Wednesday, July 1, 2009

Jack Wilson Questions the Pirates Front Office

I am not really writing to defend the Pirates front office. They've put together some really terrible teams over the last few years. But Jack Wilson's quotes really struck me as funny:

"I've been here nine years. I've seen two or three of these trades every year and still haven't had a winning season."

Um, well, Jack, if you want to experience a winning season, maybe you could - I don't know - play better? I mean seriously, a guy with a career OBP of .312 and a career SLG of .377 is complaining about trades that have not led to a winning season. He should be thankful he still has a full time job. The trade the Pirates should make to get better is one that would get rid of Jack Wilson.

Monday, March 9, 2009

Watched: The World Baseball Classic

I have never thought much of the World Baseball Classic. It seems contrived, as anything without history will, I suppose. For me, the interest in the first tournament, three years ago, revolved mainly around how it would affect the players once the MLB season started, especially pitchers. I didn't feel very different about it this time around. I enjoy baseball of any sort, so it would be fun to watch some of the best in the world competing, but I felt very little interest in the outcome.

Then I turned on the games this past Saturday. I had missed the majority of the Domincan Republic vs. the Netherlands, but when I started watching, the Netherlands were winning 3-2 in the eighth. This would be an incomprehensible upset. I found myself getting sucked into the game very quickly and rooting for the underdogs. In the ninth, Wily Tavarez walked and was moved to second on a groundout. Then, with one out and down by one, he attempted a steal of third. This was a terrible idea. Tavarez is one of the fastest players in baseball and steals a lot of bases, but the edge that his team would get from him being on third is nowhere near worth the risk of getting caught. As it turns out, the Netherlands catcher, Kenley Jansen, fired a perfect throw to third to get the second out of the inning. It was a fantastic play that deflated the Dominican Republic and reminded me of why I love baseball. When the Netherlands got the final out to record their huge upset victory, they celebrated like children and so did I.

In the second game, the United States faced Canada. The U.S. team seems much more determined this time around and it showed as they muscled up and scored six runs on three homers through the first six innings. But then something curious happened: Canada kept the pressure on the U.S. and got to within one run in the ninth inning. I have to admit that my patriotism was tested as a part of me would have liked to see the underdogs pull it out. But it wasn't to be. The U.S. closed the door and won 6-5.

I was surprised at the playoff atmosphere of both games (not all have been like that, as Sunday saw some double digit victories). The teams all seem to be taking the games seriously* and some good baseball has resulted. I'm not ready to say that I'm converted, but I will definitely be watching a little more intently for the rest of the tournament.

*The Dominican Republic, however, seems intent on not putting its best players on the field. They have both Jose Reyes and Hanley Ramirez and one is sitting at all times. I understand that you don't want David Ortiz playing first base, so he's got to DH; and Miguel Tejada is playing third and Robinson Cano is playing second. But Hanley Ramirez couldn't play leftfield during the tournament instead of Nelson Cruz? Or centerfield instead of Wily Tavarez? I'm sure he wouldn't be great in the outfield, but the improvement to your lineup over the alternatives would have to make up for his defensive liabilities. In fact, wouldn't playing him at first base (or Tejada at first base and Ramirez at third) instead of the Tatis/Aybar combo give you a better team? Their lineup is stacked no matter what, but Ramirez and Reyes are two of the top ten offensive players in all of baseball, it doesn't make a lot of sense to sit one of them.

Tuesday, January 6, 2009

Offseason Signing: Milton Bradley

The Chicago Cubs signed Milton Bradley to a 3 year, $30M contract recently, causing baseball writers to make way too many horrible jokes about board games. I will try to avoid falling into the same trap, but I will point out that Milton's middle name is Obelle... ok, that didn't work out like I planned - I thought I'd find out that he had a normal middle name and then I'd ask why he didn't just decide years ago to go by his middle name, but Obelle isn't that much better, so I'll just move on to the analysis of his signing.

First of all, the basics: Bradley is a switch-hitting outfielder with very good power and plate discipline. In 2008 he put up a .321/.436/.563 line with 22 home runs for the Texas Rangers in 126 games.

Of course, those numbers lead us right into the negatives: Bradley seems to be a bit injury prone. Over his nine year career, he has only played more than last year's 126 games one time: in 2004 he played in 141 games for the Dodgers. In fact, he blew out his knee at the end of 2007 and played most of 2008 as the Rangers DH, which makes penciling him into the outfield for the Cubs a shaky prospect (he logged 20 games in the OF last year). You also have to consider that Bradley's 2008 numbers were put up in an extreme hitter's ballpark in Texas and they represent career bests in almost every important category.

The final negative piece of the Milton Bradley puzzle is his attitude. He has had dougout clashes with managers and teammates and on field clashes with umpires and fans. The Cubs will be the seventh organziation that Bradley has played for in his nine years, which seems to indicate that some teams may think that he is more trouble than he's worth.

So was he a good pickup for the Cubs? There are many factors that come into play when trying to make that determination. To start with, the contract seems a little long. The money isn't terrible (the Phillies signed Raul Ibanez to a contract for the same length and amount and he's six years older than Bradley and not as good - that is a terrible contract), but giving three years to a guy that can't stay in the lineup seems excessive.

The Cubs are apparently going to use Bradley in right field and move Kosuke Fukudome to center field, with Soriano playing left (in essence, he replaces Jim Edmonds' production down the stretch last year). Only time will tell if Bradley will be able to play the outfield with any level of competency after his knee surgery. Prior to the injury he was viewed as an above average fielder, but you would have to assume that his range has been compromised. That could mean that Kosuke Fukudome will be forced to cover a lot of ground in center field between two sub-par outfielders.

Another aspect is that this seems to close the door on Felix Pie's career in Chicago before it really got started. Pie is a young (will be 24 this season), lefthanded center field prospect that has flashed above average tools across the board in the minor leagues. He has failed to make those tools translate in the big leagues, though, and it appears that the Cubs have grown tired of waiting. A wrinkle to this story is that the Cubs have been trying to trade for Jake Peavy all offseason, using Pie as the centerpiece in the deal. Just prior to signing Bradley, the Cubs also traded Mark DeRosa to the Cleveland Indians for three pitching prospects. There has been speculation that the Cubs made that trade in order to add the pitching prospects that the Padres have wanted to get in return for Peavy. So, the addition of Bradley could be intertwined with the potential addition of Peavy, in that they knew they would have to sacrifice Pie and his potential so they went out and got Bradley.

When healthy, Bradley should be exactly what the Cubs lineup needs. All of the Cubs best hitters swung from the right side only: Derrek Lee, Aramis Ramirez, Alphonso Soriano, Geovany Soto. Fukudome is lefthanded, but the Cubs are wary of him after he fell off the map in the second half of last year*. Slotting a switch hitter with power and plate discipline in the middle of those right handed sluggers should help balance the lineup. He also will give the Cubs no less than five players in the starting lineup with on base percentages over .350 (and six if Mike Fontenot starts at 2B). That is outstanding and is a great recipe for scoring runs.

But when you compare the Cubs lineup in 2009 to their lineup in 2008, are they better? In effect, they are trading Mark DeRosa and Jim Edmonds for Bradley and an Aaron Miles/Mike Fontenot platoon. DeRosa is clearly better than the Miles/Fontenot platoon (although Fontenot's numbers always surprise me with how good they are), but Bradley is probably a better bet than Edmonds at this point in their respective careers. At best I think the tradeoff is a push and if you consider the blockage of Pie's potential, the team might even be worse off (and defensively they are almost certainly worse). So, while the Bradley acquisition makes sense, the DeRosa trade only seems to make sense if they are able to turn the prospects into Jake Peavy. [Note: I recognize that I got off track here - I was supposed to be talking about the Bradley acquisition and I got off on a little DeRosa trade analysis here, but the Cubs offseason might be the most interesting one outside of the Bronx, so I couldn't help myself. Sue me.]

The two biggest questions I come back to are health and attitude. With fiery Lou Pinella as manager, there is a serious potential for this acquisition to blow up on the Cubs. If Bradley is ineffective because he is in Pinella's doghouse or because he's injured, then this deal looks bad. If Bradley can give the Cubs 450 at bats (something he's only done once before) then he could be a big part of their 2009 success. If it turns out that his acquisition was one of the pieces to also acquiring Jake Peavy, then the Cubs might be looking at some real success (for once).

Friday, January 2, 2009

Watched: The MLB Network

Yesterday evening Major League Baseball started broadcasting on its new cable network, the MLB Network. Luckily for me, my cable company carries the station as part of its basic package (although the HD version of the channel was not available last night for some reason). Here is a quick breakdown of what I saw in the channel's first few hours:

The Studio Show: The studio sets were huge and spectacular, with two main sets. One was a standard 'SportsCenter'-type of studio with a main desk and several remote locations for guests and other segments. The other set was reminiscent of the NFL pre-game shows because it is a replica of a baseball infield (1/2 size, perhaps?) where they can do demonstrations of the game. Both sets were slick, although the live audience in the stands around the field set seemed a little forced.

The studio show that played last night was "Hot Stove Live" which is supposed to be a recap of the off-season manueverings that have happened to date and also a discussion of rumors of what might happen. The 'talent' was Harold Reynolds, Al Leiter and Barry Larkin (with a host that did a nice job, but whose name I have already forgotten). I am a big fan of Leiter from his stints as color man during the playoffs in recent years and Larkin seemed to be pretty decent. Reynolds, however, was a bit over-the-top and seemed to try and dominate discussions. Perhaps that is his role, as he has much more t.v. experience than the others due to his (mostly successful) years on ESPN doing Baseball Tonight, but I find him overbearing and annoying. Perhaps the gimmick of having guys interrupting each other while they are trying to answer a question or analyze a situation is just over-played (wishful thinking on my part, there, every sports or political commentary show uses this tactic and I can't bear to watch it any more). Hopefully that will tone down as they get a feel for what they are doing.

The segments with the main talent weren't too informative. Hearing Reynolds, Leiter and Larkin give their opinions of where Manny Ramirez may end up was ground that has already been tread a dozen time by analysts on ESPN and a multitude of places on the internet. The best part of the show was when they pulled Jon Heyman (who I vehemently disagree with on statistics and baseball strategy, but who is great when it comes to breaking stories and solid rumors) and Tom Verducci from SI to discuss the rumor mill. Those guys didn't break a whole lot of new ground, but the segment was less bombastic than the segments with the former players and I enjoy finding out what the journalists are hearing from insiders.

The Classic Game: MLB broke open their vault of classic games to give us Don Larsen's perfect game in the 1956 World Series in its original form. They even included the commercials from the original broadcast, which was a very cool touch. Every couple of innings they would cut to the studio (on the playing field set, for some reason) where Bob Costas would interview Yogi Berra and Don Larsen about how the game was progressing. Costas was his usual classy-but-sometimes-corny self and although there were some awkward moments in the answers of Berra and (especially) Larsen, I thought the concept was great.

Seeing the complete game in its original form was fascinating - the lack of information on screen and the speed of play was a stark contrast to watching a game today. The announcing was superb, with Mel Allen and Vin Scully splitting the duties.

There is a lot of potential for showing classic games. ESPN classic does a good job at times, but their programming is such a hodge podge of different things that it is difficult to find something worth watching. Also, ESPN's interviews with the participants seem dated. I hope that MLB Network continues to reach back in the past and show us classics in their original form on a regular basis.