Orioles interested in Garko?
This blog suggests Garko as an alternate target should Texeira sign elsewhere. I hadn't heard this before, but I must say I'm intrigued. If Garko has any value at all, we should probably cash in those chips.
I don't think there is a real rumor here, just speculation, and something I hadn't thought of before.
about 3 years ago
stickpiano
135 comments
0 recs |
Email
PrintComments
People here underestimate Garko’s ability to hit 280 and drive in runs.
Travis Hafner is overrated. Clarity is underrated. David Dellucci is David Dellucci.
you overestimate the value of .280 with minimal power and walking skills and the oportunistic nature of rbi.
And you underestimate Garko’s ability to put up a good avg, decent slugging and an above average wOBA.
Garko’s AVG/SLG/wOBA 2009 projections.
James .282/.449/.356
Marcel .272/.436/.345
I won’t deny that Garko’s numbers were down this year. But his overall numbers aren’t absolutely horrible like people try to make them out to be. Even in his down year he still managed an above average .346 OBP (.333 wOBA) while decreasing his strikeouts.
There’s not really a lot to complain considering he’s a cheap relatively young player controlled for several years. And its not like Garko is blocking any prospects.
I think Garko has more value and trade value then people acknowledge. I think Garko’s ideal situation might be to eventually play in the NL
by world dictator on Dec 17, 2008 3:07 PM EST up reply actions
I should also add that the real argument “against” Garko is Jay’s “he disappered for most of the season” point. Though I still think the timeframe for which he “disappeared” is open for debate.
Though I question why a big budget team like the Orioles wouldn’t just sign one of a glut of 1st/DH/OF types. Its not like they don’t have the money.
by world dictator on Dec 17, 2008 3:13 PM EST up reply actions
The slugging and wOBA are both below average for a first baseman.
“Replacement level” sums it up nicely.
Aren’t you the one who always points out that stats tied to a specific position is an outdated method for evaluating players, or at the very least not a proper way to evaluate the Indians who have above avg production from SS, C, CF?
Like I said, Garko isn’t an ideal first baseman, but considering he’s cheap and not blocking any prospects or acquisitions, I think the Garko bashing is overstated.
by world dictator on Dec 17, 2008 4:10 PM EST up reply actions
…or at the very least not a proper way to evaluate the Indians who have above avg production from SS, C, CF
Right, which is why the Orioles, and most other teams that don’t have above-average production from SS, C and CF, would see little value above replacement level from Garko.
Burn on, big river, burn on...
by Turkmenbashi on Dec 17, 2008 4:20 PM EST up reply actions
Whatever it is that you think I’ve been pointing out, it isn’t that.
Garko at his 2008 production level is an anchor on this team. He’s likely to improve, but he has very little significant upside beyond being an average 1B. There’s no real objective argument for his being less harmful or more valuable to the team than Marte is, but Garko is “okay for now” while Marte is some kind of pariah.
Garko is not okay for now, but we probably have to live with it.
Really? I think Garko is some kind of pariah, at least he has been in my own mind. In limited ABs, Garko performed well in 2006 and basically all of 2007 as a starter, while underperforming pretty seriously in 2008 – but having an awesome last month. He has had stretches of goodness. Hell, even Gootz we felt confident saying that his bat was never likely to explode, and he is just barely at the “evaluation threshold” of 807 ABs. Meanwhile, Marte is ops’ing .641 in the Dominican League without a whiff of power or walking ability (sss, which is the story of Marte).
It’s obvious that Garko is just barely above replacement level, but that’s something for now.
Matter of fact, I’m going to channel my inner-old-man and say that claiming Marte’s performance is impossible to truly judge is verging on pseudo-statistics. What constitutes large and small sample size is relatively arbitrary. His stats are probably not the strongest predictor of his ability, but there is most likely some correlation. Everyone who matters in the organization has given up on him, and he looks terrible at the plate (i.e. bad at hitting baseballs – specifically, breaking balls on the outside corner). So, his stats are limited but not ridiculously so, the organization has bailed, and he does not put up individual good ABs.
Is it strange to look ridiculously awesome at a young age and then fall off? Yes, but it happens all the time in other sports without anyone batting an eyelash. There is a fallacy of precision with 800 ABs. I think it’s time to cut him and move on. In fact, that’s almost certainly what is already in store for him.
Very well said
Burn on, big river, burn on...
by Turkmenbashi on Dec 18, 2008 10:21 AM EST up reply actions
I’m going to make this point one more time, but I am not sure anyone is reading.
One of my beef’s with Jay’s remark is that it is too binary. Like, we either know NOTHING about a player, or we know A LOT and can make a “scientific conclusion.” I think this parades as precision when it isn’t. I am sure a player can have two seasons in a row with 400+ PA’s and we don’t actually know enough about him to say one thing or another. Or a player can have a cup of coffee, get 80 PA’s and be justly thrown aside.
Which exact comment are you criticizing?
My impression of Garko is based on scouting reports out of college when we drafted him, and scouting and statistics for every year he’s been in the organization — I have been following him basically since he was drafted.
We don’t ever know everything, but at some point, we know some things.
There’s no real objective argument for his being less harmful or more valuable to the team than Marte is, but Garko is "okay for now" while Marte is some kind of pariah.
Given the inherent subjectivity in getting micro-level evaluation of player performance, I really don’t understand this statement. Marte’s sample is tainted but probably not totally meaningless. The value of statistics with a given sample size is not binary. It is continuous. Marte’s numbers don’t mean nothing: they just aren’t definitive. I just don’t understand your certainty for saying that Marte and Garko help or hurt equally, or that there is no evidence to disprove this, where Marte is somewhat of a ne’erdowell and Garko has had productive months. Or maybe I am reading this wrong, and you think, in an ideal world, both of their butts should be cut?
If Garko is an anchor to the team (which he was), then Marte is a straight-up torpedo.
I was exaggerating to say that “there’s no objective argument” – there is an objective argument, just not a particularly compelling one in my view. Of course confidence intervals are continuous and not binary, but nonetheless, comparing 20% vs. 80% is a lot like comparing 0 vs. 100.
Part of the issue with Marte and sample size is, how are we even defining a sample? In any kind of reasonable experiment, a sample would be defined rather precisely — you’d have a protocol. If we were going to test specifically for the ability of somebody to have a job as a professional hitter 4-6 days per week, would it be reasonable to set up the protocol to say, it’s okay if he hasn’t played in six days, send him up to the plate, and that’s a sample? Of course not, that would be stupid — any player in that situation is going to be substantially less sharp than a starter even on Opening Day, who’s fresh off spring training, or who just got called up from the minors. Reminding you again that Marte stepped up to the plate for the 60th time last season on June 29, and that’s all he got the entire year before that.
The statistical hitting record is problematic. At the same time, there is a lot of information outside career OPS numbers for the two players, and all of it favors Marte. There is Marte’s minor league track record, of course, and there are scouting reports dating back to each player’s late teens — all of which tell us that Marte has a lot more upside as a power hitter than Garko. (Granted, this means nothing if he can’t make contact in the majors, I’m just saying it’s part of the overall picture.) There is a small statistical record of Marte’s defense, which suggests (based on RZR and OOZ) that he is a very good and potentially great defender at 3B, and those numbers jibe with scouting reports dating back years in the minors, contrasting with Garko’s numbers and scouting which reveal him to be fringe-average at 1B.
The argument for Garko frankly goes out the window when he sucks for five months, because when you have a player with no defensive value and minimal offensive upside, all he’s really got going for him is safe, predictable, solid production. Well, Garko doesn’t necessarily bring that to the table anymore, and he’s got less offensive upside than Marte and vastly less defensive value.
Marte put up a 664 OPS in his last 55 games. Over five months of last season, Garko put up a 666 OPS over 118 games. I think there’s a reasonable chance that Marte is as good of a hitters as Garko over the long run, especially considering he’s three years younger, and what we know for a fact is that Marte has more upside and is a far better defender.
And that, my friend, is what I was talking about.
That Garko 666 OPS number is an extreme example of cherry-picking. He also OPS’ed 868 in the second-half. Garko has remained in the majors for a few years, is making some contact and drawing walks + HBP. I think that speaks a little to his credit, and it is totally possible to defy scouting reports within reason. Look, I find myself defending Garko – I’m not, he sucks – I think – and is probably an anchor on our team.
Marte’s still young. That is easy to forget, because he’s been relevant for so long. But he isn’t that young, and he didn’t dominate AAA as a 22 y/o or 23 y/o (unlike Asdrubal) blah blah blah rehash, you know the jist better than I do.
I don’t think the scouting reports from his teenage years mean anything now. I would guess (don’t have any real idea) that advance scouts think pretty low of him. Clearly, the Indians org. thinks he is a bust. Hopefully he gets a ton of PA’s next year with some team and we can just close the book on him.
My point on the scouting reports is that they jibe with some of the small-sample statistical record, specifically with respect to Garko’s limited ceiling and the quality of Marte’ defense. They matter to the extent that what the stats are saying something with a low confidence interval, but our confidence should improve based on the scouting. That is, what the stats suggest is more likely to be true.
Yes, the 666 is cherry-picking, but it’s also five solid months of play, and his samples are based on an entirely reasonable “protocol.” At any rate, I’m not trying to mislead anyone here, I’m just pointing out that the guy is capable of performing at a significantly sub-replacement level for a sustained period of time — a set of trials that is larger than Marte’s.
I would argue that your split is more substantially misleading — you are attempting to suggest that he was an above-average first baseman for roughly “half a season.” The truth is that he had a 733 OPS for 45 games, and then a 1399 OPS for 11 games. He racked up 37 runs created over that “half,” but it was 18 in the first 45 games, then 19 in the last 11.
My point being, again, he didn’t show even an average level of performance over any sustained period last year, while he was mediocre and sub-mediocre for weeks or months at a time.
And back out to the greater point, anyone who claims to know for a near-certainty, based on the data we have, that Garko is going to end up a better hitter than Marte, is really just kidding himself. I’ll take that from a pro scout, but the data we have says that Garko could very well be a bum from here on out, and Marte could very well end up a decent player.
Yeah, you’re right, 2nd half splits are pretty crude, but give Garko credit for playing out of his mind for the last month of the season.
Whatever, I basically agree, only because the CI is so large on Marte. I am letting my gut narrow the CI because he looks goddawful. Garko is an anchor, and Marte has potential. I think Marte (his offense) will never come around and that Garko will be reliably replacement-level, at best slightly above, at worst slightly or more below. There is evidence for the second claim.
For the millionth time … he played out of his mind for the last 11 games. Up until that point, his September OPS was 623.
Either take my word for it or look it up yourself … until the last 11 games, he still SUCKED.
Is that a lighthouse as seen through a telescope?
by NickFantana on Dec 27, 2008 10:08 AM EST up reply actions
I honestly don’t know what that is … is it someone’s butt?
Here, I’ll give you even more OPS breakdown …
Mar 31 – Apr 12, 11 games — 971
Apr 13 – June 2, 40 games — 603
June 3 – June 10, 8 games — 1181
June 11 – Aug 6, 41 games — 519
Aug 9 – Aug 19, 10 games — 1167
Aug 20 – Sep 12, 19 games — 600
Sep 13 – Sept 28, 11 games — 1399
Now of course, everyone’s season can be made to look like that to some extent … I’m just highlighting the shortest, hottest streaks, which makes everything else look bad. The problem is, it’s 100 games of really, really bad.
Now I’ll try to split it up the opposite way, highlighting the shortest really horrendous streaks, to make longer sections look better.
Mar 31 – April 22, 20 games — 878
April 24 – May 12, 14 games — 381
May 13 – June 13, 28 games — 846
June 14 – June 28, 13 games — 354
June 30 – Aug 30, 44 games — 742
Aug 31 – Sep 6, 6 games — 451
Sep 7 – Sep 28, 16 games — 1237
You tell me, which one makes him look better?
Right. They both make him look terrible in their own unique way.
My point is not that Garko is a stud. Actually, my original post took issue with how you were evaluating Marte compared to Garko; not Garko in isolation.
Do you really believe that Marte is going to be above replacement-level at 3b (and therefore better than replacement-level Garko)?
Well, BP has him a 0.7 WARP for 2008 — -6 runs as a hitter and +13 runs as a fielder — and that was playing less than half a season, and under adverse conditions (lack of reps) — and at age 24. The consensus projection seems to be 700 OPS, improving on his 583 from last season. I think his WARP over/under for 2009, if he’s a full-time player, is at least 2.0. You could argue he’s basically a lock for 2.0 wins over replacement.
Garko was 3.3 WARP last season over more than double the PAs as Marte. He was definitely more productive, but he didn’t have to deal with being benched for weeks, and he came into the season having settled in with eight consecutive months of regular play in the majors.
wonder what they would be willing to give up. Garko is a hard player to get a handle on his value, unless we move Victor to 1st do we have anyone that you would see taking his place? I’m not sure I would want to go into 2009 with Michael Aubrey as our 1st baseman.
Fan in Texas
can we trade Gark to the Mariners for an outfielder?
Travis Hafner is overrated. Clarity is underrated. David Dellucci is David Dellucci.
While a transaction of this nature may have worked in the Bavasi era, I’m afraid the “S.S. Rob Seattle Blind in Trades” ship has sailed.
"It's hard to win when you don't score." Cliff Lee, 9/28/05.
jury out. if frank tanks and valgood flourishes, then well it’s still in port.
by Brick. on Dec 17, 2008 5:35 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Valgood. I’ve been trying to think that up for a week. Thank you.
by fleerdon on Dec 17, 2008 5:52 PM EST up reply actions
Really? You like that but not DoorMatt? I’m hurt, Tyler.
Burn on, big river, burn on...
by Turkmenbashi on Dec 18, 2008 10:23 AM EST up reply actions
I’m not anti-DoorMatt per se. You’ve just got to sell me on it. Nicknames are not self-promoting as a rule. It took me 8 months to get people to buy the Iron/Steel thing, which I quietly suspect is still roundly ignored if not openly disliked by more than a few of our less vocal readers.
by fleerdon on Dec 18, 2008 8:38 PM EST up reply actions
If all they’re doing is reading it, then they don’t really get a vote, do they?
Iron/Steel died down because Betancourt was awful this year. Had he had another good year, we’d have seen it all year long.
The problem with DoorMatt is that it doesn’t represent the way we want to think of LaPorta. He’s not a doormatt, he’s a slugger! It’s not just that it’s meaningless – which would be bad enough – but it actually means the opposite of what we’d like it to mean.
Frowny face
Burn on, big river, burn on...
by Turkmenbashi on Dec 18, 2008 11:46 PM EST up reply actions
This is the same way I feel
Burn on, big river, burn on...
by Turkmenbashi on Dec 19, 2008 12:58 AM EST up reply actions
I don’t get why Matt was ever attached. It only creates a negative connotation. I know people don’t like “The Door” but if LaPorta get’s famous I think you’ll probably hear it on sportscenter a couple of times. It’s what his last name literally means.
let’s call him “The Gateway.” that way we can bring back some of the magic of the 90’s and make everyone happy.
Stargate was an awesome 90s movie. Or maybe it wasn’t. I only remember the shower scene.
Helium Watch: Chuck Lofgren, OF
I would go so far as to call it reasonably entertaining. Though it’s no Last Starfighter.
by fleerdon on Dec 19, 2008 10:37 AM EST up reply actions
Also, Last Starfighter would be a great nickname for anybody, for virtually any reason.
by fleerdon on Dec 19, 2008 10:38 AM EST up reply actions
Yes, Stargate was the one about the transdimensional ancient Egyptian god and the thermonuclear device, fun, PG-13. Starship Troopers was the very R, very Denise-Richards-in-her-prime (such as it was) satire piece. Not really a whole lot of overlap there.
by fleerdon on Dec 19, 2008 10:46 AM EST up reply actions
i remember convincing my mom to check that out for me when i was like 12 or 13 or something, and at the counter the clerk was all like this has explicit scenes, and i had to play dumb … good times.
Anti-Ben Fran before it was cool.
by Gradyforpresident on Dec 19, 2008 11:21 AM EST up reply actions
Yeah, that was it. Agreed on the shower scene
Burn on, big river, burn on...
by Turkmenbashi on Dec 19, 2008 12:18 PM EST up reply actions
You’re oversimplifying the word. It more literally means portal and a door is a type of portal. In Italy you can pay for a train ticket at a porta or buy a gelato at a porta, but to us it looks like a window. So if and when ESPN Sportscenter—a show that used to be far more intelligent—you can scoff at their superficial treatment of the word. I hope LaPorta does well enough to be mentioned on Sportscenter.
by PatBordersHelmet on Dec 19, 2008 12:10 PM EST up reply actions
Well, I can dig The Door. I just though I remembered suggesting the Door and it getting pooh-poohed and so I went with DoorMatt.
Burn on, big river, burn on...
by Turkmenbashi on Dec 19, 2008 12:19 PM EST up reply actions
I don’t think it’s that easy to evaluate this deal. It wasn’t just Gootz for Valgood. We got Joe Smith, and Seattle got a boat load (pun intended) of prospects from the Mets.
Besides, I was referring to the suggestion of getting the Mariners involved in three way deal with Baltimore where we would give up Gark and get Gootz back.
"It's hard to win when you don't score." Cliff Lee, 9/28/05.
Stanky Fruit? Only if he’s a bad apple.
I’m sorry, that was terrible.
by ManchildinBeantown on Dec 17, 2008 5:35 PM EST up reply actions
the orioles system is strong at the top with wieters, tillman, arrieta and matusz. wieters is probably the best prospect in baseball and the pitchers are all interchangeable based on ceiling, age, command, and stuff. all four of these are off the table. the next tier has some interesting names.
brandon erbe and nolan reimold might be out of reach too and have some questions.
i like david hernandez and xavier avery personally. hernandez has great stuff and can get the K. some project hernandez in the pen, but if he can improve his control, he could be a good middle of the rotation starter. his eta is 2010. xavier avery is really young, but very athletic, and is a high-risk/high-reward OF prospect. eta 2011-2012.
The problem with trading Garko for a prospect is that it subtracts a 2009 starter for someone who probably won’t contribute until 2010. Unless of course Baltimore has a AAA prospect ready to contribute immediately, but I doubt they’d trade him for Garko and even still that’s an “eh” move.
I think we’d be looking at signing someone in that case — or committing to Shoppach as the starting catcher.
You know something? I just can’t get past it. I don’t want to trade Kelly. I’m just not sure he gets us back something more valuable than he could give us by staying with this club. And I’m not impressed by our “catching depth,” which consists of two bench players and a guy who’s not likely to break into the majors for two more years.
by fleerdon on Dec 17, 2008 6:04 PM EST up reply actions
I agree the catching depth scare me as does Vic age. the only catchers that are under 30 are Carlos and Kelly. I know times have changed and player are in better shape and work out in the off season but a catcher take a beating.
Fan in Texas
Half of baseball doesn’t have a legitimate catcher, so while Toregas may be considered a “backup” he is the type of player that some teams are actually starting
The point is that our depth is probably not much different from some teams’ starters. Like our division rivals, the Tigers. Doesn’t mean we’d get anything for our third and fourth guys, but if we needed them to become big league backups, I’d be comfortable with that
I hear you. I guess I should point out that I’m still in favor of pitching Garko, playing Vic at first 4 or 5 days a week, and starting Shoppach.
Even without regard to potential health issues: I understand that Kelly was unrealistically good in 2008, but I don’t see the argument that we therefore have to move him, because I don’t predict that he’s going to go bust. If he drops some OPS, he’s still, as you say, noticeably better than just about everybody else’s catcher. I get that we deplete Vic’s value considerably by using him at first more often, but unless and until another option comes along…
Kelly + Vic > Ryan + Vic, both offensively and defensively
The man hits. We have a big debate about acquiring another corner bat, and yet we talk about trading away a power-hitting plus-defender catcher*. The math, man, it’s not working for me.
*Yes, I’d get behind the move if it were a legit starter we’d be getting back. What’s the likelihood of that in this market?
by fleerdon on Dec 17, 2008 7:02 PM EST up reply actions
i’m totally with you on this. i’m in the SS Keep Kelly convoy
Anti-Ben Fran before it was cool.
by Gradyforpresident on Dec 17, 2008 7:36 PM EST up reply actions
Not digging the metaphor. You’d either be on the crew, or in the flotilla if you insist on having your own boat.
by fleerdon on Dec 17, 2008 8:14 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
can i be the ice cream ship?
do they still have ice cream ships?
Anti-Ben Fran before it was cool.
by Gradyforpresident on Dec 18, 2008 2:57 AM EST up reply actions
I used to read every WW1/2 history I could get my hands on back in late elementary and middle school.
here.
Anti-Ben Fran before it was cool.
by Gradyforpresident on Dec 18, 2008 3:49 AM EST up reply actions
More.
The relevant part:
Also, the “war’s most unusual ship was commissioned in 1945 at a cost of around one million dollars. It was the US Navy’s ‘Ice Cream Barge’ the world’s first floating ice cream parlor. It’s sole responsibility was to produce ice cream for US sailors in the Pacific region. The barge crew pumped out around 1,500 gallons every hour!”
Anti-Ben Fran before it was cool.
by Gradyforpresident on Dec 18, 2008 3:52 AM EST up reply actions
Sounds like the sort of thing that gets played up in an elementary school account of World War II.
“Thousands of the enemy lay dead…and everyone had ice cream! From a ship! Incredible, right?”
The man hits. We have a big debate about acquiring another corner bat, and yet we talk about trading away a power-hitting plus-defender catcher*. The math, man, it’s not working for me.
Freakin’ right on.
Burn on, big river, burn on...
by Turkmenbashi on Dec 18, 2008 10:25 AM EST up reply actions
And yet, if we move Kelly, what do we have for next year and the year after? Vic, who’s not healthy until we see it, and what else? Some potentially-okay-as-backup dudes?
I guess I think people are trigger happy on trades after getting burned by not selling high on Garko or (possibly) Gutierrez. But selling high is just a goal, and having a catcher who can actually hit is another, and at the moment I’m inclined to believe they’re mutually exclusive.
by fleerdon on Dec 18, 2008 8:35 PM EST up reply actions
Victor hit ,279/.351/.456 after he came off the DL (~85 PAs). Given his track record, I’ll take that as a good sign normal Vic is back. Gimenez may not be the best defensive catcher, but I think he’d be unlikely to make a fool of himself at the plate. If the team felt like they had enough offense, Toregas provides solid defense at the position. I think Santana may enter into the discussion by 2010.
Oh? what do you make of my larger argument, the one with the greater-than sign? And for that matter, what’s Shoppach going to net us in trade? I’m not opposed to it per se, I just can’t square trading a productive catcher for anything other than equivalent 2009 production in a position of need.
Sorry if that sounds contentious, Adam, obviously I value your viewpoint here.
by fleerdon on Dec 18, 2008 8:54 PM EST up reply actions
I agree there’s no reason to trade Shoppach (probably in combination with other stuff) if we don’t get a 2009 starter in return. But if we don’t see Shoppach as part of our long-term future, which despite his skills he probably is not, now is the time to trade him. He’s coming off a great, but probably unsustainable season. There are numerous teams with catching needs. He’s about to start getting more expensive, but is still cheap at the moment. And he’s still on the right side of 30 (for a little while longer). With Victor around for a few years and Santana in the system, Shoppach is not in position to be our starting catcher. We should trade him while his value is high, which is either this off-season or mid-season 2009.
Rationally I can understand all that. You acquire talent when it’s available to you, and trade that later for the talent you need. I just recoil a little at the idea that we’re not putting the best possible team on the field in 2009, and until we get a sure thing at DH or a better option than Garko at first, you’d have to convince me that our best possible team doesn’t have both Kelly and Vic on it.
by fleerdon on Dec 18, 2008 9:12 PM EST up reply actions
you’d have to convince me that our best possible team doesn’t have both Kelly and Vic on it.
So explain to me why Kelly isn’t handed the starting catcher job and Victor moved permanently to first. Does anyone think this is a bad idea?
There are a couple of arguments you can make for this. One is why turn Victor, who is a great catcher, into an average 1B? Granted, Garko is already an average/below-average 1B…
But I actually think that were Shoppach exposed to 120 starts this season, he would struggle much more than he did last season. I really think his incredible high K% is the product of some significant deficits in his approach which are eventually going to be exposed. He’ll always have real power, but I’m afraid he’s going to turn into a catching version of Rob Deer.
i’m on the trade shoppach band wagon…lets just get that out there.
one thing i’m concerned with the permanent shift to 1B for victor is that his bat doesn’t play as well there. he’s probably a league average 1B and an all-star catcher in terms of offensive production. well maybe a little above average at 1B, but you get my point.
however, we don’t currently have other options at 1B that produce a .500 slugging.
i’m in favor of a trade with the marlins. they are my preferred shoppach destination. i would use shoppach as the main piece to acquire josh johnson or ricky nolasco. either one would be our #3 starter in 2009.
this does mean we lean heavily on ryan garko to put together a full season like he hit in august and september. it also relies on a bounce back from hafner (i’d take a bounce back to 2007 levels even!).
if we get a starter via trade, can shapiro stretch the budget for a dunn/giambi type? if so, then i’m fine with a peralta/astrocab/barf infield.
this team is 2 moves away from serious contention in 2009. i’m optimistic and i think the team looks really good, but feels more like a 1st round exit in the playoffs than a world series winner.
Somebody will have to make the argument that “getting a starter via trade” in this market doesn’t mean Shoppach + prospects. And I’m going to make that a little more tangible, albeit purely speculative, just to test everybody’s pain threshold. Shoppach + Weglarz + Pontius. Shoppach + Rivero + Stevens. Shoppach + KDLC + Sipp.
You could just move Kelly for the highest bid. I’m pretty doubtful that bid would include anybody ML-ready or better. I can’t see anybody making a move for 2009, like acquiring just Shoppach, and wanting to give up 2009 talent. Not that it would be a bad trade, but I think it would be a trade for 2010 or 2011. In the meantime, we’re handing another 300 ABs to Garko.
by fleerdon on Dec 19, 2008 9:34 AM EST up reply actions
To flesh that out, consider this move from the other side. Imagine if we didn’t have Victor, and we were looking to add a catcher this off-season. Would you move a healthier, more productive Aaron Laffey for Kelly Shoppach, straight up? How about Dave Huff? Or a 2005-grade Cliff Lee?
Just doesn’t seem likely. Nobody’s going after Shoppach as a long-term acquisition. He’s affordable, but he’s not under control forever, and he wouldn’t be inexpensive for his remaining years. So the market for him is probably limited to teams in contention. Why would a team in contention flip a starter?
Like I said, not getting a starter back doesn’t make it a bad deal necessarily, but I think it does make it a 2011 deal, for what that’s worth. It’s a Beane move.
by fleerdon on Dec 19, 2008 9:42 AM EST up reply actions
all fair points.
i would never give shoppach away, and there are players i wouldn’t mind packaging him with to net a quality pitcher. johnson and nolasco are available because florida likes to trade guys before arbitration raises ruin their payroll.
would i trade shoppach/miller for johnson? probably. would i trade shoppach/kdlc/sipp? probably. these moves don’t scare me if the return is a strong pre-arb/arb pitcher.
anyway, are these moves even possible? probably not. you are right that it is stupid to trade shoppach just to trade him. you have to get value in return. if we are getting 50 cents on our dollar, then that seems pretty dumb.
I don’t know much about Johnson but you seem real high on him just looking at his stats and the fact that he pitches in the NL I don’t see him being that much better than what we already have in Laffey. If i’m going to trade Shoppach and a top prospect I want back a pitcher that will give me 200 inns and Johnson have never done that. But like I said I don’t know that much about Johnson.
Fan in Texas
oh, and another reason i like the marlins as a trading partner. they are stockpiling assets. they aren’t ‘in contention’ so much. they need a catcher and have a small surplus of pitching.
i agree that the move doesn’t make sense for the red sox to send us buchholz or masterson without us overpaying, but the marlins aren’t in a position to gouge us as much, if that makes any sense.
I agree that most teams probably won’t give us fair value back for Shoppach. That’s fair. I think some teams could really use a player of his caliber behind the plate, and they will continue to suffer with terrible production from that position
I guess I’m looking at it like this:
Salary savings + prospects acquired + eliminating risk that Kelly goes bust – the difference between Kelly’s 2009 offensive and defensive production and that of Garko, Giminez, Toregas, and whoever else gets that playing time
vs.
Kelly’s 2009 production – potential 2009 production of Garko, et al – not getting prospects for him – the risk that he goes bust
So it’s all a matter of valuation.
by fleerdon on Dec 19, 2008 2:42 PM EST up reply actions
You also have to include our ability to sign a 1st baseman in that equation.
Personally, I still think adding another quality pitcher is a huge need on this team. But absent a Ben Sheets signing or a creative alternative I’m missing, that’s probably not going to happen. Which is why, I’m starting to really hope we sign a quality LF/DH/1st baseman given the current market and what I estimate our budget to be. (Giambi seems like a good contract vs production vs budget match)
And I know Jay vehemently believes this won’t happen, at least with just prospects, but I’m still holding out hope for a Shoppach + Looch trade. I would gladly trade those two for a good AAA or AA prospect if it freed up salary to sign a good SP or Dunn.
Maybe I have my fanboy googles on, but I don’t think that’s an impossible trade.
by world dictator on Dec 19, 2008 3:49 PM EST up reply actions
anyone can DH. Stop putting delluccii in trade proposals. i know you want him gone, but he is not a “+” in any deal.
Relax buddy,
First, a 1B/DH type or OF/DH type is a commonly used term to describe certain types of players. The Dunn’s, Abreu’s, Giambi’s, etc. Or more specifically the type of players available which is why I’m using the term.
Second, if you don’t like my trade proposals deal with it. I’m not going to “stop it” because you disagree with me.
But more specifically, we just disagree about this. (And I know I’m in the minority here). If Shoppach makes around $3 million in arb, then his contract added to Dellucci’s is only $7 million in salary for 2009. Essentially paying $7 million in 2009 for Shoppach is still a bargain especially factoring in the two one year options for 2010 and 2011.
If you’re the GM who wants Shoppach but doesn’t want to trade the young ML/ ML ready talent Shapiro is probably looking for I don’t see any reason its out of the realm of possibility you wouldn’t take Dellucci’s expiring contract in return for lowering the quality of the prospect you’d have to surrender. Its not like payroll dumps never happen ( Mike Lowell, Lee Stevens…yeah I went there, probably Jason Marquis soon)
And really, I think the possibility that we package Dellucci in a trade is just as possible if not more probable than some of the other arguments that have been popular on this site (signing Lowe, acquiring Beltre for “cheap”, etc)
by world dictator on Dec 19, 2008 11:59 PM EST up reply actions
there is simply not a feasibly circumstance where dellucci gets dealt and the other team pays his entire salary, including the one you lay out here. it’s pure fantasy
It’s more than that. Humoring w.d. for just a moment, including Dellucci (and his full contract) in a Shoppach deal is essentially reducing the value of what we’re going to get back. Essentially we’d be selling talent (the better talent we would have received) in order to get that $4 million back.
The Indians never do that — in fact, they go the opposite direction, paying Blake’s salary in order to get Carlos Santana, etc. It would be more in character for the Indians to trade Dellucci while cover most or all of his salary, in the hopes of getting back a minor prospect or sweetening a Shoppach deal a little bit for an NL team that could use a lefty bat off the bench.
Still, that only happens if he’s looking good in spring training, and if he is, then why trade him?
That’s a fair point.
But there’s a big difference between calling a trade proposal “pure fantasy” and saying its not inline with Shapiro’s history as a GM.
While your descriptive claim is valid, and worth noting, its still in many ways non responsive to my argument that this is how Shapiro “should” act.
Like I said, I’m not at all opposed to descriptive claims being made, but I do think the standard should be more evenly applied. Like I said my idea is just as possible if not more probable than a lot of the other popular LGT ideas floated around at various times.
As far as whether Shapiro would actually make this trade, I think its possible. Shapiro certainly has his tendencies, but I think his creativity and savy is the biggest indicator of any future moves.
As you mention in your first paragraph, if our proposed trade partners ate Dellucci’s contract, then the prospect(s) they gave in return would be lower in value. But that’s my point. Given the added difficulty of acquiring young ML/ML ready talent because of this bad economy, I can see Shapiro deciding that the soft spot in the market has moved away from blocked young ML ready prospects to affordable/bargain free agents.
I can also see a team like Boston, who needs an OF anyways, eating Dellucci’s $4 million salary no problem. Like I said before, $7 million is still a bargain for Shoppach.
So in reality, the deal would be
Shoppach + Dellucci for B/B- prospect + free agent acquisition
instead of
Shoppach for Young ML talent/ML ready talent.
I know it seems weird that free agency is the soft spot in the offseason market, but this has been a weird offseason.
Just my opinion at least.
by world dictator on Dec 20, 2008 3:14 PM EST up reply actions
Young players are such a good deal, and free agents such a bad deal, that it’s hard to believe the pendulum could ever actually swing all the way to the point where that trade-off makes sense. In that direction, of course, but all the way?
You have to think of these young players like Valbuena as being worth something around $20 million. We can get a player like that for Shoppach. So when we save that $4 million, we’re still giving up a $20 million player that we could have gotten. If free agents fall, they may be a solid ROI proposition out there, but a $16 million bargain? I don’t see it.
I agree with everything you’ve said Jay, and I’m sure Shapiro does as well. But given the difficulty in acquiring young talent this offseason, I think this route is worth mentioning as a possibility. I don’t know how the front office feels about the remaing free agents but is it really that unlikely
that they’d be willing to give someone a contract in the range of 3yr/$45 mil?
Beyond that, this scenairo isn’t an either/or. Its merely an alternative if young talent isn’t available which would allow us to get a good FA and a prospect.
In Peter Gammons blog entry today he mentioned that the Sox offered the D-backs Daniel Bard for Chris Montero. The D backs turned the deal down, but Gammons speculates that the Red Sox might be willing to accept Chris Byrnes $22 million contract as well in order to get the deal done. Gammons knows the Red Sox pretty well, so I take his opinions very seriously. If the Sox are willing to take on $22 million for Montero I don’t think its impossible that they’d take on$4 million for Shoppach.
BA ranks Bard as one of Boston’s top 10 prospects. While Shapiro probably isn’t interested in Bard, a future closer who’s fastball consistently hits 97-98 and can even hit 101, we could still get a very good prospect for Shoppach even if Boston ate Dellucci’s $4 million contract.
by world dictator on Dec 20, 2008 7:51 PM EST up reply actions
I’d rather get an upgrade in players from them for Shoppach than $4m.
by Logodaedalus on Dec 20, 2008 9:43 PM EST up reply actions
I’m calling it fanboy goggles. This is not going to morph into a $95MM baseball team in 3 months.
by fleerdon on Dec 19, 2008 6:30 PM EST up reply actions
Your diagnosis of other teams interest in Shoppach seems highly speculative at this point and based on a very half glass empty view.
As you pointed out Shoppach is affordable and under team control for multiple years. That right there makes him valuable. Not to mention his 28.3 VORP which is 3rd among catchers in the AL and 8th in the ML. This makes Shoppach affordable, under team control for multiple years and productive.
So, I’m not sure we should get so down on Shoppach’s trade value.
Of course you can say “well he’s not dirt cheap” and “he’s not under team control for several years” but good luck finding a productive catcher on the trade market who is.
The real problem with a lot of these posts is the unrealistic trade expectations. You rarely ever see a team willing to trade a well established #3 starter. So if you’re stance is #3 starter or bust, I don’t think its going to happen.
In fact that type of trade, with or without Shoppach, seems very “un-Shapiro like” imo, because of the cost likely to be involved in terms of either prospects and/or salary.
I think any chance we have to improve our rotation via trade is probably going to involve a young cheap starter who has a chance/probability to perform well.
by world dictator on Dec 19, 2008 2:52 PM EST up reply actions
I quite agree on Shoppach’s long-term value. I think he absolutely would be viewed as a long-term acquisition. First, it’s three years — or more accurately, it’s one year with two one-year club options — which is even better. Second, not only is three years a fairly long time, but it’s also about as long as teams really would like to go for almost any player, and especially for catchers. Third, Shoppach’s career to date has been modest enough that it’s reasonable to assume that after the 2009 season, no matter what he does, a team should be able to lock him up for an extra two or three years (four or five years beyond 2009) without ridiculous difficulty or expense.
Acquiring Shoppach is definitely a long-term move, in every good way.
So if you’re stance is #3 starter or bust, I don’t think its going to happen.
Pretty sure I said that, and more. “I can’t see anybody making a move for 2009, like acquiring just Shoppach, and wanting to give up 2009 talent.” My bit about the market for Kelly being primarily teams in contention — well, take it or leave it. But you’d have to sell me on the probability of us getting a young, cost-controlled starter for him. Seems like an awful lot in this market.
by fleerdon on Dec 19, 2008 7:06 PM EST up reply actions
I think Shoppach is going to be exposed in more ABs; I don’t have any logic for that, just a feeling.
I’d move him for a trio B/B+/A-, one in high A, one in AA, right now. I don’t think it’s going to hurt the team that much going forward because I don’t think Shoppach is going to be all that good and I think it will set the team up to be really, really, really good in 2010-2011.
I’m not sure if I really believe that, but I wrote it. I’m definitely in the category of people who are gun-shy about not moving a questionable guy at peak value.
I can accept that on its own terms, and I love the idea of loading up for a few years out. It’s very soothing to me for the team to deep in the upper minors, which must be the point where fandom passes over into psychosis.
But I think there’s been some misconception about what trading Kelly entails. I think it will be for prospects only, and it will not be for near-ML ready prospects. And there’s a very real risk that it hurts the Indians next year.
by fleerdon on Dec 19, 2008 10:56 AM EST up reply actions
If that’s psychosis, then sign me up.
If I can get three Nick Weglarz for Shoppach, that’s good enough. And he’s not ML-ready.
Don’t tell me you didn’t just spend two minutes trying to think up a plural form of “Weglarz.”
“Weglarzi,” or maybe “Weglarza’i.”
by fleerdon on Dec 19, 2008 11:14 AM EST up reply actions
Weglarzen?
This is a hard one. I would not hesitate to trade Kelly and a top position prospect for an above average pre-arb pitcher. If that’s not possible, I’m less sure what I’d do. On the one hand, the above is the only trade that would be a net positive for 2009, and Shoppach would be very valuable in allowing Victor to play a lot of first, minimize Garko, etc. On the other hand, if there were a trade that was a great deal for 2010… Man, that’s tough… I guess I think that if the goal is to maximize our chances of winning a WS sometime in the next three seasons, our chances should only improve in the next couple years, so optimizing those teams would be a good strategy. But it would have to be a good deal — as Andrew suggests, something like three Weglarzen-calibers would probably be enough for me. Especially if we are somehow able to sign a big bat on a short deal to play first in 2009.
by Logodaedalus on Dec 19, 2008 11:41 AM EST up reply actions
Without getting a good, proven pitcher (not a 4 or 5 starter), I wouldn’t trade him.
And I don’t consider Buchh/Master nearly as proven as Johnson or Nolasco. Or Peavy.
Travis Hafner is overrated. Clarity is underrated. David Dellucci is David Dellucci.
(salivates at the thought of Peavy)
(cannibal imagery?)
by Logodaedalus on Dec 19, 2008 1:33 PM EST up reply actions
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.
