Frayed Knot

Today (5 PM EST) is the deadline for teams to make a 'qualifying offer' of $15.3 million (this year's average salary of the top 125 MLers) to potential FAs. Only those teams who offer at least that amount will be compensated with a draft pick next June if that player signs with another team. Among those most likely to get offers are: KC - James Shields Tigers - Max Scherzer and Victor Martinez Blue Jays - Melky Cabrera Braves - Ervin Santana Giants - Pablo Sandoval Orioles - Nelson Cruz Yankees - David Robertson Pirates - Russell Martin Dodgers - Hanley Ramirez Shields & Cabrera appear to be the only ones for whom the offer has already been extended. Several of the other teams have indicated that they will but have not yet officially. Players then have up to one week to either accept or reject the offer.

Centerfield wrote: Yeah, that's what I was wondering. If it doesn't make sense to get him for nothing, certainly it makes no sense to give up actual young talent for him. Unless the Dodgers are will to eat a big chunk of the contract, at which point the equation starts to change. Now I don't think the Dodgers, coming off a 94 win season, are going to be in contract eating mode this winter, but yaneverknow. The anticipated monster TV deal that was fueling at least some of the spending spree the new ownership has been on since they took over has run into some snags* so maybe the high payroll and the huge purchase price start to catch up to them at some point. I'm sure they'd prefer to move either Ethier (either Ethier - say that five times fast) or Crawford - both of whom they owe big bucks to through 2017. Neither is as young as Kemp (both are/will be 33 y/o by OD 2015) and neither would be the power hitter you want (plus the combo of Crawford + Granderson would give us maybe the two worst throwing corner OFs in all of MLB), but there's more than one way to skin a cat and Crawford could at least fill the leadoff spot. * games unavailable to large sections of the LA area in a way that will remind NYers of the old MSG/Cablevision type wars - maybe Seo has some more details on this

Would you take Kemp and his entire salary if LA offered it to you? As in, for no players in return? ... Maybe, although even there you'd be overpaying. To put it another way: would Matt Kemp on the open market this winter get $21.5mil/year for five years? ... he'd get good money but I doubt he'd get that. Just as a comparison, Joel Sherman in the NYPost is forecasting a 5/$80 FA deal for Hanley Ramirez this winter. If we assume that guesstimate is in the ballpark and assume a rough equivalency between the players here (Kemp is just 9 months younger and their stats over the past 3 seasons put up in the same home park are virtually identical) Kemp's deal is 30-some percent too high and that's before you account for Ramirez playing SS. OK he doesn't play SS very well and he probably shouldn't in the future, but I'd sign him to a 5/$80 deal and stick him in RF before I'd absorb Kemp's contract. Look, it's not like I want to be knocking Matt Kemp here, he'd clearly be an upgrade to our outfield. It's just that this would be another situation where we'd know going in that we're (over)paying for a guy's 25-30 production but getting his 30-35 years instead as the injuries and decline in production, speed and defense are already apparent. Plus we know that this theoretical Kemp deal is not going to be for nothing in return it's going to be for some valuable players in addition to that contract, or at least of a portion of it depending on the quantity and quality of players going to other way.

smg58 wrote: Kemp was clearly ailing the first half of this year, but he got healthier as the year went on and was close to his MVP stats after the ASB (.971 OPS, with 17 of his 25 HR). His defense improved as well; the -3 runs saved after he moved to right was less than ideal, but it had been a -20 in center and left before then. Yeah, he's definitely no longer a CFer but of course we wouldn't need him to play there. I still don't think the Mets will -- or maybe even should -- be effectively signing a 30+y/o FA player to a long-term 20+mil/yr deal AND have to give up players in the process. As always, the devil would be in the specifics.

Oh I think Matt Kemp probably was conditionally available last year and is almost certainly even more so now - but of course there are reasons for that. - he recently turned 30 and is owed some $105 mil over the next 5 seasons. - the offense did bounce back this year (from a 725 OPS in 2013 to 850) but those 900+/MVP-type years look to be behind him - and then there the part where he's seemingly always hurt (missed ~150 games over 2012-13), his speed is gone (40 SBs down to single digits) and so is the defense. Throw in that the Dodgers had a crowded OF last year [Puig, Ether, Crawford, Van Slyke] and one of their top prospects is an OF all ready to come up (Joc Pederson) and I think they'll be in a listening mode this winter. At what price? ... well that's going to be the old player-vs-cost deal: the more salary a team will accept the less they'll have to give up in warm bodies.

From the writer/director of ONCE comes a movie about � making music! Here a down on his luck (much of it self-inflicted) indie music exec (Mark Ruffalo) crosses paths with reluctant songwriter/singer Gretta (Keira Knightly) � depressed after being tossed over by her rock star boyfriend (Adam Levine) � and a musical project ensues. Will this pairing redeem him? Will it justify her? Can they buck the minefield that is the music business? And, of course, will they or won�t they?

When he'd come off the bench and smack HRs (often it seemed on the first pitch although I bet the facts wouldn't bear that out) it looked so easy and effortless that you could imagine him doing it on a full-time basis if only given enough ABs - and in fact his rate while in Queens over two partial seasons was that of close to 30 HRs/season (9 in less than 200 ABs). But he also hit .216 during that same span while K-ing around 1/3 of the time and then you'd remember why 30 y/o corner OFs with contact issues and not a lot of glove or speed aren't everyday players and, in the end, just aren't worth getting all that excited about.

Two jobs remain open: Twins & Rays TEAMMANAGERSIGNED THRUSTATUSMETSTerry Collins2015 + option for '16BRAVESFredi Gonzalez2015PHILLIESRyne Sandberg2016 + option for '17NATIONALSMatt Williams2015 + options for �16 + �17MARLINSMike Redmond2015Extended through 2017CARDINALSMike Matheny2017PIRATESClint Hurdle2017 + option for �18CUBS[crossout]Rick Renteria[/crossout]Fired Oct 31Hired Joe Maddon for 2015 - ?REDSBryan Price2016BREWERSRon Roenicke2015 + option for �16DODGERSDon Mattingly2016GIANTSBruce Bochy2016PADRESBud Black2015DBACKS[crossout]Kirk Gibson[/crossout]2014 -- Fired, Sept 2014Chip Hale hired for 2015-16ROCKIESWalt Weiss2016RED SOXJohn Farrell2016YANKEESJoe Girardi2017ORIOLESBuck Showalter2018BLUE JAYSJohn Gibbons2015 + option for �16RAYS[crossout]Joe Maddon[/crossout]2015Mgr Opted out of contract's final yearTIGERSBrad Ausmus2016 + option for �17INDIANSTerry Francona2016ROYALSNed Yost2015TWINS[crossout]Ron Gardenhire[/crossout]2015Fired Sept �14WHITE SOXRobin Ventura2014ANGELSMike Scioscia2018RANGERS[crossout]Ron Washington[/crossout]2014 - Resigned Sept 2014Hired Jeff Banister - 2015-17 + '18 optionMARINERSLloyd McClendon201?ASTROS[crossout]Bo Porter[/crossout]Fired Sept 2014AJ Hinch - Hired Sept 2014ATHLETICSBob Melvin2016

40 man roster now down to 34 with the removals of Centeno & Brown (claimed on waivers by Milwaukee and Oakland) and also Satin, Rice, Eveland, and Carlyle - all are now FAs. Back to the 40-man by way of coming off the 60-day DL are Harvey & Parnell

Annnnnd the Cubs make the first part of the transaction official by firing Renterea. No formal word on Maddon, but just in case it wasn't already apparent where they're going ... now it is. TEAMMANAGERSIGNED THRUSTATUSMETSTerry Collins2015 + option for '16BRAVESFredi Gonzalez2015PHILLIESRyne Sandberg2016 + option for '17NATIONALSMatt Williams2015 + options for �16 + �17MARLINSMike Redmond2015Extended through 2017CARDINALSMike Matheny2017PIRATESClint Hurdle2017 + option for �18CUBS[crossout]Rick Renteria[/crossout]2016 + options for �17 + �18Fired - Oct 31REDSBryan Price2016BREWERSRon Roenicke2015 + option for �16DODGERSDon Mattingly2016GIANTSBruce Bochy2016PADRESBud Black2015DBACKS[crossout]Kirk Gibson[/crossout]2014 -- Fired, Sept 2014Chip Hale hired for 2015-16ROCKIESWalt Weiss2016RED SOXJohn Farrell2016YANKEESJoe Girardi2017ORIOLESBuck Showalter2018BLUE JAYSJohn Gibbons2015 + option for �16RAYS[crossout]Joe Maddon[/crossout]2015Mgr Opted out of contract's final yearTIGERSBrad Ausmus2016 + option for �17INDIANSTerry Francona2016ROYALSNed Yost2015TWINS[crossout]Ron Gardenhire[/crossout]2015Fired Sept �14WHITE SOXRobin Ventura2014ANGELSMike Scioscia2018RANGERS[crossout]Ron Washington[/crossout]2014 - Resigned Sept 2014Hired Jeff BanisterMARINERSLloyd McClendon201?ASTROS[crossout]Bo Porter[/crossout]Fired Sept 2014AJ Hinch - Hired Sept 2014ATHLETICSBob Melvin2016

You should have showed him the plan.

Seems that there's a little bit of off-the-record grumbling about the ethics of Maddon (seemingly) ready to jump into a job that's currently occupied. That there are only 30 of these hard to land jobs available, at least some are contending that it's bad form for Maddon to effectively bounce one of his fellow skippers out of the one that he just landed a year ago.

-- "According to major league sources, the plan, which has not yet been made public, is to utilize newly hired strength and conditioning coordinator Mike Barwis at the Mets� facility in Florida, rather than send personel to Michigan." SHOW US THE PLAN!!!!

Edgy MD wrote: Really? Again with the "no idea"? How hard can it be? Because I didn't realize what MBG stood for, nor did I see what any of those past referenced performances had to do with the Win vs Save discussion.

Edgy MD wrote: Edgy MD wrote: I got a little money that's saying Bumgarner is an MVP. MVP no question. But this deal with the official scorer deciding that Bumgarner gets the win for tonight's game (even though Affeldt was the pitcher when SF took the lead) has the whiff of being contrived. Baseball-Reference has this going down as a save. Was this really the ruling or are you pulling my gam? Sure it's a save: he came in with the lead, protected it until the end, finished the game, and fit ALL the categories to make it a save situation: - came in with the tying run on deck or at bat ... Check - 3 runs or less .. Check - three innings or more ... Check Joe Buck initially said that the official scorer had credited the win to Bumgarner but that seemed wrong to me both because it was bending the stats to fit the best story and short-changing what Affeldt did between Hudson & Bummy. The only reason to take the win away from the reliever who was the pitcher of record is if his outing fits the 'both brief and ineffective' standard. At 2.1 innings of 1 hit ball his contribution hardly deserves the insult. If the most you can possibly ask out of a pitcher in a World Series is 27 shoutout innings --- three shutout starts --- then 21 innings and one run from MBG is about as far along that spectrum as anybody's ever gotten, right? Tops Pete Alexander from 1926. Tops Orel Hershiser from 1988. Tops Randy Johnson from 2001. I have no idea what this part of your post means.

The problem with all of Silver's calculations and his stressing how unlikely it would be to score Perez's AB (even though Perez had HR'd off of Bumgarner earlier in the week) is that he gives Gordon a much better shot at scoring than I think is warranted: "... even Gordon had been a 2-to-1 underdog to score, he should have tried." 2-to-1 underdog?!? -- I'm not sure his odds were as favorable as 10-to-1 against.

Edgy MD wrote: I can't speak to his running and fielding, but that seems unusual, considering his dad was really solid at both. But he's the complete opposite player from his father. Bigger and more power but really slow; righty where the old man was lefty; clumsy rather than smooth, etc. Watching the two I find it shocking that they're even related.

SvS has come around recently with the bat, but is a REALLY bad fielder/runner.

So how often does a team win a 7-game series while having their closer throw a total of six pitches - all of them to one batter during a blow-out loss? Maybe, in the crush to put Bochy into the HoF, one can question how Santiago Casilla faced just the one hitter in the series while Hunter Strickland, already coming off a 4-HR in 4.1 IP during the early rounds, appeared 4 times for 4 innings facing 16 hitters.

HahnSolo wrote: Bottom of the fifth, Infante leads off with a hit; he was the first batter faced by Bumgardner. Do you bunt Escobar there? Yost did, no one in the booth questioned it, despite it only being the fifth inning. I don't like it...I know it's Bumgardner, but maybe your best chance to get to him is before you let him get in a groove. That bunt was talked about quite a bit by the booth. Not surprisingly, Reynolds was for it, Verducci very much against. Adding fuel to it all was that Escobar was one of the few who actually hit Bumgarner earlier in the series. Aoki then followed it up with that liner to LF that I was sure was a double but they had Perez swung way over towards the line and he caught it fairly easily for out #2. Cain then K'd

Frayed Knot wrote: Edgy MD wrote: I got a little money that's saying Bumgarner is an MVP. MVP no question. But this deal with the official scorer deciding that Bumgarner gets the win for tonight's game (even though Affeldt was the pitcher when SF took the lead) has the whiff of being contrived. Either the official scorer reversed his call or Buck simply passed along incorrect information to begin with, but Affeldt correctly winds up with the win last night and Bumgarner merely gets credit for the routine 15-out (2 hit) save.

seawolf17 wrote: The Royals' third-base coach will probably be kicking himself all winter for not sending Gordon there. I dunno ... I don't think he makes it if he tries.

Ashie62 wrote: Is Jeter pitching? No, he wasn't even at the game. But he was named the series MVP anyway.

As we now enter ... 'The Void'

Edgy MD wrote: I got a little money that's saying Bumgarner is an MVP. MVP no question. But this deal with the official scorer deciding that Bumgarner gets the win for tonight's game (even though Affeldt was the pitcher when SF took the lead) has the whiff of being contrived.