A. Stars & Scrubs puts your $$$$ into the top of the roster and leaves the bottom of the roster fluid.
Honda Civics lock MLB(TM) production in, up-and-down the roster.
With Stars & Scrubs, the bottom half of your roster has fungible but talented players who will either (a) fail, and be swapped out -- creating competition -- or (b) succeed, and overperform their contracts.
Stars & Scrubs chooses the John Lackey and Ryan Rowland-Smith/FIELD pairing; Honda Civics chooses two Jarrod Washburns.
Stars & Scrubs puts pressure on your eye for talent.
.
Q. How does the 4-for-1 trade relate?
A. 4-for-1's, in concept, are the key roster-manipulation mechanism in Stars & Scrubs. You give up multiple blue-chippers, but you pack huge value into your top 5 players -- and then you manufacture value behind the Scrubs who leave.
It's important always to keep in mind that all talent behind your top 25 is wasted.
Wladimir Balentien (who hit the longest HR in the majors this year, 495 feet) did not see his value reduced by 20% or 40% here. Wlad's value to the Mariners was reduced by 100%. Wladimir Balentien was "traded" away for zero.
This has to be factored in, when considering 3-for-1's. The Mariners have many prospects competing for each position in Safeco.
3-for-1's and 4-for-1's work out much better in real life than they do in a simple WAR/$ grid -- provided that you have talent in line, behind the young talent that you're trading away.
Another reason that Zduriencik wants a short, squat talent pyramid. The 1940s and 1950s Yankees were notorious for this, trading handfuls of minor leaguers for quality MLB players.
.
Q. I don't buy it.
A. But I know somebody who does. Jack Zduriencik. His name is being connected to every 3-for-1 out there.
Cyber-Seattle does love to underpay young players. That's fine, but it should keep in mind that there are more young players where those came from.
Cheap-contracts-uber-alles is never going to endorse a fair trade of underpaid players for MLB stars.
...............
Winning GM's and roto owners do trade underpaid players for stars. Jack Zduriencik does (as with Clement-and-4 for Wilson & Snell).
They aren't overwhelmed by the value that arb players offer. You've got a minor league system. There are more prospects where the last ones came from
GM's deal the other way too -- stars to get prospects -- but only if they have to (if they're in a rebuild or they hit their financial constraints in a small market). No GM wants to do that.
.
Q. What about Gonzalez?
A. Adrian Gonzalez is a player that I happen to know relatively more about than I do about most players, as was the case with (say) Lincecum and Ichiro before they hit the American League... for what that's worth...
So will probably run a series on him shortly Spec, unless you do first :- )
Gonzalez is not Joe Mauer or Albert Pujols. Gonzalez is not a Hall of Famer. But he IS under-rated, as opposed to over-rated.
.
Q. Most-comparable players?
A. If you analyze Adrian Gonzalez compared to his Bill James (b-ref) comps, such as Justin Morneau, Fred McGriff, and Jeff Bagwell, it is interesting that Gonzalez had a steeper development arc than they did.
Gonzalez' comps tended to have age-23 or age-24 seasons that were already as good as they were going to get. Gonzalez himself has followed a steady progression upward. This is the main difference between Gonzalez and, say, Fred McGriff.
Gonzalez' comps started life at the 140 OPS+ mark, stayed there until 30-32, and then declined gently. Gonzalez started at 100, moved to 120, then moved to 140, last year hit 160, and is still going up.
I'm not saying that 180 is the next number in the progression. Am just saying that there are plusses and minuses to the fact that Gonzalez used work, rather than freakish talent, to get where he is. AGon is an Edgar type, as opposed to an ARod type.
.
Q. Any other 30-second ad leaders before the POTD is posted?
A. I take it you amigos have all seen Adrian Gonzalez' age-27 2009 road splits. Don't miss the HR column.
Cheers,
Dr D
Add comment