Not by choice.

If I recall correctly, no one thought it was a good idea at the time, not even John Gibbons, and it was his idea.

I liked it, though. The Jays had such an extreme flyball pitching staff (aside from Halladay) that shortstop defense really didn’t matter that much, and playing Glaus at short allowed them to replace Russ Adams in the lineup with Gregg Zaun. That’s a huge upgrade with the bat.

PECOTA has Bartlett at 7 runs better as a hitter. Bartlett has pretty good range, but poor throwing mechanics that tend to make his throws erratic. All told, I’d say he’s probably about average on defense, maybe a touch below. The going rate for premium defenders tends to be 20 runs above average, right? That comes out to a difference between Betancourt and Bartlett of about 13-15 runs in Yuniesky’s favor or something like that.

In long-term value, I’ll give you that Bartlett seems like a guy who’ll have two or three good seasons and then fade quickly, while Betancourt will probably be about what he is for 4-5 years, maybe more.

I guess maybe you think that’s a big enough difference that it doesn’t justify a response. In the realm of things that are mentioned in the comments, I suppose I don’t see it as totally crazy.

And Troy Glaus played 8 games at short last season.

Not by choice.

I wouldn’t say Hall has old player skills – lightning fast bat, low walk totals, decent batting average. Those aren’t old player skills. Troy Glaus has old player skills.

And Troy Glaus played 8 games at short last season.

This is the Easter Vigil of the new season, people. The Church of Baseball is about to leave Hot Stove Time.

you are correct. I messed up on the comps there.

If there are always exceptions to the rule, then Betancourt will be one of those exceptions in my opinion. Body-type shouldn’t be a negative for Betancourt because he pulls the ball for his power. I won’t be surprised
when Yuni also increases his homerun output next year.

Going off Dial’s numbers, Betancourt’s not very good defensively. We know better. Renteria and Peralta suck at shortstop.

All I’m saying is that there are guys who perform above-average and cost above average, and that at a certain point it makes sense to trade Betancourt for one of them.

It’s a balancing act – if the difference in cost far exceeds the difference in performance, then it doesn’t. And for all the guys you listed, the difference in cost is far removed from the difference in value.

But if we’re an 87 or 89 win team, paying more to get 2 wins over Betancourt is going to be worth it. If the M’s had made some different moves over the offseason and were an “87 win team”, then yes, trading Betancourt for Guillen might be worth it.

No, it wouldn’t. At best, you’re looking at something like a 30 run advantage for Guillen over Betancourt in 2007. It’s probably closer to 20 runs, but whatever, we’ll go with 30 just for fun. 30 runs, in a season where you’re contending, are probably worth something like $15 million, according to most of the work that’s been done on the value of wins, even non-linear win formulas.

Factoring in the time value of money, Betancourt would probably need to create about $20 million in value over the next four years for it to no longer be a good idea to trade him for Guillen, assuming the M’s were a contender.

The going rate for a league average SS is about $9 million. So, we’ll say $36 million over four years, approximately (see Lugo, Julio). Betancourt is under contract for 2007 and 2008 for a total of about $1.5 million. He’ll then be arbitration eligible in 2009 and 2010, where we should expect him to earn about $4 million and $6 million in those years, respectively.

Total cost for four years of Betancourt: $11.5 million or so. Total value: $36 million or so. Value: $25 million.

There’s no way that Carlos Guillen’s 20-30 run advantage in 2007 is worth $25 million.

Ok, the problem with all of this is that there needs to be a definition of “team” that is trading Betancourt for X shortstop. If we use the M’s, then they’re an 82-win team w/ Betancourt, and if they were close to making the playoffs, they’d be willing to spend “over budget” to do so (we hope).

Betancourt’s value to the M’s is that he’s average production for under-average price. The guys you listed (Ramirez, Reyes, Drew) are above-average production for under-average price. All I’m saying is that there are guys who perform above-average and cost above average, and that at a certain point it makes sense to trade Betancourt for one of them.

Should we trade Betancourt now? No. We’re an 82 win team. Getting 2+ wins isn’t worth the value over Betancourt. But if we’re an 87 or 89 win team, paying more to get 2 wins over Betancourt is going to be worth it. If the M’s had made some different moves over the offseason and were an “87 win team”, then yes, trading Betancourt for Guillen might be worth it.