SB Nation User Blog: JJ

Too early to commit to 2009?

JJ — Wed, 06 May 2009 14:32:04 -0000

As we know, hindsight is 20/20. With a little over a month gone in the 2009 season, Reds' leftfielders are OPSing a paltry .625, good for 28th out of 30 MLB teams. The Chicago White Sox's right-handed bat who we were rumored to have been considering trading Homer Bailey for is OPSing .891 with 7 HRs. I can't run the numbers like many on this site can, but eyeballing it, I'd say that we'd have at least 2 more wins with Dye instead of C-Dick/McDonald/Cherry/Nix starting in left field.

So, with the Reds' early success, and especially seeing how good this starting rotation and bullpen can be, is it too early to try to fix the team's most glaring hole? To make an early fix, a candidate would have to come a team that has no realistic shot a competing and who is not in the team's long-term plans. Because the AL West and AL Central are terrible, this eliminates a lot of teams who currently feel they are competing. Also, teams that suck normally do because they have bad players, so that leaves us with 2 realistic early-season candidates:

Matt Holliday - A's - $13.5M ('09) - a contract-year hitter who has struggled thus far in Oakland, but has a big-time track record of hitting. The career 1.050 / .800 home / road OPS split is a warning given the time he spent in Colorado, but he's still a big-time hitter. And he's playing on a club that sucks (trust me, I'm an A's fan too). That said, this was Billy Beane's big splash in the offseason, so there's no way he's pulling the trigger without significant prospects coming back in return. This type of acquisition would be mortgaging the future.

Josh Willingham - Nationals - $2.95M ('09) - 1st year arbitration - Willingham is the 4th outfielder in what has become a decent-hitting outfield in Washington with Dunn, Dukes, and Kearns (one of these things is not like the other...) each OPSing over .900. He's been reduced to a part-time starter and a pinch hitter and is not taking kindly to the role. Willingham would be a much cheaper option for left field, both in $$$ and in prospects. He's OPS'd over .800 the past 3 seasons with good power considering he played in Dolphins stadium. Because he's the odd man out, and because he's hitting about as well as Edwin Encarnacion so far in 2009, his price tag would be significantly less than Holliday's. And, we wouldn't have to deal with Bowden.

Others considered: Luke Scott, Brad Hawpe, Miguel Tejada (to replace A-Gon if he's injured more severely than thought), Eric Byrnes, Ben Francisco.

My Take - I think that if we could pull off a trade for Willingham without having to give up Homer/Yonder/Frasier/Valaika, I would seriously consider it. Would Maloney and Darryl Thompson be enough for Washington to pull the trigger? If so, I would say go for it! It's better to correct an obvious problem early in the season than to wait until the trading deadline. I wouldn't go for Holliday - too expensive.

Poll

Is it too early to consider making a trade?

Yes - I'm not trading 2010 pieces to try to win in 2009.

3 votes

Yes - let's see where this season takes us

9 votes

No - our left-field options are so bad that I've lost hope of it getting better internally

1 votes

No - but only if we aren't giving up our top prospects

18 votes

Boobs. Duh.

10 votes

41 votes | Poll has closed

Over/Under Game

JJ — Mon, 02 Feb 2009 23:04:59 -0000

Now that the Super Bowl is over, we can get back to baseball... except that for us Reds fans, we likely won't have any actual news to discuss - it'll mainly be longing for a decent SS or another good outfielder.

As such, I propose a game. I know I'm pirating the game off an SB blog that I follow, though I'm not sure if it is this one or another one. However, since I am no longer in school, I'm not naming my source!

It goes like this, I propose an over/under. The first responder gives his/her opinion, and proposes his/her own over/under. It could be anything from player production and statistics, # pitchers Dusty sends to the DL, attendence, other teams' wins, etc. If you feel so inclined, give a little reason for your opinion.

So, batting leadoff is the following over/under:

Jay Bruce, 30 HR's.

Is the team being built really suited for GABP?

JJ — Wed, 07 Jan 2009 21:21:59 -0000

When the Reds were designing GABP, baseball was in the middle of the 'steroids' era, where 'Chicks dig the long ball.' Consequently, the original drawings had a short right-field fence, likely designed with the intention of maximizing the values of star left-handed hitters Ken Griffey Jr and Adam Dunn. After this idea was nixed by MLB's front office, GABP was redesigned to have short fences all around. Ever since, GABP has given up at or near to the top of HR's each year.

I tihnk the makeup of our team is wrong for this ballpark. The Philadelphia Phillies proved last year that you can win in a HR-friendly ballpark. Here's the type of team that would succeed at GABP, and how you can build that team on a budget.

PITCHERS: In evaluating pitchers, I would focus on 2 characteristics: K/9 and GB/FB ratio. I would focus on K/9 because that lowers the number of balls in play that need to be turned into outs. The Reds were 4th in MLB in K/9 last year, and with the current makeup of the staff, could repeat this. What killed the Reds was a BABIP that ranked near the bottom of the league, and allowing the most HRs, both of which can be addressed with the GB/FB ratio, as described below.

Due to the small dimensions of our ballpark, pitchers give up more home runs off of fly balls here than they will on the road. In 2008, the Reds led all of baseball in HRs given up at home, with 111 versus giving up 90 hrs on the road (9th most). Given that we play half our games at home, it would be an advantage to give up fewer fly balls. My first order of business would be to obtain pitchers who induce ground balls. We currently have mainly FB pitchers, or pitchers who give up a lot of HRs (Harang, Cueto, and Arroyo). If I were the Reds pitching coaches, I work with these guys to get downward movement on their pitches to make them less prone to the HR

HITTERS: I don't think it comes as any surprise that my preference would be to get hitters who get on base and hitters who can hit the longball to drive them in. Without any data to back this claim up, I would think that slap hitters wouldn't succeed as well here as they may in larger ballparks because, with the outfield walls shorter here, outfielders can play a couple steps closer to the infield without worrying as much about the ball getting over their heads. This would affect a slap hitter more than a power hitter. Additionally, the grounds crew is going to make life hard on a slap hitter (see below).

OBP and SLG have constantly been linked to increasing run production, much more than AVG. I would focus OBP and SLG more than AVG in my evaluation of players.

DEFENSE: With a pitching staff that induces more ground balls, and with less square feet to cover in the outfield, this team should emphasize its infield defense first. As we learned with the Rays last year, a good defense can turn an otherwise good rotation into a fantastic one. After enduring a season of Keppinger, Hairston, and Cabrera at shortstop, we should be able to understand the difference a good defensive shortstop makes. The ability to turn batted balls into outs, combined with the high K/9 and improved GB/FB ratios above, would make this pitching staff succeed in GABP.

Given that we have to operate on a budget, we can't afford a player without weaknesses. As such, I would put my defensive liabilities in the corner outfield spots. Adam Dunn's defense cost the Reds less in GABP than it would cost the Padres, Dodgers, or A's in their respective parks for two reasons: less territory to cover, and more FB's turn into HRs anyway in GABP. Additionally, with the new focus on GB/FB, there would be less opportunities for the team's defensive liabilities.

GROUNDS CREW: Yes, the grounds crew can get into the act of helping the Reds win as well. Since they are in charge of grooming the field, they can choose the height of the infield and outfield grass. Since the Reds pitchers are ground ball pitchers, longer grass is better (a la Wrigley, from what I've heard). Since the Reds' corner outfielders aren't great covering territory, outfield grass being a little longer is helpful as well.

CONCLUSION: This needs to start in the minors. It needs to be the mantra for management in trades, free agency signings, and drafting. Given the signings of Willy Taveras and trade for Ramon Hernandez, I don't know that my plan is being followed. And I worry about this team's ability to win in this ballpark as a result.

A surplus of available corner outfielders? Why this might be a good year to acquire one

JJ — Wed, 03 Dec 2008 16:53:44 -0000

Supply and demand - any economist will tell you that in a free market, this is what determines a price. As the government has not yet taken over MLB, we have a free agency free market. As a player in this market, I'd sure like to be any position other than an outfielder.

Supply Side:

Free agents with OPS > .800 include: Manny Ramirez, Pat Burrell, Adam Dunn, Milton Bradley, Raul Ibanez, Cliff Floyd, Bobby Abreu, Jim Edmonds, Rocco Baldelli (in 28 games), Jerry Hairston, and Casey Blake (though he'll likely play 3rd).

Granted, all of these players have flaws, ranging from Manny being Manny, low BA's lots of K's and bad defense for Burrell and Dunn, age with Ibanez and Floyd, injury issues with Bradley and Baldelli, and, is Hairston really on this list? Really?

Of the above free agents, only Ramirez, Bradley, Ibanez, and Blake were offered arbitration, meaning the 'only' cost of a free agent is money. This means that teams like the Reds who should value draft picks won't lose one from signing most of these free agents.

Potential trade targets: Names that have popped up as potentially being available for trade include Jermaine Dye, Brian Giles, Xavier Nady, Magglio Ordonez, and one of the St. Louis outfielders (Ankiel and Ludwick).

From the trade targets, we have a team that looks like they'll suck next year (Padres), a team that looks like it's in sell-off mode (White Sox), a team where jobs are being lost like crazy (Tigers), a team that wants to get a young outfielder up (Cards), and a team with excess outfielders (Yankees). And I'm sure there are many more available outfielders than those I mentioned.

Demand Side:

We've read numerous sportswriters say that they're seeing the market affecting free agent salaries due to lower projected revenues from ticket sales and corporate sponsorships. Even the Yankees, moving into their goldmine of a park, seem to be affected (Ken Rosenthal brings up the fact that the Mets, Yankees, Jets, and Giants all move into a new ballpark in the coming 20 months). Other teams will take a double hit, due to reduced ticket sales and reduced revenue sharing from the Yankees as the Yankees can deduct operating costs of the new ballpark from local revenue, meaning less $$ in the revenue sharing pool from its biggest contributor.

The current market conditions seem to be making teams hesitant not only to sign free agents, but to offer arbitration to their own free agents who look likely to get multi-year deals (an aside, that Dunn trade looks like a steal now, doesn't it?). Additionally, teams are looking at their own payroll and financial flexibility, and seem to be favoring younger (i.e. less expensive) players. This, too, lowers demand for the middle-age and older free agents.

Teams appear to be wanting to control costs and unload expensive ballplayers. Additionally, teams are valuing younger players more. From the trades of Matt Holliday and Nick Swisher, it appears that even trading for an outfielder will cost less in terms of prospects than it would have in other offseasons.

The end result will be depressed player costs for the corner outfielders, both via trade and via free agency. This is not going to be the case for many other positions - SS, 2B, CF, C, SP - where there seems to either be a dearth of quality players available, or a never-ending need for quality players (SP).

Should the Reds pull the trigger on one of the bigger-names available?

This is where the GM gets paid to do his job. I'm a firm believer that in baseball, one player does not make a huge difference. We're looking for a corner outfielder to replace Adam Dunn, whose annual 40 HR, 100 BB, 100 RBI is not overlooked here as it is on certain local radio stations.

If adding one outfielder is all we do, are we basically back at the team we had in the middle of last year? Do we end up just hoping Cueto and Harang improve on last year's numbers and that Volquez's 2008 was no fluke? We've been there and done that - see 2008, where we signed 1 big-name player who came in and did fix the problem the team had the prior year, but didn't get us much closer to contention.

I don't like the sign 1 player and hope the rest improve strategy. My opinion is that if we can only add a corner outfielder, we better improve the team somewhere else (shortstop, catcher, 3B defense, starting pitching depth). Otherwise, I'll pass - despite a favorable buyers market..

2009 schedule: we'll find out early what this team is made of

JJ — Wed, 17 Sep 2008 17:44:27 -0000

MLB posted the tentative 2009 schedule - the A's will be hoping to repeat last night's feat of beating John Lackey and the Angels, not in Oakland, but in Anaheim. The A's open in Anaheim and close with the Angels in Oakland. April will be brutal if the team is trying to find itself:

4 at Anaheim
3 Seattle, 3 Boston
3 at Toronto, 3 at Yankees
3 Tampa Bay
3 at Texas

That said, we have a wonderful interleague schedule as the A's draw the NL West. Unfortunately, the rest of the AL West draws the NL West (though the Rangers get Houston as their rival game).

3 vs Arizona
3 at SF, 3 at LA, 3 at SD
3 vs Colorado, 3 vs SF

July is also a brutal month:

1 vs Detroit
3 at Cleveland, 3 at Boston, 3 at TB
4 vs Angels, 3 vs. Twins
3 at Yankees, 4 at Boston

If the A's can survive April that will be a positive sign and should set them up to thrive against the NL. If we're still in a contending position through July, Beane would have good reason to make trades to improve the club.

There are a lot of question marks for the 2009 team - we should quickly get answers in April!

See schedule here

What would Billy Beane do?

JJ — Mon, 21 Jul 2008 18:13:31 -0000

As an Oakland A’s and Cincinnati Reds fan, I often wonder what the Reds would be like if they had Billy Beane running the team. If BB had taken over after last season, I can see him realizing that the team was more than 1-2 players away from contending and that the minor league system needed some additional strength. Here’s what I can picture happening:

Harang to Arizona for a similar haul as he got for Haren (includes Greg Smith, Dana Eveland, Carlos Gonzalez, who are on the MLB team, and Brett Anderson, Chris Carter, and Aaron Cunningham).
Arroyo to another team for prospects similar to those obtained by Blanton (includes Adrian Cardenas, Josh Outman, and Matthew Spencer)
Griffey to another team for a minor prospect
Never invited Corey Patterson within 100 miles of Cincinnati
Trade Dunn near the trading deadline and called up Jay Bruce
Kept Josh Hamilton – I just don’t think he would have traded away such an enormous talent. The only way Volquez would be a Red would be if the Rangers would have taken Joey Votto for him.
A Josh Fogg-ish pitcher would be in the rotation, but so would Smith, Eveland, Cueto, and Thompson/Bailey.
Not signing Francisco Cordero.
All in all, reducing the club’s payroll significantly, leaving more room for large bonuses for draft picks and Latin ballplayers, and giving flexibility going into next offseason.

The thing I love about BB is that he makes pre-emptive moves. The A’s weren’t going to win this year without a couple big-name free-agent signings, which just weren’t available last offseason. So, BB, knowing the weakness of A’s farm system, acted to shore it up with short and long-term solutions. Yes, Aaron Harang is a stud, 2008 injury notwithstanding, but so are the 6 players Oakland got for Dan Haren, including the 2 whose MLB pitching performances are not that far behind Haren’s.

The thing that frustrates me about Reds’ management is that they seem to be stuck between wanting to win now (“Going for it”) and building for the future. As Billy Beane shows us, there is a way to succeed at doing both.

Is it time to trade Phillips and/or Harang?

JJ — Wed, 07 May 2008 14:57:20 -0000

Has Aaron Harang ever had higher value than he has right now? What about Brandon Phillips? Harang has pitched over 230 innings each of the past two years and is averaging 7 innings per start this year. Phillips provides gold-glover caliber defense, power, and speed while playing at a traditionally weak offensive position. Both are signed to reasonable long-term deals. They are the perfect players to build a team around. So why even consider trading them?

Let's look at the team as a whole. The Reds have 4 solid young pitchers including Harang and if Bailey is included in the group. They have a core of young position players including Phillips, Votto, Bruce, EdE, and Kepp who could be the start to a good team. But there are major issues with this team.

The way the Reds are going, you have to assume we'll see the mid-summer fire sale of Dunn, Griffey, Weathers, Hatteburg, Bako, and maybe others. I'd guess those players as a whole will net 2-3 servicable players and a couple low-level, low-rated prospects. So we're left with holes in the outfield, at catcher, and at a starter. Could Phillips be turned into a decent outfielder and a starter? Could Harang be turned into a ML-ready starter, a young prospect, and a couple decent position prospects?

I don't think the Reds have the guts to make that type of move, but it's time to at least explore the possibilities. This is a team that needs to chart a course and stick to it, or we'll just keep going in circles.

The Ryan Howard theory to support keeping the kids down

JJ — Thu, 06 Mar 2008 03:44:09 -0000

I don't know if I fully believe this, but I can see some merit. A few years ago, Ryan Howard was one of the hottest minor league prospects. The Phillies kept him in the minors an extra year and a half - he was 26 in his first full major league season. I think their philosophy with him (other than having Jim Thome blocking him) was that they would have more years of Howard's prime by keeping him in the minors.

Fast forward to our situation. With the number of highly-regarded minor-league prospects we have, keeping them down 1/2 a season longer will control costs and allow the Reds to control them during more of their 'peak' years. With the arbitration salaries spinning out of control (see Howard = $10M!!!), it becomes even more important to have guys for as much of their peak years as possible.

Howard was the one I thought of with a team keeping a top minor leaguer down - are there any other examples anyone can think of? Is it worth keeping a guy down a half or full season to be able to have him for more of his prime?

Reds Ideal Offseason

JJ — Fri, 01 Feb 2008 23:04:24 -0000

My ideas coming into the offseason for what the Reds should do were a lot different than what has actually been done. I hold out hope of a Blanton for Cueto+3 other non-Bailey/Bruce/Votto minor leaguers deal, but I'm at the point where I think we're basically set for the season. While I'm comfortable with what's been done, here's what my ideal (and, to me, realistic) offseason would've brought us:

TRADE GRIFFEY AND VOTTO, MOVE DUNN TO FIRST BASE: I would've explored moving Griffey and Votto for quality relief pitching. I'm sure that we could've gotten a servicable reliever. Mark Kotsay (.575 OPS, 56 games, lingering back issues in '07) and some cash got Joey Divine, a former 1st rounder! Maybe if we'd jumped in early we could've landed Brad Lidge? Huston Street?
DEAL FOR BLANTON - I still think that Cueto + a maybe Frazier, Dorn, and Soto may be enough for Blanton. I think that he'd become the #2 guy for the Redlegs for the next 3 years. Plus he's from Kentucky. Maybe with Cueto, Votto, and some others would get us Blanton + Street.
GUARANTEE HOMER A SPOT: Harang, Arroyo, and Blanton will eat a ton of innings. That'll give Bailey and the #5 pitcher less pressure to go deep into games.
SIGN 2 VETERAN PITCHERS TO WIN THE #5 SPOT: I'd like to have seen a deal to Prior. Affeldt is fine for me.
CUT/TRADE CASTRO & STANTON. A bag of balls would due.
KEEP CANTU for a RH bat off the bench. He plays a decent 3rd or 1st.
DON'T USE A RULE 5 PICK ON AN A-LEVEL PLAYER WITH AN ERA LIKE STANTON'S. If you want to burn money, just give it to me. Or lower ticket prices!

OPENING DAY ROSTER (with position in the lineup):
1B- Dunn (4)
2B- Phillips (3)
SS- Gonzalez (7)
3B- Encarnacion (5)
RF- Hopper (1)
CF- Hamilton (2)
LF- Bruce (6)
C1- Ross (8)

UT- Freel
UT- Keppinger
C2- Valentine
1B- Hatteburg
UT- Cantu

SP- Harang
SP- Arroyo
SP- Blanton
SP- Bailey
SP- Belisle

RP- Salmon/Coffey/Majewski/McBeth
RP- Coutlangus/Affeldt
RP- Bray
RP- Trade acquisition
RP- Weathers
RP- Burton
CL- Lidge?

Taking on Lidge's, Street's, and Blanton's salaries would less than the salaries of Griffey and Cordero.

That was what I was picturing. Any thoughts?

Poll

JJ for GM?

YES!!!

1 votes

um, no - stick to your day job

30 votes

31 votes | Poll has closed

Fun with Numbers

JJ — Tue, 09 Oct 2007 15:41:19 -0000

I'm currently getting by on the hypothesis that the A's are only 2 'happenings' away from a WS title: (1) signing Barry Bonds, and (2) a healthy team. I'm going to tackle the first issue in this diary by looking at what the A's numbers 'with Bonds' and 'without Bonds' would've been in 2007. I've taken out Mike Piazza's 2007 numbers as well as the fill-in outfielders, including Langerhans, Bocachica, Thompson, Kielty, Putnum, and Davanon. I'm obviously replacing some of our weaker links with Bonds, so the results will be overstated, but take a look just for fun.

A's 2007 numbers:
AVG/OBP/SLG/OPS
A's 2007 numbers: 0.256/0.338/0.407/0.745
Numbers with Bonds: 0.259/0.352/0.421/0.773

Would this add up to significantly more runs for the A's? The A's scored 741 runs in 2007. Teams comparable to the A's+Bonds were the Cincinnati Reds (OPS .772 and 783 runs), the Atlanta Braves (.774, 810), and Cleveland (.771, 811).

With an additional 60 runs, the A's run differential would have been +43, which would've put us around 86 wins, still not enough to have made the playoffs this year. Add in a healthy Rich Harden replacing starts by Braden, Meyer, and Lewis, and you could certainly make a case that the A's would've been in the race for the AL West. Add in a healthy Street, Duke, and Calero, and you could make the case that the A's would've been the team to beat in the AL.

Or maybe I'm just daydreaming...