During the 2010-2011 off-season, the Dodgers aimed to improve on what was an effective unit in 2010 (3.80 FIP/8th In MLB). With all their veteran relievers making their Los Angeles exit, the rest of the potential returning cast consisted primarily of pre-arbitration players making the major league minimum, with only Jonathan Broxton locked into a high paying salary for 2011. The predominantly untested nature of the bullpen didn’t sit well with the Dodgers, so they went out and re-signed Vicente Padilla as a reliever, avoided arbitration with Hong Chih Kuo, traded for Blake Hawksworth, gave Mike MacDougal and Lance Cormier minor league contracts, and made a long term commitment to Matt Guerrier.
While handing out millions to seemingly solid and steady veteran relievers is rarely going to play poorly in the media or among fans, they often prove to be unnecessary and costly additions to the roster. Now the Dodgers bullpen in 2011 has been quite effective as a whole, ranking 8th in the MLB in FIP at 3.58, but were the expensive veteran members all that important to the 2011 unit’s success?
-
*50% fWAR (FIP) & 50% rWAR (ERA)
*5,000,000 Dollars Per Win
*Salary Data From True Blue LA
*SV=Surplus Value
Guerra, Jansen, Elbert, Lindblom, and Troncoso are all pre-arbitration farm system arms who have combined for $11,134,000 in SV. MacDougal was given a minor league contract with a mere $500,000 major league option and netted the Dodgers $2,750,000 in SV. Hawksworth, despite his -$676,000 total, was acquired in a trade that rid the Dodgers of Ryan Theriot, who is currently putting up a 0.1 WAR at a $3,300,000 salary for a -$2,800,000 SV, so feel free to credit Hawksworth with that.
Guerrier was the big money free agent signing, and he was actually decently productive in 2011. Unfortunately, the only reason he clocks in at positive value is because of the deferred nature of his overall contract (4 Y/12 M), so he’ll have to get better in a hurry if he wants to continue breaking even. The more likely scenario is that it ends up being a neutral to poor overall transaction.
The four pitchers who rank the lowest happen to include three of the top bullpen salaries, with Broxton, Kuo, and Padilla combining for -$17,725,000 in SV. Also clocking in at the bottom of the pile is Cormier (-$4,050,000 SV), who inexplicably made $800,000 in the majors and was inexplicably allowed to pitch 13.2 innings before the Dodgers realized how terrible he was.
Overall, it’s quite clear where the value lies in the Dodgers pen, as the data demonstrates that the most productive and most valuable members of the 2011 bullpen have been the farm system arms, and more specifically, those making 500k and below, basically around the major league minimum.
-
While the status quo maintains that locking down relievers with track records of success to million dollar deals will lead to overall bullpen stability, it would do the Dodgers and their fans well going forward to remember that money spent hardly guarantees productivity and success, especially with a commodity as volatile as bullpen arms.
Over the course of the 2011 season, the Dodgers relief corps has proved that bullpen arms are indeed a fickle and fungible group, with production to be found from a multitude of sources, and that the most value out of the pen is commonly derived from those making the least. Sticking with cheap team controlled building blocks in the bullpen can be highly effective, and the money used to sign costly relievers can frequently be better used elsewhere.
—
Published @ True Blue LA as well.
Hence, my argument over at TBLA that Cory Wade should have been kept, as he’s the same type of pitcher as Guerrier is (at 1/10 the cost), has a proven track record, and was fairly effective at Albuquerque last season (6.7K/BB in 29 innings) coming off minor shoulder surgery in March. It’s no surprise that a full year removed from the surgery, he’s been solid for the Yankees.
It’s clear that the team shouldn’t spend significant dollars on any free agent relievers, as there already is an effective young relieving corps on the big club, and St. Clair, Tolleson, and Ames are all ready to contribute from the AA club. However, we do have a buffoon for a GM, so there’s always a chance he throws money at someone crappy who the team doesn’t need, thus blocking a younger, cheaper, and more effective option.
No idea what Wade could have brought to the table, but going forward, using all those guys mentioned are likely to provide more value than Guerrier, unless he suddenly starts missing a lot more bats.
And yeah, I’m surprised St. Clair hasn’t been called up to experiment as a lefty specialist at least.
I was strictly comparing Wade to Guerrier. Wade was a reliable reliever in 2008 until his overuse by Torre caused him to go under the knife in March 2010. The fact that he finished 2010 in Albuquerque and had a 6.7K/BB ratio in AAA indicates to me that he is just as capable at being a major league middle reliever as Guerrier is, and they’re the same style of pitcher (command guys w/plus breaking pitches who throw their FB around 90). So in choosing between the two, I would have taken Wade at 1/10 the cost.
You mean production to production or value to value?
Guerrier is a better pitcher, I think.
In terms of who’s better, a healthy Wade and a healthy Guerrier are quite comparable, IMO. It’s hard to judge which one is better, but Guerrier is probably more durable. Obviously, Wade is the much better value.
To be honest, I haven’t looked at the statistics, but it always seemed to me that Wade was even more smoke and mirrors than Guerrier. Though I am surprised by his success with the Yankees.
It’s pretty simple. Wade locates pretty damn well, and can throw three pitches for strikes if he gets behind in the count. I don’t remember him having a changeup before, but it’s an out pitch now.
Yeah, Guerrier’s gonna go from $2.5M way up to $4.75M for 2012 and 2013, so he’s only nominally valuable this season due to the way the contract was structured. In reality he’s not worth what he’s being paid even right now. That’s Colletti’s MO though. You would think a guy like McCourt who’s trying to weasel money all over the place would see the poor use of spending and do something about it.
He already did. That’s why the Dodgers don’t have Lackey and shit.
Dodged a bullet with that one. It’s been pretty clear from his worsening numbers/peripherals that Lackey has been in decline for a few years, but a financially healthy club would have meant that Agent Ned would have gotten involved in a bidding war for Lackey.
Yeah, nobody knows for sure, but that seemed like an ideal fit for the direction he would later be going.