The Pros and Cons of the Jose Guillen Trade

Well, it's official. Jose Guillen is a Giant (I got the e-mail from the Giants' Web site, and usually, that seals the deal in terms of "officialness").

I can't explain my feelings in one or two tweets. This has been a long time coming, ever since June when the Royals were rumored to be in talks with the Giants in terms of trading Guillen.

So here are the pros and cons of the trade that went down today on a weird day for Bay Area Sports fans. (The Glen Coffee retirement was puzzling, but it's not a huge loss; as my friend Travis said on FB chat today "Coffee f******g sucked...I don't give a s*** about that...He was soft." I tend to agree with him for the most part.)

Pros of Acquiring Guillen

1.) People say Guillen doesn't provide much more offense than Aaron Rowand they're probably right. Let's look at some advanced numbers on the two players:

Guillen: .325 wOBA, 100 wRC+, 0.32 BB/K ratio, .174 ISO, 0.7 WAR.
Rowand: .307 wOBA, 89 wRC+, 0.24 BB/K ratio, .154 ISO, 0.9 WAR.

Now, I know fans will say "His WAR is Higher!" in defense of Rowand, but remember, Rowand is playing for the Giants (a team that is winning) and Guillen played for the Royals (a team that isn't). As you can see though, Guillen is a better option than Rowand. Is he much better? No. Is he a better clubhouse guy? Probably not. However, the Giants need offense, and Guillen provides a better upgrade than what they currently have on the bench, which is Rowand and Nate Schierholtz (who, from what I heard, could be the "PTBNL").

2.) The Giants starting pitching is shakier than it was at this point last year, especially Tim Lincecum. Guillen makes the team more offensively average, which they may need after watching yesterday's game against the Cubs (e.g. the bullpen blew a 7-3 lead). The days of them winning 1-0 games is a lot less likely than a year ago.

Speaking of Timmy, Lincecum doesn't look like 2008 or 2009 Tim Lincecum but more like...well...2010 Tim Lincecum. (He has only two full seasons prior to 2010 for chrissakes!) His FIP (3.31) is almost a full point higher than last year (2.31) and his K/BB ratio (2.76) is over a full point lower than last year (3.84). Granted, this isn't necessarily an alarming thing. Lincecum was so good his first two years that anything less would look bad in comparison.

3.) Guillen shouldn't cost any prospects of note. Furthermore, he'll be a free agent after this year, so if he doesn't work out, then the Giants will be off the hook after the season ends.


Cons of Acquiring Guillen

1.) Guillen's lackluster defensive skills don't help the Giants and hence, the Giants defense is probably the biggest concern of this trade. While Guillen has been pretty decent for the Royals this season in right field (2.6 UZR), Guillen for the most part, has been a sub-par defender in his career (minus-22.4 career UZR). An outfield with Burrell, Andres Torres and Guillen is shaky, mainly because you're putting two iron gloves out there (Burrell and Guillen) and that puts more pressure on Torres and the pitching staff. Furthermore, right field isn't easy to play in San Francisco. If you don't believe me, ask the Pirates' Garrett Jones, who got owned by the wall on Aubrey Huff's early-season "Inside the Park" home run.

The Giants have been successful this year because they have had one of the top defenses according to UZR. Guillen isn't going to bolster that UZR.

2.) He has power (career .171 ISO) but that's about it. Guillen doesn't draw walks (career 0.29 BB/K ratio) and he doesn't get on-base well either (career .322 OBP). In order to be worthwhile, Guillen is going to have hit dingers and fast. Granted, Burrell did that when he came over to Tampa, but can the Giants get lucky on three cast-offs in a row? (With Huff being the first.) That seems like a lot to ask and hope for.

3.) Guillen doesn't exactly have the most sterling clubhouse reputation. This year he openly complained about being benched and this year wasn't the first time something like that happened. He was suspended for the playoffs when he was with the Angels, and he was volatile his second year in Washington. Granted, Bruce Bochy is known for managing clubhouse knuckleheads well, but still...why risk it?

Granted, people will say that "chemistry" in baseball doesn't matter and to a point I would agree (just because baseball is such an "individual" sport). However, while good chemistry, in my opinion, won't bolster a team automatically, bad chemistry can certainly destroy a good team fast. If you don't believe me, look at what happened with the Giants when they acquired A.J. Pierzynski and Shea Hillenbrand.


Final Conclusion?

It's another low risk, potential high reward move by the Giants. They get a player with pop and they got him for "Fred Lewis to Toronto-esque" cheap. If Guillen doesn't work, the Giants can cut ties with him and there won't be much of a loss.

That being said, you have to like the way the Giants are playing. They're looking good and they're playing with confidence. So, you just have to ask, "Why mess with it if it isn't broken?"

Is it the worst deal of the year? No (Mark Derosa's

We have to wait and see, but I'm not optimistic. (Then again, I wasn't optimistic about Burrell either; I don't mind be wrong again if it results in the Giants winning.)

Alex Gordon a Giant? A Good or Bad Idea?

I'm very interested in the news about Alex Gordon getting sent down to Omaha this weekend. In many ways, it is a peculiar move by Kansas City Royals general manager Dayton Moore (who may be on par with Brian Sabean in terms of general managing ineffectiveness).

Gordon started the year on the disabled list and has only played in 12 games and had 38 plate appearances this season. However, while his batting average (.194) or wOBA (.299) aren't that impressive, Gordon does have an OBP of .342 and a BB/K ratio of 0.88.

What has been the problem for Gordon this year? Two things really.

1.) He hasn't gotten very lucky in terms of finding hits (.227 BABIP).
2.) The infield in Kansas City is extremely crowded. (Gordon is competing with Chris Getz, Yuniesky Betancourt, Willie Bloomquist, Mike Aviles and Alberto Callaspo...yes, that's one DEEP infield baseball fans!)

In terms of point number two, in my opinion, Gordon is a better option than Getz, Betancourt and Bloomquist (and perhaps better than Aviles). However, that doesn't seem to be an opinion Moore shares, as evidenced by Gordon's demotion.

Hence, the debate amongst the baseball world is whether or not Moore is going to trade Gordon. Considering he's only 26 years old, Gordon still has some value, even if it isn't quite as high as it was when he was deemed the No. 2 prospect in baseball according to Baseball America before the 2007 season.

So, with Gordon maybe available, that begs Bay Area baseball fans to ask this question: should Sabean and the Giants pull a trade with Kansas City for the young third baseman? (If you don't think that's a possibility, you might be mistaken, as this is already a hot topic in the Giants blogosphere.)

Let's look at the positives and negatives of this "hypothetical" deal.


Positives

1.) Gordon's Plate Patience

Like I said before, Gordon is posting a BB/K ratio of 0.88. He has seven walks (which would tie him for fourth on this current Giants team) in 38 plate appearances (in comparison, Edgar Renteria, who also has seven walks, has earned those totals in 84 plate appearances).

Over his career, Gordon has shown a patient eye at the plate. Last season, despite dealing with injury most of the season, and only posting a .232 average and a .321 wOBA, he had a 0.49 BB/K ratio (which would have been sixth best on last year's Giants roster in term of players with 50 or more plate appearances). In 2008, his second full big-league season, he posted a 0.55 BB/K ratio.

The only season where he struggled in terms of plate patience was his first full rookie season in 2007, when he posted a BB/K ratio of 0.30. However, since that rookie year, Gordon has honed his approach, mainly by cutting down on swinging at pitches outside the strike zone. In 2007 and 2008, Gordon only swung at 24.1 and 24.3 percent of pitches outside the strike zone (the league average was 25.4 and 25.1 percent, respectively).

This season? He has been even better, as his O-Swing percentage stands at 19.8 percent. This season, nobody on the Giants roster with 20 or more plate appearances has an O-Swing percentage under 20 percent (Andres Torres has the best percentage at 20.9 percent). The only guy who had an O-Swing percentage under 20 percent last year (Fred Lewis, who had a 19.4 percent O-Swing percentage) is now a Toronto Blue Jay.


2.) Gordon is developing his power.

In 2008, Gordon posted his best offensive season. He hit .260 with a .351 OBP and hit 16 home runs and scored 72 runs. His wOBA was .344 and he had a WAR (Wins Above Replacement) value of 2.3.

However, he only had a HR/FB rate of 8.9 percent in 2008.

In 2009, he had a much worse statistical season. His wOBA was .321 and he hit only six home runs in 189 plate appearances. However, his HR/FB rate dramatically improved to 12.0 percent in 2009, despite dealing with injury and ineffectiveness all season.

This season has been very similar. Despite dealing with injury and being flip-flopped in and out of the roster, Gordon has hit one home run, which puts his HR/FB ratio at 11.1 percent this season (he has hit nine fly balls and six line drives in comparison to eight groundballs).

Sure, the numbers don't look as good in 2009 or in 2010 as they did in 2008. But Gordon is developing power. All he needs is more at-bats.


Negatives

1.) Gordon strikes out a lot.

Despite a strong ability to draw a walk, Gordon unfortunately strikes out a good amount. From 2007 through 2010, his strikeout percentage has been 25.2 percent, 24.3 percent, 26.2 percent, and 25.8 percent. All those totals were higher than the league average each season.

Furthermore, Gordon isn't exactly strong in terms of making contact. From 2007 through 2010, his contact rate has ranged from 75.4 percent (this season) to 76.7 percent (last year). To put it in perspective, the league average for hitters in terms of contact percentage is a little over 80 percent generally.

Striking out isn't something that Giants management or fans seem to tolerate very well. Here is a post by jasomack, a member of the McCovey Chronicles blog, concerning the idea of the Giants getting Gordon:

"I’d love the Giants to try something like this. If he played to his career averages, the uptick in defense bump probably makes him comparable to Huff, and he has some real upside. But it’s just a dumb fantasy. Gordon has the attributes the Giants brass undervalues most: patience and youth. He also strikes out a lot. Those things got Fred Lewis deported."

Unfortunately, he makes a great point. Gordon, offensively at least, seems to be very similar to Lewis. I think it's safe to say that doesn't bode well.

2.) Gordon's questionable defense.

The big argument of moving Pablo to first is that his defense is mediocre, and there is evidence of that (depending on how much you believe in advanced defensive metrics). Last season, Sandoval posted a minus-4.8 UZR and a minus-7.1 UZR/150 ("minus" meaning he cost the team runs; "positive" UZR numbers mean that he saved the team runs). This year, he hasn't been much better, as evidenced by his minus-1.5 UZR and minus-22.7 UZR/150.

Unfortunately though, on paper, Gordon doesn't seem to be much better.

While he posted a solid UZR (6.9) in 137 games at third base in 2007, he struggled "Winona Ryder in Mr. Deeds" style in 2008. In 133 games at third, he posted a minus-4.0 UZR. In 2009, he improved that number a little bit (his UZR was only minus-1.7), but considering he played less games, the projection wasn't much better in 2009 (his UZR/150 was minus-5.3) than in 2008 (his UZR/150 was minus-4.7).

Therefore, the Giants are in a dilemma if they acquire Gordon: do they supplant Sandoval at first for a guy who can't compare offensively and may not be that much better defensively at third than Sandoval?

Doesn't sound enticing does it?


Verdict

Overall, there is a lot to like about Gordon, and because of his plate patience and youth, I'm inclined to go after him. However, the reality is, despite Moore being the Michael Bay of the baseball management world (e.g. all flash, no substance), he won't give up Gordon without getting a pretty penny on return, and I don't know how much the Giants can offer after they got hosed on Scott Barnes and Tim Alderson last year. I mean, it sounds good to say that "Oh let's give up John Bowker, Jesus Guzman and maybe a Wendell Fairley" for him, but in reality, general managers aren't usually that dumb. (And I emphasize usually.)

It's not completely impossible, but considering the Giants wants (power) and acquisition style (big-name veterans), it doesn't seem likely that Gordon will be sporting a black and orange uniform this season.