Just in case you're wondering, the addition of David Eckstein to play 2B does nothing to get the Padres out of the basement of The Baseball Gods Preseason Power Rankings.
Nor would the signing of Omar Vizquel.
What are they thinking out there? Are they trying to have the least powerful middle infield of all-time?
Paging Mr. Vizquel, Mr. Omar Vizquel. Mario Mendoza is waiting in the lobby and he would like his bat back...
KW
Thursday, January 15, 2009
Thinking Out Loud - Jan. 15
Michael Young accepts move to 3B
Checking in from the Blues-Avalanche game. Well, the pre-game anyway. One of my many duties for KMOX is covering the Blues - we're their radio rights-holder - but I've got a few minutes before the game starts and just noticed an update on the Michael Young situation in Texas....
Apparently he decided to heed my words, suck it up and accept the move to third base.
Okay, that's definitely not true. One way or another, Young has done the right thing here. The Rangers are paying him a lot of money over the next five years and the least he can do is be a team player.
Glad to see that's he's found religion on this subject....
http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20090115&content_id=3745615&vkey=news_tex&fext=.jsp&c_id=tex&partnerId=rss_tex
Free Agent starter I really, really like for an NL team...
Jon Garland.
He's made at least 32 starts in each of the last 7 seasons.
He's pitched at least 191 innings in each of the last 7 seasons (topping 200 4 times).
He's 106-89 for his career and has pitched on contending teams for the last 4-5 seasons.
His career ERA is 4.47, which isn't that bad when you consider that most of that time was spent pitching in hitter-friendly US Cellular Field on the South Side of Chicago.
He's also just 29 years-old and won't turn 30 until the end of September 2009.
Note: My recommendation is for a NATIONAL LEAGUE team to sign him. No DH, none of that.
Hello? Cardinals? Dodgers? Mets? Anyone looking for a starter?
Prediction: If Garland signs with an NL team not in Philadelphia, Cincinnati or Colorado he'll win 13-16 games, post an ERA between 3.70-4.10 and log 200+ innings.
That is all for now...
KW
Checking in from the Blues-Avalanche game. Well, the pre-game anyway. One of my many duties for KMOX is covering the Blues - we're their radio rights-holder - but I've got a few minutes before the game starts and just noticed an update on the Michael Young situation in Texas....
Apparently he decided to heed my words, suck it up and accept the move to third base.
Okay, that's definitely not true. One way or another, Young has done the right thing here. The Rangers are paying him a lot of money over the next five years and the least he can do is be a team player.
Glad to see that's he's found religion on this subject....
http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20090115&content_id=3745615&vkey=news_tex&fext=.jsp&c_id=tex&partnerId=rss_tex
Free Agent starter I really, really like for an NL team...
Jon Garland.
He's made at least 32 starts in each of the last 7 seasons.
He's pitched at least 191 innings in each of the last 7 seasons (topping 200 4 times).
He's 106-89 for his career and has pitched on contending teams for the last 4-5 seasons.
His career ERA is 4.47, which isn't that bad when you consider that most of that time was spent pitching in hitter-friendly US Cellular Field on the South Side of Chicago.
He's also just 29 years-old and won't turn 30 until the end of September 2009.
Note: My recommendation is for a NATIONAL LEAGUE team to sign him. No DH, none of that.
Hello? Cardinals? Dodgers? Mets? Anyone looking for a starter?
Prediction: If Garland signs with an NL team not in Philadelphia, Cincinnati or Colorado he'll win 13-16 games, post an ERA between 3.70-4.10 and log 200+ innings.
That is all for now...
KW
Early 2009 Power Rankings #29
For those who haven't seen #30 yet, check it out here:
http://thebaseballgods.blogspot.com/2009/01/2009-early-power-rankings-30.html
Note: I will have a "final" pre-season set of power rankings ready on Opening Day (along with all of my other predictions), so this is not my "final word" on how things will shake out.
Now back to the countdown...
29. Seattle Mariners
Ladies and gentleman, allow me to introduce you to baseball's most disappointing team in 2008 - the Seattle Mariners!
Can you imagine spending $117 million on a team to win 61 games?
I don't know whether that's hysterical or just pathetic. Okay, it's both.
There's a new regime in place in the Great Northwest for 2009 so maybe they'll be able to turn things around at some point but they have one hell of a crater to dig themselves out of. Lots of bad contracts, very little offensive punch and not much available in terms of prospects ready to make a big league impact. I wish them luck...
LINEUP
According to the Mariners official website, here are their projected starters:
C. Jeff Clement
1B. Bryan LaHair
2B. Jose Lopez
3B. Adrian Beltre
SS. Yuniesky Betancourt
LF. Endy Chavez
CF. Franklin Gutierrez
RF. Ichiro Suzuki
DH. Russell Branyan
Now, I'm not sure that's exactly what the lineup will look like on Opening Day but I do know that whatever changes might come this club isn't exactly in position to snag a top tier free agent. Only the Oakland A's scored fewer runs than the Mariners in the AL last season. The A's went out and added Matt Holliday and Jason Giambi to their lineup while the Mariners watched their best hitter from '08, Raul Ibanez, leave via free agency.
Kenji Johjima will play some because he's getting paid too much to be a pure backup. I'm sure the team would like Wladimir Balentien to win the LF job over Chavez but his .592 OPS w/ a strikeout every third at-bat in '08 didn't exactly inspire confidence. Maybe Mike Carp pushes LaHair at 1B, but in all honesty, what's the difference between the two?
The only guy in the lineup with proven Major League power is Beltre and he's inconsistent. Lopez is okay but not a force by any means. Clement has potential to be a solid power guy but making contact at the big league level has been a bit of a challenge for him so far. I thought Gutierrez was a bit of a sleeper heading into '08 but he stunk out the joint - not sure what to make of him for '09. Betancourt is a good glove man but doesn't bring much to the plate aside from the ability to make weak contact (.692 OPS).
That leaves Chavez, LaHair, Branyan and Ichiro to round out the lineup. Chavez is a 4th/5th OF, LaHair doesn't have enough power to be an everyday 1B in the big leagues (though Carp might). Branyan is a Quadruple-A player who is best served playing only a couple of times a week.
Ichiro is the team's only true offensive star but he's 35 years-old and it's beginning to look like he won't be around to see the next Mariners' contender. Maybe they should entertain the thought of trading him at some point during the '09 season. The only problem with that is their owner is Japanese and wants Ichiro for marketing purposes both in Seattle and back in Japan. I bet he'd bring a pretty nice return in a trade, though.
The rest of the bad news - none of the team's top prospects are nearly ready to jump into the mix. Matt Tuiasosopo is a decent-but-not-great prospect who made some strides at Triple-A last year, so maybe he can take over at 3B if they trade Beltre but he's not exactly a "can't miss" guy. Clement is already here. OF's Greg Halman and Michael Saunders need more time, as does stud IF prospect Carlos Triunfel. C Adam Moore might be someone to keep an eye on. OF Dennis Raben has top-end power but hasn't played much pro ball yet, so he'll need some time.
PITCHING
Once again, deferring to the Mariners' official website for the rotation and closer:
1. Felix Hernandez
2. Erik Bedard
3. Jarrod Washburn
4. Carlos Silva
5. Ryan Rowland-Smith
They list Brandon Morrow as the 6th starter, which is actually pretty hard to believe. He either makes the rotation this year or winds up being their closer, period. He's too good for anything else.
King Felix is a star and he would be a top end starter in just about any rotation. Love him. I'm also a bigger fan of Bedard than most. People seem to be really down on him right now but he's got excellent stuff and I won't write him off just yet.
Washburn's an okay 4th/5th starter but $9.5 million is too much to pay him. Silva flat out stinks. It sounds like hindsight (though I said it loud and clear at the time), but his contract is one of the worst in baseball history. He was erratic in Minnesota, he doesn't miss many bats and there are simply too many guys who there who can do what he does to justify that 4-year, $48 million contract. Brutal.
Rowland-Smith is interesting - live arm and some success at the end of last season in the big leagues - but not a known commodity. While Morrow has amazing talent, I actually like him finishing games better than I like him as a starter. He can be a lights-out closer for the next 10 years if they use him in that role.
Prospects Phillipe Aumont and Juan Ramirez are talented but not ready for prime time entering 2009.
CL. Aaron Heilman
Actually, the Mariners' website lists Roy Corcoran atop the list of relievers but I find it hard to believe he'll be finishing games. Check that - I find it IMPOSSIBLE to believe he'll be finishing games.
If Morrow isn't going to close, Heilman's the right guy to start off with. Miguel Batista has had some success finishing games in his career (another horrible contract, by the way) and maybe he can get into the mix there too. I also like Mark Lowe's arm but I don't think he's closer material just yet.
The way I'd do it if I were in manager Don Wakamatsu's shoes would be to have Morrow closing games with Heilman and Batista working as starters in Spring Training. That way if Bedard isn't going to be ready, or if Rowland-Smith takes a step back, one of them can start with the other returning to a setup role.
OVERVIEW
This is an organization that is absolutely floundering at the moment. Maybe the team's new leadership can turn things around but it certainly won't happen overnight. I would advise trading off guys like Ichiro, Beltre, Lopez, Betancourt, Johjima (if you can) and any starter not named Hernandez or Morrow to build for 2010.
By then some of these players will have answered questions and the team should be in a better position to recover once guys like Triunfel, Raben, Halman, Saunders and Aumont are ready to contribute.
For now, however, they look like the worst team in the AL to me.
KW
http://thebaseballgods.blogspot.com/2009/01/2009-early-power-rankings-30.html
Note: I will have a "final" pre-season set of power rankings ready on Opening Day (along with all of my other predictions), so this is not my "final word" on how things will shake out.
Now back to the countdown...
29. Seattle Mariners
Ladies and gentleman, allow me to introduce you to baseball's most disappointing team in 2008 - the Seattle Mariners!
Can you imagine spending $117 million on a team to win 61 games?
I don't know whether that's hysterical or just pathetic. Okay, it's both.
There's a new regime in place in the Great Northwest for 2009 so maybe they'll be able to turn things around at some point but they have one hell of a crater to dig themselves out of. Lots of bad contracts, very little offensive punch and not much available in terms of prospects ready to make a big league impact. I wish them luck...
LINEUP
According to the Mariners official website, here are their projected starters:
C. Jeff Clement
1B. Bryan LaHair
2B. Jose Lopez
3B. Adrian Beltre
SS. Yuniesky Betancourt
LF. Endy Chavez
CF. Franklin Gutierrez
RF. Ichiro Suzuki
DH. Russell Branyan
Now, I'm not sure that's exactly what the lineup will look like on Opening Day but I do know that whatever changes might come this club isn't exactly in position to snag a top tier free agent. Only the Oakland A's scored fewer runs than the Mariners in the AL last season. The A's went out and added Matt Holliday and Jason Giambi to their lineup while the Mariners watched their best hitter from '08, Raul Ibanez, leave via free agency.
Kenji Johjima will play some because he's getting paid too much to be a pure backup. I'm sure the team would like Wladimir Balentien to win the LF job over Chavez but his .592 OPS w/ a strikeout every third at-bat in '08 didn't exactly inspire confidence. Maybe Mike Carp pushes LaHair at 1B, but in all honesty, what's the difference between the two?
The only guy in the lineup with proven Major League power is Beltre and he's inconsistent. Lopez is okay but not a force by any means. Clement has potential to be a solid power guy but making contact at the big league level has been a bit of a challenge for him so far. I thought Gutierrez was a bit of a sleeper heading into '08 but he stunk out the joint - not sure what to make of him for '09. Betancourt is a good glove man but doesn't bring much to the plate aside from the ability to make weak contact (.692 OPS).
That leaves Chavez, LaHair, Branyan and Ichiro to round out the lineup. Chavez is a 4th/5th OF, LaHair doesn't have enough power to be an everyday 1B in the big leagues (though Carp might). Branyan is a Quadruple-A player who is best served playing only a couple of times a week.
Ichiro is the team's only true offensive star but he's 35 years-old and it's beginning to look like he won't be around to see the next Mariners' contender. Maybe they should entertain the thought of trading him at some point during the '09 season. The only problem with that is their owner is Japanese and wants Ichiro for marketing purposes both in Seattle and back in Japan. I bet he'd bring a pretty nice return in a trade, though.
The rest of the bad news - none of the team's top prospects are nearly ready to jump into the mix. Matt Tuiasosopo is a decent-but-not-great prospect who made some strides at Triple-A last year, so maybe he can take over at 3B if they trade Beltre but he's not exactly a "can't miss" guy. Clement is already here. OF's Greg Halman and Michael Saunders need more time, as does stud IF prospect Carlos Triunfel. C Adam Moore might be someone to keep an eye on. OF Dennis Raben has top-end power but hasn't played much pro ball yet, so he'll need some time.
PITCHING
Once again, deferring to the Mariners' official website for the rotation and closer:
1. Felix Hernandez
2. Erik Bedard
3. Jarrod Washburn
4. Carlos Silva
5. Ryan Rowland-Smith
They list Brandon Morrow as the 6th starter, which is actually pretty hard to believe. He either makes the rotation this year or winds up being their closer, period. He's too good for anything else.
King Felix is a star and he would be a top end starter in just about any rotation. Love him. I'm also a bigger fan of Bedard than most. People seem to be really down on him right now but he's got excellent stuff and I won't write him off just yet.
Washburn's an okay 4th/5th starter but $9.5 million is too much to pay him. Silva flat out stinks. It sounds like hindsight (though I said it loud and clear at the time), but his contract is one of the worst in baseball history. He was erratic in Minnesota, he doesn't miss many bats and there are simply too many guys who there who can do what he does to justify that 4-year, $48 million contract. Brutal.
Rowland-Smith is interesting - live arm and some success at the end of last season in the big leagues - but not a known commodity. While Morrow has amazing talent, I actually like him finishing games better than I like him as a starter. He can be a lights-out closer for the next 10 years if they use him in that role.
Prospects Phillipe Aumont and Juan Ramirez are talented but not ready for prime time entering 2009.
CL. Aaron Heilman
Actually, the Mariners' website lists Roy Corcoran atop the list of relievers but I find it hard to believe he'll be finishing games. Check that - I find it IMPOSSIBLE to believe he'll be finishing games.
If Morrow isn't going to close, Heilman's the right guy to start off with. Miguel Batista has had some success finishing games in his career (another horrible contract, by the way) and maybe he can get into the mix there too. I also like Mark Lowe's arm but I don't think he's closer material just yet.
The way I'd do it if I were in manager Don Wakamatsu's shoes would be to have Morrow closing games with Heilman and Batista working as starters in Spring Training. That way if Bedard isn't going to be ready, or if Rowland-Smith takes a step back, one of them can start with the other returning to a setup role.
OVERVIEW
This is an organization that is absolutely floundering at the moment. Maybe the team's new leadership can turn things around but it certainly won't happen overnight. I would advise trading off guys like Ichiro, Beltre, Lopez, Betancourt, Johjima (if you can) and any starter not named Hernandez or Morrow to build for 2010.
By then some of these players will have answered questions and the team should be in a better position to recover once guys like Triunfel, Raben, Halman, Saunders and Aumont are ready to contribute.
For now, however, they look like the worst team in the AL to me.
KW
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
Update on #30 Padres
A couple of days ago I began unveiling my early 2009 Power Rankings by profiling the Padres, my 30th ranked club.
Since then they re-signed Mark Prior, and added IF Chris Burke as well, which obviously caused me to reth........
Uh, no.
Unless he's the 18-6, 2.43 ERA and 246 K Mark Prior from 2003 then nothing changes. Even if by some miracle he is that good, the lineup still stinks.
Nothing more to see here, please move along...
Since then they re-signed Mark Prior, and added IF Chris Burke as well, which obviously caused me to reth........
Uh, no.
Unless he's the 18-6, 2.43 ERA and 246 K Mark Prior from 2003 then nothing changes. Even if by some miracle he is that good, the lineup still stinks.
Nothing more to see here, please move along...
Thinking Out Loud - Jan 14, 2009
Back from the sick bed today w/ thoughts on several stories
Michael Young wants Rangers to trade him
Short version of events: the Rangers decided to move Young from SS to 3B to make room for prospect Elvis Andrus without consulting Young. Young asks to be dealt.
Uh, fat chance my friend.
There is absolutely zero chance that the Rangers will be able to get any kind of fair value in a trade involving Young because of his contract. He gets $16 million a year for the next 5 years (2009-2013) and there just aren't many teams who can absorb that much into their payroll while also giving up quality in return.
It should also be noted that Young's production has slipped a bit over the last three years.
2004 - .313, 22 HR, 99 RBI (.836 OPS)
2005 - .331, 24 HR, 91 RBI (.899 OPS)
2006 - .314, 14 HR, 103 RBI (.815 OPS)
2007 - .315, 9 HR, 94 RBI (.784 OPS)
2008 - .284, 12 HR, 82 RBI (.741 OPS)
I think that .899 OPS in '05 was an abberation but that three-year decline has got to be scary. Other teams might also wonder what those numbers would look like had he not been hitting in one of the most hitter-friendly parks in baseball 81-times a year.
Plus, I seriously doubt the Rangers will be willing to eat a big chunk of that just to accomodate Young's desire to stay in the middle infield.
Hey Mike, what about what's best for your team? You know, the one that's gonna pay you $80 million over the next 5 years...
If moving you to 3B makes the team better, just do it. Stop with the ego-driven soap opera.
The Rangers don't like their other defensive options at 3B (Hank Blalock & Chris Davis) so having a solid glove man (Young) slide over to accomodate another strong glove man (Andrus) is completely logical.
Plus, it makes more sense to shift the 32 year-old veteran to a corner infield spot than it does to move the kid over there.
Suck it up big fella.
Manny still out there - Dodgers, Giants supposedly after him
"You reap what you sow."
See what all this "Manny Being Manny" business has gotten you, Mr. Ramirez?
Even though you're dead-cinch lock Hall of Famer and still one of the best hitters in the game, nobody wants any part of you on a long-term deal because you're a headcase. Especially not at the money you're asking for.
There is no doubt in my mind that Manny would have a 4-year, $100 million offer on the table if he were the kind of player that you never had a question about regarding effort. All the garbage he pulled in Boston last year is kicking him in the rear end this offseason.
Rightfully so.
I like Manny as a player. He's one of the best hitters I've ever seen and he seems like a decent, fun-loving kind of guy. But when you get the rap of being someone who "tanked" it as a means of getting out of town you don't live that down quickly.
Not that Scott Boras needs my advice, but here's some anyway:
Take a 1-year deal for $25 million from the Dodgers, tell your client to go be a good teammate for a full year in LA and then revisit this next offseason when there's a little distance between contract talks and Manny's reindeer games in Boston.
Derek Lowe gets 4-years, $60 million from the Braves
I like Derek Lowe and think he'll be a nice pitcher for the Braves. Seems like a lot of years for a guy who turns 36 in June but with his pitching style it doesn't seem like he'd be one to break down going forward.
The Braves also locked in Kenshin Kawakami, so their rotation depth is good for now.
Now they've got to fix that lineup. Need at least two more bats (CF, LF) IMO.
Kris Benson back in the mix
Word is that his arm feels good and that four teams are interested...
Cardinals, Dodgers, Diamondbacks, Rangers
Cardinals fans would lose their minds if Benson signs in St. Louis. Been down this rehab road too many times recently (Mark Mulder, Matt Clement and at a different level Chris Carpenter).
Might make sense for the Dodgers and the Rangers really wouldn't have much to lose by taking a shot.
Can't see where he'd fit in w/ the D'Backs. They have better in-house options.
Michael Young wants Rangers to trade him
Short version of events: the Rangers decided to move Young from SS to 3B to make room for prospect Elvis Andrus without consulting Young. Young asks to be dealt.
Uh, fat chance my friend.
There is absolutely zero chance that the Rangers will be able to get any kind of fair value in a trade involving Young because of his contract. He gets $16 million a year for the next 5 years (2009-2013) and there just aren't many teams who can absorb that much into their payroll while also giving up quality in return.
It should also be noted that Young's production has slipped a bit over the last three years.
2004 - .313, 22 HR, 99 RBI (.836 OPS)
2005 - .331, 24 HR, 91 RBI (.899 OPS)
2006 - .314, 14 HR, 103 RBI (.815 OPS)
2007 - .315, 9 HR, 94 RBI (.784 OPS)
2008 - .284, 12 HR, 82 RBI (.741 OPS)
I think that .899 OPS in '05 was an abberation but that three-year decline has got to be scary. Other teams might also wonder what those numbers would look like had he not been hitting in one of the most hitter-friendly parks in baseball 81-times a year.
Plus, I seriously doubt the Rangers will be willing to eat a big chunk of that just to accomodate Young's desire to stay in the middle infield.
Hey Mike, what about what's best for your team? You know, the one that's gonna pay you $80 million over the next 5 years...
If moving you to 3B makes the team better, just do it. Stop with the ego-driven soap opera.
The Rangers don't like their other defensive options at 3B (Hank Blalock & Chris Davis) so having a solid glove man (Young) slide over to accomodate another strong glove man (Andrus) is completely logical.
Plus, it makes more sense to shift the 32 year-old veteran to a corner infield spot than it does to move the kid over there.
Suck it up big fella.
Manny still out there - Dodgers, Giants supposedly after him
"You reap what you sow."
See what all this "Manny Being Manny" business has gotten you, Mr. Ramirez?
Even though you're dead-cinch lock Hall of Famer and still one of the best hitters in the game, nobody wants any part of you on a long-term deal because you're a headcase. Especially not at the money you're asking for.
There is no doubt in my mind that Manny would have a 4-year, $100 million offer on the table if he were the kind of player that you never had a question about regarding effort. All the garbage he pulled in Boston last year is kicking him in the rear end this offseason.
Rightfully so.
I like Manny as a player. He's one of the best hitters I've ever seen and he seems like a decent, fun-loving kind of guy. But when you get the rap of being someone who "tanked" it as a means of getting out of town you don't live that down quickly.
Not that Scott Boras needs my advice, but here's some anyway:
Take a 1-year deal for $25 million from the Dodgers, tell your client to go be a good teammate for a full year in LA and then revisit this next offseason when there's a little distance between contract talks and Manny's reindeer games in Boston.
Derek Lowe gets 4-years, $60 million from the Braves
I like Derek Lowe and think he'll be a nice pitcher for the Braves. Seems like a lot of years for a guy who turns 36 in June but with his pitching style it doesn't seem like he'd be one to break down going forward.
The Braves also locked in Kenshin Kawakami, so their rotation depth is good for now.
Now they've got to fix that lineup. Need at least two more bats (CF, LF) IMO.
Kris Benson back in the mix
Word is that his arm feels good and that four teams are interested...
Cardinals, Dodgers, Diamondbacks, Rangers
Cardinals fans would lose their minds if Benson signs in St. Louis. Been down this rehab road too many times recently (Mark Mulder, Matt Clement and at a different level Chris Carpenter).
Might make sense for the Dodgers and the Rangers really wouldn't have much to lose by taking a shot.
Can't see where he'd fit in w/ the D'Backs. They have better in-house options.
Monday, January 12, 2009
2009 Early Power Rankings - #30
And so it begins...
Even though there are still dozens of relatively big name free agents available it's time to get going with my 2009 Pre-Season Power Rankings. I'll go one team at a time, starting from #30 and working my way up to the top of the list.
The reason I'm doing it this way is simple - the teams at the bottom of my list don't seem to be on the verge of making moves that will have an immediate impact on their teams. The teams in the middle are more likely to make moves that could change their fortunes so my secret list will probably undergo some adjustments over the next 5-6 weeks.
Note: I will have a "final" pre-season set of power rankings ready on Opening Day (along with all of my other predictions), so this is not my "final word" on how things will shake out. This is just to get the ball rolling.
Time to get down to business...
30. San Diego Padres
Wow. Just wow.
This team is incredibly weak and it would seem that 2009 is nothing more than a building year for Kevin Towers and Co., especially given that the Jake Peavy trade rumors simply refuse to go away.
Lineup
According to the Padres official website, here are their projected starters...
C. Nick Hundley
1B. Adrian Gonzalez
2B. Edgar Gonzalez
3B. Kevin Kouzmanoff
SS. Luis Rodriguez
LF. Chase Headley
CF. Scott Hairston/Jody Gerut
RF. Brian Giles.
Eww. A. Gonzalez is a superstar and Giles is a serviceable offensive player, though he has no business batting leadoff on this team because they have so few people who can drive in runs. After that, nothing excites me.
Hairston and Gerut are fourth outfielders - at best - on a good team. Kouzmanoff has some power and should drive in some runs but his 4-to-1 career strikeout-to-walk ratio is just terrible. E. Gonzalez and Rodriguez are utility men. Hundley hit .237 with 52 strikeouts in 198 at-bats w/ the Pads last year.
Headley is a talented young player with a lot of upside but he's got to make better contact going forward than he did in 2008 (104 K in 331 AB). I like him, though, and expect him to hit 20-25 HR while raising his average, on-base and slugging in '09.
So, what we have here is a team with one legit stud, one middle of the road veteran, one young veteran with some pop and good switch-hitting power prospect and a bunch of roster filler.
This is going to be one of the lowest scoring teams in baseball, maybe the lowest, and there isn't much hope of the team making any serious upgrades between now and Opening Day.
2B Matt Antonelli could be a factor as a decent hitting middle infielder. OF Kellen Kulbacki might be ready in late '09 or early '10 but I'd like to see something from him at the upper levels before getting too excited, though he did have a great '08 season. 1B Kyle Blanks is a monster with big-time power but he's not quite ready for the Majors AND he's blocked by the one real star this team has. OF Cedric Hunter has talent but isn't close to being ready.
Pitching
I'll refer to the Padres official website for their rotation and closer...
1. Jake Peavy
2. Chris Young
3. Cha Seung Baek
4. Josh Geer
5. Wade LeBlanc
When you consider the possibility - heck, probability - that Peavy will be dealt in the next month this looks like an awful rotation. If he sticks around the Pads have one of the best starters in the National League to call upon every 5th day but I doubt it will do much good.
Young is a nice 2-3 starter when healthy but none of the others are all that inspiring. Geer posted nice numbers in 5 starts for the Pads but don't be fooled - PCL hitters batted .285 against him and his ERA was 4.54 in 28 games (27 starts) at Portland. Baek was once a decent prospect but he turns 29 in May and has just 59 big league games under his belt. LeBlanc is nothing to write home about either. The 24 year-old posted a 5.32 ERA at Triple-A Portland and sported an 8.02 ERA in 5 games (4 starts) for the Padres.
There is definitely room for competition here, though I suspect they'll bring in a veteran or two on Spring Training invites or incentive laden deals. They could also add volume in a Peavy deal but quantity never beats quality in the Majors.
Cesar Carrillo, Mat Latos and Will Inman are worth keeping an eye on in '09. Looks like the Pads will be needing some help.
CL. Heath Bell
Bell was lights out in '07 and the Pads had better hope he reverts to that form in '09. He was pretty good last year, just not as good as the year before. Entering '09 Bell has 2 career saves in 14 opportunities.
Nobody else in the pen does much for me. The league seems to have figured out Cla Meredith, Mike Adams is okay but notthing more and Justin Hampson isn't quite established.
Overview
The Padres have a weak lineup, a paper-thin rotation, a mediocre-at-best bullpen and a farm system with some decent players who don't appear to be Major League ready for the start of '09.
If they're not the worst team in baseball this year they'll be in the bottom three or four for sure.
KW
Even though there are still dozens of relatively big name free agents available it's time to get going with my 2009 Pre-Season Power Rankings. I'll go one team at a time, starting from #30 and working my way up to the top of the list.
The reason I'm doing it this way is simple - the teams at the bottom of my list don't seem to be on the verge of making moves that will have an immediate impact on their teams. The teams in the middle are more likely to make moves that could change their fortunes so my secret list will probably undergo some adjustments over the next 5-6 weeks.
Note: I will have a "final" pre-season set of power rankings ready on Opening Day (along with all of my other predictions), so this is not my "final word" on how things will shake out. This is just to get the ball rolling.
Time to get down to business...
30. San Diego Padres
Wow. Just wow.
This team is incredibly weak and it would seem that 2009 is nothing more than a building year for Kevin Towers and Co., especially given that the Jake Peavy trade rumors simply refuse to go away.
Lineup
According to the Padres official website, here are their projected starters...
C. Nick Hundley
1B. Adrian Gonzalez
2B. Edgar Gonzalez
3B. Kevin Kouzmanoff
SS. Luis Rodriguez
LF. Chase Headley
CF. Scott Hairston/Jody Gerut
RF. Brian Giles.
Eww. A. Gonzalez is a superstar and Giles is a serviceable offensive player, though he has no business batting leadoff on this team because they have so few people who can drive in runs. After that, nothing excites me.
Hairston and Gerut are fourth outfielders - at best - on a good team. Kouzmanoff has some power and should drive in some runs but his 4-to-1 career strikeout-to-walk ratio is just terrible. E. Gonzalez and Rodriguez are utility men. Hundley hit .237 with 52 strikeouts in 198 at-bats w/ the Pads last year.
Headley is a talented young player with a lot of upside but he's got to make better contact going forward than he did in 2008 (104 K in 331 AB). I like him, though, and expect him to hit 20-25 HR while raising his average, on-base and slugging in '09.
So, what we have here is a team with one legit stud, one middle of the road veteran, one young veteran with some pop and good switch-hitting power prospect and a bunch of roster filler.
This is going to be one of the lowest scoring teams in baseball, maybe the lowest, and there isn't much hope of the team making any serious upgrades between now and Opening Day.
2B Matt Antonelli could be a factor as a decent hitting middle infielder. OF Kellen Kulbacki might be ready in late '09 or early '10 but I'd like to see something from him at the upper levels before getting too excited, though he did have a great '08 season. 1B Kyle Blanks is a monster with big-time power but he's not quite ready for the Majors AND he's blocked by the one real star this team has. OF Cedric Hunter has talent but isn't close to being ready.
Pitching
I'll refer to the Padres official website for their rotation and closer...
1. Jake Peavy
2. Chris Young
3. Cha Seung Baek
4. Josh Geer
5. Wade LeBlanc
When you consider the possibility - heck, probability - that Peavy will be dealt in the next month this looks like an awful rotation. If he sticks around the Pads have one of the best starters in the National League to call upon every 5th day but I doubt it will do much good.
Young is a nice 2-3 starter when healthy but none of the others are all that inspiring. Geer posted nice numbers in 5 starts for the Pads but don't be fooled - PCL hitters batted .285 against him and his ERA was 4.54 in 28 games (27 starts) at Portland. Baek was once a decent prospect but he turns 29 in May and has just 59 big league games under his belt. LeBlanc is nothing to write home about either. The 24 year-old posted a 5.32 ERA at Triple-A Portland and sported an 8.02 ERA in 5 games (4 starts) for the Padres.
There is definitely room for competition here, though I suspect they'll bring in a veteran or two on Spring Training invites or incentive laden deals. They could also add volume in a Peavy deal but quantity never beats quality in the Majors.
Cesar Carrillo, Mat Latos and Will Inman are worth keeping an eye on in '09. Looks like the Pads will be needing some help.
CL. Heath Bell
Bell was lights out in '07 and the Pads had better hope he reverts to that form in '09. He was pretty good last year, just not as good as the year before. Entering '09 Bell has 2 career saves in 14 opportunities.
Nobody else in the pen does much for me. The league seems to have figured out Cla Meredith, Mike Adams is okay but notthing more and Justin Hampson isn't quite established.
Overview
The Padres have a weak lineup, a paper-thin rotation, a mediocre-at-best bullpen and a farm system with some decent players who don't appear to be Major League ready for the start of '09.
If they're not the worst team in baseball this year they'll be in the bottom three or four for sure.
KW
Henderson, Rice get into HOF
Great to see Rice finally get in...
I'm not sure why he kept gaining votes year after year but whatever, he's now where he belongs. Maybe the steroid era has made people re-think his power numbers and what they meant to his era.
Henderson was a no-brainer. I just want to know who the 5% of voters are who didn't put him on their ballot. I still don't understand why some members of the BBWAA have to stick with this "nobody should ever be a unanimous selection" crap. I've said it before and I'll say it again: just because some baseball writers were to stupid/stubborn/biased to put Babe Ruth, Ty Cobb, Walter Johnson or Christy Mathewson on their ballots way-back-when doesn't mean members of the BBWAA have to uphold that stupidity in the modern day.
Hard to believe we have such "simple thinkers" in the year 2008.
Sorry to see the other three guys on my faux ballot (I don't have a real one) didn't make it:
http://thebaseballgods.blogspot.com/2008/12/hof-2009-heres-who-id-vote-for.html
Andre Dawson (65.9%), Jack Morris (42.9%) and Alan Trammell (18.2%) did live to fight another day. Looks like The Hawk might have a chance but Morris and Trammell appear to be just about out of luck.
KW
Note: I'll start up with my pre-season MLB power rankings later tonight w/ a shapshot look at my preseason #30...
I'm not sure why he kept gaining votes year after year but whatever, he's now where he belongs. Maybe the steroid era has made people re-think his power numbers and what they meant to his era.
Henderson was a no-brainer. I just want to know who the 5% of voters are who didn't put him on their ballot. I still don't understand why some members of the BBWAA have to stick with this "nobody should ever be a unanimous selection" crap. I've said it before and I'll say it again: just because some baseball writers were to stupid/stubborn/biased to put Babe Ruth, Ty Cobb, Walter Johnson or Christy Mathewson on their ballots way-back-when doesn't mean members of the BBWAA have to uphold that stupidity in the modern day.
Hard to believe we have such "simple thinkers" in the year 2008.
Sorry to see the other three guys on my faux ballot (I don't have a real one) didn't make it:
http://thebaseballgods.blogspot.com/2008/12/hof-2009-heres-who-id-vote-for.html
Andre Dawson (65.9%), Jack Morris (42.9%) and Alan Trammell (18.2%) did live to fight another day. Looks like The Hawk might have a chance but Morris and Trammell appear to be just about out of luck.
KW
Note: I'll start up with my pre-season MLB power rankings later tonight w/ a shapshot look at my preseason #30...
Wednesday, January 7, 2009
MLB & the economy - are they really feeling the crunch already?
Lots of grumbling around MLB these days about the economy. Had a chance to talk to http://www.sabernomics.com/ author J.C. Bradbury on Sports Open Line on Newstalk 1120 KMOX in St. Louis (my real job) about what owners are saying and how that matches up with reality.
We also talked about the idea of putting a in a salary cap in Major League Baseball...
Neither of us are a big fan of the idea....
Check it out:
Part 1
http://www.kmox.com/episode_download.php?contentType=36&contentId=3298698
Part 2
http://www.kmox.com/episode_download.php?contentType=36&contentId=3298700
OR
http://www.kmox.com/pages/67880.php?
KW
We also talked about the idea of putting a in a salary cap in Major League Baseball...
Neither of us are a big fan of the idea....
Check it out:
Part 1
http://www.kmox.com/episode_download.php?contentType=36&contentId=3298698
Part 2
http://www.kmox.com/episode_download.php?contentType=36&contentId=3298700
OR
http://www.kmox.com/pages/67880.php?
KW
Monday, January 5, 2009
Salary caps bite
Count owners Drayton McLane (Astros), Mark Attanasio (Brewers) and Frank Coonelly (Pirates) in amongst those who want a salary cap in MLB.
There's a shocker. Really rich guys want to be "bailed out" because of their own ineptitude. Gee, where have I heard that before?
I'm sorry but this "baseball needs a salary cap" garbage just has to stop. Really. Like now.
Here are a couple of salary cap myths that I will proceed to smash into dust...
1. Salary caps make things more fair and creates a level playing field for all teams.
Salary caps do not make a sport more "fair," as is often alleged. They do not create parity and they certainly don't do anything to make the sport more "fan friendly."
Salary caps do one thing and one thing only: guarantee a larger profit for ownership.
That's it, nothing more.
That's not a terrible thing, by the way, it's just not how the whole thing is sold to sports fans. These bazillionaire owners know you'd tell them to stick it where the sun don't shine if they told you the truth about salary caps so they feed you a line of b.s. to get you to go along with the program.
Which sport has lowered ticket/concession prices for you after getting a salary cap? What have those leagues with caps done to make your life as a fan more enjoyable?
What caps usually mean is that teams have to let some of your favorite/most popular players leave via free agency because they're capped out and can't keep them.
Man, I love when that happens to my teams!
Caps also don't account for the amount of money teams have available to spend on bonuses, front office personnel, coaches and scouts. Even if it levels the playing field for player salaries - which it does not when you consider bonus money - it does nothing of the sort for any of the other important areas of the sport.
2. Salary caps create parity
That is the biggest, steamiest pile of dog poo ever foisted upon sports fans.
Look, there is parity in the NFL for one simple reason. THEY ONLY PLAY 16 GAMES!
It's the sample size, stupid.
Anything, and I mean ANYTHING, can happen during a 16-game season. Hell, even the Royals can go 11-5 during a 16-game stretch. The reason there is so much turnover in terms of playoff teams in the NFL is that they play a very short schedule.
It's pure statistics. If you do an exit poll during a presidential election you're not going to get an accurate result if you only poll 16 people. If you poll 1600 people you're starting to get to the point where you can actually learn something from your polling.
Baseball will NEVER have parity like the NFL has (nor will the NHL or NBA) because they play too many games. Over 162 games the cream will eventually rise to the top. A 4-game winning streak in the NFL is the statistical equivalent to a 40-game winning streak in baseball.
It's not the cap, it's the number of games that creates parity.
Here are a couple of other factors that should be considered if you want to advocate for a salary cap in baseball:
* With a "cap" comes a "floor." Do you really think teams like Florida, Tampa Bay, Oakland, Pittsburg and Minnesota want to add $15-20 million to their payrolls to reach a "floor" that will certainly be negotiated. Maybe, but only if...
* You add in TOTAL revenue sharing like they have in the NFL. Do you really think the owners of the Yankees, Mets, Red Sox, Angels and Dodgers want to give away a huge chunk of their own revenue to other teams? They already chip in to revenue sharing and the luxury tax, which goes to all those teams listed above anyway (which they seem to always pocket), so do you think they're going to be thrilled about the idea of giving away even more.
The MLBPA is not the only opponent a salary cap would face. I'd bet owners would be split 50-50 on this issue - at best.
* Isn't it funny that all these super-wealthy MLB owners love the capitalist system we have in the United States of America when it comes to their non-sport businesses but they're oh-too-happy to switch over to a socialist system when it comes to their sports team?
Can't have it both ways fellas. You either want to share-and-share-alike or you don't...
There is nothing wrong with the current baseball system. The Yankees can spend all they want and if they go too far, which they always do, then they've got to write a luxury tax check on top of what they spend.
Baseball's current system does a fine job of spreading the wealth, they just need to tweak the rules so those receiving checks have to SPEND THE MONEY on talent instead of just pocketing it.
Make no mistake about it, those low payroll teams make a profit every single year.
If they want to compete at a higher level maybe they need to cut back on profit a little for a couple of years and add some to the infrastructure of their franchise. Stop giving big contracts to mediocre players for the sole purpose of trying to convince your fans you're "doing something" and hire smart baseball men to make smart decisions.
In other words, your teams stink because of YOU and the people YOU hire, not because other teams have more cash on hand...
KW
There's a shocker. Really rich guys want to be "bailed out" because of their own ineptitude. Gee, where have I heard that before?
I'm sorry but this "baseball needs a salary cap" garbage just has to stop. Really. Like now.
Here are a couple of salary cap myths that I will proceed to smash into dust...
1. Salary caps make things more fair and creates a level playing field for all teams.
Salary caps do not make a sport more "fair," as is often alleged. They do not create parity and they certainly don't do anything to make the sport more "fan friendly."
Salary caps do one thing and one thing only: guarantee a larger profit for ownership.
That's it, nothing more.
That's not a terrible thing, by the way, it's just not how the whole thing is sold to sports fans. These bazillionaire owners know you'd tell them to stick it where the sun don't shine if they told you the truth about salary caps so they feed you a line of b.s. to get you to go along with the program.
Which sport has lowered ticket/concession prices for you after getting a salary cap? What have those leagues with caps done to make your life as a fan more enjoyable?
What caps usually mean is that teams have to let some of your favorite/most popular players leave via free agency because they're capped out and can't keep them.
Man, I love when that happens to my teams!
Caps also don't account for the amount of money teams have available to spend on bonuses, front office personnel, coaches and scouts. Even if it levels the playing field for player salaries - which it does not when you consider bonus money - it does nothing of the sort for any of the other important areas of the sport.
2. Salary caps create parity
That is the biggest, steamiest pile of dog poo ever foisted upon sports fans.
Look, there is parity in the NFL for one simple reason. THEY ONLY PLAY 16 GAMES!
It's the sample size, stupid.
Anything, and I mean ANYTHING, can happen during a 16-game season. Hell, even the Royals can go 11-5 during a 16-game stretch. The reason there is so much turnover in terms of playoff teams in the NFL is that they play a very short schedule.
It's pure statistics. If you do an exit poll during a presidential election you're not going to get an accurate result if you only poll 16 people. If you poll 1600 people you're starting to get to the point where you can actually learn something from your polling.
Baseball will NEVER have parity like the NFL has (nor will the NHL or NBA) because they play too many games. Over 162 games the cream will eventually rise to the top. A 4-game winning streak in the NFL is the statistical equivalent to a 40-game winning streak in baseball.
It's not the cap, it's the number of games that creates parity.
Here are a couple of other factors that should be considered if you want to advocate for a salary cap in baseball:
* With a "cap" comes a "floor." Do you really think teams like Florida, Tampa Bay, Oakland, Pittsburg and Minnesota want to add $15-20 million to their payrolls to reach a "floor" that will certainly be negotiated. Maybe, but only if...
* You add in TOTAL revenue sharing like they have in the NFL. Do you really think the owners of the Yankees, Mets, Red Sox, Angels and Dodgers want to give away a huge chunk of their own revenue to other teams? They already chip in to revenue sharing and the luxury tax, which goes to all those teams listed above anyway (which they seem to always pocket), so do you think they're going to be thrilled about the idea of giving away even more.
The MLBPA is not the only opponent a salary cap would face. I'd bet owners would be split 50-50 on this issue - at best.
* Isn't it funny that all these super-wealthy MLB owners love the capitalist system we have in the United States of America when it comes to their non-sport businesses but they're oh-too-happy to switch over to a socialist system when it comes to their sports team?
Can't have it both ways fellas. You either want to share-and-share-alike or you don't...
There is nothing wrong with the current baseball system. The Yankees can spend all they want and if they go too far, which they always do, then they've got to write a luxury tax check on top of what they spend.
Baseball's current system does a fine job of spreading the wealth, they just need to tweak the rules so those receiving checks have to SPEND THE MONEY on talent instead of just pocketing it.
Make no mistake about it, those low payroll teams make a profit every single year.
If they want to compete at a higher level maybe they need to cut back on profit a little for a couple of years and add some to the infrastructure of their franchise. Stop giving big contracts to mediocre players for the sole purpose of trying to convince your fans you're "doing something" and hire smart baseball men to make smart decisions.
In other words, your teams stink because of YOU and the people YOU hire, not because other teams have more cash on hand...
KW
Milton Bradley helps the Cubbies?
What the hell are the Cubbies doing? $30 million over 3-years for Milton Bradley?
Bad move, my friends, bad move.
Not only is the guy a total headcase he's also injury prone and only seems interested in himself.
Hell, there's a reason a guy as gifted a Bradley is has played for 6 teams in parts of 9 Major League seasons. The guy can play all three outfield positions, he hits for average, draws walks, has really good power and can run a little bit too but nobody wants to keep him around...
Hmm, I wonder why that is?
The crazy thing about this move for the Cubbies is that they had to move Mark DeRosa to, allegedly, clear room in the budget to give Bradley $10 million a year.
Let's see, we're gonna move a great clubhouse guy who can play pretty much anywhere on the field while providing pretty good offense so we can fit in a headcase of an outfielder and pay the headcase twice as much as the good clubhouse guy?
Boy, that headcase must be a much more productive player than the good clubhouse guy.
Okay, maybe not...
Over the last three seasons (2006-2008) DeRosa has hit .291 with 44 HR, 233 RBI and posted an .821 OPS while playing 1527 games and providing solid defense at 6 different positions.
In that same time frame Bradley hit .302 with 49 HR, 166 RBI and posted a .923 OPS when he played. Key words: "when he played." Bradley has averaged just 325 at-bats per season from '06-'08 and no better than that during his career.
In fact, Bradley has only one 500 AB season and 2008 marked only the second time he's even reached 400 AB.
Yeah, Bradley is a better/more talented player than DeRosa but is he really "better" when you factor in the 30-40 games he's going to miss? Is he really so much better than DeRosa that he deserves to be paid twice what DeRosa will make?
No and no.
So the Cubs are making this deal - paying this kind of cash - and trading off a durable, reliable all-around player based on the assumption that somehow Bradley will miraculously do in his 30's what he never did in his 20's, which is stay healthy and motivated?
Okie dokie.
Glad it's not my money and glad I'm not a Cubs fan...
KW
Bad move, my friends, bad move.
Not only is the guy a total headcase he's also injury prone and only seems interested in himself.
Hell, there's a reason a guy as gifted a Bradley is has played for 6 teams in parts of 9 Major League seasons. The guy can play all three outfield positions, he hits for average, draws walks, has really good power and can run a little bit too but nobody wants to keep him around...
Hmm, I wonder why that is?
The crazy thing about this move for the Cubbies is that they had to move Mark DeRosa to, allegedly, clear room in the budget to give Bradley $10 million a year.
Let's see, we're gonna move a great clubhouse guy who can play pretty much anywhere on the field while providing pretty good offense so we can fit in a headcase of an outfielder and pay the headcase twice as much as the good clubhouse guy?
Boy, that headcase must be a much more productive player than the good clubhouse guy.
Okay, maybe not...
Over the last three seasons (2006-2008) DeRosa has hit .291 with 44 HR, 233 RBI and posted an .821 OPS while playing 1527 games and providing solid defense at 6 different positions.
In that same time frame Bradley hit .302 with 49 HR, 166 RBI and posted a .923 OPS when he played. Key words: "when he played." Bradley has averaged just 325 at-bats per season from '06-'08 and no better than that during his career.
In fact, Bradley has only one 500 AB season and 2008 marked only the second time he's even reached 400 AB.
Yeah, Bradley is a better/more talented player than DeRosa but is he really "better" when you factor in the 30-40 games he's going to miss? Is he really so much better than DeRosa that he deserves to be paid twice what DeRosa will make?
No and no.
So the Cubs are making this deal - paying this kind of cash - and trading off a durable, reliable all-around player based on the assumption that somehow Bradley will miraculously do in his 30's what he never did in his 20's, which is stay healthy and motivated?
Okie dokie.
Glad it's not my money and glad I'm not a Cubs fan...
KW
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
