Royals That Might Be Traded: Wilson Betemit
by Connor Moylan on Jun 27, 2011 12:30 PM EDT
in Kansas City Royals News
Email
PrintBy know, most of you know the story of Wilson Betemit as a Royal. Dayton Moore signed him to a cheap minor-league contract, he wasn't hitting particularly well but was called up anyways, and has hit pretty well for the Royals since his call up. He is now banished to hell the Royals bench because Moore called up top prospect Mike Moustakas. Still, Betemit is a switch-hitter who allegedly can play multiple infield positions, so theoretically he should have some trade value.
Betemit has been almost exactly a league average hitter this season. His triple slash line is .286/.343/.407, which gives him a wRC+ of 101 (league average is 100). The slugging percentage is keeping Betemit from being better than league average; his HR/FB ratio is the worst it has been in a season where he has more than 50 AB, and is 10% lower than the HR/FB ratio he had last season. In spite of this lack of power, Betemit has a wOBA (which takes baserunning into account) of .325, and only six teams in the MLB are getting a wOBA greater than .325 from their third basemen. Amazingly, three of those teams are already out of contention (Orioles, Mets, and Cubs). So there could be many teams interested in Betemit's services.
The problem with Betemit is that he doesn't play anymore, he only has 210 PA on the season (Eric Hosmer has 202), and he is currently playing once or twice a week because of Mike Moustakas. Not only does Betemit not play consistently anymore, he is not a great defender. His UZR for the season in -3.8, and last season it was -12.7. While there are sample size issues, I can't imagine anyone arguing he isn't a below average defender at third base; the question is how below average do you think he is. These factors have resulted in Betemit only being worth .4 WAR this season, which means he has been worth around two million dollars to the Royals. The Royals are paying Wilson one million dollars this season, so he has generated an extra 1.5 million dollars in excess value halfway through the season.
Since Betemit has only been worth 1.5 million excess dollars to the Royals halfway through this season, we can only project that he will be worth 1.5 million excess dollars in the second half of the season. Theoretically, he would have generated more WAR if he would have played more this season. Other teams, however, most likely will not buy into the theoretical. They will see how Betemit has performed for the Royals this season, use that to project how he will perform for them and then make an offer accordingly. According to Victor Wang's research, 1.5 million dollars is equivalent to a Grade C pitcher 23 years or older. In the Royals farm system, this could be anyone from Kevin Pucetas to Justin Marks. So Betemit by himself will likely have very little trade value.
In theory, contenders are willing to overpay for wins because they are more important to the contenders, especially as the season continues. While this makes sense, it normally does not mean they will drastically overpay. The Royals likely hurt themselves by calling up Moustakas and benching Betemit. Since he doesn't play anymore, the Royals have no value for him on the team. Since the Royals don't need him, their leverage has been damaged, which could easily cancel out the benefit of trading Betemit at the trade deadline to a contender.
Other players similar to Betemit have been traded, and the results back-up Victor Wang's research. In 2009, Jack Hanrahan was traded from the Mariners to the A's for Justin Souza, who is currently a 26 year-old reliever in AAA. Hanrahan gets most of his value from his defense, but his WAR over a full season in 2009 is 1.0, which is what we would currently project out of Betemit. In 2007, the Astros traded for Ty Wigginton and sent back reliever Dan Wheeler, who has accumulated 4.5 WAR his 12 seasons, which includes 2.5 WAR in 2005-2006 for the Astros. So the Royals could possibly get a reliever who is essentially replacement level, a veteran to "stabilize" a bullpen full of young kids.
I have been frustrated with how the Royals have handled Betemit this season. I think it was foolish for the Royals to have called up Moustakas before trading Betemit because they currently could be building up his trade value, especially at a position that is very weak traditionally and currently. The Indians were able to land Chris Perez for Mark DeRosa in 2009, and Ned Colletti needed Casey Blake so bad that he was willing to give the Indians Carlos Santana. While the Santana deal is way out of reach, if the Royals had given Betemit consistent playing time, he could have accumulated as much WAR as DeRosa did in a half season (around 1 win). This would give the Royals a better chance of trading for someone useful instead of the likely organizational filler that Betemit will probably net. There is still a chance Betemit could be traded for a quality player. Buster Onley tweeted that lots of scouts are watching Betemit play, which that implies a lot of teams are interested in his services. If a lot of teams are interested, someone may get in a bidding war and drive up his price, but I doubt his value will skyrocket while sitting on the bench. If Betemit was playing third base everyday, I would feel much more optimistic about what kind of trade value he would have. As the situation is now, however, I would be shocked if Wilson was traded for anything other than a couple of C, maybe one C+ minor league pitcher.
144 comments
|
1 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Is it fair to use Betemit's WAR figures from part time play
to project how valuable he will be for the rest of the season, potentially with significantly more playing time?
That is all we have to use
It’s hard to tell a team that he hasn’t been that valuable to us, but he will be more valuable to you, or at least I think it would be. So there is a chance teams will overpay compared to his WAR, but I wouldn’t expect it.
by Connor Moylan on Jun 27, 2011 12:44 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
Why wouldn't you project his WAR over 150 games or something?
Unless you’re assuming a contender would trade for him and bench him, I’m not sure why you wouldn’t assume his full-time value when you’re assessing how much he’s worth to a contender.
I agree. This line seems a little oddly stated.
Since Betemit has only been worth 1.5 million excess dollars to the Royals halfway through this season, we can only project that he will be worth 1.5 million excess dollars in the second half of the season.
Maybe it’s just missing “with the same amount of playing time” at the end.
by SagehenMacGyver47 on Jun 27, 2011 1:04 PM EDT up reply actions
Fair point.
I probably should have included that qualifier.
by Connor Moylan on Jun 27, 2011 1:11 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
To borrow a phrase from Bill James about Carney Lansford
Wilson Betemit is a third baseman in the same way he’s an astronaut. If you shoot him into space, he’s an astronaut .If you put him at third, he’s a third baseman. He’s had just about two full seasons of innings at third (about 2500 innings), and is -25 runs UZR, -31 runs Dewan’s.
I mean, he can play there if you need him to, he’s probably not quite as bad as Ryan Braun was out there. His bat is useful, although it’s really only useful at positions he can’t play: second, third, shortstop (catcher?). Of a full season his true talent is probably somewhere around 1 WAR. He’s a bench bat. If Blake got Santana, and DeRosa got Chris Perez, Betmit will bring… I dunno… A non-horrible relief prospect, maybe two? Or maybe a relief prospect and Sean O’Sullivan sans Will Smith?
Making watching baseball as fun as doing your taxes.
My Twitter feed.
by Matt Klaassen on Jun 27, 2011 12:42 PM EDT reply actions 1 recs
That seems right.
I just think if we played him more, he could have potentially brought back a more useful relief prospect.
by Connor Moylan on Jun 27, 2011 12:47 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
Unless Betemit hit crazy
even with more playing time, he was not going to increase his trade value much. Outside of the Royals, there are few if any teams that would consider playing Betemit at 3B (career -13.2 UZR/150, -17 UZR for last three years) on any sort of regular basis. And his bat (career 268/335/443) is not good enough to play regularly at 1B/DH, at least on a contender.
If Betemit hit like he did last year
He’d have netted a B prospect easily, and the Royals might have put Moose on hold for another month until they got something for Betemit. Too bad, so sad.
You want optimism? My glass is half full of emptiness.
His 20 innnigs in the outfield look good
let's put him on the Teahen/Gordon plan
by SagehenMacGyver47 on Jun 27, 2011 12:58 PM EDT up reply actions
I have Always
Said LF might be the least harmful place for him. With Mitch in CF and Gordon moved to RF, it would have been fine.
I used to be an A's fan until they left town and got good.
by philofthenorth on Jun 27, 2011 4:30 PM EDT up reply actions
and with his arm he could play RF
I guess it’s better to be bad at 4 positions (or really bad at 1 and kind of bad at 3) than only bad at 2.
by SagehenMacGyver47 on Jun 27, 2011 6:47 PM EDT up reply actions
I thought he'd be a 0.5 WAR player this year (if used as a full-time player)
So he’s exceeding my expectations if his true talent level is 1.0 WAR. Congratulations, Wilson. You’ve gone from barely above replacement level to “meh”.
You may know me as NYRoyal.
by Scott McKinney on Jun 27, 2011 2:36 PM EDT up reply actions
I dunno, it's turned into a nice pickup for nothing
I used to like him, and thought he was done ( and nothing he did at Omaha last season changed my mind), but it’s worked out well for the Royals. Free 1 win position players… not something you see to often around here. I have to give Dayton props on this one.
Making watching baseball as fun as doing your taxes.
My Twitter feed.
by Matt Klaassen on Jun 27, 2011 5:34 PM EDT up reply actions
Oh I agree it was a nice pickup by Moore
He’s just not the genuinely good player that many fans bought into after 2010. I guess that’s what I’m reacting to.
You may know me as NYRoyal.
by Scott McKinney on Jun 27, 2011 6:10 PM EDT up reply actions
He would be better with more consistent playing time
He’s probably Moore’s best free agent position player acquisition, which is sad.
by GobbleforCyoung on Jun 27, 2011 6:56 PM EDT up reply actions
players and agents
Like to believe this is true, but usually a guy that isn’t all that good will get exposed with more playing time.
2011 Royals Review NCAA Bracket Challenge Winner, by process of attrition
D'oh, the quote is actually about Bobby Bonilla
In fact, I posted it back in the before time.
Making watching baseball as fun as doing your taxes.
My Twitter feed.
by Matt Klaassen on Jun 27, 2011 5:41 PM EDT up reply actions
Apropos of anything?
DeJesus absolutely tanking in Oakland. We win?
http://royalsblog.kansascity.com/?q=node/848
If his performance is due to the injury he suffered, it's very interesting
DM took a lot of criticism for the return he got on the trade. Some people said that other OFs didn’t bring back any more, but it seemed to me that the bigger issue was the injury.
We still don’t know how much the injury is or is not affecting him, but given how much worse he’s playing now than he was the last few years, it’s possible that DM got a lot more in the trade than DDJ was worth post-injury.
He's been hurt
Oakland is a big park with a serious amount of foul ball territory
He’s also a 2nd half guy and has played on KC his entire life. He’s a good player and will eventually show it. I thought Mazzaro would be better than he’s been (which is horrific), but I want Dejesus back.
by GobbleforCyoung on Jun 27, 2011 2:08 PM EDT up reply actions
Why?
It’s one thing to dislike the return DM got on the trade, but why would you want DDJ back in the final year of his contract?
Type B free agent
Unless you can get a better return in a trade.
Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com
Of all the guys we've seen play every day, even though they are playing terribly
it would be wonderful for there actually to be good reason for once! (besides turning a good 3-1 putout)
Just saying we usually have a couple guys playing all year that are terrible
At least in the scenario you described with DeJesus, there would have been a coherent purpose for it.
I don’t really care about Betemit one way or the other; I don’t think there’s any reason to keep him on the team and I don’t think he is worth much of anything in a trade. But by all means get what you can get for him.
So, who are you talking about then?
By WAR, DeJesus would be the worst position player on the Royals, except Moustakas (who, like DDJ, is below replacement). He’s playing at a Kila/Aviles level. Would it have been worth keeping those guys up if we’d gotten a chance at an extra draft pick at the end of the year?
The difference is
DeJesus has a history of being good, and a reasonable expectation of improvement. Partial season WAR is susceptible to SSS, so I wouldn’t get too worked up over that. Maybe between age and injury he will not recover, but I think it’s too early to assume that’s the case.
Laugh
I remember being drug through coals last year for suggesting that his injury was a big deal and that his production this year was no sure thing at all.
by BlueEyes_Austin on Jun 27, 2011 2:47 PM EDT up reply actions
Any trade that involves a recently rehabed, older OF
for a guy that sets records for runs allowed in an appearance and a guy whose stuff caused one scout to quip “I am just whelmed by Justin Marks, not overwhelmed or underwhelmed, just whelmed.” while in A ball can officially be tagged as lose-lose.
(August 31, 2010 8:34 PM PDT) Jojothebeachbum: "WP FTW"
Jeff Zimmerman needs to grow a long, grey beard and sit on a mountaintop and dole out knowledge to the masses.
by Jojothebeachbum on Jun 27, 2011 1:46 PM EDT up reply actions
I don't know. We got nothing for him.
Is that a win? I think a better GM could have gotten something more than nothing for him.
You may know me as NYRoyal.
by Scott McKinney on Jun 27, 2011 2:36 PM EDT up reply actions
I'm sure you've spelled this out elsewhere. Sorry to ask you to restate it.
Is your position that the injury shouldn’t have hurt DDJ’s value (beyond making us unable to trade him with 1.5 years left as opposed to 1 year left) or his value should have been reduced, but not as far as it was when measured by the return Moore got?
Does the fact that DDJ has started this year so poorly change what you think about the nature of the injury?
Well I don’t have any more insight into the severity of his injury than any of us. I didn’t assume that it would be a long lasting injury which would affect his performance in 2011. I don’t think other teams assumed this either. So I don’t think it affected his trade value much. I know that wrist injuries can often have very long recovery periods where even after it is supposedly healed, it is still affecting hitting. I haven’t heard that about thumb ligament tears. But who knows, maybe teams really are very afraid of that particular injury and assumed it would significantly impact his performance.
Does the fact that DDJ has started this year so poorly change what you think about the nature of the injury?
The fact that he is hitting poorly does not necessarily mean it is because of some lingering effect of the injury. It might be, but I don’t think poor hitting a year after an injury necessarily means the latter is the cause of the former.
You may know me as NYRoyal.
by Scott McKinney on Jun 27, 2011 2:59 PM EDT up reply actions
Can you tell me the source of your insight for how other GM’s view thumb ligament tears when the player has nine months to recover and rehab it? I’m not saying that GM’s view this as a minor injury that won’t affect performance nine month later. I just don’t know. How do you know?
You may know me as NYRoyal.
by Scott McKinney on Jun 27, 2011 3:01 PM EDT up reply actions
Common Sense, Scott
Guy is knocked out at mid-season, doesn’t play the rest of the year, if I’m a GM I want to see some significant evidence that he is recovered before valuing him as I did prior to the injury.
That is also, by the way, exactly what I said at the time of the trade:
http://www.royalsreview.com/2010/11/10/1806668/royals-reportedly-trade-david-dejesus-to-oakland
by BlueEyes_Austin on Jun 27, 2011 3:04 PM EDT up reply actions
So it is common sense that the injury is going to linger and affect performance the next year?
If you’re saying there was a risk and that other GM’s will factor that in, then yes. If you are assuming that this greatly decreases his value and that therefore no GM would be willing to make any offer better than two scrubs, then I think you are assuming much too much.
You may know me as NYRoyal.
by Scott McKinney on Jun 27, 2011 3:13 PM EDT up reply actions
Me, at the time of the trade
“DDJ’s value in July was much higher than it is now.”
“Fact is he’s paid $6 million, he generates 1.5 to 2.5 WAR next year, and there just isn’t a ton of excess value in that contract.”
Turns out I was overestimating his value. Had DM not dealt him and waited for the season to start DDJ would be, literally, worthless.
by BlueEyes_Austin on Jun 27, 2011 3:29 PM EDT up reply actions
Not sure what you added to the discussion there
Yes DDJ’s value in July was higher than in December. This was pretty obvious, and it would have been true even if there had been no injury.
Had DM not dealt him and waited for the season to start DDJ would be, literally, worthless.
What is your point? Is anyone saying that Moore should have held onto him? I’m saying a better GM probably could have gotten more for DDJ in the offseason. You’re saying that his injury destroyed his trade value, leaving him only worth two very unimpressive young pitchers with little upside. I disagree. And don’t pretend that your extreme conclusion is just “common sense.”
You may know me as NYRoyal.
by Scott McKinney on Jun 27, 2011 3:38 PM EDT up reply actions
Sigh
You have not a single, scintilla of evidence of the proposition that DM “could have gotten more” for DDJ. In the thread I linked above it was shown to you, over and over again, that the return for DDJ was basically comparable to his value.
by BlueEyes_Austin on Jun 27, 2011 3:55 PM EDT up reply actions
no...
and he completely ignores that a very very similar OF valuewise, Josh Willingham, brought even less back later in the offseason. Maybe, just maybe, DM made a pretty decent trade for DDJ.
Fire Everyone
by billybeingbilly on Jun 27, 2011 3:57 PM EDT up reply actions
Sigh
We and others have been over this again and again. You are ignoring the scarcity of good OFers on the FA market at the time. The scarcity of that moment affected DDJ’s trade value. You want to ignore that. That’s fine. I guess scarcity doesn’t affect market value, right?
You may know me as NYRoyal.
by Scott McKinney on Jun 27, 2011 4:12 PM EDT up reply actions
he is no longer a good OF'er
I dont think he even starts anymore. I think Daytons trade has been justified by DDJ’s horrible play. You cant compare one players pre trade potential with the others post trade production. Dayton would have gotten more in return had he not gotten hurt. Once he was done for the season, his value was half.
We were talking about his trade value at the time
And I don’t think GM’s around baseball thought of him at the time as “no longer a good or at least average OFer.”
You cant compare one players pre trade potential with the others post trade production
I’m not. I’m evaluating the trade as it looked to me at the time. Dejesus looked like a real asset (albeit for only one year) and Mazzaro and Marks looked like low-ceiling crap.
Once he was done for the season, his value was half.
Certainly he had more value in July, pre-injury. But how do you figure that the injury and losing half of one a season (leaving another full season) halved his value? Or was that just hyperbole? (because it certainly sounds like hyperbole)
You may know me as NYRoyal.
by Scott McKinney on Jun 27, 2011 4:31 PM EDT up reply actions
Your exaggerating tremendously
Mazzaro was a 3rd round pick by a GM with a legendary rep for sniffing out pitching talent. He had a 4.27 era in 120 ML innings last yr. Not exactly low ceiling crap. DDJ was a 31 yr old oft injured, light hitting corner outfielder at the end of his contract. What are you talking about? I read several reviews of the trade that rated it decent. Obviously Beane was smart to only give up Mazzaro because DDJ sucks. That type of injury can linger for years. get a clue.
Mazzaro was a 3rd round pick by a GM with a legendary rep for sniffing out pitching talent. He had a 4.27 era in 120 ML innings last yr. Not exactly low ceiling crap.
Your two pieces of data there aren’t particularly meaningful. The round that he was drafted in is irrelevant, as is the GM who drafted him. He was never a particularly good prospect. His tools weren’t particularly impressive. His minor league performance was just ok. His major league performance at the time of the trade in about 210 innings was that of a #5 starter. And at 25, it’s not like there was good reason to expect him to improve greatly. So yeah, he really was low ceiling crap. Hell, most at the time were saying that he was perhaps going to develop into a decent #4 starter. That’s a low ceiling. And there wasn’t much reason to think he’d ever hit that ceiling.
DDJ was a 31 yr old oft injured, light hitting corner outfielder at the end of his contract.
You quickly dismiss DDJ’s production as “light hitting”. Well, his “light hitting” and “oft injured” status was still enough for him to total 8.7 WAR from 2008-2010 for an average of 2.9 WAR over that period. That’s a pretty damned good player. Yes, he was only under contract for one more year. That’s why I thought he’d bring one pretty good prospect and perhaps throw-ins.
I read several reviews of the trade that rated it decent.
Yeah, I don’t remember it like that. The trade was a giveaway. The Royals got essentially nothing for DeJesus. I say “nothing” because #5 SP’s like Mazzaro are a dime a dozen.
You may know me as NYRoyal.
by Scott McKinney on Jun 27, 2011 4:52 PM EDT up reply actions
Well, you remember it wrong
The trade thread has plenty of links to assessments.
by BlueEyes_Austin on Jun 27, 2011 4:55 PM EDT up reply actions
Read John Sickels
eval of Mazzaro. Its not great but its not terrible at all. Mckinney, you are a bs artist
by Crownblue on Jun 27, 2011 4:58 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Mckinney, you are a bs artist
Because I disagree with you? But congrats on your condescion-level. You’re posting like a vet already. Kudos.
You may know me as NYRoyal.
by Scott McKinney on Jun 27, 2011 5:02 PM EDT up reply actions
no, because your
arguements lack logic. You just pull crap out of your rear end. hence you are a bullshitter
What did I pull out of my rear end? That I remebered the majority of evaluations of that trade differently from you?
You may know me as NYRoyal.
by Scott McKinney on Jun 27, 2011 5:05 PM EDT up reply actions
Baseball Prospectus good enough for you?
http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=12439
“In summary, it isn’t very sexy to say that this is a trade that should help both teams, but there it is. The Royals acquired what should be the better long-term value, but they’ve acquired other people’s well-regarded second-tier pitching prospects before—why, Mr. Davies, you are still here—and have wound up disappointed. If A’s fans are frustrated that all they’ve got to show for dealing from their pitching depth is a single season of DeJesus, it’s worth remembering that Mazzaro was the least of their rotation assets, and if he was the guy to move, realistically, what did you expect them to get?”
by BlueEyes_Austin on Jun 27, 2011 4:57 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
very nice
I doubt it will shut dumbass up but it should
Don't be a dick.
"That's fine wood from... somewhere."
by KeepItCopacetic on Jun 27, 2011 4:59 PM EDT up reply actions
Calm down
We can debate and even argue without calling each other names. It’s fine to be condescending. You don’t need to be nice. But we draw a line around here at actual name calling, ok?
You may know me as NYRoyal.
by Scott McKinney on Jun 27, 2011 5:03 PM EDT up reply actions
exactly!
you just called me a dick. How bout you stop being a hypocrite (sp?)
Yeah, that wasn’t me. Hey, I’m just calming informing you of the rules. I’m a moderator so that’s part of what I do here. Feel free to debate, argue and even do so without being a nice guy (I do it). But just don’t take it to that level, ok?
Now, let’s be friends. Can we kiss and make up?
You may know me as NYRoyal.
by Scott McKinney on Jun 27, 2011 5:07 PM EDT up reply actions
sure
pucker up. So, lemme get this right, I can state that I find you arrogant, which is an opinion,but I should refrain from actually insulting you. got it.
Whatever
You’ve been given the rules. Just follow them.
You may know me as NYRoyal.
by Scott McKinney on Jun 27, 2011 6:11 PM EDT up reply actions
or the other dude did
whatever. I see a lot worse language on this site than dumbass and bullshitter
That’s fine. I’m not talking about language, per se. I’m talking about going after the other person in a personal way instead of just dealing with the arguments (and doingt so with a certain vocabulary). Calling someone a dumbass, shithead, a-hole, etc. takes it to a level that we don’t want people to go to here. You don’t have to like the rules; you just have to follow them.
You may know me as NYRoyal.
by Scott McKinney on Jun 27, 2011 5:10 PM EDT up reply actions
It was a term of endearment
like a schoolgirl punching you.
That’s a data point. Quick question, what is your opinion of Christina Kahrl as an analyst?
You may know me as NYRoyal.
by Scott McKinney on Jun 27, 2011 5:12 PM EDT up reply actions
come on Scott
you gotta admit, Blue eyes called your bluff. He gotcha on that one. BA directly contradicting your latent speculation. I would have changed the subject too.
You think
A piece by an analyst you just admitted you don’t have an opinion as to their skills about is a shutdown argument?
You obviously don’t think Karhl is a good analyst, or you’d have said so.
Edgar knows best.
Did I say that no one thought it was a decent trade? “Called my bluff” that’s funny. And it wasn’t BA, it was BP. And that would be more impressive if it were a better analyst than Kahrl.
You may know me as NYRoyal.
by Scott McKinney on Jun 27, 2011 6:12 PM EDT up reply actions
BtBS
http://www.beyondtheboxscore.com/2010/11/11/1807383/economics-of-baseball-david-dejesus-trade
“This is how trades are supposed to work, even swaps in which both parties benefit. By my estimates this is both a fair trade and one that makes sense. Though DeJesus is a better player than Mazzaro, he’s only under contract for the 2011 season, a season in which the Royals have no hope of contending. The A’s could conceivably challenge the Rangers for the division title in 2011, so upgrading one of their corner OF spots makes sense. They’ve got a surplus of pitching after winning the bidding on Hisashi Iwakuma and can certainly spare both an unspectacular starter and a C+ prospect to do so. While Mazzaro won’t play a significant role for the next good Royals team, someone has to pitch every fifth game in the interim and they could do a lot worse. The interesting piece of this deal from Kansas City’s perspective is Marks, who Jim Callis says has “No. 3 SP ceiling, floor as good LHRP”. There’s a decent chance Marks will play a significant role for the next good Royals team, which is more you could say about David DeJesus. If I’m an A’s fan, I’m extremely pleased to nab him, but if I’m a Royals fan I’m shrugging indifferently at worst."
by BlueEyes_Austin on Jun 27, 2011 5:31 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
again, nice work
Mazzaro has looked like crap (was pitching better when he was demoted) but, like scott said, the topic was the pretrade value. I expected Mazzaro to be much better but he is not. I still dont think he is SOS bad or even Davies bad. Probly around Hochy level when its all said and done. Im not sure Dave D ever starts again.
He's only 24
Mazarro still might end up being an OK back end guy.
One interesting thing about DDJ’s collapse is that he is NOT going to be generating a sandwich pick for the A’s (since they would be utterly mad to offer him arb).
by BlueEyes_Austin on Jun 27, 2011 5:41 PM EDT up reply actions
Sickels on Mazz
here are the last two paragraphs and the link:
…I raised his grade to B- in the 2009 book. I was impressed by the Texas League performance and the improved slider, but the Triple-A struggle worried me, and I had a nagging suspicion that he would fall back to Earth this year. I wrote “He’s got two and one quarter seasons of bad pitching under his belt, and three-quarters of one good season to his credit.” I also wrote that he still had youth on his side, and that learning how to fail and then rebound was an important skill.
It looks like my suspicion was totally off-base. Mazzaro was very strong in Triple-A this year, posting a 2.38 ERA with a 44/17 K/BB in 57 innings, allowing just 42 hits and a .205 average against. He won his first major league start this week, and given Oakland’s need for starting pitching he will be given plenty of additional chances. I still have some concerns: he walked four guys in his 6.1 innings, with just one strikeout, and a ratio like that won’t lead to success over the longer term. But it’s clear he’s made substantial improvements improving his stuff and refining his command, way ahead of where he was two years ago. I think he can be a solid number three type starter if he continues to refine his secondary stuff and if he stays healthy. He has made my predictions look pretty bad the last couple of years, so we’ll see how that expectation holds.
http://www.minorleagueball.com/2009/6/4/899383/prospect-profile-vin-mazzaro
He can a be a 4 or a 5
Which is an improvement on what we have now
by GobbleforCyoung on Jun 27, 2011 6:57 PM EDT up reply actions
completely ignoring the lesser return for a similar josh willingham
Fire Everyone
by billybeingbilly on Jun 27, 2011 4:40 PM EDT up reply actions
Sigh
“But how do you figure that the injury and losing half of one a season (leaving another full season) halved his value? "
Actually, this WAS figured out for you at the time of the trade, using numbers and things!
His 2011 season costs $6 million. In 2010, on the other hand, he was only being paid $4.7 million and was producing at a career-season rate. The injury completely destroyed the surplus value of the career-year season and made 2011 not much better than break even.
by BlueEyes_Austin on Jun 27, 2011 4:47 PM EDT up reply actions
His July '10 trade value...
was largely based on helping a contender for a stretch run. He was at that time playing the best ball of his career. The team that gets him would also have the option of getting a B supp pick for him after the season in addition to his value for a title run. A player like DDJ isnt as valuable to an offseason team piecing together their roster. Especialy after a troublesome type of injury for a 30+ player with an injury history. THATS why his value was halfed.
Partially
Although I think that sort of overvaluation is a lot less common now than it once was.
by BlueEyes_Austin on Jun 27, 2011 5:01 PM EDT up reply actions
Contenders should overvalue players
If they’re not doing it anymore, they should be. A marginal win is much more valuable to a team in the midst of the wild card race than a team running away with a division or hopelessly out of contention.
I agree--flags fly forever and all that
But I don’t see a ton of it going on at the moment.
In five or ten years teams will have been burned enough by “sure thing” prospects that the pendulum may swing back.
by BlueEyes_Austin on Jun 27, 2011 5:33 PM EDT up reply actions
DeJesus is well below average even adjusting for park factors
His wOBA is .297. His wOBA, adjusted for park factors, is .305.
His wOBA in June is .207. That’s the worst full month of his career by a considerable margin. The Coliseum is not helping, but he’s having a bad year.
Is wily mo Pena an option?
"Stay Classy Kansas City"
by Mas Cervezas on Jun 27, 2011 1:09 PM EDT via mobile reply actions
Yeah
Cus we can’t get enough of that boyish smile and the thumbs up. On the MLB Network, they’re required to show that clip at lease once every ten minutes.
Who has a better smile : willy mo or frenchy?
"Stay Classy Kansas City"
by Mas Cervezas on Jun 27, 2011 1:26 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
I stand by what I said earlier this year
If you took him to Guantanamo Bay and waterboarded him, he would probably smile through it.
"That's fine wood from... somewhere."
by KeepItCopacetic on Jun 27, 2011 5:00 PM EDT up reply actions
Yu-Bet
I used to be an A's fan until they left town and got good.
by philofthenorth on Jun 27, 2011 4:43 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
This is solid analysis
Moore should have maximized his value before a trade. I would even go as far as locking him up and giving him consistent playing time at DH after Butler was traded for an above average, starting caliber pitcher.
Not to beat it to death but Butler could yield a starting pitcher better than anyone we have. I think it would more than make up for the difference between Betemit and Butler, especially if Betemit can perform closer to his 2010 level with consistent playing time.
If you remember the discussion when Betemit was first called up I tried to center it around his lack of opportunity throughout his career. He was stuck behind Chipper in ATL, had two down years in LA and was never given a chance in NY. This is a guy whose not very young but also hasn’t been give a real shot. (In other words I’m not comfortable looking at his career stats and making an assessment of how good of a player he is) Unfortunately, he wasn’t given a legit chance in KC either because of Moose.
Besides BillybeingBilly who hates this trade, would Madison Bumgarner for Billy Butler not be a great trade for us (if we can play Betemit fulltime at DH)?
by GobbleforCyoung on Jun 27, 2011 1:20 PM EDT reply actions
What do you mean by "more than make up for the difference between Betemit and Butler?"
Betemit is only under Royals control through the end of the year, but we have Billy through 2014. How can we measure the difference between Betemit and Butler if Betemit isn’t even here?
Having said all of that, I’d take a long look at this trade. Butler has been the better player, but we have greater need at SP than at DH, and we have enough guys between Kila, CRob, and free agents like Betemit that this could work out well for us.
It would be contingent on a Betemit contract extension
Cost is factored in because Butler is being paid quite a bit for the next few years. Somewhere in the neighborhood of 3/4 years for 12 million would be a good deal. He did outperform Butler in 2010 with an OPS near .900. If he can come close to that level its a good trade even if Butler continues to improve.
Bumgarner would our ace
by GobbleforCyoung on Jun 27, 2011 1:36 PM EDT up reply actions
If Betemit is as good a hitter as Butler and he signs a cheaper contract than Butler
Trade Betemit to the Giants for Bumgarner since they actually need a 3B
Betemit is not better than Butler
And Butler is young and should improve. But Bugarner IS much better than Luke Hochevar and Danny Duffy. Its the differences between both Butler/Betemit and Bumgarner/Royal starter that makes the trade worthwhile for us. The latter has a wider variance of performance I believe.
by GobbleforCyoung on Jun 27, 2011 2:10 PM EDT up reply actions
This is assuming Kila is no longer in KC's plans
I wish that was false
by GobbleforCyoung on Jun 27, 2011 1:37 PM EDT up reply actions
Er, Pablo Sandoval?
They need a SS, a catcher for about 1/2 a season, and a corner OF.
You want optimism? My glass is half full of emptiness.
Is Sandoval back in the lineup?
I didn’t know. Anyways, couldn’t they bring Sandoval over to 1B, like they have before?
Nick Swisher is handsome.
No, they wouldn't do that, either
They committed to Aubrey Huff for 2 seasons…they’re praying like heck he turns it around. The Huff playing RF/LF experiment from last year proved to be fluky…he was horrible in the bit of OF play he had earlier. He’s a 1B only, now.
You want optimism? My glass is half full of emptiness.
And sorry, yes
Panda is back in…scuffled some, now just picked up a minor quad injury.
You want optimism? My glass is half full of emptiness.
That'd be a great trade for the Royals
And one the Giants would never do. 1) They’re an NL team, they’d never sacrifice that much defense, 2) They won’t trade Bumgarner, and 3) They won’t trade Bumgarner.
I’m a Giants fan as well as a Royals fan…trust me, this ain’t happenin’.
You want optimism? My glass is half full of emptiness.
I know its not
I even said trade Butler AND Mike Montgomery and I don’t think the Royals would do it.
I got some bad feedback about this trade from the Royals perspective, which is nuts because the Giants would never do this trade.
by GobbleforCyoung on Jun 27, 2011 1:38 PM EDT up reply actions
billy for bum
SF would never make a trade like that. It would take Billy and Odorizer to get Bumgarner. Their values are not even close
Young dominant SP's ....
are worth 3x as much as fat, slow, bad defensive, Limited power 1B/DH types. There is no NL team that is going to make Butler a part of their long term future. EVERY NL team would love to make Bummy part of their long term future. He has everything you look for in a SP. He might be a better pitcher than Grienke. Butler is just so overvalued by bloggers I am always amazed. OBP is not the end all. Billy has gotten on base 20 times in the past 2 weeks and scored 2 runs….Dont get me started.
Yeah, that's about what I expected
I don’t get to travel as much as I’d like, so it’s nice to come to the comments section on Royals Review and occasionally to be whisked away to alternate dimensions, if only for a post or two.
Thanks
I do tend to think outside the box.
That’s one way to put it.
Here’s a hint, when GobbleforCyoung really agrees with you, then you really need to re-think your position.
You may know me as NYRoyal.
by Scott McKinney on Jun 27, 2011 7:30 PM EDT up reply actions
Yup
Because it means you must be completely wrong, no matter what the topic is.
Dayton Moore – builder of the greatest farm system in the history of baseball, who is beyond reproach.
Billy Butler – one of the best young hitters in baseball, someone who has demonstrated power, speed on the base-paths and gold glove caliber skill in the field. And he’s getting better.
by GobbleforCyoung on Jun 27, 2011 11:56 PM EDT up reply actions
hmm...
so, you made two generalizations about the attitudes on RR and they were both completely wrong…well done
Fire Everyone
by billybeingbilly on Jun 28, 2011 10:31 AM EDT up reply actions
He really is overvalued, but he is still one of our best hitters - what does that mean?
He is the slowest baseball player out there, which skews the value of his OBP. Last year he lead MLB in DP outs, which is sad. He’s relegated to DH because he’s a horrible fielder. Teams don’t build around 25 year old DH’s because they usually don’t exist. In other words, he has no value as a fielder which is unheard because teams “prospects” and “core players” can actually positively contribute in 1/2 of their job responsibilities as a baseball player: playing in the field.
Did I mention he has no power either and as a DH that is unacceptable? In 2009 when he slugged .500 he was a better player than he is now. Its sad that he is regressing. If his OBP ever dropped in the .360 range he is useless.
by GobbleforCyoung on Jun 27, 2011 7:05 PM EDT up reply actions
I think he nets a C prospect
Which honestly isn’t a bad haul for a guy we picked up off the street a year ago. We should be so lucky if we are able to make more trades like that.
Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com
by RoyalsRetro on Jun 27, 2011 1:25 PM EDT reply actions 1 recs
I'll disagree a bit on the degree of things
The Royals could have handled things a bit better, and Betemit’s trade value could have been a bit higher — but that’s it. Teams should already know what Betemit is, an extra 100 pa’s notwithstanding. He played quite a bit of 3rd and managed to not be horrible, and he’s hit competently, if not nearly as well as 2010. So yes, bench player, essentially.
I think several contending teams might be able to use him if he’s cheap as a pinch hitter/spot starter, or perhaps a desperate contending team with an injury at 3B.
You want optimism? My glass is half full of emptiness.
I agree
Teams know what Betty is. Everyone acts like as soon as He went to the bench his value dropped in half. He is the same guy. Teams know what they are getting. They also take last years performance into the equation. There is a reason he keeps bouncing around. Not quite good enough on D, not quite powerful enough on O.
I don't think this is necessarily true
Teams know what Betty is.
I’m sure he’s been scouted some, but it’s not like every team (or many teams) have focused on Betemit during their scouting. Before someone goes through with a trade, they’re going to want a close-up look at his defense, something they probably didn’t look closely at in the past and have a hard time looking at now b/c he’s on the bench nearly every night.
by SagehenMacGyver47 on Jun 27, 2011 4:27 PM EDT up reply actions
OK
So DM then calls Yost and says “Yostie, play Wilson this week.”
by BlueEyes_Austin on Jun 27, 2011 4:48 PM EDT up reply actions
Huh?
Do you think GM’s are going to call DM and say, “hey, we’re interested in Betemit, but we’d like our scouts to get a good look at him and we haven’t been able to do so because he hasn’t been playing enough”? No, if he’s not playing, then he’s not going to get scouted. GM’s will go by the stats and old scouting reports of him, but if he’s not playing, then scouts not being able to get a good read on him as he is right now is definitely a problem. Please try to be realistic.
You may know me as NYRoyal.
by Scott McKinney on Jun 27, 2011 4:56 PM EDT up reply actions
What?
Astonishing.
Is it really news for you that, from time to time, while putting a deal together, a major league player might get put in the lineup so that the other team can take a last look at him before pulling the trigger?
by BlueEyes_Austin on Jun 27, 2011 4:59 PM EDT up reply actions
This is rubbish
“Since Betemit has only been worth 1.5 million excess dollars to the Royals halfway through this season, we can only project that he will be worth 1.5 million excess dollars in the second half of the season. Theoretically, he would have generated more WAR if he would have played more this season. Other teams, however, most likely will not buy into the theoretical.”
No, they will value him at the rate they intend to use him, which may be lower, the same, or higher than his utilization rate with the Royals.
by BlueEyes_Austin on Jun 27, 2011 2:45 PM EDT reply actions
Yeah, I really can't see how this makes any sense.
If there’s only one team bidding, they will take into account that the Royals aren’t using Betemit and may low-ball their bid as a result, but that’s the only way him playing less will hurt his value.
Teams will value his counting stats based on what they expect him to provide, based on the opportunities they give him, not the opportunities the Royals have given him.
hilarious
reminds me of my neighbor who kept saying the chiefs should trade Larry Johnson for 2 first round picks. Um, Ok, lets pull the trigger on that! Done!
Bumgarner? Beachy?
You guys are smoking something.
To make a trade the other team has to agree as well. We can’t just steal people, or break into the office and trade expendable players for quality starters at gunpoint.
“Yes you ARE going to give me Beachy! I’ll take Jurrjens as well. We’ll give you a natural DH for the NL, a backup type catcher of your choice-Kendall is in rehab and would love it in the NL- and you can have Kyle Davies back as well! That seems fair! What do you mean, no? Dean, shoot his left kneecap and let him know we are serious. Oh NOW you like the trade? I thought you’d see it my way!”
"Trying is the first step to sucking" -Jimmy Chance
by KHAZAD on Jun 27, 2011 3:14 PM EDT reply actions 1 recs
We can totally get Beachy
And then we sign Pujols to a 1 yr deal with infinite club options.. Trade Clint Robinson and Jeff Supan for Michael Pineda. Irving Falu for Dustin Ackley and Jeff Francouer for Jason Heyward and a B prospect.
Stop being a negative Nancy.
Edgar knows best.
by kcbottom9th on Jun 27, 2011 3:22 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Quick Dean
we must go to Arizona! Getz for Montero! We can fill all the holes! (evil Laugh)
"Trying is the first step to sucking" -Jimmy Chance
It seems to me that teams are either looking for a short-term rental or prospects
I don’t think if we combine them into the same package, the whole is probably less than the sum of the parts
Good point;
It seems to me that with our possible trading chips (Betemit, Melky and Francis) that all we could expect in return are org. fillers, when what we really need is starting pitching. Maybe we need to be buyers instead of sellers…
What the hell
Why in the world do you trade a solid major league backup for a minor leaguer with little to no shot at ever seeing the major leagues. Stupid is as stupid does.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Royals Review
Related FanShots on Royals Review
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- Eric Hosmer redefines the Baltimore chop with infield double (Video)
- College player makes impossible over the fence catch to save tournament game (Video)
- Security!: Camden Yards guard collides with Royals’ Mike Moustakas
- The Juice: Nelson Cruz matches career high eight RBIs, Pujols stays hot in Seattle
- Benches clear at Fenway as Red Sox-Rays rivalry heats up
