Rivera & Napoli For Wells
Posted by Steve Lombardi on January 22, 2011
The Angels have traded Juan Rivera and Mike Napoli to the Blue Jays for Vernon Wells. So, what do you think of this trade?
Posted by Steve Lombardi on January 22, 2011
The Angels have traded Juan Rivera and Mike Napoli to the Blue Jays for Vernon Wells. So, what do you think of this trade?
January 22nd, 2011 at 10:55 am
The guy from the Orange County Register said it best - rarely does a team make a trade that makes them older, more expensive, and worse at the same time.
At least we have an expected high of 74 today. Suck on that, Jays.
January 22nd, 2011 at 11:05 am
I'm reminded of the Jim Edmonds for Kent Bottenfield trade. Just because you have surpluss at one area, doesn't mean you trade it for 50 cents on the dollar.
January 22nd, 2011 at 11:08 am
This deal stinks for the Angels.
January 22nd, 2011 at 11:14 am
"Just because you have surpluss at one area, doesn't mean you trade it for 50 cents on the dollar."
Or in this case, pay someone to take it away.
January 22nd, 2011 at 11:16 am
I was just coming on here to post about the same thing!
I just recently commented on one of Steve's earlier posts about how Wells had a chance to be a lifer with one team...so much for that.
January 22nd, 2011 at 11:30 am
Personally, I believe that the Angels should get kissed for this trade. I always get some sugar after I've been screwed.
January 22nd, 2011 at 11:35 am
This trade neither makes the Angels better nor saves them money. If the Angels were so desperate to spend big bucks this off-season, they should have outbid the BoSox and picked up Crawford. At least they would have had a chance at getting something for $20 million plus a year. It does make the Blue Jays better and gets them out from under what is widely believed to be amongst the worst contracts out there. The Jays don't even have to kick in for any of Wells' contract. Is Anaheim where bad contracts go to die?
January 22nd, 2011 at 11:41 am
The Jays needed a catcher after John Buck's surprisingly good season led to a free agency walk, and Napoli seems to be Buck writ large: low batting average but good power and more of. The Jays look like they're returning that to the same well (ha!) they got Buck from, which is interesting.
It's going to come down to how much they use him at catcher, as I'm seeing a lot of "and also 1B and DH" in there and he's not so good a hitter as that.
Rivera's a bit of an odd throw-in. He's just not that good a player, and on the down side of 30. He gives them flexibility in the outfield even if he can't really play CF any more, but at $5.2 million per? I suspect he got included in the deal as an explicit alternative to the Blue Jays having to send cash along with Wells to cover some of his gargantuan contract. Taken together Napoli after arbitration and Rivera are pulling down about $10 million, so that's a fair chunk of change.
Still, the Jays are moving $20 million-plus off their payroll, and Napoli's of comparable value to Wells if he bounces back at all and can play some catcher (or doesn't bounce back and plays all catcher) so it's a good deal for Toronto.
It's sad to see Wells go from the franchise, though. I remember when he came up and then when he did really well in 2003 and it looked like the Jays had finally developed a superstar position player. I mean, apart from Roy Halladay the Jays have been really bad at coming up with top tier players through their farm system. They spit out guys like Carlos Delgado and Fred McGriff and John Olerud and Shawn Green and Tony Fernandez fairly often, but they're always at the next notch down the scale. Never a Pujols or Manny Ramirez or Vlad Guerrero or the like. Wells turned into another disappointment along the same lines after a promising start.
January 22nd, 2011 at 11:50 am
The more interesting question: What's AA going to do with all this money now?
January 22nd, 2011 at 11:57 am
Enough you, Angels haters. I'm a longtime Halos fan, and I haven't been this excited since we acquired Dave Winfield!
January 22nd, 2011 at 12:08 pm
I honestly thought the Edmonds for Bottenfield/Kennedy trade would go down as the worst in Angels history, even when you consider that Kennedy did have some good years, they didn't compare to Edmonds average 7.2 WAR over the next six season. He had one of the greatest center fielder peaks of all time following that trade. Somehow, impossibly, that is now their 2nd worst trade!
January 22nd, 2011 at 1:51 pm
@Shazbot
I'm pretty sure Alcoholics Anonymous is non-profit, but I would imagine quite a few Angels fans will be hitting the drink after this one 🙂
January 22nd, 2011 at 1:53 pm
Stupendously bad trade for the Angels.
January 22nd, 2011 at 2:53 pm
I don't think it's terrible for the Angels. They needed a big name and Wells played pretty well last season. All they gave up was an extra catcher (who, as it seems, won't catch much anymore so we're talking about a .230/20HR hitter at 1B) and a $5 million bench player in Juan Rivera. For an extra 10 mil I think it's well worth it to take on Wells over Napoli
January 22nd, 2011 at 4:43 pm
Yeah, I'm with Jesse011. Wells might not be $20 Mil good, I'll give you THAT, but he's significantly better than either of the guys the Angels gave up, and no older, BTW, than Rivera. There's no reason to think he won't be every bit as good as, or better than, Torii Hunter. It might not be a great CONTRACT, but put me down as predicting this will be a good TRADE for the Halo's.
January 22nd, 2011 at 4:45 pm
@10
I can't figure out if you're being serious or not. If you are, then fine. If not, then them's fightin' words!
January 22nd, 2011 at 4:52 pm
@16
Why? The Witt for Winfield trades goes down as a lousy deal for the YANKEES. Angels got two solid (129, 120 OPS+) Seasons out of Winfield, while the Yankees got 143 IP over four seasons out of a Pitcher with an 83 ERA+. I'd say the Halo's came out on top. (Granted there's been more to be excited about since, but that was hardly a bad trade!)
January 22nd, 2011 at 6:55 pm
It will be interesting to see how Wells's HR production is affected by a new home park.
His career average at home is 26 HRs per 600 PAs.
On the road, 19 HRs per 600 PAs.
Wells's career road OPS is .767.
Napoli's road OPS is .837.
Rivera's road OPS is .802.
I think the only upside for the Angels is that Wells may be more productive when he's on a competitive team. In his time with Toronto, the team won 85+ games four times (2003, '06, '08, '10); those were also Wells's most productive seasons, with OPS+ ranging from 122 to 132. But then, the winning may have more to do with Wells's good seasons than vice-versa.
Napoli used to draw a fair number of walks, almost 14% of his PAs over his first 3 seasons. But over the last 2 years, his walk rate is below 9%.
All in all, I think Toronto wins this one on value. The 4 years and $86 million left on Wells's contract is a hefty price. I doubt that Wells could land such a deal if he were a free agent, even if there were no draft-pick compensation to consider.
January 22nd, 2011 at 7:32 pm
There a parallels, right?
Winfield had a big salary and was past his prime (and was coming off surgery). The Angels dealt a pitcher who had a big salary and was past his prime. Witt had always been a starter, but the Angels had Langston, Blyleven,Finley, McCaskill and Abbott. So they dealt something they had surplus.
Wells has a big salary and is past his prime. Rivera and Napoli also have big salaries and to some degree are spare parts.
Wells is an upgrade over Rivera. Morales is going to play first. Scioscia obviously prefers Mathis as his main catcher.
Besides it's LA (of Anaheim). The team can always use some star power -- just as it needed some then.
January 22nd, 2011 at 8:41 pm
@19
Wells isn't really an upgrade over Rivera when you account for salary. He makes, what, five times what Rivera is making? That's not an upgrade for someone who's only marginally better as a player.
He has some value at the plate, and no value in the field. He's on the wrong side of thirty, and is going to make $20m each season over the next four years.
There is nothing good about this from Anaheim's perspective.
January 22nd, 2011 at 9:46 pm
To clarify my comments, I'm a huge Dave Winfield fan. What I meant is that if the person at #10 was being sarcastic, I would take offense.
Because, yea, the Yankees were just trying to get rid of Winfield at that point but it was just a terrible trade as Winfield could still hit and Witt couldn't do anything at that point.
January 22nd, 2011 at 10:12 pm
"They spit out guys like Carlos Delgado and Fred McGriff and John Olerud and Shawn Green and Tony Fernandez fairly often, "
Wait a minute. Olerud is a legit HoF candidate -- maybe wrong side of the line, but certainly in the ballpark and better than a lot of guys who've made it: he had two MVP caliber years and a bunch of all-star level years in a long career. He's not Pujols but he was a great great player. McGriff is no slouch either -- another guy who could/should get some hall play. Delgado is short of that, but he was great for a few years, and good for more. Vernon Wells would have done well to be as good as those guys, but he isn't even all that close. What's weird is that he got the huge contract after it was already fairly questionable whether he'd really be a consistent all-star.
January 22nd, 2011 at 11:19 pm
"Scioscia obviously prefers Mathis as his main catcher."
Unfortunately for Scioscia's postseason hopes, Mathis is the worst-hitting regular in the game today. His career OPS+ of 53 is dead last among active position players with at least 1,000 PAs.
Mathis was 27 last year, and his hitting is getting worse. His career BA is .199, he doesn't walk or have much power. There is no reason to think he'll ever hit enough to be a #1 catcher, unless he's surrounded by a lineup strong enough to carry his dead weight. And the Angels sure don't look like that lineup.
If Scioscia is behind this trade, my opinion of him just went down.
January 22nd, 2011 at 11:33 pm
Wells is being talked about like he is an awful player, but he did rank 20th in the AL in Rbat, which is pretty good for a CFer. I am not sure if I trust defensive metrics enough to discount his defensive value in CFer too much, so if Wells can hit like he did in 2006, 2008 and 2010, he might come close to make the deal acceptable.
Also, when you subtract the $5 million being sent to the Angeles as well as the $11 million for Rivera and Napoli, Wells' annual price tag is really $17 million for the next four years. I think it's possible for a healthy Wells to come close to providing that level of value.
Is this a good deal? No...but it isn't as bad as everyone is suggesting.
January 22nd, 2011 at 11:42 pm
@8: "They spit out guys like Carlos Delgado and Fred McGriff and John Olerud ... fairly often, but they're always at the next notch down the scale. Never a Pujols...." (emphasis added)
Wow.
(1) For the 6 seasons 1998-2003, Carlos Delgado averaged 40 HRs, 124 RBI, .998 OPS and 154 OPS+. Every one of those figures ranked top-10 in the major leagues over that span.
(2) In his 3 full years with Toronto (1988-90), Fred McGriff's 159 combined OPS+ was 2nd in the majors, just behind Canseco. He led the majors in HRs and ranked 8th in OBP, 9th in Runs.
(3) Olerud, as noted above, had a near-HOF caliber career, and was always in demand by contenders.
Perhaps you didn't properly value these guys when you had them. As a Mets fan, I know I was pretty happy with "sloppy seconds" on Delgado and Oley.
And using Albert Pujols as a frame of reference ... [sigh]. Have you noticed how often Pujols is called "a once-in-a-lifetime player"? Do you realize that they mean it literally?
January 23rd, 2011 at 1:21 am
Decent Trade. Trading Napoli opens up a slot for Conger to play and Mathis to show the young fellow the ropes. $5mil out the door and replaced with rookie pay.
Rivera would have no place to play in such a crowded OF so throw him in and his $5mil.
Money moved $10 mil
Now didn't Damon just sign for 7 million??
Are we saying that Wells can't and won't produce more the Damon!
Angels add 10 mil to payroll, add a good hitter to bat 4-6. He'll play a solid LF and Hunter plays a solid RF. The Kid takes over in CF and Bobby plays a DH.
Defense improves. Bigger name in lineup. Sell more Jersey's. All in a days work!
January 23rd, 2011 at 2:08 am
I think production-wise, Wells will be better than Rivera (who was becoming a liability in LF) and Napoli. I liked Napoli, but Hank Conger is ready to fill Napoli's spot. My worry is that Well's contract hurts the Angels down the road, when they could be in the race for Prince Fielder or maybe even Albert Pujols. Also, maybe that money could've been maneuvered to keep Jered Weaver in Anaheim.
January 23rd, 2011 at 3:03 am
A lot of you are speaking ill of Vernon Wells--which is completely stupid, to be frank. None of us can do a thing about J.P. Ricciardi's incurable idiocy in forking over the cost of a third-world country to Wells. The contract does not make Wells a bad player. The reason he doesn't play worth $23 million is because Ricciardi overestimated his worth.
As suggested above, we are realistically paying Wells $17 million for the next four years--which is slightly more than the Mets are paying Jason Bay on average ($16.5MM), and far less than the Red Sox are paying Carl Crawford on average per year ($20.285MM--funny how nobody mentions that) or the Nationals to Jayson Werth ($18MM), both of whom will ALSO be on the wrong side of 30 by the middle of their contracts.
And remember, Tony Reagins does not make a deal without knowing what he's doing in the long run:
* November 16, 2007. Reagins had barely finished placing his name placard on his desk when he shipped fan favorite shortstop Orlando Cabrear to the Chicago White Sox for Jon Garland. Looked like we lost the deal, until Garland posted 14 wins and a 4.01 ERA, and Cabrera flubbed with Chicago.
* November 23, 2007: Reagins once again made waves, signing center fielder Torii Hunter to a 5-year, $90 million deal. In hindsight, I say thank you.
* July 29, 2008: Did anyone expect this? Reagins sends Casey Kotchman and a pitching prospect to the Atlanta Braves for a first baseman by the name of...oh, I don't know, MARK TEIXEIRA. Yeah, BIG WIN. Let's not forget that this trade effectively allowed the Angels to draft Mike Trout.
* February 5, 2009: Bobby Abreu was still looking for a job. The Angels gave him one, and made this signing (one year, $5MM) the best bargain in baseball for 2009. Abreu went on to post 101 RBI and finish 12th in AL MVP voting.
* December 9, 2009: Disappointed by the news that Vladimir Guerrero is leaving the Angels, Reagins snatches then-reigning World Series MVP Hideki Matsui to the tune of one year and $6 million. While he didn't outslug Vladimir Guerrero, Matsui did hit 21 home runs and drive in 74.
* January 20, 2010: Joel Pineiro didn't look like the ideal replacement for John Lackey, but Reagins gave him a 2-year, $16MM contract, and so far, it looks good.
* July 22, 2010: It was this date that Reagins finally discovered that Brandon Wood is not the son of God. To rectify this horrific wrong, Reagins acquires third baseman Alberto Callaspo from Kansas City, in exchange for Sean O'Sullivan and a pitching prospect. O'Sullivan tanked, and Callaspo, while not a vast improvement from Wood, did decent.
* July 25, 2010: The best trade that Tony Reagins has ever made in his entire career as a GM, and this also speaks for the future. He must've had some great blackmail on Jerry Dipoto, the Arizona GM. Why? He acquired Dan Haren in exchange for Joe Saunders, Rafael Rodriguez and two pitching prospects. The four pitchers Dipoto claimed all have small upside. Haren? Managed a 2.87 ERA in 14 starts with the Angels, who have control of him through 2012.
I don't exactly doubt Reagins' actions, knowing the upside they usually have. The past is a lovely indicator, people.
January 23rd, 2011 at 3:26 am
To everyone who is saying that Napoli and/or Rivera were expendable, you are missing the point. It's certainly possible that the Angels had little use for those guys (I don't know enough about the construction of the ballclub to argue otherwise, so I'll concede this point). That being said, the players still had value and the Angels got far less back, when you factor in Wells' onerous contract.
Suppose you had a wallet that could only hold $1000. Yet you found yourself with $2000. Naturally, you'd want to spend the extra $1000 since you'd otherwise lose it since it can't fit in your wallet. Would you rather spend it on something worth approximately $1000, maybe a bit less, and works well -OR- spend it on something worth far less than $1000 and, while working reasonably well, is going to take a lot of effort to maintain. Of course, your third option is to stuff the extra $1000 in your pocket and hope you don't lose it (you probably won't, but there is a reasonable risk that you will).
Now, in my analogy, oddly enough, the $$$ = ballplayers. The wallet = the team. The effort into maintaining the item bought in the second scenario = money.
To me, I think it's obvious you go with option 3 until a solid enough option 1 comes along. Option 2 would never be ideal. Yet that is exactly what the Angels did. The argument is not that Wells is better than Napoli/Rivera since they would have been benched anyway. The argument is that the Angels could and should have gotten a better deal for those two and, as such, this deal is a fail.
January 23rd, 2011 at 8:18 am
I don't know what you all are talking about - Vernon Wells is great! As in HOF great! Look at his best comp through age 31 - it's HOFer Andre Dawson! And the numbers are really close, even in the rate stats (.280/.329/.475 to .280/.326/.476). The only stat that's really off is steals, as Dawson had more speed.
OK, so putting things in context Dawson had a 122 OPS+ and Wells a 108 OPS+ (I think this is . Also @10, Dave Winfield is on Well's comp list through age 31. If Wells can put up similar numbers to Winfield's 1984 season (or Dawson's 1987 - those are their 32 year old seasons), the Angels would probably be happy. If he could combine the two by taking the best pieces - hit .340 with 49 HR - the Angels would be really happy 🙂
All in all I think the Wells contract looks less horrible for the Blue Jays now. Even including the $5 million they gave to the Angels it still works out to less than $10 million per season for their four seasons of Wells. Of course, the Angels could be off the hook after this season too if Wells decides to opt out of his contract (any takers on how likely that is?)
January 23rd, 2011 at 8:25 am
Given the relative offensive strengths of their eras and that Dawson was a marginal HOFer, the fact that their slash lines are so similar is more of a condemnation of Wells.
January 23rd, 2011 at 8:56 am
Man we (LAA) got screwed. I'm trying to remain positive but can't help feeling this move was triggered by discontent among the Angels fans and management feeling they needed to bring in a big name. No way can I see Wells opting out of earning $63m for 3 more years on a team he wants to be on, so we're lumbered paying an above average player premium money for 4 years which as others have pointed out will stop us making other signings or even keeping our best young players like Weaver.
The only upside is that we shifted two players who earn a fair chunk who didn't have every day spots, but I can see those guys mashing in Toronto which would make it worse. All I can say is Wells better produce his best form and some other guys better return to their 2009 form otherwise we're gonna struggle. And with a $140m payroll at that.
January 23rd, 2011 at 9:46 am
@John Autin: "...or a Manny Ramirez or a Vlad Guerrero". If you want to argue against something you might want to argue against all of what was said.
Point being that the Jays don't develop clear superstar position players, guys where there's no room for argument. I mean, look at the other team that came in with the Jays, the Mariners. They've come up with Ken Griffey, Jr. and Alex Rodriguez. Would you stack Olerud or Delgado against either of them? Or the Brewers, who are after all only eight years older as a franchise: Robin Yount, Paul Molitor. Padres? Winfield, Gwynn, Roberto Alomar (yes, they did), Ozzie Smith. Expos? Gary Carter, Tim Raines, Vlad Guerrero. Royals? Brett, arguably Carlos Beltran.
If you looked at how the older franchises have done over the same time period, you'd end up with the same sort of thing in almost all cases. The Blue Jays are bad at developing top-flight players.
January 23rd, 2011 at 2:16 pm
The Angels won this trade.
Eighty six million dollars to Arte Moreno is like you and I finding a dollar on the sidewalk.
Neither Rivera or Napoli have any business being within ten feet of anything made of leather, so Toronto is automatically a far worse defensive team than before the trade.
And they weren't so hot BEFORE the trade.
While it's true Wells hasn't exactly performed up to his contract, that's more the fault of Toronto giving it to him, add Wells' injuries to the discussion makes things that much worse.
I think he will thrive in LA, especially playing alongside his buddy Torii, and while I don't think this in itself makes the Angels the West favorite, they are a better team because of it.
January 23rd, 2011 at 3:13 pm
@33, Paul Drye -- What, you don't like that Roy Halladay guy either?
As for McGriff, he was drafted by the Yankees and played his first two seasons of pro ball for NY before the lopsided swap of McGriff for Dale Murray. That ranks right up there with the Red Sox trading away Jeff Bagwell for Larry Andersen a few years later. What was the perceived value of middle relievers in those years?? Then again, after the free-agent signings of middle relievers this offseason, maybe there's no difference!
McGriff is one of those "what if" players for me. I wonder what if he had never been traded away and stayed with the Yankees. My guess is he wouldn't be considered a borderline HOFer, but instead he'd be a likely HOFer. Not because of the extra media attention one receives in NY, but because the short rightfield at Yankee Stadium would have been kind to the lefty McGriff. I haven't looked at McGriff's hitting patterns, so it's possible what he gained powerwise to rightfield he might have lost in center and especially left center, but my guess is a career as a Yankee would have allowed him to easily have eclipsed 500 career HRs, increasing his HOF chances greatly, especially since there are no steroid connections to him.
January 23rd, 2011 at 4:21 pm
Three variables no one has mentioned yet
Bobby Wilson, Hank Conger and Peter Bourjos. wilson and Conger are the catchers of the future. Wilson is the better defensive player, but Conger was a 1st rd pick with some nice offensive numbers in the minors (career 0.847 OPS) His potential upside at this point is probably 15 HR's and good doubles power.
Bourjos was an August call up who bumped Hunter from CF to RF. he showed some spectacular defense He stepped at SLC the fist 4 months of his season with a 861 OPS in 102 games. However this was new ground for him; the alst time he was over 800 was in R-Ball at Orem in 2006.
If Bourjos and Conger can step up, this was a great trade for the Angels as napoli and Rivera would have simply ben role players anyways.
If they don't do well, Jeff Mathis and Reggie Willits will drag down the Angels offense.
January 23rd, 2011 at 4:56 pm
@35, MikeD -- Well, Halladay was a terrible position player. As a pitcher he's fantastic, but I was talking about the Jays' inability to develop really top-flight position players. They've done just fine with pitchers between Halladay, Key, Stieb, Hentgen, Carpenter, David Wells....
January 23rd, 2011 at 5:09 pm
Paul @33/37: Ramirez and Guerrero aren't that much better than Olerud and McGriff. The three guys I picked out of your list are a whole lot closer to them than they are to Wells, the other two you mentioned with them, or any journeyman kind of player, even those with flashes of brilliance.
The point is "definitely better than Olerud or McGriff" makes you a clear hall of famer. "a lot better" makes you inner circle level, a la Pujols or ARod.
If you expect your farm system to produce hall of famers right and left, you are very likely to be disappointed.
January 23rd, 2011 at 6:05 pm
#36 makes a good point and I'm guessing that's the driver behind this move. Give your prospects a chance to earn regular playing time. Rivera and Napoli are never going to be world beaters. Conger and Bourjos may be. Wilson performed solidly last year. If he and Conger turm out well we may not keep Mathis next year. Of course these are big ifs, but even if Bourjos doesn't hit we would have an outfield of Wells, Hunter and Abreu, hardly shabby. I just still think Wells is no way worth $21m and I'm sure all would agree. I hope this doesn't hinder us signing Morales to a long term deal.
It's also a bit strange the Angels wouldn't give Beltre more than $70m for 5 years but they will spend $86m for 4 years of Wells, so I can only think the driver was to dump a couple of guys who are earning $5-6m this year who don't really have an everyday role and give the youngsters a shot.
January 23rd, 2011 at 6:14 pm
@37, Paul Drye -- Ahh, okay, I missed the "position player" part when I looked at the comments. That said, I still can't buy the argument. You want more from the Jays than the Carlos Delgado's Fred McGriff's, John Olerud's, Shawn Green's and Tony Fernandez-type position players, but you say they do just fine with developing pitchers, such as Halladay, Key, Stieb, Hentgen, Carpenter and David Wells?
Halladay is probably the only one who will make the HOF (we still have to give McGriff his time, and don't know if Delgado is even finished yet), but both groups are a fine selection of talent from one organization.
The truly elite-level you're talking about (Pujols, Bonds, Brett, etc.) is really just a little bit of luck that comes with the ability to identify good players. The Jays have done well at identifying good players. The fact that one hasn't quite turned into Albert Pujols (or Vlad Guerrero if you want to step down from the god-like category) isn't a legit knock, IMHO. Pujols was a 13th rounder, who played basically one season in A ball. The Cardinals really didn't develop him into the monster hitter he is. They had no f-ing idea he'd turn out to be King Albert. No team did.
Sure, the Mariners picked up Ken Griffey, Jr. and A-Rod, but that's because the Mariners really sucked. Just like the Nats get back-to-back picks of Strasburg and Harper (future MLB success still TBD). The Mariners got to pick Jr. and A-Rod because they had the worst record in MLB. They got the #1 pick in the nation. And even if a team is "lucky" enough to have the overall #1, there is still a lot of luck involved. Not every draft has an A-Rod-level player (almost none do), or a Griffey, or a Harper, or a Josh Hamilton. I mention those four because, off the top of my head, those four position players have generated the most buzz and excitement pre draft over the past 25 years. (Strasburg, too, but just talking position players again.) All were considered can't miss. Yet look no further than Josh Hamilton to see why no player can ever be projected as a "HOF" lock. He certainly has as much ability, and maybe even more, than those other three, yet two are certain HOFers, one is just starting out, while Hamilton probably left his HOF career by the side of the road along with a bunch of empty crack vials. Some things just can't be predicted.
If the Jays keep drafting good players, eventually your George Brett will show up. You might even get two or three in a short period, and then none again for two decades. It doesn't necessarily mean they're drafting any better or worse when it comes to "elite-level" players. There's just luck that has to be added into the equation.
January 23rd, 2011 at 6:17 pm
@38 Michael E Sullivan: It's not producing them right and left, it's producing one even. The Jays have been around for 36 years and haven't produced a single clear Hall of Fame-class position player -- Olerud and McGriff (and Jeff Kent, who is actually a smidge higher than Olerud) are as close as it gets and they're all a bit marginal . They clear 50 WAR, but not 60. Delgado is a full 10 WAR or more short of these guys.
Take the same time period and what other franchises hasn't pulled it off? I already did the other expansion franchises from 1976 and 1969 and they've all done it at least once.
So alright. Position players developed by the other franchises from 1969 onwards who were better (just using WAR as a quick guide) than the Blue Jays' big three:
Yankees: Jeter
Cardinals: Pujols, obviously, Keith Hernandez (though just barely)
Oakland: Rickey Henderson, McGwire steroids be damned
Red Sox: Boggs, Fisk
Giants: No-one
Dodgers: Piazza
Reds: Larkin. Give them one more year and you get Bench.
Pirates: Bonds
Tigers: Trammell, Whitaker
Braves: Chipper Jones, Andruw Jones (yes he is)
Orioles: Ripken, Grich, Eddie Murray
Twins: No-one
White Sox: Frank Thomas
Cubs: Palmeiro
Phillies: Ryne Sandberg, Schmidt, Scott Rolen
Indians: Thome, Lofton, Manny Ramirez
Mets: No-one
Angels: Jim Edmonds
Astros: Bagwell, Biggio
Rangers: Sosa (though it's close. just 0.3 WAR)
Mariners: Griffey and Alex Rodriguez
So I'm counting three franchises besides the Blue Jays who've failed to come up with a 60 WAR player (actually four, since Sosa doesn't pull it off for the Rangers). Now even look at the teams that haven't done it. The Twins have Joe Mauer, who's likely to pull it off. The Mets have David Wright, in the same boat. Hell, even the Marlins have come up with Miguel Cabrera and his 33 WAR in eight years and they've only been around since 1993!
Go ahead and even dump some of the marginals off this list like Andruw Jones and Keith Hernandez. There's not a lot of room to argue here. The Blue Jays are worse at coming up with top-flight position players than almost any other franchise.
January 23rd, 2011 at 6:49 pm
@ MikeD: I'm more forgiving of the pitchers because, for one, they've developed a HOFer, and for two, pitchers are a lot more variable anyway. TINSTAAPP, and all that.
January 24th, 2011 at 12:30 am
@42/41, Paul Drye, thanks for your response. I still think this is more a case of randomness, meaning which level of elite player crosses to an even more elite level. The selection of the 60 WAR point is also questionable, since it conveniently leaves out two positional players from the Jays who are in the 50 range (and a third just below). There are plenty of players below the 60 WAR mark who are in the HOF.
From my perspective, once a player nears the 50 WAR mark he's basically among the 200 greatest position players ever. No, not in the A-Rod, Pujols, Ruth, Gehrig, Mays zone, but that's not what we're talking about here. At 50 and above, we have many HOFers and those who will be given a solid look.
If you really want to be elite, I'd start at 70 WAR (sticking to the rounded numbers), since basically every position player 70 and above is in the HOF who is eligible, but one. Guys like A-Rod and Pujols and Jones aren't in yet since they're still playing, and guys like Maddux and Clemens and Griffey and Johnson and Bonds aren't in yet since they've yet to hit the ballot. Bagwell will eventually make it. That leaves Bill Dahlen as the only position player with a 70 or above player not in the Hall who could be in the Hall. These are roughly the 50 highest WAR positional players in the game's history. The no-doubters. Yet that's not what you should be talking about. There's a group of elite players in the 50-70 zone who are HOFers, or should be HOFers, and a group of near HOFers.
If you're going for unquestioned elite, I'd start at 70. If you're looking for elite-level players, I'd start looking at around 50. As mentioned, 60 seems to have been picked since it fits your argument.
January 24th, 2011 at 2:44 am
What the Ell? (All omissions and disagreements welcome)
One comparison no one has made yet--Juan Rivera makes the All-Time Rivera team--in fact, his one inning at 2B in 2008 gives him a vital role.
C Mike
1B Carlos (2 partial seasons with the 2003-4 Pirates)
2B Juan (the only Rivera with ML experience at the position)
SS Luis
3B German (3 yrs 1983-4-5, .257/322/.314 92 OPS+)
LF Bombo
CF Ruben
RF "Jungle" Jim (The cleanup hitter by virtue of his 106 OPS+)
SP Ben (23-17 in 3 seasons with the Braves and Phillies)
MR Saul or Luis
CL Mariano (Move him to 2nd base for fielding?)
Vernon Wells is a fine player, but he doesn't make the starting lineup of the All-Ell team, unless you want a good CF to cover ground with Belle and Keller in the outfield.
C King Kelley
1B High Pockets Kelly
2B Ronnie Belliard
SS Jay Bell
3B George Kell
OF Charlie Keller
OF Albert/Joey Belle
OF Joe Kelley
P Bob Feller
MR David Wells
Closer Heath Bell
Rookie of the Year--Casper Wells
Honorable Mention, Name Category--Moses J. "Chief" Yellow Horse
Moonlight Graham Award--Bart Zeller
Don't count the Riveras out in a head to head series. Remember, they only have to be leading going into the 8th!
Things I learned while making these lists:
High Pockets Kelly pitched 5 innings in one game in 1917 (at 21 years old). The line: 5 IP, 4H, 1 BB, 2 K, 0 R, and the win.
All 25 ML players whose last name starts with Nel- are named Nelson.
"King Kong" Keller was all of 5' 10", 185 lbs. He wasn't even the biggest member of his own family, as brother Hal (here fighting it out for the backup catcher spot) was 6' 1" ,200.
Joe Kelley's most similar player at 21 was the immortal Louis Pessano "Buttercup" Dickerson, who played for 8 teams in 7 years in the 1870s and 80s, with a lifetime OPS+of 121. Buttercup completed a career rubicund trifecta by playing for the Cincinnati Reds, St. Louis Maroons, and Worcester RubyLegs.
Eddie Rommel pitched in the majors for 13 years, coached for 2 years, and umpired for 21 years. Lifetime ERA+ 122. Hit over .200 seven times, including his last five seasons. He was behind the plate on August 24, 1945 in Municipal Stadium, Cleveland, for the
Game I'm Sorry I Missed: Indians 4, Tigers 2. Two weeks after VJ Day, Bob Feller returns from WW II (he volunteered December 8, 1941) and beats the first place Tigers by outpitching Hal Newhouser (who falls to 20-8). Feller's line: 9 IP, 12 K, 5 BB, 4 Hits, 2 ER.
January 24th, 2011 at 2:56 am
@44--"good" should have been in quotes before CF.
January 24th, 2011 at 9:14 am
@Paul Drye: Few teams ever produce a player like Pujols.
@ Stan: "Besides it's LA (of Anaheim)." I can't believe you would mention that. The changing of the team name over the years is a joke - as if the owners can't make up their minds. LA, then California, then Anaheim, and now the unwieldy LA Angels of Anaheim - the biggest joke. Teams are supposed to carry a city or state name and nickname, not followed by the name of another place. It would be like NY Jets of East Rutherford, NJ, NY Mets of Flushing, or Texas Rangers of Arlington. How idiotic!
They should just stick with LA Angels or California Angels and be done.
January 24th, 2011 at 9:33 am
If the Angels felt that Napoli had less value than his contract price, they could have just released him earlier this off-season. This was not a case of making a trade to dump Napoli's contract because no trade was needed.
January 24th, 2011 at 11:28 am
@41 Paul Drye: And, yet, all four of those teams without 60 WAR players have combined to win 7 World Series...
January 24th, 2011 at 12:00 pm
@33, Paul Drye -- I stand by my reaction to your post @8. Leading off your 3-man comparison group with Albert Pujols was your choice, and it reflected the absurdity of the entire 3-man comparison group: Manny, who only ranks in the top 30 in MLB history in a great many offensive stats (both counting and rate, both conventional and advanced); and Vlad, an odds-on Hall of Famer.
Over the past 15 years, those three players rank 3rd, 7th and 11th in combined W.A.R. by position players. They average 10 All-Star appearances apiece.
I submit to you that a majority of MLB franchises have not produced a position player of even Vlad's value over the last 20 years.
January 24th, 2011 at 12:48 pm
@44, Dave Huemer -- Elle of a fun list there. But how about a spot for Negro Leagues great and HOFer Willie Wells? He could push Jay Bell over to 2B, and Belliard to a reserve role.
January 24th, 2011 at 1:01 pm
@48 John Autin: Why the arbitrary 20 years? We're talking about a franchise that's been around for 36.
January 24th, 2011 at 1:07 pm
@41, Paul Drye -- Obviously, you are putting some thought into this issue of position players produced by Toronto as compared to other clubs.
But why do you list players who debuted from 1969 onward, when the Blue Jays have only been around since 1977?
January 24th, 2011 at 1:13 pm
@51, Paul -- I used 20 years because (a) it took in the entire careers of your initial 3 comparison players (Pujols, Manny, Vlad), (b) it took in most of the careers of the top 3 Blue Jays products you mentioned (McGriff, Delgado, Olerud), and (c) it's a nice, round number.
I didn't realize at first that you were talking about the entire history of the franchise.
January 24th, 2011 at 1:16 pm
Paul Drye -- If your point is that the Jays have never produced a "superstar" position player, I won't put up a big argument (though I could quibble about Delgado). My main point was about your apparent expectation of producing a superstar of the Albert-Manny-Vlad caliber.
January 24th, 2011 at 4:40 pm
#35/ MikeD Says: .. "[McGriff is one of those "what if" players for me. I wonder what if he had never been traded away and stayed with the Yankees. My guess is he wouldn't be considered a borderline HOFer, but instead he'd be a likely HOFer...]"
MikeD, it's always fun to play "What If", but if McGriff was not traded before 1983, and was brought up by the Yankees at say age 22 (he wasn't a regular with the Blue Jays till age 23), that would've been in 1986, when Don Mattingly was already well-established as the Yankees first baseman, being the AL MVP the year before.
I suppose he could've been the DH, but the yankees had just traded for Mike Easler, swapping DHs with the Red Sox. It's possible that he could've been the DH in 1988, splitting time with Easler and Ron Kittle. However, given the Yankees well-known dislike of young unproven players in this time period, they probably would've ended up trading him away anyway.
I suppose in retrospect that looks like a terrible trade {McGriff for Dale Murray - really?!?!},but in 1982 McGriff was age 18, and had hit .262/.413/.456 in 62 games in Rookie League. That's not bad, but it doesn't scream out "can't miss - do not trade!"
January 24th, 2011 at 5:15 pm
@33, You can add Gary Sheffield to the Brewers, 63.3 WAR including -18.4 from defense. His 81.7 offensive WAR is 29th all-time.
January 24th, 2011 at 5:21 pm
Dave Huemer #44, "rubicund trifecta", lol. Too bad he didn't play for Boston.
January 24th, 2011 at 9:21 pm
@55, Lawrence Azrin -- That is always the issue with "what if" scenarios. There is a cascading impact, which is why they're "what if" and why they're fun!
In some "what if" cases there is no answer. The two players could not exist on the same team unless one of the players had the ability to play another position. In the Mattingly/McGriff scenario there was a solution.
As you mentioned, McGriff could have started out as a DH, sharing some time at first. Once McGriff established himself as a major power hitter, the Yankees would have made room. Remember, Mattingly was also an OFer. At worst, they would have had a great DH who could also sub at first for Mattingly.
Also, unlike many stationary objects that get put at 1B because they can't play elsewhere, Mattingly was regarded as a good athlete, so he could have transitioned back to the OF. Naturally ambidextrous, he was originally drafted as an OFer and played about 40% more games in the OF in the minors, including 120 games in the OF his first year in AAA. When he was first called up in late '82 and then in '83, he played more games in the OF. The problem, as you noted, was the Yankees had little trust for younger players, and they had a logjam of OFers, made worse by the ill-fated signing of Steve Kemp. To make room (not for Mattingly, but all the other has-been vets they signed), they were going to put Key Griffey the Senior at first, but an injury to Griffey opened up a more consistent spot for Mattingly, and after comparing Balboni and Mattingly at first, they did make the wise choice and Mattingly finally had consistent playing time. Yet, if that opening happened first in the OF, we might know Mattingly more as an OFer today.
Would the Yankees have moved Mattingly off first, considering his glove reputation, when McGriff arrived? No, not right away, but they could have DH'd McGriff, and eventually a little bit of time and Mattingly's back would have figured out the rest. Or, they could have just lived with having McGriff clocking 35-40 HRs as their fulltime DH. Not exactly the worst problem.
My scenario really was not meant to show how keeping McGriff would have helped the Yankees. It was one on how it would have potentially helped McGriff make the HOF with his likely increase in HRs. Now should the Yankees have known McGriff would go on to have the career he did? No. Yet they should never have traded him for Dale Murray because it was clear there something there worth more than Dale Murray. McGriff was a 6'3" power-hitting lefty with a swing for Yankee Stadium who was built like Adonis, who was playing in pro ball by 17, and at 18 for the Yankees triple-slashed .272/.413/.456 for an .870 OPS. You hold that player.
Now if we really want to play an interesting "what if" scenario that's not about Fred McGriff, but is about the Yankees of the 1980s, that might be more interesting. As you noted, they had zero faith in their young talent. They had good teams, but were always in search of pitching. Yet they traded away Doug Drabek, Jose Rijo, Bob Tewksbury and Tim Burke (who could have been the closer they needed, allowing Dave Righetti to stay in the rotation) and got what back? On the offensive side, they traded away McGriff, as well as Jay Buhner (insert Seinfeld comment), and my favorite that ranks right up there with McGriff was trading Willie McGee to get Bob Sykes, who would never ever throw a pitch for the Yankees, or any other team for that fact. What's amazing is Steinbrenner at one point decided the Yankees needed speed, so they signed Dave Collins. To make room for Collins on the 40-man roster, they traded away another speedster, future MVP and two-time batting champ Willie McGee, their former first-round pick who hit something like .320 in AA ball. (Collins was, interestingly, later shipped off to Toronto as part of the McGriff trade, along with the pitcher Mike Morgan, who was just beginning his trek of pitching for what seemed like 30 teams over 30 years!)
What-if scenarios create other issues. If keeping those players made the Yankees better in the 80s, their eventual collapse that led to signing players like Jeter and Williams and Pettitte might never have occured, leading to yet another "what if" scenario. What they gained in the 80s, they may have lost in the 90s.
January 25th, 2011 at 12:32 am
and got what back?
Since Rijo was traded for Rickey Henderson, it's a little disingenuous not to mention him in your post.
January 25th, 2011 at 12:34 am
Not that I'm defending the general pattern of '80s Yankees trades.
January 25th, 2011 at 3:53 am
@59, Johnny Twisto -- "Disingenuous?" Nah. Far from it. I forgot Rijo went in the Henderson deal. When I wrote "and got back what?," it was half statement/half question, although overall I meant it more as a statement questioning the moves they made during those years.
I certainly can't knock that move. I think of Rijo being on the Reds, so I forgot about the initial trade to the A's. Overall, and as you noted in #60, I was making a point on how the Yankees treated their young players back in the 80s. I don't have a problem trading young talent. It's more of a question of matching up the level of the young talent with what is being sent back, and the overall needs of the organization.
Rijo, man, I have to wonder about his career. The Yankees forced him up to the majors quickly as a reaction to the Dwight Gooden media frenzy. Looking back, it's kind of an amazing conicidence they actually a 19-year-old, Doc Gooden-like, strike-out, power pitcher in the minor leagues at that time. Rijo's career was over by the time he was 30. I wonder if the rush to the majors, and the fact that when he was 18-years-old in the minors, he started 26 games, completing 18 if them, and pitched 200-innings at such as young age might have contributed to the wear and tear on his arm that pretty much led to his early exit. Hard to pin it on that since it was a decade later that his arm gave out, but he had great stuff.
January 25th, 2011 at 11:10 am
#58/ Mike D - great and informative response!!
As they might say on a game show, the "What if??" game is for "amusement purposes only". Although the Dale Murray-for-McGriff trade in retrospect looks terrible because Murray's career was finished before McGriff ever played in the majors, Murray actually had a pretty good year as a middle reliever, before the Yanks traded for him before 1983:
3.16 ERA (142 ERA+) in 111 innings, 8-7 with 11 saves
That's a useful pitcher; he was lousy in 1983 and 1984 so the Yankees didn't get much out of him.
I hadn't considered the possibility of Mattingly being moved off first base, there's a precedent for that with Harmon Killebrew frequently being bounced around from first to third to left field and back to first, to make room for other hitters in the Twins line-up.
Just remember that a prospect is just that ,a _prospect_ ; far more fail than suceed. Almost no prospect ever turns out as good as McGriff.
January 25th, 2011 at 1:11 pm
Rijo was hurt throughout his career, so it's not like his arm suddenly gave out a decade after being brought up. Who knows whether his early callup had anything to do with it.
Actually, looking at his numbers now, I see he had three straight 200-IP seasons, and '94 was a full season as well but for the strike. I remembered him being hurt all the time, but it looks like he was pretty healthy 1992-1994, and only missed a few starts in '91. Then all of a sudden it was over. I can't believe he was only 30 when he retired the first time, he had been around so long.
January 25th, 2011 at 2:06 pm
@62, Lawrence: "Murray actually had a pretty good year as a middle reliever, before the Yanks traded for him before 1983: 3.16 ERA (142 ERA+) in 111 innings, 8-7 with 11 saves"
Well, yes. But dealing for a 33-year-old reliever coming off his best year and expecting him to keep up that level of production -- rather than his career mark of 105 ERA+ / 3.70 ERA -- seems pretty silly, no matter what kind of prospects you're giving up.
What Dale Murray did for the Yankees in 1984 is pretty much the same as what he did from 1977 through '79 -- which is why he spent most of 1980-81 back in the minors at age 30-31. Not exactly unpredictable.
January 25th, 2011 at 4:09 pm
#64/John Autin... @62, Lawrence: "{"Murray actually had a pretty good year as a middle reliever, before the Yanks traded for him before 1983: 3.16 ERA (142 ERA+) in 111 innings, 8-7 with 11 saves"}
Well, yes. But dealing for a 33-year-old reliever coming off his best year and expecting him to keep up that level of production -- rather than his career mark of 105 ERA+ / 3.70 ERA -- seems pretty silly, no matter what kind of prospects you're giving up..."
John, I wasn't trying to defend this particular trade, just trying to explain it from the Yankees point of view. I also wasn't aware that Murray was mostly in the minors in 1980-81, good point.
My overall point is that given the Yankees organizational philosophy to their minor-league prospects in the 80s (get rid of 'em), if they hadn't traded McGriff for Murray, they would've traded him for someone else before he became a regular with the Yankees. That is all.
January 26th, 2011 at 1:32 pm
@63, JT -- Regarding Rijo, it's hard to say if the heavy usage in the minors impacted him later in his career. I was more surprised (although, not really) how younger pitchers were used back then. Eighteen complete games and a 200-inning season as an 18-year-old!
Frank Tanana as a 19-year-old pitched 246 innings (minors and majors) with 18 complete games. He was one of the best young power lefties I've seen, but he basically went from being Randy Johnson in his first five years, to Jamie Moyer the next 16 years after he lost his great fastball. He clearly was "abused," and if he came up today he might have had a better chance of remaining a power lefty.
January 27th, 2011 at 8:47 am
[...] take on The Worst Trade in the World Ever was that clearly the Angels’ motivation was to get rid of Mike Napoli, who everyone [...]