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?).

What about Ollie?

Addendum: I always forget to mention this, but I really love the people at FanGraphs. That site is where I get most of my information for these types of analysis, and they are just wonderful.

The whole throwing across his body thing probably isn't too good for his control or arm.

So we've heard rumors about CC Sabathia, AJ Burnett, Derek Lowe, Ben Sheets, and Ryan Dempster, but one free-agent pitcher we haven't heard much of is Oliver Perez. He has essentially fallen off the face of the planet os far this winter. Of course, that will probably change in the next week or two as guys go off the board, but I'm a little surprised that no one is currently in on the 27-year old lefty. Let's look into why that might be.

After a successful season in 2007 where Perez went 15-10 with a 3.56 ERA, Perez fell to 10-7 with a 4.22 ERA despite pitching 5 more games and 17 more innings (only a little more than 3 IP/start?). I found that a little surprising when I first looked at the stats. His BABIP of .287 last season dropped to .280. His LOB% rose from 71.6 to 73.4. His GB/FB rate increased from .65 to .70. It almost seems like he should have been better. But then, I saw some other stuff. His K/9 dropped from 8.85 to 8.35, but the biggest thing was that his already high BB/9 of 4.02 went all the way up to 4.87. Perez's HR/FB also went up from 8.8% to 9.8%. In total though, he shouldn't have been much worse (at least not more than a half-run) than the previous season. However, Perez's FIP last season was actually 4.32 (4.68 this past season -- not a big jump). That was a BIG difference caused by his low BABIP and HR/FB. He's also been aided by pitching in pitcher-friendly and now extinct Shea Stadium.

What does the randomness tell us? One, he isn't a very good pitcher. The only consistency he has are his FIP's, which are always at least in the mid-4's except for his fantastic 2004 where it was 3.45 (but his BB/9 was also really below his career mark -- 3.72 vs. 4.76). Two, he's unpredictable. His high walk rate and flyball tendencies lead to inconsistency and luck playing a larger role (will the walks hurt -- LOB% -- and will the flyballs turn into outs or home runs -- HR/FB -- which may be a five foot difference). Three, he can't throw strikes. A new metric called F-Strike% (percentage of first pitches that go for strikes) is interesting. The norm is around 60-65%, but last season, Perez's was 52.9% (and usually around 55%, which is really low). If you can't get ahead, it makes it harder to get guys out. Four, he strikes out a lot of guys. His career K/9 is a really high 9.25, and teams just love power-guys who strike out a lot of people, especially lefties. Ollie is that guy, and that's why someone is likely to give him a chunk of dough this off-season. They just hope his BB/9 drops dramatically.

For those who want a Randy Johnson comparison, Johnson's first five BB/9 were 2.42 (4 games), 5.38, 4.92, 6.79, and 6.16 before dropping down to 3.49 and going down essentially ever since (How in the world did sub-4 ERA's those seasons?).

So, Perez could get his command under control (pun), but I'm not so sure he will. There is the possibility however, and I bet Boras plays that in his negotiations. Otherwise, I don't think I'd spend too much money on Perez this off-season, even if he's only 27.

Thoughts on Baseball's Economy

My brother knows more about this economy thing than I do. He works for the FDIC.

I'm not an economist. The farthest I got was ECON 201 where I learned about supply and demand and their respective curves. I don't why the economy has plummeted, but I do understand how real estate and stocks affect certain things. I don't really know how the economy is affecting/will affect baseball in the near future. Buster Olney believes that the economy is having its effect on all 30 teams, and honestly, I can't blame/ridicule/argue with him about any of it. It seems perfectly logical, but I do have some thoughts to consider:

1) Is this the perfect time for collusion? I'm not saying it's a good thing (although I find it a bit unfair that players can talk but GM's can't, but I do understand why it's not fair to the players that the GM's could talk and subsequently lower salaries substantially), and it would probably be a bad thing. But think about it. If you were to collude to really drop players' salaries, this is the time isn't it? When they drop, people think it was the economy that affected teams and consequently lowered salaries. Collusion might be the last thing on people's minds. Again, I am not advocating that the GM's/owners do this. They're the ones playing with money and have all of it (well not necessarily the GM's, but you get my point). I really just want to plant a warning in people's heads. I'm not a conspiracy theorist. I don't really think JFK died the way the history books say, but I also don't think LBJ and Jacquelin Kennedy conspired to kill him to continue a love affair (look at White House tapes website) and get LBJ the presidency. However, I believe it may be a fair warning to look into how GM's are spending money if indeed the free-agent market crashes. Teams are still going to spend a lot of money this winter and next year while millions of fans will attend games (I bet there's a decrease in attendance -- more than this year's decrease --, but I bet there isn't a dramatic decrease; we'll see), so I don't really believe that all of these owners are that concerned about money. Sure, the Padres and Rockies (and others) are rolling back payrolls, but you can also see increases in the payrolls of the Royals, Marlins, and Rays (and others).

2) Is the Yankees' decision to not offer Abreu arbitration really about the economy? Couldn't it be more about baseball business? Abreu is a solid player, but $16+M for him is a bit steep. If you can get him for much less, then wouldn't you anyway? Offering arbitration to Abreu may not net the Yankees what they really want -- draft picks -- because he may accept knowing that he won't get as big of offers from teams. While yes the economy is affecting the Yankees in a roundabout way, is it really affecting them? They're still going to try to spend a boatload of money this off-season. This goes for several other players as well.

3) For everyone stating that the slow off-season is a result of the economy, ALL OFF-SEASONS ARE SLOW. Take a look. Tell me how many big free-agent signings happened before the Winter Meetings last season. Sure, there were more trades, but this free-agent market offers much more than last season's. Teams are still waiting around. Please ... Please stop talking about it being slow. It's always slow. Now, if nothing happens in the next week or two, then we can start talking.

I won't even begin to say that the economy isn't doing anything to baseball. It has to, doesn't it? This is a pretty serious economic recession (I don't know when a recession becomes a depression), so it has to affect everything. Baseball is included. These are just some things I was thinking about earlier. I may be completely wrong. That's perfectly acceptable. As for the first thing about collusion, don't take it all that seriously. I'm not implying teams would do it, but it does seem like the perfect time for it, doesn't it?

Kevin Millwood a Good Idea?

Updated (10:44 PM): In case you were wondering, Vicente Padilla, Millwood's rotation partner, is not worth getting for anyone. It would be like giving someone a pair of socks you'd already worn holes in (not a good gift to being with and even worse after you've seen it). Why did the Rangers give him 5 years/$55M?

Yet another failed Ranger acquisition.

If you're an NL team, it might be a better idea than you think. We all laugh when his name is brought up, but at one point, he was a solid major-league pitcher. Guess where that was. The NL. Let's take a closer look, shall we?

First, let's look at his ERA. Last season, it was an abysmal 5.07, but let's also notice that his FIP was a whole run lower at 4.02. Indeed, his career FIP is 3.83 even though his career ERA is 4.06. People want him to be the 2.68 guy he was in Atlanta, but his FIP that season (1999) was actually 3.52. He wasn't that good, either.

So why was he so bad last season? BABIP is a good place to start. It was an astounding .366, and in his career in as a Ranger, his BABIP's have been .313, .348, and .366, all of which are high. Part of that could be a decline in talent-level, but I think ball park has more to do with it (he's a half run better away than at home in Texas). Another issue was his LOB% which has been below 70% each season in Texas, making matters worse. Shockingly, however, Millwood's HR/FB rate is still around 10 for his seasons in Texas. When you look at this, it seems that his career in Texas has gone sour due more to luck, ballpark, and subsequent lack of confidence, but has his talent dropped?

A look at LD% shows us that 25.3% of the balls put in play were line-drives, but before you freak, he also gave up 24.% while in Philadelphia and would come back two years later to have a 2.98 ERA in Cleveland. So that doesn't help. His K/9 of 6.67 is below his career 7.17 mark, but it is better than his two previous seasons and almost equal to his 2005 Indians season. His BB/9 was 2.61 (lower than his career 2.74) and right around his career norms and better than his 3.49 the year before. Millwood is also a slight groundball pitcher with a career 1.27 mark, and with his groundball rate at 1.20, he was pretty close to that mark. From this, it doesn't seem that Millwood has lost a lot of talent, but his pitch speed has declined about .6 mph each of the past four seasons (but take that for what it is).

So why does a move to the NL, or at least out of Texas make sense. One, it gets him out of Arlington Stadium, which has to help automatically. Two, a move to the NL would be another drop in overall talent in lineups, which has to help. Three, it would be a change of scenery as being in Texas has to be frustrating (granted, he was the one to choose money over place to pitch -- that should be a lesson to you kids out there). Four, going anywhere else would help purely based on the fact that Texas was the worst defensive team in baseball last year. Put all those things together, and Millwood could be a 3.70-4.00 pitcher who pitches around 200 IP (although he hasn't done that since 2006 -- 172 and 168 the past two seasons). As for the contract, $11M and $12M over the next two seasons wouldn't be the worst contract in the world, especially if it works out. The Braves say they aren't interested now, but they may be when they lose out on some free-agents.

Mike Hampton Signs with Astros

Updated (4:40 PM): The deal is reportedly for $2M (via Shysterball). Even better for the Astros.

It's time to party like it's 1999!

Apparently Hampton's feeling of loyalty/guilt toward the Braves did not last long as Hampton signed with the Astros earlier today. The 36-year old probably signed a one-year contract without options. After being injured for the entirety of the 2006 and 2007 seasons and most of 2008, Hampton wanted to sign a one-year contract to prove he could still pitch and be healthy in order to get a bigger contract next winter. Honestly, I'm not sure who would give a big contract to a then 37-year old with major injury issues, but if he pulls off a Derek Lowe-like campaign, someone will pay him some big bucks.

Regardless, Hampton pitched well down the stretch for Atlanta. He was 3-4 with a 4.85 ERA (3 of his first 4 were pretty horrible, so he was better after getting his feet under him) in 78 IP in 13 starts (6 IP/start -- pretty good). His 4.38 K/9 was pathetic, but no one expects him to strike out a lot of hitters. His BB/9 was a decent 3.23, but that looks worse with his low K rate. A lot of those is made up by being a great ground-ball pitcher (a quality needed in Houston these days) with a 2.06 GB/FB, and with his pitches mainly being a sinker, cutter, and change-up with sink, he should continue that trend. As for luck, Hampton's FIP was 4.94, so he wasn't particularly lucky (his .286 BABIP and 68% LOB% were a tad low -- but just a tad -- like a tadpole really). Overall, Hampton was a fairly solid pitcher last season when taking into account that his first four starts were terrible (maybe they were due to rust, but we can argue about that later).

The money figure is not known at this time, but I imagine it's in the $3-8M range ($5M is my guess). At that price, Hampton is a perfectly affordable, low-risk chance taken by the Astros. I have no idea if the Astros are having money issues, but if they add Ben Sheets later like Roy Oswalt wants, a rotation of Oswalt, Sheets, Rodriguez, Hampton, and Backe could end up being a pretty good rotation.

Two Good Royals Stories

I saw different shuttlecocks in the stalls and planners of my high school.

This doesn't happen very often, but the Royals have two ... interesting ... stories circulating over at KC Star. Let's go one at a time.

The first one is about the "Curse of the Shuttlecocks". A museum in Kansas City commissioned two Shuttlecocks, badmitton "balls", to be placed in the quad area out in front of the museum. Before the commission, the Chiefs and Royals were good teams, but after the commission, they were terrible teams (or at least inept, unable to win playoff games, unable to win many games at all). So, some guy went looking for the answer and arrived at these shuttlecocks (I think we should make that into a new curse word; who's with me?) because they arrived at the same time as the the decline of the two teams. Considering they are 18 feet long and this whole thing is ridiculous, both teams should be terrible for another 3 years.

The next one is about Kyle Davies. This is another "my therapist helped me through tough times, so I'm actually good now" story. Kyle Davies, by a stroke of luck, had a really good September, and he's giving credit to his "mental trainer" Buddy Biancalana. I give credit to the fact that he's a decently good (at least a fifth spot starter) pitcher who happened to put some things together for a month. Hell, Jorge Sosa was good for awhile, too, wasn't he?

Why did I bring up these stories? To type "shuttlecock" as much as possible in a post. Shuttlecock.