Jayhawk Bill

Per the BP PECOTA given at the teams' links, the Boston pitchers you named sum to 129.3 runs of VORP while the Yankees pitchers sum to only 97.5 runs of VORP. Joba Chamberlain is listed at 34.7 runs of VORP as a starter. If one assumes that he pitches 25 starts, then it roughly evens out...barring that, the Red Sox pitching is better, even without Schilling. Note that BP's final standings prediction suggests that Boston will allow fewer runs than the Yankees will...it's the Yankees' offense that carries the day if all goes as BP predicts.

One can go on the DL for illness or injury. If you consider a non-illness DL trip to be the result of a non-major injury, and that only season-ending injuries are major, that's a semantic choice with which others might disagree. I am neither illiterate nor argumentative. IMO...YMMV. I think that what you'd really like would be for me to stop commenting regarding aspects of your posts with which I might not agree. See, my perspective is that you've blown a comment regarding "survivor effect" way out of line, and that you're now casting personal insults in my direction. I'm puzzled at your motives, to be candid...the point regarding Timlin and "survivor effect" was minor enough that it wouldn't have really affected the overall credibility of your position. I don't quite get your frustration, but I'm eager to see how Timlin does this year.

Not to rain on any parade, but the Yankees are projected to beat the Red Sox by just three games...about 30 VORP. A few assumptions from the Yankees' PECOTA: 1) The Yankees start Joba Chamberlain 25 times and he's their best starting pitcher by far; 2) The Yankees get more value from their unnamed spot starter than they do from Wang or Hughes; and 3) The Yankees get more value from some unnamed long relief pitcher than they do from any other pitcher except Pettitte, Chamberlain and Rivera. The Yankees are getting over four wins from unnamed players and over three wins from starter Joba Chamberlain according to BP. The Red Sox, FWIW, are supposedly splitting time between Coco and Jacoby and giving Eric Hinske at bats...scratch seven wins from the Yankees for the factors I've mentioned and two from the Red Sox for Schilling's injury, and Boston suddenly looks two games better. *** Edit: That "unnamed player" mentioned twice has to be Ian Kennedy, who was listed at less value in the 2008 PECOTA spreadsheet but who may have benefitted from last-minute tweaking. I consider projecting Kennedy as better than Hughes, Wang and Mussina to be a stretch, but it's the only way it makes sense.

Pedro grew up in the Dominican Republic, where all of the promising young players were fed steroids as teenagers. I don't believe Pedro for a moment that he never did steroids, and his choice of raising the issue makes me speculate that he might've used them in MLB, too. He sure fell apart once the testing era started, didn't he?

"Given that he is now 42 years old its likely Timlin will likely once again have shoulder problems and have to spend time on the disabled list."

Ah...got it. You believe that, "The reason it is arguing for the sake of arguing is that you are making a point that has nothing whatsoever to do with the title of the thread." Your harping on my post, then, is arguing for the sake of arguing by your own standard. Let's see how Timlin does in 2008. If he suffers major injury despite age, you're golden; if nagging issues and lack of velocity reduce his effectiveness, or if he endures as an adequate relief pitcher another year, I'm supported.

There's a major advantage, though: the Red Sox have an excellent five-man starting rotation already in place. Tavarez is also capable of starting. There are reasonable prospects as well. Boston could use another proven MLB starting pitcher--they don't need one. Starting 2008 with Ellsbury in AAA if Coco, Manny, JD and Kielty are all healthy is a perfectly reasonable option. Some team's CF won't perform--that's the opportunity in May if there's no interest now. By June and July, starting pitchers in their contract years will be available from non-contending teams, and Coco is an asset through 2010 at reasonable price. FWIW, I'd add the Pirates to your list of current candidates, though. YMMV. :dunno: Lofton is flat-out old, probably too old to be considered a full-time MLB CF. He fields about as well as Bill Hall in CF these days...except that Bill Hall won't be back in CF this year. Patterson won't come cheap, and his career OBP is .298. He's not ideal, either.

My understanding was that John Henry refused to allow Theo to negotiate with Lowe's agent because he disapproved of Lowe's character and ethics. *** I look back at Lowe in 2003 and, especially, 2004 and I suspect a substance abuse issue that he's since overcome. No proof...JMVHO. If so, power to DLowe, and it's best that he not return.

Sorry...I've been away from the forum and I couldn't respond promptly...but I found it striking that you considered a post regarding injury frequency to be arguing. :dunno: You said, "Pitchers who are 42 tend to get hurt more than pitchers who are 29, its not a criticism its just a fact of life." I continue to remain unsure of that. In many fields, older workers are less injury-prone, largely because their bodies can, for whatever reason, endure the strains prevalent in their vocations. Here's a discussion of "survivor bias" from a NIOSH occupational health reference: http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/97-141/appenabc.html And here's where Will Carroll uses the term with reference to older pitchers:

I checked Varitek vs. the 2008 PECOTA. PECOTA pegs him as 14th-best this year: 1) PECOTA sees him as a defensive liability, and 2) PECOTA expects him to catch only 92 games. YMMV on both counts...mine does, but I do see Nate Silver's points. Saltalamacchia, Pudge Rodriguez and AJ Pierzynski were among the 132 catchers who scored lower.

First, fair warning: I'm wearing a Petagine T-shirt as I read your post and respond. Being another Petagine sounds pretty good to me--Petagine's years in exile in Japan were MLB All-Star caliber, and his stats except as a pinch hitter were excellent. Francona misused him. That said, Carter projects to be a fine hitter, probably better than Casey in 2008 if given a chance. His challenge is his glove work. If Big Papi goes down, Carter would be an excellent platoon DH and a solid everyday DH. I'd rather have Carter than Casey backing up first base, but his defense is truly horrible, and that's why Casey is on the team.

I'm surprised if Shawn Green retires. He's still projected around .280/.340/.430 with adequate defense. He's worth a couple million...I'd take a couple of million to play baseball for a year.

First, the glove: Chris Carter is bad defensively. Chris Carter is considered by PECOTA to be the worst first baseman in MLB (by projected FRAA). Chris Carter is considered by scouts watching his defense to be an abomination, possibly of a magnitude portending the apocalypse, with mankind's only hope of salvation the decision that he can no longer play left field. But two points: 1) Over a whole season, he'd probably only cost his team around nine runs. Defense at first base isn't as critical; and 2) Carter is better than Casey in projections even after that defense is considered. *** Why would the Diamondbacks dump Chris Carter? They didn't "dump him," they acquired a good relief pitcher for him. Furthermore, they've got Conor Jackson at first base--Jackson had the scouts drooling a few years back, and the Diamondbacks organization is committed to giving him a longer chance. Frankly, Jackson could still easily develop as another Cecil Cooper...I see first base in Arizona as blocked. Yup. I might be. Carter would've been the backup for, essentially, both third base and first base. Given that Youkilis struggles with more playing time and that Lowell is aging, 200-300 PA would've been likely, IMO. We'll see how many PA Casey gets.

Dunno. In its favor: 1) The New York Mets are now the best team in the National League. Period. Not even close. They're well-positioned to make the NLDS for 2-4 years, and they have an excellent chance at winning a World Series soon, barring major injury. Playoff appearances and World Series victories are worth megabucks in a big media market. 2) The economy has weakened since the Winter Meetings and the Fed has destabilized the dollar to prop up the economy. That increases the discount rate for the out years of the contract. Would I have done it? As the Mets, yes; as the Red Sox, no, even if the Red Sox were to have surrendered a package similar to what was actually tendered in the deal, which was less than the rumored packages for Boston.

1) Carter is probably better than Casey, but we won't ever know. 2) Carter won't get the playing time in MLB he needs to establish his trade value, if he's to be trade bait. Chris Carter would possibly be a better improvement. Carter has an option remaining, IIRC, and he could bounce back and forth to Pawtucket to make room for extra pitchers. Casey is on the MLB roster--he can't be sent down at all, even through waivers, unless he chooses to play in the minor leagues rather than collecting his salary for doing nothing. He's had two excellent years in AAA already. He's ready for MLB. He's 25--if he's in AAA again, it's going to hurt, not help. Every potential trading partner will say, "Carter? If he was any good, why did you sign Sean Casey?" Few good signings are defended by perspectives such as these, riverside sluggers.

And in addition to Tim Wakefield, the Red Sox signed Sean Casey today! Edit: FWIW, BP PECOTA has Casey at only .275/.330/.380 this year. They value Chris Carter as better, even considering Carter's defense, and Carter certainly has the higher upside.

2008 BP PECOTA (out today!) says .267/.367/.421, 11 HR, 60 RBI...0 FRAA. 3.7 WARP...Breakout rate 5%...Attrition rate 15%.

I strongly dislike this move. Now we'll never see if Chris Carter is as good as he appears to be: the veteran will get the spot on the bench, and Carter will use up his option year in AAA. Casey will probably hit around .290/.350/.400, with a significant downside and little upside. Carter would probably hit around .270/.330/.430 with very significant upside. Why pay $700,000 for that difference in talent?

Edited. :harhar: