Who Is The "Chatter From the Bleachers"

Baseball Digest Daily is running a new series titled "Chatter From the Bleachers". The idea, is the writers for BDD are asked to answer two questions on a bi-weekly basis. In the first installment, we were asked the following questions:

1. Who is the best GM in the game right now? Why?
2. Which team will surprise everyone in 2008? Why?

I will leave it to you to check out the answers of my colleagues and I, however I will give you the rationale I used leading up to my answers and explanation.

Question #1:

To me, this question has me wondering, what is it that makes the best GM in baseball? Is it longevity? Not that holding a job for a long period of time means that the manager is succeeding, but has to say something. What about success? And what would one measure success to? That is, could one conclude that Mark Shapiro was more successful building his 2007 Indians then Epstein was in building his 2007 Red Sox?

With all of that in mind, I have several factors that go into making the leagues best GM.

The first is cost per victory (CPV). This is not a be-all, end-all factor; however it is one to consider. That is, the GM who puts together a 100-win roster at $64M is more successful then the GM who put together a 100-win roster at $100M. However each instance must be looked at individually, as there is no way that I could, for example, punish Cardinals GM Mozeliak for giving Albert Pujols a huge contract thus inflating the teams overall payroll. With that in mind, CPV takes into account money wasted (i.e. signing Trot Nixon).

The second is the club’s future. This takes into account a team’s farm system-both in terms of depth and talent-and average age of players.

The third is the GMs trading and signing ‘abilities’. I write a column called Under the Radar where I evaluate bargain deals that were made. GMs who show up here gain bonus points.

I began this by writing about Dan O’Dowd. However, I couldn’t go on. While the man has made an impressive run recently, finally understanding what to do with his players in Colorado, his previous errors are too many and too great to be forgiven.

Question #2:

I am uncertain how much of a limb I am going out on here, after switching back and forth on which team I believe will be the BIGGER surprise. I will begin with my ‘surprise’ team. The Minnesota Twins. Keep in mind, I am not suggesting the Twins will win the Central outright, rather, I am suggesting that the Twins are capable of shocking everyone after losing their #1 Win Share producing hitter and pitcher. With that in mind, I anticipate many experts to predict the Twins to finish in 4^th or possibly even 5^th in their division. However, I have a feeling that with Liriano, a healthy season from Mauer, the addition of Young and a rebound season from Morneau this is a team whom I have as a dark horse to win 85 games.

However, I don't believe the Twins will win the division nor do they have much of a shot at winning the wild card, so no matter how big of a surprise they are; they will fall short of missing the October headlines.

Thus, I can "base my logic on proof".

Also, if you enjoy checking out this feature, why not Hype it Up at Ball Hype?

How to Make a Met Look Foolish

Best Trade EVER

“You know how I know you’re…” making an incredible deal???

When you trade a below league average catcher who is owed just under $10M for the next two seasons and a player who had been “on the trade block for many months”. Even if the Nationals would have received some low level, low ceiling, old prospects, this trade was still essentially a victory for them. However, given the Nats moved Brian Schneider and Ryan Church for Lastings Milledge, the talented and toolsy soon to be 23 year old outfielder and then were then able to turn around and pick up Johnny Estrada makes an incredible move that much more incredible.

Let’s break this deal down from the start…

The Mets moved a reliever whom had about a 50-50 chance to be a contributor to the teams bullpen to the Milwaukee Brewers for Mr. Estrada. This move was made, as per the words of Omar Minaya, because Estrada is a switch-hitting, former All-Star who has been a consistent .300 hitter. Quite high praise from a GM who decided 10 days later they wanted a black hole hitting catcher on the roster as well.

If you are keeping track, when the Mets traded for Schneider they had 3 catchers on the 40 man roster, not one of whom you would consider playing at another position. Given the team had just signed Roman Castro (not to mention overpaying at $2.3M a year)there was no way he was leaving town, so the choice was either recently acquired Schneider or recently acquired Estrada. Both have a rather hilarious ring to it.

To summarize, the Mets moved Milledge, Estrada and Mota for Church and Schneider. Really?

But how much water does that truly hold? Who are these players and why does it matter that Minaya made this move? Furthermore, you may be asking yourself, “Brandon, you still haven’t explained how the Nationals made an incredible transaction?”

Fair enough. As mentioned, the Nationals were looking to move Church, so essentially anything they received for him would have been gravy. Church, who isn’t a terrible outfielder, also is not an imposing OFer and will presumably start the season as the Mets starting right fielder. He has a career 113 OPS+, which according to a study performed by The Hardball Times would make him about 8 points better then the middle of the road right fielder. However, if you decide to look into Church’s split stats, you can see that he has been protected from left handed pitching (891 plate appearances vs. 241). In other words, he hasn’t ever been an everyday player. His OPS+ also sits comfortably at about 25 points less against lefties then against righties. So even if he was given an everyday job, he would be a black hole against south paws. Essentially, the Mets are looking at a player slightly below league average to man RF-nice grab!

Who is this Brian Schneider character? He is a catcher who has been a burden offensively for the last two seasons, which is saying a lot considering how low the bar is for catchers (83 OPS+ vs. 105 for right fielder). However, maybe Minaya signed him to be a defensive presence, figuring that Estrada was not going to hit that much better so the defensive improvements would be worth his while. Schneider, according to The Hardball Times’ defensive Win Share measure (admittedly, this is not the best stat, however there really is not a ‘best’ stat for defensive abilities), has ranked 11^th, 25^th and 6^th over the last 3 seasons. This statistic is a cumulative total, so the rankings are not perfect. Given Schneider has finished 15^th, 18^th and 22^nd in at bats among catchers over this same period of time, it is safe to say Schneider is well above average defensively.

Summary, the Mets acquired a below league average right fielder and an above average defensive catcher. Who put money on the Mets to win the World Series after acquiring those two studs?

I imagine fewer people did that than those who jumped ship after finally losing it with Minaya.

How about what they gave up?

Mota, as I mentioned, was really never much of a factor for the Mets bullpen. He was going to be behind Wagner, Sosa, Heilman, Wise, Sanchez, Smith, Feliciano, Schoeneweis and my personal favorite Burgos-a hard throwing, fearless reliever. Thus, moving him was inevitable, and like the Nationals moving Church, getting anything was about all they could ask. However, Mota is still semi-reliable and netting an Estrada or some low level minor leaguer is better then nothing. That said the Mets essentially got nothing except for a bill in the mail for Estrada and ‘cash’.

Estrada is not an elite catcher. However, he has put together two solid seasons. At $1.25M for 2008, he will do an excellent job of keeping the seat warm while 23 year old Flores takes another season to develop. No one is going to mistake Estrada for the 90s version of Pudge, but for my money-or prospects, I would take him over Schneider. Why? Outside of being an absolute dud with a glove, a catcher can make up for his defensive short-comings with his bat.

The last piece, which I actually have a difficult time believing he was moved for so little, is Milledge. The 22-year-old has been rated as a grade A- prospect in 2006 and a grade B prospect in 2005 (although admittedly low) according to John Sickels. If the grades don’t mean enough, Sickels tosses Milledge up against Delmon Young. The results: Young over Milledge by a hair. Mind you, this was in 2005 as both players were entering their age 20 seasons, but this does not change the fact that Milledge rated as not much worse than the bat-thrower, which I take as pretty high praise.

Entering the 2007 season, Kevin Goldstein at Baseball Prospectus ranked Milledge as the Mets #3 player under age 25. He was rated below the two obvious players (Wright and Reyes), but ahead of Martinez, Humber and Pelfrey, all of whom rated as “Excellent Prospects”.

This is a trade we will look back at in three to five years and wonder exactly what the Mets were thinking. It will be comparable to when the Indians traded Einar Diaz and Ryan Drese for Travis Hafner. The fact that the Nationals were also able to land Estrada for less than 25% of what they were paying Schneider makes this an incredible steal.

I enjoyed how Minaya tried to make up for it with this blunder.

UPDATE - Official Bedard Trade

When news first broke of the Bedard to the Mariners trade I posted my reaction to the trade involving Bedard for Jones, Sherrill and Tillman. The trade has been finally finalized with two more prospects being added, which, in my opinion, greatly shifts the trade in favor of the Orioles. Given the philosophy that with more prospects, there is a greater chance at having one pan out to be a quality major leaguer. That said, it appears as if the Mariners still paid less for two years of Bedard's services then the Mets paid for a year and the negotiating rights of Johan Santana.

Without repeating what I said about Jones, Sherrill and Tillman, I will simply look at the new players the Orioles managed to pull out from the Mariners in the second step of the teams total rebuild.

First of all, the Orioles just received two giant pitchers. One being 6'9" the other being 6'7". While it is doubtful either will make it into the rotation by the time Daniel Cabrera's (6'7") tenure as an O expires, it is quite possible this would be the tallest starting 4 in history-although I don't have anything to back this claim, its simply an assumption.

Kam Mickolio has been converted to reliever since being drafted his second time around in 2006 by the Mariners. Since this time, he has handled his accelerated promotion with ease averaging just under a strikeout per inning even increasing this total along with his promotions.

The move to the bullpen was obviously the smartest move, as Mickolio went from being a terrible starting pitcher in college (3.05, 7.49, 7.98 and 5.30 ERA in 4 seasons). That said, Baseball America writes that Mickolio is an "intriguing arm from the 2006 draft."

First Inning rates Mickolio as a major league ready reliever giving him a 3 out of 5 in strikeouts, control and ground ball percentage.

The second monster the Orioles received is Anthony Butler, the 20-year old 3rd round draft pick. The huge lefty has had moderate success to this point in his professional baseball career, although has been extremely wild, posting a walk per nine innings of 5.10. The MLB average sits under 3.5 so Anthony (also known as Tony) will have to greatly cut back his walks in order to become a quality major leaguer.

Entering the 2007 season, Butler ranked as Baseball Prospectus' #9 left handed minor league starter and as a good prospect. Another report in 2007 calls Butler a "high ceiling" pitcher. Given his size and strikeout rate, it is no wonder experts are excited over the potential that looms.

Over at Seattle PI, Jason Churchill had the following to say after Butler was drafted in the third round,

Butler may be the steal of the entire draft, provided the 6-foot-7 left-hander can harness his stuff on his way up the ladder. He has a fastball that already reaches 93 mph, an above average curveball and a serviceable change-up. If two of his offerings are working, he's a tough customer, but his control is inconsistent. Most scouts see Butler as a No. 2 or No. 3 starter, or a power setup man in the mold of Arthur Rhodes.

Overall, I believe the Orioles made out well in this deal. The club is obviously in a full rebuild mold, understanding that with the current Yankees, Red Sox and Blue Jays clubs, the team will have little ability to compete in the short term. However, with a strong showing in the 2007 draft and the stock piling of high upside low level minor leaguers, the Orioles appear on a path to creating a solid core for 2010-11.

The Mariners did well to hold on to most of their top prospects, not having to surrender 4 of their top 6 in the way the Mets did. The rotation is now set with two legitimate aces in Bedard and Hernandez, along with Silva, Batista and Washburn. With that rotation and the uncompetitive Rangers and Athletics, the Mariners have put themselves in position to push the Angels for the AL West crown. Look for the Mariners to make a serious push to the playoffs and be very active come the non-waiver trade deadline.

Calling Out Mr. Rosenthal

"Ummm, Hello!"

Let me preface this by stating that I actually hope this turns into a series, as it would be interesting and fun to call out an expert and his analyzing skills-or lack thereof. This is not to suggest that I will be calling out the same expert, rather, anyone whom I feel made an erroneous claim.

Also, keep in mind; I am going into this with a great deal of respect for Mr. Rosenthal. A few years back when I was doing research on Barry Bonds, Ken was one of two experts to get back to me when I had questions regarding the subject. He even responded more then once, which I found very impressive given his stature and popularity.

So Mr. Ronsethal, no offense...

BUT, what are you talking about?? On February 2nd, 2008 you posted a blog defending the move the Mets made. Suggesting that this was the best possible move, despite the amount of years, money and prospects invested. Many actually agree with you, not even acknowledging as much as you did in the factor of years. In that, you write, "...then seven years for Johan Santana is stupid. Seven years for any pitcher is stupid...”

However, what are you talking about with this?

“Maybe the Mets could have bid $200 million for Sabathia next winter, but the Indians' oversized lefty is much more of a physical risk than Santana...”

Let us define 'physical risk'. One can assume you are discussing the risk that is attached to the physical nature of a player, i.e. their body. Yes, Carsten Charles is a big boy, no one, not even the big man himself, would disagree with that. Yes, the guy has had a couple 'weight' related injuries. However, few, if anybody say anything about his mechanics and he is yet to have a serious arm injury. So what’s the big deal?

Presumably, Ken, you have made this comment based on speculation. That is, you see his size and figure, 'how can he succeed as a professional athlete?'

However, did you look into this? Did you have anything to base this on?

My guess is that you did not. However, if I left this column simply debating your comment without any backing information, I would be doing what I despise. That is, making unfounded claims and statements. I will, however admit to making mistakes. I have overlooked issues and ideas; I have also erred in calculations. That said; I do my best to ensure that my opinions have at least some ground to stand on.

With that said how is it that the big boy is a 'physical risk'? In 2006 David Gassko at The Hardball Times did a six part study researching the effects size has on ballplayers. He wrote,

“More surprisingly, fat pitchers have much more staying power than any other group. Pitching isn’t really very stressful for most body parts, except for the arm. I think that for big guys there just isn’t as much of a risk of breaking down pitching as there is hitting, running, and playing the field. Think about it: Who would you expect to fall apart first, Curt Schilling or Pedro Martinez? But that being overweight isn’t a detriment is one thing; why is it helpful?”

“One theory would be that some of the pitchers I bunch in as overweight aren’t really fat so much as they muscular. Maybe, but we’re looking at the fattest 15% or so; I doubt that there are enough in-shape pitchers among those to make such a large difference. Furthermore, even if we limit ourselves to the 100 most overweight players, 31 of them make it to 32. Out of the 50 fattest, 15 do. Seven out of the 20 fattest pitchers make it to 32 as well. So again, fat pitchers just have higher survival rates. Why? I don’t immediately know.”

Essentially, there has been a study performed-and over a year prior to your 'physical risk' conclusion-stating that over weight pitchers have little to no greater of a risk then do smaller pitchers. In fact, Gassko suggests that pitchers with smaller builds are more likely to be removed from their role as a starting pitcher. Thus, Gassko concludes, "Because their bodies are more poorly equipped to handle the stress of starting in the major leagues for a long time. It’s no wonder their survival rate is low."

Another interesting quote by Gassko occurs in his conclusion of the series (Part 6). Here he writes, "Given that overweight pitchers also survive for much longer time periods in the major leagues, all else being equal, invest in fat guys."

In April of 2006, the Washington Post ran an article, with the same concluding thoughts. The author quotes then Nationals pitching coach with saying, "If a guy stays aerobically in shape and does all the little things that are necessary, like fielding the position -- which Livan does very well -- I don't see where it really does any harm."

While this is about Livan Hernandez, the basis of this point is to suggest that a pitcher's determination has as much to do with further health issues as does his size.

But maybe, just maybe we can not solely place the blame of the ‘size stigma’ on Ken Rosenthal. If you have read Michael Lewis’ Moneyball you may recall the following, “Brown…has been so perfectly conditioned by the conventional scouting wisdom that he refused to belief that any major league baseball team could think highly of him” (102, 2003). That ‘conventional wisdom’ being Mr. Brown is ‘too fat’. While things certainly have not worked in Brown’s favor, Beane has helped spark the mainstream media’s attention in the stats vs. scouts debate.

It is, however, his fault for not researching.

However, while we are on the topic of injury risks, how about this fact, which I source in my debut article at Baseball Digest Daily. That is, according to Will Carrol at Baseball Prospectus in 2004, "Johan Santana got a thumbs up at his last checkup before spring training. After minor surgery on his pitching elbow to remove a bone chip, Santana has full range of motion and full strength. Bone chips often recur, but over a period of years, not months."

Good news, right? Let’s consider that Rosenthal agrees that signing a long term contract for any pitcher is a foolish decision. Let us also consider that Rosenthal would be more against signing Sabathia then Santana due to the supposed 'risk' of injury. However, does that actually make sense? Given that Santana is at a greater risk of injury due to being smaller, added to the fact that he has a pre-existing condition that tends to recur.


So Mr. Rosenthal. Do you still believe that the Mets made the best and correct decision? I have been certain all along that they did not, and one of your most recent arguments certainly does not suggest any inaccuracies in my claim.

Why I Believe....

The Mets didn't make out so well on the Santana trade...

I understand the Mets will always have money. But when they are locking up $70-75M in three players (Wright, Reyes, Santana) how high can the team go and still turn a profit? The Yankees are said to have lost money in recent seasons despite being far and away the best earners in baseball. The Red Sox, who have one of baseballs biggest markets with DiceK aboard even have a limit. So yes, the Mets can probably get up to $150-170M but that limits the profitability of the club, which, is the REAL name of the game for these owners.

That said, and returning to the $70-75M between 3 players, the team will still need to fill another 22 players on their roster. Given they have NO ONE in the minors, they will essentially be paying market cost. Which is about $3M a true win (a 95 win team made up of free agent players would cost $285M). Lets say the team only brings in 7 such players at about 3 wins apiece, thats $63M. Without even filling half their roster the team has spent $130M.

Again, the smart financial operation to go 'young'. The Sox are paying Manny a premium while Papi is making a pittance. Beckett is still relatively cheap. Crisp, Drew, Lowell, etc are not making premiums at their position-albeit they are for their abilities. Even DiceK, whose international revenues are said to take the place of most, if not all of his signing bonus is relatively inexpensive with that considered. Thus, while the team is spending, they also have a great deal of young 'cheap' talent.


The Yankees are proof of what trying to BUY a World Series does (last WS in 2000). Cashman has learned this and has stood pat in recent years that Cano, Hughes and Chamberlain are untouchable. He knows that if the club is going to have any success, the homegrown talent that carried the team in the mid 90s (Jeter, Pettitte and Rivera) would have to be duplicated two decades later.

In any event. I believe, this deal was good for the Mets. Although I believe that in 3-5 years we are going to be looking at this and seeing 2 league average pitchers whom the Mets will be spending $12-15M a year on (inflation considered), a stud pitcher posting Santana like numbers at a 20th of the cost and a top of the order near all star OFer. However, for the next 2 years or so, the Mets will be looking like they stole from the junior circuit and Santana's salary over that time (about $15M a year) will be an incredible bargain.


Oh and Mr Rosenthals, I know your job is to report rumors and speculation, but please do not claim that alleged offers were factual unless you are willing to put your reputation on the line for it. Also, who is to say that the Twins are better off without one bonafied 'sure thing'? Too much is unknown in baseball, having 4 players who are pretty solid bets outweighs 1 sure thing and 3 chumps.