Why It Would Be Okay To Trade Michael Pineda
The last few weeks of Justin Upton related conversations have given rise to perspectives on the relative trade value of most of the M’s young talents, including the three young guys who seem close enough the majors that you should expect to see them at Safeco this summer – Dustin Ackley, Justin Smoak, and Michael Pineda. Besides Felix, these are the three guys in the organization that get people excited about what the future might hold, and for many of you, the idea of trading any of them away is painful. As Shannon Drayer wrote on her blog, initial reaction is often “hell no” when the topic of moving two of those players for Upton is broached.
However, Shannon came around to the idea of making a move with some limitations – for her, the guy she wants to keep is Michael Pineda. Personally, I’m of the exact opposite opinion – he’s the guy I’d be most willing to deal, and given the Mariners situation, I think it might actually make sense for the M’s to use Pineda as a bargaining chip this winter.
I realize that this might sound crazy. Pineda is the organization’s best pitching prospect by a country mile, as the drop-off after him is pretty substantial. He showed front-of-the-rotation stuff and potential in Double-A and Triple-A last year, and is widely expected to have a real chance to break camp with the team to start the 2011 season. After Felix, the M’s rotation options are a bunch of slop-throwing, pitch-to-contact guys, none of whom have anything resembling Pineda’s upside. If the M’s did trade him, they’d need to acquire two starting pitchers to fill out their rotation this winter, and it’s never easy to get two useful big league starters in the same winter.
However, while Pineda is full of upside, he’s also brimming with risk. Pitching prospects are notoriously fickle, as they are the most likely players on the field to get hurt and don’t follow traditional development curves. Just as an example, here are the pitching prospects that Baseball America ranked in their top 25 prospects before the 2007 season began.
Daisuke Matsuzaka (#1)
Phil Hughes (#4)
Homer Bailey (#5)
Andrew Miller (#10)
Tim Lincecum (#11)
Yovani Gallardo (#16)
Mike Pelfrey (#20)
Matt Garza (#21)
Adam Miller (#23)
Clayton Kershaw (#24)
Despite being a really strong year for pitching prospects, that is a decidedly mixed bag. Dice-K is generally considered a bust, and is nothing more than a #4 or #5 starter at this point. Hughes has turned into a good starter, but it took him four years and a trip to the bullpen in between. Bailey has mostly struggled, finally showing some progress in the second half of last season. Andrew Miller is a bust, as he’s battled arm injuries and is now a reclamation project with his third organization. Lincecum is the big success story, though Gallardo and Kershaw have also developed into high quality starters as well. Pelfrey has established himself as a decent mid-rotation guy, as has Garza, though it took him a change in organizations to live up to the hype. Adam Miller rounds out the bust group, as finger problems have derailed his career.
This is basically how it goes with pitching prospects – even premium ones. There’s a chance that Pineda turns into a really good starting pitcher, but there’s an equally large chance that he gets hurt or simply can’t translate his minor league success to the big leagues. In fact, given Pineda’s history of arm problems and limited workloads, chances are almost certainly better that he busts than that he booms. He’s a high risk prospect even by normal pitching prospect standards.
Volatility is the nature of the beast when it comes to prospects, but the Mariners have some circumstances that suggest it might not make sense for them to be the ones to take the risk on Pineda’s development. The big factor here is Safeco Field. As we’ve talked about ad nauseum, the stadium’s asymmetrical alignment makes it a pitcher’s paradise for southpaws, but it isn’t nearly as friendly for right-handed pitchers. The team has a built-in competitive advantage with left-handed pitchers, where they can take a guy who would be marginal in another park and make him a viable starter because of how the field plays. This gives them a chance to get value out of players who won’t command a huge return in the market, as their skills don’t work in other places as well as they do in Seattle.
This isn’t to say that the Mariners should only have left-handed starting pitchers, but filling the rotation with right-handers does come with an opportunity cost. With Felix and Fister already around, adding Pineda to the rotation leaves a maximum of two spots for lefties, which prevents the team from using the dimensions of its home park to full advantage. Or, to put it another way, replacing Pineda’s production may actually not be all that hard for the Mariners, given their unique ability to extract maximum value from pedestrian left-handed pitchers. If you could get a 4.25 ERA from a guy like Jeff Francis simply because of how the park plays, you would not lose all that much from what Pineda is likely to give you, even if his true talent level is significantly lower.
The other factor is that a team in the Mariners position can’t afford to see one of their primary assets lose a large chunk of his value overnight, as would happen if Pineda’s arm started hurting at some point this year. For a team that needs to be adding value to their major league roster, having two of their five most valuable pieces be pitchers under the age of 25 exposes them to significant downside. Swapping Pineda for a position player, or using him as a piece in a trade that brings the team an everyday player, would reduce the likelihood of the team facing a catastrophe.
I’m not suggesting that the Mariners should give Pineda away, of course. As one of the best pitching prospects in the game, and a guy who could step into a big league rotation right away, he should have a substantial amount of trade value. I’d simply suggest that the Mariners may want to consider cashing in that value if an opportunity to get a quality young position player presents itself. The risks of Pineda flopping are pretty large, and the organization would lose a big asset if he doesn’t develop as hoped. For where they are in terms of roster construction, it may be wise to take a little less reward to minimize risk.
If the Mariners are going to trade any of their premium young talent this winter, Pineda should probably be the one they move.
Comments
99 Responses to “Why It Would Be Okay To Trade Michael Pineda”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
I wouldn’t trade Pineda and a package for Upton. Justin’s BABIP in 2010 was .360, and in 2009 it was .354. Upton has not played more than 140 games. He is right handed and strikeouts a lot. Upton also has benefited from his home park in AZ. He looks like someone who is due some regression if he moves to Safeco.
There’s another side to this coin that needs to be considered, and is integral to the Mariner’s hopes of fielding a competitive team within the limitations of not only their current budget, but also their expected mid-term budget. It’s pretty much an axiom (and well understood here at USSM) that the M’s need to assemble a large group of talented, club-controlled players that can contribute a lot of wins without costing a lot of money. This leaves more room in the budget to hire some key, expensive, impact-type free agents that can fill in the holes and bring them up to the level of a contending team.
The free agents are the key here. Historically, teams have gotten much better results from free agent position players as opposed to pitchers. Free agent pitchers are a risky lot, usually providing much less return on investment than position players. Any free agent can bust and become an albatross contract, but it happens more frequently with pitchers than position players. With the limitations of the M’s budget, reliance on free agent pitchers means less likelihood that they can get the level of production they need with the money they spend on free agents. It makes more sense to spend that money on position players, as it gives them a better shot at receiving the expected return on their investment.
Of course, the only way to make that work is if you’re able to have talented pitchers that are under team control. As a long-term goal to become a perennial contender, it makes sense that they would try to focus on developing and acquiring those club-controlled pitchers, while expecting to fill the inevitable holes in the field with free agent position players. Trading away a guy that looks like he could be a long-term contributor to the rotation isn’t helping to further that goal, and would have to be considered a very special circumstance. Maybe Justin Upton is that special circumstance, but I’d hope that the M’s would be very reluctant to trade away a pitcher with Pineda’s type of potential.
Certainly, there’s a considerable chance that Pineda could bust. But there’s also a considerable chance that any free agent pitcher the M’s were to sign could also bust. What’s different about these scenarios is the amount of money tied up in the two. If you gamble and lose on Pineda, it has relatively no impact on the budget. If you gamble and lose on an expensive free agent pitcher, you’ve really crapped out.
I certainly could live with trading Pineda for the right guy, but this does leaves the M’s with really nothing but #5s behind Felix.
I just am not sold that Vargas is really more than a #5 who had a good year (I tend to want repeats from marginal starters)- and even if you think 2010 is his real level of ability, go look at playoff teams and tell me which guy you’d rather have as your #2 in a playoff series: Vargas, or one of Lewis or Wilson? Vargas, or Matt Cain? Vargas, or Pavano? Vargas, or Phil Hughes? Vargas, or… well, you get the idea. If Jason Vargas is your second-best pitcher, unless you’re pitching Felix on an Old Hoss Radbourne schedule, your staff kinda sucks.
Everyone else… well, they’re #5s.
So you’d need to bulk up the pitching staff. And trading for Cliff Lee doesn’t seem to be an option this time around…
The thing that compounds the handedness analysis Dave did in his post is that Pineda’s already very shaky vs. lefties. Left-handed hitters hit .265/.338/.462 against him in Tacoma, and .300/.347/.379 against him in Double-A. He dominated right-handed hitters at both levels, but I really worry about him against teams with multiple quality left-handed hitters.
Unless Pineda’s changeup improves considerably as a weapon against lefties, he’s a really bad fit for Safeco. The ballpark neutralizes his greatest strength and exacerbates his biggest weakness.
Another bit of information on Upton:
His career wRC+ at home is 133.
His career wRC+ on the road is 95.
Will we see companion posts of “Why it would not be okay to trade Dustin Ackley” and “Why it might be okay to trade Justin Smoak”? Although come to think of it, the Ackley point’s probably already been made.
Home/road splits are only a very crude way to correct for park factors. We already have a tool for that; we call them park factors.
I agree with the idea that trading Pineda would make more sense than Ackley or Smoak. I even think it would make more sense to trade Pineda than Nick Franklin at this point. Hitting (especially switch hitting at a defensive premium position) is what the team needs. Hitting and defense. Isn’t that how 2001 was built?
From what I understand wRC+ is park adjusted.
Harumph.
What this team isn’t offense or defense or pitching. It’s RUN DIFFERENTIAL. You get that however you can. Focussing on just offense or pitching or defense leads you to tunnel vision.
Well who said anything about focusing on that? I simply pointed out a greater need at the moment. We do have Felix, also known as the best pitcher in the American League, who struggled to pitch in games that led to wins due to horrid offense. The team is in need of offense. The team’s defense has been much improved of late. The team’s pitching was overall quite solid. Pineda wouldn’t help Felix, or Vargas, or Fister, or Francis (or whoever Jack Z. targets this offseason) as much as another Smoak or Ackley would. So better hitting and good defense in a park that favors pitching isn’t a bad plan. If we didn’t have a Felix in there, then yeah, I’d say we need someone like Pineda. That was the one thing 2001 was missing: truly dominant starting pitching. *shrug*
Unfortunately, any argument about the value of a pitcher vs a hitter in trades will always be a perfect double-edged sword.
Edge 1: Pitchers get hurt easier, less valuable.
Edge 2: Hoard as many functional pitchers as possible, since many will get hurt.
Edge 1: Position players play every day for us and therefore are “more valuable.” We should trade for position players.
Edge 2: Towers will ask for more when trading a position player, who is “more valuable.”
The argument here SHOULD be more focused on the talent of these two players (less on the job of the player), and their SPECIFIC injury risks relative to others playing their same position, which (to be fair) Dave does talk about. Anyway, good points all around.
Since we’re harping on grammar…
Actually, when deciding which article (a/an) to use before a substantive, you do not refer to the abbreviation but rather the full word.
Again, see above and take your own advice before bashing someone when they’re already correct. Even though I’m an English teacher and prescriptive grammar mistakes annoy me, attitudes such as yours are worse.
Now, back to baseball…Dave, fair argument regarding Pineda. But, I’m still unwilling to move 2 of our big 3 or 4 prospects for Upton. However, I love the Rasmus suggestions. Do you see Rasmus as a possibility and more importantly what would you be willing to part with?
Ryan Anderson, Jeff Heaverlo, Travis Blackley, Clint Nageotte, Joel Pineiro, etc etc. Go look at our top pitching prospects over the last 15 years, Felix is the only one that’s made it. That’s it.
I realize just looking at one organization is a little narrow-sighted, but to the point, far more seem to flop that make it, yet people will value ‘top’ pitching prospects so highly before they make it because of the ‘if’ factor; ‘if’ they become something special.
I’m 100% on board with trading Pineda in a package for some hitter of value: Upton, Rasmus, etc. Makes a ton of sense.
The team’s pitching was overall quite solid.
Yeah, can’t wait until we have Cliff Lee starting back to back with Fel-oh, wait.
Seriously? No, it’s not. The pitching is basically comparable to 2008-2009: Felix and a bunch of backend guys who are 4-5s, who look OK at Safeco with a good defense behind them, but clearly aren’t very good and as a group are below-average, talent-wise (none of them have anything resembling good fastballs and ability to strike people out). Realistically, if Jason Vargas goes on to have Jarrod Washburn’s career he’ll be doing pretty well. Would you be saying how our staff was OK if our #2 was Washburn instead of Vargas?
The bullpen isn’t very good, either- too many guys with the same profile (RHP with fastball and poor command basically describes most of the ‘pen).
You are STILL saying it by focussing on “greater need.”
You are trying to divide out an area when it should considered as a whole. Not just offense. Or pitching. Or defense. But all of them together.
I think what we should focus on is any area where we can get the biggest improvement. If we have a shot at improving pitching a lot, we should take it. If we have a shot a improving hitting by a greater degree, we need to take that. I personally would be more happy to see an improvement in hitting because offenseless losing teams are hideous to watch.
I would gladly trade Pineda for Upton but that won’t get the trade done. We can’t really afford to pay what it will take to get him.
Again, it’s run differential that’s important. An improvement in defense or pitching can be leveraged so that a smaller improvement on offense would be needed to get more wins.
Sure. My point though is that it should (in theory) be easier for the M’s to improve their offense than their defense. The M’s allowed 698 runs last year, 6th best in the American League. They were dead last in runs scored with 513, and team #13 (Baltimore) scored 613. A decent DH (for example) would represent a bigger gain than a decent starting pitcher because our pitchers were adequate last year and our DHs were horrific.
Yeah, that’s true. You won’t have a defense cost if you improve the DH slot; you aren’t trading one thing for another. In that way it’s easier, and probably get more bang for the buck.
I just don’t want fans to get so focussed on OFFENSE!OFFENSE!OFFENSE! that they forget that it’s a means to an end. A medium bat at DH is going to help a lot (over the putridness we had), and it’ll probably have as big of an impact as a Big Name Bat if we also improve our pitching (see, there’s that run differential thing again).
The team pitches half its games in Safeco. You can’t say “well sure, they’re fine in Safeco but…” – an intelligent team is put together with its home park at least somewhat in mind.
As Badbadger just mentioned, our pitching and defense combined to be the sixth stingiest in the American League. Pitching really isn’t the problem! You have to look at the whole defensive package to get some context.
And if you think comparing Vargas with Washburn is somehow making a point, think again. The real issue with Washburn – as was spelled out on this site and others many times – was not his skill set, but the salary that he was getting for a less-than-star-pitcher skill set. With a guy like Vargas, you’re getting a somewhat similar pitcher for something like $9 million a year less! If the Mariners could’ve picked Washburn up for Vargas’ salary, I doubt many people would’ve been down on the move.
Jordan – you should really follow your own advice. According to this and this, you use “a” or “an” depending on how the abbreviation is pronounced, not the full word. So if you’re actually saying “ems” as an abbreviation for “Mariners,” you would say “an Ms uniform.” On the other hand, if you wanted to talk about the inappropriate apostrophe use in “M’s,” you might have a case. Also, the first quote you cited was from a post by awestby51, while the second quote you cited was left by one of the moderators. Not the same person.
That devolved rather quickly.
And I think the future posts would be titled; “Why Smoak should be as off limits as Felix”, and “What it would take in return to deal Ackley”.
Yeah, let’s not strive to improve our greatest weakness. Let’s improve our strengths… and then still fail because our weakness is greater than our strength. According to Bill James, baseball is 42 percent hitting, 8 percent baserunning, 37 percent pitching and 13 percent fielding. And I read Dave Cameron agreeing with this, or only slightly modifying it recently (can’t remember if it was here or fangraphs, on a chat I think). So if we’re dead last in something that’s 42 percent of the game, it makes more sense to focus on that than anything else, because if your hitting is an “F” and everything else is a “B”, you’re still going to fail because of how importantly weighted that “F” is.
Hey, guess what! There is free agency. I know, crazy concepts, right?
Also, if our pitching was so bad, why were we still smack-dab in the middle of run-prevention? 2.5 months of Cliff Lee?
All in all, I’m saying trading Pineda would be a good thing if it could get us equal value in return with a bat/decent defender. Overall, bats and defense>>pitching… and look for pitching elsewhere (see half a dozen reclamation projects available this off-season; cheap and incentive-laden).
I don’t really disagree, but I do think there is a reason why offense gets more attention than fielding; it is more fun to watch your team score than to watch them prevent a run. As a fan I don’t want to watch the M’s only score 513 runs again, and given that context I think it’s fair to be more focused on offense this off season.
That’s not really what he’s saying, he’s making a more general point about the value of offense and defense.
I’d say you missed my point completely. Mostly, I think it’s because most fans are stuck in a binary mode when it comes to their team. Either a team’s offense is good, or it’s bad–you’re not measuring it quantitatively. The whole point of looking at run differential is that you improve so that your weakness is LESS than your strength.
(Oh, and please note…I specifically said that improving your pitching and defense will make any improvements on offense more efficient).
Granted, it’s a whole lot more fun to see the team win 5-0 than 1-0, but now we’re getting into the area of style points; style points don’t count in the standings. If we win 92 games by 2-1 and 1-0 scores, fans will take it (though they’ll be a lot of coronaries).
You must think I’m a typical idiot fan (not to be confused with THE typical idiot fan). Every hypothetical thing I’ve said has been in the context of the original post–Michael Pineda could be worth a lot more if he’s traded for something else, something of equal value, but less volatile.
Sigh.
I’m done.
Yeah Gwangung and when the reason for a poor run differential is one of if not the worst offense in the DH era, I would say finding a way to score more runs is a priority. No one here has said to do that at the expense of the pitching staff (as a whole) or the defense. But to look to improve the defense and pitching to a point where 513 runs is conducive to a winning season is madness. The offense has to be improved, period, end of discussion. If the Mariners field another 513 runs scored team they will lose at a greater rate than they win no matter how much better the pitching and defense get.
Fister and Vargas were worth 2.9 and 2.6 WAR, respectively, using a stat that neutralizes the contributions of the defense behind them. More important, the traditional indicators that regression is on its way aren’t really there. Neither had abnormally low BABIPs or high strand rates. Both had lower than expected HR/FB%s, and that will probably go up from the 6.5% range to the 8% range, but it’s not like Safeco is going anywhere. Fister and Vargas have the scouting profile of back-end starters, but last year the both pitched like very good mid-rotation guys.
The system wherein we use rotation slots as a proxy for pitcher quality dramatically over-estimates the depth of quality starting pitching around the league. 73 pitchers in baseball put up 2-WAR or better last year, and 10 of them were relievers. There are 30 teams. You do the math.
Now, I’m a little concerned that Vargas will decline next year. His K’s dropped throughout the season, which is troubling. But last year both Vargas and Fister were very valuable.
And to echo what a previous commenter said, it’s not like Safeco’s going anywhere.
This is STILL binary thinking.
One, I never said that I don’t want to improve the offense. I DID say that you don’t have to improve the offense as much if there are improvements in pitching and defense (and there are improvements to be made in the rotation and bullpen for sure). Stop trying to treat them as equivalent statements.
Two, it’s certainly true that most value-laden way is to improve the offense. But there are limited ways of doing that while still remaining within budget and while still building for the long term. I think it’s clear that popping in an upgrade at DH can do that without affecting defense or pitching—I’m taking that as given and thinking about other options.
Third, wasn’t there a post warning against making a Bavasi level mistake?
Fourth, I still maintain that this is a quantitative exercise, where you need to calculate how much you’re gaining with a move and how much you’re losing; I’m not seeing that in a lot of comments.
I agree that style points don’t count in the standings, but next season isn’t going to be about the standings because we aren’t going to be competitive. Style points, as you put it, become more important then.
I’m curious as to when gwangung and the tourist will realize that they don’t actually disagree.
Not that it’s apropos of this debate, but does anybody recall there ever being any quasi-serious rumors surrounding Felix and more established players coming back during his ‘Just about there… but…’ phase?
As for trading Pineda, I would’ve been against it just because I wanted to hear Dave Niehaus call another one of those “stanky” sliders like he did last spring training.
And ironically enough, the Rays gave Hamilton to the Reds via the rule 5 draft! Sometimes life is better than fiction.
Oh, I realize already; I’m not calling him an idiot, after all.
But last year both Vargas and Fister were very valuable.
Jarrod Washburn had 4 years in his career of 2+ WAR, and 2 more years of 1.9 WAR. A 4.5 WAR season.
Carlos Silva? 4 years of 2+ WAR. Several 3 WAR seasons.
Vargas is also due a pay raise in arbitration.
To be honest, I feel better about this statement than the one stated by Dave, though I agree with both of them: It Would Be Okay To Trade Jason Vargas.
The pitching staff as it stands now isn’t good enough to contend. That’s obviously not the same as saying “the offense is good enough to contend, just add pitching”. The whole talent level of the team just kinda is sub par, save for a few players. So my objection is to the idea “well, the pitching’s OK”. The pitching is less bad than the offense, but it’s not great. It could use talent injections. Like Pineda (but as I said, if the right deal for the right position player comes along, he’s expendable).
Hey, guess what! There is free agency. I know, crazy concepts, right?
Yes, because Mariner history with free agent pitchers meant to anchor the rotation hasn’t been fraught with disappointment, from Bosio to Fassero to Washburn to Silva.
If pitching prospects are risky… well, so are free agent starting pitchers. And as was pointed out, at least prospects are cheap.
How many of those guys did Jack Z. sign?
How many of those guys did Jack Z. sign?
Well, he traded Brandon Morrow. And I could point to good GMs who’ve made signings that failed, as well as ones that paid off.
While I’m ok with trading Pineda, it sure is nice to think about a possible rotation of Felix, Michael Pineda, Gerrit Cole, Vargas, and Fister.
Dave is right, it’s not a for sure thing, no prospect ever really is. I guess when you follow the progress and status of the youngsters for so long you get attached to them and bond with them. You want them to be the best they possibly can for your franchise. I still believe that Michael Saunders has what it takes to be a very good everyday LF. Maybe not an All-Star, but a decent 6 or 7 hitter in the lineup.
Saunders battled some injuries last year and flashed some power which I was really happy to see. Plus the FO was really happy with the way Smoak produced when he was recalled from Tacoma which was encouraging to here.
Essentially this team has 5 up and coming youngsters on the brink of becoming regulars next year, and I want to evaluate every single one of them. It took Corey Hart playing in 3 major league seasons before he finally became a regular in the Brewers outfield. JJ Hardy was up and down for the first couple of seasons before he finally clicked in his 3rd year and smashed 26 dingers. So I’m a patient man. Not every prospect is going to be a Ryan Braun or an Albert Pujols and mash major league pitching their first year in the bigs. So I think as Mariner fans we can give a little bit of leeway to Moore and Saunders as they find their way with the team.
I agree with that (no surprise to anyone, given my past posts) – although I think, from a fan point of view, Moore’s got the tougher row to hoe thanks to RoJo’s legacy. I worry that people might not be patient enough to give Moore a chance if he doesn’t bust out of the gate hitting .350.
Well now you’re just comparing apples and oranges. 🙂
You forgot about James Paxton.
Trading or not doesnt make a difference. It is how well you select what you trade for. Jack has done well with what budget he works with.
You can see in the past deals that worked like Randy Johnson or Jamie Moyer as well as the ones that didnt like Silva and Slocumb. Pitcher wise the Mariners have found some good ones but offense wise I can say that they haven’t had as much success. Other than Buhner and Olerud most of the rest have not done very well. Cameron and McLemore were good contributors on a team with an offensive core. Boonie did well during the steroid period!!
For every possible Pineda there are three or four times as many Andersons (Little Unit) or the Canadian kid that was a sure fire ace pitcher (forgot his name), or even injury prone Josh Fields.
Crap shoot so you hope to roll sixes not twelves and have another chance.
Upton may or may not be the answer but at last he gives the Mariners some chance of offense IF there is an increase in performance by the rest of the team.
Well now you’re just comparing apples and oranges.
The point is no GM is infallible, even if they are good. You want the inevitable mistakes/bad luck to be as least damaging as possible. A pitching prospect who blows his arm out doesn’t kill the budget for years like having your 4 year, 55 million dollar guy blow his arm out.
I would have to say if Vargas and Aardsma were packaged in a deal I wouldn’t be crying in my beer, though- or even Pineda for the right player.
“Jarrod Washburn had 4 years in his career of 2+ WAR, and 2 more years of 1.9 WAR. A 4.5 WAR season.
Carlos Silva? 4 years of 2+ WAR. Several 3 WAR seasons.”
The problem wasn’t Washburn’s talent, it was his pricetag. Safeco dragged down his FIP (used in WAR) by supressing his HRs allowed. We would have been perfectly happy with him at something like $4 million/year as a back-end starter. Unfortunately, he was paid to be a lot more than that.
Ditto Silva. He looked decent enough before his signing, but nowhere near good enough to warrant a 4 X $12m contract. Of course he was absolutely terrible when he got to Seattle, but that’s a different issue.
These guys were ~average (Silva a tick above a couple of tines) starters before coming to the Ms, and Bavasi paid them like solidly above-average starters, and for some reason he paid Silva like a bona fide star. Fister and Vargas are ~average starters who are paid virtually nothing. Fister will get the minimum, and Vargas will get low-7 figures in arbitration. The fact that last year was his first full season and the rest of his service time has come in snippets of seasons should lower his award pretty substantially.
It depends on context. If the offense were plus, the pitching staff would be fine with a true ace in front, a couple solid 2-2.5 WAR guys, and hopefully some quality additions this offseason to round it out. The Mariners’ 5 in-house returning starters (Felix, Vargas, Fister, Pauley, and French) had more cumulative WAR last year than the Rays’ did (Price, Shields, Garza, Niemann, Davis). Of course, the Rays will get an upgrade this year by swapping out Hellickson, but the point stands. The rotation was solid enough to keep an otherwise good team in contention.
This assumes that Fister and Vargas repeat: they’ll both probably regress a bit in the HR/FB department, and Vargas’ late-season slip in K-rate worries me. So it’s certainly possible they won’t put up those #s again. But that’s where the other improvements come in. That rotation will not be the Ms’ rotation on opening day in 2011. Whether it’s Pineda or other acquisitions, I expect the rotation to improve.
Of course, on this team, where offense is an even bigger issue, you’re absolutely right. This team as presently constituted would need five Cy Young contenders in the rotation for the pitching staff to be good enough for the team to compete.
Interesting article over at Baseball Analysts that I just came across.
What really interested me was the reply by Sky (not sure if that’s Andrecheck or Kalkman) in the comments section:
Note especially the $$/WAR for non-pitchers and pitchers. Free agent position players last year cost teams $3.4 MM per win. For pitchers, it was $5.5. If you were a Major League team last year and you spent $30 million on free agent pitchers, you would have gotten 5.5 wins. If you instead had spent that money on position players, you would have gotten 8.8 wins.
This is only one year — so I don’t know if that’s an accurate historical perspective — but based on my experience following baseball and from what I’ve read from a couple of other people that have looked at much the same thing, I’d have to believe that’s a pretty good reflection of reality. Position players are just a much better buy in free agency.
For a team like the M’s with limited financial resources to put together a contending team, they have to take advantage of every edge they can get. But to take advantage of that discrepancy, they have to position themselves so they don’t have to go out and buy free agent pitching. Any time you trade away a pitcher with Pineda’s kind of potential, it makes it that much harder to get to that point.
Link fail. Just click on any of the highlighted area to access the article.
Agreed.
Back in the USENET days, before USS MARINER, a Phillie fan, who called himself Mike Schmidt, criticized the Mariners for not trading Ryan Anderson and Gil Meche for Brian Giles.
“You jump through the phone to make that trade,” he said.
The principle still holds: always be willing to trade top pitchers for top position players.