BORT: Brian Matusz And A Lost Pick

In March of 2009, the local Orioles blogosphere was in its primordial golden epoch where sites were plentiful and largely operated by only a person or two.  Back then, I developed the Baltimore Orioles Round Table to make the community more cohesive and increase audience awareness for other sites.  Now, the lone person writing for an Orioles site is not so common anymore.  We all have large stables.  In this current incarnation,  the objective is not to increase awareness between sites, but to provide multiple slants at a single issue.  Enjoy!

The Brian Matusz trade and Dan Duquette's willingness to deal draft picks.
Participants: Elie Waitzer, Patrick Dougherty, Avi Miller

Elie Waitzer: The Orioles got two Minor League arms - Brandon Barker and Trevor Belicek - from the Braves in exchange for Brian Matusz, but the real swap had nothing to do with any of those players. Atlanta immediately DFA'd Matusz, and the neither of the arms were thought of as prospects. If you want to read about how Barker and Belicek might pan out, Chris Mitchell did a good write up on Fangraphs.

Broken down into simple terms, this was a creative win-now/win-later trade between Dan Duquette and Braves GM John Coppolella. Baltimore got present-day financial flexibility by offloading the remaining $3M of Matusz contract. Atlanta got future financial flexibility in the form of an additional $830K in bonus pool allocation that comes with the 76th draft pick that will allow the Braves to be more aggressive in the draft.

This is clearly not a stand-alone trade, and it's how Duquette springboards off of this move that will determine whether it was worth it for the Orioles to reduce their ability to potentially grab better talent in mid-late rounds of the drafts (with the 27th, 54th, and 69th picks.) 

The best case scenario is that the $3M in savings will give Duquette some extra wiggle room at the trade deadline to make the O's a more attractive trading partner for teams looking to deal starting pitching. The ability to take on more of a player's contract gives Baltimore an edge over other teams, and makes up in part for the fact that they won't be able to offer the kind of prospects other teams will (Keith Law ranked the O's farm system 27th at the start of 2016). 

Before the start of the season, Matt Kremnitzer looked at the best and worst cases for the rotation and set a pessimistic tone by referencing Fangraphs' dismal projections for the O's starters. Despite their collective 3.80 ERA, the ragtag starting staff has vastly outperformed expectations, ranking ninth in the league by total WAR (3.9) thus far. But the pleasant start has been fueled largely by strong starts from Chris Tillman and Kevin Gausman, not by solid depth 1 through 5.  If this move leads (or partially leads) to the O's landing rotation help in the form of James Shields, Rich Hill, Jimmy Nelson, or any solid arm that can take innings away from Mike Wright and Tyler Wilson, I'll consider it a win. Until then, the jury is out. 

Patrick Dougherty: They say to trust your gut, and with a few days to think on this deal, I feel the same way I did when my phone buzzed with the notification. Brian Matusz has been a non-factor for the Orioles for years, and taking his $3.9 million salary (or the $3M of it that the Braves will assume) off the books is, in a vacuum, a win. I thought the Orioles were overpaying for Matusz when they made the one-year deal to avoid arbitration because I didn't think of him as anything more than a mediocre LOOGY (lefties have hit him for a .276 average in his career, although Matusz has successfully stayed away from giving lefties walks or home runs). Apparently, the team thought Matusz could work his way into a less specialized bullpen role, or at least into a decent return in a trade. Clearly, he could not.

The minor good of ridding the team of a player who directly affects about 3% of the Orioles' innings in a year (50 IP/1,458 innings in 162 9-inning games) is vastly outweighed by the bad of giving up the 76th pick in next year's draft. The stars-and-scrubs method of roster construction is highly variant and, in my opinion, a mistake to pursue. Particularly for a team that is in one of the smallest markets in the league and likes to paint itself as being cash-strapped, the best way to build a competitive roster is through drafting and developing well. The Orioles do neither.

In some cases, I may be tempted to argue that because the Orioles have proven themselves to be largely incapable of drafting and developing players, particularly pitchers, it makes sense for the team to ditch picks in favor of cash with which to bring in arms that have learned the game elsewhere. That specialization of labor model might be attractive if the Orioles sat atop a pile of cash the way the Yankees or the Dodgers do, but I'm tired of making the argument in favor of giving up on what is the Orioles' most obvious path for continued, cheap success.

Instead, I'll go in the opposite direction. Because the Orioles are ineffective drafters, they should be taking a shotgun approach: take the best players available as often as possible and pray that one of them becomes the exception to the organization's deflating rule.

If I sound fed up, I am. During the offseason, the Warehouse talks about the importance of draft picks and why the team just can't give them up to sign premiere free agents who were extended qualifying offers. This Matusz trade marks the second time in two years that the organization has given away a pick to dump the relatively meager salary of an average reliever (not to mention the pick given up for Bud Norris and the many international signing slots the team has traded away in recent years).

The Matusz trade is, in my opinion, a failure both in terms of the potential that the team jettisoned by trading away a competitive balance pick, and in terms of continuing the Orioles' precedent of undervaluing draft picks. I don't believe $3 million in wiggle room is going to allow the team to bring in a stud pitcher at the deadline; they cost a lot more than that, and the budget is already stretched, as far as anyone outside the Warehouse knows. I do believe that the team consistently undervalues draft picks - or realizes that they're so bad with them that they're using them as currency because they've given up.

Avi Miller: So why exactly did the Orioles even tender Matusz heading into 2016? Complaints abound among the Baltimore fan base, Dan Duquette knew very well that Matusz would command a fourth-year arbitration salary above $3.2 million, his 2015 earnings.

Matusz, despite popular belief, could have been a very serviceable middle relief arm in 2015. Though his career average against when facing left-handed hitters is .276, as Patrick noted, I redirect your attention to his 2015 showing against that same group: .185/.231/.333 across 109 batters faced.

Thus, as a LOOGY, Matusz slotted in quite nicely. Even when he took the mound against almost the equivalent number of batters in the right-handed batter's box, the results were not dreadful: .238/.375/.346 across 97 batters faced (16 walks killed him against this group).

So a salary expectation in the mid-$3 million range for a left-hander after a 49-inning season to the tune of a 2.94 ERA wasn't absurd, to say the least. And here's why.

Name	Games	Innings Pitched	ERA	FIP	xFIP	fWAR	K/9	BB/9	HR/9	BABIP	GB%
Brian Matusz	186	151.2	3.32	3.50	3.87	1.8	9.44	3.15	0.89	.289	36.4%
Tony Sipp	172	142.2	3.22	3.45	3.63	1.7	10.54	3.41	1.01	.253	32.6%
Zach Duke	171	150.2	3.58	3.57	3.16	1.1	9.44	3.52	0.90	.301	55.9%

The table above compares Matusz to two other notable lefty relievers, Tony Sipp and Zach Duke. The numbers shown are from the 2013-2015 seasons.

Tony Sipp, a veteran who had a choppy history with both Cleveland and Arizona before settling in Houston a couple years ago, signed a three-year, $18 million contract to return to the Astros prior to the 2016 campaign.

Zach Duke, taking an even bumpier road starting in Pittsburgh back in 2005, earned a three-year, $15 million contract with the White Sox two offseasons ago.

As such, Brian Matusz was on his way to a nice little payday following the 2016 season. How he gets there now is a bit more in question.

Comparing the Depot's Draft Slots to the Actual Ones

Awhile ago, I noted that the rule 4 draft had some issues.  As part of my analysis of the draft, I developed a chart that could be used as a trade value resource.  I assigned an 80% reduction in true value for the player.  This reduction is in large part due to risk devaluing the player (not every player will reach the average value for a selection).  Below is a comparison of what I would consider each slot is worth.



 I actually ran this assessment 300 picks deep in the draft.  For this graphic above, I only displayed the first 100 picks, which basically show the primary similarities and differences between the projected slot and the actual slot.  What we see is a rather tight relationship from about the 11th selection to the 60th selection.  Our model suggests that picks in the front end of the draft are being undervalued as are picks after the 60th selection.

Below are the actual values:

Pick	Actual	bWAR Predicted
1	$7,200,000	$11,739,091
2	$6,200,000	$7,747,800
3	$5,200,000	$5,986,936
4	$4,200,000	$5,047,809
5	$3,500,000	$4,402,159
6	$3,250,000	$3,991,291
7	$3,000,000	$3,580,423
8	$2,900,000	$3,286,945
9	$2,800,000	$3,052,164
10	$2,700,000	$2,934,773
11	$2,625,000	$2,699,991
12	$2,550,000	$2,582,600
13	$2,475,000	$2,465,209
14	$2,375,000	$2,347,818
15	$2,250,000	$2,230,427
16	$2,125,000	$2,171,732
17	$2,000,000	$2,089,558
18	$1,950,000	$2,019,124
19	$1,900,000	$1,948,689
20	$1,850,000	$1,889,994
21	$1,825,000	$1,843,037
22	$1,800,000	$1,784,342
23	$1,775,000	$1,737,385
24	$1,750,000	$1,690,429
25	$1,725,000	$1,655,212
26	$1,700,000	$1,619,995
27	$1,675,000	$1,584,777
28	$1,650,000	$1,549,560
29	$1,625,000	$1,514,343
30	$1,600,000	$1,479,125
31	$1,575,000	$1,408,691
32	$1,550,000	$1,408,691
33	$1,525,000	$1,408,691
34	$1,500,000	$1,408,691
35	$1,467,400	$1,408,691
36	$1,430,400	$1,291,300
37	$1,394,300	$1,291,300
38	$1,359,100	$1,291,300
39	$1,324,800	$1,291,300
40	$1,291,300	$1,291,300
41	$1,258,700	$1,173,909
42	$1,227,000	$1,173,909
43	$1,196,000	$1,173,909
44	$1,165,800	$1,173,909
45	$1,136,400	$1,173,909
46	$1,107,700	$1,173,909
47	$1,079,700	$1,173,909
48	$1,052,500	$1,173,909
49	$1,025,900	$1,173,909
50	$1,000,000	$1,173,909
51	$984,700	$1,056,518
52	$969,700	$1,056,518
53	$954,800	$1,056,518
54	$940,200	$1,056,518
55	$925,900	$1,056,518
56	$911,700	$997,823
57	$897,800	$997,823
58	$884,100	$997,823
59	$870,600	$997,823
60	$857,200	$997,823
61	$844,100	$939,127
62	$831,200	$939,127
63	$818,500	$939,127
64	$806,000	$939,127
65	$793,700	$939,127
66	$781,600	$939,127
67	$769,600	$880,432
68	$757,900	$880,432
69	$746,300	$880,432
70	$734,900	$880,432
71	$723,600	$880,432
72	$712,600	$880,432
73	$701,700	$880,432
74	$691,000	$880,432
75	$680,400	$821,736
76	$670,000	$821,736
77	$659,800	$821,736
78	$649,700	$821,736
79	$639,700	$821,736
80	$630,000	$821,736
81	$620,300	$821,736
82	$610,800	$821,736
83	$601,500	$821,736
84	$592,300	$821,736
85	$583,300	$763,041
86	$574,300	$763,041
87	$565,600	$763,041
88	$556,900	$763,041
89	$548,400	$763,041
90	$540,000	$763,041
91	$531,800	$763,041
92	$523,600	$763,041
93	$515,600	$763,041
94	$507,800	$763,041
95	$500,000	$763,041
96	$495,200	$704,345
97	$490,400	$704,345
98	$485,700	$704,345
99	$481,100	$704,345
100	$476,500	$704,345
101	$471,900	$704,345
102	$467,400	$704,345
103	$462,900	$704,345
104	$458,400	$704,345
105	$454,000	$704,345
106	$449,700	$704,345
107	$445,400	$704,345
108	$441,100	$704,345
109	$436,800	$704,345
110	$432,700	$645,650
111	$428,500	$645,650
112	$424,400	$645,650
113	$420,300	$645,650
114	$416,300	$645,650
115	$412,300	$645,650
116	$408,300	$645,650
117	$404,400	$645,650
118	$400,500	$645,650
119	$396,700	$645,650
120	$392,900	$645,650
121	$389,100	$645,650
122	$385,400	$645,650
123	$381,700	$645,650
124	$378,000	$645,650
125	$374,400	$645,650
126	$370,800	$645,650
127	$367,200	$645,650
128	$363,700	$586,955
129	$360,200	$586,955
130	$356,700	$586,955
131	$353,300	$586,955
132	$349,900	$586,955
133	$346,600	$586,955
134	$343,200	$586,955
135	$340,000	$586,955
136	$336,700	$586,955
137	$333,500	$586,955
138	$330,300	$586,955
139	$327,100	$586,955
140	$323,900	$586,955
141	$320,800	$586,955
142	$317,800	$586,955
143	$314,700	$586,955
144	$311,700	$586,955
145	$308,700	$586,955
146	$305,700	$586,955
147	$302,800	$586,955
148	$299,900	$586,955
149	$297,000	$586,955
150	$294,200	$528,259
151	$291,300	$528,259
152	$288,500	$528,259
153	$285,800	$528,259
154	$283,000	$528,259
155	$280,300	$528,259
156	$277,600	$528,259
157	$275,000	$528,259
158	$272,300	$528,259
159	$269,700	$528,259
160	$267,100	$528,259
161	$264,500	$528,259
162	$262,000	$528,259
163	$259,500	$528,259
164	$257,000	$528,259
165	$254,500	$528,259
166	$252,100	$528,259
167	$249,700	$528,259
168	$247,300	$528,259
169	$244,900	$528,259
170	$242,600	$504,781
171	$240,200	$504,781
172	$237,900	$504,781
173	$235,600	$504,781
174	$233,400	$504,781
175	$231,100	$504,781
176	$228,900	$504,781
177	$226,700	$504,781
178	$224,500	$504,781
179	$222,400	$504,781
180	$220,300	$504,781
181	$218,100	$504,781
182	$216,000	$504,781
183	$214,000	$504,781
184	$211,900	$481,303
185	$209,900	$481,303
186	$207,900	$481,303
187	$205,900	$481,303
188	$203,900	$481,303
189	$201,900	$481,303
190	$200,000	$481,303
191	$198,100	$481,303
192	$196,200	$481,303
193	$194,300	$481,303
194	$192,500	$481,303
195	$190,600	$481,303
196	$188,800	$481,303
197	$187,000	$481,303
198	$185,200	$481,303
199	$183,500	$457,825
200	$181,700	$457,825
201	$180,000	$457,825
202	$178,300	$457,825
203	$176,600	$457,825
204	$174,900	$457,825
205	$173,200	$457,825
206	$171,600	$457,825
207	$169,900	$457,825
208	$168,300	$457,825
209	$166,700	$457,825
210	$165,100	$457,825
211	$163,500	$457,825
212	$162,000	$457,825
213	$160,400	$457,825
214	$158,900	$457,825
215	$157,400	$457,825
216	$155,900	$434,346
217	$154,400	$434,346
218	$152,900	$434,346
219	$151,400	$434,346
220	$150,000	$434,346
221	$149,700	$434,346
222	$149,300	$434,346
223	$149,000	$434,346
224	$148,600	$434,346
225	$148,300	$434,346
226	$148,000	$434,346
227	$147,600	$434,346
228	$147,300	$434,346
229	$147,000	$434,346
230	$146,600	$434,346
231	$146,300	$434,346
232	$146,000	$434,346
233	$145,600	$434,346
234	$145,300	$434,346
235	$145,000	$434,346
236	$144,600	$434,346
237	$144,300	$410,868
238	$144,000	$410,868
239	$143,600	$410,868
240	$143,300	$410,868
241	$143,000	$410,868
242	$142,700	$410,868
243	$142,300	$410,868
244	$142,000	$410,868
245	$141,700	$410,868
246	$141,400	$410,868
247	$141,000	$410,868
248	$140,700	$410,868
249	$140,400	$410,868
250	$140,100	$410,868
251	$139,800	$410,868
252	$139,500	$410,868
253	$139,100	$410,868
254	$138,800	$410,868
255	$138,500	$410,868
256	$138,200	$410,868
257	$137,900	$410,868
258	$137,600	$410,868
259	$137,200	$410,868
260	$136,900	$387,390
261	$136,600	$387,390
262	$136,300	$387,390
263	$136,000	$387,390
264	$135,700	$387,390
265	$135,400	$387,390
266	$135,100	$387,390
267	$134,800	$387,390
268	$134,500	$387,390
269	$134,200	$387,390
270	$133,800	$387,390
271	$133,500	$387,390
272	$133,200	$387,390
273	$132,900	$387,390
274	$132,600	$387,390
275	$132,300	$387,390
276	$132,000	$387,390
277	$131,700	$387,390
278	$131,400	$387,390
279	$131,100	$387,390
280	$130,800	$387,390
281	$130,500	$387,390
282	$130,200	$387,390
283	$129,900	$387,390
284	$129,600	$387,390
285	$129,300	$387,390
286	$129,100	$387,390
287	$128,800	$363,912
288	$128,500	$363,912
289	$128,200	$363,912
290	$127,900	$363,912
291	$127,600	$363,912
292	$127,300	$363,912
293	$127,000	$363,912
294	$126,700	$363,912
295	$126,400	$363,912
296	$126,100	$363,912
297	$125,900	$363,912
298	$125,600	$363,912
299	$125,300	$363,912
300	$125,000	$363,912

What does it all mean?  Eh, as expected, it appears that amateur talent is prevented from realizing their actual worth by Major League Baseball.  This is essentially the reason why the draft exists, so no big surprises.