2017 - 2018 Hot Stove Baseball

[Blue in the Face]

First cold morning here, so might as well get the stove going to warm things up.

The Nippon Ham Fighters have announced that they well post two-way star Shohei Otani this off-season (http://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/21359530/japanese-baseball-star-shohei-otani-made-available-mlb). Under the new CBA, he's giving up a ton of money by coming now instead of waiting 2 more years, and teams will be severely limited in what they can offer him, so it will be interesting to see who he signs with. The Rangers and Yankees have the most international free agent bonus pool money available, but the difference between them and the lowest teams is only about $3 million, so not much in the context of a long mlb career (or even in the context of marketing opportunities depending on what market he's in). Will he go for the biggest up front bonus? Stick to the AL so he can DH when he's not pitching? Go to the Dodgers where he wanted to sign back when he was 18? Curious to see what happens, and how good he turns out to be (and if he can legitimately play both ways).

Not really hot stove, but RIP to Roy Halladay (plane crash) and Red Sox top prospect Daniel Flores (cancer, only 17), who both died this week.

[Olympic Fan]

First cold morning here, so might as well get the stove going to warm things up.

The Nippon Ham Fighters have announced that they well post two-way star Shohei Otani this off-season (http://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/21359530/japanese-baseball-star-shohei-otani-made-available-mlb). Under the new CBA, he's giving up a ton of money by coming now instead of waiting 2 more years, and teams will be severely limited in what they can offer him, so it will be interesting to see who he signs with. The Rangers and Yankees have the most international free agent bonus pool money available, but the difference between them and the lowest teams is only about $3 million, so not much in the context of a long mlb career (or even in the context of marketing opportunities depending on what market he's in). Will he go for the biggest up front bonus? Stick to the AL so he can DH when he's not pitching? Go to the Dodgers where he wanted to sign back when he was 18? Curious to see what happens, and how good he turns out to be (and if he can legitimately play both ways).

Not really hot stove, but RIP to Roy Halladay (plane crash) and Red Sox top prospect Daniel Flores (cancer, only 17), who both died this week.

Agree that Otani is the biggest news. This us probably the greatest Japanese talent available since Ichiro ... and certainly he's the most unique with a Ruthian range of skills (I'm NOT saying he's that level, but he is a first-class pitcher and a first-class slugger). He's a guy who will impact anybody he signs with.

One other story to watch -- Derek Jeter has talked about slashing the payroll in Miami ... and he's confirmed that Giancarlo Stanton is on the trading block. It's going to take a ton of prospects ... but to get a 50 home run guy?? The Red Sox definitely need that kind of pop to put them over the top, but do they have the prospects that would interest Jeter? The Yanks have the prospects, but don't really need Stanton -- except it would be awesome to have two 50-home run guys back-to-back in the lineup ... how often as that happened in baseball history? The answer -- once (1961 Mantle and Maris). Ruth and Gehrig never did it (mainly because Gehrig never hit 50).

Also, I think Jake Arrieta is the one real pitching prize on the free agent market. Well, I guess you can count Yu Darvish, despite his WS meltdown. But there will be a bunch of solid bats available.

[CDu]

Not sure I am buying the Otani hype. At least not as a hitter. His hitting stats seem more like those of Kosuke Fukudome’s than that of a slugger. It is important to renember that power numbers simply don’t translate from Japan to the US. Whether it be smaller parks or less pitching depth or both, Japanese hitters have pretty much all seen their power drop substantially in the US.

Now, Otani is unique in that he probably would/will be a legitimate hitter in addition to being a terrific pitching prospect. But I am not convinced he will be an impact bat in MLB.

[Blue in the Face]

Not sure I am buying the Otani hype. At least not as a hitter. His hitting stats seem more like those of Kosuke Fukudome’s than that of a slugger.
Fukudome's career stats in Japan are a fair bit better than Otani's, but it's not realistic to compare them without taking account of age. Otani has been well ahead of where Fukudome was at a similar age. Obviously that doesn't mean he'll be more successful here, but I don't think Fukudome means much with regard to Otani, other than being an example that many good Japanese hitters have struggled to do well in mlb.

[Olympic Fan]

The news keeps piling up:

-- In the least surprising vote in modern history, Judge and Ballinger won the rookie of the year awards in the two leagues. Maybe a little surprising in that both were unanimous.

-- Future Hall of Famer Carlos Beltran retired after 20 years in the game -- a month after winning his first World Series ring. There's at least some speculation that he may be in the running to become manager of the Yankees.

-- Hall of Fame second baseman Bobby Doerr just died at age 99. Hard to be too sad -- he had a long and apparently happy life. Still, RIP.

[CDu]

Fukudome's career stats in Japan are a fair bit better than Otani's, but it's not realistic to compare them without taking account of age. Otani has been well ahead of where Fukudome was at a similar age. Obviously that doesn't mean he'll be more successful here, but I don't think Fukudome means much with regard to Otani, other than being an example that many good Japanese hitters have struggled to do well in mlb.

Fukudome's age-22 power stats are actually pretty comparable to Otani's age-22 power numbers (Otani did have a somewhat better ISO). The major difference is the rate of singles they got (which is usually a result of luck). Otani had a BABIP of .482 last year, which is absurdly high. Fukudome was less lucky (BABIP of .404) in his age-22 season. So I don't think Fukudome is an awful comp. Otani will likely have a bit more pop than Fukudome or Ichiro did, but way less power than Hideki Matsui had. And he isn't likely to hit like Ichiro did.

Now, that'd still be a decent hitter. But his value appears to me to be almost entirely in his ability to be a front-line starting pitcher. He just may also be a pretty good hitting pitcher on top of that.

[weezie]

My son is telling me that J. Zimmermann wants to return to DC and that the nat is interested? Tigs will have to completely eat his ridiculous contract but it sounds like a get the heck out of Dodge moment for him. It'll be crazed cats and seas gulls on the field next season in Detroit. Might as well hop on the next freight train heading south.

[Blue in the Face]

Fukudome's age-22 power stats are actually pretty comparable to Otani's age-22 power numbers (Otani did have a somewhat better ISO). The major difference is the rate of singles they got (which is usually a result of luck). Otani had a BABIP of .482 last year, which is absurdly high. Fukudome was less lucky (BABIP of .404) in his age-22 season. So I don't think Fukudome is an awful comp. Otani will likely have a bit more pop than Fukudome or Ichiro did, but way less power than Hideki Matsui had.
Zeroing in on age 22 is cherrypicking a bit, especially since Otani was hurt this year. Through age 22, Otani's averaged a home run per 21.5 at-bats. At age 22, Fukudome homered every 32.8 at-bats, and through age 25 he was at every 30.8 at-bats. Those are pretty significant differences. That said, I'd agree Otani is unlikely to be as effective a hitter as Matsui was. Even if he abandoned pitching and became a full-time hitter, that's a pretty high bar. And the fact that Matsui is the 2nd best Japanese hitter in mlb history, and after 2 you can sort of stop making the list is a pretty good indication of the translation of hitting stats from Japan to MLB.

[CDu]

Zeroing in on age 22 is cherrypicking a bit, especially since Otani was hurt this year. Through age 22, Otani's averaged a home run per 21.5 at-bats. At age 22, Fukudome homered every 32.8 at-bats, and through age 25 he was at every 30.8 at-bats. Those are pretty significant differences. That said, I'd agree Otani is unlikely to be as effective a hitter as Matsui was. Even if he abandoned pitching and became a full-time hitter, that's a pretty high bar. And the fact that Matsui is the 2nd best Japanese hitter in mlb history, and after 2 you can sort of stop making the list is a pretty good indication of the translation of hitting stats from Japan to MLB.

I was zeroing in on age 22 because it was the only year of data common to both, and since Otani's age-22 was better than his career averages I don't think it was a disservice to him. I don't think it's appropriate to only look at HR rate with respect to power though. ISO is much more appropriate as it captures 2B and 3B (which are a function of power too). The difference between a HR and a 2B off the bat can be small, and over small sample sizes using just one of their rates can be misleading of one's true power.

Ultimately, I think Otani would be somewhere closer to Fukudome than to Matsui. I do think he will have more power than Fukudome (as I said, he showed more power at a similar age), but likely not enough to make him a huge plus at the plate.

[Mal]

Ultimately, I think Otani would be somewhere closer to Fukudome than to Matsui. I do think he will have more power than Fukudome (as I said, he showed more power at a similar age), but likely not enough to make him a huge plus at the plate.

So you guys seem to have reached something of a consensus on the projection - likely a pretty good MLB hitter but not a great one. Which I think is too bad, because I would love to see a starting pitcher who's a good enough hitter to DH the other four days. That would be awesome, and should immediately put the guy in MVP discussions, if we focus on the "V" instead of pretend it's just Best Player This Year. I always hoped at some point Rick Ankiel would come back and pitch some to go along with playing centerfield and having one of the most incredible outfield arms I've ever seen.

[Mal]

Also, I think Jake Arrieta is the one real pitching prize on the free agent market. Well, I guess you can count Yu Darvish, despite his WS meltdown. But there will be a bunch of solid bats available.

I think someone's going to end up overpaying and disappointed 24 months from now with Jake Arrieta. The drop in velocity this year might portend coming out of his prime, and his command over the last year and a half was at times really spotty. He's thrown 30 wild pitches the last two seasons, as a matter of fact, leading the NL both years. He still misses a lot of bats, but his K's have trended downward as his HR's allowed have trended upward. As one of only two front of the rotation guys available on the market this year, and a Cy Young winner, he'll be commanding a huge number of $$ and 5+ years, so I'd put a large sum on the back end of whatever contract he signs being a terrible deal for whoever's carrying it.

Darvish will probably be hurt by his WS issues, fairly or not.

Beyond that, you're certainly right that there's not much excitement on the market re: rotation guys. Will be interesting to see where Alex Cobb ends up - he's been making friendly noises towards the Cubs, and could help fill the gap left when they probably don't re-sign Arrieta. Also interested to see who grabs Sabathia, if the Yankees don't keep him around.

On the other hand, there's going to be a very active market for relievers. Not only are there a lot of them on the market, but the roster building philosophy of "starters to get us through 5 or 6 and if we're ahead at that point, game over because we've got 47 untouchable flame throwers in the pen" has reached critical mass.

Can we have a side discussion about that trend, and whether we think it will be a permanent thing and lessen the importance of the "starting" pitcher role? I think that would be cool, though it would take away some of my favorite aspects of watching a game. It could take a long time, both to change managerial and front office mindsets even further, but also to get player and agent buy-in, because it would drive down the value of ace starters, but it would be interesting to see someone eventually go with a philosophy of having a dozen guys on the pitching staff, and planning for all of them to pitch somewhere between about 90 and 140 innings. No more of this 4 days off stuff - instead of starting once a week and throwing 90 to 100 pitches, everyone's likely to throw around 2 innings or 30 pitches 3x/wk. If you've got someone like Clayton Kershaw who can get through an order 3 times, fine, but you don't need someone like that if you've got 12 or 13 guys with a variety of styles/stuff.

[budwom]

My son is telling me that J. Zimmermann wants to return to DC and that the nat is interested? Tigs will have to completely eat his ridiculous contract but it sounds like a get the heck out of Dodge moment for him. It'll be crazed cats and seas gulls on the field next season in Detroit. Might as well hop on the next freight train heading south.

The Nippon Ham Fighters are going to do a leveraged buyout of our Tigers and put them out of their misery.

[CDu]

So you guys seem to have reached something of a consensus on the projection - likely a pretty good MLB hitter but not a great one. Which I think is too bad, because I would love to see a starting pitcher who's a good enough hitter to DH the other four days. That would be awesome, and should immediately put the guy in MVP discussions, if we focus on the "V" instead of pretend it's just Best Player This Year. I always hoped at some point Rick Ankiel would come back and pitch some to go along with playing centerfield and having one of the most incredible outfield arms I've ever seen.

That's the thing: I don't think he's going to be a good enough hitter to be a DH. At least not a good one. I think he'll be a passable MLB hitter. But his non-pitching positions are corner OF or DH, and those are premium bat positions. That's my point: his bat is PHENOMENAL for a pitcher, but like Fukudome I don't think it's going to be good enough for the corner OF, nor do I think it is good enough for DH. So basically, he would be a below-average option at either spot.

Now, one could argue there is real value in having a replacement-level starter at the corner OF or DH who also pitches. But if I am a bigger-market team, I probably already have better options at those spots. So he's really only valuable to me as a starting pitcher.

For example, the Cubs. I'd rather Otani wouldn't start over Heyward (for defensive reasons, although the bats will probably be similar), Happ, or Schwarber. He'd be a potential pinch hitter and spot starter only.

[CDu]

I think someone's going to end up overpaying and disappointed 24 months from now with Jake Arrieta. The drop in velocity this year might portend coming out of his prime, and his command over the last year and a half was at times really spotty. He's thrown 30 wild pitches the last two seasons, as a matter of fact, leading the NL both years. He still misses a lot of bats, but his K's have trended downward as his HR's allowed have trended upward. As one of only two front of the rotation guys available on the market this year, and a Cy Young winner, he'll be commanding a huge number of $$ and 5+ years, so I'd put a large sum on the back end of whatever contract he signs being a terrible deal for whoever's carrying it.

I agree on Arrieta. He was phenomenal in 2014, 2015, and the first half of 2016. Then, the wheels came off a bit. His FIP and xFIP over the past 1.5 years are over 4.00. Which, combined with his age, suggests (and you suggest) that he is going to lead to some serious buyer's remorse.

I'll miss him in a Cub uniform, as he was a huge part of the Cubs' emergence over the past few years. And at his peak, he was as good as anyone in baseball. But I think the Cubs got his best years, and I probably won't mind not paying him for what will probably be his decline phase moving forward.

[luvdahops]

I agree on Arrieta. He was phenomenal in 2014, 2015, and the first half of 2016. Then, the wheels came off a bit. His FIP and xFIP over the past 1.5 years are over 4.00. Which, combined with his age, suggests (and you suggest) that he is going to lead to some serious buyer's remorse.

I'll miss him in a Cub uniform, as he was a huge part of the Cubs' emergence over the past few years. And at his peak, he was as good as anyone in baseball. But I think the Cubs got his best years, and I probably won't mind not paying him for what will probably be his decline phase moving forward.

I tend to agree with you, though his 2H 2017 numbers were appreciably better than 1H 2017 and 2H 2016 in most respects, and he is a proven performer in the postseason. So I think the Cubs will be open to signing him for a shorter-term deal (e.g. 4 years) at or close to top dollars annually, knowing that his decline phase will likely hit by the final year, if not sooner. He is still very tough to hit when his command is there, but the decline in velocity and tendency to get behind in counts more often has made him much more susceptible to the long ball these days.

[weezie]

The Nippon Ham Fighters are going to do a leveraged buyout of our Tigers and put them out of their misery.

Just substitute the Ham Fighters for the Tigs. A few semesters abroad. Lord help us, it's going to be ugly. Beer and hot dogs can only go so far to alleviate the pain.

But, we'll be saving $ on the MLB Ticket.

[Olympic Fan]

The new Hall of Fame ballot went out this week -- Chipper Jones and Jim Thome are the two newcomers who are absolute locks.

Along with the ballot went a letter from Hall of Famer Joe Morgan, the vice chairman of the HOF, urging voters NOT to vote for the PED cheaters:

http://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/21502885/joe-morgan-asks-voters-block-ped-users-baseball-hall-fame

[weezie]

Whoa Nelly braves, what a disaster. Wow, brutal.

[Blue in the Face]

Whoa Nelly braves, what a disaster. Wow, brutal.
You're not kidding. 12 minor leaguers, including one of their top prospects, declared free agents. Major restrictions on their future international free agent bonus pool, banned from signing a high profile 14 year old shortstop they'd already agreed to a deal with, and loss of a 3rd round pick. And the permanent banning of their former GM. Yowza.

https://sports.yahoo.com/mlb-hammers-atlanta-braves-declaring-12-minor-league-players-free-agents-201314625.html

[Olympic Fan]

I was just looking at the 2018 Hall of Fame Ballot and breaking down the candidates. I see them in this way:

First ballot locks
Chipper Jones -- one of the three best offensive third basemen in history
Jim Thome -- 612 home runs ... enough said

Holdover contenders
Trevor Hoffman -- got 74 percent of the vote last year
Vlad Guererro -- got 71 percent a year ago

The Cheaters (Good enough to get in, but held back by the PED issue -- especially with the much-respected Joe Morgan urging voters to reject the drug cheaters
Roger Clemens
Barry Bonds
Manny Ramirez
Sammy Sosa

Newcomers with promise (probably not first-ballot picks, but might eventually get in)
Omar Vizquel -- the best defensive SS of his generation, but a very below-par hitter (note: I know that he got a lot of hits, but he also played a long time. His career OPS plus is 82 ... he's basically this generation's Mark Belanger)
Andruw Jones -- a very short peak, but there are metrics that show that in his prime, he was the best defensive CFer in history. And he did hit 434 home runs
Scott Rolen -- nice third baseman, but somewhat overshadowed by Chipper (although Rolen was a better defensive 3B)
Johan Santana -- nice pitcher, but I think that with just 139 wins as a starting pitcher, he has little chance

So who gets in?

My ballot would include Chipper, Thome, Hoffman and Guererro. I might throw a vote to Mike Mussina (just 51.8 percent of the vote last year). But that's it.

[Blue in the Face]

My ballot would include Chipper, Thome, Hoffman and Guererro. I might throw a vote to Mike Mussina (just 51.8 percent of the vote last year). But that's it.
Agreed. I'd probably vote for Moose as well, but he won't get in (and I think he probably won't get in ever). The others will, and I think it's very likely they'll be the entire class.

[weezie]

So, I guess Jack Morris is chopped liver. Screw the cheaters. Each and every one. Ashamed of baseball that the great Joe Morgan has to lower himself to urge voters against them.

Utterly pathetic.

[Olympic Fan]

So, I guess Jack Morris is chopped liver. Screw the cheaters. Each and every one. Ashamed of baseball that the great Joe Morgan has to lower himself to urge voters against them.

Utterly pathetic.

I actually agree with you about Morris -- he should be in. The best pitcher of the '80s.

I didn't mention him because he's no longer on the ballot. I hope his status changes when he comes up before the Old Timer's Committee.

PS I agree with you -- and Joe Morgan -- about the PED cheaters

[Reilly]

Agreed. I'd probably vote for Moose as well, but he won't get in (and I think he probably won't get in ever). The others will, and I think it's very likely they'll be the entire class.

I have a long-standing (since toward the end of MM's career) bet w/ a big Orioles fan (forget what we bet, actually) about whether Mussina ever gets in. I believe I took the position that while he deserves to get in, he won't.


I actually agree with you about Morris -- he should be in. The best pitcher of the '80s.

I didn't mention him because he's no longer on the ballot. I hope his status changes when he comes up before the Old Timer's Committee ...

Maybe Jack Morris and Dale Murphy can go in together: http://m.mlb.com/news/article/40900514/hall-of-fame-doesnt-call-on-dale-murphy-in-final-year-on-ball/

[acdevil]

This is the coldest hot stove ever

[Olympic Fan]

This is the coldest hot stove ever

I agree ... we usually get some good debate over the Hall of Fame. But it is true that the free agent market is slow to get going ...

Allow me to introduce one controversial topic.

I've been reading a lot of HOF debate recently and I've come across an interesting perspective. Curt Schilling has become the darling of right-wing types who seem to think he's being kept out of the Hall of Fame because of his right-wing politics ... liberal, bleeding heart media, don't you know.

It couldn't be that his resume (216 career wins) is a little short of what normally qualifies a pitcher for the HOF ... we were just talking about Jack Morris (254 wins) and Mike Mussina (270 wins) are guys who weren't voted in. Morris had at least as good a postseason record as Schilling. Andy Pettite, minus the PEDs, has a better case than Schilling.

I don't know what their politics are.

[luvdahops]

I agree ... we usually get some good debate over the Hall of Fame. But it is true that the free agent market is slow to get going ...

Allow me to introduce one controversial topic.

I've been reading a lot of HOF debate recently and I've come across an interesting perspective. Curt Schilling has become the darling of right-wing types who seem to think he's being kept out of the Hall of Fame because of his right-wing politics ... liberal, bleeding heart media, don't you know.

It couldn't be that his resume (216 career wins) is a little short of what normally qualifies a pitcher for the HOF ... we were just talking about Jack Morris (254 wins) and Mike Mussina (270 wins) are guys who weren't voted in. Morris had at least as good a postseason record as Schilling. Andy Pettite, minus the PEDs, has a better case than Schilling.

I don't know what their politics are.

Morris won a lot of games, was exceptionally durable and pitched great in the '84 and '91 World Series. But his career numbers overall are pretty ordinary (e.g. 3.94 FIP, 1.296 WHIP, 32.8 7-year peak WAR) and well below the HoF standard for starting pitchers. So I don't think his case was ever that strong, and now looks much weaker through a modern analytical lens.

[weezie]

Yes, but Jack gets a smidge of extra credit for the still impressive 'stache. I think I have mentioned this before? :cool:

[Olympic Fan]

Morris won a lot of games, was exceptionally durable and pitched great in the '84 and '91 World Series. But his career numbers overall are pretty ordinary (e.g. 3.94 FIP, 1.296 WHIP, 32.8 7-year peak WAR) and well below the HoF standard for starting pitchers. So I don't think his case was ever that strong, and now looks much weaker through a modern analytical lens.

I think that's a example of the danger too much reliance on numbers can create.

Yes, some of Morris' stats do not blow you away, but he was the ace pitcher for the best team in the 1980s -- a consistent winner and a durable beast. Between 1981 and 1989, he averaged over 250 innings a season. After a brief dropoff in 1989, he came back to win 54 games the next three seasons, throwing over 240 innings each year. In his age 36 season, he anchored Minnesota to a world championship.

He was the dominant pitcher of his generation.

This reminds me of the guys who look at stats and want to argue that Dave Kingman was a great player -- if you were around them, you know Kingman was a freak who never helped his teams win.

[luvdahops]

Yes, but Jack gets a smidge of extra credit for the still impressive 'stache. I think I have mentioned this before? :cool:

No argument there! Some say he provided the inspiration for Tom Selleck’s look in Magnum PI...

[luvdahops]

I think that's a example of the danger too much reliance on numbers can create.

Yes, some of Morris' stats do not blow you away, but he was the ace pitcher for the best team in the 1980s -- a consistent winner and a durable beast. Between 1981 and 1989, he averaged over 250 innings a season. After a brief dropoff in 1989, he came back to win 54 games the next three seasons, throwing over 240 innings each year. In his age 36 season, he anchored Minnesota to a world championship.

He was the dominant pitcher of his generation.

This reminds me of the guys who look at stats and want to argue that Dave Kingman was a great player -- if you were around them, you know Kingman was a freak who never helped his teams win.

Oh, come on now

Who exactly are you including in Jack’s generation? Obviously not Clemens, Gooden, Steib, Saberhagen, among others.

Sorry, but durability + consistency does NOT equal excellence. And that is really the crux of the argument here. Most astute baseball fans - and I believe you are one - understand that wins and losses are not a great measure of pitching prowess (though it should be noted that Morris lost quite a few games, too), given the number of variables out of a pitcher’s control. His Hall of Fame window is shut, and for good reason.

[weezie]

In other news, apparently JD Martinez signed with Scott Boras and will most definitely get that 200 million plus plus money now.

All possibly paving the way for Bryce Harper to eventually become the 500 million dollar man...hey, it could happen! :)

[CDu]

Oh, come on now

Who exactly are you including in Jack’s generation? Obviously not Clemens, Gooden, Steib, Saberhagen, among others.

Sorry, but durability + consistency does NOT equal excellence. And that is really the crux of the argument here. Most astute baseball fans - and I believe you are one - understand that wins and losses are not a great measure of pitching prowess (though it should be noted that Morris lost quite a few games, too), given the number of variables out of a pitcher’s control. His Hall of Fame window is shut, and for good reason.

Morris is a classic example of folks overvaluing performances in select small sample sizes. He had a career ERA of 3.90 despite pitching in a fairly deadball era. In no way, shape, or form was he the most dominant pitcher of his era.

He is known as one of the most clutch, big-game pitchers ever. But that is really based on a total of six starts ( his 3 starts in 1984 and his 3 in the 1991 World Series. And he was AWESOME in those starts, with a 1.50 ERA in 48 IP. But even with those awesome six starts, his postseason ERA was 3.80. Solid, but not dominant.

He produced one of the most memorable performances in baseball history in that 1991 game 7. But without that game, I suspect people probably never even mention his name in HoF discussions.

[ncexnyc]

Knowing that you'll be able to pencil a starting pitchers name into your line-up card every fourth or fifth day, season after season is a big thing. Knowing that said pitcher will get you approximately seven innings every time out is another big plus for your team.

Stats can only tell us so much about a player. Sometimes we need to dig deeper and find out why the stats were what they were. Did Morris play on teams that had outstanding bull-pens or was he asked to go that extra inning or two, which resulted in him giving up more runs than another pitcher who played for a team with a very deep bull-pen would have.

[Olympic Fan]

Oh, come on now

Who exactly are you including in Jack’s generation? Obviously not Clemens, Gooden, Steib, Saberhagen, among others.

Sorry, but durability + consistency does NOT equal excellence. And that is really the crux of the argument here. Most astute baseball fans - and I believe you are one - understand that wins and losses are not a great measure of pitching prowess (though it should be noted that Morris lost quite a few games, too), given the number of variables out of a pitcher’s control. His Hall of Fame window is shut, and for good reason.

No, you come on ...

Some of the pitchers you mention overlap with Morris, but none was his equal in the 1980s ...

Yeah, Roger Clemens was a better overall pitcher (with the help of PEDs), but he didn't become a great pitcher until 1986-87 ... He had those two great years, then exploded in the '90s.

Stieb had some good years and won the Cy Young twice -- but those were the only two times in the decade that he finished in the top 10 of the CYA vote (Morris did it five times).

Gooden's first three years were magical, then he dropped off. Saberhagen? Are you kidding?

Just one measure: Wins in the decade of the 1980s:

1. Morris 166
2. Stieb 140
3. Gooden 100
4. Clemens 95
5. Saberhagen 93

In Morris' overall career, he rates behind the cheater Clemens, but ahead of the rest ... it's worth noting that in the 20th century, every pitcher who has led a decade in wins in in the Hall of Fame -- except Jack Morris.

PS Actually, that list included just those pitchers you mentioned. The real top 10 from the 1980s was:
Jack Morris 166
Dave Stieb 140
Bob Welch 137
Fernando Valenzuela128
Charlie Hough 128
Bert Blyleven 123
Nolan Ryan 122
Jim Clancy 119
Frank Viola 117
Rick Sutcliffe 116

[CDu]

No, you come on ...

Some of the pitchers you mention overlap with Morris, but none was his equal in the 1980s ...

Yeah, Roger Clemens was a better overall pitcher (with the help of PEDs), but he didn't become a great pitcher until 1986-87 ... He had those two great years, then exploded in the '90s.

Stieb had some good years and won the Cy Young twice -- but those were the only two times in the decade that he finished in the top 10 of the CYA vote (Morris did it five times).

Gooden's first three years were magical, then he dropped off. Saberhagen? Are you kidding?

Just one measure: Wins in the decade of the 1980s:

1. Morris 166
2. Stieb 140
3. Gooden 100
4. Clemens 95
5. Saberhagen 93

In Morris' overall career, he rates behind the cheater Clemens, but ahead of the rest ... it's worth noting that in the 20th century, every pitcher who has led a decade in wins in in the Hall of Fame -- except Jack Morris.

PS Actually, that list included just those pitchers you mentioned. The real top 10 from the 1980s was:
Jack Morris 166
Dave Stieb 140
Bob Welch 137
Fernando Valenzuela128
Charlie Hough 128
Bert Blyleven 123
Nolan Ryan 122
Jim Clancy 119
Frank Viola 117
Rick Sutcliffe 116

Now, now, you know better than to use wins as the primary measure of how good a pitcher was. Stieb had a better ERA in 7 of the 10 seasons in the 80s, and generated more WAR in 8 of the 10 years. Stieb’s career ERA was almost a half a run lower, and he generated more WAR in the 80s than Morris did in his entire career.

Stieb was the better pitcher. He just had the misfortune of pitching on bad teams, which deflated his win total. As evidenced by his 1985 season, when he led the league in ERA over 267 innings, yet went 14-13. In fact, his 1982-1985 seasons, when he was generating 7+ WAR each year, he never won more than 17 games thanks to poor run support. And because baseball writers were still locked onto wins instead of actual measures of pitcher performance, his Cy Young votes were deflated along with his wins.

[duke74]

Gooden's first three years were magical, then he dropped off. Saberhagen? Are you kidding?



As a Mets fan...what might have been with Doc without his demons....

Doc, Straw...'86 should not have been a singleton....

[CDu]

As a Mets fan...what might have been with Doc without his demons...

Doc, Straw...'86 should not have been a singleton...

Interestingly enough, Doc’s 3 great seasons were still strong enough to have him produce more WAR in the 80s than Morris - despite not pitching the first 4 years of the decade. Gooden wound up with more career WAR too. No, he wasn’t as dominant as he was in 1985 again, but he put up 3+ WAR seasons pretty consistently through 1993. That said, cocaine can do a number on your career.

Morris was actually 12th in WAR in the 80s, despite being one of the few to pitch the entire decade:
Stieb (45.2)
Welch (35.1)
Valenzuela (34.8)
Blyleven (34.0 on the back end of his career)
Hershiser (32.9 in basically 6 seasons)
Clemens (32.3 in 6 seasons)
Ryan (30.8 pitching into his 40s)
Gooden (30.2)
Tudor (29.7)
Saberhagen (29.0 in 6 years)
Hough (28.7 pitching into his 40s)
Morris (27.9)

[ncexnyc]

Now, now, you know better than to use wins as the primary measure of how good a pitcher was. Stieb had a better ERA in 7 of the 10 seasons in the 80s, and generated more WAR in 8 of the 10 years. Stieb’s career ERA was almost a half a run lower, and he generated more WAR in the 80s than Morris did in his entire career.

Stieb was the better pitcher. He just had the misfortune of pitching on bad teams, which deflated his win total. As evidenced by his 1985 season, when he led the league in ERA over 267 innings, yet went 14-13. In fact, his 1982-1985 seasons, when he was generating 7+ WAR each year, he never won more than 17 games thanks to poor run support. And because baseball writers were still locked onto wins instead of actual measures of pitcher performance, his Cy Young votes were deflated along with his wins.

Now, now you know better than to cherry pick stats.

Your version of AL East history needs some work. In the 80's both the Tigers and the Blue Jays finished in first place twice. If you average the final standings for the decade the Jays finished at 3.7 and the Tigers at 3.1. Sure the Jays were terrible at the start of the decade, but the year you quote as your shining example, 1985, the Jays finished with a 99-62 record, the best in the East.

Do some more checking and you'll see that you could actually call these teams rivals during this era as they were often next to each other in the standings. So please if you're trying to make a case for Stieb, at least be honest about it.

[CDu]

Now, now you know better than to cherry pick stats.

Your version of AL East history needs some work. In the 80's both the Tigers and the Blue Jays finished in first place twice. If you average the final standings for the decade the Jays finished at 3.7 and the Tigers at 3.1. Sure the Jays were terrible at the start of the decade, but the year you quote as your shining example, 1985, the Jays finished with a 99-62 record, the best in the East.

Do some more checking and you'll see that you could actually call these teams rivals during this era as they were often next to each other in the standings. So please if you're trying to make a case for Stieb, at least be honest about it.

I didn’t cherry pick anything. Stieb’s team let him down. Pitchers contribute (far) less than half of the contributions towards wins. Quite simply, you don’t lead the league in ERA and wind up .500 if your teammates do their job and score runs.

And I have made pretty clearly the case as to why Stieb was better. He produced more WAR than Morris - for their careers, for the decade as a whole, and for 8 of the 10 seasons of the 80s.

The two arguments people make for Morris are “winningest pitcher of the 80s” and “great in the postseason.” Well, wins rely on the team, not just the pitcher. Morris was, by pitching metrics, not among the very best of the 80s. His 80s win total is also comfortably behind those other “winningest of the decade” HoFers. And while he was amazing in the 1991 postseason, his career postseason numbers aren’t that amazing either. For his career, Morris was behind Stieb and Hershiser in actual pitching performance.

[Olympic Fan]

Interestingly enough, Doc’s 3 great seasons were still strong enough to have him produce more WAR in the 80s than Morris - despite not pitching the first 4 years of the decade. Gooden wound up with more career WAR too. No, he wasn’t as dominant as he was in 1985 again, but he put up 3+ WAR seasons pretty consistently through 1993. That said, cocaine can do a number on your career.

Morris was actually 12th in WAR in the 80s, despite being one of the few to pitch the entire decade:
Stieb (45.2)
Welch (35.1)
Valenzuela (34.8)
Blyleven (34.0 on the back end of his career)
Hershiser (32.9 in basically 6 seasons)
Clemens (32.3 in 6 seasons)
Ryan (30.8 pitching into his 40s)
Gooden (30.2)
Tudor (29.7)
Saberhagen (29.0 in 6 years)
Hough (28.7 pitching into his 40s)
Morris (27.9)

I have little regard for WAR -- especially in history terms.

It started when I noticed that, according to WAR, Rich Reuschel had a significantly better WAR ((70.0) than Bob Feller (63.6) -- even though Feller pitched more innings with a better ERA (and a better ERA-plus). Forget that he had 266 career wins (to 214 for Reuschel) and a 62.1 winning percentage (to .528). Feller was CLEARLY the superior pitcher -- why does Reuschel have a better WAR?

Study the records and you see dozens of such ridiculous rankings. You think Sandy Koufax was a great pitcher? Not according to WAR -- he shows up at 49.0 on the WAR list ... a few places behind Bret Butler. Koufax trails almost all his contemporaries -- Ford, Drysdale, Gibson and Marchial, Spahn, Bunning and the great Billy Pierce... he's also below Rick Reuschel as well as Ciole Hamels, Chuck Finley and many-many more.

So will you use WAR to argue that Sandy Koufax should not be in the Hall of Fame?

And don't get me started on defensive WAR. Still trying to figure out how Brett Gardner got a 3.3 defensive WAR in 2010 while playing left field. That's a significantly better rating that Willie Mays ever got for a season. It's about the same as Brooks Robinson got in his two best seasons!

[CDu]

I have little regard for WAR -- especially in history terms.

It started when I noticed that, according to WAR, Rich Reuschel had a significantly better WAR ((70.0) than Bob Feller (63.6) -- even though Feller pitched more innings with a better ERA (and a better ERA-plus). Forget that he had 266 career wins (to 214 for Reuschel) and a 62.1 winning percentage (to .528). Feller was CLEARLY the superior pitcher -- why does Reuschel have a better WAR?

Study the records and you see dozens of such ridiculous rankings. You think Sandy Koufax was a great pitcher? Not according to WAR -- he shows up at 49.0 on the WAR list ... a few places behind Bret Butler. Koufax trails almost all his contemporaries -- Ford, Drysdale, Gibson and Marchial, Spahn, Bunning and the great Billy Pierce... he's also below Rick Reuschel as well as Ciole Hamels, Chuck Finley and many-many more.

So will you use WAR to argue that Sandy Koufax should not be in the Hall of Fame?

And don't get me started on defensive WAR. Still trying to figure out how Brett Gardner got a 3.3 defensive WAR in 2010 while playing left field. That's a significantly better rating that Willie Mays ever got for a season. It's about the same as Brooks Robinson got in his two best seasons!

You may not care for the stat, but WAR is a HELL of a lot better metric than wins for measuring pitchers’ performance.

And yes, I think Koufax’s 53.2 pitching WAR (he got -4.2 batting WAR) sounds about right. He was only a full-time starter beginning in 1961, and was out of baseball as of 1966. In his six years as a full-time starter, he amassed an absurd 46.6 pitching WAR. So I would say that WAR perfectly captures Koufax’s career. The only reason his career WAR was so low is because he retired at 30. He is basically the Gale Sayers of baseball. Career stats are NOT why he is in the Hall. He was - by all meaningful measures - the single greatest pitcher over a 5-year period in history. His worst season as a full-time starter was better than Morris’ best.

You didn’t really think Koufax was a winning counterargument did you?

[Olympic Fan]

You may not care for the stat, but WAR is a HELL of a lot better metric than wins for measuring pitchers’ performance.

And yes, I think Koufax’s 53.2 pitching WAR (he got -4.2 batting WAR) sounds about right. He was only a full-time starter beginning in 1961, and was out of baseball as of 1966. In his six years as a full-time starter, he amassed an absurd 46.6 pitching WAR. So I would say that WAR perfectly captures Koufax’s career. The only reason his career WAR was so low is because he retired at 30. He is basically the Gale Sayers of baseball. Career stats are NOT why he is in the Hall. He was - by all meaningful measures - the single greatest pitcher over a 5-year period in history. His worst season as a full-time starter was better than Morris’ best.

You didn’t really think Koufax was a winning counterargument did you?

Not sure how your post refutes what I was saying ... I don't disagree about Koufax -- easily the most overrated pitcher in history (but still a HOFer, despite his low WAR)

But look at some of Morris's years ... in 1983 he was 20-13 and pitched 293 innings with a 3.24 ERA. HE PITCHED 20 COMPLETE GAMES.

How was his WAR? It's 4.0 ... by the same token, Marcus Stroman pitched just 201 innings this year, won 13 games with a 3.09 ERA -- and he got a WAR of 5.8 ... with almost exactly the same ERA plus. How does Stroman earn 50 percent better WAR when Morris pitched 50 percent more innings at the same level? Heck, Kluber got an 8.0 WAR for 202 innings (although he had a better ERA)

It's like that for Morris throughout the '80s. In 1984, he pitched the Tigers to the pennant with a 19-11 record, 240 innings and a 3.60 ERA, His war was 2.5.

I repeat -- and I've offered quite a few examples here -- WAR is divorced from reality. Using it to denigrate Morris' HOG candidacy is BS.

[CDu]

Not sure how your post refutes what I was saying ... I don't disagree about Koufax -- easily the most overrated pitcher in history (but still a HOFer, despite his low WAR)

But look at some of Morris's years ... in 1983 he was 20-13 and pitched 293 innings with a 3.24 ERA. HE PITCHED 20 COMPLETE GAMES.

How was his WAR? It's 4.0 ... by the same token, Marcus Stroman pitched just 201 innings this year, won 13 games with a 3.09 ERA -- and he got a WAR of 5.8 ... with almost exactly the same ERA plus. How does Stroman earn 50 percent better WAR when Morris pitched 50 percent more innings at the same level? Heck, Kluber got an 8.0 WAR for 202 innings (although he had a better ERA)

It's like that for Morris throughout the '80s. In 1984, he pitched the Tigers to the pennant with a 19-11 record, 240 innings and a 3.60 ERA, His war was 2.5.

I repeat -- and I've offered quite a few examples here -- WAR is divorced from reality. Using it to denigrate Morris' HOG candidacy is BS.

You continue to overrate the value of wins. It shouldn’t even be in the discussion. It is a team-dependent stat that the pitcher contributes less than half of the effort. There is a reason why WAR was created, specifically to focus on the individual’s actual performance.

You also appear to not understand how WAR works (or are willfully ignoring it). It is calculated relative to replacement level in that season. Quite literally, in fact. It calculates the number of wins above a replacement player (of the same position) the player adds. And the “replacement” player is different each year. There is a reason for this: because each season is dynamic, so comparing stats across years is shaky. WAR addresses this by estimating how valuable a player was compared to the league THAT YEAR.

So, understanding that, we can look at your example. An ERA of 3.09 this year is worth more than an ERA of 3.34 in 1983 because runs per game were higher this year than in 1983. The same works with innings pitched. Guys in the 80s simply threw more innings - even the replacement-level starters. So the fact that Morris threw 89 more innings is not all that relevant - he did get a bonus because he threw more innings relative to his league than Stroman. But it was a much smaller benefit. And their ERA+ wasn’t “almost the same.” Stroman’s was 149, Morris’ was 117. That is a hige difference. Hence, Stroman had the higher WAR: he was better relative to his league than Morris was to his.

Your other examples fall in the same category. Morris simply wasn’t great relative to his league. Thus, his WAR numbers aren’t great.

WAR is a really good measure for pitchers and hitters. I agree with you that it is not good for defense. That is largely because we don’t have good metrics for defense. But we do for pitchers and hitters. And thus, WAR for hitters and pitchers (once one understands how it works) is actually pretty darn good.

[DU82]

Not sure how your post refutes what I was saying ... I don't disagree about Koufax -- easily the most overrated pitcher in history (but still a HOFer, despite his low WAR)

But look at some of Morris's years ... in 1983 he was 20-13 and pitched 293 innings with a 3.24 ERA. HE PITCHED 20 COMPLETE GAMES.

How was his WAR? It's 4.0 ... by the same token, Marcus Stroman pitched just 201 innings this year, won 13 games with a 3.09 ERA -- and he got a WAR of 5.8 ... with almost exactly the same ERA plus. How does Stroman earn 50 percent better WAR when Morris pitched 50 percent more innings at the same level? Heck, Kluber got an 8.0 WAR for 202 innings (although he had a better ERA)

It's like that for Morris throughout the '80s. In 1984, he pitched the Tigers to the pennant with a 19-11 record, 240 innings and a 3.60 ERA, His war was 2.5.

I repeat -- and I've offered quite a few examples here -- WAR is divorced from reality. Using it to denigrate Morris' HOG candidacy is BS.

Then compare his WAR (wins above replacement) to a contemporary, and someone with 21 COMPLETE GAMES IN 1983 (that would be MORE than Morris), Ron Guidry. In roughly 60% of time he had a higher WAR. Does pitching 1500 more innings at roughly a replacement player's value mean more and that he's a HoFer? I'd say Guidry was a better pitcher at his peak, and his post season record is reasonably comparable.

There were not many top pitchers in the '80s compared to the previous decades or the following ones. It's an artificial measurement anyway. (Why are THOSE ten years so important?) Paraphrasing Bill James again, if the good lord decides to let three of the absolute best center fielders play during the same timeframe, include all three instead of leaving the other two out. Flip side, if there's no outstanding pitcher during a similar period, don't worry about it. Do you want to put Davy Concepcion in because he was the best shortstop in the NL in the late '70s and early '80s? The '80s saw the end of the great pitchers from the late '60s and '70s (Seaver being the best, followed by Carlton, Palmer, etc.) and the start of the greats of the '90s (Maddux and Clemens) but none that saw their career centered on the decade. It happens.

The game has changed from 1983. You emphasized complete games, it's not a concern these days. Would you downgrade batters in the 1900-1920 era because they didn't hit home runs? Different game.

I don't see Morris as deserving of the HOF. I see him outside (as I do Guidry and Steib, for instance. If I had to pick one to win a key game, I'd lean towards Guidry.)

[CDu]

Then compare his WAR (wins above replacement) to a contemporary, and someone with 21 COMPLETE GAMES IN 1983 (that would be MORE than Morris), Ron Guidry. In roughly 60% of time he had a higher WAR. Does pitching 1500 more innings at roughly a replacement player's value mean more and that he's a HoFer? I'd say Guidry was a better pitcher at his peak, and his post season record is reasonably comparable.

There were not many top pitchers in the '80s compared to the previous decades or the following ones. It's an artificial measurement anyway. (Why are THOSE ten years so important?) Paraphrasing Bill James again, if the good lord decides to let three of the absolute best center fielders play during the same timeframe, include all three instead of leaving the other two out. Flip side, if there's no outstanding pitcher during a similar period, don't worry about it. Do you want to put Davy Concepcion in because he was the best shortstop in the NL in the late '70s and early '80s? The '80s saw the end of the great pitchers from the late '60s and '70s (Seaver being the best, followed by Carlton, Palmer, etc.) and the start of the greats of the '90s (Maddux and Clemens) but none that saw their career centered on the decade. It happens.

The game has changed from 1983. You emphasized complete games, it's not a concern these days. Would you downgrade batters in the 1900-1920 era because they didn't hit home runs? Different game.

I don't see Morris as deserving of the HOF. I see him outside (as I do Guidry and Steib, for instance. If I had to pick one to win a key game, I'd lean towards Guidry.)

Fun fact: the guy with the most base hits in the 90s? Mark Grace. Was he the best hitter of the 90s? Nope. It just happened that the best hitters either were winding down or just getting started (or were hurt) whereas Grace’s prime was the 90s.

Guidry was surely better than Morris over each player’s 10-year peak. Guidry’s peak just happened to start and end a few years earlier than Morris.

Morris was definitely a good pitcher. He was/is not Hall-worthy. Guidry and Stieb both have better cases, but I agree neither should get in.

[wilson]

Whoa Nelly braves, what a disaster. Wow, brutal.*points*


You're not kidding. 12 minor leaguers, including one of their top prospects, declared free agents. Major restrictions on their future international free agent bonus pool, banned from signing a high profile 14 year old shortstop they'd already agreed to a deal with, and loss of a 3rd round pick. And the permanent banning of their former GM. Yowza.

https://sports.yahoo.com/mlb-hammers-atlanta-braves-declaring-12-minor-league-players-free-agents-201314625.html*laughs*
*still wishes unending ineptitude and mediocrity upon the Cobb Barves*

[Olympic Fan]

You continue to overrate the value of wins. It shouldn’t even be in the discussion. It is a team-dependent stat that the pitcher contributes less than half of the effort. There is a reason why WAR was created, specifically to focus on the individual’s actual performance.


I strongly disagree.

Yes, pitching wins are sometimes overvalued and they are somewhat team dependent. One of my favorite gripes is Tom Glavine's second Cy Young win in 1998 -- pitching for the same team in the same ballpark, Greg Maddox had a better ERA (2.22 vs. 2.47) and pitched more innings (251 to 229). But the Braves scored nearly a run more a game for Glavine and he finished 20-6 to Maddox's 18-9.

But pitching wins are a measure of success -- especially as they measure durability and consistency. The fact is, if the guy is not pitching well, he's not going to be starting long. But Morris was the best starter for what was probably the overall best team of the 1980s (edit: I just checked and the Tigers were the second best team of the 1980s ... to the Yankees. I didn't guess that because after 1981, the Yankees were good, but never really in contention).

Long ago, Christy Mathewson wrote a classic baseball book titled "Pitching in a Pinch". In it, the Hall of Fame pitcher talked about the importance of pitching to win (as opposed to numbers). With a big lead, he pitches differently -- sometimes giving up and run or two to avoid a big inning. But when things are close, the pitcher has to bear down and prevent any damage. A pitcher on a good, high-scoring team might have a higher ERA than a guy who has to "pitch in the pinch" more often. A guy who goes all out on every pitch can't throw as many innings as a guy who knows when to bear down (and when not to).

The guy Morris reminds me of is HOFer Red Ruffing, a big right-hander who was the ace of the Yankees in the 1930s, when they were one of the strongest teams in baseball history. He usually was among the wins leaders, but was never among the ERA leaders. His career record was 273-225 and his career ERA was 3.80.

The numbers aren't great for Ruffing or Morris, but I like to remember Bill James once said -- If there's not room in the Hall of Fame for the best players on the best teams (as Ruffing and Morris clearly were) then what good is it?

PS Ruffing is another guy short-changed by WAR ...

[rasputin]

I strongly disagree.

Yes, pitching wins are sometimes overvalued and they are somewhat team dependent. One of my favorite gripes is Tom Glavine's second Cy Young win in 1998 -- pitching for the same team in the same ballpark, Greg Maddox had a better ERA (2.22 vs. 2.47) and pitched more innings (251 to 229). But the Braves scored nearly a run more a game for Glavine and he finished 20-6 to Maddox's 18-9.

But pitching wins are a measure of success -- especially as they measure durability and consistency. The fact is, if the guy is not pitching well, he's not going to be starting long. But Morris was the best starter for what was probably the overall best team of the 1980s (edit: I just checked and the Tigers were the second best team of the 1980s ... to the Yankees. I didn't guess that because after 1981, the Yankees were good, but never really in contention).

Long ago, Christy Mathewson wrote a classic baseball book titled "Pitching in a Pinch". In it, the Hall of Fame pitcher talked about the importance of pitching to win (as opposed to numbers). With a big lead, he pitches differently -- sometimes giving up and run or two to avoid a big inning. But when things are close, the pitcher has to bear down and prevent any damage. A pitcher on a good, high-scoring team might have a higher ERA than a guy who has to "pitch in the pinch" more often. A guy who goes all out on every pitch can't throw as many innings as a guy who knows when to bear down (and when not to).

The guy Morris reminds me of is HOFer Red Ruffing, a big right-hander who was the ace of the Yankees in the 1930s, when they were one of the strongest teams in baseball history. He usually was among the wins leaders, but was never among the ERA leaders. His career record was 273-225 and his career ERA was 3.80.

The numbers aren't great for Ruffing or Morris, but I like to remember Bill James once said -- If there's not room in the Hall of Fame for the best players on the best teams (as Ruffing and Morris clearly were) then what good is it?

PS Ruffing is another guy short-changed by WAR ...

Ruffing is one guy whose numbers completely changed when he went from the Red Sox (terrible numbers) to the Yankees (good but not great numbers).

I read Pitching in a Pinch several times when I was a kid. The approach about bearing down in certain circumstances was a lot different when pitchers were expected to go nine innings (and they generally did then). Of course, when Mathewson pitched, Babe Ruth had not yet invented the home run. If nobody was on base, the pitcher didn't have to bear down on every pitch.

[Matches]

Pitcher wins and losses meant more when starters pitched deeper into games. It was still team-dependent, of course, but guys didn't win 20+ games in a season without being pretty good pitchers, much less do it year after year.

These days the stat seems pretty meaningless, much like it has always been for relievers.

[ncexnyc]

With all the new metric numbers being thrown around in this thread I'm curious why nobody has posted the stadium adjusted numbers for the pitchers in question;)

[CDu]

I strongly disagree.

Yes, pitching wins are sometimes overvalued and they are somewhat team dependent. One of my favorite gripes is Tom Glavine's second Cy Young win in 1998 -- pitching for the same team in the same ballpark, Greg Maddox had a better ERA (2.22 vs. 2.47) and pitched more innings (251 to 229). But the Braves scored nearly a run more a game for Glavine and he finished 20-6 to Maddox's 18-9.

But pitching wins are a measure of success -- especially as they measure durability and consistency. The fact is, if the guy is not pitching well, he's not going to be starting long. But Morris was the best starter for what was probably the overall best team of the 1980s (edit: I just checked and the Tigers were the second best team of the 1980s ... to the Yankees. I didn't guess that because after 1981, the Yankees were good, but never really in contention).

Long ago, Christy Mathewson wrote a classic baseball book titled "Pitching in a Pinch". In it, the Hall of Fame pitcher talked about the importance of pitching to win (as opposed to numbers). With a big lead, he pitches differently -- sometimes giving up and run or two to avoid a big inning. But when things are close, the pitcher has to bear down and prevent any damage. A pitcher on a good, high-scoring team might have a higher ERA than a guy who has to "pitch in the pinch" more often. A guy who goes all out on every pitch can't throw as many innings as a guy who knows when to bear down (and when not to).

I strongly disagree. Wins are just too team-dependent. Yes, they measure longevity and consistency. But so do innings. So do WAR. And WAR does a much better job of evaluating the value that the pitcher provides than wins do. Consistent mediocrity with a great offense behind you shouldn't look the same as consistent greatness with a mediocre offense behind you. Yet wins will often lead you to similar conclusions in each case, whereas WAR shows you the difference.


The guy Morris reminds me of is HOFer Red Ruffing, a big right-hander who was the ace of the Yankees in the 1930s, when they were one of the strongest teams in baseball history. He usually was among the wins leaders, but was never among the ERA leaders. His career record was 273-225 and his career ERA was 3.80.

The numbers aren't great for Ruffing or Morris, but I like to remember Bill James once said -- If there's not room in the Hall of Fame for the best players on the best teams (as Ruffing and Morris clearly were) then what good is it?

PS Ruffing is another guy short-changed by WAR ...

I strongly disagree.

First, I think Ruffing is very accurately rated by WAR. He was mediocre for a long time (his Boston career, and the end of his NY career). He then had a few good-to-very-good years (1932, 1935-1939). During that 9-year stretch, he accumulated 36.8 WAR, so just a bit over 4 WAR per season. That's pretty good. For reference, his ERA+ in those years ranged from 119-150 in 7 of the 9 seasons (accounting for 32.5 of his 36.8 WAR in that period). The problem for Ruffing is that - aside from those 7 seasons - he was a league-average starting pitcher. His ERA+ in his other 11 full years (he was a part-timer as a rookie and then again after the War) ranged from 90 to 107. So he piled up a bit above 20 WAR in those other years (league average is ~2 WAR). He was also a better pitcher at his peak than Morris, with 6 seasons of ERA+ 130 or more compared with Morris' 1 (and 2 seasons of 140+ ERA compared with Morris' 0).

But Ruffing was also somewhat inflated by his teammates in New York. He was a solid starter who won more games than he should have as a mediocre starter pitching with a great offense. Note that his first several years in Boston incurred the opposite fate: he was at least as good in 1928 (same ERA+, much better FIP, suggesting his teammates weren't as good defensively in 1928) as he was in 1935, but the difference in his teammates meant a 10-25 season with Boston in 1928 versus a 19-11 season in New York in 1935. Similar story for 1927 (5-13) and 1931 (16-14).

Ruffing actually provides a pretty nice case study in how looking at wins is a really faulty metric. He was a better pitcher in NY than he was in Boston, but not nearly to the degree that his W/L records suggest (231-124 as a Yank; 39-96 as a Sox).

[CDu]

With all the new metric numbers being thrown around in this thread I'm curious why nobody has posted the stadium adjusted numbers for the pitchers in question;)

WAR takes that into account.

[chris13]

I think Clemens and Bonds eventually get into the Hall of Fame since Bud Selig, Tony LaRussa, and Joe Torre did. If you are going to put a commissioner who looked the other way on PEDs and managers who played PED using players,
then I see the PED using players eventually getting in.

[Olympic Fan]

With all the new metric numbers being thrown around in this thread I'm curious why nobody has posted the stadium adjusted numbers for the pitchers in question;)

I've actually cited ERA-plus (which factors park adjustments and era adjustments) several times.

[DU82]

The numbers aren't great for Ruffing or Morris, but I like to remember Bill James once said -- If there's not room in the Hall of Fame for the best players on the best teams (as Ruffing and Morris clearly were) then what good is it?

PS Ruffing is another guy short-changed by WAR ...

Alan Trammell, Chet Lemon, Kirk Gibson, Lou Whitaker, Willie Hernandez and (even) Dan Petry all say high from the 1984 World Champions. (Explain to me how Morris was a better pitcher that year than Petry.)

Morris was second on the 1987 division champs and best pitcher (Alan Trammell was the best player in the league, not George Bell.) Probably 5th on the 1983 team that went 92-70, well down the list in '88, 3rd best pitcher on the '91 Twins, and perhaps the best starter on the '92 Jays (Jimmy Key pitched better, but his W-L record wasn't as good) and the worst regular starter on the '93 team.

He led the league twice in wins, once in strikeouts, and once in innings pitched. Not a strong argument there either.

I don't see a HoFer given that comparison. If he was the best player on the best teams, it sure doesn't show here. (He was the best pitcher on some average/bad Tiger teams I didn't include, but that didn't fit your argument about "best teams".) I think Trammell, Whitaker, Gibson and Lemon were better over the Tigers' strong period in the '80s. (Yes, Chet Lemon. Gibson didn't last as long, but his six full years were solid.)

Regarding Ruffing, I must admit I didn't realize he was traded to the Yankees at age 25. The improvement that's usually mentioned about the team switch (how much better the Yankees were over the Sox) misses that many pitchers don't "learn" to pitch until that age. There aren't a lot of Bob Fellers who come in at such a young age. He comes in at 96th in career WAR, I don't see that as being short-changed by that stat.

[luvdahops]

Alan Trammell, Chet Lemon, Kirk Gibson, Lou Whitaker, Willie Hernandez and (even) Dan Petry all say high from the 1984 World Champions. (Explain to me how Morris was a better pitcher that year than Petry.)

Morris was second on the 1987 division champs and best pitcher (Alan Trammell was the best player in the league, not George Bell.) Probably 5th on the 1983 team that went 92-70, well down the list in '88, 3rd best pitcher on the '91 Twins, and perhaps the best starter on the '92 Jays (Jimmy Key pitched better, but his W-L record wasn't as good) and the worst regular starter on the '93 team.

He led the league twice in wins, once in strikeouts, and once in innings pitched. Not a strong argument there either.

I don't see a HoFer given that comparison. If he was the best player on the best teams, it sure doesn't show here. (He was the best pitcher on some average/bad Tiger teams I didn't include, but that didn't fit your argument about "best teams".) I think Trammell, Whitaker, Gibson and Lemon were better over the Tigers' strong period in the '80s. (Yes, Chet Lemon. Gibson didn't last as long, but his six full years were solid.)

Regarding Ruffing, I must admit I didn't realize he was traded to the Yankees at age 25. The improvement that's usually mentioned about the team switch (how much better the Yankees were over the Sox) misses that many pitchers don't "learn" to pitch until that age. There aren't a lot of Bob Fellers who come in at such a young age. He comes in at 96th in career WAR, I don't see that as being short-changed by that stat.

Lance Parrish was no slouch either. 3 gold gloves, 6 all-star selections as a Tiger in the 80s.

[YmoBeThere]

Ahh, statistics. They underlie the great lie that performance across eras can be easily compared. But such an assertion to a statistician is blasphemy, they'll show you with the numbers. The analyses 13-14 years ago indicated fielding was not an important consideration. Until 7-8 years later it mattered more than previously thought.

See economics as noted by Nobel prize winning topics. We have moved from the rational actor paradigm to the rise of the behavioralists and their regression analyses. Who is right? It depends.

[El_Diablo]

Coldest stove ever....

[CDu]

Coldest stove ever...

Yeah, the Otani situation, as well as Stanton, and the relatively small crop of top-tier free agents is sort of making this a slow process.

[Mal]

Ahh, statistics. They underlie the great lie that performance across eras can be easily compared. But such an assertion to a statistician is blasphemy, they'll show you with the numbers. The analyses 13-14 years ago indicated fielding was not an important consideration. Until 7-8 years later it mattered more than previously thought.

Fair enough, but let's also point out that CDu and others disputing the (ridiculous) claim that Jack Morris should be a HoF'er have been using a lot of statistics from players of the exact same era as Morris.

Also, FWIW, I don't think anyone's made the assertion, or even implied it, that statistics make it "easy" to compare players across eras. They do make it tenable, however.

[CDu]

Fair enough, but let's also point out that CDu and others disputing the (ridiculous) claim that Jack Morris should be a HoF'er have been using a lot of statistics from players of the exact same era as Morris.

Also, FWIW, I don't think anyone's made the assertion, or even implied it, that statistics make it "easy" to compare players across eras. They do make it tenable, however.

Yep. This is an important point. Most stats aren't well-suited to be compared across eras. ERA, wins, innings pitched, etc., are just not good stats. That's why stats like ERA+, OPS+, and WAR have been created. By estimating production relative to the league that year, you at least stand a fighting chance of having a meaningful comparison across eras.

[Mal]

As a Twins fan for life, I love Jack Morris. He grew up in St. Paul, and I attended Game 7 of the '91 World Series. So I feel fully credentialed in saying he's not a Hall of Fame worthy pitcher.

Who cares how many wins he had? He had a ton of losses, too. Double digit losses in 11 separate seasons. If wins were more dependent on starting pitching in his day than they are now, so were losses. 186 times in his career he left a game with his team behind and they went on to lose. Most of those times with one of the best teams in the American League behind him for run support. I mean, we can point to wins, but one must then consider the teams on which a man is pitching. Over the course of his career Morris's teams had a collective .539 winning percentage. His personal W-L record equates to a .577 winning percentage. So his teams had less than a 5% better chance of winning with him on the mound as they did every other day of the week.* That's a clear, dominant, superstud ace?

Sure, Morris was durable and pitched a lot of innings, going deep into games and sometimes dominating them. He also went out gave up 6 runs over 7 innings and the Tigers lost. A lot. We forget those because as fans we remember the good outings. It's easy to focus just on Game 7 in '91 and completely forget that in Game 2 of the ALCS in '87 Morris got tagged for 6 runs and lost. Or that the season after that amazing 10 inning performance against the Braves, he went 0-3 in the postseason, giving up 19 earned runs over 23 innings in 4 starts. It's a miracle the Jays managed to win it all that year despite Morris pitching horrendously.

But you know what doesn't forget all those stinkers he had? The statistics. Just look at the second most basic statistic for measuring a pitchers' performance over time, ERA. 3.90. Again: 3.90. He put up an earned run average of less than three and a half runs per 9 innings just 7 times over 18 big league seasons. He had an ERA of over 4.00 more times than he came in under 3.50. How is that "dominant?" From game to game, night to night, he could be dominant, but clearly that didn't happen all that often. If it had, his ERA+ for his career wouldn't have been 105.

Look at Bert Blyleven, who barely made it into the Hall, largely because he was perceived as "not dominant enough." He had a longer career, pitching through age 41, and a career ERA of 3.31. Jack Morris gave up a fifth of a run more every single time through the batting order than Bert Blyleven did over his career. He compiled his best stats in the lower ERA 1970's, you say? Fine. Just compare their numbers from '80 through '89, the decade Morris supposedly owned. Blyleven: 3.64 while ages 29 through 38. Morris: 3.66 in his prime at ages 25-34. Blyleven already had a decade of MLB experience, had thrown 145 complete games and struck out over 2000 hitters before that, and he still outpitched Morris for that decade. And barely made the Hall of Fame.

Morris pitched a lot of innings consistently? OK. He led the AL in innings pitched once. One time. The next season, 11 guys threw more innings. His durability and always being there are of value, but (a) they're not significantly greater than what other pitchers gave their teams in his prime, although they're notably overstated based on his reputation and the fact that Detroit got a ton of media coverage while he was their workhorse, and (b) are not nearly enough to override the fact that he was a good, but not great, pitcher for most of his career. He never finished higher than 5th in ERA over a season. Only twice was he higher than 5th in K's/9 or WHIP. He led the AL in strikeouts once.

Simply put, he was never very dominant, and he didn't compile enough.

* Note: I did, in fact, factor out Morris's starts to come up with a Win %age for his teams both with and without him. If you take his .577 win %age and extrapolate it to every 5th start for his teams over his career as a rough proxy, which is very favorable corner cutting for Morris (he pitched in 549 games over a career that spanned 2812 games for his teams but only started 527; and his rookie season is included in full despite the Tigers going 74-88 that year), their win %age only drops to .529 without him taking the ball.

[Mal]

...that being players on the actual ballot this year :):

Agreed with the consensus that Chipper, Thome, Vlad and Hoffman make it this year. I've fallen on both sides of the Mussina debate over time and could still be persuaded either way, but he won't be getting in this year. I feel 180 degrees differently from Oly and weezie on the PED issue when it comes to Bonds and Clemens, but they're not gonna make it anytime soon, either.

[Olympic Fan]

...that being players on the actual ballot this year :):

Agreed with the consensus that Chipper, Thome, Vlad and Hoffman make it this year. I've fallen on both sides of the Mussina debate over time and could still be persuaded either way, but he won't be getting in this year. I feel 180 degrees differently from Oly and weezie on the PED issue when it comes to Bonds and Clemens, but they're not gonna make it anytime soon, either.

I hope you are right, but watching MLB Now yesterday, they were debating the impact of Joe Morgan's letter. They had one voter on who was so mad about it that he is switching his vote FOR Bonds and Clemens. It will be interesting to see if there is any real backlash.

The thing to watch is the percentage of the vote -- a year ago was the first time Bonds and Clemens (who seem to be linked in this debate) got over 50 percent. Will they continue to climb or level off?

Mussina was at 51 percent. I agree that it's too big a jump to get in this year, but if he can get to 60 percent, I think he'll eventually make it in 2019 or 2020.

[mr. synellinden]

Maybe we can break out t a separate MLB HOF Discussion thread? And keep this one for actual Hot Stove news.

[Mal]

I hope you are right, but watching MLB Now yesterday, they were debating the impact of Joe Morgan's letter. They had one voter on who was so mad about it that he is switching his vote FOR Bonds and Clemens. It will be interesting to see if there is any real backlash.


That's really interesting.

In some senses, I guess it's not that surprising. Writers have always been sensitive to being told how to vote when it comes to the Hall of Fame. Moreso when that unsolicited advice comes from players, when they either perceive a tacit underlying message of "You didn't even play so I resent you holding the right to bestow upon or deny to players the highest honor in the game," or there's an explicit message to that effect.

Combine that with Morgan's reputation for sanctimony, grouchiness and curmudgeonly "why, in my day..." attitude, which I'm going to blindly assume comes through in his letter (I haven't yet taken the time to read it, though I doubt it will present any new thought-provoking analysis - it's not like his announcing ever did), and maybe it was inevitable it would lead to some backlash.

[weezie]

...Morgan's reputation for sanctimony, grouchiness and curmudgeonly "why, in my day..." attitude...

Sounds like my kind of guy.

[rasputin]

Sounds like my kind of guy.

My kind of guy too, and Morgan was grossly under-appreciated in his day because he usually didn't put up a gaudy BA (.271 career). The two seasons he won his richly-deserved MVP awards, 1975 and 76, were the two years he hit over .300 (although, to be fair, those were also his best OPS+ years, at 169 and 186). Morgan drew a ton of walks, so his OBP was always high even when he was hitting .270.

He also stole bases at a high rate of success (about 80% I think).

[Duke79UNLV77]

This is not to argue that Hershiser should be in the HOF. He shouldn't. But, comparing him to Morris further confirms that Morris doesn't belong. I think Hershiser would have been in easily if he hadn't blown his arm out and never been the same pitcher after 89.

Hershiser:
204-150. 3:48 ERA. 25 shutouts.
Top 4 in Cy Young 4 times, including winning once (all in his 6 full-season pre-injury years)
Top 3 in ERA 5 times (all in his first 6 full-season pre-injury years)
Postseason: 8-3. 2:59 ERA. MVP of 3 postseason series, including a WS.

Morris:
254-186. 3:90. 28 shutouts.
Top 4 in Cy Young 3 times, never better than 3rd.
Never top 3 in ERA, finished 5th twice.
Postseason: 7-4. 3:80 ERA. MVP of one postseason series, a WS.

Hershiser's peak 6 years were clearly better than Morris's. Hershiser's postseason heroics were even greater than Morris's. Morris primarily just has 50 more wins, but still didn't hit the magic mark (at least for pitchers before the current bullpen-crazed era). Further, it's not uncommon to give some what-might-have-been allowance for players who were dominant before major injuries (e.g., on a higher level, Koufax, Pedro).

[Olympic Fan]

Fair enough, but let's also point out that CDu and others disputing the (ridiculous) claim that Jack Morris should be a HoF'er have been using a lot of statistics from players of the exact same era as Morris.

Ridiculous?

Apparently, the great majority of writers from the BWAA don't agree -- Morris garnered 67.7 percent of the vote in 2013. He was over 60 percent in his last four years on the ballot. A majority of professional writers clearly think Morris is HOF worthy.

Interesting factoid -- no player who ever topped out at 65 percent of the vote has ever failed to win election from the Veteran's Committee. That could happen in about two weeks -- On Dec. 16, the "Modern Era" Committee could elect Morris -- he's one of 10 candidates on this year's ballot (along with ex-teammate Alan Trammel, also a good candidate, and Union boss Marvin Miller, who should have been in years ago). If Morris doesn't win election this month, he likely will in the near future.

One other factoid that I found recently. Tom Verducci pointed out that Jack Morris pitched into the eighth inning more times than any AL pitcher in the DH era. That is pretty good evidence of his durability and consistency.

[Olympic Fan]

It looks like the Yankees have picked Aaron Boone to be the next manager.

I don't know what to think.

On one hard, Boone sounds reasonable and intelligent as an ESPN analyst.

On the other hand, he's never managed (or coached) at any level.

Should I be happy with the hire or should I be scrambling to find a connection between Boone and Jerry Sandusky?

[YmoBeThere]

Jerry Sandusky?

What Sandusky did is unconscionable...

What the Vols fans did nearly so.

[duke74]

It looks like the Yankees have picked Aaron Boone to be the next manager.

I don't know what to think.

On one hard, Boone sounds reasonable and intelligent as an ESPN analyst.

On the other hand, he's never managed (or coached) at any level.

Should I be happy with the hire or should I be scrambling to find a connection between Boone and Jerry Sandusky?

Local commentators all over the "new role" of managers on this one and the "soft skills" angle vs. Joe G. The NY Post's headline (Joel Sherman) today: "Brain Cashman makes gamble of his life on Aaron Boone."

Two of the five interviewed had no experience (Boone and Beltran).

And they're making the connection (similarities) between the Mets' and Yankees' hirings in style, player interactions, etc.

More Sanchez and Judge heroics will overcome any inexperience by a "push button" manager.

[Blue in the Face]

Ohtani has told the Yankees and Red Sox he won't sign with them, apparently being particularly interested in a west coast small market team. If the Giants sign him and could complete their rumored deal for Stanton, that would be quite a bursting christmas stocking.

http://m.mlb.com/news/article/262795296/shohei-ohtani-wont-sign-with-new-york-yankees/

[weezie]

Oh gee whiz, why do THEY get to have both of them?!

[Blue in the Face]

This has no bearing on the immediate future, but prospect Kevin Maitan, the best regarded of the players taken from the Braves over international signing rules violations recently, has signed with the Angels. A year ago he was ranked 77th on baseball america's prospect list. He had a disappointing year in A ball, but that hardly seems to mean much for a 17 year old, and he was ranked 9th in the braves system by BA before being made a free agent. Long way to go to get to the majors, but he was definitely the "prize" in the group of guys freed from the Braves.

https://www.baseballamerica.com/minors/angels-agree-sign-kevin-maitan/#pL65BlVi1K64vpKv.97

[CDu]

A potential sneaky-good move by the Cubs today: they signed Tyler Chatwood to a 3 year, $38 million deal.

Now, on the surface, Chatwood doesn't look great. But he also has had the misfortune of pitching in Denver for about half of his starts. His numbers on the road over the past two years (157.1 IP): 2.57 ERA, 1.169 WHIP.

Now it remains to be seen whether those road splits hold up over a full season (though they sort of have as splits over 2 seasons). But it could be quite the solid acquisition.

[Olympic Fan]

A very interesting development yesterday as 53-year-old Rafael Palmeiro announced he's planning a comeback:

https://www.cbssports.com/mlb/news/is-rafael-palmeiro-seriously-considering-an-mlb-comeback-at-53-years-old-apparently/

There's method in his madness.

Consider (1) Palmeiro has Hall of Fame numbers -- 500 home runs and 3000 hits; (2) he didn't get voted in because he's one of the most notorious cheaters -- the guy who wagged his finger at congress, swearing (under oath) that he never did drugs ... then tested positive a few weeks later and was suspended (and retired).

Palmeiro got 11 percent of the vote in his first try in 2011 and fell off the ballot when he got just 4.4 percent in 2014.

That would be it.

But if Palmeiro comes back and plays in just one game -- one plate appearance -- it restarts his HOF clock. He would be back on the ballot in 2023. Apparently, Palmeiro sees what a lot of writers see -- a increasing tolerance for the drug cheaters among the younger voters. By 2023, it's possible that 75 percent of the electorate will be less concerned with Palmeiro's cheating.

If not, he's got to wait for the veteran's committee -- a right now, those are older voters who are less tolerant of the druggies.

[rasputin]

A very interesting development yesterday as 53-year-old Rafael Palmeiro announced he's planning a comeback:

https://www.cbssports.com/mlb/news/is-rafael-palmeiro-seriously-considering-an-mlb-comeback-at-53-years-old-apparently/

There's method in his madness.

Consider (1) Palmeiro has Hall of Fame numbers -- 500 home runs and 3000 hits; (2) he didn't get voted in because he's one of the most notorious cheaters -- the guy who wagged his finger at congress, swearing (under oath) that he never did drugs ... then tested positive a few weeks later and was suspended (and retired).

Palmeiro got 11 percent of the vote in his first try in 2011 and fell off the ballot when he got just 4.4 percent in 2014.

That would be it.

But if Palmeiro comes back and plays in just one game -- one plate appearance -- it restarts his HOF clock. He would be back on the ballot in 2023. Apparently, Palmeiro sees what a lot of writers see -- a increasing tolerance for the drug cheaters among the younger voters. By 2023, it's possible that 75 percent of the electorate will be less concerned with Palmeiro's cheating.

If not, he's got to wait for the veteran's committee -- a right now, those are older voters who are less tolerant of the druggies.

Yeech. What a jackwad.
The good news is (or at least I think it is), even if at age 53 he can still hit a fastball (a debatable proposition), I don't see a major league team sacrificing a spot on the 25-man or even 40-man roster, especially for a guy (who happens to be a jerk) to pull a publicity stunt.

[weezie]

Yeech. What a jackwad...

I hear that when a player is hit by a baseball in the fat part of his back, it often leave the imprint of the ball stitches.

[CDu]

They get a potential ace starter at rookie salary, so good on them.

[duke74]

Judge, Sanchez and now Stanton? (Can he pitch or play third? :) )

And apparently none of the Yankees' top prospects included. (Makes sense in a salary dump).

https://www.sbnation.com/mlb/2017/12/9/16722470/giancarlo-stanton-trade-yankees-marlins

[Duke79UNLV77]

Salary dump or not, couldn’t they get more for the MVP? Or, at least, please don’t trade him to the Yankees. Jeter doing this deal reminds me of McHale setting up the Celtics for a championship.

[chris13]

Who would have thought Arod is turning out to be a better person than Jeter.

[duke74]

Salary dump or not, couldn’t they get more for the MVP? Or, at least, please don’t trade him to the Yankees. Jeter doing this deal reminds me of McHale setting up the Celtics for a championship.

Not sure about the leverage Jeter had (other than that ridiculous threat to surround Stanton with a lousy team). Had to dump salary - I think that the Yanks had all the leverage here.

Yanks now are in salary dump mode to get below that "tax" threshold. We thought Ellsbury and Gardner would also be going for that reason...(I haven't seen the final terms.)

Have a crowded outfield. Hicks in CF, Judge moves to left and Stanton in RF? Clint Frazier (Miller trade) as 4th OF.

Torres (Chapman trade) takes over at second with Didi at SS. Bird at 1st, Sanchez at C. 3B (Machado next year?)

Still need to solidify SP. (CC?)

And my Mets still silent....geesh.

[Duke79UNLV77]

Not sure about the leverage Jeter had (other than that ridiculous threat to surround Stanton with a lousy team). Had to dump salary - I think that the Yanks had all the leverage here.

The Yankees weren’t the only team to whom Stanton would accept a trade, and I imagine any of those teams could find room for him.

[Olympic Fan]

Not sure about the leverage Jeter had (other than that ridiculous threat to surround Stanton with a lousy team). Had to dump salary - I think that the Yanks had all the leverage here.

Yanks now are in salary dump mode to get below that "tax" threshold. We thought Ellsbury and Gardner would also be going for that reason...(I haven't seen the final terms.)

Have a crowded outfield. Hicks in CF, Judge moves to left and Stanton in RF? Clint Frazier (Miller trade) as 4th OF.

Torres (Chapman trade) takes over at second with Didi at SS. Bird at 1st, Sanchez at C. 3B (Machado next year?)

Still need to solidify SP. (CC?)

And my Mets still silent...geesh.

We have to wait and see the full parameters of the deal, but unless Brett Gardner is included, I suspect he's the CFer and Hicks is the fourth OF. I'll be curious to see where Ellsbury stands -- the speculation I read had him included in the deal.

Losing Castro hurts -- he's been very solid for his two seasons in New York. Torres is one of the top 5 prospects in all of baseball, but I'm not sure he'll be ready to be a fulltime starter next season, especially coming off an injury that forced him to miss the second half of last season.

And third base remains an issue. Headley is under contract (although I've also seen speculation that he may be part of the Stanton deal). Todd Frazier, who did a good job there late last season is a free agent.

And, like everybody, we need starting pitching. With so much money committed to Stanton, I think we're less likely to address that need on the free agent market.

Don't get me wrong -- I'm ecstatic -- Stanton, Judge and Sanchez back-to-back-to-back in the lineup? Wow!

It will also be interesting to see how the deal impacts the NEXT free agent market. With Machado, Harper and maybe Kershaw expected to be up for grabs, will the Yankees shell out for ANOTHER huge deal?

BTW: ESPN is reporting that several Yankee prospects WILL be included in the deal. I reserve the right to gripe later, if we gave up anybody really good.

[Olympic Fan]

Okay, it looks like Jorge Guzman and Jose Devers are the two prospects going to Miami in the deal.

Guzman is a Grade A prospect, rated No. 7 in the Yankee system (which is not bad -- the Yankee system is deep). He's a 21-year-old RHP from the Dominican who can top 100 mph on the radar gun. So far, he has not been impressive in performance at the Class A level. But a lot of hard-throwers take time to command their gift. There's a good chance he becomes a flame-throwing reliever at some point.

Devers is a lessor prospect -- not in the top 40 Yankee prospects. But he's young -- an 18-year-old shortstop with above-average speed and good defensive skills. So far, he's shown little ability to hit the ball ... but he's young.

If that's it -- Castro, Guzman and Devers -- I have to celebrate the deal. It's going to cost a lot, but, hey, it's not my money.

And while I was looking at the Yankees next year, I forgot Michael Andujar at third base. He's a real possibility.

[jimsumner]

If I were Greg Bird, I would be turning back flips. He may never see a left-handed starter.

[Blue in the Face]

This is a great trade for the yankees, but it really makes me wonder what the Marlins are doing in the major leagues. If you're that desperate to eliminate payroll, I think you're kind of in the wrong business. Kind of curious what the other offers were - the Cards were going to take on less of Stanton's salary than the yankees are, I assume any other team was similarly offering to take on less money.

[Olympic Fan]

This is a great trade for the yankees, but it really makes me wonder what the Marlins are doing in the major leagues. If you're that desperate to eliminate payroll, I think you're kind of in the wrong business. Kind of curious what the other offers were - the Cards were going to take on less of Stanton's salary than the yankees are, I assume any other team was similarly offering to take on less money.

Apparently, the Cardinals and Giants may have offered more -- both teams told local media that they had deals in place. In both cases, Stanton vetoed the deal.

They Yankees will pay approximately $250-260 million of Stanton's 10-year salary (he has an opt out after three years). The Marlins will chip in $35 million or so.

That was always part of any deal -- eat more of Stanton's money and give up less prospects. Or eat less money and give more/better prospects.

[weezie]

So... looks more than likely that Bryce Harper ends up a dodger eventually...

[weezie]

Alan Trammell and Jack Morris, Hall of Famers!

[DU82]

Alan Trammell and Jack Morris, Hall of Famers!

Well, at least one of them raises the average HOFer at their position.

[Olympic Fan]

Well, at least one of them raises the average HOFer at their position.

That quote reminds me of something that Bill James wrote in his first edition of The Politics of Glory: How the Hall of Fame Works

He devoted a long chapter to a minute examination as to the Hall of Fame credentials of Phil Rizzuto -- who was the Jack Morris/Alan Trammel of his day.

In the end, James came down on the side of not admitting Rizzuto (although he admitted that the three years Rizzuto missed serving his country during WWII might have changed the equation).

Before the book was published, Rizzuto was admitted by the Veteran's Committee.

James' comment was: "Well, he's not the worst player in the Hall of Fame."

As the chief advocate for Morris on this board, I'm gratified to see him admitted. I understand why some of you will go on thinking it was a mistake -- and that's fine -- but I hope the segment that thought it was "ridiculous" to argue for Morris will appreciate that an awful lot of serious baseball people disagree with you.

PS As happy as I am to see Morris and Trammell admitted, I thought the most deserving candidate on the committee's list was Marvin Miller.

[Duke79UNLV77]

James' comment was: "Well, he's not the worst player in the Hall of Fame."

Morris will have the highest career ERA ever in the HOF by 0.10.

https://www.si.com/mlb/2017/11/15/jack-morris-hall-fame-modern-baseball-era

"But if Morris gets in, the bar for Hall of Fame pitchers will be demonstrably lower, and his election will serve as a slight to numerous contemporaries such as Saberhagen, Stieb, Dwight Gooden, Orel Hershiser and David Cone. Win totals aside, all have far fuller résumés than Morris from a Hall standpoint, better run prevention combined with Cy Young awards and their own shares of records and postseason heroics. They’ll deserve an equally thorough airing in this context."

Other than durability, I think all of the pitchers listed were better than Morris. I listed Hershiser's statistics above. Hershiser's 6 full pre-injury years included being top 3 in ERA 5 times and top 4 in Cy Young 4 times. For his career, he had a significantly better ERA and more consistent postseason heroics than Morris.

[jimsumner]

I would have to think Mike Mussina's case just got a lot stronger.

[rasputin]

I would have to think Mike Mussina's case just got a lot stronger.

Tommy John is more qualified than Morris or Mussina, IMO.

[Olympic Fan]

Morris will have the highest career ERA ever in the HOF by 0.10.

https://www.si.com/mlb/2017/11/15/jack-morris-hall-fame-modern-baseball-era

"But if Morris gets in, the bar for Hall of Fame pitchers will be demonstrably lower, and his election will serve as a slight to numerous contemporaries such as Saberhagen, Stieb, Dwight Gooden, Orel Hershiser and David Cone. Win totals aside, all have far fuller résumés than Morris from a Hall standpoint, better run prevention combined with Cy Young awards and their own shares of records and postseason heroics. They’ll deserve an equally thorough airing in this context."

Other than durability, I think all of the pitchers listed were better than Morris. I listed Hershiser's statistics above. Hershiser's 6 full pre-injury years included being top 3 in ERA 5 times and top 4 in Cy Young 4 times. For his career, he had a significantly better ERA and more consistent postseason heroics than Morris.

Nice use of one selective stat. ERA is high, but durability (innings pitched), and whether you like it or not, wins, work in his favor.

To use a more useful number, let's look at Bill James' Hall of Fame Standards ranking which he developed 20 years ago to determine who should and shouldn't get into the HOF.

Morris does rank below quite a few non-HOF pitchers. But he's also ahead of at least 13 HOF starting pitchers, including such guys as Herb Pennock, Dazzy Vance, Bob Lemon, Lefty Gomez, Red Ruffing, Ted Lyons and Rube Marquard. According to James' ranking, the worst pitcher in the HOD is Jesse Haines.

If you believe in WAR (I don't), Morris has a better career WAR than HOFers Lefty Gomez, Dizzy Dean, Catfish Hunter, Jack Chesbro and the aforementioned Mr. Haines (who is almost certainly the worst starting pitcher in the HOF).

[DU82]

Stanton and Judge are the first teammates to have 50+ home runs in the previous season since Mantle and Maris in '62 (following the record* breaking 1961.)

And, announced yesterday pitcher Terry Stallard, who gave up home run 61 to Maris, passed away over the weekend.

[rasputin]

Stanton and Judge are the first teammates to have 50+ home runs in the previous season since Mantle and Maris in '62 (following the record* breaking 1961.)

And, announced yesterday pitcher Terry Stallard, who gave up home run 61 to Maris, passed away over the weekend.

That's Tracy Stallard.

[DU82]

That's Tracy Stallard.

Thank you for correcting my brain freeze. I was concentrating on not typing Stallard as something else, but I screwed up his first name.

[Blue in the Face]

And while I was looking at the Yankees next year, I forgot Michael Andujar at third base. He's a real possibility.
The time for Andujar may be now - the Yankees have traded Headley and Bryan Mitchell to San Diego for outfielder Jabari Blash (who's put up big numbers in the minors, albeit the hitting friendly PCL, but hasn't yet done anything in limited stints in the majors the past 2 years). The Padres are taking on all of Headley's salary. The yanks might be happy with Todd Frazier keeping third warm for a little while longer, but I would think it'll be tough to find a contract length that's agreeable to both him and the team.

[jimsumner]

The time for Andujar may be now - the Yankees have traded Headley and Bryan Mitchell to San Diego for outfielder Jabari Blash (who's put up big numbers in the minors, albeit the hitting friendly PCL, but hasn't yet done anything in limited stints in the majors the past 2 years). The Padres are taking on all of Headley's salary. The yanks might be happy with Todd Frazier keeping third warm for a little while longer, but I would think it'll be tough to find a contract length that's agreeable to both him and the team.

The Yankees certainly need another outfielder. Unless they make some moves, Blash might not even start at Triple-A.

[duke74]

Stanton and Judge are the first teammates to have 50+ home runs in the previous season since Mantle and Maris in '62 (following the record* breaking 1961.)

And, announced yesterday pitcher Terry Stallard, who gave up home run 61 to Maris, passed away over the weekend.

Two years with my Mets...losing 20 games in 1964. And another footnote - he was the losing pitcher in Jim Bunning's perfect game in 1964. On a brighter note, he was known as a "ladies' man" - dating for example Julie Newmar - later Catwoman on the TV show. (An early Matt Harvey, perhaps?)

[RPS]

The Yankees certainly need another outfielder. Unless they make some moves, Blash might not even start at Triple-A.Blash is an amazing physical specimen who, to this point, has only very occasionally looked great. Given that he's 28, I'm hard-pressed to think he's ready to break-out. But maybe the Yankees see something others don't. Or maybe it was a pure salary dump.

[CrazyNotCrazie]

The time for Andujar may be now - the Yankees have traded Headley and Bryan Mitchell to San Diego for outfielder Jabari Blash (who's put up big numbers in the minors, albeit the hitting friendly PCL, but hasn't yet done anything in limited stints in the majors the past 2 years). The Padres are taking on all of Headley's salary. The yanks might be happy with Todd Frazier keeping third warm for a little while longer, but I would think it'll be tough to find a contract length that's agreeable to both him and the team.

Frazier is a local guy who seemed to really enjoy playing for the Yanks, so perhaps he will give them a small hometown discount. As much as I would like Machado, as a Yankees fan for 35+ years, I would admit that it would be gluttony, and I would be fine with Frazier at third in 2019 at a fraction of the price, ideally investing the extra money in starting pitching, which is the greater need.

Cashman has said that the staying under the luxury tax cap is non-negotiable. The Headley deal helps a lot. It will be interesting to see how they sort out the outfield situation, as they currently have five guys (Judge, Stanton, Hicks, Gardner, and Ellsbury). I believe Ellsbury's contract goes for three more years at huge numbers and will be tough to unload - that was a painful deal. Gardner's on the books for $11 million.

[Blue in the Face]

Frazier is a local guy who seemed to really enjoy playing for the Yanks, so perhaps he will give them a small hometown discount. As much as I would like Machado, as a Yankees fan for 35+ years, I would admit that it would be gluttony, and I would be fine with Frazier at third in 2019 at a fraction of the price, ideally investing the extra money in starting pitching, which is the greater need.
I think it's years rather than money which is the issue with Frazier. Unless they've really lost confidence in Andujar, even 2 years might be longer than they want to go with Frazier, and no matter how much he likes being back home, I'd be pretty surprised if he took a 1 or 2 year deal.

[Olympic Fan]

Blash is an amazing physical specimen who, to this point, has only very occasionally looked great. Given that he's 28, I'm hard-pressed to think he's ready to break-out. But maybe the Yankees see something others don't. Or maybe it was a pure salary dump.

Bingo.

The Padres wanted Mitchell and to get him they took Headley (and his $13 million contract). Apparently, they are hoping to flip him.

The Yanks don't care about Blash. They care about cutting $13 million from their 2018 payroll.

They are trying to do the same with Ellsbury, but that's complicated by his no-trade contract.

The key guy for the Yankees in the next few weeks is Clint Frazier. A young hitter with a small contract, he's very valuable.

Apparently the Yankees are talking to the Tigers about a deal that would basically send Frazier to Detroit for SP Michael Fulmer (others might be involved, but those two are the key players in the deal).

If that doesn't work, you might see the Yankees package Frazier and Ellsbury -- to get Frazier you have to take at least a portion of Ellsbury's salary.

The Yankees are going to try and re-sign Todd Frazier and CC Sabathia -- if they can get them on short-term deals.

The big news out of the winter meetings is that the Orioles are shopping Manny Machado, who has one year left on his contract. That's bad timing for my Yankees, who aren't likely to be a player at this point (no way the Os trade their star to the Yankees), but were hoping to snatch him up next year as a free agent.

[jimsumner]

Bingo.

The Padres wanted Mitchell and to get him they took Headley (and his $13 million contract). Apparently, they are hoping to flip him.

The Yanks don't care about Blash. They care about cutting $13 million from their 2018 payroll.

They are trying to do the same with Ellsbury, but that's complicated by his no-trade contract.

The key guy for the Yankees in the next few weeks is Clint Frazier. A young hitter with a small contract, he's very valuable.

Apparently the Yankees are talking to the Tigers about a deal that would basically send Frazier to Detroit for SP Michael Fulmer (others might be involved, but those two are the key players in the deal).

If that doesn't work, you might see the Yankees package Frazier and Ellsbury -- to get Frazier you have to take at least a portion of Ellsbury's salary.

The Yankees are going to try and re-sign Todd Frazier and CC Sabathia -- if they can get them on short-term deals.

The big news out of the winter meetings is that the Orioles are shopping Manny Machado, who has one year left on his contract. That's bad timing for my Yankees, who aren't likely to be a player at this point (no way the Os trade their star to the Yankees), but were hoping to snatch him up next year as a free agent.

According to the New York papers, the Bombers are making a serious bid for Gerrit Cole.

The Angels are making a bid for Sabathia.

Trading Machado doesn't necessarily take him off the market after 2018. I've seen his potential trade referenced as a one-year-rental.

I really do not want to trade Clint Frazier. If the Yankees can get Cole, while keeping Frazier, I would prefer that to the trade with the Tigers.

[jimsumner]

The Minnesota Twins signed oft-injured Michael Pineda. Two years, 10 mil.

[Blue in the Face]

The Marlins aren't letting any outfield grass grow under their feet - Marcell Ozuna, coming off a huge breakout year, goes to the Cards for several, as yet unnamed, prospects. Ozuna has 2 more years of team control, and if he can repeat, or even come close to, what he did this year, he'll be a big pickup for St. Louis. John Heyman has said that pitcher Sandy Alcantra, who was the #4 prospect in the Cards' system in baseball america's most recent rankings, is one of the players going back to Miami.

https://www.cbssports.com/mlb/news/mlb-winter-meetings-marlins-reportedly-trade-marcell-ozuna-to-the-cardinals/

I wouldn't recommend Christian Yelich making any major commitments to the South Florida area.

[pfrduke]

The Angels are making a bid for Sabathia.

Every time I think the Angels have learned their lesson about acquiring guys past their prime.....

[Blue in the Face]

Every time I think the Angels have learned their lesson about acquiring guys past their prime....
I think he's well worth a 1 year deal - I'd certainly be fine with him being back here on that. Going longer than that though I'd agree with you.

[Mabdul Doobakus]

Not sure I can continue to be a Marlins fan. Between the tax payer funded stadium and all the firesales, they're basically a crime against the city of Miami at this point. And I say this as someone who started going to games as an 11 year old back in 1993, who was in attendance when they won World Series Game 7 in 1997, went to a bunch of playoff games in 2003, and who has continued going to games almost every year since. I actually hate the current ownership more than the old one. Jeter is already one of the most hated sports figures in South Florida history. I need a new team...

The candidates are:

Philadelphia Phillies - I was a diehard Phillies fan up until the strike in 1994. That 1993 team of steroids and facial hair was one of my all-time favorite teams to root for. All of my family is from Philadelphia. But the Marlins came into existence, and then the strike happened, and at some point I became a Marlins fan.
New York Yankees - Five years ago, after the Marlins traded half their team 3 months into their first year in the new stadium, I said I'd be a fan of whatever team they traded Stanton to. But then they held on to him and signed him to that massive contract, and now it's five years later and they traded him to the evil empire. Sure, it would be easy to be a Yankees fan, but choosing to be a Yankees fan is what crappy sports fans do. It's TOO easy. On the other hand, why suffer? I laid the groundwork for this five years ago...and if Stanton got traded to the Yankees, maybe I should just thank my good fortune for this opportunity.
Tampa Bay Devil Rays - I live in central Florida, and all their games are on TV.

Or I could just use this random baseball team generator...https://www.randomlists.com/random-mlb-team

I have a few months until the season starts to figure this one out...

[RPS]

I need a new team...We Padres fans will be happy to take you in. We have the best stadium out there, affordable tickets, good crowds, a great ballpark experience including amazing craft beers and local food at not-crazy prices, fun restaurants surrounding the park, warm weather spring and fall but cool weather in the summer, some exciting young players on the big league roster, and new ownership trying to build a competitive team for the future on a limited budget (our farm system is now very highly regarded). C'mon over...

[duke74]

].
[]New York Yankees[/B] - Five years ago, after the Marlins traded half their team 3 months into their first year in the new stadium, I said I'd be a fan of whatever team they traded Stanton to. But then they held on to him and signed him to that massive contract, and now it's five years later and they traded him to the evil empire. Sure, it would be easy to be a Yankees fan, but choosing to be a Yankees fan is what crappy sports fans do. It's TOO easy. On the other hand, why suffer? I laid the groundwork for this five years ago...and if Stanton got traded to the Yankees, maybe I should just thank my good fortune for this opportunity..

I’m not a Yankees fan (Let’s go Mets), but this is far from the “evil empire.” This is a team (basically) of home grown talent, especially now with the older large contracts off the books (except Ellsbury). My friends hate when I say it, but this is a likeable team to me.

I realize that the Stanton contract is huge, but there is no reason not to go for it all. I wish the Mets would make an attempt to excel.

[Mabdul Doobakus]

We Padres fans will be happy to take you in. We have the best stadium out there, affordable tickets, good crowds, a great ballpark experience including amazing craft beers and local food at not-crazy prices, fun restaurants surrounding the park, warm weather spring and fall but cool weather in the summer, some exciting young players on the big league roster, and new ownership trying to build a competitive team for the future on a limited budget (our farm system is now very highly regarded). C'mon over...

I appreciate the invite! I could definitely dig the Padres, but the West Coast thing is problematic. I'll be asleep before like 75% of their games end.


I’m not a Yankees fan (Let’s go Mets), but this is far from the “evil empire.” This is a team (basically) of home grown talent, especially now with the older large contracts off the books (except Ellsbury). My friends hate when I say it, but this is a likeable team to me.

They're definitely more likable than Stinkin' Jeter's Yankees, no question. I suppose I could just blame my previous dislike on Jeter. I THOUGHT I hated the Yankees, but really, it was just Jeter all along.

[rasputin]

Not sure I can continue to be a Marlins fan. Between the tax payer funded stadium and all the firesales, they're basically a crime against the city of Miami at this point. And I say this as someone who started going to games as an 11 year old back in 1993, who was in attendance when they won World Series Game 7 in 1997, went to a bunch of playoff games in 2003, and who has continued going to games almost every year since. I actually hate the current ownership more than the old one. Jeter is already one of the most hated sports figures in South Florida history. I need a new team...

The candidates are:

Philadelphia Phillies - I was a diehard Phillies fan up until the strike in 1994. That 1993 team of steroids and facial hair was one of my all-time favorite teams to root for. All of my family is from Philadelphia. But the Marlins came into existence, and then the strike happened, and at some point I became a Marlins fan.
New York Yankees - Five years ago, after the Marlins traded half their team 3 months into their first year in the new stadium, I said I'd be a fan of whatever team they traded Stanton to. But then they held on to him and signed him to that massive contract, and now it's five years later and they traded him to the evil empire. Sure, it would be easy to be a Yankees fan, but choosing to be a Yankees fan is what crappy sports fans do. It's TOO easy. On the other hand, why suffer? I laid the groundwork for this five years ago...and if Stanton got traded to the Yankees, maybe I should just thank my good fortune for this opportunity.
Tampa Bay Devil Rays - I live in central Florida, and all their games are on TV.

Or I could just use this random baseball team generator...https://www.randomlists.com/random-mlb-team

I have a few months until the season starts to figure this one out...

I don't know how to make this appear as an image, so I'll have to settle for this way:

http://www.interpretationbydesign.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/IBD_baseball_flowchart.jpg

It's a flow chart to help you decide what team to root for. It is also a bit out of date, but still funny.

[Blue in the Face]

Carlos Santana signs with the Phillies, 3 years, $60 million. Not a bad player, and 20+ games out of 1st place will surely be better than 30+ games was.

https://sports.yahoo.com/sources-carlos-santana-phillies-agree-60-million-contract-191248219.html

[jimsumner]

Yankees resign Sabathia.

One year, 10 mil.

http://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/21784745/cc-sabathia-re-signing-new-york-yankees-one-year-contract

I guess this closes the door on their pursuit of Fulmer, Cole, et. al.

[duke74]

Yankees resign Sabathia.

One year, 10 mil.

http://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/21784745/cc-sabathia-re-signing-new-york-yankees-one-year-contract

I guess this closes the door on their pursuit of Fulmer, Cole, et. al.

Locals reporting that they are still in pursuit of Cole (first). (User friendly price for CC with a “hometown” discount.)

Bucs wanted Torres. May end up with Clint Frazier in the deal.

Second and third still questions for the Bombers.

[jimsumner]

Locals reporting that they are still in pursuit of Cole (first). (User friendly price for CC with a “hometown” discount.)

Bucs wanted Torres. May end up with Clint Frazier in the deal.

Second and third still questions for the Bombers.

As long as they keep Clint Frazier, Cole is fine with me.

But with Severino, Tanaka, Gray, Sabathia, Montgomery and maybe Green (in the rotation), I'm not sure I see the master plan here. Six-man rotation? Montgomery becomes a situational lefty in the pen? Another trade?

Chad Green is the wild card here. If he could do as a six-inning starter what he did last year as a short reliever, then the rotation becomes pretty impressive.

[jimsumner]

Dodgers get Kemp back, give up on Gonzalez.

http://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/21785774/atlanta-braves-trade-matt-kemp-los-angeles-dodgers-adrian-gonzalez-brandon-mccarthy-scott-kazmir-charlie-culberson

[DU82]

Dodgers get Kemp back, give up on Gonzalez.

http://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/21785774/atlanta-braves-trade-matt-kemp-los-angeles-dodgers-adrian-gonzalez-brandon-mccarthy-scott-kazmir-charlie-culberson

Salary dump on both sides with relatively even contract totals. Dodgers get the benefit of paying Kemp over two years instead of one, so that it might get them over the luxury tax threshold for a season.

Gonzalez and Kemp are likely to be released Monday (can't be released over a weekend in the off-season.) Kazmir and McCarthy are reasonable risks for the Braves.

[kshepinthehouse]

Salary dump on both sides with relatively even contract totals. Dodgers get the benefit of paying Kemp over two years instead of one, so that it might get them over the luxury tax threshold for a season.

Gonzalez and Kemp are likely to be released Monday (can't be released over a weekend in the off-season.) Kazmir and McCarthy are reasonable risks for the Braves.

Great trade for the Braves in my opinion. Allows them to shed some serious salary in 2019 while also opening a spot for Acuna. Couple of decently useful players too including a utility infielder.

[Blue in the Face]

Evan Longoria to San Fran, for three young players (including the Giants' #4 prospect per BA's recent rankings) and Denard Span. Longoria is 32, coming off one of his worst seasons in the majors, and signed for 5 more seasons at about $16MM per, plus a $5MM buyout for the 6th season. Pretty reasonable dollars, if not length, and he's been very durable throughout his career. Span going the other way off-sets some of the money.

Kind of a shame that a guy like him couldn't stay with them for his career (which he seemed to want to), but that's the nature of things.

http://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/21826902/tampa-bay-rays-trade-evan-longoria-san-francisco-giants

[Olympic Fan]

Looks like my Yankees aren't done yet.

A lot of talk that New York and Pittsburgh are close to a deal that would send Gerrit Cole to the Yankees for a package built around Clint Frazier. Some hints that Josh Harrison might also go to the Yankees (he can play either 2B or 3B, where the Yanks have question marks). But if he's included, the package of prospects would have to be a LOT better than just Frazier.

[duke74]

Looks like my Yankees aren't done yet.

A lot of talk that New York and Pittsburgh are close to a deal that would send Gerrit Cole to the Yankees for a package built around Clint Frazier. Some hints that Josh Harrison might also go to the Yankees (he can play either 2B or 3B, where the Yanks have question marks). But if he's included, the package of prospects would have to be a LOT better than just Frazier.

And meanwhile, my Mets continue to rock the offseason by bringing back Minaya as asst. GM to smug Sandy. Wish the Wilpons would just crawl under a rock somewhere or share a cell with their buddy Bernie.

The NY Post had an article a few days ago about how Fred resents the activity and spending by the Yankees. Tough playing small town team in NYC I guess.

[jimsumner]

Looks like my Yankees aren't done yet.

A lot of talk that New York and Pittsburgh are close to a deal that would send Gerrit Cole to the Yankees for a package built around Clint Frazier. Some hints that Josh Harrison might also go to the Yankees (he can play either 2B or 3B, where the Yanks have question marks). But if he's included, the package of prospects would have to be a LOT better than just Frazier.

The New York dailies are suggesting Frazier, Andujar and Chance Adams for Cole and Harrison. That seems a lot for a pitcher who struggled last year. Presumably the Yankees are relying on scouting analyses that suggest Cole is not on a permanent downward slide. He's still only 27.

I'd love the 2015 Cole. The 2017 Cole? Not so much.

[mr. synellinden]

The New York dailies are suggesting Frazier, Andujar and Chance Adams for Cole and Harrison. That seems a lot for a pitcher who struggled last year. Presumably the Yankees are relying on scouting analyses that suggest Cole is not on a permanent downward slide. He's still only 27.

I'd love the 2015 Cole. The 2017 Cole? Not so much.

I would hate this trade for the Yankees. I’d rather see them go with the 5 starters they have in place already and make a move at the deadline if they need to.

[duke74]

I would hate this trade for the Yankees. I’d rather see them go with the 5 starters they have in place already and make a move at the deadline if they need to.

Or go for Fulmer. .

[jimsumner]

Or go for Fulmer. .

Supposedly the Tigers want more for Fulmer than the Pirates want for Cole.

I just have a feeling Frazier is going to be an all-star in a few years. I want it to happen in pinstripes.

[mr. synellinden]

Supposedly the Tigers want more for Fulmer than the Pirates want for Cole.

I just have a feeling Frazier is going to be an all-star in a few years. I want it to happen in pinstripes.

This is exactly how I feel - Frazier has unique talent and I think the makeup to succeed In NY. And I love the idea of the Yankees continuing to build their roster with young players who grow together like the Jeter-Posada- etc teams.

Also, I’m just not sold on Cole, especially making the transition to the AL.

[Olympic Fan]

This is exactly how I feel - Frazier has unique talent and I think the makeup to succeed In NY. And I love the idea of the Yankees continuing to build their roster with young players who grow together like the Jeter-Posada- etc teams.

Also, I’m just not sold on Cole, especially making the transition to the AL.

The Yankees have always coveted Cole -- they made him their No. 1 draft pick coming out of high school (he went to college instead).

It's true that he has struggled the last two years -- with injury in 2016 and with results last year. But his velocity has not dropped and obviously the Yankees feel they can straighten him out.

What's too much to give? The Pirates are reportedly demanding Torres and that's not going to happen. And I hate to trade away Frazier, but he's superfluous in the crowded outfield. As promising as he looked, he did hit .231 in his brief debut last season ... another season like that and his value drops way down.

Harrison would be a nice addition, but Andujar is a lot to give up. He's 22 years old and he's going to hit (maybe more potential at the bat that Frazier). But can he play third base? That's a valid question -- he might be at some point, but right now, he's not ready.

Look, I want to bring in a solid starter to prevent the Yankees from moving Chad Green out of the bullpen (where he was fantastic) into the starting rotation. I like the idea of keeping a core group of players together, but even in the '90s, we traded off some prospects. The trick is keeping the right ones.

I think as it now stands, the Yankees could be the best team in baseball next season if they answer three questions positively: 2B (Torres?), 3B (Andujar? Harrison?) and one more starting pitcher (Cole?). It's not worth trading the team's future (Torres) to fill those holes, but it's worth giving up some decent prospects.

[jimsumner]

The Yankees have always coveted Cole -- they made him their No. 1 draft pick coming out of high school (he went to college instead).

It's true that he has struggled the last two years -- with injury in 2016 and with results last year. But his velocity has not dropped and obviously the Yankees feel they can straighten him out.

What's too much to give? The Pirates are reportedly demanding Torres and that's not going to happen. And I hate to trade away Frazier, but he's superfluous in the crowded outfield. As promising as he looked, he did hit .231 in his brief debut last season ... another season like that and his value drops way down.

Harrison would be a nice addition, but Andujar is a lot to give up. He's 22 years old and he's going to hit (maybe more potential at the bat that Frazier). But can he play third base? That's a valid question -- he might be at some point, but right now, he's not ready.

Look, I want to bring in a solid starter to prevent the Yankees from moving Chad Green out of the bullpen (where he was fantastic) into the starting rotation. I like the idea of keeping a core group of players together, but even in the '90s, we traded off some prospects. The trick is keeping the right ones.

I think as it now stands, the Yankees could be the best team in baseball next season if they answer three questions positively: 2B (Torres?), 3B (Andujar? Harrison?) and one more starting pitcher (Cole?). It's not worth trading the team's future (Torres) to fill those holes, but it's worth giving up some decent prospects.

I like Frazier in part because I think Stanton will become a full-time DH pretty soon. The Yanks' David Ortiz. Saves wear and tear and opens up a corner OF spot for Frazier.

Andujar becomes redundant if the Yankees assume they will sign one of Machado or Donaldson after the 2018 season.

But that's a big if.

Right now, the Yankees have a presumed rotation of Severino, Tanaka, Gray, Montgomery and Sabathia. So, they can keep Green in the pen. If they do trade for Cole, what happens to Montgomery? He looked like a keeper last season. He's young, promising and cheap. The trifecta. And his ERA and WHIP were better last season than Cole's.

And Chris Archer can be had. But I'm not sure Tampa Bay would trade him to a division rival and supposedly they are asking for a lot for Archer. A lot.

But I'd be a lot more inclined to include Frazier for Archer than for Cole.

[Blue in the Face]

I like Frazier in part because I think Stanton will become a full-time DH pretty soon. The Yanks' David Ortiz. Saves wear and tear and opens up a corner OF spot for Frazier.
How soon do you expect that to happen? Stanton certainly doesn't have the body type that cries out to be moved to DH, so moving him anytime soon doesn't seem to make much sense. And while you might at some point (or he might just leave though his opt-out), Frazier's got value in the meantime that you're wasting on the bench or in the minors. I don't know how good he'll be, obviously you never like trading away a guy who goes on to be special. But given the makeup of the roster, he's a good piece to use in trade. (I'm not necessarily talking about a Cole trade, I don't know enough about him to gauge that. But in general, I think Frazier's a good asset to make available).

[jimsumner]

How soon do you expect that to happen? Stanton certainly doesn't have the body type that cries out to be moved to DH, so moving him anytime soon doesn't seem to make much sense. And while you might at some point (or he might just leave though his opt-out), Frazier's got value in the meantime that you're wasting on the bench or in the minors. I don't know how good he'll be, obviously you never like trading away a guy who goes on to be special. But given the makeup of the roster, he's a good piece to use in trade. (I'm not necessarily talking about a Cole trade, I don't know enough about him to gauge that. But in general, I think Frazier's a good asset to make available).

Stanton was very healthy this season. But he played fewer than 120 games in three of the last four seasons prior to 2017. So, having him spend at least some time at DH might keep him healthy and prolong his productive years.

Or maybe Frazier DHs. Giradi liked to keep the DH spot open so regulars could rotate in. And yes, giving Sanchez an occasional day off from behind the plate, while keeping his bat in the lineup makes sense.

I have no idea what Boone wants to do. But I'd like to think the Bombers could do better than Matt Holiday at that spot.

I would be amenable to moving Frazier for a stud starter. I'm just not sure Cole is that guy.

[YmoBeThere]

I'd like to think the Bombers could do better than Matt Holiday at that spot.

They did one better and went with a Holliday...

[jimsumner]

They did one better and went with a Holliday...

The best option would be Mattt Hollliday.

[Olympic Fan]

Andujar becomes redundant if the Yankees assume they will sign one of Machado or Donaldson after the 2018 season.


Does he?

One of the things that Machado has made clear is that he wants to play shortstop, his natural position. It looks pretty likely that the team that signs him would need to promise him the shortstop job.

That still leaves third base open for the Yankees. Could Didi move over or does he become trade bait? Is Andujar the guy? Or will it be Josh Harrison?

And what about the coming season? It's my belief -- and I don't think it's farfetched -- that the Yankees could win it all in 2018 IF they get solid play at second and third base (plus, stay reasonably healthy, but that last one is a given for everybody).

That makes Andujar a bit less redundant -- right now he looks like the best option for the Yankees at third. Or he's trade bait for somebody like Harrison.

PS As much as I'd love to add Machado after the 2018 season, I hope we pass on Josh Donaldson. He looks exactly like the kind of past-his-prime free agent we signed so often in the last decade or so. He's still a quality player -- even though he missed a third of the season with injury -- but he'll be 33 in 2019. It would take a 4-5 year deal to get him, then we'd be stuck with an older guy with a big contract for several years. Those are the kind of guys we're trying to get rid of (Headley ... Ellsbury). I know it would take a big, long contract to get Machado, but he's just entering his prime (he's 24 years old right now).

[jimsumner]

I rather like Gregorius at short and suspect the Yankees could find 20 million or so reasons to convince Machado to stay at third.:)

[rasputin]

Stanton was very healthy this season. But he played fewer than 120 games in three of the last four seasons prior to 2017. So, having him spend at least some time at DH might keep him healthy and prolong his productive years.

Or maybe Frazier DHs. Giradi liked to keep the DH spot open so regulars could rotate in. And yes, giving Sanchez an occasional day off from behind the plate, while keeping his bat in the lineup makes sense.

I have no idea what Boone wants to do. But I'd like to think the Bombers could do better than Matt Holiday at that spot.

I would be amenable to moving Frazier for a stud starter. I'm just not sure Cole is that guy.

Wasn't one of those seasons in which he missed a lot of games, a season during which Stanton got hit in the face with a pitch? That's not the same thing as straining a hammy.

[CDu]

Wasn't one of those seasons in which he missed a lot of games, a season during which Stanton got hit in the face with a pitch? That's not the same thing as straining a hammy.

Another was for a broken hand. But he does have a long series of groin and hamstring injuries.

[CDu]

Seems like - aside from the Marlins continuing to give away their players for a song - this entire offseason has been a game of chicken. That so few of the top free agents have signed THIS late into the offseason is shocking to me. Whether it is the salary cap finally showing its teeth, or teams just genuinely not trusting the available options (it is certainly a weak free agent class), I can't remember ever getting this late in the season with so many of the top options still unsigned.

[Olympic Fan]

Seems like - aside from the Marlins continuing to give away their players for a song - this entire offseason has been a game of chicken. That so few of the top free agents have signed THIS late into the offseason is shocking to me. Whether it is the salary cap finally showing its teeth, or teams just genuinely not trusting the available options (it is certainly a weak free agent class), I can't remember ever getting this late in the season with so many of the top options still unsigned.

I think you are right ... I wonder if the prospect of NEXT year's free agent class is causing teams to step back this year to try and get in position to go after Bryce Harper, Manny Machado and/or Clayton Kershaw next season. Those three are generational free agents -- and while I'm pretty sure Kershaw resigns with the Dodgers, there seems to be little chance that Harper and Machado stay where they are.

People need to understand that the way the luxury tax works, the penalty for being over the threshold multiples when you are over it for consecutive years. That's why the Yankees and the Dodgers (who have both been over the limit for four straight years) are trying so hard to come in under the limit -- so they can go over it again after next season and just get a minor hit.

Plus, it might have something to do with the quality of the free agents. Remember a year ago when some big home run hitters -- including Chris Carter, who led the NL in homers in 2016 -- couldn't find a buyer. Carter was just 30 years old and ended up signing a one-year deal with the Yankees.

[JBDuke]

I think you are right ... I wonder if the prospect of NEXT year's free agent class is causing teams to step back this year to try and get in position to go after Bryce Harper, Manny Machado and/or Clayton Kershaw next season. Those three are generational free agents -- and while I'm pretty sure Kershaw resigns with the Dodgers, there seems to be little chance that Harper and Machado stay where they are.
...

I'm curious about others' perspectives on Harper. The perception here in NOVA among most Nats fans that I talk to is that there's a pretty good possibility Harper will stay with the Nationals. But almost everything I read from national columnists or knowledgeable fans of other teams has Harper practically packing his bags now. Maybe the locals are all just wearing rose-colored glasses, but it doesn't feel that way to me. I listen to what Bryce says when he gives interviews and especially when he talks about the community here and how he's embraced it. I listen to what GM Rizzo says and what we hear from Nats ownership, other players, and local columnists that seem to have good sources. I think the Nats are pretty well prepared to try and fill the hole in RF if Bryce leaves (hello, Victor Robles), but it's not like DC is a small market team that can't afford him. The Lerners have rolled out the big bucks for several players - Strasburg, Scherzer, Zimmerman, for example. If the offers from other teams are reasonable, then I expect that the Nats will be competitive. (And reasonable, in this case, is a big bucket of money.)

So, what is it that others are hearing that has them so convinced that Harper won't be wearing the red and white in a couple of years?

[CDu]

I'm curious about others' perspectives on Harper. The perception here in NOVA among most Nats fans that I talk to is that there's a pretty good possibility Harper will stay with the Nationals. But almost everything I read from national columnists or knowledgeable fans of other teams has Harper practically packing his bags now. Maybe the locals are all just wearing rose-colored glasses, but it doesn't feel that way to me. I listen to what Bryce says when he gives interviews and especially when he talks about the community here and how he's embraced it. I listen to what GM Rizzo says and what we hear from Nats ownership, other players, and local columnists that seem to have good sources. I think the Nats are pretty well prepared to try and fill the hole in RF if Bryce leaves (hello, Victor Robles), but it's not like DC is a small market team that can't afford him. The Lerners have rolled out the big bucks for several players - Strasburg, Scherzer, Zimmerman, for example. If the offers from other teams are reasonable, then I expect that the Nats will be competitive. (And reasonable, in this case, is a big bucket of money.)

So, what is it that others are hearing that has them so convinced that Harper won't be wearing the red and white in a couple of years?

I don’t think it is out of the question for Harper to stay in DC. However, to do so would require the Nats to go firmly and for the foreseeable future into the luxury tax. That isn’t just a financial cost now. Repeater taxhood also impacts draft picks. There are contending teams with cap space (or the ability to get the cap space) to sign Harper outright without having to shed key talent. The Nats (with three big-dollar contracts already plus arb raises for guys like Rendon and Taylor) certainly won’t be able to keep Daniel Murphy AND Harper and stay under the tax line, and that already assumes they let Werth walk this year and Gio next without spending significant dollars to replace them.

So while I certainly wouldn’t rule out the Nats, it is going to be tricky for them to keep a core together without completely mortgaging the future.

[duke74]

I don’t think it is out of the question for Harper to stay in DC. However, to do so would require the Nats to go firmly and for the foreseeable future into the luxury tax. That isn’t just a financial cost now. Repeater taxhood also impacts draft picks. There are contending teams with cap space (or the ability to get the cap space) to sign Harper outright without having to shed key talent. The Nats (with three big-dollar contracts already plus arb raises for guys like Rendon and Taylor) certainly won’t be able to keep Daniel Murphy AND Harper and stay under the tax line, and that already assumes they let Werth walk this year and Gio next without spending significant dollars to replace them.

So while I certainly wouldn’t rule out the Nats, it is going to be tricky for them to keep a core together without completely mortgaging the future.

I’ll take Murph back in a second. One we let get away. Who knew he’d become Rogers Hornsby?

[JBDuke]

I don’t think it is out of the question for Harper to stay in DC. However, to do so would require the Nats to go firmly and for the foreseeable future into the luxury tax. That isn’t just a financial cost now. Repeater taxhood also impacts draft picks. There are contending teams with cap space (or the ability to get the cap space) to sign Harper outright without having to shed key talent. The Nats (with three big-dollar contracts already plus arb raises for guys like Rendon and Taylor) certainly won’t be able to keep Daniel Murphy AND Harper and stay under the tax line, and that already assumes they let Werth walk this year and Gio next without spending significant dollars to replace them.

So while I certainly wouldn’t rule out the Nats, it is going to be tricky for them to keep a core together without completely mortgaging the future.

I could see the Nats letting Murphy and Gio go after 2018. Wilmer Difo put together a really good year last year, and looks ready to be a full-time middle infielder. And Gio, while a relatively steady innings-eater of a leftie (which ain't bad) is nowhere near the Cy Young candidate he was when the Nats signed him. With those two contracts off their books, I think they have the room to sign Harper to a $35M a year deal that it seems like will be his asking price.

[CDu]

I could see the Nats letting Murphy and Gio go after 2018. Wilmer Difo put together a really good year last year, and looks ready to be a full-time middle infielder. And Gio, while a relatively steady innings-eater of a leftie (which ain't bad) is nowhere near the Cy Young candidate he was when the Nats signed him. With those two contracts off their books, I think they have the room to sign Harper to a $35M a year deal that it seems like will be his asking price.

Right, but does a Nats team without Gio and Murphy have the same draw? Difo, while solid, is a huge step down at the plate from Murphy. And without Gio (who has been more than just an innings-eater in Washington, but rather a solid #2/3 starter), the starting rotation looks really questionable after the top two. And Washington hasn’t made it out of the first round WITH those better players. It is hard to see how they will fair better with less talent in the lineup and rotation.

Again, not to say that Harper won’t choose to stay. And I am sure they will make every effort to keep him. Just that these are the types of questions about the DC situation that national writers see as hurdles to Harper staying.

Another factor is the Harper/Bryant link. Both players are Vegas kids who played together and against each other growing up. They were at each other’s weddings. Their wives are close friends, and the players have hung out a fair amount recently. Harper tweeted a pick of the two saying “back2back someday”. Not sure how much this matters, but it no doubt has factored into the national media’s belief that the Cubs are a real threat to get Harper next winter. Oh, and Harper’s dog is apparently named Wrigley.

The Cubs would no doubt have to find room to make it happen. But they could do it if Heyward (with a $23 million per price tag) has a big year and opts out, or if the Cubs can trade him along with prospects to shed his salary. The Cubs’ payroll (thanks to so many cost-controlled position players) would allow a Harper addition if Heyward could be moved.

Again - not that this means Harper won’t sign with Washington. But why would one feel certain that he WILL return? He isn’t from there. His wife isn’t either. His teams haven’t won a title together, so thereisn’t that championship bond. He surely has buds on the team. Werth and Desmond were apparently groomsmen in his wedding, but Desmond is gone and Werth will be too if the Nats hope to keep Harper. Yes, Harper has spent his whole career in DC, but is that a strong enough reason to stay? Maybe, maybe not.

[CDu]

This is getting silly. We're 6 weeks from the beginning of Spring Training, and 15 of the top 20 free agents (including all of the top starting pitchers) still aren't signed. Someone is going to have to blink relatively soon. It will be really interesting to see how this all plays out.

[jimsumner]

This is getting silly. We're 6 weeks from the beginning of Spring Training, and 15 of the top 20 free agents (including all of the top starting pitchers) still aren't signed. Someone is going to have to blink relatively soon. It will be really interesting to see how this all plays out.

The players who are signing--e.g. Wade Davis, Carlos Santana, et. al. are signing two or three-year contracts. So, I agree. Someone is going to pull the trigger on a five-or-six-year contract and the dam will burst.

[Blue in the Face]

The players who are signing--e.g. Wade Davis, Carlos Santana, et. al. are signing two or three-year contracts. So, I agree. Someone is going to pull the trigger on a five-or-six-year contract and the dam will burst.
Along those lines, it's being reported that Hosmer has a two 7-year offers on the table (KC and SD), and JD Martinez has a 5-year offer from Boston.

[Tappan Zee Devil]

Boy - the baseball scene has been quiet.

Pitchers and catchers report February 13, which is only 5 weeks off. You would think that there would be more free-agent action.

[Olympic Fan]

Saw the MLB Now gang on the MLB Network discussing the logjam on free agent signings and they mentioned that a year ago, most of the big free agent signings came in late January.

Sop maybe this year's long wait is not so out of line, but a developing trend.

[CDu]

Saw the MLB Now gang on the MLB Network discussing the logjam on free agent signings and they mentioned that a year ago, most of the big free agent signings came in late January.

Sop maybe this year's long wait is not so out of line, but a developing trend.

I don't think that the MLB Now gang has their information right. The 10 biggest signings last year were:
Cespedes (4 years, $110 million, signed Nov 30)
Chapman (5 years, $86 million, signed Dec 8)
Fowler (5 years, $82.5 million, signed Dec 9)
Jansen (5 years, $80 million, signed Jan 10)
Desmond (5 years, $70 million, signed Dec 7)
Turner (4 years, $64 million, signed Dec 23)
Melancon (4 years, $62 million, signed Dec 5)
Encarnacion (3 years, $60 million, signed Dec 22)
Reddick (4 years, $52 million, signed Nov 17)
Hill (3 years, $48 million, signed Dec 5)

So only one of the top guys signed this late, and the rest signed several weeks earlier.

[Blue in the Face]

Not a free agent signing, but one of the long burning embers of the hot stove finally flared fully to life - the Astros claim victory over the yanks yet again, with a reported agreement to acquire Gerrit Cole from Pitt (return as yet unknown). That'd be quite a rotation.

https://www.si.com/mlb/2018/01/10/gerrit-cole-houston-astros-trade-pittsburgh-pirates

[CDu]

Not a free agent signing, but one of the long burning embers of the hot stove finally flared fully to life - the Astros claim victory over the yanks yet again, with a reported agreement to acquire Gerrit Cole from Pitt (return as yet unknown). That'd be quite a rotation.

https://www.si.com/mlb/2018/01/10/gerrit-cole-houston-astros-trade-pittsburgh-pirates

It's an interesting trade. Gotta wonder if that eliminates them from the Darvish and Arrieta sweepstakes. If so, the number of suitors for each is in decline unless some of the typical big spenders decide to go into the luxury tax.

Hopefully this gets the market kickstarted.

[CDu]

And now folks are reporting that Cole to the Astros is fake news. Not that it won't eventually happen, but that no deal is happening at the moment.

[Olympic Fan]

I don't think that the MLB Now gang has their information right. The 10 biggest signings last year were:
Cespedes (4 years, $110 million, signed Nov 30)
Chapman (5 years, $86 million, signed Dec 8)
Fowler (5 years, $82.5 million, signed Dec 9)
Jansen (5 years, $80 million, signed Jan 10)
Desmond (5 years, $70 million, signed Dec 7)
Turner (4 years, $64 million, signed Dec 23)
Melancon (4 years, $62 million, signed Dec 5)
Encarnacion (3 years, $60 million, signed Dec 22)
Reddick (4 years, $52 million, signed Nov 17)
Hill (3 years, $48 million, signed Dec 5)

So only one of the top guys signed this late, and the rest signed several weeks earlier.

Pretty selective and misleading list. Who decided those are the top 10 free agents? Where is Bautista and Trumbo? Among the important free agents, the following signs AFTER Jan. 15 last year:

Jose Bautista (Jan. 16)
Mark Trumbo -- coming off a 47 HR all-star season -- (Jan. 20)
Greg Holland (Jan. 25)
Mike Napoli (Feb. 7)
Bronson Arroyo (Feb. 11)
Travis Wood -- (Feb. 15)
Chris Carter -- the defending NL home run champ -- (Feb. 16)
Matt Weiders -- coming off an all-star season in 2016 -- (Feb. 21)

Add Jansen and that's eight significant free agents that signed later than yesterday (when the MLB crew were talking about it).

I repeat, late signings are becoming more and more common.

[CDu]

Pretty selective and misleading list. Who decided those are the top 10 free agents? Where is Bautista and Trumbo? Among the important free agents, the following signs AFTER Jan. 15 last year:

Jose Bautista (Jan. 16)
Mark Trumbo -- coming off a 47 HR all-star season -- (Jan. 20)
Greg Holland (Jan. 25)
Mike Napoli (Feb. 7)
Bronson Arroyo (Feb. 11)
Travis Wood -- (Feb. 15)
Chris Carter -- the defending NL home run champ -- (Feb. 16)
Matt Weiders -- coming off an all-star season in 2016 -- (Feb. 21)

Add Jansen and that's eight significant free agents that signed later than yesterday (when the MLB crew were talking about it).

I repeat, late signings are becoming more and more common.

I don't think my list was arbitrary at all. I went strictly by contract dollar value, as economic theory suggests the most sought-after free agents get the most money. Which was my point. All of the big-dollar free agents except for Jansen went before Christmas.

Yes, some guys signed later. Some guys always sign later. Dexter Fowler famously signed with the Cubs in 2016 after spring training started. But the biggest names aside from Jansen were long-gone by this time last year. Like, 2-6 weeks gone.

As for the guys on your list (some of which I think are ridiculous inclusions):
Bautista (35, and in decline at that point): 1 year, $18.5 million
Trumbo (no OBP, no defense): 3 years, $37.5 million
Holland (coming off a missed season due to injury): 1 year, $7 million
Napoli (35, coming off 3 very mediocre years, and ideally a platoon DH): 1 year, $8.5 million
Arroyo (really? you listed a 40-year-old who had been out of the majors for 2 years?): 1 year, $535,000 (i.e., the vet minimum)
Wood (again, really?): 2 years, $12 million
Carter (can't hit for average at all, can't play defense): 1 year, $3.5 million
Wieters (all star only because somebody has to make it from every team; .711 OPS in 2016, mediocre defense): 2 years, $21 million

Last year was NOTHING like this year. This year, almost all of the top free agents are still available. Last year, they were almost all gone (and by tomorrow all would have been gone).

Now, if it turns out that Darvish, Arrieta, Cobb, Cain, Martinez, Lynn, etc. all sign deals for less than $50 million, then yes. I will agree that the 2017-18 offseason looks like the 2016-17 offseason.

[Blue in the Face]

I don't think my list was arbitrary at all. I went strictly by contract dollar value, as economic theory suggests the most sought-after free agents get the most money. Which was my point. All of the big-dollar free agents except for Jansen went before Christmas.
Not to pile on, but in addition to agreeing with CDu's comments on the contracts cited by Olympic Fan (seriously, Napoli and Arroyo (and his was a minor league deal!)), the "selective" comment is quite ironic given several other somewhat significant contracts not yet mentioned.

Kendrys Morales - 3 year, $33MM deal in Nov 2016.
Brett Cecil - 4 year, $30MM deal in Nov 2016
Ivan Nova - 3 year, $30MM contract in Dec 2016
Jason Castro - 3 year, $25MM contract in Dec 2016
Carlos Beltran - 1 year, $16MM contract in Oct 2016
Matt Holliday - 1 year, $13MM deal in Dec 2016

There's really no ambiguity about it - the vast majority of big free agent contracts last off-season had already been signed at this point. Repeating otherwise doesn't make it so.

[Olympic Fan]

I'm not denying that the free agent market is slower this year, but just defending the argument that there are quite a few significant free agents who signed late a year ago.

You can try and diminish their stature, but when the NL and AL home run champs are waiting on a deal, that's significant.

Weiters and Trumbo were all-stars in 2016 who could not find a contract until late. You are distainful of Wood -- coming of a 2.95 ERA season in '16, he was projected as a top free agent. Bautista was an aging star, but the fact that he lasted so long in the free agent market was a stunner. Yes, Holland had health issues in 2016, but he was a proven closer who seemed to be healthy (and turned out to be one of the best free agent pickups of the season).

Couldn't you trash several of the prime free agents that we're waiting so breathlessly to sign? Yu Darvish couldn't get anybody out in postseason. Jake Arrieta has been in decline since the middle of 2016. Hosmer does not have the power you want in a first baseman -- he hits too many ground balls. Lance Lynn hasn't been healthy since 2015 and his SO rate is way down. JD Martinez is an impact bat, but he's a liability in the field -- he needs to sign with an AL club where he can DH.

Not saying all those things are true, just that that's the kind of skepticism that teams are starting to apply to free agents. I've read all of those arguments. That's why it's taking longer -- this year is just a continuation of free agent skepticism that started last year.

But what do I know -- I was the guy who argued that Jack Morris was a Hall of Famer ... how did that turn out?

[CDu]

Like I said: if Darvish, Arrieta, etc., all sign for a relative song, then I will gladly concede that 2017-18 was like 2016-17. I feel quite comfortable saying that this won’t be the case. This offseason has been nothing like last offseason.

I guess I could go look at various top-50 lists from last year to prove my point, showing that those guys you listed were well down the food chain. Maybe I will do that at some point.

[duke74]

Locals reporting that Jay Bruce back with Mets on a 3-year deal. And noises about Castro who apparently wants to escape Jetah-land.

[Blue in the Face]

Locals reporting that Jay Bruce back with Mets on a 3-year deal. And noises about Castro who apparently wants to escape Jetah-land.
My favorite thing about Starlin Castro, or more specifically his contract, is the kicker he has if he does well - if he wins an MVP, or finishes top 5 twice, his salaries in the final year of his contract and his team option year both increase by $2MM. No disrespect to Castro (I mean that genuinely, I liked him on the Yanks), but it must've taken a lot for the Cubs execs to stifle laughter when his agent proposed that. "Boy, you guys drive a hard bargain, but, uh yeah, we can live with that."

[Olympic Fan]

Locals reporting that Jay Bruce back with Mets on a 3-year deal. And noises about Castro who apparently wants to escape Jetah-land.

Bruce apparently got a three-year deal for $39 million .... pretty much chicken feed for one of the top non-pitching free agents out there (fourth best non-pitcher, according to MLB.com):

https://www.mlb.com/news/top-10-mlb-free-agents-for-2017-18-offseason/c-250373002

Pretty much the same deal that Trumbo got very late last year and just a shooch better than the one Morales got early last year.

[RPS]

In a very interesting move (to me at least), my Padres have hired Dave Cameron (https://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/the-one-i-never-thought-i-would-write/) of FanGraphs to build out a Research and Development department.

[CDu]

Bruce apparently got a three-year deal for $39 million ... pretty much chicken feed for one of the top non-pitching free agents out there (fourth best non-pitcher, according to MLB.com):

https://www.mlb.com/news/top-10-mlb-free-agents-for-2017-18-offseason/c-250373002

Pretty much the same deal that Trumbo got very late last year and just a shooch better than the one Morales got early last year.

Depends on whose list you look at. MLB Trade Rumors ranked their top-50 free agents for 2017-18 back in November here: https://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2017/11/2017-18-top-50-mlb-free-agents-with-predictions.html

Bruce got exactly what they predicted. They had Bruce as the #8 non-pitching free agent, and #14 overall.

ESPN had Bruce as their #7 non-pitching prospect and #12 overall (the difference mainly is that ESPN appears to devalue relievers): http://www.espn.com/mlb/freeagents/_/type/ranked

In looking at the market this year compared to last as a function of top-ranked players signed, it's pretty clear that this year has been slower. Last year, all of the top 10 free agents per ESPN had signed by now, and 9 of the 10 had signed before Christmas. This year, only 2 of the top-10 have signed. Last year, 18 of the top 20 free agents had signed by now (all of the additional 8 signed before Christmas too). This year, only 7 of the top 20 have signed.

The analysis doesn't change dramatically if you look at MLB Trade Rumors' top-50 lists. Last year (ranks here: https://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2016/11/2016-17-top-50-mlb-free-agents-predictions.html), 9 of the top 10 (all but Trumbo) had signed, and 15 of the top 20. This year (https://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2017/11/2017-18-top-50-mlb-free-agents-with-predictions.html), only 1 of the top-10 and 6 of the top-20 have signed.

The story is remarkably different between last year and this year. The second/third-tier guys are signing about when they did last year, and for roughly as much as expected. The top-tier guys, are not. It's wild.

[CDu]

There is a reason why so many folks are marveling about how crazy it is that none of the big names have signed yet. It's because nobody can remember a time when it has happened. Usually the big boys sign in the Nov and Dec meetings, and January/February is when the second/third-tier guys go to the losers on the big-boy sweepstakes.

Well, so far this year, almost none of the big boys have signed yet. A lot of that is being dictated by the soft cap, meaning guys like Arrieta and Darvish are going to have to come down from their dreams of 6-year contracts to the 4-5 year range. But the fact remains, this is uncharted territory with regards to free agency. We've never really seen anything like this.

[RPS]

Tom Verducci's thoughts on why the free agent season has started so slowly are here (https://www.si.com/mlb/2018/01/11/free-agency-hot-stove-slow-pace).

[Olympic Fan]

Interesting (but not surprising) that Josh Donaldson and Charlie Blackmon each signed one-year deals to avoid arbitration.

That keeps both in next off-season's free agent class.

Blackmon said that he would prefer to sign a long-term deal and avoid free agency. That's not surprising -- he's a star in Mile-high (1.239 OPS) and a journeyman anywhere else (.784 OPS). Kind of like Tulowitski (as the Blue Jays found out to their dismay ... okay, Tulo was a little better than a journeyman outside Mile High, but he was far from a star).

Interesting that Donaldson got $23 million for next year -- the most for an arbitration eligible player. Blackmon got $13 million.

It will be interesting to see if both or either make free agency next year and what they get then.

[Olympic Fan]

A lot of excitement in Yankee circles yesterday over Michigan Kay's report that the Yankees had offered Yu Darvish seven years for $150 million ... but that the offer had a 48 hour time limit and was withdrawn when he didn't respond. Kay is a Yankee broadcaster, so he could have some inside pull.

Darvish responded with a tweet denying that he had received any offer from the Yankees.

Most of the Yankee watchers think Kay's info was bogus. The offer he reported doesn't make sense when you look at the team's actions in the offseason.

The Yankees' primary goal is to get under the $197 million salary threshold -- which would reset their "tax" rate with MLB, allowing them to spend big next off-season (Machado, Harper, Kershaw, Donaldson, etc) without major penalties.

So far, they've done a magnificent job of restraint. In fact, just this week, they finished signing all their arbitration eligible players. When they finished, they have a pretty locked in team salary of $177 million -- $20 million under the cap. The offer to Darvish would put them over the cap. They also need a little cushion to make some midseason moves.

Kay suggested that the Yankees could still offer Darvish and stay under the cap if they could dump Ellsbury ($13 million for the next three years). The problem is, that's easier said than done. To dump Ellsbury, you have to find somebody to take him and he's not worth the money. The Yankees could pay part of his salary, but that counts against their salary cap, even if he's playing for somebody else (the Yankees are paying $5 million of Headley's salary, even though he's gone).

The only way to get rid of Ellsbury will be to include him in a package with some top prospect or prospects. A struggling team might swallow his salary to get this prospects. Still, hat's going to be tough.

I've also seen suggestions that the Yankees could trade David Robertson or Bret Gardner. Both are valuable pieces at $11 million each ... but right now, both are in Yankee plans for next year.

Anyway, this is a long way of saying that the Yankees don't look like a player for Darvish or any big money free agent.

[jimsumner]

Cole to the Astros.

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/baseball/yankees/pirates-trade-yankees-target-gerrit-cole-astros-report-article-1.3755442

https://www.mlb.com/news/astros-land-gerrit-cole-in-trade-with-pirates/c-264677578

[acdevil]

Pirates allegedly took less than the offer they had had from the yankees. Must have been hung up on getting Torres. As a yanks fan, I’m not sorry to miss out on this one.

[CDu]

Let’s hope that the Cole trade gets the engines finally revving on the free agent market.

[CDu]

Interesting take from Cubs' GM Jed Hoyer on the slowness of this year's offseason free agent market. This content was taken from a session at CubsCon, and copy/pasted from Cubsinsider's blog (website here: https://www.cubsinsider.com/2018/01/13/jed-hoyer-addresses-offseason-issues-facing-cubs/)


“Slowest market I’ve ever been around,” Hoyer admitted when asked about the current market. “[We’ll] never know what’s going to happen in each market. We had a sense it’d be slower than usual. Some macroeconomic factors playing in.

“[Decisions are being made] regarding [luxury tax]. Future free agents markets, number of things conspired to slow things down. I think guys will still sign. Get good deals.”

Hoyer confirms what we already knew - that this free agent market is unlike any we've seen in memory. Hoyer also points to the factors that folks have discussed as to why this year is slower than ever (luxury tax making teams more hesitant, the big spenders wanting to stay under the luxury tax this year in advance of next year's bumper crop of free agents, etc.). All in all, it has made for a crazy offseason.

[CDu]

After trading Cole, the Pirates appear to be taking the next logical step in their rebuild: they appear to have agreed to trade McCutchen to the Giants.

[JBDuke]

The Nats have been doing some fine tuning so far. IMO, they're still in the market for a #3-4 starter, but I haven't heard any meaty rumors on that front yet. They avoided arbitration with Anthony Rendon, Tanner Roark, and Michael Taylor. They resigned Brandon Kintzler to keep their bullpen intact - their second-half bullpen, that is - the one that was much better than the first half disaster. They let Adam Lind go, but picked up Matt Adams in his place - similar numbers, but several years younger than Lind. They just resigned Howie Kendrick - a valuable veteran off the bench and some insurance in case Daniel Murphy's injury lingers longer than expected.

So, right now the position players look pretty set with this lineup:

Eaton (LF)
Turner (SS)
Harper (RF)
Zimmerman (1B)
Murphy (2B)
Rendon (3B)
Taylor (CF)
Weiters (C)

with a bench of Kendrick (2B, OF), Adams (1B), Severino (C), and probably Goodwin as the primary OF reserve and maybe Difo as an all-around utility guy and running speed off the bench. That assumes they go with 13 position players.

The rotation includes Scherzer, Strasburg, Gonzalez, and Roark, plus whomever they include until Joe Ross is back from Tommy John recovery. They have a couple of passable options - Edwin Jackson took a minor league deal. AJ Cole and Erick Fedde could step in, although neither has been consistent in the majors yet. (Heck, Jackson hasn't been consistent of late, either.) After that, the cupboard's pretty bare for starting talent. I wouldn't count on Austin Voth yet.

The bullpen looks pretty solid right now: Doolittle, Madson, Kintzler, Glover, Gott, Grace, Kelley, Romero, and Solis are the primary candidates. We'll see what happens with them in Spring Training.

Pitchers and catchers report in a month!

[Olympic Fan]

Nobody has more admiration for Andrew McCutcheon than I do -- the Pirates are my favorite NL team and I follow them closely and watch a lot of games.

He bounced back from his 2016 problems at the plate and was a potent hitter in 2017. And he's just 31 years old.

He's a great addition to the Giants.

But ...

I was just reading where the Giants expect him to play centerfield. Three-four years ago, McCutcheon was an above-average defender in center. But he's been in decline -- right now, he was be a fine corner outfielder, but I have my doubts about him playing center.

Speaking of that, have any if our Mets fans read about the team's plan to use Michael Comforto in center with Cespedes and Bruce in the corners. That might be the worst defensive outfield in baseball -- three leftfielders sharing the grass.

[CDu]

Nobody has more admiration for Andrew McCutcheon than I do -- the Pirates are my favorite NL team and I follow them closely and watch a lot of games.

He bounced back from his 2016 problems at the plate and was a potent hitter in 2017. And he's just 31 years old.

He's a great addition to the Giants.

But ...

I was just reading where the Giants expect him to play centerfield. Three-four years ago, McCutcheon was an above-average defender in center. But he's been in decline -- right now, he was be a fine corner outfielder, but I have my doubts about him playing center.

Speaking of that, have any if our Mets fans read about the team's plan to use Michael Comforto in center with Cespedes and Bruce in the corners. That might be the worst defensive outfield in baseball -- three leftfielders sharing the grass.

Yeah, agreed on McCutchen. He seems like a really good dude, but his defense in CF has been below average for a while now. He's provided negative value on defense each of the last 4 years. Moving to a big OF like San Francisco doesn't seem like the best place to play him in CF.

[jimsumner]

Yeah, agreed on McCutchen. He seems like a really good dude, but his defense in CF has been below average for a while now. He's provided negative value on defense each of the last 4 years. Moving to a big OF like San Francisco doesn't seem like the best place to play him in CF.

Maybe the Yankees can help out the Giants. I'm sure they can be convinced to trade Jacoby Ellsbury to the Giants, so they can move McCutcheon to the corner.

No offer refused.

[duke74]

Nobody has more admiration for Andrew McCutcheon than I do -- the Pirates are my favorite NL team and I follow them closely and watch a lot of games.

He bounced back from his 2016 problems at the plate and was a potent hitter in 2017. And he's just 31 years old.

He's a great addition to the Giants.

But ...

I was just reading where the Giants expect him to play centerfield. Three-four years ago, McCutcheon was an above-average defender in center. But he's been in decline -- right now, he was be a fine corner outfielder, but I have my doubts about him playing center.

Speaking of that, have any if our Mets fans read about the team's plan to use Michael Comforto in center with Cespedes and Bruce in the corners. That might be the worst defensive outfield in baseball -- three leftfielders sharing the grass.

As apparently the Mets representative on this board (all others, speak up please! :) ), we played Conforto in CF last year. I'm no expert, but he did reasonably well. The alternative is Lagares, who is great in the field but brings little bat. We need to get Conforto's bat into the line-up once his shoulder is healed.

[DU82]

As apparently the Mets representative on this board (all others, speak up please! :) ), we played Conforto in CF last year. I'm no expert, but he did reasonably well. The alternative is Lagares, who is great in the field but brings little bat. We need to get Conforto's bat into the line-up once his shoulder is healed.

Conforto came in at slightly below average. Baseball-Reference.com has him at -3 runs (compared to average.) Bruce was actually at +10 in right (Legares was +15.) McCutchen was -13.

Besides Legares and Bruce, the Mets were brutal in the field. Duda and Granderson were average, the rest of the infield was terrible. Reyes was -26, Flores -12 and Cabrera -13. Catchers were slightly below average as well. Rosario was slightly above average, so there's some hope there (and Cabrera may be better at second or third, wherever he plays.)

[RPS]

Jonah Keri weighed in on Friday.


"The truth is that most of these guys will get paid," an NL exec said. "It's just taking longer, and will cost the lower- and middle-class players at the end of the day."

Six high-ranking MLB officials explain why the Hot Stove season has been ice cold (https://www.cbssports.com/mlb/news/six-high-ranking-mlb-officials-explain-why-the-hot-stove-season-has-been-ice-cold/)

[Olympic Fan]

Well, my Yankees didn't land Gerritt Cole, but I see where Josh Harrison wants to be traded, rather than go through the Pirates rebuilding years.

He's a guy we like -- and he could help us at third or at second -- two places where we're counting on rookies to play.

The Pirates didn't want Clint Frazier when they had a solid outfield (McCutchen, Marte and Polanco). Now that there is an opening, would Frazier look better to them?

PS I'd love to trade Ellsbury to them, but I'm trying to be realistic here.

[jimsumner]

Well, my Yankees didn't land Gerritt Cole, but I see where Josh Harrison wants to be traded, rather than go through the Pirates rebuilding years.

He's a guy we like -- and he could help us at third or at second -- two places where we're counting on rookies to play.

The Pirates didn't want Clint Frazier when they had a solid outfield (McCutchen, Marte and Polanco). Now that there is an opening, would Frazier look better to them?

PS I'd love to trade Ellsbury to them, but I'm trying to be realistic here.

Frazier for Harrison? No way.

Joe Panik could be an option. But Frazier for Panik is still overpaying.

The Yanks want to bundle Ellsbury with someone of more value, e.g. Frazier or Chance Adams, maybe Betances, as an inducement in order to cut enough salary to sign Darvish and still stay under the luxury tax threshold.

Would the Giants take Ellsbury and Frazier for Panik? Perhaps before the McCutcheon trade but I'm not sure it makes sense for them now.

Complicating matters is the fact that Ellsbury has a full no-trade clause in his contract. Cashman is really going to have to pull a metaphorical rabbit out of his metaphorical hat to make this work.

[duke74]

Well, my Yankees didn't land Gerritt Cole, but I see where Josh Harrison wants to be traded, rather than go through the Pirates rebuilding years.

He's a guy we like -- and he could help us at third or at second -- two places where we're counting on rookies to play.

The Pirates didn't want Clint Frazier when they had a solid outfield (McCutchen, Marte and Polanco). Now that there is an opening, would Frazier look better to them?

PS I'd love to trade Ellsbury to them, but I'm trying to be realistic here.

Local sports shows and NYDN (Joel Sherman?) talking up a Ellsbury for Desmond swap.

[jimsumner]

Local sports shows and NYDN (Joel Sherman?) talking up a Ellsbury for Desmond swap.

Are any of these the same people who assured us that Cole to the Yankees was imminent and inevitable?

[duke74]

Are any of these the same people who assured us that Cole to the Yankees was imminent and inevitable?

Nope, but they were saying it was being discussed...which it was, I believe. :)

Many were saying for the Yanks not to do the Cole deal, as a matter of fact - not at what the Bucs were asking.

[jimsumner]

Nope, but they were saying it was being discussed...which it was, I believe. :)

Many were saying for the Yanks not to do the Cole deal, as a matter of fact - not at what the Bucs were asking.

More than "being discussed." Try "a matter of when rather than if."

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/baseball/yankees/gerrit-cole-yankees-inevitable-astros-interest-article-1.3745532


http://www.sportingnews.com/mlb/news/mlb-trade-rumors-new-york-yankees-gerrit-cole-clint-frazier/itb756s26v39112f981mkm5rf

[duke74]

More than "being discussed." Try "a matter of when rather than if."

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/baseball/yankees/gerrit-cole-yankees-inevitable-astros-interest-article-1.3745532


http://www.sportingnews.com/mlb/news/mlb-trade-rumors-new-york-yankees-gerrit-cole-clint-frazier/itb756s26v39112f981mkm5rf

Harper is usually reasonable. He was quoting sources...not concluding.

““I think it’s inevitable they’ll get together on a deal,” a rival exec told me Monday. “The Yankees have the pieces and Pittsburgh needs to tear it down. They’ll find common ground.”

Common ground became a common theme on Monday, as five of the six people I polled offered a similar opinion, that Cole will be a Yankee before the start of spring training.”

[Olympic Fan]

Less than a week until the Hall of Fame vote is announced next Wednesday.

Anybody else following Ryan Thibodeux's HOF tracker? He's assembled 190 public ballots (out of 425 in all). Based on his work, we can say with near certainty that three players will be voted in --

Chipper Jones (98.5 percent of the public ballots)
Vlad Guerrero (94.8 percent)
Jim Thome (93.3 percent)

Three more players have a reasonable chance:
Edgar Martinez (80.9 percent)
Trevor Hoffman (77.8 percent)
Mike Mussina (73.2 percent)

If those numbers hold up, Martinez and Hoffman make it, while Mussina barely misses. But Thibodeux's tracker is not accurate enough to feel certain about any of those three guys ... or Curt Schilling (65.5 percent so far).

That brings us to the two most controversial figures on the ballot -- Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens, both at 64.9 percent on the tracker.

That looks like a big jump over last year's percentages -- Clemens at 54.1 percent and Bonds at 53.8 percent. But that might be misleading -- a year ago, Thibodeux's tracker had both players at almost 70 percent. I saw an interview with Thibodeux, who suggested that almost nobody is changing their vote. He thinks both players may gain slightly as new voters (usually willing to overlook their cheating) are added and old ones (who can't forgive their cheating) drop off. But, he offered the opinion that neither player would win induction before their 10-year voting window closes.

PS Jim, I disagree with you as to the potential Clint Frazier for Josh Harrison deal. We need Harrison a LOT more than we need a promising fifth outfielder (after Stanton, Judge, Gardner and Hicks)

[jimsumner]

Less than a week until the Hall of Fame vote is announced next Wednesday.

Anybody else following Ryan Thibodeux's HOF tracker? He's assembled 190 public ballots (out of 425 in all). Based on his work, we can say with near certainty that three players will be voted in --

Chipper Jones (98.5 percent of the public ballots)
Vlad Guerrero (94.8 percent)
Jim Thome (93.3 percent)

Three more players have a reasonable chance:
Edgar Martinez (80.9 percent)
Trevor Hoffman (77.8 percent)
Mike Mussina (73.2 percent)

If those numbers hold up, Martinez and Hoffman make it, while Mussina barely misses. But Thibodeux's tracker is not accurate enough to feel certain about any of those three guys ... or Curt Schilling (65.5 percent so far).

That brings us to the two most controversial figures on the ballot -- Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens, both at 64.9 percent on the tracker.

That looks like a big jump over last year's percentages -- Clemens at 54.1 percent and Bonds at 53.8 percent. But that might be misleading -- a year ago, Thibodeux's tracker had both players at almost 70 percent. I saw an interview with Thibodeux, who suggested that almost nobody is changing their vote. He thinks both players may gain slightly as new voters (usually willing to overlook their cheating) are added and old ones (who can't forgive their cheating) drop off. But, he offered the opinion that neither player would win induction before their 10-year voting window closes.

PS Jim, I disagree with you as to the potential Clint Frazier for Josh Harrison deal. We need Harrison a LOT more than we need a promising fifth outfielder (after Stanton, Judge, Gardner and Hicks)

If the Yankees are determined to trade Frazier, then I think he should be the centerpiece of a deal for someone of more substance than Harrison. Think Chris Archer, Michael Fulmer, maybe even Machado. And the Yankees may have to move Gardner in order to sign Darvish, which they seem to very much want to do. And I think Frazier has a much higher ceiling than Hicks, hence the interest in Frazier from every team that wants to trade with the Yankees.

[duke74]

If the Yankees are determined to trade Frazier, then I think he should be the centerpiece of a deal for someone of more substance than Harrison. Think Chris Archer, Michael Fulmer, maybe even Machado. And the Yankees may have to move Gardner in order to sign Darvish, which they seem to very much want to do. And I think Frazier has a much higher ceiling than Hicks, hence the interest in Frazier from every team that wants to trade with the Yankees.

Noise here also about Robertson (vs. Gardner) being moved to free salary. Think that would be a mistake.

[jimsumner]

Noise here also about Robertson (vs. Gardner) being moved to free salary. Think that would be a mistake.

There's also noise about the Yankees and Travis Shaw, from Milwaukee. Lots of homers, high OPS, strikes-out a lot, which doesn't seem to matter much these days.

The Yankees are in a curious position. Last season was supposed to be a rebuilding season. Some prognosticators saw them winning 75 or so games.

But Judge, Sanchez, Severino, Montgomery, Green, Bird at the end of the season, all showed they were ready for prime time and the Yankees were one win away from the World Series.

Then, they acquired Stanton. So much for rebuilding. Full win-now mode.

But they still seem to be focused on the upcoming free-agent class. So, they're shedding salary when they can, essentially giving away Chase Headley, for example. So, not win-now mode?

The Yankees clearly lust after Machado. Torres is considered an elite prospect. So, if they acquire one of Harrison, Shaw or resign Todd Frazier for this season, how do any of these guys fit into a 2019 infield with Machado, Gregorious and Torres? Shaw or T. Frazier might be able to DH. Harrison not so much.

But it looks like a one-year rental to me and I think C. Frazier is more valuable long term than a one-year rental at third.

Why move C. Frazier now? Won't need him down the road? The Yankees will move heaven and earth to get rid of Ellsbury's contract. If not, they'll have to move Gardner to free up enough money to sign Darvish.

Hicks is the CF place-holder until Florial is ready in 2019 or 2020. There are questions about Stanton's ability to play LF at Yankee Stadium and somebody has to DH. Is Harper a realistic option for 2019? Would the Yankees roll out the checkbook for Machado and Harper?

And we haven't even mentioned Andujar, likely an elite hitter down the road but not yet even a competent fielder.

Lots of moving parts here.

And why the perceived need for another starter? The rotation of Severino, Tanaka, Gray, Sabathia, and Montgomery took them pretty deep last year and the farm system is awash with young pitching talent. How much do you give up for Fulmer, Archer, et. al.

Which Tanaka will show up this year, the one who struggled in the middle of the season or the one who dominated down the stretch? Are they worried about Sabathia's health? if so, why resign him? Do they think Montgomery overachieved? Why not try Green in the rotation and save young assets to see what they might need at the trade deadline?

Obviously, the Yankees are dealing from a position of strength and every franchise in baseball except perhaps Houston and the Dodgers would trade places. If Cashman can thread the needle or square the circle or juggle the eggs, then more power to him.

But they do have some decisions to make.

[jimsumner]

More on the free-agent log jam.

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/baseball/spring-training-nears-mlb-free-agents-starting-sweat-article-1.3764862

[CrazyNotCrazie]

There's also noise about the Yankees and Travis Shaw, from Milwaukee. Lots of homers, high OPS, strikes-out a lot, which doesn't seem to matter much these days.

The Yankees are in a curious position. Last season was supposed to be a rebuilding season. Some prognosticators saw them winning 75 or so games.

But Judge, Sanchez, Severino, Montgomery, Green, Bird at the end of the season, all showed they were ready for prime time and the Yankees were one win away from the World Series.

Then, they acquired Stanton. So much for rebuilding. Full win-now mode.

But they still seem to be focused on the upcoming free-agent class. So, they're shedding salary when they can, essentially giving away Chase Headley, for example. So, not win-now mode?

The Yankees clearly lust after Machado. Torres is considered an elite prospect. So, if they acquire one of Harrison, Shaw or resign Todd Frazier for this season, how do any of these guys fit into a 2019 infield with Machado, Gregorious and Torres? Shaw or T. Frazier might be able to DH. Harrison not so much.

But it looks like a one-year rental to me and I think C. Frazier is more valuable long term than a one-year rental at third.

Why move C. Frazier now? Won't need him down the road? The Yankees will move heaven and earth to get rid of Ellsbury's contract. If not, they'll have to move Gardner to free up enough money to sign Darvish.

Hicks is the CF place-holder until Florial is ready in 2019 or 2020. There are questions about Stanton's ability to play LF at Yankee Stadium and somebody has to DH. Is Harper a realistic option for 2019? Would the Yankees roll out the checkbook for Machado and Harper?

And we haven't even mentioned Andujar, likely an elite hitter down the road but not yet even a competent fielder.

Lots of moving parts here.

And why the perceived need for another starter? The rotation of Severino, Tanaka, Gray, Sabathia, and Montgomery took them pretty deep last year and the farm system is awash with young pitching talent. How much do you give up for Fulmer, Archer, et. al.

Which Tanaka will show up this year, the one who struggled in the middle of the season or the one who dominated down the stretch? Are they worried about Sabathia's health? if so, why resign him? Do they think Montgomery overachieved? Why not try Green in the rotation and save young assets to see what they might need at the trade deadline?

Obviously, the Yankees are dealing from a position of strength and every franchise in baseball except perhaps Houston and the Dodgers would trade places. If Cashman can thread the needle or square the circle or juggle the eggs, then more power to him.

But they do have some decisions to make.

Excellent summary. My thoughts:

I have heard Cashman on WFAN a few times recently and it sounds like he has very strict marching orders to stay under the cap. So that is directing all that he is doing. It sounded like he is hoping not to be right up against the cap at the start of the season so that he has some flexibility for in-season moves as necessary. I personally do not really understand how the cap is calculated but he is clearly very well versed in it.

Sanchez is an elite hitter but still needs work on his defense. So any lineup needs to assume that he will be seeing significant time at DH as they want to keep his bat in the lineup. So they will not be bringing in someone to play DH 160 games a year, but I think Stanton and to a lesser extent Judge will see some time there to keep them fresh.

By staying under the cap this year, the salary of anyone they sign next year effectively becomes a lot cheaper as there isn't a penalty multiplier on it, or at least that multiplier gets a lot smaller. I understand the interest in Machado. I think signing Harper is gluttony (I have been a Yankees fan for 35+ years so know all about that). Personally, I think the Stanton trade was somewhat gluttonous as well, but Cashman knows the roster better than I do. I am afraid of the length of his contract and thought Castro fit the puzzle really well, then we could have gone after Harper next year.

The 5-man rotation is theoretically set, but it never hurts to have a sixth good pitcher. CC obviously is not in the long term plan. To your point, I would not mortgage the future for another starter.

I have seen a lot of talk about Andujar on this thread but either I am missing something or when I hear talk in NY about the Yanks prospects, he is not at the top of the list.

The Yanks seem to be playing dumb about how exactly they are going to put together their lineup next year - does Stanton or Judge play right? Does the other move to left? How does DH work? Again, Cashman is a really smart guy and one would think that Stanton was smart enough to ask these questions before agreeing to come to NY. I heard both Stanton and Cashman asked point blank about the plan and neither would say. I am curious to see how it works out. Judge is being the good teammate but I also wonder how he feels about this, particularly if he might get moved.

[jimsumner]

Andujar?

Baseball America ranks him as the Yankees' fifth-best prospect, behind Torres, Florial, Sheffield and Adams.

And this is in a very deep system.

Four of the next five are pitchers, btw.

My understanding is that the top 3 are untouchable. Any one else is in play.

And Clint Frazier is not considered a prospect anymore. Played too much last season. "Graduated."

Of course, Jesus Montero was their top BA prospect three years running.

Judge? His arm is too good to move from RF, IMO. LF in the Bronx is tough and Gardner is really good out there. Hicks projects to be the CF. He had a really good season last year, when he was healthy. Was that an aberration? TBD.

I suspect lots of folks will DH, including Sanchez--can the Yanks do better than Romine as a backup? But I also suspect Stanton will be there more often than anyone else.

Unless Gardner is moved. Than Stanton looks like the left fielder.

Girardi liked to spread around DH at-bats, using the opportunity to semi-rest a regular.

I have no idea what Boone wants to do. He's another wild card.

[Blue in the Face]

I suspect lots of folks will DH, including Sanchez--can the Yanks do better than Romine as a backup?
They really have to. You're practically playing with a pitcher in the batting order (and I'm not talking about Ohtani) when he's in the lineup. Then again, this is the same team that gave Chris Stewart 100 starts behind the plate one year, so who knows.

[jimsumner]

They really have to. You're practically playing with a pitcher in the batting order (and I'm not talking about Ohtani) when he's in the lineup. Then again, this is the same team that gave Chris Stewart 100 starts behind the plate one year, so who knows.

The Yankees could probably get Cervelli for spare parts. But that doesn't help the salary issues.

Catcher is the one position where the Yankees seem to lack top-tier prospects.

Montero might be available. :)

[Blue in the Face]

Montero might be available. :)
The ratio of hype to ultimate performance for that trade is pretty ridiculous.

[acdevil]

He’s no Kevin Maas

[jimsumner]

Baseball America's updated top-100 list.

https://www.baseballamerica.com/minors/top-100-mlb-prospects-2018/#APP4GxStkfd0VbwB.97

[jimsumner]

Hall of Fame quartet announced.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/mlb/chipper-jones-vladimir-guerrero-jim-thome-and-trevor-hoffman-elected-to-baseballs-hall-of-fame/ar-AAv84jP?ocid=spartandhp&ffid=gz

[Blue in the Face]

No real surprises, 4 deserving inductees. Edgar and Moose both got nice bumps and look to be on pace to get in, though Edgar's only got one more shot. Clemens and Bonds had smaller increases than the past few years, not sure what that means - they're both at a level where increasing to 75% before it's too late is possible, but I can't really tell if voters will change their views enough.

One side note - Hideki Matsui, unsurprisingly, fell off the ballot in his 1st year of eligibility, but he was just elected to the Japanese Baseball HOF, with the highest vote total in history, and becomes the youngest-ever inductee.

[Blue in the Face]

I wouldn't recommend Christian Yelich making any major commitments to the South Florida area.
Hope he listened.


Yelich became the fourth starter traded by the Marlins as they reduce payroll and rebuild their weak farm system under new CEO Derek Jeter.

Miami acquired highly regarded outfielder Lewis Brinson, infielder Isan Diaz, outfielder Monte Harrison and right-handed pitcher Jordan Yamamoto. Brinson, Diaz and Harrison were rated among the Brewers' top 10 prospects.

http://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/22214491/miami-marlins-trade-outfielder-christian-yelich-milwaukee-brewers

[CDu]

And shortly after acquiring Yelich, the Brewers make the first big free agent splash. Lorenzo Cain for 5 years, $80 million.

FINALLY, a big-money signing. Hopefully this gets the market moving. Still most of the biggest fish up for grabs in the slowest offseason ever.

[CDu]

Theo Epstein joins the list of baseball folks marvelling at how unusually slow this offseason has been:


In a must-read interview with The Athletic’s Jon Greenberg (subscription link), Epstein says that the glacial offseason and various theories to explain it are a frequent topic of conversation — within the front office and also with players and agents. “We’re all saying to each other, ‘I can’t believe nothing has happened’ and we’re discussing reasons why,” Epstein tells Greenberg.

Hopefully the Cain signing starts to loosen things up.

[CDu]

Fun thought exercise given the dormant hot stove. We could field a pretty darn good baseball team with the free agents still available on the market:

C: Lucroy
1B: Hosmer
2B: Walker
3B: Moustakas
SS: Hardy
LF: Martinez
CF: Gomez
RF: Gonzalez
Bench: Avila, Nunez, Frazier, Smith, Davis

Rotation: Darvish, Arrieta, Cobb, Lynn, Hellickson
Bullpen: Holland, Romo, Cahill, Motte, Albers, Oh, Perez

Not sure if that group would stay south of the luxury tax line, but it'd be a pretty darn good team. And they are all still available this late in the game. Crazy.

[rasputin]

Fun thought exercise given the dormant hot stove. We could field a pretty darn good baseball team with the free agents still available on the market:

C: Lucroy
1B: Hosmer
2B: Walker
3B: Moustakas
SS: Hardy
LF: Martinez
CF: Gomez
RF: Gonzalez
Bench: Avila, Nunez, Frazier, Smith, Davis

Rotation: Darvish, Arrieta, Cobb, Lynn, Hellickson
Bullpen: Holland, Romo, Cahill, Motte, Albers, Oh, Perez

Not sure if that group would stay south of the luxury tax line, but it'd be a pretty darn good team. And they are all still available this late in the game. Crazy.

Oh had a negative WAR rating in 2017. He was terrible. It isn't surprising that he is still available.

[CDu]

Oh had a negative WAR rating in 2017. He was terrible. It isn't surprising that he is still available.

He's representing the 24th or 25th man on the roster, and one of the last guys in the bullpen. Also, while he stunk last year, he's one year removed from a 2.8 WAR season as a reliever.

I could just as easily replace him with any number of other names though.

[JBDuke]

Brodie Van Wagenen is a prominent agent for MLB players. He posted the tweet below earlier today, hinting at collusion among the owners to keep salaries down this off-season, although not going so far as to actually make that accusation, and also suggesting that a strike during Spring Training might be called for...

https://twitter.com/bvanwagenen/status/959461867990155265

[rasputin]

Brodie Van Wagenen is a prominent agent for MLB players. He posted the tweet below earlier today, hinting at collusion among the owners to keep salaries down this off-season, although not going so far as to actually make that accusation, and also suggesting that a strike during Spring Training might be called for...

https://twitter.com/bvanwagenen/status/959461867990155265

I find this comical. Players negotiate long-term deals in which they get long-term security, but then the player (let's say, hypothetically, Albert Pujols) underperforms in the later years. The teams have finally figured out that paying Albert north of $25 million last year for his OPS+ of 81 last year, isn't a good deal. So they don't want to sign super long-term deals. That isn't collusion. It's coming to your senses.

[CDu]

I find this comical. Players negotiate long-term deals in which they get long-term security, but then the player (let's say, hypothetically, Albert Pujols) underperforms in the later years. The teams have finally figured out that paying Albert north of $25 million last year for his OPS+ of 81 last year, isn't a good deal. So they don't want to sign super long-term deals. That isn't collusion. It's coming to your senses.

Not only that, but the players are unfortunately largely to blame for a big part of their problrm. They allowed a salary cap to be implemented during the last collective bargaining agreement, choosing instead to fight for better wirking conditions (more days off, better clubhouse smenities, etc). They didn’t foresee the owners taking advantage and choosing not to exceed the cap and using the cap as an excuse not to hand out $150 mmillion contracts to 30-somethings (it should be noted that Darvish, Martinez, Hosmer, and Arrieta all have $100+ million offers - they appear to be holding out for the 6- or 7-year megadeals of the past).

It was a colossal negotiating mistake by the MLBPA. The agents and players are trying to fight it, but it seems like a losing battle. They can’t strike legally (that is the point of collective bargaining - they are stuck through 2021). So they are trying to win in public opinion. But it is hard to do that when you are essentially complaining about getting $110 million over 4 years instead of $175 million over 7.

It doesn’t help that the Royals, Cubs, and Astros just won championships by bottoming out. So some teams are going that route and foregoing the free agent frenzy altogether.

Just an insane, unpredented offseason.

[Blue in the Face]

Todd Frazier hops the Triborough over to Flushing, 2 years, $17MM. For that contract I'm surprised the Yankees didn't sign him. Even if they didn't think they'd want the second year, as long as there's no no-trade, he should've been pretty easy to move a year from now at that price.

https://nypost.com/2018/02/05/mets-pull-todd-frazier-out-of-free-agency-for-17m/

[jimsumner]

Yanks acquire Russell Wilson?

Seriously.

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/baseball/yankees/yankees-nab-seahawks-qb-russell-wilson-deal-texas-rangers-article-1.3805731

[jimsumner]

The pre-season mags are out-Street & Smith's, Athlon, Lindy's et. al.

I can't imagine any of them having much utility, considering the late-developing free-agent market.

And it's not like any of them will re-publish on March 31.

[El_Diablo]

Darvish to the Cubs (6 years, $126 million):

http://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/22392822/yu-darvish-chicago-cubs-agree-6-year-deal-worth-126-million

[CDu]

FINALLY, the first $100+ million contract of the offseason. The coldest stove in the last 20 years is maybe finally ready to thaw.

Great get for the Cubs. The ace on a staff that was already really really good. Now it looks like:

Darvish
Quintana/Lester
Hendricks
Lester/Quintana
Chatwood

[jimsumner]

That's a lot of money for a pitcher who will be 38 at the end of the deal.

[CDu]

That's a lot of money for a pitcher who will be 38 at the end of the deal.

It has an opt-out after two years, and I suspect is frontloaded. I think the hope is that he never sees the back end of that deal.

That being said, the Cubs will have a lot of contracts come off the books in 2020 and 2021. So even if he stays, the back end (and probably cheaper) years won’t likely be problematic.

Three years ago, they paid a 30 year old Lester ~$30 million more. So the dollars don’t seem to bad for a guy one year older.

But the big thing for the Cubs is that they can now maximize these next three years with Rizzo, Bryant, et al before they reach free agency. Because after 2021, who knows what the team will look like. They needed an ace type starter, and Darvish provides that. If they can win a World Series in the next 2-3 years, it will be well worth it.

[weezie]

Pitchers and catchers showing up today.

Hang on! Here comes spring, really, I mean it!

[Mal]

It has an opt-out after two years, and I suspect is frontloaded. I think the hope is that he never sees the back end of that deal.

That being said, the Cubs will have a lot of contracts come off the books in 2020 and 2021. So even if he stays, the back end (and probably cheaper) years won’t likely be problematic.

Three years ago, they paid a 30 year old Lester ~$30 million more. So the dollars don’t seem to bad for a guy one year older.

But the big thing for the Cubs is that they can now maximize these next three years with Rizzo, Bryant, et al before they reach free agency. Because after 2021, who knows what the team will look like. They needed an ace type starter, and Darvish provides that. If they can win a World Series in the next 2-3 years, it will be well worth it.

Agreed. It felt critical to get another top notch starter to maintain some separation from Milwaukee and St. Louis in the division, too.

I could also see them restructuring and turning Darvish into a closer after some portion of those 6 years, too. His stuff's still pretty filthy, but he's put a lot of innings in that arm.

The bigger question mark here, in my mind, is whether the WS meltdowns Darvish turned in are a harbinger of things to come, or a blip, or if he was in fact tipping his pitches and the Astros were just the first to figure it out, and if so whether or not the Cubs can fix it. Will he blow up again in a big playoff setting?

All in all, though, I'll take those unknowns over what looked like a fairly steep downward slope in Arrieta's effectiveness.

[CDu]

Agreed. It felt critical to get another top notch starter to maintain some separation from Milwaukee and St. Louis in the division, too.

I could also see them restructuring and turning Darvish into a closer after some portion of those 6 years, too. His stuff's still pretty filthy, but he's put a lot of innings in that arm.

The bigger question mark here, in my mind, is whether the WS meltdowns Darvish turned in are a harbinger of things to come, or a blip, or if he was in fact tipping his pitches and the Astros were just the first to figure it out, and if so whether or not the Cubs can fix it. Will he blow up again in a big playoff setting?

All in all, though, I'll take those unknowns over what looked like a fairly steep downward slope in Arrieta's effectiveness.

Yeah, I'll sure miss Arrieta. He was a big part of the rebuild, and his second half of 2015 and first two months of 2016 were off-the-charts amazing. But I won't miss paying Arrieta for his decline years. And it seems pretty clear that he's starting those years already. And it sounds like he is hard-set on getting top dollar, meaning whoever signs him will be paying him A LOT for his declining years.

Specifics on Darvish's deal are out: $25 million this year, $20 million next year, with an opt out after that season. Then, if he opts in, $22MM, $22MM, $19MM, and $18MM. With Cy Young-based incentives sprinkled in. So even when he does start to decline, he's going to be getting paid effectively what we paid for John Lackey the last two years for the last two years of his deal.

Obviously any 6-year contract is risky, but this is about as good a contract as one could expect to pay for the best free agent pitcher on the market.

[JBDuke]

With the start of Spring Training, it's time to shut down this thread and start up the next!