Jays acquire Jesse Chavez

[burlingtonbandit]

I think people are sleeping on Chavez quite a bit here. In the last two years he's been around the 45-55th best SP with 120 innings+ in FIP, Sierra etc..

He's in the rotation 100%.

 

I don't think anyone really has a problem with Chavez. Its that the Jays had to give up Hendriks to get him. Chavez is good but there are 10 similar guys in FA. You just made the bullpen a lot worse to get better in the rotation for 1 year. At this stage in the offseason this doesn't seem like its a good deal to make.

[TilsonBritoFan]

I don't think anyone really has a problem with Chavez. Its that the Jays had to give up Hendriks to get him. Chavez is good but there are 10 similar guys in FA. You just made the bullpen a lot worse to get better in the rotation for 1 year. At this stage in the offseason this doesn't seem like its a good deal to make.

 

Well said.

 

For example, instead of Chavez for around $5 million, would we all not much rather have taken a 1 year flyer on Rich Hill for the $6 million for one year and kept the Aussie?

[Olerud363]

Nice retort.

 

He only said much of it was Hogwash.... no idea which part might not of been hogwash...

 

the win value estimate of 7M??, the surplus value of 3.5M??, the fact Hendricks has 3 more years??

 

The concerns about Chavez' durability??

 

What I do know is that NJH is a very clever individual... you my friend are inferior... some large percentage of your thoughts are hogwash... no real idea which ones or why but in our coorporate slave culture, NJH is obviously training to be an alpha, and refuses to use more than a sentence to belittle low ones, such as yourself.

 

And that my friend should tell you all you need to know about your status. You are so low, you are not even worth a paragraph of thought.

[BTS]

Well said.

 

For example, instead of Chavez for around $5 million, would we all not much rather have taken a 1 year flyer on Rich Hill for the $6 million for one year and kept the Aussie?

 

The only similar guys were Hill and Young really. Who knows if they have any interest in coming.

[Grant77]

I don't think anyone really has a problem with Chavez. Its that the Jays had to give up Hendriks to get him. Chavez is good but there are 10 similar guys in FA. You just made the bullpen a lot worse to get better in the rotation for 1 year. At this stage in the offseason this doesn't seem like its a good deal to make.

 

Name 5 that you could get for less than 10 million.

[Frag]

He only said much of it was Hogwash.... no idea which part might not of been hogwash...

 

the win value estimate of 7M??, the surplus value of 3.5M??, the fact Hendricks has 3 more years??

 

The concerns about Chavez' durability??

 

What I do know is that NJH is a very clever individual... you my friend are inferior... some large percentage of your thoughts are hogwash... no real idea which ones or why but in our coorporate slave culture, NJH is obviously training to be an alpha, and refuses to use more than a sentence to belittle low ones, such as yourself.

 

And that my friend should tell you all you need to know about your status. You are so low, you are not even worth a paragraph of thought.

 

Hi Dogg

[L54]

He only said much of it was Hogwash.... no idea which part might not of been hogwash...

 

the win value estimate of 7M??, the surplus value of 3.5M??, the fact Hendricks has 3 more years??

 

The concerns about Chavez' durability??

 

What I do know is that NJH is a very clever individual... you my friend are inferior... some large percentage of your thoughts are hogwash... no real idea which ones or why but in our coorporate slave culture, NJH is obviously training to be an alpha, and refuses to use more than a sentence to belittle low ones, such as yourself.

 

And that my friend should tell you all you need to know about your status. You are so low, you are not even worth a paragraph of thought.

 

What is this?

[xposbrad]

Name 5 that you could get for less than 10 million.

 

It's not just money, you just gave up a key piece of your BP. The point is this team needs to fill holes, not create new ones.

[bendera3]

It's not just money, you just gave up a key piece of your BP. The point is this team needs to fill holes, not create new ones.

 

We found Hendricks in a pitching trash pile. I don't think we'll have any problems creating a bullpen this year.

[BTS]

We found Hendricks in a pitching trash pile. I don't think we'll have any problems creating a bullpen this year.

 

That's where the Indians found Kluber.

[L54]

We found Hendricks in a pitching trash pile. I don't think we'll have any problems creating a bullpen this year.

 

By this logic every team should have no problem finding elite relievers.

[Grant77]

It's not just money, you just gave up a key piece of your BP. The point is this team needs to fill holes, not create new ones.

 

Miguel Castro and Steve Delabar were key pieces of the bullpen not long ago. I'm pretty neutral on the trade, but people need to realize that having a good bullpen is mostly luck. Maybe Bo Schultz tweaks his slider and becomes our closer with a sub 2 ERA next year. It's not even that unlikely, the whole thing is a crapshoot.

[Laika]

To clarify the "trash pile" thing, since anecdotes don't help anyone.

 

It's possible to find good hitters in the trash pile.

It's a bit easier to find good starters in the trash pile.

It's easiest to find good relievers in the trash pile.

 

The "fungibility" level of an asset affects its value, obviously.

[bendera3]

By this logic every team should have no problem finding elite relievers.

 

They don't really. Very few teams develop their pitchers to be elite relievers.

[Angrioter]

Name 5 that you could get for less than 10 million.

 

Rickey Romero

Joe Blanton

Brad Mills

Jo Jo Reyes

Chien Ming Wang

Aaron Laffey

Ramon Ortiz

[L54]

They don't really. Very few teams develop their pitchers to be elite relievers.

 

Off the trash pile every year*

[bendera3]

Off the trash pile every year*

 

Yes. That's where they come from.

[Laika]

After running the numbers, with a generous win value (~$7 M per win), the surplus value for next year would be $3.5 M for the Jays using Steamer's projection for 2016. That doesn't take into consideration the fact that Hendriks has 3 more years afterward, as well as other potential roster moves that may be indirectly affected by this trade (eg. the effect the increased salary may have on the team's internal cap; relegating Osuna/Sanchez to bullpen work; etc.). If I regress Hendriks' value from years 2-4, including bumping up his salary after arbitration in 2017, that surplus value goes into the negatives for the Jays.

 

Basically, this trade may be fine in the short run, assuming going to a tougher park/division doesn't significantly affect Chavez's numbers or going to a more pitcher-friendly park/division doesn't affect Hendriks' numbers. However, after year 1, it doesn't look as good. Also, there are concerns about Chavez's durability.

 

1. Do the entire calculation. Assuming zero decline (not a great assumption) Hendriks is 3.8 WAR for maybe $10M total in four years. $16.6M surplus.

Chavez is 2.0 WAR for $4.7M. So $9.3M surplus. So the gap is like $7M between their total values.

2. Consider whether wins in 2016 are worth more to Toronto than wins in 2017-2019. (they are)

3. Consider what Toronto's positional needs are. (SP)

4. Recognize that park/division effects don't change a normal player's value. (to mention that Chavez is going from a pitcher's park to a hitter's park and imply that this could affect his WAR is beneath your intellect)

5. Avoid flippantly mentioning Chavez' durability concerns. (this seems to have no basis; could say similar things about Hendriks talent due to short track record)

 

It's possible to play with these little value calculation exercises in a bunch of different ways in order to make trades look good or bad. In this case, the value gap between Chaves and Hendriks is pretty small and contextual/situational reasons probably mitigate most/all of the value gap.

 

I gave my little surplus value opinion earlier in the thread.

[L54]

Yes. That's where they come from.

 

Maybe a few a year. To think it's a sustainable method of adding elite relievers is egregious.

[Grant77]

To clarify the "trash pile" thing, since anecdotes don't help anyone.

 

It's possible to find good hitters in the trash pile.

It's a bit easier to find good starters in the trash pile.

It's easiest to find good relievers in the trash pile.

 

The "fungibility" level of an asset affects its value, obviously.

 

Top bullpen in the league by WAR was the Orioles, here are their 7 most used pitchers:

 

Britton - #17 prospect in baseball, 3 years as failed starter in majors

O'Day - Rule V pick, claimed off of waivers twice

Brach - Minor trade with Padres

Matusz - #5 prospect in baseball, 4 years as failed starter in majors

McFarland - Rule V pick

Roe - Traded twice, waivers, released 3 times

Hunter - Failed starter, traded twice.

[GD]

After running the numbers, with a generous win value (~$7 M per win), the surplus value for next year would be $3.5 M for the Jays using Steamer's projection for 2016. That doesn't take into consideration the fact that Hendriks has 3 more years afterward, as well as other potential roster moves that may be indirectly affected by this trade (eg. the effect the increased salary may have on the team's internal cap; relegating Osuna/Sanchez to bullpen work; etc.). If I regress Hendriks' value from years 2-4, including bumping up his salary after arbitration in 2017, that surplus value goes into the negatives for the Jays.

 

Basically, this trade may be fine in the short run, assuming going to a tougher park/division doesn't significantly affect Chavez's numbers or going to a more pitcher-friendly park/division doesn't affect Hendriks' numbers. However, after year 1, it doesn't look as good. Also, there are concerns about Chavez's durability.

 

Frag, this post reads like it's from 2011. Park factors don't affect player value and wins are worth more than $7m, especially to the 2016 Blue Jays (and more so than the 2017 and onwards Blue Jays).

[Frag]

1. Do the entire calculation. Assuming zero decline (not a great assumption) Hendriks is 3.8 WAR for maybe $10M total in four years. $16.6M surplus.

Chavez is 2.0 WAR for $4.7M. So $9.3M surplus. So the gap is like $7M between their total values.

2. Consider whether wins in 2016 are worth more to Toronto than wins in 2017-2019. (they are)

3. Consider what Toronto's positional needs are. (SP)

4. Recognize that park/division effects don't change a normal player's value. (to mention that Chavez is going from a pitcher's park to a hitter's park and imply that this could affect his WAR is beneath your intellect)

5. Avoid flippantly mentioning Chavez' durability concerns. (this seems to have no basis; could say similar things about Hendriks talent due to short track record)

 

It's possible to play with these little value calculation exercises in a bunch of different ways in order to make trades look good or bad. In this case, the value gap between Chaves and Hendriks is pretty small and contextual/situational reasons probably mitigate most/all of the value gap.

 

I gave my little surplus value opinion earlier in the thread.

 

1. I assumed decline on Hendriks' performance based off his 0.9 WAR projection (by Steamer). As I said, for year 1, it benefits the Jays. If the intent of this trade was for short-term SP depth, then I see why they made this trade.

2. I accounted for this, also.

3. Fair enough.

4. Fair enough.

5. His fastball velocity declined as the season went along. Combine that with his poorer 2nd half, and there are concerns.

 

I did not read it.

 

Edit: Okay, I read your earlier posts. I see where you're getting at.

[GD]

1. I assumed decline on Hendriks' performance based off his 0.9 WAR projection (by Steamer). As I said, for year 1, it benefits the Jays. If the intent of this trade was for short-term SP depth, then I see why they made this trade.

2. I accounted for this, also.

3. Fair enough.

4. Fair enough.

5. His fastball velocity declined as the season went along. Combine that with his poorer 2nd half, and there are concerns.

 

I did not read it.

 

This is trickier than you've made it out to be. He could decline at an average rate, or reliever volatility could make that 0.9 next year, 0, DFA, 0, 1, 1 or something stupid.

[Laika]

Top bullpen in the league by WAR was the Orioles, here are their 7 most used pitchers:

 

Britton - #17 prospect in baseball, 3 years as failed starter in majors

O'Day - Rule V pick, claimed off of waivers twice

Brach - Minor trade with Padres

Matusz - #5 prospect in baseball, 4 years as failed starter in majors

McFarland - Rule V pick

Roe - Traded twice, waivers, released 3 times

Hunter - Failed starter, traded twice.

 

Right - an enormous amount of good/elite relievers in the game are basically reclamation projects.

 

The best reliever in the 2nd best pen (Fields in Houston) was a rule 5 pick.

The closer in the 3rd best pen (Miller) was traded for nothing to Boston, non-tendered and then re-signed.

The closer and best reliever in the 4th best pen (Rondon - Cubs) was a rule 5 pick.

[Frag]

This is trickier than you've made it out to be. He could decline at an average rate, or reliever volatility could make that 0.9 next year, 0, DFA, 0, 1, 1 or something stupid.

 

Right. Like I said previously, Liam Hendriks could fall on his face from 2016 onwards, and (assuming Chavez performs somewhere around 2.0 WAR as Steamer projected) the trade is good from all angles for the Jays. Or, both fall on their face and it's a nothing-nothing trade.

[Frag]

I think my initial post had people coming into my "numbers" post thinking I'm trying every way to prove that the deal is bad for the Jays, or that Chavez is terrible (I said mediocre, which is about right for his skill-set considering his FIP- for the last two years was about average). Now that my nerves have subsided from the initial shock of the trade, I'll try to evaluate this trade more rationally. The reason why I wanted to look at the numbers was to see whether the trade really was as unfavorable for the Jays as I was making it out to be (initial reactions can be wrong). I'll admit, in terms of short-term value, there is a benefit for the Jays (about $3.5 M surplus). The only other approach to this will be to assess them again after the 2016 season is over (and beyond).

[Abomination]

I think my initial post had people coming into my "numbers" post thinking I'm trying every way to prove that the deal is bad for the Jays, or that Chavez is terrible (I said mediocre, which is about right for his skill-set considering his FIP- for the last two years was about average). Now that my nerves have subsided from the initial shock of the trade, I'll try to evaluate this trade more rationally. The reason why I wanted to look at the numbers was to see whether the trade really was as unfavorable for the Jays as I was making it out to be (initial reactions can be wrong). I'll admit, in terms of short-term value, there is a benefit for the Jays (about $3.5 M surplus). The only other approach to this will be to assess them again after the 2016 season is over (and beyond).

 

There's a few other minor factors that I think are worth considering:

 

1) Hendriks had an unusually large velocity jump last year. Does that make him more likely to be go under the knife soon?

2) Chavez did not start the season in the rotation, and may not have been prepared to do so. A full offseason preparing as a full time starter may help.

3) Martin is a superior framer to Phegley, and especially Vogt.

[rydermike]

I don't think anyone really has a problem with Chavez. Its that the Jays had to give up Hendriks to get him. Chavez is good but there are 10 similar guys in FA. You just made the bullpen a lot worse to get better in the rotation for 1 year. At this stage in the offseason this doesn't seem like its a good deal to make.

 

While this is true, I could see LaCava operating on the "a bird in hand is worth two in the bush" mentality. He had the offer of Chavez for Hendriks in hand. Sure, there were similar FAs on the market, but there's no guarantee you get them if they choose to go to another team. So he guaranteed himself a starter now, rather than taking the chance of striking out on similar ones and then Chavez being gone. And if he can another starter, that's great, we can either flip Chavez again (probably not ideal for a new GM, may deter FAs from signing if you can get flipped so soon after signing) or have competition for job #5 and have Chavez go to the bullpen

[Frag]

There's a few other minor factors that I think are worth considering:

 

1) Hendriks had an unusually large velocity jump last year. Does that make him more likely to be go under the knife soon?

2) Chavez did not start the season in the rotation, and may not have been prepared to do so. A full offseason preparing as a full time starter may help.

3) Martin is a superior framer to Phegley, and especially Vogt.

 

1. It didn't seem to affect his command, but I don't know.

3. That's actually an interesting point I hadn't considered. The shift from Vogt to Martin is significant.

[Abomination]

1. It didn't seem to affect his command, but I don't know.

3. That's actually an interesting point I hadn't considered. The shift from Vogt to Martin is significant.

 

Last year, Vogt caught 90 of his 157 innings. In 2014, almost all of the innings were caught by Jaso (54) and Norris (83) (Jaso was horrific, Norris below average).