Loading ...As usual, Lancaster breaks the news (ruining his off day). Williams to the Apu’s favorite squadron, the Nye Mets.
The Reds today traded Dave Williams to the Mets for right-hander Robert Manuel. The Reds also included cash in the deal.
Assuming Marc linked to the right Robert Manuel, we’re looking at a 2005 signee (from Sam Houston State) who was effective as a reliever in his first pro season.
From the Mets’ site:
Manuel, 22, was signed by New York as a non-drafted free agent on June 17, 2005. He went 8-1 with a 2.06 ERA in 12 games (five starts) for the Gulf Coast Mets (R) in 2005. In 56.2 innings, he allowed 55 hits, 19 runs, 13 earned, with four walks and 49 strikeouts. Manuel tied for the Gulf Coast League lead in wins, was second in ERA, and fourth in strikeouts. Robert also appeared in two contests for the Brooklyn Cyclones (A) of the New York – Penn League, going 0-0 with a 1.80 ERA. He pitched 5.0 innings in two relief appearances, permitting five hits, one run, earned, with five strikeouts.
Is a undrafted college free agent, still in low-A at age 22, the best we could do? But the real question is where in the heck is Manuel this year? He doesn’t show up on any of the Mets’ minor league rosters, and there’s no mention that he’s pitched at all. Very strange.
UPDATE (by Chad): From Reds.com:
Manuel, 22, will report to Class A Dayton. For the Mets he was expected to pitch for the Class A Brooklyn Cyclones, whose season begins later this month.
So that explains where he’s been this season.
I’ll go on the record: GM Wayne Krivsky overreacted here, with respect to Williams. There was no reason to send him packing. He had established himself as a league-average pitcher before this season, and he has yet to reach his peak age.
I’m very disappointed.
I definitely agree. The inclusion of Manuel shows just how little Krivsky cared what he got in return.
Some perspective: Manuel was slated to return to the NY-Penn league again. That means he wasn’t good enough to make either the St. Lucie or Hagarstown staffs, let alone AA, AAA, or the big leagues. In other words, he wasn’t one of the top 50-60 pitchers in the Mets organization.
Then I wonder – well, maybe Krivsky had his eye on this guy. Except he went undrafted by the Twins (55 picks) and the Reds (50 picks) less than a year ago.
So we trade Sean Casey for Manuel.
Salary dump.
maybe Krivsky sees something that we didnt. i cant judge this yet until we see how it plays out. thats why he’s paid to be gm and we are just fans here to critique his every move.
Maybe. But it probably would’ve been better to trade Williams closer to the trading deadline, or at least wait to see if the Mets drop into second.
It also bears noting that the Mets just gave up an average major league reliever (Julio) for a back-end starter (El Duque). Julio isn’t having a great year but still strikes out a ton of guys. I’d rather have El Duque than Williams too, but I don’t think the difference between them is as great as Julio and Manuel. Bottom line: the D-backs got a lot more value for their unwanted starter than we did while having less leverage becaue El Duque was asking for a ticket out.
Sounds like a lot of people wanted more Dave Williams in return for Dave Williams.
I like this move a lot. What matter most to me is that we got a guy who not only throws strikes, but also doesn’t allow those strikes to be turned into hits that drive in runs. Where he’s pitched, he’s pitched well.
The Reds also sent money in the deal?
Williams wasn’t going to see the rotation again, although he probably could’ve at least contributed out of the pen.
Arroyo- A
Phillips – A
Williams – salary dump, B-
Ill take it. Especially if the Reds use the payroll to add a bullpen arm .
You’re joking, right BrianB? You like the move because of Manuel, not in spite of Manuel?
You’re touting the control numbers of a guy who hasn’t thrown a pitch of full-season ball (at age 22)? You’re claiming he has the ability to avoid hits on balls put in play?
Billings had six guys with better H/9 rates last year (in 25+ IP). The walk rate was admittedly awesome, but the sign of a prospect is K-rate, and Billings had seven guys who had better K-rates (in 25+ IP). I hope you’re just fooling around.
This guy is just roster filler. Frankly, it’s embarassing to the Reds that they actually accepted him.
ohiobobcat:
Arroyo- A
Phillips – A
Williams – salary dump, B-
I’d go more like:
Arroyo- A+
Phillips – A+
Williams – F (upgradable to C- if they spend the money on a reliever)
Williams was terrible. We should just be glad someone took him.
The only way this makes any sense is if they do use the money saved on some bullpen help.
I liked Casey even though his salary was a little steep. The nuts and bolts of it is that if they Reds don’t use the money to improve that bullpen, than they just gave Casey to the Pirates, for a single A pitcher.
Chris, I wasn’t kidding.
Billings had six guys with better H/9 rates last year (in 25+ IP). The walk rate was admittedly awesome, but the sign of a prospect is K-rate, and Billings had seven guys who had better K-rates (in 25+ IP).
I wasn’t talking about the H/9. Besides the fact that the numbers at that level don’t do much more than to weed out the bad, good numbers can indicate what kind of pitcher the guy is. And all I was saying is (1) that the guy throws strikes, and (2) that the hits he was giving up were not driving in runs. H/9 doesn’t tell you whether the guy really has any command.
I looked at the numbers to see what kind of pitcher he is; you’re looking at them to show something else.
Manuel’s a 22 year old reliever in A ball, who went undrafted. Chances are that he never sees a major league roster.
I give Krivsky the benefit of the doubt, but my opinion is that he jumped the gun here. Just DFA’ing him and trading him for the first stiff that came along makes no sense at all.
I really can’t come up with a good rationale for what Krivsky’s done here. Looks like he just didn’t want to fool with a guy that his predecessor traded for.
Meanwhile, the Mets get someone who has established himself as a league average pitcher — before hitting his peak — just because he had a terrible few weeks and the Reds panicked. Seems like an irrational move, but I’m open to having my mind changed.
Chad,
You might be on to something. Didn’t K make a remark about how he liked Casey and that moving Casey was his predessesor’s idea? He sort of intimated that he wouldn’t mind Casey coming back to the Reds. Maybe I’m reading too much into this where it concerns Williams, but it just seemed like K was disgusted with the Casey for Williams trade to begin with.
No need to get Sean Casey. If the Nationals are possibly listening to offers for Nick Johnson, there’s the Sean Casey replacement we’ve all wanted to see in a Reds uniform. I say the Reds offer them two Robert Manuels for Johnson.
The Enquirer reports this morning:
Familiarity with Manuel was a factor in completing the trade with the Mets. Scott Nethery, one of Krivsky’s special assistants, signed Manuel in June of last year when Nethery was with the Mets.
“I’m going with Scott here,” Krivsky said.
And lets remember, he wasn’t just pitching rookie ball, he was pitching GCL ball and couldn’t make their Kingsport team and this year couldn’t make their low A team or even their short season Class A team.
I agree with Chad, this moves makes no logical sense in terms of improving the major league team and no real sense in improving the minor league system when you consider his age and experience.
A trade like this can’t be graded today. The outcome won’t be known for two or three years. Grading a trade for a prospect says nothing.
I hope that in two years Manuel is pitching in Louisville, tearing it up, and I can hear half the people on this board exclaim that they knew this was a great trade all along.
I agree, you can’t. But you sure can predict. The Reds traded a pitcher who has career ML average numbers for a 23 year old non-drafted kid who hasn’t pitched above GCL ball.
The odds are long that we get anything from Manuel and short that Williams wins more games in the major leagues before he’s done.
I agree, you can’t. But you sure can predict. The Reds traded a pitcher who has career ML average numbers for a 23 year old non-drafted kid who hasn’t pitched above GCL ball.
The odds are long that we get anything from Manuel and short that Williams wins more games in the major leagues before he’s done.
Comment by Bill — 5/26/2006 @ 8:56 am
Let’s go back and look, Bill, at your previous “prediction” right after Krivsky traded Wily Mo for BA. Your thoughts back then said something like (paraphrasing) “we got a mediocre starter for a guy with incredible upside who is still real young” — the point being that you were not enamored with the deal to get Arroyo (for sure).
Two months into that trade, I’m liking it.
There is far more into deals like this than we ever really know. Instead of praising or being critical moments after these deals are done — you really are wiser to take a deep breath and believe (or not believe) in the GM/ownership making the deal.
For me, if Krivsky and Castellini felt it was the deal to make at this time, I’ll support that until enough time passes to demonstrate otherwise.
Let’s go back and look, Bill, at your previous “prediction” right after Krivsky traded Wily Mo for BA. Your thoughts back then said something like (paraphrasing) “we got a mediocre starter for a guy with incredible upside who is still real young” — the point being that you were not enamored with the deal to get Arroyo (for sure).
Two months into that trade, I’m liking it.
So how long does The Great Bill Hansing say that we have to wait before discussing a trade? You’re already passing judgment on the Arroyo/Pena trade, but that has been less than two months. Shouldn’t we wait at least three years to see how these players pan out?
I get sick and tired of people lecturing that we shouldn’t have opinions on trades or transactions because the GM is all-knowing. We’ve been very complimentary of Krivsky at RN, so it’s not like we think everything he does is bad. Far from it. But by the same token, we don’t think he walks on water either. This is a very questionable transaction.
If you think it’s a good deal, tell us why. Give some facts and concrete reasoning to back up your assertions. But just saying “Krivsky knows best” is lame, and makes it clear that you can’t think on your own.
Yep, thus far Arroyo has been lights out. (Pena’s .865 OPS hasn’t been bad either). But there’s still a long way to go before I say in the long run this is a good deal, but right now, it sure does.
But comparing a deal involving 2 major league players and one that involves a average ML pitcher and one 23 year old whose only pitched in the GCL is not a valid comparison.
I’ll tell you what…I’ll take Williams and you take Manuel and we’ll see who, from this point forward, has the better big league career.
My point is, as Chad said earlier, it appears to us that Krivisky jumped the gun here and I don’t understand why. They weren’t going to lose Williams by sending him to Louisville, so what’s the rush?
Williams has shown the ability to pitch at this level. He’s most definitely pitched badly this year, bu what is there at Louisville that gives the Reds more upside than Williams? Joe Mays? Mike Gosling? Chris Michalak? Darrell May? Can you ever have too much starting pitching? Have the Reds ever had too much starting pitching?
One last question. How many 22 year old GCL pitchers make it to the major leagues? I don’t know the answer to that, but I’d bet it’s very few.
So for trading away one of the most beloved Reds in recent days, we get a low-A pitcher???
Yes, it was a salary dump.
1. “We traded Casey for Manuel” sayers
No we did not. Trading Casey was a sunk cost, you can’t do anything about it. he was gone. The Reds management traded Dave Williams for Manuel.
2. Dave Williams is horrible, and the team is better without him getting the ball every 5th day. He might flourish in New York, but he was dirt for Cincy, and I am glad I don’t have to grimace at his face every 5th game on the reds website.
3. The reds have opened up 7 million in payroll for something (between the Casey trade before the new managememnt and the Williams trade). 7 million can get you a good pitcher.
4. We can probably sign Casey for a 1/3 of his original contract this off season (when he is a free agent).
5. El Duque and Dave Williams are COMPLETELY different pitchers. To say the reds could’ve gotten more from Williams because of that trade is ludicrous.
We don’t know what went on behind closed doors. We don’t know how many people Krivsky called to see if there was interest in Williams. He could’ve called 28 other teams and received negative responses. Maybe Manuel was the only guy he could get.
Williams is never going to be a great pitcher. “Proven he can pitch at the Major League level”? When? He has a .395 career winning percentage. After his rookie season, he spent at least part of the next three seasons in the Minors (all of the 2003 season.) He’s never proven anything.
Aren’t we saving money on this deal? Perhaps we’ll have more to play with at the trade deadline. There’s a whole forest there – stop just looking at the trees.
Williams has been horrible for the Reds. True. But his career numbers don’t bear out what you’re saying. And as I said, why the rush to give up on a league average pitcher?
And why would you want Casey even at 1/3 the price?
that casey for a 1/3 of the price is for everyone that is complaining that we traded Casey for Manuel. If he was in cincy this last year, he would have hit for .300 with no power and we would’ve continued paying him a ridiculous amount.
I could care less what his career winning percentage is…he was pitching for the Pirates. How was he supposed to have a decent winning percentage starting for the Pirates? And even if he did, what exactly would it prove about his ability to pitch?
No one ever said that he was going to be great, but his ERA+ of 97 last year wasn’t bad.
Again, IMO, the question is what was the rush to give up on him?
Do you seriously think they couldn’t have traded him for a GCL player in a few weeks or months? Could his stock have dropped any further?
the way he was pitching, the longer you waited the less it looked like a bad spell and the more it looked like he wasn’t a good pitcher.
daedalus, surely you don’t think winning percentage is a good measure of a pitcher’s worth? By that line of thinking, before this season, Ramon Ortiz was a better pitcher than Nolan Ryan. Or that Eric Show or John Denny or Greg Hibbard or Rick Camp or Kevin Tapani or Andy McGaffigan or Joe Nuxhall…they all had better winning percentages than Nolan Ryan.
Look at ERA vs. the league average, or something similar. That says much more about what type of pitcher Dave Williams is than winning percentage.
But padon, if we were going to essentially give him away for free, what was the rush? You can’t tell me that, in a couple of months, they couldn’t have gotten an undrafted pitcher who couldn’t get out of A ball by age 22. And so what if they couldn’t get that? If that’s all they could get anyway (and it may well have been, I’m not suggesting otherwise), then why not just dump him for free in a couple of months after you’ve given him an MRI and a chance to work out his troubles in AAA.
It just appears, on its face, like a very impulsive move by Krivsky that fails the logic test.
Williams ERA+ was better than Paul Wilson has pitched in 4 years with the Reds. It’s been stated that Williams still had an option left. IF that is true, than Krivsky had options and could have sent Williams to AAA. He could have stayed in the organization rather than being DFA’d.
Has Williams 40-man roster spot been taken yet?
How much money went to the Mets? The Reds also sent money to Pittsburgh in the Casey deal, so not all of Casey’s salary is freed up.
I’d say a 22/23 year old undrafted pitcher who hasn’t pitched in a-ball yet is comparable to an undrafted NFL free agent who can’t make the cut on a team’s practice squad. This guy is so far away from seeing major league action and so unlikely to ever pitch above AA, that I would have rather received a bucket of baseballs.
Re: Options – he had them because the Mets optioned Williams to AAA to pitch in the Norfolk rotation.
the only positive that i can take from this is the quote “I’m going with Scott here.” I like that Kriv takes advise from people who know things, and isn’t as insulated as the last administration. It worked for phillips.
Yes it would be nearly unprecedented for this undrafted pitcher to see the big leagues, but at least we have a source close to the pitcher who thinks he has a future, and the decision wasn’t made based on his 1.80 ERA in five IP or something.
That said, if we could have optioned williams to AAA and gotten him into shapethere, he would have been a decent add on chip for a deadline trade to a non-contender. Germano and a decent AAA dave williams could certainly have brought a decent reliever, where as Manuel will get us nothing, so i agree, this was a rushed move, and not a smart one.
Williams wasn’t a league-average pitcher though. His ERA last season (his only full season) was helped by a rather low 0.264 BABIP. His FIP and PERA say his ERA should have been in the 5.07 to 5.32 range.
But since this is all we got for him, I think I would have rather stuck Williams in the bullpen to see if he could have success there. Bullpen jobs often drop a pitcher’s ERA ~1 run, so he might have been a reasonably effective middle-inning guy. ‘Course, lefties lit him up last year, and that’s not what you want from a left-handed pitcher… So I’m more or less indifferent to this deal. The one thing I really like about it is that they’re willing to accept him as a sunk cost and not keep sending him out there every 5 days just because he’s the return for Sean Casey.
-j
I do agree with the “not keep sending him out there” point. Assuming Milton continues to pitch in a Miltonesqe manner, do you think think they’ll do the same with him?
Given what Krivsky has done so far this season, Milton has to be sweating right now.
If anyone would pick up half of Milton’s contract, the Reds would be retarded to not take it.
I’m guessing they took him off the 40 so they can maybe bring a reliever up from Chattanooga.
No way of knowing for sure, but it’s better to have options
I’ve looked into the cash saved thing.
On the Casey deal, he was owed an $8.5M salary. Traded for Williams who was owed $1.4M. Reds sent $1.5M in cash to the Pirates. So that specific transaction saved $5.6 million on payroll, regardless of what the Reds do with Williams.
The Reds had to pay Williams for the days he played in 2006 already. According to an AP article, the Reds sent the Mets $0.5M to cover half of Williams remaining salary.
IMHO, saving $0.5M vs optioning him to AAA, given the lack of pitching both on the Reds and league-wide, I take my chances that he turns it around in AAA and keep him on the 40-man roster.
Maybe it will send a message to people like Milton and Claussen to get things going. There are all sorts of things that could benefit the team from this deal. You never know.
As far as winning percentage goes, true, he did pitch for the Pirates, but one of the reasons the Pirates are so bad is their pitching! You can’t just blame a guy’s poor performance on a bad team.
winning percentage for a pitcher does little to tell you how good that pitcher is. Winning percentage has two components – runs allowed and runs scored. A pitcher controls only 1 of those to components.
If a team doesn’t score any runs for you, you aren’t going to win games. A 10 game winner on the Pirates could pitch the exact same way and win 15 games with the Yankees.
Even on the same team, two pitchers can have different run support. You can look at the 2002 Cincinnati Reds for example. Compare Chris Reitsma (6-12) to Jimmy Haynes (15-10). Reitsma pitched better than Haynes, yet had a terrible record because the Reds scored very few runs in his starts. They scored a lot of runs in Haynes starts. Is that Reitsma’s fault? Putting value on win-loss record is what got Haynes, Wilson, and Eric Milton big $$. I hope the current GM is not placing value on W-L record.
Daedalus, You’re too knowledgable to rely on winning pct, in any context. No excuses, now.
I don’t know Claussen needs any “messages,” though his personality type is somewhat frustrating. The guy’s still young.
But in the broader context, did the Hancock message teach anyone anything?
We’ve now killed zero birds with two stones, so far.
Maybe Hancock learned something – he’s tearing it up for the division leader (despite being just as fat). Not any of the other crappy relievers. Heck, Coffey still needs a manzier, even though he’s awesome.
If there’s a lesson to teach Milton, let’s teach it directly to Milton, not by cutting off other body parts.
Doc Scott reports that Williams would’ve been picked up on waivers. That means that the new team would’ve paid the full $900k-$1M remaining on the contract. The Reds paid $500k to the Mets. That means Wayne Krivsky conciously chose to take Robert Manuel, instead of $400-500k. That, as Doc Scott points out, is second-round bonus money. Anyone want to defend that?
Another example is this year’s team:
Arroyo 6.1 RS, 2.29 ERA, 6-2 record
Harang 6.4 RS, 3.82 ERA, 5-3 record
Classeun 3.4 RS, 5.25 ERA, 3-5 record
Williams 6.1 RS, 7.20 ERA, 2-3 record
Ramirez 2.8 RS, 3.72 ERA, 2-3 record
Milton 6.75 RS, 7.04 ERA, 2-1 record
Ramirez has a losing record even though his ERA is better than Harang’s. The Reds are only scoring 2.8 runs in his starts and 6.4 runs in Harang’s.
Krivsky’s options appear to have been:
1 – Demote Williams to bullpen, cutting/demoting someone else
2 – Option Williams to AAA
3 – Let Williams go on waivers and save $1 million
4 – Trade Williams to Mets for IveAlreadyForgottenHisName and save $0.5 million
I would have ranked (best choice to worst choice) as 2 >>> 1 > 3 >> 4.
PS. Cubs called up Tony Womack today to the major league roster. Too bad we couldn’t have gotten any what’s-his-name rookie league “prospects” from the Cubs for Womack.
if you option Williams to AAA he has no more options, and loses some value for another team that wants someone for later in the season.
An “option” actually means an option year. Williams still had 1 option year left, meaning he could be demoted and called up many times throughout the 2006 season. I think the only restriction is that they have to stay in the minors for 10 days, unless they are replacing a player put on the DL.
and that value would have been less than our non-drafted GCLer? me thinks not, especially if he righted himself and looked like a major league pitcher again.
So how long does The Great Bill Hansing say that we have to wait before discussing a trade? You’re already passing judgment on the Arroyo/Pena trade, but that has been less than two months. Shouldn’t we wait at least three years to see how these players pan out?
I get sick and tired of people lecturing that we shouldn’t have opinions on trades or transactions because the GM is all-knowing. We’ve been very complimentary of Krivsky at RN, so it’s not like we think everything he does is bad. Far from it. But by the same token, we don’t think he walks on water either. This is a very questionable transaction.
If you think it’s a good deal, tell us why. Give some facts and concrete reasoning to back up your assertions. But just saying “Krivsky knows best” is lame, and makes it clear that you can’t think on your own.
Comment by Chad — 5/26/2006 @ 10:23 am
Wow, Chad.
Looks like you have some personal issues with me that I’d just as soon you didn’t make so obviously public.
I don’t think that a deal needs to be chastized within a few hours — that was all I said.
I also pointed to how another poster (who you treat with a far greater degree of kid’s gloves) routinely is quick to criticize — even to the point of calling Bronson Arroyo a mediocre starter — and for my book, he has been anything but that so far.
I think if Krivsky says he is trusting his staff on this one and we acquired a single A guy, then we probably need to give it more time than 24 hours to conclude that they just don’t know what they were doing.
Maybe that’s just me being the great Bill Hansing again — who cannot think for themselves.
You are being very cruel Chad for reasons that are very hard for me to understand.
That’s all I’m going to say publically on that matter.
1. “We traded Casey for Manuel” sayers
No we did not. Trading Casey was a sunk cost, you can’t do anything about it. he was gone. The Reds management traded Dave Williams for Manuel.
2. Dave Williams is horrible, and the team is better without him getting the ball every 5th day. He might flourish in New York, but he was dirt for Cincy, and I am glad I don’t have to grimace at his face every 5th game on the reds website.
3. The reds have opened up 7 million in payroll for something (between the Casey trade before the new managememnt and the Williams trade). 7 million can get you a good pitcher.
4. We can probably sign Casey for a 1/3 of his original contract this off season (when he is a free agent).
5. El Duque and Dave Williams are COMPLETELY different pitchers. To say the reds could’ve gotten more from Williams because of that trade is ludicrous.
Comment by padon — 5/26/2006 @ 10:39 am
Extremely valid points, Padon — every single one of them makes perfect sense.
But padon, if we were going to essentially give him away for free, what was the rush? You can’t tell me that, in a couple of months, they couldn’t have gotten an undrafted pitcher who couldn’t get out of A ball by age 22. And so what if they couldn’t get that? If that’s all they could get anyway (and it may well have been, I’m not suggesting otherwise), then why not just dump him for free in a couple of months after you’ve given him an MRI and a chance to work out his troubles in AAA.
It just appears, on its face, like a very impulsive move by Krivsky that fails the logic test.
Comment by Chad — 5/26/2006 @ 11:18 am
Nice “selective” response — one that completley ignores the real key points Padon is making.
(1) This frees up money that Krivsky can do something with. Let’s see if that doesn’t happen now.
(2) There might be — and probably is — more to this deal that what you can see on the face of it. As Neil Young says, “There’s more to the picture — than meets the eye”
(3) In another couple of months you would have paid him allot more money and he may — or may not – have as much or more value.
Ryan Wagner’s performance in Louisville sure isn’t increasing his trade value.
I go back to my original point. What would you rather have:
a. Williams
or
b. Robert Manuel + $400k
or
c. $1.0M (assuming that someone would’ve claimed Williams on waivers).
I can’t imagine a serious argument that (b) is the correct answer.
I go back to my original point. What would you rather have:
a. Williams
or
b. Robert Manuel + $400k
or
c. $1.0M (assuming that someone would’ve claimed Williams on waivers).
I can’t imagine a serious argument that (b) is the correct answer.
Comment by Chris — 5/26/2006 @ 5:38 pm
Then Chris I would respectfully submit that perhaps you work at being able to imagine aspects of the world that go beyond what one (who does not possess all the facts about a situation)can readily see.
Numerous folks have commented that quite possibly there is more to this deal than what is right out there to examine. We’ll be patent and wait for you to work at your ability to get to the point where many of us already are.
1. This frees up no new money. We basically paid Williams’ contract for the rest of the season. Nothing has been freed up.
2. Sure there could be more to the deal, but I’m still waiting for the shoe to drop on the 3 catcher nonsense.
3. We paid his entire contract when we sent the money to the Mets. By playing him at AAA for a couple of games there is the possibility that he throws 2 really good games, otherwise you end up where? Oh in a situation that the Reds are in right now, no different than today.
And seriously how is Orlando Hernandez better than David Williams? Its just not possible.
Chad said: Doc Scott reports that Williams would’ve been picked up on waivers. That means that the new team would’ve paid the full $900k-$1M remaining on the contract. The Reds paid $500k to the Mets. That means Wayne Krivsky conciously chose to take Robert Manuel, instead of $400-500k. That, as Doc Scott points out, is second-round bonus money. Anyone want to defend that?
Taking Manuel instead of $400-500k doesn’t mean that the Reds won’t sign a second round draft pick. And it doesn’t mean that they would have had 2 second round draft picks if they did take the money. So how is that relevant at all? It makes about as much sense as Chris clinging to the idea that Dave Williams is “a league average pitcher.”
1. Brian, I wasn’t at all inferring that they wouldn’t sign their second round pick. I think you even knew that. I was using Doc Scott’s example of what a team can do with $500k.
2. It was Chad and Bill who called Williams league-average (CTRL-F this page for “average” like I did). That said, the guy’s career ERA+ was 101. If that’s not a “league average pitcher,” I don’t know what is. (It’s also better than Paul Wilson’s four years of 92 ERA+, leading to a mega-millions contract extension – a deal I didn’t totally hate, either, to be honest).
Chris, my point was that the $500k was not relevant, so it was pointless to try and use that to put the deal in perspective.
You called Williams “league average” in the original post (“read” like I did). I will agree that the statistics show he was fairly average in 2005 . . . in a career high 138 innings. But it’s foolish to think that those stats will repeat repeat year after year, which is what proponents of the trade did instead of actually watching baseball.
Brian B, climb down off your high horse for a minute there. You didn’t “read” as carefully as you think. The section of the post where the term “league average” specifically follows this language:
“UPDATE (by Chad)”
That’s why I urged you to CTRL-F: So you’d actually see who you were arguing with.
But hell, I agree with Chad on this, so I’m happy to defend the merits of the statement. But I’d ask you to tone down the sarcasm, especially when you’ve got your facts wrong.
As for the merits of the argument, Williams’ CAREER , not 2005 ERA+ is 101. Your response is to call me a fool, and say that “watching baseball” proves you right. The problem with that argument is that its impossible to prove or disprove. I saw Dave Williams pitch an awesome game against the Reds just a year ago. Is that any more or less valid than what you’ve seen? And why is it foolish to think that prior performance is a good indicator of future performance?
Finally, I believe the $500k IS highly relevant, because the Reds had the option to keep Williams in AAA, and $500k is the money they saved by choosing to trade Williams for Robert Manuel instead. The move was obviously a salary dump – why is it pointless to point out what they can buy with the money?
What’s your take on this deal, anyway? You’ve said you like Manuel based on his 2005, and I’ll certainly give you credit if he pans out (honestly). Do you really think Williams was that bad? Did you think he wouldn’t have improved at AAA, or that the Reds could’ve gotten more of a return if they’d been patient, or even that they’d been better off if someone had claimed him on waivers, and the Reds could’ve cleared the entire $1M he was owed?
I didn’t call you a fool. I said it was foolish to think that just because Williams had one year that he pitched 138 innings with a 4.41 ERA doesn’t mean that he’s going to give you that for years to come. His career numbers are skewed by an impressive rookie season in ‘01, which is less relevant after missing ‘03 with an injury. Those “career” numbers just don’t have a lot behind them to hang your hat on.
The Reds gave Williams more time than they gave Jimmy Anderson. How long are you will to sit around and watch your pitcher kill your team start after start just because his past numbers say he’s a better pitcher? That’s not foolish? At some point yesterday’s numbers don’t make present day crap any better. That’s why I said what I said about watching baseball.
I’ve seen lots of no-name pitchers throw impressive games against the Reds. That doesn’t mean a whole lot.
The $500k will still be there. Throwing it in with the deal doesn’t mean they will be $500k short somewhere else. And if they kept that cash, it doesn’t mean that it would have been used to pay for something else. Also, when a comment is made that $500k is second-round-signing-bonus money, it is inferred that the Reds gave that up when they wrote the check to the Mets. It’s like saying that money could have fed a third world country for a lifetime, but the Reds just threw it away. Of course, Doc doesn’t really believe any of that, but the analogy just makes the deal sound much worse than it is.
Finally, Casey for Williams was bad because of what the Reds got in return. Salary dump, sure; but prospects are cheap too. They didn’t need to get a soft-tossing overachieving fly-ball lefty who walks a lot of hitters and who recently missed a year with an injury. Krivsky just made the most out of a bad situation, and people are slamming him for trying to save face.
Interesting point about Anderson. He was only given 7 starts before getting dumped, but (1) I think he was sent to AAA first, and (2) he was much worse than Williams before getting dumped. Anderson’s best game as a Red was 7 IP, 5 R (4 ER). His ERA+ was 48. (Thanks a lot for reminding me of that joker).
Williams at least showed some signs of life. Three of his starts were presentable, or better.
I’m not saying he should’ve been kept in the rotation over Ramirez or even (sigh) Milton. I’m saying he should’ve either been sent to AAA or let go on waivers, if the best trade offer was Manuel minus $500k. Finally, I still disagree that the money is meaningless. It’s still a zero-sum world, you can’t just say, “well, they’ll spend the extra $500k if they want to.” Maybe, but $500k is important — important enough that the high-payroll Mets wanted it.
Brian…I don’t like this deal, not because Krivisky was “trying to save face”, but because they quickly gave up on a pitcher that has shown the ability to pitch at the major leagues and was fairly young (thus it’s reasonable to assume that he’ll get better).
As for him killing the team start after start…I agree. Take him out of the rotation, no argument.
Could he have gotten his act together at AAA? Is there something wrong with his arm? I don’t know the answers to these questions and neither do you.
But the point that I see is that there was nothing to be lost by either checking his arm out and/or sending him to Louisville, rather then sending him on his way in exchange for a pitcher that is miles from even being a major league prospect. If that was his value, then it really couldn’t go much lower.
As for the money. $500K in today’s baseball terms is like worrying about how you spend $2 of your weekly budget. it’s basically irrelevant. Is it money saved? Yes, but when you’re shopping, does it make much difference whether you spend $2.00 or $2.25 on an item in terms of how you manage your overall funds? I would say for the vast majority of people, the answer to that question is no, it doesn’t effect what they’re going to do with their money.
I don’t see the Anderson to Williams comparison. Well, I see that they both are left-handed, pitched for the Pirates first, then the Reds and each had a terrible short stint with the Reds. But they weren’t the same pitcher in Pittsburgh.
In the 3 years prior to Anderson’s 8 games in Cincinnati, Anderson put up ERA’s of 5.25, 5.10, and 5.44 with WHIP’s ranging from 1.53-1.64. He always gave up more hits than innings pitched, walked 3.6-4.0 per 9 innings and had a K-rate in the same area (in fact his last year with Pittsburgh he walked more batters than he K’d.
Dave Williams only made 8 starts with the Reds (same number of appearances but one more than Anderson.) He spent half of 2003 in AAA, most of 2004 in AAA and all of 2005 in the majors. Even going back to 2001 and 2002, Williams never had an ERA above 5.00, never had a WHIP that high, he didn’t walk folks nearly as much as Anderson, he struck out 1.5-3 times as many batters as he walked.
Williams was terrible as a Red and I am glad he is out of the rotation, but I wouldn’t call him Jimmy Anderson.
didn’t walk folks nearly as much as Anderson
Actually, they have the exact same career BB/9 rate.
Their pitches were similar, which again is something that statistics don’t show. Anderson threw more innings in every season than Williams ever threw in one season.
I’m not trying to make Jimmy Anderson look good here. He was a bad acquisition too. But Williams 2006 reminded me a lot of Jimmy Anderson’s 2003, and their numbers for those years are nearly identical.
But I wasn’t the one comparing their games. If you go back and read my comment again, I was just talking about sitting back and watching him melt down game after game . . . as was the case in 2003 with Anderson.
You may be right about the career bb rate. I only compared the three seasons of each pitcher prior to coming to Cincinnati. The three most recent years should provide us enough of a sample, and you had already discounted Williams rookie season in another comment…so I didn’t go back that far.
I did read your comment. You said that they gave Williams more time than Anderson. Williams was given the same number of appearances and one more start. Williams was better than Anderson as a Pirate and Williams was better than Anderson as a Red.
I don’t think Anderson is much of a benchmark though. Anderson should have never been a Red, and Williams should have been MRI’d or optioned to AAA when he only did OK against a AAA lineup in St Louis.
Their pitches were similar, which again is something that statistics don’t show.
Not really. The statistics show that Andersen was a pretty above average (in terms of rate of groundballs) groundball pitcher (2.65). While Williams is a neutral pitcher with a rate of 1.00.
Bill, I don’t think $500k is the same as $2 to you or me (or you’re making a heck of a lot less than you deserve). The Reds’ revenue was $120M last year, per probably unreliable estimates I found online. That works out to $2.3M per week, so $500k to them is the same as $200 for a guy making $50k, or $400 for a guy making $100k. I’m not saying it’s house payment money, but it’s more than the difference between Cocoa Puffs(tm) and Cocoa Blasts.
No, but it’s a tiny portion of capital that they reinvest in the team. It’s so insignificant that having the cash around isn’t going to influence any decisions.
Also, Greg, Jimmy Anderson was DFA’d on April 19, 2003. No one took him and he was reassigned to Louiville. They re-purchased his contract on June 16 before DFA’ing him again two weeks later.