Sheets for Crawford rumor

[splitterpfj]

Last night, I emailed Mark Healy, at gothambaseballmagazine.com, asking him about the credibility of this rumor. I wouldn't expect someone to print a rumor like that, and then tell me he had no idea if there's anything to it, but still, I liked his response.

 

Mark complimented this site, which he had not been familiar with, and told us to keep up the good work.

 

In response to my question, Mark said:

The rumor is credible, otherwise I wouldn't have printed it. Even if you were on my staff, I wouldn't give you my sources, but let's just say that they are team official type sources.

 

Since it's fun to speculate, and since I have no reason not to believe Mark, I choose to accept his word, and continue to follow this possibility.

[pogokat]

if the brewers trade sheets, is suspect they will use his theoretical salary (ie, that 4 year 60 million dollar contract thaat he could sign) and use that money to pursue another pitcher via trade or free agency..

 

so, if melvin doesn't want sheets after 2008, then he can go ahead and replace him with someone this offseason...i have no idea who...but i'm sure that if he trades sheets, he will bring in another upper echelon ish guy...even if it's just a suppan type, you can reasonably expect a suppan clone to match a sheets/whoever pitches the innigns sheets misses kind of pitcher..

 

a healthy sheets is worth more than carl crawford...a 100 innings of freee agent next year sheets is worth less than carl crawford...it's a risk, sure...but we get the more sure thing...especially if sheets is gone anyway...

[twobrewers]

Last night, I emailed Mark Healy, at gothambaseballmagazine.com, asking him about the credibility of this rumor.

And that is why this is the best baseball message board on the internet.

 

Well done!

[mothershipconnection]

Crawford is typically a first or second round fantasy pick. Sheets is about a 10th round pick, and Capuano often goes undrafted. Fantasy baseball is driven by stats. So I would think stats wise, Crawford must be doing something great. For all of you people who use stats to downgrade Crawford, I'm sure you use those same stats as part of your fantasy baseball drafting strategy, don't you?

 

There's a reason it's called "fantasy" baseball, though. SB's, Avg, runs, and RBI all count but are only useful in a vacuum. If CS doesn't subtract points, the SLG included in the Avg isn't accounted for, runs are counted at all, and RBI have real meaning, you aren't exactly painting an accurate picture of a player's worth. In some leagues, 2 SB equals a homer which equals a farce.

[colbyjack]

Crawford is such an interesting player. He's a lot like Ichiro in that I firmly believe it is difficult to judge his value like most players, in other words, via OPS. I know some people will claw tooth and nail and find all sorts of numbers to try and show why Crawford is no better than player X, but again, he is truly one of a kind.

 

The flip side of me of course wonders if the Brewers would be better off keeping the pitchers they have and signing someone like Kenny Lofton. Lofton obviously is old, but would be a stopgap to LaPorta (in theory of course), still swipes bags more effectively than few big-leaguers and he gets on base better than Crawford.

 

I keep reading that the Devil Rays are desparate for a SS. They have one coming up in their system brought up by a few named Reid Brignac, but Brignac isn't exactly known for his glove and at some point in his career, he may have to move to another position, and really, the D-Rays don't need any positional player that doesn't play SS or C.

 

Bill Hall isn't being moved from the OF, that I firmly believe Doug Melvin when he states that, and I don't think that means some other team could move him back to the infield, and even if it did, I doubt the Rays would be that team given the age/financial aspect. However, could J.J. Hardy be the centerpiece of such a deal despite the fact that he is arby eligible starting this offseason? I don't think the Rays would have any interest in Alcides Escobar, since he is on about the same timeline as Brignac, but the Brewers could be dealing from an area in strength at SS while also including a pitcher, or getting a three-way partner involved, in a deal that doesn't involve Ben Sheets.

 

I do believe the deal could easily be done if Gallardo's name was brought up, but he's far more untouchable than Ben Sheets, and would definitely prompt me to explore the Kenny Lofton's and Randy Winn's of the world.

 

I do believe the initial premise of the rumor as it was stated that if this trade were to go down, the Brewers would have to get a third team involved. I don't see the Yankees being that team, as they would be handing their top arms (who they are turning red in the face saying they aren't dealing the promising trio of Hughes-Chamberlain-Kennedy) to a division foe, even if they aren't the most intimidating of division foes. So I think it would first be important to find a team out there desparate for a starting pitcher, such as Sheets, or even Capuano, that has the young talent in areas the D-Rays are looking for.

 

I'm going to toss out the Braves, who have some history picking up bigger named starters with less than desirable contracts and/or entering contract years, and they have some depth at shortstop (Yunel Escobar, Brent Lillibridge) as well as the history of trading prospects for proven players (Tim Hudson, Mark Teixeira).

 

I'm sure we'll hear from Doug Melvin on this subject matter at some point this week, and I look forward to what he doesn't have to say http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/smile.gif.

[Robideaux]

Big Reed wrote:

 

Crawford is typically a first or second round fantasy pick. Sheets is about a 10th round pick, and Capuano often goes undrafted. Fantasy baseball is driven by stats. So I would think stats wise, Crawford must be doing something great. For all of you people who use stats to downgrade Crawford, I'm sure you use those same stats as part of your fantasy baseball drafting strategy, don't you?

No. Fantasy baseball value is not the same as real-world value. The stats fantasy baseball uses are not the ones that give the clearest picture of real-world value.

 

 

RBI and Runs are a reflection of your place in a batting order and how good the rest of your team is. If Prince Fielder was batting 4th in a lineup full of undisciplined .220 hitters, his RBI and run total would be very low because there would not be guys on base to drive in, and when he got on-base, there's be nobody to drive him in. Would he be a worse player just because the rest of his team stinks?

 

 

 

Batting average has its uses, but it value has been arbitrarily inflated by its inclusion on baseball trading cards many eons ago. A player's job when he comes to bat is not necessarily to get a hit, it's to not make an out. Hit, walk, HBP: they all matter. There's no clock in baseball except for the running count of 27 outs. The more plate appearances a player has per out, the more valuable he is. That's why Rickey Henderson and Jacque Jones have roughly the same career batting average, yet one is a hall of famer and one is a marginal starter.

 

Stolen Bases are really exciting when you are at a game, but their value is vastly overrated. Its not that they have no value, but you need to have a really high success rate just to justify the attempt.

Home runs are very valuable--no argument there.

[sbrylski]

I once heard a story in an interview about a rather prestigeous old baseball coach - but unfortunately I don't remember who it was. It went something like this:

 

This coach took over a team, and someone in the organization asked him how he was going to turn them into a winner.

 

The coach asked the man, "When does a player use his hitting ability?"

"When the team is on offense," the guy responded.

The coach says, "One point."

 

Then he asks him, "When does a player use his defensive ability?"

"When the team is in the field," says the guy.

"One point," the coach said again.

 

Finally, he asks, "When does a player use his speed?"

"Both on offense and defense."

"Two points," says the coach. "I'm going to build my team with a bunch of fast guys."

 

That team came in dead last.

 

Okay, so its only partially relevant. Crawford obviously has some offensive skills and such, there's a lot more to the analysis.

 

I just thought it was an amusing story when I heard it, and it kind of fits here.

[logan82]

We have some pretty speedy guys in Braun, Weeks, Hart and Hall.

[trwi7]

We have some pretty speedy guys in Braun, Weeks, Hart and Hall.

 

But they also have power.

[logan82]

Yes they do and with our slugging, stealing bases has less value.

[sbrylski]

Yes they do and with our slugging, stealing bases has less value.

And caught stealing hurts more.

[colbyjack]

Yes they do and with our slugging, stealing bases has less value.

 

Tell that to Rickey Henderson and the A's in the 80s and at the turn of the next decade.

 

And Crawford is so appealing in that he is one of the more efficient base-stealers out there (over 80%).

 

Yes, slugging isn't a problem on the Brewers, but they would still score a lot more runs with Crawford standing on second base as opposed to first. Meaning, its not like stolen bases, and in effect, more runners in scoring position, would be any less welcomed on the Brewers than on a team that doesn't hit so many extra bases. Play the percentages as much as you want, its a lot easier to drive in a runner from 2nd or 3rd than it is from 1st.

[MNBrew]

Colby, you bring up some good points to consider....

 

- Trading Hardy this winter would be a good example of selling high, and we know Melvin's pretty savvy about that. I'm not sure that they'd want to trade him (or have to consider moving Hall back to SS, although he's only an average-fielding IF), but that's not the point I'm raising -- it would be selling high.

 

- If they were to package Hardy & a pitcher, such as Vargas (whom I don't care for as much) or Capuano (whom I do), A) would they want to do that? and B) would that be enough to net Crawford?

 

- Or would they look to combine two different guys, such as SS-able Hall and a couple different P's such as Vargas & Turnbow who, though not great, would still elevate the talent quotient on Tampa's pitching staff? (Several assumptions go into a plan like that, of course: either Hart to CF, or keeping him in RF but also acquiring a Lofton or Winn or comparable type, resigning at least one if not both of Cordero & Linebrink or at least some comparables, etc.)

 

- There are measurable things such as OPS and other stats we like, however incomplete a picture they may represent. And there are immeasurable things, such as leadership and the "intangibles" Colby mentions (in essence) when discussing Ichiro, that matter a whole lot and really don't lend themselves to quantifying -- that "it" factor. Ichiro has it. Fielder has obvious huge power production, but he also has that "it" thing that transcends what he does with his bat that helps make him far more than just a fear-inspiring hitter.

 

- If some of the emphasis is going to be to improve the defense and the getting on base thing, wouldn't Bill Hall be a logical person to use as a tradeable commodity this winter? I'm not saying he's a bad player, not at all. But while he's a great athlete, he's still on the underside of average defensively and he's a total windmill at times at the plate. Losing his $6M salary could also give the Crew a chance to improve other areas of need.

 

Just a couple thoughts....

[colbyjack]

For the record MN Brew, I don't think Melvin would deal Hardy, but the Rays do have a boatload of pitching quickly making its way up that maybe they would take a chance with a young, proven steady SS with some pop in his bat. And I'm not so sure Hardy's value is high, at least not as high as it could be. I do believe that he will keep getting better.

 

If they were to package Hardy & a pitcher, such as Vargas (whom I don't care for as much) or Capuano (whom I do), A) would they want to do that? and B) would that be enough to net Crawford?

 

No, I don't think so. The Rays have made it pretty clear they're looking for somewhat proven yet pre-arby pitchers. Cappy might have been that guy a year or two ago, Vargas I'm assuming has almost zero value to them, at least when trying to figure out a deal for Crawford. And keep in mind, this rumor started with the Brewers moving Sheets to a third party that would have the pitching prospects the Rays supposedly are gunning for, meaning even they reportedly wouldn't want Ben Sheets.

[sbrylski]

Yes they do and with our slugging, stealing bases has less value.

 

Tell that to Rickey Henderson and the A's in the 80s and at the turn of the next decade.

Tell that to math and logic.

 

 

And Crawford is so appealing in that he is one of the more efficient base-stealers out there (over 80%).

 

Yes, slugging isn't a problem on the Brewers, but they would still score a lot more runs with Crawford standing on second base as opposed to first. Meaning, its not like stolen bases, and in effect, more runners in scoring position, would be any less welcomed on the Brewers than on a team that doesn't hit so many extra bases. Play the percentages as much as you want, its a lot easier to drive in a runner from 2nd or 3rd than it is from 1st.

How many less runs will we generate because Crawford gets picked off trying to steal? You are right, he is rather proficient, so there is definitely a net worth. However, because in part to the five guys that will hit behind him, this net gain will be damped because he will have a good shot of scoring anyway - at least compared to an average or weak offense.

 

As many here know, RC/G takes into account how many runs a players OBP, SLG, SB, CS, ect. would generate in a neutral environment. Last season, Crawford had a 6.28, exactly the same as Luke Scott.

[colbyjack]

Tell that to math and logic.

 

Ignoring your snarky tone, I was trying to point out that the Oakland A's weren't worrying about the "risks" of Rickey Henderson stealing bases for so many incredibly proficient scoring teams (Dave Henderson, Jose Canseco, Mark McGwire, etc.) that slugged well and still had Rickey running like crazy on the basepaths. Speaking of math and logic, I noticed you chose not to quote the part of my post in which I asked what the odds were scoring a baserunner from 2nd and 3rd vs. 1st.

 

And you can throw out as many stats as you want at me and I will still stubbornly stand by the fact that some extremely rare players, such as Crawford, do things that are hard to quantify. And as much as you might want to contest that point, it really doesn't matter since my point was that it's not like a team with good slugging doesn't "need" a good basestealer any less than a team that doesn't slug so well.

 

And didn't I state above that my rational side said Kenny Lofton would be a better acquisition since he got on base more, wouldn't cost the Brewers a thing other than money and was also efficient stealing bases? I now realize I'm lacking in math and logic, but c'mon.

[MNBrew]

Yes they do and with our slugging, stealing bases has less value.

 

Tell that to Rickey Henderson and the A's in the 80s and at the turn of the next decade.

Tell that to math and logic.

Sam, I believe you've just helped prove Colby's point. Math and logic are very solid, defensible, and useful -- up to a point which, granted, is a pretty good ways down the road. But they don't always tell the whole story. And his Oakland/Henderson example proves that totally.

For a good decade or more, Rickey getting to 1B made the odds pretty good that he could get to 2nd if not 3rd without help from a teammate, which then significantly increased the odds of him scoring. Not only did he turn walks and singles into doubles and triples, he also created for opposing pitchers a HUGE distraction. For as disruptive as Scotty Po was during his rookie year, he was nothing compared to how disruptive Rickey was for more than a decade.

 

An excellent base stealer whose skill in that area is the result of blazing speed can change a game entirely in ways that stats can't measure fully. Stats can measure throws to first but not the disruption factor. Nor can they measure the mental effects. They can't measure composure or the perception of a threat.

 

Fact is, today's culture is driven by the "prove it" mentality, so much so that there's often the assumption that if a lack of empirical or statistical data is produced to support the point, that point is given no credibility at all.

 

The stats tell us a lot of valuable stuff. But they're not the ONLY way of looking at things. Sorry if I sound preachy about it. I'm all for the stats side, but only as a useful and often very informative part of the whole picture.

[sbrylski]

Ignoring your snarky tone...

 

Sorry for the tone.

 

I was trying to point out that the Oakland A's weren't worrying about the "risks" of Rickey Henderson stealing bases for so many incredibly proficient scoring teams (Dave Henderson, Jose Canseco, Mark McGwire, etc.) that slugged well and still had Rickey running like crazy on the basepaths.

 

My point was that it's not like a team with good slugging doesn't "need" a good basestealer any less than a team that doesn't slug so well.

 

Rickey Henderson stold bases at a rate above the break even point, so yes he can run all he wants, as long as he stays above that line (somewhere between 66.7% and 75%). He was an advantage, no doubt.

 

My point is that a good slugging team does lower the value of a SB, as well as increase the value of a CS - which is statistically and logically supported. Therefore, while Crawford is good enough that his baserunning will help any team, when we are determining his value to our team and his trade value to us we have to consider the environment he'll be placed in.

 

Speaking of math and logic, I noticed you chose not to quote the part of my post in which I asked what the odds were scoring a baserunner from 2nd and 3rd vs. 1st.

 

I started to, but I'm trying to write a paper right now too and didn't want to spend too much time. Still don't want to run through all the math right now, if you really want an analysis.

 

But logically, with two 1.000 OPS guys hitting right behind him, aren't the relative odds of him scoring from first pretty good?

[sbrylski]

An excellent base stealer whose skill in that area is the result of blazing speed can change a game entirely in ways that stats can't measure fully. Stats can measure throws to first but not the disruption factor. Nor can they measure the mental effects.

 

I'd argue they can, by comparing the results of a pitcher in different situations. You can fairly accurately isolate the effect of a basestealer on 1B.

 

And his Oakland/Henderson example proves that totally.

 

I'm not arguing that basestealers (at a good rate) are going to help a team score runs.

 

We obviously have a bit different opinions on the value of stealing (and caught stealing). I'm arguing no matter what your opinion on their net worth, its going to vary to an extent depending on the rest of the lineup. Our lineup isn't exactly one that will maximize the worth of a basestealer, and that should be taken into account when determining his value to us.

[brosto1]

Crawford is such an interesting player. He's a lot like Ichiro in that I firmly believe it is difficult to judge his value like most players, in other words, via OPS. I know some people will claw tooth and nail and find all sorts of numbers to try and show why Crawford is no better than player X, but again, he is truly one of a kind.

This is basically why I brought up the speed not being factored into OPS. Crawford is a mix between Rickey Henderson and Roberto Clemente. he has the speed and similar power to Henderson( only slugged more than .475 three seasons in his career, with a career .419 SLG) but does not draw as many walks. He has the on base skills similar to Clemente, high average/few walks, and very similar numbers in SLG(both were good for double digit totals of doubles, triples, and home runs), but Crawford steals a lot more bases. There is a reason why five of the ten players he is most similar to through age 25 are HOF, not to mention Tim Raines.( I know it is not an exact way to measure one's value, but it is interesting nonetheless when five of ten are HOF.) Another guy that had a pretty good career, yet never had an OPS over .838 his entire career, but added speed into his game is Marquis Grissom. I view Crawford as a much better version of Grissom. Three years of that is better than one of Sheets, IMO.

[sbrylski]

There are other stats that factor in SB and CS well. OPS is used just because its easy many people understand it.

 

RC/27 (Projections for 2008 via Bill James system)

Luke Scott - 6.77

Austin Kearns - 5.83

Carl Crawford - 5.73

Ryan Church - 5.71

 

Now, I argue Church and Kearns could improve moving out of RFK, and Scott's is probaby high because of smallish sample and one with somewhat of a platoon advantage.

[brosto1]

Funny you mention the Runs Created stat, because when you mentioned about this lineup not needing a stolen base guy because Prince and Braun will be behind him I immediately thought of how so many people were frustrated this past year about the reliance on the HR and the team's inability to create runs. I don't care what the RC states, because if it is a close game late, Carl Crawford can get a single, steal second and third if needed, and be able to score on an out by Prince or Braun instead of having to rely on an extra base hit. There are few players in baseball that can create runs and whether RC shows it or not, Carl Crawford can create a run all on his own.

 

This is insane, I have always loved math and stats, so much so that my wife and I constantly complain about how lacking people are in math skills even in executive positions where half the meetings are spent trying to explain the data and analysis presented. This debate is making me question the importance of stats.

[sbrylski]

Fair enough. I could also argue that if we place a higher emphasis on OBP in our aquisition, maybe he would have been on base earlier in the game when Prince went yard, and we wouldn't need that run now.

[brosto1]

Just looking at Crawford's increase in average every season of his career, resulting in three straight seasons over .300, I really believe he will maintain an OBP over .350 for the next three years and beyond. He just turned 26 in August and I think he has yet to reach his peak performance. It would not surprise in the least if he would slug over .500 any year now, combine that with his high average and speed and that makes a very special talent. This past season among the top ten SB leaders, Crawford had the highest SLG, higher than Sizemore, and only Sizemore and Ichiro had higher OPS. On a sidenote, looking at the top 30 it shows me what a great year Corey Hart had last year, only Soriano, Upton, and Granderson had a higher OPS than Hart's .892 while still stealing a minimum of 12 bases. About the only thing that bothers me about Crawford is his high strike out total, yet low P/PA numbers.

 

Also I just wanted to let it be known that the RC27 projections for Crawford is lower than what it was in 2007 when he was at 6.27 which was 19th among all qualifying OF, ahead of notable players like Byrnes, El Cabello, Abreu, Swisher, Francouer, and Hunter. In 2006 he had a 6.46 RC27 and he hasn't had a RC27 under 5.80 for the past four years. so to project him at 5.73 for 2008 seems a bit odd.

[JohnBriggs12]

This deal is a no-brainer. Trading a pitcher who can't be counted on to be there when he's needed who's contract runs out after next season for a premier offensive top of the order guy who's under contract for 3 more seasons?

 

The lack of walks to me is a complete non-issue. Whoever bats in front of Braun and Fielder is not going to walk much because pitchers don't want to put guys on base in front of sluggers like that. Crawford can hit his way on plenty well enough. Normally too, I wouldn't want to run with Braun or Fielder up there in fear of taking the bat out of their hands. But Crawford is a top of the line base stealer who makes it well worth the risk.

 

As for the rotation, I think Sheets last injury was the final straw and that the mindset changed to "we have to plan to win without this guy" instead of "we need this guy to win." The free agent pitching market is rather thin. Maybe they can come up with somebody, but they still have 6 guys, Bush, Vargas, Parra, Villanueva, Suppan, and Gallardo, to fill 5 spots and Gallardo pitched like an ace in a pennant race.