Rosenthal on a Sherrill Trade: Inevitable but not imminent
by Stacey on Jul 20, 2009 1:13 PM EDT
in Rumors
94 comments
It's been discussed in a few Fan Posts, and now Ken Rosenthal has devoted a column to the possibility of trading George Sherrill before the deadline. From the article:
While a trade of Sherrill looks inevitable — "They will move him; they know he's the best available closer out there," one rival executive says — it is not yet imminent.
One general manager interested in Sherrill says the Orioles are "playing the 'don't-have-to-move-him-so-make-us' card" — a characterization the O's do not dispute.
"If it's something meaningful coming back, something we don't have, a building block for the future, we would have to consider it," says Andy MacPhail, the team's president of baseball operations.
The Marlins, Dodgers, Brewers and Angels are among the clubs pursuing Sherrill, major-league sources say. The Cubs, MacPhail's former team and one of his frequent trading partners, also have interest.
It's a little frightening that the Cubs are listed as having interest considering they are MacPhail's go-to trading partner. It'd be nice to see him make a trade with one of the other clubs. The fact that there is interest from multiple teams is encouraging, hopefully it'll be possible to build leverage with teams competing against each other.
The Orioles specifically want to find a long-term replacement for third baseman Melvin Mora, who is a free agent after this season. They also would like to add to their developing core of young pitching.
I know Georgie has been pretty shutdown this year, but it seems like a bit much to expect to get a young, viable 3B in return for a relief pitcher. It's been mentioned that Brandon Wood would be a great target if Sherrill goes to the Angels, but I think that might be overvaluing George a bit.
For those of you with better knowledge of the Marlins, Dodgers, Brewers, Angels, and Cubs systems, who would you like to see to fill a corner infield/pitching spot in exchange for George Sherrill?
0 recs |
94 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
The O’s effectively hold a one-year option on Huff, who is earning $8 million this season. They can try to retain him by offering him salary arbitration or receive two high draft picks if he departs as a Type A free agent.
Yes, let’s bring back our .749 OPS 1B for $10M via arbitration. Huff should be traded for whatever we can get because those two draft picks are looking less and less likely everyday. Scott, on the other hand, should only be traded for legit prospects.
Huff has gone back to being Huff. Deal with it.
by birdman on Jul 20, 2009 2:14 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
And oh, Huff isn’t exactly a gold glover.
Huff has gone back to being Huff. Deal with it.
by birdman on Jul 20, 2009 2:23 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
neither is scott
oh and trading anybody (other than mora) to the cubs would totally blow unless we got jake fox in return. they have nobody worthwhile to deal in their system and we dont seem to get much out of trades with them (hill, pie). although you could argue hill and olson are pretty much equal.
by twistedlogic on Jul 20, 2009 2:28 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
To be exact
olson and pie are equal, and then Hill and PTBNL are equal
"I have seen the future and his name is Matt Wieters." Keith Law
by Reddrummer9187 on Jul 20, 2009 2:33 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Huff and Scott aren't same fielding wise.
Scott is a good fielder in LF. The fangraphs article that Stacey posted said, “Scott has a history as a +5ish corner outfielder.”
Huff has gone back to being Huff. Deal with it.
by birdman on Jul 20, 2009 2:39 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
i dont believe any of that fangraphs stuff
even as somebody who deals with data analysis and statistics for a living, i know that the majority of that stuff means nothing. scott’s arm is mediocre at best and his range is worse
by twistedlogic on Jul 20, 2009 2:45 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
he just “happens” to consistently make plays above average in LF?
by math_geek on Jul 20, 2009 2:51 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
he makes "above average" plays?
who defines above average?
by twistedlogic on Jul 20, 2009 2:52 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
well usually I define average as the expected number of plays an outfielder would make given where the ball falls in a given game, which is measured by the number of outs made when a ball falls that way divided by the number of times a ball falls that way during a fixed timespan (such as a season (or 10 seasons)). If a player makes more outs than his expected outs given his opportunities he’s above average.
The only subjective measurement is whether two plays are similar or not. And most of these statistics include hundreds of distinct categories for that (which isn’t difficult given the amount of data available). So the sheer number of categories does a significant job in eliminating that measurement error. It’s a pretty robust system.
by math_geek on Jul 20, 2009 3:01 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
adam dunn can make more outs than his E[outs]
but still make fewer than luke scott. if dunn is above average, then scott must be a gold-glover. stuff like “ultimate zone rating” is weak because it doesnt account for how balls react (a ball hit to the corner might stop or bounce off of multiple walls but its still hit to the same exact spot) plus my “UZR” would not techincally mean anything if i throw somebody out at the plate but two other runners on base move up. i just threw somebody out at the plate! but my “ultimate zone rating” would not be as high as if i simply threw that runner out with nobody on base
by twistedlogic on Jul 20, 2009 3:15 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Adam Dunn has never, I repeat never, made more outs than his measured Expected number of outs. Never.
UZR counts catches, which is how outs are made, if a ball bounces… it’s not a catch. And since, like you said, how a ball bounces is pretty random, we can be satisfied not counting it towards our measurement of defenders.
It’s still a good play to make an out at the plate if it means the batters on 1st and 2nd advance. 2 outs, runnners on 2nd and 3rd is way way way better than 1 out, runners on 1st and 2nd with one run scored. Hell, no-one approves of bunting just about ever, including with 1 out and runners on 1st and 2nd, adding the run scored is just freaking gravy, but it’s a gallon of it. It’s not the outfielders fault how many guys are on base. He has a job… throw the runner out at home. And it’s better to measure how well he does that job and how valuable it is than consider situations that aren’t even under his control.
by math_geek on Jul 20, 2009 3:26 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
according to fangraphs
UZR includes credit (or discredit) for outfielders “depending on what the runners do on a hit or a fly ball out.”
by twistedlogic on Jul 20, 2009 3:30 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
UZR counts catches,
If RngR (one component of UZR)m as reported on the fangraphs website, is simply a counting statistic, I’ll be disappointed. Like I said below, there better be some standardization conversions involved but I really don’t know.
Huff has gone back to being Huff. Deal with it.
by birdman on Jul 20, 2009 3:57 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
well usually I define average as the expected number of plays an outfielder would make given where the ball falls in a given game, which is measured by the number of outs made when a ball falls that way divided by the number of times a ball falls that way during a fixed timespan (such as a season (or 10 seasons)). If a player makes more outs than his expected outs given his opportunities he’s above average.
A couple of things. First, UZR and RngR are different. You’re defining RngR which is only one component of UZR. And second, measurement procedures and statistical figures (e.g., such as “average”) are separate issues. What you’re defined is how they measure RngR. I’m not sure how fangraphs calculates the figures they post such as RngR (UZR appears to be a combo of several different measures), but I’m assuming it’s scaled, or standardized if you will (similar to a z score), so that zero represents a true average (i.e., the mean of a particular data distribution).
Huff has gone back to being Huff. Deal with it.
by birdman on Jul 20, 2009 3:54 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
who defines above average?
Not 100% sure, I believe the data does. Like any metric, UZR measures a particular skill set which player vary along. Average players are those who fall around the mean. Scott saves about 5 runs in comparison to the average corner outfielder. I do data analysis/stats for a living as well. I’m starting to come around on defensive stats. I didn’t trust them as first but the more I learn about them, the more comfortable I feel about them.
Huff has gone back to being Huff. Deal with it.
by birdman on Jul 20, 2009 3:33 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
the stats do not take into account
whether or not a ball should be caught. so you could easily argue that scott saves 5 runs (which makes no sense in and of itself), but cannot make outs when others could. i would guarantee there is no measure of the OFs service radius. and regardless of whether or not EVERY piece of UZR counts catches and hits, it is still a part of it.
by twistedlogic on Jul 20, 2009 5:08 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
the stats do not take into account whether or not a ball should be caught.
RngR does.
so you could easily argue that scott saves 5 runs (which makes no sense in and of itself), but cannot make outs when others could.
I’m not sure if I follow you here… RngR does that (it attempts to whether Scott can’t make outs when others could).
i would guarantee there is no measure of the OFs service radius.
Well, there is a measure, it’s just a question of evaluating the measure in regards to validity and reliability issues.
Huff has gone back to being Huff. Deal with it.
by birdman on Jul 20, 2009 5:29 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
RngR does to a "vicinity"
i’d say that adam dunn’s “vicinity” is a hell of a lot smaller then, say, adam jones’ vicinity.
by twistedlogic on Jul 20, 2009 5:31 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
what do you mean by vicinity?
Huff has gone back to being Huff. Deal with it.
by birdman on Jul 20, 2009 5:33 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
how should i know
i’m just going by what it says. vicinity goes undefined
by twistedlogic on Jul 20, 2009 5:34 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Ok, then yes, RngR measures plays made within a defined area or vicinity.
i’d say that adam dunn’s "vicinity" is a hell of a lot smaller then, say, adam jones’ vicinity.
I don’t how this undermines RngR in any way especially since RngR confirms this once you account for a proper sample size.
Huff has gone back to being Huff. Deal with it.
by birdman on Jul 20, 2009 5:36 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
the only way it would be fair is if you use the same “vicinity” for each player. for example, lets use a 10 ft radius from the player. thats not fair at all to the player who could easily make a catch outside that radius
by twistedlogic on Jul 20, 2009 5:43 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
It does use the same vicinity for each player. It doesn’t use the same vicinity for each ballpark though due the idiosyncrasies of each ballpark.
Huff has gone back to being Huff. Deal with it.
by birdman on Jul 20, 2009 5:47 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
that screws over any player with good range
or possibly any good fielder who lacks top flight range. plus id imagine that stat doesnt include wind and weather conditions etc
by twistedlogic on Jul 20, 2009 5:50 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
that screws over any player with good range or possibly any good fielder who lacks top flight range.
Screws over a very strong word. At best, it may underestimate the true ability of someone with exception range. Overall though, it still measures range, however imperfectly (and if you do data analysis/statistics in the non-hard sciences division, you know that there’s no such thing as a perfect measure anyways).
plus id imagine that stat doesnt include wind and weather conditions etc
Well, wind and weather screws over everybody. There may be a validity or reliability problem if such factors selectively screws over certain players but it doesn’t.
Huff has gone back to being Huff. Deal with it.
by birdman on Jul 20, 2009 5:56 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
besides, RngR isn’t looking to measure a player’s range in terms of the number of feet a OF can cover (no doubt valuable information but this is what you seem to be talking about). It’s looking to measure plays made within a predefined area, it’s a subtle but important distinction.
Huff has gone back to being Huff. Deal with it.
by birdman on Jul 20, 2009 6:02 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
thats exactly why its a useless statistic
there are tons of factors that can affect how the ball is hit into that predefined area. who’s to say our “above average” LF made better plays than our “average” LF, but never saw any tough slices or whatever
by twistedlogic on Jul 20, 2009 6:09 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
but never saw any tough slices or whatever
This is exactly why you need a large sample. With enough data points, touch slices into the player’s RngR’s zone evens out for EVERYBODY.
Huff has gone back to being Huff. Deal with it.
by birdman on Jul 20, 2009 6:12 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
that still wouldnt make it any more useful in comparison
large samples can be equally as invalid as small samples. there are so many variables involved with the stats affecting “uzr,” it really could make no difference
by twistedlogic on Jul 20, 2009 6:20 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
large samples can be equally as invalid as small samples.
Yes, this is true depending on the sampling method. But it really isn’t applicable in this case because technically fangraphs isn’t using sample data, they’re using population data. Given that, a large sample is undeniably better in this particular case.
there are so many variables involved with the stats affecting "uzr,"
Name these variable then. Not that I disagree with you, there are measurement problems with UZR…
Huff has gone back to being Huff. Deal with it.
by birdman on Jul 20, 2009 6:25 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
wind, weather, velocity of the ball, spin of the ball, quality of defense around you (ie catcher losing the handle on a well thrown ball etc), ballpark, swarms of bees in LF, odd bounces, opposing lineups (id have a lot easier time throwing out manny ramirez than i would brian roberts), defensive position, etc etc
by twistedlogic on Jul 20, 2009 6:31 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
And all of these things are evened out by a large sample. And by even out, I mean all of these factors affect everyone.
Huff has gone back to being Huff. Deal with it.
by birdman on Jul 20, 2009 6:34 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yes, some of these factors are more detrimental in terms of affecting defensive ability (e.g. I imagine a swarm of bees is more detrimental than wind) but that still doesn’t negate the fact that these factors still even out over a large period of time. In other words, over three years, every player will have to deal with weather, sping of the ball, odd bounces, etc.
Huff has gone back to being Huff. Deal with it.
by birdman on Jul 20, 2009 6:38 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
and besides, a swarm of bees! you have to admit that this a very rare occurance and if you believe that this is a very rare occurance then you should know that wouldn’t affect a large data set in a meaningful way.
Huff has gone back to being Huff. Deal with it.
by birdman on Jul 20, 2009 6:41 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
haha yea that was just meant to be funny
i mean…..it WAS funny when it happened
by twistedlogic on Jul 20, 2009 6:41 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
if you’re talking about joba, wasn’t it mosquitos? swarm of bees is actually life threatening!
Huff has gone back to being Huff. Deal with it.
by birdman on Jul 20, 2009 6:43 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
i wish a swarm of bees would attack that kid in your avatar pic.
Huff has gone back to being Huff. Deal with it.
by birdman on Jul 20, 2009 6:45 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
me too
although it be hard to see his mouth swelling any more than it already is
by twistedlogic on Jul 20, 2009 6:47 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
just to follow up, saber folks say you need 3 years of defensive data in order to come with a large enough sample to reliably predict defensive performance. 3 years is usually enough data to make sure certain players aren’t being unfairly penalized for only having hard hit balls hit towards them.
Huff has gone back to being Huff. Deal with it.
by birdman on Jul 20, 2009 6:18 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Can't anyone play left field?
I don’t know what above average is for a LF’er. I assume throwing folk out at the plate.
by b_duardo on Jul 20, 2009 2:55 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
well, that’s part of the reason Luke Scott is above average ;-) He just has to be better than the other corner outfielders defensively, and there’s a lot of pretty bad ones. Compare Luke Scott’s defense to say, Adam Dunn’s
by math_geek on Jul 20, 2009 3:01 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
yea
i’d take Luke in left over ManRam
Matt Wieters can get to the tootsie roll center of a tootsie pop in under one lick.
by daveh873 on Jul 20, 2009 3:20 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
id take anybody over manram
i wouldnt want manram anywhere near my team. sure he can hit, but hes a cancer and ive never heard of cancer as being a good thing
okay maybe that was a poor analogy as cancers dont generally just quit…….
by twistedlogic on Jul 20, 2009 3:22 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
hardy har har
you know what i meant :-)
by twistedlogic on Jul 20, 2009 3:31 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
He's a cancer with 2 WS rings...
I’d take that kind of cancer on our team…
by O'sFan21 on Jul 20, 2009 4:14 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
i wouldnt
julio lugo has a WS ring and i dont want him on my team
by twistedlogic on Jul 20, 2009 5:01 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah they are REAL comparable players.
About equal contribution to those championships…get serious.
by O'sFan21 on Jul 20, 2009 5:03 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
yea im just joshin ya
but manny ramirez would not be a good example for a young team. kinda like albert belle
by twistedlogic on Jul 20, 2009 5:04 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I guess.
I don’t know though – if LF was the final piece to the puzzle I would definitely want him. I really don’t care about the “cancer” tag – everybody seemed to love him in Boston until last year.
by O'sFan21 on Jul 20, 2009 5:20 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
very true
but he did sorta quit on them which always worries me. whether or not that was attributed to the fans turning on him, i have no idea. why would they turn on a guy putting up his numbers tho?
by twistedlogic on Jul 20, 2009 5:33 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
albert belle
may have been a worse human being than manram, but you never would have seen him high five a fan after a catch while the play was still devoping or disappear mid inning. Albert Belle busted his butt most of the time. He may not have run out some grounders here and there, but I wouldnt compare him to ManRam.
Matt Wieters can get to the tootsie roll center of a tootsie pop in under one lick.
by daveh873 on Jul 20, 2009 6:05 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Who gives a shit if somebody high fives a fan during a play?
Did he get the DP or not? I think that settles it.
by O'sFan21 on Jul 20, 2009 6:36 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
SWAAAAACK
crackin the whip there :-)
by twistedlogic on Jul 20, 2009 6:38 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
well
we were talking about setting a good example for younger players, not about if he got the out. To me, high fiving a fan in the stands on a play when it COULD have cost you an out does not set a good example. Get what i’m saying?
Matt Wieters can get to the tootsie roll center of a tootsie pop in under one lick.
by daveh873 on Jul 20, 2009 10:26 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Were we?
I was talking about winning.
by O'sFan21 on Jul 21, 2009 12:21 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think Josh Vitters might be worth looking into
"We're so bad right now that for us back-to-back home runs means one today and another one tomorrow." ~ Earl Weaver
by Graham71681 on Jul 20, 2009 2:46 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Vitters would be a steal for Sherrill, but Ryan Flaherty would be a fair trade
by math_geek on Jul 20, 2009 2:50 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Vitters is not getting traded for him
"I have seen the future and his name is Matt Wieters." Keith Law
by Reddrummer9187 on Jul 20, 2009 2:53 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
A man can dream, can't he?
"We're so bad right now that for us back-to-back home runs means one today and another one tomorrow." ~ Earl Weaver
by Graham71681 on Jul 20, 2009 2:58 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
As long as you dont complain when he is traded for less than that
Then i’m fine with it.
"I have seen the future and his name is Matt Wieters." Keith Law
by Reddrummer9187 on Jul 20, 2009 3:03 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Oh I know its a pipe dream,
Like it was said before relievers don’t bring much back, I am not even sure if we could pull off getting Ryan Flaherty
"We're so bad right now that for us back-to-back home runs means one today and another one tomorrow." ~ Earl Weaver
by Graham71681 on Jul 20, 2009 3:08 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think i would want more than Flaherty
But it sounds like your expectations are reasonable.
"I have seen the future and his name is Matt Wieters." Keith Law
by Reddrummer9187 on Jul 20, 2009 3:38 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
George's return...
I would really like to see a lot of value back for Sherrill. I think he will still be very valuable to the Orioles – once they are competing – in a non-closing relief role. I know that sentiment has been shared here a few times, and I couldn’t agree more.
by VB O's Guy on Jul 20, 2009 2:28 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
And I think "inevitable" is a little strong
George Sherrill was the best available reliever this time last year. And I would venture rosenthal wrote the same thing then. Sherrill is also Andy’s baby, fetching him in the bedard trade that gave him so much cred. I don’t think he gives him up for anything less than a ransom.
by b_duardo on Jul 20, 2009 2:40 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
He was not the best available reliever
Huston Street and Brian Fuentes were on the market. He was probably comparable in value to Fuentes.
"I have seen the future and his name is Matt Wieters." Keith Law
by Reddrummer9187 on Jul 20, 2009 2:52 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Neither of which were inevitably traded at the deadline
Correct me if I am wrong
by b_duardo on Jul 20, 2009 3:58 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
No you are right
But they were just as “available” as Sherrill was last year
"I have seen the future and his name is Matt Wieters." Keith Law
by Reddrummer9187 on Jul 20, 2009 3:58 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I dont understand this position.
He is 32 and under team control for two and a half more seasons. I dont see us as a contender next year but possibly the year after that we could contend. At that point he will be 34 and in the final year of his contract. How much value will he really have for us then?
Now if we trade him now for a 3b, ss or even 2b prospect, that player could potentially contribute far more. Or if we trade him for pitching prospects they could end up in the bullpen and sure up our bullpen for cheap for many years to come. Either of those options would have more value than keeping him around to contribute to last place teams.
"I have seen the future and his name is Matt Wieters." Keith Law
by Reddrummer9187 on Jul 20, 2009 3:14 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
or we could trade him for a prospect we think will help but turns into felix pie
i’m not a huge fan of trading guys unless these deals are good and i mean good. sherrill could actually help us as hes been a reliable lefty in the pen. i dont personally feel a team full of nothing but rookies and fairly unseasoned veterans has a solid chance of contending, but if anyone has history/numbers on that, by all means share them.
(then there are guys like melmo who have not been reliable and you do want to trade for whatever you can)
by twistedlogic on Jul 20, 2009 3:19 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
With regards to prospects
Individually they dont pan out, because that is just how it is. You get busts, and one day we may talk about how one of Arrieta, Matusz or Tillman was a bust. However that should not stop you from obtaining them, because there is safety in numbers. If you get enough you are sure to get some busts but yet you also get extremely valuable young talent.
If we want vets we can get them through FA. We will have plenty of money to spend when we look ready to contend (I think our payroll will be down in the mid 30’s after this year).
"I have seen the future and his name is Matt Wieters." Keith Law
by Reddrummer9187 on Jul 20, 2009 3:29 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I see value in a shutdown lefty
The grass aint always greener. And for one thing I am a little more optimistic than you about the team’s prospects next year. And the following year. A reliable shutdown lefty is very valuable. It ain’t just about what he can fetch it is about what he provides.
by b_duardo on Jul 20, 2009 3:24 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
yea thats kinda what i was getting at, but apparently have trouble saying it
i meant, in a nutshell, only trade these guys if what they bring in is equal or greater value. except when the guy has no value, then i’d say you had better get more value
by twistedlogic on Jul 20, 2009 3:27 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm with you on that
if the return is a marginal SS/2b prospect, forget it. If its a solid 3b/1b prospect, then ok. We’ve got time to worry about 2b and i’m fine with dino at SS for the next year or 2 as well. 3 areas that I find a bit more pressing are 1b, 3b, and the pen. We already have a very nice lefty in the pen, and if we are gonna ship that then lets address one of the other big time problems. Otherwise, lets not create a new hole.
Matt Wieters can get to the tootsie roll center of a tootsie pop in under one lick.
by daveh873 on Jul 20, 2009 3:30 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
As far as a marginal prospect
I dont think anybody wants him traded for just that. The position makes more of a difference if he is near MLB ready. If it is a younger prospect then position doesn’t make much of a difference. Because as b_duardo alludes to below, SS prospects often move to 3b or 2b. So the fact that we have no SS prospects is disturbing because it means no 3b or 2b prospects as well.
"I have seen the future and his name is Matt Wieters." Keith Law
by Reddrummer9187 on Jul 20, 2009 3:36 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
A lot of teams see value in a shutdown lefty
That is why we could possibly trade George for some value. What he provides largely determines what he can fetch.
How do you think this team will perform next year? Because I think if we break .500 that will be a success. This team has a good future, but the future is more 2011 and not 2010. The answer to this question completely changes how you handle this trade deadline.
"I have seen the future and his name is Matt Wieters." Keith Law
by Reddrummer9187 on Jul 20, 2009 3:33 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
So it comes to this
We agree that George Sherrill will never have more trade value than he does right now.
And I think we agree on his value. Probably a middling infield prospect that adds depth to the system that may or may not pan out in 2-3 years.
Whereas I see a shutdown lefthander in the pen as vital to the success of the team next year and the year after.
Yes, yes. I am homer and i think we can play next year.
by b_duardo on Jul 20, 2009 3:43 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
If we weren't in the AL east
Then competing next year would be a reality. But the truth is that even if we are vastly improved it probably puts us at 5-10 games above .500 which is right where the Blue Jays have been recently. The Rays and their endless farm system, the Yanks and their endless budget, and the Red Sox and their great farm system and budget are all better teams this year and next year.
"I have seen the future and his name is Matt Wieters." Keith Law
by Reddrummer9187 on Jul 20, 2009 4:01 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Damn you and your dreaded Blue Jays analogy
You are right. We will see if Andy pulls the trigger. He hasn’t been one to act rashly.
by b_duardo on Jul 20, 2009 4:07 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
George Sherrill Value analysis
George Sherrill has been worth according to fangraphs 0.9, 1.0, and 0.4 WAR from 2006-2008. This season has been his best season so far with 0.8 WAR so far. Projecting him to pitch at the same level for the next half of the season and then go to pitching 1.0 WAR for the next two years… and using half his current salary of 2.75 Million dollars and then plugging in arbitration years for the next two years, I used Beyond the Box Score’s trade value assessment and got a total trade value for George Sherrill of 5.4 million dollars. Not too shabby. Believe it or not, George is legitimately worth something. That’s about equivalent of a grade B hitting prospect. Pitchers are worth more as they are less projectible and can be relievers.
To give you an idea of reasonable prospects from each of the team to trade for George Sherrill, I looked for type B hitting prospects from each of the farm systems and picked a 3B, SS, or 1B (although almost always a SS, as that’s what these teams had)
LA Dodgers – Ivan DeJesus, SS
Milwaukee Brewers Alcides Escobar, SS (may be a bit high, we couldn’t get him last year)
Chicago Cubs – Ryan Flaherty, SS
Florida Marlins – No-one really appropriate, 3B Matt Dominguez would be a huge coup for us, but someone like 2B Chris Coghlan would be less than exciting and not a position that MacPhail is prioritizing right now with Roberts being extended and still one of our best players.
Angels – I doubt we could get Brandon Wood, but there’s a lot of upside there, and I’d certainly be OK with that happening. He’s a tough player to value as a former prospect that hasn’t delivered yet.
I’d be pretty happy with DeJesus, who’s glovey, and can walk, but won’t hit for power, or Flaherty, who’s probably the better hitter at the SS position.
by math_geek on Jul 20, 2009 2:50 PM EDT reply actions 1 recs
SS prospects
I’m much less worried about SS and much more worried about the corners. If we want a light hitting good fielding SS, we have 2 of those (and 1 is still young and cheap). Unless we start talking about guys that may hit more than they weigh (ok, maybe more than Georgie weighs) then i’m really not gonna get terribly excited about any SS prospect.
Matt Wieters can get to the tootsie roll center of a tootsie pop in under one lick.
by daveh873 on Jul 20, 2009 3:26 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
A SS that can hit is a pretty good 3b
by b_duardo on Jul 20, 2009 3:32 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
these are solid prospects with offensivepotential. There weren’t many corner infielders in the range i was looking for wth the teams i was looking for
by math_geek on Jul 20, 2009 10:19 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Don't know much about Sherill's value, but...
I’d really like to get a young 3B out of the deal. Don’t really see SS as a priority, we already have Itzuris(sp?) and Andino. I’d like to see Andino get a shot as the regular SS once Itzuris’s time is up here. He looked more than capable during his extended playing time.
The one position it seems were lacking for the 2010/2011 seasons is 3B. Our outfield is set. SS will be either Andino or Itzuris. 2B is Roberts. 1B, I see Snyder being ready by then, and of course Wieters behind the plate.
If we can get a guy like Brandon Wood(ANA) or Matt Dominguez(FLA), it would be perfect. They both have their flaws, mostly hitting discipline, but their both young and above average defensively. Both have the potential to be nice power hitters at least from what I read.
I’m just a casual fan, so if anyone has some in depth analysis of either player, please add to the convo
by Ceasaleo on Jul 20, 2009 3:57 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I appreciate the desire for corner-outfield, but we have to take the most vaulable prospect as opposed to picking for need. If a B SS is better than a B- or C+ 3B we should get him. SS is still a need in our system and there is definitely room to upgrade SS over Izturis or Andino. 3B is a major league need, but perhaps one that can be best filled by a solid major league signing. It doesn’t even have to be Adrian Beltre.
by math_geek on Jul 20, 2009 10:57 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think we can all blame...
Billy Rowell for this convo being so back and forth…. Especially every time Lincecum pitches…
by GeoffreyA on Jul 20, 2009 6:46 PM EDT via mobile reply actions 0 recs
Matusz or Tillman.
Who is the next phenom out of the two?
That one's headed to the moon! It's outta here!
by Orioles96 on Jul 22, 2009 5:50 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Camden Chat
Related FanShots on Camden Chat
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
SBNation.com Recent Stories
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- Toyota sign proposal in Wrigley Field's bleachers in need of recall
- Andrew Bailey doesn't play tennis, but he does have tennis elbow
- Quick Q&A: Matt Vasgersian of MLB Network talks '30 in 30'
- Desert Drive: Angels' spring training shines a steady spotlight
- Washington's drug use led to blackmail, which led to publicity
GAMETHREAD SPONSOR
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
