 |
|
|
| |
« Giants May Not Sign Wagner Mateo | Main | Red Sox Decline Option On Alex Gonzalez »
Trades Of The Decade: Manny To Dodgers, Bay To Red Sox
It's not hard to tell when Manny's unhappy. And a year and a half ago, Manny had had enough. He wanted out of Boston and it wasn't long before he pushed the team's traveling secretary over and told ESPNDeportes "the Red Sox don't deserve a player like me."
So it was hardly surprising that Theo Epstein dealt Manny Ramirez on July 31st, 2008. But it looked as though Manny was headed to the Marlins, so when the Dodgers acquired him in a three-way deal, it was a surprise. The blockbuster was unexpected for a number of reasons; Jason Bay, who would replace Ramirez in front of the Green Monster, was supposed to be headed to the Rays.
Happy or not, Manny was in the midst of a typically productive season when the Red Sox sent him to Hollywood - he was hitting .299/.398/.529 with 20 homers. As Joe Torre told USA Today at the time, it's hard to resist a player like Manny.
"I don't think there's a manager in baseball who wouldn't say they're interested," Torre said.
The Dodgers' interest paid off. Manny finished the year on a tear, hitting close to .400 and reaching base in almost half his plate appearances en route to a 1.232 OPS in the National League.
Jason Bay didn't match those numbers in Boston - who could? - but his OPS approached .900 and the Red Sox made the playoffs. Perhaps most importantly, the Red Sox had a left fielder who could produce without distracting those around him. As a bonus, the Red Sox had Bay under control for just $7.5MM in 2009, whereas Ramirez was set to explore free agency.
Another coup for the Red Sox, but the deal could hardly have worked out better for Ned Colletti's Dodgers. The Red Sox paid Manny the $7MM remaining on his deal as he dominated the NL and charmed Dodgers fans in the process. From the homers, to the jerseys to the wigs, Mannywood took over Chavez Ravine.
Meanwhile, the Pirates acquired four players for Bay. GM Neal Huntington obtained Bryan Morris and Andy LaRoche from Dodgers and the Red Sox added Craig Hansen and Brandon Moss.
Dejan Kovacevic reported this spring that the Pirates had the chance to obtain Cliff Lee, Franklin Gutierrez and Kelly Shoppach from the Indians for Bay and Ronny Paulino before they sent their left fielder to Boston. That would have been a haul to remember, but the Pirates still obtained value for Bay.
LaRoche started to hit last year and he plays a strong third base, according to UZR/150. Moss, Hansen and Morris haven't shown nearly as much promise since the Pirates acquired them, however. The Pirates might get more value from LaRoche than they would have by holding onto Bay until free agency, though the latter choice would've netted them two draft picks.
Comments
Verify your Comment
Previewing your Comment
This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.
As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.
Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.
Top Stories
Search MLBTR
MLBTR Features
Recent Posts
Rumors By Team
Monthly Archives
Live Chats
Tuesdays at 2 p.m. CST
Looking back, Bay would have been a better long-term answer it would seem and we could have gotten him for what we paid for Manny.
Posted by: GScott | November 08, 2009 at 02:53 PM
Wow. Pirates got screwed.
Posted by: start_wearing_purple | November 08, 2009 at 02:55 PM
I'm one of the few remianing that is still optimistic on Andy LaRoche, so it remains to be seen (in my mind) whether the Pirates truly "got screwed". Could they have? Certainly, but a healthy and motivated LaRoche (with Pedro Alvarez looming) could be interesting...
Posted by: vtadave | November 08, 2009 at 02:58 PM
The Red Sox paid, both in money and prospects, for the privilege of getting worse in this trade. Manny was both a better hitter and a better fielder in 2008 and 2009. This ownership group had an agenda against him from the moment they took over, and they finally managed to turn the fans against him and run him out of town.
I can't wait to see this mistake compounded by re-signing Bay this offseason.
Posted by: Gugs87 | November 08, 2009 at 02:58 PM
"so it remains to be seen (in my mind) whether the Pirates truly "got screwed""
I'm more referring to not getting the defensive wizard, back up catcher, and ace they could have spun to the Phils.
Posted by: start_wearing_purple | November 08, 2009 at 03:00 PM
Gugs87 with the common sense. Refreshing on this board nowadays.
Posted by: Chris | November 08, 2009 at 03:03 PM
Wasn't Bay almost a Brave?
/mlbbravesrumors
Posted by: jc | November 08, 2009 at 03:03 PM
Unless the Dodgers extend Manny being Manny, or the Bosox extend Bay, you can't call either one of those the trade of the decade. I would put many, many trades where players changed teams that lasted with their new teams for five years or more ahead of any one or two year rental deals.
The eight player trade for Miguel Cabrera has the potential to be the trade of the decade. He's under contract for another five years, and the Fish got six players back. Too bad Dombrowski screwed it up by wasting $ 29 million on Willis.
The Dodgers getting Ethier for Milton Bradley is probably already a better deal than the Manny trade. Add the benefit of getting rid of Bradley, and I think it puts the Ethier deal over the top.
Posted by: Tigerdog | November 08, 2009 at 03:07 PM
Cliff Lee was in the middle of a 22-3 season. You're telling me Cleveland would have given him up, along with 2 other pieces, for Bay and Paulino?!?!? Not to mention Cliff Lee had 1 more year under contract + the team option for another year at $9m? That would have given the Pirates longer control over Lee than Bay. There is no quote from Coonley or Huntington stating that this trade was even on the table. I'm calling shinanigans on this one...
Posted by: xlazox | November 08, 2009 at 03:12 PM
A .731 OPS is starting to hit? Maybe it's a lot better than previous seasons but it's still not good at all.
It's easy to look back at not trading for Cliff Lee at the time but he was struggling terribly at the time (offseason before the '08 season). Lee at the time was 29 and had one above average season, one average and two terrible seasons. he could have been available if a lot of teams wanted him. He was also guaranteed 10.5M over two seasons.
Posted by: kab21 | November 08, 2009 at 03:12 PM
"I'm more referring to not getting the defensive wizard, back up catcher, and ace they could have spun to the Phils."
That is true.
(and Ben, that rumor was posted on this website when it almost went down - check back to preseason 2008 rumors I think. Or at least it was talked about in comments, as I remember reading people talking about the Lee/Shoppach for Bay/Paulino rumors here)
With regards to what the Rats eventually got though, they did really good in LaRoche. He was worth 2.5 WAR already last season, and although they gave up 4.1 WAR of Bay (his total in Boston), they also saved 7.5MM (the Bay salary of 2009) and have Andy for another (I believe) 4 seasons. Even if he is only a League Average player those seasons (roughly 1 WAR per year) they will have gained 2 wins and saved a ton of cash. If he produces the 2+ WAR like he did last year, then they came out way ahead. If he improves at all, then they can look like the real winners of this deal by its end.
PS, the Red Sox can never be considered losers either - not saying that. And the Dodgers did make it to the postseason, so they got what they wanted as well. But the cost to add Manny and Blake without taking on cash was beyond extreme.
Posted by: SuzysMan | November 08, 2009 at 03:17 PM
"You're telling me Cleveland would have given him up, along with 2 other pieces, for Bay and Paulino?!?!?"
That trade was on the table in the off season before the 22-3 season. When Lee was considered a question mark.
Posted by: start_wearing_purple | November 08, 2009 at 03:18 PM
"The Dodgers getting Ethier for Milton Bradley is probably already a better deal than the Manny trade."
The Dodgers gave up Gutierrez (who has been more valuable then Ethier the last 3 seasons) and a high value (at the time) pitcher to get Bradley in the first place. Eventually getting Ethier was pretty much breaking even on their initial cost - not getting them ahead of where they started. Because of that, I would have a hard time calling it their trade of the century.
Posted by: SuzysMan | November 08, 2009 at 03:21 PM
LaRoche is a replacement level player at this point. His value is incredibly modest.
I don't think the Bucs got a ton of value for Bay. However, we have no idea what the market was willing to provide in terms of a return. Trading Bay was certainly better than holding out for draft picks. I just wonder if this was the best possible package.
Posted by: bjsguess | November 08, 2009 at 03:25 PM
"LaRoche is a replacement level player at this point. His value is incredibly modest."
Replacement level is 0 WAR. LaRoche was worth 2.5 in his only full season. That is hardly replacement level in any way possible. Its well above average (1WAR) and a very servicable season overall.
In fact, think of it this way. LaRoche is "replacement level" in the same way Ethier is - both had the exact same WAR in 2009.
Posted by: SuzysMan | November 08, 2009 at 03:32 PM
What does "trade of the century" mean, anyway? Some seem to think it means "one team got royally screwed." I think it means that the players involved were or became important to the teams where they were traded, and nobody needs to have been the big winner or loser. By that definition, everybody made out in the Manny deal.
Posted by: BlueSky | November 08, 2009 at 03:41 PM
SuzysMan: An average player is a 2 WAR player, not a 1 WAR player. LaRoche was slightly above average this season, which is pretty valuable nonetheless. If he continues to play this way, and if maybe Bryan Morris figures it out, the Pirates will come out decently in this deal.
Posted by: Michael Jong | November 08, 2009 at 04:03 PM
The Dodgers gave up Gutierrez (who has been more valuable then Ethier the last 3 seasons) and a high value (at the time) pitcher to get Bradley in the first place."
The baseball deal we reference was made on Dec. 13, 2005, between the Los Angeles Dodgers and the Oakland Athletics.
The deal sent Bradley and infielder Antonio Perez from the Dodgers to the A's for Ethier, a Minor League player at the time. No Gutierrez.
I'm not calling it the trade of the decade, but probably will be a better deal for the Dodgers than the Manny deal, by the time that all is said and done.
Posted by: Tigerdog | November 08, 2009 at 05:02 PM
The Dodger trade for Manny wasn't a "deal of the decade" but it was still an incredible deal for the Dodgers as they gave up nothing of consequence and received a MVP quality player who absolutely turned the fortunes around for them immediately and really motiviated the fan base in what turned out to be a hughe swing in terms of wins/losses in 2008 for the Dodgers.
Posted by: YanksFanSince78 | November 08, 2009 at 05:26 PM
AND..Boston paid all of Manny's salary.
Posted by: YanksFanSince78 | November 08, 2009 at 05:27 PM
The sox paid, both in money and absolutely useless prospects, to get better by dumping the dog that is Manny. Bay was a steal so this is your classic case of addition by subtraction as Manny is a selfish jackass who cheated on his wife on Newbury St. so many times that she wanted out of the city to save face. He quit on his team and beat up a 65 yr. old travelling secretary to get his wish. He is a disgrace to all athletes for his actions which also include using steroids. He cheated on the game, his teamates, and his wife. 20 million a year and you're still an A-HOLE Manny and everyone hates you for the person you are in Boston!
Posted by: Red Sox Dynasty | November 08, 2009 at 05:32 PM
"SuzysMan: An average player is a 2 WAR player, not a 1 WAR player."
596 total hitters provided a 2009 WAR value of 637.2 - for a 1.06 average WAR.
In 2008 it was 621 hitters providing 636 WAR - 1.024 WAR on average. In 2007 it was 603 Hitters and 629 WAR - 1.041 WAR average.
Its 1 WAR on average.
And if you included pitchers, it drops about .2 overall. 2009, pitchers included for true WAR, was 1260 Players and 1098.2 WAR for a 0.87 WAR average. The average pitcher last season was 0.70 (654 P and 461 WAR value)
"The deal sent Bradley and infielder Antonio Perez from the Dodgers to the A's for Ethier, a Minor League player at the time. No Gutierrez."
But Bradley was first acquired by surrendering Gutierrez and Andrew Brown. At the time, both were Dodger top-10 prospects. In (being forced to) prematurely trading Bradley for Ethier, they only broke even on their initial investment.
Posted by: SuzysMan | November 08, 2009 at 05:44 PM
Suzysman: After 1 good season do you really see Gutierrez = Ethier?
Posted by: YanksFanSince78 | November 08, 2009 at 06:00 PM
"Suzysman: After 1 good season do you really see Gutierrez = Ethier?"
Its not one good season by any means. Stack up the two players by Best/Middle/Worst over the last three seasons:
Beat - 3.4 AE (08) & 5.9 FG (09)
Middle - 2.5 AE (09) & 2.2 FG (08*)
Worst - 1.6 AE (07) & 1.7 FG (07*)
*Note: The 07 (301 PA) and 08 (440 PA) of Gutierrez are not full seasons - yet he still managed to match Ethier (or get pretty darn close to it) over them both. If you give Gutierrez credit for full seasons at the same exact rates in 07 and 08, you will actually end up adding about 3-4 WAR on top of the total 2.3 WAR advantage he already has. And if you were asking me which is better, 3 years of 7.5 WAR (Ethier value) or 3 years of 13.5 WAR (Gutierrez, which is 9.8 WAR real WAR and estimated 3.5 WAR missing time included), then clearly I and everyone else on the planet will answer Gutierrez all day long.
So yes, I have no problem what so ever saying Gutierrez = Ethier. Gutierrez is actually clearly superior to Ethier based off WAR the last three seasons (2.3 WAR to be exact), and lightyears better when playing-time is factored for (which ends up at about a 6 WAR advantage). Saying they are equal is giving Franklin even less credit then he rightfully deserves, and everyone should have no problem at all saying it.
Posted by: SuzysMan | November 08, 2009 at 07:22 PM
SuzysMan: I'll talk only about position players, since pitcher WAR is calculated in a different fashion and compared to a different baseline.
Your calculation includes players who did not accrue as much playing time as other players. That naturally would drop the average WAR rate.
The replacement level adjustment is 20 runs/600 PA. Take away each player's replacement adjustment levels, and you have a player's production on the baseline of an average player (wRAA, UZR, and positional adjustments are all expressed in runs above or below average).
When you use the "average player" comparison, I assume you are comparing a position player (in the case above, LaRoche) vs. an average position player with the same playing time. An average position player (0 wRAA, +0 UZR, and 0 positional runs) with LaRoche's playing time this season would have been worth almost 20 runs above replacement (2 WAR) this season, via FanGraphs.
Posted by: Michael Jong | November 08, 2009 at 08:11 PM
"Your calculation includes players who did not accrue as much playing time as other players. That naturally would drop the average WAR rate."
But you are omitting the fact that WAR calculates everyone to a full season. So a player with merely 10 games will have a WAR of his value + a replacement level player for the remaining time for an overall full season in the books. That being the case, every single individuals WAR represents a full season (600 or more PA) no matter how much of it the player actually played.
Then, the first and main reason the “0 wRAA, +0 UZR, and 0 positional runs = Average” doesn’t work is because of the position. You cant have 0 positional runs because the position total does not equate to 0, it equates to -12.8. The reason for that – the DH, which is weighted to -17.5 for 14 AL teams and roughly -8.75 for the 16 NL teams (PH makes up roughly ½ the pitchers PAs). So, overall, thats an average positional ranking of about -12.8 for the 9 spot in the order. Divide the -12.8 by the 9 to represent 1/9th of a lineup, and you instantly have -1.4 removed from every Positional Run value. That makes the equation look like this:
(on a 600 PA position neutral player)
0 wRAA + 0 UZR + 20 RLP + -1.4 PRV = 18.6 RAR
Otherwise it doesn’t work because the actual average PA for the positions isnt a hard 600, it is about 670 PA - but WAR is still factored to a 600 PA scale for everyone under that amount. True RLP value then becomes 22.3 Runs/670 and everyone would need to be factored to that scale to get a better “average”. That then makes
(on a 600 PA position neutral player with the extra 70 PA being made up by a RLP)
0 wRAA + 0 UZR + 17.7 RLP + -1.4 Pos = 16.3 RAR
Then, “0 wRAA” isnt the true average; it seems to be about -1.1 wRAA when park factors are taken into account. Leaving us with something in the range of
-1.1 wRAA + 0 UZR + 17.7 RLP + -1.4 Pos = 15.2 RAR
Now, when adjusting the real average PA to 670, you are also simultaneously lowering the WAR of all players who posted more then 600 PA. The reason for that is that those players are given extra credit for removing PA from other RLP. That is why Jeter with his 715 PA has a RLP value of 23.9 instead of 20. If it was factored to the real average PA of 670, then his RLP would be 21.5 – a loss of 2.4 WAR. I am not about to go through and factor every player to 670 PA though, so how much “average WAR” is lost in this manor will have to remain unknown. We know it’s a lot though as players are given a flat RLP increase for every PA above 600. Even if they are sub-RLP themselves, their WAR will go down as RLP runs would be removed from that counting field. We just don’t know how much will actually be removed until someone takes the hours to calculate everyone to the real average number of PA.
Next we know that catchers don’t have a UZR rating so their WAR is incorrect. Its unknown how much either way this would adjust, but it will through the theoretical WAR average off no matter what.
And it just keeps getting chipped away like that. So theoretically “0 wRAA, +0 UZR, and 0 positional runs = Average” should work; it just doesn’t in the end. In the end, we can only find a true average by calculating it ourselves based off all players accumulative WAR divided by the number of players. That gives us an Average WAR of all players based on them being credited with 600 or more PA obtained. It’s the best we can do. Luckily, it seems to always 1.0_ so saying 1 WAR is average will hold up year to year. And we will probably never know what everyones WAR would look like if the average really did end up at the logical assumption of “0 wRAA, +0 UZR, and 0 positional runs = Average” that just doesn’t work at all.
Posted by: SuzysMan | November 09, 2009 at 01:35 AM
"The Red Sox paid, both in money and prospects, for the privilege of getting worse in this trade. Manny was both a better hitter and a better fielder in 2008 and 2009."
You pretty much got it wrong on every level.
1-Manny had 19 HRs and 60+ RBIs this year, while Bay had 36 HRs and 120+ RBIs, and you think Manny was a better player this year?
2-IRT money, the RS paid $6M of Manny's salary, but got Bay, who was likely in the neighborhood of $10M below market for the 1.3 years, so we made out there as well.
3-The loss of Moss and Hansen as prospects? While every prospect has some value, those two guys wouldn't have had any time with the RS.
4-While Manny worked out well for 1/3 season for the LAD, how did that work out in 2009? For a mere $25M, they got a guy that leaves playoff games early. Not a regular season blowout v SD, which is of itself insane, but leaving a close ALCS game???
5-And I notice that Manny decided to pick up his option. Any time a player picks up his option, you can be guaranteed that you are overpaying him.
Posted by: Joey B | November 09, 2009 at 08:34 AM
"But you are omitting the fact that WAR calculates everyone to a full season. So a player with merely 10 games will have a WAR of his value + a replacement level player for the remaining time for an overall full season in the books. That being the case, every single individuals WAR represents a full season (600 or more PA) no matter how much of it the player actually played."
That's absolutely incorrect. Check, for example, Wes Helms' replacement adjustment, which is 7.8 runs over at FanGraphs. That's not a full season's worth of replacement runs, as per the 20 runs/600 PA. Under your assumption, every player would have at least 20 replacement runs, that's simply not the case.
This assumption that you've made (I don't know where you got this idea, as the FanGraphs Player Value series definitely did not say anything about that) is throwing off your WAR average due to playing time and these additional adjustments that you're making.
As for DH, the -17.5 is true, though your PH adjustment I don't believe exists, as I'm certain PH do not receive a positional adjustment (having read over positional adjustment threads over at The Book blog and the FanGraphs Value series).
Check out the FanGraphs Win Value series again, because I think your idea of how WAR is calculated is off.
Posted by: Michael Jong | November 09, 2009 at 09:06 AM
“That's absolutely incorrect. Check, for example, Wes Helms' replacement adjustment, which is 7.8 runs over at FanGraphs. That's not a full season's worth of replacement runs, as per the 20 runs/600 PA. Under your assumption, every player would have at least 20 replacement runs, that's simply not the case”
Actually, you are incorrect.
In the case of Wes Helms, he was given credit for removing a RLP for only 234 PA, not 600. So his RLP isnt +20 for removing 600 PA, its 7.8. Why 7.8? Because replacement level players get -20 per 600 AB or -13.2 over 366 PA. And 20 -13.2 = the 7.8 runs he is credited for by keeping the RLP away from the plate.
Only players with a full 600 PA will have at least 20 replacement level runs – that is the only way to keep a RLP away from the plate for 20 Runs worth of value. Any player with under 600 PA is penalized for having a replacement level player make up the difference. If a player gets only 400 PA, a RLP will have needed to play 200 PA. And under the 20/600 theory we have him costing his team 6.7 Runs over that time. It’s a scale looking like this:
(and I will add in real players so you see it working)
Player gets 0 PA = 600 PA of RLP = +0 RLP in calculation
Player gets 100 PA = 500 PA of RLP = +3.3 RLP in calculation
Player gets 200 PA = 400 PA of RLP = +6.7 RLP in calculation
*Player gets 236 PA = 366 PA of RLP = +7.8 RLP in calculation (Wes Helms)
Player gets 300 PA = 300 PA of RLP = +10 RLP in calculation
Player gets 400 PA = 200 PA of RLP = +13.3 RLP in calculation
*Player gets 489 PA = 111 PA of RLP = +16.3 RLP in calculation (Freddy Sanchez)
Player gets 500 PA = 100 PA of RLP = +16.7 RLP in calculation
*Player gets 590 PA = 10 PA of RLP = +19.7 RLP in calculation (Andy LaRoche)
Player gets 600 PA = 0 PA of RLP = +20 RLP in calculation
Player gets 700 PA = -100 PA of RLP = +23.3 RLP in calculation
*Player gets 715 PA = -115 PA of RLP = +23.9 RLP in calculation (Derek Jeter)
(you will notice that each and every time the total of Player PA + RLP PA = 600. 600 is the base that every player is credited for in the WAR system, no matter how few PA the player actually received. Go ahead and check any player real you like, you will notice they always fall under this scale – because every WAR is calculated to 600 PA obtained)
“This assumption that you've made (I don't know where you got this idea, as the FanGraphs Player Value series definitely did not say anything about that) is throwing off your WAR average due to playing time and these additional adjustments that you're making”
Actually, its not an assumption and FanGraphs clearly tell us about it. Here:
“For instance, Chipper Jones was outstanding in ‘08, posting a .446 wOBA and a +4.9 UZR. However, he only racked up 534 PA, so the Braves had to give approximately 66 PA to people who weren’t Chipper Jones. Therefore, Chipper’s replacement level adjustment is just 17.8 runs – we presume that the folks who filled in for him were about 2.2 runs below average in those 66 PA, and that comes out of Chipper’s replacement level adjustment.”
http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/win-values-explained-part-four
See, Chipper is credited with 600 PA. The 534 he was able to provide and the 66 that needed to go to a RLP. If WAR was not factored to 600 PA, Chipper would have had a 78.9 RAR and 7.9 WAR in 2008 instead of the 76.7/7.6 he is on the books for. The 76.7 RAR and 7.6 WAR we use represents a 600 PA season, and when everyone is calculated to the same arbitrary baseline of PA, then the only way to find the true average becomes the Total WAR / Number of Players like I have been trying to tell you.
“As for DH, the -17.5 is true, though your PH adjustment I don't believe exists, as I'm certain PH do not receive a positional adjustment (having read over positional adjustment threads over at The Book blog and the FanGraphs Value series).”
You may be correct on this one, I am not 100% sure and definitive information isnt available. I looked at Jim Thome’s time with the Dodgers and see he has a 0 Pos instead of the field being blank and included them in the count. When a pitcher bats, he gets a blank field – there is no Pos adjustment at all. Thome had so few PA that I don’t believe it will make an adjustment to the positional playing-time field, that his -17.5 becomes 0 because the real result will be something in the range of -0.00261 or something leaving a 0 overall. However, it is possible that pure PH don’t get counted as a DH and if that were the case then the end average positional adjustment would change slightly from -1.4 Pos to -1.0 Pos.
BUT, check the Team Stat page and calculate out the Positional Average. It ends up where the 30 teams had a total of -377.5 Pos Adjustment. -377.5 divided by 30 = 12.6 which lines up nearly perfectly to the DH/PH Positional Adjustment I gave earlier of -12.8. Based off their own stats, it seems DH IS counted in the Positional Adjustment field. If it weren’t, then that number should be in the -8.8 range.
“Check out the FanGraphs Win Value series again, because I think your idea of how WAR is calculated is off.”
I suggest you do the same, as it isnt my understanding that is off here.
Posted by: SuzysMan | November 09, 2009 at 12:12 PM