PDA

View Full Version : He is found and his name is Luke Scott


kjhanson
07-20-2010, 02:49 PM
Normally I wouldn't start a deadline thread without a substantiated rumor (or even an unsubstantiated one), but Luke Scott sticks out as the perfect acquisition.

If money and trade value were no objects this thread wouldn't be started, but because the requested hauls for Fielder and Dunn are so high, it's necessary to look at the whole picture.

I'll start with the basics: He's a lefthanded hitter, he can play 1B, LF and RF, and has experience DH'ing. Great, you say, that doesn't make him all that special. However, when you start looking at his numbers you start to notice that he's actually a true power-hitting left-handed bat who is owed less than $2MM for the rest of the season.

Trivia question: Who has a higher SLG% this year - Luke Scott or Prince Fielder? The answer is Luke Scott. The difference is relatively small, but his line of .273/.346/.515/.846 is comparable to Fielder's .265/.396/.509./.905. Fielder's 14.5% walk rate is obviously higher than Scott's 9.7%, but that 9.7% is still above average. Don't discount Scott's SLG%. It ranks 10th among LH hitters this season! And career he's .497 - making him a top 40 slugger among ALL hitters in an average year. Adam Dunn is having a career year and his .286/.375/.575 this year is far superior to both - but his strikeouts (48% of his outs are strikeouts) are still ridiculous.

Based on numbers alone, most people would probably rank them Dunn, Fielder, Scott. But when we start to look at what we might have to give up, the distinctions aren't so clear.

Luke Scott is owed $1.7MM for the rest of the year; Fielder $4.6MM and Dunn $5.0MM. I don't think $3.0MM is going to break the bank, but you never know. In addition, all reports indicate that Fielder and Dunn will require Gordon AND Daniel Hudson. I'm not a GM, but I think we might be able to land Scott without parting with either one of them. The Orioles are content with Jones, Markakis and Pie in the OF. A team 29.5 games out does not need a 32 year-old veteran DH'ing. Given that they're multiple years away from competing, it makes most sense to give the at-bats to a much younger player, realize the $1.5MM difference on the books and get whatever they can for him. Dunn is no kid either - and the Nats aren't going to compete for at least another year - but Dunn is the offensive face of their franchise and they have a lot of positive momentum going. Dealing Dunn would stop it in its tracks.

All in all, what I'm trying to say is that the incremental output from Dunn or Fielder over Scott for 65 games is more than offset by $3MM and the difference in production between Gordon and Hudson - and whoever would replace them - over the next 5-10 years. With all things considered, if it were up to me, Luke Scott would be my top offensive target at the deadline.

DumpJerry
07-20-2010, 03:01 PM
So, why would Baltimore part with him if he is so cheap? Isn't he the kind of player they are trying to build around?

kittle42
07-20-2010, 03:03 PM
So, why would Baltimore part with him if he is so cheap? Isn't he the kind of player they are trying to build around?

Yup. Onto the next discussion...

russ99
07-20-2010, 03:08 PM
I was not a fan of Luke Scott when he played in Houston, but he's turned things around a bit with the O's.

He's not a true slugger either (25-30 HR potential), hits for a relatively low average and strikes out a 100 times a year. Defensively, he's not that great either.

IMO, he's a slightly better left-handed version of Teahen, that's scratched out a few decent years the last 2 seasons.

johnnyg83
07-20-2010, 03:19 PM
Luke Scott is 32? Mercy.

DirtySox
07-20-2010, 03:21 PM
Luke Scott is 32? Mercy.

Hmm. I also thought he was younger for some reason.

Zisk77
07-20-2010, 03:25 PM
I was not a fan of Luke Scott when he played in Houston, but he's turned things around a bit with the O's.

He's not a true slugger either (25-30 HR potential), hits for a relatively low average and strikes out a 100 times a year. Defensively, he's not that great either.

IMO, he's a slightly better left-handed version of Teahen, that's scratched out a few decent years the last 2 seasons.

We already have Teahen and Teahen is a better all around player...can run play better defense than Luke Scott Potential to hit about the same hrs n a full season, younger.

kjhanson
07-20-2010, 04:23 PM
So, why would Baltimore part with him if he is so cheap? Isn't he the kind of player they are trying to build around?

You must have missed the point where he is 32 years and old and they're not competing until he's at least 36. Why would they spend $15MM on a DH over the next 3 years when they can pay some kid one tenth of that and get the kid some major league at-bats?

That's a great mentality for a GM: "Hey, let's build around a 33 year-old so we can win 70 games instead of 60! Get excited, Baltimore!"

kjhanson
07-20-2010, 04:25 PM
We already have Teahen and Teahen is a better all around player...can run play better defense than Luke Scott Potential to hit about the same hrs n a full season, younger.

Teahen has a career .417 SLG% - 0.80 points lower than Luke Scott in his career. That is a marked, undeniable difference. His (Teahen's) POTENTIAL is nowhere near the ACTUAL consistent production of Luke Scott in his career.

I'm not sure about Scott's defense, but I know Teahen isn't winning any Gold Gloves at 3B anytime soon.

johnnyg83
07-20-2010, 04:34 PM
Teahen has a career .417 SLG% - 0.80 points lower than Luke Scott in his career. That is a marked, undeniable difference. His (Teahen's) POTENTIAL is nowhere near the ACTUAL consistent production of Luke Scott in his career.

I'm not sure about Scott's defense, but I know Teahen isn't winning any Gold Gloves at 3B anytime soon.

0.080 -- wouldn't it be?

DumpJerry
07-20-2010, 04:35 PM
You must have missed the point where he is 32 years and old and they're not competing until he's at least 36. Why would they spend $15MM on a DH over the next 3 years when they can pay some kid one tenth of that and get the kid some major league at-bats?

That's a great mentality for a GM: "Hey, let's build around a 33 year-old so we can win 70 games instead of 60! Get excited, Baltimore!"
In every year of their existence with the exception of 2004, before making the World Series in '08, Tampa finished in last place in the AL East. The one exception was a fourth place finish (out of five) in 2004. How do you know the timetable for when a team will become competitive?

BadBobbyJenks
07-20-2010, 04:52 PM
In every year of their existence with the exception of 2004, before making the World Series in '08, Tampa finished in last place in the AL East. The one exception was a fourth place finish (out of five) in 2004. How do you know the timetable for when a team will become competitive?

The O's pitching is miserable, they are going to be in hell for a long time.

kjhanson
07-20-2010, 05:07 PM
0.080 -- wouldn't it be?

Luke Scott is that good ;)

mccoydp
07-20-2010, 05:11 PM
What the heck does "MM" mean? "Million more", as in "$12 MM [million more]"?

kjhanson
07-20-2010, 05:23 PM
In every year of their existence with the exception of 2004, before making the World Series in '08, Tampa finished in last place in the AL East. The one exception was a fourth place finish (out of five) in 2004. How do you know the timetable for when a team will become competitive?

For every one (1) 2008 Tampa Bay, I'll get you 15 versions of the Pirates or the Royals. Their turnaround was remarkably sudden and strikingly anomalous. I will also point out that the Orioles are historically bad right now (on pace for 50 wins). The 07-08 transitional Rays team had four starters under the age of 25 make at least 20 starts in 07 and then they all made at least 27 starts in 08. Plus they added Matt Garza. This year's Orioloes...ummm...yeah, well let's just say their young pitching isn't quite making as many starts because they're just not that good.

But if you think that the Orioles should try to "build around" a 32 year-old and hold onto him at all costs because you just never know when a 50-win turnaround is going to happen (I mean, the lovable Rays had a 31-win turnaround - it can happen to anyone!), then you are certainly entitled to that opinion.

kjhanson
07-20-2010, 05:28 PM
What the heck does "MM" mean? "Million more", as in "$12 MM [million more]"?

It's an abbreviated numbering convention for million. Literally meaning thousand thousand (M=1000, 1000x1000 = 1,000,000). It's most commonly used for financial data.

DumpJerry
07-20-2010, 05:31 PM
For every one (1) 2008 Tampa Bay, I'll get you 15 versions of the Pirates or the Royals. Their turnaround was remarkably sudden and strikingly anomalous. I will also point out that the Orioles are historically bad right now (on pace for 50 wins). The 07-08 transitional Rays team had four starters under the age of 25 make at least 20 starts in 07 and then they all made at least 27 starts in 08. Plus they added Matt Garza. This year's Orioloes...ummm...yeah, well let's just say their young pitching isn't quite making as many starts because they're just not that good.

But if you think that the Orioles should try to "build around" a 32 year-old and hold onto him at all costs because you just never know when a 50-win turnaround is going to happen (I mean, the lovable Rays had a 31-win turnaround - it can happen to anyone!), then you are certainly entitled to that opinion.
:cleo
Underestimate the power of the Baseball Gods are your own peril.


If the guy is so cheap, why would they unload him? It's not like he would be saving them any money and if he is too old to be a centerpiece of a team, why would another team want him at the expense of 23 year old prospects?

I still don't see why the O's would want to unload this guy.

kjhanson
07-20-2010, 07:39 PM
If the guy is so cheap, why would they unload him? It's not like he would be saving them any money

As stated, it would save them $1.5MM - that's a decent amount of money for a team with declining attendance and (assuming) declining revenues. Plus, as stated, they would have an opportunity to let their "future" gain experience. Plus, the trade value of Scott is higher because he's not owed another $4-$5MM for the rest of the year. A team might be willing to kick in a little bit better prospect because they're saving some cash.


and if he is too old to be a centerpiece of a team, why would another team want him at the expense of 23 year old prospects?


Huh? Are you familiar with MLB trading deadline activity? Each year, tens of 23 year-old prospects are moved for players who are not meant to be centerpieces of a team. This might sound dumb, so forgive me, but Luke Scott might help a playoff contender more over the next three months than a 23 year-old kid in Double-A.

mccoydp
07-21-2010, 12:34 AM
It's an abbreviated numbering convention for million. Literally meaning thousand thousand (M=1000, 1000x1000 = 1,000,000). It's most commonly used for financial data.

Thanks. That's been driving me nuts on this site for years.

Tragg
07-21-2010, 12:37 AM
My goodness, we GAVE Thome away last year. Gave him away. We got nothing. Contreras was given to the Rockies. Iguchi a couple of years ago, was handed to Philly. We didn't get a C prospect for any of those players.

Some players can be had for contract relief. THAT's what we need to look for, rather than look for good players in career years at absurdly inflated prices (like Dunn).

Scott would be fine. He can hit and should come cheap.