Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Monday, December 25, 2006

Star-Ledger: Yankees: Talking with Diamondbacks about Johnson deal

“A failure will not appear until a unit has passed final inspection.”

The Yankees are in discussions with the Arizona Diamondbacks about sending Randy Johnson back to the team for which he starred in 1999-2004, according to a baseball official.

The official, who works for a third team but has spoken to people involved in negotiations, asked not to be identified because of the confidential nature of his discussions.

“They’re talking,” the official said.

Repoz Posted: December 25, 2006 at 12:21 PM | 226 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: arizona, rumors, yankees

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

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

Page 2 of 3 pages  < 1 2 3 > 
   101. Russlan thinks deGrom is da bomb Posted: December 25, 2006 at 10:53 PM (#2268576)
I don't know why Yankee fans are that desperate to unload him. At the very least, he's pretty durable and his peripheral numbers indicate that he could be much better next year. Are Yankee fans really sure that Igawa will be better than RJ? Even if RJ is just a 200 IP, 95 ERA+ guy right now, he's not a bad player to have around for just one year when you got the Yankees money.
   102. 1k5v3L Posted: December 25, 2006 at 10:54 PM (#2268577)

I think this will happen, and Clemens will sign in NY


That's certainly a great motivation to unload RJ... and demand that the other team picks up ALL of his salary. If you are going to use the $16m to sign Clemens, whom you get for RJ isn't that important...
   103. 1k5v3L Posted: December 25, 2006 at 10:56 PM (#2268578)
Raski, Callaspo will be the futility infielder; the Dbacks will be counting on him to get plenty of at bats at 2b, ss and even 3b. He's the only viable option on the 40 man at 2b and SS for next year should Hudson or Drew get hurt.
   104. rr Posted: December 25, 2006 at 11:00 PM (#2268581)
and demand that the other team picks up ALL of his salary.

That may be Cashman's initial demand, but I don't see any chance of Byrnes' agreeing to that. I think the Yankees pick up some salary, get a reliever and a C prospect, and sign Clemens. And, as long as they don't give up much, I don't see this as bad gamble for Arizona. I may be in the extreme minority, but I could see Johnson's having something left in the tank if he is back in AZ.
   105. Raskolnikov Posted: December 25, 2006 at 11:01 PM (#2268582)
I don't know if trading Unit makes sense before Clemens is in the bag. Cashman wouldn't leave himself exposed like that unless he can fill a hole with the trade.
   106. bibigon Posted: December 25, 2006 at 11:01 PM (#2268583)
I'd probably take Johnson over any Mets starter next year - the difference in leagues is sizable enough that I've gotta give it to RJ.
   107. Russlan thinks deGrom is da bomb Posted: December 25, 2006 at 11:10 PM (#2268585)
The NL East is actually a pretty good hitting division. The Braves, Mets, and Phillies all have pretty good offenses and Florida's could get much better. If you're not facing the Yankees, I'm not sure the AL East's offenses are so much better. The Red Sox offense isn't what it once was. The Mets, Braves, and Phillies all scored more runs than any team in the AL East except for the Yankees.
   108. Banta Posted: December 25, 2006 at 11:10 PM (#2268586)
Trading Tracy creates a hole at 3B that the Dbacks cannot fill internally, and no viable external candidate exists.

The Yanks better kick in Arod then too.

Ahaha! Merry Christmas!
   109. Raskolnikov Posted: December 25, 2006 at 11:13 PM (#2268587)
The Mets, Braves, and Phillies all scored more runs than any team in the AL East except for the Yankees.

Wow, didn't know that. That's quite impressive considering the DH/pitcher factor.

The NL East is and will be a beast.
   110. Russlan thinks deGrom is da bomb Posted: December 25, 2006 at 11:17 PM (#2268589)
I'd probably take Johnson over any Mets starter next year - the difference in leagues is sizable enough that I've gotta give it to RJ.

You've said this more than once, Bibi. But How much difference do you think it is? I think the DH by itself is worth half a run to an ERA and the league difference is worth about .2 runs. I'm not sure how much you think it is?

Red Sox fans are always going to overrate the league difference in my opinion becasue Boston has had a lot of difficulty gaging the difference. Most of the pitchers they have acquired from the NL have struggled, and most of the pitchers they let go have thrived and that's all they focus on. They don't see that guys like Millwood and Padilla have done better in the AL than in the NL. Or that guys like Benson and Burnett have done just as well in the AL considering their home parks.
   111. APNY Posted: December 25, 2006 at 11:17 PM (#2268590)
That's why my original proposal is still the one I stand by: Big Uni and cash (I'll guess 10M) for Chad Tracy and Nippert.

10 mil? So the Yanks dump RJ to save 3-4 mil (including Tracy's arb salary)? I doubt it.

Tracy actually doesn't make much sense for the Yanks. He's not a 1B bat and I think they'd either want an elite level 1B or a 1 year stop gap.
   112. bibigon Posted: December 25, 2006 at 11:23 PM (#2268591)
You've said this more than once, Bibi. But How much difference do you think it is? I think the DH by itself is worth half a run to an ERA and the league difference is worth about .2 runs. I'm not sure how much you think it is?


MGL's research suggested the differential was on the order of about a run per game - I have no reason to doubt this.
   113. Russlan thinks deGrom is da bomb Posted: December 25, 2006 at 11:25 PM (#2268592)
MGL's research suggested the differential was on the order of about a run per game - I have no reason to doubt this.

Is that including the DH-pitcher difference?
   114. Raskolnikov Posted: December 25, 2006 at 11:25 PM (#2268593)
10 mil? So the Yanks dump RJ to save 3-4 mil (including Tracy's arb salary)? I doubt it.

I don't think the Yanks are dumping Eunuch. I think that Byrnes made the initial call inquiring to his availability.

Tracy actually doesn't make much sense for the Yanks. He's not a 1B bat and I think they'd either want an elite level 1B or a 1 year stop gap.

It's all about alternatives. Right now, Tracy (if he could be gotten) would be the best option available to the Yankees. I'm sure that if an elite 1Bman became available, the Yankees would have no qualms in getting him and either moving Tracy or benching him.
   115. Jack Sommers Posted: December 25, 2006 at 11:26 PM (#2268594)
Ugh.....

Of course I meant to type 100 ERA+ in post 93

After making a phone call or two, I need to ammend my earlier skepticism. These talks are for real, and quite serious.
   116. Orange & Blue Velvet Posted: December 25, 2006 at 11:26 PM (#2268595)
Jackson, Callaspo, and a C prospect for RJ.
   117. bibigon Posted: December 25, 2006 at 11:31 PM (#2268596)
Is that including the DH-pitcher difference?


I'd need to re-read his articles on the subject to be sure, but I believe it does.
   118. Jose Bautista Bobblehead Day Posted: December 25, 2006 at 11:38 PM (#2268598)
Not to play the role of Captain Obvious or anything, but if the Yankees can get Randy Johnson's salary off the books, that would allow Cashman to go after Barry Zito. Yes, I know that money is not much of a consideration for the Yanks, but $16 million ain't chump change.
   119. Randomly Fluctuating Defensive Metric Posted: December 25, 2006 at 11:38 PM (#2268599)
I think I speak for more than a few Yankee fans when I bluntly say:

#### Randy Johnson. Get him out of here.

Yeah, I know it took a lot of guts for him to pitch with his messed up back last year. And I know he came up big against Boston in 2005. And I know Javy Vazquez’s lackluster performance hasn’t exactly made Johnson’s acquisition look horrendous, by any stretch of the imagination.

I want Randy out because of what he represents: the last Stand of General George Steinbrenner. It’s time for a return to Yankee sensibility; using a ridiculous amount of resources to build a team, not buy one.

Happy and safe Holidays all!
   120. Sam M. Posted: December 25, 2006 at 11:40 PM (#2268601)
Let's say the difference is a run a game. I think that needs to be division-adjusted for the reasons noted above, and it's actually much less for pitchers in the NL East, but let's call it a run a game. Randy Johnson had a 5.00 ERA last year. His trend is awful, his peripherals declining, his health in serious question. Tom Glavine last year was more than a run a game better, with completely stable peripherals and showing no evidence whatsoever of decline or serious physical issues.

How anyone would say they'd take Randy Johnson over Tom Glavine is completely bizarre. It is perhaps the most compelling example of pure AL arrogance blinding fans to reality I've ever seen.

I realize I'm at the extreme here in my view of Johnson, on the negative side, and that's fine -- I'm comfortable with that. And I can certainly see the case for wanting to trade for him, and still thinking he's a valuable pitcher worth acquiring. But I cannot honestly see the intellectually defensible case for believing there is any substantial likelihood at all he will outperform Tom Glavine. That one . . . that one just escapes me.
   121. APNY Posted: December 25, 2006 at 11:43 PM (#2268602)
Right now, Tracy (if he could be gotten) would be the best option available to the Yankees.

For one year, including defense, is he much better than Doug M. platooning with Phillips or Phelps? Tracy is only a career 291/348/470 hitter and didn't show power in the minors either (335/385/468).

I don't think the Yanks are dumping Eunuch. I think that Byrnes made the initial call inquiring to his availability.

But you think they trade him for a below average 1b and a B- prospect AND throw in $10 mil. If they're not dumping him, then you have to get back either value in players or salary relief. That trade provides neither.
   122. Russlan thinks deGrom is da bomb Posted: December 25, 2006 at 11:47 PM (#2268603)
Sam, what do you make of the fact that RJ did post a FIP ERA of 4.32 last season? I don't know why his ERA was so high, and it can't be blamed on bad Yankee defense, because his BABIP was in the normal range, but RJ should have been better than he was last year.

I really have no idea how RJ will pitch next season. His peripherals indicate he should have a bounce back year but he's really old and is coming of back surgery. He's a complete mystery to me.

That said, if the Yankees just wanted to dump him, I think I'd rather have him for one year than Zito for 6.
   123. Darren Posted: December 25, 2006 at 11:58 PM (#2268604)
Actually, the more I think about it, the more it makes sense that this would happen. The Yankees will decide that they want to be rid of Johnson and some of his contract AND want good players in return, and the other team will simply bend to their demands. They'll decide to replace Johnson with Clemens, and even though they've seemingly burned some bridges with him, and Houston would be crazy to let him go, Houston will kick him out the door and Clemens will forget all about any lingering negative feelings toward Jedi Cashman. And, of course, he'll come back at a big discount.

These types of scenarios have already played out with Abreu, Sheffield, Pettitte, and Wright in recent months, why the hell should anything change.

Also, happy holidays to everybody else besides Larry.
   124. bibigon Posted: December 26, 2006 at 12:00 AM (#2268605)
How anyone would say they'd take Randy Johnson over Tom Glavine is completely bizarre. It is perhaps the most compelling example of pure AL arrogance blinding fans to reality I've ever seen.


This is a truly stunning statement to me. In my entire time at BTF, I've never seen a stronger case of a player being underrated by a long time poster. It's not that I think Johnson over Glavine is a slam dunk - it's that for you to find it so inconceivable that one could see the numbers as indicating that is a very confusing to me.

Johnson had strong peripherals last year, and his projections for next year call for him to have a strong ERA next year. For you to take his ERA of 5 on face value is very curious to me. You don't need to regress it all the way to his ZiPS projection, but some bounceback from better luck does seem likely.
   125. Sam M. Posted: December 26, 2006 at 12:01 AM (#2268606)
Sam, what do you make of the fact that RJ did post a FIP ERA of 4.32 last season? I don't know why his ERA was so high, and it can't be blamed on bad Yankee defense, because his BABIP was in the normal range, but RJ should have been better than he was last year.

As noted earlier in the thread, he was awful with men on base. I could only speculate on why that is so, and offer two theories:

1) Older Pitcher Theory: They sometimes lose it quickly in a game, and so they can look good for four innings, but then once they get a guy or two on base -- in the fifth inning or thereabouts -- it is also at the point when they are losing all their stuff. So all his hits and walks and the whole mess gets "concentrated" in the moment when he has nothing left to fight back with, and of course it's going to result in more runs than a guy with a more normal distribution of his men on base.

2) Stretch Theory: Something made him ineffective working from the stretch. I know during one game -- it was a period where he'd generally started pitching well otherwise, IIRC -- the Mets just lit him up, and there were stories afterward that Delgado (who has a reputation for this) figured out he was tipping his pitches and the Mets had him nailed. Perhaps Johnson was more often tipping his pitches from the stretch? Or maybe his back problems affected him more from the stretch -- when he could use the wind-up, he could get enough on the pitches that the back wasn't an issue (or as big a one), but from the stretch, he crossed that line between enough stuff and not-quite-enough.

That's speculation. But my real core issue with Johnson is this: the trend in his peripherals. In each of his last four full seasons (throw out 2003), they have declined. His strikeouts -- down precipitously. He did cut down his walks from 2002 to 2004, but since then, they've started climbing again, back up to levels that he won't be able to sustain without the old, higher K rates. Everything is in decline, and I don't see why anyone should believe that trend won't continue. What in his record should make anyone believe he is going to stablize?

The problem with applying ZiPS-like methods to Johnson is that he hasn't shown bounce-back in him. Players bounce back (in part) because they adjust. Johnson has to show me he can adjust to his new limits before I'll believe in it. Until he does, I'm going to believe in the consistency of his decline, because it is a very powerful consistency.
   126. bibigon Posted: December 26, 2006 at 12:05 AM (#2268609)
As noted earlier in the thread, he was awful with men on base. I could only speculate on why that is so, and offer two theories:


How about plain old shitty luck? Why must everything have a cogent explanation?
   127. 1k5v3L Posted: December 26, 2006 at 12:05 AM (#2268610)
So, Sam, RJ didn't show "bounce back" in 1998? Or in 2004?

Whatever. Your irrational dislike for RJ is even bigger than your irrational love for Glavine.
   128. Sam M. Posted: December 26, 2006 at 12:08 AM (#2268611)
You don't need to regress it all the way to his ZiPS projection, but some bounceback from better luck does seem likely.

No, bibigon -- that's just it. Bounceback isn't likely, because Johnson isn't likely to match the 2006 peripherals. He hasn't matched peripherals from a prior full season since 2002 (and even then he was slightly down from 2001, but at such a high level it's quibbling). Since then, the man has been in full retreat on his way to mediocrity. On what basis can you, or anyone else, express any confidence that the ERA will improve to meet the peripherals, rather than the peripherals continuing THEIR extremely steady, extremely consistent decline and thus keeping the ERA right where it was or making it even worse?

If Johnson's ERA improves, I believe it will only be marginally, because his actual pitching will continue to deteriorate. There's no basis for believing otherwise.
   129. bibigon Posted: December 26, 2006 at 12:10 AM (#2268612)
The problem with applying ZiPS-like methods to Johnson is that he hasn't shown bounce-back in him. Players bounce back (in part) because they adjust.
\

While this is true - it's also ignoring the other, and likely far larger reason that players bounce back. The preceding season only gave us a glimpse of their true talent, and we need to balance that with what else we know about the player's skill set.

ZiPS isn't projecting the player's talent to bounce back so much so as it's projecting his results to come more in line with what it perceives his talent to be.
   130. Jack Sommers Posted: December 26, 2006 at 12:11 AM (#2268613)
I think when a guys numbers are SO much worse with runners on, you just have to go to the obvious: He is having problems pitching from the stretch. His high ERA is not a "fluke" In this case, it is most likely that he just couldn't get the push from the stretch that he got from the windup, and thats probably connected to the back injury, but could just as likely be his knee problem......

Remember the knee? The one that is bone on bone and requires injections to keep lubricated?

Anyway, clearly there is a problem pitching from the stretch,and that is why his ERA was so much worse than his periphs and FIP would indicate

None on .206/.271/.324 595 OPS Against (481 AB)
Runners on .321/.363/.564 927 OPS Against (296 AB)
   131. Sam M. Posted: December 26, 2006 at 12:16 AM (#2268615)
RJ didn't show "bounce back" in 1998? Or in 2004?

Bounce back in 1998? Huh? From that awful 1997 season? (Yes, yes, I know what you mean. Is it really relevant anyway to the 43 year old Johnson's ability to change the way he pitches and adjust to the reality he's NOT the "Big Unit" any more???)

And 2004, while somewhat more germane, is actually quite supportive of my viewpoint. It was his last great dominant season, still great but the natural step down from 2002, interrupted by the injury-plagued 2003. And since then, the decline has become only more precipitous. What it is in the numbers, Levski, that you refuse to see even though they just obvious?

Whatever. Your irrational dislike for RJ is even bigger than your irrational love for Glavine.

Neither is true. I don't love Glavine at all. I think he's quite solid and reliable at a level Randy Johnson is very unlikely ever to reach again. And I have always liked Randy Johnson, and although his irrascible personality lately has gotten a bit annoying, I still think he's been one of the great pitchers of my lifetime. I just don't think much of him as a pitcher right now, and I feel pretty strongly about that opinion.
   132. bibigon Posted: December 26, 2006 at 12:16 AM (#2268616)
If Johnson's ERA improves, I believe it will only be marginally, because his actual pitching will continue to deteriorate. There's no basis for believing otherwise.


So your point is that a 42 year old wasn't as good as he was at 41, which wasn't as good as he was at 40?

What part of this do you think ZiPS isn't aware of? It's projecting a line for a 43 year old pitcher, and it's aware of aging patterns, and is thus projecting his talent to decline into his age 43 season. It is still projecting a bounce back.
   133. Raskolnikov Posted: December 26, 2006 at 12:33 AM (#2268619)
Right now, Tracy (if he could be gotten) would be the best option available to the Yankees.

For one year, including defense, is he much better than Doug M. platooning with Phillips or Phelps? Tracy is only a career 291/348/470 hitter and didn't show power in the minors either (335/385/468).


If you have Doug M. platooning with anyone, I think the question answers itself.

As for Phillips and Phelps vs. Tracy, absolutely. While I do agree that Phillips and Phelps would be fine, Tracy to me is a clear upgrade. Tracy has a good chance to be an 800-900 OPS hitter, Phillips and Phelps less likely so.

But you think they trade him for a below average 1b and a B- prospect AND throw in $10 mil. If they're not dumping him, then you have to get back either value in players or salary relief. That trade provides neither.

It does the former - the value. Tracy provides the upgrade and Nippert is the extra young arm that is always of some value.
   134. Rear Admiral Piazza Posted: December 26, 2006 at 12:34 AM (#2268620)
Awesome, I was wondering how this trade would impact the Mets.
   135. Sam M. Posted: December 26, 2006 at 12:34 AM (#2268621)
What part of this do you think ZiPS isn't aware of? It's projecting a line for a 43 year old pitcher, and it's aware of aging patterns, and is thus projecting his talent to decline into his age 43 season. It is still projecting a bounce back.

I understand that. And I respect it. But ZiPS is a tool. When it comes to pitchers, it and its competitor projection models have a long way to go. We -- all of us -- still have to use our common sense and our experience and our observations of individual players in deciding whether we think this player or that one is likely to meet, exceed, or underperform his projection.

I bet you ZiPS saw Johnson as likely to "bounce back" last year, too. After all, in 2005, Johnson had declined from a 2.60 ERA the year before to a 3.79, and that 3.79 really didn't reflect the quality of his pitching as seen in his peripherals.

But Johnson did NOT bounce back. Instead, he got more fragile and achey (and, to his credit, pitched through it to try and help his team). And his peripherals continued to get worse -- not to those of a 5.00 true talent pitcher, but -- what do you know? -- maybe to those of a 3.79 pitcher!

I see more than the numbers that ZiPS sees. I see a pitcher who is breaking down physically before our very eyes. A damned tough pitcher, who is trying to fight through that, quite admirably. But who is breaking down nonetheless. And as he breaks down, his margin for error evaporates, and his pitching declines. Steadily, inexorably. Time rules us all. It doesn't ZiPS by; it marches. And it has marched by Randy Johnson.
   136. 1k5v3L Posted: December 26, 2006 at 12:38 AM (#2268623)
Sam, you write well. And you sound persuasive. But I keep on thinking you're missing the point.

This thread will be worth bookmarking...
   137. Raskolnikov Posted: December 26, 2006 at 12:39 AM (#2268624)
Steadily, inexorably. Time rules us all. It doesn't ZiPS by; it marches. And it has marched by Randy Johnson.

BTF poetry.
   138. Dandy Little Glove Man Posted: December 26, 2006 at 12:42 AM (#2268627)
Let's say the difference is a run a game. I think that needs to be division-adjusted for the reasons noted above, and it's actually much less for pitchers in the NL East, but let's call it a run a game.

I agree that overall the difference between the AL East and NL East is much less than a run a game. A disproportionate amount of that proposed total is due to the comical disparity between AL Central and NL Central lineups in 2006. However, while the Phillies, Braves and Mets crushed RHP (.800 OPS each), they struggled to differing extents against LHP (25-60 points worse). Meanwhile, the Blue Jays were easily the best team in baseball vs LHP and project to be even better this year. Some of their 2006 OBPs against lefties are ridiculous:

Troy Glaus 413
Reed Johnson 422
Frank Thomas 429
Vernon Wells 392
Gregg Zaun 492 (only 63 PAs, but wow)

Thus, while a RHP like Wang or Mussina going from the Yankees to the NL East would likely put up similar stats, a LHP such as Johnson stands to benefit significantly. If he pitches as he did last year, I think one run off his 2006 ERA would be on the low end of his projected improvement.
   139. Dandy Little Glove Man Posted: December 26, 2006 at 01:04 AM (#2268632)
And if a 595 OPS against with None On won't convince you that he can still be a highly effective pitcher and hasn't completely and irreversibly deteriorated, I don't know what will.
   140. bibigon Posted: December 26, 2006 at 01:29 AM (#2268639)
The issue I have with Sam's position is simply that he hasn't demonstrated that Johnson's decline, or decline trend is strong enough to render a bounceback from better luck a moot concept with regards to improving his actual results.

Sam, to get out of the realm of generalities, what's your projected line for Johnson next year?
   141. Tom Cervo, backup catcher Posted: December 26, 2006 at 01:38 AM (#2268642)
If the Yankees want Rocket back, maybe they shouldn't have made him beg for a contract while they tried to sign Bartolo Colon.


This is just so horrendously wrong. They didn't offer him arbitration because he told them he was retiring. They wanted him back; he didn't want to come back.
   142. Raskolnikov Posted: December 26, 2006 at 01:39 AM (#2268643)
The issue I have with Sam's position is simply that he hasn't demonstrated that Johnson's decline, or decline trend is strong enough to render a bounceback from better luck a moot concept with regards to improving his actual results.


To take the anti-Unix stance. RJ did suck last year, and then proceeded to blow in the second most important game of the year for the Yankees. Even if he were to stabilize, we're still taking about a charred remain of the old Unix.
   143. Sam M. Posted: December 26, 2006 at 01:44 AM (#2268645)
Sam, to get out of the realm of generalities, what's your projected line for Johnson next year?

Let's wait until we know where he's going to pitch -- that's going to affect HRs, especially. But I'll say that his K/W ratio will fall below 2:1, he'll pitch fewer than 175 innings and give up more than a hit an inning . . . beyond that, let's see which uniform he's wearing.
   144. Tom Cervo, backup catcher Posted: December 26, 2006 at 01:50 AM (#2268646)
I can only pray that RJ is traded. I don't like him, and I think best case scenario is he's about average for the Yankees. Going back to Arizona I think he could be a pretty good pitcher again -- obviously not 2004, but quite a bit above league average.

I think Tracy would come back in the deal for the Yankees to want to get rid of him, and I think they'll pick up the money to do so. 4-5 million at least picked up, and maybe other parts from both teams to even things out as that still seems like too much from the D-Backs' end.
   145. pounceanalogica Posted: December 26, 2006 at 01:52 AM (#2268648)
Considering you are saying He will have less than 87 K's next season all of your opinions can be ignored from now on.
   146. pounceanalogica Posted: December 26, 2006 at 01:53 AM (#2268649)
nvm im retarted.
   147. 1k5v3L Posted: December 26, 2006 at 01:57 AM (#2268651)
Kyle, as I already wrote, JByrnes has been known to throw Tracy's name in various trade ideas, but I really have a hard time believing he's the MLers bandied about in this deal.

The Dbacks would need to have a trade for a 3Bman lined up already, and I don't really see anyone out there who might be available... short of Morgan Ensberg, maybe. But I doubt it.
   148. Tom Cervo, backup catcher Posted: December 26, 2006 at 02:02 AM (#2268652)
Levski, I thought Callasspo was going to be the 3B, which is why they decided Tracy was expendable? That could be a pretty sweet defensive team if his range is as the scouts say and his arm is strong enough for there.

I do think some other parts would be included on both ends to get the deal done. I actually would love to get Eric Byrnes if Melky is moved for Gonzalez. And if that happens I would guess (hope) the Yankees would move Proctor. Would the D-Backs have interest in him, though?
   149. Internet Commenter Posted: December 26, 2006 at 02:07 AM (#2268654)
Levski, I thought Callasspo was going to be the 3B, which is why they decided Tracy was expendable? That could be a pretty sweet defensive team if his range is as the scouts say and his arm is strong enough for there.

Does anyone really think Callaspo's glove can carry his bat at third? And if his glove is that good, why wouldn't they just trade Hudson (who'd bring a helluva lot more in trade than Tracy) and let Callaspo be a huge asset at second?
   150. NJ in NJ Posted: December 26, 2006 at 02:09 AM (#2268655)
http://baseballprospectus.com/unfiltered/?p=119&PHPSESSID=4d9e46903a60c9a8e8f366305ef51781

BPro weighs in, disagreeing with Sam.
   151. Raskolnikov Posted: December 26, 2006 at 02:13 AM (#2268657)
why wouldn't they just trade Hudson (who'd bring a helluva lot more in trade than Tracy)

It's about what's available on the market. You'd have to find a partner willing to give a starting pitcher (the D-backs' need) for Hudson. The Yankees have no use for Hudson.
   152. Tom Cervo, backup catcher Posted: December 26, 2006 at 02:15 AM (#2268658)
(who'd bring a helluva lot more in trade than Tracy)


Would he? I find that hard to believe the way Giles was just non-tendered that Hudson would get more interest than him.
   153. Yeaarrgghhhh Posted: December 26, 2006 at 02:15 AM (#2268659)
Johnson will be 43 next year and has declined by a considerable amount in each of the last 2 years. What more do you need to know? Just look at his ERA+ over the last 3 years: 171, 117, 88. And it's not like his peripherals aren't consistent with his rising ERAs. He's going to be below average next year -- maybe significantly -- NL or not.
   154. NTNgod Posted: December 26, 2006 at 02:22 AM (#2268661)
And if his glove is that good, why wouldn't they just trade Hudson (who'd bring a helluva lot more in trade than Tracy)

Ron Belliard and Mark Loretta are available for just $$$ (required no draft picks nor talent back) for teams wanting to upgrade second base. Graffanino accepted arb in part because, according to his agent, he was just getting utilityman offers (even before the Brewers offered arb).

Now's not the best time to try and be offering a 2B around, unless you wish to sell low...
   155. Raskolnikov Posted: December 26, 2006 at 02:23 AM (#2268662)
Hmm, Silver at BP does put up a pretty convincing argument that Useless doesn't stink that bad. If he didn't appear to be such a jerk these last two years, I would put up a bigger fight to defend him.

Anyway, after reading that analysis, I'd take him on the Mets. Heilman for him, straight up.
   156. Sam M. Posted: December 26, 2006 at 02:27 AM (#2268664)
Anyway, after reading that analysis, I'd take him on the Mets. Heilman for him, straight up.

Blech. I would MUCH rather just make Heilman a starter and spend the $15M salary difference elsewhere on an actual good player. Heilman would be a much better starter than Johnson in 2007, and will be forever and ever, amen.

That would be the worst move Omar Minaya has made as Mets' GM, by far.
   157. bibigon Posted: December 26, 2006 at 02:30 AM (#2268666)
And it's not like his peripherals aren't consistent with his rising ERAs.


His peripherals did decline, but the degree of decline in the ERA last year far exceeded the degree of decline in his peripherals.

Anyway, after reading that analysis, I'd take him on the Mets. Heilman for him, straight up.


Well, at least not all Mets fans are being unreasonable about this.
   158. Raskolnikov Posted: December 26, 2006 at 02:35 AM (#2268669)
Well, at least not all Mets fans are being unreasonable about this.

You're still wrong about Milledge/Pelfrey for Willis, bibigon.
   159. 1k5v3L Posted: December 26, 2006 at 02:39 AM (#2268672)
From the Silver article

Johnson’s ERA PECOTAs out at 3.52, which is the best in the Yankee rotation by some margin. You can take that PECOTA with a certain grain of salt because it’s so hard to find appropriate comparables for Johnson, although the names that PECOTA does come up with — Roger Clemens foremost amongst them — are a reminder that you shouldn’t bet against a great pitcher until you absolutely have to.



But... Sam's writing is so be-a-u-tiful...

Heilman would be a much better starter than Johnson in 2007, and will be forever and ever, amen.


Sam, I can't figure out if you're drunk or you're high...


You're still wrong about Milledge/Pelfrey for Willis, bibigon.


I'm with bibigon. I do that trade if I were the Mets.
   160. bibigon Posted: December 26, 2006 at 02:40 AM (#2268673)
You're still wrong about Milledge/Pelfrey for Willis, bibigon.


Well, that was a touching non sequitur. What exactly am I wrong about by the way?
   161. Sam M. Posted: December 26, 2006 at 02:41 AM (#2268674)
Raskolnikov, doesn't it worry you that you bibigon is suddenly finding you a paragon of reasonableness when it comes to the relative value of a Mets' player?

Well, at least not all Mets fans are being unreasonable about this.

Let me ask you something, bibigon. Can you think of a single player where you have, based on your own observation and evaluation of his performance, decided that ZiPS was just off about him? If you haven't, then you're too damned wedded to projection systems, my friend.
   162. greenback used to say live and let live Posted: December 26, 2006 at 02:42 AM (#2268675)
That would be the worst move Omar Minaya has made as Mets' GM, by far.

OK, but let's see if you'll go further than that. Is it worse than Kazmir for Zambrano?
   163. 1k5v3L Posted: December 26, 2006 at 02:45 AM (#2268676)
NTNgod is right; someone recently wrote that 2bmen in baseball right now are like kickers in the NFL... When guys like Belliard and Loretta can be had for pennies, why trade for a 2nd baseman? Even Giles couldn't fetch anything. And, again, I really have no problem giving Callaspo 300+ at bats around the infield next year to see whether he can truly be AZ's 2nd baseman of the future.
   164. Sam M. Posted: December 26, 2006 at 02:45 AM (#2268678)
you shouldn’t bet against a great pitcher until you absolutely have to.

This, however, has nothing at all to do with Randy Johnson any more. You're living in the past, Levski. I'm neither drunk nor high. I'm clear-eyed and living in the present.

But hey -- thanks for the kudos on my writing. We'll see about the substance in due course.
   165. greenback used to say live and let live Posted: December 26, 2006 at 02:46 AM (#2268679)
Can you think of a single player where you have, based on your own observation and evaluation of his performance, decided that ZiPS was just off about him? If you haven't, then you're too damned wedded to projection systems, my friend.

The logic behind ZiPS and the rest isn't that complicated. RJ had a 3.75 component ERA last year. He was very good the year before that (4.5 K/BB) and fantastic the year before that. You have to age that obviously, but the output isn't nearly as bad as something as non-rigorous as "trend lines."
   166. 1k5v3L Posted: December 26, 2006 at 02:47 AM (#2268680)
Can you think of a single player where you have, based on your own observation and evaluation of his performance, decided that ZiPS was just off about him?


Pedro's 2007 ZIPS has really been bugging me. Maybe you're onto something, Sam...
   167. Sam M. Posted: December 26, 2006 at 02:48 AM (#2268681)
OK, but let's see if you'll go further than that. Is it worse than Kazmir for Zambrano?

No, of course not. The loss of Heilman isn't nearly so ugly for the franchise. It would just be a garden variety bad trade.
   168. bibigon Posted: December 26, 2006 at 02:48 AM (#2268682)
Let me ask you something, bibigon. Can you think of a single player where you have, based on your own observation and evaluation of his performance, decided that ZiPS was just off about him? If you haven't, then you're too damned wedded to projection systems, my friend.


I regularly disagree with ZiPS about a player, including Johnson, who I don't think will be as good as ZiPS says. There's a long way between being as good as ZiPS projects him to be however(3.71 ERA), and his 5 ERA from last season. In fact, I posted as much in the Yankees ZiPS thread(where I also said I disagreed with the projections for three other players.)
   169. IronChef Chris Wok Posted: December 26, 2006 at 02:49 AM (#2268684)
Christmas is dead to me.
   170. Yeaarrgghhhh Posted: December 26, 2006 at 02:51 AM (#2268685)
Johnson was a great pitcher, but he was pretty mediocre last year (and that's being kind). I'm as big a proponent of statistical analysis as anyone, but I think there are times you can overanalyze a player or situation. Common sense tells us that a 43 year old pitcher with serious health issues and who has declined significantly over the previous two years is a good bet to continue to decline or fall off a cliff. At best the move to the NL will allow him to maintain his current level and he'll have an ERA+ in the 85-95 range.
   171. 1k5v3L Posted: December 26, 2006 at 02:53 AM (#2268687)

This, however, has nothing at all to do with Randy Johnson any more. You're living in the past, Levski. I'm neither drunk nor high. I'm clear-eyed and living in the present.

But hey -- thanks for the kudos on my writing. We'll see about the substance in due course.


Well, Sam, of course we'll just have to wait and see. Your prose, while beautiful, still leaves plenty of doubts about the substance. But then again, that's just me. RMMV.

I just think that RJ will do a lot better in the NL West next year, if that's where he ends up. And if his back is fine, which is a big IF. In fact, Sam, had you been arguing that his back would never be the same and he'd be a mere crippled shell of his former self, I'd have listened. But your handle of numbers and projections doesn't thrill me all that much.

Again, we indeed will see.
   172. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: December 26, 2006 at 02:54 AM (#2268688)
I don't have any dog in this fight, but Sam, with regard to RJ, it seems to me you're placing too much emphasis on trends and not enough on actual performance level. (To be sure, his ERA was lousy last year... but his peripheral numbers weren't bad; they were only bad compared to the past.) If someone's strikeout rate drops from 10 to 9 to 8, I think it's more important that it's still 8 than that it dropped twice in a row. If his innings dropped from 250 to 220 to 200, I think it's more important that he threw 200 innings than that it dropped twice in a row.


Levski, make your case why the Useless should age better than Glavine.

One of the most surprising things I learned via Cross and the BJ Handbook is that Johnson isn't even in the top 20 of hardest throwers anymore. He's lost velocity at a disturbing pace these last two years. My impression of Johnson over the years is someone who relies on an overpowering fastball and slider to dominate hitters. He's never really had to hone the craft of pitching. Not good for someone who is losing that fastball.

Meanwhile, Glavine is the mirror contrast. He was Tommy John with Ks back in his prime. As he's gotten older, he's defined the Platonic ideal of the Tommy John pitcher, using his experience and reputation to live on that outside corner. He's mastered the knowledge of what can hurt him and what won't. I think Glavine should age well.
Isn't that exactly the myth that Bill James refuted years ago? Ceteris paribus, the pitcher with the higher strikeout rate lasts longer. (Aside: isn't it silly to talk about who will "age well" when we're discussing a 40 year old and a 42 year old? They've both already aged very well.)
   173. bibigon Posted: December 26, 2006 at 02:56 AM (#2268690)
At best the move to the NL will allow him to maintain his current level and he'll have an ERA+ in the 85-95 range.


Your best case scenario for RJ with the Diamondbacks is for an ERA between 5.01 and 5.6? Really?
   174. NTNgod Posted: December 26, 2006 at 02:57 AM (#2268691)
MLB.com: D-backs confirm trade talks with Yanks
"[Arizona GM Josh Byrnes] has had significant talks with the Yankees, but we have not been able to make a match at this point," D-backs team president Derrick Hall said.

The Yankees apparently have interest in some of Arizona's young starting pitchers as well as a reliever.
...
A member of Johnson's management team said he got a call from the Yankees on Monday confirming that the Bronx Bombers have had preliminary discussions with several teams regarding the left-hander.
   175. Yeaarrgghhhh Posted: December 26, 2006 at 03:02 AM (#2268693)
Your best case scenario for RJ with the Diamondbacks is for an ERA between 5.01 and 5.6? Really?

Yes. How many 43 year old starters have been average or better? History just isn't on his side. And given his health issues, I don't see him bucking the conventional wisdom.
   176. 1k5v3L Posted: December 26, 2006 at 03:06 AM (#2268697)
So, as I suggested in post 84, it appears the trade talk has mostly centered around a reliever and a couple of pitching prospects. I figure the two teams can agree on something. Take Jorge Julio, please. He gets no respect...

Sadly for Kyle C, it's all Without A Tracy...
   177. 1k5v3L Posted: December 26, 2006 at 03:07 AM (#2268698)

Yes. How many 43 year old starters have been average or better?


How many 43 year old starters with 5 Cy Youngs do you have in your sample size?
   178. bibigon Posted: December 26, 2006 at 03:08 AM (#2268699)
Yes. How many 43 year old starters have been average or better? History just isn't on his side.


How many 43 year old starters have there been in the first place? Clemens, Ryan, Paige, Niekro, and John are all I can think of. All were above average by the way. That's why Johnson has such a good PECOTA(3.52), because the comparable pitchers by age all grade out very well. Bad pitchers don't make it to age 43. At least not historically.
   179. Sam M. Posted: December 26, 2006 at 03:10 AM (#2268702)
I don't have any dog in this fight, but Sam, with regard to RJ, it seems to me you're placing too much emphasis on trends and not enough on actual performance level.

Perhaps. But I want to see him arrest the decline before I am willing to believe he's stabilized at 2006 performance levels. He might stabilize there, but what is there to lead us to believe he will? Why didn't he do so after 2004? 2005? Stabilization might be the safer bet, but it would have been the losing proposition after each of those seasons. Once the rock starts downhill, it gathers momentum, and gravity has its say, and before you know it, the thing reaches the bottom with a big, pulverizing crash. And it's not pretty -- especially not to the guy who decided to pay $16M in the hope it would stop falling . . . .only to see it keep on tumbling down.

Show me something -- anything -- in his record that suggests he's NOT going to keep declining. That, to me, is the single most telling thing in Johnson's last four years. I'll tell you what I'd really like to have seen: some indication of a willingness on his part to adjust. Experiment with a new pitch, trying out new patterns. But Johnson's unwillingness (or inability) to adapt makes him, to my way of thinking, an unlikely candidate to arrest his decline.

If I'm wrong, I'll be happy to admit it. I'll be even happier if it happens after the Yankees trade him away.
   180. JC in DC Posted: December 26, 2006 at 03:12 AM (#2268703)
Johnson was a great pitcher, but he was pretty mediocre last year (and that's being kind). I'm as big a proponent of statistical analysis as anyone, but I think there are times you can overanalyze a player or situation. Common sense tells us that a 43 year old pitcher with serious health issues and who has declined significantly over the previous two years is a good bet to continue to decline or fall off a cliff. At best the move to the NL will allow him to maintain his current level and he'll have an ERA+ in the 85-95 range.


I haven't had the pleasure of reading the whole thread, but I agree w/what I've quoted. Are there any Yankee fans who've posted who want to see the Yankees keep RJ? The ones I've read, like me, are happy to see him traded. It's not just that he's unlikeable - which is rLr's view; it's much more that he has been bad and there's no reason to think he'll get better. If Cashman can get rid of him, get some value in return, and have salary flexibility, why wouldn't that be a good move for NY? I'd much rather see Sanchez in the rotation than Johnson.
   181. NTNgod Posted: December 26, 2006 at 03:12 AM (#2268704)
Latest from the NY Times: Yankees Explore a Trade to Send Johnson Home (RR)
The Yankees have also spoken to the San Diego Padres and a third team, believed to be the San Francisco Giants... It is not known which players the Yankees may be hoping to acquire for Johnson, but their priority may be to simply unload all — or a large part — of Johnson’s $16 million salary for 2007, the final year of his contract.

A Johnson trade, if it happened quickly enough, would allow the Yankees to enter the competition for the prized free-agent starter Barry Zito... The teams known to be bidding for Zito include the Mets, the Giants, the Texas Rangers and the Seattle Mariners. The Yankees’ potential involvement would create a dream situation for the agent Scott Boras
   182. NJ in NJ Posted: December 26, 2006 at 03:16 AM (#2268706)
lol, "the agent Scott Boras".

/childish amusement.
   183. Yeaarrgghhhh Posted: December 26, 2006 at 03:22 AM (#2268710)
How many 43 year old starters with 5 Cy Youngs do you have in your sample size?

One -- Clemens. And he was great this year, no question. But Clemens was also absolutely amazing as a 42 year old, and, AFAIK, doesn't have any serious injury issues.
   184. NJ in NJ Posted: December 26, 2006 at 03:24 AM (#2268711)
As a Yankee fan who had the...experience of watching TBU last year, I can say that I agree with Sam M. However, I don't think it's necessarily fair to ignore the statistical evidence, which says there was some luck involved in just how badly last year unfolded.
   185. Exploring Leftist Conservatism since 2008 (ark..) Posted: December 26, 2006 at 03:27 AM (#2268712)
There are tons of prospects that have gotten more in return then players like Scott Kazmir,...


My God, it's Christmas! Have you no decency???
   186. rr Posted: December 26, 2006 at 03:36 AM (#2268713)
I don't know if trading Unit makes sense before Clemens is in the bag. Cashman wouldn't leave himself exposed like that unless he can fill a hole with the trade.

Well, if the season started tomorrow, I think Johnson would be the Yankees' 5th starter. Of course, he wouldn't be listed/slotted as such, but I think the NYY rotation in order of preferability right now is Wang/Mussina/Pettitte/Igawa/Johnson, with Rasner/Karstens/maybe Sanchez/maybe Pavano's healthy ass cheek behind them. So, I don't think giving up Johnson really leaves the Yankees particularly exposed. Looking at their situation, I think getting any player that is somewhat useful for Johnson makes some sense, with or without Clemens, if they can get the Diamondbacks to take on a big part of the money Johnson is owed. Even if they do not sign Clemens to replace him, moving Johnson might increase their flexibility at the deadline.
   187. JC in DC Posted: December 26, 2006 at 03:42 AM (#2268714)
Absolutely, rr. I agree completely.
   188. NTNgod Posted: December 26, 2006 at 03:53 AM (#2268719)
Like the NY Times, Heyman at SI thinks the Yankees are interested in Zito (after dispatching RJ somewhere on the West Coast):
The Giants have a decent crop of young pitchers to complete a trade for Johnson, while a Padres deal would likely include reliever Scott Linebrink, who's often the subject of trade rumors.
...
The Yankees have been on the periphery of the Zito negotiations so far, but it's logical to think they'd enter the talks for the top free-agent pitcher if they were to find a trade for Johnson. The crosstown Mets are currently bidding for Zito, as are the Texas Rangers, Seattle Mariners and Giants. Zito is believed to be seeking a seven-year deal for close to $17 million annually.

The Yankees seemed lukewarm for most of this winter about the prospect of adding Zito but probably realize now that he is their best bet to improve their rotation.
   189. 1k5v3L Posted: December 26, 2006 at 04:03 AM (#2268722)
From HeyMan NiceShot's piece:

In talks with Arizona, the Yankees have shown interest in several young pitchers, including Micah Owings, Ross Ohlendorf, Brandon Medders, Luis Vizcaino and Dana Eveland, who was just acquired in their six-player trade with Milwaukee that also brought them Doug Davis. However, to this point Arizona, which is stocked with young talent, has balked at the combinations the Yankees have requested.

The Giants have a decent crop of young pitchers to complete a trade for Johnson, while a Padres deal would likely include reliever Scott Linebrink, who's often the subject of trade rumors.


Well, the Giants don't have much they can part with, and neither do the Padres, really.

Of the players mentioned, I wouldn't trade Owings or Eveland, with Ohlendorf a maybe. And I'd rather trade someone like Julio or Lyon than Vizcaino or Medders, that's for sure. If one of these two relievers had to go, however, I'd part with Vizcaino, given his service time and salary.
   190. bibigon Posted: December 26, 2006 at 04:07 AM (#2268724)
Nothing would make me happier from a Red Sox perspective than to see the Yankees send RJ to AZ for relatively meager talent, and then for the Yankees to turn around and sign Zito.
   191. NTNgod Posted: December 26, 2006 at 04:10 AM (#2268728)
Of the players mentioned, I wouldn't trade Owings or Eveland,

Oh c'mon, a Johnson/Eveland trade would be The Big Unit for The Big Everything :P

(While I'd rather have held onto Eveland, it appears I should have paid more attention to those in-season quotes that indicated the Brewers were none too please with Eveland's lack of desire to decrease his girth)
   192. MSI Posted: December 26, 2006 at 04:10 AM (#2268729)
Barry Zito's price just went up, as soon as these words were uttered "Yankees join Barry Zito sweepstakes...."
   193. Sam M. Posted: December 26, 2006 at 04:18 AM (#2268732)
Nothing would make me happier from a Red Sox perspective than to see the Yankees send RJ to AZ for relatively meager talent, and then for the Yankees to turn around and sign Zito.

Let me guess, bibigon. You think Johnson is better than Zito, too?
   194. 1k5v3L Posted: December 26, 2006 at 04:23 AM (#2268734)
NTNGod, the Brewers traded away three guys who wore out their welcome in Milwaukee for three guys who became redundant in AZ (one of them, Estrada, became redundant AND wore out his welcome). I'm curious to see how Eveland responds to the trade, but I certainly have high hopes for him...
   195. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: December 26, 2006 at 04:23 AM (#2268735)
Perhaps. But I want to see him arrest the decline before I am willing to believe he's stabilized at 2006 performance levels. He might stabilize there, but what is there to lead us to believe he will?
What is there to lead us to believe he won't? You're just re-stating your premise, and I'm already challenging the basis for said premise. (I know three factors that affect what a player will do next year, relative to this year: regression to the mean, under/overperformance compared to peripherals, and age. I don't know any reason to believe that "trends" in-and-of-themselves are a factor. Now age obviously isn't on RJ's side, but the other two factors are.)
Why didn't he do so after 2004? 2005? Stabilization might be the safer bet, but it would have been the losing proposition after each of those seasons. Once the rock starts downhill, it gathers momentum, and gravity has its say, and before you know it, the thing reaches the bottom with a big, pulverizing crash.
Yes, that's all wonderful... if we're talking about rocks and gravity. But those are metaphors. What reason is there to believe that they apply to baseball players?
And it's not pretty -- especially not to the guy who decided to pay $16M in the hope it would stop falling . . . .only to see it keep on tumbling down.
I don't know why you keep harping on his salary. It's not your money, and free agency is basically over, and it's a single year deal. So acquiring and paying him isn't going to keep any team from signing another player.
Show me something -- anything -- in his record that suggests he's NOT going to keep declining. That, to me, is the single most telling thing in Johnson's last four years.
Presumably by "four years," you mean "two years," since in fact his 2004 was both a big rebound from 2003 and a very good year in its own right, including by Johnson's own standards.
   196. William K. Posted: December 26, 2006 at 04:25 AM (#2268737)
(While I'd rather have held onto Eveland, it appears I should have paid more attention to those in-season quotes that indicated the Brewers were none too please with Eveland's lack of desire to decrease his girth)


Maybe now that Eveland has to pitch most of the time in the warmth of Phoenix (or Tucson) he won't need the extra insulation like he did in Milwaukee...
   197. 1k5v3L Posted: December 26, 2006 at 04:26 AM (#2268738)
Yes, that's all wonderful... if we're talking about rocks and gravity.


I think Sam has been talking about rocks and gravity all night long. Poetry in motion.
   198. NTNgod Posted: December 26, 2006 at 04:32 AM (#2268742)
Maybe now that Eveland has to pitch most of the time in the warmth of Phoenix (or Tucson) he won't need the extra insulation like he did in Milwaukee...

Ahh, but he was actually pitching in the more favorable climate of Nashville for most of the year, and he'd still bounce down a hill like one of those red rubber balls from childhood.

(And lest anymore think I'm saying this because he's no longer a Brewer, Harvey's and I were trading Ho-Ho jokes and conditioning quips about Eveland even before last season)
   199. NTNgod Posted: December 26, 2006 at 04:34 AM (#2268743)
NTNGod, the Brewers traded away three guys who wore out their welcome in Milwaukee for three guys who became redundant in AZ

True.

(Of the three, Krynzel actually probably would have been cut in ST, since he's out of options, hasn't done jack in a while *AND* had ticked off the FO.)
   200. bibigon Posted: December 26, 2006 at 04:35 AM (#2268744)
Let me guess, bibigon. You think Johnson is better than Zito, too?


It's close, but yes, for 2007, I'd probably rather have Johnson.
Page 2 of 3 pages  < 1 2 3 > 

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Dynasty League Baseball

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
A triple short of the cycle
for his generous support.

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogEmpty Stadium Sports Will Be Really Weird
(13995 - 12:25pm, Sep 19)
Last: .

Newsblog8th? BBTF Central Park Softball Game: SEPT 18, 2021
(224 - 12:19pm, Sep 19)
Last: Howie Menckel

NewsblogBaseball Pension Tension
(15 - 12:16pm, Sep 19)
Last: Slivers of Maranville descends into chaos (SdeB)

NewsblogShohei Ohtani has sore arm, might not pitch again this season
(27 - 12:10pm, Sep 19)
Last: John Northey

NewsblogOT Soccer Thread - Transfer! Kits! Other Stuff!
(267 - 11:39am, Sep 19)
Last: AuntBea odeurs de parfum de distance sociale

Sox TherapyIt's A Sprint, Not A Marathon
(12 - 9:58am, Sep 19)
Last: pikepredator

NewsblogThe Brown Bombers, a Little-Known Black Baseball Team, Shook Colorado’S Segregated Sports World
(3 - 9:33am, Sep 19)
Last: kirstie819

NewsblogOT - August/September 2021 College Football thread
(202 - 2:30am, Sep 19)
Last: Lance Reddick! Lance him!

NewsblogBest average in Majors ... but no batting title?
(22 - 12:52am, Sep 19)
Last: John Northey

NewsblogHey, pal, WEEKEND OMNICHATTER's eyes are up here, for September 17-19, 2021
(69 - 10:58pm, Sep 18)
Last: The Duke

Sox TherapyShrug
(156 - 3:11pm, Sep 18)
Last: pikepredator

NewsblogRemorseful Thom Brennaman deserves to work again now; He’s already suffered 14 months of hell
(43 - 12:21pm, Sep 18)
Last: Karl from NY

NewsblogNBA 2021 Playoffs+ thread
(4428 - 12:16pm, Sep 18)
Last: Moses Taylor hashes out the rumpus

NewsblogKC Royals ‘need to start thinking’ about a new stadium, possibly downtown, owner says
(58 - 12:05am, Sep 18)
Last: geonose

Hall of Merit2022 Hall of Merit Ballot Discussion
(181 - 12:01am, Sep 18)
Last: theorioleway

Page rendered in 0.8250 seconds
50 querie(s) executed