Adam LaRoche

by tait644 on Jan 11, 2007 8:25 AM PST

Looks like the Braves wanted Mike Gonzalez and Chris Duffy for LaRoche. (See Ken Rosenthal's latest article)

Why couldn't we deal Sherril and Reed for LaRoche?

And then move Broussard and Sexson for relievers?

I wonder if Broussard and a prospect could get us Gonzalez?

Just thinking out loud...

Tweet Comment 14 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Mike Gonzalez >>>>>>

G. Sherrill.

That being said, Soriano should have been good enough

by Matthew on Jan 11, 2007 8:27 AM PST reply actions

Gonzalez is a great reliever, but I think he and GS52 are a lot closer than it might appear. In some sense, they're twins separated at birth - both are lefties who prevent HRs despite average GB rates, both get a good amount of Ks, both walk a few more batters than you'd like, and both kicked around the minors (or the indies) for years before becoming absolutely unhittable in the high minors.
Certainly Gonzalez gets points for another year with a sparkling ERA, but his walk rate is consistently above 5. Yeah, Sherrill's was over 6, but that's so out of step with his career/MiLB numbers, I'd expect that back down into the low 4s/Hi 3s again next year.
And speaking of regression to the mean, Gonzalez has been the recipient of some remarkably high strand rates the past two years, while GS52 continues to be the victim of freakishly low strand rates. I'm not saying that George is likely to get a lot more help this year without Raffy, but I think Gonzalez/Sherrill are going to end up pretty close in that metric over time. And when they do, they'll put up very similar ERAs.
Now you're right about one thing - Gonzalez has much better platoon splits; he's not as vulnerable to righties as GS52. But even there, a lot of the gap is batting average related, and George had a freakishly high BABIP vs. righties. Both of them walk too many righties, but neither give up XBHs, so it seems a large percentage of the gap is simply a difference in singles allowed.

[This has been your obligatory George-Sherrill-is-Awesome post, brought to you by Free George Sherrill]

by marc w on Jan 11, 2007 9:27 AM PST up reply actions

Hmm

Did the LoL server eliminate the breaks after your paragraphs? (not doing the USSM critiquing, just curious)

by Trent on Jan 11, 2007 9:43 AM PST up reply actions

As a matter of fact,

yes. I'll add two lines in between next time.

by marc w on Jan 11, 2007 1:29 PM PST up reply actions

You Go, Marc!

Yeah, what Marc said!

But, like I gabbed with Norm Norm about (who happened to agree) at the Caravan stop, GS52 truly was getting squeezed a lot by the umps. I can't tell you how many times I threw things across the room when strike three was called a ball, and then something like either ball 4 or a base hit would come on the very next pitch.

And then there's the whole health factor. While George has had a few issues, he's had nowhere near the concerns that Gonzalez has.

The reason for the perception of a gap between GS52 and Gonzalez, I believe, is because Gonzalez is probably by far the best reliever on his team, whereas up until this offseason, GS52 had some competition in Putz, Lowe and Soriano.

Iceberg, right ahead!

by PositivePaul on Jan 11, 2007 9:46 AM PST up reply actions

I agree

For some reason, if I recall, the Pirates would not do the LaRoche deal because of the Braves' insistence on Duffy. Meaning, they were willing to give up Gonzalez without batting an eyelash.

Would Broussard/prospect be enough to get Gonzalez?? I don't know, but I'd love to find out.

by tait644 on Jan 11, 2007 8:29 AM PST reply actions

Couple points

Mike Gonzalez IS the better reliever. He's posted substantial better K/9, BB/9, HR/F, xFIP, etc. rates than Sherrill (over their careers). Plus, for the scouty minds out there, his 'stuff' is significantly better.

In regards to Broussard + for Gonzalez idea, it might work, but LaRoche is the better player so I'd guess the Pirates would need a decent prospect back. Then you run into the problem that you've now acquired Gonzalaez and if the plan is to flip him for LaRoche, where does LaRoche play? A trade of Sexson is unlikely at this point based on the lack of teams who would want a $14 million 1B who is on the wrong side of 30. The idea holds water if it was a talent swap, but there's just no market for Sexson.

by Trent on Jan 11, 2007 9:59 AM PST reply actions

It's Okay...

I forgive you, Trent.

I will agree that Gonzalez has better scouty stuff than GS52.

Iceberg, right ahead!

by PositivePaul on Jan 11, 2007 10:08 AM PST up reply actions

Gonzales vs. GS52

The biggest difference in the perceived value of the two falls under one category....

vs. RHH
Gonzales - .217/.310/.291
GS52 - .286/.419/.376

Until Sherrill can flip those numbers around he'll be perceived as a LOOGY, while Gonzales is perceived as a complete reliever.

by MfaninAlaska on Jan 11, 2007 10:55 AM PST up reply actions

Yup

by Trent on Jan 11, 2007 11:14 AM PST up reply actions

A fair point

and if this is 'true talent level' then there's no argument about this. But I think there's something to the fact that GS52 has given up a freakishly high BABIP to RH, and since his ISO-P is in the same general ballpark, I'm betting this gap might narrow over time.

It's my story, and I'm sticking to it. Oh, and the one year spike in George's walk rate will vanish, too.

by marc w on Jan 11, 2007 1:32 PM PST up reply actions