Adam Jones and Erik Bedard, Quantified

Dave · January 8, 2008 at 1:31 pm · Filed Under Mariners 

Time is not on my side, so I won’t be able to go into as much detail on this as I would like, but with the Bedard rumors picking up steam again, I figured I should put this out there. What follows is my calculations of the value of Adam Jones and Erik Bedard from a win value standpoint. You don’t have to believe that this is the be-all, end-all of analysis, but if you’re serious about having an opinion on this issue that anyone should care about, you at least have to understand what win value analysis is telling you. If the Mariners aren’t looking at this kind of information (and, let’s be honest, they’re not), they’re not doing enough work to figure out if acquiring Erik Bedard at the cost of Adam Jones is a move worth making.

Here’s the basic concept – every player adds a quantifiable amount of wins to the roster above what could be expected of a league minimum, freely available player. Those wins have tangible economic value – the more wins a player generates, the more they should be paid. But players also cost money in terms of salary, and the difference between their win value and their cost is their net value. We all make these kinds of decisions every day – gas costs $3 a gallon, but it gets me to work so that I can earn $100 a day, so buying gas is a viable economic decision if you have to drive to get to your job unless you live really far away.

So, here’s what the numbers say, based on a conservative estimate of Jones’ abilities (I project him as a league average player this year with small, incremental improvements through 2013, his last year under Mariner control) and a very optimistic estimate of Bedard’s abilities (basically, he retains almost all of his 2007 form, then resigns with the Mariners to a 3 year, $60 million contract after 2009). The variables have all been tilted in favor of Bedard, because I like to present something like the best case scenario for the side I don’t agree with, especially when I think the issue is this cut and dried.

All that said, here are the numbers (I’ll try to post the calculations later when I have time to make a table look decent).

Adam Jones, 2008 net value: $8.7 million
Erik Bedard, 2008 net value: $12.5 million

Adam Jones, 2009 net value: $14.0 million
Erik Bedard, 2009 net value: $9.0 million

Adam Jones, 2008-2013 net value: $61.0 million
Erik Bedard, 2008-2013 net value: $33.1 million (assumes 3 year, $60 million extension after ’09)

In terms of value added to the Mariners franchise over the next six years, it’s not even close. Jones blows Bedard out of the water even in a scenario where Bedard is projected to be the significantly better player (I’ve got the total wins added from ’08-’13 at 17 for Jones and 26 for Bedard). Even if you only look at the next two years, Jones is expected to outvalue Bedard $22.75 million to $21.5 million.

Even if Adam Jones was a free agent after 2009, given their respective abilities and salaries, I wouldn’t trade Adam Jones for Erik Bedard straight up. The fact that the Mariners then control Jones from 2010 to 2013 makes this an obviously horrible trade.

I’m all for acquiring Erik Bedard, and I’d give up practically the whole farm system to get him. But Adam Jones is the kind of player that good organizations just don’t trade. He’s one of the most valuable players in the game, and by himself, more valuable to the club than Erik Bedard.


187 Responses to “Adam Jones and Erik Bedard, Quantified”

  1. thefin190 on January 8th, 2008 10:55 pm

    Who needs Jones when Miguel Cairo can provide veteran grit?

  2. Wishhiker on January 8th, 2008 10:59 pm

    149 I kept meaning to say something along those lines…If the deal isn’t made they still have Wlad as a back-up if Jones, Ichiro,…the starting LF or DH gets injured and you can’t maneuver Clement into a spot by it happening or he’s more ready. The depth at DH, C, 1B, LF, RF and CF are lost with this move even if Wlad is still here.

  3. Wishhiker on January 8th, 2008 11:06 pm

    Isn’t this the best feilding/hitting prospect to come up for this team since…A-Rod? I don’t even think Cruz with his much more suspect feilding at the time was considered as much of a talent at the same age. I keep hearing floors (not ceiling’s) that I’d be happy with from him. I’d take that over wasting money on players who will give you less (Vidro, Sexson, etc.)

  4. Mat on January 8th, 2008 11:06 pm

    One, Erik Bedard has done it once before. He has proven he has the talent to be good and the ability to apply that talent.

    In 2002, A.J. Pierzynski hit .300, played 130 games, and was an All-Star. He had proven that he had the talent to be good and the ability to apply that talent.

    Adam Jones has not. He has never played a full season in the majors. There is no guarantee that he can be the player that he is hyped to be.

    In 2002, Joe Nathan had not proven he could be an elite closer in MLB. He had about 180 IP to his name and a career ERA around 4.50 in a pitcher’s park.

    In 2002, Francisco Liriano had not proven he could be a useful starter in MLB. He had injury problems, was 19 years old, and had never pitched above A-ball.

    In 2002, Boof Bonser had not proven that he could be a useful starter in MLB. He was 21 and had never pitched above AAA.

    Do you suppose Brian Sabean might want a mulligan on that trade? Silly rules of thumb like “proven players are more valuable than unproven prospects” are no substitute for evaluating talent.

    Adam Jones is more likely to succeed and be valuable than any one of Nathan, Liriano, or Bonser was in 2002. When you look to make a trade, you need to consider all of the possible outcomes and figure out just how likely you are to improve your teams. All of the possible outcomes in this case include Adam Jones becoming an All-Star, Adam Jones being a replacement level hitter, Erik Bedard winning a Cy Young Award, and Erik Bedard pitching 10 innings over the next two years, not to mention a zillion other scenarios.

    Nothing is guaranteed for any player going forward. You need to weigh each of the possible outcomes and figure out what a player’s value is likely to be in the future. Dave has done that and determined that Jones is more likely to be valuable than Bedard going forward. I haven’t seen anyone make a compelling case to the contrary, because no one has shown any evidence that Adam Jones is likely to fail.

  5. okdan on January 8th, 2008 11:07 pm

    #149 – “The Mariners could trade Wlad for a pitcher and upgrade the rotation while keeping Adam Jones.”

    We’re talking about an actual rumor that is out there right now… Sure they COULD use Wlad to nab another pitcher. But would that pitcher be better or more of an upgrade to the team than Bedard? I doubt it. At least not with another significant group of talent involved. And if they trade Jones for Bedard, they won’t be parting with Wlad. So since we are talking specifically about a Jones and Bedard trade, that is what my argument reolved around.

    Jones if definitely an asset to the team, that’s true. But adding Bedard to our rotation would be a huge upgrade. And having a stud like Wlad in RF would also be an asset.

    I want to see Jones in our outfield next year, he’s gonna be a stud. But I’d also be stoked to see Bedard in the rotation. I’d rather trade Morrow than Jones, but getting Bedard for Jones is not a terrible move at all.

  6. schmicky on January 8th, 2008 11:09 pm

    Hmmm? well, lets also take alook at the excitement value. To me that would have to go to Jone and that being said usually transfers into other teammates picking up the excitement facter too. Keep Jones , I say. Get Bedard in another transaction.

  7. marinermojo on January 8th, 2008 11:17 pm

    Adam Jones is probably not a young superstar in waiting. I hate to break the news to you. Let’s look at some comparisons based on facts. Jones will be 23 years young next year.

    Perspective. By the time Griffey, Jr. turned 23, he owned 4 gold gloves and was an all-star MVP. At age 23, Griffey hit 45 homeruns and had his 3rd season of knocking in at least 100 RBIs. At age age 23, Griffey had already hit over .300 four times and had yet to strike out more than 91 times in a season and was a perennial all-star.

    Heading into the season, Adam Jones has a career .230 MLB batting average. He has struck out 43 times in 139 career at bats (which projects to 185 a year if he were to get 600 at bats). Jones has 3 career homeruns. Adam hasn’t shown any ability to hit right handed pitching–witness his .194 career batting average and .506 OPS.

    Adam Jones is more realistically a future Mike Cameron. Cameron, like Jones, was a fast, ball hawking CF who had two brief major league appearances at age 22 and 23 with minimal success. At age 24, he became the White Sox starting CF. In 379 at bats, hit .259, banged 14 homeruns, stole 23 bases, and struck out 105 times.

    If you project Cameron’s age 24 season to 600 at bats. It would have looked like this. 22 homeruns, 36 stolen bases, 166 strike outs, 28 doubles, and 88 RBI’s (in addition to playing great defense). Which is quite likely what Adam Jones stats will look like if he were to play an entire season in right field.

    Now, I liked Mike Cameron, but I would have traded him for a 28 year old proven ace in a second.

    Now, I know the argument. The trade is just straight across. The Mariners will have to give up a talent like Clement, too. In my opinion, in a best case scenerio, Clement becomes the second coming of Todd Hundley. Besides, in dealing Clement, we are dealing from an area on strength.

    The Mariners NEED to make this trade.

  8. okdan on January 8th, 2008 11:23 pm

    #149 –

    With all due respect, Dave has not shown us how he came up with any of his dollar figures. At this point, they seem a bit arbitrary to me until proven otherwise. How he came up with $14M figure for the 2009 season is still unknown, and considering that is near Torii Hunter levels of performance in Jones’ second full year of MLB, forgive me if I’m not entirely convinced yet.

    I think Jones is going to be a fantastic player, personally. But, like you pointed out yourself, nothing is 100%. The fact that Jones posted a .34 eye ratio in AAA is a bit worisome, but I think he can overcome it.

    Bedard is an excellent pitcher, a top-shelf LH pitcher in Safeco field. A #1 or great #2 in our rotation, and if we make it to the post-season, his value to the team in a 5/7-game series only skyrockets from there.

  9. DMZ on January 8th, 2008 11:38 pm

    I won’t drag this out, DMZ, but might I ask if those truths are found in hindsight or foresight? ..

    How about this: go read James’ work, read the projection work of guys like Nate Silver, get yourself up on the research, and then if you still don’t understand how this is done, and how well it works, we can chat.

  10. on January 8th, 2008 11:55 pm

    Great analysis and discussion of the Bedard situation. I may live in dreamland, however the Mariners need Bedard without losing Jones, Clement, Morrow, or other promising prospects. I would also like to trade for Roberts and ideally Markakis to complete our outfield. What could possibly get this done??? My suggestions would include Lopez, Sherill, Baek, H. Ramirez, Morse, along with prospects R. Johnson, Tuiososopo, and Aumont. We could even swap Sexson + cash for A. Huff to get another left-handed bat for the bench. If the Orioles won’t part with Markakis, we would still have an outfield of Ichiro, Jones, + Vlad/Reed/FA Patterson?, with Ibanez as DH/1B. If we must part with one of the top 3 players, I say include Morrow to make it happen!!! The Mariners must have a #1 pitcher on the pitching staff to have a chance against the Angels and in the playoffs.

  11. Boy9988 on January 9th, 2008 12:26 am

    Wishhiker –

    I do get that and point taken. But I still believe in pitching first. You can have the greatest offense in the world, but if you can pitch your way out of a box, your still going to lose. I believe it is more important for the M’s to hold onto Morrow than it is to hold onto Jones. In the end, i think Morrow will be a better player, and for some strange reason, i just have this feeling that Jones isn’t going to be the real deal. I was against the Bedard deal when the word was out that Jones, Clement, and Morrow were in the deal; and i cannot stomach that. But swapping out Morrow for Tuiasosopo, as Rosenthal is reporting; that i think i could live with it.

    And just a thought, If we did give up Jones for Bedard, Can anyone imagine Cameron coming back?

  12. Walrus on January 9th, 2008 12:27 am

    In all this discussion, with only 2 exceptions, no one has discussed the issues with Bedard.
    – There are many reports out of Baltimore that have said Bedard is NOT A GOOD TEAMMATE, and that Bedard is ADAMANT to test the free agent market.
    – He is 28, will be 29 before the season starts.
    – He has only pitched 4 years in the majors, and he has missed an average of 7 starts a year
    – in 2007, Bedard’s LOB% spiked up to basically 78%, versus having been 72% his prior 3 years… so a very likely regression to place there.

    This not to say that Bedard is not a GOOD pitcher. Bedard has many stats that have been very steady or improving each of the past years, but…he has issues, and he has not PROVEN to be a top 10 pitcher yet.

    By the way, at his current age, Bedard’s closest comp is Bud Black….ooohhhh.

  13. billy1 on January 9th, 2008 12:30 am

    Wow, USSM personified. Won’t make the mistake of posing a legitimate question again. Do you use those methods when making yearly free-agent suggestions? Mocking all discourse undermines your credibility moreso than the poster you are trying to embarrass.

  14. Mat on January 9th, 2008 12:40 am

    With all due respect, Dave has not shown us how he came up with any of his dollar figures.

    Well, let’s put our thinking caps on. Dave posted net values. The cost of Jones over the next two years is less than $500K per year. I’d guess Bedard will make $6M next year and $9M the year after in arbitration, especially if he pitches the way that his supporters suggest. That would make the total value of Bedard $18.5M in 2008 and $18M in 2009. I figure Bedard’s something like 4 wins above replacement in ’08 and ’09, so that would work out to about $4-5M/win. Over at inside the book, they seem to be using about $4M/win. (See for instance, the implication that a 4/$48M contract should bring 3.2 wins above replacement per year.)

    As far as I can tell, Dave’s using roughly $4M/win, projecting Bedard for roughly 4.5 wins/season, and projecting Jones for 2 wins in ’08 and 3.5 wins in ’09. Being an average hitter and average hitter for the season gets you about 2 wins above replacement. So in ’08 Jones could be something like a -1 win hitter and a +1 win fielder to make his net value $8-9M. In ’09 Jones would have to be something like a +0.5 win hitter and a +1 win fielder to get to $14M. Based on his ZiPS projection and the most comparable guys there (Ellis Burks and Vernon Wells), I’d say those are reasonable projections. (I actually don’t think that Bedard will be worth 4.5 wins per season the next two years, but Dave did say he was giving the Bedard side the benefit of the doubt.)

    I could be wrong, but I’d bet I’m pretty close to Dave’s reasoning. And even if I’m not, that still looks like a reasonable way to get to those values.

  15. DMZ on January 9th, 2008 12:41 am

    I don’t understand why you see that as mocking, though on re-reading, it certainly does read as too curt. I don’t know what “USSM personified means” but if you read that as insulting, well, I’m sorry.

    I’m entirely serious in my suggestion, though — you want to know how Bill James did his work, go check his work out. You’re asking a series of questions that have been deeply researched by far better minds than mine. Go read his stuff, and Nate’s stuff on how PECOTA works, and you’ll see the answers.

  16. Steve T on January 9th, 2008 12:47 am

    billy1, seriously, go read Bill James on the subject. It’s good reading, and it will open your mind so that concepts like “hindsight and foresight” and “account for some, discount others” can fly out of there.

    The essence is this: if you adjust minor league performance for league and park (both of which vary dramatically, many times the variation for the major leagues, and for the age curve of the player, you’ll get numbers that are exactly as valuable for predicting next year as major league numbers. Note that if you’re not doing these adjustments for the major league numbers as well, the minor league numbers might well be substantially BETTER than the major league numbers.

    These are mathematical adjustments to the basic statistics — playing time, on-base, slugging, or choose the advanced metric that thrills you. It IS the same across the board. Good statistics contain all the information that is available about a player, and rigorously sift that information into numbers that express actual value.

    Remember that major league performance isn’t nearly as predictive as people think it is. Players break out or fall off a cliff all the time, for reasons that are unknown and unknowable. Age, injury, mental makeup, training regimens, voodoo, all kinds of things have an effect.

    This is not theoretical. It holds up under real-world results. If you look at projection systems, Pecota for example (I know Pecota isn’t popular around here but it’s handy) you find that while the projection systems make lots of errors on individual cases, they are overall surprisingly accurate. The accuracy is not worse for minor leaguers.

    Like all systems the more data you have the more you know. Extremely young players’ projections are worse not because they’re in lower leagues but because they simply don’t have as many plate appearances (or pitches/innings) to go by. Sample size is hugely important when you’re trying to figure out what’s going on.

    If Derek sounds dismissive it’s because it gets tiresome to have to explain the same basics over and over. We’ve been talking about this for twenty years now, or longer (I bought my first Bill James Annual in 1983, good God, that’s a quarter of a century). Bill James is old hat now, largely superceded, but his explanations of how to think about the problems are unsurpassed. If you haven’t read them, you’re just going to have a lot of trouble following the conversation. Really. See if your library has a copy of “This Time Let’s Not Eat The Bones” (terrible title).

  17. Mat on January 9th, 2008 12:50 am

    We’re talking about an actual rumor that is out there right now… Sure they COULD use Wlad to nab another pitcher.

    See, to me, I think the case is already out there that Jones > Bedard, once you consider the contracts involved. So in my view this reads a lot like “We’re talking about an actual way the Mariners could hurt the team today. Sure they could wait around and hope to improve the team, or shift hitting talent to pitching talent in an even trade.”

    As Wishhiker notes in 152, even if you don’t trade Jones, and Wlad starts in Tacoma, he provides depth at the corners, which will become important when someone gets injured or slumps.

  18. fetish on January 9th, 2008 1:31 am


    Jones isn’t near the vicinity of Star Quality as Griffey and A-Rod were. To paraphrase Mercury Morris, call me when he’s on the block, not when he’s on the on-ramp in the next county.

    A-Rod, Griffey, Ichiro – those guys were unmitigated stars and draws the first time they stepped to the plate. Jones might have all the skills in the world, but he could hit 60 home runs next year and still not be as a half the star as any of those three their first full season (89, 96, and 01 respectively).

  19. milehighmariner on January 9th, 2008 1:34 am

    I really don’t have the time to research it but figured a lot of you guys on here might know how many ace pitchers have ever pitched an entire year in relief before becoming front-end starters? It seems the M’s think Morrow can do this. I’ve been watching baseball for three decades and really can’t think of too many, if any. Maybe Pedro when he was with the Dodgers? It seems most pitchers are either big-time starters or not right off the bat. I guess I’m wondering why Morrow is off-limits and Jones isn’t? If I could substitute Morrow in the deal to get Bedard instead of Jones I would. Jones helps our major league team immediately and for years to come with his contract and defensive ability alone not to mention his upside on offense too. If I could swap one pitcher, Morrow, for another, Bedard, and a few prospects not including Jones, it just seems better to me. Help me figure out their reasoning…

  20. musicman on January 9th, 2008 2:11 am

    First off, I’m a new poster, but not a new reader. To those of you who have chosen to post and blast Dave, or the “numbers” behind the post, or argue on the exception(rather than the rule), do yourselves a favor and find a new blog. It’s tiresome to read, and doesn’t help me gain any insight at all. Dave, Derek, and the guys (thanks new moderators, it’s getting better)litterally NEVER post something on a whim, without research, and DEFINATELY without solid baseball knowledge.

    **Peeks both ways** “Clear?”

    On this topic I think everyone is one the same page, we want the M’s to win. Some say now is the time, while others aren’t willing to go for broke. I think the most important thing to remember is that we aren’t exactly hurting for dollars. So I’m sorry Dave, but using the net value for the M’s equates to exactly nill.

    Instead of deciding what the M’s should do, much like when Dave came up with two plans for the offseason, I have come to terms with what the M’s WILL do. Bavasi has to make a major move this offseason, his job depends on it(assumption, but I think you will agree). What this post needs for constructive deconstruction and criticism is to go back and analyze the M’s need for the offseason.

    (Feel free to correct me if I am missing something here)

    As I interpret the M’s needs going back to the end of the ’07 season we had a lineup that was in need of a left handed bat(power a plus), a lot of starting pitching help (batista, ho ram, and weaver? I was sick 3/5 games), our starters couldn’t handle left hand heavy lineups, Richie had a fluke BABIP year (live by stats and die bye stats folks, if a cheap Sexy was available on a 1 yr deal we’d be all over it for rebound potential), we F’d up and gave away our chance at Guillen, the franchise loves RAUUUL, and Lopez blew up.

    So where does the current proposition put us according to our needs? Let’s evaluate the deal from the perspective of our (probably inept) front office. AJ is a right handed batter who would be amazing to watch play the game in our uni for many year to come. Clement is the only LH bat we’ve got, but (as far as I can remember and has been posted) has been boosting his numbers on soft throwing lefties. Other prospects not named Carlos and Brandon aren’t really a topic.

    Getting Mr. Bedard will gain us a LHP, who gets lefties out (check), can give us a fearsome 1-2 combination (check), and allow our staff of #3 types to pitch where they belong (check). We lose basically our only viable option for RF (big minus). I don’t think we can really be concerned with losing a sketchy (correct me if things have changed) and poor fielding LH bat in Clement (neutral).

    After being incredibly long winded, and tiring from my effort, I contend that this is not such a terrible deal. We have money to spend, and as such the M’s we have the right to trade an incredible young talent for two years of (hopefully) incredible pitching. If we can make another deal for a slightly better than replacement value RF, we for sure have a chance, and definately a reason to watch/show up/support our club.

    No matter how hard it is, we have to realize who is making the decisions, and make the best. I understand many (including myself), think that Big B, should get canned, but we cannot change that now. When this deal is finalized, I will still follow AJ (and he WILL be an all star), but I will also know that this was the best that our current organization could do. Despite the pessimism, if (it’s a big if) we can pick up a better (even slightly better) than replacement value RF, (Cameron fits in great with the swing away M’s -25 games), we are better off for the season.

    If this deal goes down, we shore up the pitching staff (pray that this means Morrow to AAA to work on his stuff), we don’t go anywhere with LH bats (but we still have Rauuul… sarcasm), Richie WILL be better this *cough* contract *cough* season (unless he can manage to drastic statistical outlier seasons in a row), landing a RF with VORP+ negates Guillen (doubtful, but hopeful still), and the M’s are as much better for this season as Bavasi can manage.

    My 2 cents… feel free to decimate me with counter arguments. However, leave the $$ topic out, we are a top spender in MLB, and I have to agree with Mr. Baker (as much as I routinely curse to myself while reading his blog) that in all intents, money does not factor into the M’s decisions. Plain and simple, the M’s don’t have to follow the MLB economy, and play the market…. see Silva (who isn’t a terrible aquisition, but terribly overpaid)

  21. Graham on January 9th, 2008 4:46 am

    Some people really need to realise that ‘upgrading the pitching staff’ is no better than ‘upgrading the defence’ or even ‘upgrading the lineup’. It’s all runs, guys, and fixating on pitching to give you that upgrade is crazy.

    Also, when you don’t understand the details of someone’s argument, that does not mean they are wrong.

  22. gwangung on January 9th, 2008 8:42 am

    Some people really need to realise that ‘upgrading the pitching staff’ is no better than ‘upgrading the defence’ or even ‘upgrading the lineup’. It’s all runs, guys, and fixating on pitching to give you that upgrade is crazy.

    Some folks should consider that trading Jones for Bedard means upgrading the pitching AND downgrading the defense (because I doubt you’ll find an OF with the range of Jones).

  23. Graham on January 9th, 2008 8:53 am

    Some folks should consider that trading Jones for Bedard means upgrading the pitching AND downgrading the defense (because I doubt you’ll find an OF with the range of Jones).

    Well, yes, but I figured that was painfully obvious, and I was therefore too lazy to type it out. It also means downgrading on offense, too.

  24. DMZ on January 9th, 2008 9:35 am

    …how many ace pitchers have ever pitched an entire year in relief before becoming front-end starters?

    Entirely, as in “no games started”? Probably very few.

    As a development path, it used to be much more common than it is now: Earl Weaver loved to break in his young pitchers like that when he could, using them in long relief and spot starts to get them used to facing major league hitting and so on, and moving them to the rotation as the opportunity presented itself.

    Today, you’re much more likely to see the team push them into a back-end rotation slot or call them up to cover for injuries and then send them back down to the minors to get them consistent work, and the rewards for having a cheap, effective starting pitcher are so huge that teams are a lot more aggressive about trying to push them into the role early.

  25. tangotiger on January 9th, 2008 9:13 am

    Dave’s data breaks down as follows:

    Adam Jones will generate 15.75 wins above replacement for the next 6 years. Presuming a 10% payroll inflation, that kind of production would cost 94 million$ on the open (free agent) market.

    Because you get to control Jones’ salary, it will actually cost you 40 million$ for that kind of expected production.

    For Bedard, he’s a 4+ player, meaning he’s a free agent after the 2009 season. He’d have to sign a 4 year contract get him him to 2013.

    Presuming he’s a 4 WAR pitcher and maintains that level, he will give you 24 wins over 6 years. On the open market, that would cost you 138 million$. With a 20MM, 4 year extension, and another 20MM for his 2 arb years, that’ll cost you 100 million$.

    So, that’s your comparison point: do you want real estate that is worth 94MM but will cost you 40MM, or do you want real estate that is worth 138MM but will cost you 100MM?

    You’ll obviously make more money with the first one. But, what if you REALLY need a 138MM property? Well, buy the first one (94MM) for 40MM, and you buy another one for 44MM on the open market for 44MM. That gets you two properties, total cost of 84MM, whose total value is 138MM.

    It’s on this basis that you would not give up your young player.

    Now, if you decide to make do with only a 94MM property, well, you will be worse off, since you are depriving your mind, body, and soul of what you really want: a 138MM property.

    But, the market is open enough that you can spend that money that’s in your pocket.

  26. gwangung on January 9th, 2008 10:16 am

    Well, yes, but I figured that was painfully obvious, and I was therefore too lazy to type it out. It also means downgrading on offense, too.

    Well, yeah, it’s painfully obvious…but some folks (see Ms front office) seem to have a rather high pain threshold (or they’re masochists….)

  27. tangotiger on January 9th, 2008 11:46 am

    Someone on my blog made the observation that Carlos Silva would fit the bill here. (Jake Westbrook would have been a better example, but, let’s go with what we’ve got.)

    Adam Jones + Carlos Silva for 6 years
    Eric Bedard + Willie Bloomquist for 6 years

    (And if not WFB, then whatever dreg of MLB is floating around…. remember, you used up all your money on Bedard.)

  28. Thoan on January 9th, 2008 12:46 pm

    Dave, your analysis needs to address an obvious issue to be meaningful. And that issue is, whether pitchers have the same win value range as everyday players. Since starting pitchers work only every fifth day or so, intuitively it would seem that their win values would overall be much lower than, say, a three-tool fielder. And if this is so, then the win values of disparate traded components will not be 1:1, i.e., a quality starting pitcher will be worth a higher win value in fielders than in other starters. Hopefully, you can address this in your analysis.

    This is brought up not in support or denigration of the rumored trade of Adam Jones + for Bedard (though I have confidence in Bavasi’s skills at getting fleeced). Bavasi probably is also considering (among other things, including his chair temperature) that 1) starting pitching is a scarcer commodity than hitting/fielding, and thus commands a higher price, and 2) having a Weaver or HoRam on the mound makes players like Jones less valuable, as they never get a chance to make a difference before games turn hopeless (and, they get neck strains watching balls fly over their heads and out of the park). These are not illegitimate concerns for a GM, but the use of win value doesn’t fully address them.

  29. Graham on January 9th, 2008 12:53 pm

    And that issue is, whether pitchers have the same win value range as everyday players.

    Isn’t this the point of a run conversion?

  30. tangotiger on January 9th, 2008 1:02 pm

    A win is a win is a win.

    If Dave is marking Bedard as being 4 wins (or whatever) over the dregs of MLB (i.e., the guy you can have for 400,000$), and if he is marking Adam Jones as being 2 wins over the dregs of MLB, then that’s that.

  31. jamesllegade on January 9th, 2008 4:39 pm

    Bavasi or who ever the Japenese ownership hire to replace him (you can bet it won’t be a stat-geek but another old school type) will just [seriously, the various profanities with one letter replaced are getting very old, please find another way to express yourself] that extra Jones money away on someone horrible anyway.

    So you can’t compare Jones and Bedard win shares in a vaccum… I would rather have Bedard locked up than Bavasi roaming the streets like a drunken sailor with 44 mill in his pocket.

  32. jes1181 on January 9th, 2008 8:23 pm

    Long time reader, first post…

    The idea of trading Jones is not one that is high on my list. I think Jones is going to be a special player. That being said, I have seen only a comment or two of maybe growing this trade to include more players.

    If Baltimore is considering dealing Roberts to Chicago, why not see if we can get him included with Bedard.

    Obviously we would send Lopez (even suggested by a prior post) in the deal.

    Bedard + Roberts for Lopez + Clement + Balentien + Morrow + Tillman

    Baltimore isn’t going to compete next year or even in the next couple, but in adding 5 young players would be a good start.

  33. thefin190 on January 9th, 2008 11:21 pm

    182 – Dave suggested something similar to that a couple weeks ago.

  34. jamesllegade on January 10th, 2008 10:38 am

    What about Bedard/Roberts for Jones and Lopez and some lesser lights of the farm system?

    How does that pencil out?

    If we do indeed ship Jones to Baltimore… is there anything we could get back that would make win-shares sense? What about a lefthanded slugging OF? Huff? Luke Scott?

    also… is there a list somewhere that I can read to see what counts as profanity on this site? I thought i was being overly cautious when I replaced that “i” with a “!”.

  35. Thoan on January 11th, 2008 12:44 pm

    179, 180: Yes, a win is a win. But Dave’s table isn’t just about wins. It’s about “win value,” which contemplates not just wins the the dollar cost of getting there. My question is whether the “value” part of the win, i.e. the dollar cost, is higher across the board for starting pitchers than for fielders.

  36. skyking162 on January 11th, 2008 2:58 pm

    My question is whether the “value” part of the win, i.e. the dollar cost, is higher across the board for starting pitchers than for fielders.

    It shouldn’t be, if a win is a win. But if pitchers do cost more, why would you want to put your money into pitching? Isn’t that the overhyped mantra of Moneyball — spend your money more efficiently? It pitching is more expensive, then you’d only put money into it when you’ve maxed out your offense. That’s not much of an issue for the Mariners.

  37. grayrockravens on January 14th, 2008 1:20 pm

    Hi all. O’s fan here. I see the overwhelmingly pro-Jones chatter in here, which is to be expected on a Mariner’s fan site, but I am just wondering how many of you have actually seen Bedard pitch. He has legitimate #1 stuff and was on his way to challenging for the Cy Young last season before they shut him down with his oblique. He has steadily improved the last couple of seasons and has come up big despite playing in the brutal AL East. His numbers against the BOS and NYY last season:

    3 0 34.2 16 10 34 2.08

    I’ve never seen Jones or any of the other prospects being discussed so I’m definitely not qualified to determine whether it’s a good trade for the M’s. Keep in mind also that Bedard has been playing his entire career for a terrible team with mostly subpar defensive players behind him.

    As a miserable O’s fan for over the past decade, I’m sad to see home grown products Roberts and Bedard about to leave, but this is something that we should have done years ago… Good luck to you guys

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.