2007-08 Baseball Offseason

[jbergey22]

Originally Posted by Fighter of Foo

Missing out on Hughes is just another misstep for this team that as you mention has done a better job than just about any other team in baseball of stocking their major league team with youngsters ready to contribute.

However once the Twins are at or near the Major League level, they have a strong tendency to stagnate. Cuddyer, Bartlett, Garza, Baker and to a lesser extent Santana were either misused of jerked around between AAA and the Majors during some of their prime development phases. Morneau and Mauer, who were largely left alone, have both developed exceptionally well as expected.

Take last year's team. Instead of letting Garza, Baker and whoever else open up the year in the 4th and 5th rotation spots, they went out and spent $5-6MM or however much it was on Sidney Ponson and Russ Ortiz to picth instead. Only once they sucked did the kids get called up, who were probably better in the first place. Meanwhile, the Twins were trotting out Nick Punto and Jason Tyner on a regular basis. If they had spent that 6M on someone competent in those two positions and the kids had sone well, they probably would have been in for a WC slot. Instead it was a waste of a season and the current window for winning a championship has now officially closed with the Santana trade.

It has to be immensely frustrating to be a fan of a team that is always so close to being special but yet continually manages to fuck it up.

Well done on this post. You seem to be touching on a lot of their main problems the past 2-3 years. I would disagree slightly on Garza simply because they didnt want to rush him as he moved up the minor leagues at a very rapid pace. They dont seem to have caught on either as this year its Adam Everett, Craig Monroe, and Mike Lamb that will end up getting benched in mid-May.

[johnnyshaka]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

I would have saved my money for Santana, frankly.

Maybe Santana didn't want their money and if that is the case then signing Morneau is the best alternative.

[jbergey22]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Let's compare (lets also ignore that he didn't deserve the MVP two years ago... wasn't even the best position player on his team even). Morneau this past season had a 121 OPS+. That's pretty good. Let's ignore defense for a second (it's 1B anyway). Giambi (who is totally overpaid) had an injury filled season and a 108 OPS+. Helton had a 133 OPS+. Sexson, who is also ridiculously overpaid, had an injury filled 84 OPS+. Thome had a 150+. Delgado had a horrid year with a 103 OPS+

On the other hand, you have far cheaper options like Kevin Youklis and his 117 OPS+, Carlos Pena with 172 OPS+, Ryan Garko with 117, Casey Kotchman at 119, Adrian Gonzalez at 125, James Loney at 131 etc.

I would have saved my money for Santana, frankly.

Well you point out these cheaper options which is great but how are the twins suppose to go get them? The players you mention at this cheaper rate are all top prospects and teams arent giving them away. At some point these "cheaper" options are going to get paid as well just like Morneau has been cheap the past 3 years and is finally getting paid. Whether you spend the money or Santana or Morneau is also debatable. How many wins would Johan get if the Twins score him less than 3 runs per game? The biggest reason the Twins made that remarkable run to win the division in 06 was Morneau getting hot and carrying the offense. The Twins offense goes very stagnet when Morneau isnt hitting because he is their only main run producer.

[Logan]

Well, Pena could've been had for nothing not long ago but I see your point.

[jbergey22]

Originally Posted by Logan

Well, Pena could've been had for nothing not long ago but I see your point.

You are right about Pena athough I think he got a pretty big pay raise as well for his 1 big season. Around 7-8 million if memory serves correct.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by jbergey22

Well you point out these cheaper options which is great but how are the twins suppose to go get them? The players you mention at this cheaper rate are all top prospects and teams arent giving them away. At some point these "cheaper" options are going to get paid as well just like Morneau has been cheap the past 3 years and is finally getting paid. Whether you spend the money or Santana or Morneau is also debatable. How many wins would Johan get if the Twins score him less than 3 runs per game? The biggest reason the Twins made that remarkable run to win the division in 06 was Morneau getting hot and carrying the offense. The Twins offense goes very stagnet when Morneau isnt hitting because he is their only main run producer.

You are forgeting Mauer... who is a better hitter than Morneau. But my point was that there is NO need to overpay for Morneau. Those young, cheap players probably will not be paid in the Top 5 of the position for having a great year and stumbling into an MVP. So the market rate was a bit lower.

[molson]

Taking much less to trade outside the league is ridiculous. In order to weaken two teams that you MIGHT face in a short series (which is baseball, is largely a toss-up), you're going to make your team worse, and of course, decrease your own chances of getting into the playoffs. It just doesn't add up.

[rkmsuf]

Originally Posted by molson

Taking much less to trade outside the league is ridiculous. In order to weaken two teams that you MIGHT face in a short series (which is baseball, is largely a toss-up), you're going to make your team worse, and of course, decrease your own chances of getting into the playoffs. It just doesn't add up.

It's possible that neither boston or the yankers were interested in trading with the twins.

I can maybe see boston not wanting to take on santana but I think the yankers made a big mistake if they passed and overvalued the young pitching they had. of anyone the yankers needed the guy.

[jbergey22]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

You are forgeting Mauer... who is a better hitter than Morneau. But my point was that there is NO need to overpay for Morneau. Those young, cheap players probably will not be paid in the Top 5 of the position for having a great year and stumbling into an MVP. So the market rate was a bit lower.

Nah, Im not forgetting Mauer. Morneau is the better run producer and was the team MVP that year and this past year. Mauer hasnt quite developed into what he should be. You dont stumble upon MVP's either. Check the history and count how many yearly MVPs are not in the HOF.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

I'm definitely not arguing the second point. Getting something for Santana had to happen since it was pretty evident he wasn't going to resign. I think the "Twins could have kept him" line of reasoning sailed a while ago when he really didn't want to stay. And whoever posted above that they could have gotten compensation picks and that would have been better- that's a joke. "You can get some good to decent prospects or roll the dice with some players in the draft in the lower half of the first round and sandwich picks"- I'll take the already known quantity- it's not like they were going to get picks 1-3 in the 2010 draft for him.

No, it's not a joke. This is an issue that has been studied, and about six of one/half dozen of the other as to which route (prospects or compensation picks) turns out to be the better return. You appear to be severely underestimating the quality of players that are available at those compensation pick levels and overestimating the quality of players usually traded for free agents to be. The Twins didn't exactly get a load of A-level prospects - in fact, based on John Sickel's rating system, they only got one guy that's even a B+ level guy.

For your reading pleasure: http://ussmariner.com/2007/06/20/let...e-for-nothing/

[Atocep]

In the Twins defense, Carlos Gomez is exactly the type of player they've always loved. A potential 5 tool guy they can develop. As I said earlier, though, he's going to have to get a lot stronger because he can't play center very well and a light hitting corner outfielder isn't someone you build a deal for the best pitcher in baseball around.

Guerra was the best pitcher in the Mets system and his ceiling is comparable to Hughes, he's just nowhere close to the majors at this point. Mulvey and Humber give the Twins flexibility with their rotation and have essentially zero service time between them.

The Twins did exactly what a lot of people here was saying they should do and just wait until the Red Sox and Yankees got into a bidding war for Santana and it didn't happen. The Mets had a deal on the table that included 2 players that Twins loved so it was pretty obvious at that point what they should do.

From the Mets perspective they added the best pitcher in baseball and kept what is probably the minor leaguer with the highest ceiling as a hitter in all of baseball. It leaves the farm system very weak in the upper levels, but the lower levels are strong and they have 2 first round picks and a sandwich pick in the upcoming draft.

[molson]

Originally Posted by rkmsuf

It's possible that neither boston or the yankers were interested in trading with the twins.

I can maybe see boston not wanting to take on santana but I think the yankers made a big mistake if they passed and overvalued the young pitching they had. of anyone the yankers needed the guy.

I agree that neither REALLY wanted to make that deal, but that's irrelevant isn't it? It one overpays and pulls the trigger to keep the other from getting him, that's just as good for the Twins.

Unless you're saying that no offers from NY/BOS were ever REALLY on the table, which is possible, but contradicts what we heard at the time.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by jbergey22

Nah, Im not forgetting Mauer. Morneau is the better run producer and was the team MVP that year and this past year. Mauer hasnt quite developed into what he should be. You dont stumble upon MVP's either. Check the history and count how many yearly MVPs are not in the HOF.

Let's see the past two years, shall we?

2006
Morneau: 140 OPS+, 7.8 RC/G
Mauer: 144 OPS+, 7.9 RC/G

2007
Morneau: 121 OPS+, 5.7 RC/G
Mauer: 117 OPS+, 6.0 RC/G

So roughly similar in OPS+ and RC/G (though Mauer has been better recently). I added RC/G to answer the charge of "better run producer". Let us not forget that Mauer is 2 years younger and plays a far, far more difficult defensive position.

And of course you can stumble on MVPs. Jimmy Rollins this year is a prime example as is Morneau last season. He was tied for 8th in OPS+ in the American League last season.

[rkmsuf]

Originally Posted by molson

I agree that neither REALLY wanted to make that deal, but that's irrelevant isn't it? It one overpays and pulls the trigger to keep the other from getting him, that's just as good for the Twins.

Unless you're saying that no offers from NY/BOS were ever REALLY on the table, which is possible, but contradicts what we heard at the time.

I think they were "kind of" on the table, moreso for driving up the price. The way it was all leaked was strange and I suspect no deal was ever close to being done in reality but each wanted the other to think so.

Kind of like two monkeys trying to hump a basketball.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by rkmsuf

I think they were "kind of" on the table, moreso for driving up the price. The way it was all leaked was strange and I suspect no deal was ever close to being done in reality but each wanted the other to think so.

Kind of like two monkeys trying to hump a basketball.

Peter Gammons mentioned today that both Hughes and Lester were off the table as of the first of the year. That left the Twins in a situation where they had to make a move or the Mets might start pulling players out of their offer.

[rkmsuf]

Originally Posted by Atocep

Peter Gammons mentioned today that both Hughes and Lester were off the table as of the first of the year. That left the Twins in a situation where they had to make a move or the Mets might start pulling players out of their offer.

I guess my point is if either team really wanted the guy nobody is "off the table" like that.

Either the Twins fucked up big time or Bos/NY were full of it in terms of interest.

[molson]

Originally Posted by rkmsuf

Kind of like two monkeys trying to hump a basketball.

Do you have spyware on my hard drive or something??????

It's like the Yankees and Red Sox got together and said "screw this". And even it it wasn't that clear, there's enough Peter Gammons types running between both organizations where it might have been kind of implied.

Because the Yankees and Red Sox are rivals, but deep down they love each other, and can tell what each other are thinking.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by rkmsuf

I guess my point is if either team really wanted the guy nobody is "off the table" like that.

Either the Twins fucked up big time or Bos/NY were full of it in terms of interest.

I think both teams were interested at first just because of the excitment around the best pitcher in baseball being available. After some time thinking about it, though, making a trade probably made less and less sense to them.

The Red Sox just won a world series and should be just as good next year without Santana. The Yankees have actually been showing some fiscal responsibility the past few years (for them) and I would guess saw more value in holding onto Melkey and Hughes since both are cost controlled and will contribute next season.

At least thats my take on things.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Atocep

I think both teams were interested at first just because of the excitment around the best pitcher in baseball being available. After some time thinking about it, though, making a trade probably made less and less sense to them.

Absolutely - Santana was insanely over-hyped while all that was going on, and you had the two evil empires fighting for him. Perfect time to make the deal, it was only going to go down from there.

[jbergey22]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

And of course you can stumble on MVPs. Jimmy Rollins this year is a prime example as is Morneau last season. He was tied for 8th in OPS+ in the American League last season.

I repeat. How many MVPs are not in the HOF unless you can stumble into the Hall as well? Baseball stats can be twisted so many different directions anyway you want. They really dont mean a lot without seeing the big picture. From someone that watches the Twins 75% of their games I know that Morneau is more valuable to them at this point than Mauer. Mauer had 1 big month that year(June I believe) where he carried the team, Morneau carried them the rest of the way.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by jbergey22

I repeat. How many MVPs are not in the HOF unless you can stumble into the Hall as well?

Considering both are voted on by the same people. Yes.

[Fighter of Foo]

Originally Posted by molson

Absolutely - Santana was insanely over-hyped while all that was going on, and you had the two evil empires fighting for him. Perfect time to make the deal, it was only going to go down from there.

It's awfully hard to overhype a guy who's 2007 ERA of 3.33 was his highest in six years.

[BishopMVP]

To back up what others are saying, the Twins fucked up by not taking the offers available at the winter meetings, and this was probably the best deal left (even if they couldn't even manage to get Martinez from the Mets) - link http://www.northjersey.com/sports/mets/14896371.html

While I wish the Yankees had traded Hughes, this is the second best scenario IMO as a Red Sox fan.

[Alan T]

Originally Posted by jbergey22

I repeat. How many MVPs are not in the HOF unless you can stumble into the Hall as well?

I am confused to what you are arguing here... There are plenty, I mean many many MVPs who have not (at least yet) been elected to the hall of fame. Just from 1980 - 1991, here is a list (some of whom won multiple MVPs) yet not in the Hall of Fame:


Pendleton
Kevin mitchell
Kirk Gibson
Jose Canseco
Andre Dawson
George Bell
Willie McGee
Don Mattingly
Willie Hernandez
Dale Murphy



Thats 11 MVPs in 11 years not in the HoF, and that doesn't include several of whom that aren;t in the Hall of Fame due to not being elgible yet such as Bonds, Henderson and Clemens...

So I don't have any idea what you are arguing, but I don't have a horse in your Twins players discussion, just arguing MVP = HoF is flawed.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by jbergey22

I repeat. How many MVPs are not in the HOF unless you can stumble into the Hall as well? Baseball stats can be twisted so many different directions anyway you want. They really dont mean a lot without seeing the big picture. From someone that watches the Twins 75% of their games I know that Morneau is more valuable to them at this point than Mauer. Mauer had 1 big month that year(June I believe) where he carried the team, Morneau carried them the rest of the way.

Oh, so visual observations are more accurate than statistics. I'm guessing then you are a computer to be able to so accurate a judge of baseball player worth? So Mauer's one big month is enough to have a 144 OPS+ for the season... must have been a month of all ages, huh?

And ask Phil Rizzuto if you can stumble into the Hall.

And there are plenty of MVPs that aren't in the Hall. From the 80s alone, Dale Murphy (2x), Willie McGee, Kirk Gibson, Andre Dawson (though he may make it), Kevin Mitchell, Willie Hernandez, Don Mattingly, George Bell, and Jose Canseco.

Furthermore, finishing 8th in your league on OPS+ should be a massive strike against you in the MVP race.

[Alan T]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

And there are plenty of MVPs that aren't in the Hall. From the 80s alone, Dale Murphy (2x), Willie McGee, Kirk Gibson, Andre Dawson (though he may make it), Kevin Mitchell, Willie Hernandez, Don Mattingly, George Bell, and Jose Canseco.

You type too slow

[jbergey22]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Oh, so visual observations are more accurate than statistics. I'm guessing then you are a computer to be able to so accurate a judge of baseball player worth? So Mauer's one big month is enough to have a 144 OPS+ for the season... must have been a month of all ages, huh?

He hit .452 with an OBS of 1.151 in June 06. His slugging percentage that month was .624. His next highest monthly high was .554. Decent month Id say. Maybe not the month of all ages however.

http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/players/...6&type=Batting

[jbergey22]

Originally Posted by Alan T

I am confused to what you are arguing here... There are plenty, I mean many many MVPs who have not (at least yet) been elected to the hall of fame. Just from 1980 - 1991, here is a list (some of whom won multiple MVPs) yet not in the Hall of Fame:


Pendleton
Kevin mitchell
Kirk Gibson
Jose Canseco
Andre Dawson
George Bell
Willie McGee
Don Mattingly
Willie Hernandez
Dale Murphy



Thats 11 MVPs in 11 years not in the HoF, and that doesn't include several of whom that aren;t in the Hall of Fame due to not being elgible yet such as Bonds, Henderson and Clemens...

So I don't have any idea what you are arguing, but I don't have a horse in your Twins players discussion, just arguing MVP = HoF is flawed.

I stand corrected. Surprised there were that many.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by jbergey22

He hit .452 with an OBS of 1.151 in June 06. His slugging percentage that month was .624. His next highest monthly high was .554. Decent month Id say. Maybe not the month of all ages however.

http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/players/...6&type=Batting

See, that's the beauty of averages. These things have to compete over the rest of the production all season. 93 ABs over 521 is 17% of the season. The other 83% counts too.

Not sure how a .329/.437/.506 September doesn't count as a big month either. Or Hell, a .386/.432/.554 May.

HERE is the irony though.

Morneau's June 2006 was .364/.400/.737 for an OPS of 1.137. And his July 2007 was .410/.430/.700 for and OPS of 1.130. His next highest SLG was .505 in May of 06.

http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/players/...6&type=Batting

What, he carried the Twinkies for two good months and Mauer carried them the entire year?

[jbergey22]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

See, that's the beauty of averages. These things have to compete over the rest of the production all season. 93 ABs over 521 is 17% of the season. The other 83% counts too.

Not sure how a .329/.437/.506 September doesn't count as a big month either. Or Hell, a .386/.432/.554 May.

HERE is the irony though.

Morneau's June 2006 was .364/.400/.737 for an OPS of 1.137. And his July 2007 was .410/.430/.700 for and OPS of 1.130. His next highest SLG was .505 in May of 06.

http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/players/...6&type=Batting

What, he carried the Twinkies for two good months and Mauer carried them the entire year?

Sure thing. You go and think that

Despite the fact that Morneau out did him in all the power numbers, runs, and RBIs by a wide margin and only hit .026 less I am sure you being obsessed with baseballprospectus will find a way to think what you want. Mauer does a nice job at what he does, hit singles and take walks but you need the power guy behind to drive him in otherwise your team will lack in the scoring runs department.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by jbergey22

Despite the fact that Morneau out did him in all the power numbers, runs, and RBIs by a wide margin and only hit .026 less I am sure you being obsessed with baseballprospectus will find a way to think what you want. Mauer does a nice job at what he does, hit singles and take walks but you need the power guy behind to drive him in otherwise your team will lack in the scoring runs department.

You kind of need people to get on base before you driven them in (which is why RBI is an amazingly overrated stat). Ask Albert Pujols this past year about that. Add to that that OBP is the stat with the close correlation to run scoring (and Mauer's 54 point lead there) and there you go.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

...which is why RBI is an amazingly overrated stat...

It shocks me that RBI percentage hasn't gained more traction as a stat, even on the more sabermetrically inclined sites. Gross RBI numbers don't tell enough of the story - I want to know how effective a guy was at driving in runners on base ahead of him.

Of course, the reality is that many people understand now that RBI is heavily influenced by your teammates (much like win/loss records for pitchers) and there isn't a lot of evidence for significant, consistent clutch effects, so for the people that understand and value sabermetrics they don't really feel the need for RBI pct., and for the old-school people they don't care.

[jbergey22]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

You kind of need people to get on base before you driven them in (which is why RBI is an amazingly overrated stat). Ask Albert Pujols this past year about that. Add to that that OBP is the stat with the close correlation to run scoring (and Mauer's 54 point lead there) and there you go.

So what stat do you have that can take into account how often Morneau gets these run producing hits and Mauer doesnt? Runners on? Runners on/2 outs? Runners in scoring postion?(That takes away Morneau's power advantage but I'll go with it?

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by jbergey22

So what stat do you have that can take into account how often Morneau gets these run producing hits and Mauer doesnt? Runners on? Runners on/2 outs? Runners in scoring postion?(That takes away Morneau's power advantage but I'll go with it?

I was just mentioning how RBI percentage doesn't get much play, but that's what you're looking for - how many guys were on base when they came to the plate, and what percentage of those guys he drove in.

But you're focusing on one side of the run-scoring equation - the other half is having people on base in the first place, and that's where OBP comes into play.

[jbergey22]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

I was just mentioning how RBI percentage doesn't get much play, but that's what you're looking for - how many guys were on base when they came to the plate, and what percentage of those guys he drove in.

But you're focusing on one side of the run-scoring equation - the other half is having people on base in the first place, and that's where OBP comes into play.

Well actually I gave Mauer his credit when it comes to getting on base. Now I am trying to make an argument for Morneau that he produces more runs than Mauer and even more importantly that he is worth the 13.33 million per year the twins are paying him.

[jbergey22]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

I was just mentioning how RBI percentage doesn't get much play, but that's what you're looking for - how many guys were on base when they came to the plate, and what percentage of those guys he drove in.

But you're focusing on one side of the run-scoring equation - the other half is having people on base in the first place, and that's where OBP comes into play.

Yes, this is what I am looking for. Is this a published stat?

[MikeVic]

Originally Posted by jbergey22

Yes, this is what I am looking for. Is this a published stat?

Rn/9%RBI

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by jbergey22

Yes, this is what I am looking for. Is this a published stat?

Here you are:

http://www.baseballmusings.com/cgi-b...desc&MinPA=100

It appears Morneau is slightly higher than Mauer (20.47 RBI% to 17.88 RBI%). I'm not sure that balances out the OBP advantage Mauer holds. Regardless, Morneau did not drive in runs by a "wide margin" greater than Mauer.

I also wonder what the Runs Saved looks like, especially considering that Mauer is considered to be one of the best defensive catchers in the game.


edit: On a side note, interestingly enough in 2007, Morneau's RBI percentage falls to Mauer's level:

http://www.baseballmusings.com/cgi-b...desc&MinPA=100

Mauer with 17.26 and Morneau with 17.24.

[MikeVic]

Let's go Luis Matos.

[Young Drachma]

Apparently, Santana forced this deal.

Johan Santana forced his trade to the New York Mets.

The two-time Cy Young Award winner told the Twins that unless they traded him by Tuesday, he would not waive his no-trade contract clause, he would go to spring training and play this season with the Twins, then become a free agent at season's end. That would mean the Twins' only compensation for him would be two draft picks.

Nice guy. Santana got what he wanted, and if he passes a physical and agrees to a contract extension within 72 hours of Tuesday, he'll end up with the team of his choice, the Mets.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

Apparently, Santana forced this deal.

Thats why you don't include no-trade clauses. Teams that do are asking for shit like this.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

Apparently, Santana forced this deal.

Some day, GM's besides Billy Beane will catch on that the draft pick compensation is not necessarily an inferior form of compensation for free agents to be.

[mckerney]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

Some day, GM's besides Billy Beane will catch on that the draft pick compensation is not necessarily an inferior form of compensation for free agents to be.

I really hope Smith would have learned this. With the picks they'll be getting from Hunter and Silva another 2 from Santana they really could have loaded up taking a few college players that aren't far away from the majors.

Unfortunately I have the feeling they'll be rebuilding for quite a while.

[vtbub]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

Some day, GM's besides Billy Beane will catch on that the draft pick compensation is not necessarily an inferior form of compensation for free agents to be.

Such as Jacoby Ellsbury for Pedro Martinez.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by vtbub

Such as Jacoby Ellsbury for Pedro Martinez.

Some others:

Nick Swisher, Mark Teahen for Johnny Damon;
Philip Hughes for Andy Pettite;
David Wright and Aaron Heilman for Mike Hampton;
Huston Street for Miguel Tejada

[molson]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

Some day, GM's besides Billy Beane will catch on that the draft pick compensation is not necessarily an inferior form of compensation for free agents to be.

Not only that, but you actually get to keep the star players longer when you do this. Would the A's have gotten to the playoffs all those years if they were dumping their contract players at the trade deadline or before the season?

The window these "poor" (I refuse to say small market since we're referencing Oakland) have on some of these players is very small. What sense does it make to cut a year out of that small window, for some prospects that may or may not be better then you're getting as compensation?

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by molson

Not only that, but you actually get to keep the star players longwhen you do this. Would the A's have gotten to the playoffs all those years if they were dumping their contract players at the trade deadline or before the season?

Not only were they keeping most of their free agents to be and reaping the benefits on the field, they also sought out trades for free agents to be so they could get extra draft picks when they didn't re-sign them.

Now, Beane has also obviously traded some free agents to be, notably Hudson and Mulder. In the case of Mulder, not only did he nab some valuable pieces in the deal (Haren, Calero, Barton) they avoided Mulder's significant decline in performance.

In the case of Hudson rolled the dice on some hyped prospects and didn't come out so well - he'd have been better off hanging on to Hudson and getting the picks.

[Logan]

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

Apparently, Santana forced this deal.

Not really true. He told the Twins to either make a trade or he'll finish out his contract, where they can get the compensation they deserve. The Twins decided to trade him to the Mets, either because they liked that package the most or because they waited too long and it was the only decent offer on the table.

Just pointing out that it's not as if he said "trade me to the Mets or I won't show up to spring training." Big difference.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

It shocks me that RBI percentage hasn't gained more traction as a stat, even on the more sabermetrically inclined sites. Gross RBI numbers don't tell enough of the story - I want to know how effective a guy was at driving in runners on base ahead of him.

Of course, the reality is that many people understand now that RBI is heavily influenced by your teammates (much like win/loss records for pitchers) and there isn't a lot of evidence for significant, consistent clutch effects, so for the people that understand and value sabermetrics they don't really feel the need for RBI pct., and for the old-school people they don't care.

I like the idea behind RBI%, but I think the stat is too flawed. It doesn't differentiate between runners on 1st/2nd/3rd for starters. A guy like Dustin Pedroia who bats 2nd and is often asked to move runners over for Ortiz/Ramirez/Lowell IMO gets a lower number than I feel he should have. It's almost as low as JD Drew's! (ugh)

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

I like the idea behind RBI%, but I think the stat is too flawed. It doesn't differentiate between runners on 1st/2nd/3rd for starters. A guy like Dustin Pedroia who bats 2nd and is often asked to move runners over for Ortiz/Ramirez/Lowell IMO gets a lower number than I feel he should have. It's almost as low as JD Drew's! (ugh)

I get what you're saying, but another way of looking at it is Francona doesn't trust Pedroia enough to drive in guys to the same level he trusts Ortiz/Ramirez/Lowell. Not that Francona is necessarily right - sabermetric studies show that sacrificing an out to move up a runner usually reduces the number of runs you're likely to produce - but it does say something about perception of who are the trusted run-producers.