SB Nation - Joe Randa

Remembering Desi Relaford

royalsreview — Tue, 22 Dec 2009 13:30:14 -0000

Thinking about Desi Relaford makes Royals fans of a certain age smile. For Royal rooters in their low thirties and younger, Relaford is sort of a pathetic souvenir of winning. While fans of normal teams like to remember the obscure players from championship teams, fans of the KC nine born in the eighties or nineties have only faint memories of actual winning. Instead, we have 2003, when the Royals went 83-79, and spent much of the season in 1st place. Never doubt man's ability to make myth out of limited materials.

Thanks to a hot start, his cute name, and a reputation as a vital super-sub, Desi Relaford got an undue share of credit for that team's success. Sports fans like to show how smart they are by latching onto illogical ideas, and a popular one is to glorify a utility player. Only a simple fan would focus on Carlos Beltran's brilliant season, while it takes a really sophisticated gent to notice a guy who does the little things well.

Allard Baird signed Desi Relaford to a two-year contract in January of 2003. Relaford's road to the Royals was a strange one. Prior to the 2002 season, Relaford, along with Tyuoshi Shinjo was traded to the Giants for Shawn Estes. Then, a few weeks later, the Giants traded Relaford to the Mariners for David Bell and cash. Relaford's 2002 in Seattle established a decade's long trend of the Royals seeking former Mariners.

The world didn't know it, but a 29 year old Desi Relaford was ready to unleash hell upon the American League. On May 13, through 31 games and 116 PAs, Relaford was hitting .323/.416/.490 and the Royals were 23-14. Prior to 2003, Relaford's career line in the Majors was .248/.329/.354. Unfortunately, Relaford did one worse than that, hitting .238/.289/.349 the rest of the season.

But we'll always have that April & May, when the Royals were winning, and Desi Relaford looked like a savvy move by Allard Baird.

In 2004, like his team, Relaford couldn't live up to higher expectations. Relaford hit .221/.296/.301 in 430 plate appearances. His time as a Royal was over. Like another, more recent Royal, he rewarded those who enjoyed his beginning with 1.5 seasons of failure. In two combined seasons as a Royal, Relaford hit .240/.315/.376. Should we consider him the "First Coming of Willie Bloomquist" or as "The Black Willie Bloomquist"?

Relaford was originally a middle infielder during his time with the Phillies and Padres, and it was only until he got to the Mets that he began playing a variety of positions. The Royals really embraced the concept of Relaford as a true utility player. Roughly speaking, my impression from memory and the defensive stats is that he was good-to-ok in the infield and ok-to-blah in the outfield.

Here's a look at his defensive innings played in 03-04:

2B: 983 innings
3B: 539 innings
LF: 160 innings
RF: 146 innings
SS: 128 innings
CF: 51 innings

That's true versatility. The 03-04 Royals had holes all over the roster and a fair amount of injury problems, which meant that there's was always a place for Desi to play.

In fact, Desi's the bizarro touchstone of early 00's Royals' history. He played so much second base because, by 2003, Carlos Febles was fading out of the picture, completing a precipitous fall from grace. Relaford gave Joe Randa occasional days off at third, as Randa's playing time declined after a four year run as a 150+ games player. Beloved former Royal Raul Ibanez left for Seattle after 2003, giving Relaford 152 innings in left field in 2004.

And finally, there was the random time in right field. Oh, there was right field where Relaford was part of the melange of Aaron Guiel, Michael Tucker, Dee Brown, Brandon Berger, Mendy Lopez, Julius Matos, Abraham Nunez, Matt Stairs, Juan Gonzalez, Ruben Mateo, Byron Gettis, Alexis Gomez, Damian Jackson, Rich Thompson, Adrian Brown, Jose Bautista and David DeJesus.

Relaford bounced around baseball for a few more years (it's always longer than you'd think, with these guys) lasting until 2007.

He'll always be ours.

Heroes of the Zeros: Third Base

Slyde — Mon, 21 Dec 2009 13:00:22 -0000

During the aughts, the Reds had 39 different players play at least one game at 3B, including Javier Valentin, Jason Larue, Dmitri Young, and Wily Mo Pena. There was also a fan favorite, a fan whipping boy, and a guy that is more famous for a single swing on another team than anything he did with the Reds. Who do you think is the starting 3B for the Reds All Decade team? Vote in the poll after the jump.

Other ballots: Starting Rotation | Bullpen | Catcher | First base | Second base

Click header to sort table by column
	Years	G	PA	AB	R	H	2B	3B	HR	RBI	BB	SO	BA	OBP	SLG	OPS	OPS+	wOBA	WAR
Aaron Boone	2000-2003	455	1889	1681	242	451	101	7	70	257	144	308	.268	.335	.462	.797	103	.339	8.4
Edwin Encarnacion	2005-2009	514	2000	1764	236	462	109	4	71	263	185	364	.262	.345	.449	.793	103	.344	1.4
Tim Hummel	2003-2004	82	219	194	19	43	9	0	3	17	16	30	.222	.285	.314	.599	58	.258	-0.9
Brandon Larson	2001-2004	109	332	291	29	52	11	0	8	37	35	86	.179	.271	.299	.570	49	.258	-1.4
Andy Phillips	2008	52	80	73	11	17	3	0	3	10	6	14	.233	.300	.397	.697	80	.307	-0.2
Joe Randa	2005	92	368	332	44	96	26	1	13	48	33	52	.289	.356	.491	.847	120	.362	1.3
Scott Rolen	2009	40	162	137	24	37	7	1	3	24	19	20	.270	.364	.401	.766	102	.342	0.9
Adam Rosales	2008-2009	105	296	259	23	55	11	1	4	21	27	50	.212	.296	.309	.605	60	.275	-0.3
Chris Stynes	2000	119	420	380	71	127	24	1	12	40	32	54	.334	.386	.497	.883	120	.378	2.5

Provided by Baseball-Reference.com: View Play Index Tool Used
Generated 12/18/2009.

The Scott Rolen Deal: No Thank You

Charlie — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 23:56:20 -0000

More photos » by Keith Srakocic - AP

3 months ago: Cincinnati Reds' Scott Rolen, center, is greeted by teammates in the dugout after he scored in the eighth inning of the baseball game against the Pittsburgh Pirates in Pittsburgh, Tuesday, Sept. 22, 2009. Rolen scored twice and drove in three runs as the Reds won 10-4. (AP Photo/Keith Srakocic)

Browse more photos »

Forgive me for being a bit late to comment on this article by Dejan Kovacevic, but I just saw it.

Ten Ways to Reboot the Pirates in 2010: 1. Spend.

Sign Rick Ankiel or any free agent -- Nick Johnson? Mark DeRosa? Xavier Nady for a second tour? -- who might bring some pop to the lineup.

Make a trade for a quality player, regardless of cost.

The Pirates' current $23 million roster -- which projects to $28 million with raises -- has to represent the low point. There is no rule that says a team building from within must be a catastrophe at the major league level until the prospects arrive. Provided that acquisitions do not block key players -- signing, say, a center fielder would be absurd -- the only reason not to fill other holes would be to create more leftover money.

When Cincinnati recently traded for Scott Rolen and his $11 million salary after being miles out of contention, many in baseball scoffed. But the Reds went 25-11 with Rolen, and their many youngsters might have their development aided by his presence.

I'm not opposed to spending a bit of money on a player like Nick Johnson. But, as ever, it amazes me how little people have learned from the Pirates' recent experience.

First: the idea that the Rolen trade represents a good model for the Pirates is just beyond belief. Rolen has had a great career and all, but he has now whined his way out of three of the four organizations he's played for. (In fairness, his manager in Philadelphia, Larry Bowa, was hated by everyone, but still.) The idea that he, of all people, would be the sort of veteran player whose mere "presence" aids the development of youngsters is stunning to me. The Reds' ERA did improve after he arrived, and his superior defense probably did help out with that somewhat, but that's hardly a reason to make crazy trades for veterans if you otherwise should be recharging.

If Kovacevic is simply saying that Rolen helped the Reds with his play on the field helped the Reds' young pitchers, that's one thing. But his use of the word "presence" suggests that that's not what he's saying, espec ially since he didn't mention the pitching staff.

Has there ever been any sort of empirical data that shows that the addition of veteran players helps young players? I don't know of one, and while I can't prove it isn't true, it's fair to note that every team has veterans, and so it's quite easy to credit a veteran for his "presence" every time a team plays surprisingly well.

The flipside is that, if you want to, you can blame them and their "presence" when things go wrong. Of course, that would seem mean-spirited and stupid, wouldn't it? Of course it would. And yet it's every bit as logical as suggesting that the mere "presence" of veterans helps.

The best we can do if we're looking at the effect a player has is to look at how he played on the field. Mere "presence" doesn't seem to matter much, and Pirates fans should know that as well as anybody. How many more wins did Matt Morris' "presence" bring? How about Doug Mientkiewicz's? Or Jose Mesa's? Or Jeromy Burnitz's? Or Joe Randa's? Or Eric Hinske's? Just the other day Kovacevic implied that Hinske was a part of the "awful atmosphere" that surrounded the Pirates in 2009. And yet he was one of the Bucs' biggest veteran additions the previous offseason.

To be fair, I'm sure Kovacevic doesn't believe we should acquire these veterans indiscriminately; perhaps he means that there are some veterans who add something with their presence, and others who don't. But then why focus on a well-known whiner like Rolen (who, after all, pretty much did exactly what Hinske did by begging out of Philadelphia, St. Louis, and Toronto) or an alleged PED user like Rick Ankiel? Or, for that matter, a guy like Nady who's probably a perfectly nice guy but who has already spent a considerable amount of time in PNC Park, apparently without dropping any of that magic veteran pixie dust on the place?

There may, of course, be times that veteran "presence" does help. But even if that's true, no one ever seems to know what they are beforehand. The gift of veteran "presence" is one that only seems to appear after the fact, and then it appears completely randomly, such that a perpetual malcontent like Rolen all of a sudden becomes a savior for no other reasons than that 1) his new team happened to play well following a trade and 2) he's old. In Pittsburgh, we've had veteran after veteran, and none of them have brought anything extra to the team other than what they've done on the field. At least nothing we've seen. So why should we make this same mistake again?

The Rolen trade, in particular, was insane. The Reds traded a very good starting pitching prospect (Zach Stewart), a potentially functional young reliever (Josh Roenicke) and a very talented, if extremely frustrating, young third baseman (Edwin Encarnacion) to get him. In terms of value, this would be a little like if the Pirates traded Rudy Owens, Eric Hacker and Lastings Milledge--for a player who's old and expensive and will be gone after 2010. A potential crowd-pleaser, perhaps, but utterly bonkers in terms of the goals of the franchise.

So when someone says that the Pirates, who are two years from contending in the best of circumstances, should "trade for a quality player, regardless of cost" and points to the Scott Rolen deal as an example of what the Bucs should do, I have to ask: Really?

Kovacevic does have a point that there's no reason the Pirates shouldn't sign a veteran or two this offseason--if the right opportunity presents itself. But jeez, let's at least agree on some some basic tenets here. The point of having youngsters on a 62-win team is not to trade for aging free-agents-to-be. And veteran "presence" isn't going to matter without talent to back it up--just ask the 2007 Pirates. Or the 2006 Pirates. Or the 2004 Pirates. And so on.