Comments on: MLB Anti-Trade Value http://ussmariner.com/2007/04/16/mlb-anti-trade-value/ Seattle Mariners and general baseball discussion with David Cameron and Derek Zumsteg Sat, 21 Nov 2009 08:17:03 -0800 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5 hourly 1 By: eponymous coward http://ussmariner.com/2007/04/16/mlb-anti-trade-value/comment-page-3/#comment-174113 eponymous coward Thu, 19 Apr 2007 02:58:13 +0000 http://ussmariner.com/2007/04/16/mlb-anti-trade-value/#comment-174113 <i>My argument on Jeter is thus: he’s not getting any better. 2006 was a fluke. The Yankees are paying him a huge amount of money.</i><i> Jeter's 2006: .343/.417/.483 Jeter's 2000: .339/.416/.481 Jeter's 1999: .349/.438/.552 So, he's had 3 fluke years during his career? How many times does he have to hit .330-.340 with OBP's in the .400s for it not to be a fluke? For Pete's sake, his LIFETIME batting line is .317/.388/.462- so, basically, the difference between his line in 2006 and his career line is about one single a month. How on earth is that a fluke? Here's the other thing: Jeter hasn't declined from 2004 to 2006 (OPS+ going from 116 to 121 to 138). Helton's gone from 159 to 144 to 119. I wouldn't pass up Jeter for Beltre, but Helton's under contract for a longer priod of time, and has decline signals all over his performance the last few years. I'd take Jeter over the guys at 8/9/10/</i> My argument on Jeter is thus: he’s not getting any better. 2006 was a fluke. The Yankees are paying him a huge amount of money.

Jeter’s 2006: .343/.417/.483
Jeter’s 2000: .339/.416/.481
Jeter’s 1999: .349/.438/.552

So, he’s had 3 fluke years during his career? How many times does he have to hit .330-.340 with OBP’s in the .400s for it not to be a fluke? For Pete’s sake, his LIFETIME batting line is .317/.388/.462- so, basically, the difference between his line in 2006 and his career line is about one single a month. How on earth is that a fluke?

Here’s the other thing: Jeter hasn’t declined from 2004 to 2006 (OPS+ going from 116 to 121 to 138). Helton’s gone from 159 to 144 to 119.

I wouldn’t pass up Jeter for Beltre, but Helton’s under contract for a longer priod of time, and has decline signals all over his performance the last few years. I’d take Jeter over the guys at 8/9/10/

]]> By: DMZ http://ussmariner.com/2007/04/16/mlb-anti-trade-value/comment-page-3/#comment-174101 DMZ Thu, 19 Apr 2007 02:30:25 +0000 http://ussmariner.com/2007/04/16/mlb-anti-trade-value/#comment-174101 Beltre: through 2009, ~12m Jeter: through 2009, ~20m, 2010 for $21m Beltre: through 2009, ~12m
Jeter: through 2009, ~20m, 2010 for $21m

]]> By: penn94 http://ussmariner.com/2007/04/16/mlb-anti-trade-value/comment-page-3/#comment-174097 penn94 Thu, 19 Apr 2007 02:19:28 +0000 http://ussmariner.com/2007/04/16/mlb-anti-trade-value/#comment-174097 I am a Mets fan who does not like Jeter, because the media blows smoke up his ass and he can't field worth a damn. Having said that, his contract is no albatross. He is coming off of an MVP caliber season, has the type of speed / line drive skills which do not quickly evaporate, and has been consistently a very good player (if not the superstar the media makes him out to be). I would rather be stuck with him for the next four years at his salary than have Beltre and his inconsistent performance at the big bucks he is making. I am a Mets fan who does not like Jeter, because the media blows smoke up his ass and he can’t field worth a damn. Having said that, his contract is no albatross. He is coming off of an MVP caliber season, has the type of speed / line drive skills which do not quickly evaporate, and has been consistently a very good player (if not the superstar the media makes him out to be). I would rather be stuck with him for the next four years at his salary than have Beltre and his inconsistent performance at the big bucks he is making.

]]> By: Tuomas http://ussmariner.com/2007/04/16/mlb-anti-trade-value/comment-page-3/#comment-173697 Tuomas Wed, 18 Apr 2007 05:38:20 +0000 http://ussmariner.com/2007/04/16/mlb-anti-trade-value/#comment-173697 My argument on Jeter is thus: he's not getting any better. 2006 was a fluke. The Yankees are paying him a huge amount of money. Does Jeter belong with Michael Young? No. Hampton or Anderson? No. Helton? Yes. Jeter's more difficult defensive position is offset by his abysmal defense. I don't think trading Jeter would be possible were he objectively analyzed. Bringing his name and supposed intangibles into the equation skews things in his favor, but the same factors might apply to Varitek as well. My argument on Jeter is thus: he’s not getting any better. 2006 was a fluke. The Yankees are paying him a huge amount of money.

Does Jeter belong with Michael Young? No. Hampton or Anderson? No. Helton? Yes. Jeter’s more difficult defensive position is offset by his abysmal defense.

I don’t think trading Jeter would be possible were he objectively analyzed. Bringing his name and supposed intangibles into the equation skews things in his favor, but the same factors might apply to Varitek as well.

]]> By: 88fingerslukee http://ussmariner.com/2007/04/16/mlb-anti-trade-value/comment-page-3/#comment-173621 88fingerslukee Wed, 18 Apr 2007 03:09:11 +0000 http://ussmariner.com/2007/04/16/mlb-anti-trade-value/#comment-173621 That's a cool article. I kinda want that book now. That’s a cool article. I kinda want that book now.

]]> By: lokiforever http://ussmariner.com/2007/04/16/mlb-anti-trade-value/comment-page-3/#comment-173620 lokiforever Wed, 18 Apr 2007 02:13:46 +0000 http://ussmariner.com/2007/04/16/mlb-anti-trade-value/#comment-173620 <a href="http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/columns/story?columnist=crasnick_jerry&id=2840290" rel="nofollow"> Story on ESPN about "The fielding Bible"</a> Story on ESPN about “The fielding Bible”

]]> By: lokiforever http://ussmariner.com/2007/04/16/mlb-anti-trade-value/comment-page-3/#comment-173619 lokiforever Wed, 18 Apr 2007 02:12:00 +0000 http://ussmariner.com/2007/04/16/mlb-anti-trade-value/#comment-173619 After all Jeter gets a minus 64 versus Adam Everett's plus 76 in terms of fielding. This from Baseball Info Solutions, and their book, "The fielding Bible". After all Jeter gets a minus 64 versus Adam Everett’s plus 76 in terms of fielding. This from Baseball Info Solutions, and their book, “The fielding Bible”.

]]> By: planB http://ussmariner.com/2007/04/16/mlb-anti-trade-value/comment-page-3/#comment-173613 planB Wed, 18 Apr 2007 01:16:02 +0000 http://ussmariner.com/2007/04/16/mlb-anti-trade-value/#comment-173613 94: No, I don't think he belongs on the list at all, I just like to speak out against Jeter. 96: Someone can be both good and overrated. 94: No, I don’t think he belongs on the list at all, I just like to speak out against Jeter.

96: Someone can be both good and overrated.

]]> By: Jeremy http://ussmariner.com/2007/04/16/mlb-anti-trade-value/comment-page-3/#comment-173612 Jeremy Wed, 18 Apr 2007 00:56:33 +0000 http://ussmariner.com/2007/04/16/mlb-anti-trade-value/#comment-173612 129 Again, 2009 and 2010 are someone else's problem. I'm looking at him regardless of his future length. I don't think he's in for a serious regression, but if I'm wrong, I will flip him to the "Greater Fool" who believes he needs a "change of scenery" to turn it back around. You don't believe that Derek Jeter, media darling would be given that chance? You really can't picture Jim Rome, etc clamoring to get him the hell out of Seattle and blaming the park for his woes if he posted a league average OPS+? You may not make the trade, I'll bet you I could send him to San Francisco where Brian Sabean has a bunch of Bonds money burning a hole in his pocket. As we've said it's a moot point because I believe he will retire as a Yankee, but I would rather have a slightly overpaid star than a bunch of crap because it is easier to move the star than the crap. 129

Again, 2009 and 2010 are someone else’s problem. I’m looking at him regardless of his future length. I don’t think he’s in for a serious regression, but if I’m wrong, I will flip him to the “Greater Fool” who believes he needs a “change of scenery” to turn it back around. You don’t believe that Derek Jeter, media darling would be given that chance? You really can’t picture Jim Rome, etc clamoring to get him the hell out of Seattle and blaming the park for his woes if he posted a league average OPS+? You may not make the trade, I’ll bet you I could send him to San Francisco where Brian Sabean has a bunch of Bonds money burning a hole in his pocket.

As we’ve said it’s a moot point because I believe he will retire as a Yankee, but I would rather have a slightly overpaid star than a bunch of crap because it is easier to move the star than the crap.

]]> By: Mariner Fan in CO Exile http://ussmariner.com/2007/04/16/mlb-anti-trade-value/comment-page-3/#comment-173611 Mariner Fan in CO Exile Wed, 18 Apr 2007 00:38:58 +0000 http://ussmariner.com/2007/04/16/mlb-anti-trade-value/#comment-173611 Well, the fantasy-land rules you've adopted will never come to be, so if you want to hold that position in the land of make believe, fine. Why pretend you could get Jeter on a one-year, one-shot deal? Fact of the matter is that Jeter is locked up through 2010 on his contract. That means you have to do at least as good, if not better than this to get him here: 2007: $20 million 2008: $20 million 2009: $20 million 2010: $21 million Add on another year or two (and whatever else you have to add to sweeten the pot to get him here), and you've suddenly gone well over $100 mill for a player during his age 33-37 or 38 years. Now that's an albatross that you won't get rid of without eating some of the salary. Plus, I think Jeter'll retire a Yankee. Fact of the matter is his marketability is swallowed up by the security he already has. You think he's going to be less overpaid by 2010? Well, the fantasy-land rules you’ve adopted will never come to be, so if you want to hold that position in the land of make believe, fine. Why pretend you could get Jeter on a one-year, one-shot deal?

Fact of the matter is that Jeter is locked up through 2010 on his contract. That means you have to do at least as good, if not better than this to get him here:

2007: $20 million
2008: $20 million
2009: $20 million
2010: $21 million

Add on another year or two (and whatever else you have to add to sweeten the pot to get him here), and you’ve suddenly gone well over $100 mill for a player during his age 33-37 or 38 years. Now that’s an albatross that you won’t get rid of without eating some of the salary. Plus, I think Jeter’ll retire a Yankee. Fact of the matter is his marketability is swallowed up by the security he already has. You think he’s going to be less overpaid by 2010?

]]>