Elder Abuse II: Billy Beane's Revenge

by dajafi on Jul 17, 2008 8:11 PM EDT

It was previously assumed that Pat Gillick's worst possible deal was that abortion of a Bobby Abreu trade just before the 2006 deadline, when he sent not only Abreu but solid mid-rotation starter Cory Lidle to the Yankees for four non-prospects.

That deal might now have competition.

Gillick traded away top prospect Adrian Cardenas, promising pitcher Josh Outman, and power outfielder Matt Spencer to the Oakland A's for pitcher Joe Blanton, who takes a 5-12 record and ERA just under 5 into the second half of an awful season.

I can think of two reasons not to feel horrible about this deal:

It almost certainly signals the end of Adam Eaton's tenure in the Phillies rotation--and as uninspiring as I find Blanton, he's a damn sight better than Eaton.
If Gillick is making moves like this, the drop from him to Ruben "Amoron" Amaro seems a bit less precipitous.

Other than snark, I guess one could view as a positive Blanton's contract status: he won't reach free agency until after the 2010 season. And his track record is as a .500 pitcher who can deliver 200 innings per season of roughly league-average ball.

What he's clearly not, though, is a guy one can envision dominating against playoff-caliber opposition--which, for all their negatives, was something one could say of Erik Bedard or A.J. Burnett.

And what really frigging kills me is that Beane probably extracted more from the Phils than he got from the Cubs a couple weeks back for Rich Harden--who is the kind of talent that can flip a five- or seven-game series.

Poll

After a day to digest it, what do you think of the trade for Joe Blanton?

0 recs | Comment 27 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Well said, dajafi, agree with pretty much everything.

I wouldn’t feel so bad about this trade if this were last year, when we were clearly short of pitching depth and needed an innings eater (which is why trading for Lohse was a good deal). But this year’s Phils have plenty of innings eater types—what they really needed was a top of the rotation starter.

Secondly, some people had mentioned before that Blanton might be a decent option from the standpoint that the Phils would be “buying low.” Well, the veritable bounty they gave up for him negates that. Cardenas, Outman, and Spencer is a package that I would not have given up for the 2007 Blanton, let alonethe 2008 version.

Finally… does anyone else get the sense that the Phils could have had Burnett for a lesser haul of prospects? Hell, even a Carrasco/Golson/de Fratus for Bedard deal would have been preferable to this.

by PhillyFriar on Jul 17, 2008 8:22 PM EDT 0 recs

this was the worst of all worlds

They traded one of their three or four best prospects, and another one who was probably in the top 12.

The guy they got for this haul is having an awful season, and even at his best he’s not an impact guy.

And having made this deal, they’re now likely out of the running for someone better.

by dajafi on Jul 17, 2008 8:26 PM EDT up 0 recs

Oh f#$% me! This is a complete housing. I am at a loss right now.

Though I do agree it is a relief to never see Eaton starting in a Phils uniform again.

I guess the most we can hope for is a performance on par with his ‘05 or ‘07 seasons…that would be really nice.

Also, his numbers against the Mets are excellent, which could be very important down the stretch:

2 GS, 15.0 IP, 10 K, 0.00 ERA, .60 WHIP, 1 W

by FuquaManuel on Jul 17, 2008 8:30 PM EDT 0 recs

I noticed that Mets line earlier today, when I also saw that his FIP (Fielding Independent Pitching) is almost a run better than his ERA and that August is his best month historically. Maybe those two things are predictive; the Mets thing, of course, is almost certainly a fluke.

by dajafi on Jul 17, 2008 8:36 PM EDT up 0 recs

Also

On the bright side, he blogs: http://joeblanton.mlblogs.com/

by FuquaManuel on Jul 17, 2008 8:37 PM EDT up 0 recs

I sort of love that, actually. Just the name.

“Bluegrass.” Maybe that’s why Cholly wanted him?

by dajafi on Jul 17, 2008 8:44 PM EDT up 0 recs

Last week, I posted a blog, developing a method for evaluating deadline deals. So I am making the following assumptions, and I have evaluated the trade.

1) Blanton is a 2-win pitcher (approx. 4.6 ERA, 180 IP kind of guy) and will be good enough to get us 2 first-round picks in 2011 by being offered arbitration after 2010
2) Cardenas has about a 10% chance of being a 4-win player, a 10% chance of being a 3-win player, a 20% chance of being a 2-win player, a 30% chance of being a 1-win player, and a 30% chance of being replacement level or below; he won’t make the majors until after 2009
3) Outman has about a 15% chance of being a 3-win pitcher, a 15% chance of being a 2-win pitcher, a 15% chance of being a 1-win pitcher, and a 55% chance of being replacement level or below, and he will start around 2009 or 2010.
4) Specer is valueless.
5) The Phillies chance of making the playoffs if none of these guys contributed would be: 40% in 2009, 30% in 2010, 20% in 2011, 10% in 2012, 10% in 2013, 20% in 2014 and thereafter.

Being ridiculously generous to the Phillies in all of these assumptions, the Phillies still lose by making this trade in a landslide—blanton + the potential draft picks in 2011 would net us approx 0.0403 world series. cardenas himself would have added .07023 world series, and outman would net us another .0285 world series. you would expect a trade between teams in two very different situations could be mutually beneficial, but the phillies cost themselves nearly twice as much as they got in this trade!

by MattS on Jul 17, 2008 9:00 PM EDT 0 recs

Cardenas wouldn't have added any World Series at all

because he’s as thoroughly blocked as blocked can be. Now, if you’re saying he should have been used as a chip in a better trade than this, well, perhaps – but his trade value was certain to be affected by other teams’ knowledge that he was blocked.

"I am the Walrus?..... I am the Walrus." - Donny Kerabatsos

by The Navigator on Jul 18, 2008 1:34 PM EDT up 0 recs

A couple of things-
1) Chase Utley is signed through 2013 and may even be moved from 2B before then, though I doubt it.
2) I primarily meant trade value to other teams
3) The only way his trade value would be affected by how much he was blocked is if there were not a few bidders on him; otherwise the threat point in any negotation is high enough- we’ll just trade him to someone else. I think just about any other team in the league would have use for a second basemen like him. There’s only a handful of teams with true stars at second base.

by MattS on Jul 18, 2008 2:47 PM EDT up 0 recs

well from what i’ve been reading

his home road splits are depressing since the A’s play in a pitchers park

I always like reading about when the phillies add a fly ball pitcher

This year he’s pretty much the same as adam eaton

Billy Beane bent pat gillick over and after announcing his prostate was the size of a watermelon, violated him some more, with gillicks permission

by jemagee on Jul 17, 2008 9:01 PM EDT 0 recs

whoops

i should have read more…he’s not a fly ball pitcher, but the rest still seems accurate

which i could delete that part

by jemagee on Jul 17, 2008 9:44 PM EDT up 0 recs

i still count him as a flyball pitcher. he strikes out so few people that a very high percentage of at-bats lead to flyballs, even if more lead to groundballs. this guy will chuck a lot of gopherballs.

by MattS on Jul 17, 2008 9:56 PM EDT up 0 recs

I read that over on BSG later on and see your rationale…but by the average definition most people use he’s not a fly ball pitcher based on the ratio.

by jemagee on Jul 17, 2008 10:12 PM EDT up 0 recs

no, i know what you mean—you’re using the right definition. i’m arguing that there should be a change of the definiton.

as i see it, pitchers really have control over 5 general outcomes: GB, FB, HBP, BB, K. rather than separating everything into BB/9, K/9, etc., or even into GB%, it’s really misleading—hamels is not a tremendous HR-prone pitcher despite about 42% flyballs on contact—because so little contact is made! i’d like pitchers listed according to a summary of what % of at-bats yield the 5 general outcomes that pitchers regularly effect.. that would be the most effective way to summarize them.

by MattS on Jul 17, 2008 10:16 PM EDT up 0 recs

THat’s a pretty intriguing idea…be interested to see more, i have no idea how to go about doing it myself

by jemagee on Jul 17, 2008 10:22 PM EDT up 0 recs

This is really confusing ...

anyone wondering what the price for the other “trade targets” was if this is what we spent on another Eaton.

by Whodie126 on Jul 17, 2008 10:11 PM EDT 0 recs

A's Season Ticker Holder Here ...

I won’t deny it … Blanton has a lard ass and he’s been pounded several times this year.

But … all of those blogging about what a bum deal this is will be saying something different in a few months because Joe Blanton is a pretty damn good pitcher. The A’s are loaded with pitching talent but Blanton was the opening day starter for a reason. He’s quite durable and quite reliable and when he hits his spots, which he does most of the time, he’s a grinder who goes deep into games. Blanton’s problem this year has been that he has had a few innings where he’s hung curve ball after curve ball and he just hasn’t been able to make the adjustment. He hasn’t had that problem in the past and I’m betting here and now that he won’t have that problem in the second half. He’s going to give you 7 good innings every 5th day and keep you in every game. With your offense he’ll win and win and win.

I confess I know nothing about your farm system and the guys you gave up. Maybe some day they’ll be good major league ball players – though the A’s currently don’t have any really good major league ball players except Justin Duchsherer and Mark Ellis and Billy didn’t really trade for either of these guys. Billy is a genius in that he can put a .550 club on the field for the kind of money that no one else can build a .450 club with. But Billy didn’t pick your pocket here: you’re going to really like Blanton. (And, by the way, the Cubs are going to LOVE Rich Harden, who is a monster.)

by solotar on Jul 17, 2008 11:10 PM EDT 0 recs

thanks

Since I posted this a few hours ago, I’ve read a couple things that make me feel slightly better about the deal. The most notable is probably this analysis, courtesy of Scott Lauber:

3. Blanton has received only 3.48 runs per game in his starts this season. In seven of his 20 starts, the A’s scored less than two runs. They scored more than four runs only seven times.
4. When Blanton receives four or more runs, his career record is 37-5. With the Phillies’ offense, that should bode well.

Match that with the number from The Hardball Times that his Fielding Independent Pitching number is 4.11, and it’s arguable the guy is going to turn it around in the second half and help us win the division… if he’s fully healthy. After the 230 innings he threw last year, I worry that the stuff just isn’t as sharp as it was in ‘07 and earlier.

But I still don’t think he’s a difference maker in the playoffs, as Harden will be if he stays in one piece. You’re right—that guy’s a beast. He’s the best pitcher I’ve seen the Phils face this year.

As for the guys going back… Cardenas is a really good hitter who’s thriving at age 20 in high-A. He’s probably going to be the A’s 2b in 2-3 years; in Philadelphia he was blocked by Utley, of course, and another Scott Lauber post suggests the Phils didn’t see him as having enough arm to play third or enough power to go to the outfield.

In addition to having the coolest name possible for a pitcher, Outman is a lefty with above-average velocity whose development the Phils probably delayed by moving him from the rotation (where he’d been outstanding for two years) to the bullpen in May. He might emerge into something special, he might be a back-of-the-rotation guy, or Beane might flip him—probably next year.

Spencer I think has some power potential, but wasn’t considered one of the team’s best prospects.

by dajafi on Jul 18, 2008 12:11 AM EDT up 0 recs

Blanton is much better then his 2008 numbers indicate

When the time comes I think you’ll be urging the Phillies to sign Blanton to an extension rather then let him walk out the door as a free agent.

‘Course, that time is still 2.5 years away so we’ll probably forget this conversation ever happened!

The monster at the end of this blog.

by grover on Jul 18, 2008 10:52 AM EDT up 0 recs

Good point. People are asking on other Phillies sites why the team paid so much more for Blanton than we did for Cory Lidle (‘04), Jamie Moyer (‘06), or Kyle Lohse (‘07). The fact that he’s controlled through 2010 is the reason why, of course.

Obviously the decision-makers think they’re buying low. We’re all hoping they know more than we do.

by dajafi on Jul 18, 2008 12:06 PM EDT up 0 recs

Home/Road

Considering he’s moving from spacious, pitching friendly Coliseum to the small, hitting friendly OFJOAB, this is a major ouch: “He’s posted a 3.79 ERA in 408 innings at home, compared to a 4.78 mark in 352 innings on the road.”

by David S. Cohen on Jul 18, 2008 10:53 AM EDT 0 recs

Why I don't mind this trade all that much...

1. Blanton is an innings eater. The pen has been incredible this year, but I worry about them getting overworked.
2. Since Eaton is a below average pitcher, Blanton is worth 2-3 wins, which is huge over the course of the rest of the season going up against the Mets.
3. Cardenas was a very good prospect, yes, but he’s probably been surpassed by Jason Donald as our best middle IF prospect (Keith Law called Donald one of the 10 most impressive players in the futures game), and Donald, unlike Cardenas, could likely slide over to 3B (plus Donald will be in the majors by 2009 or 2010). Where was Cardenas going to play?
4. Outman is a good prospect, yes, but we didn’t have to give up Carrasco or Savery, which is important.

We got a decent pitcher without giving up Carrasco, or Donald, or Golson, or Marson. So it’s a good thing.

Is it a risk? Sure. But it’s a risk I’m definitely willing to take.

by wildcatlh on Jul 18, 2008 11:09 AM EDT 0 recs

I agree about Donald vs. Cardenas, and I think (and hope) this figured into the organization’s thinking. Donald is three years older, but he’s hitting for more power and walking more, in a better league, at a more valuable defensive position. Figuring that Utley and Rollins are in place for years yet, the team will need a third baseman; Donald is a much more likely guy to make the switch from short than Cardenas was from second.

I also think you’re right about CC and Savery vs. Outman—though I really would have preferred to see, say, Carpenter (who at least is a body type match for Blanton) go back rather than Josh, whom I think will be a good big-leaguer.

by dajafi on Jul 18, 2008 12:08 PM EDT up 0 recs

I love the term ‘innings eater’ – it’s like code for ‘barely mediocre but he doesn’t get hurt much’ – well thank god the phils traded two of their upper echelon prospects for a fat buy who has a questionable road record awy from a pitcher friendly park…but he’ll eat innings, and possibly feliz.

However, if he ate feliz, and or taguchi, i would think much better of the trade.

As for ‘where was cardenas going to play’ – who cares? It wasn’t a decision that had to be made now and the point is not where were the phils going to play him the point is he had more inherent value regardless of being blocked or not…and god forbid chase utley suffers a career ending injury in the next year or so, you don’t have cardenas any more…trading YOUNG upper echelon prospects shouldn’t be discounted because they don’t have a place on the major league roster 2-3 years from the time they’d be ready to ascend to the major league roster in my estimation, that’s just cutting off your nose to spite your face….blantons a 3/4 probably, and the phillies have a lot of 3/4s, don’t trade your top prospects unless you are getting at least a 2 back.

I think there is a subset of fans out there that wants to believe this trade is better than it is because they want to believe that pat gillick isn’t an addled fool who got taken by billy beane…and that’s fine…but the rationalizations have been baffling to me.

by jemagee on Jul 18, 2008 1:30 PM EDT up 0 recs

Christina Kahrl

Full thoughts here – http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=7822#PHI

Tasty (and upsetting) excerpt here:

Skip Brett Myers or Jamie Moyer, this might be the Phillies’ rotation "horse" who really has trouble denting bread with a gale-force back wind. Add in that Blanton gets pulled slightly more often than other pitchers, and how well do you think this is going to work out in Citizen’s Bandbox?

I thought that expensive non-solutions that generate almost immediate regret were the province of the economy these days, so I guess we can credit the Phillies with being hip to the age.

by David S. Cohen on Jul 18, 2008 4:00 PM EDT 0 recs

I usually like Kahrl,

but I think she’s off the mark here. For one, she essentially declares that Blanton is not an upgrade over Eaton (“variety and not improvement”). Even in an off (and unlucky) year for Blanton, that’s plainly wrong. His ERA and FIP are almost a full run lower than Eaton’s. He’s thrown 23 more innings, in just one more start. Replacing a poor starter with an average one is definitely an improvement, and the two-win estimates I’ve seen sound about right.

Second, acquiring Blanton was not “expensive,” particularly in dollar terms. His remaining salary for the year is under a million, a pittance for almost any team, let alone one with a large market. After this year the Phillies don’t owe him anything. Kahrl wrings her hands about the impending dilemma of “what to do about Blanton’s pair of pending arbitration-eligible seasons,” but it’s better to have the choice. If you decide you don’t want him, don’t offer arbitration. If you do want him, then you’re entitled to pay him significantly less than his FA market value. Kahrl is a good writer but she gets too cute for my tastes sometimes, and the throwaway line about the economy sounds forced.

And in terms of talent, the price wasn’t outlandish. If they really want to go after Burnett they still have Carrasco to dangle.

by ken on Jul 18, 2008 11:41 PM EDT up 0 recs

If Blanton can revert to 2007 form (a big assumption), he certaintly is much better than a .500 pitcher who delivers league-average ball. His average record is primarily a result of very poor run support and a 3.95 2007 ERA is hardly league average. In fact he can be a very good number 2 pitcher in the rotation due to the fact he can go longer into games than most starters without getting rocked due to his low BB rate and absurdly low HR rates (even after adjusting for park factor), thus putting less pressure on the bullpen. However, if Blanton cannot revert to old form and is damaged goods (perhaps due to pitching so many innings), then I wholly agree that the trade was horrible.

by BrandonB on Jul 19, 2008 4:04 PM EDT 0 recs