Discussion point: Bedard or Burnett?

by PhillyFriar on Jul 10, 2008 4:35 PM EDT

I've been toying with this in my head for a few days, and obviously this is just pure speculation, but I wanted to see what everyone else thought. The Phils' interest in Bedard has been documented at MLBTR, and the Burnett thing was a Toronto newspaper article that MLBTR linked to today as well.

I've been a firm believer that the Phils need to add not just an innings eater, but a top-flight starting pitcher, so I made this a choice between what I see as the two real quality arms left on the market (note: I'm not counting Oswalt because I don't think he's available, and even if he was, his contract is massive). And I'd really prefer the Phils not to trade for a Randy Wolf or Paul Byrd type.

Again, it's pure speculation, but if these were your options...

#1 -- Send Carlos Carrasco, Greg Golson, and Justin de Fratus to the Mariners for Erik Bedard

It's a decent-sized package, and it hurts to give up Carrasco, but you've got Bedard under control through the end of next year. You're probably selling high on Golson, and de Fratus is a young projectable arm that offsets the M's loss of Chris Tillman in the original Bedard deal.

#2 -- Send Greg Golson and Jason Donald to the Blue Jays for A.J. Burnett

Burnett is maybe less of a sure thing than Bedard, and he also has the chance to opt out of his deal at the end of the year. According to Toronto's Globe and Mail, however, the Phils would hope to convince Burnett not to opt out (since Philly isn't that far from his Baltimore home), which would keep him around through 2010 at $12 million per.

So it's Bedard for 1.5 years or Burnett for 0.5 (but potentially 2.5) years... which would you prefer?

Poll

Between the given scenarios, which deal would you prefer to make?

Erik Bedard

48 votes

A.J. Burnett

86 votes

134 votes | Poll has closed

Tweet Comment 21 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Boy, I’m not sure I’d do either of those deals. But I picked the Bedard one, just because I like him better than Burnett.

Carrasco is probably less than a year away, and he projects to be no worse than a #4, maybe a #2. At minimum salary for awhile, he’ll be desperately needed. Golson remains an enigma, but if he gets the walk rate up to where it was in April/May, he could be a star. Also at minimum salary.

The guys I wouldn’t want to part with, in order: Marson, Carrasco, Cardenas, Brown. Next tier: Golson, D’Arnaud, Savery, Garcia, Naylor, Donald, Outman.

Probably my best semi-realistic scenario is something like Golson, Happ, Garcia and Harman for Bedard. For Burnett, I wouldn’t be willing to go much father than Donald, Castro, and someone like Harman or Overholt.

by dajafi on Jul 10, 2008 5:43 PM EDT reply actions

I think I’m willing to throw Golson into both deals because I don’t see him as more than a .260 hitter with terrible plate discipline at the major league level. Just my opinion, but I’d seize the opportunity to sell high on him.

Your reluctance to deal Carrasco - which I share - is what draws me to the Burnett scenario. You’ve probably seen this, but commenter Jim on Phuture Phillies said that the Blue Jays will want Michael Taylor as part of any potential deal. As I said, I think Golson + Donald + Taylor would be too much to give up, though I don’t know if Golson + Taylor would be enough. I voted for the Burnett scenario in the poll (I’m allowed do to that, right? Ha.).

For what it’s worth, I’m pretty much in lockstep with you on the above list (though I’d probably bump Golson down to below Donald).

by PhillyFriar on Jul 10, 2008 6:24 PM EDT up reply actions

Almost definitely the Bedard deal. Besides the fact that Bedard is simply better, I don’t see how Burnett has enough value to get any prospects even of Donald’s quality. He’s pitching terribly this year, he has a long injury history, and his contract isn’t at all favorable. Even if he agreed to forgo opting out regardless of his results in the second half of the season, given his control problems and injuries, it’d be a risk. I’d prefer A.J. Burnett to standing pat (or getting a Paul Byrd), but Bedard should be top priority.

Also: is anyone familiar enough with the Elias FA rankings thing that they could say for sure Burnett would be a type A, like the Blue Jays claim? He’s pitching pretty terribly this year, and has been injured a lot in the past couple years.

by bugbear on Jul 10, 2008 6:51 PM EDT reply actions

Here are the 2007 rankings, he was a ‘B’

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/baseball/al/2007-10-31-elias-rankings-complete_N.htm

Here is some general speculative information on the rankings

http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2007/10/stats-used-for-.html

I think they are rolling, three year rankings. Therefore, if he was a ‘B’ in 2007 and hasn’t been excellent this year I don’t see him being an ‘A’ at the end of the year.

by RodeoJones on Jul 11, 2008 12:13 AM EDT up reply actions

Neither. Absolutely, 100% neither.

http://crashburnalley.com/

by Crashburn Alley on Jul 11, 2008 12:02 AM EDT reply actions

I concur. And I’m not convinced of the premise that we need a starter in the first place, let alone a “top flight” starter.

by taco pal on Jul 11, 2008 10:01 AM EDT up reply actions

I respect both of your opinions, but can you humor me with your reasoning?

From my perspective, the top of this team’s rotation simply isn’t good enough to line up with any of the NL favorites - Webb/Haren/Davis, Zambrano/Harden/Dempster, Sabathia/Sheets/Bush - let alone the teams we’d potentially face if we made it to the World Series—Beckett/Dice-K/Lester, Lackey/Santana/Saunders. And while, yeah, another bat wouldn’t hurt, and everyone could use a bullpen piece, the Phils don’t really have any obvious holes other than a legit #2 starter.

Let me just ask… which rotation would you feel better with in a playoff series (and let’s assume for a minute that Myers is at least mildly effective when he returns): Hamels/Bedard/Myers/Moyer, or Hamels/Myers/Moyer/Kendrick?

by PhillyFriar on Jul 11, 2008 10:19 AM EDT up reply actions

You’re really asking the wrong question here. Obviously, anyone would prefer a rotation of A+B+C+Erik Bedard over a rotation of A+B+C-Erik Bedard. Similarly, I would “feel better” with a lineup that includes, say, Matt Holliday, than a lineup that does not include Matt Holliday. That doesn’t mean that we “need” Matt Holliday.

My lack of panic comes mainly from the fact that the Phillies have a better team ERA than all three of the NL teams you just mentioned, and that in any event, the team with better hitting is just as likely to win in a short playoff series (let alone a single game) as the team with better pitching. Obviously, if we can improve the rotation, or any other part of the team, I’m all for looking into it - no prospects are untouchable, necessarily - but I don’t believe that we are in such desperate straits that the costs of such improvement are no longer an object. In other words, I don’t believe in gutting the farm system for the sake of a marginal improvement in our chances to win one out of every four playoff games when the rotation we have now is already capable of competing.

by taco pal on Jul 11, 2008 10:49 AM EDT up reply actions

Just one more back-and-forth, if I may. If we’re looking at the first trade, I don’t think Carrasco + Golson + de Fratus for 1.5 years of Bedard is really “gutting the farm system,” since you’d still have Marson, Cardenas, Brown, Savery, etc. I’m very protective of our prospects, and to be honest, I’m only willing to give up Carrasco if it nets more than a rental player (which Bedard obviously is). That’s why I wanted Bedard over Sabathia from the beginning: I knew Sabathia would cost us at least Carrasco and/or Marson, which was simply too much to spend on a rental.

And as far as “need” goes… just as a counterpoint, our offense doesn’t need Holliday to compete with any of the playoff teams, but our rotation certainly does need another top-flight starter to compete with those teams in a playoff series. Just my opinion.

by PhillyFriar on Jul 11, 2008 11:35 AM EDT up reply actions

You’re right that it’s not really a “gutting.” I confess to using a bit of poetic license there. My gut reaction to the trade, however, is still that we’d be giving up too much. I guess this is colored in part by my general perception that Bedard just isn’t all that great. Don’t get me wrong, I know he’s good. But he’s also injury-prone and runs high pitch counts and, I think, tends to be somewhat overrated because of his ability to look spectacular in bursts.

Regarding “need,” well it’s all interrelated, isn’t it? If, hypothetically, we could add a player of Holliday’s caliber to our lineup, then maybe it would perform so much better even against top pitchers that our pitchers, pitching to the opponents’ lineups, would be able to “compete”. Unless positional limitations get in the way, improving our pitching is no greater a priority than bringing opposing pitchers down. The only relevant question with respect to any deal, whether for offense or for pitching, is: are we giving up more than we’re getting?

by taco pal on Jul 11, 2008 12:25 PM EDT up reply actions

I actually disagree with that reasoning. I think that the Phillies have a very good shot at winning the division as long as they acquire SOME sort of upgrade…but for them to have a good shot in a playoff series, that something needs to be another power pitcher. Baseball Prospectus has done studies showing that the following three are the factors which give teams a better chance in the postseason:

A power pitching staff, as measured by normalized strikeout rate.
A good closer, as measured by WXRL.
A good defense, as measured by FRAA.

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=5541

I’ve grown to have confidence in Kendrick and Moyer to keep us in games, but I don’t want them starting games 2 and 3 of the playoffs again. Plus, trading for Holliday really WOULD gut the farm system, for less of a benefit. Werth is bad against righties, but he still gets on base against them (last I checked, .350 OBP vs. RHP) and that’s adequate. Trading for Bedard now would be buying low, and could make us look real smart if he comes back strong from his DL stint.

It’s easy to have reservations about trading for anyone on the market right now…the reason why CC cost so much was because he’s the surest thing. I think Bedard is the closest we can get, and I think it’s advisable to make a move.

by bugbear on Jul 11, 2008 4:52 PM EDT up reply actions

Bedard – Kendrick/Eaton > Holliday – Werth/Jenkins

by BrandonB on Jul 11, 2008 10:20 PM EDT up reply actions

I would do the Burnett deal but I don’t know if that package is big enough. I would do Golson-Taylor-Donald though.

by RodeoJones on Jul 11, 2008 12:06 AM EDT reply actions

Thanks for the links. I think Golson-Donald is TOO MUCH for Burnett, assuming Burnett isn’t a Type A. Burnett is pitching terribly and his contract is super risky, no way I give up even Donald for him. I’d give up Golson and a random pitcher at most.

by bugbear on Jul 11, 2008 4:55 PM EDT up reply actions

The 800 lb. gorilla in the room is Burnett’s contract. He can opt out after this year or stay on for two more at $12 million per. So if he’s great, we’d lose him, if he’s terrible or gets hurt we have another Eaton on our books for two years. Something would have to be worked out there.

by RodeoJones on Jul 11, 2008 6:13 PM EDT up reply actions

yes, but what incentive does Burnett have to work anything out? It’s not a situation where the Phillies can offer to pick up an option year in return for waiving a no trade clause. There’s no reason (from a financial standpoint) for Burnett to cede the control he has over the situation. At best, we could try convincing him to lock into the two option years, but I’m not sure how readily I would sign A.J. Burnett to a 2 yr. $24 million contract if he was a free agent.

by bugbear on Jul 11, 2008 9:15 PM EDT up reply actions

I rescind my previous position. Burnett should be avoided at all costs. I’m not sold on Bedard either, he has not heart. BRING UP CARRASCO!

by RodeoJones on Jul 12, 2008 10:09 AM EDT up reply actions

No brainer here; the Bedard deal, though thats paying too much.

by Woland on Jul 11, 2008 1:58 AM EDT reply actions

If your idea of “competing” means:

A) Losing the division/wildcard by a game or two to the Mets/Brewers
B) Barely squeaking out a NL East division title (only because of the Mets early season falters) and getting swept again in the playoffs.

Then you are completely correct.

by BrandonB on Jul 11, 2008 11:41 AM EDT reply actions

Don’t the phillies have one of the best (and healthiest) pitching staffs top to bottom in the majors this year, even including myers numbers?

by jemagee on Jul 11, 2008 9:40 PM EDT reply actions

Our pitching staff is one of the best, but that’s because our bullpen has been so amazing beyond words. Our starting rotation has been bottom half of the majors…having 40% of your rotation throwing at replacement level will do that to you. The only thing keeping the rotation within the realm of mediocrity has been the health and stability, meaning we haven’t had to give starts meant for Hamels, Moyer, or Kendrick to guys like Travis Blackley or JD Durbin.

by bugbear on Jul 12, 2008 1:18 AM EDT up reply actions