Of the Now Late Afternoon: The 2011 Blue Jays Dangling Conversation, Part II

by hugo on Jan 19, 2011 9:01 AM EST in Toronto Blue Jays Analysis

Part I is here.

Hugo: So, the most significant move made by the Jays thusfar was trading Shaun Marcum to the Milwaukee Brewers for prospect Brett Lawrie. Was this a good move for the team? How does Lawrie fit into Toronto’s future plans?

Tom: I like the trade. As much as I enjoyed watching Shaun Marcum, we have starting pitcher prospects up to our arm pits, but we don’t have many impact bats in our system. I’m hoping they make Lawrie a 3B and that he gives us ten plus years at the position.

Jesse: Agree with Tom on this one. I always like watching guys go after hitters but we have a wealth of guys who can potentially start for us over the next couple seasons and I think that when you can get someone who has hit like Lawrie and doesn’t play a corner OF or 1B slot, you do it.

JohnnyG: How boring, I have to echo exactly what Tom and Jesse said. I love watching Marcum pitch, the ol adage was that he was a bulldog on the mound and he simply was a treat to watch pitch. He didn’t overpower players but he outsmarted them with his crafty stuff. Will I miss that? Of course, but given the arms we have coming and what we got back in Lawrie? I would make this trade again in a heartbeat. The one thing I thought about was how this clogged up our middle infield in the near future with both Hill and Escobar already at the major league level it was assumed that Hill would shift to 3rd and Hech would slot in at 2nd or SS (with Escobar taking the other). With Lawrie that adds another wrinkle and makes it look like eventually someone (Read: Hill) will be the odd guy out either by being moved or by going to DH.

masterkembo: I love this trade. With the amount of young pitching coming up through the system, Marcum was expendable, and they’ve used that position of strength to acquire a young potential middle of the order bat. I love that the Jays are in a position where they can trade last years number 1 starter, and probably not lose much in terms of their overall pitching staff.

Tom: We really do need someone that hated this trade. Hugo?

masterkembo: Okay, I’ve reconsidered and this trade was terrible. Marcum = playoffs!!!!1 Also, Lawrie has some terrible tattoos.

Hugo: Sorry, can’t help you. Marcum was my favourite Jay (hmmm, I wonder who moves into that slot now), and I personally think the team is going to miss him a lot more than some have said in terms of 2011 (though I agree not long-term) but I really liked what AA did with that trade. He traded from a position of strength and addressed a real organizational weakness. The difference between 6 years of Lawrie and the next best option the Jays have right now to fill that spot is much, much larger than the difference between 2 years of Marcum and the next best option the Jays have to take his place.

Tweet Comment 20 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Tom: We really do need someone that hated this trade. Hugo?

What you need, in my humble opinion, is a topic which is more controversial.
Examples for provocative subjects:
1. Do we really need Dotel and the rest of the “Might-be-useful” RPs?
2. Do we need Rajai? Isn’t Mastroiani good enough?
3. What’s your take on the Accardo affair? Do you think the club wronged him?

I can probably think of some more… I’m good at provoking controversy… /evil laugh

Festina Lente

by HESS2479 on Jan 19, 2011 9:19 AM EST reply actions

Nevertheless, I completely agree with (all of) you on that trade…

Festina Lente

by HESS2479 on Jan 19, 2011 9:20 AM EST up reply actions

Controversy

All you have to do is say something along the lines of “AA blows”, and you’ll have a million people commenting to save the day…

…AA is awesome, I didn’t mean to put him down. I promise.

Proud member of the AL North

by Vagabond13 on Jan 19, 2011 9:22 AM EST up reply actions

Answers

1) I read a great article the other day on fangraphs discussing the A’s seemingly curious strategy of stocking up on relievers when Moneyball 101 (which they pioneered) dictates that relievers are easily replaceable and difficult to project, so given finite resources you are better off spending on the more projectible and more valuable position players and SP’s. The Jays seem to have followed a similar strategy this offseason.

However, the authot noted that, anecdotally, at least, relievers are hot commodities at the trade deadline. The author also implied that maybe, just maybe, the market has now wised up to Moneyball 101 (see how OBA is now pretty accurately valued in the marketplace) and things have shifted the other way. Maybe relievers are now UNDERvalued. The A’s tried to make some FA splashes (Iwakuma, Beltre), but were rebuffed. Now that the FA and trade markets appear quite barren for SPs and position players, maybe the best way to beat the market is to stock up on guys who are undervalued in the offseason but who’s value in the future is likely to grow (i.e. relief pitchers).

Maybe Beane and AA think that they can pick up undervalued assets now and flip them for more valuable pieces later on. If this strategy is viable remains to be seen, but it’s certainly an intriguing thought. Plus, if things shake out right and the Jays end up competing this year (as I think they can – especially with Manny), having a dependable bullpen is a good thing.

Finally, I have a suspicion (completely unconfirmed) that AA may have figured out how to calculate the Elias Free Agent rankings himself (MLBTR has been able to do this for a few seasons now), so maybe he’s going to try to game the system and ensure that his new relievers are given type B status next season, so the market for them isn’t barren like for Frasor, but we keep stocking tasty sandwich picks. That’s my conspiracy theory for the day.

2. Rajai is better than Mastro. Mastro might be his equal defensively, but Rajai gives a minimum of 50 OPS points (possibly more) of bat over Mastro, at least at this point in his development IMO. Whether that’s worth the contract we gave Davis is up for debate, but I think it’s a decent deal. I still don’t want to see him as a regular starter OF starter (though I’d be fine with him as half a platoon starting against LHP).

3. Meh. Accardo’s been good and bad for us. No biggie either way.

by SuckaMD on Jan 19, 2011 9:28 AM EST up reply actions

the Davis v. Mastroianni debate comes up in a later bit

I took the same position you did.

"Let us go forth awhile, and get better air in our lungs. Let us leave our closed rooms... The game of ball is glorious." - Walt Whitman

by hugo on Jan 19, 2011 9:41 AM EST up reply actions

Maybe Beane and AA think that they can pick up undervalued assets now and flip them for more valuable pieces later on. If this strategy is viable remains to be seen, but it’s certainly an intriguing thought. Plus, if things shake out right and the Jays end up competing this year (as I think they can – especially with Manny), having a dependable bullpen is a good thing.

Finally, I have a suspicion (completely unconfirmed) that AA may have figured out how to calculate the Elias Free Agent rankings himself (MLBTR has been able to do this for a few seasons now), so maybe he’s going to try to game the system and ensure that his new relievers are given type B status next season, so the market for them isn’t barren like for Frasor, but we keep stocking tasty sandwich picks. That’s my conspiracy theory for the day.

I think that’s exactly the situation. The Jays bullpen is crowded, but still cheap, and loaded with guys who have trade value mid-season and/or potential type B status at the end of the year. So we’ll have a better than league average pen that offers flexible ways to improve the overall value for the team beyond dollars.

It’s a nice way to secure a steady stream of additional picks for low cost, and opens up the possibility for trades mid-season. In most cases, teams dealing for relievers during the season tend to overpay a bit. Usually because relievers are so notoriously unrealiable year to year as a whole.

by dexfarkin on Jan 19, 2011 10:00 AM EST up reply actions

as long as teams overpaying for relievers

if they’re trading for what will soon be a Type A or Type B free agent, they’ll receive that compensation as well, which — as you said — artificially inflates their value beyond what they can do on the field.

Of course, who knows what they’ll decide in the new collective bargaining agreement as it relates to this — my guess is that it will be much more difficult for relievers to obtain Type A status than it is currently.

"Look at me! I'm Tomokazu Ohka of the Montreal Expos!"

by jessef on Jan 19, 2011 12:04 PM EST up reply actions

I’d assume so. The insanity of the relief market this year needs to be addressed. Still, I do think that there’s an old school baseball mentality about picking up the arm for the pen on a post season run that ‘anchors’ the back end of the pitching staff. I think clubs still buy into the idea and let themselves get too aggressive going after guys who are good, but hardly worth strong prospects to acquire.

by dexfarkin on Jan 19, 2011 12:38 PM EST up reply actions

we have questions along those lines coming up, not to worry

"Let us go forth awhile, and get better air in our lungs. Let us leave our closed rooms... The game of ball is glorious." - Walt Whitman

by hugo on Jan 19, 2011 9:40 AM EST up reply actions

Me Worry? HAHA! I laugh in the face of danger!

Festina Lente

by HESS2479 on Jan 19, 2011 9:47 AM EST up reply actions

My take

I love watching Marcum on the mound, as pretty much everyone seems to. He doesn’t have in-your-face overpowering stuff, but he gets by with precision pitches and changing speeds. Given that I am firmly of the belief that the 2011 Jays could compete for the playoffs (still waiting on that Manny signing), I was sorry to see Marcum go.

However, I’ve come around on this deal. Lawrie seems like a pretty good prospect to me, even though there are some distinct caveats (no definite defensive position and the fact that his 2010 AA numbers of .800 OPS, while good, are the same as Alex Gonzalez the First put up for Tennessee in the Southern League when he was a 20 year old in AA – not exactly a superstar comparison). If the arms in the Jays system are really what everyone thinks they are, Drabek and Stewart should soon fill whatever void was left by Marcum’s departure, plus we keep the shiny bauble that is Lawrie.

I also had a new thought while reading this post. One thing I remember reading a while back (though this talk seems to have died down lately) is that after the market got turned onto Moneyball 1.0 and starter more accurately valueing things like OBA and SLG, teams looking for market inefficiencies started looking at things like fielding and injury projections. I know pithcing mechanics theory is still in its infancy and there are multiple schools of thought, but maybe AA looks at pictures of Marcum’s mechanics like the one above and sees the dreaded “inverted W.” Perhaps he blames this for Marcum’s TJ in 2009 and sees Marcum as likely to suffer further arm problems in the future. Given this possibility (probability?), trading Marcum now, at the height of his value, seems like a good idea, as after another injury he would never command a player of Lawrie’s stature in trade.

by SuckaMD on Jan 19, 2011 9:20 AM EST reply actions

Exactly

I think you hit the nail on the head. Marcum’s mechanics aren’t perfect and arm trouble could arise again. I don’t know if anyone here has broken his mechanics down to compare it to other pitchers. I realize that every pitcher is different but to me it appears his stride is too short (or something like that) putting extra stress on his arm. I am just speculating but that is what it looks like to me.
I take everyone’s word for it that Lawrie is a pretty good prospect but he hasn’t made the majors yet and there is always some risk associated with that. Whereas with Marcum he was an established and solid starting pitcher. Marcum also seemed like a good guy with a positive influence on the team which is something that can’t be measured statistically. So, in all I like the trade. I think it was done with a lot of logic behind it. AA traded from a position of strength to fill a weakness. I think you will see a lot of this in the future from the Jays. The emphasis on the farm system and for right now, pitching, means that the prospects coming up will control costs as well as provide pieces for trades to fill gaps in the system or team.
In terms of Moneyball, I would expect certain measures of success to fall in and out of favour. In some ways you see teams chasing each other from a system point of view. Moneyball itself is an example of that. AA may be starting moneyball 2.0. They key is for him to remain ahead of the rest by constantly being innovative. It will be fun to watch.

by BillBerg4PM on Jan 19, 2011 11:07 AM EST up reply actions

Where was the Devil's Advocate?

I’ll play the part by posing a question. How much more valuable do you think the prospects the Rays got for Garza are compared to Lawrie?

Obviously, Garza is considered more valuable than Marcum (debatable, because Marcum has 1 more controllable year if I remember correctly), so maybe in responding to that question, you can regress the value of the prospects by 10% or so.

Proud member of the AL North

by Vagabond13 on Jan 19, 2011 9:20 AM EST reply actions

I would have been horrible in a debate club, I can’t stand the argument for the sake of argument, I will defend my take on something but I can’t just take the opposite view just for the sake of argument.

Good question in comparison. I haven’t looked at the Garza trade in detail and while they certainly got more pieces I don’t believe any one piece was worth more then Lawrie. You can of course argue that they got more since they got more pieces and as quantity does have value over quality sometimes in baseball it could be.

Again I am happy with the trade. No regrets with it at all.

I think you'll find I'm universally recognised as a mature and responsible adult.
Twitter is the thing with all the tweets...

by JohnnyG on Jan 19, 2011 9:41 AM EST up reply actions

didn't we do this before the Garza trade?

or did it really just not come up?

"Look at me! I'm Tomokazu Ohka of the Montreal Expos!"

by jessef on Jan 19, 2011 9:48 AM EST up reply actions

I think we started it before it happened. and then not sure we worked it in

I think you'll find I'm universally recognised as a mature and responsible adult.
Twitter is the thing with all the tweets...

by JohnnyG on Jan 19, 2011 10:39 AM EST up reply actions

Yeah it was before

I am sure that the perceived value of Garza is much higher than Marcum, who hasn’t really gotten the league wide recognition that he’s deserved. As such, I am still happy with the return the Jays got for Marcum, but Tampa did a great job of dealing a guy that is likely overrated and getting a very good return on him.

I think Tampa won the pitcher trades this off season, and Kansas City lost.

by masterkembo on Jan 19, 2011 10:45 AM EST up reply actions

I think Marcum is a better pitcher than Garza

Marcum has slightly better K rates and substantially better walk rates and has put up FIP and xFIP below 4 over a full season (Garza never has). Both are fly ball pitchers and have had some issues with home runs but Marcum improved each season in the bigs in that regard, while Garza’s numbers have gone in the opposite direction.

That said, you have it backwards- Garza has one less year of service time than Marcum so is controllable for three seasons to Marcum’s two.

In response to your question, it’s tough to say. I think Lawrie is better than anyone the Rays got but the depth that the Rays acquired spreads out the risk – if Lawrie flames out, the Jays get nothing. However, Lawrie is pretty far along in his development so the risk of a flameout is less, though not non-existant.

"Let us go forth awhile, and get better air in our lungs. Let us leave our closed rooms... The game of ball is glorious." - Walt Whitman

by hugo on Jan 19, 2011 9:50 AM EST up reply actions

Given that we are in the realm of polemics..

Our past GM was a Billy Beane apogee – and certainly the whole moneyball theory was cast as the delphi oracle (from the Jays CEO on down).
Are we now in the age of Tampa Bay?
Tampa Bay had to endure years of losing to finally arrive at the tipping point of enduring success, but once they arrived, they certainly have found the way to continued success (10 picks in what many are calling one of the deepest drafts in recent memory).
I always wondered what the fascination with the A’s was all about.
Frankly Minnesota seems to have had more success – and now that we have that perfect union of a CEO who recognizes that he has (at last), a younger (untested) version of Pat Gillick at his side, the long journey back (not to the halycon FA days of the 90’s) – but to the wonderful expression of the mid and late 80’s, is a real possibility.
Is this fanciful – or are we back to where we used to be – a team with a home-grown core and the potential to deliver the type of crowds that might make baseball matter in a city that longs to win again?

by Paul Chicago on Jan 19, 2011 11:56 PM EST reply actions

I don't think apogee is the word you are looking for

maybe “acolyte”? Also, the delphi oracle was a person (a woman, actually), so that part doesn’t make sense either. I don’t mean to pick nits but you’re the one trying to sound smart.

Substantively, I’ll say no thanks to 10 years in a row of 90 to 106 losses. That prolonged futility is one way to build a contender, and kudos to Tampa for, unlike teams like the Pirates and Royals, actually turning their prolonged patheticness into something worthwhile. On the other hand, the Jays are building their team without any such record (only 3 losing seasons since 1998, and only 1 90-loss season) and that’s to the good. Tampa was so bad for so long that they are having trouble attracting fans now (of course there are other factors, but that is certainly one of them).

"Let us go forth awhile, and get better air in our lungs. Let us leave our closed rooms... The game of ball is glorious." - Walt Whitman

by hugo on Jan 20, 2011 9:34 AM EST up reply actions