Chris Archer’s Obvious Fit With the Dodgers
For months, people have been anticipating a terrible midseason market for starting pitchers. With the deadline right around the corner, some are offering that this is one of the worst markets in memory, in terms of how little is available. As the theory goes, when markets are this bad, teams selling get to over-charge, taking advantage of the limited supply and excess demand. What happens in reality is that an equilibrium is reached. Teams that might not have been inclined to sell find themselves intrigued by the market, so additional players become available. One such player at present could be Chris Archer.
The Rays have been thinking about selling for a while — they’ve lost way too many games, so rumors have surrounded arms like Drew Smyly, Jake Odorizzi, and Matt Moore. Archer is better than those guys, and he’s affordable for the next five years. Because of his contract, the Rays should feel no urgency to move him. But then, every pitcher is kind of a short-term acquisition, in a sense, and the market is what it is. Archer would make for a high-profile splash, and I don’t think he’d fit anywhere better than he’d fit with the Dodgers.
I’m not the only person thinking like this. I’d guess odds are still against Archer going anywhere, but if he moves, the Dodgers seem like the best spot. Surveying the standings, there are several teams who could use a starter, but few of them have the Dodgers’ organizational resources. The Astros could step up to the plate if they wanted to dangle Alex Bregman. The Rangers could make a play if they floated Joey Gallo, or maybe Jurickson Profar. The Dodgers are far from the only option, but they are the only team that has a Clayton Kershaw on the sidelines. It’s not clear when Kershaw will be able to return, if he’s able to return this season, so the Dodgers should have a certain urgency. They’re not hurting for depth, but they’re hurting. So many of them are hurting.
Reports have gone around that teams have made proposals for Archer, and the Rays have perhaps literally laughed them off. I first read that in a Ken Rosenthal article, and it’s not a total surprise. Archer does have a mid-4s ERA. I’m sure there are teams who think they can buy him low.
But that isn’t how the Rays operate. The Dodgers’ front office, obviously, would be familiar with how the Rays’ front office thinks. Archer is owed something in the vicinity of $40 million between now and the end of 2021. And at the end of the commitment, there are a couple team options, increasing the value of the contract for the club even more. The Rays think in terms of surplus values. The Dodgers think similarly, and Archer’s surplus value is through the roof. Both teams are able to recognize that, and that makes reaching an agreement easier.
In terms of performance, Archer hasn’t been where he was last year, and that is an issue. His value is down, slightly. On the other hand, he’s already improved.
| Split | ERA- | FIP- | xFIP- | K-BB% | 1st-Strike% | Z-O Swing% | Contact% | Strike% |
| First 10 GS | 126 | 111 | 85 | 16% | 53% | 36% | 75% | 61% |
| Last 11 GS | 102 | 90 | 84 | 19% | 60% | 30% | 72% | 63% |
It’s best not to focus on Archer playing the role of a sure-fire No. 1. He can look like that kind of pitcher, but he’s more of a No. 2. Think of him like that and you’re less likely to come away disappointed. Among qualified starters this season, Archer has allowed the sixth-lowest contact rate, and four of the five names in front of him work in the National League. There’s no question that Archer is hard to hit. And this year, he’s faced arguably the toughest lineups of anyone. His opposition quality has been high. According to Baseball-Reference, Archer has made 18 of his 21 starts against teams .500 or better. His average opponent has had a 106 wRC+. You know who has a 106 wRC+? Anthony Rendon. Todd Frazier. Khris Davis. That’s what Archer’s been up against. So he’s definitely deserved better, even if he’s still been below the 2015 standard.
The way I see it, Archer is a lot like Tyson Ross. A healthy Tyson Ross, I mean. They have similar profiles, and before Ross got hurt, he had plenty of trade value, that the Padres elected to squander. Ross, like Archer, isn’t a classic No. 1. He doesn’t have the precision. But the swings and misses are there, constantly, and when you fold in Archer’s long-term cost certainty, he’d be a hell of an asset.
The Dodgers know all this. The Rays know all this. The Dodgers don’t need a Kershaw replacement, but they could use something in there, given all the other rotation uncertainty. Archer last year cleared 200 innings. His arm should be able to hold up, and that’s another plus, given concerns about pitchers like Drew Pomeranz and Rich Hill. If you get Archer, you get him for 2016, and you get him through as far away as 2021, if you want. Long-term, he’d fit with anyone. It’s reflected by his surplus value.
If you want to be optimistic, that surplus value could be as high as about $150 million. A more conservative estimate would be around $100 million, but that’s still a ton for a player potentially available on the midseason market. The Dodgers could still meet that with relative ease. Let’s figure that Julio Urias is unavailable. Let’s also figure that Jose De Leon is unavailable. I doubt the Dodgers want to move guys who could potentially help this season. What’s next? The Dodgers could start by offering Cody Bellinger. They could then add Alex Verdugo, and Austin Barnes, who seems like a Rays type. In the Baseball America midseason top-100 list, Bellinger ranked 24th, and Verdugo ranked 44th. Both are position players. Barnes isn’t on that list, but he’s a big-league-ready catcher who also comes with some positional versatility. Barnes could join the Rays immediately, and then Bellinger and Verdugo would be a year or two off.
There are, of course, countless options. That package up there is probably still light, so you could fold in a Jharel Cotton or Grant Holmes. Maybe the Dodgers would float De Leon. He’d make for a hell of a centerpiece, and the Rays would be attracted to his advanced timeline. The Dodgers are the best organizational fit, in part because they have so many various organizational fits. Archer would help them today, and down the road. He would help to build out the long-term rotation. The Dodgers could afford the cost without touching the big-league roster.
Chances are, nothing happens. And if something does happen, well, it’s usually best to bet the field. The most obvious move is far from any kind of guarantee. But if the Rays are indeed willing to trade Chris Archer, they’ll have a match in Los Angeles. It helps an awful lot to speak the same language.
Jeff made Lookout Landing a thing, but he does not still write there about the Mariners. He does write here, sometimes about the Mariners, but usually not.
Seems like a strange idea. The Rays arent contenders right now, but Archer is only 27, exceptionally cheap and under team control. Why sell him off? If the Rays can sell off other parts to help them rebuild then potentially Archer could still be a significant piece in 2 or 3 years when they are ready to contend again.
Unless the Rays plan to completely burn it to the ground I dont see the point of trading Archer really.
I agree, it seems like a Billy Beane kind of thing to do, except for the selling low part.
If they did want to go back to square one (or is it ground zero?), they should also see what they could get for Longoria. If he wasn’t the face of the franchise, that would be actually be the more obvious move for the Rays right now.
I don’t disagree that Archer could help the next contending Rays team but the Rays would be foolish if they didn’t listen to offers. His surplus value in the next season and a half (or however long the non-contention window lasts) is worth more to a contending team than a rebuilding one, so they could find another team willing to pay a premium for wins today that aren’t particularly valuable to the Rays. Sure, prospects are inherently risky, but so are pitchers – the Rays can’t assume Archer will be the same in three years.
If Jose De Leon were in the big leagues today how much worse would he even be than Archer? After yesterday’s dominant performance I can’t see the Dodgers parting with De Leon unless Chris Sale were somehow on the market.
lol
is De Leon projected as a reliever? Steamer has him at ERA 3.14 and FIP 3.20
No, as a number two. FIP is a little high at this point. However, his K/9 is ludicrous.
He’s projected as a starter I believe. Someone explain the thumbs down, because De Leon is dominating the PCL right now. Archer is sitting at 4.60 ERA, has lost a MPH on his fastball and is an injury risk given his reliance on the slider.
The slider-injury connection is way way exaggerated, and should not register as a concern around Archer. Archer is an injury concern because he’s a pitcher.
oopsy daisy
The slider correlation thing is real. Tyson Ross lost MPH and has only made one start this year. Joe Ross shoulder fatigue, Liriano has had problems, Garrett Richards(33% last year). There’s definitely something going on with guys who have extreme slider usage.
You know what those guys have in common with Archer? They are pitchers.
If you are feeling the urge to make an argument using a hand-picked sample of players, don’t.
Your sample would suggest that high slider usage is a death sentence. It simply isn’t. There is a small correlation, that’s all. The effect is small compared to the baseline injury risk all pitchers have no matter what.
Don’t forget Sonny!
First I will say I have been against an Archer trade assuming they would require De Leon plus a bunch of others. If the price has dropped into the range from the article, I would be very very happy with taking the chance and trading Verdugo, Bellinger, Barnes and some lower prospects for Archer. I would probably be happiest if we could sub in Holmes or Calhoun and Stewart for one of Verdugo or Bellinger instead.
Verdugo/Bellinger, Holmes/Calhoun and Stewart, Barnes, probably some lower prospects like Scavuzzo and/or Oaks.
Fan trade proposal logic: I don’t want to give up prospects whose names I know, so I’ll replace those with a larger quantity of names that I don’t really know. Surely that is just as good.
Lol, you barked up the wrong tree here. There isn’t a name in the Dodger org that ivdown doesn’t know. I still implore you to come to TBLA sometime.
tried that, didn’t work.
Verdugo, Bellinger, and Barnes doesn’t come close to getting it done. Chris Archer turns 28 soon, so some decline is to be expected, and the degree to which he relies on that slider is worrisome, but his contract means that there’s no way the Rays deal him without getting a legitimate stud in return. Jose De Leon would definitely need to be in the deal, and I imagine the Dodgers would have to throw in another piece or two on top of that.
You probably know better than Jeff.
The reality is that none of us can accurately anticipate what a front office will do, so you’re right, I should have said that “Verdugo, Bellinger, and Barnes shouldn’t be enough for Chris Archer” rather than stating that it isn’t enough. The same Braves front office that made an insanely good deal with Shelby Miller made a pretty poor one with Andrelton Simmons. There is wide variation in the quality of returns since there are so many limiting factors (who wants the player, what prospects do they have, what prospects are they willing to part with, etc.). If Chris Archer’s contract was up soon, the Rays would be more constrained by those factors and potentially have to settle for a lesser return. It isn’t up until 2021, however, so they don’t have to trade him at all. The acquiring team has to motivate Tampa into selling Archer, which presumably would involve a much more significant return than the one Jeff suggested. I do like Barnes, but he, Verdugo, and Bellinger would be a package of quantity over quality.
To be fair, Verdugo and Bellinger are big risers, and I’ve seen something somewhere that guys with an upward trajectory on prospect lists actually tend to be a little underrated by their present ranking.
They’ve risen because other prospects have been promoted, not because either is having a breakout season. They’re both pretty much in line with previous performances.
They’ve been in line with previous performances *as they’ve moved up against tougher competition in a higher league*. That’s pretty much the definition of being a good prospect. You don’t shoot 40 to 50 spots up the list just because of promotions ahead of you.
Prospects have to progress in order to move up prospect lists. I don’t think that is controversial.
Bellinger and Verdugo have put up the seasons they were expected to produce. They haven’t improved substantially and I doubt you would find many scouts or prospect analysts who have significantly increased their FV from what it was before the season. They’ve maintained their value at a higher minor league stop, which is encouraging, but I want to make it clear that they have not had breakout performances that elevated their perceived future value.
…What? A prospect who has a good year at one level and then repeats that performance at a higher level has absolutely increased his value. If you don’t get that then I don’t think you understand how prospects evaluation works.
They may not have elevated their perceived future value, but they have lowered their risk, which is pretty important too. Bellinger at least has had a breakout pretty recently and prospect lists are catching up to him.
I’ve been writing about prospects for sixteen years, so I hope that I understand something about it. I can tell you definitively that repeating production at a higher level doesn’t necessarily do anything to a prospect’s projected FV. Bip is correct that it makes you more confident in your projection, so it’s undeniably a good thing, but what I’m trying to combat is the notion that Verdugo and Bellinger are now much better prospects just because they’re higher up a rankings list. They’re both good prospects who look like future major league contributors, but I simply haven’t seen or heard anyone who considers them 60 FV. Jose De Leon is a 60 FV, which is why you would expect him to headline a trade for someone like Chris Archer.
Above you stated a package of Barnes, Verdugo, and Bellinger would be a package of quantity, not quality. So I suppose I’m reacting to the implication that they aren’t quality prospects. Obviously there are even better prospects out there, but these guys are very nice pieces, as evidenced by their psospet ranking. Again, you don’t move that high up the board simply because of promotions.
*sigh* I said “quantity over quality.” I did not say “quantity, not quality.” I have never at any point said or implied that Verdugo and Bellinger are not quality prospects. Not only did you misquote me, but you blatantly ignored where I just said: “They’re both good prospects who look like future major league contributors.” Since fans don’t like the idea of giving up their organization’s best prospects, they generally propose deals where their teams give up 3-4 B/C level prospects in exchange for a great player, which is a quantity over quality approach. Sometimes trades like that happen, but most of the time the selling team prefers quality over quantity in the form of one premium prospect, which may then be supplemented by additional lesser prospects.
Think of it in terms of NFL draft picks, if that helps. You have a player you have to trade for whatever reason. One team offers you a first round draft pick for them while another team offers you three third round draft picks. The third round draft picks each have value, just not as much as the first round draft pick. If you have a lot of holes on your roster, you might prefer the quantity over quality in order to address them. If you don’t have many holes and simply want someone who can help fill the absence of the player you’re trading, you’re probably going to prefer quality over quantity and take the first round draft pick. The consensus is that Jose De Leon is considered a substantially more valuable prospect than Verdugo and Bellinger. Verdugo and Bellinger are good prospects, but they have not had breakout seasons and are not considered to be substantially more valuable now than they were before this season.
Eh. Now you’re just playing semantics. “Quantity over quality” means more parts but that those parts aren’t all that great. Sure, in a more recent comment you said they were good prospects, but I was simply explaining my reaction to your original comment. You might have been writing about prospects for sixteen years, but that doesn’t mean you’re any good at the “prospect” or “writing” parts.
You deliberately misquoted me and misrepresented what I said, so no, we’re not just playing semantics. You did that because you’re defensive about realizing that you misunderstood my position even though it has been consistent and clear all along, so you’re attempting to justify arguing with me when you never should have been arguing with me at all. “Quantity over quality” does not mean that Bellinger and Verdugo aren’t good prospects, it means they aren’t perceived to be as good as De Leon.
Take five minutes and google “quantity over quality”. It implies a lack of quality. Maybe not what you originially intended, but that’s what it means. So, no, I didn’t deliberately misquote you, because the way I said it didn’t have any real impact on what the phrase means. The person who can’t simply acknowledge they didn’t explain themselves well is the one and instead chooses to hurl accusations is the one whose being defensive.
No, it doesn’t. It’s funny that you would say this given that actually doing a google search for that phrase does not turn up any results that indicate “a lack of quality.” The phrase does imply lesser quality, but definitely not a lack of quality. Are you denying that Bellinger and Verdugo are considered lesser quality prospects than Jose De Leon? No, you aren’t, because you know that if you did you would look foolish. You don’t have a legitimate reason for arguing with me, you’re just doing it because you feel like you’re backed into a corner.
Yes, you most certainly did. Be a man and take responsibility for your own words. You wrongly claimed that I said “quantity, not quality” instead of “quantity over quality,” and you also claimed that I implied that Verdugo and Bellinger “aren’t quality prospects” when I never did anything of the sort and explicitly stated that “They’re both good prospects who look like future major league contributors, but I simply haven’t seen or heard anyone who considers them 60 FV. Jose De Leon is a 60 FV, which is why you would expect him to headline a trade for someone like Chris Archer.”
Man you’re dense.
Appeal to authority comments are the worse thing about FanGraphs. Think for yourself, the author had their say and if they want to say more they comment as well.
I keep flashing back to the David Price trade. Price, of course, didn’t have the same contract situation as Archer, but on the other hand, Price back then was also better than Archer is today. And the Rays didn’t deal Price for a particular stud. I liked their return, and it still looks fine, but people were disappointed the Rays didn’t pick up a blue-chipper.
The contract situation is the critical part. Tampa had to move Price for something and everyone knew that. They’re under no such pressure with Archer given that he is signed through 2021.
Completely different situation contract-wise, and willy adames was seen at the time as a potential blue-chipper based on ARL, and if he isn’t a blue chip now he’s on the brink.
Stop. No way they get Archer w/o including DeLeon. At least that’s how I’d view it from the Rays org. deLeon and Verdugo both in that deal or c ya.
Would rather keep De Leon
Because of the splash of big money at the start of the new ownership, people keep expecting the dodgers to make more big splashes, more “win now” panicked moves.
No one really seems to understand/believe that the new management regime is playing the long game, committed to building the team with home-grown prospects. These guys want develop the next Archer, not trade 3-4 of their future building blocks for him.
This regime will nibble on the corners of the market, ala Bud Norris, and MAYBE trade one of those prospects if they think the other team is overvaluing him, but will NEVER trade 3-4 top 100-type guys in return for a single player.
There are only so many spots in the rotation. Kershaw, Maeda, and Urias are locked in through at least 2020. Brandon McCarthy and Scott Kazmir are both signed to expensive deals through 2018. Hyun-Jin Ryu is also signed through 2018, but it’s fair to question whether or not he’ll be a factor. If you add Chris Archer to that mix, there wouldn’t be room for Jose De Leon in the rotation anyway.
@jdbolick
I mean, in theory you’re right, but you’re talking about a team that had arguably the best starting rotation in baseball…
Kershaw
Ryu
McCarthy
Wood
Anderson
…all on the DL at the same time for a minute.
I don’t know if I want to argue the Mets, Indians, Cubs, and Nationals having a worse pitching staff to be honest.
I like your enthusiasm but Brandon McCarthy has a track record that is somewhere around a rich-man’s Rodrigo Lopez and a poor-mans Jeff Suppan, with a new-found fastball coming off Tommy John.
Not saying he won’t be great, but that isn’t the best rotation in baseball if he’s the guy pitching game 3 of the NLCS against Hendricks or Colon or Strasburg.
Having a double-ace at the top mostly cancels out having a slightly worse 2-5.
And, based on the original premise, those five guys are all assumed to be healthy in order to label them the best starting rotation in baseball. That they are not healthy is why they are not the best starting rotation in baseball. That was my point, really.
@BlueinSF
It also should be noted though that Archer fits pretty well into the plan of a team that is playing the long game.
Not if you give up your top 4 prospects to get him….
Not if you give up more value than you get, is what you mean. If you give up a fair price in prospects in order to get him–and why should we expect them to give up more than a fair price?–then they are simply moving the value up a few years.
I’m pretty sure that exactly no one suggested they give up their “top 4 prospects” for Archer, but surrendering Jose De Leon plus a lesser prospect like Diaz would make sense if you’re a believer in Archer going forward. As noted above, they really wouldn’t even have room for De Leon in the rotation if they acquire Archer. He would be a bullpen piece / trade bait / occasional spot starter when injuries require it. He’s a promising young arm, but if you think Archer is better then you definitely make that deal. Plus, the Dodgers have a wealth of young arms behind him like Yadier Alvarez who will be ready to step in as the current rotation members age out.
can’t imagine any reason to give up deLeon for Archer. Archer is a good, not great starter. His value is in his cheap contract. deLeon also has 7 years of cheap control, is probably a better pitcher than Archer is right now and his ceiling is far higher.
A guy still in the minor leagues is “is a better pitcher right now” than Chris Archer?
Has the potential to benefit both the Rays and the Dodgers in the long term. If they land Archer they will have him throughout his prime and so on. While the Rays can land a couple of Top-100 prospects in Bellinger and Verdugo who are both believed to be solid MLB players in the near future. Good move all around.
Unless the Dodgers also acquire a bat and a reliever, I’m not sure Archer on his own will help the team enough to justify his price because he’s unnecessary to the team beyond 2016. And because this is a seller’s market, the Dodgers will also have to overpay to acquire those things as well, meaning that they might have to throw in all of their chips for the near future. Is that wise when even if they did all of that they still might not be better than the Cubs this year?
Chris Archer is unnecessary to exactly 0 teams.
Nowhere near all of their chips.
they certainly still would not be better than the Cubs, but so what? They aren’t in the same division, and you don’t have to be better than a team to beat them in the playoffs.
He’s unnecessary to the Dodgers who will have a solid rotation in 2017 with many more potential starters than slots. Archer would be a luxury to the Dodgers not a necessity.
To buy Archer, an impact bat, and a top reliever, it would cost a substantial number of assets, perhaps all of the Dodgers’ prospects in the top 100. Of course they would have pieces left over, but many still have to prove themselves to be of the kind of value necessary to be centerpieces in trades like these.
And my point is that even if the Dodgers made the playoffs after acquiring all of those things, you would still bet against them vs the Cubs which is something to consider before sacrificing a substantial amount of your future to try to win now.
See my above post, in which the Dodgers have the best all-DL starting rotation in baseball.
A luxury is what a team trying to win its division every year needs.
We’re talking about Archer. The price of other independent transactions do not impact whether an Archer trade is a good investment.
Going from 20% to 40% against the Cubs is just as valuable as going to 40% to 60%. The point is to maximize odds, not to chase after arbitrary goalposts.
“We’re talking about Archer. The price of other independent transactions do not impact whether an Archer trade is a good investment.”
That’s only partly true. The Dodgers have a limited supply of prospects, so making a trade for Archer limits their flexibility to make other deals. It absolutely is part of the calculus whether a trade for Archer is a good investment for the organization as a whole.
That can be said of literally any deal though. They are dealing a finite resource, prospects, to obtain another finite resource, major league talent. It’s a calculus that underlies every trade and is inherent to whatever we assess the cost to be, so it’s not really an “add-on” to Archer’s cost.
And they still have a decent rotation despite that fact without Archer. With 3-4 more healthy options behind it. It should not be expected that the Dodgers will need starting pitching in 2017 at this point.The Dodgers do not need to acquire Archer now when he’ll likely still be available in the off-season when the Dodgers will know more about who will and will not be able to contribute next season.
And the Dodgers would have more luxuries by not trading for Archer and instead keeping their prospects.
Is 3-4 of the Dodgers’ top prospects worth a slightly better chance to make the post-season this year, insurance in case of the unlikely event that they actually need Chris Archer, the difference in talent between Brandon McCarthy/Alex Wood, and whatever they may receive in return for trading one of them? I’m not sure
My point was that if not, the only way to justify the cost is if the Dodgers make those additional trades.
For the record, I’m not opposed to the Dodgers trading for Archer if the price is right. In fact, I’d probably be willing trade JDL plus others for him. However, based on what I’ve read, the Rays want more than that. They want a substantial overpay. And I’m not sure if he’s worth it to the Dodgers.
He may not be worth what the Rays are asking, but several good starting pitchers will continue to be necessary after 2016. Archer would be a nice rotation piece for the next half decade.
Thinking about it a little more, maybe it won’t cost as much as I imagined if the Rays are willing to settle on Holmes + Alvarez in a deal for Archer like I’ve heard, and also if the Dodgers go after Beltran and Chapman instead of the longer term options available. In that case, they’d be in a good position to win this year while still keeping most of their best prospects.
Archer for Puig plus a prospect?
If I’m the Dodgers, I don’t make this trade because their farm system is relatively weak at position players. After Bellinger and Verdugo (as well as Calhoun), there are no clear options to replace Utley, Kendrick, Adrian Gonzalez, Ethier who are all on the down sides of their careers. Even the young OF’s (Thompson, Pederson, Puig) have not shown consistent production. I would consider reconfigurations of the trade if the top tier prospects are just pitchers (e.g., JDL, Holmes) along with lower tier position players (Diaz, Lux).
At this point the Dodgers are ranked #21 in Offense (19th in runs scored, 27th in SLG) and #1 in starting pitching. Obviously they have some injury problems, but it doesn’t seem at all obvious that what they need at this point is yet another starting pitcher. Aren’t there more obvious needs? The only reason for the Dodgers being the obvious fit is that they have people to offer and they seem to have an insatiable appetite for starting pitchers.
Consider: #1 in starting pitching is almost 50% Clayton Kershaw alone. With all that value consolidated in one player, that means there is still a lot of value to be gained on the days he isn’t pitching, which is everyday these days 🙁
So much for the great pitching depth that the Dodgers’ genius front office put together by cobbling together all the injury-prone pitchers it can find.
You realize this is a team that is currently 4th in the MLB in ERA (not the best stat, I know, but at least describes outcomes), while having Kershaw, Anderson, Wood, McCarthy, Ryu, and Frankie Montas on the DL for significant chunks of time, right?
Sounds like the depth is working to me…
Dodgers lead the league in pitching WAR by 1.3 wins (over the Nationals). Their starters lead the league in WAR by 1 win (over the Mets). Their SPs are 1st in xFIP and 1st in K%-BB%, and they have 3 pitchers among top 10 in exit velo allowed (Maeda, Kazmir, Kershaw). But yeah, so much for that pitching depth.
Yeah because of Kershaw.
Huh wow isn’t that crazy, when you discount the contributions of a team’s best pitcher their staff gets worse.