|
|
|
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 01:25 AM | 6 comment(s)
Login to Bookmark
Related News:
|
Support BBTF
Thanks to
cardsfanboy
for his generous support.
Bookmarks
You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.
Hot Topics
2012 ZiPS Projections, Final Edition (23 - 11:21am, May 31)Last: craigsaboe2012 ZiPS/RBI Baseball (20 - 10:58am, May 03)Last: tjans2012 ZiPS Projections Spreadsheets, v. 1 (62 - 4:38pm, Apr 10)Last: nemodomi2012 ZiPS Projections - Oakland A's (69 - 5:57am, Apr 10)Last: Athletic Supporter gangnam style2012 ZiPS Projections - Kansas City Royals (31 - 1:51pm, Mar 23)Last: hokieneerPirates - Acquire Burnett (10 - 12:09am, Feb 21)Last: YR Misses Reggie Bars2012 ZiPS Projections - Pittsburgh Pirates (41 - 11:02am, Feb 20)Last: Dangerous Dean2012 ZiPS Projections - Minnesota Twins (31 - 9:53pm, Feb 17)Last: A Random 8-Year-Old Eskimo2012 ZiPS Projections - Boston Red Sox (46 - 5:41pm, Feb 17)Last: Jose Can Still Seabiscuit2012 ZiPS Projections - San Diego Padres (29 - 3:33pm, Feb 17)Last: Dan Szymborski2012 ZiPS Projections - Arizona Diamondbacks (31 - 3:03am, Feb 14)Last: Dan Szymborski2012 ZiPS Projections - Texas Rangers (21 - 1:43pm, Feb 10)Last: DEF: NPW (WWRJD)2012 ZiPS Projections - Miami Marlins (31 - 9:16pm, Feb 07)Last: Misirlou is bad, he's nationwide2012 ZiPS Projections - Cleveland Indians (19 - 11:18pm, Feb 02)Last: DevinM2012 ZiPS Projections - Atlanta Braves (28 - 7:25pm, Jan 31)Last: Gern Blanston
|
|
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.
Back to Walker...
(my futile attempt to replace one fairly unfunny meme with a different, still fairly unfunny, but at least marginally more interesting one)
They're not exactly signing Rheal Cormier for 3 years @ $3 mil./year so let's call this a safe, if uninspired, move.
The Timlin signing is a little easier to question but Timlin has been consistently good and I'm not aware of anyone in the Boston system who could be expected to be similarly effective next year.
100 hits? Your grandma could get 100 hits. Rey Ordonez got 117 last year. In around 500 career at-bats, Mike Hampton has 131 hits.
100 hits in a full season just means you have a pulse and have convinced someone to play you every day.
The merit of a signing like this is largely dependent on the resources of the signing team, and I think that the extra million bucks is a justifiable expense for a team of Boston's resources that expects to be in a real dogfight next year. One or two games blown at the start of the season while sorting out the bullpen could be the difference between October baseball and an early start on raking leaves.
Mark, there's a flipside to those 100 hits. He's also made more than 350 outs per year in that time frame. Cruz has to be evaluated not only in terms of what he produces (mainly singles), but in terms of how many out he uses while creating that production. Earl Weaver said that your team's most precious possessions are your 27 outs, and none should be wasted. Deivi Cruz wastes so many outs while hitting .260 that there are many players who could more than replace his production.
Regarding the signings, I'm not a huge fan of the Timlin pick-up, but it is just a year, and he should be league average, maybe a little better. I can imagine money being better spent, but he does provide pretty good certainty of mediocrity. Jackson, on the other hand, is inked to a non-guaranteed contract at 300K over the minimum. He can draw walks, play defense and steal bases - he should be a good caddy for Nomar and a reasonable 25th man. As many have said before me, the hidden costs in lost development and extra service time make Sanchez more expensive, even at the minimum.
Which is exactly what Cruz did. And he was predictably terrible.
I'm sure I'll be corrected if I'm wrong, but where is that prospect now?
After a slow start, Ramon Vazquez came on strong and finished up at .274/.344/.362. By comparison, Cruz hit .263/.294/.366. Cruz took away at-bats from a superior player. Thankfully the Orioles have made him their problem (sorry, Dan).
Nowhere.
Actually, Vazquez is the Pads' starting shortstop now that "Two Steps to the Right and Pop Flies to Shallow Center" is gone.
What did Deivi do?
Stunk. Although he did set a career high with 22 walks in 514 at-bats.
Are you sure? There are so few reliable relievers. I'd say Timlin has about a 1/3 chance of being gas & a match -- pretty much any reliever does. Especially 37 year-old ones.
I don't understand why folks are so resistant to this. The Braves regularly build the best bullpens in baseball out of spare parts and rookies. Meanwhile teams like the Cubs regularly build explosive bullpens out of proven vets.
Looking at BP's top 30 relievers, you find the following names: Hammond, Gagne, Romero, Vizcaino, Fiore, Weber, Holmes, Koplove, Embree, Hawkins, Witasick, Sauerbeck, Shields, Donnelly, Speier. Fully half of the top 30 relievers in baseball were guys without significant track records as successful relievers. Heck, 10 or so of them were "freely available talent."
In 2000, Embree had an ERA+ of 86; in 2001, it was down to 60; in 2002, it was 204. The Red Sox signed him earlier this offseason, so apparently they're not too worried about risky relievers undoing the good work of their All-Stars.
That said I think these were both reasonable signings for the Red Sox, though I like the Jackson signing more. Now if Epstein blows $6 M on signing a closer, get back to me. But right now he seems to be following the sabermetric principle that saves are over-rated and all you need is a pen full of good options.
I was one of the people here who defended the Padres for signing Cruz last season. He'd been good in 2001, he hadn't been caught in the age scandal yet, and I thought that he would make a decent utility infielder for $600k with some potential to do better. He didn't improve his stock any last year, failing to rebound and assimilating far more playing time than I would have hoped, given his level of production.
I don't see any indication that he will be a respectable starter this year, and I think a team would be better off to throw a few million dollars at Jose Hernandez, strikeouts and all, than to hand a job to Cruz again. Even among bargain basement options, I'd rather try to go the cheap route with Chris Gomez or give a good utility player like Tony Graffanino regular PT and see whether he can do anything with it. Gomez, like Cruz, has had 100 hits in 5 straight seasons. Unlike Cruz, he is a good fielder, and he has shown signs of getting better at the plate, hitting for substantially more power in 2001 and 2002 than he had earlier in his career. He's been an acceptable starting shortstop in three of the last five seasons, and that's pretty good for a guy who might even wind up taking an NRI this year.
Because all outs are created equal. (This isn't quite true, but in general the benefits of productive outs are offset by the ills of the double play.)
Jose Hernandez could survive all those Ks because he only made 187 outs on balls in play - flyouts, groundouts, etc. Deivi Cruz only whiffed 58 times, but he made 336 outs on balls in play. Basically, Jose Hernandez may have swung and missed a lot, but when he connected, he hit the ball hard and got on base. Cruz popped weakly to shallow left a whole lot. He made more outs than Hernandez, just by a different method.
That's why the Prospectus guys say OBP is life. OBP = 1 - Out%.
Mendoza is a good reliever with a history of success in the post-season. Unlike many of today's relievers, he can be effective in two or three-inning stints out of the pen. He can also close, even though he doesn't throw particularly hard; when his sinker is on, it's a devastating pitch.
In the 2001 post-season, Mendoza was terrific. If he had been left in to pitch the eighth and ninth innings of Game Seven, the Yankees probably would have won. Not that I'm second-guessing Torre for choosing Rivera, but Mendoza was that good that October.
Mendoza's a good pitcher, and the Sox did well to get him. He can be an asset in a number of different roles, and the exact nature of his job might not be established firmly until the offseason settles down a bit more. I could see him starting, or closing, or anything in between.
I also wonder if this "don't overpay for a closer" idea will work. We seem to be spending plenty on middle relievers.
I think there are two primary reasons. First, Remlinger got three million over three years, not two. Second, Remlinger got that contract early in the market, when the Sox were still looking to spend on Alfonzo, Contreras and others. The money is probably a bit looser now, as all the top FAs are gone. (It's not an exculpatory theory, admittedly.)
Also, how much have the Sox really spent? I estimate the cost of their 6-man pen at about 12 million. Considering that a team's top six relievers account for 250-300 high leverage innings, that's not an unreasonable price. Further, the theory behind the no-closer bullpen is not that it's cheap - the Red Sox could've spent 12 million on relievers regardless. Rather, it's not smart to spend 50-75% of the bullpen budget on someone who will throw 25% of the innings - instead, you spend 90% of the budget to get 90% of the innings.
I wonder if they're hand wringing over Fick these days...
We don't know the outcome to this story yet. If they turn Hillenbrand into a solid starter, then it's a good net gain.
I don't get to see him much, but as I recall he's a decent, cheap, young player...
He has trade value and could bring in more talent for 2003. The Sox had no replacement for him, now they do. No one said Hillenbrand is bad - I don't even know if anyone said Mueller is better.
This signing will be evaluated on whether Hillenbrand is traded for another piece which improves the team. If that happens, then having Mueller around to maintain similar production at 3B will be very valuable. If Hillenbrand isn't traded, Mueller will be an expensive redundancy.
And Jeremy M, if you think the Yankees are "at least 10 games" better, you've got a big surprise coming.
MANNY RAMIREZ .367
I think you're off by about 10 on the Sox and about 5 on the Jays. You see, the Jays need to find some dudes who can stand on that hill in the middle of the field and throw the ball toward the guy with the bat.
I agree with the assessment that the Red Sox are a bit too injury prone for comfort. That was one thing that Duquette seemed to completely ignore when signing players to long-term and/or high money contracts.
First, it's too early to start making predictions on the Yanks and Sox. There are too many important matters up in the air. (Will the Bosox get another top starter, who is their first baseman, what will the Yanks do with their pitching surplus, who is their left fielder, etc.)
Second, regardless of the answers to these questions, both teams are going to project very strongly going into the season. With the advantage of 38 games apiece against the woeful Oriole-Rays, whichever team finishes second will be a strong wild-card contender.
Third, the ultimate relative results of the two teams will be governed in large measure by things which we have very little basis to predict including, most obviously, the health of these two rather elderly teams, the possibility of a major in-season acquisition and the performance of the Yanks international additions.
It's great to talk about the relative strengths and weaknesses of the teams and which team may have an edge, but asserting with confidence a specific win target is just silly.
Mulluh
I also point out that the last time Mueller played a full season (2000, age 29), he truly did suck.
Yes, he lacks plate discipline. But he improved from a 291 OBP to 330 and is just entering his prime. He hits the ball hard. He's not going to be a perennial all-star but, to my eye, he has a lot more upside than Mueller.
Switching gears, someone else said earlier that "Bill [James, I presume] likes Mueller's defensive win shares." Unless I am misreading something, this is untrue. Mueller is listed in the win shares book at 2.80 WS/1000 innings which is, as Dan would say "middling" and as I would say, mediocre. It puts him in with the likes of Todd Zeile and Dick Allen. Top-flight modern 3B's clock in with 4+.
I'm curious as to why you think he won't improve. You may be right, of course, but (a) he did improve in 2002 over 2001 and (b) he's at an age where one more step forward can be expected.
Pass.
It's been a while, but to refresh everyone's memory, Nilsson had two good years with the bat, six so-so ones and eight years in search of a defensive position where he could be hidden. Given that the Sox are already up to their eyeballs in DH's, where will they hide him?
As a fellow Aussie, I have to root for Nilsson. He was one of my faves when I was growing up, as both a countryman and a catcher.
what is this plethora of 1B/DH options the Sox have? Am I forgetting someone? Last year they were a disaster at those spots. This offseason, they've lost Floyd and brought in Giambi. Is Daubach still around? Who's the other 1B/DH savior?
Why is everyone so quick to platoon Giambi? Giambi doesn't show a platoon split, there's no demonstrated reason to sit him against lefties.
And why would you see a Giambi/Nilsson platoon at first? They both hit lefty.
This is their hope to catch some Hatteberg magic. Probably won't pan out, but assuming this is chump change, there's no harm taking a look at him. Still, Meluskey would have been a better bet at this stage. Heck, Tyler Houston would have been a better bet.
Maybe Giambi is the DH and Manny is the LF if he is healthy. I guess Nilsson is the backup Catcher.
How about you?
Form the Lee Sinis email report.
-- Re Ross River Fever: It's a mosquito-borne virus that causes joint inflamation/swelling somewhat similar to arthritis. All victims eventually recovery in full, but symptom persist for 'months to years'. Elbows, wrists and knees are most affected (ie. not good for a C).
-- Re the 'hilarious' article in the Australian press: The paper in question is a Murdoch tabloid. $A5m is roughly equal to $US3m, which sounds high for this deal.
I think Jose Hernandez is getting way too much credit for one good season. This is a 33-year-old with a career OPS+ of 91. His 3-year average OPS+ is 95. (He's a horrible baserunner, so he's actually overrated by OPS.) As Dan Werr has pointed out, Hernandez' 2002 success derived mostly from a historically great batting average on balls in play, one totally out of line with his career. He's a very good bet at 33 to drop back to the .245 level. Hernandez can play an acceptable shortstop, which makes him a solid player, but if he's moved to 3rd, I believe he's going to be under league average offensively.
Yes, at 800 grand coming off a great year, he's a good risk. But I think he's a risk, not a steal.
On the other hand, I believe the present talent and upside are better than Fick's.
Having said that, I doubt he'll play any first base for the Sox next year.
In addition, in 112 games as a left fielder, Jason was 20 RAR, while Jeremy was -1 RAR in his 104 left field games. Neither are spectacular fielders, but Jason is clearly superior. If you want to use other metrics, he's similarly superior when using fielding rate (from Baseball Prospectus -- I don't know who created the metric) and RAR2.
As a first baseman, Jason is average lifetime, and he's been slightly above average the last few years. As a left fielder, he was above average in each of the two seasons he spent significant time at the position. Although Jeremy's fielding experience is limited, he's both a below average left fielder and first baseman.
How does Jason rate as a 1B compared to other players? Well, according to the RAR metric, he's better than J.T. Snow (.096 RAR per game, lifetime, compared to .082 -- quite a surprise), Fred McGriff, Carlos Delgado and David Segui (just slightly), Frank Thomas (the worst of the bunch) and Jim Thome, to name a few. Of course, Jason lags quite a bit behind Tino Martinez, Mark Grace, Todd Helton (surprise -- he ranks with these guys), Jeff Bagwell and Rafael Palmeiro.
Please see Walt Davis's examples of the wackiness of RAR on the Pujols thread: http://www.baseballprimer.com/clutch/archives/00005703.shtml#53posts
The stat is meaningless until BP publishes their methodology and runs some studies that show it's accurate.
From watching Little G, you can tell he's a terrible awful OF. Absolutely brutal even to an undiscerning eye for defense, like mine. But I don't think we've seen enough of him at 1B to draw any conclusions.
And can someone please explain to me the sudden obsession with 1B defense among Red Sox fans? It's 1B for crying out loud. I don't think it's going to knock DLowe's ERA up to 5.06 if Ortiz or Giambi plays 1B.
The stat is meaningless until BP publishes their methodology and runs some studies that show it's accurate.
RAR can be wacky, but it doesn't seem to be so when comparing the Giambis. Jason's and Jeremy's RARs remain fairly steady, suggesting no irrational statistical bump because the stat is flawed. It may be flawed in some instances, but in this one, it seems to do well. Also, it seems to rank other first basemen fairly. T. Martinez, Palmeiro, Grace, etc., are all considered above average fielders, and their RARs are above average. Thome, F. Thomas and McGriff are considered below average fielders, confirmed by their RAR. I'm not saying RAR isn't flawed (perhaps the case in assessing J.T. Snow), but it seems to make sense and be consistent with the above set of data.
Consider a player who hit .425 in singles and did nothing else. Sabermetricians would say "Big Deal, OPS only .850" and regard him as barely better than mediocre. Yet in reality, he would be the second coming of Ty Cobb and be paid as such.
There are two players who are obviously undervalued by sabermetricians, Hillenbrand (decent average and some power, but no walks) and Ichiro!
There are two players who are obviously OVERvalued: Jeremy Giambi and Mueller. Giambi may turn out a good deal, but $4.5mm for Mueller was a COMPLETE waste of money. Hillenbrand, at 27, is likely to improve somewhat and be a LOT more valuable.
I'm not convinced by Epstein; he's missed out on too many opportunities, and loaded up on slow sabermetric dreamboats who may not be any use. While I quite like the bullpen moves, I think the '03 Sox may win fewer than the '02 ones, although if Grady keeps Wakefield in the rotation that's worth a few wins.
And actually, OPS rewards singles just fine. If anything, it rewards them too much. If a guy walks 42.5% of the time and makes outs the rest of the time, he'll have an OPS of 425, yet he'll be nearly as valuable (though not as valuable) as your "Ty Cobb" (who actually slugged 512 for his career compared to a league average of 365, so no the comparison ain't quite right, now is it?).
OPS counts hits twice, so it's really hard to say that OPS overvalues walks.
As to "real" sabermetric measures, we can use EQA -- not necessarily the best, but probably close enough. Ichiro has a career 303 EQA. Tim Salmon has a career 308 ERA. Salmon actually has a slightly higher career OBP and a career SLG that's 70 points higher. If only they realized there was more to this than OPS, they'd realize that Ichiro is about as good as Salmon.
And by the way, Mueller has a higher career BA than Hillenbrand.
Is there any reason to believe that this would be Shea Hillenbrand? Does his flailing madly at every pitch suggest some kind of Ted Williams scientific method for batting?
Just because Soriano improved with this method doesn't mean everyone else who buys the Shawon Dunston Method will.
It's true, it's true. Despite its reputation as an offensive corner spot, 3B often isn't. At the end of 2001, it looked like we might be entering the golden age of 3B. You had Chipper, Rolen, Chavez, Glaus, Pujols, Aramis Ramirez, maybe Beltre, with Blalock, Ensberg, Burroughs, Crede, and Hinske on the way and reasonably solid vets like Koskie, Lowell, Ventura, Batista, and Cirillo still around.
Then Chipper and Pujols end up in left; Ramirez craters; Beltre doesn't break out; Blalock, Ensberg, and Burroughs all do miserably while Crede spends most of the year in the minors. Except for Cirillo, I guess the solid vets were pretty solid.
So really the only unexpected bright spots at 3B last year were Alfonzo's return and Hinske hitting better than anyone expected. And David Bell.
Hillenbrand had 634 at-bats last season. You're saying that he was good for the first 50 or so, and sucked for the last 580 or so? If that's the case, then how in the world did he manage to finish the season as one of the ten best offensive third basemen in the majors?
That would be an exaggeration. Fairer would be to say that in his first 200 AB he was very good. At that point he was 367/550/917. In his remaining 434 AB, he was pretty much his old self again (316/417/733). The problem really is that SLG -- Mueller doesn't hit for power, but he does get on base; Hillenbrand doesn't do either.
If the point is that Hillenbrand is a decent 3B option, I'll agree. If the point is that the gap between him and Mueller is probably pretty small, you won't get much of an argument from me. But if the idea is that Hillenbrand is really a pretty decent hitter -- sorry, I can't agree ... at least not until he shows that the lousy months were the flukes, not the good ones.
Good thing, he's not a lefty, but I don't like the looks of it.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main