For those who support the trade

[Homebrewer]

Horrible trade. PB could have easily gotten us an ace. Stupid Dipoto.

Grichuk ALONE should have been worth an ace. PB should have netted us an entire bullpen.

Dipoto needs to go.

[Scott34]

Jean Segura 2nd half of 2013 hit .241/.268/.315/.583. I think you guys should wait to see if he can put two halves of a season together before claiming he is a lost asset.

What like Mark Trumbo? Still waiting for him to do that.

[Brent Maguire]

Jean Segura 2nd half of 2013 hit .241/.268/.315/.583. I think you guys should wait to see if he can put two halves of a season together before claiming he is a lost asset.

It was his first full season so I would expect him to go through some struggles. Even with the struggles, he still finished as an above average hitter, fielder and baserunner.

[ELEVEN]

When Calhoun splits time with JB Shuck you will be wishing PB wasn't traded.

Uggh. I just got nauseous.

[Second Base]

That better not happen.  I'll be quite irritated if Scioscia is stupid enough to have Shuck and Calhoun split time. 

[HaloCory22]

That better not happen.  I'll be quite irritated if Scioscia is stupid enough to have Shuck and Calhoun split time. 

Better brace yourself. You know its going to happen.

[SoCalDuck]

I think everyone who didn't like this trade because they thing the Angels could have got more back for Bourjos is vastly overrating Bourjos' value on the market.  

 

He's been injured for two straight years and hasn't even cobbled together 400AB's over that time.  He's fast, but hasn't been particularly spectacular at the plate when he is the lineup (slash line of .251/.306/.398) and he's struck out a whopping 251 times in 1026 AB's.  With his speed you'd think he'd have a better BA and OBP just legging out infield hits, but since he can't put the ball it play, well, his OBP and BA is what it is.  What he does best is play defense, and there is only so much a team will give up for a defense minded CF.  

 

So, I'll ask a simple question, what kind of pitching would he get in return?  Would the pitching Bourjos yield be BETTER than Freese at producing wins in Anaheim?

 

Exactly.

[Jim]

That better not happen.  I'll be quite irritated if Scioscia is stupid enough to have Shuck and Calhoun split time. 

Knowing Scioscia's tendencies, I wouldn't hold my breathe. 

[YouthofToday]

Shuck will start 100+ games as our lead off hitter. Book it.

[ten ocho recon scout]

I think everyone who didn't like this trade because they thing the Angels could have got more back for Bourjos is vastly overrating Bourjos' value on the market.

He's been injured for two straight years and hasn't even cobbled together 400AB's over that time. He's fast, but hasn't been particularly spectacular at the plate when he is the lineup (slash line of .251/.306/.398) and he's struck out a whopping 251 times in 1026 AB's. With his speed you'd think he'd have a better BA and OBP just legging out infield hits, but since he can't put the ball it play, well, his OBP and BA is what it is. What he does best is play defense, and there is only so much a team will give up for a defense minded CF.

So, I'll ask a simple question, what kind of pitching would he get in return? Would the pitching Bourjos yield be BETTER than Freese at producing wins in Anaheim?

Exactly.

St louis, who has shown to be as good as they come in scouting and building a team, have been targetting bourjos for a while. And they seem to rhink he's better than freese.

#exactly.

Put it like this, the concerns you listed for bourjos (which are fair enough) could easily be asked about freese as well. But I think the cards are smart enough to look ar bourjos in terms of when he was playing full time. 2012 was a throw away year for him in how he was used. I'm not at all suggesting bourjos was as good (bat wise) as he showed kicking off 2013. But he's something in between it and his 2011 numbers. And that doesn't include his speed and glove.

I don't think anyone here is silly enough to think bourjos would have brought back a front end starter. But packing him with an aybar/kendrick/trumbo likely would have netted us at worst a mid rotation starter with club control of some degree.

No that he's gone (for a guy who is just as questionable), the odds of getting a front end pitcher with just one of the guys I named above is even less realistic.

A healthy freese can be a lot more valuable to this team than bourjos (if he wasn't going to start) would have, andwere all crossing our fingers.

But if freese doesn't rebound, and is even just average....we added salary, disnt improve the offense, and with his glove, almost hurts the pitching even further.

[ettin]

This is the part that baffles my mind. Angels fans ASSume that that since Bourjos was dealt for a much needed 3B, that Dipoto mic dropped that bitch on the offseason. That he's done. Far from it, Dipoto has a ton more work to do, especially in light of Vargas signing with the Royals.

 

Okay Chuck I need to speak my mind now. I know there might have been others who thought the season ended with this trade but I am certainly not one of them. Assuming makes for bad form.

 

What I am upset about is the sell-low moment on Bourjos and as much as you and others have staunchly defended the trade it is pretty clear that we just gave up a potentially valuable trade asset for pennies on the dollar. Let me illustrate it from a WAR point of view.

 

For the purposes of these examples we will assume Peter makes $1.1 million in 2014, $6.5 million in 2015, and $10.5 million in 2016 (probably an overestimate on the last two years). Also  Freese should make $4.4 million in 2014 and about $8.5 million in 2015 and Salas will make $700,000 in 2014 and $1.2 million in 2015 (after that he is a very likely non-tender candidate).

 

Additionally we will assume that WAR value inflates each year with 2014 = $5.25 million/WAR, 2015 = $5.6 million/WAR, and 2016 = $6 million/WAR.

 

Finally prospects, due to their fickle performance nature, have relatively low values because they haven't proved anything at the Major League level. Randal Grichuk will have a value of $5 million for the purposes of this thought exercise:

 

1) Best Case Scenario for Angels: Let's assume Peter, at best, produces an average of 2.4 WAR per season over the next 3 years (2014-2016). This is the average WAR he produced over the previous 3 seasons (2011-2013). Let's say that WAR overvalues defense: We reduce his average WAR by 20%, bringing it down to 1.92 for the next 3 years. When you add up the value of the players exchanged (Taking Projected WAR x WAR/Year for each year of control and then subtract out total projected salary) you end up with approximate values of Peter = $32.352 million, Freese = $24.521 million, and Salas = $4.34 million. When you compare, from a pure value perspective, the totals you have Bourjos/Grichuk = $37.352 million vs. Freese/Salas = $28.861 million. At the very minimum we should not have thrown Grichuk into the trade.

 

2) Middle Case Scenario for Angels: Assume that Peter produces his average of 2.4 WAR per season over the next 3 years (2014-2016). This is a middle road scenario where Peter is on the DL or missing parts of one or more seasons as he did over the last 3 years. The values then become: Peter = $40.44 million, Freese = $24.521 million, and Salas = 4.34 million. It now becomes Bourjos/Grichuk = $45.44 million vs. Freese/Salas = $28.861 million, a much larger divide. Here we should have gotten back a good prospect in addition to Freese and Salas.

 

3) Worst Case Scenario for Angels: Assume that Peter is completely healthy over the next 3 seasons (and let me make it clear: Peter has been injured but he is NOT injury prone). To determine his WAR you can go back over the last 3 years and adjust his 2012 and 2013 seasons to 550 plate appearance's and then average the three seasons based on the hypothetical if he had been healthy. This would have been an average of 4.21 WAR per season. Using that as the baseline for a healthy Peter you get the following values: Peter = $70.9385 million, Freese (using the same assumption that he was healthy and project to 550 PA's) = $28.861 million, and Salas = $3.3635 million. This makes a final total of $75.9385 million vs. $32.2245 million. That is a huge difference, indicating we should have received double what we actually got in trade.

 

To make it clear I understand that we had a need and we filled it. I get that! I also understand that Peter's perceived value is lower right now, I get that too!

 

I also understand that other more strategic factors such as pleasing Mike Trout long term or the worry about Hamilton's possible decline (thus the need to keep Trumbo's power) may have contributed to the decision.

 

What I am saying is that from a value perspective we just ate a giant sh*t sandwich. And that is what a lot of people were upset about when this trade happened. I like Peter Bourjos and felt he could have been part of a 2014 Angels outfield. However I never thought he was untouchable or untradeable. Peter is an asset like everyone else but he had value and we in no way maximized that value.

 

It's done now and nothing can change it. Also I fully understand that there are other moves to be made to bring in the pitching we need. I also agree and understand that the Angels could easily win in 2014 as we have a good core that can compete.

 

But please stop trying to convince me that this trade makes good baseball sense. I know value when I see it. Simple numbers show the potential lopsidedness of this trade in terms of player value and show even in the best case scenario that we overpaid a decent prospect in the deal, even if that prospect had no future home (we could have used him in another trade as the "icing on the cake" rather than waste him away to the Cardinals).

 

/end rant

Edited November 25, 2013 by ettin

[rick99gtp]

Value is subjective in itself.  We can't assume that a team would have given us more for Peter than what we got with Freese.  What would have happened had we kept Peter Bourjos and tried to trade him next year?  I read somewhere that we would get less for him next year - I don't have a source.  Can anyone shed some light on whether we'd get less value for Bourjos next year had we held onto him?

[Scott34]

I guess I still don't understand why we were dealing Bourjos AT ALL if we weren't getting a starter back.

[rick99gtp]

I guess I still don't understand why we were dealing Bourjos AT ALL if we weren't getting a starter back.

 

We had 3 needs to fill, in my opinion.  Starting pitching, 3rd base and the bullpen.  2 of 3 were addressed.  The off-season isn't over, so I'd expect something to happen regarding starting pitching.

 

I'd bet that Bourjos wasn't going to net a decent pitcher and that the FO believes one can be had elsewhere.  Let's wait and see!

[ettin]

I guess I still don't understand why we were dealing Bourjos AT ALL if we weren't getting a starter back.

 

This is why I felt it was in the organization's best interests to bring him back in 2014 and help rebuild his value. Clearly there was a perceived buy-low opportunity for other clubs but that doesn't mean we should have just dumped him.

 

There are lots of things that go on behind the scenes. Again, for instance, Mike Trout might have clearly indicated that he wants to be a center fielder and will sign an extension if the Angels accomodate that request as an example (of which we would be stupid not to do).

 

There are lots of things that most of us are not privy too that impact the decision making process. It could also simply be, as another poster suggested, that Dipoto and Scioscia are in 'win-now' mode to save their jobs.

[Adam]

True. The offseason is not over. However, I don't understand why anyone would expect a GM, who has made nothing but terrible moves to suddenly make good moves.

[Torridd]

StL got the better end of this deal, until Bourjos gets hurt again. We traded an injury risk for an injury risk. We traded from a position of strength for a position of need.

I keep reading that STL got the better of the deal, but I don't see why. The two issues are if these guys are healthy. If Freese is healthy, I think he's a much better player than Bourjos healthy and most importantly, it's what WE need. We're swarming with OFs.  

[Brent Maguire]

I still think keeping Bourjos was the better move but it's over and done with now. 

 

I'm curious if Dipoto was talking with other teams about 3rd basemen. A Bourjos for Seager swap might have made some sense. 

[Brent Maguire]

I keep reading that STL got the better of the deal, but I don't see why. The two issues are if these guys are healthy. If Freese is healthy, I think he's a much better player than Bourjos healthy and most importantly, it's what WE need. We're swarming with OFs.  

How is he a much better player? I get that we needed a 3rd baseman so I don't absolutely hate the trade but Bourjos is the better player, is younger and provides more all around value than Freese does. 

[Torridd]

So AB, you think Freese healthy is better than Bourjos healthy AND that we should have kept Bourjos even though we're loaded with OFs and need a 3B?

Edited November 25, 2013 by Torridd

[Torridd]

Calhoun is going to start which makes Bourjos expendable. We got something we needed for him. I really don't think needing pitching is a reason for keeping Bourjos just because we need pitching more than a 3B. I'm sure the FO knows we need pitching and has planned accordingly.

[Brent Maguire]

Calhoun is going to start which makes Bourjos expendable. We got something we needed for him. I really don't think needing pitching is a reason for keeping Bourjos just because we need pitching more than a 3B. I'm sure the FO knows we need pitching and has planned accordingly.

I sure hope Dipoto has another trade on the table for a starter or is prepared to get a good starter on the free agent market. 

 

I like Calhoun a lot too which did make Bourjos more expendable. Just think we could've received a lot more. 

[Brent Maguire]

Doubt the M's would've given up the only decent position player prospect they've developed in half a decade for a guy who might just end up being Gutierrez 2.0

 

Seager will be a fixture at 3B for a long time, and the M's have nobody else on the horizon.  After years of having a shaky, unreliable, and injury-riddled outfield, giving up Seager for Bourjos would be a bad move, IMO.  

Seager is definitely a good player but Bourjos is very similar value wise. Just an idea!

[Chuck]

Okay Chuck I need to speak my mind now. I know there might have been others who thought the season ended with this trade but I am certainly not one of them. Assuming makes for bad form.

 

What I am upset about is the sell-low moment on Bourjos and as much as you and others have staunchly defended the trade it is pretty clear that we just gave up a potentially valuable trade asset for pennies on the dollar. Let me illustrate it from a WAR point of view.

 

For the purposes of these examples we will assume Peter makes $1.1 million in 2014, $6.5 million in 2015, and $10.5 million in 2016 (probably an overestimate on the last two years). Also  Freese should make $4.4 million in 2014 and about $8.5 million in 2015 and Salas will make $700,000 in 2014 and $1.2 million in 2015 (after that he is a very likely non-tender candidate).

 

Additionally we will assume that WAR value inflates each year with 2014 = $5.25 million/WAR, 2015 = $5.6 million/WAR, and 2016 = $6 million/WAR.

 

Finally prospects, due to their fickle performance nature, have relatively low values because they haven't proved anything at the Major League level. Randal Grichuk will have a value of $5 million for the purposes of this thought exercise:

 

1) Best Case Scenario for Angels: Let's assume Peter, at best, produces an average of 2.4 WAR per season over the next 3 years (2014-2016). This is the average WAR he produced over the previous 3 seasons (2011-2013). Let's say that WAR overvalues defense: We reduce his average WAR by 20%, bringing it down to 1.92 for the next 3 years. When you add up the value of the players exchanged (Taking Projected WAR x WAR/Year for each year of control and then subtract out total projected salary) you end up with approximate values of Peter = $32.352 million, Freese = $24.521 million, and Salas = $4.34 million. When you compare, from a pure value perspective, the totals you have Bourjos/Grichuk = $37.352 million vs. Freese/Salas = $28.861 million. At the very minimum we should not have thrown Grichuk into the trade.

 

2) Middle Case Scenario for Angels: Assume that Peter produces his average of 2.4 WAR per season over the next 3 years (2014-2016). This is a middle road scenario where Peter is on the DL or missing parts of one or more seasons as he did over the last 3 years. The values then become: Peter = $40.44 million, Freese = $24.521 million, and Salas = 4.34 million. It now becomes Bourjos/Grichuk = $45.44 million vs. Freese/Salas = $28.861 million, a much larger divide. Here we should have gotten back a good prospect in addition to Freese and Salas.

 

3) Worst Case Scenario for Angels: Assume that Peter is completely healthy over the next 3 seasons (and let me make it clear: Peter has been injured but he is NOT injury prone). To determine his WAR you can go back over the last 3 years and adjust his 2012 and 2013 seasons to 550 plate appearance's and then average the three seasons based on the hypothetical if he had been healthy. This would have been an average of 4.21 WAR per season. Using that as the baseline for a healthy Peter you get the following values: Peter = $70.9385 million, Freese (using the same assumption that he was healthy and project to 550 PA's) = $28.861 million, and Salas = $3.3635 million. This makes a final total of $75.9385 million vs. $32.2245 million. That is a huge difference, indicating we should have received double what we actually got in trade.

 

To make it clear I understand that we had a need and we filled it. I get that! I also understand that Peter's perceived value is lower right now, I get that too!

 

I also understand that other more strategic factors such as pleasing Mike Trout long term or the worry about Hamilton's possible decline (thus the need to keep Trumbo's power) may have contributed to the decision.

 

What I am saying is that from a value perspective we just ate a giant sh*t sandwich. And that is what a lot of people were upset about when this trade happened. I like Peter Bourjos and felt he could have been part of a 2014 Angels outfield. However I never thought he was untouchable or untradeable. Peter is an asset like everyone else but he had value and we in no way maximized that value.

 

It's done now and nothing can change it. Also I fully understand that there are other moves to be made to bring in the pitching we need. I also agree and understand that the Angels could easily win in 2014 as we have a good core that can compete.

 

But please stop trying to convince me that this trade makes good baseball sense. I know value when I see it. Simple numbers show the potential lopsidedness of this trade in terms of player value and show even in the best case scenario that we overpaid a decent prospect in the deal, even if that prospect had no future home (we could have used him in another trade as the "icing on the cake" rather than waste him away to the Cardinals).

 

/end rant

 

 

Robert, I appreciate your opinions here. Really thought out, but from an outsider's perspective.

 

In talking to internal folks and in the past with Jerry, I can tell you that what is perceived from a fan's perspective and what is viewed from opposing GM's and their current roster, $$$$, how they value our players and their offseason goals, -- what we the fans think and what is reality can be night and day sometimes.

 

In the case of Bourjos, it was indeed that, so he was moved to fill a void at another position that was on Dipoto's wish list this offseason. Calhoun was on Dipoto's/Scioscia radar to start in 2014 so Bourjos was a piece to move. We got a good, albeit not great 3B, but one that should vastly improve that black hole position wise.

 

I can't get into too many details and specifics on the board here, but knowing what I know about this deal and the work that went into dealing him prior to the Freese trade, we were not going to get a decent arm for Bourjos, whether major league ready or top prospect. It was on to plan B for Dipoto with regards to Bourjos.

[Chuck]

Seager is definitely a good player but Bourjos is very similar value wise. Just an idea!

 

The M's are very high on Seagar and have no need for a CF. It's all about who you mix and match with.

 

I would rather have Freese at 3B over Lucho or a Brennan Harris type, than have Bourjos on our bench as a 4th outfielder.

 

That's what it boils down for me.