Learning from the past E-mail
Written by Pat Lackey   
Wednesday, 17 December 2008 23:19

When the Jason Bay trade was made more than four months ago, there were some people that immediately hated the trade because trading away another established baseball player for minor leaguers or less established players signified another rebuilding period and that the Pirates were still nowhere near contending, even after sixteen years of losing. As Andy LaRoche flamed out, people started to hate the trade more and more. In the Q&A at the Post-Gazette today, the first question asks about the Pirates' recent aim of trading for prospects and whether or not that's a good idea in this market. Dejan uses the question to reanalyze the Jason Bay trade, saying that making the trade crossed a bridge for the Pirates into rebuilding territory that they can't go back over and that he doesn't think it was a bridge that needed to be crossed. Charlie has already written a response in defense of the Bay trade and it's very good.

I don't have a lot to add to many of the points that Charlie made (you should read all of the relevant points in the Q&A and Charlie's whole post before diving in to this one), especially about viewing the Bay trade in hindsight, the market value of prospects vs. their value to the Pirates, and other stuff along those lines. I do have a bit to add about the perception of the 2008 team and how that colors the view of the Bay trade, and so that's what I'm going to go into depth in here.  Most of the e-mail I've gotten or opinions I've read that strongly disliked the Bay trade made arguments along the lines of, "The hitting was finally coming around last year and the pitching would've been much better if Snell and Gorzelanny didn't suck! If we could've just kept that team together, we really had something going!" For Bay to be of much value to the Pirates under his contract (which takes him through 2009), this sentiment has to be true. This line of thinking also truly underestimates how bad the Pirates were in 2008.

Let's first look at the pitching staff. In 2007, with Snell and Gorzelanny completely healthy and having breakout years, they gave up 846 runs. In 2008, with the biggest difference in the staff being that Snell and Gorzelanny sucked, they gave up 886. So if we look at the 2009 team and assume that we get Snell and Gorzo back in top form, let's start at 846 runs. Now we move to Maholm. In 2008, he improved his VORP by about 30 runs over his 2007 season. If we assume he can do that again, back of the envelope math knocks the run total down to 816. Now we've got a contingent of Yankee pitchers replacing John Van Benschoten, Matt Morris, and Yoslan Herrera. Those three pitchers were nearly 40 runs below replacement combined. If we assume that despite poor big league track records (Karstens and Ohlendorf) or no track record at all (McCutchen), the three Yankee pitchers can approximately replace those three pitchers with replacement level pitching, then we'll make a quick and dirty estimate that the Pirates will allow 775 runs next year, having made the Xavier Nady trade. This assumes the bullpen will be a complete wash, which it won't be without Damaso Marte in it, and that three starting pitchers match their career best years all at once. It is unabashedly optimistic, but we'll go with it.

The offense, though, only scored 735, so we're still not a .500 team. But if we're not making the Jason Bay trade, so we need to adjust the team's run total a bit. The quickest way to guesstimate that effect is look at LaRoche's VORP with the Pirates (-16.2) and Bay's with the Red Sox (14.5) and take the difference. That difference is about 30, so we're at 765 runs. That's tantalizingly close to 775, but we have to account for Xavier Nady being traded. That leaves us with Steve Pearce, Nyjer Morgan, Andrew McCutchen, and whatever coffee-grind free agent the club can sign to replace Nady. If we're extremely optimistic and assume that Pearce breaks out, we can say he's worth ten runs less than Nady was in his career year last year. So we're assuming that Nate McLouth and Ryan Doumit match their huge years exactly and that Steve Pearce somehow puts up a VORP of 20, but we've got the Pirates at 755 runs.

It's likely that my math there made a sabermetrician somewhere vomit. It's not intended to be predictive or precise or perfect, so please don't take it that way. It was simply meant to show that even in a best case scenario for the Pirates next year, they'd be lucky to reach .500 with Jason Bay and they'd still be losing Bay, LaRoche, and Wilson all in short order. I just don't see anything about the Pirates in 2008 that was close to respectability and I don't see think that would've changed much in 2009, even with Jason Bay.

Not trading Bay would've been an attempt to preserve something that wasn't really there. Think back to the "Freak Show" team in 1997. The biggest mistake the Pirates made with that team was assuming that that nearly winning the division with a few prospects and a bunch of schlubs meant that they were close to contending. Over the next couple of years, they tried to make small tweaks to a bad roster and they gave contracts and extensions to guys that didn't deserve them. Beyond that, Littlefield's entire approach was predicated on selling the fans on claims that meant nothing (does, "Hey, we've improved our record three years in a row!" or "Hey! We were over .500 in our last 104 games!" ring a bell?), splashing some money around on guys the fans might have heard of, and winning 67-75 games. It was just enough to create an illusion of competition. Keeping Jason Bay would've done nothing but extend the illusion.

Comments
Add New Search
apk     |2008-12-17 18:17:13
Bravo.
Deaner     |2008-12-17 19:22:38
Great point about '97... I had never thought of it that way.
JerryG     |2008-12-18 03:00:42
Read the comments over at the Post-Gazette Pirates blog yet?

Quote:
Honestly, every time DK posts responses from those two guys (Pat and Charlie) I
feel like throwing my Jack Wilson bobblehead at something. Those guys
continually defend the WORST RUN franchise in baseball, and usually use a bunch
of dubiously arrived at statistics and suppositions to support their poorly
thought out conlusions.


I knew I made a mistake by reading the comments in that blog. I usually don't,
but thought I'd see if any of them said Dejan was wrong and that you and Charlie
made sense. Of course none of them did, so far.
gregschuler     |2008-12-18 03:43:23
Why not do both? Keep Bay, maximize the trade return for other fungible veterans
and generate a pipeline of minor league talent?

As for Bay, was the return
mid-season better than the rumored deal with Cleveland? It was only in the sense
that it was young and cheaper, but not necessarily a better deal talent wise
(much worse, in fact).

The real problem is what Pat hints at - the supposed
core of the team is complimentary rather than a true core. That even extended to
Bay. When McLouth, Maholm and Doumit are your core players, that's a weak core.
Even the complimentary players are substandard (LaRoche, Wilson, Sanchez).

I
was against the Bay trade simply because I don't think the return was adequate,
not because they traded Jason Bay (a lesser Giles, if you will). The Pirates
should blow it up, but I do agree with Kovacejvic's point that the organization
should be flexible in improving the club. Don't ignore a Todd Ritch...
Jeff D     |2008-12-18 06:19:12
For all the turmoil over the Bay trade, the point I can't get over is that -- if
we really love the guy -- we can sign him back when he hits the free agent
market following next season! Discussing his value versus LaRoche, et al is
virtually pointless: the 2008 season was a wash. We lose his production for
2009, but the cost of signing him for 2010 is not likely to be much greater than
it would have if he wasn't traded.

But we're not going to sign him because it
would be irresponsible to tie up 20% of the max payroll (assume $15mm/year and a
$75mm team payroll...I know, I'm dreaming) in one player ... and one player who
never approached being a transcendent outfielder.

2009 is going to be a rough
season, but let's leave the new management alone for now. Even though the
offense wasn't too bad in 2008, we saw that it was a house of cards -- lose one
piece and it falls apart. NH is right that we need to build organizatio...
gregschuler     |2008-12-18 06:27:59
Quote:
For all the turmoil over the Bay trade, the point I can't get over is that -- if
we really love the guy -- we can sign him back when he hits the free agent
market following next season! Discussing his value versus LaRoche, et al is
virtually pointless: the 2008 season was a wash. We lose his production for
2009, but the cost of signing him for 2010 is not likely to be much greater than
it would have if he wasn't traded.


Why on earth would Bay come back to Pittsburgh? He can make 12-15 million on
the free agent market and after experiencing winning with Boston, I doubt the
Pirates will be in contention and an attractive target for him when he does hit
free agency.

Bay was the best trade chip the Pirates had - a cost controlled
OF with good offense and defense. They, in my opinion, wasted that chit based on
the return they received for him.

The offense was a house of cards because
the Pirates traded the two best per...
Jeff D     |2008-12-18 06:58:51
Of course Bay isn't going to come back (nor are the Pirates going to try to get
him). That's my point. Everyone bashing that trade is doing so with the
fanciful mindset (btw, DK used this logic, too) that Bay would sign an extension
with the team at a reasonable, hometown discount.

Of course he wasn't going
to do that! So all the Pirates lost was 1 meaningful season of Jason Bay, and
in return they get 5-6 years each of LaRoche, Hanson, Moss and
Morris....potentially 20+ years of service. If any of those guys pan out, it's
a great trade. I just don't see why everyone is pointing to the Bay trade as
being evidence of anything besides the Pirates not having many good players.
gregschuler     |2008-12-18 11:26:47
People may have thought that Bay would stick around, but that's not the argument
I am using. If he wants to stick around and the contract makes sense, why not
keep him? If not, then trade him - that's a pretty cut and dried argument. It
gets complicated when you consider what Bay is/was worth as the pre-eminent
trade chip the Pirates had.

Selling 1.5 or 2 years of Bay is worth a lot in
any market. Did the Pirates maximize that return - I say no, others say yes.


The new argument is whether it was prudent to keep Bay, build up the farm
system and then add a few pieces to bolster a run at respectability. My response
is that a team has to go full-force one way or another - simply treading water
is really pointless unless your only goal is to make money (DING! DING! DING!).
apk     |2008-12-18 03:59:12
Greg, I know that we've disagreed a lot in the past, but I just want to thank
you for at least being a rational voice of dissidence. Tip of the cap to you.


On the other hand, I am grateful for the coverage that DK provides, and I
think the PBC Blog's about one of the best things going, but Jerry's right-- the
commenters over there are so frustrating that it hurts. Since when does Pat
agree with everything the Bucs do?

Ugh.
Pat     |2008-12-18 05:17:17
Greg-

I'll go back to the point about hindsight on this one; the Cleveland
trade had more talent in it as we look at it [i]now[i], but Cliff Lee and Kelly
Shoppach for Bay over last winter was a joke. Meanwhile Andy LaRoche's main hit
in value occurred after he got out of LA and kept floundering.

Of course, the
point that I don't think we're disagreeing on is that if you don't have a
contender, eventually you have to saddle up and trade Bay. If LaRoche, Hansen,
and Moss all flame out spectacularly but Morris turns into a solid starter in
2011, the Pirates win the trade because they have something in 2011 when they
would've had nothing.
gregschuler     |2008-12-18 06:18:28
LaRoche received his first extended playing time with the Pirates - and he
flamed out. That's what some prospects do. Given his injury past and his basic
skillset (and looking objectively at his age and adjusting for Las Vegas being a
hitter's paradise) LaRoche always carried an inordinate amount of risk.

If
Morris is the only true return and he takes until 2011, then he better be pretty
good, but getting 25% of a useful return is a very poor trade. The Pirates
traded a very good cost controlled outfielder for four question marks. They need
meaningful contributions from 3 of those 4 players to justify the trade, in my
opinion. I think Hansen is a flame out and I don't feel that Moss will every be
more than a good OF (less capable than Bay, for instance).
Emma     |2008-12-18 05:18:41
Damnit Pat, new WHYGAVS ate my comment.

Short version: I am annoyed about DK's
commenters expressing their wrongness in the most infuriating way possible. It's
beyond frustrating to watch them flame Pat and Charlie (who I consider pals of
mine) just because they're too dumb to think rationally. What a bunch of tools.
gregschuler     |2008-12-18 06:07:41
RE: apk

Being called a rational voice of dissidence is a very high compliment
and I thank you for it.

The PBC blog and the Pirates main blog and even
places like onlybucs and bucsdugout attract their fair share of pollyanas.
That's the audience that has sustained the Pirates through this losing tenure -
they are the fans that will support the team in the end, long after the casual
fans are spending money on movies and DVDs (or whatever people spend
discretionary income on these days - it's still booze, coke and porn for me).
gregschuler     |2008-12-18 06:15:22
RE: Pat

Well, even then, it was not wildly out of line with Bay's value.
Shoppach was an emerging catcher with better receiving and offensive potential
than Doumit (who is still an injury risk). Lee was a classic buy-low candidate -
his 2007 stands out as an outlier, not a true level of talent indicator. And the
other prospects mentioned at the time would have added value. Holding out for
Aaron Laffey instead of Lee was foolhardy in one sense, but whatever. I believe
I remember being in favor of that trade, but I'm sure I contradicted myself at
some point. The point is the Pirates would have moved Bay (who could only
decrease his value by getting hurt or sucking, not increase it, unlike Nady),
received three legitimate pieces and a whole season dedicated to rebuilding.
Instead, the team waffled through another half season where one part of the team
actually performed and raised expectations even slightly.

Bear in mind, t...
RizzoSports     |2008-12-18 07:34:20
A lot of cases it's about who they didn't get. Other names had to be discussed
somewhere along the line involving Bay, i guess we'll never know the deals, but
something tells me the Pirates probably could have got more. - Actually this
seems to be the sad story of the Pirates for years.
strugglingwriter     |2008-12-18 08:29:32
I'll be honest. Everything you say makes sense. I still hate the Bay
trade.

They were infinitely more fun to watch before the trades. At least they
were able to put up some runs. I couldn't bring myself to watch them much after
the trades. It was that bad.

It's so hard to get excited about next season.
I'm not sure if I will watch next year, though I probably will. I've been a fan
since '85 after all. I just wish it didn't feel like they were eliminated
before the season even starts.
Derek B.     |2008-12-21 16:46:21
Just a few things to add to what's been so eloquently debated here.

I
understand the Bay trade. Things have been tough since, but I think it was the
right move. The Pirates weren't going to be a contender with Bay. I think he's a
great player and I loved watching him play here, but I think the trade was the
best move for all parties involved, Jason included.

It felt good to see him
play well in Boston on a playoff-stage. Good for him.

And I'm MUCH more
optimistic about Brandon Moss than Steve Pearce. To me, he seems to have greater
potential for upside than anyone we received in the Bay deal. He has a great
swing; the ball just seems to jump off his bat. I'd like to see McClouth,
McCutchen and Moss man the Pirates' outfield next season.
Name:
Email:
 
Website:
Title:
UBBCode:
[b] [i] [u] [url] [quote] [code] [img] 
 
 
Please input the anti-spam code that you can read in the image.

3.26 Copyright (C) 2008 Compojoom.com / Copyright (C) 2007 Alain Georgette / Copyright (C) 2006 Frantisek Hliva. All rights reserved."

 

Follow WHYGAVS

About Bloguin

Bloguin is the revolutionary blog network specifically focused on helping bloggers get the most out of their websites. We're currently working on building a large network of online communities and hope to expand our blogging coverage to include a wide range of topics.

Advertisers

The Bloguin Network allows advertisers to promote their products and services to our ever-growing number of visitors. We offer both site-specific ad placements as well as the ability to run a network-wide campaign. If you're interested in working with Bloguin to meet your advertising needs, please contact us.

Most-Wanted List

The Bloguin Network is always looking to expand. Here are some of our high-priority areas that we're specifically looking to grow. If you're a blogger and interested in joining our network, please fill out our application form.

  1. NBA/Basketball Blogs
  2. NFL Blogs
  3. Major League Baseball Blogs

The Bloguin Login

The Bloguin Login gives you full access to everything our network has to offer. Your name and password will work for each and every one of our sites. Signing up is simple, and will allow you to post in all our forums, create member blogs, and access other cool features! What are you waiting for? Create an Account!