What Were The Dodgers Alternatives?
On Friday night, the Dodgers made their latest calculated gamble, taking on $260 million in future salaries from the Red Sox in order to acquire Adrian Gonzalez, Carl Crawford, Josh Beckett, and Nick Punto. In the write-up I did on Friday, I noted that the best way to explain this trade from the Dodgers perspective is that they are attempting to capitalize on their current contender status under the hope that they can achieve a significant revenue bounce from a playoff run that could offset a large part of the costs of these acquisitions.
There’s another theory floating around, however, that has to do with the upcoming free agent class. If we accept that the Dodgers were going to spend this much money at some point in the near future, the argument is that the relatively unimpressive group of free agents set to hit the market this winter made this a better choice than spending the same money on free agents in three months and getting inferior players without the added bonus of their production down the stretch in 2012.
So, let’s go through the options, and see what else the Dodgers could have potentially done with their giant wad of cash.
First, let’s break down the $260 million figure into actual figures, since there’s a difference between giving that money to one player versus four separate players, each of whom requires a salary in 2012. Here’s an estimated annual breakdown of what the Dodgers committed to pay over the weekend, assuming that the Red Sox are picking up all of the 2012 salaries and the Dodgers are on the hook for all of the 2013 and beyond salaries.
2013:
Gonzalez: $21 million
Crawford: $20 million
Beckett: $15.8 million
Punto: $1.5 million
Total: $58.3 million
2014:
Gonzalez: $21 million
Crawford: $20.2 million
Beckett: $15.8 million
Total: $58.5 million
2015:
Gonzalez: $21 million
Crawford: $20.5 million
Total: $41.5 million
2016:
Gonzalez: $21 million
Crawford: $20.8 million
Total: $41.8 million
2017:
Gonzalez: $21.5 million
Crawford: $21 million
Total: $42.5 million
2018:
Gonzalez: $21.5 million
Total: $21.5 million
That adds up to $264 million, which is just slightly above the reported $260 million figure that the Dodgers are on the hook for. It’s possible that those reports just rounded down, or that the Sox are kicking in $4 million somewhere, but in the grand scheme of things, it doesn’t matter too much. Overall, we’re looking at an expenditure of around between $55-$60 million for the next two years, a little over $40 million for the next three, and then just over $20 million in year six.
So, you can’t just look at this and say that the Dodgers could have signed three premium free agents this winter with the $60 million they just spent, since the future commitments drop off significantly after Beckett’s deal expires. To line this up more with what they got, we need to essentially look for two potential long term deals and one shorter deal, though we’ll give ourselves the freedom to move money around within the deals to fit other options as long as the future commitments come out similarly.
Let’s start with the big bat, since that was the key to this trade from LA’s perspective. Could they have gotten something as good as Gonzalez this winter? In terms of just pure hitting potential, the best bats (as rated by ZIPS rest-of-season projections) that will hit the open market this winter are:
David Ortiz: .381 wOBA
Josh Hamilton: .374 wOBA
Kevin Youkilis: .363 wOBA
Lance Berkman: .361 wOBA
Mike Napoli: .358 wOBA
Nick Swisher: .353 wOBA
For comparison, Gonzalez is at .357, so his offensive production would fit in comfortably with most of the guys on this list. Ortiz is not an option since he’s strictly a DH, and Berkman is openly talking about retirement, so in reality, it’s a choice between Gonzalez and signing one of Hamilton, Youkilis, Napoli, or Swisher. Gonzalez is the youngest of those five, but he’s only six months younger than Napoli, so there’s not a huge difference there. He’s a year younger than Hamilton, 18 months younger than Swisher, and three years younger than Youkilis, who is likely nearing the end of his run as an elite hitter, if he hasn’t gotten there already. Given that Youkilis is quite a bit older, we’ll strike him from the list as well, and just focus on Hamilton, Napoli, and Swisher as alternative “big bat” options. How much of our budget would each cost?
Hamilton’s tricky, because his off-the-field issues and injury concerns seem likely to limit his future contract, but the talent is such a wild card that I don’t think anyone really knows what he’s going to get. I could see him landing a seven year, $140 million deal this winter, or I could see him settling for 3/70. But, just for argument’s sake, let’s take the high side of the deal, and say Hamilton would have required 7/140.
We covered Swisher last week, and I estimated about 5/90 for him, and the convenience there is that he has experience at first base, so signing him would directly fill the role that Gonzalez was brought in to fill. Interestingly, if they went cheap on the starter, the Dodgers might have been able to afford both Hamilton and Swisher, so this isn’t necessarily an either/or option here.
Napoli’s another tough guy to decipher, as he’s battled injuries and regressed back to what he was before he got to Texas, and right now doesn’t look like the monster bat he was a year ago. However, if he was moved off catcher full time and just asked to play first base, there’s certainly some thunder in his bat that could lead to a return to higher levels of production. He won’t get anything close to what Hamilton or Swisher will, I don’t imagine, and would have represented the more frugal option as a big bat first baseman, assuming that the Dodgers could have convinced him to give up catching to begin with. Just spitballing, I’m penciling Napoli in for 3/36, or somewhere in that range.
On the pitching side of things, the options are more vast, and in the interest of brevity, we’re not going to go through every single available free agent starting pitcher. Let’s just say that the Dodgers could have probably landed a pitcher ranging from Zack Greinke (for, say, 6/130 if they really wanted him) to Anibal Sanchez (5/75ish?), or Ryan Dempster (3/30?), who we know badly wanted to go to LA at the deadline. Or they could have gone dumpster diving and come up with another Chris Capuano type, maybe by landing a guy like Francisco Liriano for $8 million on a one year deal.
If my wild guess speculations here aren’t too far off base, then the Dodgers could have spent similar amounts of money and come away with one of the various packages below:
A. Josh Hamilton (7/140), Nick Swisher (5/90), and Ryan Dempster (3/30)
B. Zack Greinke (6/130), Nick Swisher (5/90), and Mike Napoli (3/36)
C. Nick Swisher (5/90), Anibal Sanchez (5/75), and Mike Napoli (3/36), with $60 million leftover
Would any of those packages have been preferable to the trio that the Dodgers actually got? I think I’d have gone for Option A, personally, even with Hamilton’s baggage. Hamilton is pretty close to Gonzalez in value, Swisher is likely better than Crawford, and Dempster is almost certainly better than Beckett at this point. What about you guys? Of the four potential packages, which would you have chosen, remembering to factor in that the Gonzalez/Crawford/Beckett triumvirate is the only one that would return any value before next season, but that was also the only trio that also cost them five prospects, including Rubby de la Rosa and Allen Webster.
WHAT ABOUT NICK PUNTO?!?!?!?!?!?1111?!?!
Who says I’m not going to go all 2012 Marlins on you all, and sign all of these players, plus cash.
You’re going to play Hamilton at short and Swisher at second?
Opportunity cost comes in both money and positional form. Even if you think the Dodgers have unlimited funds, they don’t have unlimited places to put people.
We have plenty of places to put people. A baseball field is pretty big. This organization plans to invent new positions for all our new acquisitions, so that they all can play together at the same time.
Isn’t this an argument for making the trade? There is a giant amount of uncertainty when it comes to trying to sign free agents, and there’s a good chance they’d have had trouble consummating deals on that much talent.
Other posters also made good points below about how they’d have to forfeit draft picks. (Not as bad as losing two B+ prospects, but a necessary consideration.)
Add to it the fact that they get 5 weeks of Gonzalez and Beckett for a playoff push, and this looks like a far better deal for them than going into the offseason trying to load up with free agents.
Great article, really made me think about this and see the deal in a more positive light for the Dodgers.
@Ned
Get all pitch to contact pitchers! No need for a catcher! That means you’ll have to trade Kershaw to Minnesota.
@ RMD
I might try Minnesota if talks with the Royals break down. They’re offer some kid who can’t spell “Will” right, but I want Jeff Franceour.
What’s the old saying… A bird in the hand is worth 2 in the bush? “Going after” and “getting” are two different things. Besides, I want the M’s to go hard after Hamilton and stick him at 1B next year.
That would make a lot of sense, so they probably won’t.
There’s no way Hamilton would accept a move to first base. He’s going to play a corner outfield spot for at least a couple more seasons.
Ill stick with package the Dodgers got. Gonzalez is a great all around first basemen and a huge improvement. Crawford could put up a 4 WAR season in the NL if healthy and Beckett could pitch better in a large park. Nick Swisher for 18m a year doesn’t sound enticing at all.
Everyone could pitch better in a large park. If you really want to talk park effects you break it down into components. Beckett has a fairly league average LD/GB/FB split, a career: 19.7 % / 43.9 % / 36.4 %. Dodger Stadium greatly increases the number of groundball outs but isn’t so great with flyballs (fewer XBH, but doesn’t really prevent flyball HR balls). So it won’t solve Beckett’s HR woes.
You could take this analysis further, but it’s just soooo stupid to generically say Player X will pitch better in Dodger stadium.
That’s a fine criticism, but it would be better if you dug deeper. Per statcorner, Dodger stadium’s run environment is about 5% less than average. It also does an above average job at depressing LD rates–which is the key driver in well hit and batting average. Thus, it’s a completely fair point to assert that Beckett will benefit from Dodger stadium if he arrived there from a neutral park.
But he didn’t arrive from a neutral park. Again, from stat corner, he arrived from a park that inflates runs by ~15%…roughly a 20% shift in run environments. He also stands to benefit from the AL to NL shift, which should help–absent further FBv erosion–the HR rate.
I think that the marketability of Gonzalez in the LA market was also strongly considered when piecing this deal together. I was at Dodger Stadium on Saturday for AGonz first game, and aside from the expected cheers for Kemp and Ethier, the guy getting the loudest cheers from the crowd was Luis Cruz, a Mexican born player. Cruuuuuuuuuz!!!! He’s been playing well and the fans in LA identify with him immediately. Gonzo will be a money maker like Pujols was expected to be down the freeway. I’m not sure how much he will be able to offset the cost of these contracts, but with the impending media deal looming and LA suddenly looking like a perrenial contender, is the money really that big of a road block?
2014 and the luxury tax! does no one do math in LA? The Dodgers will be scraping the tax next year in commitments before you account for offseason signings and arb. players. The Yankees want to be under the tax soon, which should tell you nobody should want to be over it. when 2014 rolls around and AGon isn’t as young, and Crawford isn’t as young or speedy, then what have you got, an aging overpaid core. The Yanks, as the Dodgers so obviously want to be out west, spent heavily on amateurs(no longer possible!) in order to offset there bulky FA deals with a strong farm able to support, or trade for the support necessary to compete. LA is in a position where they now have very little flexibility with their payroll unless they want to blow by the luxury tax, and almost no minor league depth for years to come. I would not be surprised if here and BA the Dodgers rank bottom three in the game in farm next pre-season! They can spend towards that large TV contract, and this deal will help them make it bigger, but LA fans need to know this deal was about winning this year(for marketability), and bringing in the Stars that will entice more money on their new Tv deal 2013-14. The thing is they will have their new contract before all these guys are declining heavily, but they have no room to work after that, and no cost efficient players to supplement with. And don’t think your keeping Kershaw or other star pitchers for cheap, who is your rotation next year again? CCaup, Harang, BECKETT, besides Kershaw their isn’t a whole lot of long term upside in this picture, and you just traded two of your three ligit pitching prospects for 1/4 Billion in debt! WTF is anyone thinking this deal is good for LA other then right here right now, and maybe next year! enjoy 2014 and beyond Dodger fans! I just wish someone would write Billy “bang for your buck” Beane a blank check, and say have fun make us win! I do believe your new guys together make as much as my entire team. One that swept you in historic fashion (you didn’t get more then single digit hit totals out of 3 combined games), and is better then you in record right now!
http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/8306109/financial-concern-window-comes-new-dodgers-regime
Good read. Not too biased.
When you have more money than God, even the tax man can’t hurt you.
3 games of sample size prove your point about the acquisitions that the Dodgers made. Good work.
The other thing to keep in mind is that the tax heavily penalizes going over the luxury tax amount REPEATEDLY; the first few years aren’t as bad. Which is a big problem for the Yankees and Red Sox, since they’re taxed as repeat offenders… I don’t think the Dodgers will, though, so they have a couple years before they hit the punitive amounts that the Yankees/Sox are currently trying to avoid.
so we are making baseball moves to cater to illegal mexicans now? country is really going down the toilet.
it beats making moves to cater to bigots.
I think you are underestimating what Hamilton will get in this free agent mkt. I think he approaches $200mm.
and Beckett’s strand rate is very low…should regress to norms in NL, along with his K rate.
he’s lost 1-3 MPH off every pitch, and seen the value of each completely tank.
His strand rate is not a result of luck – its a result of rapidly declining stuff hitters are teeing off on.
I think Swisher would be the only hitter I would compare with A Gonzalez; way too much uncertainty with Hamilton or a DH/catcher (Napoli).
Dempster would have worked out for LAD but, on a short term of two years, Beckett may also work.
Crawford is the big question but he was (is?) athletic, good glove, speedy. If money doesn’t matter, and now in LA it clearly doesn’t, I think the Dodgers did OK both long and short term.
An interesting question is what will the Red Sox do with their new found financial flexibility? The choices in the article don’t seem much better than what they dumped.
If personalities were the problem (clearly a big part) then I blame this Boston mess on the management for not running a tighter ship or doing better planning in advance of 2012.
don’t forget that Dempster would have been essentially free – Cubs were going to eat his entire remaining salary, in exchange for a guy (Webster) the Dodgers ended up giving up anyways. And Demp is dying to play in LA – a home town discount for the next 2 years is easily done.
I also wouldn’t immediately write off Alfonso Soriano as an alternative to Crawford: 23 HR, .260/.315/.485 with $40 mil left on his contract (of which the Cubs would have paid probably $30+mil) as opposed to $102 mil for Crawford.
There is also the question of the ability of the Dodgers to sign those players. There was no/minimal competition to take all of those Sox contracts, but the free agents we’re talking about have other options. There is always the possibility that they make runs at their preferred FAs, don’t get them, and end up overspending on mediocre talent.
That has to play a role in this too. The real question is to what extent did the Dodgers prefer the known quantity of Gonzales and Crawford versus the unknown FA period.
There is also the question of if they even really need/want the players they got though
Future Outfield
Crawford – 5 years, 102.5MM
Kemp – 7 years, 150 MM
Ethier – 5 years, 85 MM
Puig – 6 years, 40 MM (expected up in next year or two)
That is 4 OFers locked in for at least the next 5 years (and a total commitment of 377.5MM) with a mega-contract (6/127MM) at 1B as well so moving a guy to that corner isnt an option.
Not obtaining Gonzalez and Crawford meant they would have had the flexibility to go after long or short-term options, maybe move guys around and target specific guys that really fit. They really want Hamilton with one of Ethier or Puig moving to first? They could have spent more then 40MM on him and another 4th OFer/stop-gap 1B in place of the Gonzalez and Crawford contracts.
Similarly, the Rotation was already set for 2013 (with 2014 options) anyway:
Kershaw 1/11 and arbitration eligible for 2014
Billingsley 2/23 with 14MM option for 2015
Lilly 1/12
Capuano 1/6 with 8MM option for 2014
Harang 1/7 with 7MM option for 2014
Did they even need to add a starter? DeLaRosa could have been the 6th for 2013 and taken over for Lilly in 2014, and all of a sudden you realize they didnt even have an open spot till 2015.
So when adding a starter, you only really want one who represents a true upgrade and economical sense over Harang, who they are paying 7MM to next year no matter, and DeLaRosa who is knocking on he door. Beckett, with his dramatically diminished stuff at 15.75MM/per for 2 years doesnt represent much of a clear-cut upgrade, but his contract is extreme over what you can add a similar starter for (if they even wanted to buy a 6th guy anyway).
Instead of this move, they could have taken 20-25MM/per and bought one big bat and maybe another 10MM to buy a pitcher for a year or two. Thats 25-30MM saved the next 2 years to spend elseware, plus 10MM saved in years 3-5 while your team is just as, if not even much stronger then it is now locked in. (especially since they would still have DeLaRosa, Webster and Sands)
Crawford > Swisher
Gonzalez > Hamilton
Greinke/Peavy > Beckett
The issue is that A-Gon is not a true-talent .357 wOBA guy. As a hitter he’s far closer to a Hamilton than he is to a Swisher or a Napoli and he’s more likely to maintain that going forward than Hamilton is.
Gonzalez’s power has come back since he returned from a back injury shortly after the All-Star break and if/when his walk rate returns to his career averages he’s going to be the best hitter, and the best value, available.
You know all of this how?
He had a shoulder injury and his power has been down two years in a row. That seems to coincide better than, or at least as much as, this idea that he has just not performed to his “true talent” this season.
Further his walk rate has been low since he came to the AL. So again there doesn’t seem to be a reasonable basis other than pure speculation and hope that his walk rate will return.
Well, through the magic of B-R’s game logs I learned that Gonzalez’s ISO is .259 since he came back after the ASB. So there’s that.
And his walk rate last year was right around his career average, so it’s a little bit silly to say that it’s been low since he came to the AL.
His walk rate last year, the first year in the AL for him, was 10.3%, perfectly in line with his career 9.3% and in line for many of his other years(2008 10.6%, for example). His .ISO his first year in the AL was .210, a bit higher than his career .200 ISO and in line with many of his other years(2010 was .213, for example).
Not to mention that even in his worst year, this year, he’s still putting up high end 1B numbers…
“High-end 1B numbers” might be overstating things slightly, but he certainly hasn’t been bad at all with the stick.
Your math is off. That adds up to $56mil
Do I hear $57MM??
57?
Ironically, that actually adds up to $57mil
(And the other 1.5 is Punto)
Punto isn’t under contract for 2014
I like Napoli at that contract much more than Swisher.
I’d prefer:
Hamilton
Napoli
Dempster/Sanchez
Cash leftover
Another thought (or poll); going forward for 5/6 years who would you rather have in the outfield- Hamilton or Crawford?
I would vote for Crawford.
Hamilton
Roughly based on age, DL time, and production, I think Gonzalez has to have the highest expected value of any of these hitters. That said, Greinke vs. Beckett is not much of a contest. If Napoli and Swish can produce most of Gonzalez’ added value, then I think the Greinke option is superior.
Thus sayeth he whose opinion mattereth zero! :)
Don’t forget Crawford, Dodger Stadium actually has the gaps for Crawford’s gap power and has a left field that allows him to use his best defensive asset, his speed. I wouldn’t be surprised if Crawford went back to being a 4-ish WAR a year player for LA.
I think there is a typo for 2014: looks like it should be 57 million, not 58.5 million.
What about the players that LA sent out in this deal? Certainly seems they gave up some pretty substantial value. Of course, they gained the added benefit of receiving the players this season for a playoff run. Should at least be considered, though, no?
Any chance the Dodgers still have room for Greinke? That would be adding 20+ mill, and they also still need to lock up Kershaw, but they would be able to afford that long term what with allot of money freeing up after 2013 and Beckett’s deal coming off after 2014.
I thought this had to do with the “Battle for L.A.”… The Angels made a big push to to move California baseball fans from Dodger to Angel followers, in conjunction with an effort to max-out on an upcoming TV contract for the So Cal area.
I believe this is an all-in battle for the future of the biggest market outside of NY.
I voted for the A-Gon deal, on the basis that Crawford is a high risk/high reward option, Josh Hamilton at 7/140 is a worse deal than A-Gon(A-Gon’s career numbers are more Hamilton-level than Swisher-level), Swisher is a safer bet than Crawford though, any of the pitchers over Beckett is a push, as Beckett gets off the books faster, getting Greinke means no Hamilton and Sanchez is just…not working for me. Napoli is far too at least of keeping his worse production in my opinion for the deal.
The other thing that tilts it in the A-Gon deal’s favor is you get A-Gon half a season earlier than buying in the offseason: If A-Gon manages to produce enough to help the Dodgers to the playoffs, or they get into the playoffs anyway, then the possible increased playoff revenue helps offset possible cost differences, This is potentially offset by prospects, but I’m not that high on Rubby so…
Rubby De La Rosa and Allen Webster also have value here.
Can anyone explain to me why Selig didn’t veto this ridiculously-one-sided trade?
This isn’t the NBA.
So one-sided trades are just fine?
I mean, I know Selig is useless, but surely even he…
Why is it one-sided? One team takes on salary and the other takes on possible value. This is how dump deals are supposed to work. I’m not sure why you think something like this would get vetoed.
It isn’t his job to babysit GMs. If they want to make stupid trades, that’s their problem.
exactly this isn’t fantasy baseball
At the beginning of free agency, Bowie Kuhn vetoed a trade when Charlie Finley tried to sell Joe Rudi and Rollie Fingers to Boston and Vida Blue to the Yankees halfway through the 1976 season. Huge mistake. Those players all left the A’s in the offseason and Finley didn’t have the cash to replace them. I doubt we see anything like that again.
Blue was traded to the giants after 1977 for 7 players and cash. I believe the YAnks deal for Blue was a Straight cash deal.
The Greinke package is my choice. Napoli/Swisher has the added bonus of positional flexibility, like when Ethier is on the DL.
Also, this is a cool post. Nice work.
The Gonzalez/Crawford/Beckett deal is without a doubt the best option. They got several top talents without having to give up draft picks through FA signing. The money would be spent anyway over the off-season, but now there is no need to give up draft picks.
I agree that Gonzalez/Crawford/Becket is the best deal, but De La Rosa and Webster >>>>>>> a a couple of low first round draft picks.
But not Gonzalez/Crawford/Beckett/Punto/multiple first round picks>>>>>>> De La Rosa + Webster. To me, the pick compensation penalty makes this an issue choice. Trade > FA.
@TDillon – how are the Dodgers going to give up multiple first round draft picks in one season?
mis-typed. It is only 1 first round pick.
Really good post that introduces an interesting line of thought on this.
In the end, though, I see pretty much a toss-up between option A and what they actually ended up getting. Which means what they actually got is significantly better for two reasons: 1) the crazy uncertainty of going into an offseason trying to sign a bunch of free agent stars, and more importantly 2) the fact that they get 5 weeks of Gonzalez and Beckett for the playoff push.
If they hadn’t made this trade, they’d be playing Loney at 1st and have a hole in their rotation in the middle of a playoff race, and they’d also have a significant chance of getting nothing like what they wanted in the offseason.
I’ll take Grienke/Swish/Napoli/Rubby/Webster if that’s an option over Gonzo/Crawford/Beckett. Or maybe sign Swish for 1B, trade Webster/Rubby to AZ for Justin Upton and then sign Grienke?
I will say, though, maybe the Dodgers should accept that Kemp isn’t really a CF and go get BJ Upton?
I think they could have gotten Bourn, Swisher and Greinke for a similar price (although not matching up with the annual outlays, similar in terms of net present value). That package is clearly superior to what they actually got even without considering the prospects surrendered. Then you add in the fact that Bourn will allow Kemp to move to left, saving his legs, allowing him to age more gracefully, and significantly improving the outfield defense.
I think there are a number of combinations superior to what they paid for.
What’s the deal with Gonzalez’s defense? Hamilton being able to play a good LF and marginal CF adds to his value, even if Kemp is hypothetically their CF over the length of the deal. Gonzalez, though, has been worth +10 runs each of the past two years at defense, after being only good (+1-2) in PETCO. Is there some Fenway effect on first base defense?
A-Gon had a +6.8 in 2006 and a +5.8 in 2009 in Petco…though he did also have two minus years.
1B UZR means less than nothing for me, so much of it is glovework that isn’t measurable by range.
Right. They’ve partially improved catcher UZR by including pitch framing and pitch blocking metrics. The next target for improvement should be 1B defense.
If it is going to take around 6/130 to get Greinke this offseason I will be glad when a team besides the Dodgers gives that to him. Obviously Greinke is better than Beckett right now, but he isn’t worth that contract.
Also, aren’t there lost draft picks to factor in? A-Gonz, etc, may have cost some good prospects, but the value of the picks that signing Swisher and Hamilton will cost is non-zero. (And do Dempster and Greinke come without any draft pick compensation? That should drive up their price a bit. Actually, any free agent traded in-season should be pretty happy).
The problem with this is the hypothesis that the money has to be spent. Too many teams fall into that trap. In almost all situations, it is best to pay a player what he is worth relative to the league, not what he is worth relative to other players available. If the best player available is a 4 WAR corner outfielder, he should still be payed less than a 6 WAR middle infielder but too often teams feel a need to “improve” and overpay for the best player available. The prime example of this is when the Mets signed Beltran. He was the best FA available, but if you compared him to FA’s the year before or after, he would not have been all that attractive. The Dodgers didn’t have to spend that money and only should if they are getting some kind of return on investment. Continuously signing the best player available, regardless of team need or individual talent, is not a good idea.
The only exceptions to this are when a team sees itself somewhere on the win curve where a small improvement will make a big difference or when getting a bigger than obvious return like when a very bad player is being replaced by an above average one, but again, they have to be in a place on the win curve where the value of a win is higher to them than average.
Not sure I fully understand this. Shouldn’t teams spend all of the money available to them to improve their club? If they don’t, they’re leaving wins on the table.
In the past you could have argued for investing savings into international signings and the draft, but MLB just reined both of those in.
No because you may cost yourself an opportunity later. The dodgers have an awful lot of money tied up for the future now. Every team has a budget whether it is self imposed or forced by finances. Let’s say they find themselves in need of a shortstop and Tulo or Andrus hits the market, maybe they can’t afford to add him because they are paying guys like Beckett and Crawford. You have to look beyond the next season sometimes.
The exception, like I said, is if you believe you are on the right spot of the win curve and a guy is available who can get you one or two wins, it may be worth paying him too much for too long to put you over the top, rather than waiting for a better player to come along at the same price. But this attitude is what got both the Cubs (Soriano, Bradley, Zambrano, others) and the the White Sox (Dunn, Peavy, Konerko, Pierzynski) to the budget ceiling.
Just to look at the White Sox, things have gone better than expected, but about six months ago they would have rather held on to Buehrle, but couldn’t because they had so much committed to the other guys I mentioned.
“No because you may cost yourself an opportunity later.”
Exhibit A: hey let’s give Ryan Howard $25M a year! There’s no way that won’t work, I mean he eats at Subway every day with Apolo Ohno and Jared…
(flash forward) Oh wait…we could have used that money for other, more productive, things?!? What?! Dammit…
There’s a difference between spending money just to spend it in the East than the West and Central. Omar, Cashman, and Theo learned the hard way that the East is too competitive for for FA to solve all your problems. The West and Central means you have a better chance at a playoff spot and money will go a lot further.
This is exactly the kind of thinking that seems to dominate discussion about this trade, the idea that players have an intrinsic worth, and that teams that pay more for that value are making a mistake.
There are so many other factors in play in the MLB market. Does the team have a chance to make the postseason? Will a lack of offseason signing hurt season ticket sales? Is there a tv contract or stadium or sale in the team’s future? Is there position scarcity in the organization? Does the signed player offer additional marketing value? Trades and signings aren’t made in a vacuum.
And teams with a large revenue base can afford to overpay for players. Having money means you can sign a 4WAR player who earns a 6WAR salary, and forgo 2WAR player with a 0.5WAR salary. Sure, they’re getting less bang for their buck, but they’re also winning more games. It’s a model the Yankees are successfully using — only one missed playoff since 1995. (And I’d love to see some FG investigation on breaking down exactly how the Yankees do it. Maybe instead of valuing players by a simple dollar amount, we could value them as a percentage of the organization’s revenue…)
So, yeah, I applaud Cameron for looking into the Dodgers’ alternatives. Even if you favor another package — say, Hamilton/Swisher/Dempster — it’s hard to argue that it’s a clear choice.
But what if your middle infield already has really good guys in it, but your outfield is weak? Doesn’t the outfielder then have more relative value, due to things like having an open position?
There’s also the fact that the Dodgers are on the timer to win in about 2012-2015 with their current players and how they have been dealing so far(Though Kemp/Ethier/Kershaw meant essentially the same thing beforehand). Waiting an extra year for more valuable free agents may result in valuable time lost and potential wins lost in the year before.
And then there’s the TV contract…
Yeah, situation and needs dictate how wise it is to spend, but what really bugs me is when the “best free agent available” every off season signs a huge contract just because he’s the best available. He may be the 5th or 6th best player at his position but somebody pays him like he’s the best because he is available. Unless that guy plugs a hole and puts you over the top it’s a bad deal. I think too many teams get infatuated with the best available and forget to evaluate if the best is really all that good.
Jose Reyes, last year.
Fascinating breakdown. Here is how I rank them:
Gonzalez/Crawford/Beckett, for all the reasons listed above (win now, uncertainty of landing a Greinke or Hamilton).
Swisher/Sanchez/Napoli/Cash (this pick also means RDLR starts, and I think he has a pretty high ceiling).
Greinke/Swisher/Napoli (decent competition for Greinke outweighed by relative sign-ability of Swisher & Napoli)
Hamilton/Swisher/Dempster (not inconceivable that Hamilton holds out for 7/154, and one should take note of Dempster’s recent performance in the AL)
How about Option E: Wait until the offseason, when you can insist (in trade negotiations with Boston) that a) Boston pay a much larger chunk of the remaining monies owed to these three players and/or b) you (i.e., L.A.) should not have to cough up a single valuable prospect in this deal?
Is there really any doubt that L.A. is the only team in MLB willing to absorb all three salaries? Hell, is there really any doubt that L.A. is the only team in MLB willing to absorb $175 mil of the remaining monies owed to these three players?
I am just not buying that it’s worth $50+ mil in additional salary commitments, plus all of these prospects, just to have these guys for a 2012 run at the playoffs.
Why would Boston pay more during the off season?
It’s also not to have these guys for a 2012 run at the playoffs. It’s to have them for roughly a 2012-2015 run before crashing and burning, with Beckett only there for half the ride.
“Why would Boston pay more during the off season?”
To get rid of as much of their remaining salaries owed as possible. When you are Boston, and you are absolutely determined to dump these salaries, or as much of them as possible, then you look at the options available to you, and you choose the best option. And, when you are the Dodgers, you should be able to envision what other teams are and are not willing to do, and your best offer only needs to be slightly better than the next-best offer.
Instead, L.A.’s offer was astronomically better than the next-best offer. That is just piss poor management, I’m sorry. Teams that overpay for talent regret it, every single time. I don’t care what kind of budget you’re working with.
The Red Sox didn’t dump Beckett and Gonzalez only because they make a lot of money. They also got rid of their personalities, which management must have perceived to be corrosive. Considering that Beckett was instrumental in getting to/ winning the 2007 World Series, he’s built up an incredible reservoir of loathing ever since. Gonzalez’ reputation is for whining and aloofness. Crawford simply looks like a good player who is hurt too much to justify his contract, on whom the Dodgers are taking an expensive flyer.
In the real world, a comparison of Gonzo and Swish acknowledges that Gonzo is a better player, but Swish is the guy you like on your team.
This is the guy you LIKE?
http://tinyurl.com/8hte9fd
Eh, it’s hard to blame Gonzo for not wanting to play for a prick who throws his own players under the bus to the media without provocation.
For all we know, his “whining” consisted of him telling Henry during that roundtable “I can’t play for this asshole. Please, hire anyone else, I’m here to play baseball, not to get involved in a load of drama to continue the self-mythologizing of Bobby V”
The thing that confuses me about the deal is not only the salary commitments the Dodgers took on, but he talent level they shipped out. Seems like they could have given up less to get the deal done, regardless of the impact the acquired players will have this year.
I realize this is a baseball-focused analysis, but a large part of the justification for this trade has to also be business considerations.
The Dodgers very lucrative TV contract re-opens for 45 days of exclusvie negotations with Fox on October 15, at which time the Dodgers will be able to point to the massive lineup of All-Stars they’ve created and ask Fox for a blank check. If things work out, LAD will have their new TV deal in place before the winter meetings.
The most important point is that the Dodgers could get all of the players they needed in one fell swoop, rather than take their chances that they could get Hamilton, Swisher and Dempster on the open market. Even if that trio is better (and I’m really not sure that they are), you’re taking a massive gamble that all three sign with the Dodgers for what you’ve assumed to be market value. All it takes is one team to go Jayson Werth on Swisher or Texas to one-up your offer to Hamilton and your plan crashes down. You trade talented-but-flawed pitching prospects for the security of knowing that you get the guys you need.
One other factor… signing FA’s still can cost draft picks
I assume Swisher and Hamilton will get qualifying offers so those guys will cost picks if they get signed. Grienke, Dempster are not eligible. Not sure if Napoi will get one. If it is the old rule regarding multiple signings, this means the first pick and I assume the 2nd guy cost the team the 2nd rd pick. (These picks no longer go to the old team, they just get wiped out)
While not the same as the level of prospects given up, it is also not completely inconsequential
couldn’t we have contract crowdsourced hamilton, swisher, and greinke? if nothing else, it would be fun to compare them to the offseason, when agent demands serve as defined price anchors.
two huge factors: they get these players NOW while they are in the thick of the playoff hunt… probably helps offset the loss of the prospects when comparing the different packages.
also adrian Gonzalez is by far the biggest Mexican star in the MLB. I think they’d love having the chance to market him as one of the cornerstones for the next 5 seasons
“biggest Mexican star in the MLB”
San Diego is in Mexico?!
ever been there?
in Cali of course
Just wish they could have given Sands a real shot before shipping him out.
Hamilton for 7 years has zero appeal. Swisher at 18 million is laughable and Dempster is going to be 37 next year. Every one of those guys will entering their decline years. Also, Swisher playing 1B significantly hurts his value. My guess is those guys put up a combined 9 WAR season.
Crawford and Beckett could both easily bounce back and have 2.5-4 WAR seasons next year since Crawford will still be only 30. It wouldn’t surprise me if Gonzo, Beckett, Crawford post a combined 10+ WAR season next year.
Conclusion: If Crawford comes back healthy and Beckett and Gonzo stay healthy I think it will be a combined 10-12 WAR season for those 3. The Dodgers for next season made a good trade IMO. 5 years from now? who knows
It’s a deliberate overestimation so nobody argues with the math.
And I would’ve said Fielder for $200+ and Ethier for ~$18mil a year were crazy, but people pay for bats, no matter what they play.
the players they received were average compared to what they could have gotten on the free agent market. but the gave away some high upside guys as well. rubby could be a #2, with a slight possibility at #1. sands is only 24, and people have given up on him even with great stats in the minors, and webster is another high upside guy. the prospects are what make the deal so ridiculous for LA. if they had gotten the players for their pure salary, it would be ok, maybe even a good deal, but they gave up serious talent in return.
Well, apparently the Dodgers’ AAA affiliate has the most hitter friendly park in the PCL, so Sands’ stats need to be taken with a salt lick.
The determining factor is Crawford. other posters have noted that he is high risk, high reward. allow me to quantify. here are his seasonal WAR, in reverse chronological order: 0.4, 0.2, 7.6, 5.9, 2.8, 3.3, 4.8, 4.8, 5.1, 1.9. See a pattern there? Neither do I. But, that 3.3 was marked by an anomalous negative UZR, and the 2.8 came in an injury-shortened season. So is he an injury-prone 3-WAR player? Or does he return to health and return to being a 5-WAR player? Im not a doctor, so your guess is as good as mine.
But i think everyone, while remembering what a disaster the last two years were, is forgetting how good Crawford was when he signed with Boston. recency effect! That contract will probably always be an overpay, but maybe not by much. And if LA really does
start minting its own moneysign that giant tv deal with Fox, that slight overpay will disappear under a pile of zeroes … and that ridiculous Ethier/Crawford/Kemp outfield.I went with B. Greinke isn’t the injury risk that Hamilton is, and he plays the more valuable position. However, it’s a tricky package because you have to decide if you like Swisher in LF and think Napoli’s ACTUALLY going to get 50% better by switching positions full-time.
I didn’t read the other comments, but what if they had just gotten Hamilton and Greinke? If they had done THAT, they would have still had Jerry Sands to plug in at 1B, or they could have let Victorino go and grabbed a LaRoche-type guy as a low-end 1B.
1B was by far the worst part of the Dodgers, moreso than the third outfield spot or a SP. They were trotting out James Loney, for god’s sake. James Loney
Sands apparantly plays in an extremely friendly hitter’s park in the minors, so who knows about him, plus being a rookie…
James Loney? More like James BALONEY, amirite?!? *Snicker snort chortle*
who did the math for 2014?
Compubot 5000.
Great article, thanks for this analysis!
I think the Gonzalez-Crawford-Beckett deal made more sense for the Dodgers than the alternatives presented. It doesn’t cost the team any trade picks, which might be more valuable than Webster and this batch of prospects. Gonzalez is the best – and youngest – of the 1B options available and being Mexican and familiar to NL-West fans and southern Californians as a former Padre, is a franchise-building move.
The boost in 2012, a season that is still very much in play, is huge for the team as it tries to win back fans.
We’ll see with Beckett and Crawford, but they must be highly motivated to produce given their recent set-backs and issues as Red Sox.
You have been overlooking the most important reason the Dodgers made these moves now. My understanding is that their TV deals will be re-negotiated in the near future and they are trying to improve their onfield product with hopes that will increase the deal they are able to get. If they are able to even become a wildcard team this year and lose the one game playoff, they are still able to sell the team as a playoff team that is willing to do what it takes to win. The right TV deal could easily justify all of the moves.
The Dodgers are building value for their forthcoming TV negotiations with Fox. Fox has a 45-day exclusive period starting October 15, 2012 to negotiate an extension to their existing agreement. Fox was going to give Frank McCourt $2 billion and the team was sucking. They needed names and a near horizon to max out their broadcast sales potential with Fox. The guys who bought the team are money men with a plan, they know just what they are doing. They are buying relevance. I saw one estimate that they could get as much as $5 billion for their next media deal later this year. Why not; it’s the second largest potential audience in the country.
Fox faces competition from other cable operators like Time Warner, NBC’s new cable sports channel and others. They could also be planning on starting their own local TV network like the Yankees did with YES. (In which case the income does not have to be divided with other teams.)
The Dodgers cable provider can get $3.50 per household subscriber a month in their market area, which is 3 million in the LA metro area and up to 10 million from all of southern and central California to Las Vegas. Add in ad and merchandising revenue and a 10 to 20 year contract, plus stadium and ticket revenue and you get the value picture. These player contracts are worth it at this point in time, they are essentially loss leaders.
don’t forget that this deal also got Vin Scully to come back for one more season, if not more. that alone is worth a lot of money.
Anything for more Scully.
Somebody needs to invent immortality already to be extra sure.
I laugh when I hear everyone say the Dodgers should get Josh Hamilton. Let’s ignore the fact that he has shown a tendency towards injuries. Let’s ignore the fact that the Dodgers might not be able to sign him because the Rangers aren’t exactly a small market team. And let’s ignore the fact that he’s had a pretty bad 2nd half.
I want to see the FG calculation on the percentage chance he ends up in the police blotter/tabloids after running down Hollywood Blvd naked, hopped up on coke, running down a tranny hooker. Seriously folks, Hamilton and LA may actually not be a good fit.
Outfield of Hamilton, Kemp and Ethier with Sands as 4th
Napoli for C/1B fill-in
Stopgap 1B (maybe LaRoche?) for 2 years until Puig takes over
Current rotation of Kersh, Bills, Lilly, Cap, Harang and DeLaRosa for 2013 and 2014
+ Multiple Million saved each season (estimate Hamilton at about 20, Napoli at 12 and LaRoche at 10 = 42MM, or roughly 15MM less then what they are in line for with Gonzalez/Crawford/Beckett the next 2 seasons, plus its without the longterm commitment at 1B/OF blocking Puig) and that is also 15MM which could even go to a SP option if DeLaRosa and Webster dont take spots in 2014
that is better then the 5 huge contracts they now have signed for the OF/1B that all last at least 5 years, plus the 32MM they will be given to Beckett the next 2 creating a 6 man rotation of guys all making 6-16MM
So you propose they put a stop-gap at their worst position during their prime competing years?
I thought it seemed pretty clear; “stop-gap” meaning “short contract until Puig is up” not “non-productive”.
The person I specifically mention, LaRoche, has a .344 wOBA off a projected .340 and career .347 – better then Crawford, yet at about half the yearly cost of Carl and without the massive 5 year commitment. (meaning you get all of Hamilton, LaRoche and Napoli for a cost in the ballpark of Crawford and Gonzalez alone)
Magman: Exactly. Everything else that is being discussed, debated etc. is meaningless and completely misses the point. If these moves enables them to turn a potential 2B tv deal into even 3B, then they have immediately quadrupled their investment. These guys know exactly what they are doing. These moves had to be made right now. The offseason would be after the fact.