SB Nation User Blog: notsellingjeans

NO(t)STRADAMUS: My Favorite (AN) Mistake

notsellingjeans — Wed, 27 May 2009 23:08:38 -0000

Did you make it this far? Whew!

Like I always say, any writer can lose his readers in the story itself. It takes a special brand of boredom to disengage the audience in the headline. But when you see an opportunity to mix Cheryl Crow, a French apothecary, and nonsensical grammar into the title of a fanpost, you don't hesitate; you act. You start slinging apostrophes now and ask questions later.

This is my first post in more than six weeks, and only my third in the last three months. I've also dropped game threads this year after managing Friday night's action last season. At first I thought I AN would struggle without eye-popping post-game headlines ("A's lose 7-0") and pulse-quickening teasers to the overflow game threads ("the game continues"). But somehow the site has held on.

With today's off-day for the A's, I'd like to turn the focus back on AN and introduce Athletics Nation NO(t)STRADAMUS, a celebration of self-deprecation. In (Not)stradamus, we each look back at our own bold, sometimes ill-advised predictions made in fanposts and comments. Especially in the preseason, but really all year long, we all enjoy "throwing darts at the board" and attempting to handicap the A's playoff chances, possible free agent signings, and hypothetical trades. The goal here is to look back at your own predictions over the last few months or years, and find the one that missed the worst. Looking back at your own archive on your personal AN page, you want to find the dart that not only missed the board, but impaled the bartender standing 6 feet to the left.

It could be a comment in a game thread or fanpost, or it could be a full-length diary you wrote that, looking back, really missed the mark.

Here are the ground rules:

You can make fun of your own poor predictions - and mine too of course, since it's my absurd idea - but please refrain from piling on when other people post their own NO(t)STRADAMUSes. Just chuckle quietly at your computer...they'll never know. But please do feel free to rip on your own contribution. It's easier to be funny when you're self-deprecating, and it doesn't offend.
Using the AN search function or your comment archive on your personal AN page, try to find the actual comment or diary and link to it. Sometimes it can be good entertainment to look back at an old discussion to see how strongly everyone involved felt about it at the time.
If you want, you can provide your own follow-up or context to the link.

I'll get it started. Without further ado, here's a few AN pieces I'd like to have back:

"All Aboard the Furcal Train!" - November 14th, 2008.

Can I get off now? What a trainwreck. The time stamp for this post says it was made it in the afternoon, but you'd swear I wrote it at 3 a.m., bleary-eyed and in nothing but my G.I. Joe boxers. (Don't lie. You've checked AN in a similar state once or twice yourself). Apparently at the time I was willing to give Rafael Furcal $60 million dollars. Remind me of this the next time I mention that my dream job would've been to be a major-league GM. As we know, Furcal ended up signing with the the Dodgers for literally half the guaranteed money that I suggested, and now has an OBP south of .300 and a nearly identical SLG% a quarter of the way through the year. Don't wait for the women and children to calmly get off the $60M Furcal Train. Just shove and push and do whatever you need to do to save yourself from that disaster of an idea.

"The Super Lineup" - April 24th, 2008.

What do you get when you cram the talents of Rajai Davis, Donnie Murphy, Chris Denorfia, Bobby McRosby, Emil Brown, and Old Sweeney into the same lineup?

A giant pool of suck, that's what.

But no! Apparently I can clearly to point to April 24th of last year as a date on which that I was a flaming idiot. At the time, my calculus was clearly this:

Against left handed pitching,

three mediocre right-handed hitters + SIX more shitacular right-handed hitters =

wait for it...

The Super Lineup.

This worked a grand total of once, against the Francisco Liriano the first time it was deployed last season. Then left-handed pitchers leaguewide remembered that those players are not good at baseball.

"NO(t)STRADAMUS" - May 27th, 2009.

I just have a feeling this one already sucks, even without the benefit of hindsight or anyone reading it yet.

So how about you, AN? What's your prediction or proclamation you'd like to have back?

A's Finalize 25-man roster

notsellingjeans — Sat, 04 Apr 2009 23:45:59 -0000

Announced immediately after today's game ended, per AP:

The Oakland Athletics optioned left-hander Gio Gonzalez, infielders Daric Barton, Cliff Pennington and Jack Hannahan and outfielder Chris Denorfia to Triple-A Sacramento after Saturday’s 3-2 win over San Francisco.

The A’s, who open their season against the Los Angeles Angels in Anaheim on Monday night, finalized their 25-man roster by officially adding pitchers Brett Anderson, Andrew Bailey and Trevor Cahill.

Oakland’s projected opening day starter Justin Duchscherer and right-hander Joey Devine, expected to share the closer’s role with Brad Ziegler, will open the season on the disabled list along with Rule 5 outfielder Ben Copeland.

-snip

This means that Gallagher is opening in the bullpen, which Slusser hinted at in a blog post today. Gallagher reminded her that he had served as a swingman before in his time with the Cubs.

Although the AP article doesn't say it, one can infer that two of the three new DLers - Duke, Devine, and Copeland - must be headed to the 60-day DL, in order to make room for Anderson/Cahill/Bailey. The A's had 39 players on their 40-man roster; placing two on the 60-Day DL would allow them to keep 42.

The 25 man roster looks like this entering the season:

Ryan Sweeney CF
Orlando Cabrera SS
Jason Giambi 1b
Matt Holliday LF
Eric Chavez 3b
Jack Cust DH
Kurt Suzuki C
Travis Buck RF
Mark Ellis 2b

(Geren used this lineup to close out Spring Training).

Bench:
Garciaparra 1b-3b
Crosby SS-3b-2b
Powell C
Davis CF

12-man pitching staff:

Braden
Cahill
Eveland
Anderson
Outman

Gallagher
Wuertz
Casilla
Bailey
Springer
Blevins
Ziegler

How do you feel about HGH use in baseball?

notsellingjeans — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 08:12:17 -0000

baseballgirl note: Southern California A's/Angels April 7th game - FINAL DEADLINE this Monday!

Let's imagine for a moment that every taxpayer in America received this letter in the mail from the IRS next week:

Attention hard-working Americans,

Due to staffing shortages, the Internal Revenue Service will not be auditing any of your personal tax returns in 2009. Please continue to fill these forms out honestly, fully reporting all of your sources of income. Do not inflate or invent any deductions for yourself, either.

Hmm...would we have a few cheaters on our hands?

While the national media once again turns its spotlight on steroids, I find myself listening to Alex Rodriguez's suspicious interviews and thinking once again about baseball's puzzling stance on Human Growth Hormone.

HGH is on the list of Major League Baseball's banned substances. However, unlike steroids and amphetemines, it is not tested for in MLB, in part because an accurate HGH test would require the testing of blood rather than urine and the CBA doesn't allow for such testing. Much like the silly IRS example above, baseball's HGH policy is a rule with no reinforcement - and thus, no chance of being universally abided.

Like steroids and amphetamines, HGH is also on the list of banned substances in the NCAA and in the Olympics, but its reputed benefits in healthy adults are controversial. Some athletes claim that HGH has improved their vision, helped them build muscle mass, and recover from injuries faster. Others believe that HGH's effects are greatly overstated by pharmaceutical companies, and that their effects are placeboic.

As I've listened skeptically to Rodriguez's half-truths, I've found myself thinking again about HGH use, and the likelihood that some former steroid users have simply made growth hormone their PED of choice since the 2003 season ended.

Even if you don't believe in HGH's reputed benefits, consider for a moment its potential power as a placebo alone. Baseball is a very psychological game, and confidence is essential to success. If a player took HGH and believed that he had an edge on his competition, he would undoubtedly feel more confident than he had before, and perhaps perform better with that added confidence.

These are five questions that I find myself thinking about as I reflect on current PED use in MLB. I'd be very curious for your opinions on them if you want to leave them in the comments (I also provided a poll below).

How widespread do you think HGH use is in MLB? Less than 5%? 10%?
Would it bother you, as a competitive fan, if you found out that, hypothetically, the Yankees and Rangers had rampant HGH use in their clubhouse the last five years, while the A's had been "playing clean" from the top to the bottom of their 25-man roster?
Follow-up to Question #2: If you were the GM of your favorite team, and you knew other teams were cheating the system rampantly with no reprecussions...would you be tempted to sign a player with a steroid past and current HGH connections - hoping that he'd help connect his new A's teammates with the same illegal edge (but leaving you plausible deniability as GM)? Would you turn a blind eye to it in part to "keep up with the Joneses"?
As a fan of the A's, would you want A's players to use HGH, knowing that they couldn't be caught or punished for it, despite the fact that it is banned?

The fifth question is once again purely hypothetical, and I'm going to roll it into a poll:

Bobby Crosby is entering the most important year of his career. He desperately wants to earn his $5.25M contract, and simultaneously build a market for his services in free agency next year. He is booed at his job daily, and many loyal A's fans say and think hostile things about him, even though they've never met him. In the course of his offseason workouts, Crosby comes into contact with someone who can supply him with HGH, and that person testifies to its power. Crosby immediately thinks of the importance of the 2009 season to his future, and of how disappointed he's been in his own performance for several years.

Poll

If you were in Bobby Crosby's position, would you use HGH during the 2009 season?

Yes

332 votes

No

281 votes

613 votes | Poll has closed

DLD 2-7: O-Cab Interviews, A-Rod Steroids

notsellingjeans — Sat, 07 Feb 2009 15:38:38 -0000

Reading other people's opinions about a player is valuable, but I think you can often learn something new about a player when you hear him speak. When I find out that one of my favorite teams is considering a player, I like to try to find interviews that he's done in the past online.

Here is an interview Orlando Cabrera while he was with the Angels.

Here's an interview he did with the White Sox.

What I learned: Cabrera has an excellent command of English, is very polite and attentive in interviews, has an incredible passion for winning, and loves to read - he's read three Fidel Castro biographies and "just finished 100 Years of Solitude" at the time of the Angels interview. He also skillfully evaded several loaded questions about Ozzie Guillen, remaining positive.

Anway, they're worth a click if you've never heard him speak and you have a few minutes. I came away from them impressed.

Elsewhere in the blogosphere...

Dave Cameron just finished up a terrific series on replacement-level position players over at fangraphs.

A-Rod allegedly tested positive for steroids during his MVP season of 2003.

The Suns have placed Amare Stoudamire on the trade block, 12 days before the NBA's trading deadline of Feb. 19.

Link away.

And the final spot on the roster goes to...

notsellingjeans — Fri, 06 Feb 2009 07:32:59 -0000

If I told you two months ago that the A's were going to sign a certain 6-foot-10, left-handed free agent pitcher this offseason to bolster the young staff, you would've been ecstatic, right?

Well they still can!

It turns out there are actually two men in the world who fit this description, and the A's are showing interest in the other one.

Let's look at two obvious positives here, before delving any deeper:

Andy Sisco is the second-best 6'10" lefty in baseball.
He's never assassinated a pigeon on the mound.

In all seriousness, I think that Andy Sisco has a decent chance of being the final player added to the team's roster before spring training. Almost 11 months removed from Tommy John surgery, Sisco will be throwing for scouts (including one from the A's) today. If he has regained his pre-injury velocity - sitting at 92-93, with a high of 95 - he will garner a Major League contract. If he's throwing in the mid-80s, he'll have to settle for a minor-league deal.

A 2005 Rule 5 Draft pick of the Royals, Sisco intrigues me for a variety of reasons. The A's have expressed an interest in adding a second lefty bullpen arm to complement Blevins, and the newly 26-year-old Sisco is the only name available that offers some upside. Here's the rest of the remaining lefty reliever market - the general description is aging LOOGY journeymen with low strikeout ratios.

In contrast to that uninspiring list of players, Sisco might still become something better than what he's been thus far in his career. His development path during the past four years with the Royals and White Sox is grounds for an early-career mulligan in itself.

After being used exclusively as a starter in high-A and appearing in only 26 games as a 21-year-old in '04, he was plucked in the Rule 5 Draft by the Royals out of high-A ball in 2005. And he did a terrific job - 75 innings, 76 K's, a 3.11 ERA and 3.79 FIP. His usage, however, was a bit of a cause for concern - changing roles and leaping from 25 high-A appearances to 67 big-league ones the following year. Might that radical change at age 21/22 have put added stress on his arm? Maybe.

Sisco regressed badly the following year and instead of sending him down to AAA, the Royals inexplicably let him "wear it" to the tune of a 7.10 ERA over the course of the '06 season in 65 more appearances of work.

The Royals then decided he needed to throw more, so they sent him to the Mexican League, where he was sent home after just two weeks for eating tacos during the first inning of a game.

Soon after he was traded to the White Sox for the '07 season, where he quickly found residence in Ozzie Guillen's doghouse (shocking!) and was sent down to AAA...where he should've been the year before. By the start of the '08 season, the injury was starting to nag him and he ended up having surgery before he ever pitched in an '08 game.

I go through all this to point out that maybe Sisco is more than just some ugly numbers and control problems, in hopes that you don't dismiss him out of hand when you see his stats. Extremely tall pitchers like Sisco are notorious for harnessing their mechanics later in their careers than their shorter counterparts do. Perhaps some newfound maturity, patient coaching, and a laid-back clubhouse will provide Sisco with the environment and the situation he needs to reach his potential.

If he demonstrates that his arm is back in today's open tryout, Sisco can stand out from that linked list of journeyman lefties in a several ways:

a.) By my calculations, he still has one usable option left. He spent less than 20 days down on the farm with the Royals in '06, preserving that option year, before the White Sox burned options on him in '07 and '08. That means that the A's would always have the flexibility to send him down to AAA and work out kinks if need be. It also gives them more roster flexibility to build a roster week-by-week that fits their needs (12 pitchers vs. 11 depending on looming off-days, etc. Players who can't be sent down like Casilla and Wuertz make this difficult, so it's crucial for teams to carry a few major-league quality pitchers who can shuttle back and forth between AAA and the bigs as necessary during the year).

b.) If he thrives, and proves to be a long-term asset, the team can offer him arbitration and has contractual control over him for a few years to come. Sisco isn't close to the requisite six years of service to become a free agent. This, in essence, could make him a potential future asset of the club via trade.

c.) His age (26) suggests that he may still have a few peak years in front of him. If Sisco can once again be the pitcher he was in '05, he won't need to be used merely as a LOOGY - he can be an effective reliever against all hitters and work a full inning each time out.

d.) He might give AL hitters a unique look that they simply don't see anywhere else in the league, making him difficult to hit.

e.) He'll come cheaply (less than $1M), due to the health and effectiveness concerns.

Clearly, my realistic vote for the final spot on the A's 40-man roster is Andy Sisco. What's yours, AN? Vote in the poll below.

Poll

With their open 40th roster slot, I predict the A's will:

Sign a lefty reliever - Sisco, Dennys Reyes, Ron Villone, etc.

151 votes

Sign Orlando Cabrera

174 votes

Troll the waiver wire for other team's cuts, a la Rajai Davis last year

63 votes

Leave the slot open to allow for a non-roster player to make the 25-man roster out of spring training - Anderson/Cahill/Dillon/Bailey/Cameron, etc.

233 votes

621 votes | Poll has closed

The Next Holliday-esque Trade

notsellingjeans — Sat, 24 Jan 2009 00:59:44 -0000

If there's one problem with having a very deep farm system, it's the difficult 40-man roster decisions that eventually have to be made. All around the diamond, the A's have a very good "internal replacement level," - the combined dropoff between their ML starters at each position and their AAA counterparts is smaller than perhaps any other team.

That mass of mediocrity has value. You hate Jack Hannahan, but he was significantly better last year than Andy Marte, Mike Lamb, and a few other guys who got 200+ at bats at the hot corner last year. And he wasn't the team's top choice. It's depressing that Gregorio Petit and Cliff Pennington aren't good enough to supplant Bobby Crosby...and yet all three are better than Tony Pena or Luis Rivas, who each wasted 200+ at-bats last year for their teams. All three A's shortstops could be any team's backup MIF.

That type of depth and high internal replacement level is the reason I never worry about the current incarnation of the A's ever being a 90-loss team, which is something to be proud of on a relatively small budget in the AL. But ultimately, the team probably needs a 4- or 5-win player or two if they want more to boast about more than just AAA championships.

The Matt Holliday trade has provided tthe team with one, and it also freed up two 40-man roster spots, which prevented the team from having to give away a player for free.

However, there is a strong chance that Holliday will be gone in a year, perhaps to fill the left field void for the Yankees at the cool price of $140M+, and once again the team will be without a 4-5 win player.

And next year, the 40-man roster crunch will be much greater, as Lansford, Italiano, Mazzaro, Andrew Bailey, Jason Fernandez, and chris carter are all Rule 5 Draft eligible for the first time. And although Cahill, Simmons, and Anderson won't be Rule 5 eligible yet, there's a chance that any or all of those three might've had their contract purchased by the end of the '09.

That's nine players - 22.5% of the 40-man roster!

The point is this: acquiring the very best AAAA players (Hannahan, Rajai Davis, Joe Dillon, Chen, etc.) and prospect depth for the future is great. It really is. But at some point, that depth needs to be consolidated into a more valuable asset, like Holliday, for two reasons: 1. Other than homegrowing a truly elite player, it's the only way for the A's to acquire one, and 2. It avoids the team being forced to give up on 40-man roster guys they still have hopes for.

So, although many AN readers hate the Holliday trade - can't stand it, don't understand it, or both - for the sake of the fanpost, please consider for a moment the idea that it could be considered again next offseason - when the 40-man roster talent crunch is worse than ever, and the team's lone 5-win player (Holliday) is likely gone.

Which player could be next offseason's one-year rental?

Brewers shortstop J.J. Hardy, who will be due to make $6-7 million in his final year of arbitration in '10, makes sense on a variety of levels.

His eventual replacement, Alcides Escobar, just turned 22 and completed an impressive season in AA. The Brewers were publicly unwilling to put Hardy on the trade block this offseason, but if Escobar demonstrates his readiness at the AAA level in '09, it'll be much easier for Milwaukee to hand over the reigns to him for the '10 season.
Clearing $6-7 million in payroll will be attractive to the Brewers, who were unable to re-sign Sabathia and Ben Sheets this offseason in part because of a hard payroll set at $80-85M. Next season will require even more creative juggling for Milwaukee, which has $35.9M committed to just four players in 2010: Jeff Suppan, Bill Hall, Prince Fielder, and David Riske. Tack on the raises for Corey Hart and Rickie Weeks in their final year of arbitraton, and that's $45 million - roughly 55% of the payroll - devoted to six players. And that's with gaping holes in center field, starting pitcher, and closer/bullpen, all of which can't be filled internally for the Brewers by 2010.
The A's need to upgrade at shortstop goes without saying, and Crosby's $5.25M will be off the books as a bonus. Plus, a one-year rental of Hardy will give the A's an opportunity to evaluate how he responds to the AL before committing to a lucrative free agent deal. Born and raised in Arizona, I'm going to make a leap and hope that Hardy is a "West Coast guy" and would consider re-signing in Oakland after the season. Hardy's also not a Scott Boras client, which makes signing him to an extension more realistic.
With so much payroll committed to mediocrity like Suppan and Hall, the Brewers will have to fill a few of those leaky holes (CF, bullpen) with league-average, cost-controlled players which currently don't exist in their farm system. Which is where the A's come in:

I think a J.J. Hardy/Oakland A's swap after the '09 season starts with either Ryan Sweeney, Travis Buck, or Aaron Cunningham - keep in mind, you have to take whatever you think Hardy is "worth" right now, and subtract one year of value, since he's being traded only a year prior to free agency in this hypothetical. If the A's can provide the Brewers with several cost-controlled years of league-average production in CF (or perhaps right field in Buck's case, with Hart pushed to center), that's the starting point that puts J.J. Hardy into conversation.

Here's where it gets hazy, but I also think there needs to be a productive major league reliever in this package - Casilla or Brown, perhaps - and a B or B- prospect or two. Assuming they build value in the coming season rather than lose it, let's say Henry Rodriguez and Javi Herrera.

This gives the A's an elite 4-5 win player, shores up their greatest hole, and helps the team clear 2-3 more spots on the 40-man roster for the pending roster crunch in '10.

I'm sure the Brewers would love to have a starting pitcher in that package, but they're not getting anyone better than Greg Smith if they're getting anyone. That rules out Gallagher/Eveland/Gio/Braden/Outman, which is my prediction for the Opening Day '10 rotation (with some more talented pitchers knocking at the door, obviously).

Thanks to the team's terrific depth in the outfield right now, the '10 outfield still looks ok even after that trade and Holliday's potential exodus. Let's say Hardy was acquired in exchange for Sweeney, Brown, H-Rod and Herrera. The '10 outfield might be Cunningham/Buck/Cust, with some combo of Rajai Davis/Denorfia/Murton/Copeland providing defense/platoon options off the bench and Giambi DHing most of the time in the final year of his contract.

What do you think, AN? Would you want to acquire J.J. Hardy a year from now, and if so, what package would it take to get him? Do you think that the Holliday trade is not a crazy abberration, but instead a tactic that Beane might try to use again in the future to take advantage of the organization's depth?

How much is the A's second-round pick worth?

notsellingjeans — Sun, 18 Jan 2009 20:12:17 -0000

One of AN's favorite discussion topics these days is Orlando Cabrera, and the debate of whether or not he should be pursued to fill the shortstop void.

While Cabrera provides an upgrade over Bobby Crosby, he also comes at the cost of the A's second-round draft pick.

But where exactly IS the A's second-round draft pick?

It's not as high of a pick as you might think.

MLBdraftsite.com predicts the the '09 draft, and reviewing their site provides a few important reminders about the '09 draft:

a.) The first round of the draft will have 33 picks, due to the Nationals, Mariners, and Yankees' failure to sign their first-rounders in '08.

b.) Because of this, the A's have the 13th pick in the first round and the 12th pick in the second round.

c.) The sandwich round between the first and second rounds will probably have between 15 and 20 additional picks, depending upon where the remaining Type A and Type B free agents (who were offered arbitration) end up signing.

That's a smaller comp round than usual. In 2007, for example, there were 34 comp picks.

(The comp round has reduced because many teams were hesitant to offer arbitration to players like Adam Dunn and Bobby Abreu this offseason).

What does all that mean for the A's second-round pick?

33 first-round picks + 15-20 comp picks + 11 picks before the A's in the second round = ...

We can expect the A's to pick somewhere between #60 and #65 overall in the second round. According to the slot figures of last year, that pick will cost the A's about $525-550K in signing bonus money.

The A's 13th overall pick will probably cost between $1.6 and $1.7M, while their third rounder (pick #90-95, approximately) will cost about $390K, if they sign according to slot.

So, the A's will either have two picks in the first 100 in next year's draft (#13 and #90ish) if they sign Cabrera, or three picks in the first 100 (#13, #60ish and #90ish) if they don't. The first scenario will cost about $2M in signing bonuses, and the latter scenario will cost about $2.5M in bonuses.

Another thing to consider is that every imaginable Bobby Crosby suitor has dried up. The Padres have signed David Eckstein to play second base, and elected to use internal options at short.

That means that the A's are very likely eating $5.25M of Bobby Crosby for '09, whether he's manning shortstop or not.

So how important is the #60-65 overall pick? Is it valuable enough that the A's shouldn't pursue Cabrera? And knowing that Crosby's $5.25M is a sunk cost, how much should the team be willing to pay for Cabrera?

Fixing the Free Agent Compensation System

notsellingjeans — Fri, 16 Jan 2009 01:43:13 -0000

Juan Cruz, Jason Varitek, and Orlando Cabrera all have something in common - they're free agents who aren't actually "free." All three players have seen their market value depressed by the Type A compensation status attached to their names, as other teams remain hesistant to give up a top draft pick to sign them. In essence, their prior employers are still enacting some control over them even in free agency.

The above example is one of many problems created by the current free agent compensation system:

An archaic calculation method led by ~~STATS~~ (edit) Elias which uses less-than-ideal data points to conclude that 40-year-old Russ Springer (Type A) is in the elite tier over Milton Bradley (B), while Juan Uribe (B) is in a class above Jason Giambi.
The awkward "will he or won't he?" arbitration chess match that teams play with their own departing free agents. Teams are forced to either offer arbitration to players they have no intention of signing, or receive no compensation for losing a good player.
Penalizing teams for spending money to improve their rosters, by forcing them to give up a top draft pick to sign an elite free agent (Type A).
The inconsistent compensation that teams receive for losing top tier free agents. In exchange for losing A.J. Burnett, the Blue Jays could've received the 17th overall pick in next year's draft (to go along with a sandwich pick at around #34 overall). Instead, they'll receive the sandwich and the Yankees third-rounder - right around pick #100 - all because of the team that signed him and the free agent machinations around him.

How to fix this?

You could pick ~~better~~ different stats to evaluate and rank the free agents each year. But no criteria will be perfect, and it would be difficult to find a set that pleased everyone in the game.

Another issue is that using stats from previous years to rank players serves to compensate teams for past production. Shouldn't teams instead be compensated for the production they are projected to lose in the coming years, by virtue of not having that player's services anymore, rather than what they've already done?

Here's my quick-and-dirty solution to the above problems, using figures that everyone can under$tand:

Let the free market dictate free agent compensation.

The larger the contract that a player signs, the better the compensation granted to his former team.

I'd propose creating a sandwich round that is an actual, true round - 30 picks, #31-60 - between the first and second rounds.

The total sum of free agent compensation - gaining comp picks in return for losing free agents - is comprised within those 30 picks.

The most valuable free agents - ones that sign nine-figure deals - are now worth 3 draft picks to their previous team, rather than two. But no team can lose its first round-pick in this scenario, so the best possible compensatory pick is #31 overall.

From picks #31-60, teams are compensated in order of the size of the contract that their free agent eventually signed.

Ignore for a moment that some players re-upped with their own teams, and lets look at how this hypothetical would roughly play out if it were in place for the current FA class:

Teixeira - worth three picks to the Angels - #31 overall, 32, 33
Sabathia - #34, 35, 36 to the Brewers
Burnett - worth two picks #37, 38 to the Blue Jays
Lowe - #39, 40 to the Dodgers
Ramirez - #41, 42
Dempster - #43, 44
K-Rod - worth one pick (we've now dropped to deals worth $40MM or less) - #45
Rafael Furcal #46
Milton Bradley #47
Raul Ibanez #48
Adam Dunn #49
Oliver Perez #50
Picks #51-60: one pick apiece in compensation for free agents who earned contracts of $10-20M in total guaranteed value: Kerry Wood, Edgar Renteria, Jamie Moyer, Casey Blake, Brian Fuentes, Pat Burrell, Orlando Hudson, Ben Sheets, Bobby Abreu, Andy Pettitte, Orlando Cabrera.

There is a huge mass of free agents - everything from Casey Fossum to Jason Giambi - who do not garner compensatory picks for their team under this scenario. I think that's perfectly ok - if a player wasn't worth at least $10M on the open market, his team doesn't deserve any special compensation for losing him. The most well-run teams will be able to replace players like those internally or via trade, anyway.

I've made the two $100M free agents of this offseason worth 3 compensatory draft picks, and free agents who sign deals of $40-100M worth two. There's nothing scientific about how I came up with that, and it's certainly open to a more sabermetric critique - there's a better way to create a cutoff to distinguish between "three, two, and one draft pick players," but I'm proud of the end result:

teams that lose elite FAs are guaranteed a consistent, more predictable compensation system that's dictated by the free market rather than bad data,
middling free agents like Varitek and Cabrera aren't punished by the draft pick glass ceiling, and it
avoids penalizing teams for investing in their product on the field by eliminating the cost of a first-rounder for signing elite talent.

Poll

Yes, this is a great idea. It should placed into MLB's next Collective Bargaining Agreement in 2011.

Yes

366 votes

366 votes | Poll has closed

The Holliday Market

notsellingjeans — Thu, 01 Jan 2009 19:30:59 -0000

The baseball rumor-du-jour is a report in the Denver Post that the Giants are making an aggressive play for Manny Ramirez.

Some knee-jerk skepticism to that report is understandable; the Giants might simply want to drive up the price for the Dodgers, who had seemed to be his only suitor. But as Tim Dierkes of mlbtraderumors points out, the Giants spoke to Scott Boras about Manny back in November as well.

Let's assume ~~for the sake of me having something to write about~~ that San Francisco's interest is genuine. ~~I'm going to make a lot of other assumptions in this post too - just go with 'em!~~

Manny led all hitters last year with a 7.57 WPA. if the Dodgers don't sign him, and their division rival does, it creates a Double Impact for L.A.

Won't the Dodgers be looking to counter that move somehow? They'll still have a hole in left field, despite having the most expensive 4th and 5th outfielders in history under contract.

{10:00am, Editor's Note - notsellingjeans was texting this post when the car he was driving slammed into the freeway divider. Because texting while driving had been made illegal just hours before, notsellingjeans was arrested. He heroically tried to use his one phone call to dictate the rest of the post to me, but I thought he was a solicitor and yelled "Stop bothering me!!!" before slamming down the phone. We do not know how this post ends, but remember folks: Don't text and drive. -Nico}

Editor's Note #2: Posting from Jail:

The A’s are one of the few teams in baseball who (seemingly) have the ability to eat money right now in a trade, if it allows them to get good young players they want.

That would seem to make them a good trading partner for the Dodgers, who have been extremely hesitant to add salary via trade in the last year.

I think the Dodgers would be hesitant to trade James McDonald right now, because he might end up being their fifth starter. And it doesn’t make much sense for them to acquire Holliday if it weakens their major league roster by a win or two in the process.

I think that, if the A’s traded Holliday to the Dodgers, my ideal realistic(?) return package would be Andrew Lambo, DeJesus, Jr., and Josh Lindblom. Those are their 3rd-5th-best prospects, all in the B range.

I realize there’s not a star in there, but those are probably three future useful major leaguers. Not a bad haul for one year of Holliday.

I also meant to mention in my previously unfinished diary that, if there’s an offseason market for Holliday, it would make sense that it’s in the the NL West. The Rockies might’ve felt that they couldn’t have traded him to a team within their division.

As for the other 24 teams, if they wanted him as bad as the A’s apparently did, they probably would’ve attempted to acquire him already before the A’s did.

Trading Holliday for the three above-mentioned Dodgers prospects would put the A's 40-man roster at 39.

Then I'd sign Giambi, let him thumb-wrestle with Cust over who has to play the field and who gets to DH, and call it an offseason.

Report: Yankees sign Teixeira

notsellingjeans — Tue, 23 Dec 2008 20:30:07 -0000

According to Jon Heyman, the Yanks have agreed to a deal with Mark Teixeira.

Buster Olney is confirming it as well - eight years and 180 million , with a full no-trade clause.

The Yankees have now signed the three best players in this year's free agent market.

If they are willing to sacrifice some center field defense, their starting nine looks like this:

1b Tex
2b Cano
ss Jeter
3b A-Rod
C Posada
LF Damon
CF Swisher
RF Nady
DH Matsui

Analysis:

Clearly some fans will howl about this...but it's easy to rationalize the Yanks' logic. Teixiera is the best first baseman on the market not only in this year, but for the next several years. And, equally important, the 2010 free agent class offers very few acceptable options in right field for the Yankees, too. Look at that list - those right fielders are very old and declining defensively.

What's the connection between Teixeira and right field? By signing him, the Yankees can install Swisher in right field for the next several years...and eschew the poor right-field market.

They've had an incredible off-season, and done some tremendous long-term planning. They've invested heavily in starting pitching partially because next year's starting pitching market is very poor - it's headlined by John Lackey (if he doesn't sign an extension), Rich Harden, Brett Myers, and Duchscherer, probably none of whom the Yankees would want to invest in long-term. And they won't have to, because their 2010 rotation is set as long as Hughes can step in for Pettitte long-term.

The Yankees one free agent splurge of the '10 offseason will probably be a left fielder...just as Johnny Damon, Xavier Nady, and Hideki Matsui are all coming off the books, freeing up almost $35 million. So you can probably expect Matt Holliday or Jason Bay to be manning left field for them in 2010.

Their 2010 lineup loses Matsui, Damon, and Nady, and replaces them with Austin Jackson in center field (after spending '09 in AAA), Swisher in right, and Bay/Holliday in left (with the other one playing in Boston?) Perhaps they keep one of Matsui/Damon to be their '10 DH.

But they probably want to only have their '10 DH on the hook for one year...because the '11 free agent class is headlined by Joe Mauer. If he is willing to become a Yankee, there's no doubt the Yanks could outbid everyone, install him at catcher and bump Posada to DH in 2011, the final year of Posada's deal.

I feel like the Yanks have assured themselves a playoff berth for years to come. They've bought the three best players, but the scary thing is, they really haven't even had to overpay.