SB Nation User Blog: cherub_daemon

Dusty's Midnight Runners

cherub_daemon — Wed, 15 Apr 2009 02:26:05 -0000

To the tune of...hell, you'll figure it out.

Poor old Danny Ray
Looked sad upon the rubber there, he threw a slider sixty-five.
Our fathers cried in '81 and who'd blame them.
Now we're grown, so grown, now I must say more than ever.
Go Toora Loora Toora Loo-Rye-Aye
and we can sing just like Arroyo.

Come on EdE,
I swear (frequently) At this moment you mean everything,
With you showing bunt the thoughts in my gut, well it's sca-ry
Ah come on EdE...

Managers round here call double steals on
3-0 counts and we're resigned to watch it daily
Though HAVOC (not havoc), they are far more young and crafty
Remember Toora Loora Toora Loo-Rye-Aye
EdE if you drop that I'll kill you...

Come on Cherry you've got baseball genes
Ah come on let's run on everything,
That pointy Red "C"...Hell, let's bunt down by three
Ah come on let's, ah come on EdE, please.

Awesome quote

cherub_daemon — Fri, 03 Apr 2009 15:48:23 -0000

Awesome quote

"It was a gut-wrencher," said Leyland. "It's not good when you light up two Marlboros at the same time at 3 a.m., washing it down with a glass of chocolate milk. You know you have a lot on your mind when you do that."

Epic WBC Post

cherub_daemon — Fri, 27 Feb 2009 03:05:38 -0000

Epic WBC Post

...on Red Reporter. Written by my gf, andromache, who has shown up here once or twice.

Type A Free Agency: Part II

cherub_daemon — Tue, 20 Jan 2009 20:31:10 -0000

Why does Type A free agency exist? Who does it benefit? Who does it hurt? Can it be fixed? Discussions of these questions and how they affect the Quest For Relief below.

Who benefits?

Now, I'm probably not going to say this better than Keith Law, but here I go, anyway.

Type A free agency exists primarily to drag down free agent salaries, period. Regardless of whether it provides fair compensation to a team, promotes competitive balance or gives a player's current team a better chance to keep him, the reason it is in the Collective Bargaining Agreement is because it reduces salaries. If the value of Player TypeA's production is $5 million, and you, a GM, perceive that your draft slot is worth $1 million, you'll reduce the amount you're willing to give TypeA by that amount.

Some writers have said, "Well, the players should just scrap this compensation system if it means that solid players will end up without jobs." If they could, they would. Law (from the article linked above):

The draft-pick anachronism will probably be eliminated from free agency only if the owners -- who have no reason to want the picks eliminated -- can convince the union to agree to a hard slotting system in the Rule 4 Draft, something the union, at the behest of player agents, has been unwilling to grant in past negotiations.

He goes on to cite how the rules as written protect draftees at the expense of free agents. This is something I can get behind to some degree, since, as he points out:

[They] typically come from modest means and [they] more than likely will earn the majority of the money they make in baseball in their initial signing bonus.

Fair enough, but from a competitive baseball perspective, it's less than ideal. Currently, top prospects drop down in the draft all the time because of "signing problems". (As a close to home example, we basically have no business having Rick Porcello, but we were willing to shell out to sign him.) But I can also respect the union for protecting its youngest players.

Whether the compensation rules benefit large or small market teams is a bit of a push, in my opinion. Small teams certainly benefit from reduced salaries, but probably less than people think when it comes to the actual compensation. As a limiting example, consider the case of two teams, the BigSox and the SmallRates. The BigSox build themselves mostly through FA signings, and the SmallRates solely through drafting. Every year, the BigSox sign the maximum number of Type A players that they're eligible to. At the end of these players' contracts, if the Type A's are still good, they'll be compensated. This will happen with some regularity. To be better compensated than the BigSox, the SmallRates will likely have to draft multiple players that will turn into Type A's every year.

Who gets screwed?

The players, in general, but who most of all? One good archetype would be Jason Varitek. Since the Type A ranking looks backward at the last two years, but doesn't project forward, he ends up as Type A, in spite of a rough season last year. Being a 37-year-old catcher, noone expects him to improve much. He's worth more than league minimum, but noone thinks he's worth that plus what they perceive their draft pick to be worth.

The other archetype would be Juan Cruz; he was a solid middle reliever for the last two years, but was a bit inconsistent before that. He might be entering his prime, but more to the point, he's probably only going to pitch 60 innings a year. Giving up a draft pick for 60 innings of work means he had better be lights out for those 60 innings. Not sure if you'll get that? Don't sign Juan Cruz.

The teams that get screwed are the ones that need relief pitching. (Hey! That's us!) Your lost draft pick doesn't care whether you got 150 games of Mark Teixeira or 60 innings of Juan Cruz.

Can it be fixed?

Sure. Let's assume that its a necessary evil, the least unacceptable alternative for the Players Union. The biggest problem with Type A status is not the idea so much as the implementation. Currently, players are only judged against others at their position. Starting pitchers vs. each other, Relievers vs. each other, Catchers, etc. The problem, of course, is that a really good reliever does not provide the same value as a really good position player.

The sabermetric community has devised composite statistics which attempt to put all players on the same scale (WARP-3, others). Use one, select the Type A's and B's based on the top 20% and to 40%, and to hell with what position they play. If they're all position players, fine. That should fix the Juan Cruz Problem.

The Jason Varitek problem can be addressed by choosing the top 20% and 40% based on a forward projection of whatever composite stat is used.

The Quest for Relief

From this and some of my other posts, you may have gathered that I'm not a fan of trying to sign a FA bullpen. Judging by his draft record, I think DD freels the same way. By and large, relievers are relievers because they're not good enough to start. Painful as it is to admit, Zach Miner is probably not an exception.(...but I want to believe...) Draft loads of pitchers, and some of them will end up starting, and some won't, but they might be good enough to do relief. Another option is to grab guys like Edwin Jackson, who weren't good enough as starters to merit Type A/B, but could be used as swingmen.

Shameless Editorializing

On balance, I like the Type A/B nonsense, though I wish they'd fix the implementation as I laid out above. It makes trades more interesting, and it opens up a way to build up draft picks by taking on rentals of guys like Matt Holliday. It makes the Rule 4 more interesting, and it de facto protects up and coming players. Could be worse.

Thanks for reading.

Type A Free Agency: Part I

cherub_daemon — Mon, 12 Jan 2009 16:13:57 -0000

[Editor's Note: Promoted from the FanPosts, in case anyone missed its insight. Keep the good stuff coming, if you'd like to contribute. I'd love to put more on the front page.]

There has been some talk about the "handcuffs" of Type A/B free agency, so I decided to poke around a bit more. It's part of why we're reluctant to talk to Juan Cruz. It's why Pudge and Jason Varitek may not have jobs next year. Details, thoughts and possible loopholes after the jump.

As you're probably aware, Type A/B free agents are those of a sufficient caliber that the league decides that the team losing them should get some compensation. Type A fall within the top 20% of their position group, while Type B fall within the top 40%, but not the top 20%. Teams that lose a Type A free agent are entitled to the first-round draft pick of the signing team, as well as a sandwich pick between the first and second rounds. (Exception: if the signing team is in the bottom half of the league, they lose a second-round pick, rather than first round.) Teams that lose a Type B free agent recieve a sandwich pick only. (This is all contingent on some other arcana like whether the player was offered arbitration and other things, but those details aren't needed for this discussion.)

I got curious as to whether there was any statute of limitations on Type A-ness, at least as far as compensation is concerned. Couldn't find anything in the discussions of it, so I checked the Collective Bargaining Agreement. (Article XX, Section B, if you're so inclined) There is no explicit sunset on Type A status, but there is a possible loophole. Quoting the CBA:

Such compensation shall consist solely of the amateur draft choices described in subparagraph (c) below and shall be awarded in the Major League Rule 4 Draft succeeding the Player’s election of free agency.

Italics mine. The compensation does not appear to be dependant on when the player is actually signed. So if there's a guy who involuntarily retired because noone thought he was worth salary+draft pick, it appears that on June 16th, you can sign him without giving up picks the next year either. Essentially, the compensation ship has already sailed. What's weird is that he (likely) still counts as a Type A/B; there are limits on how many you are allowed to sign, and it appears that he'll still count toward that limit for the current year.

Many other loopholes have been closed off by this provision of the CBA:

...nor shall there be any compensation paid for the loss of a free agent except as provided for in this Section B.

Essentially, I read this to mean you can't offer the FA's old team a minor leaguer if they'll chip in some cash, or other such shenanigans. The June 16th loophole, however, may offer another avenue. The FA, his old team, and a team which wishes to sign him can could enter into negotiations in which his old team agrees to sign him for terms agreeable to the FA and the new team and then immediately trades him, presumably for cash considerations or as part of another trade. Without the June 16th loophole, a FA's old team has no reason to settle for less than a draft pick, but the possibility of getting nothing for him might be a hand forcer. (Note: this type of negotiation might be specifically banned by other parts of the CBA or league rules...I'm not up enough on this stuff to say for sure.)

Part II will discuss some of the problems with Type A/B free agency, its effects on the market for different kinds of players, and the Quest for Relief.

Really old baseball card.

cherub_daemon — Wed, 07 Jan 2009 22:43:04 -0000

Really old baseball card.

Only of tangential interest, but...

Possibly the first baseball card ever, of the 1869 Cincinatti Red Stockings. Read the article below, and you'll be 5 minutes closer to P&C reporting.

Not worried yet.

cherub_daemon — Mon, 19 May 2008 04:56:24 -0000

Seems crazy, right?

I was trying to really see what the problem is, so I headed over to Baseball Reference for some objective analysis.

In the AL, we're fourth in runs scored/game, dead-freaking-last in runs allowed. This is strangely comforting, as the pitching looks to be improving. The batting, as frustrating as it is, with runners left on base, is still scoring runs.

Also, looking at individual pitchers, most of them are well off their historic peripherals. Verlander has as many walks as strikeouts right now. That will likely not continue. Same with Bondo. Same with Rogers.

(Verlander also leads the AL in hit batsmen, which is kind of hilarious. That likely will continue...he did it last year, too.)

Also, we appear (based on Range Factors) to be getting above league-average defense at every position except first base. Cabrera, Guillen? A-HEM, fellas.

Speaking of Cabrera, he was actually only (again, based on range factor) slightly worse than Inge, and considerably better than league average at third. But his fielding average was 0.900, courtesy of 5 errors. That's almost certainly fluky--if he was actually that bad of a third baseman, he would not have made it to the majors as a third baseman. I wonder how many of his "troubles at third" were mostly him getting used to the new field? Maybe they cut the grass shorter at Comerica, or the ground is harder.

If I could get Dave D's ear right now, this is what I'd say: don't do anything crazy. They're underperforming, not bad. They're due to go on a tear. For the last two years, they've been amazing out of the box, then settled down. Maybe this is the year there's a middle or late hot streak.

I may eat these words, but I think that things are likely to to improve, and not just in a "how could they get any worse" sense.