I'm assuming there's no way they can pick up the option and trade him because Manny has 10/5 rights or whatever they're called.

I don't really see how he comes back unless John Henry says "#### it, there's nobody good to spend money on this winter, might as well keep Manny another year"

I'd be very surprised if the Sox made a big move to replace Manny. Coco over the next couple years should be a lot better than Abreu and a little better than Dunn and Burrell. I'm sure somebody will mention how nobody on the team will have power if Coco replaces Manny but the goal is to outscore your opponents not hit home runs.

Crisp and Ellsbury in the same outfield would make sense if the Red Sox played in Comerica Park, but in Fenway, playing a CF in left doesn't really seem like it gains you nearly as much.

It's a waste, Dan. They need an offensive stud out there. Defense is a bonus.

On the road, it's a different matter, of course.

Crisp and Ellsbury would prob both make for the best RF in the league even if they can't throw. I don't see why JD Drew can't move

The problem with that is Fenway is the one place where a rightfield is really important, that being there are so many doubles. drew is the only one of the three that has that.

Coco over the next couple years should be a lot better than Abreu and a little better than Dunn and Burrell.

I've been rolling over in my head exactly what you mean. Purely as a defensive player, I agree wholeheartedly. Dollars per Win Share or some metric that is salary-adjusted, probably. But I can't imagine any performance metric that I would expect Crisp to finish first or even second in that group in 2009 and 2010 combined. Heck, Crisp is about a week older than Dunn.

I'm being literal about your "couple" meaning "two". Would you put serious money on your assertion?

Dunn's a terrible defender and Crisp is a borderline great one. That's a big difference. But off the top of my head, I have to think that Dunn still comes out ahead of Crisp in overall projected value from this point forward. If Crisp finishes this year in the .350/.450 range that he maintained in 04-05, you have to wonder if the past two years of lousy hitting were largely injury related.

Drew's D hasn't been all that great; Jake can play out there because half the battle in preventing extra bases is getting to the ball quickly in the first place.

I say let Manny walk; he isn't worth the money with his offense tanking some and his D as mediocre/bad as it's been.

The offense on the Sox is Manny/Ortiz. Everyone else is there to complement them. The chances that Lowell has another offensive year like last year are basically zero. Youkilis looks like he may be establishing a new perfomance level this year, but it still only makes him slightly above average at 1B. Plus, at his age, he doesn't have much upside left. Is Manny's production technically worth 20 million at this point? No, of course not. But the Sox can certainly afford it. And the choices this off-season will be to pick up Manny's option or give a big contract to one of Teixiera, Dunn, or Burrell. So one year at 20 million and see what's available the next year (or what's ready in the farm system) or a contract for one of those guys at 5/80 million at the very least. And I can only imagine Burrell in Boston. He'll be absolutely destroyed by both the media and the fans the first time he goes into one of his slumps.

Drew is 9th in the majors in RZR. He's only about average in OOZ plays, but he takes good routes, usually doesn't let ball get by him, and plays the corner very well. Plus, like Kevin said earlier, Drew is the only one of himself, Crisp, and Ellsbury that has an arm. You can away with that in some parks, but right field gets so deep at Fenway that I could actually envision a scenario where Ellsbury bounces a throw to the cutoff man. And, again with the offense, an outfield of Drew, Crisp, and Ellsbury would absolutely amazing defensively, but the only way that they would be acceptable offensively is if Drew bounces back to at least 20 homers, Crisp gets back to driving fastballs into the gaps and gets his homerun power back, and if Ellsbury proves Kevin right and slugs .500.

Coco projects to be right about at replacement level the next couple years for a corner OF offensively. He's what, maybe 30-35 runs better than Dunn and Burrell defensively + baserunning? Plus there's probably another 5 runs for the league difference. Not many people project to have a VORP in the 40 range

Sven, they said the same thing about Drew, and he seems to have survived. And Burrell's been putting up remarkably consistent #s in Philly, which is arguably a tougher place to play than Boston.

As for power, what's the difference if these guys provide value on offense or defense?

I'm assuming there's no way they can pick up the option and trade him because Manny has 10/5 rights or whatever they're called.

Actually, I think they could pull a Sheffield with Manny. I think once he hired Boras as his agent the signal wasn't that he wants his option picked up, but that he wants a whole new guaranteed contract. The Sox have no reason to give him one since the option years give them pretty good risk vs reward management. If another team would be willing to invest in a long term deal (3 yrs +), then I don't see Boras advising Manny to block the trade since he'll be getting what he wants. Now the Sox likely won't be getting all that much in return for Manny (I'd guess that the talent might not be much more exciting than draft picks), but they would have the benefit of controlling where he went.

I'm torn on what they should do with him; I think we're looking at his new offensive level and that last year wasn't a fluke. When you combine that with his defense I'd much rather get a younger player who can put up a similar offensive line with better defense. Most of the guys I really liked to replace him are tearing the cover off the ball, and likely not available. (Props again to Kenny Williams for the Quentin trade.) If there were a RHH version of Chris Carter (the one in Pawtucket, but hitting like he did before he got to Pawtucket) I might be inclined to take a shot on him (y'know, if he existed)...

I don't see any new options that make immediate sense (which might go along way towards keeping Manny on the Sox). I don't think there's any way they go with Coco and Ellsbury permanently in the same OF, but the CF market should be a lot more favorable this coming offseason, so maybe this is what they shop Coco for. As a 'thinking outside the box' option I also wouldn't be surprised to see them move Youks to LF if they thought they could get Teixeira or a stud 1Bman.

Matt LaPorta doesn't have a home in Milwaukee. Obviously he's an unknown but cheaper with more potential. (Stating the obvious)

He will never be Manny but .280 with 30 homers seems very plausible.

But if the expectation is MVP caliber offense annually then this isn't an option.

As for power, what's the difference if these guys provide value on offense or defense?

My question would be are you confident enough in current defensive metrics to weight the defensive and offensive values equally? Also, in my casual observation, defensive values can vary quite a bit year to year.

If you're putting together a roster to make a championship run, I think there is a bigger risk to put a defensive star in what should be an offensive position and expect to get equal production.

Matt LaPorta doesn't have a home in Milwaukee. Obviously he's an unknown but cheaper with more potential. (Stating the obvious)

He's also a LHH. The Sox are probably looking for a RHH to keep the rest of the lineup stabilized.

The other issue with Manny is his durability. For the previous 2 yrs he's only played in ~ 130 games. It didn't kill the Sox last year because Ellsbury did his best impersonation of being the player Kevin thinks he is, but I don't think that's a long term solution.

Another thing to consider is that since the Sox can't replace Manny, they should perhaps be looking to increase offense where possible across the board; of course the best option to do that is to put Lowrie in at SS, which brings us back to how much you trust defensive metrics...

Matt LaPorta doesn't have a home in Milwaukee. Obviously he's an unknown but cheaper with more potential. (Stating the obvious)

Man, after checking his stats he can hit right now. Too bad he's blocked at all 3 positions by 2 MVP candidates and a solid RFer.

The only thing stopping someone like the Sox from getting him is the curious reluctance of teams to trade a prospect for a prospect, straight up. Bowden (who just threw another gem last night BTW) would be a perfectly fair trade, but I guess doing that breaks one of those unwritten rules, or something.

Coco projects to be right about at replacement level the next couple years for a corner OF offensively.

... and this projection is based on? I don't see it. Coco's OPS+ was 77 in 2006 and 83 in 2007. One season of sub-par offensive production can be partially attributed to his finger injury, but two seasons sure seems like a trend. In his first ~100 AB's of '08 he's showing improved extra base power, but still getting on base at a very poor clip (.316).

Don't get me wrong, I like Coco Crisp. He's a nice player and he's superb in center field. But, when you are talking about him and Jacoby, it's an either-or proposition. With a payroll in excess of $120 million, there's no way to justify having one of the two playing a corner spot regularly. Also, when you consider that we have Lowell, Drew, Lugo, Ortiz, and (more than likely) Varitek all under contract into their mid & late-30's and likely declining, offense isn't really a surplus for this club. We need a bat in left.

Manny's option for 2009 is an absolute slam dunk. If Teixiera was really a viable option, I'm guessing Lowell wouldn't have been re-signed. So for next season- barring a trade- the options will be Manny for one year at $20 mil, or Burrell/Dunn for 4-6 years at something like $14-18 mil, depending on the market. That's really not much of a decision at all.

Matt LaPorta doesn't have a home in Milwaukee. Obviously he's an unknown but cheaper with more potential. (Stating the obvious)
He's also a LHH. The Sox are probably looking for a RHH to keep the rest of the lineup stabilized.

LaPorta is a LHH?! You know, fact checking is a first step toward sounding somewhat intelligent.

LaPorta is a RH.

You may be confusing him with Matt Gamel who is LH.

Have the Sox been working with Jacoby on his throwing. I think it was Thursday that he had a decent throw from CF, hit the cutoff man on a line and everything. The throw was not Damonesque, by any means.

Manny must have heard us. 3-4 today after his day off.

Meanwhile, the 10-17 road team falls back into second place.

Have the Sox been working with Jacoby on his throwing.

I seriously doubt it. You can't teach power, you can't teach speed, and you can't teach spaghetti arms to become guns. Either you have it, or you don't.

Manny must have heard us. 3-4 today after his day off.

Yeah? 3 singles. If he's really listening: DRIVE THE BALL, MANOLO.

I could go for some Adam Dunn at 4/$60M. I think he'll get more, though. And I don't want to think about baseball without Manny.

I could see both Dunn and Burrell going cheap (relatively speaking) because of their defense and their OMG TEH STRIKEOUTS AND BATTING AVERAGE!!! You might get either one of them for 3 years/$40-$50M with an option. Dunn will only be 29, which is quite young for a FA. Burrell will be 32, which is getting to the point where a 4-year deal looks a little scary. But he's right-handed, so that's nicer fit for the Boston lineup.

There's also always the possibility that Manny agrees to something like 2/30 with an option.

Fistful, good point on the offense/defense difference in certainty.

On Teixiera, he could be slotted at 1B and Youks moved to LF. You'd break even or improve at 1B on defense and probably improve a bit on defense in LF. Heck, you could do that with Dunn as well.

Has anyone been paying attention to what free agents get? Dunn's going to get 100m over 6 years.

tex is getting 7/120 :p

neither of those are as good an idea as Manny (even Reduced Manny) for short money.

I think the Sox are in a great position with 4 outfielders. While I wouldn't want Coco/Ellsbury/Drew to be my outfield for 162 games, for 30 or 40 it is more than okay, especially if Manny (even the reduced version) is teh 4th guy.

Honestly, Manny's situation with the Sox isn't that much different than Abreu's with the Yanks, except for Manny being better (and more expensive) than Abreu.

Except for that part of the game where they have to play the field.

I doubt Dunn is getting 6/100. But I admit it's possible. If he does get it, he'll be 34 at the end of the deal, which is younger than Manny is now.

Adam Dunn is way more likely to fall out of shape than Manny.

LaPorta is a LHH?! You know, fact checking is a first step toward sounding somewhat intelligent.

Mea culpa. I mostly remember him as the other component in an either/or choice between him and Lars Anderson in the '06 draft (not that the Sox couldn't sign both, but I didn't see them blowing up slot recommendations twice for 1Bmen). For some reason I remember them as both hitting LH (I'm probably mixing the hitting side with Ty Weeden, who was the other big over slot signing of that draft).

But you'll have to pardon me for not using your posting habits as a model of what will will make me sound intelligent.

LaPorta's handedness makes John Difool2s' proposition that much more interesting; if the Brewers could get back in the race for the Central, LaPorta could be a prime trade chip for them to make upgrades at the deadline. They'd be looking for someone to help them now, though, which from a matching up with the Red Sox/ pitching perspective would probably mean Masterson rather than Bowden.

I would not go anywhere near a long term contract for Adam Dunn. The Sox have had interest in Teixeira in the past, but the bidding on him is likely to be pretty heavy with both the NY teams having openings at 1B, and hometown favorite Baltimore also looking to get in on the action.

Darren: Did you expect Carlos Lee to get his deal? High quality free agents don't hit the market often, and when they do they get a ton of money. Dunn is good enough to get a lot of money.

edit: Dunn has a 131 OPS+ for his career, will be 29, and more importantly has hit 40 or more HR for the past 4 years. If he doesn't get 100m I'll eat my hat. I can't believe people are putting him in the same catagory as Burrell.

No, I didn't expect Lee's deal and that was a couple years ago, so even more inflation has happened since. And with the Red Sox, Yankees, and Mets all looking for a 1B/LF type, that could push the price higher as well. So, like I said, I could be wrong.

But Dunn does strike out a lot and has low batting averages and poor speed and he has a well-deserved rep as a poor defensive OF (if I remember the numbers right). It seems like every time someone not on primer (non-Harveys division) talks about Dunn, it's about what's wrong with him. That's why I thought he'd get a lesser deal than Lee.

I seriously doubt it. You can't teach power, you can't teach speed, and you can't teach spaghetti arms to become guns. Either you have it, or you don't.

You can teach players how to throw correctly, although I never see it done. Damon has horrible arm action. He short arms the ball and doesn't set himself, but he still throws the same way he has since he days with the Sox.

IIRC Damon can't help but throw with that action because of a high school football injury. I suppose that doesn't excuse his footwork, but guys with bad arms should really concentrate on making smart throws and hitting the cut off man rather than airmailing the ball in a fit of inadequacy...

You can teach players how to throw correctly, although I never see it done. Damon has horrible arm action. He short arms the ball and doesn't set himself, but he still throws the same way he has since he days with the Sox.

The time to teach players how to throw is when they are children. Jesus.

The time to teach players how to throw is when they are children. Jesus.

So it can never be done in the majors? The rag arms the Red Sox have had in the past few years are partly a result of poor mechanics. It is pretty easy to learn the basics of throwing and the different types of arm action based on position.

Dunn is getting paid $13 mil this year. So I can't see him settling for less than 6/100. Angels won't mind a half decent DH. Infact, bunch of AL teams will be ready to throw money at a OF/DH type with good power/walks, as long as the player is not called Bonds..

And Tex..he turned down an 8/140 from the Rangers. Boras is throwing around 200 mil contract figures. Even if he comes down, he is probably going to sign for 8/150.
Keep Manny for one more year, trade for LaPorta would be this outsider's suggestion.

They have instructional leagues. MLB is not one of them.

Dunn is getting paid $13 mil this year. So I can't see him settling for less than 6/100.

So you think he's going to retire if the best offer he gets is 2 years/$12 million?

They have instructional leagues. MLB is not one of them.

So Coco cannot be told to extend his arm back behind him in order to increase his arm? Throwing the ball correctly is pretty easy. Point your shoulder towards the person you are throwing to, do a crow hop, extend you arm behind you and throw the ball. Why cannot Coco learn to keep his shoulder from flying open before he throws? I learned it in less than 10 minutes of instruction from a middle school coach.

It's not that these guys couldn't learn to throw at the Major League level, it's that they have been through several levels of the minors before reaching the Majors. If their problems were as easily fixable as they appear, someone would have probably done it by now.

And Tex..he turned down an 8/140 from the Rangers. Boras is throwing around 200 mil contract figures. Even if he comes down, he is probably going to sign for 8/150.

That sounds like the deal that JuanGone turned down. And Boras has thrown around a lot of numbers--he doesn't always get them. Again, though, I think you, Scott, and others are making a compelling case that these guys will get more than what I predicted (although I don't think I predicted that Tex would get short money).

edit: Dunn has a 131 OPS+ for his career, will be 29, and more importantly has hit 40 or more HR for the past 4 years. If he doesn't get 100m I'll eat my hat. I can't believe people are putting him in the same catagory as Burrell.

Scott, I just wanted to touch on this one. First, it's a pretty broad category: guys who would fill our power/LF butcher hole if we didn't retain Manny. For 04-08, here are their OPS+s:

Burrell: 128, 122, 127, 160.
Dunn: 141, 113, 136, 145.

Not a lot of daylight between those two as hitters. And they're both high BB, high K, low BA, power hitters. Both are considered poor defenders, right? Does anyone have up to date fielding info? The big difference, as I said, is that Dunn is a lefty and Burrell is 3 years older.

Trading for Bay is my preference if Manny really is going to be a ~880-900 OPS guy going forward and they don't want to pick up his option. That is of course assuming that no one else trades for Bay this year before the trade deadline.

which from a matching up with the Red Sox/ pitching perspective would probably mean Masterson rather than Bowden.

but why would the brewers want masterson for laporta? They're gonna draft a guy #7 overall, see him dominate the minors, then deal him for a middle relief prospect? It makes no sense.

A middle relief prospect? That's selling Masterson quite short.

How are these guys middle relief prospects (not that I'd trade Laporta for them)?

Is Colon allowed to opt out if he has a spot in the rotation? Someone would probably give him 1/12 (prorated) or 2/16 or something I would think

Colón was only allowed to opt out if he wasn't on the 25-man roster.

a 23 year old guy with a 4 ERA and 7.5 Ks per 9 in A and AA who doesn't even pitch deep into games hardly screams great prospect to me. Sure, he could be serviceable, but what evidence is there of him being better than that? The Brewers have had plenty of guys like him laying around in AA and AAA lately.

LaPorta may not be a guaranteed great player but he certainly seems like a far better bet than Masterson, even if you disregard TINSTAAP.

How about his ridiculous groundball rate and his successful starts in, you know, the Major Leagues?

And how about Bowden? What about him makes him a middle relief prospect?

The Brewers have plenty of guys like him laying around in AA and AAA already.

I know nothing about the Brewers' system, but even with that said, I'd wager they don't have more than 1 (2 tops) pitchers like either of these guys "laying around" AA.

With the pitching problems they have, it's criminal mismanagement if the Brewers really do have guys that good laying around in the minors.

Just took a look at Milwaukee's AA club. Don't see anyone there who looks like Masteron or Bowden.

Just took a look at Milwaukee's AA club. Don't see anyone there who looks like Masteron or Bowden.

They are there - keep looking!!

a 23 year old guy with a 4 ERA and 7.5 Ks per 9 in A and AA who doesn't even pitch deep into games hardly screams great prospect to me. Sure, he could be serviceable, but what evidence is there of him being better than that? The Brewers have had plenty of guys like him laying around in AA and AAA lately.

Masterson was rated among the top 50 prospects in baseball by numerous publications in preseason. He has a plus sinker and good, developing secondary stuff. We really should have moved past the "compare minor leaguers by selectively summing up component stats" methodology by now.

but why would the brewers want masterson for laporta? They're gonna draft a guy #7 overall, see him dominate the minors, then deal him for a middle relief prospect? It makes no sense.

Just because he was drafted #7 overall, that shouldn't be what defines him. Otherwise we're left playing the "Ian Kennedy was a first round pick!" or "Matt Bush was taken 1/1!" game...

The Brewers have an OFer who is mashing at AA, but is still defensively challenged and blocked by the guys on their MLB roster. OTOH they need starting pitching.

My comment re: Masterson was only that he's closer to being ready to contribute to the ML team (you know, by virtue of already contributing at the ML level) and for the Brewers to deal LaPorta they'd need to be in the race, which would seem to indicate (in this hypothetical scenario) that they're looking to fix their pitching problems at the deadline. I have a hard time seeing him dealt if the Brewers aren't in the hunt...

I meant laying around down there lately. Guys like Eveland, Hendrickson, Sarfate, Aquino, Dillard, Villanueva, Hammond, Capellan, Wright, Hinton, Jackson, Bray, etc. have all had good results or good stuff but weren't totally dominant like Gallardo. Only Villanueva and Dillard are on the Brewers and Dillard figures to get his ticket back to Nashville soon. The Brewers don't value average minor leaguers that highly.

I mean, let's compare Masterson to Villanueva. Villanueva had a much better minor league ERA at higher levels while younger than Masterson. Villanueva K'd more, had a much better K/BB ratio, and had pitched many more than 12 effective major league innings by the time he was as old as Masterson. The Brewers got Villanueva for Wayne Franklin.

Let's compare him to Eveland. Eveland was dominating AAA as a 22 year old lefty. His career minor league ERA is more than 2 runs better than Masterson's. Yet the Brewers used him in a throw-in in a deal to get Johnny F. Estrada.

Let's compare him to Ben Hendrickson. When Hendrickson was 23, he won the AAA pitcher of the year award and had his curveball named the best in AAA by Baseball America. Yet two years later, after putting up a 3.37 ERA in AAA, he was dealt for Max St. Pierre, a catcher who retired mid-season to try to become a pitcher.

How about Dennis Sarfate? He spent his age 23 season in AA, like Masterson is doing. His minor league ERA is more than a run better and he K's a lot more guys. Yes, he walked plenty of guys, but people with 99 MPH fastballs often do that. The Brewers converted him to relief, then sold him for cash to Houston.

What about Capellan? A highly touted prospect that they got from Atlanta for Dan Kolb at age 23. He threw 100 MPH in the minors, yet the Brewers converted him to relief after a quarter of a season in AAA, then dealt away for a non-entity after he threw 100 innings of better than league-average relief for them.

Meanwhile, the non-entity the received in the Capellan deal has a 2.26 career minor league ERA and K's more than a guy per inning and is a lefty.

Or maybe Tim Dillard, his career ERA is more than a run and a half less than Masterson's and he's been at more advanced levels at the same age. He also had low HR rates in the low minors. Meanwhile, the Brewers haven't even considered moving him into the rotation.

Or, we can maybe look at the 3 maligned members of the Brewers rotation. Who should be removed for Masterson?:

Parra? Who had an even lower HR rate through the minors than Masterson, while also having much better success, more K's and a better K/BB ratio?

Bush? Whose career minor league ERA is a run and a half better and who walked well under 2 guys per 9 while striking out almost 9 per 9?

McClung? OK, you could possibly have a case there considering his atrocious Major League numbers. However, he's only in Villanueva's spot until Villy starts pitching better and even McClung's minor league numbers are much better than Masterson's except for walks, but McClung throws 99.


I'll just reiterate that I have no idea why the Brewers would trade their top prospect, who they took #7 and who is so far living up to that billing, for a guy who seems worse than numerous guys they have or have recently given away for nothing.

And again, it's just selective stat comparisons and nothing more. That's not how prospect analysis is or ought to be done.

LaPorta is obviously way better than Masterson and the Brewers would be insane to make that deal, but citing only statistics and making no mention of, for instance, Dillard's lack of a major league out pitch, does not cut it as prospect analysis.

I don't know the Brewers system all that well, but either you're massively misrepresenting their talent, or their management is really, really stupid.

Try one... looked up Ben Hendrickson. The Brewers said he profiled as a #4 starter in BA 2006, and apparently he lost velocity and life on all his pitches during the '05 season. Am I going to find this sort of selective dishonesty everywhere if I keep looking? There is nothing of value in comparing Masterson to Hendrickson, unless Masterson suddenly loses his stuff some time in the future.

The Brewers don't value average minor leaguers that highly.

As opposed to the Red Sox. Nice snark.

Or, we can maybe look at the 3 maligned members of the Brewers rotation. Who should be removed for Masterson?:

We're probably talking past each other, since you obviously don't think Masterson is anything more than a reliever, and most people who follow the Sox think that Masterson has the ability to stick in the majors as a sinker-balling starter.

Parra? Who had an even lower HR rate through the minors than Masterson, while also having much better success, more K's and a better K/BB ratio?

83 ERA+ this season, 93 for his short career.

Bush? Whose career minor league ERA is a run and a half better and who walked well under 2 guys per 9 while striking out almost 9 per 9?

ERA + of 65 for this season, 88 for last season, and 97 for his career.

McClung? OK, you could possibly have a case there considering his atrocious Major League numbers. However, he's only in Villanueva's spot until Villy starts pitching better and even McClung's minor league numbers are much better than Masterson's except for walks, but McClung throws 99.

Right, and with all the guys the Brewers already have available to them they have a staff ERA + of 94, and don't need to improve their pitching at all. Of course as a sinkerball pitcher Masterson would be pitching to the Brewer's defense, which might be a flaw in the plan...

I'll just reiterate that I have no idea why the Brewers would trade their top prospect, who they took #7 and who is so far living up to that billing, for a guy who seems worse than numerous guys they have or have recently given away for nothing.

Because you don't have a spot for him to play and the neat stuff he does in AA doesn't really help your MLB squad?

As for Masterson's talent as compared the Brew Crew's system, I think that you need to consider that either 1. the fact that they've been given away for free probably speaks to the Brewers' ability to evaluate talent or, 2. those guys really aren't quite as good as Masterson in the eyes of people who follow prospects.

No, I'm not saying the Red Sox do or don't value minor leaguers to a certain degree. I don't get where I was snarky. From what I know, the Red Sox seem to have some pretty good prospects.

Also, Hendrickson didn't pan out, which was my point. Not every pitcher who has a 4 ERA in the minors is likely to pan out, and even guys with much better ERAs don't.

And if Hendrickson lost stuff in 2005, why did he K many more guys per 9 than he did in 2004 when he won the AAA pitcher of the year award? That's analysis after the fact, and not really useful, imo.

I'm not practicing "selective dishonesty", I was just listing the numerous Brewers pitching prospects of the past couple years, all of whom haven't panned out or aren't that great. They pretty much without exception have had better minor league numbers than Masterson.

How am I misrepresenting their talent? I posted facts, not nebulous scouting reports (with the exception of pointing out that BA said Hendrickson had a great curveball). These guys had great success in the minors.

I posted facts, not nebulous scouting reports

If that's really how you see this, we're just not going to be able to have a good discussion on the specifics.

Young players, especially young pitchers, go through large, qualitative changes in skill pretty regularly. Minor league pitchers do not throw enough innings at a consistent level of competition for their statistics to be anything more than a very vague approximation of their talents. There are qualitative differences between leagues that make quick comparisons quite problematic, as well. Statistics require large samples taken of the same object to be useful, and in the minors, the sample is small and the object in constant flux.

Trusting in the stats as "facts" is technically correct - they really did happen - but mistakes the utility of these facts in measuring the skills and projecting the future production of a prospect.

That Justin Masterson's stat line looks like Tim Dillard's doesn't speak to the similarity of these pitchers, but to the great limitations of an analysis that fails to engage with qualitative factors.

You don't understand what I'm saying ocd. I'm saying that because the Brewers have a dozen guys who have had much more success in the minors than Masterson and none of them has been that great in the majors, they have no reason to believe Masterson will pan out and thus no reason to trade their top prospect for him. If they wanted a guy like him, they've got them. A 4 ERA at any level of the minors is not that great and I don't get why 12 Major League Innings would be more predictive than the rest of his career combined.

And Parra, because he's pitched 75 not that great major league innings is now garbage? Look at his minor league numbers. He has everything you want. High Ks, low walks, very low HR totals. Also, he has great stuff, including a 95 mph fastball. Nobody could objectively say that Masterson would be a better option.

Let's look at their respective ZIPS for 2008:

Parra: 4.31 ERA
Villanueva: 4.46 ERA
Bush: 4.64 ERA

Masterson: 4.68 ERA

yes, I see where he would be a big upgrade, worth giving up their #1 prospect.

Trusting in the stats as "facts" is technically correct - they really did happen - but mistakes the utility of these facts in measuring the skills and projecting the future production of a prospect.

That Justin Masterson's stat line looks like Tim Dillard's doesn't speak to the similarity of these pitchers, but to the great limitations of an analysis that fails to engage with qualitative factors.

But that's the thing, Dillard's don't look like Masterson's, they look significantly better. I'm not saying Dillard (or any of these guys) are great, I'm saying Masterson is not worth LaPorta.

Also, I'm not arguing that scouting reports mean nothing, no one is saying that. In fact, if you want to talk scouting reports, Kevin Goldstein says that some people project Masterson as a reliever down the road because he only has one pitch, making my assessment of him as a reliever not unheard of.

I'm not saying Dillard (or any of these guys) are great, I'm saying Masterson is not worth LaPorta.

I agreed with you on the latter, quite strongly. Did anyone actually claim otherwise? If they did, I denounce and reject that post.

Comparing statlines without considering the full pictures of the prospects is basically worthless as analysis and adds nothing to your (correct) argument about the superiority of LaPorta to Masterson.

Comparing stats is worthless? I agree that scouting reports are fun, but don't results matter at some point? Masterson has a nice sinker, everyone agrees. However, many of the other guys I mentioned also had a plus pitch. Hendrickson had a great curveball, McClung, Capellan, and Sarfate all had fastballs that hit 99 or above. Villanueva has an excellent changeup that surely rates as a plus pitch. Eveland and Parra are lefties that hit 95-96. Even Dillard and Aquino work at 93-95. These aren't just guys that I've been listing, except maybe Bush and even he has excellent control (2 walks per 9 for his career, top 5 in the NL in 2006 & 2007).

But that's the thing, Dillard's don't look like Masterson's, they look significantly better.

Tim Dillard's numbers do not look anything near as good as Masterson's.

I think the basic error you're making is ignoring Masterson's greatest asset - his HR rate (8 allowed in 223 minor league innings). I don't think Masterson is a great prospect, but he's certainly better than a straight K/BB analysis suggests.

Comparing stats is worthless? I agree that scouting reports are fun, but don't results matter at some point?

For minor leaguers, and particularly for minor league pitchers, I don't find comparing statlines worthwhile unless it is paired to a discussion of the whole prospect.

EDIT: I think this stance is demanded by the statistics themselves. 140 IP in changing conditions from a player subject to significant changes in skill just isn't usefully predictive, based on what we know of baseball statistics. And when you try to add more IP, you start going into leagues which are strongly qualitatively different from the majors (A-ball, basically) and going back to periods in players' careers when they were quite different, just due to normal growth and development.

You make a good point about minor league numbers being invariably small samples and also affected by various other factors. However, I wasn't trying to make an in-depth analysis of whether Masterson would be Brandon Webb or not, just that the Brewers have had some guys who seem somewhat similar. Manny Parra, in particular, gave up 11 Home Runs in his last 285 minor league innings, but has given up 7 in 75 major league innings. Masterson seems like a guy who is likely to pitch in the majors for awhile, but he hasn't dominated in the small amount of innings that he's thrown to an extent that he seems like a sure thing and his scouting reports say he only has one pitch. Couldn't it be inferred from the combination of those 2 factors that he may struggle at the ML level, at least for awhile? I don't see why he'd be seen as some sort of magic bullet that is guaranteed to step in and help a team down the stretch.

Perhaps I've been ####### this argument up. I just think LaPorta would be worth a more premium pitcher than Masterson (though I would be averse to trading him for any pitcher). My only point in listing those guys was to show that the Brewers farm has had some guys who had a reasonable chance of success who didn't achieve it, and thus, considering their good numbers and (in some cases) plus pitches, a guy like Masterson who doesn't have stunning numbers or a stunning arsenal, is not a sure bet for great success either.

Not that LaPorta is a sure thing, but hitters seem to be more projectable and less prone to injury.

I'll just reiterate that I have no idea why the Brewers would trade their top prospect, who they took #7 and who is so far living up to that billing, for a guy who seems worse than numerous guys they have or have recently given away for nothing.

Because you don't have a spot for him to play and the neat stuff he does in AA doesn't really help your MLB squad?

Ah, the Jeff Bagwell argument. Good luck with that.

So, just to clarify, saying that the Brewers have guys "laying around AA" means that they have had these players at some point in their history.

This argument reminds me a lot of the Nagoette/Papelbon comparison. You take a promising young pitcher and compare him to a pitcher who was once promising but did not pan out. Then you pretend that they're both in the same situation currently.

No, that's not what I did, or at least it wasn't my intent. I was just saying that the Brewers have and have had guys who are similar (to some extent) to Masterson and have not tended to value them highly. By pointing out that they haven't panned out, I was merely trying to illustrate that a guy like Masterson is no sure thing. And you're right about the pitchers not being in the same situation, Masterson is in AA, many of the guys I named are in the majors.

And if you want to bring Papelbon into it, his minor league numbers were much more dominant than Masterson's. Masterson isn't that kind of prospect, which was my whole point. Perhaps I said that in a roundabout way. Also, I don't give a #### about Clint Nageotte, so forgive my ignorance of that discussion.


Lastly, why do you keep using a statement that I immediately edited because I "misspoke" (mistyped, I guess) to try to bash me? I meant laying around lately and I immediately added that.

I think the "laying around" is what's getting you into trouble; adding "lately" doesn't help (nevermind your characterization of "dozens" of them). MCoA has already pointed out why blanket ERA comps aren't helpful. Just looking at Sickles and Baseball America, the only pitching prospect the Brewer had who ranked as highly as Masterson was Para. It's a matter of (informed) opinion, but of the players mentioned only Para cracked Sickles top 50 pitching prospects (although one other also got a 'B' grade - blanking on the name) or made BA's top 100 prospects. Sickles had Para higher, but BA had Masterson higher (I think Bowden also made both lists).

If the Brewers really had this many good pitching prospects around their system would probably be ranked a lot higher than it is. I think their handling of both Gallardo and Para indicate that they do value their good young pitching highly (as everyone does).

Just to be clear (since my remarks seem to have touched this off): I'm not saying that the Brewers should be looking to deal LaPorta for Masterson straight up. I was responding to the idea that a prospect challenge trade (which never happen) of Bowden for LaPorta makes some sense for both teams: My take was that if the Brewers were shopping LaPorta, it would be because they are in the playoff hunt and are looking to add a key piece. Since that piece would likely be pitching, it would make more sense that they would be looking at Masterson, who's ready now, as opposed to Bowden, who's still pretty young and looking at another year or two of milb seasoning.

Ah, the Jeff Bagwell argument. Good luck with that.

It might be a bit early to be equating Bagwell with LaPorta, but I think LaPorta is pretty well blocked, much moreso than the average hot prospect. He's a 1Bman with Fielder in front of him, and got moved to LF, where Ryan Braun and his longterm deal just dropped. Unless the Brewers decide to move Braun to RF at the expense of Corey Hart, he doesn't really have a place to play regularly (and he looks ready). Maybe he's insurance against Fielder not taking a hometown discount, but LaPorta's a Boras client, too, so I don't see him really solving that problem in the longterm.

It seems like Joe is trying to reinvent the wheel. Why should we just look at recent Brewers prospects to decide how well prospects will do in general? We have lots of ways to do that, which are mostly reflected in the various prospects list. To use BP's as an example that I have handy, Masterson is ranked #53, and LaPorta is ranked #31, which seems to about reflect the consensus here - Masterson is a good prospect but not worth LaPorta. Relevant to the Brewers is how many players like Masterson they have at this moment. Again going on BP, the Brewers pitchers ranked are Parra at #42 (above Masterson) and Jeffress at #76. Parra is already a starter in the bigs, so it doesn't look like they have a lot more help coming.

From what I know about these players, which is not much, I'd be thrilled to trade Masterson for LaPorta, even though I think highly of Masterson. That's a pretty good indication it's not a fair trade.

Oh, and I really hope they hold on to Manny. Hopefully for less than $20 million, but I'd be sad to see him go - he's still a good player and he makes the game all sorts of fun to watch.

I don't know if the team has said this publicly, but Hart could take over CF and the Brewers could have an OF of LaPorta, Hart, Braun. In a couple of years when Prince is no longer with the team, Hart could move back to RF and LaPorta could take over 1B. That's one possibility that some Brewer fans like, although I believe HW doesn't favor it. That would be one inferior OF defensively, but I imagine it would be one of the best offensive OF.

the Brewers pitchers ranked are Parra at #42 (above Masterson) and Jeffress at #76. Parra is already a starter in the bigs, so it doesn't look like they have a lot more help coming.

Possibly, but Parra would presumably be the guy who Masterson replaced in the rotation, which is I guess what made me feel argumentative about the need for such a trade from a Brewers perspective.

And prospect lists aren't necessarily the best way to rate people, imo. I was looking back through some old BP prospect lists the other day and they had guys Ryan Anderson and Sean Burroughs being the best prospects in baseball.

Just to be clear (since my remarks seem to have touched this off): I'm not saying that the Brewers should be looking to deal LaPorta for Masterson straight up. I was responding to the idea that a prospect challenge trade (which never happen) of Bowden for LaPorta makes some sense for both teams

But no one actually thinks LaPorta and Bowden are comparable prospects, do they?

Prospect lists are someone's attempt to rate people. Since I generally know a lot less than that person, I think it's a pretty good way for me to rate people, especially since I can look at several. If I know of some particular reason to move a player up or down then fine, but a good prospect list or three is a great place to start. Just because they're not 100% correlated with a player's future success doesn't mean they aren't much better than just looking at K/9.

And prospect lists aren't necessarily the best way to rate people, imo. I was looking back through some old BP prospect lists the other day and they had guys Ryan Anderson and Sean Burroughs being the best prospects in baseball.

Give me a way to rate prospects which won't make mistakes. No, really.

But no one actually thinks LaPorta and Bowden are comparable prospects, do they?

Bowden's mother? kevin, maybe?

I was looking back through some old BP prospect lists the other day and they had guys Ryan Anderson and Sean Burroughs being the best prospects in baseball.

Sean Burroughs was a pretty nasty minor league ballplayer. He was an above average hitter in AAA at 20. He had a decent walk rate, a good contact rate and was showing increased power while moving up a level. I don't see anything to suggest he was overrated at the time.

Ryan Anderson was a mistake, but he sure struck out a boatload of guys.

Give me a way to rate prospects which won't make mistakes. No, really.

goddam, I'm not saying there is a foolproof way to do it, just that the prospect lists aren't the greatest barometers of future success, so where a guy is ranked on someone's list (no matter how knowledgeable the compiler is) is not necessarily the last word.

Lastly, why do you keep using a statement that I immediately edited because I "misspoke" (mistyped, I guess) to try to bash me? I meant laying around lately and I immediately added that.

I don't keep using your first statement to bash you. I am "bashing" the fact that your corrected version of what you said bears no resemblance to the original version. I find it very hard believe that when you said they have a bunch of guys like Masterson and Bowden laying around AA, you really meant that at times in the Brewers history, they have had guys like Masterson. That really doesn't make any sense to me, because it would be almost completely irrelevant to what was being discussed.

just that the prospect lists aren't the greatest barometers of future success, so where a guy is ranked on someone's list (no matter how knowledgeable the compiler is) is not necessarily the last word.

What is the greatest barometer? Just curious. I suspect prospect lists do better than just about anything else, but maybe you have a better idea?

It seems to me JoeHova's point, though poorly articulated, was that LaPorta for Masterson isn't happening because:

a. LaPorta's worth more.
b. Masterson might not pan out.
c. The Brewers haven't valued decent-pitching-prospect-with-one-plus-pitch players very highly, and thus are even less likely to make the deal than a. would imply.

First of all, JoeHova, does that capture your point effectively?

Second, if it is correct... Does anyone here dispute any of those points? I'd think the weakest point is b., not because Masterson's a lock, but rather because that point could be used to describe everyone, including LaPorta.


It might be a bit early to be equating Bagwell with LaPorta, but I think LaPorta is pretty well blocked, much moreso than the average hot prospect.

I'm not equating Bagwell with LaPorta. I'm suggesting that LaPorta's value in trade should be on par with what he is capable of, not with how many players are blocking him. It seemed to me that the statement that someone should be traded for less because he's blocked and does no good in AA is the same argument behind the Bagwell-for-Anderson trade. It's an extreme case, for sure, but not irrelevant.

And Bowden. Don't forget Bowden.

What's the deal on LaPorta's defense? MILB lists him as a CF. Isn't he a 1B?

He's a 1B/LF. Definitely more of a 1B, but that position won't need filling anytime soon for the Brewers.

yes vi, those were my points. like I say, I f'd this up somewhere along the way.

and Darren, you are being intentionally obtuse. All those guys were in the system within the past 2 years, not at sometime in history. You make it seem like I was talking about some guy from 1979.

As for Prospect lists, here's BP's top 16 from 1999 (that's not an arbitrary cut-off, they broke down their list by groups of 8 that year and I don't have all day):

1. Eric Chavez: good player, looked like he was going to be great, but not quite.
2. JD Drew: kind of similar to Chavez, good player, sometimes great but never sustained it.
3. Alex Escobar: miss
4. Bruce Chen; Eventually had a good year or two, but overall not very good. Seems to be out of baseball.
5. Pablo Ozuna: miss
6. Nick Johnson: good when healthy, though not as great as some thought he would be.
7. Octavio Dotel: washed out as a starter, was dominant for a couple years as a middle reliever, injured since.
8. Jeremy Giambi: miss
9. Carlos Beltran: very good player
10. Matt Clement: not that good, though not that bad either. Average, I guess.
11. Rick Ankiel (as a pitcher): that didn't work out.
12: Ruben Mateo: miss
13: Russ Branyan: journeyman, though I'm a big fan
14. Brad Penny: good pitcher, nothing all that special until 2007 though
15. Ben Davis: miss
16: Chad Hermansen: miss

That doesn't seem that impressive. 4 good players and 2 guys who have been good when healthy. The other 9 were average at best and several were just terrible. I don't know if there is a better way to rank guys, but just because a guy is ranked highly doesn't mean anything. Of course, maybe 1999 was just a garbage year for prospects, who knows?

LaPorta's mostly been playing rightfield this year (41 games), which is surprising because they say his arm is nothing special. He's also played 7 games in left and 1 at 1st.

There is no way in h#ll the club risks a Braun/Hart/LaPorta defensive alignment. The club got burned in a major fashion stretching the defense in 2007 and it will simply NOT risk going that route again.

With the club right-handed heavy LaPorta is the odd guy out since Gamel is a lefty.

Gamel is hitting .384 at Huntsville.

Angel SAlome is hitting .372 and nobody notices....

I'm suggesting that LaPorta's value in trade should be on par with what he is capable of, not with how many players are blocking him.

"What he's is capable of" is pretty nebulous; I think it's easier to say that his value is what someone will pay for him (which is admittedly also pretty nebulous). The problem is that the actual economics are a bit more complicated: the value a player can provide to his team is probably going to be taken into account by the opposing team(s) when they make offers. When a player is blocked that's going to affect his return value since lower return will still have more value than the player.

I don't know if there is a better way to rank guys, but just because a guy is ranked highly doesn't mean anything.

And yet you're perfectly happy to bring up how LaPorta is ranked. I think you're expecting way too much out of prospects and the predicted performance (not every prospect is a superstar in waiting). You've got a list that includes more players that made it to MLB than didn't; given the attrition rate throughout the minors that seems really good to me. If LaPorta has half the Career JD Drew or Carlos Beltran you should be thrilled. If he even comes anywhere near Nick Johnson or Eric Chavez you should be thrilled.

and Darren, you are being intentionally obtuse. All those guys were in the system within the past 2 years, not at sometime in history. You make it seem like I was talking about some guy from 1979.

I was hyperbolizing for effect. And you'll have to excuse me for not being able to characterize what you're saying accurately. You seem to be having a pretty hard time of it yourself.

the value a player can provide to his team is probably going to be taken into account by the opposing team(s) when they make offers. When a player is blocked that's going to affect his return value since lower return will still have more value than the player.

...if there's only one bidder for his services. If the Brewers' options are trade to Team X or keep him, Team X's bid might (and probably will) reflect the fact that Team X doesn't need to offer much to make it a win for the Brewers (and a big win for Team X). If there are two bidders, Team X could still lowball the Brewers, but they risk losing out to Team Y. Instead of bidding what the Brewers could tolerate as a win, they'd need to bid above whatever Team Y is willing to pay to get him. Team Y, likewise, wants to bid more than what Team X is willing to pay to get him. And with multiple bidders that's more a function of what LaPorta is capable of (nebulous as it is) than it is of anything else.

- - - - - -

I was hyperbolizing for effect.

Rhetorical question: what effect you were going for?

And you'll have to excuse me for not being able to characterize what you're saying accurately. You seem to be having a pretty hard time of it yourself.

But now that you know what he was saying, do you agree?

Can we make this thread about Manny again?

And yet you're perfectly happy to bring up how LaPorta is ranked.

I don't recall doing that. I mentioned his dominant stats versus Masterson's not dominant ones but I never used a prospect ranking to say he shouldn't be traded for Masterson except to say that he was the Brewers top prospect.


And Harv, little Angel is really something, isn't he? I wish they would let him play a little more so he could continue to work on his defense, but the bat is impressive. It looks like the Brewers might finally have a good catching prospect, although his BABIP is probably unsustainably high right now. Let's hope he can get his defense up to par and only use the correct prescriptions. If he does those things, I like his chances a lot, despite his stature and lack of walks.

Can we make this thread about Manny again?



Why would we talk about Manny?

I don't recall doing that. I mentioned his dominant stats versus Masterson's not dominant ones but I never used a prospect ranking to say he shouldn't be traded for Masterson except to say that he was the Brewers top prospect.

"Top prospect" is, in fact, a ranking. There's also bringing up his draft order, which is pretty much the same thing.

Why would we talk about Manny?

$20 million and the Sox on the road isn't a picnic so far... Maybe we should try a thread about Lugo.

"Top prospect" is, in fact, a ranking. There's also bringing up his draft order, which is pretty much the same thing.

Bringing up draft order is nothing at all similar, imo. What draft order shows is that the Brewers valued him over all but (at most) 6 guys in last years draft and paid him accordingly. To give up on him so early, after he has dominated in the minors, would seem to be foolish and a sign that the team doesn't know what they're doing. Prospect rankings, meanwhile, do not show us how teams value players. Draft orders and signing bonuses do. They're apples and oranges.

I mentioned that he was the Brewers top prospect to say that there was some reason to believe that his performance wasn't a fluke, which I also explicitly said when I said he's "living up to (his) billing". I didn't try to compare him to Masterson using prospect rankings, I compared them using results, which is my preference. Masterson may or may not be the Red Sox top prospect, that is irrelevant. LaPorta being the Brewers' top prospect is only relevant in the sense that he is valuable to the Brewers.