Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

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

Sunday, February 15, 2004

New York Yankees

Acquired SS Alex Rodriguez from the New York Yankees for 2B Alfonso Soriano and a player to be named.

Hell with it - if I wait for an announcement, everyone will be tired of it by then.

Highway robbery by the Yankees even considering that Team Captain’s apparent unwillingness to do what’s best for the team is preventing the Yanks from getting the full benefits of the trade.

The current plan seems to be to move A-Rod to 3B but that can always change.  And should, too, since the Yankees acquired a bunch of 3B options that won’t be able to be moved to 2B.  Houston or Lamb can fill a 3B hole without being too wretched, but neither will do the same at 2B.  The best thing for the Yanks to do now is to leave A-Rod at short, tell Derek Jeter that being a leader isn’t just a pretty label, and move him to 2nd and eventually center.

What the Rangers get out of this?  A much bleaker future than before the A-Rod trade.  They pay the Yankees roughly a *third* of what A-Rod’s owed for the privilege of making the team significantly worse.  Soriano’s a much better player than a lot of people, including myself, thought he would be, but he’s not A-Rod. 

If the Rangers are able to keep Soriano long-term, they’ll have to give him a deal not too far from the 12-18 a year the Yanks are paying A-Rod, which’ll eat into any savings and payroll flexibility.

If the Rangers are not able to keep Soriano long-term, then they’ve lost 10 wins a year.  They had enough problems *with* the wins A-Rod brought and would be that much further from making a dent in the West.

Mike Young returns to short and should handle it pretty nicely.

Really, there’s not much of a way the Rangers get any advantage in this.  This wasn’t a world-class offense - it was a mediocre offense in 2003 *with* the 2nd-best SS in history.

2004 ZiPS Projections
Player     AB   R   H 2B 3B HR RBI BB SO SB   BA   OBP   SLG
Soriano     701 125 223 45 3 39 135 35 140 37 .318 .361 .558
Rodriguez   628 118 184 29 3 50 140 91 124 14 .293 .394 .588

Dan Szymborski Posted: February 15, 2004 at 11:55 PM | 38 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 4 of 6 pages ‹ First  < 2 3 4 5 6 > 
   301. B Posted: March 20, 2003 at 12:55 AM (#565402)
The Phillips bonus article was from the York Daily Press. You're right, I didn't see it dated. However, it is clear that the article was being written right after he signed and that he signed on Tuesday, June 20. June 20 was a Tuesday in 2000, the year that Phillips was drafted. The article also states that the bonus in question would be paid out over the course of the "next year". So, it would appear that the bonus was paid in full no later than June 20, 2001.

So basically, the Yankees gave the Padres back all the money they spent on signing and developing Phillips and swapped a bench version of White for a bench version of Trammell.
   302. fracas' hope springs eternal Posted: March 20, 2003 at 01:14 AM (#565403)
Thanks, B.
   303. Geoff Young Posted: March 20, 2003 at 07:12 AM (#565414)
Now of course he was very unimpressive last year

Not as unimpressive as White. Sigh....
   304. B Posted: March 20, 2003 at 04:22 PM (#565415)
Hmmm...just a note, it seems the Padres will pay the $250K when the Yankees buy Trammell out after 2004.
   305. Bruce Markusen Posted: March 20, 2003 at 06:22 PM (#565419)
I love this deal from the Yankees' perspective. Trammell won't have to play the outfield much in New York; he figures to be the right-handed DH against lefty pitchers, and he hits left-handers very well. He has more power than White, draws more walks than White, and has more experience as a platoon player than White, who is used to playing every day. White is obviously faster than Trammell, but he can't even use that speed to steal bases because of his susceptibility to injury.

Plus, the Yankees get a 21-year-old left-hander who throws in the high 90s and who will start the season at Double-A. I know that Phillips' wildness has been a problem, but he still has time to harness his control. Even if Trammell for White is a wash (and I'd rather have Trammell for the reasons mentioned above), the Yankees come out ahead with the inclusion of a prospect in the deal. Great trade by Cashman.
   306. Walt Davis Posted: March 20, 2003 at 08:26 PM (#565422)
Trammell was hitting at a near all-star level as a part-timer and was very solid in his first full year. His contract averages about 3-4 million bucks per year, hardly exorbitant. Is it really intelligence to dump this guy immediately after his first succesful season in favor of a AAA slugger simply because he's going to get paid market value? Because that seems to be what some are advocating here.

RossyW, I'm on your side. But I'm not in full agreement with you here. I agree that dumping Trammell right after 2001 wouldn't make sense (in most circumstances). But signing him to a multi-year guaranteed contract didn't make a lot of sense either, especially since that was his age 29 season. Sign him for, say, $1.5 M for 2002 (what he was actually paid that year) and see if he sustains that level of production and stays healthy. Then see who else is available via trade or from your own system and decide if he's worth keeping around another year.

A player like Trammell may indeed be worth keeping around at a higher price, but there's little reason to take the risk of a long-term guaranteed contract.
   307. fracas' hope springs eternal Posted: March 21, 2003 at 03:49 PM (#565423)
But remember that the Padres couldn't have signed Bubba for 1.5M for one year. Coming off 2001, he was already arb-eligible and only one year away from free agency. So the Padres back-loaded a contract so that the big bucks would come only when they had a new revenue stream, with a club option for a 4th year in case Bubba could maintain his 2001 level. They would probably have kept him if he had.

I'm not happy with how things turned out, but I'm not sure there was a cheaper way to keep him, or better options if the Padres had let him go back then.
   308. Walt Davis Posted: March 21, 2003 at 08:06 PM (#565424)
Are you sure about this fracas? I don't know his service time, but looking at his # of ABs and GP, I wouldn't think he was near 5 years of service time (even with parts of 5 years in the majors). I definitely remember him spending time in Durham while in the D-Rays system. In fact, looking at his minor-league #'s over this time, from 1997-2001, he played 194 games in the minors. So I'd think he'd have at most 4 years of service time at the end of 2001.

Anyway, I was assuming that 2002 was his first or maybe second arb-eligible year.

But if that's not the case, I don't think it really changes things all that much. If it cost $9 M to buy out the last arb year and 2 FA years, that first arb year is definitely less than $3M, and probably more like $2 M. Sign him for 2002, then decide if you still want him around. Maybe even offer him arbitration in hopes of getting a draft pick if someone else signs him.
   309. fracas' hope springs eternal Posted: March 22, 2003 at 02:37 AM (#565426)
Walt, I expect you're right. It was probably his second arb year. He debuted April 1 of 1997, but I didn't know about his minor league time during the period. Unless huge chunks of those 194 games were injury rehab assignments...? Nah.
   310. Russ Posted: March 23, 2003 at 11:04 PM (#565428)
Dan's hoping that if Vaughn isn't listed, Greg won't be picked up by the Orioles...
   311. fracas' hope springs eternal Posted: March 24, 2003 at 06:45 PM (#565429)
But doesn't that kind of assume that the Orioles read Transaction Oracle? And if they read this site, then why...?

[Keanu-esque "whoa" and head-shake]
   312. Greg Franklin Posted: April 09, 2003 at 11:39 PM (#564024)
Mom, the answer to your question was obvious: your son's signing wasn't worth the pixels.

Al Levine, late of the WORLD CHAMPION ANAHEIM ANGELS, will step in to throw some innings for the Rays.
   313. Scott Posted: April 20, 2003 at 06:09 PM (#565694)
For what it's worth, Contreras talked about having mental problems -- not in the insanity sense of "mental problems" but (a) trying too hard to impress from the get-go (a not uncommon phenomenon for major free agents -- I remember Catfish Hunter saying the same thing in the 70s) and (b) being lonely because of the family in Cuba. Both seem like things he can get past. Of course, he still hsa to show us that he can pitch...
   314. JMM Posted: April 20, 2003 at 06:13 PM (#565695)
Bryan Smith wrote:
   315. GGC Posted: April 20, 2003 at 06:27 PM (#565696)
It looks like the Cuba Syndrome strikes again. Maybe some time at the Columbus Clinic will take care of it. How many of these recent Cuban players have performed in line with expectations? Has anyone done a study of this? Lee Sinins wrote about the demotion today. He didn't come right out and say this, but it seemed to me that he thought that baseball people aroverestimating the quality of play in Cuba.

   316. Greg Franklin Posted: April 21, 2003 at 02:36 AM (#565702)
More detail here: NY Times article. Sounds like a bad blow-up.
   317. Law Boy Posted: April 21, 2003 at 04:00 AM (#565703)
I guess George is upset with the Yankees three one-run losses. Given the 162 game schedule, and the law of averages, this season could get bumpy for him and Torre.

I liked Torre's quote:

"I suggested we want Billy to come up here," said Torre, who is not close to Connors and could have been speaking sarcastically. "This way we could all benefit from his knowledge."

It should be recalled that Billy Connors, a.k.a. the Guru, never had much success in his private sessions with Hideki Irabu.

Contreras needs to pitch regularly, period.

btw, I think Contreras will be able to see that Torre's "lie" was inadvertent, and that it was Torre who was deceived by a willful lie.
   318. JoeD has the Imperial March Stuck in His Head Posted: April 21, 2003 at 04:54 PM (#565708)
Put me in the camp with the Weaver fans . . . I think more young starters should be broken in through the bullpen.

But there's a difference these days. A long reliever back then would pitch 3-4, sometimes 6-7 innings. Not on average, but often enough. Managers would clip starters in the 2nd inning if they didn't have it. Now it seems like pitchers get to go until they face 25-30 batters, and if that's in the 4th or 7th it doesn't matter. It seemed like there were a lot more complete games, but also a lot more 2 inning starts back then, giving long relievers longer appearances (better for breaking in young guys in games that don't matter). So maybe the bullpen thing wouldn't work as well these days.

But overall, I'd rather break my young guys in out of the pen, unless you've got the rare case of a guy like Prior or Clemens, who just blows people away from the beginning.

And yeah Earl sure did get a lot of mileage out of pitchers that couldn't whiff anyone. But most of those guys had good control, right? Didn't he always have really good defensive teams and wasn't Memorial Stadium generally a pitcher's park also?
   319. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: April 21, 2003 at 09:54 PM (#565712)
And as long as everyone else is piling on Blair, let me point out that Dennis Martinez's 71 ERA+ was not under Earl Weaver.
   320. Russ Posted: April 22, 2003 at 03:48 AM (#565714)
I thought the point of the Earl Weaver model was not necessarily to give confidence to a young pitcher, but to

(1) Get him acclimated to major league life in a low pressure role (middle relieving allows a manager to pick his player's situations) where he can work on his non-out pitches.

(2) Win baseball games (because a potential prospect with 2 good pitches would make for a bad starter, but a great reliever).

I might be going crazy, but I thought *those* were the advantages of the prospect-in-a-relief-role strategy. The pitcher doesn't have enough pitch variety to succeed as a starter in the majors, but his two pitches are good enough to allow him to give you quality help out of the bullpen. If you send the prospect to the minors to work on those pitches, then you have to carry some other, lower quality two-pitch guy in the bullpen. I don't think the Weaver model was intended to develop pitchers exclusively. I thought it was intended to develop pitchers AND win ballgames.

And I also don't think that Earl would have approved of calling up players from the minors who had not perfected at least two pitches (in other words, these are the guys who would not be helped as much pitching in the high minors, because they could just rely on those two pitches).
   321. JMM Posted: April 22, 2003 at 09:32 AM (#565716)
Rich wrote:
   322. Russ Posted: April 22, 2003 at 06:21 PM (#565720)
Someone thinks that Ramon had more than two pitches...
   323. John Posted: April 23, 2003 at 10:31 PM (#565723)
In answer to Basic Question:

If Griffey has a no-trade clause to the Orioles, he could block the trade. If he didn't he'd be forced to retire or ask for a release from his contract (which given his salary and recent performance he'd never do) in order to avoid playing for the Orioles.
   324. . . . . . . Posted: April 24, 2003 at 04:47 AM (#565724)
As I was taught, its not the amount of pitches you have, but the ability to vary speeds that matters.

Many of the "two-pitch" ponies out there throw fastball-slider. Or 4-seamer/2-seamer/slider. Either way, you're not varying speeds enough. The only true changes of pace are:

1) The true 12-6 curve
   325. GGC Posted: April 24, 2003 at 04:15 PM (#565725)
A couple of questions from a guy who knows little about pitching:

a. Is the 12-6 the big sweeping curveball?

b. What's the difference between a circle change and a straight change?
   326. Cris E Posted: April 25, 2003 at 04:21 PM (#565731)
Anyone still want me freed?

Johan -
   327. Noffs Posted: May 27, 2003 at 07:13 AM (#565963)
Hey, Juan Rivera's got game - he'd be a starting OF if they hadn't signed Matsui. He's been raking for like 3 years now.
   328. MM1f Posted: May 28, 2003 at 03:18 AM (#565964)
What's the matter with Mondesi in center?
   329. Klobedanz Posted: May 29, 2003 at 03:03 PM (#565965)
Bernie has a lollipop arm, period. His throws have been pathetic for years now.
   330. Veee Posted: June 25, 2003 at 11:33 PM (#566197)
Trading Garcia kind of makes me question what Shapiro was doing in the offseason. Why sign Garcia and Spencer if you're just gonna play the young guys anyway? Now he's gotta get out of this logjam.

Maybe Shapiro just underestimated the young players. He didn't expect Gerut to be ready this year, but Garcia's injury allowed Gerut to establish himself.

But why include Miceli? He's been good in his short time with the Indians: 15 IP, 19K, 6BB, 1 HR, 9 H. He seemed like a good candidate for a Witasick-style trade. Take a fungible middle reliever who puts up a good half-season, then trade him after the all-star break to a desperate team who will pay more than he's worth (aka Buy low, sell high).

But if the PTBNL in this trade is a nobody, then why include Miceli? This seems like buying low...and then selling low. Don't the Indians still have use for effective relievers?
   331. Darren Posted: June 26, 2003 at 12:38 AM (#566200)

I think Shapiro got Garcia and Spencer because, as you note, he wasn't sure who would be ready and who would pan out. Plus, signing Garcia cheap, if he does well, you can trade him.

I would think this package had better have brought back something good, or it does make the Indians look kind of silly.

I read that Garcia was in tears when he heard the news. Poor guy. He finally gets a shot to play and delivers, then he gets hurt and gets sent somewhere with 143 outfielders.
   332. Darren Posted: June 26, 2003 at 01:21 PM (#566205)
Anyone have any idea what a "non-substantial" player is?

Maybe they got one of those twin guys from the Matrix movie.

I'm guessing that non-substantial was mistakenly put in front of player rather than cash. It would seem to be a stupid thing to say about a player you just acquired.

It's my understanding that almost immediately upon signing the contract, Garcia hurt his wrist doing something he shouldn't have been doing. (Playing basketball or something.)

If it was motocross or dart-catching, okay. But basketball? Are these guys supposed to spend the winter locked up in one of those anti-aging chambers so nothing happens to them?
   333. jwb Posted: June 26, 2003 at 02:06 PM (#566207)
My guess is that the PTBNL is someone the Yankees drafted and signed last year. They can't trade him until a year after they signed him.
   334. Matthew Rich Posted: June 26, 2003 at 02:40 PM (#566209)
The PD notes this morning that the Indians will probably receive less thatn $10,000 for Garcia and Miceli, and no PTBNL. So basically this was done to free up a couple of spots on the 40-man, which I don't really have a problem with. I doubt there was a very deep market for either of these guys -- I mean, everybody in baseball knew that Garcia was perennially disappointing and coming off a wrist injury, and Miceli is nothing if not a known commodity. People expecting the Yankees, or any team, to give up anything substantial for these two are kidding themselves.

Of course, $10,000 does seem a little pathetic. I hope the wealthiest club in baseball at least threw in a couple of steak dinners.
   335. Darren Posted: June 26, 2003 at 03:00 PM (#566210)
People expecting the Yankees, or any team, to give up anything substantial for these two are kidding themselves.

Okay, but $10K? What's the point of that? Why would the Indians even bother? Hold these guys and see if anyone wants them at the deadline. $10K? $10-freaking-K?

Chris Smith was the dune-buggy pitcher.
   336. Greg Franklin Posted: June 26, 2003 at 05:40 PM (#566213)
Yes, they did.

"Designated outfielder Charles Gipson and pitcher Mike Thurman for assignment."

Are these the happiest of possible words? Yeah, they're not the most poetic.
   337. MM1f Posted: June 26, 2003 at 05:40 PM (#566214)
Off topic, I know, but I must ask...
   338. Veee Posted: June 27, 2003 at 01:31 AM (#566216)
This trade is still strange. The Indians brought up Jack Cressend to take Miceli's spot in the pen. On the Indians' telecast tonight, broadcaster Mike Hegan said that the team hadn't planned to bring Cressend up for a few more weeks, but the trade necessitated it.

I took that to mean the Indians didn't really want to get rid of Miceli (yet), but they had to include him to seal the deal.

All indications are that the Indians won't get anything of value from NY. So, Garcia for nothing wasn't a sweet enough deal for the Yankees, the Indians had to throw in some more?

When was the last time one team gave up two inexpensive, mediocre big leaguers for absolutely nothing? Ruben Sierra cost the Yankees a "prospect," so why not these two?
   339. APNY Posted: June 30, 2003 at 05:15 AM (#566221)
I hate to say this but, the new Malkmus album is very, very bad.
   340. APNY Posted: July 01, 2003 at 05:58 AM (#566223)
As long as SM insists on singing in that really annoying voice he discovered on Terror Twilight I don't think i'll be able to get back into his stuff.
   341. Veee Posted: July 02, 2003 at 10:02 PM (#566228)
I think the point with Cressend was to let him build up arm strength in the minors. He's coming off rotator cuff surgery or something.

As far as the 40-man roster goes, does the DL count? There were plenty of vets on the DL to start the season. Wickman, Wohlers, and Gutierrez come to mind.
   342. Greg Franklin Posted: July 10, 2003 at 06:35 AM (#565966)
Bernie returned today, batting 4th and playing CF.

Matsui indeed took over in center while he was out, and put up some All-Star-worthy numbers in that time, so Torre didn't have to worry too much about the drop-off.
   343. flournoy Posted: July 17, 2003 at 01:16 PM (#566646)
Nice to see the Mets shipping their crappy closer to a team that I dislike just as much! Hopefully Benitez will cause all sorts of problems.
   344. SM in DC Posted: July 17, 2003 at 02:05 PM (#566647)
I am petrified that Armando is really Wilpon's version of a Trojan Horse, sent in peace to destroy his enemies from within.
   345. Bill Posted: July 17, 2003 at 04:36 PM (#566651)
Armando's BB and HR rates have always been alarmingly high (try to find a successful reliever of the past 10 years other than Jeff Nelson who has such a high walk rate). For many years he was successful nothwithstanding the BB's and HR's due to his historically high K rates. Now that he is down to a more pedestrian 1K/IP without any BB or HR improvement, he is a prescription for disaster.
   346. The usual palaver and twaddle (Met Fan Charlie) Posted: July 17, 2003 at 04:50 PM (#566653)
He's YOUR headache, now, Yankee fans...
   347. Boileryard Posted: July 17, 2003 at 04:51 PM (#566654)
Didn't I read somewhere that the Mets rejected the Marlin prospects used in the Urbina deal? How is this an upgrade? Maybe that the Yanks are picking up the salary? Seems like they missed the boat on that one.
   348. Guancous Posted: July 17, 2003 at 05:01 PM (#566655)
I believe that the Mets had the option to pick up Armando's salary and get premium prospects like Claussen. They chose to have the Yankees pay him.
   349. BillH Posted: July 17, 2003 at 06:00 PM (#566658)
Lets see, Armando Benitez
   350. MM1f Posted: July 17, 2003 at 08:20 PM (#566660)
   351. yb125 Posted: July 17, 2003 at 08:34 PM (#566661)
Considering the yanks only have to pay a little under 3 mil and relief prospects for him, i think it's a good deal. As long as he doesn't become mesa in a non-closer role.
   352. Colin Posted: July 17, 2003 at 08:46 PM (#566662)
Hell, bring Brian Jordan back. I'll bet ya he could still pound Benitez around

Heck, forget Jordan, what about Ozzie Guillen!
   353. The usual palaver and twaddle (Met Fan Charlie) Posted: July 18, 2003 at 03:18 PM (#566664)
>>"...And remember for all the crap he gets from Mets fans, the sainted John Franco gave up just as many heartbreakers (Brian Jordan 2001 anyone?).<<

Not that Franco doesn't make me reach for the Pepto, but bear in mind that if Macho 'Mando were able to close out that Brian Jordan game, they never would've HAD to have Franco face him...
   354. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: July 18, 2003 at 09:48 PM (#566666)
"try to find a successful reliever of the past 10 years other than Jeff Nelson who has such a high walk rate"

Armando Benitez, career: 4.77 BB/9.

Rob Dibble, career: 4.49 BB/9.

Gregg Olson, career: 4.42 BB/9.

Other well-known closers like Lee Smith had BB rates approaching Armando's for multi-year runs at approximately the same age.

The biggest successful active walkmeister I can find, other than guys already mentioned, is probably Todd Jones.

Todd Jones, career: 4.14 BB/9.

Benitez's walk rate is high, but not unheard-of, and his control has improved somewhat with age.
   355. Bill Posted: July 19, 2003 at 03:24 AM (#566667)
Vlad, I don't agree. Dibble's and Olson's lifetime rates are heavily inflated by their decline years. (Check Dibble's 1995!) In their prime years they were usually in the mid-to-low 3's. Todd Jones' rate is significantly lower.
   356. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: July 19, 2003 at 04:10 PM (#566668)
Gregg Olson, through age 29: 4.50 BB/9. I don't see that his "decline" made much of a dent on his walk rate, since he pitched for another five seasons.

In his first five seasons as a closer, Jones put up BB/9 of 4.70, 5.02, 4.50, 5.12, and 4.75. If you're going to scratch Dibble because the end of his career increased his rate, you have to put Jones back in because the end of his career decreased his.

Ron Villone isn't a star, but he's a respectable professional, and in the ninth season of his career, he's carrying a 4.77 BB/9.

Scott Sauerbeck's one of the better situational lefties in the game. Over his career, he's got 5.58 BB/9.

Mike James put up a 128 ERA+ in seven seasons as a setup man. His career BB/9: 4.27.

Hector Carrasco, career: 4.43 BB/9 (though he's improved on that considerably in the Mexican League this year).

Heathcliff Slocumb, career: 5.11 BB/9.

Ricky Bottalico, career: 4.55 BB/9.

Mike Fetters, career: 4.35 BB/9. In his three seasons as Milwaukee's primary closer, it was 4.63/9.

Norm Charlton, 1992-1997, when he was a closer: 4.33 BB/9.

There are lots of modern relievers with BB rates comparable to Benitez's.
   357. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: July 20, 2003 at 11:27 PM (#566671)
Corey has approximately less than zero chance of taking over as the Pirates' closer. He's behind (at a minimum) Lincoln, Boehringer, Sanchez, and Sauerbeck.
   358. Noffs Posted: July 23, 2003 at 04:15 AM (#566832)
actually, they didn't give up squat to get him - they'll only pay the pro-rated portion of the minimum ($111K) with San Diego picking up the rest. The PTBNL (if he exists) won't be on the depth chart. And he'll only be used as a LOOGY, which he is still capable of doing.

The question is - will anyone take Sterling Hitchcock? He'll have to go (or another position player) when Contreras comes back.
   359. NTNgod Posted: July 23, 2003 at 04:34 AM (#566833)
Are the Red Sox are planning to bring Kevin Bass out of retirement as a pinch-hitting weapon ?

Orosco could prove useful there...
   360. Curtis Posted: July 23, 2003 at 05:21 AM (#566834)
The Cardinals will take Hitchcock. THat's probably his destination, especially since Fassero started tonight, and Morris just went on the DL.
   361. SM in DC Posted: July 23, 2003 at 05:52 AM (#566835)
Would it just be Hitch for Kline?

Why not Hitch and the Buffalo for Drew and Kline, or Kline and Marrero (when off the DL)?

Just dreamin out loud.
   362. Best Regards, President of Comfort, Esq., LLC Posted: July 23, 2003 at 07:11 AM (#566837)
On one hand, Orosco can still get the job done as a LOOGY, but he's crap against righties. Torre better not bring him in to face any lefty that might get pinch-hit for.

This might be useful in the World Series against San Francisco, to get Bonds out.
   363. Andrew Edwards Posted: July 23, 2003 at 02:23 PM (#566843)
I just noticed that Jesse Orosco made his major-league debut when I was 2 months old.

If I have kids, I hope they're left-handed.
   364. scott Posted: July 23, 2003 at 03:17 PM (#566844)
i feel silly saying this, but i forget the meaning of LOOGY. something about gray haired lefties pitching into their octogenarian years, right?

   365. scott Posted: July 23, 2003 at 03:28 PM (#566846)

i shoulda known that.
   366. fracas' hope springs eternal Posted: July 23, 2003 at 06:12 PM (#566848)
Let the record reflect that I found the Orosco signing inexplicable at the time. He's local, but at $800,000 for an expected 30-40 IP, there was no hometown discount. And the Padres gave him a no-trade clause (although news reports are now referring to that as a "gentlemen's agreement" rather than an actual clause), so he wasn't really flipable for a prospect. And now the Padres are paying the rest of his salary, minus the pro-rated minimum, just to get a PTBNL?

I'm still baffled by this one. I'd've signed him for half that salary without the no-trade clause, but that's about it.
   367. Greg Franklin Posted: July 25, 2003 at 10:27 PM (#566672)
Speaking of Miceli, he got DFA'd today when Nick Johnson came off the DL. Armando is the Man.
   368. Pennants fly forever Posted: July 29, 2003 at 08:38 PM (#566230)
Miceli to the Stros for a PTBNL and some cash. Dan finds his 9th employer!
   369. I am Ted F'ing Williams Posted: July 31, 2003 at 08:00 PM (#567123)
If the rumored 3-way trade was true, why wouldn't the Reds just do Boone for Freddy Garcia straight up? I know money's a factor, but this would have been a much more significant upgrade to that awful pitching, getting Harang and Garcia in 24 hours.

anyway, it's interesting to the see the Reds make more moves without a GM than with one.
   370. b Posted: July 31, 2003 at 09:36 PM (#567130)
Don't forget Dioner, you're a switch hitter who can run a little...oh, and you can catch and throw too.
   371. Pennants fly forever Posted: July 31, 2003 at 09:48 PM (#567277)
Heard though that Gabe shut down his rehab attempt, so that raises all kinds of questions. If he can, this is a sleeper deal that might turn out more important than the Boone or Mondy deals..
   372. Steve Posted: July 31, 2003 at 09:58 PM (#567136)
Who's taller, David Eckstein or Dioner Navarro? Anyone seen him in person?
   373. Golfing Great Mitch Cumstein Posted: July 31, 2003 at 09:59 PM (#567278)
Is there a prohibition on trading players on the DL? If so, does it apply only to minor leaguers? The news doesn't sound good on white.
   374. Ziggy's screen name Posted: July 31, 2003 at 10:00 PM (#567137)
So is the Reds' recent decision to rid themselves of their entire team part of a plan for future competitiveness, or the desperate flailings of traumatized organization and an apathetic owner?

They've at least recognized their problem, and admitting you have a problem is the first step to fixing it. They get points for that. But, they seem committed to fielding their best team in the medium term - while Dunn and Kearns are still affordable, but before any help from the low minors arrives. Next year or the year after seems to be their goal, but I don't think it's realistic.

Next Year's Reds
   375. Steve Posted: July 31, 2003 at 10:21 PM (#567138)
"3B Russell Branyan"

I don't see the Greek God of Strikeouts getting any regular time at third next season.
   376. b Posted: July 31, 2003 at 10:29 PM (#567279)
a player on the dl can be traded with the permission of the commissioner's office or as a ptbnl.
   377. b Posted: July 31, 2003 at 10:40 PM (#567139)
steve, I'd say Dioner probably has a couple of inches on David. He looked about 5'8" or so when I last stood on level ground with him. course, he's also 19 and likely to still grow for a few more years.
   378. Ziggy's screen name Posted: July 31, 2003 at 10:54 PM (#567142)
Erm. Good point Steve. How about Brandon Larson?
   379. Ziggy's screen name Posted: July 31, 2003 at 11:22 PM (#567143)
C LaRue 82
   380. NTNgod Posted: July 31, 2003 at 11:27 PM (#567144)
We'll be 32 years old in less than three weeks, so we'll be saying hello to Dioner in a couple of years and possibly trading in our shin guards for a DH slot.

Jorge Posada's knees, you forget you belong to a former minor league infielder who switched to catching relatively late, so you don't have NEARLY the wear and tear of a typical 32-year old catcher.
   381. The Original SJ Posted: August 01, 2003 at 12:10 AM (#567145)
Words cannot describe my displeasure with this trade.
   382. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: August 01, 2003 at 02:52 AM (#567149)
As Yankee prospects go, Robinson Cano's not bad.
   383. APNY Posted: August 01, 2003 at 07:33 AM (#567151)
Cano is a "tools" player who dosen't walk at all. But he's only 20 and at AA.

Navarro is worth getting excited about. A 19 year old doing that well at AA is pretty special. Though I have heard the size issue brought up more than once.

Thats it at the upper levels for the Yanks, though Danny Borrell looked good before blowing out his sholder.

There are some interesting guys at the lower levels.
   384. jwb Posted: August 01, 2003 at 12:37 PM (#567281)
Well, Gabe White can't really be a PTBNL. . .
   385. Pennants fly forever Posted: August 01, 2003 at 10:03 PM (#567155)
The more I look at Gabe White's numbers, the better this trade looks (if they can get him back in 3 weeks as the papers say); Take a look at his stats, especially his last 3 years against lefties and his road ERA's. This is a guy coming from pitching at Coors and the GAB, his lifetime HR/IP totals look inflated b/c of the horrible last year he had in Colorado. Strong control, pretty good K/IP, injuries have been mostly leg/groin, and he's been a workhorse most years with pretty good success against both righties and lefties; In a head to head comparison with Sauerbeck, a healthy White looks much more attractive to me; This one may yet end up being the second coming of Graeme Lloyd in 96..
   386. Noffs Posted: August 02, 2003 at 01:44 AM (#567283)
I heard that it was one deal,Boone and White for Claussen and $3.5M but Selig, after letting the Red Sox exceed the $1M rule, made the restructure it to:

Boone for Claussen, Manning, and $1M
   387. dirk Posted: August 03, 2003 at 11:33 PM (#567284)
#6 is one of the funniest things I've seen in week.
   388. Law Boy Posted: August 05, 2003 at 05:29 AM (#567285)
From Tuesday's NY Times:

"Reliever GABE WHITE arrived at the Yankees' Tampa complex on Sunday and threw off flat ground yesterday with no pain. White, acquired from the Reds on July 31, may be ready in about three weeks."
   389. MM1f Posted: August 20, 2003 at 12:01 AM (#567426)
"I" before "E" except after Z...
   390. Walt Davis Posted: December 02, 2003 at 04:40 PM (#568963)
The Yanks didn't necessarily have much leeway with Boone. He's in his last year of arb eligibility. After making $2.1 and $3.7 M the last two years, and just having put up 24 HRs, 96 RBI and 23 steals (in 26 attempts), he'd certainly have gotten at least $5.3 M in arbitration and more likely the $2 M raise the Yanks gave him (and possibly more).

The Yanks' other option was to non-tender him. But with Randa and Lowell re-signed, Boone is probably the best remaining 3B option on the market. If he was made an FA, a few other teams would have been interested (and probably enough to offer a multi-year deal) and either the Yanks risk losing him or they'd end up outbidding everyone and paying him this anyway (and maybe getting stuck with a 2nd or 3rd year).
   391. SM in DC Posted: December 02, 2003 at 04:52 PM (#568964)
The problem with most of these recent Yankee teams has been horrid bench construction.

Boone probably is best suited to the Enrique Wilson role of super-utility player, with an emphasis on spelling the regular thirdbaseman to be named later.

Cashman would be smart to go find a hit first-defense second catcher, like a Todd Pratt, to spell Jorge and occassionally PH late in games.

The OF situation looks to be (or at least it should be) Bernie in left, Matsui in center and Sheffield in right, with Garcia and Rivera on the bench, but those 4th and 5th OFs are problematic because none of the five is particularly sterling defensively.

Though they don't grab the backpage, the Boss needs to learn that spare parts and role players can make the difference between 96 wins and staying home and 101 wins and going to the playoffs.
   392. b Posted: December 02, 2003 at 07:29 PM (#568967)
If Gordan keeps striking out 11+ guys per 9, he seems like a pretty good fit for a defensive team like the yanks.
   393. Walt Davis Posted: December 02, 2003 at 07:30 PM (#568968)
Boone probably is best suited to the Enrique Wilson role of super-utility player, with an emphasis on spelling the regular thirdbaseman to be named later.

I agree that weak benches have been a problem and I'll agree that Boone would make a great supersub -- he can play 2B, 3B, and SS and therefore presumably wouldn't have that much trouble picking up 1B and corner OF skills (not that you'd want to play him in those positions too frequently).

But what options are there really for "regular 3B to be named later" for this year? We pooh-pooh Boone a lot around here, but he was 8th in RARP among 3B last year and everyone above him is unattainable right now as are most of the ones immediately below him, unless you want to work a trade for Wes Helms or sign Vinny Castilla as your "regular 3B". Probably the most realistic and reasonably attractive options would be to see if you can trade for Crede or Beltre who both had pretty miserable years last year and might be available. Maybe Phil Nevin?

Now he was just 15th in RARP among 3B in 2002. But even there, everyone ahead of him is either unavailable or a dicier option than Boone (Batista, Bell, Ventura, Hillenbrand, Perry).

How's Minnesota feeling about Koskie and his contract these days?

These are ugly days for 3B and Boone really is the best option for 3B for the Yanks.
   394. b Posted: December 02, 2003 at 07:36 PM (#568969)
Walt: The obvious answer is Jeter with a different shortstop, be it Arod or Kaz or the like.
   395. Matt Garza smells it deep (Mr. Tapeworm) Posted: December 02, 2003 at 07:48 PM (#568970)
but those 4th and 5th OFs are problematic because none of the five is particularly sterling defensively

Why is having two good bench hitters problematic? Garcia's defense is not good, but Rivera's is. He's no Mike Cameron, but he does have a good arm and patrols his corner outfield spot well enough. Rivera would probably start on half the teams in the majors -- I still think he'd be a .270-.280/25HR/80RBI type of hitter -- so he's a good guy to have on the bench.

The Yankees' Enrique Wilson fetish continues to confuse me. Wouldn't D'Angelo Jimenez look good right about now? The at bats wasted on Wilson are costly. He can't hit, and he's not a particularly great fielder. There's probably a Rule V guy, AAA free agent or MLB FA cannon fodder who is better. They could bring up Brian Myrow (I keep beating that drum), who can play 2B and 3B (and probably SS, if called upon) and had a .450 OBP with some pop in AA last year. Sure, he's 27, but do you think Wilson would even have a .350 OBP in AA at this point?
   396. The Original SJ Posted: December 02, 2003 at 07:49 PM (#568971)
I believe the Yankee fans have there eye on either Jeter or Chavez at 3rd next year.

me, i would have let Boone walk, moved jeter and get someone that can play defense and hit like boone to play short.
   397. SM in DC Posted: December 02, 2003 at 07:52 PM (#568972)
Mr. Tapeworm... when I said that I was thinking more to the point we really don't have a fly-catcher-type CF on the bench, a defensive replacement type guy. Matsui is a bit stretched there and Bernie really can't handle the position anymore.
   398. Steve Posted: December 02, 2003 at 09:29 PM (#568973)
The problem with waiting for Chavez for 2005 is that at that point, you've got nowehere to put Jeter in 3 years.

I'd think it's much more likely Jeter could handle 3rd adequately than centerfield.

They could have moved Jeter this year, forgone Sheffield, signed Cameron and Tejada, and suffered a noodle arm for a year or two in right field. Half the games are played in a park with a short right field, so the bad arm there wouldn't cost you too many runs.

Cameron would look real good running down balls between Bernie and Matsui in the corners.
   399. Ziggy's screen name Posted: December 02, 2003 at 10:52 PM (#568974)
I realize that 'A. Boone' is not a name the Yankees want to see in the line up, but it's a little disheartening hearing just down everyone is on him. When he was with the Reds I was more than happy to see him come to bat. Beat the heck out of Wily Mo Pena or Felipe Lopez.
   400. Walt Davis Posted: December 03, 2003 at 12:19 AM (#568976)
hit like boone to play short

It's hard enough finding 3B who hit like Boone, SS who hit like him are in even shorter supply -- though they are more available at the moment I suppose if you're willing to pay the price.
Page 4 of 6 pages ‹ First  < 2 3 4 5 6 > 

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.



<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Dynasty League Baseball

Support BBTF


Thanks to
for his generous support.


You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.


Page rendered in 0.5592 seconds
40 querie(s) executed