Everyone Is Replaceable
The Red Sox' trade of Marco Scutaro to the Rockies this weekend was surprising. It caught me off guard because I had Scutaro as the Sox starting shortstop this season cemented in my mind.
This idea was founded upon a few different indicators. First there was the trade of fellow shortstop Jed Lowrie to Houston. Boston did sign Nick Punto, but over the past eleven seasons only about a third of his innings have come at shortstop so he wasn't vied as a threat to Scutaro's job. The Sox also have Mike Aviles but he's been playing the outfield over the winter, so he wasn't a threat either. Further, the Sox had the opportunity to let Scutaro pick up his $3 million player option or become a free agent (with a $1.5 million buy-out), but they decided to pick up his $6 million option first instead. That all sounds like a commitment to the a player to me.
It's true the Sox now have a AAA pitcher in Clayton Mortensen whom they didn't have before, so that's almost something, but it's the shock that I want to focus on. I have my head buried in this stuff day after day and I didn't see this deal coming. Maybe more astute observers did, and if so I tip my hat to you, but I was expecting to see Scutaro at shortstop on Opening Day and I'm betting you were too. It's surprising to realize, after essentially an entire off season of expecting something, that it won't happen.
There's a very good reason that it won't happen, however. And no, it isn't that the Red Sox are cheap, stupid, or name your insult here. It's that Scutaro wasn't Marco Scutaro. He was (and is) a 36 year old middle infielder with a salary of $6 million and a luxury tax hit of $7.67 million (WEEI.com's Alex Speier explains the numerical machinations). He has a trade value associated with that age and salary as well, and as such the Red Sox saw him as the replaceable asset that he is. That is no knock on Scutaro. In fact, it's true of all players. Every single player in Major League Baseball is replaceable to some extent based on their on their field value, age, salary, etc.
Some, like Scutaro or more appropriately a back end bullpen arm, are easier to replace. Some, like a Jose Reyes, Felix Hernandez, or Brian McCann are vastly more difficult. But higher value doesn't mean irreplaceability (did I just make up a word?). Even they can be replaced through the right moves.
David Cameron of Fan Graphs does a series each year running down the players with the highest trade value. Note he doesn't do a list of players who are untradeable. This is because all players have value. That value can be a moving target, but it's there nonetheless. A player's value may move from year to year or even month to month, thus the annual nature of Mr. Cameron's series. If you start from the presumption that there is, in fact, a truth, i.e. at a particular point in time a player is worth a certain amount, you can start to see how this kind of thing might work. Once you get off the paper and onto the field or front offices, a subjective nature is added to the process, as scouts and executives apply their expertise to each player.
The point is each player has a value. Nailing a player's actual value down is another matter, but for our purposes here just accept that it exists. If you then look at each team, not as a collection of players, but as a cumulative total value, you can see that each and every component of that sum should be removable, as long as its replacement is of equal or greater value. This is getting very theoretical, and of course there is far more that goes into running a major league front office than a single sum of player value, but the point is each player is replaceable given the proper circumstances.
So Marco Scutaro, starting shortstop for the Boston Red Sox or not, was replaceable because, as it turned out, his defense was replicable from other already on hand assets, and any offensive value over and above those assets could be applied elsewhere to the ball club in a magnified manner, all with money left over.
Yesterday's addition of Cody Ross is likely only a partial example of that. Ross' 2012 salary will cost the team less than half of what Scutaro's luxury tax hit was and almost exactly half of what his real world cost was. If and when the Red Sox are able to bring in another starting pitcher, we'll have a better idea of how the front office reapplied Scutaro's potential value to other areas of the roster, but whether Gavin Floyd or Roy Oswalt come walking through that door or not, the point remains and applies to Jon Lester, Dustin Pedroia, and even Adrian Gonzolez as well. All players are replaceable.
56 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Not the point as I see it
The point, or question, is are the Red Sox better or worse with the subtraction of Scutaro?
At this point I see them as worse off. Punto/Aviles are not as good as Scutaro or they would be starting shortstops for someone. Scutaro, while an average defender at best, carried a nice bat and I view him as a good, tough player. Also, be careful how much offensive punch is taken away from this team before it hurts. Ross will help here I think, but we now have an easier out at SS.
I can see what you are saying
but I think you might consider looking at this more broadly. The Red Sox might be weaker at SS in 2012. But the money they freed up allows them to potentially get better in two other places — RF and, hopefully, SP. The net gain is what’s important, not the addition or subtraction at any given position.
In short (no pun intended), which looks better:
SS Aviles/Punto and SP Oswalt
or
SS Scutaro and SP Wakefield/Miller/Cook
Exactly
Shortstop is the position it is easiest to give some production away at, if it means strengthening yourself elsewhere. Adding another starter will also make the bullpen and pitching depth stronger, and that chaining effect will have a much larger positive impact on the 2012 Red Sox than downgrading to Aviles/Scutaro will have in terms of negative impact.
Twitter: @Marc_Normandin
by Marc Normandin on Jan 24, 2012 9:45 AM EST up reply actions
"Shortstop is the position it is easiest to give some production away at, if it means strengthening yourself elsewhere."
Explain.
Galactus does as he pleases. Because Galactus is drunk.
@#$%ing Twit: @blogtard
OTM | Silver Seven
Not to speak for Marc
but I think he meant on our particular team- because we have a guy in Aviles who will probably be less of a downgrade than trading away any other position
I like your explanation a lot more than Marc's.
Galactus does as he pleases. Because Galactus is drunk.
@#$%ing Twit: @blogtard
OTM | Silver Seven
wolf's explanation is also good, in terms of this specific team
It’s kind of crazy how many good playoff teams have nothing coming from shortstop, though. I mean, look at the shortstops in the 2010 playoffs. That was basically every bad shortstop Boston used from 2004-2009.
Twitter: @Marc_Normandin
by Marc Normandin on Jan 24, 2012 10:26 AM EST up reply actions
Shortstop...
On average, is the least productive position on the field, as there just aren’t that many useful shortstops. So if you take something of a reverse positional scarcity approach to short, it means it’s also the one where you can most afford to punt, since, relative to other teams, you aren’t going to be behind by much. You gain from having a great shortstop — no questioning that — but if you can’t get a great shortstop, there’s little need to go overboard and overpay for mediocrity when you can upgrade elsewhere instead.
Twitter: @Marc_Normandin
by Marc Normandin on Jan 24, 2012 10:16 AM EST up reply actions
That is some seriously flawed logic.
Shortstop is one of the most difficult positions in which to find good production. Therefore, that makes a decent shortstop THAT MUCH MORE VALUABLE, since they outs count as one full out and their runs count as one full run. If 75% of MLB teams have a shitty shortstops, that doesn’t mean we should shrug our shoulders and say, “Oh, well…it’s not like we’d be the only one with a crappy shortstop.”
Galactus does as he pleases. Because Galactus is drunk.
@#$%ing Twit: @blogtard
OTM | Silver Seven
I'm not saying you shouldn't have a great one
I’m saying if it comes to it, when you can’t get a great shortstop, you can afford to punt it if it means you can upgrade elsewhere in a more meaningful way, due to the fact that shortstop is terrible almost everywhere.
Twitter: @Marc_Normandin
by Marc Normandin on Jan 24, 2012 10:39 AM EST up reply actions
Which, again, doesn't actually make sense
since a shortstop out is worth the same as a left fielder out.
Galactus does as he pleases. Because Galactus is drunk.
@#$%ing Twit: @blogtard
OTM | Silver Seven
If you upgrade with the exact same statistical player at another position, sure
But scarcity tends to be reflected in the market value, so you might be able to get more for less at another position where the upgrade is more considerable. It’s about shifting resources appropriately. Outs are one of those resources, as you mentioned, but dollars count, too.
The Sox traded Scutaro because they can turn their above-average shortstop into a better right field, better rotation, more improved bullpen, and more depth in the pitching staff.
It doesn’t always work out that well, of course, but there are definitely times where it makes sense to cut from shortstop if it means upgrades elsewhere.
Twitter: @Marc_Normandin
by Marc Normandin on Jan 24, 2012 10:49 AM EST up reply actions
That has nothing to do with shortstop.
You could apply that logic to any position on the field. You could do the exact same thing from 3rd or right.
Galactus does as he pleases. Because Galactus is drunk.
@#$%ing Twit: @blogtard
OTM | Silver Seven
Totally
But shortstop is the easiest place to get away with it at because of the general fail that is the position’s offense.
Twitter: @Marc_Normandin
by Marc Normandin on Jan 24, 2012 11:00 AM EST up reply actions
Wrong.
Shortstop is the HARDEST place to get away with it, because it’s the hardest position to fill with decent production.
Galactus does as he pleases. Because Galactus is drunk.
@#$%ing Twit: @blogtard
OTM | Silver Seven
It's all relative
If everyone stinks, it’s easier to get away with not doing well there, too. I’m not disagreeing with you at all that having a great shortstop means a ton due to scarcity levels. I just think it works both ways.
Twitter: @Marc_Normandin
by Marc Normandin on Jan 24, 2012 11:05 AM EST up reply actions
Works both ways.
So it is a tremendous asset and completely disposable at the exact same time.
Galactus does as he pleases. Because Galactus is drunk.
@#$%ing Twit: @blogtard
OTM | Silver Seven
I know that's meant to break up my point
But honestly, that’s exactly it.
Twitter: @Marc_Normandin
by Marc Normandin on Jan 24, 2012 11:20 AM EST up reply actions
Moreso at shortstop than any other/most other postion.
Galactus does as he pleases. Because Galactus is drunk.
@#$%ing Twit: @blogtard
OTM | Silver Seven
The math is pretty easy.
Almost every shortstop is a 1-2-win player. Then there are like two or three that are 5-win players. So if you’re not going to have a 5-win player, it’s not that big a deal if you have a 1-win player instead.
Especially if you can instead upgrade by a couple wins somewhere else, as you can at most positions.
Put another way: the difference between the median shortstop and a replacement player is less than at nearly any other position.
(Catcher is another, similar one, partly because there is a similar lack of great bats at the position, and partly because they get fewer PAs than any other position player.)
by abbreviatedman on Jan 24, 2012 2:03 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
The one separator I have for catcher
Is that there is so much we don’t know how to measure yet in terms of catcher defense. So I wonder what the spread looks like when we can assess them with the same level of accuracy that we can with other positions.
Twitter: @Marc_Normandin
by Marc Normandin on Jan 24, 2012 2:19 PM EST up reply actions
It's stuff like this that makes me want to smash your calculators.
Galactus does as he pleases. Because Galactus is drunk.
@#$%ing Twit: @blogtard
OTM | Silver Seven
by Bloggy on Jan 24, 2012 2:33 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
You don't mean that, Bloggy. :-(
Twitter: @Marc_Normandin
by Marc Normandin on Jan 24, 2012 3:00 PM EST up reply actions
I never would.
But, Jesus, I really wanna sometimes.
Galactus does as he pleases. Because Galactus is drunk.
@#$%ing Twit: @blogtard
OTM | Silver Seven
but this is looking from only the bat side
from the glove side they are immensely valuable in saving runs.
well, right now, they're worse
if they use the money to get a pitcher AND Ross, they’re almost certainly significantly better.
I’m not really sure that Aviles is honestly a huge offensive downgrade from Scutaro. Kind of a tradeoff between power and OBP- I think where we likely take the hit is defensively, but that remains to be seen. In any case, I would say that Aviles is likely to not be as good as Scutaro when he is playing, but is likely to be able to play a lot more games than Scutaro would be able to.
As an asset
a reasonably priced, reliable asset at a position where that is a rarity is a good thing. That’s what we moved out of here.
There are very few people on this site thinking that Marco Scutaro carries a mystique that makes it impossible to see him in another uniform.
Galactus does as he pleases. Because Galactus is drunk.
@#$%ing Twit: @blogtard
OTM | Silver Seven
Aviles will have a very good year
I’m not sure they won’t get another SS before opening day, but if they do not, Aviles is very capable.
The 2011 Over the Monster Gedman League Fantasy Baseball Champion
I hate free agency
I don't think that dumping Scutaro was a good idea
but I’m looking forward to seeing what Aviles can do with consistent playing time.
Galactus does as he pleases. Because Galactus is drunk.
@#$%ing Twit: @blogtard
OTM | Silver Seven
I found a quote of mine re: Aviles from February of 2009
That said, “PECOTA doesn’t like Aviles, but I do.” I’ve been hopeful he would do well with some playing time for a while now.
Twitter: @Marc_Normandin
by Marc Normandin on Jan 24, 2012 10:18 AM EST up reply actions
One thing that's worth saying about the Ross move
before the Scutaro trade, we’d looked at Aviles as a likely part of a right field platoon. Probably this move means that he couldn’t handle right field well enough in winter ball for them to be comfortable with him out there.
I had read that he was enjoying his adjustment to RF
Galactus does as he pleases. Because Galactus is drunk.
@#$%ing Twit: @blogtard
OTM | Silver Seven
haha doesn't mean the Sox were!
I like the Sox to be somewhat picky about who they’re going to let man that huge right field. Ross certainly isn’t going to win any fielding awards, but he’s at least been used to manning a huge outfield
Ross is certainly no one's idea of a center fielder, either
But he is capable of at least showing up in all three outfield spots.
Twitter: @Marc_Normandin
by Marc Normandin on Jan 24, 2012 10:18 AM EST up reply actions
True...
but I don’t think he’d like it so much if he was sucking at it! ;)
Galactus does as he pleases. Because Galactus is drunk.
@#$%ing Twit: @blogtard
OTM | Silver Seven
My only gripe is with what the Sox got back
I refuse to believe that a consistently above-average SS who is making below market value had no market. At the beginning of the off-season there was a lot of speculation about whether he would be traded based on the needs of the market.
This off-season has been very puzzling. It seemed as if Theo always had a plan or a certain direction he wanted to go in, this on the other hand has been a disjointed and confusing series of moves. Almost as if the team is moving sideways.
*Trade top two SS on depth chart
*Trade starting RF
*Use money freed up for SP on…below average RF
I’m waiting for a series of moves that’ll all make us cross our arms and say “Oh, so thats what this was all for”, but at this point it seems a little to late. If he somehow manages to sign Oswalt I can at least be marginally OK with the off-season, but for the first time since the Duquette days I have no faith in the FO.
If the Sox have been trying to move Scutaro for a while
As Alex Speier’s piece seemed to imply, then the Rockies were the fit because they were the only team willing to take on Scutaro’s contract and free Boston entirely from his luxury tax hit and salary. The cost of doing that business was Clayton Mortensen. I agree that’s lame, but the real key was shedding the money.
And honestly, I think they have been pretty creative with the limited budget they have worked with, and are going to end up a better team for it. It won’t look sideways when it’s all finished, but a half-finished plan is hard to be impressed by.
Twitter: @Marc_Normandin
by Marc Normandin on Jan 24, 2012 11:08 AM EST up reply actions
I'm certain that had they moved Scutaro in December
they could have received more for him in return. I don’t think the “while” for which the Sox have been trying to trade him stretches back nearly far enough. I think it’s evidence that the FO is disorganized this winter, but I have hope there will be improvement.
Possibly.
If we needed his cap space to sign Ross.
Galactus does as he pleases. Because Galactus is drunk.
@#$%ing Twit: @blogtard
OTM | Silver Seven
It just seems to me,
seeing the financial situation and now knowing the intricacies of Scutaro’s contract and his AAV hit to the luxury tax, that it was always the smart decision to pick up Scutaro’s option and trade him. A good starting pitcher should have been the priority, and picking up and then dumping poor Marco goes a long way in helping that happen within the financial strictures the team finds itself in. It should have been done in December so a decent return could have been had in the trade. This is not the only sign of disorganization in the FO this winter.
"Poor" Scutaro
is now a starting 2Bman on a Rockies team that is in the easily winnable NL West, I’m sure he’s going to be o.k.
oh, I agree
Coors Field should be nice to him, and he’s better off at second. He just bears the indignity of being traded for nothing, dumped. I really grew to like that man this year.
"should have been done in December"
Isn’t taking into consideration that there were more free agents available back then, and that those free agents only cost money. Scutaro, on the other hand, cost both money and a prospect in your hypothetical, and the return, assuming the Red Sox wanted all of the money to be absorbed, would likely have been similar.
Twitter: @Marc_Normandin
by Marc Normandin on Jan 24, 2012 11:31 AM EST up reply actions
Scutaro was the best middle infielder available this offseason
after Jose Reyes. It’s possible, I guess, the return would have been similar, but I think it could have been better.
So I'll ask you this
If the Sox fail to sign Oswalt or acquire a guy like Floyd (I’d prefer Oswalt, but a warm body with some type of track record will suffice), will you be happy with this trade?
Assuming the Sox were under the threshold before they moved Scut, which all reports said they were, are you OK with them moving their solid starting SS for the space to add Cody Ross?
Conversely, if the Sox do indeed acquire a SP, why didn’t they wait until after they made that move? I can see if there is a corresponding shoe to drop, but its been what, 3 days now? I think we can safely assume its not happening as a result of the Scut trade. If the market for Scut was so dry that Clayton Mortenson was your only possible return then why not wait? Your not losing anything by doing so.
The timing of this is just weird. This whole off season has been weird. I’ll give you “creative” but it certainly hasn’t been “creative” in the way I’d have hoped.
If the Sox fail to get another starter
Then I’ll be disappointed, sure (not in the rotation, but in losing Scutaro solely to get under the luxury tax). But opening day isn’t tomorrow, so I’ll save my disappointment for when it’s needed.
Twitter: @Marc_Normandin
by Marc Normandin on Jan 24, 2012 11:23 AM EST up reply actions
Of course, they have time
But we’re nearing February, at this point it’s time to get a little antsy.
Most of the good looking, low cost starters are off the board. Bedard would’ve been nice and Maholm was signed for cheap…meanwhile our 4 and 5 spots look scary.
At the risk of sounding like Robert…it’s frustrating to watch the Yanks add Kuroda and Pineda (which by the way, was a great trade. Not only adding him but Campos who looks like he has tons of upside) while we’re hoping that Bard can show something as a starter and some of the shit we signed sticks. This has been a rough off-season.
True
But looking for the positives in this trade also should probably wait. Because as of right now, the positives are (in theory) signing Cody Ross and saving cash. If they had to do this to sign a pitcher than I’m not that torn up. But right now, I think the judgement on this trade (for me and several others) completely relies on whether they sign a pitcher.
I understand the waiting until Spring Training. But at the same time, Ben has laid the seeds to prepare the fans if there are no other rotation moves. I don’t believe we won’t see an addition, but at this point I’m evaluating the team as is because Ben has said they are comfortable with the pitching staff. I don’t believe him, but if I’m going to make comments today, I’m commenting on the actual team. When a pitcher is signed, those comments change.
by The Name is Dalton on Jan 24, 2012 11:38 AM EST up reply actions
Wow. Back off the ledge… It’s only January, they’ll be plenty of time to complain come May or June if you’re proven right.
by Mega Nick on Jan 24, 2012 11:12 AM EST via mobile up reply actions
That Speir article is a really important read.
I had no idea that Scutaro was a $7.3M CBT hit in 2012, almost double what he had been the last two years. That screams “Trade him now!”
I’m not a huge Cody Ross fan, but considering Crawford’s injury, Sweeney’s splits and the potential of an Aviles/Punto tandem, I’m fine with moving Scoot if it also fills the 4th starter hole.
Floyd + Ross > Scutaro.

by 





























