Stat-based thoughts on the Holliday trade
by Kyle Boddy on Nov 11, 2008 12:47 AM PST
44 comments
Assuming the trade is for Greg Smith, Carlos Gonzalez, and Huston Street, here’s my writeup:
-Greg Smith: 190.1 IP, 111 SO, 87 BB, 21 HR, 34.2% GB rate, 5.36 xFIP. This guy is literally at best a league average starter - his k/bb ratio is LOL and he gives up way too many flyballs to be effective in Coors. His BABIP was a bit low as well; probably due to Oakland’s defense.
-Huston Street: A reliever. A good one, but a reliever nonetheless. He also has arm trouble.
-Carlos Gonzalez: Exactly what about these minor league numbers screams to you “the next big thing?” (Remember to discount them for playing in Arizona’s minor league parks.) His ceiling was Hanley Ramirez-esque; “tools play” and all that other hyped-up bull****. If he learns how to control the strike zone, he could be a terror, but most players never learn to do this.
Oakland already has a bunch of tweener-type OF’s who are being overlooked due to injury - Ryan Sweeney, Chris Denorfia, Travis Buck, and Rajai Davis. A lot of people are forgetting that Denorfia is a very possible Carlos Quentin-type rebound player - coming off an arm injury and having a bad 2008 year, he could be poised to have a big 2009 year. Take a look at his minor league numbers. Travis Buck was hurt all year and has continually put up great secondary numbers - patience at the plate and a bunch of pop.
Don’t forget we have this stat-guy’s wet dream, too - Aaron Cunningham. He does everything slightly better than average but nothing extremely well, and scouts dislike him for that. Whatever.
-Matt Holliday: These are the numbers that scares everyone, and rightfully so. A career line of .280/.348/.455 away from Coors field is definitely nothing special. However, there exists evidence that Holliday is learning to produce away from Coors - check his three year progression away from Coors:
2006 - .280/.333/.485
2007 - .301/.374/.485
2008 - .308/.405/.486
It would appear that he is becoming more patient and learning what he can and cannot do away from Coors (where he has ludicrous BABIP numbers).
.308/.405/.486 sounds like a pretty damn good hitter to me.
Now, the scenarios:
1) Holliday is traded before the season starts. This seems somewhat likely to me, coming in around 20%. The A’s can flip him for a better package; it’s possible that Dan O’Dowd is playing the same character as Omar Minaya in Moneyball - he’s not getting enough value for Holliday and Beane knows it.
2) Holliday plays and is traded at the deadline. This seems like the most possible scenario to me (50%), since there will be plenty of teams that need an impact bat at the deadline for the playoff push and will overpay for one. See also: Ramirez, Manny and the Los Angeles Dodgers.
3) Holliday plays the season through and becomes a free agent. Assuming the A’s do not make the playoffs, this is the “worst-case” scenario (30%), which involves losing Greg Smith, Carlos Gonzalez, and Huston Street for two high draft picks. Considering the writeups I did at the top of this post regarding my thoughts on those players, I think this is not terrible.
4) Holliday re-signs with the Oakland Athletics. LOL
Anyway, I like the deal a lot for those players. I would hate it if Brett Anderson was included in the deal. I’m not sure I would like it if it was Brett Anderson for Matt Holliday straight up. Actually, that’s a lie, that would be great. Basically Brett Anderson + Greg Smith would be fine; Brett Anderson + Gonzalez or Street would absolutely suck.
0 recs |
44 comments
Email
Print
Comments
I'd like to see scneario where the A's DO make the playoffs....bc with Holliday they can at lesat contend
'That's something we do...thirteen hits and not score'-Terrence Long
by DyeLongJustice on Nov 11, 2008 6:18 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
Nice writeup.
I wouldn’t like if it Brett Anderson was in the deal, period.
Holliday re-signs with the Oakland Athletics. LOL
Money is not an issue in terms of resigning him. The issues are whether Holliday is willing to play here long-term (FYI: The A’s are the definition of perennial contender, the only years this decade where they weren’t either in the playoffs or VERY close to making it were 2007 and 2008) and whether he’s a good long term FIT for the team (as in is it smart to give out a big contract to a LF).
I’ve probably said this 93859385 times already, but the A’s have about 30-32MM committed (including Chavez). They’d go up to about 50MM with Holliday (which is still much lower than their 2006-2007 payrolls were). They could make more additions and still stay within capacity. If they sign another FA, they need to make sure that he is only committed to through 2010, 2011 at the absolute latest. That’s going to require some bargain shopping, a potential platoon at SS, and some usage of F.A.T.(going along with the platoon). That way, when the young players begin getting expensive, the only big commitment on the books is Holliday.
This.
by Blicks on Nov 11, 2008 6:25 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
Money.
Yeah, it’s not about the “money” since the A’s have a lot of it, but Matt Holliday is not a premier free agent yet IMO. His home/road splits are troublesome even though they have been improving. When you sign free agents to a long contract for big time money (say, > $18mm AAV) you want the very best talent coming back. IMO, Holliday does not fall into this category. Players that do would be Peavy, Sabathia, Teixiera, Sizemore, McCann, and very few others.
Webmaster of Driveline Mechanics
http://www.drivelinemechanics.com - An Unconventional Look at Scouting
by Kyle Boddy on Nov 11, 2008 6:35 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Sorry, if Holliday isn't a premier FA
there are no premier FA OFs out there. Teixeira is probably marginally better than Holliday overall. Teixeira is better offensively. But he plays 1b, whereas Holliday plays OF.
Sizemore isn’t freaking available. Neither is McCann.
Pitchers are a different matter, due to injury risk.
The problem with simply using road splits is that the home splits HAPPENED too. Unless Holliday was using a metal bat or something like that in Coors, you shouldn’t just throw out all those games. Adjust that for park, sure, but don’t thrown them out.
ZIPS: Milledge: 466 HR, 485 2B, 2282 hits, 278-379-524
by rfloh on Nov 11, 2008 6:45 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I thought it was
I Make Outs
(or if you prefer, I Make Out)
I'm here to talk about the past.
by 67MARQUEZ on Nov 11, 2008 8:27 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
That's only when Emil Brown or Bobby Crosby are posting.
by mikev on Nov 11, 2008 8:39 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Im not sure Emil
is into BoCro like that.
Save Rajai Davis
by oakinboston on Nov 11, 2008 9:15 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
As I recall, he'll hit on pretty much anything
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
by Nico on Nov 13, 2008 6:20 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Umm, yeah he is.
Teixeira is better than Holliday, but remember that he could easily be 40-50MM more expensive than Holliday.
Sizemore and McCann ain’t going nowhere. Pitchers are a different game.
This.
by Blicks on Nov 11, 2008 1:13 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Keep in mind ...
that he plays in the NL West, and roughly 1/3 of his road games are at Telecom to be named later, Petco or Dodger Stadium, three fairly extreme pitchers parks. So, while his home numbers certainly are less impressive than they look, his road numbers are also better than they look.
"It's for your own good. Big strong Devo knows whats best for Poppy" -- Mossback
by devo on Nov 11, 2008 9:24 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
Phone Booth Park actually swayed towards hitters last year.
Just slightly – 1.045 overall on runs scored in 2008. Ranked #11 in MLB.
by mikev on Nov 11, 2008 9:35 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
did the park change appreciably from every other year of its existance?
The ESPN Park Factors are fairly useless …
"It's for your own good. Big strong Devo knows whats best for Poppy" -- Mossback
by devo on Nov 11, 2008 6:25 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I blame global warming
"Dispatch knuckleheadedness with Bond-like aplomb." –74mk
by iglew on Nov 12, 2008 1:40 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I wouldn't like it if it was Brett Anderson for Holliday straight up
or Trevor Cahill, for that matter. Losing those guys would seriously damage the future A’s teams for a short-term gasp.
As is, it only somewhat damages those future teams… 2010 really gets the hatchet because of the loss of Street, while future years are all about whether C-Gon finds his talent or not.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on Nov 11, 2008 10:43 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
I mostly agree
But why 2010 getting the hatchet because of Street? Did you think he was going to be a big part of the team or, more likely, that what we would get in return for him was going to be of more help in that year?
by SuperBean on Nov 11, 2008 11:09 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Street is worth quite a few runs above an average player
Hence, not-Street costs the A’s quite a few runs.
This is pretty simple math here…
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on Nov 11, 2008 2:20 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
street was losing his role
ziegler took over as closer and now devine will be set up man ar maybe a swithch of those two.
by robbo650 on Nov 11, 2008 6:01 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
The marginal value of those runs saved goes down ...
if they’re happening in lower leverage situations … but I’m pretty sure the team (assuming it is in contention) will have enough high leverage innings to go around between three pitchers. Regardless, runs saved in those high leverage innings are actually worth more than other runs saved, so even if he is pitching in more neutral innings, those numbers would actually better reflect his value to the team.
"It's for your own good. Big strong Devo knows whats best for Poppy" -- Mossback
by devo on Nov 11, 2008 8:47 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Unless they have guys to replace that
And, I think, Beane believes that they do.
by thejd44 on Nov 12, 2008 12:02 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
They don't.
And I say that even as someone who has lauded the A’s bullpen depth. It’s very improbable that enough players will hit their upsides to make losing Street irrelevant.
I assumed previously that the upgrade the A’s would get by dealing Street would be worth the downgrade to the bullpen (say, by solving the SS black hole). That assumption is now wrong— Street’s 2010 value is not being replaced by anything at present.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on Nov 12, 2008 12:17 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
...if Matt Holliday ends up not being re-signed
"There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want" -Bill Watterson
by nevermoor on Nov 12, 2008 1:05 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
No, that doesn't follow
That’s a separate transaction. They could have signed their Holliday and had their Street too.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on Nov 12, 2008 1:54 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Depends
The exclusive bargaining window is a real advantage. If he re-signs, but only after declaring for free agency, then it’s a separate transaction.
"There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want" -Bill Watterson
by nevermoor on Nov 12, 2008 5:22 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I disagree
I don’t think the exclusive window is any real advantage, particularly not when dealing with Scott Boras. He just doesn’t pick up the phone during those two weeks.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on Nov 12, 2008 5:24 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Try "during that year"
and refusing to negotiate with us all year would make him a bad agent.
"There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want" -Bill Watterson
by nevermoor on Nov 12, 2008 7:27 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
The a's
wouldnt give away Cargo for a half a year or a year player. The A’s will resighn him to an at least 3-5 year deal hopefully.
by robbo650 on Nov 11, 2008 5:59 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Your optimism is touching, but naive...
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on Nov 11, 2008 6:03 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
3-5 isn't happening
But I don’t think the rest of the post was naive. I wouldn’t be surprised at all to see a 6/120 announced before opening day.
"There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want" -Bill Watterson
by nevermoor on Nov 11, 2008 7:03 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
3-5 years from a Boras client, heh.
He already turned down a four-year deal when he said that he would take a discount in Colorado.
Webmaster of Driveline Mechanics
http://www.drivelinemechanics.com - An Unconventional Look at Scouting
by Kyle Boddy on Nov 11, 2008 6:31 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Boras clients
tend to have contracts with opt outs-and take them. So he could be offered a monster contract and he would opt out after say-year 3. And it would become a 3-year contract essentially.
by apilgrim on Nov 12, 2008 1:55 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Why does everyone discount 2009?
I’m not saying I prefer option #3, but I’m tired of everyone mischaracterizing it. The conventional wisdom around here seems to be that if we don’t re-sign Holliday for long term the trade then amounts to exchanging Street, Smith and Cargon for two draft picks.
That’s an incomplete equation. We are exchanging Street, Smith and Cargon for two draft picks plus one year of Matt Holliday. That counts for something. Upgrading a crappy lineup to a decent one, or a decent one to a good one, is not valueless — and that’s true regardless of whether it makes us a contender in 2009. You can argue about how much it’s worth, but stop leaving it out of the equation entirely.
Regardless of whether we go to the playoffs, doesn’t it make your 2009 experience better to have a great hitter in the lineup for the season? It’s not always about the season after next. This is the only forum I know of that suffers from too little attention to immediate gratification.
"Dispatch knuckleheadedness with Bond-like aplomb." –74mk
by iglew on Nov 12, 2008 1:49 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
I suppose, but speaking personally,
I don’t find it particularly enjoyable to see a slightly better team in the present knowing that the reason why it’s better is about to walk in the offseason— certainly not unless the present team is actually in the playoff race.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on Nov 12, 2008 2:02 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I had to read that a few times.
But yeah, I kind of agree with that.
I'm here to talk about the past.
by 67MARQUEZ on Nov 12, 2008 2:13 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
It's like taking a trip to Paris after you've been diagnosed with cancer
Yeah, it’s fun, but it doesn’t really take your mind off of impending doom.
I mean, the A’s aren’t doomed, but I think you get the concept.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on Nov 12, 2008 5:23 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
That's why whenever I'm diagnosed with cancer,
I take a trip to Foster City.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
by Nico on Nov 13, 2008 6:23 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I do agree with you.
I don’t enjoy sitting through miserably terrible teams. At least with Holliday at the plate…there’s a possibility that something good will happen.
by IM4Oakgal on Nov 12, 2008 5:15 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
The first time I was able to regularly watch A's games..
was when Extra Innings finally became available in my area in 2007… so I’ve endured two years of bad A’s teams among the last decade of good A’s teams.
So, yeah, 2009 could be a pleasant surprise.
by Jack Cust is valuable damnit on Nov 13, 2008 10:52 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I hope that you watch winners this year.
It really is so much more fun.
by IM4Oakgal on Nov 13, 2008 9:07 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Athletics Nation
Related FanShots on Athletics Nation
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2009 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.
