Ok, Tell me why this would be a bad idea
by Greybear on Feb 4, 2009 6:12 PM PST
Email
PrintWe need a bat, preferably one with some ability to play the outfield, if not on a regular basis. We have an overpriced, durable, underperforming pitcher (well, 3, but I'll only talk about 1), whom we can't give away
The White Sox need someone to plug into the back of the rotation. They have an overpriced, defensively challenged outfielder who still puts up a good OPS whom they can't give away.
Washburn is 10.5 million this year.
Jermaine Dye is 11.5 million this year.
As a hitter, Dye is a right-handed Abreu. Not ideal, but with this trade he would be essentially a freebie. His defense would probably still be better than Ibanez's and his hitting would a big help.
As a straight-up trade it looks interesting. And if they'd rather have Silva..Hey, no problem.
94 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Washburn isn't underperforming.
He’s doing EXACTLY what he thought he would.
Fans are typically idiots.
by The Typical Idiot Fan on Feb 4, 2009 6:18 PM PST reply actions
And he let himself off the hook!
I DRINK YOUR MILKSHAKE!!! I DRINK IT UP!!
Would you all believe I did that on purpose?
Me either.
“Exactly what WE thought he would”. Ah well, it’s funnier this way.
Fans are typically idiots.
by The Typical Idiot Fan on Feb 4, 2009 11:43 PM PST up reply actions
Because Jermaine Dye is worth more to the White Sox than Jarrod Washburn
and giving up talent in order for the deal to make sense for the White Sox wouldn’t make sense for the M’s.
And also, I’m not convinced Dye is worth more to the Mariners than Washburn is.
But the White Sox are trying to shed Dye's salary....
not trade it for someone making almost the same for worse production.
Why would the White Sox do this?
Unlike the M’s they don’t just want to dump Dye’s salary. He is still an excellent player hitter. The only problem for them is that he is a terrible defender and they can’t stick him in the DH because they already have another terrible defender there. If the Sox were a smartly run org they would trade away Dye for Washburn and Chavez. Then there OF defense wouldn’t be so atrocious.
vivaelbensheets
Well we're treating players equal when they're not...
that my friends is communism.
BOOYA! You got Slurved!
Jermaine Dye is a terrible player unless he is a DH
In theory this could actually make some sense for the White Sox (if we sweetened the pot a bit), but it’ll never happen.
It would obviously come down to what, exactly, we'd have to include to sweeten said pot
I’d be on the fence about something like Washburn/Wlad, but I’d still rather explore ways to get somebody younger and cheaper.
by Jeff Sullivan on Feb 4, 2009 9:26 PM PST up reply actions
I am actually starting to like this idea
Dye will make ~$1M more than Washburn this season and once you add in the $1M buyout for 2010, he doesn’t cost a whole lot more. Since we just want to open up Washburn’s rotation spot anyway for one of the young guys, why not try something like this and kill two birds with one stone, opening a rotation spot for Olson or RRS while acquiring a good bat to DH and help make us more competitive this year?
I do to
now if only it weren’t just pure rosterbation =(
by seattlebruin on Feb 4, 2009 11:15 PM PST up reply actions
Salary-wise, it'd just be a lateral move (and actually ending up paying more in the process
I’d be fine with Dye as our DH, but not at that price. This doesn’t seem like a Zduriencik-type move to me.
Is that the light at the end of the tunnel, or the headlights of an oncoming train?
Well you'd be clearing up a logjam in the rotation to acquire a bat for a position of need, DH
this actually sounds exactly like a GMZ-type idea
But Dye is a proven veteran and world series MVP.
He knows what it takes to win and this club needs a leader to make up for the loss of Willie “Gritmaster Flex” Bloomquist.
But they are worth the same on the road
The difference isn’t as big as people say. Its significant but not as big as your statement makes it sound.
by Edgar for Pres on Feb 4, 2009 11:10 PM PST up reply actions
Strangely enough this team plays at home as well as on the road.
by Graham MacAree on Feb 4, 2009 11:14 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
This doesn't address his point, which is correct
You’re talking about a handful of runs over a full season. Significant, yes, but not astronomical.
by Jeff Sullivan on Feb 4, 2009 11:44 PM PST up reply actions
But I never claimed it was astronomical in the first place
It’s on the order of half a win, which is going to be a non-trivial portion of their total worth.
by Graham MacAree on Feb 4, 2009 11:51 PM PST up reply actions
Right, I agree with you.
But where, in our current situation, are we going to find a left-handed Abreu? We’d always want to take a lefty over a righty, all things equal, but in this hypothetical, Dye being right-handed wouldn’t be a good enough reason not to make the deal.
by Jeff Sullivan on Feb 5, 2009 12:05 AM PST up reply actions
As far as I can tell, we're got a few million dollars we can spare.
If you’re trading Washburn at all, better to trade him entirely for salary relief and sign Abreu rather than attempting both at once.
Not that I’m saying it’s a bad idea, it’s just something to consider.
by Graham MacAree on Feb 5, 2009 7:14 AM PST up reply actions
I'd love to do that
Unfortunately nobody seems to be biting.
by Jeff Sullivan on Feb 5, 2009 7:25 AM PST up reply actions
Sadly true
I don’t expect that the ChiSox would take the bait on this one either though. They can get more for Dye than Washburn and $1M in relief, surely?
by Graham MacAree on Feb 5, 2009 8:12 AM PST up reply actions
That's why we'd have to sweeten the pot
I just doubt that, say, Wlad would be enough.
by Jeff Sullivan on Feb 5, 2009 8:51 AM PST up reply actions
If you're going pot-sweetening start with Washburn as a salary dump, not with Washburn for Dye.
by Graham MacAree on Feb 5, 2009 9:07 AM PST up reply actions
I have to imagine that Zduriencik has already been trying that
by Jeff Sullivan on Feb 5, 2009 9:36 AM PST up reply actions
I tend to think people don't WANT to pick up much salary for players like Washburn.
So, basically salary dump deals for Washburn probably end up being something like Washburn + 8 million for whatever you get back in trade. Obviously that won’t work for Dye (paying 20 million for him would be insane).
I have a feeling Washburn will be more valuable in July, after he’s spent a few months with a superior defense behind him distorting his true value ala 2002/2005. Some GM is going to be more willing to go for the “proven veteran” in the middle of a pennant race, especially when they only have to pay 3 million or so of his salary. Consider that the Twins were willing to risk getting stuck with him on waivers last year.
by eponymous_coward on Feb 5, 2009 9:50 AM PST up reply actions
US Cellular WOULD be one of the better ballparks for Wlad to play in.
I’m not saying he’d turn into Jermaine Dye there, but if he is going to fulfill his high-end projections, he would be best able to do it someplace like there, or Arlington, or GABP.
by eponymous_coward on Feb 5, 2009 9:53 AM PST up reply actions
Half a win is not trivial
But I think it also is usually not enough to alter major player moves. Safeco depressed RHB’s stats but it usually doesn’t destroy them. Safeco should be in the back of a GM’s mind but shouldn’t dictate moves more than any other factors. I’d rather have slightly more talent than somebody who hits from the left side of the plate.
by Edgar for Pres on Feb 5, 2009 10:55 AM PST up reply actions
But I agree left over right if all other things are held equal
by Edgar for Pres on Feb 5, 2009 10:55 AM PST up reply actions
So then you agree that a right-handed Abreu is worth significantly less than a left-handed Abreu?
by Graham MacAree on Feb 5, 2009 11:05 AM PST up reply actions
Sounds to me
like it depends on how you define “significantly” . . .
by The Ancient Mariner on Feb 5, 2009 11:24 AM PST up reply actions
Yeah basically.
Also, has anybody ever thought about how accurate these WAR figures are. Ballpark are we thinking +/- 0.5 WAR over a full season? More? I have a hard time saying that the variance is less than half a win. I’m guessing its probably closer to a win.
by Edgar for Pres on Feb 5, 2009 6:13 PM PST up reply actions
This question is too vague for me to provide a good answer to.
Accurate to what? True talent, value, etc?
How about either true talent or value?
I’m guessing it does a pretty good job at value (without context) and is a little farther off when measuring true talent.
by Edgar for Pres on Feb 6, 2009 9:00 AM PST up reply actions
Well it all depends on what inputs you put into it.
The faith in WAR is actually the faith in wOBA/RE24/etc, FIP/tRA/etc, UZR/PMR/etc
Yeah its a hard question because its a pretty complex system
with a lot of inputs.
by Edgar for Pres on Feb 6, 2009 10:01 AM PST up reply actions
I generally look at them in a 0.5 win window
So, for example, a WAR of 2.8 would mean 2.5 – 3.
by Jeff Sullivan on Feb 5, 2009 10:03 PM PST up reply actions
I think thats pretty reasonable
I’d just like to have some back of the envelope calculations to back it up. I’m pretty confident in calling UZR +/- 5 runs. Since wOBA is better I’m guessing we can estimate the batting contribution to +/- 2.5 runs. I think 2.5 runs is probably a reasonable window to apply to the replacement and positional adjustment values too. This would give us +/- 6.6 runs by just doing a geometric average which translates to about 0.6-0.7 wins.
I’m not quite as sure about pitchers.
by Edgar for Pres on Feb 6, 2009 10:05 AM PST up reply actions
The important thing is to not treat a given WAR as precisely what it says
If Player A has a 3.3 WAR, and Player B has a 2.9 WAR, we can’t use that to say that Player A was necessarily better. 3.3 and 2.3 is a different story, but it’s really up to the reader to apply his own error bars.
by Jeff Sullivan on Feb 6, 2009 10:21 AM PST up reply actions
Yeah I agree with all that
Its just useful to have some insight into how big those error bars should be. For the typical reader that might not know how they are constructed, it may be difficult to develop much of an intuition. That’s why people think there is a difference between 2.3 and 2.4 WAR.
If you go to the trouble of trying to make a great statistic you might as well also try to think about how accurate it is. If I make a piece of scientific equipment to measure a property, the amount of error in that measurement is what makes it expensive.
by Edgar for Pres on Feb 6, 2009 11:35 AM PST up reply actions
I don't think we're yet equipped to appropriately measure the error of things like UZR and wOBA
by Jeff Sullivan on Feb 6, 2009 11:43 AM PST up reply actions
Wait wait
Measurement error in wOBA comes from how accurately we measure events on the playing field, surely? UZR is a different story, but wOBA’s should be pretty damn close to 0.
by Graham MacAree on Feb 6, 2009 12:02 PM PST up reply actions
wOBA is nearly perfect
but there are still little things like, say, separating infield singles and outfield singles.
by Jeff Sullivan on Feb 6, 2009 12:07 PM PST up reply actions
How well are the linear weights known to construct wOBA?
All the constants in the equations for wOBA I’m assuming have small uncertainties associated with them.
by Edgar for Pres on Feb 6, 2009 4:17 PM PST up reply actions
The linear weight values vary depending on
what you use to construct them. There is year to year variance. Its small but not zero. Any small uncertainty in these values will definitely propagate through the equations.
by Edgar for Pres on Feb 6, 2009 7:08 PM PST up reply actions
Maybe I'm not understanding how they are calculated
but if they use data from real life to compute the values, there will be errors.
by Edgar for Pres on Feb 6, 2009 7:11 PM PST up reply actions
Yeah I've read through all of this before
I guess I just don’t totally understand why these values are fact. It seems like all of this is extremely accurate. I would say that these values are experimentally found since they are computed from outcomes in real life. If you concede that they are is only 1% error then that means a HR is worth 1.400 +/- 0.014 runs. Do you think these values are more accurate that that?
I don’t understand this statement:
Remember what we said about how runs are created: the value of the event is the marginal impact on a given specific run environment. The values I presented therefore are perfect, under the above condition. The out therefore must have a value of -.27 runs. A perfect game however does not have negative runs scored, though.
I don’t get how they can be perfect. Its close and I’ll agree that is great and we don’t really need to improve anything. Perfect is hard to get though. The only constants we know perfectly are mathematical. Anything based on observation and experiments has some error in it from a variety of sources.
by Edgar for Pres on Feb 7, 2009 12:20 PM PST up reply actions
This is the sort of thread you should be having with Tango, rather than me
All I can really say on the matter is that, if you’re worried about the error bars inherent in certain advanced statistics, wOBA should be last on the list.
by Jeff Sullivan on Feb 7, 2009 1:40 PM PST up reply actions
Yeah I probably should
And yeah I’m not that worried about it. I’m just interested in it.
by Edgar for Pres on Feb 7, 2009 2:01 PM PST up reply actions
The GM should weigh the overall value of each player.
And park factors contribute to that.
So, basically...
Swisher>Abreu>Dunn/Dye>Thomas/Griffey? Would that be about the correct ranking of “OF/DH acquisitions”?
by eponymous_coward on Feb 5, 2009 12:13 PM PST up reply actions
Dunn is better than Abreu.
I’m not sure he’s anywhere as likely to sign here and DH, but on production alone he’s better.
by Aaron Campeau on Feb 5, 2009 12:29 PM PST up reply actions
Hmm
Fangraphs projects them as being ~comparable for 2009. Dunn is better, but it’s pretty darned close. Dye’s a bit behind both of them. So I guess it goes Swisher >>Dunn>Abreu>Dye>>Griffey/Thomas>Sweeney or random reclamation project or replacement level player
by eponymous_coward on Feb 5, 2009 12:45 PM PST up reply actions
Stadium-wise it would definitely be a bad fit
Dye’s raw numbers would take a hit, and Washburn might allow 4 HR/game during the summer at the Cell. [/exaggeration for effect]
It’s not the craziest idea in the world, though. It would have made more sense if the Mariners couldn’t get a good deal for Heilman and were determined to put him in the rotation.
With improved outfield defense, a little contract-year bump, and some luck, Washburn might look enticing halfway through the season. If long-term is the primary concern, I think that the expected return on Washburn would increase if the Mariners keep him around for 3-4 months.
Yes, but getting a left-handed Abreu is proving difficult at the moment
by Jeff Sullivan on Feb 4, 2009 11:20 PM PST up reply actions
There's a certain ex-Cubs soon to be ex-centerfielder I would recommend
but he’s 39 and I’m convinced he will collapse
by JI on Feb 4, 2009 11:29 PM PST up reply actions
It's not a bad idea, but it's not a good idea either.
We are not looking to piece together a run for the World Series this season. Dye would be a great addition as a final piece on a team making such a run. GMZ has made it clear in his dealings that he is looking beyond 2009. Trading Washburn for Dye is not a bad idea, but it’s not in line with what this team is building towards.
I think two valid points have already been made on why this trade is not a good idea:
1) Dye’s performance is going to hurt hitting in Safeco.
2) With the outfield we have, Washburn’s value may see a nice spike. This will give us a nice trade chip around the deadline, or a possible draft pick in 2010 (Washburn would have to be offered and then decline arbitration, but that is not a stretch).
Washburn has a $10.35m 2009 salary
There’s no way he’d be worth the risk of an arbitration offer.
by Jeff Sullivan on Feb 4, 2009 11:35 PM PST up reply actions
The way I see it...
…for Washburn to pump up his value enough for another team to sign him to a multi-year deal better than whatever his one-year arb. deal would be, he would have to pitch so well this year that he might wind up as a Type A free agent. But if he’s a Type A, then no one’s going to want to give up a draft pick to get him, so you might not get the picks anyway. So I don’t really see a good chance of the Mariners getting any kind of draft pick compensation out of Washburn.
I think the point about boosting his trade value is fair, though.
He might be able to land us a C/C+ prospect
but 95% of the time that player won’t turn into anything. Better to try hard to move Washburn now and settle for an in-season move only if you have to.
by Jeff Sullivan on Feb 4, 2009 11:46 PM PST up reply actions
Really?
I guess so, but I don’t think he’s going to get you anything more now, when teams would be on the hook for more money and they have less certainty about whether or not they’ll really be in the playoff hunt.
But moving him now would free up payroll space
which could be used to sign a bat.
This is all moot if Zduriencik trades for someone cheap, but we could really use that money right now.
by Jeff Sullivan on Feb 5, 2009 12:02 AM PST up reply actions
Dumping him for salary relief could be the best you might hope for now...
…but it doesn’t seem like that’s going to happen, I guess.
Well, here's the thing.
Jon Garland just signed for 7.25 million in guaranteed money. Randy Wolf is still out there. Seems to me you would go “Sure, Z, send maybe 6 million cash with Jarrod and we’ll send back some coupons for a half off a Grand Slam at Denny’s. Otherwise, I’m giving Randy Wolf’s agent a call.”
by eponymous_coward on Feb 5, 2009 10:00 AM PST up reply actions
I like it, assuming we can't get Abreu at 1/8 or whatever
Even though Dye plays in a bandbox, he was kind of really really good at hitting last year. I mean, his bat was 4 wins above replacement. And I don’t see any giant flashing signs that he’s about to fall off a cliff. Even if you estimate lower and add in the Safeco factor, as a DH, my guestimate would be that he’ll be worth 2 to 3 WAR when his icky defense doesn’t take away from his value.
Add in that the rotation might actually improve by swapping Washburn for RRS, and I’m sold. Even throwing in a million dollars or two just to sweeten the deal wouldn’t seem to matter – we’d be paying ~3 million for a 2-3 win improvement. Go Jack go!
As a 600 PA DH, Dye's more like 1.5-2 WAR
maybe even a little less, depending on how you treat the park adjustments.
by Jeff Sullivan on Feb 5, 2009 12:09 AM PST up reply actions
Well that's what I get for not looking up the park factors
Still seems worth it to me though, even at 1.5 wins added
His defense rated as badly/worse than Raul's
Jermaine Dye is useless if he’s playing the field.
by JI on Feb 5, 2009 12:22 AM PST up reply actions
Good Thread :)
I think what jumped out at me the most is that both teams are in essentially the same position. Both have a player who is highly overpaid and doesn’t really have any place in their plans, either short or long term. Neither player is tradeable without throwing a ton of cash in with them, for lilttle or no return. Mediocre pitchers and good hitting/no glove outfielders are a glut on the market this offseason, but both teams are cash strapped (if only by choice.) It’s not an ideal trade for either team, but it may just be the best that either one of them can do, given their financial constraints.
One definition of compromise is; “A resolution that leaves both parties equally unhappy.”
"Get offa my lawn!"
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- Shane Victorino lands role on ‘Hawaii Five-0′
- Have you criticized Hanley Ramirez on Twitter? Your name may be on his bat!
- U.S. senator cries foul over Nationals plans to take back park from Phillies fans
- Photo: Comerica Park readies itself for Hockeytown
- Podcast: Dirk Hayhurst talks about Italy, the reality of the big leagues and his new book
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.
