Why I Don’t Want Miguel Tejada
Last night, news broke that Miguel Tejada is unhappy in Baltimore and has requested a trade.
Immediately, every fan in the Seattle area who is still pissed that the M’s didn’t sign him two years ago began concocting trade scenarios in which we could rectify the mistake and bring Tejada to Safeco Field. Well, I’m not part of that group. Not only do I not want the Mariners to trade for Miguel Tejada, I wouldn’t swap Yuniesky Betancourt for him in a one for one deal.
And no, I’m not insane. Put the straightjackets away.
Let’s get past the labels here. Forget that Betancourt is “unproven” and Tejada is “a star”. Let’s evaluate what we actually think they’ll do on the field the next four years.
Offense
Tejada hit .304/.349/.515 in 162 games last year. Depending on which runs conversion formula you want to use, that performance was worth about 100-110 runs of offense. We’ll use Runs Created just for consistency and give Tejada credit for the full 110 runs on offense.
Betancourt hit .256/.296/.370 in 60 games last year. His offensive value in his given playing time was 22 runs, which would project out to 60 runs over a full season.
Ignoring park effects, Tejada was worth about 50 runs more than Yuniesky Betancourt offensively in 2005, projected over a full season’s playing time. That’s substantial, no doubt.
Defense
This gets a little trickier. The defensive ratings for Tejada are mostly consistent, placing him right around average. Baseball Prospectus has him at 3 runs below average. From 2000-2003, UZR (the best system out there, in my opinion) had him as exactly average. Chris Dial’s range system had him at 3 runs below average. The outlier in the metrics is David Gassko’s RANGE system, which has him at 25 runs over an average defensive shortstop in 2005. I’m not buying that it’s the only system that picked up on his defensive greatness, especially considering the scouting reports on his glove have been generally mediocre. So, we’ll accept that Tejada is something like an average defensive shortstop.
Due to sample size issues, we don’t really have good data for what Betancourt is defensively. Even the most ardent supporters of defensive metrics would like two full years of numbers to draw any conclusions, and with Betancourt, we only have about 1/6 of that. The defensive data we have on him simply isn’t reliable. However, I think most of us would agree that he’s fairly good with the glove. To what degree, though, we can’t really quantify, so I’m going to take the conservative route and give him credit for saving 10 runs over an average defensive shortstop in a full season. In reality, he’s probably better than that, but I’m erring on the side of caution here.
Total
Adding offense and defense together, and assuming no change in performance from either player, the difference between the two players is about 40 runs over the course of a full season.
40 runs. Trading Betancourt for Tejada, straight up, if neither player changed one bit from their 2005 season, would net the Mariners approximately 40 runs. This number is the absolute best case scenario for Tejada supporters. It assumes Tejada, in his age 30-33 seasons, won’t decline one bit, which as we’ll see in a second, is quite the reach. It assumes that Yuniesky Betancourt won’t improve at all with the bat. It assumes that Betancourt’s glove is only solid, and that he’s not really an elite defensive player. And, lastly, it assumes that there’s no difference in run scoring environments between Safeco Field and Camden Yards.
We know those assumptions aren’t true. Let’s try to quantify how much we’re overstating the case, point by point.
Tejada’s decline
Miguel Tejada is heading into his age 30 season. He’s far from over the hill, but he’s also undoubtedly on the downside of the career development arc. Not every player follows this arc, but as a general rule, trading for a player hoping he’s the exception is folly. Tejada’s most comparable player, according to both Baseball Reference and PECOTA, is Vern Stephens.
Stephens, also a shortstop, hit .295/.361/.511 as an SS in his age 29 season, almost a dead ringer for Tejada’s 2005 season. The next year, at age 30, .300/.364/.501, basically an identical line, but he did so in 40 less games. It would be his last season of any impact. At age 31, he hit .254/.343/.383 in 92 games, and he was reduced to being a role player for the remainder of his career.
It’s not just Stephens, either. A look through most of Tejada’s comparable players shows a similar trend. Cal Ripken, Joe Torre, Travis Fryman, Buddy Bell. They all endured serious decline, to the point of losing most of their value, in their early thirties. There are a few success stories, such as Bobby Doerr, but they are overshadowed by the clear trend of decline for a player with Tejada’s profile.
Prior to the 2005 season, BP’s PECOTA projection for the next 5 seasons had Tejada holding steady through the 2006 campaign, then losing 8.5 percent of his value in 2007, 8.5 percent more in 2008, and 8.2 percent more in 2009. The projection for Tejada essentially costs him about 7 runs per season in decline from 2007-2009.
Betancourt’s improvement
Again, thanks to sample issues, we don’t really have the same kind of data as we do with Tejada. However, Betancourt is almost a certainty to get better offensively, even if only marginally, as young players who reach the majors at his age almost always improve to some degree through their age 28 seasons. How much improvement we should expect is up for interpretation. I’ll go with a modest 3 percent improvement each year for the next four years, which is in the ballpark of what players often compared to Betancourt experienced. It’s not a huge improvement-2 runs in in 2006, 3 runs in 2007, 5 runs in 2008, and 7 runs in 2009-but it’s still significant enough to mention.
Betancourt’s defense
I used the 10 runs above average marker for Betancourt in the intitial comparsion, even though I think that’s low. Elite defensive shortstops, by most metrics, are 25-30 runs above average defensively. That’s more the range I tend to think Betancourt falls into, but without any real evidence, I’m reluctant to use those kind of numbers in the comparison. If you happen to think Betancourt is one of the best defensive shortstops in the game, however, feel free to add 10-15 runs to Yuniesky’s side of the ledger to account for the difference in glovework.
Park Effects
Starting with Tejada, the myth that Camden Yards is some kind of bandbox has been perpetuated in the media, but it simply isn’t true. Overall, Camden has skewed slightly towards pitchers historically. In 2004, Tejada hit better on the road than he did at home. This year, his numbers were better at Camden, but there’s no reason to think that’s evidence that he benefited from his home park, as much as it was likely just the way things shake out in smaller samples. We shouldn’t penalize Tejada at all for his offensive performances coming in Baltimore. We should, however, note that Tejada is exactly the kind of hitter that Safeco can destroy; a right-handed fly ball pull hitter. There’s almost no way he would be able to sustain his offensive performances while playing half his games in Seattle.
Betancourt, on the other hand, certainly deserves a boost to his offensive numbers to account for Safeco Field. Because of its low scoring environment, runs are simply worth more in Safeco than elsewhere. Betancourt’s offensive line in Safeco helps his team win just as much as if he had hit ..275/.320/.400 in a neutral park. The run difference in his translated line is about 5 runs. Again, not a huge difference, but a significant enough one to mention, especially when combined with all the other false assumptions we had to make to get Tejada to the +40 mark in the first place.
Run Value Conclusion
I realize reasonable people can differ on some of these points. I’m sure people will quibble with PECOTA’s projected decline or Betancourt’s defensive evaluation. That’s why I broke out each questionable piece. This way, you can make your own evaluations on how much value you think Tejada adds over Betancourt. The most optimistic scenario, for Tejada, is a 40 run improvement. Depending on your interpretation of the other factors, it could be as low as 15 runs next year.
Essentially, you’re looking at a possible range of performances from both players. Extreme Tejada Fans should assume a 40 run improvement if the M’s made the swap straight up, one for one. Extreme Betancourt Fans should expect about a 15 run improvement. More normal folks will fall somewhere in the middle. That’s where I am. I’d probably expect a total net of about 25 runs in 2006 if the Mariners swapped the two shortstops.
Now, we get to the critical point we have yet to mention: salary. Tejada has 4 years and $48 million left on his contract. Betancourt has 3 years and $3.3 million left on his contract. Assume he gets a decent size paycheck in 2009, we’ll say that Betancourt’s total cost for the next four years is in the $8 million range. So, on average, you’re paying an extra $10 million per season for Tejada. $10 million buys you somewhere between 15-40 runs.
That, folks, is an awful deal. There are several formulas out there, including one published in this year’s 2006 Hardball Times Annual, that place the value of a win at about $2 million. It’s generally accepted that 10 runs is generally equal to 1 win. So, let’s do the math.
40 Run Tejada: $2.25 million per win
A slight overpay, but not a significantly bad one.
30 run Tejada: $3.33 million per win
A definite overpay, and a problem contract.
20 run Tejada: $5 million per win
An albatross contract, one of the worst in baseball, and a player who keeps you from winning.
10 run Tejada: $10 million per win.
Russ Ortiz style debacle.
So, there you go. The range of possible outcomes of swapping Betancourt for Tejada, straight up, range from “not the worst deal in the world” to “franchise crippling”.
There’s no way to justify that trade from an on field performance stand point. None whatsoever. The difference in value Tejada is likely to add over the next four years is dwarfed by the difference in salaries. Yuniesky Betancourt, at $2 million per season, is worth more than Miguel Tejada at $12 million per season.
Championships aren’t won by acquiring stars in their decline finishing out free agent contracts. Just say no to Miguel Tejada.
Comments
153 Responses to “Why I Don’t Want Miguel Tejada”
Pitching is more important than Miguel Tejada.
Keeping potential contributors around for the future is more important than Miguel Tejada.
Great post Dave, lots of info and a good way of looking at it. Offensive and defensive statistics aside i think the element that pushes Tejada above Betencourt is his leadership and fire in the clubhouse. Lets be honest the mariners have neither and I am positive Tejada would bring that.
Hmm. When you breakout the numbers, I’m being persuaded that maybe we shouldn’t get Tejada…
What has his leadership and fire in the clubhouse brought the Orioles?
Travis (#2) – you broke the unofficial rule for the blog. You’re not allowed to cite intangibles because they are just that: intangible.
Wow, as always, nie analysis and reasonable assumptions. It is interesting to note that very few players are able to take their productivity beyond age 32-33. Those that do really are the exception, yes? Perhaps us Ms fans see guys like Ole and Edgar continue to produce at average, if not better, at those ages and we expect others to also be able to. Of couse neither of those two earned 12 million a year.
This place is a treasure.
I’d rather put that 12M into Millwood’s pocket than to upgrade at SS. I am not worried about the SS position. However, if we could get Tejada to play 2B and keep Betancourt, I could be persuaded. There is, however, no way Tejada will want to play 2B.
This is one of the best posts I’ve ever read on this web site. Thanks Dave!
Ok, but what if the O’s pick up a significant portion of Tejada’s salary?
In that case, it may make sense.
I’d still prefer to hold on to Yunie.
wow. It doesn’t matter if you agree or disagree with this argument. It is still a very soild argument.
Now let’s all agree to stop worrying about positions that are covered and worry about positions that need the help.
Wow.
Dave, this is why it’s almost criminal that you haven’t been able so far to make baseball analysis and consultancy a full-time, well-paying pursuit. This is as close to a flawless argument as I can find  well-written, well-reasoned, and giving every possible empirical concession to both sides.
Over the two years I’ve been reading this blog, you won me over (but, it seems, not that many others) to the idea that defensive leakage in the pursuit of adding more hitting on offense doesn’t work, and as such I have completely changed my tune on the value of Mike Cameron (I admit, I let his excess strikeouts emotionally shadow my view of him).
And now, before this post, if you had asked me if I would trade Miguel Tejada straight up for Yuniesky Betancourt, I probably would have rolled my eyes and said, “Duh.” But you have convinced me because you framed your argument in such a way that it gave me all the room in the world I need to convince myself. You didn’t browbeat me with slanted logic or emotional reasoning  you laid it all out there for me and let me make up my own mind. And because I am maybe not that brilliant but certainly smart enough to know that I don’t know everything I think I know, I have given myself the humility to appreciate that you understand this better than me, and I am pleased that you are so free with your superior analytical bent.
But … I wish you didn’t have to be so free about being so free. There are many great books, essays, articles and consultant reports in you begging to get out for a healthy paycheck. I really hope you, abetted by your friends in baseball, seriously turn your energies to full-time basbeall analysis and writing.
Sorry if I embarrass you, because you are far from a self-promotional machine. But it is what it is, and you’ve got the stuff, Dave.
Thanks for sharing.
Bravo, Dave — you did a great job of laying out all the arguments logically, and I am very happy to get the benefit of such reasoned analysis on my favorite team. Thanks very much.
+Betancourt is almost a certainty to get better offensively, even if only marginally, as young players who reach the majors at his age almost always improve to some degree through their age 28 seasons.+
I don’t believe this statement is accurate.
Sure, the players who reach the majors at age 23 with Betancourt’s offense who are still playing by age 28 have almost always improved.
The ones who declined washed out of the majors and are coaching 1st base in Yakima by the time they turn 28.
If by “almost a certainty” you mean “70-75% chance,” I agree.
If you mean 95% plus, I think survivor bias is skewing your numbers.
Great post Dave. Thanks for sharing this great argument with us. You just helped me get my very much needed baseball fix for the day. Thanks again!
What about Lopez for Tejada and move one of them to second? Probably it’d be smarter to move Tejada from a stat standpoint, but a “star” doesn’t move for a rookie, so in reality it’d be Yunie. How much defensive value would be lost from a move from short to second? Since most of Yunie’s value is with the glove, he’s a low risk, while Lopez’s value is his bat, and his potential is more specifically tied to his power numbers. So he might be a better trade.
Or how about Beltre for Tejada?
Great stuff. I would just want you to underline the “crippling” nature of the Tejada contract. A lot of fans might say that of course the Mariners can afford that contract if they really want to, but in a self-imposed “hard cap” scenario, the problem is not whether the Mariners could afford it, but that it costs so much in terms of being able to stock the overall roster–the contract would take up too big a piece of the salary pie. Am I reading this correctly?
Now, to what extent would a Burnett-style contract offered to Millwood do the same thing? In that case, the position (starting pitcher) needs help.
What about Lopez for Tejada and move one of them to second?
I wouldn’t do this, either.
Lopez and Betancourt are commodities. They both project as effective major league players who will make peanuts for the next several seasons. Those guys are actually harder to find than aging all-stars with big contracts.
Excellent post, Dave. I must admit, my gut instinct before reading your posts, would be to not trade Betancourt for Tejada, so maybe that makes me more inclined to buy your arguments. That said, it’s pretty hard to refute what you wrote. Well done!
I’m with Jim. Thanks Dave for an excellent analysis. (Although I have to admit that it confirms some of my own prejudices about Tejada. I’ve always thought, based on no analysis, that he is too much of a free swinger and too limited with the glove to be an enduring star.)
I just hope I never get in an arguement with Mr Cameron. And I hope his namesake now leading the British Tory Party doesn’t share the same powers of persuasion.
That was a fantastic presentation. Great job. That stuff keeps us coming back for more.
Isn’t it strange that Tejada suddenly wants a change of Scenery the same day The Red sox’s SS opens up?
Great analysis.
One small tweaking-related comment. Using Tejada’s numbers from last year probably leads to an underestimate throughout the analysis since he clearly packed it in early during the fianl part of the season. Overall this point wouldnt change/challenge your conclusion though.
Packing it in shouldn’t be counted against a player? Since when?
This is almost exactly what I was thinking whenever I read the various posts supporting a Tejada to the M’s deal. Thanks for giving us an analysis on this, Dave.
Packing it in shouldn’t be counted against a player? Since when?
Especially a player people are trying to credit with “leadership and fire in the clubhouse”? So much for that intangible.
I think a lot of the information in the post is great, and has me rethinking my bring in Tejada thoughts. But I think it’s unfair to call Tejada an aging all-star. His numbers don’t reflect that, regardless of who he compares to. Let’s remember, Vern Stephens wasn’t drinking B-12 juice everyday (wink wink).
It’s funny, when this morning I read “Tejada Unhappy” my thoughts went exactly like this: “Hey, Tejada. On the Mariners. But that would mean getting rid of Betancourt, crap. And wait, what’s Tejada’s salary…. uh, no thanks.” Nice to know my gut can sometimes exactly track a well-reasoned, exhaustively documented, data-based argument. Even if it’s only coincidental.
Agree completely. And even though this is self-evident, none of Dave’s analysis includes the probability that (largely because of perceptions) you would never do a straight-up deal YB for Tejada. It would probably be something more like YB plus an arm and maybe even another good-upside young player (Reed, Lopez, etc.).
You would have to add the net value of those subtractions to this analysis to get a comprehensive picture… which likely makes this a bad deal even if someone else ate a bunch of Tejada’s salary.
Nice post, now how can we make sure Bavasi and Co. read it?
Very good analysis, and I happen to agree. However, such analysis opens the door for similar comparisons – say, Everett vs. Bohn (with Reed moving left, as proposed in the TNT)
I wonder if the M’s actually do this kind of a (runs created + runs prevented)/cost analysis when considering deals they are thinking about. Under Gillick I would think not, but under Bavasi, maybe. If not, they really should. Regardless, I would second the “M’s should hire Dave immediately” proposal.
What about Lopez for Tejada and move one of them to second?
I can easily make a case that Lopez is potentially a BETTER player than Betancourt. There are a decent number of All-Star caliber players whose careers start as struggling 21 year olds, like Lopez.
For instance, take…Miguel Tejada, age 21-22:
21: .202/.240/.333
22: .233/.298/.384
See also: Derek Jeter, Nomar Garciaparra, etc.
I don’t think Betancourt has any shot of turning into that kind of player. He MIGHT be Tony Fernandez on a best-case scenario (which is a lot of best-case wishful thinking, IMO, but Tony Fernandez did have the same basic skill set), but Dave’s said “Cristian Guzman with a better glove” is more like the reasonable projection for Betancourt…and I agree. That’s a good player, but Lopez has a considerably higher ceiling due to his age and minor league performance at a young age.
This is why I don’t understand why the M’s would want to give up on the guy, period, absent a total washout (and 2004/2005 do NOT count as total washouts). Yet I hear trade rumors, Betancourt is an untouchable but Lopez isn’t and so on. Personally, if I were a larcenous GM (read: Billy Beane), I’d see if I could snake Lopez out from the M’s (‘Hey, here’s Zito! And you can play Willie at second and make him and the fans happy to see him get his uniform dirty every day!”), and laugh all the way to the bank when it turns out I bought low and sold the M’s high…
Dave,
Thanks for the great post. Do you have any Everett projections that you would like to post also?
Dave, one important thing missing from this analysis is the fact that the very best players – and I think Tejada fits into this category – have additional value, beyond all the components of value that you cite, simply by virtue of being in the top tier. There is value in fitting all that value into one position, for a few reasons:
- because the supply for such concentrated value is so low.
- because of the flexibility it affords you in lineup construction.
I read an article about this at BP fairly recently – thought it was by Nate Silver – but now I can’t find it. Anyway, I’m not sure I’m doing a good job of explaining myself, but the bottom line is players like Tejada are valuable beyond just $/Win.
Yes, players like Tejada may indeed have value that transcends simple cost/benefit analysis. However, Tejada’s absolute value isn’t the only factor in Dave’s analysis – we are also presented with a comparison of Tejada to an alternative (Betancourt). There really is no doubt – on either a quantitative, objective level, or on a qualitative, intangible level – that Tejada is not a worth replacement for Betancourt.
In addition to this great analysis, I can’t imagine that Tejada would be any happier in Seattle than in Baltimore.
This brings up a point that to me is very troubling. Safeco doesn’t seem to help our dreadful starting pitching and is constantly penalizing our hitters (or in this case, potential hitters). Let’s reconfigure Safeco so it wouldn’t “cripple” fine players like Miguel Tejada.
Um… have you looked at the team’s R/H splits? Because you’re wrong.
Great, now all the attention is going to go to Dave’s head and soon we are going to have to start paying $9.99 per month to read his wisdom on our screens. Not that we shouldn’t now, but I can see his chest puffing up from here all the way across the county. Nice going bro, I agree it is a shame you aren’t getting paid yet like you should!
Good, thoughtful post Dave, and it makes me wonder about teams that don’t bring players up from the Minors, even for a look-see during September, until they are 27 or 28. Look at how long Edgar languished in the Minors.
Great Post. I agree with the sentiment and the #’s. A very elloquent thorough and just appraisal of two fine SS’.
He’s only got middle-tier power and I think the M’s should be looking for 30+HR monster power if they were to add another $10+million/year contract to the line-up.
Also the M’s are looking for a LH hitter and Tejada’s RH. Tejada’s numbers in previous years are about what we expect from Beltre (star but not superstar), so why switch multiple positions around for about the same production (trade Beltre for Tejada) without adding anything we needed. No reason to have Tejada here unless he’s looking to DH and the O’s want little in return.
He simply doesn’t answer a need!
This is why I sometimes hate those listings of comparable players of the past. Vern Stephens fell off quickly after age 30 therefore Tejeda is likely to do the same.
Vern Stephens played in the era before players did any conditioning work in the offseason. Vern Stephens was also notorious for staying out all night chasing broads (to use the vernacular of the day)absolutely notorious. Read commentary from any of his contemporaries.
If you can show that Tejeda never works out and spends all his nights chasing action, the comparison holds but otherwise I think we should be hesitant about predicting Tejeda based on Stephens.
#24, I think packing it in should be the most damning negative that could be associated with a player. However, how can you accurately predict it?
And Torre and Fryman were third basemen. And Torre must’ve caught almost a thousand games. His production fell off in his early 30′s. Quel surprise. I just think it’s too easy to draw these inferences without the comparison really being apt.
Don’t be so quick to dismiss Betancourt’s upside. In some ways, I think his potential ascension could be roughly analagous to Omar Vizquel’s. Little O didn’t have a credible offensive season until age 25 with the M’s, and, it can’t be argued, didn’t really establish himself as an offensive plus until 1995 with Cleveland, when he was 28.
it CAN be argued
Love the post, Dave. Totally changed my mind on a potential Miggy trade. I know that this is off topic, but I ask that the court bear with me, subject to connection.
I noticed that there were rumors that J.C. Romero was available, and that the M’s were thinking about acquiring him (the rumor were almost correct, since he was actually dealt to the Angels). Since we already have a strong bullpen, I thought we would either (a.) turn him into a starter, or (b.) trade him to a team without a closer. I thought a Romero/Bentacourt package would be the perfect lure to get Tejeda from Baltimore, but now doesn’t sound too appealing, for us. As much as I would to see him hit #3, there just isn’t a place for him here.
Because I know these things matter to you guys: it’s “straitjacket”.
Your crazy if you wouldn’t do Tejada for Betancourt…
#50 What would your reasoning be for that statement? Dave has given an extremely lucid arguement. Can you refute any point in it? Or are you just going to make a baseless statement?
The front office will not trade Betancourt. Howard Lincoln and Chuck Armstrong are downright giddy about this guy. Betancourt is one of about three things that are set in stone in this organization as of right now.
Yes, Tejada is a proven major league SS STUD! Betancourt sure he has potential but that doesn’t always pan out. We could be 6, 7 years down the road Betancourt doesn’t pan out and we can look back and ask why he passed on Tejada… I think go for the sure thing…
so we don’t trade Betancourt for Miggy. what now? we sign Everett and possibly Morris and hope for the best? i should’ve kept my hand on that check for season tickets i just sent in.
Tejada’s a stud, but ya ain’t gaining that much if you swap him out—that’s the whole point of the post.
It’s a little off topic, but I want to jump on the Dave love train here for a second, too. As an M’s fan with not a lot of stathead knowledge but a fair level of interest, this site is an incredible resource.
And since we’re already off topic, why not wander just a little further?
[because this happens]
Dave, you hit the nail on the head with why trading Tejada for Betancourt (or even Lopez, as stated in some scenarios) isn’t a good idea in the big picture. The net gain is not enough to justify the sacrifice.
Also, we won’t just have to give up Betancourt (or Lopez) and eat salary. We’d probably have to offer up other capable, talented players *coughfelixcough*, which would drive down the net runs gained, as losing those other players creates another big VORP hole or four.
JS, No. 36 – I don’t see how your comment responds at all my post. Tejada has value, as an elite player, above and beyond the very good dollars/win analysis that Dave posted. Betancourt doesn’t have such value as an elite player. By ignoring this additional value for Tejada, Dave underestimates his total value. I’m not saying this tips the scales – I’m just saying it’s a factor that wasn’t part of the original post.
Nate Silver discusses this issue here -http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=4535 – but I swear there was a full-blown article at BP at some point.
P.S. How do you post a link? It’s high time I learned.
Griffey’s gone, Randy Johnson’s gone, Tejada passed, ARod’s gone, Pavano’s passed…..These are all players that have left Seattle or passed on offers to come here. They are now locked into heavy contracts that the M’s can’t afford or don’t want any piece of.
Yet anytime one of these former mariners or former potential mariners pop up in trade talk people freak out and think we should sell the farm to acquire these guys. The past is in the past. its time to move on.
At a minimum the M’s have assembled an infield of sure handed guys and some of them can swing a decent bat. Thats a pretty decent core of guys to start a winning team around.
Would you rather have Millwood and Betancourt (let’s say), or Tejada and nobody?
Very good post Dave.
Would you even consider Tejada for Betancourt if the O’s take a % of Tejada’s salary? From what you have posted, I think the answer is No.
Considering this is Bavasi’s last contract year, he may be desperate to do something like this.
Another question – would you bring in Manny (hypothetically of course) or do you think he is in for a significant decline too? (I dont care much about his D, he can DH for all purposes)
I’d be happy to swap Tejada and Betancourt, as long as the deal gave the M’s the option to swap them back after ’06 or ’07.
Don’t be so quick to dismiss Betancourt’s upside.
It’s not dismissing Betancourt’s upside to compare him with Cristian Guzman, but with a better glove. Cristian Guzman has already been to an All-Star game, with a peak year of .302/.332/.477 at the plate so far. He had a crappy year last year, but he’s young enough (28 going into 2006) to bounce back. The thing is, Betancourt’s defense might be good enough that he hangs around for a longer time, so he’d have a better career. Dave uses Cesar Izturis- who I’d also compare to Guzman.
Omar Vizquel is a bit of an outlier. You will find very few shortstops, historically, who’ve been able to add on to their game like that- Ozzie Smith and maybe Phil Rizzuto are about it. I’m really reluctant to compare players to extreme outliers.
The thing that makes me evaluate Lopez > or = Betancourt is that Lopez is already hitting as well or better than Betancourt is…and is two years younger. That’s a LOT of growth curve.
No need for the Mariners to become the Texas Rangers….big boppers and no pitching. I think although it would be great to have Tejada and his bat. His salary and the teams need for pitching has to be the deciding factor in saying no…even if this was a possibility. Let’s face it…the Mariners aren’t at the top of everyone’s list for places to play these days.
You did what I call back-loading an argument: start with the weakest points (your opponent’s arguments) and finish with the strongest (here: age and salary = flexibility and value).
Having noted Betancourt’s defensive proficiency and quick take on MLB pitching in September, I was looking for something solid to hang my logic hat on. I’d already conviced myself of the age and salary considerations, and you supplied the logical rebutal base for the doubters.
Superb work. Thanks, millions.
#61:
I’m thinking no. If you assume Tejada’s worth the median 25 runs, the O’s would have to pick up $5M a year on his contract to get down to $2M/win. It’ll turn out that Carl Everett was right about that whole dinosaur thing before that happens.
Even so, you’d still be spending another $5M/year to fix a position that isn’t really broken. I’ve got to believe you’d get a whole lot more milage out of those dollars by spending them somewhere else, like the rotation or even LF/DH, if you insist on upgrading the offense. For that kind of cash you could replace Moyer with Burnett or Carl Everett with someone who isn’t Carl Everett.
You wouldn’t trade a .256/.296/.370 hitter for a .304/.349/.515 hitter? What?! Yes, Betancourt has better defense and will be cheaper. But…the difference in money and defense is nowhere near enough to set off the tremendous offensive value that Tejada brings to the table. Tejada is one of the top 4 SS in MLB (Mike Young, Derek Jeter, Jhonny Peralta). Stars and scrubs is a good team-building philosophy, and if I can get a star for a scrub then I’ve got to take that deal. When’s a better opportunity going to come along?
I grant that Tejada will probably decline, and Betancourt will probably improve. But what’s Betancourt’s upside? Neifi Perez? Both are amazing fielders, and neither one can hit. I don’t think it’s likely that Betancourt will experience a power spike or a vast increase in plate discipline, so I’m confident that’s a good comparison.
Tejada’s decline is probable, although take the Vern Stephens comparison with a grain of salt; Stephens’ steep decline was due to a knee injury in 1951 that he suffered while playing third base. Tejada likely won’t move from SS. If he avoids injury (a huge “if”), then Tejada won’t decline nearly as quickly as Stephens. He’ll still decline, but he won’t fall off the table. Saying:
1) Up to their age 29 seasons, Miguel Tejada and Vern Stephens have had very comparable careers.
2) In his age 30 season, Vern Stephens suffered an injury and was never close to the same hitter.
3) Thus, we can say with some certainty that Tejada will suffer an injury and never be the same hitter.
…is a logically flawed series of statements.
Assuming that Tejada loses 6 runs (8.5%) of offense over the next 4 years, his VORP (the number of runs contributed beyond what a replacement-level player at the same position would contribute if given the same percentage of team plate appearances) would slide from 70 (last year) to 64 to 58 to 52 to 46 (final year of contract). To put that in perspective, Rafael Furcal had a VORP of 49.4 last year, so Tejada would be a bit worse than that in the final year of his contract. Paying 10 mil a year for that isn’t an awful deal.
We need power….period!Tejeda hits to all fields with power. Unlike yubet. If we keep concentrating on defense as everyone loves to talk about. We have seemed to forget the meaning of power as in hrs. With our one HR hitter in sexson….and two meduim hitters in beltre and well i have to include ibanez cause if i dont everyone on here will. Anytime anywhere throw joel,meche and yubet. Please take joel and meche lol.
#67: Your argument lacks credibility because it dismisses the comparative value of defense. Defense, contrary to established wisdom, is not some kind of a “nice if you can get it” add-on characteristic. The difference between a possibly elite defender and an average one, especially at a crucial up-the-middle position that sees more balls in play that other positions, is HUGE. If you give away everything you gain on offense through lesser defense  for a ton more money  then you haven’t gained anything. And you will have, in fact, lost a great deal.
Defense matters. VORP doesn’t account for that.
So you’re saying the Vern Stephens analogy is a “cum hoc ergo propter hoc” argument?
I don’t think we should spend the money on Miggy, the money can be used elsewhere to get a pitcher (or two). Betancourt is already slick with the glove and I think he’ll turn into a solid offensive player so it’s not a hole we need to fill. Besides, there is no way we get him straight up for Betancourt. Other teams will beat that with a stick all day long (and laugh about it too). Overall, I think Dave’s analysis is interesting and it will be fun to see how the projections for Tejada pan out. Personally, I’m doubting if his decline will be as bad as the projections and I think that whoever picks him up will be pretty stoked.
One question I have is regarding the value of a win. Wouldn’t that adjust upward based on salary increases over the next few years? I would think it would have to but I’m not a mathematician (I just play one on TV) and with the way contracts are arse-ploding I would think it would go up pretty quickly. Isn’t that the primary reason, or reasonable facsimile thereof, for signing young stars to long term contracts before they are FA eligible?
Regardless of up-side the downside is 11+million dollars that need to go to pitching, not improving a position the FO considers the player slotted to play at as untouchable.
Starting Pitchers…LH sock…Starting pitchers…
I’ve never seen Tejada Pitch or bat LH…
If he can pitch 150+ innings too trade the farm for him…
Rewarding post to read, Dave. And we should never forget the other major intangible involved here: having a shortstop with one of the coolest names in MLB is nothing to sneeze at whereas there’s a million Tejadas.
Very good posts.From the Oriole point of view, I couldn’t see them really entertaining a straight up swap of Tejada for Betancourt anyway. Their fans would be howling.
I agree with every point Dave made for entirely different reasons. Watching YuBet this past season, he reminded me of one player and one player only — Miguel Tejada. Some of his moves are so much like Tejada’s it is uncanny.
YuBet has terrible plate discipline, for now. But he has a quick bat. I doubt he will ever have Tejada’s HR power, but IMO it is worth the risk to keep him around to see if he can develop into a consistent gap hitter, at least.
I am not convinced that they can ever teach him to take a walk now and then. But I *would* bet that they can pack some upper body strength onto him that would add somewhat top his slugging average.
That is my old-fashioned, tools-based, out of my ass analysis. Besides, they have Cabrera coming up behind him, and maybe Adam Jones, and maybe Tui, so why mess with the SS situation at all?
I would be in the group that doubts that the O’s would want “only” Betancourt for Tejada. They certainly wouldn’t want to cover any of Tejada’s salary, and they will want more players.
Based on that, the M’s aren’t going to get Tejada.
67. It goes beyond the batting numbers and the straight up comparison, the salary numbers and even the valid defensive comparisons. Tejada would cost us much more than Betancourt or Lopez. Baltimore would want a package that included, for example, Betancourt or Lopez, another strong major league player (like Beltre, Sexson or Felix strong), and probably a couple of quality prospects, like Nageotte and Adam Jones quality prospects. They won’t take Thornton, Meche or Pineiro as a key piece in the deal.
Since he is a special player, Baltimore’s going to want a special package in return, and with the holes and lack of major league depth we have, we would only create more holes on our team in giving the O’s what they wanted… all for a 20-40 run improvement at one position.
#68: Your argument lacks credibility because you’re OVERVALUING defense. Please give me stats that show that the difference between an “elite” defender and an average one are in fact HUGE, because I have a hard time swallowing that. Especially when the offensive contributions of these two players are so different.
To the general audience, I agree with Dave’s argument as far as salary is concerned. Tejada’s contract is just too big for us to eat up. It would be much better spent on starting pitchers. But if money wasn’t an issue, I’d take Tejada for Yuni straight up without question. Not even an elite defender can save enough runs to outweigh the potential offensive contribution Tejada could make.
(The slugger’s Silver, The Glove IS GOLD!)
I agree with this completely.
Yes, you can split hairs about Tejada’s offense being more valuable than Betancourt’s defense; but that’s all you’re doing, splitting hairs.
The facts that: Betancourt is on his way up skill-wise while Tejada is on his way down; Tejada is owed a ton more money; and that we have other positions that need help so much more than a position where we already have a ++ defender with a good chance to develop into at least a league average stick; mean that I have no interest in trading Betancourt for Tejada no matter how much of Tejada’s salary was picked up.
It’s nice to have offense at shortstop if you don’t have to give up much defense to get it; but ONLY then.
Did someone mention the whininess. That would come along with Tejada. Imagine him playing here and having the M’s FO. I think he’d demand a trade after one year. And didn’t he follow the money (ala A-Rod) so what is he complaining about.
The difference between an average and a stellar defender at a premium position (like CF, SS) can be 20 runs. That’s tough to do, but I hope that answers your question. If you want examples, you can look up Davenport’s work on this, or MGL’s UZR statistics, among others.
Derek, re: #39, what’s the best source to go to for review R/H splits? On MLB.com you can review by player (but not team totals that I can see). A quick review of Mariner hitters shows no appreciable improvement on the road vs Safeco. For M’s pitchers, outside of Moyer and Hasagawa, Safeco shows no appreciable advantage that’s obvious to me. I didn’t review every player, rather the top 7 or so in terms of IPs and PAs.
#83
For a quick look at simple stats (not even OBP, SLG, OPS), yahoo’s page is easy –
http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/teams/sea/stats/bycategory?cat=Pitching&type=33&year=season_2005&qualified=0&sort=137
The team totals are across the bottom. Huge jump in home runs on the road. ERA, WHIP, BAA all rise on the road. And, sadly, the innings pitched take a steep dive on the road.
#5
Isn’t it just as intangible to assume the Tejada will decline in production at age 31, just as many of his comparative predecessors had done? After all, we are projecting based on extrapolated data. If a seasoned veteran has been known to play with competative zeal and it is also known that he has leadership qualities, why shouldn’t these attributes be considered as valuable an asset as the number of runs of offense he might provide?
Isn’t it just as intangible to assume the Tejada will decline in production at age 31?
No, that’s called learning from historical lessons.
If a seasoned veteran has been known to play with competative zeal and it is also known that he has leadership qualities, why shouldn’t these attributes be considered as valuable an asset as the number of runs of offense he might provide?
Because teams that score a lot of runs consistently win ballgames, while teams that are full of veteran fiery leaders win about as many as you’d expect based on their runs scored and allowed.
Or, as someone else pointed out earlier, what exactly did Tejada’s fiery attitude do for Baltimore?
Ug….don’t we know that you can find facts to back up any arguement? it seems like all this weblog is about now is finding statistical that will back up some claim that is running against conventional wisdom. What do you think the final tally would be if you asked Major League GMs who they’d rather have at short, Tejada or Betancourt…c’mon. But seriously , I’m desperate for the M’s to do something…anything…I miss home runs.
Great post Dave. I’m sold: no Tejada.
I’m probably breaking some rule, but this post is really a request for a deeper discussion on the PI-Morosi stuff about Jeremy Reed + Matt Thornton + something for Barry Zito deal.
Thought this would be the source of much more commentary on the USSM, but haven’t seen much. Can’t imagine why Oakland would even consider this deal (Kotsay). Is this bad reporting (rumor-milling) or is there any credence to this story?
Ug….don’t we know that you can find facts to back up any arguement? it seems like all this weblog is about now is finding statistical that will back up some claim that is running against conventional wisdom.
Well, first, I don’t at all agree that that’s thecase, but — what is it that you want? How would you improve this?
#82– whininess? Tejada?
What this, and other stathead inclined webpages, are about is NOT finding statistics that simply back up arguments, but rather statistics that predict results and then making arguments based on those predictive stats. Anybody can look at past statistics and say, “Player A had more RBI’s than Player B, so he had a better season or Pitcher A had a lower ERA than Pitcher B, so had a better season,” and that often makes a pretty fun argument (MVP/Cy Young’s are given out on what people already have done).
Nobody here is claiming that YuBet had a better year than Tejada in 2005. I don’t think anybody’s claiming YuBet will have a better year than Tejada in 2006.
However, when you talk about which player is actually better, especially when evaluating specific transactions, you really need to look at predictive statistics to make a better decision about the future, which Dave has done here.
The RBI/ERA example is effective for evaluating someone’s past performance, as it’s an accurate measure of what actually happened. But, since many these stats (along with others, such as Batting Average) aren’t as predictive as other, more complex stats, they aren’t as effective to evaluate transactions over the complex, predictive stats.
The more complex stats may be too esoteric for your liking (and often times, my liking), but they’ve been shown to have better predictive value than the stats I grew up with on the backs of baseball cards.
Also, Dave didn’t present only one argument in this post, based on one or two facts he looked up to justify it. He presented every argument and counter argument he could think of (Dave, correct me on this, if you thought of more that you deliberately ignored to convince the Mariners to (not) make a dumb trade and lose even more in 2006, 7, 8, and 9). All of Dave’s arguments were based on generally accepted baseball research. No, the research is not perfect, as Dave will admit. But, it’s a heck of a lot better than just looking at last year’s Average, HR’s, and RBI’s and saying the answer is right there.
Finally, some who’ve argued here against Dave’s conclusion seem to key their response on one or two quibbles with his post, such as the Vern Stephens comparison, but I don’t really think Dave’s whole argument is incorrect because Vern Stephens got hurt in the 1950′s. Players age. None of us know when. But, we know that the odds get better as the number of years since birth rises. It’s perfectly valid (and welcomed by me) for us to point out things like the Vern Stephens comparison being invalid because of a major injury, as that’s an interesting contribution to the discussion of the game we love and it DOES counter that specific example, but please try to come up with a comprehensive response before entirely dismissing Dave (or DMZ or JMB or Peter or Jeff or any other commenter’s) well-reasoned and thought-through post.
Er…what Derek said.
Totally!
If we are just one chess piece away from World Series, then get Tejada. But we are rebuilding.
I think yours was better, actually.
Keep up the top notch baseball writing, Dave. Oh, and please keep doing it at no cost to me.
Thanks!
Acquiring Miggy Tejada for a veteran team that had no credible SS when he was looking to have his peak years was not a bad idea. He’s not a great fit, but he had major positives. That was then. Baltimore bought those best two years comparatively cheaply; now the price gets dear.
At this point in time, I’m with you in every respect on this, Dave, but moreso. There’s the impression that Tejada is ‘an elite defensive SS,’ but it’s just not true. Not only is he average by almost all evaluations, he has the tendencey to make the bonehead error at the worst time; I saw this in the playoffs for Oakland, and often against the Ms which was why I feared Chavez in the Oakland lineup far more than Miggy. I think Betancourt is a defensive freak, and I’m not sure I’d give up his glove for Tejada’s bat straight across. Asdrubal Cabreara is likely better than Tejada in the field by a hefty margin, too.
Tejada is a dead-pull righty who doesn’t walk if he can reach it. Safeco would and did hurt him big time, which was why I was cool to the free agent offer to him to begin with several years ago. I’m not surprised to hear that his player comparables declined severely in their early thirties. When the bat speed starts to go, guys like this take a double hit: it’s harder to foul off quality pitches, but they don’t have the fall back of patience to work for a better pitch to hit or the willingness to take the pitch the other way, either. They become pure hackers at pitcher’s pitches. Think Bret Boone in ’05; yeah, that kind of ugly. Because Miggy pulls so much, his slugging might hold up a little bit better, but his average and OBP would likely drop like a stone.
Tejada is waa-aa-aaaay expensive even if he remained good offensively, and adequate defensively, but his $$$$ are awful in the probable event that neither condition continues to hold.
Oh, and there’s zero (0) possibility of getting Miggy Tejada for Betancourt straight up. Think another two quality players. Say, Betancourt, Lopez, and Soriano. . . . Absolutely not.
To be serious, even if Baltimore picked up half of Miggy’s salary, I’m not sure that I’d trade Betancourt for Tejada. I might trade _Beltre_ for Tejada straight up, if Miggy’d play 3b. Which he wouldn’t. Then again, while I don’t expect any improvement to speak of from Beltre over the next four years, it’s entirely possible that Tejada’s offensive advantage will plunge so much that he’s actually the lesser performer for the last two years of their respective deals.
Tejada isn’t a bad player at this point, but I’d be very reluctant to pay him $13M a year to play SS.
Such a ridiculous post it’s barely worth commenting. The Yankees are in the playoffs every year by picking up proven players like Tejada. Maybe we’ll only lose 80 games next year with Betancourt’s defensive gems.
I thought the Yankees were in the playoffs because they spend more money than everyone else every year
Forget about Tejada. I want Milton Bradley.
“The Yankees are in the playoffs every year by picking up proven players like Tejada.”
This is a more effective strategy for the Yankees than the Mariners because the Yankees are willing to double the Mariner’s payroll. The Yankees can carry around problem contracts and still sign premium talent and the Mariners can’t.
Besides, if you stop to think about it, Dave’s argument breaks down if paying $3-5M per win doesn’t hurt the team’s ability to acquire other useful pieces. That is, his argument doesn’t apply to whether it would be good for the Yankees to trade Betancourt straight up for Tejada–it applies to whether or not the Mariners should do it.
If I recall, a replacement level team gets you about 50 wins. Want to make the playoffs? Shoot for 90 wins. So approximately, if you have a $100M payroll, you’re going to pay $2.5M/win to get there. (Note that this agrees roughly with the THT number of $2M/win.) If you have a $200M payroll, though, you can pay $5M/win to get there. That’s the difference between 30-run Tejada being overpaid and 30-run Tejada being a decent contract.
jim — if you’re that closed-minded and that sure that you already know all the answers, what the heck are you doing here?
Okay so, if $2 mil buys a win then scrub the whole team and just pay for the win. Let’s see… 80 times… divided by…. uh… okay let’s also get rid of the FO people .. that should bump up the money. Okay I think we’ll be able to buy about 70 wins next year. I should be the new GM :p
Marginal wins. Those first 46 wins are free.
An interesting generalization can be drawn from this specific case:
“It isn’t cost-efficient to replace cheap players, even moderately productive ones, with expensive players, even very productive ones.”
Conversely, the most cost-efficient way to improve is to buy production at positions where you are weakest — Mariner third basemen in 2004, for example.
If Payroll wasn’t an issue, ever, like in the Bronx, you do a Lopez+ for Tejada deal, because he makes the team better today, right now, and probably for at least the next year or two.
Maybe you even deal Betancourt+.
When Tejada starts to decline, you brush him, and his salary aside and go get his replacement – because money is no object.
But that isn’t how the M’s operate – money is THE object.
Tejada is likely at least 18 months older than he is listed and I wouldn’t deem it out of the realm of possibility that he was indeed on some sort of banned substance through 2004.
He’s owed $12 mil in ’06 (10 salary, 2 bonus), $12 mil in ’07 and $13 mil in both ’08 and ’09, when he’ll be 32 and 33 years old, if you even buy that he’s 29 now – which I don’t.
He’s also owed $2 mil in both 2010 and 2011 as part of his signing bonus.
All in all, Tejada is owed $54 million over the next four years.
That’s a lot of money to be paying a player that is likely to decline, if he hasn’t already started to do so.
Another Kudos to this post.
This Yubet for Tejada trade is completely hypothetical and probably not ever going to happen. But the analysis is completely beneficial to understanding the whole game.
…Let’s get a pitcher!
Interesting post and comments. A couple thoughts of my own:
Like some others in this thread, I don’t like the use of “most-comparables” for anything beyond casual entertainment. I’m actually curious if anyone has ever done research that suggest that using MCs is more accurate than generally forecasting improvement/decline based on age, and in special cases like catcher on number of games played at the position. Using a few MCs instead seems to greatly increase the significance of an outlier; what commonly happens then is a couple outliers will be thrown out at the author’s discretion, at which point it seems to lose even more scientific value. Nobody needed to look at Miggy’s most-comparable to list to figure out that at his age, he’s likely (though not at all guaranteed) to lose something off of his bat in the next 4-5 years, but exactly how much that is doesn’t seem to particularly relate to how Stephens/Ripken/Torre/Fryman or Bell ended up. Baseball players can put up very similar numbers using different approaches, and those approaches often decline in different ways. Not to mention that Similarity scores do not adjust for playing context such as league, rules, batting order, home park, customary position in batting order, etc.
My second question has to do with salary concerns. I think Dave’s analysis of the relative salaries is very valuable from the Seattle management’s point of view, but it surprises me that so many readers here take the same tact. It’s not written in stone that the M’s will spend an exact amount of money this year, and it’s not money belonging to anyone here (well, not after the tickets are bought, anyway). I realize the M’s claim to have a budget, but what happens if they decide everyone is too expensive and then at the end, there is nobody left? This should be a familiar scenario to those who have participated in many auction rotisserie drafts. Having the best team for the money isn’t always that satisfying if it means finishing in the middle-of-the-pack with the lowest budget. I don’t think there is cognitive dissonance in saying that acquiring Tejada for Betancourt is probably a bad move for management, but could be a good move for the fans.
I also have a quibble with Dave’s ending analysis. The “most optimistic” scenario for Tejada is not a 40 run advantage. It is well within the realm of possibility that Tejada could easily be 70-80 runs better than Betancourt next year without either player being injured; it’s also possible they could be about equal. If one of the criteria in a signing is “magic season chance”, then Tejada certainly has a better possibility of winning MVP in 2006 than Rafael. One only has to look at “most-comparable” #2, a player named Cal Ripken who went .323/.374/.566 for a 162 OPS+ in his age-30 season…
So, I don’t think this is so cut-and-dried. Miggy actually posted the highest OPS+ of his career in 2005, masked by the fact that offense fell off significantly in the AL. If someone has good reason to expect that he can maintain his current level for the next three years, I think dealing for him can absolutely be justified, even taking salaries into account. It’s a huge risk, but if the Mariners are the ones paying for it, I’m surprised that their fans would be upset. In Tejada’s 9 seasons in the majors, he has declined in OPS+ only once – obviously that will change, but there is no direct evidence that he has already entered his decline phase.
“Championships aren’t won by acquiring stars in their decline finishing out free agent contracts. Just say no to Miguel Tejada.”
Shhhh…. Don’t tell the Yankees that.
Re: 108, after more than a few moronic comments, finally a cogent challenge to Dave’s excellent analysis. To expand on Itea’s second point, the biggest flaw here is the lack of a more substantive analysis on how much $/win is too much. $10M/win for one player is a debacle? Not if every other player on your team is $.1M/win. This is obviously an extreme analysis, but it draws out the bigger argument that a team’s ideal $/win can never be applied to each player individually (because you’ll never get every guy signed for the same $/year), so a $/win analysis must be analyzed from a wholistic perspective.
So the M’s as a whole cannot afford to spent $10M/win, obviously. But we may very well be able to spend $2.25M/win on one player when guys like Felix obviously approaching infinity$/win. I’m obviously avoiding making the precise substantive analysis that I demand: 1. what is the ideal $/win for the Ms as a whole, 2. how is the non-SS portion of the team currently set up, 3. what is the amount we should spend per win at the SS positio. This is because I lack the baseball knowledge to do so; moreover, step 2 of this argument is obviously impossible to make precisely. However, without at least a strong prediction of the M’s $/win as a whole, Dave’s analsyis leaves open the possibility that the hypo YuBet Tejada trade could make sense.
I’m actually curious if anyone has ever done research that suggest that using MCs is more accurate than generally forecasting improvement/decline based on age, and in special cases like catcher on number of games played at the position.
Nate Silver has written several articles explaining PECOTA’s advantages over a strict recent performance regression analysis, and PECOTA’s consistently been more effective in projections than non-comparison based systems.
I realize the M’s claim to have a budget
It’s not a claim. The M’s have given Bavasi a bottom line and told him not to spend more than X dollars. In a perfect world, the M’s would spend more, but they won’t, so we have to deal with the realities of the situation.
It is well within the realm of possibility that Tejada could easily be 70-80 runs better than Betancourt next year without either player being injured
No, it’s not. Among AL hitters with at least 500 PA, Ivan Rodriguez created the least runs with his bat, 47. Jeremy Reed was second to last, by the way, with 52. That’s about as bad as a player can hit and stay in the line-up for a full season. So, non-injury division, Betancourt’s bat is worth 50 runs. Even if we assume Tejada and Betancourt will be defensive equals next year (talk about a stretch), that means Tejada would need to create 130 runs with the bat next year.
The only AL hitters this year with 130+ RC? Gary Sheffield (131), Manny Ramirez (134), David Ortiz (136), Alex Rodriguez (138), and Mark Teixeira (142).
Tejada’s just not that kind of hitter. His career OBP is .338. He’s only posted an OBP north of .350 once, and that was .360. You simply can’t be a good enough hitter with a .350 OBP to create 130 runs with your bat.
One only has to look at “most-comparable†#2, a player named Cal Ripken who went .323/.374/.566 for a 162 OPS+ in his age-30 season…
There are a signicantly more age-23 seasons where young players have taken a big leap forward. Cristian Guzman, for instance, hit .302/.337/.477 in his age 23 season. If Betancourt hits anything like that, the difference between him and Tejada would be basically nil in real value, even before you factor in salaries.
Your claim is that its easier for a guy to go from good to great than from okay to good. I’m fairly certain thats not true. Breakout potential is a checkmark in Betancourt’s line, not Tejada’s.
Thanks for a fascinating analysis-its a privelidge to be able to participate in this blog.
The conclusion that Tejada is not a significant upgrade over Yuni, I think, can be summed up roughly as Tejada’s offense will diminish with time (while his salary wont) and Yuni’s defense is vastly superior while his offense will improve. Therefore Yuni is a better value in the long haul because the ulitmate differences in performance levels wont be significant enough to justify the difference in salary.
That being said, the conclusion is based upon both highly speculative premises (meaning we’ve seen Yuni for two months and the whole point of metrics is the premise that the eye cant be trusted to discern differences between performance levels that arent at opposite extremes) and a healthy reliance upon defensive metrics which are much more blunt than offensive predictors. Also a very small point, the M’s signed Yuni to a 4 year 3.65 million dollar deal. If, Yuni progresses like everyone hopes, he will be making substantially more than the estimated salary of 4.7 mill in 09 (see Furcal’s recent contract; in fact Yuni might not even be in Seattle in ’09). While an utterly fascinating argument, there’s a good chance that Tejeda does indeed bring better value over the next 4 years.
To expand on Itea’s second point, the biggest flaw here is the lack of a more substantive analysis on how much $/win is too much.
I’d say anything north of $3 mil/win is not a good idea for the M’s.
$10M/win for one player is a debacle? Not if every other player on your team is $.1M/win.
A lot of good decisions don’t make a bad one okay. The market value for a win is about $2 million. If Tejada is going to cost you $10 million per win, then you look elsewhere, because you absolutely can do better.
so a $/win analysis must be analyzed from a wholistic perspective.
Sure. The team’s total $/win ratio isn’t a hard line that should never be exceeded. Having Felix around gives them flexibility to overspend at another position and still have it work out. I’m not arguing the M’s should never overpay for a player. I’m arguing that they should overpay for a player at a position where they actually need an upgrade. Shortstop is not one of those.
Dave’s analsyis leaves open the possibility that the hypo YuBet Tejada trade could make sense.
If the M’s were in a different situation, sure, the trade could make sense. There are times when its the right move to give up long term value for a short term gain. Tejada, for example, would have been a perfect fit for Atlanta before they made the Renteria deal. A package of Marte, Betemit, and something would have been enticing for the O’s, and Tejada would provide a huge lift to the Braves World Series chances in 2006. By the time he was in decline, they’re young SS prospects would have been ready.
I’m not saying no team should trade for Tejada and this contract is so onerous that he’s not valuable. I’m saying that the Mariners, as currently constructed, with Yuniesky Betancourt already signed for the next 3 years, shouldn’t trade for Miguel Tejada.
in fact Yuni might not even be in Seattle in ‘09
Betancourt is under club control through the 2010 season. 2009 will either be his first or second arb case, so he won’t get to compare himself to free agents. The first two arbitration hearings skew heavily towards the club. There’s almost no chance Betancourt makes more than $5 million in 2009.
“It isn’t cost-efficient to replace cheap players, even moderately productive ones, with expensive players, even very productive ones.â€Â
This is true. However, it has to be balanced against the fact that the goal isn’t to be the most cost-effective team. Being cost effective is a tool that will help you get to the point of being the best team, but it’s not the end result in itself.
There are times when a cost ineffective contract is a good idea. This just isn’t one of those times.
Re: 113: if $3M/win is the target, then the trade does make sense under your own analysis as long as you value Tejada at around a 32 run improvement.
The validity of this assumption is obviously contentious, but it is at least reasonable, and does therefore lead to a reasonable conclusion that the trade COULD work as the Mariners are currently constructed.
Of course, you don’t have to play with that $3M number much to make the magic number go well above 40 wins, so at the end of the day I think the argument for Tejada relies on too many assumptions and too tenuous assumptions to make sense. We really just disagree on some nitipicky methodological points (can you tell I’m a lawyer?).
I agree with you and most of the responses. I am dead set against club house cry babies and all for a chemistry.
Get help where we need it, build the farm system so we are not beholden to free agents and cry babies.
Here’s a compelling reason that supports Dave’s conclusion but went unmentioned thus far-Tejeda, if dealt now, would have the right to demand a trade next year. As mentioned in #114, the M’s have control of Yuni until 2010.
For crying out loud, where do people get the idea that the Yankees won championships by buying up old veterans? The Yankees won championships by building a superb young team — Williams, Jeter, Rivera, Posada, Pettite, etc — and when they started getting older, the Yankees kept themselves in the playoffs by plugging holes with old veterans and stopped winning championships.
The Yankees didn’t start their run by buying veterans; they’ve prolonged it. The Mariners don’t have a playoff team to keep propped up, they have to build one. Trading Betancourt for Tejada because we “need power” or “miss home runs” would be like taking away vitamins and giving a pacemaker to a growing teenager.
“…if $3M/win is the target, then the trade does make sense under your own analysis as long as you value Tejada at around a 32 run improvement.”
To be clear, I believe the conclusion based on the analysis should be that if $3M/win is the target, then the trade makes sense if Tejada is 32 runs better than Betancourt on average for the next four years, while Betancourt is likely improving and Tejada is likely declining.
More than anything, it seems like a big price to pay (losing Betancourt), just to take the risk that Tejada will be worth his contract.
119 – David Cone, David Wells, Roger Clemens, Tino Martinez, Scott Brocius, Paul O’neill, Jeff Nelson, John Wetteland, Strawberry. All home grown I assume or didn’t help.
You’re missing the point. The Yankees built a championship core first. It can be effective to bring in veterans when you need to plug a hole or two. The Mariners need to build a championship core. You do that with youth — as the Yankees did, before Steinbrenner came back.
Re 111:
- PECOTA is hugely different from grabbing the top Similarity Scores from b-r.com. In fact, PECOTA does what I’m talking about above: it uses a much larger set of comparisons and incorporates things like gb/fb data that make it far more likely that it matches what I referred to as “different approaches” well beyond what SS’s do. It also accounts for hitting conditions, etc. SS’s are a quick and dirty method using counting stats almost exclusively (http://www.baseball-reference.com/about/similarity.shtml). This “rebuttal” of yours does not refute my point, it just makes it better for me. If you want to argue the semantics of my term “most-comparables”, then go ahead, but I think it’s clear I was referring to what you used in your post, which was b-r’s most similar player list through age 29.
- As far as the M’s budget – well, let’s just say that we see conflicting theories on this from this site; yes, there is a “maximum payroll” going into the season, but when players get unloaded mid-season it’s not like the M’s have been immediately turning around and spending it elsewhere, so clearly it is fungible to some degree. If the M’s save their “budget” for a couple pitchers they have their eye on, and then get outbid for those guys before spring training, are they necessarily going to fill out this budget? We will see. If the choice is between Tejada’s contract now or a 40% chance at a Millwood deal, what do most Seattle fans want?
- Tejada had 125 RCs in the 2004 season. The idea that it would be impossible for him to have 130 this year is absurd. Is it likely? No, it’s not. But it’s not impossible by any means. As you believe in comparisons, I’ll once again refer to Ripken, who in 1991 at age 30 put up 138 Runs Created after never having broken the 130 barrier before. In fact, he had come off of consecutive years of 82 and 85 RCs. Of course, comparing the two is a stretch, as Ripken was Ripken and Tejada is just a SS for the Orioles who owns the majors longest current consecutive-game streak…
Am I saying that Tejada is “due for” a big year, or will have one? No, I’m not. I think he’s unlikely to, I think he’s probably about to enter his decline phase, I think Betancourt will probably improve, and I think it would be a bad trade for Mariners management to make. That said, I think your analysis, which you suggest you are making as advantageous as possible for Tejada, is not – Tejada could reasonably outperform Betancourt by 4-5 wins per season. And by reasonably, I mean that there is a double-digit percent possibility. You could have also put other things in Tejada’s favor – he’s been extremely durable, and you did not bother to point out that he was coming off his best season yet by the usual standards (production compared to league average). Betancourt’s ML body of evidence is extremely limited so far – perhaps he will end up being much better than he showed last year, but he could also end up being worse. I mean, his 211 ABs last season were worse than Bloomquist’s first 211 ABs, and it’s not like WIllie went up from there, though significantly Willie was more than a year older in 2002 than Yuni wast last season. Betancourt’s defense is much more of a constant, and it is excellent, and of course he is likely to be a far better player than Willie. That doesn’t negate the fact that through 211 ABs, he’s got a career line of .256/.296/.370 in a pitcher’s park.
- In no way did I claim that “it’s easier for a guy to go from good to great than from okay to good”. When I wrote “magic season chance” I’m not referring to the conventional “breakout season” – as Miggy has already broken out (so to speak), that wouldn’t make any sense at all. I mean “magic season” in absolute terms – and I do think it’s a lot easier for a guy to go from good to great than it is to go from okay to great. That you can quote me on.
Rather than argue things that nobody knows for sure, I will offer you a wager instead. Judging from the tone of your post, I would guess that you think it’s less than 5% that Miggy outproduces Betancourt offensively by 80+ runs. I also think it’s unlikely, but not nearly to the tone you make it out to be. Therefore, I offer to bet you ten bucks at 10-1 odds that using b-r.com numbers, Tejada has an 80+ RC margin over Betancourt in 2006. A significant injury to Yuni would void the bet, and I’ll let you be the judge of what significant is. I’ll take my chances with Tejada, as would any team that traded a lot to get him at such a high salary. I’ll also send you a check ahead of time, and you can send one back to me for $110 if I win. If you are interested, respond to the email I included when making this post.
Again – I wouldn’t expect to win this bet, and I wouldn’t feel particularly stupid if Betancourt was in fact a better all-around player as soon as the upcoming season. It’s a spectrum of possibilities, and I don’t have enough inside knowledge of either player to give me insight beyond the numbers I’ve seen, and the bits and pieces I’ve read about Betancourt before last season. I just judge the probabilities differently than you do.
Of course, today’s news was predictable: a Manny/Miguel swap. Manny’ll probably veto it, though.
I’d like to see a thread explaining why we like Jeremy Reed so much here and find him a asset while taking up valuable player real estate in the usually hitting productive outfield. This, “because teams that score a lot of runs consistently win ballgames”.
but I think it’s clear I was referring to what you used in your post, which was b-r’s most similar player list through age 29.
Go read the “Tejada’s decline” portion of the post again. The numbers quoted there are PECOTA, not B-Ref. The collapses of the most comparable players at B-R are significantly worse than what PECOTA projected. I gave Tejada benefit of the doubt that he’d only decline as much as PECOTA projected, and not as much as the B-Ref comparables did.
If the choice is between Tejada’s contract now or a 40% chance at a Millwood deal, what do most Seattle fans want?
Again, why are those the only two options? It isn’t Tejada or don’t spend the money.
I’ll once again refer to Ripken, who in 1991 at age 30 put up 138 Runs Created after never having broken the 130 barrier before
Historical outlier. And, really, I don’t think you want to hold up Cal Ripken as an example of what we’d be hoping to get from a 30+ Tejada.
From the sounds of it, we don’t really disagree, so rather than argue semantics, I’ll just agree that we have different opinions of how likely it is that Tejada is the exception to the historical rule.
I’d like to see a thread explaining why we like Jeremy Reed
You mean another one?
Search the archives.
Re 126:
Go read the “Tejada’s decline†portion of the post again. The numbers quoted there are PECOTA, not B-Ref. The collapses of the most comparable players at B-R are significantly worse than what PECOTA projected. I gave Tejada benefit of the doubt that he’d only decline as much as PECOTA projected, and not as much as the B-Ref comparables did.
Well, there are four paragraphs in that portion of your post, and the first three talk about the comparable players by Similarity Scores that are listed at baseball-reference.com. The last one is clearly using PECOTA.
Tejada is not 33 years old. He is 29 (or at least, I have no reason to think he’s not) and will be for the first couple months of next season. Perhaps Ripken is a historic outlier (I’m not sure what historic would imply to you, but I don’t think this is 1/1000 or anything like that), but there are many analysts who now believe that a players peak has moved past 27 as training habits have changed, and also that it’s not uncommon for the top production period to be in the 27-32 range as opposed to the 25-29 range. Off the top of my head, I can name a few recent middle infielders whose early 30s were the peak of their career. Jay Bell, Bret Boone, Omar Vizquel. Jeter’s last three seasons (29-31) have been as good as his 26-28 seasons. Biggio’s peak performance was consistent from ages 27-32.
I don’t think your conclusion is wrong. I think your vehemence is unreasonable, and I don’t think you are giving full voice to those who would disagree with you. One example is that you use RCs as a counting stat rather than as a rate stat, and as much of an out-maker as Tejada is, his OBP was still 53 points higher than Yuni’s last year.
A couple final points.
- Tejada has actually had an OBP north of .350 twice, not once. It’s also a judiciously chosen figure (by you), as he has been at exactly .349 twice.
- Where are your RC numbers coming from? Are they adjusted, or is it a different version of the formula than that used by b-r or espn.com?
I still think it’s a very good post, entertaining and thought-provoking. Great work on the site.
- Itea
Just want to point out that the off the wall “Yanks always grab Tejadas” comment wasn’t me. I appreciate the analysis that shows how this isn’t a great idea. We’d clearly have to give up more than YuBet and that would not be good. I think some wish to recreate the home-run champion days of the mid 90s – without the Kingdome that’s gonna be tough!
Perhaps Ripken is a historic outlier (I’m not sure what historic would imply to you, but I don’t think this is 1/1000 or anything like that)
No, certainly not anything like that. I’d say Ripken’s season would be 1 in 50, though.
but there are many analysts who now believe that a players peak has moved past 27 as training habits have changed
Many analysts have no evidence to support this, though.
I can name a few recent middle infielders whose early 30s were the peak of their career.
And I can name more that declined. The point of the post wasn’t that Tejada will decline. The point was that you have to realize that the odds are that he will. He might beat them, but he probably won’t.
I think your vehemence is unreasonable, and I don’t think you are giving full voice to those who would disagree with you.
I don’t think I’m being vehement, but that’s up for interpretation, I guess. And I’m not even really sure how to take the second part of your comment. What does “full voice” mean? It appears to me that we’re having a dialogue.
One example is that you use RCs as a counting stat rather than as a rate stat, and as much of an out-maker as Tejada is, his OBP was still 53 points higher than Yuni’s last year.
I used the counting stat in order to give Tejada full credit for his durability, which you complained about earlier. Tejada is a durable player who should get credit for his games played streak, which is why I’m using a counting stat to give him full credit for his copious plate appearances.
- Where are your RC numbers coming from? Are they adjusted, or is it a different version of the formula than that used by b-r or espn.com?
Hardball Times.
Great work on the site.
Thanks. I actually expected a huge negative response to this post, and I’m surprised that you’re the only one who has taken me to task. Not that I don’t appreciate the kind words everyone else said earlier, but I enjoy this kind of conversation, and I wish more people would take the time to put their thoughts into meaningful responses as you have.
Re #121: Let’s go through your list, shall we?
David Cone — acquired for home-grown players (Marty Janzen, Jason Jarvis, Mike Gordon).
David Wells — FA
Roger Clemens — acquired for two players originally acquired in trades for home-grown players (Graeme Lloyd, Homer Bush) and one player acquired as a FA (David Wells).
Tino Martinez and Jeff Nelson — acquired for home-grown players (Russ Davis, Sterling Hitchcock).
Scott Brosius — acquired for a player acquired as a FA (Kenny Rogers).
Paul O’Neill — acquired for a home-grown player (Roberto Kelly).
John Wetteland — acquired for a home-grown player (Fernando Seguignol).
Darryl Strawberry — FA (didn’t help much).
In short, your very list blows your point out of the water. This is not a list that shows the Yankees “winning championships by buying up old veterans”; mostly, it shows the Yankees converting home-grown players in trade into other players who would do more to help them win. The biggest lesson of this list is that the Yankees won championships doing two things: 1) developing a lot of players, some of whom became part of the core of their team, while others were useful in 2) fleecing other teams in trades. Look at the list: they robbed Toronto (Cone, Clemens), Seattle (Tino, Jeff), Cincinnati (O’Neill), and Montreal (Wetteland) blind. Yes, in several of those cases, they had an easier time because the other team wanted to cut salary or otherwise felt a need to move the player, but still — they took full advantage of the fact.
Dave wrote:
I used the counting stat in order to give Tejada full credit for his durability, which you complained about earlier. Tejada is a durable player who should get credit for his games played streak, which is why I’m using a counting stat to give him full credit for his copious plate appearances.
Well that may be so, but this is a discussion of the relative value of Yuni and Miggy, not an absolute judgement of Tejada’s worth. Therefore, any credit you give to Tejada by using the counting stat is negated when you infer an equivalent number of PAs to Yuni, and therefore on a relative scale this is probably unfair to Tejada as his track record for durability is better than Betancourt’s. Miggy, playing about 100% of his team’s innings, had 704 PAs. Assuming he bats an average of half a lineup higher than Yuni, then Yuni would have to play about 100% of his team’s innings to get to the PA number that projects to the initial assumption of 60 RCs. Who is more likely to reach that number? Your numbers assume them to be equally likely.
This kind of statement is what I’m talking about when I say your argument is slanted. You know this (what I wrote above), but you don’t bother to point it out, and in fact now you suggest your use of stats favors Tejada’s durability in some way, presumably because if both players get injured to an equal degree than the raw RC difference would be lower. I think that’s sophistry.
I think I could make an equally compelling case to the opposite effect by using slightly different (but defensible) numbers. I’d point out that Miggy, who took too many chances when he was younger, has become an 85% base-stealer over the last 4 seasons while Yuni was 1/4 last year and also made a couple other baserunning outs. I’d point out that there was a significant decline in AL offense last year, and if it holds it could make a win cheaper than 10 runs. I’d point out that Yuni’s record vs. RHP last year was basically replacement level, and if it didn’t improve he could well become a platoon player. I’d also point out that baseball salaries continue to rise faster than inflation, and that if the 2MM/win figure in 2005 becomes 2.25MM/win in 06, 2.60MM/win in 07, etc., then your closing evaluations in your post would look much different. I’d point out that currently the conventional wisdom is that power hitters are hurt by the Mariners home park more than average hitters, and so Yuni’s numbers aren’t really getting hurt much by where he plays.
Dave also wrote in response to my comment of players now peaking later than age 27 on average:
Many analysts have no evidence to support this, though.
That may be true, but to pick a couple prominent examples both Ken Cherven and J.C. Bradbury have invested a lot of time and math into this question, and suggest that it’s now statistically more likely to be about 29-30, particularly for better players. I haven’t done the research myself, but are their specific holes in their argument that you see? The anecdotal evidence does not seem to refute their conclusion.
[Why it would be different for the better players I'm not so sure, though a hypothesis could be that perhaps the better players are not only great athletes, but also tend to incorporate more cerebral parts of the game into their approach and these take longer to develop and both create a later peak and also smooth out the decline phase.]
This is a discussion of the relative value of Yuni and Miggy, not an absolute judgement of Tejada’s worth. Therefore, any credit you give to Tejada by using the counting stat is negated when you infer an equivalent number of PAs to Yuni, and therefore on a relative scale this is probably unfair to Tejada as his track record for durability is better than Betancourt’s.
That just might be the most incoherent attempt at an argument I’ve ever read. It makes absolutely zero sense; I can’t begin to comprehend how you turn Dave’s use of counting stats, which benefit Tejada because of his durability, into supposed evidence that Dave is not giving Tejada credit for his durability.
This kind of statement is what I’m talking about when I say your argument is slanted. You know this (what I wrote above), but you don’t bother to point it out, [...]. I think that’s sophistry.
This is getting into a particularly nasty tone that is beneath the level of this discussion.
Please stop.
134:
Yep, most incoherent, ever. Did you even read what I wrote?
Dave is comparing the players as if both of them will play the entire season. This is reasonable for Tejada, as he hasn’t missed a game in years. For Yuni, it is not quite as reasonable, because he doesn’t have the same track record of consistency – ergo, the Mariners would have to use a (presumably worse) replacement player to fill in for time he missed.
Wow. Most incoherent, ever. Normally I’d say screw you for the ad hominem comment, but to be the most incoherent ever is an honor that I shouldn’t dismiss lightly.
More notes: Baseball-reference gives Miggy more than 110 RCs last year. Dave used Hardball Times, which has generally lower numbers for Runs Created and thus makes the difference looks smaller – however, according to the Hardball Times glossary [http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/statpages/glossary/#rc] their version of RCs takes into account ballpark effects – this invalidates a number of Dave’s comments in the original post, including the entire section “Park Effects”.
That is probably also incoherent to “The Ancient Mariner”. Perhaps some other readers will understand it, though.
Sigh. And now I’m “nasty”.
You know what? I don’t think I am nasty. I think I am direct. When I like something, I say I like it, and when I disagree with it, I disagree with it. I don’t lawyer with my language, and I’m not passive aggressive. When someone points out where I’m wrong, I take responsibility. I’ve pointed out a few different places where Dave was indisputably factually wrong, and he has yet to acknowledge it. It doesn’t mean I think he’s an awful person, and in fact I think he’s a very insightful and entertaining writer. That said, he’s made some mistakes in his post, and as that is the topic under discussion, I don’t think it’s unfair to point them out.
I will exit the conversation. Once again I have pissed you off for pointing out some truths.
Re #136: One, because you can restate something in more coherent fashion doesn’t make the original statement coherent. Two, it wasn’t an ad hominem comment, because it wasn’t directed at a hominem but at said hominem’s post. Three, there’s absolutely no reason to presuppose, as you are doing, that Betancourt is likely to play significantly fewer games than Tejada. It’s not a track record of consistency that matters, but a track record of not getting injured, which Betancourt has (albeit a shorter one, but then he’s younger).
Oh, and four — your closing comment actually is an ad hominem comment.
Finally, re #137, it’s obvious you don’t think you’re being nasty, but when you say, essentially, “I know I’m right, therefore you must know I’m right, and since you don’t admit I’m right, you’re therefore guilty of sophistry,” that’s nasty (to say nothing of being extremely poor argumentation).
OK, one last post.
Yes, obviously after you made your crappy comment I responded in kind. The words “I’d normally say screw you” should have been a tip off.
Your comment about not getting injured vs. staying healthy is something most baseball people would agree with. To wit: a player with a long history of staying healthy is more likely to be healthy the next year than a player with a short history of staying healthy.
As far as whether I am nasty or not, I really doubt anything could be determined in this thread. So I won’t write about that. I will instead conclude with these points:
Tejada had an OBP over .350 twice in his career.
The Hardball Times RC numbers take into account park effects.
Using 10 runs/win is obviously arbitrary. If last year’s offensive decline does not disappear, and one takes into consideration the offense-reducing effect of the M’s home stadium, then it is not unreasonable to suggest that a slightly lower number could be in order.
The $/win figure, as calculated by the BP-types, has trended upwards significantly over the last decade. It is reasonable to expect that it will continue to rise over the next few years.
The “peak at 27″ theory is being disputed, particularly for recent players, and particularly for better than average players. Both Ken Cherven (at the 2005 SABR convention) and R.C. Bradbury have written about this using a lot of statistics to back up their claim. Even if you have reason to disregard them, it has always been clear (ever since Bill James first wrote about this) that the typical aging curve goes up, peaks, then declines slowly for a few years before declining steeply. A multi-year peak period, even under the old theory, still tends to the latter side of 27 as opposed to the earlier side.
I would be very interested in seeing other writers respond to these points I’m making, rather than tell me I’m a jerk, which may or may not be true.
[deleted extremely long URL pasted as text]
#40, yes we do….Ichiro, Sexson, Felix
Who do you think the O’s would prefer, Manny at 20 mill per or Felix at chump change per?
On another note, I love lawyers…I really do
Whether the Yankees built a championship core then filled one or two holes (with seven or eight expensive, high-quality free agents, no less!!!) or bought their dynasty is somewhat immaterial. The Yankee way isn’t the only way.
The Marlins and Diamondbacks both bought teams that won the World Series. Yes, I know old codgers do better in Florida and Arizona. Florida might even have bought themselves a mini-dynasty if Huzienga didn’t sell off the team in a tantrum that the good state of Florida wouldn’t give him an even more lucrative new stadium than the one he owned and has made ridiculous outsized profits on.
The Angels largely developed their team.
The best cores developed over the past several years – Oakland, Minn, Texas (look at that infield) – haven’t won much of anything.
There’s more than one way to skin this apple.
Itea:
1) Betancourt has a long history of staying healthy; the fact that Tejada’s is longer is offset by the fact that Tejada is older and thus, on that basis, more likely to get injured.
2) Using 10 runs/win is not in the least arbitrary; it’s supported by decades of research.
3) Just because some people are disputing that players still tend to peak at 27 doesn’t mean they’re right, or even credible.
4) If you try to label something falsely as an ad hominem comment, then make one yourself, it undercuts your standing to make such complaints.
Look I am not a numbers cruncher at all but I know without breaking things down at all that a guy who had 150 RBI’s and hits over .300 is WAY better than a guy who will have 50 RBI and never sniff .280.
Tejeda is AWESOME…I am sure that there are people out there who think Barry Bonds is ‘not much better in left field than Ibanez…but guess what my eyes are not lying to me…70 home runs is better than 20. RUNS WIN GAMES….WE DONT SCORE RUNS. Tejeda drives in runs.
You are neglecting the fact that adding Miggy makes our entire lineup better by offering protection to the 2 hole…providing a guy who gets on base in front of Sexxy and Beltre…and a guy who makes Ichiros 250 single worth something more than a obscrue and unimportant record…it turns Ichi into a run scoring MACHINE again.
WE NEED A 3 HOLE HITTER MORE THAN WE NEED A GOLD GLOVE AT SHORT.
Did you even read the post, #144?
Great post, Dave.
I would add only one caveat to the analysis: that is, if a team is within striking distance of a WS title, then you make the trade. The benefit in the short run is worth the cost in the long run, I believe.
Since that doesn’t describe the M’s, I concur with your conclusion.
This thread is long and kind of fading, but let me remind everyone that no one is claiming Betancourt is better than Tejada, not next year and not over the next four years in total.
The assertion by Dave, backed up by lots of data, is that he isn’t $10M per year better than Betancourt. Sure if the Orioles agreed to pay the difference in salary, the Mariners would make the trade in a heartbeat. But they aren’t going to offer that.
So the idea isn’t just Tejada for Betancourt (which is a no brainer) but Tejada AND his contract for Betancourt and his contract. Or in other words it’s Tejada for Betancourt and giving up the $ to pay Millwood (or someone like him via trade).
One of the contextual facts that makes a ss like Tejada attractive is the woeful contributions made by our outfielders. At the start of 05 there were three cf in Ichiro, Reed and Winn which put so much pressure on the rest of the lineup that an intuitive solution is to seek much better than avg contribution from the ss, 2b and catcher, which has been tepid. There is no reason to think either Lopez or Betancourt will be significant offensive contributors for a year or so more. They need to accumulate plate appearances that equate to a couple of years.
It is not likely that the as currently put together will improve on their run production over last year. Real time the club can’t get free agent pitchers to come here, which is surprising, if the club is competitively bidding. Perhaps, that’s not happening.
I don’t know someone else has wondered this (and i doubt Tejada or either team would do it) but what would you guys feel about a Tejada/Beltre challenge trade to make it near financial wash and if you made Tejada your 3b. would that be an upgrade?
The above was strictly hypothetical by the way.
don’t know someone else has wondered this
Many, many people have floated this.
Yes I read the post..yes I understood the post and yes I disagree WHOLE-HEARTEDLY with the post. I am doing all three at the same time.
people keep talking about Tejeda’s contract? I do not understand this…he is making 12 million per year…that is in NO WAY out of line in fact it is a bargain….Guess what–apply the 8 MILLION that we saved on Sasaki 2 years ago that was never spent–the Mariners have been lying for 10 years about their revenues so it is time for the team with the 3rd highest income in the game to open up the checkbook.
If trading for tejeda means we dont have millwood so be it. As JC says: you can always trade for pitching in the middle of the season…you can NEVER trade for a cleanup hitter….for evidence of this see the M’s seasons in
95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05.
Hmm…I’m too late to directly respond to the posts that contested my post (67). I’ll check more often next time. But I’m still not convinced that Tejada is worse value-wise than Betancourt. I recognize that Betancourt is perceived as having phenomenal defense, while Tejada’s is merely adequate. And I also understand the neccesity of getting good value wherever you can (from a team building perspective). But Tejada is SO much better at offense. Here’s a great article on how valuable star players are:
http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=4535
Nate Silver rates Tejada as being worth about $15 million last year. Not that he’s an end-all be-all source, but it’s another data point that Tejada might be worth the money for now and the future.