Pirates/Indians Trade

It wasn’t that long ago when I was writing about the Oakland A’s trading relief pitcher Arthur Rhodes to the Pittsburgh Pirates. Now, two weeks later, here I am writing about how the Pirates already have traded the 35 year-old Rhodes away—before the season even started.

On December 11, 2004, Pittsburgh agreed to trade Rhodes to the Cleveland Indians for 33 year-old OF Matt Lawton.

Now before answering the question, “Who will benefit more from this trade?” Here is a look at each player's 2004 and career translated statistics.


Lawton:

2004: .283/.377/.434--.284 EqA
{Un-translated stats- Career-high 20 HR in 591 AB, 84/74 (1.13/1), 23/9 SB/CS (72 %)}

Career: .269/.372/.429--.281 EqA
{Un-translated Stats- 534/610 (.875/1) K/BB, 147/57 (72%) SB/CS}


Rhodes:

2004: 4.85 ERA, 10.1 H/9, 1.9 HR/9, 4.9 BB/9, 7.0 K/9

Career- 4.16 ERA, 7.9 H/9, 1.0 HR/9, 3.5 BB/9, 8.7 K/9

I’m not going to lie, all I did was copy Rhodes statistics from my “A/Pirates Trade” article and pasted them here.

And, as I stated in that prior article, I will still have the same opinion about Rhodes:

Again, partly copied and pasted--Throughout his career Rhodes has been very inconsistent. With Rhodes turning 35 in 2005, I wouldn't expect any repeat performances of his 2001 (1.72 ERA in 68.0 IP) or 2002 (2.33 ERA in 69.7 IP) seasons.

As for my opinion on Lawton, I think he is a very good player. His career statistics support this claim.

Remember, .260 EqA is average for a Major League Baseball player, and Lawton’s career EqA is .281. Lawton IS a very good player.

Why did the Indians trade a very good younger player for and inconsistent older one?

Was it money?

Well here is a look at the financial figures for each player.

Lawton:

Signed through 2005. He will make $7.25 million in 2005.

Rhodes:

Signed through 2006. He will make $3.07 million in both 2005 and 2006. His combined salary for 2005-06’ is $6.14 million.

As one could easily figure out, the Indians saved $1.11 million in total salary (Lawton’s $7.25 million minus Rhodes combined salary of $6.14 million) with this trade. In 2005 alone though, they save $4.18 million (Lawton’s 2005 salary minus Rhode’s 2005 salary). They also get Rhodes services for two years, as opposed to only getting one year of service if they had kept Lawton.

It is obvious that part of the motivation behind this trade for Cleveland was, in fact, money.

Cleveland also made this trade though, because they had one of the worst bullpens in the American League in 2004 (4.88 ERA in 2004, ranked 12th out of 14 AL teams). They must believe that Rhodes can solidify their bullpen, and can push them over the top as a whole.

Also, the Indians must believe that they could afford to lose Lawton’s offense because, besides having one of the worst bullpens in the AL last year, they had one of the league’s top offenses (.795 team OPS, ranked 3rd in AL; 858 runs scored, ranked 5th in AL).

I do not agree with either of these stated beliefs. I do not believe Rhodes is the answer. It is highly unlikely that he is ever going to pitch like he did in 2001-02’ again (see numbers above). Is it a possibility? Yes. Is it likely? No.

I DO believe he will pitch better in 2005 than he did in 2004 though, but he still is NOT the answer.

I also do not think that the Indians could afford to lose Lawton. Even though Cleveland had one of the best offenses in the AL, many of their players had “career-years” in 2004, and numbers like that should not be expected out of those players again.

Here is a list of the top 8 offensive players on the Indians in 2004, by Plate Appearances, and their 2004 EqA vs. their career EqA (List excludes Omar Vizquel because he will not be on the Indians in 2005):

Player----------2004 EqA---------Career EqA
M. Lawton----------.281-----------------.284
Casey Blake--------.288-----------------.269
Ron Belliard--------.274------------------.258
Victor Martinez----.295-------.284 (Only 191 AB before 2004)
Travis Hafner------.334-------.309 (Only 353 AB before 2004)
Jody Gerut--------.265-------.274 (only 480 AB before 2004)
Coco Crisp---------.276-------.258 (only 541AB before 2004)
Ben Broussard-----.298--------.277 (only 498 AB before 2004)

Matt Lawton is the only player on the list that had more prior experience than 600 AB’s and that had a year on par with his career numbers.

Basically, he is the only player on the 2004 team that a general manager could put a fair amount of trust in to have a similar year to the one he had in 2004. Every other player on the roster is a “question mark” for 2005.

This is why getting rid of Lawton was a mistake. I know the Indians saved money, and gained an extra year of service out of Rhodes; but their only steady offensive player is now gone.

If even half of the players on the Indians revert back to their career numbers in 2005, or have a “sophomore slump” (based on AB’s—not actually years of service—using 500 AB’s as on full year of service), the Indians are going to be facing a significantly worse offense than the one they fielded in 2004.

One way for the Indians to at least give themselves a better chance to keep up with the 2004 version of themselves was to keep Lawton—and they didn’t.

They got rid of him for a 35 year-old inconsistent reliever coming off of a bad year, an extra year of service, and $1.11 million dollars.

It wasn’t worth it.

As for the Pirates, I believe it is fairly obvious that they are getting the better end of this deal.

For them to lose one year of service, and only add $1.11 million dollars to their payroll through 2006 (using the immediate addition of $4.18 million in 2005—Lawton’s 2005 salary minus Rhode’s 2005 salary, then subtracting the $3.07 million they will NOT have to pay Rhodes next season) in exchange for a player like Lawton is a great deal.

After saving $17 million by trading former catcher Jason Kendall to the A’s (fully saved after 2007--read prior article “A/Pirates Trade”), the Pirates have spent part of that money very wisely in acquiring Matt Lawton.

Good job Pittsburgh.

Thank you for reading.

Frank Bundy III

If you have any questions, comments, concerns, or suggestions, please do not hesitate to email me at frnkbndy@yahoo.com.