Garret Anderson? No Thanks Pt. 2
ESPN.com contributor Jonah Keri announced plans to write a book on the Rays' "Wall Street approach" to the game. The team is neither cooperating with the project nor particularly enthused.
Also hitter odds are given.
• Anderson: Somewhat of a sleeper candidate, but long relationship with manager Joe Maddon and steady production make him appealing. 8-1.
Please no. Even worse:
"I love GA. GA is wonderful," Rays Manager Joe Maddon, who won a World Series with Anderson as the Angels bench coach in 2002, said Monday at baseball’s annual winter meetings. “Actually I thought over the last two seasons … GA’s game got even stronger. When we played against him, I thought he was very crisp the last time, running well, the whole nine yards.
Los Angeles Times
Maddon's not lying, Anderson really has been better the past two seasons, observe:
| Season | wRAA |
| 2004 | 2.9 |
| 2005 | -5.6 |
| 2006 | -6.4 |
| 2007 | 6.1 |
| 2008 | -1.4 |
Yeah, no.
---
Former Ray Joel Guzman signed with the Nationals, as did Ryan Langerhans.
0 recs |
20 comments
|
Comments
I. Do. NOT. Like. Garret. Anderson.
Please keep him away.
He needs to retire anyways. Like, now.
And you just don't get it, you keep it copacetic...
by Blicks on Dec 13, 2008 10:36 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
:et's hope Joe
doesn’t do another Percy deal—signing a player with his heart rather than his head
by Raymondo on Dec 14, 2008 6:55 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
All Guzman infield in the making in Washington?
I could be wrong though
by staplemaniac on Dec 13, 2008 11:38 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
I thought their starting lineup was going to consist of 6 outfielders, Jesus Flores, Ryan Zimmerman, and the pitcher
And you just don't get it, you keep it copacetic...
by Blicks on Dec 14, 2008 12:01 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I'd love to read a book by Keri about the Rays
but I appreciate that the front office generally likes to keep things under wrap.
www.raysprospects.com
Trade for Billy Butler!
by Imperialism32 on Dec 14, 2008 1:01 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
i'll take Griffey instead
or Bonds
or Delmon
by daveh33 on Dec 14, 2008 1:13 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
Joel Guzman signed with Nationals?
Didn’t we trade one of our proven veterans for him 3 years ago? I like how we got ride of whoever (Lugo) and get Guzman to be a AAA filler and he didn’t evolve into anything and now he is gone. I do have to say that the Rays probably make the smartest moves in baseball but that one has to but on the low end of the stick for best trades ever
by Matt C on Dec 14, 2008 2:49 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
BobR says it better below.
But at the time Guzman was a pretty legitimate prospect and Lugo had turned down our extension offers.
Now, Elijah Dukes for Glenn Gibson and Andy Cannizaro for cash, those weren’t too great from the start.
by R.J. Anderson on Dec 14, 2008 10:56 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
We traded Lugo
for Guzman and Sergio Pedroza. Pedroza too has stagnated in the minors.
It was a deal that has not provided much value to the Rays, but it was not a bad deal at the time. Lugo was about to become a free agent and would have commanded a high salary as he had played well for the Rays. They had either to sign him, trade him or simply lose him, so they were up against a wall and the Dodger deal was probably the best available.
It was unusual for the Rays in that they ordinarily dealt for players with skills, not just tools, and Guzman was all tools. At the time he was highly regarded, a top prospect, but very raw and with some attitude questions. Typically, however, the Rays acquired an extra player in the deal, and in this case Pedroza was valued for his plate discipline and evidence of power.
You are right that it has ended up a non-descript trade for the Rays, but they did not acquire Guzman to be AAA filler. This was not simply a salary dump but a legitimate effort to add a player with the potential to be a star and also to get another who might develop into a useful role player. And incidentally, Lugo has played poorly since moving on. LA allowed him to go as a free agent and Boston has been disappointed after signing him for 4 years and $36 million. He has lost his starting job there and they are trying to get rid of him but can’t.
Sometimes things don’t work out. Good idea, bad result. (cue R.J.)
by bobr on Dec 14, 2008 7:09 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
The picks might have been a better in this case.
by rglass44 on Dec 14, 2008 12:00 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
At the time Guzman was a decent prospect.
by R.J. Anderson on Dec 14, 2008 12:21 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
To some
Much like Morlan, at the time he was traded here, his actual value was already much much lower than his perceived value. At that point, it was already well-established that he was a lazy SOB who wouldn’t put in work to improve.
Vogt early, Vogt often.
by Brickhaus on Dec 14, 2008 2:26 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
He had an above league average OPS as a 21 year old in Triple-A.
Yeah it was the PCL, but above league average is still nice that young.
by R.J. Anderson on Dec 14, 2008 2:30 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
See my comment below
Las Vegas, Colorado Springs and Alberquerque are so out of whack with the rest of the league in terms of park factors that you can almost throw those stats out the window. With those three, you need to look relative to the team rather than relative to the league. Each of them has a park factor higher than pre-humidor Coors’ park factor relative to MLB.
Vogt early, Vogt often.
by Brickhaus on Dec 14, 2008 2:32 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
To clarify though
I didn’t disagree with the move then and I don’t disagree with it now. Chances are we wouldn’t have gotten much more out of a #27 pick.
Vogt early, Vogt often.
by Brickhaus on Dec 14, 2008 2:31 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
No argument that this is all hindsight driven.
Here’s the picks the Dodgers got. There were some good players taken around there, but who knows what we would have gotten.
by rglass44 on Dec 15, 2008 2:10 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Again, to be specific.
At the time the Rays acquired him, this is what Guzman had done over the past 3 years:
As a 19 year old at high A in Vero Beach, in a pitchers league, he got 329 ABs and hit 14 home runs and 22 doubles. His line was .307/.349/.550. He was moved to AA (Jacksonville), another pitcher’s league I think, and in 182 ABs hit another 9 home runs and 11 doubles with a line of .280/.325/.522.
At 20, in AA, he got 442 ABs and had 16 home runs with 31 doubles and a line of .287/.351/.475.
At 21, in AAA, now a hitter’s league, he got 317 ABs and hit 11 home runs, 15 doubles and had a line of .297/.353/.461
That is when the Rays acquired him. I suppose you might see some relative decline as he moved to Las Vegas, but the numbers, especially for such a young player, were still promising. I don’t think it clear that the picks would have been equivalent or better, as he had already produced 3 solid seasons in pro ball and had lots of projection. Even his plate discipline, while not particularly good, was not awful and had shown improvement at AA, while his Ks, a bit high, were not alarmingly so.
And we also should keep in mind that Pedroza was in the package. Drafted from college (3rd round), he got a late start and at 22 had been a bit old for the Sally League. Still, in 317 ABs he had 21 HRs, 24 doubles and a line of .281/.437/.562. In 99 more ABs at high A that year, he hit .313/.447/.545. Again, receiving two prospects like Guzman and Pedroza seems to me a decent return for Lugo as opposed to draft picks.
And incidentally, the next year at Vero Beach, Pedroza seemed to be fulfilling his promise with a line of .286/.368/.539 and 22 home runs with 27 doubles. Again, at 23 he was old, and did not seem to have a position (the catcher experiment flopped), but appeared a promising hitter. I followed him a bit; he was very streaky all year. When I went to Vero Beach, one thing was certain. He hit the ball very hard. Unfortunately, in AA this year he went backwards.
by bobr on Dec 14, 2008 12:55 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
When looking at his AAA numbers
keep in mind that Antonio Perez out-OPSed him by lamost .200 points, and that his OPS was the second lowest on the team out of position players. Las Vegas is a hitter’s heaven, and a .750 OPS there might as well be a .650 OPS in Durham.
Vogt early, Vogt often.
by Brickhaus on Dec 14, 2008 2:29 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I agree that his AAA numbers are somewhat misleading
and also that there were questions about his makeup. As I remember, he had a brief callup to the Dodgers and then sulked when he was not on the major league roster the next year.
On the other hand, as a 19 and 20 year old, he had terrific numbers at levels for which he had been very young, and to get turned off because a 21 year old acts immaturely is probably overreacting. He had not been particularly impressive at Las Vegas, but as you say above, he was probably still worth more than any pick the Rays would have gotten.
And I still think we should not forget that Pedroza was part of the deal and should be considered part of the value received. Again, certainly not a hot prospect, but as a throw-in, not a bad acquisition at the time. Beefing up the depth of the minors, especially for a team in the position the Rays were at that time, is a good thing, particularly if the cost is a 30 year old shortstop who is getting very expensive and for whom you have a pretty hot prospect on the way presumably within 3 years.
Ultimately the point remains that the Rays made a good decision to deal Lugo and get back a high ceiling if flawed prospect plus an organizational filler with 2 skills the team prized.
by bobr on Dec 14, 2008 2:45 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

by 

















