A Fishy Move
Let’s play everyone’s favorite game – Guess That Stat-Line! The two pitching lines below are crude Marcel projections for 2009. See if you can notice any truly significant differences:
Player A: 4.39 ERA, 4.47 FIP, 3.32 BB/9, 6.35 K/9, Birthday on Jan. 12
Player B: 4.55 ERA, 4.36 FIP, 3.13 BB/9, 6.14 K/9, Birthday on Jan. 8
On one hand, Player A has an ERA 0.16 runs better per nine innings, while the other has an almost equal advantage in the FIP department. On the other hand, the ERA and FIP figures above are not all that impressive to begin with. Player A will strike out slightly more hitters, but walk more as well. Neither breaks the 2.0 K/BB barrier. So why bring these two somewhat average or below average projections to light?
Well, Player A was just traded by the Florida Marlins, and Player B is now rumored to be on their off-season shopping list. Yes, Player A = Scott Olsen, and Player B = Carl Pavano. Pavano last pitched for the Marlins in 2004, when he put together a very solid season: 31 GS, 222.1 innings with a 3.00 ERA, 3.54 FIP, and 1.98 BB/9. His season was so good that Brian Cashman decided Pavano could serve as a key cog in the Yankees rotation for the next four seasons. In actuality, Carl made just 26 starts from 2005-08, surrendering 182 hits in 145.2 innings, complete with a 5.00 ERA and miniscule 4.63 K/9.
The 4.63 K/9 is generous, as well, given that the same metric fell to 3.18 in 2007 and 3.93 in 2008. In 7 starts this past season, Pavano didn’t even average 5.0 IP/gm with his 34.1 innings logged, and he walked more hitters than usual, evidenced by his 2.62 BB/9. Now, seven starts is too small of a sample size to use as a concrete predictor of future performance, but it is clear even from his 2005 season that Pavano has lost a whole lot of his ability to strike batters out. On top of that, he has gone from 91-92 mph to 88 mph.
Put everything together, and the Marlins are considering signing a 33-year old pitcher who cannot strike batters out, seems to be on the verge of walking more, who has also lost significant velocity on his fastball. Who did they just trade away? A 25-yr old pitcher who has lost the ability to strike batters out, is walking plenty, and who has lost velocity on his fastball. In case you’re missing my point here, they are considering bringing in the equivalent of what they just traded away, plus eight more years in age, who will likely cost more money.
11
Why any team would want Carl Pavano is beyond me.
There is one big difference. Olsen hates puppies and probably tortures them. Pavano, on the the hand, just gets hurt playing with them (puppies).
I doubt Pavano will be able to command too much of a salary at this point, so he probably won’t be more expensive than Olsen….I mean an exception should be made for Carl Pavano to be payed below league average, because there’s no way he deserves 400,000 a year for what he does.
If Pavano is cheaper, it makes sense.
Also, is that Pavano projection for NL or AL? That would make a difference.
Let’s assume reasonable salaries for both players. Olsen should get about $2.5 million in his first year of arbitration, while Pavano can probably be had for $1-1.5 million.
So if the Marlins are able to turn Scott Olsen into three minor leaguers (albeit none who are tremendous prospects, but Bonifacio projects as at least a utility guy in the Alfredo Amezaga mold), save over $1 million in the process, and rid themselves of what is likely a future $4 million arbitration figure in 2010 for a regressing Scott Olsen, while replacing Olsen with a similar player on a shorter contract, it’s a “fishy move”?
Of course, if Pavano costs significantly more than Olsen, my point is moot. But if he’s cheaper or of an equivalent salary, the trade off makes sense. And, quite frankly, I don’t see Pavano pulling in more than Olsen’s $2.5 million arbitration figure.
Pavano will likely get a salary between 1.5-3 mil. It’s a fishy move if they sign him because it will not be for a multi-year deal. It’ll likely be something like 1-yr, 2.5 mil, with incentives for playing time and stats accrued. Otherwise, it’s just a downright ridiculous deal. Pavano is injury-prone, poor at striking batters out, meaning he will be pitching significantly to contact, with one of the worst defenses in the league behind him if he signs in Florida. He is also 8 years older than Olsen. This is not a move you make if you want to improve. Olsen will probably get around 2 mil in arbitration, and if they sign Pavano for an equal, or greater salary, it’s very fishy. If they can sign Pavano to a deal much less, then maybe it makes a little sense, but to me it is definitely fishy when you are considering bringing in the statistical equivalent of a player you just traded away, who may command similar money to the traded away player, who is injury-prone unlike the traded away player, AND 8 years older than the traded away player.
Further, if Olsen was a very good pitcher that the Marlins were ridding themselves of in order to save money on future arbitration cases as you described, that is one thing, but all of the signs statistically, as Dave mentioned last week, point to Olsen being a marginal fifth starter likely anywhere other than Washington or Florida. So, in essense, you’re ridding yourself of someone with poor peripherals who has lost velocity for another version of him, more below average, with plenty of injury potential and eight years older. If you were replacing a legit #2 with a cheaper #2 to whom you won’t have to commit much, I’m all for it, but this is like replacing Kyle Kendrick by signing Adam Eaton.
Yeah, but it’s like having 2+ years of Kendrick on an increasing arbitration schedule or 1 year of Eaton on a similar salary + a few prospects.
Everything you’re saying I pretty much agree with. Pavano is an older player with similar skills to Olsen. Both are probably marginal back of the rotation starters, as you describe. Of course, the Marlins don’t necessarily need Pavano to start – they already have Nolasco, Johnson, and Volstad penciled in. Carl would probably be competing with Anibal Sanchez and Andrew Miller for the last two rotation spots. The loser would get the long relief role. At around $1-1.5 million per year, that’s a good role for Carl.
But even if Pavano costs the same amount in salary as Olsen, this move isn’t bad. Switching Olsen for Pavano wouldn’t see a dramatic decrease in production – in fact, it would probably be pretty similar – while in the process the Marlins bring in a few prospects and lose a long term commitment that would probably be cost-prohibitive in 2009.
Basically, they’d be getting the same production from Pavano as they would Olsen while also acquiring some assets. Plus, with Pavano on a one year deal they don’t have to worry about what happens if he isn’t healthy or isn’t productive, whereas if Olsen isn’t productive they’d be on the hook for him in 2009 since that would be his second arbitration year. Granted, they could always decline to offer if he’s bad. But by waiting until Olsen is due ~$4 mil as a second year arby guy to deal or get rid of him (assuming he doesn’t miraculously turn around his production) the Marlins lose any chance of dealing him for value. You can, of course, argue they didn’t get much value in this deal with the Nats – I won’t disagree – but they seem to like Bonifacio for God knows what reason. Getting Bonifacio now while simultaneously being able to replace Olsen’s production with a similarly priced and productive FA isn’t a bad move by any means.
I’m not a huge fan of Beinfest, but replacing Olsen with Pavano while acquiring multiple prospects isn’t much of an organizational downgrade for 2009 and beyond – if it’s a downgrade at all.
To simplify all that drivel I spewed, I’d ask what you’d rather have going forward. Assume Pavano and Olsen earn similar 2009 salaries and that in 2010 Olsen gets 3.5-4 mil as a second year arby guy.
2009: Scott Olsen OR Pavano, Bonficaio, Dean, and Smolinski
2010: Olsen (or 3.5 mil from not offering him) OR Bonifacio, Dean, Smolinski, and 3.5-4 million
Yeah, we’re pretty much on the same page. My basic point is, well, what’s the point? These aren’t necessarily knock-your-socks-off prospects, and with the number of free agent pitchers available right now, you could probably sign someone better than Pavano to fill that role. As in, when signing someone to replace something you just traded away, you should strive for quality production, not more of the same. Especially if you’re just going for one season. Why not someone like Odalis Perez? Or if you’re going for that #5 Josh Fogg-esque starter, why Pavano of the number of them available, especially given the fact that he is injury-prone and would make 2-3 mil? If you’re spending that money, why risk it on someone injury-prone losing productivity when you could spend it on a stopgap veteran with much less risk and more upside.
Oh, there are certainly other pitchers I’d rather see the Fish sign than Pavano. If the point of trading Olsen is anything, it’s ridding the 2010 obligation while in the process picking up some prospects and being able to replace Olsen’s production rather easily with a similarly priced or cheap vet on a shorter commitment. Is Pavano the best guy to do that? Probably not, although if healthy his upside is probably higher than a Josh Fogg. Plus, someone like Pavano (or another cheaper vet) might be more willing to accept a bullpen role (if Sanchez and Miller perform as expected) than the volatile Olsen.
I think part of the reason for Pavano’s connection to Florida is his close relationship with the Loria regime and their belief in rehabilitating him. They did try a similar thing with Al Leiter a few years ago. That worked out horribly.
Another reason for replacing Olsen with a veteran pitcher and prospects is if the organization feels Olsen’s off the field issues (fighting teammates/fans, DUIs, etc.) aren’t worth the trouble when his production is easily replaced and someone with the always fun to talk about “veteran leadership” can be brought aboard. I don’t think Pavano’s the guy to do that, but then again I’ve never been around Pavano in a clubhouse.