Ken Rosenthal is wrong.
Can that be the extent of this blog post? No? Okay, I’ll explain further.
Michael Young still “fits” with the current Texas Rangers lineup. Ken posted an article on FoxSports at about 6:00 this evening Texas time. In the article he explained that a series of dots can be connected that spell the end of Face’s time in Arlington. Of these “dots” include:
- The trade for Mike Napoli: “Napoli fits at two positions at which the Rangers intend to play Young — first base and DH.”
True that each of those positions is where Young was to see time, but let’s be realistic here, who is Napoli going to take those at-bats from? Not MY. He gets those at-bats from Moreland against tough lefties (Gio Gonzalez, Sabathia, Jon Lester, ect) and probably from David Murphy or Craig Gentry, who were the in-house candidates to pick up the DH spot off the bench when Young was in the field. Mr. Rosenthal… you’re wrong.
- Young can veto any trade come May: “In May, Young will become more difficult to trade, attaining the right to veto any deal as a player with 10 years of major-league service, five with the same team.”
Yes, Michael Young gains 10-5 rights in May, but why is that going to make it more difficult to trade him? Mr. Rosenthal: “Young will never say it, but he cannot be happy with the recent turn of events, not after accepting the move to DH and saying he would do whatever is best for the club.” But Ken, if Michael is so unhappy with being in Texas, wouldn’t he jump at the chance to go to any club that would allow him to play every day? It’s not like he will go to a team like Kansas City or Pittsburg; those teams have no need to pick up an aging fielder with a monster contract; it isn’t there current game plan. The guy should be ecstatic that his team is getting better, that’s why he signed that extension. Faith in the Franchise. Mr. Rosenthal… you’re wrong.
Further in the article, Ken mentions trading Young to Colorado for Jose Lopez. What exactly will that accomplish? Sure the Rangers save a little money (not every team can be run by the Rally Monkies in Anaheim or Los Angeles, or where ever the hell the Angels are playing these days) but in order to get Andres Blaco Sr? It makes no sense to trade Young for another utility guy when Blanco is a perfect in-house candidate. (If I can manage to see any downside, it’s the even further reduced playing time for Blanco; he’s been a savior at times, and every winning club needs a guy like him on the bench)
Mr. Rosenthal begs the question: “If the Rangers are so intent on keeping Young, why did they pursue one free-agent DH after another — Jim Thome, Manny Ramirez, Vladimir Guerrero — and then trade for Napoli?” Well Kenny Boy, the Rangers were never chasing a full time DH once they signed Beltre (and after the signing of Beltre, wrote of Vlad all together due his desire to play every day). JD and Co. were looking for a veteran guy off the bench that could pinch hit and be more feared for his history than present performance level and occasionally DH if Young happened to be playing the field. The Rangers never desired to add another guy who wanted, expected, or demanded 500+ at bats. Vlad wanted too many at bats, he was out. Thome wasn’t an ideal fit since he hit left handed (creating a difficult platoon situation, putting another lefty on the bench). Manny, well Manny fit the criteria of being a feared right handed hitter than could be talked into not playing every day, but his pride would have been an issue (as I’m sure he feels he could and should play every day), he can’t hardly play the field (making him a one and done pinch hitter), and he has a long history of being a douche-lord (and we already have one of those, ask @_missyyy).
This makes this Mike Napoli acquisition perfect, and I’ve been school girl giddy since I found out about it (never mind that I’ve wanted him here the past three years). First off, we gave FX2 and some cash to get one of the Angels best hitters over the past few years. JD and Co have put us in a great position of bullpen depth. We still have Feliz, O’Day, Ogando, Oliver, and Rhoades in the back end of the rotation (that’s pretty dang good). Add in Lowe and any number of guys who don’t make the rotation: Feldman, Scheppers, Kirkman, Harrison, Holland, and it is still not bad at all; we have plenty of options there. Second, Napoli meets all the criteria the Rangers need. Mike has never been an everyday player under Mike Scioscia, for some reason Scioscia really hates him, choosing Mathis over him to be the #1 catcher. He bats right handed and crushes lefties (a career .931 OPS against them); he can play first base (where he got the bulk of his 2010 ABs after Morales decided he wanted to get a Met’s type injury), and he can even catch if need be. I don’t think I need to remind everybody how quickly catching depth can disappear. If regulars stay healthy (I’m looking at you Ian and Nelly) then there is no reason to expect Napoli to get 500 ABs. That’s a big “IF” though. The versatility of this team is just amazing and definitely something to be excited over; remember Mitch can play right field too?
Both Napoli and Young fit perfectly with this team. The versatility alone should keep guys fresh, healthy, and engaged all season long. There is no reason to question trading Young or Kinsler just because Napoli is here. Young will get his at bats, don’t you worry about that Joe Rangerfan or Mr. Rosenthal. I’m excited about this signing and so should you be. Bravo JD and Co.
"I trust my teammates. I trust myself." -Michael Young
P.S. Mr. Greenburg, how is that extension coming for JD? Can you be sure to lock up Thad Levine with him? That’d be great.
Tuesday, January 25, 2011
Friday, January 21, 2011
The Five Things I Would Change
On the surface, there are plenty of things that the average fan would change about current the current MLB setup: maybe a salary cap, or eliminating teams that don’t even make an impression on their market. This offseason a few topics have been in the spotlight of hot discussion: an expanded playoff system, realignment, and an expanded use of in-game replay. I propose a few things that I would change:
1. Consistent rules within the leagues: I have never understood how in one sport there could be two different sets of rules for each half set of teams. My team affiliation has always been with the Texas Rangers, but I really just do not like the idea of the designated hitter. Jason Boland (“I don’t believe in anything like the designated hitter” from his song Proud Souls) and Crash Davis (“I believe there ought to be a Constitutional amendment outlawing the designated hitter” from the movie Bull Durham) feel me on this one. My distaste for these different rules really took to a new level this past season. I’ve never liked Ron Washington’s in game management skills, but he really frustrated me in the World Series with him seemingly inability to play National League ball against the San Francisco Giants. He did a fine job of playing better National League style small ball against the American League teams, but was outdone by Bruce Bochey’s home field advantage. Each league is almost playing a different game, and I am not for it. Eliminate the designated hitter and let the pitchers hit.
2. Eliminate alignment: I spent most of the 2010 regular season on the west coast and even then the start times between the Rangers and their western division opponents annoyed me. That aside: I am a firm believer that the best teams from each league should make the playoffs. Fangraphs recently released an article going more in depth with this that I will. They go through the last 15 years and look at what teams should have been in the playoffs but weren’t (under their proposed realignment plan, but still relevant). I however, would rather see no divisional alignment within each league. I can’t imagine that it would increase travel a whole lot for most teams. Scheduling would obviously be changed, reducing performance emphasis on inter-division opponents. One could easily assume that it would create more competition for teams who otherwise would be out of it (see the 2006 White Sox or the 2008 Blue Jays). By taking the 4 best teams from each league, the most deserving teams would be in the playoffs. This would be a little difficult to accommodate inter-league play (since teams wouldn’t be playing the same inter-league teams). I enjoy inter-league play and wouldn’t want it to be dissolved. Instead, I propose that these games be treated as exhibition games of sorts, where they would only count (in terms of playoff record) in case a tie-breaker is needed.
3. Expansion teams: This is one thing that I will admit that I am not too confident in the specifics of. It does make sense to me that by creating two new teams then each league would have a comfortable and even 16-teams each. The concentration of teams out east is already pretty high. I could see another team added in Oregon and Vegas. If MLB disregarded my idea of eliminating alignment then having 16 teams in each league would level out fairly for four teams within each division. I could see this happening before I see the dissolve of divisions within each league.
4. Restructure voting: Between the All-Star Game and the Hall of Fame there are serious flaws in voting. The fans should not have so much weight in the voting for the ASG; else it’s less about performance and more about popularity. I will contest though; I have gained more faith in the bulk of baseball fans over the years, and since Derek Jeter’s 2010 Gold Glove, lost plenty for the managers and coaches being involved in any voting. Not every team should have a representative to the ASG. I know that we want to embrace the kindergarten mentality that everyone is a winner, but… well that’s just bull. Some guys are not All-Stars and are only there because we can’t leave a team behind. I would suggest a weight of maybe 0.6 for a writers vote, 0.3 for a fans vote, and 0.1 for coach and managers vote. This gives more All-Star validity to the guys who are paid to watch every game, a little less to the fans (who focus more on one or two teams and are vastly influenced by emotion), and very little to the coaches and managers who should be paying more attention to in-game happens rather than individual performance over the course a season.
5. For the #5 piece of MLB that I would change about MLB, I will combine some small things that I would enjoy if I were the Commissioner.
• Pete Rose and Joe Jackson are removed from the all-time banishment list.
• No alcohol to be involved with televised celebration: this may be a bit extreme but if I were a father, I wouldn’t want my young son or daughter seeing players they look up to drenched in alcohol. The Angels’ celebration dousing Nick Adenhart’s jersey in alcohol made me sick. Treat it like chewing tobacco. You can do it, just off the field and off TV.
• One network station should not own the rights to every game on any particular day of the week. FOX’s monopoly on Saturday night baseball is ridiculously frustrating. We can all agree that there is nothing worse than a black out.
I didn’t touch on a salary cap or the expansion of replay. I have significant fear over a salary cap and how it could harm the game. There are a lot of things involved with it, the majority of which I have not even thought of. I’ve embraced the human element of in-game calls, and I believe that you win some and you lose some but it all evens out eventually. The umpires haven’t exactly embraced the implemented replay system, so I imagine they would be hesitant for any expansion as well.
I love this game. The game is perfect. The structure and my ideas… aren’t. Any change comes with question and the risk of failure, but at least we are able to strive for perfection and a desire to always improve.
1. Consistent rules within the leagues: I have never understood how in one sport there could be two different sets of rules for each half set of teams. My team affiliation has always been with the Texas Rangers, but I really just do not like the idea of the designated hitter. Jason Boland (“I don’t believe in anything like the designated hitter” from his song Proud Souls) and Crash Davis (“I believe there ought to be a Constitutional amendment outlawing the designated hitter” from the movie Bull Durham) feel me on this one. My distaste for these different rules really took to a new level this past season. I’ve never liked Ron Washington’s in game management skills, but he really frustrated me in the World Series with him seemingly inability to play National League ball against the San Francisco Giants. He did a fine job of playing better National League style small ball against the American League teams, but was outdone by Bruce Bochey’s home field advantage. Each league is almost playing a different game, and I am not for it. Eliminate the designated hitter and let the pitchers hit.
2. Eliminate alignment: I spent most of the 2010 regular season on the west coast and even then the start times between the Rangers and their western division opponents annoyed me. That aside: I am a firm believer that the best teams from each league should make the playoffs. Fangraphs recently released an article going more in depth with this that I will. They go through the last 15 years and look at what teams should have been in the playoffs but weren’t (under their proposed realignment plan, but still relevant). I however, would rather see no divisional alignment within each league. I can’t imagine that it would increase travel a whole lot for most teams. Scheduling would obviously be changed, reducing performance emphasis on inter-division opponents. One could easily assume that it would create more competition for teams who otherwise would be out of it (see the 2006 White Sox or the 2008 Blue Jays). By taking the 4 best teams from each league, the most deserving teams would be in the playoffs. This would be a little difficult to accommodate inter-league play (since teams wouldn’t be playing the same inter-league teams). I enjoy inter-league play and wouldn’t want it to be dissolved. Instead, I propose that these games be treated as exhibition games of sorts, where they would only count (in terms of playoff record) in case a tie-breaker is needed.
3. Expansion teams: This is one thing that I will admit that I am not too confident in the specifics of. It does make sense to me that by creating two new teams then each league would have a comfortable and even 16-teams each. The concentration of teams out east is already pretty high. I could see another team added in Oregon and Vegas. If MLB disregarded my idea of eliminating alignment then having 16 teams in each league would level out fairly for four teams within each division. I could see this happening before I see the dissolve of divisions within each league.
4. Restructure voting: Between the All-Star Game and the Hall of Fame there are serious flaws in voting. The fans should not have so much weight in the voting for the ASG; else it’s less about performance and more about popularity. I will contest though; I have gained more faith in the bulk of baseball fans over the years, and since Derek Jeter’s 2010 Gold Glove, lost plenty for the managers and coaches being involved in any voting. Not every team should have a representative to the ASG. I know that we want to embrace the kindergarten mentality that everyone is a winner, but… well that’s just bull. Some guys are not All-Stars and are only there because we can’t leave a team behind. I would suggest a weight of maybe 0.6 for a writers vote, 0.3 for a fans vote, and 0.1 for coach and managers vote. This gives more All-Star validity to the guys who are paid to watch every game, a little less to the fans (who focus more on one or two teams and are vastly influenced by emotion), and very little to the coaches and managers who should be paying more attention to in-game happens rather than individual performance over the course a season.
5. For the #5 piece of MLB that I would change about MLB, I will combine some small things that I would enjoy if I were the Commissioner.
• Pete Rose and Joe Jackson are removed from the all-time banishment list.
• No alcohol to be involved with televised celebration: this may be a bit extreme but if I were a father, I wouldn’t want my young son or daughter seeing players they look up to drenched in alcohol. The Angels’ celebration dousing Nick Adenhart’s jersey in alcohol made me sick. Treat it like chewing tobacco. You can do it, just off the field and off TV.
• One network station should not own the rights to every game on any particular day of the week. FOX’s monopoly on Saturday night baseball is ridiculously frustrating. We can all agree that there is nothing worse than a black out.
I didn’t touch on a salary cap or the expansion of replay. I have significant fear over a salary cap and how it could harm the game. There are a lot of things involved with it, the majority of which I have not even thought of. I’ve embraced the human element of in-game calls, and I believe that you win some and you lose some but it all evens out eventually. The umpires haven’t exactly embraced the implemented replay system, so I imagine they would be hesitant for any expansion as well.
I love this game. The game is perfect. The structure and my ideas… aren’t. Any change comes with question and the risk of failure, but at least we are able to strive for perfection and a desire to always improve.
Sunday, January 16, 2011
Fantasy Baseball: #1 Pick.... Prince Fielder?
The undisputed king of fantasy baseball over the last few years has been Albert Pujols. This proves to be the case once again going into 2011. Mock Draft Central has Pujols with an ADP of 1.16, though I have never seen him not picked first (and I do my share of mock drafts); Yahoo! MLB.com, and ESPN all have Pujols ranked #1 heading in to 2011.
I can only recall one time in my fantasy baseball history that I have had the first overall pick, and I did take Pujols (I traded him mid-season). This year, if I can get the first pick in any new league, I won't be taking Pujols.
Now, let me explain.
In a 10-person league, the first pick will also receive picks 20, 21, 40, and 41 for the first picks. Within those picks (by ADP) eight first basemen are taken and three shortstops.
Hanley Ramirez is obviously no Albert Pujols in terms of current fantasy output (in a standard 5x5 league) but if we pair Hanley with another 1st baseman, with an ADP around 20 or 21 and compare that to a combination of Pujols with another available SS, the value of Pujols doesn't seem so great after all.
The three short stops that are drafted in the first 5 rounds are Hanley, Troy Tulowitzki, and Jose Reyes, with Jimmy Rollins on the bubble.
Using 2011 projections from FanGraphs:
Pujols has a 5x5 line of: .327/120R/126RBI/43HR/11SB
Hanley has a 5x5 line of: .312/109R/80RBI/25HR/33SB
Two first basemen have an ADP around the 20 mark.
Prince Fielder (ADP 21.8): .276/100R/112RBI/41HR/2SB
Kevin Youkilis (ADO of 29.6): .294/103R/95RBI/25HR/5SB
The only SS being drafted around the time of the 2nd pick is:
Jose Reyes (ADP of 27.2): .286/85R/52RBI/11HR/69SB
That hardly seems to be a pick worthy of the 3rd round, but unless you throw the SS position to a late round guy with some upside or to an aging Derek Jeter or Jimmy Rollins, then Jose is what you get.
Pairing these players makes me think twice about drafting Pujols #1.
Pujols/Reyes Combination: .307/205R/178RBI/54HR/47SB
Ramirez/Fielder Combination: .294/209R/192RBI/66HR/35SB
Ramirez/Youkilis Combination: .303/212R/175RBI/50HR/38SB
With the 1st and 20th picks, the Ramirez/Fielder combination beats out the Pujols/Reyes combination in 3 of the 5 categories. The Ramirez/Youkilis combination only beats out Pujols/Reyes in runs scored.
So, if you happen to get the 1st pick in your draft and plan to take a SS in the first few rounds, you could really exploit the depth level of 1st base and feel good about taking Hanley Ramirez with the first pick and grabbing Prince Fielder when the round turns.
I can only recall one time in my fantasy baseball history that I have had the first overall pick, and I did take Pujols (I traded him mid-season). This year, if I can get the first pick in any new league, I won't be taking Pujols.
Now, let me explain.
In a 10-person league, the first pick will also receive picks 20, 21, 40, and 41 for the first picks. Within those picks (by ADP) eight first basemen are taken and three shortstops.
Hanley Ramirez is obviously no Albert Pujols in terms of current fantasy output (in a standard 5x5 league) but if we pair Hanley with another 1st baseman, with an ADP around 20 or 21 and compare that to a combination of Pujols with another available SS, the value of Pujols doesn't seem so great after all.
The three short stops that are drafted in the first 5 rounds are Hanley, Troy Tulowitzki, and Jose Reyes, with Jimmy Rollins on the bubble.
Using 2011 projections from FanGraphs:
Pujols has a 5x5 line of: .327/120R/126RBI/43HR/11SB
Hanley has a 5x5 line of: .312/109R/80RBI/25HR/33SB
Two first basemen have an ADP around the 20 mark.
Prince Fielder (ADP 21.8): .276/100R/112RBI/41HR/2SB
Kevin Youkilis (ADO of 29.6): .294/103R/95RBI/25HR/5SB
The only SS being drafted around the time of the 2nd pick is:
Jose Reyes (ADP of 27.2): .286/85R/52RBI/11HR/69SB
That hardly seems to be a pick worthy of the 3rd round, but unless you throw the SS position to a late round guy with some upside or to an aging Derek Jeter or Jimmy Rollins, then Jose is what you get.
Pairing these players makes me think twice about drafting Pujols #1.
Pujols/Reyes Combination: .307/205R/178RBI/54HR/47SB
Ramirez/Fielder Combination: .294/209R/192RBI/66HR/35SB
Ramirez/Youkilis Combination: .303/212R/175RBI/50HR/38SB
With the 1st and 20th picks, the Ramirez/Fielder combination beats out the Pujols/Reyes combination in 3 of the 5 categories. The Ramirez/Youkilis combination only beats out Pujols/Reyes in runs scored.
So, if you happen to get the 1st pick in your draft and plan to take a SS in the first few rounds, you could really exploit the depth level of 1st base and feel good about taking Hanley Ramirez with the first pick and grabbing Prince Fielder when the round turns.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)