Gammons interview

[BSN07]

Gammons believes the Rangers or A's could go after Coco Crisp if he's not dealt to the Twins. He notes that "the A's think he's the best CF in the game right now," and that Billy Beane could acquire him to flip him.

He says the Mets are currently trying to build up inventory to trade for Johan Santana, and that might be why Bill Smith hasn't pulled the trigger on anything yet.

Gammons believes the Red Sox will exercise Manny Ramirez's $20MM options for the 2009 and 2010 seasons. He notes that Manny is getting himself into phenomenal shape this winter.

 

 

If Oak is that hi on Crisp, we could be looking at a nice return. Blanton is said to be available. I know there isn't much room for him now, but if we could find room he would solidify the back end of the rotation. an 09 SP rotation of,

 

1. Beckett

2.Dice-K

3.Lester

4.Blanton

5.Buccholz

 

drool............

 

Crisp + 1 or 2 prospects maybe? Anyone got any ideas?(I know this isn't being talk about, but news is slow an redundent. Thought this could spark some conversation)

[Jayhawk Bill]

I think that Crisp will be unavailable after he goes to Minnesota in the Santana trade.

[Thumper]

If Oak is that hi on Crisp, we could be looking at a nice return. Blanton is said to be available. I know there isn't much room for him now, but if we could find room he would solidify the back end of the rotation. an 09 SP rotation of,

 

1. Beckett

2.Dice-K

3.Lester

4.Blanton

5.Buccholz

 

drool............

 

Crisp + 1 or 2 prospects maybe? Anyone got any ideas?(I know this isn't being talk about, but news is slow an redundent. Thought this could spark some conversation)

 

 

It would definitely save us from losing Ellsbury (Oh yeah, I went there) or Lester. Crisp is good, but I do think he's expendable plus a prospect or two for Joe Blanton is a steal. Now Blanton isn't as good as Santana, in my own opinion, but he's younger and has time to get better, like Beckett did when he came to Boston. I'd take this deal over Santana at the fact it wouldn't cost as much and we still come out on top.

[BSN07]

It would definitely save us from losing Ellsbury (Oh yeah' date=' I went there) or Lester. Crisp is good, but I do think he's expendable plus a prospect or two for Joe Blanton is a steal. Now Blanton isn't as good as Santana, in my own opinion, but he's younger and has time to get better, like Beckett did when he came to Boston. [b']I'd take this deal over Santana at the fact it wouldn't cost as much and we still come out on top[/b].

 

Thumper we might get blasted for this, but I agree. We get to keep Buccholz,Lester and Ellsbury plus add a quality young SP. I actually believe this deal would be more of a Theo trade. Our FO has never been really known to go out and get the big name guy being shopped. The trades they make usually are a bit of a surprise( Schilling,Beckett(both worked out great)). I think a this would be one of those deals.

[RedSoxRooter]

He notes that "the A's think he's the best CF in the game right now," and that Billy Beane could acquire him to flip him.

 

This makes no sense to me on at least two different levels. I must be missing something or this is smoke.

[Thumper]

This makes no sense to me on at least two different levels. I must be missing something or this is smoke.

 

Maybe he wants to flip him gay? Oh wait that's Billy Bean.

 

I don't know why they would want Coco personally, but if it gets us a decent pitcher, Theo would make it happen, and I agree bosoxnation07, this is a Theo sort of trade.

[example1]

I'm feeling uncharacteristically lazy and it has been quite around here:

 

Someone sell me on Blanton as good enough to justify a spot in the Sox rotation.

[Jayhawk Bill]

Someone sell me on Blanton as good enough to justify a spot in the Sox rotation.

 

Career ERA vs. Yankees: 9.39

Career ERA, road: 4.66

HR/FB, 2007: 7.8% (expect HR to increase 50% from 2006-2007 levels)

 

I'd thought better of Blanton 'til I started checking.

[Taliesin]

I'm feeling uncharacteristically lazy and it has been quite around here:

 

Someone sell me on Blanton as good enough to justify a spot in the Sox rotation.

 

Alright, I'm bored too. This is the worst time of the year other than the end of January in general sports terms. You can never have too much pitching. I am not going to write a 4 page defense of the argument with pie charts. You can never have too much pitching. He comes from a system that develops quality arms. He has improved every year. He went 14-10 last year w/ a borderline major league lineup around him. He had a 3.95 E.R.A and a 1.22 WHIP and 140 strikeouts all the while pitching in the American League. He only gave up 16 Home Runs in 230 innings. He pitched 230 innings. I can come up with some more but I'm finding myself writing in short sentences and that ain't good. You don't think we can find a spot for this guy in our rotation? He's the same age as Beckett and will cost very little to obtain. I know we'd have to give up the greatest CF in baseball...cough. Talk about spin with that one. Santana is going to be pitching for the Mets next year.

[Thumper]

Career ERA vs. Yankees: 9.39

Career ERA, road: 4.66

HR/FB, 2007: 7.8% (expect HR to increase 50% from 2006-2007 levels)

 

I'd thought better of Blanton 'til I started checking.

 

I compared Blanton to Beckett for 2007 for my own health and from what I saw, what one did poor in, the other was better at. Blanton had a better ERA at home, Beckett had a better ERA away. Blanton had a lower ERA this season against the Yankees. Beckett had an all around better ERA, but let's also think back to the 2006 5.01 ERA Beckett.

 

I think of Blanton as a pre-2007 Beckett. I feel if they gave Blanton that same talk they had with Beckett and worked with him, we'd have ourselves a decent player. Not an Ace, but with John Farrell as the pitching coach I think we'd have ourselves a good pitcher that could deliver.

 

I'll take Blanton over Santana, Blanton has room to improve, he's not at that point where he's locked in on his way of pitching, he can be taught. That and he won't cost us another pitcher and/or a bat. Crisp, who's not bad himself, is worth giving up over with prospects for this pitcher. I really hope Theo jumps on this offer.

 

EDIT: Now what would be a nice set up is not only taking this deal, but giving up Lester and a prospect for Santana.

 

1. Beckett

2. Schilling

3. Santana

4. Blanton

5. Buccholz

 

Now that's a rotation.

[Taliesin]

It's academic until he actually is a member of the rotation. He went from 23 HR's in 05' to 16 in 07'. To us plebians that would seem an improvement. Those are actual home runs and I don't have fps or zips or RZRs to back them up. Nor do I ever hope to. His numbers against the MFY's ain't good, but the context of the lineup behind him and the atmosphere that he was operating in can't be underestimated. If Beckett had been traded to the A's or the Mariners for instance...would he be the guy he is? I don't know. I don't think so.

 

He's no #1 and never will be. I wasn't arguing that. I think he could be a very good 4 or 5 and I'd rather them go in that direction. It's just my opinion. He will never be a shut down guy but 230 innings can't be over valued.

[Thumper]

If Beckett had been traded to the A's or the Mariners for instance...would he be the guy he is? I don't know. I don't think so.

 

See that's why I think if Blanton comes to Boston and work with Farrell, he'll turn his carrer in for the better.

[schillingouttheks]

1. Beckett

2. Schilling

3. Santana

4. Blanton

5. Buccholz

 

Now that's a rotation.

 

So Wakefield gets moved to the bullpen? Okay, I can see that... but Matsuzaka apparently fell off the face of the planet when you were thinking about this, lol.

[Thumper]

So Wakefield gets moved to the bullpen? Okay' date=' I can see that... but Matsuzaka apparently fell off the face of the planet when you were thinking about this, lol.[/quote']

 

Goddamn you're right. I honestly completely forgot about Matsuzaka. Goddamn.

 

Okay then.

 

1. Beckett

2. Schilling

3. Matsuzaka

4. Santana

5. Blanton

 

You know if this were the case, option Buchholz MAYBE for Santana. MAYBE. If not, put Buchholz in the bullpen this coming season and start him in '09 as Curt's replacement. However I agree with Taliesin, you can never have too much pitching.

[Jayhawk Bill]

Thoughts:

 

1) If one can never have too much pitching, why don't we trade away Manny and Papi for pitching, too?

 

See, I'll agree that a team needs SIX solid starting pitchers and two VERY good relief pitchers, along with four other MLB-average relievers/spot starters. But Boston already has

 

Beckett

Buchholz

Lester

Matsuzaka

Schilling

Wakefield

 

Delcarmen

Papelbon

 

Hansen

Lopez

Okajima

Snyder

Tavarez

Timlin

 

plus six other pitchers on the 40-man each suitable for particular roles if needed. A great pitcher could make this even better, but another league-average starting pitcher just takes opportunities away from Wakefield, Lester and Buchholz.

 

Boston also needs to be covered, with a good backup, at every position. There's already grounds for concern at catcher. If Crisp were traded, Brandon Moss (or Jonathan Van Every) would be the backup CF, and I'm not sure that either one of them--or JD Drew--can really play CF at an MLB level.

 

That's why I'm reluctant to see Crisp traded away unless it's for a player that significantly helps the team. I'm not sure that Blanton is that good a pitcher.

 

2) Other teams' players road splits are important when considering trades because they're possibly leaving their old home ballpark and coming to Fenway. That's why a year ago we were checking Todd Helton's road stats so carefully. Oakland had a one-year Park Factor of 89% and a three-year Park Factor of 93%, so it strongly helped pitchers to do well. (Source BR, which excludes interleague play.) ESPN (which includes interleague stats) offers more detail for 2007:

 

[table]Stat | Runs | HR | H | 2B | 3B | BB

Fenway | 1.177 | 0.876 | 1.139 | 1.353 | 0.964 | 0.952

McAfee | 0.833 | 0.786 | 0.865 | 0.786 | 1.259 | 1.055

Ratio | 141.3% | 111.5% | 131.7% | 172.1% | 76.6% | 90.2%[/table]

 

A pitcher coming from Oakland to Boston could be expected to allow far more runs in his home games--Fenway is a much better hitter's park than McAfee, as the ratios show.

 

Blanton has a career 3.55 home ERA and 4.66 road ERA. If we multiply his home ERA by the 141.3% ratio shown above, suddenly he's got a 5.02 home ERA and a 4.66 road ERA and he's right in there with Julian Tavarez for spot starter, worse than all six of Boston's current starting pitchers.

 

3) A pitcher's home run totals rise and fall with two things:

 

a) Fly balls allowed. Pitchers who avoid outfield fly balls avoid home runs, and that's a skill that can be used in forecasting pitchers' future performances.

 

The percent of outfield fly balls that become home runs. There's little correlation between that percentage from one year to the next, excepting, maybe, home ballpark factors.

 

An average MLB pitcher allows about 11% of his fly balls to become home runs. Blanton was barely above that in 2005 and well below that in 2006-7:

 

[table]Year | HR/FB%

2005 | 11.2%

2006 | 7.6%

2007 | 7.8%[/table]

 

As a rule, avoiding home runs is good, but pitchers with low HR/FB% are due for rebound to MLB norms.

 

4) Somebody mentioned an offer...I'd thought that speculation regarding Blanton's availability had led to further speculation that Blanton could be had for Crisp + prospects. :dunno:

 

I don't think that there's a published rumor; I don't think that this would help the Red Sox if there were such an offer. Blanton WOULD help a whole bunch of other MLB teams, though. Just because Boston had the best pitching in the AL last year doesn't mean that every other team was so lucky, and Blanton is a workhorse who can top 200 IP. He's got value--I just don't think that he'd help Boston, especially if it cost Crisp plus prospects.

[jacksonianmarch]

Blanton for Crisp? Can I have some of the s*** you're smokin?

[Jayhawk Bill]

Blanton for Crisp? Can I have some of the s*** you're smokin?

 

Nobody posted "Blanton for Crisp." Can we all have some of the s*** YOU'RE smokin?

 

The discussion was Crisp plus prospects for Blanton. I took the moment to question whether or not this had ever been cited as a possibility in the media in my previous post...I don't think that there's any published reference to any offer on the table. Still, if "prospects" was the price for Swisher or Haren, "Crisp plus prospects" is a reasonable price for Blanton.

[Thumper]

Nobody posted "Blanton for Crisp." Can we all have some of the s*** YOU'RE smokin?

 

The discussion was Crisp plus prospects for Blanton. I took the moment to question whether or not this had ever been cited as a possibility in the media in my previous post...I don't think that there's any published reference to any offer on the table. Still, if "prospects" was the price for Swisher or Haren, "Crisp plus prospects" is a reasonable price for Blanton.

 

It's an unofficial rumor, this Blanton deal.

 

Regardless it's a good deal because look, in the past, most big stars we aquired either went to s*** or didn't perform well. Matsuzaka, highly overanticipated, did good, but not like we thought he would. Eric Gagne, was suppose to be another beast of a reliever and ended up costing us about 3 games when it counted, AND decided to give us all heart attacks in Game 4 when he stood up in the bullpen.

 

Where as you look at a not so anticipated, Beckett, who came in last year with good stuff with the exception of the ERA and a higher loss record, he improved and now look at him.

 

This is why I feel if we got Santana, it would flop, where as if we get Blanton, he may not start out great (but I don't see him as a flop loser) but I think in a season's time he could possible be worked like Beckett and come back stronger.

[Paradisecity]

So your analysis of this trade is that because Santana is a star and Blanton is not, Blanton will probably succeed and Santan will not?

[Thumper]

So your analysis of this trade is that because Santana is a star and Blanton is not' date=' Blanton will probably succeed and Santan will not?[/quote']

 

Going off of past experiences like I talked about earlier, yes. Now I'm not saying Santana would just totally suck, but I don't think he'd meet our expecations. Say what you will about my opinion but it's where I stand.

[rician blast]

Regardless it's a good deal because look, in the past, most big stars we aquired either went to s*** or didn't perform well. Matsuzaka, highly overanticipated, did good, but not like we thought he would. Eric Gagne, was suppose to be another beast of a reliever and ended up costing us about 3 games when it counted, AND decided to give us all heart attacks in Game 4 when he stood up in the bullpen.

 

Where as you look at a not so anticipated, Beckett, who came in last year with good stuff with the exception of the ERA and a higher loss record, he improved and now look at him.

 

 

Couple of thoughts, Thump.

 

(1) The acquisition of Gagne, IMO, was as much a defensive move to keep him away from the Yanks, who's BP was struggling, as it was an effort to improve Boston's pen.

 

(2) As for Beckett, not sure about you, but I had very high expectations from him when he was first acquired...2007 was not gravy, it was what I think the Sox expected.

[jacksonianmarch]

Blanton is a solid pitcher. He wont dazzle you. He will not be an ace. He's a #3-5 pitcher who will eat innings and keep you in the game. If you can get him without having to give up the farm, then kudos.

[Thumper]

Couple of thoughts, Thump.

 

(1) The acquisition of Gagne, IMO, was as much a defensive move to keep him away from the Yanks, who's BP was struggling, as it was an effort to improve Boston's pen.

 

(2) As for Beckett, not sure about you, but I had very high expectations from him when he was first acquired...2007 was not gravy, it was what I think the Sox expected.

 

 

After seing 2003 Beckett, I thought it would be great to have him on the team. His 2006 stuff wasn't bad, but wasn't what I had hoped for, this year he came back as the Ace. And I agree with Jacko, Blanton won't be no Ace or star pitcher, but he'll keep the game going. He's got the stuff to stay in the game long enough and still do some damage. And like I said before, John Farrell is a great pitching coash, I think if he and Blanton worked together and did some fine tuning, he'll come back even more so decent in a Red Sox uniform.

[BSN07]

Blanton for Crisp? Can I have some of the s*** you're smokin?

 

Most would pass out from the s*** I smoke from my local Coffee Shop:thumbsup:

 

 

This is all speculation at this point, no solid articles to go off of. I came up with the idea because of articles I has seen earlier where Blanton was available, and the one of the A's being hi on Coco. Oak likes Coco, plus Blanton being available, I just threw it out there a s a sort of what if. Like I said before Blanton would be a solid back end guy. He could really round out the rotation nicely for the next few years...

[Jayhawk Bill]

Most would pass out from the s*** I smoke from my local Coffee Shop:thumbsup:

 

 

This is all speculation at this point, no solid articles to go off of. I came up with the idea because of articles I has seen earlier where Blanton was available, and the one of the A's being hi on Coco. Oak likes Coco, plus Blanton being available, I just threw it out there a s a sort of what if. Like I said before Blanton would be a solid back end guy. He could really round out the rotation nicely for the next few years...

 

No problem with either your progressive local standards regarding recreational drug use or your speculation regarding Crisp and Blanton...even if the two might go together.

 

Oakland is trading away some good players, but they're demanding quite a bounty. Oakland likes Crisp, per Gammons--maybe because they're a team that uses sophisticated metrics, and they realize that 80% of his value is defense--but for a 200+ innings per year starting pitcher with three arb years remaining, they'd want a better package--maybe Lowrie and Masterson as well, to cite two good prospects known to be on the trading block.

 

Blanton is a solid pitcher. He wont dazzle you. He will not be an ace. He's a #3-5 pitcher who will eat innings and keep you in the game. If you can get him without having to give up the farm, then kudos.

 

OK, I'm with you...it's just that Boston has six starting pitchers I regard as better than Blanton. For most teams, Blanton is a durable #3-5 starter (I'd even say usually a #3 guy), and I agree that such players don't come cheap.

[BSN07]

No problem with either your progressive local standards regarding recreational drug use or your speculation regarding Crisp and Blanton...even if the two might go together.

 

QUOTE]

 

 

 

Ya Holland is great!:thumbsup:

 

 

I think you selling Blanton a little short. Yes we have pitchers better then him, but I'd say he is atleast as valuable as Schilling going by reg. season outputs. Playoffs are another story. Put Blanton on the Sox and he is likely to be atleast a 15 game winner, throw in 200 IP. That for most team is a #2.

 

As far as your Package. I'd go for it. Some may see it a little steap but like you also said, he won't come cheap.

[jacksonianmarch]

No problem with either your progressive local standards regarding recreational drug use or your speculation regarding Crisp and Blanton...even if the two might go together.

 

Oakland is trading away some good players, but they're demanding quite a bounty. Oakland likes Crisp, per Gammons--maybe because they're a team that uses sophisticated metrics, and they realize that 80% of his value is defense--but for a 200+ innings per year starting pitcher with three arb years remaining, they'd want a better package--maybe Lowrie and Masterson as well, to cite two good prospects known to be on the trading block.

 

 

 

OK, I'm with you...it's just that Boston has six starting pitchers I regard as better than Blanton. For most teams, Blanton is a durable #3-5 starter (I'd even say usually a #3 guy), and I agree that such players don't come cheap.

 

6?? Who?

 

Blanton>Lester

Blanton>Wakefield

Blanton>Schilling (age and durability with similar softer stuff)

 

Blanton had a better yr than DiceK too.

[Jayhawk Bill]

6?? Who?

 

Blanton>Lester

Blanton>Wakefield

Blanton>Schilling (age and durability with similar softer stuff)

 

Blanton had a better yr than DiceK too.

 

Did you bother to read what I posted regarding Park Factors for McAfee and Fenway before posting?

 

Edit:

 

Here are the 2007 stats for the pitchers you mentioned, with the Boston pitchers moved to Oakland and Blanton moved to Boston, assuming a 50-50 mix of home and away games and using the 2007 ESPN Park Factors for runs:

 

[table]Name | 2007 Home | 2007 Road | 2007 Home Reversed | 2007 Reversed

Schilling | 4.06 | 3.65 | 2.59 | 3.12

Matsuzaka | 4.86 | 4.02 | 2.85 | 3.44

Wakefield | 5.27 | 4.26 | 3.02 | 3.64

Lester | 4.30 | 4.72 | 3.35 | 4.03

Blanton | 2.69 | 5.11 | 3.79 | 4.45[/table]

 

Home Reversed is the pitcher's home ERA converted to the other ballpark by ratio of Park Factors. Reversed is the pitchers' overall ERAs if their home ballparks were reversed. Blanton is worst in that metric; Blanton is worst at each of these except Home ERA without any Park Factor conversion.

 

The only reason Blanton looks good is his home ballpark.

[rician blast]

[table]Name | 2007 Home | 2007 Road | 2007 Home Reversed | 2007 Reversed

Schilling | 4.06 | 3.65 | 2.59 | 3.12

Matsuzaka | 4.86 | 4.02 | 2.85 | 3.44

Wakefield | 5.27 | 4.26 | 3.02 | 3.64

Lester | 4.30 | 4.72 | 3.35 | 4.03

Blanton | 2.69 | 5.11 | 3.79 | 4.45[/table]

 

 

Now this I like. JHB, where does Yankee Stadium fall in terms of Park Factor...with the deep LF power alley but short RF porch and considering there's limited foul ball space, I wonder if its considered a nuetral park, hitter friendly, etc.

 

Any thoughts?

[Jayhawk Bill]

Now this I like. JHB, where does Yankee Stadium fall in terms of Park Factor...with the deep LF power alley but short RF porch and considering there's limited foul ball space, I wonder if its considered a nuetral park, hitter friendly, etc.

 

Any thoughts?

 

 

Over a series of years, Yankee Stadium balances to a neutral park. In 2007, it favored offense by 7%, favoring home runs by 15%...maybe the wind was blowing out.