Upon Further Review, Dan Graziano Should Review Further

Don’t like the Manny Ramirez trade? Fine. I’ve come to terms, myself, but I’m sure you have your reasons. And I’ll respect them. The only thing that I ask is that they be better than Dan Graziano’s. Seriously. His reaction to his reaction to the Manny Ramirez trade leaves much, in my opinion, to be desired. With a thousand apologies to the experts over at FJM, a quick reaction to his reaction to his reaction.

Upon further review…the Manny Ramirez trade still stinks


I didn’t expect to be so dramatically in the minority on this. I wrote this column in this morning’s Star-Ledger, and while I never expect everybody to agree with me, I kind of thought a few people would.

But the e-mails this morning, and even most of the other columns on this topic, are so dramatically opposed to my central point (that the Red Sox blew the 2008 season by trading Manny Ramirez) that I felt compelled to re-think it.

Here’s what I came up with:

They’re all wrong, and I’m right.

Raise your hand if you’re shocked that a columnist is convinced he’s right in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

Right, so, some bad news: those of you raising your hands are idiots.

The most common defense I’ve seen is that this trade is similar to the 2004 deadline deal that shipped very popular shortstop Nomar Garciaparra out of town. But it’s not, and the differences are where Boston’s mistakes shine through:

I’m listening. Talk to me Goose.

1. The Nomar the Red Sox traded on July 31, 2004 was a diminished Nomar. Sure, he could still hit, but he couldn’t stay healthy (he’d played just 38 games for them over the first four months of that season), and his defense at a crucial position had tailed off dramatically enough that it was costing them runs on a regular basis. They didn’t like having him in the clubhouse anymore, but the good reasons for getting rid of him were on-field reasons, not off-field ones.

Manny Ramirez is not a diminished player. He’s still one of the very best hitters in the game.

Apparently my definition of what constitutes one of the “very best hitters in the game” differs from Graziano’s. Ever so slightly. Foolishly, I expect “very best” to equate to something like top five in the league. Maybe ten.

Manny’s rankings? Well, he’s 11 in OBP, which is good. Not quite making the cut for my personal “very best” rating, and behind his own teammate JD Drew, but still good. How about slugging percentage? Oh. Oh dear. 26th? Really? Well, how about average? Thirty-seventh? Are you sure? How is that possible? He’s one of the very best hitters in the league!

Or at least he was four years ago, when he was OPSing 1.009. But because he’s done that in the past, he must carry that definition indefinitely, apparently. The fact that Man-Ram is 36 years old surely isn’t relevant to this discussion.

Nor the fact Xavier Nady is OPSing .930 to Man-Ram’s .927.

And his defense, while horrible, is no worse than it’s ever been. So it’s not as if he’s costing them any more runs than he did in 2004 or 2007, when they were champions of the world. The only reason they got rid of Ramirez is because they didn’t want him around anymore,

If by “they,” you mean his teammates, then yes, that’s true. That is, principally, why we got rid of him.

and that’s not supposed to be good enough when you’re an organization that prides itself on impartial reason — the organization that ignored cries that J.D. Drew was soft and brought him in because of his on-base percentage.

I’m not sure how you assert that that Drew somehow being “soft” would be equivalent to Manny sitting out key games of the season, but hey, I’m not a columnist.

2. When they dealt Nomar and Matt Murton in 2004, they got Orlando Cabrera and Doug Mientkiewicz in return. Cabrera was a good, clutch hitter

Let’s assume, for a moment, that there is such a thing as a clutch hitter. Yes, most of the evidence contradicts this assumption, but the absence of proof doesn’t itself amount to it, and I’ve seen Big Papi win too many games to discount the notion entirely.

Instead, let’s examine the idea that Cabrera was a good clutch hitter. What would that mean? Driving runners in, presumably. O-Cab’s average in ’04 with a runner on 3B? .167. Bases loaded? .091. Guy on third, less than two out? .111. Runners in scoring position? .257. That’s not clutch, you say? Clutch is hitting with two out? Ok, how about runners in scoring position in that situation? .254.

If the evidence doesn’t prove that Cabrera wasn’t a quote unquote clutch hitter, it certainly doesn’t prove that he is.

and a stellar defensive shortstop, and Mientkiewicz was the very best defensive first baseman in the game. These additions allowed the Red Sox to claim that they were making an adjustment to their organizational philosophy — that they’d improved their team defense and roster flexibility and that the deal had a benefit beyond addition-by-subtraction. Cabrera and Mientkiewicz helped prevent runs, and there was value to this. And on the same day, they made a separate deal, acquiring Dave Roberts from the Dodgers for someone named Henri Stanley. Roberts would go on to steal a somewhat significant postseason base.

There’s nobody out there who can compare this trade:

Garciaparra/Murton/Stanley for Cabrera/Mientkiewicz/Roberts

to this trade:

Ramirez/Hansen/Moss/$7 million for Bay

and reasonably claim they’re similar.

Ok, I’ll buy that. But how about tackling a non-strawman argument, such as, oh, the one that says Ramirez’ teammates had spoken to the front office and requested that he be traded. And that the same front office, unconvinced that he would be in the lineup when he was needed, deemed it necessary to replace him? I mean, how valuable can “one of the very best hitters in the game” be if he’s, you know, not actually hitting?

The Red Sox got absolutely fleeced in Thursday’s deal.

Keith Law doesn’t think so. Joe Sheehan doesn’t think so. But then they were stuck dealing with those frustrating “facts,” rather than outdated, blanket assertions about players’ abilities.

The return they got on their end of the Ramirez trade is pitiful and insufficient.

Assume that Manny was not going to be back in ’09. Would you trade Hansen and Moss for Jason Bay? If you wouldn’t, please write a column on that. No one will destroy you for it. Promise.

It doesn’t even matter if Bay turns out to be an All-Star left fielder for them for the next eight years -

You know that Bay’s a free agent after next year, right?

- they’ll still have given up far too much to get him. And in terms of immediate impact, there’s no way Bay will upgrade their team defense as much as Cabrera and Mientkiewicz did in ’04. He plays left field, not shortstop. He’ll be better than Manny, of course, but not by so much that his defense will justify this deal.

Some numbers would be nice. No? Ok.

3. On July 31, 2004, the Red Sox were 56-45, 7.5 games behind the Yankees in the AL East and a half-game behind the Oakland A’s in the wild-card race. They needed to make some moves to get themselves into playoff position. They’d missed the World Series by an inning the year before, and the thought of missing the ’04 playoffs was incomprehensible to the Sox and their agonizing fan base, which was in its 86th straight year without a World Series title. They were treading water and had to do something to change things up.

On July 31, 2008, the Red Sox were 61-48, three games behind Tampa Bay in the AL East and a game up on the Yankees and the Twins in the wild-card race.
They were coming off a 2007 season in which they broke the Yankees’ nine-year run as division champions and won their second World Series in four years. They had no reason to believe they could not repeat as division or World Series champs with the team they had (maybe plus a reliever or two), and no need to break up the league’s best lineup (especially without a good baseball reason to do so).

On July 13th we were up a half game on Tampa and six on the Yankees. In 18 days we gave up three and a half games to the Rays and five to the Yankees. You don’t see a problem there?

The Red Sox did this trade out of anger and spite, because they decided they were sick of Manny’s antics and couldn’t stick it out for two more months after putting up with him for nearly eight full years.

You’re right. They should ignore the fact that he pushed down a 64 year old man, punched his first baseman in the dugout, declined to run out a ground ball in the midst of a game in which we were being no hit, and declined to take the field in games against a key divisional rival.

It’s all petty anger and spite in our front office. I hear the reason they signed Drew was to get back at the Dodgers front office for not returning their calls promptly enough at the Winter Meetings.

It may make them feel better that they don’t have to see him in their clubhouse anymore, but it doesn’t make them a better team in any tangible way. It makes them worse. And the Nomar deal in 2004 didn’t do that.

But I’ll bet you thought it made them worse, didn’t you?

I, For One, Welcome Our New Left Fielder

First things first: it’s been a while. I know that, you may know that, and WordPress here definitely knows that. But let’s set that aside for the moment, as I think I have a fix for the intermittency around here. More on that tomorrow.

For now, we’ve got a much bigger fish to fry, as one of the most talented and perplexing talents ever to don a Red Sox uniform is currently en route to the left coast. Along with seven or so million dollars, better known as his pay. Headed south a few hundred miles are two of the products of our farm system: Brandon Moss and Craig Hansen. Playing left field tomorrow night, meanwhile, will be one Jason Bay.

Just how did we come to this point? It’s an excellent question, and neither I, nor even those you might read in the print media, are likely to have all of the answers. Theo might. Tito might. John Henry might. But I do not.

Still, I’ll give it the old college try. Here are the questions I have and my answers to them. Before you ask, yes, this is me asking myself questions. It’s weird, I get it, but it’s quicker. Bear with me.

Q: What is the deal, finally, that was agreed upon?
A: It’s a three-way trade, as most of you have probably heard. We ship Rmirez to the Dodgers along with cash to cover his salary. We also ship Hansen and Moss to the Pirates. Meanwhile, the Dodgers send Andy LaRoche and Bryan Morris to the Pirates. In return for all of the above, the Buccos give us Jason Bay.

Q: How did you feel about the deal when you first heard it announced?
A: Well, let’s back up. Heading into the deadline, I was convinced that M-Ram should be traded. Not at all costs – Bay or Kemp from the Dodgers were the acceptable returns I could have lived with – but ideally traded. Sitting at Byrnes’ Pub in Bath, I was more than a bit disappointed when four o’clock rolled around and not only had Manny not been traded, we’d done nothing, period. Worse, MLB.com was reporting sometime around 3:30 (according to NESN) that not only had we not acquired Bay, but that Tampa had at the cost of Jeff Niemann and Reid Brignac, Tampa’s #3 and #4 prospects coming into the 08 season according to Baseball America.

Q: So you were disappointed.
A: Definitely. The Yankees have substantially upgraded their club – at a relatively low cost, for the most part – adding an outfielder, a lefthanded reliver, and a starting catcher. And as I write this, they’re one and half games in back of us, despite losing their best starting pitcher, their second best young pitcher, their starting left fielder, and their starting catcher to injuries.

Tampa, meanwhile, leads us by 3 games, with a young club that doesn’t have all that many holes.

So not doing anything, to me, would have been a blow. Maybe that’s right, maybe that’s wrong, but that’s the way it was.

Q: And when you heard the trade announced?
A: Initially, I was pleased. As I said, I was ready for Manny to be gone, and now he was. Ask and ye shall receive. But as the news trickled out, however, that not only was Manny gone with his salary, but Hansen and Moss too, I was less pleased. Particularly since the rumor last night was Manny for Bay and Grabow; not Manny, Hansen and Moss for just Bay.

Then I thought about it a bit, and became resigned.

Q: Resigned why?
A: Because the only conclusion that one can draw from this afternoon’s trade is that things must have been worse – far worse – than we realized. As a friend of mine said in a text, it’s

“almost as if they were anxious to get rid of him. it really makes me wonder if there was more behind the scenes toxicity that we were not made aware of.”

That, in a nutshell, is the situation as I’ve come to see it over the past few days. Denton from the essential Surviving Grady had it right two years ago when he said:

I do believe that once Manny finds a new home, RSN is going to start to get the whole story. The “Manny being Manny” and overall quirkiness were barely tolerable with the information we had. We were willing to overlook a lot in return for Manny’s production. But what about the stories we haven’t heard yet? I think there has been a lot more going on behind the scenes that’s been hidden from the media.

Exactly. Things are almost certain to be a lot less rosy than we’re generally made aware of.

Q: How do you come to that conclusion?
A: Mostly from what I read. I don’t mean the stock media reports; while I’m not inclined to defend Ramirez, as has Allan over at the Joy of Sox, I do agree with him that Manny has been regularly tilted at by a media that didn’t seem to care for him much. Allan calls out Gordon Edes (who is leaving the Globe for Yahoo, incidentally) for this bit of snark:

He’d been sent to Massachusetts General Hospital during the game to have an MRI of both knees, the Sox evidently taking no chances that their slugger might have gotten confused about which one hurt.

Which is appropriate. Edes – whom I like and respect apart from his treatment of Ramirez (far more so than his colleague Cafardo, as you might know) – has been like this for a while.
So the reporters opinions on Manny, well, they don’t mean a whole lot to me. Much more important has been the silence from the rest of the club. Just as in the past, no one apart from the embattled Lugo has come to Manny’s defense. Schilling, in fact, positively killed Manny this afternoon. Maybe, you think, that’s just Schilling being Schilling. WEll, Pedroia and Youk sound a little lukewarm to me.

And frankly this bit from Olney pretty much sums up the relationship Manny has with his manager – who for my money, is the best the Red Sox have had:

Think about how nutty this situation is: In the last five weeks of the 2006 season, reliever Julian Tavarez — who became Manny’s Tony Snow, his spokesman — knew more about whether Manny was going to play or whether he was available to pinch-hit than Boston manager Terry Francona, general manager Theo Epstein and owners John Henry and Larry Lucchino. Absurd.

When was that written? December of 2006. Seriously. We’ve been dealing with this – codepending, if you will – that long.

Throw in the fact that this year’s incidents have been different, and it’s been pretty clear that Manny was not a good fit going forward.

Q: What does “different” mean in this context?
A: In the past, Manny seemed less angry than goofy. There’s the possibly apocryphal story that he had his tailored clothes embroidered with MBM – Manny Being Manny – and my all time favorite, his decision to cut off Damon’s throw from center…while he was in left. I still laugh when I tell that story.

But this year’s MBM incidents have been less harmless than in years past. Pushing Jack McCormick to the ground after he was unable to come up with 16 tickets to the Sox/Astros game? That’s not the happy go lucky Manny we know, and usually, love. Likewise the bizarre Youk/Manny fracas. I can understand if Manny’s frustrated with Youk’s tendency to fling things around the dugout, but fighting in the dugout? Seriously? Or how about telling ESPNDeportes that the “Red Sox don’t deserve a player like me?”

No, the public incidents, anyway, paint a much different picture of Manny than we’ve seen in the past. One that told me he had to go.

Q: But at what price?
A: That, I think, is the point. Think of it this way: the Red Sox front office is generally regarded as being intelligent, diligent, and creative. They’re not perfect – I will never understand their pursuit of Lugo – but they’ve generally been very, very good. Even the Yankee fans agree will grant us that.

And yet they decided that it was in the club’s best interests to ship Manny, the rest of his salary for the year, and two prospects – albeit not elite ones – out the door to get a player of lesser ability.

The fact that that calculus alone made sense tells me everything I need to know about just how bad things were.

Q: So you don’t think this is just a product of a front office / journalist collaboration?
A: No. Is it possible, even likely, that the front office was intentionally leaking to reporters for the purpose of swaying public sentiment in their favor? Sure.

But I have a hard time believing that Gammons’ outrage at Manny is merely him playing the role of front office stooge, as Allan implies. Not simply because I think it unlikely that a reporter of Gammons’ experience would allow himself to be so simply and basely used, but because Gammons has generally been a guy that gave players a chance to be heard. When Roberto Alomar spit on an umpire, Gammons gave him the chance to explain. When John Rocker disparaged virtually every minority on the planet, Gammons listened.

Maybe Gammons doesn’t have the story exactly right – nobody on the outside could – but I think he’s far more right than wrong here. Regardless of what the front office did or did not tell him.

Q: Enough of the muckraking, what do you think of the deal in baseball terms?
A: It’s a good deal for the Dodgers, though they’ve got quite the logjam in the outfield, and it’s an excellent deal in my view from the Pirates perspective. Keith Law says that Morris is the only high upside player in the deal, but in Hansen, LaRoche, and Moss they have some very usable, more or less MLB ready players. And the high upside arm. Maybe they’d prefer to have Niemann and Brignac, but this is a far cry from the days of Littlefield when they’d covet their own assets and get either nothing or nothing of value in return for them.

Q: And for the Sox?
A: A lot of it depends. How does Bay – who’s accustomed to a small market and weaker NL pitching – adapt to Boston? What do Hansen and Moss end up doing? But I’m fine with the deal, ultimately. One, because as discussed above I think it needed to be made. But also because it has potential upside for us, both this year and next. As Law explains:

Bay will really improve the 2009 Red Sox. Boston was almost certain to decline Ramirez’s $20 million option for 2009, which would have left the Red Sox with an offensive hole to fill for next year. Bay is under control for next year, so the hole is already filled, and he’s signed for an amazingly cheap $7.5 million. Even considering the $7 million Boston sent L.A. to pay Manny’s freight for this year (because the Dodgers told teams they could not add any payroll this season), the Red Sox are getting a $15-20 million bat in Bay without the headaches Ramirez had caused lately. And they managed to do it without depleting their strong farm system or committing to a four- or five-year deal they’d regret by the middle of the second year.

Instead of having to find a left fielder for next year, we’ve got one. At $7.5M. Which is $12.5M less than Ramirez’s ’09 option would have cost us.

Is it ideal? No. Ask Anaheim, or LA of Anaheim, or whatever they’re called now, if they’re happy to see Manny gone after they couldn’t get him out during last year’s postseason. No, this was about as well as we were going to do. Which is itself a sad comment.

Q: Let’s talk about Bay: what are we getting?
A: Bay’s a good player, or at least he has been in small markets in the NL. He is not Manny Ramirez, but then no one is. A quick comparison:

BA OBP SLG OPS+ HR
Bay .282 .375 .519 135 22
Ramirez .299 .398 .529 140 20

A slide-in replacement for the lineup? Not quite. But as close as we were going to get, I’d think. And Bay, by all accounts, is a significant defensive upgrade: he’s got the range to cover center, and his arm is reportedly average. Meaning that our outfield, defensively, with Bay in left, Crisp/Ellsbury in center, and Drew in right, should be one of the best in the big leagues.

Other interesting items from his splits:

  • As others have noted, he has a bizarre reverse platoon split. That is, he’s a right handed batter that, this season, is hitting righties well (.307/.387/.566) and lefties poorly (.190/.333/.345). Indications are that this year is a fluke, however, as his three year 05-07 trend shows nothing of the kind: .296/.405/.543 against lefties, .276/.368/.493 against righties.
  • He tends to wear down slightly in the second half: .283/.388/.505 pre-break against .279/.369/.506 after.
  • He’s hit best in the cleanup spot in the lineup: .286/.386/.516 in 790 ABs, compared to .278/.377/.510 in 679 ABs hitting third.
  • He’s hit well with runners in scoring position, .282/.400/.502, and with runners on, .282/.388/.486, but poorly close and late – .205/.333/.373.
  • He’s played three games in his career at Fenway, and put up a .250/.357/.417 line.
  • Though he’s .257/.278/.429 career against the Yankees, he’s .362/.412/.532 against their current staff.
  • Though he’s .391/.429/.739 career against Tampa, he’s .200/.283/.425 against their current staff (1-18 off Wheeler).
  • He hits .257 off fastballs, .290 off curves, .269 off sliders, .244 off changeups, and .111 off everything else.

Q: Besides losing the kids in addition to the money, anything else bug you about this trade?
A: The fact that we didn’t get a reliever. Ultimately, that’s been our Achilles heel all season. Many have noted that we can theoretically add one before the waiver trade deadline in a month, but we need the help now. Bringing someone back this week would have been ideal, and it would have been nice, for example to have spun Moss into Mahay instead of folding him into Bay.

Q: Net net, what’s your take.
A: In Theo we trust. If he determined Manny needed to go, that’s good enough for me. He did well to get Bay, dealing as he was from a position of extreme weakness, and now we just have to hope we can patch up the bullpen and right the ship. Oh, and before I forget, best of luck to the kids: here’s hoping that Hansen and Moss blossom down in Pittsburgh.

Q: Will you miss Manny?
A: I’ll miss his performances. The Angels ALDS game that he won last year in walkoff fashion? I was there, and he absolutely crushed that ball.

But the player? Not really. I’m with Tim: he lost me this year.

Update: While I’m sure many will regard it as a post-exit character assassination, Sean McAdam reported the following last night:

General manager Theo Epstein was working with a mandate from within his own clubhouse. Following his team’s dispiriting loss to the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim Wednesday night, Epstein met with a handful of Red Sox veterans, all of whom delivered the same message: Manny had to go.

Buster Olney is reportedly saying much the same on SportsCenter this morning. Sad.

In Case You Haven't Been Keeping Up With Current Events

Why this video? Because now that the meaningless games are officially out the way, that’s what I want: an Encore.

And yes, I know this is two weekly features back to back. So sue me.

Anyway, this week’s edition of In Case You Haven’t Been Keeping Up With Current Events, such as it is, comes to you from the road. Where the road equals Georgetown, ME. While tomorrow will see me journey to yours and my favorite city, it won’t be until next week that I actually catch a game live.

That’s right: should I be able to wrangle the travel – and I think I’ll be able to – next Wednesday night I’ll be seeing the good guys take on the Tigers. Whose lineup, frankly, is just unfair. But we’ll get there.

In the meantime, here’s what I’ve got for you.

Best 1-2 Punch of the AL? Not in Boston

With all due respect to the Fire Brand of the American League’s Guest Columnist Bottom Line Rob, I could not disagree more with his assessment of the best one/two starter tandems in the good half of the league.

Nearly as I can determine, he seems to base it primarily on wins. The combination that I – and apparently MVN’s Tim Daloisio as well – would pick, Bedard/Hernandez from the M’s, is dismissed with the following:

Neither of these guys have come close to winning 20 games, but with J.J. Putz as their closer and a solid offense, both youngsters have the stuff to each that goal. That said, Seattle was 2nd to the Yankees with a .287 team BA last year, but they only scored 794 runs… and that makes it tough for any pitcher to earn the win.

Which may be true, but not at all how I’d judge the pitchers.

Let’s look at how his qualified pick – Beckett/Matsuzaka – fared against mine and Tim’s Bedard/Hernandez choice last seasion. First, Boston’s guys:

Player K/9 BB/9 BAA IP
Beckett 8.70 1.79 .237 200.2
Matsuzaka 8.84 3.52 .249 204.2

Not bad at all. Matsuzaka walks too many guys, and neither is a premium strikeout pitcher, but that’s a pretty good front of the rotation. And that’s without the improvement in Matsuzaka I expect to see this season, even if it wasn’t apparent in his first outing.

Now what about the Seattle kids?

Player K/9 BB/9 BAA IP
Bedard 10.93 2.82 .217 182
Hernandez 7.8 2.51 .280 190.2

For my money, better. True, the M’s duo is giving up 30 innings to Beckett and Matsuzaka, but I wouldn’t bet on that being the case in ’08. Bedard was sidelined with an injury not expected to affect him this season, and Felix is young. Like two years younger than Clay Buchholz young.

Looking at the numbers from ’07, Bedard more or less outpitched Beckett – who had a Cy Young quality season – numbers-wise, and Hernandez struck out one fewer but walked one fewer in roughly comparable innings relative to Matsuzaka.

As a 21 year old. Against major league competition.

So while I like our rotation as a whole against the M’s, I’m with Tim: if I had to pick between our front two and their front two, I’d take the latter. Though I’d want to get Beckett back once the postseason started.

Going or Staying: Kielty

When Kielty signed with the good guys this offseason, I was convinced that a Crisp deal was not only in the works, but in the books. Which shows you what my prediction skills are like.

The question now is what Kielty’s fate will be. The Globe is reporting that it’s dependent on demand:

Kielty said he plans to remain in LA for a couple of days with family while awaiting word on his job prospects. If another job doesn’t materialize, he’ll go to Pawtucket, which opens its season Thursday. (link)

As for the odds that another job materializing, one of the MLB Trade Rumors folks speculates as follows:

With all the rumors swirling recently about teams in need of outfield help, I have to believe that Kielty will land a major league gig. PECOTA projects a line of .253/.331/.418 based on 159 plate appearances and Kielty can play all three outfield spots. (link)

On paper, I agree with that assessment, but I think there’s more to the equation here. If not, why would Kielty have signed here in the first place? He must have known there would be demand, and yet he took a job here, presumably banking on the fact that one of Crisp/Ellsbury would end up gone. Which, frankly, was a reasonable assumption.

Anyhow, it’ll be interesting to see what happens with Kielty. It’s not that he’s indispensable, but I think he is an excellent complementary piece assuming that Crisp eventually is traded. I’m not sure who’d serve as the fourth outfielder in Kielty’s absence. Moss is credible, but probably can’t handle center regularly as Kielty can.

In my perfect world, we extract something useful for Crisp, and move on. But I wouldn’t bet on it.

Pitch Counts and Injuries

There’s been a lot written about pitch counts and the risks to young pitchers the past few years. Witness this little tidbit from Neyer from a recent ESPN Chat:

As you know, the new paradigm suggests that young pitchers risk injury when their innings increase significantly from one season to the next. Carmona went from 103 innings to 215 innings. That doesn’t mean he’s going to get hurt, but it’s something worth worrying about.

That conclusion is even more interesting in light of Carmona’s playoff meltdown. But I also wanted to draw your attention to a recent piece on a very special – and very ominous – pitching club that one of our guys was on the verge of joining in ’07: the 3500 club. Here’s how Brett Greenfield describes it:

Certain pitchers exhibit warning signs from year to year. I’ve always wondered why certain pitchers’ careers take a turn for the worse. Some hurlers just throw too many pitches.

I’ve compiled a list of pitchers who have thrown 3500 or more pitches in a single season since 2005. There only appears to be a handful of them each year. However, there are several recidivists.

When I display for you the list of pitchers who are on this list and you see how their careers have taken a turn for the worse because of overuse, you’ll know why nobody wants to be a part of this club.

The ’07 members? Dontrelle Willis, Daniel Cabrera, Gil Meche, CC Sabathia, Aaron Harang, Scott Kazmir, Jake Peavy, Carlos Zambrano, Dan Haren, Barry Zito, John Lackey and Bronson Arroyo. Great, you’re thinking: Matsuzaka’s not on the list. Well, I’ve got bad news for you: he just missed. Fangraphs has his total pitchcount last year at 3480.

Not convinced that he belongs? Well, Baseball Prospectus has him atop their Pitcher Abuse Points table, some 19000 points ahead of the #3 finisher, AJ Burnett. The other guys in the top 5? Zambrano at #2, Halladay at #4, and Harang at #5.

All guys that work a lot.

I’m not quite recanting my Matsuzaka improvement predictions, but I’ll confess to being worried.

Predictions

I’m no great fan of predictions – actually, I actively hate them. You might have noticed given that I’ve done none myself (though I do think Verlander should be the favorite for the Cy) – but I’ve seen forecasts that are literally all over the map.

Case in point are the good folks over at Baseball Prospectus. The projected records have us finishing at 91-71, along with the Indians and Tigers, while the Yankees run away with the league at 97-65 and the Angels take the West with and 85-77 record. No word on who the wild card would be in such a scenario.

But at the same time, today BP’s Joe Sheehan projected us finishing ahead of the Yankees, strictly according to runs scored/allowed projections, at 96-66 to their 95-67.

Who to believe? None of them, as far as I’m concerned. As the Great Gammons says, any significant downtime to Beckett or Tek (yes, the same Tek who struck out 9 of 11 ABs in Japan – patience, people), and we are in serious trouble – projections or no projections. Hell throw Paps and Oki in there. Papi too.

You get the point: predictions are like battle plans. They never survive the first encounter with the enemy.

Terumasa Matsuo: Who is He, and What Can He Do?

Honestly, I have no idea. Backing up, for those of you who haven’t been keeping up with current events, we signed a 26 year old Japanese pitcher from one of their independent leagues. No scouter on him yet – I’m working on it.

In the meantime, here’s what Rotoworld had to say on the news:

According to Boston’s press release, the 26-year-old Matsuo was the Shikoku Island League MVP in 2007, when he led the league with 15 wins and 159 strikeouts. He had a 1.72 ERA and allowed 85 hits in 152 innings. In 2006, he had an 11-2 record with a 1.82 ERA, 134 strikeouts and 98 hits issued in 138 innings in 2006. Obviously, it’s not nearly the same level of competition as the Japanese Pacific or Central Leagues. He’s not someone to rush out and grab in keeper leagues. (link)

Normally, I’d be less optimistic, but we’ve shown some ability to scout Japan in recent years, so who knows.

More on him when I have it.

The Obligatory Crisp Update

Lastly, the news that I’m sure you’re just as sick of reading as I am writing: teams are interested in Coco, but no one’s shown any inclination to pull the trigger. The latest rumor, courtesy of the Globe’s Nick Cafardo:

The Cubs would still love to get their hands on Coco Crisp, but for now, youngster Felix Pie is their man in center. Sox assistant to the general manager Allard Baird spent a lot of time in Arizona last week scouting the Cubs, among others. (link)

Much as I love his defense – and I really love his defense – I’d almost trade Crisp at this point just so that I wouldn’t have to digest any further trade rumors.

I said almost.

In Case You Haven't Been Keeping Up With Current Events

As assumptions go, the one that says that everyone reading this knows we’re 1-1 for the season seems pretty unlikely to make an ass out of either you or me. It also seems reasonable to guess that you’re all aware that this week has yet to see a In Case You Haven’t Been Keeping Up With Current Events.

So I’ll forgo informing you of the former, and instead deliver an abbreviated version of the latter. That work?

Injury News

Good news, for once. Crisp is playing, as you’ve seen. And Beckett K’d 6 minor leaguers in 4 scoreless innings today, which you may not have.

McCracken

Many or all of you may not have heard of Voros McCracken, but suffice it to say that he’s the creator of Defense Independent Pitching Statistics (DIPS), a very interesting statistic. He also is a former member of our resident nerdery, one whom chose to fly the coop. Apparently, he wasn’t a terribly happy camper:

In terms of my work with the Red Sox it was mostly enjoyable but occasionally frustrating. Being able to have the ear of an MLB GM is something most of the people who do what I do aspire to and it was indeed very {searching for a word} exhilarating? On the other hand the money was lousy, and at times I was left without any real idea of what kind of effect I was having on things. When you work on something for five months, deliver the final product and hear little back about it, it can be disheartening.

One of the things that kind of bugged me with the Red Sox was a somewhat implied expectation that I’d come up with something like DIPS on a regular basis. Whether that’s reasonable for someone else or not, I personally just don’t have that in me.

There are echoes of Bill James’ interview in there, and I’m wondering if it might not behoove us to give our number crunchers a slightly better sense of the value of their input. A bit management 101, I realize, but still.

Pitching Performances from Japan in One Sentence

I promised not to rehash the loss, and I won’t, but some quick reactions to a few of the pitching performances – theirs and ours – in the first two games.

  • Aardsma:
    He lit it up early last year too, but I’m not complaining.
  • Corey:
    Probably needs to be perfect; wasn’t.
  • Foulke:
    Still have a soft spot for him, and still can’t figure how that delivery works.
  • Harden:
    On the rare occasions he’s healthy, it’s rare for him to pitch poorly.
  • Lester:
    He’ll have better days this season, but also worse ones.
  • Matsuzaka:
    Like last year, not exactly pounding the strikezone.
  • Oki:
    Heard his crazy Japanese entrance song; seriously, WTF?

  • Papelbon:
    Not a strong outing; couldn’t be less concerned.

Trade Rumors

More trade rumors swirling this week.

First, Crisp:
[Tampa] are also taking a look at Coco Crisp; Tampa Bay is loaded with a wide range of pitching prospects, so it would seem that Boston could find a fit if it wanted to make a deal.” (link)

Seems far fetched to me, but Crisp would be excellent for their young pitchers, and they’ve got a full cupboard to deal from.

Then the pitchers:
Speaking of the Sox, the team is drawing interest in three right-handed pitchers who are out of options — David Aardsma, Bryan Corey and Kyle Snyder. Any of the three would make sense for a pitching-hungry team such as the Giants, Astros or Cardinals. The Sox, who can’t keep them all, don’t figure to seek a great deal in return.” (link)

This one’s interesting because if I’m not mistaken we have to make a roster move shortly, as the extra spots we were granted for the Japan trip expire.

Lastly, this puzzler about Matt Murton:
There is talk that the Red Sox may strike a deal with the Cubs for Matt Murton eventually, and the Cubs may deliver Murton to a place where he could play.” (link)

I get why we like Murton, but where, precisely, is he supposed to play?

Don't Shoot the Messenger

.flickr-photo { border: solid 2px #000000; }
.flickr-yourcomment { }
.flickr-frame { text-align: left; padding: 3px; }
.flickr-caption { font-size: 0.8em; margin-top: 0px; }



Beckett, originally uploaded by culhanen.

But you remember that Beckett news I had for you yesterday? The good news that he was better than anticipated the day after tweaking his back? Well, that’s over.

If I’d had as much progress from yesterday to today as I did from the first day to the second day, I wouldn’t have ruled that out. Today I';m just holding up my obligation (to talk to media). It probably would have been better to talk to you guys yesterday because I was a little more optimistic. I’m in a pretty crappy mood as far as this thing goes because it was a pretty frustrating day because yesterday was good and today’s kind of horse(bleep).

In the business, this is what’s known as bad news. Maybe not panic news, but certainly not a positive development.

In case that wasn’t enough for you, MLB Trade Rumors throws cold water on the Crisp to the Padres trade rumor from yesterday, while Shysterball takes care of the Cubs version.

At the risk of being less than totally negative, however, I have to admit that I don’t totally buy either of the above objections completely. Of the Padres reputed objections to a deal, two seem bogus: Crisp is obviously on the block, and while Theo and co won’t hand him away, they’ll negotiate. From the Shysterball angle, I fully agree that the presence of Pie would seem to negate the value of Crisp: but what if the former was traded for the O’s Roberts, as has oft been rumored?

And as long as we’re going to slip in some good news, everyone’s favorite rookie centerfield prospect jacked his average all the way up to .240 by banging out 2 hits today – one of them a leadoff single against none other than Best Pitcher on the Planet, Johan Santana. Even better, our own young lefthander – once poised to be traded for the Best Pitcher on the Planet – outpitched his counterpart (2H, 5K, 1BB, 14BF in 4 IP vs 2H, 4K, 15BF in 4). A performance which had the Globe mentioning Lester and opening day in the same sentence (no link b/c Shaugnessy wrote the piece), however premature.

But for those of you still eager to despair over a centerfielder’s poor spring training numbers, turn your eyes towards Ichiro, who is still seeking his first hit.

Anyway, sorry to end on a positive note but, hey, I don’t make the news.

In Case You Haven't Been Keeping Up With Current Events

Maybe it’ll become a Sunday tradition, this current events bit, but in the meantime, my apologies for the radio silence the past few days. First I was ambushed by some sort of evil cold/flu hybrid, and then I was up in the mountains where Atingular has decided against providing even basic connectivity.

Hopefully you haven’t missed me as it’s been a quiet week. Or it had, until the last 24 hours or so. Since I left town, all hell broke loose. That, or it’s the regular slate of minor spring training injuries and trade rumors.

You make the call.

Analysts and Reporters

If you’ve been reading this site religiously (all 10 of you) or you know me personally (the same 10 of you), you may have gotten the impression that I favor certain analysts and reporters over others.

This impressions is, in fact, true, and you need look no further than the blogroll on the left for the quote unquote recommended sources. Occasionally during the season I’ll pull a quote or a conclusion that I find noteworthy; whether that’s for positive or negative reasons.

  • Cafardo:
    The reporter singled out today is none other than Boston’s Nick Cafardo. I’ve always preferred his colleague Gordon Edes’ work (with the exception of Edes’ treatment of Manny over the years) over Cafardo’s, and while his Sunday Notes columns is worth reading, his conclusions – in my view – frequently leave something to be desired. Unless you think that CC Sabathia – who approximated Beckett’s numbers last year over 40+ more IP – deserved to place fourth in the Cy Young voting.

    With that background in mind, be aware that I may be reading too much into this, but I can’t get anything from the following except that Cafardo considers himself “old school” regarding pitcher usage:
    “Bravo to Mike Mussina for his take on limiting the innings of young pitchers such as Kennedy, Philip Hughes, Joba Chamberlain, and Clay Buchholz, “I’m from the old school,” said Mussina, who threw 241 innings as a rookie. “I’m one of the few guys left that pitched last century. My opinion of what wears your arm down isn’t necessarily how many innings you throw in a starter situation. Wearing down happens when you’re out there a lot and you don’t get the proper rest in between those turns. That’s what beats you up.”

    Exactly. Let’s ignore innings because that worked so well for Baker and Riggleman when they managed Prior and Wood. All I can say is that I’m glad Cafardo’s not responsible for the careers of Buchholz, Lester, et al.

  • Neyer:
    I consider myself a fan of Rob Neyer’s, even if I don’t agree with every last thing he writes. Much of my appreciation for his work derives from his approach: much like Google in the technology world, he strives to make decisions based on actual data.

    That said, I’m at a loss to defend his Top 10 Baseball Movies. Any man that believes that Fever Pitch is a better film than The Natural…well, I just don’t know what to say. Words fail me. My faith in Neyer’s analysis skills is not exactly shattered, but I’ll admit that I’m unlikely to solicit his opinion on movies in the future. Ever.

    And that’s coming from someone who counts Tremors as one of his favorite movies.

Injuries

Would that it weren’t the case, but sadly, there’s a lot to report on this front. I have to tell you, there are very few things more terrifying than being in the mountains with limited or no connectivity, and see a Rotoworld headline screeching “Beckett Scratched.”

  • Beckett:
    Sox manager Terry Francona had a good report on Josh Beckett, who left Saturday’s game with back spasms after throwing six warm-up pitches. The manager said Beckett “looked way better than we expected,” but would not commit as to whether Beckett would be ready for the opener in Japan.” (link)

    This, candidly, is bad news. It won’t be horrible news until I hear either that it’s disc related or involves him missing a significant portion of the season, but it’s not what I wanted to hear. We could be looking at opening the season without our top 2 starters (Matsuzaka’s wife is expecting), which is not the end of the world but not how you’d draw it up either.
  • Crisp:
    In a video over on Boston.com, Crisp says, “I feel good right now, like I’m ready to play, other than I can’t get out there and run.” This does not strike me as good news, particularly for a player whose value is largely based on his ability to run.
  • Lugo:
    Shortstop Julio Lugo missed his sixth straight game with lower back tightness.” (link)

    What interests me here is how little actual reporting has been done on this injury. Coming off a down year, and with a very credible prospect in Lowrie poised to push him, I find the general lack of interest in Lugo’s condition as somewhat curious.

    Of course, if could be nothing more than a tacit acknowledgement that with an $8+ million price tag, he’s virtually unmovable.

Players

Besides injuries, there have been some notable player developments over the past week. Unfortunately, few of them good. Meaningless as spring training games are, it’d be nice to win a few. But anyhow, two quick player items.

  • Ellsbury:
    Echoing the thoughts of a number of fans I’ve spoken with, Allen Chace of Over the Monster said the following yesterday:
    As Rotoworld points out, Jacoby has hit pretty terribly thusfar, and Coco Crisp, seemingly, hasn’t played since the Carter administration.

    I have to disagree with our omnipresent sidebar companion. I don’t think it is necessarily doing anything for Tacoby’s case that Coco hasn’t played in awhile. They’re not going to let this kid back into the job, no matter how good he was down the stretch last season. It’s already been speculated here and elsewhere that the Sox would need to see quite a bit from Ellsbury unless Crisp is traded: they don’t need any kind of distraction that Crisp might be, and his value would only get lower as he sees more time riding the pine.

    While acknowledging that it’s easier to say this given that my Navajo brother went 3-5 this afternoon with a bomb and a double, I must – in turn – respectfully disagree with Mr. Chace. For three reasons.

    1. There’s no denying that – until today – Ellsbury hadn’t been good. But there’s also no denying that our other starters haven’t been much better (Crisp doesn’t count: he’s had 4 ABs). It’s true that Ellsbury’s hitting .190. But it’s also true that Manny’s at .188, and Lowell’s at .200. As is Drew. And Pedroia, last year’s ROY? .174. I’d love for all of the above to be lighting it up, but I can’t force myself to take their performances at this point seriously.
    2. I think the competition is more than mere performance. Trade value, particularly for the asset that is Crisp, has to factor in. If they can get a useful reliever or a couple of prospects for Crisp, I don’t think the Sox would hesitate to let Ellsbury back into the job.
    3. I think the front office is savvy enough to recognize that prior minor and major league performance is a better indicator of future performance than a handful or three of spring training at bats. They demonstrated this last year, trusting that Pedroia’s minor league success would manifest itself at the big league level in the face of an abysmal early performance.
  • Lester:
    A minor note, but I hadn’t seen Lester’s velocity peaks yet. The Great Gammons is reporting the following “[Lester’s] velocity is up in the mid-90s, his curveball is sharp, and they’re holding back on his cutter until the rest of his arsenal is ready.”
  • Papelbon:
    Papelbon went into the offseason with the idea of adding a third pitch to his fastball and split-finger fastball and chose the slider.

    Yesterday, in his second appearance of the spring, he used it to get two of the three outs he recorded in the fourth
    .” (link)

    I guess this means the “slutter” didn’t work out?

Trade Rumors

Remember when I mentioned that it was Theo’s opinion that the prospects for a Crisp trade were poor? Yeah, let’s just forget about that. Because right now it’s all Crisp, all the time on the trade rumors front. A quick recap of the least far fetched.

  • Chicago:
    While major league sources indicate the Chicago Cubs have Coco Crisp on their wish list, the Red Sox have no interest in expendable starting pitcher Jason Marquis or Arizona League MVP outfielder Sam Fuld.” (Nick Cafardo)

    Glad to hear this one shot down, personally. I don’t think I’d take Marquis for a bag of balls at this point, let alone a Gold Glove quality center fielder signed to an affordable contract. Two years removed from a 6.02 ERA in the NL Central, PECOTA sees him putting up a 5.04 in the same league. In other words, he’d get chewed up and spit out in the AL East. And there’s the fact that he’s already at odds with Piniella over his role on the staff.

    Which leaves Fuld, who, with all due respect, would have very little upside in our organization. This particular package making the rounds, then, would seem to me to be nothing but a rumor. I’m sure the Cubs would make that deal in a heartbeat, but if the Sox bite their sanity would be called into question.
  • Oakland:
    The Red Sox continue to talk with the Oakland Athletics about center fielder Coco Crisp. ” (Buster Olney)

    Little information to work with in this case, although the rumors were floated earlier in the office season that Beane might work to acquire Crisp so that he in turn could flip the player. What’s unclear would be what would be coming back. The primary assets of interest – Blanton and Street – would require far more than Crisp in return, so I’m not sure what we could expect. Still, bears watching.
  • San Diego:
    San Diego is considering trying to trade for Boston’s Coco Crisp now that center fielder Jim Edmonds has already broken down with a calf injury.” (John Perrotto)

    The primary reason that this one makes sense to me? If you’re trying to approximate Cameron, and keep your fly ball prone staff happy in a sizable park, Crisp is your best available bet to do that.
  • Seattle:
    The Mariners, unhappy with their in-house options, are in the market for a veteran right-handed hitting outfielder. Why not Coco Crisp? Sure, he’s a switch-hitter, but his splits suggest it could make some sense.” (Matt Birt)

    This one, to be clear, is nothing more than speculation. Informed speculation, as it comes courtesy of MLB Trade Rumor’s Matt Birt, but speculation nonetheless. Still, like San Diego has a sizable park to cover and if Ichiro and Crisp were two thirds of the M’s outfield, their staff – Horacio Ramirez and all – is going to look much better than they actually are. Which they probably know, having watched Cameron for years.

Crisp: Going or Staying?

We’re not going to forget, as an organization, that he’s the incumbent.” – Terry Francona

Around 8:01 in the above video, Tito reminds us of Crisp’s value. A reminder that would seem to be well aimed, given the propensity of many – yours truly included – to regard the trade of the incumbent as something of a foregone conclusion.

Which begs the question: should he be traded? Setting aside the clubhouse dynamics for just a moment, let’s look at a few projections. First, Crisp. PECOTA sees his ’08 line as .278/.338/.407, with Bill James projecting slightly lower in the latter two categories at .335 and .400 respectively. On the other side of the ring, PECOTA projects Ellsbury to put up a .287/.346/.395 line in ’08, with James’ numbers significantly more optimistic for OBP and SLG at .374/.436.

If we go strictly by PECOTA, then, we might give a slight offensive edge to Ellsbury as the slight disparity in power is offset by a greater on base percentage. But when James is thrown into the mix, Ellsbury becomes the far more dynamic offensive force. Even allowing for Crisp’s defensive superiority then – because I’m in agreement with Tito that Crisp played the position last year about as well as you can – you’d take my Navajo brother over the incumbent.

Not that the Red Sox should allow this to play out as anything other than a straight up competition, because to anoint Ellsbury as the starter would not only push Crisp towards a Payton-like disaffection but might significantly impact his trade value. All things considered, then, I’m regrettably in agreement with Buckley that it seems likely that the Red Sox would prefer that Ellsbury win the job outright. Short sample size of spring training or no.

Bill James, remember, works for the good guys in the Red Sox front office.

What pushes me over the edge in wanting Ellsbury to win the job isn’t Crisp’s cost – at $3.8M last year he’s actually quite affordable for a Gold Glove caliber centerfielder – but rather his redundancy. With Kielty on deck, Crisp becomes an interesting trading chip, either for an interesting bullpen arm or – packaged – for a starter candidate. Not that I’m contending that Kielty or even Ellsbury is Crisp’s equal in the field – neither will be this season – but that we have the pieces in place to replace him. And Ellsbury, with the little service time he has and the potentially greater offensive upside, is clearly the piece you’d like to keep around.

Is Crisp a bad guy to have around even should he fail to win the CF job? Obviously not. Not many teams can tout throw a glove like his onto the field from the bench. But I do think that given the noise he and his agent have made to date, it might be best if he moves on. Assuming he’s not the starter.

Obviously we shouldn’t give him away, but there are certainly teams – like the Braves – in need of a centerfielder. Where we have surplus, and may be able to extract some value.

Breaking Down the Santana Trade

I was going to pass, given that I’ve already commented on the Santana situation, but who am I to buck the will of the people. Also, there have clearly been new developments. Thus, by popular demand (read: two of you), a breakdown of my thoughts on the Santana to the Mets trade.

Q: First, the important question: how should a Red Sox fan feel?
A: A bit let down, maybe, given that Santana’s a hell of a pitcher. But nothing more than that, I’d argue. While I’d love to be able to throw Beckett/Santana at the Hernandez/Bedard combination the Mariners may end up fielding, we were truly dealing from a position of strength here. With Beckett, Matsuzaka, Schilling, Wakefield, Lester, Buchholz, and even Tavarez, we’re not short in the starting pitching department. True, the kids will likely be on innings caps, and all three of Beckett/Schilling/Wake are candidates for at least one DL trip. But we’re one of the few teams in the league that could legitimately say we didn’t need the innings and the numbers; we just wanted them.

If he was going to be traded, however, and not to us, the Mets are the best possible alternative. Had the Yankees acquired him, it would have been a problem. Our lineup collectively gets on base at a mere .305 clip against him, and that only because Tek owns him (.500 OBP in 18 ABs).

Q: Why didn’t we end up with him?
A: Presumably because we decided not to offer what an acceptable package to the Twins. From all reports – most notably Peter Gammons (video warning) – both the Red Sox and Yankees had backed off following the Winter Meetings. The sought after Boston/New York bidding war simply never emerged, possibly because both Cashman and Epstein recognize the economic value of the kids and the lack of a gaping hole in their respective rotations.

Q: But don’t the Yankees have a real need for a pitcher of Santana’s caliber?
A: You could make the argument that they don’t have a proven ace, but the Yankee’s sadly have the making of an excellent rotation. Wang, Pettite, Hughes, Mussina, Chamberlain, Kennedy is not a bad looking starting pitching corps any way you cut it. Granted, like us, they’re likely to have issues with innings caps, but with six candidates for five spots, they can finesse the kids’ workloads. Assuming Mussina holds up, which is an open question given how he performed for long stretches of last season.

And if you’re still of the opinion that the Yankees lack of an ace will come back to haunt them, think back to ’03. Beckett was not exactly a proven commodity, but he sure looked good kicking the Yankees teeth in. Are you that sure one of the current crop of kids couldn’t step up? Because I’m not.

Q: Could the Red Sox have realistically acquired Santana? Wouldn’t they have to tear up Beckett’s contract and juggle egos in the clubhouse?
A: Beckett was on record as saying he didn’t care what they paid Santana as long as he was the one starting on opening day.

Q: So how did the Mets come up with Santana? I thought their prospects were considered below the caliber of that offered by the other clubs?
A: Well, we don’t really know who was on and off the table, or even what clubs were in it at the end, definitively. And more to the point, a couple of folks – Keith Law in particular – were of the opinion that the Mets prospects were being unfairly written off in the court of public opinion that is trade rumors.

That said, even Law allowed that Twins GM Bill Smith had traded a premium asset without getting a premium prospect in return.

Q: No premium prospect?
A: No. The Mets kept their best positional prospect, Fernando Martinez, and their best pitching prospect, Mike Pelfrey. Here’s how Baseball America’s Jim Callis put it:

The Twins have traded Santana for two high-reward but also high-risk prospects, and two back-of-the-rotation starters. They didn’t get a prospect whose combination of ceiling and certainty approaches that of Hughes, whom the Yankees were willing to deal for Santana earlier in the winter. They didn’t get a package comparable to the ones the Red Sox reportedly offered earlier, fronted by either Jacoby Ellsbury and Jon Lester and also containing two solid prospects nearly ready for the majors: righty Justin Masterson and shortstop Jed Lowrie.

Avert your eyes, Twins fans.

Q: So who did the Twins get?
A: Four kids. Law’s got the breakdown for you in the link above. The two closest to the majors are Philip Humber, a fastball/curveball/changeup guy who’s plus hook didn’t survive Tommy John surgery, and Kevin Mulvey, owner of an undistinguished three pitch arsenal that he commands well. Deolis Guerra is the the third pitcher in the deal, and Law describes his best asset as an “above-average changeup.” Lastly, the Twins pick up a potential center field candidate in Carlos Gomez, whom Law compared to “a Coco Crisp who could throw the ball to the catcher without 15 hops,” and who can make decent contact but isn’t likely to hit the ball with real authority.

Q: And who are the Mets getting?
A: Statistically speaking, nothing short of the best pitcher in baseball. Also a pitcher who projects well in future because his delivery, a lighter workload early in his career, and the nature of his approach. As good as he’s been, however, there are questions about his health, given his performance down the stretch last season (September numbers: 4.94 ERA in 5 starts, including a 6 run outing in his second to last start; he did strike out a ton of guys, however).

Q: Are there any projections available for Santana?
A: There certainly are. Nate Silver of Baseball Prospectus served up his PECOTA for Santana following the trade. PECOTA sees a 2.94 ERA with 239K’s/60BB’s in 225 innings over in the quadruple A NL. If he’d remained in Minnesota, the anticipated line was 3.32 / 230/62 / 227. In either park, then, he’s borderline inhuman.

Q: Is there anything that could queer the deal at this point?
A: Yup. Santana has to pass a physical, and reportedly has to be signed to an extension within a 72 hour window to approve the deal – he has full no trade protection.

Q: What does losing out on Santana mean for the Sox? What’s next for the Boston front office?
A: As Allen Chace at Over the Monster suggests, hopefully some resolution to the fates of both Coco Crisp and Julian Tavarez. While the latter was not involved – as far as we know – in any permutations of the trade discussion as was the former, it has appeared that the Sox have to some extent been preoccupied with the possibility of obtaining Santana. With that possibility behind us, in all probability, we can move forward in determining how to tweak the last few aspects of the roster. Crisp’s fate, in turn, may impact that of Bobby Kielty or – in my perfect world – Trot Nixon. Ok, the latter’s unlikely, but Kielty is on the record as stating that his return would hinge on Crisp’s future.

Q: Who are the winners and losers from this deal?
A: The Mets are clearly winners in this one, as the addition of Santana makes them the clear favorite in their division. By extension, then, the Braves and Phillies are losers. The Twins also appear to have lost here, having been forced to settle – either by the pitcher or by circumstance – for what some reports are calling the fourth best deal offered. It’s too early to write the Twins off, as their reputation for talent acquisition is generally excellent, [1] but the early returns are poor.

It may be a stretch, but I’ll call the Red Sox winners from this deal as well. First and most obviously because he didn’t go to the Yankees, but also because they retain the service time and low cost years of several potential major leaguers.

Q: What happens if the Red Sox were to meet the Mets in the World Series?
A: After last season, I’ll take my chances with Beckett, thanks.

[1] Yes, they let David Ortiz go, but Santana himself was traded for after being a Rule 5 pick of the Marlins, and they got Boof Bonser, Joe Nathan, and Francisco Liriano for AJ Pierzynski.

Aardsma: Apart from the Alphabetical Advantage, What's the Deal?

I have to be honest, when the Google Alert arrived saying “red sox trade for pitcher,” David Aardsma‘s not exactly who I was expecting. To say the least. But Theo and the gang saw something in him, so I guess it’s worth a brief Q&A on the trade.

Q: Who the hell is David Aardsma?
A: A Chicago reliever, but you knew that. A Denver native – that you probably didn’t. As for the actually important stuff, he’s a former first pick of the San Francisco Giants, a 6 foot 4 Rice product. Regrettably, he appears to have been rushed, reaching the majors in 2004 after a mere 18.1 innings in the minors. The Scouting Notebook for 2005 (lord, how I miss those things) talks about him as a potential closer, but one suspects that such talk has abated in the wake of a couple of years of less than stellar performances. If my math is right, he’ll be 27 going into the season.

Q: What kind of pitcher is he?
A: A hard thrower, both by reputation and – to a certain extent – by results. The book says that he’ll touch 96-97, and while the 2005 scouter had him throwing a hard breaking ball along with his fastball, last year’s Baseball Prospectus claims that he’d narrowed the focus down to pretty much just the heater. Depending on the command of and movement on that fastball, of course, a single pitch repertoire can be a serious issue – unless you last name is Rivera and you hail from Panama. Aardsma at least has shown the ability to strike people out, however, with a lifetime 8.44 K/9 which spiked at 10.02 per last year.

Q: So what’s the catch?
A: Pretty much what you’d expect: control. Despite the attention to the fastball, Aardsma has yet to demonstrate acceptable control on a consistent basis. In 96 total MLB innings, Aardsma’s walked 55 to his 90 strikeouts. Not good.

Q: What did we have to give up to get him?
A: Two non-drafted young pitchers, Miguel Socolovich (21) and Willy Mota (22). I don’t have much on either kid, but they’re not among the BA Top 30 prospects and neither has made it to AA. According to Kevin Thomas, “Socolovich pitched 11 games in low Class A Greenville last year (2-2, 6.65) and 14 in short-season Lowell (5-4, 3.56). Mota was an outfielder for four years before converting to pitcher last season (5-3, 2.60 in 17 relief appearances with Lowell).” While you never know, neither of these kids has exactly lit it up.

Q: Where does he fit in the bullpen mix?
A: Presumably he’ll audition for a 6th or 7th inning role, with a theoretical upside of hard throwing right handed set up man.

Q: Anything interesting in his splits?
A: Well, he came out of the gate quickly last year. In April, he held a 1.72 ERA, and had K’d 23 in 15.2 innings, only (for him) walking 6. They also tell us he shouldn’t be used against the Cubs: in 1.1 innings against them, they’ve hit .667 of his offerings scoring 9 runs in the process. Also of note: he was much better at home than away last year, 2.08 ERA/.210 BAA vs 11.40/.382.

Q: Is he more effective facing lefties or righties?
A: Don’t have the career numbers in front of me, but last year it was six of one, half a dozen of another. Lefties hit him for less power, but got on base a ton (.448), while righties walked less but tatooed him to the tune of a .560 slugging percentage.

Q: All in all, what do you make of the trade?
A: A fairly harmless transaction, with a modest
potential upside if Aardsma matures as he closes in on 30 as some pitchers do.

Q: Will it work out better than the last swap with the White Sox, which exchanged serviceable if burnt out David Riske for Javier Lopez?
A: Who knows. It is worth noting, however, that while Riske has generally outpitched Lopez, he’s been better than four times as expensive. And that in an admitted 20+ fewer innings, Lopez allowed exactly the same BAA as Riske. The latter strikes more out while walking fewer, however.