Comments on: A Pleasant Surprise in the Catching Market http://umpbump.com/press/2007/11/28/a-pleasant-surprise-in-the-catching-market/ In-your-face baseball commentary Sat, 21 Nov 2009 16:48:13 -0600 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6 hourly 1 By: melissa http://umpbump.com/press/2007/11/28/a-pleasant-surprise-in-the-catching-market/comment-page-1/#comment-53970 melissa Fri, 30 Nov 2007 00:35:08 +0000 http://umpbump.com/press/a-pleasant-surprise-in-the-catching-market/#comment-53970 They may feel he's too old to go every day but Damian Miller is much better defensively. Also they declined to pick up Geoff Jenkins option for 08. They may feel he’s too old to go every day but Damian Miller is much better defensively. Also they declined to pick up Geoff Jenkins option for 08.

REPORT COMMENT

]]> By: Paul Moro http://umpbump.com/press/2007/11/28/a-pleasant-surprise-in-the-catching-market/comment-page-1/#comment-53974 Paul Moro Thu, 29 Nov 2007 23:23:30 +0000 http://umpbump.com/press/a-pleasant-surprise-in-the-catching-market/#comment-53974 Let's see... Prince, Weeks, Hardy and Braun with Jenkins, Hall, and Hart... Yeah. Yeah, you\'re right, that\'s a terrible defense. I mean, did anyone actually think that putting Bill Hall in center was a good idea? Well, you may be right, Melissa. I still don\'t think it was a terrible deal given the fact that Milwaukee doesn\'t have a viable option in the minors, but you raise a good point. Let’s see… Prince, Weeks, Hardy and Braun with Jenkins, Hall, and Hart… Yeah. Yeah, you\’re right, that\’s a terrible defense. I mean, did anyone actually think that putting Bill Hall in center was a good idea? Well, you may be right, Melissa. I still don\’t think it was a terrible deal given the fact that Milwaukee doesn\’t have a viable option in the minors, but you raise a good point.

REPORT COMMENT

]]> By: melissa http://umpbump.com/press/2007/11/28/a-pleasant-surprise-in-the-catching-market/comment-page-1/#comment-53973 melissa Thu, 29 Nov 2007 21:50:06 +0000 http://umpbump.com/press/a-pleasant-surprise-in-the-catching-market/#comment-53973 With the Cubs Kendall only threw out 5 of 57 baserunners which was 9%. The other 4 catchers they used got 15 of 70 for 21%. These other 4 catchers were catching the same pitchers so that should account for any deficiency by pitchers to hold runners on. Offensively he doesn't strike out a lot but he isn't going to get many extra base hits or RBI. Milwaukee lost their closer and their set-up man I would think the 4.5 million would have been better spent filling those holes. I would also add that Milwaukee was already a shaky defensive club and adding a poor defensive catcher certainly won't help. With the Cubs Kendall only threw out 5 of 57 baserunners which was 9%. The other 4 catchers they used got 15 of 70 for 21%. These other 4 catchers were catching the same pitchers so that should account for any deficiency by pitchers to hold runners on. Offensively he doesn’t strike out a lot but he isn’t going to get many extra base hits or RBI. Milwaukee lost their closer and their set-up man I would think the 4.5 million would have been better spent filling those holes. I would also add that Milwaukee was already a shaky defensive club and adding a poor defensive catcher certainly won’t help.

REPORT COMMENT

]]> By: Paul Moro http://umpbump.com/press/2007/11/28/a-pleasant-surprise-in-the-catching-market/comment-page-1/#comment-53975 Paul Moro Thu, 29 Nov 2007 19:56:26 +0000 http://umpbump.com/press/a-pleasant-surprise-in-the-catching-market/#comment-53975 OK, so quickly checked some numbers. Unless I somehow screwed this up, as a whole, MLB catchers threw out 25.6% of would-be base stealers in 2007. Had Kendall at least hit that mark, he would have thrown out 34 guys instead of 20. So that's 14 extra bases that an average catcher could have theoretically prevented. To put this into perspective, it's the difference between a hitter who slugs .420 and another who slugs .443 (over 600 ABs). Does that make sense? Basically, the difference isn't that big, but it's not negligible either. That's still 14 extra bases that Kendall's bat can't cover. Which probably makes him a below average catcher overall. But here's something that I don't know - how good are/were the Oakland-Cubs pitchers at keeping runners honest? How quick/slow were they to the plate? OK, so quickly checked some numbers. Unless I somehow screwed this up, as a whole, MLB catchers threw out 25.6% of would-be base stealers in 2007. Had Kendall at least hit that mark, he would have thrown out 34 guys instead of 20. So that’s 14 extra bases that an average catcher could have theoretically prevented. To put this into perspective, it’s the difference between a hitter who slugs .420 and another who slugs .443 (over 600 ABs). Does that make sense?

Basically, the difference isn’t that big, but it’s not negligible either. That’s still 14 extra bases that Kendall’s bat can’t cover. Which probably makes him a below average catcher overall.

But here’s something that I don’t know – how good are/were the Oakland-Cubs pitchers at keeping runners honest? How quick/slow were they to the plate?

REPORT COMMENT

]]> By: Coley Ward http://umpbump.com/press/2007/11/28/a-pleasant-surprise-in-the-catching-market/comment-page-1/#comment-53972 Coley Ward Thu, 29 Nov 2007 18:37:53 +0000 http://umpbump.com/press/a-pleasant-surprise-in-the-catching-market/#comment-53972 I agree. Sarah talks about how important intangibles are, but are they worth $4.25 million? Because I know the Brewers aren't paying Kendall to hit or throw, so they must be paying him for his character (and game-calling skills, which are admittedly important). I agree. Sarah talks about how important intangibles are, but are they worth $4.25 million? Because I know the Brewers aren’t paying Kendall to hit or throw, so they must be paying him for his character (and game-calling skills, which are admittedly important).

REPORT COMMENT

]]> By: melissa http://umpbump.com/press/2007/11/28/a-pleasant-surprise-in-the-catching-market/comment-page-1/#comment-53971 melissa Thu, 29 Nov 2007 18:16:41 +0000 http://umpbump.com/press/a-pleasant-surprise-in-the-catching-market/#comment-53971 It's hard to understand why Milwaukee, a "small" market team on a limited budget would commit that much money to Kendall. I suppose they figure they can afford him because they haven't had to pay a lot of their goood young players yet. He really looked finished in his stint with the Cubs the last half of the season. He simply can't throw out anyone at this point. Hard to believe that their farm system doesn't have anyone better. Estrada fell out of favor with Yost but he isn't anywhere near the kind of bad Kendall is. It’s hard to understand why Milwaukee, a “small” market team on a limited budget would commit that much money to Kendall. I suppose they figure they can afford him because they haven’t had to pay a lot of their goood young players yet. He really looked finished in his stint with the Cubs the last half of the season. He simply can’t throw out anyone at this point. Hard to believe that their farm system doesn’t have anyone better. Estrada fell out of favor with Yost but he isn’t anywhere near the kind of bad Kendall is.

REPORT COMMENT

]]> By: Paul Moro http://umpbump.com/press/2007/11/28/a-pleasant-surprise-in-the-catching-market/comment-page-1/#comment-53969 Paul Moro Thu, 29 Nov 2007 14:55:39 +0000 http://umpbump.com/press/a-pleasant-surprise-in-the-catching-market/#comment-53969 I don't think it's as bad as you're making it seem though, Nick. Yes, both you and I know that Kendall isn't a good catcher. But unless I've horrendously underestimatated how low his reputation has fallen among MLB execs, I still expected him to be able to get a guaranteed multi-year deal in the $5m range. Now obviously he isn't worth it. But with the catching market so weak, I thought Kendall could get someone to bite based on his past "accomplishments". I was wrong. But even with that vesting option it isn't all that bad. I was really expecting 3-year/$15m. In comparison, the actuality has been much better. At max it's a 2-year deal worth less than $10m. I still wouldn't want the guy on my team even at that price, but I admittedly often fail to understand "value" from the perspective of team execs. I don’t think it’s as bad as you’re making it seem though, Nick. Yes, both you and I know that Kendall isn’t a good catcher. But unless I’ve horrendously underestimatated how low his reputation has fallen among MLB execs, I still expected him to be able to get a guaranteed multi-year deal in the $5m range. Now obviously he isn’t worth it. But with the catching market so weak, I thought Kendall could get someone to bite based on his past “accomplishments”. I was wrong. But even with that vesting option it isn’t all that bad. I was really expecting 3-year/$15m. In comparison, the actuality has been much better. At max it’s a 2-year deal worth less than $10m. I still wouldn’t want the guy on my team even at that price, but I admittedly often fail to understand “value” from the perspective of team execs.

REPORT COMMENT

]]> By: Nick Kapur http://umpbump.com/press/2007/11/28/a-pleasant-surprise-in-the-catching-market/comment-page-1/#comment-53968 Nick Kapur Thu, 29 Nov 2007 13:11:03 +0000 http://umpbump.com/press/a-pleasant-surprise-in-the-catching-market/#comment-53968 The only one I think was really lame was the Jason Kendall signing. I mean, is that guy even a <i>league average</i> catcher anymore? His hitting has declined precipitously of late, and it would be one thing if he were known for his defense or something, but Kendall has always been known as a weak-armed, hit-first, field-second type catcher. And that vesting clause? Ouch. I think the Brewers would have been waaaay better off keeping Johnny Estrada, who probably just had an off-year, or at the very least don't pay Kendall $5 million when you can find any number of minor league backstops who could equal his production. The only one I think was really lame was the Jason Kendall signing. I mean, is that guy even a league average catcher anymore? His hitting has declined precipitously of late, and it would be one thing if he were known for his defense or something, but Kendall has always been known as a weak-armed, hit-first, field-second type catcher.

And that vesting clause? Ouch. I think the Brewers would have been waaaay better off keeping Johnny Estrada, who probably just had an off-year, or at the very least don’t pay Kendall $5 million when you can find any number of minor league backstops who could equal his production.

REPORT COMMENT

]]> By: Coley http://umpbump.com/press/2007/11/28/a-pleasant-surprise-in-the-catching-market/comment-page-1/#comment-32393 Coley Wed, 07 Nov 2007 06:35:40 +0000 http://umpbump.com/press/a-pleasant-surprise-in-the-catching-market/#comment-32393 Right, Nick. Because, it would have been embarrassing to sign a contract for less than $13 million, but not at all embarrassing to forfeit $4 million due to fatness. Right, Nick. Because, it would have been embarrassing to sign a contract for less than $13 million, but not at all embarrassing to forfeit $4 million due to fatness.

REPORT COMMENT

]]> By: Nick Kapur http://umpbump.com/press/2007/11/28/a-pleasant-surprise-in-the-catching-market/comment-page-1/#comment-32386 Nick Kapur Wed, 07 Nov 2007 04:49:04 +0000 http://umpbump.com/press/a-pleasant-surprise-in-the-catching-market/#comment-32386 I can't help wondering if the weight clause maybe isn't little more than a face saving measure. If we recall, Schilling said in spring training last year that he would only play for $13 million this coming season. And lo and behold, adding the weight clause brings the total to exactly 13 million (along with the easily reachable incentives). Without knowing the actual weight targets set, it's immossible to say for sure, but I wonder how realistic those targets actually are, or if Schilling actually even intends to try to meet them. I can’t help wondering if the weight clause maybe isn’t little more than a face saving measure. If we recall, Schilling said in spring training last year that he would only play for $13 million this coming season. And lo and behold, adding the weight clause brings the total to exactly 13 million (along with the easily reachable incentives). Without knowing the actual weight targets set, it’s immossible to say for sure, but I wonder how realistic those targets actually are, or if Schilling actually even intends to try to meet them.

REPORT COMMENT

]]>