Add new comment

On this site, we talk a lot about Civics vs. Stars vs. Scrubs, and I have no doubt that it is a useful paradigm in fantasy ball. But I think roster construction in the real world has some nuances that directly affect our view of players like John Jaso and Rick Porcello.
At the star level, we have both Ferraris, tempermental and prone to problems, requiring careful handling, and the S-class Mercedes AMG, suitable for a family vacation but with 90% of the Ferrari's performance. Think Hamilton vs. Felix.
At the lower levels, we have more of a variety. All prospects are, by definition, capital gains plays. If they grow and perform, great, but some will not. JackZ and TomMac are more successful than most at finding gems in the sand. At the other end are the fillers. Think Olivo. You sign them to fill a spot until you can find something better, preferably on a short contract. No one expects anything but what they've done before. They're a checking account - available, but they really don't make you money, they're just an expense for convenience.
Now it gets interesting, and is, I think, where the GM earns a lot of HIS value. Acquiring players by trade has become a game of WAR in the blogs. But is it? If the Ms trade for a player, is he one that will bring us a championship? Baseball is so complex, it really takes close to 20 of your 25 roster to be really good to speak of championships. But what if fills a key position moderately well at a reasonable price, like Aubrey Huff on the 2010 Giants. Then he's the epitome of a Civic. If you signed him as a free agent, he plays well, and he leaves after 2-3 years, you got your money's worth. Jack signs a few of these "on spec" each year, some pay off, some (FIGGINS!) don't. But what if you traded for him?
This is where I think trade analysis sometimes falls down. If a team is faced with losing players due to roster crunches, is there a way out? One way is to trade for lower prospects in the hope that your squeezed players (think Carp, Wells, and Kelley) are of enough value to another team that you can get back either younger capital gains players that COULD exceed the value of the guys you are giving up (think trading Kelley, Triunfel and Liddi for Dominic Brown), or by trading for someone I will call a "Value Store". This is a Civic-type player who will help your team at a decent level, a few WAR, if you will, but is not a real star. But he is someone, that, unless he is hurt, has about the same value to other teams. Think Vargas, Jaso, Morales, Morse, ...even Cliff Lee. This is where I think JackZ also excels. He gets guys whose value maybe isn't great, but has some upside and little downside. Sometimes he knows that the Safeco environment will help (Vargas), sometimes they're guys buried behind Stars on the Depth Chart (Gutierrez), sometimes they're guys with a limited, but niche-filling skill-set (Jaso). Once in a long while something much better pops up (Lee, Buhner), but you don't count on it.
All this is leading to say, yes, I can understand someone not wanting Rick Porcello. I can especially understand not wanting him on your fantasy team. But if he could be obtained for players who are redundant to us, even if one of the players is pretty valuable, and was able to improve his performance pitching in front of a better infield defense (a la Vargas pitching in Safeco), then he would be of value to the Ms. My real point is, though, that he STORES that value because he's still arb-eligible for 2 more years. Therefore, if Paxton or Hultzen are ready by mid-year, he has the probability of bringing back as much as was expended, and if he has improved, and a team in contention needs a starter, could be worth substantially more. I would think calculations like these are what is driving any consideration by the Ms. If he can pitch better than Noesi, and as well as Beaven, then we should try to get him for some of our over-stock. Even if it cost Wilhelmsen, we have a good number of young, but proven relievers, and a couple of old warhorses in the stable, too. If they want Wells back to solve their balance issues, I'd be more cautious and would say a prayer for Guti's health, but still would make that move - because when we go to the kids, he WILL have value.