Tom Tango Asks an Interesting Question
by thelincolndude on Jul 30, 2010 1:26 PM PDT
Email
Print
Over at insidethebook, some interesting thoughts about Evan Longoria and his ridiculous contract. Tango suggests that perhaps half the teams in the league would win by trading their entire farm system for Longoria, and that the list might expand to all teams with the addition of a "protect one player" clause.
Just a refresher for those who don't want to look it up. Longoria is perhaps the best third baseman in the game (he's certainly in the discussion), is an all-star with the bat alone and adds to that far above average defense, is 24 years years old, and has the following remaining on his contract (via Cot's):
2010: $0.95 million
2011: $2 million
2012: $4.5 million
2013: $6 million
2014: $7.5 million club option ($3 million buyout)
2015: $11 million club option
2016: $11.5 million club option
If the Rays called up Beane and asked him for the entire system in return for Longoria, should he take the deal? Let's say that includes everyone who's not on the big-league roster right now. How about if the A's were able to protect one player, whom I assume would be Chris Carter?
The A's could then put the following lineup on the field in 2011 without making any further moves besides picking up options:
C Kurt Suzuki
1B Daric Barton
2B Mark Ellis
3B Evan Longoria
SS Cliff Pennington
RF Ryan Sweeney
CF Coco Crisp
LF Conor Jackson/Rajai Davis
DH Chris Carter
Kouzmanoff could be packaged with, say, Cahill in an attempt to start restocking the farm system, and the A's could sign a couple of veteran pitchers to round out the rotation. There would be tens of millions of dollars left over in the payroll for that.
With the caliber of pitching the A's have, that actually looks something like a playoff-bound lineup. There would be problems down the road, of course, but in return you'd have one of the best players in the game locked up at an incredible bargain through 2016.
So, what do you think? If not the whole system, how many players would the A's have to be able to protect to make this a fair deal?
44 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I think that crack coccaine is a terrible drug
and you should stop smoking it immediately.
AN: We is all growed up now.
It's a fair question I think.
Since when is speculation or wishful thinking not allowed here?
by Twan54321 on Jul 30, 2010 4:00 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions
agreed
I will say in regards to the contract, Longoria was set for life without worry of injury or rapid decline. It was a good deal for everyone involved.
The A's are a fairly quiet team, and then there's Ben Sheets. Sheets, as a kid, must have been thrown out of every library in Baton Rouge. ~ Scott Ostler
Fair question?
I did not say it wasn’t. I said crack coccaine is a terrible drug.
In one part of the post he states we have an awesome pitching staff, then in another he proposes we trade Cahill, which would mean we would not have an awesome pitching staff any longer.
Also, why in the world would the Rays want to trade one of the best young players in the game for a bunch of untried, unproven prosepcts? I wholeheartedly believe there is not one Longoria in our farm system. The Rays would not be this stupid nor would weakening their MLB club to trade for prospects make any sense whatsoever.
Hence, crack pipe crack. It is just my opinion.
AN: We is all growed up now.
by OptimistPrime on Jul 31, 2010 7:35 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
I think you're missing the point, though.
The question is not whether the Rays would do it, should do it, or whether it will happen, it’s hypothetically, would the value of one entire system equal the value of one contract? Longoria’s contract is the center of the discussion here, and I think that this conversation is really just a way of looking at how valuable his contract really is.
Obviously this trade will never happen, and neither team would ever pull the trigger on a trade like that.
My conclusion is, yes, Evan Longoria is worth more than our entire system. Through less than his first three stellar years, in which the Rays have paid him effectively nothing (in baseball terms), he has provided 16.8 war, worth $73.5 million. Our system would probably produce more than the 7 WAR per year that Longoria is roughly worth, but it would cost more and take up more positions.
Keep in mind, of course, that "the best defense of Derek Jeter's life" ranks somewhere in between "the best fiscal responsibility of Mike Tyson's life" and "the best not-getting-assassinated-ness of James Garfield's life." -FJM
Yes, that is Tom Tango's hypothesis
Lincolndude goes one step further and proposes we do it.
AN: We is all growed up now.
by OptimistPrime on Aug 1, 2010 5:16 PM PDT up reply actions
Thanks for the thoughtful reply, travdog
Since we know all about the A’s prospects, I thought it would be interesting to put some context around the original question posed by Tango and apply it to this team.
The A’s do have a deep system (I wasn’t sure about that until I recently scanned some of Sickels’ top 20 lists from the preseason… and it ain’t pretty for some teams), so I’m not completely sold on Longoria being worth more than the entire system. There are a lot of quality guys in there, and while most won’t meet their potential, someone or other is likely to exceed expectations over the next few years and turn into a star player. Just the fact that it’s a discussion, though, is pretty amazing.
Why don't you make like a tree, and get out of here.
by thelincolndude on Aug 1, 2010 10:31 PM PDT up reply actions
It's definitely amazing.
One thing, however, is that one 7 WAR guy, is worth more than two 3.5 WAR guys, and in a more likely case in regards to our system, more than three 2.3 WAR guys, four 1.7 WAR guys, five 1.4 guys….you get the picture. Throw on top of that the fact that Longoria’s contract is so good, and he’s at a position that’s an organizational weakness and you’ve got one helleva ballplayer.
All this really makes me think is…we need to get ourselves one of them.
Keep in mind, of course, that "the best defense of Derek Jeter's life" ranks somewhere in between "the best fiscal responsibility of Mike Tyson's life" and "the best not-getting-assassinated-ness of James Garfield's life." -FJM
How is consolidating the talent in one guy better?
If the cost is the same? Theoretically, it shouldn’t matter, right? I understand in real life you’ll get a little more flexibility a great player in one position rather than good players in several positions, but in terms of how much you’re paying for performance, the only thing that should matter is dollars spent per WAR, total.
Why don't you make like a tree, and get out of here.
by thelincolndude on Aug 2, 2010 4:46 PM PDT up reply actions
Well,
theoretically we’ll say 30 WAR will get you to the playoffs (it’s less than that I believe, but just for arguments sake I’ll take the round number). So with your 25 guys, you need to accumulate 30 WAR. With one guy at 7 WAR, you have 24 spots to get the other 23 WAR, as opposed to with 7 guys at 1 WAR (or 4 guys or whatever), you have less spots to accumulate more wins.
Keep in mind, of course, that "the best defense of Derek Jeter's life" ranks somewhere in between "the best fiscal responsibility of Mike Tyson's life" and "the best not-getting-assassinated-ness of James Garfield's life." -FJM
If you want to keep true to the model, you can
view it as a congestion/opportunity cost attached to playing time.
The effect is pretty easily seen at the extreme. If you’ve got an active roster made up of 25 guys with 0.2 WAR each, that is clearly not just as valuable as one guy with 5.0 WAR.
The problem is we’re taking a shortcut on playing time here. If you’re saying so-and-so is “a 7 WAR guy”, that is based on what he did last year in a certain amount of playing time (probably the full season). So if you’re counting on him for 7 WAR again next year, you’re assuming a full season out of him. You have nine full seasons worth of playing time to distribute among your hitters. Playing time is implicit in your sum of total team WAR and it’s a limited resource. Hence, the opportunity cost in allocating it to someone.
If in Travdog’s example the two 3.5 WAR guys played only half a season each, then yes, they’re just as valuable the one 7 WAR guy.
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
Past a certain point, it doesn't really matter that much
A 6 WAR player really is worth about 6/5 as much as a 5 WAR player, because both of them will be on the field every single game that they’re healthy and available.
Once you sink below “playoff level” performers, though, which is somewhere around 2.8 WAR-ish over a full season of PA, I think it’s clear that WAR start to become somewhat less valuable. Exactly how much so is open for debate.
Arthur Dent: You know, it's at times like this, when I'm trapped in a Vogon airlock with a man from Betelgeuse and about to die of asphyxiation in deep space, that I really wish I'd listened to what my mother told me when I was young.
Ford Prefect: Why, what did she tell you?
Arthur Dent: I don't know, I didn't listen!
Question
You say playoff level performers in conjunction with 2.8 WAR. Last year, teams with 30 WAR were playoff teams. Does the 2.8 refer to starters, so the 14 starting players you have should average out to 2.8 WAR or what?
Keep in mind, of course, that "the best defense of Derek Jeter's life" ranks somewhere in between "the best fiscal responsibility of Mike Tyson's life" and "the best not-getting-assassinated-ness of James Garfield's life." -FJM
I've heard that question proposed before, and even though it sounds absurd...Tango's right.
Longoria’s full contract is 6yr/$17.5MM, plus THREE club option years 2014-2016 that, if exercised, would bring the contract to 9yr/$44.5MM. The amount of surplus value there is simply insane. At free agent market prices (I know, I know, but his arbitration costs would be sky-high), that contract would be something like 9yr/$250MM or even more. They basically wrote themselves a $200 million check by signing Longoria to that deal.
Another fun thing to consider
Longoria is probably going to make less than half what Kouz gets next season.
Why don't you make like a tree, and get out of here.
by thelincolndude on Jul 30, 2010 3:31 PM PDT up reply actions
Fun?
Lol I’d go with depressing.
Keep in mind, of course, that "the best defense of Derek Jeter's life" ranks somewhere in between "the best fiscal responsibility of Mike Tyson's life" and "the best not-getting-assassinated-ness of James Garfield's life." -FJM
The obvious logistical issue here is "How do we get 100+ new players immediately to fill out the system"
Clearly, this is not possible. There’s also the rule about trading just drafted players.
But here’s the key question: Over the next 7 years, will Longoria put up more WAR than Team X’s entire current farm system.
I bet for more than a few teams, the answer is yes.
www.zekeishungry.com
by thejd44 on Jul 30, 2010 2:07 PM PDT reply actions
Another thought
Instead of “entire farm system” because that’s just ridiculous, what about “Your Top 20 prospects” for Longoria and however many useless roster filler guys they’d need to send in return just so the minor league affiliates could field teams.
I might do that.
www.zekeishungry.com
by thejd44 on Jul 30, 2010 2:09 PM PDT up reply actions
I think the implication
Was anyone in your system who could be reasonably considered a prospect of any value. As opposed to organizational filler. So how about that — every single player we consider a prospect for Longoria + replacement filler so our minor league affiliates can field teams.
The A’s do have a deep system, so this might be a bit much. I believe it gets much closer if they can protect Carter.
Why don't you make like a tree, and get out of here.
by thelincolndude on Jul 30, 2010 2:15 PM PDT up reply actions
Question is really, can one player be worth the same as a team's entire farm system?
With Longoria’s production and contract, the answer might be yes for a lot of teams.
I don’t think it is for the A’s, but it’s not as crazy as it sounds.
Why don't you make like a tree, and get out of here.
by thelincolndude on Jul 30, 2010 3:29 PM PDT up reply actions
Actually,
Tampa Bay (or any team for that matter) couldn’t just take the 200 or so minor leaguers we send them, a good majority would get cut. So really, we could probably get back enough guys after they get cut, except they’d be a somewhat significantly worse group.
Keep in mind, of course, that "the best defense of Derek Jeter's life" ranks somewhere in between "the best fiscal responsibility of Mike Tyson's life" and "the best not-getting-assassinated-ness of James Garfield's life." -FJM
Why would the Devil Rays want to make this deal?
You have to include smiley faces - Poppy
;- ) :- ) :-O : -> : -] : -}
Well that isn't a team
The Rays on the otehr hand….
Frank Cohen
TeamTICKERmlb.com
Your Effortless Baseball Connection
oh yeah
I left my brain in my otehr pants.
You have to include smiley faces - Poppy
;- ) :- ) :-O : -> : -] : -}
No worries.
As far as I’m concerned, the third-place team in the AL West is the California Angels, and the team in Tampa is the Devil Rays.
by StJosephBurningTheOakTreesToTheGround on Jul 30, 2010 4:31 PM PDT up reply actions
Why "California" instead of "Los Angeles"?
Daric Barton has become an unsupervised bunting fool - Christina Kahrl
by WaddellCanseco on Jul 30, 2010 8:10 PM PDT up reply actions
Can't just change a team name. They're still the Devil Rays.
"You see, in this world there's two kinds of people, my friend: Those with loaded guns and those who dig. You dig."
by OldhamA on Jul 31, 2010 3:59 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
No. He'd be day-to-day for at least 7 days before going on the DL
Daric Barton has become an unsupervised bunting fool - Christina Kahrl
by WaddellCanseco on Jul 30, 2010 8:10 PM PDT up reply actions
13 days after that, he'd be pronounced legally zombie
*WARNING!* Playing online multiplayer games may change your: Religion, Sexual Orientation, Race and/or Gender for undetermined periods of time.
or, moved to the
60-day 600-day disabled list
Blez: Most folks seem to believe that the big flaw with the 2010 Oakland A's will be the lack of any power.
Beane: They believe it because it's true.
by One won lost won on Jul 31, 2010 8:27 PM PDT up reply actions
Good point
Why don't you make like a tree, and get out of here.
The more I think about this, the more I want to accept it.
We have the main core of our pitching already in the majors, and one big bat would make the lineup look a lot better. Going into next year, we could spend the money off the books (Sheets, Chavez, Crisp) on Carl Crawford, and I think this lineup would look pretty good now:
1: Davis, CF
2: Barton, 1B
3: Crawford, LF
4: Longoria, 3B
5: Cust, DH
6: Suzuki, C
7: Sweeney, RF
8: Rosales, 2B
9: Pennington, SS
Hopefully we could trade Kouz for a relief arm if Devine isn’t ready, and I honestly think this team would be much more of a threat then this year, with 2 big bats added and another year of experience for the SP core.
rebuildingseason.blogspot.com
by Rebuilding Season on Jul 30, 2010 8:31 PM PDT reply actions
People don't seem to understand that depth is important.
And having literally none of it at all….
"We were shit, pathetic," Guillen growled early in spring training. "We hit too many home runs."
We could add depth in the offseason
Add minor league free agents like Dallas McPherson, draft college players that are close to ready, etc. The assumption at least is that the Rays would take the combination of the two farm systems, take the top 50%, and make that their farm system, and leave us with the rest. So we’d probably at least end up with a few Lou Merloni types that can fill in as needed, so its not like we’re boned in case of an injury.
rebuildingseason.blogspot.com
by Rebuilding Season on Aug 1, 2010 2:10 AM PDT up reply actions
Ending up with a few Lou Merloni types in your starting lineup....that's pretty much the exact of definition of being "boned in"
"We were shit, pathetic," Guillen growled early in spring training. "We hit too many home runs."
You can rebuild depth
That’s why I suggested that if (and I know this is a ridiculous hypothetical, we’re just having fun here) the A’s made this trade, they should trade a couple of guys like Kouz and Cahill, or someone equally valuable, and start rebuilding their farm system. They’d also have $20-30 million lying around to sign free agents. Maybe with Longoria locked up at such a long-term bargain, they could actually afford Cliff Lee. Or maybe sign Adam Dunn to DH and put Carter in LF, letting them trade Sweeney for depth.
Why don't you make like a tree, and get out of here.
by thelincolndude on Aug 1, 2010 10:21 AM PDT up reply actions
Carter would be a Ray by this point
rebuildingseason.blogspot.com
by Rebuilding Season on Aug 1, 2010 2:45 PM PDT up reply actions
Yep, so it depends on whether we're going with the "protect one player" thing or not
Why don't you make like a tree, and get out of here.
by thelincolndude on Aug 1, 2010 10:33 PM PDT up reply actions
Kouz and Cahill would bring in about 6 prospects between them, and that's probably a liberal estimate.
And probably only two of those would be about major league ready.
And if you replace Longoria with Kouzmanoff (and get rid of Cahill), this team is still far from a guarantee to make to playoffs even if everyone stays completely healthy the entire season. Longoria is probably gonna provide 6 WAR. However, Kouz and Cahill, by conservative estimates, are 2 WAR players. You’d be upgrading your team by ~2 WAR at the expense of Kouz, Cahill, and your farm system. Your depth amounts to 2 major league ready players and perhaps a shitload of shitty college players you signed after they didn’t get drafted. Two injuries, to your starting lineup and your pitching staff (and this is laughably conservative given how many injuries the A’s have suffered), and your team is done.
"We were shit, pathetic," Guillen growled early in spring training. "We hit too many home runs."
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.
