PDA

View Full Version : The DeRosa Effect (Revisited)



Yagyu+
06-24-2010, 02:25 PM
I'm only posting the parts related to the Cubs. Fangraphs (http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/the-derosa-effect-revisited/) for the rest of the article.


Utility player Mark DeRosa has gotten around. The veteran has played with six clubs during his 12-year career. He was swapped twice within a six month period in 2008-09. DeRosa was first traded from the Chicago Cubs to the Cleveland Indians in December of ’08 and then from Cleveland to the St. Louis Cardinals in June of ’09...

...In those two aforementioned trades, five young players – four of whom were true “prospects” – changed hands. Although it’s been almost a year since DeRosa played for Cleveland and a good amount of time since he suited up for Chicago, let’s have a look and see what lasting effect – if any – he’s had on those two organizations (I last reviewed the Chicago side of the trade in July ’09).

Chicago received three young pitchers when it traded DeRosa to Cleveland: Jeff Stevens, John Gaub, and Chris Archer. Impressively, all three pitchers are still in the organization, and everyone has seen a bump in their value to the organization.

Stevens has been the most valuable to date. The 26-year-old reliever has had a neutral WAR (at exactly 0.0 for his career) but he’s looked good this season and could develop into a solid middle reliever. The right-hander has pitched 14.1 innings since being recalled in May. He went nine games before he allowed an earned run, but he then allowed runs in three straight games before tossing a scoreless frame on June 23. Stevens currently has an xFIP of 4.52, an average ground-ball rate, and a respectable strikeout rate of 7.53 K/9. His fastball has sat around 91 mph but he’s struggled to command his secondary pitches on a consistent basis.

Gaub, 25, has been a real find for the Cubs. The organization has yet to challenge him in the Majors, but the southpaw looks like he’ll be solid middle reliever or LOOGY. In ’09, he allowed 36 hits and struck out 80 batters in 60.0 combined innings between double-A and triple-A. Gaub handled left-handed batters very well in ’08 and ’09 but he’s struggled in a small-sample size in 2010. Lefties have batted .394 against him this season; he needs to show more consistent command of his slider – which can be a plus (strikeout) pitch. Despite his command and control (18 walks) issues, Gaub has a 3.52 FIP, 35 strikeouts and has given up 24 hits in 26.0 innings of work.

Gaub was the breakout player in ’09 and Archer is looking like the breakout star of ’10. Pitching in high-A ball, the right-handed starter currently has a 3.17 FIP and has given up just 49 hits in 66.1 innings of work. He’s also posted a solid ground-ball rate (51%), and has an excellent strikeout rate (10.21 K/9). The 21-year-old Archer also showed a high strikeout rate (9.83 K/9) in low-A ball in ’09. His fastball can reach 95-96 mph and his curveball is becoming more consistent. He’s still quite unrefined but Archer has solid potential as a big league starter.

poodski
06-24-2010, 02:36 PM
I thought Jim Hendry was terrible though?

windycityD
06-24-2010, 02:41 PM
All I'm going to say about Archer is this: if he maintains and develops his control, as well as his curve, Cleveland is going to really regret ever including him in that deal. That dude could be bad *** one day, pending lots of learning curve still ahead of him. But, time is on his side.

When people go back and re-analyze Hendry, that deal will be near the top of the list in terms of his good ones. Gaub really needs to see some time up here, sooner rather than later imho. Of course, Grabow is a major roadblock to that and Russell did fairly well in his stint up here.

redwhitenblue
06-24-2010, 02:50 PM
But that trade was about quality over quantity. . . .

ggross
06-24-2010, 03:48 PM
Until one of the 3 contributes something at the major league level or is involved in a trade that brings something positive back, the jury is still out on the trade as far as I'm concerned.

Losing DeRosa completely changed the 2009 season for the Cubs which obviously didn't turn out well compared to the 2 years before with DeRosa. If DeRosa didn't get hurt after he left people would probably be moaning about how bad the trade was. In that respect Hendry was very lucky, because now everyone can say, "DeRosa sucked in 2009 and was no better than Fontenot/Baker/Whoever". DeRosa's injury, which Hendry had no way of knowing at the time he made the trade, is probably what makes this a good trade when all is said and done.

Kirel
06-24-2010, 04:06 PM
Until one of the 3 contributes something at the major league level or is involved in a trade that brings something positive back, the jury is still out on the trade as far as I'm concerned.

Losing DeRosa completely changed the 2009 season for the Cubs which obviously didn't turn out well compared to the 2 years before with DeRosa. If DeRosa didn't get hurt after he left people would probably be moaning about how bad the trade was. In that respect Hendry was very lucky, because now everyone can say, "DeRosa sucked in 2009 and was no better than Fontenot/Baker/Whoever". DeRosa's injury, which Hendry had no way of knowing at the time he made the trade, is probably what makes this a good trade when all is said and done.
I disagree.

DeRosa was old and declining in value, it was predictable that he would get hurt and lose effectiveness.

People need to get over their sentimental attachments. The DeRosa trade was downright brilliant, regardless of what the average cub fan thought of it. People believed too much in DeRosa in the first place, he was a nice player, but hardly the linchpen of the team.

The reality of things is that in 2008 the Cubs had 7 position players with over 3 WAR(Ramirez, Soriano, Soto, DeRosa, Theriot, Lee, and Fontenot). In 2009 the cubs had one: Derrek Lee. It wasn't DeRosa leaving that killed the 2009 team, it was that Theriot, Fontenot, Soto, Soriano, and Ramirez were all much, much worse(between 2 and 2.5 WAR a piece less than 2008). Even with 2008 DeRosa over Fontenot, the biggest jump possible, the Cubs don't win the Wild Card.

Matchstckman
06-24-2010, 04:06 PM
Until one of the 3 contributes something at the major league level or is involved in a trade that brings something positive back, the jury is still out on the trade as far as I'm concerned.

Losing DeRosa completely changed the 2009 season for the Cubs which obviously didn't turn out well compared to the 2 years before with DeRosa. If DeRosa didn't get hurt after he left people would probably be moaning about how bad the trade was. In that respect Hendry was very lucky, because now everyone can say, "DeRosa sucked in 2009 and was no better than Fontenot/Baker/Whoever". DeRosa's injury, which Hendry had no way of knowing at the time he made the trade, is probably what makes this a good trade when all is said and done.

All this may be true, but DeRosa had never really done anything of substance outside of 2008. Sure his 06-07 were okay, but hardly anything to write home about. In the end, Hendry sold high on a 33-year-old utility player coming off a career year with the bat. I'd venture to say it was more likely to work out for the Cubs than not to.

Mell413
06-24-2010, 04:11 PM
The DeRosa deal was a great deal. They sold high on a 33 year old. The signs for decline were there and Hendry got great value for him IMO. We most likely weren't going to offer him arb (based on recent history) so those three is better than nothing. I love how Hendry gets all of the blame when things go wrong and no credit when things go right.

Yagyu+
06-24-2010, 04:17 PM
Wasn't sure what thread to drop this nugget in, but since the original post was pitching related:

This pitching talent distribution graph (http://capitolavenueclub.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/Top-100-Pitchers.png) from Beyond the Boxscore shows that while the Cubs are one of 14 teams without any top 1-20 pitching talent, they're one of only seven teams whose entire rotation ranks in the top 100.

The seven teams include:

Yankees -- two pitchers 1-20, three 21-60
Red Sox/Royals/Angels -- one pitcher top twenty, two pitchers 21-60, two pitchers 61-100
A's/Cubs -- two pitchers 21-60, three pitchers 61-100
Reds -- entire rotation ranks 61-100

Not sure what it's indicative of but I found it interesting. Did I misinterpreted the graph?

ggross
06-24-2010, 04:40 PM
I disagree.

DeRosa was old and declining in value, it was predictable that he would get hurt and lose effectiveness.
People need to get over their sentimental attachments. The DeRosa trade was downright brilliant, regardless of what the average cub fan thought of it. People believed too much in DeRosa in the first place, he was a nice player, but hardly the linchpen of the team.

The reality of things is that in 2008 the Cubs had 7 position players with over 3 WAR(Ramirez, Soriano, Soto, DeRosa, Theriot, Lee, and Fontenot). In 2009 the cubs had one: Derrek Lee. It wasn't DeRosa leaving that killed the 2009 team, it was that Theriot, Fontenot, Soto, Soriano, and Ramirez were all much, much worse(between 2 and 2.5 WAR a piece less than 2008). Even with 2008 DeRosa over Fontenot, the biggest jump possible, the Cubs don't win the Wild Card.


Old and declining in value, yet they sold high. That is a contradiction. I guess only Hendry was smart enough to know that DeRosa would get hurt. Cleveland and StL weren't clued in to that. Giving Hendry a lot of credit there. Unfortunately he didn't have the same foresight with ARam.

Kirel
06-24-2010, 04:43 PM
Old and declining in value, yet they sold high. That is a contradiction. I guess only Hendry was smart enough to know that DeRosa would get hurt. Cleveland and StL weren't clued in to that. Giving Hendry a lot of credit there. Unfortunately he didn't have the same foresight with ARam.
It's a risk thing. DeRosa wasn't a great bet to be very good going forward. Cleveland and St. Louis were in a position to take a risk on him, the Cubs were not.

I still think acquiring DeRosa was one of the least sensible things the Cardinals have done in a long time. They gave up a lot in what was ultimatly a very bad, almost needless, trade.

Also, I did not say they sold high, that was Matchstickman. They did sell him after his best season, for what it's worth, but the return they got was, honestly, extremely risky. The Cubs traded the risk that DeRosa might not continue to play well for the risk that the three given prospects would not pan out. You have to assume Hendry was just hoping one of the three guys would work out.

That all three might work out is a big surprise. At the time of the trade Stevens looked like the only guy with even a 50/50 shot at being useful. Archer was probably a one in a thousand shot to be doing even this well.

Matchstckman
06-24-2010, 04:53 PM
Old and declining in value, yet they sold high. That is a contradiction. I guess only Hendry was smart enough to know that DeRosa would get hurt. Cleveland and StL weren't clued in to that. Giving Hendry a lot of credit there. Unfortunately he didn't have the same foresight with ARam.

Well I think you could say he was declining in value simply because the season ended. We could have traded him when his value was at it's peak in July 2008 but why in God's name would we do that in the middle of the Cubs best offensive season, well, ever.

poodski
06-24-2010, 05:02 PM
Wasn't sure what thread to drop this nugget in, but since the original post was pitching related:

This pitching talent distribution graph (http://capitolavenueclub.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/Top-100-Pitchers.png) from Beyond the Boxscore shows that while the Cubs are one of 14 teams without any top 1-20 pitching talent, they're one of only seven teams whose entire rotation ranks in the top 100.

The seven teams include:

Yankees -- two pitchers 1-20, three 21-60
Red Sox/Royals/Angels -- one pitcher top twenty, two pitchers 21-60, two pitchers 61-100
A's/Cubs -- two pitchers 21-60, three pitchers 61-100
Reds -- entire rotation ranks 61-100

Not sure what it's indicative of but I found it interesting. Did I misinterpreted the graph?

Thats quite interesting.

I do wonder who those 5 are, and if that includes Silva? How old is that also?

toovey107
06-24-2010, 06:41 PM
Until one of the 3 contributes something at the major league level or is involved in a trade that brings something positive back, the jury is still out on the trade as far as I'm concerned.

Losing DeRosa completely changed the 2009 season for the Cubs which obviously didn't turn out well compared to the 2 years before with DeRosa. If DeRosa didn't get hurt after he left people would probably be moaning about how bad the trade was. In that respect Hendry was very lucky, because now everyone can say, "DeRosa sucked in 2009 and was no better than Fontenot/Baker/Whoever". DeRosa's injury, which Hendry had no way of knowing at the time he made the trade, is probably what makes this a good trade when all is said and done.
Get the hell out of here with all that ********.

Yagyu+
06-24-2010, 08:01 PM
Thats quite interesting.

I do wonder who those 5 are, and if that includes Silva? How old is that also?

The graph? Posted earlier today.

The projections (http://baseballprojection.com/2010/june2010p.htm)? From earlier this month.

chicagofan71
06-24-2010, 08:04 PM
But that trade was about quality over quantity. . . .

Correct. Which is why we got a LOOGY, a MR, and perhaps a solid SP

Jilly Bohnson
06-24-2010, 08:21 PM
Correct. Which is why we got a LOOGY, a MR, and perhaps a solid SP

That "perhaps a solid SP" has a decent argument for being our best pitching prospect.

This trade looked decent at the time, right now it looks like highway robbery.

Acronym
06-24-2010, 09:10 PM
That "perhaps a solid SP" has a decent argument for being our best pitching prospect.

This trade looked decent at the time, right now it looks like highway robbery.

I think Archer is still way too far away to say pretty much any of that.

Jilly Bohnson
06-24-2010, 09:23 PM
I think Archer is still way too far away to say pretty much any of that.

It might be a bit premature, but Archer has buttraped the FSL and is probably going to be at AA by the time I get my next paycheck, so it's not like he's lightyears away. Also, combine that with the shine coming off the Jay Jackson apple a bit and I think Archer's got a good argument.

As for the trade being highway robbery, the way I see it if one of those guys becomes a good major leaguer it's a good trade, if two of them do or one of them becomes an impact guy it's robbery.

Kirel
06-24-2010, 10:11 PM
It might be a bit premature, but Archer has buttraped the FSL and is probably going to be at AA by the time I get my next paycheck, so it's not like he's lightyears away. Also, combine that with the shine coming off the Jay Jackson apple a bit and I think Archer's got a good argument.

As for the trade being highway robbery, the way I see it if one of those guys becomes a good major leaguer it's a good trade, if two of them do or one of them becomes an impact guy it's robbery.
Well, McNutt may well take the top spot.

At the moment it may well be McNutt, Jackson, Archer in terms of SP prospects, depending on opinions on Simpson, but I think it'd be premature to overvalue him before he even has minor league innings under his belt.

chicagofan71
06-24-2010, 10:23 PM
That "perhaps a solid SP" has a decent argument for being our best pitching prospect.

This trade looked decent at the time, right now it looks like highway robbery.

I completely agree. I was simply responding to RWB making the snide comment because that's the comment I made a week or so back, which I still think is true. If this was more of a "quality" deal, we would have gotten a very good position prospect instead of just 2 solid MRers plus Archer

Jilly Bohnson
06-24-2010, 11:43 PM
Well, McNutt may well take the top spot.

At the moment it may well be McNutt, Jackson, Archer in terms of SP prospects, depending on opinions on Simpson, but I think it'd be premature to overvalue him before he even has minor league innings under his belt.

Yeah, I think a good argument can be made for any of those three. I'm leaning more and more towards Archer being head honcho and wondering more and more if Jay's better off being a reliever, I'd buy an argument for any of the three, and yeah in a month or two Simpson might be in that discussion too.

Jilly Bohnson
06-24-2010, 11:45 PM
I completely agree. I was simply responding to RWB making the snide comment because that's the comment I made a week or so back, which I still think is true. If this was more of a "quality" deal, we would have gotten a very good position prospect instead of just 2 solid MRers plus Archer

Gotchya. Yeah at the time only Stevens I believe was in BA's top 30 for Cleveland, it was basically three lesser names that Hendry liked rather than one big name. I remember when we heard he was going to Cleveland I really wanted David Huff...which isn't looking so good right now.

Milnertime
06-25-2010, 01:02 AM
Derosa!

Kerry wood!

9/11!


Never forget!

WOwolfOL
06-25-2010, 01:12 AM
If Strasburg doesn't strike out 20 next time, Wood > Strasburg

Captain Obvious
06-25-2010, 01:51 AM
derosa!

Kerry wood!

9/11!


Never forget!

:9/11: