PDA

View Full Version : The Alarm Clock is Beeping



40YrRedsFan
11-14-2011, 06:38 PM
OK Walt, The signings have started and trades have been made. It's time to wake up from your Fall nap and see what has been going on. To sleep through this winter like last year would be fatal to the Reds chances of contending. You better make a run now while we still have Votto, Phillips, and a few others in tow. It doesn't look good for keeping Votto after his contract is up.
Are you awake yet, Walt?

10xWSChamps
11-14-2011, 07:31 PM
Walt always wheeled and dealed with the Cardinals. But I've come to wonder recently if it isn't more of an organizational approach with Cardinals because it hasn't changed since he left.

Still, Walt doesn't seem like a guy who was content with just building from within and taking a team into a cold war style lock down. So again I think the onus lies with the ownership in not wanting to spend money.

What are the biggest 3-4 moves Walt has made since becoming GM of the Reds? The Chapman signing pops out in my head.

The three that pop out for his time with the Cardinals are:

Getting Mulder for Dan Haren
Getting Wainwright for JD Drew
Getting McGwire for 3 people that I can't remember who didn't go on to do anything

Won huge on two trade and lost huge on the third. Overall he was very effective.

LegallyMinded
11-14-2011, 09:06 PM
What are the biggest 3-4 moves Walt has made since becoming GM of the Reds? The Chapman signing pops out in my head.

The three that pop out for his time with the Cardinals are:

Getting Mulder for Dan Haren
Getting Wainwright for JD Drew
Getting McGwire for 3 people that I can't remember who didn't go on to do anything

Won huge on two trade and lost huge on the third. Overall he was very effective.


I would consider all three of those pretty big losses.

The Mulder for Haren deal obviously didn't work out for St. Louis. Since the trade, Haren has put up 36 WAR, while Mulder pitched to an ERA over 5 and accumulated 1.3 WAR before retiring.

Wainwright for Drew is closer, but still a poor deal for the Cards: Since the trade, Wainwright has collected 18.5 WAR, while Drew put up 29.1. Now, it seems Drew's career is winding down, and so perhaps Wainwright begins to close the gap next year, but that depends on Wainwright bouncing back from serious surgery, which is hardly a guarantee.

As for the McGwire trade, perhaps that was a win on the field, but McGwire turned out to be a reprehensible cheater who sullied the reputation of the game. I'd want no part of him on my team.

Overall, then, if those are the kinds of trades Jocketty makes when he's dealing, perhaps he should just sleep through the rest of this winter.

rick vaughn
11-14-2011, 10:50 PM
I would consider all three of those pretty big losses.

The Mulder for Haren deal obviously didn't work out for St. Louis. Since the trade, Haren has put up 36 WAR, while Mulder pitched to an ERA over 5 and accumulated 1.3 WAR before retiring.

Wainwright for Drew is closer, but still a poor deal for the Cards: Since the trade, Wainwright has collected 18.5 WAR, while Drew put up 29.1. Now, it seems Drew's career is winding down, and so perhaps Wainwright begins to close the gap next year, but that depends on Wainwright bouncing back from serious surgery, which is hardly a guarantee.

As for the McGwire trade, perhaps that was a win on the field, but McGwire turned out to be a reprehensible cheater who sullied the reputation of the game. I'd want no part of him on my team.

Overall, then, if those are the kinds of trades Jocketty makes when he's dealing, perhaps he should just sleep through the rest of this winter.

The problem with your Drew-Wainwright comparison is you're assuming that Drew would have put up the same WAR for the Cardinals.

Looking at it objectively, they traded a guy who was a year away from free agency and was not going to sign with the team. They gave up one year of JD Drew (admittedly his best season), and in return they got a cost controlled starter who turned into an ace pitcher who has finished top 3 in the Cy twice, top 20 of MVP twice, an all star, a gold glove, was on the mound to close out all three series in 2006, etc.

When you compare what Wainwright has given the Cardinals, vs. what Drew would have given the Cardinals, the trade is a landslide for St. Louis (and if you want to compare them long term, you have to factor in the fact that Wainwright has been much more cost-effective, earning $15 million from 2004-2011, vs. JD Drew's $95 million over the same period).

LegallyMinded
11-14-2011, 11:07 PM
The problem with your Drew-Wainwright comparison is you're assuming that Drew would have put up the same WAR for the Cardinals.

Looking at it objectively, they traded a guy who was a year away from free agency and was not going to sign with the team. They gave up one year of JD Drew (admittedly his best season), and in return they got a cost controlled starter who turned into an ace pitcher who has finished top 3 in the Cy twice, top 20 of MVP twice, an all star, a gold glove, was on the mound to close out all three series in 2006, etc.

When you compare what Wainwright has given the Cardinals, vs. what Drew would have given the Cardinals, the trade is a landslide for St. Louis (and if you want to compare them long term, you have to factor in the fact that Wainwright has been much more cost-effective, earning $15 million from 2004-2011, vs. JD Drew's $95 million over the same period).

You're assuming that the only two options Jocketty had were let Drew walk at the end of the season, or trade him for Wainwright. In reality, there were any number of other players for whom Drew could have been traded. Thus, the question isn't what Drew would have given St. Louis, but what he could get for St. Louis in a trade: Here, Jocketty traded a player who would produce almost 30WAR for a player who would produce barely more than half that-- to me, that suggests Jocketty could have done better.

rick vaughn
11-14-2011, 11:36 PM
You're assuming that the only two options Jocketty had were let Drew walk at the end of the season, or trade him for Wainwright. In reality, there were any number of other players for whom Drew could have been traded. Thus, the question isn't what Drew would have given St. Louis, but what he could get for St. Louis in a trade: Here, Jocketty traded a player who would produce almost 30WAR for a player who would produce barely more than half that-- to me, that suggests Jocketty could have done better.

No, I am not assuming that those are the only two options.

I am, however, saying that if you are going to score the trade as a "win" or a "loss," then you are eliminating the possibility of other options.

If you are grading that trade (which 10xWS was doing, and you were rebutting), the question is, in fact, quite simple:

Did they get more back than they would have received had they not made the trade. In that case, the question is a clear yes.

If you want to start asking if they could have gotten more elsewhere, that's certainly debatable. But at that point, you are no longer asking if the trade was a "win or loss" proposition (i.e. did they get more than they gave up), and are starting to ask if they got the absolute maximum return on their investment.

The problem with that is, if you are trying to equate a "win" to the maximum return, then you are considering everything else to be a loss. There would only be one "maximum" return, and literally thousands of trades that would not maximize the return. By that criteria, just about every trade ever would have to be considered a failure, because you could always imagine a better deal.

Furthermore, you again bring up Drew's overall WAR since then, but that wasn't what Jocketty was trading. He was trading only his 2004 season. Any team he dealt with knew that they were taking a risk, in that they may not be able to re-sign the player. As a result, they would hedge their own bets, and not offer as much in return. This ended up being the case, as the Braves did only get one season, at a very high price. When comparing that trade, and what each team got out of it, the Cardinals very clearly won.

And, if you really want to look big picture, again, you still have to look at salaries. The Cardinals unloaded Drew in December 2003, freeing themselves up of a high-salaried player, and someone who was going to continue to be a high salaried player moving forward. They got a AAA pitcher in return who represented a great cost savings. The $95 million Drew made off of other teams, which the Cardinals didn't spend on him, went a long way to affording Albert Pujols' $116 over the same time frame.

10xWSChamps
11-14-2011, 11:41 PM
I would consider all three of those pretty big losses.

The Mulder for Haren deal obviously didn't work out for St. Louis. Since the trade, Haren has put up 36 WAR, while Mulder pitched to an ERA over 5 and accumulated 1.3 WAR before retiring.

Wainwright for Drew is closer, but still a poor deal for the Cards: Since the trade, Wainwright has collected 18.5 WAR, while Drew put up 29.1. Now, it seems Drew's career is winding down, and so perhaps Wainwright begins to close the gap next year, but that depends on Wainwright bouncing back from serious surgery, which is hardly a guarantee.


As for the McGwire trade, perhaps that was a win on the field, but McGwire turned out to be a reprehensible cheater who sullied the reputation of the game. I'd want no part of him on my team.

Overall, then, if those are the kinds of trades Jocketty makes when he's dealing, perhaps he should just sleep through the rest of this winter.

Sorry but this is total and complete insanity about the Wainwright-JD Drew deal. It was an enormous win for the Cardinals. We traded away a guy who has had a couple good seasons in the decade he has been gone, beyond that he has been fairly average.

JD Drew has been paid NINETY FIVE MILLION DOLLARS since he left St Louis. For a pair of good seasons. Adam Wainwright is a Cy Young caliber pitcher who has been a complete steal

Not to mention that he was quite easily the biggest lynch pin of our 2006 World Series championship. Adam Wainwright is just entering his prime right now. His value to the Cardinals is far from over. Even putting that aside it's still a cavernous win for the Cardinals, when you factor it in it becomes laughable to suggest that this trade was anything other then a huge steal for the Cardinals.

Sorry but I don't think that this trade is even arguable in the slightest and it makes me question your knowledge of baseball. I don't think there's one GM in baseball that would agree with you.

As for McGwire, you are entitled to your opinion. But there is also no arguing that it was an outstanding trade when you are grading a GM against it. Total and complete steal for the Cardinals.

LegallyMinded
11-14-2011, 11:52 PM
If you are grading that trade (which 10xWS was doing, and you were rebutting), the question is, in fact, quite simple:

Did they get more back than they would have received had they not made the trade. In that case, the question is a clear yes.

If you want to start asking if they could have gotten more elsewhere, that's certainly debatable. But at that point, you are no longer asking if the trade was a "win or loss" proposition (i.e. did they get more than they gave up), and are starting to ask if they got the absolute maximum return on their investment.

The problem with that is, if you are trying to equate a "win" to the maximum return, then you are considering everything else to be a loss. There would only be one "maximum" return, and literally thousands of trades that would not maximize the return. By that criteria, just about every trade ever would have to be considered a failure, because you could always imagine a better deal.

Furthermore, you again bring up Drew's overall WAR since then, but that wasn't what Jocketty was trading. He was trading only his 2004 season. Any team he dealt with knew that they were taking a risk, in that they may not be able to re-sign the player. As a result, they would hedge their own bets, and not offer as much in return. This ended up being the case, as the Braves did only get one season, at a very high price. When comparing that trade, and what each team got out of it, the Cardinals very clearly won.

And, if you really want to look big picture, again, you still have to look at salaries. The Cardinals unloaded Drew in December 2003, freeing themselves up of a high-salaried player, and someone who was going to continue to be a high salaried player moving forward. They got a AAA pitcher in return who represented a great cost savings. The $95 million Drew made off of other teams, which the Cardinals didn't spend on him, went a long way to affording Albert Pujols' $116 over the same time frame.

The discussion of the trade wasn't binary; it wasn't "win or loss." Instead, the trade was originally characterized as a transaction in which the Cards "won huge," implying that they did in fact at least come close to maximizing the return they could have gotten for Drew. I was simply pointing out that it's not at all clear it was such a huge win.

Your point about the salaries involved is a good one, but even then I'd be cautious. The Cards have 21 million committed to Wainwright over the next two years and no guarantee he'll return to his former level of production. His cost-effectiveness could look very different very soon.

Nathan
11-14-2011, 11:56 PM
I would consider all three of those pretty big losses.

The Mulder for Haren deal obviously didn't work out for St. Louis. Since the trade, Haren has put up 36 WAR, while Mulder pitched to an ERA over 5 and accumulated 1.3 WAR before retiring.

Wainwright for Drew is closer, but still a poor deal for the Cards: Since the trade, Wainwright has collected 18.5 WAR, while Drew put up 29.1. Now, it seems Drew's career is winding down, and so perhaps Wainwright begins to close the gap next year, but that depends on Wainwright bouncing back from serious surgery, which is hardly a guarantee.

As for the McGwire trade, perhaps that was a win on the field, but McGwire turned out to be a reprehensible cheater who sullied the reputation of the game. I'd want no part of him on my team.

Overall, then, if those are the kinds of trades Jocketty makes when he's dealing, perhaps he should just sleep through the rest of this winter.

Really?! If you want to compare accumulative WAR, you should do it at an equal amount of time. So, What's Drew's WAR sense 2006, when Wainwright came into the league?

LegallyMinded
11-15-2011, 12:07 AM
Really?! If you want to compare accumulative WAR, you should do it at an equal amount of time. So, What's Drew's WAR sense 2006, when Wainwright came into the league?

I'm not sure why you would argue we should ignore Drew's performance in the majors while Wainwright was struggling in the minors. If Drew retires before 2012, while Wainwright returns, would you argue we should then ignore Wainwright's performance this coming season because Drew is no longer in the league?

Drew was entering the prime of his career when Jocketty traded him: Other teams knew this, and knew they stood a good chance to acquire the best part of his career. That Jocketty still decided to accept as compensation a player who wasn't ready for the majors is a decision we have to consider when assessing the trade.

rick vaughn
11-15-2011, 12:10 AM
The discussion of the trade wasn't binary; it wasn't "win or loss."

Actually, you specifically stated that it was a "big loss," or rather that you would classify it as a big loss. So yes, following your own evaluation, it was binary.


Instead, the trade was originally characterized as a transaction in which the Cards "won huge," implying that they did in fact at least come close to maximizing the return they could have gotten for Drew.

And, given what they got in exchange for a single season of JD Drew, you'd be hard-pressed to find anyone (aside from yourself) who doesn't think they came out well ahead. Certainly, no one has ever come forth stating "Can you believe the Cardinals only got Wainwright, when Team XYZ had offered Player(s) ABC. You can come up with hypotheticals (the Cardinals could have traded for Jeter, A-Rod and Rivera), but realistically, you'd be hard pressed, even with the benefit of 8 seasons worth of hindsight, to find a better realistic package they could have reeled in.


I was simply pointing out that it's not at all clear it was such a huge win.

Sorry man, but again, you called it a "huge loss." Classifying something as a "huge loss" is not the same as saying "well, it's not really clear." In fact, you're saying that it's very clear that the Cardinals lost the trade.


Your point about the salaries involved is a good one, but even then I'd be cautious. The Cards have 21 million committed to Wainwright over the next two years and no guarantee he'll return to his former level of production. His cost-effectiveness could look very different very soon.

Yes, it's true that Wainwright's future is murky. That being said, given what they have already gotten from him, and given that (again) they were only giving up 1 year of Drew, in my opinion, they have already won--even if they get nothing else from Wainwright. Of course, even that would be a worst-case scenario for them. Given how routine Tommy John is, and the long list of pitchers who have come back from it, it's much more likely that he comes back as at least a serviceable #3 or better, which is about commensurate with the money he'll make over the next two years. If he happens to return to #2 or #1 form, he will again be outperforming his contract.

Nathan
11-15-2011, 01:33 AM
I'm not sure why you would argue we should ignore Drew's performance in the majors while Wainwright was struggling in the minors. If Drew retires before 2012, while Wainwright returns, would you argue we should then ignore Wainwright's performance this coming season because Drew is no longer in the league?

Drew was entering the prime of his career when Jocketty traded him: Other teams knew this, and knew they stood a good chance to acquire the best part of his career. That Jocketty still decided to accept as compensation a player who wasn't ready for the majors is a decision we have to consider when assessing the trade.

Well.. How can you compare major league stats that evaluate value when one of the two players weren't even in the major leagues at the time. It's like saying Jaime Moyer is a more valuable player than Joey Votto because Votto has a career WAR of 19.3 vs Moyer's 47.3. Would you trade Votto for Moyer and claim that it was a huge win for the Reds? You need to use a like distance for your argument. It's impossible to have a Major League stat without appearing in a Major League game. You are giving Drew a two year head start, and that's not logical in your assessment.

A more logical argument would be:

Since 2006, Adam Wainwright's first season in MLB, JD Drew has posted a 16.4 WAR. Wainwright has 18.4.

Drew provided the Braves (Wainwright's old team) ONE season. Although it was an excellent season at 7.5 WAR, it still pales in comparison to Wainwright's 18.4 that he's provided the Cardinals.

No matter how you slice it, the Cardinals win that trade, hands down.

Then you look at the "other" players involved in the trade, and take Wainwright and Drew out, they all provided positive WAR in 2004.

Cardinals
Ray King 1.2
Jason Marquis 2.0

Braves
Eli Marrero 1.6

Again, how is this a hands down "win" for the Braves? Your argument was weak from the get go.

texasdave
11-15-2011, 01:57 AM
The WAR accumulated by Drew must be taken into consideration. If Wainwright had never reached the majors, for whatever reason, would you be of the opinion that the trade could not be assessed?

Nathan
11-15-2011, 02:22 AM
The WAR accumulated by Drew must be taken into consideration. If Wainwright had never reached the majors, for whatever reason, would you be of the opinion that the trade could not be assessed?

If that was the case then any trade involving prospects in return for established veterans is going to be a win hands down for the team acquiring the veteran. When evaluating the prospect you have to wait. It took an additional two years for Wainwright to reach the majors, and sense then, he's out performed Drew. You need an equalizer, of some sort to say "The Dodgers won this trade hands down" when all logic points the other way.

Had Wainwright not reached the majors, obviously, it would have been a win for the Braves, and then you'd start comparing the overall package that was traded. (Which really was a wash pretty much.)

Drew's WAR sense the trade is heavily skewed by one season, which happened to be before Wainwright even had one major league pitch to his credit. Does that make him a better player?

10xWSChamps
11-15-2011, 05:14 AM
This whole "accumulated WAR" argument is silly for a number of reasons. But if you really want to go on that, then you still don't win the argument. Why? Because the trade wasn't just for Wainwright, we got Ray King and Jason Marquis.

http://www.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx?playerid=105&position=P
http://www.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx?playerid=1152&position=OF
http://www.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx?playerid=2233&position=P
http://www.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx?playerid=693&position=P

Marquis WAR from 04 to 11 = 10.6
Ray King WAR from 04 to 08 (out of league) = 0.0
Wainwright WAR from 05 (made a few appearances) to 11 = 18.5

JD Drew WAR from 04 to 11 = 29.1

10.6+0.0+18.5=29.1 :laugh:

So you don't win based upon that argument either. If we're going to predict future WAR, it's obvious that Marquis and Wainwright are going to be racking up more then JD Drew at this point in his career. So you're at a dead end there too.

But the entire argument is ridiculous anyway. Post-Cardinals, JD Drew is now in his third free agency looking for his fourth different team. Jason Marquis is on his third different team. Ray King was only with the Cardinals through the 2006 season.

Wainwright is the only guy for the Braves or Cardinals that can still be looked at as an asset from that trade. He has never entered free agency and was signed through his arbitration years (and two years past them, which he's hitting now).

Any way you break this down it's a silly argument. The Cardinals kicked the Braves butt in this trade even if it was just Wainwright for JD Drew straight up. But both Marquis and King played significant roles for us too.

You don't need advanced stats from Fan Graphs to tell you who won this trade. Especially when you take into account the JD Drew has been paid 95 million since he left the Cardinals. No one in their right mind would trade 27 million worth of Wainwright/Marquis/King for 95 million of JD Drew

10xWSChamps
11-15-2011, 05:16 AM
anyway sorry to derail this thread. I didn't think I was saying anything controversial that would cause an argument... :lol:

LegallyMinded
11-15-2011, 10:13 AM
Actually, you specifically stated that it was a "big loss," or rather that you would classify it as a big loss. So yes, following your own evaluation, it was binary.

I'm not sure you understand the distinction between binary and non-binary. Calling something a big loss or a big win, or otherwise qualifying the degree of the win or loss, necessarily indicates that we're not discussing the transaction in binary terms. Instead, we're evaluating the transaction over a wide spectrum of beneficial outcomes for one team vs. beneficial outcomes for the other team. In this case, 10xWSChamps said the Cards "won huge," indicating he thought the trade was highly skewed towards being beneficial for the Cards, while I said it was a "poor" deal, indicating I thought it was slightly less than beneficial for the Cards.




And, given what they got in exchange for a single season of JD Drew, you'd be hard-pressed to find anyone (aside from yourself) who doesn't think they came out well ahead. Certainly, no one has ever come forth stating "Can you believe the Cardinals only got Wainwright, when Team XYZ had offered Player(s) ABC.

The truth is that we don't know what else may have been available. Obviously, no GM has an incentive to come out and say "I would have offered this great package of players for Drew," because that just reflects poorly on that GM's own skills.



Sorry man, but again, you called it a "huge loss." Classifying something as a "huge loss" is not the same as saying "well, it's not really clear." In fact, you're saying that it's very clear that the Cardinals lost the trade.

Yes, it's true that Wainwright's future is murky. That being said, given what they have already gotten from him, and given that (again) they were only giving up 1 year of Drew, in my opinion, they have already won--even if they get nothing else from Wainwright. Of course, even that would be a worst-case scenario for them. Given how routine Tommy John is, and the long list of pitchers who have come back from it, it's much more likely that he comes back as at least a serviceable #3 or better, which is about commensurate with the money he'll make over the next two years. If he happens to return to #2 or #1 form, he will again be outperforming his contract.

Actually, I never called the Wainwright deal a huge loss. In fact, I said it was much closer to being beneficial than the Haren deal, and was at worst "poor." As for Wainwright's future, that's something we obviously can't evaluate at this point. Maybe he comes back strong from TJ, or maybe he pulls an Edison Volquez and actively detracts from his team's performance.

Finally, regarding King and Marquis, I'm not sure I'd bring them into the discussion to defend the deal: If anything, for instance, the Cards won the 2006 WS despite the "contribution" of Marquis and his 200 innings of 5.90-FIP baseball.

Anyway, I admit that I probably exaggerated the case that could be made against the trade. I just don't think it was quite as great as people may think just looking at the face of it.