Player Valuation

No, I don't mean player evaluation.  I'm speaking of the way in which we value certain players, especially with respect to this particular week in July every single year.  With the trade rumors flying, it's amazing to see who is being offered for whom, and how teams value certain players.  For example, Ken Rosenthal wrote this morning on an offer by the Rockies for pitcher Jeremy Guthrie.  Guthrie is in the midst of a second solid season in the O's rotation, while Barmes is hitting the ball with a little consistency for the first time since his tear in early 2005.  Question #1: Why would the Rockies think that the Orioles would even answer an insulting offer like that?  Guthrie is pitching in a tough division in a tougher league, yet he's had a mid-to-upper 3s ERA for two seasons now.  Barmes and Guthrie are both 29, but it's clear that Guthrie's value as a starting pitcher is much greater than Barmes' value as a fringe infielder.  Barmes will be arbitration-eligible in the offseason, and Guthrie might sneak in as a Super Two.  So what is the moral of this story?  The Rockies over-value their players.  That's not unlike every other team in MLB.  The Rangers do the exact same thing.  Marlon Byrd is overvalued by the front office.  If I had the chance to pull the trigger on a Marlon Byrd-Matt Murton deal, the most I would ask for is an A-level prospect.  Not Sean Gallagher, Jose Ceda, or Donald Veal.  Byrd has consistently shown in his career than he cannot be counted on for production with the bat over any extended period of time.  The last overvalued Ranger in that category is hitting .233 while making $9 million for the Angels.  It seems to me that the Rangers have enough quality outfielders to make up for the loss of a good fielder in Marlon Byrd.  So why is Matt Murton in Oakland instead of in Arlington?  Because we as followers of the Texas Rangers overvalued him when we had a chance to sell that overvaluation to the Cubs for a better player.  Matt Murton may be having a tough year, but I'd prefer him over Marlon Byrd in the five hole any day (lineup order will be discussed later).

So who else do we value so highly as to cloud our judgment in putting together a quality team?  A quick look at the 40-man roster reveals Thomas Diamond (discussed yesterday in the Frisco rotation write-up), Luis Mendoza (although not a bad return for Bryan Corey), CJ Wilson, Jarrod Saltalamacchia (relating to Major League talent at this particular point), Joaquin Arias (can we just give up on the A-Rod trade now?), Ramon Vazquez, and David Murphy.  Each one of these players is not as good as they're believed to be in Ranger circles.  Each came to the Rangers via a different path.  Those are some of the players I wouldn't mind losing playing time and/or their 40-man roster spot.  Answer this: If Joaquin Arias wasn't a return in the A-Rod trade, would he have lasted this long?  You can argue all you want over guys like David Murphy, too.  If you took all the ABs he's had with RISP and converted them to a normal number for a player in his lineup spot, you'd find he would no longer have anywhere close to 61 RBI.  He doesn't walk, strikes out more than you think, and his slugging percentage is only .462.  If you don't get on-base as a corner outfielder, your power should make up for it.  David Murphy's does not.  I am a great believer in David Murphy's abilities, however.  There's a reason he was a first-round draft pick.  However, we give too much credit to skills than methods will record true results.  I don't want a guy that looks like he can hit the ball well.  I want a guy that can not get out.  On that note, I love Adam Dunn.  Discuss.