Awesome News: Jamie Moyer On the Comeback Trail!

Jamie Moyer's Rookie Card

It looks like Jamie Moyer is going to undergo Tommy John Surgery with an eye on returning in 2012.

Moyer is currently 48 years old and will be 49 by the time 2012 rolls around.  Moyer was 9-9 with a 4.84 ERA before he got hurt this year, so there might not be much left in the tank for him but I really hope that Moyer has a successful surgery and a chance to pitch until he's 50.

Several years ago, when Julio Franco was still around, I was quietly rooting for him to keep it up until he was 50 but it wasn't meant to be.  Moyer, however, offers more than Julio Franco  who couldn't do much but occasionally pinch hit and play first base.  Moyer is a obviously a starting pitcher, and starting pitchers who are even 10% worse than league average are often hard to come by.  That's about where Moyer stands right now.  Over the last 4 years Moyer is 51-38 with a 4.59 ERA and a 95 ERA+.

There isn't much history on 49 year olds coming off of Tommy John Surgery, which means to say there is absolutely none, so it would be hard to even assume Moyer could be what he was in 2010, but hey, you never know.   

I could see a team like the Padres taking a flier on Moyer.  Keeping Moyer in the National League and moving him from the Phillies bandbox to Petco will surely help Moyer.  Moyer isn't an extreme fly ball pitcher by any means, but with such minimal stuff he's prone to the long ball, so pitching in a park that suppresses home runs could make Moyer a startable 5th starter.  Also, while I don't know what the Padres roster will look like in 2012, they currently have about 15 center fielders (Will Venable, Tony Gwynn Jr., Scott Hairston and Cameron Maybin) so outfield defense won't be a problem.  Further, by 2012 Adrian Gonzalez will be (A)gone and there won't be much for fans to root for.  I doubt that that Jamie Moyer will help Petco surpass the 3 Million attendance mark, but if I was living in San Diego with nothing to do I'd certainly at least be curious to see what a 49 (and fingers crossed a 50) year old pitcher could do.

From his seasonal age 40 and on Jamie Moyer is 103-79 with a 4.40 ERA and a 99 ERA+.  Jamie Moyer has been an average pitcher at age 40 for 8 seasons.  That is definitely one instance where being average is quite remarkable.

FJM'n Dan Shaughnessy

Bill Walton + Carrot Top =
Dan Shaughnessy

Sometimes these things write themselves, next up Dan Shaughnessy!

Why not a short stop with Derek Jeter

The Globe’s intrepid Peter Abraham floated the idea in a blog back on Nov. 18.

What if the Red Sox decided to make Derek Jeter a contract offer? Abraham framed his piece in sheer speculation. He was just having a little fun. He wanted to know if Sox fans would tolerate such a notion.

Pete Abraham is a great writer and can be funny as well.  He knew the idea of signing Jeter was, as you say Mr. Shaughnessy, just “a little fun”, nothing more.

Mr. Shugnessy, surely you wouldn’t want to actually devote an entire column seriously talking about Jeter joining the Red Sox, would you?

Shaugnessy: I am serious and don’t call me Shirley!

And we build…

In the fortnight since Pete’s preposterous proposal, things have gotten ugly between the Yankees and their captain.

Fortnight, really?  You’re right, it was a preposterous proposal, if taken seriously, so why are we still talking about it?

Jeter’s agent, Casey Close, said Jeter is the Yankees’ modern-day Babe Ruth, and general manager Brian Cashman dared Jeter to go find another bidder. ESPN New York is reporting that the Yankees have told Jeter and Close to “drink the reality potion.’’ Last week the New York Post ran a Photoshopped back cover featuring Jeter in a Red Sox uniform next to a headline that read, “Picture this.’’

I always wondered who were the morons that actually enjoyed those dumb photoshopped pictures.  I think I now know, Dan Shaughnessy and the other morons who “read” the New York Post.

Dissing Jeter is not a winning strategy, but the Yankees can get away with it because they know that no team is going to make a serious offer for the iconic shortstop.

To paraphrase what you just said without all of the bullshit:  The Yankees can’t get away this except for the fact that they can get away with it. Yup!

Which brings us back to John Henry.

To bring someone back you have to have brought them there to begin with.  I did a quick check, this is the first time you mention John Henry.  This has been a really awful and forced segue, I can’t wait to see what’s next!

Suppose the Red Sox step up and shock the world?

And withdraw your right to cover the team?  Fingers crossed!

There is simply no downside to making Jeter a massive offer.

This is easily a finalist for the Dumbest Statement of the Year Award.  It would be mildly understandable if you said there is no downside, or the downside is minimal, or the downside is worth it, but stating there is simply no downside to making Jeter a massive offer, is simply unfathomable.

There are in fact many downsides “to making Jeter a massive offer”:

1.      Jeter is 37 years old

2.      The Red Sox already have a capable shortstop

3.      The Red Sox don’t have any room for Jeter at 2nd or DH and anyone who fields a 1b or 3b  with his production is shooting themselves in the foot

4.      A “massive offer” would pay Jeter $125 Million for 5 years

If you were, however, to say that there is simply no downside to never reading a Dan Shaugnessy column ever again, you would be correct.

In the worst-case scenario he calls your bluff and you get the Yankees captain.

The worst-case scenario is that a 42 year-old Jeter is being paid $25M while he handcuffs the entire Boston Red Sox front office.  Instead of keeping Adrian Beltre or signing Carl Crawford or Jayson Werth, the Red Sox get Derek Jeter. Instead of resigning Kevin Youklis and Dustin Pedroia when their team friendly contracts run out the Red Sox have to pay a 42 year-old Jeter $25 Million.

I don’t care if Jeter is way past his prime or if the Sox would have to wildly overpay a player of his diminished skills.

You are admitting that Jeter is not only past his prime, but way past it with diminished skills yet the Red sox should still overpay for him?

I say offer him the world. Forget about Jayson Werth. Blow Jeter away with dollars and years. At worst this would just mean the Sox would jack up the final price the Yankees must pay.

If you look a few inches above you will see the following quote: “in the worst-case scenario he calls your bluff and you get the Yankees captain.”   Now, “at worst this would just mean the Sox would jack up the final price the Yankees must pay.”

I thought we already went through this, at worst Derek Jeter becomes the worst contract in the history of baseball ruining the Red Sox current and future teams.

It could be sort of like Mark Teixeira-in-reverse.

In the 2008 offseason the Red Sox almost locked up Mark Teixeira on an 8 year $168 Million deal until the Yankees came in at the last second signing Teixeira for an extra $12 Million. 

In this hypothetical scenario, the Yankees are offering Derek Jeter a 3 year $45 Million deal when the Red Sox sweep in to sign Jeter for  5 years at $125 Million for a difference of $80 Million.  This is simple math: $80 Million > $45 Million, this is not Mark Teixeira-in-reverse.

Oh and just for some shits and gigs, Mark Teixeira was 29 years old coming off of great season: .308/.410/.552, 33 homers, 121 RBI, 7.3 bWAR.  Derek Jeter is 37 years old coming off of the worst season of his career: .270/.340/.370, 10 homers, 67 RBI, 2.3 bWAR.  Again, this is not “sort of like Mark Teixeira-in-reverse”, it’s more like a dumb pipedream from a bad writer.

And if Jeter actually signed with Boston, the damage to the Yankees’ psyche would be inestimable.

The Yankees’ and their fans collective psyche only cares about one thing more than winning and it’s not Derek Jeter, it’s the Red Sox losing.  If the Red Sox were to sign Jeter to a deal of the magnitude that Shaugnessy states they should, the Red Sox would lose and by my estimation the Yankees’ psyche would not be damaged.

Jeter finishing his career in a Red Sox uniform would be the 2004 American League Championship Series all over again for the hated New Yorkers.

Jeter finishing his career in a Red Sox uniform would be more analogous to Brett Favre ending his career on the Vikings on an embarrassing note on a losing team.  Hey! Wait a minute, this doesn’t seem like a bad idea!

Think of how you’d have felt if the Knicks had signed Larry Bird at the end of his career.

Larry Bird retired before he entered his real decline phase as injuries were starting to take its toll.  If the Knicks signed Larry Bird to a 5 year deal, paying him until he was 40, then I don’t think I’d be too happy about it.

The Jeter saga is back-page stuff in the Daily News and the Post just about every day. Jeter wants to be paid like Alex Rodriguez. The Steinbrenners have drawn a line in the Tampa sand. And Gotham is split.

That paragraph stinks.

The Yankees have offered Jeter $45 million over three years. At that rate, Jeter would be making more than $3 million per year more than any big league shortstop. The Daily News reported that Jeter’s initial request was for six years and $150 million. Close said the report was untrue. Now the Daily News and the Times are reporting that Jeter wants 4-5 years in the $23-million to $24-million per range. Rodriguez is going into the fourth year of a 10-year, $275-million deal and Jeter wants to remind everybody that he’s the stand-up captain who never choked and never cheated.

Woah.  Arod got $275 Million and he’s a cheater and choker, who knows how much Jeter will get!   If Jeter never choked, then explain to me why he was 10/40 with 2 walks and 2 RBI and a paltry .661 OPS in this last postseason. If Jeter never cheated then what was the hoopla about his faux hit-by-pitch?

Jeter can’t possibly spend all this dough, but athletes equate money with respect (remember Pedro Martinez?) and Jeter wants to feel some love at the end of his Hall of Fame career.

I thought he was a stand-up captain (who has proven to NEVER choke and NEVER cheat), now he just wants money?

Any way you cut the figures, there’s a big gap here. The team is offering $15 million per year while the player wants at least $23 million per year. And more years.

I just love when “columnists” have such wonderful short sentences like “And more years”, or “And Gotham is split.” And you wonder why newspapers are dying?

This is where the Red Sox step in.

What’s the harm in offering Jeter $20 million a year over three years? If you can pay J.D. Drew $14 million per year . . . if you can pay a Japanese team $50 million just for the right to speak with Daisuke Matsuzaka . . . if you can buy a futbol club for $476 million, why not spend $60 million to bust pinstripe chops for all the ages?

The Yankees can give Derek Jeter a $400 Million contract but that would be stupid, so they are not doing it.  Avoiding mistakes is a smart thing.  Spending money just because you can is a stupid thing.  The Red Sox, you know, tend not to do stupid things, like signing Derek Jeter. And Just because the Red Sox over valued Daisuke Matsuzaka doesn’t mean they should over value Derek Jeter.

Jeter is closing in on 3,000 hits. Imagine if he gets his 3,000th hit as a Red Sox . . . at Fenway . . . against Mariano Rivera?

Until now I thought it was a bad idea for the Red Sox to sign Jeter, but this last point has me coming around.  I know the chances may be miniscule (like 0.000000000000000001%), but I think it’s worth it for the Red Sox to flush millions of dollars down the train to have Derek Jeter get his 3,000th hit against Mariano Rivera.  Baseball would be better if front offices replaced boring things statistics, data and logic for remote chances at really cool events!

Since we are pretty certain Adrian Beltre is gone, the Red Sox have a big hole at third base. Jeter could play third. Or you could trade Marco Scutaro and put Jeter at short.

Or you could just move Kevin Youklis to 3rd and for the money you’d use to sign Derek Jeter, sign Adrian Gonzalez or Prince Fielder to play 1b next year.  Or better yet, you can just sign Adrian Beltre who will be the same price and is younger, better and plays a position of need!

This certainly would make the Sox less boring. In an era in which NESN ratings are routinely beaten by reruns of “Everybody Loves Raymond,’’ Derek Jeter could make the network more interesting.

With that logic, why is Milton Bradley routinely switching teams?  He is certainly interesting and would make the Red Sox less boring.

Stir it up, Sox. Take a chance. Make Derek Jeter an offer he can’t refuse.

Does anyone actually enjoy this? 

Troy Tulowitzki Inks 10 Year Deal

Nothing is final but the Rockies and Troy Tulowitzki are finalizing a 6-year extension (on top of his current contract) that will keep Tulowitzki in Colorado until, wait for it, 2020!

I got his number, I got his jump
throw, now I got his contract!

In 2008 Tulowitzki signed a 6 year $31M deal.  With the new deal the Rockies will exercise his 2014 option ($15M) and then add on an additional 6 years totalling almost $120M.  

Troy Tulowitzki is one of the best players in the game, but what is the rush to sign him now especially while he still has 4 (team friendly) years left on his current contract?  It's not like Tulowitzki is the epitome of health either as he missed 40 games this year and 61 games in 2008.   It would be one thing if the Rockies were buying out some of Tulo's arbitration years or if Tulo was a free agent, but there is no sensible reason to extend Tulo for 6 more years while he's already locked up for the next 4 years.

The Rockies had one of the most team friendly contracts in baseball and have decided to forfeit that edge by committing themselves to one player for the next 10 years.  In 2000 this move was the norm, in 2010 it's unheard of. 

In the midst of all the Jeter hooplah, I was wondering if the Jeter brass were stuck in a time machine set to 2000 because that is the only scenario in which Jeter's demands at the moment would seem normal.  When Derek Jeter and agent Casey Close wake up tomorrow and read the headlines, they'll have no reason to expect otherwise.  But they'll still be crazy to now want more than the 25 year old who is in his prime.

I'm struggling to wrap my head around this one and I'm not sure if a night of sleep will help, but expect more tomorrow.

I'll Make This Brief

After Arod opted out of his contract in 2007 he was 32 years old and coming off of a MVP season in which he hit .314/.422/.645 and lead the league in homers (54) and RBI (156).

Derek Jeter is 37 years old coming off the worst season of his career.

These two situations aren't even close to equal and it's completely unfair to say that since the Yankees paid Arod that they "owe" it to Jeter.  

As much as the Yankees overpaid for Arod, at least he was coming off of an amazing season at a (much) younger age.  It's mildly feasible to overpay for a 32 year old who just had one of the best years of his life.  In my mind there is no sensible case that one can make to say that Jeter deserves a similar deal paying him until he's in his 40s.  If you make one mistake, you don't help yourself by making another one.

Jeter is a living legend and it would be great if he could finish his career on the Yankees but if he insists on a 4 or 5 year deal at $20+ Million then the Yankees wouldn't be wrong to let him walk, they'd actually be right. 

In Which Derek Jeter Steals Headlines From the MVP

Enjoy your award Mr. Hamilton, but I'll be
taking the headlines back, thank you.

Josh Hamilton won the American League Most Valuable Player award yesterday getting 22/28 first place votes.  Last year Joe Mauer won the award despite missing the first month of the season and in 2010 Josh Hamilton wins it after missing the final month.  Whoever wins the award next year will probably miss all of July.  

Robinson Cano, Jose Bautista Evan Longoria, Paul Konerko, Adrian Beltre and Miguel Cabrera (in no particular order) all had great seasons, but Hamilton was definitely deserving of the award.  Any way you want to slice it a .359/.411/.633 line is impressive, whether or not Hamilton missed most of September.


Unfortunately for Hamilton he was only deserving of the headlines for a day, as the Yankees contract negotiations with Jeter (and Mariano now too) have now taken over.

No rumor that you hear on the internet, TV, or if you still listen to it, the radio, is for certain but there is a strong sense that the Yankees offered Derek Jeter a 3 year deal worth $45M and Mariano Rivera a one year deal with an increase on his previous yearly salary to $18M.   Meanwhile the Jeter camp wants either more money or more years (likely both) and Mariano wants another year added on.

As of now, the Yankees have not changed their stance and have told Jeter to test the market if he thinks he will get a better deal.  Yankee fans and Jeter lovers may prefer for the Yankees to handle their legends with a little better care (and they may have a legitimate gripe), but there is absolutely no chance that if Jeter shops around that he'll receive an extra year or an increase on the $45M from another team.  There is a better chance that Mariano can receive a second year but think about it for a second, if you are team trying to rebuild your bullpen, are you going to give $18M to Mariano for two years or sign Rafael Soriano, J.J. Putz and Koji Uehara?  For the price of Mariano another team (Yankees included) could sign 3 good relievers with one being an ace closer.  I wouldn't suggest that the Yankees are wrong to prefer Mariano to a package like that, but there isn't a single team in the league that would benefit more from having Mariano than Soriano plus 2 above average relievers.

The Yankees, if you will, are playing hardball and as much as it may seem that they "owe" Jeter or Mo something they're smart to do this.  Just because the Yankees were silly to sign Arod until he was in his 40s doesn't mean the Yankees should compound their mistake and pay Jeter in a similar fashion.  If the Yankees offered Arod a reasonable deal and told him to shop it around, there is no chance that another team would hand over upwards of $275M for his services.  If that irritates Jeter than so be it, what other choice does he have?  All of the teams that can afford Jeter already have a capable shortstop and wouldn't be able to justify spending $45M on Jeter, let alone an increase on that since he'd need reason to sign elsewhere.

In the end we know Jeter and Mariano will sign with the Yankees.  I'm not sure when "the end" will occur but it will happen and there will be a press conference with Jeter saying how glad he is to finish his career with the Yankees.  They'll rejoin the Yankees for a price lower than they'd like with likely a slight increase on what is currently on the table to save some face and come August, when the Yankees are in the middle of a pennant race and Jeter is on his way to his 3,000th hit, all this posturing will be forgotten.

I started this post somewhat complaining that Jeter was stealing the headlines from the MVP and then I proceeded to talk at length about the contract situations with hardly a mention about Josh Hamilton.  Well I'm sorry Josh, you deserve better so consider your next Ginger Ale on me.

National League Most Valuable Player, Joey Votto

Receiving 31 of a possible 32 first place votes, Joey Votto is your National League Most Valuable Canadian Player.

This one's for Canada!

Buster Posey? Fine choice for rookie of the year.  Felix Hernandez?  Definitely the best pitcher in the American League.  Roy Halladay? Unbelievable season for the Phillies.  Neftali Feliz?  Excellent closer all year round.  Joey Votto?  Probably the Most Valuable Player in the National League.  If you sense a theme here it's that the all winners of the awards this offseason have been totally fine.  

However, with that said, some of the ballots have really been quite astounding.   You would have trouble trying to argue how Bronson Arroyo deserved a vote, or how 5 pitchers were better than Cliff Lee this year in the American League but the NL MVP ballot had some of the biggest WTF moments:

• Martin Prado finished 9th.
• Two Marlins made the ballot, neither were named Hanley.
• 15 players finished ahead of Ryan Zimmerman who finished 3rd in the National league in fWAR (FanGraphs version of Wins Above Replacement).
• Ryan Howard received a 2nd (!!!!!!), 3rd and 4th place vote and finished 10th.  If we sort by fWAR, Ryan Howard finished 9th on the Phillies.  If we sort by bWAR (Baseball-Reference.com version of WAR), Ryan Howard finished 8th on the Phillies.  Ryan Howard was a borderline top 10 most valuable on his own team, let alone the entire league.  Ryan Howard had 100 RBI on the best team in the league but that's basically all he did, it doesn't make him an MVP candidate.  For what it's worth Derek Lee and Adam LaRoche had more WAR than him,  defense counts even if you hit 100 RBI.  
• Seven writers didn't feel that Troy Tulowitzki was among the top 10 players in the league. 
• Four Phillies made the list.  Chase Utley did not.  
• Brian Wilson finished behind Ubaldo Jiminez, Josh Johnson, Adam Wainwright, Roy Oswalt and Tim Hudson on the NL Cy Young, but finished ahead of all of them for the MVP.

Listen, Joey Votto was definitely deserving of this award but was he that much better than Pujols this year?
Let's take a look:

Albert Pujols: .312/.414/.596, 42 home runs, 118 RBI, 115 runs, 173 OPS+, .420 wOBA,  7.3 fWAR, 7.2 bWAR

Joey Votto: .324/.424/.600, 37 home runs, 113 RBI, 106 runs, 174 OPS+, .439 wOBA , 7.4 fWAR, 6.2 bWAR

Forget if you know what all of those numbers actually mean for a second and just look at them, see how close they are.  Votto and Pujols are essentially #1 and #2 in every important statistic and their differences are so minuscule. Pujols hit more homers but Votto slugged higher.  Votto had a higher wOBA but Pujols played in a tougher park for hitters.  Votto leads in FanGraphs version of WAR but Pujols leads in B-Ref's version.  Votto stole 2 more bases than Pujols but was also caught one more time. Votto hit for a higher average but Pujols walked more.

What should have been a coin flip became a near unanimous decision because the Reds won 5 more games than the Cardinals this year and the fact that Pujols won the award the last two years.  I'm not trying to say Votto isn't deserving, he certainly is and was actually my choice for NL MVP, but it's hard to imagine that Votto deserves 31 first place votes and Pujols only one.  

You can make a case that in basketball, a player has a (large) effect on his teammates.  Ama're Stoudemire is more efficient with Steve Nash.  LeBron James makes a bad team great (but apparently can't make a great team great, suck it Heat!).  Tim Duncan can make Tony Parker seem like an OK defender.  In baseball it's different, a lot different.  Unfortunately, Ryan Zimmerman can't pitch and therefore guys like Scott Olsen, Craig Stammen, Luis Atilano and Jason Marquis have to start for the Nationals.  Only a handful of players were actually better than Ryan Zimmerman in the National League this year but Zimmerman finished 16th because the Nationals had a bad pitching staff and players ahead of Zimmerman had an OBP of about .310 which didn't allow him to reach the heralded 100 RBI plateau. 

If you disagree with that statement then tell me why Scott Rolen finished ahead of Zimmerman.  He played the same position but did it while hitting and fielded worse than Zimmerman.  Oh, but since Rolen played with Joey Votto and a better pitching staff he's now more valuable. Huh?

Or, tell me why Ryan Braun is better than Zimmerman.  Zimmerman hit for a higher average, got on base more often, slugged higher, played a much more difficult position (3b compared to LF) and fielded it better.  But Rickie Weeks batted leadoff allowing Braun to eclipse that mythical 100 RBI plateau so Braun found himself with more votes than Zimmerman.

While Machiavelli would have nodded his head at the results thus far (if he was a baseball fan) the process of the results has been less than ideal.   If the newfangled statistics have really taken over, Ryan Zimmerman wouldn't finish 16th and Ryan Howard wouldn't get a single vote.  We should pat some of the writers/voters on their backs but our work bullying is far from over!

If you don't believe some of the things I said, here are the full results. I'm not lying, Ryan Howard actually received a 2nd place vote!

And We Build

And We Build is brought to you by friend and fantasy extraorinaire, Jason Riemer.  His series on fantasy baseball will largely focus on how to improve your team during the season and offseason.  Jason has traded Pablo Sandoval and Ben Zobrist for Hanley Ramirez, 'nuff said. 

Hello fantasy ballers and fellow fans of the BBB and welcome to the first installment of And We Build.  My name is Jason and in this segment I will be sharing my opinions and discussing the ins and outs of trading in your fantasy baseball league by providing tips and attempting to help L. Jonathan Reader build a championship team in 2011 and beyond.

Trading in your fantasy baseball league can be very simple.  See a need, fill a need.  Trade Jon Lester for Ryan Howard.  Easy like Sunday morning.  Neither team wins or loses.  Both get what they are looking for and theoretically have a statistical advantage over their other league mates moving forward.

I don’t know about you, but that booores me.  Fantasy baseball is a cutthroat game!  Herm gets it.  We’re on the same page.  He knows what I’m talking about!  When I deal, my goal is to cripple my opponent and continue to posture my team as a dominant, stat hogging beast.  Yours should be too.

Now that I am sweating, allow me to get into the basics of trading.

A trade begins from the moment that you look at your team and say, “Damn! Pablo Sandoval is sucking!  I could really use an upgrade at 3B,” or “Rats! I can’t believe I lost a point in steals today.  I gotta get me some of those before I drop in the standings!” or “Snap! I’m absolutely crushing saves right now.  I could probably afford to trade on of my 7 closers!”  You get the picture.  The trade begins when you realize that you have a need or an excess on your own team.

The first and most important step of the trading process is to know your own team.  In business school I learned about the SWOT analysis (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats) which when applied to a product or business can give someone a better understanding of its value in a market.  Similarly, you can look at any fantasy baseball team and determine their relative value by assessing these 4 crucial pieces of information:

Strengths/Weaknesses:

Recognizing your strengths and weaknesses will not only make you realize how much you rock at fantasy baseball (hopefully), but it will also give you an idea of what your team needs and what you can afford to part with on your road to the top of the standings.  Understanding your team will separate you from the casual fantasy baller and give you an innate leverage in a negotiation over those who do not know their endgame.

Knowing your strengths and weaknesses will tell you in what areas you need to improve your team while allowing you to identify your “carrots” (like a carrot to a horse, those players who you can dangle in front of other managers to interest them in trading with you).  Most importantly, this step will allow you to have a better understanding of the players that you can afford to let go of in any given transaction.  There are certain things that as a manager you won’t be willing to part with.  This could be anything from your ace to your 4^th outfielder.  It all depends on your team and how you see it fitting in with the rest of the league.  

Ask yourself:     

·         In what categories does your team dominate? 

·         Where can you be exploited/where can you improve?  

·         What categories do you lack in? 

·         Is your team overproducing in one or more categories? 

·         Is your team deep? Are there players on your bench that are producing and could be starting on your team or someone else’s?

·         Do you have an abundance of players at a shallow position? Do you have David Wright and Ryan Zimmerman and can afford to trade one?

·         ***Do you need to make a trade to improve?

***This question relates to leverage in a negotiation.  Maybe the single most important thing about negotiating is the perception that your opposing managers have of you.  The weaker or more desperate you appear, the easier it will be for other managers to hold out on you and make you sweat.  I will discuss this much more in a future post about negotiating tactics.

Opportunities/Threats:

Now that we understand a little more about our teams, the next step is to identify where you can find value in a transaction.  As opposed to the strengths and weaknesses of your team, opportunities and threats should have you focused on the future and your team’s potential to grow. 

Opportunity is a topic that I will continually touch on in my posts because it changes frequently and is completely relative to the texture of your league.  How far along into the season/offseason you are, where you lie in the standings and what the tendencies are of the other managers in your league can all play a part in how and where opportunities arise. 

Ask yourself:

·         In what categories can your team improve the most?  Where is your team at risk to lose points?

·         Can you pass your closest competitors in certain categories to increase your lead or shorten theirs?

·         Do you have players who are overproducing and can you get good value for them in a trade?

·         Are you in the thick of the money race or is it time to start preparing for next season by focusing on collecting keepers?

·         Should you take advantage of the fact that you’re in a league with rabid Mets fans who would shell out some quality players for an aging Johan Santana (yes, you should).

·         Are you in danger of losing points in a category?  

·         Does your close competitor have a big player coming back from an injury soon?

By understanding the ins and outs of your team and where it lies in relation to the rest of your league you will have a better grasp on what type of position and leverage you have in a negotiation.  To quote School House Rock, knowledge is power.  Know your shizz.

If Murray Won't Stop, I Won't Either!

Last week Murray Chass had a wonderful column about how the "Dark Side" was taking over the Cy Young Award.  We promptly made fun of that over here last week but now Murray is at it again!

Speaking of the one-sided outcome of the vote, Rogers added, “I wonder how much of it was bullying on the Internet. There were a lot of columns written in September saying no one should be stupid enough not to vote for Felix. Maybe that’s what happened, but I hope not.” [...]

Winning is still the name of the game, Elliott added, uttering a view I agree with wholeheartedly. “If a general manager has been out of touch for a weekend and comes home,” Elliott added, “he says did we win. He doesn’t ask did the starter have a quality start or strike out 10.”

Tracy Ringolsby, a long-time baseball writer but not a voter in this election, offered a theory about the Hernandez vote,

“It’s the trendy thing to do,” he said, “and everybody wants to be part of the trend.”

In his first column, where he predicted that Felix would win the Cy Young, Chass said that he the development to looking at "new-fangled statistics" and not just wins as a means of voting for the Cy Young Award started last year with Zack Greinke.  But now that it's over and Felix has won he's pulling out the bully card, or at least reporting about someone using the bully card. Weak sauce.

Maybe I'm wrong but the purpose of Chass' original column was to take the high road setting himself up to say "I knew this would happen but I don't agree with it", it's not fair to now claim that Felix won because the writers were bullied, that's just ridiculous. If it were true (the bullying), it would have been obvious at the time Chass wrote his column and he would have noted it.  Chass "predicted" that Price and Sabathia would cancel each other out and Felix could sneak in to win the award.  Obviously that's not how it played out as Felix won in a landslide, and since that was the case Mr. Chass' new conclusion is that writers were either a) bullied or b) trendy.   Apparently the BBWAA has no backbone or opinion of their own and solely has their hand on the pulse of trends going on in baseball.  That's how they now vote.  It can't just be that the majority of people thought Felix was the best pitcher in the league, it has to be because of bullying and trends. Sheesh.

Plus, the "bullying" on the internet, if there was such a  thing, was likely done by bloggers, the bane of Murray Chass' existence.  I say this because if the bloggers convinced the weak minded writers to vote for Felix it means that blogs are influential.  Felix won the Cy Young because the voters thought he was the best pitcher or because blogs carry more weight now.  Even though the latter isn't true it doesn't really matter as in either scenario Murray Chass is wrong.  And that is a good thing.

Quick Roundup

Whatever Contract Jeter signs
will surely be more than his 1992
draft bonus.

The Arizona Diamondbacks are no longer just "fielding calls" about Justin Upton, and may be actually actively trying to trade him.  Before we all get too excited, Tim Marchman warns us that Upton may not get much better. Marchman is right too, it's safer to predict that this is who Upton is (or will be) rather than assume automatic stardom.  But, at his bargain price, Upton doesn't actually have to improve at all to be a worthwhile acquisition.   Upton has 5 years left on his deal for a total of $49.5M and over the last 2 years Upton's production has already exceeded his salary.   That's not trying to be tricky either by saying that he's been more valuable than his $0.5M contract this year.   I mean he's been worth over $10M a year over last two years and at that pace his production will far exceed what he's being paid.

With the added bonus that Upton could become a legitimate star, it should come as no surprise that Justin Upton's name is dominating the trade rumors coverage everywhere.  About half of the teams have reported interest in Upton and rightfully so, as it would be quite hard to acquire Upton and truly regret it in the future.

People in Kansas City are happy today, Baseball Prospectus and Kevin Goldstein posted the Royals top 11 prospects and upon a quick glance it's safe to say that it looks pretty good.  According to Goldstein they have 5, 5-star prospects and 4, 4-stars, and could have a winning season as soon as 2012.  Potential is just that, potential, but when you gather so damn much of it, it will start bearing some fruits.

People in New York may not be so happy with talks about Derek Jeter's contract heating up and lines being drawn.

Talk about Felix Hernandez and his AL Cy Young award just won't end, and I personally love it.  It's great because it allows us to read funny things like this from Gin and Tacos.

American League Cy Young Award Winner

Congrats, Felix Hernandez, you are the 2010 American League Cy Young Award winner!

	1st	2nd	3rd	4th	5th	Points
Felix Hernandez, Seattle Mariners	21	2	3	1	1	167
David Price, Tampa Bay Rays	4	15	7	1		111
CC Sabathia, New York Yankees	3	10	12	2	1	102
Jon Lester, Boston Red Sox			1	9	12	33
Jered Weaver, Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim		1	2	6	2	24
Clay Buchholz, Boston Red Sox			2	5	4	20
Cliff Lee, Seattle Mariners/Texas Rangers			1	1	1	6
Rafael Soriano, Tampa Bay Rays				1	3	5
Trevor Cahill, Oakland Athletics				1	2	4
Joakim Soria, Kansas City Royals				1		2
Francisco Liriano, Minnesota Twins					1	1
Justin Verlander, Detroit Tigers					1	1

Murray Chass may be shaking his head (or nodding considering he felt Felix would win) but Felix won in an impressive fashion, getting 21 of a possible 28 first place votes.

Although I have to question how someone could vote for Rafael Soriano, Trevor Cahill, Joakim Soria or Clay Buchholz over Francisco Liriano and Justin Verlander, I'm genuinely happy with these results.

The Wins vs. Statistics fight has been very entertaining for this years award.  I'm happy "the dark side" won but I'm also a little upset that we won't be having this much fun with these awards in the future.

Quick Recap

Minor signings, trades and managerial awards don't really deserve full posts so I'll give some quick thoughts on those here:

Joaquin Benoit signed a 3 year deal with the Tigers worth $16.5M.  There is no denying how good Benoit was last year (1.34 ERA 70 strikeouts in 60 1/3 innings with only 11 walks) but there is also no denying that 3 year deals for relievers never work.  There are 10 or so viable right handed relievers available and the Tigers just overpaid (at least in terms of the length of the contract) for one. 

Bud Black and Rod Gardenhire each won the Manager of the Year award in their respective leagues.  Gardenhire won because all-star closer Joe Nathan got hurt and Bud Black won because the Padres came out of nowhere to win 90 games.  I'm not criticizing the award it's just we don't really have any real way of measuring a manager so year after year the winner goes to the surprise team or a team who "overcame" injuries.

The Colorado Rockies traded Clint Barmes to Houston for Felipe Paulino.  Signing Carlos Lee to a long term deal, refusing rebuild so the team could be mediocre and getting nothing in return for your best player (Roy Oswalt) are all sure-fire ways to ensure yourself of having a bad team.  But, it's often the little trades like this that go unnoticed that can really hurt.  Clint Barmes is a backup middle infielder that can't hit in Coors Field, so naturally the Astros trade a promising young starter for him.   Don't be fooled by Paulino's record last year (1-9) he has the stuff to be quite good.  He's young, cheap, throws over 95 mph and can strike guys out.  As with any young pitcher, there is a chance that Paulino becomes nothing, but when you trade that for someone who has already proven to be nothing, it's basically a pretty, pretty, pretty bad move. 

FJM'n Murray Chass

In the future I will try harder columnists, but for now I will keep taking the easy road as I attempt to FJM Murray Chass.

THE DARK SIDE TO OVERTAKE CY YOUNG AWARD

The standard for wins by an American League pitcher was lowered to 16 last year. It is about to be lowered even further – to 13. That’s the number of games Felix Hernandez won this past season, and I expect he will be announced Thursday as the A.L. Cy Young award winner.

The Cy Young award is simply awarded to the best pitcher in each league with each team getting two voters from the BBWAA.  There is no set standard for wins.  Greinke did not lower any mythical "win standard" he simply won last year because he did everything better than any pitcher in the league, except he won 3 less games than the leader. Big. F-in. Deal.

I could be wrong, of course, and I hope I am, but if I am, I will be surprised. By the time you read this, you may know if I am right or wrong.

By the time I read your second paragraph I knew one thing, you make no sense.  I also have to imagine there is a better way of writing that first sentence here but I could be wrong, of course, although, I don't hope I am, but if I am, I will be surprised.

I have no inside information on which to base my belief. I have not surveyed the voters. I don’t even know who the voters are, and I wouldn’t try to find out. I base my belief on what has been floating around about Hernandez and his season statistics.

So basically you are saying you have no basis for your belief besides what has been floating around, yet we should still proceed to read the rest of your non-blog blog post. I'm now intrigued, what has been floating around Murray?  Tell me, tell me, tell me!

The Seattle right-hander had the league’s lowest earned run average, 2.27; the lowest opposing batting average, .212; the most innings pitched, 249 1/3, and missed by two of having the most strikeouts (232). What he didn’t have was wins. When he won his last start of the season, he finished above .500 at 13-12.

Those statistics that have been "floating around" tell me that Felix Hernandez has been quite good this year, you've listed 5 important statistics and he's essentially lead in 4 of them. Sounds pretty good to me. Oh wait! I forgot about the Cy Young award rule book!  Let's check it out:

6.01 (a) When voting for the Cy Young award, each voter must use 5 arbitrary statistics.

(b) One of those statistics must be wins.

(c) Each of the four non-wins statistics shall be worth 5% totaling 20%.  The remaining 80% should be used to properly weigh wins.

Just a few years ago a pitcher with a 13-12 record would never have been considered for the Cy Young award. But last year Zack Greinke won the A,L, [sic] award with 16 victories and Tim Lincecum won his second straight National League award with 15 wins.

Just a few years ago there simply wasn't a pitcher who was a viable candidate who had 13 wins.  You have made it your responsibility to fight to bring back a win standard for the Cy Young Award that never even existed.  You are delusional.  

The development, I believe, is directly related to the growing influence of the new-fangled statistics which readers of this site know I have no use for, a fact that sends stats-freak denizens of the blogosphere into a stats-freak frenzy.

If we use a new-fangled statistics like WAR for pitchers, Cliff Lee and Justin Verlander would finish ahead of Felix Hernandez.  If we use another new-fangled statistic like FIP, Cliff Lee, Francisco Liriano and Justin Verlander would finish ahead of Felix Hernandez.

Certainly Felix Hernandez ranks well in those new-fangled statistics but the main reasoning behind voting him for the Cy Young has more to do with the standard statistics that you've already mentioned he’s lead the league in!  Since the Cy Young award has to do with personal achievement, us stats-freak denziens of the blogospehere tend to focus on what he had control of, not what the team had influence on, meaning wins.

“Look out, he’s at it again” the cry will go out, as if a carrier of the black plague were loose in the land. And a flood of e-mail messages will pour in to my inbox calling me vile names (they are only the best educated and articulate of responders) and telling me I don’t know what I’m talking about.

Can you blame them?

But I do know one thing. I know that Roy Halladay, a fellow who knows something about pitching, agrees with me.

Besides his otherwise impressive statistics, the best argument Hernandez has going for him is his lack of run support. Elias Sports Bureau says the Mariners’ 3.06 runs per Hernandez start was the A.L.’s lowest. The Mariners say in Hernandez’s 12 losses, the team scored a total of seven runs while he was in the game.

Do the Mariners "say" this, or is it simply fact? Yea, it's a fact.

The best argument Hernandez has going for him isn't his lack of run support, it's that statistically (advanced or traditional) he's been the best pitcher in the American League.

I accept that those figures represent terrible run support and would make it difficult for any pitcher to win. But not impossible. I have long believed that good pitchers find a way to win. 

It's not a matter of acceptance.  The fact that the the Mariners scored 7 runs in 12 of his losses is evidence that the reason Felix only had 13 wins was because his team stunk, something completely out of his control.

Murray, do you also accept that evolution exists? Or do you have two examples that illustrate otherwise?

Two examples:

Dude, don't tell me you are going to try...

Steve Carlton compiled a 27-10 record in 1972 for a Phillies team that otherwise had a 32-87 record. Carlton led the league with a 1.97 e.r.a., 30 complete games, 310 strikeouts and 346 1/3 innings pitched.

Murry Dickson was a 20-game winner for one of the most inept teams in history, the 1951 Pirates, whose 64-90 record belied their level of talent. The only reason they didn’t finish last was Dickson’s 20 wins.

This is better than arguing against evolution, but not by much.  It's true that both Carlton and Dickson played on putrid teams, but in 1972 the Phillies scored 3.8 runs per game for Carlton (in an era where less runs were scored) and in 1951 the Pirates scored 5 runs per game for Dickson.  In 2010 the Mariners scored 3.1 runs per game for Felix.

Moreover, in 1951 Dickson lost 16 games and pitched out of the bullpen 10 times getting 4 wins there.  If you take out Dickson's decisions in relief he's suddenly a 16-15 pitcher, not really a good example of a pitcher winning on a bad team, and certainly not better than Felix.

Both Carlton and Dickson had more run support than Hernandez, but both found ways to win in spite of the teams they played for.

In your attempt to show that pitchers find ways to win despite run support you showed us 2 pitchers who got more run support than Felix Hernandez, nice going!

Dickson was actually no better at finding ways to win and one transcendent year by Steve Carlton isn't grounds for a blanket statements that pitchers "find" ways to win, regardless of the team they pitch on.

This game has been played for a long, long time, if Murry Dickson (who?) is the best example you can come up with to prove your non-existent point, well, then you don't really have a point.

In a conference call with baseball writers to discuss his Cy Young award Tuesday, Halladay was asked about Hernandez and the Cy Young award given his low victory total.

Was Halladay asked about Felix and the AL Cy Young award or was he asked about Felix and the AL Cy Young award given his low victory total?  One is a question, the other is a pointed question designed to get an answer you want out of someone.

“It’s tough,” Halladay said. “Felix’s numbers are very, very impressive, but ultimately they look at how guys are able to win games. Sometimes the run support isn’t there, but you find ways to win games. Guys who are winning deserve a strong look no matter what Felix’s numbers are.  When teams bring pitchers over, ultimately they want to win games.”

When asked about Felix and the Cy Young award given his low victory total Halladay responded how they look at the players, not how he looks at the players.  If Halladay truly agreed with you like you claim then he would have hated the Phillies' pickup of Roy Oswalt at the trading deadline.  You know, because he was 6-12, if he was a good pitcher he wouldn't be 6-12 (2.3 runs per game on the Astros).  Also, Roy Halladay must have been unimpressed with Cole Hamels' season since he was only 12-11(3.7 runs per game).

In fact, now that I think about it, no wonder the Phillies didn't make it to the World Series, their pitchers don't know how to win!

But in this new age of formulas for every action on a baseball field, acronyms have replaced wins. Mythical replacement players have become more important than wins and losses, unless the wins and losses are adjusted by other formulas.

If you prefer to measure players solely on a arbitrary statistic created in the 19th century that's your prerogative. But don't say that the "new age of formulas" has replaced wins. The purpose of these “new age formulas” is actually to focus on wins, not take them away.  If you cared to get to know any of this rather than just making fun of them with one quick brush stroke then you would know this.

Probably the most visible sign of the metric takeover of baseball coverage is the frequency of its use in The New York Times, for whom I covered baseball for four decades with nary a mention of Total Zone Total Fielding Runs Above Average.

If this "takeover" is so bad, why are so many people joining?   You really just sound ignorant, Murray.  The whole (baseball) world is going one way and you keep screaming for us to turn the car around.  I bet when you started covering baseball four decades ago there were people complaining that a certain group of players were "taking over" this game.

That mouthful – or eyeful – of a metric, according to Tyler Kepner of the Times, tries to calculate each player’s overall contribution on defense.

Really?  Mouthful of a metric?  What are you talking about?

It's not fair to improperly define a statistic and then put it down.  Wins were created in the 19th Century and are awarded to starting pitchers who pitch 5 innings and leave the game with the lead.  That's the legitimate definition of a win, it's completely arbitrary and not a sufficient means to judge a pitcher.  Just because a group of people defined wins a particular way hundreds of years ago does not mean it's the end all be all statistic in 2010.

I don't need to go into the details involved in these advanced fielding metrics, but let's just say they go beyond the scope of "eyefuls".

The Times has increasingly used statistically-based columns, often at the expense, I believe, of the kind of baseball coverage it used to emphasize. But Kepner’s use of “Total Zone Total Fielding” was the clincher, demonstrating that the Times has gone over to the dark side.

In the past writers would report on who they "felt" was a better player by arbitrary measures.  Now writers can report on who "is" a better player with empirical evidence.  Which do you prefer?

Kepner, the Times’ national baseball writer, used the statistic in reporting that metric men were critical of the selection of Derek Jeter, the Yankees’ shortstop, as the Gold Glove shortstop. The Total Zone formula, Kepner wrote, rates Jeter 59th, or last, among major league shortstops.

I'm going to go ahead now and assume that you don't "accept" this.

“Within an hour of Tuesday’s announcement of the American League Gold Glove awards,” he wrote as he planted both feet firmly on the dark side, 

Good one, very clever.

“editors at Baseball-Reference.com summed up the general reaction to Derek Jeter’s latest victory at shortstop: ‘We can’t believe it either,’ a notation briefly on the site said.”

You don't disagree with Kepner, Baseball-Reference.com or the Metric Men in their claim that  Jeter didn't deserve the Gold Glove, but you disagree with their process.

Rather than use your eyes, fielding percentages, and the advanced fielding data you would rather someone just use their eyes and fielding percentage?  You do realize that if Jeter fields one ball cleanly on opening day and then doesn't try to get to any other balls at shortstop that his fielding percentage would be perfect, right?  You do realize that using all the information at your disposal is actually a good thing, right?

If Hernandez doesn’t win the Cy Young award, I suspect the metric men will come out in critical force. 

You seem to be coming out in more critical force of the metric men than they will ever come out in critical force of anything.

But to me, this is the wrong year for Hernandez, I think he’s the best pitcher in the league, and I think he should have won the award last year. 

Wait, have you had a sudden change of heart?

But not this year, 

Dammit!

not with 13 wins, whatever his other statistics, whatever his run support.

Good reasoning. If Felix Hernandez didn't give up an earned run all season you would gladly not give him the award.  That's fair.

“Do wins count anymore? I don’t think they count as much,” said Jack O’Connell, secretary-treasurer of the Baseball Writers Association, whom I call the curator of the post-season awards. 

Do you always converse in such short sentences?

“I think these stats will play into it. I don’t like that. 

Agreed.  I just hate it when voters use effective measures of a players' performance when voting on awards.

Some say wins don’t count. Someone wrote recently that Bob Welch shouldn’t have won in 1990. He won 27 games.”

Someone also wrote that Obama took 1/10th of the Navy to India.

O’Connell said he thought wins started to become devalued in 2005 when Bartolo Colon won the award with 21 wins. “People complained that he won because of his wins,” O’Connell said.

Bartolo Colon 2005: 21-8 3.48 ERA, 222 2/3 IP, 157 SO, 1.159 WHIP, 4.4 B-Ref WAR, 2.80 FIP

Johan Santana 2005: 16-7 2.87 ERA, 231 2/3 IP, 238 SO, 0.971 WHIP, 6.3 B-Ref WAR, 3.75 FIP

I think they had plenty of reason to complain, no?  Johan finished 1st in strikeouts and WHIP and 2nd in ERA and innings pitched, but lost to Colon because Colon had 5 more wins.

He agreed with me that Lincecum won last year with 15 wins because two St. Louis starters, Adam Wainwright (19 wins) and Chris Carpenter (17) split the vote. Wainwright received 12 first-place votes, Lincecum 11 and Carpenter 9. Lincecum had 100 points, Carpenter 94 and Wainwright 90.

“This could happen with Hernandez this year,” O’Connell said. “Sabathia and Price could split votes. 

I suspect as long as these stats are out there people are going to use them. 

How dare they do such a heinous act!

I’m not saying that’s a bad thing. But wins do matter.”

Umm, like 2 seconds ago you just said "I think these stats will play into it. I don’t like that."

The Yankees’ CC Sabathia won 21 games; no pitcher won 20 last year. Sabathia’s feat should count for something, but in the new age, the standard that stood for excellence for more than 100 years means nothing. It is ignored. It is not a factor.

Excuse me Murray but this is an award for 2010, what happened in 2009 is completely irrelevant.  If you would like to create an award that goes to the pitcher with the most wins so that Sabathia's "feat should count for something" then create the Murray Chass Award for Pitching Excellence, by all means

The stats capellers know better and have better standards.

If by better standards you mean that we don’t rely on one statistic that has nothing to do with personal achievement when voting on an award for personal achievement then yes, we do know better and we do have better standards.

But know these facts about Hernandez:

He had to win his last start of the season to finish with a winning record.

Seventeen pitchers in the American League won more games than he did, and seven others won as many.

Those are facts, nice work!  Other facts:  Felix Hernandez was better than CC Sabathia in every statistical measure not named wins.  Oh and just for kicks, Sabathia was 4th in the league in run support, felix was 62nd.  

Final fact:  you're website is a blog. Pwned!