Patronizing and belittling as always, Jay.

I do understand the difference between theoretical microeconomics and a baseball free agent contract negotiation. But, it is somewhat predictable what a given player will be in the range to get and be offered given his statistics, reputation and skill set. I am saying that Adam Dunn has a unique combination of stats, reputation and skill set, making him a bit more difficult to judge his likely contract value and length.

Given this, I would not be shocked if a GM, like Shapiro or even Epstein or Cashman might make a lower offer than what Dunn or his agent want. I think there may be an opportunity for a bit of a bargain. That just may mean 4 years/16 M as world dictator suggests below, but if it is just a bit under that, I think we are talking about a deal that is affordable for the Indians and one that would be worthwhile for a 35 HRS and .380 OBP.

I think that’s pretty much what I’m saying, in terms of Shap’s valuing of prospects and unwillingness to move them.

I’m not sure about what’s likely, I’m just saying he has a lot more prospect coin than cash coin at the moment, and I hope he’s willing to use some of it, despite past history.

There are other teams, take the Braves for example, that take player development/farm system very seriously as well. But they’ve shown a willingness to “make a call” on who they insist on keeping and who they’ll trade in order to fill ML needs.

Adding to that is the fact that the Indians seem to be a little outside of conventional wisdom when it comes to evaluating prospect talent. Seems like they have their own judgments about defensive prowess, often differing from other teams (Luna and Kouzmanoff come to mind), and they have an eye for control pitchers and extreme sinkerballers. I’m sure there are other idiosyncrasies that

Those prospects that score better per the Indians’ methods logically will be undervalued by other clubs, or overvalued by the Indians, take your pick. Laffey is a prime example, but Jensen Lewis came out of nowhere, Asdrubal was undervalued, etc. So we end up with a few valuable major leaguers who somehow just a year ago were not considered elite prospects.

That’s good news in terms of our system being better than, say, the BA talent ranking will indicate, but it sure doesn’t help us trade prospects for major leaguers. Ergo, it will tend to be even more efficient for us to rely on our prospects than it is for most teams.

I’m not saying I like it, but that seems to be the reality of the situation.

It’s not that easy, young Jedi. Another team has to WANT Dellucci and be willing to pay him.

Haha — find me the team that wants Dellucci and his salary. We can’t just trade every player we don’t want; other teams have to want him to.

You trail off as if you know something I don’t.

Okay so we take on ~$40M in payroll. How do we also get rid of at least half of that?

Before you bring up some kind of Dellucci deal, think first: If Dellucci was on another team, why on earth would you want him AND his salary?

Glad you asked.

First of all, durability is important, but not if the guy isn’t any good. Getting 200 bad innings out of someone shouldn’t have as much value as it does (or maybe it doesn’t anymore, what’s Jeff Weaver up to these days?).

I don’t think ERA is the best way to evaluate a pitcher’s ability to pitch. ERA simply tells us how many earned runs were scored when a pitcher was on the mound. Let’s look at the things that are within Garland’s control.

First of all, Garland’s always-low strikeout rate is clearly declining. In 2005 he struck out 12.76% of the batters he faced. That fell to 12.50, then 11.10, then 10.42% last year. League average for K% for a starter is 15%. Yes, strikeouts aren’t the only thing, but they are an important thing.

The percentage of batters that he has walked has also gone up in that time. Starting in 2005, his BB% has been 5.22, 4.58, 6.46, 6.83. Perhaps a falling strikeout rate isn’t the end of the world, and perhaps a rising walk rate isn’t the end of the world. But the two of them put together certainly isn’t a good thing.

While Garland does get his fair share of ground balls, I don’t think he gets enough to withstand the K and BB rates. Here are the percentage of balls in play that have been grounders, starting in 2005: 45.2, 41.7, 40.2, 49.1. Even if that 49% from last year is indicative of a new level of skill (which I don’t think it is), that’s not enough grounders to withstand a declining (and already low) K rate and a rising (if only somewhat) BB rate. Furthermore, a quick glance at his fangraphs page suggests that Garland has not altered his repertoire in any manner recently, suggesting that the uptick in grounders is likely random noise.

His tRA+ over the last two years has been 90 and 82, meaning that he was 10% below league average in 07, and 18% below league average in 08.

Even if we give him the benefit of the doubt and say that his 2008 BB, K, and GB rates will repeat in 09 (and I don’t think they will, considering that his GB rate was higher than his career rate and both his K and BB rates are heading in the wrong direction), then Garland is still probably going to be ~20% below average.

Thus, money aside (and he certainly would cost a fair amount, for probably at least 2 years), I don’t think he’d be one of the top five starters in our organization. I think we have five guys who can be at least better than 20% below average.

Sorry to be so long-winded.

Much better

flagging myself

Never sign and trade later? Why not?

You’re either or is exactly right, but as I said the whole bet is that he performs adequately the first couple years, making the remaining contract that much more valuable and easier to get rid of for the riskiest years, as you pointed out. And, yeah, you can keep him for the remainder if you want – he would be, after all, under contract.

Beltre!

In terms of free agents, that may very well be true.

Honestly, I’d consider paying Teixeira. I really do think he’ll be worth the money.

I’d looove to get Beltre. Or Lowe. I think Burnett is a decent bet too, although probably too much risk for a low-payroll team.

I don’t think there’s much benefit in acquiring a SS, especially a costly one.

Another point about Hudson: in addition to my concerns about his inflated offensive numbers due to Chase Field, there has been work done to suggest that second basemen tend to age rather rapidly.

As a Tribe fan who watched Roberto Alomar’s quick descent, this doesn’t really surprise me. Luis Castillo is the latest example.

<a href=“http://camdendepot.blogspot.com/2008/06/age-curves-for-2b-fielding.html”http://camdendepot.blogspot.com/2008/06/age-curves-for-2b-fielding.html" target="_blank">http://camdendepot.blogspot.com/2008/06/age-curves-for-2b-fielding.html" >Here is an interesting study about second basemen’s fielding ability declining rather rapidly as they age. Key takeaway:

Fielding efficiency maxes out around age 30 or 31. Range is maximized at age 23 or 24. Ages 27 to 29 are when fielding ability is greatest for second basemen as their efficiency rises and their range has not been greatly compromised.

Again, I’m not trying to claim that Orlando Hudson is a terrible – or even bad – player. I’m just saying that there’s considerable risk associated with both his short-term and long-term performance, making him unlikely to be worth what he’s going to receive, especially for a team like the Indians.

I knew what you meant, sorry for the confusion. I just felt like throwing that out there, mainly because I think Dunn is seriously overrated in these parts.

It does seem quite likely at this point that Bay was playing hurt in 2007.

Having said that, the very nature of a player like Dunn lends itself to consistency. His offensive value lies almost entirely in his “secondary” skills — drawing walks and hitting the ball really hard — with very little contribution from contact hitting (let alone footspeed). Contact hitting is exceptionally variable (this is the whole point of the BABIP obsession), much moreso

Bottom line, Dunn is more likely than Bay or almost any hitter to give you just about exactly what you expect. On the other hand, his chance for a ridiculous outlier season where he lucks into a .360 BABIP — like Magglio in 2007 for example — is far less than it is for a guy like Bay.