This has been a busy off-season so far, with some big trades being completed, and I can't resist taking a look at some of the trade strings those trades created.  Obviously, the biggest trade thus far has been the Halladay-Lee swap, so let's start there.  The trade, although I initially thought of as a three-way-trade, was actually more like two separate trades that just happened to be completed on the same day.  The Phillies traded Lee to the Mariners for prospects, and they traded different prospect to the Blue Jays for Roy Halladay.  Here's how it looks visually:

I have to agree with Dave Cameron - I don't have any idea why the Phillies gave up Lee for so little.  Those three prospects aren't near the quality of the prospects that they initially gave up to acquire Lee, and anyway, why not keep Lee?  He's only making around $9M this upcoming season, which is an incredible bargain for his talent, and a rotation that featured Halladay, Lee, and Hamels would be quite formidable.  If they kept Lee for a full season and then let him go as a Type-A free agent, they'd get two picks for him in the upcoming draft, which possibly wouldn't be that far of a downgrade from the talent they received by trading him.

While looking at Cliff Lee's history, I couldn't help but notice what an incredible deal the Indians initially got when they acquired him.  Bartolo Colon for Cliff Lee and Grady Sizemore?  Yes, please. 

Despite seeming to make a bad decision trading Brandon Phillips for Jeff Stevens, the Indians even managed to make that work out, eventually turning Stevens into Chris Perez.  That Colon trade just keeps on giving, especially when you consider that Bartolo Colon had only about three and a half more good seasons left in him when they moved him in 2002.

Last, I want to take visually look at the other big trade this off-season: the Curtis Granderson trade.  The Tigers gave up a lot in Jackson and Granderson, but they received Max Scherzer, a solid middle-reliever, and two top prospects.  And remember, the Tigers wouldn't have had Jackson without first trading Matt Joyce.

I'd love to say that the Rays p'owned the Tigers and stole Matt Joyce from them, but Jackson pitched quite well for them this year.  The processes may not have been the best, but the Tigers got lucky and made the most of it.  Yes, Jackson's FIP still wasn't great, but now that he's been traded, the Tigers don't need to worry about him regressing in the future.  Results-wise, he was a great addition this past year and they managed to flip him while his value was high, getting back an incredible young arm in Max Scherzer.  Compare:

Mark this down as a classic example of why ERA stinks as a talent evaluation tool.  Jackson had a significantly better ERA than Scherzer in 2009, but Scherzer was by far the better pitcher.  And then the Tigers also got a strong outfielder prospect in Austin Jackson, a decent reliever in Phil Coke, and a first-round relief prospect in Schlereth.  The comparison between Joyce and Austin Jackson is interesting; Joyce has more power and is more patient, but Jackson plays centerfield and has more speed.  Jackson's about three years younger, though, so he has more time for development.

Anyway, these are just my random thoughts.  Let's see how the off-season continues developing; maybe we'll have more trades showing up.

More photos » by Ed Zurga - AP

5 months ago: Tampa Bay Rays catcher Michel Hernandez, left, and pitcher J.P. Howell celebrate the Rays' 4-3 baseball win over the Kansas City Royals on Sunday, July 19, 2009, in Kansas City, Mo. (AP Photo/Ed Zurga)

Browse more photos »

During Eric's interview with Carson Cistulli on Thursday, Carson brought up a point that I was pondering myself about a month ago: how good of a starter would JP Howell be if given the chance again?  Here's what he had to say on the matter:

"The real question, for me, is how this affects J.P. Howell. I've been the giantest Howell apologist for some time now. It seems like he could make a fantastic starter. From 2005 to 2007, Howell made 33 appearances (all starts) and posted xFIPs of 4.41, 4.08, and 4.12, respectively. His tRA*s (that is, regressed tRA, available at StatCorner) are less friendly over that time period (5.16, 5.21, and 5.24, respectively), so maybe I should just can it. Still, if he's down with it -- and I don't know, maybe he's not -- then I think it's worth a shot."

We all know that starters are much valuable than relievers, with even the best relievers only racking up around 2+ WAR over the course of a season (there is an argument to be made that WAR undervalues high-leverage innings, but the point still holds).  This is why players like Joba Chamberlain and David Price are transitioned back into the starting rotation, even after proving to be dominant coming out of the bullpen; they're simply too valuable to not have them in the rotation.  JP Howell has been dominant out of the pen - no doubt about that - but there hasn't been any sort of murmurings to move him back into the starting rotation.  How come?  Should he remain in the pen, or are we being silly to not consider him for the starting rotation?

Continue reading this post »

More photos » by Michael Conroy - AP

14 days ago: Tampa Bay Rays manager Joe Maddon responds to a question during a news conference at the baseball winter meetings in Indianapolis on Tuesday, Dec. 8, 2009. (AP Photo/Michael Conroy)

Browse more photos »

With the winter meetings all finished up, the Rays stand in a rather different place now than they did five days ago.  Looking back at all the action and moves, what have we learned about the Rays' front-office during this past week?  And judging from their actions this week, what can we expect in the future?  Here's the long and the short of it:

2010 or Bust - With contracts for Crawford, Pena, and Burrell expiring after the 2010 season (and Balfour hitting free-agency), the Rays stand to lose a significant portion of their "core" of players after this season.  So although I initially pegged the Rays as not having much salary room this off-season, the $7M signing of Soriano appears to be saying that the front-office has decided to go all-in this year (for discussion on the rationale behind the trade, see here and here).  Since adding an additional win or two would significantly help the Rays' playoff odds, and there stands to be a big personnel change in 2011, they seem to be taking the calculated risk of spending a bit more money now and making a run at the playoffs.  If the Rays are out of the race in July, they can always trade CC or Pena then and the only thing they'll have lost in $7M for one year of Soriano.  Not a bad strategy, and not one that sacrifices the future beyond 2010 either.

Continue reading this post »

More photos » by Shizuo Kambayashi - AP

Jose Canseco, former member of the infamous "Hit Show" (AP Photo/Shizuo Kambayashi)

Browse more photos »

Now, how would people have answered that same question before the 2008 season?  What was our franchise's defining moment before we made the playoffs and World Series?  This is a much tougher question, and I think there are a couple potential answers.  Some people might have mentioned Rocco Baldelli and his explosive entrance to the majors in 2003.  Others may have brought up the Scott Kazmir trade, which is still infamous among Met fans at the very least.   And then some people probably would have brought up "The Hit Show".

For those of you that don't know or want a refresher, "The Hit Show" was the slogan that the Devil Rays front office chose for the 2000 team.  Specifically, they labeled sluggers Fred McGriff, Jose Canseco, Greg Vaughn, and Vinny Castilla as the Hit Show, since they supposedly represented four of the best hitters in the league.  McGriff and Canseco had been with the Devil Rays the previous season, while Vaughn and Castilla were billed as big additions that off-season.  And rightly so: Vaughn had launched 40+ homeruns the last two years in a row and Castilla hit over 30 homeruns in each of the past five years.  McGriff and Canseco had been quite productive players in 1999 as well, and it appeared that the Rays would have a strong offense going into the 2000 season.

Of course, though, the Hit Show flopped.  The conventional wisdom goes that the players were all too old and fell off a cliff, making this a defining moment of the Devil Rays ineffective front office.  Maybe I'm attributing more fame to the Hit Show than it actually garnered, but at least in my mind, the Hit Show has always been the moment that aptly defined our franchise's early history.  It highlighted the ineffective front-office, the poor decision making, the faulty talent evaluation - all of these things rolled into one.  Just like the Curse of the Bambino defined the Red Sox for decades, I felt like the Hit Show defined the Rays.

Since I've been in a retrospective mood recently, I was looking back over the statistics for the players on the Hit Show the other day and received a bit of a shock.  You know, the Hit Show wasn't half bad.

Continue reading this post »

More photos » by Elise Amendola - AP

Boston Red Sox center fielder Joey Gathright (AP Photo/Elise Amendola)

Browse more photos »

If you were to go through all the players on the Opening Day roster for the 2006 Devil Rays, it's incredible how few of them survived on the team for long.  Actually, considering the talent involved, maybe it's not such a surprise.  This isn't a complete list, but take a look for yourself:

Once the new ownership group took over, they made it pretty clear that they were entering into re-building mode fast.  Of the positional players that started the 2006 season with the Rays, four were traded by the July trading deadline, three were released or granted free-agency after the 2006 season, and two were traded by the 2007 trade deadline.  In short, the 2007 line-up looked nothing like the 2006 one.  Carlos Pena started at first, Aki was at third, Delmon was in right, Dukes and Upton were in center, Harris was at short, and Navarro was behind the plate.  It was a classic rebuilding strategy - relying on young players and picking up undervalued veterans off the scrap heap - and instead of being intimidated by the new industry, the Devil Rays' new front office jumped in with a fury.

While there is plenty of material to choose from, one trade that happened mid-2006 stands out to me a little: the Joey Gathright (and Fernando Cortez) for J.P. Howell trade.  In retrospect, this deal has obviously turned out well for the Rays and not so well for the Royals, but what did we know at the time?  Let's walk through each of the six steps of past trade analysis: context, rationale, gut reaction, current knowledge, outcome, and future ramifications.

Continue reading this post »

More photos » by Gail Burton - AP

(AP Photo/Gail Burton)

Browse more photos »

To answer this question, I decided to rank all the players that have played with the Rays by their Fangraphs Weighted Runs Above Average (wRAA).  For those unfamiliar with wRAA, this statistic measures how many offensive runs a player contributed to their team when compared to the league average for that year.  It's a counting stat, like RBIs and HRs, meaning that in order to accumulate a really low wRAA, a player not only has to be bad, but they also have to be given playing time.  That said, here's your list of the lowest of the low, the ten worst offensive seasons in the Rays' history:

I figured that Navarro's 2009 season would rank towards the top of the bottom, but I didn't know that he'd own the dubious honor of being the only player with two seasons in the bottom ten.  It helps that he catches - the bar is set so low, managers can justify playing poor hitting catchers for longer than they would be able to otherwise.  Castilla's 2000 season truly was one for the record books, though.  If you thought Navarro was painful to watch this year, imagine this: Castilla ranked up his -30.3 wRAA in only 354 plate appearances (compared to Navarro's 410).  And he was a third baseman!  Look at this line: .221/.254/.308.  That's just...wow.

Now that we've taken some time to marvel at the lows of our organization, what about the high points?  What have the ten best offensive seasons been?  And along those lines, who is the Rays' all-time offensive leader in wRAA? The answers are after the jump, but first, take the time to answer the poll in the post down below if you haven't already.

Continue reading this post »

Ponder this question, answer it, and then mentally rank the options in order from one to five.  Leave full rankings in the comments section.  And no Fangraphs-peeking allowed!

No worries, the answer will be coming at 10 AM today.

**For those that haven't heard of wRAA, imagine the question this way: who has provided the Rays with the most offensive value during their time with the Rays?**

More photos » by Nick Wass - AP

Thank this man for Zorilla, although wow, what an awkward photo (AP Photo/Nick Wass)

Browse more photos »

When I first started following the Rays back in 2001-2002, there were only a couple of bright spots on the team.  Eventually, Baldelli and Crawford sparked hope for the franchise, but Crawford's first full season wasn't until 2002 and Baldelli didn't burst upon the scene until 2003.  They were both young stars that had the potential then to be the foundation of the franchise moving forward, but until they both arrived, there was another player that (at least in my mind) served as the franchise's face and hope: Aubrey Huff. 

Back when I was merely a casual fan of the game, Huff seemed to brim with potential to me.  Even then I loved prospects, and since I'd jumped on the Rays' bandwagon (if there was such a thing) too late to be enamored with Ben Grieve, Huff became my first real crush.  He could play at a bunch of positions, he could hit really well, and he was young!  Who knows what he could end up as!  At the time, he seemed to me like a potential above-average to star player, and a piece the Rays should build around for the future.

Of course, in retrospect, this was a rather flawed analysis.  Although Huff could definitely hit, his defense was drove his value down lower than I realized.  Yes, Huff could play a bunch of positions, but none of them particularly well.  Looking at his UZR rates going back to 2002, his defensive skills were never his strong suit, regardless of where he played on the diamond (UZR/150: -4.0 at 1B, -4.4 at 3B, -9.8 in RF).  Also, Huff had his first real breakout year in 2002, hitting 23 homers and checking in at 21.8 wRAA, but he was 25 during that year.  Back then I still believed that he had plenty of years to grow and hit his peak, but the reality is that Huff probably didn't have much more developing to do.  A little bit of growth over the next couple of years, but then he'd hit his peak around 27-28 and most likely fade.

Huff went on to have a couple of great years in 2003 and 2004, posting WARs of 3.9 and 4.7 respectively, and then faded quite dramatically in 2005 (0.3 WAR) due to defensive regression, bad luck, and a decrease in patience.  The new ownership dealt him during the middle of the 2006 season (along with just about everyone else on the team, but more on that in another post), getting back in return Mitch Talbot and Ben Zobrist.

In order to properly evaluate this trade, we've got to keep a couple of things in mind.  Evaluating past trades is tricky, since it's tempting to look at how players have performed since the trade and declare a winner and loser.  That'd be results-based analysis, though, which is something we abhor on this blog (and in life in general).  What we really want to focus on is the process, which can be a lot tougher to analyze.  Here are some general questions to keep in mind whenever attempting to analyze a trade completed sometime in the past:

• Context: What was the initial context for this trade? Was it completed at the trade deadline or during the off-season? What was the contract-status of the traded player(s)? What was the level of competitiveness of the franchise? Who were the received player(s)?
• Rationale: What was the initial reasoning behind this trade? Did this rationale make sense at the time and fall in line with the franchise's declared goals?
• Gut Reaction: What was the initial reaction to this trade when it was completed? Who was declared "the winner"?
• Current Knowledge: Is there any light our current knowledge sheds on the trade? For example, my initial analysis of Aubrey Huff's talent was flawed due to my lack of knowledge of sabermetrics at the time. Maybe we lacked knowledge or information at the time that prevented us from evaluating the trade properly.
• Outcome: How have all of the players involved performed since the trade? Did the processes result in successful trade or a flop? Has luck or injuries been a factor in any of the players' performances?
• Ramifications for the Present: Does this trade teach us anything going forward?

With those questions in mind, let's take a deeper look at the Huff/Talbot/Zobrist trade.

Continue reading this post »

by Mark Duncan - AP

(AP Photo/Mark Duncan)

View full size photo »

Nothing seems to come easily for Andy Sonnanstine.  His fastball barely tops 87 and he's forced to get by on mixing pitches and superb control, which is not a way to earn the benefit of the doubt from fans or scouts.  The fastball-throwing, strikeout machines are by far sexier and catch your eye easily, which is why players like Daniel Cabrera get chance after chance after chance, while players like Sonnanstine have to force their way onto the scene.  I know the term has garnered a very negative connotation among the sabremetric community, but pitchers like Andy Sonnanstine and Brian Bannister are real "scrappy" pitchers...and I don't mean that as a bad thing in this case. 

Sonnanstine slowly worked his way through the minors without ever heralding great acclaim, and he managed to crack a spot in the 2008 Rays' rotation as the 5^th starter.  He had a great year in 2008, posting a 3.91 FIP, and he entered the 2009 season with a spot in the Rays' tightly crammed rotation.  However, despite the fact that he was given a spot to start the season, Sonnanstine had ample reasons to keep looking over his shoulder.  He was the Rays' fourth starter, but with David Price and Wade Davis making their presences known in Triple-A and Jeff Niemann out of options and pitching well, he needed to pitch well to keep himself in the majors.  Call it bad luck, crumbling under the pressure, hit-ability, whatever you want to - Sonny had a bad year.

A finesse pitcher, Sonnanstine saw his BB/9 rate skyrocket this past year, going from 1.72 to 3.07.  He was unlucky (13.9% FB/HR; 58.4% LOB; .336 BABIP), but he still was far from the pitcher that we saw in 2008.  Now, with Jeff Niemann and David Price firmly entrenched in the rotation and Wade Davis poised to take over the 5^th spot, we're left with the question: what to do with Sonny?

Continue reading this post »

More photos » by Elaine Thompson - AP

The Young String is still...well, young, but it has already reaped great rewards (AP Photo/Elaine Thompson)

Browse more photos »

Like middle-school history teachers always say, "You can't know where you're going until you know where you've been."  With the off-season coming up, and the probability that the Rays will make some trades during it rather high, it's a perfect time to take a retrospective look at many of the trades the Rays have made in the past and attempt to glean some insight from them.  Since there are too many trades to discuss all in one post, this will be a series that I'll return back to every other weekend or so.  I intend to focus mostly on trades completed by Andrew Friedman and the new ownership group, but on occasion I might dabble into some old trades and look at their current ramifications.

To lead off this series (no pun intended), I want to look at a concept that has always fascinated me: trade strings.  I'm pretty sure I just made that phrase up, so let me explain what I mean.  "Trade strings" are trades that eventually result in future trades.  And then those trades beget future trades.  And so on and so forth down the road until eventually, a prospect or two doesn't pan out and the trade string fades.  Theoretically, if a team was exceptionally good at evaluating talent and got lucky in some trades, a team could keep one player's peak talent within their system for decades, even long after that original player had declined and fallen out of baseball. 

Mostly, trade strings serve as a fun amusement and don't serve a huge analytical purpose.  They're like the Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon - fun and rather weird, but still trivia.  However, there is an important reason why we should look at trade strings.  Franchises can only acquire new talent three ways: drafting and signing amateur talent, signing free-agents, and through a trade.  Each of these options has its downside, though: prospects bust more often than they boom, free-agents are quite expensive for small-market teams, and trades are normally close to equal in terms of talent (otherwise, who would agree to trade?).  Because of this, talent is incredibly valuable to small-market teams; it's tough to acquire and so when they do acquire some, they want to retain that talent for as long as possible.  Individual players fade over time, though, so the only way to maintain your talent assets are to constantly keep changing them into newer, younger assets.

That said, smart front offices of small-market teams will constantly be looking to get the most bang out of each player they have.  Take a look at an example:

Wow.  Just wow.  That is a thing of beauty right there.  For Mark Mulder, the Athletics originally received Dan Haren, Kiko Calero, and Daric Barton, but they eventually received another 10 player if you follow the trade strings to their current state.  They had Dan Haren under control for 3 cost-effective seasons, they obtained Matt Holliday for half a season, and they've received a heck of a lot of solid prospects.  Mulder's 2004 talent level has stayed in the organization through shrewd trades, and with little increase in payroll for Oakland, while in the meantime, Mulder has produced a total of 1.4 WAR while being paid around $25 million.  Talk about a deal.

So how about the Rays?  Are there any instances where the Rays have managed to put a nice trade string together?  Although the Rays have not had a savvy front office for as long as Oakland, there are a couple burgeoning trade strings that we can look at.

Continue reading this post »