So it seems the Diamondbacks have signed Adam LaRoche. Not for three years. Not for two years. But for one year, and only four or five million dollars. This is a far cry from LaRoche's reported initial demands of $30m/3yr, and remember that only a week ago he turned down a $17m/2yr offer from the Giants. This is, in other words, a bargain, at least relative to what it was assumed LaRoche would cost.
As such, a significant number of Mariner fans - fans who were unimpressed by the Casey Kotchman acquisition - have taken to voicing their concerns and complaints. LaRoche is an above-average lefty hitter who can hold his own in the field. Why settle for Kotchman when LaRoche is so readily available?
I'll be honest - I'm as surprised as you are that it came to this. But before anyone claims that we missed the boat, I think we have to consider a number of different factors here, factors that could help explain why the team went the way it went.
- First and foremost, do not take this news as an indication that the Mariners could've signed Adam LaRoche for $4-5m/1yr. LaRoche settled for a small contract because his market caved. The M's, for example, got Kotchman. The Giants added Aubrey Huff. Without any suitors left, there was no longer much demand for LaRoche's services, driving down his price. Had the Mariners chosen to get involved, that would've meant competition, and competition means more money.
- Assuming a ~$4m or so arbitration reward, the Mariners will have acquired Kotchman for a net cost of $2.75m. LaRoche + Bill Hall would've cost quite a bit more than that, as the M's were on the hook for about $1.25m of Hall's 2010 salary. Doing what they did provides the opportunity and financial flexibility to improve on Hall's roster spot. Remember that LaRoche projects as maybe - maybe - a win better than Kotchman, and likely less. This route deprives the M's of that 0.5-1 win boost, but also gives them at least $4m and an open roster spot.
- Casey Kotchman has spent 73% of his career in the American League. Adam LaRoche has spent 99% of his career in the National League. No matter how significant you feel the AL/NL gap may be, it does exist, and that's a concern. Note that LaRoche's career batting line over 300 plate appearances of interleague play is .261/.316/.429, with a .302 BABIP.
- LaRoche is 30 years old. Kotchman turns 27 in February. One of these players is unlikely to take a step forward, while the other should, in theory, be entering his prime. The Mariners have talked about Kotchman's potential. He was a hot prospect, he's always had the tools, and people have spoken to some off-the-field issues that might've affected his performance. I think the organization believes he's going to be a little better than his track record. You can't really make the same argument for LaRoche.
On the surface, this looks like an annoying turn of events, but when you take a closer look, I think you'll find that it was entirely reasonable for the M's to do what they did. LaRoche is a better hitter than Kotchman, and he's a better baserunner, but Kotchman's younger and plays better defense, and when you throw the age and league considerations into the mix, the overall gap between the two turns out to be pretty small. For Arizona, Adam LaRoche is a bargain. Seattle, though, seems to have done just fine.
Looks like the contract is closer to 5-6 Million then 4-5 Million.
Goose - January 14, 2010
Great Post
I’m wondering though, with the players we’re looking at for Bill Hall’s bench spot (Rocco/Tatis/etc..) do those kinds of players really upgrade our team by 0.5-1 win?
200tang - January 14, 2010
Entirely depends on whether or not you think Hall is hopeless
Jeff Sullivan - January 14, 2010
I do
basebliman - January 14, 2010
Me too
That 200 average sure looked appealing
aussie_chop - January 14, 2010
Almost certainly not.
Unless a bench player is really good and plays a lot, one player alone won’t have that much of an impact. The whole bench together might contribute about a win or so. Or not even that much.
nathaniel dawson - January 14, 2010
tatis would make more sense
given the PAs available, Tatis would be a pretty clear upgrade over Hall. Over the last two years, Tatis has only needed about 300-370 PA to provide about 1.5 WAR.
The last time Hall produced anything close to that was 2007 (1.8 WAR) and he needed 500 PAs to do it. Last year Hall got 365 PAs between the M’s and Milwaukee and turned in -.3 WAR. Admittedly he did switch leagues in mid-year, but he still doesn’t project as high as Tatis.
I’d say they look like a wash on D as they can both play a lot of positions competently.
This would be a clear bench upgrade for the M’s provided they can make the dollars line up with the wins.
moyerLIVES - January 15, 2010
You absolutely have to give Hall the defensive advantage
He’s good and Tatis is a 35 year old ex-slugger. The real issue is whether or not Hall is finished as a hitter, which, well, given the evidence…
Jeff Sullivan - January 15, 2010
Finish him!
Edgar for Pres - January 15, 2010
I'm not really unhappy Kotchman being here instead of LaRoche
for various reasons defense chief among them. One thing I was wondering about though. Does it actually matter if you’re a lefty in Safeco if you’re a no power groundball machine lefty? I mean, Kotchman’s an ok player, but I don’t see him benefiting from the park the way Ibanez did.
Bearskin Rugburn - January 14, 2010
He won't benefit to the same degree
but he will benefit. It’s not like he never puts any balls in the air at all.
Jeff Sullivan - January 14, 2010
I'm not sure that's true.
From park factors, we can see that batting average and runs are depressed for left-handers. If guys like Branyan and Griffey get a boost from their power to right field, then other lefties must be suffering. Maybe he puts the ball in the air enough to be somewhere in the middle, but I’d say there’s a good chance players like him would be hurt by Safeco.
nathaniel dawson - January 14, 2010
I'm fine with this.
LaRoche’s goatee reminds me of Scott Spiezio.
I do not want to be reminded of Scott Spiezio.
Spider Jerusalem - January 14, 2010
Its much more Ryan Franklin than Spiezio
but same point applies
Bearskin Rugburn - January 14, 2010
I don't know.
Franklin had the full goatee, Spiezio had the flavor savor gone horribly, horribly awry. LaRoche is kind of in the middle, which means he reminds of both, I suppose.
Upon further reflection, I like this non-signing even more.
Spider Jerusalem - January 14, 2010
Franklin now, with the Cards
Has the full-on Russian-hooker-pubic-bush thing going on.
Please don’t remind me of Franklin.
wandergeist - January 14, 2010
The name never to be mentioned
Reminded when we called him Player A….long time ago….in a different and much sadder period of time.
Edgar for Pres - January 14, 2010
Long live Sand Frog.
okdan - January 14, 2010
Seems like we are seeing the part of roster construction that involves educated gambling.
I’m okay with that I guess since Jack and boys are much better at this than I ever expected.
Sec 108 - January 14, 2010
Laroche never seemed
like a likely acquisition anyway. Like you said, his contract demands were too high. The FO went with Kotchman using a good process and hopefully it produces a good outcome. Nonetheless, the good process is encouraging and I’m confident that if Kotchman doesn’t produce, there will be another good process in place to replace him. No big let down for me.
didycel - January 14, 2010
Conor Jackson a possibility?
Can play LF and 1b. Right handed hitter too. Doesn’t seem to have a place there now with Laroche at 1b.
lowrig - January 14, 2010
They can just put him in left field.
Goose - January 14, 2010
Dang it!
I knew there was something wrong with that logic!
el generico - January 14, 2010
With the impending release of Byrnes and this:
That is almost certainly what they will be doing.
Goose - January 14, 2010
Oh well.
Pretty much sums this turn of events up for me.
Jackle Mackle - January 14, 2010 via mobile
Comparison
Kotchman:
Season high OPS = .839 (2007)
Career OPS = .743
LaRoche:
Season high OPS: .915 (full season 2005)
Career OPS = .834
give me laroche any day, kotchman would be a starter on a bottom feeding, non contending team like the nats, pirates, a’s, royals, orioles etc. Not for potential world series contenders in seattle. I still wouldve signed laroche despite kotchman still on the roster
MagicMike23 - January 14, 2010
Potential World Series contenders?
pdb - January 14, 2010
Did I stutter?
Hell yes! I dare anyone to beat King Felix and Cliff " I am not asian" Lee in a short series.
MagicMike23 - January 14, 2010
So you did stutter then?
seattlebruin - January 14, 2010
So why did you stop being an Asfan4ever?
Graham MacAree - January 14, 2010
4ever ended in November, 2009 duh
seattlebruin - January 14, 2010
Asian4ever?
Poochie - January 14, 2010
Gotta get to the Series before you can win a Series
pdb - January 14, 2010
Theoretically, every team in baseball could potentially contend for the World Series at this point
seattlebruin - January 14, 2010
According to the rules of Major League Baseball, all teams are allowed to attempt to get to the world series.
abender20 - January 14, 2010
I think someone needs to tell the Astros about this
OlSalty - January 14, 2010
They were just in the World Series four seasons ago
Poochie - January 14, 2010
I think they forgot
OlSalty - January 14, 2010
you left the Red Sox off your list.
Steve Nelson - January 14, 2010
Please properly capitalize your comments
I do not understand what you are trying to say about Kotchman. Are you saying that he is not a good enough player to be starting in Seattle? Kotchman is hardly the biggest problem on this team as constructed, and it’s irrelevant as he was reasonably cheap and has plenty of potential.
Did you know that Jason Heyward’s career MLB OPS is .000? Would you rather have LaRoche than Heyward? Kotchman still has plenty of growth potential offensively while LaRoche has almost certainly peaked and is on the downside of his career. Additionally, Kotchman is a standout defensive player at first base, which fits perfectly into the mold that Jack Z has set for his player acquisitions.
While LaRoche had a good chance to contribute more to the team than Kotchman in 2010, acquiring Kotchman gives us both financial and roster flexibility as it also opens Bill Hall’s spot on the roster for another player, and it is the aggregate contribution and cost of Kotchman + player x vs. Adam LaRoche + Bill Hall that you should be concerned with. These two will likely end up being a wash, but cheaper for us.
I am in no means a huge fan of this trade, but you need to do a better job of reading posts like the one you’re commenting on and understanding the ideas put forth in them. Simply put, the marginal value of adding Adam LaRoche was not nearly worth what he would have been expected to reasonably cost our team in terms of money and lack of financial flexibility.
seattlebruin - January 14, 2010
You ignored defense. There's about a 8-run spread between the two with the glove.
Matthew - January 14, 2010
He also ignored logic, but that's a minor point here
seattlebruin - January 14, 2010
He also posts similar idiocies at a several SBN sites ...
… always posing as a fan of whatever team board he happens to be on at that time. Also has a hard-on for LaRoche. He’s made almost 40 comments about the benefits of getting it on with da Roche at various SBN sites.
Steve Nelson - January 14, 2010
He was a starter on a bottom feeding non-contending team like the Angels.
joof - January 14, 2010
Well, most people...
…would consider the Angels bottom feeders at least…
rtang - January 14, 2010
What about this?
Sean Casey:
Season high OPS = .915 (2004)
Career OPS = .814
He’s gonna want way less money than what LaRoche got too. Using these numbers, why wouldn’t you want Casey….
If you are just using those numbers to project future results then Delgado blows those guys away.
Edgar for Pres - January 14, 2010
Seriously?
I guess we can all be thankful that you aren’t the team’s GM then.
ToddK - January 14, 2010
If Arizona falters
which is quite possible, LaRoche would likely be available at the trade deadline. The M’s, at the deadline in a pennant chase, could be buyers.
And you definitely want second-half (.300/ .363 / .546) LaRoche, not the (.252 / .326 / .447) first-half version.
You can have your Kotchman and eat it too.
wandergeist - January 14, 2010
I don't think half-season splits are particularly useful
seattlebruin - January 14, 2010
Plus, do we really want to give away talent to acquire a guy who is like a quarter to a half win improvement over the second half of the season?
Maybe if Kotchman gets hurt or something, but otherwise, it doesn’t make a lot of sense
seattlebruin - January 14, 2010
This whelms the shit out of me.
La Roche wins on midpoint projection, Kotchman’s got a lot more volatility in his (which he defense helps smooth out). All in all, I’m perfectly content with how things played out.
I’d just like to know how his agent feels about the 2/17 offer right now. Markets change and all that, but… that’s a big loss in a week’s time.
marc w - January 14, 2010
I'd like to know how he feels about his agent.
Sec 108 - January 14, 2010
Exactly.
marc w - January 14, 2010
It would be sort of like taking Rick Ankiel over Johnny Damon
Poochie - January 14, 2010
I'm glad "whelm" is catching on, it's a great word
seattlebruin - January 14, 2010
It'll be dead in two weeks
Poochie - January 14, 2010
Nah
I’ve spread it to other sites, where it’s taking over from “meh” in some cases.
wandergeist - January 14, 2010
This proves my point
Poochie - January 14, 2010
I've been using "whelm" when appropriate for about 20 years.
It’s an excellent wod that has suffered from neglect. It’s nice to see it gaining a bit of favor.
Steve Nelson - January 14, 2010
Wod is my new favorite wod.
okdan - January 14, 2010
Am I the only one excited about Kotchman?
He’s got tons of potential that he hasn’t live up to, and this front office is willing to give him a chance. I’m convinced this move is more about what they think he can do than what he’s done in the past.
I just think it’s funny that we (as fans) tend to stick to our prospects potential for many years (i.e. Morrow) but imported guys with unrealized potential are viewed with pessimism.
Clearly the front office sees something in Kotchman that they think they can bring out. It was just a year ago that this front office saw fit to give a certain part-time first baseman a full-time role because they saw something. That gamble worked out alright.
Snuffleupagus - January 14, 2010
To be totally fair to Kotchman, it was only 18 months ago that he was basically dealt straight up for Mark Teixeira
seattlebruin - January 14, 2010
He's my new favorite player!
Dewey N - January 14, 2010
Man if the Angels were smart and never made that trade they could have had Bill Hall
Poochie - January 14, 2010
Man that dude has been traded around alot.
Hope he can make himself at home here.
Fin - January 14, 2010
Kotchman didn't hit for power in the minors, either.
Rollo Tomasi - January 14, 2010
I don't expect power
I guess I just feel like he’s got a solid shot of performing at the top of his offensive past. Which puts him right about Laroche’s average. Which feels like a good deal to me, and completely worth the risk of lower production and absence of power.
Snuffleupagus - January 14, 2010
Look at his 2007
In wOBA terms, he was basically Branyan. With better defense. Can he do that again? Maybe, maybe not, but it’s at least possible.
wandergeist - January 14, 2010
He also had a BABIP 30 points higher than career average
and too high entirely for a slow guy who hits a lot of grounders and sports a 17% career LD rate. I’m fine with Kotchman and all, but I would have preferred LaRoche.
That said, I don’t think there’s much of a difference between the two.
Bearskin Rugburn - January 14, 2010
Careful
Angel Stadium consistently classifies low numbers of batted balls as line drives. You could call it a park effect but it’s really a “scorer effect,” I think.
PaulThomas - January 14, 2010
Interesting
this is the first I’ve heard of this. His line drive rate HAS been higher since he left the Angels. Closer to 19%.
Fuckmikereilly - January 14, 2010
His career BABIP
Is probably artificially low due to 2006. Not a lot (it’s not enough ABs to be weighted that heavily) and he could be just one of those low BABIP guys, but I would expect it to be somewhat higher when his career is done.
wandergeist - January 14, 2010
He had 88 PA in 2006
it’s weighted exactly the same way as all his other plate appearances. I’m not sure I understand your point.
Bearskin Rugburn - January 15, 2010
Hhis career BABIP
Is an average. And that average is dragged down by the horrible numbers in 2006. But not by a lot, because there were only 88 such numbers in 2006, which is just 4.7% of the whole, compared to (for example) his numbers for 2007, which are 27% of the whole. If we assume plays several more full years the 2006 numbers will have effectively vanished into the insignificant-decimal-place noise and the 2007 numbers will be much diminished. But unless you think his real career BABIP is closer to his 2006 numbers than his 2007 numbers, his ultimate career BABIP will probably be higher because of the relative weight of those seasons (and the others that are still to come) — 2006 has some effect now; it’ll have no effect then.
wandergeist - January 15, 2010
I think annoying is the right word to describe the LaRoche deal
Especially since the Giants were probably the only team that tried to overpay him.
baetown415 - January 14, 2010
So stupid GMs is a dying breed?
Fin - January 14, 2010
Is it possible he just didn't want to sign in Seattle?
Maybe he was just using us as leverage unless we blew everyone else out of the water?
G4Real - January 14, 2010
I don't know if there were ever serious discussions between Seattle and LaRoche
Maybe the FO made a call, heard what the asking price was and said, OK thanks, we’ll go Kotchman. Then as Jeff points outs everyone else did the same (except not Kotchman) and LaRoche was left with AZ and their 6-7M.
Bearskin Rugburn - January 14, 2010
I often wonder this about 1B/DH types who sign one-year deals
If my value was completely tied up in my bat I wouldn’t want to sign in Seattle for a one-year deal if I had a choice.
mebpenguin - January 14, 2010
Kotchman has better nickname potential.
Also, unintentional humor when the inevitable “-y” nickname is bestowed: Kotchy.
I, for one, will now start referring to him as Coxswain.
Spider Jerusalem - January 14, 2010
If you add an "r" to that, he becomes "Krotchy!"
seattlebruin - January 14, 2010
Only 4 anagrams?
Mach Knot
Chat Monk
Math Conk
Than Mock
okdan - January 14, 2010
LaRoche on the other hand...
Cholera
Coal Her
Leach Or
Arc Hole
Car Hole
Ear Loch
okdan - January 14, 2010
It's been done
Voila.
CapSea - January 14, 2010
Yeah... there are better ones...
Bearskin Rugburn - January 14, 2010
I tried to avoid the obvious,
but I thought it the whole time. Depends on how much of a ladies man he is, I guess.
If he’s frequently spotted in Belltown with surgically propped-up cougars and braindead co-eds, I’m perfectly fine with rollling out Krotchman.
Spider Jerusalem - January 14, 2010
That was supposed to be a reply, obviously.
Go me.
Spider Jerusalem - January 14, 2010
You must Login with your SB Nation account and be a member of Lookout Landing to post a comment.