.
A Fangraphs article insists that Taijuan Walker, Archie Bradley and quite a few other AAA prospects are comparable in value to Masahiro Tanaka. The conclusion is that teams should be much more careful about trading prospects for stars, which is a position the author has maintained for many years.
The Exec Sum of his argument is as follows:
*Marcel Lachemann refutes this idea in the comments. But there are three core concepts in this article, the most important one of which Dr. D agrees with, and which concept is what we are calling to your attention now:
| Fangraphs Assertion | Dr. D Response |
| MLB & fans don't like kids who "haven't paid dues" | Disagree (mostly) |
| Tanaka, Darvish = Mark Appel, Kyle Zimmer | Disagree (fundamentally) |
| A few ML-ready prospects are massive | Agree (100%) |
Dr. D originally argued ... against the entire internet, it seemed ... that if Stephen Strasburg were indeed allowed to shop his services, he would easily score a $100M+ contract. This is the point with traction here, it is Cameron's main point, and I think he's right.
Cameron offers the idea that --- > Tanaka's value should make us re-think the value of Taijuan Walker. This is a cool idea. (And one that SSI has pressed in the past.)
.
A More Dynamic Picture of Prospect Value
I think that there comes a point where the "value curve" of a Matt Moore, or a Taijuan Walker, or a James Paxton, is rising exponentially. Taijuan Walker might be worth only $10M in May 2013, and then he might be worth $40M in June 2013, and then $60M in July 2013, and then $100M in September 2013.
This occurs because an athlete demonstrates his ability to succeed in the top league over a relatively short period of time.
Tim Lincecum went from point A, to point B, to point C, in a very short period of time. That period of time can be identified as "The first time that he threw for the Giants in spring training."
We are not being facetious ... well, not much. :- ) Lou Piniella recruited Norm Charlton by watching him throw 4 pitches on the sideline one year. Here again, we horn-rimmed sabermetricians are hobbled by our lack of respect for the (frequent) ability of pro scouts to gauge a pitcher's ability by watching him perform, especially against elite hitters.
Sabermetricians don't like the idea that a scout can eyeball a pitcher and move him from point A to point B, based on one game -- it makes sabermetricians less important -- but it is true.
You might not realize it, but what ML scouts would dearly love, would be to watch Kenta Maeda work through an ML lineup one time, 9 hitters, in an American stadium in June when the hitters were razor-sharp, and watch just those 9 batters deal with Maeda's 5 pitches. To them, that would advance their understanding by several miles.
...........
In the real world, prospects move up this curve based on --- > the degree to which ML talent evaluators are buying into their ability to succeed in the major leagues.
And that is appropriate. Unfortunately, THE key variable is not going to be popular with saber-only analysts, because there are no saber tools available to deal with this variable.
.
Valid Conclusion, but False Premise
There is an important difference between Masahiro Tanaka and Taijuan Walker.
Walker cannot yet execute his curve ball or changeup very well; his command is dubious with his fastball and slider. Tanaka is, right now, SHOWING pro scouts exactly how he will throw the ball in 2014. Those scouts are well capable of discerning how effective those pitches will be, in MLB action, because many of them were MLB hitters. You feel me?
Who is in a position to tell you whether Kobe Bryant's jumper, in the paint, can be stopped ... a fan, or an ex-NBA player?
At this point, the MLB players have a good feel for how the Japanese pitching game affects them. They've played the WBC. They've faced Kuroda and Iwakuma. They can put Tanaka into relief against these experiences. They know how Tanaka will do ... know, as much as they know about any pitcher, that is. How will Max Scherzer do? There are no guarantees.
Baseball America did put Darvish on its prospect list, but that doesn't prove that he was a prospect. This is the false premise, the point at which we got our sums wrong.
.
Let 'em PITCH Baby!
All that said, Taijuan Walker is moving to point C on the curve above, and James Paxton is midway between point B and C.
At any given time, there might be 5-6 prospects, ML-ready, who are approaching $100M in value. Walker and Paxton are two of them.
It is odd, like Rick says, that so few people realize how good K-Pax is. The more delicious for you, the SSI denizen .... as it was delicious for you when Michael Pineda rained bloody death on the American League. It's fun to adopt a player! The more so when they are no-brainers.
....
It's not "insane" to trade prospects for stars; they're not routinely worth $100M apiece. But you certainly want to be aware of those few prospects who are accelerating up the curve, who are shooting past $50M towards the $100M level. Right now, that is exactly what Taijuan and K-Pax are doing.
By the way, Cameron argued hard against the Wil Myers trade. It's quite possible that Myers was, at the time, at point C or D on the curve above. If so, then in this specific case I think he was right about the Wil Myers trade, and this Wil Myers situation is becoming a club with which to beat GM's for trading prospects generally.
.
Dr's Diagnosis
Masahiro Tanaka isn't a prospect. He shouldn't be on Baseball America's list; he should be outside that paradigm. It is arrogant to consider Japan a minor league, a feeder system, when they're kicking our WBC cans all the way down Cooperstown Avenue.
Pitchers who routinely destroy MLB All-Star teams are not prospects, amigo. Let Taijuan shut out the NL All-Stars and I'll stop calling him a prospect, too. /QED
Tanaka is not a prospect in my mind, but more importantly, he's not a prospect in the minds of major league GM's. He IS, in their minds, a fully proven MLB #1-2 starting pitcher. If you don't like that, then that's on you. That is what they believe.
:: shrug :: Remarkable, isn't it, that GM's value Tanaka far more than they do --- > Matt Garza?! :- )
BABVA,
Dr D
It is not THAT remarkable that Tanaka is valued more than Garza.....he's better.
That said....SSS has been leading the way in shouting out, "Don't trade those arms! No way! No how!"
Funny how the tide is finally rolling in on that idea, too.
He had four starts, each against a winning ballclub, and of them 3 playoff teams (Tampa Bay, St. Louis, Detroit, Kansas City). He dominated all but Detroit, turning in an acceptable performance there. Compare with Walker's 3 starts - two against lowly Houston. However, Houston by September was no slouch, and his finale included 15 swinging strikes in 5 innings (!) Not bad at all for a kid of 20, throwing his third start - against a team that has already faced him once, no less.
Now, I suppose Paxton's 4.45 AAA ERA should have me more concerned. But - if I had to choose between a stellar season in Tacoma or a finish like he had for Seattle, I think I'll take the finish. Especially after I saw him with my own eyes. Kinda like the difference between a polished Doug Baldwin and a rougher Jerome Kearse, I suppose. One suggests solidity, the other looks like he could be a difference maker, a game changer. Paxton hasn't even had the AAA success a Erasmo Ramirez has had (3.72 ERA in 77 innings in 2012, 3.09 in 43 innings in 2013) - or in some ways the Major league success over the course of two seasons (6-6 and a 4.25 ERA in 126 innings - solid work while dealing with injury). But K-Pax is the guy teams want.
After reading Doc's post, and Dave's, I simply cannot envision why anybody looking to build a contender over the next few seasons would trade either of these kids. In particular, I can't imagine it from a team that, when it hired its current GM, explained that they saw the errors of their ways and would now "build the right way". We're still building here, and as such, trading prime prospects for immediate success - well, that's the blueprint of the previous GM's regime failure, the one we determined to move away from. Further, I can't see a team that has already traded for can't miss prospects like Smoak and Montero, deciding it likes some other teams prospects better.
I think Jack likes what he has here. I don't even see us trading Franklin until something comes along that makes us all say "yeah, now that REALLY makes sense."
It's exciting to think these M's have both these kids in their stable (and Mauer, and Ramirez, and perhaps Hultzen), and Nick Franklin, and are by most accounts flush with cash besides. The kids they introduced into the lineup last season - Miller, Franklin, and Zunino, are garnering glowing ZIPS predictions as well.
BTW, I just read the A's are looking to make Jaso their primary DH. So the trade that apparently made the M's blogosphere throw their hands up in utter disgust came down to a left handed DH for a right handed DH.
And when I say skeptic, I mean I think he's much more likely to have a Bedard career than a Kershaw career. That's still something of value, of course.
1) Paxton is 25. It's not not like we don't have a pretty good idea of what he is.
2) He gives up lots of baserunners, consistently and not just sometimes. Kentucky: 1.42 WHIP. Clinton: 1.34. Jackson 1.31. Tacoma 1.48.
3) To make up for the walks and hits, he has to be extremely difficult to hit hard. Can he sustain a low HR% and low ISO-against so as to survive his high WHIP? Possbily. And I expect that often he will. But his Tacoma record (.122 ISO-against in 28 starts; PCL average .144) is not a great indicator.
4) Is it possible that his WHIP in the majors will be a lot lower than it was in college and the minors? Yes. This is Doc's argument, I think. That his BB% will drop a bunch against MLB hitters. I don't rule that out, but I don't think we can tell anything from his first 24.0 IP. His WHIP dropped compared to Tacoma because of a .203 BABIP, not because of a dramatic drop in walk rate.
5) There aren't a lot of guys who consistently have success while averaging 4+ pitches per plate appearance. Obviously, that has been a huge problem for Bedard, who only once averaged more than 6.0 IP per start. Scherzer and Darvish succeeded at 4+ P/PA in 2013, but they were striking out around 30% of hitters. If Pax will see his K% jump up that high, then sure. But it still looks like a problem to me.
I'm not advocating trading him. He is very good, but he is not showing the hallmarks of a mega-star prospect to me. I expect mixed results, but that's just my view.
And we were all witnesses. The funky catapult delivery caused confusion, hallucinations, loss of muscle mobility, involuntary spasms, hallucinations and death amongst his victims.
There is no known antidote for Paxton. This is a critical distinction between him and the black mamba.
Both entered/are entering full time ML play at age 25 and Steamer & Oliver suggest a similar first full season (perhaps expecting a slightly better FIP for K-Pax). I don't recall how hard Erik threw back then, but I'll bet James throws substantially harder, or can anyway. He seems to me to be easing off a bit to cut down on walks, while getting a good number of ground balls with that heavy ball of his as well. Don't you think a ground ball rate of 47+% helps deal with the pitches per plate appearance and other baserunning issues - double plays and all.
Anyway, the combination of harder throwing and heavier ball action with that downward plane of his seem to be very good tools to compensate for the issues your raise, Spec.
Erik had a rough first couple of months his rookie season before settling down, and I kinda expect James may as well. I think it's a different thing to come into your September callup all warmed up with kinks worked out vs. beginning the season in April after an off season layoff, particularly if you are known for being a little wild.
How much money and time has already been spent to get them ready or the show? How much is years of coaching, training, various medical needs and salaries ect. worth?
So when a prospect is traded it is not just face value that is leaving but everything that has been invested in him up to that point.
The big difference for me is that Paxton is 6'4" and gawky--he needs extra time to figure out consistent mechanics. Bedard is listed at 6'1", but I would bet money he's closer to 5'11". He looks like a short athlete who should be more coordinated.
All the more reason to wait, get him to pitch his best seasons for us and then trade him for the equivalent of Adam Jones, Sherrill, Tillman, and butler... :)