Has anyone evaluated the options Smith had?

by BD57 on Feb 2, 2008 4:45 PM EST Comment 8 comments

No, not "The Red Sox / Yankees proposals" v. "The Mets deal" ....

In December, 'everyone' thought the Red Sox / Yankees offers weren't nearly good enough for Johan, that the Twins would get better deals if they held out & that Johan would waive the no-trade clause ('no problem').

Now, of course, Smith should've taken one of those deals ....

Has anyone evaluated what Smith actually had to choose between, to wit:

"One year of Johan + two draft picks"

vs.

"The four players we got from the Mets."

0 recs | Comment 8 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Yes

It's in several posts here. My analysis is that Guerra and Mulvey are as good as you could expect by way of draft picks for Johan. So the deal comes down to: what's more valuable, six years of Gomez and Humber or one year of Santana?

The answer to that question depends on how they do, of course. The trick is figuring out how much value you expect them to have over the life of your control over them.

Supposing the same VORP this year as last (58.6), how do you factor that over six years and two regulars? Easy, divide by 12. So each player needs to average a VORP of 5 or better over the next six years to be worth one year of Santana.

How likely is that? Well, it's pretty likely for Humber. To put it in context, Chris Capuano had a VORP of 6.3 while pitching 150 innings with an ERA of 5.5 last year. It's not hard to get a VORP of 5. And I would be shocked if his Zips projections aren't much better than Capuano's 2007 campaign.

It's really likely for Gomez. The closest thing I could find last year was Andrew Jones, who had a VORP of 5.4 while hitting .222/.311/.413. I know Gomez will hit better than that and will likely provide at least as good of defense as Jones last year. So it's very likely His average VORP will be much higher than 5 over his time with the Twins.

"You're thinking too much. Just have fun." -- Bennie "The Jet" Rodriguez in Sandlot

by cmathewson on Feb 2, 2008 5:54 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

that's an interesting argument

and it makes sense to a certain extent, but I would argue one year of Santana spread out over six years vs. one year of Santana spread out over, well, one year is not exactly the same.

I.e., say one year of 100% of Santana gave the Twins the VORP (or whatever) they needed to win the division and go on to take the series. Say six years of two baby 8.33% Santana's gets us painfully close to a ring without quite pushing us over the edge.

They are mathematical abstractions to be sure, but they follow your logic. It's an instance where 5.4*12 does not equal 58.

"I don't care about feelings." - Lou Piniella

by natetheskate on Feb 2, 2008 7:56 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Mathematical abstractions

The reason it doesn't add up is you have to gloss over lots of variables. VORP is the closest thing we have to an absolute value for a player. But players are worth different values to different teams.

On a team that is preparing to contend in a year or two, is flush with young pitching but lacks high-level position player prospects, a pitcher will not have only so much value (say, $20 million a year for four years).

To a team that has aging stars and needs to win now, is desperate for starting pitching and trying to make a push for the series while they can, the ace has more value.

"You're thinking too much. Just have fun." -- Bennie "The Jet" Rodriguez in Sandlot

by cmathewson on Feb 3, 2008 12:58 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Huh?

I was just trying to work within the parameters you've set out. Phrased slightly differently, a one-season vorp of 60 is not the same as a vorp of 10 multiplied by 6 seasons for the simple fact that you are changing one variable, time. Now if you were going to add up MLB team performances over the next 6 years and then call a "six year champion" your logic would make sense. But champions, unfortunately for your scenario, occur each discrete season.

But yes, if you don't think your team can compete then a VORP that gets you just under what you need is less valuable to your team than to a team who might take the same VORP and make it add up to something special. That's clearly the rub.

"I don't care about feelings." - Lou Piniella

by natetheskate on Feb 4, 2008 1:22 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Guerra and Mulvey...

...must be considered better than the players we would likely get with a late first round and supplementeal pick. We can always hope, but experience would indicate that they would be superior to one if not both players selected.

Looking at our first and supplemental round picks this decade, we have selected: Adam Johnson [#1-2000]; Joe Mauer [#1-2001]; Denard Span [#1-2002]; Matt Moses [#1-2003]; Trevor Plouffe [#1-2004]; Glen Perkins [#1-2004]; Kyle Waldrop [#1-2004]; Matt Fox [1s-2004]; Jay Rainville [1s-2004]; Matt Garza [1-2005]; Henry Sanchez [1s-2005]; Chris Parmalee [1-2006]; and Ben Revere [1-2007].

Of the 12 players drafted in the first and supplemental rounds this decade, only Mauer (2001) has become a major league star and he was the number one selection overall...which the two picks would not be. Perkins and Garza have become major league players and Plouffe appears to be a legitimate prospect. Rainville could become a top line prospect, if 100% healthy, and it is too early to know about Revere and possibly Parmalee...although last year was not what we hoped for. Thus, three or four of twelve would be better or as good as Humber and Guerra. Thus, I believe it would be more accurate to say that equating one of these two to what we would get from two draft picks (one a legit prospect and the other not making it to the major leagues). Thus, one year of Santana needs to be compared to the remaining three prospects.

by roger on Feb 3, 2008 8:59 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I agree

My argument is, worst case scenario, the Twins still get more value out of this deal than they would with a year of Santana plus two draft picks. But the upside of this deal is way better than the worst case.

Gomez ceiling = Ricky Henderson with better defense and worse plate discipline
Gomez midpoint = Bernie Williams
Gomez floor = Coco Crisp
Humber upside = Ace, if he gets his velocity back
Humber midpoint = Doug Drabek
Humber floor = Boof Bonser
Mulvey ceiling = Brad Radke
Mulvey Midpoint = Kevin Tapani
Mulvey floor = Kevin Slowey
Guerra ceiling = Ace, if he learns a breaking pitch
Guerra midpoint = Joel Zumaya
Guerra floor = Juan Rincon

Of course, guys get hurt and what not. But when you consider their upsides, this deal could very likely end up better than the fictional Red Sox deal. If you follow the arc of their careers, here's a likely scenario.

2008
Gomez = Crisp
Humber < Lester
Mulvey < Lowrie
Guerra < Masterson

2009
Gomez > Crisp
Humber = Lester
Mulvey < Lowrie
Guerra = Masterson

2010
Gomez > Crisp
Humber = Lester
Mulvey < Lowrie
Guerra > Masterson

If you consider that it would take at least two additional years for any draft picks to reach their peaks over Mulvey and Guerra, the deal is clearly better than one year of Johan plus draft picks.

"You're thinking too much. Just have fun." -- Bennie "The Jet" Rodriguez in Sandlot

by cmathewson on Feb 3, 2008 12:18 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Most of it is simple

>>"One year of Johan + two draft picks"

vs.

"The four players we got from the Mets."

Two draft picks who have no pro track record aren't worth four players with a pro background that you have assessed.

As relatively worthless as Baseball America Top 10 prospects lists are, for example, they are not anywhere close to as worthless as trying to name which college or high school players can make it in the pros. We at least know, for example, that Humber isn't going to be crying for his mother at night.

The difficult, and more personal, part of question is the Twins '08 season with Santana vs. without, plus whatever some of these four prospects contribute.

If the Twins could win the pennant with him, I'd be happy to settle for a couple of lousy draft picks and have him walk. Anything short of that, I'm not too happy. But we'll never know "the hand."

We will know the "on the other hand."

On the other hand, if the Twins' win the pennant this year, great deal.

"Man, the past is a long and twisty road." -- Satchel Paige.

by Firpo Marberry on Feb 3, 2008 12:45 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

I know everyone...

...will have lots of problems with what I am about to say, however, I rated the four players we are receiving based on their minor league play in 2007 and compared them to players in our system. I will acknowledge that Guerra pitching at a lower level has a substantial discount. Gomez was at a disadvantage because of his spending a substantial part of the year either with the Mets or on the DL, therefore, I did adjust his rating to take that into consideration.

Gomez would have been #1 in the Twins system with an adjusted rating of 108.203, just nudging out my top ranked position player, Garrett Guzman, who had a score of 07.528.

The pitchers were somewhat surprising. Based on their minor league performances in 2007, Kevin Mulvey graded out the highest with a score of 127.864...which would have placed him 5th in the organization behind #4, Brian Duensing who had a score of 129.474.

Phil Humber graded out at 104.627, which would have been 21st right behind our #20, Alex Burnett at 104.659. Finally, Deolis Guerra would have had a score of 100.480, which would have been 23rd right behind Ryan Mullins at 102.752. Obviously, with all three of them in the picture, they would have been: Mulvey, #5; Humber #22; and Guerra, #25.

I understand that there is a lot more to choosing whom to trade for, especially with Guerra who was so young that his added points for age certainly did not offset the better numbers he would have had in the MidWest League.

by roger on Feb 3, 2008 2:05 PM EST reply actions 0 recs