Add new comment

It's not really that I think the trade was "good" or "bad".
The results paint it as a push to (IMO) minor loss.
But, Heilman, I think by any stretch was an essentially "useless" piece for 2009.  He was a 30-year-old, (upside behind him), meh reliever.  Cedeno and Olson both still had "some" potential upside.  Cedeno was always a decent glove with a weak bat at a weak bat position.  Olson was a guy with nice stuff - and a horrible gopher infestation. 
I can understand and accept the take on Cedeno that he was "done" - and wasn't getting any better, regardless of age.
Olson - I don't get the sentiment AT ALL.  Pitchers or all flavors ROUTINELY don't get it all together until age 29, (but precious few get a chance to break out in their 30s).  Olson had (and has) a good K-rate, palatable control -- and a problem with dingers.  I'd say that this is a PERFECT template for cheap Yahtzee rolling with Safeco factored in. 
Obviously, there is some scouting involved here - where we in the public don't get to see or hear the arguments about which fringe prospect can potentially be 'fixed'.  But, *I* always had the sense that Jack was more interested in Olson as a "chance" to get lucky - and Cedeno as just as absolutely can't-do-without stoploss filler that the club didn't have at the time.
One of my arguments back then was not that Olson or Cedeno were "projectable" for future value.  My argument was that both had traits that made them "attractive gambles". 
During the Bavasi era, the methodology was ALWAYS - get "reliable" aging talent, and hope it doesn't fall off the table.  I can't think of a pickup, (except "maybe" Ibanez), where the club acquired somebody with a CHANCE to get better than they already were.
Cedeno, Olson, Vargas, French ... even Kotchman (barely) are bodies with a "chance" to become more than they were at the moment of acquisition.  My position is you will NEVER get a "surprise breakthrough" player, unless you actually are willing to take chances on players who are not ALREADY proven. 
But, most prospects fail.  Most AAAA pitchers don't develop.  You are *ALWAYS* - no matter how good a GM you might be - going to "blow the call" more than you'll succeed.  So, if you're ever going to pick up a cheap ... Carlos Pena, that everyone else has given up on ... well, you're not only going to have to pick up Carlos Pena ... you also *HAVE* to pick up some guys like Dioner Navarro's and Gabe Gross and Johny Gomes and Jorge Cantu and Josh Wilson BEFORE they blossom or fail.
My perspective is not that Z was smart for being right about Vargas.  My perspective is that he was right that by getting Olson, Vargas and French he was giving himself three chances to be right ONCE. 
Aardsma -- "if we can get just a LITTLE improvement in his control, he can be a closer."  That's essentially the same argument for picking up Cortes.  Cortes, when acquired, had a 6.4 K/9 and a 5.6 BB/9 in AA.  At the time, he was an 8-K, 4-BB minor leaguer.  whose control had gotten steadily WORSE through 5 seasons.  From a purely SABR perspective, picking up Cortes was about 40 times dumber than getting Olson.
Clearly, somebody in the org felt they could fix his delivery.
IMO, clearly somebody in the org felt they could fix Olson's HR problem.  (And with Safeco helping, that seems to me to be an easier fix).
It's not that "this guy" can be projected to succeed or fail that I liked about the OC for Heilman swap.  It's the willingness to swap one pile of meh for two chances to 'stumble' into a breakout player. 
I'm reminded of the joke of the guy who goes to a chapel each day and prays - "God, please let me win the lottery."  For a full year he does this -- and on the last day of the year God answers, saying - "It would help, if you'd buy a ticket."