Modest Proposal

[barzilla]

Okay folks, I ask one thing of you through this process: hear me out all the way to the end. Currently, there are two big hitters available on the open market. Since their names will prejudice you let me look at their numbers from 2002-2004

. . . . . . . . .PA. . . .OBP. . . .SLG. . . .RC. . . .ARV. . . .OW%
Player A . .1860. . ..423. . . ..613. . ..399. . ...387. . . .751
Player B . .1826. . ..384. . . ..501. . ..302. . ...362. . . .639

Yeah, it looks like Player A is the guy, but what about their defense?
. . . . . . . . .G. . . . .FPCT. . . .PO. . . .A. . . .DP. . . .RF
Player A . ..328. . . ..969 . . ..517. . ..21. . . .2 . . . .1.64
Player B . ..377. . . ..961 . . ..659. . ..26. . . .4 . . . .1.82

So, Player B is a slightly better defender. Let's take a look at age.

Player A: 33
Player B: 25

I'm sure the more industrious of you have figured out who player B is based on his age. Player A might still be a mystery to some of you, but others might have figured this out. Let's look at salaries.

Player A: 20.0 Million
Player B: 4.6 Million

Alright, if you haven't figured out who each of these players are by now I'll go ahead and tell you. Player A is Manny Ramirez and Player B is Adam Dunn. Before I talk parameters let me go over the advantages and disadvantages.

Advantages of Ramirez

1. Production, Production, and Production.

Ramirez just produces runs. Think about the complaints about Dunn (he strikes out too much and hits for a low average). Ramirez doesn't have those to that degree. He has hit .300 in nine out of ten full seasons and likely will have 100 RBIs eight years in a row. .377 has been his LOWEST OBP in his career with .538 being his lowest slugging percentage. He strikes out, but never more than 131 times.

2. He's Under Contract

Yes, the contract is prehibitive, but I'm sure any deal will involve Boston paying a portion. Either way, he is under contract through 2007 which means he would be a guaranteed long-term solution.

3. Post-Season Experience

Obviously, he has that over Adam Dunn.

Disadvantages

1. Huge Salary

You would be hamstrung unless Bagwell salary can be chalked up to insurance next season. However, this isn't as big an disad as it first seems. With back to back 40 home run seasons, Dunn's salary will likely double at least for 2005 (another incentive for Cincy to deal him) and could up more if a long-term deal is secured. If you take away a percentage that Boston would likely pay on Ramirez then you may be talking a difference of "only" five million a season.

2. Chemistry

MRam has been the hitting equivalent of Pedro Martinez. He continually hits well, but he's laicadasical on defense and gives off the image that he doesn't care. For a team that prides itself on doing more than one thing well, his attitude might not sit well. Yet, I've heard the same thing about Dunn. Speaking from personal experience, it's amazing how much more you will do when you're happy than when you're not. Mram might find the same kind of oasis that Beltran did with Houston's hispanic community and the Houston press is definitely less pressurized than the Boston or New York press.

Advantages of Dunn

1. Youth

Dunn is only 25 so he has his best days ahead of him (versus Ramirez who probably has already seen his best days). Dunn also has not signed his long-term deal so the Astros could tailor it to their needs.

2. Local Boy

Yes, it does matter to a certain degree. Like I said, people tend to give more effort when they are where they want to be. Manny Ramirez has intimated that he wants to be in New York. New York had their crack at him and turned him down.

Logistics

On Dunn this is very easy. We trade them two prospects and one major league player if the Reds will take that or wait until the off-season and beyond. For Ramirez I think we would have to realistically wait until the off-season. It's obvious the Red Sox want to rid themselves of a huge salary, but it's also obvious that they cannot afford to trade him for prospects. They need something comparable to make another post-season run. In the off-season, they can take prospects and then use the money to bring in other talent.

If MRam is traded before the off-season so be it, but if he isn't we should toss it around. Here are some parameters I would set:

1) The Red Sox agree to pay five million per season (10 million) at the very least. The Astros give them more for every extra five million they take on.

2) Wandy Rodriguez and Ezekiel Astacio are not for sale. They can have Burke, Lane, or any other prospect in the system they want. Realistically, something like Lane, and two prospects for MRam and 10 million dollars would do it for me.

3) Reach a private agreement with MRam that he will not request a trade for the life of the contract.

There it is, that is my modest proposal. Tear it up.

[PissedPrincess]

:laff:

Zilla? Who kidnapped Barzilla's user name?

There is ZERO, ZERO way the Sox trade Manny and pay ONE RED CENT of his contract. No way. You want him, his contract which runs thru 08 btw is yours.

He pulls this crap every year. The Sox would love to deal him, but only if they get equal talent back, or his whole deal paid.

Personally, I'm hoping for Dunn for prospects myself.

[barzilla]

Jacqui,

As my mom was always fond of saying: it doesn't hurt to ask. The key is not to give up on the notion out of hand. There is always a way to do these kinds of things. The Red Sox could counter with five million. That would at least lighten the burden for 2006 while they still have Pettitte and likely part of Bags on the rolls.

The Red Sox could also counter with the demand of Astacio being in on the package. The problem I have with the Stros is their unwillingness to think outside the box on these things. Like I said in the original post: THIS IS AN OFF-SEASON type of deal. There is no way either team could swing a big leaguers for big leaguers deal when they are in the middle of a pennant race. After the season we can revisit the subject.

[PopTop]

If we traded a 20th round draft choice and Boston paid ALL of his salary, I still wouldn't want a non-hustling, egomaniacal piece of crap like Manny Ramirez. Why don't we go on and get Milton Bradley and Gary Sheffield to play the OF with him and sign Kenny Rogers for our rotation?! Perhaps we could get Scott Boras to handle community affairs?!

[barzilla]

Wow Pops, there's a lot of venom there. :eek:

I don't happen to think MRam is that bad but then again I guess it just depends on what sins you're willing to deal with.

1) Seeming like you don't care (I don't care, it's hard for someone to be that good without caring). Jim Rice was a horrible baserunner and Ted Williams was a lackluster fielder. So, MRam's defense might not be lack of effort as much as priorities. I don't think anyone would honestly claim that the Splinter didn't give maximum effort, just not maximum preparation. He spent most of his time on his hitting and it showed. Rice also did not focus on becoming a good baserunner, he even said, "they're not paying me to run the bases." Both drew a lot of flack at the time, but as time goes on the understanding is there. MRam is the same way.

2) Milton Bradley is an anger management problem which is has spilled over with fans. Kenny Rogers attacked a cameraman, showed up to the all-star game when he didn't deserve to, apologized, then attacked another cameraman in court.

3) Gary Sheffield actually said he would jake it if he were traded and admitted to jaking it in Milwaukee. As far as I know Manny has never threatened to do that or admitted to doing it. Plus, you have the whole "I didn't use steroids so I'll throw Roger Clemens under the bus" thing from Sheffield.

However, this misses the whole point. If you give me a list of ten superstars I'll find a major flaw with at least half of them. We have been SPOILED by Biggio, Bagwell, and Berkman. The problem I see is that we have come to EXPECT superstars to be like Biggio and Bagwell instead of realizing they are the exception and not the rule. There is a subtle difference between expecting your stars to be decent people and very good people. I was listening to 790 AM when an outsider was filling in for Palilo. He made the point that Houston makes a big splash every now and then, but it is almost always for local guys (Johnson being the obvious exception) and always for a certain type of guy.

Now, we've all heard the charges of racism come in here. I'm not touching that directly, but we do have a prejudice for certain type of guys. So, we have a bunch of boy scouts that get to the playoffs and never get to the World Series. Drayton McLane talks about winning the championship, so it's time to ask ourselves: do we want 25 good guys and hope for the best or are we willing to take on someone that has been criticized for something someone percieved as a character flaw? If we go over a list of the World Champions from the last five to six years (at least) we will find an example of that kind of player.

Now, I have been accused of ignoring character issues and that is certainly a decent charge. However, I'm not suggesting that. All I'm saying is check it out. Take what people are saying about Ramirez (or anyone else) and run it down. Is it a media blown thing or is it a geniune issue. I would surmise that Ramirez's case is as much the Boston media as it is him. We never heard these things when he was in Cleveland and he is essentially the same player. Anyone ever wonder why he wants out? The two things you have to consider are this: sometimes you have a Carl Everett and sometimes you have a Mitch Meluskey AND sometimes the media just gets it in their head that they don't like a guy.

Carl Everett was a problem but not in Houston because of the nature of the clubhouse and laid back media. Meluskey was a jackass and would have been a jackass everywhere. The key is knowing the difference. Is Ramirez a jackass? I'm just not sure that's the case. We never heard anything about him in Cleveland, so this could be a Boston issue. This is where we look at the media angle. He seemed to fit in that clubhouse last year when the Sox had the good chemistry, so I'm inclined to believe this is a media issue. The media loves to crucify their left fielders for obvious reasons and they love to crucify their stars for not leading the team to the ultimate level. They pounce of percieved imperfections (or limitations) and blame the team's shortcomings on that. Folks, I talked about the same thing with Ensberg this season before he went on his huge hot streak. You don't blame the star for the team's shortcomings. You blame the WORST player, but I digress.

I highlighted the difference between the Board Game, the Gambler, and Sheffield and Ramirez because not all character questions are created equal. Has anyone bothered to think that Pedro Martinez and Manny Ramirez have gotten bad reputations in Boston because there just isn't a huge Hispanic population in Boston? For one, that aren't going to be as comfortable as they could be, but more importantly it's like African-American NFL players in Green Bay. Their are cultural differences there that are somewhat hard to understand or accept when you just don't encounter people like that in your daily life. I admit, I'm not the right person to address this. I taught in a school where 95% of the student body was Hispanic and I still had a hard time with the fact that a sizeable part of that population didn't care about education. I knew it but couldn't understand it. However, I still tried to fight the idea that they were lazy because of that. It wasn't laziness, it was just different priorities

Similarly, I know that Latin players are just as competitive as anyone else. Baseball is a religion for them. Yet, we cannot help but look at guys like Jose Lima (for us in Houston), Pedro, or Manny and think they are either showboating (me, me, me, me, me) or that they don't care. How much of that is reality and how much of that is just a difference in the way competitiveness manifests itself? What's funny is that while Lima was winning 37 games in two years for us, while Pedro was dominating the AL like no one else in the late 1990s, early aughts and while Manny was driving in 140 runs a season no one seemed to mind. When that chink in the armor shows up (or complete colaspe in Lima's case) it's amazing how those quirks are suddenly unacceptable.

To dismiss all of these guys like that is lazy in my opinion. Not lazy on the fan's part so much as management's part. It's a kind of "we know that the fans will show up and we'll be fairly successful this way so why take the chance? Well, if you really want to be a champion you have to. It's lazy because there is no effort made to separate the misunderstood from those that truly are bad apples.

[PissedPrincess]

Actually, there is a HUGE Hispanic population in Boston. Not too mention the northern burbs of Lawrence, Lowell, etc...where ENGLISH is a second language.

Please, do not make this a race issue. Nothing could be further from the truth.

No one here thinks Manny is a jerk. He is, however DUMB. I mean, Jessica Simpson dumb, and selfish.

As far as having no incidents in Cleveland you're kidding right? Hargrove HATED him! They accused him of faking his hammy prob which he took half a year to come back from. Manny himself said that was why he wanted out of there.

Manny got his ring, he is rich beyond reality, so his motivation just isn't there as much as before.

Boston media can be harsh, but they don't make crap up. And if you are a good guy, they fawn over you like crazy.

[PopTop]

No one here thinks Manny is a jerk. He is, however DUMB. I mean, Jessica Simpson dumb, and selfish.No doubt a better way of putting it than how I did. I felt the same way about Derek Bell when he played here, along with Moises Alou and Jeff Kent. Not sure they really are stupid or if they're really not giving 100%. But they all gave that impression to me, apathetical and arrogant.

[barzilla]

Hmmmm, I don't seem to remember that in Cleveland, but my memory fades on these things as life goes on. That is why I brought up Williams and Rice because they also had their detractors, but those things fade after awhile. However, I want to make a distinction: my comments are not about race or racism but culture. I know that is a semantic argument but follow me here.

1.He is, however DUMB. I mean, Jessica Simpson dumb, and selfish

What is this based on? I'll ignore the dumb part and focus on the selfish part. He is "selfish" because we percieve him as selfish. Our perceptions are based on our life experience and what we believe selflessness and selfishness to be. Now dumb is a huge issue. We have more Hispanic children in special ed (and males in general) and more that are considered at risk. Why is that? I don't know Manny Ramirez and don't know whether he is dumb or not, but doesn't sound smart. To prove that this is not a race issue I would ask you this question: If you had a doctor that sounded like a southern hick who said, "we're going to cut a hole in your head about yeah big" would you let him or her operate? I had the hardest time convincing my students last year that people base their opinion of your intelligence on the vocabulary you use.

2. As far as having no incidents in Cleveland you're kidding right? Hargrove HATED him! They accused him of faking his hammy prob which he took half a year to come back from. Manny himself said that was why he wanted out of there.

Alright, let's analyze this a little. Just because they accused him of faking an injury doesn't mean he DID fake an injury. Think about this way: if your employer accused you of skipping work on purpose or being otherwise dishonest when you weren't wouldn't you want out too?

3. Manny got his ring, he is rich beyond reality, so his motivation just isn't there as much as before.

Again, what are we basing this on? I'd imagine a large part of it comes from what we percieve from body language and facial expressions. I'll be the first to admit, I didn't like Moises Alou at all because I thought he didn't give a full effort in the field. If Willie is enterprising he could probably go back and find a thread where I lashed out at Alou for not hustling. The fact is that some players dive and throw themselves around and some don't. Effort? I was wrong if I said Alou definitely wasn't giving an effort. Now, that doesn't mean that Alou didn't jake it or that MRam hasn't jaked it. It also doesn't mean you aren't right about his lack of motivation. It just means that we have to ask ourselves constantly what we are basing our opinion on.

Listen, I'm not here to talk about demographics, racism, or cultural norms. All I'm saying is that there are people that are legitimately jerks/selfish that shouldn't be a part of your team under any circumstances. There are also people that get those reputations unfairly. Ramirez is a good example of a player that has that reputation. I don't care who it is, you owe it to yourself as an executive to investigate these things when players like him come available. If you assume that a reputation is always well-founded then you can miss out on a great player. This is where a total sabermetric outlook on running a team is doomed to be ultimately unsuccessful and the reverse is also true. What you need is someone like me that provides sabermetric information along with scouts, operatives, and other traditional folks to provide the other side.

However, you can't win with 25 nice guys. Talent wins championships. Sometimes you need to have a guy that has some issues but is damn good in order to win. There just aren't enough truly good guys out there to make up a championship roster with nice guys.

[Toy Cannon]

All you need to know is that Ramirez is to LF what Dick Stuart was to 1B. You don't want him in the field. Period. When you add his salary to his Iron glove, I have to wonder why anyone (Astros) would even consider him an option. Iron glove, too much money....end of effing discussion. :yadda:

[rockin500]

i'd still take manny and his lack of defense over Randy West's Stunt Double who is currently patrolling our left field. :)

[Thedatch]

i'd still take manny and his lack of defense over Randy West's Stunt Double who is currently patrolling our left field. :)

I'll play left field for you guys...then i can take a piss in the ivy and lose my expensive diamond earing in there as well.

Oh yeah, and my hamstring is always injured by the way

[Sandy]

I think sports are the ultimate incubator for viewing the balance (or lack thereof) between "production" and "personality".

In looking at ANY player - Manny, Bonds, Bags, Ripken -- there is ALWAYS a reality that you're getting a total package - not just the parts you like or don't like - ALL the parts.

The thing about sports (and this isn't confined to baseball) is that you've got the press looking over everyone's shoulders - and they have their own agendas. The most obvious one is selling papers. And so the press agendas can and do (whether you like it or not) influence the PERCEPTIONS of many things.

In almost any 'normal' job, the same two factors (production and personality - or perhaps a better word would be politics) play a role in how far you can go and how fast you get there. In truth, in many business situations politics ends up being the MORE important aspect (whether this is how it should be can be debated), as the brown nosers and people that 'get along' WILL get promotions, while the a**holes and malcontents are passed over.

But, in sports - PRODUCTION is by FAR the most important aspect to consider. This is easily demonstrated by SALARY. It doesn't matter how great a clubhouse guy you happen to be - if you hit .220 with a glove of stone, you will NEVER get a big payday. And production in sports is something that CAN be measured. Mind you, sometimes the measures can be deceptive - BUT - they exist nevertheless. If you hit .300 and smack 40 dingers, you WILL get paid well, regardless of whether you've got a personality that would make Quentin Terrantino wince.

So, while personality cannot (and should not) be "completely" ignored - in the end, personality doesn't win games -- production does. And WINNING typically suspends all the negatives (at least for the local fans).

Yes, laziness (not running out pop ups) IS an issue - but in the grand scheme of winning or losing it's trivial.

All that aside - I still don't believe Manny is worth the money. I have a long standing belief that the "cream" is GROSSLY overpaid for the small percentage edge they have over the '2nd tier' talent. Manny is NOT worth 5 or 10 or 15 times as much as say a Reggie Sanders. And I believe it's just bad business to grossly overpay to get an extra 80 points of OPS from one guy - when the OTHER effect is that you have to scrimp and lose 150 points of OPS from 3 other positions.

Personally, I think Lane is showing good signs that he could be a fairly decent OF, (if allowed to develop a bit more). But you could get him for a SONG at the moment, and use the extra "super star" money that you don't spend to upgrade the worst positions. Don't get me wrong - Dunn is a solid talent - and he'd be a nice plus to the Astros - but the year he's having is going to seriously drive up his arb numbers.

In the end - the Astros remain boxed into a corner financially, because they can't make any SOLID plans for the future until they have some concept of how money they REALLY are going to have to sink into Bags. With the team playing as well as it is, it makes more sense (to me), to get some BENCH upgrades - which can be cheap, and won't monkey with the current chemistry.

Go grab a middle reliever or two -- maybe a veteran bat off the bench (like Cruz Jr.). Either that - or go grab another starter (Redman?) with playoff experience. I just don't see any reason at this point to go and cash out a bunch of prospects for a big bat the club doesn't appear to need at this point.

[barzilla]

Sandy,

You are more or less correct, but I brought up the Manny Ramirez suggestion more as a morbid experiment than anything. The point is that the Astros and most of their fans are hell-bent against "his type of guy". Moises Alou was promised his pay day from Drayton and didn't get it. Now, you could claim that paying an aging thirties player a huge payday would hamstring the club, but Drayton found the money to pay Biggio and Bagwell under the same circumstances.

Now, there are a lot of reasons for this, but a big part of that is Drayton's knowledge of PR. Fans have/had a stronger connection to Biggio and Bagwell than Alou. A big part of that was their longer service to the team, but a significant chunk is the perception that Alou didn't play hard and dedicate himself to the game.

For every 20 million dollar Manny there is a 2 million dollar version of him (albeit 100 less OPS points like you said). Do you avail yourself of their talent or do you go for the nice guy? Too many times the Astros have gone for the nice guy. Yes, sometimes you have nice guys that produce. Morgan Ensberg, Lance Berkman, and Craig Biggio fall into that category. Other times you have nice guys that are just not that productive (Ausmus and Everett).

As far as this season goes, there simply isn't anything out there that we really need for a fair price. If there were a catcher available we could easily jettison Quintero back to AAA and go with an Ausmus/hitter platoon. That catcher is not available. However, that's not really the point of this whole excercise. The point is that in the off-season when there are options the Astros need to explore all of them instead of closing themselves off to certain avenues.

[PissedPrincess]

I have no issue overpaying for superstars. It's overpaying for mediocrity that is stupid.

See: Wright, Pavano, Renteria, etc........

[barzilla]

Jacqui,

Wright- worse than mediocre had one great season
Pavano- mediocre and had one great season

Anyone notice a pattern here?

Renteria is not mediocre. He is a very good player having a sub-par season for him. Big difference.

[Astro Annie]

I got, in my mailbox today, a letter from Tim Purpura. This is because I wrote to him last week about Adam Dunn. I wasn't expecting a response--I just wanted to do something reasonable instead of posting my thoughts in a forum or calling up KTRH and yakking on the Tenth Inning. He thanked me for my "input and interest" and even put a small handwritten comment at the bottom. In fact, I was so sure he wouldn't have time to get back to me that I didn't include a SASE like I usually do when I write someone in baseball.

Oh, and we don't need Manny. I'm firmly with Sandy in that it's dumb to pay so much for someone just because he's a little better. That's why I couldn't boo Beltran at the game tonight--the boy did us a favor by signing with the Mets. Even if he were having a better season, he still did us a favor by not taking our money.

[PissedPrincess]

Zilla, I disagree. I've looked at Edgar's career numbers, he's average. 03 was his fluke good year.

I don't like Manny, but I look at as $25 mill a year for Ortiz and Manny. We are not Pittsburgh. We can afford this. If we dump Manny IN-SEASON for junk to save money, I'll be livid.

[PissedPrincess]

Let me pre-phase by saying I thoroughly enjoy each and everyone one of you here. :)

Now, let me argue. :D

Annie, I understand your point. I just feel different. Let's use Beltran and Manny as an example. Manny makes what $2 mill more a year? Clutch point in the game, I want Manny up. I feel I can get Beltran out. Manny scares the beejesus out of me. Beltran does not. So, I feel Manny is worth the extra dough.

Course, I feel they're both overpaid. :)

[Astro Annie]

Jacqui, this place would get pretty boring if everyone always agreed with everyone else about everything. I understand where you're coming from, but y'all have a bigger payroll than we do and y'all can do stuff with it that we can't. Now, last season, Beltran was clutch. This season he's middling on a good day. If we had paid for him and gotten the clutch boy, we would still be paying more than his clutchness would be worth. And it's the paying more than someone is worth that I object to. And the vast majority of the guys at the top-end are getting more than they're worth. It makes more sense to have a bunch of good players making reasonable money than a couple studs making vastly too much. At least on our payroll it is. If you've got the money to throw around for studs, then by all means, do it. It's like buying a car. Many
expensive cars are actually better cars, but I can't afford any of them, so when I buy a car, I'm getting a car that's good, but that isn't one of those pricey models. They sell a bunch of those cars though because some folks have the kind of money it takes to get them. I don't begrudge them that. I'm just not mortgaging my future to make that choice for myself.

[barzilla]

Couldn't have said it better myself.

Jacqui, here are the RCAP (runs created above average on Edgar)

. . . . . . .RCAP. . . . .RCAA
1996. . . ..15. . . . . . ....6
1997. . . ..-6. . . . . . .-25
1998. . . ....3. . . . . . .-14
1999. . . ....6. . . . . . .-16
2000. . . ....8. . . . . . .-15
2001. . . ..-4. . . . . . .-20
2002. . . ..29. . . . . . ..13
2003. . . ..47. . . . . . ..33
2004. . . ....2. . . . . . .-12
Total. . . .100. . . . . ..-46

So, is he average or above average? If you compare him to left fielders, right fielders, and first baseman then he is below average. He is five runs below average offensively when comparing him to the average hitter. He is more than ten runs above average per season better than the average shortstop. Ah, but I forgot fielding right?

. . . . . . . . . FRAA
1996. . . . . . ....5
1997. . . . . . ....1
1998. . . . . . .-11
1999. . . . . . .-14
2000. . . . . . ....3
2001. . . . . . ...10
2002. . . . . . .-11
2003. . . . . . ....2
2004. . . . . . ..,-7
Total. . . . . . .-22

So, he is actually a below average fielder according to Baseball Prospectus. However, Bill James and Pete Palmer disagree. What does this mean? We don't know how good or bad he is as a fielder, but he has a solid reputation. According to Baseball Prospectus, this is where he projects this season.

. . . . . . .AB. . .AVG. . . .OBP. . . .SLG. . . .HR. . . .R. . . .RBI. . . .SB/CS
2005. . ..601. . .270. . . .342. . . .381. . . .11. . . .92. . . .54. . . .13/6

I realize I'm defending this signing because I loved it this off-season, but down years happen. His 743 career OPS is a little better than what he is doing this season and when you consider that Fenway should help Renteria. Yet me show you a list here and you'll immediately get where I'm going.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .RCAP
Barry Larkin . . . . . . . .488
Alex Rodriguez. . . . . . .474
Cal Ripken. . . . . . . . . .334
Derek Jeter. . . . . . . . .328
Nomar Garciaparra.. . . .309
Alan Trammell. . . . . . ..263
Ozzie Smith. . . .. . . . ..188
Tony Fernandez.. . . . ..123
Jeff Blauser. . . . . . . . .122
John Valentin. . . . . . . .119

Okay, notice you have two shortstops that spent a majority of their career with the Red Sox on the top ten lists among shortstops over the last ten years. You're spoiled. Hey, I understand it. If Chris Burke puts up those numbers (Renteria's from this year) the year after Biggio retires people will be complaining. Renteria's evaluation comes down to whether or not you believe Bill James or the folks at baseball prospectus. Considering that James is employed with the Sox I have a feeling how that should go.

[PissedPrincess]

Shockingly, Edgar is hitting only .249 at Fenway. :angry: Add this to the fact he has 19 freakin errors, and I'm not getting value for my $10 million.

I think the Sox not moving Hanley is telling. I think they realize they've made a mistake. Edgar himself said he'd move to 3rd to make room for Hanley.

[Sandy]

On this issue, I'm inclined to lean away from Barz. My perception of Renteria (prior to this season - and the perception hasn't changed), is that he is a very slightly above average SS. Not great - not exception - just 'slightly' above average.

As Princess noted - she felt that 2003 was a fluke season - the definitive 'career' year. And being that almost HALF of Edgar's RCAP comes from that single season, the perception does have a reasonable foundation.

Renteria has been ranked around 11th/12th among all ML SS in both 2004 and 2005. The problem lies in the wild swings in production making an accurate assessment difficult in the extreme. Let's look back a little - and I'll show you what I mean.

Go back to 2000 and Renteria posted a 4.78 RC/27 score (8th among the 12 qualifiers that year). Christian Guzman was 11th with a 4.13 and Pokey Reese 10th with a 4.64 just for comparison.

2001 - Renteria 3.93 (11th), just behind Lugo (4.08). Eckstein (4.88) was 6th and Orlando Cabrera (4.79) was 7th.

2002 - Renteria's breakout year (5.62), good for 4th place among all SS with Eckstein (5.20) in 5th place. Cabrera (4.17) fell to 9th, and Guzman (3.56) wsa 14th.

2003 - Renteria was #1 at (6.90) RC/27. Cabrera (5.78) was 5th. Lugo (4.92) was 9th, Guzman (4.02) 14th and Eckstein (3.80) 15th.

2004 - Renteria (4.42) drops to 14th. Eckstain (4.11) is 16th. Cabrera (4.02) is 17th and Guzman (3.91) 19th. Julio Lugo (4.97) is 10th.

2005 - Renteria (4.27) is 11th. Eckstein (4.23) is 12th. Cabrera (3.85) is 15th. Lugo (5.79) is 5th.

The problem in making a judgement is the pattern we see with YOUNG SSs is one of wild, unpredictable swings. As a chart, they look like this:

Year ---- 2000 - 2001 - 2002 - 2003 - 2004 - 2005
Renteria- 4.78 - 3.93 -- 5.62 - 6.90 -- 4.42 - 4.27
Guzman - 4.13 - 5.83 -- 3.56 - 4.02 -- 3.91 - 1.30
Cabrera - ------ 4.79 -- 4.17 - 5.78 -- 4.02 - 3.85
Eckstein- ------ 4.88 -- 5.20 - 3.80 -- 4.11 - 4.23
J. Lugo - ------ 4.08 -- 4.37 - 4.92 -- 4.97 - 5.79

Think about the off-season signings of Guzman, Eckstein and Renteria. Guzman got 4 million per for 4 years. Most people said Montreal was insane for paying that much for a guy who had one great season, followed by 3 years of hovering around 4.00 RC/27.

Eckstein is signed for a comparitive pittance - 10 million over 3 years.

Meanwhile, Renteria is getting 40 million over 4 years? (Lugo is getting just over 3 for this season, just fyi).

With TWO (not one) special seasons, it's understandable how one could project Renteria into the elite ranks of guys like AROD, Nomar, Tejada - though Jeter would be a better comparison. The thing is - Renteria has NEVER shown the kind of power that these guys possess. His career year in 2003 was propelled by a .330 batting average, which was about 40 points over his norm. Coming on the heels of a .300 season, I can see why one would reach the conclusion that he'd taken his game to a higher level. But his extra power was tied up in average and doubles - NO push in the HR category.

In general terms, he's an above average hitting SS with doubles power, which can steal a few bases, but is already showing signs of slowing down, (17/28 in 2004). Moreover, Boston is NOT a running team, so whatever SB value he brings is likely to be muted.

Frankly speaking, Julio Lugo appeared to be as good a bet for future production, based on the history. But more than that - even if you project Renteria as a 5.00 RC/27 guy, he STILL isn't worth 2.5 times what the other guys listed here are making.

He may be the best of the guys I've listed - but he's not "much" ahead of these guys (depending on how you project them). EVERY guy on the list has posted at least one season of 5.00+ RC/27 production. And everyone has produced less than 4.00 (except Lugo, actually).

My take on Renteria is that his rep is inflated primarily due to his 100-RBI 2003. He's an above average SS, getting paid superstar money. Meanwhile, the Cards replace his offensive AND defensive production almost completely with Eckstein for pennies on the dollar.

[barzilla]

Here is the proof of the pudding. Sandy spent a lot of time and effort to say this,

On this issue, I'm inclined to lean away from Barz. My perception of Renteria (prior to this season - and the perception hasn't changed), is that he is a very slightly above average SS

Let me quote myself from the last post "He is more than ten runs above average per season better than the average shortstop." So, I agreed he was probably above average although I did defend his signing. Here's what the Sox are thinking

. . . . . . . .Win Shares
1996. . . . . . . .15
1997. . . . . . . .15
1998. . . . . . . .11
1999. . . . . . . .13
2000. . . . . . . .15
2001. . . . . . . .13
2002. . . . . . . .26
2003. . . . . . . .25
2004. . . . . . . .16

I don't bring this up to go against what Sandy is saying because he and I agree more often than not. It does point out a couple of interesting points. First, sabermetricians often talk past each other. Sandy and I both posted long-winded posts saying the same thing. What I essentially said was that your evaluation of Renteria depends on which numbers guru you believe. That brings up the second point. The industry doesn't see eye to eye, so the myth that we are a secret society ready to ruin the game is overblown. We can't even agree on what to eat for lunch so they say.

When I look at the data above there are two obvious conclusions one can draw. The first is Sandy's and Jacqui's. He is an above average shortstop that had back to back career seasons. Yet, you can look at the data and say that two out of the last three seasons were great seasons. Personally, I would say that anyone that would compare Renteria to Jeter, Arod, Tejeda, or Nomar is nuts. I listed the top ten to demonstrate that Renteria wasn't in that group. Again, here is what the Sox were thinking (I was thinking the same thing if you remember Pops and my road show to Boston)

Renteria: 67 win shares since 2002 (22.3 AVG)
Eckstein: 40 win shares since 2002 (13.3 AVG)
Cabrera: 44 win shares since 2002 (14.7 AVG)
Lugo: 43 win shares since 2002 (14.3 AVG)

If you go by the three year benchmark (which I happen to use) then you can see some justification for the increased paycheck. Again, this is not an "I'm right and Sandy's wrong" thing because he makes the winning argument this time. This was a Bill James driven move and it just goes to show that even the almighty James can be wrong.

Also, not this this is germane to the discussion, but Everett has 24 win shares over the past three seasons. Even if you give him the 8 win shares he is short in 2002 he is still well behind Lugo. Hmmmm..........

[PissedPrincess]

Btw, Edgar hit .190 :eek: until he hit .667 for 8 days in late May. Without those 8 days, he'd probably have a .240 average right now. Kevin Millar has more xtra base hits. That is horrific.

[Sandy]

Nice post Barz,

The key point for me is that you agree he's not remotely close to the Tejada range of production. Tejada is getting 12 million a year. So, assuming that Renteria IS better than the other guys on my list (most making 2-4 mil per year), and is CLEARLY not close to Tejada (12 million a year) - it would seem that a "reasonable" price would be closer to 6 million than 10.

[Thedatch]

Wouldn't the safest bet be just to wait out another season? that way you will be certain whether either this year, or last year was the fluke season?

I guess a team like the RedSox can't really afford to wait on a player whom they are paying what...10 million dollars a year?

[PissedPrincess]

No. 2003 was a fluke season. Last year, as well as this year, is what Edgar is. An average SS with an average bat that is way overpaid.

[Thedatch]

No. 2003 was a fluke season. Last year, as well as this year, is what Edgar is. An average SS with an average bat that is way overpaid.

ahh, 2003, ok. That does make it a little more suspect, yeah. When's Hanley Ramirez gonna be ready? :D

[barzilla]

I would argue that the chances are 50/50 that he will produce another 2002/2003 type season at some point under this contract. It's just a question of whether you believe in the three year benchmark or career as a whole benchmark.

[Thedatch]

I would argue that the chances are 50/50 that he will produce another 2002/2003 type season at some point under this contract. It's just a question of whether you believe in the three year benchmark or career as a whole benchmark.

I'm somewhat torn on this issue...on the one hand, my mind tells me that it would probably pay off to keep him around, but the unknown frightens me...I don't want to keep this guy around if all he's gonna do is be mediocre and pay him 10 million dollars. that's money we could be spending much better.