tug Hulett so someone could play IF in Pawtucket. The system has about 8 zillion catchers, though.
Conveniently was a poor word choice
They had Adam Everett, Hanley Ramirez and Freddy Sanchez in their system over the years, too. They just traded them away.
I forgot about Hanley
As much as Beckett and Lowell have been important, I’m still not sure if that was a good move.
It really was a fair trade
We got a player for 4 years that was half as good as the player the Twins got for 2 years.
I hated the trade. I didn’t think it addressed our needs and traded away one of our biggest trading chips, but hey, we saved a bunch of money to spend on mediocre pitching.
Give him an offspeed pitch down and in. He will swing and miss.
It really was NOT
fair. If you take into account the positional scarcity. There may be only 10 other SS with Hardy’s value in all of MLB. A CF prospect with good-glove no-hit reputation? We’ve got 3 of those in our own system. The Mustache whiffed on this one big-time.
I think you only read
the subject line of his post.
I don’t have a category for "washed-up guys who may or may not be dominant big-league closers sometime soon."
~Jeff Sackmann
by Charlie Marlow on Nov 29, 2009 9:01 PM CST up reply actions
It was fair
The Twins got a SS who is worth about 4 wins a year for 2 years and we got a guy worth 2 wins a year for 4 years provided JJ bounces back to an OPS in the .750+ range, which is around his career numbers. Not an unreasonable expectation in my opinion. The trade would swing our way if Gomez starts to hit better or the Twins way if JJ gets back to his 2007-2008 numbers and vaults back into a Type A free agent. Neither is really out of the question.(I probably fudged the numbers up a little to make them easier to work with. Gomez is probably a little under 2 and JJ a little under 4 going forward with similar to career numbers for both)
I didn’t like the trade because I think it made us worse right now while hoping for some pitching to come from somewhere. It isn’t in the system right now, not ready for 2010 anyway. It seems like a very strange trade since it seems to weaken us for 2010 instead of making us better. JJ alone more than likely wouldn’t bring back a good pitcher, but he could have been packaged with one or more players to get what we need. We probably could have had similar(my guess is slightly worse) production out of CF platoon of Gerut/Cain(better offense, worse defense than Gomez). So in my opinion we got worse at SS without making an improvement anywhere else.
Give him an offspeed pitch down and in. He will swing and miss.
Thus, the danger of using WAR to evaluate trades
I don’t have a category for "washed-up guys who may or may not be dominant big-league closers sometime soon."
~Jeff Sackmann
by Charlie Marlow on Nov 30, 2009 2:15 AM CST up reply actions
2 WAR per year is the same as 4 WAR per year?
Cards Announcers On Gamel's First Career HR, "That’s all they need is another home run hitter".
someone needs to go back to West Point
and learn more about WARs.
by PagsBrewCrew on Nov 30, 2009 11:36 AM CST up reply actions
2 WAR per year
over 4 years is equal value to 4 WAR per year over 2 years. One player is obviously better.
2 * 4 =8
4 * 2=8
Equal total value. One team gets better while spending more money, one gets worse while freeing up money.
Give him an offspeed pitch down and in. He will swing and miss.
That's a horrible mis-use of WAR.
I don’t give a shit if Gomez is worth the same amount over 4 years as Hardy is over 2—I care if he’s worth the same amount over two, and PARTICULARLY I care whether he will be worth as much as Hardy before Fielder leaves.
Obviously, you’ve answered both of those questions with an emphatic ‘no’.
I don’t have a category for "washed-up guys who may or may not be dominant big-league closers sometime soon."
~Jeff Sackmann
by Charlie Marlow on Nov 30, 2009 12:44 PM CST up reply actions
I just
think it is ridiculous to think any team would trade a player with 4 years left for a player with 2 years left if both players would be equal value year to year. That would be a horribly lopsided trade. My only point is that both players have equal value over their time left so the trade was equal value for equal value. Thus a pretty equal trade. You disagree and that’s fine.
I do care that we traded away the better player. It is somewhat confusing that we would make a trade to get worse and then try and rely on getting better with the mediocre starting FA pitching.
Give him an offspeed pitch down and in. He will swing and miss.
You really walk this line of assuming constant production
but whatever.
Really, one can’t assess the value of this trade until the end of 2010, anyway. You really shouldn’t try and use past years’ WAR to assess it before either team gets any production. That’s my point.
Otherwise, you and I agree on the rest of
I do care that we traded away the better player. It is somewhat confusing that we would make a trade to get worse and then try and rely on getting better with the mediocre starting FA pitching.
I don’t have a category for "washed-up guys who may or may not be dominant big-league closers sometime soon."
~Jeff Sackmann
by Charlie Marlow on Nov 30, 2009 1:04 PM CST up reply actions
I am
just trying to make a guess at future production. I don’t think we will know how even the trade is until the end of the 2012 season or after both players are gone from their current team.
I don’t think it is wrong to try and asses a trade by guessing future production. Assuming Gomez gets better, we probably got the better end of the deal. I think Hardy is maxed out at 4 WAR and Gomez has the potential to be a better than average CF including defense.(2 War being average)
Give him an offspeed pitch down and in. He will swing and miss.
I think 1017 MLB ABs is enough to gauge what kind of offensive player Gomez will be
and he will only be valuable for his defense.
I don’t have a category for "washed-up guys who may or may not be dominant big-league closers sometime soon."
~Jeff Sackmann
by Charlie Marlow on Nov 30, 2009 1:58 PM CST up reply actions
At his age
I would have to disagree. Although I think he would be better off in AAA instead of the majors in 2010, he is young enough that we can probably expect some improvement. His peripheral stats improved in 2009.
Give him an offspeed pitch down and in. He will swing and miss.
Which?
The slight reduction in k% and slight increase in BB%? Its not the .3 increase in AB/SO or the reduction in OPS, OPS+, wOBA, wOBA+, AVG, OBP or SLG?
I don’t have a category for "washed-up guys who may or may not be dominant big-league closers sometime soon."
~Jeff Sackmann
by Charlie Marlow on Nov 30, 2009 3:53 PM CST up reply actions
Huh?
Piggybacking on Charlie Marlow, this seems to me to be a similar argument to whether two 2-WAR players are the same as one 4-WAR player. It’s obvious that the latter option is more valuable.
Likewise, having a 4-WAR player makes you better in those two years, which is especially pertinent to a team like the Brewers, as Charlie M points out. The money spent on Gomez over the next 4 years might not be all that different for the money spent on JJ over 2, and if you are going to count the total wins contributed by these players over those years, you have to also account for the total dollars.
Plus, projecting over two years is precarious enough, projecting over 4 is a bona fide crapshoot.
"I've had the time of my afterlife." --Patrick Swayze
...and that
the “clogging up the roster” argument. I agree. You want to pack the most punch into the most positions as possible.
I disagree
It’s better to squeeze out more quicker. In two years you’ll probably not replace the player with a “replacement level” player, but rather someone who is “average” or maybe “a little below average”. You can “always” sign/find the replacement level player in a pinch, so chances are you’ll have someone better in stock. So, then out of the deal you get 2 years * 4 WAR/yr + 2 years * 0.5 (or whatever) WAR/yr > 4 years * 2 WAR/yr.
Don’t know if anyone is reading this old thread though.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Brew Crew Ball
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
NL Central Standings
| W | L | PCT | GB | STRK | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Cincinnati
|
79 | 60 | .568 | 0 | Lost 4 |
|
St. Louis
|
72 | 65 | .525 | 6 | Lost 2 |
|
Houston
|
66 | 73 | .474 | 13 | Won 2 |
|
Milwaukee
|
65 | 74 | .467 | 14 | Won 2 |
|
Chicago
|
60 | 80 | .428 | 19.5 | Lost 2 |
|
Pittsburgh
|
47 | 92 | .338 | 32 | Lost 1 |
(updated 9.9.2010 at 9:41 AM CDT)
SBNation.com Recent Stories
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- John Lindsey couldn't have come any closer to his first at-bat
- The Juice: Swisher ends Orioles sweep dreams with timely homer
- Create-a-Caption: Dusty Baker wants YOU to buy playoff tickets
- Padres' Heath Bell wistful about Trevor Hoffman's 600th save
- Want your first career home run? Face a pitcher from Chicago
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.
