Indians interested in Teahen (now refuted)
BenFran, Gutz or Crowe. Kind of interesting. Teahen seems like more of a stop-gap or project though.
Castrovince makes it pretty clear that he believes there is absolutely no truth to this report.
over 3 years ago
mjschaefer
439 comments
0 recs |
Email
PrintComments
Although on principle I would definitely do Crowe-for-Teahen, considering there’s only a two-year age difference and Teahen will be playing his 5th year in the majors in 2009.
Steel Nick
I guess Mark Teahen is probably the exact equivalent of Francisco but with increased flexibility?
Is that the idea?
I don’t want Mark Teahen to be the answer at 3B. Then again, maybe they think they can fix him. Yet again, though, he wasn’t really any good in the minors either.
He did play 3B in the minors.
Hilarious thread at RR that is a negative image of our thread. Everybody likes their own fringey players best and nobody knows anything substantive about the other team’s fringey players.
A few of them like Gutierrez best and think Shapiro can trade well. So I guess there’s some agreement.
Steel Nick
There’s some but it’s just obvious that they know as little about any of the 3 as we do about Teahen. A lot of them are talking Gutz+ and I’m sure most of us think it would take Teahen+ to get Gutz.
So, yeah. That’s being a fan.
Absolutely*. I love these kinds of inter-team exchanges. I wonder if GMs are any better?
*For the record, we are right, right?
Steel Nick
Eh, probably. I’m standing by my statement that Francisco and Teahen are very likely to be exactly the same player in the OF going forward.
I would be ok with doing Francisco for Teahen straight up because it’s just making more efficient use of a roster spot.
They seem to be figuring out that Gutz’ defense is a ++++ tool.
I might not know the scouting report on other teams players, but I do know how to look up OPS.
by world dictator on Oct 26, 2008 8:11 PM EDT up reply actions
.690 OPS versus .715 OPS ≠ add in another player.
by world dictator on Oct 26, 2008 8:14 PM EDT up reply actions
This would be a valid point if they were both DHs that were the same age. Otherwise, you have looked up one stat.
Steel Nick
I was mostly being facetious. Though I don’t you or I, or anyone else on this board, should be one to bemoan using OPS as a quick gauge of the offensive value of a player since we do this all the time.
But my point remains, if you’re going to argue that you should get one an additional player over because of a difference in .015 in OPS I’d hope you have some additional, compelling, argument to make.
by world dictator on Oct 26, 2008 8:25 PM EDT up reply actions
I’m not sure what we’re actually talking about here anymore. I read your comment as “Since Teahen OPS’d .715 and Gutz OPS’d .690, we are in no place to want an additional player coming over with Teahen.” Is this not what you were saying?
Steel Nick
Nah. The opposite. I meant, just because Teahen OPS’ed .015 more than Gutz does not make him a better player, ie the Indians should NOT have to include another player in a Gutz for Teahen deal. If one were to make that claim then they better have some damn good arguments for why Teahan is worth an additional prospect.
by world dictator on Oct 26, 2008 8:41 PM EDT up reply actions
Do you think its possible that Kansas City’s stadium is suppressing some of Teahen’s offensive production? There seems to be an unusual gap between his OPS and OPS+
by world dictator on Oct 26, 2008 9:13 PM EDT up reply actions
I’m guessing the front office believes that forcing Teahen to play OF took his focus off his offensive skills?
But regardless i’d do a Teahen-Fransisco deal in a heart beat. Gutz is too much, Crowe is less likely to produce in the big league than Fransisco, but has a higher ceiling so BenFran seems just right. Besides, I don’t think you can sell high on a switch hitting CF for a “sell very low” 3rd baseman who has questionable defense.
But if you look at this in the big picture, this could turn out to be a good trade:
- Trade for 3B using fringe OF depth
- Trade for RP (Kevin Gregg?)
- Spend remaining money on middle rotation SP
There is zero, none, zilch evidence that Crowe has a higher ceiling than Francisco or Guttierez.
I don’t want a reliever from the NL.
My problem with Teahen is that he’s not necessarily a solution. He’s the kind of guy I’d like to see them take a flier on if he were a FA but to give something up for a guy who could collapse offensively and could be very bad defensively. Makes my head hurt. can’t we just sign Aaron Boone?
Where would you like to get a reliever?
by world dictator on Oct 26, 2008 8:11 PM EDT up reply actions
You magnificent bastard. I hope when you die you have to hang out with 30 people just like you, but this much more clever.
by fleerdon on Oct 26, 2008 8:21 PM EDT up reply actions
Hello Andrew,
I’m not convinced Teahen is a solution either – it took Teahen a late flurry to hit for the same power Francisco displayed (15 HRs), and Teahen is more experienced than Francisco (i.e. Francisco did this in his first prolonged exposure, whereas Teahen, with all his experience, hit as well (or as poorly, based on your viewpoint) as Francisco). And we want to trade something to get this guy, on the hope that he finds himself again (and he wasn’t all that great at his very best)? I’m not for it either.
To me, this seems more like making a trade just to make a trade – Teahen hasn’t played 3B in a few years and never seemed to be a plus defender (he was OK, but nothing great). Check out his fielding statistics here Offensively, he’s a big question mark – we could catch lightning in a bottle; then again, we could get a weaker hitter than Francisco and Gutierrez showed us in 2008.
After all, he’s only hit for double-digit HRs twice in his 4 years, and never more than 18 in 2006, his best year. His plate discipline the last two years has been poor (55 BB/127 K in 544 ABs in 2007) to abysmal (46 BB/131 K in 572 ABs in 2008). I’m not convinced he’ll be a consistent offensive force in our lineup, and as mentioned above, he’s a considerable question mark defensively at 3B, probably moreso than Carroll or Marte, due to the fact he’s only played 19 games at 3B in the last two seasons.
Plus, it’s not like LaPorta and Brantley are ready yet, plus there’s no guarantee LaPorta is a lock to be in the OF, so it’s not like we HAVE to trade an OFer at this point, especially for a considerable question mark in Teahen.
And on top of all that, Teahen will be more expensive than any of Gutz, BenFran, or Crowe, being that he’s in his second year of eligibility. I’d pass (especially if it is Gutierrez or BenFran; for Crowe, I’d consider it, but would still look for a better upgrade, possibly off the scrap heap or via another trade) and look for a better upgrade if I’m going to upgrade 3B (someone on the scrap heap that you can sign as a FA would probably be as sure a bet at this point as Teahen is).
Just my 2 cents.
The "cream of the crop" doesn't always rise to the top.
I don’t think its fair to characterize Gregg as just some NL reliever considering he’s spent most of his career in the AL with an ERA+ of 100 over three years. His career ERA+ is 132. In fact throughout his five year career Gregg has only posted an ERA+ lower than 100 one time.
Seems like a pretty solid addition to me. Unless you’d prefer K rod of course.
by world dictator on Oct 27, 2008 2:19 AM EDT up reply actions
I’d offer Ben Fran plus Mastny or Marte or Crowe straight up. If they say no, well, too bad. I don’t like Teahan that much anyway, and I’ll happily go find another 3b.
I’d rather have Branyan anyway.
I value Crowe a little more than I do BenFran. I think most people are on to Ben. Crowe, at the very least, is qualified as a role player by having a plus tool, his speed. Ben Fran doesn’t bring anything special at all. He’s a dime a dozen.
Yeah but how much is speed with no other average skills worth?
Francisco’s power, while not exactly a “plus” tool is probably about as useful as Crowe’s speed. Crowe’s speed is limited to using him as a pinch runner. Whoop.
I do hope we trade them Crowe because I would get a ton of joy out of watching Crowe play OF for them and listening to their commentators talk about him being gritty and on the verge of breaking through.
It’s puzzling that someone with Crowe’s speed doesn’t have a sterling defensive reputation, even in LF.
Crowe has one other “plus” tool, sort of: he’s a switch hitter. Therefore, he’s a suitable 4th OF candidate.
Hello jhon,
While Crowe may be a switch-hitter, Francisco is not bothered by RHP – in fact, he hits RHP better than LHP, so I don’t think that’s much an advantage for Crowe over Francisco.
If Francisco was bothered by RHP, I could see Crowe having an edge, but Francisco has hit RHP very well throughout his professional career.
Additionally, Francisco isn’t exactly slow, just like Choo and Gutierrez are not slow either. None may have Crowe’s stolen base ability, but BenFran’s speed is still above-average.
Just my 2 cents.
The "cream of the crop" doesn't always rise to the top.
Francisco is also exactly league average and unlikely to ever be any better. Crowe may be slipping as a prospect but his ceiling is still much higher than that of BenFran.
Really? Why? I’m open to being convinced. To me, Francisco is a 26 year old who managed an OPS+ of 100 and plays an adequate outfield. Crowe is a 24 year old making steady, if unspectatcular, progress in the minor leagues. He and Francisco’s minor league tracks (minus Crowe’s train wreck first half at Akron last year) are fairly similar.
Saying “much higher” was an overstatement, I’ll grant. I just don’t see why, if Ben Francisco is considered worthy of a shot in or OF, Crowe isn’t.
Francisco isn’t worthy of a shot in the OF. Neither is Crowe. BFran is a 4th OF and Crowe’s absolute ceiling is 4th OF.
I cannot stand for anyone saying Crowe has a higher ceiling than Francisco even if only slightly. Francisco is marginally useful at a major league level and until Crowe actually plays a season and hits in AAA he’s not even that. And he’s not getting any better.
I don’t even like Francisco but anyone siding with Crowe over Francisco on the basis of potential, well, whatever. Crowe has the potential to be Francisco. That’s it.
I can agree that neither deserves to be a starting OF. My argument is that, if Francisco should be on the roster, there is no reason that Crowe should not be at least given the chance. Francisco is nothing special out there and it wouldn’t kill us to see what Crowe can do. Frankly, I don’t either of them are very good.
Well, whatever. What I took issue with is the idea that Crowe has a higher ceiling than BFran, especially a “much higher” ceiling.
Fair enough. I’ll admit that is a huge overstatement on my part. My anti-BFran bias was showing a bit.
Tough to keep these things in perspective.
Anti-BF bias started out as a rebuff to those who seemed to think he should have a lock on a starting job and/or was a potential All-Star. Okay, he’s not those things, point made — but that doesn’t mean he wouldn’t be an adequate hole-filler for most clubs.
By the same token, Crowe is miles away from being a “top prospect” by any non-nonsense definition of the term — again, point made — but that doesn’t mean that he won’t have a solid career as 4th outfield type, even if his track record is less impressive than Jason Michaels.
Neither one is so bad that he’s not about as good as the other.
Not to defend Francisco to the point where I’m saying he should be our starting LF, but his 100 OPS+ this past season was the highest OPS+ out of that position since we traded Coco Crisp. All in all this points to Shapiro’s failure to find a player to at least replace Crisp’s production since the trade.
It’s not like Ben Fran can play anywhere but the outfield. Teahen can theoretically play 3B, and he’s no worse in the OF than Francisco.
Hello jhon,
I’d definitely not offer more than BenFran, and chances are, I’d offer Crowe up first before BenFran, who I think could be a useful hitter down in the bottom of the order (moreso than Dellucci).
I think I agree with you though regarding Branyan – I think I’d rather take a chance on him than I would Teahen. Granted, you’ll get a lot of strikeouts, but also arguably more power than Teahen, and it’s likely the defense at 3B wouldn’t be much different, since I’m not convinced Teahen’s defense at 3B is that great, and especially after playing only 19 games there in the past 2 seasons.
Just my 2 cents.
The "cream of the crop" doesn't always rise to the top.
I don’t want to trade Gutz for anyone without comparable upside.
I know, I know. Go ahead and tell me Gutz has little upside left, that his bat just isn’t that. I’m dipping into Chuck’s magical thinking here. His Garko is my Gutz.
I hope Gutz succeeds, obviously.
Still, I can’t help but keep asking myself:
-What was Gutz’ peak value on the trade market? What player, exactly?
I ask myself the same question about Garko.
How much can that value erode playing him even sparingly this year? I just can’t believe that this is a good time to sell on Gutierrez.
Garko, well, it’s be selling low on him too, but who cares? The Garkos of the world come around pretty often. I’d estimate that he has no trade value at all, but that he’s capable of being traded (which isn’t such a big deal because of his low-$ contract status). For all intents and purposes Garko is untradeable, I think.
I think you’re talking about trading Garko now. I’m talking about if we had traded him a year ago, when I think we could’ve gotten something pretty decent.
Ohh yeah, well, there was probably a reason for that. In hindsight we would have been better off with Casey and Vic / Shop whomever at 1B, even if no one had replaced Garko.
Who knows who might have a mancrush on Garko ought there.
Aw shoot. That’s what you call a typo. I’m 1/2 hillbilly, so that explain explain it. Now, I know Jay’s gonna come by and remind me that “hillbilly” is a pejorative we don’t use around here.
Unless you’re talking about someone from Columbus.
The best thing probably is to hit [Grady] 2nd -- Jay
by Buckeye Brad on Oct 26, 2008 8:51 PM EDT up reply actions
Noooo, not Gutz. Also, this Gm4 National anthem is epically BAD.
Travis Hafner is overrated. Clarity is underrated. David Dellucci is David Dellucci.
Teahen clocked in 166 pretty subpar innings at 3B. I buying into Adam’s all-great-defense concept. I don’t even extend a Francisco offer until I’ve exhausted almost all other alternatives.
While I would personally rather trade for Beltre or Lowell (yay good defense!) I don’t think this deal is as bad as I thought at first glance.
2006 OBP: .357
2007 OBP: .353
If Teahen had been a 3rd baseman he would’ve ranked 6th and 10th out of all 3rd baseman in the MLB. ( 3rd and 5th in the AL respectively). In both years he posted a higher OBP than Casey Blake. Teahen also put up an OPS+ of 122 and 98 in 2006/2007.
Teahen certainly has some downside, strikeouts for example, and he hard a horrible year last year, but this might turn out to be a classic example of Shapiro taking advantage of an aggressive GM selling low on a player.
And given the available IF options, it might be better to take a chance on a player like Teahen instead of a player like Joe Crede.
from someone at RR (Subject = WTF):
So, I read for weeks that Teahen may wind up being a non-tender candidate. But suddenly Crowe or Francisco or Gutierrez are not fair value in return. Are you kidding? If anything, I think the Royals would need to pitch in another player to land Gutierrez, who is one of the better OF defensively in the whole game. If Gutz offense comes around he could end up being a star. I think Teahen for Crowe or Francisco, straight up, is more than fair.
A very unfriendly Indians fan calling himself "MickS" came over to Royals Review and took a dump on our board
…by saying “I hope you’re enjoying your time in the cellar.”
BTW, I think Teahen + a decent throw-in for Gutierrez is fair. Teahen can handle 3B fine. But he isn’t and likely won’t be an above average 3B. The question is, would Gutierrez be an above average hitting CFer?
This is just my opinion. I could easily be wrong.
by Scott McKinney on Oct 26, 2008 10:20 PM EDT up reply actions
Yeah, as I just posted across the pond, I don’t think anyone from LGT is going to bite like that. The vibe around here is that Franklin’s defense is so good that it’s probably worth a minimum of 40 FRAR or so in CF. And that’s probably lowballing the feeling here.
The truth probably lies somewhere in between.
Teahen is a role-player, albeit one with a strong pedigree (former Top 100 prospect), so you can argue there’s an upside. But he’s not going to fetch Gutierrez, for control and money reasons alone. Three seasons of arbitration-eligible Teahen does not equate to four seasons of Gootz, the first of which will be at minimum salary.
The idea that Teahen in some way is more valuable defensive than Gootz is scurrilous at best. Gootz has a legitimate chance to be the best defensive outfielder in the world. Teahen is adequate in LF and as likely as not to be a butcher at 3B. Third base is only marginally more valuable than center field, and the difference in raw skills is far bigger.
Interesting thing about Teahen though is that, like Branyan, he can be that rare infielder who bats lefty. You know who bats righty? Gutierrez/Francisco (whoever we keep), Carroll, and even Marte. So he’s a pretty damned good fit for our roster, just as Branyan would have been a good fit a year ago.
We also have to assume that the Indians have some kind of data on Teahen’s secondary skills that we don’t have. It wouldn’t surprise me a bit if he showed up to Indians spring training with some kind of great beard.
by Jay on Oct 26, 2008 10:44 PM EDT reply actions 1 recs
It wouldn’t surprise me a bit if he showed up to Indians spring training with some kind of great beard.
THAT.WOULD BE.AWESOME
by world dictator on Oct 26, 2008 11:08 PM EDT up reply actions
If we have Teahen and Carroll, do they talk exclusively about electricity, postal service, water, natural gas, and phone service?
by afh4 on Oct 26, 2008 10:57 PM EDT reply actions 1 recs
to me he is a younger Blake (3rd/1st/RF) without as much power. if this is the best infielder we can get, so be it, he has to be better than Marte. I’m not sure KC would want Ben as they are looking for a CF. I would say that it would take Gutierrez and with our current outfield I do not see how we could part with him. As Sizemore is the only one we can count on, I think we need as many outfield options as we can get.
Fan in Texas
But he’s a lefty.
My concern is more like, how much better can he really be than Marte? Because, you know, he doesn’t look that much better.
It’d be nice if we could trade Marte for a version of Marte that Wedge would actually play every day.
Travis Hafner is overrated. Clarity is underrated. David Dellucci is David Dellucci.
Teahen is a lot more like Blake than Marte. Possibly fringy around the bag at 3B, athletic enough to play the outfield. Hits well enough to be valuable at a skill position, but not very good at any skill position. That kind of thing.
I kind of see the logic in the idea. We have a handful of “meh” OF’ers (and LaPorta and Brantley waiting in the wings) and we can trade one for a “meh” 3b/utility guy. So we just spread our “meh” around the diamond.
I really hope it’s Francisco. He is by far the most expendable and has good enough stats to be proper fools gold. Even if we have to throw in some junk A/AA guy to make the deal, I would do it.
Well, you are talking 1 and 1a when you pick between Francisco and Crowe. I was giving Crowe the benefit of the doubt because he is younger and (presumably) has a wee bit of ceiling left in him. Francisco is topped out (he can probably improve a bit defensively), imo.
Trevor Crowe is 25 and can’t hit in AAA. Free money.
by afh4 on Oct 26, 2008 11:12 PM EDT up reply actions 2 recs
I’m contractually obliged to point out that Crowe hit ok in his 6 weeks in Buffalo, putting up a .836 OPS and showing surprising power (19 XBHs in 164 PAs)
Wee bit of ceiling in this case would mean he could end up setting the all-time minor league record for stolen bases.
I want people to continue to value Crowe as a major-league player so Jay never stops coming up with Crowe put-downs. I love ’em.
Trevor Crowe is a hellhole.
The best thing probably is to hit [Grady] 2nd -- Jay
by Buckeye Brad on Oct 27, 2008 11:39 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
I wonder how many big-league PA he’d already have if he were in the Twins organization.
by Jay on Oct 27, 2008 5:06 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
he would have hit leadoff the last two years
Anti-Ben Fran before it was cool.
by Gradyforpresident on Oct 27, 2008 8:34 PM EDT up reply actions
If we trade BenFran who plays LF for us? Dellucci/Shoo?
by world dictator on Oct 26, 2008 11:09 PM EDT up reply actions
Well damn. That makes it like trading BenFran for Teahen + hole in lineup
by world dictator on Oct 26, 2008 11:17 PM EDT up reply actions
Only if you assume that our options are Teahen our nothing. If we don’t trade for Teahen then we could still acquire another 3B or 2nd
by world dictator on Oct 26, 2008 11:32 PM EDT up reply actions
You are confused. First of all, we have no player named Shoo.
Shin. Soo. Choo.
Second, he’s going to be a starting OF next year. He’ll play RF most of the time and likely will shift to LF when Gutierrez is in the game.
Third, that leaves us with Gutierrez/Dellucci sharing time in LF, possibly with Teahen in the mix. It isn’t thrilling, but it’s not that bad, and the assumption is that LaPorta is going to get here sooner rather than later.
I wasn’t implying that we would platoon Choo with Dellucci. I just assumed that when Gutz is in the lineup Choo moves to LF, because Gutz is a better defender. And when Choo started in RF Dellucci would be in LF. (Though I was asking about the latter part of that statement.)
With that being said, I’m not sure if the possible benefit of Teahen is worth the definite downside of a Dellucci/Choo lineup.
by world dictator on Oct 27, 2008 11:43 AM EDT up reply actions
What possible benefit of Teahen do you see?
Other than perhaps preventing the Indians from re-signing Casey Blake’s Beard to play third, I can’t see much of a possible benefit of having Teahen.
by Peter Bendix on Oct 27, 2008 12:06 PM EDT up reply actions
http://www.letsgotribe.com/2008/10/26/646986/indians-interested-in-teah#9650266
Keep in mind that Its more of a rationalization than an outright argument for Teahen.
by world dictator on Oct 27, 2008 12:16 PM EDT up reply actions
Fair enough.
I’m not arguing that Mark Teahen is a terrible ballplayer. However, he has a career OPS+ of 98. He had an OPS+ of over 100 once – in 393 at bats. He hasn’t shown signs of improvement, and he has very little upside. He defense is probably average at best (and by putting Teahen at third we would also keep Peralta at short, so acquiring Teahen would hurt our defense twice over).
All discussion of what we’d give up to acquire him aside, I don’t know as adding Mark Teahen improves our team at all.
by Peter Bendix on Oct 27, 2008 12:25 PM EDT up reply actions
You forgot, he strikes out a lot.
Trust me, we agree on his stats. You don’t know how many times I typed .715 OPS between LGT and RR last night.
The benefit of adding Teahen can be summed up like this:
He’s a decent player
He plays 3rd
He can be cheaply acquired (possibly)
I’d also add the corollary “He’s only 26 and there’s a chance he could improve”
All things considered, its not like we’re giving up anything super valuable to get him. And if this trade, allows us to fill a hole so we can allocate more money to signing a #3 starting pitcher I’m all for it.
by world dictator on Oct 27, 2008 12:54 PM EDT up reply actions
I guess my problem with it is that while it does fill a hole, it doesn’t improve our team. And really, we only have one open spot in the lineup – but, given our current roster, we could add a 2B, SS, 3B, LF, or maybe even 1B, and shift our other players accordingly.
Thus, we have a LOT of options. Getting Teahen seems like an almost-last-case scenario: if everything else falls through, at least he wouldn’t be embarrassing. But it’d be a shame to waste our one real chance of upgrading our offense and/or defense by adding a guy who was below-average at both.
by Peter Bendix on Oct 27, 2008 1:40 PM EDT up reply actions
Once you acknowledge that Teahen is a decent player you almost automatically acknowledge his acquisition would improve our team given our depth in OF. And lets be honest no one out of BenFran, Crowe, and probably Gutz is more than a stop gap in OF. Trading to fill a hole from your depth in “meh” OF is a win for our team.
I think you hit the nail on the head in your second paragraph. The bigger issue isn’t the trade, its the opprotunity cost of going for the low hanging fruit instead of a “really good” upgrade in the IF. But in the game of Chess I suspect the Front Office believes we’d be unable to sign/trade for an IF given their hot demand this offseason, so they’d rather do this trade and use the money to sign a #3 starting pitcher.
by world dictator on Oct 27, 2008 2:08 PM EDT up reply actions
I don’t think Gutierrez should be lumped with Francisco and Crowe. His defense is so good that he is a valuable player even if he hits as poorly as he did this year.
If trading BenFran for Teahen doesn’t automatically mean we’ve resigned to having Teahen as our starting 3B, then sure, make the deal. Teahen is a valuable bench player, not unlike Casey Blake, for his ability to play several positions and not be a total sinkhole offensively.
But if trading for Teahen signifies our “fixing” the one hole in our lineup, it’s a huge mistake.
Also, is there really that much demand for Teahen’s services? Aren’t we better off waiting and seeing what else happens in the offseason? Maybe we’ll want to use Crowe or Francisco is a different deal…
by Peter Bendix on Oct 27, 2008 2:16 PM EDT up reply actions
I don’t think Gutierrez should be lumped with Francisco and Crowe. His defense is so good that he is a valuable player even if he hits as poorly as he did this year.
Which is why I doubt he’ll get trade. I’m sure the Royals want Gutz and Shap said no. Hence the negotiations.
If trading BenFran for Teahen doesn’t automatically mean we’ve resigned to having Teahen as our starting 3B, then sure, make the deal. Teahen is a valuable bench player, not unlike Casey Blake, for his ability to play several positions and not be a total sinkhole offensively.
How did you go from, Teahen is a decent player to Teahen is a bench player. Your argument is a moving target. And of course, Teahen is guranteed to start at 3B. If he absolutely sucks during spring training and/or the beginning of the season Wedge would probably sit him.
Though I find your Blake comparision odd considering Blake started for us the past how many years (not really a rhetorical question, I’m just too lazy to look it up). But more to the point if Teahen is like Blake in terms of being a stop gap and putting up decent numbers then you just proved my point. Except in Teahen’s case he’s only 26 and could improve.
Also, is there really that much demand for Teahen’s services? Aren’t we better off waiting and seeing what else happens in the offseason? Maybe we’ll want to use Crowe or Francisco is a different deal…
I’m sure the Front Office has already talked with a few teams/has some idea of what the market is going to look like. I can understand why they want to make sure they have a solid 3B before throwing money at SP.
And like I said, let’s be real. It’s not like Crowe and Fransisco are Blue Chip trading prospects. It doubt any signifcant deal we make is going to rely on BenFran or Crowe.
You could arguably say, is there that much demand for BenFran or Crowe?
by world dictator on Oct 27, 2008 2:40 PM EDT up reply actions
How did you go from, Teahen is a decent player to Teahen is a bench player. Your argument is a moving target.
Mark Teahen is not someone I’d want starting at LF or 3B for a team that I hoped would win the division. Even more so, given the rest of the lineup around Teahen (you could more easily stomach Teahen at 3B if the rest of your offense was as good as the Red Sox’s, for example). He’s a decent player, and would be a great bench player.
Though I find your Blake comparision odd considering Blake started for us the past how many years
Blake was better than Teahen offensively. And Blake was still a fringe-starter – someone we got by with, but an upgrade would’ve been nice. Teahen is most likely going to be worse than that.
And of course, Teahen is guranteed to start at 3B.
This is why I don’t want to trade for him. If we hand him the 3B job, we really don’t have anywhere else where we can improve our offense/defense. And Teahen probably isn’t even a league-average 3B (between offense and defense).
Except in Teahen’s case he’s only 26 and could improve.
This is true, but it’s unlikely that he’ll improve that much. And even some improvement may only get him to an OPS+ of 100-105, with below-average defense. And that’s assuming he does indeed improve.
I can understand why they want to make sure they have a solid 3B before throwing money at SP.
I don’t think Teahen is a “solid” 3B. But more to the point, I don’t think that the infield situation has much bearing on our decisions regarding pitchers. We can afford to pay lots of money to Derek Lowe or Ben Sheets or whomever, the question is whether it’s worth it. And the worth of Derek Lowe doesn’t change based on what’s happening with our infield.
In other words, we can afford a 4 year, $70 million deal for Lowe if we so desired. The question is whether or not we desire it.
You could arguably say, is there that much demand for BenFran or Crowe?
There isn’t. Which speaks to the value of Mark Teahen. Yes, I’d rather have Teahen than Crowe, but only if Teahen is a bench player.
by Peter Bendix on Oct 27, 2008 2:55 PM EDT up reply actions
Mark Teahen is not someone I’d want starting at LF or 3B for a team that I hoped would win the division. Even more so, given the rest of the lineup around Teahen (you could more easily stomach Teahen at 3B if the rest of your offense was as good as the Red Sox’s, for example). He’s a decent player, and would be a great bench player.
Rarely do teams who compete for the division have superstars or even “really good” players at every position. And teams that could afford this are usually in LA, NY, or Boston.
Also, in case you hadn;t noticed, the Indians offense was pretty good last year even though our corner infielders were largerly MIA for most of the year, and two of our top offensive players were hurt for most of the year.
This is why I don’t want to trade for him. If we hand him the 3B job, we really don’t have anywhere else where we can improve our offense/defense. And Teahen probably isn’t even a league-average 3B (between offense and defense).
That was supposed to read Teahen is NOT guaranteed to start if he sucks.
I don’t think that the infield situation has much bearing on our decisions regarding pitchers. We can afford to pay lots of money to Derek Lowe or Ben Sheets or whomever, the question is whether it’s worth it. And the worth of Derek Lowe doesn’t change based on what’s happening with our infield.
This statement is wrong on multiple levels. But instead of correcting you i’m going to let you think about it for awhile until you figure it out.
by world dictator on Oct 27, 2008 4:27 PM EDT up reply actions
See my post below for a longer response. I would like to write about the statement that is supposedly wrong on multiple levels, though.
If the Indians really wanted to sign CC Sabathia, they could do so. Or Sheets, or Burnett, or Lowe, or whomever.
We’d have to pay a lot of money, for a lot of years. And it would (perhaps severely) restrict our ability to add payroll in the future. But, as of right now, I’m pretty sure we could “afford” it.
The question is whether it’s WORTH it. Whether the player is worth the injury/performance risk, whether the investment is worth handcuffing ourselves for years to come.
Unless we do something like sign Mark Teixeira, our infield situation won’t effect whether or not we can “afford” to sign a big-name pitcher.
by Peter Bendix on Oct 28, 2008 11:30 AM EDT up reply actions
We “could” sign any pitcher we want in the most literal meaning of the word “could” just like the Indians “could” sign me to a $300 million contract or I “could” just decide to not show up for work ever again.
But in the more realistic sense of the word could, the Indians can’t afford to sign whomever they want. We operate under a budget just like any other team or business, and some teams have bigger budgets than we do. We didn’t fail resign CC because we didn’t think he was worth it.
There’s a reason why Shapiro talks about how much cash we have to spend in the offseason or why he trades Byrd for practically nothing just so we can save a few million to sign better draft picks.
Unless we do something like sign Mark Teixeira, our infield situation won’t effect whether or not we can "afford" to sign a big-name pitcher.
First, CC is going to sign a bigger contract than Teixeira so this is contradictions your original point
Second, given the limited resources of the Indians, and the number of holes we have to fill, you have to allocate your available payroll efficiently. Shapiro might think that Hudson, Fuentes, and Lowe are all worth signing, but there’s no way he can afford to sign all three.
by world dictator on Oct 28, 2008 12:04 PM EDT up reply actions
You’re missing the point.
I don’t disagree with anything you’ve said in your post.
I’m refuting your point that “they’d rather do this deal and use the money to sign a #3 starter.”
The decision to sign a #3 starter – Derek Lowe, basically – is going to come down to whether his demands make the contract worthwhile for us. NOT whether we can “afford” it, under the literal definition of “actually be able to pay him the money.”
Thus, the idea that we may want to trade for Teahen so that we can sign Derek Lowe (or someone similar) is silly.
by Peter Bendix on Oct 28, 2008 12:15 PM EDT up reply actions
If Shapiro says we have $18 million dollars to spend in the offseason and three holes to fill (INF, #3 pitcher, Closer) then we have to allocate our money between those three positions.
Derek Lowe might be worth $14 mil per year in their eyes, but if we already signed Orlando Hudson to a $10 mil per year contract, and X Closer for $5 million (I wish!) then simple addition says we can’t afford Lowe.
by world dictator on Oct 28, 2008 12:30 PM EDT up reply actions
We didn’t fail resign CC because we didn’t think he was worth it.
I disagree with this completely. I think the Indians are in a position to take on the salary and risk for this one player, but it’s simply a much greater risk and a much poorer value than their other options.
We have the money. He’s just not worth it once you go much past $100 million — and no pitcher ever has been.
Exactly. And unless you’re spending $20 mil on an infield upgrade, an additional $5-10 mil on the infield doesn’t change this valuation of CC (or Lowe, or whomever).
by Peter Bendix on Oct 28, 2008 2:01 PM EDT up reply actions
Doesn’t this prove my point though?
Yes we can sign CC to $20 mil per year, but then we’d likely have to settle for mediocre players to fill any other needs we have or try to trade top prospects for young players.
If we define affordability without using realistic value and opprotunity costs then the word seems to lose all meaning. Technically the Marlins could afford CC and the Indians can afford A-Rod, but realistically neither team afford to spend that much money on one player.
by world dictator on Oct 28, 2008 2:14 PM EDT up reply actions
No, your point was that we might trade for Teahen to free up money to sign Lowe (or someone like him).
My point is that Lowe may not be worth the money, whether we have Teahen or not.
by Peter Bendix on Oct 28, 2008 2:39 PM EDT up reply actions
You may have meant to say that, but thats not what you said, or what I responded to.
I don’t recall reading any arguments either in favor or against Derek Lowe. That’s another discussion completely.
I was responding to this comment:
But more to the point, I don’t think that the infield situation has much bearing on our decisions regarding pitchers. We can afford to pay lots of money to Derek Lowe or Ben Sheets or whomever, the question is whether it’s worth it. And the worth of Derek Lowe doesn’t change based on what’s happening with our infield.
Which I interpreted as “we can sign any pitcher we want”. You also said this:
If the Indians really wanted to sign CC Sabathia, they could do so. Or Sheets, or Burnett, or Lowe, or whomever.
More importantly, I still don’t see how’ Jay’s last point does anything but prove my point.
With all due respect Peter, it seems like you’re just repeating yourself over and over again. The concepts of “worth” and “value” don’t have concrete meanings. When you say we can sign any pitcher we want if it’s “worth it” I have no idea what you mean.
Like I said in the most literal sense of the word technically any team can sign any player. But within the realistic confines of a budget there are always tradeoffs.
by world dictator on Oct 28, 2008 4:46 PM EDT up reply actions
I should I also add, my charitable attempts to evaluate your argument lead me to suspect we’re sort of saying the samething. But I’m very unclear how you can say that one payroll move doesn’t affect other payroll moves.
by world dictator on Oct 28, 2008 4:48 PM EDT up reply actions
I think we have been saying the same thing, more or less.
Although I think I’ve been saying it rather poorly.
by Peter Bendix on Oct 29, 2008 4:07 PM EDT up reply actions
This is true, but it’s unlikely that he’ll improve that much. And even some improvement may only get him to an OPS+ of 100-105, with below-average defense. And that’s assuming he does indeed improve.
Blake was better than Teahen offensively.
If Teahen’s OPS+ is 100-105 it’ll be roughly the same as Blake’s the last four years. If we were trading Carlos Santana for Blake then I’d be adamantly opposed to the trade. But considering we’re trading our “meh” OF i think I’ll donate my outrage to cleveland.com
Oh and one other question. Did we ever compete for the division with Blake in the lineup? I forget.
by world dictator on Oct 27, 2008 4:33 PM EDT up reply actions
Also, as much as I know people love OPS on LGT, its not the end all be all of offensive stats. Yes it is the best one, but OBP is definitely a stat worthy of consideration.
In 2006 and 2007 Teahen had a better OBP than Blake and a similar OPS.
- Is he better than Blake? I don’t know.
- Is he’s probably as good as Blake with the potential to be better?
Yes.
- Is he 8 years younger than Blake? Yes.
- Is he a lot cheaper to acquire than Blake? Yes.
- Is the opportunity cost less to acquire him than Blake? Yes
- If this deal doesn’t work out is it likely to prevent us from winning the division?
Doubt it
by world dictator on Oct 27, 2008 4:49 PM EDT up reply actions
We competed for the division with David Dellucci, too. And Joe Borowski.
by Peter Bendix on Oct 28, 2008 11:32 AM EDT up reply actions
No. It shows that you don’t understand my point.
Saying “we competed for the division with Casey Blake, so we can trade for Mark Teahen” is like saying “I am able to walk around with a broken wrist so I don’t care if I fix it.”
by Peter Bendix on Oct 28, 2008 12:17 PM EDT up reply actions
I’d love to have all stars at every position, but only a few teams can do that. Most teams that win a division or make the playoffs have a “decent player”, which you called Teahen, starting at some position.
by world dictator on Oct 28, 2008 12:24 PM EDT up reply actions
Let’s call this the David Eckstein Theorem of Postseason.
by woodsmeister on Oct 28, 2008 1:05 PM EDT up reply actions
It’s difficult to find great offensive CF and catchers. We already have those. Awesome. Go us.
It’s more easy to find great hitting left fielders and third basemen. We have neither. Boo us.
But since we have a great hitting CF and catcher, we might as well settle for poor hitting LF and 3B. Because finding a good LF and 3B is so damn much work!
So because we have Grady Sizemore we might as well not even bother upgrading over Mark Teahen?
That negates the entire advantage of having Grady Sizemore.
by Peter Bendix on Oct 28, 2008 1:23 PM EDT up reply actions
Okay, here’s the disconnect. I get what you’re saying — Teahen isn’t good enough. I agree that in general, a player of Teahen’s value isn’t worth acquiring as a major move, and accordingly, I doubt that we will. I think in fact that if we do acquire Teahen, we’re going to pay a lot less than the Royals fans believe.
Thing is, we may need to acquire him as a minor move. He may be a mediocrity, but if you believe there’s a total hole at 3B, then that is a problem, and one worth addressing. Should we settle for this? Perhaps not. If the Indians do this, it will be not because it was the best thing available out there, but rather because they believe their “major moves” capital — money and talent — will have more impact if applied in another area, e.g., a starting pitcher.
I agree with you 100%. But again: why Teahen, and, more importantly, why NOW. It’s unnecessary.
by Peter Bendix on Oct 28, 2008 2:02 PM EDT up reply actions
The Indians like complimentary players. They like having a 3B who can play the outfield, they like having a left-batting infielder. You can start Carroll vs. a LHP and then use Teahen as a pinch-hitter, and because he plays the outfield, there are a lot of ways to make that move — you can move Carroll to 2B or put Teahen in the OF or just do a straight swap, depending on the situation.
I don’t think KC is going to go for Teahen being complimentary — I suspect we’ll have to give them something in return.
Unless you mean that he’s the kind of guy who frequently makes favorable remarks about his teammates’ appearances… That’s always nice, but probably not worth giving up talent for.
by Logodaedalus on Oct 28, 2008 2:15 PM EDT up reply actions
Complimentary in the sense of complimentary hotel toiletries. I mean, they’re not going to give him to us for free…
I was just being a dick about your spelling. I’m pretty sure you mean “complementary”.
by Logodaedalus on Oct 28, 2008 2:22 PM EDT up reply actions
Also, because Crowe isn’t worth that much.
We don’t really know the whole trajectory of the deal. Maybe we’re swapping Gootz for Teahen and a great prospect.
I have no problem swapping Crowe – or even BenFran for Teahen.
I have a problem giving Teahen 600 plate appearances, mostly at third base, without exploring other options first.
by Peter Bendix on Oct 28, 2008 2:40 PM EDT up reply actions
Can’t we acquire him and then continue to explore other options? You know, like picking up Aaron Fultz’s option and then cutting him later?
Bingo
Acquiring a player doesn’t guarantee that they’ll start or get the majority of AB.
by world dictator on Oct 28, 2008 4:50 PM EDT up reply actions
I’m sure Shapiro not only explored other options first, but is still actively exploring multiple options.
You know, there’s another simpler point we’re all missing in the now vs later debate.
The trade market is a fickle entity. Players go from no trade value to lots of trade value back to no trade value pretty quickly.
If you’re a GM and you see something you like in a player on some level I think you have to trust your instincts and your scouts and just pull the trigger.
Dayton Moore could change his mind about the trade tomorrow, the Royals could fill their OF hole while we wait for the trade or another team could offer them a better deal.
If this were a major trade or FA acquistion I’d be more sympathetic to the wait and see approach. But considering its a minor deal at little to no cost for us, which doesn’t restrict future movements, there’s no reason to wait.
by world dictator on Oct 28, 2008 5:04 PM EDT up reply actions
I’ll give you that. I wouldn’t mind Mark Teahen on this team – as I’ve said, he’d be a great bench player, and we wouldn’t miss Francisco or Crowe.
If we do acquire him, I hope that he doesn’t end up as our starting 3B (unless we make an additional move to upgrade either our offense or our defense).
by Peter Bendix on Oct 29, 2008 4:09 PM EDT up reply actions
Who is to say that this is our one real chance? If we can get him for Francisco and Crowe, and he’s better than Andy Marte, then we have improved our team by slimming the outfield logjam and upgrading our third-base options. It does not preclude us from trading for a better third base option such as Beltre if that option presents itself, as Teahen could also be used as a fourth-outfielder. If anything, getting Teahen as a potential lefty-hitting outfielder makes us even more able to get rid of Dellucci.
Bottom line for me is that if the price is right, Teahen improves the team. Incrementally, but improvement nonetheless.
by woodsmeister on Oct 27, 2008 2:10 PM EDT up reply actions
My issue with acquiring Teahen with the intent of using him as a 4th outfielder/backup infielder is that this type of player is often available for “free” (meaning on waivers, as a minor league free agent, or in a trade for something with very minimal value).
Yes, we could easily afford to give up BenFran or Crowe to get Teahen. But there would be no point – we’re better off trying to make use of “freely” available talent.
by Peter Bendix on Oct 27, 2008 2:18 PM EDT up reply actions
Really? How many fourth outfielders who could play a passable third base with double-digit home run potential, double-digit steals potential, and a 98 OPS+ were available on the waiver wire last year?
by woodsmeister on Oct 27, 2008 2:33 PM EDT up reply actions
Off the top of my head, Gabe Gross, Morgan Ensberg, Russell Branyan, Jorge Cantu, Willy Aybar, Jose Castillo, Jose Bautista, Greg Norton.
To be fair, I am conflating waiver wire pickups with trades, but only in cases where the player was acquired for a non-prospect (or almost-non-prospect).
The point is that players like Mark Teahen aren’t that difficult to come by. There are probably 5-6 minor leaguers than could approximate Teahen’s value in 09 (Paul McAnulty, Chris Carter, Jon Van Every come to mind, off of the top of my head).
by Peter Bendix on Oct 27, 2008 3:01 PM EDT up reply actions
You’re also conflating utility infielders with fourth outfielders. Mark Teahen can legitimately play all four corners. I asked you for fourth outfielders who could play a passable third base.
Gabe Gross doesn’t play third base. Greg Norton is 35 and has not played any 3B since 2004. Jose Bautista’s career OPS+ is 89. Although I suspect Jorge Cantu could play the outfield, he has not done so at the major league level. Neither has Enberg, Castillo or Aybar.
The only guys you’ve listed who play 3B and OF are Branyan, Bautista and Norton.
Again, my point is that Teahen would be valuable because not only could he start and play a passable third base, his acquisition does not preclude us from getting a better third baseman if the opportunity presents itself because his versatility is such that he could be used as a fourth outfielder. You are jumpring straight to the point about the fourth outfielder and glossing over Teahen’s versatility.
by woodsmeister on Oct 27, 2008 3:24 PM EDT up reply actions
Teahen’s versatility makes him an excellent bench player. But it does make him even an average starting 3B.
by Peter Bendix on Oct 27, 2008 3:46 PM EDT up reply actions
It kind of makes him Casey Blake, minus beard and years. I don’t think Blake will be available on the waiver wire, which means that a player approximately as good as Teahen is unlikely to be either. Not that we should trade for Teahen as anything other than a bench guy (not our most urgent priority, I’d think).
Just because you can play OF doesn’t mean you’d make a great 4th OF. Similarly, just because you can play multiple positions doesn’t make you a great bench player.
The converse is also true. Just because you can play multiple positions does not mean you should be a bench player.
In the midst of this discussion you’ve completely overlooked my original point about Teahen’s offensive ability. Like I said, Its not great offensive ability, but its certainly solid and it could improve.
by world dictator on Oct 27, 2008 4:05 PM EDT up reply actions
As we say in debate, you’re losing yourself in the flow. Or in normal speak you’re shifting you’re arguments and losing sight of the big picture.
Here’s my impression of the argument so far:
Me : “Teahen isn’t great offensively but he’s solid”
You: I agree he’s decent but we could have gotten someone better
Me: He’s at the very least a cheap upgrade at 3B
You: No he’s a bench player who shouldn’t start and he prevents us from getting a better INF player later.
Wood: Teahen’s versatility allows us to get another player who’s better if the opportunity arises
You: Yes he’s versatile, therefore he’s a bench player, therefore we could have gotten any waiver wire player.
Wood: I didn’t say he was a bench player I said he’s versatile
by world dictator on Oct 27, 2008 4:07 PM EDT up reply actions
And to address the other issue in your post – I’m not saying that we acquire him with the intent to use him as a fourth outfielder, only that his capability of being a fourth outfielder gives us the ability to keep pursuing other third base options if they become available because of Teahen’s versatility.
by woodsmeister on Oct 27, 2008 2:36 PM EDT up reply actions
. If anything, getting Teahen as a potential lefty-hitting outfielder makes us even more able to get rid of Dellucci.
Thats hot
by world dictator on Oct 27, 2008 2:41 PM EDT up reply actions
Just thought I’d mention that I’d rather sign Casey Blake than trade Crowe or BenFran for Teahen.
by Ryan Kelsey on Oct 28, 2008 12:17 AM EDT up reply actions
Crowe for Teahen is definitely the most profitable scenario. BenFran is still fine. I guess I’d be really happy if we got a reliever or something as well if we gave them Ben.
Steel Nick
At that risk of sounding crazy, I think you could also make the case for requiring an additional player for Fransisco.
by world dictator on Oct 26, 2008 11:21 PM EDT up reply actions
Now, just for my future reference, didn’t we decide that Brantley on 10/27/2008 is a better player than Crowe on 10/27/2008? As in, if we stuck both of them in MLB tomorrow, Brantley is a better bet to be replacement level or better?
Don't be stupid. PUT IN MELOAN.
Based on MLE, Crowe finished the season about 53 points of OPS ahead of Brantley. But Crowe will be 25 in a few weeks and just isn’t that projectable anymore, while Brantley is only 21 and won’t turn 22 until next May. Given his lack of strikeouts, Brantley seems likely to make a fairly smooth transition to Triple-A and likely will catch Crowe in raw, present-day performance by the end of 2009.
Not only would I never give up Guz, Crowe or Ben for Teahan, I wouldn’t take Teahan for free. I wouldn’t give up a roster spot for this guy. He offers this org nothing that we don’t already have. And we can provide it internally for less.
I think you are implying that we have to come up with one guy that has exactly all of Teahan’s particular characteristics. We don’t.
The least complicated answer is zero. Teahan does not represent an improvement in any individual area or combination of areas.
where is this 3rd baseman you speak of and can you tell the Front Office?
by world dictator on Oct 27, 2008 6:38 PM EDT up reply actions
Where is this third baseman you speak of? You are calling a below average fielding utility player a third baseman? I have no less than 3 players already under contract and consuming roster spots that can do that. You can turn roster makeup into some Chinese puzzle with subtle nuances if you want. It only serves to remove focus from the brutal fact that significant upgrades cost real money.
You know, I might be persuaded by your warrantless assertions if I didn’t spend hours last night and hours this morning going through this trade with various people on LGT and RR. We even used, you know…numbers and stuff.
by world dictator on Oct 27, 2008 6:52 PM EDT up reply actions
I think the chance that Teahen works for us at third is roughly equal to the chance that Barfield works for us at second.
by fleerdon on Oct 26, 2008 11:42 PM EDT reply actions
Isn’t that considered verbal assault?
by world dictator on Oct 26, 2008 11:48 PM EDT up reply actions
Even if Shapiro were interested in Teahen, the fact that the Kansas City press has an article on it will irritate Shap and kill the deal
Well, yeah, who wouldn’t, but what are you going to give up for him and how does he fit into the outfield logjam we have right now?
by woodsmeister on Oct 27, 2008 2:04 PM EDT up reply actions
he plays a nice left, has comparable tools to sizemore (not as good in my opinion). the more outfielders, the better!
he really doesn’t fit at all.
One of these days... bang, zoom, straight to the moon...
by mixmasterasia on Oct 28, 2008 2:01 PM EDT up reply actions
I’d rather have Jesus. I find it a lot easier to have faith rather than Crowe.
by world dictator on Oct 27, 2008 2:10 PM EDT up reply actions
But what if we were to get him to grow a beard? Wouldn’t that automatically improve his HBP totals? Also, he could be tutored by Ryan Garko during spring training. And, really, c’mon – they’re the Royals. What’s the point of throwing at the Royals?
by woodsmeister on Oct 27, 2008 2:14 PM EDT up reply actions
/Gulp. From RR:
According to an Indians beat writer on 810 today
And I am getting this second hand from Royals Scout, but according to this Clevelander, the Indians want Teahen pretty bad, and the Royals have their pick of the three outfielders.
So I wouldn’t be surprised to see a Teahen for Gutierrez swap a week after the World Series.
Steel Nick
I think that must be a website. And it’s off the radio. And it’s a further conclusion based on those two conjectures.
but they’re also incapable of coming up with anything other than what is directly told to them, and that often comes from the team itself. doesn’t sound like it in this case, though.
I’m going to laugh if this is true and the Royals pick Crowe.
by world dictator on Oct 27, 2008 4:11 PM EDT up reply actions
I’m going to be sad if this is true and the Royals pick Gutierrez.
by woodsmeister on Oct 27, 2008 4:40 PM EDT up reply actions
As much as I like Gutz’s defense i still don’t think he’s a huge loss for us. He’s had one full season where he hit decently and two where he was terrible. Yes he had good second half stats, but if we accuse Garko of disappearing for most of the season the same holds true for Gutz.
Yes Gutz has better defense and plays a premium position, I acknowledge that. (Which is why I’m not saying Gutz = Garko). However Gutz hasn’t really shown anything to me which proves he’s a long term solution at OF. If we had anybody other than Grady Sizemore in CF this might be different.
It would kind of suck to see him go but by no means, defense included, is he a devastating loss to our team. However, I am very sympathetic to the argument that we should get more for Gutz than Teahen since his defense is the only proven commodity in this proposal. And it’s damn damn hard to find a CF that good.
by world dictator on Oct 27, 2008 5:00 PM EDT up reply actions
That’d be a tough one for me to swallow, personally the toughest since the Giles trade went down (for how I’ve felt about the player).
I just can’t believe that’d happen straight up. If Gutierrez is parted with, there would have to be another player coming our way?
Right?
BTW, I think the rest of the rumor is pretty credible. This whole thing isn’t my favorite outcome, but I think it all sounds very realistic.
I thought this was interesting:
en Francisco: The one scout just loves him. The team he scouts for is a perenniel playoff team, and they always say “is this guy better than what we have” and “can he help us win a championship” when they scout players from other teams. Francisco he said was a yes to both those questions. There is a ton of value with him and he agreed with me when I mentioned my frustration about the Michaels/Dellucci situation and Ben being in Buffalo. He said he is a major league talent and can flat out hit. Should be our starting LFer. He even went as far as to say when Ben and Franklin Gutierrez were in Buffalo that he always rated Ben much higher than Franklin. Feels Francisco CLEARLY has the much better bat while Gutierrez gets an edge on defense although not as much as many think. In every year the last three years Francisco has been rated higher than Gutierrez by their organization. Was ready to pounce on him in Dec 2006 Rule 5 Draft if he was not rostered.
Of course, take it with a grain of salt. But its interesting to hear nonetheless.
http://www.indiansprospectinsider.com/2008/04/scouts-take-on-indians.html
by world dictator on Oct 27, 2008 6:01 PM EDT up reply actions
To be fair, he probably heard it on the radio
by world dictator on Oct 27, 2008 7:23 PM EDT up reply actions
I have some good news and some bad news.
The Good news is that the Royals GM is denying that he’s talking to Indians about Teahen.
The Bad news is that it means he’s definitely talking to the Indians about Teahen.
by world dictator on Oct 27, 2008 7:27 PM EDT up reply actions
I went golfing last weekend, kept topping the ball. Guy goes by me on the range, says, “Man, you’re Teahen it up too low.”
by fleerdon on Oct 27, 2008 3:55 PM EDT reply actions
I dressed as Mike Lowell for Halloween, but I had a devil of a time keeping the gray hair powder in my beard. All of a sudden I realize, I’ve got to stop dipping my goatTeahen my beer!
by fleerdon on Oct 27, 2008 4:01 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
I smiled at the first one. I laughed out loud and woke my wife up with the second.
by Ryan Kelsey on Oct 28, 2008 12:29 AM EDT up reply actions
Am I missing something? Would Teahen be that big of an upgrade from Marte? At least we know Marte can play good defense.
Also, blatant site pimp — I have a new post up on ivoryTowerz.com if anyone’s interested. It’s fluff-ish but hopefully fairly engaging.
Burn on, big river, burn on...
Well I’m just sayin… this seems simple to me, maybe because I’m not reading deep enough into it. If, like a lot of people here have been saying (and I tend to agree with), defense is more important than we realize, why trade one of (supposedly) your best defensive assets? I wouldn’t lose any sleep over Francisco for Teahen, but… why? In my mind, Teahen will either play an adequate 3B and hit slightly better than Marte or be a total butcher at 3B leaving us to platoon him in a corner outfield spot and creating an even bigger hole at 3B.
Burn on, big river, burn on...
by Turkmenbashi on Oct 27, 2008 5:05 PM EDT up reply actions
Just realized I worded that wrong. I meant why trade for someone who would replace one of your best defensive assets (Marte) with an awful glove and only slightly better hitting?
Burn on, big river, burn on...
by Turkmenbashi on Oct 27, 2008 8:48 PM EDT up reply actions
I don’t really understand your comment. If you are acquiring a 3B at the beginning of the offseason, you are going to acquire a better fielding one later in the offseason? I don’t think anybody is knocking down doors to get to Teahen (he is not a trading chip).
If the Indians FO thinks he can play 3B, I guess I have to trust them. Teahen was moved primarily to make room for Gordon, and I don’t really know how much that was a result of his own play at 3B. He is a better option than Blake, offensively and defensively (by definition).
Except for the fact that in 2006 and 2007 Teahen put up comparable OPS+ and a slightly better OBP than Blake. And is 8 years younger.
by world dictator on Oct 28, 2008 1:45 AM EDT up reply actions
And every time Teahen’s upstairs neighbors have their music on too loud, Casey gets a broom to the gut.
by Logodaedalus on Oct 28, 2008 2:27 PM EDT up reply actions
I really thought the worse storm was weathered when it became clear that Casey Blake would not settle for a one-year deal and, thus, wouldn’t be back for another season. It has nothing to do with Blake’s history as an Indian, but it speaks to the future of the position in Cleveland.
And then, all this Teahen talk starts up. Aside from the second half of 2006, Teahen hasn’t done anything. He’s not proven to be a better hitter than Marte. He’s more expensive. And to echo the sentiment, he’s no defensive wizard.
I pass. If defensive is not going to be the priority, I’d rather have Eric Hinske.
…cheaper and, fittingly, less productive! I think we’re all on the same page here.
Maybe two years ago, I’d say it was a reasonable gamble. Now, though, do the Indians really think Teahen is on the cusp of becoming something more? If yes, then go for it. The guy’s only 27. If the Indians are content with a repeat of his two most recent seasons, though, then they can just fill that position with a the cheaper, younger offensive manikin already on the roster.
He is younger, cheaper, and not as good as Casey Blake with the bat or glove. What the heck is the point? He is as good a hitter as Francisco with a bit of an advantage because he played 3rd base 3 years ago. PASS!!!
by Ryan Kelsey on Oct 28, 2008 12:33 AM EDT up reply actions
Can’t believe all this anti-Teahenism. He had a bad year in 2008. 2007 wasn’t bad and 2006 was awesome: .290/.357/.517, with an OPS+ of 122. He’s light years ahead of Blake.
Well, there is a difference between doing at 24 and doing it at 30, i.e., likelihood of getting back to that level.
We’re also underrating his 715 OPS, given that the league dropped 34 points over the last two seasons. In 2006, a 91 OPS+ (in his home environment) equated to a 747 OPS. That’s not impressive, but it sounds a whole lot better than 715.
yeah…but when the 30 year old follows it up with a 99 and 114 season, while the 24 year old follows it up with 98 and 91 seasons, at ages 25 and 26…it’s also not the same thing.
expectations for a 25 and 26 year old is that they’ll improve pretty much across the board. when instead they show a decline in both seasons, I think that is a bad sign about the true talent of the guy. in contrast, Casey’s 30-32 seasons seem to show much more a known product. Given his age, you always have to be on the lookout for signs of collapse, but i think you could have some confidence in what you are going to get out of a 33-year old Casey. And indeed, he put up 101 and 110 OPS+ numbers in his 33 and 34 seasons.
I think Teahen, even though he’s entering his age 27 season, is a big risk to totally suck. Instead of showing progression he’s shown he’s highly susceptible to scouting reports against him and is not good at adjusting. I’ll pass, not because I value Francisco or Crowe so highly, but I’d rather pursue other 3B/2B options.
I think generally when you see a decline at ages 25 and 26, you’re going to find that it doesn’t have much to do with talent. You’re more likely to find that the player’s luck was much worse at those ages (perhaps too lucky at 24) and/or that he had significant injury issues.
As I stated somewhere in the 200 or so comments, Teahen’s OPS+ might be somewhat low but he’s consistently shown great to good OBP compared to other 3rd baseman
by world dictator on Oct 28, 2008 1:47 AM EDT up reply actions
.357>.353>.313
.313 is not good, and is the most recent data point we have on him. The .353 number from 2007 is somewhat inflated by a .359 BABIP. Those 2006 numbers are unquestionably good, but also two years removed from where he’s at now. In terms of the components of his OBP, his walk rate showed a decline this past season from league average (9%) to solidly below league average (7.5%). he has always been, and remains, a bad guy at avoiding strikeouts. I just don’t see it.
I agree, there is a worrisome regression in Teahen’s numbers. Its one of the first things I pointed out. (Or maybe you pointed it out and I agreed) It certainly is the most troubling factor in acquiring Teahen.
by world dictator on Oct 28, 2008 2:17 PM EDT up reply actions
Casey has never slugged higher than .486 (in 2004).
Teahen also did pretty well when he was 22 between the Texas League and the PCL: .301/.375/.477. When Blake was 22 he hit .250/ .295/.372 for Hagerstown in the Southern Atlantic League.
No comparison.
Casey also put together a 6-year stretch in the majors in which his OPS+ was never below 93 (his first season), and was never below 99 after that (with a high of 122). Teahen has put together a 4-year stretch in the bigs (again, at a time when the average player is improving) in which his OPS+ is 82, 122, 98, 91. What Teahen did as a 22-year is, at this point, pretty irrelevant. We’ve got 4 years of data in the bigs to look at, we don’t need to go back 5 years to look at his minor numbers. There’s not a lot of projection left in Teahen. Yeah, he’s 27, so theoretically he’s entering his prime, but that does not take into account his across the board decline in two consecutive seasons (including a fairly dramatic one this past season).
Teahan: 122, 98, 91
Blake: 93, 122, 99, 114, 101, 110.
Blake > Teahen.
I get that he peaked younger Jay, but he also has been worse these last two years and has really only been good for 200 ABs in AA in ’04 and 400 ABs in the majors in ’06. Otherwise, he has been a pretty marginal player.
by Ryan Kelsey on Oct 28, 2008 12:38 AM EDT up reply actions
this is a lot of posts about mark teahen
Anti-Ben Fran before it was cool.
by Gradyforpresident on Oct 27, 2008 8:40 PM EDT reply actions
I’ll make another one if you don’t think we have enough.
by NickFantana on Oct 28, 2008 12:08 AM EDT up reply actions
Shapiro’s not afraid of being vulnerable.
Steel Nick
by nickjs21 on Oct 28, 2008 4:50 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Because there has never in baseball history been a deal consummated after one or both principals denied that talks were taking place.
Vintage Castrovince:
The Indians are reportedly close to shipping outfielder Coco Crisp to the Red Sox for a package that includes reliever Guillermo Mota and third-base prospect Andy Marte… Indians general manager Mark Shapiro would neither confirm nor deny the reports.
“The Cleveland Indians have a longstanding policy of not commenting on individual trades until they are complete,” Shapiro said in a statement released by a team spokesman. "That said, we are constantly examining ways to improve the short- and long-term competitiveness of the Cleveland Indians and are therefore always involved in conversations with other organizations.
“If there is a trade to announce, we will comment more formally at that point.”
I love that stage between confirmation and denial. It’s always very exciting, and that’s when things are really serious. Of course that was a more advanced rumor, one that had been picked up by the Boston presses.
Even though it’s dry corporate jib-jab, I like the dignified way Shapiro phrases his transmissions.
me too
Anti-Ben Fran before it was cool.
by Gradyforpresident on Oct 28, 2008 11:28 AM EDT up reply actions
Should… I mean guys… ok fine I’ll do it.
MLBTradeRumors did NOTHING WRONG!!!
Don't be stupid. PUT IN MELOAN.
by gte619n on Oct 28, 2008 11:50 AM EDT up reply actions 2 recs
Mark Teahen is not a bad baseball player. He’s a decent baseball player. He’s had OPS+s of 82, 122, 98, and 91 over his career, and his overall career OPS+ is 98.
Defensively, Teahen can play left field, right field, and third base. According to Bill James online, Teahen is slightly-below-average (perhaps a bit worse) at these three positions.
But keep in mind: OPS+ compares OPS to league average – and league average OPS is everyone. Catchers and shortstops and center fielders (oh my!) tend to have lower OPSs than first basemen and third basemen and left fielders, due to the difficulty of these positions (more people can play first base than shortstop).
Therefore, Teahen’s OPS+ must be discounted, due to the fact that he plays third base and corner outfield, relatively lower-skill defensive positions.
Furthermore, Teahen doesn’t play any of them particularly well. He’s probably not bad enough to be terrible, but "average" defensively is probably his ceiling, his best-case scenario.
So we’re talking about a guy with a career OPS+ of 98, who is limited to a corner defensive position, where we expect more offense. He isn’t going to provide much defensively, either.
Furthermore, the Indians are quite weak at three corner spots (1B, 3B, LF), as well as DH. Hafner is entrenched at DH until he proves he’s completely done – while he may be fairly useful as a hitter, he’s no longer Pronk. First base is an open question, but chances are we aren’t going to get a tremendous amount of offense from that position either.
We could choose to have Franklin Gutierrez man right field (I’m assuming Choo is entrenched in one of the corner outfield spots), thereby drastically improving the defense. Gutierrez’s defense is so good that it makes up for his offense – but, once again, we are taking below-average offense at a corner position.
We’re not going to add a DH and probably won’t add a high-quality 1B. We could add a corner outfielder, but we’re pretty much set with the outfielders we have. That leaves the infield – we can add a second baseman or a third baseman (or, I suppose, a shortstop), and shift Peralta and Cabrera accordingly.
That’s a decent amount of flexibility, being able to add one player who plays one of two positions. We could attempt to find a player who will improve our offense, or a player who will improve our defense (ideally, we’d want both).
The problem with adding Mark Teahen is its blowing our one good chance of upgrading our offense/defense, because he upgrades NEITHER. He would possibly provide league-average offense (a league average 3B hit .266/.336/.436 this year – Mark Teahen’s career line is .268/.332/.421), with mayyybe average defense. Furthermore, putting Teahen at third would keep Peralta at short, thereby keeping our infield defense below-average.
Yes, he wouldn’t be embarrassing, but "not embarrassing" is not something a team with hopes of contending in 2009 should be shooting for (let alone giving up any talent for). It’s not like we’re backed into a corner here, it’s not like we don’t have a fair amount of flexibility, and it’s not like we’re running out of time.
There’s simply no reason to settle for Mark Teahen, let alone give up Ben Francisco or Trevor Crowe to obtain him. If we get desperate, Teahen isn’t a horrible option. But guys like Teahen aren’t that difficult to come by, and if we do get desperate we can find someone like him later.
Or, more simply put, he’s not much better than Andy Marte, if at all.
adding….the only positive Teahen brings is that he brings an element of roster flexibility in his ability to play both OF and 3B. Shapiro has a publicly stated obsession with depth, of which flexibility is one component. Flexibility is not, in and of itself, something which makes a team better, though. Flexibility is nice in that it ideally allows you to deploy your roster in different situations to your maximum advantage. So it gives you more options to make your team better. But Teahen himself is not a guy who will likely dramatically improve what we could field at any position. At best, he frees up one spot on the 25-man roster by serving the dual role of 5th OF and part-time 3B. That’s not much of a plus. I think we need to be targeting someone who is a substantive improvement on what we already have, and I don’t think Teahen is that.
As Wood and I said above, adding Teahen doesn’t stop us from acquiring a better player if they become available at a later date. If Teahen only played 3rd you might have a point. But as you’ve noted he plays three positions, which gives us a good roster flexibility. I still haven’t seen support for your point that this is our “one last chance” of upgrading our offense point. That’s like saying “Oh no we added David Dellucci. There goes our one last chance to upgrade the offense.”
So we’re talking about a guy with a career OPS+ of 98, who is limited to a corner defensive position, where we expect more offense. He isn’t going to provide much defensively, either.
Jay has touched on this point before. We get unusually high offensive support from other positions like CF,C, SS. The indians don’t seem to operate under the idea that certain positions must have X production in order to compete. It’s all about total offensive production.
Also, if you compare Teahen’s OBP to other 3rd basemen in both the AL and ML as a whole, Teahen does quite well.
http://www.letsgotribe.com/2008/10/26/646986/indians-interested-in-teah#9650266
by world dictator on Oct 28, 2008 12:50 PM EDT up reply actions
Umm….
adding Teahen doesn’t stop us from acquiring a better player if they become available at a later date
Unless, of course, we’re trying to make a trade and Fransisco/Crowe/Gutz has already been traded.
Also, if you compare Teahen’s OBP to other 3rd basemen in both the AL and ML as a whole, Teahen does quite well.
Let me fix this statement:
Also, if you compare Teahen’s OBP throw out Teahen’s most recent season and compare [his best seasons] to other 3rd basemen [who are good enough defensively to actually PLAY third] in both the AL and ML as a whole, Teahen does quite well is slightly above average [at getting on base].
Don't be stupid. PUT IN MELOAN.
Unless, of course, we’re trying to make a trade and Fransisco/Crowe/Gutz has already been traded.
Gutz maybe. But i’d love to see the trade for an impact player that is going to make or break based on the addition of Fransisco or Crowe.
by world dictator on Oct 28, 2008 1:10 PM EDT up reply actions
We would not be acquiring Mark Teahen to be a bench player. We would be acquiring him to play third.
Also, no one is going to “become available” that isn’t available now – and, like gte619n said above, if we can’t find anyone else we can always trade for Mark Teahen later.
by Peter Bendix on Oct 28, 2008 1:19 PM EDT up reply actions
We’d like him to start with the hopes that he’ll show something or win a starting spot, but if he doesn’t that still doesn’t mean we can’t acquire someone later.
Also, no one is going to "become available" that isn’t available now – and, like gte619n said above, if we can’t find anyone else we can always trade for Mark Teahen later.
Most of what we know about available players is still murky. The world series is still going on and teams are still meeting and developing their offseason plans.
by world dictator on Oct 28, 2008 1:28 PM EDT up reply actions
This is still not a reason to trade for him NOW.
by Peter Bendix on Oct 28, 2008 1:36 PM EDT up reply actions
Unless you can provide an opportunity cost to trading for Teahen now versus later then there’s no reason to seal the deal now. I’m still waiting to hear one other than the idea that if we trade for Teahen now we can’t make any other trades or FA acquisitions. (for the IF/OF)
Like I said, I doubt any future deal is going to depend on Fransisco or Crowe to get done.
by world dictator on Oct 28, 2008 1:41 PM EDT up reply actions
A reason to trade for him now is that if you believe there is talent there but various circumstances have prevented him from playing at the level he can. Buying low is a great thing
The Indians have more information than us, so they may see Teahen as a buy-low opportunity. I don’t see it, based on the information we have.
But more to the point: Teahen is probably still going to be available in January.
by Peter Bendix on Oct 28, 2008 2:41 PM EDT up reply actions
How can you not see it as a buy-low opportunity?
He had a down-year at age 26 and has never lived up to his scouting reports as a prospect. As long as he’s healthy, that’s the very definition of a buy-low opportunity.
Apparently I need to state the obvious: There is no such thing as a buy-low opportunity that is guaranteed to pay off.
Yeah, it’s funny. You have to wonder if people would love that kind of deal as much if he’d ended up with a 4.20 ERA and missed 15 starts — which was a pretty likely result when we signed him.
Are people really advocating that kind of signing? Or are they really just in favor of, you know, low-cost, extremely low risk, guy makes 30 starts and wins the ERA title? In which case, duh.
That’s EXACTLY what people want. Rest assured if we actually made a KMTS everybody would bitch and moan. “Oh way to spend the big bucks Larry,” “Hey yeah! THIS GUY is totally the key to our championship! Where do I get my season tickets??” “Fire Wedge!”
What we really want is a Kevin Millwood-type RESULT.
Steel Nick
Or, more simply put, he’s not much better than Andy Marte, if at all.
I’m sorry that’s just not true.
Andy Marte has a career OPS+ of 56 and a career OBP of .265
by world dictator on Oct 28, 2008 12:53 PM EDT up reply actions
I think it’s woeful how little we’ve covered whether or not Andy Marte would perform better given more consistent playing time. Doesn’t anyone have an opinion about this??
Steel Nick
by nickjs21 on Oct 28, 2008 12:58 PM EDT up reply actions 2 recs
If this past season has shown us anything, it’s that Andy Marte will never get that chance, with this team, so it’s like arguing about whether the earth would be more awesome if the sky was pink or if the sea were orange.
by woodsmeister on Oct 28, 2008 1:10 PM EDT up reply actions 2 recs
This could be a fun wager: who has more value (offense + defense) in 2009, Andy Marte or Mark Teahen?
by Peter Bendix on Oct 28, 2008 1:23 PM EDT up reply actions
Teahen no doubt
Its kind of hard for Marte to have value while sitting on the bench
by world dictator on Oct 28, 2008 1:25 PM EDT up reply actions
Fair enough. On the odd chance that Marte amasses 300+ PA, though, I’d guess that they’d be awfully close.
This subject has been beaten to death. Even if we’re absolutely against Marte, I think we can find guys comparable to Teahen later in the offseason.
by Peter Bendix on Oct 28, 2008 1:26 PM EDT up reply actions
Bill James predicted an OPS of .722 for Marte in 2009. Teahen’s career OPS is .753. When you weigh Marte’s above average D against Teahen’s below average D, the offense + defense would be pretty close for those 2.
You have to be careful with these projections. The variance for a guy like Marte that has simply not had enough of a chance to provide a solid amount of data, plus his age is going to be quite high (in relative terms compared to say projecting what a vet like Casey Blake will do next season). I’d much rather wait until BP comes out with their projections, so at least you have some degree of understanding the deviation in the projection. In simple terms Teahen is the better bet offensively. Marte by most accounts is the better bet defensively. And in any case its likely not going to be Marte starting at 3B next season, so its really moot.
Therefore, Teahen’s OPS+ must be discounted, due to the fact that he plays third base and corner outfield, relatively lower-skill defensive positions.
I think you’re looking at this a little backwards — not to mention, you’re largely basing your arguments on a degree of confidence in your reading of defensive stats that is totally unwarranted.
- We would not acquire Teahen to play the outfield, but rather 3B, and the league averages for 3B track very close to overall league averages — therefore, there’s no reason to discount his OPS+.
- Teahen can also play LF and RF, and sometimes that will be helpful to us. There’s no reason to discount his OPS+ just because he can play those other positions. His most valuable position is 3B, and that’s where we’d use him. The fact that he can play other positions is entirely a positive factor, even if they are lower-skill positions.
- Our only real data on Teahen as a defender at 3B comes from 2005 (his rookie season) and 2006, during which he was on the DL for two separate four-week stretches. Given the not-entirely scientific nature of defensive data — yes, even those emanating from Bill James — isn’t it just possible that the Indians think he’s a significantly better 3B than that limited data suggests?
I don’t take issue with your assumptions. I take issue with the fact that you don’t seem to know that they are assumptions, and not nearly as well supported as your Big Pronouncements imply.
Ah yes, Jay taking issue with my supposed “Big Pronouncements,” as usual. So you’re saying that you don’t disagree with me, you just disagree with the basis for my statements? Shall I just write a disclaimer in all of my posts that the word “maybe” or “perhaps” or “probably” should be added in front of everything I say? Or that Mark Shapiro is a lot smarter than I am?
Look, I’m well aware that there’s a good chance that I’m wrong about much that I say, or misguided. But I do qualify many of opinions – and they are just that, opinions.
The Indians know more about Mark Teahen than you or I do. I trust Mark Shapiro. All we can do is form opinions based on reason, logic, and publically-available data.
The Fielding Bible’s defensive data suggests that Teahen is below average, defensively. So does data from Tango and Baseball Musings. It’s quite possible that the Indians’s scouting and/or advanced statistics disagree, but I am basing my opinion on the data I have.
I explicitly stated that Teahen’s career line is almost exactly the same line as the average third baseman from 2008. This, to me, is “settling” – a guy whose defense isn’t likely to be even average, and whose offense isn’t that likely to be anything more than average, if that. Seems like we could always return to this later, if we can’t find something else. Also, I think we should consider that inserting Teahen at third keeps Peralta at short, which is not a good thing, considering that we’re not likely to get good offense or defense from 3B.
Teahen can play LF or RF, yes, and that’s somewhat helpful. But Ben Francisco can play LF or RF, as can Trevor Crowe. Or we can find waiver-wire guys who can play even more positions. Teahen’s versatility gives him additional value, but it doesn’t take away from the fact that he would be primarily playing third base for us.
by Peter Bendix on Oct 28, 2008 2:37 PM EDT up reply actions
Ah yes, Jay taking issue with my supposed "Big Pronouncements," as usual. So you’re saying that you don’t disagree with me, you just disagree with the basis for my statements? Shall I just write a disclaimer in all of my posts that the word "maybe" or "perhaps" or "probably" should be added in front of everything I say? Or that Mark Shapiro is a lot smarter than I am?
Frankly, yes. Your posts do not reflect the slightest understanding of the inherent limits of the statistical data, or what has been done with the statistical data so far, or your own grasp of the data, or any consideration of other available data. I don’t think that the problem is that you’re not saying so, I think the problem is that you’re not thinking about what you’re missing, basically ever.
And I think that if you got in the habit of saying it, you might get in the habit of thinking about it.
Okay. So it’s not even worth having opinions, since our opinion is inevitably based on incomplete data. And it’s my fault for basing my opinion on the data I have – I should rather include data I don’t have.
And I should always make reference to the (often large) possibility that I am incorrect.
On a less snarky/more serious note:
I totally agree with James’s quote below about considering the fog. And I pose this question to you in all honesty: how do we consider the fog when we don’t know what is within the fog?
I guess what I am saying is, in all earnestness, how do we incorporate the inherent uncertainty and human element into our predictions beyond simply acknowledging a rather large margin of error in our predictions?
by Peter Bendix on Oct 28, 2008 3:19 PM EDT up reply actions
I would suggest that merely acknowledging uncertainty is a good start, and it can be done as simply as adding a little word here and there. Ultimately, when we’re talking about stats, what we’re having is not really opinions, but rather just our impressions based on our understanding of the statistical data. Our “readings” if you will.
I would further suggest that there is data that isn’t part of the statistical record that is worth considering, such as the fact that Teahen spent two months on the DL in 2006. Just as we know that Victor’s power numbers from this past May should not be taken at face value, i.e., as a generalized decline in his power, it’s worth at least asking the question, was Teahen playing hurt for significant parts of 2006, and if so, what effect could that have had on his performance on offense and/or defense?
What I get out of this additional data is that the statistical record on his 3B defense is pretty negligible — it suggests a couple things but says nothing with any real authority. That in turn suggests that we’d probably do a lot better to go back to his rookie and minor league scouting reports, rather than relying on those numbers.
That’s how I see it, anyway.
Let me add something else, briefly if I can manage it. I know it may seem like I’m picking on you, and in a sense maybe I am. If I am, it’s because in the way you post, in your confident citing of statistical data and concepts, in the sheer length of your contributions, you put yourself out there as someone who should be held to a higher standard. I’m not going to critique the presentation of statistical data for someone who’s just making a brief remark here or there, but you’re doing quite a bit more than that, and in my view, that means you should be held to a higher standard.
Yeah, stats are tricky. Especially analyzing stats the “LGT way”, the right way imo. I didn’t even know what OPS was before I started reading here. I’m just now discovering OPS+ and I’m still trying to figure our BABIP.
Speaking of which, is a high BABIP for hitters good or bad? Also, whats a good BABIP to have?
by world dictator on Oct 28, 2008 5:15 PM EDT up reply actions
I’ll let someone smarter go into more depth, but basically BABIP is a retrospective look at how “lucky” a batter was. A high BABIP indicates that a batter will not likely be able to sustain success in the future at the same rate that he currently is
I’d take it for one year, or one month, or one week, regardless of my contract status. There’s no downside to having good luck… Even if people cite my high BABIP and use that to adjust my other stats downward, the boost I would have gotten from that high BABIP would make those other stats higher to begin with, so I’d have room to adjust downward. That’s the whole point of adjusting for it.
Plus it’s not all random luck. Some of it is undoubtedly related to skill; we just have a hard time figuring out how to separate the two.
by Logodaedalus on Oct 28, 2008 6:01 PM EDT up reply actions
average BABIP is right around .300. Some players consistently have an above average BABIP for reasons such as they are very fast and get more than expected infield hits or because they hit a lot of ground balls, which go for hits more often than fly balls. Some players, some seasons, get “lucky” by having a high BABIP, which just means that more balls they put in play dropped for hits than you would usually expect. For most people, though, this isn’t a repeatable skill. So you can “normalize” their stats to a degree by looking at what they would have done if their BABIP was at a more average level.
In the case of Teahen for example, his 2007 numbers appear to have been somewhat inflated by a .361 BABIP. His other seasons were a more normal .309, .331, .308.
Some people also estimate what the expected BABIP for a guy should be based on his line drive percentage. Teahen’s been right around 20% for most of his career, which is a pretty good number, and might suggest he should have a slightly higher than average BABIP.
Interestingly, Teahen’s best season (2006) featured his worst LD% (15). Along with consistently hitting a fair number of line drives, Teahen has been a big ground-ball hitter (~50). In 2006 he hit more fly balls than he has any other season, and a really unusual amount of them went for home runs (16.5% of his fly balls were homers – that’s an unusually high, or lucky, number).
Does a statistic exist that adjusts BABIP for a player’s line-drive vs. fly ball vs. ground ball percentages? I’d be inclined to believe that as a player’s LD% increases, which is probably a repeatable skill, his BABIP increases as well..I know BABIP does not take this into account, which is why I think it is quite flawed.
Maybe there should be something like: BAGB (BA of ground balls) and BAFB (BA of fly balls) which seems, to me, where the luck would be involved. League average BALD (BA of line drives) would probably be a significantly higher than .300, or the league average BABIP.
Not to mention, don’t you think the world needs stats called BALD?
You have no idea the physical toll that three vasectomies have on a person
by jakesinger777 on Oct 28, 2008 5:43 PM EDT up reply actions
as the amount and kind of ball in play data improves, I think better ways of estimating expected BABIP are being developed. As it stands right now the data is pretty weak (line drives, fly balls, ground balls, infield flys, homeruns)…so it’d hard to construct really good models for predicting what someone’s batting average on balls in play should be. The rule of thumb, I believe, is to add about .120 to a player’s LD%. I don’t know how good of an estimate that is, though.
Actually, I think Bendix himself is working on that, but it is kind of odd that it doesn’t already exist.
Closest thing I’ve seen is Projected OPS, which you can find here and is explained here.
The more advanced projection systems like PECOTA are basically using BIP-regressed stats to project performance forward, but they tend not to show you what the regressed stat lines look like.
Minor League Splits has a “luck” button in the upper-right corner of every page that (mostly) normalizes the player’s stat line for BIP variance.
I am indeed working on that – hoping to have something published on The Hardball Times within the next month or so.
In a nutshell, from what I know, “expected BABIP” (or xBABIP) for hitters is a lot more stable than for pitchers. It’s currently calculated by adding .120 to a hitter’s line-drive percentage. Hitters seem to have more control from year-to-year over their BABIP, although it can fluctuate rather wildly (for example, BJ Upton had a .393 BABIP last year, despite a LD% under 20%. This year, his BABIP regressed to .344).
I’m working on a method to obtain xBABIP that includes many other variables besides LD%. Sneak peak: Nick Swisher would be a good person to buy-low on.
by Peter Bendix on Oct 29, 2008 4:06 PM EDT up reply actions
I hope this fares better than the SS Mark Ellis.
by Peter Bendix on Oct 30, 2008 10:56 AM EDT up reply actions
My gut reaction is to get very defensive. I will try to avoid that, however.
I appreciate being held to a high standard, and it’s a standard I strive towards. Constructive criticism and feedback are always appreciated. I sometimes wish you provided such feedback in a less condescending manner – or at least, restricted the feedback to a criticism of my logic/technique/valuation, rather than some of the more-personal statements you’ve made.
My opinions are based upon available info, but I am not a Blind Follower of Bill James, even if it may seem that way to you. I was introduced to this side of baseball by Mark Shapiro – I believe in the power of stats, but I also believe in the human element – the game is played on the field. I was lucky enough to meet Mark one time, and I still remember him telling me “never forget: the game is played by people.”
My opinion can be summed up as: information is sacred. Statistical, scouting, anecdotal – it’s all important. Of course, we the public have very little access to scouting information, and anecdotal information is often misleading or simply false.
Therefore, if it seems that many of my opinions are based on stats, that’s because they are – but it doesn’t meant that I think stats are the be-all, end-all. Rather, we don’t have much other information. When we do have that – such as reports about Fausto Carmona’s stuff in the minors being far better than his statistics – I do attempt to take it into consideration. The more information, the better.
I should be more careful about stating things in a fashion that suggests I’m 100% sure that I’m right. I don’t think that – ever. That’s what’s so much fun about baseball – no matter how smart you are, how much information you have, you’re going to be wrong…a lot.
But it often goes without saying that my statements are opinions. Opinions that I try to base on available data, and on logic and reason. As I said, I will work on phrasing my statements in such a way as to reflect inherent uncertainty.
Please do continue to challenge me. But please don’t tell me that I don’t have the slightest understanding of what I’m talking about.
by Peter Bendix on Oct 29, 2008 3:54 PM EDT up reply actions
Apparently you didn’t read this Bill James gem carefully the first time I posted it:
We all know many things and many different types of things which are not reflected in the statistical record. Acknowledging this, a good statistical analyst is sometimes able to reach out and draw areas of the game which were previously undocumented inside the tent, inside the focus of the statistical record. The bad statistical analyst, on the other hand, will assume that what the statistical record tells him must be true and complete — and by making that assumption, will forfeit his ability to add anything significant to the record.
Teahen not the answer- plus his name is stupid
He is neither “tea” or a “hen”. WTF?
Numbers aside, this guy blows. He’s a loser from a loser organization. Bring back Casey Blake before you waste a trade on this guy. What the hell happened to Peralta at third, Cabrera at Short and Carrol/Barfield at 2nd? Sign a Marcus Giles or Mark Ellis at 2nd.
Crede at 3rd would be pricey, but there are a half-dozen 3rd baggers on the market that could provide defense and experience and leadership next year. Hell- make LaPorta play 3rd base fer cryin out loud- we’re gonna need the power ASAP with Hafner done for the year w/ surgery!
Play the numbers game and keep as much talent in the fold as possible since many of these OF’s will be the Charlie Spikes Rusty/Torres/Leron Lee of the future.
by Gaylord Feller on Oct 28, 2008 11:26 AM EDT reply actions
Er…
Okay first, welcome. We frown on using the subject lines FYI.
Mark Ellis is signed. And you think Teahen sucks but you support an acquisition of Marcus Giles?
LaPorta is not playing third. Ever.
Steel Nick
I think we should start a trend of using “QED’d” in the same way as “pwned”, except for more argument-based discussions.
by Logodaedalus on Oct 28, 2008 2:35 PM EDT up reply actions
This is the essence of off-season Cleveland baseball. Endlessly arguing the merits and foibles of sub-par players. Blah.
by Toxicadam on Oct 28, 2008 12:00 PM EDT reply actions 1 recs
Jay Payton is from Zanesville. So is the Y Bridge. Therefore, Jay Payton is the Y Bridge.
QED.
by woodsmeister on Oct 28, 2008 1:11 PM EDT up reply actions
Turns out this was all a misunderstanding. The Tribe was not interested in acquiring Mark Teahen, but in acquiring a tea hen for Mark Shapiro.
by FredOx on Oct 28, 2008 2:02 PM EDT reply actions 6 recs
Just of curiosity, when was the last time the Indians made a trade within the division? I can’t think of one guy on the current roster who was acquired that way (we have signed a few castoffs like Rincon, but an actual trade?). This doesn’t mean we won’t ever trade for Teahen, but it may indicate where Shapiro looks when he’s looking to make trades.
There’s someone walking around who looks and talks just like Casey Blake?!?!
-Eric Wedge’s heart explodes-
by afh4 on Oct 28, 2008 2:24 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
It is pretty rare. We swapped Cliff Bartosh for Bear Bay with the Tigers in 2005, and we sent Brian Anderson to the Royals in 2003, getting back two guys who apparently ceased to exist after that moment.
Since then, Royals GM Dayton Moore has told MLB.com that the rumor is a “flat-out lie.” And I just spoke with Indians GM Mark Shapiro, who made it pretty clear the Indians have not had one discussion with the Royals about Teahen.
http://castrovince.mlblogs.com/archives/2008/10/waist_deep_in_the_big_muddy.html
having 300 post threads on the indians not trading for mark teahen is EXCELLENT NEWS!!! for Let’s Go Tribe
Anti-Ben Fran before it was cool.
by Gradyforpresident on Oct 28, 2008 5:06 PM EDT reply actions 1 recs
So you’re saying you wouldn’t trade this thread to Montreal for prospects and a TTBNL? I’m not sure if I can get behind that. While this thread has some strong numbers, they’re pretty inflated by high Posting Average During Rain Delays, which is really mostly luck. If you adjust downward for that, and take into account the fact that the thread just had a career day, so we’d be selling high, I think our long term interests would be better served by consummating the deal. Among other things.
by Logodaedalus on Oct 28, 2008 6:09 PM EDT up reply actions 3 recs
Is this a 538 reference? Am I the only one that got this, or is it so obvious I’m making an idiot of myself by pointing it out?
Burn on, big river, burn on...
by Turkmenbashi on Oct 28, 2008 10:28 PM EDT up reply actions
All right, I caved. I’m finally looking up the word “meme.”
by fleerdon on Oct 28, 2008 10:32 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
does a carrot stick taste like a stick…stick?
You have no idea the physical toll that three vasectomies have on a person
by jakesinger777 on Oct 28, 2008 9:48 PM EDT up reply actions
Aw hell, I think I forgot Slider’s birthday.
by fleerdon on Oct 28, 2008 10:28 PM EDT up reply actions
From 2007:
“Fans can take advantage of great action during the Texas series with Tribe ticket discounts: Giant Eagle Advantage Card Night July 31 and College 360 Student ID Night August 1. It’s time to blow out the candles! Slider is having his 17th birthday celebration during the Thursday, August 2 12:05PM game with fun activities for all ages and a Slider Growth Chart, courtesy of Nesquik, to all Kids 14 and Under.”
When SB & LGT get big, real big, will I see a direct deposit everytime I drop Nesquick? Bud-Light, refreshing.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
Featured Stories
FanShots
Quick hits of video, photos, quotes, chats, links and lists that you find around the web.
Recent FanShots
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- Photo: Padres fan regrets letting mother capture moment with Trevor Hoffman
- Marlins agree to unretire No. 5 for Logan Morrison, who will honor his father’s favorite player
- Weatherman Derek Holland does Dallas TV
- Ask Alex: Will Julio Teheran or Matt Moore win rookie of the year?
- Ku Klux Klan, umpires and bowling: Why the minor leagues tossed out Jim Evans academy
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
