2010 December « Mike Scioscia's tragic illness

On The Topic of “Aces”

December 31, 2010 at 10:00 am | Posted in aces, Bert Blyleven, Ivan DeJesus, Jack Morris | 46 Comments

Other than pointing out that Jack Morris wasn’t really any better than Orel Hershiser the other day, I’ve tried to steer clear of the Hall of Fame debate around here. Part of that is because gallons of virtual ink has already been spilled on the “Morris vs. Bert Blyleven” and “no, you can’t just baselessly accuse Jeff Bagwell of juicing” debates, and the world hardly needs another viewpoint on that. Also, none of this has really been Dodger-related, since no prominent Dodgers are up for inclusion.

However, a Twitter conversation I had with SI’s Jon Heyman (and for all the garbage everyone gives him, I respect that he’s at least willing to have the conversation, wrong as he may be) brought up a topic that we’ve been talking about here on this blog for years: the topic of “aces”. This has been relevant to the Dodgers for a while because uninformed media members continually state that the Dodgers need an ace, conveniently ignoring the ascent of Clayton Kershaw.

This all started this morning when Heyman asked, “why was morris ace of great teams and bert no. 2 on good/bad/soso teams?”

That right there is a huge problem, for two reasons. The term “ace” is so subjective, and in large part is not something a player can control. Remember, the point of advanced statistics is to eliminate the noise of things that a player cannot control and focus on the things he can. It’s why we know wins are stupid, because they don’t account for offense or defense. It’s why we know RBI are irrelevant, because it’s almost entirely dependent on coming to the plate with men already on base.

Trying to declare someone an “ace” is just as troublesome. First, what determines an “ace”? Is it being the Opening Day starter, as so many have pointed to in defense of Morris, who made 14 straight such appearances from 1980-1993? By that logic, Vicente Padilla was the ace of the 2010 Dodgers. (h/t Chad Moriyama on that one). Is it having the most wins? If so, Chad Billingsley was the ace of the 2009 Dodgers, and you don’t need me to remind you how people felt about him after the season. Is it who starts the first game of the playoffs, as Heyman seems to be claiming with Morris? If so, then Randy Wolf was the ace of the 2009 team, as though choosing your Game 1 starter doesn’t depend on opponent, location, or how the rotation lined up if you weren’t lucky enough to clinch early. In 1993, Jack Morris was 7-12 with a 6.19 ERA for a championship Blue Jays team. He started on Opening Day. Was he really that team’s ace?

So right there we can prove that identifying someone as the “ace” is subjective and nearly impossible. But it doesn’t stop there. Even if you could find a way to identify someone as the “ace” (yes, I’d suggest WAR or ERA+, but clearly that won’t satisfy everyone) there’s also the issue of competition. As I argued to Heyman, players don’t put together the roster, and neither do the managers who choose playoff and Opening Day starters.

What that means is that you could be the third best pitcher in baseball, but if you’re teammates with one of the two guys better than you, technically you’re not the “ace”. I’m sure there’s dozens of examples, but two that came to mind immediately for me were Don Drysdale and Tom Glavine. Drysdale’s a Hall of Famer, and Glavine likely will be. Yet for much of their careers, they were outdone by teammates Sandy Koufax and Greg Maddux, who are probably two of the five best pitchers of all time. Does not being the “ace” make Drysdale or Glavine any lesser pitchers, just because they happened to be paired with legends? I think not. It’s just more evidence why trying to determine an “ace” is silly, because I’m sure we would have preferred Glavine in the mid-90s to whomever you considered the Dodger ace at the time, like Hideo Nomo or Ismael Valdes.

Heyman’s reply to that was that Blyleven wasn’t paired with talent like that on the Twins, Pirates, and Indians, and therefore if he was really that good, should have been the unquestioned ace. Yet I’m having trouble seeing what exactly made him not the ace. He started on Opening Day 12 times, if that means anything to you, just one less than Morris. Is it because he didn’t start the first game of the playoffs? His teams made the playoffs just three times; in 1970, the first of those times, he was just 19 years old. In 1979, he’d pitched in the final game of the season, making him unavailable for Game 1, plus he had well-known personal issues with Pirates manager Chuck Tanner. The same happened in 1987, where he’d pitched Game 162 and pitched Game 2 while Frank Viola – a very good pitcher in his day – started Game 1. As Mike Axisa of River Ave Blues points out, C.C. Sabathia didn’t start Game 1 of the 2008 NLDS either. You know why? He was pitching a complete game on the last day of the season to push the Brewers into the playoffs. Yet you’d consider him an “ace”, wouldn’t you?

If Blyleven wasn’t seen as the ace of his teams at the time, it’s because unenlightened spectators of the day placed far too much importance in his unimportant win/loss record. It’s because circumstances out of his control prevented him from pitching Game 1 of the playoffs. It’s because we know more now than we did then.

But mostly, it’s because claiming someone as an “ace” is often impossible. There’s no standard for it. It’s often based on flawed statistics like wins, or a manager’s gut feeling on Opening Day, or who your teammates happen to be, or how the schedule plays out for the playoffs. There’s probably no such thing as an “ace”, and it shouldn’t be a concern in Hall of Fame voting.

(This will not stop me from calling Clayton Kershaw an ace all season long, of course.)

******

Back to the Dodgers, this isn’t good news for anyone hoping Ivan DeJesus would grab the 2B job in camp, thus pushing Juan Uribe to 3B and Casey Blake to LF. Over at Minor League Ball, John Sickels ranks his top 20 Dodger prospects. It’s no surprise that Dee Gordon, Jerry Sands, and Trayvon Robinson are the top 3, but DeJesus didn’t even make the list, rather placing in the honorable mentions. I said back in October that I didn’t think he was ready to make the leap to start the year, and Sickels’ assessment doesn’t add a lot of optimism there. That’s not to say I think DeJesus is a non-prospect – far from it. He’ll have a major league career, but it’s unlikely he’ll be above average, or someone we should be waiting on to break through. Yes, his AFL performance was impressive, but don’t put too much stock into small sample size stats against varying competition.

Dodgers Finally Say Goodbye to Chin-Lung Hu

December 27, 2010 at 2:41 pm | Posted in Chin-Lung Hu, Michael Antonini, Takashi Saito | 28 Comments

Finally, some news to break the holiday doldrums. According to the official Dodgers Twitter feed, Chin-lung Hu has been traded to the Mets for minor league lefty Michael Antonini.

This comes as no surprise, of course. Hu is out of options and had done little to force his way into a big-league roster spot, though it must be noted that the Dodgers often let useless veterans get chances before him. Between the need to open up a 40-man roster spot and the very small likelihood that Hu was making the big club, he was almost certainly going to be moved before the season started.

That being the case, you wouldn’t expect to get back much of a prospect, and Antonini, an 18th-round pick in 2007, isn’t great. He wasn’t even mentioned in Baseball Prospectus’ look at the Mets top 20 prospects last week, and while the Dodger tweet mentioned his “4.04 career ERA”, much of that was accumulated at the lower levels. In two brief tastes of AAA the last two seasons, he’s been lit up, allowing a 1.556 WHIP and 12.4 hits/9. I can’t find much scouting info on him, but considering he’s a lefty with good control (7.0 K/9, 2.1 BB/9 over his career), I’m guessing that means he’s a soft-tosser. Albuquerque will love him, and he’s basically a non-entity.

Still, as far as mediocre non-prospects go, you may prefer the lefty starter with good control over the slick-fielding shortstop who can’t hit, if you have a preference at all. Really, this is a low-impact trade, as trades come. The only worry here is that with Hu gone, and assuming that Ivan DeJesus does not make the team out of camp, is this another step in the direction of wasting a roster spot (not to mention oxygen) on one of the worst players in big league history, Juan Castro?

******

Totally unrelated, but the Brewers signed former Dodger Takashi Saito to a one-year deal for a base salary under $2m today. Saito will be 41 soon, and his arm is held together with jelly beans and masking tape. He also had a lower WHIP and more than double the K/9 rate that Matt Guerrier did last year. So tell me this, would you rather have given Saito ~$2m for 2011, or Guerrier $12m for 2011-13? Especially when ESPN’s Buster Olney spends half his column today talking about how three-year deals for relievers, especially non-elite ones, almost never work out?

Happy Holidays

December 24, 2010 at 8:40 am | Posted in Orel Hershiser, Scott Podsednik | 35 Comments

…and all I want under my tree is for the Reds or Angels to do us a solid and turn their supposed interest in Scott Podsednik into a real signing, thus taking the never-ending temptation away from Ned Colletti.

******

We all like to act as though our favorite team doesn’t get the respect it deserves, I know. Yet Buster Olney’s poll of baseball executives about the top starting rotations in the game seems a bit off, no?

The Phillies got all 16 first-place votes, and the San Francisco Giants — with Tim Lincecum, Matt Cain, Jonathan Sanchez, Barry Zito and Madison Bumgarner — were an overwhelming pick as the second-best rotation. The results (a first-place vote was worth five points, a second-place vote was worth four points, etc.):

1. Philadelphia Phillies — 80 points (16 first place votes)
2. San Francisco Giants — 61 points (14 second-place votes, one third-place vote, one fourth-place vote)
3. Tampa Bay Rays — 24 points (including five third-place votes)
3. Boston Red Sox — 24 points (including two second-place votes).
5. Oakland Athletics — 14 points
6. St. Louis Cardinals — 12 points
7. Milwaukee Brewers — 10 points
8. Chicago White Sox — 6 points
9. Atlanta Braves — 5 points
10. Detroit Tigers — 2 points

You’ll get no argument here that the Phillies are the top of the class. Yet shouldn’t the Dodgers, with arguably the deepest rotation in the NL, at least place in the top 1/3 of the sport?

Last week, in the aftermath of the Zack Greinke and Shaun Marcum deals, Milwaukee blog The Brewers Bar tried to rank where the new-and-improved Brewer rotation would rank in the league by 2010 WAR (which is admittedly not perfect, as 2011 performances won’t be identical, but close enough). They actually omitted the Dodgers at first as well, until it was pointed out that the 16.7 WAR of the expected LA top five is actually superior to everyone except for the Phillies. That’s right, higher than St. Louis’ 16.0 and San Francisco’s 15.7. You know why? Because while Clayton Kershaw & Chad Billingsley may not be Tim Lincecum & Matt Cain or Chris Carpenter & Adam Wainwright (though you could certainly argue they’re not far off), it takes five men to have a rotation, not two or three.

I mean, Detroit? Sure, I’d love to have Justin Verlander fronting my rotation, and Max Scherzer‘s a quality young arm. Beyond that they have… Rick Porcello, a talented prospect who had nearly a 5.00 ERA last year? Converted reliever Phil Coke?

There’s plenty of reasons to bag on the Dodgers – believe me, I know. Let’s at least give credit where credit is due, and from 1-5 (and even 6), the Dodgers look to have one of the most solid rotations in the big leagues.

******
Totally unrelated: we all loved Orel Hershiser, right? The 1988 season that still ranks among the greatest of all time, the scoreless inning streak, the ’88 playoff performance, the 19-3 1985, several quality seasons and postseasons with Cleveland after leaving the Dodgers; put it all together, and it adds up to 51.5 WAR, good for 58th all time among pitchers.

Orel Hershiser’s one of the best pitchers in Dodger history. But he’s not a Hall of Famer, I think we can all agree. That WAR total looks a lot less impressive when you realize that some of the comparable totals around him belong to guys like David Wells, Kevin Appier, Dave Steib, and Andy Pettitte. Those are pitchers who were very successful over a very long period – at times amongst the best in the game – yet fall just short of immortality. The Hall of Fame agreed; Hershiser received 11.2% of the vote in his first year of eligibility in 2006, and that fell to 4.4% in 2007, after which he was removed from the ballot.

The only reason I bring this up is because someone on Twitter – and I completely cannot remember who, so apologies – pointed out that Hershiser is a very similar, and in many ways superior, pitcher to Jack Morris. They each pitched in parts of 18 seasons, and they each are known for superlative playoff performances (Hershiser in 1988 and 1995-97, Morris in 1991). They had identical winning percentages and K/9 rates, and while Morris had more wins, Hershiser beats him in WHIP, ERA+, BB/9, and postseason stats (Morris had quite a few stinkers in October). Despite pitching 700 more innings, Morris gets destroyed in career WAR, at only 39.3 to Hershiser’s 51.5. That puts him in the range of Al Leiter, Tom Candiotti, and Brad Radke.

Orel Hershiser, a superior pitcher, fell off the ballot after just two years. Yet Jack Morris, a lesser performer, made it up to 44% last year in his 10th year, and seems likely to get even closer to induction – if not all the way in – this year. Just remember that when the results are announced.

Hershiser was a very good pitcher who falls short of the Hall of Fame standard. If Morris makes it in, what do you say to Orel?

Who Will Make Up the 2011 Albuquerque Isotopes?

December 21, 2010 at 9:40 am | Posted in A.J. Ellis, Albuquerque Isotopes, Dee Gordon, John Ely, Jon Link, Oscar Villarreal, Scott Nestor | 44 Comments

Last weekend, my friends at River Ave. Blues took a stab at predicting what the AAA roster for the Yankee farm club in Scranton might look like in 2010. I found it interesting, and I liked it, so I’m going to shamelessly steal the idea and apply it to the Dodgers.

Let’s be clear that it’s not even Christmas yet, and this is all subject to change. Trades could happen. Injuries could happen. Prospects who we expect to see in AAA could start the year in AA, or vice-versa. More veterans can (and almost certainly will) be invited to camp on non-roster contracts, and while some will end up in ABQ, some will wash out entirely.

All that said, I had a surprisingly easy time putting the 24-man (yes, 24) Isotope roster together, especially for a team that ran 66 players through town last year. Let’s check it out.

Offense

C: Seven players suited up behind the plate for the Isotopes in 2010, though the majority of the work went to Luke May, who’s now in Kansas City. With the signing of Dioner Navarro, A.J. Ellis likely starts his fourth AAA season as the main backstop. I like to think he has a chance of beating Navarro out with a good spring, but if the Dodgers were foolish enough to give Navarro a $1m MLB contract, they’re probably not cutting him short of disaster. Last year’s backup, JD Closser, was re-signed recently and is likely to fill the same role again. There’s a non-zero chance of Hector Gimenez, inexplicably added to the 40-man roster, pushing aside Closser, but we’ll stick with the veteran for now.

1B: John Lindsey‘s not DFA’d yet, but he soon will be to clear up badly-needed space on the 40-man roster. One would think that he’d be willing to sign a minor league deal to return, though it’s hardly a certainty. For now, let’s say that he will. Prospect Jerry Sands will see some time at first base as well.

2B: There’s still a chance that Ivan DeJesus forces his way onto the Opening Day roster in Los Angeles, moving Juan Uribe to 3B and Casey Blake to LF. I consider that to be less than a 50% chance, however, so it’s more than likely that DeJesus starts 2011 as the Isotope second baseman.

3B: Russ Mitchell made his Dodger debut in 2010, but he fulfilled low expectations by being pretty awful. Some may say that he’s in the running for a bench job in 2011; I just don’t see it, and there’s not really anyone behind him to play 3B in ABQ anyway. He starts here, at least in April.

SS: Here’s the first real question mark. Dee Gordon received an aggressive promotion to AA Chattanooga last year, and was good but not great. He noted on his Twitter recently that he had not yet been told whether he’ll start the year in AA or AAA. Much probably depends on his spring performance, and neither would surprise me; if I had to pick right now my guess is that he’ll probably start in AA and move up later in the year. That’d leave Justin Sellers, who hit an ABQ-fueled .867 OPS last year, to remain as the Isotope shortstop.

LF: Though he’ll play some first base as well, Jerry Sands likely sees the bulk of his time in left field. After his impressive tear through the minors last year, it’ll be fun to see what he can do at ABQ, and it’s not out of the question to think he can make it to Los Angeles by September.

CF: Joining Sands in the outfield will almost certainly be Trayvon Robinson, who had a very good year in AA last season and has nothing left to prove in Tennessee. He’s already on the 40-man roster, and he could also be a candidate for an MLB callup at some point in 2011.

RF: Jamie Hoffmann may have a better chance at winning a big league bench gig than you think. He’s right-handed, has big-league experience, and he’s a plus defender, attributes which fit perfectly on the current roster. Still, while we’ll see him at some point, I’m doubting it’s to start the season. Trent Oeltjen, who played 41 games in RF last year before being recalled, and who recently re-signed with the Dodgers, will also get plenty of time.

Bench: Former Giant Eugenio Velez, signed to a minor-league deal which I surprisingly did not hate, will battle for an MLB job but likely fills the role of AAA utility guy. He can play 2B and all three OF spots. Whomever isn’t starting between Oeltjen and Hoffmann on a given day will fill one spot, as well. Then there’s Juan Castro, who you may remember as one of the worst hitters in the history of the big leagues. I cannot imagine he makes the big league team, yet as I noted when he was signed, he doesn’t generally end up in the minors. So I’m going to say that he doesn’t go to Albuquerque, and the spot is filled by either a veteran NRI we’re not aware of yet or Travis Denker, who has some MLB experience and ended last season in Albuquerque. My guess is that’ll last only until Gordon is recalled, and Sellers is pushed into a reserve role.

Others: Xavier Paul & Chin-lung Hu are no strangers to AAA, and neither seems to have a spot saved for them on the big club. However, both are out of options, so expect one or both to be traded. Paul would have almost no chance of slipping through waivers, so he wouldn’t be back in Albuquerque; Hu may make it through, but even that’s unlikely.

C – A.J. Ellis
C – JD Closser
1B - John Lindsey?
2B – Ivan DeJesus
SS – Justin Sellers
3B – Russ Mitchell
IF – Travis Denker / NRI
LF – Jerry Sands
CF – Trayvon Robinson
RF – Jamie Hoffmann
OF – Trent Oeltjen
UT – Eugenio Velez

Pitching – Starting Rotation

I’ve given 12 spots to offense, and that leaves 12 left for the pitching staff.

The rotation is a little easier to peg than in previous years, because there’s not a mess of guys competing for the 5th starter role on the big club. So while I do expect we’ll see someone like John Ely at some point in the season, he’s definitely starting 2011 in AAA. The same goes for Carlos Monasterios, now that he’s finished his Rule V status and is Dodger property; though he was more effective as a reliever in the bigs, he needs innings more than anything and so likely slots into the Isotope rotation.

They’ll be joined by veterans Dana Eveland, who signed a minor-league deal in November, and I believe Tim Corcoran, who started 18 games last year. I can’t find evidence of Corcoran having re-signed, but the Albuquerque Examiner refers to him as a “returning veteran”, so I’ll take that as close enough. (Update: in the comments, Chris Jackson of the Examiner directs me to this Baseball America link confirming Corcoran’s re-signing. Thanks, Chris.)

For the 5th spot… well, who knows. This is a great spot for an NRI, or an injured big leaguer who starts the year on rehab. I’m going to start with Brent Leach, who you may remember as a reliever with the Dodgers in 2009. He spent 2010 transitioning to a starter, and it didn’t go particularly well. Still, he’s 28 now, so it’s now or never. (Commenter Jeromy points out that Leach signed in Japan yesterday. Oh well.) Or maybe it’s Antonio Bastardo, who’s seen AAA time in each of the last two seasons but has never been able to stick. Maybe it’s Rubby De La Rosa, who had a breakout year last year but probably needs more than 8 AA games, or Mario Alvarez or Jesus Castillo, who each will be 26 and started 19 games in AA last year. Or even Chris Withrow, who started more games at AA than anyone last year and is still just 22, but had a pretty disappointing year. Likely, it’s some combination of all of them.

Remember, though, as often as the 5th rotation spot tends to change in the big leagues, it’s even crazier in the minors. The Isotopes had 22 starting pitchers last year, though several were rehab one-offs, so whomever begins as the final starter certainly won’t end that way.

Pitching – Relievers

The bullpen’s even tougher to predict. Are Travis Schlichting, Jon Link, and Ramon Troncoso likely going to be squeezed out by the overstuff big league staff? Most likely, but they’ll all almost certainly get their chances in LA as well as injuries mount. Throw in Josh Lindblom to that mix, who seems perpetually on the edge of breaking through but just hasn’t been able to make it happen, and Oscar Villarreal, signed as a veteran free agent. I’m also going to include Scott Elbert here, because even though I do think he has a chance to be the second lefty in the big league bullpen, his disastrous and mysterious 2010 makes it not the worst idea in the world for him to start off in the minors.

For the last spot? Pick a name out of a hat. Maybe it’s another veteran NRI, like Justin Miller last season. Maybe Jesus Rodriguez, who pitched 27 not-very-effective games for the club last year. Maybe former first-round pick James Adkins, who struck out 9.9/9 in AA in 2010, or Javy Guerra, who impressed for the Lookouts, or Wilkin De La Rosa, who just recently signed from the Yankees. Like with the #5 starter, this is a spot which will rotate constantly. I’m going to start with a dark horse, 28-year-old Jon Huber, who pitched in AA last year and re-signed last month. He has some big-league experience with Seattle and had a fantastic 48/11 K/BB with Chattanooga; I doubt he would have signed without a decent chance to move up a level. Again, we’ll see plenty of guys there.

SP – John Ely
SP – Dana Eveland
SP - Tim Corcoran
SP – Carlos Monasterios
SP - Bastardo / Alvarez / NRI

RP – Travis Schlichting
RP – Ramon Troncoso
RP – Scott Elbert
RP – Jon Link
RP – Josh Lindblom
RP – Oscar Villarreal
RP – Jon Huber / NRI

I don’t consider myself a prospect expert, so feel free to disagree with me, and we all know there’s still going to be some movement around the edges, but I think this is pretty close. And honestly, it’s not a bad group. There’s some star potential in Robinson and Sands – more if Gordon makes it – some decent offensive depth in Ellis, Hoffmann, Velez, and Oeltjen, and a ton of relief options. Really, the only weakness here is in the rotation, where Eveland and Corcoran are disposable veterans and neither Ely nor Monasterios offer high-ceiling potential. That said, Ely & Monasterios have each had their moments in the bigs and are far superior to last year’s Ortiz buffet plate, and with the way Ned Colletti has put together the big league staff, you hopefully don’t need to dip into the minors that often.

Update: Per MLBtraderumors, the Dodgers have signed someone named Scott Nestor to a minor-league deal. He’s got a high strikeout rate but walks approximately one billion per nine, and yep, he was in the Giants system last year. Toss him into the Isotopes bullpen mix as well.

Outfield Trade Possibility: Mike Morse

December 20, 2010 at 10:06 am | Posted in Mike Morse | 87 Comments

Back in my 2011 plan, I proposed trading Russell Martin for a late-20s right-handed outfielder with some positional flexibility and a penchant for crushing lefty pitching, Ryan Raburn. Obviously, that didn’t happen; Martin’s in New York, and Raburn’s staying with Detroit. That doesn’t mean the need has been filled on the Los Angeles end, though. I don’t have to remind you that the Dodgers desperately need a right-handed bat with some power to play the outfield, and the interest in Bill Hall shows that they would value the ability to play more than one position, if only as a secondary skill.

So I ask you this: what about going after a similar player to Raburn, Mike Morse of the Nationals?

The massive (6’5″, 240) Morse was a 3rd-round selection of the White Sox in 2000, and spent the decade bouncing between the systems of Chicago, Seattle, and Washington. He made his big league debut in 2005, and though he’s seen MLB time in every season since, he’s only received 685 total plate appearances during that time. We should note that he was suspended in 2005 for taking performance-enhancing drugs while a minor-leaguer in 2003, an accusation he admitted to. Morse landed in Washington in exchange for the immortal Ryan Langerhans in a minor June 2009 trade, and saw only 55 PA during his first season as a National. It seems he never quite broke through because of the suspension, questions about his defense, and injuries, though in parts of 5 AAA seasons he did manage an .814 OPS.

2010 didn’t start out much better – just 17 PA through the end of May – but once Morse finally got a chance, he was outstanding, putting up a line of .289/.352/.519 with 15 HR in just under 300 PA. If he’d had enough plate appearances to qualify, his .870 OPS would have ranked 24th in MLB, ahead of Ryan Braun, Ryan Howard, and Andre Ethier. Though he handled righty pitching just fine, he was deadly against southpaws, putting up a .999 OPS in 2010, and a .893 OPS over his career.

Morse came up as a shortstop – he actually started 50 games there for Seattle in 2006 – and he has some experience at the infield corners, though he’s become primarly a right fielder in Washington. The small sample sizes during his time in the bigs make his defensive skill hard to accurately examine; he was reportedly a below-average shortstop and hasn’t been a plus right-fielder, though one would think someone who made the bigs as a shortstop could be at least adequate in left field.

Now you might be wondering, why would a team as atrocious as the Nationals be interested in trading a player who made such a big splash in 2010, particularly when he won’t even be a free agent until 2014? Well, the thought occurred to me when D.J. Short of NBC’s Hardball Talk noted the offseason moves by Washington seem to leave Morse as the odd man out. Clearly, Jayson Werth is assured of being the club’s right fielder, and today’s signing of Rick Ankiel puts him in position to battle Roger Bernadina in left field. Not that Morse was playing center, but they have Nyjer Morgan there and prospect Justin Maxwell in the mix as well. Then there’s also bench bat Matt Stairs, who can (sorta) play a bit of outfield, and at 1B, the Nats are rumored to be pursuing Derrek Lee to fill that hole. As Short says, there doesn’t appear to be a lot of room left for Morse.

So what is Morse worth in a trade? Honestly, his value is hard to pin down. There’s a lot to like; he mashed in 2010, he’s got a good minor league track record, he can play several positions, and he’s very cheap. On the other hand, the Nationals don’t appear to value him, he’s hardly a household name, he’s not a plus defender, he doesn’t have a long MLB track record, and after his hot summer he struggled through a lousy September last year.

Still, even if he’s not perfect, a righty-power bat is exactly what the Dodgers need, and shouldn’t they be in the business of taking a low-cost chance instead of the assured mediocrity of a Scott Podsednik or Jerry Hairston? Don’t take this as anything more than a fun comparison of stats, but Morse has an .810 OPS with a HR every 29.4 at-bats through his age-28 year. At the same age, Werth had a .793 OPS with the same HR rate. In parts of 5 AAA seasons, Morse’s line is .292/.354/.461; Werth, in parts of 4 AAA seasons, had .268/.355/.472. I’m not saying it’s definite or even moderately likely that Morse will become the next Werth (Werth is a far better fielder) but it seems like a chance worth taking, and at the least he could fit as the righty platoon bench bat the Dodgers don’t currently have.

As for the cost, well, the Nationals have made their preference for rebuilding their pitching staff known. Morse’s age, record and Washington’s offseason moves don’t suggest a large return, nor would I want the Dodgers to take a costly chance here. But the Dodgers do have some out-of-options players (Chin-lung Hu, Xavier Paul, Ronald Belisario, Blake Hawksworth) and a good supply of fungible relievers (Ramon Troncoso, Travis Schlichting, Jon Link, Hawksworth, etc.) so it seems like a fit could be found there.

Would Schlichting be enough? He could help the Nationals bullpen right away; if that’s not enough, toss in Hu, who’s probably going to be lost on waivers. The Washington middle infield is constantly in flux, and while Hu has just about no trade value, he could be a useful backup option.

It’s not sexy, of course, and it won’t sell any extra tickets, but if you can turn some extra assets into a lottery ticket who isn’t a Podsednik or a Hairston, why not?

Let’s Toss Some More Names Into the LF Stew

December 18, 2010 at 3:55 pm | Posted in Jerry Hairston, Marcus Thames, Scott Hairston | 62 Comments

Bill Hall‘s gone, Scott Podsednik‘s a sorry alternative, and no one really believes the Dodgers will just let Jay Gibbons, Xavier Paul, & Tony Gwynn handle left field, right? Ken Gurnick says that the club has at least reached out to a few of the remaining options on the dwindling free agent market, and there’s some new names here:

the Dodgers have been in contact with Marcus Thames and Scott and Jerry Hairston as possible free agent candidates for left field.

Thames is someone we’ve talked about a few times, and he’s really the only one of the three who brings any offense. He’s put up double-digit homers in six of the last seven years to go with a career .802 OPS; last year’s .288/.350/.491 performance was more or less his career year – his career OBP is just .311. Over his career he’s got a marked platoon split, as he’s put up an .838 OPS vs lefties, though that was oddly not the case last year.

The problem with Thames, of course, is that while he can play both left field and first base, he really shouldn’t be playing either. His fielding is so poor that his fWAR came in at only 0.6 last year, because his lousy glove took away so much of his value. If put in an outfield alongside Matt Kemp and Andre Ethier, the pitching staff Ned Colletti worked so hard to assemble may revolt.

Scott Hairston‘s had his moments, hitting double-digit homers four years in a row, but he’s coming off a particularly rough 2010. In 104 games for San Diego, he had a line of just .210/.295/.346. That’s the latest in a string of years with poor OBP. Like Thames, he’s stronger against LHP in his career, but last year’s disaster makes it hard to count on that. The former 2B grades out as average to above-average on defense.

Scott’s brother Jerry comes off a terrible year as well, with just a .652 OPS, and he turns 35 in May. He can play six different positions with varying degrees of skill, though as we talked about with Bill Hall, that versatility is nice but not really needed on this club.

So who do we like? Any? None? Let’s say right off the bat that Jerry Hairston is a terrible option; guys who were never great hitters to begin with and are coming off a terrible year at 34 aren’t exactly great options. Scott’s better, I suppose, though his horrendous 2010 makes me think he should be a non-roster invite at best.

And then there’s Thames. He’s got the best bat of the three yet can’t really be depended on to repeat his 2010, and his glove is absolutely atrocious.

I think it’s fair to say at this point that the Dodgers are not going to be able to pick up a starting left fielder off the free agent wire. That’s true whether it’s any of these guys, or Podsednik, or Austin Kearns, or whomever else. It’s unfortunate, but true. So any decision needs to be seen through the idea of “what fits on this team?”

Marcus Thames cannot be your everyday left fielder; his defense is just too poor. But let’s not pretend as though the team doesn’t have a need for right-handed bench power, especially in late innings against tough lefties. When the other side brings in their LOOGY, do you really want Tony Gwynn up there? Andre Ethier? You can’t bring Jay Gibbons off the bench for that, and Jamey Carroll‘s not a great option either. A righty with some power is a good option to have. Now, can Thames be that? I’d be willing to find out.

Let’s Nip This in the Bud And Talk About Why Zack Greinke Isn’t Coming to LA

December 18, 2010 at 10:44 am | Posted in Zack Greinke | 17 Comments

Royals ace Zack Greinke has requested a trade. The Dodgers, inexplicably, have been part of the group linked to him in rumors for a few weeks now.

I think you can see where this is headed.

I’ve already seen Dodger fans, somewhat understandably, coming up with pie-in-the-sky trade proposals that Kansas City would never accept. That’s only part of the problem, of course, because there’s a variety of reasons why this isn’t happening and shouldn’t even really be a topic. Reasons like…

1) The Dodgers don’t need another starting pitcher. I’m not saying Greinke wouldn’t look nice alongside Clayton Kershaw at the top of the rotation, because he surely would. Let’s just be realistic here. The Dodgers already have six starters, likely pushing Vicente Padilla into some sort of swingman role. So the last thing they need is to add another, and it’s not like much could be done to make room.

Due to various combinations of no-trade clauses and rules against trading newly-signed free agents, the foursome of Ted Lilly, Hiroki Kuroda, Jon Garland, and Padilla surely aren’t going anywhere. I’m certain the Royals – and every other team in the majors – would like Kershaw, but I wouldn’t even trade him for Greinke straight up. Some have suggested Chad Billingsley, but that makes no sense. You could argue that Greinke (3.34 FIP in 2010 / 3.59 career) isn’t a huge upgrade over Billingsley (3.07 FIP in 2010 / 3.68 career) when you consider that Greinke makes $27m over the next two years while Billingsley will get about $13m in arbitration over that time. Besides, the entire point of trading Greinke for Kansas City is that he’ll be free-agent eligible for the 2013 season, just about when their crew of top-flight prospects will be ready. So will Billingsley; it doesn’t help the Royals to trade for someone else who’d be gone when those kids are ready.

With a different front office, you could possibly consider the idea of acquiring Greinke, and then shipping Billingsley off for a power outfield bat. It’s not a terrible idea in the right situation, yet I don’t think any of us consider that the current front office is capable of such forward-thinking moves.

2) Greinke’s expensive. Well, sort of. $27m over 2 years for a pitcher of his caliber is actually quite reasonable. Yet the Dodgers 2011 payroll is at about $115m, and they don’t even have a left fielder. That’s already far beyond what we’d expected, and it seems impossible that they could shoehorn Greinke’s salary into that as well.

The only way you could even consider it is if you were losing payroll elsewhere, yet I think we all agree the Royals aren’t interested in Casey Blake or Rafael Furcal. That brings me to the most infuriating idea I’ve seen from fans – that the Dodgers should send Jonathan Broxton as part of a package to KC. I can’t even express enough how ridiculous of an idea that is. The Royals already have a better closer in Joakim Soria, they’re not looking to acquire players who will be free agents after 2011, and they’re in no position to be acquiring expensive relievers coming off of poor seasons. It’s ridiculous to even consider.

Just because it’d be great for your team doesn’t mean it makes any sense whatsoever for the other side.

3) The Royals want the moon and more for Greinke, and the Dodgers can’t supply that. KC’s asking price is crazy, but that’s exactly what they should be doing. With Cliff Lee gone, there’s no one else remotely near Greinke’s quality available, and if C.C. Sabathia doesn’t opt out of his Yankee contract after next season – it sounds like he won’t – then there won’t be any top free agent pitchers on the market next year, either. The Royals have a rare and valuable asset, and they rightfully want top value in controllable prospects who they can add to their growing 2013-18 dynasty.

To get an idea of how much they want, we’ve heard that they asked Toronto for “more than” Kyle Drabek and Travis Snider, and that conversations with Washington had to start with Jordan Zimmermann, Drew Storen, and Danny Espinosa.

Drabek, a 1st-round pick in the same draft that brought the Dodgers Kershaw, just turned 23 and was the jewel in the Roy Halladay deal for Toronto. He’ll be in the Jays’ rotation this year; Snider doesn’t even turn 23 until the spring, yet just completed his 3rd MLB season and has an OPS+ of 103. The Washington crew is impressive too. Storen was a 1st-round pick in 2009 who had a quality rookie year last year and is the Nationals’ closer of the future. Zimmermann battled back from arm surgery to have a 1.59 ERA at four MiLB stops last season, and Espinosa, a second baseman, has an .820 OPS and 40 HR in parts of 3 MiLB seasons.

The Royals are known to want middle infield help, so any conversation with the Dodgers would have to start with Dee Gordon. They’re also known to prefer a center field prospect, so that’s Trayvon Robinson. If they liked Storen, they’d love Kenley Jansen, and then they’re clearly going to want a starting pitcher as well, and while LA doesn’t have a Drabek-type, someone like Rubby De La Rosa (who broke out at 21 last year) would certainly be nice.

So would you trade Gordon / Robinson / Jansen / de la Rosa for two years of Greinke? I don’t know that I would, and even if I would, I don’t know that it’d satisfy the Royals anyway.

4) Under no circumstances should the Dodgers be worried about pitching over offense right now. This isn’t new; we’ve been complaining about this for months. Yet the Dodgers have focused on pitching as the offense stagnates, and as each day goes by the Matt Guerrier deal looks worse and worse. (By comparison, Dan Wheeler, who’s a comparable pitcher with a better strikeout rate, signed for one year and $3m in Boston yesterday). Sure, I’d like Greinke, but not nearly as much as I’d like a left field situation that isn’t a black hole. I mean, we’re in a position where Jon Weisman is actually saying that Tony Gwynn – yes, the same one who had a .591 OPS last year – should be a starting outfielder, and I can’t even disagree with him.

So sure, it’d be nice to see Greinke in Dodger blue. It’d be a hell of a lot of fun to see him and Kershaw as a 1-2. It’s also not an idea that’s based in reality, unfortunately.

Now let’s get back to our regularly-scheduled groaning over the Scott Podsednik menace.

Bill Hall Signs With Houston; Now What?

December 17, 2010 at 11:47 am | Posted in Bill Hall | 43 Comments

Yesterday, we heard from Tony Jackson that the Dodgers and Bill Hall each had a “strong preference” for each other. (This inspired me to make the joke on Twitter, “Maaaake out already.”)

Well, Ken Rosenthal tells us now that Hall has found another date to the prom:

Source: #Astros agree with Bill Hall. Will be regular 2B. 1 yr, $3M range with mut opt. Pending physical.

A few days ago, I looked at Hall and wasn’t thoroughly impressed, though I do like him far more as a team’s second baseman than their left fielder. But I also concluded by saying that he was the best of a bad lot, so I’d have been okay with it – and now he’s gone.

That leaves us with… well, it’s not good. Jackson claims that Scott Podsednik is still in the running, which is an idea that is just so incomprehensible with the way this roster is constructed that I won’t even discuss it until it happens. Colletti’s claimed for weeks that he’d be comfortable allowing Jay Gibbons, Xavier Paul, Tony Gwynn, and even Trayvon Robinson to fight it out for left field time, but since they’re all lefty and since none of them – along with Andre Ethier – can hit lefty pitching, not having a righty (if not two) off the bench to substitute seems like a poor choice.

Meanwhile, the Athletics just picked up Josh Willingham (OPS+ of 127 and 129 the last two years) for two prospects who ESPN’s Keith Law described as “a minimum-salary relief arm in Rodriguez plus a fringe prospect in Brown” – i.e., not a great haul. Sure, Willingham’s going to make about $5m in arbitration in 2011. He also had a .909 OPS against left-handed pitching last year. He’d have looked nice in the middle of the lineup, no? You don’t think this team would have been better off not signing Matt Guerrier to a multi-year deal – a move that just about everyone hates, by the way – and instead sending a fringe outfielder and lottery ticket reliever to the Nats, and using Guerrier’s money to pay Willingham? Would Paul and Travis Schlichting have been enough? Because I’d have done that deal ten times out of ten.

But it’s too late for Willingham, I suppose, and now we’re left with only the prayer that Scott Podsednik won’t be walking through that door. I’d like to think that there’s still hope for Lastings Milledge or Marcus Thames on low-guarantee deals, but I think we all know how likely that is. Or you can hang on to the pipe dream that Ivan DeJesus forces Juan Uribe to 3B and Casey Blake to LF, though I can’t really see that happening either.

Really, it’s a sad day when a Bill Hall – Bill Hall!- goes elsewhere, and all you can think is, “oh, crap.”

Report: Dodgers Sign Matt Guerrier to Three Year Deal

December 15, 2010 at 8:26 am | Posted in Matt Guerrier | 66 Comments

Update: Ken Rosenthal reports that it’ll be $12m over 3 years. I assume that’s going to be backloaded as $1m, $1m, $10m, because hey – why not?

We’re hearing rumors that the Dodgers have signed former Twins reliever Matt Guerrier to a three-year contract. No word on the terms yet, but this is shocking to say the least.

MLBtraderumors had a solid accounting of him in November:

The Pros

Guerrier led the league in appearances in 2008-09 and pitched in 74 games this past season.

He induces more grounders than fly balls.

His slider is excellent.

Guerrier has a 2.7 K/BB ratio against right-handed hittters in his career.

He has just a 1.5 K/BB ratio against left-handed hitters in his career, but he does induce more groundballs against them (55%).

As mentioned earlier, it won’t cost a pick to sign Guerrier.

The Cons

Defense independent pitching stats like FIP and xFIP suggest Guerrier’s 3.17 ERA would have been higher if he had been less lucky in 2010.

He posted 5.3 K/9 and 2.8 BB/9 last year. That’s not spectacular and both rates were better in 2009.

The free agent market is flush with right-handed relievers, so Guerrier won’t have much leverage.

They also predicted that he’d get a one-year deal, and that’s the problem – well, one of the problems. The issue here isn’t that Guerrier isn’t good, because he’s clearly durable and effective, and in a baseball vacuum, that’s great, and he’s a solid addition to the pen.

But nothing ever lives in a vacuum, does it? When have multiyear deals to over-30 relievers – especially one who’s good but not dominant – ever worked out? How do you think the White Sox felt about Scott Linebrink‘s deal? The Blue Jays about B.J. Ryan? I realize I’m cherry-picking a bit, but the success rate there isn’t high. This is why everyone’s been laughing at the Angels for handing out multiple years to older relievers Scott Downs and Hisanori Takahashi. That’s all before you even notice that Guerrier’s K rate has dropped from 7.0 in 2008 to 5.5 in 2009 to 5.3 in 2010 – and his fastball velocity dropped in 2010 as well. It’s not a good trend for a guy who turns 33 next year.

Secondly, why is this team spending more money on pitching when the offense looks to be in trouble? I get that the bullpen was poor last year, but it’s long been shown that spending big money in the bullpen rarely works out. There’s plenty of talent in the pen that you need to have a little faith can bounceback, and yet the offense is still without a left fielder . We don’t yet know what Guerrier will get; I joked on Twitter that Downs got $15m over 3, but since Downs is both better and lefty, Guerrier deserves something less like $3/10. Therefore, I’m predicting 3/$21m.

Then there’s the question of what this does to the bullpen. If the season were to open today, and the Dodgers were to carry 7 relievers, which they usually do, you’re looking at a bullpen of…

R Jonathan Broxton
L Hong-Chih Kuo
R Kenley Jansen
R Matt Guerrier
R Vicente Padilla
R Ronald Belisario (out of options)
R Blake Hawksworth (out of options)

That’s an intriguing group, I’ll admit. But it doesn’t include a second lefty, which seems unlikely. So is there a trade in the works? It’s obviously not going to be Kuo, Jansen, Guerrier, or Padilla. Belisario and Hawksworth are candidates because they’re out of options, but don’t have much trade value. So is this where we see Broxton moved? I’ve long said I find it unlikely that he gets moved at the absolute lowest of his value, and I would hate dumping him for nothing, but I’m fine with it in the right deal. Personally, I still don’t see it happening.

More to come…

Russell Martin Takes Less Money With the Yankees*

December 15, 2010 at 6:35 am | Posted in Dioner Navarro, Russell Martin | 10 Comments

Buster Olney reports that Russell Martin has passed his physical with the Yankees, but also includes this nugget:

Martin’s deal with the Yankees is for a $4 million base salary

That’s of note because the Dodgers had offered him a $4.2m salary before non-tendering him; reports were that Martin was holding out for $5m. So let’s extrapolate a few things from that:

First, despite what we’d heard about Ned Colletti having interest in bringing Martin back, the $4.2m offer appears to have been “take it or leave it” and expired once the non-tender deadline passed. As Eric Stephen notes, that assumption is validated somewhat by the fact that Rod Barajas had his deal in place about 30 seconds after Martin was non-tendered, which I imagine the club must have been using as leverage in talks with Martin.

Second, it looks like Martin overvalued his worth, which is hard to do in this winter of crazy spending. We knew that the Yankees, Red Sox, and Blue Jays were all in on Martin, and that the Red Sox ended up not offering as much as the Yankees did. I don’t know what the Jays were offering, but it’s doubtful they were topping both the Sox and Yankees, so when Martin spurned the $4.2m offer from the Dodgers, that may have been a mistake.

Finally, this does somewhat validate the team’s decision to non-tender Martin. Had he been tendered a contract and gone to arbitration, he would have made $5m at the very least and possibly up to $6m. I’d said all along that was too much to risk on an injured catcher, and they appear to have read the market correctly.

Now all that being said… we’re still suck with Barajas and Dioner Navarro, who officially signed his one year, $1m contract yesterday. Does someone want to tell me how in the hell Navarro got more than the major league minimum? Not that the extra $500k or so is a big deal in the long run, but you really had to sweeten the pot for him? Why, to buy him away from his Plan B, fry cook at Long John Silver’s?

* The caveat to all this is of course that we don’t know what kind of incentives are included in Martin’s Yankee contract. As we saw with Vicente Padilla, incentives can be several times the guaranteed base value of the contract. Still, Martin is guaranteed less than he would have been as a Dodger.