What is the "right offer"?

[sector7g]

I would have accepted either of the first two trades. I don't think the difference beteween Sherrill and Tillman/Truinfel or Marshall and Murton is worth not trading them.

That's a fair point and you could be right. That is just where I draw the line at value for Bedard and Roberts though, IMHO. Now, by the end of this month maybe I do those first deals, but at the time they were reportedly offered (which is absolutely key) I would not have done them.

Personally I think our best chance was with the Dodgers, they have so many high ceiling prospects and I'm sure we could have picked 3 or 4. If we ever could have got Kershaw, we missed a great oppurtunity to replace Bedard with someone of equal talent (who knows if he was ever really up for grabs though).

[El Gordo]

Some teams might value Bedard more than Haren, but that wouldn't be for any logical reason. It'd be for nonsensical ones like him being left handed... which really doesn't matter in the least. If you're banking your argument on a GM making a gross miscalculation, you've already lost the argument. All I said was that Haren should have more value, not that all the GM's would be smart enough to see it that way.

I really don't think being a lefty is meaningless. Otherwise just about everyone in baseball is a ninny, because the are highly valued. I think you will find that the majority of dangerous hitters in MLB are left handed(they see RHP's better) and thus it's important to have a few good LHP's to nullify that fact. Just look at the O's track recrd against garden variety LHP's the past few years.

[HarryReasonable]

Robin Yount survived for a few years before maturing into a HOF player. He was definitely rushed. I wouldn't say he succeeded right off the bat though.

Understood, but in the end, he succeeded. I wasn't trying to make it sound like he was an instant star. I realize that most of the kids are oevermatched for some period of time...even Markakis took some time to adjust, but he was older.

Then again, there was David Clyde, so I guess you never really know. Are you old enough to remebmer that one?

[El Gordo]

That's a fair point and you could be right. That is just where I draw the line at value for Bedard and Roberts though, IMHO. Now, by the end of this month maybe I do those first deals, but at the time they were reportedly offered (which is absolutely key) I would not have done them.

Personally I think our best chance was with the Dodgers, they have so many high ceiling prospects and I'm sure we could have picked 3 or 4. If we ever could have got Kershaw, we missed a great oppurtunity to replace Bedard with someone of equal talent (who knows if he was ever really up for grabs though).

I'm not so sure we were ever seriously offered Jones, Kemp or Kershaw, or Votto and Cuetto/Bailey, let alone Bruce.

[Rob H]

If Bedard allows any one of these teams to drop the 5th starter thats not very good. The difference is probably much greater. If they replace a guy that would likely have been a .500 pitcher best case scenario with a 5.00 era. Then I seriously disagree with your comment. With Bedard they have a chance to win 85-95% of his starts. Yep I'd say your way off base here!

He wouldn't be dropping the 5th starter, though.

If he goes to the Cubs, he's likely replacing Hill, who is between their #1 and #3 starter. If he goes to the Reds, he's likely replacing Bailey or Cueto, either of whom is likely to fall into that same #1 to #3 range. If he goes to Mil, well, actually, I have no idea what they'd be giving up. But even if it's not Yovanni Gallardo or Manny Parra (#1-2 and #3 starters, respectively), they aren't going to be able to replace the value of a guy like Corey Hart, Rickie Weeks, or JJ Hardy with something close enough to cover the gap adequately.

[sector7g]

Some teams might value Bedard more than Haren, but that wouldn't be for any logical reason. It'd be for nonsensical ones like him being left handed... which really doesn't matter in the least. If you're banking your argument on a GM making a gross miscalculation, you've already lost the argument. All I said was that Haren should have more value, not that all the GM's would be smart enough to see it that way.

I agree Haren would have similar value to Bedard. The extra year is important and if we are suggesting Bedard will put up better future performance than Haren we are speculating, pure and simple. I believe Bedard has more natural talent, but if I had to pick who would have the best overall numbers at the end of this season (even if they pitched in the same division and league) I would not find that easy to do.

[HarryReasonable]

I basically agree with you, but when I look at the NL Central, it seems to me that which ever of Cincy, the Brewhaha's or the Cubs, got Bedard, are in the payoffs. They must have enough prospects they can part with, to contend for the WS the next 2 years at least, don't you think?

Yes, I agree, but I don't think any of them will be totally confident that they can sign him long term, which makes him less valuable in their eyes and possibly not worthy of giving up the "farm" to get him. If the Reds or Seattle knew for sure they could lock him up, I think we'd get who we want in a heartbeat (within reason, of course, but I'm referring to Adam Jones or Jay Bruce)

[sector7g]

I'm not so sure we were ever seriously offered Jones, Kemp or Kershaw, or Votto and Cuetto/Bailey, let alone Bruce.

Exactly. That's why it's unfair to judge AM yet. There is just so much conflicting information coming from the media I've given up wondering what's being offered. When a deal is done we can judge it (and AM).

[Roll Tide]

He wouldn't be dropping the 5th starter, though.

If he goes to the Cubs, he's likely replacing Hill, who is between their #1 and #3 starter. If he goes to the Reds, he's likely replacing Bailey or Cueto, either of whom is likely to fall into that same #1 to #3 range. If he goes to Mil, well, actually, I have no idea what they'd be giving up. But even if it's not Yovanni Gallardo or Manny Parra (#1-2 and #3 starters, respectively), they aren't going to be able to replace the value of a guy like Corey Hart, Rickie Weeks, or JJ Hardy with something close enough to cover the gap adequately.

If he goes to Seattle he would replace the 5th starter. We've heard over & over they wont deal Morrow. If he goes to the Reds (who it was reported wont trade Bailey as they overvalue him) & Cueto has pitched in the majors & likely wouldn't be all that effective if he started in Cincy this year). I dont believe Bedard will be traded to the Cubs so why argue about Hill. In LA he would'nt be traded for one of the Angels or Dodgers top starters so i'm not sure I agree!

[clapdiddy]

I basically agree with you, but when I look at the NL Central, it seems to me that which ever of Cincy, the Brewhaha's or the Cubs, got Bedard, are in the payoffs. They must have enough prospects they can part with, to contend for the WS the next 2 years at least, don't you think?

I was thinking yesterday about the Brewers. I was looking at their pitching staff statistics in The Hardball Times 2008 Annual, and they are going to be hard-pressed to repeat last year's success unless they make a move or two in the starting pitching area.

[HarryReasonable]

He wouldn't be dropping the 5th starter, though.

If he goes to the Cubs, he's likely replacing Hill, who is between their #1 and #3 starter. If he goes to the Reds, he's likely replacing Bailey or Cueto, either of whom is likely to fall into that same #1 to #3 range. If he goes to Mil, well, actually, I have no idea what they'd be giving up. But even if it's not Yovanni Gallardo or Manny Parra (#1-2 and #3 starters, respectively), they aren't going to be able to replace the value of a guy like Corey Hart, Rickie Weeks, or JJ Hardy with something close enough to cover the gap adequately.

I think the point was that Bedard would win more games in someones rotations than the person he replaced. For example, if the initial rumors were correct, Bedard and Hill would have been in the Cubs rotation and whoever was #5 (Gallagher, Marshall or whoever) would have won fewer games, possibly up to 7 or 8 fewer. For Cincinnati, They talking as if Bailey is a #4 or #5 and Cueto will be in the minor leages, so Bedard would stand to win more games that whoever would have been the #5 started without Bedard in the rotation. I tend agree that he adds 6-7+ wins to a team vs. the guy who gets pushed out of the rotation, and many times, that's enough of a gap to win a division or a wildcard spot.

[Rob H]

I really don't think being a lefty is meaningless. Otherwise just about everyone in baseball is a ninny, because the are highly valued. I think you will find that the majority of dangerous hitters in MLB are left handed(they see RHP's better) and thus it's important to have a few good LHP's to nullify that fact. Just look at the O's track recrd against garden variety LHP's the past few years.

Yeah, but that argument only works if you are tactically choosing when to use your LHP, which is not the case for starters. I'll admit that having a LOOGY or two on the bench can come in handy during certain situations, but you don't really choose when your LHP is going to get to play against a team that's mostly stacked with righties or lefties.

Besides, if you're trying to argue that LHP have a natural advantage in the league, that would already be showing up in Bedard's statistics. You'd be advocating double-counting that advantage.

Additionally, I seem to recall reading a couple studies a few years ago regarding whether or not it was imperative to break up the righties and lefties in the rotation, where the authors came to the same conclusion. I'll try to hunt those down in a minute.

[Rob H]

Are they? I think you're really starting to show a bit of bias here.

Here are some relevant Haren stats:

2007By Breakdown ERA W L SV SVO G GS CG IP H R ER HR BB SO AVG Pre-All Star 2.30 10 3 0 0 19 19 0 129.1 97 41 33 11 32 101 .205 Post-All Star 4.15 5 6 0 0 15 15 0 93.1 117 50 43 13 23 91 .298 2005-2007By Breakdown ERA W L SV SVO G GS CG IP H R ER HR BB SO AVG Home 3.43 19 17 0 0 50 50 3 328.1 306 139 125 36 74 252 .242 Away 3.85 24 17 0 0 52 52 2 334.1 344 162 143 45 79 279 .264 Post-All Star 4.12 20 17 0 0 45 45 2 284.1 317 143 130 40 59 242 .279 Pre-All Star 3.28 23 17 0 0 57 57 3 378.1 333 158 138 41 94 289 .233 

One could make a really convincing case that Haren is an excellent three or decent-to-good two starter who had an excellent 1/2 season prior to the all star break and then faded badly in the second half. One could make the argument that Haren routinely performs as a #3-4 in the 2nd half as he begins to tire. He fades so much as the year goes on, it almost makes you wonder other things to be honest.

In addition, it is fairly clear that Haren benefits from that cavern in Oakland. His HR totals are a bit higher than you'd like to see overall anyway and they go up away from Oakland consistently.

Haren had a phenomenal 1st half last year, but then again so did Jeremy Guthrie and I surely wouldn't compare Guthrie to Bedard. Haren's peripherals are better than Guthrie's peripherals, but clearly not as impressive as Bedard's. He is a bit more durable in total IP, but I'm not sure if his durability is a big selling point since he clearly gets tired as the year goes on.

Regarding his value, his 3rd year is definitely a selling point, but I surely wouldn't call that enough to vault his value above Bedard's value. For any team looking to win in the next few years (which should be the motivation for trading for either guy I would think), Bedard is clearly the better choice IMO.

http://www.fangraphs.com/comparison.aspx?playerid=126&playerid2=1757&playerid3=&position=P&page=0&type=full

Go ahead and adjust for the park, Haren's substantial edge in IP per year matches him up quite well in overall value with Bedard. Check out their WARP3 totals over the last three years (since Haren became a full-time starter), Haren leads 20.1 to Bedard's 19.8. That's not to say that Haren is better, but I think most here are severely undervaluing how important a stat IP is.

And then Haren gets the third year.

[Lucky Jim]

Bedard missed half the year in 2005 with a knee issue so I'm not real excited that Haren BARELY leads in this counting category despite playing 20% more (6/5). I agree that durability is important, but Haren looks likely to put up over a 4 ERA in September due to fatigue, so his durability gets less import from me than it otherwise would.

Haren will likely crush in Arizona though because of the poor offenses he'll face the majority of the time in the NL, so he may have a monster couple of years.

I think WARP3 translates stats into a 162 game metric. Not sure that Bedard would be hurt by missing time.

[Rob H]

I think WARP3 translates stats into a 162 game metric. Not sure that Bedard would be hurt by missing time.

It doesn't work quite like that. What it does is translate the stats from back when it was a 154 game schedule to a 162 game schedule, so that we can compare players from that era with the ones from the current era without having to consciously adjust for the discrepancy in games played.

At any rate, Bedard didn't miss "half the season." He had 24 starts, which is only four less than he had last year. Besides, health is a skill.