Overview

The Red Sox put themselves in a hole early. They started the season 6-10, and even after they recovered by going 18-11 in their next 29 games they still found themselves down 8.5 games in the AL East on May 23. Since then they have rattled off a few winning streaks, but injuries have kept key players off the field. They headed into the All-Star Break in something of a funk, losing five of their last seven games. The Yankees sit five games ahead of them while the Rays are three up.

Buy or Sell?

One of the AL East powerhouses won’t make the playoffs, and all season it has looked like the Sox would be the odd team out. It started with the slump and continued with the injuries, and while they were as close as a half game out in early July, it looks like everything is catching up to them. The Red Sox might be buyers in name, but they shouldn’t get overeager. Players returning from injuries might be the only additions they need.

At catcher the Sox look particularly weak right now, with a combination of Kevin Cash and Gustavo Molina — not that kind of Molina — sharing the duties while Victor Martinez and Jason Varitek recover from injuries. That basically puts a pitcher in the No. 9 spot, which puts any American League team at a disadvantage. Reports suggest that the Sox could seek help here, with the names Chris Snyder and Chris Iannetta mentioned. To acquire one of these players, however, would be to ostracize Varitek. Martinez will certainly return to his catching duties upon return, since he has nowhere else to play. Would the Red Sox, with so many injuries, actually carry three catchers? It doesn’t strike me as a particularly smart move for a reputedly savvy front office.

If the Sox are going to add a piece it will likely be in the outfield or the bullpen. For most of the season the team has been without Jacoby Ellsbury, who continues to suffer rib and other torso injuries. There’s no timetable for his return, and judging from reports the Sox probably shouldn’t count on him too heavily. They have received excellent production from his fill-in, Daniel Nava, a late bloomer who raked at every level of the minors. He currently has a .371 wOBA through 89 PA, and while he could certainly remain in the .350 – .370 wOBA range, I don’t think the Sox are counting on it.

Adding to the trouble is Mike Cameron, who has suffered various injuries, including a sports hernia and kidney stones. He technically lost only 36 days to the DL, but has taken regular days off since his return, starting three days in a row just twice since May 25. Jeremy Hermida is also on the DL with fractured ribs, but he’s been ineffective even when healthy. The only fully healthy member of the opening day outfield is J.D. Drew. The Sox could look to add a piece here in order to fortify the unit, hedging against declining production from Nava and providing a more reliable option than Darnell McDonald to spell Cameron. David DeJesus is the oft-mentioned player here.

The rest of the offense seems just fine. Dustin Pedroia put on a laser show before fouling a ball off his foot, and it sounds like he’ll be back soon enough. David Ortiz has recovered after the press pronounced him dead in April. Kevin Youkilis, All-Star appearance or not, has been the rock of the team. Adrian Beltre has exceeded expectations in his first, and likely only, season with the Sox. Any other additions should come on the pitching staff.

Here, too, we see a team that requires patience. Both Josh Beckett and Clay Buchholz are recovering from injuries and will help strengthen the rotation upon their returns. Jon Lester is pitching characteristically well, but beyond those guys there’s not much the Sox can really do. John Lackey and Daisuke Matsuzaka haven’t performed to expectations at all, and it’s not like they’re candidates for a move to the bullpen. Not that Matsuzaka would be a good option there. It often takes him more than 100 pitches to get through five, and the last thing the Sox need is a reliever who puts too many men on base. But they could certainly use help in the pen.

The problem with adding to the pen is that so many contenders also need help that relievers often become expensive. The Sox have an advantage in that they can absorb salary, so someone like Kerry Wood might be available to them and not many others. They’ll find more competition when going for slightly cheaper guys, like the trio of impending free agent relievers from the Blue Jays (Kevin Gregg, Jason Frasor, Scott Downs). Any way they do it, the Sox sure could use some help with their bullpen.

On the Farm

With both of their bigger issues, outfield and bullpen, the Sox might have an in-house solution. For the outfield they could call on 22-year-old Ryan Kalish. Marc Hulet ranked Kalish ninth among Sox prospects, saying that he, “will certainly jump on the Kalish train in 2010 if he can maintain a solid batting average while also at least equaling his ’09 power numbers.” Starting the season in AA, Kalish hit .293/.404/.527 and since his move to AAA he’s hitting .333/.407/.457. The power numbers might not be as impressive in AAA, but this comes in just 91 PA. He could help in the outfield if the Sox fail to land an established player.

On the mound the Sox have been preparing Michael Bowden for a call-up to the bullpen. Hulet ranked him 10th among Sox prospects, despite a poor showing in the majors last season. His last three appearances, four innings, have come in relief, and chances are the Sox will call him up shortly. But beyond Bowden the Sox will likely have to look elsewhere for pitching help.

The rest of the farm is strong, if not major league ready, and the Sox could use some of those chips to make a move. They won’t trade a blue-chipper like Casey Kelly, but they could use one of their lower level players to acquire a player like DeJesus or Wood.

Budget

The Sox 2010 payroll, $168 million, is the highest in club history, but that doesn’t mean they’ll skimp on the market if they can find a deal. They have some money coming off the books next year, but also owe many players raises. In total they have $100 million guaranteed to the 2011 payroll, though I’m not sure how that affects what they’ll do this year. Again, while payroll is high I doubt it would prevent them from making a move that could help the team.

During every Yankees game for the past month or so the YES Network hyped the first ever Major League Baseball game broadcasted in HD. It happened last Saturday in Seattle, when the Yankees played the Mariners. The true 3D feed came two innings late thanks to a glitch in the production truck, but after that the experiment, by most accounts, was a success. The 3D era for baseball had officially begun.

On Tuesday night Panasonic, a forerunner in the 3D TV game, held an event at the Helen Mills Theater & Event Space in New York City. My colleagues from River Ave. Blues and I were invited, and we couldn’t pass up the opportunity to get our first 3D baseball experience. After a round of hot dogs and beers, we strapped on our glasses and enjoyed a strikeout-fueled All-Star performance. Watching it in 3D certainly added a different feel to the game.

The goggles

This past winter several 3D movies hit theaters. The movies required special glasses, but unlike the red and blue glasses of 80’s 3D technology, these were more like sun glasses. They were cheap enough that no one really minded if you left the theater with them. None of this is true for the goggles required for 3D TV viewing. The new glasses are quite a deal heavier than the movie 3D glasses because they contain electronics that help render the 3D image. This means that they are more cumbersome. They’re also more expensive, running $150 to $200.

And here they are while on my face.

The goggles were not comfortable at all, though that shouldn’t come as a shocker. They kept sliding down my nose, and neither one of the two size settings helped. Then again, I do not wear glasses. Both of my colleagues, Mike and Ben, do, and they reported no discomfort. It sounds, then, like they will take some time getting used to at best. I’m still not sure that I’d want to watch games every night while wearing these things.

One aspect I found strange was that the goggles could focus on only one display at a time. We had three TVs in the room, and at first I thought that the other two were too far away and thus the goggles could not render the image. After a few innings I ended up staring at one of the other TVs for a few seconds, and eventually a better view did render. When I turned my attention back to the TV in front of me it took anther few seconds to adjust back. Again, this probably doesn’t have any implications for home viewing.

A side-effect of wearing the goggles is the loss of peripheral vision. The theater had people coming around to collect empty plates and bottles, and I jumped each time someone leaned into view. That, too, will take some time getting used to, though I don’t imagine it being as big an issue in a household setting.

The image

In 3D movies it seems like the images pop off the screen and into the theater. On 3D TV it’s more like they’re playing inside the box — like a diorama. I’m not saying the experience is worse by any degree; I actually did enjoy the presentation. The 3D aspect added a level of depth that an HDTV just can’t capture. Cameras have advanced in technology, and we can in some cases judge depth while watching a 2D image, but in 3D the distinctions become clearer.

One aspect that struck all of us as strange was how only certain aspects popped in 3D. It almost looks like the background — in this case the outfield wall and scenery beyond — was a stage set. The field, too, carried a similar effect. The players did pop off the field, but it seemed like the field and the background were flat surfaces. This is at least partly because we’ve grown so used to 2D broadcasts. watching in 3D still felt like a stage play at times when the background was a prominent part of the picture.

For most of the game I sat at the end of a couch, putting me at a pretty extreme angle facing the TV. For 2D broadcasts this is usually fine. The image is flat, so it looks the same from all angles. At first I thought the same was true for 3D, and I enjoyed the early goings. But then around the third inning I turned my head to a TV that was to the right of me, but gave me a straight-on view. The difference was noticeable. Everything seemed like it was deeper and more defined. If you’re going to enjoy a game in 3D, I suggest you make sure to get a seat front and center.

The presentation

From the first pitch we could tell that not only would the 3D picture be something different, but the entire presentation would, too. When David Price wound up and dealt to Hanley Ramirez we were watching from behind the left-handed batter’s box. Like most other aspects of the 3D experience this seemed odd at first. By the second batter, however, I was loving it. You just see so much more from a behind the plate angle.

The most noticeable difference when viewing from behind home plate, and in 3D, is the level of detail you can see in the pitcher’s delivery. Every little nuance of Ubaldo Jimenez’s elaborate windup was clearly visible, and that added to the viewing experience. Normally only fans sitting up close can see him go through the motions, while the rest of us view from afar, or from our 2D televisions. The 3D view allows all fans to experience the finer details of the game.

It does take a little extra focus to watch the game in 3D, at least initially. It took me a few batters to pick up the ball out of the pitcher’s hand, and then a few innings to pick up the ball off the bat. Again, this has to do with the differences in what we’ve become accustomed to and what 3D brings to the table. I imagine that it would take a few games to settle into the 3D viewing.

Part of the difficulty in picking up the ball came from the camera work. It seemed like the cameras and production crew were slow to pick up the ball, leaving us for a few seconds with little idea of where it went and who was fielding it, which was to be expected. Shooting a game in 3D is going to be different than shooting it normally, and it will take time for cameramen and production crews to figure it out. John Fillipelli, president of programming and production for the YES Network, made this point when talking about his station’s experiment.

Right now we are shooting a 3D game like we do a regular baseball game with the same basic camera positions. We have to find ways as we go along to accentuate the benefits of 3D in shooting baseball. These telecasts will allow us to start finding the best camera angles, determine how many cameras we need, things like that. To learn the nuances of shooting a game in 3D.”

Once the crews figure out what’s required for a 3D broadcast I imagine that they’ll pick up the flow of the game better. Considering I enjoyed the experience as presented on Tuesday night, any improvement in the presentation could make a big difference.

Additional observations

There were a few other aspects of the 3D experience that I noticed while watching the NL win its first All-Star game since I was in eighth grade.

• The strike zone was difficult to judge because of the off-center angle — even more so than the off-angle center field cameras. This wasn’t a huge problem, but I’m sure it’s something they’ll look into as the technology develops.

 

• At the outset the production crew used the behind-the-plate view for right-handed batters and the normal center field view for left-handed batters. I thought that was because of the camera sitting behind the left-handed batter’s box. But later in the game they switched to the rear camera exclusively. I was glad; I didn’t go to watch the All-Star game in 3D to see the same broadcast as I could on my own HD.

 

• Repeated for emphasis: if 3D technology in this form is going to spread to homes around America, they’re going to have to do something about the glasses. Watching a special event, even a playoff series, with the glasses would be fine, but I can’t imagine watching 150 some-odd games a year while wearing them.

The bottom line

3D TV will not change the world. It will not make it feel like you’re at the game. But it does provide an interesting experience that allows you to view the game with nuance not available in 2D. I’m not sure how long it will take the technology to spread, but I hope that by the time it does they’ve worked out some of the kinks. They’re mostly minor, so I imagine it’s feasible if 3D takes as much time as HD did to progress into American homes.

Earlier this afternoon Toronto and Atlanta consummated a trade that, at first glance, looks like a head-scratcher. Atlanta, ahead in the NL East by four games, traded their starting shortstop, Yunel Escobar, to the Blue Jays for a direct replacement, Alex Gonzalez, and two prospects. It’s easy to see Toronto’s perspective on this one, since they acquired a 27-year-old established MLB shortstop who has three more years until he reaches free agency. But why would the Braves trade away such a player for a 33-year-old in the midst of a career year that could come tumbling back to earth at any second?

Escobar established himself as a one of the league’s better shortstops last year, producing 4.3 WAR, fifth among shortstops in the majors. He accomplished that with a .357 wOBA, also fifth among MLB shortstops, and a slightly above average UZR. This year his defensive numbers have improved, a 4.4 UZR, but his offense has dropped off considerably. His wOBA has fallen all the way to .291, mostly because of his complete power outage. Of the 62 hits he’s collected this season just 12 have gone for extra bases, all doubles. That leaves his ISO at .046, sixth lowest among qualified major leaguers. The Braves just haven’t been realizing the production they expected from him.

Even so, it doesn’t seem likely that the Braves would trade a 27-year-old merely because he underperformed for half a season. They’re certainly playing to win this year, but that doesn’t mean they need to jettison a player who not only can help them in the future, but who might recover to produce a quality second half. From many accounts, the Braves based their decision on more than Escobar’s poor performance. There have been rumblings that the Braves don’t like Escobar’s demeanor and attitude, so perhaps they thought that his time had run its course in Atlanta. It wouldn’t be the first time it happened.

The Braves have a history of trading or otherwise getting rid of useful players with whom they became dissatisfied for one reason or another. For instance, a 22-year-old Tim Spooneybarger pitched very well for them in the bullpen in 2002, but they traded him in the off-season to Florida for Mike Hampton, who had pitched horribly in the first two years of his mega contract. Spooneybarger pitched 33 innings for the Marlins before requiring two Tommy John surgeries. Hampton went on to be a useful starter for Atlanta from 2003 and 2004.

Marcus Giles is another example of the Braves moving a player before his value bottomed out. From 2003 through 2005 he provided excellent value at the plate and in the field, producing 6.7, 2.9, and 5.3 WAR seasons. But in 2006 his production fell off from both ends, a .323 wOBA and a -5.6 UZR. The Braves non-tendered him rather than grant him a pay raise in his final year of arbitration. He signed on to play with his brother in San Diego, but was again horrible, a .283 wOBA and -4.7 UZR, producing -0.1 WAR. He hasn’t played in the majors since.

(And who could forget John Rocker, who was terrible from the second the Braves traded him in 2001?)

In terms of the present, Gonzalez provides the Braves with an instant fill-in at shortstop. He is in the midst of a career year, a .341 wOBA that rests mostly on the power of his .238 ISO. Power seems to be the only positive aspect of his offensive performance right now, as his OBP sits at .296. He still plays an excellent shortstop, a 3.1 UZR to this point, and he’s likely to continue providing the Braves with quality defense. On offense, however, chances are he’ll start hitting more like his .299 career wOBA.

The Braves did receive a couple of prospects in the deal, though neither ranked among the Blue Jays’ top 10. Marc Hulet mentioned that the two players, Tyler Pastornicky and Tim Collins, could have hit his Blue Jays top 10, but instead just missed the cut. Baseball America ranked Pastornicky 17th and Collins 19th in the organization. Pastornicky might have been the key to the trade, since he now profiles as a player who can eventually take over at shortstop. He’s just in A+ ball right now, but he’s just 20 and could move through the ranks to join the Braves in 2012. Here’s what BA says about him:

An athletic infielder, Pastornicky doesn’t have flashy tools but gets the most out of what he has. He has good instincts at shortstop, along with plus range and an average arm. He’s an above-average runner and basestealer, which opposing catchers quickly figured out as he swiped 57 bases between two Class A stops in 2009. Pastornicky has a line-drive stroke and projects as .275 hitter in the big leagues. The only thing he lacks is power, as he has hit just two homers in 636 pro at-bats. But as a potential top-of-the-order hitter who provides sound defense, he may not need it.

Tim Collins was an undrafted free agent when former Jays GM J.P. Ricciardi saw him play at Rhode Island CC. Chances are he fell out of the draft because of his frame — he’s listed at 5’7″ and 155 pounds — but he has done nothing but dominate in the minors. He walked a few too many hitters in 2008 and 2009, but he kept his strikeout rate remarkably high. This year, at AA New Hampshire, he has struck out 73 in 43 inning while walking just 16. Again, BA has a scouting report:

He gets outs with a solid fastball that tops out at 93 mph and a true 12-to-6 curveball that he spins really well. His quirky delivery helps him as well. He has a high three-quarters arm slot and does an especially good job of staying on top of the ball and driving down despite his height. He has a high leg kick and stands as far to the third-base side of the rubber as possible.

Scouts always have worries about the durability of smaller players, which probably hurts Collins’s stock now, just like it did in the 2007 draft. Still, he seems like a nice get for the Braves, who have already assembled a good bullpen. Like Pastornicky, Collins probably won’t crack the big league roster until 2012 at the earliest, though a mid-year call-up next year doesn’t seem all that outlandish a proposition.

After further examination, this trade doesn’t seem nearly as bad for the Braves as it did at first glance. Toronto still won their end, but that doesn’t preclude the Braves from claiming victory as well. They’ve gotten rid of a player whom they clearly do not like, and replaced him with a player who, if nothing else, will provide value on defense. The prospects also help out, and while neither projects as a future star both can be useful pieces in a year or two. Maybe it’s a win, though I wouldn’t go so far as to say that. But it doesn’t look like the clear loss I had imagined when digging into the topic.

Overview

The Rays got off to a torrid start this year, jumping out to a division lead on April 22 and eventually extending that to a six-game cushion on May 23. But nineteen games later they fell back into a tie, and since June 20 have been behind the New York Yankees. They recently rattled off six in a row to keep pace, though they didn’t gain a single game during that span. They’re still close, just two games back of the Yankees.

Buy or Sell?

The question isn’t of whether or not the Rays will add a player before the deadline, but of what player and when. They’re in an excellent position to make the playoffs right now, with Baseball Prospectus’s Postseason Odds report giving them a 64.89 percent chance, which trails only New York, Texas, and Atlanta. Yet they trail Boston by a game in third order wins, so they will probably want to add a player or two in order to solidify the lineup and pitching staff.

At third base, left field, and either right field or second base the Rays are set. They need not find upgrades over Evan Longoria, Carl Crawford, or Ben Zobrist. Catcher is probably set, too. While John Jaso has cooled down after his hot debut he’s still hitting well, and with Kelly Shoppach also in place the Rays don’t need to add at the position. At pretty much any other position, however, the Rays could certainly upgrade.

Shortstop presents an odd situation, in which two opposite-handed players, Jason Bartlett and Reid Brignac, have reverse splits in the first half. That will start to correct itself, and that could make the duo a decent platoon option. Again, chances are the Rays won’t look for an upgrade here, where they have players in place. Second base can be in issue, too, but it seems like they’ll be patient with Sean Rodriguez, especially with Zobrist able to take over the position if necessary.

Would the Rays consider a move at first base? Carlos Pena has been their man for the past few years, but he’s had a rough first half, a .326 wOBA. That puts him near the bottom of AL first basemen. Much of that comes from his performance against lefties, a .289 wOBA in about a third of his overall plate appearances. Acquiring a right-handed half of the platoon could work, especially because the Rays have a number of multi-position players.

The Rays could also use another bat in the DH spot. That’s where Corey Hart could fit in. Phil Rogers of the Chicago Tribune says that the Rays are “getting serious” about him, and that the Rays could use their pitching depth to lure the Brewers into a trade. Hart is experiencing a renaissance year, reminiscent of his breakout 2007 season. He’d fit in right field, where the Rays could use an upgrade, and also at DH — he doesn’t rate very well as a fielder but he’s not a butcher. Tommy Rancel of DRays Bay likes the idea, but worries that the Rays could overpay. Looking at their rotation now and in the future, Matt Garza, who will get more and more expensive in each of the next three seasons, could be the target, with Jeremy Hellickson taking his place.

If the Rays want to do someting about B.J. Upton and his poor production against righties, a .280 wOBA, they do have options. They would probably turn internally there, however, with Desmond Jennings getting the call. After a rocky start he’s hitting much better, a .412 OBP in June and a .368 mark so far this month. A righty-righty platoon doesn’t sound ideal, but Jennings handles righties well enough. The only question is of whether the Rays would call him up if he won’t play every day. They could give him the role by trading Upton, but given the patience the team has displayed with them I don’t think that’s particularly likely.

In the rotation there shouldn’t be much of a problem. The Rays have had the particular luxury of having only five pitchers start games in the first half, and for the most part they’ve been effective. They do have the flexibility to move one of them — again, probably Garza — if if would help them out. There is a possible replacement in the bullpen with Andy Sonnanstine, who is having a decent year, and on the farm. The bullpen probably doesn’t need any tweaking, which is an advantage. With nearly every team seeking bullpen help we could see a few overpayments this month. They could probably use a lefty upgrade over Randy Choate, but he’s pitched better lately and in any case it’s a luxury, not a need. Their bullpen, anchored by Joaquin Benoit and Rafael Soriano, and with valuable contributions from Grant Balfour and Dan Wheeler, can stand up against most, if not all, of their competitors.

On the Farm

The two players who could have an impact for the Rays in the second half are Jennings and Hellickson. If the Rays need to deal from the rotation, Hellickson is the obvious fill-in, as he’s crushing AAA as a 23-year-old. Jennings could see time later this year to help strengthen the outfield. Even if they bring in Corey Hart they could benefit from Jennings on defense. Then again, they do have plenty of options in the outfield and might want to give Jennings the rest of the year in AAA.

If they don’t get Hart, Dan Johnson could present another option for the corner spots. He has played at third base at AAA Durham this year, hitting .349/.405/.505 through 292 AB. He’s no great shakes, a .333 career wOBA, but he presents a chance for the Rays to catch lightning in a bottle. Chances are he can’t do much worse than the Rays’ DHs, who have hit a combined .240/.307/.373 this season.

With a slew of young pitchers among their top prospects, the Rays could use one or more of them as trade bait. They’ll want to keep some of them around for the future, of course, but with a rotation whose oldest member is 28 they can afford to trade from the lower levels.

Budget

The Rays are always working under tight financial framework, and this year they’ve extended themselves already. The $72.85 million they’re paying their players represents a franchise record. But that won’t stop owner Stu Sternberg from making a deal.

“Money won’t be an object,” Sternberg said. “Players are always an object for us and the money will be an impediment, but we’ll figure it out if it makes all the sense in the world for this team.”

There are practical limits to what the Rays can do, so Sternberg is certainly exaggerating when he says that money isn’t an object. But if it means adding a significant piece, they’ll find the room. That has to be reassuring for Rays fans.

It’s not official yet, but all indications point to the Yankees and the Mariners completing a deal for Cliff Lee before tonight’s game, in which Lee was scheduled to face his new team. As Dave explained, the Mariners did well to acquire a top-10 prospect and others. For the Yankees the deal is a bit more complicated.

The clear and obvious benefit is the addition of Cliff Lee to the rotation. With CC Sabathia, A.J. Burnett, Andy Pettitte, Javier Vazquez, and Phil Hughes the Yankees already have a strong starting five, but the addition to Lee represents an upgrade over every one of them except maybe Sabathia. Even then, Lee has the second lowest FIP among starters during the last three years. Sabathia ranks fifth. They represent of one the best, if not the best, one-two punches in baseball. Adding any three of the other four behind them makes for the best rotation in baseball.

A pitcher like Cliff Lee, even if just a rental, doesn’t come cheap. The Yankees had to sacrifice their No. 1 prospect, Jesus Montero, in addition to one or two more prospects, to complete the deal. Marc Hulet ranked Montero his No. 4 AL prospect this season, Keith Law ranked him No. 10 in MLB, Baseball America ranked him No.4, as did Kevin Goldstein. He’s a world-class bat that will play at any position — which is a good thing for the Mariners, because nearly every prospect pundit claims that he will not stick at catcher. Is it worth the sacrifice of a consensus top bat to acquire three-plus months of a world-beating pitcher? Or, more to the point, why do the Yankees think that the exchange works for them?

Montero likely would have debuted for the Yankees some time in 2011, whether at catcher or as a DH. With Jorge Posada entering the last year of his contract age 40, the possibility of adding another heavy hitting catcher would certainly have been attractive. But Posada is still under contract, and if healthy he will continue to play as much as possible behind the plate. Once his contract expires after 2011, another Yankees’ top catching prospect, Austin Romine, could be ready for the majors. At AA this season Romine is hitting .281/.361/.432 and is headed to the Futures Game. He is widely considered a far superior defensive catcher, and it appears his bat is starting to catch up. His presence, along with another handful of catchers in the lower minors, might make the Yankees feel a bit better about dealing Montero.

What further complicates this deal is that the Yankees not only have to be comfortable trading Montero in the first place, but have to be comfortable trading him for an upgrade to an already strong starting rotation. Last year, when the Indians traded Lee to the Phillies, the Yankees actually had a rotation problem. With Chien-Ming Wang out for the season and the team unwilling to move Phil Hughes out of the bullpen, the Yankees could have used a starter. When the second half began they used Sergio Mitre as their fifth starter. In that case Lee would have represented a significant upgrade. The scenario is a bit different this year, with Vazquez representing the rotation’s weakest cog. After a poor start he has pitched as well as the Yankees could have expected. That makes the Montero-Lee swap seem a bit worse from the Yankees’ perspective.

The real reason I think they moved is because of concerns with the bottom of the rotation. Phil Hughes has an innings limit, 170 to 180 innings, and while he’s at a decent place heading into the break, around 100 after his start tonight, adding Lee gives them more flexibility in managing those innings. The Yankees have two days off all of August and skipping him could be tough. Adding another starter would help ease that process.

Then come Burnett and Vazquez, two pitchers who have been good if not inconsistent this season. Vazquez, again, has recovered after a poor start, but that doesn’t end concerns about him. His fastball velocity is down by about 2 mph, and his slider hasn’t been as effective a weapon this season. Burnett’s career has been marked by inconsistency, and he hasn’t done anything to buck that reputation this year. He started off strong, but posted a June to forget, allowing 29 runs in 23 innings during his five starts. He has since recovered, but like Vazquez this doesn’t erase concerns. His velocity, too, is a bit down, and his curveball hasn’t been nearly as effective. While he’s using a two-seamer to induce more ground balls, he is not striking out nearly as many hitters as in the past.

Adding Lee, then, helps alleviate those concerns. He gives them another dependable arm, someone they can count on every five days without worrying whether he’ll make it out of the fourth inning. The presence of another ace also takes the pressure off Hughes, whom the Yankees can now afford to skip and eventually move to the bullpen for the playoffs.

The Yankees also realize a number of side benefits from this deal. They were, and still are, the favorites to sign Lee once he becomes a free agent this winter. The difference is that if they re-sign him as their own player they won’t sacrifice their first round pick in the strong 2011 draft. The move also prevents Lee from landing with the Twins, Rays, or Rangers, teams the Yankees might have to face in the playoffs. The swing of having Lee pitch for them and not against them is enormous. Neither of these reasons can be a primary motivator in a trade, but they’re certainly worthy consolations.

The final side benefit is that they can now trade Vazquez for a bat. This is not a necessity, and the Yankees might choose to use their pitching advantage to its fullest. But the allure of acquiring another bat is one that will be difficult to ignore. The team has already lost Nick Johnson, and a recent injury setback could mark the end of his season. While Posada has taken reps at DH, he is still more valuable to the Yankees at catcher. Adding a DH/OF type player would only benefit a lineup that already ranks second in the AL in runs per game. Plenty of contenders could use an arm like Vazquez, so the Yankees shouldn’t have much difficulty finding a match if they’re so inclined.

If the Yankees stand to benefit from this type of move, then why haven’t they done anything like this before. At the deadline last year they declined to trade for Lee, and during the off-season they didn’t get in heavily on either the Lee or the Roy Halladay deals. GM Brian Cashman has said many times that he prefers to avoid paying for a player in prospects and then again with a big-money extension. He declined to do it in 2008, when the Twins traded Johan Santana. So why now? Joel Sherman provides the insight:

Yankee officials simply feel that their farm system is in a different place today than it was back then. For example, they have the catching and second base depth organizationally to move Montero and Adams. Also, for Santana, the Yanks would have had to include Phil Hughes and Melky Cabrera. They felt they had no other prospect nearly as good as Hughes, and his loss would be devastating. And Cabrera was the starting center fielder and the Yanks felt they would have had to go outside the organization to add a center fielder through free agency or yet another trade.

Now they don’t have to touch the major league roster to get Lee.

Losing a prospect is never easy, especially now when fans can follow these players with a close eye. When that prospect is a consensus top-10 and is playing in AAA as a 20-year-old, the loss becomes even more painful. But for a team in the Yankees position that prospect sometimes becomes a necessary sacrifice. They have a number of aging players on the roster, including Posada, Pettitte, Derek Jeter, Mariano Rivera, and even Alex Rodriguez. Adding Cliff Lee brings them closer to another championship before the windows for these players close. That, I think, is the primary motivation behind this trade.

The move hurts the Yankees in the long run, in that they’re giving up one of the best prospects in baseball for three-plus months of a pitcher that they stood a good chance to sign after the season. Had they waited they could have had Montero and Lee. But there is still plenty to be won and lost in those three-plus months. The Yankees obviously think that the heightened chance to win this season is worth trading someone of Montero’s caliber. If nothing else, it shows the value they place on another World Series Championship.

Sometimes the timing works out well. On May 13 I wrote about my appreciation of the Rangers’ ability to make adjustments on the fly. They faced a number of problems early in the season, but found adequate solutions at first base, catcher, in the rotation, and in the bullpen. One area I neglected, possibly because the Rangers hadn’t moved to solve the problem, was center field. Julio Borbon impressed after making his debut last season, and was installed as the everyday center fielder to start the season. It was just a few days before I wrote this that he hit rock bottom.

On May 6, the Rangers and Royals engaged in a shootout. The Rangers jumped out to an 8-0 lead, but the Royals then cut that in half by the fifth before tying the game in the top of the sixth. The Rangers recaptured the lead in the bottom of the inning only to squander it again in the seventh. The Royals then took their first lead in the top of the eighth, but the Rangers scored two in the bottom half to take a lead they’d keep. Borbon had none of the fun, going 0-for-4 and lowering his season batting line to .184/.202/.230. The Rangers clearly had a problem in center field.

Rather than look for a fix, they let the problem play out. It turns out to have been the right decision. Since that game on May 6 Borbon has hit very well, .342/.379/.462 in 172 PA. That checks in a bit better than his 2009 triple slash of .312/.376/.414, which he achieved in 179 PA. In other words, after a painfully slow start Borbon has recovered to essentially improve upon his performance from 2009. While his season stats haven’t quite caught up — his wOBA still sits at a well below average .305 — he will have quite an impressive line at the end of the season if he continues this pace.

This is the kind of performance the Rangers envisioned when they drafted Borbon with the 35th pick of the 2007 draft. Coming from the University of Tennesee, he was considered something of a raw talent, a player with a few plus or plus-plus tools that still had plenty to work on. It didn’t take him long to show improvement. After a rough pro debut in 2007, Borbon hit .306/.346/.395 in the class-A California League before hitting .337/.380/.459 in the AA Texas League. Baseball America rated him Texas’s No. 9 prospect heading into the 2009 season. While they praised him as a “slashing leadoff man and solid center fielder in the Johnny Damon mold,” they did note that his plate approach, notably his ability to work the count, needed more work.

To that point Borbon had drawn a walk in just 5 percent of his plate appearances, and in 2009 he did improve on that, walking 33 times in 457 PA, or 7.2 percent of the time. His overall performance in AAA, .307/.367/.386, earned him a summer call-up and a place in the Rangers lineup. As he did in 2008 at AA and in 2009 at AAA, Borbon showed that he belonged. He ran a high BABIP, but he also showed even more discipline, walking in 8.4 percent of his plate appearances. It’s no wonder the Rangers considered him their starting center fielder for 2010.

That discipline, it appeared, was lost earlier in the season. He walked just once in his first 91 PA while striking out in 16 percent of his at-bats. But then, after the game against Kansas City, it’s like he picked up right where he left off last season. He has walked nine times in his last 172 PA, no great feat but still an enormous improvement from earlier. He has also cut down on his strikeouts. The most noticeable difference is on the results he has produced on balls in play. After posting a .219 BABIP to start the season he has been at .355 in his last 172 PA, which nearly matches the .360 mark he posted last season.

Can Borbon possibly keep up this high rate of hits on balls in play? It is possible. With a plus-plus speed tool, he can beat out his share of infield hits. His batting average has also been less dependent on a high BABIP this year. While he hit .312 on a .360 BABIP last year, he’s hitting .286 on a .313 BABIP this year, and again his average is .342 in his last 172 PA, when his BABIP has been .355. Part of this comes from his batted ball profile. His ground balls are up, fly balls are down, and line drive rate is up, at least compared to the earlier portion of the season.

Seventeen major leaguers posted a BABIP of .355 or greater last season, though few of them have achieved that mark on a consistent basis. For Borbon, however, it might not matter all that much. Last year he hit .312 on a .360 BABIP, but this season he’s hitting .286 on a .313 BABIP. When his BABIP rose, his average shot up with it. Even if Borbon’s BABIP does drop into the .330 range, he should still be able to hit for a decent average.

Heading into May, after a sub-.500 April, the Rangers needed to make a number of adjustments. They found reasonable solutions and replacements in some areas, but left center field alone. That non-move ended up working out. Julio Borbon has been excellent since mid-May

Lefties, especially the hard-throwing variety, get every chance to succeed in the majors. If they come as highly touted prospects, or show positive results early in their careers, they’ll get plenty of chances even after their original team gives up. The Pirates have experienced this twice in the past few years, with Oliver Perez and then Tom Gorzelanny. While they made the right call in the case of the former, it appears they gave up prematurely in the case of the latter.

Something happened to Oliver Perez when he went to Pittsburgh in the Brian Giles trade. Almost immediately upon arrival he added a few ticks to his fastball and his slider. That might have been skewed due to a small sample, but he repeated those results again in 2004, when his fastball averaged 93 mph. At age 22, he ranked among the league’s best starters. His 2.98 ERA went nicely with a 3.45 FIP, and his 10.97 strikeouts per nine lead the league. The Pirates looked to have absolutely robbed the Padres, having also acquired Jason Bay, who posted a .378 wOBA in 2004, in the trade.

The following years would not be so kind to Perez. His fastball velocity dropped down to 91 mph, where it had been previously in his career. He also lost command of it and started walking hitters like crazy, 6.12 per nine in 2005. After another poor showing in 2006, the Pirates had apparently seen enough. After 15 horrendous starts they traded him to the Mets, though they received only Xavier Nady in return. They did, however, trade Nady two years later in a trade that got them Jose Tabata and a slew of pitchers, so that can be considered a win. It’s not like the Pirates had much of a chance to contend in the years between anyway.

The move appears to have worked out. Perez did have a good year for the Mets in 2007, but he has steadily declined since. Why the Mets signed him to a multi-year contract, never mind one for $36 million, defies comprehension. They have paid for it, though, as Perez pitched 66 horrible innings last year and managed just 38.2 this year before hitting the DL. While the Pirates might have gotten more for Perez had they hung onto him and experienced his quality 2007 season, there is no guarantee that things would work out that way. By all appearances they got rid of him perhaps not at the right time, but at time when they could still get something useful in return.

Last year, Pirates’ GM Neal Huntington apparently took a cue from his predecessor. Littlefield was the man behind the Perez move, and in similar fashion Huntington cut his losses on Gorzelanny, trading him to the Cubs at the deadline. Like Perez, Gorzelanny showed potential at a young age, a 3.88 ERA against a 4.24 FIP at age 24. Also like Perez he lost his control in the following years and produced terrible results. Perez had his excellent season in 2004 and was traded at the deadline a year and a half later. Gorzelanny had his good season in 2007 and was traded at the deadline a year and a half later.

The similarities continue. Upon joining their new teams, both Perez and Gorzelanny raised their strikeout rates and cut their walk rates. Both made seven starts, though Gorzelanny also pitched six times in relief. In their second years both realized further improvement. Perez kept his strikeout rate high and got his walks somewhat under control. In 177 innings he had a 3.56 ERA, 4.35 FIP, and 4.65 xFIP. It’s not ace material, but it’s serviceable for a middle of the rotation pitcher. Gorzelanny has proven even better during his first season with a new team, a 3.31 ERA with a 3.46 FIP and 3.98 xFIP.

Despite the similarities, Perez and Gorzelanny are different pitchers and so we cannot expect the parallel paths to continue. In fact, Gorzelanny has enough going for him that he can be expected to continue pitching well. I’m not even sure exactly why Pittsburgh, a team desperate for pitching, traded him in the first place. He was quite excellent in the high minors prior to his full-time MLB promotion, and even when the Pirates demoted him in 2008 and 2009 he pitched very well in the minors. Perez, on the other hand, struggled with his control even against lesser hitters.

Control seems like the biggest issue going forward with Gorzelanny. His walk rate, 4.63 per nine, can continue to hold him back, though he does make up for it by striking out a ton of hitters, 9.13 per nine this year, and keeping the ball inside the park, partly the effect of his 43.8 percent groundball rate. That’s not stellar, but it’s very good for a pitcher who strikes out more than a batter per inning. His walk rate is a bit better when looking at him only as a starter, 4.23 per nine, but even that will have to improve if he’s going to fulfill his promise as a No. 2 starter.

Performances like the one he turned in against the Diamondbacks don’t help his case. He lasted just five innings and needed 104 pitches along the way, only 61 of which were strikes. That led to six walks, his highest total of the season. Yet because he stranded eight of 11 baserunners he held Arizona to three runs and eventually earned the win. Strangely, it was only the 159th time since 1920 that a pitcher went five innings, walked six, and still got the win. Even more strangely, both Jorge de la Rosa and Kyle Davies accomplished it last year, on back-to-back days no less.

Like Perez, Gorzelanny’s resurgence could be a temporary thing. His control still isn’t where it needs to be, and that will be an important component of his game going forward. Yet Gorzelanny’s peripherals, both in the minors and the majors, make him look like a better case for permanent recovery. The Cubs, to their benefit, have three more years of team control, so they’ll get a long look at what Gorzelanny can do in the long run. Considering the state of the Pirates’ pitching, I’m sure Hungtington would love to get backsies on this one.

For the Rays, Scott Kazmir was no longer worth the rotation spot or the money. Just over a year after signing him to a three-year, $28.5 million contract, which included a $13.5 million team option for 2012, the Rays found themselves all but out of contention in the AL East. Kazmir and his contract cleared waivers in August and the Rays used that opening to trade him to the Angels for Sean Rodriguez, Alex Torres, and Matt Sweeney. With the prospects in hand and payroll freed, the deal was a win for the Rays. Considering how well Kazmir pitched down the stretch for the Angels, they must have considered it a win, too.

Ten months later, however, the Angels probably have changed their opinion. While Kazmir showed signs of life in September, he failed them in October, giving up five runs against the Red Sox in Game 3 of the ALDS, a game the Angels eventually won in the late innings. He didn’t find much more success in his one ALCS start. The Yankees hit him up for four runs in four innings, leading to a 10-1 Angels loss. This year we’re seeing far more starts like that than like the ones Kazmir made in September.

Pick a number, any number, and you’ll see some real horrorshow stuff. His ERA, FIP, xFIP, and tERA all come in above the 5.00 mark, the ERA the worst of them all at 5.67. His strikeouts are down, 6.11 per nine, while his walks, 4.56 per nine, are back up to 2005 levels. At least then he could strike out hitters and keep the ball in the park. This year Kazmir has done neither particularly well. He’s also pitching fewer innings than ever, just 5.4 per game. While he’s never lasted long into games — his highest IP/GS rate was 6.1 in 2007 — 5.4 is a new low. Yet he’s still tossing an average of 101 pitches per start, which goes to show just how inefficient he’s been.

At home he’s been particularly bad, getting roughed up for 25 runs, 24 earned, in just 29.2 IP. Yet even on the road he’s been a mess, his walk rate over five per nine. While his road ERA is two and a half points below his home mark, that has a lot to do with the discrepancy in his strand rate, 74.4 percent on the road and 57.3 percent at home. That low home strand rate might be the one bright spot on his record.

A further problem is that teams are stacking their righties in the lineup. Of the 370 batters he’s faced this year, 301 have batted right-handed. He’s actually done a better job of striking out righties, whiffing 17.3 percent of them against just 4 percent of lefties. But he’s also walking righties more, which is a huge part of his problem this season.

It appeared as thought he might have turned things around to start June, as he allowed just six runs in four starts. Those results, however, are misleading. He still threw only 23 innings, or about 5.2 per start. In that span he struck out 15 to 13 walks. He was greatly aided by a .261 BABIP. So, predictably, when some of those balls in play started to drop for hits Kazmir again struggled. He’s allowed five runs in each of his last two starts, including last night against division-leading Texas, lasting just 8.1 innings. His strikeout-to-walk ratio: 6:4. His BABIP: .414.

The Angels, who trail the Rangers by 4.5 games in the AL West, have to do something about the two lefties in their rotation if they’re going to make a run at the division or the Wild Card (they’re 3.5 games back of the Red Sox). Joe Saunders has been every bit as bad as Kazmir this year, though he’s managed to keep a few more runs off the board. If any team could benefit from the addition of a pitcher, even a second-tier arm like Ben Sheets, Brett Myers, or Kevin Millwood, it’s the Angels. If they want to play catch-up in the second half they’re going to have to do something about Kazmir.

Any time a player achieves a rare feat it surely will lead the discussion the following day. There were a number of notable performances yesterda, but none stood out quite like Denard Span’s 4 for 4 night, which included three triples. Just minutes after the game ended Andy from the B-R blog got the ball rolling, noting that Span is just the 29th player in MLB history to hit three triples in a game. We’ve seen no shortage of accolades since, and rightly so. Span certainly deserves it.

What stood out to me about Span’s night, beyond his chance for a record-breaking fourth triple later in the game, was how dramatically it changed his season numbers. Coming into the game Span was hitting .275/.347/.367, a .332 wOBA. Those aren’t terrible numbers, especially for a center fielder, but they are below the lofty standards Span set for himself in the last two seasons. Those performances established him as Minnesota’s every day center fielder and earned him an extension. This year, in the first year of his new guaranteed contract, he has gotten off to a slow start.

After three triples, a single, and a walk, Span’s numbers have grown to .284/.356/.394, a .346 wOBA. He added four runs above replacement, raising his WAR from 1.8 to 2.2. These are pretty large changes for this point in the season, and they came with one stellar game. It’s this type of thing that gets me thinking about poor performers. We’re always going to see good players go through slumps, and when those slumps come early it’s easier to notice them in the numbers. How would three-triple, one-single, one-walk, and no-out night look for a number of other disappointing hitters?

This would also with any combination of 10 total bases and no outs recorded, including the cycle.

Joe Mauer. Starting with Span’s teammate, Mauer hasn’t had a poor season by reasonable standards. It’s only his 2009 MVP campaign that makes his .353 wOBA in 2010, fourth among catchers (and that includes non-catcher Mike Napoli) look in any way poor. He’s at .302/.378/.431 right now, and if he repeats Span’s feat tonight he’d be at .313/.390/.463. Not quite MVP level right now, but getting there.

Chipper Jones Injuries have slowed him, but there’s still time for Chipper to rebound and power the Braves offense. His line now: .252/.384/.386, very un-Chipper-like. His line after 10 total bases and a walk: .266/.397/.425.

Hideki Matsui. Acquired to hit cleanup for the Angels this year, Matsui has disappointed in the early goings. His .262/.338/.427 line is certainly below his capabilities, though age and injuries have certainly taken their tolls. With Span’s night he’d be hitting .270/.343/.458.

Mark Teixeira. After a slow start it seemed like Teixeira picked it up in May. Then he slumped. Then he streaked. And slumped. And streaked. It’s resulted in a .230/.343/.409 line, which is below where he’s been at this point in any previous season. Add in 10 total bases and a walk and he’s hitting .240/.352/.437.

Matt Kemp. After a couple of games removed from the starting lineup it looks like Kemp’s ready to get get back at it. If he goes 4 for 4 with three triples and a walk tonight he’ll be hitting .270/.328/.482, against his current .261/.318/.455 line.

Adam Jones. Before the season there was much talk of Jones, now 24, breaking out and helping turn around the Orioles. Instead the O’s are the worst team in baseball and Jones has had a rough time getting on base. After a Span night, he’d improve his .268/.295/.437 line to .278/.305/.464. That would, of course, require him to actually draw a walk.

There are plenty more, of course, and all it takes is one good game to give them a huge boost to poor numbers. Just imagine if they have a 10 total base game, start hitting to their career averages, and then have another one of those games in a month. It sounds like that would end any perception of disappointment pretty quickly.

What happens when an already weak bullpen suffers a rash of injuries? They get fill-ins who didn’t make the major league roster in the first place, of course. The Houston Astros have realized that problem this season. Just after the season started they lost Sammy Gervacio to the DL. Tim Byrdak followed, as did Chris Sampson. Brian Moehler had to take a spot in the rotation because Bud Norris hit the DL. Even Matt Lindstrom missed time not long ago with back spasms. There wasn’t much downside to these loss, however, because aside from Lindstrom none of them were effective. The minor league replacements probably couldn’t do any worse.

In the process of replacing their injured relievers, the Astros actually found two upgrades. Both Gustavo Chacin and Wilton Lopez have pitched very well out of the pen, and have probably earned regular spots even when the wounded return from the disabled list. That might make for a few unpleasant roster cuts, but at this point the Astros have little to lose. The relievers who broke camp with the team likely won’t be around when the Astros turn around the franchise, so it’s best now to stick with the guys who are performing. Chacin and Lopez are doing exactly that.

Lopez gets most of the spotlight, and rightly so. Recalled after Gervacio’s initial injury, Lopez stumbled out of the gate, allowing two runs on three hits, including a home run, in 1.1 innings. He allowed a run in his next appearance, but, despite pitching three scoreless innings in his next two appearances, the Astros optioned him in late April. But after Byrdak got hurt in early May, the Astros invoked the Ten Day Rule and brought Lopez back to the major league team. Again he stumbled, allowing four runs in his first three appearances, but since then he has been nothing but stellar for the ‘Stros.

From May 18 through his appearance last night in Milwaukee, Lopez has allowed just six runs, five earned, in 20.2 innings. He doesn’t do this by overpowering pitchers. Instead he does two things very well. First, he keeps the ball in the park. Second, he walks almost no one. During his stay in the minors he walked just 1.2 batters per nine innings. This year he was walked just three in 30.2 innings, a BB/9 under 1.00. That helps make up for his lack of strikeouts.

Chacin had a four-year history in the majors before coming to the Astros this off-season. He came up with the Blue Jays in 2004, and pitched very well in 2005, a 3.72 ERA in 203 innings. That outperformed his peripherals a bit, so a correction was expected in 2006. Instead what we got was a series of injuries that prevented Chacin from doing much of anything in the following four years. After pitching 87.1 innings in 2006 and 27.1 innings in 2007, Chacin missed all of the following two seasons. He did pitch well for the Phillies in the minors in 2009, but could not crack the major league roster.

Yet this year Chacin has been marvelous. He’s pitched just 17.2 innings since his recall in early May, but he has not only shown excellent results, but also the peripherals to go along with them. His strikeout rate has risen dramatically, to 8.15, and he hasn’t allowed a home run all season. Of course, in 17.2 innings anything can happen, and the safe bet is for Chacin’s home run and strikeout rates to tumble a bit before the season ends. Yet if he keeps up his current trend of striking out lefties (10 of 32 faced) and inducing ground balls against righties (19 of 39 balls in play), he might continue to find some level of success out of the pen.

The one area where Chacin and Lopez have differed is in their ability to prevent inherited runners from scoring. Chacin has inherited 16 runners and has allowed seven to score, 44 percent. That matches Tyler Clippard’s rate, for comparison’s sake. Lopez, on the other hand, has excelled in this area. He has come into pitch with 22 runners on base, and has allowed just one of them to score. So while Chacin has the better rate stats (3.06 ERA, 2.51 FIP vs Lopez’s 3.52, 2.97), Lopez’s performance stands above Chacin’s because of his ability to pitch with runners on base. For a bullpen that allows a ton of baserunners, Lopez has been a boon.

Relief pitchers, we know, tend to realize inconsistent results. They pitch in such short bursts that the random nature of baseball works against them just as sometimes it works in their favor. It’s no guarantee that either Lopez or Chacin continues this performance throughout the season, never mind both of them. But in the moment they’re helping out not only an ailing relief corps, but also an ineffective one. With Chacin and Lopez pitching behind Lindstrom and Brandon Lyon, the Astros have a little hope for victory when their starters leave with a lead. It won’t vault them into contention, but it will at least help them win a few games that their original bullpen would otherwise have blown.