Edwin Jackson: What if?

Right-handed pitcher Edwin Jackson had a memorable debut with the Dodgers on his 20th birthday in 2003, but it's in 2009 that he has truly flowered. Entering tonight's start against St. Louis, Jackson has a 2.24 ERA (202 ERA+), and opponents have a .593 OPS against him. 

His strong start has renewed questions about whether the Dodgers could have kept Jackson, rather than trade him in January 2006 (along with Chuck Tiffany) to Tampa Bay for beleaguered relievers Danys Baez and Lance Carter. Dodger Thoughts guest writer BHSportsguy looks at this question: 

With the Lakers wrapping up their fourth NBA title since 2000, there is no question that they are the team of this decade.  But there will always be those who wonder, what if Shaq and Kobe had been able to make it work, would they have been a dynasty?

Sports fans love what-if scenarios. They fill the sports talk radio airwaves and Internet sites like Dodger Thoughts.  And I am no different when it comes to these discussions.

Those who know my past on Dodger Thoughts know I try to look at things as they are, not as they they might have been. However, I put that reasoned approach away today, for now, my task is to try and figure one of those scenarios: What if Edwin Jackson had not been traded prior to the 2006 season?

Now, when I talked about this piece with Jon, I said I did not want to spend time rehashing the value of the trade itself. That deal has used up a lot of words on Dodger Thoughts, and I really didn’t think it added anything to this question.  And since the premise of the piece depends on that deal never taking place anyway, why bother?

One of the common themes of the Edwin Jackson discussion is that he only had one option left going into the 2006 season, and there was a concern that he would not have been ready to spend an entire season on a major league roster as soon as 2007.

His 2005 season had offered some success at AA Jacksonville (3.48 ERA), but Jackson certainly would believe in the saying, “Whatever happens in Vegas, stays in Vegas,” because his trip to Sin City (8.62 ERA) was not very good. But maybe in 2006 it would be different, as Jackson would be part of the large collection of talent he spent some time with in Jacksonville. These players, who were not only close in age but close in expectations, could make this trip much easier. And with pitching coach Kenny Howell being promoted to AAA from Jacksonville, he would be able to continue to work with Jackson.  Seeing the success of Chad Billingsley, Jonathan Broxton and Hong-Chih Kuo, plus watching Takashi Saito and Joe Beimel rise from non-roster status to major leaguers, might provide strong incentive for Jackson to become more consistent.

Let’s suppose that Jackson gets a trip or two to Los Angeles in 2006, but his performance is still marked with inconsistency. Where would he stand as far as becoming a permanent member of the big club in 2007?

Now, it would be easy to say that Jackson could have filled several roles on the 2007 team: the spots taken by Brett Tomko, Mark Hendrickson or Rudy Seanez for starters.  Of those, I would say Tomko, but given Tomko's actual 2006 performance (4.73 ERA, 95 ERA+), under what reasoning could you honestly say the Dodgers would just DFA him?  

Also, if everything else had remained the same, Chad Billingsley would have filled the role most likely available to Jackson, that of being a swingman. I can’t see Jackson in a starting role like he had in Tampa Bay during the 2007 season. (And his stats in 2007 are beyond eye-opening: for example, 283 baserunners in 161 innings).  

But still, given all that, with the turnover of the pitching staff that season, it is not inconceivable that Jackson could have been able to find a spot in the Dodger bullpen that year.

Jackson’s 2008 season of having more good than bad performances was the first indication of growth since his callup in 2003.  As a Dodger, he certainly could have been in the discussion for the fifth-starter spot.  And had he performed like he did for the Rays, he would have allowed Clayton Kershaw another year to get ready before his inevitable spot in the Dodger rotation.

And if all the above had occurred, Jackson, Billingsley and Kershaw might have become a formidable top of the Dodger rotation for years to come.

Now, putting back my BHSportsguy hat, I don’t know if Jackson could have stuck in 2007. He would have needed someone in the front office to support him, and that might have not been enough, since one of general manager Ned Colletti’s strengths is that he lets the field staff dictate his roster -- so if a player is not being used, Ned usually finds a way to remove him and get someone else.  If Jackson was just taking up space that year, with no minor-league options remaining, I think the Dodgers might have been forced to deal him for a marginal minor leaguer.

As I researched this piece, I read several reviews of Jackson, and there is a common theme: No one disputes his physical tools, but almost every criticism ends up with his mental approach and confidence.  Baseball Prospectus still had words like “frustrated,” “struggles” and the dreaded “potential” in its 2009 review of Jackson.  I don’t know where I saw it, but I know Jackson himself said in an interview that he does not blame the Dodgers or Rays for moving him, as he knew better than anyone how his career had evolved to this point.

I close this piece by saying that if the question was, "Could the Dodgers have kept Edwin Jackson on the 25-man roster from 2007 to the present?," from a pure roster management issue, I would say yes. Enough flotsam existed on the roster during that time to make me think they could have done that, and whatever damage Jackson brought on to the team during his growth period would probably not have been too different than every other bad pitcher during the last 2½ seasons.  

But from what I think what would have happened, only if had he been able to speed up his growth to where he is today could Jackson have survived the 2007 season as a Dodger out of options.  And we’ll never know if Jackson would be the pitcher he is today without those two years in Tampa, where he got 62 starts to work out whatever issues he had.

Photo: Duane Burleson / AP, June 6, 2009

Comments

[SaMo]

Short answer:

If Jackson had remained a Dodger, Ned would have traded him for more proven veteran leadership. Rich Aurilia, anyone?

[Craig88USC]

Nice piece BH. Good research too. : )

[Craig88USC]

http://www.davidduval.org

It has been a long road back to the 2009 US Open...
He's back.

Good luck to David, Phil & Tiger.

[Branch Rickey]

Nice piece BH. I think this is a great example of the issues that going into moving a player vs. keeping him. It's clearly not as simple as "is he good enough". It's also an example of the dangers of bringing a prospect up to early. Had we not exhausted his options and allowed him to mature in the minors perhaps he would be a pillar in our rotation now. Greinke is another example of a pitcher who needed to struggle for a while before he flourished. Had he started out as a Dodger (or any other contender) he would have likely been traded for the same reasons Jackson was.

[Eric Stephen]

Very nice, well-reasoned article, BH.

Just for reference, as starters:

E-Jax 2007: 31 starts, 5-15, 160.2 IP, 282 baserunners, 128 K, 5.77 ERA, 1.755 WHIP 78 ERA+

Tomko/Hendrickson 2007: 30 starts, 5-16, 155.2 IP, 245 baserunners, 103 K, 5.84 ERA, 1.574 WHIP, 79 ERA+

[Eric Enders]

This was an outstanding write-up and I look forward to seeing it plagiarized at NBC.com.

[Eric Enders]

Will the next in the series be "Joakim Soria: What If?"

In other "What If?" news, it seems Indians fans will spend their hot-stove season discussing whether their best prospect is Carlos Santana or Alex White.

[Jon Weisman]

I think the conclusion to BH's piece is particularly strong. Yes, the Dodgers didn't need to trade Jackson. But he was a long-term project, and the Dodgers would have needed to show an explicit level of patience with him. (Which I would have liked to have seen them do, but that's another matter.)

In my mind: Don't sign Tomko, don't trade for Hendrickson, be patient with Jackson, and somehow this all works out.

But it certainly ended up being more complicated than that, with Jackson's pace of development being a reason.

[Eric Enders]

I agree with Jon; it was something the Dodgers could have and should have done, although it would have taken patience.

A mitigating factor which isn't often mentioned is that by the time of the trade, Jackson's velocity had decreased significantly from its 2003 level. For whatever reason, he lost his 96 mph fastball for about two years and now he has it back again.

[Angel Nodal]

What if 2010:
Rotation of:
Billingsley
Jackson
Kershaw
McDonald
Kuroda

[regfairfield]

E-Jax's ERA was 7.23 in the first half of 2007, and was coming off ERAs of 7+ and 6+ in his last two big league stints. There is almost no way to rewrite history to make us hold on to him over Hendrickson or Tomko.

[Xeifrank]

Nice write-up. Guest articles are fun to read. I am guessing that Jackson will regress somewhat based on his .247 babip allowed. That being the case, I looked up and computed a few numbers on his 09 campaign.

E.Jackson (2009)
Babip: .247
LOB%: 76.3%
ERA: 2.24
FIP: 3.39
FIP (Home): 3.46
FIP (Away): 3.33

Even with the .247 babip, still very solid so far.
vr, Xei

[regfairfield]

Also, Jackson had a 1.5 WHIP last year with a 1.4 K/BB. Without Tampa's defense, it's another 5.50 ERA year, and he probably gets non tendered, so even if you think he could have survived 2007 somehow, there's almost no way we stick with him after 2008.

[ucladodger]

As the self-annointed Edwin Jackson expert and #1 fan, I truly believe he would not have been successful as a Dodger. Bringing him up in 2003 really was the wrong thing to do, and made success for him in L.A nearly impossible. This isnt just from a pitching standpoint (he was not ready as a pitcher), but just the pressure that the debut created. Comparing a 19 year old kid with under 2 years of pitching experience to Doc Gooden and heaping huge expectations on him was just too much. This is added on to the fact that he couldnt pitch at the major league level. He had no plan on the mound, but just great physical attributes. Heck, he wasnt even that good last year in his "breakthrough year". I really believe that Rick Knapp (Tigers pitching coach) has had a huge hand in Edwin's turnaround, and I could not be enjoying it any more than I am now.

[fanerman]

With the ERA's that reg pointed out, it's hard to blame the Dodgers for not keeping him. He's a fantastic story and I continue to root for him, but I really don't lose sleep over the "what if" possibility of him still being a Dodger.

[Prescott Chris]

If I remember correctly, the Dodgers had the opportunity to draft Lincecum. They choose to skip over him and picked Kershaw instead. The Dodgers starting rotation with Lincecum would be fun to see. And that would have been easier to accomplish than keeping Jackson.

[WBB]

As good as Lincecum is, I doubt the Dodgers regret taking Kershaw. He's four years younger, and may well be as dominant in a year or two as Lincecum is now.

[regfairfield]

I'd rather have Lincecum than the guy who might become Lincecum.

[Prescott Chris]

I agree that Kershaw has a high ceiling. The problem I see is that the Giants get 7 years of Lincecum playing at this level (unless he regresses or gets hurt). The Dodgers are spending several of those years in developing Kershaw. So they will get a few years of Kershaw dominance before he is eligible for free agency.

[bhsportsguy]

Thanks for the compliments (and I knew Eric would bring in those comparisons).

And Eric, is Lincecum a Super Two candidate?

If the 2006 Draft was held today:
1. Tim Lincecum
2. Evan Longoria
3. Clayton Kershaw

[fanerman]

Whatever to what ifs.

[jpg]

BH - great stuff, well written, and I'm sure if we hadn't traded him then we'd still have traded him later.

Lincecum without a doubt for me. Prescott Chris gives all the reasons. Luckily for us even though we didn't pick Lincecum we did get Kershaw. The real losers are the teams that didn't pick Lincecum and ended up with
Greg Reynolds, Brad Lincoln, Andrew Miller, Stubbs, and Bill Rowell.

[fanerman]

"Lincecum without a doubt for me. Prescott Chris gives all the reasons. Luckily for us even though we didn't pick Lincecum we did get Kershaw. "

Exactly.

[regfairfield]

Andrew Miller is example one in why you should almost never hand out major league contracts to draftees. If he could go down and work on his control, he'd probably be a damn good pitcher, but he's already out of options and he's going to have to figure it out on the big league level.

How quickly Maybin and Miller started burning options is going to be a huge factor in the Miguel Cabrera trade.

[bhsportsguy]

reg, what about Andrew Brackman (though, he'll probably get that 4th year since he was hurt one year).

[Dodgers49]

04:50 PM This was an outstanding write-up and I look forward to seeing it plagiarized at NBC.com.

ROTFL

[Jon Weisman]

Did our JPG really get banned from his sister site Athletics Nation last night?

[jpg]

Good to see Eric Enders back.

[jpg]

BH - I'd take Longoria over Lincecum, especially when you take into account how generous he was in signing his contract and leaving millions upon millions on the floor.

[Eric Stephen]

Lincecum will be at 2.148 service time this offseason. Lowest super 2 this year was 2.129.

[jpg]

Jon - yes, they called me a troll, my feeling were hurt. I've yet to recover. I even used your name in vain.

[jpg]

Eric - could you define super two for those of us who haven't spent our mis-spent youth reading the CBA?

[CanuckDodger]

I don't have a problem with people saying they would rather have Lincecum now than Kershaw, but I just learned something a few days ago that is interesting: Going into the draft in 2006, Kershaw was higher than Lincecum on the Giants' draft board in their war room. Had both Kershaw and Lincecum been available when the Giants picked at #10 overall, the Giants would have taken Kershaw.

[bhsportsguy]

JPG - I'll give a shot with the help of the MLBPA FAQ.

Normally players do not become eligible for arbitration until they 3 years of major league service time.

But a player can be classified as a "Super Two" and be eligible for arbitration with less than three years of service if he has accumulated at least 86 days of service during the immediately preceding season and he ranks in the top 17 percent in total service in the class of Players who have at least two but less than three years of Major League service, however accumulated, but with at least 86 days of service accumulated during the immediately preceding season.

As Eric said above, the cutoff last year was 129 days so as long as Lincecum doesn't get optioned for more than 3 weeks or so this year, he'll probably be aiming for one the higher Super Two contracts in history.

[Phenomenal Smith]

Dave O'Brien and Rick Sutcliffe are discussing the Raul Ibanez vs. "a blogger" controversy.

It's not going well.

[fanerman]

I read the "Ibanez blog post" and I didn't read anything very... offensive.

[louisinsf]

Nice piece BH and tend to agree with BH and Jon's analysis. The one big factor in my mind going against Jackson with the Dodgers in 2006, was the desire by Dodger management in my mind to try and find the a veteran pitcher and where not willing to risk a full year on Jackson in the starting rotation. By going to Tampa Bay he got the chance.

I hope this year with the Dodgers beginning to extend their lead they take advantage in the second half this year and try and develop MacDonald a the major league level. Tampa could risk it in 07 and 08, hopefully we can do that this year.

[bhsportsguy]

Canuck, I looked back at Baseball America's 2006 draft coverage a while ago and while they had Lincecum as their second most talented player (behind Miller, Kershaw was 6th), the highest they had him in their mock drafts was 12th.

[Craig88USC]

Tulo with an early 3 run shot -

Tracys 3
Tampa 0

[regfairfield]

I remember it being the consensus that Kershaw was better than Lincecum going into the draft.

It was also the consensus that Andrew Miller was the number one pick.

[Jon Weisman]

Don't mean to curtail discussion on this post at all, but there is a new post up top. Please feel free to continue this conversation there!

[El Lay Dave]

Good writeup bhsportsguy; I enjoyed it.

[Rob McMillin]

I can’t see Jackson in a starting role like he had in Tampa Bay during the 2007 season. (And his stats in 2007 are beyond eye-opening: for example, 283 baserunners in 161 innings).

http://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/LAD/2007.shtml

The Dodgers gave 15 starts to Mark "Lurch" Hendrickson, who had a 88 ERA+ in the much softer NL West. The Dodgers gave 15 starts to Brett "Bombko" Tomko, who had a 79 ERA+.

Please, let's try to use some facts here. Jackson would have been cheaper than either of these alternatives and had the advantages of youth and upside.

[kensai]

Who does Ned Colletti get forced by to deal him?

[SaMo]

Rob McMillin:

Please refer to Mark "Lurch" Hendrickson by his preferred given name of Timberr!