BBTF's Newsblog Discussion :: K.C. Star: Posnanski: This Guillen deal is hard to understand

Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Wednesday, December 05, 2007

K.C. Star: Posnanski: This Guillen deal is hard to understand

Not really, Babelfrisking: Suitcase Guillen = Maleta Guillen.

No, my problem is that Jose Guillen is on his ninth major-league team in 10 years, he strikes out three times more often than he walks, he can’t run, he’s no more than an average outfielder, and, most of all, he’s going to be 32 years old in May, the precise age when, history has shown time and again, players like Jose Guillen begin their descent.

Rob Neyer, the fine ESPN.com baseball writer and Royals fan, remembers 16 years ago when the Royals traded to get left fielder Kevin McReynolds. Neyer was working for the brilliant author Bill James at the time, and Neyer told James that he was psyched up about the move. Bill, being Bill, proceeded to go into a back room for a few minutes. He returned with a long, depressing printout that showed, pretty clearly, why McReynolds was about to tank.

McReynolds was 32 years old. His numbers then were eerily similar to Guillen’s numbers now. He (as Neyer and any other longtime Royals fan can tell you) tanked.

...The difference here is that Dayton Moore has shown good sense. He has taken this team in a clear direction in his year and a half. He has been right so far more times than he has been wrong. I’m still with him. If he says Guillen will do the job, hey, it’s December, and I’m a positive guy. I just got a Bill James e-mail, probably about this trade. I’m not even going to open it.

Repoz Posted: December 05, 2007 at 07:54 AM | 9 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
Tags: royals

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

1. Red Menace Posted: December 05, 2007 at 08:30 AM (#2635122)

Now they're letting bloggers write for the K.C. Star? Call Stephen A. Smith!

2. Exploring Leftist Conservatism since 2008 (ark..) Posted: December 05, 2007 at 11:35 AM (#2635161)

Oh heck, open the email, Joe. It's only going to hurt for about three years. This makes me wonder about Dayton Moore, but then so did the Meche contract, and so far Moore looks like a genius on that one.

I remember James writing wonderfully well in one of the 80s Abstracts about McReynolds and like players, and in so doing demonstrating how much value ballplayers lose in their early thirties. I haven't looked at trades and signings the same way since.

3. BeanoCook Posted: December 05, 2007 at 11:45 AM (#2635164)

Are the Royals really supposed to contend this year? Next year? How about in 2010? Maybe. Really, it is because they are not expected to contend, I don't mind this deal.

I understand many view this as money wasted, but this deal does make the Royals at least a little more competitive and watchable and interesting in 2008 and 2009. The money is not outrageous, but it certainly is high.

I realize that in theory, this $$ could have been saved for 2010, but seriously, that is not how accounting works. You have to pay taxes on profits in 2008-2009, every last dollar can't sit on the sidelines right until it is finally the moment to compete. Yes, you can plow more $$ into scouting, but there is a point of diminishing returns there too.

The Royals are still far from "no-mans" land of salary, well below.

4. Chris in Wicker Park Posted: December 05, 2007 at 01:15 PM (#2635176)

I get that Meche wasn't as bad last year as a lot of people expected (he was actually good) but I think it's still pretty early to say that that deal makes Moore look like a genius.

5. Belfry Bob Posted: December 05, 2007 at 01:55 PM (#2635189)

I agree with #3. It's not a mega-deal that will hold the Royals back, and it could actually make them better for a year or two.

6. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: December 05, 2007 at 04:10 PM (#2635354)

New Rob n Rany. Rany seems optimistic, while Rob seems cranky.

7. Zach Posted: December 05, 2007 at 04:19 PM (#2635367)

The players most affected by this signing are Emil Brown (68 OPS+), Joey Gathright (88), and Shane Costa (45) in left, and if Teahen moves to first, Ryan Shealy (55) and Ross Gload (95). That's a weighted 78 OPS+, lower if you figure on Gathright and Gload keeping more of the lost playing time as reserves.

If you can replace that many poor at bats with no defensive hit, you need to do something, regardless of the number of wins you're at. If I were more enthusiastic about Guillen, I'd think it was a great move. But the logic for doing it is as simple as can be -- get rid of those Brown and Shealy at bats.

8. sptaylor Posted: December 05, 2007 at 05:21 PM (#2635460)

Just for grins, I put Guillen's stats through Brock2. The projections are pretty grim:

2008 - Age 32
Games: 75
At-bats: 233
OBP: 0.319
SLG: 0.419

2009 - Age 33
Games: 46
At-bats: 136
OBP: 0.323
SLG: 0.398

2010 - Age 34
Games: 24
At-bats: 61
OBP: 0.320
SLG: 0.388

9. Eric Bartman Posted: December 05, 2007 at 05:29 PM (#2635465)

New Rob n Rany. Rany seems optimistic, while Rob seems cranky.
...and the pope is catholic.

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

<< Back to main

Wednesday, December 05, 2007

K.C. Star: Posnanski: This Guillen deal is hard to understand

Reader Comments and Retorts

Support BBTF

Bookmarks

Hot Topics