Skip to content

Peralta for Weeks?

December 6, 2012

Today Susan Slusser of the San Francisco Chronicle suggested that should the A’s miss out on free-agent target Stephen Drew (which seems likely given the deep pockets of some of the suitors, though Oakland can offer playing time) they could instead turn their interest to Jhonny Peralta.

The Tigers allegedly are not interested in Michael Taylor (not sure if this means Taylor is being dangled or not) but apparently are interested in Jemile Weeks. The big question then, for now at least, is would this be a deal I’d do?

Now I am a well documented non-supporter of Weeks. His rookie season to me was so wholly dominated by his unsustainable BABIP (.350) which led to a great .303/.340/.421 slash line that dipped to an unimpressive .221/.305/.304 last year when his BABIP fell (.256). He brought his walk rate up (9.8% from 4.8%) but a .305 OBP is still nothing to write home about. Weeks is not great and last year the A’s did well replacing him with Cliff Pennington.

There is a school of thought that the player best suited for your team as an acquisition isn’t necessarily the best player but the player who best remedies a hole. The A’s could put Scott Sizemore at second base, and talk this offseason seems to indicate that is an option. Weeks was a 0.0 WAR player in 2012 and a 1.9 WAR player in about a half season of 2011. Sizemore, at a position he hadn’t previously really played at (third base) was a 1.7 WAR player in 93 games in 2011. So lets assume Weeks is not as bad as his 2012 version and not nearly as good as his 2011 version. Lets be generous and call him a 2.0 WAR player. Lets assume, full season Sizemore at his natural position, second base, is better than 93 games at third base 2011 Sizemore. Lets be real conservative and call him a 2.0 WAR player over a full year. So basically replacing Weeks with Sizemore is a wash. That’s important because it means Oakland doesn’t lose anything wins wise sending Weeks packing.

Peralta in 2012 out together a weak slash line of .239/.305/.384 and was worth 2.6 WAR despite what I think are off fielding numbers (9.9 runs from fielding that don’t match what my eyes have seen Peralta do). Now fortunately these defensive numbers are identical for 2011 and 2012 and in 2011 with a good offensive year Peralta was a 5.2 WAR player. Yet if Peralta is just his 2012 version or even worse the A’s whose present starting shortstop (Adam Rosales?) is a replacement player are ahead two plus wins. That means this deal is a good one and if the A’s have the chance to get two wins paying Peralta just $6M they’re ending up ahead. Not a bad move if you ask me.

2 Comments leave one →
  1. peter mascari permalink
    December 6, 2012 10:34 am

    i love your blog and most of your opinions; however, like the Bailey trade last year when i expressed my belief that that trade would be lopsided in favor of the A’s, this one would be lopsided for Detroit. That is, on a long-term basis. remember, using WAR short-term is fine, using WAR for young)ish) players is often foolhearty. Love your e-mails/blogsite.


    dallas, tx.

    • December 6, 2012 4:24 pm

      Thanks, I appreciate it. Yeah, I was wrong about the Bailey trade. I thought Reddick was going to be nowhere as good as he was and felt he was basically just another Ryan Sweeney. Oops? Haha. I get what you are saying about Jemile Weeks and long term WAR. I am not a particularly big fan of Weeks in general, but remember also we have Sizemore under similar control to Weeks (he becomes arbitration eligible one year earlier than Weeks). So to me the question sort of doesn’t matter if one feels, like I do, that Sizemore is more valuable than Weeks. Because even if we sacrifice future WAR from Weeks, Peralta’s net positive in the short-term is a benefit and the lack of difference between Weeks and Sizemore makes that other longer term WAR irrelevant. Now an argument can be made that if Weeks and Sizemore are largely interchangeable talent wise, then that increased cost for Sizemore earlier makes him worth less, but I think that’s offset by the value Peralta would have in that one year.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: