Ibanez to Philly
The Phillies gave Raul Ibanez a 3 year, $30 million deal to replace Pat Burrell today. It was pretty much a lock that the team that signed Ibanez was going to be an old-school type, but honestly, I’m a bit surprised that Philly was dumb enough to make this move. With guys like Jayson Werth, Shane Victorino, Geoff Jenkins, and Pedro Feliz, it was clear that they knew a good defensive player when they saw one. I guess they just feel that it’s totally fine to have a lumbering oaf running around left field. They’ll regret this contract by July, though.
For the M’s, this means they get the 28th pick in the 1st round and a compensatory pick that will be somewhere in the 37-42 range, depending on whether some of these other Type A free agents change teams or not. Their second round pick should be in the 46-50 range, so right now, the M’s have the 2nd, 28th, ~39th, and ~48th picks in the draft next summer. If they don’t sign Josh Fields, you can add the 21st pick to that list, and then shove everything else back a pick.
Ichiro’s still here…
Turd, I for one would like to see you provide a list of guys who were drafted out of college as closers who became dominant big league closers. There’s a reason most people thought this was a bad choice when it was made, and it’s not just because relievers aren’t all that valuable.
If you could say with any degree of certainty that Fields would be a useful MLB reliever (even if that’s not in the closer role) then I think you’d have an argument. However, I don’t think that’s a case you can legitimately make.
The other thing is the “closer mentality.” Just to use JJ as an example, this is a guy who basically never closed until 2006, and yet he did ok when forced to take it on…because he had really good stuff. Sure, there are some guys with great stuff who maybe can’t handle the pressure, but they’re the same guys who can’t hack it as late innings relievers who come in with the bases loaded and one out in the eighth, not some subset of great set-up guys.
While we’re on the closer subject though, does anyone know if Z or Wakamatsu have let anything slip about plans for Morrow? Obviously I assume this would be Wakamatsu’s call ultimately. It’d be a shame to see him thrust back into the pen. He could develop into a very solid No. 2/3 starter at Safeco.
Aaron M.
Since my not-so-subtle hint didn’t work, and I don’t feel like deleting half the comment thread:
Like Dave said, you’re wrong. It’s the leverage of the situation that matters, not the inning. Sure, a fair number of high-leverage situations happen in the 9th inning, but the same can be said for pretty much anything after the 6th.
The only reason that the team’s best reliever is generally reserved for the 9th inning is because of the save statistic. If that statistic didn’t exist, we wouldn’t see relief aces used in the way that they are, because it’s sub-optimal from a “winning baseball games” standpoint.
This is a new organization, with a new way of running things. We can already see, based on the moves he’s made to date, that Zduriencik is able to recognize talent and how to optimize it.
There’s no reason to continue to worry about the stupid things they might do, in the context of a much smarter organization than we had at the end of last year.
Speaking of Raul Ibanez…
(cough, cough)
I do love (in a self-aware, ironic sort of way) how in two successive posts Raul Ibanez’s willingness to play through pain is described as selfish…and then Raul’s being described as a nice guy is thought to be “overstated.”
I understand both chris d and Jeff Nye’s points and I’m not trying to argue them…as they have their merits.
But, they do read as being VERY Seattle-y, in that sometimes we get annoyed by some very odd things…things that might not annoy other people elsewhere.
My take on Raul the Mariner (Pt. II) was that the guy did the best he could do with what he was given to do, that he did so while maintaining an even, positive tone despite the dark clouds hovering around.
He was an odd person to have generated such loyal and boisterous fan reactions–as his success was never flashy–workmanlike is the word I’d choose–and his frustrating failures were painfully and glaringly apparent far too often.
I’d like to think that a stronger personality–manager or general manager–who was truly in charge of this team would have recognized his weakness in the field and been strong enough to make it very clear that to Raul that his best (and, definitely, his ASSIGNED) way to help this team would be to make the most of his at bats as a DH…and I’d like to think that he could have been motivated by that strong personality to have done just that–but we’ll never really know how that would have played out.
So, as it is, while I’ll miss Raul as a casual fan who likes to LIKE who he’s cheering for…the more serious fan in me is fine with him being a member of the Phillies now, as he certainly wasn’t going to be OUR answer in LF.
…and honestly, I’m looking forward to all the hugging that my wife will need as her favorite Mariner is now no longer one…
Silly Conor, Ichiro is the Franchise.
If Jeff Clement can stick, I bet he eventually takes over as the go-to player for public relations purposes (which Ibanez essentially took over from Dan Wilson).
So Raul was Ichiro’s face?
😉
Thanks Jeff! I could use some quality reassurances after the last few seasons! 🙂
I guess I still have a Pavlonian-esque response mechanism to M’s moves! I should sue Bavasi for mental anguish and ongoing M’s anxiety!
Just kidding…kind of.
Aaron M.
Drafting a reliever with your #1 pick just seems wrong to me. I don’t care how big of a stud reliever he is; it strikes me as the football equivalent of drafting a place kicker with your #1 pick. Sure when the game is down to the final 2 seconds, you’re down by 1 and looking at a 62yrd FG attempt XYZ stud kicker probably will warm your heart more than league average kicker; but if you had XYZ stud safety, QB, LB, RB, WR, etc you probably wouldn’t have been in this position in the first place!
The same seems to be true for Baseball. I’d rather pick up about any other position that has the potential to be a stud with my #1 pick than reliever; because they are going to have the chance to make that much more of an impact.
Glad Raul is moving on, though I’m sure we’ll miss his bat next year. (Along with the occasional palm-forehead slapping outfield moments that you laugh about later to avoid crying.)
Speaking of the face of the franchise, has anyone been by Safeco today? When A-Rod signed the Contract to End All Contracts, his poster at Safeco was gone the next day. I think the same was true when Jamie was traded.
Is Raul still up there?
Since Z has made a career out of talent evaluation I’ll trust his judgment on the Fields vs 21st pick conundrum. My gut feeling is that he’s going to sign Fields.
2nd, 28th, ~39th, and ~48th picks in the draft next summer. If they don’t sign Josh Fields, you can add the 21st pick to that list, and then shove everything else back a pick.
Wow, 5 players in the top 50 in the 2009 draft? That’s sure a way to recharge your minor league system pretty fast- and we still have Truinfel, Halman, Aumont, etc.
Anyway, if we MUST have a “proven closer”, Miguel Batista seems a better bet than someone with zero innings of pro ball. (It seems using him there is one of the logical ways to clear out the logjam in the rotation, and he did OK in Toronto- no great shakes, but he wasn’t a disaster.)
I don’t know about the poster, but Vidro’s mug is still planted on the metal siding of the team shop.
most likely nobody will recognise him.
And a lot of people believe the world was created in six days, but the facts don’t agree with them.
I think you need a little empirical support before going any further…
The question of Fields (though fun to discuss) doesn’t need to be answered for a long time. I would like to know what Z thinks of Morrow. How many pitches does he really have anyway? My guess is that Z is going to dangle some of our SPs @ Milwaukee and if Shields is signed elsewhere,it could get interesting.
Ok Dave, and everyone else. I guess all you guys are baseball geniuses and EVERY manager in baseball is an idiot for putting an emphasis on getting the last 3 outs with their best relievers.
I guess that’s why they’re getting paid millions of dollars to be managers and you and Bill James aren’t even part of major league organizations and you sit here on your computer pretending like you’re smarter than everyone else… Good for you.
Every manager doesn’t do that.
Also, Bill James is part of the Cardinals organization.
And you forgot “living in parents’ basement”
Name one that doesn’t. And I mean in a position that actually influences things. Don’t get me wrong, I tend to like a lot of the insight on this site, I just find that a lot of people on here are single minded and feel that the way that they interpret the game and think things should be done is the only way, and they make everyone else feel stupid for differing from that.
That’s why a guy like Zduriencik creates a team of people on his staff that look at stats and sabermetrics, but also has old time scouting guys that look at traditional scouting and intangibles and things like that. I respect Zduriencik much more than anybody that regularly comments on here, because he actually realises that there’s not just one way to look at things when it comes to baseball and he tries to view things from every angle possible unlike a lot of people on here. I’m sure that’s why he’s in the position he’s in and that’s why Dave’s in the position he’s in. That’s all I’m sayin, and that’s all I’m gonna say. I’m done commenting on here, and I’m sure that’ll make all your delicate ego’s happy. Peace.
First off, not every manager in baseball does this. Look at Tampa Bay’s use of Grant Balfour thoughout last postseason. For most team’s he’d be a no-brainer at closer. Also, closers by commitee are often created when a team’s best pitcher isn’t in that role because a lesser arm is. But just because something is convention doesn’t mean it should be or is the best way. Look at how ERA and WHIP used to be viewed. For a long time, they were the statistical benchmarks for determining a player’s value. Now, they’re an afterthough to a bevy of different statistical breakdowns and analysis.
Aaron M.
So to name names, Joe Maddon for one.
Aaron M.
You’re awfully sure about something you know nothing about.
Why would go to the trouble of offering counter-examples if you’re going to take your ball home anyway?
I do have to agree with you that looking at things only one way is problematic however. All I’m trying to say is only looking at situations conventionally is the same thing that you’re accusing many on this message board of doing, just from a 180-degree perspective difference.
Aaron M.
Maddon only did that because Percival wasn’t healthy, so it was by default, doesn’t count.
Jim Leyland, old-school manager, did this, using Zumaya to put out fires and sticking his “proven closer” in for the ninth even though Zumaya was clearly the most effective reliever on his staff.
I thought you were done commenting on here, thus making our “delicate ego’s” happy.
While the M’s have a lot of high picks in this year’s draft, some of the draft analysis suggests that this is not a great class. There is a pretty wide concensus that the M’s lost out when they finished with the second worst record vice the worst. Strasburg will amost certainly go first to the Nats and he appears, at this early juncture, to be a significantly better prospect than the rest of the 2009 class.
Zduriencik’s talent-assessment skills may not be as big of an advantage (or disadvantage if he turns out not to have any skills) this year since the HS class is relatively thin compared to the College class and past HS classes. HS players have less history against top opposition, which makes them harder to assess, but provides more opportunity to showcase scouting abilities.
Maybe the grey day is getting me down, but I’m worried that a large number of picks in this draft isn’t as great as it may be in other years.
In Cleveland’s 2007 season, Wedge usually used his worst reliever in the ninth inning.
My delicate ego is quite bruised, actually.
Luckily I have a bunch of liniment stored in my parents’ basement, where I live.
There, there, Jeff. It’ll all be okay.
“Maddon only did that because Percival wasn’t healthy, so it was by default, doesn’t count.”
I was talking about NOT using Balfour as a closer. Percival’s stuff at this point is no match for the younger, stronger Balfour.
See below, from an SI article in Oct.
“By virtually any measure, the best relief pitcher that Maddon and pitching coach Jim Hickey have at their disposal is Grant Balfour, the hard-throwing Australian right-hander who has finally managed to harness his considerable gifts at the age of 30. Tampa Bay had cut Balfour during spring training, and he began the season with Triple-A Durham — an indignity that inspired him, says Hickey. “He was a little bit ticked off about that,” Hickey explains. “He went down there and performed. When I say performed, it was absolutely cartoonish down there. He pitched 23 2/3 innings, gave up 5 hits and struck out 39. You couldn’t take CC Sabathia and put him back in A-ball and have him put up those numbers.”
After the Rays recalled Balfour in late May, he continued to put up statistics that suggested Porky Pig ought to appear on the JumboTron whenever he was done with an outing. Over the course of 51 regular-season outings, and 58 1/3 innings, Balfour struck out 82 batters (his 12.65 strikeouts per nine innings was the best ratio among pitchers who threw more than 40 innings) and he compiled a 1.54 ERA. Most managers — such as the Angels’ Mike Scioscia, who during the regular season never once called on his finest reliever, Francisco Rodriguez, before the ninth inning — would have immediately installed Balfour as a closer, and thought little of it, particularly when the man who officially held the role for the Rays, 38-year-old Troy Percival, was as inconsistent and injury-plagued as Percival was this season. Not Maddon.
Instead, Maddon decided to use Balfour as a “relief ace” — a reliever who is to be called upon when his skills are most desperately needed, no matter the inning.”
Also, it’s convenient that things “don’t count” when they contradict your point of view, yet are factual.
Aaron M.
The toughest outs to get are hitters with the highest OBP. That’s almost a tautology.
Willie Bloomquist is an easy out. Ichiro is a tough out. I wouldn’t take Willie’s entire life of ninth inning performance for any given inning’s worth of Ichiro’s performance.
Willie is 254/328/297 in the 9th inning lifetime.
Ichiro is 303/371/391. Easily his worst performing inning.
Dave (or Derek or Conor or whomever chooses to reply for him),
Something troubles me about Dave’s original post. And in raising this, maybe I’m making something out of nothing…which I’m sure you’ll be willing to verify if that’s the case.
Here’s my take:
1- The highest value of this site is to use reason over emotion or ‘conventional wisdom’ or ‘baseball knowledge’ or however you choose to describe it
2- That same approach, although not quantifiable, also seems like it should apply to semantics as well as statistics; that’s what this site it about
3- therefore, when Dave describes Raul as ‘a lumbering oaf’, this seems to be emotionally charged and decidedly different than a ‘grossly deficient outfielder’, or something more descriptive in this vein.
4- the term ‘oaf’, itself, is described thusly:
1. a clumsy, stupid person; lout.
2. a simpleton; dunce; blockhead.
3. a deformed or mentally deficient child.
Is this is what was meant to be said? I doubt it…but the lingering impression is that the disdain for Raul is not statistical, but on some level personal.
Would be interested in any reaction.
I’m not going to speak for Dave, but I would note that describing Raúl afield as a lumbering, clumsy, blockheaded fielder is, relative to MLB standards, fair; and that would be fairly summarized as “a lumbering oaf.”
Ancient,
You’re one of the smartest posters here…so I’m guessing you’d agree that words like ‘blockheaded’ (i.e., not very smart) or oaf (‘simpleton’), may not be the most accurate descriptors.
The distinction I’m trying to make is that Raul is on one hand not very proficient as a fielder (granted) but at the same time that may not be because he’s not smart enough to play the position, or doesn’t try hard enough.
From what I saw, I think the guy deserves credit for trying…and in many cases, very hard.
But as I indicated earlier, that may not have been Dave’s intent at all.
Just jumping in to say that I haven’t seen it mentioned yet that Rob Neyer quoted a big chunk of Dave’s post in his column today (as well as a Phillies’ blogger who agrees).
For my part, certainly, I’m not saying Raúl is in any general sense a blockhead, and there’s no question he’s a hard, hard worker. That doesn’t change the fact that his decision-making in the field is quite poor, and not all that intelligent. I’m not saying I personally would have described him as a lumbering oaf (though I am the guy who said that watching Glenallen Hill play the outfield was like watching a squirrel trying to cross a freeway, so I can’t say for sure), just that it doesn’t necessarily indicate personal disdain. (And from the context, as far as I can tell, it doesn’t.)
Three years.
Thirty million.
Just… wow.
Wow, the comments on that Rob Neyer article are just classic. My favorite:
And somebody else took Dave to task for listing Werth, Victorino, and Jenkins as good fielders, which they are (even when you’re not comparing them to Burrell and Ibanez).
Good lord is Hickey RBI-obsessed. Fortunately by all evidence so far Zduriencik knows enough to look for talented hitters, not RBIs.
Good luck to Raul, I will miss chanting his name while he was at the plate. Raaaaaauuuulllllllll! and as bad as he was, at least he wasn’t Al “the butcher” Martin who made even the most routine catch of a flyball look like it should have been on webgems.