Author Archive
Open Thread: Ooh, I scored a touchdown
Posted by: | CommentsIf you watch this and don’t laugh, I’ll be disappointed.
It’s been all around the Internet today, but I’ll thank commenter pat for being the first to tip me off. For those who want to read a bit more about the Ellis experience, Snopes has a lengthy look.
While Ellis didn’t play for the Yankees in my lifetime, he did play for them when my dad was my age, so I’ve heard plenty about him and about that era in general. That led me to read up a lot about it. I always thought it was a shame that Dock didn’t win a World Series with the Yanks. They acquired him from the Pirates for the 1976 season, when they lost to the Reds in the World Series. You know who else came over in that trade? Willie Randolph. Then, in the spring of ‘77, the Yanks traded Ellis for Mike Torrez, who pitched well in the championship season. Bonus: Torrez became a free agent after the season and signed with Boston. Oops.
That takes care of that, so have at it with the open thread. Bicker, quarrel, and do what you will, but when you do, just remember that your trade proposal sucks.
Yanks won’t rework Girardi’s deal this off-season
Posted by: | CommentsAs the Yankees moved through the playoffs, many of us wondered whether a World Series win would mean a contract extension for Joe Girardi. They got the win, but it appears the team is content to let Girardi manage 2010 as a lame duck. Joel Sherman has the details, which are few. Instead of rewarding Girardi for a job well done, the Yanks will take their normal tack of letting a contract expire before negotiating a new one. It seems like a reasonable enough stance.
Brian Cashman has made it clear that this is how the Yankees will operate. Before the 2007 season he had a chance to rework deals for Mariano Rivera and Jorge Posada, but declined to do so until after the season. While that decision might have cost the team several million dollars — both Posada and Rivera played hardball after having great seasons — it appears they’ll continue to apply the policy across the board.
While football teams prefer to avoid having a lame duck coach, baseball teams don’t seem to averse to it. Joe Torre signed four contracts after his first one with the Yankees, and two of them came after the old deal expired. In other words, the Yankees had two lame duck seasons under Torre, 1999 and 2001. His teams did just fine those seasons. He signed extensions for the 1997 and 2004 seasons, a year before his contract was to expire, and the teams did just fine then, too (though both seasons ended on sour notes).
After winning the World Series in his second season at the helm, it seems that missing the playoffs in 2010 is the only result that could lead to a new manager in 2011. Even then, with the World Series championship under his belt, perhaps the Yankees will be a bit more forgiving with Girardi if his team fails to make the playoffs next year. In any case, they’re leaving that option open, no matter what the team does. Even so, save for some unforeseen event unrelated to the team’s play (e.g., Girardi insulting the owner, as he did in Florida), I don’t see anyone else managing the Yankees for the next few years.
Joe Girardi has his good points and his bad, and although many of us were puzzled by some of his moves, I still think he’s a good manager. While we as fans tend to focus on the manager’s tactical moves, a manager is responsible for more than just that. He must hold together a team of 25 personalities over a six-month season and month-long playoff process. From all appearances, Girardi has done that well. As Alex Rodriguez said after the team won the World Series, “You have 25 guys who bought into Joe Girardi’s system.”
Yankees tidbits we missed yesterday
Posted by: | CommentsI would guess that maybe 5 percent of people who read this site don’t read MLB Trade Rumors at least once a day. It’s such a quick, easy source of information on anything remotely hot stove related. This time of year, though, it gets a bit dense. Thirty-nine posts went up yesterday, most of them not Yankee-related. But there are some minor tidbits among them, so we’ll aggregate the aggregator.
- Joel Sherman caught a vibe, and it said that the Yankees will not only non-tender Wang, but they will “not even offer him a small base with incentives to return.” Good thing it’s just a vibe.
- Sherman, who has been all over these GM meetings, hears that Yanks “plan to tender arb-eligibile Brian Bruney because his price (about $1.5M) will be reasonable.” That’s less than 1 percent of total payroll.
- Buried in this Joe Strauss article about Matt Holliday, the Cardinals “expressed interest” in Xavier Nady. I always wonder what denotes an expression of interest.
- The Royals foolishly jumped on Kyle Farnsworth early last off-season, and this off-season they’re after another former Yank. Via Ken Rosenthal/Jon Paul Morosi, the Royals signed Wilson Betemit to a minor league deal. I’ll always appreciate Betemit for bringing us Nick Swisher.
- Not that the Yanks were going to sign him anyway, but Charley Walters reports that the Twins and Joe Mauer have begun discussing a new deal. The Yanks will just have to hope that one of their 18 catching prospects works out.
Could Granderson factor into Yanks’ OF plans?
Posted by: | Comments
The outfield is the Yankees’ biggest area of concern this off-season, and to that end Mike examined the free agent class yesterday. There are some attractive names on there, but there’s nothing that makes me think, “That’s the guy I want roaming the outfield for the Yanks in the future. Matt Holliday is the closest in that regard, but that would require a big commitment. Even if the Yanks are thinking of Holliday, they should explore alternatives first.
In an item posted barely an hour ago, Joel Sherman reports that the Tigers have made center fielder Curtis Granderson available. He speculates that the Yankees will be interested, and I can’t blame them. Granderson is a high quality player that can help shore up the Yankees outfield. That is, if his 2009 season isn’t a window into his future production.
Granderson made his mark in 2007, his second full season in the majors, when he posted a triple slash .302/.361/.552, including 23 home runs and 23 triples. That’s the kind of production any team would love in center field, and if Granderson kept it up it’s unlikely that the Tigers would trade him. Unfortunately, his production has dropped in each of the past two years, dipping to .249/.327/.453 in 2009. But does that necessarily detract from Granderson’s trade value?
It seems that for the Tigers, trading Granderson would be more about future payroll commitments than 2010. He’s owed just $5.5 million next year, but his salary climbs after that, as he’ll earn $8.25 million in 2011 and $10 million in 2012, with a $13 million club option ($2 million buyout) for 2013. That seems like a pretty team friendly deal, but with Granderson’s production dropping over the last two years the Tigers might want to avoid that gamble.
Granderson’s BABIP stands out as a reason for his dip in production. After posting marks of .362 in 2007 and .317 in 2008, he fell all the way to .276 in 2009. I’m not here to chalk this up to luck and say that he’s poised to rebound. Instead, let’s take look at some other numbers that might explain the dip. Looking at his batted ball data, you can’t help but notice one big change from 2008 to 2009. Granderson’s ground ball rate dropped dramatically. He was at 34 percent in 2007 and then saw that rise to 40 percent in 2008. In 2009 it fell all the way to 29.5 percent. That meant an increase in fly ball percentage, to almost 50 percent. Since ground balls go for hits more frequently than fly balls, Granderson’s lower BABIP, and therefore lower batting average, is easily explainable.
Did Granderson change his swing between 2008 and 2009? That might be the case. Two factors suggest this. First, the shift from ground balls to fly balls. Second, an increase in home runs and infield fly balls. Granderson hit 30 home runs in 2009, eight more than in 2008 and seven more than during his previous high in 2007. His infield fly percentage rose from 5 percent in 2008 to 13 percent in 2009. So he hit a lot more fly balls, particularly fly balls that are very easy to catch.
If it’s a change in swings, it clearly didn’t work. Granderson might have hit more home runs, but he maintained the same level of home runs per fly balls in 2009 as he had in 2008. In other words, if he goes back to what worked in 2008, he could again be a viable option. With the help of Kevin Long, I’m sure Granderson could make the transition and return to being a productive player.
(And, just for Mike, I know he had a .484 OPS against lefties last year, but again, that seems like an approach thing. He was much better in previous years.)
The question is of just how productive he’ll be in 2010 and beyond. He’ll be 29 for the 2010 season, so a decline isn’t expected. Assuming Long can help him revert to his old form, then, what can we expect? I think it will be a lot closer to his 2008 production than 2007. Again, in 2007 he had a ridiculous BABIP, .362. It appears that this was the result of many fly balls dropping in for hits. He had a 44.8 percent fly ball rate that year, which usually signals a lower average. Granderson hit fewer fly balls in 2008, which helped his average even when his BABIP dropped to .317. That seems about normal: .317 BABIP for a .280 batting average.
Granderson is reputedly a good fielder in center, and UZR agrees. He’s had one negative year in the past four according to UZR, and is still positive overall. His negative value, unfortunately, came in 2008, the same year we’d like to think Granderson can repeat in 2010. Still, even with a -9.4 UZR, hew as still a 3.8 WAR player, which is a quality figure from center field. For comparison, Melky Cabrera, with a positive UZR in 2009, was a 1.6 WAR player.
Even with Granderson, the Yankees would probably still have outfield issues in 2010. Even though we’re not ones to throw out trade proposals, I assume the Tigers would require Austin Jackson in any possible deal. Granderson would be a fine replacement in center should the Yankees bring back Johnny Damon (or bring in Holliday), but he could also play alongside Melky for a year until the Yankees figure out what they’re going to do with left field.
All of this, of course, is contingent on Granderson recovering from a poor 2009. How much are the Yankees willing to gamble on that? How much on top of Jackson would they have to surrender? We don’t know the answers, but we’ll definitely keep up with this situation to see where the Yanks stand.
Yanks cut loose Towers, Guzman
Posted by: | CommentsIn a basic roster maintenance move, the Yankees have outrighted both Freddy Guzman and Josh Towers, according to Chad Jennings of The Journal News. Unsurprisingly, both players have elected free agency rather than accepting a minor league assignment. It’s unlikely that either receives a major league deal in free agency. Guzman has speed but no bat, and Towers hasn’t pitched well since 2005. Towers did pitch well over 18 starts and one relief appearance for AAA Scranton/Wilkes-Barre, so maybe he’ll return. Chances are, though, that Towers, 33 in 2010, will seek out a team that will have him a bit higher on the depth chart.
The case against Lackey came two years ago
Posted by: | CommentsFollowing the 2007 season, the Yankees needed pitching. They’d just been eliminated from the playoffs because their ace, Chien-Ming Wang, failed twice to hold down the Cleveland Indians. While Wang was still one of the league’s better pitcher, the Yankees needed more. Not only was Wang questionable as an ace, but the pitchers behind him were all questionable as well.
Mike Mussina had been removed from the rotation at the beginning of September because he’d pitched so horribly. Roger Clemens was a goner after his body couldn’t handle the rigors of a half season. Phil Hughes and Ian Kennedy, though impressive at times in 2007, were still risky rookies. Joba Chamberlain, because of innings concerns, would likely start the year in the bullpen. The only constant behind Wang was Andy Pettitte, and even then it wasn’t clear until later in November that he’d return.
The Yankees could have used a free agent pitcher that off-season, even a No. 2 starter type. Yet none existed. The top starting pitchers on the market were Pettitte, Curt Schilling, Greg Maddux, Carlos Silva, and Kyle Lohse. The Yanks would get the best of those, but what remained wouldn’t help much. The Yanks were better off seeing what they could get from their rookies. It was a pretty clear call to pass on this free agency class.
Yet there was still one option. The Minnesota Twins dangled Johan Santana, the best pitcher in the league at the time. It would cost the Yankees at least one of their young starters, Hughes, but that would replace uncertainty with something a bit more reliable. With Santana atop the rotation, the Yankees would have a formidable 1-2 punch. This is why the pro-Johan crowd was so disappointed in the 2008 Yankees. With an ace they might have weathered the competition and made the playoffs.
The Yankees didn’t jump on Santana for a few reasons. First was the allocation of resources. The Yankees would have to use their player resources to trade for Santana, and then use their financial resources to sign him to a long-term deal. That’s quite a commitment, even for a pitcher like Santana. The second reason was that the Yankees looked ahead to the next free agent class and saw that if they held back on Santana, they could reap the rewards a year later.
We all know the story from there. The Yankees used only their financial resources (and, technically, potential player resources by surrendering draft picks) to sign CC Sabathia and A.J. Burnett. Pretty smart, eh? The Yankees exercised foresight in the winter of 2007-2008, and it paid off in time for the 2009 season. They face a similar situation this winter. John Lackey is the top available free agent starter, and he’d slot in well as the No. 3 man in the Yanks rotation.
I think it’s time again for the Yankees to exercise foresight. Lackey is a nice pitcher, sure, known to most fans as a workhorse. Despite the reputation, he’s missed a decent amount of time in the last two seasons, including the beginning of the 2009 campaign with elbow issues. He wouldn’t be a terrible signing, but he’d be another long-term, high-money contract added to the books after the Yankees added three in 2008 and renewed three in 2007.
If the Yankees hold back on Lackey this off-season, they could again reap the benefits of a deep free agent pitching class in 2010-2011. Highlighting the potential free agents are Josh Beckett, Matt Cain (late edit: damn team options), Roy Halladay, Cliff Lee, and Brandon Webb. There’s no guarantee that any of them reach free agency, but there are five names there compared to the one this off-season. Not to mention, I’d rather have three of them than Lackey, and the other two are still strong alternatives at worst (though there is the issue of Webb’s shoulder).
Adding John Lackey to an already strong starting rotation would certainly help the Yankees chances in 2010. With Pettitte and then one of Chamberlain and Hughes at the back end of the rotation, they’d almost surely have the best in the game. That’s enticing, but I think waiting is the best option here. The Yankees have a slew of back-end starter candidates, including a number of young players who they’d probably like to evaluate. That way, when they get to the 2010-2011 off-season, they’ll have a better idea of whether they’d really like to pursue a free agent starter, or if they’re comfortable where they are.
The RAB Guide to Sanity During the Hot Stove Season
Posted by: | CommentsFive months without baseball can make people go insane. Hell, we’ve been without baseball for just a week now and I’m already to the point of missing Michael Kay. Missing Michael Kay. This is serious stuff, this baseball withdrawal. Thankfully, we have the hot stove season still ahead of us. Baseball will always be about what happens between April and October, but there’s an understandable fascination with the yearly rebuilding process. We’ve already gotten into it heavily on RAB.
We all want to see the Yankees repeat as champions, so we want them to make moves that best position them for that. Unfortunately, this often leads to fans concocting unrealistic scenarios and then screaming when they don’t come to fruition. This is nothing but counterproductive.
Major League Baseball is a complicated machine. What makes sense to you and me might not make sense to the guys running the teams. It leads us to sometimes question those in charge, and sometimes rightfully so. Other times, there’s a factor at play unknown to all of us, but known too well to the GM and his staff. It can lead to some tumultuous times, but I think we’re all calm and sane enough here to put it in perspective.
When evaluating what the Yankees should do, and what they have done, there is one principle to keep in mind, and that comes with one addendum. Understand this, and you’ll understand a lot more about why teams make the moves they do and why they avoid others:
Teams have limited resources, and they must use these resources as efficiently as possible in order to build the best possible team.
Addendum: The game goes through this cycle every year, presumably forever.
This means we have to evaluate moves not only in a vacuum, but also as compared with all other possible moves. This perspective involves exploring options for not only 2010, but also for seasons further in the future. The Yankees’ front office, however, will likely only look a year or two ahead.
Resources refers to not just money, but also to the team’s players. Available funds and young talent are the two main forms of currency in baseball. The Yankees have made it clear that they will keep their payroll around the 2009 level, if not a bit lower, so that should put expectations in line. We know how much they can spend, and we know what players they have in the system. That should give us an idea of what the team can do.
The Yankees have holes and weaknesses. They’ll continue to have holes and weaknesses, with the idea that they’ll be fewer and less severe than other teams. To accomplish that, they’ll deploy their resources as efficiently as possible. Not to pick on him, but commenter ledavidisrael showed us an example of this yesterday when he mused on how J.J. Hardy would help the Yankees. Hardy is a good player, and if his bat recovers he’ll help the Twins. But why would the Yankees use their precious resources on him when they already have one of the best infields, if not the best, in the league?
The infield is not a weakness for the Yankees, so they should use as little of their resources on that as possible. They should look to any weaknesses, both on the major league roster and in the system, and use their resources to strengthen them. For the Yankees, that means pitching, as it does every team, and the outfield. If the team is going to make moves this winter, it should be with those weaknesses in mind.
They can improve the pitching and outfield mainly through free agency and trades. These will be the two major topics of discussion over the next four-plus months, as they are every off-season. In an effort to keep everyone as sane as possible, let’s go over some of the finer points of the off-season. I did this last off-season, but I’m much better equipped this time around, thanks to some work by a few good writers.
Your trade proposal sucks
As fans, we love to come up with trade proposals to help our team. That’s great, but 99.999999999% of the time, the trade proposed is unrealistic. This might be for a number of reasons, both obvious and non-obvious. Fans overvaluing their team’s prospects is the main reason for ridiculous trade proposals, but there are plenty of others.
Sam Mellinger of the Kansas City Star tackled this subject a few months ago. He shows us, through first-hand experience, why a trade proposal from an outsider rarely makes sense.
Once, in a casual conversation a few years ago, a member of the Royals’ front office gave me a homework assignment. He wanted me to come to him with a doable trade idea that would make the Royals better.
“And realistic,” he said. “Don’t have us trading Jimmy Gobble for Albert Pujols.”
The next few days or so, I wore out Baseball-Reference and Baseball Cube and all the other nerdy sites even more than usual. I came up with something, I can’t remember exactly what, but I vaguely recall suggesting either DeJesus or Teahen to the Cubs for a deal involving Ryan Theriot and other parts.
The Royals’ executive considered it for a few seconds, acknowledged that it made sense in the obvious ways I pointed out, then listed two or three reasons it didn’t make sense, reasons that I hadn’t considered and most likely never would’ve known without that conversation.
Brian Cashman cannot control other GMs minds
Many players will be available this off-season via trade. While the Yankees might have seemingly unlimited financial resources (even though they don’t), they certainly don’t have unlimited player personnel resources. In fact, plenty of other teams have much more in the way of player currency, which usually consists of prospects.
For a recent example, the Tigers have reportedly made Edwin Jackson available. Maybe the Yankees see Jackson as a more cost-efficient alternative to John Lackey. Jackson would also come with less of a commitment, as he can become a free agent after the 2011 season. So instead of Lackey at five years and, say, $90 million, Jackson could be had for two years and, with arbitration raises, perhaps $15 million. That sounds like a much better deal, even if Lackey is a better pitcher.
We run into the resources problem immediately. Yes, Jackson would be cheaper than Lackey, but he would cost the Yankees plenty in player resources. Is that worth the trade-off? Maybe, maybe not. But even if the Yankees decide it is, the have to get Dave Dombrowski to accept their offer. Other teams will also present offers, and if the Yankees is not the best, the Tigers will not accept it and Jackson will be elsewhere in 2010.
Fans might scream at this, saying Cashman could have added this player or that to the offer to make it more enticing. But then we’re back to the Mellinger argument. Each team has its own list of wants and needs, and they’re going to take the package that best fits those. Slapping Kevin Russo on top of a package doesn’t necessarily fulfill the Tigers’ needs. There’s also a point where the players going to the Tigers would be too great an expenditure of resources, even considering Jackson’s relative cheapness.
Misinformation abounds
We’ll see the Yankees connected with many names this winter — we’ve already seen them connected to Lackey and Holliday. The Yankees have financial resources, so agents frequently connect their clients to the Yankees, hoping that the specter of the Evil Empire can help raise the bidding. That the Yankees spent heavily last off-season will only increase this activity this off-season. Until we start to hear something substantial, take rumors as just that. You’ll know when the Yankees start to get serious about someone.
Teams might not be interested in the Yankees spare parts
This doesn’t happen nearly as often as it did a few years ago — or perhaps these people are commenting elsewhere — but fans sometimes want to sign a player whose position is already filled. The solution to the logjam is to trade the incumbent. We saw this last winter a bit with Adam Dunn. He’d be the DH, but the Yankees already had Hideki Matsui. Many fans thought the Yankees should have dumped Matsui on the Mariners and then signed Dunn. This rarely, if ever, happens.
If the Yankees don’t want a player, it’s unlikely that another team values him highly enough to give back anything of significant value in a trade. It’s nice to think another team will help out the Yankees, but that is never the case. This is especially true when we’re talking about older players. There are plenty of older players on the free agent market. Why wouldn’t a team go out and get one of them, rather than use their own resources to acquire someone from the Yankees?
GMs are not idiots
OK, some general managers seem to make more foolish moves than others. Dayton Moore and Ned Colletti, for quick examples, have seemingly handed out a few more ill-advised deals than other GMs. That doesn’t mean they’re always ripe for the fleecing. J.C. Bradbury of Sabernomics has broken down some general manager myths, and explains why they’re just not true. They include:
- GMS can buy low and sell high. “For this to work, the GM on the other team has to be a colossal moron.” J.C. explains further here.
- The number of free agents at a position affects the price of free agents at a position. “The problem with this is that the free agents have come from somewhere. A high number of players looking for new teams means that there is a corresponding number of openings that teams need to fill.” The exception is when teams have already filled the position from within, but then there are also teams which wish to upgrade at the position.
- Every trade has a winner and a loser. “Mistakes happen, but as a general rule, all parties to trades are winners.” In their minds, at least. Trades might work out in favor of one part eventually, but that’s information not available at the time of the deal.
- Players peak at 27 and old players are worthless. “The aging process is gradual, more like the Minneapolis Metrodome than an Egyptian pyramid.”
The Yankees have a plan
By the time they’re done evaluating their situation, they’ll come up with a few plans, actually. There’s the primary plan and then a number of backup plans in case one aspect or another of the primary plan falls through. Last year the Yankees got lucky. Their Plan A worked out. That won’t always be the case, and it likely won’t be the case this year. In any case, the Yankees will act according to their plans. If something unexpected comes up they might alter the plan, but otherwise they’re going to act consistently with it.
Keep all this in mind throughout the off-season, and maybe you’ll stay sane. Forget it, and you’ll pull your hair out while screaming at Cashman for not acquiring this player or that. I think we’ll have a much happier comments section this winter, though, if we take heed of all this.
Valuing Chien-Ming Wang and Sergio Mitre
Posted by: | CommentsThe Yankees have the resources to take on a greater amount of risk than most teams. A misplaced $5 million might seriously hamper a smaller market team, but the Yankees — and the Red Sox, as evidenced by Brad Penny and John Smoltz — can take on a reclamation project and hope for the best. They did this in 2003, signing Jon Lieber after he underwent Tommy John surgery in 2002. They rehabbed him on their dime, and it paid off when he came back strong in 2004. So when it comes to Chien-Ming Wang’s contract situation, there are no givens. The Yankees can afford to do what they think will most benefit the team.
As Mike wrote this morning, Wang is no stranger to shoulder injuries. “The bottom line is that for the third time in eight years, the righthander missed a significant portion of the season with a shoulder issue.” This has to make the team wary. Wang will be arbitration eligible for the third time this winter, having made $4.5 million in 2009. If the Yankees tender him a contract, he’ll make at least that, and because of his service time he could get a bump to $5 million. Let’s go with that latter number, just to make things easy.
The question facing the Yankees is whether that $5 million is worth it to keep Wang around. It’s not just his salary for the 2010 season, when he’ll pitch half a season at the most, but also the price for keeping him under team control for his final arbitration-eligible season in 2011. There are alternatives; the Yankees could decline to tender Wang a contract and then sign him at a lower price. They would then be able to offer him arbitration after the 2010 season for the final time. For the sake of this argument, let’s assume that if the Yankees non-tender Wang, he’ll take his services elsewhere. Tendering him means paying $5 million for 2010.
This is the Yankees, so $5 million might not seem like a lot. There’s risk involved, yes, and chances are that the Yankees would have to pay more than $5 million for one of the other risky starters out there. Those would include Ben Sheets, Erik Bedard, and Rich Harden, and they would presumably be able to pitch the whole season, whereas Wang won’t be ready until July. Still, all three of those pitchers present a large risk. Wang will be cheaper, and the Yankees know him better than the other three. It seems that if they’re going the risky starter route, Wang’s their man.
Here’s a question I’ve been pondering regarding Wang’s status. Commenter Taz got it brewing in my mind when he asked, “Does anyone else think it’s ridiculous for the Yankees to exercise $1.25 mil on Mitre of the 6.59 ERA when pretty much any scrub from the minors would offer the same ability?” He says he’d rather put that money towards keeping Wang and replace Mitre with said scrub. Mitre’s $1.25 million is just a quarter of Wang’s projected salary, but every little bit helps, right?
First, to the issue of Mitre being a scrub. No one could be impressed with what they saw from Mitre during his tenure in pinstripes. He had one stellar start against the White Sox, but other than that he was shaky at best and downright terrible at worst. His defense failed him at times, but he could never pick up for them. It seemed like he was always making a bad situation worse. That infuriates fans, so it’s no wonder why Mitre has few supporters. Still, there is hope that he can provide value for the Yankees in 2010.
Mitre underwent Tommy John surgery in July of 2008. A year and six days after the surgery, he made his return. That’s a short span for a Tommy John patient. The normal recovery time is 12 to 18 months, and there are many stories of players who didn’t come back quite as strong at first, but who later recovered. Yet even if he does recover, I’ve heard the argument go, Mitre is just a scrub anyway. That I do not believe is totally accurate. In 2007, Mitre’s last season before the surgery, he had a 3.98 FIP, 4.34 tRA, and posted a 2.6 WAR. That’s pretty damn quality for a guy slotted to be the fifth starter at absolute best.
Like Mitre, no one was impressed with Wang this season. He started off pitching about as poorly as one could imagine, then hit the DL, then came back and was mediocre at best before succumbing to a shoulder injury. This led to a 5.38 FIP and a 6.01 tRA. Those numbers are both slightly worse than what Mitre posted in 2009. Both clearly had bad years, but because of what we’ve seen in the past, there’s a chance they’ll recover.
We know that Wang is a better pitcher than Mitre when they’re both right. We also know that Mitre can pitch the entire 2010 season, while Wang will pitch half at most. So, to begin answering Taz’s question, you might not want to cut loose Mitre and save his $1.25 million, because that investment can work for you all year, while the $5 million allotted to Wang will work only in the second half, if even that. But let’s take this a little further, into the completely theoretical.
Past performance does not guarantee future gains, but sometimes all we have to go on is past performance. For the sake of this argument, let’s assume that both Mitre and Wang return to their 2007 forms in 2010. Mitre would, under those circumstances, provide a 2.6 WAR for $1.25 million. Wang had a 4.4 WAR in 2007, almost two full wins better than Mitre. But because Wang would only pitch half the season, he’d only provided 2.2 WAR in 2010 under what I’m calling the best case scenario. The Yankees would pay him $5 million for that 2.2 WAR.
Even if both players recover fully to their 2007 forms, Mitre would provide a little more value than Wang. He’s the inferior pitcher, but because he can pitch the entire season he has that added value. Wang would be a greater force in the second half, but again he’d only be doing it for half a season, and he’d make four times as much as Mitre in the process. So there is an argument, albeit a weak one, that the Yankees are better off with Mitre in 2010.
Do I think that Mitre will provide 2.6 WAR in 2010? Not a chance. Not only will he not get the innings, but he also likely won’t return to the 0.54 HR/9 rate that led to his 3.98 FIP (a component of WAR). While WAR does adjust for park, I’m just not sure the adjustment will do Mitre’s transition justice. In 2007 he pitched in a spacious National League park. In 2010 he’ll pitch in a homer-heavy (but otherwise run-neutral) AL East park. He also probably won’t be higher than seventh on the starting pitching depth chart, so I would assume most of his innings will come out of the bullpen. I’d be surprised if he cleared a 1.5 WAR next year.
Do I think that Wang will provide 2.2 WAR in 2010? Probably not. I think he has a better chance of doing that than Mitre does of posting the same number, but that’s asking a lot from a guy who has missed a good portion of the past two seasons, and who is recovering from his third major shoulder injury. If he can provide 1.5 WAR in the second half, I’m sure the Yankees would be thrilled. That would not only help the rotation later in the season, but it would also give them hope of a fuller recovery for 2011.
Unless the Yankees are hard-up for 40-man roster spots (and as Mike will show, they’re not), they should exercise Mitre’s 2010 option. It will represent a little over one half of one percent of their overall payroll. The tougher question is of Wang. If tendered he’ll eat up a 40-man slot until they can place him on the 60-day DL in March, and he’ll constitute about 2.5 percent of the overall payroll. Is that worth the risk? I’m still not decided, though I’m leaning towards yes. I fear that non-tendering him means he goes elsewhere, and I do not want to see him make a full recovery with another team. Wang was the anchor of the staff for two seasons when the Yanks lacked an ace. WIth the current staff, he only has to be a No. 3. I think he can fit into the Yankees plans for 2010 and beyond.
Could the Yanks keep all three free agents?
Posted by: | CommentsWhen discussing the pending free agencies of Hideki Matsui and Johnny Damon, the refrain all season long was that the Yankees would probably keep one and cut loose the other. On the surface, that seemed to make sense. Both players will be 36 next year, so they don’t fit with the Yankees’ supposed plan to get younger. Yet they’re both productive players, so holding onto one makes sense.
The problem is of replacing production. The Yankees got a lot out of Matsui and Damon, and it’s unlikely that an internal candidate could replace their production. In 2009 Nick Swisher and Mark Teixeira replaced Jason Giambi and Bobby Abreu. But if the Yankees are leaning away from entering another long-term contract, who will replace Matsui or Damon?
The answer, as Joel Sherman notes this morning, could be themselves. Not only that, but they’re looking for a way to retain all three of their major free agents, which includes Andy Pettitte. Sherman quotes a team executive, who says, “I hope we can figure out a way to have them all back.” According to the exec, the Yankees are more focused on those guys than external free agents.
This makes sense to me. No, retaining all three veterans would not make the Yankees younger, but getting younger for the sake of getting younger is not a productive strategy. The Yankees need offensive output and solid pitching, and their own guys can provide that. Why go out on the market when the solution stands right before you?
The key to bringing back all three is getting them on one-year deals. That doesn’t seem to be a problem for Pettitte, who will likely only want a one-year deal anyway, and Matsui, who enters a free agent market flooded with DH types. It’s unlikely another team would give Matsui multiple years, so his return to New York could come at one year and a reduction to his $13 million 2009 salary. For Pettitte, it could be a one-year deal at perhaps double his $5.5 million 2009 base salary. If the Yankees bring him back, I doubt it will be a heavily incentivized deal.
Damon is a bit tougher a case. His defense declined markedly in 2009, and at his age it’s tough to call that a blip. He could certainly recover in 2010 — he was, after all, one of the top devensive left fielders in 2008 — but that’s not a given. Still, his bat is still valuable, especially in Yankee Stadium, and his postseason run shows that is season-ending slump isn’t too big a worry. Another team might be willing to offer Damon more years and money than the Yankees, though again I’m not sure other teams will be so apt to take the risk on an older player.
The Yankees could find themselves in a good position in these three negotiations. Bringing back Matsui, Damon, an Pettitte on one-year deals, perhaps one plus and option for Damon, seems like the best possible solution this off-season. That brings little risk to the Yankees, since these are short deals. It also reduces payroll because Damon and Matsui would not make the $13 million they did in 2009. The Yankees could then use their remaining resources elsewhere, rather than tying up money in a long-term contract for a player in his 30s, or trading prospects to fill a hole.
Getting younger is nice, but it is not a goal unto itself. The idea behind it is to get more flexible and more durable. The Yankees, however, could bring back these three veterans and still have a strong club for 2010. There aren’t many, if any, better options on the market that don’t come with their own sets of risk. I think it’s a good idea to bring back the guys they know, conserve their resources, and reassess after the 2010 season.
How many championships has Mariano Rivera been worth?
Posted by: | CommentsThe following is a guest post by Rebecca Glass of This Purist Bleeds Pinstripes. You can read her (slightly longer) versions on her site, in four parts: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4. We’re republishing it here because a) it took a lot of work and b) it’s really meant to be read as one article, anyway.
Special acknowledgment: This is far and away the most advanced, in depth thing I’ve ever tried. Without question, the best similarity I can come up with is asking someone who’s taken only high school Economics course to run the IMF, that’s basically what’s happened. As with any such endeavor, most of the actual work was done by others. With thanks to Jonathan Mayo, Will Moller, Joe Pawlikowski, Mike Axisa, Jim Johnson, Jamal Granger, Dave Cameron, Brent Nycz, Joshua Rosenberg, Dan Dilworth and Greg Fertel.
In this article, Rob Neyer dares us to come up with a way to measure how many Championships Mariano has been worth. Guess who enjoys masochism?
So, as you may know, there’s a myriad of stats out there, many of which I can only understand in theory, but there’s one measure that’s been created for the regular season that is very useful. You may have heard of it, as it’s called WAR — wins above replacement player.
NOTE: There are two measures we could use here, WAR and WARP, which try to accomplish the same thing (discussed below), but use two different sets of stats/data to do so. I’m going to stick with WAR because I think it sounds cooler. ANYWAY. So to understand WAR, two concepts are crucial: replacement level and leverage. I understand that many of you reading this will already be familiar with both of these, but since my hope is that those that don’t delve into stats very often can follow, and for the sake of my sanity, hope you won’t begrudge me a refresher.
Replacement Level
The idea behind replacement level is that you take any player in any line up on any given day and replace him with someone whose level of performance is what an average team can expect when trying to replace a player at minimal cost. In English, it’s saying that if, say, Andrew McCutchen went down on the Pirates with the flu, what’s the baseline production that the Pirates could expect from John Doe, who’s the cheapest available player to fill the spot? That production is replacement-level production.
Why not just use a league-average performance as a replacement? The answer is that the MLB statistics are largely skewed — MLB “regulars,” the guys putting up the big enough numbers to stay in lineups every day are a minority — while fringe players, those that struggle to stay in the big leagues, are much more common. Simply put, it’s easier to find a player that hits .250 than one that hits .330, but, like that student you wanted to kill because he got an A on that Spanish test while no one else did above a C, the one that hits .330 destroys the curve.
So, instead, you take into consideration what a GM and manager is likely to go for in the event of a player suddenly going down for a game or two–i.e., your utility infielder. Most teams–and the Yankees, of course, are not most teams–will go for whatever option is least costly–dipping into the pool of fringe Major Leaguers, the pool considered “freely available talent.” Of course, if a player is lost for a season, it’s an entirely different thing, but that gets beyond our scope.
What you end up with is on one end, you have your normal team–say the 2009 Yankees, and on the other, replacement-level team you’ve a line up where Wil Nieves is your best hitter, or Sidney Ponson as your best pitcher. What WAR does, then, is like having Nick Swisher go up to Joe Girardi before game six, and say, “Dude, I gave the Yanks, like x number more wins this season than you would have if Jerry Hairston had been your every day right fielder.”
(Note: via fangraphs, Hairston’s 2009 registered a WAR of 1.0, which indicates he performed above replacement level. Actually, this is helpful to give you an idea of how poorly a team with all replacement-level players would perform over the course of a season. Replacement Level is not the bench guys on the Yankees; it’s the bench guys on the Nationals and the Pirates.)
So before we move on, let’s make sure we understand everything that’s been discussed:
- The concept of Replacement Level enables us to compare performances of MLB “regulars” vs low-cost, “freely-available” replacement players.
- WAR is designed to measure how many more wins player X will net his team over player Replacement Level (i.e., our Swisher/Hairston faux metaphor).
- The values set for what a replacement level-performance entails varies by position — i.e., shortstops aren’t supposed to hit like right fielders, etc. Pitchers, too, have WAR. Over here you can see the rankings for pitchers, by WAR, for the 2009 season. To no one’s surprise, Zack Grienke tops the list. The type of season he had will do that to you.
