I've heard of Navy Is the New Black, but this is getting a bit bizarro :- )
.
Q. So you like the idea of Cedeno and Olson for Aaron Heilman? Is Ronny Cedeno a good idea?
A. With the term "fringe ML player" we are describing a hard-working AAA player of limited talent, who does play better than most AAA players, who has no reasonable possibility to be a significant player for ANY of the 30 major league teams.
Cedeno is one more fringe ML player, like Endy Chavez and Craig Counsell, who has cyber-Seattle enthused because the only thing he can do is field.
Cedeno's career OPS+ is 62, which some amigos believe has caused him to be underrated with the bat. Ho-kay. ... it's true that Cedeno is "only" 26, but he is never going to hit HR, is not stealing bases, and is never going to draw walks. (If you were pitching, would YOU be scared of this guy?)
IF Ronny Cedeno stole bases, and were a GREAT defender, he would then be Pokey Reese.
Well, check me. Cedeno will push his OPS from 62 up towards 90 or so. If Cedeno jells, how about Khalil Greene :- )
.
Q. But Pokey Reese was cool, right?
A. We once asked Bill James why Boston was interested in having Pokey Reese around. His response: the field manager thinks he is the best infield defender in the major leagues, which may justify his having the #25 roster spot.
I'm with Bill. A GREAT defender who cannot hit, MAY be a useful bench player. I'm a lot closer to that, than I am to believing you want a starting nine full of 75-OPS hitters.
It could be that Cedeno will turn into Khalil Greene, if everything breaks right for him, but we're talking about the mindset that says, this year's 70 OPS+ is just peachy if the guy can field his position fairly well. :- )
.
Q. IS Ronny Cedeno a great defender?
A. I have no idea. I do notice that his CAREER range factors are BELOW average at 2B, SS, and 3B, so I kind of doubt he's Mark Belanger.
Don't knee-jerk back at me with "I don't like range factors." That's fine, but I don't notice that Ozzie Smith had any blinkin' RF's like Ronny Cedeno does. Go look up some great defender and tell me whether his RF/9's look weak.
.
Q. Does Cedeno make any sense on any terms?
A. From a chemistry aspect, sure. Yuniesky Betancourt typifies the Mariner mindset of the last few years. If Capt Jack wants to remake the attitude, that's a great way to do it: get rid of the talented, entitled Golden Boy who cruises along operating on 50% of his talent.
If it's me, I replace Betancourt with a man who can play major league baseball, but I get the idea.
.
Q. COULD he hit?
A. As Sandy has pointed out, Cedeno showed brief flashes in AAA: he hit 20 homers, with an 0.67 eye, over his last 500 AB's or so - at 22 and 24.
That puts him in a different class than Pokey Reese. But let's also remember that he's got almost 1,000 AB's now, with a 62 OPS+, in the NL and Wrigley.
Even if Cedeno were going to jell and move his OPS from 65-75 to 100 this year, he wouldn't do it in Safeco.
.
Q. So why is cyber-Seattle, and the new regime, so all-smiles about players like Cedeno, Counsell and Chavez?
A. The defense fad used to be kind of amusing. It's not funny any more.
I have nothing against truly great defensive players at SS and CF -- if they are legitimately saving you -15, -20 runs, like Mark Belanger and Paul Blair used to do. Belanger didn't hit, but because shortstop is Grand Central Station, he did indeed impact the game as much with his mitt as an AVERAGE, light-hitting shortstop OF THE DAY used to do.
But if I'm going to do that, then the SS and CF are going to be better than any other defenders in baseball. Not guys who rank #12 and #6 in the majors, or whatever these two guys are going to rank.
.
If you want a hard-working, slick glove at short, then great. Go get the best defender in AAA, and call yourself avant-garde. That guy will give you a 60, 70 OPS+ just like Cedeno will, and you'll get some special defense with him.
Go get Andy Cannizaro or Kevin Hooper or whoever you think is a great glove, and don't give up Aaron blinkin' Heilman for him. Let's suppose that everything people believe about defense is right: then, still, why would you give up Aaron Heilman for a guy there are 1,000 of?
If I'm another GM in baseball, I'm fighting to get into the batter's box to deal my bench gloves for Erik Bedard.
.
Q. Does Garrett Olson swing the deal?
A. The deal itself could be redeemed, if you were a big Garrett Olson fan, and you thought he was about to leap a plateau. There's nothing sabermetric or "correct" about believing in Garrett Olson; it's a tools-scout call. But the M's have the right to trust their own judgment on young pitchers.
What I'm talking about is the enthusiasm for Ronny Cedeno as such.
...............
I'm not trying to be stubborn here. But with the new ad campaign, "ML Fringe" is the new "Impact Addition."
Bah humbug :- ) ,
Dr D
This is a great rebuilding move. The 2010 Mariners are looking a lot better. http://www.thebaseballcube.com/players/O/Garrett-Olson.shtml although Olson looks like another Ryan Rowland Smith which isn't a bad thing and certainly better then Silva/Washburn. :)
Olson is obviously the #1 player in the deal, and you're getting a utility infielder as a throwin. You'd have to believe in Olson.
I'm not at all against the school of thought that has Garrett Olson winning 15 games in the majors. But the M's have literally 20 pitchers now. Are you going to drop RRS to make room for Olson?
You're talking about trading Aaron Heilman for the guy. If you do, you'd better have him penciled in as your #4 starter.
Enjoying the reads Doc.. keep up the great work
I get your angst, Doc.
I'm ambivalent about the trade in general -- support it from the general case of getting younger (more upside), and more spaghetti to throw at the wall - but I think at the moment, part of why you seem to be diverging more strongly than normal from the rest of the blog-o-sphere is that (and this is my perception of your rhetoric), is that your EQ fader is tuned more toward the present than the future. Heilman is almost certainly higher value in 'immediate' value, while future value is probably reasonably skewed toward the fringe guys.
But, that's not really what I wanted to comment on. In looking at the Cedeno stats - I most readily noted the VAST difference between his AAA numbers (.900+ OPS figures), and his major league numbers, (.600ish OPS numbers).
This is, of course, the danger with ALL minors-to-major conversion charts. They project the sweet juicy center. But, that center is defined by all the guys at the fringes (in both directions), that either crash and burn in the bigs - or actually put up BETTER numbers in the majors.
I am not sure if there is a sabremetric path to explaining *WHY* Cedeno has a 300 point swing from Iowa to Chicago. It is REALLY so simple that he simply cannot handle the leap in talent?
I've actually seen lots of guys who kill AAA, who come up and get hammered in the majors -- but MANY of these guys have significant drops when they return to AAA, (proving that either initial production was just flukey-good OR that whatever it was the majors found out, the minors competition is employing, and he cannot solve it down there, either).
With Cedeno, both his age 22 and 24 trips to AAA resulted in nearly identical production, (250+ ABs each time). Is the vast difference between the two physical, mental - and how much potential is their to tweak him, to close that production gap?
What I find interesting with Cedeno in particular is that he was AWFUL in his early days in the minors, failing to break .600 OPS at 4 different stop, (but they promoted him anyway), and his output jumped UP 200 points. Then his production jumped another 200 points when he went up again. It's an almost completely random development profile. To find a comp, I'd think you'd start with a guy named Jeckyll -- (or was it Hyde)?
No idea what his outlook is -- but it does make me wonder what is an analyst supposed to do when you find a player that doesn't conform to any established pattern.
I'm never a fan of trades in which you're giving up the best player in the deal and not receiving a boatload of talent in return.
Olson did have some extremely impressive minor league peripherals and was a 1st round supplemental pick. However, the unanimous opinion seems to have him topping out as a #4/5 starter. I guess it's better than spending $10+ million on a Carlos Silva, but you shouldn't have to give up an Aaron Heilman. Rich Hill might be on the waiver wire soon, and he's practically as valuable if not moreso. The Cubs got Olson in exchange for a player who probably isn't worth a whole lot more than Franklin Gutierrez.
I think the good Doc is underrating Cedeno a tad, but the song remains the same - he's not a stud prospect, he's yet to hit in the majors, and he's out of options. This player does not hold much (if any) trade value.
This trade really makes me wonder if there's something we've yet to learn about Heilman. The M's got him as the centerpiece of the Putz blockbuster, it's not like that was the kind of deal where they'd be looking to immediately spin their return to someone else. I suspect either they learned something new about him once he was in their organization, or they wanted starting pitching not a reliever and re-evaluated whether Heilman would be able to provide that.
I'm not going to get into the argument about how defense should be valued (since I'm far from any sort of expert), but I'm a bit confused by the logic implied in this statement:
"I have nothing against truly great defensive players at SS and CF — if they are legitimately saving you -15, -20 runs, like Mark Belanger and Paul Blair used to do. Belanger didn’t hit, but because shortstop is Grand Central Station, he did indeed impact the game as much with his mitt as an AVERAGE, light-hitting shortstop OF THE DAY used to do."
Are you saying that someone who is worth 15-20 runs above average defensively makes the same impact on the game with his glove as an average-hitting shortstop makes with his bat? Or are you saying that a great defender/poor hitter combination is worth the same as an average defender/average hitter combo? The latter makes sense to me, but the former seems to be saying that 15 = 0. Am I misunderstanding you?
How you doin' Dingo.
Yeah, I'm talking about a great defensive player who can't hit. A great defensive player who can hit is a completely different subject.
Belanger might very well have saved 15, 20 runs in some of his prime years ... but on the other hand, he created only 40-50 runs a year on offense.
If you want to compare a player like that to a 70-RC shortstop who has an average mitt, they net out fairly comparably .... but you might feel that the glove SS has synergy with the pitchers: maybe you have a couple of young SP's who will turn the corner because of the dazzling plays behind him. I can see the argument, is all I'm saying.
I'm willing to buy the idea that a really great mitt, who is a bad hitter, might be worth almost the same as a player who is mediocre on both offense and defense. IF you're giving a lot of benefit of the doubt to defensive impact. AND I can see how such a player might affect other players psychologically.
Not sure if that answers your question?
Awesome to see you Justin.
What was the problem with Olson translating his K/BB's to the major leagues? Did they chase him out of the strike zone?
Sandy, his career minors OPS is 724.
..................
I do acknowledge the development that he showed at 22 and 24 ... he hit 20 homers in AAA over his last 500-odd AB's, with a .67 eye, at 22 and 24 years of age. So we'll cheerfully concede that he's showed flashes of hitting better than Pokey Reese.
In Wrigley Field, and playing in the NL, I could see him becoming a mediocre starting shortstop.
As a righthand hitter in the AL, in Safeco? Only if he's one of the five best defensive shortstops in baseball.
.............
I wouldn't oversell the minors flashes, in view of the miserable NL/Wrigley performance over 900 AB's. But he's not going to finish his career with a 62 OPS+, no.
Another issue we have, is that it could be Cedeno will turn into Khalil Greene, if everything breaks right for him. Some day, in some park.
But this is the mindset that says, this year's 70 OPS+ is just peachy if the guy can field his position "above average". I don't think the mentality of this trade is that Ronny Cedeno is going to hit. I think the mentality is that he doesn't have to hit, because he's pretty good with the glove.
OK, that's 60-80 OPS bats in LF, CF and at SS, and who knows about C. Couple more of 'em? Maybe deal Jose Lopez for a glove-first player?
.................
Again, if it was Brooks Robinson, Mark Belanger and Paul Blair, that would be one thing. But we are not talking about legendary gloves here.
Pretty sure Gutierrez was the centerpiece of the Putz trade, not Heilman.
I really have no idea why the M's got Heilman, it was an odd pickup to begin with unless they felt they could turn him into a mid-rotation starter.
Haven't been keeping as close an eye on the M's as I'd like.... but Cedeno's slated for 2B with Betancourt staying put, no?
"What was the problem with Olson translating his K/BB’s to the major leagues? Did they chase him out of the strike zone?"
Olson's got no command of his changeup, so he's basically a two-pitch pitcher with a high-80's fastball but a killer slurve. There were a few games where he was absolutely hammered.
The one thing I will say is he profiles as an overachiever. He was on the O's pregame show many times discussing different deliveries he's working on and comparable star pitchers with great enthusiasm. He apparently also has been noted for a strong work ethic. Seems to be the type that overcomes limited talent with a true love of the game.
Doc,
Seems to me that the disconnect between you and the rest of the blog-o-sphere is NOT the valuation of Cedeno, but instead the valuation of Heilman. Most everyone around the blogs IMO are saying that they see Cedano as the willie replacement at worst were as most of those same people thought that Heilman might not make the team at all, throw in the attitude issues that Heilman might have if his return to the Starting rotation didn't pan out and I think this trade is a win for the M's. Not a blow out win, but a win non the less. How nice is it being the team trading for risky upside instead of Known Veteran Status for once!
Again it isn't that everyone is super excited about cedano it is just that everyone was very underwhelmed by Heilman, where you see a possible #3/#4 most people are seeing a middle reliever who will only do that grudgingly.
cheers,
OBF
Also, does Travis Blackley pre injury make for a good comp to Olson? Soft tossing lefties with mucho guile, granted IIRC Blackley's bread and butter was his change where as Olson's is his Slurve, but you get the point.
OBF
Cedeno is basically a no bat, average glove middle infielder. Hes a utility guy IMO, which has its value. I just wouldn't want to invest ABs in him... To be fair hes probably a better utility guy than Bloomquist.
As for the two AAA stints that have Dave at USSM excited about him? .383 and .395 BABIP respectively. TOTAL flukes. He WILL NOT hit. I can't stress this enough. The ONLY evidence we have him EVER hitting was luck-induced.
Thats not to say I don't like the deal overall. I still DO like this deal due to Garrett Olson being included. I like his chances of becoming a MOR starter, and hes club-controlled for more years than Heilman.
Maybe I don't read those sites, but Doc, who said Cedeno is great because of his defense. Both Lookoutlanding and USSM describe him as "average". Who exactly is touting the "Cedeno rocks because of defense" line? USSM is up on him because of a hope that he will pan out offensively due to his minor league numbers. At least that is the impression I got when I looked there. "Cyber-Seattle" seems to get introduced more and more here as some kind of bogey-man which doesn't really exist. It's like "liberal" in the hands of Rush or Coulter.
Funny, Doc. Normally, *I* am the one who fixates on career minor league output rather than just AAA production.
In this case, the variance from his early-years is simply massive -- and his two AAA stints were 2 years apart, so I'm less prone to placing BOTH of them into the "career year" bin.
That said -- I would generally agree that the numbers are not something to make a sabr guy happy. His .900 OPS figures were pushed by .350 BAs. But, the combo of 50 point patience and 20-HR power in those last 500 AAA ABs makes me think it's actually plausible, (if unlikely), that he might be a .300/.350/.400 guy in the majors. Personally, I've got no qualms whatsoever about a .750 middle infielder, (assuming solid defense). The numbers make me think this is the max headroom for this guy -- but the massive AAA / Majors skew makes me wonder if there are some scouts who have a better read on WHY his eye ratio completely imploded in the bigs.
I also have a sense that during 2008, he was still making adjustments. (17-BB in 534 ABs in 2006; 18-BB in 216-ABs in 2008 -- if you MORE than double your walk rate, there is "something" going on).
If there is a hidden plan in all of this, my thinking is that it is more likely that Beltre is a factor -- that Z is positioning at the moment for the forthcoming trade of "Bats in the " Beltre, (which may actually be a July 31 deal). If Lopez continues to develop into say a 115 hitter, maybe he moves to third. Of course, most of this is simply wild speculation. There isn't nearly enough data on Z to have any real read on what HIS thinking actually is. But, at least he's keeping the Hot Stove steaming.
Thanks for addressing my question. You mostly answered it, but really I was trying to get at the raw numbers behind the issue. All of the usual caveats apply about the accuracy & precision of defensive metrics, but say you had two shortstops with the following performances:
Player A:
Offense: 15 runs below league-average
Defense: 15 runs above league-average
Player B:
Offense: league-average
Defense: league-average
If you buy into this framework, then both players are basically providing equal value, relative to other players in the league. Maybe this is what you meant by comparing a "great defensive player who can't hit" to one who is "mediocre" at both hitting and fielding, but it seems to me that a league-average shortstop -- regardless of the skills that combine to provide that league-average performance -- is actually a fairly valuable asset.
Total agreement with taro. However the upside is a MOR is like $10 million a year so more years in club control means more money for the $20 M a player in 2009/2010 FA market or would that be the 2010/2011 FA market?
We all saw how Lou could destroy a young players confidence (or for that matter a veterans) if they didn't start off with him on the right foot. Maybe that's what happened to Cedeno. The M's are getting more depth which a very valuable thing. Big upgrade over Cairo and Bloomquist, so that makes me happy.
Put me in the camp with Sandy about being ambivalent about the trade. Don't like losing Heilman but like having pressure on the middle infielders to perform, which Z has explicitly stated was his intent. Also a move to make the pitching more left-handed.
Anyone else read Buster Olney's blog entry about Shin Soo Choo and wonder, what other team could use a young lefty power bat in the corner outfield? A guy who kills righties and is just starting to hit the prime of his career? A guy who can get on base at a .400 clip? That trade could be looking like a real bummer. And should be a cautionary tale for expecting too much from Wlad, Clement, et. al. too quickly.
Sandy's railing at the age management issue is slowly seeping in to my blood. I will soon be assimilated.