Travis Hafner and Fausto Carmona

[Lando12]

Travis Hafner put up the follow wOBAs in 07, 09, and thus far this season: .360, .355, .362. For a comparison amongst DHs, that's roughly Luke Scott (career .361). Much has been made of Hafner's decline, but is the current incarnation of Hafner such a bad thing?

He hits more GB than he used to and the power seems long gone. But he is getting on base. Is this new combination worth $26 million over 2011-12? No. But it is worth something. The worst case scenario with Hafner was that the 08 version was the real thing and that the Indians would spend the next few seasons desperately trying to wring value out of that contract. That remains on the table, but it doesn't seem inevitable as it did one year ago.

Carmona's 3.33 ERA is sparkling, but that comes with an xFIP houdini act. His FIP (3.93) and xFIP (4.85) tell us that there is some good fortune in the works. In good news, those figures are better. His 26/21 K/BB isn't pretty, but it does come with a 1/6 first start. If we throw that out (a very questionable move with only 8 starts) then Carmona starts looking half decent. He's put up a K/9 of 4.96 and a BB/9 of 2.98 over that stretch. His GB% of 54.3% isn't the dominating rate of 2007, but it is still a very good mark. Of the 77 pitchers that qualified for the ERA title in 09, Carmona's 54.3% would sit fifth.

Do we start planning parades? Of course not. But Carmona does look like a useful member of the rotation right now. He may not be great, but he looks like he just may be worth the $6.1 million coming his way in 2011.

Carmona and Hafner will make $19.1 million in 2011. If they keep this up, I would guess that about 6-7 million of that would be waste. I could estimate that even less of that is waste based upon fangraph's dollar values (they have Hafner's 07 as worth 10 million), but I really can't get past Hafner being stuck at DH. There are tons of bargain opportunities at DH. Anyhow, back to the main point. That $19.1 million looked to be pure waste a year ago. Suddenly, the 2011 payroll looks pretty efficient.

It's not a big win, but it's a win.

[DavidMcGr]

In what world is a BOR starter worth 6.1 million to the Cleveland Indians? There are about 7 other starters who would cost 400K that would project as being just as good.

I think Carmona has value, just not as much as he'll be getting paid (at least to a team with a lot of lower upside pitcher depth like Indians). This is why I've been petition to trade him for the past 2 seasons. Personally I'd give him away for a bag of balls, but if that ERA keeps low for a few more weeks I wonder if a contending team may get a bit foolish and offer something substantial.

[Lando12]

I was speaking in an absolute sense when discussing value, but let's run with this.

Who are these 7 starters?

[FordPrefect]

Carmona is at least making himself tradeable where they can get something back.

[DavidMcGr]

I was speaking in an absolute sense when discussing value, but let's run with this.

Who are these 7 starters?

Seven may've been a hyperbole to some degree, but I think that 1) Carlos Carrasco and 2) Hector Rondon are definites. That at least two (3 and 4) of Yohan Pino, Josh Tomlin, Jeanmar Gomez and Frank Herrmann could be serviceable stopgap BOR starters. That 5) Kelvin De La Cruz is a definite by the end of the season. That one of (6) Alex White, Nick Hagadone and TJ House could be fast tracked. And that one (7) of Eric Berger, Bryce Stowell, Zach Putnam, Scott Barnes could come out of nowhere (including the bullpen). Also, perhaps more importantly, it's clear that by the time we ran through our depth we more would be ready with a young high upside of fleet of: Hagadone, White, De La Cruz, House, Knapp, Perez, Gardner, Stowell and Putnam all projecting to approach the majors in the next 1-3 years.

Point being, we aren't in need of a body, especially one that's only going to give us BOR projection at well above league minimum salary. Plus, if we really needed a BOR stopgap starter for some reason they aren't exactly hard to find on the open market (FA or trade) for pennies on the dollar.

[Lando12]

I have a tough time seeing the Pinos and Hermanns of the world being better than this current incarnation of Carmona. If we accept that what Fausto has done over his last 8 or so starts is the real Carmona (I know that's a big stretch at this point), then I don't see the harm in having him around on a one year 6.3 million deal.

Without Carmona, the Indians would only have 21.4 million committed to 2011 payroll. Choo and Cabrera will be entering their first year of arbitration. The only player entering his second year of arbitration will be Rafael Perez. I cannot help but think there will be additions to that. The lineup seems full (fingers crossed), and the rotation not so much. I don't see a roster crunch there until 2012. There are bodies available to be sure, but I'm not particularly worried about them.

Now, if the team is committed to keeping Talbot and Huff in the rotation, this falls apart. Right now I'm penciling in Masterson, Carrasco, and Rondon. If one of those three gets bumped to make room for Carmona, I won't be happy. Right now, I don't think I will mind voting one or both of Talbot and Huff off of the island. I see all of these second tier guys as holding down the fort until White/De La Cruz/Hagadone/whoever arrives as a higher upside option. In the meantime, I don't mind having a guy like Fausto around.

I think the more interesting question about Carmona is what to do if he does pitch well enough to build trade value. He's one year older than Masterson. Would the Indians really be better served in moving a guy like that? Wouldn't Fausto at 6.3 million, or 7 million, or even 9 million help win? The Indians signed Westbrook to a far more lucrative deal coming off of ERAs of 4.17 and 4.49. I don't know what Fausto's xFIP is since that first start, but it currently sits at 4.81 with that stinkbomb included. At what point do the Indians stop selling?

Of course, this is all hypothetical. Fausto could easily turn back into a pumpkin and make all of this moot.

[DavidMcGr]

I have a tough time seeing the Pinos and Hermanns of the world being better than this current incarnation of Carmona.
That isn't what it's about though. It's about replacing Carmona's production with, at the worst, marginal upgrades while receiving talent and payroll relief in the process. Perhaps Pino and Herrmann would be bad options, but they're likely far back in the line so it isn't like they are the reason to do such things - they are just a small part of the reason. Also, you never know when a minor league player will just strike lightning once in the big leagues; Pino has always been old for the leagues he has pitched in and underwhelming in the eyes of scouts but he's also managed to put up great numbers in the minors. It's unlikely be there is a chance that he could turn out be a a significant upgrade over the known BOR production that Carmona will put out.

If we accept that what Fausto has done over his last 8 or so starts is the real Carmona (I know that's a big stretch at this point), then I don't see the harm in having him around on a one year 6.3 million deal.
I'm sorry but why is that? Carmona has a 4.81 xFIP with a career low 4.71 K/9 and dangerously bad 1.30 K:BB. He's inducing fewer groundballs than he has ever has before, isn't throwing more balls in the zone and has a career low 5.7% swinging strike percent. There is some slight room for encouragement relative to his 2009 and 2008 seasons but we're still talking about production you would expect from a 5th starter and with few signs of upside.

Without Carmona, the Indians would only have 21.4 million committed to 2011 payroll. Choo and Cabrera will be entering their first year of arbitration. The only player entering his second year of arbitration will be Rafael Perez. I cannot help but think there will be additions to that. The lineup seems full (fingers crossed), and the rotation not so much. I don't see a roster crunch there until 2012. There are bodies available to be sure, but I'm not particularly worried about them.
It isn't about needing to shed payroll, it's about if paying Carmona that salary makes our better. We could put that money towards the long-term future of the team (drafts, FA signings, team extensions etc..) or get some direct upgrades on the open market (even on the small scale we would be taking about Kelly Johnson over Grudz). I don't think that Carmona isn't necessarily worth 6.3 million to some team, just that he isn't worth it to the Indians; especially if we can receive some additional talent in the process.

Now, if the team is committed to keeping Talbot and Huff in the rotation, this falls apart. Right now I'm penciling in Masterson, Carrasco, and Rondon. If one of those three gets bumped to make room for Carmona, I won't be happy. Right now, I don't think I will mind voting one or both of Talbot and Huff off of the island. I see all of these second tier guys as holding down the fort until White/De La Cruz/Hagadone/whoever arrives as a higher upside option. In the meantime, I don't mind having a guy like Fausto around.
Given Fausto's contract he takes top priority. That's just how it is. I don't think this is a huge concern outside of Masterson as Huff and Talbot aren't pitching very well and both lack anything more than BOR/low-end MOR upside, but I suppose it could easily delay the promotion of some our more promising pitching prospects which puts a slight win the "trade Carmona if you can" tally.

I think the more interesting question about Carmona is what to do if he does pitch well enough to build trade value.
I think this needs to be reworded. I think the goal is, what do we do if he can maintain a low ERA long enough to increase his trade value? Right now he isn't pitching so great but he has a very nice ERA along with a 4-2 record on an awful team. I don't understand why teams would look at those numbers but they do, and my entire point is that if we can exploit those teams then we should jump at the opportunity.

He's one year older than Masterson. Would the Indians really be better served in moving a guy like that? Wouldn't Fausto at 6.3 million, or 7 million, or even 9 million help win? The Indians signed Westbrook to a far more lucrative deal coming off of ERAs of 4.17 and 4.49. I don't know what Fausto's xFIP is since that first start, but it currently sits at 4.81 with that stinkbomb included. At what point do the Indians stop selling?

Of course, this is all hypothetical. Fausto could easily turn back into a pumpkin and make all of this moot.
I don't think you can simply discount one of Fausto's starts because it was a stinkbomb? By that rational shouldn't we discount his one good start with a 7 K:BB and 12 GBs? The bottom line that Carmona has been underwhelming across the board. I'm glad to see that he has improved throughout the season but not nearly to the point of looking to be more than a BOR starter or approaching his sub-4 ERA.

[Lando12]

[
I don't think you can simply discount one of Fausto's starts because it was a stinkbomb? By that rational shouldn't we discount his one good start with a 7 K:BB and 12 GBs?

It was his first start of the year, it cold, whatever. Maybe he was horrible that first start (by K/BB standards) for the same reasons that Pavano got lit up to start last year. I've acknowledged that this isn't exactly a legitimate means of examining performance, but I've been running around with that particular what if this entire thread. It doesn't make for good analysis, but I think it makes for an interesting question.

And I do need to reword the trade value. If there is a sucker out there, they should take advantage. That is true for every player. When I say build trade value, I mean actual value. If Carmona is good enough to warrant a quality trade return, is he good enough to keep?

[DavidMcGr]

I'm just not seeing a real case for ignoring a start just because it was the first of the season. I'll admit that it's slightly suspicious that his first start was his worst start, but I'm not seeing a large enough disparity between his first start and his other starts to say that it was simply a fluke due to cold weather or getting loose.

Clearly every player can be moved for the right price, but I think my point was more that Carmona's value is farther from agreed upon than the majority of players in the game. Some look at his ERA in 2007 and his ERA in 2010 and may say, wow maybe he's back to being a FOR/MOR starter, while others may look at his still high xFIP, still lackluster K:BB numbers, his deflated GB rate, his lucky HR/FB rate, his unimproved zone% and his career low swiningstrike rate and think he's no better off now than he was in 2008/2009. I would certainly wager that the vast majority of people are in the middle of those extremes but I think if we find any who is closer to the first scenario then we should jump on the oppotunity.

The bottom line is that Carmona is relatively expensive to other in-house options and provides only a marginal increase in upside so acquiring meaningful talent a transaction should be viewed as an added benefit more than required.

[FordPrefect]

Subjectively speaking, I feel comfortable asserting that Carmona's first start was the worst strike zone the Indians have seen this year. Maybe I'm wrong, though, but only time will really tell.

[DavidMcGr]

Subjectively speaking, I feel comfortable asserting that Carmona's first start was the worst strike zone the Indians have seen this year. Maybe I'm wrong, though, but only time will really tell.

But that doesn't mean that you can toss out the start. What if I could say that Carmona's best start was the result of the best strike zone the Indians have seen this year? There is quite a bit of variation in the equation that is out of the player's control and tossing out events because they they're on one end of he spectrum will result in a biased outcome.

My point is that tossing out that start makes sense coming from an optimistic point of view and may even be logically sound, but if you're looking to make an accurate assessment of his abilities I think it is a foolish move - at least without conducting some rather serious research on implications of doing so.

[Lando12]

I don't know if my observation is colored by the fact that Carmona didn't give up many runs, but that first start did seem different than previous BB explosions. The pattern in past years seemed to be Carmona successfully throwing to one spot, low and away to LH. When that didn't put people away, he would overthrow, the ball would flatten out and sail high and away. In that first start he didn't have good command, but he was moving the ball around. He wasn't missing by a foot, he just wasn't very sharp. Does that line up with what anyone else saw?

On the whole, this new and improved Carmona I'm talking about is essentially Jon Garland. It's mediocrity more than anything.

[Lando12]

My point is that tossing out that start makes sense coming from an optimistic point of view and may even be logically sound, but if you're looking to make an accurate assessment of his abilities I think it is a foolish move - at least without conducting some rather serious research on implications of doing so.

I absolutely agree with that. I'm just trying to be positive. If Carmona pitches well for the next month or two, I may be convinced that the first start is an outlier. Right now? Optimistic, but not convinced. I think the idea of what to do with Carmona if he is improved is interesting. From 2011-13, assuming that his options are picked up, Carmona will be getting what the Indians gave Byrd. If he's good for 30 starts of mediocrity, should the Indians really be eager to move that?

[DavidMcGr]

Paul Byrd is the last thing the Indians want to spend money on. We have ample starting depth and would be much better served investing 7 million a year on player(s) with upside.

[FordPrefect]

Subjectively speaking, I feel comfortable asserting that Carmona's first start was the worst strike zone the Indians have seen this year. Maybe I'm wrong, though, but only time will really tell.

But that doesn't mean that you can toss out the start. What if I could say that Carmona's best start was the result of the best strike zone the Indians have seen this year? There is quite a bit of variation in the equation that is out of the player's control and tossing out events because they they're on one end of he spectrum will result in a biased outcome.

My point is that tossing out that start makes sense coming from an optimistic point of view and may even be logically sound, but if you're looking to make an accurate assessment of his abilities I think it is a foolish move - at least without conducting some rather serious research on implications of doing so.

I don't want to toss it out, but because i suspect it's an outlier, I'm just willing to look at his splits with it and without it.

If for some reason a game was played in strange weather conditions, like a blizzard or a sandstorm, I'd be inclined to do something similar - the conditions just seemed overwhelming. (Obviously, though, that's hyperbolic compared to a bad umpire)

with or without that start, i don't think it really changes much in the long run.

[DavidMcGr]

My point was more that you can't only look for outliers on one side.