The Dodgers Shouldn’t Trade for Price or Lester
Over the last few weeks, the Dodgers have been one of the primary suitors linked to a potential David Price trade, along with the Mariners and Cardinals. However, the Rays hot streak has made Price’s availability an open question, and now, perhaps the more likely scenario is that the team could trade for Jon Lester instead. The Red Sox playoff odds are down to about 3%, and Lester has publicly said that he won’t hold it against the team if they trade when it comes to offseason negotiations for a new contract. Given those two variables, trading Lester makes a lot of sense, and the Dodgers are apparently quite interested in him as well.
I’d like to make a suggestion to Ned Coletti, however: you don’t need to do it. In fact, you probably shouldn’t.
Lester and Price are both terrific pitchers, and certainly any team that adds either one would instantly be a better team than they were before. This isn’t an argument about either one being overrated. They’re really good. The Dodgers simply don’t really need either one.
As it stands, our Playoff Odds model has the as 75% favorites to win the NL West, because they have a game and a half lead over the Giants and our forecasts think the Dodgers are just the better team. If you don’t like using forecast data, though, our season-to-date stats mode — which only accounts for the team’s performance this season — has the Dodgers at about 65% favorites tow in the NL West. Without making a massive upgrade, the Dodgers odds of winning the division are something like 2-in-3 or 3-in-4.
Of course, winning the division is a very valuable outcome now that the Wild Card game exists, and the Dodgers should be interested in minimizing their chances of falling behind San Francisco and having to try to play their way into the division series. Having strong playoff odds in late July is reason to make an upgrade, not a reason to avoid making one. But the Dodgers are extremely likely to make the postseason — both modes give them an 17-18% chance of making the Wild Card game, so their playoff odds are 85% to 95% — and should be looking to make upgrades that will not only get them to October, but help them once they are there. And while both Lester and Price are terrific, it’s not entirely clear that having either one would be the kind of upgrade that would justify the cost of their acquisition.
Let’s start with the scenarios where they don’t win their division and are forced to play in the Wild Card game. We’re talking about a 1-in-6 chance, or something to that effect, but then we have to drill that down to the odds that either Price or Lester would actually pitch in that game. Obviously, the Dodgers would throw Kershaw in that game if he was available, and they might throw Greinke if the other team is better at hitting lefties than righties. Depending on how the team’s rotation shook out and the strengths of the opponent, Price or Lester might not even pitch in that game.
If that scenario shook out, and the team had given up significant future assets to acquire either player, there’s a real chance that the team could lose the Wild Card game without either player taking the field in the postseason. Sure, a Dodgers team with Kershaw on the mound is going to be something like a 55% to 60% favorite over almost any other team they play, especially if the game is in LA, but that leaves a large percentage of outcomes where the Dodgers lose that game and their season ends. And especially with a guy like Lester, you probably don’t want to mortgage the farm for the right to have him sit on the bench and watch the team lose the Wild Card game.
But the Dodgers probably aren’t going to be in that position. Odds are better than they’re going to win the division, or if they do make the Wild Card game, they’ll win it and advance to the division series. Our playoff odds model gives them an 85% chance of advancing to the NLDS, with only the Nationals and Tigers having better odds of reaching the real playoffs. The Dodgers should be planning their roster for an extended playoff series, not just a single elimination game.
But I’m not even sure Lester or Price is a dramatic upgrade there either. Let’s start with the best of five round, and assume that the Dodgers win the division, giving them time to setup their playoff roster by avoiding the Wild Card game. Games 1 and 5 belong to Kershaw, without any controversy. So the only question then is who pitches the middle three games.
Without acquiring another frontline starter, the current setup would be something like Zack Greinke, Hyun-Jin Ryu, and Josh Beckett. Add Price or Lester, and you’re effectively using them to replace Beckett in that series rotation. What’s the difference between Jon Lester and Josh Beckett in one game?
Lester currently projects as a 3.50 ERA pitcher in the AL East, so move him to the NL West, and you probably have something like a 3.25 ERA pitcher. Beckett projects as a 3.90 ERA guy, so clearly, it’s an upgrade. But of course, neither pitcher is going to be asked to throw nine innings a playoff game, so we’re really looking at their difference over roughly six innings. In Beckett’s case, he’s probably not even likely to be asked to get six in a playoff game, so it’s really more like six innings of Lester versus four innings of Beckett and two innings of the Dodgers bullpen. But, we’ll just keep it simple and stick with six innings of each starter.
Overall, that’s about a .43 runs per game difference in starting Lester instead of Beckett. Using the pythagenpat formula, we can see how that translates into a change in expected winning percentage. Let’s set the Dodgers assumed runs per game to 4.3 — the number doesn’t really matter, but that’s their current BaseRuns expectation — and then compare their expected winning percentage with both starters. With Lester pitching six innings, a 3.25 ERA projection would equal 2.16 runs allowed over that span, and for the sake or this exercise, we’ll assume the Dodgers bullpen would allow one run over three innings after both pitchers leave, so the total forecast for the Dodgers-in-Lester-start is 3.16 runs allowed per game.
Pythagenpat suggests that, at 4.3 runs scored per game and 3.2 runs allowed per game, the Dodgers would be expected to win something like 63.3% of the games Lester starts for them. That’s really good, because he’s good and they’re good. But they’re still good when Beckett pitches too, so replacing Lester with Beckett only pushes the expected winning percentage down to 57.8%. The difference between having a 3.25 ERA starter and a 3.90 ERA starter is about a 5.5% change in expected winning percentage. And that’s in one game of a five game series. The overall improvement in winning the NLDS by swapping out Beckett for Lester is along the lines of a percentage point. Or maybe two percentage points if you think that Beckett would make an amazing reliever and also include the bump the team would get from having him come out of the bullpen for the rest of the series.
Even in a best of seven series, where Lester would get to make two starts, it’s not clear that his presence would be a huge upgrade even then, because you’re still only removing one Josh Beckett start. The second start would come from Hyun-Jin Ryu, who would take over the #4 starter role and only get one start in a seven game series. Lester is better than Ryu, but not Ryu is a lot better than Beckett, and the improvement of odds in a game where you swap out Ryu for Lester is more along the lines of 2%.
I’ve been using Lester as an example, but the results are mostly the same with Price. He’s better, and so the upgrade is more significant, but the again, the cost will be much larger with Price than Lester as well. And the same basic concept holds there too; he’s much better than Beckett, but Beckett’s only pitching one game in a playoff series, even one that goes seven games.
The Dodgers should try to get better, because they have a real chance to win this year, and Clayton Kershaw might not be this version of Clayton Kershaw forever. Hanley Ramirez is a free agent this winter. Greinke has an opt-out after next year. The Dodgers have a window and should go for it, but going for it should result in pursuing players that are significant upgrades. While starters are more valuable than relievers, the Dodgers current pitching staff suggests that the upgrade from swapping out Brian Wilson and Chris Perez with ace reliever types is probably just as large, and maybe larger, as swapping out Beckett for a guy like Lester.
Instead of trying to upgrade their starting pitching, they should be talking to the Red Sox about Andrew Miller and Koji Uehara. Or if they really want to throw their financial muscle around, go take Jonathan Papelbon off the Phillies hands. They have a couple of replacement level setup guys who could easily be swapped out for actual effective relief aces, and that upgrade won’t cost them Joc Pederson or Corey Seager.
Lester or Price make a lot of sense for a team in win-now mode that doesn’t already have Kershaw, Greinke, and Ryu. To acquire either one, the Dodgers would have to outbid teams that have a significantly stronger need for a frontline pitcher. It might be fun to dream about what having three aces in a rotation would be like, but realistically, the Dodgers could get a similar upgrade from just throwing Wilson and Perez overboard and replacing them with a couple of good relief arms.
And if they just really love Jon Lester, well, they can always throw $150 million at him this winter.
Dave is the Managing Editor of FanGraphs.
You really think the Red Sox would trade Miller and Uehara together for anything less than a top prospect? I’m not mocking you, I’m genuinely asking, because I don’t really see that happening.
If the Dodgers came calling and asking for both of those guys, I really don’t see the Red Sox asking less than Pederson. Not saying the Dodgers would do it, but those are literally the two best relievers on the market at the deadline; I don’t think they’re going to the same team for a middling group of B and C prospects.
The Padres and Rangers got guys ranked around 100 in most prospect rankings for Street and Soria. So, I think using those trades as the basis for a Uehara/Miller trade, probably prospects ranked slightly higher since the increased value from Soria to Uehara isn’t tremendous.
So, from the Dodgers, it probably is somebody like Zach Lee and Chris Reed. Just throwing out my opinion.
point is, I don’t think the Red Sox have any real chance of getting a top 20 prospect in baseball for 2 relief pitchers (albeit, elite relief pitchers).
Are Jake Thompson and Corey Knebel really that close to making a top 100 prospect list? Maybe Thompson in a year if he keeps developing but probably not Knebel.
No one is giving up a top 50 prospect for two rent-a-relievers. Street and Soria didn’t even command top 100 guys and they are under contract for next year at reasonable prices. A collection of B prospects is what Boston should expect to get.
Yes – I mostly agree – again what I’m saying is I don’t believe that will get it done, mostly given Boston’s attachment to Uehara. I think they want him back in the future and will be extremely unmotivated to move him for middling prospects.
Just my opinion I suppose, but I don’t think they’re actively shopping Uehara (perhaps in part due to underwhelming returns on even very good relievers).
Also if the Red Sox thought they had a good shot at getting an excellent prospect for Lester from the Dodgers, wouldn’t they be even less motivated to make a reliever trade that would decrease the chances of the Lester swap?
Uehara will be 40 years old near the start of next year. If the Red Sox aren’t contending this year, then they absolutely should try to trade him for even good prospects. If they want him back, they can try to bring him back next year.
I don’t think age is a huge factor, but I agree that if they get offered good prospect(s) they should trade him. I just think the Red Sox will ask the moon for both Uehara and Miller, just my gut feeling.
Miller and Uehara for Andre Ethier. Take it or Leave it.
Pretty sure the Red Sox leave it twice, then circle back just to leave it again.
From the Red Sox perspective, leave it, unless you are throwing in Seager. The Red Sox already have two average hitting outfielders with large L/R splits that provide mediocre defense. They don’t need another that costs 17 mil per year.
Sox wouldn’t take Ethier for free.
not for Ethier, but one could see the reason for the Kemp interest in Boston. So, switching that around as something like Miller &/or Uehara and a prospect for Kemp plus $60M is a little bit less farfetched.
If Kemp’s willing to go permanently to LF, that might be the start of something. Trouble is, with he wants to play CF everyday and has a no-trade clause, so you’d end up negotiating with him on his defensive position as a pre-condition of a trade.
He has no business playing CF or RF at Fenway. His bat might justify the limited defensive damage he could cause in LF – kind of a “Manny-lite”
I think LF to DH (Ortiz successor) is how the Sox would see it.
*correction – he has NO no-trade clause. So might just have to suck it up.
Successor to Ortiz sounds about right. Right now he’s kind of like mid-career Jim Rice – used to have some mobility and a good arm, but days in the field are numbered.
Kemp is demanding a trade, so what are the chances that he’ll “suck it up”?
Kemp isn’t demanding a trade, his agent keeps on running his mouth.
I can definitely see the Dodgers wanting Lester for security as Beckett’s health concerns could mount by the end of the season. I still agree overall that they likely don’t need Lester, but a more compelling argument is made if Beckett hits the DL and you’re comparing to a 4-4.5 ERA guy in Haren or his replacement.
Haren’t not a 4.4 to 4.5 ERA guy. Forecasts have him at around 4.00, not much different than Beckett.
part of it is that LA is trying to avoid Haren’s vesting option
Pretty sure they don’t want Haren to see the light of day in the playoffs. He’s managed that sterling 4.52 FIP while only 6 of his 21 starts have come against winning teams. Ouch.
You are really drinking the Kool-aid if you’re relying on Haren’s projections vs. his actual 4.52 FIP.
Why should we not trust the projections?
It changes somewhat, but I think the fundamental point here is that you already have the best pitcher in baseball as your #1 and a legitimate ace as your #2. You’ve got weaknesses elsewhere, so if you’re going to spend limited prospects to upgrade, focus on those weaknesses.
I don’t think that’s the fundamental point at all. The fundamental point is that upgrading to a starter better than Beckett would only improve the team about as much as upgrading the pen, and getting relievers would be cheaper in terms of prospects traded.
In this specific case the Dodgers should upgrade their weaknesses (a couple replacement level bullpen guys) rather than their strengths (the rotation), but that isn’t the fundamental point. The Cardinals for instance have a struggling lineup but can more easily upgrade their rotation.
Even if the Sox took on Matt Kemp and the rest of his contract you don’t think it would be worth it? They could then bring up Pederson. I’m hearing there might be a deal for dealing with Kemp and Seager. If that’s the case though I would have to imagine Miller being also part of the deal.
Corey Seager isn’t going to Boston in any deal.
Just like the Dodgers are not sending Rubby de la Rosa and Allen Webster in any deal that involves paying Carl Crawford, Josh Beckett and Adrian Gonzalez?
One thing doesn’t make a trend.
Look, son, don’t comment unless you know what the hell you’re talking about.
Kemp and Seager for 2 months of Lester is a bad deal for the dodgers. If I were the Red Sox I would make that trade in a heartbeat.
Kemp plus a big chunk of salary and Seager for a Lester rental – I agree with you.
A guy turning 30 this year who will make $21m+ every year until he turns 35, and is already best equipped to DH but will fight to the death to play CF, plus Seager for a Lester rental – if the Dodgers don’t have to pay a dime, they should sign the deal before the Red Sox come to their senses.
Why would the money matter at all to the Dodgers? They’re the last team in the world that needs to dump salary. They’re more concerned with clearing the outfielder glut.
Every business owner cares about money, even if they have plenty of it.
I am utterly terrified that the Mariners are going to trade for Kemp’s disaster of a contract. But if they threw in Seager, I think it may actually be worth it, especially for the chance at a 3 Seager + Cano infield.
Another Seager?
There’s chocolate Seager, and there’s cinnamon Seager.
A lesser Seager? I think not. Cinnamon takes a backseat to NO SEAGER.
You might say that infield was Like a Rock.
Meager
Then they just need Mike Carp and Mike Trout to have 3 Seagers and an appropriately fishy field for the Mariners.
Man the amount of people that actually believe the Dodgers would send over a top 20 prospect just to dump a contract is just absurd. People need to get a grip.
Differences of 6% or so to make the playoffs and then again to win a playoff game or two or more are not insignificant. Thus, to have Lester for the rest of the season would be valuable. I doubt if he would cost a top prospect.
In the case of Price, there is also an additional year, and a high likehood of being to sign him to a long term contract once he’s in LA. I’d say that’s worth at least a top prospect or a package of prospects.
Lester won’t cost a top prospect? The Red Sox are trying to re-sign him (albeit clumsily), so trading him hinders that plan. Why bother creating some distance from Lester and alienating the fan base for anything less than a top prospect?
Also, the Sox have some roster crunching to do. They have a lot of top- and mid-tier prospects with decent major-league readiness. Another mid-tier guy makes that problem worse. If anything, they’d probably prefer a big talent that’s 3-4 years away.
Why on earth would anyone think the Dodgers would do the smart thing? They are already paying a $15-20 million outfielder to sit on the bench.They still have to pay Chad Billingsley about $15 million next year too, not to mention Hanley being injured half the time. Is the money pocket really bottomless?
Not accurate on Billingsley. They have a $3m buyout that they’ll almost certainly use.
I don’t think the Dodgers always do the smart thing but why do you think Hanley and Billingsley’s injuries have anything to do with the Dodgers FO’s intelligence?
The Dodgers track record of not doing the “smart thing” is pretty limited to decisions involving money – they haven’t really made many memorably bad deals if you throw out financial concerns and focus entirely on the players in the deal in a vacuum. It’s the wrong way to look at transactions in general, but until LAD stops operating as if they play in a league using Zimbabwean currency, worth considering.
Really?
I think we have to consider the Dodgers FO under McCourt as a separate entity from the current FO, even though NedCo is the GM in both cases. The team has opperated quite differently since Stan Kasten became president and the financial picture changed.
I still remember Casey Blake for Carlos Santana. I don’t care if the Indians ate $4 million of his salary to net Santana or not, that was just a bad deal.
While I don’t know that it would change your position, but didn’t you neglect to consider the decidedly non-zero possibility of Kershaw, Greinke or Ryu hitting the DL prior to the start of the playoffs, and once it is too late to do anything about it?
You can’t base your decisions on non-zero possibilities, or else the Phillies would be buyers at the deadline.
Fun prank: explain the fundamentally unpredictable nature of reality to Ruben Amaro, go over Barry Bonds’ late-career numbers with him, convince him to sign Ryan Howard to an additional nine-figure extension.
Or convince him to sign Barry Bonds.
@Stank
50 year old Barry could still put up a >.309 OBP
Until he fails a drug test, then he puts up a division by zero error.
I think the Red Sox should take advantage of a Market Inefficiency: Trade Lester within the division.
The Orioles game 1 starter? Wei-Yin-Chen. The Blue Jay’s #1 starter? Mark Buerhle. Both teams should be pushing there chips because they have a rare chance to make in to the playoffs in the AL East.
Approach the Orioles. Perhaps ask about Hunter Harvey. Ask why they hate Kevin Gausman so much.
Approuch the Blue Jays, ask about Daniel Norris or Osuna.
Approach the Yankees. Tell them Lester is theirs if they drain the entire farm.
The Dodgers don’t need Lester and that is leverage. They can take advantage desperate rivals by giving them a rental, taking prospects, and hurting their rivals in then long term.
Then flip some prospects for CarGo.
Buehrle is not the Jays game 1 starter.
Who is R.A. Dickey? That is difficult to justify
I’ll accept Marcus Stroman, but that won’t happen.
I’d imagine Buerhle would start, given the possibility, for a WC game. It would take huge stones for the Jays brass to start Stroman, being a rookie. Stroman has looked awesome this year, but can you imagine the blowback if he got crushed in win or go home game?
This would be pretty much the same as Sonny Gray starting game 1 last year.
The Orioles ‘hate’ Kevin Gausman? Is this an actual narrative now?
They’ve jerked him around all season and have been forced to give him a chance due to injury.
He was a top prospect and they were going to bring up the corpse of Johan Santana to start over him before he got hurt again
In fairness, Gausman has not demonstrated that he can consistently throw stikes. The Majors, particularly when your team is trying to win a division title, is not an ideal place to work on control issues.
We are talking about a rotation with Ubaldo, Tillman,Norris, and Miguel Gonzalez. I’m convinced that Gausman at his worst is at least as good as those bums.
Kevin Gausman has pitched less than 200 innings over the course of his 3-year professional career. I think the orioles probably wanted to see him pitch a full season in the minors before handling a large major-league mode. He’s been called up by necessity only.
In any case, the red sox have a glut of potential mid-rotation starters at AA/AAA, and some intriguing low-level pitching prospects to boot. Why would Harvey or Gausman make sense here?
Ditto for the Jays, Yankees, and Rays. They are not great fits for trading partners from the red sox perspective.
Who matches up better? Pederson or Seager probably aren’t happening.
I’d rather have a guy would can contribute soon(Gausman/Bundy/Norris) or with incredible upside(Harvey/Urias/Osuna). Gausman can be a top end guy in 2015. Harvey can be a top end guy in 2017.
If the Pirates are serious, I’d set my sights on Josh Bell or Kingham.
Hell, Lack to the Pirates. They could sure as hell use him at $500K next year.
The Orioles Trainer HATES Kevin Gausman Because of One Weird Trick! CLICK HERE
You’d have the Red Sox fleece a division rival for Lester, then get fleeced themselves for a Coors Field hitter??
I thought the headline said “The Dodgers Shouldn’t Trade Price for Lester”. And I’m thinking “when did they get Price?”
Time for that eye exam.
It don’t matter Strasburg’s not gonna pitch in the NLDS because the difference over 6 innings from him to Detwiler is only .5 runs!
Besides, who cares how they do in the playoffs this year. They’ll be back next year!
Ross Detwiler threw six shutout innings that game. Might want to find a new example.
…although we here at FanGraphs know better than to stoop to a “it worked out, so it must have been the right decision!” type of analysis, right?
You are right, but we can still use the “it didn’t NOT work so is not NOT definitely the wrong decision” analysis.
Well yes, in this case the other guy picks the example, and claims that you would have said it’s “only” a 5 run difference when in fact you would have claimed something less than a one run difference; about the size of the Becket/Lester difference actually.
Pointing out that he’s blatantly exaggerating the difference by pointing to actual performance on the actual field strikes me as fine.
A statistical post analyzing the two pitchers two years ago would do, but pointing to what happened on the field ALSO makes it clear that the expected difference probably wasn’t anything like 5 runs in one game and that the difference between “ace” and “good” is being exaggerated here.
Difference between prospective and retrospective analysis. I am sure that the prospective analysis showed that Stras should have pitched. The retrospective analysis shows that the odds of the Nationals winning would probably have been diminished if Strasburg had pitched, given the actual outcome for the game’s starter.
So, it was a “poor” decision that worked out. Given the chance to redo the game, only a fool would turn in Detwiler’s performance for the very small percentage that Stras would have turned in a better performance. It’s just a poor example for the point the poster was trying to make.
I think the point is that pitcher differences in a single game are not that important precisely because anything can happen in that one game.
It does increase your % of that one game, though.
Yeah, I ‘m sure they loved having Gio out there for a deciding Game 5. Strasburg couldn’t have held a 6 run lead he had…
Not poorly said.
Absolutely agree that the Dodgers cashing in even one of their top 3 prospects for Price or worse, 2 months of Lester is really foolish considering their top 3 SPs are already pretty top notch and so there seems very little to be gained.
I can understand wanting an upgrade over Haren and being concerned about Beckett’s health, but there have to be more prudent SP options out there (Colon?) Mets would need far less to make a deal for Colon and the Dodgers would be getting a reliable veteran plus a reasonable $11M for next year (even if the Mets kick nothing in).
But reasonable, mariginal upgrades do not fit the profile for the Dodgers’ ownership group. They care not for executing a precise, clean dive. They prefer cannon balls. I don’t see them nabbing Price, but I believe they will signficantly overpay to acquire Lester, and the Red Sox will happily oblige them.
Yeah, cannon balls like the Victorino trade or the infamous Brandon League trade.
If acquiring a two-time All Star, four-time Gold Glover and a player who finished in the top 15 in MVP the year before is your definition of a low-profile trade, so be it. Any shrewdness you want to assign to the Dodgers in acquiring Brandon League is mitigated by their decision to extend him a week after the knew Jensen’s irregular heartbeat was corrected. They will be paying League $7.5 million next season not to finish games, given the way their vesting option is structured for 2016. But, sure, $22.5 million in guaranteed money is a great investment for a ROOGY who can’t miss bats.
They got Victorino for Josh Lindblom (so-so reliever) and Ethan Martin (B prospect who had hit a developmental wall.). That’s not high-profile trade material, and certainly not what you would expect for a guy who you would first think to describe as . Victorino’s value was pretty low at that point.
By the same token of unreasonable excesses, the Dodgers have not mortgaged their farm system to add anyone for at least a couple of years. They’ve clearly made their farm system a priority.
I think that’s pretty overblown. They could’ve made a blockbuster trade for Price this last offseason, or outbid the Yankees for Tanaka, but instead they went with a modest deal for Haren that seemed perfectly reasonable at the time. The narrative that the Dodgers are just going to always throw huge bags with dollar signs printed on them at every problem isn’t really fair.
It’s almost the exact same narrative with Shark right? Shark is arguably the A’s third best pitcher.
Or is the extra year of control make the Shark/Russell trade a smart move but otherwise not?
I don’t think that’s arguable.
2014 WAR
Gray-2.7
Kazmir-2.5
Shark-2.4
I could find a lot more to go on than that. I’m not saying it is necessarily true but It certainly is aurguable.
That was my reaction as well. They’re very similar circumstances with complete opposite arguments from Cameron. Note that Price has another year of team control, only Lester does not.
There are other issues in play for the A’s.
1) All of the A’s best pitchers haven’t seen large work loads, or haven’t in a while:
Kazmir hasn’t been over 158IP since 2007, he’s at 129.1 now.
Gray pitched 172 last year and is at 139 now in his first full season at the MLB level.
Chavez has hardly been used as a starter in his career and is well above his highest IP total.
Shark might well be the A’s best pitcher by the time Gray and Kazmir get up to around 200IP.
2) The A’s actually got 2 pitchers. Their depth in pitching was pretty light before the deal. Remember Mills, the $1 acquisition? Now with Hammel and Shark, the A’s #6 starter is a legitimate MLB pitcher (Milone), rather than a below replacement level AAA filler.
3) The A’s are near the end of a competitive window and don’t have the money to buy back into competitiveness as the Dodgers do.
FYI, I think the Russell trade was fine just that 90% of the arguement in this piece apply’s to Shark as well before adding in
#1 (agreed)
#2 I assume it was Hammel for McKinney. The A’s could have probably obtained just Shark for Russell/Straily
Milone /Pomo to make the playoffs is still no problem. No Trade probably still gets them a wild card spot 90% of the time so Hammel is to help you win the division, something deemed unnessary for the Dogers.
#3 agreed but it’s more than that. I think in addition the A’s previous playoff loses has made the front office want to be the favorite going in this time, not just get in the playoffs like the last 4-5.
It’s not correct to say that Oakland was light on pitching depth given that they had to send down Milone. As for workload concerns, that’s fair, but similar questions could be raised about the Dodgers’ starters.
The workload concerns don’t really apply to any Dodgers starter except Beckett. The Dodgers top-3 is quite durable. The main problem is that Haren is becoming unusable and Beckett has a hip issue, and he could very easily miss more time. They have a good playoff rotation, but they might be in trouble 1 or 2 out of 5 days for the rest of the regular season.
as does Shark.
Using single game projections to compare between two players misses the point by quite a bit. If you do this exercise you will almost always talk yourself out of acquiring a better player, because differences between players at the major league level aren’t realized in single games, they are realized over many games. However, this doesn’t mean you shouldn’t concern yourself with putting the best possible team on the field for a short series. In fact, having the best possible team on the field becomes even more important for a short series, because you minimize the chances for blow ups (on the pitching side), and shutouts (on the hitting side).
Short series are stochastic for everyone involved, but they aren’t coin flips. They are weighted coin flips, and the goal is to weight those coin flips as much in your favour as possible. If you are starting with a good team, there is nothing wrong with going all in now at the expense of a hypothetical future that may never materialize. If the Dodgers have the opportunity to improve their starting rotation and they think they have as good a chance as any to win the WS this year, then they should do it.
And to Dave’s comment that they should be trying to upgrade for the balance of the season AND the post-season: I think that the difference between winning the division and just getting the wild-card is worth the upgrade just in terms of the regular-season value alone.
The wild-card game, at best, is like a 60/40 coin-flip before you even get to the real playoffs. Increasing the chance of making the final four from 60% to 100% is worth it, even if your new acquisition ends up in long relief for the post-season.
(although neither of the acquisitions in question would end up in long relief for the postseason)
How much more would it cost the Dodgers to get Lester than giving up Matt Kemp? That trade seems to make sense for both parties. Kemp still has huge upside given another offseason to get healthy. Boston isn’t winning anything this year, but they still have pieces to win in the immediate future. If the Dodgers unload Kemp, they can get rid of some of his contract price (I’m sure they’d still have to pay a portion), and they’d upgrade in the short term with Lester. Perhaps shedding some of Kemp’s contract would allow them to make a better offer to someone this offseason.
I agree with the sentiment of this article: the Dodgers definitely do not need Lester. However, to an even larger degree, they do not need Kemp. In fact, they might be better off without him if he is causing tension in the locker room. Moreover, even if he’s not causing issues in the locker room, the more time you can give to Scott Van Slyke the better as he has graded out to be a much better player than Kemp this season. The most productive outfield the Dodgers have this season is Puig, Van Slyke, and Crawford (neither he nor Ethier have been good, but they’ve still outperformed Kemp because of Kemp’s defensive struggles).
Unless the Red Sox really think they can/will resign Lester this offseason, a straight up trade of Kemp for Lester could make sense depending on how they split the contract. Alternatively, the Dodgers could give up one of their 2nd or 3rd tier prospects in addition, and I still think the trade would make sense for both teams. I don’t see a productive future for Kemp in LA, but he could do well in Boston. With an aging Pedroia, Ortiz, and Napoli, the Red Sox will still be motivated to win next year, and they can win next year, so getting an immediate producer in return for Lester seems to be more attractive than getting prospects.
I don’t think the Red Sox really want to take on salary.
Not that much. If the Dodgers just gave him to the Red Sox, they’d still have to kick in enough to bring his net cost to around Ortiz’s annual salary.
Because right now, that’s all Kemp is. A sweet-swinging DH.
Money aside, the biggest sticking point would be Kemp absolutely committing to being OK with being a LF or DH. If he’s adamant about playing CF, or gives any indication that he would start agitating to play CF instead of JBJ (given his 2-0 Gold Glove advantage), Boston would be worse for the acquisition, even if Kemp made nothing. And Kemp would have to waive his no-trade clause, meaning he’d have to be agreeable to his defensive future.
I agree with your overall gist about Boston considering players besides prospects. But I cringe at the thought of Kemp playing CF or even RF in Fenway, with its huge dimensions and his seven-second delay on seeing the ball come off the bat.
*oops – Kemp doesn’t have a no-trade clause.
He’s gonna have to take his talents to LF or DH.
The notion of Kemp as “an immediate producer” is pretty funny.
Can we start making some guesses at how much added playoff revenue these deals could bring in? Isn’t every game in the playoffs worth several million dollars in tickets alone, which after splitting up the pie gives each team maybe $5-10M per series? Then you have concessions and TV revenue, which I don’t know how its split up, nor how much it is, but certainly someone with more time to dedicate to this and knowledge regarding the matter could figure it out (or already knows it).
This entire analysis is flawed because it uses ERA’s and BaseRuns from the regular season.
If you really want to get into the granular numerical analysis (and I don’t) I think you’d have to run the numbers against their projected playoff opponents in order to make this analysis as rock-solid as it is being presented as.
Cameron is right that the benefit is less than the mainstream might think, but I don’t buy that upgrading a starter by almost 1 point of ERA/FIP only increases your chance of winning Game 4 by 5% or less.
Dave you always speak of how in the WC game teams can’t always conveniently throw their best pitcher in the one-game playoff. But in this article it’s just ho-hum, the Dodgers can just throw their pick of Kershaw or Greinke in the WC.
I’m kind of disappointed at the statistical depth of this article. It felt more or less like saying bacon tastes good, and chocolate tastes good, so lets make chocolate covered bacon for dinner.
I would totally eat that.
Great article. Now imagine what it would have been like last year if the Dodgers had Lester for the playoffs.
I agree that they don’t need either player. If they’re looking to upgrade their team, it’s a better use of resources to send lesser prospects to upgrade their bullpen. However, I don’t think a GM should look at the playoff odds at this point in the season. If they’re 99% favorites, then that might mean something. Or if they only have 2% odds, then maybe they shouldn’t trade their top prospect for a late-season push.
But let’s face it, they’re 1.5 games ahead of SF for the division and 2 games ahead of St Louis for the 2nd wild card. There are more than 60 days left in the regular season. They can be out of the playoff standings in 3 days. Sure, if you simulate the season a thousand times, they’ll come out on top more often than not. But with only one shot at this, and such a thin lead, they shouldn’t feel comfortable just because of the playoff odds that are published on various sites.
So I agree with the overall point, but just don’t think that playoff odds mean much in this spot. Certainly not when they only have a 65-75% chance of winning the division, rather than a 95%+ chance.
Papelbon has a no-trade and, while he says he would be open for a trade to a contender, he has also been adament that he will only accept one to a team for which he will be the closer. The Dodgers are not that team.
Here’s the citation on that:
http://nypost.com/2014/07/28/the-ultimatum-that-makes-papelbon-hard-for-phillies-to-deal/
What are the odds that Greinke and/or Kershaw succumb to an injury that effectively ends their season between now and November?
The difference between Lester and Beckett is a hip impingement, not .43 runs per start, Dave.
If the Dodgers acquire a starter, that’s the reason.
You know what, the Dodgers would get more by promoting and using Joc Pederson in CF against lefties in the postseason than getting Lester. Pederson over Kemp in CF against righty starters is at least > lester over beckett once every 4 games. And the cost is free.
I could see why the Dodgers shouldn’t acquire Price or Lester, but they’ve got to get some starter from somewhere. Someone like Peavy wouldn’t be a terrible idea.
Uehara is at a different level than Street or Soria or Miller. I’ll bet that the Red Sox can get a handsome return for him.
Let’s deal with these two in order. As of today, our Playoff Odds model has the A’s with a 71% chance to win the division and a 28% chance to win a wild card spot; in other words, we’re giving the A’s a 99% chance to make the postseason this year, by far the highest mark of any team in baseball.
That is when you defended yourself when people were comparing the Myers/Sields deal to the Samardzija/Russel deal. And you seem to think that the As trading their top prospects for pitchers in a win now deal was a good idea, and the As already had arguably the best rotation in baseball. How come that trade with a 71% chance of winning the division is better than, say, a Seager for Price trade with 75%?
I’d just really like you to spell it out for me, pretty please.
I love stats, I love analytics. My career is in analytics. One of the things I hate about analytics applied to sports is opinions like these. Oh, it’s only a 1-2% increase in the probability to win, so it’s meaningless. That’s the wrong way to look at it. This is the problem a lot of analysts have, they let the data make the decision instead of letting the data help to inform the decision.
1-2% in this context is huge. Not trying to close as much of that losing possibility as possible is the wrong move to make. 1-2% in this context is huge, as losing because you didn’t try to make yourself incrementally better has massive consequences.
Unless the price is ridiculously high, you make the deal to make you more likely to win the WS. Every time.
I think that is the point of this article, that the price is ridiculously high, giving up Top 20-50 prospects for a marginal increase of the odds of winning.
Oddly enough, thinking back to the A’s deal, this is a similar situation but whereas the A’s were applauded for making such a deal, the Dodgers are encouraged not to waste their top prospects on the deal. Sure, the odds are high of winning the division, but Beckett has had a checkered health history and Kershaw was out earlier this season on DL, and those are the reasons the A’s were applauded for giving up on a Top 20 player in Russell, as they have a couple of starters who might not make it to the end of the season and stay as productive. And that was for two pitchers who were pitching better than they had ever done before, whereas Lester and Price are legit aces who have done it for years now. I wonder what I’m missing.
And I would note that not that long ago, the same could have been said for the Giants, that the odds were very good that they would be in the playoffs and the Dodgers would not. The Dodgers were dealing with injuries early in the season, the Giants are now dealing with a number of injuries.
It’s 5.5 percentage points, Dave, not 5.5%. I know, petty, pedantic, whatever. But it matters: http://xkcd.com/985/
I for one appreciate your comment and don’t find it to be petty.
This is just an opinion but wouldn’t it make more sense to acquire Hamels and Papelbon for Kemp, and some combination of only 2 Pederson, Seager and Urias.
Hamels has several years left on his contract. The Phillies already said they would eat roughly 10 million of his contract and 10 or so on Papelbons. It would essentially be a wash on contract money.
Like I said it was just an opinion
Interesting thought, esp since CB Park is probably a good fit for Kemp. Kemp plus Zach Lee and Tom Windle for Hamels & Papelbon.
Just because Price would be bumping Beckett from the rotation doesn’t mean he’d be taking Beckett’s spot in the rotation. Price is probably better than Greinke, but say he’d take Ryu’s spot. Now you have Price rather than Ryu in games 3 and (crucially) 7, and Ryu in place of Beckett. Now your rotation looks better in three games of a seven-game series.
The Dodgers can make moves to upgrade with teams other than Boston and New York.
Those fans and their media live in sports fantasyland.
The Dodgers can move a Crawford, Kemp, or Ethier, because they can eat salary.
If the Dodgers eat $10-15m a year on they’re contract…they can get plenty…and not give up squat. KC for instance is really hurting for a bat…Orioles batters are wounded…same with Cincinnati. ..so forget it…
The September starting outfield will be LF Puig, CF Pedersen, RF Matt Kemp;
Dodgers might even pickup Dunn for DH or have Kemp DH.
I’m not convinced DH is the position the Dodgers should be looking to upgrade.
They are getting 0 WAR out of their DHs so far….
To be honest, I’m pretty disappointed in this article. As other commenters have pointed out, the statistical analysis here doesn’t appear to have been well thought-out. It seems to me that this article was thrown together in thirty minutes or so with a goal of capitalizing on the subject matter to get lots of user comments. But you’ve succeeded if that was the case, so I’ll try to contribute to the discussion…
First of all, Josh Beckett has been a (very) pleasant surprise for the Dodgers this year. Particularly up until his hip began to act up this month, it seemed like he’d found his groove in the rotation even if he was the beneficiary of a bit of good fortune. Unfortunately, his hip has been acting up. Since then, he’s looked like a borderline fifth starter/long reliever. He drew a single ground ball in two cycles through the Pirates’ lineup his last time out (against 12 FB, 3 of which left the park). He’s not necessarily a ground ball pitcher, but he’s clearly throwing hurt and he’ll be handled very conservatively for the foreseeable future. I feel that it would be very risky to bank on him regaining his pre-injury form at this point in his career. Expecting a 3.90 ERA from Beckett in ~6 innings of work in an NLDS game is an incredibly risky proposition if you’re the Dodgers. But even that doesn’t fully cover the ramifications of the Dodgers not trading for a top-shelf starter; as other commenters have pointed out, we’d have to consider how much more likely the Dodgers are to win their division if they slot Price/Lester into their rotation FROM HERE ON OUT.
But let’s go back to that hypothetical NLDS Game 3 or 4. If the Dodgers have to trot out Beckett or Haren, they’re going to give either guy a very short leash. 4-5 innings of work would be a conservative estimate, and I don’t see either throwing past the sixth (and only getting to that point if they’re pitching particularly well). Depending on the matchup and location (which wasn’t addressed whatsoever), I wouldn’t expect a performance better than the 4.25-4.50 ERA range from Beckett/Haren in light of their regression/injury concerns. These concerns are very real and immediate for the Dodgers in the midst of the trade deadline. Should we project an average outing of 5 innings and 2.5 runs allowed for Beckett, which is a more conservative and probably more realistic estimate than 6 and 2.59, we have to dig deeper than simply an apples-to-apples comparison where we substitute a Lester projection of 6 and 2.16. As this is a single game and not the amalgamation of a season’s worth of work, or even a month, we need to consider the weighted distribution of possible outcomes for each guy’s start. If we assume Mattingly keeps Beckett on a tight leash, which would theoretically mitigate his worst-case scenarios, we must consider the quality and quantity of relief at the Dodgers’ disposal. Josh Beckett or Dan Haren only managing to get through 3-4 innings means that the Dodgers need 5-6 innings of work from the pen. As has been established, this is a particular area of weakness for the Dodgers at this point in time. Projecting a 3.00 bullpen ERA might make sense if they’re only called upon for 2 or maybe 3 innings of work, but that number must necessarily rise in a situation where Mattingly needs 4-6 innings. For the sake of argument let’s say the bullpen’s ERA as a function of innings pitched in a single game goes something like 3.00-3.80-4.50-4.60 as we move out from 3 to 6 innings (rough estimates, but not entirely unreasonable when one considers the depth of the Dodger bullpen). My point is, we’d need to consider the likelihood of Beckett actually tossing 6 innings for your analysis to really hold water. The difference in expected runs allowed by the Dodgers would likely increase rather significantly for the alternative scenarios. For example, if the Dodgers starter lasts 5 innings, it’s probably more reasonable to expect 1.7 runs (on average) over 4 innings of bullpen work than the 1.33 you’d expect under a 3.00 ERA. So we’d be looking at approximately 4.2 expected runs allowed with a 5-inning, 4.50 ERA performance from the starter and 4 innings of 3.80 ERA ball from the ‘pen. That would put the Dodgers’ win probability at about a coin-flip.
All this may seem like pure hypothetical, and it is, but my point here is that in a single game anything MIGHT happen, but only one of those things WILL happen. Compare the uncertainties in a start from Beckett to those in a start by Lester or Price. These guys are not only likely to pitch much more effectively than Beckett, but they are far more likely to go deep into a game and give the Dodgers 7, 8, or even 9 innings of work. Especially by the time the postseason rolls around, every inning of rest for the bullpen counts. Particularly when your bullpen sucks in the first place. So that brings us back to the importance of having Lester/Price tossing every fifth day FROM HERE ON OUT, and the considerable reduction in bullpen usage that would result.
Ideally, the Dodgers manage to land Lester AND a bullpen arm without parting with more than one of their top prospects. But relief pitchers are notoriously fickle, and the sum quality of the innings one of these elite starters would provide the Dodgers in the remainder of the regular season might quite significantly alter the shape of the playoff picture in the National League. I think the Dodgers FO will make one of these deals if the asking price is anywhere within reason.
now, how many people have come here to read a novel?
Missing from this analysis was the regular-season upgrade from Haren to Lester — maybe closer to 2 wins than to 1 — which would very dramatically reduce the odds of having to play the Wild Card game.
In a five or a seven game series, any dodger opponent is going to see Kershaw twice and Greinke twice unless of course the series doesn’t last that long.
In a five game series a dodger opponent would see Ryu once.
The only time a fourth starter becomes significant is in a seven game series and that’s only because of the 2-3-2 format which forces the team without home field advantage to play three days in a row.
This idea that either Beckett or Haren would be MAJOR factors in a dodger post season rotation is preposterous nonsense.
The argument for or against the dodgers acquiring another TOR starter should be based primarily on the value they bring to the regular season after Jul 31st.
this.
Unless of course, any of those pitchers get hurt, or the Dodgers cannot line up their pitching rotation because they have to fight to the last day to win the division or have to play the play in game. These are not negligible considerations.