Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Transaction Oracle > Discussion
Transaction Oracle
— A Timely Look at Transactions as They Happen

Tuesday, March 23, 2004

Boston Red Sox

Acquired P Matt Duff from the St. Louis Cardinals for IF Tony Womack.

I hated the Red Sox signing of Tony Womack awhile back, but have to eat my words a little now.  Not that Womack isn’t a no-field, no-hit weight, but that the Red Sox actually turned a pointless signing into an actual body.  Duff is your typical minor-league veteran reliever - doesn’t throw a blazing fastball, but can control the strike zone well and keep his stuff down.  The Sox could turn to Duff in an emergency and get some decent fill-in time from him.

As for Womack, just hope that TLR thinks of him as an uber-utility guy rather than a serious contender for time at second and maybe even left.

Dan Szymborski Posted: March 23, 2004 at 12:25 AM | 6 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Related News:

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

Page 2 of 5 pages  < 1 2 3 4 >  Last ›
   101. Steve Treder Posted: February 19, 2002 at 05:51 PM (#554558)
"I think it CAN matter on the field if a player is a dick. Clubhouse chemistry can have an effect. It doesn't have to, but it can."

I completely agree. The question then becomes, IS the clubhouse chemistry having an effect, HOW SIGNIFICANT is the effect, and HOW SHOULD IT BE DEALT WITH.

If indeed the clubhouse chemistry thing is really what the Edmonds trade was all about, then it was a very stupid way for the Angels to deal with that situation. At best, they solved one problem and created bigger ones it its wake.
   102. Bob T Posted: February 19, 2002 at 07:10 PM (#554560)
For the record this was what was DiSarcina was quoted as saying about Edmonds during the 1998 pennant race

"Jim smiles a lot and is outgoing--that's his persona--but you can't act like that when you're on the verge of elimination," shortstop Gary DiSarcina said at the time. "You can't bounce into the clubhouse without a care in the world when your teammates are bloodied, ticked off and not wanting to lose."

The LA Times also wrote about DiSarcina in 2000 this way:

"DiSarcina, 32, may be the most popular player in the Angel clubhouse, a nine-year starter and team leader whose work ethic, intensity and willingness to play through pain has set an example for younger players for years."

I didn't check the OC Register, but I would imagine you would find similar sentiments from that paper.
   103. Toby Posted: February 19, 2002 at 08:04 PM (#554563)
"The player who is distracted from his job because some other guy is a jerk is the one I would rather do without."

I totally agree. Give me guys who perform regardless of the clubhouse zoo around them. Though not causing chaos yourself is a plus, too.

I suspect that the most significant task of a manager is to keep the chaotic guys from distracting the distractable guys, so that each player can prepare and compete at his optimal level.
   104. shredder Posted: February 19, 2002 at 10:37 PM (#554578)
You do this: less than i greater than , then what you want italicized , then less than / i greater than.

the less than and greater than things are one the shift items under K and L. Hope that helps, but this thing posts wierd.
   105. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: February 20, 2002 at 12:44 AM (#554580)
That was Emily Litella.
   106. Dan 'The Boy' Werr Posted: February 20, 2002 at 01:17 AM (#554581)
Here's how it's done:

statement
   107. Dan 'The Boy' Werr Posted: February 20, 2002 at 01:18 AM (#554582)
Damn, I was sure I had it...
   108. Dan 'The Boy' Werr Posted: February 20, 2002 at 01:29 AM (#554583)
Maybe this will work:

statement
   109. Dan 'The Boy' Werr Posted: February 20, 2002 at 01:31 AM (#554584)
Okay, one last try (these all show up right when I preview...)

statement
   110. Dan 'The Boy' Werr Posted: February 20, 2002 at 01:34 AM (#554585)
There is so much evil in the world.

Here is a link that should explain how to do it and other handy HTML tips.
   111. Devin has a deep burning passion for fuzzy socks Posted: February 20, 2002 at 08:09 PM (#554889)
Anybody know whatever happened to Morales' grievance against the Yankees for their attempt to dump his stupid contract on the grounds he lied about his age?
   112. RJ in TO Posted: February 28, 2002 at 02:57 AM (#555099)
I thought the major study that had been done on clutch hitting in the early 80s did demonstrate that over a statistically significant number of AB, there were a small group of players who consistently outperformed their non-clutch stats. I believe the threshhold was set at a batting average in "clutch" situations of 0.025 or 0.050 above the individual's normal performance level.

Unfortunately, while the study did demonstrate the existence of "clutch" players, the only one of them who was considered to be a star was Tim Raines. The others identified in the study were journeymen and scrubs. Not surprisingly, none of the stars who had always been said to posess clutch hitting abilities actually showed them, with their talents beings an example of selective memory.

So yes, clutch hitting does exist, but not among the players that people tend to associate clutch hitting with.
   113. Kurt Posted: February 28, 2002 at 03:29 AM (#555104)
So the Royals gave up Dye and are paying Neifi Perez $4 million this year because they couldn't afford Sanchez's minor league contract?
   114. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: February 28, 2002 at 04:58 AM (#555108)
Just to let everyone know, whatever ******* has been posting as "David Nieporent" in this thread is not me. One of the problems with sites like this, of course, is that it relies on the honesty of the participants. Someone needs to get a life.

It should be obvious from the mediot arguments being made, incidentally, that it isn't me.

Sean, if you're reading this, I don't suppose there's something that can be done about it, because it would get to be too much work to retro-moderate the site, but if there is, I'd appreciate it.
   115. Mike Emeigh Posted: February 28, 2002 at 01:26 PM (#555111)
Sanchez has had the advantage of having a lot of balls hit in his direction over the past couple of years, which also increases the number of easy plays he has a chance to make. His defensive value is overstated in every defensive method out there. primarily for that reason, just as Derek Jeter's rating is depressed because he has few balls hit his way.

-- MWE
   116. Chris Dial Posted: February 28, 2002 at 06:13 PM (#555119)
Jay -
   117. Chris Dial Posted: February 28, 2002 at 08:10 PM (#555121)
Jay -
   118. jwb Posted: February 28, 2002 at 10:08 PM (#555122)
This hopefully kills Gary DiSarcina's chances at playing in the majors this year

Not so fast. If their middle infield health/luck is as poor as it was last year, you may have a chance. DiSarcina is about as likely to get playing time this year as, say, Grebeck was last year. And DiSarcina is probably even more likely than Grebeck to hit the DL himself.
   119. Mike Emeigh Posted: March 04, 2002 at 03:12 AM (#555126)
As I said on another thread, most of the details of this analysis are in a paper that will be presented - if accepted - at SABR32, and thus I don't want to expand too much on it here in advance, since that wouldn't be fair to those who are coming to SABR32.

I have licensed play-by-play data for the 1999-2000 seasons from Pete Palmer and Gary Gillette, with 1998 and 2001 to follow when ready. Pete and Gary have gone over this data very carefully, bumping it against many published source, and I am confident that I'm working from a reliable data set.

The ball location data is based on the charts developed by Project Scoresheet/the Baseball Workshop, which can be seen at the Retrosheet Web site. I looked at ground balls hit in three areas - the SS hole (the "56" zones), directly at the SS (the "6") zones, and on the SS side of 2B (the "6M" zones). The basic conclusions that I drew were:

-- SS convert most of the balls hit in the "6" zones into outs (about 95%), and there is very little variation between SS in the percentage of these that they convert into outs.

-- Sanchez had one of the highest percentages of balls in play in the "6" zones in the AL in 1999 and 2000.

-- Jeter had one of the lowest percentages of balls in play in the "6" zones in the AL in 1999 and 2000.

So when I say that Sanchez had more easy chances that Jeter, that's what I mean - balls in play in the "6" zones, hit directly at the SS, on which every shortstop will, 95% of the time, make the play. And that is the primary reason why Sanchez has a high ZR and Jeter has a low ZR - because Sanchez had more chances to make easy plays than Jeter.

For the rest of this, you all will either have to come to Boston in June or wait until I can post it here.

-- MWE
   120. Chris Dial Posted: March 04, 2002 at 02:31 PM (#555127)
MWE -
   121. Repoz Posted: March 07, 2002 at 05:57 AM (#555275)
Excellent work as usual Olperfesser,I don't understand why the Red Sox even tried to change Eckstein's approach to hitting.I saw him play a couple of times at AA Trenton..What a royal pain in the ass,hustling all over the clay,playing sandbox infield,fan favorite and had an outstanding .440 OBA while hitting .313.
   122. There are no words... (Met Fan Charlie) Posted: March 07, 2002 at 04:22 PM (#555279)
Oldperfesser,

I took that piece of the article to mean that Duquette wanted Eckstein out, & Jimy wanted to keep him, but since Duke was the GM, "guess who won."

I don't think Gammons was trying to say that Duquette got rid of Eckstein to "punish" Williams, per se, but that he "outranked" him, and therefore, his word was "law."

Just my $.02, anyway...
   123. Shredder Posted: March 07, 2002 at 10:41 PM (#555282)
Wait a minute, wait a minute. Let me get this straight. You're trying to tell me that a sportswriter has a hidden agenda or bias of some sort and that he uses his column as a means to promote that agenda. I don't know, that's quite a revelation and I'm going to have to chew on that for a while before I really believe it.

Big deal. Sports writers have always had their favorites and their favorite targets. If you don't like Peter Gammons, don't read his column. Start reading TJ Simers in the LA Times. At least he's pretty blatant about who he likes and who he doesn't like.
   124. Dan Szymborski Posted: March 08, 2002 at 06:48 AM (#555283)
If we're talking about columnists that don't like Dan Duquette, how can one of the masters of the hatchet job, Dan Shaughnessy not be mentioned?
   125. Golfing Great Mitch Cumstein Posted: March 08, 2002 at 07:48 PM (#555286)
A few points on the Boston writers.
   126. Klobedanz Posted: March 14, 2002 at 03:06 PM (#555441)
He managed here in Richmond VA , where I live, and he was not only a very succesful manager here, but also a very nice person to talk to.
   127. User unknown in local recipient table (Craig B) Posted: April 26, 2002 at 04:17 PM (#556060)
It's funny... yesterday I found myself obsessing about where Barker was in the Expos system since he wasn't in Ottawa or Harrisburg... I was actually concerned because he didn't seem to have been released, at least not that I could find. (When Barker starts to look like a good alternative as a starting CF, your team is in trouble, 14-8 or not).

Turns out he was with Boston, and when I found out I was relieved.
   128. jwb Posted: April 26, 2002 at 06:52 PM (#556063)
[The Dodgers]announced that Slugger-R Phil Hiatt has cleared waivers and been designated for assignment to Las Vegas. [2/12]

from Chris Kahrl's Transaction Analysis section of http://www.baseballprospectus.com/search.html
   129. Bernal Diaz has an angel on his shoulder Posted: June 05, 2002 at 03:42 AM (#556910)
I thought Willie Banks was working in a car wash in Tunica MS or something.
   130. RJ in TO Posted: June 06, 2002 at 02:02 AM (#556913)
Typically, these policies only take effect after the player has been on the disabled list a certain amount of time. I don't know the exact length, but in the case of Pavel Bure, when he was injured, the insurance policy only took effect after 90 days. While I doubt this 90 day length is the case for all policies, I'm pretty sure that they only cover long-term injuries - typically season ending ones. I doubt that Manny being on the DL for 6 weeks will qualify under the policy.
   131. Colin Posted: June 24, 2002 at 04:44 PM (#557290)
Assuming the Sox can schedule Embree's injuries for days when teh Yankees aren't in town.
   132. Geoff Young Posted: June 24, 2002 at 08:18 PM (#557291)
Shibilo's actually a decent prospect. Baseball America had him ranked as the Pads #19 prospect coming into the season.
   133. Geoff Young Posted: June 24, 2002 at 11:35 PM (#557293)
I didn't have him ranked in my personal Top 30, mainly because I'm not a big fan of minor-league relievers. But the guy has a live arm and shouldn't be so easily dismissed. I agree that Shibilo isn't the key to this deal for either side, but you may underestimate him.
   134. fracas' hope springs eternal Posted: June 25, 2002 at 01:55 AM (#557294)
I think the most amusing thing is that the Padres probably knew they were going to make the trade, and then promptly used Embree for 3 innings before shipping him off the next morning. Way to maximize your return!
   135. Darren Posted: June 25, 2002 at 04:22 AM (#557296)
ND, I agree. Here's what I posted over at the Sox Therapy discussion of this trade:

<B>Embree Home/Road Splits 2002:

Home: 21.1 IP, 38 K, 8 BB, 0 HR, 0.00 ERA
   136. Geoff Young Posted: June 25, 2002 at 04:12 PM (#557297)
I think the most amusing thing is that the Padres probably knew they were going to make the trade, and then promptly used Embree for 3 innings before shipping him off the next morning.

I dunno, I kinda figure those three innings are what sealed the deal. He struck out seven batters on the team that is the Sox' biggest rival and threat this season. Pretty good sales pitch, so to speak.
   137. fracas' hope springs eternal Posted: June 26, 2002 at 12:45 AM (#557301)
Well, I do like the how the Padres pick up middle reliever "fixer-uppers", slap some paint on them, and trade them for prospects. On the other hand, the Braves seem to pick up the same caliber of guys, fix them up, and use them to help win another division title. I've been waiting a long time for the Padres to re-tool, but I guess I'm waiting another year. That's okay. I have faith. (F-you, Seligula!)

fracas
   138. Robert Dudek Posted: July 02, 2002 at 03:17 AM (#557307)
C'mon Red Sox, put Fossum in the rotation. Scruff and I have him in our Diamond Mind League and it sure would be nice if he could rack up some innings.
   139. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: July 12, 2002 at 09:11 PM (#557637)
I'm pretty sure that Sanchez will repeat his May again, if only when the universe starts contracting and time reverses direction.
   140. All you Need is Glove Posted: July 12, 2002 at 09:43 PM (#557638)
Vlad,
   141. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: July 13, 2002 at 03:19 AM (#557639)
Mmm, yams.
   142. Darren Posted: July 27, 2002 at 02:31 PM (#557996)
Maybe someone will get Garces on a program to get him back up to his effective weight.

All I can say is thank god the sox found a way to get Baerga back on the roster. We really need another 2B who can't really play 2B too well. If they had dropped Offerman, they'd have a huge hole in our lineup where the huge hole used to be.
   143. Darren Posted: July 28, 2002 at 03:50 AM (#557998)
As the article notes, some guys take that as an incentive to work harder and get the big deal next year, while others sulk and go south. El Guapo did the latter, evidently.

Well, I don't think we can conclude he sulked and went south. He did work extra hard on his conditioning in the offseason, after all.

And I don't think that Garces, or anyone else, would have predicted his skill erosion would come so quickly (if in fact that's what's happening).

Dropping Garces when you can drop one of your 35 2B instead seems like a terrible idea.
   144. Darren Posted: July 29, 2002 at 01:39 AM (#558001)
Perfessor,

I can't understand where this story was before the season. I remember reading all about Garces's offseason training and about his being upset about the contract. But there wasn't any mention that he dropped his conditioning program at any point.

Did Edes just find this out from an "inside source" on the Sox? I'm dubious.

I agree that the psychological stuff is tough to figure. That was the point I was trying to make--ie, we can't say for sure he sulked but we also can't say that he didn't.
   145. Toby Posted: July 29, 2002 at 05:01 PM (#558004)
It's very disturbing to see Garces painted as an attitude case since the offseason, by the new regime, by Edes, and by some on this thread. He pitched very respectably in spring training. When he struggled early on, opposing scouts observed that he didn't have good stuff (his fastball topped out at 90 rather than 94 and his pitches were flat). We learned that he had a hamstring problem, same problem he had last year. Since he's come off the DL, he seems to have his good stuff back, but he doesn't have control.

The most plausible explanation for Garces' season is that his hamstring problem left him ineffective and, assuming he's now healthy, he hasn't gotten in nearly enough work to regain sharpness.

This is Grady Little's fault. Let's say that again, this is Grady Little's fault.

Though it would have been nice for Garces to agree to go to Pawtucket and get some work in there, his refusal to do so doesn't make him a malcontent.

Shabby, shabby treatment for a guy who has pitched well and deserved his status as a fan favorite. Another team would be wise to sign him (assuming a physical shows he is indeed healthy), and he may well bite the Sox in the butt down the road.

The Sox wouldn't dare to treat the two mascots, Baerga and Merloni, this way.
   146. SM in DC Posted: July 31, 2002 at 02:12 PM (#558128)
Will, Will, Will.. my lad.. the BoSox aren't going to see the playoffs, except on Fox like you and I.

But on a side note, is it not sort of encouraging that Minaya went after prospects, not say, Jose Offerman, Tony Clark, etc.? Is that some kind of indication that Les Expos might be around next year after all?
   147. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: August 01, 2002 at 03:29 AM (#558218)
I think I know what you're missing, Guy: Kenny Williams isn't any good at his job.

No need to tip me.
   148. Robinson Cano Plate Like Home Posted: August 01, 2002 at 12:47 PM (#558223)
Williams' trades as of late scream of doing "something." I figure he has recognized that the sox have no chance this year, so in an attempt to take some action, he does "something." It's quite sad.

Makes you wonder...would the quality of trades in the majors be improved if me and my friends (or any team of fantasy geeks/managers)took over the white sox, royals, d-rays, and bucs?
   149. User unknown in local recipient table (Craig B) Posted: August 01, 2002 at 02:57 PM (#558149)
Oh, man. What I would give to make a James Bond movie with Samuel L. Jackson in the title role. Nice and dark... maybe based closely on one of the early books, one of the sombre ones like _Casino Royale_.
   150. Toby Posted: August 01, 2002 at 02:57 PM (#558150)
I love the way no one cried conspiracy when the Marlins sent Floyd to the Expos, and no one cried conspiracy when the Indians sent Colon to the Expos, and no one cried conspiracy when the commissioner OK'd the Mondesi deal even though it included more than the maximum $1M cash transferred between teams, and now all of a sudden it's a conspiracy when the Red Sox trade their best remaining pitching prospect to the Expos for Floyd.

Good stuff, Sherlocks.
   151. User unknown in local recipient table (Craig B) Posted: August 01, 2002 at 03:00 PM (#558151)
Geez, everyone's piling on KF but the man has a point. This deal is a swindle, and the fact that MLB is dealing John Henry _another_ favour stinks worse than a summer beach full of dead squid.

That said, nobody seriously thought that the Yankees got a good deal by getting Mondesi, did they? Not here, anyway.
   152. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: August 01, 2002 at 03:15 PM (#558152)
There have already been two movie versions of Casino Royale: a 55-minute B/W version starring Barry Nelson and Peter Lorre in 1954, and the notorious 1967 spoof with Peter Sellers, Orson Welles, and Woody Allen, among others. The '54 one is supposed to be pretty faithful to the novel (unusual for a Bond film), but I've never seen it. Some of the style of the novel was also ripped off in Live and Let Die, as well.
   153. User unknown in local recipient table (Craig B) Posted: August 01, 2002 at 07:15 PM (#558154)
Vlad,

The '67 film isn't "Casino Royale" at all, they just optioned the film and borrowed the title. As an all-star comedy, it's about as good as "Rat Race", which only tells you just how bad these concepts usually are.

The '54 made-for-TV film is OK, I saw it last year, I wouldn't call it in any way faithful to the novel as some seem to. The novel is dark, and pretty disturbing; very "noir"ish, which the movie isn't at all. The movie is notable for its performance by Peter Lorre, as are all Peter Lorre movies. They could not have cast a better man for "Le Chiffre".

One of the great things about _Casino Royale_ (the book) is its astonishing psychological tone; we really get inside the head of an agent/operative to see how it ticks. There's an astonishing misogyny at the bottom of the Bond character, most of which is probably connected to a general misanthropy on behalf of the writer... but it's delivered so coolly and unhurriedly, it seems shockingly (almost deliciously) cold-blooded.

The Bond character in Casino Royale is about a million miles removed from the Bond character of the movies.
   154. Stevens Posted: August 01, 2002 at 08:24 PM (#558224)
Joshua: yes.
   155. User unknown in local recipient table (Craig B) Posted: August 27, 2002 at 01:37 PM (#558582)
BTW, does anyone besides me think it sucks that ESPN.com doesn't keep a guys MLB stats available unless he's on the big league roster? Its silly for guys like Benny who had some MLB time this year but are at AAA.

Glenn, they are available. Go to google and enter the player's name (first and last). The ESPN.com page for him is usually one of the top two or three links, and the pages are always available with updated 2002 stats.
   156. fracas' hope springs eternal Posted: November 12, 2002 at 06:34 PM (#559311)
He's a knuckleballer. The Sox rotation should therefore go like this:

Pedro Martinez
   157. Dan Markham Posted: November 12, 2002 at 09:16 PM (#559313)
I used to think Wakefield could go whenever. During his first year with the Sox, he started and went a good distance on two days rest (following a lengthy start). And he's often volunteered to go to the pen on his off days when he's starting (or, to convince his managers to keep him in the starting rotation).

However, I also remember, in 2001, when he finished off an 18-inning game with the Jays a few days after a start, he told Jimy Williams he was gassed.
   158. fracas' hope springs eternal Posted: November 12, 2002 at 11:16 PM (#559314)
I was kidding about pitching him every other day, but a pure knuckleballer could probably function fine as part of a three man rotation that pushed everybody back for off days, or on a strict three days' rest rotation.

Considering that pennants are won and lost with the performance of third and fourth (and fifth) starters, a good knuckleballer used to replace some of those innings would be a huge advantage.

No modern pitching coach/manager would pitch even a knuckleballer every third or fourth day, but it would work if they did.
   159. Darren Posted: November 13, 2002 at 03:14 AM (#559317)
I'd have to say that those league-average years he'll still be worth the contract.

I don't think Wakefield would survive in a 3-man rotation, and he'd be pressed in a 4-man. Just going on what I've seen from him the last couple years.
   160. fracas' hope springs eternal Posted: November 13, 2002 at 11:40 PM (#559321)
Hacksaw's, Smacksaw's, Butterknife's posts seem to lack relevance. explain?

These are all references to Lee "Hacksaw" Hamilton, who (when I left there) was a sports talk radio host in San Diego - XTRA 690. He's really obnoxious and not very bright, and specializes in highlighting how boring his show is by demanding that callers get more excited.

I don't know why any one would imitate him.
   161. Greg Franklin Posted: November 14, 2002 at 01:45 AM (#559323)
And "Butterknife" is how Jim Rome refers to Hamilton on his own show. It's an in-joke.

Hackaaw's favorite trope is to refer to players/teams he doesn't like as "troubled." "The troubled Barry Bonds", "The troubled Boston Red Sox search for a GM," etc.
   162. Shredder Posted: November 14, 2002 at 08:34 PM (#559324)
Rome occasionally breaks out into Hacksaw impersonations, which are pretty funny if you know who Hacksaw is. I can only assume that they aren't that funny if you don't know who he is. Of course, that makes the impressions that much funnier.
   163. John Posted: November 15, 2002 at 01:41 AM (#559325)
Wakefield apparently has a weak arm by knuckleballer standards. I've heard he needs to have 3-4 days rest between outings and in those cases when he has been used on shorter rest following outings of 5 Inning or more his career ERA is pretty lousy.

That said given what other teams paid other sub-average pitchers he'll easily justify the pay. I'm a little shocked that nobody else would have exceeded the amount he was offered just to have an inning sucker (like the Rangers for instance).
   164. NTNgod Posted: November 15, 2002 at 11:24 PM (#559394)
I don't know; as a Brewer fan, I never thought much of him coming into the year.
   165. Mikαεl Posted: November 16, 2002 at 02:02 PM (#559396)
I thought Shiell, Izquierdo and Lyon were also added by the new order.
   166. Bob T Posted: November 16, 2002 at 06:06 PM (#559328)
While Wakefield's arm could hold out used that frequently, could the rest of him do so? Wouldn't his legs get tired also? I know it doesn't look like he's exerting a lot of effort, but it can't be that easy to throw a knuckleball close to the plate 120 times every two days if you keep up that pattern for six months.
   167. Darren Posted: November 20, 2002 at 04:33 PM (#559586)
Is Zuletta a righty? If so, he'll make a nice, cheap platoon partner for Dabauch.

This is a good, low risk move. I'd be happier if the Sox also picked up Melusky, but you have to like what they're doing this off-season, regardless of what anonymous GMs say to Gammons and Edes.
   168. Mikαεl Posted: November 20, 2002 at 05:11 PM (#559587)
Yup, Zuleta bats right. Good things, here. Good things.
   169. Darren Posted: November 20, 2002 at 05:38 PM (#559588)
Does anyone have his L/R splits?
   170. Joey Numbaz (Scruff) Posted: November 20, 2002 at 06:45 PM (#559591)
Great move for the Sox. When teams say they can't compete it drives me nuts. Any suckass team could've grabbed this guy for next to nothing. Hell the Cardinals could've had Zuleta instead of Tino for about 1/10 of the cost, if not cheaper, and Zuleta's a better player to boot. I guess we've already hit this on the Meluskey thread, but this is just another example.
   171. Mikαεl Posted: November 20, 2002 at 06:46 PM (#559592)
Given Premise A, that Don Baylor is an esteemed talent evaluator who bestows playing time upon only his most deserving players, Odo's rant is right on the money.

Of course, given Premise A, up is down, down is up and Rob Schneider's The Hot Chick is garnering early Oscar buzz.
   172. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: November 20, 2002 at 07:06 PM (#559594)
Ask, and ye shall receive:

Zuleta vs. LHP, career: 59 AB, .871 OPS
   173. Darren Posted: November 20, 2002 at 07:30 PM (#559595)
Is Odo short for Odius?

You're kind of being a tool, don't you think?
   174. Andere Richtingen Posted: November 20, 2002 at 09:57 PM (#559598)
Odiosity aside, Zuleta's probably a pretty marginal major leaguer. I think there is a decent chance that he will be a very good righty half of a major league platoon but little more than that. The Red Sox seem to be stuck with finding a spit and chewing gum solution at first base, and Zuleta is potentially very useful in that regard, but I wouldn't be too excited about the acquisition of Zuleta if I were a Red Sox fan. His walk rate came up a bit this year, but in his career he has been a no-walk hacker with a swing you can drive a truck through.

Anyway, I'm glad to see him in an organization where he will probably get a chance. I've always liked him for some reason.

Is this guy a 1b? I see him listed on other sites as a OF.

He is mostly a 1B, but this year played a lot of OF because Hee-Seop Choi occupied 1B for the Iowa Cubs.
   175. Bill Posted: November 21, 2002 at 07:15 PM (#559602)
I guess this means Boston isn't going to try to re-sign Pickering? I was hoping he would get another chance after being injured last year.
   176. Mike Emeigh Posted: November 22, 2002 at 12:47 AM (#559604)
I saw Pickering several times in his last season in Rochester and he was totally lost at the plate; he didn't drive a ball hard and hit a *lot* of balls weakly the other way. It looked like his bat speed was gone, goodbye. His conditioning was also clearly (to put it mildly) suspect. Frankly, I'd question his work ethic at this point in his career; granted that the Orioles screwed with him and never gave him a decent shot, but I never got the impression he was working particularly hard after the first rejection to convince them, or anyone else, that he deserved another chance.

-- MWE
   177. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: November 23, 2002 at 08:45 PM (#559612)
I'm still hoping that the Pirates snag Pickering. He'd be at worst a solid bench bat on a team that doesn't really have any of those, and working on his conditioning might give the team some insight into how to deal with Walter Young.
   178. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: November 24, 2002 at 03:09 PM (#559683)
LOOGY = Lefty One Out GuY

Tolar's problem has always been his control. He has a 1:1 BB:K ratio for his brief ML career, and had problems as a young pitcher in the minors as well. His totals the last two years in AAA show marked improvement, so I guess it's possible that he's made progress. He sure wasn't throwing strikes in spring training, though.

Woodard's a good signing, as always.
   179. Shredder Posted: November 27, 2002 at 04:21 AM (#559615)
OK, well now its got 30 comments.
   180. Mikαεl Posted: November 28, 2002 at 02:00 PM (#559797)
Rupe has two excellent pitches, a fastball well into the 90s and a changeup and, like Barry Zito, will throw any pitch anywhere on any count.

Wow. From a Devil Fishies cast-off to the Cy Young in one easy step.

But I do think it's another good free talent acquisition. Big toolsy guy, good stuff, injury history, good K's, only two pitches - he just screams, "Convert me to short relief!"
   181. Aaron Gleeman Posted: November 28, 2002 at 06:46 PM (#559800)
You know, sometimes I think I really should be a General Manager for some team.

Here is what I said about Mr. Rupe last week when he got cut by the D-Rays:

http://baseballblog.blogspot.com/2002_11_17_baseballblog_archive.html#84856197

<i>I think Ryan Rupe has the ability to be a good Major League starting pitcher and his chances of doing so probably just got a lot better, despite being released.
   182. Mike Emeigh Posted: November 28, 2002 at 07:08 PM (#559801)
Rupe has been a fly ball pitcher for most of his career, but last year his numbers look as though he was making a major effort to keep the ball down. He cut his HR rate nearly in half between 2001 and 2002 as his GB rate went way up. Unfortunately, he wasn't much more effective overall with that approach.

I'm inclined to agree that he'd be more effective as a reliever than as a starter. He does seem to come out smoking for a couple of innings and then lose it suddenly. His 14-7 loss to Toronto early last April was an example - he retired the first six hitters without a scratch, walked the leadoff hitter in the third, gave up a bunt single, and then gave up six more hits is succession before getting his next out.

-- MWE
   183. Christian (ruz) Posted: November 28, 2002 at 07:21 PM (#559802)
Nice pick-up indeed by the Sox. With only 29 players on their 40-man roster, I expect them to be active in the waiver game, and this might give Theo an early opportunity to mold the team the way he wants it.

So far, so good...
   184. Mr. Crowley Posted: November 29, 2002 at 01:57 AM (#559804)
It's a trap!
   185. Eugene Freedman Posted: November 29, 2002 at 01:00 PM (#559806)
I've fallen in the Rupe trap several years in a row in my rotisserie league. Good K/9 numbers. Good K/BB numbers. Good BB/9 numbers. He just needs to put it all together. Then, he pitches to a 6.00 ERA for April and May and I'm forced to cut him.

We'll last longer against those star destoryers than against that battle station.
   186. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: November 29, 2002 at 04:20 PM (#559812)
I don't</i> have much to say about Rupe; I just want to get rid of the italics.
   187. jb Posted: December 02, 2002 at 10:51 PM (#559814)
rupe is maddeningly inconsistent. lights out for 3-4 innings, then class A the next inning. maybe the red sox have a coach or two who can knock that out of him. otherwise, i wouldn't expect to see him in boston.
   188. Aaron Gleeman Posted: December 03, 2002 at 08:35 PM (#559817)
<i>Posted 1:25 p.m., December 3, 2002 - John T
   189. Greg Franklin Posted: December 06, 2002 at 12:43 AM (#556914)
Banks returns to Boston for 2003 - 1 year contract. His ERA+ of 137 in 39 IP will keep him away from the car wash another year.
   190. Anthony Giacalone Posted: December 09, 2002 at 04:58 AM (#560385)
This is a bit of piling on, Dan. IIRC, Kenny Williams traded Singleton for an actual prospect and two non-prospects for D'Angelo Jimenez and . . . well, okay, that's it but, c'mon.
   191. Mikαεl Posted: December 09, 2002 at 02:44 PM (#560387)
Because he's a year removed from a 4.21 ERA and two years removed from a 3.59 ERA. His DIPS ERA last year was around 4.50, I believe. As a 6th starter, long reliever, he should be worth 500K above the minimum, no problem.
   192. karlmagnus Posted: December 09, 2002 at 02:51 PM (#560388)
He has HUGE negative value if, as in 2001 and the first half of '02, he keeps Wakefield out of the rotation.
   193. Eric Posted: December 09, 2002 at 03:03 PM (#560389)
Grady Little has stated that Tim Wakefield will be a starter this year.
   194. Mikαεl Posted: December 09, 2002 at 05:05 PM (#560392)
Casey Fossum is ready. These are his career K/9, BB/9 and HR/9 in the minors:

AAA: 10.1, 2.16, .36
   195. Dan Szymborski Posted: December 13, 2002 at 03:26 AM (#560587)
I sort of got myself thinking. Perhaps the Walker trade is to get a *3B* replacement for Hillenbrand if he goes? Walker has played it before, after all.
   196. NTNgod Posted: December 13, 2002 at 03:32 AM (#560588)
Baseball America is reporting Tony Blanco and Josh Thigpen as the PTBNLs:
   197. NTNgod Posted: December 13, 2002 at 04:10 AM (#560592)
Well, the Cards just picked up Chris Carpenter:
   198. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: December 13, 2002 at 01:38 PM (#560596)
That's Stimson, not Stinson, and I don't think that's his line, either. I played that part in high school, though it's been a while.
   199. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: December 13, 2002 at 01:40 PM (#560597)
Oh yeah, the trade. Seems instinctively like the Red Sox overpaid, though heaven knows I'm no fan of Blanco. I just feel like they'd've been better off coughing up ~$3m extra and getting Alfonzo.
   200. Jason Posted: December 13, 2002 at 03:33 PM (#560600)
I'm surprised to see Tony Blanco's name mentioned as part of this trade. I haven't kept up on his latest doings, but I seem to remember him being one of if not the best up-and-coming prospect in the system a year or two ago (other than his plate discipline, perhaps?). Has it really come to him not being able to pull in more than half of Todd Walker?

Then again, maybe this is just more Gammonsian speculation.
Page 2 of 5 pages  < 1 2 3 4 >  Last ›

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
The Id of SugarBear Blanks
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Syndicate

Page rendered in 0.5452 seconds
42 querie(s) executed