I was graciously asked to contribute a short article for a new Spring Training 2008 website, which you can read here.
In the article, I (try to) forecast the Reds' starting lineup, rotation, and bullpen for opening day, and also break down the key battles we'll likely see in spring training. Feel free to comment on my takes either here, or at that website.
Brian, who also writes at Depressedfan.com (obligatory quip: how a Yankee fan can claim to be "depressed" is beyond me...), is organizing the Spring Training 2008 website. He is currently soliciting similar articles from bloggers for other teams. As I write this, at least for the NL Central, there are articles posted for the Cubs and Cardinals. I'm sure that we'll see articles for other teams soon.
Justin, that's an excellent and balanced overview of the Reds' spring issues. Only thing you missed was the price of hot dogs.
ReplyDeleteMr. R
Any comment on the potential Blanton trade?
ReplyDeleteWell, it's hard to say without knowing what we'd give up. I can look at him though. This'll be a train of consciousness...
ReplyDeleteLet's see, 27 years old, with 3 years of service time. Making $3.7 million next year, 1st year of arbitration eligibility.
Strikeouts picked back up last year after a major downturn in '06. Walk rates took a big step forward last year, and I'm expect some regression there. His home run rates the last two years look a bit low for someone who isn't overly ground-ball prone. From all of that, I'd guess that he'll regress to a mid-4's ERA sort of pitcher next season. Moving to the NL would help his ERA, but that's countered in large part by moving from Oakland's park to GABP (0.97 PF vs. 1.01 in CIN).
Some very rough value estimates: PECOTA forecasts him as a 4.40 ERA in 185 IP. If we use 5.8 ERA as replacement level and do a park correction, that would put him at ~26 RAR, or ~+2.5 WAR. Seems reasonable. CHONE has him at 3.98 ERA in 215 IP. That would put him at 41 RAR, or ~4 WAR. That seems a tad high to me, both in ERA and IP.
Let's run with PECOTA. 2.5 WAR this year, and with 0.5 WAR/yr aging/injury risk deductions, puts him at 2.0 WAR in '09 and 1.5 WAR in '10. We'll assume he's a free agent after that. Assuming 10% inflation, that puts his estimated total cost at: $3.7m + $5.8m + $6.4m = ~$16 million.
Over that time, he'd accrue 6 WAR, which on the free agent market is worth ~$29 million. So we can effectively add $13 million in wins to his value, which puts him at a total value of ~8.5 WAR or so. Plus a draft pick or two after 2010, which isn't chopped liver.
That's a valuable property to own. But is it worth someone like Bailey? In my comments on the Bedard trade a while back, I thought a reasonable middle-of-the-road projection for Bailey was somewhere around 10-12 WAR over 6 years' time (~2 WAR a year, most of which is savings due to salary), which corresponds loosely to some of Victor Wang's numbers for typical high-ranked pitching prospects. That would put Bailey ahead slightly in this deal. But discounting that a bit for how far away some of those wins would come with Bailey probably makes them about even.
So, if the deal is giving up Bailey for Blanton, I'd say that's a fairly even swap. I tend to favor winning now vs. winning in the future when the discounted net value is about equal, so I'd probably think about doing that deal IF the scouts were on board with it.
If the deal is Bailey + Votto, however, there's no way I do that deal. I'm not even sure that I'd do it for Votto straight up, as hitters are more reliably valuable than pitchers like Bailey (I'd guess by 5-8 WAR over six years).
-j
Next time I'd appreciate you being a little more thorough in your response ;)
ReplyDeleteLOL, Yeah, I got carried away. And those numbers still are pretty rough.
ReplyDeleteThe more I think about it, though, the harder time I have making a Bailey for Blanton deal. I do see them as roughly even in overall value. The problem is, I'm not sure that adding Blanton makes the Reds a sure-fire contender, especially given what I'm seeing with respect to their offensive projections. Bailey's a higher risk, higher reward proposition. You may get a true #1 for six full years, or you may get absolutely nothing. With Blanton, you get a solid league-average starting pitcher...certainly not with the ceiling that Bailey has. Thing is, I think the Reds will need a pitcher to produce at a higher rate than Blanton will to be competitive this or next year, and Bailey has a better chance of doing that (as well as a higher chance of being a disaster).
So, I guess I'm leaning away from the deal now. I can see Wayne making it, but I just don't think it's worth doing given what the Reds need. They don't need a dependable #3-4 starter; they need to hit the lottery with their prospects in order to get competitive over the next two years.
-j
Thanks for those numbers Justin. I've been making this argument without them for the last few days. The point that we're current an 82-84 win team as constructed should definitely be considered here. Even if Blanton was 3 win upgrade in 2008 over whatever the package was, that's not enough to really matter in 2008. And after 2008, it's an increasingly good bet that the traded package will be more productive.
ReplyDeleteI guess I'd say that if the package is just Bailey, there's a better chance of him being a +4-5 WAR pitcher in future years (next year included), but also a better chance of him being a +0 WAR pitcher. Blanton's less variable in his projection, ~2.5 WAR or so.
ReplyDeleteAs you point out, if the Reds are going to compete, they need the +5 WAR pitcher. The +2.5 WAR guy isn't going to help them enough. So I stay with the more risky Bailey and roll the dice.
-j