2008-2009 Hot Stove Thread

[BERIGAN]

Edwin Jackson for Matt Joyce. Olney seems to think with Price ready to go into the starting rotation, the Rays unloaded an inconsistent pitcher just before his salary triggers kicked in and got a good player in return on the cheap, and that the move frees them up to grab a big name bat in a short-term deal.

Thoughts?

I think that's an excellent move! Clearly Leyland has a problem with younger players...not that Jackson is old, but he's more or less proven. Matt Joyce I thought was about their top prospect, at least ML ready. You guys are loaded with starting pitching, so what can it hurt???

[tkeith]

And you all know my broken record. How about a certian player who had 2472 hits??? 1389 RBIs??? 7 seasons hitting .300 or better? A guy that got more hits than Ozzie Smith, Jim Rice , Jeff Kent, Red Schoendienst, Dwight Evans, Mickey Mantle, Pie Traynor, Ryne Sandberg, Enos Slaughter, and many more.

More RBI's than Johnny Bench, Orlando Cepeda, Brooks Robinson, Johnny Mize, Mike Piazza, Hank Greenberg and many more. 4th on the all time list of RBI's for a switch hitter.

Oh yeah, and he was a catcher as well. 7 straight years he played in 150 or more games(one year he played in 161!!!)

And he wasn't even on the list of players eligiable for the HOF this year! Ted Simmons must have pissed off a lot of folks during his playing days....

I think the way Simmons' production fell off so quickly hurt him (like Rice). Even though he was still knocking in runs after a point, his inability to run and his relegation to being a DH made his decreasing batting average stand out more. He definitely would fall into that Garvey range, excepting that when he was a major offensive force, he was stuck on that mediocre St. Louis team. One other guy I think needs to go in is Jack Morris. His high ERA works against him, but anybody who saw him pitch knows the real score.

[Chalupa]

Cole Hamels calls Mets "choke artists"

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=3763415

Love it.

[Chalupa]

Hey if you guys want some laughs you should go and read what we all wrote in last year's Hot Stove forum....

http://www.organissimo.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=36886

[Chalupa]

Schmidt: Time to change Hall of Fame entry

http://www.philly.com/philly/sports/35940249.html

[Dave James]

Whoops, they did it again. Yankees have signed A.J. Burnett. Things seem to be coming together nicely. And, it's still early.

Up over and out.

[Dan Gould]

Whoops, they did it again. Yankees have signed A.J. Burnett. Things seem to be coming together nicely. And, it's still early.

Up over and out.

Its not early, unless Cashman is lying through his teeth, he is done. If they add Cameron, and considering the younger players to assign salaries to, they are at 190 million dollars. Will they go to 210+ to get Teixeira?

I don't think so, and that will be the long-term failure remembered from this offseason.

Burnett is brittle, known to be a head-case, and only excels during "walk years". Yeah, sure, he may put it together a couple of times over the course of this contract. And maybe - maybe - the offense comes through.

But the reality is that last season the pitching improved, the offense was a big drag. Now they've got Posada and Matsui being counted on, at the age of 35+ and with major injuries? Jeter is declining, and the replacement for Abreu/Giambi is Swisher who only manages to replace on the basis of OBP and is only one guy.

The smart play for the Yankees was to sign Sabathia and Teixeira. Get Sheets on a short-deal and keep Pettitte for another year. Now you've signed the best pitcher and the best hitter available, and you've bought time to determine what you truly have in the category of young pitching.

You better pray that Sabathia does walk in three years, or soon you'll have the rare daily double of an aging rotation to go with an aging lineup (Jeter in his late 30s won't be pretty).

[Dave James]

I guess I'd rather roll the dice than stand pat. I agree that the Yanks are also in need of some offensive punch, but if you buy into the fact that their stated goal prior to free agency was to bolster the starting rotation, then this can't be anything other than a mission accomplished. I agree that Burnett is a roll of the dice health-wise, but the word is that last year was sort of transitional both in terms of maturation and becoming more of a pitcher than a thrower. Also, according to Hank Steinbrenner, they aren't done. What that means or if it means anything at all remains to be seen.

Up over and out.

[Dan Gould]

I guess I'd rather roll the dice than stand pat. I agree that the Yanks are also in need of some offensive punch, but if you buy into the fact that their stated goal prior to free agency was to bolster the starting rotation, then this can't be anything other than a mission accomplished. I agree that Burnett is a roll of the dice health-wise, but the word is that last year was sort of transitional both in terms of maturation and becoming more of a pitcher than a thrower. Also, according to Hank Steinbrenner, they aren't done. What that means or if it means anything at all remains to be seen.

Up over and out.

I wouldn't put it past them to break the bank and go all-out for Teixeira. It would prove them to be hypocrites and liars but that's their M.O. anyway. But I suspect that Hank is referring to making choices between Pettitte/Sheets and possibly Lowe.

[Chalupa]

I guess I'd rather roll the dice than stand pat. I agree that the Yanks are also in need of some offensive punch, but if you buy into the fact that their stated goal prior to free agency was to bolster the starting rotation, then this can't be anything other than a mission accomplished. I agree that Burnett is a roll of the dice health-wise, but the word is that last year was sort of transitional both in terms of maturation and becoming more of a pitcher than a thrower. Also, according to Hank Steinbrenner, they aren't done. What that means or if it means anything at all remains to be seen.

Up over and out.

I wouldn't put it past them to break the bank and go all-out for Teixeira. It would prove them to be hypocrites and liars but that's their M.O. anyway. But I suspect that Hank is referring to making choices between Pettitte/Sheets and possibly Lowe.

Hank is already on the record saying that they would go after Sabathia, Burnett, and Lowe.

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=3703112

I think they'll go after(and get) Lowe and Teixeira.

Edited December 13, 2008 by J.H. Deeley

[Dave James]

I'm hearing that Texiera is still in play when it comes to the Yankees. The fact that the Angels eight year offer is still on the table tells me that Texiera sees himself as still being in play as well. While in the end, I expect him to resign with the Angels, it ain't over 'til it's over. The backup plan for the Yanks is...hold onto your hats...Manny. Lowe, Sheets and Petitte also remain in the mix. Like I said yesterday, they aren't done.

Up over and out.

[tkeith]

In the meantime, the talking heads of the sports world keep mentioning that the Skanks will "actually have a lower payroll this year." That does not speak to any sort of restraint or management on their part, it merely underscores how ridiculous their past spending has been. I predict they will bankrupt that franchise, and I can't wait. They've held up the city for tax-free bond money and repeatedly demonstrated a mercenary nature that is NOT good for the game (even worse than Boston and the Mets). No matter, I'll call it now -- the Skanks will not win shit in 2009. Burnett will not win 10 games and over the live of this contract will look more like Carl Pavano than the guy who won 18 games in Toronto last year. Whoop it up Skanks fans, your team has just set the advances in contract negotiations back 10 years. On the bright side, that bubble will soon burst -- baseball is not bullet proof, so I say, bring it and kudos to you Hank. Wonder if Bud Harrelson and Rick Cerone are willing to start another league up.

[zen archer]

In the meantime, the talking heads of the sports world keep mentioning that the Skanks will "actually have a lower payroll this year." That does not speak to any sort of restraint or management on their part, it merely underscores how ridiculous their past spending has been. I predict they will bankrupt that franchise, and I can't wait. They've held up the city for tax-free bond money and repeatedly demonstrated a mercenary nature that is NOT good for the game (even worse than Boston and the Mets). No matter, I'll call it now -- the Skanks will not win shit in 2009. Burnett will not win 10 games and over the live of this contract will look more like Carl Pavano than the guy who won 18 games in Toronto last year. Whoop it up Skanks fans, your team has just set the advances in contract negotiations back 10 years. On the bright side, that bubble will soon burst -- baseball is not bullet proof, so I say, bring it and kudos to you Hank. Wonder if Bud Harrelson and Rick Cerone are willing to start another league up.

I don't think the Yanks will ever go bankrupt . With the new stadium comes Luxury boxes and TONS of $$$$$$ that the

old Yankee stadium didn't produce.

[BERIGAN]

And you all know my broken record. How about a certian player who had 2472 hits??? 1389 RBIs??? 7 seasons hitting .300 or better? A guy that got more hits than Ozzie Smith, Jim Rice , Jeff Kent, Red Schoendienst, Dwight Evans, Mickey Mantle, Pie Traynor, Ryne Sandberg, Enos Slaughter, and many more.

More RBI's than Johnny Bench, Orlando Cepeda, Brooks Robinson, Johnny Mize, Mike Piazza, Hank Greenberg and many more. 4th on the all time list of RBI's for a switch hitter.

Oh yeah, and he was a catcher as well. 7 straight years he played in 150 or more games(one year he played in 161!!!)

And he wasn't even on the list of players eligiable for the HOF this year! Ted Simmons must have pissed off a lot of folks during his playing days....

I think the way Simmons' production fell off so quickly hurt him (like Rice). Even though he was still knocking in runs after a point, his inability to run and his relegation to being a DH made his decreasing batting average stand out more. He definitely would fall into that Garvey range, excepting that when he was a major offensive force, he was stuck on that mediocre St. Louis team. One other guy I think needs to go in is Jack Morris. His high ERA works against him, but anybody who saw him pitch knows the real score.

I agree his numbers fell fast, but he was a catcher, that happens! Look at Johnny Bench's stats(And no way am I saying he was Bench's equal) His last good year was at the age of 31, but you don't hear anyone hold that against him. And looking at the games he played, looks like he was way overworked as well, though I know he played some first(and perhaps 3rd?) as well.

But, if you are considered the 2nd best catcher during the era of the (arguably)best catcher, doesn't seem like that should hold you back. And it wasn't til the end of Simmons career you started to hear comments about him not being so good defensively. I recall hearing TV folk during the all star game say he(Simmons) should have been the starter, or was the best overall catcher in the game, as Bench was playing less and less. But, as long as Bench was playing, he'd be the starter.

Playing in old Busch Stadium, before the walls were moved in, really hurt Simmons power numbers(I'd love to see the splits home and away, can anyone find them?) 7 years he hit .300 or better(Bench never did in a full season) Oh well, Peter Gammons and Keith Obermann think he's a HOF'er, that should be enought for me! And yes, I'm biased....

Oh, one more thing, check out the fielding stats in the link via Bench's name! Amazing numbers throwing out runners! in 1974, 37 runners stole a base, 35 were caught! When he was 32, 84 bases were stolen, 34 caught.

Doing my best Columbo....Oh, and another thing....yeah, Jack Morris should be in the HOF. I hate him, broke the braves backs twice in the WS, was all about the money it seemed, but pitched best when it mattered. Funny how little you hear about post season performances when people talk about him or Garvey for the hall.

[Dan Gould]

Maybe because post-season isn't the be-all and end-all of a HoF career? Would Billy Williams have gotten in quicker if he had played in the post-season? How about Ron Santo?

Morris may belong eventually but he is very marginal. Blyleven on the other hand is a no-brainer. He played for worse teams, got worse run support, still might have won 300, had the K's and shutouts and was so much better than the rest of the league, as measured by ERA+, while Morris' ERA+ makes him barely better than league average overall. Furthermore I wish I could find it - it might have been at Hardball Times or a Joe Posnanski blog post, but there was an article published in the last couple of months that showed how even Morris' "he won more than anyone else in the 80s" is an arbitrary and ultimately misleading happenstance of time. By a lot of other measures, Dave Steib was at least as good and maybe better.

Then again, there's your answer, Conrad: People talk about his post-season numbers (or don't) because the reality is that in that limited sample size is Morris' best claim to immortality.

[trane_fanatic]

My SF Giants shoulda signed the Iraqi shoe-thrower. He's gotta better arm than anybody in our bullpen. As consolation for missing out on C.C., we get another year of Jack Taschner & Edgar Renteria. Sigh, can you say another fifth-place finish in the NL West, Brian Sabean?

[tkeith]

I wonder how many anti-Morris voters ever saw him pitch live. Morris was the workhorse of some shit teams, and if he'd been used correctly, he might have 20-30 more wins. Blyleven has longevity and that counts. I like Kaat better than either of them overall. Blyleven's propensity for the gopher always irked me. And I've secretly begrudge him for 30 years for netting only 17 decisions for the '79 Pirates despite 37 starts (mind you, he was backed by one of the best bullpens in history and a hook-happy manager).

I'll have to give Simmons another look. I was never all that impressed with his defense, though (that was my position, so I've always been very finicky about D). Still, your point about the effect of Busch Stadium is a good one.

[Quincy]

Playing in old Busch Stadium, before the walls were moved in, really hurt Simmons power numbers(I'd love to see the splits home and away, can anyone find them?)

You rang? Simba's Retrosheet page

Home/Away Slugging % while a Cardinal:

'72 .433/.495

'73 .393/.480

'74 .495/.403

'75 .476/.505

'76 .383/.404

'77 .484/.516

'78 .506/.516

'79 .625/.411

'80 .494/.516

Mostly hurt, though he was a beast at home in '79.

Lifetime at Busch (and this includes his post-Cardinal years):

.294/.360/.459

His lifetime mark at the 3 other plastic parks from that era.

Veteran's .322/.389/.516

3 Rivers .310/.371/.484

Riverfront .307/.348/.533

I reckon the Riverfront #s are helped mightily by shaky staffs.

He feasted on the Cubs.

Wrigley .339/.410/.482

He also had a high average in 75 ABs at Old Comiskey. Quite a bit of cherry-picking going on in the above though if you check how he hit elsewhere.

He had a reputation as not being very good defensively, namely his throwing which for a season or 2 appeared to be sidearm (I think because of a sore shoulder.) However I recall Bill James writing an article (probably in one of the Abstracts or the books that followed) defending his defensive abilities.

Catchers have it hard when it comes to the Hall. Even Gary Carter had to wait for awhile.

Edited December 15, 2008 by Quincy

[Quincy]

I wonder how many anti-Morris voters ever saw him pitch live. Morris was the workhorse of some shit teams, and if he'd been used correctly, he might have 20-30 more wins.

I think plenty of people who don't think he should be in saw him pitch. If anything more saw Morris pitch than Blyleven thanks to increasing TV coverage. There are loads of articles that go deep into why he doesn't belong written by people who saw his whole career such as Bill James. Here's one that addresses the "pitching to the score" defense that's usually mentioned when discussing Morris. If your eyes start to gloss over with this sort of article (and mine do - I used to really get into this kind of stuff but no so much now) then I think one of the key things to glance over are "number of times Morris blew a lead." The pitching while behind is kind of interesting too. He also tended to pitch for good offensive teams btw.

For some part of whether Morris should be in or out depends greatly on how big do you want the Hall to be. If you play the game of "well he's better than Drysdale/Hunter" then that opens up a lot space. Aside from Blyleven/Kaat/Morris then there's Tiant, hell, David Cone...it goes on & on.

I think the thing about Morris is that he had an old-timey mustache and wore a classic old time uniform and pitched in the park that Cobb, Ruth (when visiting), Greenberg played in. If you took a black & white picture of him he looks like he could have played in any era. He was a gruff cuss and like you say, a workhorse. Mussina was a workhorse too. Do you want thoroughbreds or workhorses in you Hall? Both?

And I've secretly begrudge him for 30 years for netting only 17 decisions for the '79 Pirates despite 37 starts (mind you, he was backed by one of the best bullpens in history and a hook-happy manager).

Blyleven's 1979 games

His no decisions were an oddball mix. He had his usual rotten luck of excellent starts (2 runs in 7 innings type of games) along with plenty of early hooks where you'd think he would gotten tagged with a loss but didn't. Oh that Lumber Co.! As you note Chuck Tanner was very hook happy and other then one injury plagued year Bert had more complete games every year until he turned 39.

Somewhere out there is an article about all of the 1-0 and 2-1 games that Blyleven lost but I can't seem to find it. It may be in an BJ Abstract rather than online. If I'm remembering right (and I may not be) it was a real mind blower.

[Dan Gould]

I can't claim to be consistent because saying I don't think Morris belongs implies that I want a "small" Hall but then again I want Jim Rice in because I idolized him growing up.

[tkeith]

Blyleven's 1979 games

His no decisions were an oddball mix. He had his usual rotten luck of excellent starts (2 runs in 7 innings type of games) along with plenty of early hooks where you'd think he would gotten tagged with a loss but didn't. Oh that Lumber Co.! As you note Chuck Tanner was very hook happy and other then one injury plagued year Bert had more complete games every year until he turned 39.

Somewhere out there is an article about all of the 1-0 and 2-1 games that Blyleven lost but I can't seem to find it. It may be in an BJ Abstract rather than online. If I'm remembering right (and I may not be) it was a real mind blower.

Good work! I guess you had an unexpected day off, today!

My last shot at justifying Morris, then I'll shut up. For me, he was always like Dave Stewart was during his great 4-year run: The one guy I did NOT want to see on the mound facing my team. Every time I watched a game where he started against a team I liked, I'd always have the same reaction, "Oh, shit!" I felt that way from 1979 until 1992, and that says a lot about the guy, in terms of how long he was that good. The last time I had that reaction was in the 1991 playoffs against the Braves, which may have been one of the greatest games I've ever seen.

As for Simmons, Busch definitely hurt him, but excepting a couple of years (negated by the two years he hit better there), the difference was not as great as I would have expected; or rather, not great enough to reverse my opinion. I think he falls into that Garvey class.

To me, Dawson is the real travesty. Bill James can write all the articles he wants, but I watched a TON of Expos games, and that guy was something special. The fact that he did what he did on those knees is even more incredible. What irks me is that there are two things that hurt the Hawk: 1) The discovery of OPS as a meaningful stat for the common fan (thus the common reporter), and 2) The fact that he won that stupid MVP trophy for a 6th-place team. It's like the writers are continuing to shaft this guy for THEIR mistake.

Two more travesties: Shoeless Joe and Pete Rose. The Hall isn't about the writers, it isn't about the players, hell, it's not even about the game; it's about the fans. Find me one true baseball fan that doesn't get a stiffy when s/he sees that black-and-white of Pete diving for third base. OH! That's it, I've gotta go rub one out.

[PHILLYQ]

Two more travesties: Shoeless Joe and Pete Rose. The Hall isn't about the writers, it isn't about the players, hell, it's not even about the game; it's about the fans. Find me one true baseball fan that doesn't get a stiffy when s/he sees that black-and-white of Pete diving for third base. OH! That's it, I've gotta go rub one out.

[Quincy]

Good work! I guess you had an unexpected day off, today!

A snow day! They're rare here so the whole town shuts down. You'd think we were southerners or something.

For me, Morris was always like Dave Stewart was during his great 4-year run: The one guy I did NOT want to see on the mound facing my team. Every time I watched a game where he started against a team I liked, I'd always have the same reaction, "Oh, shit!" I felt that way from 1979 until 1992, and that says a lot about the guy, in terms of how long he was that good. The last time I had that reaction was in the 1991 playoffs against the Braves, which may have been one of the greatest games I've ever seen.

Of all things Joe Posnanski wrote something about "the aura." As you'll see he's not a believer.

For me I'm not that anxious to put Morris in the Hall but it wouldn't upset me if he was put in. But I agree with you that Morris was something else to watch. He was intimidating. He was a grouch. He looked great in that Tiger uniform. And yup, he and Stewart are very much the face of AL pitching when I think of that era. (It also reminds me that the NL had better pitching.)

One could field an excellent team with guys from the past 30 years who will likely not make the Hall of Fame yet who were damn good players. How about an outfield of Kirk Gibson, Fred Lynn and Dwight Evans? Mattingly on 1st, Whitaker or Randolph (or White for matter) at 2nd. Trammell at short, Nettles at 3rd...For the NL you could put George Foster in left and Dave Parker in right and go from there. They may not get official recognition (and most shouldn't) but all remembered by fans who around at the time as terrific ballplayers in their prime. And some were more exciting (think of Eric Davis in his prime) then some of the guys in the Hall.

Sorry, I've been babbling. I've been cooped up inside too long.

[BERIGAN]

You rang? Simba's Retrosheet page

....

Yep! Thanks Quincy!!! Verrry interesting.

He had a reputation as not being very good defensively, namely his throwing which for a season or 2 appeared to be sidearm (I think because of a sore shoulder.) However I recall Bill James writing an article (probably in one of the Abstracts or the books that followed) defending his defensive abilities.

It was interesting to look at Bench's and Simmons' fielding numbers. Some amazingly bad WP numbers early in their careers(I think 69 in one year for Bench!!!)

Catchers have it hard when it comes to the Hall. Even Gary Carter had to wait for awhile.

And Carter looked like a bad catcher at the end, cuz he was old! He was very good in his youth. Piazza was never a good catcher, but he sure got worse with age...won't really hurt him come HOF time will it though????

And whither Bob Boone??? He was thought of as a great defensive catcher,(There are some not hit great catching catchers in the Hall) played into his 40's had the all time record for games caught...never hear any HOF talk for him, do you???

[zen archer]

I can't claim to be consistent because saying I don't think Morris belongs implies that I want a "small" Hall but then again I want Jim Rice in because I idolized him growing up.

Jim Rice should be in the Hall .....i found this in response to a fans question :

[Question from fan:] I remember watching you when I was in high school and how they always talked about the strength of your forearms and your bat speed. I also remember an "urban legend" that you could break a bat at the handle just by swinging and flicking your wrists. Any truth to that?

Tom F.

Tyngsboro, MA

[Rice answers:] I did it twice in games. On two separate occasions I broke bats without ever making contact with the pitch and both were check swings. I think one was in Oakland and a curveball started out high and I committed to swing, but when it broke downward on me and I tried to stop my swing I was left just holding the bat handle in my hands.

Now, doesn't that sound like a Hall of Famer?