Official 2009-2010 Hot Stove season thread

[Dipre]

I just activated Insider. Eh.

 

That list is Pre-09. I think the '10 lists haven't been released yet.

[Dojji]

I could stand to see the Sox jettison Kotchman, who I don't trust, and make a play to bring in Russel Branyan. I like the idea of a lefty with legit pop and some corner IF experience on the bench in case we're without Lowell for an extended period of time this year, and Branyan's played him some outfield too. He's not a pure butcher at 3B either.

 

He's actually managed to put together a couple good yeas in a row, so I don't think I'm going beyond my usual insanity to suggest this. We'd be sacrificing some youth, and probably some money, and adding some position flexibility and quite a bit of home run power, in a lefty platoon bat, behind what's probably going to be 3 righthanded hitters (Lowell, Youks, and Bay/Holliday). To me that seems like a reasonable exchange.

[example1]

For anyone with a BP Subscription here's an interesting article from Joe Sheehan (12/03/09):

 

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=9819

 

A few quotes from a pretty long article:

 

When I look at the Red Sox, I see the best organization in the game, one that has raised itself to the point where consecutive seasons of not winning a pennant leave the fan base restless. The transition I've talked about with the Yankees, where there's a disconnect between what the reality was for fans in the late 1980s and early 1990s with what came after, seems to be developing in Boston. In six years, this franchise has gone from "please win the World Series before I die" to "how come you haven't won since 2007?," and all the irrationality attached to that attitude.

 

The Red Sox, with Josh Beckett, Jon Lester and Clay Buchholz, go into 2010 with arguably the best front end of a rotation in the AL. Nevertheless, there's a clamor for them to acquire Roy Halladay

 

Red Sox fans may want Halladay, but the team has little reason to pay through the nose, twice, to get him... if they have to deal Buchholz, if they have to deal Casey Kelly, and if they have to commit to 2011-2016 at a staggering rate, then they are probably better off having "just" a very good rotation, focusing on improving the back end of it and the bullpen

 

The Red Sox are not about going all-in for one season at a cost of many others; they're about winning 95 games every year.

 

I pretty much agree with this. I waffle about whether I would give up Buchholz for Halladay, but this is really impacted by the suspicion (fear) that he ends up in NY. If he doesn't then I can understand why the Sox want to move forward pretty much intact prospect-wise.

[Dipre]

I could stand to see the Sox jettison Kotchman, who I don't trust, and make a play to bring in Russel Branyan. I like the idea of a lefty with legit pop and some corner IF experience on the bench in case we're without Lowell for an extended period of time this year, and Branyan's played him some outfield too. He's not a pure butcher at 3B either.

 

He's actually managed to put together a couple good yeas in a row, so I don't think I'm going beyond my usual insanity to suggest this. We'd be sacrificing some youth, and probably some money, and adding some position flexibility and quite a bit of home run power, in a lefty platoon bat, behind what's probably going to be 3 righthanded hitters (Lowell, Youks, and Bay/Holliday). To me that seems like a reasonable exchange.

 

Branyan is coming off a 31-homer season. He's going to start somewhere.

[Gom]

I would take CC, AJ and Andy over Beckett, Lester, and Clay any day of the week...assuming Andy comes back. I would take the Yankees pen over the Sox pen any day of the week, now that you lost Wagner.

 

The lineups are a tossup, depending on what the Yankees do at DH and both teams do in LF.

[Keeper]

The other Sox rotation 1-4 is pretty beastly. Peavy, Buehrle, Danks, and Floyd.

[Dipre]

I would take CC, AJ and Andy over Beckett, Lester, and Clay any day of the week...assuming Andy comes back. I would take the Yankees pen over the Sox pen any day of the week, now that you lost Wagner.

 

The lineups are a tossup, depending on what the Yankees do at DH and both teams do in LF.

 

I take Beckett, Lester, Matsuzaka and Clay over CC,Aj, Pettite and ? any day of the week.

[riverside sluggers]

http://nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/34283584/site/21683474

 

Chone Figgin's deal with the M's, is confirmed as 4 years/$36 million, option for 5th year that brings total to $45 million

[Dipre]

http://nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/34283584/site/21683474

 

Chone Figgin's deal with the M's, is confirmed as 4 years/$36 million, option for 5th year that brings total to $45 million

 

I bet that deal will come back to bite the M's in the ass.

 

But in the meantime, it will pay huge dividends short-term. Not only did they greatly improve their lineup, they weakened Anaheim's in the process.

[Gom]

I take Beckett' date=' Lester, Matsuzaka and Clay over CC,Aj, Pettite and ? any day of the week.[/quote']

 

I think Matsuzaka is a waste. Seriously. He's a five-inning pitcher.

 

I wonder what the Yankees will do with Wang. Say they bring him back, and Andy. Forget Halladay for a minute, as well as Lackey.

 

You'd have:

 

Wang

Hughes

Chamberlain

Gaudin

Aceves

Kennedy

Mitre

 

All vying for two spots. My guess is that Aceves and Kennedy end up in the pen. Mitre is useless. Gaudin will fight it out for number 5, and will be number 5 or in the pen. Wang wins back a spot. So it really comes down to Hughes, Joba, and Gaudin for number 5.

 

That is some serious depth...and some live arms that can catch lightning in a bottle.

[Dipre]

I think Matsuzaka is a waste. Seriously. He's a five-inning pitcher.

 

I wonder what the Yankees will do with Wang. Say they bring him back, and Andy. Forget Halladay for a minute, as well as Lackey.

 

You'd have:

 

Wang

Hughes

Chamberlain

Gaudin

Aceves

Kennedy

Mitre

 

All vying for two spots. My guess is that Aceves and Kennedy end up in the pen. Mitre is useless. Gaudin will fight it out for number 5, and will be number 5 or in the pen. Wang wins back a spot. So it really comes down to Hughes, Joba, and Gaudin for number 5.

 

That is some serious depth...and some live arms that can catch lightning in a bottle.

 

A 5-inning pitcher right now is a much bigger certainty than the last two spots in the Yankee rotation.

 

Just sayin'.

[CoachC.]

http://nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/34283584/site/21683474

 

Chone Figgin's deal with the M's, is confirmed as 4 years/$36 million, option for 5th year that brings total to $45 million

 

Harder to re-sign Felix now?

[Gom]

Harder to re-sign Felix now?

 

Easier. You're putting together a winning team, and they wouldn't spend it if they didn't have it.

[Lester82]

Right, Gom. 37/38 year-old Andy Pettitte is a sure thing to repeat 2009.

 

Oh. god.

[Lester82]

I mean he was already wearing down at points towards the end of 2009, had to pitch a full postseason (even going far as to take his last start on 3 days rest), is around 38 years old.

 

Oh Yeah, he's a sure bet to repeat his 2009 season.

 

But considering how little Gom seems to value a young stud coming into his own like Clay Buchholz, it's no shocker that you would take CC-A.J.-Andy over Beckett-Lester-Clay Buchholz.

 

The starting hitting lineups aren't a wash. The Yankees simply have a superior lineup.

[Gom]

Right, Gom. 37/38 year-old Andy Pettitte is a sure thing to repeat 2009.

 

Oh. god.

 

A 4.16 ERA with a 1.38 WHIP. Why not?

[BSN07]

Jon Paul Morosi of FoxSports.com reports that two people "with knowledge of the Tigers' plans heading into the winter meetings downplayed the possibility that Miguel Cabrera will be traded in the coming week," with one going so far as to say the chances of a deal were "pretty remote."

 

Morosi's sources say the team is more likely to move Edwin Jackson and/or Curtis Granderson, and that even though Justin Verlander isn't on the trade block, his future is "indirectly" tied to what happens in the next few weeks.

 

Well it's not like they are going to come out and say " Yup we gotta move him and move him now, we have no choice"...

 

Would it be better to Trade Miggy and sign Verlander long term? Or keep Miggy and trade Verlander? I'm not saying they can't do both, but the last part of the article did seem to leave it open to possibility.

 

It's probably more if they can get rid of Granderson and/or jackson they will be able to make Verlander an offer. And if they can't he will have to wait.

[BSN07]

Also I wanted to add that no way in hell Boras gets 10M a year for Beltre now. Figgins signing at 9M per totally F'd that.

[Dipre]

Well it's not like they are going to come out and say " Yup we gotta move him and move him now, we have no choice"...

 

Would it be better to Trade Miggy and sign Verlander long term? Or keep Miggy and trade Verlander? I'm not saying they can't do both, but the last part of the article did seem to leave it open to possibility.

 

It's probably more if they can get rid of Granderson and/or jackson they will be able to make Verlander an offer. And if they can't he will have to wait.

 

Jackson makes pennies on the dollar, his status has absolutely nothing to do with either Verlander or Miggy getting moved.

[Gom]

Magglio is killing them. They should never have let that option vest.

[jacksonianmarch]

A 4.16 ERA with a 1.38 WHIP. Why not?

 

Andy gets by on the cutter and his location. Good velocity is nice, but unnecessary in how he attacks hitters. If he still gets the movement he was getting on the cutter and if he still has the location, he'll be good again as our #3.

[Gom]

The great thing is that Figgins helps bring the market down a bit.

 

A players of his versatility, both on offense and defense is getting 9 mil a year. This can't help Damon.

[example1]

Andy gets by on the cutter and his location. Good velocity is nice' date=' but unnecessary in how he attacks hitters. If he still gets the movement he was getting on the cutter and if he still has the location, he'll be good again as our #3.[/quote']

 

I'm predicting a rotation of CC, Lackey, Burnett, Pettitte, Hughes.

 

Pettitte is a placeholder at this stage. He's a good starter who can hold his own, but he's not elite and I'm sure they would prefer to have four established quality MLB pitchers rather than 3, especially in the playoffs. CC, Lackey and the hot-hand between Burnett and Pettitte and Hughes.

[a700hitter]

The great thing is that Figgins helps bring the market down a bit.

 

A players of his versatility, both on offense and defense is getting 9 mil a year. This can't help Damon.

He's also 5 years younger than Damon.

[Gom]

It's funny. Last year, Abreu got killed. This year, he may have signed the best deal.

[BSN07]

Matt Lindstrom is "virtually certain" to be traded at the winter meetings, if not before, according to Ken Rosenthal of FOX Sports. Of the six teams that have expressed interest in the soon-to-be 30-year-old, three have stepped to the forefront in recent days.

 

With Saito and Wagner gone and MDC not pitching up to par(at least at the end of last season), would Lindstrom be someone the Sox should be considering? I can't Imagine he will cost a lot. Could be a nice low risk/high reward type a thing.

[a700hitter]

With Saito and Wagner gone and MDC not pitching up to par(at least at the end of last season)' date=' would Lindstrom be someone the Sox should be considering? I can't Imagine he will cost a lot. Could be a nice [b']low risk/high reward type a thing[/b].

There is no such thing. These should be more accurately be called long shots.

[Dipre]

There is no such thing. These should be more accurately be called long shots.

 

If we traded Hunter Jones for him, then it'd be low risk/high reward. There is such a thing.

[a700hitter]

If we traded Hunter Jones for him' date=' then it'd be low risk/high reward. There is such a thing.[/quote']No there isn't such a thing. It's a name that FO's have been putting on "longshot" deals to make them more palatable to their owners/management and to their fans. When making an investment as the risk goes up the possible reward goes up. As the risk goes down, so does the reward. Our past low risk/high reward types like Smoltz and Penny were really high risk/high reward. You invest less in those assets because their returns are very speculative. The lower investment doesn't change the risk. They are at a high risk of failing. A low risk investment like a Treasury Bill will have a smaller yield for your money, but there is little risk (at least before Obama) that the government would not payoff on its debt. That is a low risk/low return investment. Most prudent portfolios have more assets invested in low risk investments rather than high risk investments. Mark Texeira is a T-Bill. His return is big but not relative to the huge investment. His return for investment is relatively low. He's low risk low return asset. For every win he gives you, it costs you a lot, but he is fairly certain to produce a lot of wins (i.e. he is low risk). Injured bargain basement guys like Smoltz, etc are high risk because they are likely to produce few if any wins, but if they do produce wins, the yield will be high because little was invested in them. There is no such thing as a low risk/high yield investments. Those are frauds as is this vernacular that Front Offices have adopted to describe low cost- long shot players.

[Dipre]

No there isn't such a thing. It's a name that FO's have been putting on "longshot" deals to make them more palatable to their owners/management and to their fans. When making an investment as the risk goes up the possible reward goes up. As the risk goes down' date=' so does the reward. Our past low risk/high reward types like Smoltz and Penny were really high risk/high reward. You invest less in those assets because their returns are very speculative. The lower investment doesn't change the risk. They are at a high risk of failing. A low risk investment like a Treasury Bill will have a smaller yield for your money, but there is little risk (at least before Obama) that the government would not payoff on its debt. That is a low risk/low return investment. Most prudent portfolios have more assets invested in low risk investments rather than high risk investments. Mark Texeira is a T-Bill. His return is big but not relative to the huge investment. His return for investment is relatively low. He's low risk low return asset. For every win he gives you, it costs you a lot, but he is fairly certain to produce a lot of wins (i.e. he is low risk). Injured bargain basement guys like Smoltz, etc are high risk because they are likely to produce few if any wins, but if they do produce wins, the yield will be high because little was invested in them. There is no such thing as a low risk/high yield investments. Those are frauds as is this vernacular that Front Offices have adopted to describe low cost- long shot players.[/quote']

 

David Ortiz.