Phillies Nation

The Pricey Mitt of Mauer

Posted by Corey Seidman, Sun, March 21, 2010 06:10 PM

Twenty-one years and nine days ago, Carlton Fisk signed a one-year/$1.3 million contract, making him the highest-paid catcher in American League history. Sunday, the sports world took a brief detour from a wacky NCAA tournament when word surfaced that the Twins’ Joe Mauer did the same.

Only, Mauer’s record-breaking deal is worth $184 million and spans eight years. The average annual salary of the agreement is $23M, which Mauer will reportedly earn in an equal amount each season, with no front-loading or back-loading. It also includes a full no-trade clause.

The length and salary of the deal are unprecedented. It will make Mauer the highest-paid catcher in the history of Major League Baseball, with the next-closest competition being nearly one-hundred million dollars less – Mike Piazza earned $91 million with the Mets from 1999-2005.

Before Sunday, Jorge Posada was the game’s highest-paid backstop, earning $13.1M per season in a pact that ends after the 2011 season.

The Twins, a notoriously frugal organization, have allowed stars like Johan Santana and Torii Hunter to walk in recent years via free agency and an inability to open the checkbook. Since 2000, the team’s highest payroll in a single season was $71 millon; the Phillies have topped that number six times over the past nine years.

However, extending Mauer, a Saint Paul product, was a necessity. All things considered, he will likely go down as the best player in team history. Prior to 2006, no catcher had ever won an American League batting title. Since that time, Mauer has won three.

At his position, Mauer is an incomparable offensive threat and an above-average fielder in terms of holding runners in check. He has thrown out 38% of would-be base stealers in his career en route to two Gold Gloves (if you’re into meaningless defensive awards that only truly go to good offensive players.)

Eight years/184 million dollars is a huge investment for any team to make and it carries significant risk, given the rapid deterioration and decline that catchers face. In the crouch, knees take a beating, which, more often than not, results in worse baserunning and offensive output. Mauer, though, is built differently than most catchers – his 6′5, 225 lb. frame gives him the look of a player who could succeed anywhere on the diamond.

Keep in mind, this is the American League we’re talking about. Mauer can potentially be DH’ed on occasion for protection, and if, by year eight of the deal, he can no longer effectively field his position, a move to first base (if Justin Morneau is no longer a roadblock) or full-time designated hitter would be likely.

Simply put, Mauer’s other-wordly offensive prowess makes the record-breaking contract a sound investment, whether or not he mans the plate for the duration of it.

Chooch > Mauer

The lone flaw of Mauer’s game is his average-to-below average ability to block balls in the dirt, an area in which our beloved Chooch excels, as evidenced by his 2nd and 3rd place finishes found here. (Courtesy of Beyond the Boxscore, with an additional thanks to Bill Baer of Crashburn Alley for the link.) Defensive metrics which measure a catcher’s ability to block balls are few and far between, with these lists being an early attempt. While they appear valid in terms of results, this is not a “be-all, end-all” compilation.

(Just kidding on the sub-head…or am I?)

Permalink | Comments (5) | Trackback (0)

Cliff Lee Suspended

Posted by Corey Seidman, Wed, March 17, 2010 05:16 PM

Mariners lefty Cliff Lee has been suspended for the first five games of the 2010 regular season for throwing at Diamondbacks catcher Chris Snyder in a March 15th Spring Training game. Lee will likely appeal the suspension.

See? We SHOULDN’T have kept him! Ed Price of FanHouse.com broke the news on Twitter.

This raises an interesting debate: should beanballs in Spring Training result in regular season suspensions?

In a mini-conversation with Matthew Leach, Cardinals beat reporter for MLB.com, Leach raised a valid point, arguing that concussions in March are the same as they are in June. He noted that if the suspension is for the commission of a dangerous act, the act itself is just as dangerous in Spring Training as it is in the regular season. I’d love to see your opinions on this.

The question I posed to Leach was, if Lee can be suspended for hitting Chris Snyder, why wasn’t Barry Zito suspended for hitting Prince Fielder in Fielder’s first Spring Training at-bat? Sure, the pitch was aimed at Synder’s head, while Fielder was hit in the back with an offspeed pitch, but pre-meditation is pre-meditation regardless of the speed or location of the pitch.

If MLB truly cares about preventing pre-meditated beanballs, ban them all, not some. That sets an absurdly weak precedent.

Once again, sound off in the comments section.

Ron Washington = Tyrone Biggums?

In other AL West news, Rangers manager Ron Washington, who looks like a 70s porn version of Dave Chappelle, reportedly tested positive for cocaine during the 2009 season, leading fans to ask, “managers get tested too?”

Washington will remain the Rangers manager as of now, but common sense would dictate that if the Rangers are struggling by the midpoint of the season, he’ll be shown the door. Imagine if you found out your teacher or boss tested positive for cocaine. Wouldn’t it be, I don’t know, hard to listen to anything they say?

(For those that didn’t understand the reference, Tyrone Biggums was a character from Chappelle’s Show.)

Phils Beat Yankees

The Phillies beat the Yankees 6-2 today, in case anybody cares about meaningless games in March. Jayson Werth went 2-for-3 with a jimmy-jack and three stakes. (If you were born after 1910, this means a homer and three RBI.) Here’s a video from the game to make you jealous.

Permalink | Comments (25) | Trackback (0)

The Gods Must Be Lazy: Buster & Stephen A.

Posted by Corey Seidman, Wed, March 17, 2010 01:59 AM

Pat Gallen wrote a well-argued post Tuesday outlining the legitimacy behind the reporting of a potential Ryan Howard-for-Albert Pujols trade, despite the unlikelihood of the deal itself. While Pat and I have all the respect in the world for each other, our outlooks on this subject happen to be on opposite ends of the spectrum.

All of the reasoning in the world cannot lead me to believe that this front-page headline on ESPN.com was anything but a way to generate baseball traffic on an otherwise slow news day.

We all know the background: Buster Olney reported early Sunday morning that the Phillies were “internally discussing a swap of Howard and Pujols.” Internally discussing. Verbatim. Take a brief moment and ask yourself how YOU would define the phrase “internally discussing.”

I’ll offer my interpretation: it means either A) a source informed Olney or B) he heard – with his own ears – two or more members of the Phillies organization utter the words “Howard,” “Pujols,” and “trade,” in the same sentence. I don’t believe Olney reached for his quill and wrote a piece of fiction – after all, he is the face of ESPN.com baseball, for better or for worse.

ESPN has standards. They don’t turn rumors into front page headlines and they don’t confuse hearsay with gospel. Recently, they have refrained from participating in the “breaking news race,” preferring instead to accumulate a full, detailed story. Websites such as MLBTradeRumors and HoopsHype provide quicker transaction information, and non-ESPNers like Ken Rosenthal, Jon Heyman, Bob Glauber, et al. often break stories before a member of the worldwide leader adds their two cents. Some stories are directly posted from the Associated Press wire, but not before fact-checking is done.

It is important to make note of ESPN’s journalistic standards because these standards are why this story was so strange – it was completely out of character.

What is an “internal discussion?” Why wasn’t it clearly defined so that every reader could fully comprehend what they were looking at – that is, after reaching down to pick up their jaw? Why was a line like “it is unclear whether the Phillies have contacted the Cardinals about such a trade,” glossed over so quickly that it could easily have been missed? Why was such a dynamic, earth-shattering, game-changing topic reported so sloppily, with little clarification or explanation?

The answer to all of these queries: it was written lazily because it was a lazy story. It had no legs.

Olney could unscathingly get himself off the hook by saying “I heard two members of the Phillies brass discuss this trade,” or “A trusted source informed me that word was spreading around the office of a potential Howard-for-Pujols blockbuster.” Olney could shield himself with either of those comments and none of us would have much to gain from asking a follow-up.

As I wrote on Twitter, the actual members of the Phillies organization that were discussing this trade could have been Ruben Amaro and one or more of his trusted colleagues, but it just as easily could have been Mick Billmeyer and a bullpen catcher engaging in a conversation of, “Hey, that Pujols is gonna be a free agent after next season. Cards might be willing to move ‘em. Think Howard would entice ‘em?”

Another problem with this story is that it sets a terrible precedent. As many baseball scribes and analysts have noted the past few days, discussions such as these take place all the time. I’ll further this point by adding that Pujols is unquestionably, undeniably better than Ryan Howard. It is not close.

Sure, Howard goes through scorching stretches and makes the monster numbers of other power hitters look like friendly ghosts, but Albert Pujols is the best offensive player in one of the toughest eras in the history of Major League Baseball. If I knew it wouldn’t take away from the overall point of this article – which is bad journalism from the professionals – I would declare right here that Pujols is the best baseball player of all time.

(Why? Because, just like every other sport, baseball features more athleticism, tutelage, and talent now (as a whole) than it ever has. The post-steroid era has been the most offensively impressive clean era the game has ever seen, and Pujols has stuck out – just as he would had he played in the 1920’s, 1950’s, or 1980’s. We can discuss this more another day, but suffice to say, Pujols is a mega-talent. If Ryan Howard’s a 9 out of 10, Pujols is a 14 out of 10.)

Back to the topic-at-hand. If these discussions take place all of the time, and Pujols is better than Howard, does that mean that we’re going to be subject to stories like “Skip Schumaker for Utley?” or “Is Happ Enough for King Felix?” or “Mathieson for Greinke?” Yes, these are exaggerations, but they are being made to illustrate the point that OF COURSE the Phillies would internally discuss Howard-for-Pujols, whether it was an in-depth meeting or one sentence from Mick Billmeyer. Of course the fantasy would be imagined.

Any of us who has ever played any baseball video game has packaged a role player and a minor leaguer for a superstar, or turned a stud into a sure-fire Hall-of-Famer. Do those scenarios deserve their own articles, from the Worldwide Leader in Sports, no less?

…

Stephen A. Smith broke the story about Allen Iverson ten months after Smith was fired by ESPN. He was able to re-obtain his old job with the Philadelphia Inquirer some time later, but the former shouting-head was nowhere near as visible or relevant as he had become accustomed to. The article demeaned Iverson’s lifestyle, effectively tarnishing what was left of the controversial guard’s reputation.

Smith cited one piece of evidence.

The use of one piece of evidence in damaging an athlete’s reputation is suspect enough, but news quietly began to seep out that Smith’s evidence was either exaggerated or completely false.

The evidence for Iverson’s CURRENT chronic alcoholism and addiction to gambling was that Iverson was “banned from casinos in Detroit and Atlantic City.” Just as the uncertainty of the Phillies approaching the Cardinals about a Howard-for-Pujols deal was not expanded upon, the nature of this or these “ban(s)” represented an extremely important piece of information, central to its article’s point, that offered no further explanation or clarification.

Which casinos? What kind of ban? What exactly did he do that resulted in a ban? When did this ban take place?

Sure enough, many NBA athletes and writers close to the situation later reported that the “bans” were blown out of proportion and that Iverson’s days of drinking and gambling were tame compared to what they had been in the past. They asked why, if Smith felt this was so newsworthy, did he not report on it years earlier, when Iverson was actually living on the edge of the precipice?

Most importantly, the widespread claim became that Iverson was not, in fact, officially banned from either casino.

When faced with this, Smith responded (paraphrasing) that Iverson was in casinos and bars everyday and owners of these establishments were expressing concern to the teams in those respective cities. That rebutall had “backtrack” written all over it.

Extremely famous worldwide sportswriter. One piece of exaggerated evidence. Lead story on ESPN.com.

Here is where I should note that Smith’s article effectively boosted him back into the spotlight, back into the mainstream, back into relevance. Now, we all remember that Stephen A. Smith exists, even if it turns out someday that his story was exaggerated or unfounded. Great work.

…

Buster Olney was probably telling the truth. Stephen A. Smith’s story probably had a hint of truth in it as well. But neither did enough research. Neither provided enough background information and explanation for his respective sensational story. Both were front-page material but both lacked actual substance.

Other than the author’s laziness, the stories of Allen Iverson’s spiraling decay and an exchange of the aforementioned sluggers have another thing in common: they’ve both been beaten, bludgeoned, and bloodied. Nobody wants to hear talk of either story ever again. But, ironically enough, the true story in each has been missed.

These aren’t tales of fast-living athletes and blockbuster trades. They are stories of two professional writers retreating to levels beneath them as men-of-the-pen.

I, and many of my fellow “non-professional” writers (sorry, I loathe the term “blogger,”) will likely never reach the stature of a Buster Olney or a Stephen A. Smith. Jealousy didn’t write this article.

Ethics did.

Permalink | Comments (50) | Trackback (0)

The New York Staph Infections

Posted by Corey Seidman, Thu, March 11, 2010 04:16 PM

When I read these stories about the Mets, I can’t help but imagine their clubhouse as a hospital waiting room, housing a plethora of injured players and damaged egos.

Baseball Prospectus’ 2010 Guide superbly chronologized the almost-inconceivable string of bad luck that has plagued the Mets since the team’s dreadful September of 2007. After Omar Minaya (ranked 26th out of 30 in Sports Illustrated’s latest GM rankings) announced Thursday that shortstop Jose Reyes will likely be unable to suit up on Opening Day, it appears that BP can feel free to add another notch to their timeline.

On March 4, Reyes was removed from the Mets lineup after doctors detected a problem with his physical. He was later diagnosed with an overactive thyroid, a problem that is easily exacerbated by an increase in heart rate. For this reason, doctors advised Reyes to take some time off, in hopes that his elevated thyroid level would go back down.

After excercising Monday and Tuesday, Reyes’ thyroid levels were elevated once again, prompting team doctors to suggest the superstar shortstop stay away from all athletic activity (including working out) for two-to-eight weeks. If Reyes is able to avoid strenuous activity during this period, it is thought that his thyroid levels will normalize.

Reyes’ agent, Peter Greenberg was quoted as saying that, “Jose is obviously a little bit disappointed that it’s going to be a matter of weeks as opposed to days, but it’s a completely, treatable, curable situation,” however, Minaya made sure to add, “there is no medication for this.”

The one thing Greenberg, Minaya, and I have in common is that none of us are doctors, so it is hard for any of us to speculate on a timeframe for such a rare medical occurrence. What I can offer you, however, are the noted symptoms of elevated thyroid levels, garnered from the National Library of Medicine and the Hormone Foundation:

• Digestive problems that can lead to unwanted weight loss
• Persistent fatigue, mental and physical weakness
• Rapid or irregular heartbeat
• Sudden mood changes, increased nervousness or irritability
• Increases in skin sensitivity, especially in hot outdoor locations
• Sleep deprivation

For a baseball player who so heavily relies on speed and energy, this condition must be very scary. MLB’s grueling schedule could only worsen Reyes’ conditions if he doesn’t take the necessary time off.

It is imperative to note here that, while none of us like the Mets, this isn’t a strained hamstring or stinger we are discussing, it’s a relatively serious medical condition that should not be wished upon our worst enemies. We’re dignified in hoping for more Mets failures, but it is not justifiable to wish for anything but a full recovery for Reyes, a truly dynamic athlete who only adds fuel and excitement to the Phillies-Mets rivalry.

In addition to Reyes’ seeming inability to take the field on Opening Day, it has already been established that Carlos Beltran, following right knee surgery on January 13, will be sidelined for the first month of the 2010 season.

The Mets have a tough April schedule, including three games apiece against the Marlins, Rockies, Cardinals, Braves, and Dodgers, and four against the Cubs. Sixteen of the team’s first twenty-two games will take place at home, but given the dimensions of Citi Field, one wonders how much of an actual advantage will result.

The Phillies and Mets don’t face-off until April 30, the first of a three-game series at Citizens Bank Park. The teams only face each other six times before August 6, but have twelve contests from that point on.

Permalink | Comments (47) | Trackback (0)

Moratoria Part II: Baseball Cliches That Need to Go

Posted by Corey Seidman, Thu, March 11, 2010 02:01 AM

When esteemed colleague Michael Baumann sent the Phillies Nation crew an e-mail regarding his then-upcoming panning of baseball cliches, I replied that not only was I looking forward to it very much, but I wish I would’ve thought of the idea myself.

Mike’s article touched on a few phrases that need to go and I’m here to add to the list. Maybe we can even make this an ongoing theme; compile an assortment of every single baseball cliche that has been abused by lazy announcers and chubby sportswriters rushing to finish their article and pick up a free boxed lunch. (Sorry, I had to. “Joe Journalism Degree” sends shots at the common blogger every day of his life, it’s time we stand up and fight back! Even if, at the moment, I am very literally perpetuating a cliche of my own by “living in my mother’s basement” during Spring Break.)

Thus, here is an addendum of baseball cliches that should make us all want to hurl our collective “fists” at Chip Caray.

1) Innings Eater – if you read Phillies Nation or remember any of my previous work, you are well aware of the level of disdain I hold for the term “innings eater.” If you seek an everyday analogy, just think about every time you’ve ever said a fat girl has a pretty face or that a minority is “well-spoken.”

Analogy One applies because, if the girl was ACTUALLY good-looking, you wouldn’t mention her “pretty face” in relation to the rest of her appearance, you would just say she’s attractive, hot, or “bad”, or whatever word you crazy Justin Bieber fans use these days. The same goes for innings eaters; if the pitcher was actually talented or effective, you would just refer to him as a good pitcher, not an innings eater.

Think about it, every good pitcher, naturally, also eats innings. Roy Halladay pitches 200+ per year. Roy Oswalt, too. Do you ever hear them referred to as “innings eaters?” No, that term is reserved for the Jon Garlands, Livan Hernandez’, Steve Trachsels and Kirk Reuters of the world. And, until he morphed into a high K/BB ratio guy, it was also applied to Joe Blanton.

Simply put, “innings eater” is a euphemism for “average pitcher.” It’s a way of putting lipstick on a pig. (Yes, I see the irony in using an actual cliche to analogize a baseball cliche.)

2) “___ plays the game the right way” – the team that most often carries this label is the Minnesota Twins. The general perception is that the Twins bunt, hustle, and field their way to AL Central titles, even though bunting hurts a teams chances of scoring more often than it helps and there is no proof that hustling makes a difference in games played at the highest level.

In 2009, we inexplicably saw this label remain a staple of Minnesota-laden sports journalism, despite the fact that the Twins ranked fourth in the AL in runs scored, fifth in OPS, and fielded a lineup that included four hitters with 28 or more homers.

What is “playing the game the right way?” Diving after balls and sliding into first base? Running flamboyantly so as to avoid being labeled lackadaisical? My brother, Eric, and I discuss this frequently: Carlos Beltran has, in the past, been referred to as a lazy or cocky fielder for the simple reason that he is incredibly athletic and seemingly glides toward fly balls in the outfield.

Contrast Beltran’s style of running to Eric Byrnes or Shane Victorino, two men who make small, quick strides in order to cover ground. Beltran is smoother and thus looks like he cares less. Byrnes and Victorino move differently and exude the aura of “scrappyness.”

3) “Stat X doesn’t matter to me, I know what I see” – the biggest problem I have with the older generation of baseball fans is that many (not all) of them unjustly despise advanced statistics because these stats just-so-happened to come after their time. The most ridiculous misconception is that any “new-age” writer that implements statistics into his/her work is some geek who sits in his bedroom with taped-bridge glasses, jotting down equations all day and talking like a bad imitator of Jerry Lewis.

Nah.

I, for one, love being able to incorporate advanced metrics into my work because it helps prove points that could otherwise be deemed insufficient. It serves as evidence. It aids in reaching a conclusion. It tells a story.

Example: if, during a scorching month of April, you read an article mentioning Raul Ibanez’ notoriously streaky nature and regression to a certain overall slash-line, would you rather hear the writer mention that fact in passing, or have him back it up by showing you Ibanez’  Batting Average on Balls in Play (BABIP) in April in comparison to his previous year’s or career BABIP?

The average BABIP hovers around .300 ever year, so an abnormally high or low BABIP (say, .357 or .243) shows that luck is playing a large part in Player X’s level of performance. Jimmy Rollins, for example, had a very low BABIP  of .251 last year. On the mound, Cole Hamels allowed an abnormally high BABIP (.325,) representing the fact that his poor 2009 was, to some extent, due to bad luck.

Which do you prefer, evidence or no evidence?

This is why it is absurd to throw a hissy-fit or generalize statistic-driven scribes negatively. Every time I see the worth of advanced stats disregarded, I cannot help but internally respond with something like, “Okay, 77-year old scout that discovered a diamond in the rough in 1981, I understand the deep affection for your ‘eye test’ practices, but the numbers I’m throwing at you don’t aim to turn a human game into Excel workbooks, they serve as a way to provide an adequate sample size and relevant context to what your very own trusty eyes saw.”

4) Invariably using the closer in the 9th inning - unlike the above three, this is not a textual cliche, it is more a flawed, cliched way of thinking, which dictates that the designated closer MUST appear in the ninth inning of games. The problem with this widely regarded cliche is that nearly every manager refrains from going to his saver in the 7th or 8th inning, even if the heart of the opposing order is due up in that frame.

Does it make more sense to use Heath Bell against Ryan Braun-Prince Fielder-Corey Hart in the 8th, or for Casey McGehee-Craig Counsell-Gregg Zaun in the 9th? The answer should be self-explanatory. Unfortunately for some baseball fans and those fond of good ol’ common sense, it’s not.

97% of closers are not Mariano Rivera; they aren’t sure things in the ninth night-in and night-out. The reason that these men are closers is that, often times, they are the most effective member of the bullpen, they happen to be the best strike-out threat, or they perform at a higher level under pressure than their peers.

Billy Beane has properly valued the closer position as one of pleasantry, not necessity. Under his watch, the Athletics have seen Billy Taylor, Octavio Dotel, and Huston Street, all relatively underwhelming relievers in terms of “stuff,” flourish in Oakland before being sent packing in exchange for players at higher value positions (Street was part of the deal for Matt Holliday, Taylor was traded to the Mets for then-project Jason Isringhausen, who was cheaper, and turned out to be much more dominant than Taylor ever was.)

Since many closers are simply the best reliever on the team, there is no reason they should be specifically linked to the ninth inning if more trouble rests on the horizon in the eighth, or even the seventh inning. Barring LOOGYism and matchup concerns, the percentages dictate that it is best to use your best possible pitcher to combat the other side’s best hitter.

Call me crazy, but I think it makes more sense to have Heath Bell face Braun and Fielder than Edward Mujica.

5) “National Announcer X hates the Phillies”

Joe Buck doesn’t hate the Phillies. Tim McCarver doesn’t hate the Phillies. Neither do Jon Miller or Joe Morgan. Steve Phillips doesn’t. Nor do Eric Karros, Mark Grace, or Joe Simpson.

It seems that nearly every fan in every city feels that every national announcer plays favorites to the other side 100% of the time. I’ll tell you why. Because when something goes against your team, you want and expect the announcer’s tone to be ominous, the way it is during local broadcasts when, in the case of the Phillies, Tom McCarthy and Chris Wheeler don’t omit orgasmic tones when Chipper Jones belts a three-run bomb.

When you’re already annoyed at what just took place, an excited announcer exponentially increases your frustration and causes you to lash out at him, directing your anger at the messenger.

These guys don’t love the other team. They love the story. When Carlos Gonzalez killed the Phillies more and more with each at-bat in the 2009 NLDS, the TBS broadcasters weren’t thinking “Haha, take that Phillies,” they were thinking, “Wow, we’re witnessing history. This guy’s practically hitting .989 this series.”

Don’t take it to heart. We’re right in making fun of Tim McCarver for stating the obvious and attempting to turn every average announcer-line into a cutesy award-winning headline, and we’re right in wondering why Joe Morgan still has a job even though he, ya know, doesn’t seem to do any homework or watch any baseball other than on Sunday nights. But it’s time to give the rest of these guys a break.

That’s all for now, but rest assured that the Phillies Nation crew will be back at it with more played-out references and decision-making models in the future.

This offseason has felt like it’s been four years long, but Opening Day is less than four weeks away. Don’t know about you, but I cannot wait to get past the frivolities and speculation and start talking about meat-and-potatoes baseball once again.

Permalink | Comments (28) | Trackback (0)

Phils, Ruiz Agree to Three-Year Deal

Posted by Corey Seidman, Sun, January 24, 2010 08:47 PM

The Phillies and Carlos Ruiz have agreed to a three-year extension worth $8.85M, as reported by Todd Zolecki. The deal also contains a fourth-year option worth $5M.

Extending Ruiz through at least 2012 is a good move for the Phillies, a team that has traded away catching prospects Jason Jaramillo, Lou Marson, and Travis d’Arnaud over the course of two years. The farm system is thin with potential replacements for Ruiz, making such a move necessary in order to ensure safety and stability to the catching position for years to come.

The financial aspect of this contract is difficult to judge immediately because it remains to be seen which Carlos Ruiz will show up in 2010. Will it be the consistent, bottom-of-the-order threat we’ve seen in October of 2008 and 2009, or the man with a .246/.337/.379 slash-line over four seasons in Philadelphia?

Based on Ruiz’ much improved 2009 season and subsequent playoff dominance, he will more than likely sustain, if not improve upon, the .255/.355/.425 season he produced last year. Those numbers, while not exceedingly impressive, are more than adequate for today’s major league catcher.

When you factor in Ruiz’ elite defense behind the plate, $9-14 million is fair. He is the best in the business at blocking balls and his three errors last season were tied for the fewest among all catchers. His career caught stealing percentage of 27% is also above the major league average, which is roughly 25% annually.

With Ruiz locked up, Ruben Amaro has now completed his offseason work. He successfully avoided arbitration with Ruiz, Joe Blanton, Shane Victorino, and Chad Durbin, extending three of the four through the 2012 season.

The only Phillies with expiring contracts after the 2010 season are (obviously) Jayson Werth and Chad Durbin. J.C. Romero has a club option for $4.5M. This will likely be Durbin’s last year since 2011 will be his first official year of free agency and the decision on Romero’s option will surely be determined by his ability to make a comeback from a 2009 to forget.

Permalink | Comments (36) | Trackback (0)

Introducing Jose Contreras

Posted by Corey Seidman, Fri, January 22, 2010 05:21 PM

When Ruben Amaro has made moves this offseason, he’s done so in a flurry, seemingly using the “high” of completing one transaction to help him push ahead and make another.

After re-signing Joe Blanton and Shane Victorino on Thursday, the Phillies wheeling-and-dealing GM crossed off another line on his to-do list Friday by signing Jose Contreras, a 38 year-old righthander who will likely replace Clay Condrey as the Phillies long-reliever and compete to be the team’s fifth starter. The contract is pending a physical.

Contreras has had an up-and-down career, never fulfilling the potential the Yankees saw in him when they signed the Cuban exile in 2003. He had a promising rookie season in New York, making 18 appearances (9 starts,) and going 7-2 with a 3.30 ERA, a 1.15 WHIP, and 72 strikeouts in 71 innings. But he struggled mightily the following year and was traded to the White Sox for Esteban Loaiza, a journeyman righthander coming off of a career year (21-9, 2.90 ERA, 2nd in AL Cy Young voting in ‘03.)

Contreras played an integral role in the White Sox championship season of 2005, finishing 15-7 with a 3.61 ERA and a 1.23 WHIP. Nearly every stat Contreras compiled in 2005 was a full-season career best, and he expanded upon that success by pitching three gems in the playoffs.

Despite an adequate follow-up season in 2006, Contreras fell off completely in 2007, losing 17 games and producing a 5.57 ERA while allowing 11 hits per nine innings and striking out only 5.4/9. He never truly recovered from that horrid ‘07 season and was traded from the White Sox to the Rockies on August 31, 2009.

Upon joining the Rockies, Contreras made 7 appearances and two starts. One of the starts lasted a mere three innings; in the other he allowed only one run over 6 2/3 IP. His 1.59 ERA in those 7 appearances (17 IP) was impressive, as were his 17 strikeouts, but his 1.65 WHIP was too high.

Here, he will try to recapture the success he once had as a starting pitcher and make a case for himself in Spring Training, but if things don’t work out, he’ll serve as a middle reliever. Contreras appears to be better suited as a bullpen arm at this point in his career because he hasn’t shown an ability to sustain success throughout the course of a season since the magical ‘05 ride he took with the White Sox.

Like Chan Ho Park, Contreras has displayed much more velocity out of the bullpen. His fastball has long hovered in the 91-92 mph average, but shot up to 94 as a reliever in limited time in Colorado. He throws his fastball 66% of the time, but also sports an 84-86 mph slider and a 77-79 mph splitter.

Contreras will fit in well at Citizens Bank Park because he has always displayed the ability to get outs on the ground. He has a career ground ball rate of 46%, compared to a fly ball rate of 36%, 1/3 of which have been infield flies. His groundball/flyball ratios of 1.33, 1.72, and 1.24 over the last three seasons have been impressive, and he’ll need to replicate that success in order to succeed in Philadelphia.

He can be a bit wild, evidenced by the fact that in his career, only 50-51% of pitches thrown have been in the strike zone. Hitters know this and tend to lay off of Contreras’ junk, swinging at only 22% of his pitches outside the zone (league average has been 25% or higher the last three years.)

In split duty between starting and relieving last year, Contreras was worth 24.7 runs above replacement and 2.5 wins above replacement.

This was a low-risk, high-reward signing for the Phillies. It won’t make or break their season and it won’t automatically cost Jamie Moyer or Kyle Kendrick a shot at the fifth starter’s job, but it will create more competition for the spot and give the Phillies more rotation and bullpen depth. Year in and year out, nearly every major league team proves that you can never have enough starting pitching.

If Contreras ends up in the ‘pen, you can be assured the Phillies will be looking for that 94 mph fastball to resurface. If it does, and Contreras can continue to be a ground ball pitcher, he could have plenty of success with the Phillies exceptional defense behind him.

Worst case scenario: Contreras is ineffective and used sparingly out of the pen.

Best case scenario: He cracks the rotation or makes the catcher’s mitt pop out of the bullpen, hopefully becoming the 2010 version of Chan Ho Park.

When looking at those potential outcomes, it’s hard to argue with any one-year deal.

Permalink | Comments (33) | Trackback (0)

Kentucky Fried Extension

Posted by Corey Seidman, Thu, January 21, 2010 06:40 PM

When Jon Heyman reported earlier in the week that Joe Blanton was seeking $10.25M from the Phillies for the 2010 season, all of those old feelings of confusion over the Roy Halladay/Cliff Lee deals resurfaced. Many of us began asking the same questions:

• Does Blanton really think he’s worth $10.25M?
• Was the Phillies counter of $7.5M too much of a lowball offer to drive the price down?
• Would Blanton’s 2010 contract exceed the $8M the team was scheduled to pay Cliff Lee (once upon a time?)

Needless to say, this wasn’t good news for the Phillies. It led to multiple articles being written about the benefits of keeping Lee and instead trading Blanton, an idea that unfortunately means nothing in this pre-time machine world we live in.

Let’s face facts: even with the Lee trade being more so about prospects than money, it was still about financial wiggle room to a certain degree. It would have been inexcusable to pay Joe Blanton, a pitcher quantifiably worse than Lee in every category known to man (or computer,) between $8-10M if Lee could have been kept for the same, or an even lower price.

Luckily, Ruben Amaro and Blanton’s agent, Jeff Barry, were able to agree to terms Thursday that will keep the righthander in Philadelphia through 2012. The three-year deal is worth $24M with $500,000 in incentives that can be reached if Kentucky Joe pitches a certain amount of innings.

Had Blanton gone to arbitration, it’s unclear if he would have been awarded $7.5M or $10.25M, because he would have been worth more than what the Phillies were offering but less than what he wanted. But avoiding the possibility of having to pay him over $10M is a huge coup for the Phils.

Blanton will make $7M in 2010, and $8.5M in 2011 and 2012. So, all in all, the Phillies saved a million bucks by keeping Blanton instead of Lee. (I’m sure that makes you all feel so much better about what’s transpired…)

Looking at this deal in a vacuum, ignoring what happened with Cliff Lee during that whirlwind week, this contract is f-a-n-t-a-s-t-i-c for the Phillies.

For years Blanton was known as an “innings eater,” a term that any loyal Phillies Nation follower knows that I hate, because it is only used to describe average/mediocre pitchers. Example: you don’t hear Roy Halladay mentioned as an innings eater because there are roughly 6,787 other adjectives that sound better. You don’t hear people call Zack Greinke an innings eater and you never saw that label precede the name Greg Maddux for similar reasons.

But in 2009, Blanton did more than merely pitch a bunch of mediocre innings. He pitched 195 1/3 in all, while giving up his fewest amount of earned runs since his rookie season. His hit rate was also the lowest it had been since his rookie year.

But most importantly, Blanton became a strikeout pitcher. The best K/9 ratio he had ever compiled was 6.2, but last year it was 7.5. In five seasons with the Athletics, Blanton struck out 5.1 batters per nine innings, but in his year-and-a-half with the Phillies it has risen to 7.1

Blanton isn’t merely “eating innings” anymore, he’s mowing down the opposition and garnering actual, legitimate praise that can’t also be applied to a guy like Livan Hernandez.

After recognizing that Blanton has improved to the point that a three-year deal was beneficial to the Phillies, let’s take a look at the amount of money he’ll make from 2010-12.

A comparable pitcher that immediately came to mind for me was Randy Wolf. Before continuing to read, take a second to ask yourself, is Joe Blanton a better pitcher than Randy Wolf? Is he worse? Or are they similar enough that it’s hard to predict which pitcher will fare better in the next three years?

Regardless of what your answer was, keep in mind that Randy Wolf inked a three-year/$30M deal with the Brewers only a month ago. Wolf is 33 and often injured. Blanton is 29 and has made 31 or more starts in all five of his full seasons in the majors. So, even if you consider Wolf slightly better, Blanton being younger and healthier makes this deal more worth it.

(And, for the record, I see Blanton as having more upside than Wolf over the next three years, regardless of money or contracts.)

The current market value for N0. 3 starters like Joe Blanton is roughly $8-10 million a year, evidenced by Wolf’s deal and the 2-year/$16M contract Joel Pineiro signed earlier this week. The Phils were able to keep Blanton around for the low-part of that market value.

It will be easy to complain about Cliff Lee again. But let’s instead applaud the great work by Amaro and Blanton and rejoice at the fact that Halladay, Hamels, Blanton, and Happ are all locked up until at least 2011.

Permalink | Comments (28) | Trackback (0)

Hopeful Optimism & Tempered Expectations

Posted by Corey Seidman, Thu, January 21, 2010 04:00 AM

It’s easy to put the Phillies in the World Series today.

Despite sitting out the middle portion of free agency, Ruben Amaro was able to improve an already formidable team to the point that it will enter the 2010 season with a crown tentatively on its head, a collection of expectations higher than Crispin Glover in this interview.

Go to SportsBook.com, go to any website that takes wagers on future odds. The Phillies are favored, by a large amount, to capture a third consecutive National League championship. Their odds of winning the World Series are only lower than that of Jerek Deter’s Yankees.

But is this fair? Is it acceptable to make foregone conclusions about the 2010 Phillies, or place so much trust and faith into a set of 25 men that could possibly fail to live up to the hype that has been created from several years of unprecedented franchise success? Put this song on and we’ll have a look-see.

Phlak Jackets

Before you answer the questions posed, let’s take a moment to explore the team’s relative health since the start of the 2008 season. In two years:

• Ryan Howard has missed two games
• Chase Utley has played hurt in parts of both years, but only missed nine games
• Shane Victorino has averaged 151 games
• Cole Hamels has made 33 and 32 starts
• Jayson Werth has missed little time since becoming an everyday player; 159 games in 2009
• Ryan Madson has been healthy enough to average 78 appearances
• Joe Blanton has missed no time
• Jimmy Rollins spent a little while on the DL in 2008, but has still averaged 146 games

The Phillies have been healthy. Very healthy. Sure, injuries have sidelined Raul Ibanez, Greg Dobbs, J.C. Romero, Brad Lidge, Jamie Moyer, and Carlos Ruiz, but other than Romero, none of those injuries have resulted in an extended absence. It can be easily argued that none of these injuries have significantly impacted the team’s success since 2008.

Losing a left fielder for a month, a top pinch hitter for a few months, or a situational lefty for 3/4 of the season can have an effect, but would you honestly equate those losses with not having a Jose Reyes, a Carlos Beltran, a Johan Santana, or a Carlos Delgado for most of the season?

The point is that the Phillies core has been healthy. (Everytime I hear the word “core” I think of Michael Scott saying “I got this new machine, it’s supposed to work your core. Your front core, your back core…I think it’s even used by the marine corps.”) No player has appeared in more games since 2008 than Ryan Howard, who, in case you haven’t heard, is quite the difference maker. The rest of the players in the above list have all been together on the field a vast majority of the time and haven’t seen the rigors of an 162-game schedule result in an inability to perform on a daily basis.

Does this degree of health have any bearing on the upcoming season? The short answer is no, it doesn’t. Ryan Howard is just as likely to miss 30 games as any other relatively healthy player, because there is no real predictor of injury other than old age and prior surgeries or red flags. But, in looking at the Phils’ recent overwhelming success, it must be noted that the key cogs have been healthy and/or lucky enough to avoid deterioration, collisions, or suffering a broken collarbone by falling down a flight of stairs while carrying deer meat (see: Clint Barmes, 2005.)

NL Least

The National League East has not been as competitive as it should have been. Over the past few seasons, the Braves and Mets have both dealt with crippling injuries that have ended their respective seasons in the middle of the summer. The Phillies were 14-4 against the Braves in ‘08 and 12-6 against the Mets in ‘09. In those years, the Phils also beat the Nationals 27 times in 36 games. The rest of the division wasn’t exactly peaking.

The Mets followed up on a ridiculous, comically bad 2009 season by having a ridiculous, comically bad offseason, but they won’t lose 92 games again. The Braves traded their ace for what turned out to be no good reason at all, but starters are still employed in Atlanta that seem to baffle the Phillies with regularity (Jair Jurrjens and Derek Lowe, I’m looking at you.) The Marlins and Phils seem to trade blows every year and finish .500 against each other (give or take a game,) and the Nationals will once again be walking around with their pants on the ground in 2010.

The NL East lacks a legitimate threat, but it isn’t hard to imagine the Phils losing a game or two more to the Mets or Braves, even with the additions of Roy Halladay, Placido Polanco, and the biggest prize of all, Cody Ransom. Why? Well, because of the laws of sustenance and regression, of course.

The “Eggs-In-One-Basket” Adage

It is necessary to look at aspects such as good health and surrounding divisional weakness when viewing  recent and future success because unfulfilled expectations can leave an awful taste in your mouth. No, the Phillies have no realistic competitors in the division or even the National League as a whole (the Cardinals and Dodgers both got worse; can you name one team that got better?) and yes, if games were played on paper they could take the 2010 NL Pennant and throw it in the bag.

But anything can happen. We all know that. Roy Halladay could take a line drive off the knee and miss six weeks. Ryan Howard could strain a muscle during a home run trot and Cole Hamels could develop back stiffness while getting a pedicure. Or none of that could happen and the Phillies could win 100 games. The point is, we don’t know.

And since we don’t know, we all need to take a deep breath and temper our expectations. When the Eagles laid two eggs in Dallas earlier this month, the consensus opinion in the city seemed to be, “Well, that sucks…how many days ’til pitchers and catchers?” The reason it was easy to get over the Eagles pathetic finish was because of the looming excitement the Phillies have created for us all in recent years.

Being able to rely on the Phillies strengths to make up for the painful deficiencies of the Eagles is a beautiful thing, but with such high hopes comes the possibility of heartbreaking disappointment. The Phils may be the most qualified team to reach the World Series again, but I truly thought I was the most qualified applicant for MLB.com’s Associate Beat Writer internship. I didn’t temper my expectations and the results were extremely difficult to deal with when things didn’t work out.

Rather than getting lost in fantasies and thinking about what should happen, focus on the anticipation and ecstacy the Phillies have given us and will hopefully give us for years to come.

I’m not imploring you all to just “accept it” if the 2010 Phillies don’t realize their potential. I’m just suggesting that we all take things in stride and focus on the journey rather than the destination.

The mantra of this team since 2007 has been “one day at a time.” As difficult as it will be, perhaps we should adopt the same mindset.

Permalink | Comments (33) | Trackback (0)

The Greatest Gift of All

Posted by Corey Seidman, Thu, December 24, 2009 09:14 PM

Who remembers what the offseason used to be like? I don’t mean a time before Twitter or MLBTradeRumors.com, or before we all knew the details of a trade before it was finalized. I mean, who remembers the apprehensive excitement that used to serve as the precursor to another season of Phillies baseball?

If you recall how offseasons used to go, be it as recently as the late 90s-early 00s or the countless years of irrelevance that came before then, be thankful. The period from November to March involved more hopes and pipe dreams than actual expectations. In experiencing all of the pain and heartache that came with those insufferable years of being a Phillies fan, you got yourself here, to a point in which you’re being fairly compensated with success.

When I ask who remembers the less fortunate years, I don’t intend to demean those who have only recently become fans of the red pinstripes. It seems like many people complain about “bandwagon-jumpers,” but, at least to me, it doesn’t matter when you started supporting your team. For those of us who live and die with the Phillies, it’s the sheer obsession and array of emotions that we live for, not a “Whose-the-bigger-fan” competition with our next-door neighbor.

I guess what I’m trying to say is, instead of calling someone out or berating them for becoming a Phillies fan only when it became trendy, be thankful that you, yourself, were a fan for so long that you get to enjoy this period of time to such a greater degree. Only people like you–experienced, dedicated, and intelligent fans can truly comprehend the significance of what the Philadelphia Phillies have evolved into–a team that every baseball fan wants to watch, and mostly every baseball player wants to play for.

Usually, this is the spot in an article where the writer has finished introducing his point, and feels it’s time to include stats or quotes to support that point. But none of those things can accurately quantify the insane anticipation of the 2010 season felt by Phillies fans. No number or sarcastic opinion from Keith Law can enhance or derail how eager we are to get off at Broad and Pattison and make our way into Citizens Bank Park next April.

This is the kind of feeling that few fans across the country have the privilege of experiencing right now. Don’t believe me? Let’s take a look at some of the other cities that inhabit potential National League contenders.

• In St. Louis, a city considered by many to be the best baseball town in America, the status of Matt Holliday is up in the air. Sure, a World Series berth is always possible with Albert Pujols manning first base, but the ever-productive Holliday may be gone, and Mark DeRosa certainly won’t return. Joel Pineiro, the Cardinals over-achieving No. 3 starter from last season, will also probably find a new team. The Cards are relying on a huge financial commitment being made to Holliday (which, when paired with the impending extension they’ll have to dish out to Albert Pujols, will cripple the team’s flexibility for years,) the ability of Brad Penny to replace Pineiro’s effectiveness, and the hopes that Ryan Franklin can maintain a ridiculously, unsustainably low ERA for most of the season like he did in ‘09. If everything goes right, they *could* compete with the Phillies for NL supremacy.
• The Dodgers haven’t made any notable moves to improve their team. Randy Wolf, the de facto ace of the 2009 squad, left for Milwaukee. Clayton Kershaw and Chad Billingsley are still somewhat raw, but, in all honesty, Kershaw has been inconsistent and Billingsley simply doesn’t look like he’s the pitcher everyone thought he’d be. Manny Ramirez and Casey Blake are a year older, Hiroki Kuroda is a year less healthy, Russell Martin is declining faster, offensively and defensively, than any other major leaguer, and James Loney hasn’t developed much at the plate. Tons of uncertainty.
• I outlined the strides Atlanta has made this offseason, but if they don’t sign Jason Bay or break the bank for Holliday, the Javier Vazquez trade will look awful. If it turns out that Frank Wren traded his ace for a league-average outfielder, prospects, and the ability to sign Troy Glaus, I’m taking back every nice word I said about him. Billy Wagner, Takashi Saito, and Glaus all come with injury concerns, and, while I think the Braves will be the NL wildcard winner in 2010, it’s hard to imagine them challenging the Phillies with the team they would field as of December 25.
• Mets fans must be going out of their minds right now. Bay and Bengie Molina have each asked for too many years and too much money, the team missed out on John Lackey and Randy Wolf, and it seems like every signing Omar Minaya is making is just to prove that he’s still alive. Chris Coste? Henry Blanco? R.A. Dickey? Great job, Omar. Problem solved!
• The Cubs are a financial mess. They have aging, underachieving sluggers, an extremely wild closer, a volatile ace, and no legitimate way out.
• The Rockies could be just as dangerous as they were last year, or they could be just as pitiful as they were in 2008. The “genius” of Jim Tracy won’t impact the schizophrenia of this team as much as it did in 2009.

What do all of those teams have in common?

1. A ton of question marks,
2. Signs of regression, and
3. That apprehensive anticipation that we all felt prior to 2007.

This is not to say that there aren’t question marks with the Phillies, or that they’re a lock to repeat as National League champions, but let’s face the facts: the Phils were an already deadly team that used November and December to replace a great starting pitcher with the best in the game, add a consistent bat to stabilize the seven- (or two-) hole, and give a tired Cole Hamels enough time to rest and regroup.

Much of the apprehensiveness is gone, but the anticipation remains. Only, it’s turned into absolute edge-of-your-seat excitement.

But more importantly, and more fulfillingly, it’s been replaced with realistic expectations of greatness.

Permalink | Comments (26) | Trackback (0)

The Adversaries in Atlanta

Posted by Corey Seidman, Wed, December 23, 2009 04:14 AM

While Jack Zduriencik, and to a lesser extent, Ruben Amaro Jr., have been stealing headlines this offseason by wheeling, dealing, shuffling, and replenishing, Frank Wren is quietly assembling a formidable team in Turner Country.

For eight years, Wren was as an understudy to long-time Braves GM John Schuerholz, a man whose name is usually written in sentences that contain the words “genius” or “legendary.” After seventeen successful seasons as the General Manager of the Braves, Schuerholz, the architect of a team that won an unprecedented fourteen consecutive division titles under his watch, assumed the role of team president.

Wren took over then, but the club he inherited was more of a second- or third-place team in the NL East; the Braves had slowly fallen behind the Phillies and Mets in terms major league talent level, despite producing and sustaining an above-average farm system.

An injury-plagued 2008 season led to a 72-90 finish in Wren’s first year as GM. The Braves lost 14 of 18 games to the Phillies and ended the season with a record closer to that of the last-place Nationals than the Phils.

In 2009, the team fared much better, going 86-76 and winning 23 of 36 against the Phils and Mets.

But after watching the Phillies hit (and occasionally pitch) their way to two World Series berths, Wren has attempted to stockpile as much firepower as humanly possible through trades and free agency. And to make things even scarier for Philadelphians, he doesn’t seem to be finished piecing together his 2010 puzzle.

Wren got to work early by signing righthanded reliever and former Joe Torre-workhorse, Scott Proctor, to a minor-league deal. A week later, an agreement was reached that will keep Tim Hudson in Atlanta for three more seasons. On the second day of December, Billy Wagner sold himself to a third NL East employer by agreeing to a one-year pact with the Braves. And one day later, former Dodgers closer Takashi Saito signed a deal.

When the team’s 2009 closer, Rafael Soriano, agreed to arbitration, the Braves had a strange dilemma on their hands, as they all-of-the-sudden possessed a glut of late-inning relievers. Keeping Soriano and his $8M price-tag would have been difficult, so Wren shipped him off to Tampa Bay for Jesse Chavez, a righthanded reliever who pitched 67 solid innings for the Pirates in ‘09 before being traded to the Rays in the offseason.

On December 11, the Braves and outfielder Matt Diaz agreed to terms, allowing the unquestionably underrated Phillie-killer to avoid arbitration.

Finally, on December 22, Wren and Yankees GM Brian Cashman worked out a trade that sent the great Javier Vazquez back to New York in exchange for outfielder Melky Cabrera. Reliever Boone Logan was also traded to New York, and pitching prospects Mike Dunn and Arodys Vizcaino went to Atlanta.

By trading Vazquez, the Braves lost an extremely effective starting pitcher who struck out ten batters per nine innings pitched in 2009, while walking only two-per-nine. Every single number Vazquez compiled last season was extraordinary (1.02 WHIP, 238 K’s in 219 innings,) as evidenced by his fourth place finish in the race for NL Cy Young. It’s difficult to call the Braves “winners” in a deal that loses them such a dominant starter, but the Vazquez trade benefits the Braves in multiple ways.

For starters, his $11.5M salary is wiped off the books. Secondly, it allows Atlanta to enter the 2010 season having a set rotation of Jair Jurrjens, Derek Lowe, Tim Hudson, Tommy Hanson, and Kenshin Kawakami. While the 2009 Phillies and Red Sox proved that you can never have enough starting pitching, the Braves had an excess at the position and used that advantage to patch up an ugly hole in the outfield.

Cabrera hit .274/.336/.416 last year with 13 homers and 68 RBI in 485 at-bats. His defense was just about middle-of-the-pack and he was worth 1.6 wins above replacement. The Braves outfield was terrible in 2009, but the addition of Cabrera solidifies it. If the outfield were to be left alone from this point forward, Cabrera would be flanked by Diaz (a player who deserves to play everyday) and Nate McClouth.

But, unfortunately, Frank Wren isn’t interested in leaving the outfield as is.

As a guest on 790 The Zone in Atlanta Tuesday, Wren dropped a few not-so-subtle hints about the Braves plans in the coming days. “There’s definitely some more things we’re doing,” he said, “We’re going to add a run-producer that’s going to round out our offense.”

Now, the “run-producer” Wren mentioned could be a guy like Adam LaRoche (re-acquired by the Braves in July of ‘09,) or Marlon Byrd, but the Braves could also be players in the Jason Bay or Matt Holliday sweepstakes. Holliday will likely be too expensive for the Braves, but not Bay. He’ll get something in the vicinity of $64M over four years, meaning the Braves would only be paying a few million more in 2010 salary than they would have been with Vazquez on the team.

Bay would make much more sense with the Braves than the Mets, because the Braves appear to be headed in the right direction. Bay’s agent recently expressed the free agent outfielder’s disinterest in signing with a third-place club, which is what the 2010 Mets are looking more and more like each day.

Bay is not a superstar capable of single-handedly catapulting a team to greatness, but he is a .280/.376/.520 hitter that is projected to hit 32 homers next season. His defense is atrocious, but with all things included, he’d add about three wins to the 2010 Atlanta Braves. Considering this is the tail-end of Chipper Jones’ career, it makes sense to sign Bay and make the most of a 3-4-5 that would include the two sluggers and catcher Brian McCann.

The Atlanta bullpen was improved by the signings of Wagner and Saito, as was the outfield by trading for Cabrera. In dealing Vazquez, they gave up a surplus for a deficit, but locked themselves into a starting rotation that just about every other major league team should envy.

If Frank Wren can make one more splash by signing Jason Bay, those old foes from Atlanta could give the Phillies a run for their money in 2010, Roy Halladay or not.

Permalink | Comments (49) | Trackback (0)

David Montgomery: “We’re Already in the Red”

Posted by Corey Seidman, Thu, December 17, 2009 08:10 PM

Shortly after Comcast Sportsnet aired the Ruben Amaro/Roy Halladay press conference, Dave Montgomery went on 97.5 FM with Mike Missanelli. In the brief interview, Montgomery mentioned that, and I’m paraphrasing here, “[trading Lee] wasn’t a matter of avoiding going in the red (i.e. losing money,) because the Phillies are already in the red.”

Odd that on TV, Amaro had just made it clear that this was a “baseball decision” geared toward landing prospects. The sound bite we all heard was that Amaro didn’t believe in “leaving the cupboard bare,” and that “trading 7 of your top 10 prospects is not the way to do business in baseball.”

Amaro was also quoted as saying, “If I had my druthers, I’d love to have both [Halladay and Lee] on the club.” This was a strange thing to say, considering his druthers should be the druthers that matter. You’ll hear this spun as “Amaro isn’t really running the team,” or “This was an ownership decision,” but it just as well could have been a poorly-worded phrase.

I will say, though, that Amaro’s stance led us all to believe this was about prospects, but Montgomery’s stance made it seem like it was about money. Montgomery admitted that the allotment budgeted for team salary is drawn up with the assumption that the team won’t make the playoffs, which makes sense even with a team as wildly successful as the Phillies have been the past few years.

Obviously, Montgomery and his partners know that the Phillies will, once again, be favored to win the NL East, but with all of the things that could possibly go wrong during a grueling 162-game season, it makes little sense to spend more money and go deeper in the red under the assumption that you’ll make that money back during the playoffs and/or World Series.

The counter-argument to the previous paragraph is that the Phillies ownership group bought the team for $30 million and it’s now worth $500 million. A few million here-and-there during the peak of this franchise’s history shouldn’t be as important as they’ve made it out to be. (Note: this is not my opinion, but this is a valid counter-argument as to why the Phils should have kept spending despite being in the red a couple mil.)

What does this all mean? Probably nothing.

When all is said and done, this was likely about prospects and money, not one or the other. It just appears to be slightly more so about money than Amaro led us to believe.

FREE AGENT UPDATE: My hero, Jayson Stark of ESPN, is reporting that the Phillies are the most interested of the eight-to-ten teams that are “actively pursuing” Mike MacDougal.

MacDougal was once a highly-touted prospect in the Kansas City Royals organization, but, we all know what usually happens with Royals prospects.

His best seasons were 2005 and 2006, a two-year span in which he saved 22 games and compiled a 3.35 ERA and 93 strikeouts in 99 innings pitched. Last year for the Nationals and White Sox, MacDougal saved 20 games but had very ugly walk and strikeout rates. He walked 6.3/9 and struck out 5.6/9, two atrocious numbers for a late-inning reliever.

It would be a low-risk signing because MacDougal probably won’t get more than one-year/$2-2.5M. At least, he shouldn’t. If the Phils end up signing him, though, there is still significant work to do in order to shore up the bullpen.

(Ok, now I’m off to watch Colts-Jaguars. Joseph Addai better not in the second half of this game. My fantasy season may hinge on it.)

Permalink | Comments (76) | Trackback (0)

So, What Now?

Posted by Corey Seidman, Thu, December 17, 2009 12:18 AM

How does it feel to know that for the next five years, Roy Halladay will be toeing the rubber for the Phillies every fifth day?

Let’s forget about the Cliff Lee trade. Erase it from your mind completely. From this point forward, let’s shift the focus to the splendor that is “Doc” Halladay in red pinstripes.

You deserve to feel good about that. You deserve to embrace the fact that the Phils just acquired a guy who had a 2.97 ERA in 112 innings last year against the Yankees, Red Sox, and Rays, three of the top six offenses in baseball during that time.

In his career, Halladay is 18-6 against the Yankees with a 2.84 ERA and one complete game for every five starts. I wonder how he’ll fare against the Nationals.

For what it’s worth, Halladay is 17-8 with a 3.02 ERA against the National League in his career. I could throw any number at you and you’d love it. This is the kind of pitcher Harry Leroy Halladay is.

But, with the dust settled on this insane three-day stretch, the fact remains that Ruben Amaro still has some tinkering to do. Let’s take a look at who the Phillies have locked up (or have tendered a contract to and will either re-sign or go to arbitration with.)

Lineup

Jimmy Rollins

Shane Victorino

Chase Utley

Ryan Howard

Jayson Werth

Raul Ibanez

Placido Polanco

Carlos Ruiz

Now, Polanco and Victorino could very well switch positions in the order. The switch that would make the most sense (based on last year’s production) would be to lead Victorino off, bat Polanco second, and move Rollins down to the seven-hole. But if Jimmy gets off to a hot start, that obviously wouldn’t make the most sense. We’ll see what happens in April.

Bench

Greg Dobbs: LHB, 3B/1B/LF/RF

Ross Gload: LHB, 1B/LF/RF

Ben Francisco: RHB, LF/CF/RF

Brian Schneider: LHB, C

Juan Castro: RHB, SS/2B/3B/1B/LF/RF

The opening day bench will probably look like this. The Phillies won’t carry more than five bench bats, and the only one who isn’t a shoe-in to make the 25-man roster is Castro. If Wilson Valdez or Cody Ransom vastly outplay Castro in Spring Training, they could make the squad over him. But, given the fact that Castro signed a $750,000 with a team option for a second year while Ransom and Valdez were merely Spring Training invitees, the job is his to lose.

Starting Rotation

Roy Halladay: RHP (feels so cool to be able write that)

Cole Hamels: LHP

Joe Blanton: RHP

J.A. Happ: LHP

Jamie Moyer: LHP or Kyle Kendrick: RHP

If no starter is signed, Moyer and Kendrick will enter the 2010 season as the two candidates for the fifth starter’s job. One would have to imagine that Moyer has the advantage based on the fact that he is getting paid a hefty salary and he makes less sense out of the bullpen, despite a few good performances in relief last year.

Bullpen

Brad Lidge: RHP

Ryan Madson: RHP

J.C. Romero: LHP

Chad Durbin: RHP

Kendrick/Moyer

These five will definitely be in the bullpen to start the season. Durbin was tendered a contract last week and will likely receive a $2-2.5M contract any day now.

If you’ve done the math, you know that the names listed make up 23 of the 25 spots on the major league roster. If the Phils don’t make another move from now until April 5, the last two spots in the ‘pen would probably go to left-hander Antonio Bastardo and right-hander Scott Mathieson, an intriguing young reliever who has had two Tommy John surgeries that have derailed his promising career.

Mathieson went 4-0 with a 0.84 ERA in 2009, splitting time between Rookie League, High-A, and Double-A Reading. He struck out 34 batters in 32 innings and his WHIP was under 0.90.

Thus far in the Arizona Fall League, Mathieson has compiled a 2.84 ERA and 15 strikeouts in 12 2/3 innings. His eight walks are too many.

I highly doubt the Phillies enter the season with Kendrick/Moyer, Bastardo, and Mathieson making up the final three bullpen spots. They will sign a reliever or two before then.

Fernando Rodney

Todd Zolecki reports that the team’s top targets are  former Tigers closer Fernando Rodney and future Hall-of-Famer John Smoltz.

Smoltz would be a very good one-year signing, but Rodney is a bad multi-year deal waiting to happen. Rodney saved 37 games for Detroit last year, but his walk rate (4.9/9 IP) was too high and his strikeout rate (7.3/9) was too low for a late-inning reliever. His WHIPs over the last two seasons have been below average, at 1.59 and 1.47.

Rodney’s most redeeming trait is that he’s an extreme ground ball pitcher. 58% of the balls hit in play against Rodney in 2009 were on the ground. In his career, the Dominican native has a 1.43 GB/FB ratio.

The ground balls would be nice, but Rodney is basically Chad Durbin in terms of strikeouts and J.C. Romero with walks (Romero’s career BB rate is 5.0/9, Rodney is 4.6/9.

I won’t be jumping for joy if the Phillies sign him to a two-year, $12M or a three-year/$15-16M contract. That is likely what he’ll command, since Mike Gonzalez, a similarly valued reliever, just signed for 2 years/$12M with the Orioles.

Smoltz

This would be a very good signing because Smoltz could start or relieve. He can be had for an incentive-laden one-year deal, and the Phillies could do exactly what they did with Chan Ho Park a season ago – offer Smoltz the chance to compete for the fifth starter’s job, and if he doesn’t pitch well from that role, move him to the bullpen.

At 43, Smoltz still has a powerful fastball that hovers around 91-92. He hit his spots well last year after returning to the NL, getting swings-and-misses on 31% of his pitches outside the strike zone (league average is 25%.)

His 8.4 strikeouts per nine innings were more than Rodney and his 2.1 BB/9 were significantly less.

Best Case Scenario

In my opinion, the best case scenario for the Phillies would be to sign Smoltz to a one-year deal, re-sign Chan Ho Park, and miss out on Rodney. A bullpen with Park, Smoltz, Madson, and Lidge as late-inning options and Romero as the situational lefty would be dynamic, as all four righties are strikeout pitchers.

There is no word on how much, if any, progress the Phils are making with Park, but it was made clear several weeks ago that he, once again, believes he can start. If this is so, expect teams to do exactly what the Phils did last year – promise him a job starting and move him to the pen if he is ineffective.

You’d think that at this point in his career it would be pretty evident to Park that relieving is the best option for him, but he obviously doesn’t agree with that sentiment.

(Since I’m figuring some of you will ask about Matt Capps and/or Scott Eyre in the comments section, I can tell you that many other teams are more interested in Capps than the Phillies appear to be, and the last time Ruben Amaro mentioned Eyre, it was to say that he was “pricing himself out of the Phillies range.)

Money

Financially, the Phillies are in the same position they were in before the Halladay deal. By trading Lee and his $9M salary, and receiving $6M along with Halladay, the $15.75M Doc is due in 2010 didn’t hamper the Phillies at all. The deals were a wash, financially.

So, how about they invest a little bit of money in a low-risk, high-reward deal for Smoltz, and do whatever they can to re-sign Park?

What do you think?

Permalink | Comments (152) | Trackback (0)

Failed Physical Won’t Delay Trade

Posted by Corey Seidman, Wed, December 16, 2009 01:05 PM

It looks like this overly complicated series of events has just taken another turn.

According to Bob Elliott of the Toronto Sun, someone involved in the trade has failed their physical. This will further delay any announcements. Everything was supposed to be sorted out by Wednesday, but it is not looking like that will be the case.

This is just my hunch, but given the fact that a Toronto reporter broke the story of the failed physical and nobody else seemed to have it, I’m assuming that the failed physical came  from either Kyle Drabek, Michael Taylor, Travis D’Arnaud, or Brett Wallace, the Athletics’ top prospect who is likely headed to Toronto in exchange for Taylor.

It could have been anyone, but that’s my hypothesis.

Of the nine players involved in the Halladay/Lee deals, Drabek and Aumont are the most likely to have failed a physical. Drabek had Tommy John surgery in 2007 and was shut down toward the end of the year as a precaution. Aumont dealt with elbow problems in 2008 and was shut down.

The good news is that Roy Halladay is definitely a Phillie. His extension is sealed and he’s passed his physical. The longer this thing plays out, the more chance there is that Cliff Lee could stay put. Or am I just being too optimistic?

UPDATE: Larry Stone of the Seattle Times is reporting that none of the Seattle players involved (Phillippe Aumont, Tyson Gillies, and Juan Ramirez) appeared to have failed their physicals.

In addition, disregard the “definitely” written above in regard to Roy Halladay being a Phillie. ESPN has changed their headline from  “Halladay agrees to extension with Phils” to “Phillies GM hopes to finish Halladay deal soon.” I still remain convinced that Halladay will end up with the Phils when this is all sorted out.

The Blue Jays cannot afford to keep him and a failed physical does not guarantee the collapse of a trade. Freddy Garcia was once traded to the Phillies despite failing a physical.

Scott Lauber is reporting that Michael Taylor suffered a mild elbow strain and missed ten days during the Mexican Fall League this October, in which he hit .308.

So much confusion. Stick around, you’ll know when we know.

BREAKING NEWS: Two tweets may have cleared this madness up. Todd Zolecki just delivered the message that a “failed physical won’t kill this deal. An announcement is still expected today.”

In addition, Jeff Blair of the Toronto Globe tweets that, “Well-placed baseball source on failed physical reports involving a player coming to the Jays? ‘Totally false rumour.’”

Finally, Jim Salisbury of CSN just sent the following message via Twitter, “Deal done!!!! 5 p.m. press conference…. who brings the hoagies???”

Permalink | Comments (173) | Trackback (0)

The Bittersweet Blockbusters

Posted by Corey Seidman, Tue, December 15, 2009 07:21 PM

It’s all about perception.

You can view the trades made by Ruben Amaro in a positive or negative manner, just don’t combine them when you do so. They are two completely different deals that will, unfortunately, be linked together forever. And it’s all because of prospects, not money. Don’t believe anyone who says this was just about money.

The deal Amaro put together in order to acquire Halladay was nothing short of brilliant. He sent Kyle Drabek, Michael Taylor, and Travis D’Arnaud to the Blue Jays in exchange for Halladay and $6 million (40% of his 2010 salary.)

Immediately after acquiring Halladay, Amaro locked him up to a three-year contract worth approximately $60M. The contract, which runs through 2013, also contains a vesting option for 2014 that will automatically trigger if Halladay pitches a certain amount of innings throughout the course of the pact.

If you have the chance to acquire, and subsequently lock up one of the top-three pitchers in baseball for a price below market value, you do it.

Sure, Drabek may turn out to be a stud and D’Arnaud could be the future for the Blue Jays behind the plate. Taylor, a rapidly emerging outfield prospect, may be ready to contribute in April of next year. But it won’t be for Toronto – Blue Jays GM Alex Anthopoulos quickly shipped him off to Oakland for Brett Wallace, the top prospect in the Athletics’ organization. All of these men may turn out to be very good major leaguers, or they might not.

Halladay, on the other hand, is a proven ace. He has been the best pitcher in the superior league for years, despite playing in the toughest division in baseball. This was a brilliant move.

But if Amaro received an A+ on the Halladay trade, he gets an F- on the Cliff Lee deal.Yes, an F-. If a score of 50 nets you an F on an exam, this was a 12.

Lee was sent to Seattle in exchange for Phillippe Aumont (the Mariners top pitching prospect,) Tyson Gillies (an impressive, toolsy outfielder,) and Juan Ramirez (a “high-ceiling” pitcher with mediocre minor-league numbers.)

I spent most of Monday night believing the Lee deal wouldn’t go through, if for no other reason than it was a ridiculous trade from the Phillies standpoint. Dave Cameron of USS Mariner also spent most of Monday in disbelief, claiming that the “package is just so light as to not be realistic.”

It is too light. Even if the Phillies felt that Lee was looking for CC Sabathia-type numbers and that he wouldn’t be back after 2010, this was not enough of a return for a dominant lefty coming off of a Cy Young award in 2008, a brilliant 2009 season, and, arguably, the best postseason any pitcher has ever had in the history of a 130 year-old sport. Yes, Lee will probably leave Seattle next Fall, but this wasn’t enough for a year of his services.

Amaro stole Lee from the Indians in July, and got robbed with his eyes open in December.

Greed is Good

“Experts” are telling you that having Halladay and Lee in the same rotation was never realistic. They are saying that it never could have worked and that anyone who is asking “what if?” is being greedy. They’re wrong. If you’re sitting in your home or your office or your car and imagining a Phillies rotation headed by Roy Halladay, Cliff Lee, and Cole Hamels, you have every right to feel upset, confused, and incomplete about what transpired.

The idea of Halladay and Lee together was, by no means, unrealistic. Prior to these trades, Amaro spent a week trying to move Joe Blanton and his soon-to-be $7M salary. He couldn’t find a deal that made sense, so he didn’t pull the trigger. No team was offering the prospect(s) that Amaro was looking for.

Why would they? Blanton is, at best, a number three starter, and he’ll be a free agent after the 2010 season. If you were running a team, would you give up one of your top-five prospects for a pitcher who is going to go 13-10 with a 4.15 ERA? How about your seventh best prospect? How about your twelfth best prospect?

This wasn’t unrealistic because this wasn’t about money. If it were about money, Blanton would have (and definitely SHOULD have) been traded for whatever the Phillies could get. If they traded Blanton for a Double-A infielder who hit .213 last year, so be it. The salaries of Blanton and Lee will be so similar in 2010 that it doesn’t matter who the Phillies received for Kentucky Joe. If it meant the difference between having Blanton or Cliff Lee, the prospect who Blanton would be traded for is arbitrary.

This was about prospects.

Amaro wanted to replenish his farm system by making up for the losses of Drabek, Taylor, and D’Arnaud. Did he do that with Aumont, Gillies, and Ramirez? That won’t be clear for another five years, but I’m going to go out on a limb and say probably not. Minor-leaguers are fickle in that they can underperform one year and overperform the next, but I’m sitting here looking at the numbers compiled by Aumont, Gillies, and Ramirez over the course of their short careers, and I don’t see it.

So, if this all about prospects, my question is, why not trade for BETTER PROSPECTS?! Amaro didn’t have to trade Lee at all, but if he felt that he had to, he certainly could have called every other GM not named Jack Zduriencik. Maybe he did make those calls, maybe he didn’t. But wouldn’t the Angels, desperate after losing John Lackey that same day, and Chone Figgins weeks earlier to their biggest competitor, be willing to make a deal for Lee? Honestly, who wouldn’t be interested in Cliff Lee? I absolutely, positively refuse to believe that Aumont, Gillies, and Ramirez were the best that Amaro could have gotten for Lee. This defies logic.

The real question now becomes, do you care about 2010, or do you care about 2015? It’s a complicated question, because in 2015, Ryan Howard might not be here. Chase Utley will be 37 years old. Jimmy Rollins will be sitting next to Karl Ravech on Baseball Tonight. The Phillies are going to need guys like Aumont, Gillies, Ramirez, and others to live up to their potential in order for this organization to remain competitive.

But don’t you worry about 2015 in 2012 or 2013, when it’s closer than five years away? Don’t you “go-for-broke” in 2010, when this nucleus is still intact, in its prime, and somewhat affordable?

This is why it’s all about perception. And this is why we are justified in feeling like the team we love just squandered an opportunity it might never again see.

Permalink | Comments (189) | Trackback (0)