The Worst Transactions of the 2016 Offseason

Yesterday, I ran down my 10 favorite moves of the winter, highlighting the acquisitions that I thought were the best combination of return on investment and franchise impact. Today, we’re going to tackle the flip side of that coin, and look at the 10 moves I wasn’t quite as high on.

This side of the list has become increasingly difficult in recent years, as the people running MLB teams have become much more efficient with their decisions, and there are many fewer obvious mistakes than there used to be. These days, the worst moves of the winter are more marginal, with teams spending a little too much money for a still useful player here or there, or trading something from their farm system that perhaps should have brought back something more impactful.

We don’t see that many franchise-crippling moves anymore, however, so a transaction appearing below isn’t condemnation of that franchise; it’s more just that these teams may have had better options rather than going down the path they ultimately decided upon. And since there aren’t as many candidates for this part of the list, we’ll skip the dishonorable mentions, and get right to the ten moves that I didn’t really care that much for.

#10: A’s Acquire Another Middling Hitter
Acquire: Yonder Alonso, Marc Rzepczynski
Cost: Drew Pomeranz, Jabari Blash, Jose Torres

A year ago, I didn’t really understand why the A’s saw it necessary to throw $30 million at Billy Butler, given his limited skillset and poor 2014 season. This year, I don’t entirely understand why the A’s had to surrender a talented young lefty — who held batters to a .260 wOBA after getting shifted to the bullpen — for the limited skillset of Yonder Alonso. His lack of power for the first base position makes him a below average player, and if there are signs he’s about to break out at age-29, I don’t see them.

Alonso is a low-ceiling +1 WAR player with just two years of team control remaining, so while he has some usefulness as a depth piece, giving up a potentially good young bullpen arm for this kind of player doesn’t necessarily strike me as the kind of trade the A’s should be making. It’s not like the A’s mortgaged their franchise here or anything, but I’d rather have Pomeranz than Alonso, especially with how much relief pitching cost on the open market this winter.

#9: Tigers Pay High Price for Depth
Acquire: Mike Pelfrey
Cost: Two years, $16 million

While Mike Ilitch has made it clear that the team will spend money to put a good team on the field, their selection of a fifth starter is an odd one. Mike Pelfrey probably shouldn’t be counted on as a rotation member for a team trying to win, and giving him two years at $8 million per season suggests a value that it’s not clear Pelfrey can live up to. He’s not really an innings eater — he hasn’t cracked the 200 IP mark since 2010 — nor does he hold teams from scoring, and at 32, it’s hard to see him getting much better.

If you’re fishing in these kinds of waters for a back-end starter, it would have seemed better to bet on an injury reclamation with a bit of upside. Or if money is really no object for the team’s owner, then spend a little bit more and get a pitcher with a higher floor. Giving pitchers like Pelfrey multiple years is the kind of thing that teams quickly come to regret.

#8: Reds Blow International Budget
Acquire: Alfredo Rodriguez
Cost: $6 million signing bonus; $6 million tax, future signing restrictions

Blowing your bonus pool can be a very good strategy in MLB right now, as other teams have shown by going on ludicrous spending sprees. But the Reds decision to blow their bonus pool out of the water in January — after most of the best players available in this period have already been signed — in order to bring in a player who Ben Badler described as a “third-to-sixth-round” talent is a curious one for a team in need of an infusion of young players.

Setting aside Rodriguez specifically, since I don’t feel qualified to make a judgment on his future, the Reds decision to go over their bonus pool this year dramatically limit their ability to sign players the next two years, since the penalty includes a restriction on signing players for more than $300,000 during that time. The Reds will have the second largest bonus pool for this coming July 2nd period, and given their Major League roster, will probably have one of the largest pools again in 2017 as well. Rather than using their extra spending ability to load up on talent during those classes, the Reds will now have to trade away much of their bonus pool allocation since they won’t be in the market for elite international talents.

Like with Arizona’s decision to sign Yoan Lopez a year ago, there seems to not be enough of a return on this investment to justify the penalties associated with going over their pool allocation, and the Reds can’t really afford to be leaving talent on the table right now.

#7: Reds Rebuild By Selling Low
Acquire: Jose Peraza, Scott Schebler, Brandon Dixon
Cost: Todd Frazier

On the one hand, criticizing the Reds for not getting enough for a guy that everyone knew was available is tricky; if other teams were willing to pay more for Frazier, they certainly could have. And the fact that the Dodgers also traded Frazier to the White Sox, rather than finding another party to give them even more of a finder’s fee for facilitating the deal, suggests that Chicago may really have made the highest bid for the third baseman. But the Reds decision to take the closer-to-the-majors package the Dodgers were offering is a bit curious, given the fact that they’re nowhere near contending, and Peraza’s short-term value is diminished by the club’s inability to open up a spot for him in the line-up.

Taking less long-term value to acquire Brandon Phillips replacement, before you ensure that Phillips would indeed waive his no-trade clause to play elsewhere, means that the team took a lighter package than they could have gotten from the White Sox directly, but also don’t get the benefit of having Peraza play everyday in 2016. And at these prices, the team may have realistically been better off holding on to Frazier, hoping he had another big first half, and then seeing what his market looked like in July. Instead, the team sold low on one of their best trade chips, and now their path back to contention looks even longer.

#6: D’Backs Surrender Prospect For No Gain
Acquire: Jean Segura, Tyler Wagner
Cost: Chase Anderson, Isan Diaz, Aaron Hill

Like with the A’s-Padres trade, this deal involves a swap of a team trying to upgrade their stock of hitters by acquiring a guy who isn’t that good of a hitter, and giving up a pitcher I’d rather have in the process. But the D’Backs upped the ante a bit on their version of this deal by also selling a quality young prospect in Isan Diaz. The team saved about $6 million by dumping half of Aaron Hill’s contract, but then turned around and gave Tyler Clippard a two year, $12 million contract, so realistically, this deal allowed them to turn an interesting prospect into one year of a decent setup guy, making the cost-savings side of the deal difficult to justify as well.

Unless Segura figures out how to hit for some power or gets his plate discipline back to an acceptable level, Arizona will have paid a high price to acquire a player who isn’t significantly better than either Nick Ahmed or Chris Owings.

#5: Red Sox Pay Premium for Reliever
Acquire: Craig Kimbrel
Cost: Manuel Margot, Javier Guerra, Logan Allen, Carlos Asuaje

Dave Dombrowski wanted a dominant closer to help turn the franchise around, and he certainly got one; even if he’s not quite what he was a few years ago, Kimbrel remains one of the elite relievers in baseball today. Unfortunately, I think he just overpaid, even in a market where reliever valuations were skyrocketing. Prospect valuation models suggest the Red Sox surrendered something like $50 million in future value with the players they surrendered, and the team also took on the remaining $24 million (or $37 million, if his third-year option is exercise) left on Kimbrel’s contract.

There’s basically no way Kimbrel is actually worth $75 to $90 million over the next two or three years, and the organization likely would have been better off just outbidding the Orioles for Darren O’Day and using their prospects to acquire an upgrade elsewhere.

#4: Rockies Get Older, Worse
Acquire: Gerardo Parra; Jake McGee, German Marquez
Cost: Three years, $27 million; Corey Dickerson, Kevin Padlo

I’m combining two moves into one, because the trade with the Rays was the fruit of the Gerardo Parra signing, and I’m still struggling to figure out what prompted the Rockies to make this series of moves. Parra is a nice role-player, a fourth outfielder on a good team or a starter on a roster with some problems, but he’s probably worse than Corey Dickerson, and is a couple of years older to boot. But the Rockies apparently wanted to get more athletic in the outfield, and not being a fan of Dickerson’s defense, they decided to spend $27 million to replace him with a guy who may or may not actually be any better.

Instead of just moving Dickerson to first base, where they don’t have any real options, they then traded him — and one of their best young hitting prospects — to Tampa Bay for two years of an injury-prone reliever and a less interesting pitching prospect. The Rockies aren’t in a position to take advantage of McGee’s short-term value, and unless they can flip him for a high price at the deadline, they ended up downgrading their stockpile of future assets as well.

#3: Royals Throw Money at Innings Eater
Acquire: Ian Kennedy
Cost: Five years, $70 million; opt-out after second year.

It’s easy to see why the Royals saw Kennedy as a fit for them; a strike-throwing flyball pitcher fits well in a front of an elite defense, and the team certainly needed to add rotation depth if they were going to keep themselves in contention in the AL Central. But the price remains shockingly high. When you factor in the surrendered draft choice and the value given to the player through the opt-out, Kennedy cost as much as Mike Leake, a demonstrably better pitcher who also happens to be quite a bit younger, and who wasn’t exactly a bargain himself.

Or, put another way, Kennedy signed for more money than John Lackey and J.A. Happ got between them; I’d rather have either one without even factoring in the cost. I’m sure the Royals are beyond caring what we think of their transactions at this point, but it seems to me that there were a lot of different ways they could have upgraded their rotation without giving Ian Kennedy $70 million.

#2: Orioles Overpay Aging Slugger
Acquire: Chris Davis
Cost: Seven years, $161 million

There’s essentially one defense for this deal; Peter Angelos knowingly overpaid for his star first baseman, but was willing to authorize additional payroll to cover the costs because he puts a high personal value on having Davis on his team. If that’s the case, and re-signing Davis doesn’t hider the team’s ability to acquire other players, then it’s not the end of the world, even if it’s not the best way to run a franchise. But with the Orioles facing a number of deficiencies around the roster, if Davis’ contract is held up as a reason the team can’t make other necessary upgrades, then this could be the most harmful free agent contract signed in years.

That there was no other real market for Davis this winter suggests that he’ll be very difficult to trade if things don’t work out in Baltimore, and given the track record of players like this, that’s a very real possibility. The Orioles could quickly find themselves needing to rebuild if 2016 goes poorly, only they’ve now saddled themselves with a significantly over-market contract right as they head into a period where they might need to start focusing on the future. Bringing Davis back could work if other upgrades are made and the team can catch lightning in a bottle again, but there’s a huge risk here, and the downside if it doesn’t work is too high to justify the reward.

#1: D’Backs Pay Ace Price for #3 Starter
Acquire: Shelby Miller
Cost: Ender Inciarte, Dansby Swanson, Aaron Blair

You knew this was coming. Not every trade that’s a big win for one side is definitely a big loss for the other, but in this deal, Arizona just got fleeced. In talking with people in the game in the aftermath of the trade, it became clear that there was a strong market for Inciarte, and the Diamondbacks could have turned him into a quality starting pitcher in something like a one-for-one trade had they pushed in that direction. Instead, their pursuit of Jose Fernandez apparently led them to believe that the Marlins ridiculous asking price set the price for acquiring a rotation upgrade, and the Braves took advantage of that perspective to rob them blind.

Miller is a quality pitcher, but the upgrade in the rotation only makes the team marginally better when you account for the downgrade in the outfield, leaving the organization in a position of surrendering two of their best assets for little actual gain. Swanson and Blair are not guaranteed to turn into anything, of course, but they had clear value to many teams around the league, and even if the D’Backs were set on trading them this winter, they could have gotten significantly more in return.

With Zack Greinke, Paul Goldschmidt, and A.J. Pollock around, the D’Backs have three outstanding players, and if they get enough support from their role players, they might make a run at the postseason. But that’s not the position you should find yourself in after surrendering a huge chunk of your organizational asset pool; the team would need to be in a much better position to capitalize on their short-term upgrades in order to justify the long-term costs. And even if they were in a better position, there still would have been numerous other paths that could have helped the team improve their big league roster this winter in more substantial ways. Unless Shelby Miller is on the verge of becoming a dominant #1 starter, this is the kind of deal may haunt the D’Backs for years to come.



Print This Post



Dave is the Managing Editor of FanGraphs.


Sort by:   newest | oldest | most voted
johansantana17
Member
johansantana17
3 months 11 days ago

If free agent signings are included, the Diamondbacks made the top 3 worst offseason moves in trading for Miller, signing Greinke, and trading for Segura.

Moranall
Member
Moranall
3 months 11 days ago

Signing Greinke is by no means among the the top 3 worst offseason moves. Especially considering four of the entries on this list include “free agent” signings and a fifth is an international “free agent signing.”

johansantana17
Member
johansantana17
3 months 11 days ago

Why is it better than the Davis signing?

aggies43080
Member
Member
aggies43080
3 months 11 days ago

Because with Davis the O’s were bidding against themselves. The Cardinals were the only other team in serious talks with him and they weren’t going to give him anywhere close to what the O’s signed him for. Same with Gallardo. O’s about to give him a 3 year 40-45 million dollar deal even though no one else is talking to him right now.

Greinke on the other hand was getting a lot of offers for big money. The Diamondbacks simply gave him the best deal.

Davis deal wasn’t really a bad deal because he is a bad player. It’s because had they waited they could have gotten him for a lot less.

The Dude of NY
Member
The Dude of NY
3 months 11 days ago

The Orioles bid against themselves. The Diamondbacks bid against the Dodgers and Giants. Cameron includes a link that shows players with Davis’s player profile have historically aged poorly.

Luy
Member
Luy
3 months 10 days ago

It’s not our job to prove you wrong. It’s your job to prove yourself right.
So….why is the Greinke deal worse than the 10 transactions listed?

Lookouts400
Member
Lookouts400
3 months 10 days ago

Why does everyone say the Orioles were bidding against themselves with Davis? They made an offer, Davis made a counter offer, they met pretty much in the middle. They negotiated and reached a deal.

As for it being the third worst off-season move, there are some things to consider. First, Davis isn’t 35, he’ll be 30 in March, so at the end of the contract, he’ll be 37. How old is ARod at the end of his contract? Or Pujols? Davis is also very athletic, and will see time in the OF, maybe third base, though is pitching career is done. Stands to reason that his raw power, more so than bat speed, will still play into his mid 30s.

What’s more, lefthanded power is in short supply throughout baseball, so keeping Davis in OPACY does give the Birds an edge. Of course, he does strike out too much, but if he hits 260/330(he can take a walk, but that’s not why he got 160m)/550 for a few years, the Ks become an annoyance. Funny, when he was suspended during his worst year ever, there certainly was a lot of worry about the loss of a 196 hitter. That tells you how much left handed power can affect the thinking of other teams.

Brock244
Member
Brock244
3 months 10 days ago

Its not one of the 3 worst, but IMO it was worse than some of the other things on this list (like the Pelfrey signing and the Yonder Alsono trade)

The Dbacks paid 200mil + a first round pick for a 32 year old pitcher who was projected to get around 150mil. Including the cost of the pick, the Dbacks paid about the same amount the Redsox paid for the better pitcher (Price) whose 2 years younger.

Greinke really really helps the Dbacks, but simply in terms of value, IMO it was the biggest overpay among the FA’s outside of Davis.

aggies43080
Member
Member
aggies43080
3 months 10 days ago

While I would certainly rather have Price over Greinke he has still been a borderline top 5 pitcher in baseball over the last 5 years. Pitching comes at a premium and the main difference between what the Dodgers and Giants were offering vs the Dbacks was that 6th year.

If you look at other recent deals I would rather pay out the deal to Greinke than what the Tigers gave Zimmermann or what the Royals gave Ian Kennedy.

Moranall
Member
Moranall
3 months 10 days ago

There is only a 22 month age difference between Price and Greinke; it’s not like one is young and the other is old. Also, good pitchers don’t follow the same aging curve as hitters and can often perferm well into their 30s.

Going further, you need to look closer at the numbers. Greinke has a 6-year, $207 million contract, but $63 million of that is deferred. At present value, it’s more of a 6-year, $194 million contract.

David Price, meanwhile, signed for 7 years, $217 million. A slightly lower AAV ($34 million to $31 million) than Greinke, but Price also has a buyout after the third year.

Also, I don’t know if you can simply state that Price is the better pitcher. Greinke is projected for more WAR by ZiPS next year while Price is projected more by Steamer. Greinke is hurt a bit by FIP, but absolutely dominated in RA9-WAR.

Price and Greinke are both top-5 MLB pitchers right now. It’s hard to make a case for one being better than the other. I fail to see how Greinke is a huge overpay but Price isn’t.

Moranall
Member
Moranall
3 months 10 days ago

With regards to age, here are some of the best all-time pitchers and the age they posted their best single-season WAR:

Clemens: 35 (10.7)
R Johnson: 38 (10.4), also put up 9.6 at ages 37 and 40
Schilling: 36 (9.3)
Bob Gibson: 35 (9.8)
Kevin Brown: 33 (9.6)
Halladay: 34 (8.3)

These are obviously cherry-picked examples. But a lot of good pitchers have pitched their best baseball in their 30s. I don’t think age is a huge issue, other than for health.

Brock244
Member
Brock244
3 months 10 days ago

For players aged 30+, 22months (or two years) is very significant. Theres a reason why James Shields only got what he did last season, it was because he was heading into his aged 33 season.

That 2 year difference in their ages represents 2 primed seasons. The Redsox are theoretically getting Price’ primed aged 30, 31, 32, and 33 seasons. The Dbacks are maybe getting 2 primed years from Greinke (32 and 33). Obviously players age differently, but typically players start to really decline at age 34.

Also, while I wouldn’t say theres a large difference between the pitchers, the think Price has been better. Over the last 2 seasons, Price: 12.5 WAR, Grienke 10.3

Theres also the whole issue with innings on their arms. Price has 1.4k innings on his arm, while Greinke has almost 2.1k. There haven’t been too many pitchers that have performed at elite levels with more than 2k innings on their arm

The Dbacks paid almost the same price for a slightly worse pitcher thats 2 years older, and, that has a lot more milage on his arm. According to most contract projections, most had Price getting about 50mil more than Greinke. Im not saying it was a bad signing, but I think the Dbacks clearly paid above market value.

Brock244
Member
Brock244
3 months 10 days ago

For players aged 30+, 22months (or two years) is very significant. Theres a reason why James Shields only got what he did last season, it was because he was heading into his aged 33 season.

That 2 year difference in their ages represents 2 primed seasons. The Redsox are theoretically getting Price’ primed aged 30, 31, 32, and 33 seasons. The Dbacks are maybe getting 2 primed years from Greinke (32 and 33). Obviously players age differently, but typically players start to really decline at age 34.

Also, while I wouldn’t say theres a large difference between the pitchers, the think Price has been better. Over the last 2 seasons, Price: 12.5 WAR, Grienke 10.3

Theres also the whole issue with innings on their arms. Price has 1.4k innings on his arm, while Greinke has almost 2.1k. There haven’t been too many pitchers that have performed at elite levels with more than 2k innings on their arm

The Dbacks paid almost the same price (when factoring the value of the pick the Dbacks had to give up) for a slightly worse pitcher thats 2 years older, and, that has a lot more milage on his arm. According to most contract projections, most had Price getting about 50mil more than Greinke. Im not saying it was a bad signing, but I think the Dbacks clearly paid above market value.

Brock244
Member
Brock244
3 months 10 days ago

Even if you think both pitchers are equals and ignore the whole innings total, the pitcher who is 30 should be getting a lot more than the pitcher who is 32.

dtpollitt
Member
Member
dtpollitt
3 months 11 days ago

I still can’t believe Dayton Moore thought it was a good idea to (1) depart with a draft pick, (2) give Ian Kennedy the largest contract for a pitcher in Royals history, and (3) throw in an opt-out to boot.

snapper
Member
snapper
3 months 11 days ago

I’m pretty confident the opt-out has no value. Who’s ever going to give Kennedy more than 4/56 next year?

maguro
Member
Member
maguro
3 months 11 days ago

The Royals?

dtpollitt
Member
Member
dtpollitt
3 months 11 days ago

Good point!

eph1970
Member
eph1970
3 months 11 days ago

Two questions. Who was still available after Gordon signed? Leake, Lackey, and Happ were not. I agree that the draft pick stinks. Wouldn’t your team want a starter with a FIP of 3.50 and an xFIP of 3.28? Those were Kennedy’s second half numbers.

rosen380
Member
rosen380
3 months 11 days ago

“Wouldn’t your team want a starter with a FIP of 3.50 and an xFIP of 3.28? Those were Kennedy’s second half numbers.”

But STEAMER projects him at a 4.13 FIP and his career FIP is 3.99 and he’s going into his age 31 season. Is there a particular reason to believe that his 2015 second half is a better indicator for 2016 and beyond than other recent data?

dtpollitt
Member
Member
dtpollitt
3 months 10 days ago

@eph1970

Why not Yovani? If the Royals didn’t care about the draft pick, Yovani is a year young, has a better career FIP, and has been an incredibly consistent 2-3-4 win player. Kennedy is maddeningly inconsistent and simply not as good as Gallardo.

Famous Mortimer
Member
Member
3 months 10 days ago

“Well, STEAMER says…” – why bother posting if that’s all you can say? How many projections that are miles out do people need to point to before people stop quoting damn stupid STEAMER (or any of the others) as if it’s gospel?

Bryon
Member
Bryon
3 months 10 days ago

Viewed in a vacuum, this deal is definitely a head scratcher. If the Royals were willing to play in the $70 mill arena, the question is why not pay a little more and get Leake, Chen, or Samardja? One reason is the Royals were waiting on the Alex Gordon deal finalize. He was their primary FA target and given his projected salary of 90 or 100m, KC probably didn’t think after he was signed there would be enough left to throw 70m at a pitcher as most of the better pitchers were gone by the time Gordon finally signed.

Also, what the Royals desperately needed was someone who is durable and reliable. He is projected to pitch 190 innings in 2016, this is something KC needs to take some of the pressure off the bullpen, last year Madson, Franklin Morales, and Chris Young wore down some due to the innings load. Kennedy isn’t an ace by any means, but the Royals didn’t need an ace, they needed someone to average 6-7 innings a start at least once a week.

Finally, His FIP is projected to be 3.92 next year and ERA around 3.8. I think it will be closer to 3.5 but hey that’s good enough for KC to win many of the games he pitches.

In short, the Royals needed a reliable innings eater, most of the decent young arms were gone by the time they entered this market, so this is what they got. Did they over pay? probably. But if he helps get them to the post season again it really will not matter.

Oh and one more point, the Royals have been terrible at developing starting pitching prospects. The best starters they have had in the last 4 years (shields, Volquez, Santana, Vargas) have all been FA’s or trades.

dtpollitt
Member
Member
dtpollitt
3 months 10 days ago

As I noted above, Yovani does all these things and is much more consistent than Kennedy.

Sn0wman
Member
Sn0wman
3 months 10 days ago

I can believe it just because it is Dayton Moore. He might be the all-time king of good results from terrible process.

dave
Member
dave
3 months 11 days ago

Is $17 AAV really that bad of a deal for Davis??

The Ghost of Johnny Dickshot
Member
The Ghost of Johnny Dickshot
3 months 11 days ago

$17 bucks a year is a STEAL!

formerly matt w
Member
formerly matt w
3 months 11 days ago

It’s $23M, isn’t it?

Art Vandelay
Member
Member
Art Vandelay
3 months 11 days ago

$17M for the length of the contract, then $42M over the subsequent 10 years.

virtuallybenfarmer
Member
3 months 11 days ago

Dave wrote a long post suggesting that the cost was really higher than 17 million annually, but regardless of valuation the contract would be a bargain if Davis performs closer to the 5.6 WAR he put up last year compared to the 3.5 that the depth chart projects for him this year (take last year, and shave off half a win for seven years, and the Orioles would be pretty satisfied). And there’s definitely a case to be made that the Davis is more of a late bloomer than an aging slugger.
I think the better quibble is that Davis and Kimbrel are the only two star-caliber players on the list above, so at least there’s a conceivable rationale behind those decisions (and the Red Sox, as noted, gave up a ton of talent to acquire their new closer), as opposed to say the Rockies’ moves listed at #4.
In other words, it seems like improving your talent base at a potentially high cost could be considered wiser than weakening your talent base at moderate cost.

Tct
Member
Tct
3 months 11 days ago

I don’t want to be one of those people whining about Dave criticizing their team too much. My Reds certainly deserve some criticism. But the Alfredo Rodriguez signing never officially happened. Jesse Sanchez reported that the two sides had agreed, but the Reds have consistently denied it and no official statement has ever been made, to my knowledge. They might have agreed in principle and are waiting until the next period rolls over in June to announce it, which wouldn’t be nearly as bad. Or there could actually be no deal.

Roger McDowell Hot Foot
Member
Roger McDowell Hot Foot
3 months 11 days ago

I think it might be a good idea to have a cut-off threshhold for badness rather than a fixed Top 10 here. The bottom two or three here are just so utterly meh, so impossible to get worked up about and unlikely to have any major effect, that it seems completely unfair to see them on a Worst list rather than a Mediocrest list.

Bip
Member
Member
Bip
3 months 10 days ago

Yeah paying Pelfrey to be a 1-WAR starter seems just totally fine to me.

Capt. Clutch
Member
Capt. Clutch
3 months 11 days ago

If the O’s sign Gallardoto a deal similar to what has been reported where would that rank here?

johansantana17
Member
johansantana17
3 months 11 days ago

I would argue the Khris Davis trade was worse for the A’s than the Alonso deal. Oakland traded two legitimate prospects for a player with a 2 WAR ceiling and one plus tool, and then to top it off, DFAd another useful young player in Sean Nolin. Oakland gave up Pomeranz for Alonso, but the other two players involved in the deal were not nearly as valuable as Nottingham and Nolin.

aggies43080
Member
Member
aggies43080
3 months 11 days ago

Problem is they are prospects. No such thing a sure fire prospect. Look at Matt Moore and Jurickson Profar. Both previous #1 overall prospects in baseball and both have had very disappointing careers thus far. Luke Hochevar former #1 overall pick the draft with a terrible career. This is an old article but points to some of things wrong with counting on prospects to deliver.

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/dose-reality-prospect-watchers/

Tom Cranker
Member
Tom Cranker
3 months 11 days ago

Even with the risk calculation, highly ranked prospects are still valuable commodities that bring back major leaguers in return (see worst transactions Nos. 1, 5 and 7).

That’s not to say that I agree, though, that the K. Davis deal was worse, considering he’s better than Alonso and has substantially more team control.

Bip
Member
Member
Bip
3 months 10 days ago

Look guy, I don’t think anyone around here values prospects as if they all pan out. The “look at these busted prospects” try as a counterargument to a criticism of a prospect-for-MLBer trade is a pretty ubiquitous fallacy at this point.

aggies43080
Member
Member
aggies43080
3 months 10 days ago

You use big words so you must be really smart. My counter argument was to simply point out that he was arguing about prospects that “might ” pan out. I even gave a link to a article from fangraph about how often prospects bust. Far more often than people realize. Yes it is a legitimate arguement. I’d rather have a 2 win Khris Davis than Nolin or Nottingham. Steamer projects Nolin to have a stellar 6.6 K-BB%, which puts in the bottom 10 among relievers. Then there’s Nottingham who hasn’t had a single at bat above A ball.

So yea give me a proven 2 WAR player with 3 years of team control instead of prospect in A ball and someone Steamer projects to be one of the worst relievers in baseball.

vivalajeter
Member
vivalajeter
3 months 11 days ago

Davis has put up 4.1 WAR in 321 career games. How is 2 WAR his ceiling?

AlexTheGreat
Member
AlexTheGreat
3 months 11 days ago

He could definitely put up more than 2 WAR if they play 300+ games a year.

rosen380
Member
rosen380
3 months 11 days ago

I think his point was that given his past performance and age, that a 2-win player over a full season might seem to be more like an average projection, not a ceiling

jdbolick
Member
Member
3 months 10 days ago

Nottingham had a ~100 day hot streak for the Astros, then after being acquired by Oakland went right back to the middling prospect he had been the previous two seasons.

HappyFunBall
Member
HappyFunBall
3 months 11 days ago

Can we get an Honorable Mention for everyone’s favorite offseason bridesmaid, my Washington Nats?

TKDC
Member
Member
TKDC
3 months 11 days ago

Considering the “winner’s curse,” you might be able to call that an honorable mention on the positive list.

aggies43080
Member
Member
aggies43080
3 months 11 days ago

Really surprised that the Simmons trade wasn’t on here. Was #5 on the best transactions for the Angels. Expected to see the Braves on this list for selling on Simmons.

TKDC
Member
Member
TKDC
3 months 11 days ago

I was, too. The only thing I can think is that it is perceived that the Braves were moving in the right direction with this trade, essentially going all in on the rebuild. The issue I have is that Simmons is very likely to be an above average player for years to come on a reasonable deal. He’s not close to a rental. The odds of getting more surplus value out of Newcomb than Simmons, even if you excluded 2016, seem slim.

Sn0wman
Member
Sn0wman
3 months 10 days ago

Perhaps everyone has gotten so used to head-scratcher Braves trades in recent years (excluding when they deal with those lovely D’backs) that they just forget about them now?

JediHoyer
Member
JediHoyer
3 months 10 days ago

Depends on the return they get for aybar at the trade deadline of before. White sox could still use a ss.

Dooduh
Member
Dooduh
3 months 11 days ago

DBs got more than “no gain” in their Aaron Hill deal. They got $6M in salary relief. To think that wasn’t going to cost them a prospect was foolish. Aside from Hill and the prospect for $6M in salary relief, they swapped back end SPers and got Jean Segura who is a change of scenery, upside play. At worst, Segura is an IF UT who provides tons of useful bench speed.

While I love what the Brewers have been doing, I think the deal might be a little more questionable from their end. What the heck did they want with Aaron Hill even for the one year? They must’ve really liked the prospect a lot to make this deal.

Chickensoup
Member
Member
Chickensoup
3 months 10 days ago

The Brewers got Isan Diaz and an OKish pitcher for having to take Hill, Segura (the guy playing at about replacement level), and a guy hoping to be Chase Anderson in the future.

They take Hill because why not? They don’t lose anything but a little money and without taking him, the deal doesn’t happen. Meanwhile they can potentially let Cecchini play in AAA to recoup value instead of playing him at 3B in major league games.

Dooduh
Member
Dooduh
3 months 10 days ago

Yes but people are viewing it like the DBs should be hording prospects, while not getting that the DBs are all in for 2016. They cleared some payroll in this deal so that they could sign Clippard.

Sure, it was a decent gamble for the Brewers in order to get Diaz (who I know very little about). If they can use a little financial muscle to add prospects, that’s great for them. Their farm system has become loaded in a hurry. Their future is suddenly very interesting, whereas the DBs don’t have that much need for a 19 year old SS in rookie ball right now. So again, not sure how this is a bad deal for the DBs other than the knee-jerk Dave Stewart = bad.

Bip
Member
Member
Bip
3 months 10 days ago

They did not swap back-end starters. They gave up a back end starter and did not receive one.

Dooduh
Member
Dooduh
3 months 10 days ago

If I’m not mistaken, Wagner was rated a Brewers top 10 prospect by several sources going into the 2015 season. He might have a higher ceiling than Anderson and I think has an additional control year.

Bip
Member
Member
Bip
3 months 10 days ago

A guy who is not particularly close to being a top-100 overall prospect, given he was only top-10 in a system that wasn’t that strong prior to this offseason, is highly unlikely to become even what Chase Anderson is now. A system where its 10th best prospect is probably Chase Anderson is an incredibly great system. Wagner is very very likely nothing at all.

Brock244
Member
Brock244
3 months 10 days ago

Isan Diaz is a legit prospect who had an OPS over 1000 as a middle infielder last season. Anderson is also a usable back end starter. Thats a haul for a replcement level player in Segura along with taking on Hills contract

reggiethomaslive
Member
reggiethomaslive
3 months 10 days ago

Correct, the Aaron Hill/Segura/Chase Anderson deal wasn’t the worst Diamondbacks deal of the off season. It’s just a typical bad Diamondbacks trade.

BigChief
Member
Member
BigChief
3 months 11 days ago

‘Rockies get older, worse’ is basically the summary of the Rockies sense 2010.

Shirtless Carson Cistulli
Member
3 months 11 days ago

Honorable mention – Acquiring Supplements From Miami Dude With Al-Jazeera Hat

Roger McDowell Hot Foot
Member
Roger McDowell Hot Foot
3 months 11 days ago

O, Jenrry.

matt
Member
matt
3 months 11 days ago

Eric Longehagen who works for ESPN is saying reds are denying they have deal with Alfredo Rodriguez currently official, so it looks like he will be part of next July 2 class

Bobby A.
Member
3 months 11 days ago

This was a good post. Bravo.

Tct
Member
Tct
3 months 11 days ago

While I didn’t love the Frazier/Peraza deal, the national reaction has been a little strange. Peraza started the year as a consensus top 50 prospect, rating #44 on Kiley’s list and as high as 24 on Keith Law’s. He starts the year as a 20 year old in AAA, holds his own, shows the exact same skill set he had shown for the last 2 years, and now he sucks?

It’s strange the narrative that “two teams gave up on him in one year” only seems to apply to Peraza and not Jacob Nottingham who was also traded twice in the last year.

Everyone wants to buy low, sell high on MLB players. But it seems like the same standard isn’t applied to prospects. Everyone seems to want their team to get a prospect at the peak of his value, which doesn’t really make a lot of sense. It could be argued that the Reds bought low on two prospects, Peraza and Schebler, who were more highly regarded at the start of the season despite the fact that their skills were exactly the same and they both reached the majors in 2015. It’s also ironic that the guy they were traded for, Frazier, was a prospect who had lost his shine when he became a MLB player in 2012 after a “just ok” year in AAA in 2011. He was thought to be just a utility guy or power bench bat by the time he reached the bigs. A team buying low on Frazier at that time could have had him for a year or two of a number 5 starter.

Dooduh
Member
Dooduh
3 months 11 days ago

The Reds would have been way better off taking the package the Dodgers received from the ChiSox. The Reds didn’t need Peraza frankly. They still have SS depth and Blandino likely to cover 2B not far away.

Zonk
Member
Member
Zonk
3 months 11 days ago

What I don’t get about the Frazier deal also is where the Indians were. They have the prospect depth to top that middling offer, and could REALLY have used Frazier, rather than see him go to a rival

JediHoyer
Member
JediHoyer
3 months 10 days ago

Im willing to bet they just sign uribe or freese.. more likely uribe. And there prospects are farther away and it seems like the only option was mlb ready.

MLB Rainmaker
Member
Member
MLB Rainmaker
3 months 10 days ago

C’mon, I think its more accurate to say Peraza was over-valued in the first place — he’s a speed first 2B without great plate discipline. There is little margin for error for guys like that, and Peraza’s speed disappeared at the AAA level….which he couldnt afford. He went from stealing 60 bases to 33 and measly .304 OBP.

Tim
Member
Tim
3 months 10 days ago

I haven’t read or seen anything that suggests Peraza still can’t hold down the SS position. He was moved off of SS because of Simmons then traded to Dodgers but they had Seagar in place.
The drop off in SB at the AAA level has to do with Peraza focused on learning a new position and focusing on adjusting to the pitching at that level, at least according to Braves beat writer Mark Bowman.
His plate discipline has a lot to do with the type of hitter he is. He’s a high contact hitter that uses his speed to his advantage. He might not ever walk much but he doesn’t strike out much either. So his OBP is going to be tied into his AVG heavily.
Not saying he’s going to turn into Dee Gordon but he’s much more advanced of a hitter than Gordon was at his age.

rhayex
Member
rhayex
3 months 11 days ago

The Reds haven’t officially signed Alfredo Rodriguez yet, and it looks like they’re waiting until next year’s international signing mark to do it. Everyone was announcing it as though the Reds had put pen to paper, but so far nothing has materialized. It’s still just a handshake agreement.

redsoxu571
Member
redsoxu571
3 months 10 days ago

Everyone agrees that the Kimbrel deal was a relative overpay, but sometimes you have to overpay to get what you want/need. Calling the move a “mistake”, on the other hand, isn’t exactly fair.

The bullpen was the hidden true need for Boston. With a Price signing plan in place, the rotation actually was fairly set to go, as it really lacked room for the players sure to be in it (Porcello, Buchholz, Rodriguez, now Price), other holdovers (Miley, Kelly), PLUS promising prospect options (Johnson, Owens). Simply put: no room, no room! Boston would have been foolish to not keep the #5 spot open, which means literally the best it could have done would have been to add another SP and deal away Buchholz, which would not have been cost-effective or a wise use of assets.

Meanwhile, Sandoval and Ramirez are essentially unmovable right now (and selling that low on either one again would have been foolish), and Ortiz/Pedroia/Swihart/Bogaerts/Betts were all locked in at their spots. The only potential lineup upgrades would have been to add an OF to replace Castillo or Bradley…two still promising players whose market values would not have been high. Again, foolish/not cost effective.

So, that left the bullpen, which the offseason proved to be ridiculously overpriced, and which saw Boston’s likely other top target (Chapman) probably become not an option. So, the team traded away an OF prospect who has some ways to go (with three young OFers already on the MLB team and at least two more better potential star options in the minors in Moncada and Benintendi), a SS who as of now is a one-year minor league breakout, and two other useful but lesser prospect pieces. In other words, it’s a very nice package, but one Boston could completely do without.

You advocate Boston signing O’Day, but that assumes 1) he would have been interested, and 2) Boston could have had him at a similar price. As it stands, Baltimore is now committed to 4 years and $31M for a 33 year-old RP. It’s safe to say that Boston would have had to pay at least $35M for O’Day, if not more. Instead, it used prospects for a better, five years YOUNGER, RP with only 2 years/$25M of sure obligations, plus a team option for one more year if he proves worth it. More reliable due to age, very likely better production, more flexibility…what’s not to like? And, naturally, it came at a price.

So, the “better off” option is a mythical O’Day signing that perhaps was never on the table, and then using the prospects in a mythical trade to fill another area of opportunity that I’ve already established didn’t exist. Bringing in a bigger commitment, less safe/productive RP and then making a less efficient trade…how is that better? In reality, it would have been worse.

The bottom line is that the bullpen was Boston’s best and most efficient improvement opportunity outside of signing Price, and the team got not only the best available option, but also the ONLY really elite available option. It’s a perfect addition, and the only perfect possible addition, and so without a strong alternative the team paid what it had to. When you factor in that Boston almost certainly steered the Padres towards prospects that it had the least faith in or need for (perhaps Guerra was viewed by the team as an ideal sell-high candidate?), and you see an inefficient move, but one that is far from a mistake.

Tom Cranker
Member
Tom Cranker
3 months 10 days ago

Thought we had all settled on agreeing that deciding you must have thing X and that you will pay whatever the price is for thing X is not a good decision (where thing X is a baseball player and there are other baseball players available, including other relievers)? Isn’t that how we got we got where we are with Shelby Miller and Arizona?

The Ghost of Stephen Drews Bat
Member
The Ghost of Stephen Drews Bat
3 months 10 days ago

Red Sox justifying overpay is the exact reason for the mediocre play in the last five years.

Otter
Member
Member
Otter
3 months 10 days ago

By this logic, the Diamondbacks/Braves trade isn’t that bad because Arizona got the #2 starter they needed.

jdbolick
Member
Member
3 months 10 days ago

Boston definitely overpaid, but I agree that there is something to be said for adding an elite closer. Furthermore, I’ve seen Javier Guerra in person and he is not as interesting as his raw stats would suggest.

Bip
Member
Member
Bip
3 months 10 days ago

I mean his favorite band is Journey. It’s like he’s already a dad.

StroShow
Member
3 months 10 days ago

I look forwards to the point in his career when he stops believin’.

JackS
Member
JackS
3 months 10 days ago

I’m a Red Sox fan too, and I feel similarly as I did when they signed John Lackey a while ago.

End of the day: I’m not going to be too upset that Kimbrel is on my favorite team, but it was not a good deal. Kimbrel’s a terrific pitcher and the bullpen will be better because of him, but it really was not a good deal.

I’d explain why I don’t think it’s a good deal, but Dave Cameron just did that and he’s way better at explaining math than I am; but yeah….what he said.

LOVE that Carson Smith trade though….

Bip
Member
Member
Bip
3 months 10 days ago

It is so so so so easy for a fan, even a really business-aware fan, when their team trades for a good player, to just be so glad they have that player and abstract the cost. I think the idea of a team “not needing” a prospect because they have depth there is totally short-sighted and the real game doesn’t play out that way.

JackS
Member
JackS
3 months 10 days ago

Seems like it’s been easy for Dave Dombrowski to think that way as well!

DCE
Member
DCE
3 months 10 days ago

This is the most reasonable take on the trade. Bad trade for a good pitcher. It says a lot that the only people that have defended it from a Red Sox perspective are, you guessed it, Red Sox fans.

Bip
Member
Member
Bip
3 months 10 days ago

no room, no room!

In the rotation? Does not compute.

domxbomb
Member
domxbomb
3 months 10 days ago

Yes we all know how the saying goes: “you can have too much pitching”

Chill
Member
Chill
3 months 10 days ago

We are in total agreement. Kimbrel is not a fungible quantity. He is an historically elite bullpen ace under contract for 2/3 years just entering his prime years with regard to age.
The prospects the six traded away were all sell high candidates that duplicated young stars already on the major league roster.
Let the haters hate. Trading for Kimbrel was a very good move for the sox especially given their desire to compete in the near term.

matt
Member
matt
3 months 10 days ago

You could argue Kimbrel is exiting or has exited his prime years given his trajectory, and you may not want to touch his next deal.

The prospects would have been better used on a good starter, not on a non Betances reliever.

Chill
Member
Chill
3 months 10 days ago

You could make the argument that Kimbrel is in his decline phase. It would be a silly one. Other than last April, just after being traded across country on the eve of the season with all the attendant distractions and adjustments that accompany such a sudden and dramatic move, Kimbrel has been remarkably consistent in his career. He has regressed from his otherworldly 2012 campaign, but to describe his career performance to date as anything other than elite is a misuse of language. Reports of his demise have been greatly exaggerated.

To blithely suggest that the prospects punted in the Kimbrel deal could have fetched an impact arm for the rotation is unsubstantiated supposition, nothing more. The prospects traded in the Shelby Miller deal suggest that the package used to land Kimbrel would have been insufficient to acquire the kind of difference maker in the rotation that Kimbrel will be out of the pen.

Adding Craig Kimbrel to the Red Sox bullpen, even given the prospect cost (greatly overstated in my view), is an unqualified good for the Sox.

lawmaker
Member
lawmaker
3 months 10 days ago

No mention of Ryan Madson?????

ctmuuse
Member
Member
ctmuuse
3 months 10 days ago

Bad news: Reds have two of the ten worst moves of the off-season.

Good news: Only 2 of 10 and none of the five worst!

Bonus Good news: The Chapman deal was apparently not one of the ten worst moves of the off season.

JediHoyer
Member
JediHoyer
3 months 10 days ago

Getting rid of that baggage is a good thing no matter the return. The only thing that could have been on the bad list was waiting that long to trade him.

Otter
Member
Member
Otter
3 months 10 days ago

I’m going to take a bit of a contrarian view here and add that I think all of the deals this winter that have a player option somewhat early in the deal deserve some sort of mention. Maybe a collective 10th place tie between Heyward, Cespedes, Upton, Kazmir, etc.

I know many appeared in the best deals of the winter post yesterday, but I think they deserve some sort of mention over a ‘meh’ A’s trade or Tigers signing.

Bip
Member
Member
Bip
3 months 10 days ago

While I agree that the option is good for the player, if the worst-case-scenario of the deal still isn’t all that bad, (like paying Cespedes 3/72) then I can’t really feel like it moves a nice deal into this territory.

thestatbook
Member
thestatbook
3 months 10 days ago

When I think of the worst moves, I tend to think in terms of future consequences.

The Kennedy signing, to me, makes me believe it’s the second worst (second only because there’s not a snowball’s chance in hell the Miller trade gets bumped).

With the Royals already re-signing Gordon at $18M AAV, adding Kennedy at $14M AAV probably hurts their chances at bringing back Eric Hosmer and Mike Moustakas in a few years. Not to mention, with Kennedy and Gordon both making less in 2016 than they will on the back-end of their deals, it’ll be a burden to bring back much of the core when they become free agents. They might be able to bring back one or two guys, but they’ll lose a lot. I don’t think such would be the case had they not signed Kennedy.

GameofRedemption
Member
3 months 10 days ago

I see the rationale in saying that Boston overpaid for Kimbrel, but O’day isn’t necessarily an alternative. It sounds like he wanted to stay in Baltimore and he lacks closing experience, probably making him no guarantee in Dombrowski’s eyes.
The Kennedy signing is justifiable since it fits the Royals’ strategy and they just won the WS, in my opinion. That’s not me saying I’d make the same signing, but it has some logic to it.

matt
Member
matt
3 months 10 days ago

Shelby Miller finished 10th in WARP last year, the one that uses DRA which has much higher correlation numbers than FIP, wonder when fangraphs pitching stats catches up to baseball prospectus.

Shelby is a number 3 in the same way that Brad Miller is the best shortstop in the AL.

Sn0wman
Member
Sn0wman
3 months 10 days ago

His career ERA- is 87. Career FIP-: 103. Career xFIP-: 108. SIERA doesn’t do a minus, it seems, but it’s 4.10, which is .02 worse than the xFIP, so since I’m lazy let’s call that a 108 as well.

In 2015, those numbers were respectively 78, 91, 105, and something .09 worse than the 105. Simply put, even if you believe the improvement of 2015 was real, that still only makes him an average #2 at best. If you believe he’s one of the rarities that can beat those numbers and consistently have an ERA better than the metrics, then he’s a good #2 or a poor #1 (I’m splitting the difference between the career ERA- and the 2015 ERA- in that line of thinking, BTW).

Personally, I believe he’s a guy who benefited greatly from having Andrelton behind him, and who somehow had a flukishly low, one-time only HR/FB (historically not a skill associated with groundball pitchers, hence SIERA’s notable skepticism). Also, that a guy who Ks around 20% of his batters while walking around 8.5% of them is probably just an average guy. Which has value, but not /that/ deal kind of value.

Moranall
Member
Moranall
3 months 9 days ago

A few things to keep in mind: Shelby Miller was once considered a top 10 prospect (6 by Baseball America, 5 by Keith Law at peaks) which would infer he’s got good “stuff”, made his major league debut at 21, and the Diamondbacks had one of the best defenses last year (lead MLB with 71 DRS compared to -15 for Atlanta), which most of should carry over to this year.

The reason that FIP, xFIP, and SIERA are so down on Miller is because his BABIP has been very low every season he’s pitched – a career .274 mark. These methods assume that BABIP is not controllable and should be regressed to .300, but that’s entirely the case.

Another thing to note is that his GB% shot up last year, which can be attributed to something: a big drop-off in throwing his four-seam fastball and throwing his cutter and two-seam fastball a lot more.

There a lot of things that are positive for Miller: highly regarded prospect, young, 3 straight seasons of lower-than-average BABIP, a higher GB%. These are all solid reasons to buy his success last year and as a possible breakout candidate (#1/#2) going forward.

The inverse is true, also: his low BABIP could be all luck and he goes back to allowing more flyballs, with his HR/FB% rate regressing back to average. This would be more of a #3. I think a lot of people are expecting this Shelby Miller next season. We shall see who’s right.

JediHoyer
Member
JediHoyer
3 months 10 days ago

Do you buy his homer suppression long term. He gave uo a lot of unearned runs which i would argue is just lucky there werent a few more earned. He is probably a 2 moving forward. But the package they paid was for an ace. No arguing it was bad.

matt
Member
matt
3 months 10 days ago

1. I am not arguing that Shelby Miller in a vacuum is worth the haul he got. The Diamondbacks absolutely overpaid (if you care no I am not a Daimondbacks fan.
2. Shelby Miller has constantly outperformed his ERA, he performed well last year, you can point to the Simmons factor but the truth is both byUZR the braves had a middle of the pack in the infield/OF defense but extremely poor catcher defense on top of that. When you consider catcher defense (which DRS does better than UZR) ATL was -25 in field, worse than SD. He got no help from defense.
3. You are ignoring the heat effect which Shelby has had to deal with and will again in AZ though I guess with closed roof effect it won’t be as bad, drs considers this. If the improvements of last year are real he’s close to ace status as dra shows, he’s not a average 2. And he just turned 25.

JediHoyer
Member
JediHoyer
3 months 10 days ago

Its basically one year of homer suppression with all the same periphs. Going to a homer friendly park i would guess he is up in about a 3.5 e.r.a next year. Or similar to arron blair but with more innings.

matt
Member
matt
3 months 10 days ago

His periohals were different and effected buy defense behind him (see k/9 and bb/9 effected by braves awful framing). Plus groundball rate changed. Anyone that thinks Shelby Miller and Aaron freaking Blair are least bit comparable aren’t worth discussing baseball with.

Moranall
Member
Moranall
3 months 9 days ago

The Braves are fairly homerun average (run factor of 99). The Dbacks have been around 103. That’s not much change in home run “friendliness”. Chase Field is not very homer-prone; it is, however, a triples haven.

rob_elzer
Member
rob_elzer
3 months 10 days ago

I’m really surprised to not see the Astros’ acquisition of Ken Giles on here, especially when the Kimbrel trade was included. The Astros could have just made their own version of Ken Giles out of Vincent Velasquez, but instead they traded him and other top prospects for a controllable relief pitcher. Ken Giles wasn’t even that good in the minors, which shows that you can turn pretty much anyone into a good reliever. I thought the Astros were supposed to be a smart organization.

Forrest Gumption
Member
Forrest Gumption
3 months 10 days ago

“I don’t entirely understand why the A’s had to surrender a talented young lefty — who held batters to a .260 wOBA after getting shifted to the bullpen — for the limited skillset of Yonder Alonso.”

You mean you don’t understand how a guy who childishly broke his hand punching a chair in the middle of a pennant race and his own breakout season as a SP, causing Beane to have to acquire two SP’s instead of one and give up his best prospect maybe ever, then to have him follow up as being a huge part of poor team chemistry that plagued them last year? You don’t understand that Drew Pomeranz is a toxic clubhouse cancer who’s better off not on your team? How is that so difficult to understand? There’s a big reason he’s been so expendable in trades, stats be damned.

Also the A’s had the worst 1B defense last year, Alonso fills that need, and the power you’d get at 1B shifts to LF and Davis.

This is really poor insight from a guy who should know better than this.

Hurtlocker
Member
Hurtlocker
3 months 10 days ago

I get it that baseball is a business, but I have to agree that some players are just not worth having on your team. Milton Bradley was a very talented player but bat shit crazy angry.

virtuallybenfarmer
Member
3 months 10 days ago

Latos for 3 million is another example of teams weighing personality more heavily than we expect. Unless the player is as elite as Chapman, most teams appear to have decided that there’s other fish in the sea. And it works the other way with clubhouses that appear to less than attractive destinations–who wants to hang out with Papelbon all spring and summer in the Nats bullpen, or swap scouting reports with Jose Fernandez and Latos in the Marlins’ dugout (besides Chen, who can rely on a translator to interact with those guys)?
It would be interesting to get a fans’ perspective on the worst (and best) clubhouses in baseball. Off the top of my head, it seems like the White Sox (still Ozzie and Pierzynski), Marlins, Nats, Yankees (Chapman), and Red Sox (Hanley) seem like organizations where there’s less of a premium on employee morale. The constant churning in Oakland and San Diego couldn’t help, but those places are in California, which probably mitigates general pissiness.

jdouble777
Member
jdouble777
3 months 10 days ago

Chris Davis has been worth 34M/season over the past three (52.1, 5.8, 44.8), has became a staple of the franchise and favored by the fans, and produces power at a level few if any players on this planet is capable of. I despise Peter Angelos, but there is a strong possibility barring health issues which they are not signs of that he will produce 161M of value, in my opinion.

That Shelby Miller trade was probably the worst deal i’ve ever seen, at least in the last three years. Fister to the Nats was bad, Margot package for Kimbrel was bad, Butler was really bad, but when considering that amount of money the Braves might and maybe even likely will pay Swanson versus what he gives you vs an innings eater already elevated in salary with free agency around the corner…I just cannot…fathom. It reminds me of the Padres when something gets into an owner/President/GM then suddenly a manic state of what could be results in all logic being throw out the window and run over and over. If Zack and Shelby combine with that promising but far from the Mets, Nats, Cubs type rotation to produce a playoff bid then I’ll say well done, win a series and i’ll eat crow.

jdouble777
Member
jdouble777
3 months 10 days ago

One last quick thought, don’t sleep on Schelber…those tools, that park, and his age scream legit burst onto the scene possibility. Might not, but given what Souza cost and the difference between the two…seems closer to market to me than most.

auricursine
Member
auricursine
3 months 9 days ago

Talk about lazy research…come on, Mr. Cameron!

From an analysis of the deal when Chris Davis agreed to the contract:

“The first reports about the Orioles new contract with Chris Davis reported it as a seven year contract worth $161 million dollars. That probably conjured an idea in your mind that the Orioles would be paying Davis $23 million per year for the seven years of the contract. That’s a lot of money. It turns out that’s not what they will be doing, because ESPN’s Buster Olney reported on Saturday afternoon that the contract has deferred a significant amount of its value beyond Davis’s playing career.

According to Olney, the Orioles have deferred a total of $42 million dollars of the contract. What that actually means is that the O’s will pay Davis $17 million per year for the seven contracted years. Each year, $6 million is deferred. So instead of the $161 million over seven years, the fact is that over the next seven years the O’s will be paying Davis $119 million.

The money will come due eventually, with Davis structured to receive a $3.5 million payment each year from 2023-32, with an additional $1.4 million coming each year from 2033-37. That is an interest-free deferral, which is actually a pretty big victory for the Orioles. While it may invite comparisons to the infamous Bobby Bonilla Mets situation, there’s not a whole lot of actual similarity. Yes, the Orioles will be paying Davis for a long time, but I think it’s pretty safe that he’ll do more for the Orioles than Bonilla did for the Mets on that contract.

What does it matter that the O’s will owe Davis $3.5 million in 2024? Who cares? So they won’t be able to sign the 2024 version of Everth Cabrera. They might not have the payroll to cover the 2028 version of Brian Matusz. There will be an impact, but we can only hope that whoever is in charge of the O’s at that time – and the owner probably won’t even still be Peter Angelos, who’s 86 years old – is not going to be hampered by any of that. They should not be. It’s a lot of money to you or I, but it’s not a lot of money to a baseball team a decade from now, especially when weighed against the benefit it might provide right now…”

Fuck yeah, I’m fine with it now, and in 2028. It’ll give me something to bitch about in the retirement home.

Check out the fine print, next time!

francis_soyer
Member
francis_soyer
2 months 29 days ago

I don’t think McGee and Parra for Dickerson is that bad. I can see those two bringing in a better haul at the trade deadline than Dickerson, especially McGee.

It’s hard to see Dickerson lighting it up outside of Coors Field, and he’s not even a lock to stay in the OF.

wpDiscuz