Overhead at the Christmas dining table:
Question: You're in a room with Hitler, Stalin, and Walter O'Malley. You've got a gun, but only two bullets. Whaddya do?
Answer: Put 'em both in O'Malley.
Saturday, December 29, 2007
Friday, December 28, 2007
Death of the Fan
Are fantasy sports killing fanhood?
Your loyalty as the owner of a fantasy team is to the players on your team. And if you play rationally, those players will be selected on no other basis than their own skill and availability. In a non-biased draft, then, the players you assemble on your own team will not be the players on your favorite team, because a) if the players on your favorite team are generally bad players, you will not select them, and b) if the players on your favorite team are generally good players, everyone in the league will be trying to select them, limiting their availability.
Therefore you are faced with an inevitable, disconcerting dilemma: do I root for my own fantasy team, and thus for the players on my team, who represent a wide cross section of the league's teams, or do I root for my favorite team above all? At first, you think that these two goals are not mutually exclusive, that you can do both. To a certain extent, you can. But things get complicated pretty quickly. When you have a starting pitcher on your fantasy team who is pitching against your favorite team, what do you do? Do you sit him down? If this decision to sit him down is made for any reason other than attempting to win your fantasy league, it takes away from the "integrity," if you will, of that league. If you're going to bother playing fantasy sports at all, then you have to suck it up and start the pitcher going against your team if it is a move that will bring you closer to winning the league. So then more questions arise--do you root for your pitcher to get shelled, convincing yourself that it's a "win-win" scenario? (He pitches well, I have something to fall back on despite my favorite team being shut down; he pitches poorly, my team wins, which makes me happy, too.) Do you root for him to pitch well in a losing effort? This is the option that most fantasy owners would probably choose (A complete-game shutout in a 1-0 loss, perhaps?). While it sounds good, this line of thinking is dangerous. It's the beginning of fantasy baseball's slippery slope, which leads downhill towards the dissolution of your traditional loyalty. When you're rooting for your pitcher to do well against your team, you don't really mind so much when he emerges with the win--it's just one game, after all... If you're not careful, soon your loyalty to your fantasy team has eclipsed all your other sports loyalties in prominence.
The problem is that a fantasy team is something that is completely yours. You are the general manager, owner, manager of your fantasy team. In contrast, your favorite team is an enormous conglomeration, owned by a billionaire corporation, run by a general manager who continually frustrates you, coached by a manager whose decisions you constantly berate. You are in a boat with hundreds of thousands of other people, watching and hoping and sweating and dying from afar, with no control over the entity you invest so much of your own being into supporting. You pour money into the franchise you call your own, but that money just goes into the pockets of those behind the scenes, the decision-makers who have no intention (nor should they) of including the fan in the process of running and building the team.
All that frustration is erased when you own a fantasy team, however. Every decision made is by you alone, and the results of all of your decisions quickly and clearly show up in the standings. As the saying goes, power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. You have absolute power over your fantasy team, and that power undoubtedly is corrosive. What it corrupts most absolutely is one's fanhood--the ability to irrationally, unquestionably root for one's favorite team with the utmost passion in every situation. When the responsibilities of fanhood bump up against rooting interest in the players that constitute one's fantasy squad, well... you would like to say that your motives are always pure, that with every at bat and pitch and inning you are rooting for your favorite team, but it doesn't always work out that way. Your favorite team might even change to your fantasy team, the one you actually can control, with the real team that you root for running a not-so-close second.
This doesn't always happen, of course. As in everything else, there are levels and shades of fanhood and rooting interest, complications that come to bear in different situations. But I have found that it is nearly impossible to convince yourself, to talk yourself into rooting for a team or a player or an outcome. Rooting interest, fanhood, is just something that comes to you, and you cannot, under any circumstances, coerce it to come to you in a certain way. You know exactly how you feel about it at all times, and you can't change the way you feel or the level of your passion, no matter what you tell your friends or what you scream at the TV or while in your seat at the ballpark. Thus, thanks to your fantasy team, you might find yourself wishing for an outcome that runs against your chosen party line as a fan, and despite the fact that you would rather that wish wasn't extant, there it is, and there's nothing you can do about it, short of eschewing fantasy sports.
Everybody makes their choices: play fantasy sports, or no? The decision is not an easy one, or one made lightly, because nothing is free--not even Yahoo! Fantasy Baseball. It comes with a certain price attached, a price measured in our fanhood. What that price will be, and how the course of the season will rearrange one's loyalties and interest, can never be determined before one dives into the fantasy sports realm.
Your loyalty as the owner of a fantasy team is to the players on your team. And if you play rationally, those players will be selected on no other basis than their own skill and availability. In a non-biased draft, then, the players you assemble on your own team will not be the players on your favorite team, because a) if the players on your favorite team are generally bad players, you will not select them, and b) if the players on your favorite team are generally good players, everyone in the league will be trying to select them, limiting their availability.
Therefore you are faced with an inevitable, disconcerting dilemma: do I root for my own fantasy team, and thus for the players on my team, who represent a wide cross section of the league's teams, or do I root for my favorite team above all? At first, you think that these two goals are not mutually exclusive, that you can do both. To a certain extent, you can. But things get complicated pretty quickly. When you have a starting pitcher on your fantasy team who is pitching against your favorite team, what do you do? Do you sit him down? If this decision to sit him down is made for any reason other than attempting to win your fantasy league, it takes away from the "integrity," if you will, of that league. If you're going to bother playing fantasy sports at all, then you have to suck it up and start the pitcher going against your team if it is a move that will bring you closer to winning the league. So then more questions arise--do you root for your pitcher to get shelled, convincing yourself that it's a "win-win" scenario? (He pitches well, I have something to fall back on despite my favorite team being shut down; he pitches poorly, my team wins, which makes me happy, too.) Do you root for him to pitch well in a losing effort? This is the option that most fantasy owners would probably choose (A complete-game shutout in a 1-0 loss, perhaps?). While it sounds good, this line of thinking is dangerous. It's the beginning of fantasy baseball's slippery slope, which leads downhill towards the dissolution of your traditional loyalty. When you're rooting for your pitcher to do well against your team, you don't really mind so much when he emerges with the win--it's just one game, after all... If you're not careful, soon your loyalty to your fantasy team has eclipsed all your other sports loyalties in prominence.
The problem is that a fantasy team is something that is completely yours. You are the general manager, owner, manager of your fantasy team. In contrast, your favorite team is an enormous conglomeration, owned by a billionaire corporation, run by a general manager who continually frustrates you, coached by a manager whose decisions you constantly berate. You are in a boat with hundreds of thousands of other people, watching and hoping and sweating and dying from afar, with no control over the entity you invest so much of your own being into supporting. You pour money into the franchise you call your own, but that money just goes into the pockets of those behind the scenes, the decision-makers who have no intention (nor should they) of including the fan in the process of running and building the team.
All that frustration is erased when you own a fantasy team, however. Every decision made is by you alone, and the results of all of your decisions quickly and clearly show up in the standings. As the saying goes, power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. You have absolute power over your fantasy team, and that power undoubtedly is corrosive. What it corrupts most absolutely is one's fanhood--the ability to irrationally, unquestionably root for one's favorite team with the utmost passion in every situation. When the responsibilities of fanhood bump up against rooting interest in the players that constitute one's fantasy squad, well... you would like to say that your motives are always pure, that with every at bat and pitch and inning you are rooting for your favorite team, but it doesn't always work out that way. Your favorite team might even change to your fantasy team, the one you actually can control, with the real team that you root for running a not-so-close second.
This doesn't always happen, of course. As in everything else, there are levels and shades of fanhood and rooting interest, complications that come to bear in different situations. But I have found that it is nearly impossible to convince yourself, to talk yourself into rooting for a team or a player or an outcome. Rooting interest, fanhood, is just something that comes to you, and you cannot, under any circumstances, coerce it to come to you in a certain way. You know exactly how you feel about it at all times, and you can't change the way you feel or the level of your passion, no matter what you tell your friends or what you scream at the TV or while in your seat at the ballpark. Thus, thanks to your fantasy team, you might find yourself wishing for an outcome that runs against your chosen party line as a fan, and despite the fact that you would rather that wish wasn't extant, there it is, and there's nothing you can do about it, short of eschewing fantasy sports.
Everybody makes their choices: play fantasy sports, or no? The decision is not an easy one, or one made lightly, because nothing is free--not even Yahoo! Fantasy Baseball. It comes with a certain price attached, a price measured in our fanhood. What that price will be, and how the course of the season will rearrange one's loyalties and interest, can never be determined before one dives into the fantasy sports realm.
Poll Results
By a 7 to 5 margin, you voted that a Major League team should not offer Barry Bonds a contract for 2008.
The new poll asks how many games the Mets will win in 2008.
The new poll asks how many games the Mets will win in 2008.
Wednesday, December 26, 2007
2007 Review - were the Mets really a first place team?
Marty Noble, in an article for mlb.com, writes the following about the 2007 New York Mets...
The downfall was epic -- until the 2007 Mets, no team with a seven-game lead with 17 games remaining was unable to finish in first. It nuked the Mets in every way, picking at the scab of Yadier Molina and making the 2006 shortfall worse. It tarnished any and all individual achievements in 2007, and it threatens to contaminate '08.
Rightly or wrongly, Glavine's 300th career victory and even his Hall of Fame image lost luster because the Mets lost the division. David Wright's 30-30 season was blemished. Wagner ascent on the list of all-time saves leaders -- he is seventh with 358 -- was obscured. The specter of Pedro Martinez's return was smudged. The achievements of John Maine and Oliver Perez were tainted. Jose Reyes' smile was defaced, the sheen on Moises Alou's 30-game hitting streak was dulled. And Randolph's managerial resume -- even his image as a big leaguer -- has been permanently stained.
And none of that addresses the damage done to the organization that had been on an upswing as it moves toward Citi Field in 2009. Losing to the Cardinals in the playoffs on 2006 was like stubbing a toe compared to the collapse last season.
Contrary to public belief, the 2007 collapse did not begin in August or September for the Mets. Instead, the collapse began in June. The Mets began the year 34-18 (15-9 in April, 19-9 in May). During June fans watched as the Mets lost 8 of 9 to the Phillies, Dodgers, and Yanks. Overall, the Mets posted an abysmal record of 12-15 in June. Things did not get much better in July as the Mets played to a record of 13-14 for the month. The Mets were 15-13 in August and 14-14 in September.
It is worth noting that the Mets had many fans worrying during spring training. During most of March the team played sloppy, listless baseball leaving many fans to wonder what was wrong with the 2006 kings of the NL. These concerns were temporary eased in April and May, but quickly returned by June. The truth is, the Mets were a first place caliber team for 2 months of the 2007 season. The rest of the year they seemed to lack the consistent emotion and drive that is necessary for a playoff bound team. That failure rests on Willie, who has the important responsibility of keeping his team focused and inspired. Lets hope that Randolph has learned from the mistakes of 2007, and will return with new determination in 2008.
The downfall was epic -- until the 2007 Mets, no team with a seven-game lead with 17 games remaining was unable to finish in first. It nuked the Mets in every way, picking at the scab of Yadier Molina and making the 2006 shortfall worse. It tarnished any and all individual achievements in 2007, and it threatens to contaminate '08.
Rightly or wrongly, Glavine's 300th career victory and even his Hall of Fame image lost luster because the Mets lost the division. David Wright's 30-30 season was blemished. Wagner ascent on the list of all-time saves leaders -- he is seventh with 358 -- was obscured. The specter of Pedro Martinez's return was smudged. The achievements of John Maine and Oliver Perez were tainted. Jose Reyes' smile was defaced, the sheen on Moises Alou's 30-game hitting streak was dulled. And Randolph's managerial resume -- even his image as a big leaguer -- has been permanently stained.
And none of that addresses the damage done to the organization that had been on an upswing as it moves toward Citi Field in 2009. Losing to the Cardinals in the playoffs on 2006 was like stubbing a toe compared to the collapse last season.
Contrary to public belief, the 2007 collapse did not begin in August or September for the Mets. Instead, the collapse began in June. The Mets began the year 34-18 (15-9 in April, 19-9 in May). During June fans watched as the Mets lost 8 of 9 to the Phillies, Dodgers, and Yanks. Overall, the Mets posted an abysmal record of 12-15 in June. Things did not get much better in July as the Mets played to a record of 13-14 for the month. The Mets were 15-13 in August and 14-14 in September.
It is worth noting that the Mets had many fans worrying during spring training. During most of March the team played sloppy, listless baseball leaving many fans to wonder what was wrong with the 2006 kings of the NL. These concerns were temporary eased in April and May, but quickly returned by June. The truth is, the Mets were a first place caliber team for 2 months of the 2007 season. The rest of the year they seemed to lack the consistent emotion and drive that is necessary for a playoff bound team. That failure rests on Willie, who has the important responsibility of keeping his team focused and inspired. Lets hope that Randolph has learned from the mistakes of 2007, and will return with new determination in 2008.
Saturday, December 22, 2007
Off Season Scorecard
The prevailing thought these days states that Mets GM Omar Minaya is having a terrible off season so far. Fans and media alike claim that Omar deserves a failing grade for his fruitless efforts of late. Such is not necessarily the case. Let's review the facts....
Going into this off season the Mets had a number of holes to fill. The Mets entered the off season needing a second baseman, a LF, a RF, a catcher, a backup catcher, and some pitching help (for both the bullpen and the rotation).
With that in mind, let's look at the moves by Omar thus far.
1) The Mets filled the hole at second by resigning Castillo.
2) The Mets filled the hole in LF by picking up the option on Alou.
3) The Mets helped their bullpen by signing Matt Wise.
4) The Mets filled the need for a backup catcher by resigning Castro.
5) The Mets filled their needs for a starting catcher and a LF by trading Milledge for Schneider and Church.
6) The Mets cleared salary by dumping Mota to the Brewers.
So far the Mets have met most of their immediate needs. For the most part, these moves should be viewed far more favorably then they have been to date. Consider each trade....
1) Signing Castillo to a four year deal definitely hurts. Still, the options before the Mets this year were not very attractive. Built as a win-now team, the Mets needed a veteran second baseman. Castillo will provide a perfect bat for the Mets lineup, while also stabilizing their up-the-middle defense. Fact is, the other free agent alternatives this off season were no where near as attractive as Castillo. Gotay, although he has a good bat, would have really hurt the team defense.
2) Picking up the option on Alou was a fairly solid move. Although he is 41, Alou proved in 2007 that he can still swing a great bat. And with the endless sea of capable backups the Mets have for the outfield, Alou was a simple fix for 2007. He is on a one year contract, giving the Mets the fix they need now while leaving open the door for Martinez and Gomez in 2008.
3) The pick up of Matt Wise was an outstanding move. Wise is a good addition to the bullpen which suffered a collapse late last season. The acquisition of Wise, coupled with the possible return of Sanchez, should be a big boost to the bullpen which had been rock solid for all of 2006 and most of 2007.
4) Retaining Ramon Castro was a great move by Omar. Castro provides a valuable bat off the bench, and in my opinion is one of the best backup catchers in the game. Castro is not just a capable reserve, he is a dangerous weapon that Randolph likes to utilize.
5) The trade of Milledge for Schneider and Church initially spurned very negative reaction from the Mets fan base (myself included). As time has passed, however, I have reflected more and more on the trade. As a result of my reflection, I have come to understand the trade. Yes, it is frustrating that we had to trade Milledge while his value is low. Yes, I believe Milledge will become a very good ballplayer one day and that we will regret not having him. However, as I said before, the Mets are a win-now team and needed to solidify their roster with more seasoned talent. In the trade the Mets finally got the catcher they wanted in Schneider. They got a great game caller with a terrific arm who thus improves their up-the-middle defense (something that is clearly important to the 2008 Mets game plan). With Reyes, Castillo, Schneider, and Beltran the Mets now have a great middle defense core. As for the weak bat of Schneider, who cares. Schneider will serve as the 8th hitter in their lineup and hitting was not been the Mets problem in 2006 and 2007. Also included in this trade was Ryan Church. Church provides the Mets with an upgrade in RF from 2006 and 2007. He has a good bat and a reliable glove in the corner OF spot. In all, the Mets were able to sure up 2 important starting positions by trading Milledge.
6) Omar's ability to dump Mota's salary without taking on anything in return is fantastic. Mota was a disaster in 2007, and had clearly worn out his welcome in Queens.
Yes, Omar has failed to land a front-line starter for the rotation. However, he has quietly filled most of the Mets needs without adding any payroll or losing his top prospects. He has retained financial flexibility while holding onto Martinez, Pelfrey, Humber, Mulvey, Guerra, Gomez, etc. Does that mean I am satisfied with our off season? No, it does not. It does mean, though, that Omar has made some progress and improved the ball club from last season. Like all Mets fans, I still worry about entering the 2008 season with a pitching staff reliant on an aging Pedro, a young John Maine, an erratic Oliver Perez, an injury prone Orlando Hernandez, and an unproven rookie (Pelfrey, Humber, etc). As such, let's hope Omar can use the financial flexibility and stash of prospects discussed earlier to land a front-line starter.
My grade for the job Omar Minaya has done so far in the months since the Mets collapse is a B. Since the collapse Omar resisted the temptation to making drastic trades and signings just for the sake of change. He realized that the nucleus of this team is still very good, and with the proper work can be the leaders of the National League in 2008.
Going into this off season the Mets had a number of holes to fill. The Mets entered the off season needing a second baseman, a LF, a RF, a catcher, a backup catcher, and some pitching help (for both the bullpen and the rotation).
With that in mind, let's look at the moves by Omar thus far.
1) The Mets filled the hole at second by resigning Castillo.
2) The Mets filled the hole in LF by picking up the option on Alou.
3) The Mets helped their bullpen by signing Matt Wise.
4) The Mets filled the need for a backup catcher by resigning Castro.
5) The Mets filled their needs for a starting catcher and a LF by trading Milledge for Schneider and Church.
6) The Mets cleared salary by dumping Mota to the Brewers.
So far the Mets have met most of their immediate needs. For the most part, these moves should be viewed far more favorably then they have been to date. Consider each trade....
1) Signing Castillo to a four year deal definitely hurts. Still, the options before the Mets this year were not very attractive. Built as a win-now team, the Mets needed a veteran second baseman. Castillo will provide a perfect bat for the Mets lineup, while also stabilizing their up-the-middle defense. Fact is, the other free agent alternatives this off season were no where near as attractive as Castillo. Gotay, although he has a good bat, would have really hurt the team defense.
2) Picking up the option on Alou was a fairly solid move. Although he is 41, Alou proved in 2007 that he can still swing a great bat. And with the endless sea of capable backups the Mets have for the outfield, Alou was a simple fix for 2007. He is on a one year contract, giving the Mets the fix they need now while leaving open the door for Martinez and Gomez in 2008.
3) The pick up of Matt Wise was an outstanding move. Wise is a good addition to the bullpen which suffered a collapse late last season. The acquisition of Wise, coupled with the possible return of Sanchez, should be a big boost to the bullpen which had been rock solid for all of 2006 and most of 2007.
4) Retaining Ramon Castro was a great move by Omar. Castro provides a valuable bat off the bench, and in my opinion is one of the best backup catchers in the game. Castro is not just a capable reserve, he is a dangerous weapon that Randolph likes to utilize.
5) The trade of Milledge for Schneider and Church initially spurned very negative reaction from the Mets fan base (myself included). As time has passed, however, I have reflected more and more on the trade. As a result of my reflection, I have come to understand the trade. Yes, it is frustrating that we had to trade Milledge while his value is low. Yes, I believe Milledge will become a very good ballplayer one day and that we will regret not having him. However, as I said before, the Mets are a win-now team and needed to solidify their roster with more seasoned talent. In the trade the Mets finally got the catcher they wanted in Schneider. They got a great game caller with a terrific arm who thus improves their up-the-middle defense (something that is clearly important to the 2008 Mets game plan). With Reyes, Castillo, Schneider, and Beltran the Mets now have a great middle defense core. As for the weak bat of Schneider, who cares. Schneider will serve as the 8th hitter in their lineup and hitting was not been the Mets problem in 2006 and 2007. Also included in this trade was Ryan Church. Church provides the Mets with an upgrade in RF from 2006 and 2007. He has a good bat and a reliable glove in the corner OF spot. In all, the Mets were able to sure up 2 important starting positions by trading Milledge.
6) Omar's ability to dump Mota's salary without taking on anything in return is fantastic. Mota was a disaster in 2007, and had clearly worn out his welcome in Queens.
Yes, Omar has failed to land a front-line starter for the rotation. However, he has quietly filled most of the Mets needs without adding any payroll or losing his top prospects. He has retained financial flexibility while holding onto Martinez, Pelfrey, Humber, Mulvey, Guerra, Gomez, etc. Does that mean I am satisfied with our off season? No, it does not. It does mean, though, that Omar has made some progress and improved the ball club from last season. Like all Mets fans, I still worry about entering the 2008 season with a pitching staff reliant on an aging Pedro, a young John Maine, an erratic Oliver Perez, an injury prone Orlando Hernandez, and an unproven rookie (Pelfrey, Humber, etc). As such, let's hope Omar can use the financial flexibility and stash of prospects discussed earlier to land a front-line starter.
My grade for the job Omar Minaya has done so far in the months since the Mets collapse is a B. Since the collapse Omar resisted the temptation to making drastic trades and signings just for the sake of change. He realized that the nucleus of this team is still very good, and with the proper work can be the leaders of the National League in 2008.
Wednesday, December 19, 2007
Something to get excited for....
While this off-season has been a disappointment so far, regardless of what happens, I will still sit down and watch every inning of every game. Like most fans, I expected big things from this off-season. The possibility of signing A-Rod, trading Milledge in a deal for Haren or Santana, and other big moves floated through my mind as soon as our collapse was complete. Instead, Milledge was traded for Schneider/Church and the biggest pitcher acquisition thus far has been Matt Wise. However, this off-season is not over yet, and I still have some faith in Omar... I found this video on youtube:
This is a compilation of moments from last year, and although the ending of the season was one to forget, there were lots of memorable moments throughout the season. So with the holidays approaching, and the fear of the Mets signing Kyle Lohse to a four year deal, here is something to help get your mind off the snowy days of December, this questionable off-season, Randolph still being manager, and make you look forward to the Spring, and some New York Mets baseball. It got me excited for the Spring.........I’d be even more excited if Minaya can pull off a coup and steal Santana from the Red Sox/Yanks.
This is a compilation of moments from last year, and although the ending of the season was one to forget, there were lots of memorable moments throughout the season. So with the holidays approaching, and the fear of the Mets signing Kyle Lohse to a four year deal, here is something to help get your mind off the snowy days of December, this questionable off-season, Randolph still being manager, and make you look forward to the Spring, and some New York Mets baseball. It got me excited for the Spring.........I’d be even more excited if Minaya can pull off a coup and steal Santana from the Red Sox/Yanks.
Tuesday, December 18, 2007
Reader's Request
We got a comment! Well, we've gotten several, remarkably enough. By popular demand, a look at some of the other one-word team assessments given by General Managers to Sports Illustrated that were printed in the December 17 issue of SI:
Phillies, Pat Gillick: "Close." Too close, I might add. The smell is beginning to bother me.
Braves, Frank Wren: "Recharging." The 2008 Braves: Plugged in to a socket near you!
Marlins, Larry Beinfest: "Talented." Yes, the Fish are talented. Unfortunately, it takes more than talent to win--namely, gloves and bats, and the Marlins don't have enough money for either.
Cubs, Jim Hendry: "Optimistic." You're the Cubs GM, not a bleacher bum at Wrigley, Jim.
Brewers, Doug Melvin: "Closer." Take THAT, Phillies!
Cardinals, John Mozeliak: "Emerging." Can you use emerging in a sentence describing the 2008 Cardinals? How about: "Watching the Cardinals play in 2008 will be like watching that baby alien emerging from the stomach of that guy in Alien."
Astros, Ed Wade: "Solidifying." The Astros are like the chili you left in the bottom of your saucepan yesterday: old, crusty, solidifying.
Reds, Wayne Krivsky: "Aggressive." Great answer, Wayne! Go get 'em!
White Sox, Rick Hahn: "Undeterred." Rick Hahn is actually the White Sox assistant GM. I can only imagine the look on Kenny Williams' face when he heard about this answer. "You told them what? Rick, we specifically discussed this!"
Royals, Dayton Moore: "Futuristic." This calls to mind outfielders with hover packs and batters with laser-enhanced pitch-tracking technology. The 2133 Royals will be one hell of a ballclub.
Angels, Tony Reagins: "Solid." Watch out, Halos--the Astros are approaching your state of being. May I suggest sublimation as a means of escape?
Rangers, Jon Daniels: "Optimism." Jon, would you like to hear the question again, so that you can use the correct noun form? When you have to look to Jim Hendry for tips on grammar...
Phillies, Pat Gillick: "Close." Too close, I might add. The smell is beginning to bother me.
Braves, Frank Wren: "Recharging." The 2008 Braves: Plugged in to a socket near you!
Marlins, Larry Beinfest: "Talented." Yes, the Fish are talented. Unfortunately, it takes more than talent to win--namely, gloves and bats, and the Marlins don't have enough money for either.
Cubs, Jim Hendry: "Optimistic." You're the Cubs GM, not a bleacher bum at Wrigley, Jim.
Brewers, Doug Melvin: "Closer." Take THAT, Phillies!
Cardinals, John Mozeliak: "Emerging." Can you use emerging in a sentence describing the 2008 Cardinals? How about: "Watching the Cardinals play in 2008 will be like watching that baby alien emerging from the stomach of that guy in Alien."
Astros, Ed Wade: "Solidifying." The Astros are like the chili you left in the bottom of your saucepan yesterday: old, crusty, solidifying.
Reds, Wayne Krivsky: "Aggressive." Great answer, Wayne! Go get 'em!
White Sox, Rick Hahn: "Undeterred." Rick Hahn is actually the White Sox assistant GM. I can only imagine the look on Kenny Williams' face when he heard about this answer. "You told them what? Rick, we specifically discussed this!"
Royals, Dayton Moore: "Futuristic." This calls to mind outfielders with hover packs and batters with laser-enhanced pitch-tracking technology. The 2133 Royals will be one hell of a ballclub.
Angels, Tony Reagins: "Solid." Watch out, Halos--the Astros are approaching your state of being. May I suggest sublimation as a means of escape?
Rangers, Jon Daniels: "Optimism." Jon, would you like to hear the question again, so that you can use the correct noun form? When you have to look to Jim Hendry for tips on grammar...
Mitchell Report Fantasy Round-up
A week after the Mitchell Report, with the dead identified and properly buried, here's the score in our Mitchell Report fantasy draft:
I had three hits: Eric Gagne, Chuck Knoblauch, and "Maurice" Vaughn. Gagne was a solid mid-round closer pick, and I was saved by my late drafting of Knoblauch, very much a sleeper, and Big Mo. Again, though, I'm kicking myself for not going with Clemens in the first round when I had a chance (took Bret Boone instead) and changing my mind after originally drafting Pettitte. That's gonna haunt my for a long time.
Rawjah Clemenz had 3.5 hits: Todd Hundley, Lenny Dykstra, Miguel Tejada (the number one overall pick, who did not disappoint) and, the half-hit, Juan Gonzalez. Gonzo was named in the report but his steroid use was only vaguely implicated, without the usual concrete, iron-clad evidence that was customary of former Senator Mitchell's flawless investigatory process. Juan Gone's name generally was left off of the lists of those fingered by the report in the aftermath, although the New York Times chose to put him on its list.
The third mystery team also had three hits, connecting with Clemens, John Rocker, and Mike Stanton.
Names On the List That Nearly Made Me Cry: 1. Hundley, 2. Jack Cust. Hundley was my favorite player and hero growing up, the hard-nosed catcher who seemed to will his way to 41 homers, at the time the single-season record for a backstop, in 1996. (No one can convince me that the fraud who eventually took Hundley from the record books, Javy Lopez, who hit 43 in 2003, wasn't juicing.) Hundley was the bright spot on some awful Mets teams, and unfortunately didn't get to enjoy the team's playoff runs in 1999 and 2000. It was pretty sad to read about his association with Kirk Radomski.
And Cust, my hero of last season. The A's picked him off the scrap heap for nothing, handed him a bat, and gave him a mandate to mash. Free for the first time in his career to concentrate on killing the ball without having to worry about a front office that focused on the negatives in his game (striking out, poor defense), Cust hit the ball out of the park and drew walks all season long, providing a remarkable return for Beane and the A's. That he was on the list is a sore disappointment. But the Three Run Homer hasn't given up on you, Jack.
And how could I forget--Tim Laker. Say it ain't so, Tim!
I had three hits: Eric Gagne, Chuck Knoblauch, and "Maurice" Vaughn. Gagne was a solid mid-round closer pick, and I was saved by my late drafting of Knoblauch, very much a sleeper, and Big Mo. Again, though, I'm kicking myself for not going with Clemens in the first round when I had a chance (took Bret Boone instead) and changing my mind after originally drafting Pettitte. That's gonna haunt my for a long time.
Rawjah Clemenz had 3.5 hits: Todd Hundley, Lenny Dykstra, Miguel Tejada (the number one overall pick, who did not disappoint) and, the half-hit, Juan Gonzalez. Gonzo was named in the report but his steroid use was only vaguely implicated, without the usual concrete, iron-clad evidence that was customary of former Senator Mitchell's flawless investigatory process. Juan Gone's name generally was left off of the lists of those fingered by the report in the aftermath, although the New York Times chose to put him on its list.
The third mystery team also had three hits, connecting with Clemens, John Rocker, and Mike Stanton.
Names On the List That Nearly Made Me Cry: 1. Hundley, 2. Jack Cust. Hundley was my favorite player and hero growing up, the hard-nosed catcher who seemed to will his way to 41 homers, at the time the single-season record for a backstop, in 1996. (No one can convince me that the fraud who eventually took Hundley from the record books, Javy Lopez, who hit 43 in 2003, wasn't juicing.) Hundley was the bright spot on some awful Mets teams, and unfortunately didn't get to enjoy the team's playoff runs in 1999 and 2000. It was pretty sad to read about his association with Kirk Radomski.
And Cust, my hero of last season. The A's picked him off the scrap heap for nothing, handed him a bat, and gave him a mandate to mash. Free for the first time in his career to concentrate on killing the ball without having to worry about a front office that focused on the negatives in his game (striking out, poor defense), Cust hit the ball out of the park and drew walks all season long, providing a remarkable return for Beane and the A's. That he was on the list is a sore disappointment. But the Three Run Homer hasn't given up on you, Jack.
And how could I forget--Tim Laker. Say it ain't so, Tim!
Mets Sign RHP Matt Wise
The New York Mets signed free-agent RHP Matt Wise to a one-year contract worth $1.2 million. Wise came into baseball in 2000 with Anaheim, and has been with the Brewers since 2004. During his 4 years in the National League Wise has averaged around 54 innings per season with an ERA around 3.96. In my opinion, this is a solid pickup by Omar.
The Weaker Circuit
In old baseball parlance, the National League is the "senior circuit." This is because it's the older league of the two, of course. It also conveys the vague sense that the NL is the more traditional, purer league of the two, what with its holdout against the DH and its outmoded reputation as the league which plays a more "smallball"-oriented game, with more frequent bunting, hit-and-runs, double switches, etc. This reputation has been logically extended to the managers, in the sense that the NL is said to boast a more cerebral brand of baseball, thanks primarily to the strategy added by having the pitcher bat.
Needless to say, smallball is The Three Run Homer's mortal enemy, and the traditional profile of American League baseball--branded by the immortal "pitching, defense and the three run homer" strategy of our hero, Orioles manager Earl Weaver--is the way we'd like to see the game played. But in the 21st century, whatever truth that existed in the disparate profiles of the two leagues has long since been washed away, due to free agency and, generally, an enhanced understanding of what constitutes winning baseball.
That there are no longer huge differences in how the game is played between the two leagues, however, is not to say that the level of play in the two leagues is the same. In fact, my long-winded introduction was all a lead-up to the point that I'm trying to make: the Senior Circuit has very much transformed into the junior, as in, the younger sibling to the American League's big bullying brother.
Is the American League, as a whole, really that much better than the National League? Without a doubt. Last year, there were definitely four AL teams that would have been head-and-shoulders above every NL team in quality: the Yankees and Red Sox, the Indians, and the Angels. I would throw Detroit and Seattle in that category as well, which both won 88 games (Arizona and Colorado led the NL with 90 wins). The American League won 137 of 252 interleague games last year, a winning percentage of .544. That's a statistically significant sample, as they say in the trade, and a very meaningful result, not noise in the data. That, in other words, is dominance. And the AL has been dominating for some time now. In 2006, it went an astounding 154-98 against the weaker circuit, and 136-116 in 2005. Over the past three year, then, the American League has a winning percentage of .565 versus the NL.
The American League only got stronger when the Marlins dumped one of the most valuable commodities in the game in Miguel Cabrera, along with a quality starter in Dontrelle Willis, on the Tigers in exchange for Cameron Maybin and Andrew Miller, two strong prospects whose stars had each lost luster over the past year. With that trade, the AL Central turned into a two team deathmatch between Detroit and Cleveland, a race that should be extremely fun to watch next year. The AL East is, of course, the battleground for the Cold War matchup between the Yankees and Red Sox. A third team will join that mix by 2009--the Rays have the best collection of young talent in the game, which is all starting to mature at the same time, prompting what could be a dynastic run. And the Blue Jays would almost definitely be a perennial playoff contender in the National League, no matter how poorly they've been run over the past several years.
The AL Central and East are baseball's twin killing fields, with the AL West lagging somewhat behind, at least until the haul that Billy Beane took in exchange for ace righty Dan Haren matures. The National League, in contrast, is operating in a lesser solar system. Right now I would rank the Cubs and the Diamondbacks as the two best NL teams, but both have significant flaws, and are well below the AL contenders in terms of overall quality.
Why the discrepancy between the AL and the NL? One of the reasons, I believe, is that the quality of the front offices in the AL is significantly higher. Here's my ranking of the 30 organizations in baseball, ordered by the general strength of their talent stock and the headiness of their baseball operations personnel:
1. Boston Red Sox
2. Cleveland Indians
3. Tampa Bay Rays
4. New York Yankees
5. Detroit Tigers
6. Oakland Athletics
7. Los Angeles Angels
8. Arizona Diamondbacks
9. Minnesota Twins
10. Los Angeles Dodgers
11. Seattle Mariners
12. Atlanta Braves
13. Chicago Cubs
14. Milwaukee Brewers
15. New York Mets
16. Toronto Blue Jays
17. Florida Marlins
18. San Diego Padres
19. Colorado Rockies
20. Kansas City Royals
21. Philadelphia Phillies
22. Texas Rangers
23. Pittsburgh Pirates
24. Washington Nationals
25. Cincinnati Reds
26. Chicago White Sox
27. San Francisco Giants
28. St. Louis Cardinals
29. Baltimore Orioles
30. Houston Astros
I wouldn't argue if you wanted to move the Diamondbacks up a spot or two on the list, but you can see the general point--the AL just has far superior organizations, from major league talent stocks to farm systems to front offices. Let's examine that latter issue a little more in-depth. Who do you think of when you list the top General Managers? No doubt Theo Epstein, Mark Shapiro, Billy Beane, Dave Dombrowski, and Brian Cashman come to mind. All run AL clubs.
In the National League, perhaps the brightest brain trust resides in the Josh Byrnes-led Arizona front office. John Schuerholz is fazing himself out of the operations in Atlanta, and the Braves' talent is not as good as it typically was each year during the team's run of division titles. Chicago has a good team on hand, but the Cubs are run by Jim Hendry, whose greatest skill is signing his name with a flourish. Omar Minaya has shown the propensity to galvanize impact players into signing with the Mets and pull off the outstanding trade, but he has been making questionable moves with alarming frequency over the past year, and operates too frequently upon consultation solely with his gut, rather than the numbers. The Dodgers have the most talented NL group of young players, but Ned Colletti is a threat to trade any and all of them away as soon as he steps into Chavez Ravine. The list goes on: Doug Melvin's motto in Milwaukee seems to be two steps forward, one-and-a-half steps back, the Larry Beinfest-Mike Hill duo in Florida is doomed to perpetually rebuild, like a latter-day sports Sisyphus, as long as the Miami stadium fiasco lacks a resolution, Kevin Towers can't get over the hump in San Diego, Dan O'Dowd lucked his Rockies into the playoffs last year, Jim Bowden of the Nationals alternates between inspired and horrid decisions, with precious little middle ground, etc., etc. New front offices are in place this year in Pittsburgh and St. Louis, so there's reasonable hope that those two franchises could get turned around before too long. There isn't really any hope in San Francisco or Houston, however, and I would posit little in Cincinnati either as long as Wayne Krivsky is making the decisions, although the Reds could actually win the pathetic NL Central this year with a little luck.
In conclusion: the majority of the money, talent, and baseball decision-making acumen resides in the American League right now. Until that starts to change, you can treat the ALCS as if it were the World Series, which it was in 2007.
Needless to say, smallball is The Three Run Homer's mortal enemy, and the traditional profile of American League baseball--branded by the immortal "pitching, defense and the three run homer" strategy of our hero, Orioles manager Earl Weaver--is the way we'd like to see the game played. But in the 21st century, whatever truth that existed in the disparate profiles of the two leagues has long since been washed away, due to free agency and, generally, an enhanced understanding of what constitutes winning baseball.
That there are no longer huge differences in how the game is played between the two leagues, however, is not to say that the level of play in the two leagues is the same. In fact, my long-winded introduction was all a lead-up to the point that I'm trying to make: the Senior Circuit has very much transformed into the junior, as in, the younger sibling to the American League's big bullying brother.
Is the American League, as a whole, really that much better than the National League? Without a doubt. Last year, there were definitely four AL teams that would have been head-and-shoulders above every NL team in quality: the Yankees and Red Sox, the Indians, and the Angels. I would throw Detroit and Seattle in that category as well, which both won 88 games (Arizona and Colorado led the NL with 90 wins). The American League won 137 of 252 interleague games last year, a winning percentage of .544. That's a statistically significant sample, as they say in the trade, and a very meaningful result, not noise in the data. That, in other words, is dominance. And the AL has been dominating for some time now. In 2006, it went an astounding 154-98 against the weaker circuit, and 136-116 in 2005. Over the past three year, then, the American League has a winning percentage of .565 versus the NL.
The American League only got stronger when the Marlins dumped one of the most valuable commodities in the game in Miguel Cabrera, along with a quality starter in Dontrelle Willis, on the Tigers in exchange for Cameron Maybin and Andrew Miller, two strong prospects whose stars had each lost luster over the past year. With that trade, the AL Central turned into a two team deathmatch between Detroit and Cleveland, a race that should be extremely fun to watch next year. The AL East is, of course, the battleground for the Cold War matchup between the Yankees and Red Sox. A third team will join that mix by 2009--the Rays have the best collection of young talent in the game, which is all starting to mature at the same time, prompting what could be a dynastic run. And the Blue Jays would almost definitely be a perennial playoff contender in the National League, no matter how poorly they've been run over the past several years.
The AL Central and East are baseball's twin killing fields, with the AL West lagging somewhat behind, at least until the haul that Billy Beane took in exchange for ace righty Dan Haren matures. The National League, in contrast, is operating in a lesser solar system. Right now I would rank the Cubs and the Diamondbacks as the two best NL teams, but both have significant flaws, and are well below the AL contenders in terms of overall quality.
Why the discrepancy between the AL and the NL? One of the reasons, I believe, is that the quality of the front offices in the AL is significantly higher. Here's my ranking of the 30 organizations in baseball, ordered by the general strength of their talent stock and the headiness of their baseball operations personnel:
1. Boston Red Sox
2. Cleveland Indians
3. Tampa Bay Rays
4. New York Yankees
5. Detroit Tigers
6. Oakland Athletics
7. Los Angeles Angels
8. Arizona Diamondbacks
9. Minnesota Twins
10. Los Angeles Dodgers
11. Seattle Mariners
12. Atlanta Braves
13. Chicago Cubs
14. Milwaukee Brewers
15. New York Mets
16. Toronto Blue Jays
17. Florida Marlins
18. San Diego Padres
19. Colorado Rockies
20. Kansas City Royals
21. Philadelphia Phillies
22. Texas Rangers
23. Pittsburgh Pirates
24. Washington Nationals
25. Cincinnati Reds
26. Chicago White Sox
27. San Francisco Giants
28. St. Louis Cardinals
29. Baltimore Orioles
30. Houston Astros
I wouldn't argue if you wanted to move the Diamondbacks up a spot or two on the list, but you can see the general point--the AL just has far superior organizations, from major league talent stocks to farm systems to front offices. Let's examine that latter issue a little more in-depth. Who do you think of when you list the top General Managers? No doubt Theo Epstein, Mark Shapiro, Billy Beane, Dave Dombrowski, and Brian Cashman come to mind. All run AL clubs.
In the National League, perhaps the brightest brain trust resides in the Josh Byrnes-led Arizona front office. John Schuerholz is fazing himself out of the operations in Atlanta, and the Braves' talent is not as good as it typically was each year during the team's run of division titles. Chicago has a good team on hand, but the Cubs are run by Jim Hendry, whose greatest skill is signing his name with a flourish. Omar Minaya has shown the propensity to galvanize impact players into signing with the Mets and pull off the outstanding trade, but he has been making questionable moves with alarming frequency over the past year, and operates too frequently upon consultation solely with his gut, rather than the numbers. The Dodgers have the most talented NL group of young players, but Ned Colletti is a threat to trade any and all of them away as soon as he steps into Chavez Ravine. The list goes on: Doug Melvin's motto in Milwaukee seems to be two steps forward, one-and-a-half steps back, the Larry Beinfest-Mike Hill duo in Florida is doomed to perpetually rebuild, like a latter-day sports Sisyphus, as long as the Miami stadium fiasco lacks a resolution, Kevin Towers can't get over the hump in San Diego, Dan O'Dowd lucked his Rockies into the playoffs last year, Jim Bowden of the Nationals alternates between inspired and horrid decisions, with precious little middle ground, etc., etc. New front offices are in place this year in Pittsburgh and St. Louis, so there's reasonable hope that those two franchises could get turned around before too long. There isn't really any hope in San Francisco or Houston, however, and I would posit little in Cincinnati either as long as Wayne Krivsky is making the decisions, although the Reds could actually win the pathetic NL Central this year with a little luck.
In conclusion: the majority of the money, talent, and baseball decision-making acumen resides in the American League right now. Until that starts to change, you can treat the ALCS as if it were the World Series, which it was in 2007.
Monday, December 17, 2007
2008 Season Fast Approaching
Rogers Hornsby once said, "People ask me what I do in winter when there's no baseball. I'll tell you what I do. I stare out the window and wait for spring."
With that in mind, I just wanted to let you all know that the Mets will play their first spring training game on February 26 (less then 3 months from now).
To view the Mets entire 2008 spring training schedule click here.
To view the Mets entire 2008 regular season schedule click here.
With that in mind, I just wanted to let you all know that the Mets will play their first spring training game on February 26 (less then 3 months from now).
To view the Mets entire 2008 spring training schedule click here.
To view the Mets entire 2008 regular season schedule click here.
Thursday, December 13, 2007
It's Here
The Mitchell Report comes out today at 2 p.m. ESPN is currently having an absolute field day all over the air waves, a gleeful furor that will likely continue for several days. To add to the general sense of excitement and schadenfreude, and to emphasize what a joke the entire Mitchell investigation is, I, along with Rawjah Clemenz and another friend, drafted Mitchell Report Fantasy teams last night.
Inexplicably, I passed on Roger Clemens with my first-round pick, going with Bret Boone instead. I also took Pettitte late in the draft, but changed the pick to Albert Pujols. Upon reflection, I felt that Pettitte was too much of a stand-up guy to take steroids. So much for that. As much as I'd love to see Pujols go down, I wish I had that Pettitte-Clemens duo as locks right now...
Starting Lineup:
C Javy Lopez
1B Albert Pujols
2B Bret Boone
3B Adrian Beltre
SS Rich Aurilia
OF Brady Anderson
OF Richard Hidalgo
OF Bobby Bonilla
Rotation:
Rick Helling
Freddy Garcia
Russ Ortiz
Jaret Wright
Wade Miller
Bullpen:
Eric Gagne
John Franco
Bench:
David Wells
Tom Gordon
Jason Isringhausen
Howard Johnson
Shawn Green
Mo Vaughn
Jeromy Burnitz
Chuck Knoblauch
Richie Sexson
(Hall of Fame round) Dave Winfield
Inexplicably, I passed on Roger Clemens with my first-round pick, going with Bret Boone instead. I also took Pettitte late in the draft, but changed the pick to Albert Pujols. Upon reflection, I felt that Pettitte was too much of a stand-up guy to take steroids. So much for that. As much as I'd love to see Pujols go down, I wish I had that Pettitte-Clemens duo as locks right now...
Starting Lineup:
C Javy Lopez
1B Albert Pujols
2B Bret Boone
3B Adrian Beltre
SS Rich Aurilia
OF Brady Anderson
OF Richard Hidalgo
OF Bobby Bonilla
Rotation:
Rick Helling
Freddy Garcia
Russ Ortiz
Jaret Wright
Wade Miller
Bullpen:
Eric Gagne
John Franco
Bench:
David Wells
Tom Gordon
Jason Isringhausen
Howard Johnson
Shawn Green
Mo Vaughn
Jeromy Burnitz
Chuck Knoblauch
Richie Sexson
(Hall of Fame round) Dave Winfield
Rawjah Clemenz
Months ago, inspired by a single, spectacular display of emotion, an internet identity was born. "Rawjah Clemenz" launched as an XBox Live gamer tag in Halo 3. Then it became a blogger name. Twenty years from now, will I be buying groceries and flying around some virtua-world under the Newton-inflected name of a disgraced Red Sox anti-hero? Will an artificial identity carry more weight than my real one?
None of that matters today, a veritable Christmas morning for baseball's gossip enthusiasts and the fine, shrill folks at ESPN. Roger Clemens has been fingered. I am shocked, shocked, and more than a little disappointed that I passed on him in my Mitchell Report fantasy draft last night. My roster is as follows:
Starting Lineup
C T. Hundley
1B A. Galarraga
2B M. Giles
SS M. Tejada
3B E. Alfonso
OF J. Gonzalez
OF L. Dykstra
OF D. Bichette
Bench
3B F. Tatis
IF J. Cirillo
OF R. Greer
OF B. Gilkey
OF G. Kapler
SP D. Gooden
SP O. Dotel (Mets' version)
SP P. Astacio
SP O. Hernandez
SP C. Pavano
LR C. Finley
MR J. Zimmerman
MR R. Myers
SU B. Koch
SU J. Wetteland
CP A. Benitez
None of that matters today, a veritable Christmas morning for baseball's gossip enthusiasts and the fine, shrill folks at ESPN. Roger Clemens has been fingered. I am shocked, shocked, and more than a little disappointed that I passed on him in my Mitchell Report fantasy draft last night. My roster is as follows:
Starting Lineup
C T. Hundley
1B A. Galarraga
2B M. Giles
SS M. Tejada
3B E. Alfonso
OF J. Gonzalez
OF L. Dykstra
OF D. Bichette
Bench
3B F. Tatis
IF J. Cirillo
OF R. Greer
OF B. Gilkey
OF G. Kapler
SP D. Gooden
SP O. Dotel (Mets' version)
SP P. Astacio
SP O. Hernandez
SP C. Pavano
LR C. Finley
MR J. Zimmerman
MR R. Myers
SU B. Koch
SU J. Wetteland
CP A. Benitez
"Championship-Caliber"
In this week's Sports Illustrated, there is a feature where they list what the GM of each major league team said when asked to describe his team in one word. Guess what The Big O said?
"Championship-caliber."
First off, I don't really think that's one word. I guess if you use championship-caliber as an adjective, that makes it one. But that's not really fair: Omar clearly cheated, here, in his haste to portray the Mets as a top-rate franchise.
Minaya was the only general manager that failed to meet the very basic requirements set up by the interviewer. Any word would have done, really. Cheese. Jelly. Frankenstein. Golden. Square. Not "championship-caliber."
(Second prize: Jim Bowden answered with "progress." Which doesn't really make sense, when you think about it as a one-word assessment of a club. Would you like to buy an infinitive, Jim? They're cheaper than Lo Ducas.)
Secondly, and arguably more important than our grammatical diversion: is Omar's assessment accurate? For reasons we've discussed earlier, the answer is no.
Clubs that can arrogantly answer "championship-caliber" when asked for a one-word assessment of themselves, thus by flouting the basic conventions of the simple task proving that they have to look down on no other club, that they are first-rate franchises that will answer to no one: Boston, Cleveland, Detroit, Los Angeles of Anaheim, possibly New York American... and no National League club. None. Zero of 16.
"Championship-caliber."
First off, I don't really think that's one word. I guess if you use championship-caliber as an adjective, that makes it one. But that's not really fair: Omar clearly cheated, here, in his haste to portray the Mets as a top-rate franchise.
Minaya was the only general manager that failed to meet the very basic requirements set up by the interviewer. Any word would have done, really. Cheese. Jelly. Frankenstein. Golden. Square. Not "championship-caliber."
(Second prize: Jim Bowden answered with "progress." Which doesn't really make sense, when you think about it as a one-word assessment of a club. Would you like to buy an infinitive, Jim? They're cheaper than Lo Ducas.)
Secondly, and arguably more important than our grammatical diversion: is Omar's assessment accurate? For reasons we've discussed earlier, the answer is no.
Clubs that can arrogantly answer "championship-caliber" when asked for a one-word assessment of themselves, thus by flouting the basic conventions of the simple task proving that they have to look down on no other club, that they are first-rate franchises that will answer to no one: Boston, Cleveland, Detroit, Los Angeles of Anaheim, possibly New York American... and no National League club. None. Zero of 16.
Insult to Injury, or: Mr. Walnuts Goes to Washington
Paul Lo Duca--a.k.a. Paulie Walnuts to discriminatory Mets fans--has signed with Washington of the National League, for a one year, five million dollar contract.
So, the bad blood between the Mets and the Nats has thickened. Just days after stealing a young, star-quality outfielder right out of Omar Minaya's "castle," Trader Jim Bowden turned around and replaced the overrated, aging catcher he sent to New York with another member of the 2007 Mets.
It's as if Bowden said to Minaya, "Look, that trade was awful for you guys, and I'm going to rub that in. I'm going to take your catcher from last year, just to emphasize how replaceable Schneider is--hell, Lo Duca is actually better than Schneider, and we foisted our offensive zero on you and got the better catcher in the deal, too, for just a cheap one-year commitment! You guys downgraded at two positions with one trade!"
Yeah. That's pretty much what Bowden said with this move. Look, I'll be the first guy to admit that Lo Duca isn't really any good, and I'm glad he won't be on the Mets next year. There's also the fact that he'll be 36 in April, which probably means he's done being a useful offensive player. But I say, Schneider never really got started, and Lo Duca has at least slugged over .340 the past two seasons, which Schneider can't say for himself. Lo Duca is flat-out a better hitter than Schneider, and I'll bet that fact plays out over the course of the 2008 season. Any Mets fan that thinks the team has gotten a substantial upgrade behind the plate is fooling him or herself.
As a Mets fan, I take this signing by Bowden to be a slap in the face. The man took our best young player for pennies on the dollar, and then signed away our catcher. It's a clear message to New York: we've got a new park, new players, a new image, and we're coming for you. This will all make for some very interesting games between the Mets and Nats next year--19 of them, according to the unbalanced schedule. Combined with the fact that the fighting Actas basically ripped the heart out of New York down the stretch last season, delivering several devastating blows that contributed to the second-worst collapse in baseball history, and you have the stirrings of a Grade A, nasty rivalry.
I love it.
So, the bad blood between the Mets and the Nats has thickened. Just days after stealing a young, star-quality outfielder right out of Omar Minaya's "castle," Trader Jim Bowden turned around and replaced the overrated, aging catcher he sent to New York with another member of the 2007 Mets.
It's as if Bowden said to Minaya, "Look, that trade was awful for you guys, and I'm going to rub that in. I'm going to take your catcher from last year, just to emphasize how replaceable Schneider is--hell, Lo Duca is actually better than Schneider, and we foisted our offensive zero on you and got the better catcher in the deal, too, for just a cheap one-year commitment! You guys downgraded at two positions with one trade!"
Yeah. That's pretty much what Bowden said with this move. Look, I'll be the first guy to admit that Lo Duca isn't really any good, and I'm glad he won't be on the Mets next year. There's also the fact that he'll be 36 in April, which probably means he's done being a useful offensive player. But I say, Schneider never really got started, and Lo Duca has at least slugged over .340 the past two seasons, which Schneider can't say for himself. Lo Duca is flat-out a better hitter than Schneider, and I'll bet that fact plays out over the course of the 2008 season. Any Mets fan that thinks the team has gotten a substantial upgrade behind the plate is fooling him or herself.
As a Mets fan, I take this signing by Bowden to be a slap in the face. The man took our best young player for pennies on the dollar, and then signed away our catcher. It's a clear message to New York: we've got a new park, new players, a new image, and we're coming for you. This will all make for some very interesting games between the Mets and Nats next year--19 of them, according to the unbalanced schedule. Combined with the fact that the fighting Actas basically ripped the heart out of New York down the stretch last season, delivering several devastating blows that contributed to the second-worst collapse in baseball history, and you have the stirrings of a Grade A, nasty rivalry.
I love it.
Monday, December 10, 2007
"Good teams with flaws"
In a recent article for Fox Sports on MSN, Dayn Perry describes the NL East top three (Mets, Phillies, Braves) as “Good teams with flaws.” He demonstrates his points by examining each team. With regards to the Mets, Perry states, “[they] have a tremendous core, but they need certainty in the rotation.” Perry then compares the flaws of the Mets to those of the Phillies. He explains, “The Phillies also have exceptional top-end talent, but the rotation lacks depth, the bullpen is dubious, third base remains a black hole and the outfield is suddenly stretched thin.” That leaves
Sunday, December 9, 2007
Buy Government Bonds
Barry "Government" Bonds says he still wants to play next season. And who can blame him? If I had hit .276/.480/.565 last year as a 42-year-old, I'd trot out for another go-round as well. The problem, of course, is no one knows whether his legal trouble will prevent him from playing. Teams right now are expressing no interest in touching the most toxic public relations property in all of sports, and it's a good bet that Bonds' career is over. But why doesn't some team take a shot, and give Bonds a non-roster invite to spring training, or a very small guaranteed contract heaped with incentives, or something to that extent--a deal that would carry virtually no risk (from a playing standpoint) and hold the possibility of being the greatest bargain in the history of free agency? Of course, the public backlash would be enormous, a never-before-seen wailing and gnashing of teeth from the forth estate, as well as the baseball establishment itself--Joe Sheehan of Baseball Prospectus has surmised that if a team was brave enough to approach the human lightning rod about playing next season, it would likely get a dressing down from Mr. Selig and Co.
If a team can ride out the national storm, however--or just simply tell everyone else to shove it--signing Bonds is obviously a move that makes every bit of sense from a pure performance perspective. Sheehan also speculated that the A's are probably the one team willing to give him a shot. Can you imagine a lineup that featured both Bonds and Jack Cust? Bonds is the undisputed first citizen of The Three Run Homer philosophy of patience and power, and Cust is a personal favorite, as he mashed in the minors for many years before anybody gave him a real honest shot (that came last year, when he put up a .912 OPS). That batting order combination would be enough to make my brain explode in sabermetric glee.
Bonds, with his balky knees and immobility in the field, is obviously a better fit for an American League team like the A's that can DH him. But what about a dark horse candidate, such as the Nationals? Jim Bowden is the kind of GM who takes risks, as can be seen by his acquisitions of both Lastings Milledge and Elijah Dukes within the space of a week. Here's a wild scenario--the Nationals trade right fielder Austin Kearns for a starting pitcher, then sign Bonds to play left field and mentor the young African American troubled outfielders the Nationals just traded for. Bonds could play 100 or so games in left, letting Milledge, Dukes, and Wily Mo Pena alternately fill in when Bonds is sitting. That would be perhaps the most remarkable, dynamic, controversial four-outfielder rotation in the history of baseball.
If Bonds manages to avoid having his legal troubles eat into his ability to play major league baseball, then such a move by Bowden would instantly make the Nationals the biggest story in the game heading into 2008. It would put a tremendous charge into the city and guarantee huge draws every night at the new park on the banks of the Anacostia River. It would also potentially galvanize D.C.'s large African American population, supporting a demographic that is sadly fading away from the National Pastime.
Chew on that crazy scenario, and while you're digesting, vote in the poll to the right.
If a team can ride out the national storm, however--or just simply tell everyone else to shove it--signing Bonds is obviously a move that makes every bit of sense from a pure performance perspective. Sheehan also speculated that the A's are probably the one team willing to give him a shot. Can you imagine a lineup that featured both Bonds and Jack Cust? Bonds is the undisputed first citizen of The Three Run Homer philosophy of patience and power, and Cust is a personal favorite, as he mashed in the minors for many years before anybody gave him a real honest shot (that came last year, when he put up a .912 OPS). That batting order combination would be enough to make my brain explode in sabermetric glee.
Bonds, with his balky knees and immobility in the field, is obviously a better fit for an American League team like the A's that can DH him. But what about a dark horse candidate, such as the Nationals? Jim Bowden is the kind of GM who takes risks, as can be seen by his acquisitions of both Lastings Milledge and Elijah Dukes within the space of a week. Here's a wild scenario--the Nationals trade right fielder Austin Kearns for a starting pitcher, then sign Bonds to play left field and mentor the young African American troubled outfielders the Nationals just traded for. Bonds could play 100 or so games in left, letting Milledge, Dukes, and Wily Mo Pena alternately fill in when Bonds is sitting. That would be perhaps the most remarkable, dynamic, controversial four-outfielder rotation in the history of baseball.
If Bonds manages to avoid having his legal troubles eat into his ability to play major league baseball, then such a move by Bowden would instantly make the Nationals the biggest story in the game heading into 2008. It would put a tremendous charge into the city and guarantee huge draws every night at the new park on the banks of the Anacostia River. It would also potentially galvanize D.C.'s large African American population, supporting a demographic that is sadly fading away from the National Pastime.
Chew on that crazy scenario, and while you're digesting, vote in the poll to the right.
Friday, December 7, 2007
Panic Time
The esteemed Dykstra04 did an excellent job of presenting the glass-half-full scenario in regards to your 2008 New York Mets. I don't see it that way. In fact, it's my job to present the dreaded glass half empty. In fact, as I see it, there really isn't a whole lot of liquid there at all.
Mainly, I'm concerned about the general age of the team. The Mets, you see, are old. Last year their batters had an aggregate age of 30.8, the third oldest in the National League. The two older teams were the Astros, who are probably the worst organization in baseball right now top-to-bottom, with absolutely zero talent in the minors, and the Giants, whose age has been a running joke for the entirety of Brian Sabean's tenure as GM. Every NL East team was over a year younger on the offensive side of the ledger than the Mets. And the pitching doesn't look any rosier--Mets hurlers were second-oldest in the NL, younger than only San Diego.
Old players, of course, keep getting worse, and they break down and get hurt. The Mets, thanks to the laws of physics, or something like that, will be a year older next season. And they haven't done anything to address their alarming lack of youth. Instead, they've perpetuated it. To wit:
--Re-signing their 31-year-old, light-hitting, physically-deteriorating second-baseman to a FOUR YEAR contract. Luis Castillo's knees are basically shot after a year-and-a-half of playing on the artificial turf at Minnesota, and his base-stealing abilities, once prolific, are now in decline. He did a nice job with the Mets, putting up a .371 OBP after they traded for him, but the team would be extremely lucky if he replicated that figure next season, let alone over the next four years.
--Re-signed soon-to-be 41-year-old Moises Alou to a one-year extension. This was a good move, because Alou knocks the cover off the ball whenever he can hobble to the plate. Still, you can pencil him in for only about 80 games next year, and who do the Mets turn to when he goes down? I love Endy Chavez as much as the next guy, and his heroics in Game Seven two years ago will never be forgotten, but when he's playing everyday in a corner, your team has problems. What about Carlos Gomez, you say? Love the guy's potential, but I seriously doubt he's ready to provide serious production next year.
--Traded perhaps the team's best young talent, 22-year-old Lastings Milledge, for a 30-year-old catcher who can't hit and a 28-year-old outfielder. (This trade was discussed in an earlier post.) Ryan Church hasn't been the healthiest of players, and again, what do you do if he breaks down? There's a good chance that at some point next season both Alou and Church will be on the bench because of various ailments, and if you're a Mets fan, are you really comfortable with Endy Chavez and Carlos Gomez patrolling the corners?
So the Mets significant moves so far have made the team older and more injury-prone. And we haven't even gotten to the situation with Carlos Delgado. He'll be 36 next year, and players with his profile--big, slow, not agile, horrific defenders--have a history of aging extremely poorly. The kind of abilities that Delgado exhibits are in fact, in sabermetric circles, known as "old player skills." Here's a concerning statistic: from 2005, when he had a fantastic season with the Marlins, to 2006, when he put up solid-but-not-great numbers at Shea, a ballpark easier to hit in than Miami's Pro Player, Delgado's OPS+ fell from 161 to 131, a 30 point drop. From 2006 to 2007, his OPS+ fell down to 103, a 28 point drop. (Thanks to Baseball Reference for the numbers.) Delgado is entering the final year of his contract, which should provide him with motivation to put up good counting stats in order to hit one more payday--the effect of the walk year has been found, sadly, to be very real--that motivation will not be enough to counteract the grim fact that the future Hall of Famer is solidly in his decline phase. While he might have a slightly better year in 2008 than in 2007, I also wouldn't be surprised to see him go the other direction.
And now, the pitching staff. Ah, yes... The word here, I believe, is "paper thin." Well, that's two words, but you understand my point. Yes, Pedro Martinez, Oliver Perez, John Maine, and Orlando Hernandez are a very solid one-through-four in the National League (which has become a secondary satellite to the gaseous giant that is the AL), but what is there beyond that? Two pitchers in Mike Pelfrey and Philip Humber who have failed miserably to live up to outsized expectations? As a Mets fan, I'm not expecting much from that pair. And beyond them, there is virtually nothing in-house. The Mets system is barren, very barren, but at least on the offensive ledger you can look forward to players like Fernando Martinez, who could be an impact bat, and "Faster than Reyes" Gomez, among others. In terms of arms, the New York NL franchise is about as far as you can get from its American League counterpart, which boasts perhaps the best collection of young arms in the game. When Pedro gets hurt, and when El Duque joins him on the shelf--both events are virtually guaranteed to happen--who, I ask into the great void of this blog, who will step into those spots in the rotation? I hear only an echo.
A dismal picture, I know, but its time to wake up to the reality if you're a Mets fan: this team, as currently constituted, will need several gigantic heapings of luck to come close to re-capturing the NL East next year. Omar, the grace period from the 2006 run is most definitely over.
Mainly, I'm concerned about the general age of the team. The Mets, you see, are old. Last year their batters had an aggregate age of 30.8, the third oldest in the National League. The two older teams were the Astros, who are probably the worst organization in baseball right now top-to-bottom, with absolutely zero talent in the minors, and the Giants, whose age has been a running joke for the entirety of Brian Sabean's tenure as GM. Every NL East team was over a year younger on the offensive side of the ledger than the Mets. And the pitching doesn't look any rosier--Mets hurlers were second-oldest in the NL, younger than only San Diego.
Old players, of course, keep getting worse, and they break down and get hurt. The Mets, thanks to the laws of physics, or something like that, will be a year older next season. And they haven't done anything to address their alarming lack of youth. Instead, they've perpetuated it. To wit:
--Re-signing their 31-year-old, light-hitting, physically-deteriorating second-baseman to a FOUR YEAR contract. Luis Castillo's knees are basically shot after a year-and-a-half of playing on the artificial turf at Minnesota, and his base-stealing abilities, once prolific, are now in decline. He did a nice job with the Mets, putting up a .371 OBP after they traded for him, but the team would be extremely lucky if he replicated that figure next season, let alone over the next four years.
--Re-signed soon-to-be 41-year-old Moises Alou to a one-year extension. This was a good move, because Alou knocks the cover off the ball whenever he can hobble to the plate. Still, you can pencil him in for only about 80 games next year, and who do the Mets turn to when he goes down? I love Endy Chavez as much as the next guy, and his heroics in Game Seven two years ago will never be forgotten, but when he's playing everyday in a corner, your team has problems. What about Carlos Gomez, you say? Love the guy's potential, but I seriously doubt he's ready to provide serious production next year.
--Traded perhaps the team's best young talent, 22-year-old Lastings Milledge, for a 30-year-old catcher who can't hit and a 28-year-old outfielder. (This trade was discussed in an earlier post.) Ryan Church hasn't been the healthiest of players, and again, what do you do if he breaks down? There's a good chance that at some point next season both Alou and Church will be on the bench because of various ailments, and if you're a Mets fan, are you really comfortable with Endy Chavez and Carlos Gomez patrolling the corners?
So the Mets significant moves so far have made the team older and more injury-prone. And we haven't even gotten to the situation with Carlos Delgado. He'll be 36 next year, and players with his profile--big, slow, not agile, horrific defenders--have a history of aging extremely poorly. The kind of abilities that Delgado exhibits are in fact, in sabermetric circles, known as "old player skills." Here's a concerning statistic: from 2005, when he had a fantastic season with the Marlins, to 2006, when he put up solid-but-not-great numbers at Shea, a ballpark easier to hit in than Miami's Pro Player, Delgado's OPS+ fell from 161 to 131, a 30 point drop. From 2006 to 2007, his OPS+ fell down to 103, a 28 point drop. (Thanks to Baseball Reference for the numbers.) Delgado is entering the final year of his contract, which should provide him with motivation to put up good counting stats in order to hit one more payday--the effect of the walk year has been found, sadly, to be very real--that motivation will not be enough to counteract the grim fact that the future Hall of Famer is solidly in his decline phase. While he might have a slightly better year in 2008 than in 2007, I also wouldn't be surprised to see him go the other direction.
And now, the pitching staff. Ah, yes... The word here, I believe, is "paper thin." Well, that's two words, but you understand my point. Yes, Pedro Martinez, Oliver Perez, John Maine, and Orlando Hernandez are a very solid one-through-four in the National League (which has become a secondary satellite to the gaseous giant that is the AL), but what is there beyond that? Two pitchers in Mike Pelfrey and Philip Humber who have failed miserably to live up to outsized expectations? As a Mets fan, I'm not expecting much from that pair. And beyond them, there is virtually nothing in-house. The Mets system is barren, very barren, but at least on the offensive ledger you can look forward to players like Fernando Martinez, who could be an impact bat, and "Faster than Reyes" Gomez, among others. In terms of arms, the New York NL franchise is about as far as you can get from its American League counterpart, which boasts perhaps the best collection of young arms in the game. When Pedro gets hurt, and when El Duque joins him on the shelf--both events are virtually guaranteed to happen--who, I ask into the great void of this blog, who will step into those spots in the rotation? I hear only an echo.
A dismal picture, I know, but its time to wake up to the reality if you're a Mets fan: this team, as currently constituted, will need several gigantic heapings of luck to come close to re-capturing the NL East next year. Omar, the grace period from the 2006 run is most definitely over.
Thursday, December 6, 2007
Don't Panic
While I completely agree that the Winter Meetings were a disappointment for the Mets, I do not feel the Mets need to panic. Would I like an a front line starter added to the Mets rotation? Yes. Would I panic and trade Jose Reyes? No. Let's not forget that this team won 98 games in 2006. This team also held first place for nearly all of 2007. With that in mind, let's look at the team as it stands today.
The current lineup projects as follows:
1) Reyes
2) Castillo
3) Wright
4) Beltran
5) Delgado
6) Alou
7) Church
8) Schneider/Castro
The current rotation projects as follows:
1) Martinez
2) Perez
3) Maine
4) Hernandez
5) Pelfrey / Humber / Heilman
The current bullpen shapes up with players from the following group:
1) Wagner
2) Sanchez
3) Feliciano
4) Schoenweis
5) Sosa
6) Smith
7) Padilla
8) Burgos
The bench shapes up with players from the following group:
The current lineup projects as follows:
1) Reyes
2) Castillo
3) Wright
4) Beltran
5) Delgado
6) Alou
7) Church
8) Schneider/Castro
The current rotation projects as follows:
1) Martinez
2) Perez
3) Maine
4) Hernandez
5) Pelfrey / Humber / Heilman
The current bullpen shapes up with players from the following group:
1) Wagner
2) Sanchez
3) Feliciano
4) Schoenweis
5) Sosa
6) Smith
7) Padilla
1) Chavez
2) Gomez
4) Gotay
5) Easley
6) Castro/Schneider/Estrada
By looking at the team as a whole, there is reason for optimism. The lineup is solid. It has great depth. The lineup has speed and power. Reyes is a spark at the top of the order, and I expect him to have a solid year in 2008. Castillo was a good 2nd baseman in 2007 for the Mets, providing solid defense and an adequate bat. He had surgery in the fall, and we can hope he is healthy in 2008. Wright is a star, and has posted great numbers in all of his years in the majors. Expect more of the same in 2008. Beltran had great years in 2006 and 2007. If the lineup around him is strong, and he can stay healthy, it is reasonable to expect another big year from Beltran. Delgado slumped miserably in 2007, but still put up 24 homers and 87 rbi's. Before worrying too much about his bat speed, remember he had a tremendous year in 2006 and had a solid spring in 2007. It is not unreasonable to expect a bounce back year from Carlos. In left field the Mets would be crazy to expect a full season from Alou. Alou will likely put up great numbers when healthy, especially in this lineup. But the fact is that Alou is a 41 year old man with a long history of injury plagued seasons. Fortunately, the Mets have plenty of backups for his position. The only real question mark in the lineup remains in right. Currently, it looks like Church will get the nod provided he has a decent spring. Church is attractive because he plays good defense, and is pretty solid at the plate (in 2006 he led the Nationals with 43 doubles). There is a nice blend of youth and experience. To make matters even better, this solid lineup is backed up by a capable bench. With Anderson, Gotay, Chavez, Gomez, Easley, and Castro/Schneider/Estrada the Mets will have plenty of options from the bench. They will have speed, power, and defense available to the bring in the game.
The next part of the roster to analyze is the rotation. In my opinion, the rotation is not as bad as it may seem. Martinez is back and healthy. He finished 2007 great, and will be a nice bonus to the team this season if he can stay healthy. Maine had a fabulous season in 2007, although he clearly suffered from fatigue at the end of the year. Having now pitched a full season in the majors, he should be better suited to survive in September and October of 2008. Perez regained his ace-like stuff in 2007, and the Mets have no reason to suspect he will fall out of sync in 2008. The 4th and 5th spots of the rotation are definitely a concern for the Mets. Hernandez was brillant when health in 2007, just as he had been in 2006. The problem, however, is that Hernandez cannot be trusted for 30-35 starts and 200+ innings. It is more likely that the Mets can get about 20-25 starts and 150 innings. The 5th spot, as it stands now, would likely be given to the hot hand in spring training. Still, the Mets have potential for that spot in Pelfrey, Humber, and Heilman. Let's not forget that going into 2007 Mike Pelfrey was being selected by ESPN analysts to follow the path of Verlander. It is also worth noting that Heilman can be tested as a potential starter during Spring Training. While I personally do not think he has the "stuff" necessary to be a big league pitcher (he only throws 2 pitches), he and many other teams seem to think he is competent.
The bullpen is an interesting dilemma. While the Mets have seemingly capable arms in the pen, I am not super comfortable with the options. We know Wagner is set at closer. If Heilman stays in the pen, we can be fairly certain of what he will give us (usually about 85 innings with a 3.5 era). Sanchez is an unknown. He was awesome when health in 2006. However, he is coming off a long stint on the DL. How much we expect from him this year? The same likely goes for Padilla, who is also coming off a long stint on the DL. Shoeneweis is a so-so reliever, and 2007 was no exception. He pitched to his career averages (50-60 innings, 5 era). I would not expect a great improvement in 2008. The same likely goes for Sosa. Feliciano pitched well in 2006 and 2007. His numbers, however, fail to show just how poorly he pitched down the stretch in 2007. Still, I think it is reasonable to expect solid numbers from him in 2008 (mid 2 low 3 era, around 60 innings). Joe Smith, frankly, is a mystery. He pitched great, then fell apart, then got injured, and never seemed to really recover. It will be interesting to see how he recovers in 2008.
In addition to a solid roster, the Mets also boast a top tier prospect in Martinez. The team has great revenue from SNY. A new stadium is on the horizon. Not all is doom and gloom in Flushing this winter. Clearly, the Mets like so many teams could benefit from more pitching. They could use another front-line starter to replace the loss of Glavine and to take the pressure off the aging Pedro. They could certainly use more help in the bullpen. Still, I do not believe the Mets should risk the future of the team by making an outrageous trade. Remember, trading for the sake of trading is usually not a smart move.
Winter Meetings
Well the winter meetings are about to come to a close....and the Mets are walking away with two pitchers. No...not Santanna and Willis, but Steven Register and Garry Bakker, both acquired in the Rule V draft today. Watch out Atlanta, third place here we come. I guess we have become so accustomed to chasing the Braves over the past decade, it doesn't matter if they are ahead of us or behind us. Each year it seems as if there is so much promise going into the winter meetings. The mets are somehow linked to every major player, message boards fill up with trade proposals, projected lineups, etc., and fans become overly optimistic for the next season. These meetings were no different, and most of these rumors came from a self-promoting Yankee field reporter, Sweeny Murti. A man no one outside of new york knows of, decided this year would be the year people would know the name SWEENY. He decided to spread false rumors, with the hopes that he would get some recognition. The first, was the fact that the buzz around the winter meetings was the the Mets and Orioles were "close" on Bedard. He was the first to report this, so he was cited on Metsblog.com and rotoworld. He had the exposure he wanted, and it didn't matter that there was no factual basis behind this rumor. The Mets and O's were never close on Bedard. He then decided to take this a step further later on, and discuss the fact that the Tigers were talking to the Mets about trading us Pudge/Willis. Once again this gave him more exposure, teased Mets fans, and ultimately was false. The Tigers had spoken with the Mets before the deal was announced, in an attempt to make a trade with the Mets immediately following the Marlins trade. Now it seems impossible as the Tigers fans are excited to have Dontrelle on their team, and there may be a backlash if he were to be traded to the Mets in a "money saving" move. So the rampid speculation that followed his report was for naught, as the talks had stopped once the deal became public. So thanks for the help Sweeny Murti...
The inactivity at the meetings has been the case for the past two seasons, and both meetings have ended the same. With Omar, giving some bullshit speech, about flexibility, controlling young players, and the fact that we don't need to make any changes and are a better team now then the previous year at this time. The off season isn't over yet, and hopefully Omar can pull a rabbit out of his hat(NOT LIVAN OR COLON) and everything will be better. But so far this off season is looking far too similar to last years off season in which he built a team that managed to become infamous, in sustaining one of the worst collapses in baseball history. We have signed an injury-plagued 41 year old Left-Fielder, resigned the incumbent second basemen to a questionable contract, and traded away solid young talent(Bell, Ring, Owens, Lidstrom, (last year)
What's next? Losing a first round pick, to give Livan a 3 year contract? If that's the case, Shea will definitely be a circus next year. We can show up to watch the Great Cuban Defectors. Instead of trying to guess which Mets cap the baseball is hidden under, we can play games such as: Guess the combined age of El Duque and Livan? How much does Livan weigh? and a fan favorite: How far did the last bomb Livan gave up travel....things are looking promising right now.
The inactivity at the meetings has been the case for the past two seasons, and both meetings have ended the same. With Omar, giving some bullshit speech, about flexibility, controlling young players, and the fact that we don't need to make any changes and are a better team now then the previous year at this time. The off season isn't over yet, and hopefully Omar can pull a rabbit out of his hat(NOT LIVAN OR COLON) and everything will be better. But so far this off season is looking far too similar to last years off season in which he built a team that managed to become infamous, in sustaining one of the worst collapses in baseball history. We have signed an injury-plagued 41 year old Left-Fielder, resigned the incumbent second basemen to a questionable contract, and traded away solid young talent(Bell, Ring, Owens, Lidstrom, (last year)
What's next? Losing a first round pick, to give Livan a 3 year contract? If that's the case, Shea will definitely be a circus next year. We can show up to watch the Great Cuban Defectors. Instead of trying to guess which Mets cap the baseball is hidden under, we can play games such as: Guess the combined age of El Duque and Livan? How much does Livan weigh? and a fan favorite: How far did the last bomb Livan gave up travel....things are looking promising right now.
Wednesday, December 5, 2007
Bowden's Brashness
Jim Bowden has long been a general manager who has drawn the scorn of the sabermetric community for his inability to grasp the fundamental tenets of statistical baseball truth. His list of laughable signings and trades could fill up more than one blog post, and he's been a favorite whipping boy of Baseball Prospectus in years past. Lately, however, you have to admire what Bowden is doing to reconstruct baseball in D.C.
The Nationals farm system is so thin on talent, having been strip-mined in its last days in Montreal as a property of Major League Baseball, that the proper strategy to pursue in talent acquisition for the club is an aggressive pursuit of high-upside risks. This fits in well to the tendencies of Bowden, who absolutely loves trading for toolsy outfielders. He's gotten three in the last four months, but unlike past players Bowden has fawned over, all three can actually play.
The Nationals got 25-year-old monster Wily Mo Pena from the Red Sox for minor leaguer Chris Carter on August 17. Bowden was able to pry Pena away after his value had dropped precipitously, the result of being the odd man out in Boston's outfield rotation, after which he was left on the bench to rot. Pena is a three true outcomes machine, with strikeouts, walks, and homers galore. Pena has a long swing, leading to tons of strikeouts and tremendous power. That power played well when he moved into a starting role for Washington over the final month, as he mashed eight homers and put up a line of .293/.352/.504 in 133 at bats.
The Lastings Milledge trade was discussed in the post below, but the short summary is that Bowden managed to transform an aging, offensively inept catcher and a journeyman outfielder into a dynamic young talent. Bowden got another one when he traded with the Rays for Elijah Dukes this week. Dukes is an enormous--6'2, 225 lbs.--young outfielder, with a profile similar to that of Milledge. In fact, the seventh-best comparable for Milledge, according to his PECOTA profile, is Dukes. Milledge and Dukes are similar in more than just on-field profile, as both have had attitude issues. Dukes's problems have been far more serious than those of Milledge, including a domestic abuse incident that directly led to the Rays cutting ties and trading him for a minor leaguer. One can only hope that Dukes is able to put those problems behind him in moving to a new locale.
One other similarity between Dukes and Milledge is that both are black. As Christina Kahrl mentioned at Baseball Prospectus, this is notable because D.C. is a predominantly black city. The Nationals are moving into their new park next year on the banks of the Anacostia River. With two young, talented black athletes ready to roam the outfield in the new park, the Nationals have put themselves in a position to tap into a new attendance base--that of urban D.C. This must have at least played a part in Bowden's decision making in acquiring Milledge and Dukes, and it is an interesting and worthy experiment in the attempt to build a following for the new Nationals.
The Nationals farm system is so thin on talent, having been strip-mined in its last days in Montreal as a property of Major League Baseball, that the proper strategy to pursue in talent acquisition for the club is an aggressive pursuit of high-upside risks. This fits in well to the tendencies of Bowden, who absolutely loves trading for toolsy outfielders. He's gotten three in the last four months, but unlike past players Bowden has fawned over, all three can actually play.
The Nationals got 25-year-old monster Wily Mo Pena from the Red Sox for minor leaguer Chris Carter on August 17. Bowden was able to pry Pena away after his value had dropped precipitously, the result of being the odd man out in Boston's outfield rotation, after which he was left on the bench to rot. Pena is a three true outcomes machine, with strikeouts, walks, and homers galore. Pena has a long swing, leading to tons of strikeouts and tremendous power. That power played well when he moved into a starting role for Washington over the final month, as he mashed eight homers and put up a line of .293/.352/.504 in 133 at bats.
The Lastings Milledge trade was discussed in the post below, but the short summary is that Bowden managed to transform an aging, offensively inept catcher and a journeyman outfielder into a dynamic young talent. Bowden got another one when he traded with the Rays for Elijah Dukes this week. Dukes is an enormous--6'2, 225 lbs.--young outfielder, with a profile similar to that of Milledge. In fact, the seventh-best comparable for Milledge, according to his PECOTA profile, is Dukes. Milledge and Dukes are similar in more than just on-field profile, as both have had attitude issues. Dukes's problems have been far more serious than those of Milledge, including a domestic abuse incident that directly led to the Rays cutting ties and trading him for a minor leaguer. One can only hope that Dukes is able to put those problems behind him in moving to a new locale.
One other similarity between Dukes and Milledge is that both are black. As Christina Kahrl mentioned at Baseball Prospectus, this is notable because D.C. is a predominantly black city. The Nationals are moving into their new park next year on the banks of the Anacostia River. With two young, talented black athletes ready to roam the outfield in the new park, the Nationals have put themselves in a position to tap into a new attendance base--that of urban D.C. This must have at least played a part in Bowden's decision making in acquiring Milledge and Dukes, and it is an interesting and worthy experiment in the attempt to build a following for the new Nationals.
Hamlet's Milledge
Last week, the Mets traded outfielder Lastings Milledge to the Nationals for outfielder Ryan Church and catcher Brian Schneider. Simply put, this is a terrible trade for the Mets. Omar Minaya panicked, and shipped away perhaps the best young asset to be produced by the New York farm system of late, a farm which has quickly grown fallow.
Let's examine the players in the deal. Easiest to analyze is Schneider, because offensively, he is a sure thing: he can't hit. Schneider put up a line of .235/.326/.336 (AVG/OBP/SLG) last year in 408 at bats, and .256/.320/.329 the year before in 410. He was just marginally better than replacement level last year, with a 2.3 VORP. Yes, Schneider's home park was one of the worst for offense in the majors, RFK stadium, but Shea Stadium is not much easier. And far more important than the park effects of Schneider's move is the fact that he'll be 31 next year. Moving to the wrong side of 30 is a dangerous proposition for any hitter, but especially for a catcher--the wear and tear associated with the tools of ignorance normally adds several years to the playing years of backstops, who are often prone to steep drops of the offensive cliff once they reach their thirties.
No one's talking about Schneider's offense, but it's important to emphasize how bad it is, because no amount of defense can make up for the value taken away by his bat. The argument from most about Schneider revolves around the fact that he is superior defensively, and that and his capacity to handle the pitching staff makes him a game-changing force. While Washington's undermanned staff did overperform in 2007, there's simply no evidence to say that Schneider had anything to do with that, or even that catchers are able to impact games with their game-calling ability. As far as his defense goes, there's also reason to believe he's slipping. Whereas the defensive metrics developed by Baseball Prospectus's Clay Davenport indicate that he was indeed an elite defensive backstop from 2003-2005, over the last two years combined he has saved only five runs more than the average catcher. Those five runs are worth about a half win--certainly not nearly enough to overcome his offensive ineptitude. Schneider should be a backup for Ramon Castro on the 2008 Mets, but given Castro's chronic inability to stay healthy, it's clear that he'll be pressed into more time than will be conducive to the Mets' chances at capturing the NL East.
Church is a much more useful offensive player. He has career averages of .271/.348/.462 in about 1000 at bats, almost identical to his line from last year in 470 at bats. Church is also a solid outfielder, and still several years from free agency, which makes him a valuable commodity. However, he isn't young--he'll be 29 next season--and he's had trouble staying healthy throughout his short career.
Furthermore, Milledge will be just 23 next year, and he's basically already the player that Church is, putting up a line of .272/.341/.446 last year in 184 major league at bats. Those numbers were a great improvement upon his rookie year of 2006, when he hit .241/.310/.380. Milledge is a tremendous athlete with a great deal of upside--his PECOTA-forecast top-20 comparables list includes Grady Sizemore, Carlos Beltran, Gary Sheffield, Vernon Wells, and Andruw Jones. Church is not getting any better--his VORP is projected by PECOTA to decline each year going forward--whereas Milledge is on the upswing, with the chance to be an impact outfielder for years during his prime.
Of course, the issue with Milledge is his supposed attitude problem--the prevailing opinion in the Mets clubhouse and front office was that the youngster is too arrogant. This was evidenced by Milledge high-fiving fans after hitting his first major league home run two years ago, and several other occasions in his brief time in the bigs when opposing teams have taken exception to his celebratory actions. But really, who cares if Milledge is arrogant? It has absolutely no relation to his value as a baseball player. The connection between team chemistry and winning is one that has been fabricated by the press. Short of legal issues relating to Milledge's behavior, the only factors that should have influenced Omar Minaya's decision to trade the young outfielder are performance-related. Sadly for Mets fans, however, this appears to not have been the case.
Minaya traded Milledge at a point when his value was extremely low. If the team was set on trading him, why not wait until the middle of next season, and hope that his play raised the interest back up to the point where the Mets could get equal value. Instead, Minaya traded him for a non-hitting catcher--with the team already having two capable backstops in Castro and Johnny Estrada--and an older, injury-prone version of Milledge without any of the upside.
So far, it's shaping up to be a long winter for Mets fans.
Let's examine the players in the deal. Easiest to analyze is Schneider, because offensively, he is a sure thing: he can't hit. Schneider put up a line of .235/.326/.336 (AVG/OBP/SLG) last year in 408 at bats, and .256/.320/.329 the year before in 410. He was just marginally better than replacement level last year, with a 2.3 VORP. Yes, Schneider's home park was one of the worst for offense in the majors, RFK stadium, but Shea Stadium is not much easier. And far more important than the park effects of Schneider's move is the fact that he'll be 31 next year. Moving to the wrong side of 30 is a dangerous proposition for any hitter, but especially for a catcher--the wear and tear associated with the tools of ignorance normally adds several years to the playing years of backstops, who are often prone to steep drops of the offensive cliff once they reach their thirties.
No one's talking about Schneider's offense, but it's important to emphasize how bad it is, because no amount of defense can make up for the value taken away by his bat. The argument from most about Schneider revolves around the fact that he is superior defensively, and that and his capacity to handle the pitching staff makes him a game-changing force. While Washington's undermanned staff did overperform in 2007, there's simply no evidence to say that Schneider had anything to do with that, or even that catchers are able to impact games with their game-calling ability. As far as his defense goes, there's also reason to believe he's slipping. Whereas the defensive metrics developed by Baseball Prospectus's Clay Davenport indicate that he was indeed an elite defensive backstop from 2003-2005, over the last two years combined he has saved only five runs more than the average catcher. Those five runs are worth about a half win--certainly not nearly enough to overcome his offensive ineptitude. Schneider should be a backup for Ramon Castro on the 2008 Mets, but given Castro's chronic inability to stay healthy, it's clear that he'll be pressed into more time than will be conducive to the Mets' chances at capturing the NL East.
Church is a much more useful offensive player. He has career averages of .271/.348/.462 in about 1000 at bats, almost identical to his line from last year in 470 at bats. Church is also a solid outfielder, and still several years from free agency, which makes him a valuable commodity. However, he isn't young--he'll be 29 next season--and he's had trouble staying healthy throughout his short career.
Furthermore, Milledge will be just 23 next year, and he's basically already the player that Church is, putting up a line of .272/.341/.446 last year in 184 major league at bats. Those numbers were a great improvement upon his rookie year of 2006, when he hit .241/.310/.380. Milledge is a tremendous athlete with a great deal of upside--his PECOTA-forecast top-20 comparables list includes Grady Sizemore, Carlos Beltran, Gary Sheffield, Vernon Wells, and Andruw Jones. Church is not getting any better--his VORP is projected by PECOTA to decline each year going forward--whereas Milledge is on the upswing, with the chance to be an impact outfielder for years during his prime.
Of course, the issue with Milledge is his supposed attitude problem--the prevailing opinion in the Mets clubhouse and front office was that the youngster is too arrogant. This was evidenced by Milledge high-fiving fans after hitting his first major league home run two years ago, and several other occasions in his brief time in the bigs when opposing teams have taken exception to his celebratory actions. But really, who cares if Milledge is arrogant? It has absolutely no relation to his value as a baseball player. The connection between team chemistry and winning is one that has been fabricated by the press. Short of legal issues relating to Milledge's behavior, the only factors that should have influenced Omar Minaya's decision to trade the young outfielder are performance-related. Sadly for Mets fans, however, this appears to not have been the case.
Minaya traded Milledge at a point when his value was extremely low. If the team was set on trading him, why not wait until the middle of next season, and hope that his play raised the interest back up to the point where the Mets could get equal value. Instead, Minaya traded him for a non-hitting catcher--with the team already having two capable backstops in Castro and Johnny Estrada--and an older, injury-prone version of Milledge without any of the upside.
So far, it's shaping up to be a long winter for Mets fans.
Defense, Pitching, and the Three Run Homer
Legendary Orioles manager Earl Weaver was ahead of his time. Instead of playing "smallball" like many of his contemporaries, Weaver based his teams around pitching, defense, and the three run homer. He knew the truth about offense long before the sabermetric revolution revealed it to all: if you want to score a lot of runs, you need to do two things--get on base, and hit for power. That's pretty much it.
This is a blog devoted to the analysis of baseball framed by that philosophy. Since we're all New York Mets fans, the analysis will trend in that direction. We also might post on other sports when the inspiration strikes, but through the same statistical lens.
This is a blog devoted to the analysis of baseball framed by that philosophy. Since we're all New York Mets fans, the analysis will trend in that direction. We also might post on other sports when the inspiration strikes, but through the same statistical lens.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
