Milledge Words

You've probably seen this Sports Illustrated article from John Donovan about Nationals' camp. Donovan writes:

No one is getting more attention at this camp than the ever-confident [Lastings] Milledge. The other day he told a New York newspaper, in so many words, that he couldn't wait to kick the Mets' butt. Manager Manny Acta got on him a little for that on Monday.

Good for him. We're rooting for Lastings to kill the Mets because he represents everything the Mets aren't. He is young, he is energetic, he is exciting. The Mets have one guy like that in Jose Reyes, but they are doing all they can to make him less exciting, encouraging him not to do elaborate celebratory handshakes, deemphasizing his obvious role as team leader (along with David Wright). The Mets allow Willie Randolph to enforce a horrible double-standard for his players, where youngsters like Reyes are benched for not running out ground balls but veterans are not, and are even encouraged to create a hostile, pro-veteran environment in the clubhouse. Fuck that bullshit, and fuck the Mets for as long as that lasts. We still want the Mets to win, but aren't going to forgive. The Mets count on their fan base being fluid, easily changing their stupid minds when they trade four promising minor leaguers for the right to sign Johan Santana as a free agent. Well this blogger has not changed his mind. The Mets are really good in 2008, especially if they aren't unlucky to the point of having several key injuries, a good possibility on an old, veteran team, but they are still a very badly-run organization that deserves to be criticized daily by its fan base. Most likely, the Mets will always count on their block-headed, short-term memory having stock of angry, spoiled New Yorkers, and people with our opinion will remain distant, wack-job VORPies howling impotently on unread blogs of ill-repute. But that's not going to stop us.

"A lot of veterans [on the Mets] didn't like the way I play the game. They thought I didn't respect it," Milledge says later in the clubhouse. "But the vets here have no problem with me. They know I respect it. They know I work hard."

And, on his time in New York: "I can't go through anything worse than I went through in New York. It only gets better from here."

Now this kind of thing makes me wonder: how the fuck did David Wright ever become so perfect at dealing with everything? Is he just better at tact and public relations than Milledge and everyone else? What did we ever do to deserve such an awesome player and person as David Wright?

Part of the success of Reyes and Wright, we think, has a lot to do with the fact that they came up during 2003 and 2004, when the Mets were horrible. Even then Willie Randolph managed them moronically, using Reyes as a leadoff hitter and batting Wright seventh (A rookie is a rookie unless he has some speed, then he can bat leadoff. OBP? What's that? Willie Randolph you are a terrible manager and I hate you... ahem), but at least they got to play everyday and the Mets didn't think they had to use the Shawn Greens and Jose Valentins of the world in their place.

So what did Milledge do wrong? He came of age at the wrong time. Sorry, dude.

Photo: AP

Get Off My Lawn

From Baseball Analysts, the youngsters who will make an impact in the 2008 National League Eastern Division:

Washington: RHP Collin Balester, RHP Tyler Clippard, LHP John Lannan
Florida: OF Cameron Maybin
Atlanta: RHP Jair Jurrgens, LF Brandon Jones
Philadelphia: RHP Carlos Carrasco, C Jason Jaramillo
New York:

This is who the Mets are. A team with nothing to renew it but money and image.

96 wins, baby.

I Heard it From a Friend Who... Heard it From a Friend Who... Heard it from Another You've Been Messin' Around

MP of Ketchup on Your Ice Cream points us to this post at Shoot Your Hopes and Dreams:

A friend of a friend (reliable I know) has a friend who is friends with Lastings Milledge. Got it? This friend of a friend who has a friend (herein referred to as "Friend") hung out with Lastings and his crew in South Florida sometime during the holiday season. Friend is a Mets fan and chatted with Lastings about baseball. Lastings informed Friend that his true love was music and that he only played baseball because he was naturally gifted at the sport. Milledge aka LMillz stated that he did not really care for baseball and has no inclination to improve through hardwork, such as watching video of his at bats, shagging extra fungos, or taking additional batting practice. He is content to simply go as far as his talent will take him and that's it.

Whoa. That's some serious shit. Lastings, is this true? It's probably bullshit. But just in case:

Lastings! Your music sucks!

This Deal is Getting Worse All the Time

PECOTA Projections, 2008:
Lastings Milledge, CF: 559 PA, .289/.358/.478, 19 HR, 22 SB, 32.6 VORP, basically free for years

Ryan Church, RF: 494 PA, .268/.349/.472, 18 HR, 6 SB, 24.9 VORP, cheap for 2 years

Brian Schneider, C: 384 PA, .242/.319/.345, 5 HR, 4.4 VORP, $4 million per for two years

Ramon Castro, C: 256 PA, .249/.324/.463, 11 HR, 13.3 VORP

Not only did the Mets trade a younger and cheaper player who will probably outperform his older and more pedestrian replacement despite playing a less offensively demanding position, they acquired a terrible catcher who only serves to block a much better player.

Nice move, Wilpons.

This isn't over. Expect updates all year long.

Grading the Mets, Other Teams

Every off-season we read "grades" like this one by Sports Illustrated's Jon Heyman. We feel bad for the average fan, because these grades are often horribly wrong. This season the Mets are getting stellar reviews all around.

We don't agree with the Mets' score, because we think trading Milledge was absolutely horrible and getting Santana was merely good. We can't call the Santana trade great because the Mets basically signed him as a free agent but gave up four B prospects for the privilege. The over-the-hump factor is considerable, but the Mets had more room for improvement in their offense than their pitching, and actually got worse at the former by bringing back an aging Luis Castillo and trading an above-average outfielder who happened to be only 22 for one of the worst offensive players in the game in Brian Schneider and a merely good outfielder who with giant holes in his swing is already as good as he is going to get. How can the Mets top the list? Because they got the big flashy name. That only works for so long.

We would rank the offseasons of the Tigers, Orioles, Athletics, Diamondbacks and Rays above them. Heyman includes the Mariners in his "grand slam division." We would rank them dead last.

In the middle tier we would put the Cubs and Padres.

We don't know about the Twins, but they're definitely not losers. People who say they are just don't know how to analyze trades or are just to vested to think outside the mainstream.

The biggest example of this is how Heyman grades the Pirates. To him, they've done nothing. In reality, new GM Neil Huntington is completely working over the organization in a process that will take several years. Perhaps Heyman would be more impressed had they signed Carlos Silva and Scott Linebrink?

The big losers are the Mariners, Giants, Astros and Reds. Heyman is right about Houston's grade, but for the wrong reason.

Assembling the 2008 Mets, Part Five: The Bullpen

Previous Posts in this Series:
Part 1: Mets' Position Players
Part 2: Mets' Pitchers
Part 3-A: Other Position Players, Outfielders
Part 3-B: Infielders
Part 3-C: Catchers
Part 4-A: Other Starting Pitchers
Part 4-B: Other Relief Pitchers (never written)

Oh man. Do you remember this?

Johan Santana, Twins: Santana is the best pitcher in baseball, and the Twins are trading him. Some have suggested that Santana, who is 28, has already started to decline. However, we agree with David Pinto that Santana will be a very good pitcher for years to come. That's not the issue. The issue is that Santana will cost a lot of young, cheap, good players and then a lot of years and money, all invested in one fallible arm. While we'll continue to hear reports of how involved the Mets are, in the end, we will not get him. At least, that's what we're hoping for. First, the Mets do not need Santana. Second, it is a much healthier move going forward to get the most value from one's young, cheap players than to go out there and get the best guy possible at whatever cost. When one runs a franchise like a fantasy team, this is what happens. (That will never get old.) Possible trade: Fernando Martinez, Mike Pelfrey, Kevin Mulvey and some other prospect for Johan Santana. Why it won't happen: With Garza traded, the Twins are going to want two young major-league ready pitchers, and they don't seem attracted to Humber and Pelfrey. Speculation that the Mets are going to send Jose Reyes to Minnesota is just that: speculation.

They did want two major-league ready pitchers, and they got 'em: Humber and Mulvey. We stick by what we said then, way back in November, the day before The Day. Santana did cost a lot of cheap, young players and a lot of years and money, and it is healthier going forward not to do stuff like that. But let's turn the page.

As far as we can tell, the Met bullpen is pretty set, but that's not necessarily a good thing. The inflexibility in that regard was a big stumbling block last year.

(Note: For the tables below, we used the equivalents [adjusted for league and park] and not the actually projected numbers for PECOTA hit, walk, strikeout and home run rates. Why? Because they provided them. Also we're leaving out the Bill James projections because we don't have the book with us right now and while the BJ numbers are interesting in comparison, they are also kind of dubious and arbitrary.)

Billy Wagner (L)	IP	H/9	K/9	BB/9	HR/9	ERA
PECOTA	58.7	7.2	8.3	2.8	0.9	2.77
ZiPS	73	7.0	10.4	2.7	1.0	2.71
Marcels	66	8.0	9.1	3.0	1.0	3.48
Chone	70	7.6	9.5	3.0	0.8	3.09

ZiPS is the most optimistic, but generally all the projection systems agree that Billy Wagner is on the downside of his career. PECOTA spits out a "Collapse" rate of 53%, which is considerable. Wagner's walk rate has increased over the last few years. Of course, he's still a very valuable pitcher, the best in the Mets' bullpen, and we can't rule out a late-career resurgence. Wasn't he working on some new pitch? It's just the fastball and slider for now.

Aaron Heilman (R)	IP	H/9	K/9	BB/9	HR/9	ERA
PECOTA	67.3	8.5	6.1	2.6	0.7	3.47
ZiPS	87	7.9	7.6	2.8	0.7	3.21
Marcels	77	8.2	7.1	2.8	0.8	3.62
Chone	87	8.5	7.3	2.8	0.7	3.62

Heilman threw 86 innings last year, the most of any Mets reliever. Clearly PECOTA isn't confident that he will throw that many again, but our projection systems are more confident about Heilman's ability than they have been in the past. No, he's not good enough to be a starter, but he's a valuable and capable reliever. He's got two pitches: a sinker and a change, and looking at his pitch data we might suggest he throw the change a little less often. His ground ball rate has been around 45% for most of his career, and we would be willing to guess that most of his home runs are off changeups.

Pedro Feliciano (L)	IP	H/9	K/9	BB/9	HR/9	ERA
PECOTA	56.3	8.2	6.5	3.5	0.6	3.43
ZiPS	65	7.8	8.0	3.5	0.7	3.18
Marcels	77	8.3	7.6	3.6	0.7	3.62
Chone	63	8.2	8.2	3.9	0.7	3.60

Feliciano is another sure member of the Met bullpen, but the question remains: will Willie Randolph continue to use him as LOOGY, or what? Ted Berg recently wrote about this problem, namely, that Scott Schoeneweis should be used primarily against left-handers, while Feliciano is strong versus both. Just because Feliciano makes a lot less money doesn't mean he should have the more limited role. Feliciano throws four pitches: a sinker, a slider, a change, and a cutter. He uses these pitches differently against left-handers and right-handers, which is why he is successful against both, keeping right-handers to a .221/.325/.371 line in 2007 (compared to a minuscule .483 OPS for lefties). His career numbers are similar: .727 OPS for righties, .575 for lefties. We wish he would get his due, because he's a solid pitcher. Look past his average K/BB rates to his low HR totals and increasing ground ball rates (40.7% in 2005, 49.4% in 2006, and 55.7% in 2007).

Scott Schoeneweis (L)	IP	H/9	K/9	BB/9	HR/9	ERA
PECOTA	48.3	9.1	5.1	3.5	0.6	4.05
ZiPS	56	8.7	6.3	4.5	0.8	4.34
Marcels	60	9.2	6.2	3.9	0.9	4.58
Chone	58	9.0	6.7	4.0	0.8	4.34

Unlike Feliciano, Shoeneweis is not successful against right-handers. In fact, in his career they have an .830 OPS against him, an absolutely miserable line for a reliever. This is no surprise, as he only features a fastball and a slider, which he throws in nearly the same ratio to both sides. It was a bad contract to give him nearly $3.5 million per year for year, but at least the Mets could have maximized his value by strictly using him as a LOOGY, or at least letting him face right-handers only in low leverage situations. Surely Omar Minaya is aware of his massive platoon split, which was the worst "true" platoon split of any lefty vs. righties in the time period explored in The Book. He has never been good against right-handers. Sticking him out there against them in nearly the same proportion as Feliciano, a left-hander who actually handles them well, is lunacy. If the Mets aren't going to use him as a LOOGY, The Show doesn't deserve a spot on the major league roster, despite his contract. All of his rates are below average, and he is only saved by his high ground ball rates. But if the Mets were to use him mostly against lefties, I mean, look at this. But there is little hope of that, and there is little hope that The Show won't make the team. That makes four guaranteed bullpen spots.

Jorge Sosa (R)	IP*	H/9	K/9	BB/9	HR/9	ERA
PECOTA	74	9.1	8.5	2.9	1.2	4.33
ZiPS	131	5.3	3.4	4.5	1.2	4.47
Marcels	105	9.3	5.9	3.4	1.2	4.50
Chone	135	9.3	5.8	3.3	1.1	4.33
* Sosa is classified as a "swingman," so PECOTA projects 8 starts, ZiPs and Chone 18 each, and Marcels an unknown number, presumably 13-15.

As we said here, we're not sure Sosa is worth the $2 million the Mets gave him to avoid arbitration. He is certainly replaceable, and the Mets could have non-tendered him. But whatever, we're not gonna sweat it. Of these projections, PECOTA is clearly the more accurate, as it's unlikely that Sosa will make 18 starts this year, let alone 8. We don't know what PECOTA does differently, but the other systems are just taking his history and projecting it into the future, whereas we know anecdotally that Sosa is destined for bullpen duty, despite his history of starting. That's why PECOTA's numbers are much better, as a pitcher's numbers improve significantly in the bullpen. We don't think that's enough to account for the drastically different rates, however. PECOTA clearly thinks nice thoughts about Sosa. We think his home run rate is bound to explode again. Sosa's probably in. That's five.

Duaner Sanchez (R)	IP	H/9	K/9	BB/9	HR/9	ERA
PECOTA	55	8.3	5.9	3.1	0.8	3.60
ZiPS	69	8.5	6.9	3.5	0.8	3.52
Marcels	31	8.4	7.0	3.5	0.9	3.77
Chone	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA

Marcels has Sanchez only throwing 31 innings because it is a simple system that heavily weighs the last year, in which Duaner threw no pitches. Apparently he is now ready to go, and should be ready for opening day, but that's what they said last year, when he showed up fat and then injured his shoulder. Duaner, or "Dirty," as some people prone to vulgarity call him, is surely a wild card. We don't know how he'll do after not throwing very much since the trade deadline in 2006, but if it's anywhere near his 2006 performance he ought to be quite useful. There's a good chance he starts the year in AAA.

Matt Wise (R)	IP	H/9	K/9	BB/9	HR/9	ERA
PECOTA	50.3	8.8	5.7	2.7	1.0	3.91
ZiPS	54	8.8	7.0	3.0	1.0	4.00
Marcels	56	9.3	6.9	3.2	1.0	4.26
Chone	54	8.7	7.0	3.0	1.0	3.83

Wise throws a fastball and a changeup, and he throws the changeup more often. This gives him a reverse platoon split; he's more effective against left-handers, with a career OPS against of .631 against them. How useful is that, however, in a bullpen that already features three left-handers? Still, the Wise has a major league contract (though for just $1.2 million, a bargain), and is thus quite likely to make the team. That's six.

Joe Smith (R)	IP	H/9	K/9	BB/9	HR/9	ERA
PECOTA	55.7	8.2	7.0	3.6	0.5	3.18
ZiPS	59	8.5	7.5	3.4	0.6	3.66
Marcels	47	9.2	7.9	3.6	1.0	4.31
Chone	37	8.3	8.3	3.4	0.7	3.65

These are solid numbers, and the platoon splits for Smith suggest to us that he might be more useful to this bullpen than Wise, but Joe's still a pre-arbitration player who struggled in the second half of last year, so he's likely to begin the season in AAA. We'd like to see him in the bigs though, because he's a ground ball machine, and the Mets have great infield defense. At this point, we might favor Smith over Sosa.

Other Options:
Mike Pelfrey has his supporters for the bullpen, but the Mets have said he's not an option for the bullpen; he'll either slide into the rotation due to injury, or throw in AAA, where he can be terrorized by pitching in Albuquerque and other offensive environments. Speaking of injuries, many have suggested that the injury prone Orlando Hernandez should move to the pen, but the Mets said nay to that. The Mets made a minor trade for Brian Stokes, who has been a OK starter in the minors but has not been very good as a reliever, either. Steven Register is a 24-year old AA closer taken from Colorado in the Rule 5 draft. If the Mets were to keep him, he would have to make the team. His numbers are a little inflated from pitching in the Texas League, and he did seem to improve considerably after moving to the bullpen. Still, he's a long shot. The Mets recently picked up righty Ruddy Lugo off waivers from the Athletics. He's not very impressive, walking as many as he strikes out. The team also just signed Tony Armas Jr., a starter whose career path looks like promising to mediocre to terrible, and all before the age of 30. From the Mets' own minor leagues are Willie Collazo, a non-prospect who enjoyed some success last year at AAA; and Carlos Muniz, a 26-year old who closed for AA Binghamton last year before being promoted to New Orleans and then New York. And finally, don't forget about Juan Padilla, who last pitched professionally in 2005, where he put up an unsustainable 1.49 ERA in 36.3 innings for the Mets, before undergoing multiple elbow surgeries that sidelined him for two seasons. The Mets non-tendered him in November, but gave him a minor league contract in January. We have a feeling we'll see him sometime this year.

Conclusion: The Mets have a fine bullpen, if they can keep healthy and Willie Randolph stubbornly entrenches the pitchers in roles that actually suit their various talents. The bullpen will have less importance this year, of course, with such a kick-ass starting rotation.

Pedro, Perez, Wilson, Livan, Lohse, Santana, Sosa

Shocker! Pedro Martinez doesn't share our cultural values! He's from the Dominican Republic! It's not just a place where baseball players come from.

It's a shame, but Ollie P is not ready to deal. One can't blame him; after all, his inconsistency would drive down his price. Of course the Mets would probably fall all over themselves to give him a four-year contract right now, as they should. How much would he make now? How much next year? We can't even guess. There seems to be a closing gap between mediocre pitchers (Carlos Silva: $12 million a year) and superstar pitchers (Johan Santana: ~$22 million a year), and there's a lot of room for pitchers to be overpaid (Silva, Barry Zito) or underpaid (Jake Peavy).

The Mets are interested in Craig Wilson. It's a good idea, as the Mets need a right-handed outfielder with some power to counter Ryan Church's lefty weakness, and Wilson is a career .290/.389/.527 hitter against lefties. Of course we're still a little bummed about Chip Ambres going to the Padres, as he could have served that role as well. (Note the blurb at the bottom of that Padres article includes the words, "The Nationals' Ryan Church, a corner outfielder who has appeared in 114 games in center, also is on the Padres' radar, but the Nationals want a lot in return." Sorry, we're going to feel the sting of this for a long time. Speaking of Padres, Ben Johnson is also an option for the aforementioned role, though he seems to have forgotten how to hit. Damnit, Heath Bell still hurts too.

The Mets don't want Livan Hernandez. Good. If they need another starter, it should be Mike Pelfrey and only Mike Pelfrey (since he's all we have left). If not him, then Jason Vargas or Adam Bostick. It's not worth it wasting money on these guys. But Wilpon is determined to spend. This is a curse. A curse, we tell you. Teams with limited payrolls are forced to evaluate players well and hand out money wisely. Somehow we don't think this is ushering in an age of reason in Flushing: "You've got to remember that when you make a trade midway through the season, a 10 million guy becomes 5 million. It's not dollar for dollar if he makes it during the season," Wilpon said. Mike Pelfrey for Kevin Millar anyone?

Apparently the Mets are still looking at Kyle Lohse. This is some bullshit. Kyle Lohse is a mediocre, dime-a-dozen pitcher and there is no reason to give him any money at all. End of story.

We realize that Johan Santana had a press conference and people talked and Johan is great and it's going to be exciting to have him on the Mets and maybe Luis Castillo had something to do with that. Whatever. We've never been much for the hoo-rah! form of blogging, so that's why we're not saying much about that. We've already been pumped up; we don't need team officials to tell us.

Right now we're thinking about the bullpen, and who is going to be in it. The Mets seemed to constrict themselves when they gave Jorge Sosa $2 million; he's not that good, and now he seems to be guaranteed a job that Duaner Sanchez, Matt Wise or someone else might deserve more. The Mets seem to be just as clueless about building bullpens as almost everyone else.

The next post, on the bullpen, will be the penultimate installment of "Assembling the 2008 Mets."

Edit: Curt Schilling is not underpaid. Forget you ever saw that.

Wednesday Stuff

After 2008, the following key Met players, if not signed to extensions, will be free agents: Carlos Delgado, Pedro Martinez, Moises Alou, Orlando Hernandez and Oliver Perez. These players represent approximately $47 million in 2008 salary, and according to Baseball Prospectus's recently released PECOTA projections, 14.1 wins above replacement (WARP). Using Tangotiger's salary thing, increasing the 2008 market price ($4.4M/Win Above Replacement) 10% to $4.84 million, we see that the Mets would have to pay about $68.25 million in 2009 salary on average to recoup that production.

And the Mets will likely have to pay all or most of that out, unless Mike Pelfrey, Fernando Martinez and other as yet indeterminate minor leaguers come forward to take the reigns. Considering the Mets' overwhelming reluctance to ever let a young player take a job, especially when the team is contending, veterans will almost surely take over those vacant positions. These veterans may even be acquired by dealing those same major-league ready youngsters who couldn't possibly be expected to be regulars in New York.

Speaking of that, The Baseball Analysts recently compared the return for Santana with other big off season trades, using the prospect rankings of Kevin Goldstein of Baseball Prospectus, Keith Law of ESPN and John Sickels as a guide. The article is uncharacteristically cursory and inadequate, but they did end with this gem:

Have a look at those packages and tell me, did the Twins get the best one? I am not sure they did. In fact, I think they may have received more for Garza and I think the Mets may have gave (sic) up more for two middling players from Washington.

Boy, does that hurt. PECOTA predicts the 23-year old Milledge to hit .289/.358/.478 with 13 HRs and 15 SBs in 2008, good for a WARP of 3.7. They have the 29-year old Church at .268/.349/.472 with 16 HRs, good for a WARP of 3.6. What an awful, awful, awful trade.

Brian Schneider, 31 years old and earning $4 million a year through 2009, projects to hit .242/.319/.345 with average defense, good for a VORP of 3.3 and a WARP of 2.2 over only 72 games. In case you were wondering, they have Ramon Castro at .249/.323/.463 with 12 home runs and average defense, good for a VORP of 13.1 and a WARP of 2.5 in 62 games at catcher. Boy oh boy do we hope that Castro and Schneider will split playing time like that, even though we know they won't. How can the team possibly justify the Milledge trade, as Church and Lastings put up similar numbers, when Castro is getting as much playing time as Schneider and putting up better numbers? No, Schneider will play more, and his illusory defensive qualities will be stuffed down our throats until we are flummoxed at the suggestion that a better defensive catcher than Brian Schneider ever existed.

Beautiful Data

(Page by Graphical Player, comic by my wife.)

So-So Sosa Gets $2 Million

The Mets continue to avoid arbitration with their players, signing Jorge Sosa to a $2 million deal.

The signing ends a trend of signing arbitration-eligible players to contracts that favor the team, however.

Endy Chavez and Pedro Feliciano both were signed to well below their value.

But Jorge Sosa is eminently replaceable, if not by Mike Pelfrey then by countless other pitchers with similar skills who can be signed to minor league contracts. Official BT opinion: they should have non-tendered his ass.

Santana Links

Now that the dust is settled, some more respected analysts are coming out of the woodwork, and showing themselves amenable to our way of thinking. Today, an article by John Beamer of the Hardball Times:

To put it another way, in free agent dollars the 13 WAB equivalent in prospects given up have set the Mets back some $50m! For a $200m investment the New York Metropolitans need to win some serious silverware. However, when you a franchise with deep pockets giving up semi-valuable talent isn't a killer.

Of course, there we go again with the claim that it's OK... for the Mets. Beamer makes some points we've made before, and makes some we haven't heard so clearly. Here's a concise list:

::"In essence the Mets swapped four prospects just for the right to negotiate with Santana alone."

::In no way did Santana receive a below free-market contract. He received free agent dollars, or more. He is worth approximately 4.2 WAB (Wins Above Bench, similar to WARP, Wins Above Replacement Player), but is being payed as if he is worth 5.7 WAB, since the average free agent dollars paid per point of WAB is approximately $4.8 to $4.9 million.

::Santana could be the difference maker for the Mets in the NL East this year, so there is a value in getting him now instead of a year from now. Even a playoff appearance is extremely valuable to a team in terms of revenue.

Beamer links Victor Wang's THT article of January 31st, in which Wang points out the obvious point missing from almost all mainstream analysis: that the Twins got good value in return for Johan Santana. Wang made a fairly simple classification of hitters and pitchers: To estimate a prospect’s monetary savings to his team, I estimated what a prospect makes in his first six years before free agency versus what a team would need to spend to acquire the prospect’s production on the free-agent market. Makes sense. In other words, Wang has put Santana and the prospects dealt for him in the same mathematical terms in order to compare the players' economic value. The reader should note that the classifications that the Mets' prospects were assigned, while very conservative, were also quite subjective. He should also keep in mind the extremely high amount of variance at play here. These are means, and the actual results could be very different:

Mets receive
Johan Santana, 5.7 WAB

Twins receive
Carlos Gomez, 5.5 WAB
Deolis Guerra, 3.9 WAB
Kevin Mulvey, 2.5 WAB
Phillip Humber, 1.5 WAB
Total: 13.4 WAB

Note that this is for one year of Santana and six years each for the prospects. Wang mentions several mitigating factors, to which we will respond in turn.

Prospect risk premium: There is a huge risk in prospects, so these classifications probably overrate these ones. That's true. But there's also a huge risk that diminutive, power-throwing pitchers just signed to huge, multi-year contracts blow out their elbows or shoulders.

Position on the win curve: Santana was worth more to the Mets because the Mets were one good player away from making the playoffs. This is possibly true. However, we think the Mets just went from probably making the playoffs to surely making the playoffs. They were only one win away last year, they didn't really lose anyone important, and their best players are closer to their primes. For the Mets, Johan Santana will likely be replacing starting pitchers who would be bench-caliber or replacement-level pitchers. We still don't know about this. We still feel that if Pelfrey and Humber had been given the starts that went to Lawrence, Park, Dave Williams and the like, the Mets' fifth starter would not have been at replacement level. Also, we aren't sure that it doesn't make more sense to say that Santana is replacing Tom Glavine, who was definitely above replacement.

Better offers for the Twins: Irrelevant for the Mets. Even if Smith could have pulled off a better deal, that doesn't make the Mets' deal great. And, as Wang notes, we do not really know what was offered to Bill Smith; in fact, the Mets offer may have been his best offer.

Mets sign Johan to below-market deal: It didn't happen. See above.

Meanwhile, on The Book Blog, some of the smartest minds in baseball are saying things like:

As usual, people who are evaluating this trade (the consensus seems to be that it is a coup for the Mets) have no clue how to evaluate trades. You would think that the Mets got Santana for free.

What they got, of course, is a “discount” of around 10 mil (which is good) in 08 (as compared to Santana’s FA value) and then an opportunity to sign him to an extension, likely at or above his FA value.

So basically they traded a bunch of good prospects for around 10 mil in cash. I don’t know anything about valuing (in $) prospects, so I have no idea whether this is a good deal or not.

There are obviously other considerations, such as the fact that this really elevates the Mets chances of post-season and WS in 08 abd (sic) beyond. At the same time, it decreases their chances of developing good prospects (the ones they traded) in the future and also being able to trade good prosepcts (sic) for other talent, in the future. So basically they sacrificed a portion of the future for the present.

There also might be some value (at least to them) of locking up the opportunity to sign a player like Santana even at market or above prices (marginal wins might be worth 8 mil to the Mets, in which case they want to upgrade their team as much as they can, even at above-market prices).

However, on the negative side, they are going to lock up 125-150 mil on Santana over the next 5-6 years at something like 5 mil per win (above market value) which means that is 125-150 mil that they cannot spend on other players, possibly (probably) at less dollars per win.

So, while it is a complicated matter to figure out whether this is a bad, good, very good, etc. deal for the Mets, I think it is clear that the most they are getting is 10 mil in value for this year in exchange for a bunch of good prospects and the opportunity to sign a guy at more than market value. It might be a good deal, but that can’t be a great deal I would think. (MGL)

As it turns out, the contract was worse than MGL figured; and depending on how you figure it, the Mets missed out on saving most of that $10 million in 2008 anyway. I think his last sentence pretty much sums up our opinion here.

We highly recommend reading all the comments in this thread, especially the ones after the one we just linked. Tangotiger later writes:

“The Mets and Santana agreed to a six-year, $137.5 million contract through 2013, with an option for the 2014 season… Santana had one year and $13.25 million remaining on his contract, but instead of negotiating an extension, the sides worked out a new deal.”

In reality, this is a FIVE year extension, for 124.25MM, including a buyout in 2014. He’s forecasted for .625 pitcher with 22 full games by Marcel in 2008. But, the extension starts in 2009. That changes everything.

From 2009-2013, that’s 102MM. From 2009-2014, that’s 116MM.

The Mets, however, decided, in effect, to grant him free agency for the 2008 season, and in return, get exclusive negotiating rights. Those rights, in effect, cost them 22MM. On top of which, they gave up their 4 minor leaguers for this right. (Tangotiger)

Yea, we were confused about that, too. The thing of it is, nobody else seems to care about the money. They analyze trades like they are just player(s) for player(s), regardless of contract. They ignore money, when the money is extremely important. So there is no one to breakdown the particulars of the contract and what it means, because no one seems to care, especially with the Mets, where the attitude amongst the fans seems to be, "It's only money, and our prospects never work out anyway." MGL writes:

Bottom line is that there is simply no way that this is a great deal for the Mets. It may be a good deal for them, or it may be a poor deal for them. It may also be a win/win for both teams, which is always possible in baseball even though it is somewhat of a zero-sum game. (MGL)

We're not crazy. More soon... always more. More is coming.

E Poc: What About 2009?

by E Poc

In the wake of the Santana signing, I'd like to avoid all the '08 optimism and head straight for BT's unique brand of hard-nosed realism. To whit, the Mets now have about $90 million committed to their '09 team, and they'll still need to get a left fielder, a first baseman, and two starting pitchers. If you thought heading into '08 with a rotation of Pedro, Maine, Perez, El Duque, and Pelfrey was bad, wait until next offseason, when Pedro, El Duque, and Perez are all free agents. If I were Minaya, I'd forget about Kenny Lofton and work on trying to extend Perez. If he hits free agency, he's going to command $15 million a year or so. If Sabathia signs an extension with Cleveland, Ollie will be the best starter on the market. And he'll only be 27. (Why the fuck would we sign Lofton anyway? Unless I'm mistaken, that would be the 13th guaranteed contract for a position player. Is Easley our backup shortstop, or are we so confident in our pitching after the Santana deal that we're going with a 6-man bullpen?)

The point is: what's the plan here? We're going to be one of the better teams in the NL in '08, no question - probably odds-on favorites to win the East. Great. But I don't see any way we're better than an 87-win team again in '09. We have no one on the farm who will be able to fill our holes in '09 (unless Minaya's counting on FMart to be ready to produce at the major league level at 20 years old, which a smart team would not count on) and very little money to improve ourselves through free agency. Maybe we're planning on spending $150 million. I don't know. But I do know that we'll have black holes offensively in right field (Church) and at catcher (Schneider) and second base (Castillo), nobody in left or at first, and nobody to fill the fourth, fifth, or (God forbid) sixth holes in the starting rotation.

So great, awesome, beast of the East in '08. Pedro and Santana back to back. Look out, baseball, here we come. But we just traded every minor leaguer who could help us in '09 for the right to give $20 million a year to one pitcher, best in the world though he might be. That is not a recipe for sustained success. I am no longer excited about '08; I am nervous. Nervous because if we don't win the World Series, there's going to be very little to comfort us through the wave of mediocrity that follows.

The Super Bowl Pick Post!

NEW ENGLAND vs. New York Giants -12; Over/Under: 54

What is the point? Belichick's new home, Belichick's old home. New England fans may be obnoxious, but mostly I do not encounter them. I have a friend who is a Giants fan. They are interesting. I always root for the underdog. But the Patriots- they are far more interesting. Interchangeable parts, malleable defensive structures, an intelligent quarterback who can hit anyone with a pass. And Belichick. As a completely casual football fan, I am intrigued by Belichick. He's almost as intriguing a team architect as Billy Beane. Though Beane wasn't too small and slow to play the game, just too crazy.

I like that Belichick looks angry all the time, but not in the Tom Coughlin, frustrated leprechaun sort of way. Coughlin gets mad and throws the challenge flag out of disgust, wasting crucial time outs. Belichick gets mad and concentrates harder on winning. I think.

While it's too late for me to switch baseball allegiances (and I wouldn't think of it!) to a more forwardly-thinking organization, I never was seriously interested in football until this year. Sure, being from upstate New York I rooted for the Bills in their Super Bowls, and if I had to name a player back in the day it would have been Thurman Thomas or Jim Kell.. er, QB Bills. But I was never a fan.

This year I started to follow football a little bit, playing in a couple fantasy leagues, winning one (I got lucky to beat the Tom Brady/Wes Welker guy and the Brett Favre guy in back-to-back playoff weeks). I don't know that much about advanced football metrics; every time I try to read Football Outsiders, I just get confused. I have "12 years of DVOA splits at [my] fingertips," but I don't know what to do with them.

But I consider myself an admirer of well-run sports teams. The Patriots are, of course, the best team in the NFL, not necessarily because of superior talent, or just because of it, but also because of their fantastic personnel and coaching staff, led by Belichick. The coaching edge is mostly impossible in baseball, where advanced metrics mostly go into evaluating the market and constructing a roster that is both cost-effective and sustainable. Though there are fantastic sabermetric discoveries involving pitch counts, leverage, bunting, stealing and other in-game strategies, there is not nearly as much possible influence there as there seems to be in football.

But how do I know that the Patriots are revolutionary in the way they play the game? Am I just taking other peoples' words for it? For the most part. But there's another way.

One thing I learned watching football this year is that I hate punting. I hate how the announcers use the phrase 'forced to punt,' especially when it's not obvious that punting is advantageous on a particular fourth down. I also hated that teams would run into dominating defenses just to 'show the run.' If you're good at passing, I would say, then pass. Apparently there are some statistical studies to sort of back me up.

But watching the Patriots has been a joy. They go for it on many fourth downs where other teams would punt. They don't cede anything. I was baffled this year by how many teams would seem to not care that they were going to lose, and would not change their game plan a bit, despite the fact that the game was still winnable. Further, I admired that the Patriots would go whole drives without running, and it didn't cost them at all.

On the other hand, watching the Giants has been a pain. On defense they're awesome: blitzes, pressure, all sorts of fun stuff. (Sorry, I don't know the terminology.) It seems to me that on defense they are willing to take risks in order to make the offense uncomfortable and give themselves a good shot of stopping the opposition cold even if it opens up a hole or two. But on offense, they are frustrating. They'll make pointless run after pointless run, waste time and downs with screen passes, and punt on the other team's forty-five yard line. After one such occasion in this year's NFC Championship game, the Cowboys nevertheless marched down the field for a touchdown. My Giants fan friend texted me, "And thus is playing low variance football against a superior opponent shown to be suboptimal."

That pretty much sums up why watching the Giants on offense is frustrating. It's also frustrating to watch Tom Coughlin spitefully throw challenge flags, but that's different.

In order to win this game, the Giants have to go for it on fourth down. Not every fourth down, of course, but a lot of them. Anything inside the fifty in the first half, and if they're losing in the second half, push it back further. No punting in the fourth quarter at all, unless they're winning. Make long passes. A high variance game across the board is the Giants' best hope of beating a vastly superior New England team.

What will happen? I think it will be closer than people think. I guess Bill Belichick doesn't often lose when he faces an opponent for the second time in a season, but now both teams have had two weeks to prepare. Perhaps the Giants can surprise the Patriots. In the first half.

By the second half, it's likely that Belichick will have picked up whatever changes the Giants have made, adjusted, and found out how to exploit the weaknesses of their new pattern. I am not confident that the Giants will be able to adjust as quickly.

But this is silly, uninformed conjecture.



Giants +12, UNDER
Patriots 31, Giants 21

Santa-na, na na na na

Thanks for all the awesome comments on the last post. We understand that we take up annoying positions, and it's good of you all to see me halfway on some of these things. Seriously-- we suggested that we have serious reservations about the Mets acquiring The Best Pitcher in Baseball, and almost no one tears us apart.

All around the web, one sees links to various sites responding to the deal, and the Mets sites are all said to have universal praise and Hosannas, putting down reeds and palm branches for their savior. We suppose that Blastings! Thrilledge resides in a too dark and grimy a cave in the most foul recesses of the Intertubes, or on too ethereal a plane for the unenlightened masses, to be referenced as a voice of dissent in the Mets' blogging community. Perhaps it is good for us, though, to escape the attentions of the rabble.

But we maintain our displeasure at the assumption that for the Mets to make a deal such as this is peachy, that because the Mets are an insanely impatient, totally irrationally insecure little-man-in-a-big-market-team, and are prone to always making moves like this anyway, well, considering how much worse the deal could have been, one can only praise them for getting so much for so little. Heck, the Mets could have sent away more and better prospects for a worse pitcher. They could have sent Fernando Martinez and others away for Joe Blanton, after all.

We love Santana. Looove him. And while there are risks to giving him a huge, long-term contract, we don't think he'll end up like top comparables Don Gullett, Teddy Higuera, Tex Hughson, or Doug Rau. At least, we hope not. But there is a huge risk there. A big 'ol risk.

There's definitely some "lasting" resentment on our part over the Milledge trade and the Castillo contract. We don't think anyone who makes those huge blunders deserves that much praise over the acquisition of a lights-out pitcher whose team was just giving him away. The Mets got lucky. So let's cut out the genius praise, eh?

While everyone else was concerned with the starting rotation, we were concerned with the question of whether the Mets could ever get creative and flexible. The story of 2007, as far as we're concerned, is still not The Collapse. It is the unbending simplicity of the Mets' management, both general manager and manager. It is still about Shawn Green, Jose Valentin/Luis Castillo and Paul Lo Duca taking away the playing time that Lastings Milledge, Ruben Gotay and Ramon Castro so obviously deserved. It's about a stupid loyalty to Julio Franco that took months of ineptitude to correct. It's about Brian Lawrence making starts instead of Philip Humber. It's about Scott Schoeneweis and Guillermo Mota repeatedly appearing where they had proven themselves unworthy.

Have these things been fixed with the Johan Santana acquisition? They have not. The Mets can paste a shiny star on top of a withering tree as good as the next team, but under the bark they are still a rotten institution with too much loyalty to the wrong people.

We still think of a baseball team as existing to entertain fans and to win games. But too often it seems that the Mets serve the whims of their veteran players and grizzled beat writers, trading away anyone who crosses the elect, regardless of how the fans feel or how talented the player is. Is it about Wallace Matthews or Joe from Brooklyn? Billy Wagner? Or Cowbell Man?

They love Willie Randolph, so he stays. They hate Milledge, so he goes. After The Collapse, the Mets NEED NEED NEED pitching, so we get Santana.

So know this- it's the causes, not the effect of the Santana deal, that gets us. That's what we're railing about.