I don't know if it's 3 or 4 though.

I expect the Screen Jam/DT crowd to like it more than a lot of people.

-someone more awake than I could (should?) make an argument that Verlander and perhaps King Felix merit 4s instead of 3s as long as Kazmir does

-Fausto and Matt Garza might be well served by switching their respective rankings, based on seasons as a starter each have had so far

-As likely the only person here who was there on April 30th 2003, I kinda feel obligated to stick up for Kevin Millwood and protest his 0 ranking.

Then I remember how he fared against the Juan Pierre-led Marlins late in that season and it allllll makes sense...

Kazmir 13-9 3.48 ERA
Beckett 20-7 3.27 ERA

Beckett definately had more offense behind him, but after looking at the stats, if Kazmir is a 4, Beckett should definately be a 4.

"I'm Clive Owen!"

Beckett HAS to be a 4.

Also from the last post, you do not trade Billingsley...

I repeat...

You DO NOT trade Billingsley. (period)

I'd even say there's an argument who had the better year between Beckett and Santana

Beckett 20-7 3.27
Santana 15-13 3.33

Bottom line is, Beckett should be a 4 based off of last season, or others should warrant a 3.

Homer's life flashing before his eyes was very well done.

I'm certainly surprised that Beckett wasn't a "4". I'm up for knocking any Red Sox down a notch based solely on the criteria that they get over-hyped, but in this case I think Beckett deserves a 4.

Jon, I'm interested in your statement about his regular season stats being the issue. Why shouldn't his post-season success factor in?

But I certainly don't feel like fighting over it.

2004: 108
2005: 118
2006: 95
2007: 145

scott kazmir ERA+
2005: 116
2006: 142
2007: 130

But I'll move Beckett and Bedard up to 4.

15 Bills is going to be a beast next year, I just feel it.

Looking at them more closely head to head, it's a fascinating comparison; Garza is a month older and has had two fairly short seasons, with ERA+ of 78 in 2006 and 118 in 07, whiles Fausto had an awful 2006 (1-10, 5.42 ERA although still an 83 ERA+) and then of course an outstanding 2007 that, if he can repeat, would make a 3 too low a ranking for him. Thanks for calling me out on this, I guess now I know a little more about how great Fausto was last year, and that his season was closer to that awesome 9-inning shutdown of the Yanks in the ALDS than the next week when he got pounded by the Red Sox!

Jon, under your methodology, what would the 2005 White Sox have looked like? It may be necessary to call in Scott Long to arbitrate, but would/could you have rated them something like:

2005 Chicago White Sox (9 points)

Above-average (3 points): Mark Buehrle

Average to above-average (2): Freddy Garcia

Mystery (1): Jose Contreras, El Duque

Up-and-coming (1): Jon Garland, Brandon McCarthy

?

Did you guys see Tracy's post on what Nelson Resario said?

I really hope we keep Rosario. That guy is going to be awesome.

I would also but Wade Davis and David Price ahead of several people on the Rays, as well as dropping Andy Sonnastine off up and coming, but the Rays do have a ton of young arms, so that ranking is appropriate.

Why shouldn't they wait til July, see where they are, then if the season's not turning out so well, trade him at a point of maximum leverage?

The case for trading Bedard is stronger. The Orioles are hopeless and need to be making plans for 2013. The Twins have a shot unless Liriano's done.

Apparently, they need a center fielder...

Goodbye to:
Grady Little
Randy Wolf
David Wells
Mark Hendrickson
Rudy Seanez
Roberto Hernandez
Luis Gonzalez
Ramon Martinez
Olmedo Saenz
Mark Sweeney
Mike Lieberthal
Shea Hillenbrand
Chad Moeller

Hello to:
Joe Torre
Andruw Jones
Hiroki Kuroda

Still in town:
Brad Penny
Derek Lowe
Chad Billingsley
Jason Schmidt
Estaban Loiaza
Scott Proctor
Joe Beimel
Jonathan Broxton
Takeshi Saito
Russell Martin
James Loney
Jeff Kent
Rafael Furcal
Nomar Garciaparra
Andy LaRoche
Juan Pierre
Matt Kemp
Andre Ethier
Delwyn Young
Tony Abreu
Chin-Lung Hu

http://tinyurl.com/2aajdn

And yet, somehow, the D-backs don't seem appreciably weakened.

This is why Ned's reluctance to trade any prospects seems like more than just a nod to a fan faction. The D-backs are building a dynasty. The Dodgers are the only team remotely able to challenge them.

As these are all starters, there is to a degree a limitation on valuing players beyond the 6th or 7th pitcher. I feel like it might help clarify the scores by making a note of how many players each team has listed. Average score per pitcher, and perhaps the score for the 'top 5' as well (optimal rotation), would help flesh out the idea of the strength of the staffs.

I took the liberty of doing so (both average, and top 5 score) for the AL staffs, just to give you an idea of what the numbers would look like. For the most part, they follow the same order as the regular list, but a couple of outliers stick out (Blue Jays and White Sox in particular). I would like to point out that the inclusion of lots of below average pitchers for the purpose of "depth" does end up hurting some teams in the average score. Maybe restrict it to 8 or 9, as I think it's unlikely most teams will use more than 8 or 9 SPs a significant amount. Even the Dodgers in '07, having extremely heavy injuries within the rotation, used only 9 players for more than 5 starts. Anyway:

(Team Name: Average points per player; top 5 player values)

Angels: 2.125; 14
Red Sox: 2.286; 14
Indians: 1.875; 12
Blue Jays: 1.75; 13
Rays: 1.167; 11 (outlier, 12 listed pitchers)
Twins: 1.714; 10
Yankees: 1.429; 10
Mariners: 1.429; 9
Tigers: 1.286; 8
A's: 1; 6
Royals: 0.778; 7
Orioles: 1.143; 8
White Sox: 1.4; 7 (outlier, 5 listed pitchers)
Rangers: 0.6; 6

In addition, I was hoping to make a couple of comments on some individual players... Okay, really all it is is Red Sox bashing for a moment.

For one, Dice-K. I might get some disagreement here, but I'd personally put him in the 'mystery' category. This past season, he was good, but not great - ERA of 4.4, WHIP of 1.324 (ERA+ 108). And this was in a season where no major leaguers had seen him pitch before. Is it out of the question that the league could catch up to him? Look at Nomo - after his monster rookie season, his second year was much worse (though still better than Dice-K's season this year), and after '97, his ERA+ in his next two seasons was 91 and 84.

Two, I can't really agree with putting Clay Buchholz in the "average to above average" category. He's pitched 4 games (3 starts) at the MLB-level, 1.59 ERA, a total of 22 2/3rds innings. Edwin Jackson, 2003: 4 games (3 starts), 2.45 ERA, 22 IP. High-level prospects with a few brilliant games do not guaranteed above-average starters make. In my opinion, he probably should be in either the 'mystery' or 'up and coming' category.

Ahh, much better now that I have that off my chest. :)

Re the Royals, Greinke? Bannister then Meche then Greinke.

I'm not sure Ned is reluctant to trade any prospects. The problem is that he's always being asked to trade four at a time, and we're talking four top prospects, not 1-2 plus a couple scrubs. Plus, as has been pointed out, some of the "prospects" we're asked to trade aren't really prospects at all: they're major league starters.

Lackey ERA+
2007: 151
2006: 128
2005: 123

Penny ERA+
2007: 151
2006: 104
2005: 105

Washburn, I don't mind knocking down a point.

"I would also but Wade Davis and David Price ahead of several people on the Rays, as well as dropping Andy Sonnastine off up and coming, but the Rays do have a ton of young arms, so that ranking is appropriate. "

Will take Sonnastine off and add Davis and Price. Combining Talbot and Houser as one point to mitigate the impact all these young arms could have.

http://tinyurl.com/2g8k9m

The highlights:

Iguchi turned down 2 year plus an option from Colorado, and 3 years from Philly to go to San Diego for 1 year.

U-T writer Tom Krasovic calls out the Padres for not getting Iguchi last summer (for a middling prospect), who he feels would have made the difference in getting to the playoffs. Krasovic argues, and rightfully so I think, that the benefits from a playoff berth outweigh the $1.8m savings from not acquiring Iguchi in 2007.

I looked up on Baseball-Reference.com, that Marcus Giles (16 games) and Geoff Blum (41 games) started every game at second base after July 31, and here were their stats from Aug 1 to the end of the year:

Blum: .266/.324/.401 in 212 PA
Giles: .207/.309/.293 in 69 PA
SD combined: .252/.320/.376

Iguchi: .288/.331/.400 in 137 PA

Iguchi didn't do better than Blum, even playing in Philadelphia, but I agree in principle with the idea of not giving Geoff Blum regular playing time.

I could knock Dice down a point, though I'm comfortable with the idea that he'll improve this season, given his age (27).

Buchholz, I don't know. You have a point, but his track record is so good. A bit better than Jackson's I feel, and he's older. I think he's ready to contribute. But yes, I could knock him down a point too - then wait for the Red Sox fans to get wind of it and start sending me hate mail ...

A god who was not asked back.

Bowen's teams are 28-10 in games in which he scored at least one run.

http://tinyurl.com/2r5rnp

He struck out a batter an inning and threw a no hitter in the majors, confirming what he did in 2006 and 2007 in the minors: struck out about 11.5 batters per 9 with a K/BB of 4.5. Do pitchers have to have three good years in the majors before we rate them above the average to above average vets? Buchholz is Kershaw without the walks and another year of domination in AAA.

Vin Scully in 1965
http://jpg2.lapl.org/pics36/00052712.jpg

People don't develop more after 42 or 37 years.

I can't get the Me-n-Ed's SoCal locations to pop up on their website. Only the NorCal and the Canadian locations are opening for me. That smells fishy.

I'm not going to be able to update until later today, but keep leaving those suggestions.

A 3 is a plenty good rating. I've only got about 20 people in the league with that rating.

So, 3 or above constitutes "Ace" status. Actually, maybe a little bit less than 3.

It could be that other GMs are so dazzled by the guys who've already made an impact on the Dodgers and/or are mythical creatures that they devalue everyone else, but I can't believe Ned's gotten no offers for Hu, Abreu, Elbert, McDonald, Young, DeWitt...

http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2007/12/17/hall_of_fame/

I am not saying that those guys are not really good prospects (since with Meloan, they make up a good portion of guys that could be in LA next year) but they are not the high ceiling guys that people talk about with the Dodgers.

Andrew G. said it right a couple of days ago when he said how come no one ever asks AZ for Upton or Drew but they do ask for Kemp and Kershaw? Not sure but that certainly was the case this off-season.

I maintain that if Elbert, Morris and LaRoche were not coming off some injuries, this could have been a much different off-season but they had those issues so that is why it was either the 4-5 youngsters and no one else ever mentioned in the media.

A number of us have been commenting for some time now on how the Dodgers appear to be asked to give up more than other teams. And when other teams make trades, they seem to give up less than we thought we would have to give up.

Your point of contention is Haren vs. Kuroda I think. Of that group that you list who would you give up and how many? Hu, Elbert, McDonald, Young & Dewitt? That would be a comparable cost for us right?

Were Arizona's second-tier prospects (i.e. behind Drew and Upton) that much more desirable than the Dodgers'? Or has Ned's philosophy changed about the need for a deep system? That's what I was trying to get at.

I think that part of the reason for that has to be all the pseudo-platooning going on last year between the kids and the vets. None of the kids except Loney was ever established as the everyday holder of a position, and Loney only in the second half. The Dodgers were treating them like prospects, not like everyday players. Why wouldn't other GMs see them the same way? Then came the Kent ballyhoo against the kids at the very end, with the (barely) possible implication that to please Kent some kids could be traded.

If you were a GM of another team, wouldn't you be trying to get the very best you could from the Dodgers in those circumstances? At least as your opening gambit?

I think that the combination last year of Coletti being inclined to try to get the most he could from his "proven vets" for whom he paid a lot of money, his nervousness about letting kids play without "knocking the door down" (and not giving them many chances to do that), plus Grady Little's rather weak stature and personality (someone else might have tried harder to get the kids in seeing what the vets were doing) all added up to vacillation and keeping the kids as super-prspects. I'm not surprised that other GMs saw an opening here, going for what they couldn't hope to get from other teams.

The best things about this off-season are that Colletti has realized that the kids are his best bet - in fact last year will have served to get that "proving themselves" business out of the way - plus Torre being a manager he has to respect and allow to manage without interfering. If Torre decides to play Kemp and Ethier and bench Pierre because the performances justify doing that, he'll do so. if that happens, Colletti will start looking for trade opportunities for Pierre.

I would have to think that Colletti could trade Pierre if he really wanted to, by which I mean if he didn't care about getting anything valuable in return and wasn't opposed to including a sizable dowry with Pierre.

The key words in the above comment (and kudos to D4P for being precise) are in bold.

We really have no idea what was being asked of the Dodgers, or of any other team for that matter. All we have to go on is the deals that actually do happen, and what the rumor-mongers said about negotiations that didn't come to fruition, and we know how often they're correct about the deals that actually do go down.

I won't believe that another team asked for the moon unless both teams' GMs agree publicly on the offers and demands.

You have two cows. You also have Juan Pierre. Unfortunately, neither of the cows nor Pierre can play baseball. You find another farmer who has Johan Santana. You drug the farmer, kidnap him to the desert, take Santana, and leave the cows and Pierre. By the time the farmer comes around and accuses you of a crime, you have already won the World Series.

So the A's got 5 of Arizona's top 13-15 including 4 of their first 6 eligible to be dealt this winter. I think from a media viewpoint and for Beane to sell, it looks really good for the A's.

Now there are questions abound for each of the six and outside of the guy pitching in the Mexican League, it might be a stretch for any of the other 5 to start the season in Oakland so the actual bounty may not be known for some time.

The cows are a much better fit for Minnesota, because they have no grass. The field crew can make sure they get food from other sources and the ground will still be green.

And then, when the farmer wakes up, we can say that Cow-Pierre-Cow is better than whatever they plan on running out there this year, and maybe that will save us from the slammer.

My favorite racing pigeons are the Brockian types.

Box of sunflower seeds
Pair of tickets to Jersey Boys
New trashcan for Jeff Kent
Banana-flavored Laffy Taffy
Lifetime subscription to Dodger Thoughts
Glove oil
New hairpiece for Ned or Vin
A copy of Guitar Hero
Curb Your Enthusiasm season 6 DVD set
LOOGY
Loogie
Luigi

Easily the worst flavor of Laffy Taffy.

And still more tasty than Juan Pierre.

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/hotstove07/columns/story?id=3158054

Hmmm. Maybe he should try grabbing another gear before he gets into a little trouble in the first place.

So why would you waste more energy when you are already sailing along pretty well?

Are you forgetting about former #1 prospect and 94 RBI Delmon Young and young and talented Cuddyer?

Jon, I know you're looking at 3 year averages, but how is Josh Beckett not in the Ace category? I think the AL points in general are a bit skewed

No matter how good a pitcher is, some trouble is inevitable most outings.

Doesn't the fact that "cruising" can lead to the other team "putting something together" bely the claim that there's "no need to exert extra energy and pinpoint pitches"? If cruising gets you in trouble, don't cruise.

It's not nearly as funny to suggest that the Twins' actual outfield is expected to perform better than cows.

Of course, maybe you didn't like my play on the old econ "You have two cows" thought experiment. That is certainly your right.

This is similar to the notion of "clutch" hitting. If a player has some approach to hitting that works better in clutch situations, he should use said approach all the time, not just in clutch situations.

Then his other gear isn't really worth all that much.

That just gives you the luxury of running one cow out there with Young and Cuddyer, while Pierre and the other cow provide much needed depth. Is one of the cows left handed?

That just gives you the luxury of running one cow out there with Young and Cuddyer, while Pierre and the other cow provide much needed depth. Is one of the cows left handed?

Never mind, if it wasn't funny the first two times, this won't help.

There is a word for a pitcher who uses maximum effort on almost every delivery: "Closer."

So Kuroda's not really unique in that respect...

Stop twisting words around. You loss this argument, man up.

I think this is a job fit for a librarian....

/bitterness

I think we've reached that conclusion that Kuroda is no different from many/most pitchers in terms of "trying harder" in certain situations than others.

Andrew (truebluela Andrew) agrees with me on this, but picking up Loaiza for 7 million for only one year was a good move considering

1.our need for SP
2.the options available in the free agent market.

If Loaiza's healthy, he is league average. If he is not healthy, he doesn't pitch and its only 7 million insurance policy.

Let's say I'm Rick Asadoorian, just as an example. I'm a marginal baseball talent, looking to be the 25th guy on a roster somewhere. My agent tells me that my best shot is to be an NRI for a team and hope to catch on. I'm disappointed, but it beats selling patio furniture, so I'm on board.

Why does my agent call the Dodgers? Asadoorian's a pitcher these days. The Dodgers are loaded with pitchers. I would guess that it's extraordinarily unlikely that Asadoorian will get the opening day call and highly unlikely that he would see action in LA all season long. Meaning that Asadoorian's best and perhaps only shot to see action in the majors might be for his agent to work the phones, find a team that needs him, and get the Dodgers to release or trade him. Meanwhile, he's pitching in Vegas, which doesn't do any pitcher any favors.

I would imagine that Asadoorian doesn't have a lot of say in the matter -- if there were a market for his services, he wouldn't be on an NRI, right? But if I'm the agent, isn't my first call to the Brewers?

So what exactly is your point? Your main argument of "why doesn't he go full speed all the time" was eloquently refuted by Shimmin in 138 .

What else are you trying to say?

If you can't do any better than that, I don't know how I will be able to vote you on the annual Librarian all star team.

For me, that page raises more "???'s" than it answers.

158
This isn't about the signing, it's about being a warrior and buckling down and grabbing alternative gears.

159
No, I meant "we've".

Re Bannister, well, his numbers, his ERA at least, got skewed by 3 bad starts near the end there. Last start was 5 ERs in .2 IP. Start before was 6 ER in 5 IP. Then skipping the start before that last one, on 10/8 he gave up 7 ER in 5 IP. Prior to that, well, from 6/1 to that 10/8 start, Bannister went 12-4. He gave up 6 ERs on 6/23 v. the Brewers, 4 ERs on 6/17 v. the Marlins, 4 ERs on 7/4 v. Seattle, and 4 ERs on 7/16 v. the Red Sox. Bannister gave up 3 ERs on 8/1 [Twins] and 8/12 [Jays]. He had 3 starts with 2 ERs [8/17-22-28], 5 starts with 1 ER [6/1; 6/29; 7/22; 8/7; 9/2; 9/14], and 3 starts with 0 ER [6/6; 6/12; 7/27]. My own personal bias is that I had a pitcher go on the DL in late May on 3 of my fantasy teams and I picked up Bannister and he did just fine until those last two starts cost 2 of the 3 teams the fantasy league championship [killed the ERA and HRs allowed]. I don't have a crystal ball, but I'd like to think that the end there was simply the end of a long first season starting for him. His April and May was otherwise 0-3, with 4 ERs on 5/26, 3 ERs on 4/24; 4/29; and 5/20, and 2 ERs on 5/4 and 5/15.

Re the Rays, well, remember that one discussion about the one bad start skewing the ERA. It did for James Shields. 7/22 at Yankees and he gave up 10 ERs in 3.1 IP. Owing to the fiascos that were the two prior games, Shields was left out there to die [as it were]. All of the runners he otherwise had on base when he left ended up scoring. Absent that single horrendous start when the entire pen but for Al Reyes had already been gassed in the prior 2 games, well, his ERA would be 3.49 [as opposed to 3.85]. Shields was also shut down for his last two starts, whereas Kazmir pitched to the end. But even so, Shields threw 215 innings, was 12-8, with 184 Ks and 36 BBs, and a WHIP of 1.11. In contrast, Kazmir threw 206.2 innings [so almost a game shy of Shields with Shields shut down for his last 2 scheduled starts], had a 3.48 ERA [the most ERs he gave up was 6, on a single occasion, 8/20 v. Red Sox], he K'd 239 and BB'd 89, with a WHIP of 1.38.

I'm in for it Shields since while he certainly didn't strike out as many as Kaz, 184 K's in 215 IPs is nothing to sneeze at and he ended up pithing more innings despite being shut down for his last 2 starts and he only walked 36 to Kaz's 89, and his WHIP was 1.11 to Kaz's 1.38. I'd otherwise like to think that Shields' improvement last year will stick.

http://tinyurl.com/ys2n2l