Valuing Lastings Milledge: A "60-30-10" Analysis

Like him or not, you knew pretty much what you were getting with Nyjer Morgan. The exact opposite is true with Lastings Milledge, who could fall anywhere within an unusually wide range of outcomes.

To use the term from my Chien-Ming Wang article, Milledge provided a lot of "optics" that could allow both Pittsburgh and Washington to see, or fail to see, things in him.

For situations of this sort, I like to use what I call a 60-30-10 analysis (whose percentages add up to 100). "Sixty" means more likely than not. "Thirty" means quite possible, but less than 50-50. "Ten" means possible, but also a long shot.

Milledge was preferred by the Pirates because he had a higher ceiling than Morgan. But that's only half of the equation. The other half is: How likely is someone to reach the ceiling he's got?

There was a time when Chris Duffy was believed to have a higher ceiling than Nate McLouth. The latter was characterized by (then) general manager Dave Littlefield as somewhere between a fourth and fifth outfielder. We all found out differently last year.

I see a 60 percent chance that Milledge will end up as a mediocre player (think today's Brandon Moss) or worse. That could even include a bust, although the possibility is remote enough to be ignored for now.

But attrition statistics are ferocious in professional baseball (or top—level anything).

Some 60 percent of first round draft picks (the elite of the amateurs) do not make it to the majors. At a higher level, it means that 60 percent of people don't live up to their perceived "potential," even though it's now clear that Milledge will at least make it to the majors.

That leaves a 40 percent chance that Milledge will be a "star." Of these chances, my guess is that there might be a one in four (10 percent in total) chance that Milledge will be another Jason Bay—an elite player and a reasonably good citizen to boot.

The remaining chances, perhaps 30 percent in total, could be that Milledge is a "star" player, but is more like Manny Ramirez than Jason Bay. That's certainly the feeling in New York City, my new "baseball" home.

And apparently Washington felt the same way.

So even if Lastings Milledge is a star, he might give the Pirates fits the way that Oliver Perez did.

And Perez—to use that model—is an on again, off again "star," as the Pirates knew, and the Mets are finding out. He is not a more valuable player than Morgan would be (except in Perez's "best" years, like 2004 and 2007).

And let's not forget what we gave up. Nyjer Morgan is a very good batter, with both a good batting average and on base percentage. He's basically Jason Bay without the power, and a better fielder and base runner.

According to FanGraphs, Morgan is producing at an annualized rate of five games over replacement value.

In his best year, a Jason Bay might be six games over replacement, which represents a practical ceiling for Milledge. In fact, Bay is actually running slightly behind Morgan so far this year.

There's even a chance that Morgan will develop power, will get that sixth game over replacement level. It's easier for people who are good at keeping their eye on the ball to learn to hit home runs—as Jason Giambi demonstrated—than for sluggers to learn plate discipline. (Speaking of which, Giambi's peak value was eight games over replacement, but that might need an asterisk.)

Milledge might end up being a better player than Morgan.

But that's not a chance I wanted the Pirates to take, given that Milledge's potential isn't all that much more than Morgan's, and Milledge is starting out way behind.

And even if Milledge becomes a star, it could be that Morgan improves enough to come out ahead, making the trade a bad one, as a standalone. Oddly enough, Burnett for Hanrahan might provide compensation, as discussed in a previous piece.