While some of the best moves in baseball over the past calendar year were obvious, like the Braves' decision to keep phenom Jason Heyward on their Opening Day roster,
It was obvious to give up an extra year of control over Heyward rather than let him sit in the minor leagues for two months? This was just a simple decision to make knowing what we know now. In retrospect, it was a good move and it seemed like a good move at the time, but I wouldn't call the decision obvious. There were financial reasons to hold Heyward down in the minors for a while.
others -- such as the Cubs' acquisition of Carlos Silva -- were panned at the time but have proven to be good calls. It's just further proof that it often makes sense to wait before passing judgment on moves that might have seemed questionable at the time they were made.
Of course half of this specific season hasn't gone by, so a reasonable person may say Jon Heyman should wait for the season to end before passing judgment on the 20 best decisions that were made.
With that in mind, here are the 20 best decisions over the past 365 days. (NOTE: the best free-agent signings were listed in this space two weeks ago, so this will be the best decisions in the non-free-agent division.)
It's the best decisions over the last 365 days, just so Heyman could shoehorn a little praise for Boras client Stephen Strasburg in this article. I think it is written in Heyman's contract with Boras that he praise at least one Boras client per column.
1. The Nationals' signing of Stephen Strasburg
(Scott Boras nods his head approvingly)
Everyone might think this was easy.
You mean the decision to sign the #1 overall pick is an easy decision? Signing the one player the Nationals could have chosen out of every eligible baseball player, this deserves some sort of congratulations? Knowing before they drafted Strasburg that Boras was his representative and still drafting him...and then miraculously signing him. That's some top-notch team management there. It may have been difficult to sign Strasburg, but it was really a no-brainer considering the Nationals pretty much had all the facts on what it would take to sign Strasburg before they drafted him.
If a team is going to draft a guy #1 overall, it is an easy decision to sign this guy. Only the retarded-ass Nationals could have made this a difficult decision.
But the Nationals failed to sign their No. 1 pick, pitcher Aaron Crow, the year before and knew they'd have to pay the biggest signing bonus ever to secure Strasburg.
Crow wasn't the #1 overall pick and the Nationals got a lot of shit for not signing him. Also, the Nationals knew how much money Strasburg would require before they drafted him. It is not like they drafted him and were shocked to learn he wanted the largest signing-bonus ever given to a player taken in the draft.
Just to be clear, this list of the best moves in the last 365 days involved signing the #1 pick in the MLB Draft. That is just a low standard for the rest of these moves to have to meet.
3. The Tigers' acquisition of Austin Jackson, Max Scherzer and Phil Coke in the three-team trade with the Yankees and Diamondbacks for Curtis Granderson and Edwin Jackson.
This was the most unpopular of moves at the time in Detroit.
Dumping payroll and trading for two unproven players and a middle reliever? How in the world could that be controversial?
It's way early to say for sure, but as of today it looks boffo,
Boffo? Really?
It's not too early to say for sure this trade deserves to make Jon Heyman's list of the best moves of the last 365 days! That whole, "waiting and passing judgment" thing is out the window at this point. Everyone knows the best way to evaluate a trade is after a little more than a third of the season has been played.
Scherzer has shown only flashes of greatness, and Coke is a middle reliever.
I like the deep analysis Jon Heyman provides here. I am not arguing with the trade necessarily because Austin Jackson has been great, while Granderson has been injured and not very effective.
Scherzer has been pretty much a bad pitcher this year and Phil Coke, "a middle reliever," as Heyman so expertly calls him as been great. Granderson has been injured and just as awful against lefties (.207/.246/.328) as advertised. It appears this was a good trade for the Tigers, but I would file this under "a bit too early to tell," though it does look like the Tigers stole Jackson.
4. The Padres' decision not to trade Adrian Gonzalez and/or Heath Bell
Everyone assumed new Padres GM Jed Hoyer would want to make a big splash and set the team up for the future by trading All-Star 1B Adrian Gonzalez, who could bring a haul with his reasonable contract ($10 mil over two years) and big-time talent.
This does appear to be a great short-term decision. Long term...I am not so sure. Allow me to explain.
However, Hoyer and Padres decision-makers held both Gonzalez and top reliever Heath Bell, fortified the rotation by adding stable veteran Jon Garland and kept their fingers crossed. To everyone's surprise -- except maybe San Diego's brass -- the Padres have been at or near the top of the NL West all year.
Before we go saying what a genius Hoyer was for not trading Adrian Gonzalez and Heath Bell, let's also remember the Padres have pretty much no shot of signing both of these guys together and a bad shot at signing Gonzalez long-term. Though my personal pessimism leads me to doubt the Padres can lead the NL West all year and I still think the Padres should/will trade Gonzalez, and maybe Bell (and no, I am not just mad the Padres have made my preseason prediction for them look stupid).
The Padres have played 39 games at home so far this year and 31 games on the road. The Padres were 15-8 in April, 16-12 in May, and are 11-9 in June so far. I don't have great feelings they will continue to contend in the NL West for the rest of the season. It looks like a good move now, but trading a player two years before he hits free agency is much, much different than trading for a player who is about to become a free agent. Just ask the Braves what they gave up to get Mark Texeira from the Rangers and what they got in return from the Angels for him. Hoyer is a smart guy and he knows if the Padres stop contending then Gonzalez will have to go.
6. The White Sox's decision last August to claim Alex Rios and his $12-million-a-year contracton waivers
This looked like a tough one last year when Rios struggled at his new home on the South Side of Chicago, batting just .199 with a paltry 9 RBIs.
I have no problem with this inclusion on the list. Ken Williams made a good move in picking up Rios on waivers. I have a problem with a quote used to talk about Rios:
But he has been brilliant this year, hitting .320 ("with any luck, it could be .400,'' one scout said) for a suddenly resurgent team.
"With any luck, it could be .400?" Is this scout a scout for the Pittsburgh Pirates or was the scout Rios' agent?
Rios has averaged a .319 BABiP over his career and he is at .320 for this year. 11.3% of his fly balls have been home runs compared to his career average of 6.6%. He has been right on par or even a little lucky to have some of the numbers he currently has.
This scout is an idiot. Rios has 240 at-bats when I was writing this post. He has 76 hits and would need 96 hits to be hitting .400. So Rios has had no luck and should have an extra 20 hits out of 240 at-bats? From his BABiP it can been seen that he has had his normal amount of luck and he has been luckier with the fly balls that have turned into home runs. I don't know what kind of hitter this unnamed scout thinks Rios is, but to have bad luck that affects nearly 10% of your at-bats and turns them into outs would probably be the worst luck in the history of MLB. I am even assuming he hasn't gotten any hits this year based off luck and Rios has only had bad luck.
Rios has luck and he is hitting near or above what he should be hitting. I can't tell you how much I despise this quote. With any luck like the kind the scout thinks Rios should have nearly any player hitting above .300 should be hitting .400.
10. The Braves call to keep Heyward with the big league club this spring
He's proved he deserved the promotion by ranking second on the team in home runs (11), RBIs (44), on-base percentage (.383) and slugging percentage (.481). As good a call as taking him with pick No. 14 in the 2007 draft, where apparently at least 13 mistakes were made.
I would actually disagree that 13 mistakes were made in the 2007 draft. Right now, Heyward is one of the most accomplished players taken in that draft, but Heyman's attempt to be somewhat glib falls short.
Here's a list of players taken before David Price that weren't "mistakes:"
1. Tampa Bay- David Price (currently a great MLB pitcher)
2. Kansas City- Mike Moustakas (He is currently destroying AA pitching)
5. Baltimore- Matt Wieters (the Orioles don't have a need in right field and Wieters is a quality MLB catcher)
10. San Francisco- Mason Bumgarner (he is pitching well in the minors and should be in the majors very soon)
This doesn't include Jarrod Parker who may end up being a great MLB pitcher, but had Tommy John surgery this past year. Sure, Heyward is one of the top players out of this draft, but I would bet at least the Rays and Orioles would surely not take Heyward if there was a do-over.
13. The Yankees' call to put Phil Hughes in the rotation and Joba Chamberlain in the bullpen
14. Adrian Beltre's call to turn down Oakland's multiyear offer to sign with Boston for one year
It might have worked out in Oakland, but Beltre had already lived through five seasons in a pitcher's park, and Fenway fits his talents perfectly. He rejected a firm $16-million, two-year A's offer that probably could have become a three-year offer for similar annual money to take one year and $9 million from Boston, a rare gamble in baseball today.
You'll never guess which genius agent came up with this plan one year plan for Beltre. I'll give you a hint, Heyman is on this guy's unofficial payroll, his name can be configured to read "Bott Scoras" and Jon Heyman has a poster of him up in his office at home.
Ok, Beltre's agent is Scott Boras. I think it is hilarious Heyman describes the deal as "multi-year" when it is a two year deal. Technically he is right, but I still find it kind of funny. Beltre essentially took more money for one year rather than have a two year contract. So it was a smart move, but it was also a smarter short-term move. Now as for this "firm $16-million, two-year A's offer," I don't know if this exists or not. Scott Boras has a tendency of lying and saying a team has interest in a player to ramp up interest in that player with other teams and Jon Heyman has a tendency to be a mouthpiece for Boras, so.........
I did an internet search on "Adrian Beltre 2 year $16 million A's" and the first hit that came up was.........................this article written by Jon Heyman. I couldn't find a firm offer from the A's for this amount that was publicized. Heyman does a decent job of reporting, but I can't help but think this non-publicized offer is/was one of Scott Boras' lies told to make himself look smart for having Beltre sign a one year deal or was used in the offseason (and told to Jon Heyman) to drive up the market when Beltre was a free agent.
20. The Phillies' trade for Roy Halladay
No one can argue with this move, as they got an anchor to their iffy rotation and quickly signed him to a pretty reasonable $60-million, three year deal. It's easy to say it in hindsight now, but if they needed the money for Lee's $9-million salary, they would have been better off letting go of Joe Blanton, who was instead signed to a superfluous $24-million, three-year deal.
"Letting go" of Blanton? He has very little trade value and then the Phillies probably wouldn't have re-signed Lee after this year. We have discussed this before. Not to mention, the pitching isn't the complete problem with the Phillies this year. They aren't hitting quite as well as they have in the past.
While Blanton had no trade value and they would have been left without the three prospects they received from Seattle, the general belief is they would have been better off with a dynamic one-two punch of Halladay and Lee and three fewer prospects.
It is hard to "let go" of a guy who has no trade value, unless you just outright release him. I guess we'll see in the future what the best move for the Phillies was, but the "trade Blanton" angle doesn't seem too realistic.
Now for Jon Heyman trying to build up the market value of Bryce Harper...
Power prodigy Bryce Harper, whom the Nationals took two weeks ago with the No. 1 overall pick in this year's draft, will surely seek a record signing bonus, according to a competing NL executive.
That executive? Any executive who Heyman called and want to watch the Nationals squirm and try to sign Bryce Harper.
While the number $12 million is floating in baseball circles, Harper will be aiming quite a bit higher, according to several sources.
Those sources? Scott Boras and Scott Boras' secretary.
While Strasburg set a record last year at $15.067 million, he has been a major bargain, and that reality could play into the negotiations even though they are vastly different players of different backgrounds and ages.
He's been a major bargain through four starts. Four starts. Can't everyone see how Heyman can be seen as a mouthpiece for Scott Boras, as he has been accused of in the past? Granted, Scott Boras has a ton of high profile, excellent performing athletes, I won't deny this. So it makes sense for Heyman to talk about them. It is just interesting after four starts it seems like Heyman wants Strasburg to start renegotiating a new contract now.
one NL scout, referencing the scout's scale that ranks players from 2-8 on various abilities, said, "You just don't see a 17-year-old with 7 or 8 power.'' In fact, there's a lot of awe among scouts about Harper's talents (the aforementioned power is almost off the charts his arm strength is said to be superb as well).
Harper is programmed to be a pro, so it's hard to see him not signing. But he is only 17 and has time.
I would actually argue that Bryce Harper doesn't have time. If I am not wrong, he has to either go to college for three years now, sit out a year, sign a contract overseas or sign a contract with a MLB team at this point. Harper did as much as he could to ensure he would enter the MLB Draft as soon as possible by getting his GED and going to junior college, I don't believe he will go to college, and I can't see him playing somewhere else for a year or sitting out just to be drafted by the Pirates or Orioles. I think both the Nationals and Harper have a reason to get a deal done soon.
Everyone might think this was easy.
You mean the decision to sign the #1 overall pick is an easy decision? Signing the one player the Nationals could have chosen out of every eligible baseball player, this deserves some sort of congratulations? Knowing before they drafted Strasburg that Boras was his representative and still drafting him...and then miraculously signing him. That's some top-notch team management there. It may have been difficult to sign Strasburg, but it was really a no-brainer considering the Nationals pretty much had all the facts on what it would take to sign Strasburg before they drafted him.
If a team is going to draft a guy #1 overall, it is an easy decision to sign this guy. Only the retarded-ass Nationals could have made this a difficult decision.
But the Nationals failed to sign their No. 1 pick, pitcher Aaron Crow, the year before and knew they'd have to pay the biggest signing bonus ever to secure Strasburg.
Crow wasn't the #1 overall pick and the Nationals got a lot of shit for not signing him. Also, the Nationals knew how much money Strasburg would require before they drafted him. It is not like they drafted him and were shocked to learn he wanted the largest signing-bonus ever given to a player taken in the draft.
Just to be clear, this list of the best moves in the last 365 days involved signing the #1 pick in the MLB Draft. That is just a low standard for the rest of these moves to have to meet.
3. The Tigers' acquisition of Austin Jackson, Max Scherzer and Phil Coke in the three-team trade with the Yankees and Diamondbacks for Curtis Granderson and Edwin Jackson.
This was the most unpopular of moves at the time in Detroit.
Dumping payroll and trading for two unproven players and a middle reliever? How in the world could that be controversial?
It's way early to say for sure, but as of today it looks boffo,
Boffo? Really?
It's not too early to say for sure this trade deserves to make Jon Heyman's list of the best moves of the last 365 days! That whole, "waiting and passing judgment" thing is out the window at this point. Everyone knows the best way to evaluate a trade is after a little more than a third of the season has been played.
Scherzer has shown only flashes of greatness, and Coke is a middle reliever.
I like the deep analysis Jon Heyman provides here. I am not arguing with the trade necessarily because Austin Jackson has been great, while Granderson has been injured and not very effective.
Scherzer has been pretty much a bad pitcher this year and Phil Coke, "a middle reliever," as Heyman so expertly calls him as been great. Granderson has been injured and just as awful against lefties (.207/.246/.328) as advertised. It appears this was a good trade for the Tigers, but I would file this under "a bit too early to tell," though it does look like the Tigers stole Jackson.
4. The Padres' decision not to trade Adrian Gonzalez and/or Heath Bell
Everyone assumed new Padres GM Jed Hoyer would want to make a big splash and set the team up for the future by trading All-Star 1B Adrian Gonzalez, who could bring a haul with his reasonable contract ($10 mil over two years) and big-time talent.
This does appear to be a great short-term decision. Long term...I am not so sure. Allow me to explain.
However, Hoyer and Padres decision-makers held both Gonzalez and top reliever Heath Bell, fortified the rotation by adding stable veteran Jon Garland and kept their fingers crossed. To everyone's surprise -- except maybe San Diego's brass -- the Padres have been at or near the top of the NL West all year.
Before we go saying what a genius Hoyer was for not trading Adrian Gonzalez and Heath Bell, let's also remember the Padres have pretty much no shot of signing both of these guys together and a bad shot at signing Gonzalez long-term. Though my personal pessimism leads me to doubt the Padres can lead the NL West all year and I still think the Padres should/will trade Gonzalez, and maybe Bell (and no, I am not just mad the Padres have made my preseason prediction for them look stupid).
The Padres have played 39 games at home so far this year and 31 games on the road. The Padres were 15-8 in April, 16-12 in May, and are 11-9 in June so far. I don't have great feelings they will continue to contend in the NL West for the rest of the season. It looks like a good move now, but trading a player two years before he hits free agency is much, much different than trading for a player who is about to become a free agent. Just ask the Braves what they gave up to get Mark Texeira from the Rangers and what they got in return from the Angels for him. Hoyer is a smart guy and he knows if the Padres stop contending then Gonzalez will have to go.
6. The White Sox's decision last August to claim Alex Rios and his $12-million-a-year contracton waivers
This looked like a tough one last year when Rios struggled at his new home on the South Side of Chicago, batting just .199 with a paltry 9 RBIs.
I have no problem with this inclusion on the list. Ken Williams made a good move in picking up Rios on waivers. I have a problem with a quote used to talk about Rios:
But he has been brilliant this year, hitting .320 ("with any luck, it could be .400,'' one scout said) for a suddenly resurgent team.
"With any luck, it could be .400?" Is this scout a scout for the Pittsburgh Pirates or was the scout Rios' agent?
Rios has averaged a .319 BABiP over his career and he is at .320 for this year. 11.3% of his fly balls have been home runs compared to his career average of 6.6%. He has been right on par or even a little lucky to have some of the numbers he currently has.
This scout is an idiot. Rios has 240 at-bats when I was writing this post. He has 76 hits and would need 96 hits to be hitting .400. So Rios has had no luck and should have an extra 20 hits out of 240 at-bats? From his BABiP it can been seen that he has had his normal amount of luck and he has been luckier with the fly balls that have turned into home runs. I don't know what kind of hitter this unnamed scout thinks Rios is, but to have bad luck that affects nearly 10% of your at-bats and turns them into outs would probably be the worst luck in the history of MLB. I am even assuming he hasn't gotten any hits this year based off luck and Rios has only had bad luck.
Rios has luck and he is hitting near or above what he should be hitting. I can't tell you how much I despise this quote. With any luck like the kind the scout thinks Rios should have nearly any player hitting above .300 should be hitting .400.
10. The Braves call to keep Heyward with the big league club this spring
He's proved he deserved the promotion by ranking second on the team in home runs (11), RBIs (44), on-base percentage (.383) and slugging percentage (.481). As good a call as taking him with pick No. 14 in the 2007 draft, where apparently at least 13 mistakes were made.
I would actually disagree that 13 mistakes were made in the 2007 draft. Right now, Heyward is one of the most accomplished players taken in that draft, but Heyman's attempt to be somewhat glib falls short.
Here's a list of players taken before David Price that weren't "mistakes:"
1. Tampa Bay- David Price (currently a great MLB pitcher)
2. Kansas City- Mike Moustakas (He is currently destroying AA pitching)
5. Baltimore- Matt Wieters (the Orioles don't have a need in right field and Wieters is a quality MLB catcher)
10. San Francisco- Mason Bumgarner (he is pitching well in the minors and should be in the majors very soon)
This doesn't include Jarrod Parker who may end up being a great MLB pitcher, but had Tommy John surgery this past year. Sure, Heyward is one of the top players out of this draft, but I would bet at least the Rays and Orioles would surely not take Heyward if there was a do-over.
13. The Yankees' call to put Phil Hughes in the rotation and Joba Chamberlain in the bullpen
Hughes has proven to be one of the league's better starters (he's 10-1, though offensive support has helped a bit there) while Chamberlain has struggled in the pen, going 1-3 with a 5.52 ERA. In fact, Hughes' performance is such that no one's complaining anymore that he wasn't traded for Johan Santana a few years ago.
I advocated for Chamberlain to be in the rotation over Hughes because of Hughes' success last year in the bullpen. I was wrong. Chamberlain, who I think is probably never going to have the career he should have had because the Yankees jerked him around so much from the pen to the rotation, should be in the pen. Hughes has proven he deserves to be a starter even with the run support he has gotten. He has a 129 ERA+, 1.13 WHIP, and 3.17 ERA.14. Adrian Beltre's call to turn down Oakland's multiyear offer to sign with Boston for one year
It might have worked out in Oakland, but Beltre had already lived through five seasons in a pitcher's park, and Fenway fits his talents perfectly. He rejected a firm $16-million, two-year A's offer that probably could have become a three-year offer for similar annual money to take one year and $9 million from Boston, a rare gamble in baseball today.
You'll never guess which genius agent came up with this plan one year plan for Beltre. I'll give you a hint, Heyman is on this guy's unofficial payroll, his name can be configured to read "Bott Scoras" and Jon Heyman has a poster of him up in his office at home.
Ok, Beltre's agent is Scott Boras. I think it is hilarious Heyman describes the deal as "multi-year" when it is a two year deal. Technically he is right, but I still find it kind of funny. Beltre essentially took more money for one year rather than have a two year contract. So it was a smart move, but it was also a smarter short-term move. Now as for this "firm $16-million, two-year A's offer," I don't know if this exists or not. Scott Boras has a tendency of lying and saying a team has interest in a player to ramp up interest in that player with other teams and Jon Heyman has a tendency to be a mouthpiece for Boras, so.........
I did an internet search on "Adrian Beltre 2 year $16 million A's" and the first hit that came up was.........................this article written by Jon Heyman. I couldn't find a firm offer from the A's for this amount that was publicized. Heyman does a decent job of reporting, but I can't help but think this non-publicized offer is/was one of Scott Boras' lies told to make himself look smart for having Beltre sign a one year deal or was used in the offseason (and told to Jon Heyman) to drive up the market when Beltre was a free agent.
20. The Phillies' trade for Roy Halladay
No one can argue with this move, as they got an anchor to their iffy rotation and quickly signed him to a pretty reasonable $60-million, three year deal. It's easy to say it in hindsight now, but if they needed the money for Lee's $9-million salary, they would have been better off letting go of Joe Blanton, who was instead signed to a superfluous $24-million, three-year deal.
"Letting go" of Blanton? He has very little trade value and then the Phillies probably wouldn't have re-signed Lee after this year. We have discussed this before. Not to mention, the pitching isn't the complete problem with the Phillies this year. They aren't hitting quite as well as they have in the past.
While Blanton had no trade value and they would have been left without the three prospects they received from Seattle, the general belief is they would have been better off with a dynamic one-two punch of Halladay and Lee and three fewer prospects.
It is hard to "let go" of a guy who has no trade value, unless you just outright release him. I guess we'll see in the future what the best move for the Phillies was, but the "trade Blanton" angle doesn't seem too realistic.
Now for Jon Heyman trying to build up the market value of Bryce Harper...
Power prodigy Bryce Harper, whom the Nationals took two weeks ago with the No. 1 overall pick in this year's draft, will surely seek a record signing bonus, according to a competing NL executive.
That executive? Any executive who Heyman called and want to watch the Nationals squirm and try to sign Bryce Harper.
While the number $12 million is floating in baseball circles, Harper will be aiming quite a bit higher, according to several sources.
Those sources? Scott Boras and Scott Boras' secretary.
While Strasburg set a record last year at $15.067 million, he has been a major bargain, and that reality could play into the negotiations even though they are vastly different players of different backgrounds and ages.
He's been a major bargain through four starts. Four starts. Can't everyone see how Heyman can be seen as a mouthpiece for Scott Boras, as he has been accused of in the past? Granted, Scott Boras has a ton of high profile, excellent performing athletes, I won't deny this. So it makes sense for Heyman to talk about them. It is just interesting after four starts it seems like Heyman wants Strasburg to start renegotiating a new contract now.
one NL scout, referencing the scout's scale that ranks players from 2-8 on various abilities, said, "You just don't see a 17-year-old with 7 or 8 power.'' In fact, there's a lot of awe among scouts about Harper's talents (the aforementioned power is almost off the charts his arm strength is said to be superb as well).
Harper is programmed to be a pro, so it's hard to see him not signing. But he is only 17 and has time.
I would actually argue that Bryce Harper doesn't have time. If I am not wrong, he has to either go to college for three years now, sit out a year, sign a contract overseas or sign a contract with a MLB team at this point. Harper did as much as he could to ensure he would enter the MLB Draft as soon as possible by getting his GED and going to junior college, I don't believe he will go to college, and I can't see him playing somewhere else for a year or sitting out just to be drafted by the Pirates or Orioles. I think both the Nationals and Harper have a reason to get a deal done soon.
9 comments:
I thought the reason Heyward was passed over was because when other teams scouts saw him, they didnt get to see him swing, because he was always pitched around, but the Braves were watching him the whole time and were thrilled when he fell to them. So, I wouldnt say the other 13 teams "made a mistake", they just didnt want to take a chance on someone they didnt have enough time to scout.
You are exactly right about that. He got walked a lot and he didn't get to swing the bat too much so teams weren't sure exactly what he could do. Meanwhile, the Braves were hiding in the bushes like a creepy stalker and planning on drafting him.
Some teams made a mistake, but you are right that they all didn't. I think the Rays are happy with their choice of David Price.
Some might say the opposite, that they haven't bought the type of run prevention they bargained for. However, look at it this way: Their offense apparently was plenty good enough. In fact, they lead the league in runs scored. So why devote their efforts to finding more hitters? They did the right thing, and they are right there in the AL East race because of it, tied with the Rays just one game behind the Yankees.
so basically the Red Sox made a great decision by...doing nothing?
honestly, I didnt get the whole red sox wont score runs thing. Its not like they signed a bunch of scrubs in the offseason.
Ivn, yes the Red Sox did great by doing nothing apparently. Beltre has outperformed expectations, which has helped.
Fred, I went back and read my preview. I don't think it made sense. I actually agreed with you and said I liked the lineup, but also I wasn't sure if they had enough offense. I don't know exactly which camp I was in. I didn't expect a huge drop-off in runs scored, but I also didn't expect them to be as good offensively as they are. I think the idea they wouldn't score runs is b/c we still think of good defensive players as not as strong offensively.
I get why people are getting excited about Strasburg. He's pitched great so far and has shown that he's going to be a very good to excellent pitcher.
However, he's pitched 4 games (25 innings) and against the Pirates, White Sox, Royals and Indians. He hasn't really played any good offensive teams. Case in point, the Royals have the most runs scored of any team he's faced (329). This is less than every team in the NL East (excluding his own team).
Has he pitched well? Absolutely, but KC got 9 baserunners in 6 innings (1.5 WHIP) and Cleveland got 10 in 5 1/3 (1.875 WHIP). Looking at the WHIP, he didn't pitch that well and if more competent offenses were involved, then it's probable that his other stats would also be less than stellar.
(channeling inner Jay Bilas) I'm sounding harsh on the guy despite his talent/skill level, but it just seems to me that people are looking at runs allowed and strikeouts (and they are important statistics), but ignoring that he's had two really good starts and two mediocre starts. I guess I'm just tired of hearing about how he ranks with HOF based solely on strikeouts.
I've watched 3 of the games he's pitched. He's got great stuff, but it's the kind of stuff that good hitters will eventually catch up to.
Rich, that's a great point. Really the Nationals are smart for pitching him the way they have. They have created a buzz for him and given him some confidence by having him pitch against teams that aren't the strongest in MLB.
He does have great stuff and I would agree I think we are looking at his strikeouts too admirably. He is impressive, but he probably needs a little more time before we crown his ass.
I agree in that the Nationals picked the perfect spot to start him. He gets to face 4 bad teams for his first four starts, which should only help his confidence and get his feet properly wet.
Picking up Carlos Silva is never a good call. He has had two or three years recently where the first half was good, and the second half was just lousy. The guy is a 4th or 5th starter. Picking up a 4th or 5th starter is what it is. Filling space because you don't have someone at the AAA level you want to put in the rotation.
Adrian Gonzalez is too good a player for the Padres to not sign I think. The team has to have a power hitter, and I don't think Kyle Blanks is the future. Heath Bell on the other hand could bring back a nice little haul, and they just bump up the current set up man.
Martin, Strasburg should have a bunch of confidence now. I can't wait to see him pitch against Atlanta, not because they are my favorite team, but because they are one of the first stronger offensive teams he will face. They have set Strasburg up well and I think Washington may have an actual clue a/b what they are doing.
Silva has worked out pretty well so far for the Cubs, but the Cubs were looking to dump Bradley and they found a taker. Silva is finally pitching as well as his contract says he should. So there are kudos to the Cubs, but it was also the price they had to pay to get rid of Bradley.
I think the Padres have to sign Gonzalez. There is some talk of this in Joe Morgan's chat this week, but Gonzalez is the 2nd best 1B in the NL right now. I think the Padres could keep him, but you are right, Heath Bell isn't valuable enough to sign long term (at least for what he will want) and they could get a decent haul for him.
I do think if the Padres trade Gonzalez they need to do it this year to maximize what they get in return.
Post a Comment