Sit on Blanton
by Tyler Bleszinski on Dec 20, 2007 12:12 PM PST
in News
Email
PrintI know that I encouraged the A's to continue the wheeling and dealing, but everything I'm hearing in terms of rumors for Blanton aren't enough to deal him, in my opinion. I would actually say that the A's need to stand pat for now unless there is something else out there that hasn't yet been discussed.
The market for starting pitching still hasn't come around completely yet and you kind of need a pitcher like Bedard to be moved in order for the teams that missed out on him to be that much more desperate. Also, there's no question how good Danny Haren is. I think a lot of teams are still unsure what Blanton represents. He's had months where he's been completely dominant and looks like a solid number two (possibly closer to an ace on a National League team). But he's also had months where he's looked a bit too easy to hit and hit hard.
So the smart decision at this point will probably be to wait. Possibly even wait until the trading deadline this year when a contender is dying for an extra starter that they think can put them over the hump and give them a shot at a World Series title.
At the same time, many speculated that the A's were going to have to wait for the Twins to deal Santana in order to get the most value for Haren. But Beane and company bucked that thought process in finding a partner who was aggressive and had the prospects that they wanted. I just wonder with the Dodgers being very deep in pitching, the Diamondbacks now set and much thinner in the minors and the Mets not really having any spectacular prospects, is the pool of potential destinations too thin?
I did mention before that it could be possible that the A's wind up packaging Street and Blanton to get a higher yield in return, but if they're going to do that, they better not only restock the farm, they better ask for the whole damn farm.
All this being said, I'm just not sure that the market for Smokin' Joe is where it needs to be. Maybe it's because of his body type (I believe Nico mentioned that already), but it's more likely because he hasn't been as consistent so his overall numbers aren't nearly as impressive as Haren's. It might just be wise to sit on Joe until he can show the other teams that he can be the fantastic addition to their rotation they are looking for.
104 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Is that like...
...Hop on Pop?
You gotta admit
he'd probably be the most comfortable A to sit on -- assuming you like your furniture nice and soft. And he sure seems sturdy.
Someone should drag Cupcakes to the Antiques Roadshow and have those creepy furniture-fetish twins take a look at him to confirm that he's really from Kentucky.
Creepy? Really?
Leigh and Leslie Keno? I don't see that. They're incredibly knowledgeable and unbelievably passionate (about FURNITURE, man), enough so that their enthusiasm about a subject I know almost nothing about (and don't care to know more) is actually contagious. They also have a light-hearted approach, don't seem to take themselves too seriously, and convey a genuine desire to teach when interacting w/ people (as opposed to just showing off how much they know). For my money, those qualities are pretty admirable in any endeavor (like, say, coaching baseball?). Just sayin'.
What I find creepy is that
the Kenos' parents bestowed the names "Leigh" and "Leslie" on their twin sons.
(Heck, even "Lynx" and "Lamb" would be more masculine.)
What do you expect for a #3 SP?
Blanton is a solid, mid-rotation option who has stretches of pitching better then a classic #3. But he's not consistent enough to be a #2.
Blanton is currently the best RH pitcher on the market, free or otherwise. That set of circumstances is unlikely to happen again, even if the A's tried to deal him in July. Sure, you can hope someone goes spastic 7 months from now but the deals Beane is seeing now are probably as good as it's going to get for Blanton.
I don't know
I think Blanton is continuing to get better. And I do think that he could definitely be a number two starter in the NL very easily. I mean Aaron Harang is considered the ace of the Reds staff.
by Tyler Bleszinski on Dec 20, 2007 12:13 PM PST up reply actions
Being an Ace for a staff does not = being a #1 SP
If the A's do trade Blanton and Harden is again a no-show then Gaudin would most likely be the Ace for Oakland. That's a far cry from the Days of Old, you know?
I think Blanton's BB & K numbers are as good as they're going to get, his stuff is as good as it's going to get. Hits Allowed are his bugaboo, and hits have more to do with luck and defense then his skills.
Hits allowed
Hits allowed has a lot to do with pitch location...when Blanton gets hit hard, he gets way too much of the plate. When he is locked in, those very same pitches are located better and are harmless ground balls...
Are you saying that Cupcakes
is comparable to Harang? Or that he might become Harang?
Because Harang is a VERY GOOD pitcher. Harang is one of the best pitchers in the NL.
Depending on how much you want to penalise him for pitching in the NL, he is arguably better than Haren.
Before someone mentions
Peavy or Webb, I'm not saying that he is as good as either of them.
I was saying that Blanton is on
his way to just being a notch or so below Harang (thus, Harang being the number one designation and Blanton the number two). Blanton would be a very, very good number two in the National League.
by Tyler Bleszinski on Dec 20, 2007 12:38 PM PST up reply actions
Good comparison
I actually just made a list of the top pitchers over the last three years, in light of the discussion a few days ago about where Haren ranked (where one person claimed he was one of the top 5 pitchers in baseball, and a few others claimed he was merely a number 2).
By my simple measure, Harang was the most similar to Haren: over the last 3 years, Harang has averaged 226 IP with an ERA+ of 120, and Haren has averaged 221 IP with an ERA+ of 121.
Incidentally, Haren/Harang would rank somewhere between 10th and 15th overall, depending on exactly how much you value durability vs. peak performance, which is about what I thought in the first place, and qualifies as a "#1" by most definitions.
Blanton's not as good, and isn't likely to be, but he is a decent #2 starter, and, as with Haren, his service time gives him quite a bit of extra value. So ultimately I agree with Blez that he shouldn't be traded without getting equivalent value back.
Equivalent value to what/whom though?
You say decent #2, I say very good #3... basically the same thing. What is the trade value in terms of grade and number of prospects invloved?
not a reply to grover per se
but rather to the whole sense of what a #1, #2, #3 etc means.
By definition an average pitcher has an ERA+ of 100. But starters do slightly worse on average than relievers.
IIRC, for MLB as a whole, starting pitching usually has a cumulative ERA+ of about 96+, and relievers about 104+.
I break it down this way:
#1 starter 120 ERA+
#2 starter 110 ERA+
#3 starter 100 ERA+
#4 starter 90 ERA+
#5 starter 80 ERA+
If this were truly indicative of reality however, the cumulative Starters' ERA+ would be slightly better than 100, due to more innings being pitches by front of the rotation guys (going longer in games, not having starts skipped).
Then there are a few pitchers who are better than 120+ over a several season span, that is a true ACE.
And also then there are some scrub guys who are #6 starters or #7 starters, who get enough innings to skew the total numbers down to where they are, with starters under performing relievers, with the most average inning of pitched baseball by starting pitcher yielding a ERA+ of 96+.
So to me, I break it down as
True ACE 130 ERA+
#1 starter 120 ERA+
#2 starter 110 ERA+
#3 starter 100 ERA+
#4 starter 90 ERA+
#5 starter 80 ERA+
Junk starter 70 ERA+
But often, people seem to rachet it up one slot. A good #2 starter has an ERA+ of 120, a good #3 starter has an ERA+ of 110 etc...
I interpret this to mean that there is an unstated parenthetical there, "on a good team". Which is true of course, if all your pitchers are above average for their slots, then your starting rotation is quite comfortably above average.
IMO, this parenthetical "on a good team" or "on a playoff team" or "on a good staff" is responsible for a great deal of the ambiguity and confusion which arises from saying #2 starter potential, or that guy might be a #4 or any sort of invoking a rotational slot to label a guy. And anyway, many fans think that their 5th starter should have a league average ERA.
Interesting way to look at the SP rankings
Blanton's 2007 ERA+ = 106. Using this system that puts him in the 2/3 range.
Which is pretty much were most people see him, I think.
Right
But for last season I'd say Blanton was a #2 due to: being second in the league in total innings pitched, and only having 5 unearned runs allowed, thus making his RA+ 116 (according Baseball Prospectus numbers) and his ValueOverReplacementPlayer (VORP) the 25th best among all pitchers.
By VORP: here are the guys who clustered within one run of Blanton last year.
Kazmir 47.2
Meche 47.1
Lilly 46.7
Blanton 46.3
Verlander 45.9
Chris Young 45.8
Shields 45.4
OTOH, Zips pegs him to be just a touch above average next year, making him likely to be again, on the high end of a #3.
let's put this another way. If the A's rightly see him as a #2 starter, and another team rightly sees him as a likely good #3 starter, that perception would affect trade offers, right?
And one more thing
Obviously ERA+ and RA+ are blunt instruments. Fielding matters, and some pitchers are helped or hurt enough by their defenses each year to distort their Runs Allowed numbers significantly. We all know this.
But as a benchmark for describing what that starting pitcher slot should/does produce on aggregate, the ERA+ model is quick enough, especially when used over several seasons.
I think that
Joe is just hitting is stride. I expect him to get better too and I bet if he has a good season that he will be much more valuable next year. I hope Beane waits to trade him . I am with you on this one Blez.
waiting also means ...
... a very slight chance that Blanton continues to improve over the first half of '08, thereby upticking his value; and a much greater chance that his performance drops off a bit (and/or he goes through one of his totally-hittable stretches), thereby dropping his value below where it is now.
As with Haren, the optimal time to trade Joe is right now. As relatively sparse as the proposed deals are, Beane's not likely to net better.
I was going to say something like that
But what I wrote sucked. Thank you for finding the gooder words.
Ok, so
If the trade market is not likely to improve, and the current offers suck, shouldn't the A's just hang on to Blanton?
He won't be a free agent until 2010. In the meantime he'll continue to be a highly useful pitcher. He could also be re-signed longer term.
At some point don't you have to ask, is it really worth strip-mining the MLB roster to get a couple of average prospects?
Worst case scenario
Gomez and Mulvey both rate as B grade prospects. They do not constitute a "couple of average prospects".
If Sickels is "worst case scenario"...
then yes, that statement is correct.
Law was even more critical of Mulvey (for whatever that's worth)-- felt he was a 4th starter at best.
BA has him 3/4
Also says he needs to work on his change-up.
So, since you hate Gomez anyways, lets say a starting caliber CF and a #3 SP in exchange for Blanton. Somewhere along the way guys who figure as big league starters and #3 SP are average prospects? Sounds harsh to me.
And you need to figure out how you feel about Law. You scoff him when he badmouths Haren, you use him for your defense when talking about someone you don't like.
I can tell you're not a historian
You can't just say "so and so is reliable," or "so and so is a liar." Historians have to use the writings of known liars (like, to pick a completely arbitrary example, William T. Sherman) all the time. When you're dealing with an unreliable source, which I consider Law to be, you have to ask-- does he have a motive to lie here? Does he know what he's talking about? Etc.
In this case, my own evaluation of him is that he tends strongly to be over-critical of non-sure-thing prospects-- when he says Mulvey is a #4-#5, that makes me think he's probably in the #3-#4 range. He also has a severe anti-A's bias, but that's not in play here. That doesn't make him a useless source, just one that has to be understood in his own context.
But, as is always the case with unreliable sources, other people's evaluations of them may vary. Hence my quote of him and admonishment about what it's worth.
BA History, 1997
When you have a unreliable source you're supposed to acknowledge the bias.
In this case it appears that you use a source you normally don't trust primarily because he supports your position on the subject. Sickels and BA are readily available and both give Mulvey a higher upside yet you don't use them. Why?
Because it weakens your arguement against Mulvey.
But I'm going to let you off the hook on this one. While on the drive home I thought maybe a better package would be to get Pelfrey (if Beane insists on a big league ready arm) who has fallen a little out of favor in NY and would lose his job with Blanton's arrival and go after some of the Mets' younger arms, like Niese and/or Guerra. Or skip the guys AAA and above and focus on stockpiling younger arms.
Shrug
I felt "for whatever that's worth" was a sufficient nod in that direction, but maybe it wasn't.
Pretty funny that you turn out to be a history major after all... somehow I figured you for poli-sci or econ...
What area did you study?
Agreed about the younger arms. If Beane desperately wants to hit up the Mets for some reason, the guys to go after are in A-ball.
When I started school
China fascinated me. I took everything I could on 19th and 20th century Asia (the school didn't really seperate SE Asia and China but the leading professor was all about China, in retrospect I think the professor was just so good I wanted to keep taking his classes which just happened to focus on China) and might have gone on to get a Masters in the subject matter but then...
I caught the acting bug. Bad.
Finished with 2 BA's in 4 years, taking whatever history classes interested me to wrap up the degree. Luckily my advisor was also chair of the History Department and he let me sub upper division classes for some lower division stuff I never got around to taking.
Acting led to fire fighting, fire fighting led to drinking, drinking led to my wife. (Uber-short version of post BA Histroy life.)
I like to cite oaktoon in that way
that may be the best option at this point
Let me see if I understand the equation
[accepted value of current trade offers for Blanton (including on-field MLB perf value '08-10) + Blanton's arb-awarded salaries for the next 3 years] < [Blanton's on-field MLB perf value '08-10 + one first-round pick in '11] ?
i'm just starting to doubt
whether the rest of the league appreciates the guy.
his last three years, how much worse was he than zito's last three years with the a's?
Silva Contract with SEA...
Should help Blanton's trade value. Lots of teams could use that kind of innings-eater, and he's cheap and durable. Because BB doesn't seem to be going for MLB-ready prospects but rather a quantity-based "shotgun" approach, there are quite a few teams that could theoretically put together interesting packages for Blanton. Personally, I'm not so wild about the Mets' supposed offer, because those guys all have MLB service time already. I think BB is looking farther into the future, and rightly so. As a fan, I'd rather have the worst team in the league for a few years possibly followed by something really special than finish between 5th and 8th in the AL for the next 10 years....
Mets Shopping at the A's Store Again
Carlos Gomez, Aaron Heilman, and Kevin Mulvey from the Mets. That's the latest I heard, and honestly, the only one that even sounds remotely useful is Mulvey. But he's gotta be at least 2-3 years away, and I hate the idea of trading an innings-eater for 2 B prospects and a prospect in A ball.
by Locknload on Dec 20, 2007 12:22 PM PST reply actions
You have no idea what you're talking about
Heilman is in the Mets' bullpen.
Gomez spent last year bouncing between AAA and NY.
Mulvey spent almost all of last year in AA, finishing in AAA. How could he be 2-3 years away?
Where's the A-ball prospect you mentioned?
heilman? wtf?
if we are truly rebuilding why would we trade for an older relief pitcher??? this must be another BS rumor stirred up by the NY media...
by johnjahafanclub on Dec 21, 2007 9:16 PM PST up reply actions
Off topic
but if a team is rebuilding. Do they really need a 3rd baseman making 36 million buck over the next 3 years? Do you think the A's will try and move Chavez in the near future?
chavy's value has never been lower
On the bright side....
since he is nearing the end of his contract and the A's plan on sucking for at least a couple of years, he will probably have that monster season everyones been waiting for. Just in time for him to leave as FA.
has never been ...
... but could drop even further.
Chavy in '08
I am SOOOO rooting for Chavy to get off to a good start in '08 so we can ship him and his albatross of a contract to the Dodgers...a rebuilding team needs a $12m/yr 3B who hits .240 and misses 80 games/yr like it needs multiple holes in the head.
that's what I'm *hoping* for ...
... but what I'm expecting is that he (and Kotsay, for that matter) are basically done.
Honestly, though, even if he gets off to an incredible start, I don't think any team is going to take him without demanding >50% salary coverage from Beane to mitigate their risk -- and at that cost, unless he's packaged with Street/Blanton/Embree and we get a ton of prospies in return, it's hardly worth the bother.
A contending team needs a $12m/yr 3B who hits .240 and misses 80 games/yr like it needs multiple holes in the head.
Sorry
I meant by the trade deadline. I just cant see spending that kind of cash on one player while rebuilding.
a's payroll is way down already
chavez wouldn't bring us back much in trade, and we don't really have many 3b options... so what else are we going to spend that bit of money on?
well said xbhaskarx
Obviously I was thinking the same. I was typing while you were posting. it always takes me a minute to write out what I am thinking.
um ... draft bonuses? Latin/Asian scouting?
New coat of enamel on the trough urinals?
well yeah but our payroll is down enough
that we could already do a lot of those things, IF ownership/management chooses to do so.
knowing Beane and Wolff ...
... it's highly unlikely they'll spring for the enamel.
I think a team can rebuild without
dumping everybody. It's been said before, who would step in at 3rd? I don't think Hannahan is good enough. I think players should only be moved if they have a replacement with a lot of upside and potential or if they can get a lot of value for the player. Neither are true for Chavez right now.
Cant see this happening
without the Mets giving up some left handed pitching.
Neise would be nice.
http://firstinning.com/players/Jonat...
As simple as this:
Trade Blanton, or sign Bonds :)
If there is no good Blanton trade out there, a 1-year Bonds signing doesn't exactly block any of our minor league guys and essentially pays for itself anyway. Might as well allow for the possibility that things roll Oakland's way this year and sign Bonds unless Beane plans to unload the Blanton and Street.
by SwisherSweet on Dec 20, 2007 2:40 PM PST reply actions
Like everyone else ...
I'd love to see the A's get a haul for Blanton. If they can restock the farm system with top flight prospects, that's one thing, but maybe they can't. Maybe other teams look at his average stuff and aren't willing to give up much. In that case, why not hang on to him? Peripherals aside, Cupcakes has been a way better pitcher than most people (on this site or in the media) give him credit for being. He takes the ball every turn AND he puts up 15 wins a year for a team that can't hit. If he's in Cleveland or Cinci, he's a perennial 20 game winner. He's also young and cheap, so maybe instead of shipping him away for some so-so prospects, we should be thinking bargain long term contract instead. Tell him, "Hey, Joe, the rest of the world thinks you suck and won't give up a bag of marbles for you, but we believe in you, so here's a 7 year deal to keep you around until we're good again." That wouldn't necessarily make him any less tradeable, and he's young enough to factor into the long term plans and budget if you keep him. Trading away current players for future potential can be a way to build, but he is a player where the argument can go both ways.
Not a bad idea
by kb toyz on Dec 20, 2007 4:09 PM PST up reply actions
Can I choose option C?
Option A seems to be trade Blanton now while his value has likely peaked.
People don't like A because of the scary state it leaves the A's rotation.
Option B says hang on to Blanton and let things unfold down the road.
My problem with B is it is unlikely that Blanton will be worth more in a trade in the future. He is the best RH SP on the market right now and that is a level I don't think he'll achieve again.
So how about Option C?
Sign Blanton to a 5 year deal (4 years plus a team/vesting option 5th year) and plan on building around him. This eliminates the problem of losing Blanton just when you think you're going to get good again. It also extends his attractiveness should you consider trading him in the future.
I guess the question there becomes
how much are you willing to spend on the contract?
My estimate of market price for that contract is 5+8+10+12+(13/2)=$37 million guaranteed, $11 million option.
heavy load the front end
That seems appropriate for Joe.
If you're planning to keep him
then the economically proper move is to defer as much money as possible toward the back of it (because of inflation and interest). And since signing a long-term deal at fairly close to free-agent rates (less, definitely, but close-- probably a savings of $10-15 million or so over the contract life) would pull down his trade value, you definitely want to keep him around if you do it.
Ultimately, it's all about what Blanton (or his agent) is willing to go for, though. And unfortunately I haven't heard thing one about what that is.
Part of why I front loaded the deal
Enticement to sign.
And I haven't heard much about a long term deal re: Blanton.
I don't really get why people
think Blanton's value will fall dramatically. He's young and posted an ERA under 4 two of his three years. His peripheral stats are very strong (K/BB of 3.5 last year, which is approaching his amazing minor league ratio of almost 5.0) and there doesn't seem to be any reason why they should decline in the near future.
Imagine a GM trading his (now) #1 SP who, during his 26-year-old season, posted a 3.95 ERA with a 3.5 K/BB while being paid $380K and showed absolutely no history of injuries. It sounds ludicrous on paper unless he gets an absolute bounty.
I'm in the "it will fall" camp ...
... but I don't know that any of us have claimed "dramatically."
Our general point is that it's likelier to fall than it is to rise or even stay the same -- so why not act now on the likeliest scenario?
but why is it likelier to fall than to rise?
you don't normally make such projections about 26-year-old's who've had two strong seasons in the majors. I let my BP subscription expire, so I can't pull up his comparables, but they've got to be pretty decent.
Since he wouldn't be a one-year rental, his value might not be that affected by a trade now versus mid-season, assuming his performance stays level.
peripherals, "stuff," gut (pun intended) instinct
I haven't seen his comps, but I'd guess that the optimistic comps are David Wells and Greg Maddux -- and that type of pitcher is less likely, on the whole, to keep and maintain improvement; though, of course, the ones who do are likely to have really long careers.
His best similarity comparable from B-Ref was...
John Lackey.
[Boooooooo]
the perfect comp for Blanton
...is the guy signing for $10+m/yr with SEA, Carlos Silva. Very low BB's, low K's, high hits allowed,"hefty" body types...GM's around the league have got to be shaking their heads at Silva's new contract and liking the cheaper, younger, and better Blanton more every day...
grover is right
If you're going to predict whether Blanton's trade value is likelier to go up or down, the only practical factors to consider are market forces.
If you try to draw a conclusion based on whether you think he's going to be a better or worse pitcher in the future, then you're misunderstanding the question, because that's already built in to the equation.
Any GM thinking about trading for Blanton is already projecting what he's going to be like over the next four or five years. If the smart prediction is that Blanton is going to improve (or decline) that does not mean the smart prediction is his trade value will go up (or down), because that prediction is already part of the current price.
What will change his trade value is if he improves/declines significantly more or less than everyone already expects he will. Unless you've got a crystal ball that lets you predict that better than all the GMs and scouting departments out there, you can't use that.
So you're left with market forces, which grover says points downward for any starting pitcher.
not to get into a larger discussion of market
dynamics, but it's safe to say those same teams that will be losing pitchers to the FA market will also be looking for replacements. The supply will go up, but so will the demand. If it were a truly closed system (no retirements, promotions from the minors, etc), then the only difference would be an increase in transactions. Whether an increase in pitchers changing teams helps or hurts Blanton's value is not obvious to me. I could see an argument that more transactions should help better define a market concensus "price" for pitchers, thereby reducing the odds of really ripping someone off (removing the illiquidity premium). Of course, it could be the A's that are ripped off in the end, since the value could be higher or lower than the "price".
The argument about expectations being baked into projections is valid. However, given GM's tendancy to overvalue the most recent data point, it seems as though those expectations may not be close to rational. Maybe it's the short-term performance incentive (win or be fired) nature of the job, but GM's are often the victim of group think. Fortunate for us, if the views of GM's and InterWeb fans on message boards are aligned, Blanton's performance should exceed his future expectations.
Not so safe to say
Consider whom's leaving who. (Should that be who's/whom?)
AJ Burnett will either opt out from his deal with Toronto or stay. If he opts out, the Blue Jays would still have Halladay, McGowan, Marcum and Litsch.
Jon Garland is leaving the Angels. They'd still have Lackey, Weaver and Escobar. They might pursue Blanton if they thought he'd be easily had but they wouldn't go overboard in their bidding.
Paul Byrd and C.C. Sabathia could leave Cleveland. The Indians would still have Carmona, Westbrook and enough minor league arms to fill in the rotation, especially if Miller stays healthy. I think Cleveland will make an all out push to keep Sabathia but unless all their young arms (Miller, Laffey and Lofgren) fall apart they aren't going to be desperate for pitching.
The Cardnials could lose Looper and would probably pursue an arm via trade, by this time next year they'll probably feel good enough about their farm system to pursue a Blanton type pitcher. At the same time, they might just sit back and wait for Mulder and Carpenter to return to form. The Cards are just a real tough read at this time.
Derek Lowe could leave the Dodgers but LA expects Kershaw to be ready by the end of 2008. They've liked Blanton in the past but with Penny, Billingsly, Schmidt and Kuroda they'd only go after Joe on their terms.
The Mets could be very hard hit with Pedro, Oliver Perez and Orlando Hernandez all scheduled for free agency after 2008. I'd be shocked if Minaya didn't do everything he could to re-sign or extend Perez but even then he'd probably come calling for Blanton. 'Course, the Mets have been linked to Blanton this year too.
Ben Sheets could leave Milwaukee but they'd still have a bunch of arms available. They're about 7-8 deep in the rotation as of now.
That means of the 7 teams that could lose top line pithcing, maybe 2 would be interested in pursuing Blanton in a trade. The other 5 teams have the depth (at this time) to withstand the hit and fill-in either through free agency or their farm systems. There are 4-5 teams currently interested in Blanton, that's basically double the market we're looking at a year from now.
Clarification
Partly because I'm dense, partly because mdl used the word "prediction" three times in the same sentence, and partly because econo-talk about market forces and illiquidity premiums and stuff being baked into equations makes my head hurt, I had to re-read this thread like seven times before I kinda sorta latched on to the gist.
(I persevered because, while I was initially dumbfounded, it all sounded super-smart, so I figured I should suck it up and get myself a little education this evening)
Then, just when I though I was finished, you penned this nine paragraph behemoth. But at least it has names of baseball teams in it, so I was able to follow without chugging aspirin.
[shifts into third person, sighs, wipes brow, replenishes cashew bowl]
Anyway, the stuff you cited to explain why various teams (Dodgers, Blue Jays, Brewers, etc.) wouldn't be interested in Blanton next year ... that would all hold true today, no? Moreso, even.
I'm interested in:
a) teams that are currently interested in Blanton, but won't be next year, and why.
b) teams that are not currently interested in Blanton, but might be next year, and why.
c) teams whose level of interest is likely to remain unchanged (Mets, and ...)
All assuming Cupcakes stays healthy and maintains (roughly) 2007 production.
(you can even label the post "market forces for dummies" if you want)
Kind of a tall order
Group A:
The Reds are currently interested in Blanton but they won't be next year if Bailey and/or Cueto emerge in 2008. I'm a little leery of the Reds' various packages, because after declaring Bailey off-limits for the past two years they're willing to deal him now as part of a package for Blanton or Bedard. Why do they suddenly like Cueto more? A 2008 rotation of Harang, Arroyo and either Bailey or Cueto (or both youngsters or maybe Bedard) pretty much makes Blanton a luxury purchase rather then a must have.
The Mariners came into the offseason saying they wanted 2 SP. They just signed Silva and have been pursuing Blanton and Bedard. Maybe they land Bedard. If they can't catch either SP then Bavasi will cross his fingers on Washburn and Batista for another year. Doing some quick math, it looks like Bavasi will have over $20 million in cash to play with in the 08-09 free agent market. If he doesn't trade his top position prospects this winter he won't need to spend that money on veteran hitters, he can go after the pitching I mentioned in the earlier post.
Those are two of the bigger names pursuing Blanton today and it doesn't look like they'll be as anxious for him a year from now.
The Dodgers have already fallen out and I think Cleveland was far more interested in Haren then in Blanton.
Group C
The Mets will be looking for pitching next year unless at least two of Humber, Pelfrey or Mulvey establish themselves in 2008. They also have the cash to go after free agents but with possibly as many as 4 spots open in the rotation (free agent defections and struggles from the previously mentioned trio) Minaya would be looking at all avenues to acquire arms.
I've heard some whispers that the Astros might be interested but their farm system is dreadful. Same goes for the Phillies.
The Cubs are always sniffing.
Group B
This takes some serious crystal ball gazing.
St. Louis could get interested in 2008 if Mulder and/or Carpenter stumble in their return. It's a new GM in town, the spectre of dealing with Beane won't haunt him too much. Very much a toss-up though.
I think the Padres start calling, maybe even in July 08. They're 2009 rotation looks like Peavy and Young and then maybe minor leaguer Wade LeBlanc. That won't cut it in the NL West. They've got Maddux and Wolf signed to 1 year deals for 2008 and generally can't afford to go dollar-for-dollar in the free agent market.
And keep an eye out for Tampa in 2009. They feel like their line-up will be ready by then and with Garza, Shields and Kazmir in the rotation they may feel like announcing their presence with authority. They expect Longoria and Brignac to get their feet wet this year and to assert themselves in 2009. Add Blanton to that rotation, shore up the bullpen some more and they might be ready to go head-to-head with the Red Sox... or at least challenge for the Wild Card.
There's always going to be teams looking for pitching so someone unexpected could step up but the Padres will almost certainly be interested and I'm calling the Rays a darkhorse to enter the bidding.
So, of the 3 teams panting the hardest for Blanton (Mets, Reds and Mariners) 2 will more then likely be over him in a year. There should be 1 new suitor worthy of landing the prize in 2008.
And that's about all I got.
Thanks much
Interesting notion about Tampa potentially becoming more aggressive, depending on how things go in 2008. I hadn't really considered that, but at some point all that talent has to reach critical mass, right? And maybe then their thinking shifts into "affordable final piece of the puzzle" mode.
meanwhile, as you bone up on grover's posts
... go get some more cashews here. I guarantee you will not be disappointed.
Garlic flavored pistachios?
Dry roasted Macadamia nuts?
[frantically pulls out credit card]
It is unlikely that I will manage to leave that site without spending excessively. I hope my impending impoverishment doesn't weigh on your conscience too heavily.
I can't vouch for their flavored stuff ...
... but their cashews are magnificent: huge, rich, fresh ... perfect.
It's not obvious to me either
whether the increase in pitchers changing teams helps or hurts Blanton's value.
The subject line of my post was misleading. I didn't mean to endorse grover's conclusion about the market forces -- that's his argument to make, not mine. I did mean to say that grover is asking the right question, and many others on this thread are not.
Specifically, those who are saying, essentially, "Blanton will get better; therefore, Blanton's trade value will go up," are arguing a logical non-sequitur. In terms of affecting his trade value, what matters is not whether Blanton gets better or worse, but rather how his actual improvement compares with his expected improvement.
Blanton's value
Is greatly affected by the supply/lack of supply in the marketplace of the skills he offers. Just as the last woman on earth would have no trouble getting laid even if she were butt-ugly, the fact that there are almost no SP's currently OTM makes Blanton more valuable by simple virtue of scarcity. Next offseason, there will be a comparative glut of SP's available, so the theoretical value of each would be diminished somewhat.
Trade him after Bedard lands somewhere...
My opinion?
He's expected to decline. By the market, not by prognosticators.
I've come to think that at this point, a year of Blanton performing exactly the same as last year would actually increase, or at least not hurt, his value in the upcoming year. Maybe not in relative terms as Sabathia et al hit the market, but with respect to teams' freely available replacement-level pitching. And in spite of the fact that he would have a year less of contract control remaining.
Basically, this makes me ambivalent about trading him now. I think that there's a better than expected chance that he'll hold value over a year and thus give the A's more time to either lock him up long-term or negotiate the best available prospect package for him.
Why?
Giving Blanton the exact same performance in 2008 as he had last year, why do you think his value would increase or maintain?
It's right there in his post.
Paul says he thinks the market expects Blanton to decline. Assuming that's true, if Blanton gives the exact same performance in 2008, the market would say, "oh, he's better than we thought", and his value goes up.
I'm not sure why Paul thinks the market expects Blanton to decline, but if he's right, then his conclusion logically follows.
I think I'm getting my markets mixed up
When PT talks markets he's talking about the other teams, Blanton's potential suitors?
That's what I assume
The market for a product = potential buyers of the products.
only a gut feeling,
but if Blanton can keep his low BB/9 and maintain his Ks, more teams will be inclined to paint him as one of the best control pitchers in the game. imo, Blanton still has his best seasons ahead of him.
of course, more articles of this nature next season could also help the A's shop him.
Eh, I didn't see this before posting
Apologies.
Cupcakes' walk rate
improved in 2007. His K rate also improved. If he can show that those improvements are sustained, GMs are more likely to see him as a good pitcher, not easily acquired in FA, instead of as just another league average innings eater, easily acquired in FA.
So basically you're saying
the market and the prognosticators disagree.
That's a curious thing. Why would you suppose them to diverge so much?
And who do you mean by "prognosticators", anyway? Do you mean teams' scouting systems? If so, why aren't the GMs listening to their own scouts?
I really mean projections
not prognostications. It was an overly confusing word choice.
E.g. Bill James (who is by and large hitter-friendly) predicts an ERA of 3.80 for Blanton next season. I get the sense that the scouts disagree and think he'll do worse.
One thing that I've noticed is that when people (myself included) are presented with one evaluation of a move that's positive, and another that's negative, they almost always incline toward the negative. For instance, you're picking among three players in the 10th round of the draft. One is evaluated by both the scouts and the stats as average. Another is loved by the scouts and hated by the stats; a third is the opposite. The tendency is to pick the average guy because nobody's said anything bad about him yet. It's easy to make a decision when all the opinions line up, but it's hard to decide to choose one opinion over another.
[Side note: I think the ability to override this kind of thinking and make what he feels to be the optimal decision is Beane's greatest strength by far as a GM.]
So the market is kind of set by the pessimists. If Blanton can build a coherent "product image," as it were, that helps override some of the objections, he might increase his value even without improving himself in the eyes of his supporters. I think a repeat of last season would do that.
Having gotten to the right marketplace...
I still don't understand why the teams interested in Blanton expect him to decline or underperform in some way.
Or is it your belief that if Blanton can duplicate his 2007 season next year that will cause a greater number of teams to become interested in him? That there is a number of teams that under-estimates what Joe Blanton can provide?
I'll be honest with you
I don't really understand it myself. But I'm convinced the attitude is out there. His value last season put him squarely in the "high #2/low #1" range (not least because he threw so many innings) but teams are treating him, trade-wise, like an average player.
If he duplicates last season, I think it'll go a long way toward showing that he's an above-average player-- a statistically sound conclusion, actually, since it will increase the likelihood that his mean ERA is actually a true representation of his abilities.
Blanton/Silva
Blanton is a younger, better, cheaper version of Carlos Silva--the numbers back it up. If Silva can fleece SEA for 4/$48m, Blanton's financial value has been established. What Blanton's value is in a trade should be even higher, because he comes much cheaper than $12m/season...
Market forces
Blanton's performance is doubtful to improve and this is a very weak market for pitching. Next year will be loaded with FA pitching that even the most ardent Blanton fan will admit is better then our guy.
I said it about Haren, I'll apply it to Blanton. If the intent is to keep him then lock him up. If the intent is to trade him then do it when his value is highest. For both Haren and Blanton that time is now.
no doubt that as of now more SP would be
available, but as we've learned, most of the good SP's are getting locked up by their teams prior to hitting the market. And, Blanton would be younger than any of the FA starting pitchers and still cheap.
and, to bolster your argument ...
... at the expense of mine, it seems as if most teams (even the low-revenue ones) are concluding that cash is cheaper than projectable prospects.
I'm with you Blez
I too posted a dairy imploring the A's to trade Blanton, but it was mainly based on my enthusiasm in the high yield potential that the A's got for Haren. However, unless another deal like this happens to just pop up, then it's really not worth trading another quality pitcher who's under contract for the next few years. Same goes for Huston Street.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
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.
