Trade Analysis: Coco Crisp for Ramon Ramirez
In response to the Yankees acquiring Texeira (Kanekoa, that is), the Red Sox acquired Ramirez…Ramon Ramirez.
The Red Sox sent Coco Crisp to the Royals for Ramon Ramirez, in a trade that makes sense on the surface for both teams. This trade is most interesting for the what it says about the Red Sox’s opinion of Jacoby Ellsbury, and the Royals’s misguided team philosophy.
First, let’s discuss the players. Crisp came to the Red Sox in a blockbuster deal centered around Andy Marte (ironically, Kelly Shoppach is now the most valuable person traded in that 6-player deal). Crisp was an offensive disappointment in
Ramon Ramirez throws a 92-93 MPH fastball, as well as a slider and changeup. Even though he throws a changeup, lefties have been much more effective against Ramirez than righties – lefties have posted an OPS almost 200 points higher. However, Ramirez is not a complete ROOGY – even though lefties have hit better than righties, they’ve still only managed a .758 OPS against Ramirez.
In his career, Ramirez has struck out 8.39 batters per nine and walked 3.68. He’s allowed exactly the same number of ground balls as fly balls (41.8%), although he allowed 10% more grounders than fly balls last year. Ramirez is still young and throws hard, but probably walks too many to be trusted in the most important situations.
This deal looks like it’s simply an above-average 4th outfielder in exchange for a solid reliever. Crisp may end up being a decent starting center fielder, and Ramirez may end up being a decent set-up man. On the surface, I think this trade is very fair. But let’s look at what it says about each team.

First of all, for the Red Sox, this deal speaks volumes about their trust in Jacoby Ellsbury. While Crisp may not be better than a 4th outfielder, he’s one of the best 4th oufielders in the game, and was an important piece in an outfield that included that frail JD Drew. His departure is a signal that the Red Sox expect Ellsbury to be their starting center fielder – an interesting statement, considering Ellsbury’s struggles throughout the second half of the season.
While Ramirez may not be a lights-out reliever, he’s pretty should make an excellent addition to a Sox bullpen that was top-heavy last year. The Sox now have four arms that they can go late in games – furthermore, Ramirez’s presence will allow the underrated Manny Delcarmen to be used in higher-leverage situations.
As for the Royals, this is not a bad move on the surface. Crisp may very well be good enough to be an everyday center fielder, if his defense is anywhere near his 2007 level. Furthermore, he’s signed to a reasonable contract and his offense rebounded (somewhat) this year. Crisp’s presence allows David DeJesus to move to a corner (or be traded); DeJesus is not a center fielder, no matter how many times Trey Hillman wrote “CF” next to his name on a lineup card.
The problem for the Royals is that this is yet another short-sighed move, designed to aspire to mediocrity. Dayton Moore has made a series of moves – starting with Gil Meche, leading to Jose Guillen, and most recently Mike Jacobs – that show the lack of a long-term plan. Most of these players improved the team (whether Jacobs actually improved the Royals is debatable), but they did so in a cursory fashion. Yes, the Royals won 75 games in 2008, and finished out of the basement for the first time since 2003. But their improved team isn’t necessarily leading to further improvement down the road.
It will be very difficult for the low-payroll Royals to ever compete with the American League’s elite teams unless they either drastically raise their payroll, or they have an infusion of young, talented players. Improvements around the margins and mid-level free agent signings can improve the team, but only to a point. The Royals do not have a particularly fruitful farm system, nor do they have a tremendous amount of high-ceiling young talent on the roster. If they are going to trade players, they should be dealing for higher-ceiling prospects, even if that means accruing some uncertainty as well. Players like Coco Crisp may improve the team, but only marginally, and with no possibility for significant or sustained improvement.
The Royals may again be an improved team in 2009, and have a chance at reaching .500. But they won’t have a particularly young roster, and they won’t have much room for improvement in the future. Unless Dayton Moore (or the ownership that is possibly forcing his hand) changes course, the Royals could find themselves adrift in the sea of mediocrity for the foreseeable future.
Comments
wonder if this means the red sox will be making a play for baldelli.
and, yeah, i guess they have confidence in ellsbury.
free chris getz!
by larry on
Nov 19, 2008 1:21 PM EST
reply
actions
0 recs
Baldelli?
If the Sox are going to get a backup, they need someone who is capable of filling in at CF. Having only one guy capable of playing CF in Ellsbury isn’t good.
Unless we’re going to be seeing JD Drew in CF again if something were to happen with Ellsbury. Depth is huge.
I’d think Kotsay would be a better target, but he’ll probably want a starting job (I see him signing with the Reds).
I know that's a pisser, baby.
by Blicks on
Nov 19, 2008 3:27 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
if kotsay can play center, i'd posit baldelli can, too.
though there’s something to perhaps having someone a little better than baldelli defensively, as well, in that fourth outfielder role.
kotsay shouldn’t be a consideration for the red sox considering his handedness. no point in having him backing up ellsbury and drew.
free chris getz!
by larry on
Nov 19, 2008 3:32 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Who knows if Baldelli can even play everyday as a DH let alone an OF
Furcal
by JI on
Nov 19, 2008 3:37 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
of course. but one wouldn't need him to play everyday.
you know, like how backups usually don’t.
free chris getz!
by larry on
Nov 19, 2008 3:39 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Backups usually DO play everyday when one of the starters is hurt
Having Drew as a starter and Baldelli as a backup pretty much guarantees that Jonathan Van Every (or whoever the 5th outfielder is) is going to get 20 or 30 starts a season.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on
Nov 19, 2008 6:40 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Jonathan Van Every's name is delicious.
by R.J. Anderson on
Nov 19, 2008 8:27 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
just wondered if they'd pursue him.
obviously it isn’t a move in isolation. youkilis can play the outfield and i’m sure the red sox aren’t going to limit themselves to two roster acquisitions this offseason.
free chris getz!
by larry on
Nov 20, 2008 9:55 AM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I wouldn't worry about Ellsbury as much as I would J.D. Drew
especially with Brandon Moss going to Pittsburgh.
by BraveBronco0121 on
Nov 19, 2008 1:31 PM EST
reply
actions
0 recs
We've got other ways of fixig issues with young players.
Clutch: A measurement of how much better or worse a player does in high leverage situations than he would have done in a context neutral environment. http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/glossary/
by bs.uf15bosox9bears23 on
Nov 19, 2008 2:17 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
The Royals aren't hoping Jacobs and Crisp carry them into contention
They’re hoping Butler and Gordon carry them into contention. The Royals started the off-season with holes at 1B, MI, and OF. They’ve now filled 1B with a league average player, and have improved their OF, while freeing up a trading piece to go get a MI. If they can get that done, some improvement from Gordon and Butler might actually put them in contention in 2009. We’ll see.
by kcdc1 on
Nov 19, 2008 1:56 PM EST
reply
actions
0 recs
That's a good point.
Unfortunately, I don’t necessarily think this is the organizational philosophy. This is purely speculation, but they acquired Jacobs to add to a surplus of 1B/DH types, telling me that they don’t think much of Butler. And besides Gordon, what other high-ceiling players do they have? Moustakas? Yes, but he’s far away. And that’s pretty much it.
I have little problem with the marginal upgrades – the problem is that these marginal upgrades seem to have come INSTEAD of moves made with longer-term improvement in mind.
by Peter Bendix on
Nov 19, 2008 2:03 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I don’t really think Jacobs is a league average player. He’s a league average bat, but he plays horrible defense at first making him a decidedly below average player.
When I was a kid I used to pray every night for a new bicycle. Then I realized God doesn’t work that way, so I stole one and prayed for forgiveness. - Emo Philips
Neglectful father of David Quinowski
by marcello on
Nov 19, 2008 2:36 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
i think i've heard this argument somewhere before...
free chris getz!
by larry on
Nov 19, 2008 3:04 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
It might have been made once or twice before, in one or two different places*.
*Accurate to +/- 1000
When I was a kid I used to pray every night for a new bicycle. Then I realized God doesn’t work that way, so I stole one and prayed for forgiveness. - Emo Philips
Neglectful father of David Quinowski
by marcello on
Nov 19, 2008 3:15 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
This is a bad deal for the Royals
Crisp is a decent enough everyday CF, but I have no idea why they want to add payroll when they are note close to being a .500 team.
Furcal
by JI on
Nov 19, 2008 2:45 PM EST
reply
actions
0 recs
Great point
And I liked this deal as a Red Sox fan. At the very least, it will allow the FO to see if Ellsbury can indeed be an everyday CF. He still has to show that. If he can’t, hey, at least Coco couldn’t either and Ellsbury is a great glove.
Mother---- him and John Wayne!
by MerryGoByeBye on
Nov 19, 2008 2:55 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
They're both decent everyday guys as long as they field well
I dunno, it just makes more sense to me to ask the world for Soria and see if someone will bite, make Ramirez the closer, pump up his “ninth inning credentials” and then trade him too.
Furcal
by JI on
Nov 19, 2008 3:22 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
This is a smart move.
If they did that and traded Greinke, this could be a very good team in 2011.
by Peter Bendix on
Nov 19, 2008 3:30 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Some people are suggesting that Soria could start
but if he’s anything less than a #2 it would probably kill his trade value when he hits arb.
Furcal
by JI on
Nov 19, 2008 3:39 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Good point.
However, I think that Soria is one of the VERY few guys who have such tremendous value as a reliever, that they shouldn’t necessarily be moved to the rotation. Ideally, of course, they’d stretch Soria out a bit more in the ’pen.
by Peter Bendix on
Nov 19, 2008 3:49 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
they could also be the worst team in the league in 2011 under this hypothetical
Rowdy Hardy Fan Club member.
by doublestix on
Nov 19, 2008 6:08 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Overall, I think it's fair to say the Royals offseason has made little sense
by BraveBronco0121 on
Nov 19, 2008 3:15 PM EST
reply
actions
0 recs
you just wait until they win 80 games. then you'll be sorry.
free chris getz!
by larry on
Nov 19, 2008 3:20 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
If they win more games than Atlanta next year, I will cry
and then I’ll remember we have Hanson/Schafer/Flowers/Freeman/Heyward either in the majors or creeping closer (hopefully).
After that, I’ll remember that I can actually remember the Braves being a contender, something I can’t say for poor KC.
by BraveBronco0121 on
Nov 19, 2008 3:30 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
The Royals philosophy for winning
Is in the draft, where it should be. The only way for the Royals to compete with the AL elite is to draft well and have an excellent/the best farm system. This is how the Atlanta dynasty was built…stopgap measures were taken at the ML level while the farm system was stocked via the draft. The Royals spent more than any other team in the draft last year, and that’s exactly what they’re doing.
That’s why these moves seem shortsighted, because they are not considered final solutions.
by Bornin85 on
Nov 19, 2008 3:32 PM EST
reply
actions
0 recs
But they're dealing useful younger parts for either rehashes or slight upgrades.
They could’ve signed Endy Chavez and kept Ramirez.
by R.J. Anderson on
Nov 19, 2008 3:38 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
As I was typing...
you pointed out just what I was going to.
Get out of my head!
by BraveBronco0121 on
Nov 19, 2008 3:39 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
They've dealt replacable bullpen parts
Dayton Moore can build a bullpen.
by Bornin85 on
Nov 19, 2008 3:40 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
They're zero sum moves.
Jacobs is pretty meh, Crisp is a decent defender, nothing much offensively. Even if the Royals do replace Ramirez/Nunez easily, are the Royals that much better with Jacobs/Crisp?
by R.J. Anderson on
Nov 19, 2008 3:46 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Not contenders, no
But better, thought not by much. I’t marginal. It’s not ideal, but I don’t think you can say these are terrible deals that are mortgaging the future in any way.
by Bornin85 on
Nov 19, 2008 3:53 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
They are making the Royals MLB team more expensive, which probably takes money away from the draft and international signings.
When I was a kid I used to pray every night for a new bicycle. Then I realized God doesn’t work that way, so I stole one and prayed for forgiveness. - Emo Philips
Neglectful father of David Quinowski
by marcello on
Nov 19, 2008 3:56 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I'll buy that when they become not the highest-spending team in the draft
by Bornin85 on
Nov 19, 2008 4:09 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
They could spend more. It’s no justification to waste money at the MLB level.
When I was a kid I used to pray every night for a new bicycle. Then I realized God doesn’t work that way, so I stole one and prayed for forgiveness. - Emo Philips
Neglectful father of David Quinowski
by marcello on
Nov 19, 2008 5:32 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
No, they aren't mortgaging the future.
But honestly, wouldn’t they be better off trading for prospects than mediocre finished products?
by R.J. Anderson on
Nov 19, 2008 8:27 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
But if you're going to trade spare parts, get something in return that will be useful down the road.
I.e. prospects, even if they’re C+ prospects.
Beyond the Boxscore // Calling BJ Upton lazy is lazy.
by Sky Kalkman on
Nov 19, 2008 4:59 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
And don't trade for mediocre players who you have to pay non-insignificant money.
Save that money for down the road.
Beyond the Boxscore // Calling BJ Upton lazy is lazy.
by Sky Kalkman on
Nov 19, 2008 4:59 PM EST
up
reply
actions
1 recs
Good points
Although we may be discussing team-building in vaccuum with this. I’d rather be patient and rebuild that way, but I think it would cost Dayton Moore his job. KC fans have been told so long to just wait, the youth movement will work. To tell fans to wait on the youth again might cause a riot (Well, mini-riot, right? Not many Royals fans…)
Who knows, though…speculation on my part.
by Bornin85 on
Nov 19, 2008 5:20 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Oops, you all ready said what I said.
That’s what I get for skipping around the thread.
by R.J. Anderson on
Nov 19, 2008 8:28 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I'm not sure if Chavez is a FA
…and as Jeff is saying at LL, even if Crisp is the better player how much more valuable is he to the Royals compared to any other CF you could find a the scrap heap?
Furcal
by JI on
Nov 19, 2008 3:41 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Argh, you're right.
I keep forgetting that Cots is wrong on that one.
Okay, so they could’ve signed Chris Duffy.
by R.J. Anderson on
Nov 19, 2008 3:44 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
let's not go too far overboard here.
bullpen arms, while useful especially when cheap and under control for awhile, aren’t exactly something to get too worked up about. these aren’t great moves. but it’s not like he’s trading players who actually have big long-term value.
free chris getz!
by larry on
Nov 19, 2008 3:41 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
yes
DM is trying to turn the royals into a competent team (and maybe get lucky) while they build from the bottom up. this is what you have to do to have long term success.
Rowdy Hardy Fan Club member.
by doublestix on
Nov 19, 2008 6:12 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
As I posted elsewhere
using just Marcel’s and Chone’s defensive projections (and assuming full-time play simply for simplicity, if not accuracy), here’s the 2009 WARs I get for Royals current top 4 OFs.
Crisp in CF: 1.7
Crisp in RF/LF: 1.5
DeJesus in CF: 3.3
DeJesus in LF/RF: 2.9
Teahen LF/RF: 2.2
Jose Guillen in LF/RF: 1.2
OMG Banny. FWIW I am only crdtng u w/3 runs allwd bc of DDJ OMFG
by devil_fingers on
Nov 20, 2008 3:35 PM EST
reply
actions
0 recs
That's way too objective. ; )
How about Gathright?
Have you done this for the entire team? Would make for a good post.
Beyond the Boxscore // Calling BJ Upton lazy is lazy.
by Sky Kalkman on
Nov 20, 2008 5:15 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
At Royals Review?
I like it there, but when I stray from humor and try to do objective analysis, things sometimes get ugly.
I should do it, I guess. Did you read my Bill James projections post? Marcels are pretty good, but what’s frustrating is that some of the Royals better players are pretty young, so Marcels doesn’t quite have enough data. So combining that with CHONE’s -9 projection for Gordon at third is a wee bit depressing.
Maybe I’ll whip up something on Excel and see what happens. I know I should be doing it with MySQL, but I’m not that far along yet.
OMG Banny. FWIW I am only crdtng u w/3 runs allwd bc of DDJ OMFG
by devil_fingers on
Nov 20, 2008 9:56 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Also
I can’t quite master calculating WAR for pitcher, especially relievers. I’ve read the posts at inside the book…
OMG Banny. FWIW I am only crdtng u w/3 runs allwd bc of DDJ OMFG
by devil_fingers on
Nov 20, 2008 10:00 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
My shortcut is (4.75 - ERA) * IP / 9
Where 4.75 is replacement-level ERA for relievers and ERA can be whatever sort of DIPS-style ERA you want to use. I’m sure it could be more accurate, especially by incorporating expected leverage, but whatever. Tango’s method just uses Pythag winning percentage using league-average ERA and pitcher ERA as RS/RA and then compares that to something like a .470 winning percentage.
Beyond the Boxscore // Calling BJ Upton lazy is lazy.
by Sky Kalkman on
Nov 21, 2008 9:56 AM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
thanks...
what is the resulting number, though, after 4.75-ERA*IP/9? Is that runs above replacement, or wins?
OMG Banny. FWIW I am only crdtng u w/3 runs allwd bc of DDJ OMFG
by devil_fingers on
Nov 21, 2008 7:10 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
runs
Beyond the Boxscore // Calling BJ Upton lazy is lazy.
by Sky Kalkman on
Nov 21, 2008 8:09 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Check out Brian Cartwright's Oliver's. I believe he's published them for 2009 and they include minor league data
Beyond the Boxscore // Calling BJ Upton lazy is lazy.
by Sky Kalkman on
Nov 21, 2008 9:58 AM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
got 'em already
but thanks
OMG Banny. FWIW I am only crdtng u w/3 runs allwd bc of DDJ OMFG
by devil_fingers on
Nov 21, 2008 7:07 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs











BtB on Facebook
BtB_Sky on Twitter




