Ken Rosenthal Reports Red Sox have inquired about Victor Martinez
by PewterPirate55 on May 18, 2009 2:46 PM EDT
Email
Print
"Of all the players we've had here, there is no finer human being, probably no one more proud to be an Indian, no more vested in the organization than Vic," Indians general manager Mark Shapiro said Sunday night.
I don't think this should even be discussed. I see Cliff Lee being traded before V-Mart. This would really help the Red Sox too much in my opinion. I also do not think the prospects in return would help the Indians in the long run either. With the exception of Masterson.
IMO ... They signed their Big Papi let them eat the contract.
140 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Why is helping the Red Sox a significant consideration? Also, why don’t you see the prospects coming back helping in the long run? You don’t like any of the Red Sox prospects outside of Masterson? They have some pretty good ones…
If the Tribe falls another 5 games out and the Red Sox offer Buchholz, Bard/Masterson, and Lars Anderson then obviously you have to consider it (if only because you must always take it seriously when you have the opportunity to acquire someone names Lars).
But that ain’t gonna happen.
Ultimately, I think the reason Martinez won’t get traded isn’t his baseball value. Rather, it’s his “intangible” value to the Indians (face of the club, leadership, etc). Because most or all of this value disappears in a trade, a truly synergistic trade is almost impossible.
The reality is that Victor is a lot easier for the Indians to trade than Cliff Lee. Cliff Lee is, following his opening start, putting together his second consecutive season of elite level starting pitching and is under cotract for one more year at a very reasonable rate (club option, $8M). Replacing Lee’s production in the starting rotation would be impossible for Cleveland. Victor is in a similar situation (club option, $7M), but is much easier for the Indians to replace. This is not to say that Victor isn’t the heart and soul of the team, but the Indians have a backup catcher who would probably start for 20 teams in MLB, two guys at AAA (Toregas and Gimenez) who are perfectly capable back-up catchers, and an organizational top prospect who is not far from Cleveland and plays catcher (Carlos Santana).
It’s really the only counter-point I have the heart to make. Everybody wishes we’d sell high more often, but think about trading Victor right now. That’s what selling high feels like.
by fleerdon on May 18, 2009 10:46 PM EDT up reply actions
I wouldn’t lose it if they dealt Victor in July. Right now seems a little much but July I could stomach.
I trust Shapiro on the trade market pretty much unequivocally.
The Indians have a backup catcher who would probably start for 20 teams in MLB.
I will endeavor to question this assertion again. Here are 18 starting catchers with higher OPS (listed in descending order) than Shoppach. Small sample size me all you want, but I’d say there are easily more than ten from this list I would start above the overvalued Kelly Shoppach: Joe Mauer, Mike Napoli, Jorge Posada, Jesus Flores, John Baker, Chris Iannetta, Bengie Molina, Brian McCann, Ivan Rodriquez, Kurt Suzuki, Rod Barajas, Yadier Molina, Nick Hundley, Jason Varitek, Russell Martin, Joe Saltalamacchia, AJ Pierzynski and Ramon Hernandez.
Who? Please, name the “easily more than ten” that you would rather have than Shoppach. Please keep in mind that Shoppach is making $1.95 million this year after making $400k last year to put up a 123 OPS+. Of the guys you list, how many give that production that cheaply?
I become an expert simply by doing something.
The assertion is that Shoppach would probably start for 20 teams. He doesn’t start for the Indians, so that leaves 29 teams. He clearly doesn’t supplant Mauer, Napoli, Posada, McCann, the freres Molina. I wouldn’t see the White Sox sitting AJ or the Bostons benching Varitek, regardless of heir salaries (no conditions of salaries announced in the above assertion). Jarrod Saltalamacchia, Russell Martin.
He supplants Varitek, no question. Martin is close, but they are basically the same player, with Kelly possibly having a edge on defense and a certain edge on slugging (nine fewer HR in almost 1000 fewer AB). Saltalamacchia has almost identical numbers to Shoppach’s, but with markedly less power. Really, only Mauer, Napoli, Posada, McCann and maybe the Molina brothers belong on this list. When given a chance to play every day, Shoppach provides good defense and good offensive numbers for a catcher.
And it doesn’t matter if you want to talk about contracts or not. Part of value comes from contract. It’s naive to look at this as some sort of grand strat-o-matic experiment where you can have whoever you want, regardless of price.
I become an expert simply by doing something.
I’m not saying that salary is not a factor. I’m saying if you’re the Red Sox and you have a chance to pick up Shoppach on the waiver wire (and pay his salary for 2009), do you think he would supplant Varitek as a starting catcher? Boston has already paid Varitek, so why would they cut him to sign Shoppach? The assertion was that he would start on 20 teams. In some cases he would be a better player (Varitek, Pierzynski) but the starting player would not sit down for a replacement. If we are saying (as in a grand Stat-o-Matic experiment) we start the season as equals, with no reigning starters, and select from scratch, I would place Chris Iannetta above Shop (cheaper and younger, with promising power). Saltalamacchia, by the way, is five years younger than Shoppach.
Jason Varitek?? Are you really saying Jason Varitek is better than Shoppach?!? Rod Barajas, Kurt Suzuki, Ivan Rodriguez, either Molina brother? Do you really think all of these guys will be hitting better than Shoppach at the end of the year, because I sure don’t.
by Buckeye Brad on May 18, 2009 8:20 PM EDT up reply actions
I obviously disagree with his ridiculous post ranking catchers on a month’s worth of OPS, but I would love Yadier Molina. Best defensive catcher in the league
I may be ridiculous on this topic, but no one has a response other than to say my assertions are ridiculous. We’ll see where this plays out. I see a confederacy of Shoppachites arrayed against me. You can believe he would start for 20 teams. I disagree.
Kelly is a flawed player, I have conceded that a number of times. The points you keep neglecting are why people think you are being ridiculous. The first is that Kelly is a catcher, and that offensive numbers for catchers are generally low. I am sure you already know this, but you continue to harp on Kelly’s “poor” numbers, but neglect to mention that most catchers have poor offensive numbers.
The second point, and why Jay said you have jumped the shark, is that your primary evidence is one month worth of at-bats for a guy that doesn’t even play every day. No serious analysis will ever be based almost entirely on Kelly’s at-bats this season and it’s probably why more people aren’t continuing in your game. I should probably follow their lead.
The sad part is that I acknowledge a lot of Kelly’s flaws and even advocated trading him this past offseasno because of the potential to sell high. The fact remains though that based on most of the reliable evidence that we have for this player, is that he is one of the better offensive catchers in the league. I am not placing him in the class of Vic, Mauer, McCann, or Posada, but he is not much different than a lot of the other players
I appreciate the more polite tone. Roger. I acknowledged SSS when I made the assertion. It’s not without basis, but it is a reach. People look at four extraordinary months in Shoppach’s career—and I haven’t gone back to see if they were indeed four months—as evidence of his extraordinary ability (and potential) as a catcher. I look at his age and the rest of his career and see a different player.
I suppose we should challenge assertions here. The accepted thought is that Shop would start for 20 teams, and based on what I see, that is not a plausible assertion. Sure, he led the AL in isolated power. He was damn good last year. But if he is such a great hitter, why didn’t he hit better when he was 23? Why isn’t he hitting this year. Small sample size, lack of reps—all these are purely excuses to maintain the premise that he is a great-hitting catcher, in the top third in the majors.
I’ll be honest, I have never looked at Kelly’s minor league numbers until just now. Somewhat surprising to me based on your comments, but I find a very similar minor leaguer to the Kelly that has grown into his current role. Low OB numbers because of high strikeout totals, but also a very strong slugging percentage for a catcher.
In 2003, at age 23 in AA, Kelly had an .841 OPS driven by a .488 SLG. The following year a slugging percentage of .461. The following year a slugging percentage of .507. The following year in the Indians system a slugging percentage of .538. These are very solid power numbers for a catcher and are quite indicative of the player Kelly has turned into in the majors.
You talk about Kelly’s great four months but also neglect his 2007 numbers in a part time role. He had a 101 OPS+ which for a catcher in a part-time role, is great. This was on the back of a .472 slugging percentage. Great for a catcher.
To repeat, we know Kelly’s flaws, not a great on base guy because of his high strikeout totals. However, everything he has done in his career indicates that he hits for some of the best power at the catching position. Coupled with pretty strong defense, this makes him very valuable.
Isn’t 23 old for AA? I guess it had to do with his playing at Baylor, but age seems to be overlooked. Kelly is 29. I’m not saying he’s a bad player. I’m simply saying he appears overrated. When he is heralded as one of the best hitters in the AL, and a catcher who would start for two-thirds of the teams in the majors, I think that places him in the Mauer-Posada cohort. And I don’t think (nor do you) that he is a top-tier catcher.
Posada does not belong in the same breath as Mauer. Not even close.
by Buckeye Brad on May 18, 2009 11:16 PM EDT up reply actions
23 is not old for Double-A and especially not for a catcher.
When you spend your entire pro career behind an All-Star catcher, it necessarily will not proceed quickly.
If Shoppach were a center fielder of comparable value and skill, we’d have traded him already, and he would be an everyday player like Crisp and Gutierrez — perhaps better, perhaps worse. The only reason we haven’t traded him is that it’s too easy for a starting catcher to get injured — obviously — and keeping Shoppach is cheaper and better option than continually signing Tim Lakers — obviously.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
I’m not being argumentative, but why is 23 not old for AA? Saltalamacchia is in the bigs; he’s 24. Pudge was a full-time starter at the age of 20, as was Bench. Don’t the same age standards apply regardless of position?
It’s just not. Ask anyone. When a guy is 23 in Double-A, they don’t talk about him being too old for his league. Double-A is a normal place for a good prospect to be at 23, especially for someone drafted as a college junior or senior, in perhaps their second full season as a pro.
Of course standards are different by position, and it varies from one organization to another. A guy like Matt LaPorta, he should be posting a 900+ OPS or there’s no real reason to promote him. But what do you do with a catcher? One school of thought says once he hits 700+, you go ahead and promote him, because that’s all you want him to do at each level. Another school says, make him get to 800-850 before pushing him to the next level. If it’s the latter approach, then you’ll see skill position players progressing a year or two behind the power hitters based on age. If it’s the former, then the skill guys might actually progress faster.
Carlos Santana is 23. Victor Martinez was 23 when he was in Double-A. Both are/were considered elite prospects, and you can’t be an elite prospect if you’re too old for your league. Shoppach was not an elite prospect, but he was the same age in Double-A and a very good all-around player.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
That makes sense. But shortstop is a skill position, and we typically see shortstops up at a younger age (perhaps because of the athleticism required for the position). Catching would seem also to require distinct defensive skills and an ability to deal with pitchers. If you have a great defensive catcher, don’t you get him up right away and let his bat catch up? Tony Pena didn’t start until he was 25 (presumably blocked by Manny Sanguillen?), though he OPS’d .865 in the PCL at the age of 23 and tore it up in the Eastern League at the age of 22.
You know, I don’t really understand enough about the art and science of developing a young hitter to say. I imagine it’s different for different guys. If it’s a great defensive catcher and you call him up immediately, is it a given that he’ll ever catch up with the bat? I don’t know that it is.
I do know that in this specific case, you would never rush a guy if you had a starter at his position under long-term contract. Shoppach wasn’t anywhere near ready when they re-upped Varitek after 2004, and once you have Varitek with that big “C” on his chest, you’re just going to take your time with your Double-A guy.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
I bet another factor is wear and tear. Maybe there’s no reason to rush a catcher because he’s going to wear out his knees in four or five years—so why start him right away? On the other hand, veteran catchers—like Varitek and Posada and Pierzynski (and Sanguillen)—are supposed to have tactical skills that are desirable.
odradek, I concur with your arguments. I really don’t think Shoppach is that strong. And I would be devastated if they traded Victor to the redsox.
by oxforddave on May 19, 2009 10:35 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
By the way, I am saying that Shoppach has poor numbers as a catcher. He was hot last season. He has not been hot otherwise. Why are the hot numbers valid and the other ones (similar in size) not?
Your assertions are ridiculous because you’re basing them off of six weeks of data! What else is there to say?
I feel like this is the same argument we had about Grady being overrated. You’re basing way too much off of one month of data. You listed all these players that you claimed were better than Grady because Grady had a bad first month of the season. But what you’re missing is that one bad (or good) month doesn’t change what kind of player you are fundamentally. Players have good months and bad months all throughout their career, but it gets overblown in April because that’s the only data for the year. So listing a few catchers who have had good Aprils doesn’t prove anything.
By the way, we’re not all “Shoppachites”, we just think you’re using bad analysis to try to make your point. Not all of us here overvalue all Indians like you think we do.
by Buckeye Brad on May 18, 2009 10:27 PM EDT up reply actions
So now we speak of fundamentals, of essences of players. What determines the fundamental quality of a player? Past performance of a significant quantity, I guess.
At present time, Grady—whatever his ineffable qualities—isn’t the best player on his own team. He’s currently, right now, being outplayed by Granderson and Upton, at the least.
I think we all overvalue the Indians. That’s part of being a fan. We have emotional attachments to the team, and that colors our thinking.
Are you joking? Why not? Because of his “veteran presence”? Because of his game-calling ability? Because it sure as heck isn’t about his hitting — Varitek hasn’t been a good major league hitter for a few years.
by Buckeye Brad on May 18, 2009 10:15 PM EDT up reply actions
You have officially jumped the shark on this. Back on your meds, buddy.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
by Jay on May 18, 2009 8:38 PM EDT up reply actions 2 recs
It’s my job as moderator to tell you when you’re out of line. You are.
Your points are repetitive and argumentative, approaching trolling.
The fact that they’re largely nonsensical is a side-issue.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
by Jay on May 19, 2009 9:34 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
and in a bizarre twist, he’s actually related to the molinas…and not to jarrod saltalamacchia
by DontCallMeJoey on May 19, 2009 4:35 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
There’s nothing new here.
If any player is nearing the end of his contract, the Indians are going to consider alternatives. That consideration is heightened when the team isn’t in contention.
Standings and contracts aside, the same rules apply here as elsewhere—no player is untouchable. There is, hypothetically, a situation that involves trading any player on the Indians and the Indians being a better team because of what they receive back. If an offer comes along that you can’t refuse, well, then you don’t refuse it.
I agree that Cliff Lee is much more likely to be dealt than Victor, but I don’t think either will be dealt this season. Yes, Bartolo Colon was traded in a similar contract situation, but the talent level of that organization at that time was markedly worse, and dictated a complete rebuild. And there was the perfect trade partner, a GM whose team was in danger of being contracted, and who was therefore willing to trade three blue-chip prospects.
Victor is absolutely not going to be traded. That’s a non-starter even if you just look at it from a statistical viewpoint.
I disagree. For the reasons I outlined above, I think the opposite is true. I just can’t imagine, given the state of the system, the front office trading a top of the line starter before their walk year.
To me, I look at recent trade(s) and scenarios that have played out and what happened.
The return on a full year of Johann Santana versus 60% of a season of CC Sabathia was almost negligible (and arguably better for the Indians in the long run).
Or you look at what the A’s recieved in return for Haren and his two years of low cost to the Diamondbacks and see that it will probably not mean a whole lot more in terms of near-mlb talent if you would trade him next month or next year.
As for the Victor stuff. I look at all the smoke that was created for Matt Holliday out in Colorado for the past few seasons. Anytime they would go into a skid or be 10 games below .500 (often), the rumor mill would begin to churn. Eventually the Rockies did trade him this past off-season, but not at mid-season like so many speculated.
It all depends on the offers that are out there. Which player excites another team enough to risk a Colón trade™? But could both be traded? Two Colón trades™?
Is the phrase “Colon trade” becoming akin to Kevin Millwood-type signing?
by Buckeye Brad on May 18, 2009 10:33 PM EDT up reply actions
I zoned out in school for all grammar lessons—to this day I can’t properly attribute the various parts of speech—so the only grammar I know is the kind I can feel (although I think that reading LGT for the last 3 or 4 years has probably improved my understanding of our language). The™ just feels right to me in this case. Maybe a previous use penetrated my subconscious. If it’s something that catches on, great, but I’m not trying to generate more LGT esoterica (notice my reaction to the 500th FE WEE).
I’m talking 1% and .1% here. I don’t think the Indians are moving either, though I suppose there’s always a point where an offer’s too good to pass up. If the Indians think they have any possibility of competing next year, Lee and Victor have to be on the roster.
Even if Carlos Santana meets all the expectations we’ve thrown at him, there’s a way for both he and Victor to be in the lineup, as we’ve seen with Victor and Shoppach this year.
If the Indians think they have any possibility of competing next year, Lee and Victor have to be on the roster.
I just don’t think that’s true about Victor. It’s true that we’re not going to find one player to replace his bat directly, but between Shoppach and a first baseman, we can come close. If we lose Lee, and everyone on the starting staff moves up a spot….yuck.
Victor is the our best combination of “value on the trading market” and “replacability.” Yeah, it hurts to say. But if you go, please go to the NL.
by dgcambridge on May 19, 2009 11:53 AM EDT up reply actions
This was my thought as well. Shoppach is valuable to this team, but a back-up catcher of his talent is a luxury we can’t afford to hold on to when we have somewhat reasonable options elsewhere. I’d rather get a reasonable return for him than trade victor this year.
In my opinion, small- or mid-market teams cannot afford to have the following:
1. Backups who are good enough to start for most other teams
2. A really expensive DH
3. Really expensive closers
sigh.
1. Except he’s not backing up so much as his is platooning. And it’s Kelly’s offensive skill which makes playing Victor at first and DH more feasible, so in a sense Kelly is part of Victor’s success. And he’s making less money than a lot of backup catchers are. And we have no idea what other teams are actually offering for him.
2. If Hafner were healthy and productive, nobody would care about how much money he’s making. More to the point, we now have at least some evidence that he may be healthy and productive for at least a chunk of his remaining time under contract.
3. If you aren’t sick of the Mark Shapiro Bargain Closer Experiment, you’re quite alone in that.
More broadly: if we’re not spending money on (at least theoretically) superior talent, what should we spend our money on?
by fleerdon on May 19, 2009 8:08 AM EDT up reply actions
I’m with baerga here for one and two at least. I’d guess that Shapiro tested the waters with Shoppach this offesason – with Victor looking solid on his return and Santana in the stable. I’m extremely confused if he didn’t.
How good of a value is an extremely expensive DH? I wonder if we would’ve done this deal if it took place after we started seeing guys like Ortiz fall off the earth.
Well, thing is, what Kelly’s doing has value to the team. It may not be maximally valuable, but that doesn’t make it valueless. The question becomes whether the team could get something equal to or better than Kelly’s value to the Indians in trade, taking into account the drop-off in relative performance when it’s Toregiminez back there instead of a league-average-plus catcher. If they couldn’t get that deal — and the fact that it didn’t happen suggests they couldn’t — then why not keep him? Long way of saying, I contest the idea that Kelly should be moved for whatever, just because, which is what baega1 implies when he says that Kelly is a luxury we can’t afford. Absolutely we can afford him, as evidenced by the fact that we are affording him.
The value of John Q. Expensive Designated Hitter, or for that matter Oritz, seems irrelevant to me. We can “afford” Hafner if his production reasonably approximates his salary. We can disagree about the likelihood of that happening, but saying we shouldn’t have signed Hafner simply because he’s a positionless power hitter … I’m not even sure what that means.
by fleerdon on May 19, 2009 11:55 AM EDT up reply actions
I’m certainly not advocating trading Shoppach for “whatever.” Get value, obviously.
The reason I think, in general, it is not a good idea for a mid-market team to sign an expensive DH-only is because it reduces positional flexibility. This lack of flexibility makes it harder to take advantage of opportunities in the free agent market. In other words, in the offseason the front office may determine some player is undervalued by the market. If that player doesn’t play a position of need, then having an expensive DH-only makes it harder to capitalize on the opportunity. Without that DH, they can say something along the lines of “hey we don’t really need this Tom guy, but we can always rotate Dick and Harry into the DH slot to make them all regulars.”
I think that flexibility is critical for a team like the Tribe.
I don’t want to spin my wheels on this, so I’ll re-phrase it then drop it: If there was reasonable value to be had for Shoppach, in excess of his value to this team, I think that deal would have been made. Yet here he is.
The positional flexibility thing: fair. But again, I think that’s mostly a question of just how good this particular position-less DH is. Evidently the Indians feel Pronk is productive enough to make it worth their while. I don’t dispute your line of reasoning, just the certainty of your conclusion.
by fleerdon on May 20, 2009 9:22 AM EDT up reply actions
The interesting answers are probably “no” and “yes,” respectively.
by fleerdon on May 23, 2009 9:36 AM EDT up reply actions
I can’t fault them for having a good backup catcher. As I said upthread, I trust Shap unequivocally on the trade market and I have no doubt that he explored trading Shoppach this winter. I don’t trust anyone more than I do him to find a good deal if it’s out there.
It’s not as if they signed a good backup-that would be something they can’t afford. But to have a good backup come out of AAA (be it homegrown or trade acquired), it’s not quite the same thing. Shap acquired Shoppach when nobody quite knew what he was, let him turn into a good backup, and then probably tried to flip him. If he couldn’t be flipped in a way that Shap likes, I’m fine with them standing pat and continuing to explore deals over the next 18 months.
In other words, you can’t just get rid of your good backup and instantly turn him into a help for organizational needs. You have to actually make the right deal or else you end up dealing him for something you don’t want anyway.
I think actually that there was an uncharacteristically weak market for catchers this offseason, just as there was for closers. So it was the right year to move Shoppach but the wrong year to be moving a catcher generally.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
Do you have to be drunk to post on OTM?
No, not you. Your helmet!
by PatBordersHelmet on May 19, 2009 9:06 AM EDT reply actions
One user suggested that the Bostons might be interested in moving Buchholz and a lesser prospect for merely VMart and LaPorta. If you don’t think that trade is fair then you are clearly overvaluing the Indians.
I think the LaPorta thing is coming from Olney’s mention of it this morning. I think Olney meant to say that the Red Sox would love to pick up a young bat, just as the Indians picked up LaPorta a year ago, but it came out more like the Red Sox want LaPorta specifically.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
It is simple enough to see
I don’t see the Red Sox front office putting together a solid enough offer to make a serious run at V-Mart. I do not want to see him traded. Although I do see the season is getting to the point where a lot of speculation will be running wild about a lot of Indians players.
Personally I would like to see the Rays make a Run at Cliff Lee in return for some of the pitching talent that the Rays have in their minor league system. Does anyone here think that Kazmir and Neimann would be enough in return to get Cliff Lee to Tampa what would the Tribe want in return?
by PewterPirate55 on May 19, 2009 10:22 AM EDT reply actions
Yeah let's start all over again
I love shipping off all our good players for no name guys out of the farm system we won’t hear from for 3 or 4 years.
Then, just like the guys we have now, they won’t pan out.
Paddy
by Patrick Allen on May 19, 2009 3:34 PM EDT reply actions 1 recs
How many WS Rings does Grady have?
My major point here is it is stupid to get rid of good players for players who might be good.
Hasn’t worked for us so far.
Paddy
by Patrick Allen on May 19, 2009 4:06 PM EDT reply actions 1 recs
This is what it’s like to cheer for a team like the Indians. You get some pretty good players who are young, hope they come together one year (i.e. 2007) and then, within 3 years, you’ve got to start moving them out. It’s stupid to do anything else.
If that’s not the kind of team you want to cheer for and you’re not prepared to deal with that as an organizational philosophy, there is truly nothing to say but find a different team. There is no alternate strategy.
If you’re problem is that they don’t choose the right young players, that’s another point altogether but you’ve got to actually provide some reasons as to why they’re failing to choose the right young players, who they should choose instead, how they acquire them, etc.
I never said Grady was a bad player. I love Grady.
I’m frustrated with the Tribe and the way it is run and I have every right to be. No I don’t have to cheer for another team and no I don’t have to stop cheering for the Tribe.
I don’t see the point of finding good players, like Cliff Lee and then when they become stars shipping them off to start over because of a couple bums in the bull pen in a lousy coach. Shell out some cash, pay your good players and try to compete. I don’t want them to become the NY Yankees or anything. I just want them to hire a coach who can get actually get them to play to their potential, start the season ready to play, put players in the right spot on the field.
Paddy
by Patrick Allen on May 19, 2009 8:51 PM EDT up reply actions
I also a new here and don’t really like having my opinion being called irrelevant or being bombarded for stating my opinion about how the organization handles things. Yeesh! Not agreeing with how the organization is run is not reason to call I cheer for another team.
Aren’t we on the same side?
Paddy
by Patrick Allen on May 19, 2009 8:53 PM EDT up reply actions
You clearly didn’t even read what I wrote. Try again.
If you’re under the impression that this is a place where you can just state your opinion, no matter how ridiculous it is, and not be called out, you’re wrong. This community is based on thoughtful discussion.
If you’re interested in just spouting off your frustrations, try cleveland.com.
Dude relax
there is nothing ridiculous about not agreeing with the way the team does things.
Respectfully disagree with me, that is fine.
But state your own opinion and don’t call mine ridiculous. I think your point of view is perfectly valid. I just don’t happen to agree with it.
Paddy
by Patrick Allen on May 19, 2009 10:16 PM EDT up reply actions
i think i understand the point you are trying to make.
it is not a good point.
by DontCallMeJoey on May 19, 2009 4:43 PM EDT up reply actions
Yeah. Because Grady doesn’t have a World Series ring, he sucks as a player. So did Ernie Banks.
by woodsmeister on May 19, 2009 4:57 PM EDT up reply actions
This one is giving me an acid flashback to my years in New York when I had the conversation so many times:
Me: Derek Jeter is a great player who is going to the HOF and I’d love to have him on my team any day. He is not, however, a good defensive ss.
NYYFan: Whaddya mean?! McCarver loves him, he has gold gloves and he makes those cool plays behind 3rd.
Me: His range is very limited up the middle. Any time he goes to his left, he looks like a bird falling out of a bird bath. He dives for and doesn’t reach balls that a better ss would have in their hip pocket.
NYYFan: Yeah but how many rings does he have?!
How many freaking rings Grady has is gotdamn irrelevant.
Stuart Dean
You guys definitely value Victor much more than we do. Mostly because of what he has meant to the team and the such (just as the Sox value Varitek differently than anyone else).
When I think about Victor Martinez, I think of an aging catcher who does not really play much catcher anymore; a guy who is coming off a terrible year and who has had a great start this year mostly because of an absurdly high BABIP (.412) and a BB/K more than double his previous career best. He obviously has been a great hitting catcher in the past. But the Sox are not really in the market for a veteran catcher; we need a DH and Vic does not really project to be a good enough hitter to be an exceptional DH. Certainly he would be an upgrade, but not by enough to give up Clay Bucholz, Lars Anderson, Michael Bowden or Daniel Bard.
Actually, how BTLove values Victor is not relevant. The only thing that is relevant is how greatly the Red Sox braintrust values him.
-Erik
Judging by how Theo valued the Sox prospects during the Johan Santana talks and during the Josh Beckett deal (for those who don’t remember that whole saga, the trade went down when Theo had left the Sox and supposedly he was against the trade), its hard to believe he would give up someone elite for Martinez.
Weren’t the Mets asking for Ellsbury, Bucholz or Lester, and one more? I think it’s hard to compare asking for 3 guys compared to asking for 1
The Twins wanted Ells, Bucholz and Lester. It was before Lester had put in any real major league time and was still a “prospect”. But it was for Johan Santana. At his peak. No offense to Vic, but his value does not approach Santana’s.
I will say that I think Vic is probably worth a very good prospect. I just do not think he fits well with the Sox and therefore is not worth one of our top prospects.
Right. He’s basically Jason Varitek, just younger and better. If you don’t think a catcher with a career OPS+ of 122 is worth even one prospect, well….move along then.
My point was that he does not fit with the Red Sox very well right now. Varitek is signed for this year and next and, even with Vic, would start most games at catcher. Vic most likely would not be asked to catch Wakefield, so that leaves him as basically a full-time DH/1B. And, as you know, a DH/1B with a career 122 OPS+ is not nearly as valuable as a catcher with the same numbers. The Sox have guys that they can plug in that could put up similar numbers at the DH spot. Because of these things, and Vic’s “intangible” importance to the Indians, he is certainly more valuable to the Indians than the Sox.
And you guys will be pretty lucky if Vic’s next three years are as good as Varitek’s age 31-33 years.
Also, Papi is gonna start mashing soon, so none of this is really going to matter.
I agree that Vic is more valuable to the Indians. I think this is why the national media speculation is pretty thoughtless.
The LaPorta rumor from Olney makes even less sense than a Vic to Boston deal. I thought at first that Olney was saying the Sox should try and acquire a bat like the Indians did last year with LaPorta, but then I saw him on TV saying that, no, the Red Sox should acquire Matt LaPorta.
Pronk is gonna to start mashing soon too. We have the same hopes.
Yeah, I just went and read your exchanges with Andrew. I understand what you’re saying about Varitek. You signed him, he’s your catcher. Nothing has happened in the last few months to think the Sox would sit him down now and bring in a new catcher.
Others on your site have debated whether you have options that are likely to put up similar numbers at DH, so I’ll stay out of that one.
I’ll take your bet on Vic’s next three years. It’s not a sure thing: those were Varitek’s best years, and he was less likely to do that than Vic is (for what it’s worth and if that makes sense).
Going to back to your original post, there this : "mostly because of an absurdly high BABIP (.412) and a BB/K more than double his previous career best. "
Well, sure, he’s not going to retain the former. No one here thinks that he’s just going to keep on with his OPS of 1.100. If we did, we’d be stupid, but we also wouldn’t be discussing this kind of trade.
But he’s still been tremendous if you correct for that. My main questions is, why throw BB/K in there? Are you suggesting it’s as variable as BABIP?
I’m not sure if BB/K is as variable as BABIP (over the course of a year I would guess that it is not). What it does indicate is how exceptionally well Vic has played this year. He is not only getting lucky with balls put in play, but he has bettered his “true outcome” stats as well. Now, unless a 30 year old has just become a fundamentally better player, these stats will normalize.
Check out the park factors this year. Victor would hit a hell of a lot more doubles in Fenway, even with his lack of speed. Victor would be significantly improved as a hitter if he played in Boston.
I am willing to bet that if we looked at Vic’s BABIP factoring in line drive percentages and well hit balls, that we would find he really hasn’t been all that lucky…..just hitting very well right now. Perhaps using something like what the BTBS site had done on BABIP as a function of line drive %
Not sure what BtBS has done, but the standard formula (which may have been improved over there) is LD%+.12=BAPIP. That would put his estimated BAPIP at 360-which is high, but far below his real BAPIP of 405. He seems to be hitting th ball better (thus the slight increase in LD%) but still seems out of line with his BAPIP.
Still, think about that for a second. A guy is hitting enough line drives for an estimated BABIP of .360. I don’t think attributing much of his success to luck this year is the way to go.
He is a very good player who is playing well, even by his standards. But he has been very lucky. You should not take the empirical BAPIP formula as an air tight correlation. His LD% is up, but not a whole lot. Still, his BAPIP is through the roof. Contrast this with Jason Bartlett who also has a 400+ BAPIP. Bartlett has, right now, a sick 30% LD. That is not luck as it has played out, but Victor’s is to a fairly large degree (his true BAPIP is exceeding the empirical one by 50 points).
This is the article I was referring to. I honestly don’t know how to find most of the inputs, but I am curious as to what his BABIP looks like using these inputs compared to his actual BABIP of .405
yes, they don’t post what the new, presumably complicated, regression gives in terms of an empirical formula. It would be interesting to see what Martinez’ is with this xBAPIP. However, his hitting numbers don’t look all that different then typical. For example, his LD% is only 2% different than last year.
Last year to me was a non-factor knowing that Victor was playing through injury when he probably should have been on the DL for the majority of the season.
from 2005-2008 his LD% is about 21%. This year it 23.8%. Not so big a difference at all. His plate discipline does look better this year indeed, so maybe he is seeing and hitting the ball better. However there is nothing in the breakdown of his hitting data that would suggest a 400+ BAPIP. His numbers look a lot like his excellent 2007 year, when he has a 312 BAPIP.
Has anyone “deserved” a .400 BABIP ever? I doubt it.
Of course he is playing over his head right now. Unless he just became Barry Bonds, he is on a hot streak. But most great players go through 30 games streaks like this at some point (see: JD Drew, June, 2008)
of course-I was just replying to Roger Dorn that there is a lot of (insert your favorite term) luck, overperformance, etc here. As afh says, it is easier just to look at the bloated traditional stats to see this. i was merely trying to show it is a different case than the weird jason bartlett story, and there is no dramatic change in his breakdowns of ld%, etc.
interestingly there are players who, every year, have very high bapips. look at miggy cabrera for example. but not 400…
I thought it was pretty well established that players exerted a level control of BABIP and that it was relatively easy to figure out which ones did. The obvious example being Tony Gwynn and his .341 lifetime BABIP.
See you are making it look like I don’t understand what effect luck is having on Vic’s season. My point has been that Vic even with luck correction is still hitting extremely well, so citing luck is a poor way to downplay his trade value. Of course he won’t hit .400 the rest of the way, and he probably will finish with an OPS below 1.000. He is still a catcher though, and a catcher that can OPS in the 900s is extremely valuable. Maybe not to the Red Sox since you already have Captain Varitek, but the Indians won’t trade Victor unless they are getting top prospects in return
I was not trying to make it look that way at all-sorry if it came off that way. I wanted to distinguish cases where there really has been a large change in (because you brought it up) something like LD% (eg Bartlett) and cases where are more traditional, like Victor’s, where the %ages are all in line with normal. I think toes are important things to look at.
As for Tek vs Martinez, anyone who would argue that Tek is close to the hitter Martinez is is crazy. But the Sox are stuck with him, and Martinez would not really play catcher for the Sox. Basically such a trade does not make sense from the standpoint of either team. Epstein never trades propects for 30 year old guys. Not saying that is good or bad, but has never been done in his tenure. His philosophy is to get younger, cheaper and more athletic if possible. He will occasionally overpay FAs, will sign low risk guys, but trading prospects for expensive 30 year old guys he will not do.
I get that. I agree, I don’t really see a fit, and I think the Indians are better off trading with teams whose front offices aren’t all the way there yet.
"All the way there"
perfect way to describe our front office and yours.
(used the subject line) BURN!!!!!!
The Sox have committed to Tek and I do not see them moving away from that commitment. Francona is very loyal to his guys, so unless Tek falls off a cliff (even worse than last year), he will be starting games at catcher. Anyway, my understanding is that they would bring Vic to upgrade Ortiz’s hole in the line-up.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
Featured Stories
FanShots
Quick hits of video, photos, quotes, chats, links and lists that you find around the web.
Recent FanShots
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- The Cardinals Hall of Fame can now be found at Bill Clinton’s library in Arkansas (Huh?)
- Will Bryce Harper start the season with the Nationals?
- Mitch Mustain puts football behind him, signs reported rookie deal with White Sox
- Robinson Cano and Denzel Washington face off in Jay Leno’s Yankees trivia contest
- Shane Victorino lands role on ‘Hawaii Five-0′
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
