User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
|
Demarini, Easton and TPX Baseball Bats
|
AllianceTickets.com has cheap MLB Tickets. Get all your Colorado Rockies Tickets, Seattle Mariners Tickets, San Francisco Giants Tickets and all your favorite baseball tickets here. We also carry cheap Denver Broncos Tickets, Seattle Seahawks Tickets and Denver Nuggets Tickets. |
For wholesale prices on baseball gifts and equipment, check these stores out! |
Page rendered in 0.5956 seconds
48 querie(s) executed
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.
A few points.
1) You're ignoring Harang's 15 starts last year in which he was below average.
2) One of Harang's "good" starts was: 5 1/3 IP, 3 R, 0 K, 1 BB, 2 HR, and 8 hits. That's not a good start.
3) Yes, those are nice AAA numbers for Harang, but not as nice as these: 93 K, 11 BB, 9 HR in 126 1/3 AAA IP. Those are Justin Duchscherer's stats this year, just one of the reasons Harang was expendable.
4) There are two reasons Halama was allowd to make so many starts. A) Harang was not likely to do any better. B) Halama is out of options.
Yes, but similar to what Halama was doing last year as a starter.
Agreed on #2.
3) Yes, those are nice AAA numbers for Harang, but not as nice as these: 93 K, 11 BB, 9 HR in 126 1/3 AAA IP. Those are Justin Duchscherer's stats this year, just one of the reasons Harang was expendable.
I'm not saying that the A's should have kept Harang or that he is better than the Duch. I'm saying that he wasn't really given much of a chance to show what he could do in the bigs.
4) There are two reasons Halama was allowd to make so many starts. A) Harang was not likely to do any better. B) Halama is out of options.
Were these the only 2 guys that could have been sent down? (Really, I have no idea.) Whatever the answer to that question, it doesn't really change my point that Harang hasn't had much of a shot to prove himself.
The sad thing about Watson being waved is that he was perhaps the 2nd best outfielder the Mets had. Now that's pathetic.
the Graeme Lloyd for Jeremy Hill deal was the biggest disaster for both sides in quite some time.
Lloyd with KC: 16 games, 12 1/3 innings pitched, 29 hits, 18 runs (15 earned), 7 walks, 8 strikeouts, 10.95 ERA, 2.91 WHIP
Hill with the Mets' AA team: 11 games, 13 innings pitched, 14 hits, 15 runs given up, 15 walks, 10 strikeouts, 7 wild pitches, 10.38 ERA, 2.23 WHIP
Hill's 2003 numbers (13 innings with Binghamton, 40 1/3 with Omaha, 2 with Wichita)
39 games, 55 1/3 innings pitched, 56 hits, 54 runs given up (50 earned), 60 walks, 54 strikeouts, 19 wild pitches, 8.13 ERA, 2.10 WHIP
I don't know why Hill is on the Mets 40 man roster. But.. I guess having guys like Hill on the roster is smarter than having guys like Esix Snead (who could be more valuable to the Mets, especially if he takes the job of Timo Perez) on the roster.
Then again, this is the same team that has Mike Glavine playing as a favor.
gd's list of others who could/should -- hopefully will -- go is a good one. Bell is easy, BTW, since he's already announced his retirement.
Somewhere Dan Werr weeps.
Lets just hope something is done soon about the future ones soon, or else Cerda will be pitching for someone else as well.
Shameless promotion: http://theraindrops.blogspot.com/
First 17 AB's 167 .118 .118
1. What happens to the players on the 60 man DL, who won't be ready to play at the start of next year (Strickland, Mo)? Can the Mets keep them in the 60 man DL, or do they have to activate them for the offseason? And if so when can they put them back in the DL?
2. Someone asked this already, but what happens to the FA's in the roster (Bell, Astacio, Franco, Clark, Gonzalez, Timo(?), McSuck)? That's seven more roster spots they could use, plus the cuts they hopefully make (Almonte, Hill, Cede?o). I guess you could count Stanton in there, but thats just wishful thinking.
NAME OBP/SLG from ZiPS
Dealt:
But back to Barret, seriously, what will he get in arbitration, and why pay millions for a C when you already have better and cheaper options?
[/gagging]
I guess this ends any LoDuca for Dye speculation too; not that
Allow me to put on my Dr. Evil mask and ask, "Why pay millions when you could pay ... billions?"
Check Barrett's page on ESPN.com (homepage link). According to them, he took in a cool $1.15 billion in 2002. No wonder the Expos are in such trouble.
:)
I think it's a good risk. If they can't come to a reasonable salary agreement, they can just non-tender him like the Expos were going to. There aren't many teams left who have a starting catcher job available, so I think the A's have pretty good leverage.
What a useless memory, great at remembering utterly useless things like that; helpless at remembering anything worth remembering...
I hope you're right but this signing reminds me of the Singleton signing last year. Beane in need of defensive strength at key position sacrifices offensive value.
Barrett has drawn 61 walks in 602 AB the past two years. This is an above league average rate, and far above league average for a catcher.
I assume Beane will be looking to sign Barrett fo cheap, and will non-tender him if they cannot reach a deal. Not a big risk either way. Rose has absolutely no power, and Grabowski can't play defense, so Barrett looks like a good option to back up Melhuse.
Barrett mad $2.6M last year, the least he could make in arbitration is $2.08M.
Barrett's EQA's since coming into the league have been : .260, .188, .221, .257, .225.
FRAA rates him below average on D, I don't know what UZR says.
I guess anyone can be a candidate to have a breakout year, but Barrett probably qualifies as unlikely.
Wouldn't the 75% rule apply. Meaning the least they could sign Barrett for would be $1.95M, probably not what the A's want to pay a backup catcher.
Giving up Brett Price and a PTBNL does make it seem like the PTBNL would depend on signing Barrett, but then why not just ask Mon for a negotiating window? The Expos were going to non-tender Barrett anyway, so they probably wouldn't mind. I know Price is just a minor league reliever, but giving him up just to non-tender Barrett doesn't seem like a good move.
But the A's don't have to offer Barrett arbitration; I'd be very surprised if they did. Barrett knows he won't make anywhere near $2M as a free agent if he's non-tendered, so he would likely agree to a deal for less than that.
FRAA rates him below average on D, I don't know what UZR says.
UZR rates him as 1 run below average per year over 2000-2002.
I have no idea which is correct.
Traded C Michael Barrett to the A''s for minor league pitcher Jonathan Brett and a player to be named.
Completly confusing.
OK, two quibbles. First, almost 1/4 of those walks were intentional (14 of 61), and if you're going to do a proper job of analyzing a hitter's patience, you need to pull out the IBBs because they aren't a reflection of anything other than tactical situations.
Second, I don't see any real reason to cut the sample off at two years, except for it being the most favorable selective endpoint for your position. He had 21 BB in 252 PA last year (8.3%), and 144 in 1979 PA for his career (7.3%). Additionally, he saw only 3.56 pitches per plate appearance last year (ranking 56 of 91 MLB catchers), and an even lower 3.48 p/PA for his career.
I stand on my statement. Michael Barrett is not a very patient hitter.
Very valid point, I should have considered that.
Second, I don't see any real reason to cut the sample off at two years, except for it being the most favorable selective endpoint for your position.
Well, yeah. But surely Barrett's last two seasons are more indicatve of his patience than previous years, epecially considering that he's just now 27. Either way, he's not particularly impatient for a catcher.
I'm not convinced of this, actually. By any measure, Barrett's plate discipline in '03 was worse than it was in '02, and it could be that '02 was just an outlier on a career that'll peak with slightly-below-average plate discipline.
Whither Bako? Not only is he known for his defense -- certainly as much if not more than Barrett -- but at least he can hit from the left side (and nearly as well as Barrett).
For an organization that seemed so willing to accept the status quo, I don't see how this is an improvement.
Couldn't Hendry have just waited 4 days?
I know that a PTBNL cannot have played in the same league as the player thier traded for. Does that include AL/NL as different leagues, or can we be sure this is a minorleaguer?
Instead, I'm guessing that depending on whether the Cubs can cut a deal with Barrett in the next 4 days, the PTBNL will be either a semi-prospect (if they cut a deal) or a non-prospect (if they don't and end up non-tendering him).
Anyone know for sure how that works in this situation? Since Barrett's last club was in the AL; his last game played was in the NL; does he still count as a player in the same league under the PTBNL rules?
OR....
They could wait a year and trade Brooks for a fourth starter. I guess Harden actually might be the closer if they can reach an agreement with Redman. I guess if you're going to use a promising young starter in a closer role, you might as well already have 3 better than him and have him be enthusiastic about trying to be the closer (which Harden supposedly said he was in September).
He made aound $2M last year and is eligible for arbitration. I doubt he'd settle for anything less than what Lilly will make, but I'd much rather have Kielty than Neu. I hope Beane can trade Redman in the next few days if they can't come to a reasonable salary agreement.
Of course, all the local media speculate the Miller is, indeed, the PTBNL if they can sign Barrett, so who knows. (Then again, I don't expect Kiley or Sullivan to know the PTBNL rules either.)
We'll see how things shake out. If they sign Barrett, deal Miller, and non-tender Bako, and use the excess cash to make a run at Pudge or Lopez, I suppose it's a plus. OTOH, I'm getting afraid that they may actually want a tandem of Barrett/Bako, which frightens me.
2003 vs LHB:
Mecir signed his 4 year, $10M contract in 2001, so I don't think it had much to do with Foulke (info from bluemanc).
Well, the real test of this will be when the Big Three come up for free agency in the near future. Beane's track record on this count to date is mixed.
Obviously Beane has some serious financial restriction holding him back, or else Jason Giambi would still be in Oakland. The A's payroll has increased every year since 2000, and the A's only have 7 players under contract after 2004. I'd be surprised if he let more than one of the Big 3 walk in free agency.
I'd really like to see him trade Zito for a young hitting stud (Kearns, Teixeira, Pujols) given the A's pitching depth.
Why not get Hill instead of LoDuca -- save $3.6MM?
maybe they're trading Harden or maybe they'll even be so bold as to move Mulder or Zito
The A's everyday players aren't really good enough to win divisions without outstanding starting pitching, so why trade outstanding affordable starters? I doubt they'd get enough back.
I pretty much agree, but there is Ben Grieve. This is probably why Beane thinks plate discipline can't be taught as efficiently as other skills.
The A's will draw far more walks in 2004 than in 2003. Kotsay walks much more than Singleton, Kielty walks much more than Long, and Dye (who has always had a healthy walk rate) will play more. Crosby walks a lot more than Tejada, even when adjusted for league.
Actually, the A's minor league system is filled with guys who walk a lot.
# of walks (AB)
AAA
Well, of course it all depends on what you get back. But a rotation of, say, Hudson, Zito, Redman, Harden, Blanton/whoever isn't a big downgrade, so if you could trade Mulder for an offensive upgrade (e.g. Teixeira, Kearns, etc. with some useful throw-ins) it might well be worth it. The A's also need to keep an eye on the future, with Chavez an FA after 2004 and Hudson after 2005.* Eventually they'll have to choose which one or two of the Big 3 they're going to keep, so if you can get good return for one now, putting off the inevitable may not be a good idea.
* Yes, I know they have Dye coming off the books after 2004, but they could still use extra cash.
I also think there are reasons to be worried about the Big 3. Mulder's K-rate has never been that impressive, and it was down some last year, to go along with his injury. Zito's K-rate also took a big plunge last year and there was no compensation with a lower BB-rate. Granted, I'd take them in a heartbeat on my team and those "declines" are probably just random blips (plus taking advantage of the A's defense). But there are a couple caution flags here.
This seemed to me like a guy to take year-to-year with arbitration to see how he developed, not a guy where you say "my god, we need to sign him to a long term contract before he gets hideously expensive" because even at his 2000-2001 level of production, that was never going to happen.
Like I said, it turned out about as badly as could have been expected, but it just didn't seem like the right basket to pile eggs into, even then.
2001-2003
I am pretty sure part of the decline in K's was a result of the A's (Peterson's?) pitching strategy of having the starters go long in games.
Hammond vs RHB (2001-2003)
http://www.sports-wired.com/players/profile.asp?Name=HBFE
Edwardo Sierra, 22, P, reliever, decent K:BB, very few HR
http://www.sports-wired.com/players/profile.asp?Name=HACG
Either that or they just signed guys who can pitch, regardless of which arm they use.
I'd call the prospects C+/B- range, without knowing much about defense and scouting.
Are you thinking that if Harden is the 5th starter he can relieve between starts? Or are you suggesting he be an actual bullpen candidate? (Hint: I like the first idea, not the second)
Oh and Mecir is the poster boy for not paying $3MM to relievers on a multi-year deal. Rhodes is great, but he's 34. I like the deal, but my fingers are crossed.
I like the first idea much better as well, but there were rumors that Redman may take Harden's place in the rotation, with Harden moving to the bullpen.
I still don't like paying $3 million for relievers
Surely, you must think there are relievers that are worth $3M per year, no? ZiPS projects Rhodes to have the second lowest ERA in the AL in 2004. Do you not think Foulke, Rivera, Gagne, Smoltz or Wagner are worth $3M per year?
Is it because of the higher variation in reliever performance. I would say that even if you don't give relievers credit for pitching higher leveraged innings, some relievers are still worth $3M (using VORP, WARP, or some other value stat).
It's funny that you mention Worrell. Not only is he vastly inferior to Rhodes, but he signed with the Phillies for 2 years, $6M.
Obviously, finding a stud reliever like Donnelly for the minimum is ideal. Unfortunately, there aren't too many pitchers of that calibre waiting to be had for nothing. It may be somewhat easy to find league average relievers, but elite relievers, such as Rhodes, are not easily attainable.
That's good to hear.
If Redman signs with the A's, Harden will just be the fifth starter instead of the fourth.
That's not such good news. Redman will make at least $3M, I'd assume. I don't think the difference between Duchscherer and Redman is worth that at all. If Beane trades Zito for a young slugger (Kearns, Dunn, Teixeira, Pujols) and replaces him in the rotation with Redman, I'll be ecstatic.
I'm reposting this from the LaTroy Hawkins thread as it sums up my feelings on this signing too...
I'm not saying that Hawkins is a bad risk, but I'm not willing to say this is a good signing either. Look at last year's leaders in ARP:
Gagne: $550 k (the Jays could have had him for Izturis)
You develop good players at the minimum when you can and pay a big premium when you can't. That's how it is for every kind of player.
Granted, good relievers seem to come out of nowhere more often than other players.
Arthur Rhodes ERA+
In the specific case of Rhodes, look at his peripherals.
From 1997 through 2002, Rhodes struck out between 9.3 and 9.9 men per 9 IP, walked between 1.1 and 3.4, and allowed .6-.8 HR. You have to pay for that consistency. It's possible to drag up a Tam, Donnely, or Shields, but if you're expecting to compete for a playoff spot, it probably doesn't make sense to rely on that happening.
Well, I just picked Mulder randomly. But ...
Mulder, career: 6.1 K/9; 2.5 BB/9; .86 HR/9
Doesn't DIPS make all the proper adjustments so that an ERA+ stat would be unnecessary?
Stotts and Sierra will both probably play in the majors some day, but not for the Yankees. The Yanks would have been better off putting Hammond on waivers, someone probably would have taken his whole salary for the one year. I hate paying $1.2m for a player to play on any other team, but giving him to another contender is just dumb.
This yields an DIPS ERA range of 2.45 to 3.46. So at his worst from 2000-2002, he was good.
But it does make the point that what you want to be paying for is future value. But the connection between talent and value is, apparently, rather small for relievers.
Also, DIPS is not nearly as good a predictor for relievers as for starters, as Voros showed. This is probably due purely to sample size, but there you have it. DIPS might give 2.45 to 3.46 as his range, but in the last 5 years he's had two ERAs below 2.45 and 3 above 3.46. The ones above were anywhere from .70 to 2.00 runs above. Granted, that's across varying run distributions (league average ERAs from 4.20 to 4.82), so take that with a grain of salt. His overall ERA the last 5 years was right at the upper limit at 3.47.
Add in Rhodes' age and standard pitcher injury risk and I don't see why I should be at all confident that he'll be worth the money. By the way, last year K's were down, walks were up, and so were HRs though that rate is still so small who cares if it's up.
My point is just that relievers, at least ones not named Rivera, are so unpredictable that they're a pretty lousy bet. I'm not convinced that it's not better to put that $3 M where you have much greater confidence it will do some good and roll the dice with some kids and retreads. This would seem especially true in the case of someone like Oakland. And in Oakland's own recent history, other than Foulke and maybe Izzy's last season, they've gotten much better production out of relievers they didn't pay very much for.
I could well be wrong. Maybe relievers, at least ones that post consistent peripherals, are more predictable than I think. And maybe minor-leaguers with good peripherals are rarer than I think.
All that said, I expect Oakland to make Rhodes the closer on a pretty much full-time basis. If he racks up even decent numbers as a closer (saves baby!), they should have no problem moving him since this contract is very reasonable by closer standards.
Mulder, career: 6.1 K/9; 2.5 BB/9; .86 HR/9
Assuming Redman stays (which I'm not sure is a good assumption), that's 3/5 lefty starters and 4/7 (or 6) lefty relievers. Sounds like a group that would do well in Yankee Stadium.
Regarding Rhodes, I'm fine with $3m for a year, but don't like a three-year commitment. What makes it palatable is that I figure there's about a 1 in 20 chance that he's pitching that third year for Oakland. Until I see otherwise I'm assumeing a pump-and-dunp situation for the A's closer. Beane got Foulke and cash for Koch (and Cotts) and he didn't even have a contract and was a Free Agent. Foulke got 3 years and $24m. If Rhodes follows in the footsteps and gets 40+ saves next year, what can the A's get in return for a top-notch "proven closer" who's locked up for two cheap years? Some good stuff, I'll wager. And this way they have 2 chances to make Rhodes the "proven closer", If he doesn't shine next year. Though given that he doesn't suck and the A's have said he's the closer its almost a lock that he gets over 30 saves (unless the A's don't win 90+ again).
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main