link

_________________
Winning may not be everything, but losing has little to recommend it.

ouch...

I like Hill as much as the next guy, but this is potentially a real terrible contract for the team

I'm all for extending your key people before they hit Free Agency, but are Hill, Pennington, Putz and Prado really the guys you want to build around? I'll give you Prado, but Hill (career 100 OPS+) and Putz are on the wrong side of 30 and Pennington is strictly a one dimensional utility player.

Putz extension was exploiting a player willing to take less money for some certainty. Putz extension is a steal with the big if, he stays healthy.

Pennington deal was cost certainty buying out 2 arb years, not building around him. Club probably figures its Opening Day 2015 when Gregorius, Owings, or Ahmed are ready to play SS everyday.

Only time will tell on this Hill deal, I'm not counting on him being the best 2B in the NL again this year. I assume this is 3 additional years on top of 2013, so it could get pretty ugly in year 3 and 4. Just shows the premiums being put on positions that lack depth and upside potential across the game.

You have Davidson coming up at third (a potentially potent bat who apparently has worked hard on his defense). There should be some thinking of sliding Prado over to second. Locking up Hill negates that option (just like signing Putz probably blocks Hernandez from the closer's role). It's all about the effective use of resources.

The recent deals viewed individually are slightly concerning, but not nearly as concerning as when viewed together. There is no cohesive vision/plan/philosophy. Just moving in wrong direction, giving away all the cheap assets with a likelihood to outperform their contracts and replacing them with players the Org hopes will meet their contract.

_________________
What can we say about the Diamondbacks Franchise that hasn't already been said about Afghanistan?

The plan was never to move Prado to 2nd. He is going to LF when Davidson is ready.

Well, the plan should have been to think about moving him to 2B, because with Pollock, Eaton and Parra they potentially have their outfield stocked. Prado is much more valuable as an infielder than he is at a typically power outfield spot.

But if these guys are the answers to the question... then we're either fucked or asking the wrong question

Best case is Hill continues his resurgence, Davidson is who we hope he is, and Prado contributes at a level in the top half of NL LFs.

Another confusing contract. Do they really want to move Prado to LF for Davidson? He ranked 13th out of 17 qualified LF's in 2012 (Ross was 12th).

I'd posted this in the Prado thread, commenting on his contract extension. I'm on my way to being right, and boy do I wish I wasn't in this case.

_________________
Greinke good, uniforms bad.

ranked in what?

I got Prado as T-2 in fWAR with Alex Gordon, only behind Roider Braun in 2012

Ranks 10th of 16 offensively, but ranks on tops in defense, and a solid baserunner gives him that #2 rank.

I would have given him a qualifying offer at the end of 2013 and gone from there. But with the prado trade and extension this was inevitable. Hill fits their profile. Gritty older players. Hope he ages well....better than history history suggests at his position. He is a dead pull hitter. If he loses any bat speed at all he will decline fast.

_________________
Good depth often has to come from within, in the form of younger talent. Depth is hard to build overnight, but it’s easy to deplete. Jeff Sullivan

Sorry, ranked by OPS. I think that WAR puts way too much emphasis on defensive stats.

By the way, if anyone wants to see the "long version" of the above analysis, I posted it at the Snakepit in response to Jim's analysis HERE

_________________
Good depth often has to come from within, in the form of younger talent. Depth is hard to build overnight, but it’s easy to deplete. Jeff Sullivan

One of the problems with predicting how older players are going to age is that the majority of the most recent comps had chemical assistance, skewing the data. Makes it awfully difficult to predict future production when it's been 20 years since players followed a natural aging curve.

_________________
What can we say about the Diamondbacks Franchise that hasn't already been said about Afghanistan?

Exactly Gary, thats what I was alluding to in that Snakepit post when I talked about the cluster of the "usual suspects" between 2000-2003 on the list of players that performed well in their 30's at 2b.

EDIT: The flip side off that though is you can't go all the way back to Pre 1985 and just compare those guys because Nutrition, health care, and workout regimens have all improved.

It's tough to find the middle ground. But the age of the average player, and the percent of production that comes from younger players has definitely skewed back younger over the last 5-6 years, after the "spike" of the late 90's and early 2000's with older players dominating.

_________________
Good depth often has to come from within, in the form of younger talent. Depth is hard to build overnight, but it’s easy to deplete. Jeff Sullivan

Shoe: good reasoning.

An extra year at 10M is ok. 2b, as you note, do not age well. If they are athletic and can avoid the jarring on the dp, maybe. Hill is not this.

First year (which they had already) this is likely to look great. 2 years from now, it is going to look like Eric Byrnes, but by then Gibson and Towers will be out the door so what do they care.

_________________
"Having data available to you is great but using it is even better.”--Craig Breslow

Yeah, thought the Dbacks learned their lesson about 3yr/$30mm deals...

Ya know, Hill/Prado have shown similar inconsistency over the past 4 years,,, if they were young with talent, they'd be "enigmas"...

_________________
What can we say about the Diamondbacks Franchise that hasn't already been said about Afghanistan?

You guys have a great schtick! No matter what happens, good or bad, there'll be a spin... "In spite of..." "because of..."

_________________
Bad Ortiz, No Donut!