Rockies Like Marquis?

And apparently he's narcoleptic as well. Who knew?

Ken Rosenthal and others are talking about a Jason Marquis-Luis Vizcaino trade. In Rosenthal's report, he says:

The Rockies have a surplus of right-handed relievers and they long have had interest in Marquis, a sinker-baller who is 3-0 with a 2.51 career ERA at Coors Field. The team also had pursued free-agent right-hander Tim Redding, who is looking for a two-year contract.

I won't get into a detailed discussion on this because it boils down to a bad starting pitcher being traded for an erratic reliever, both of whom are being paid much more than they are worth. However, I have some nagging questions about this. One, are the Rockies really going to trade for Marquis based on 5 games and 28.1 IP in Coors Field when the rest of his body of work at more pitcher-friendly ballparks (Shea Stadium- 4.80 ERA in 8 starts, for instance; but anywhere other than Coors is more pitcher-friendly -- career ERA of 4.55 and FIP of 4.94 , it had to shoot up somehow) shows he's a bad pitcher, especially considering the price tag? Two, for Marquis' reputation as a sinker-baller, his career 1.50 GB/FB isn't that impressive. Lowe (3.32) and Webb (3.57) are more indicative of being groundball pitchers (granted, they are the best, but it would take something north of 2 to probably make any sort of real difference when considering Coors). 1.50 is nice, but I'm not sure it's going to make much of a difference at Coors for a season. Webb or Lowe might be able to overcome Coors, but not Marquis. This would be a clear win for the Cubs, moving salary and getting a decent reliever. Okay, maybe not clear, but I really don't see the upside for Colorado. Not that Tim Redding is better, but at least, he's cheaper.

And yes, I realize this may not happen, and for my opinion of the Colorado front office, I hope they don't do it.

Jim Rice vs. Dale Murphy

I'm probably late on this discussion, but I'm glad I've been educated and hope I've educated some others.

While reading Rob Neyer's chat today (I love reading his, KLaw's, and Callis' chats), he made an interesting comment on the Jim Rice debate by bringing in Dale Murphy.

Another thing that's really helped Rice is the attachment of the word "feared" to his name. Unfortunately, nobody's able to come up with one word for Dale Muprhy. Here are four, though: "Better than Jim Rice."

I really haven't looked too much at Jim Rice, and I'm not qualified to judge his Hall of Fame candidacy (I really need to spend some time combing through Hall stats and such). But it is an interesting question. These are two similar players in that you repeatedly hear, "He was a good power-hitter for a number of years. He didn't walk much, but he was a great hitter nonetheless." Yet, Jim Rice is excused and Dale Murphy is criticized and not seemingly welcome in the Hall discussion. Let's take a look at the two (all of these are career numbers):

Years played --> Murphy 1978-1991; Jim Rice 1975-1989
I use the full seasons here for really no reason other than being fair. Regardless of whether it's fair or not, it establishes that they played at the same time and can't have any "different era" questions. I'm just making sure of this before we start, not that I don't think you know this already. Everything else has the entire career numbers.

Batting average --> Murphy .265; Rice .298
Rice wins by a healthy margin here. A career .300 hitter is pretty impressive.

On-base percentage --> Murphy .346; Rice .352
Rice wins again, but I think we can call this a draw. However, the difference between BA and OBP for the two shows Murphy was much better at drawing walks. Why is it that people say he was a hacker?

Slugging percentage --> Murphy .469; Rice .502
Rice healthily wins again. He seems to have hit the ball harder than Murphy. I doubt Fulton County was a harder place to hit than Fenway.

On-base plus slugging --> Murphy .815; Rice .854
Rice wins again, but I think you could have figured that one out. I just figured I would mention it.

OPS+ --> Murphy 121; Rice 128
More support for Rice, but he didn't win by a whole lot.

Doubles --> Murphy 350; Rice 373
Rice hit more and in fewer seasons.

Home runs --> Murphy 398; Rice 382
Murphy actually won one, but Rice did it in fewer seasons. I guess this one is a bit of a draw and may still favor Rice.

Stolen bases --> Murphy 161; Rice 58
Murphy tripled Rice in this category, and before people ask about caught stealing, Murphy had 68 while Rice had 34. Murphy was a better base stealer and did it more often.

Runs --> Murphy 1197; Rice 1249
Rice wins again and in fewer seasons.

Runs batted in --> Murphy 1266; Rice 1451
Ditto from above but more exaggerated.

All-Star appearances --> Murphy 7; Rice 8
Rice still winning.

MVP awards --> Murphy 2; Rice 1
Murphy wins one.

Gold Gloves --> Murphy 5; Rice 0
Ouch. And here's one of the big points against Rice -- his defense. He never seems to have been a good defensive player. Murphy, however, was a good defensive player and won quite a few Gold Gloves. We can argue about the validity of those Gold Gloves, but I think it ends up representing how good you are in the end. In this case, Murphy was significantly better. Now, how much do we value this defense? Is it just another category like home runs and runs and doubles? I think it warrants more value than that. Rice was only a positive influence on one side, whereas Murphy was on both sides. This may be (although I don't know for sure) the key to Neyer's argument. Without it, Rice and Murphy are similar offensive players with Rice being a bit better.

Silver Sluggers --> Murphy 4; Rice 2
Murphy wins, although I'm not really sure what this means.

Home Run Crowns --> Murphy 2; Rice 3
This is about even. Rice may have been more feared, but Murphy did his damage as well.

RBI Crowns --> Murphy 2; Rice 2
Ditto from above.

An interesting note: as similar as the two are in numbers, they aren't a similar batter in Baseball-Reference and only share Duke Snider and Ellis Burks.

So who's better? Offensively, Rice is a little better considering he produced his stats in fewer seasons, but honestly, they are eerily similar. Defensively, however, there seems to be no contest. Murphy seems to have been a much better defender than Rice, and that should count for something. Again, I'm not qualified to judge either's candidacy, but if Rice gets in, I think Murphy should be coming in right behind him, if not before. If only because we've become more educated on the value of good defense, even if we can't quantify it.

Nice call again, Mr. Neyer (can I call you that?).

Marlins Want Turnbow?

Raise your hand if you're still getting interest because of one good season. At least, he's honest.

A low-key pick-up that won't cost the Marlins a lot of money doesn't really sound all that out of the ordinary. Getting Derrick Turnbow isn't all that weird of a transaction (they haven't gotten him yet but are considering him), although his recent production (or lack thereof) make it a bit weird that they would go for him. He still throws hard and has experience, and he is the possible back-up in case Matt Lindstrom falters. What I'm curious about is why they would choose him over Joe Nelson.

In 2005, Turnbow was amazing. He had a 1.74 ERA in 67.1 IP with 39 saves in 43 chances and seemed to be on the verge of becoming on of those hot, young closers we like so much. His K/9 was 8.85, and his BB/9 was even a respectable 3.21. Even then, some warning flags should have popped up. His FIP was 3.20 (1.50 over his ERA), his walk rate was pretty low for a guy who had shown himself to be quite wild (this could have been just Turnbow getting better but now we know better), and his BABIP was .259. Since, his K/9 went up over 11, but his BB/9 went over 6. In 2008, he had a rotator cuff injury that limited him to 6 games, but he didn't need injury. So, the Marlins are possibly going to trust a guy with shoulder injuries and a wild tendency to be a cog in their bullpen. Considering he has received quite a bit of attention, he'll likely get a major-league deal (and has received one from the Giants).

Instead, the Marlins could have kept Joe Nelson, who had 2.00 ERA in 54 IP with a K/9 of 10 and a BB/9 of 3.67. The previous season, Nelson had a 4.40 ERA with an 8.87 K/9 and 4.43 BB/9. His talent level is probably closer to the latter considering his FIP's of 4.31 and 3.45, but that's still as good as Turnbow's without the immediate injury scare.

So why are the Marlins choosing Turnbow when they could have just re-signed Nelson? Don't say age (Turnbow is 31; Nelson is 34) because a one-year contract for a reliever isn't an age risk and three years isn't that much of a difference. The difference, in the end, may just be about money. Nelson was able to receive $1.3M from the Rays, and it is likely he would have received about that much in arbitration. Turnbow probably won't top a million and will probably get about $800K. Is 500K that much of a difference that you would seemingly sacrifice so much? Granted, they are just relievers, and I have said repeatedly that relievers are volatile. But Nelson seems a much better bet talent-wise and injury-wise, doesn't he? If they give Turnbow more than Nelson got, I'll have some more serious questions.

I Was Right ... Sort Of

Baseball owners = Terrorists. Nice.

There's no proof of course, but other people are starting to think collusion is happening.:

“There are a lot of rumblings that all the teams know exactly what everyone is doing with free agents,” one prominent agent said ...

But agents acknowledge that the clubs have a ready-made excuse, or cover, for not acting as they have in previous years: the economy.

“There’s continuing pressure for teams to cut their budgets,” an agent said. “Teams that intended to be aggressive had to cut back because budgets have been lowered.”

I said it about a month ago, partly in jest partly not. I doubt that baseball GM's are really colluding at all. The economy has caused them to react/overreact and be more careful when spending their money. This is more how they probably should spend their money. As a result, free-agents aren't getting the money they used to get. As for all the rumors, A) not every team is floating rumors (don't you need all or most for collusion?); B) there are always rumors; C) there are a lot of rumors, mostly conflicting. I'm not convinced, but I'd like to say,"I told you so." And when I'm wrong, someone please throw that back in my face.

Penny to Boston

First, it was David Wells. Then, it was Bartolo Colon. Now, it's Brad Penny. Theme?

After the Yankees threw millions at their rotation, the Red Sox only threw a Penny at theirs. Okay, that was bad, but you know I can't resist cheesy puns. Anyway, I said a few months ago that someone should take a gamble on Penny, and it appears as though the Red Sox are. A few quick thoughts:

1) If Penny (only 31 next season) comes back and pitches somewhat near his pre-2008 performance, he could be a mid-3 ERA pitcher. His FIP's the previous five seasons consistently sat in the 3.59-3.92 range. Adding him to Matsuzaka, Beckett, and Lester would make a devastating rotation. Without him, that's still a really good rotation.

2) Does this mean the Red Sox are going to trade one of the young pitchers (like I said to earlier)? Because otherwise, they're just being selfish.

3) Seriously, is this an indication another deal is in the works, but they just needed Penny to make sure they could take the gamble? Then again, Penny in himself is a gamble. Hmmm ...

4) Who is the best injury-proned pitcher next season -- Sheets, Penny, or Burnett?

Quick Note on Poll

The poll to the right. Yeah, over there (---->).

In the Detroit Lions question, I should have added "in a row". 16 losses in a season would be pretty awesome in baseball. If it wasn't clear, I am sorry about that. I did it after writing the post on the Lions, and I had it in my head what I meant. Regardless, answer the poll as if it said "in a row" instead of it not saying that.

Oh, and the Lions lost. :)

Why Hasn't This Happened Yet?

Just do it. -Nike

Sometimes, doing something that makes so much sense doesn't get done. What is the instance of this this off-season? A trade between the Red Sox and Rangers, swapping pitching for catching.


It makes so much sense in baseball terms.

The Red Sox need a catcher, preferably a young one to plug in with all the young players in the lineup or soon to come. Jason Varitek is gone, and the Red Sox seem to be holding out as long as they can, unknown is whether this is trying to find an alternate solution or just trying to get Varitek's salary demands to come down (maybe even a bit of both). Even if they want both, getting a good, young catcher would give the Red Sox more leverage in discussions with Varitek.

The Rangers always need pitching. Sure, their system is glutted with a bunch of pitching prospects, but you can always use more, especially of ace-quality. Kevin Millwood and Vicente Padilla will be gone next season, and adding one of Boston's quality pitching prospects gives the Rangers more options.


It makes organizational sense.

The Red Sox have one of the most plentiful farm systems in baseball, and pitching is a big reason why. Clay Buchholz, Michael Bowden, Casey Kelly, Nick Hagadone, Daniel Bard, Stolmy Pimentel, and newly-acquired Junichi Tazawa are all very solid to excellent pitching prospects. They could afford to give one or two up in exchange for a young catcher, something they do not have in their system. The big issue is that the Red Sox don't want to give up the one with the highest potential -- Clay Buchholz --, who could be an ace one day. That's the one the Rangers want, understandably.

The Rangers also have one of the best farm systems in baseball, and catching is their major surplus with Max Ramirez, Taylor Teagarden, and Jarrod Saltalamacchia all ready for a major-league job. Trading one leaves two for the Rangers to platoon or leave one in AAA for more experience. Teams always like young pitching, and considering the Rangers had the worst ERA in baseball last season, they need pitching badly. The big issue is that they want value in return for either Jarrod Saltalamacchia and Taylor Teagarden, who have the most upside. One of those is who the Red Sox want. Saltalamacchia seems to be the one of particular interest, but I think a straight-up trade of Teagarden for Buchholz makes too much sense not to get done.


It makes financial sense.

Both are young players who have at least five years of control left (I actually think both have six left, but I'm trying to be cautious).


It makes talent sense.

Clay Buchholz is an ace-quality pitcher. He has the tools to be the next great pitcher, and has even shown it by throwing a no-hitter. He, however, had some issues last season and regressed due to losing command of his fastball and a subsequent lack of confidence. This off-season, he pitched well in Fall Ball and should be ready to resume his major league career next season.

Taylor Teagarden is an amazing, young catcher. Those are arguably as hard to find as young aces. He can hit and play defense. How many of those do you find? Not many. Last season, he had an incredible final month that really put him on the map with an OPS over 1.000. He, however, cannot be counted on to repeat that for an entire season, but it shows that he is capable of really hitting at the major-league level.


So why isn't this done yet?

First, teams don't like to trade high-end prospects straight up. You spend all the time, energy, and money into developing a sure-fire major leaguer, and you don't want someone else realizing the benefits. Prospects are prospects, and you don't want to be caught on the wrong side, where the prospect you receive fails and the one you gave up succeeds.

Second, it's a battle of wills. My guess is that both teams would like to make this trade, Buchholz for Teagarden. As I said, it makes a lot of sense. Each team, however, wants to "win" this trade. Why give up Buchholz if you can get Teagarden for Bowden (a little less talent than Buchholz)? Why give up Teagarden if you can get Buchholz for Saltalamacchia (more undeveloped than Teagarden but may have more upside)? So, the teams are stuck trying a Bowden for Saltalamacchia deal. The problem is those are not the players the other teams want. So, they're trying to make the other bend first.

Finally, there's still time. Pitchers and catchers don't report for about 6-8 weeks. That's plenty of time to make this deal. Who will come to the table with that Teagarden for Buchholz deal, and will the other team agree, knowing it really is a fair and needed trade?

Thank You Captain Obvious

"Yeah! We sucked, and I got injured again!"

Jeremy Bonderman said, and I quote:

On what he thought went wrong in 2008 for the Tigers:

We just didn't play well, ever, really as a team. Individuals played well at times, but I don't think anybody played great. It's just one of those things, you look back and it's kind of shocking as a player that we had the finish that we did. There's a lot of things that could of changed, we didn't pitch well, we didn't play great defense, we didn't hit well early in the year. There's just so many things we didn't do well. We've just got to step back and figure out how to fix it.

"There's just so many things we didn't do well."? What did you do right? Magglio Ordoñez, Miguel Cabrera, Placido Polanco, Curtis Granderson, and Edgar Renteria were the only hitters that did fairly well (you can include Pudge for while he was there, and Renteria and Rodriguez weren't great), and Armando Galarraga and Aquilino Lopez were the only pitchers who did well. Then, add on their terrible defense. Did they run the bases okay?

Oh Good God

AAAHHHH!!!!

If you're a Dodgers fan in LA, run. Jeanne Zelasko is trying to get the play-by-play spot for the Dodgers. Now, she's a perfectly fine reporter (having worked in baseball, football, NASCAR), but is she really ready to sit down and take on the analysis of one sport? It's one thing to be spoon-fed a script on a teleprompter during a pre-game show, but it's an entirely different situation having to analyze off the cuff. And honestly, she wasn't that interesting during the pre-game shows.

The article mentions that her being a woman is a hinderance. I have no doubt that it is, but sometimes I wonder how much it really has to do with her simply being a woman. I have no problem with a woman analyst for baseball, but I have a problem with a woman analyst (I realize the name of the job is "play-by-play", but she's still going to have to make some sort of educated statement on what just happened -- by the way, is play-by-play just for radio or does it include television as well?) who doesn't know what she's talking about, the same as I have a problem when half the guys on ESPN open their mouths. I think that's what networks worry about as well, and knowing men that have played baseball, they choose them first. Granted, this does not mean that a woman doesn't understand the sport (I know some who do), and it does indicate that a woman has a harder time getting a job in the industry. But I still wonder how much a woman not getting a job such as this is due to sexism versus a practical desire for baseball knowledge and men being the obvious choice due to the fact that the sport is simply played by men. Then again, if we never give a woman the opportunity, the problem is never solved, is it? Are we being too sensitive or not sensitive enough? I guess it depends on the situation, and we probably won't know unless we get inside the head of whoever hires the play-by-play people.

Regardless, Zelasko is just a bad idea.

Reds Re-Sign Corey Patterson

He was Rookie of the Year that one time, right?

Oops, sorry. It was actually Willy Taveras.

Handicapping the AL East

In case you were wondering, the guy freaked out is Hank.

The Yankees just spent close to a half billion dollars on three different, talented people. There have been several reactions to this (besides the outrage of having spent so much money that the Yankees will continue to subsidize all the other teams). One, the inevitable "the Yankees are the team to beat and eventual World Series Champions" reaction, which is just silly considering the past seven years. Two, Red Sox and Rays fans have had the "we were the teams in the playoffs and should be the favorites until dethroned", which is just ridiculous (seriously, why are the reigning teams supposedly the teams "to beat" even if the other teams have improved and are better on paper. The situation has changed, but the other team is the team to beat based on last year's results?). Three, there is the "they have improved but still aren't as good as the Rays or Red Sox" reaction, which could be perfectly reasonable but terribly wrong. So let's take a look.

The Starting Rotations:

Yankees
CC Sabathia 17-10, 2.70 ERA
AJ Burnett 18-10, 4.07 ERA
Chien-Ming Wang 19-7, 3.70 ERA (2007)
Joba Chamberlain 3-1, 2.76 ERA (as starter)
Phil Hughes 0-4, 6.62 ERA

Red Sox
Daisuke Matsuzaka 18-3, 2.90 ERA
Jon Lester 16-6, 3.21 ERA
Josh Beckett 12-10, 4.03 ERA
Tim Wakefield 10-11, 4.13 ERA
Clay Buchholz 2-9, 6.75 ERA

Rays
Scott Kazmir 12-8, 3.49 ERA
James Shields 14-8, 3.56 ERA
Matt Garza 11-9, 3.70 ERA
Andy Sonnanstine 13-9, 4.38 ERA
David Price ???

Okay, so who do you pick? The Yankees have the most upside. The Red Sox are the most dependable. The Rays are the younger, cheaper bunch with the most depth. Each has their advantage. The Yankees, however, still do not have the overall advantage, especially considering that 3 of their starters have injury issues. The Yankees and Red Sox could still add another pitcher, which would give them improved depth and take away their unknowns in Hughes and Buchholz, respectively. That would make them better on paper than the Rays, who don't have a true ace but three possible ones, who cannot add another starter and must go with an unknown in Price, Jeff Niemann, Chris Talbot, or Wade Davis, but the Rays have the depth to sustain a few injuries, whereas the others may not have the major-league ready pitchers just yet. The Yankees aren't better here, but at least, they brought themselves up to the others after being much worse last season.

The Bullpens:

Yankees
Mariano Rivera 1.40 ERA, 38/39 SV
Damaso Marte 4.02 ERA
Edwar Ramirez 3.90 ERA

Red Sox
Jonathan Papelbon 2.34 ERA, 41/46 SV
Hideki Okajima 2.61 ERA
Justin Masterson 2.36 ERA (as reliever)

Rays
Troy Percival 4.53 ERA, 28/32 SV
JP Howell 2.22 ERA
Grant Balfour 1.54 ERA

Forgive me for only going three deep, but I don't really trust relievers to repeat year-to-year. I used the closers and set-up men thinking the others would probably end up roughly similar (can I qualify anymore in five words?). Looking here, the Red Sox have the clear advantage. Rivera is the best closer of the group, but they don't have the dependability and talent outside of him that the Red Sox have outside of Papelbon (Papelbon not being too shabby himself). Adding on a Brian Fuentes could help the Yankees get to even. The Rays are a bit further back because their closer is not dependable (at least relatively), but they climb back with the better depth (the Red Sox are about even in this regard). The Yankees aren't better here, either, and they're worse than their rival.

The Lineups:

Yankees
Derek Jeter .300/.363/.408
Robinson Cano .271/.305/.410
Mark Teixeira .308/.410/.552
Alex Rodriguez .302/.392/.573
Xavier Nady .305/.357/.510
Hideki Matsui .294/.370/.424
Jorge Posada .268/.364/.411
Johnny Damon .303/.375/.461
Melky Cabrera .249/.301/.341
Nick Swisher .219/.332/.410

Red Sox
Jacoby Ellsbury .280/.336/.394
Dustin Pedroia .326/.376/.493
Kevin Youkilis .312/.390/.569
David Ortiz .264/.369/.507
Jason Bay .286/.373/.522
JD Drew .280/.408/.519
Mike Lowell .274/.338/.461
Jed Lowrie .258/.339/.400
TBD-Catcher

Rays
Akinori Iwamura .274/.349/.380
BJ Upton .273/.383/.401
Carlos Peña .247/.377/.494
Evan Longoria .272/.343/.531
Carl Crawford .273/.319/.400
Willy Aybar .253/.327/.410
Matt Joyce .252/.339/.492
Dioner Navarro .295/.349/.407
Jason Bartlett .286/.329/.361

Immediately, we can pretty much throw out the Rays offensively, but if they add a Dunn or Burrell, this conversation gets a little more interesting but not enough. The Yankees and Red Sox are built very similarly. Both get on base and slug. However, I'll give the ever-so-slight edge to the Yankees. It's always better to have your 3-4-5 hitters in their primes, and we simply don't know who will catch for the Red Sox (if it ends up being Taylor Teagarden, we might have to revisit this). The addition of Teixeira, in my opinion, gives the Yankees an edge here.

The Defenses:

I could look through the defensive numbers, but I believe we can all agree that the Rays have far-and-away the best defense among the three teams. The infield is really good, catcher is nailed down by a guy they can trust to be there, and the outfield (with the addition of Joyce) is now better than it was last season. The Yankees have the holes at short, second, center, left, and possibly catcher. The Red Sox have holes possibly at catcher and whenever Lowell and Drew need to take a day off, but the Red Sox are in better shape defensively than the Yankees.



Overall, this is a hard decision, but one thing's certain, the Yankees are not necessarily the team to beat next season. They have a good rotation, but it's not clearly better than the Rays' or Red Sox's (that construction seems weird). Their bullpen is thin on names, but having Rivera always makes them close to everyone else. Their offense is probably the best of the group, but a bounce-back year from Big Papi could change my mind about that. Their defense, however, is probably still a major weakness (I say possibly because Swisher in left instead of Damon/Matsui would be a major upgrade and there's the chance that Cano and Jeter could be better next season). What the Yankees have done is get themselves back up to the other two, and maybe a bit past. One thing to remember is the Yankees' age. Matsui, Jeter, Damon, and Posada are all declining. For the Red Sox, Ortiz, Lowell, and Drew are declining. For the Rays, no one really fits that bill. Who will win out? I guess we'll have to watch because it seems as though there are three really good (90+ wins) teams in the AL East next season.

The Biggest Loser

I have no idea why, but this picture of Mischa Barton was the first point that appeared on Google Images when I typed in "low point".

Like Joe Posnanski, I am enthralled by the Detroit Lions this season. They are pretty amazingly bad, and if you want to know how hard it is to be that bad, just read his post (the man could talk about the proper way to hold silverware, and I'd be interested -- still, it's good that he talks about more interesting things). While reading his post, I tried to put it in the context of baseball, but it's really hard to do. First, a 0-162 game season is pretty much impossible (impossible because you could take a Rookie Ball team and put them against major-league competition, but even then, a pitcher has to have a good day, right?). Second, 0-16 is possible, but is that as bad as 0-16 in football? Probably not. It might be really frustrating, but 0-16 in football lasts 17 weeks not 2 and a half weeks. Some interesting tidbits:

The longest losing streak in MLB history? 24 games by the Cleveland Spiders in 1899

Since 1950? The Philadelphia Phillies lost 23 in a row in 1961

My birth year? 21 straight by the Baltimore Orioles in 1988

Last decade? The Royals lost 19 straight in 2005

2008? The Royals (sorry Ron) who lost 12 straight from May 19th through May 30th

Those are all really impressive, but I don't think any of them match the futility of the Lions. You just expect them to lose every time out. Think about it. How many games are we sure that an MLB team is going to lose? Jon Garland could pitch against CC Sabathia, and I could believe that Garland could win. Now, look at the Lions. I can say with 100% certainty that they are going to lose (if anyone can think up a good bet before the game, I'll consider it) on Sunday. It isn't even a doubt. I know they are going to lose. I have no inside information, no true special knowledge about football, no psychic connection, and no money covertly placed in Rod Marinelli's pocket that tells me the Lions will lose for sure. I, however, have this unflinching feeling in my gut that the Lions will lose on Sunday. To tell you how bad that is, I never feel this way. I sit the middle of the fence on a lot of things, mainly because I know that the world isn't black and white and that the grey area probably is the largest part (even now I use qualifying statements), but not this time. I have no doubts that the Detroit Lions will lose to ... (checking) ... the Green Bay Packers at Lambeau Field on Sunday. I didn't even know who they were playing, and I still know that they'll lose. They could play the Kansas City Chiefs, and I'd know the Lions would lose. That would never happen for a team in baseball, unless ...

Let's say that a baseball team lost for 17 straight weeks. Let's then say that a team plays approximately 6.5 games per week. That would equal 110.5 games (17 x 6.5). So in baseball, would it take 110 games to have the same certainty about a baseball team? Or would it not take that long? 20, then? 30? 50?

Just off the top of my head, I don't know if there's that bad of a team in baseball for next season. Hmmm ...

Nationals -> Maybe, but they still have some promising young players (Zimmerman, Dukes, Milledge, Flores, Lannan).

Pirates -> They won't have much of an offense, but a rotation of Duke, Snell, Maholm, and Gorzelanny isn't that bad.

Padres -> If they traded Peavy and Gonzalez ... but they still have Kouzmanoff, Headley, and Young.

Royals -> Nah. They aren't that bad even if they're GM is trying to make it that way.

Mariners -> Felix kind of ends that discussion, but then again, will they score any runs?

It's just really hard to be Detroit Lions bad. Will an adjective come out of this the way Benedict Arnold arrived after the Revolutionary War? What would you call it (I leave this up to you because I simply can't think of a good one -- an Orlovsky?, just to get you started)?

What do you think? How many games would it take to get to the center of the tootsie pop? How many games would it take for an MLB team to hit rock bottom like the Detroit Lions are inevitably going to do Sunday? I hope it's on because it will make history, and my day.

Randy Johnson a Giant

3 Cy Young Winners in the rotation. It's just too bad only one still pitches like one.

Pun!

Sorry but I couldn't pass that up. It appears that Sabean isn't done adding old people to his team, but at least this one makes some sense. Still, what is he going to do with that offense? Moises Alou, Garrett Anderson, and Jason Giambi should be expecting a few phone calls over the next week.

Andy Pettite

Or not. I'm starting to wonder if Atlanta shouldn't try to give him a 2-year deal.

After getting Tex, Sabathia, and Burnett this off-season, the Yankees have said enough. Well, not enough spending, but enough Andy Pettite. At this point, the Yankees have a rotation of CC Sabathia, AJ Burnett, CM Wang, Joba (I couldn't make a two-letter name -- actually, I couldn't decide between Jo, Ba, or Ob) Chamberlain, and Phil Hughes with stand-bys Ian Kennedy and Alfredo Aceves. That's not a bad rotation, but it is one with significant injury issues. Burnett can't be counted on, and you should add Jo, Ba, or Ob and Hughes into that mix. That leaves the Yankees with CC, CM, Kennedy, and Aceves. Do you want that? Granted, if those pitchers get hurt, the Yankees are probably in trouble anyway, and we aren't sure Pettite would help. Or would he?

A 14-14 record with a 4.54 ERA looks terrible, but is Pettite that bad. His previous ERA's were 4.20 and 4.08, so it could mean a natural regression. However, Pettite's 3.71 FIP shows he may not actually be that bad and actually be quite good. Sure, he could use a move to the NL, but he also could use a better defense. The Yankees have gotten better defensively by adding Xavier Nady and Mark Teixeira, and they can always hope Robins Cano's improved attitude (supposedly) will lead to better defense.

Pettite's peripherals still look pretty good. His K/9 of 6.97 is better than his career 6.60, and his BB/9 of 2.43 is also better than his career 2.78. They, however, are not dramatically better, which might indicate a temporary spike. His GB/FB of 1.80 is really close to his carer 1.73 (he's a groundball pitcher! You learn something new everyday. I could have sworn he was a flyball guy). Pettite's .339 BABIP was also a bit higher than his .316 career mark. Did they hit him harder? Well no, they actually had only 19.9% LD% compared to his career 21.4% mark. This all seems to mean that Pettite really just needs a better defense, and he'll be much better.

With that, Pettite becomes a better gamble. He could be a better pitcher (or at least his stats will look better) next season. The Yankees defense should be better, although they could use a better CF. Let's just say the Yankees are just bluffing because they have gotten away with it recently, so they just want Pettite's price tag to come down. However, they may not be bluffing knowing they've already spent a lot on pitching this off-season, so the Braves, Nationals, Phillies, Mets, Cardinals, Astros, Brewers, Giants, and Dodgers should take a look. If the price or medical information is the reason the Yankees don't want him, then by all means, don't pick him up, but if his talent is the reason, then they might be making a really bad decision. The man logs 200+ IP a lot.

Merry Christmas

If she were under my tree ...

Merry Christmas to everyone (or Happy Holidays for those who are PC). I have a lot to be thankful for and meeting new people like Craig, Jason, and Ron have made this past baseball season fun and interesting. I started this blog and commenting on others because I have found that none of my friends really like baseball, and here and on their sites, I can talk with some smart baseball people constantly about what's going on in Baseball Land. I hope everyone has a safe, fun, and food-filled Christmas, and I'll be back to posting probably Saturday or Sunday (maybe Friday). But for now, here is the wish list of the 30 teams.

Yankees -> Healthy years from the big 3 they just bought. If that happens, this team is World Series-bound.

Red Sox -> Unhealthy years from the big 3 the Yankees just bought, mostly out of spite.

Rays -> A clean-up hitter for under $10M/year would be nice.

Blue Jays -> Career years from Holliday, Wells, and Rios and big starts from Snyder and Lind because without that, this team may finish fifth in a talented AL East.

Orioles -> Matt Wieters to be everything we've dreamed of and more.

White Sox -> A muzzle for Ozzie.

Twins -> Delmon Young to be everything we've dreamed of and more, and Garrett Atkins or Adrian Beltre would be nice, too. Oh, and if it's not too much trouble, a dome would help (gift certificates to Home Depot!).

Royals -> Some OBP.

Indians -> A repeat of the 2008 Cliff Lee and 2007 Fausto Carmona with a side dish of 2006 Travis Hafner and pre-2008 Victor Martinez.

Tigers -> Someone to please take Gary Sheffield, Dontrelle Willis, and Nate Robertson.

Angels -> Kendry Morales to be everything we've dreamed of and more because if he isn't, there are going to be some pissed off people in Los Angeles or Anaheim or wherever the hell they play.

A's -> Matt Holliday to hit like the dickens because if he doesn't, they're screwed.

Mariners -> The philosophic change to defense to work out because there isn't a whole lot of faith of having Endy Chavez's bat in the lineup everyday. A nice rebound from Carlos Silva, Erik Bedard, and Miguel Batista would be nice, too.

Rangers -> Pitching, pitching, pitching. Didn't Ryan say he wanted to focus on getting more pitching because it sure doesn't look that way?

Braves -> Someone of value to actually take and stick with a deal from them.

Marlins -> That young, talented rotation to live up to its potential. If they do, they are the team to beat in the East, but if they fail, they could lose 90.

Mets -> Derek Lowe to quickly sign and definitely make them the team to beat, probably in the whole NL.

Phillies -> Another World Series ring would be sweet.

Nationals -> 70 wins, please?

Cubs -> That one last push to win the World Series because after this season, a lot of those stars are going to be on the wrong side of their peaks.

Reds -> The young talent has to come through because they don't look enthusiastic about spending this off-season.

Cardinals -> They just thank god every day for Pujols. Without him, they suck.

Brewers -> Ben Sheets to come back, Jeff Suppan and Dave Bush to be acceptable, and Yovani Gallardo and Manny Parra to be exceptional. Brian Fuentes would be nice, too.

Astros -> Someone to take Carlos Lee and Miguel Tejada and to give up some good prospects so they can turn them around and trade them for garbage again.

Pirates -> One of the slugger's price tags to fall into their price range. Without another hitter, they have zero offense to go along with what could be a solid pitching staff.

Dodgers -> Manny to come crawling back and take a 2-year/$40M deal. With him, they can't lose the West. Without him, the NL West will have a sub-.500 winner next year.

Diamondbacks -> Extend Brandon Webb, hope Max Scherzer is the next Curt Schilling, and pray that Upton, Drew, Reynolds, Jackson, Snyder, and Young put it all together. If they can, they'll win 100. If they don't, they're on the wrong side of 80.

Padres -> Moores' wife to apologize and stop the divorce. Being more realistic, Peavy to have a great first half and watch the rest of the MLB squirm and give them 3 great prospects at the deadline.

Rockies -> Carlos Gonzalez becomes the next Grady Sizemore, and that rotation somehow holds up when Ben Sheets surprisingly comes to Colorado.

Giants -> One of the big hitters left on the market. With a Dunn or Burrell, they might be a favorite for the NL West. Without one, they're stuck on the wrong side of most of their 3-2 games.

Chris Snyder Gets Extension

No more need to sweat. You're rich!

The DBacks and Chris Snyder agreed on a contract that would cover his three arbitration years and possibly two of his free-agent years. He's not a particularly well-known guy. He plays in Arizona, and the young talent takes some of the attention away. Snyder, however, is a good player.

Last season, he hit .237/.348/.452, so he gets on base and hits the ball pretty hard. In 334 at-bats, he hit 16 HR and 22 2B. He walks 14% of the time, but the troubling thing might be that he struck out 30% of the time as well. His BABIP was .290, so last year was probably around what he'll do normally. A .240/.350/.460 line might be the best you'll get, but for a catcher, that's not bad. Supposedly, he's a good defensive catcher, so that adds on some value as well.

There are a few things, however, that give me pause about this move. First, the DBacks are trying to cut costs, or at least keep them down. Does it make sense to spend so much on a catcher (granted, he'll probably only make $2-3M this season -- I'm not questioning the money paid per se but that they're spending it with a good replacement available) when Miguel Montero waits in the wings? Wouldn't Snyder have more trade value? Second, he doesn't play that much. He has never played more than 115 games in a season. For a guy you're paying full-time, wouldn't you like to see him play 130-140 games? Third, Miguel Montero.

Last season, Montero hit .255/.330/.435, which makes him roughly as good as Snyder. Granted, he did it in half the at-bats, and he could very well have flat-lined afterward. However, he already had 16 2B and 5 HR. Montero is also much cheaper and two years younger. I don't know how good of a defensive catcher he is, but I'm guessing he's not horrible. One of the points of the article mentioned that the DBack pitchers like Snyder. How do you put value on that and do they hate Montero? If they like Montero but just like Snyder more, I think Snyder is pretty dispensable.

If the DBacks get a good, young starter for Montero, then this deal makes sense. But if they go into next season with both, I'm not so sure. They could also trade Snyder. Teams now know exactly what he'll be paid, so they might go ahead and make the deal knowing he could be their catcher for 5 seasons.

The Fallout: Manny Ramirez

He looks so svelte.

So, Mark Teixeira just signed a huge contract, and the biggest free-agent left is Manny Ramirez. The thing is most people believe there is no market for him. His reputation and age (mostly his age and poor defensive skills) are making people shy away from him, but is the market for him really that bad? I think this is a classic case of him over-pricing himself. He and Boras misread the market, and now, they'll have to backpedal a little. Few teams could even begin to afford that giant contract (Dodgers, Angels, Yankees, Mets, and Red Sox), but as his demands slide closer to $18M, more teams can get involved (Braves, Nationals, Orioles, Giants, Mariners). When his demands slide, the other teams will get involved, and the price will go back up. Granted, it won't reach the $25M, but it should at least get back to around $20M. Who makes sense for Ramirez?

Dodgers: They are still the most likely landing spot for Manny. It becomes more likely as the Mets get closer to signing Lowe. They still need a power-hitter in that lineup, and with the lost salaries of Lowe and Furcal, they have some money to spend. However, with other teams in the NL West seemingly scaling back (Rockies, Padres, DBacks), do they feel they need to spend to get Ramirez? Getting him makes them the favorite.

Angels: If they get him, they need to get rid of an outfielder. I don't think they're interested anymore, but adding him would give him their power-hitter. However, no other team in the AL West really looks like they'll give them a run this next season, so they should just throw the money at Lackey.

Yankees: I want to say they're out of it, but can you say that? Are you ready to say they're done spending? They have to many OF/DH guys now, and need to get rid of one (Nady or Swisher to Atlanta?) to make room for Teixeira. I don't think they'll get involved.

Red Sox: Ha ha ha ha ha. Or to be more in the spirit, ho ho ho ho ho.

Braves: Why do I see Wren making an overreaction move here? He makes sense for Atlanta. They need a LF. They need a power-hitter. They have the money. Hopefully, they trade for Nady before anything bad happens because I could really see this happening.

Mets: Minaya was reportedly told that he could not go for Manny. Good idea. They don't need offense and Lowe is a much better fit.

Nationals: Bowden really likes him, but are they still willing to spend on him? Now that the Tex thing is over, look for the Nationals to get involved on Manny. Getting him makes them the fourth-best team in the NL East ... maybe. I see this as a real chance.

Orioles: They have a glut of outfielders, but they could move Huff to first and put Manny at DH. It makes the Orioles the fourth-best team in the AL East. I'm not sure they'd do it, though, and they probably shouldn't.

Giants: They wanted to throw a lot of money at CC, but they didn't really need pitching. They still need a big bat, and they still have pitching. Getting him may make them the best team in the NL West. Not sure if they want to give him that much money to roam out in that big outfield, but they might think about it when the price comes down.

Mariners: This is more of a long-shot. They need to get rid of some salary, but they have an opening at DH. If they get him, they can make a run at the Angels. Probably not much of one, but they could make it closer. I think they're waiting in the weeds, but they'd have to get rid of an Ichiro or Beltre to make it possible.

As for Manny's threat to retire, he won't. He's proud, but he wants money, too. You don't make $20M sitting on your butt.

It Is Not Always About the Money

Please stop getting on the Yankees for spending money. There are so many better things to make fun of them for. Hank, Hank, well ... Hank.

Okay, I'm stealing a little from Jason here, but while writing a comment in his blog, it started getting incredibly long. I hope he doesn't mind because I just brought it back here.

As a Yankee fan, Jason receives his share of grief from people because his team has the highest salary cap. People believe that having the most money makes the sport unfair. The logic is that they can buy up all the talent in the world and win championships. Let's throw some logic in the lunacy.

First, the Yankees haven't won since ... ? I rest my case. Sure, they make the playoffs, but having the highest payrolls and the media makes a World Series a necessity. Every time they don't make it, it is a failure.

Second, money makes you stupid. It makes you feel like you can buy success. Well, you can't buy happiness, either. Having money makes free-agency more attractive. The problem with free-agents is obscured by the fact that they are well-known and proven commodities (well, some anyway). You forget that they are most often at least 31 or 32 and past their primes and have played their best years. You forget that the older you are the more likely you are to get hurt and the harder it is to recover. You forget that they don't add that many wins to a team (Tex, Sabathia, and Burnett probably added about 15 wins total, but you also have to account for the wins they lost with Mussina, Giambi, and Pettite). You forget about your farm system because heck, you can just buy your replacement (when the prospects don't come, it forces you to take on suspect replacements through free-agency). This is what happened to the Yankees (and I'll even throw the Braves in considering their mid-to-late '90's spending spree). At first, they built through their farm system (a long process but one that at least leads to a good foundation with good scouting and development), but then, they decided to really spend. They bought and bought and bought. Forget the Paul O'Neills. Add on Johnny Damon. Age, decline, and injuries made winning the World Series, and now getting into the playoffs, more difficult. Cashman has realized the error and has devoted more time and energy and, most importantly, money (okay, so it usually is about the money) to the farm system. Sure, they don't have a great one yet, but he didn't really start to build it until about three years ago. The Red Sox are a nice example of how to run things. They spend a lot, which is good to keep good players and buy free-agents when the appropriate ones come along, and they pour a lot of money into the farm system. We forget that free-agency is only 30 years old. You have to try a few things to get it right. Certain unforseen things happen (the skyrocketing salaries) and you have to adjust (pay more attention to the market). Long-term contracts seem like a good idea, but then they fail and long-term contracts become more infrequent. You have to learn. This is a complicated process, and 30 years is not enough to master it. Hell, we're still trying to figure out capitalism and that's how old?

Third, there's always a yin to the yang. When you try to do one thing, there's always a way around it. The Yankees figured out that using their money helped, and they did it. It led to success. Tampa can't do that. Instead, they build from within, pouring money into scouting, player development, the draft, etc. It takes (took) awhile, but look where they are. Not that it's that easy. Just throwing money at prospects doesn't work either (see -- NOT always about the money). You have to find the right players and the right coaches to help them. Then, it works.

Fourth, money makes you lazy. It makes the front office lazy. Why freak out about the draft when Teixeira's available? This guy (not Tex, but free-agent in general) has had these great stats, so let's not look at the injuries, age, or situation. It makes the player lazy. Why work hard if you just hit your big payday? What else do you have to work for? It's one of the negative aspects to guaranteed contracts. They know it's coming no matter what they do. The thing is, not having guaranteed contracts leads to the mystery of the NBA and NFL and people getting really upset.

Fifth, a salary cap is a bad idea (just read Jason's post -- do it now). Money does not equal wins (as proved above). If the Yankees want to spend $200M or $500M, let them. It doesn't guarantee them anything but a lot of risk on aging players with a lot of miles on them. Sure, now they have talent, but will it work out? There's risk everywhere. If you spend on free-agents, you risk tying up salary available on aging players. If you go through the draft, then you run the risk of not getting good players or having them break down anyway. If you follow the Red Sox model, you're risking both, but less than the other two in each category but it evens out. What happens when Pedroia gets hurt, Lowell declines, Drew can't make it through another season, Dice-K regresses, and Lester gets hurt from the huge jump in innings pitched? If a number of those things happen (don't believe they can -- look at the Braves rotation last year), the Red Sox will fail. A salary cap would just screw the Yankees and teams above the line as they would have to rapidly reduce their payroll, leaving them probably without good players or enough prospects. Adding in the floor would only make the Marlins spend a lot on guys they may not want or need. Just let the teams play. The Marlins will continue to win a World Series every five years. The Yankees will have their occasional dynasty. The Braves will have their once-a-century dynasty.

Money does not equal wins. It does not equal championships. Luck equals championships. Luckily guessing which (okay, we're not exactly guessing with sabermetrics, but even the most stats and the best people understanding and utilizing those stats will fail as well) players will succeed/not get injured is an inexact science. We don't like luck. It means people shouldn't receive credit. Sure, Epstein has made a lot of good decisions, but he got lucky, too. What happens if those prospects got hurt? It was possible. They did their homework and took down the luck from 100% to 80%, but I guarantee it's at least 80% luck. Does he deserve credit for building an outstanding team? Does Andrew Friedman? Sure. They made good decisions, but Lady Luck has done her fair share. Does Sabean deserve criticism? Does Dayton Moore? Sure. They've made some bad decisions, but Lady Luck could have smiled on them as well. Good luck figuring out which gets smiled on next year because I want to know who called the White Sox and Twins being 1 and 2 in the AL Central. I want to know who called the Rays making the World Series. Considering the number of predictions out there that were wrong, forget about the money. Let teams run their teams the way they want.

I told you that was long. See why I didn't post that on your comment wall, Jason? :) Even as long as this was, I probably didn't do it justice. This is way more complicated than money.

Okay, I'm really done now. What? You didn't expect me ramble?

One Year Does Not a Four Year Contract Make

Doesn't get the credit he deserves, even when we give him credit before he deserves it.

Joe Christensen is a smart guy. I like reading his articles, but I have to respectfully disagree slightly with this one. After another amazing season from Joe Nathan, he says the shiny new contract was a good investment. Not that I don't necessarily agree. I've probably talked about this before, but it's a bad idea to say a deal is good or bad until it's over. Joe Nathan is probably the best closer in the game, at least the top 2 or 3. But he could get hurt two (or one) seasons of the next three, and this deal could look terrible.

It's like the Johan deal (now I'm almost positive I've said this before). From a one year perspective, it looks like a great deal for the Mets. But he could get hurt, decline, or the prospects could all turn into stars (a la Bartolo Colon to the Expos). It's a matter of historical perspective (yay, my major counts for something). You can't judge it while it's occurring. You need to judge it later after its effects can be seen. But we want to judge now, and we need stories. So we judge now and eat our words later.

Was Jon Garland that Bad or Was He Never that Good?

This is why people pay him the big bucks. Don't do it Frank.

The Braves have obviously failed miserably while trying to add starting pitching this off-season, and so I tried to start thinking about whether any of the pitchers remaining were good enough to justify saying the team improved by getting them. My eye tended to go toward Jon Garland. I'm not sure why. The guy was absolutely terrible last year, but the Angels did trade an All-Star shortstop for him. And wasn't he the guy that led the White Sox to that World Series? Can he be really as bad as he was last season? Hmmm ...

First, he isn't that good. Besides his 2005 season where he had a 3.50 ERA, he hasn't had an ERA below 4.23 as a full-season starter, and even in 2005, his FIP was a robust 4.24. Why do we always hold out hope that a pitcher/player will come back to that great season instead of being what he usually is?

Second, he isn't a ground-ball pitcher. You know how everyone has always talked about how much of a ground-ball pitcher he is? He isn't. His career GB/FB rate is 1.29 which is pretty much the definition of average. Last season was actually his best ground-ball season, and he was terrible.

Third, he actually does not have great control. His career BB/9 is 2.95, which is pretty average. That is buffered by two great seasons in 2005 and 2006 where he had a 1.91 and 1.75 rates after a 3.15 and before a 2.46. Last season, he was back towards his career mark with a 2.70 rate. That's good, but it certainly doesn't balance out the fact that his K/9 rates usually fall in the mid 4 range (4.12 last season -- ouch).

Fourth, his defense isn't the problem. His FIP has never, never, been below 4.24 (2005) and has broken 5 only 5 times in 9 seasons.

He just isn't a good pitcher. Sure, we can talk about his durability (he is durable -- at least 190 IP in each of his full-season starting gigs), but it's like talking about Livan Hernandez. He's durable, but if his innings are so bad, is it really worth it? Still, someone (the Twins cringe) paid him a few million to give him a shot. He pitched the innings but was terrible. The same thing will probably happen with Garland. Here's a suggestion. Bring him in on a minor-league deal and put him in as the long-relief/mop-up guy. Then, his durability might count for something. By the time he gets in, the game's over anyway (one way or another).

Ta Daaa

He's back at it again.

As promised (see below), the Nationals upped their offer today to Teixeira. Did we really think someone wasn't going to come out and continue the bidding? We want the Teixeira signing to happen, but this continues to drag out because teams keep upping their offers. It's Boras at work. He's playing the teams' desires and needs off of them because he has the leverage. People really want Teixeira, and he's a great player. The Nationals, and probably the Orioles soon, want Teixeira to be their "franchise" player (a term I believe that is overrated and trite). Now, let's see if John Henry sticks to his guns or sends Theo out to make another bid.

A Little More on Teixeira

Maybe he'll end up back with the Braves.

Buster Olney makes a run through the Mark Teixeira situation and says Tex might want to make a decision soon. I'm not so sure, and I think he still has more leverage. However, it might mean Boras has to pull something similar to Kinzer and Tellem. Here's how I see the teams:

Red Sox: Still the front-runner considering interest and ability to pay. Henry has said he won't increase the offer, and as of now, he probably has the highest offer. He'll wait it out.

Yankees: Can they really resist going after a marquee guy when he fills a need and is so obviously perfect? I'm not so sure either. Jason mentioned that the Yankees still have money to burn, so that isn't the problem (as if I really believed that it would be). My guess is that they're waiting around to find out exactly how much they need to spend, and when the market becomes established, they'll make a last-minute offer (kind of like when people wait until the last second on eBay). They desperately need CC and made him a huge offer, but they don't need Tex.

Orioles, Nationals: People want to assume they're out of it, but why do I sense a Texas Rangers-for-ARod move? Both teams need him but for different reasons. The Orioles are starting to come around, but they need a legitimate clean-up hitter to make sure the offense can compete. He's a sure thing. Guys like Wieters and Reimold can hit, but are they that good? The Nationals need to make a splash to show the world they aren't just giving up in D.C. They also have some good, young players and a nice clean-up hitter with a great reputation would be a great addition. Sure, he ties up their payrolls more than he would for the Yankees or Red Sox, but since when have people really worried about that? My guess is that Boras comes to one or both and says, "If you offer x, we'll sign it," and enticed by the opportunity, one or the other ups the offer because they know the Red Sox, and possibly the Yankees, have outbid them. Then, Boras brings the offer back to the Sox or the Yankees to see their reaction. Even if they don't outbid the offer, Tex still has his great contract from the Orioles or Nationals. Considering the Yankees and Red Sox seem more reluctant to just spend, either the Orioles or Nationals could very well end up with him.

Angels: I guess they're out of it, but forgive me for not believing them too much.

Braves: Just for shits and giggles, let's think about it. The Braves have the money and desperately want some sort of impact addition. Getting him means the Braves got Casey Kotchman (and then the prospects the Braves trade him for) and Stephen Marek for free (considering Teixeira wouldn't have helped the Braves in the last two months). Yes, I understand this is a severe long-shot, but won't you let me dream?

Our favorites for landing Teixeira are obviously the Yankees and the Red Sox, but seriously, can we really discount the Orioles or Nationals?

Angels Withdraw Teixeira Offer

Unlike John Henry, Arte Moreno is serious ... maybe.

A month or so ago, I said the Angels didn't need Teixeira, and I guess we're about to find out as the Angels pulled out of negotiations for the switch-hitting first baseman. A few thoughts as a result of this move:

1) They still don't need him.

2) I guess this means Lackey should be getting that extension soon.

3) The Red Sox feel more relieved as their chances of getting Tex just went up.

4) Hank just threw a fit and demanded the Yankees give him a 10-year/$250M contract. The two were not connected.

5) Matt Holliday may be auditioning 19 times for his new team next season.

6) Adam Dunn just pulled out his first baseman's mitt and fell on his butt again while trying to catch a pop-up.

Sabathia the Reason the Yankees Didn't Trade for Santana

He coulda been a Yank if not for CC.

According to Murray Chass, Brian Cashman said that he didn't trade for Johan Santana because he knew that CC Sabathia would be on the market this off-season.

Uh, riiiiiight.

Color me skeptical, but this really seems convenient. Cashman didn't give this reason last season. Granted, he couldn't say that based on the rules, but counting on getting CC was a little risky, wasn't it?

Chass makes a great point that the difference between Santana-Sabathia would be about $40M over the six years (~$6M/year) from Sabathia-Burnett. Then again, the difference between Santana and Burnett is pretty huge. Santana is a couple years younger, left-handed, better, and more durable than Burnett. I'll go out on a limb and say that Santana's deal (though longer and more expensive) is a better bet than Burnett's based on the previous reasons. Now, I do understand that Hughes and/or Kennedy and the other prospects the Yankees held onto were a big part of not making the deal. Hughes could turn out to be great, and some of the other prospects mentioned as part of a possible deal were used to get Nady and Marte. But seriously, Santana and Sabathia could have been huge.

In the end, it's not worth talking about shoulda-woulda-coulda, but it just seems awfully convenient that Cashman can all of a sudden say Sabathia was the reason he didn't make the deal last season. Saying giving up those prospects was too much makes me respect the man, but making Sabathia the reason makes him seem arrogant and idiotic.

I'm Gonna Need Some Help

Life has to be better away from Colorado, right?

I need you to tell me who these closers are:

Closer A
2008 --> 88% Sv, 2.73 ERA, 2.42 FIP, 62.2 IP, 11.78 K/9, 3.16 BB/9, 3.73 K/BB

Closer B
2008 --> 90% Sv, 2.24 ERA, 3.22 FIP, 68.1 IP, 10.14 K/9, 4.48 BB/9, 2.26 K/BB

Closer C
2008 --> 85% Sv, 3.26 ERA, 2.32 FIP, 66.1 IP, 11.40 K/9, 2.44 BB/9, 4.67 K/BB

Figured out who each one is, yet? Okay, here are a few more clues. They are the "Big Three" as far as closers go on the free-agent market. Got it, now? Okay, Closer C has durability issues. Critics of Closer B think he will have injury issues. Closer A just regained his closer spot this season. I think we've probably got it now, but let's make sure. Closer A is Brian Fuentes, Closer B is Francisco Rodriguez, and Closer C is Kerry Wood. Now, someone explain to me why no one seems to want Fuentes?

P.S. Yes, I get that he might be asking for too much money and that there aren't that many teams looking for closers, but the market has now been established and the Cardinals, Tigers, Angels, A's, Mariners, and Dodgers could be potential suitors.

Pat Burrell for the Rays?

Florida was good for Burrell the first time around, right?

I've been thinking about this for the past couple weeks, but I wasn't sure how plausible it was, mainly because I didn't know how much money the Rays have/are willing to spend. John Heyman, however, answers my question by saying the Rays have, indeed, talked to Burrell about their DH spot. Now, we have to take this with a grain of salt, of course. Just because the Rays have talked to him does not mean they will sign him or have further interest in signing him. Does he make sense, though?

He'll be 32 all next season and is probably coming out of his prime, but I wouldn't worry too much about him declining next season (or really in the next two or three). He's been consistently around the 30 HR mark, but that might be a little lower (maybe 25?) when he moves away from Citizen's Bank Park. Yet, he's remarkably consistent home and away (.259/.369/.482 home vs. .255/.362/.488 away), so maybe he won't be any worse. He's pretty much a .260/.370/.490 hitter, which is pretty good. His OPS+ has also been consistently around 125. Plugging him in that lineup makes a lot of sense. A middle of the order with Burrell-Peña-Longoria or Longoria-Peña-Burrell would be really good (I only give those two because of the righty-lefty-righty, but with Upton hitting so hard, he could very easily be placed somewhere in there). As for his defense, DH's don't play defense. This makes so much sense it's ridiculous.

So how long do you sign him for? I'd give him two or three years. There aren't many big hitters coming in the Tampa system, so he shouldn't really block anyone. Desmond Jennings might be the best, but I imagine he'll come up when Crawford is traded/signed as a free-agent (option for 2010 but probably gone after that). Burrell has been pretty durable throughout his career, and DHing only helps that. The big thing is the money, but he's worth $10-13M.

The other options have some flaws. Adam Dunn is about as good of an option, but he'll probably be more expensive. However, a Peña-Longoria-Dunn lineup would be terrifying, but I think the Rays want a righty with power. Milton Bradley is another good option, but he's got durability issues, even at DH. I'd avoid him in favor of the more dependable Burrell (who I know is inconsistent but who's perfect?). Bobby Abreu is older, as expensive if not more, and left-handed. Manny Ramirez is waaaay too expensive. There are better options than Garrett Anderson. Jason Giambi is an intriguing option, but he's getting old. I think Burrell and Dunn are better options at a similar, if not less-expensive, price.

I like the Rays and what they're doing. It's hard to disagree with their techniques lately. That Jackson-for-Joyce was a steal, wasn't it?

Vernon Wells

I wonder how much he's actually done this.

According to league sources and John Heyman, the Blue Jays have taken offers for Vernon Wells. Other than an amazing 2003 and really good 2006, Vernon Wells has been a relative disappointment. I say relative because his numbers are still really compared to most center fielders. If your team needs an outfielder (which the Braves do), should they go after Wells?

Offensively, Wells is pretty good. However, his .300/.343/.496 isn't what people expect from him. I'm not sure why, though. It's pretty much his career line of .283/.332/.480, which really isn't terrible. He's a legit 25-30 HR guy that can also hit 30+ 2B. He's more of a three-hitter, but the Braves could insert him in the four slot. His BB% is a low 6.8%, but he doesn't strike out a whole lot either (13.9%). His LD% was a little low for him (17.4 to his career 19.5). His BABIP was pretty close to his career .295 (.299), so I wouldn't expect him to do much better or worse than last season at the dish. Defensively, he's a decent center fielder, but I guess he could be a great left fielder while putting Jordan Schafer or Josh Anderson in center (most teams would probably be comfortable with him in center). Age-wise, he just turned 30, so for the next few seasons, he'll be in his prime.

Unfortunately, this isn't in a vacuum. His contract is a bit hefty. Remaining on his contract is '09 for $10M, 2010 for $21.5M, 2011 for $23M, and 2012, 2013, and 2014 for $21M. That's a lot of money. To get a trade done and receive anything back, the Blue Jays can probably make the other team pay the 2009 salary, but they'll probably need to give enough money to get the others down closer to the $12-15M range. As for his age, he'll be 35 at the end of his contract, so if he moves to left, he'll probably stay pretty productive through the end of his contract (even with the move, he'd probably still be a good-hitting corner outfielder).

The other worry is his health. Long-term contracts are usually a bad idea, and he still has six years left. He injured his hamstring last season, but he has played close to 150 games for most of his career. Moving him to left could potentially help his hamstring, or he could become the next Chipper Jones/Ken Griffey Jr. (Is it sad that mine and my brother's favorite players both had major hamstring issues in their career or is this like everybody having heart disease in their family?).

Next, what prospects do you have to give up for him? If you pay all the contract, you shouldn't have to give up much at all. If the Blue Jays pay a hefty part of it (I'm not sure they would if they're trading him for economic reasons), it might take a top prospect and a few other decent guys.

Should your team try to get him? Probably not. A six-year deal is pretty scary unless the Blue Jays were to pay a decent amount for the last five years. I'd give up the prospects for him, but I wouldn't pay the money for him. He's not that good. If the Blue Jays were willing to eat some of the contract, I'd think about it.

Furcal to the Dodgers ... Officially

I would have been happy seeing him in a Braves uni again, regardless of how he left last time.

Before I start, I am a little upset that I haven't posted in two weeks. School got really tough the last two weeks, and by the time I had finished working on papers and studying, I just couldn't write any more. I haven't been able to post on other blogs and really respond to emails, and for that, I am truly sorry. Anyway, life is good again. I think (although official grades are not out) school ended fine, and I am ready to get back to writing on here. So here we go with a story that all Braves fans have considered, and I am sure a few people expected me to say something about it. Here goes:

My initial reaction was one of disgust, anger, and betrayal, but then I calmed down after awhile. Was I surprised about the agents and what they did? No. Why should I? John Schuerholz can complain all he wants, and he can "promise" top never work with them again. However, agents have never been a bastion of honesty and integrity. Get over it and move on. Granted, maybe I don't understand how bad this really was. Maybe it was truly a crime against humanity, but I doubt it. An agent did what was best for his client. He tried to get the best deal possible. My guess is that they got a less-than-expected deal from Atlanta, but it was the best one from a team Furcal wanted to go to. Ned Coletti then heard it wouldn't take a four-year deal to get it done, so he gave the agent a call. Kinzer found himself in an interesting situation. Furcal is excited to go to the Braves, but the Dodgers have re-entered play. Coletti matches the Braves' offer. Then, Kinzer calls Atlanta back and says that he needs more money. The Dodgers offered the same amount of money and Furcal gets to play short. However, Atlanta is angry. They feel they have been betrayed, or at least lied to. They refuse to increase the offer, and why should they? A bridge is now burned, so the only way off the island of despair is the raft that just floated ashore from Los Angeles (luckily it has a rope to lead him back to the continent). It's a no-brainer, and Furcal re-signs with LA.

You want to know who I am really angry with? Furcal. Where was he when all this was going on? Why didn't he step in if he was really excited to go back to Atlanta? Why does his agent have to make the call as to where he wants to play? You can talk about the move to second all you want, but I don't know how much it really had to do with anything. It wasn't as if Furcal learned he would be playing second from Dave O'Brien (although that's where I learned about it). I'm betting the negotiations stated that he would likely have to move. Maybe he prefers short, and I bet he does. LA offered that. But is all that really worth taking everything back? Was he really that opposed to moving to second? Who does he really prefer: Atlanta or LA? I guess we have our answer. But I really want to know where Furcal was during all this. If he was nowhere near, maybe that's just as bad as having been there.

What about Wren and his staff? They leaked the information, didn't they? Do I blame them? No. Everyone leaks information. We knew about Raul Ibanez's deal four days before it "officially" happened. This just happened to be one of those fluke times when things worked out. Also, it's not as if anyone is blaming them. It hasn't hurt them at all. They just did what every team usually does (although the Braves are usually a bit more clandestine about this sort of thing, which makes me think even more that Kinzer was being a bit sketchy in this whole thing) when close to signing a player. Maybe they shouldn't, but they didn't do anything out of the ordinary.

I'm not upset with Kinzer. He did his job, albeit maybe needing a class in business ethics. Maybe it really was "disgusting". Still, I want to know where the guy who this deal really affects was. I want to know why he didn't step in or why he did. But, we'll never know. We already have two stories, and a third would probably just muddle things even further. Regardless, Furcal has lost a lot of respect from me.

Edgar Renteria to the Giants

He's just not a young man anymore.

So, I'm a few days late on this, but I blame school (why should I take the blame when I can blame an inanimate object that can't fight it). Anyway, I was surprised to see Dave Cameron and Keith Law support the signing of Edgar Renteria. From the moment I saw the signing went down, I thought, "Sabean continues his determination to make his lineup younger -- because 33 is younger than 40, right?"

Renteria was a pretty good player for the Braves, but he really plummeted this past season. His .270/.317/.382 line was pretty abysmal, especially when compared to his .332/.390/.470 line from 2007. However, 2007 was closer to his career numbers which are .290/.347/.405. His career OPS+ is 96, and he has only had 5 seasons above 100 in that category. In other words, he's pretty much a league-average hitter (actually worse). He's had a four All-Star seasons, but only one of those seasons did he have an OPS+ over 100 (and it was 104). He might be one of the more over-hyped players in the majors (how many of us remember that World Series-winning run?). Granted, a league-average hitter is better than the average shortstop, but when you count in his defense, it kind of evens things out, doesn't it? Then, the Giants have a decent option in Emmanuel Burriss who hit .283/.357/.329 with an OPS+ of 81. In terms of wOBA, Renteria was actually worse (.308 to .316). I imagine he's at least as good defensively as Renteria, if not better, so why did the Giants spend $9M a year on a guy who isn't a whole lot better than what they have? That just makes the other decisions they make more inflexible. They need a power-hitter, not a two-hole guy.

I realize that Burriss may not be as good as Renteria, and he may even regress next season. I realize that Renteria's .294 BABIP probably means he'll bounce back next season. Burriss won't hit .280 again next season. But again, I ask -- is Renteria worth the extra $8.6M? No, he's not. Even considering his leadership, experience, and ability, he isn't. Is his contract a fair one? Maybe. Is the two-year contract a burden? No, but it doesn't help Burriss at all. Why not add a first baseman instead? Adam Dunn probably wouldn't have cost a lot more (maybe $6M at most), but he would have been a major addition. Renteria is not a major addition. He's an upgrade but not much of one. Sabean again made a bad decision, even if Renteria comes back and has a good season.

Long Days

Doesn't this make you stress more about stress? If it does, then isn't like a self-fulfilling prophesy? I can't worry about this now. I have a 10-15 page research paper to do.

Sorry I haven't put anything up yesterday or today. I may not even get into anything tonight. It's that point in the semester when everything comes due, so I spent several hours last night reading through primary sources for a paper. Tonight, I get to start on that paper because I have another one I have to work on next week. In short, I have no idea what to expect for the next week and a half. Likely, nothing will be on tonight. Tomorrow and Saturday should have some stuff up. Sunday, I have to go to Louisville to give a presentation for the people who gave me the nice scholarship to go to England in July, so I wouldn't expect anything then. As for next week, it all depends. If I can get this paper done tonight and Saturday, then things should be pretty good. I'll be able to get stuff up next week. If not, things might remain fairly slow. Finals week may or may not be better (that is the week after next). I have to re-edit my 25 page history thesis, and that might take awhile. After Thursday December 18th, however, things will be hunky dorry (or is it dorie or dory or dorri or dori -- someone help). In short, come back here every once in a while (please ... pretty please). I am not abandoning this, but something has to be triaged, and unfortunately, my schoolwork cannot be. Hopefully, I'll be able to get more up than I think, but it will probably be sporadic. Again, I'm sorry, especially after getting a nice mention from Shysterball, but this is just one of those times. Luckily, next semester should be much easier and more stuff will be posted, especially as things become clearer for next season. Okay, that wasn't "in short", but when have you known me not to babble on. It happens. Okay, I should really get to cooking dinner so I can do some work.

Sincerely yours,

themarksmith

Vazquez to the Braves

Let's just hope this works out better for Atlanta than it did for Yankees. He probably didn't like the Yankees, either.

In a rather sudden deal, the Braves seem to be on the verge of trading for Javier Vazquez and Boone Logan. Reportedly in the deal are Brent Lillibridge, Tyler Flowers, Jon Gilmore, and Santos Rodriguez. About a month ago, I said trading for Javier Vazquez would be a good idea for the Braves, and I still do believe that this is a good move for the Braves.

Jon Gilmore and Santos Rodriguez seem to be in the throw-in territory. Gilmore did fine in Danville, but it's not like that is a tough league. He then struggled when he came up to Rome (Low A) for 30 games. Rodriguez seems to have a big arm with 45 K in 29 IP, but that was in rookie ball. Again, I don't see these guys as more than good A-ball prospects that really aren't anywhere near ready, and they may not even be that.

Brent Lillibridge and Tyler Flowers are the real headliners, if you can say that, in this deal. Lillbridge struggled in AAA this season, but I believe he's due for a bounce-back, and I'm thinking he's a nice fit in the 4 hole for the White Sox making them younger and faster. Flowers gives them an heir-apparent at catcher, and he should have bright future. I'm sad to see him go, but with McCann back there, the Braves can afford to draft another catcher and bring him along in time to replace McCann. No real worries there. Still, I wonder if he couldn't have been part of a better deal.

Vazquez is better than people think. His career FIP is 3.93, and a return to the NL and a chance to pitch in a neutral park should help out his very unlucky 4.67 ERA (a whole run higher than his FIP). His strikeout and walk rates are also pretty good and should translate well to Atlanta. As for Boone Logan, his 5.95 ERA was horrendous, but he was also unlucky (.393 BABIP, 15.2% HR/FB). He's also only 24 (next season) and is under control for four more years. His splits were pretty even from righties to lefties last season, but they are a bit bigger for his career.

Is this a good trade? I believe so. Neither Gilmore nor Rodriguez are great prospects (even though I liked Gilmore). Lillibridge lost a huge amount of stock this season, and the Braves already have the middle infield sewn up for at least the next three seasons. As for Flowers, let's not buy too much into his incredible performance in the AFL. He was amazing, and he is, to me, the highlight of the deal for Chicago. However, he was only in High-A last season and anyone can get hot for a few weeks. With McCann in Atlanta for the forseeable future, he is not a huge loss, just a regrettable one. Vazquez gives Atlanta a solid no. 2 guy as long as he bounces back (which I think he will), and Boone helps out the bullpen and might be a possible late-inning guy (obviously with improvement). Vazquez is also only on the hook for two years, so it's like a nice signing. Boone is in Atlanta for four years at a relatively cheap price. As for Chicago, they get some nice prospects to deepen the farm system for a guy most people really didn't like all that much.

What does this mean for the teams? Chicago may need an additional starter (bargain time!) to make up for Vazquez, but nothing should really change too much for Chicago. As for Atlanta, this still does not preclude them from trading for Peavy, unless Furcal flies off the market (in which case, no one could play short), and it gives them much more flexibility with free-agent pitchers. They don't need to sign two anymore, and this frees up enough money to make a tough offer to Burnett (while possibly getting fewer seasons of him). It also gives them more leverage against the Padres should things start up again. On another note, it does probably mean that Ohman is gone and/or that negotiations weren't going well with him (he might have found some better offers). I like this trade for Atlanta. A good starter and possibly good reliever (I like cheap relievers who average 92 mph from the left side) for a few prospects, two of which I think might do something in the majors (one of those could be a star, but who cares about the future when you have now?).