Much rejoicing in the M's blog-o-sphere about Capt Jack nixing a (reportedly) firm offer of Edwin Jackson for Brandon Morrow and a young middle reliever.
Nobody seems very clear as to what that says about Brandon Morrow. Let's clear it up.
It resolves the debate about whether Brandon Morrow is a marquee talent, because Morrow and Jackson are apples-to-apples. In fact, they're Red Delicious apples to Red Delicious apples.
2-year rental or not, Edwin Jackson offers a huge net performance profit for 2010 and 11. Zduriencik didn't want it. The comp is so clean that there is no escaping the implication.
.
=== Now and Later Dept. ===
SSI, the original Morrow fan, has a bit of a queasy feeling about it. Remember, now, Jackson is what Morrow hopes to be at the end of 2010.
Jackson's final 2009 stats, though hamstrung by a gassed September, had him as worth $15.9m to the Tigers. Jackson doesn't have to improve an inch to be a 3.5-WAR player; that's what he was in 2009.
What did USSM have Morrow as being worth next year? Was it 0.5 wins or 1.0? Is there any other spot on the roster, in which we'd cheerfully flush 2-3 wins because we like the youngster we have?
............
Jackson came out in 2009 and roared to, essentially, 25 consecutive excellent starts before hitting the wall in September. If Brandon Morrow did exactly that in 2010, how much would he be worth to you next winter? Would you even consider trading him for a talented young pitcher, say, Ian Kennedy, who'd never done much in three years as a swing man?
So, imagine Morrow having a spectacular 2009, and then us offering him to the Yankees for Kennedy, and the Yankees telling us no thanks.
...........
Here's a Fangraphs article, Edwin Jackson In Control, where they grudgingly concede that Jackson's 3-year BB rate has fallen like Kazuhiro Sasaki down a flight of stairs. Yeah, no d'oh, jemanji. He's a young pitcher mastering his craft. It ain't luck. It's the process of becoming a TOR.
Here's another recent Fangraphs article in which the writer, obviously no Jackson fan, concedes what he must: "But Jackson looks like an above-average starter."
............
Granted, Bora$ means that Edwin Jackson's going to be a 2-year rental, and then we bid on him like everybody else.
But during that two years, Jackson will make $7 and $10m, while being worth $16m x 2 even if he doesn't improve. That's a $15m net performance profit even if Jackson doesn't become the next Roy Halladay.
..............
Granted again, if Morrow posts a Jackson-ian 2010, we'll have 3 years left of him, not 2. And granted, Morrow figures to be easier to sign for his 7th year.
Still and all, Edwin Jackson is one of the few hot young pitchers available ... er, the only hot young pitcher available. It's not like you wouldn't trade Luke French for him.
...............
What I infer from this is the following: that Jack Zduriencik thinks that Brandon Morrow probably, >60% chance, will become a dominating ace in either 2010 or 2011.
There's no other reason not to deal Brandon Morrow for ... the pitcher that Morrow hopes he'll become. That's what you've got to be saying: Morrow will probably become Edwin Jackson anyway.
................
You can't just powerflush Edwin Jackson for no reason. He's a $16-25m performance #2-3 starter, for arbitration money. You just passed on that so you can keep Brandon Morrow.
And with that pass, the discussion about Morrow's talent level is resolved. Bravo! and cheer up ;- ) ... we stop debating the appropriate expectations (staff ace behind Felix) and can now debate whether he will live up to his lofty expectations.
..................
And you understand why Brandon Morrow just got cemented into the 2010 rotation, right? If he's a Mariner, he's in there, one of the 5 starters.
First major decision that I have perceived, in which Zduriencik visibly showed tall respect to a Bavasi talent.
Cheers,
jemanji
Your position on the Morrow v. Jackson debate depends entirely on your confidence that Jackson really is a good bet to consistently pitch the way he did for four months in 2009. Pitchers with poor command don't reproduce great seasons back to back to back very often and Jackson's chief problem has been poor command. Even in 2009.
You are absolutely certain that his late season swoon was fatigue. I am not.
My position depends on one thing: that Zduriencik preferred Morrow to Jackson.
Jackson's $15.9m value in 2009 wasn't based on his first four months. It was based on all six months averaged.
Neither did he have poor command. His K/BB ratio was 2.30 to 1 for the entire season.
............
I'm not certain that his late-season swoon was fatigue, but it's about the most obvious pattern recognition you can ask for in a young pitcher whose IP have gone from 40 to 160 to 180 to 215.
It's not like his monthly ERA jumped up and down. He threw 25 great starts, and then boom, he hit his prior 160 IP marker, and all the rest were bad from there to the end of the season. I can't imagine what pattern you WOULD call fatigue, if this wasn't it.
Not denying that as a possibility. I think, however, that you're oversimplifying the run of good results...I see:
Jackson gets hot in May, runs off a great string of starts...and then his normal command problems return, but the runs don't show up for a while because he's getting lucky on HR/Fly. Until late in the season.
Look...his first two months he walked 18 guys in 74.1 IP (2.18 BB/9), followed by 52 walks in the remaining 139.2 IP (3.35 BB/9), and no...that's NOT biased by September...his problem that month wasn't the walks. Check the HR rates for better information on what actually caused the skid: April to June - 7 HR in 108.1 IP (unsustainably lucky)...July-August-September - 20 HR in 105.2 IP (his career HR rate is 82/670, so the 20 is probably a bit UNlucky.
It's a mistake to look for command using only K/BB...you have to look at how poor command can otherwise manifest...HR rate is one major way. Team-relative BABIP is another (and Jackson had a major return to normal in his BABIP starting in August...he was pitching unsustainbly LUCKY in that regard early in the year but returned to career norms at around .315 in the latter months - his career total is .306...he's been consistently more hittable than his team defenses, it's worth noting...and that comes from...wait for it...POOR COMMAND).
And BTW, whether you like it or not, you position has to do with BOTH Morrow AND Jackson and your evaluation thereof. You can't decide whether Jackson for Morrow/Kelley is a good swap or not unless you make an evaluation of both pitchers. You evaluate that Morrow might, some day, be what Jackson was in 2009 and use that as a reason that deal is a no-brainer...because you project that Jackson will return to 2009 value in 2010. I reject your assertion with the claim that Jackson isn't really as good as his 2009 value, meaning if you expect Morrow to come anywhere near reaching Jackson's 2009 value, you should keep Morrow. Those are the terms of this debate.
If the premise is that Jackson is going to get *worse* than he was in 2009, then yeah. That's a different debate.
And as it happens, one that I'm not interested in, for the same reasons that I'm not interested in discussing "what if Jose Lopez gets worse? What then?"
In this thread, however, you might find those interested in re-valuing the trade based on Jackson going backwards in 2010.
.............
In the meantime, I'll cheerfully concede, the article above presumes that Jackson will be as good as he was last year -- able to run 4.25 FIPs the next two years.
The consensus of GM's and of Roto celebrities will be the same as mine, though Scott Boras is another issue. I think it's fair to acknowledge that Zduriencik did not target Jackson because he thought Jackson would get worse.
And the Shandlers, Labadinis, etc. will of course not predict Jackson to pitch (significantly) worse than he did in 2009 as a whole. Jackson is going to go very high in the TOUT Wars and similar.
But that doesn't mean you're not entitled to go your own way on him.
This off season is going to be quite the ride. It's all going to come down to how accurate a read Jack has on the market, especially in relation to the other GMs. Last year, the market looked to be normal early on (recall the Ibanez contract) but pretty much collapsed late. No need to fire your bullets early if you think the targets are going to be easier to hit later.
I wouldn't write Jackson off just yet - Jack might be betting that the market is going to do nothing but get softer for him. Maybe he can get Jackson for RRS + Kelley or maybe he can get Jackson + something shiny for Morrow and Kelley. He's clearly attracted to Jackson but didn't think the early cost was worth it.
Regardless, you just can't ignore the macro market dynamics at play in trade ideas like this. There are a lot of veterans on the FA market, some teams looking to shed payroll and the pool of MLB $$ available to take on contracts is relatively shallow. Further, Detroit is in a bind and has to shed payroll. With their local market, they have no choice. Seattle is one of relatively few clubs that can easily add a $10m #2/3 starter. No need to take the first shot that presents itself.
I wonder what Detroit's internal 2010 and 2011 attendance projections look like? Pretty ugly, I'll bet. I wonder when their FSN deal is up for renegotiation...
My take is that Dr. Jack is artificially setting the value for Morrow with a semi-public rejection. Now, since the rejection is being approved by the public, no matter what package Jackson is dealt for everyone thinks to themselves, 'Morrow and Shawn Kelley are worth more than that." If the value for Jackson get's set high enough for Jack, he'll deal Morrow. If it's too low, he can say, "Yup, exactly what I thought when I told them no." Either way he sets himself up for a value increase on Morrow and he looks wise.
While I'm more in Matt's dugout on Jackson, it does illustrate the tricky reality of 'emerging' players. For ANY player, pitcher, or hitter, who has a SINGLE quality season, it is no simple task to judge the up/down/stable for the year(s) to follow. Lopez FINISHED with 4 great months, after a horrid start. I view him as solid to maintain, with an upward trend more likely than regression.
I see Jackson, who had 4 good months, followed by two bad, as likely heading in the opposite direction, (stable to regressing). And while I, like Matt, might not buy the fatigue argument in this case, I also understand the error in dismissing such arguments out of hand. (Did Wash also swoon because of fatigue?). Ironically, I typically believe that there is an over emphasis on September stats as "tells" for the future. (For me, it is the stats PRIOR to 2009 that are making me put more weight on Jackson's final 2 months that the months by themselves).
All that said ... I do like the concept of hunting for upgrades to the pitching staff. As a rule, I view pitching and hitting as significantly different animals in regards to impact beyond the immediate position. Junior and Sweeney clearly had a ton of value beyond their raw numbers to the club. The offense really IS a "team". But, pitchers I view as much more singular entities. And despite tomes written last year about the impact of a true ace making the pitchers behind him better, mostly I think this is just felt in very demonstrable areas, (like less stress for bullpens, if you've got a workhorse like Halladay). But, I'd say pitchers feeding off each other is likely rare in the extreme and casually overstated by the pundits.
Unit and Schilling didn't "feed off" each other. They were both great pitchers apart. They were both great pitchers together. At best I can see pitchers with vastly different styles having some benefit for the trailing pitcher, (though I'd always position the soft-tosser FIRST, and the hard thrower following -- except for knucklers -- most hitters are happy to see ANY pitcher after a knuckleballer.)
So, while I am in favor of allowing the young bats to get a chance to mature, I'm much more open to the club reeling in a quality arm to pair with Felix. I just don't think Jackson is high enough quality.
Couldn't agree more, Grizz.
Seems to me that Jack is taking full advantage of the M's relatively stable financial situation.
Perhaps Jack senses that, before long, Dombrowski will cave faster than Homer in negotiations with Burns over Bobo - "Maybe if I call now I can still get that drink!" If, under less desperate circumstances for DET, Jackson was not worth Morrow+, why would Z have any interest?
I wonder actually how much leverage fostering multiple options, as Z seems to be doing, actually creates in negotiations such as these.
Love the cool shrewdness that seems to be oozing from the FO these days.
I think JZ thinks:
# of teams wanting to shed $$ > # of teams taking on $$
In that regard, the market will come to him. No need to jump on the first passing bus.
And the offer may say less about how the market views Morrow and more about how Detroit is afraid the market will view Jackson (that is, not worth giving up prime assets). If he really is a budding Cy candidate at a good salary, why is Detroit so anxious to move him? He can't be their only way to cut payroll.
Five years from now, which pitcher will have the better results over those 5 years? Morrow or Jackson?
No one knows. Jackson is more likely to be better than Morrow, because he's actually done it and for a longer period of time. But the talent levels are similar.
Z knows this, and IMO he's not willing to make a lateral move. He wants to 'increase the talent level in the organization'. Morrow + Kelley + Tui for Jackson doesn't do that in aggregate.
I get the sense that Z would behave this way regardless of the market. This is opposite Bavasi's mindset, where he limited his thinking to the current state of the market and only felt comfortable with a locked-in veteran at every chair.
I think I counted six completely distinct ways of looking at this problem, all of them intelligent and useful (as far as I can tell what's intelligent or not, LOL).
Lemme chime in with Bill James':
The knowledge of who will improve is vastly more important than the knowledge of who is good. Stats can tell you who is good, but they’re almost 100 percent useless when it comes to who will improve.
To me, Jackson's projection is as clean as it could possibly be for any 5th-year pitcher who hasn't run a flat line of performance. Yet, there are 5-6 ways of predicting him listed here, all interesting.
Am still confident in the article in this specific case, but the alternative ways of looking at the problem are very info-taining :- )
We only get 2. Perhaps Z isn't willing to pay equal talent value for a player he knows is unlikely to sign an extension with the Mariners (I believe his agent is Boras).
It wasn't only the IPs jump though. Jackson also threw around an average 15 more pitches for start over '08.
Do we know that Morrow is even capable of throwing 200 IPS healthy? I've never been a fan of Morrow mechanically and his injury history isn't very promising.
He certainly got abused more than he was used to...but if fatigue is the argument...then it didn't start in September...it started in July when his HR rate jumped and his BB rate started its climb...which means he'll probably NEVER have the arm strength to maintain his 1H results for a whole season...he's too far away from reaching that.
Morrow is a wildcard...as I've opined elsewhere..the correct answer with him is to pair him with another starting pitcher and assume that both of them can get you 15-20 starts rather than expecting Morrow to get you 35.
Also interesting to me in the Jackson deal is that Z was pursuing the guy last offseason too. Clearly he likes what he sees there, likes the upside.
Also clear is that he's not so enamored of him that he'll give up more than he should to get him.
This is clear in his dealings with Branyan too... he's expressed his deep personal affection for Branyan and his family. But two years? Can't do that, homie.
Z going after Jackson reminds me of Billy Beane's pursuit of OBP machine Erubiel Durazo. I think he was trying to get him for like 3 years or something. I love that mindset, targeting the guys you want, going after them persistently, but not pulling the trigger until it's a clearly good deal.
I agree that it started in July (when his splits changed) and I think you need to back off of him a little in '10. 90-100 pitches seems like his max range. That 2 batter less per outing, which isn't too signficant.
In Morrow's case we don't know if his arm can stay attached to his body for 180 IPs. We also don't know if he'll ever find his command, or if he can deal with his diabetes in the rotation. Heck, he wasn't even a good pitcher in AAA last year.
I used to love having that guy on my fantasy teams that counted walks and OPS...LOL
Plus...his name is awesome. Though for some reason, I always wanted to say You-Ree-Bee-El.
The scouts still rave about Morrow...other front offices still drool over Morrow. I agree with you concerns about his health and his mechanical consistency (or lack thereof)...but we watch him daily. The league still thinks he's an ace in the making. Z is trying to jack up his market value before he deals him.
In a vaccuum I don't like passing on Morrow+Kelley for Jackson at all. Z, however, has shown a tendency for getting great value in trades, so I'm hoping that this another one of those cases. Maybe Z is going to find an even better return for Morrow.. but I can't say that I'm too confident this time.
The big issue is the years of control. Morrow has 4 and Jackson has 2. The real issue though is how you project Morrow's next 4 seasons vs Jackson's next 2. Not trading Morrow for Jackson would only make sense if you think Morrow is going to put up a full season somewhat comparable to Jackson's 2009 WITHIN 2 years. Otherwise, its a no-brainer.
That means Morrow is going to have to find his command (which the vast majority of young pitcher don't), hes going to have to stay healthy, and hes going to HAVE to do it within 2 years (by some degree) for it to make any sense to pass on Jackson. Morrow's 4 years combined are going to HAVE to surpass Jackson's next 2 in total value.
Of course the years aren't even a gaurantee. Morrow could tear his labrum in '10 or '11 or '12, then the question looks a lot different. Pitchers are not the best bet to stay healthy in general, and I see Morrow as a signficantly higher injury risk than even your average pitcher.
There is also the option of keeping Ed.Jackson for one year and trading him the following offseason for a larger return. IF Ed.Jackson repeats or does even better than his '09 then his value is only going to go up despite the loss of one club-controlled year. The only reason Ed.Jackson's stock is lower in the first place is because of his poor 2nd half results.
Morrow clearly has value. He has 4 club years left in a buyer's market, and has as much zip on his heater as any SP in the game. He just strikes me somewhat as fool's gold. I don't buy into his ability to stay healthy, and I'm not optimistic on his chances to find command either. I really hope Z deals him, and I'm a little nervous about Z supposedly passing on Morrow+Kelley for Jackson.
If Z gets an even better deal hes going to look like a genius, if he whiffs though.. Then this would have been a HUGE opportunity to miss. Jackson is close to Morrow's best case scenario, and we won't have to labor through 2 developmental years to enjoy it (or more likely never enjoy it).
...Doc analyzed the non-deal as either Morrow and Kelley and Tui OR Jackson...no other alternatives considered. The question is...what does Z think he can get for Morrow from other clubs. :)
Or...what does he think he can get Jackson for in January or February, when the Tiger executives get really desperate?
If they have similar upside, I cannot for the life of me understand why you wouldn't trade Morrow for Jackson.
Detroit had the 4th highest attendance in the AL last year and barring a "perception' of a fire sale will likely come close to it again in 2010. Also, after 2010 $50 million plus comes off the Tigers books. Then Detrtoit can be players in what looks to be a stronger free agent class than this year. The financial bind is only in the short term and I don't think Mr. Dombrowski will make trades unless they are baseball trades, not salary dumps.
Had not noticed their attendance. Although Dombrowski's and the board's 5- and 10-year forecasts might be different than ours.
....................
What do you do with the fact that Jackson has 2 years left and is represented by Boras? If you don't like the offers, you let him play out his contract and take the draft picks two years from now?