It’s an interesting thing in life when we can look at someone’s behavior and immediately identify its causes based on what we know of their past. Like when an actor tries to do a serious movie because they’ve only been seen as a comedian, or when a guy hits 40 and rushes out to by that ’86 Firebird he’d wanted since he was 11. These things are easy to diagnose, no degree required.

So, too, with Dave Dombrowski’s first offseason in Boston. He’s spent the balance of the last decade, it seems, losing in the playoffs because his bullpen failed him when he needed it most of all. So how do you counteract that? Easy! Get all the best relievers, or a good number of them, anyway. That was easy!

First, there was the Craig Kimbrel deal which did two things. It (a) caused the internet to freak out because Dombrowski dealt a seemingly silly amount of prospects to San Diego, and (b) added Kimbrel to the Red Sox bullpen. Then yesterday he traded Wade Miley for reliever Carson Smith (covered here by Jeff Sullivan). It’s easy to picture Dombrowski sitting down for the first time in his Fenway Park office, visions of David Ortiz’s grand slam flying just beyond the outstretched glove of Torii Hunter flickering in his brain like an old newsreel. He grabs a napkin out of his pocket and jots down the word “bullpen” over and over until he builds up then pops a blister on his finger. “The most dominant, unimpeachable, and impregnable bullpen yet seen on earth will be mine,” he thinks, “just as soon as I find a band-aid. OW! That smarts.”

Read the rest of this entry »

The Chicago Cubs clearly had two primary areas in need of improvement at the beginning of this offseason: starting pitching and center field. The word was that the Cubs were in on David Price, but we know that didn’t happen, and so instead the Cubs went with a more cost-effective choice in John Lackey.

For the rest of the Cubs offseason, that means two things. For one, the rotation appears to be complete. It’s now deeper than last year’s, still has two aces at the top, and doesn’t have an obvious hole. Of course, if something came up, the Cubs could still improve, but no longer does the need exist for another starter, of any caliber. What the Lackey move means, also, is that the Cubs have some extra money to spend in the outfield. If they were in on Price, that means they were prepared to spend somewhere in the range of $200 million, and on Lackey, they spent just $34 million.

It should come as no surprise that talks have turned to Jason Heyward.

Patrick Mooney of CSNChicago reported that “the Cubs have envisioned Jason Heyward batting leadoff and playing center at Wrigley Field” and that they’ve “had Heyward on their radar for a long time.” Gordon Wittenmyer of the Chicago Sun-Times asked general manager Jed Hoyer about the financial implications of going after a top outfielder, and Hoyer responded that “We have some available resources. I think that much is clear.” Jesse Rogers of ESPN thinks it’s more likely the Cubs wind up with Heyward than Dexter Fowler. All of this has come out within the last 24 hours.

In addition, the Cubs are bidding against the rival St. Louis Cardinals, and the effects of the Cubs potentially acquiring Heyward would be two-fold, in that it would also mean the Cardinals weren’t acquiring him.

Clearly, the pieces are in place here. Heyward to the Cubs, on the surface, makes a great deal of sense. Theo Epstein stated back in October the desire to improve the team’s outfield defense, and Heyward has rightfully earned a reputation as an excellent defender. The interesting part, though, is that the Cubs are clearly interested in Heyward as a center fielder, given the existence of Kyle Schwarber and Jorge Soler in the corners, and 97% of Heyward’s major league innings have come in right field. He’s started just 30 games in center field, and his price tag is going to be somewhere around $200 million. That’s a significant investment to make when you’re planning to play a guy in unfamiliar territory. It’s a significant investment no matter where you’re planning to play him, but it might be viewed as especially risky given the circumstance.

But should it be?

Read the rest of this entry »

Dig around enough and you can make any transaction kind of interesting. Everybody in the upper ranks of professional baseball, after all, is only there because they possess extraordinary talent. Everyone has promise, so everyone can make a difference, so everyone deserves a certain amount of attention. Yet moves are considered relative to one another, and I’m not going to lie to you — Tuesday’s trade between the Padres and the Cardinals isn’t one you’ll think about very much. This is a move that’ll get lost in all the thoughts about dealing for Jose Fernandez.

From the Padres, the Cardinals are getting Jedd Gyorko and a bit over $7 million. From the Cardinals, the Padres are getting Jon Jay. Gyorko lines up to be a utility infielder, perhaps a platoon partner for Kolten Wong. The hope is that he does a little more than Pete Kozma or, earlier, Daniel Descalso. The Padres wanted out from under Gyorko’s long-term contract. Jay lines up to be a semi-regular outfielder, perhaps a platoon partner for Melvin Upton. He’s a free agent in a year, and the Padres seem unlikely to contend, and the Cardinals included Jay to offset some more money. Based on the intent of this deal, it’s forgettable. It’s an exchange of money and role players.

The shame, if you want to call it that, is both Gyorko and Jay are interesting. And I mean beyond just being professional ballplayers. Neither will be treated as much, but there are points of significance here. Jay has an interesting background. Gyorko might still have an interesting future.

Read the rest of this entry »

Earlier this offseason, the Giants decided to let two veterans go who’ve been valued parts of the team. Both Nori Aoki and Yusmeiro Petit were on reasonable contracts, too. But, as general Bobby Evans explained at the Winter Meetings Monday night, keeping them on the roster may have impeded the team in their efforts to improve. Timing is important.

Petit is projected to produce about half a win as a reliever, and that’s in 65 innings. He’s more of a swing man, so three-quarters of a win, a win, those kinds of projections are reasonable. He was worth almost three wins between 2013 and 2014. And he’s projected to make just over $2 million in arbitration, so he would still be a value.

The Giants had an option on Aoki for this year. They could have had the quirky left fielder for $5.5 million, and he’s been worth at least a win and a half per season in all four seasons of his career. He’s projected for a win. The Mariners signed him for exactly the same contract he had with the Giants.

The team could have easily kept both and been praised for holding on to valuable depth pieces. But they want to improve their left field and starting pitcher production, and holding the two would have made doing those things harder.

Read the rest of this entry »

Jose Fernandez is available!

Just posted at https://t.co/gtnhE81RUu: Untouchable? Hmmm, Marlins talking to Dodgers, others about Jose Fernandez https://t.co/cI8CdFLWt5

— Jayson Stark (@jaysonst) December 7, 2015

Jose Fernandez is not available!

Mike Hill on Jose: "He's not available. We haven't made him available. But, it doesn't stop the phone calls from happening." #Marlins

— Joe Frisaro (@JoeFrisaro) December 8, 2015

Jose Fernandez is maybe still available!

Hearing tonight that Marlins think they're making progress with unspecified team. But a deal still appears unlikely https://t.co/NKI3zZClAq

— Jayson Stark (@jaysonst) December 8, 2015

There has been a lot of conflicting information about the Marlins’ willingness to move their ace over the last few days, though Hill’s assertion that they aren’t shopping him is mostly meaningless; you can effectively let everyone know a player is potentially available by entertaining offers and giving the impression that there is a level at which the team would agree to a deal. Rather than Hill saying Fernandez “isn’t available,” it’s maybe more realistic to suggest that Jose Fernandez is available, but only for asking prices that make him effectively unavailable, though the Marlins are at least willing to let teams pay an absurd price if they want to.

Read the rest of this entry »

Read the rest of this entry »

With the Winter Meetings officially in high gear, some early themes and trends of the 2015-16 offseason are establishing themselves. Foremost among them is the substantial investment of years and mega-millions in the legion of starting pitchers on the free agent market. Sure, the game is flush with cash — and, certainly, there is quite a bit of high- to middle-end pitching talent on the market — but the first few officially consummated deals are coming in above projections in terms of years and/or dollars.

Zack Greinke, $34.3 million per year through his age-37 season? David Price, $31 million per year through his age-36 season? Hisashi Iwakuma, who has exceeded 180 innings pitched exactly once in his four seasons in the U.S., and who also endured nagging shoulder injuries during his time in Japan, guaranteed $15 million per year through his age-37 season?

John Lackey and Jeff Samardzija came in a bit closer to year/dollar projections, but they both bring their share of risk to the table. Another half-dozen starters are likely to put pen to paper in the next few days, and it’s a pretty safe bet that most of the contracts aren’t likely to end well.

Mike Leake, who just completed his age-27 season, could be one of those. He’s been connected to a handful of clubs, and is often mentioned as a consolation prize for the clubs missing out on the Greinkes, Prices and Johnny Cuetos. Though his age and durability would appear to be significant plusses, he seemingly oozes league-averageness. How much, and for how long, are clubs going to be willing to guarantee a pitcher with a round career ERA- of 100?

Read the rest of this entry »

Zack Greinke is one of the best pitchers in major league baseball, and as a result, he had no shortage of suitors before ultimately signing a contract in excess of $200 million. In addition to money, the Diamondbacks also surrendered their first-round pick next year, the 13th overall selection. While it would not be quite true to say that Greinke cost “only money,” the Diamondbacks did not give up a single active player in order to acquire Greinke.

Cole Hamels, both the same age as Greinke and roughly as effective over the course of his career, was traded over the summer. Hamels’ cost was not “only money,” as the Texas Rangers gave up six players, including three high-end prospects (and Matt Harrison’s contract), for Jake Diekman and the opportunity to pay Cole Hamels around $100 million over the next four years. While the costs come in different forms, we can compare the two to see how the trade market this past summer compared to this offseason’s free agent market for Greinke.

The Los Angeles Dodgers prioritized Cole Hamels at the trade deadline, but subsequently missed out by refusing to part with their best prospects. The team then prioritized bringing Greinke back, only to be outbid by division rival Arizona. The cost for both players was high, and it is difficult to say whether the Dodgers made a mistake passing on both players, but we should be able to compare the costs for both to see if the Dodgers could have kept a comparable pitcher for less than the amount Greinke received in free agency.

As far as comparisons go, Greinke did have a better year in 2015, but their cumulative WAR graphs (shown below) reveal two remarkably similar careers in terms of value.

In addition, both players are projected to do well next season. By Steamer, Greinke is set for a 4.2 WAR while Hamels comes in a bit behind at 3.6 WAR for the 2016 season. Using those projections as the baseline for future production, we can get an estimate for their value over the next few years. With deferrals, Greinke’s deal turns out to be $194.5 million over six seasons, per Ken Rosenthal. Given the consistency of both Greinke and Hamels, for the purposes of this analysis, we will assume the players will age well.

Read the rest of this entry »

Most of the time, when you hear about a transaction, you think “yeah, that makes sense.” Free-agent contract terms are seldom surprising. And trades between teams are also seldom surprising, in terms of how much each side seems to be worth. Every so often, though, a move will give you pause. There was a trade between the Red Sox and the Mariners, Monday, and it arrived a little differently than usual. It didn’t make immediate sense for both sides.

After having lost out on Hisashi Iwakuma, the Mariners turned around and picked up Wade Miley, along with Jonathan Aro. They wanted a starter, and they recognized that the Red Sox had some excess depth. Nothing surprising there. Nor was it surprising that the Mariners were willing to include Roenis Elias. The part that engaged the eyebrows was the final piece, that being Carson Smith. What this is, today, is the Wade Miley trade. What this very well might end up looking like is the Carson Smith trade. The Red Sox did well to add a reliever with many years left.

From time to time, you’ll see a move and you’ll think it favors one side. Some moves do favor one side. You can express yourself and stop there, or you can try to think about why the one team might’ve been a willing participant, given that every team has so much information. What it looks like is that either the Mariners are quite fond of Miley, or they’re a little down on Smith. It’s smart to at least try to understand from both perspectives.

Read the rest of this entry »

Are you tired of reading about reliever signings yet? If you are, well then I’m sorry for this post, but at least it’s almost over. There’s only a couple good relievers left now, because they’ve seemingly all signed in the last 24 hours. The Athletics did some work on their bullpen when they acquired Liam Hendriks from Toronto for Jesse Chavez a few weeks back, and last night they did some more work by signing Ryan Madson to a three-year deal worth $22 million guaranteed.

Now, the thing about signing Ryan Madson to a three-year deal is, that’s three times as many years as he’s pitched since 2011. By the end of that 2011 season, Madson was seen as one of the best relief pitchers in the game, but then he needed Tommy John surgery, and he was seen as a hopeful comeback story. He missed 2012, of course, but experienced some setbacks in 2013 and was seen as a less-hopeful comeback story. After having not pitched in 2014, either, Madson was seen as retired.

And then suddenly, Madson was pitching in the World Series for the Kansas City Royals, and suddenly Madson could again be viewed as one of the best relief pitchers in the game, and suddenly Madson signed his name on a piece of paper that said he’d make at least $22 million dollars over the next three seasons, no matter what.

Maybe it’s a risky move. It’s definitely a risky move, but maybe it’s a risky move that doesn’t work out, too. Even the non-risky moves have a chance of not working out. Maybe you think this one is especially risky, given the 35 years of life that Madson has lived and the three years in a row of wanting to pitch but not being able to. Alternatively, you could take the stance that Madson last year proved he was finally able to get over that arm injury, and if that’s the case, what difference is missing three years to missing one year, given he’s truly over the injury? A couple years extra rest for the arm could be viewed as a good thing, if you wanted it to be.

After all, Madson couldn’t have been more similar to his previous self, which was, again, considered one of the best relievers in the game the last time we saw him, prior to this year. Consider that, during Madson’s peak years in 2010-11, his fastball sat 94, and that last year it sat 94.3. Consider that, in those previous two years, Madson struck out 27% of batters and walked 6%, and that last year, he struck out 23% of batters and walked 6%. The ERA was in the mid-2’s, and then it was in the low-2’s. The ground ball rate went up. The arsenal is, more or less, the same. Madson had previously established an elite level of performance, and this year, he simply returned to it. If you took away the years in front of the stat lines, you wouldn’t realize he took any time off at all, let alone three years.

So while the three years and tens of millions of dollars may seem risky — and they still probably are — look at Madson then, and look at Madson now. We’ve no reason to believe that a healthy Madson won’t be effective, and, for now, we’ve no reason to believe Madson is anything but healthy.

And the Madson signing is just another example of an A’s organization that seems to not need much time before buying into a player’s comeback or breakout. The A’s were the team that bought into Scott Kazmir in 2014 after just one season, and the A’s are the team that made a point of acquiring both Liam Hendriks after one good season, and Rich Hill after just four amazing starts. Part of that, surely, is a byproduct of their financial restrictions and the ever-looming necessity to find value at the cheapest cost, but perhaps the A’s have some sort of internal belief in players quickly establishing a new level, or re-establishing a previous level. Anyway, if you think the Madson deal seems over-the-top, it’s the years that surprised you, not the money. The market has been set for what good free agent relievers get paid, and Madson is simply earning along with his peers.

That’s been the Madson angle, but what about the A’s angle? They are the team that will ultimately benefit, or the opposite of benefit, from Madson’s performance or lack thereof, after all. Well, last year, the bullpen ERA was the second-worst in the majors. The bullpen FIP was the third-worst. The bullpen WPA was the first-worst, and couldn’t have imaginably been gotten any lower. And to that last point, there’s some reason for optimism, even in such a negative number. Jeff Sullivan already wrote about how the A’s were perhaps the most unlucky team we’ve seen in the BaseRuns era, due to their bullpen, and for those same reasons, why they might be in line for a rebound season.

The most simple way of looking at it is this: last year, the A’s actual record had them winning 68 games, but their projected record, according to BaseRuns, had them winning 80 games, and that’s a significant difference. Most of that difference is due to their bullpen, and from last year’s bullpen, many of the serial offenders are gone. Dan Otero, Eric O’Flaherty, Edward Mujica, Fernando Abad — all no more. In their place, well that’s where Hendriks and Madson come into play, and those guys were just as good, recently, as the bad group was bad. Sean Doolittle dealt with shoulder injuries throughout last year, and when healthy, Doolittle’s ranked among the game’s elite. Fernando Rodriguez will be back again, and he was one of the few relievers who didn’t kill the A’s last year. Evan Scribner was one of the relievers who killed the A’s last year, but he also posted one of the best K-BB%’s in baseball, and if you squint past the atrocious home run rate, you could see the potential for a relief weapon in Scribner.

What was just arguably the worst relief unit in baseball is currently projected for the sixth-highest bullpen WAR in the majors, and while I did just write about why the bullpen projections can be a bit wonky, it’s better to be near the top than the bottom, especially when you’re coming from the bottom. At the very least, the A’s seem to have improved a major weakness, and that’s all the offseason’s about, anyway.