Part 2
As promised, today I am returning to discuss the players received by the White Sox in last summer's trade with Seattle one year after the fact. For starters, Ben Davis seems to pretty clearly represent the most inconsequential player involved in the Sox-M's swap. Once regarded as a top catching prospect in San Diego's system, Davis' stock had dropped considerably by the time he was dealt to Seattle in 2002. This is however, not to say that Davis completely lacked value in his time with the Mariners. From his last season with the Padres in 2001 through 2004, Davis performed at a level similar to Miguel Olivo's previously discussed 2003 full season debut. Davis' performance was consistently above replacement level but with potential which dwindled each season and he eventually appeared best suited for a back up role. However, early last season, the Mariners came to the conclusion Davis was incapable of sticking with a Major League roster in any role, demoting him to AAA after a stretch of 33 horrific at bats to open the season. Davis remained at Tacoma until Kenny Williams freed him in the Garcia deal. With the Sox, Davis bounced back from his poor start and demotion to the minors but still continued the downward slide apparent ever since his final season with the Padres in '01 by putting up a homely .231/.276/.400 line. Still, while Davis clearly did not represent the everyday catcher some Sox fans naively described him as after a two week hot stretch in August, he was reasonably inexpensive and provided useful catching depth in light of Olivo's departure. The team stood to lose little from including Davis as part of the trade so with the exception of the highly unlikely event that he took the place of a player with legitimate potential or value, it is virtually impossible to condemn such a minor aspect of the deal. Ken Williams' decision to consider Davis for the club's starting catching vacancy and sign him to a million dollar deal this off season on the other hand represents a far less harmless move. However, that transaction occurred separate from the Garcia trade and Williams deserves quite a bit of slack for bravely reversing course and shipping Davis off to Charlotte in favor of A.J. Pierzynski and Chris Widger. All in all, aside from wasting a million dollars of payroll, acquiring Davis was harmful and in some ways resembles some of the low risk/high reward deals that have paid of for Williams in the past.
While I stated earlier that Jeremy Reed has always been the key to the trade for the Mariners, the same applies tenfold to Garcia's presence in the deal for the Sox since he is the only significant piece the team acquired in the move. I find it important to first state the obvious: Freddy Garcia was a far better pitcher than any other pitcher the White Sox could have reasonably managed to acquire last season and substantially improved the strength of the pitching staff. The key to examining the trade from the Sox end is answering the immensely difficult question of whether or not Garcia has improved the club enough to justify the young talent the organization relinquished.
One difficulty in weighing the costs and benefits of the Garcia trade for the White Sox is determining exactly how much of the value Garcia generates in a Sox uniform should be considered a direct result of the trade. While Freddy has no doubt been a major piece of this season's enormously successful 62-29 team, the White Sox traded Reed, Olivo, and Morse for Davis and Freddy Garcia at a point during which Garcia was signed only through the duration of the season. The three year $27 million extension the right hander reach with the team represents a separate transaction which followed weeks later. Considering the idea that the extension is in fact a separate move, a major point of contention is - had the trade never happened, could the three year deal with Garcia still have occurred a few months later in the off season? Since Garcia merely generated a very good but by no means all world 3.2 wins above replacement for a .500 team, if the Sox could have kept Reed, Olivo, and Morse to forego only the 16 relatively meaningless games Garcia started in 2004 and this season's 2005 first round draft pick, the trade clearly represents an unforgivable miscalculation (Some of you might want to stop me here and argue that at the time of the trade, the team had compiled a solid record and it appeared Frank Thomas and Magglio Ordonez would remain healthy throughout the duration of the season. In other words, by pointing out that Garcia's contributions were largely meaningless on a team that was out of contention late in the season, I am unreasonably relying on the hindsight required to foresee the team's collapse - which was highly unlikely at the instant the deal was consummated. The point is well taken, but I have to disagree. While clearly no one had the benefit of knowing when the trade was consummated that Thomas and Ordonez would be sidelined and the team would completely tank, a major contention contributing to my disagreement with the trade stated that the move was unwise because the team assumed too much risk by playing for one season when over a short period of time the unexpected can happen: teams can experience horrible luck and lose a ton of one run games, multiple players can slump terribly at the same time, and a team's best players can unpredictably go down with season ending injuries. While these factors will generally even out over several seasons if an organization fields a strong team each year, a team's luck can easily be incredibly good or bad over a half season. While I did not know the team would falter, the possibility of a scenario such as the one that ultimately occurred was a major reason I decried the trade from day one.). The difficulty with assuming that Garcia either could or could not have been signed to a similar contract in the off season is that either way, one is relying heavily on speculation. The Venezuelan presence in the Sox clubhouse and the fact that Garcia is married to Ozzie Guillen's niece certainly suggests that Garcia would have been more open to signing with the team in the off season than your average free agent. At the same time, Garcia's deal is for $9 million a season while Jaret Wright, Carl Pavano, and Pedro Martinez signed deals for $8, $10 , and $13 million respectively last winter. It is hard to say exactly what type of offers Garcia would have fielded in the open market (offers at least matching Pavano's $10 million per season seem likely), how much of a discount Garcia would've provided to play for a family member, and how willing the Sox would've been to pony up a few million more than they ultimately paid if that's what it took to get a deal done.
I promised three parts to this series of articles and due to the degree to which all aspects of the Garcia trade are intertwined it appears I spent the majority of the second part rambling on about the nuances of the deal I intended to discuss in part three. Somewhat disappointingly, one year later clear, concise answers regarding who won out are still not easy to come by. I attempted to avoid interjecting my opinion throughout both entries, although I'm not sure my efforts were successful. At this point I feel I owe the few readers I have left some definitive judgments even if some of these judgments are laced with subjectivity. With that said, here are the best conclusions I am personally capable of producing as far as an overarching evaluation of the trade: 1) It appears that despite my protestations from a year ago, the White Sox will not miss Miguel Olivo, substantially reducing the risk of the trade. 2) Despite a red hot debut, it still seems Michael Morse will develop into a solid major league starter at best. 3) Jeremy Reed is a solid major league starter at 23 with a chance to be a well above average starting center fielder for a long time, and he will not be arbitration eligible until after the 2007 season or eligible for free agency until after the 2010 season. 4) Freddy Garcia did not help the White Sox to reach the playoffs in 2004. 5) As tremendous and essential as Garcia has been in 2005, it would have most likely been worth parting with an extra one to two million dollars per season from 2005-2007 (I ultimately just can't see Garcia getting Pedro money last off season) or to settling for a different high caliber starter such as Matt Clement to keep Olivo, Morse, and most importantly Reed in a Sox uniform for a combined total of 14 seasons, 7 of which would have been practically free in terms of salary.
I guess what it comes down to is that my personal philosophy is not to part with players of Reed's caliber in "rent-a-player" deadline deals. While I mentioned earlier that the possibility of Thomas and Ordonez going down or other similar catastrophe must be considered over the course of 80+ games, that does not mean it was inevitable the Sox would tank. Garcia could have pitched the Sox to the playoffs under other circumstances and the handful of games he pitched in the playoffs could have been monumental for the organization. However, by the same token, Miguel Olivo could have continued to progress and become a perennial All-Star, Morse could hit 30 home runs as a short stop one season, and Reed might post a career average of .340. The greater the amount of time that passes after a trade occurs the more difficult it becomes to separate the odds of events occurring at the time from what actually took place in the aftermath of the deal. In the end, I believe what I believe about the trade but must admit that at some point the endless permutations one must consider to evaluate a move one year down the line, let alone six are enough to make anyone's head hurt. In my opinion, if you disagree you're not thinking hard enough.
While I stated earlier that Jeremy Reed has always been the key to the trade for the Mariners, the same applies tenfold to Garcia's presence in the deal for the Sox since he is the only significant piece the team acquired in the move. I find it important to first state the obvious: Freddy Garcia was a far better pitcher than any other pitcher the White Sox could have reasonably managed to acquire last season and substantially improved the strength of the pitching staff. The key to examining the trade from the Sox end is answering the immensely difficult question of whether or not Garcia has improved the club enough to justify the young talent the organization relinquished.
One difficulty in weighing the costs and benefits of the Garcia trade for the White Sox is determining exactly how much of the value Garcia generates in a Sox uniform should be considered a direct result of the trade. While Freddy has no doubt been a major piece of this season's enormously successful 62-29 team, the White Sox traded Reed, Olivo, and Morse for Davis and Freddy Garcia at a point during which Garcia was signed only through the duration of the season. The three year $27 million extension the right hander reach with the team represents a separate transaction which followed weeks later. Considering the idea that the extension is in fact a separate move, a major point of contention is - had the trade never happened, could the three year deal with Garcia still have occurred a few months later in the off season? Since Garcia merely generated a very good but by no means all world 3.2 wins above replacement for a .500 team, if the Sox could have kept Reed, Olivo, and Morse to forego only the 16 relatively meaningless games Garcia started in 2004 and this season's 2005 first round draft pick, the trade clearly represents an unforgivable miscalculation (Some of you might want to stop me here and argue that at the time of the trade, the team had compiled a solid record and it appeared Frank Thomas and Magglio Ordonez would remain healthy throughout the duration of the season. In other words, by pointing out that Garcia's contributions were largely meaningless on a team that was out of contention late in the season, I am unreasonably relying on the hindsight required to foresee the team's collapse - which was highly unlikely at the instant the deal was consummated. The point is well taken, but I have to disagree. While clearly no one had the benefit of knowing when the trade was consummated that Thomas and Ordonez would be sidelined and the team would completely tank, a major contention contributing to my disagreement with the trade stated that the move was unwise because the team assumed too much risk by playing for one season when over a short period of time the unexpected can happen: teams can experience horrible luck and lose a ton of one run games, multiple players can slump terribly at the same time, and a team's best players can unpredictably go down with season ending injuries. While these factors will generally even out over several seasons if an organization fields a strong team each year, a team's luck can easily be incredibly good or bad over a half season. While I did not know the team would falter, the possibility of a scenario such as the one that ultimately occurred was a major reason I decried the trade from day one.). The difficulty with assuming that Garcia either could or could not have been signed to a similar contract in the off season is that either way, one is relying heavily on speculation. The Venezuelan presence in the Sox clubhouse and the fact that Garcia is married to Ozzie Guillen's niece certainly suggests that Garcia would have been more open to signing with the team in the off season than your average free agent. At the same time, Garcia's deal is for $9 million a season while Jaret Wright, Carl Pavano, and Pedro Martinez signed deals for $8, $10 , and $13 million respectively last winter. It is hard to say exactly what type of offers Garcia would have fielded in the open market (offers at least matching Pavano's $10 million per season seem likely), how much of a discount Garcia would've provided to play for a family member, and how willing the Sox would've been to pony up a few million more than they ultimately paid if that's what it took to get a deal done.
I promised three parts to this series of articles and due to the degree to which all aspects of the Garcia trade are intertwined it appears I spent the majority of the second part rambling on about the nuances of the deal I intended to discuss in part three. Somewhat disappointingly, one year later clear, concise answers regarding who won out are still not easy to come by. I attempted to avoid interjecting my opinion throughout both entries, although I'm not sure my efforts were successful. At this point I feel I owe the few readers I have left some definitive judgments even if some of these judgments are laced with subjectivity. With that said, here are the best conclusions I am personally capable of producing as far as an overarching evaluation of the trade: 1) It appears that despite my protestations from a year ago, the White Sox will not miss Miguel Olivo, substantially reducing the risk of the trade. 2) Despite a red hot debut, it still seems Michael Morse will develop into a solid major league starter at best. 3) Jeremy Reed is a solid major league starter at 23 with a chance to be a well above average starting center fielder for a long time, and he will not be arbitration eligible until after the 2007 season or eligible for free agency until after the 2010 season. 4) Freddy Garcia did not help the White Sox to reach the playoffs in 2004. 5) As tremendous and essential as Garcia has been in 2005, it would have most likely been worth parting with an extra one to two million dollars per season from 2005-2007 (I ultimately just can't see Garcia getting Pedro money last off season) or to settling for a different high caliber starter such as Matt Clement to keep Olivo, Morse, and most importantly Reed in a Sox uniform for a combined total of 14 seasons, 7 of which would have been practically free in terms of salary.
I guess what it comes down to is that my personal philosophy is not to part with players of Reed's caliber in "rent-a-player" deadline deals. While I mentioned earlier that the possibility of Thomas and Ordonez going down or other similar catastrophe must be considered over the course of 80+ games, that does not mean it was inevitable the Sox would tank. Garcia could have pitched the Sox to the playoffs under other circumstances and the handful of games he pitched in the playoffs could have been monumental for the organization. However, by the same token, Miguel Olivo could have continued to progress and become a perennial All-Star, Morse could hit 30 home runs as a short stop one season, and Reed might post a career average of .340. The greater the amount of time that passes after a trade occurs the more difficult it becomes to separate the odds of events occurring at the time from what actually took place in the aftermath of the deal. In the end, I believe what I believe about the trade but must admit that at some point the endless permutations one must consider to evaluate a move one year down the line, let alone six are enough to make anyone's head hurt. In my opinion, if you disagree you're not thinking hard enough.

12 Comments:
At July 20, 2005 7:50 AM,
Flight #24 said…
Jeremy, I give you 2 years worth of data:
2004 AAA: 509ABs / .289BA / .363OBP / .460SLG / .822OPS
2005MLB:
287ABs / .261BA / .332OBP / .362SLG / .694OPS
Those #s seem strikingly similar to me, especially when allowing for a translation to a higher level of play.
So it is entirely possible that KW looked at Reed and said "Hmmm, I've got a great defender, who'll hit maybe .300 with a .360 OBP. I think I can do better than that at a cost of only a few million more, so if I can use that guy to get a pretty good SP and significantly improve my chances of winning this year, I don't really hurt myself long-term".
If Reed turns out to be a star, sure - it's a miscalculation. But looking at Reed's history, he's got 941 minor league ABs with a .306BA & a .379OBP (and then 242ABs with .410 / .470). That's good, but it's by no means incredible. And allowing for a reduction to MLB, that's about .285 / .360, which is exactly what he'd end up at if he improves somewhat from where he's been pretty steadily so far this year. Again - nice, but nothing special. I.e., the kind of guy you are willing to give up for a significantly improved shot at a title. In fact, I can make the argument that the 2-3mil likely saved on the Garcia deal would have gotten you a decent replacement for Reed. It's almost what they paid to get Dye.
By your logic, you should NEVER trade a guy who might be anything more than a decent major leaguer for an FA-to-be. Which will never win you a title.
At July 20, 2005 7:55 AM,
Flight #24 said…
One addition: When you ahve a guy like Anderson who's supposedly a better defender than Reed, had minor league totals of .307 / .386 / .484 coming into this year. Those #s look strikingly similar to Reed's totals excluding the 242 AA ABs. That's not to say he gets no credit for that, but there is the question of whether he's a good player who had a 240-AB streak of dominance or whether that streak is more indicative of his true ceiling.
If KW determined it's the former, and that he had Anderson who's maybe a year behind Reed, that's further support for dealing Reed to improve short-term. And you know what - the way things are working out, it's looking sof ar like KW was right if that was his thinking.
At July 20, 2005 5:11 PM,
Jeremy said…
i all fairness flight it's not 2 years worth of data, it's about a year and a quarter worth of data (3/4 of a season last year subtracting his september callup and half a season this year since we're just barely past the all-star break). even if i were to conceed that those numbers consitute a poor performance which i don't really believe is the case under the circumstances we're still talking about slightly over one season. if i had a dollar for every all-star or even hall of famer for that matter who has had a poor year out of line with his career numbers, i'd have a good bit more money than i do right now. furthermore, you seem to be saying that if a young player's performance remains static over the course of two seasons (again it's more between three quaraters and one half of a season) that strongly suggests a lack of improvement in the future. a white sox fan shouldn't have to look very far to see a collasal counter argument here considering the fact that jon garland is a legit cy young candidate after three years of stagnant, mediocre performance.
i can't really figure out your figures for reed's minor league stat's. the baseball cube has him at .327/.401/.478 in 1183 at bats. seeing as how he's hit .319, .333/.409, .305, and .275, a .306 batting average seems off. oh...looking at it again i guess you're actually subtracting the AA at bats. the problem is that if you subtract any player's best stretches his numbers will pale in comparison. what if you were to subtract dye's june from this season or thomas' 1992 and 1993 from his career line, that's effectively what you're doing by subtracting over one fifth of reed's minor league career and by far the best strech of it. maybe i'd give this tactic more consideration if it was further out of line with his other stats but it's not as though hitting .333/.431/.477 in WS or .305/.366/.455 in tacoma is mediocre by any means.
if the standard for not dealing a prospect for a rent a player is "a guy who might be anything more than a decent major leaguer", i'd basically be saying to never make a deadline deal involving minor leaguers which would be extreme. reed already is and it was already virtually guaranteed he would be at least a decent major leaguer when the deal went down, he might be a superstar, i think that's a huge distinction.
i think brian anderson is a good prospect, i think he'll be a solid major leaguer. however, it takes a lot of manipulation (like removing reed's best half season without a particularly good reason) to place him in the same ballpark as reed. anderson hit .388/.492/.592 in rookie ball, reed was apparently deemed to advanced to play at that level instead hitting .319/.377/.488 at low A, we'll be generous and call that a draw. both players split their age 22 season between winston salem and birmingham: reed hit .333/.431/.477 and .409/.474/.591 respectively compared to .319/.394/.531 and .370/.346/.416 for anderson - safe to say reed blew him out of the water. reed hit .305/.377/.436 at AAA and a taste of the majors while anderson is currently hitting .303/.368/.509, with anderson getting a bit of an edge with his power numbers. i won't argue reed is tons better but i'd say the fact that he had two good seasons and one historically good season makes him a considerably better prospect than anderson who had two good seasons, and what's shaping up to be a real good season. as far as the defense goes, i think the comparisons between the two were made at the point where reed was looked at a converted first basemen and it was thought he might require a position change whereas now he looks like a gold glove candidate. if anderson can play anywhere near as well defensively the sox should be thrilled. i don't think i'd trade anderson for a rent a player because he figures to be good and very cheap the next three seasons but i might consider it for a guy who's probably a top 30 prospect whereas with reed who was a top 10 prospect i wouldn't give it much thought at all.
At July 22, 2005 1:07 PM,
Flight #24 said…
The point is that there are times when over a limited # of at-bats, a player over (or under) performs their true value. My point is that Reed had a short, great stretch of 242ABs. The rest of his minor league career would not indicate a guy that's a potential superstar. It's the 242ABs that do that. It's similar to looking at Juan Uribe's May last year and then at the rest of his monthly splits and determining that he was playing over his head for that stretch.
The bottom line is that there's much doubt as to the likelihood that Jeremy can be a superstar. That would basically mean replicating his 242 ABs at AA, something that he hasn't come close to doing in the other 80% of his minor league career.
I look at a guy who's put up these stats:
A-ball totals: 432 ABs, .326BA, .399OBP
AA-ball totals: 242ABs, .409BA, .472OBP
AAA-ball totals: 509ABs, .289BA, .363OBP
Major league totals:353BAs, .283BA, .354OBP
There's a definite trend visible there from A to AAA to MLB that makes perfect sense. AA is the obvious outlier there, which should make one wonder whether that's a statistical anomaly of unreal performance over a relatively short AB stretch.
To claim that becuase 3-4 years later Jon Garland's turned the corner and so Reed could as well is an argument that could just as easily be used on Joe Borchard or Joe Crede, or any player.
If in 2 years Reed's hitting .300 with a .365OBP, then the deal was well, well worth it (realistic improvement). If you want to say that because he spent 242ABs dominating at AA he's got a realistic shot at hitting .350 / .380, more power to you, but it's a real stretch.
Anyway, the bottom line is that KW apparently believed Reed was NOT going to be a superstar, and the evidence thus far supports him. If you think trading a cheap, decent player for a stud pitcher is a bad idea, then we'll just have to agree to disagree. As I said, I think long term, Garcia+3mil is as good as Reed+11mil, AND it has the benefit of giving you a significantly upgraded chance to make the playoffs(as of the date of the trade). That's exactly what a good GM does.
At July 22, 2005 3:04 PM,
Ray Flowers said…
Jeremy,
Blogs available to talented writers (baseball only) at At Home Plate!!!
Welcome. After surfing the Internet we at www.athomeplate.com have determined that you offer one of the finest blogs in baseball dealing with your favorite team. We believe we have an exciting new opportunity for you to reach a much greater audience with your writing, and we would therefore like to ask you if you would be interested in becoming part of the AHP team (the blog page can be viewed at: http://athomeplate.com/blogrole.shtml).
Here is what we propose. We would like to offer our readership the ability to read, daily, about all 30 teams in major league baseball. Currently we run topical pieces dealing with individual teams, specific players, historical comparisons, personal commentary and fantasy information. The one area that we feel needs addressing is our ability to offer our readers daily commentary on all teams. This is the reason we have chosen to contact you. We would like to know if you would like to have your blog carried by AHP so that your work can reach a greater audience as well as presenting us with extra content for our readers.
Here are some of the conditions of our proposal.
1- We will have only one blog per team. We would also be interested in blogs that deal with other baseball areas of interest as well (trades, business, marketing, union news, SABRmetrics, etc).
2- Blog availability is by invitation only with the goal of putting together an outstanding community of baseball writers (if you have a suggestion for another blog, please forward the info on to me).
3- Blogs may be inactive for no more than 10 days (unless approved by AHP editorial staff).
4- Blogs must contain writings of the blogger - all links and little commentary is not acceptable.
5- Blogs must be about baseball.
6- Blogs must not contain inappropriate material.
What’s in it for the bloggers you ask?
1- Access to AHP’s readership (which is outstanding and growing monthly).
2- A chance to cover your specific teams/areas of interest.
3- What we are proposing is FREE to you. All we ask is that you meet the minimum conditions of the agreement listed above, and we’ll take care of the rest.
4- We will offer help in editing material if asked.
5- Opportunities will be provided to write articles for AHP in areas dealing with subjects other than what you write about in your blog.
6- And there is always the chance that this opportunity might allow you to make a few bucks. In fact, we are offering 50% of any money brought in by advertiser who you bring to AHP (so long as you are a current blogger with AHP).
7- Also, YOU MAINTAIN CONTROL OF YOUR BLOG. If at any point you would wish to severe your connection with AHP you will be allowed to retain your blog address for your own use.
As for the actual writing process itself, ideally our Bloggers would, in addition to their daily blogging
work, submit 1-2 team reports per month for use on the main website. This listing of your blog on the main page of the site will most assuredly allow more people to read the excellent work that you are currently doing. In addition to this, writers for the site will be encouraged to link to any topical information that you might have listed on your blog if they are working on a story dealing with your area of interest.
In the end, we look forward to the opportunity to work with you in the future. If you have any questions, please don’t hesitate to contact me so that I can respond to your concerns.
Ray Flowers
Lead Contributor/Editor
Ray@athomeplate.com
www.athomeplate.com
At July 22, 2005 5:08 PM,
Jeremy said…
you're absolutely right that players sometimes play over their heads (or way below their ability) for all or part of a season. i can't say it's impossible that reed's time in AA will ultimately have little to no predictive value on the rest of his career but i think it's wrong to lean towards that thinking for a number of reasons.
1) when talking about a player with a short pro career such as reed we're dealing with a smaller data. this does mean that in general there's less evidence to predict future performance and therefore a somewhat larger range of possibilities but more importantly it means that we have to rely heavily on a sample such as 280 place appearances. so yeah maybe you can argue the chances of reed's birmingham performance COULD be a fluke are higher than normal but arguing that based on the rest of his statistics that his performance WAS flukish is a much poorer argument because it's not like we're dealing with 80 or even 150 plate appereances here it's half a season and more importantly, it constitutes a HUGE chunk of reed's pro career. so yeah i'll conceed it's not quite as easy to place extreme weight on but at the same time it's extremely difficult to argue it's not a huge piece of the data points we do have in front of us to evaluate reed.
2) i don't think anyone ever argued reed was going to hit .400 as he did in the minors at most that he might hit .380 some season in the majors. i think you almost have to admit the performance was slightly flukish because he hit .400 and players just don't do that at any level over a sustained period of time. thing is rachet it down to .370 based on that and it's only slightly less amazing.
3) the performance isn't particularly far out of line with his minor league numbers with perhaps the exception of his first half season in AAA as long as again you're not holding him up to the standard of hitting .400. assume again that we pretend reed hit .370 instead we're looking at batting averages of .319, .333, .409, .275, .305; OBP's of .377, .431, .474, .357, .366 (one effect of hitting for such ridiculously high average is your walks will drop), and SLG's of .448, .477, .591, .420, .455. the slugging percentage at birmingham stands out the most but even reed's most ardent supporters have never argued he'd have good power numbers.
even if you ignore the aa numbers which i think is highly questionable the trend you speak of is still excellent, expecially for a center fielder we're talking about a guy hitting .330/.400/.450 which are very impressive minor league credentials for a player who is not old for the league and is not repeating levels.
the reason jon garland is a good comparison to reed and crede and borchard are not is 1) garland held his own in the majors at 22 and broke out when he was 25, reed stuck at 23 and is now 24 whereas crede was 25 when he reached the majors to stay and is now 27 with three plus horrific offensive major league seasons and borchard is 26 and has yet to figure out AAA. those couple years may seem trivial to you but they're extremely important. how advanced a player is at a young age is a huge indicator of upside and reed was better at 22 than borchard and crede are at 26 and 27.
At July 26, 2005 1:30 PM,
Flight #24 said…
It's odd that you seem to feel that Reed's AA ABs are unlikely to be a fluke, yet they're so different from the other 80% of his minor league ABs, and dramatically different from his MLB ABs to date.
It's also odd that a guy who for 80% of his minor league career hit .306 / .379 would somehow suddenly end up as a .330/.400 major league hitter. At the very least, it would seem like a <50% chance of that happening. This is especially true when you note that he hasn't really shown and signs of that this year in a single month, being pretty steadily around .250-.270. I'm sure he can improve, but it's not that common for hitters to increase that dramatically in BA & OBP, much more common for them to increase slightly but add power as they mature. Going from .260 to .290 is a pretty good improvement for a guy who becomes a real stud. Going to .330 is pretty unlikely. And because of Reed's lack of power, he'll have to have a very high BA/OBP to become an all-star, let alone a superstar caliber player.
And if Reed ends up as a .290 / .360 guy with excellent D, that's well, well worth the trade. Especially when you factor in that Garcia was effectively upgrading from the 5th starter carousel for a team with a dynamite mashing offense (including Maggs & Frank), and was a necessary cog for a playoff run.
Finally, Garland's a poor comparison because of the difference in hitters and pitchers. Young pitchers often take significant strides in their development, hitters don't usually do that to the same degree.
At July 27, 2005 10:02 AM,
Flight #24 said…
Here's a comparison, using Player X
170ABs, .335BA / .386OBP / .547SLG while playing sterling D at a premier defensive position
That line was generated within a season in which the player was:
502ABs, .283BA / .326OBP / .506SLG
While the overall levels of performance are obviously lower than with Reed, the disparity in performance between roughly 30% and the rest of the ABs is similar.
The point is that it's entirely likely that a roughly 200AB stretch is not indicative of a player's actual performance, especially if the remaining 900-odd ABs show something dramatically different. In Reed's case, the 900 shows a good but not great player, it's the 242 that make you think he's a potential "Superstar". You do a trade of a guy who will likely be a good, but not great player for a very very good pitcher everytime, especially if you need pitching and have an otherwise playoff-caliber team.
At July 30, 2005 2:13 PM,
Jeremy said…
Flight, I feel like you've completely disregarded my major point in my last response which is that how you look at the 242 at bats is COMPLETELY dependent on the sample size. If Reed had 250 at bats that were really good and 250 that were really bad, it would be wrong to say that the really good at bats were clearly a fluke because it constitutes half of his at career at bats, we have no strong basis for comparison. To confidently say Reed's AA performance was a fluke we would need a large number of at bats to use for comparison. You act like 900 at bats is a ton and it's an extremely small sample as far as a career goes. To say you can confidently predict the career of a player who has been a pro for around four seasons is both insane and naive. Reed's AA performance is not far enough out of line with the other at bats to completely disregard when we're dealing with such little time. Maybe if he carried a .240 career average in the 900 other at bats you could rule it a fluke with a high level of certainty but his average in the other at bats is .300 as you yourself pointed out! His 2005 is just as much or more out of line with his performance prior to this season but for some reason that hasn't stopped you for emphasizing it constantly.
Have you ever looked a player's minor league statistics before? Magg's career average was well below .300 yet he somehow hit .315 and .320 two seasons. There isn't some rule that players never perform better than they did in the minors at the major league level. Guys improve until age 27 so if you're in the majors at 22 and you improve every season yet there's no higher level to be promoted to, odds are you can surpass your minor league numbers depending on how good they were. It happens all the time so to say Reed won't sniff his minor league averages is atrocious reasoning.
It's also unfounded to say players don't ussually improve in batting average from their first major league season. It's starting to seem as though all this arguments are made up to support your conclusion and you're not even seeking support for them. Tony Gwynn hit 30 points below his career average as a rookie, Rickey Henderson hit .274, John Olerud hit 34 points below his career average, for Mattingly it was 24 points. Instead of "rare" did you mean to say "very common"? Also again what you're doing is trying to isolate Reed's worst performances and emphasize them which isn't fair. Throwing out his best performances and emphasizing his worst will further your argument but it's not accurate and it all actually happened and must be considered when evaluating the player.
There's no way two useless months f of Garcia would be a .290/.360 cheap centerfielder for six years, I've explained why numerous times at this point.
As far as "hitters don't ussually take large steps in development like pitchers do", see the examples above. All of those seasons were at least 300 at bats and all the hitters watched their BA skyrocket the next season. Look at Brian Robers this season, look at Maggs in his AAA season the year before he was called up, look at Jeff Kent, look at Uribe last season, look at Paul LoDuca, look at Carlos Guillen, look at Jose Guillen, it's in fact not rare but extremely common.
At August 2, 2005 12:17 PM,
Flight #24 said…
This is getting beyond ludicrous. Sure, guys improve, but it's not guaranteed. Not ALL guys improve. So you put your $$$ on the guys who've demonstrated some pretty great performance across a bulk of their minor league career, or those who've demonstrated consistent improvement over their minor league years. For every guy you can list that bettered his minor league #s, I can list at least 2 who never matched theirs.
The fact is that Jeremy Reed will have to have a pretty excellent average and OBP to be a "superstar" because he's not going to hit for much power. He didn't demonstrate that at AAA. He hasn't demonstrated that in the bigs. And if you look at his career totals, there are many more datapoint that suggest he's a good but not great hitter with below average power than anything else. Sure, he could improve, but guess what - so can Joe Crede. I guess KW should be holding onto him like gold too!
The bottom line is that KW had to make a call: Was Jeremy Reed more likely to be a star, a good player, an average player, or a bust. There was plenty of evidence to suggest that he was unlikely to be a star, and some that would suggest he might end up an average player. Average or even slightly above average+cheap isn't necessarily all that great. And so far, his judgement's been borne out.
Now you'll probably say anyway that even so he's not worth "2 useless months of Garcia", which is ludicrous. KW's paid to judge whether or not Reed will develop. he's not paid to know whether or not someone's going to get hurt and invalidate a transaction. When they acquired Garcia it was a HUGE upgrade that made that team (as constituted at the time) playoff caliber.
As for the sample size issue, my point is exactly that you don't throw out the AA stats, but you certainly don't look at them and say "this is a superstar in the making". You say "hey - if this kid had averaged .306 in his minor league career and hit the worst at AAA, he'd be called an average prospect. He's shown a short flash of greatness, but not the ability to sustain or translate that success to another level. That seems like the AA stats might not be his 'true level'". It seems like exactly what happened, and while he certainly has a long career ahead of him, it certainly seems like he peaked in 242 AA ABs.
At August 7, 2005 10:10 AM,
Jeremy said…
I'd guess that 85 to 90% of players improve. You have to adjust the fact that they are moving to different levels. Your average 24 year old prospect is probably in AA or AAA, if you were to keep him there at that same level three or four more seasons and the general arc of his performance was downward, that would be very rare. there are players who have their best seasons as rookies such as ben greive or angel berroa but it's rare and happens nowhere near half the time.
the thing about reed is he was consistently great as a minor league player. even with your AA numbers removed which i still think is irresponsibly manipulating the data, you're looking at a .300 hitter with high on base percentage and the ability to hit doubles as a CF. as far as consistency reed improved from low A to high A, and from high A, to double AA. the only time he took a step backwards was when he reached AAA. if you toss every prospect out the window who has ever struggled upon promotion to a new level you're not going to be left with much.
i want to point out that nowhere in any of these comments or my two blog entries did i write that i expect reed to be a superstar, i wrote that there was a small chance that could occur. as far as a superstar without power, we are talking about a centerfielder with leadoff skills here. kenny lofton, johnny damon, ichiro, and lenny dykstra never hit many home runs.
i must admit to growing increasingly frustrated with your unwillingness to utilize context flight. we've been over this, joe crede is 27 and jeremy reed is 24, apples and oranges my friend.
i honestly don't believe there was a lot of evidence to suggest reed would be an average player. average major league players typically don't end up on top prospect lists and contend for minor league player of the year. sure there could be some evidence but the bulk of it supported that he would be a well above average major league regular. furthermore while determining reed's future performance was a key to the trade i would like to think the decision calculus was far more complicated as number of years reed would remain with the team, the team's ability to contend in the future, reed's salary, the ability to resign garcia, for how much, and so on were crucial components of the deal.
ken williams holds the fate of a team with a 70+ million dollar roster in his hand. he damn well better consider the durability of his roster before he makes critical moves. furthermore, i've always argued that i would never expect kenny to know his players would be injured but to respect the high risk inherent in such a huge move geared towards competing for one playoff birth and one playoff birth only.
maybe we disagree on the remaining at bats more than i realize. if you're not throwing the AA at bats completely it seems wrong to emphasize the exact batting average to such a great extent. i agree we're probably not talking top five or ten prospect in baseball without the AA success but i would say top 30 or 40 prospect heavily discounting that performance which is far from average. i feel like your glossing over the fact that the kanny performance was strong and the winston salem performance was amazing. all you ever want to focus on is the AAA performance when we have a player who was good, exceptional, and mind blowing at three other stops. he only had one performance that comes close to making him an average prospect and when you consider his position and the fact that there aren't so many 23 year olds in AAA even that rises to above average.
At August 9, 2005 8:53 PM,
Flight #24 said…
1) There's a huge difference between improving, as you say 85-90% of players do, and making the jump from being a .255 hitter to a .300 hitter. That type of jump is far less common.
2) I'm not saying you ignore the AA stats, I'm just saying that when you look at the broader set of data, he comes out looking much more like a .300 minor league hitter (and one would expect that to translate into a <.300 hitter in the bigs) than like a potential batting champ/Tony Gwynn type of player (which is a comparison I remember you making on WSI back in the day). The AA run was amazing. But it can also skew the data, much like if I were to tell you that Brady Anderson averaged about 30HR over a 3-year stretch, it woldn't change the fact that over that same stretch, he was really a 20-HR/yr guy with one amazing 50HR year.
3)As for KW's requirement to have depth, it's one thing to have depth, it's another to have the depth to replace 2 cornerstone players. The Sox were doing just fine without Maggs, and they probably would have survived the loss of any other individual hitter but Frank, which speaks to the depth they had. But no GM can build a team around losing your top 2 players and the 2 guys making up about 35% of your total payroll.
4) On that same point, if you were trading a budding star in Reed, then you might have a point that you don't trade 6 seasons of him for 1 shot (although I'm not conceding the long-term value of Garcia in the trade). But when you look deeper at Reed's #s and realize that he looks more like a .280-odd hitter with .360-odd OBP, that becomes a much more replaceable guy. Not saying it's something you find lying around on the street, but it's not exactly a long-term cornerstone that'll lead you to multiple playoff berths.
5) As we discussed a while back on WSI, there's the whole financial aspect that's somewhat unique to the Sox, where we see that revenues are extremely tightly tied to last year's success. So trading a long-term chip for short-term success can actually give you the revenue bump needed to render the long-term chip more easily replaceable. Something we saw from last year to this, as JR boosted payroll because he noted that until the injuries took their toll, attendance was up significantly, and as we'll almost certainly see from this year to next. So KW wasn't trading Reed for Garcia, he was trading Reed for Garcia+cash. Cash that could be used to replace Reed with a guy like Jermaine Dye.
6) Finally, and this is the key disagreement that we continue to have - a #1 or at worst top caliber #2 pitcher is worth losing a good but not great player for. This is especially true when you're a team with a great offense and desperately needing SPs. So you trade a .285 hitting CF for that SP. Especially if you're not even sure that the guy will BE a .285 hitter. Yes, it's smart to build for the long-term, but it's even smarter to identify times when you have a realistic shot at the postseason and maximize the chance of getting there (within reason).
I'm curious about something. Reed looks like he'll end up hitting around .260, barring some ridiculous run late. At this time next year if he's hitting somewhere between .260 & .280, will that alter your perception of the deal?
Post a Comment
<< Home