Padres - Acquired Vinny Cashstealer
San Diego Padres - Acquired 3B Vinny Cashstealer from the Washington Nationals for P Brian Lawrence.
Neither player is very good, especially the former, but from a team construction standpoint, the Padres were taken to the cleaners by Jimmy Bowden.
Will the Nationals miss Vinny in the slightest? Not a chance. #1 draft pick Ryan Zimmerman is ready to step in right now and give the Nats an immediate improvement on the left side of the infield. In return for sweeping the garbage off the sidewalk, they get a #4 starter, replacing the departing Tony Armas Jr. in the rotation with limited fuss. Lawrence doesn’t have a big upside, but he’s generally healthy and can potentially give the team 180-200 league-average innings.
The Padres on the other hand, do the exact opposite. Sean Burroughs is done as a starter in San Diego but Vinny Castilla provides absolutely no upgrade over their previous #1 draft pick. Some people speculate on a Castilla/Burroughs platoon, but that’s not going to happen. The Padres simply didn’t trade Lawrence just so they could get a 3B to get 35% of the at-bats at the hot corner, the small man in a platoon with another player who they would prefer to send to another team.
And in return for adding a decade and a half to their starting third baseman’s age with no actual baseball benefit, they gave up an inning-eating OK-ish starter that they can ill afford to lose. This is a weak free agent market - unless the Padres can land one of the very few good starters like A.J. Burnett, they look to enter the season with a rotation with massive holes at #4 and #5, one of those jobs being manned by Chan Ho Park, who isn’t just a hole but a gravity well of suck.
2006 ZiPS Projection - Brian Lawrence
———————————————————————-
W L G GS IP H ER HR BB SO ERA
———————————————————————-
11 14 33 33 195 207 95 21 58 114 4.38
2006 ZiPS Projection - Vinny Castilla
————————————————————————————-
AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI BB SO SB BA OBP SLG
————————————————————————————-
505 50 116 31 2 14 72 33 100 2 .230 .282 .382
Dan Szymborski
Posted: November 04, 2005 at 02:33 PM |
80 comment(s)
Login to Bookmark
Related News:
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. Answer Guy Posted: November 04, 2005 at 03:06 PM (#1718703)Does Lawrence have a long-term deal the Padres wanted out of?
"We lose a little bit of leverage now," GM Kevin Towers said, referring to Burroughs. "People realize he doesn't quite fit for us. It ties our hands a little bit."
I asked this in IRC last night, and I'll ask it here again: Speaking as a rational human being, who in the world wants Vinny Castilla?
"We lose a little bit of leverage now," GM Kevin Towers said, referring to Burroughs. "People realize he doesn't quite fit for us. It ties our hands a little bit."
Okay, maybe he is an idiot. Burroughs can play 3B, 2B, and probably could play 1B and the OF competently with some time there during spring training, so he seems like he would be a great utility infielder. Trading for Castilla doesn't reduce your leverage, but announcing publicly that you have to trade Burroughs probably does.
Props to Jimbo. Like a lot of other people, I beat up on him a lot, and he deserves it... but he also does deserve credit when he does something smart.
I heard about this Castilla deal in part last night... I knew he'd been dealt, but didn't know where. I came up with three likely destinations: SD, SF, Minny. There are only a few teams that are hurting badly at 3B, and some of the ones that are (LAD, KC) have big-time prospects moving up to inherit the position very soon. Cleveland would qualify, perhaps, but they've already committed to the corpse of Mr. Boone.
Since Burroughs is already in SD, and he's ten years too young to be considered playable by Brian Sabean, my money's on the Twins.
Chan Ho "Gravity Well of Suck" Park
Classic.
Or is Towers daring Alderson to fire him?
Castilla is the one owed 3.2. Its also a 550K buyout, not 500K.
I think the Lawrence for Castilla trade is fine, for both teams. Castilla is pretty much an average player, not the horriable player people seem to think he is. The problem that someone else brought up is that the Padres continue to comepletely ignore their ball park when aquiring players.
This is a sorry Padres organazation.
I don't like him at all. I also don't like Mister's idea of acquiring Burroughs.
Um, how so?
He's been at times actually above average (95-98, 03-04), he's also been average (01, 05) and he's been awful (93, 99, 00, 02)
At his age, and in this park the odds swing towards awful I think...
This goes to Dan's comment on the No. 4 and 5 slots in the rotation.
You would have to think that the Pads are still relatively high on Tim Stauffer, who was for reasons passing understanding, sent down to AAA to make room for Gravity Well.
Stauffer and a mystery meat combo of NRIs or a low-grade FA would be a wise move.
This is not to say that getting Castilla wasn't totally pointless, it was.
I agree. It's one thing to acknowledge that Castilla's gaudy Colorado stats made him overrated by many. But it's a fallacy to conclude that since he's been overrated, he must be lousy.
He's been inconsistent, but over the bulk of his career, Castilla has been a good player. Even at this late stage, he's still not all that bad.
That said, I sure wouldn't trade Brian Lawrence for him.
Castilla, OPS+ since 1999
82
42
94
61
101
104
94
Thats 2 average years in the last 7. and several EXTREMELY below average years. Whats not to get?
Cory Lidle is about as good or slightly better and slightly less expensive that Lawrence. Is Castilla/Lidle for ~$6.6M > Lawrence/Burroughs for ~$5.5M? I'll go out on a limb and say: maybe.
Stauffer and a mystery meat combo of NRIs or a low-grade FA would be a wise move.
I forgot about Stauffer. He would be a good choice but I have a bad feeling they are thinking of a "veteran presence" like Wells to go with Park.
This is not to say that getting Castilla wasn't totally pointless, it was.
Castilla isn't a bad option since they have given up on Burroughs and don't have anything else. Giving up anything more than an organizational soldier to get him was too much. I like Lawrence. No he isn't good, but he is reasonably consistent. If a team can't win with Lawrence as a number 5 starter, they need to be looking for more offense. Considering how many teams shuffle through pitchers all season trying to find a fifth starter with an ERA under 6, Brian Lawrence has some value.
I have been thinking some more about Towers' logic on having less leverage now when he deals Burroughs. Does that really square with this trade? If you follow Towers's reasoning, Bowden shouldn't have had much leverage in dealing Castilla because he has a significantly better player in Zimmerman, and Castilla thus didn't have a role with the Nationals. Plus, we're talking about Jim Bowden so you pretty much expect him to trade poorly regardless. You might call this trade even, but I don't think anyone can argue that Towers really took advantage of his supposed leverage. What gives?
First of all, I'm not sure why you're starting with 1999. Maybe because '98 was his best year, or starting with 2000 would look like piling on? Anyway, he was hurt most of 2000 (the only season he's ever really been hurt); was slightly better than average with the bat the next year, once he got out of Tampa Bay; was terrible in 2002; and has been a consistently average hitter since. And, like I said, he's a good fielder.
I'm not lobbying for his induction to Cooperstown. I just think that he's been a (or THE) BTF whipping boy for a while, unfairly.
So,
82
42
94
61
101
104
94
Isn't that like two above average years, two average years, one just below average and 2 horrendous years?
If he hits league average (for a third baseman) and fields above average, and Lawrence pitches about league average, he's worth slightly less than Lawrence.
If Towers thinks he needs an improvement at 3B and has extra pitchers, he saves a little cash and upgrades.
In addition to No. 33, I'll point out that Nats' fans (of which I am one) might be happy to see him go because, after a thrilling April (including several clutch hits in the opening homestand), he did nothing---and I mean NOTHING---from May-July. He picked it up a little bit in August, but he was a hole in the lineup, an injured hole, and a hole standing in the way of at least interesting alternatives (Harris to Short to Dutch Zimmerman).
.230/.282/.382 with 14 HRs.
For 3.1M a year
Hey, Major League GMs: I could do that, and I'd do it for the league minimum.
By the way, the Pads signed Justin Leone - if he can cut down the errors and return to his 03-04 batting form, he's an upgrade on Castilla.
He's not; but Randa will be getting more than $3.5M next season & will probably get a 3-year deal.
Vinny Castilla career numbers, outside of Coors Field: .301 OBP, .433 SP.
EQA /Ave 3b EQA
2005 .259/.265
2004 .272/.268
2003 .263/.257
Couple that with above average defense and you have a player with an averageish skill set. He is fine. Due to his age he might have a little more collapse risk than the average player but he is fine. He isn't the type of player who hurts a team. He isn't going to drive them to a championship but he won't activly hurt you, even if he declines some.
Okay, Equivalent Average accounts for those things, along with Randa's:
Castilla and Randa have been pretty similar the past three seasons, with Castilla posting a .264 EqA in 1,210 outs and Randa a .264 in 1,133. Both have good defensive reps. Castilla is two years older ... but Randa's a free agent, and maybe the Pads have reason to believe they won't re-sign him. Castilla makes about $1M more.
Lawrence is due to make $3.5M this year, and hasn't had an ERA+ over 100 since 2002. However, he's usually close to 100, and his peripherals last season (when he was at 80) are in line with his career marks. I don't know what SD's plan is for replacing 200 close-to-average innings, so to me the odd thing about this trade is ridding yourself of Lawrence, not acquiring Castilla.
Well, if he posts those ZIPS projections he will actively hurt you. I know it's a pitcher's park, and I know 3B isn't like 1b or LF, but a .280 OBP is unacceptable. I think he could slightly out perform that ZIPS but I still think he's a good bet to post an EQA that's pretty close to .250.
Well, what about 2003, where he played in a pitcher's park and hit 280/308/419 at home and 274/312/497 on the road?
If you put that 230/282/382 into the Petco of 2005, you get an OPS+ of 80, and the last time Castilla was worse than that was in 2002.
If he can just manage to hit .250, he should be fine. If he's hitting .230, the Pads are in trouble.
2004 NL OBP: .329
2004 Castilla OBP: .332
2005 NL OBP: .326
2005 Castilla OBP: .319
It should be noted that Castilla has put up the best walk rates of his career the past two season - about 1 every 12.7 PA. Not great, but not way below average.
Though, honestly, I think Burroughs has a pretty decent shot at doing that, as well.
2004 Castilla OBP away from Coors Field: .281
I'm probably going to get flamed for nitpicking, but here goes:
Castilla's walk rate is boosted a bit by lots of walks in May: 14, when he didn't walk more than 9 times in any other month. In May, Castilla received 5 of his 7 intentional walks on the season. I can't remember why specifically, but there you go.
So, at least for 2005, his walk rate was spiked a bit on account of a situational thing that I can't recall (Guzman hitting seventh at that time?) that opponents were trying to exploit.
Which can be a warning sign when a 35+ year old (not named Bonds) starts to see their walks rise to career high rates, it could mean their bat is slowing and they are trying more to work the count, even if they weren't that type of hitter to begin with. An older batter tends to lose bat speed continuously (he doesn't lose 5% and then bottom out, he'll lose 5% the next year too, and the next...)
Todd Zeile of all people led the league in 2004 in pitches faced per at bat. I think Castilla is facing a cliff dive pretty soon- it may not be 2006 though.
I also looked at BBref's top 10 comps for Castilla, the problem is that all those Coor's years mess up the comp list, everyone on it is better (some significantly) than Castilla- the closest real match is probably Gaetti (who aged well). Any way, the 10 had career OPS+ of 114 through age 37, and a colletive OPS+ of 98 afterwards. Vinny's career OPS+ is currently 96, if he loses 16 points of OPS+ he certainly would decline into the terrible category.
Thats a good point.
His examples were Willie Mays in 1971 and Toby Harrah in 1985.
Now that I look at it, Castilla's walk rates don't appear all that out of line with his career. He didn't walk at all in 2003 (26 in 542 at bats), but for his career he has 414 in 6547, so 43 in 494 at bats is high for him, but not a huge spike. His strike out rate is starting to climb, but it's not spiking either. Anyway, since both his k and BB rates are climbing, and he's not gaining power I'm gonna go out on a limb and say his bat is slowing. (Of course I could also say that simply by looking at his birthdate).
As a totally extraneous note, in the past, before multi million multi year contracts, when a 34 year old put up a year like Vinny did in 2002 or Burnitz did as a 33 year old in 2002- I think those players retired (voluntarily or involuntarily). Now there is a hige financial incentive to see if these guys have anything left in the tank- and lo and behold given the opportunity many of these guys do. I think skill decline can take a player by suprise- and they'll have a bad year or 2- but many can adjust and regain some productivity if given a chance.
Yeah, precisely. Anyone would have told me Vinny would still be in baseball after his departure from Tampa (after being horrific down there) and I'd have laughed at them. Then he goes to Houston, hammers the ball a bit, gets a two year deal from the Braves and actually turns out to be useful one of them (and not terribly bad the other)...
Vinny isn't a good bet for anything. He could suck pumpkins through straws, or he could have another good(ish) year. At his age, I lean toward the sucking, but I wouldn't put real money against it.
I figured Gaetti was done in June of 1991, and that he was really done when 1992 rolled around. But he was still ticking like six years later.
He was useful the second year, but that first year where he was good for 578 PAs of .232/.268/.348 (OPS+ 61) should fit anybody's definition of terribly bad.
The answer to this question is in your own post, #27.
I've been hearing about his impending collapse for about 5 years now.
I could have gone back 5 years, but I went back 7, because that is when his decline started. Prior to 99 he was clearly above average. Considerably so for a thirdbaseman. But we are not talking about how good he was when he was 29 or 30. Now he is 38 and in decline.
Personally, I think ZIPS is being kind to Vinny.
He had a 1.088 OPS in April. After that the bottom DID fall out of his offesnive game:
May .666
June.576
July.586
Aug. 782
Sept.760
I just have to think that trading a 30 year old pitcher who can give you 200 innings of close to league average ERA for a 38 year old thirdbasemen who is clearly nearing the end is a stupid trade.
But this is one of the good things about baseball- the fact that this trade will likely be a "loss" for SD does not mean that it will. Vinny could put up a .260 EQA with good Dee and Lawrence could sprain his elbow and put up an ERA of 6.00 in 30 innings in September. Or Lawrence could give 180 innings of 90 ERA +. Those type outcomes are well within the bounds of possibility.
Years ago I read an extremely well written article excoriating one team for trading a 27 year old OF for a roughly comparable 29 year old. The 29 year old had less defensive value, was slightly superior offensively, but had "older player" skills, and was rumored to be a problem in the clubhouse. The article was correct, well reasoned, impeccable logic- and flat wrong in the end. The 27 year old had a pretty normal career path thereafter. The older guy turned out to be one of those guys who peak late- in his case 30-34.
"That's why they play the games"
Agreed, anything unexpected can and frequently does happen. However, unless the Padres know something about Lawrence's health that they are not sharing, which they might, then the odds don't favor them.
This deal could possibly work out wildly in S.D.'s favor. But the PROCESS is wrong, IMHO
In Little League, I never would have thought Sean Burroughs would end up backing up Chase Utley.
Right. A friend of mine wrote the following in an e-mail today, and I think it best captures my frustration:
SW, I'm sorry, I tend to zone one when people on either side of any discussion start saying reasoning along the lines of , "He was an incredibly good player in this month/week/year, so let's throw that out and we see he's a crappy player."
It's the same logic that would have others saying, "Vinny has the ability to hit 1.088 OPS for a month, so what's stopping him from stringing together 6 months next year?"
That is an unfair characterization of the entire point I have been making in this thread.....
This is not "SW does not understand sample size"
After all, I am talking about the last 7 years!!
And anyway, 5 CONSECUTIVE months of poor hitting to end the season from a 38 year old who has been struggling to achieve mediocrity with any type of consistency for the previous 6 years is somewhat telling in my world.
But hey, zone out all you want.
One question though. Do you think Dan's projection is a reasonable projection? If you do, than how do you justify trading Lawrence for Castilla?
If you don't think it's a reasonable projection, than please explain why, and provide your own.
His April was pretty damn good, but mid-season he was really suffering from a bad knee injury. If the team had had any sort of options (Harris has been persona non grata with the team for some reason), he'd have been DL'd. It really limited his range towards the end, though he kept those great hands. But it also severly affected his hitting. I'd have to guess that much of his crappiness was due to the injury. If he's able to heal, he should improve offensively, even if only slightly. Of course you'll have to offset that with another year's aging.
The second is that RFK was a horrible match for him as a hitter. Watching him regularly, I was pretty surprised to see that he's not a dead pull hitter. RFK is murder to flyballs from alley to alley, which is where most of his power was. (Same thing for Jose Guillen -- check out his HR splits at home and on the road)
Now I don't know if that's because he's lost a bit off his swing and he was unable to get around on good fastballs to pull them? I do know that he got pitched away a lot, and all he could do with that was make a 385-foot out to the gap.
The park also has a lot of foul territory, and he seemed (a squishy word, I know) to hit A LOT of foul pops. I'm not sure of Petco's foul territory, but a small foul ground could probably save him 5-10 outs.
But if the numbers you posted are correct, it wasn't 5 consecutive months of poor hitting. 782 and 760 are perfectly reasonable OPSs for a 3B, especially in that park. Median 3B production in the majors was around 750-760 last year. So Castilla had one great month, two median months, one bad month and two awful months. I bet lots of "average" seasons look like that.
Which is not to say I want Vinny on my team if I can help it.
Not that I'd advocate going with either, but I'm not really sure that Castilla is any kind of a substantial upgrade over what what Burroughs could reasonably be expected to produce: let's say .276/.339/.366. Let's put Vinny at a more optimistic than ZIPS at .262/.314/.410.
Generally speaking, if you're looking for someone to suddenly have a bigger year than expected, the 25 year old is usually the better bet than the 38 year old.
All Burroughs needs to do is become a guy who can be expected to hit 10 to 15 homers a year instead of 2 to 7, and he suddenly becomes a more than adequate 3B. People have been waiting for that for a while though...
I think Dan's projection is a reasonable projection. But it is a projection. I don't thing it's a question of which GM got the best deal according to some particular projection and then a foregone conclusion that other one is a dumbass.
Castilla is old, but has an upside at third. If the possibility of that upside and $500,000 is worth more to Towers than Lawrence, then it's a good trade for him.
Let's look at their WARP3:
Castilla
2002 -0.2
2003 3.6
2004 6.3
2005 4.5
Lawrence
2002 5.2
2003 5.0
2004 4.2
2005 3.0
Since you think Castilla's April is so important, did you look at Lawrence's splits too?
He was terrible on the road. Terrible post All-Star break including every month except June.
The point is that if you want to select stats to make the argument you want about who won a trade, you can certainly do so. If I just saw the WARPs, their ages and the salaries, I'd probably call the trade slightly in San Diego's favor. As it is, I think Bowden did a great job in freeing space for Zimmerman and getting a possibly useful player in return for his extra part. For SD, I'm not sure, like others have mentioned, I supposed it depends a lot on whether they have some additional knowledge on whether Lawrence might actually rebound or will continue to decline. I don't have that information, so I just see that they gave up a poor SP for a minor upgrade at 3B and $.5mil
Jim, I think whenever you speak, you are de facto speaking on behalf of all Rays fans.
It's worse than that. If he could give your 40-45 XBH, 10-15 of them HR, he's pretty good. He's regressed to the point where he's only good for 20-30 XBH, and 1 or 2 HR. His complete lack of power and ability to drive the ball has defenses playing him so shallow that even his BA and 2B dropped this year.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main