Was trading Derosa a bad decision?

As long as people stay away from results based analysis it shouldn’t be that controversial.

My Lahman’s database has the playoff data handy, so it was a cinch to copy it into XLstat and run the regression.

Someone had to be the utility player, but I agree that Miles wasn’t the best choice. Bobby Scales or Andres Blanco could have been given a shot going in to be that player at a fraction of the cost of Miles. Of course, Scales was an 11-year minor leaguer . . . . A one-year contract for Miles wouldn’t have been a bad risk, but two years is a ridiculous contract. Plus, didn’t they scout his ability to play other positions?

Gregg has been servicable and they needed a closer. Carlos Marmol has been walking everyone in sight, and even last year seemed to get too hyped up at times (not always) in big situations and probably isn’t ready to be a closer. He will be, but he’s not there yet.

1) It’s likely that Derosa’s trade value goes down midseason, simply because the other team would be paying for fewer at bats.

2) There would be a pretty big media backlash if Hendry traded a productive and well received player mid season because the Cubs already had the division locked up. That might be misconstrued as the “business model” instead of just trying to win.

I agree that Derosa probably should have been traded for guys of better value, but the Cubs system was in the crap hole and they needed some depth.

This analysis is based on PECOTA’s projection, which makes no such assumptions.

You’re projecting on the projection.

Because the content essentially says it was a reasonable decision that just hasn’t worked out to date.

Did you read the content of the post, or just react to the title?

Now, it turns out having another starting pitcher would have been the least of our needs (though I secretly believe Harden should be our closer). That’s why hindsight never makes any sense – everyone who calls heads and loses wishes they would have called tails. I have to admit on DeRo, hearing his interview made me realize how much he loved being on this team (was it a job interview), and for the first time I thought about how nice it would be to trade for him. But, people should perish that thought – there is NO WAY Baltimore trades away very good prospects to get a guy only to trade the guy back to the same team – a little thing called ego and pride gets in the way.

They all have impressive numbers. All of them could potentially help us win in the future.

Jeff Stevens 25 yr old Righty in AAA-
                            W L ERA G GS CG SV IP H R ER HR BB SO BB/9 SO/9 WHIP STK% G/F
Iowa (PCL) AAA 0 3 2.87 24 0 0 0 31.1 22 12 10 1 18 27 5.17 7.76 1.28 60% 0.81
He should be ready to pitch in the majors soon. Possibly later this year.

Jon Gaub 23 yr old Lefty-
Class W L ERA G GS CG SV IP H R ER HR BB SO BB/9 SO/9 WHIP STK% G/F
Tennessee (SL) AA 3 1 3.04 25 0 0 3 26.2 17 12 9 3 17 38 5.74 12.83 1.27 61% 0.71
ERA is solid and very high strikeout numbers for a young lefty.

Chris Archer 20 yr old Righty-
Class W L ERA G GS CG SV IP H R ER HR BB SO BB/9 SO/9 WHIP STK% G/F
Peoria (MWL) LoA 2 2 2.42 13 13 0 0 48.1 32 18 13 0 31 62 5.77 11.54 1.30 — 1.28
He has very impressive strikeout numbers for a young righty and a great ERA.

Sorry the numbers arent lined up perfect.

So you wanted a “good pen arm”, Jake Stevens, CHECK.

So you wanted a “near ready good prospect”, Jon Gaub, CHECK

So you wanted a “throw in”, Chris Archer, CHECK

So what’s your beef with the trade? How is it that he didn’t get enough of a return because he got everything you wanted in your post. Looks to me like you got exactly what you wanted for St. DeRo.

Even though I couldn’t stand DeRosa getting traded, the return is worse. Then to compound it by signing Bradley, and Miles.

At least he’s getting on base and hitting to all sides of the field instead of trying to pull everything. If he gets on base at the clip he did last season, he’ll be very valuable to this team; hardly depleting “quality depth at RF.”

absolutely perfect and wish I hadn’t wasted my time posting above before reading this. I agree 110%.

what the young arms contribute in the coming seasons, this trade is still too early to grade

I think we got a good return for Derosa. What we replaced him with was the problem.

means “street” in French.

the highest-paid player in baseball, if he’s that bloody valuable. He’s really helping the Indians soar, isn’t he?

I would just love to hear your reasoning as to how Derosa adds so much more than most other players. If it is “intangables” then please tell me what those are, and how they relate to winning.

Look, Derosa if a fine player, but during the off season it appeared that he was superfluous on an already stacked team. He was coming off a career year and was going to be a free agent after the season was over. Bringing in 3 prospects was a better use of Derosa than the expected marginal points playoff probability he would add.

when their favorite players goes away

of space and time.

You keep attributing this to some kind of romance-novel type of wistfullness.

It’s not.

DeRosa is producing pretty well. Cleveland has problems that aren’t addressed by his abilities.

However, the Cubs has problems that ARE addressed by his abilities. Even if he hadn’t played for the Cubs previously, there would still be talk about him — except you wouldn’t be screaming like you were stuck by grandma’s knitting needle every time his name was brought up.

We know he got along well with those players that are still left on the Cubs. We know he can hit, and we know that he can field almost every position. It’s got NOTHING to do with his previous work with the Cubs, and EVERYTHING to do with what he could bring the team NOW.

No, he’s not Babe Ruth. He’s not Ty Cobb. He’s not Willie Mayes. He’s Mark DeRosa, and frankly, whether or not you’re going to look at trading him in hindsight or not, he could be a considerable asset to this team RIGHT NOW.

I doubt it will happen, but I would be very happy if the plane back to Cleveland, or wherever else the team is going, wasn’t carrying DeRosa, because the Cubs made a deal to keep him in Chicago.

Most baseball observers with a sufficient number of brain cells agree the Cubs’ decision to trade DeRosa to Cleveland for three minor-leaguers (an insult to goodness itself!) was not a smart one. When Ramirez went down with a dislocated shoulder early last month, the club found itself without a bona fide third baseman.

just don’t quit.

Break out the bronze and get the statue ready.

I don’t know really how to respond to them, expect for further questioning Hendry’s motives. It doesn’t appear that he had a plan, and while trading Derosa might have been a smart move, everything surrounding that seemed bad.

that the prospects add depth to a farm system that is now more likely to be able to add another player at the trade deadline via trade.

In other words, v.e.p. argued the Cubs sold present depth for future depth. I’d argue it doesn’t have to be so black and white.

How about a different spin – the Cubs could not plan to give DeRosa, Fontenot, and Bradley 500+ PAs ; while on paper DeRosa would have been nice backup depth to have for Fontenot, Bradley, and Ramirez, it doesn’t work that way in real baseball. DeRosa was too good to be a bench player and the Cubs wanted to give Fontenot a full shot.

So, trading DeRosa for pitching prospects enabled them to cash him in for assets that didn’t block Fontenot and could be traded later in the year to fill holes that appeared on the club. The big problem is when you have no depth behind a player that gets injured too early in the season – as it has happened with Ramirez.

But ask yourself this question – what if we had kept DeRosa and Aramis had stayed healthy and Fontenot was only a part-time player… what if, then, Ryan Theriot or Kosuke Fukudome or Geovany Soto went down this week? What trade chips would we have to fill in for one of them? In one sense, you could argue that the Cubs have so little depth all over the place – SS, 3B, CF – that having the easy-to-trade pitching prospects makes for better depth.

Anyway, just a devil’s advocate position…

In your analysis did you figure in team chemistry? Can it be measured?

Exactly, it can’t be measured. We have no idea how team chemistry effects performance; it could be a lot, or it could be insignificant. Furthermore, there is no way of knowing how “much” chemistry Derosa would add to his team if he was still on it. For those reasons I explicitly left it out of my calculations.

Given the information that we can actually quantify, Derosa did not appear to be that valuable when Hendry traded him.