If folks pencil out this move according to the same standards used to evaluate the Erik Bedard trade, it will undoubtedly look like a disaster.
If the M's give up several young talents for Lee, they'll obviously take a pounding within the Net Performance Profit paradigm. I mean, if Michael Saunders provides you even two years of mediocrity, that's $20m performance profit right there. All of the Adam Joneses and Carlos Gomezes of the world turn you the $8m, $10m yearly profit just by being average.
....
So, we take it that a Cliff Lee trade would get some wheels turning. Life isn't as simple as pencilling out the Net Performance Profit (1) going East and (2) coming back West.
The young kids are replaceable. One falls, another takes his place. The Lackeys and Bedards and Lees (and Gonzalezes, hint hint) of the game are not replaceable.
This trade (if anything like what is being rumored) would get Cancelled by the $/WAR paradigm stamp. It would be Approved by the Stars & Scrubs paradigm: cram value into your top 5, and then groom more Scrubs in-house.
We don't mean to noodge here, but Bill Bavasi is forever in the Hall of Shame for an Erik Bedard trade that, you'll have to admit, is very similar in concept to the Cliff Lee trade now rumored. Except that Bedard had two years left on his contract, not one.
I'll admit it. I'd like to see Bavasi's trades evaluated in a more even-handed manner; he's a human being like we are. But it's also nice for us to begin agreeing on the advantages that accrue underneath Stars & Scrubs thinking. :- )
.
Folks love Zduriencik for different reasons. I love him because he manages a roster dynamically, not statically. S&S will allow him air to breathe in the bottom half of his roster.
.
All that is aside from Chuck Knox' golden principle, Great Players Win Big Games.
.
=== Who Goes, Game Seven Dept. ===
Felix with the two-handed plate armor sword on day one. Lee with the needle-sharp rapier on day two. I don't think, if the trade goes through, the Angels are going to fly up to Seattle looking forward to the games.
+4 wins, +5 wins, that's Strat-O-Matic. Fine.
But pitchers like Felix and Lee establish a team's self-belief, and they erase it in the enemy. Self-doubt begins to gnaw, when you're down to a great pitcher 2-1 in the fourth. Fear sets in.
A team that runs Felix Hernandez out, Opening Day, and Cliff Lee in front of a Death Valley fence, day two? That team fears no one. Felix and Lee games one and two, the Seattle Mariners would not fear the 1927 Yankees.
Cheers,
Dr D
People wil not judge this as an Erik Bedard trade because of two things.
1. We're not giving up nearly as much
2. We were a team of aging, crappy veterans at the end of their career. We're a much better team than we were coming off the 2007 season. I don't see any Vidro's and Sexson's on this roster.
Adam Jones vs Erik Bedard, quantified
"The point" offered as the pivot point of Bavasi trashing -- was that Adam Jones by himself was worth more than Erik Bedard. The basis of the criticism was that Jones-for-Bedard even steven was wrong (and therefore everything else the M's gave up was just additional hemorrhaging).
................
Folks began to realize that the same (faulty) logic would apply, of course, to Carlos Gomez for Johann Santana, Jeff Clement for Jack Wilson, and in fact to any trade of a good prospect for a vet being paid a fair salary.
So, yeah, one of us missed the point. The point was as explained in the article linked above. Your arguments came later and were not central.
...................
As we mentioned, the 'win value standpoint' argument retreated, somewhat, to the two points that you make, which I decidedly differ with also. But the link above is more than sufficient to validate my article, so I'll leave it at that if others will. Lee is cause for a deliriously successful winter. I'll take Lee over Lackey every day and twice on Opening Day.
It would be easy to make a series of front-page articles out of this, if folks wanted to debate it, but I honestly would rather focus on the joy of acquiring Cliff Lee. :- ) That's why I'll leave this buried in comments, and talk about the M's awe-inspiring rotation, defense, and park combo.
.................
This winter, cyber-Seattle will apparently come to middle ground -- that you cannot use a 'win value standpoint' to evaluate trades of prospects for ML stars. The paradigm is busted because it overlooks the prospects standing in line behind the traded players.
But the important thing is that this time around, we can all enjoy the victory that is gained in 3-for-1, 4-for-1 deals that haul in Marquee Players.
Let's hope that Capt. Jack makes another one with San Diego, eh?
Cheers,
Jeff
Taking a rare stroll around the whole block, we see that somebody did pencil out the numbers and, in this case, nimbly defended *both* the $/WAR paradigm .... *and* the Cliff Lee trade. Ingenious :- )
The proposed math going thusly, in an Aumont-Gillies-JC Ramirez trade:
Lee's WAR value = $20-25m
Bonus for the fact that the M's only get him 1 year (??) = $5m (jemanji begs to differ)
Value of two presumed comp picks = $5-10m (no 0.8 multiplier for chance Lee gets injured)
Less salary = -$8m
.....
Aumont = $5m
Gillies = $3m
Ramirez = $5m
.....
Presto! a $20m win value profit. LOL.
===================
The sleight-of-hand here was to use a generalized figure for the "minor league commodity" Aumont, whereas we calculated Jones' value presuming average performance in the major leagues.
Presume Phillippe Aumont to do a Mark Lowe job in the bullpen for six years, and all of a sudden his net value goes to a minimum of $30m. As a starter, of course, it could go much higher.
Same is true of Juan Ramirez. Use hypothetical figures for a generic class-A+, org-top-10 starting pitcher and you're at $5m. But what if you assume that Ramirez tosses 600 mediocre innings in the big leagues? Wham, you are at $25m for him too.
.....
You could argue that $5m is the appropriate figure, that you want to use generic averages based on their ages and arcs. But then you should have done the same with Adam Jones, right?
Phillippe Aumont is not a generic minor leaguer. He's now a major leaguer, or very shortly will be, because his team is invested in him. And he's good.
He's a #11 overall pick with overwhelming stuff, hand-selected as "special" by the Jays/Phillies. He has a guaranteed spot in the majors now, and he'll be good. The over/under on his ROI is more like $25m than $5m.
......
If we're going to use $/WAR to compare trades of blue chippers for ML stars, let's set the rules ahead of time. (1) Presumed ML performance or (2) generic minor-league commodity value?
On Aumont, I for one am going to presume a Mark Lowe performance in the majors. As will the team acquiring him.
.........
Again, I think these ideas are quite important. They should probably be more visible. But we'll stay in the comments because our preference is for a low-key investigation of these points.
I was thinking similarly when I read that on their site. I suppose all it proves is that people can twist numbers around to fit any position, but we already knew that from our history with politicians.
As for Cliff Lee, I don't know what to expect from this guy. If he's not a commitment to winning, then I don't know what is. He's a workhorse, and it would seem that on his bad days he's what John Lackey hopes to be on his good days. Great show by Z.
The prospects are decidedly not painful to lose. Nothing in there was relied upon to contribute next year, and none of them are irreplaceable commodities. Speedy OF with high BA at A-ball? Live arm with suspect mechanics unproven at high minors (x2)? Send those players out every time you can, if there's a true impact player coming your way.
All day long, baby.
Always good to see you posting man. :-)
Good to check in and see all appears well. I don't like our chances to retain Lee, but honestly, we'll do better than 1st and Supplemental picks in July if we're out of it. And if we're not, then he'll be a critical piece of the dogfight with whoever in the AL West.
Really exciting move, even if Lee comes in and underwhelms a bit. You're locking in a rock-solid #2 who has pitched liked a bona fide #1 the last two years, and he gives you INNINGS.
and am not trying to imply deception. Not at all. I think that some analysts are just naturally oriented towards spending money as frugally as possible, and that's cool.
We all forget little assumptions we've made in the past. Am sure that it was inadvertent.
.............
But this is the difference-maker on the trade evaluation.
If you're going to plug in any reasonable MLB numbers for a prospect, he's going to look like he's a more valuable commodity than a fairly-paid star.
...............
Once again, Rotisserie baseball illustrates the reasons why Carlos Gomez is not a more valuable commodity than Johann Santana. 23 one-dollar players each performing worth $6 are very profitable but they won't win; in fact, they'll finish last. You left money on the table.
You save money in certain roster spots so that you can buy Stars at fair value.
In the real world, you cannot score $5 profits on every roster slot. You don't have that many options.
that they were attempting to deceive, but when you think about it they acted as chief arbiter in both evaluations, which is fine I suppose. Declaring AJ a done deal, minimum league-average player for the club years, removed from the equation the possibility of his flaming out. They were stoked on him, so you could give them the benefit of the doubt.
But the reverse seems true of their analysis on these three. To my mind, it's ok to evaluate in terms of downside, or in terms of upside. But you shouldn't compare apples to oranges, which it pretty clearly appears to me they've done in this case.
I'm honestly not pointing a dirty look their way, but I prefer when the variables are openly displayed for all to see. Sometimes those variables are the only part to debate, and subtlely removing them from play is stifling to intellectual debate. Again, I'm not trying to cast a shadow.
Ultimately I think they're no more guilty of twisting numbers than anyone else. If we see something we like, we try to find reasons why we like it. Reverse holds for things we dislike. We're all just people.
I guess it's the tone that sets me off the most.
/rant
You're not exactly Lou Piniella at second base when you go on a "rant", are ya. Heh!
Don't worry, I'll be back in form before too long ;)
Always fascinated me, watching Lou go off like that. It's simultaneously admirable and terrifying.