Trading for Ryan Dempster: Is it Worth It?

In a word: yes. However, since I'm not going to sit here and write a four-word blog entry, I'll go into more detail. To this point in the season, Ryan Dempster has been much better than in the past...if you look at him in the traditional sense. If you look at him in a more advanced way, he's been almost exactly the same pitcher for the past 4.5 seasons (if you notice, it dates back to the season in which he converted to being a starter).To get a look at his consistency, let's check out some rates:

 K/9, BB/9, HR/9, GB%:

 8.14, 3.31, 0.61, 48.1%
7.74, 2.93, 0.99, 47.2%
8.69, 3.59, 1.04, 47.4%
8.50, 3.65, 1.02, 44.1%
7.18, 2.34, 0.78, 42.1%

 What do all of those rates mean? Well, essentially they mean that Dempster has been a good-but-not-great starter in each of his past five seasons. Ignore the ERA, ignore the raw FIP, and especially ignore that W/L total. Check out the following fielding-independent numbers:

 tERA, SIERA, xFIP- (below 100 is good)

 3.94, 3.81, 85
4.14, 3.85, 88
4.02, 3.73, 94
4.51, 3.79, 96
4.49, 3.84, 95

 What do these rates mean? Well, they mean that Dempster hasn't been as good as we first thought. He's still been better than average, and he's still been incredibly consistent. However, those tERA numbers could suggest that he could blow up at any time (whenever a rate doesn't match others, you have to consider that it might be the correct one). Dempster hasn't seen any outrageous dips in other peripherals, either. His range of FB% is 31.8 to 36.9, and his range of HR/FB ratio is 7.7 to 11.3 (with the mean being much closer to 11 than 7). So really, anybody that trades for him knows what they're getting. Even at 35 years old, Dempster hasn't shown regression in his rates, so there really shouldn't be a reason to expect him to decline sharply (especially not in the next two months). Whoever trades for Dempster, be it the Dodgers (likely) or the Braves (longshot), is going to get an above-average pitcher who can go deep into games. There are concerns with Dempster, however. First of all, his most recent trip to the disabled list due to trouble with his lat (latissimus dorsi muscle) could be a sign that Dempster's body might not be capable of holding up deep into the playoffs. It is definitely not worth trading for Dempster if you can't rely on him to pitch into the postseason as a rental. This brings us into the discussion of trade philosophy. To start, we'll look at what incentive the Cubs have in trading him:

Cubs' Side:

Clearly President Theo Epstein and GM Jed Hoyer are in full rebuild mode. They have little incentive to keep 35 year-old veterans on the roster, and they have even less incentive to do so when those veterans have overperformed to increase their perceived value. In the past, the club could have always used the angle of holding the player and offering him arbitration as leverage in this situation, but that won't work. Instead of the old compensation rules, teams can't hold out for multiple draft picks for what would have been Type-A free agents. Rather, they have to offer the average salary of the 125 highest paid players in the game (and be denied by the player) to have a shot at compensation. Under this environment, that is almost 12.5 million dollars, and it would undoubtedly be accepted by Dempster. Therefore the Cubs will lose out on any potential value by failing to trade him at the deadline. Since other teams surely know this, it tips leverage more heavily in favor of teams trying to acquire Dempster.

Side of Trade Partner:

To put it simply: above-average starting pitchers are really, really rare. They are arguably the most valuable assets to an organization because of how difficult it is to replace them. While not in the tier of Zack Greinke and other mentioned trade chips this year, Dempster does fall under the umbrella of above-average starters. Going by what I mentioned earlier with sustained rates, a team trading for Dempster should expect just over a win of additional value over replacement level. With SP Nathan Eovaldi out of the picture in the Hanley Ramirez trade, the Dodgers have a hole in their rotation that they are apparently desperate to fill. But getting back to the original question, this isn't a matter of how much Dempster can produce; it's a matter of whether the deal is worth it to the Dodgers or not. For that, we look into a few factors.

1) Team Control

In trades, team control is one of the most important factors in claiming value. It is the biggest reason prospects are so highly valued, and it is why we hear about teams wanting to avoid "rental" players. As much as a year of control can take the value of a player like Josh Johnson and bump him into the upper echelon of starting pitchers on the market (regardless of performance). In this case, Ryan Dempster is a rental player with 10/5 rights. The 10/5 rights are relevant because they give a strong hint to where Dempster wants to play (since those rights give him the ability to block a trade to anyone). Dempster has the Dodgers at the top of his reported list, meaning that the Dodgers have a strong ability to sign him in the off season if desired. With some thought, this becomes a situation where it is important to ask whether this is really a rental to the Dodgers or rather if it is for multiple years of control with two extra months thrown in (since the Dodgers are spending a lot of cash and have shown so much interest in Dempster, they likely would sign him in free agency anyway).

2) Playoff Relevance

With team control handled, this scenario really becomes about value over two months for the Dodgers. In this modern age, 87 wins is the target number of wins in order to secure a spot in the post-season (down from the previous 89 wins). On top of that, the value of winning the wild card has severely decreased as the chances of winning the World Series from that spot have been severely decreased. Therefore more emphasis is placed on winning the division. In all honesty, this is where Dempster's value matters the most. The extra win of value expected from Dempster through the end of the season could very well serve as the difference between winning a division title and missing the playoffs entirely. Currently, the Dodgers and Giants are tied for the division lead, and adding Dempster could help widen the gap. If the Dodgers want to make a smart move to increase their playoff chances, they'll acquire someone like Dempster.

3) Prospects

The combination of need from the Dodgers and lack of leverage from the Cubs creates a very interesting scenario. In a normal circumstance, the Dodgers would be expected to win this trade by a wide margin (especially with Dempster's reported desire to be in LA). However, with the new ownership, LA's focus is clearly on improving the organization through being active in trades and free agency. With increased funds, the Dodgers can be aggressive in those facets of the game. This places less inherent organizational importance on prospects, meaning that the club could be more likely to part with them than in the past. When a team has great ability to attack in free agency and in trades, it has more flexibility with the movement of prospects.

Conclusion:

In this situation, Dempster can be had without overpayment. This makes his wins at the end of the season even more valuable, because they cost the organization less. This is why I think trading for Dempster is worth it. A week ago, when Dempster was nearly traded for Randall Delgado (a payment that was a massive overpayment in my eyes) I did not believe that trading for Dempster would be worth the price. Now a team like the Dodgers has one question to ask: is two months of Dempster and a possible division title worth more than good/decent prospects when we can easily replace those prospects through the resources we have as an organization? In my mind, the answer is yes, simply because of where the Dodgers are as an organization.