Joe Blanton Trade

I would stab someone in the face

If the Reds traded Cueto, Frazier AND Lotzkar for Blanton. I wouldn't trade Cueto straight up for Blanton.

Joe Blanton relies on his defense to turn outs for him. The Reds have a crappy defense and play in an extreme hitters park. What the heck about Joe Blanton in Cincinnati sounds like its a good idea? If they give up any serious talent for him, I will be pretty upset. No Cueto, Bruce, Bailey or Votto.

If they want say, Maloney, Dorn, Rosales and Roenicke.... yeah, I can go for that. But no premium talent. Not if he is pitching half of his games in GABP.

http://www.redsminorleagues.com

by dougdirt on Feb 7, 2008 1:12 AM EST reply actions

Well..

Rosenthal is a bit of a rumor-whore, who knows what he makes up. Don't worry about it too much at this point Doug.

by killa on Feb 7, 2008 1:45 AM EST up reply actions

wow

stabbed in the face, even, lol

by smittybanton on Feb 7, 2008 1:14 PM EST up reply actions

Overrating prospects

I know we are all on this site because we like prospects but this overrating of prospects is getting ridiculous.
Look at the front page of johns 2000 prospects or any BA list for that matter. The vast majority of top 10 prospects (which cueto is not)DO not amount to anything near what Blanton has or will done.

Blanton is an huge assest to any team: the Carlos Silva, Gil Meche, Esteban Loazia contracts show that. (hell the barry zito contract shows that).

I like prospects too but lets remember even the most highly regarded prospects usually do reach Blantons levels.

by novaoakland on Feb 7, 2008 10:01 PM EST up reply actions

Infielders

Unless the A's can get a couple of impact infielders for Blanton, it's probably not worth trading him. They don't need more OF/1B/pitching prospects at this point.

by DrBGiantsfan on Feb 7, 2008 1:18 AM EST reply actions

bleh

i dont think the reds or the rays need blanton. jennings and briggy? no thank you

by daveh33 on Feb 7, 2008 1:19 AM EST reply actions

No Thank you?

Dude, the A's would be all over Jennings and Brignac if they could get it. Hopefully you were saying no thank you from the Rays point of view. (If so, sorry, it was hard to tell)...and the Rays don't really need Blanton at this point.

by killa on Feb 7, 2008 1:44 AM EST up reply actions

i wouldnt say they dont need blanton

he is huge in saving a bullpen,goes out there everyday, makes a nice 4 some w/ Kazmir/Shields Garza. though i would think they'd want street more.

by rayver723 on Feb 7, 2008 1:57 AM EST up reply actions

um

It really wasn't hard to tell that dave was talking from the Rays' perspective.

"The Dodgers won't win a playoff series until the Cool-a-Coo returns." -mckeeno

by PujolsJunkie on Feb 7, 2008 9:40 AM EST up reply actions

re

If I'm the A's I do Blanton for Cueto straight up, or Blanton for Brignac straight up. Not sure either of those teams would go for that however.

by blee1134 on Feb 7, 2008 1:55 AM EST reply actions

I'm not sure I've ever seen

a #2 (#3, at worst) starter more undervalued than in this post.

Since when does a quality, young major league starter not get more than a 21 year old who hasn't played above AA (and he wasn't exactly very good there)? Seriously?

If Beane accepted Blanton for Brignac straight up he should be executed on the spot.

by thejd44 on Feb 7, 2008 2:15 AM EST up reply actions

Blanton

Blanton as a #2 starter? I disagree. Blanton's basically a league average starter according to his ERA+ numbers, and his K/9 rates leave a helluva lot to be desired, for a control artist. In addition, once his LOB% reverts his gonna get a nice big bump in his ERA.

He is not someone I'd target for a trade.

by Yakker on Feb 7, 2008 2:22 AM EST up reply actions

And then...

...you remember what Gil Meche got last year and Carlos Silva this year...

A consistant, durable source of league average innings is very valuable, especially when theyre cost controlled.

by alskor on Feb 7, 2008 4:07 AM EST up reply actions

And then and then

...you remember that this is an acquisition via trade, as opposed to free agency, and Cueto and others are considerably cheaper than Blanton (who's arb eligible and due to make $4M this year).

I don't dispute that Blanton has some value as a somewhat cost-controlled innings eating pitcher, but I do think the value proposition looks different when you're giving back a player or two as well.

by Yakker on Feb 7, 2008 12:59 PM EST up reply actions

so reds cant afford to trade...

one out of the bailey/cueto/volquez/maloney group?

harang
arroyo
belisle
maybe affeldt

its a fair assumption that after harang/arroyo, you still dont know what the others provide for 08. high upside and future, but going into the season still unsure

a harang/blanton/arroyo trio give the reds a very good chance in the central. i dont think they are also paying cordero big bucks to wait for the other SP's to develop

by rayver723 on Feb 7, 2008 1:05 PM EST up reply actions

Well

It's odd to use the Cordero signing to justify trading for Blanton, given how awful IMO that decision was.

That's sort of like saying, hey, trading for Blanton is a good idea, because we otherwise would have Dusty putting too much pressure on Bailey and Cueto and scrapping their arms.

by Yakker on Feb 7, 2008 7:36 PM EST up reply actions

+1

by bleedjaxblue on Feb 7, 2008 4:12 AM EST up reply actions

+1 sorta.

He's certainly not a #2, but I would call him better than league average. Or at least that's what his 2007 looked like. If he can't repeat 2007 then you're right.

by elrey34 on Feb 7, 2008 2:54 PM EST up reply actions

Well

His ERA+ in 2007 was 105, which is not too much better than league average. Consider his lucky HR/F and LOB rates in 2007, and I think it's quite fair to call him league average.

by Yakker on Feb 7, 2008 4:40 PM EST up reply actions

2007 FIP

3.57

That has to better than league average. And how many pitchers threw 230 innings or more in 2007?

cmathewson

by cmathewson on Feb 7, 2008 4:52 PM EST up reply actions

HR rates go along with FIP

and being that he was so lucky and in one of the most HR depressing parks in baseball had a lot to do with that. Throw him into a HR haven like GABP and his HR rate goes up, his FIP flies up the charts.... so on and so forth.

http://www.redsminorleagues.com

by dougdirt on Feb 7, 2008 6:13 PM EST up reply actions

Um

Oakland used to be a HR depressing ballpark, until they built that space ship in center field for the Raiders. Now it's pretty homer friendly.

The only thing the Colosseum does is it favors fly-ball pitchers because of all the foul territory. But Blanton is a mild ground-ball pitcher. I'd say the park is pretty neutral overall.

cmathewson

by cmathewson on Feb 7, 2008 8:57 PM EST up reply actions

uh, no.

2007 MLB Park Factor

1.000 = Exactly league average.

OAK - 0.786 HR Factor

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/stats/parkfactor

http://www.redsminorleagues.com

by dougdirt on Feb 8, 2008 1:57 AM EST up reply actions

How much of that is the A's?

They didn't exactly have a lot of HR hitters on that club last year. The home team has a lot to do with whether a park surrenders a lot of homers or not. But lots of A's teams have hit a lot of homers, especially since 1996, when Davis Mountain was built. For example, the year before they built Davis Mountain, the team hit 169 HRs. The year after, basically the same team hit 243 HRs.

cmathewson

by cmathewson on Feb 8, 2008 2:04 AM EST up reply actions

Park factors

are factored by using home and run numbers of both the A's and their opponents. It has nothing to do with the A's, it has to do with that ballpark being huge.

http://www.redsminorleagues.com

by dougdirt on Feb 8, 2008 2:58 AM EST up reply actions

+1

thank you for correcting this. i was kind of horrified when i saw the last two posts.

by bleedjaxblue on Feb 8, 2008 3:07 AM EST up reply actions

Help me out here

I don't mean to sound dense, and I certainly don't want anyone to be horrified by my ignorance. I just need to learn. The reason why I push this is every time my team goes to Oakland, the TV announcer, Bert Blyleven, makes the point about how much easier it is to hit home runs there than when he pitched. It's all part of his "everything for the hitters conspiracy" schtick. So it would actually give me joy to find out he's full of crap on this one.

You say: Park factors are factored by using home and run numbers of both the A's and their opponents

So, park factors are, in part determined by how the A's hit, right? I'm guessing about half of it is the A's and half the opposition. Yes? So, in theory, if the A's hit no home runs in a year, the park will seem 50% more difficult to hit homers in. And, in general, if the A's hit X fewer home runs in their home ballpark than the league average in a year, the park will seem to depress home runs by X/2 for that year.

If they only hit 171 homers one year (2007), which is pretty typical for a Beane team, it would seem to be a tougher park to hit homers in than the year they hit 239 homers (2000). Correct? So park effects are to some degree influenced by the home team's ability to hit homers. And the home team's ability to hit homers is not just the park, but the hitters. A team full of Jason Kendalls will make the park seem relatively tough to hit homers in. A team full of Jason Giambis will make the park seem relatively easy to hit homers in.

That is what I said, and I'm having a hard time understanding how it's different from what you said.

cmathewson

by cmathewson on Feb 8, 2008 3:33 PM EST up reply actions

It is the ghost of Al Davis. He wants the A's out

so badly he conjures up the wind to keep balls in that the A's hit

by theblackpearl on Feb 8, 2008 4:53 PM EST up reply actions

no

So, park factors are, in part determined by how the A's hit, right?

nope. park factors are determined not by how, but by where the A's hit. it doesn't make sense to compare the A's to league average; instead compare the A's to the A's.

the park factor for HRs is calculated by comparing how many HRs the A's hit at home to how many HRs the A's hit on the road. then doing the same thing for their HRs allowed. it really doesn't matter if the A's hit a lot of homers or not; what matters is whether the HRs come at home or on the road. if more than half the total HRs hit by A's and their opponents occur in mcafee coliseum, then it's considered a hitters' park (for HRs anyway). if fewer than half, it's a pitchers' park.

by jpahk on Feb 8, 2008 5:27 PM EST up reply actions

no

it isn't complicated and it DOES involve both teams and acting like the fact that the A's sucked at power AND that their pitchers were pretty good as a whole doesn't influence those stats, they do A's have a big-time pitcher friendly park for fly ball pitchers because of the foul territory, plain and simple. Blanton will probably get better next year, not his stats, but HE will probably improve due to age and experience, he will benifit from the move to the NL against a very sorry division, actually the worst in the majors IMO and he will get a big negative moving to a hitters park. All in all expect Blanton to probably stay about where he was last year, maybe slight improvement because he will face new hitters early on. This doesn't need an algorithm, it needs common sense which several people seem to be lacking on these threads.

by IHateMitchMustain on Feb 8, 2008 11:48 PM EST up reply actions

Thank you

That makes sense. I just never took the time to study how they calculate park factors. I just took it on faith that they had a good methodology. But when the Blyleven "hitter's park" myth conflicted with the data, it got me thinking--always a dangerous thing.

cmathewson

by cmathewson on Feb 10, 2008 2:20 PM EST up reply actions

IMO

The better number to look at is xFIP, which was 4.13, because it helps adjust for his luck in suppressing HRs. Stll not bad, but when you consider that the LOB and BABIP numbers should rise going forward, he's not much more than league average, in my view.

by Yakker on Feb 7, 2008 6:57 PM EST up reply actions

+1

That sounds like a fair trade for Blanton, talent- for- talent-wise. I'm just not sure that it would benefit the Rays as much as Brignac would a year or so from now and beyond, when their chances at the playoffs are much better. It makes more sense for the Reds, although it depends on how much you value Cueto.

by elrey34 on Feb 7, 2008 2:52 PM EST up reply actions

the reds make sense

from a need perspective. fit perspective, eh. but blanton could log 200 innings for them, which would be big.

i've long been of the belief that i think the reds could get a deal down without giving up Cueto/Bailey/Votto/Bruce. it might end up being a 4 for 1 type swap, probably built around pitching, but i could see different packages that, in my mind, beane may bite on.

i don't think the twins or rays make that much sense, unless the deal is on the cheap, which is unlikely. i mean, blanton isn't going to make the difference between the twins competing or not, and is he significantly better than the baker/bonser combo? for the rays, well, it (playoffs) ain't happening this year, nothing personal of course, but fairly obvious. it would seem foolish. of the two, i would probably guess the twins have the better chance to match the a's and likelihood. 3 years of blanton, even arbitration, may be tempting to bridge the gap as the kids develop, and they have some middle infield pieces they could spin (perhaps casilla included).

by toonsterwu on Feb 7, 2008 2:01 AM EST reply actions

re

I agree 100% that the Reds make sense. I would go so far as to say they make perfect sense.

They have tremendous minor league talent and a need in the rotation. They're in such a terrible division that Blanton really could make a lot of difference as to whether they make the playoffs or not. Once in the playoffs, we all know anything can happen.

by blee1134 on Feb 7, 2008 2:27 AM EST up reply actions

Except

I understand Cincy would probably bank on some "Arroyo effect" with Blanton, but it seems a little dangerous, in my view. Check out his HR/F numbers in Oakland...and then factor in both a change in luck and a move to GABP. Scary.

by Yakker on Feb 7, 2008 2:31 AM EST up reply actions

re

And factor in the switch to the NL

by blee1134 on Feb 7, 2008 3:38 AM EST up reply actions

Barry Zito

says Hi. Moving to the NL really helped his career, huh?

I reject your reality and substitute my own.

by WayneCampbell05 on Feb 7, 2008 5:15 AM EST up reply actions

+1

Add to the fact he moved into the division with Petco Park, Dodger Stadium, and PacBell/ATT/whatever it's called now Park.

by Lunkwill Fook on Feb 7, 2008 9:09 AM EST up reply actions

Well... maybe it's that Zito sucks

And has been in decline since 2001. Blanton, right now, is a better pitcher than Zito was in any of the last two or three seasons. Much better velocity (89-93 vs. Zito's 84-86) to set up his offspeed stuff and better command than Zito has EVER had. Look at their career K/BB.

Zito is the exception that proves the AL > NL rule.

by ToddyBaseball on Feb 7, 2008 12:44 PM EST up reply actions

+1

Zito really does suck. Sucky pitchers don't compete anywhere.

by elrey34 on Feb 7, 2008 2:56 PM EST up reply actions

Get over it.

One example, wow.

If you want to use Zito as the say all example you are a fool. Zito's numbers were getting significantly worse each year in the AL.

If you get to use Zito, I get to use the following examples-

Odalis Perez, Mark Mulder, Kyle Lohse, Aaron Harang, Roger Clemens*(2.98/1.87/2.30/4.18-guess which one was the only AL season of the last four?), Chris Carpenter, Jeff Suppan, Mark Eaton, David Wells, Ted Lilly (5 career MLB seasons OVER 100 IP-only sub 4.00 ERA was his only NL season), Vicente Padilla. I could probably go on.

Blanton is a solid 3/4 and would be a fine NL pitcher. He's better than Suppan.

by bl on Feb 7, 2008 7:39 PM EST up reply actions

OK

i get (and agree with) your point, but how on earth did you lead off with Odalis Perez there? he pitched much better with the Royals the last year and a half than he was pitching with the Dodgers when they had bumped him out of the rotation, essentially to the last position in the bullpen (and even that seemed too generous).

by bleedjaxblue on Feb 7, 2008 8:31 PM EST up reply actions

Additionally

The AL West is decidedly inferior to the NL Central.

I reject your reality and substitute my own.

by WayneCampbell05 on Feb 7, 2008 5:16 AM EST up reply actions

I hope you're joking.

by elrey34 on Feb 7, 2008 2:57 PM EST up reply actions

I did

Thus, the "Arroyo effect."

by Yakker on Feb 7, 2008 1:00 PM EST up reply actions

hmm

wouldn't "harang effect" be more apropos, given that he made the same switch from oakland to cincy, and went from being a #5 starter to being a star?

by jpahk on Feb 7, 2008 2:02 PM EST up reply actions

Is Blanton going to develop a nasty slider?

Because that is why took Harang from the 2004 version to the 2006/2007 version.

http://www.redsminorleagues.com

by dougdirt on Feb 7, 2008 3:44 PM EST up reply actions

re

So Harang turned the slider he'd been throwing since college into a plus pitch for the Reds overnight?

by blee1134 on Feb 7, 2008 3:53 PM EST up reply actions

overnight, no. Over several years, yes.

His slider has a lot more downward bite on it than it did when he first came over from Oakland.

http://www.redsminorleagues.com

by dougdirt on Feb 7, 2008 6:14 PM EST up reply actions

try the search function

http://www.minorleagueball.com/story/2006/3/19/16834/7991

http://www.minorleagueball.com/story/2007/9/15/125615/632

his breaking stuff is very good.

by rayver723 on Feb 7, 2008 3:55 PM EST up reply actions

Harang > > > Blanton

So, no.

by Yakker on Feb 7, 2008 4:41 PM EST up reply actions

what does that have to do with anything?

Harang > > > Blanton

okay, sure. harang is a better pitcher than blanton right now. why is that in any way relevant? when harang was with the A's (at the same age that blanton is now), he was the definition of a 5th starter. he bloomed late and now he's an ace. does the fact that he got better after the fact make him a less apt comp for blanton somehow?

by jpahk on Feb 7, 2008 7:33 PM EST up reply actions

Well

When The A's traded Harang, he'd only thrown about 100 innings in the bigs and had better stuff than Blanton has now.

I don't think they're good comparisons because Harang was and is a better pitcher than Blanton.

I don't think that Cincy trading for Blanton and hoping for Harang II is a wise projection. I do, however, think they are banking on some of the "Arroyo effect."

by Yakker on Feb 7, 2008 7:48 PM EST up reply actions

re

"When The A's traded Harang, he'd only thrown about 100 innings in the bigs and had better stuff than Blanton has now."

Not true at all. Harang's stuff defined fringe when he was an Athletic.

I'd take Blanton all day over Harang when everything is neutral.

by blee1134 on Feb 8, 2008 3:00 AM EST up reply actions

re

I should mention that most of that opinion is based on how I feel about the NL. And getting into that argument would be just running around in circles. So we'll have to agree to disagree there I think

by blee1134 on Feb 8, 2008 3:22 AM EST up reply actions

nah

harang is certainly better than blanton right now. the difference between harang now and when he was with the A's is obviously more than just NL<<AL. it seems pretty clear that he has improved a lot as a pitcher.<p> however, you are correct in saying that harang circa 2002-03 was extremely fringy. he wasn't anywhere near the pitcher then that blanton is now.

by jpahk on Feb 8, 2008 10:54 AM EST up reply actions

You severely underestimate the NL

Does the AL have better teams for the most part? Absolutely. But lets not pretend like Aaron Harang is beating up on some weak NL lineups to put up good numbers.

The last two seasons here are his numbers against the AL:

56.3 ip
1.92 ERA
46 hits
14 walks
1.07 WHIP
53 strikeouts
2 HR

That guy absolutely OWNS the AL the past two seasons and actually did pretty well in 2005 as well.

http://www.redsminorleagues.com

by dougdirt on Feb 9, 2008 1:24 AM EST up reply actions

Krivsky is hesitant to deal any top prospects

he wouldnt give up cueto for haren

i can understand no bruce.
bailey too
A's dont need votto

but would beane go for a trade with no top 50 prospects, rathe than 3-4 2nd tier guys? thats the question or would they be able to get more at the deadline or later.

blanton was ccoming off a bad 06 and A's still demanded milledge/heilman + at the time and gomez/heilman/mulvey a month ago. what wouldf be the equivalent of the reds?

by rayver723 on Feb 7, 2008 2:35 AM EST up reply actions

Why, oh why?

I guess I don't understand the fascination with a move like this for either the Reds or Rays ... the Rays have Price, McGee and WDavis knocking on the door; why block them further?

The Reds finally have a legit farm system (which as a "small market team" is critical to any success) ... I'd rather keeps Cueto and Bailey and take my chances in '08 with them and my other trade bullets in tow ...

Paul Householder, Gary Redus, Tommy Lawless, Duane Walker ... prospects rawk!

by design28 on Feb 7, 2008 9:47 AM EST reply actions

Agreed

While I agree with most posters on this list that Joe Blanton is not worth trading multiple valuable minor leaguers, there is something to be said about Blanton being a horse and giving your team 220+ innings. So take your K/9 rate and ERA+ rates and keep arguing about that all you want, he takes the ball, goes 7 and gives your bullpen some rest. Definite value there.

by goose102977 on Feb 7, 2008 10:49 AM EST reply actions

Agreed

Part of it is this ridiculous market for pitchers going on right now. Plus, add to the fact that Blanton is still very cheap....

by Lunkwill Fook on Feb 7, 2008 11:48 AM EST up reply actions

$4M for 2008

by Yakker on Feb 7, 2008 1:02 PM EST up reply actions

$4 million +

Really? Wow. I take that back then. How the crap is he making that much money already?

by Lunkwill Fook on Feb 7, 2008 3:54 PM EST up reply actions

3.7mill, 1st yr of arby

by rayver723 on Feb 7, 2008 3:58 PM EST up reply actions

OK

I'll take my K/9 and ERA+ and go home... ;-)

Seriously, though. I take the point that Blanton "takes the ball" for his 35 starts a year. However, IMO trading valuable minor league commodities for that "skill" is not a good strategy for long-term success.

by Yakker on Feb 7, 2008 1:06 PM EST up reply actions

Good theory,

but execution could be better. Blanton's strikeout rate is average and 2007 could be an anomaly with his low walk rate, but don't forget he's above average at getting ground balls. I remember hearing he had developed and/or greatly improved a two-seam fastball and started using it with regularity and success last year. It's likely that pitch gets better over time. Also, don't forget that his strikeout rate has been on the rise since the year before and that should rise as well.

I call him above average, and considering he's a horse, has room for improvement and is cheap for the next few years. That's worth an A- prospect.

by elrey34 on Feb 7, 2008 3:04 PM EST up reply actions

Disagree

Don't have a ton of time, so apologize in advance if this seems terse, it's not meant to be:

I don't consider a 5.7 K/9 average, and that's up in 2007 from a 4.8 rate in 2006. And that's an increase (although for context you should probably note his 5.3 K/9 in 2005), but it's still well short of an average K/9 (I think the dividing line is 6.3 or so).
His GB% don't suggest him being "above average" in the GB department. He induced 46.9% GBs in 2007, after a 43.1% rate in 2006. Slight bump also doesn't seem to provide much evidence for the 2-seamer story.
Disagree regarding room for improvement, although it's possible I'm wrong here. His control can't get any better, so in order to get better he'll either have to a) induce a lot more GBs or b) strike out more people. And, he'll have to do that in sufficient quantity to offset the expected rise in his numbers when his HR/F and LOB rates regress to the mean.

Don't see that happening.

by Yakker on Feb 7, 2008 4:48 PM EST up reply actions

Oh, and

Realize that the value of an innings eater who will "go 7" (although Blanton has actually averaged 6.1 and 6.2 IPs the last two years) is mitigated somewhat in the NL, since there are times when he'll be lifted for a PH.

by Yakker on Feb 7, 2008 1:10 PM EST up reply actions

Sure

I can respect that opinion. I just think Joe Blanton gets a raw deal. I would love for my team to get him as a #4 SP. He is an ideal #4.

by goose102977 on Feb 7, 2008 1:24 PM EST up reply actions

Agreed.

He's great for a #4 and is likely to develop into a #3. A guy like that who gives you a lot of innings and takes a small paycheck has a lot of value.

by elrey34 on Feb 7, 2008 3:05 PM EST up reply actions

Well

See above for why I think he won't improve much (although I forgot to mention option c), which is continue to get good luck in LOB and HR/F), but note that his 2008 salary is $4M and will only go up from there. Which ain't exactly a small paycheck in my view.

by Yakker on Feb 7, 2008 4:51 PM EST up reply actions

Yeah

He does get a raw deal, and he's actually a helluva nice guy. #4 seems about right, and a good #4 at that.

by Yakker on Feb 7, 2008 4:50 PM EST up reply actions

re

#4 in what regard?

Obviously not the tell all, but Blanton has been top 40 in ERA in baseball twice.

A #4 starter would put him between 90-120 in baseball. I'd consider him closer to 40-70

by blee1134 on Feb 7, 2008 4:59 PM EST up reply actions

Most people

have absolutely no idea what a #4 starter is. They think a guy with a 4.5 ERA is a #5 starter, when league average for that slot is like 5.5.

Blanton's career numbers indicate he'd be a #2 on a decent team and a #3 on a playoff team. He's worth a lot. Beane knows this and isn't going to settle for sloppy seconds.

by PaulThomas on Feb 7, 2008 5:13 PM EST up reply actions

Blanton

Dice-K
Jered Weaver
Westbrook
Phil Hughes

Those were last year's AL playoff #3s. Blanton is maybe better than one of them.

J. Guthrie
J. Shields
A.J. Burnett
J. Vasquez
J. Verlander
B. Bannister
C. Silva
M. Batista
V. Padilla

Those were last year's AL #2s on non-playoff teams. Blanton's maybe better 3 of them--KC, Minn (because of Liriano's injury) and Tex.

by Yakker on Feb 7, 2008 7:31 PM EST up reply actions

Blanton's ERA was better

than ALL FOUR of the "playoff #3s" last season, and it was half a run better than three of the four.

Verlander was far and away the best Detroit starter last year, so comparing Blanton to him is retarded. Jeremy Bonderman, their actual #2, had an ERA+ in the low 5s. Eyeball estimating the ERAs of the "non-playoff #2s," I'm getting a number somewhere around 4.0. So Blanton's a little worse than your average non-playoff #2 and a little better than your average playoff #3 over his career. He's better than both if he holds the gains he made this year.

by PaulThomas on Feb 7, 2008 8:26 PM EST up reply actions

Blanton also played in McAfee

His ERA+ of 106 was equal to the following ERA's in each of these home parks:

CIN - 4.40
NYY - 4.21
BOS - 4.48
DET - 4.24
CLE - 4.29
ANA - 4.31
OAK - 3.95

Which one of those numbers sticks out like a sore thumb? Blanton looks much better on the surface than he actually is thanks to his ballpark.

http://www.redsminorleagues.com

by dougdirt on Feb 7, 2008 8:51 PM EST up reply actions

Home Park

Blanton goes out there and gives his team a good chance to win every night. His overall ERA over his first 3 seasons is 4.09.

Blanton struggled last year after losing his vet catcher (Kendall) and had to accept calls from a rookie catch whom nobody on the pitching staff trusted (hence all A's starters numbers declined after the departure the gritty Kendall). His era through the first 3 months was 3.47 with a 6.42 K/9 and after the switch in catcher was 4.74 with a 4.91 K/9 rate.

Blanton was making huge strides in the first half but showed declined after losing Kendall. People on this blog are quick to say Blanton is a #4 at best but his number last year pre-trade were shaping up to be a solid #3 if not #2 pitcher who is only 27 and getting better. He has proven that he will take the ball every 5th day, go 7in give up 2-3 runs and give his team a chance to win. What more can you ask for from a #2 starter?

As you can prob tell i'm an A's fan. I can honestly say that i have seen at least half of his starts so i know first hand what he brings to the table. He's a gamer that IMO most teams would love to have on their staff.

by tmt85 on Feb 8, 2008 12:34 AM EST up reply actions

not directed at you

i was going to reply to you but changed my mind and forgot to change the reply-to...

by tmt85 on Feb 8, 2008 12:37 AM EST up reply actions

Well, sir

If you would really take Blanton over:

Dice-K
Jered Weaver
Phil Hughes
Guthrie
J. Shields
A.J. Burnett
J. Vasquez
J. Verlander or
J. Bonderman

...on the basis of his 2007 ERA then there's really nothing I can say to convince you that you're wrong.

by Yakker on Feb 7, 2008 11:40 PM EST up reply actions

Of course I wouldn't take Blanton

over Phil Hughes. Hughes doesn't figure to be a #3 for very long. Ditto Verlander, who isn't a #2 now and doesn't figure to be at any point in the future. Your list completely ignores the notions of potential and ceiling.

I would take Blanton, today, over Guthrie, Burnett, Shields and Bonderman, for a variety of reasons (injuries in Burnett's case, lack of experience for Shields and Guthrie, general suckitude for Bonderman) which puts Blanton more or less right in the middle of those two categories I described. Some of them I like better, some I like worse. I didn't say he was THE BEST #2 on a non-playoff team.

by PaulThomas on Feb 8, 2008 2:10 PM EST up reply actions

Verlander was Detroit's #2?

Pray tell who their number one was?

by drwmsu1 on Feb 7, 2008 8:44 PM EST up reply actions

Well

#1/#2 is pretty nebulous for some teams, so I assumed that Bonderman was the #1, since he started Opening Day, generally pitched ahead of Verlander in the rotation, and has more major league experience.

But it really doesn't matter which one of the two Detroit pitchers is #1 and which is #2 to support my point; both are better than Blanton.

by Yakker on Feb 7, 2008 11:35 PM EST up reply actions

re

Bonderman is better than Blanton?

lawl

by blee1134 on Feb 8, 2008 3:03 AM EST up reply actions

Wow

Really? You really think Blanton is better than Bonderman?

That's the craziest thing I've heard on this board since Dr.B. said he would take Cain over Felix because GB rates weren't that big a deal.

by Yakker on Feb 8, 2008 1:18 PM EST up reply actions

re

Bonderman's ERA+ by year

77
91
93
112
91
Career - 93

Blanton

123
92
106
Career - 105

Bonderman has faded down the stretch for 3 straight seasons and now is coming off concern about his elbow.

Oh, but he throws harder than Blanton!

by blee1134 on Feb 8, 2008 1:26 PM EST up reply actions

Jeez

ERA+ is a poor measure (discussed previously) for this analysis. If you look at xFIP, which adjusts for defense and normalizes Blanton's lucky HR rate the past two years, you get this:

Bonderman:

2005 (age 22): 4.10
2006 (age 23): 3.68
2007 (Age 24): 3.99

Blanton:

2005 (age 24): 4.79
2006 (age 25): 5.07
2007 (age 26): 4.13

I'll take the guy who's younger and better.

by Yakker on Feb 8, 2008 4:46 PM EST up reply actions

re

Wow, Bonderman sure looks good when you go behind his numbers. You would think that after 5 years he would actually post some good real numbers

by blee1134 on Feb 8, 2008 5:08 PM EST up reply actions

Tiger's defense

Pudge is still good. And Granderson can go get em. But Guillen was very slow, Polanco was not much quicker, and Casey was a dog. The only plus defenders they had were Inge and Pudge.

That's why the Renteria acquisition is so important--it upgrades two defensive positions. They give some of that back with Cabrera over at third. But overall, they're a better defensive team this year. That should help Bonderman's actual numbers.

cmathewson

by cmathewson on Feb 8, 2008 5:22 PM EST up reply actions

you know what else would help

him not sucking

by IHateMitchMustain on Feb 8, 2008 11:57 PM EST up reply actions

Bonderman's "FIP" looks good

because he consistently gives up BABIPs that are well above league-average. And no, that's not just a function of the park. Hitters have made better than average contact against Bonderman throughout his entire career. It's a statistical artifact.

by PaulThomas on Feb 9, 2008 2:21 AM EST up reply actions

I prefer

xFIP, but you're right. It's possible that Bonderman is too "hittable." Though it's not like they're sky high, just .10-.15 points above league average, IIRC.

I see the high BABIPs (or, rather, low DERs) and think they are a combination of bad luck and bad fielding. But it's possible that he will continue to surrender hits at above average rates. I don't think a few years from ages 22 to 24 necessarily establish this as a given (I believe his first full season, at age 21, he actually had a pretty good DER), especially when you consider how "unhittable" his stuff can be, but only time will tell.

by Yakker on Feb 10, 2008 4:01 PM EST up reply actions

Crazy

Bonderman tends to run hot and cold. His ceiling is much higher than Blanton, but Blanton is steadier and may well have a longer productive career. Close call on that one, but not crazy.

I still don't think GB's are all that big a deal and I'd still take Cain over "King" Felix.

by DrBGiantsfan on Feb 8, 2008 1:28 PM EST up reply actions

LOL

Yeah, I know how you feel about Cain vs. Felix. Didn't mean to get into another discussion on that! :-)

by Yakker on Feb 8, 2008 4:48 PM EST up reply actions

bonderman/blanton

http://www.baseball-reference.com/b/bondeje01.shtml

http://www.baseball-reference.com/b/blantjo01.shtml

well, you could make that argument looking at the stats. bonderman has the higher upside and prototype power pitcher. he is 2 yrs younger than blanton and has 2 yrs longer in the league, so you would think he would get better. but stats wise, other than K's, blanton looks to be better currently.

from 05-07...bonderman 06 better ,blanton was better in the other 2 yrs

by rayver723 on Feb 8, 2008 1:28 PM EST up reply actions

Disagree

Superficially, Blanton's 2007 looks awful, but he actually had a good season, as his 3.99 xFIP suggests.

by Yakker on Feb 8, 2008 4:47 PM EST up reply actions

I have it on good authority

that the Dodgers are actively involved in the talks for Blanton. And the deal would have an OF going back to Oakland. If this were to happen, the Dodgers would sign Sean Green to a 1-year deal. If this doesn't happen, Green is likely retired unless the Angels or Padres come calling.

by So Cal Bob on Feb 7, 2008 11:43 AM EST reply actions

care to elaborate more?

why would A's want more OF's? unless its kemp or ethier, which seems unlikley. the only upper level OF in their farm system is Delwyn Young, who would be a solid add , but A's have enough corner OF's. a 3rd piece in a deal, but not a centerpiece. the dodgers have tons of depth in infield prospects, which A's would want among Hu/Dewitt/Abreu/Dejesus/Bell/Baez/etc. i could see them interest in mcdonald/elbert/meloan among pitchers

by rayver723 on Feb 7, 2008 11:58 AM EST up reply actions

I'm just telling you

the facts from I conversation I had last night at dinner with people involved in this exact discussion. May happen or it may not, but I can tell you for certain what I just laid out is being discussed.

by So Cal Bob on Feb 7, 2008 12:06 PM EST up reply actions

Seems unlikely

The Dodgers are set 1-4 with Penny, Lowe, Billz & Kuroda. The 5th spot well be up to Loaiza, Schmidt, Kuo, Park, Miller, who knows? Is the certainty of a 5th SP worth giving up any real assets? I don't think so.

The Dodgers won't win a playoff series until the Cool-a-Coo returns.

by mckeeno on Feb 7, 2008 2:43 PM EST up reply actions

WHAT???

I don't think Blanton is a stud, but 5th starter even on this team? Bro, who the hell is Kuroda? Seriously, Blanton did better than Dice-K in several aspects last season and this guy is no where near Dice-K (please don't try and tell me Dice-K is better than Blanton, that isn't the point here). The chances of Blanton's stats exceding almost any of these pitchers while pitching at LA is a real possibilty, though I would rather have Penny and Billingsley myself, Lowe probably, but not even definitely cause of age. I know Blanton isn't in the minors and maybe many of you are experts at minor leaguers (like somehow that is possible), figure out something about the MLB and then start making posts. To act like why would the Dodgers want Blanton like he is worthless is so ignorant.

by IHateMitchMustain on Feb 9, 2008 12:05 AM EST up reply actions

Still hoping for the mythical

LaRoche/Chavez swap... come on, Colletti... he's a VETERAN...

by PaulThomas on Feb 7, 2008 12:13 PM EST up reply actions

NOT Ethier

Not Ethier arly. Kemp, yes. But Ethier is just another ho-hum corner outfielder.

Kemp, Hu and one of their 3B prospects not named LaRoche. Or give them Chavez and insist on LaRoche and another top tier guy.

by ToddyBaseball on Feb 7, 2008 12:47 PM EST up reply actions

where's DrB?

i'm excited to find out whether he's happy with your post pretending the Dodgers are going to do something that incredibly stupid, or if it upsets him too much that this trade would support Billy Beane being an infallible genius.

by bleedjaxblue on Feb 7, 2008 12:53 PM EST up reply actions

he's preocupied w/ crede/clark/sweeney

by rayver723 on Feb 7, 2008 12:55 PM EST up reply actions

Flattery

Wow! I guess having people waiting with baited breath for my opinion, even in a snarky way is a form of flattery. I am honored!

I'm still not convinced Coletti isn't going to make a stupid trade.
The A's need infielders and the Dodgers have them. Kemp would be a clear upgrade on anything the A's have so far so yeah, Beane might have a good trade in him, but then that begs the question of whatthehell he's going to do with all the "talent" he's gotten so far.

by DrBGiantsfan on Feb 7, 2008 1:05 PM EST up reply actions

Even if...

this deal goes down - which seems unlikely - why on earth would the Dodgers sign Green to anything? Delwyn Young is a perfectly cheap 4th OF, who - I believe - is out of options and performed just fine last season.

Maybe you did have a conversation, but the pieces to this deal don't fit. I think Colletti likes to listen to offers and/or ideas, but he is not as dumb as everyone thinks. Dumb, just not that dumb.

by count sutton on Feb 7, 2008 12:32 PM EST up reply actions

It's Coletti

"why on earth would the Dodgers sign Green to anything?"

Because it's Ned Coletti, the architect of all rosters old/near death.

by ToddyBaseball on Feb 7, 2008 12:45 PM EST up reply actions

Colletti

I'm not his biggest fan either, but during his tenure the Dodgers have managed to work in Martin, Broxton, Kemp, Loney, Billingsley, and Ethier as everyday players. I know for every young guy there may be a Nomar hanging around, but that's hardly a reason to say that he will do something stupid like sign Shawn Green.

The other possibility is that your post was just a joke. I wasn't 100% sure.

by count sutton on Feb 7, 2008 2:07 PM EST up reply actions

I'm just

sharing what I know to be fact. There is a deal in works to bring Green back to the Dodgers IF the Dodgers aquire Blanton because it will cost them an OF. If the original diary says there is some Blanton rumors and Rosenthal doesn't know who is involved, then I am confirming to the community of ONE possibility/team.

Once Green was healthy last year, he had a fantastic 2nd half 316/390/435. Not sure why the dislike of Green exists as he can still play a quality OF and provide a solid LH bat in the 5/6 hole.

by So Cal Bob on Feb 7, 2008 4:31 PM EST up reply actions

Juan Pierre?

The Doddgers could trade an OF and still have a surplus.

Hey, I have an idea! Now that everybody knows about OBP, maybe Billy figures that a slap/speed guy like Juan Pierre is undervalued and would trade for him?

by DrBGiantsfan on Feb 7, 2008 6:18 PM EST up reply actions

losing Pierre

amounts to a gain. :-D

The A's fans will have fun with you over thaqt comment. Nice scud across the bay!

by So Cal Bob on Feb 7, 2008 6:21 PM EST up reply actions

Scud

Hey, I was just speculating on where market forces might take Billy next.

by DrBGiantsfan on Feb 7, 2008 6:32 PM EST up reply actions

You can't "undervalue"

something that has no value.

Juan Pierre has no value.

by PaulThomas on Feb 7, 2008 8:27 PM EST up reply actions

Concrete?

You don't get humor, do you?

by DrBGiantsfan on Feb 7, 2008 9:19 PM EST up reply actions

Shawn Green

along with all the other reasons this is unlikely (it makes no sense, it involves the Dodgers trading for something they don't need then signing something they don't need, etc etc), i have trouble believing that Shawn Green will re-sign with the Dodgers. you do know that he left them last time on quite unfriendly terms, right?

by bleedjaxblue on Feb 7, 2008 6:34 PM EST up reply actions

not true bleedjaxblue

Shawn left on very good terms. He just never wanted to leave-period.

You can think up all the reasons why it shouldn't happen, but I can tell you with 100% certainty that this conversation has taken place and wheels are in motion if the Dodgers aquire Blanton. I get that it is one BIG IF, but again I am just sharing info that is not second-hand. That's all.

by So Cal Bob on Feb 7, 2008 6:42 PM EST up reply actions

good terms?

he didn't want to leave originally, and then found out the dodgers had thrown his name around in trade talks already, which pissed him off. at that point, he demanded the dodgers trade him, which they did, and afterward, he talked about how poorly the dodgers handled the situation. i'm not sure which part of that is "leaving on good terms."

maybe he's only mad at dodgers old management. but that still wouldn't explain why the dodgers would sign him as a fourth outfielder.

by bleedjaxblue on Feb 7, 2008 7:02 PM EST up reply actions

Veteran Savvy?

I know what makes Ned Coletti tick. He wants Greenie's veteran savvy to make a savvy OF of Pierre, Jones and Green!

by DrBGiantsfan on Feb 7, 2008 7:43 PM EST up reply actions

not true

he never demanded to be traded. Jeff Moorad convinced him to accept a trade by guranteeing him more years and money to go to AZ. He never wanted to leave and never made any demands. I can assure you that.

He's not mad at any Dodgers management and habors no ill will. I don't know where you get that from, but it's not accurate.

Oh well...

by So Cal Bob on Feb 7, 2008 7:45 PM EST up reply actions

isn't EVERYTHING

a 50-50 chance?

So he's either going to get traded, or he's not going to get traded.

It's 50-50 that I'm going to die tonight too.

by Galt on Feb 7, 2008 12:09 PM EST reply actions

You seem to be having trouble

with the concept of "probability."

Unless you're going in for open heart surgery, the odds of you dying this evening are far less than 50-50.

by PaulThomas on Feb 7, 2008 12:14 PM EST up reply actions

I'm fairly sure

that that was a joke.

by abbreviatedman on Feb 7, 2008 1:23 PM EST up reply actions

Can't see it

I mean the Rays trading for a SP. With what they have in the rostation and on the farm I have a hard time believing they would move anything of value for another starting pitcher. It's not like they are in "win now" mode.

by SoCal on Feb 7, 2008 2:17 PM EST reply actions

Red Sox

Due to the recent injury to Schilling, how about trading Blanton to the Sox for Jed Lowrie and Oscar Tejada (or some other middle infield prospect)? If I'm the Sox, a package centered around Lowrie would be a pretty good offer, and the A's could use middle infield help.

by demondeaconbaseball on Feb 7, 2008 2:38 PM EST reply actions

Oakland still needs a CF

... so it might not be out of the question to consider a Coco deal with one or more C, B- prospects thrown in. Maybe Kris Johnson? Or a toolsy-but-raw kid like Kade Keowen?

by TPetey on Feb 8, 2008 4:57 PM EST up reply actions

re

no

by blee1134 on Feb 8, 2008 5:07 PM EST up reply actions

denorfia

A's plan to give Denorfia a shot at CF. He was once a highly touted prospect, so there is a lot of upside there for the A's to bank on,

by Zabat on Feb 8, 2008 7:07 PM EST up reply actions

ATTN: Red Sox Fans

The A's are not going to trade for frigging Coco Crisp. They're stripping the roster of everybody with 3 years' service time or more. There is no chance that they will voluntarily go out and trade for someone whose contract will expire in 2010 unless the other team is practically giving him away.

Feel free to stop the Crisp-for-Blanton/Street rosterbation at any time.

by PaulThomas on Feb 9, 2008 2:26 AM EST up reply actions

Pie?

I would rather use Pie to land Blanton for the Cubs than Brian Roberts. Although I think those rumors are false that the Cubs would include Pie in a deal to the O's.

Zambrano
Lilly
Blanton
Hill
Lieber

Not bad....Not bad at all.

by goose102977 on Feb 9, 2008 9:37 AM EST up reply actions

I feel abused, ah no, I feel bedarded

I looked at the title "Joe Blanton Trade" only to read on and find out it was only another Rosenthal rumour. Sigh. ST in 2 weeks.

by Yoda on Feb 7, 2008 2:58 PM EST reply actions

Pretty clever,

but if you're a Mariners fan, the right word is "sodomized."

by elrey34 on Feb 7, 2008 3:09 PM EST up reply actions

well dodgers are in the mix

according to this report

http://frontier.cincinnati.com/blogs/redsinsider/2008/02/on-blanton.asp
Thursday, February 7, 2008
On Blanton

This from my buddy Doc on his blog:

On good authority

The Reds and Dodgers are talking with Oakland about Joe Blanton. Blanton has won 42 games in the past 3 years, was 14-10 last year and is already signed this year, to a relatively cheap $3.8 million deal.

Ken Rosenthal is reporting the same thing. The Reds were initially turned off by Oakland's high asking price when they talked about Blanton.

Wayne Krivsky, as per usual, would not comment specifically on the Blanton. But he did not rule out a trade before camp starts.

"You're always looking to improve," he said. "That never stops. We'll improve the team any way we can."

Joey Votto is the kind of player Billy Beane loves (high on-base percentage). You'd think the A's would want Homer Bailey or Johnny Cueto as well. I think the Reds would sooner give up Bailey than Cueto at this point.

The market for pitching has dried up a bit, i.e., Kyle Lohse and Livan Hernandez are still unemployed.

"I think you'll start seeing guys sign minor league contracts," Krivsky said.

He wasn't referring to Lohse or Hernandez, of course, but lesser free agents are in a tough spot. Camps open in a week, and 20 teams have full 40-man rosters.
posted by John Fay at 12:40 PM

by rayver723 on Feb 7, 2008 3:15 PM EST reply actions

The next time John Fay is right.....

might be the first time.

http://www.redsminorleagues.com

by dougdirt on Feb 7, 2008 3:47 PM EST up reply actions

It'd be perceivable

for the Rays to make the deal, with Crawford, Pena and Upton as the team core and with Longoria heading up to the majors.

But for the Reds, they'd be committing suicide on so many different levels.

by METSMETSMETS on Feb 7, 2008 3:58 PM EST reply actions

re

I totally disagree. The Reds are a hell of a lot more close to the playoffs than Tampa

by blee1134 on Feb 7, 2008 4:15 PM EST reply actions

Not a reds fan but...

It would ridiculous to trade any of their top 4 for Blanton. Both Haren and Santana were traded for less valuable players.

A fair trade would be something like Jared Burton, Matt Maloney & Drew Stubbs for Blanton.

The Dodgers won't win a playoff series until the Cool-a-Coo returns.

by mckeeno on Feb 7, 2008 4:23 PM EST reply actions

thats fair...

burton who A's already had
a 23/24 yr old CF in stubbs who hasnt been above high A. A's have their own in jermaine mitchell

maloney a B type prospect. how many high minors lefties do A's want braden/meyer/eveland/smith etc

all those 3 combined likely wont be as valuable as blanton over the next 3 yrs. i dont think its unreasonable at all for A's to ask for 1 top 50 prospect from the reds or any other team.

by rayver723 on Feb 7, 2008 4:34 PM EST up reply actions

re

Gonzalez is higher ranked than Cueto and Anderson is pretty close. Not to mention the 4 other players

by blee1134 on Feb 7, 2008 4:42 PM EST up reply actions

err?

Goldstein has Gonzalez above Cueto by 15 (26 to 41). Our community list has Cueto ahead of Gonzalez by 25 (12 to 37) and Votto ahead by 20. John has Votto and Cueto (A-) both above Gonzalez (B+) and Bailey as a B+.

Considering Haren >>> Blanton, I'd consider the package to be much lower.

The Dodgers won't win a playoff series until the Cool-a-Coo returns.

by mckeeno on Feb 7, 2008 5:29 PM EST up reply actions

re

Lets use Sickels alone then

Cueto A-

Gonzalez B+, Anderson B+, Carter B+, Cunningham B-, Smith C+. He had Eveland as I believe a B at his last rating.

Which is the better deal? Yes Haren is better than Blanton, but "Both Haren and Santana were traded for less valuable players." is nowhere near the truth when it comes to Haren's end

by blee1134 on Feb 7, 2008 5:41 PM EST reply actions

One year

Blanton to the Reds for Cueto, Todd Frazier, and Kyle Lotzkar?

------

There's over 100 replies but I didn't see anyone mention that draft picks can't be traded til one year after the day they signed their contracts.

Frazier and Lotzkar aren't eligible to be traded til at least mid June or so.

by UncleBuck44 on Feb 8, 2008 12:35 AM EST reply actions

but they can be PTBNL

as long as they are named within 6 months.

http://www.redsminorleagues.com

by dougdirt on Feb 8, 2008 2:00 AM EST up reply actions

if they're going to trade blanton

they absolutely need to get some infield help. that's why lowrie makes the most sense. of course we really won't know the situation with the red sox until this schilling labrum business gets cleared up.

by jpahk on Feb 8, 2008 2:14 AM EST reply actions

Is This An Even Trade?

What about Blanton to the Dodgers for Tony Abreu, Blake DeWitt and James McDonald? Dodgers end up with one of the better rotations in baseball. A's get immediate IF help a decent IF prospect and a pitching prospect with upside.

by DrBGiantsfan on Feb 8, 2008 10:54 AM EST reply actions

mdonald/dewitt is a start

abreu not really a fan, they want dejesus before him.
add in elbert

by rayver723 on Feb 8, 2008 11:09 AM EST up reply actions

DeJesus vs Abreu

I know teams seem to want DeJesus. I presume he's got better D tha Abreu? Abreu is closer to the majors and IMO has a better bat.

by DrBGiantsfan on Feb 8, 2008 11:30 AM EST up reply actions

naw

Abreu's better defensively, though DeJesus isn't bad. And Abreu is a better bat -- for power and average -- and is closer to the majors. Really, the only thing that DeJesus does better is walk. In my opinion, players who walk in the minors without hitting are essentially useless. Frankly, switching DeJesus for Abreu turns this proposed trade from something I'd cringe at to something I could stomach (though I still wouldn't want, since Blanton isn't worth that much to the Dodgers).

I'm really not sure "teams" want DeJesus. Really, the only time I've heard his name tossed around in by rly, who I think is still propagating a rumor from a year ago.

by bleedjaxblue on Feb 8, 2008 2:59 PM EST up reply actions

You Don't Want Blanton?

Yeah, I think Abreu is a much better bet than DeJesus. Wasn't DeJesus a sticking point in a trade earlier this offseason?

Not sure why you don't think the Dodgers could use Blanton. A rotation of Penny/Lowe/Bills/Kuroda/Blanton is pretty darn impressive and a whole lot better than Schmidt/Hendrickson/Loiza or whatever other washed up pitchers they have floating around.

by DrBGiantsfan on Feb 8, 2008 3:43 PM EST up reply actions

they could use him, definitely

but he'd be the 4 or 5 in the rotation. is that worth trading two cost-controlled future major league starters (Abreu and McDonald)? doesn't seem worth it to me. but then again, i like McDonald a lot more than you do.

like i said, if you take out Abreu and switch to DeJesus, it's probably a fair trade, since neither Dewitt nor DeJesus are going to be league-average major league starters. it's just a question of: 1) how far from the majors you think McDonald is, 2) how much better or worse you think McDonald would be than Blanton, and 3) how much you value McDonald's longer, cheaper contract.

by bleedjaxblue on Feb 8, 2008 3:50 PM EST up reply actions

4/5

I guess it depends on your goals as an organization. If you want to be a serious contender for a championship, I don't think you can afford to have a #4 or #5 in your rotation. You've got to go 1,2,3,3,3 or 1,2,2,3,3. So IMO, Blanton would be a huge addition and would vault the Dodgers from playoff contender to championship contender immediately.

As for McDonald, I think he has some possibilities, but will be very fortunate to ever be as effective in the majors as has been up to now.

by DrBGiantsfan on Feb 8, 2008 7:46 PM EST up reply actions

"championship contender"

you see, if i'm a GM, i don't care at all about the difference between winning one World Series and just making the playoffs.

if i'm from a major city, the only thing i'm playing for is starting a dynasty. once you do that in a big market, you can rake in enough money where you can buy your way into these thing long-term. i've believed that since 2000, and nothing since then has made me believe it wouldn't work in a city like Los Angeles.

in the meantime, you're a goddamn idiot if you forfeit the chance to keep a dominant team together over a several year period at the chance to maybe take a championship by chance. in the long-term, it won't pay for itself; building a dynasty does. it's a shame more intelligent people can't wait for the sensible payout.

as for McDonald -- he's obviously not going to be anywhere near as effective as he's been in the minors. who is? i just think he might be a viable back-of-the-rotation pitcher by this season, and i think he could even be an above-average #3 in time. when you factor in McDonald's contract, i'm not sure how interested i'm supposed to be in trading him for a pitcher for a pitcher like Joe Blanton when the Dodgers have other reasonable #4s and #5s.

i don't think Blanton puts the Dodgers over the top in any realistic way. personally, i don't think it's worthwhile for the Dodgers. and i don't think the championship teams from the NL will have the level of pitching you suggest they will (nor would Blanton make the Dodgers close to as good as the AL's best teams). so, regardless of the deal, i certainly wouldn't push for dealing for Blanton.

by bleedjaxblue on Feb 9, 2008 3:08 AM EST up reply actions

Dynasty

First of all, trading Abreu, DeWitt and McDonald is hardly stripping away the future of the Dodgers. Those 3 are all second tier prospects in an organization with quite a few top tier ones.

Secondly, Blanton would hardly be a one year rental. I believe his contract is controlled for at least 3 years so his salary will be at well below market rates for at least that long.

Thirdly, I don't see the Dodgers as being close to locks for a playoff spot with their current pitching staff. Playoff contenders? Yes. Making the playoffs? Maybe. Adding a pitcher like Blanton would lift them into being a lock for a playoff spot in my mind.

by DrBGiantsfan on Feb 9, 2008 10:07 AM EST up reply actions

second-tier prospects

sure -- neither Abreu nor McDonald is going to be a featured player in any organization. but:

as you're pointing out yourself, players at the margins matter. if Joe Blanton can be the difference between the Dodgers being an also-ran and a playoff lock (which i'm dubious of), then certainly there's a difference between Tony Abreu -- a defensive wizard and line-drive machine -- playing second base for the Dodgers the next six years versus the Dodgers cobbling together seasons out of a bunch of different second- and third-rate second baseman who happen to be on the open market (see Kaz Matsui this year). i genuinely believe Abreu will be a top-third second baseman, and that McDonald can be an above-average #3. having those types guys on your team matters -- which is the very point you're making with Blanton.
it ALSO matters that you have players of the caliber we're discussing signed cheaply. again, see Kaz Matsui's $16.5 million contract. that's money that will be saved with Abreu (at no loss in player production) and can then be pooled up and spent on a true cornerstone free agent -- the type you suggest is the key element to a dynasty.
Blanton's signed through 2010, but he costs $4 million right now. he'll be "below market," but he's hardly free for a back-of-the-rotation pitcher.
given Blanton's peripherals (and even his performance), i don't think he's the surefire significant upgrade over Schmidt/Kuo/Loaiza/McDonald/Kershaw/Hull that you do. i'd probably take him first over those other guys (for this year alone), but i don't think the gap will necessarily be that impressive between them. if it isn't, then why make sacrifices in future years (when the team could be legitimately great) for the chance to make your marginal playoff team a tiny bit less marginal? Joe Blanton doesn't make the Dodgers "the team to beat." so why sell out now?

by bleedjaxblue on Feb 9, 2008 4:06 PM EST up reply actions