Trading two prospects of this caliber for 200 at-bats of Casey Blake is a ridiculous waste.
Joe Sheehan, Baseball Prospectus
First, the price. Power righthander Jonathan Meloan, whose 5-10 and record and 4.97 ERA at Las Vegas are less reflective of his talent than they are the context in which he’s pitching, is half the package. Meloan is about ready to be a middle man in the majors, and his upside is that of a high-leverage, high-strikeout reliever. The other prospect, Carlos Santana, is a catcher who is a little old for the Florida State League (22), however he has hit very well this year and has earned good grades for his defense. These prospects haven’t gotten the play that Matt Kemp, Clayton Kershaw and the rest of the Dodgers’ youth has gotten, but they’re also very talented and can’t be treated as free resources. Trading two prospects of this caliber for 200 at-bats of Casey Blake is a ridiculous waste.
Moreover, according to ESPN.com’s Jayson Stark, Blake is slotted to take time from LaRoche, who is almost certainly as good Blake, and has upside Blake doesn’t have. The Dodgers could improve their situation by playing Blake in the outfield in lieu of Andruw Jones and/or Juan Pierre, as those two are among the worst players in baseball in 2008, and Blake.isn’t. Playing Blake, or if you prefer, the outfielders ahead of LaRoche is actively hurting your team’s chances of winning. This is nothing new for the Dodgers, who have come to value experience over performance, but it is a sight to behold.
This is a great package for Mark Shapiro. It’s actually a better package, relative to what he gave away, that the Matt LaPorta-plus one he received for CC Sabathia.
4 months ago
Toxicadam
30 comments
0 recs |
Comments
It’s amazing how Blake is a lightning rod for enlightened baseball analysts. The old school guys see the beard, and the clutch-hitting (he leads the league!) and the BP guys see Blake blocking another young player with new-school skills.
Colletti can add Blake to his Andruw & Juan collection.
by odradek on Jul 26, 2008 11:56 PM EDT 0 recs
I disagree. The biggest knock on Blake has always been his supposed inability to hit with RISP (look at those career numbers!), which is something that “new school” analysts tend to disregard when evaluating a player. They also understand where Blake’s value truly lies—in his ability to play four positions (and provide above-average defense at three of them) while supplying average or slightly above average offensive production.
Blake currently leads his new team in OPS among qualified batters. That’s nothing to sneeze at. I agree with Sheehan, though, that the Dodgers would probably do best to plug him into an outfield spot and let LaRoche take over 3B permanently.
by Cap'n Snegiryov on
Jul 27, 2008 3:48 AM EDT
up
0 recs
Well, you’re right in that much of Blake’s real talent is hidden—that is, not easily recognized by so-called idiot stats—and to a certain degree the BP analysts will always rail against the trading of any young talent for “proven winners.” But isn’t the old-school value for Blake in the intangibles? In his leadership? His steadying hand in the clubhouse? His Dudley Dooright demeanor and prominent chin? These intangibles are what I was referring to, not to his ability to play four corner positions. Plus, Casey will not end the season with the highest OPS. And that’s not because Dodgers Stadium is a tough hitter’s park.
And do you really think the Dodgers dismissed Casey’s career RISP? Or were they instead enamored of this year’s garish “clutch-hitting” numbers? I think Blake represents both to Wedge and Torre an example of teams’ falling in love with their players, and projecting desired qualities unto them. As I remember, this is a fallacy Bill James often cited.
Does Casey provide above-average defense at first base? Anecdotally he seemed to make a lot of sharp plays there.
By the way, it’s always a pleasure and honor to have a dispute with a Fyodor character. FD is the boss.
by odradek on
Jul 27, 2008 11:01 AM EDT
up
0 recs
I don’t know what the Dodgers’ front office discussions about Blake sounded like-Colletti has almost reached a level of self-parody with his comments from yesterday (“gamer”, “grinder”, etc.-anyone see the FJM write-up on the deal? Good stuff). It’s easy to assume that they went after Blake for his “old-school” attributes-his grittiness, his beardface, his whiteness, etc.-but remember that the Dodgers do have some top-flight talent working in that front office under Colletti (Kim Ng and that other dude have come up in the Mariners’ GM discussions), so I hesitate to dismiss them all as idiots, even though I do think they got fleeced. Remember though, they do some things very well that our stats-friendly FO has struggled with—they’ve built a top-flight farm system through their draft picks, for one.
RE: Blake’s defense at first: when I made that comment, I was referring more to the anecdotal evidence and the fact that third basemen playing at first usually seem to do well (think Kevin Youkilis). In a small sample from this year, THT puts Blake in the middle of the pack defensively at 1B—like I said, though I was relying more on the anecdotal evidence than anything.
Glad to see a fellow Dostoevsky reader on here—sometimes I wonder what I was thinking when I chose this tag, as naming yourself after an FD character seems kind of douchebaggy, but some people seem to like it, so that’s . . . something.
by Cap'n Snegiryov on
Jul 27, 2008 11:48 AM EDT
up
0 recs
With all due respect to Ng and “that other dude,” while I’m sure there are good reasons they are mentioned as top GM prospects, that doesn’t mean that they’re especially strong with the objective analysis part of the job. Colletti needs a guy like DePo more than Beane ever did — obviously — but he doesn’t necessarily have one. Makes you appreciate a guy like Hart, an oldhead who appreciated any type of smarts he came across, cultivated people and always wanted maximum input from everyone.
by Jay on
Jul 27, 2008 11:59 AM EDT
up
0 recs
My theory is that the Dodgers’ success increases the farther away you get from McCourt. Frank McCourt fired Depodesta, after all. He’s involved in most of the trades, and seems the archetype of an invasive, know-it-all owner. Gammons suggests the Dodgers sweetened the trade when the Indians were willing to pay Blake’s salary, and speculates the Dodgers have cash-flow issues.
by odradek on
Jul 27, 2008 1:23 PM EDT
up
0 recs
To elaborate: Presumably, McCourt doesn’t get too involved in draft choices (except, perhaps, to stay away from guys with signing issues). Therefore, these guys are allowed to do their jobs relatively free of interference.
by odradek on
Jul 27, 2008 1:25 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Here’s an example of what the “old school guys see” (at least, the relevant old-school guys):
Joe Torre: I watched him for a number of years when I was over in the other league. He was a guy who gave them a tough out, especially in key situations, and he’s got a grinding attitude. [...] And the more people you can acquire that have the work ethic that he does, I think it’s got to be a positive.
Ned Colletti: Casey Blake is a gamer. His experience and character will be a plus as we head down the stretch in the final two months of the regular season.
Also! Florida State League?
"A good body with a dull brain is as cheap as life itself."
by Fiddlesticks on
Jul 27, 2008 11:39 AM EDT
up
0 recs
First, both of those guys are making statements to the media for public consumption, and they are fairly boilerplate.
Second, neither is paid to be a statistical analyst per se. Yet you will note neither cited RISP or “clutch” in their statements — the reporters makes a statement about “clutch,” then follows it up with a Torre/Colletti quote about “experience” or “character” or “gamer.” These concepts should not be conflated, and Torre and Colletti aren’t the ones putting them adjacent.
Third, there is a necessity not to knock the guys Blake is displacing in the lineup. The Dodgers may have significant concerns about those guys that they’re afraid to voice. LaRoche has the upside, but maybe they have good reason to think he isn’t going to snap out of it in the middle of a tight pennant race — maybe they’re concerned he’ll collapse totally. There’s nothing dumb or old-fashioned about that.
Fourth, Casey’s grinding is a real, measurable and positive attribute, at least in terms of making opposing pitchers work harder to get the out.
Fifth, it’s foolish to overlook clubhouse issues entirely, and Torre certainly has the experience to speak on that with authority. The mistake comes in over-valuing a player’s modeling of productive behavior, that is, to the point where a player is vastly overpaid or preferred to someone who is substantially more productive on the field. It is not a mistake to value a player’s personality and leadership qualities; it is a mistake to over-value it, as it is a mistake to over-value any quailty, tangible or intangible.
by Jay on
Jul 27, 2008 11:56 AM EDT
up
0 recs
Jay, these are all valid points. But I was interested in the inverse: how statheads typically disfavor the trade of young talent for old gamers—and this trade is a poor example for my point, because it clearly favors youth—and how Casey is the archetype of this sort of trade. I can’t remember an example where Keith Law would say: good move, Dombrowski, for giving up Jair Jurgens to get some old dude who’s a proven winner. I know there have to be examples of somebody dumping a bunch of young garbage to get a solid veteran, but the market sure has changed.
by odradek on
Jul 27, 2008 1:30 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Agreed. But it’s in the California League, not the FSL, as ‘Sticks was getting at, above. The point is that Santana’s numbers probably need to be discounted a little bit. It’s a hitters’ league.
by ken from alexandria on
Jul 27, 2008 12:22 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Blake is slotted to take time from LaRoche, who is almost certainly as good Blake, and has upside Blake doesn’t have.
sounds familiar
by Brick. on Jul 27, 2008 12:30 PM EDT 0 recs
Maybe Marte can get LaRoche’s cell phone number so he can offer him some advice for dealing with this situation. You know, ways to occupy yourself while sitting on the bench, the proper way to greet whoever throws out the ceremonial first pitch.
by Buckeye Brad on
Jul 27, 2008 1:38 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Or at least send him his old dominoes set.
Il faut d'abord durer.
by CU Adam on
Jul 27, 2008 3:02 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Who is going to catch that first pitch now that Andy Marte is starting at 3b? Andy Gonzalez? David Dellucci?
Free Andy Marte!
by woodsmeister on
Jul 27, 2008 4:04 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Hello Brad,
It sounds like the same situation with Brady Quinn getting advice from Aaron Rodgers on how to “sit and wait your turn behind someone else” (in those cases, though, a Pro Bowler (Anderson) and a Pro Bowler who is probably a HOF QB (Favre)). Additionally, Tony Romo gave Quinn advice too on how to “wait your turn and take advantage when you get the opportunity.”
That’s the situation I thought of when I read your comment about Marte and LaRoche getting together to talk about how to occupy yourself on the bench.
Just my 2 cents.
The "cream of the crop" doesn't always rise to the top.
by indiansfan on
Jul 27, 2008 11:50 PM EDT
up
0 recs
How do you guys think this trade compares with the Ramirez/Lofton deal? Wasn’t that trade universally thought of as fair on both sides? Granted, Ramirez wasn’t the defender that Santana is supposed to be, but he was a good hitting prospect. On the other hand, I think Blake is more valuable this year than Lofton was last year. If the Dodgers had left out Meloan, is this trade fair?
by piersall on Jul 27, 2008 12:55 PM EDT 0 recs
it’s two months of casey blake. the dodgers got hosed.
by Gradyforpresident on
Jul 27, 2008 1:03 PM EDT
up
0 recs
I like the comp a lot actually. Casey Blake OPS+ this year = 121; Kenny Lofton last year when we traded for him = 116. All we got was 170 AB from the guy and he didn’t play up to his season’s numbers even. Casey Blake is a good player, and very useful. Just wasn’t useful to us this year anymore and probably wasn’t used correctly when he was here. Just because he had a beard and Wedge preferred him, doesn’t actually make him a bad player. Heck, if anything, the season Blake has had justifies Wedge’s decision to play him over Marte to win games (that is until the season was lost, which some people think was in early June). I really doubt Marte would have put up an OPS+ of 121.
Anyway, it was a good haul, but I wouldn’t be crying too much as a Dodger fan. I would push Torre to play him in RF, instead of 3B, but who knows what they are thinking, with their OF situation.
by DaytonDogg on
Jul 27, 2008 11:34 PM EDT
up
0 recs
He did make a sick defensive play to end the Dodgers game today.
by supermarioelia on
Jul 28, 2008 12:03 AM EDT
up
0 recs
Which required very little lateral movement, so it was right up Casey’s alley.
by FredOx on
Jul 28, 2008 7:16 AM EDT
up
0 recs
That’s an interesting comp.
The big difference is Santana’s defense on which the jury is still considered to be out. When we traded Max the consensus seemed to be that he was a bat without a position, at all. Obviously he’s playing catcher now, so he must not be that bad.
I do think Santana for Blake would’ve been about right if Blake was as sought after as Lofton but the market this year was just much different. A lot of teams were trying to add a Blake type player. The market for Lofton probably never reached 50% of what it was for Blake. At least that’s my impression.
by afh4 on
Jul 27, 2008 1:20 PM EDT
up
0 recs
That’s more or less my thinking. Somebody else must have been willing to pay a lot for Blake as well. This is the kind of package designed to beat another team’s bid; unless the Dodgers know something we don’t or are colossally stupid, there’s no way Meloan and Carl was just something the two teams hammered out as a fair swap.
Of course, in order for that to happen, you’d have to be the sort of organization which would get involved in a bidding war for Casey Blake. Kind of a chicken-egg thing.
by fleerdon on
Jul 27, 2008 5:08 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Max was actually sent down to Double-A today.
Since his first week in the bigs, he’s started seven games in four weeks, all of them at catcher. Here’s something amazing, though: in those seven games, the Rangers have allowed 74 runs, while in their other 15 games over the same period, they only allowed 70.
I’m not saying it means anything necessarily, but … holy crap!
by Jay on
Jul 27, 2008 5:31 PM EDT
up
0 recs
The Rangers gave up less than 9 runs in only one of those starts. Surprisingly, very few HR, but 33 BBs.
by FredOx on
Jul 27, 2008 9:06 PM EDT
up
0 recs
I didn’t like the Lofton deal but I don’t think it was an epic failure either. I just thought Max was too valuable to give up, specially considering Ben Francisco’s line would not have been all that different from Lofton’s. I guess the ultimate deciding factor of that deal will ultimately be whether or not Max stays at catcher. If he does, it was a pretty bad deal. If not, I’d say about even to a slight advantage to the Rangers.
Santana’s different because he has better defensive value than Max does/did (at least from what I have read) and we still got a power righty for the bullpen as well. I love this deal.
by Joe. on
Jul 27, 2008 1:31 PM EDT
up
0 recs









