Other than trying to sign Mike Napoli, I don't like any of these ideas. Maybe this is too conservative, but, I wish they would only make big moves if it is a good fit. I like Carl Crawford, but, he didn't make sense with the Red Sox for a number of reasons (athleticism wasted in small Fenway leftfield, over abundance of left handed hitters in line-up, Reddick/Kalish both left handed outfielders in AAA expected to be in majors within the next few seasons, 1 and 2 spots in lineup already have Ellsbury and Pedroia there). John Lackey was a horrible signing, and this isn't just hindsight. I don't know anyone who was excited about spending a ton of money on Lackey. There just have been too many stupid moves that do not make sense with regard to the roster at the time.

I love these types of articles. "This is a list of name players to trade for without any mention of who will be given up in trades for them." He must have spent all of 20 minutes on this.

@#2, you've described Cafardo's methods well. He thinks it's still 1980 or so, when a Sunday notes column could be compiled solely from a list of players that I've heard of and may be available, possibly.

@1, Crawford and Lackey probably seemed like overpays to a lot of fans, but I think they probably also seemed like overpays to the front office too. I bet they would have been perfectly happy paying them $7 mil a win (or something). The problem was that they paid them large salaries no value at all. Crawford didn't hurt the team because he was a lefty or that his defense was wasted in LF. He hurt the team because every single part of his game cratered.

The thing I got most out of this article was that Ben Cherington has an interesting face: boyish overall but with the nose of an old boxer and the brow of a neanderthal.

Trade for Storen.

They were both definitely overpays, and I think most teams, at some point, are going to overpay for a player. My point is, they were overpaying for players that weren't very good (Lackey) or didn't fit well with the team they currently had (Crawford). Yes, if Crawford played the way you would have expected, it wouldn't have seemed awful. But, even if he played the same way he did with the Rays, where do you hit him? In 2010, if you assume you have some combination of Crawford/Ellsbury/Pedroia 1 through 3, you are either hitting Ortiz or Gonzalez sixth or later, or you have four lefties in the first five line up spots.

I understand the need to overpay occasionally for a player. But, it should be for a player that fills a need. When Werth was off the table, the Red Sox decided they had money burning a hole in their pocket and needed another outfielder.

According to Bill Chuck, Hamilton had the best “isolated power” (a stat derived from subtracting hits from total bases and dividing by at-bats) at .292,

I find it odd that a newspaper columnist has to quote someone instead of looking at the fangraphs leaderboard. Does this make it seem (to the typical reader) that the reporter dug up "insider stats" from his sources?

I find it odd that a newspaper columnist has to quote someone instead of looking at the fangraphs leaderboard. Does this make it seem (to the typical reader) that the reporter dug up "insider stats" from his sources?

Why do you expect a newspaper columnist (or typical reader) to be familiar with ISO or fangraphs?

Why do you expect a newspaper columnist (or typical reader) to be familiar with ISO or fangraphs?

I don't know about typical readers, but I have seen a number of newspaper reporters cite fangraphs or Baseball-Reference for a statistic--to the extent that they feel the need to cite a source for a publicly available baseball stat.

The article reads like that of a 14-year old fan boy's blog.

I don't know about typical readers, but I have seen a number of newspaper reporters cite fangraphs or Baseball-Reference for a statistic--to the extent that they feel the need to cite a source for a publicly available baseball stat.

Fair enough, but it's Cafardo here. It's possible he thought citing a person rather than a website would make him sound more authoritative, but it seems much more likely he just hasn't heard of ISO or spent much time on Fangraphs.

Astros scout Paul Ricciarini on Brad Ausmus: “I recognized 18 years ago that Brad was going to be a major league manager someday.” By the way, Ausmus was 25 at the time.

Passed on by the Chicago Cubs via Ricciarini

You guys made me curious, so I Googled it. This is Bill Chuck. Does the column ask for Dwight Evans to have a greater role in the organization?

(a stat derived from subtracting hits from total bases and dividing by at-bats)

Or, more simply, extra bases divided by at-bats. Or SLG - BA.

But, c'mon, any baseball writer who doesn't use b-r should be fired immediately.* It's like the city beat reporter missing a press conference because he doesn't know what room it's in. At the very least, take advantage of your paper's overpriced subscription to Stats, Inc.

*This is not to say that Cafardo should be fired. I don't expect him to have the leaderboards memorized and he was probably crediting the guy who mentioned this to him. It does read like "whoa, never heard of this before and have no idea how I could possibly verify it" but (a) he's got to tell the readers what it is and (b) adding "which I later confirmed after consulting baseball-reference.com" is pretty extraneous.

Whoa! Do my eyes deceive me? Does the standard b-r league leaders board not actually have ISO on it? It's got crap like power-speed number and sac bunts but no ISO? You need a P-I sub to figure this one out? Cafardo is totally off the hook. Anyway, Hamilton did indeed lead the majors in ISO. He is tied for 3rd over the last 3 years -- holy crap, Bautista has a 322 ISO 2010-12. Stanton is 2nd at 283 followed by Hamilton and Cabrera at 270. Napoli is at 259 which ain't shabby. 2012 NL MVP Alfonso Soriano is at a healthy 237 in case you or your GM are interested.

*This is not to say that Cafardo should be fired.

I agree. It just sounds like a journalist following proper attribution guidelines.

*This is not to say that Cafardo should be fired.

In fact, though, he should be. He is terrible.

Way too few PA, but Ortiz' ISO was .293 this year (and .262 for 2010-12.)