I'm convinced Lidge made it into the MVP discussion precisely because he had such a poor game on the last Saturday of the season, when the Phillies clinched.

The circumstances of Rollins's play were so dramatic that they focused more attention on Lidge than he had at any other point in the season. If he puts the Nats down 1-2-3, I don't think anyone is putting forward his name.

The NL MVP looks pretty much perfectly aligned for Pujols - he'll get a lot of votes for being, you know, the best player in major league baseball, and there's no single non-Pujols candidate to steal the rest of the votes. With a divided electorate, the best player has a great chance of getting the award.

The NL MVP looks pretty much perfectly aligned for Pujols - he'll get a lot of votes for being, you know, the best player in major league baseball, and there's no single non-Pujols candidate to steal the rest of the votes. With a divided electorate, the best player has a great chance of getting the award.

I don't think it's going to be terribly close. Pujols will get the most first-place votes, the most votes overall and win in a walk. As he should.

You guys don't see Howard as likely to make it close? 48 / 146 / playoffs / big September. That's going to get him a bunch o' votes.

Oy. 6 more months of this?

No closer should ever, EVER be given serious consideration for MVP. And only in the most extreme cases - when the reliever has one of the best closer seasons ever and there's no worthy starters - should a closer even be included in CYA talks. It's a specialty position, folks. NFL kickers don't win MVP awards. NBA sixth men don't win MVP awards. And neither should closers.

NFL kickers don't win MVP awards.

Actually, one did. The last of the straight-on kickers, Mark Moseley, won the 82 MVP Award.

This may be the best test we will get regarding Bonds collusion.
Aging superstar, great hitter, attacked by press, considered a bad teammate, liability in field. If Manny gets as much as 1 offer for the minimum...

the best player has a great chance of getting the award.

Is that even legal?

This may be the best test we will get regarding Bonds collusion.
Aging superstar, great hitter, attacked by press, considered a bad teammate, liability in field. If Manny gets as much as 1 offer for the minimum...

If that's true, there is no good test regarding Bonds collusion. Manny Ramirez is several years younger than Bonds, has no serious steroids allegations following him, is not under indictment, has no health issues of relevance, and while he has personality issues, are not at all the same as those attached to Bonds. Regardless of what you think about Bonds, what happens to Manny isn't going to tell you anything at all.

This may be the best test we will get regarding Bonds collusion.
Aging superstar, great hitter, attacked by press, considered a bad teammate, liability in field. If Manny gets as much as 1 offer for the minimum...

Apart from Manny being 8 years younger, he is not in legal trouble, isn't tainted by steroid allegations, is not as universally hated by press, teammates, and the vast majority of fans, and that he won't cause the same Media Circus as Bonds, you're right. It is exactly the same situation...

I don't evan know why I bother responding to baiting like that.

EDIT: I think I owe Dizzy a coke...

Mark Moseley, won the 82 MVP Award.

He kicked a bunch of winning field goals as time ran out, and was
something like 31-32 for the year...IIRC

I see Lupica signs on to Tim McCarver's intellectually bankrupt comments:

Now the only people who don't believe Boras orchestrated behavior from Ramirez that Tim McCarver described as "despicable" - and McCarver is right - are people who want to carry Boras' coat.

By the way, in the NLCS Ramirez hit a double high off the wall that he didn't bust out of the box on. But that couldn't have happened, because Ramirez only does that when he's laying down on the Red Sox.

I'm convinced Lidge made it into the MVP discussion precisely because he had such a poor game on the last Saturday of the season, when the Phillies clinched.

wow, I agree with this. I tend to think this happens quite a bit in sports. Where among the media and water cooler sports fans it actually hurts your MVP chances to be too great. This is the same in the Heisman Trophy, where they want their winners to be on very good teams and the player has to single handedly produce winning moments in key spots. You have to be perfect, your team can't be bad, it can't even be mediocre, it has to be very good, but it can't be historically great, then why did they need you?

The MVP conundrum: The closer you get to perfect, the more obvious your flaws, if any, are. The closer you get to crappy, the more obvious your one or two skills are.

By the way, in the NLCS Ramirez hit a double high off the wall that he didn't bust out of the box on. But that couldn't have happened, because Ramirez only does that when he's laying down on the Red Sox.

Lupica's point is that Manny is evil and dumb, Ray, though not always at the same time.

Moseley was 20-21 in field goals in 1982. It was a strike shortened season of 9 games, so nobody had big numbers in passing, rushing, or receiving and the AP voters couldn't be bothered with figuring out those pesky per game figures. Marcus Allen was Rookie of the Year and probably could have won MVP too.

The funny thing about Moseley that year was he was only 16 of 19 on extra points. It's not often you see a kicker with a better percentage on field goals than extra points.

Booey is right. The great reliever seasons--think Gagne '03, Wagner '99, Hoffman '98, etc.--all come out with a win probability added of about 5.5. If you remove those 5.5 wins from a "standard" bullpen (e.g., 110 ERA+ setup man, 105 ERA+ LOOGY, 98 ERA+ middle reliever, etc.) and promote everyone up a role, filling in the mopup innings with a 94 ERA+ guy, the rest of the bullpen more or less washes out, so a 5.5 WPA is like 5.6 wins above replacement, which is the equivalent of a starting pitcher throwing 200 innings at a 148 ERA+. A starter's going to at least do that every year. Ace relievers matter a *ton* in the playoffs, since you can pitch them 2-3 times as much, but they're more or less a luxury in the regular season.

But this is supposed to be about Manny Ramírez, isn't it?

But this is supposed to be about Manny Ramírez, isn't it?

Speaking of the little devil, what would Manny be worth to the Mets, given the Mets roster as currently constructed? IIRC Church won't be eligible for FA until 2011, and FMart still looks to be at least a year or two away. Would Manny even be a good fit for the Mets at something like 2/30?

Since I haven't got the faintest idea of whether Martinez is a player the Mets should be banking on, it's not clear to me who the Mets should be going after. Given Church's year, and that no one projects him as a true star, shouldn't the Mets be in the market for a star OFer, one they can confidently sign for 4-5 years? At "worst", Fernando is ready in 2010 and excels, Church is playing well and becomes redundant because Dunn or whomever is starring in LF, and Beltran is playing like Beltran and is staying healthy. There's no waste in this scenario since Church would be a perfectly good trading chip, or makes a helluva 4th OFer/fallback position in case Fernando falters.

The Mets cut-and-paste approach to the OF is part of what has cost them the playoffs in the last two years. Marginal wins were excruciatingly important to the Mets in 2007 and 2008, and are very likely to be so in 2009 and 2010, and should be valued and pursued accordingly.

I wonder how accurate the records are for the yardage breakdowns on Moseley's attempts?

Pro-football-reference has him with 37 total FG attempts in 1977, and 28 of them are from 40+. That's a hard way to make a living.

The Mets should not touch Ramírez with a ten-foot pole--nor should any other NL team. His glove is SUCH a liability that it negates a substantial portion of his offensive value, and he isn't getting any younger. And NY has a flyball staff. The same is true of Burrell, Dunn, and Ibáñez. All of these guys will be substantially overpaid, because some GM will underestimate the cost of their defensive weakness. The only free agent corner OF that I think could possibly be good values are Milton Bradley, if he's physically capable, and Brian Giles if SD declines his option (which I doubt they will). I'd have my medical staff give Bradley a long look-over, and go hard after him if they give me the OK.

Luis Castillo is a sunk cost, and needs to be jettisoned pronto. I think Ellis might be a nifty replacement there--he's got a whale of a glove. Delgado, Oliver Pérez, and Pedro are all coming off the books, and none of them should be retained. There are plenty of starters on the market who should be worth their paychecks--of course Sabathia is the prize, but Burnett, Lowe, and Sheets are all premium arms if the bidding for C.C. runs too high. Randy Wolf would be a nice pickup as a 4th/5th starter. Tex might be too rich as well--it'd be worth seeing whether the scouts think any of the oafs (Burrell, Dunn, and Manny) could handle first base. As for the bullpen...ugh. Fuentes and K-Rod are asking the moon, and are any other relievers capable of closing hitting the market?

The Mets should not touch Ramírez with a ten-foot pole--nor should any other NL team. His glove is SUCH a liability that it negates a substantial portion of his offensive value, and he isn't getting any younger. And NY has a flyball staff. The same is true of Burrell, Dunn, and Ibáñez.

I agree basically about Ramirez, but I think the really key point is on Burrell and Dunn. They're going to get a lot more money than Manny, and they're not better than he is.

I expect that the worst contracts of this offseason will be Burrell and Dunn, along with AJ Burnett.

Goerge Blanda also won the UPI AFL-AFC Player of the Year award in 1970, before there was a football writers MVP award.

I agree basically about Ramirez, but I think the really key point is on Burrell and Dunn. They're going to get a lot more money than Manny, and they're not better than he is.

They are a combined 13 years younger than he is, though. And I can't imagine they will get more money per year than Manny...probably longer contracts, though who knows.

I doubt Burrell will get a higher AAV than Manny, although probably a higher dollar amount due to additional years.

What's the beef with Burnett? His peripherals are outstanding...he's one the very rare K/GB pitchers out there, sort of a poor man's Kevin Brown. Yes, his command deserts him at times, and yes, he has trouble staying healthy. But he seems to me to be a pitcher whose results have not yet matched up to his potential, one of the few arms with legit year-in-year-out Cy Young potential if a few things break his way. Whether he gets overpaid depends on the market, but the only P I would definitely rank above him are Halladay, Beckett, Lincecum, Haren, Webb, Hamels, Johan, and Peavy (no order there).

Blanda was more than a kicker that year. From the Pro Football Hall of Fame:

George Blanda played pro football for 26 seasons – longer than any other person. However, he’ll probably be remembered best for his 1970 season with the Oakland Raiders. That year, in a five-game period, George provided Oakland with four wins and one tie with last-second touchdown passes or field goals – at age 43.

The string started with a three-touchdown passing and one field goal outburst against Pittsburgh and continued with a 48-yard field goal with three seconds left to tie Kansas City. He threw a scoring pass and added a 52-yard field goal in the last 96 seconds to defeat Cleveland. Next came a winning touchdown toss against Denver and a last-instant field goal to upend San Diego.

Outside of that, though, he was nothing special. He didn't have a particularly good year kicking, and he threw just 55 passes as a QB.

But he seems to me to be a pitcher whose results have not yet matched up to his potential, one of the few arms with legit year-in-year-out Cy Young potential if a few things break his way.

I had actually missed that Burnett's record is more mixed than I'd originally thought - there are stats you can point to that make him out to be better than his run prevention. So I walk that back - I don't know enough about Burnett to say he'd be a bad choice.

The problem with Burnett is not just that the results haven't matched up to the potential, but that the results haven't matched up to the results. He's been pitching for a long time, and his best season (2002) is 40.3 VORP - because even with the Ks and the grounders, he gives up more hits and more runs than you'd expect. He's consistently underperformed his FIP/xFIP numbers. I love his stuff, but he'll be 32 next year, and I think it's quite possible that he is his results, and that's not a $20M pitcher. If Burnett is his stuff, he's a $20M pitcher. If Burnett is his component stats, he's getting close to being worth the money. But if he's his ERA, you're looking at a lot of risk for a pretty unimpressive pitcher.

If I had to pick one 32-year-old in baseball with a good chance to massively outperform his career numbers during his next contract, Burnett would probably be the choice. So there's a better case to be made than I thought. I don't want my team taking that risk, though, unless the money's unexpectedly short.

He most definitely does not give up more hits than you'd expect--if he'd had the same BABIP as his teammates over his career, he'd have surrendered 32 more hits than he actually did. He does seem to have had a bit of trouble pitching from the stretch, though: he's allowed a .722 OPS for his career with men on, compared to a .651 with the bases empty. Is that significant? I have no idea how much noise there is in that stat.

Outside of that, though, he was nothing special. He didn't have a particularly good year kicking, and he threw just 55 passes as a QB.

True, but in a 14-game schedule, if you turn five straight potential losses into four wins and a tie with last-minute heroics, that's over one-third of the schedule right there. And the Raiders won their division by one game. In this case, context was everything, and I think it's a perfectly defensible choice...

I don't disagree with that, Vortex. You know, Blanda was generally coming in at the end of the game in relief of Daryle Lamonica, who was a pretty good QB in his own right, but famed as a long bomber and therefore probably not too proficient at the two-minute drill. I think NFL teams could get more mileage out of having two different QBs with differing skill sets - maybe have a downfield passer versus a West Coast Offense kind of guy, or a veteran to bring in for the two-minute drill, as the Raiders had. Mix and match them as appropriate, like you'd do with a third-down running back. You could even announce your starting QB based on what sort of defense you were facing.

I expect that the worst contracts of this offseason will be Burrell and Dunn, along with AJ Burnett.

Regarding Burrell, if the Phillies overpay to keep him, I don't mind. There's such a dearth of reliable right-handed hitting free agents, and the Phillies need a good right-handed bat (not Jayson Werth) to break up Utley and Howard in the lineup. Not that Manuel breaks them up often anyway...

Burrell's defense is less of a factor because left field isn't that deep, he has a strong arm, and the center fielder (Victorino) covers a lot of ground.

I'm not sure how the ball-hogging adjustments work in the various play-by-play systems--it's possible Burrell is getting penalized for Rowand/Victorino taking some discretionary chances--but here's how they see Burrell's D over the last three years:

2006 (1,000 innings): Dewan -14, UZR -9, PMR -6
2007 (1,000 innings): Dewan -14, UZR -22, PMR -18
2008 (1,200 innings): Dewan -10, UZR n/a, PMR n/a

The 2007 numbers are *really* bad--at that rate, he'd be costing you 26 runs per full season played, which happens to be more than his offensive value above average. Cancelling out those two, you've got an average-fielding 95 OPS+ LF, which is obviously a well below-average player overall. Dewan shows him with a pretty strong rebound this year--at -12 runs a year, his "defense-neutral OPS+" would be a little over 110--but a) I'd need to see UZR before buying it and b) a 111-112 OPS+ average-fielding LF is like a Luke Scott/Fred Lewis type, and those guys aren't in line for anything near Burrell money.

Is it me, or are Pat Burrell and Raúl Ibáñez long-lost twins? Both have posted OPS+ between 121 and 127 each of the last three years (122/127/123 for Burrell, 125/121/124 for Ibáñez), and both have gloves of stone and really need to DH. The only differences are 1. Ibáñez is substantially more durable, averaging 681 PA a season the last three years to Burrell's 603 and 2. Ibáñez plays in the tougher league. Why is Burrell considered a star and Ibáñez an afterthought? Is it just because the park effects give Burrell shinier raw numbers?

All of the above applies to Dunn as well, by the way. If we ignore 2006, then he's a slightly better hitter, but he might be an even worse fielder too. Carlos Lee is another one of this type. Can these guys learn to play a decent first base? Their pitchers must want to murder them. I'd *much* rather have the Phillies' other corner outfielder, Jayson Werth, whose Marcel OPS+ for next year is 110 and can actually catch the damn ball, than any of these behemoths.

I don't think Burrell's lack of PA is a durability issue. IIRC, Manuel constantly subs for him relatively early in the game in order to sure up his defense. And I don't ever hear anyone talking about Burrell as a star. He's generally considered a one-dimensional slugger who strikes out to much and plays lousy defense.

I don't think that Burrell or Dunn will get a whole lot more than Manny this offseason, but maybe I'm overestimating the hype over Manny's resurgence.

Well, that goes back to Point A, that he's a huge liability in the field.

Manny is old, and his 2007 sucked, but I still think he's a substantially better hitter than either Dunn or Burrell--a good 1.5 wins per year better, maybe even two. He can match them on power and patience and far exceeds them on batting average.

Thanks for the analysis, D.C. I know Burrell isn't a superstar like Albert Pujols but I think that, considering the available options (via free agency, trade, and the Phillies' organizational depth), his batting handedness, and the lighter importance placed on his defense due to the environment, I think Burrell needs to be re-signed by the Phillies, unless they plan on going after Manny Ramirez (very unlikely).

Here is the list of left fielders:

Moises Alou (42)
Garret Anderson (37) - $14MM club option for '09 with a $3MM buyout
Milton Bradley (31)
Emil Brown (34)
Pat Burrell (32)
Carl Crawford (27) - $8.25MM club option for '09 with a $2.5MM buyout
Adam Dunn (29)
Cliff Floyd (36) - $2.75MM club option for '09 with a $0.25MM buyout
Luis Gonzalez (41)
Jerry Hairston Jr. (33)
Raul Ibanez (37)
Gabe Kapler (33)
Kevin Mench (31)
Jason Michaels (33) - $2.6MM club option for '09
Craig Monroe (32)
Greg Norton (36)
Jay Payton (36)
Wily Mo Pena (27) - $5MM club option or $2MM player option for '09
Manny Ramirez (37)
Juan Rivera (30)
Fernando Tatis (34)

I've bolded the ones I have any interest in signing (I assumed that all options would be picked up). Three: Burrell, Ramirez, and Milton Bradley, a switch-hitter. In other words, after Burrell, it's "unlikely," and "doesn't totally suit your lineup needs."

I'm convinced that the Phillies need another RHB but it's moot if Manuel doesn't realize he needs to split Utley and Howard to ward off LOOGY match-ups.

Looking at other OF free agents, Brian Giles, a left-hander, is the only other player I have any interest in.

Maybe the Angels buy out Vladimir Guerrero's option for $3 million. There's always the small shimmer of hope...

Well, that goes back to Point A, that he's a huge liability in the field.

Yeah, but you were saying that that was one of the things that made them similar (which makes sense to me). What I was disagreeing about was their durability. Ibanez isn't more durable, his manager is just more willing to leave him in the field (rightly or wrongly). Also Over the past 3 years, Ibanez has played 23 games at DH--12 more than Burrell.

As for Manny, I'm not sure what to make of him. 2 months ago I was fairly sure that he had become a 300/400/500 hitter with terrible defense. Now it looks like he's something more than that.

Um, Ibáñez plays in the AL. If he hadn't played more games at DH, it would be awfully strange.

Milton Bradley is clearly the best option of that crop if he is physically capable of playing the field.

300/400/500 is still a terrific hitter. If you get 155 games of that at DH, it's 4 wins, which is an All-Star.

Starting a post with "um"? I thought better of you, Dan. :)

I don't really get what you're saying here. I mention the DH issue because it allows Ibanez to stay in the lineup and not have to play defense. It's something that should be considered when comparing the durability of these two players.

300/400/500 is still a terrific hitter. If you get 155 games of that at DH, it's 4 wins, which is an All-Star.

Yes, that's all true. But it's not much different from the production you're looking at in Dunn and Burrell. So that's why I'm saying I don't know what to think of Manny. I thought he was going to be on par with those two guys but his recent performance makes me think he may well be better than that.

Is it me, or are Pat Burrell and Raúl Ibáñez long-lost twins? Both have posted OPS+ between 121 and 127 each of the last three years (122/127/123 for Burrell, 125/121/124 for Ibáñez), and both have gloves of stone and really need to DH. The only differences are 1. Ibáñez is substantially more durable, averaging 681 PA a season the last three years to Burrell's 603 and 2. Ibáñez plays in the tougher league. Why is Burrell considered a star and Ibáñez an afterthought? Is it just because the park effects give Burrell shinier raw numbers?

Well, Burrell was a first overall pick, and already a capable regular at the age of 23 (in a season where he received ROY votes) for the Phillies, which is a fairly high profile market. Ibanez was drafted in the 32nd round, didn't become a regular until he was 30 (because he stank until he turned 29), and has played in Kansas City and Seattle (in the down years). Ibanez is also 5 years older than Burrell, and has fewer career runs and RBIs, and only one 30 HR season, whereas Burrell has four. Burrell has also been on two division winners, and four second place teams, and players almost always have their reputations pumped up or dropped down by the performance of their teams.

Have they been similar in value the last couple years? Yeah, they have. However, the narrative around their careers has been different right from the start, and that's what most people go by.

I get your point that it may not be a true durability gap so much as a difference in usage.

But it's not much different from the production you're looking at in Dunn and Burrell.

This is where we part ways. Leaving age aside for the moment (although it has to be considered, since Manny could collapse at any moment), Ramírez's Marcel OPS+ for 2009 is 146 (it was 137 the day he was traded to L.A.). Dunn's is 126 and Burrell's is 122. Is an age 37 adjustment really over 10 points of OPS+? Maybe it is; I have no idea.

Ryan Jones, I'd say that just about covers it! Thanks. :)

Isn't the argument for Dunn that he's much younger than Manny, or even Burrell, and that he's more likely to be productive in the later years of the contract?

Not that anyone in particular was recommending Bradley specifically for the Mets, but I think he'd be a bad fit. The Mets don't need a reliable third outfielder, they need a reliable second outfielder, and MB surely is not that. In fact, the Mets are going into 2009 with one reliable, experienced starting pitcher, one reliable, starting outfielder, an offense that can't turn the corner, a bullpen that had everything to do with not making the playoffs... Woof. OTOH, we could also say the Mets suffered from all the above and still won 89 games, and Santana, Beltran, Reyes, and Wright are a great quartet to build on--but there's a great deal of work to be done.

Isn't the argument for Dunn that he's much younger than Manny, or even Burrell, and that he's more likely to be productive in the later years of the contract?

Paul Konerko should be a cautionary tale for Dunn. They're built very similarly, they seem to move similarly, they've always hit similarly, and Konerko is about the oldest 32 I've ever seen.

Early guesses for destinations:

Manny- LA
Dunn- Cleveland or Washington
Burrell- Philly
Bradley- Toronto

What if Pat the Bat landed with the Mets. More or less hated than J.D. f'ing Drew? Probably less, unless he accepts less money to go there.

Bradley- Toronto

JP signing Bradley? I've got my doubts on that one.

The Devil Rays could use a real DH next year. Moneywise, they probably will settle for Ibanez but Bradley, Manny, Dunn would look better.

Paul Konerko should be a cautionary tale for Dunn. They're built very similarly, they seem to move similarly, they've always hit similarly, and Konerko is about the oldest 32 I've ever seen.

Agreed, and I'll add that Dunn is completely about the old-player skills. Here be dragons.

What is Dunn likely to get? He might be worth 3/45 to the Mets but I can't imagine someone isn't going to go longer and higher.

What is Dunn likely to get? He might be worth 3/45 to the Mets but I can't imagine someone isn't going to go longer and higher.

5 straight years of 40+ HR. Only 29 years old.

Jose Guillen got 3/$36. Dunn's getting at least 5/$75.

He does seem to have had a bit of trouble pitching from the stretch, though: he's allowed a .722 OPS for his career with men on, compared to a .651 with the bases empty. Is that significant?

Overall offense is higher with men on base. Burnett's career split is a bit more than league averages. It appears much of that was earlier in his career and he's been closer to normal the past few seasons.

However...a very quick check seems to indicate that most top pitchers have less of a split in their men on/bases empty numbers. Not necessarily pitching better with men on, but not losing as much effectiveness. Perhaps this apparently inability to pitch as effectively with men on is one of the things that has kept Burnett from reaching elite status.

There may be some selective sampling issues with the leaguewide men on/bases empty splits -- worse pitchers allow more men on base, so more PA with men on base occur against worse pitchers. So the "typical" split in performance may not really be indicative of an average pitcher...but I don't have time to think about how to adjust for that, if necessary, right now.

Can Dunn play first better than left?

Jose Guillen got 3/$36. Dunn's getting at least 5/$75.

I haven't yet met anyone who thinks Guillen wasn't overpaid, but you're likely right as to the years and money for Dunn. Someone's going to pay a lot for a 40 homer guy.