The 2009 Mariners became a bit of a darling in the sabermetric world. The proponents of the non-traditional fielding stats such as Ultimate Zone Rating and Defensive Plus/Minus were actually able to see their beliefs translate to on-field success. You see, the Mariners brought in a group of players rated highly by UZR and +/- but were undervalued in the market due to the fact that they didn’t put up gaudy offensive numbers.

Consequently, the 2009 Mariners finished the year 85-77, which is a much better record than many (myself included) had them pegged for prior to the season. When Russell Branyan was arguably your best hitter, conventional wisdom says that you shouldn’t finish with 85 wins – especially not in the American League. But their stellar defense (only three pitchers on the entire team finished with an ERA higher than their FIP) as well as an elite season from ace Felix Hernandez gave the M’s a 24-win improvement in the span of a year.

So what do they need to do to get to 90+ wins and contend for a playoff spot? The good news is, the Mariners have some play money this year. Aside from the $18M owed to Ichiro and the ludicrous $12.75M going to pay Carlos Silva, Seattle doesn’t have any contract obligations that will cost them more than $5M in 2010. It does not appear that they will re-sign third baseman Adrian Beltre and the money saved there should at least cover the expected arbitration raises for their younger players and then some. Add in the close to $17M that free agent pitchers Miguel Batista and Erik Bedard made (not to mention the god-send that was Kenji Johjima walking away from his contract), and the Mariners have financial capacity. Therefore…

Ease up a tad on the bargain hunting. One of the things that I often write about here on the ol’ blog is the importance of maintaining financial flexibility in terms of payroll. Don’t pay extra for something you’ve already got (like, say, signing a replacement level player or four to seven figure contracts), and only consider future performance instead of past accomplishments (trading any prospect for a 38 year-old former All Star with three years left on a contract is usually not encouraged).  However, bargain hunting often only gets you so far. While guys like Jack Hannahan and Mike Carp will probably add a couple wins on the cheap, they’re not going to add five or six a piece. And the Mariners have a lot of Hannahan-types on their roster. Sometimes, you need to pay some cash and roll the dice. To get to the next level without commiting $300M over the next five years, this is what needs to be done.

Luckily for the Mariners, there are guys worth gambling on, like Ben Sheets or Rich Harden. Yes, the Mariners tried something similar with Erik Bedard last year and got only 83 innings out of the guy before he inevitably got hurt again. Doesn’t mean it wasn’t a good idea at the time. In this market, I’d imagine that Sheets would have a hard time finding a multi-year deal and could be had for $7-8M plus incentives and that sounds like a reasonable chance to take for a team lacking an impact starter after King Felix.

Offensively, the re-signing of Ken Griffey Jr. was a bad idea for two reasons. One, his on-field production is now replacement level and is therefore not even worth the $2M. Two, he takes up a roster spot (corner OF) that could have been used to bring in some much needed power into the fold. But what’s done is done and now the M’s must figure out how to work their roster with the current conditions.

Bringing back Russell Branyan appears to be a good idea. His injury that ended the season may have been a blessing in disguise for Seattle as there is now a lesser chance that another team will go crazy in pursuing him. With Branyan back at firstbase, that leaves Mike Carp as the primary candidate to be DH. Is he ready? And if Branyan gets hurt again, will Carp be even passable at first? Assuming that Carlos Delgado is out of their price range, someone like Nick Johnson or Adam LaRoche seems to make sense, in which case they’d have to decide if they want production (Johnson) or durability (LaRoche).

They could also use an upgrade at second base, as Jose Lopez offers little offensively or defensively.  If I were Seattle, I’d be leery of diving into the free agent market here as neither Orlando Hudson nor Felipe Lopez are ideal situations. Hudson could garner a deal longer than he deserves at his age and diminishing skills while Lopez isn’t a very good defensive option and had a very strong 2009, which makes him a candidate for being overvalued on the market.  But what about trading for someone like the Cubs’ Mike Fontenot, who would be a good platoon partner for Lopez? This route would probably mean that they would have to clear a roster spot (probably Bill Hall), but it is a way for Seattle to make a run at a pitcher and DH with the available funds.

An offensive upgrade could also come from within, as Matt Tuiasosopo (say that five times fast) appears ready to take on a larger role with the team in 2010. Tuisosopo had a respectable line of .261/.368/.473 in AAA-Tacoma and while he’s learning how to play second base, it appears likely that he’s better suited to play a less demanding position at his size (6′2, 225lbs) and could be a better choice at third than the defensively gifted but offensively inept Jack Hannahan.

So while the Mariners have some funds to experiment, they still can’t compete with the big boys in terms of payroll – at least, not as long as they’re paying Carlos Silva. And they would be better off plugging a few holes with those funds than breaking the bank on a Matt Holliday. It’s not easy for an 85-win team to become a playoff contender. But the Mariners have a chance to do just that, so long as they take a chance on some risky names.

- What They Need Index -

“Chronological age does not have anything to do with a player of (Damon’s) genetics.” – Scott Boras

Well, sure. Had Jesus Christ been around longer, I’m pretty sure that he would’ve been able to OPS over 1.000 well into his sixties. He was just that special.

One of the things that always piques my interest is a conversation in regards to “value”. It can be discussed in the abstract sense (leadership, personality, energy, grittitude) or more specifically (WAR, Runs Created, Runs Prevented, Ass Slaps Dished Out To Teammates).

But in my mind, whether you fall into the “pay for intangibles” camp or not, one thing we all ought to be agreeing upon is that salary matters. A guy on a rookie contract is far more valuable than a veteran making $20 million if their on-field production is equal. Having the former allows the GM to go out and spend that money on filling another need for the team.

So I hope to have several of these types of discussions throughout the early portion of the Hot Stove calendar. Today, I’m kicking things off with one guy who I think is one of the most interesting cases – Chone Figgins.

It would not surprise me to learn that the majority of baseball fans still consider Figgins to be a fairly young player. Fact is, he’s not. He didn’t get his first taste of the bigs until he was 24 and didn’t have his first full season until he was 26. By the time Spring Training comes around, Figgins will be 32 years old. For a player whose speed is often touted as the most desirable aspect of his game, this does not bode well for Chone nor anyone who signs him to a multi-year deal.

Looking at the greatest baseball website of all time, they have Bip Roberts, Patsy Tebeau, Jack Rothrock, Mookie Wilson, and Sam Mertes as Figgins’ top statistically comparable players through the age of 30. Out of those five, only Mertis was able to produce at the league average level once they hit 33 years of age and that year (1906) was still a steep dropoff from his previous levels of production.

Another aspect of Figgins’ reputation that I personally feel is overvalued is his versatility. Is there value to this? Absolutely, as long as he isn’t awful (I mean, Adam Dunn can call himself a shortstop. Doesn’t mean you want him there). It does give managers and GMs some flexibility when you know that a certain player can be moved around the diamond without much negative repercussions.

But is Figgins really that player? Or is it essentially a myth that continues to be propagated? We know that Figgins is a pretty good third baseman. Both UZR and +/- has him as above average at the position. He is also respectable at second base as well, although information is limited due to the fact that he doesn’t play second very often anymore. And as he grows older, we’ll see him there less and less. He hasn’t played SS or CF since 2006, and again, as he approaches his mid-thirties, we should expect this to continue. So at this point, he’s pretty much a 3B full time who can be a 2B in a pinch (think Mark Teahen, but, you know, good).

However, there is one aspect of Figgins’ game that does tend to age well. His plate discipline has actually been improving over these past couple of seasons. In 2007, Figgins swung at 22.3% of pitches thrown outside the stroke zone according to FanGraphs. For a guy with as little power as Figgins, this is too high. So he came back in 2008 and performed much better, to the tune of 16.5% and followed that up with a 14.9% this season, 4th lowest among all qualified hitters. This is important since not only has this resulted in a career high .395 OBP in 2009, it allows him to maintain a higher than normal BABiP (making contact with pitches out of the zone will often end poorly unless you are Vlad Guerrero).

So with all this information at our disposal, I ask – what’s the value of Chone Figgins? Since 2007, FanGraphs calculates that he has been worth a total of $50.9 million, with a high of $27.4 million in 2009 (while getting paid a paltry $5.78 million). But with Figgins finally eligible for free agency, would you pay Figgins $50 million over the next three years?

Let the discussion begin!

This is just a tad disturbing:

Venezuelan authorities reportedly will exhume the body of former major league pitcher Geremi Gonzalez to probe whether he was killed last year by lightning, as an autopsy determined, or was the victim of a deadly robbery.

How does a coroner confuse the two?

Coroner: It’s clear to anyone who sees this body that he was electrocuted by lightning.

Assistant: But he has a bullet hole in his head.

Coroner: It’s lightning.

I’m confused. Is Gonzalez’ family grasping at straws? Did the coroner lie? And if so, why? Questions, questions…

It’s bizarre enough that the Astros actually picked up the 2010 option for pitcher Brian Moehler. But even for GM Ed Wade, this quote is bat-sh%! insane:

(Moehler)’s a solid pitcher whose value doesn’t always show up in the numbers. He keeps you in games and gives you a chance to win.

His “value doesn’t always show up in numbers”? He “gives you a chance to win”?

You know what gives you a chance to win, Ed? Not spending $3 million or giving any innings to a 38-year old pitcher who has had a 5.29 ERA since the start of the 2007 season. That would probably help.

Note: For the record, anyone, even I, could give a team a “chance to win”. It’s only a matter of how much better your chances become.

It’s been too long since we’ve done a UFH post at UmpBump. So in tribute to the playoffs, when the entire nation can marvel at players’ levels of determination and enhanced upper-lip decorations, we give you grit-meister Brendan Ryan of the St. Louis Cardinals.

May his stache forever live in October lore.

Read the rest of this entry »

My reactions to today’s press conference at Citi Field with Mets’ COO Jeff Wilpon and GM Omar Minaya. Consider this my quick and dirty obituary of the 2009 New York Mets:

1. Mets’ front office execs using the word “inexcusable” in October is officially an American tradition. Greeting cards soon to follow.
2. “The payroll is what Omar needs” = “let’s lock up Alex Cora and Jeff Francoeur to three-year deals”
3. If you go from a line of .313/.397/.473 in 2008 to .266/.313/.427 in 2009 like Daniel Murphy did, Omar Minaya will be “encouraged”  by what you showed him.
4. “Minaya believes he and his staff must look at every aspect of the team, while putting better talent on the field.” This is a brilliant plan. Follow it. Can’t go wrong.
5. And clearly, I’ve wasted my time even paying attention.

When the Tampa Bay Rays signed LF/DH Pat Burrell to a 2-year $16 million contract this past off-season, I thought that the defending AL champs had gotten a steal – especially in comparison to the 3-year $31.5 million deal that his replacement in Philadelphia, Raul Ibanez, would garner from Burrell’s old team. And while I won’t make final judgments until these two contracts are completed, it’s looking like I was wrong. Very, very wrong.

While Ibanez was posting career-best numbers as a 37-year old Phillie, Burrell was doing the exact opposite in Tampa. His walk rate is below career norms, he’s striking out more often than he has in several seasons and his power has seemingly disappeared (.385 SLG? Who are you?).

To his credit, the guy isn’t making excuses for himself. But that also means that we don’t quite know if there’s something wrong that can be fixed during the off-season.

There are, however, potential explanations for his dip in performance that could portend a much better season in 2010:

1. The talent gap between the AL East and NL East. Especially over the past few seasons, the quality of pitching in the NL East has been slightly underwhelming. Johan Santana didn’t enter the division until 2008 so the only top-level SP that Burrell had to face consistently over the last few seasons was John Smoltz. Now in the big boys league, he has to face the likes of C.C. Sabathia, Roy Halladay, Jon Lester and Josh Beckett. Can Burrell adjust to the higher quality pitching at the age of 33? I haven’t the faintest.
2. Hiding an injury. You wouldn’t expect a player to have such a dramatic drop in power numbers from one season to another and especially not at Burrell’s age. This is a guy who had slugged over .500 from 2005-2008. How does he become a sub-.400 slugger seemingly overnight? If he had a serious injury, that would explain quite a lot.
3. He’s done this before. The main reason why I don’t believe that Pat Burrell is washed up is because of his 2003 season. A year prior to that, the then-26-year old had a very strong line of .282/.376/.544 with 37 HRs. He had become on of the  better offensive threats in the National League. But he followed it up with a very disappointing season where he batted .209/.309/.404 with 21 HRs. And despite a wrist injury in 2004, his numbers rebounded very well and he was a solid hitter for the rest of his stay in Philadelphia. No actual reason (none that I saw, anyway) was ever really given for his sharp drop in production in 2003.

I am not going to say that any of these potential reasons are correct because at this point, I have no way of knowing anything. But I will say that Burrell most likely is not done, simply because it’s rare for a 33 year old hitter to fall off such a steep cliff. There’s got to be a reason aside from “decline” that ruined Burrell’s 2009 season. I just don’t quite know what that reason may be.

Because people will be upset if I wrote about Burrell and didn't include this photo...