The Beckett Deal Revisited (or is it The Ramirez Deal?)

[MANNYHOF24]

This trade will go down as one of the top 5 lopsided deals in Red Sox history. Against the Red Sox. Beckett is having as good a year as you will ever see from this guy. He is not an elite pitcher. He is not a Santana, or a Halliday, etc. He is a good pitcher, but not one that will strike fear in the hearts of opposing hitters.

 

If I was starting a team from scratch, I would probably take Ramirez first, or in the top 3.

 

Look at this guys line:

 

G AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI SB BA OBP SLG OPS

Season 115 475 95 162 35 5 22 62 38 .341 .394 .575 .969

 

As a SHORTSTOP!!!!

 

This guy is the prototypical five tool player. He can hit, hit for power, run, throw, and catch. Where you can say the overall returns have been a wash for the teams over the two years [they haven't, but for arguments sake, I'll say that] there isn't a GM in baseball who would blink for half a second if he could get Ramirez for Lowell and Beckett. I don't know when this guy is a free agent, but I would just deliver a truck full of cash for this guy. He is a bona fide star playing in a pitchers park. The Red Sox would have won the pennant last year and cruised to 100 wins this year if they had this guy. Imagine a lineup with Ramirez, Youkilis, Ortiz, and Manny.

 

 

Beckett not an elite pitcher? Last year was a huge aberation. Seriously have you watched Beckett pitch at all this year? He has four dominant pitches this season. He has the 96-97 FB, the nasty two seam FB and a great curveball and a very improved change-up from last season. He throws all of his pitches for strikes so the hitters can not sit on his heat like last year. Beckett is the AL Cy young this season and it would not suprise me if he win multiple Cy youngs as a Red Sox. Face it Gom, Beckett is better than Halladay now and he may be one of the top three pitchers in baseball. Seriously, Beckett has been way better than Halladay this season.

[MANNYHOF24]

The fact of the matter here is this: The Red Sox will always have enough money to buy FA offensive players. Their offense will always have a chance to be great with the resources that we have. On the other hand, Ace pitchers come around much less frequently than great hitters. The Sox made a great move my aquiring a pitcher who is still only 26 years old and could possibly end up winning 20 games multiple times. Pitchers like Beckett are at a premium and the Sox have to still be confidant that they made the right deal.

[jacksonianmarch]

The fact of the matter here is this: The Red Sox will always have enough money to buy FA offensive players. Their offense will always have a chance to be great with the resources that we have. On the other hand' date=' Ace pitchers come around much less frequently than great hitters. The Sox made a great move my aquiring a pitcher who is still only 26 years old and could possibly end up winning 20 games multiple times. Pitchers like Beckett are at a premium and the Sox have to still be confidant that they made the right deal.[/quote']

 

I have susbscribed to this theory as well, but it is starting to dry up too. Offensive players are now getting extensions too.

[Gom]

I love the part about how this year will be the pinnacle of Beckett's career. More brilliant analysis based on a hope and a prayer from Gom. I guess we can put it with the other nuggets like Wang being the best pitcher other than Halladay in the AL East, Schilling being washed up, Pedroia never making it, and others.

 

That said, Hanley has blossomed into a remarkable player. Wish he had shown a glimpse of this in his time in the minors with the Sox. Oh well, hopefully they give Tejeda a better look this time around.

 

Wang was the best pitcher in the AL East last year other than Halliday. Bar none. Slightly off year this year, but still a solid pitcher.

 

Becket 2005 + 2006:

 

31-16 4.21 ERA

 

Wang 2005 + 2006

 

32-12 3.81 ERA

 

Once again, you make sense, ORS.

 

Schilling IS washed up. So is Mussina. So is Clemens. Yes, they will have an occasional good game. Do you have any real fear when Mussina or Clemens faces your Sox? I don't think so. Schilling is done as well in our view. I wasn't sold on Cano and Cabrera until this year. They have to do it their second year for me to start to believe in them. I also think that Cabrera is overrated. Pedroia, if he cuts it next year, I will be sold on him. Until then, I won't. Baseball is full of one year wonders. Sorry if I don't jump on a rookie's crotch like you do the minute he gets three hits in a game or throws six shut out innings.

 

Unlike you, I don't view my teams players and the opposition's players differently. Let me see a player do it over two seasons before I call him a star. The only exception I have made to this is Wang, because I watch him pitch, and there is little deception to him. You know what he is going to throw, and he still gets you out. He's not fooling anyone. Like Rivera with his cutter, you know what's coming, and you still can't do anything with it. When Wang's cutter is working, he is as unhittable as any pitcher in the game.

 

Face it Gom' date=' Beckett is better than Halladay now and he may be one of the top three pitchers in baseball.[/quote']

Beckett is 12th in the majors in ERA, and if you discount the NL completely, he is 5th in the AL. Top 3? Must be smoking some serious stuff up in Boston, Manny.

[riverside sluggers]

Yea Gom youre right Beckett is a 1 year wonder... Maybe you were right when you said during the offseason that 2006 is what Beckett will be for the rest of his career. Who would want this Jason Johnson-esque type pitcher on their staff? Get off your pedestal and realize that he is a damn good pitcher

 

Beckett is 12th in the majors in ERA, and if you discount the NL completely, he is 5th in the AL. Top 3? Must be smoking some serious stuff up in Boston, Manny.

 

How is that denial going for you? You try to make us feel bad that he is 12th in baseball (5th in the AL), its at f***ing 3.15 you twit. 3.15 in the AL f***ing East

 

Ok your game. Wang is 46th in the majors in ERA at 4.09, and if you discount the NL completely, he is 22nd in the AL

[ORS]

Unlike you, I don't view my teams players and the opposition's players differently. Let me see a player do it over two seasons before I call him a star. The only exception I have made to this is Wang, because I watch him pitch, and there is little deception to him. You know what he is going to throw, and he still gets you out. He's not fooling anyone. Like Rivera with his cutter, you know what's coming, and you still can't do anything with it. When Wang's cutter is working, he is as unhittable as any pitcher in the game.

 

 

Beckett is 12th in the majors in ERA, and if you discount the NL completely, he is 5th in the AL. Top 3? Must be smoking some serious stuff up in Boston, Manny.

If you can find one instance where I show bias, in other words, find where I use a double standard, then you will have a point in that first sentence. You won't be able to though.

 

No, you don't apply a double standard. You apply an empty standard. You don't know stats, so you use them wrong, and you value too much your untrained eye. Beckett has turned the corner, do you know why? I know your answer, you'll call it a fluke. Of course, if you knew stats, you could show us why. The real answer is that he changed two things. One was mechanics, the other was pitch selection. With the success he's had, and background stats to back it up, why would he change it?

 

Speaking of the background stats, of all the guys in the top 5 in the AL, Beckett is the only one with a negative FIP-ERA. This is where you can determine if something is flukey. He's actually got the best FIP in the bunch. When your component ERA is better than your actual, that means it's not a fluke. And, when the improvement in the rates making up the component are linked to a change in mechanics and command, you just can't dismiss it, despite the arbitrary criteria you assign.

[Gom]

I'm not saying he is a fluke. I didn't think he would be as bad as he was last year. I also don't think he'll be as good as he is this year. I think he will fall someone in between.

 

My point is that Hanley is one of the top 2-3 players in the game right now based on skill, age, positiion, etc. This is my opinion. I don't put Beckett in the class of of top 3 pitchers in the game. Top three in the AL East, yes.

 

If you look at WPA, which I like to look at, Beckett is 5th in the AL and 11th in baseball.

 

It really depends on what you value as a statistic.

 

That being said, if you had the deal to do over today....would you guys do it? I'm curious, since I am not a fan of the Red Sox. Would you do the trade again today?

[ORS]

Why do you like WPA for pitchers? So much of the importance of the half innings they throw is dependent on what the offense does. For example, Jake Peavy gets a 1-2-3 inning when his team is up 1-0 in the 6th. Josh Beckett gets a 1-2-3 when the Sox are up 5-1 in the 6th. Both did the same thing, but Peavy will get more WPA because the score is closer thanks to his offense sucking. That is such an arbitrary stat to use for judging pitchers.

 

I like WPA, but I only like it as a supplement to other stats, and I don't like it for starters at all. It's a good tie breaker for players who have similar context independent performance, and combined with LEV a good way of determining the more valuable relief pitcher (as long as you are comparing people of the same role due to LEV variations and modern BP usage). But it's a horrible stat for comparing starting pitchers.

[Gom]

I like it because regardless of what people think, I think the most important statistic out there is a quality start. I believe a pitcher's job is to keep his team in the game. Baseball is a game based on statistics, we all know that. However, one thing the statistics don't do is tell you what a player should do. Runner on second, no out, tie game, move him over. A ground ball to second is an out. A pop up to short is an out. One of those outs gets the runner to third, the other doesn't.

 

To me, quality starts for a pitcher is key. 3 runs in 6 innings translates to a 4.50 ERA. However, what nearly everyone in America fails to realize is that that is the MAXIMUM WORST to qualify. One less run, and it's a 3.00 ERA. One more inning, its a 3.85 ERA.

 

Quality start is the single most important statistic for starting pitchers in my opinion. Your team stays in the game, your bullpen doesn't get burned out. I'd rather have two games in which my pitcher gives up 3 runs in six innings than one game with 1 run in six innings, and 5 runs in the next. Your pen gets used up that way. You give me a starting rotation with a 4.50 ERA, and they go 6 innings giving up 3 runs, and I'll show you a 100 win team.

 

You know where Josh Beckett is for quality starts? Behind Pettite. Tied for 17th.

 

Elite pitcher, my ass. Hope you sign him to a 10 year extension.

[Cocos Disciples]

Lol Gom. Just lol. That will be all.

[Gom]

So I guess none of you would redo the deal? Thought so.

[ORS]

I like it because regardless of what people think, I think the most important statistic out there is a quality start. I believe a pitcher's job is to keep his team in the game. Baseball is a game based on statistics, we all know that. However, one thing the statistics don't do is tell you what a player should do. Runner on second, no out, tie game, move him over. A ground ball to second is an out. A pop up to short is an out. One of those outs gets the runner to third, the other doesn't.

 

To me, quality starts for a pitcher is key. 3 runs in 6 innings translates to a 4.50 ERA. However, what nearly everyone in America fails to realize is that that is the MAXIMUM WORST to qualify. One less run, and it's a 3.00 ERA. One more inning, its a 3.85 ERA.

 

Quality start is the single most important statistic for starting pitchers in my opinion. Your team stays in the game, your bullpen doesn't get burned out. I'd rather have two games in which my pitcher gives up 3 runs in six innings than one game with 1 run in six innings, and 5 runs in the next. Your pen gets used up that way. You give me a starting rotation with a 4.50 ERA, and they go 6 innings giving up 3 runs, and I'll show you a 100 win team.

 

You know where Josh Beckett is for quality starts? Behind Pettite. Tied for 17th.

 

Elite pitcher, my ass. Hope you sign him to a 10 year extension.

Stating you like WPA because you think QS is an important stat is like me saying vanilla ice cream is better than chocolate because it's Tuesday.

[Rdsxmbnt]

I like it because regardless of what people think, I think the most important statistic out there is a quality start. I believe a pitcher's job is to keep his team in the game. Baseball is a game based on statistics, we all know that. However, one thing the statistics don't do is tell you what a player should do. Runner on second, no out, tie game, move him over. A ground ball to second is an out. A pop up to short is an out. One of those outs gets the runner to third, the other doesn't.

 

To me, quality starts for a pitcher is key. 3 runs in 6 innings translates to a 4.50 ERA. However, what nearly everyone in America fails to realize is that that is the MAXIMUM WORST to qualify. One less run, and it's a 3.00 ERA. One more inning, its a 3.85 ERA.

 

Quality start is the single most important statistic for starting pitchers in my opinion. Your team stays in the game, your bullpen doesn't get burned out. I'd rather have two games in which my pitcher gives up 3 runs in six innings than one game with 1 run in six innings, and 5 runs in the next. Your pen gets used up that way. You give me a starting rotation with a 4.50 ERA, and they go 6 innings giving up 3 runs, and I'll show you a 100 win team.

 

You know where Josh Beckett is for quality starts? Behind Pettite. Tied for 17th.

 

Elite pitcher, my ass. Hope you sign him to a 10 year extension.

 

There is a ton of flaws in using QS to judge a pitcher.

 

Just using Beckett as an example, what if he decides to pitch an extra inning on opening day in a 7-1 blowout, that would turn into a QS. What if he gets taken out after six innings in the Yankees game earlier in the year, theres another QS. What if he doesn't have a freak injury in a game in May, theres yet another QS. If those all happened then he is 2nd in the AL in QS%.

[Gom]

Stating you like WPA because you think QS is an important stat is like me saying vanilla ice cream is better than chocolate because it's Tuesday.

 

No, but it's based on a similar principle. I knew you would scoff at QS, so I picked something that you might appreciate. However, QS is the single most important stat for starting pitchers IMHO. That's basically how we won 4 in a row. We never had the best pitcher, but everyone of our pitchers could give a quality start.

There is a ton of flaws in using QS to judge a pitcher.

 

Just using Beckett as an example, what if he decides to pitch an extra inning on opening day in a 7-1 blowout, that would turn into a QS. What if he gets taken out after six innings in the Yankees game earlier in the year, theres another QS. What if he doesn't have a freak injury in a game in May, theres yet another QS. If those all happened then he is 2nd in the AL in QS%.

Why would you take out your pitcher with a six run lead on opening day after 5 innings? I don't remember that game in particular. A freak injury? Part of the game. Still burned your pen. The fact that Beckett hasn't been injured this year considering his history is a minor miracle. Last year was the first time he topped 200 innings. In fact, before that, he never topped 180.

[ORS]

I scoff at WPA for pitchers more than QS. Quality starts are important, but I find the criteria a little arbitrary. You can make cases for 4 runs in 8, or 2 in 5.2, etc, etc. What's wrong with just the traditional rates supplemented by the component performance. Nothing arbitrary there. The numbers are what they are.

[riverside sluggers]

Elite pitcher' date=' my ass. Hope you sign him to a 10 year extension.[/quote']

 

Thanks I do too. As I said before someone is in denial that he is a damn good pitcher

[KeepTheFaith1229]

Elite pitcher' date=' my ass. Hope you sign him to a 10 year extension.[/quote']

 

Yeah, 3.15 ERA doesn't make you an elite pitcher. Although by your standards, Halladay is an elite pitcher, with a higher ERA and identical WHIP (last year). Yeah. Nice.

[Gom]

Halliday was the best pitcher in the AL East last year. Wang was second best, barely. Remember, this was said last year, and Beckett had one good year and one bad year. Let's see how he does next year.

[jacksonianmarch]

I see Gom's point. Right now, this season, Becks is pitching like an elite pitcher. But I can see that waiting for a second strong season is warranted after having such a poor yr last yr.

[MANNYHOF24]

I see Gom's point. Right now' date=' this season, Becks is pitching like an elite pitcher. But I can see that waiting for a second strong season is warranted after having such a poor yr last yr.[/quote']

 

The reason Beckett turned it around this season is the fact that he has developed his secondary pitches. Last year he threw 72% FB, this year he is only throwing 62% FB and that is a huge difference. Beckett has always had the stuff to be an elite pitcher he was just unconfidant/stubborn when it came to his secondary pitches. Seriously anybody who would take Wang over Beckett is just crazy. Let's also not forget that Beckett is 26 years old and still has not reached his full potential.

[MANNYHOF24]

I see Gom's point. Right now' date=' this season, Becks is pitching like an elite pitcher. But I can see that waiting for a second strong season is warranted after having such a poor yr last yr.[/quote']

 

His year was poor last year, however his ERA was scewed by a few very very horrible starts. He gave up a tun of HRS last season however, only like 8 after the all-star break. He has continued to be very stingy as far as allowing homeruns goes by giving up about 10 this season.

[Rdsxmbnt]

I wont make excuses for last year when I saw Beckett was not a good pitcher, however his numbers from last year weren't anywhere near what his career has been, switch from NL to AL and all. His command of the strikezone is significantly improved, the changes he made in mechanics and pitching stance has paid huge dividends. His control especially is significantly better, and his HR/9 component is back in line with his career norms which can be attributed to his much better command of the strikezone like I said, his K/9 is a reflection of that also. This season is not a fluke, assuming he doesn't change anything from now and next season (I dont know why he would ), Josh Beckett is a significantly different and significantly better pitcher than the guy we saw last year, and even quite a bit improved and matured over the Beckett that pitched for Florida.

 

K/9	BB/9	HR/9
2002	9.45	3.68	1.08
2003	9.63	3.55	0.57
2004	8.73	3.10	0.92
2005	8.36	2.92	0.70
2006	6.95	3.25	1.58
2007	8.63	1.75	0.52

[Gom]

Either that, or this is a career year for him. It's one or the other.

[Ray10]

I have to say the Sox have the better deal by far we have Josh Beckett who is one of the top pitchers in baseball think about if we didn't have Beckett in the rotation that is 14 wins when he pitches so far this year. And Lowell hasn't been bad either he has been a pretty solid player for the Sox I mean otherwise it would prolly be Hinske over at third while he isn't bad I would still rather have Mike Lowell over there so I feel the Sox pulled off the better end with that trade.

[BSN07]

Becketts a stud. I do the trade 10/10 times plan and simple.

 

Id take Beckett over any other RHP in the game, and the only other pitcher I see as better then him is Santanna.

[BoSox21]

considering top pitchers hit the free agent market less and less these days and the fact that its damn near impossible to get a top tier pitcher without developing your own, it makes the trade a must do for the Sox under any circumstance

[ORS]

Beckett's '06 was bad, and there's a reason for it. He wasn't throwing his change at all, and his curve had no consistency because he was warming up with tape on his finger to avoid the blister issue. So his reportoire was mostly the 4-seam FB, which he had difficulty locating because he had sped up his delivery. Bad management by the coaching staff there.

 

Fortunately, they brought in a new pitching coach who put it all together, reintroduced the change, gave him the feel for the curve back, improved what I think has been one of his more effective pitches this year, his 2-seam FB, and slowed his delivery down giving him command within the strikezone. His rate stat improvement is real for these reasons. Suggesting he could revert to '06, meaning he just ignores everything he did to become successful this year, is a big fat pile of wishful thinking on the part of Yankee fans. I'd agree with them wholeheartedly if his success this year was due to some flukey overperformance by those rate stats, but it just isn't. If anything, he should be better due to some poor luck this year should he maintain those rates.

 

All that said, if Hanley plays like this for the next 6-7 years through his prime, then I'd take him back without question. Beckett is very good, excellent in fact, but not historically good, and Hanley has a shot at being one of the historical greats.

[Gom]

It hurts to say this, but I think ORS's last post is a very good one.

[BoSox21]

It hurts to say this' date=' but I think ORS's last post is a very good one.[/quote']

 

damn right its a very good one. to imply that this season is a fluke is just an ignorant comment to make. there are facts behind why '06 was so bad for Beckett and what adjustments were made so that he's having the success he's having and ORS outlines it perfectly

[Jayhawk Bill]

Bump.

 

So I'm thread-mining on a slow night, and I run across this argument where it's the world against Gom, and I realize that Gom is right even though his reasons are all wrong.

 

Who won the Beckett-and-Lowell for Hanley Ramirez-and-Sanchez trade? Florida. Not even close.

 

Everybody here seems to be evaluating this trade on the basis of current talent levels. That's grossly inadequate. Trades need to be evaluated on these bases:

 

1) Talent gained over replacement level;

 

2) Years (or months) and postseasons through which that talent would be available; and

 

3) Payroll impact.

 

Let's look at the trade through those metrics.

 

Assumptions:

 

1) Only the four principal players in the trade matter, with values assessed by WARP1;

 

2) Only the obligated service in place at the trade counts;

 

3) Performance in a postseason reflective of a player's value during the regular season doubles that player's value for that season, but with no postseason appearances assumed after 2007;

 

4) Players' value beyond 2007 will be determined through MORP, with arb salaries assessed at 40%, 60% and 80% of MORP for the first, second and third arb years; and

 

5) The Marginal Cost per Marginal Win is $3 million, slightly higher than the 1999-2006 level for the Yankees and the Red Sox, and just higher than Boston's actual 2006 MC/MW of $2,966,412.

 

Now let's check values and salaries.

 

Josh Beckett:

 

2006: 5.4

2007: 8.4 x 2 = 16.8

 

Total wins = 22.2

 

Salary:

 

2006: $4.325 MM

2007: $6 MM + $2 MM bonus

 

Total salary = $12.325 MM

 

Beckett had only two obligated years when he came to Boston. Theo did a great job signing him through 2009 with a club option for 2010, but that wasn't the trade, that was Theo.

 

***

 

Mike Lowell

 

2006: 6.3

2007: 7.4 x 2 = 14.8

 

Total wins = 21.1

 

Salary:

 

2006: $9 MM

2007: $9 MM

 

Total salary = $18 MM

 

***

 

Anibal Sanchez

 

2006: 4.3

2007: 0.4

 

2008: 3.9

2009: 3.4

2010: 3.5

2011: 2.7

 

Total wins = 18.2

 

Salary:

 

2006: 0.4 MM

2007: 0.4 MM

 

2008: 0.4 MM

2009: 3.7 MM

2010: 6.3 MM

2011: 6.3 MM

 

Total salary = $17.5 MM

 

***

 

Hanley Ramirez

 

2006: 7.5

2007: 8.9

 

2008: 6.4

2009: 6.6

2010: 6.8

2011: 6.8

 

Total wins = 43.0

 

Salary:

 

2006: 0.4 MM

2007: 0.4 MM

 

2008: 0.4 MM

2009: 9.7 MM

2010: 16.3 MM

2011: 21.6 MM

 

Total salary = $48.8 MM

 

***

 

Boston:

 

Total Wins: 43.3

Total Salary: $30.3 MM

 

Florida:

 

Total Wins: 61.2

Total Salary: $66.3 MM

 

Florida ends up getting 17.9 extra wins at a cost of $36 MM in salary. The price for those wins is just over $2 MM each, not the $3 MM MC/MW postulated as a fair standard: Florida wins.

 

If the "extra" wins for Boston's 2007 postseason are discounted, the trade tilts more heavily in Florida's favor.

 

*****************************************************************

 

Look, it's not just HanRam and Sanchez for Lowell and Beckett. Lowell and Beckett made $16 MM more than HanRam and Sanchez this year. That's another All Star that Boston could afford had they not made the trade. One can't ignore salary issues and just look at talent; payroll dollars can be converted into talent. Realistically, picture Boston with Hanley Ramirez, Anibal Sanchez, Carlos Pena and AJ Burnett--and a deadline acquisition--instead of Julio Lugo, Mike Lowell and Josh Beckett. No alternative team could do better than winning the World Series, but the proposed roster certainly could have, and I'd rather have HanRam, Pena and Sanchez under contract than just Josh Beckett as we head for the Winter Meetings and prepare for 2008.

 

Boston lost the trade. Bummer. We still won a World Series.