Loading ...Our buddy Justin has taken something I’ve been wondering about lately — How much is too much to give up in a trade for Orioles pitcher Erik Bedard? — and actually performed some analysis. Here is his conclusion, but be sure to go read the entire post; it’s a very thought-provoking post with much more baseball goodness than I can quote below:
Nevertheless, what this analysis indicates to me is that a package of any two of the Reds’ prospects would be severely overpaying for two years of Bedard. Now, Bedard’s trade value could be greatly improved if you could extend Bedard beyond the 2010 season. But the potential for such an extension seems questionable given Bedard’s comments about wanting to test free agency. Furthermore, pitchers don’t tend to make particularly good investments in the long term because of how unreliable even great pitchers tend to be past age 30.
Given that a one-for-one trade of any of the Reds’ prospects for Bedard is apparently very unlikely, I have to say that I’m really hoping the Reds do not end up making this deal. So good luck to the Dodgers, Mariners, and anyone else who might want to step in and try to outbid Krivsky.
Thoughts?
Now do this for Haren. Send the results to Krivsky ASAP. Save Homer!
Before reading the analysis, I was starting to feel that a package of Bailey, Votto and Maloney or Frazier would be too much for Bedard. This analysis confirms my thinking. It’s a real catch 22 though because you feel that with Bedard, we could compete for the Central crown for the next two years. However, out of the prospects given up, chances are at least one guy will bloom into a top-notch player.
It could well be Bailey. He brings the heat needed if he could just perfect his curve. For this reason, it is a bit risky to keep Bailey. But in all this it is important to remember what the Orioles could be getting. Bailey has the upside to be a #1 or 2 starter with a manageable salary for the next several years.
On a related note, I wonder if the Orioles and A’s might be slowing down on the trade front for a few days, in light of the Mitchell Report. I think they may want to wait to announce a deal when the headlines are not being shared so much with this report.
Also, I think Krivdawg should play hard ball and threaten to withdraw the deal for the Orioles soon. We may be better off going for Haren, or a collection of second-tier players like Silva and/or Prior (with an incentive laden contract). I think there is merit in getting all this settled soon so we know what we have going into the Spring.
Finally, I would not be upset if we go into the Spring with Bailey, Cueto, et. al. still intact. Let these guys play and see where the chips fall! Maybe a more favorable deal can be found at the trade deadline. Meanwhile, our prospects can and deserve to get some seasoning.
I’ve said this before, but it is appropriate here as well. What do you know about Homer Bailey, Joey Votto, etc.? We know they could be good. Such is the nature of prospects. You can run comparables. You can analyze projections but in the end it is as accurate as predicting the weather. Some days you are right some days you are wrong.
Many people on this board have said that Votto is at best a Sean Casey type player. Ok, that’s not too bad, but it’s not great either.
Bailey could be the next Nolan Ryan – or apparently with some HGH the next Roger Clemens. He could also be the next Todd Van Poppel.
On the other hand, what do we know about Erik Bedard? We know that Bedard is a legit ace in the American League East. We know that he has gotten better statistically each year he has been in the majors.
Bottom line is, prospects are just that prospects. Give me a guy who has established himself as a bona fide number one over a potential number one every day of the week and twice on Sunday.
We don’t know if Bedard will get hurt soon either. Predicting health or injuries is like predicting the weather.
Justin did an excellent analysis that assigned values to all of the Reds prospects. The values were based on the values that similar prospects have had over the years. The floors and ceilings of the players were taken into account.
There is a huge difference between predicting an injury – which can occur from beyond random circumstances, to predicting a prospect’s value.
I’m not bashing Justin. I’m saying that no matter how good a projection you try to formulate, it is just a projection. For every projection you give me that is close, I can point to a high draft pick who tanked, or a guy like Dontrelle Willis who was billed to be the next great pitcher only to have fallen off the last three years straight.
I understand not wanting to give up too much in a trade, but you can’t definitively know what you are giving up when it comes to prospects. You can make an educated guess, but that’s it. Give me an established ace over a guy who could be an ace is all I’m saying.
David, I think what Snake was trying to say is that Wang’s values (the guy who actually did the analysis…I’m just piggybacking here) for prospects are based on average production of similarly-rated prospects. Many players dramatically outperformed those values, and many fell well short of those values. But, on average, he reports that a guy ranked as a top-10 prospect, if they’re a hitter, produced 40-some WARP over his first six years. I have a feeling that Jay Bruce, for example, will dramatically outperform that estimate. But he may fizzle, or he may get hurt, so you never know.
Prospects certainly have higher uncertainty than established players–that’s absolutely true. But it seems to me that expecting prospects to produce at average rates is a more reasonable way to value them than to do is you seem to be suggesting and just assume that they’re going to tank.
Also, the critical point about the Bedard trade is that the Reds would only have him for two years, compared to six years for the prospects. That’s an enormous difference in value, especially for a team that would be a marginal contender, at best, if they got Bedard next year.
@Snake, I did run some very rough numbers on Danny Haren (see comments in the article Chad linked to). He would be under the Reds’ control for three years.. That extra year, plus his rather inexpensive contract, makes a Votto+Bailey deal look at lot more reasonable.
-justin
I don’t remember anyone here saying that Votto is at best a Sean Casey type player.
I guess someone could have said it that panicked after his one bad season at Sarasota under OB’s “take a strike” policy.
If Haren=Bedard (performance wise), then trading Votto and Bailey for Haren would be a reasonable deal…I can accept that. However, I just don’t think Haren is as good as Bedard.
Haren’s K numbers are good but not close to Bedard’s. Wasn’t Haren lucky last year too with respect to BABIP, strand rate, etc.?
@Snake, good point on Haren’s peripherals–I honestly haven’t investigated him too thoroughly. But even if his rate stats aren’t as good as Bedard’s, he has pitched more innings than Bedard, which gives his value a bump. Doesn’t mean that Bedard won’t throw 200 innings next year, or that Haren will, but you have to give at least something of a nod toward history.
Also, I tend to think that Bedard’s performance is going to regress after last year–the bump in his ‘07 strikeout rates is quite a bit out of character from his prior performance. I’ve heard that he did start using his change a bit more last year, which explains it to some degree, but it still seems reasonable to expect regression. Depending on how much, he might move back toward Haren…
@Bill, there are some questions about Votto’s power, which might be where some of that came from. The guy has only slugged over 0.500 once since rookie ball (2006). I still like him, but I’m not sure he’s another Morneau either.
-j
Imagine this rotation:
Harang
Haran
Arroyo
Baily
All under long term, affordable contracts. What would it cost? Could we swing it for Votto/Maloney/someone else? What about the Holy Grail that is Jay Bruce? The thought of having that rotation together for some time, and having signed Cordero at the back end, is exciting. If we acquire Haren, or Bedard for that matter, I would like to do it in the least painful manner and by keeping our rotation intact. thoughts?
I would imagine that they only way he get Bedard or Haren and keep Bailey is to trade Bruce. If I were an opposing GM, I don’t move my best pitcher without getting Bruce or Bailey.
I agree that I would prefer Haren to Bedard. Bedard’s 2007 ratio stats look better, but Haren has better numbers prior to that and consistently pitches full seasons.
Jinaz I wasn’t suggesting that Bailey or Votto is going to tank. Only that it is far more likely that a prospect doesn’t meet expectations than an established guy like Haren or Bedard.
What if Bailey pans out as a 4.50, 175 IP, guy? What if Votto pans out to be a .310, 15/65 guy? If that is the production than Bedard for two years may be well worth it. If they turn into superstars than it obviously won’t be worth it.
Is it a risk? Absolutely. You could wind up making a horrible trade and setting your team back several years.
In my opinion, even with the moves the Cubs, Brewers, and Astros have made the NL Central is up for grabs for the next two years, so strike now with an established arm, even if it costs highly ranked prospects.
trade for haren or bedard and get silva he would be a solid number 3 or four
@David, this is kind of a long post, but I wanted to run your projection on Bailey through this analysis to see what happens.
If we assume 4.50 ERA (~4.8 RA, since R/9 is usually ~0.3 higher than ERA) over 175 IP, and we assume that replacement level is 5.9 RA (which is about right), that’s the equivalent to ~21 RAR per season (calculation: [4.8-5.9]/27outs*175In*3out/In = 21 RAR), or ~2.1 WAR (wins above replacement) per season. Times six years, that’s a total of ~126 RAR, or 12.6 WAR.
Bailey adds to his value by being inexpensive. A 2 WAR player, according to Tom Tango’s salary scale, is worth ~$8.8 million/year, or $53 million over six years if purchased as a free agent. If Bailey makes 400k each of the next three years, then makes 40%, 60%, and 80% of his value, then he’ll make 400k*3 + 3.6m + 5.4m + 7.2m, for a total of $17.4 million. That’s a difference in cost of $35 million. Assuming $4.4 million WAR (Tango’s number), that money saved on Bailey could be invested for an expected 8 WAR over six years.
So, 12.6 WAR + 8 WAR = 20 WAR over six years. That’s Bailey’s total trade value, using your projection–which actually is pretty close to the average predicted performance of a pitcher in Wang’s study.
Ok, now comparing to Bedard: last season, he had an RA of 3.3 over 182 IP. Let’s be really optimistic and say that over the next two years, he gives up 3.3 R/9 over 200 IP per season. That comes to 57 RAR ([5.9 - 3.3]/27*200*3=57 RAR), or 5.7 WAR per season. Times two years, that’s 11.4 WAR total.
We should also factor in his salary. 5.7 WAR, at $4.4m/WAR, is worth ~$25 million/year (wow), or $50 million over two years. So if he makes 60% and 80% of his true salary in ‘08 & ‘09, that puts him at $15 million in ‘08 and $20 million in ‘09, for a total of $35 million, $15 less than he’s worth as a free agent. $15 million savings could be invested in free agents worth 3.4 WAR, which brings his total two-year value to 11.4 WAR + 3.4 WAR = 14.8 WAR. The salary estimates are probably a bit high (he won’t be considered a 5.7 WAR pitcher in arbitration this year, as that was a big jump up for him from the previous years), but even doubling that part of his value brings up to 18.2 WAR, or just about the same as Bailey.
Again, as I said in my piece, I think a 1 for 1 swap of Bailey for Bedard is a pretty fair trade. Higher risk for the Orioles, but potentially as good of a pitcher over six instead of just two years. But any two of the Reds’ 4+1 prospects seems like too much to me.
[Technical note: the reason my WAR numbers differ from the WARP values is that WARP uses an absurdly low baseline for replacement level, which really limits its usefulness.]
-j
This may be a bit off topic, but a St. Louis columnist made this comment that really hacks me off(I guess it hurts because there is an element of truth in it about how our beloved Reds have been in the tank for so long now.
The writer, Jeff Gordon of the St. Louis Today/ Post, was puzzling over how the Cards let Miles and Eckstein go. He concludes by writing:
\”Or maybe we’ll look back and remember this winter as the start of a long, long, LONG season of Cincinnati Reds-caliber baseball.\”
See here.
If a trade happened and Bedard did not sign a long term contract with us, he would likely be a Type A free agent and we would receive 2 compensatory top 50 draft picks.
I think everyone that says “Well we only get him for 2 years” are greatly undervaluing the value of these picks. I also think given a 2 year window, Krivsky could get something done.
jinaz – If you haven’t figured it by now, I don’t put a lot of stock into projections. I understand the value, but like I said, best you can do is an educated guess.
If, with a straight face, you can write that the Reds would be better off with Bailey in the rotation instead of Bedard/Haren then I’m at a loss.
Who cares about 6 years down the road? The window is now. Harang is 29, Arroyo almost 31, Cordero is 32, we don’t have 6 years to wait for Bailey to develop. Would it be nice to win now and later – sure. By why risk winning down the road if with Bedard we would have a legit shot this year at winning the Central?
It’s too late for Haren, he just got traded to the DBacks.
I could’ve definitely lived with Votto, Maloney, Roenicke, Valaika, Dorn and Watson for Haren (a comparable trade IMO).
How many players does Bedard cost?
Well Haren is gone as an option he was just traded to the Diamondbacks. So does krivsky now up his offer to get Bedard or are we just going to hold our chips now and sign a few lessor cost free agents for 1 or 2 year deals.
I personally am not conviced one bit on Bailey. He has shown me really nothing too impressive with the major league team. I am holding judgment on Cueto yet but maybe Bailey turns it around this year and we have a very nice 1,2,3 for a lot of years to come. Either way having Bedard would not be too bad eihter as long as we keep Bruce in my book.
Hi David,
1. I used your projection because it seemed like you intended it as a pessimistic estimate of player performance. A lot of folks seem to think that the projections in Wang’s study are too optimistic, when in fact they’re almost exactly what you provided.
2. I think I just said that 2 years of Bedard is worth the same as 6 years of Bailey. Given the Reds’ current situation with the rotation, and the fact that one does have to discount distant production vs. current production, I would do that deal. So we’re not in disagreement there. Where we’re perhaps in disagreement is whether we should also include Votto or Hamilton in the same deal.
@Dave, the point about draft picks is a good one, as is not taken into account in the above analysis. However, given Rany Jazayerli’s study on draft picks, it would definitely be possible to incorporate that, and probably fairly easily in rough form. I’ll work on that. … though there would also have to be some sort of discount on that value given how far off we’d be talking (2-4 years after the free agent left, so in Bedard’s case, players starting 4-6 years away and ending 10-12 years away). It’s hard to know how to weight something like that, but I bet we could play around with it to make it work.
-j
j – I do think we are in agreement to an extent. However, no team would take a potential ace for an established ace straight up. There’s no way a Bailey for Bedard deal goes down, although a Bruce for Bedard deal seems like it would work based on what I’ve read.
Looking at the Haren deal the D’Backs just shipped their 1st, 3rd, 7th, and 8th ranked prospects by BA, plus two others. So the price is going to be high.
The deal I would make – EdE, Bailey, Maloney and Juan Francisco. Given the current landscape that would be relatively fair.
Justin,
How do you feel about comparing WARP numbers across season like in your analysis? Or more simply, are 6 years of a 2 WARP player really equal to 2 years of a 6 WARP player? It’d be pretty hard to do an analysis of such having to include division races, the wild card, opponents and newer prospects, but intuitively it doesn’t seem to me that it’d be a linear relationship.
All else being equal, say your team missed the playoffs by three games each of the six seasons with the 2 WARP player. Would you rather make the playoffs two of those six having the 6 WARP player? It’s an extreme example and perhaps a linear assumption works well enough as an approximation, but I could still see as something to consider.
Does anyone have a good grasp of the players exchanged for Haren? Would provide a good comparison for Bedard’s value (given his contract status).
Looking at mlbtraderumors.com, I think snake’s trade proposal in post 19 seems pretty comparable. Definitely doesn’t seem like much, but I’m sure good old Billy Beane sees something in some of the guys he got that nobody else saw.
Do you guys think the Haren trade puts Blanton on the market? It would really be nice to get him here, I think we could sign him for the rest of his life. (Worthy note Blanton was a compensation pick for Giambi.)
Something of notice on MLBTR, Padres sign Glendon Rusch. I would bet this kills their interest in Prior.
Given the relatively small % of prospects that actually ever do anything significant, I just don’t get how they’re valued so highly, and proven studs could garner so little in trade talks. With Haren now off the table, if the Reds want to contend in ‘08 they better get Bedard. If they don’t, they’ll have to get lucky to win their division.
Now, if you’re not concerned about winning in ‘08, or perhaps you’re not concerned with winning at all, but merely being profitable as a business, they I can see the prospects making more economic sense….maybe.
But if you want to win, you could have 20 Jay Bruces in the minors, and without starting pitching, it just wouldn’t matter.
Huh, I would have thought we would have made better trading partners for the A’s and that we could have given up more than what they received. It looks like we may try a whirl at Prior or Lieber (Yawn).
Webb
Haren
Owings
Davis
Johnson
pretty good….
jay
Bailey was injured when he pitched bad look at each games stats.
his era would have been lower if they would have let him pitch
jinaz – If you haven’t figured it by now, I don’t put a lot of stock into projections. I understand the value, but like I said, best you can do is an educated guess.
If, with a straight face, you can write that the Reds would be better off with Bailey in the rotation instead of Bedard/Haren then I’m at a loss.
Re: Projections – but you are using projections in your thinking. You project Bedard to repeat what he did last year. I think there is as much, if not more, risk to that than there is to Bailey’s emergence. Plus, it’s not Bailey for Bedard starightup. It’s at least two other players.
While I couldn’t keep a straight face to say that I know the 2008 Reds would have a better rotation with Bailey than with Bedard, I can keep a straight when saying that I think they’re a better team in 2008 with Bailey + Hamilton + Votto (as a rumored example) over Bedard alone.
Jamie,
That StL writer is an idiot. Losing a 32-year-old guy, who can’t defend or run, and who has a career OPS+ of 89 isn’t going to bring on any dark era. Let alone the 30-year-old guy with a 73 OPS+, no matter how “tenacious” he was with his .328 OBP last year.
Comedy.
ya votto is ereplacable
he only played through september and hit amazingly. and hamilton is really good.
and homer will be solid
GregD – I don’t see how a statistical projection on a minor league prospect is considerably similar to suggesting that Bedard is a better 2 year option. Bedard is already an established pitcher and we know he has become an ace at the big league level.
As I pointed out previously, nobody is going to give up an ace for a potential ace straight up. I think that is where the WAR stuff really fails. While some GMs, and certainly more and more every year, are turning to relatively new statistical calculations when puting together a team, risk is certainly an intangible that cannot be accurately measured. Therefore, Andy MacPhail is going to need more than just Bailey to justify the risk.
I’m freaking shocked that we couldn’t give the A’s a better package than that for Haren. you have to be kidding me!? i guess you have to trust billy at this point, he’s got the resume, but this looks terrible.
there is one player in milb.com’s top 50 and he’s at #23. bailey is at #9 right now, which says to me that if he’s included in a deal for bedard, no major league talent goes with him, and no other top prospects (like votto 34, or cueto 47).
i don’t know how the hype happened, but i hope this trade wakes some people up to bedard’s value, especially krivsky.
if he’s going to trade bruce for bedard, it should be straight up, or maybe with additional pieces coming back to the reds.
My thoughts are that I’ve seen a million can’t miss prospects somehow miss. Cincinnati has a slew of them in their recent past. A 30 yr old guy is in his prime NOW, you know what you are getting from him. I love these stat heads who are obsessed with the learning curve but miss the obvious NEVER MAKE it curve. bedard is not going to fall off a cliff unless he gets hurt. So basically you are gambling the risk of injury versus the risk of achieving stardom. If we get two solid yrs out of Bedard that is prob a nice return on investment. Anything else is gravy. Sure there is a chance Baeily turns into a perennial all-star and stays with Cincinnati his entire career. About 25,000 to 1 against. Bedard giving you 2 yrs is about an even money wager.
maybe this is what it comes down to for me: do you think if the reds traded bailey, votto, and hamilton for bedard that they’d win the world series this year? i don’t, i just don’t. i wish i did, and i don’t.
so i keep the young guys now and get them on the team and in the rotation (thinking cueto, bailey, maloney) and let them develop.
maybe we’re in it at the deadline and we make a deal then, maybe we wait til next offseason. sign dunn longterm, in the outfield with bruce and hamilton, still have all your position players, harang, arroyo, and your closer.
i think the reds are in good shape, but maybe a year away, so i don’t see the urgency to give away so much of the potential future for this year.
it seems like we have a little extra offense, and not enough pitching, so if you could do a one-for-one deal a la matt garza, sure. but the bedard deals i’ve seen discussed are a hell of a lot to give if it gets us second place this season.
u trade them then your in a hole
hatte will be 38 this year?
or 39?
and the votto is a stud.
bailey is our future.
bedard wont be great long and hammie is a beast.
we wont have a great offense if we trade them
I am in agreement with al on post 34. I think Haren may have been more valuable based on his contract. In addition, Bedard wants to test the free agent markets. I think at this point unless there is a very cheap deal for another starting pitcher (FA or trade), then you need to hope that between Bailey, Cueto, and Maloney we have the next Verlander and Bonderman.
I like Bedard, but I don’t think I want to give up the young talent it will take to acquire him. I’d like to see them get someone like Leiber signed for a year, two max, and start working in Cueto/Maloney to replace him.
Cueto/Bailey/Maloney will take at least 3 more years to fully develop. In the meantime Harang/Arroyo will be gone, we need a top of the rotation guy now. Our system is so deep with prospects, I am really not worried about losing any of them for a possible Cy Young winner. And don’t forget, if Bedard leaves after 2 years, we still get high draft picks…just like if Dunn leaves next year.
Willy, sorry but I have to disagree with you. You get rid of those guys and our offense is still very much a formidable one. Phillips, Dunn, Griffey, Edwin, Kep, and a soon to be Jay Bruce will get the job done in GABP. Especially if we continue to upgrade pitching. I am still on the fence about Bedard because of sign ability and possible injury questions. But if the reason we don’t trade for him is because the fear of losing offense then we are just plain dumb. How many years have we had an awesome offense that contained outrageous power numbers? And how many times in those years have we made the playoffs? Zero. Offense simply has not worked for years because we would score 8 and the other team would score 10. Defense and pitching win you championships. To maximize defense and pitching, I trade Bailey, Votto, EE, and two prospects to get Bedard. Dunn gets the hell out of left field and moves to first. Opening up a spot for Bruce. You have made your outfield better defensively and have kept your big bats in the lineup. Not to mention you are now tied with the D-backs for the best one\two punch in the Nl with Harang\Bedard vs Webb\Haren. Im sick of waiting for the future. I’ve been waiting since leather pants said it would be here when GABP has opened. I was ok waiting then but not now. We have a chance to win some sort of championship so damnit lets go after it!
Cueto/Bailey/Maloney will take at least 3 more years to fully develop.
They don’t need to be fully developed. The Reds only need to have two serviceable 4/5 starters from the group of Belisle/Baily/Maloney/Cueto over the next few years to be competitive. Then hopefully they will be fully developed by 2012 when Harang and Arroyo are gone. The Oaklands and Minnesotas have shown that the way to be competitive is to constantly rotate through the talent and ship it off for more young talent when it becomes too expensive. Hopefully that is something that Krivsky understands from his time with the Twins and will put to use here.
If they can get Baltimore to give Bedard up for Bailey/Votto/Hamilton. we then have a rotation of Harang/Bedard/Arroyo/Belisle/?. That leaves us short a starter and we still have to deal for or sign a #5 starter after giving up a lot of talent. I also don’t want to see us make the same mistake with Hopper/Keppinger that we made with Freel. Neither should be counted on for more than a bench role and filling in for starters, and definitely should not be signed to a contract such as the one they gave Freel. I’m not big on dealing Hamilton or Bruce since I am not sold on either Freel or Hopper as starters and feel that once Griffey goes to the DL in 2008, that Bruce will get significant ABs replacing him. Freel/Hopper is a big step down from Hamilton/Bruce.
Tom – In mentioning the A’s and Twins, you have brought into play two of the best, if not the best, GMs in all of baseball. While I think Krivsky is doing better than most, he is no Terry Ryan.
Additionally, the A’s are in the easiest division to win given the AL West has just four teams. I’m not certain Beane’s strategy would work as well in the NL Central where you are competing against five other teams year after year.
Probably it comes down to this – those who think we should trade Bailey think a rotation of Harang, Bedard, Arroyo, Belisle, and Cueto could win the NL Central this year. Once in the playoffs two legit aces and Arroyo could definitely make some noise.
I think – and have thought for awhile – that ‘08 was the year the Reds could really push for a championship. I’m not sure I want to risk that for being above average for the next four years IF Bailey pans out.
They don’t need to be fully developed. The Reds only need to have two serviceable 4/5 starters from the group of Belisle/Baily/Maloney/Cueto over the next few years to be competitive.
I couldn’t disagree with this statement more. Who is your 3 guy now? Who is your 2? The Reds need a solid 2 or 1A now, as I am not comfortable with Arroyo as a competitive 2. If we do not get a solid starter this off season we will once again be competing with leather pants for the basement of the NL. Krivsky/Baker will not let us have another losing season next year, and they know what it takes to get that done.
I think we should trade for Bedard (
not giving up Bruce)and sign Prior to a 2 year contract for 3 mil/year range.
I think the Reds can compete for the playoffs this year also. I just don’t think we have to pay through the nose to get Bedard to do it. It comes down to looking at the difference between how the club balances out with the difference of trading Bailey/Votto/Hamilton for Bedard or signing a one or two year FA middle of the rotation guy like Leiber. The Bedard trade scenario gives you a bit stronger starting pitching staff, less offense, less depth, and a weakened bench and upper minor league system. A signing such as Leiber gives you a improved staff without all the other negatives.
Bedard for Bailey/Votto/Hamilton
Harang
Bedard
Arroyo
Belisle
Cueto
Ross
Hatteberg
Phillips
Gonzalez
Encarnacion
Dunn
Freel/Hopper
Griffey
vs signing FA Leiber
Harang
Arroyo
Leiber
Belisle
Bailey
Ross
Votto
Phillips
Gonzalez
Encarnacion
Dunn
Hamilton
Griffey
I think I’m starting to agree with Tom the more I think about trading for Bedard. I think they should sign two of Lieber, Prior, Colon and let these young guys develop together as the D’backs are doing.
The D backs unloaded some of their farm system to add another ace to their staff. Haren. If they get into the playoffs they will be tough to get by. The reds land Bedard and they will be saying the same thing about us.
To WIN a playoff series you need at least 2 aces, Bedard gives us the second. I honestly think that we could go deep if not win the postseason with the addition of Bedard, and a few minor adjustments.
Everyone needs to stop thinking that Arroyo is a servicable #2, he is a NL #3 at best. In the AL is he a #5.
I think I can make a pretty good argument that Arroyo has been a #2 NL starter over the last two years. There is no doubt that he was at least a #2, if not a #1, in 2006 with a 3.29 ERA and a 142 ERA+. Last season he had 4.23 ERA and a 110 ERA+. NL average ERA for starters last season was 4.65. Put a bell curve around that, and he was most likely a #2 last season. I’ll have to run my rotation slot numbers for last season to be sure, but if he wasn’t a #2 last season, he was pretty dang close.
Tom – check out Arroyo’s numbers after the All-Star break of ‘06. Then tell me if you still think he is a legit #2.
Yes I do, 3.50 ERA in 110 IP. Hint.. shoot for July and August of 2006. That’ll be a small enough sample for you to make his numbers look crappy.
Dave, quick question…..
which team had the best #2
Team A – 121 ip, 129 hits, 16 HR, 22 BB, 49 K and a 3.87 ERA
Team B – 207 ip, 181 hits, 28 HR, 55 BB, 174 K and a 3.83 ERA
Team C – 192.7 ip, 211 hits, 21 HR, 95 BB, 144 K and a 4.25 ERA
Team D – 166 ip, 194 hits, 23 HR, 59 BB, 94 K and a 4.12 ERA
Who had the best #2? How about the second best?
Well Team A was the Phillies, Team B was the Cubs, Team C was the Diamondbacks and Team D was the Rockies. The Rockies had a good rotation because top to bottom the were all within the 4-4.50 ERA range. The Cubs had the best rotation in the NL that wasn’t the Padres (who didn’t make the playoffs by the way) when they went to war with these guys:
Ted Lilly – 207 innings, 3.83 ERA
Carlos Zambrano – 216 ip, 3.95 ERA
Jason Marquis – 191 ip, 4.60 ERA
Rich Hill – 195 ip, 3.92 ERA
Sean Marshall – 103 ip, 3.92 ERA
It didn’t do them much good in the playoffs though as they were swept by the Diamondbacks who had a #1 then two #3s in Owings and Davis.
My point? Well, you don’t need a #1 and a #2 to win. The NL champs didnt even have a pitcher with an ERA under 4.12 in their starting rotation with more than 40 innings pitched. You win by having a good team, top to bottom and it doesn’t always have to be done with great pitching. Solid pitching will get the job done.
Here is the rotation slot definitions for the 2006 season, it also contains a link to the post containing the 2004 and 2005 data also.
Arroyo by the way was a #1 starter in in 2006 by his ERA, and one of the best #2 starters when using XERA. I’ll have to start work on the 2007 data, I’m curious now to see if he makes the #2 cut there. Based on the 2006 data, NL average starter had a 4.70 ERA, #3 starter 4.32 – 4.91, and #2 starter 3.79 – 4.31, Arroyo’s 4.23 2007 season would have placed him as a #2. I’ll have to run the numbers to make sure though, I think starters in the NL might have been a bit better last season.
Look–I’m as diehard a Reds fan as all of you. I long for a successful Reds season. But I think it would be a great mistake to make any of these trades that are floated around. Think about this. Looking to the futre, the Reds have a nucleus of:
positional players: Votto, Phillips, Dunn, Hamilton, Bruce
pitchers: Harang, Arroyo, Bailey, Cueto, Cordero, Burton.
Is that a complete team? No, of course not. But those are some very srong building blocks. I’ve looked through the NL and I don’t see a nucleus like that anywhere in the league. Can Bedard help us get to 90 wins in 2008? Perhaps. I think 85 would be more realistic. But why do that and possibly forego being in the 90-100 wins for several seasons beyond 2008?