Should the Braves Trade Javier Vazquez?

With word coming down yesterday that the Braves and Tim Hudson have come to terms on a contract extension, the Braves officially have a surplus of starting pitching. In addition to Hudson, the Braves have Jair Jurrjens, Tommy Hanson, Derek Lowe, Kenshin Kawakami, and Javier Vazquez. Six starters for five rotation spots.

Even though too much starting pitching is never a bad thing, but the Braves need a big bat in the middle of the order. With their surplus of starting pitching, the Braves can now move one of their starting pitchers in return for a big bat.

So which starting pitcher should the Braves look to move?

Jair Jurrjens: There has been some talk that Jurrjens might be the guy to move, but there is no way that the Braves should move Jurrjens.

Tommy Hanson: No chance.

Derek Lowe: The Braves would love to move Lowe and the $45 million dollars owed to him, but the chances of the Braves actually finding a taker are slim to none. And even if the Braves find a taker for Lowe, the chances of them receiving anything of value in return is next to nothing.

Kenshin Kawakami: Kawakami put together a good first season with the Braves and is signed for a very reasonable 2 year/$13 million dollar contract. While Kawakami has value, I'm not sure he can bring back the type of power hitter the Braves are looking for.
(I suggested Kawakami for Corey Hart a few weeks back)

Javier Vazquez: Vazquez is coming off the best season of his career in which he won 15 games, struck out 238 hitters, and produced an ERA of 2.87. Simply put, he was one of the best pitchers in the National League.

Obviously, Vazquez has a good deal of value. I've heard the argument that the Braves should take advantage of Vazquez's stellar 2009 season and trade him for the best power hitter they can find. However, I'm skeptical that the Braves would be able to get a significant package for Vazquez for two reasons:

1. free agency

-After the 2010 season, Vazquez will be a free agent. Is there any team out there willing to trade a potent power bat for one season of Vazquez?

2. no trade clause

-Vazquez can turn down any trade to teams in the NL West and AL West. That significantly limits the market for Vazquez and probably eliminates two teams that need an ace (Angels and Dodgers).

In short, I don't know if the Braves will be able to get a legitimate power hitter in return for Vazquez. However, if the Braves can find a taker for Vazquez's salary and receive some quality prospects in return, that'd be something GM Frank Wren should consider only if he can parlay the Vazquez savings into signing a power hitter that would help the Braves compete in 2010. It remains to be seen if the Braves are willing to take on another long term contract, but acquiring a power hitter needs to be their priority this offseason.

****** ******

(Jorge Says No! on Facebook)

(Follow Jorge Says No! on Twitter)

Hypothetically Speaking: Cliff Lee, the Free Agent

As I watched Cliff Lee dominate the Yankees last night, two things came to my mind:

1. Cliff Lee is one of the top 5 starting pitchers in baseball
2. Too bad Cliff Lee was not a free agent after this season

Seriously, could you imagine the type of contract that Cliff Lee would be in line for? His resume is awfully impressive:

-AL CY Young award in 2008
-22 wins, 2.54 ERA in 2008
-14 wins, 3.22 ERA in 2009
-3 wins with a 0.81 ERA in the 2009 postseason (so far)
-31 years old

While I doubt Lee would come close to signing a Sabathia-esque deal, there is no doubt in my mind that Lee's contract would have exceeded the AJ Burnett contract, the John Lackey contract, and probably topped $100 million dollars.

In fact, it would not have shocked me if Lee received something like a 5 year/$110 million dollar contract if he was a free agent this offseason. Is that figure excessive?

With his performance this offseason, Lee is certainly raising his free agent stock when he hits the free agent market in 2010. Even though Lee will be 32 after the 2010 season, it's not out of the realm of possibility to think that Lee will command a five or even six year contract on the open market as long as he performs well once again in 2010.

****** ******

(Jorge Says No! on Facebook)

(Follow Jorge Says No! on Twitter)

Can the Mariners Afford to Take a Chance on Aroldis Chapman?

According to Larry Stone, the Mariners have some serious interest in the Cuban fireballer:

"The Mariners have stepped up their pursuit of free agent Cuban left-hander Aroldis Chapman and are asking to meet with him and his agent, Edwin Mejia,, in the coming week, according to a source.

There are no details yet on a date or location of a potential meeting by Chapman with Seattle officials. Chapman is being pursued by numerous teams, the Yankees and Red Sox most fervently, according to reports. The Yankees hosted him for Game 6 of the American League Championship Series, while Chapman is scheduled to throw a bullpen session today at Fenway Park."

No surprise there. The Mariners have to be looking for a starting pitching this offseason and Chapman might be the best long term investment on the market. But here comes the real important question: can the Mariners compete for the Yankees and Red Sox for Chapman's services?

The logical answer is no. Both of those teams have superior payrolls and should be able to trump any offer the Mariners make for Chapman. That is of course, if the Yankees or Red Sox actually want Chapman.

But there is a good reason not to count out the Mariners in the Chapman bidding: payroll flexibility. The Mariners are only committed to $40 million+ in player salaries next season (before arbitration), so they could conceivably have $40-$50 million to spend if they are going to approach their 2009 payroll of $98 million.

Granted the Mariners have lots of holes to fill this offseason and need to seriously consider giving Felix Hernandez an extension, but Chapman might be a good risk for them to take if the price is right. The Mariners have a good history of success with international players (Ichiro, Kaz Sasaki, Kenji Johjima), but obviously Chapman is a different story since he is coming from Cuba. We'll see if the Mariners international success is a selling point for Chapman.

Then again, I'm not sure how interested the Mariners are in committing a boatload of payroll into a starting pitcher after the Carlos Silva debacle...

Is it worth it for the Mariners to go after Chapman? What type of contract would be acceptable for the Mariners?

****** ******

(Jorge Says No! on Facebook)

(Follow Jorge Says No! on Twitter)

Hypothetically Speaking: The Adrian Gonzalez Contract Extension

No one really seems to think that Adrian Gonzalez will remain with the Padres in the long term. Given the Padres financial limitations, the odds of the Padres signing Gonzalez to a contract extension seem to be slim to none.

But I'm not ready to give up just yet. Two things need to happen for the Padres and Gonzalez to have any chance of a deal:

1. Gonzalez wants to stay in San Diego and is willing to take a hometown discount
2. The Padres' payroll will increase from around $40 million in 2010 to $70-$80 million by 2012 or 2013.

If those two things don't occur, then there is virtually no chance of a deal happening.

But let's stay positive. What would it take for the Padres to keep Adrian Gonzalez long term? Let's take a look at what each side would need to make Gonzalez a Padre for the foreseeable future.

Padres

1. Buyout at least two years of Gonzalez's free agency
2. Salary structure that fits the Padres' potentially growing payroll in the coming years

The Adrian Gonzalez Camp

1. Increase salary in each 2010 and 2011

(Note: In my opinion, the Padres' best chance to extend Gonzalez is this offseason because they can offer him a salary boost in each of the next two seasons. That is something that could appeal strongly to Gonzalez, depending on how much he wants to stay in San Diego)

2. Yearly salaries that demonstrate how much the Padres value his performance

3. Contract that allows him to become a free agent again in the near future

So how about this deal for Gonzalez and the Padres?

(5 years/$70 million)

Here is the contractual breakdown:

2010: $9 million
2011: $12 million
2012: $15 million
2013: $16 million
2014: $18 million

Why it works for the Padres:

1. keep Gonzalez long term

2. Gonzalez's salary should not account for more than 20-25% of the team's total payroll at any point (as long as Moorad is willing to increase payroll to $70-$80 million in the coming years)

Why it works for Gonzalez:

1. He'd earn almost $11 million dollars in 2010 and 2011, just by agreeing to a new contract (scheduled to earn $10.25 million over the next two years, but he would earn $21 million in 2010 and 2011 with this extension)

2. Demonstrates how strongly the Padres value his abilities

3. Gonzalez would become a free agent when he is just 32 years old. He could be in line for another massive contract

4. He would be one of the highest paid first baseman in 2012-2014

Again, Gonzalez could probably do much better on the free agent market in 2011 simply by maximizing his value and allowing the big market clubs to big up his services, but this offer meets the needs of both sides.

Is this contract realistic? Should the Padres approach Gonzalez about an extension?

Thoughts?

****** ******

(Jorge Says No! on Facebook)

(Follow Jorge Says No! on Twitter)

Don't Expect Any Big Moves from the Cubs this Winter

If there are any Cubs fans out there dreaming about a the Cubs making a big splash this offseason, dream on:

Except for one thing. Anyone expecting a dramatic shift in philosophy will be in for a huge letdown. The Cubs might be getting a new owner, but they figure to keep doing business the same old way. At least for the next year or two. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but it could be a blind-side blow to frustrated Cubs fans craving instant change.

In fact, this might be the most dormant offseason for the Cubs during Jim Hendry's eight winters as general manager. The message you can expect Ricketts to deliver Friday will be simple: There is no magic formula or giant check that will instantly turn the Cubs into champions. He won't start throwing money around to right 101 years, worth of wrongs.

It's enough of a shock to leave Ronnie Woo Woo speechless. Ricketts has a sound baseball philosophy, but that won't soothe the masses. If you want a glimpse at how the Ricketts era will begin, study the final two years of the Tribune Company's tenure under president Crane Kenney, who remarkably retains his title even without the security blanket he enjoyed in The Tower.

When team executives meet in Arizona next month to map the future, Hendry can expect a payroll in the $143 million range—a tick above what he had last season. With so many contracts ballooning in 2010, there won't be any room for a big deal. And don't expect Ricketts to cave in at the last minute to get that big name."

According to Cot's Baseball Contracts, the Cubs already have $120 million committed in player salaries before arbitration. The Cubs payroll is sure to increase once arbitration raises are given out to Ryan Theriot, Carlos Marmol, Sean Marshall, and others.

So if the Cubs' 2010 payroll is indeed $143 million, then you'd figure that GM Jim Hendry would have about $6-10 million to play with to sign free agents and re-sign their own free agents (John Grabow). I'd love to see the Cubs add another arm in the bullpen and maybe even a second baseman depending on how much the Cubs trust Mike Fontenot and Jeff Baker.

The best things the Cubs can do this offseason are simple:
1. Figure out what is happening with Milton Bradley
2. Get healthy
3. avoid any more long term deals
4. accumulate depth

I still think the Cubs are one of the more talented groups the National League. While this group as a whole underperformed in 2009, there is plenty of upside on this roster for the Cubs to make some noise in 2010 without making significant noise on the free agent market.

Thoughts?

****** ******

(Jorge Says No! on Facebook)

(Follow Jorge Says No! on Twitter)

Can the Padres Sign Adrian Gonzalez Long Term?

In 2009, the Padres' payroll ranked 29th in all of baseball with only the frugal Marlins behind them. However, there seemed to be hope on the horizon for a increased payroll when Jeff Moorad became the principal owner of the ballclub:

"Next season will now have to be re-evaluated given the Peavy deal," Moorad said. "I'm ultimately comfortable with a payroll in the $70-80 million [range], but it's likely that it will take us a couple years to get back to that level.

"The good news is we now have an opportunity to reconstruct the payroll in a careful, strategic way that allows for a continued focus and emphasis on scouting and player development."

A $70-$80 million dollar payroll seemed realistic enough. Right now, it's virtually impossible to compete with a payroll of less than $60-$65 million and even then the odds are not in your favor. But adding $30 million or so to the payroll over time seemed to be a logical way for the Padres to potentially keep some of their young talent long term. Namely, Adrian Gonzalez. The slugging first baseman will be a free agent after the 2011 season and has put up remarkable offensive numbers despite playing half his games in PETCO Park and having limited offensive talent surrounding him.

If the Padres want to keep Gonzalez around, they would likely have to commit at least $15 million annually over the course of six or seven years. And even that total might not get it done, but it would at least put the Padres in the ballpark. The Padres would still be committing around 20% of their payroll to Adrian Gonzalez, which is a large amount, but certainly not impossible for the team to work around.

However, if this statement by former GM Kevin Towers is true, then the chances of Adrian Gonzalez playing in San Diego long term are zero:

In addition, nobody knows how much it's costing new owner Jeff Moorad to complete his buyout of John Moores. "They're going to have a $40 million payroll for the foreseeable future," said recently fired Padres GM Kevin Towers, "and there's just no way they can devote half of that to one player. It's just a matter of when they decide to trade (Gonzalez)."

I don't care how much the Padres love Gonzalez because there is no way they could commit at least $15 million to Gonzalez with a $40 million dollar payroll (38%).

So does anyone actually think the Padres can keep Adrian Gonzalez? Would they be better off trading him now?

Thoughts?

****** ******

(Jorge Says No! on Facebook)

(Follow Jorge Says No! on Twitter)

Note to Alex Anthopoulos: Follow the Dan O'Dowd Model

As new Blue Jays GM Alex Anthopoulos begins his first offseason with the Blue Jays as GM, there are plenty of questions surfacing about the direction of the team.

-What will the Blue Jays do with Roy Halladay?
-Are the Blue Jays going to rebuild?
-Can the Blue Jays compete in the AL East in 2010?

The Blue Jays struggles competing in the AL East with the Yankees and Red Sox in the Ricciardi era have been well documented. While the Red Sox and Yankees spend well north of $100 million dollars on player salaries, the Blue Jays have remained in the middle of the pack, only exceeding $90 million ($97 million, 2008) once.

As a result, the Blue Jays over the past eight years under Ricciardi have been stagnant. The Blue Jays finished in second place in the AL East once under Ricciardi, never made the playoffs, and could never put together a team deep enough to seriously compete in the AL East. The Blue Jays have taken a number of different approaches over the past eight years:

1. Sign big free agents
-Ricciardi signed Frank Thomas, BJ Ryan, and AJ Burnett to big (and controversial) contracts during his tenure

2. Build through the farm
-Players like Roy Halladay, Shawn Marcum, Dustin McGowan, Ricky Romero, Vernon Wells, Alex Rios, Adam Lind, and Aaron Hill all came up through the Blue Jays' farm system. That's an impressive list of talent, but that talent has yet to translate over to wins.

For the Blue Jays to sustain long term success in the ultra competitive AL East, which approach should Anthopoulous take?

Well, that decision is obvious to me: build through the farm. And the answer is not simply because the Blue Jays cannot compete with the payrolls of the Red Sox and Yankees.

The answer lies with the Blue Jays center fielder: Vernon Wells. The Blue Jays owe Wells a ridiculous $98.5 million over the next five years, which is devastating to the Blue Jays because Wells has gone from a franchise cornerstone to below average outfielder in just a few seasons. For whatever reason, Wells has been declining rapidly.

Can the Blue Jays realistically compete if they have a struggling player taking up 10-22% of their total payroll (assume Blue Jays total payroll is roughly $80 million)? Hard to say. But hope is not lost for Anthopoulous: just look at Colorado.

In 2001, the Rockies signed "cornerstone" first baseman Todd Helton to a huge 9 year/$141 million dollar extension that handcuffed the Rockies payroll flexibility for years. By 2006, Helton's contract took up a ridiculous 39% of the Rockies total payroll.

But even with Helton's massive contract and the Rockies small payroll, O'Dowd was able to accumulate great young talent through the draft and smart trades. Players like Ubaldo Jimenez, Brad Hawpe, Troy Tulowitzki, Garrett Atkins, Aaron Cook, Brian Fuentes, Matt Holliday, Dexter Fowler, Carlos Gonzalez and Hutson Street are all examples of talented, cheap, young players, who either developed in the Rockies system or were acquired via trade. As a result of his efforts, O'Dowd's Rockies have made the playoffs in 2 of the last 3 years.

Realistically, can Anthopoulos follow the O'Dowd model to success? It will be very difficult. Competing economically with the Red Sox and Yankees is completely different than competing with the Dodgers and Giants. But honestly, this is the only way the Blue Jays can realistically look to compete with the Red Sox and Yankees in the future.

And in all fairness, the Blue Jays will need Vernon Wells to become a productive player once again. Even though Todd Helton has been declining since 2005, he's still productive hitter and far from a liability at the dish. The turnaround of the Blue Jays will directly coincide with the redemption of Vernon Wells.

With that in mind, I'd trade Roy Halladay this offseason, accumulate as much young talent as possible, and begin a short term rebuilding process with the goal being to compete in the AL East by 2012. Eliminate short term mediocrity in the name of long term success.

Thoughts?

****** ******

(Jorge Says No! on Facebook)

(Follow Jorge Says No! on Twitter)

Can the Dodgers Find an Ace?

As the Dodgers enter free agency, it's apparent that they have a glaring need for a top flight starting pitcher. However, it looks as though GM Ned Colletti is setting the bar low for himself:

The Dodgers lacked an ace on their pitching staff, with youngsters Clayton Kershaw and All-Star Chad Billingsley showing fleeting stretches of wanting to claim that title.

"Clayton Kershaw has not been lobbying for it, but just the way he's pitched, he's certainly the favorite," Torre said. "Billingsley, even though he had a rough second half, he certainly showed us the personality and the ability to be a No. 1-type guy."

Veteran Randy Wolf proved to be the most dependable and durable starter, although the left-hander is a free agent.

Colletti said the Dodgers are considering adding one or two more starters and perhaps a couple of relievers to the bullpen, which he expects to remain mostly intact.

"You'd like to find an ace, but you got one hanging around?" he said. "It's not like you have a choice of five or six (free agents) that you can pick from."

That statement does have some level of truth to it. On the free agent market, the only true "ace" out there is John Lackey, but he is going to require a handsome long term contract and a hefty annual salary.

But make no mistake about it, there is potential for Colletti to find his ace on the open market. I'd suggest taking the Red Sox approach and taking a flier on a "low risk, high reward" starting pitcher, who could turn into the ace the Dodgers crave...if he stays healthy. In addition, this strategy would fit nicely with what Ned Colletti has done in years past with the Dodgers, namely sign veteran free agents to short term contracts. Here are some suggestions for Colletti:

-Erik Bedard:
The good:left handed, potential ace, only 30 years old, one year deal?
The bad: injured in each of the past two seasons, 30 starts total in 2008 and 2009

-Justin Duchscherer:
The good: right handed, potential top of the rotation starter, one year deal?
The bad: depression issues, missed all of 2009, never started more than 22 games in a season

-Brett Myers
The good: only 29 years old, has potential to be a solid starting pitcher, one year deal?
The bad: is he a starter? Are his best years behind him? (has not put together solid season in starting rotation since 2006)

Other options: Kelvim Escobar, Rich Harden (sort of)

If you were Ned Colletti, would you go after any of these "low risk/high reward" options? If so, which one?

Thoughts?

****** ******

(Jorge Says No! on Facebook)

(Follow Jorge Says No! on Twitter)

How Will Ben Sheets Fare on the Free Agent Market?

After John Lackey, there is no other top flight starter available on the free agent market. Randy Wolf is good, but he is not an ace. Joel Pineiro had a solid 2009, but no one knows if he can repeat that. No one knows exactly how Aroldis Chapman will fare in the majors. Erik Bedard and Justin Duchscherer are very good pitchers when healthy, but the problem has been keeping them healthy.

One very intriguing name on the free agent market is winter is Ben Sheets. Assuming Sheets is healthy, he could be a real difference maker for a contending team. Where does Ben Sheets fit on the free agent market?

"Assuming Sheets, a four-time National League All-Star, is healthy, he could be highly-coveted player on what appears to be a thin free-agent pitching market. Sheets nearly signed with the Rangers last winter before concerns about his elbow scuttled the deal, and is now open to offers from all 30 teams including the Brewers, despite his somewhat complicated exit from Milwaukee.

Sheets, who debuted with the Brewers in 2001 and by 2008 was the player with the longest tenure with the club, worked much of the second half of the 2008 season with elbow pain and only revealed the torn flexor tendon in October, when he was left off Milwaukee's postseason roster.

At the time, the medical prognosis was that with rest and exercise and rehab Sheets would recover. The team was so comfortable with that diagnosis that it extended a Dec. 2 offer of arbitration to Sheets, who was free agent-eligible for the first time in his career.

Had Sheets accepted that offer, he would have been considered a signed player for 2009 at a salary to be determined, almost certainly higher than the $11 million he earned in 2008 when he finished 13-9 with a 3.09 ERA in 31 starts and started the All-Star Game for the National League."

I have no doubt that Sheets will be an attractive commodity on the free agent market. Will he get a one year deal loaded with incentives? And if he can prove he's healthy, then is it out of the realm of possibility to think that Sheets could get a multi year contract?


Thoughts?

****** ******

(Jorge Says No! on Facebook)

(Follow Jorge Says No! on Twitter)

Ramon Hernandez and the Catching Market

The weak crop of free agent catchers might become slightly more interesting:

The $8.5 club option ($1M buyout) must be exercised or declined on catcher Ramon Hernandez. That doesn't have to be decided until soon after the World Series. My take: the Reds won't pick up the option but will try to re-negotiate for a lower-priced deal.

As I see it, there are two sides to this story.

Side 1: The Reds would be making the smart move by not picking up Hernandez's option. The team simply cannot afford to spend $8.5 million in 2010 to an aging catcher.

Side 2: If the Reds don't pick up the option, Hernandez might find a litany of suitors on the free agent market. The free agent crop of catchers in pretty weak this season (led by Benjie Molina and Rod Barajas) and there's a good chance Hernandez could bolt. With that in mind, would the Reds feel comfortable letting Ryan Hanigan play full time behind the plate in 2010?

I think it's pretty safe to say that the Reds will not pick up the option. When that happens, does Hernandez become the most attractive catcher on the free agent market despite his disappointing 2009 season? He's only 33 years old, calls a very good game, and still has some pop in his bat (despite hitting only 5 HR this year). Is there any possibility that Hernandez could land a multi year contract with another club?

Thoughts?

****** ******

(Jorge Says No! on Facebook)

(Follow Jorge Says No! on Twitter)

Should the Royals Trade Joakim Soria?

Should the Royals trade one of their best pieces to acquire more pieces? You decide:

"Aside from a barstool, there may be no more emotional position in baseball than closer. This is certainly true for Jonathan Papelbon and K-Rod, but more, it's true for the people watching.

So long as it doesn't get watered down from blowouts, the best moment at Kauffman Stadium is when the video boards set fire and Slash starts playing "Welcome to the Jungle" and Joakim Soria comes out from the bullpen to throw fastballs at the knees and 67-mph curveballs through bats.

Beyond his success -- Soria is, what, one of the four best closers in baseball? -- he is the shining example of what the Royals' current scouting department is capable of. They got him in the Rule 5 draft, for $50,000, which is the equivalent of you getting a two-week Hawaiian vacation for 50 cents.

----snip-----

There's something that's been discussed in certain circles of Royals fans, and this offseason it should be out in the open.

Soria is among the Royals' very best trading chips, and they should look long and hard about using it."

Jeez, this a tough one. There's so much to like about Soria if you're a Royals fan. Soria is one of the best closers in baseball. Soria is only 25 years old. Soria is signed through 2014 to a very team friendly deal.

In short, Soria is one of the only commodities the Royals have right now.

So then why would the Royals want to trade Soria?

The answer is simple yet painful: the Royals have so many holes to fill that they need to acquire as many useful pieces as possible. You can make the case that the Royals roster right now contains only 4 or 5 players that any team would have interest in acquiring: Greinke, Butler, Dejesus, maybe Teahen, and Soria. If the Royals are going to add any talent this offseason via trade, then Soria is one of the only guys that can actually yield a substantial return.

But ask yourselves this: is now the best time for the Royals to trade Soria? Will they maximize his value? I'm not sure about that. Soria missed a month with shoulder issues and the free agent market is already loaded with closers (Valverde, Rodney, Soriano, etc.) while a number of big name closers have been rumored in potential deals (Papelbon, Nathan). Given his contract, age, and ability level; I'm sure many teams would prefer Soria over all those guys. Whether or not they would be willing to pay the Royals' heavy price tag is another story.

If the Royals are going to trade Soria, they need to be completely overwhelmed by the package offered to them. The goal should not simply be to get back as many useful pieces as they can, but to maximize Soria's value. If Moore cannot find a package that he feels maximizes Soria's value, then no deal should be made.

Now comes the hard part for Dayton Moore: finding out when Soria's value will be at its peak.

And now comes the hard part for Royals fans: trusting Dayton Moore's decision making.


Thoughts?

****** ******

(Jorge Says No! on Facebook)

(Follow Jorge Says No! on Twitter)

Thoughts on the Phillies

As the last out was recorded in last night's game and the Phillies sprinted out on the field to celebrate. I couldn't help but think how impressive it was that the Phillies made it back to the World Series. No one should be surprised by the Phillies' success because just last year, the Phillies won the World Series.

But there's something very different about last year and this year.

Last year, everything seemed to go right for the Phillies. The Mets collapsed (again). Ryan Howard, Jimmy Rollins, and Chase Utley put together huge seasons. Pat Burrell and Jayson Werth gave the Phillies much needed right handed pop. Shane Victorino gave the Phillies a swagger. Cole Hamels developed into an ace. JC Romero continued his dominance out of the bullpen. And closer Brad Lidge was perfect.

But this year, so much has gone wrong for the Phillies:

-Brad Lidge was terrible ($11.5 million)
-JC Romero was suspended and hurt ($4 million)
-Brett Myers was hurt ($12 million)
-Jimmy Rollins struggled at the plate ($7.5 million)
-Jaime Moyer proved that he too can age ($6.5 million)
-Cole Hamels was not his dominant self ($4.35 million)

For those of you counting at home, that's roughly $45 million dollars worth of the Phillies 2009 payroll. That's almost 40% of the total payroll. All of those guys either struggled, were not effective, or injured. Think about how devastating the manifestation of all those struggling, ineffective players should have been on the Phillies.

But the Phillies won anyway.

How'd they do it? Shrewdness, that's how. GM Ruben Amaro Jr. made some quality trades (Cliff Lee!), summoned J.A Happ from the minors, and was not afraid to see what Pedro Martinez had left in the tank.

I'd argue that the Phillies making it this far with all the stuff they had to deal with along the way is far more impressive than what the team accomplished last season.


Thoughts?

****** ******

(Jorge Says No! on Facebook)

(Follow Jorge Says No! on Twitter)

Do the Angels Need to Re-Sign John Lackey?

Should the Angels now look to retain John Lackey? Maybe:

The consensus of most baseball people I've talked to is that Game 5 of the ALCS could be John Lackey's last as an Angel, barring an unlikely three-win comeback against the Yankees, of course.

As the most appealing pitcher in the free-agent market, Lackey will be heavily pursued by a number of teams, and although the Angels would like to keep him, the feeling is they won't pay the expected $75 million to $100 million over five years that his agent is likely to ask.

After what has happened in the postseason, however, you wonder if Arte Moreno should reconsider his stance.

The acquisition of Scott Kazmir was supposed to give Moreno the leverage to let Lackey go. But considering the disappointing way Kazmir has pitched in his two playoff appearances, you can't help but question if that's still the case.

One writer described the Angels' staff heading into the postseason as four No. 2 starters. I don't agree with that. When he's sound, Lackey, who was brilliant in Game 1 of he ALDS, is a No. 1 starter. It's just that he's not quite at the same elite level as the CC Sabathias, Cliff Lees and Roy Halladays.

I'm torn on this one. The Angels need a true ace in the worst way if they are going to compete with the Red Sox and Yankees next year. Scott Kazmir and Ervin Santana have ace like stuff, but neither guy is an ace. Joe Saunders and Jered Weaver are nice pitchers to have on a staff, but neither of them is an ace. Outside of Lackey, Weaver is probably the closest thing the Angels have right now to an ace.

If the 2010 Angels are led by those four pitchers, then they can very well win the AL West. But does anyone honestly think they would have a realistic shot to win the World Series? I don't.

The problem for the Angels is that Lackey is the only bonafide ace on the market, which means competition will be fierce and the price tag will be steep. Are the Angels willing to go out of their comfort zone and give Lackey the gigantic contract he's looking for? I don't think so, but if GM Tony Reagins is concerned enough about his rotation, then all bets are off. I think the Angels would be better off exploring the option of Roy Halladay instead of ponying up for Lackey, but only time will tell.

Thoughts?

****** ******

(Jorge Says No! on Facebook)

(Follow Jorge Says No! on Twitter)

Who will be the Next Manager of the Nationals?

By: Evan Levitt

A few years ago, it seemed as though the Washington Nationals just hired one of the best managerial prospects of 2006--Manny Acta. Many, myself included, envisioned him to not only be the right man to lead this young team out of the N.L. East cellar, but the man who could lead the Nationals for the next 10+ years--as he was only 37 years old, had experience coaching in the Major Leagues, experience managing in the minor leagues, and an agressive drive for success--just what the Nats needed...right?

Well, that's what we all thought but on July 13, 2009, the Manny Acta era ended in Washington when he got a "pink slip" in the mail. Was it justified? I don't know. However, its time for the Nationals to look for their next manager and "take two" on looking for the future organizational star.

Here are the candidates with a list of pros and cons for hiring each of them:

Jim Riggleman

WHY SHOULD THEY HIRE HIM--> Through 75 games, he led the Nats to 33 wins. While that total is not playoff worthy by any means, it is a MAJOR improvement from the totals they had in the first half of the year. Additionally, he seemed to really motivate the last-place Nationals, even until the last weekend of the year (did you see his reaction when Justin Maxwell hit that walk-off grandslam against the Mets at the end of the year? He looked like he won the pennant). Additionally, he has experience managing and working with young players.

WHY THEY SHOULD PASS--> Frankly, is he anything more than a professional interm manager? I don't know. His career win-loss record is not great by any means (.444 winning percentage), but much of that is not his fault. He is also not likely that guy who will be managing the Nationals in 2020 as he would be 72 this year. He might be a little "over-the-hill" to be the Nationals manager of the future.

Bobby Valentine

WHY SHOULD THEY HIRE HIM--> Bobby V took the Mets from underachievers to pennant winners. He manages with a fire that is second to none. He could be the perfect man to light a fire under the behinds of these young ballplayers and bring out the best in them. Wherever he has managed, success has followed (in one way or another) so what's to say that success would not follow him ot DC?

WHY THEY SHOULD PASS--> Bobby V will be 60 years old soon and has had a wonderful career as a manager. Would he want to continue managing for another 10 years? Probably not. Additionally, he has been away from baseball in the USA for over 5 years, so would it make sense to hire him to manage a bunch of young players he has probably never heard of?

Don Mattingly

WHY SHOULD THEY HIRE HIM--> When Donnie Baseball became the hitting coach for the Dodgers, he showed that he is willing to develop into a future manager, regardless of whether it is with the Yankees. He has had one of the best mentors in the game: Joe Torre. He is young and could realistically manage the team for 10+ years.

WHY THEY SHOULD PASS-->He has no managerial experience and has always coached with Joe Torre by his side. Would we be considering him for this job if it were not for Joe Torre--maybe not. Additionally, rumor has it that he retired from playing baseball due to "personal problems" and also delayed his debut as the dodgers hitting coach due to the same "personal problems." By no means is this a reason not to hire him, but it is something to think about.

Darnell Coles

WHY SHOULD THEY HIRE HIM--> While working for the Nationals A affiliate in 2007, I had the fortune of watching Darnell manage in his freshman year and frankly I was impressed. He has such a fire when managing and developing young talent. He has experience managing in the minor leagues and has moved through the Nats organization rather rapidly (manager in low A in 2007, manager in high A in 2008, hitting coach AAA in 2009). He is a young guy too and might be the most realistic choice (out of the ones listed) to still be managing the Nats in 2020.

WHY THEY SHOULD PASS-->Darnell Coles has limited experience managing/coaching in the minor leagues and no experience managing/coaching in the majors. While I am biased and would absolutely love to see him manage the Nats in 2010, I think he probably will need a few more years of experience managing in the minors and/or coaching in the majors before taking the reigns for a big league club. However, MARK MY WORD, he will manage in the big leagues one day.

Willie Randolph

WHY SHOULD THEY HIRE HIM--> Mr. Randolph has spent his whole career around winning and has the rings to prove it. He has experience in almost every facet of running a baseball team, from managing to working as an asstant general manager. He is clearly a smart guy who knows the game of baseball. Plus, the passion for managing seems to be stronger than ever for Willie.

WHY THEY SHOULD PASS--> When the Mets hired Willie, they thought that his "winning ora" would rub-off on the players. For a short period of time, it did. However, after a while Willie seemed emotionless and lacking "life." Frankly, there is nothing in particular that sticks out as being a "key component" of Willie's managerial game, everything is just average. Do the Nats need another "average" guy managing them?

Ned Yost

WHY SHOULD THEY HIRE HIM-->He has been a coach for countless playoff teams, helped transform the Brewers from the laughing stock of the league into a play-off contender, and learned from a future Hall-of-Fame manager, Bobby Cox? Sounds pretty good, right?

WHY THEY SHOULD PASS--> He received a lot of criticism in 2008, so much so that he was fired with 12 games left in the season. It was one thing when the Astros fired Cecil Cooper this year with 13 games left as the chance of them making the playoffs was 0%. However, when Yost was fired, the Brewers were in the heat of the playoff race. Thus, there must be sometime MAJOR about Ned that caused the team to fire him after 150 games in 2008. His managerial style was often the subject of criticism--is that something that the Nats need?

Bob Melvin

WHY SHOULD THEY HIRE HIM--> This guy has experience managing, and has shown that he can be successful. Additionally, people like working for him (note Bryan Price resigning after Melvin was fired in 2009). A few years ago, he was even named the N.L. Manager of the Year. Additionally, he has been known to be unconventional and creative with his lineup and roster--something that might come in handy for the Nats. Plus, he is young, so he can be around for a while.

WHY THEY SHOULD PASS--> He has been fired from his managerial post twice since 2004 and pushed the D-Backs to fire him after less than 30 games this year. Thus, it is not unreasonable to be concerned about his managerial style/clubhouse management. His career record is so "up and down"--one year making the playoffs, the next losing 90+ games; is that what the Nats need?

Tim Bogar

WHY SHOULD THEY HIRE HIM--> This former utility infielder has really developed into a top managerial prospect. He managed in the minor leagues from 2004-2006 and won THREE manager of the year awards. THREE. That is ridiculous! But what else does he have to show besides a few pieces of hardware? He has gotten promoted throughout the minor leagues and spent the past year coaching in the big leagues for the Red Sox. Additionally, he is one of the youngest in this crowd (only 42 years old) so he can potentially be penciled in for 10+ years.


WHY THEY SHOULD PASS--> While he has won managerial awards, he only has 3 years of experience managing--and that was in the minor leagues. His experience coaching in the Major Leagues is even more limited. Someone will eventually take a chance on Tim, but it may not be in the best interest of the young and inexperienced Nats to have a young and inexperienced manager.

Tony Pena

WHY SHOULD THEY HIRE HIM--> Tony took a team that was the laughing stock of the league (the KC Royals) and made them into playoff contenders. Thus, he won the 2003 A.L. Manager of the Year award. His success with the Royals did not last, but he showed what he could do with a young team. Additionally, he has spent the past 4 years coaching the winningist franchise in baseball history--the NY Yankees.

WHY THEY SHOULD PASS--> While it is very impressive what Tony did with the 2003 Royals, the 2004 and 2005 Royals were nothing short of a disaster. However, the most alarming thing might be the fact that he resigned when things got really rough for the Royals...what's to say he would not do this again with the Nationals?

THE LONG SHOTS

• Tim Foli
• John Stearns
• Brad Mills
  
• Chip Hale
• Clint Hurdle
  

THE VERDICT

To Be completely honest, when I started writing this I thought my conclusion would be that Jim Riggleman is the best candidate to manage the Nats. However, that has since changed since I looked into the candidates a little further. I believe that that this is not simply a "fluke" and that most people probably will think that Riggleman is the best candidate, but after looking into the potential candidates, they will see that there is someone better suited for the job, and that person is....

TIM BOGAR

So why do I believe that this former utility infielder, with minimal experience managing in the minors and even less experience coaching in the majors is the right choice? Because, he has shown that he can manage if given the opportunity. Here is his career record:

2004-Greeneville Astros 41-26
2005-Lexington Legends 82-57
2006-Akron Aeros 87-55

That leaves him with a career win loss record of 250-168--that is a .611 winning percentage. Granted, it is almost a guarantee that this record will suffer if he manages the Nats. But that is besides the point. Not only has he gained experience managing in the minor leagues and coaching the major leagues, he done so with flying colors.

The problem with Riggleman is that he is nothing more than an "average manager." What the Nationals need is someone who will be able to grow with the organization and help players like Jordan Zimmerman, Ryan Zimmerman, and John Lannon develop into organizational stars. This is not going to happen over night. It could take years. Thus, I am a firm believer that the Nationals need a young manager and Bogar is perfect. Is this a risk. ABSOLUTELY. However, the pay-off can be huge, and thus, I believe it is a risk worth taking!

Unlike the situation with the Astros I do not think the ideal candidate will be the one hired. Instead, I think the job will ultimately go to either Jim Riggleman or Don Mattingly. Riggleman's experience managing and time with the team might be enough for Mike Rizzo to hire him. Mattingly has spent his career around big names and winning, which is something I believe may ultimately lead the Nats to offering him the job.

Thoughts?

****** ******

(Jorge Says No! on Facebook)

(Follow Jorge Says No! on Twitter)

Crazy Retro Scott Boras Quote of the Day

*Scott Boras is baseball's most successful and well known agent. Boras is a mix of crazy with a whole lot of genius. He's the master salesman for his clients, but even the great Boras goes overboard every once and awhile. The following is an example of Boras going wayyyyyyyyyy overboard*

********** **********

On client Alex Rodriguez's postseason failures:

On ESPN's "First Take" show yesterday, Boras made the mistake of trying to defend A-Rod's failures in the postseason as some sort of twisted media perspective that needed correcting.

He even blamed Mariano Rivera as a cause for A-Rod's problems, which may be the height of desperation.

The question posed to Boras was why Rodriguez's regular-season numbers haven't translated to postseason success.

"That's a characterization that, when you look at the data, is frankly inaccurate," Boras said. "If you look at Alex's first season in New York, I believe he was 7-for-16 with two home runs and five RBIs going into Game 4 in Boston.

"The brilliant Mariano Rivera, probably the only flaw he's made in a historic career over the postseason, if he got those three outs (in the ninth inning of Game 4), Alex would have been in the World Series and he would have been held to have a great postseason. "When you look at his records with Seattle - and even this year - you're talking about a player whose postseason records are really up there with many of the superstars of the game."

Thoughts?

****** ******

(Jorge Says No! on Facebook)

(Follow Jorge Says No! on Twitter)

Joe Morgan, Contracts, and the 2010 Phillies

For the life of me, I have no idea why this guy chose to ask Joe Morgan this question, but his answer is classic Joe Morgan. From yesterday's ESPN.com chat:

SteveFitz (Cicero, IL)

Joe, is this the offseason where the Phillies have to maybe trade one of its better players due to higher pay raises now or in the near future? Maybe Werth?

Joe Morgan (11:46 AM)

Well if they win another championship, I don't see why you would break them up. Payrolls are not my expertise. I believe that you just go out there to try and win. If you have the winning combination there, you keep them together. I saw the team I was on, the Reds, we won two straight championships and if we had stayed together, we would have won three straight. If you take one player away, you disrupt it and then you don't know what you're going to get.

ESPN describes Joe Morgan as a "baseball analyst," which, as a baseball fan, I would hope signals that he knows at least the basics of team payrolls, contracts, etc.

So since Joe Morgan failed to answer your question, SteveFitz, I'll take a stab at it even though ESPN never gave me the fancy title of baseball analyst:

According to Cot's Baseball Contracts, the Phillies are already committed to $108 million dollars in payroll next season even though they only have 11 players under contract right now. In addition, both Joe Blanton and Shane Victorino are due raises in arbitration this winter. There are also several other important players, who are under contract with the Phillies, but are not yet eligible for arbitration (Happ, Ruiz, Kendrick, Francisco). Hence, none of those guys are eligible for big raises next season.

Let's deal with the two guys, who are due raises: Victorino and Blanton. Victorino is the heart and soul of the Phillies and it would be absolutely crushing for the fans if the Phillies dealt him. It wouldn't surprise me to see the Phillies lock up Victorino long term if the opportunity presents itself. If the Phillies and Victorino go to arbitration, I'd expect Victorino to earn somewhere in the range of $5-$6 million, which is a nice raise for him, but a price that the Phillies should gladly pay. As for Blanton, I'd expect him to earn roughly $6 million next season after arbitration, which is a pretty good price for a middle of the rotation starter. In fact, if the Phillies did look to move anyone, I'd put my money on Blanton, a free agent to be after 2010.

So when you take into account the price of the Phillies arbitration eligibles (roughly $4 million), one would have to think that the Phillies would still have some change left over to deal with the rest of the team (assuming their payroll is between $110-$120 million). Sure they will have a number of holes to fill (3rd base, bullpen), but the cost of filling those holes should not force the Phillies into dealing.

As for Jayson Werth, he is signed through 2010 for $7.5 million and then he will be a free agent. I'd expect the Phillies to at least explore the possibility of extending Werth this offseason...if he's not too expensive. The Phillies might pay the price for their success after 2010 if Werth chooses to bolt for the money.

Thoughts?

****** ******

(Jorge Says No! on Facebook)

(Follow Jorge Says No! on Twitter)

Can Matt Holliday Become Mark Teixiera?

Scott Boras recently caused a stir in the blogosphere by making this statement about his client and the consensus "best free agent position player", Matt Holliday:

"Scott Boras threw out the ceremonial first pitch in free agency today, comparing Matt Holliday to Mark Teixeira in the impact the agent believes each player can have on a club.

"These guys are blue-collar superstars," Boras said. "They don't hit 50 home runs, but they're complete players. They can give you something without swinging a bat."

Teixeira signed with the New York Yankees last winter, for $180 million. Boras would not say what his asking price would be for Holliday, but he made clear he considered Holliday's abilities in getting on base, hitting for power and playing superior defense similar to those of Teixeira.

"There are differences between hitters and complete players," Boras said. "Matt Holliday is a complete player.

"There is, frankly, no one like him in the market."

Boras's remark was met by ridicule and many, many snide comments. No one seems to think that Scott Boras can get Matt Holliday a contract similar to the one he got Mark Teixiera last offseason (in an economic crisis, nonetheless). Of course, there are a number of factors that will determine if Holliday nets roughly $110 million, or $180 million like Teixiera.

1. The market

Most people seem to think that the Teixiera sweepstakes was just another part of the Red Sox-Yankees rivalry, which in a small way it was. But we have remember that there were many other players, who added into this equation.

-There was the Angels, who longed to keep Teixeria and reportedly made an offer somewhere in the 8 year/$160 million dollar range.

-There was the Orioles, who were trying hard to sell Teixiera on the idea of playing for his hometown team. Even though the Orioles were struggling as a franchise, they too, made a decent offer to Teixiera on top of pulling at his heart strings.

-And then there was the Nationals, who were the worst team in the National League in 2008, but desperate to make a splash and catapult themselves onto the stage with the big boys. And depending on your source, the Nationals made Teixiera a huge offer, possibly the most lucrative one he had on the table.

(Note: It helps when the Yankees are involved!)

Will Scott Boras be able to drum up a market similar to that for Matt Holliday?

2. Competition

Outside of Teixiera, there was no other first baseman who was anywhere near his league. Sure, Adam Dunn is a great power hitter, but he did not offer the complete package that Mark Teixiera offered and could not play defense. Outside of Teixiera and Dunn, no other first baseman got more than a one year deal last offseason. For any team looking to pick up a great first baseman, the choice was obvious: Mark Teixiera.

This is the area where Boras will have a tough time because of one man: Jason Bay. Even though Holliday is a better all around player, Bay provides interested teams with a somewhat cheaper alternative to Holliday. Bay is only 31 years old and is one of the best power hitters in the American League. Because both Holliday and Bay are free agents, there is no clear cut obvious choice for teams, who want a franchise quality power hitting outfielder. In addition, it might be more difficult for Boras to get clubs into a bidding war when there are two star quality outfielders on the market, not just one.

So no, I don't think Matt Holliday's contract will come close to matching that of Mark Teixiera's. It will be interesting to watch Boras try and drum up competition and create a market for his client, who undoubtedly is looking to cash in on a monster second half with the Cardinals.

Thoughts?

****** ******

(Jorge Says No! on Facebook)

(Follow Jorge Says No! on Twitter)

Crazy Retro Scott Boras Quote of the Day

*Scott Boras is baseball's most successful and well known agent. Boras is a mix of crazy with a whole lot of genius. He's the master salesman for his clients, but even the great Boras goes overboard every once and awhile. The following is an example of Boras going wayyyyyyyyyy overboard*

********* ***********

On Adrian Beltre (May, 2004):

"You have to look at A-Rod," [Scott Boras] said, referring to the 10- year, $252-million signing of Alex Rodriguez, then 25, by the Texas Rangers in December 2000. Boras said he didn't mean that Beltre would qualify for a similar contract but that there are few 25-year- olds of that stature from which to draw comparisons.

"Adrian's ceiling can only grow," Boras said. "He'll have another five years before he's 30, and he would have a real advantage over other players in the market. In fact, players of that stature rarely get to free agency. Teams generally understand what they have and don't let it happen. In Beltre's case, there's going to have to be a premium paid in years and dollars."

Thoughts?

****** ******

(Jorge Says No! on Facebook)

(Follow Jorge Says No! on Twitter)

How Bad is this Idea: Vladimir Guerrero to the Mets?

Should the Mets make a play for Vladimir Guerrero? Let's hope not:

"This is a big post-season for Vlad, who is eligible for free agency this winter and could have used a defining post-season to help alleviate ever so slightly the always-present injury issues. Vlad will get a contract, but in this cautious marketplace it will likely be with a big-market team that can afford to cover any losses. Baseball people have felt for some time it’s a slam-dunk that he would end up with the New York Mets and their general manager Omar Minaya, but a combination of Minaya’s lack of job security, the Mets recent record of injuries to big-time players and concerns about how much money the Wilpon family lost in Bernie Madoff’s Ponzi scheme no longer make that a certainty. One agent told me in the summer that the best Vlad could hope for would be “to be somebody’s Plan B or Plan C.”

Just for the record, I would have loved it if Guerrero joined the Mets in 2004...but 2010 is a completely different story.

The author of this piece gives us several different reasons why the Mets might not go after Guerrero, but he mercifully fails to mention the most obvious one: defense. Guerrero has not played right field since July and has been the Angels primary DH for most of the season. Simply put, Guerrero is no longer an effective defensive player. There's no way that a hobbling, limping, and slowling moving Guerrero could cover any ground in the spacious Citi Field next season. Hell, Guerrero would be the new Gary Sheffield.

Aside from that obvious point, Guerrero is nothing more than a aging, declining, free swinging, injury prone, defensive liability at this point. Sure Guerrero is a big name, but he belongs nowhere near any National League roster unless he magically becomes 100% healthy.

(Note: I love how the author mentions the Madoff ponzi scheme as a reason why the Mets might not go after Guerrero. Laughable. The only way the "Madoff ponzi scheme" would have prevented the Mets from making a run is if Guerrero was in line for a huge Matt Holliday like contract. But at best, Guerrero should hope for a one year deal with a boatload of reachable incentives.)

Thoughts?

****** ******

(Jorge Says No! on Facebook)

(Follow Jorge Says No! on Twitter)

The Mariners $16 Million Dollar Gift

From MLBTR:

"Catcher Kenji Johjima has opted out of the final two years of his contract, according to a press release from the Mariners. He'll resume his career back in Japan. The Mariners are apparently freed from the $16MM they'd have owed Johjima over 2010-11.

Johjima originally signed with the Mariners as a free agent; he agreed to a three-year, $16.5MM deal in November of 2005. His success in '06 and '07 made that entire contract worthwhile, but Johjima's April '08 three-year extension for $24MM was widely panned."

There's no way else to put this: this decision by Johjima is a gift for the Mariners. Sure Johjima was a solid player for the Mariners a few years back, but at this stage in his career, he was not productive enough at the dish to be considered a starting catcher, let alone an $8 million dollar a year player.

So now comes the big question, what will the Mariners do with their additional funds? They already have close to $50 million coming off the books (before arbitration), so the extra $8 million will give the Mariners even more flexibility.

But with that said, this is a team that has lots of holes entering the offseason:

1. shortstop (do they pick up Jack Wilson's option?)
2. third base (do they re-sign Adrian Beltre)
3. catcher
4. first base (will they re-sign Russell Branyan)
5. DH (will they upgrade from the Sweeney/Griffey Jr. combo)
6. Starting rotation (who will fill the rotation after Felix Hernandez?)

And here are some other questions to consider:

1. will the Mariners offer Felix Hernandez an extension? (YES, YES, YES!)
2. will the Mariners re-sign Erik Bedard?
3. will the Mariners become players for Jason Bay or Matt Holliday?

For now, all I know is this: Mariners GM Jack Zduriencik is going to be one busy man this offseason.

Thoughts?

****** ******

(Jorge Says No! on Facebook)

(Follow Jorge Says No! on Twitter)

Are the Rockies Making a Mistake by Not Trading Brad Hawpe?

Surprising news out of Colorado this morning that GM Dan O'Dowd will not look to trade Brade Hawpe this offseason:

“The Rockies understand the value of Brad Hawpe on the field and off,” said O’Dowd. “We have no desire to move him at all. He has leadership ability and a commitment to the approach we feel is important for a team’s success.”

Hawpe hit .284 with 23 home runs and 86 RBI, ranking fourth on the Rockies in average, third in home runs and tied for second in RBI. He, however, hit only .209 with 10 RBI in September.

There is no financial push to move Hawpe, who is signed for $7.5 million in 2010. He had a $10 million option for 2011, but there is no buyout.

Obviously, the benefit for the Rockies, who had a payroll slightly north of $75 million this season, is that they would cut 10% of their budget ($7.5 million) by trading Hawpe. In addition, the Rockies have three cheap, young outfielders, who one can argue are all better suited for the National League and the Rockies: Carlos Gonzalez, Seth Smith, and Dexter Fowler.

And even though Hawpe struggled in the second half, there is little reason to think that Hawpe wouldn't be able to bring back a solid package for the Rockies. Hawpe is only 30 years old, hits for power, and has a very reasonable contract ($7.5 in 2010, $10 million option in 2011). The free agent market isn't exactly flooded with productive left handed power hitters, which plays even more in the favor of Brad Hawpe.

All signs pointed towards Brad Hawpe being traded this offseason. So why is Dan O'Dowd pulling him off the market? Supposed veteran leadership? Market value?

Your guess is as good as mine on this one.

Thoughts?

****** ******

(Jorge Says No! on Facebook)

(Follow Jorge Says No! on Twitter)

Who will be the Next Manager of the Astros?

By: Evan Levitt

Well it’s that time of year again…managerial musical chairs. Unfortunately for baseball fanatics like myself, there are only 3 teams looking for new managers this year (Nationals, Astros, and Indians). There are so many different ways to go about predicting who the next manager of a team will be—you can go with the safe choice, the stretch, the underdog, the person who has a 1% chance of managing, and the list goes on. For fun, I am going to examine who could be the next skipper of each of the three teams in a three part series. Since my prediction is that the Astros are going to make the first hire, they are the first ones I am going to take a look at:

HOUSTON ASTROS

This team is quite unique. They have not been bad in recent years, yet they have not been good. They have been pretty average. However, they have the talent and potential payroll to put together a team that can win the NL Central next year. However, before that they need someone to lead the ship. With this being said, here is a detailed breakdown of three potential candidates to right this ship

THE “INTERIM” MANAGER: Dave Clark

Why he is a good candidate—He knows the team and has some experience managing the team (if you count 13 games). Clearly the organization also sees potential in him as they gave him the reigns this September when Cecil Cooper got the boot.

Why they should pass on him—He has 13 games of managerial experience at the Major League level and the Astros have said they are looking for an individual with experience to manage in 2010…do 13 games really qualify him to manage?

THE MANAGERIAL PROSPECT IN NEED OF A SECOND CHANCE: Manny Acta

Why he is a good candidate—He is young, bright, and has over 15 years experience in the Astros minor league system. For years he has been dubbed the future managerial star. This might be the perfect organization for him to become that star.

Why they should pass on him—He could not right the Nationals ship when given the opportunity so what’s to say he will be a great manager in Houston?

THE WORLD SERIES MANAGER: Phil Garner

Why he is a good candidate—You know the saying that you don’t know how good you have it until it’s gone? I think the Astros may be realizing how good they had it with Garner leading the ship until that fateful day 2 years ago when he got the pink slip. Additionally, he is the only manager to bring the ‘stros to the World Series so he has brought success to the organization before…why can’t he do it again?

Why they should pass on him—To use another saying, “been there done that,” Garner has been the manager of the Astros and was fired. Obviously, something went wrong for them to fire him a month before the season’s end. Why go back to something that did not work after the first year?

THE UTILITY MAN: Tim Bogar

Why he is a good candidate—He retired after the 2001 season; yet, he has already won 3 manager of the year awards in the minor leagues…not too shabby. He has clearly shown that he can manage in the minor leagues, so maybe it’s time to give him a shot in the big leagues.

Why they should pass on him—He has 1 year of experience coaching in the big leagues—that’s it. Additionally, no one knows anything about him as a player, manager, or coach. In turn, he may have a very small following.

THE MOST POPULAR MAN IN JAPAN: Bobby Valentine

Why he is a good candidate—He has a fire that burns within him that is so unique and powerful. If the Astros are looking for someone to light a fire under the players within the organization, who better than Bobby V? He has managerial experience in Texas (while managing the Rangers) and experience managing in a major city (New York)…maybe Houston is the perfect combo?

Why they should pass on him—Towards the end of his tenure with the Mets, it seemed as though he “lost” the clubhouse. Bobby V just finished a contract out in Japan and was more popular than a Big Mac is in America. Could this have transformed him into a diva? I hope not, but it’s something to consider.

HE GOT FIRED?: Bob Melvin

Why he is a good candidate—He has shown that he can win if given the chance. Unfortunately for him, the Diamondbacks did not want to give Bob a chance to win in 2009 or 2010 and wanted to give that job to a man in their front office for the next four years. Frankly, I think Bob is a very smart man who has a lot of potential as a manager in the majors. All he is really guilty of is working for teams that did not have him in their long term plans.

THE LONGSHOTS

Al Pendrique: his record as a manager with the Diamondbacks a few years ago sucked and he seems to have found his niche in the front office. Chances are, he should and will stay there.

Luis Pujols: He has experience managing in the majors (Detroit in 2002), experience managing in the Astros system since 2008 (Corpus Christi—the Astros AA affiliate). However, I think the only way he gets a nod as the Astros next manager is if he can convince them that hiring him will guarantee that his cousin Albert will join the team after 2010.

Terry Collins: He managed the Astros for 3 seasons and produced a team with a record over .500 each of the 3 years. However, he never brought the team to the playoffs. He has a lot of experience managing and is supposedly quite similar to Bobby V. However, this might have been one ship that already sailed as far as its going to go.

Craig Biggio, Jeff Bagwell, or Brad Ausmus: Biggio and Bagwell are two of the most popular icons in Astros history. Thus, it would seem to be fitting that they manage the team they both spent 20+ years with. However, they have no experience managing or coaching, which makes their chances of managing slim to none. The same goes for Ausmus except he also is still active, thus he needs to retire before being considered a candidate to manage.

The Verdict: Given his history with the organization, extensive upside, and experience managing in the minor and major leagues, I believe that Manny Acta is not only the best candidate for the job in Houston, but also the most likely to get the position (not too often this happens). Only 40 years old, it would not be unreasonable to say that Acta could potentially manage the Astros for 10+ years if things go right.

Thoughts?

****** ******

(Jorge Says No! on Facebook)

(Follow Jorge Says No! on Twitter)

Will the Yankees Resign Johnny Damon?

For a majority of the regular season, Damon was viewed as the guy the Yankees would opt to keep heading into 2010. Even with Damon's limited defensive ability, he still offered more flexibility than Hideki Matsui moving forward. But now there are murmurs that Damon will not be back with the Yankees in 2010:

"Now that the Yankees seem to have built a team that can get an annual invite to the ALCS, the 35-year-old Damon, whose contract expires at the end of this playoff run, might not get much use out of it. He is a veteran on a team that miraculously squeezed production from a group of aging players - some of them coming off injuries, such as Jorge Posada, Andy Pettitte, and Hideki Matsui. Damon's services might not be in demand in the Bronx next year."

I know Damon struggled pretty badly in the ALDS, but people need to remember just how good Damon was for the Yankees this season. Damon was the perfect catalyst behind Derek Jeter this season and is a large reason why the Yankees offense was so potent. Even at 35, Damon still hit .282 with 24 Yankee Stadium aided home runs, 82 RBI, and 107 runs scored.

There are two scenarios where I could see the Yankees deciding to part ways with Damon:

1. The Yankees resign Hideki Matsui as the DH in 2010
-There's no way the Yankees will bring back both Matsui and Damon in 2010....the Yankees need to get younger moving forward.

2. The Yankees try to sign Jason Bay or Matt Holliday this winter
-If the Yankees pass on both Matsui and Damon, then all of a sudden the Yankees can become players for either Bay or Holliday. The Yankees would have a glaring need in left field and lots of payroll to spend. It might make sense for the Yankees to go after a big name free agent OF this offseason because next year's free agent OF class is weak outside of Carl Crawford.

I still think the Yankees and Damon will come to terms on a one year deal for 2010. The Yankees should not let Damon's prolonged slump (Sept. into October) prevent them from keeping one of their primary offensive players. If anything, the Yankees should let Matsui go, sign Damon with the expectation that he will DH more in 2010, and go after Matt Holliday or Jason Bay.

Thoughts?

****** ******

(Jorge Says No! on Facebook)

(Follow Jorge Says No! on Twitter)

Four Under the Radar Free Agents with Money to Make in the Championship Series

A little more than a week ago, I took a glance at what free agents had significant money to make this postseason. Many of the names on the list are now out of the playoffs and I couldn't help but feel as though the lesser known free agents were being ignored.

So as we gear up for the Championship Series tonight, I've highlighted four under the radar free agents that can increase their earning potential with a good Championship Series. So without further ado:

4. Darren Oliver

-Outside of closer Brian Fuentes, Darren Oliver is the only lefty the Angels will carry in the bullpen. That means it will be Oliver's primary responsibility to shut down the Yankees potent left handed bats (Matsui, Damon, Cano) in the late innings. In addition, the Yankees have a number of potent switch hitters(Teixeira, Posada, Swisher), so Oliver will need to be able to get right handed hitters out as well.

Even though Oliver will be a type A free agent, I doubt the Angels will offer him arbitration ($3.6 million this year), so would it be out of the question for the 40 year old Oliver to get another multi year deal?

3. Chan Ho Park

-Now that Park is back on the playoff roster, I'm sure the Phillies will be relying on him heavily to get big outs down the stretch. Park's statistics as a relief pitcher this season are very impressive (2.52 ERA in 38 games) especially against right handed hitters (1.16 ERA). The odds are high that Park will have to face the Dodgers two best right handed batters in the series: Matt Kemp and Manny Ramirez. The opportunity for Park to showcase his relief talent should be there.

2. Ronnie Belliard

-Belliard has revitalized his career over the past few months in LA. Belliard went from being a really, really unproductive player with the Nationals to becoming the starting second baseman for the Dodgers in the playoffs over all star Orlando Hudson. If Belliard produces in the NLCS, then he could set himself up for a nice contract especially with his Type B free agent status. Does anyone actually see Belliard starting for a team at second in 2010?

1. Vincente Padilla

-Padilla has been so good since coming to LA that the Dodgers left Jon Garland off the playoff roster. Padilla will get another chance to showcase himself for teams when he pitches against Pedro Martinez in game 2. If he pitches well there, then I'd look for Padilla to possibly make one more start during the NLCS (if need be). I doubt the Dodgers would offer Padilla arbitration, but is it crazy to think that Padilla is a few more good starts away from a multi year deal?


Thoughts?

****** ******

(Jorge Says No! on Facebook)

(Follow Jorge Says No! on Twitter)

Steve Phillips Is Still Clueless About Jonathan Papelbon

First, Steve Phillips told us about the "significant market" for Jonathan Papelbon. Unfortunately Phillips continued to talk more about the Papelbon rumors yesterday (Thanks, Oliver!). My jaw nearly hit the floor when I read this comment from Steve Phillips' chat on ESPN.com:

Oliver (Germany): If there's any truth in the Jonathan Papelbon trade rumours, whocould be a potential fit for the Red Sox. In my opinion this couls only be a playoff contender in need of a great closer with high salary demands (and a lousy closer right now). The Cubs? The White Sox? The Rays?

Steve Phillips(1:05 PM): I think there is a good chance Jonathan Papelbon has thrown his last pitches for the Red Sox. They love Daniel Bard and believe he is the closer of the future. He has great stuff and the Red Sox believe he has the stomach for the role as well. A lot of teams would have interest in Papelbon, including the Cubs, Tigers, White Sox, Rays, possibly the Phillies. He is an elite closer who should bring back a significant return and might allow the Red Sox to plug holes without jumping into the free agent market, as would be their preference.

Okay fine, I understand Phillips reasoning for naming the Cubs, Tigers, and Phillies in the hypothetical Papelbon sweepstakes.....

But the White Sox and the Rays? No chance.

C'mon, Steve. As of right now, the White Sox already have a closer (Bobby Jenks), who like Papelbon, will be getting a substantial raise through arbitration. In fact, there have been murmurs that the White Sox are looking to trade Jenks simply because he's becoming too expensive. If the White Sox are successful in trading Jenks, then Matt Thornton would be next in line to close. Does it make sense for the White Sox to trade Jenks away because of his salary, but then trun around and trade prospects (and maybe more) for Papelbon and the $9 or so million he would make in 2010? Not in my eyes.

Astonishingly, Phillips mentions the Rays as a possible contender for Papelbon. Is he kidding? First of all, why would the Red Sox trade Papelbon to a contending team within their own division that they have to play 19 times a season? Hell no.

In addition, does Phillips actually think that the Rays can afford Papelbon and his $8-$10 million dollar salary? As Rays GM Andrew Friedman said last week:

“I think there’s kind of a misnomer out there that we don’t believe in having someone that can lock down a game,” Friedman said Tuesday at Tropicana Field. “It’s just that when we get into our roster construction and allocating of resources, it’s very difficult for us to allocate a huge amount of money for someone who pitches 70 innings a year.”

I dunno where Steve Phillips comes up with this stuff, but then again, he is the guy that acquired Mo Vaughn.

Thoughts?

****** ******

(Jorge Says No! on Facebook)

(Follow Jorge Says No! on Twitter)

Brett Myers' Value Takes Another Hit

Heading into the postseason I thought Brett Myers had a wonderful opportunity to make himself some money. Myers, who is a free agent this offseason, missed lots of time this season because of hip surgery. The playoffs seemed to be a great way for Myers to showcase himself for teams, albeit from the bullpen. The Phillies could not depend on Brad Lidge to close out games and if the Phillies needed a closer, then maybe, just maybe, they would turn to Myers.

However, it doesn't look like Myers will ever get that opportunity. Brad Lidge seems to have found a little bit of his former self in Colorado and with the return of Chan Ho Park, the Phillies elected to keep Myers off the playoff roster:

"Brett Myers said tonight that the Phillies have told him he is not on the NLCS roster.

"I'm (ticked)," he said."

From a financial standpoint, keeping him off the playoff roster is a devastating move for Myers because it prevents Myers from showing teams that he's healthy and productive. If Myers was somehow able to put together a dynamite postseason, then he could have been in line for a multi year contract. However, with the way things stand, it wouldn't surprise me if Myers was forced to settle for a one year pact and test the free agent market again after the 2010 season.

Once Myers does hit the open market this offseason, it'll be fascinating to see if he labels himself as a closer or as a starter. The market for closers is deep in quantity, but not quality, while Myers has not been an effective starting pitcher since 2006. This will be an interesting decision for Myers moving forward...

Thoughts?

****** ******

(Jorge Says No! on Facebook)

(Follow Jorge Says No! on Twitter)

The Market for Jonathan Papelbon

Former Mets GM Steve Phillips chimes in on the possibility of trading Jonathan Papelbon:

"I think if Papelbon is available, and I think he will be, I think there will be a significant market for him and the teams will really step up," he said on WEEI on Tuesday. "When you look at the Bobby Jenkses of the world who might be available via trade, and guys like that ... Papelbon stands out as a difference-maker."

Sure, Papelbon is a difference maker. His performance as the Red Sox closer since 2006 has been phenomenal.

However, I have no idea where Phillips is coming from saying that there will be a significant market for Papelbon. The only teams that would be willing to take on Papelbon and the $9 or so million that he will make in arbitration are teams with high payrolls.

Here is the list of teams with payrolls exceeding $90 million in 2009 and their potential closing situation for 2010:

Cardinals: Ryan Franklin
Braves: ?????
White Sox: Jenks (or Thornton)
Mariners: Aardsma
Astros: ?????
Dodgers: Broxton
Angels: Fuentes
Red Sox: Papelbon
Phillies: Brad Lidge
Tigers: ??????
Cubs: Carlos Marmol (????)
Mets: Francisco Rodriguez
Yankees: Mariano Rivera

So out of 12 teams with $90+ million dollar payrolls, only three of them (maybe the Cubs as well) have uncertain closing situations as we look forward to 2010.

However, the Astros have stated publicly that they are looking to cut payroll in 2010, so I doubt they'd be looking to spend $9 million (plus the prospects) on a closer.

Also, Tigers GM Dave Dombrowski has stated publicly that the team will have payroll constraints this offseason. Unless they can move some salary around, I doubt the Tigers would look to add Papelbon.

So that leaves us with the Braves and possibly the Cubs. And even the Cubs have limited payroll flexibility this offseason!

The "significant market" that Phillips refers to consists of one team that needs a closer (Braves), two teams that need a closer and have payroll limitations (Tigers and Astros), and one team that might need a closer, but might not be able to pony up for Papelbon (Cubs).

Who knows? Things can chance in the next few weeks. But right now, the significant market Steve Phillips is referring to is shaky at best.

Thoughts?

****** ******

(Jorge Says No! on Facebook)

(Follow Jorge Says No! on Twitter)

Should the Nationals Give Adam Dunn a Contract Extension?

What should the Nationals do with Adam Dunn?

On one hand, many view Dunn as one of the Nationals' best trade chips. Dunn is signed through the 2010 season for $12 million and could be an attractive power option for an American League team. From 2004-2008, Dunn hit 40 home runs in each season and slugged 38 home runs last year with the Nationals. Aside from his power, Dunn is known for his ability to do three things: walk, get on base, and strikeout.

The Nationals were the worst team in baseball this season and it will be years before the team is even close to competing. What's the point in having a premier power hitter for one season if the team is gonna stick anyway. The Nationals can lose with Dunn, so they sure as hell can lose without him. Besides, Dunn is one of the worst fielders in the majors and NEEDS to be in the American league. The free agent market is lacking hitters with Dunn's power ability, which means that the Nationals could get a nice package in return for Dunn.

On the other hand, maybe the Nationals should view Dunn not as a trading chip, but instead as a building block. Dunn is turning 30 years old in November and should have a number of very productive offensive seasons ahead of him. With Dunn on board, the Nationals offense improved in nearly every category and Ryan Zimmerman put together the best season of his young career. In addition, the Nationals have the makings of dynamic offensive core with Dunn, Zimmerman, Willingham, and Nyjer Morgan. Once the pitching gets up to par, watch out, because this offense has the potential to be lethal.

Remember, if the Nationals were to lock up Adam Dunn to an extension, what would the contract terms have to be? The Nationals got a bargain last offseason when they signed Dunn to a 2 year/$20 million dollar contract and there is no way Dunn would settle for anything like that again. Would 5 years/$70 million be reasonable? How about 4 years/$56 million? Would the Nationals feel comfortable committing four-five years to a defensive liability?

What do you think the Nationals should do?

****** ******

(Jorge Says No! on Facebook)

(Follow Jorge Says No! on Twitter)

The Logic of Tim Hudson?

Looks like the free agent market is about to add another big name pitcher-Tim Hudson:

"Barring a last-minute, knockout offer from the Braves, right-hander Tim Hudson plans to become a free agent, according to major-league sources.

Hudson's contract with the Braves includes a $12 million mutual option for 2010. If Hudson declined his end of the deal, he would be free to negotiate with any team."

All along we have been led to believe that Hudson loved Atlanta and was wanted to stay there. But it seems that this decision is purely business. There are a few reasons why Hudson would choose to opt out:

1. Less competition on the market
-As Rosenthal notes, the only true top flight starting pitcher on the market is John Lackey, who has injury concerns of his own. If Hudson became a free agent at the end of next season, he would have been competing with Josh Beckett, Cliff Lee, Ted Lilly, Roy Halladay, Brandon Webb, and Javier Vazquez. That's quite an impressive list. From that perspective, Hudson made a wise choice to opt out this year.

2. Money
-Obviously if Hudson opted out his contract, then he believes that he is due for a big time pay raise from the 1 year/$12 million dollar pact he had with Atlanta. The early predictions seem to predict that Hudson will indeed be handsomely paid:

-Circling the Bases: 4 years/$50 million
-fangraphs: "A three or four year deal at around $10 million per season"

But my question to the baseball world is this: why? Why is Hudson entitled to such a big contract? I understand that Hudson has fantastic career numbers and in his prime he was one of the best pitchers in baseball. But right now, Hudson is a 34 year old former ace, who has not completed a full season since 2007 and is coming off Tommy John surgery. Is this a pitcher that you would want to commit 3-4 year too?

Yes, Hudson's velocity and movement were impressive during his seven starts this season with the Braves, but should seven starts translate into a big money deal for Hudson? That's quite a risk to take.

And finally, let's return to the free agent market. For the life of me, I cannot understand how a 34 year old Hudson gets 3-4 years/$10 mil annually when 30 year old Erik Bedard, an injury prone ace, is likely to be forced to take a one year deal. Does that make any sense? Hudson is the older pitcher. Hudson is the one coming off Tommy John. If anything, Bedard is less of a risk than Hudson and he has the makeup (if healthy, of course) to be an ace for years to come.

Thoughts on Tim Hudson?

****** ******

(Jorge Says No! on Facebook)

(Follow Jorge Says No! on Twitter)

Hypothetically Speaking: Would You Trade Milton Bradley for Derek Lowe (and cash!)?

As we all know by now:

-The Braves need a big bat to compliment Brian McCann and Chipper Jones in the lineup. They have a surplus of starting pitchers to part with because of the emergence of Tommy Hanson and would love to get rid of Derek Lowe and the $45 million owed to him over the next three years. Many have said Lowe's contract is untradeable.

-The Cubs want to get rid of the headcase that is Milton Bradley. Oh yeah, the Cubs still owe Bradley $21 million over the next two years. Both sides need a new beginning and moving Bradley elsewhere would be a great start. Many have said Lowe is untradeable because of his attitude.

With those needs in mind, let's make a deal.

Here is the (hypothetical) offer on the table:

Braves trade SP Derek Lowe (and cash) to the Chicago Cubs for OF Milton Bradley

Why the Cubs would do it:
-get rid of Milton Bradley!
-acquire a battle tested starting pitcher with playoff experience
-Teams could do a lot worse than Derek Lowe at the back end of the rotation
-If the Braves eat between $6-$9 million of Lowe's contract over the next three years, Lowe's salary becomes more reasonable for the Cubs.

Why the Braves would do it:
-get out from under the 3 years/$45 million owed to Derek Lowe
-acquire an impact bat to solidify lineup
-save money in the long run
-less commitment: Bradley is only signed through 2011, while Lowe is signed through 2012

Why the Cubs wouldn't do it:
-Derek Lowe could be on the decline
-Do they really want to be locked into a 36 year old Derek Lowe for $12+ million annually through 2012?
-Decrease payroll flexibility
-How much payroll can the Cubs take on this offseason?

Why the Braves wouldn't do it:
-Milton Bradley is crazy
-Milton Bradley is injury prone
-Would you want Milton Bradley on your team?
-Derek Lowe still has potential for a solid 2010 and beyond (right?)

Conclusion:

Even though the idea of Lowe for Bradley might make sense to some (like me), I doubt that the Braves would be willing to take on Milton Bradley even though they'd be saving money in the long term and adding a potent bat to their lineup.

Thoughts?

*********** ************

(Jorge Says No! on Facebook)

(Follow Jorge Says No! on Twitter)

Should the Twins Trade Joe Nathan?

Now that the Twins have been officially eliminated in 2009, it's time to turn their focus to the 2010 season. What should the Twins do? Patrick Reusse has a suggestion:

"2. Get out from under the last half of Nathan's large contract (two years, $22.5 million) by trading him. The Cubs might take him."

Even though Nathan has become a fan favorite in Minnesota, his huge contract is a burden. The Twins only have a $60-$70 million dollar payroll annually and $11.25 million of that (roughly 17%) is committed to a closer. Sure Nathan is a dominant closer, but is it smart for the small market Twins to have that much of their payroll? Probably not.

However, we have to remember that the Twins will be moving into Target Field next season, which they hope will increase revenue. There has even been talk that the Twins will increase their payroll significantly:

"The team payroll could jump to between $90 million and $100 million in 2010 from $65.2 million on opening day this year. "It's all tied to revenue," team President Dave St. Peter said."

If that's the case, then the incentive to trade Nathan declines rapidly. If the team's payroll does increase as planned, then Nathan's salary will take up between 10-12% of the team's payroll, which is much more manageable. With the extra $25-$35 million to spend, the Twins can address their various weaknesses and hopefully re-sign Joe Mauer to a long term contract that will keep him in Minnesota for the foreseeable future.

Moving forward, having Joe Nathan as the closer is one of the Twins' strengths. Because of their new revenue stream, the Twins should not be forced to trade Nathan in an effort to address various weaknesses on the team or cut payroll.

Thoughts?

****** ******

(Jorge Says No! on Facebook)

(Follow Jorge Says No! on Twitter)

Jason Marquis: Free Agent Stock Falling?

For some, the postseason is a time to solidify their resume and increase their value on the free agent market. But for Jason Marquis, that's not the case. At least for now:

"Marquis is expected to stay in the bullpen and lose his start in Game 4 to righthander Ubaldo Jimenez, the Game 1 loser, who would be pitching on normal rest. In the final month of the regular season, Tracy pushed back Marquis to keep Jimenez on his usual schedule.

Marquis made the all-star team after going 11-6 with a 3.65 ERA in the first half. He dropped to 4-7 with a 4.56 in the second half overall and 1-4 with a 6.05 ERA in his final seven starts.

Being skipped in the postseason is common for Marquis. He has been with a playoff team in all 10 years of his career but has made only three postseason starts, none since 2004.

"I think the first two-thirds of the season were exceptional," Tracy said of Marquis earlier in the series. "Right now, he's not throwing the ball in the same manner. This is a performance-oriented business."

Amazing. Just four months after pitching himself onto the all-star team, Jason Marquis has reverted back into, well, Jason Marquis. Sure makes me think that the first 4 months of the 2009 season were simply a fluke for Marquis.

If Marquis was able to finish out the season strong and combine that with a decent/strong postseason, then there's no doubt that he would have been one of the top starting pitchers on the market this season. In fact, just a few weeks back, I projected Marquis to be in the 3 year/$24 million dollar range as a free agent this offseason.

Now, when you take into account that Marquis struggled down the stretch and now he's pitching out the bullpen, is it realistic to think that Marquis can still get $8 million per season?

Past history says yes. Marquis somehow got a 3 year/$24 million dollar contract after the 2006 season from the Cubs even though the Cardinals left him and his 6+ ERA off the playoff roster.

But the market has changed drastically from 2006 to now. And unfortunately for Marquis, that might signal that his free agent value will drop further in the coming weeks.

Thoughts?

(Jorge Says No! on Facebook)

(Follow Jorge Says No! on Twitter)

Stupid Idea: Trade Jonathan Papelbon!

Now that the Red Sox have been eliminated in painful fashion, let the panic trade rumors begin! First up, yesterday's goat Jonathan Papelbon:

"In the wake of Boston's 7-6 loss to Los Angeles in the ALDS, message boards and Twitter feeds everywhere wondered if Papelbon had thrown his last pitch in a Red Sox uniform. Over on Fox Sports, Ken Rosenthal suggested that Papelbon would be the one to take the fall for his team's quick playoff exit.

Trading an elite relief pitcher who just saved 38 games with a 1.85 ERA during the regular season would seem to be the type of reaction easily dismissed as a knee-jerk notion made in the heat of of a disappointing loss.

But the truth is that the idea has been quietly discussed by the members of Red Sox Nation for some time now. Papelbon still has two years of arbitration remaining before free agency and he was just awarded $6.25 million in 2009, a record for a pitcher. The thinking in New England circles is that GM Theo Epstein could command a decent trade package for Papelbon in the offseason and Billy Wagner(notes) could fill the 2010 closer's job at a cheaper rate.

Daniel Bard(notes), meanwhile, will get more experience to be Boston's future fireman."

The idea to trade Papelbon this offseason is just flat out dumb. I know Red Sox fans are pissed off about the ALDS and how game 3 ended, but trading Papelbon is not the answer.

Firstly, there is already an absurd number of closers out there on the free agent market. Why would any team pay a premium price for Papelbon when there are so many effective lower cost options available (Kevin Gregg, Jose Valverde, Mike Gonzalez, Rafael Soriano)?

In addition, one of the ideas why the Red Sox would trade Papelbon is because his salary is becoming too exorbitant. Papelbon earned $6.25 million this season and will be due another raise in arbitration this winter. But lemme ask you this: what team out there is willing to pay a closer between $8-$10 million annually?

The Phillies owe Brad Lidge $23 million over the next two seasons. Cross them off the list.

The Mets, Yankees, Angels, Dodgers, Giants, Twins, White Sox, and Cardinals all have closers under contract for 2010. Cross them off the list.

The Cubs will have VERY limited payroll flexibility this winter. A deal for Papelbon might be out of their financial capability.

And does it make any sense for a team with a limited payroll (below $70-$80 million) to spend around $10 million plus prospects on a closer? No. So cross the Orioles, Rays, Padres, Diamondbacks, etc. off the list.

The only team I can think of that would be a logical destination is the Tigers, but do the Red Sox really want to trade Papelbon to one of their AL rivals? In addition, what "impact bat" can the Tigers send the Red Sox way for GM Theo Epstein to justify trading his closer?

Finally, remember just how good Papelbon was this season. Sure this was his down season, but his numbers were still gaudy and impressive: 38 saves with a 1.85 ERA. You can't tell me that the Red Sox would be better off in 2010 without that kind of production in their bullpen. And before yesterday, Papelbon had not allowed a SINGLE RUN in the postseason! This guy is a top-3 closer in baseball and the Red Sox are lucky to have him on board (even with all his antics). Sure Daniel Bard might be an effective closer and Billy Wagner might provide a good option for 2010, but neither of those guys are in Papelbon's league right now.

Thoughts?

(Jorge Says No! on Facebook)

(Follow Jorge Says No! on Twitter)

Yorvit Torrealba: Free Agent Stock Rising?

Will the real Yorvit Torrealba please stand up?

"With a strong finish to the regular season and a surprise home run in Game 2 of the National League Division Series, Rockies catcher Yorvit Torrealba found himself with a more prominent role for Sunday night's Game 3.

Manager Jim Tracy moved Torrealba to the No. 5 spot in the order, after batting him sixth in the first two games of the series with the Phillies, which is tied at a game apiece. Torrealba entered Sunday hitting .500 (3-for-6) in the series, with a two-run homer in Thursday's 5-4 victory. It was Torrealba's first homer since early May.

Torrealba hit .313 during the Rockies' strong September push to the playoffs. Torrealba, who supplanted Chris Iannetta as Colorado's No. 1 catcher in August, finished the season with a career-best .291 average, two home runs and 31 RBIs."

It's hard not to be thrilled for Torrealba considering all that he's been through this season with his son. His performance in the second half of the season was nothing short of inspiring and in a season where Torrealba had every excuse to put up crappy numbers, he's put up the best offensive numbers of his career. How 'bout that.

So what does the future hold for Torrealba? After this season, Torrealba, 31, has a mutual option with the Rockies for $4 million. Considering how Torrealba has performed this season, it would not surprise me to see the Rockies pick up their end of the option. Then again, can the Rockies afford to pay $4 million to a guy, who before this season was nothing more than a solid defensive catcher with limited ability at the plate.

As for Torrealba...can he get more on the open market if he turns down the option (assuming that the Rockies pick it up)? I doubt it. Even though the free agent market is painfully weak for catchers and Torrealba is coming off the best offensive season of his career, his 2009 sample size at the plate is simply too small to warrant a much bigger contract. In all likelihood, Torrealba's 2009 season is simply a fluke.

Then again, never doubt the impact of a big postseason on the open market. Keep it up, Yorvit.

Thoughts?

(Jorge Says No! on Facebook)

(Follow Jorge Says No! on Twitter)

Advertise On Jorge Says No!

Would you like your product or business exposed to baseball fans all over the United States?

If so, contact jorgesaysno@gmail.com to learn more about advertising on Jorge Says No!

Free Agent Previews!

I'm interested to hear your thoughts and opinions on our free agent previews so far. So if you would, please take a look at the players we've highlighted so far and chime in the comments section. More to come!

• Adrian Beltre (?????)

• Chone Figgins (4 years/$44 million)

• Felipe Lopez (4 years/$30 million)

• Hank Blalock (1 year/$4.5 million)

• Jim Thome (1 year/$8.5 million)

• Mark DeRosa (3 years/$24 million)

• Miguel Tejada (2 years/$12 million)

• Nick Johnson (3 years/$18 million)

• Orlando Hudson (3 years/$20 million)

• Russell Branyan (2 years/$15 million)

• Jason Bay (5 years/$75 million)

• Matt Holliday (7 years/$110 million)

• Bobby Abreu (2 years/$22 million)

• Hideki Matsui (2 years/$16 million)

• Johnny Damon (2 years/$22 million)

• Benjie Molina (2 years/$6 million)

• John Lackey (5 years/$80 million)

• Doug Davis (3 years/$27 million)

• Erik Bedard (1 year/$7 million)

• Rich Harden (2 years/$18 million)

• Randy Wolf (3 years/$31 million)

• Rafael Soriano (3 years/$24 million)

• Mike Gonzalez (2 years/$12 million)

• Jose Valverde (3 years/$27 million)

Thoughts?

Free Agent At the End of the Season: Mike Gonzalez

Let's take a look at the upcoming free agency of left handed relief pitcher Mike Gonzalez:

The Case for Gonzalez

-left handed

The mere fact that Gonzalez is a power lefty makes him much more valuable on this market. Billy Wagner and Mike Gonzalez are in exclusive company as free agents.

-strikeouts

Gonzalez is a pure strikeout pitcher. Aside from two seasons (2003/2007), Gonzalez's K/9 rate has been at least 10 in every season. Wow. And this year, Gonzalez's K/9 is 10.9 and he's struck out 90 batters in just 74 innings. When he's on, Gonzalez is lights out.

-Closer?

Baseball people have always thought that Gonzalez had the stuff to be one of the top closers in baseball. Even though he's been unable to prove himself aside from 24 saves in 2006, Gonzalez still has fantastic stuff that could make him an attractive option in the ninth inning.

The Case against Gonzalez

-Closer?

For years I have thought Gonzalez was the next great closer in the National League. Well, that never happened. At this stage in his career, Gonzalez is 32 years old and you have to wonder if he'll ever become a top flight closer.

-Injuries

Gonzalez missed a majority of the 2007 season and most of the 2008 season because of Tommy John Surgery. The key to Gonzalez's success is keeping him on the field, but at this point, Gonzalez has to be considered a little risky.

-Righties

Incredibly, right handed hitters hit .340 against Gonzalez this year. That number has to make you wonder if Gonzalez has a future as a close.

Competition

There are plenty of relief options available this winter. Between Kevin Gregg, Rafael Soriano, Jose Valverde, Rafael Soriano, etc; there are a number of options for teams to choose from. When it comes down to left handed closers, there are only two options: Gonzalez or Billy Wagner. Both guys have dealt with major arm injuries in the past few seasons, but Gonzalez is younger and could command more than a one year deal.

Elias Ranking: Type A

Gonzalez earned $3.4 million this season, so it makes total sense for the Braves to offer Gonzalez arbitration. Considering his production this season, Gonzalez would be well worth the $6-$7 million (or so) that the Braves would pay Gonzalez in 2010 after arbitration. And even if Gonzalez walks, the Braves still get the two high draft picks.

Will Gonzalez's type A status prevent teams from going after him?

Prediction

(2 years/$12 million)

Here are some comparable contracts:
-Juan Cruz (2 years/$6 million)
-Kyle Farnsworth (2 years/$9 million)
-Brian Fuentes (2 years/$17.5 million)

According to fangraphs, Gonzalez was worth $4.2 million dollars this season, but I anticipate that Gonzalez will earn more than that on the open market. Do you think Gonzalez will get a three year contract on the open market? I'm undecided. For now, I'll go with two, but it would not surprise me to see him get a deal anywhere in between 1-3 years.

Thoughts?

(Jorge Says No! on Facebook)

(Follow Jorge Says No! on Twitter)

The Mets, John Lackey, and the Johan Santana Philosophy

The Mets need a top flight starting pitcher. John Lackey is the only TRUE top flight starting pitcher on the free agent market. Match made in heaven?

"People around the Angels believe Lackey is likely to go elsewhere, mainly because the Angels won't be willing to pay his asking price. In fact, some are convinced their deal for lefthander Scott Kazmir in August made Lackey's return all the more unlikely, with Kazmir due some $20 million over the next two years.

It's fair to ask how much is too much for Lackey. On the disabled list with a forearm strain, he didn't make his first start until May 16. He wound up 11-8 with a 3.83 ERA, and he'll be 31 later this month.

But as one AL scout said of Lackey yesterday, "He's good and he's tough. From what I know about the Mets, Lackey's a guy who could make a difference there."

Lackey would be an interesting fit in New York. He tends to speak his mind, even if it means taking swipes at teammates. It hasn't been much of an issue in laid-back Southern California, but one local reporter said, "It would be in New York."

As a Met fan myself, I would love to have Lackey aboard. He would be a fantastic compliment to Johan Santana and significantly upgrade the Mets rotation. With all the questions about the Mets' 2010 payroll, it remains to be seen what kind of payroll they can afford to take on. No matter how much money the Mets have at their disposal, signing John Lackey command a significant portion of that money.

At the same, I hope the Mets proceed this offseason with a touch of cautiousness and a whole lot of sensibility. The reality of the Mets right now is that they need much more than just one player if they are going to be a contender in 2010. Even if the Mets sign John Lackey, that will not be enough. They need more pieces.

Hopefully, the Mets have learned from the 2007 offseason. Sure the Mets hit the homerun by picking up Johan Santana, but many other areas that needed upgrading were simply not dealt with. It was as if the Johan Santana deal was supposed to cover up the various deficiencies that eventually plagued the 2008 Mets. If the 2010 Mets are going to make noise, then Omar Minaya needs to build the best 25 man roster possible, not just have six all world players surrounded by a mediocre supporting cast.

So if the Mets have enough money to make a strong play at John Lackey, then I'm all for it...as long as they have enough resources left to adequately fill the team's other needs. But if the Mets only have $15-$20 million to work with, then it makes sense to pass on Lackey and upgrade elsewhere.

Thoughts?

(Jorge Says No! on Facebook)

(Follow Jorge Says No! on Twitter)

Nelson Cruz to the Braves?

The Braves are still looking for a right handed power hitter. How's this idea? Nelson Cruz to the Braves:

"Anyway, here’s a name that I think will come up next week: Rangers outfielder Nelson Cruz. Yes, the guy that our own Coach (of the blog, or at least he used to be, haven’t seen him around much lately) suggested Cruz as the answer a year ago. If the Braves had traded for him instead of signing Garret Anderson, hey, they’d have probably been a better team. But the same could be said for Bobby Abreu and other relatively low-cost options).

But anyway, Cruz is right-handed and hit .260 with 33 homers, 20 stolen bases and an .856 OPS in 128 games, and while his .931 OPS at hitter-friendly Arlington was a lot higher than his .778 on the road, he hit almot as many homers (15) on the road than at home (18) in virtually the same number of at-bats.

True, he hit far better against righties (.270 with .898 OPS and 26 homers in 330 at-bats) than against lefties (.235 with .752 OPS and seven homers in 132 at-bats), but I doubt that would sway the Braves either way, if they’re interested. Sometime it’s just a matter of a team wanting a big right hitter up there to make the other team think about it, to break up a bunch of lefty hitters, or vice-versa. And he’s a big dude, a specimen. And the Rangers might have an extra outfielder or two a willing to part with him in a trade. Might."

From the Braves perspective, there's lots to like about Cruz. He's a young, cheap power hitter, who's not eligible for arbitration until after the 2011 season. If the Rangers ever made Cruz available, I'm sure the Braves would be banging on their door trying to acquire him.

But here's the thing: who exactly would the Braves be prepared to part with in order to acquire Nelson Cruz? Young power hitters don't exactly come cheap. I'm sure the Rangers would be looking for premium, young, major league ready pitching in return. In addition, Cruz was one of the few bright spots in the Rangers lineup this season, which makes it even less likely that the Rangers will look to deal him.

Because the Braves have a surplus of starting pitchers, GM Frank Wren's goal seems to turn one of those starting pitchers into a big bat. Out of the six starters the Braves have right now, only two of them fit the mold of what the Rangers should (and would) be looking for: Tommy Hanson and Jair Jurrjens.

And I'll just say it right now, there's not a chance in hell the Braves trade either one of them.

So while the idea of Nelson Cruz to the Braves sounds good, I seriously doubt that it could happen. There's simply not enough incentive for the Rangers to trade Cruz unless they're overwhelmed with an offer they can't refuse.

Thoughts?

(Jorge Says No! on Facebook)

(Follow Jorge Says No! on Twitter)

Free Agent at the End of the Season: Rafael Soriano

When you think of dominant closers, Rafael Soriano is generally not a name that comes to mind. However, if Soriano is able to consistently put up big numbers like he did in 2009, then he will have to be in the discussion. When Soriano is healthy, he's a fantastic relief pitcher. But like so many other relief pitchers, Soriano has battled injuries throughout his career, which have stunted his progress.

Let's take a look at Rafael Soriano, the free agent:

The Case for Soriano

-2009

Soriano really came into his own this season. Simply put, Soriano was lights out this season. Soriano saved 27 games, produced a very respectable 2.97 ERA, and a WHIP of 1.097. He proved that he could be not just a very good relief pitcher, but a potentially dominant closer.

-strikeouts

Soriano's strikeout numbers this season were simply ridiculous. Soriano struck out 102 batters in just 75.2 innings and set a new career high by striking out 12.1 hitters/9 innings. Strikeouts are a great indicator of just how dominant Soriano can be when he's healthy.

The Case against Soriano

-Injuries

Soriano's injury history is very concerning. Soriano missed most of the 2004 and 2005 seasons after undergoing Tommy John surgery. In 2008, Soriano missed most of the season because of elbow surgery. Soriano's injury history makes him a risky bet to stay healthy consistently.

-Closer?

2009 was the first year that Soriano has been a full time closer so the question has to be asked: does Soriano have the goods to be a full time closer or was 2009 just a fluke?

Competition

There are lots of closers on the market this offseason, but when you talk about the top closers, there are only two names that stand out: Rafael Soriano and Jose Valverde. When Valverde is on, he's dominant. When Soriano is on, he's dominant. So what will separate these two? In my opinion, Soriano's injury history makes him the riskier choice, even though he's younger. Both guys will get paid, but I expect Valverde to make a little more than Soriano.

Elias Ranking: Type A

My guess is that the Braves will offer Soriano arbitration. Soriano made $6.1 million in 2010 and would be due for a pretty nice raise in arbitration. Even though the Braves might feel uncomfortable paying Soriano $8-$9 million next season, the odds are high that Soriano would not accept the offer and would receive a long term contract elsewhere. If Soriano comes back, then great. If not, then the Braves can at least assure themselves of another two top draft picks.

(h/t mlbtr)

Prediction

(3 years/$24 million)

Here are some comparable contracts:
-Francisco Rodriguez (3 years/$36 million)
-Brian Fuentes (2 years/$17.5 million)
-Kerry Wood (2 years/$20 million)

Fangraphs says that Soriano was worth $9.1 million this season, which seems about right when we're discussing his value on the free agent market. Soriano might not be the premier closer in baseball, but he has the stuff to become one of the best.

Thoughts?

(Jorge Says No! on Facebook)

(Follow Jorge Says No! on Twitter)

Hypothetically Speaking: Would You Trade Corey Hart for Kenshin Kawakami?

As we all know by now:

-The Braves need a big bat to compliment Brian McCann and Chipper Jones in the lineup. They have a surplus of starting pitchers to part with because of the emergence of Tommy Hanson.

-The Brewers need a frontline pitcher to pair with Yovani Gallardo in 2010 if they have any chance of making the playoffs

With those needs in mind, let's make a deal.

Here is the (hypothetical) offer on the table:

Braves trade Kenshin Kawakami to the Milwaukee Brewers for OF Corey Hart

Would you do it? Let's lay out the pros and cons for each side:

Why the Braves would do it:
-acquire the big bat they've been searching for
-get rid of their surplus of starting pitchers
-Corey Hart is under team control until after 2012

Why the Brewers would do it:
-Kawakami gives them a front line pitcher to pair with Gallardo
-good price: 2 years/$13.3 million remaining on deal
-don't have to deal Prince Fielder to acquire a quality pitcher
-Not taking on too much salary in 2010 or 2011 (Hart will make around $4 million in 2010 and probably will see a raise in 2011 compared to $6.6 million for Kawakami in 2010 and 2011)

Why the Braves wouldn't do it:
-Is Corey Hart simply Jeff Franceour 2.0?
-Will Corey Hart help solve their offensive woes?

Why the Brewers wouldn't do it:
-Do they really want to part with Corey Hart?
-Who would replace Corey Hart in RF?

Conclusion

This is a tough one for the Brewers. On one hand, they would get a very good starting pitcher, which they covet. But on the other hand, I don't think moving Corey Hart would be a popular move with the fan base. Hart had a down year in 2009, but he is a premium talent and those aren't easy to give up on.

So I'll ask again: would you make this deal? Does this make sense...?

Thoughts?

Thoughts?

(Jorge Says No! on Facebook)

(Follow Jorge Says No! on Twitter)

Brian Moehler: Am I Missing Something Here?

The Astros have picked up Brian Moehler's option for 2010 for $3 million dollars. Wait, what?

The Astros informed Brian Moehler today that they plan to pick up their portion of the mutual option they hold on the righthander for 2010.

Moehler, who had right knee partial lateral meniscectomy to remove loose particles from his knee Monday, has the right to decline the $3 million contract. The Astros had until the fifth day after the World Series to exercise the option or pay Moehler a $250,000 buyout. If he declines, then he doesn’t get the buyout.

Moehler was 8-12 with a 5.47 ERA this year.

“We informed Moehler today that we want to pick up his option,” Ed Wade said. “He has the right to decline. We’re optimistic that Brian is going to be back with us next year.”

I don't even know where to begin with this one. This move is baffling for many, many reasons.

1. Moehler isn't a good pitcher
-It's not like the Astros are paying Moehler for pitching well in 2009. Quite the contrary, actually. Moehler's numbers were pretty bad in 2009 (5.47 ERA/ 1.54 WHIP) and there was absolutely no reason for the Astros to jump at the opportunity to pick up his option this quickly. This guy is a borderline 5th starter in the majors, at best.

2. Moehler is old
-The Astros were the oldest team in baseball this season and NEED to get younger. Brian Moehler will not help the Astros get any younger. By the time the 2010 season opens, Moehler will be 38 years old.

3. $3 million dollars!
-It's been well documented by now that the Astros are looking to cut payroll. If that's really the case, then how can they justify spending $3 million on a soon to be 38 year old coming off a terrible season? I know the amount of money is rather small, but I can think of so many better ways for GM Ed Wade to spend that money. And if Ed Wade is serious about cutting payroll, then he needs to be responsible with budget decisions, which means not giving out $3 million to below average starting pitchers.

So if you can think of a logical reason why this deal makes sense for the Astros, I'd love to hear it. I have a very tough time thinking that Brian Moehler was the best the Astros could do for $3 million dollars. Way to go, Ed Wade.

Thoughts?

(Jorge Says No! on Facebook)

(Follow Jorge Says No! on Twitter)

The Rays Refuse to Pick Up a Closer

Rays fans, get ready for a closer by committee in 2010!

"Rays vice president of baseball Andrew Friedman said he expects the Rays to break camp next spring with the old closer by committee.

His reasoning? The Rays simply can’t afford someone like Billy Wagner, the former Astros, Phillies and Mets closer now serving as the Red Sox set-up man.

“I think there’s kind of a misnomer out there that we don’t believe in having someone that can lock down a game,” Friedman said Tuesday at Tropicana Field. “It’s just that when we get into our roster construction and allocating of resources, it’s very difficult for us to allocate a huge amount of money for someone who pitches 70 innings a year.”

Friedman added, “We can’t make any moves in a vacuum.”

I understand Friedman's logic here. The Rays have a limited payroll and ultimately, some area of the team is going to suffer. Closers are a very overpriced commodity (outside of Joe Nathan, Mariano Rivera, etc.) and the save is the most overrated baseball statistic. It seems logical to think that a effective closer can be found on the cheap in 2010 if the Rays have some luck.

However, if there was ever an offseason where the Rays could find a closer on the cheap, it would be this offseason. The reason? There's so many guys on the market who have closing experience. Take a look:

-Billy Wagner
-Rafael Soriano
-Mike Gonzalez
-Fernando Rodney
-Jose Valverde
-JJ Putz (*option)
-Brandon Lyon
-LaTroy Hawkins
-Kevin Gregg
-Danys Baez

By my count, there are 10 free agents this offseason, who have closing experience. There are not ten teams in baseball that are in need of a closer. The price tag on some of these guys is bound to fall as the market for closers becomes colder. To me, that would be the ample opportunity for Friedman and the Rays to jump in and acquire a closer at a price that fits within their budget.

No one expects the Rays to sign a closer to a big money contract. That'd be foolish. But how about signing JJ Putz (if he becomes a free agent) to a one year pact with a low base salary and some nice incentives? A move like that could catapult the Rays to the top of the AL East if Putz is healthy and productive. That seems like a good risk to me.

Thoughts?

(Jorge Says No! on Facebook)

(Follow Jorge Says No! on Twitter)

Free Agent at the End of the Season: Jose Valverde

No matter where Valverde winds up this offseason, this 9th inning intro needs to live on. Classic, classic stuff:



So how about Jose Valverde, the free agent? Let's take a look:

The Case for Valverde

-Dominant

Aside from a rough April (5.63 ERA), Valverde has been lights out this season for the Astros. From May through September, Valverde's ERA never exceeded 2.16. In addition, batters only hit .207 against Valverde this season, which is right in line with his career .208 BAA. Those are some pretty impressive stats, right there.

-strikeouts

Since Valverde entered the majors in 2003, he has averaged at least 1 strikeout/IP in every season. This season, Valverde's K/9 rate was the lowest of his career at a very impressive 9.3. These stats show that when he's on, Valverde has the potential to dominate (and average a 95+ MPH fastball), which is exactly what you want in a closer.

The Case against Valverde

-Is he worth it?

In this economy given the vast amount of closers who can be had on the free agent market, is there a team out there that'd be willing to pay Valverde more than $10 million per year?

Competition

-The good: Valverde is seen as the top closer on the free agent market. The bad: the free agent market is littered with quality relief pitchers with closing experience that could represent a cheaper option than Valverde (Soriano, Gonzalez, Gregg, Wagner, etc.)

Elias Ranking: Type A

-In my opinion, the odds are very slim that the Astros will offer Valverde arbitration. Even though his performance this season has been stellar, I doubt the Astros are willing to risk paying Valverde $10+ million in 2010, which would make him one of the highest paid closers in baseball. Then again, the Astros' farm system is so bad that I'm sure GM Ed Wade would love to collect those two draft picks.

(h/t MLBTR)

Prediction

(3 years/$27 million)

Here are some comparable contracts:
-Francisco Rodriguez (3 years/$37 million)
-Francisco Cordero (4 years/$46 million)
-Brian Fuentes (2 years/$17.5 million)

According to fangraphs, Valverde was worth just $3.1 million dollars this season. However, because of his potentially dominant stuff and the ridiculous amount of saves he racked up in 2007 and 2008 (91 total), I have a tough time believing that the market for Valverde will bottom out that much. When you take into account that Valverde is only 30 years old, $9 million a season seems very reasonable. But with that in mind, it would not surprise me to see Valverde's price tag plummet if teams choose to go the cheap route.

Thoughts?

(Jorge Says No! on Facebook)

(Follow Jorge Says No! on Twitter)

Rounding Up 2010 Projected Budgets (so far)

With the regular season coming to a close on Sunday, fans of the 21 (soon to be 22) teams that did not make the playoffs have one saving grace this time of year: 2010. Yes, even though the hot stove is not officially open for business yet, there has been much chatter around baseball about 2010 budgets as teams prepare for the excitement of free agency and trades.

It's fascinating to see which teams are increasing payroll, decreasing payroll, or just standing put in 2010. In an effort to make things as easy as possible for you, the reader, I have compiled a list of quotes stating what the early budget projections are for several teams. Let's take a look:

*********** ************

Baltimore Orioles: "By shedding expiring contracts, the club has dropped approximately $46.6 million from the 2009 payroll. Heading into 2010, they have about $30 million tied up in six players. They'll pay incremental raises to many of their youngsters and will face arbitration hikes with several more. But the payroll will start significantly below what it was in 2009 -- meaning there should be money to tap this winter. So an increase is expected, but the Orioles' 2010 payroll likely won't exceed $75 million."

San Francisco Giants: "Sabean left little doubt that Freddy Sanchez will be the second baseman, whether the club negotiates a multiyear deal or simply picks up his $8.1 million option. The GM said they already have folded Sanchez's salary into their payroll budget, which should hold in the $90 million range."

San Diego Padres: "Padres CEO Jeff Moorad indicated on Saturday afternoon that the team's 2010 payroll would be at least $40 million, which should give Kevin Towers' successor some wiggle room when constructing the roster."

Pittsburgh Pirates: "Coonelly pledged that payroll "will be above the $28 million range" but did not get more specific."

Houston Astros: "The Astros' record payroll of $107 million in 2009 will likely be cut, and $54.5 million is already tied up in four players -- Lance Berkman, Carlos Lee, Kazuo Matsui and Roy Oswalt. Michael Bourn, Hunter Pence and Wandy Rodriguez are due big raises in arbitration, making Wade's job more difficult."

"Our payroll is in all likelihood going to be lower than it was this year," Wade said. "It could be appreciably lower, but we don't know until we sit down and get the actual numbers."

Cleveland Indians: "When the Indians open the 2010 season, they are projected to have a payroll somewhere between $50 million and $60 million, depending on what they do or don't do this offseason."

Chicago Cubs: "the payroll may go up a little, but only because of all the back-loaded contracts. I don’t see Ricketts as a Steinbrenner-type who will spend, spend, spend to fix the team. The Cubs have spent a lot of money the last few years, and most of it was wasted money. They need to spend more wisely this off-season."

New York Mets: "We demand better, we expect better and our fans deserve better," Wilpon said. "Ownership is dedicated to delivering a championship-caliber team. It is our belief Omar and Jerry have the expertise and deserve the opportunity to help us get there. Once again, we'll be providing Omar with one of the highest payrolls in all of baseball to address our needs."

Texas Rangers: The first order of business is to establish a payroll budget. The Rangers were at approximately $68 million in 2009, and Ryan said the club can expect about the same next season despite the occasional vibrations of financial instability.

Arizona Diamondbacks: He (Byrnes) said the club will increase its $73 million payroll."

So for those of you keeping score at home, here are the numbers so far:

Pittsburgh Pirates: $28 million (at least)
San Diego Padres: $40 million (at least)
Cleveland Indians: $50-$60 million
Texas Rangers: roughly $68 million
Arizona Diamondbacks: more than $73 million
Baltimore Orioles: Less than $75 million
San Francisco Giants: $90 million
Houston Astros: Less than $107 million
Chicago Cubs: slight increase from $134 million
New York Mets: Somewhere in the $140-$150 million range

***This post will be updated as more information is released. If you find any budget info for any of the 30 teams around baseball, please email me at jorgesaysno@gmail.com****

Thoughts?

(Jorge Says No! on Facebook)

(Follow Jorge Says No! on Twitter)

Online Casinos Elite

Casino is a popular game across countries. In the previous, players only play land based casino. With the development of technology, there are new way to play casino through Internet. People know it as online casino. Probably, this is the solution to solve distance problem in playing casino. Many people see this phenomena and the impact of this phenomena will be a lot of sites for playing casino online

In this case, players must have guarantee that they are safe in playing it. That’s why also have to be selective in choosing casino online site. Actually, the best thing to get in finding casino online is that the players receive more than just a game. Take OnlineCasinosElite.Com as the example. This site shares the best online casinos based on the bonus and the variation of the games available.

The end of the game will be winning the game. For that reason, online casinos gives the players several useful tricks and tips to play online casino better. To spread their market, they have casino online affiliation program. The comfortableness increased because the players can stay up to date with the latest news about casino online as well as casino online games

Thoughts?

(Jorge Says No! on Facebook)

(Follow Jorge Says No! on Twitter)

Trevor Hoffman: Price Too Steep?

Like so many other baseball fans, I am a huge fan of Trevor Hoffman and I'm thrilled to see him return in 2010:

"Hoffman, who turns 42 next week, had 37 saves and a 1.55 ERA with the Brewers this season, pushing his career saves total to 591, the major league record.

Hoffman will earn $8 million next season, and Hoffman and the Brewers will share an option for another deal in the 2011."

Like I said before, I love Hoffman, but I just dunno about this deal from the Brewers' perspective. I know Hoffman put together a phenomenal 2009 season and is one of the best clubhouse guys in baseball, but there are a number of reasons why I don't like this deal for the Brewers:

1. Allocation of Resources
-The Brewers have a limited budget to work with as is (a budget that may force them to trade Prince Fielder down the road) and spending $8 million on a closer is excessive in my eyes. I know the Brewers have struggled for years to find a competent closer, but if the Brewers' payroll hovers around $80 million next season, then they will be spending 10% of their budget on one relief pitcher.

2. Cheaper options
-The free agent market is littered with guys, who have closing experience and would probably come at a cheaper and more affordable rate than Hoffman (i.e: Kevin Gregg, Mike Gonzalez, Fernando Rodney, JJ Putz)

3. Starting pitching
-The Brewers' focus needs to be on finding quality starting pitching behind Yovani Gallardo if they are going to compete in 2010. Personally, I would have preferred to see the Brewers lock up a starter, who can throw 200 IP every season for $8 million istead of Hoffman.

4. More moves
-Between Mike Cameron's impending free agency, a handful of arbitration eligibles (Hardy, Hart, Bush), and holes at 2b and in the rotation; this move could limit Melvin's financial flexibility moving forward.

If the Brewers had a bigger budget to work with, I don't think I'd mind this deal as much. However, it would have been smart for the Brewers to at least see if there were any cheaper options avaliable so that they could have maximized their limited resources on the diamond.

Thoughts?

(Jorge Says No! on Facebook)

(Follow Jorge Says No! on Twitter)

Ten Free Agents with Lots of Money to make this Postseason

Back in 2005, the Mets signed Carlos Beltran to a staggering 7 year/$119 million dollar contract. Beltran was one of the top players in baseball at the time and could seemingly do it all on the baseball field (hit for power, steal bases, gold glove defense). There's no doubt that Beltran was due for a huge contract, but what cemented his huge contract was his absolutely ridiculous performance in the 2004 playoffs. For three weeks in October, Beltran was the best player in baseball and showcased his immense ability on the biggest stage in baseball. At the same time, Beltran elevated his free agent stock to a price range that exceeded $100 million dollars. Not a bad deal, if you ask me.

So what free agents this season will use their postseason performance as a springboard for free agent riches? Let's take a look at some possibilities:

10. Jon Garland/9. Vincente Padilla

-With Hiroki Kuroda out for the NLDS and possibly longer, the Dodgers will likely be counting on one of these two (or maybe both) to start a game. Both Garland and Padilla have seen their numbers improve dramatically since joining the National League and a good start in the playoffs could lead to a bigger payoff/commitment down the road.

8. Jason Marquis

-For about four months this season, Marquis was one of the top pitchers in the National League. However, his performance has been just terrible. If Marquis can throw together a couple good starts in the playoffs, then teams might feel more comfortable handing him a three year deal.

7. Fernando Rodney* (not officially in the playoffs yet)

-Entering this season, Fernando Rodney was an unknown for the Tigers. Everyone knew that he had electric stuff, but no one knew if he could handle being the Tigers' closer. Despite his 4.33 ERA, Rodney has 37 saves this season and without him, the Tigers bullpen would have been atrocious. If Rodney shows that he can be a productive closer in the playoffs, then I'd expect his pay day to increase.

6. Randy Wolf

-I'm not sure if there's much more Wolf could do to showcase himself in the postseason because his regular season stats were so good. But the pressure is on Wolf, for sure. The Dodgers will be counting on him to be their ace and who knows, if Wolf throws a couple of very good games in the playoffs, I could see his stock increasing.

5. Brett Myers

-Lemme preface this by saying that there's no guarantee that Myers will even be on the Phillies post season roster. But nevertheless, if he makes the roster, Myers could be handed a remarkable opportunity. Despite missing lots of time this season because of injuries, Myers could see lots of action in the Phillies mess of a bullpen this postseason. And you never know, Myers could even see some time as closer for the Phillies. A solid postseason from Myers could lead to the free agent riches that seem questionable at best right now for Myers.

4. Joel Pineiro

-Pineiro has a chance to do something really special this postseason. On one hand, Pineiro has been one of the Cardinals' top pitchers this season and has earned the right to start the 3rd game of the NLDS, but he does not have the pressure of being "the ace" for the Cardinals thanks to Adam Wainwright and Chris Carpenter. I can absolutely see a huge postseason cementing Pineiro's place as the second best starting pitcher on the market.

3. Jason Bay

-If Bay can follow up his stellar 2008 postseason and fantastic 2009 regular season with a quality performance this postseason, then Bay could be setting himself up for a HUGE payday. Can he earn more than Matt Holliday? Probably not. But can Bay earn a $100 million dollar contract? With a great postseason, I wouldn't count it out.

2. John Lackey

-This is Lackey's time to shine. The Angels need him to be their ace and dominate for the next three weeks. A performance like that would do more than just state the obvious-that Lackey is the best starting pitcher on the free agent market-but it would prove to teams that when Lackey is healthy, he can dominate on the big stage like every team wants their ace to do.

1. Matt Holliday

-Can his market value go any higher after his epic two month stretch with the Cardinals? A Cardinals World Championship can go a long way in securing Holliday a deal that far exceeds a total value of $100 million.

Thoughts?

(Jorge Says No! on Facebook)

(Follow Jorge Says No! on Twitter)

The Raul Ibanez Effect?

Last offseason, the Phillies surprised many baseball people by signing Raul Ibanez to a three year contract worth $31.5 million dollars. The signing itself was not surprising (unless you were a huge fan of Pat Burrell), but the amount of years the Phillies were willing to give the 36 year old Ibanez a three year contract.

So far, the results have been great. The Phillies are back in the playoffs for the third straight season and Ibanez, at age 37, has put up some of the best numbers of his career (.274, 34 HR, 93 RBI).

As we look forward towards the 2009 offseason, I can't help but wonder if the Ibanez contract will become the standard for aging, but still productive hitters. Instead of looking for one or two years when the player is clearly past his prime, will agents start looking to get 3 year deals like the one Ibanez got?

This discussion is interesting because there are a number of hitters, who will be free agents this offseason that fit the "aging, but still productive mold" like Ibanez: Johnny Damon, Hideki Matsui, Vladimir Guerrero, Bobby Abreu.

And while all those guys are still productive hitters and pretty bad defensive players (like Ibanez), I can only see one of those guys nabbing a three year deal. And that would be Bobby Abreu. No it's not just because he's been putting up stellar numbers this season, but it's because he and Ibanez share a similar quality that I know teams value (and sometimes overvalue): consistency.

Entering last offseason, Raul Ibanez had played in at least 149 games in every season dating back to 2005 and was showing no signs of breaking down anytime soon. Like Ibanez, Abreu is remarkably consistent. Bobby Abreu has not played in less than 150 games in ANY SEASON SINCE 1998. That level of consistency is amazing.

And I fully expect Abreu to be paid handsomely this summer. Yes, he's 35 years old and will be 36 in March. But is a three year deal out of the question? Absolutely not.

Thoughts?

(Jorge Says No! on Facebook)

(Follow Jorge Says No! on Twitter)

Free Agent at the End of the Season: Rich Harden

Over the course of his career, Rich Harden has been a maddeningly frustrating pitcher. At times, Harden looks like the best pitcher on the planet because he has the stuff to be one of the most dominating pitchers in baseball.

But every year it seems as though Harden's progression is set back by injuries. Since 2005, Harden has spent ample time every year on the DL and and a result, has yet to establish himself as one of the top pitchers in baseball. If anything, Harden is still somewhat of an unknown. Everyone knows that he can be dominant, but can he actually stay on the field long enough to strut his stuff?

How will the market line up for Rich Harden? Let's take a look:

The Case for Rich Harden

-Upside

The best thing that Harden has going for him this offseason is that he has more upside than any other pitcher on the free agent market. Harden has the ability to dominate as evidenced by his 10-2 record last season with an incredible 2.07 ERA and an impressive 1.061 WHIP in 25 starts. That potential doesn't just hint of an ace, those numbers signify that Harden has the ability to a dominant ace.

-Strikeouts

Harden led the league in K/9 this season with a staggering 10.9. That number directly reflects how good Harden can be when he's on. And oh yeah, Harden actually struck out more hitters/9 innings last season: 11.

-age

At 27 years old, there is ample reason to believe that Harden's best years are ahead of him. Harden is just entering his prime years now and is the youngest free agent pitcher on the free agent market.

The Case against Rich Harden

-Health

Rich Harden's numbers on the field are pretty damn good. However, Rich Harden's numbers off the field are downright concerning. Andy by off the field, I'm of course referring to injuries. The reality is this: Rich Harden is injury prone; very injury prone. Take a look at these stats:

-Rich Harden has only started 30+ games once (2004)
-Rich Harden has only thrown 150+ innings in a season once (2004)
-Rich Harden started less than 10 games in both 2006 and 2007
-Rich Harden has spent time on the DL in every season from 2005-2009
-Rich Harden has been on the DL seven times since 2005

Yikes. That's quite the laundry list of injuries.

Teams NEED to proceed with caution when dealing with Rich Harden until he proves he's healthy.

Competition

I'm reluctant to put Harden in the same category as Justin Duchscherer and Erik Bedard, two guys who missed significant time this season because of injury. But I have a tough time placing Harden in the same category as Joel Pineiro, Randy Wolf, or even Jason Marquis because of his injury history and age. So I think Harden goes in a separate category all by himself: "young, effective, and potentially dominating starting pitcher, who has a tough time staying healthy and throwing lots of innings"

Elias Ranking: Type A

It looks like the Cubs have no plans to keep Harden around, but it might actually make some sense to at least offer Harden arbitration. Harden made $7 million from the Cubs this season and would probably be in line for a raise in arbitration of $2-$3 million. That would put his 2010 price tag at $9-$10 million, which is not that outlandish. In addition, if Harden bolts, then the Cubs recoup two draft picks.

But given Lou Piniella's recent comments about Harden, I doubt the Cubs will offer him arbitration and risk bringing him back.

Prediction
(2 years/$18 million)

Here are some comparable contracts:

-Oliver Perez (3 years/$36 million)
-Brad Penny (1 year/$5 million)
-Kelvim Escobar (3 years/$28.5 million)

Harden's health makes him a huge risk. It's hard to imagine any team committing to him long term at this point given his history. With that said, I still expect Harden to be paid handsomely this winter. According to fangraphs, Harden was worth $8.4 million this season and a whopping $20.1 million last season, which again proves that when Harden is healthy, he is a very effective starting pitcher.

Two years seems to be a logical risk for both the team and Harden. For the team, this is a short term commitment that would do minimal damage to the franchise should Harden go down with an injury. For Harden, this deal would give him the opportunity to show teams that he can stay healthy, throw a considerable amount of innings, and become a free agent after the 2011 season when he will turn just 30 years old.

Thoughts on Rich Harden?

(Follow Jorge Says No! on Twitter)

Jose Reyes: It's Come To This

With news breaking yesterday that Jose Reyes has a torn hamstring, I can't help but think how this injury will change the Mets' plans as they head into the offseason. While nothing has been confirmed as of yet, it seems likely that Reyes is destined for surgery to repair the torn hamstring. According to David Lennon, a complete hamstring tear could take between 3-6 months to repair.

But no matter how long the Mets expect Reyes to fully rehabilitate the injury, one thing has become painfully clear: the Mets need to prepare for the 2010 season expecting that Jose Reyes will miss ample time. It's the only way the Mets can protect themselves from the uncertainty that is Jose Reyes.

Hell, even if Reyes is completely healthy at the start of the season, who's to say that Jose Reyes will be the Jose Reyes of 2006-2008?

As uncomfortable and unpleasant as it is to say, the Mets need to go after (free agency/trade) another shortstop for 2010, one who is capable of starting for a extended period of time in case Reyes is out for a long time or if he needs to be spelled.

That means a number of things:

1. The Mets CANNOT rely on Alex Cora in 2010
2. The Mets farm system has no one, who can step in long term right now
3. On top of finding a left fielder, first baseman(?), relief pitching, a power hitter, and some starting pitching; the Mets NEED to add quality shortstop to that list. Omar Minaya is going to have a busy, busy winter.

There are no easy answers for the Mets here. Jose Reyes is one of their cornerstone players, and with his status up in the air, it's another crushing blow for the Mets in what has been one of the most disappointing seasons to date.

Anything the Mets get from Reyes in 2010 should be considered a bonus. So whether its Miguel Tejada, Bobby Crosby, Orlando Cabrera, or trading for another shortstop (Cristian Guzman?); Minaya needs to give the Mets another productive option at shortstop until Jose Reyes fully proves that he's healed.

Thoughts?

(Jorge Says No! on Facebook)

(Follow Jorge Says No! on Twitter)

Pete Rose and Gambling

Did Pete Rose Bet On Baseball?

Over two decades ago, Pete Rose was investigated and subsequently banned from Major League Baseball (and the Hall of Fame) for illegal sports betting. At the time, Pete Rose was the general manager for the Cincinnati Reds. From the beginning, Pete Rose admitted to illegal sports betting on NFL football and NBA basketball games. He also vehemently denied betting on baseball games.

It wouldn't be until years later that the truth would finally come out.

Did Pete Rose Illegally Bet On Baseball?

Authorities never really believed Pete Rose when he said he never bet on baseball games. Through gambling records acquired by investigators, it was shown that payments to bookies continued to be made through the summer months – a time when baseball is the only sport available to bet on. For 15 years, Pete Rose continued to deny any type of illegal gambling. However, in a book released in 2004, Rose finally admitted to betting on MLB games while coaching for the Reds.

Did Pete Rose Bet on the Cincinnati Reds?

While Rose admitted in his book that he bet on baseball games, he did not admit to betting on Cincinnati Reds games. The Dowd Report, a 225-page report that documented the MLB's case against Rose, indicated that it seemed Pete Rose bet on the Reds every time they played a game. In 2007, Pete Rose finally acknowledged that this allegation was true.

However, there is no evidence that Pete Rose ever bet against the Reds. Still, a manager betting on his team to win could cause the manager to make poor decisions regarding the team. In pursuit of money, a manager could ostensibly put in a pitcher who has not rested enough after an injury. Additionally, a manager in poor standing with bookies may be tempted to clear a debt by throwing games.

Will Pete Rose Ever Be Reinstated?

Pete Rose has sought to have the ban lifted on him ever since the ruling first came down. If not for the ban, Rose would almost certainly have been inducted into the Baseball Hall of Fame. However, it is unlikely that the ban will ever be removed as long as Bug Selig is still commissioner.

Thoughts?