Comments on: Free Agent Bargain: Juan Rivera

By: John

John — Fri, 19 Dec 2008 04:44:18 +0000

How good defensively is Rivera these days?

By: Mr Redlegs

Mr Redlegs — Fri, 12 Dec 2008 05:34:36 +0000

Rivera would be a perfect fit for the Reds. They are looking for a solid RH hitting corner OF and I think he provides the most bang for the buck. Reds are always looking for a bargain. He would slot nicely in the lineup as a RH presence between Votto and Bruce for the next couple years and be a 30 HR guy in that ballpark.

By: SilverMan

SilverMan — Fri, 31 Oct 2008 21:12:34 +0000

Yeah, I found this piece because I am hoping I can find something that says the Rays are interested. He would be a great guy to have in their lineup most days and it wouldn’t kill them to have him play RF in about 80 games or so. Three years, $10 million seems like it could reel him in. Correct me if I’m wrong about that.

By: Terry

Terry — Wed, 29 Oct 2008 11:15:38 +0000

BTW, my argument isn’t characterizing Guillen’s ’07 as an “unforeseeable fluke”. I’ve argued that it was less likely than you’re willing to admit.

By: Terry

Terry — Wed, 29 Oct 2008 11:13:27 +0000

You seem to be suggesting Guillen’s elbow in ’06 caused Pecota to significantly lower his ’07 projection. Pecota was suggesting a decline was eminent before his ’06. Also, why shouldn’t his injuries of ’06 effect the expectations of a 31 year old?

Bavasi had to ignore age and injury to expect Guillen to happily pick up where he left off in ’05. It’s almost a certainty that Bavasi wasn’t anticipating a decline in his range.

By: JH

JH — Tue, 28 Oct 2008 23:45:20 +0000

No, he didn’t. There was way more evidence that Guillen was a good hitter going into 2007 than that he was a bad one. The PECOTA spreadsheet doesn’t have an entry field where Silver can input the exact type and extent of the performance-hampering injury. It only sees the numbers and physical comps and runs its algorithms accordingly. Relying on that as the crux of your argument that Guillen’s 2007 was an unforeseeable fluke is misguided.

I won’t defend the Royals contract. It was a clear overpay. The 1-year deal was a very good move, though.

By: Terry

Terry — Tue, 28 Oct 2008 22:13:38 +0000

Bavasi got lucky and Moore got the chamber with the bullet.

By: JH

JH — Tue, 28 Oct 2008 21:51:18 +0000

PECOTA doesn’t do a good job of assessing people who are coming off of poor performances due to injury. Nate Silver would be the first to admit this. A spreadsheet-based calculation can’t properly weight the effect of a player hitting .217/.276/.398 in an injury-plagued third of a season. Guillen’s 2007 numbers were perfectly in line with his 2003, 2004, and 2005 seasons, and Bavasi did a good job in recognizing him as an undervalued commodity. It was one of the few good low-risk, high-reward moves he made while with the Mariners.

Rivera’s the same kind of deal, only with better defense thrown in.

By: Terry

Terry — Tue, 28 Oct 2008 21:14:40 +0000

Iâ€™m comfortable calling Guillen a -10 defender over the period being discussed based upon a survey of UZR, Dewan’s +/-, Justin’s translations and even Chone’s ’09 projection.

I’m also comfortable with the argument that Guillen was roughly an average player in 2007 suggesting Bavasi ultimately paid market value for him. Good for Bavasi.

Does that make it a good decision? Pecota forecast this line for Guillen in ’07: .260/.310 /.432. Guillen had to dramatically outperform that projection (.290/.353/.460) to be roughly an average major leaguer. You be the judge concerning Bavasi’s judgment.

Looking past 2007, Guillen’s contract with KC is pretty difficult to defend and suggesting 3 X 36 “may have been too much” somehow just doesn’t capture how poor of a decision it actually was.

By: CK

CK — Tue, 28 Oct 2008 18:30:03 +0000

Riveria would be a good fit with Atlanta. I also believe that Baldelli would be a high risk/high reward move until their prospects are ready.