Why trading David DeJesus for two guys you've never heard of makes sense
None
David DeJesus is gone now, and the instant reaction I hear from Royals fans is some combination of disappointment and anger. DeJesus was a good ballplayer for a lot of Royals teams that didn’t have enough of them, and he came to represent something in the eyes of fans, so now that he’s gone a lot of you are asking two questions:
Who the hell are Vin Mazzaro and Justin Marks?
And what the hell is Royals GM Dayton Moore thinking?
Muscle memory tells us this is a terrible trade, an awful trade, an embarrassing thing to have to do and a symbol of why the Royals will always stink. After all, remember how DeJesus became a regular in Kansas City? The Royals had an opening in center field after trading Carlos Beltran.
In the world of common sense, this is a silly trade for the Royals. DeJesus is the Royals’ best defensive player* and was their best hitter before a thumb injury torpedoed his 2010 season.
* Though, in fairness, that’s a pretty damning statement about this whole pitching-and-DEFENSE movement.
But in the world of baseball, this trade makes perfect sense for the Royals. If you want to argue against it — and this is close enough that reasonable people can disagree — your argument cannot be “DeJesus is good and these two stiffs from Oakland aren’t, so there.”
Because the trade wasn’t just DeJesus for two pitchers the Royals hope are on the come.
The trade looks more like this:
— Kansas City gives up one year of DeJesus at $6 million* and forfeits what could be two supplemental draft picks if he becomes a free agent after next season.
* UPDATE: As is his custom, Bob Dutton brings up a good point. It’s not just DeJesus for $6 million in 2010 the Royals were weighing, but DeJesus for $20M-$25 for the three years after that, which is about what he’ll make.
— Kansas City gets two potential big league starting pitchers under club control for a total of 11 years and saves about $5.5 million in 2010 salary.
The argument against this trade is that the Royals could’ve done better, that they could’ve gotten more in return, but there are folks around Oakland wondering why they had to give up two young and cheap pitchers for an aging outfielder who’s never been anything more than a pretty good player*.
* DeJesus is one of 53 big league outfielders to play more than 500 games since 2007, and he ranks 36th in OPS+. The three immediately ahead of him: Marlon Byrd, Nate McLouth and Cody Ross. My personal sense on DeJesus was always that he looked like a better player than he actually was, in part because he played on such bad teams.
What it really comes down to is this: the Royals are going to be awful in 2011, and maybe they would’ve been ever-so-slightly less awful with DeJesus. But if you believe at all in building for the future — in Mission 2012 — then the Royals had to move DeJesus, who will be 32 with a rising salary when most of the prospects arrive and 34 when they’re likely hitting their stride. This is a different time in baseball, when those ages really mean something.
This is Moore pushing his chips closer to the middle of the table for a real run, instead of the kind of window dressing we’ve become used to, both in his first few years here and before.
This is the kind of trade that can be hard to accept, but is necessary for teams like the Royals.
I’m not telling you to be excited about this trade. I’m just telling you to see that it had to happen, and that holding on to DeJesus made no sense.
Blake Thompson
2 years, 6 months agoGood points, pretty much echos what I have been thinking. I’ll miss watching him, but I don’t think you can guarantee the potential supplemental picks would be worth any more than the two guys we got.
Tim Armstrong
2 years, 6 months agoAny truth to the rumor that Dayton Moore traded for Vin Mazzaro as a personal favor to Carl DiCapo?
alex pope
2 years, 6 months agoSorry Sam, but I think you’re wrong here. Getting two supplemental draft picks is probably a better value than these pitchers, and we get DeJesus for another year. The delayed draft picks are a huge thing because it would have allowed us to plug a gap when a few of the minor league prospects have bad 2011.
Eric Clarkson
2 years, 6 months agoCan’t believe “Moneyball” Beane went for Dejesus? DD is the anti-moneyball, considering defense and baserunning. Hmph. What puzzled me about GMDM’s interview on 810WHB was that he said something (about Mazzaro) like, “…A lot of pitchers in the HOF had two or three bad years when they started their career…” 1) I’m pretty sure Mazzaro and the HOF don’t belong in the same paragraph… or even all the books in all the libraries in the world combined. 2) The HOF represents roughly less than 1/10th of 1% of all MLB players since its inception. 3) Money may not be able to buy you love… but it certainly goes a long way toward getting to the playoffs. Open up the satin purse, Mr. Glass.
Carl Goetz
2 years, 6 months agoThe one piece that is essentially overlooked is the $5.5MM savings. If that money isn’t used to help build the team for the future, as I’m sure Mr. Glass’s critics will all claim, then it should be overlooked. However, if the money is used wisely—say, to select first-round talent in the second- to tenth-rounds as we’ve done recently—then, the deal becomes more attractive. Of course, that’ll take time to figure out and someone with a public soapbox (Sam!) will have to point it out when the time comes.
Eli Waterman
2 years, 6 months agoI have to completely disagree with OSU_Eric on the Moneyball comment. Stealing bases and baserunning are two separate concepts, and Beane doesn’t believe attempting to steal bases is worth the risk. Having good baserunning skills doesn’t have anything to do with that. And we all know DeJesus RARELY stole bases. What Beane did was go and pluck the Royals best OBP guy. Great trade for the A’s if you believe in the Moneyball concept. DeJesus fits the mold perfectly. And it’s almost like Dayton Moore is the anti-Moneyball GM. Not good. (See: Betancourt, Yuniesky)
And Sam, believing this is a good trade for the Royals and that it HAD TO HAPPEN is a complete ignorance and/or acceptance to our GUTLESS OWNER. It’s wrong.
The truth is, cutting payroll a year after the grand opening of the renovated stadium the taxpayers handed the gutless owner is absolutely CRIMINAL. And the media continuously giving this team and owner a pass is just as criminal.
-The KC Eye
Eric Clarkson
2 years, 6 months agoI was just making the observation that DeJesus runs into a lot of outs… and doesn’t do well motoring backwards on fly balls and making the play. He also strikes out more than he walks: Career 314 BB/ 489 K. Yes, the OPS and AVG are above average, but it’ll be a rude awakening for him running around in that chasm of an outfield they have in Oakland. Dejesus’ acquisition just seems lukewarm with the makeup of the A’s. Much ado about nothing mostly.
Eli Waterman
2 years, 6 months agoYou make some solid points there, but remember, the Moneyball concept doesn’t put much stock into defense at all.
Something else to think about — at least for the people defending this trade with the argument that DeJesus is more or less an average player who looked better on a bad team — is that, if true, then the Major League market has gotten so out of wack and/or David Glass & the Royals have gone SO CHEAP that they can’t even afford AVERAGE PLAYERS.
I mean, they didn’t even entertain the idea of retaining him. How in the hell will this team ever sustain success long-term with it like this?
Scott Menze
2 years, 6 months ago“Moneyball” and more importantly Mr. Beane was focused at the time on OBP and by extension OPS. However that was not really the main focus of his theory. OBP and also by extension seeing pitches remains part of his philosophical focus, but that is not the true or whole theory. The main theory of “Moneyball” is/was to exploit “market inefficiencies.” At that time OBP was way undervalued so he and his staff identified/acquired players accordingly. That is what makes the “Moneyball” approach both good and fluid.