A Look Back at the Trades that Helped Form the 2008 Rays

by FreeZorilla on Jul 17, 2009 11:09 AM EDT

Inspired by the Royals' misery, I decided to isolate the players on the 2008 Rays who were acquired via trade and take a look at their Fangraphs Wins Above Replacement Values, their WAR based hypothetical salary values, and their actual salaries. I then did the same for the players given up in trade.

Enjoy!

Follow the Jump

	WAR	Dollars	Salary		WAR	Dollars	Salary
JP Howell	1.5	6.8	0.4	Huff	4.2	18.9	8
Garza	2.9	13.2	0.4	McClung	0.6	2.8	0.9
Bartlett	1.8	8.1	0.4	Young	-0.3	-1.5	1.4
Gross	2.1	11	0.4	Harris	1.1	5.1	0.4
Navi	2.7	12	0.4	Hendrickson	0.5	2.3	1.5
Balfour	2.2	9.7	0.5	Hall	0.1	0.6	1.8
Kazmir	2	9.1	3.8	Wiggington	3.1	13.9	4.4
Aybar	1.4	6.3	0.4	Gathright	0.3	1.4	0.4
Edwin	1.4	6.1	0.4	Total	9.6	43.5	18.8
Zobrist	1.3	6.1	0.4
Total	19.3	88.4	7.5

Minors	2008	2009	Minors	2008	2009
Talbot	AAA	AAA	Cortez	AAA	AA
Ruggiano	AAA	AAA	Zambrano	AAA	DNP
Morlan	AA	AA	Priddle	AAA	AAA
Tiffany	A+	DNP	Ridgeway	AAA	DNP
Diaz	A	DNP	Fortuanto	AAA	DNP
Fontaine	A	A+	Butler	A+	AA
Seo	DNP	DNP

In summary, the Rays surrendered 8 players who would play in the majors in 2008 with a cumulative WAR value of 9.6. The 8 players actual 2008 salaries added up to $18.8 million. Their WAR based free agency values totaled $43.5 million.

The Rays acquired 10 players whose primary 2008 contributions were for the big league club. Their cumulative WAR value was 19.3, representing $88.4 million of Free Agency Value while only making a total of $7.5 million of real money.

Tweet Comment 154 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

I couldn't even calculate the net values. You sir, have a gift!

Follow Me on Twitter @FreeZorilla

by FreeZorilla on Jul 17, 2009 11:19 AM EDT up reply actions

unless I was missing sarcasm...

isn’t it just total dolars earned in value (88.4 for players gotten) – 7.5 actual salary to get the 80.9? and then same process for the players given away? Well, I shouldnt be asking, I know that, but did I miss something beyond that?

by Navi's_Navy on Jul 17, 2009 12:29 PM EDT up reply actions

yea it was sarcasm, sorry

Follow Me on Twitter @FreeZorilla

by FreeZorilla on Jul 17, 2009 12:33 PM EDT up reply actions

Do you post at OS?

I’ve seen you around (but no, I’m not the creepy guy behind SRQ)

www.bucem.com - SBNation's source for all things Buccaneer

by Buc Wild on Jul 17, 2009 12:34 PM EDT up reply actions

Friedman'd.

by R.J. Anderson on Jul 17, 2009 11:19 AM EDT reply actions

Nice

Over 3:1 on their nets. Tough to doubt the FO when you see this kind of return.

www.bucem.com - SBNation's source for all things Buccaneer

by Buc Wild on Jul 17, 2009 11:26 AM EDT reply actions

Also

way to work in the Zo picture. I expect nothing less from you.

www.bucem.com - SBNation's source for all things Buccaneer

by Buc Wild on Jul 17, 2009 11:27 AM EDT up reply actions

Oh, he's in there? I just noticed Bartlett

Follow Me on Twitter @FreeZorilla

by FreeZorilla on Jul 17, 2009 11:28 AM EDT up reply actions

Right

make sure you zip up your pants and clean up from posting that picture

www.bucem.com - SBNation's source for all things Buccaneer

by Buc Wild on Jul 17, 2009 11:30 AM EDT up reply actions

I was a huge fan of Tiffany

Too bad what happened to him

by Raymondo on Jul 17, 2009 11:27 AM EDT reply actions

Referencing the publicity aspect from yesterday...

if more fans got this kind of analysis, trading Crawford would be seen as a potential net gain, the team wouldn’t need to worry about PR hits, and they team could be even better.

Beyond the Boxscore Not a member? Sign up.

by Sky Kalkman on Jul 17, 2009 11:28 AM EDT reply actions 1 recs

Maybe the FO should give DRB some free advertising around the Trop? Win/Win

Follow Me on Twitter @FreeZorilla

by FreeZorilla on Jul 17, 2009 11:29 AM EDT up reply actions

That would be great for DRB

going from an audience of dozens to slightly more dozens!

www.bucem.com - SBNation's source for all things Buccaneer

by Buc Wild on Jul 17, 2009 11:31 AM EDT up reply actions

Until we are dicks to them and they get scared off.

by rglass44 on Jul 17, 2009 11:32 AM EDT up reply actions

Exactly..

The trouble with trying to make the site mainstream is that it isn’t very kind to outsiders with a differing point of view. Somehow Raymondo has withstood the badgering…

by tallyray on Jul 17, 2009 11:41 AM EDT up reply actions

At times, I agree, but when there is well thought out points with some sort of proof people can agree to disagree.

Follow Me on Twitter @FreeZorilla

by FreeZorilla on Jul 17, 2009 11:44 AM EDT up reply actions

I think DRays Bay willingly accepts dissenters, so long as they're willinging to state their points in depth.

It’s the vague comments that irritate the key pounding masses around here.

by Suttree on Jul 17, 2009 11:46 AM EDT up reply actions

And the opposing side isn't the most willing to listen...

And that’s the problem. Generally the stat types just laugh and mock and the old school types are stubborn and refuse to listen.

I guess it is baby steps. OBP and OPS are finally starting to go mainstream. So anything that is created now should be accepted in three or four decades.

by tallyray on Jul 17, 2009 11:48 AM EDT up reply actions

but why should we listen to them when we're wrong?

by Navi's_Navy on Jul 17, 2009 12:32 PM EDT up reply actions

Listen to who?

by tallyray on Jul 17, 2009 12:36 PM EDT up reply actions

"and the opposing side (us) isn't the most willing to listen"

by Navi's_Navy on Jul 17, 2009 12:38 PM EDT up reply actions

I believe Sky had a really good post on finding common ground between both sides.

He was 100% correct.

Jeter Sucks.

by PriceMultiCyYoungs on Jul 17, 2009 12:40 PM EDT up reply actions

Sky is one of the most patient people I know.

No matter how pointless the case seems, he still tries working with them.

I don’t have that patience. See: FG comment section.

by R.J. Anderson on Jul 17, 2009 12:53 PM EDT up reply actions

Shut up.

Beyond the Boxscore Not a member? Sign up.

by Sky Kalkman on Jul 17, 2009 1:53 PM EDT up reply actions

listen to "them" sorry, I was just redundant for no reason.

them being casual fans who care about things like heart and david eckstein’s grittiness quotient

by Navi's_Navy on Jul 17, 2009 12:38 PM EDT up reply actions

Raymondo has beefed up his arguments

So has matthan for that matter.

I can't wait until we trade him for a reliever.

by kericr on Jul 17, 2009 11:49 AM EDT up reply actions

Matthan is a lot better than he was ~a year ago.

I thought he was a troll then. He’s became a pretty good user.

by R.J. Anderson on Jul 17, 2009 11:50 AM EDT up reply actions

So when are you going to make him a featured writer?

I can't wait until we trade him for a reliever.

by kericr on Jul 17, 2009 11:52 AM EDT up reply actions

Never of course

by matthan on Jul 17, 2009 2:12 PM EDT up reply actions

You know it's a conspiracy theory in the power clique uniquely designed to keep differentiating opinions away from YOU, the everyday shlep.

I can't wait until we trade him for a reliever.

by kericr on Jul 17, 2009 3:24 PM EDT up reply actions

WAR IS PEACE

by Suttree on Jul 17, 2009 3:26 PM EDT up reply actions

I really wouldn't mind seeing him get featured.

I know I’m not going to agree with everything he says, but at least I get the sense that I’m not going to feel stupider by reading what he’s done.

I can't wait until we trade him for a reliever.

by kericr on Jul 17, 2009 3:28 PM EDT up reply actions

I don't see why not either.

If anyone can take the time to come up with an interesting view point, wade through the statistics, and do it in a sound, intelligent manner, they should be featured, especially when they’re doing it with consistency.

Now, if there’s a trend that these elaborate posts are poorly conceptualized and assembled, then fuck the person that’s wasting the time. I don’t think this is usually the case with matthan.

by Suttree on Jul 17, 2009 3:38 PM EDT up reply actions

You can't compare matthan to Raymondo

matthan is probably more thorough in his work than anyone. Maybe a bit abrasive sometimes, but he backs up his opinions. I don’t always agree, but they aren’t just inflammatory comments.

Follow Me on Twitter @FreeZorilla

by FreeZorilla on Jul 17, 2009 12:09 PM EDT up reply actions

He uses terrible data, though, more often than not.

by rglass44 on Jul 17, 2009 12:15 PM EDT up reply actions

Hickey'd.

by Suttree on Jul 17, 2009 12:16 PM EDT up reply actions

I'm not sure I agree

Follow Me on Twitter @FreeZorilla

by FreeZorilla on Jul 17, 2009 12:18 PM EDT up reply actions

Doing correlation analysis on things with about 13 different variables is using terrible data.

by rglass44 on Jul 17, 2009 12:19 PM EDT up reply actions

thats one piece

and he asked for criticism and community involvement, there is nothing wrong with that

Follow Me on Twitter @FreeZorilla

by FreeZorilla on Jul 17, 2009 12:21 PM EDT up reply actions

True.

I stopped reading them after that. I guess I should just shut my yapper.

by rglass44 on Jul 17, 2009 12:22 PM EDT up reply actions

Why?

Even if you don’t think they’re good data, it’s better than fanposts that ramble on without a point. You should suggest things about the data so he can improve anyways.

by R.J. Anderson on Jul 17, 2009 12:51 PM EDT up reply actions

Meh

I would rather just make dick and fart jokes.

I just got tired of the Hickey arguments. You should know how lazy I am based on my experience as a writer here.

by rglass44 on Jul 17, 2009 1:04 PM EDT up reply actions

you = me?

by Suttree on Jul 17, 2009 1:17 PM EDT up reply actions

If we're lucky.

by rglass44 on Jul 17, 2009 1:20 PM EDT up reply actions

I understand you are a fan of Hickey. I also understand that no amount of data will change your mind. Fair enough. You are welcome to your opinion. Pigs can fly and there is a spaghetti monster too.

My main problem with Hickey supporters is the bulk of them are unwilling to look at data or attempt to do any research. They simple say “Hickey is great!” Or “Pitching coaches do not matter” without any research.

It is by far the laziest type of analysis, if you can even call it analysis, out there.

If Hickey is a great pitching coach or pitching coaches are irrelevant then go ahead and prove it. I’m all ears.

I’m okay with someone not caring about Hickey so the whole discussion to them is pointless. However the people backing him up need to show something other than fantasy and dreams once in awhile. Digging a trench over an opinion that is built upon virtually nothing is pretty comical if you ask me.

by matthan on Jul 17, 2009 1:35 PM EDT up reply actions

I'm firmly in the "don't care" camp.

I just think that the analysis you did is too founded in SSS and translation issues. I do appreciate the effort you put into the task, and I would likely not do the same. My feeling is just that if pitching coaches were that important there might have been some success in Baltimore under the great Leo Mazzone.

Sorry for attacking your analysis without doing due dilligence.

by rglass44 on Jul 17, 2009 1:41 PM EDT up reply actions

Fair enough

But how do you know there wasn’t improvement under Mazzone? You can’t expect a coach or a manager to turn water into wine. The question can only be what he does with the talent that he does have.

by matthan on Jul 17, 2009 1:57 PM EDT up reply actions

This is where I agree

If you come in, not having any bias, and look at matthan’s case and look at the pro-Hickey argument or lackthereof, matthan wins easily. His point was always, if the pro-Hickey crowds agrument is pitching coaches don’t matter, then what is the opportunity cost of switching.

Follow Me on Twitter @FreeZorilla

by FreeZorilla on Jul 17, 2009 2:23 PM EDT up reply actions

Money

Possibly relationships with players/other coaches?

by rglass44 on Jul 17, 2009 2:28 PM EDT up reply actions

The other argument is so many other factors are going into pitching performances that trying to isolate a pitching coach's performance in all that noise is worthless and likely inaccurate.

Which is fine. The initial post was very interesting. I think the follow up just felt like matthan WAS trying to make a case for firing Hickey, without really have a strong conclusion either way. Of course, perception is often different from reality, so whether it was his intention or not, that’s the reaction it generated.

Uh, from me, mostly.

by Suttree on Jul 17, 2009 2:28 PM EDT up reply actions

That was my feeling as well.

by rglass44 on Jul 17, 2009 2:30 PM EDT up reply actions

I’m trying to learn the best way to post the sort of data I like to look at. The problem is there simply is tons of data, and quite a few good ways to look at it. A couple times; esp with the Hickey posts, I split them up merely for essentially cosmetic purposes. There was definitely a natural break, but obviously the topic was the same. I just felt it was better to have 2 pretty long posts rather than 1 enormous post that could fit in an academic journal.

Kind of going along with that thought I struggle to determine what exactly to put in my posts. I go back and forth whether I should post my findings and my thought process in such a way that I would in a journal or if I should just post the findings and a couple pretty graphs.

I know some posters, such as FreeZorilla, want to see the work and the thought process. This is good for me as I do want someone to critique the actual work. Some other posters just want the final result and the pretty graph.

by matthan on Jul 17, 2009 3:30 PM EDT up reply actions

Word.

In general, I’m all for the stuff you do, and if I had more time (well, I mean, I’m on here all the time, but just for trolling purposes), I’d probably give you better feedback on your other posts.

It was just that particular post, in combination with some comments you’d made in some of the GDTs and other threads, that struck me as asinine.

Other than that, even when I disagree with you, I like seeing the thoughts behind the process.

by Suttree on Jul 17, 2009 3:34 PM EDT up reply actions

You hit the nail on the head regarding opportunity cost of switching

by matthan on Jul 17, 2009 3:34 PM EDT up reply actions

Rick Peterson, now.

by Suttree on Jul 17, 2009 3:36 PM EDT up reply actions

I'm not sure there is an opportunity cost, just financial.

They just signed him to a contract this past off season. Strangely, I can’t find out where in the press this was reported, but considering they signed him to a one-year deal the year before because of his DUI arrest, they likely gave him something longer than a year this year, so they’d have to buy it out.

So is the difference between buying out the remainder of his deal and setting up a new contract with someone else going to be worth what the new pitching coach brings?

I can't wait until we trade him for a reliever.

by kericr on Jul 17, 2009 3:50 PM EDT up reply actions

I've only once used multiple regression on this site

That was my last fanpost. And I also didn’t pretend to say it was rock solid. I simply posted the beginning of my findings. I collected all the data and found the relationship that had the highest adjusted r-squared that passed the f-test. If I remember a few of the variables were thrown out, but yeah there were still quite a few still in there.

Besides it just being my last article, why exactly would using quite a few variables, esp when there is minimal overlap, be a bad thing? Especially when it produces the highest adjusted r-squared?

by matthan on Jul 17, 2009 1:55 PM EDT up reply actions

I prefer that.

The problem is the things that can’t be measured (or haven’t attempted to be).

by rglass44 on Jul 17, 2009 2:03 PM EDT up reply actions

The only way to measure something is to in fact measure them

Somebody has to take the leap and attempt to find a relationship with the data.

Although I do think you seem to be thinking more about the work on Hickey rather than the work on expected strikeout rates based upon pitch results/plate discipline. Although with Hickey I didn’t run any regressions or do anything correlation related. I just looked to see if a variable significantly changed from one year to the next. I looked at a lot of variables indepedently, but never together.

by matthan on Jul 17, 2009 2:11 PM EDT up reply actions

Besides I don't expect to get peer reviewed here

Suggestions are always great. There are tons of smart people so the collective mind may get close to a peer review. I doubt we have many folks here with a phd in statistics or mathematics or anything close to the sort. I know a fair amount with my background, but I’d certainly need someone with a lot more experience in advanced statistics to cross all the t’s and dot all the i’s.

by matthan on Jul 17, 2009 2:16 PM EDT up reply actions

Defs

I mean most of my knowledge is stuff from a BA in Econ. and stat classes I took in HS. I’m no statistician by any means. That is one problem I have with a lot of baseball studies, though, they are hastily done (I’m as bad as anyone else) and lack good, solid research. It’s just too hard unless you have tons of time/talent.

by rglass44 on Jul 17, 2009 2:18 PM EDT up reply actions

HS should be college there.

My HS stat class was a joke.

by rglass44 on Jul 17, 2009 2:19 PM EDT up reply actions

That is actually my main problem with blog

Almost all of the stories and articles are interesting, but very few are truly sound statistically. It isn’t usually their fault given the sample size. But in reality saying a players wOBA went up year over year is pretty meaningless in a vacuum. Interesting information though.

by matthan on Jul 17, 2009 2:23 PM EDT up reply actions

Nah I didn't check the other one out.

I think it was posted late last week or something, and I had a crazy weekend. I didn’t invest the time in it. I’ll check it out now.

by rglass44 on Jul 17, 2009 2:16 PM EDT up reply actions

If using a lot of variables rubs you the wrong way that piece certainly did

Although I’m finishing it up using just; out of zone swinging strikes, in zone swinging strikes, called strikes, out of zone fouls, in zone fouls, and out of zone in play and in zone in play.

That is still 7, but all are significant resulting in an adj r-squared north of 91%.

by matthan on Jul 17, 2009 2:19 PM EDT up reply actions

I liek lots of variables.

The problem is when there are variables NOT ADDRESSED. That was how I felt the Hickey ones were. From those, I just assumed all your other posts were trying to discredit Hickey. No doubt a poor assumption on my part.

by rglass44 on Jul 17, 2009 2:20 PM EDT up reply actions

Yeah I was looking at trying to find the best way to predict K rates based upon pitch results

It stemmed from RJs post that Price was throwing too few balls to walk that many people. I figured the relationship was far more dynamic than that. Of course its a starting point though.

by matthan on Jul 17, 2009 2:24 PM EDT up reply actions

Just read through it.

Rec’d

Wish I had been around to discuss it more. I look forward to the second part. Probablyw ould still be on the front page if it weren’t for my boy bg4.

by rglass44 on Jul 17, 2009 2:29 PM EDT up reply actions

This is not true

by RaysTheRoof on Jul 17, 2009 12:42 PM EDT up reply actions

My fav troll was rays4242 or whatever his name was.

He would never stop, ever. Andhespel t licke tihs.

Jeter Sucks.

by PriceMultiCyYoungs on Jul 17, 2009 12:16 PM EDT up reply actions

Longo4prez was pretty good, too.

by rglass44 on Jul 17, 2009 12:17 PM EDT up reply actions

I can't imagine anyone worse than Connor Manning.

by Suttree on Jul 17, 2009 12:19 PM EDT up reply actions

He was LittleBoPeep too, right?

Jeter Sucks.

by PriceMultiCyYoungs on Jul 17, 2009 12:19 PM EDT up reply actions

I believe so.

by Suttree on Jul 17, 2009 12:21 PM EDT up reply actions

No

I can't wait until we trade him for a reliever.

by kericr on Jul 17, 2009 12:43 PM EDT up reply actions

Seriously

Read this.

I can't wait until we trade him for a reliever.

by kericr on Jul 17, 2009 12:44 PM EDT up reply actions

NO NEED TO GET SNIPPY

by Suttree on Jul 17, 2009 12:45 PM EDT up reply actions

This is why I don't do computer support anymore.

This really does aggravate me; despite the fact that you probably have little idea what it means.

I can't wait until we trade him for a reliever.

by kericr on Jul 17, 2009 12:48 PM EDT up reply actions

I work for a web company.

I was just under the impression that Connor Manning and LittleBoPeep were the same person. I don’t recall the different IP addresses and what not.

by Suttree on Jul 17, 2009 1:18 PM EDT up reply actions

My roommate made a sweet username at our house.

It got attached to me and RJ tried to ekill me. The name? RJ Lamerson…

by rglass44 on Jul 17, 2009 1:21 PM EDT up reply actions

Oh, your "roommate?"

by Suttree on Jul 17, 2009 1:23 PM EDT up reply actions

"Boyfriend" is too strong a term.

by rglass44 on Jul 17, 2009 1:25 PM EDT up reply actions

I was going to say Mother, but that works.

by Suttree on Jul 17, 2009 1:25 PM EDT up reply actions

Nah I moved out of grandma's house a few months ago.

Hence posting this year has gone down.

by rglass44 on Jul 17, 2009 1:26 PM EDT up reply actions

I wondered why he didn't post. I thought that was fantastic.

I can't wait until we trade him for a reliever.

by kericr on Jul 17, 2009 1:25 PM EDT up reply actions

He's a Sawx fan...

he’d just troll and talk about his love for that pipsqueak Donkey Puncher…

by rglass44 on Jul 17, 2009 1:26 PM EDT up reply actions

Oh, well that's dumb then.

If he just trolled RJ though, that would be great.

I can't wait until we trade him for a reliever.

by kericr on Jul 17, 2009 1:31 PM EDT up reply actions

Yes, yes it would.

by rglass44 on Jul 17, 2009 1:33 PM EDT up reply actions

His emails are better than any comment he posted.

by R.J. Anderson on Jul 17, 2009 12:50 PM EDT up reply actions

Take out the inflammatory comments, and Raymondo comes up with better opinions then your average troll.

AND he’s willing to do a little bit of research to back up his points. He’s not here for the sole purpose of being an ass.

And I’m not really comparing Raymondo to Matthan, they’ve both beefed up their arguments, but Matthan is on a completely different plane.

I can't wait until we trade him for a reliever.

by kericr on Jul 17, 2009 12:42 PM EDT up reply actions

It's usually not Raymondo's arguments.

He’s not stupid.

It’s the constant repetitive negativity that is slightly irritating and his timing is impeccable.

by RATW on Jul 17, 2009 12:57 PM EDT up reply actions

I'm guessing most of the public thinks Friedman got lucky.

They hated him and SIlverman from the get-go because they’re “Wall Street boys”. If you tell everyone they use numbers in their analysis, all the old timers get even more mad. “OH HE’S BILLY BEAN NOW?”

There’s really no win for the Rays to win when it comes to Friedman’s rep.

by R.J. Anderson on Jul 17, 2009 11:31 AM EDT up reply actions

It doesn't help when the national media focused on Chuck LaMar at the god damn world series instead of Andrew Friedman.

by Suttree on Jul 17, 2009 11:32 AM EDT up reply actions

What would it take to turn the perception around of Friedman?

I’d think the Garza/Barty trade, the WS run, and (though he didnt have much say), Price/Longo should have people lining up to wipe his ass based on the previous yeasr where if we sniffed .500 ball in June we jizzed our pants

www.bucem.com - SBNation's source for all things Buccaneer

by Buc Wild on Jul 17, 2009 11:54 AM EDT up reply actions

There are very, very stupid people in this world.

by Suttree on Jul 17, 2009 11:57 AM EDT up reply actions

Sure there are

I just don’t udnerstand the issue with being “numbers guys”, especially when it produces results. If these guys consulted a talking llama before they made their moves and it worked I don’t get why other teams wouldnt try the same approach and why the public wouldn’t get behind that.

As a fan (one of those idiots), why do they care what the processes are when the results are good? They sure weren’t pissed when Lamar and every other joker were flipping players for the heck of it, but because the FO does research and uses numbers they freak out?

www.bucem.com - SBNation's source for all things Buccaneer

by Buc Wild on Jul 17, 2009 11:59 AM EDT up reply actions

Talking llamas know that humans play the game.

by R.J. Anderson on Jul 17, 2009 12:13 PM EDT up reply actions

I take my calculator with me when I'm at the game.

Honestly, it’s people like Buzz Bissinger and other sports writers that hold back this shit. People will accept wOBA if it’s mentioned as often as batting average.

by Suttree on Jul 17, 2009 12:14 PM EDT up reply actions

People turning off their radios

Follow Me on Twitter @FreeZorilla

by FreeZorilla on Jul 17, 2009 12:10 PM EDT up reply actions

We had the WS run, and the media covering it didn't mention Friedman.

It took Chuck LaMar, in ALCS G7, to mention Andrew Friedman’s name.

by R.J. Anderson on Jul 17, 2009 12:12 PM EDT up reply actions

Too bad mainstream sports reporters are lazy.

They’d rather write the same canned stories about changes of approach, BS conjecture, etc. then do some actual research into things that matter. The smaller the budgets get, the worse the content gets.

by rglass44 on Jul 17, 2009 11:34 AM EDT up reply actions

I don't know if mainstream reports are lazy

or just writing to their idiot, clinically retarded audiences.

www.bucem.com - SBNation's source for all things Buccaneer

by Buc Wild on Jul 17, 2009 11:57 AM EDT up reply actions

The Times has improved their willingness to use statistics, and that comes directly on down from the sports editor.

Their articles are much, much, more improved without sacrificing any of their style.

by Suttree on Jul 17, 2009 12:01 PM EDT up reply actions

But is that even their audience anymore?

It’s a mindset. If the writers really tried to be progressive then I imagine their fanbase would inch forward as well. The problem is the reporters continue to hammer these archaic thoughts into the reader’s head as opinions disguised as fact.

The other thing is the fall of the newspaper industry and where people get their news. Most stat-oriented baseball fans get their news online and anything written in the paper would still be inferior. I know the Tribune has been focusing a lot more on prep coverage lately since that’s what people are interested in.

by tallyray on Jul 17, 2009 12:06 PM EDT up reply actions

Maybe, as Rglass says there is a difference between the casual fan and the serious fan

Ratings are generated by catering to the causal fan (larger base).

Follow Me on Twitter @FreeZorilla

by FreeZorilla on Jul 17, 2009 12:17 PM EDT up reply actions

There's definately a difference

But that gap could be closed considerably if the mainstream media attempted to. There would be resistance at first, but there really isn’t any reason to not attempt it.

by tallyray on Jul 17, 2009 12:23 PM EDT up reply actions

Sure but b/c u can't mandate a shift, b/c the first to change loses the market share

which further incentivizes the others to stay the course

Follow Me on Twitter @FreeZorilla

by FreeZorilla on Jul 17, 2009 12:26 PM EDT up reply actions

I'm not sure if that's true...

But the fear is enough to prevent a change from happening.

The internet has really widened the gap between casual and die hard fans. Sports radio used to be the only place to get constant in depth local coverage and it really hasn’t changed in the past half decade. I’m not saying they should make a huge change, but at least be a little more open. It’ll just take one host to be successful like that and everyone will follow.

by tallyray on Jul 17, 2009 12:54 PM EDT up reply actions

Toby is trying

Follow Me on Twitter @FreeZorilla

by FreeZorilla on Jul 17, 2009 1:05 PM EDT up reply actions

It is their audience

sports fans are generally pretty effing stupid, short sighted, narrowminded and afraid of anything new

www.bucem.com - SBNation's source for all things Buccaneer

by Buc Wild on Jul 17, 2009 12:36 PM EDT up reply actions

Especially NFL fans...

ZINGER!

by rglass44 on Jul 17, 2009 12:37 PM EDT up reply actions

I was trying to say it, without saying it.

www.bucem.com - SBNation's source for all things Buccaneer

by Buc Wild on Jul 17, 2009 12:38 PM EDT up reply actions

Probably my biggest turn-off in the NFL is the lack of accountability.

The FO and leadership get a total pass for decisions because of the extreme, anti-player stance in the sport. I just can’t care about the No Fun League because I believe players make the sport, not Roger Goodell or Bill Bellichik.

by rglass44 on Jul 17, 2009 12:48 PM EDT up reply actions

At least their players don't do steroids.

by R.J. Anderson on Jul 17, 2009 12:54 PM EDT up reply actions

/MERRIMAN'D

LOOK AT WHAT HE DID IN JUST 12 GAMES! PRO BOWL!

I can't wait until we trade him for a reliever.

by kericr on Jul 17, 2009 12:55 PM EDT up reply actions

That is another thing that pisses me off.

Dumb football fans that call baseball boring because they don’t understand the intracies of the game are another. The commercials and replay are a big one too.

Granted every Sunday, I sit around, get high, play vid games, and watch the NFL.

by rglass44 on Jul 17, 2009 1:08 PM EDT up reply actions

DON'T YOU MEAN ROGER GREEDEL AND BILL BELLICHEAT?

I can't wait until we trade him for a reliever.

by kericr on Jul 17, 2009 12:55 PM EDT up reply actions

Hey, FreeZee, you wanna do this type of break down on Theo Epstein, or would that take a lot of effort?

by Suttree on Jul 17, 2009 11:35 AM EDT reply actions

I'm not sure its apples to apples when you don't have the budget constraints

Follow Me on Twitter @FreeZorilla

by FreeZorilla on Jul 17, 2009 11:37 AM EDT up reply actions

In terms of WAR, though, it would be easy to say this FO gets more production out of less dollars than that FO.

Obviously, the Red Sox budget allows them to do things like overpay.

by Suttree on Jul 17, 2009 11:39 AM EDT up reply actions

You are right, but the Red Sox objective is more concerned about maximizing WAR regardless of net $ while the Rays have to keep it in mind

Follow Me on Twitter @FreeZorilla

by FreeZorilla on Jul 17, 2009 11:41 AM EDT up reply actions

Basically its impossible to assess how Friedman would do with no budget constraints, and how Theo would do with them

Its like two completely different job descriptions

Follow Me on Twitter @FreeZorilla

by FreeZorilla on Jul 17, 2009 11:43 AM EDT up reply actions

Word, though, I think when looking at it solely on a trade-by-trade basis, you're eliminating some of that.

by Suttree on Jul 17, 2009 11:46 AM EDT up reply actions

May be a different thought process

but what would the comparison look like against teams with similar payrolls? Might show how well the FO has done given the constraints, and give us a comparison.

www.bucem.com - SBNation's source for all things Buccaneer

by Buc Wild on Jul 17, 2009 12:01 PM EDT up reply actions

Sort of surprising that the difference between Barty and Harris is less than a win

Obviously the difference between Garza and Young makes the trade super awesome, but at least around here everyone talks about Harris as a complete hack.

by ChiBurbRaysFan on Jul 17, 2009 11:37 AM EDT reply actions

For 2009 Bartlett is at 3.3 WAR vs Harris .7 WAR

Follow Me on Twitter @FreeZorilla

by FreeZorilla on Jul 17, 2009 11:39 AM EDT up reply actions

Harris actually had a good year defensively in 2008, which helped up his value.

Now he’s back closer to his true talent level and Barty’s playing out of his mind.

by Suttree on Jul 17, 2009 11:40 AM EDT up reply actions

Harris himself was a good pickup by Friedman

Acquired in exchange for ??? from the Reds

Harris gets trashed because of his fielding. But he became our SS by default when Zobrist bombed, playing a position he only had ~45 mostly minor league games of previous experience. He probably would have been somewhat better if they could have left him at 2B. For what it’s worth, his SS numbers have improved year-to-year.

by RATW on Jul 17, 2009 1:26 PM EDT up reply actions

Word. I think harris is a great example, much like Choate, of Friedman's ability to pick up a valuable piece for nothing.

by Suttree on Jul 17, 2009 1:26 PM EDT up reply actions

Cash!

by R.J. Anderson on Jul 17, 2009 1:39 PM EDT up reply actions

Kevin?

SOSH AUCTION to K ALS

by Sandy Kazmir on Jul 17, 2009 2:22 PM EDT up reply actions

Wasn't Wheeler acquired in the Wiggy trade?

by matthan on Jul 17, 2009 2:00 PM EDT reply actions

Yes.

by R.J. Anderson on Jul 17, 2009 2:03 PM EDT up reply actions

He is missing from the table

That really has been Friedman’s only bad trade. Most probably knew it at the time too. I never really understood that trade. I guess the argument could be he was an expendable part that we had no use for so we had to get something for him. I guess it was Hammel’d.

by matthan on Jul 17, 2009 2:07 PM EDT up reply actions

Wait, what?

How is that a bad trade?

Where does Wiggy fit into the 2008 team, other than as a bat off the bench? For all the bitching we do, Wheeler has been a valuable reliever for us, and when we traded Wiggy our bullpen was HORRENDOUS and needed help.

by Suttree on Jul 17, 2009 2:13 PM EDT up reply actions

Wheeler had an 142 ERA+ last year.

Whether all that was luck or not, the results were very good. He allowed only 16% of runners to score, third behind Howell and Glover (really?).

His peripherals aren’t there, and he may be waiting to implode, but his results were excellent last year.

by tallyray on Jul 17, 2009 2:21 PM EDT up reply actions

Also, going into 2008, he'd been been one of the most consistent relievers in the league for about 8 years.

Not at the elite level, but consistently putting up 3.5-4.0 FIPs forever. That is a more rare asset than a no defense, platoon bat.

by Suttree on Jul 17, 2009 2:31 PM EDT up reply actions

Actually that was kind of my point

In a vacuum Wiggy is a better player than Wheeler. In terms of our team Wheeler fit in better. I still do think we could have gotten a bit more for Wiggy. By a bit more I’d rather have had the Rays try to get some prospect.

Friedman has definitely shown to be exception at building a bullpen.

by matthan on Jul 17, 2009 3:21 PM EDT up reply actions

exceptional

by matthan on Jul 17, 2009 3:22 PM EDT up reply actions

Oh, you made it sound like it was a catastrophe, as though we got nothing out of it.

by Suttree on Jul 17, 2009 3:24 PM EDT up reply actions

Wheeler's WAR was .2, WAR dollars .8, salary 2.9 mill

So far in 2009 his WAR is 1.5 while Wiggy is at .4. Wiggy is making 2.5 mill this year and 3.5 next. Wheels making 3.2 this year, 3.5 next year.

Pretty much a wash deal, but we needed Wheelz more, though I hate his contract.

Follow Me on Twitter @FreeZorilla

by FreeZorilla on Jul 17, 2009 2:41 PM EDT up reply actions

In a vacuum, Wiggy is more valuable on WAR.

In terms of building a team, Wheeler has meant more, though I’d love to see him moved now.

by Suttree on Jul 17, 2009 2:43 PM EDT up reply actions

Another Reason to Smile

That same pool of players who collectively were worth 19.05 WAR in 2008 (included Wheerls) are on track to be worth 26.03 WAR this year. That includes no 09 Edwin Jackson, extemely poor play from Kaz and Navi, and extremely good play from Zo and Barty.

Follow Me on Twitter @FreeZorilla

by FreeZorilla on Jul 17, 2009 3:10 PM EDT reply actions

Even better, the guys the Rays traded have an aggregate WAR of -1.6 to date, pace -2.91

Huff -.2
McClung -.8
Delmon -1.4
Harris .7
Hendrickson .2
Hall DNP
Wiggington .1
Gathright -.2

Follow Me on Twitter @FreeZorilla

by FreeZorilla on Jul 17, 2009 3:20 PM EDT up reply actions

by tallyray on Jul 17, 2009 4:49 PM EDT up reply actions

by tallyray on Jul 17, 2009 5:06 PM EDT up reply actions

Cantu had no real position on this team.

He wasn’t going to play 3rd with Evan on the way, he wasn’t going to surplant Pena at 1st, he hated DHing, and he’s too slow or clumsy to play anywhere else.

Plus, he wasn’t at all happy, so he killed his own trade value.

I can't wait until we trade him for a reliever.

by kericr on Jul 17, 2009 5:50 PM EDT up reply actions