General Manager: Bill Smith
Farm Director: Jim Rantz
Scouting Director: Deron Johnson

2006-2009 Draft Results:
First three rounds included
x- over-draft signees ($200,000 or more)

2009 1st Round: Kyle Gibson, RHP, U of Missouri
1S. Matt Bashore, LHP, Indiana
2. Billy Bullock, RHP, Florida
3. Ben Tootle, RHP, Jacksonville State

If he can stay healthy, Gibson could be a real steal here for the Twins. The Missouri right-hander was set to go in the Top 10 picks before a stress fracture in his forearm caused him to slip to the Twins at the 22nd pick. He has solid control and good secondary pitches, which makes him a potential No. 2 starter, if everything clicks. Gibson’s pro debut will come in 2010 and he’ll likely begin the year in one of the Twins’ A-ball affiliates. Bashore is the second in a quartet of college pitchers taken with the club’s first four selections. He made just one relief appearance after being drafted, but the lefty features four pitches, including a splitter and a fastball that can touch 95 mph.

Bullock made 33 appearances after signing. He showed knock-out stuff in low-A by posting a strikeout rate of 11.96 K/9. Bullock did not allow a home run in his debut, despite a ground-ball rate of just 33.3%. He’ll need to get the ball down a little more consistently, as well as improve his control (4.10 BB/9) as he moves up the ladder. With a mid-90s fastball, though, and a durable frame, he has the potential to be a big-league closer. Tootle pitched just six innings after signing, but he was a nice grab in the third round. He has a mid-90s fastball but his secondary pitches are raw, so there’s talk of him turning to the bullpen in pro ball, despite pitching mainly out of the starting rotation in college. Like Bullock, there is potential there for as a late-game reliever.

The organization did its best Detroit Tigers impression, by stocking up on flame-throwing college arms. One of the best clubs at developing big-league pitchers, it will be interesting to see what the organization can do with the above hurlers.

2008 1st Round: Aaron Hicks, OF, California HS
1. Carlos Gutierrez, RHP, Miami
1S. Shooter Hunt, RHP, Tulane
2. Tyler Ladendorf, SS, Texas JC
3. Bobby Lanigan, RHP, Adelphi
6x – B.J. Hermsen, RHP, Iowa HS
30x – Mike Tonkin, RHP, California HS

Hicks remains an exciting selection at the top of this draft, and you’ll read more about him next week when the Top 10 list is posted. A surprise first-round pick, Gutierrez has been inconsistent but his ground-ball numbers were insane (62.7%) in 2009. Hunt was considered a solid pick in ’08, but a lot can change in a year. After posting a walk rate of 7.76 BB/9 in low-A ball in his debut, the right-hander’s control actually worsened and he walked 58 batters in 32.2 innings (for a walk rate of more than 15.50 BB/9). Maybe Rick Ankiel can teach Hunt how to hit?

Ladendorf was considered an offensive-minded middle infielder when he was drafted, but he’s struggled to hit above .230 since signing. He was sent to Oakland in a trade. Lanigan has been solid in pro ball. He spent most of ’09 in low-A ball, where he posted a 3.55 FIP and allowed 130 hits in 123.1 innings of work. The right-hander has solid control (2.12 BB/9) but his overall stuff (fastball velo, secondary pitches) is inconsistent.

A football injury scared most teams away, but the club took a gamble on Hermsen and it’s paid off, so far. The right-hander can reach the low-90s with his fastball, and he also gets more than his fair share of ground-ball outs (52.3%). He did not allow a home run in 53.1 innings this past season, and his walk rate was just 0.68 BB/9. However, Hermsen is not going to continue posting BABIPs of .228. Tonkin is an interesting sleeper prospect. He has good fastball velocity, and the former prep pick displays above-average control for his age (1.48 BB/9). Perhaps he throws a few too many strikes to the young, aggressive hitters in rookie ball, because he allowed 55 hits in 54.1 innings of work in ’09. If he can improve his breaking ball, watch out.

2007 1st Round: Ben Revere, OF, Kentucky HS
2. Danny Rams, C/1B, Florida HS
3. Angel Morales, OF, Puerto Rico HS

Revere continues to defy the odds and has made believers out of his doubters. He’s one of the most unique and fascinating players in the minors, but it remains to be seen how well his skill set will play in the Majors. Regardless, he’s a Top 10 prospect.

Beyond the club’s first pick, this is a pretty “meh” draft. Rams is still young, but crazy-high BABIPs have not helped him hit for average, mainly due to his strikeout rates (44.0% in low-A). The raw power is there (.200 ISO), but he needs to get that swing under control. Morales is another unrefined prospect with strikeout tendencies and impressive power potential. The Puerto Rican outfielder made some strides in ’09.

2006 1st Round: Chris Parmalee, OF/1B, California HS
2. Joe Benson, OF, Illinois HS
3. Tyler Robertson, LHP, California HS
14x – Jeff Manship, RHP, Notre Dame

Parmalee, Benson, and Robertson are all top prospects. Anthony Slama was a nice find in the 30th round, while 14th rounder Jeff Manship and 19th rounder Danny Valencia find themselves on the club’s Top 10 prospects list.

The club selected Jared Mitchell in the 10th round, out of a Louisiana high school. The outfielder became a No. 1 draft pick of the White Sox in 2009.

Up Next: The Minnesota Twins Top 10 Prospects

This post is inspired by a question Sky Kalkman raised on twitter. Specifically, he wondered about the wisdom of the Rays paying $7 million for Rafael Soriano, when the franchise has proven time and again that they are capable of finding bargains for below-market rates, eschewing the going rate for wins and building a contender on a shoestring payroll.

I like the move and think it was a good one for Tampa Bay, even though it’s not an efficiency maximizing move from the perspective of the price of wins. They’re going to pay Soriano about $4 to $4.5 million per win for 2009, which is certainly not a discount, and is actually above the going rate that we have seen for most players signed this year. Additionally, the $7 million he will earn would represent nearly 11 percent of the total team payroll from 2009. That is a significant allocation of resources to give to a closer.

However, the Rays are not in a league average situation. Their position in expected outcomes is quite a bit different than most teams. They have the talent of a contender, but share a division with New York and Boston, which drives down their chances of making the playoffs. As such, they have to protect themselves from variance more than most clubs will, as a bullpen implosion (like they had in 2009) can essentially derail their chances of playing in October.

Soriano adds a win or two to the roster, which may not sound like much, but the win that he’s bringing is extremely valuable, given the precarious nature of the Rays playoff odds. By adding a premium relief ace, they’ve insured, to an extent, against a disaster. The security that he brings doesn’t offer the same reward for the dollar that you may find by taking a flyer on a young, unproven, power arm, but the Rays don’t need more upside as much as they need less downside.

We talked a bit about this a few weeks ago, but the composition of a team’s talent and their relation to their division opponents can have a pretty significant effect on their internal marginal value of a win. A win to the Rays is significantly more valuable than a win to the Astros because of the respective effect of that win on the odds of either team making the playoffs.

Because of where they stand, it makes sense for the Rays to pay the market rate for wins, because that price is lower than the value they’re getting from that win. It does not make sense for the Astros to pay the market price, because the return they will get on those additional wins is below the going rate. If Tampa Bay and Houston pay the same price for the same player, it will be a good deal for the Rays and a bad deal for the Astros.

We cannot use the price of wins in the market as the guide for what every team should be willing to pay for a win. It will never deviate too tremendously from the average (no one, not even the Yankees, should pay $10 million per win for a player), but teams do have their own internal marginal values of a win, and they won’t equal the going rate of wins in the market for all 30 teams.

Tampa Bay should be insuring against bad outcomes at the expense of the best one, which is what they did with Soriano. It was the right move, even if it doesn’t offer the opportunity to be a huge bargain.

If the rumor mill is accurate, one minor subplot of the off-season is an ongoing, bizarre, and (sadly) predictable bidding war involving many the usual suspects over a rather horrifying group of thirty-something catchers ranging from the Somewhat Acceptable Stopgap (Rod Barajas) to the Corpse of a Legend (Ivan Rodriguez) to the Virtually Worthless Veteran Leader (Jason Kendall). Things look like they are going to get ugly, and although it’s easy to find a perverse pleasure in mocking foolishness, when it’s unabated, the charm wears off.

That’s why I was happy to read that the Colorado Rockies bought out Chris Iannetta’s three arbitration years for a reported $8.3 million with a five million dollar club option for a fourth year. It was good to be reminded that some clubs realize that they are allowed to give a catcher a multi-year contract even if he isn’t 35 with a projected on-base percentage south of .300.

What are the Rockies paying for? $8.3 million guaranteed over three years isn’t all that much on the open market, but remember that the Rockies are buying out arbitration years in which Iannetta would be paid less than his supposed market value. As a general rule, the three years of arbitration are assumed to be paying the equivalent of 40, 60, and 80 percent of the player’s free agent value. Spreading the money evenly over the three years and dividing by 40, 60, and 80 percent, we get an “open market equivalent” of about $15 million. Assuming that a marginal win currently costs $4.4 million, a half-win per season decline and 7% salary inflation, Iannetta is getting paid as if he’ll be a 1.5 WAR player in 2010. Is he worth it?

Catcher defense is notoriously difficult to measure. CHONE does defensive projections for catchers, and Ianetta comes in at three runs below average. That seems fair, although it’s worth noting that my own take on catcher defense had him above average for 2009, at least. The Fans Scouting Report for 2010 also has him rated slightly above average. I’ll stay with Rally’s minus 3 to be on the conservative side — he probably isn’t worse that that.

Offense is easier to measure and project. CHONE projects Iannetta to hit .259/.370/.463 in 2010. My own projection gives a similar line: .254/.373/.477. ZiPS is a bit less optimistic at .241/.353./.437, but is in the same general neighborhood. The CHONE projection (as well as mine) would be about 20 runs above average per 150 games, but we also need to adjust for park and league. CHONE gives us neutralized linear weights of 8 runs above average per 150 games.

Adding it all together with the prorated positional adjustment for catcher, per 150 games Iannetta projects as a 3.7 win player. Almost no catchers play 150 games, and Iannetta has only played more than 100 once in the last three seasons. Conservatively assuming he can only play 100, he still projects as a 2.5 WAR player, and given that the new contract (hopefully) means that the team is over Yorvit Torrealba Fever, he should get more playing time in the coming seasons. This is a very good deal for the Rockies.

Iannetta gets the security of a guaranteed contract, but sacrifices potentially larger arbitration awards. The club option also may cost him. No worries, though, Chris. If you manage to stay at catcher until your mid-thirties and absolutely can’t hit, your agent can always convince some general manager that you’re great at handling a pitching staff and get you a series of multi-million dollar deals for replacement level performance.

Boston is strapped for roster spots but has a packs of cash. Texas has a need for the latter in the worst way. Naturally both teams have come together and helped each other out by agreeing to swap Mike Lowell and Max Ramirez.

Boston has the hots for Adrian Beltre and in the pursuit of a happy clubhouse, ship Lowell away, so that ego flares and cliques never have the chance to form over whom should be the starting third baseman in the light of leadership and loyalty (see the case of Varitek 2009 in how that could be an issue). Lowell turns 36 soon, and even while battling injury issues, he’s been extremely solid with the bat. One still needs to regress his wOBA moving forward and adjust for the fact that he’s moving out of Doubles Central – not that Arlington is a no long fly zone either – but if Lowell is restricted to mostly DH work then lower that projected total even more. Assuming he plays, he should be at worst a league average hitter, and the Rangers are apparently getting him at a greatly reduced rate for one season.

To do so, they give up catcher Maximiliano Ramirez, who struggled this season with wrist injuries. He recently turned 25 and there are questions about his defense. Still, in the past the guy has hit, hit, and hit some more. He’s struggled in Triple-A because of this year, but his career Double-A line is .354/.450/.646 in 289 plate appearances. In high-A he had a .923 OPS through 480 plate appearances. Keep in mind he’s playing in some pretty hitter-friendly parks, but with George Kottaras elsewhere and the Green Monster still standing in left, Ramirez could prove to be a nifty player for Boston and after evidently finding himself out of the mix in Texas despite their catcher situation looking a bit murky.

There are some issues with Ramirez and making contact – like quite a few other Texas sluggers – but this comes down to Boston acquiring six-years versus Texas getting one. Neither is a sure thing, and if the reports of Boston paying 75% of the salary are true, then Texas is paying for roughly a win. Clearly Jon Daniels is focused on making a run in 2010, the question is whether Rich Harden and Lowell can stay healthy enough to contribute.

Given that this is really Lowell for Ramirez and Beltre, I think you have to give the edge to Boston. Although maybe the wrists are bigger cause for concern than we know.

My wife believes that I’m wrong almost all the time. I, being a man, have a very different view of the matter. Which one of us holds the more reasonable opinion? you might wonder. I can’t say for sure. I will add this, however: if it’s reason we’re talking about, consider: of the two of us, only my wife uses a product called “enzyme scrub.”

QED? I’d say so.

However it is between milady and I, I was most assuredly wrong last week when I wondered aloud whether the Observer Effect might influence the Fan Projections here at FanGraphs. Or rather, I wasn’t wrong to wonder it aloud — that seems like a perfectly reasonable thing to do. The wrong thing, it seems, is the analogy I constructed. For the Observer Effect truly to be in play, it would be the numbers themselves that would change (and not the opinions of the people predicting them) by being readily available to the public.

My B, is what I have to say about that.

Still, my mis-step had its own rewards, as the commentariat suggested a number of legitimately interesting alternatives to the Observer Effect. Alternatives including: subject-expectancy effect, volunteer/participation bias, and something called anchoring.

The result for me — and, I hope, for the reader — was a pleasant and shockingly educational one. One that also made me consider the role of sportswriting — to consider, in particular, what it means to be wrong.

British author John Carlin suggests that the purview of the sporting journalist, first and foremost, is to frame the sporting conversation for the public. He writes in White Angels, a chronicle of Real Madrid’s Galactico era:

You need people to lead the conversations, to stoke up the debates. If only to have someone to disagree with. Because for the fan football is more about talking than anything else.

Football fans only spend a small part of their lives actually watching games: they spend far, far more time talking about football, a game whose greatest value to humanity, perhaps, is that it does us the immense service of giving us a limitlessly fertile subject of conversation, giving us an activity which is entertaining, inspiring, and — even –fraternally binding. Football allows people to reach out to one another like maybe nothing else can.

Carlin’s point is relevant to our honored pastime, as well. For even though baseball reaches many fewer people than does soccer, it’s not an unsubstantial number. And it’s a number that includes mostly Americans. And Americans are rich!

At its heart, Carlin’s point has merit: the sportswriter’s job is to define the topics which are to be discussed around the proverbial water cooler and, simultaneously, to define the terms in which they ought to be discussed. Having been a reader of sporting journalism for approximately as long as I’ve been able to read — so, at least since age 16 — I’m most thankful for those voices who are able to begin interesting conversations. If not for that, I would have almost zero to talk about with any man I met…ever. I mean, what would we discuss otherwise? Our feelings?! Ick.

But I would also caution against using it (i.e. the capacity to start the conversation) as the only criteria by which we adjudge the quality of our sportswriting. Skip Bayless, Bill Plaschke, Mike Frigging Lupica: they all start conversations. Trite, muckraking, even sometimes intellectually dangerous conversations. They’re the literary equivalent of Adam Sandler’s final answer in the quiz bowl scene of Billy Madison — to which answer the principal/host responds: “At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it.”

Frequently, the reaction from the reasonable person to this manner of screed is some combination of rage and/or snark and/or, in extreme cases, a heaving bosom. None of these is healthy (or pleasant for the innocent bystander). And yet, as Carlin would suggest — as, in fact, some American sportswriters have actually suggested — so long as the journalist has gotten a reaction from the readership, then he’s done his job. Some might even go so far as to say that, to the degree that the reader is affected, positively or negatively, then that’s how well the sportswriter has performed it.

I submit that we, the readership, do not want to be enraged by inane sportswriters — that it’s merely the only reasonable reaction we can have. Nor should our anger be regarded as a sign of effective journalism. Why do we return again and again? Because we like sport, is why. And because we’re hopeful that once in a while, our writers will tell us something.

I submit a second thing, too: that it’s okay to be wrong. Or, it’s okay so long as it’s done in a spirit of inquiry and not in the service of blustery self-importance. The question should be asked: Does the author regard his work as hypothesis or conclusion? Is the author writing to promote curiosity or kill it? Does the author have Prince Albert in a can? (Note: this last question isn’t entirely relevant but still very important.)

Of course, life isn’t always flowers and piece of cake. As Charles Simic writes (and Deborah Tannen echos in “For Argument’s Sake”): “There are moments in life when true invective is called for, when it becomes an absolute necessity, out of a deep sense of justice, to denounce, mock, vituperate, lash out, in the strongest possible language.” Certainly, Our Father Who Art in Boston (read: Bill James), for whatever his other shortcomings, was not a stranger to this mode of expression during the early days of our science. (I remember an Abstract article, I think it was, that begins with the bold pronouncement: “It’s time for the amateurs to clear the floor.” That’s, like, T.I.-level invective.) Certainly, censure is sometimes necessary.

To summarize: The sporting journalist should attempt to make his work interesting. He should view his work as an attempt to start a conversation. He should respect the intelligence of his readers. He should realize that, in many cases, certain of his readers will have knowledge that he does not. He should prepare himself to be corrected once in a while.

Mind you, I could be wrong about that.

The Astros continued their spending this week with the addition of third baseman Pedro Feliz, signed today to a one year contract for a reported $4.5 million. He is likely to take over full time duties at the position.

The Astros got a combined .241/.308/.356 line from their third basemen last year split between Geoff Blum and Jeff Keppinger mostly. In that respect, Pedro Feliz’s 2009 line of .266/.308/.386 is a clear improvement, as sad as that is. Though Felix is aging — 2010 will be his age 35 season — he still posts consistently good defensive numbers at third base, numbers that coincide with a good fielding reputation from scouts.

Granting that Pedro Feliz might be the Astros’ best option at third base next year, I still do not see the point in this deal. The 2009 Astros finished 74-88, 17 games out of the divisional lead. At best, Feliz’s 2009 was worth about a half win more than the Astros’ 3B combo platter was in 2009.

Blum and Keppinger are still under contract with the Astros, so it looks like Houston just added $4.5 million to their payroll in order to get a couple runs better, at best. At worst, Feliz is no better than Jeff Keppinger, who would have been by far the more cost-effective starter.

Addressing the hole at third base is a good idea for Houston, but you don’t address a hole by filling it with air. You already have plenty of air; why bother paying money to import premium air from Philadelphia?

The Astros provided one example of stocking a bullpen, and now the Red Sox provide another. The Sox picked up Boof Bonser, who was to be designated for assignment, for some cash or a PTNL. Bonser will be cheap and under team control for a number of years (he has three years of service time), and could be as good as Brandon Lyon out of the pen.

Bonser has a FIP of 4.60, compared to Lyon’s 4.23, but most of Bonser’s innings were as a starter. Adjust for the bullpen bonus and he should be better than Lyon. Of course, Bonser is coming off rotator cuff surgery. Maybe he will not pitch the whole year or come back at full strength. Still, he could also come back strong and pitch like he did out of the pen for the Twins in 2008, when he had an xFIP of 3.39 with 55 Ks to 16 BBs over 52 innings. He also has value as a spot-starter. It fits into the new school of bullpen construction: throw a lot of pitchers with potential upside but some question marks at a wall and one or two are bound to stick.

Anyway, picking up Bonser is a perfect counter example of player acquisition to the Astros overpayment for a middling reliever who posted a low ERA built on low BABIP luck.

General Manager: Jim Hendry
Farm Director: Oneri Fleita
Scouting Director: Tim Wilken

FanGraphs’ Top 10 Prospects:
(2009 Draft Picks/International Signees Not Included)

There is definitely some excitement starting to build in the system. There are interesting names at the top of the list, as well as some sleepers sprinkled throughout the system, many of whom did not fit in the Top 10, which is a very nice thing to see for the Cubs. The organization certainly has a lot of depth in the middle infielder, but many of the arms are unproven and, in some cases, rather brittle.

1. Andrew Cashner, RHP, Double-A
DOB: September 1986 Bats: R Throws: R
Signed: 2008 1st round – Texas Christian University
MLB ETA: Late-2010 40-Man Roster: No Options: 3
Repertoire: 90-95 mph fastball, slider, curve, change-up

Cashner has been a huge find for the organization. Mainly a reliever in college, the right-hander has proven his durability (and repertoire) as a starter. His 1.50 ERA in high-A certainly looks shiny, but his FIP was 3.18 (still good, just not great). At that level, Cashner allowed just 31 hits in 42.0 innings, while showing average control with a walk rate of 3.21 BB/9. His strikeout rate was respectable at 7.29 K/9. He then moved up to double-A, where he allowed 45 hits in 58.1 innings. Cashner’s walk rate increased (4.17 BB/9) and his strikeout rate dropped (6.33 K/9). On the plus side, his ground-ball rate remained around the 47% mark, and he allowed just one home run all season. Cashner will likely begin 2010 back in double-A, with a shot at contributing in Wrigley Field in the second half of the season.

2. Starlin Castro, SS, Double-A
DOB: March 1990 Bats: R Throws: R
Signed: 2006 non-drafted international free agent (Dominican Republic)
MLB ETA: Late-2010 40-Man Roster: No Options: 3

There weren’t many prospects that more helium than Castro in ’09. The shortstop has not stopped hitting since going pro, and he followed up a .300+ debut with another solid offensive performance. Just 19, Castro was pushed from rookie ball to high-A ball and he still hit .302/.340/.391 in 358 at-bats. He also stole 22 bases but was caught 11 times, so he has some work to do on the bases. As well, Castro’s walk rate of just 5.0% was worrisome, but it improved to 8.3% upon a promotion to double-A (111 at-bats). Despite the late-season jump, the shortstop actually showed improvements in his game against better pitching. As mentioned, his walk rate rose, and he also kept his strikeout rate low at 10.8% while hitting .288. Castro was also successful in all six of his stolen base attempts in double-A. Defensively, he has the skill set to remain at shortstop. He’ll likely return to double-A to begin the season, but he’ll probably be the Cubs’ starting shortstop before his 21st birthday.

3. Josh Vitters, 3B, High-A
DOB: August 1989 Bats: R Throws: R
Signed: 2007 1st round – California HS
MLB ETA: Mid-2011 40-Man Roster: No Options: 3

One of the top prep hitters in the ’07 draft, Vitters has shown a tendency to struggle with each promotion. He hit well during the beginning of the ’09 season in low-A (his second attempt at the level) by hitting .316/.351/.535 in 269 at-bats. He then moved up to high-A ball where he struggled by hitting just .238/.260/.344 in 189 at-bats. The approach to take with Vitters is clear: Don’t throw him any strikes. Keep the pitch off the plate and he’ll get himself out, either by striking out or by hitting a pitcher’s pitch, rather than waiting for something to drive. His walk rate of just 2.6% was a big step back – even from ’08 when he walked just 4.8% of the time in short-season ball. Vitters has shown flashes of having the power needed to remain at third base (.219 ISO in low-A), but that walk rate is going to haunt him at the upper levels of the minors, and it won’t play in the Majors.

4. Hak-Ju Lee, SS, Short Season
DOB: November 1990 Bats: L Throws: R
Signed: 2008 non-drafted international free agent (Korea)
MLB ETA: Late-2013 40-Man Roster: No Options: 3

Castro can no doubt feel someone breathing down his neck; that someone is Lee. In his first taste of pro ball in North America, the Korean prospect hit .330/.399/.420 in 264 at-bats in short-season ball. Just 18 during the season, Lee did very well for his age and the 10.6% walk rate was certainly encouraging, as was the fact that the left-handed hitter kept his strikeout rate below 20% (18.9%). In a small sample size, the middle infielder performed well against both right-handers (.818 OPS) and left-handers (.827 OPS). He doesn’t have much power in his game right now (.091 ISO) but Lee projects to add at least gap power and could eventually grow into a 15 homer guy. Right now, though, he focuses on hitting the ball on the ground and utilizing his speed (63.5% ground-ball rate). Lee stole 25 bases in 33 attempts; if he keeps that up, he could be a real threat on the base paths for the Cubs.

5. Jay Jackson, RHP, Triple-A
DOB: October 1987 Bats: R Throws: R
Signed: 2008 9th round – Furman University
MLB ETA: Mid-2010 40-Man Roster: No Options: 3
Repertoire: 88-93 mph fastball, slider, curve, change-up

Jackson has been a solid find for the Cubs and has moved much quicker through the system than expected. The former two-way player spent time in high-A ball where he posted a 2.29 FIP, a walk rate of 0.94 and a strikeout rate of 10.80 in seven starts (38.1 IP). In double-A, Jackson struggled a bit with his control (4.25 BB/9), but he still missed his fair share of bats (8.38 K/9) and limited base runners with just 73 hits allowed in 82.2 innings. Overall on the year, Jackson held left-handed hitters to a .214 average, but he struggled with his control (4.72 BB/9 compared to 1.76 against right-handed batters). Just 22 years of age, Jackson received one triple-A start in ’09 and he should head back there in 2010. He has the makings of a No. 2 or 3 starter.

6. Chris Carpenter, RHP, Double-A
DOB: December 1985 Bats: R Throws: R
Signed: 2008 3rd round – Kent State University
MLB ETA: Mid-2011 40-Man Roster: No Options: 3
Repertoire: 90-95 mph fastball, curve, change-up

Plagued by injuries as an amateur, Carpenter has been healthy (knock on wood) as a pro. He made 27 starts over three levels in ’09 and reached double-A. Already 24, the right-hander signed as a senior out of college. He spent the majority of the ’09 season in low-A, where he posted a 3.66 FIP and allowed 55 hits in 73.2 innings. Carpenter struggled with his control a bit and he posted a walk rate of 4.03 BB/9. He also had a solid strikeout rate at 7.33 K/9. Moved up to high-A, he had a 2.16 FIP and allowed just 15 hits in 25.0 innings. Carpenter than headed for double-A, where he had a 3.04 FIP in 32.0 innings and did not allow a homer. He also showed solid walk and strikeout rates. Overall, Carpenter posted a ground-ball rate of 52.7% and limited line drives to just 13.2% on the season. He has the potential to be a solid No. 3 starter if he can stay healthy.

7. Ryan Flaherty, SS, Low-A
DOB: July 1986 Bats: L Throws: R
Signed: 2008 supplemental 1st round – Vanderbilt University
MLB ETA: Late-2011 40-Man Roster: No Options: 3

Flaherty is in a bit of an uncomfortable position. The former college standout is a shortstop with Castro ahead of him, and Lee behind him. That is one of the reasons why the 23-year-old infielder spent the entire season in low-A ball. The other reason for his status is that he struggled in the first half of the year and really did not hit well until the second half (15 of his 20 homers came after June 1). The left-handed hitter also struggled against southpaws, having hit just .211/.287/.421. As a result, Flaherty could very well be headed for a platoon role, or back-up infielder role. One thing is fairly certain: He won’t be the everyday shortstop in Chicago as long as Castro is around. Flaherty potentially has the power (.194 ISO) to play third base. Overall in ’09, he had a solid season with a triple-slash line of .276/.344/.470 in 485 at-bats.

8. Dae-Eun Rhee, RHP, Short Season
DOB: March 1989 Bats: L Throws: R
Signed: 2007 non-drafted international free agent (Korea)
MLB ETA: Mid-2013 40-Man Roster: No Options: 3
Repertoire: 88-93 mph fastball, curve, plus change-up

Rhee had an exciting debut in ’08 but Tommy John surgery showed its ugly face and derailed the Korean’s progress. The right-hander returned in ’09 but obviously was not at full strength. Rhee should return to low-A in 2010 and there is hope that his stuff will bounce back to its pre-surgery levels. If all goes well, he has the potential to be a No. 2 starter, but he’s still a long way off.

9. Logan Watkins, 2B, Short Season
DOB: August 1989 Bats: L Throws: R
Signed: 2008 21st round – Kansas HS
MLB ETA: 40-Man Roster: Options:

Watkins is not as flashy as some of the other middle infielders in the system, but he’s shown a lot of potential in a short period of time. The second baseman has a career .326 batting average after two seasons in the low minors, thanks in part to some high BABIPs. Overall in ’09, he hit .326/.389/.391, with a .368 wOBA, in 279 at-bats. Watkins struck out just 11.1% of the time, while producing a reasonable walk rate of 8.8%. He has little-to-no power, and managed an ISO rate of just .065 in ’09. He has some speed but was caught seven times in 21 attempts. Watkins performs better against right-handed pitchers than southpaws: .831 vs .624 OPS.

10. John Gaub, LHP, Triple-A
DOB: April 1985 Bats: R Throws: L
Signed: 2006 21st round – University of Minnesota
MLB ETA: Mid-2010 40-Man Roster: Yes Options: 3
Repertoire: 89-95 mph fastball, slider

The organization may have regretted trading veteran infielder Mark DeRosa to the Indians, but it wasn’t all bad. The club received back three interesting arms in the deal. Gaub is the closest to having a key impact at the MLB level. The left-handed reliever had a dominating season in the minors, even with below-average control (5.34 BB/9 in double-A). At that level, he also allowed just 19 hits in 28.2 innings of work, while also posting a strikeout rate of 12.56 K/9. Moved up to triple-A, Gaub allowed 17 hits in 31.1 innings with a strikeout rate of 11.49 K/9. His control improved a smidgen to 4.60 BB/9. His stuff – especially his fastball velocity – has improved each of the past three seasons. Impressively, he’s equally as effective against left-handed and right-handed hitters (.167 average/12.57 K/9 vs lefties and .175/11.45 vs righties).

Up Next: The Minnesota Twins

I’m one of those people who doesn’t really enjoy Saturday Night Live sketches, because to me, the joke is made in the first 15 seconds and then just repeated over and over for the next several minutes. You drive a Dodge Stratus and you think that makes you important – okay. Not much funnier the 15th time you yell it. Not to me, anyway.

Ed Wade is the GM equivalent of a bad SNL sketch. The first time he overpaid a middle reliever, we figured out that he didn’t really know how to build a roster. Now, when he gives Brandon Lyon a 3 year, $15 million deal, we just shrug our shoulders and say, “Yeah, that’s Ed Wade for ya.”

Seriously, $5 million a year for the next three years for Brandon Lyon. We’re not talking about overpaying for a premium bullpen guy. Lyon is a generic middle reliever, the kind of guy who could be replaced by a minor league free agent or a Rule 5 draftee. His career FIP is 4.23, which is below average for a relief pitcher. He doesn’t even have magical FIP-beating properties – his career ERA is 4.20.

But, hey, he got hit lucky last year (.229 BABIP) and that allowed him to strand a bunch of runners (80.8% LOB%), so his 2009 ERA is a sparkly 2.86. To Wade, that matters, because he’s still analyzing like it’s 1999. Don’t worry about the fact that his career BABIP is .305 or that his career LOB% is 71.4%, and that the entirety of his low ERA in 2009 was luck – pay him like the best reliever on the market anyway.

What year does Wade think this is? The market for relief pitchers absolutely cratered a year ago, as teams stopped paying significant money for setup guys who could be effectively replaced by league-minimum earners. So far this year, we’ve seen a significant pullback from even that level of spending. The average dollar per win for the first crop of free agents signed this winter has been about $3 million per win. The Astros are paying about $10 million – ten million – per win for Lyon.

They don’t have any money to spend to fix the rest of their bad, old roster, but they can commit $5 million a year to Brandon Lyon through 2012. Moves like this are why the team isn’t good, and won’t be good any time soon. This move is just the latest act in a joke that’s gone on far too long.

Matt Lindstrom was traded to the Houston Astros on Wednesday as part of a three player deal. In the deal, the Marlins acquire two minor leaguers, RHP Robert Bono and SS Luis Bryan.

Lindstrom is an interresting player. He performed quite well in 2007 and 2008, putting up ERAs near 3.00 both year with similar FIPs. 2009 was a very down year, however, as Lindstrom’s ERA ballooned to 5.89 and he also suffered injuries which limited him to 47.1 IP, the lowest of his three year ML career. His FIP didn’t rise as much, coming in at 4.47, but this is still a below-replacement mark for a reliever.

What had made Lindstrom a productive pitcher through 2008 was his ability to suppress the home run. This can be summarized quite succinctly by his career graph.

Even though his HR/9 wasn’t terribly high last season, it was enough to make him unproductive. His K/9 fell quite a bit in 2008 and his BB/9 rose as well, both by over a point. Still, nearly any pitcher who can run a HR/9 of 0.16 can be productive. The other shoe dropped for Lindstrom in ’09, as his HR/FB skyrocketed to a roughly average rate of 9.3%. Thanks to his ground ball tendencies, he still gave up less than 1 HR/9, but with a low K rate and high BB rate, that’s not good enough in the major leagues.

Lindstrom is still an attractive asset despite his down year. His ground ball tendencies are great for a reliever, as it suppresses the home run ball. He has a live fastball, averaging over 96 MPH. The questions for Lindstrom are if he can find his control and lower his BB rate as well as if his crazy home run suppression will return.

The Marlins return comes in the form of two minor leaguers who, according to a tweet from Baseball America’s Ben Badler,

“Neither Robert Bono nor Luis Bryan, the two guys the Marlins got from Houston for Lindstrom, would have made the Astros top 30 ,”

In addition, the Astros farm system is, simply put, not good. Bono had decent numbers (3.62 FIP) in A ball at age 20 and has a very high ground ball rate, but doesn’t seem to be highly acclaimed by scouts. Bryan didn’t walk a single time in 105 ABs in rookie ball, and that lack of plate discipline will not play in the majors.

The Marlins didn’t get much for Lindstrom, and although he was unproductive and is aging, at 30 years old, he doesn’t seem like the kind of guy to just give up on. Lindstrom is arbitration eligible this year, however, and given the Marlins financial situation, he probably would’ve been non-tendered. The conclusion that I come to given the poor return is that leaguewide interest in Lindstrom just wasn’t there. It that’s the case, this is a better outcome for Florida than a simple non-tender. However, Lindstrom probably won’t cost Houston too much, and as such an intriguing player at such a low cost, this move makes a lot of sense for Houston.