What To Do With Jeremy Reed

Dave · December 13, 2005 at 5:43 am · Filed Under Mariners 

The Boston Globe reports this morning that the Red Sox are interested in dealing Matt Clement to the Mariners in a deal that would net them Jeremy Reed.

We’re pretty big Matt Clement fans. We lobbied for the team to sign him last year, and a year later, despite a disappointing performance, he’s still a more intriguing option for the rotation than anyone on the free agent market. However, since the Red Sox backloaded his contract, he is owed $19 million over the next two years.

We’ve discussed Reed to death around here. Yes, he had a poor rookie season with the bat, though his glove appeared to be better than most expected. However, he’s shown promise as a hitter, and there’s no reason to write off his offensive abilities after just 500 at-bats. All along, we’ve projected Reed as a .290/.370/.450 guy in his prime, and while he probably won’t hit that well in 2006, he’s a pretty good bet to improve, and he has a chance to imporve significantly. He also will make the league minimum next year.

Clement struggled with his command at times, and missed some time after getting hit in the head with a line drive, but overall, was an effective starter. He’s a groundballer who also can miss bats but you have to live with occassional bouts of wildness. Even in a mediocre-for-him season, he posted a Fielding Independant ERA of 4.08, which would have easily been the best of the non-Felix Mariners last year. So, there’s little doubt that Clement would be a big upgrade for the M’s rotation.

The question, as it was in the Betancourt-Tejada thread, is fairly simple; is the performance upgrade worth the cost in salary?

Lets look at Clement first. We’ll assume he throws 200 innings next year to make the math easy. If you think he’ll pitch significantly better in Safeco than he did in Fenway, we’ll assume he’d allow 80 runs. If you think he’ll pitch about as well as he did last year, that puts him on track for about 100 runs allowed. If he struggles, we’re looking at about 120 runs. So, depending on your level of optimism, you can peg Clement for something like 80-120 runs allowed.

A replacement level pitcher, in 200 innings, would allow 130 or so runs. For instance, Gil Meche would have given up 128 runs if he had pitched 200 innings last year. So, Clement will likely be worth something like 10 to 50 runs over a replacement level starting pitcher. I’d probably peg him for about 35 runs over replacement myself.

Now, for Reed. Last year, he was worth about 5 runs over a replacement level CF with his bat, and, depending on how you evaluate his defense, his glove was worth somewhere in the 10-15 run range, again, compared to a replacement level defender (some metrics have him way better than that, but the more I study Safeco, the more I think a lot of that was the park). So, Reed, even if he doesn’t improve, is something like 20 runs over replacement. I think most of us expect some improvement. If he hits even .270/.350/.400, he’d be something like 40 runs over a replacement level center fielder when you include his defense.

Based on their 2005 seasons, Clement was worth about about 2 wins more than Jeremy Reed. That’s not worth $9 million per season. Considering that, with even marginal improvement, Reed’s a good bet to be just as valuable as Clement will be, there’s no way I can justify swapping the two straight up.

I like Matt Clement, and I’m glad the M’s are looking into acquiring him. But not at the cost of Jeremy Reed.


114 Responses to “What To Do With Jeremy Reed”

  1. J.R. Caines on December 13th, 2005 6:42 am

    Agreed, I don’t see why everyone is so quick to send Reed packing.

    What else could we put together to snag Clement?

  2. jojo on December 13th, 2005 6:44 am

    Very interesting analysis. Thanks! I have no idea who the M’s would put in center if they trade Reed. Even without your cost analysis, the prospect of centerfield AND leftfield being swirling vortexes of uncertainty make me very lukewarm about any straight-up scenario involving Reed.

  3. M.O. on December 13th, 2005 6:54 am

    How does Clement compare to Millwood?

  4. DJ on December 13th, 2005 6:57 am

    I must admit I was one of those folks who thought it was a good idea to let Cameron walk and focus the money on a better contact hitter…..After seeing what can happen when you don’t have a qualified CF at Safeco, it seems like any trade that sends the M’s only true CF away is not a very good investment. I don’t think Reed is untouchable, but you better have a good glove waiting to replace him!

  5. brad Russell on December 13th, 2005 7:05 am

    When Griffey left his DEFENSE was going to be missed also.When Cameron left his defense was going to be missed. When Reed leaves?
    I thought we had the best centerfielder in the league playing right field for the M’s

  6. chris p on December 13th, 2005 7:09 am

    the reason the red sox are willing to deal clement is becuase they NEED a major league ready for center field. the only way you get him is if you trade reed … unless you have another major league center fielder lying around … say maybe in right field?

  7. Harry on December 13th, 2005 7:10 am

    #5, the argument isn’t that Reed is unreplacable, but he’s a total bargain right now, and can be expected to improve. His defense is outstanding, and Safeco shows that putting a lesser defender or a weaker arm out there is punishing.

    Unfortunately, he looked last season like other batters that have not fared well with the M’s front office in the past. I can see them going for the trade.

  8. anotherjeff on December 13th, 2005 7:11 am

    Thank you…Not only for something to read, but an appropriate place to shout LEAVE REED WHERE HE IS!!! He has gotten a lot of attention lately hasn’t he? Would it be because these other clubs project him to be something, or is it because he’s cheap, yet better than average?
    At the very least, I’d say that Reed’s price goes up given all the intrest surrounding him.

  9. Scooter the mighty on December 13th, 2005 7:26 am

    I’m not sure how much I care about Clement’s price tag. On the one hand, it would suck for them to blow all their money and miss opportunities to improve themselves later because they can’t afford them. On the other hand, it’s not my money and I don’t really care if the M’s waste it or not, I just want the team to win.

    I guess I’m fine with the M’s saving money if they have some plan to do some winning related thing with it later on. If they’re willing to go under payroll this year and then go over payroll by the same amount next year, or something like that, then great. Otherwise as a fan I don’t see any great advantage from my point of view to them saving cash.

  10. Dave on December 13th, 2005 7:32 am

    Once again, the choice isn’t trade for Matt Clement or do nothing. The M’s are going to spend money. The question is whether or not they should spend it on Clement.

    You can’t remove salary from the equation and make any kind of informed decision. You just can’t.

  11. Travis on December 13th, 2005 7:34 am

    I agree JR is great where he is at. My invision of him is higher than most but I just like the guy. I see no reason why he cant be a .300 hitt +- .010. His D, as mentioned was better than expected. Clement is a decent pitcher thats about it. Would I take him on the mariners yes of course. But i dont see an option in center if reed goes. Poor Snelling just can’t seem to do it. Jamal Strong is nice but I dont think he is a starter. Maybe Choo? I dunno if he is ready. The point is i think JR is fine where he is and the mariners should look at a different trade option.

  12. DJ on December 13th, 2005 7:35 am

    Until somebody can give me reason to believe otherwise, i don’t agree that ichiro is the M’s solution at CF. Ichiro has played a total of 24 innings in CF in his MLB career. He has a great arm, and has proven over and over he is best suited for that corner. I’m not saying if they brought in Vlad tomorrow Ichiro shouldn’t move to CF, but i don’t think Ichiro should be the M’s backup plan and expect everything to flow perfectly and everyone will be happy.

    How wierd is it that Reed who hit .250 last year with no power and is happily signed with a team is attracting attention from teams like the Yankees and Boston. Yet Carl Everett who has been an All-star and “helped” a team get to a World Series last year is only attracting the attention from one last place team?!?!?! The scouts must be onto something! Keep Reed and pass on Everett!

  13. chris p on December 13th, 2005 7:41 am

    uh, dj … maybe because the yankees and red sox are looking for a center fielder, not a dh?

  14. PT on December 13th, 2005 7:42 am

    Is it appropriate to use this kind of argument to compare position players with pitchers? It seems to me that the $/win may be different (for better or worse) for the two groups. Take for instance a pitcher expected to post an ERA of 3.0. He would give up 67 runs in 200 innings, saving 63 runs over replacement. Subtract out JR’s expected ~40 runs, you get a difference of 23 runs, or about two wins. In general, wins are valued at between 2-3M, so the pitcher would have to carry a price tag of ~4-6M/season or less to make the deal worth doing? (This is all hypothetical. No risk of injury, etc.)

    Hmmm, after writing that I realize that Milwood and Burnett are the closest comparisons to the hypothetical, and their salaries are 10M+. Signing them as free agents mean that you don’t lose Reed’s 40 runs (4 wins), so I guess those salaries are not that high. I guess your post points out that:

    1) non-tier 1 pitchers are overvalued (Morris, etc.)
    2) pitchers in general should not have a perceived higher value than position players
    3) cheap decent position players are very valuable (duh, I guess)

    Of course, that all changes if you can trade one cheap decent position player and replace him with another in your system…

  15. DJ on December 13th, 2005 7:48 am

    Yes i know the reason the Yankees and Sox are looking at Reed is because they are or could be in the market for a CF. I’m making two points:

    1. It’s not just people in Seattle that think Reed will be a MLB level CF for many years to come.
    2. Why is Seattle pursuing an aging DH in December when there are still BETTER players out there that would fit that OF/DH lefty need the M’s have.

  16. Hub on December 13th, 2005 7:51 am

    Good Front Offices do not trade young (and cheap) talent that sports a solid-to-good upside. Especially superb defensive players in premier positions like SS, CF, etc. Not to mention FO’s that are NOT merely seeking the final piece to an already competitive team, but simply trying to BECOME ‘competitive’. And double-especially not one that has no clear solution to filling the vacuum left from the move. Bottom line: Reed shouldn’t be going anywhere this offseason.

  17. Dave on December 13th, 2005 7:57 am

    1) non-tier 1 pitchers are overvalued (Morris, etc.)
    2) pitchers in general should not have a perceived higher value than position players
    3) cheap decent position players are very valuable (duh, I guess)

    Summed up perfectly. You wrote in 30 words what took me several hundred.

  18. Thumper on December 13th, 2005 7:57 am

    A lot of Boston fans have told me that Clement simply wasn’t the same pitcher after he got hit in the head in Tampa Bay. This seems to be true based on a cursory glance at his statistics – do they lie, or is there something to this theory? And what to what degree is it important in discussions concerning his marketability?

  19. Dave on December 13th, 2005 7:59 am

    Take for instance a pitcher expected to post an ERA of 3.0. He would give up 67 runs in 200 innings, saving 63 runs over replacement.

    Also, I should note, I was using raw runs allowed, not earned runs allowed, since RA has a better year to year correlation than ERA. So, when I say Clement will give up 80 runs in 200 innings, rather than that being an ERA of 3.60, that’s probably an ERA of 3.30 with the rest of the runs being unearned.

  20. Phil on December 13th, 2005 8:03 am

    While I was with you 100% on Tejada, but this one is a little more complicated. The ‘X’ factor here is what we could realistically expect out of Choo or Strong or whomever as Reed’s replacement. We know that Clement would be replacing an essentially replacement-level player (Meche), but if we can get even 10 runs over replacement out of Choo or Strong it’d make this deal more palatable – especially considering that a piece of Clement’s cost would be offset by ditching Meche’s (or Pinero’s, or Franklin’s) salary.

    For example, the differential cost between Meche and Clement is about $6M per. If we get replacement-level play out of CF, we’d be paying roughly $4M per win (yikes!) but if we can get +10 runs out of the replacement CF, we’re down to $2.4M per win (high, but not unreasonably so).

    Anybody willing to take a stab at projections for our options at CF sans Reed? And no, moving Ichiro isn’t a solution, becuase then you’ve got a huge hole in RF.

  21. Adam B. on December 13th, 2005 8:04 am

    I guess in large part, my opinion on a trade like this would hinge on two variables.

    (1) How much cash would the BoSox include in a deal?

    (2) Who are the Mariners going to replace Reed with?

    There is no way for me to speculate on the former variable, but as for the second, it’s not like centerfielders grow on trees.

    Certainly there aren’t any real free-agent replacements.
    As some of the other readers have mentioned, it would be possible for the M’s to move Ichiro into center, but whether he’d be amenable to such a shift has seemed dubious in the past, and it’d just open up ANOTHER corner outfield spot.
    This kind of plan does lend credance to the Trot Nixon/Matt Clement package speculation–But would the Sox really be willing to part with both? And just what kind of package would the M’s have to come up with to convince them to do so?

    …At least we didn’t sign Morris.


  22. chris p on December 13th, 2005 8:04 am

    clement’s problems started before the beaning. i think it was fatigue, and then lack of confidence. he was dropping his arm slot alot, and late in the season he was really nibbling. when your best pitch is a slider, you can’t drop your arm slot or everything gets flat, and when you can’t throw anything straight (his greatest asset is the movement on all his pitches), you can’t nibble.

  23. MER on December 13th, 2005 8:05 am

    Another fascinating analysis that alters one’s perception of the relative worth of a ball player. I think I’m in the majority who believe that trading Reed for a Clement, Pavano etc. is not a great idea. It would seem that for a team with the Mariners resources that perhaps overpaying for free agents may be preferable to trading away your young (ie less expensive) talent. In other words, Millwood at $11M/yr and losing a draft choice is preferable to Clement at $8M/yr and losing Reed.

  24. chris w on December 13th, 2005 8:06 am

    The only way Reed is tradeable is if Ichiro can/will play centerfield. If he won’t, you have (as with trading Betancourt) created one huge hole to fill another.

    Also, using Dave’s analysis, the Ms might not ever sign any free agents – they’d play a bunch of slightly better than replacement level players at every position and win 70 games. That’s what they’d get with a team full of Reed-level players without any superstars. That would be incredibly cheap and efficient, but I don’t think anyone thinks it’s a good idea long-term.

    I don’t think the Ms should trade Reed for Clement, but I do think it’s worth noting they’re in a pickle. They have a bunch of slightly better than replacement-level players, both young and cheap and old and declining, and it’s tough to upgrade from that situation. It’s why a lot of people – myself included – are writing off 2006 for them. They might get to 90 wins next year, but if they do, it will be by doing things like trading Reed for Clement or paying far too much for Millwood. If they’re going to make the push, they should do it when Lopez/Reed/Felix really hit their stride in 2007.

  25. Dave on December 13th, 2005 8:07 am

    For example, the differential cost between Meche and Clement is about $6M per.

    Don’t assume that you have to pay $3 million for a replacement level pitcher. Just because we did last year doesn’t mean we have to this year. The M’s could easily non-tender Meche and grab another AAAA pitcher off the scrap heap that would give them similar performance as to what Gil did last year.

    The incremental cost between Clement and a replacement level player is $9 million. The fact that the pitching market is so screwed up at the moment doesn’t change that.

  26. Dave on December 13th, 2005 8:10 am

    Also, using Dave’s analysis, the Ms might not ever sign any free agents

    Actually, if you’ll remember back, I recommended signing all kinds of free agents. The only free agent signings I have come out against are the midlevel contracts for marginal players. I have no problem paying $11 million per season for Kevin Millwood. In fact, I think its a good idea.

    That’s what they’d get with a team full of Reed-level players without any superstars.

    You’re missing the point. I’m not in favor of a team full of cheap young players and no stars. I’m in favor of a team full of cheap young players and stars. I’m just not in favor of trading our cheap young players for these so-called-stars. The M’s need both Reed and a pitcher like Clement. Trading one for the other isn’t productive.

  27. DoesntCompute on December 13th, 2005 8:11 am


    The method of analysis used worked when you were looking at a SS for SS trade because one would replace the other. With Reed/Clement, you have to look at the other two players for a complete analysis. Who is going to replace Reed and who would pitch if we don’t get Clement. What is the value and cost of these other two players? When you combine all 4 then you know whether the trade is good or not.

  28. Dave on December 13th, 2005 8:13 am

    Thats why I used a replacement level baseline for both. By definition, a replacement level pitcher and a replacement level CF are of the same value and neither should cost more than the league minimum.

    If you want names, feel free to plug in “T.J. Bohn” where you see “replacement level CF” and “Bobby Livingston” where you see “replacement level pitcher”.

  29. jojo on December 13th, 2005 8:14 am

    #20…yes…I will……. eeeeehhhhh heeee heeee heeee heeee (sound of evil witch flying by your ear as youre caught in the swirling vortex carrying you to OZ)

  30. Jesse on December 13th, 2005 8:14 am

    This also depends a lot on how excited the front office is about Jones. I like him pushing Reed over to left in a couple of years (if he keeps developing well) much better than I like him taking over for some stopgap CFer, but if they have a lot of faith in him maybe being able to make an impact in ’07, and they think they can work something out with Clement for a while, a stopgap CFer might be worth it.

    But I’d rather overpay Millwood.

  31. Ivan on December 13th, 2005 8:17 am

    I am told that Ichiro *refuses* to play CF, just as he *refuses* to bat anywhere in the lineup but leadoff.

    My source for this, of course, is the reporter known as “pocket lint,” who all the “kewl kidz” think is a dirtbag, so no one will believe this, and in truth, all I have is his word for it. I offer it as just another tidbit, and make no claim for its accuracy.

    I am still pissed that they ran Cameron out of here. Reed is a decent ballplayer, but a considerable step down from Cameron. He has no power, and has not demonstrated that he can handle hard stuff inside.

    I do not consider Reed a long-term solution if this team is to advance, and I would love to move him right out of here. But there is no one to take his place in CF. Strong has no arm and less power than Reed. Adam Jones is two years away at best and who knows how his defense is, or if he will hit at this level. Choo has already been dismissed as not worthy.

    So they’re stuck. I don’t make this trade either, not even straight up.

  32. msb on December 13th, 2005 8:18 am

    this is not how I want to start the week, with rumors like this one and both the PI & Times telling me that a deal is almost done for Everett.

  33. David H on December 13th, 2005 8:18 am

    Let’s hope this is just posturing by both Bavasi and the dynamic duo in charge of the BoSox. They decided to hype the trade talk to gain some leverage with two Boras clients. Please.

    I just can’t imagine the thinking process that leads to a decision to deal Reed for Clement (or, gasp!, Pavano) when the choices are:

    1) pay ~10/year for a good pitcher, or
    2) pay ~10/year for a good pitcher, and give away Jeremy Reed for the right to do so.

    I know, there’s a difference between 2 years and 4 or 5 years, but still, that’s crazy talk.

  34. Kelly on December 13th, 2005 8:24 am

    I think Dave’s summation in the comment thread is right on the money. Yes, we need pitchers like Clement, but we need Reed too. Trading Reed for Clement is robbing Peter to pay Paul.

    There is a time when you are willing to trade guys like Reed. That time is when you are on the verge and are willing to part with young talent to give yourself a chance at a ring. The White Sox did it the year before last. Stand Pat surely had opportunities to move Nageotte and Blackley back in 2001, but he didn’t.

    Trading away our promising youngsters for a guy like Clement is a zero sum move, a move simply for the sake of making a move.

  35. Frozenropers on December 13th, 2005 8:26 am

    #30: I find it interesting that you do not consider Reed a long term solution in CF if the M’s are to “advance”……yet the two teams rumored to be interested in trading for him…..are two teams trying to get the “final pieces” that will put themselves in the World Series…….

    ……so why is Reed good enough to play CF on a title contending team in NY or Boston (not to mention Beane’s rumored soft spot for Reed) but not good enough to be the CF in Seattle?

    ….and if you argument is going to be that Boston and NY have the “other” star pieces already in place……then shouldn’t the M’s be working on getting another “star” piece instead of trading Reed for another “complimentary piece”?

  36. spokane dude on December 13th, 2005 8:31 am

    First, I expect the Red Sox will re-sign Johnny Damon, making those whole discussion moot.

    Second, this article came from a Boston paper, suggesting to me that it’s a Boston-originated idea, not necessarily something Bill Bavasi’s interested in doing.

  37. Colorado M's fan on December 13th, 2005 8:43 am

    Dave wrote -

    “The M’s need both Reed and a pitcher like Clement. Trading one for the other isn’t productive.”

    Isn’t there another way to look at this? It’s difficlt to know for sure unless you can get inside the M’s front office and be privy to all they are thinking. It could be argued that, given the current silly pitching market, filling a hole in the starting rotation is just harder than filling a hole in CF. You would have to take a holistic view of all the deals the M’s are pursuing, then factor in what we have in the minors at both positions, and what else is available out there in the FA/trade markets for, say, this year and next year.

    Putting this another way… if you had Clement and Boston had Reed… how would you feel about making this trade the other direction?

    Obviously, the other elements of this trade (if there are any) would be pretty important.

  38. martino on December 13th, 2005 8:43 am

    This is a fun argument, but it strikes me more as a rumor floated by the Red Sox to send Johnny Damon a message.

    I’d have to say I’m in the “no” camp on a Reed for Clement trade, but if this were to go through, it seems to me it would have to be the first domino in a series of moves. I can’t imagine they’d trade Reed and then try and replace him with one of the M’s Not Ready For Prime Time minor leaguers.

    The last few threads here are really a sign of how deadly slow things have been progressing thus far this off season. Seems every minor rumor that pops up is followed buy a huge 100+ response thread. Not that I’m not eating it up myself, but I’m anxious to talk about actual transactions rather than theoretical transactions.

  39. Kelly on December 13th, 2005 8:45 am

    Bavasi is in a really tough spot. You know he and team are trying extraordinarily hard to pull off a good deal that will push the team to 85 wins next year. He knows that if he doesn’t he could be looking for another job next year.

    But the truth is that the cards are stacked against him this year. He doesn’t have the chips to pull of a good trade, and the free agent pool this year is extremely shallow. (And much of what was available (Burnett, Vazquez) didn’t want to play East of the Mississippi.

    And while everyone would love to pull off the “big” deal to get the fans excited, simply making a move to get that new talent doesn’t help the team in the long run. Nor will it help Bavasi’s reputation in the baseball fraternity. (I would argue that any hypothetical deal we could do that results in us getting a “big” name like Manny is a really chump thing to do. Simply trying to lure fans with shiny trinkets is just lame – and doesn’t result in more wins. We would simply turn into the Orioles of the West Coast.)

    We can continue holding our breath to see where Millwood signs. If that doesn’t happen, and our rotation next year is just like last year’s, we are still better than last year. We get a full year of Felix, Johjima, and an improved Reed, Beltre, and Betancourt. We WILL be better even if Meche and Franklin or out there next year. And we will still be in position to continue improving the team in ’07.

    Gotta Take the Long View

  40. Tek Jansen on December 13th, 2005 8:45 am

    The Boston rumor, combined with the Juan Pierre rumor, makes me believe that Bavasi is willing to deal Reed for pitching. I hope this, as well as the Everett deal, does not materialize.

  41. Tek Jansen on December 13th, 2005 8:46 am

    And I agree with #38.

  42. The Ancient Mariner on December 13th, 2005 8:46 am

    Point to #5: no one who knew anything thought that when Junior left, his glove would be missed, because anyone who had paid any attention at all to Cameron knew he was a significant upgrade with the leather. If we were looking at dealing Reed for, say, Chris Young, your point would be relevant; but if we deal him for Clement, the question of who replaces his glove in the OF is truly significant.

  43. Dave on December 13th, 2005 8:53 am

    It could be argued that, given the current silly pitching market, filling a hole in the starting rotation is just harder than filling a hole in CF.

    I disagree. Name the good major league center fielders.

    Andruw, Edmonds, Damon, Wells, Beltran, Hunter, Cameron, Kotsay, Rowand, Dejesus, Bradley (who comes with his own set of issues) and Sizemore. That’s about it. There are some ones you could live with, such as Pierre, Winn, Lofton, and Clark, but not guys that most teams would see as long term solutions. Then you’ve got guys like Reed, Granderson, and Gathright, all of whom project to be solid players eventually, but aren’t quite yet.

    Of those, who is actually available? You can pay an arm and a leg to sign Damon. You could sign Kenny Lofton as a stop-gap. Or you can try to talk the M’s out of Reed or the Devil Rays out of Gathright. That’s about it. Those are your options, if you need a major league CF.

    And there are about 6-8 teams that badly need a major league CF.

    As much as everyone was disappointed by Reed last year, you have to keep in mind that half the teams in baseball would kill to have him as their starting CF right now.

  44. Ivan on December 13th, 2005 8:54 am

    My answer to #34 is that the Yankees and Red Sox have all the bang they need, so they can afford a lame bat like Reed. The Mariners do not have that luxury. You’re comparing apples with dog biscuits here.

  45. Colorado M's fan on December 13th, 2005 9:04 am

    Dave said -

    “…Those are your options, if you need a major league CF.”

    How would you feel about that if it turned out Ichiro was willing to play CF as part of the team effort to improve?

    BTW… I *love* Reed and totally agree that people are too quick to dump such a young player, but I am just wondering if maybe the FO is adjusting their strategy to fit what the market has to offer instead of trying to force a round peg into a square hole. Bavasi himself noted that most of the trades he is looking at fill one hole by opening another due to their lack of overall depth.

  46. David H on December 13th, 2005 9:06 am

    Of course, from the language in the article, it is possible Bavasi has not discussed this possibility at all. It says the Sox have discussed it, and, with the 4 headed monster they had running the show until recently, there is a lot of discussion to be had in the crowed corner office.

    The article says, “the Red Sox have discussed a deal with the Mariners . . .” which could easily mean they have only had internal discussions, and the reporter is trying to make the story more interesting by phrasing it in a way that, while truthful, insinuates that there have been conversations with the M’s. It does not say, “the Red Sox have discussed with the Mariners a deal . . .”

    A couple of the comments, including mine, seem founded on the assumption that Bavasi has talked with them about this deal. That might not be the case.

  47. Dave on December 13th, 2005 9:08 am

    If you move Ichiro to CF (assuming that its possible, which a lot of reports say its not), then you have to fill a hole in RF. Which, as we’re finding out trying to find a left fielder, isn’t exactly easy either.

    If it was Reed for Clement and Nixon, I might consider it. Maybe. But there’s no way Boston offers that.

  48. GWO on December 13th, 2005 9:11 am

    Here are two crappy pitchers:

    Player A: ERA: 5.72, IP 74.0, H 79, BB 33, K 49, BAA .273, WHIP : 1.51
    Player B: ERA: 5.32, IP 88.0, H 113, BB 21, K 44, BAA .309, WHIP : 1.52

    Which one would you rather have? Neither? They’re pretty sucky.

    Well, Player B is Matt Morris, post 2005 All-Star Break. Dave said

    “Since the all-star break, Matt Morris has been, well, awful. His numbers across the board have taken a nosedive. His strikeout rate has fallen and he’s getting lit up like a Christmas tree. He has a history of arm problems, and at this point, wouldn’t be a good bet even on a one year contract.”

    Player A is, Matt Clement, post 2005 All-Star Break. Dave says:

    “despite a disappointing performance, he’s still a more intriguing option for the rotation than anyone on the free agent market.”

    Of course, Matt Clement is younger than Matt Morris. By three whole days.

  49. Dave on December 13th, 2005 9:13 am

    And Matt Clement didn’t have labrum surgery last offseason. And Matt Clement didn’t experience a significant drop in velocity during the second half. And Matt Clement didn’t lead the majors in breaking balls thrown in 2005.

    Matt Morris did, though.

  50. Frozenropers on December 13th, 2005 9:16 am

    #44: Like I said, if that’s your argument…then trading Reed for pitching doesn’t solve the problem…….

    Add a big bat in LF and Reed remain’s a great, inexpensive complimentary piece to the M’s team.

  51. Frozenropers on December 13th, 2005 9:21 am

    #49….I’d also add Dave, that Morris didn’t have a ball bounce off his melon around mid season like Clement did. I’d have to say that impacted Clement’s second half just a bit…..hopefully its nothing long term….

  52. Ivan on December 13th, 2005 9:31 am

    My answer to #50 is:

    Did I or did I not say to make the trade? I said do NOT make the trade. What the hell are you arguing about? We agree, don’t make this trade. You don’t like my reasons?

    Yeah, DUH, obviously if they add a big bat in LF they can afford to carry Reed. Let me know when that happens, OK? Reed is a decent but not great CF, and his bat is killing them. You want to think he’s Willie Mays out there, that’s your problem.

  53. km4_1999 on December 13th, 2005 9:40 am

    I don’t think the M’s can trade a Reed for Clement. We don’t have the players within the system to replace him. Thus we always get back to the same issue. OUR SYSTEM. A year from now we could look at trading Reed as Adam Jones could be ready. Maybe not but could. We cant solve one position when we would blow a hole in another. Especially when you get Clement for 2 years when you have Reed locked down for the next several.

  54. RealRhino on December 13th, 2005 9:41 am

    Boy, for a guy who is no good, Reed sure is getting a lot of interest. I don’t think the argument that these teams are just looking for any ol’ guy to play CF as a final piece to the puzzle is a good one. The two teams we are talking about were certainly not without starting rotation problems last year, so it seems odd they would jettison whatever depth they have there just to get a glove in CF.

    With this type of analysis, I think it’s clear that it just isn’t usually a good idea to deal cheap, young talent for older, expensive talent, unless you are very close to a championship or the expensive player fills a need that can’t be met anywhere else and you have a suitable replacement option for the youngster. I hate to be stubborn, but why complicate things? We have a young 2B, SS and CF for next year. We seem set at C, 1B, 3B, RF and DH. Just go get a LF and a SP somewhere. Creating a hole just to fill another doesn’t make a lot of sense.

  55. murton on December 13th, 2005 9:41 am

    Sure Gil Meche projected to give up a replacement level number of runs in 200 innings but he didn’t get close to 200 innings so his value was significantly less. If the Mariners had a factory that enabled them easily stock half their rotation with replacement level starters who could give 200 innings a year, Matt Clement wouldn’t be worth it. But for the next two seasons, the prospect of that happening just isn’t there. Too many replacement level starters pitch poorly too often that they don’t near 200 innings. So in actuality, perhaps, Clement has a great performance differential than what the Mariners can expect from much of their starting rotation.

  56. Evan on December 13th, 2005 9:44 am

    Morris didn’t have a ball bounce off his melon around mid season like Clement did.

    Clement went down pretty hard when that happened. What really impressed me was when Carl Pavano took a line drive to the side of his head and didn’t even loose his footing.

  57. Sir Topham Hatt on December 13th, 2005 9:45 am

    Personally I like the deal. I’m a big Clement fan, the mariners need pitching, and we are going to sign Everett for CF. I’m tired of the “rotis” mentality. I can;t trade a guy because of his low contract. At some point you have to go for established talent instead of value of contract if you want to be taken seriously.

    Rototimes: The Mariners are expected to announce later this week that they have reached an agreement with Carl Everett (OF) CWS on a contract for either one year, or one year plus a club option for 2007, according to the Seattle Times.

  58. Frozenropers on December 13th, 2005 9:46 am

    #50, Ok then we agree regarding the trade……..but I’d disagree that Reed’s bat is “killing” the M’s offense……what killed the M’s offense was that Beltre didn’t have the season they thought he would or that they are paying him to have……..well that and Boone tanking…..our blackhole at Catcher in 2005 and the blackhole we received from SS during the first half of the season. That is what killed the offense…….

    So, now we are back to our original issue……..lets go find a big bat for LF and be done with it. :o )

  59. Dave on December 13th, 2005 9:48 am

    we are going to sign Everett for CF

    Umm, if Everett signs, he’s going to DH. There’s no way he sets foot in center field at Safeco. Talk about a disaster.

    At some point you have to go for established talent instead of value of contract if you want to be taken seriously.

    That point, for the M’s, is not now.

  60. Bill on December 13th, 2005 9:49 am

    Clement’s second-half decline should not be dismissed so quickly. Since getting hit in the head with a line-drive in July, there have been reports that Clement has altered his mechanics and remains affected, mechanically and mentally, by the on-field injury he suffered. The numbers support this, in the same way they support the notion that Matt Morris was tiring last season because of the labrum surgery he had in the previous offseason.

    Prior to line drive to face: 128 IP, 7.6 K/9, 2.9 BB/9, 108:42 K:BB ratio
    Post-line drive: 66.1 IP, 5.2 K/9, 3.5 BB/9, 38:26 K:BB ratio

    It’s not like Clement’s ERA spiked due to some flukey balls-in-play bad luck or anything like that. There’s a marked difference in the way the guy was pitching after that Tampa Bay game on 7/26 and it shows up in the important stats. I like Clement a lot and wanted the M’s to sign him last year. But honestly, right now, I’m just not sure Matt Clement is the same guy who looked so appealing last offseason.

  61. Frozenropers on December 13th, 2005 9:53 am

    #57…Did you just suggest that Carl Everett would fill the hole in CF if the M’s traded Reed? lol.

    Sorry…..had to laugh at the idea….

  62. David H on December 13th, 2005 9:54 am
  63. Jim on December 13th, 2005 9:56 am

    The analysis is great, but at what point do the Mariners (and teams like them) start paying for the marginal wins that will result in a playoff spot? The easiest thing to do is to hover between 75-85 wins every year. Those last ten wins are the most expensive and oftentimes, hold the most risk in acquisition.

  64. Brian Rust on December 13th, 2005 10:05 am

    If the BoSox will throw in Jacoby Ellsbury, I say go for it. I think he’s got more upside than Reed anyway.

  65. Dave on December 13th, 2005 10:12 am

    but at what point do the Mariners (and teams like them) start paying for the marginal wins that will result in a playoff spot?

    When it’s evident that they’d be purchasing the marginal wins that would result in a playoff spot.

  66. Rob on December 13th, 2005 10:13 am

    I think that when you compared the value of runs per season of each player, you have to include the CF that the M’s would put in as well… In essence we would be really getting Clement AND the guy we plug into CF for Reed. I still don’t think that makes up for the extreme cost differences just by having, say Adam Jones in CF(which would be highly unlikely as well), but it has to be looked at either way I feel.

  67. Sir Topham Hatt on December 13th, 2005 10:16 am

    No, I wasn;t suggesting Everett play CF…I was typing too fast…lol. What I was suggesting is Everett replaces Reed and we have a replacement level player in CF. Sorry for the confusion.

  68. Melvin Bob on December 13th, 2005 10:18 am

    Thank You! Thank You! I applaud you for understanding that Jeremy Reed is more valuable than the overpaid Matt Clement and Chan Ho Pavano.

  69. Dreamer on December 13th, 2005 10:19 am

    While were throwing out possible replacement names for Reed….
    Dave, Jason, Derek and all those who have a clue, what would it take for the Mariners to get Corey Patterson from the Cubs…and why are there reports that Corey may be non-tendered by the Cubs? Per many experts 2 years ago, Corey was above average defensively and speed-wise, great arm and potential future all-star…just because he can’t hit in 400 AB’s in the majors he now a bust???
    Even if we do not trade Reed, Corey could be a “cheap Jacque Jones” in LF.

  70. Dave on December 13th, 2005 10:20 am

    I think that when you compared the value of runs per season of each player, you have to include the CF that the M’s would put in as well

    Thus, the concept of replacement level, which was used in the post.

    In essence we would be really getting Clement AND the guy we plug into CF for Reed

    And you’d be losing Reed AND the guy you would plug into the rotation.

    We’re working off the assumption that Replacement CF and Replacement Pitcher are of equal value and price.

  71. Bonefan on December 13th, 2005 10:29 am

    Um, the most astute observation on this topic is Dave’s that CF’s are more valuable this offseason than the calibre of starting pitching available (via trade or free agency). We can argue where Reed fits along the spectrum of MLB CF’s (with his rather limited career data). But one would hope Bavasi is reading the same macroeconomics text as Dave and at least realizes he is negotiating from strength any time JR comes up. Curious if there’s a pitcher Dave would use as a hypothetical benchmark for whom he would trade Reed stright up.

    And um, yes, the use of “um” as a dismissive rejoinder in posts is played out. I for one have been guilty of its use, but will now pretend posting costs $1 per character, and that’s $2 an “um.” (Unless it is actually shorthand for “u moron,” in which case it’s a bargain.)

  72. eponymous coward on December 13th, 2005 10:30 am

    The problem uderlying is that if the M’s don’t have enough young prospects to toss into deals for Pierre/Pavano/etc., they don’t have enough for deals for Clement, either- even if they are trading Reed instead of AAA players.

    As Bavasi has pointed out, the farm system’s thin right now- we have some young players at the major league level, but what we DON’T have is a clear case of someone being blocked (and Reed’s not really even our farm system’s product- he’s a dividend of Mark Langston, if you go back far enough). I’d like, once again, to thank Pat Gillick and Frank Mattox for this state of affairs.

    In all likelihood, 2007 might be better for those kinds of deals, because Adam Jones might be in Tacoma, Choo might have picked up some in a year, and guys like Clement, Cabrera and Tuiasosopo will be closer…but Bavasi’s problem is if he ends up with his big offseason acqusitions being Johjima, Elarton and Everett, plus resigning Moyer, he’s not likely to be around for 2007.

  73. jack howland on December 13th, 2005 10:33 am

    #69 – Corey Patterson has had over 2000 at bats and gets on base about as much as Willie Bloomquist.

    Chuck Armstrong seems frustrated with Reed. He commented to me that he hits into too many double plays and doesn’t make enough productive outs as they would like. The feeling that I had was that they had kind of already given up on him which might be why he’s mentioned in so many trade speculations. I personally like Reed and think that he has a lot more to offer than he showed last year, but a new organization might be best for him if this one has indeed soured on him.

  74. eponymous coward on December 13th, 2005 10:36 am

    Chuck Armstrong seems frustrated with Reed. He commented to me that he hits into too many double plays and doesn’t make enough productive outs as they would like.

    Good grief, are you serious? My brain just boggled- that the head of the M’s baseball organization wants to give up on a 24 year old because of “productive outs”.

    If Billy Beane’s reading this blog entry, he needs to be picking up the phone NOW.

  75. jojo on December 13th, 2005 10:39 am

    #69, I think it would take a stale lobster tail and a couple of CANS of salmon… The Cubbies are probably going to non-tender him on the 19th….they might trade him for the usual PTBNL or they might just throw him to the alley to let the muts fight over him.

    On another note, somewhere on an obscure Bosox blog, some lawyer fella is feverishly working on a thread where he compares the performance-cost benefit of Damon vs Reed to convince his loyal bloggee’s (his mother, his wife, and Curt Schilling) that the Redsox arent trying to simply leverage Damon but are in fact serious and smart as hell kinda of fellas…

    I havent taken the time to actually verify my perception but impretty sure Reed wins the analysis much like Yuni wins versus Miggy. Worst case scenario, the Redsox would get rid of a pitcher they dont want, get a potential gold glover in center who they can insert into a lineup that will let his bat grow without ANY pressure, and of course, force the Yankees to give Damon a 12 year, billion dollar deal.

  76. Nate on December 13th, 2005 10:39 am

    Sorry to nitpick, Dave, but can you clarify your comments:

    Is Clement “more intriguing” than any free agent available, including Millwood? Or is it, if all things were equal, that you’d rather have Clement, but don’t want to forfeit the talent necessary to get him?

    Another thing we really should consider as part of comparing Jeremy Reed and Clement is the level of certainty about their performance. Isn’t there a much greater chance that Reed disappoints more than there is for Clement? In other words, we’re much less likely to get medocrity from Clement than from Reed, right? We really can’t reduce it completely to runs over replacement, because of the different probabilities for success that each player has.

  77. eponymous coward on December 13th, 2005 10:44 am

    Isn’t there a much greater chance that Reed disappoints more than there is for Clement?

    Why would you assert that? Being able to assess future major league performance from minor league stats is pretty well established. It’s pretty likely that Reed’s better than Scott Podsednik, for instance- Reed has far better minor league stats.

  78. djw on December 13th, 2005 10:45 am

    Isn’t there a much greater chance that Reed disappoints more than there is for Clement?

    Didn’t we just establish that Clement pretty clearly “disappointed” for the last 100 innings or so?

    Aren’t both pitchers and older players more likely to suffer unexpected declines?

    I don’t know the answer to your question, but I doubt it’s as clear as you make it sound.

  79. mln on December 13th, 2005 11:04 am

    Be careful of damaged goods. Matt Clement may be such a player

  80. Mike Snow on December 13th, 2005 11:09 am

    On who replaces Reed if we trade him (not this trade necessarily, just trading him in general)

    We’re still in on Jacque Jones, and could potentially put him in center I would say. That way, he might be more worth the money he looks to be getting.

  81. Mike Snow on December 13th, 2005 11:12 am

    Then again, there’s conflicting information on whether we’re still interested in Jones. ESPN says we are, the P-I says we’re not.

  82. jojo on December 13th, 2005 11:13 am

    All indications are that Jones has completely moved off of the M’s radar.

  83. jack howland on December 13th, 2005 11:17 am

    If Jones if off the radar and Reed is mentioned in all trade speculation, could this team actually be looking at signing Johnny Damon?

  84. Adam S on December 13th, 2005 11:18 am

    The downside of Reed is he repeats 2005. He isn’t likely to decline defensively and his offense was on the lower end of projections. The downside of Clement is that he pitches like he did the second half, after getting beaned, and is a replacement level player.

    I guess it depends what you mean by “disappoints”. The chance that Reed doesn’t earn his salary is 0. The chance that Clement doesn’t earn his is 50-60%.

    From this analysis and the Betancourt-Tejada one it seems that in general $8M players earning $10M or $16M players earning $20M should essentially be free in trades, as the team benefits from addition by subtraction. At the same time, teams are asking for, and sometimes getting (see Delgado or Renteria), top major-league ready prospects. Is this just lack of foresight by GMs? Is it teams who feel like they’re a player away from the playoffs and need to mortgage the future?

  85. J.R. Caines on December 13th, 2005 11:19 am

    So, Jones and Millwood= out, Everrett and Elarton = in? Screw that!

    Come on M’s, grow a set and pull something like last year.

  86. anotherjeff on December 13th, 2005 11:20 am

    I have the solution…WFB for Clement…Straight up. Willie can do it all!

  87. Gomez on December 13th, 2005 11:25 am

    You know who would play CF everyday for the M’s if we traded Reed? Not Ichiro.

    Willie Bloomquist.

    Why not Ichiro in CF, as many of you are suggesting? Ichiro hasn’t played many games in CF and indications from his opinions on the topic are that he’d balk at the switch if at all possible. Playing RF saves his legs for his major strengths, which are running the bases and running out grounders for infield hits, because our short RF porch means less space to patrol. One could even argue that, while he is a good defender with good range and a willingness to make spiderman catches at the wall, that patrolling a relatively small RF inflates his defensive rep just a bit. How do we know that he will be a good, let alone gold glove defender playing a completely different position and being asked to cover more territory with more dubious circumstances? As it stands, he only has to think about the CF on balls hit to right center. Now he has to think of the range of the LF on balls hit to left center as well as the range of the new RF on balls hit to right center.

    People underestimate how difficult it can be to switch positions in the majors. Reed makes this sh*t look easy. Giving him up costs us more than you think.

    Plus, Ichiro having to run after more balls in play will wear on his legs, meaning he’ll run out fewer grounders for base hits, probably steal even fewer bases. He’ll lose value as a hitter. Plus as stated, Ichiro moving opens up a gap in right. At best, he saves an equal number of runs to Reed in CF. But many of the runs Ichiro saved in right will be given away by Insert Replacement and/or Slugger Who Can’t Really Field But Tries… Sometimes Here.

    Ichiro has had the chance to move to CF in the past and has eschewed it. So given precedent, we’ll probably do what we did in ’05 when Reed went down, and give Bloomquist the spot, as he’s been openly clamoring for a starting role this offseason. You like giving Bloomquist 600 ABs? My guess is no, as many of you sure didn’t like the idea in ’04 or ’05.

  88. wabbles on December 13th, 2005 11:30 am

    Well, I hate to parrot M’s management, but didn’t one of them say they weren’t going to blow a hole in area to fix a hole somewhere else? I’d love to have Clement too. But we just found Reed to replace Cameron in centerfield after suffering through an out-of-position Randy Winn. We have the bullpen, right, catcher, first, shortstop and third nailed down. We have second and centerfield taken care of for now. Let’s keep it that way and start focusing on the rotation, left and DH without blowing a hole in one of those other areas.

  89. Mr. Egaas on December 13th, 2005 11:49 am

    Dave is pretty good at shooting down potential pitchers for our rotation.

    The thing is, who do you like? What do we do in this situation, now that Burnett and Loaiza are off the market?

  90. jojo on December 13th, 2005 11:51 am


    #87: isnt the point of trying to get better actually getting better?

  91. yteimlad on December 13th, 2005 12:01 pm

    According to reports, Milton Bradley can be had to play CF (or a corner) in exchange for a left handed reliever. Not that this is necessarily true, but its a great option to look into.

  92. Smegmalicious on December 13th, 2005 12:03 pm

    I love reading Dave’s posts. Right off the bat you get some really excellent insight into how the business of baseball really works. You get analysis that, I’m sure, seems on a par with what most teams pay out the ass to get from somewhere else. Then after that you get to the creamy nougat of the thread following the post where you get to see Dave, and whatever other mods are reading it, get increasingly frustrated with people who either don’t read the post or can’t follow the logic or refuse to think rationally about the topic at hand. It’s like a magical rollercoaster ride that starts out in baseball fan heaven and dips through the bowels of the internet on it’s way to unintentional hilarity. I love USSM!

  93. Nate on December 13th, 2005 12:05 pm

    Let me clarify:

    There is a lot more UNCERTAINY when it comes to Reed’s future performance. That carries greater risk.

    Projecting Clement is like tomorrow’s weather forcast: if there’s a 70% chance of rain, it’ll probably rain. Projecting Reed is like predicting what the weather’s going to be on Christmas. Maybe there’s a 70% chance of rain for Christmas NOW, but it’s so far off that any forcast is going to be pretty unreliable.

    That’s why it’s not quite a complete picture to say both Reed and Clement are probably 35-40 runs above replacement. We have more certainty about how good Clement will be than about how good Reed will be.

  94. wabbles on December 13th, 2005 12:10 pm

    That’s it. The world is coming to an end. WFB in center? (looks to sky for huge killer asteroid)

  95. Gomez on December 13th, 2005 12:59 pm

    90. I agree with that obvious sentiment… obviously :P But the net gain in the starting rotation isn’t worth the net loss on defense, a possible loss in offensive production from Ichiro if he moves or the drop in production from Reed to WFB if Ichiro doesn’t move. Nor would I think Insert Replacement RF here would make up enough of the offense if Ichiro moved to compensate for the resulting losses. At best, it would be a zero sum move that cost us several million dollars.

  96. chris w on December 13th, 2005 1:11 pm

    Dave no. 26 – yes, you recommended all sorts of free agent signings… and none of them are going to come as cheap as you predicted, except possibly Kevin Brown, and he wasn’t exactly a lynchpin of your strategy. You’d pay $11M/year for Millwood? For how long? At what point does Jaque Jones cost too much to outweigh his great defense if he’s platooning and only getting 400 ABs next year?

    Again, I don’t disagree with the main premise of the post here – Reed for Clement is not a good deal. Yeah, I’d give Clement $18M over the next two years, but I wouldn’t also give up Reed. That just doesn’t make sense. However, this goes back to your original premise that the Ms can win in 2006. I just don’t see what they could possibly do to win in 2006 other than make trades or free agent signings that make them better now but hurt them in the future.

  97. Paul B on December 13th, 2005 1:37 pm

    Chris W hit the nail on the head:

    I don’t think the Ms should trade Reed for Clement, but I do think it’s worth noting they’re in a pickle. They have a bunch of slightly better than replacement-level players, both young and cheap and old and declining, and it’s tough to upgrade from that situation. It’s why a lot of people – myself included – are writing off 2006 for them. They might get to 90 wins next year, but if they do, it will be by doing things like trading Reed for Clement or paying far too much for Millwood. If they’re going to make the push, they should do it when Lopez/Reed/Felix really hit their stride in 2007.

    If the M’s have to get starting pitching via trade (and it sounds like they do), then the only thing they have to offer is bullpen pitching. If they have to give up a position player, Reed is a prime candidate because although he is a good fielder he has zero power, doesn’t walk a whole bunch, and may or may not end up hitting for a high enough average to make him valuable.

    So, the question is, do the M’s have to get pitching help for 2006, or can they, as Chris W suggested, wait for 2007?

    If they absolutely have to get pitching help in 2006, then who would they trade if not Reed? (And no, nobody wants Dobbs or Bloomquist or Morris, so pick someone else).

  98. Adam Jones on December 13th, 2005 1:45 pm

    I’m ready for CF in 2006!! It’s OK to trade Reed! I’m ready!

  99. Taylor Davis on December 13th, 2005 1:57 pm

    I just cross my fingers that we actually have a budget 10-12 million higher than any of us expect, so that we can make up for ineptitude with spending power. So when we pull of a bad deal like Reed for Clement, we make up for it by signing Millwood and Damon, thus improving the lineup and the pitching staff.

  100. LB on December 13th, 2005 2:07 pm

    79: Be careful of damaged goods. Matt Clement may be such a player

    Bill Mueller “may have been” a damaged good in 2003. He was undervalued, the Red Sox signed him for low money, and he won a batting title and played some above-average defense for them for three years.

  101. Gomez on December 13th, 2005 2:11 pm

    97. Easy, fella. The Texas League ain’t exactly the AL West :P

  102. djw on December 13th, 2005 2:12 pm

    Nate, I still don’t get it. You seem to be trying to say Millwood is predictably unpredictable, whereas Reed is just plain unpredictable. I’m not sure what this means, why you think it, or what we’re supposed to do with it.

  103. rcc on December 13th, 2005 2:57 pm

    Love this discussion. No one has mentioned Bohn for centerfield. If they trade Reed, and I am also against it, would Bohn be an adequate or replacement level centerfielder? Does anyone think Billy Beane would trade Reed…..heck no. My infatuation with Billy Beane is that he is GM that you can put your trust in, but with our man Bill you have to shudder, and hope that he will not pull the trigger on a Reed/Clement swap, and that Everett remains a city north of Seattle, and not on the Mariner 2006 roster.

  104. LB on December 13th, 2005 4:16 pm

    #64: If the BoSox will throw in Jacoby Ellsbury, I say go for it. I think he’s got more upside than Reed anyway.

    Jacoby Ellsbury is a nice little prospect who’s professional career consists of 35 games in A-ball. There’s no way he’s ready to face major league pitching in 2006. 2007 is at best a question mark.

    If Ellsbury were ready to play CF in the big leagues, the Red Sox would not be asking about Reed or talking to Boras about Damon.

    Who will play CF for the next two years if you trade Reed for Clement and Ellsbury?

  105. LB on December 13th, 2005 4:26 pm

    #91: According to reports, Milton Bradley can be had to play CF (or a corner) in exchange for a left handed reliever. Not that this is necessarily true, but its a great option to look into.

    Bradley’s now an Oakland A, says Fox Sports. http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/5164460.

  106. msfaninboston on December 13th, 2005 6:26 pm

    Does anyone think that the red sox or anyone else with a decent starting pitcher would want ibanez? With the everett signing imminent I wouldn’t mind moving him along with a bullpen arm for a decent starter. Also what type of number do you think strong would put up in a full season as CF. I think he could possibly do something like 275 avg 360 obp 390 slg 45 steals. Now, those arent great numbers but would certainly be acceptable if we got a great offer for reed.

  107. Tim on December 13th, 2005 7:58 pm

    I think something is missed when you frequently use dollar per win type equations to value a move. Its obviously a consideration, but putting together a team that is the most efficient cost wise per win won’t get you to the WS. Seattle is not the Oakland A’s. The M’s have much more money to play with (more than they would ever admit) and they should use it. I’m not saying trade or not trade Reed, but sometimes you have to make moves that improve your team, even if it costs you some money.

  108. Dick Pole on December 13th, 2005 10:08 pm

    More than any stat, the fact that Reed is considered valuable to as many teams as has been suggested on this thread is testament to the fact that there is truly a shortage of quality CF’s available.

  109. Dan on December 14th, 2005 1:20 am

    Am I the only one that’s asked this question?

    We got Reed for Garcia, who we felt was not worth the $8 million per year he was surely going to command (and eventually got from the White Sox) if he became a free agent. So what sense does it make if we then trade Reed for Clement, who’s making MORE than Garcia. Does anyone here believe that Clement is a huge upgrade? Would anyone here trade Garcia at $8 mil/yr for Clement at $9 mil/yr straight up?

    Just another sign that the M’s only “plan” is to play the dutch boy, trying to plug 12 holes in the dike with only ten fingers. This makes no sense. Keep Reed, unless he gives you a YOUNG pitcher, a potential ace. If we were talking about Lester or Palpebon for Reed, then I might be interested. Trading talented, inexpensive youth, for older, more expensive, mediocre talent, only makes sense if you believe you’re only one or two players away from being a championship club.

  110. Bela Txadux on December 14th, 2005 2:08 am

    Jeremy Reed . . . I recall in your prior discussion on Tejada, Dave, that in passing you mentioned JR was next to last in the league (or was it both leagues?) in Runs Created in ’05, at the age of 25. I’ve gone over why I don’t think Reed will improve signifcantly with the bat, so I won’t recap here. Hm.

    It’s interesting to me, too, that you question whether Safeco in some respects _inflates_ Reed’s D metrics. I’d love to see more on that, in part because there’s been repeated discusson en blog regarding the defensive merits of various Ms outfielders of the last few years. The metrics tend to put them in the ionosphere, whereas the evidence of the eyes tends to put some of them more in the stratosphere a la your conjecture re: Reed. I think Jeremy is good in CF; I’m far from convinced that he’s _great_, so let’s say I share your ripple of perplexity there. Hmmm.

    Matt Clement. For those who’ve followed him over time, it’s clear that he has very up and down swings in performance, in no small part because the wildness to which you allude is an example of his inability to sustain his mechanics in an optimal groove. He doesn’t ‘lose it’ altogether, but has long, bad patches. Multiple teams have soured on him for that reason, no including the Bosox, and we won’t like looking at that aspect of him, either, should he come here. That said, when he’s good he’s a very solid asset to a rotation.

    Let’s suppose that in three years time Jeremy Reed is the equivalent of Mark Kotsay. At that point in time, Matt Clement will very likely be who he is right now, since he’s been much the same for several years and is in a known configuration of talent. I don’t see Kotsay as someone you _don’t_ trade, so I have no problem putting Reed in motion, even if that’s who he’ll become (not that I’m banking on it). I’ll add that in three years Adam Jones is in the Bigs, although I have no idea whether he’ll be a significant improvement on Reed; very likely so, I think, but nothing certain.

    My problems with the trade as proposed—Reed for Clement—is exactly that Clement is too expensive to make this a good (talent X $) outcome. So reconfigure the trade. Reed and Mateo for Clement and x, prefereably an ‘unfinished prospect with tools.’ Boston has traded most of their best guys, so someone else should propose a name, but I like that configuration rather better. The Bosox don’t like it? Well, they NEED a CFer; if they don’t want to do a deal where the Ms get something for that leverage, they’re welcome to look elsewhere. The Ms don’t _have_ to take the high-cost end of the deal, so they should make the Bostons to so. Just because the Red Sox FOers are making chumps of the league this offseason doesn’t mean the Ms have to play patsycake too.

  111. Dave on December 14th, 2005 6:55 am

    Jeremy Reed . . . I recall in your prior discussion on Tejada, Dave, that in passing you mentioned JR was next to last in the league (or was it both leagues?) in Runs Created in ‘05, at the age of 25. I’ve gone over why I don’t think Reed will improve signifcantly with the bat, so I won’t recap here. Hm.

    He turned 24 last June. He was 23 for half the season. Perhaps you overstating his age in your mind is part of your reason for your overly pessimistic view of his skills?

    It’s interesting to me, too, that you question whether Safeco in some respects _inflates_ Reed’s D metrics.

    I’m pretty sure this is the case. I’m working on some stuff regarding defense in Safeco, and hopefully, I’ll get it posted in the next month or two. Basic overview; Pitchers pitch differently in Safeco field, leading to an increase in flyballs, and Safeco allows for an above average amount of those flyballs to be caught. Thus, not only do the outfielders get more opportunities, but their opportunities are easier, as well.

    It’s not the easiest thing in the world to analyze, but basically, I don’t think any of the Mariner outfielders in Safeco Field have been quite as good as we’ve thought.

  112. David H on December 14th, 2005 7:08 am

    As for the question of who would play center if Reed is dealt, Finnigan now tells us Ichiro is the “tenuous fallback” play, and he is now willing to do it.


  113. Gomez on December 14th, 2005 9:46 am

    112. Ooh… who would play RF then? Would they ask Jurassic Carl to do it? If there’s a hole in RF rather than CF, the M’s have options not named WFB.

    Again, I expect a bit of a drop in offensive production from Ichiro, unless he hits 20 jacks, if this goes down and Ichiro moves to CF. He’ll still hit well, and defense in CF should be roughly equal.

  114. John Evans on December 14th, 2005 10:38 am

    I like Reed’s defense, and he appears to have the potential to be a fairly good major league hitter. On the other hand, if the team needs and wants power-hitting, I don’t think Reed will provide it.

    If they decide to try and trade Reed for a differnt OF who can hit for power, I don’t want to see the M’s trade him for someone who is older. If it’s as part of a deal for someone like Arizona’s Chad Tracy (LH power-hitting RF) who is about the same age as Reed, I’m fine with it. Packaging Reed in a trade for an older player might leave us with another outfield hole in the next few years as the older player declines.

    As for trading Reed for Clement, I would also have no problem with that as long as we have an adequate replacement for Reed. Right now we don’t seem to have much in the way of OF prospects, or OF other than what’s on the ML roster for that matter. So if we can acquire another outfielder with power who would thus make Reed more expendable, then why not use him in a trade? As far as Clement goes, he’s 31 and he’s slightly better than your average starting pitcher… which would place him near the top of our current rotation. Again, why not?