Carlos Lee and Wandy Rodriguez updates

@jonmorosi Jon Morosi 

#RedSox would prefer to sign a free agent but have kept tabs on the Wandy Rodriguez trade market, too. #Astros

6 minutes ago via txt Favorite Retweet Reply

Also, in the Carlos Lee rumors, Nick Cafardo of the Boston Globe says that Carlos Lee could help the Tigers and offers Rodriguez as a major possibility for the Sox. 

Is Jonathan Singleton's position good or bad?

Via Farmstros we have this link from MLB.com which ranks the top 10 first base prospects for 2012, with Jonathan Singleton in at number three. There is also this video on him. He has skipped up one place from last year, but that is because the three guys in front of him, Brandon Belt, Freddie Freeman and Eric Hosmer are now in the big leagues.

The two in front of him are Yonder Alonso, traded to the Paders in the Matt Latos trade and Anthony Rizzo, shipped off to the Cubs for Andrew Cashner.

Singleton's selling point at this stage is his age. He will start this season as a 20-year-old, and should figure either to start at AA Corpus Christi, or spend minimal tine in A+ Lancaster before being bumped up. Already he's shown good power and on base-skills, but people, Mayo included are expecting his power to show up big time over the next year or two.

How many hitting prospects have we had who have been called up to AA and have just murdered Double A after moving up from Lancaster?  Pence did well there in 2006, but it wasn't a patch on his SALLY numbers the year before. Towles had a solid 2007 after starting the year in Salem and finishing it in Round Rock, Chris Johnson and Brian Bogusevic both had good 2008s, Martinez mashed through a lot of last year there, but he

Best case scenario for 2012: George Springer dominates in Lexington, Domingo Santana creams Lancaster, and Singleton blows away Texas League pitching, and we have three big bats sailing towards the majors.

Or am I asking too much of prospects to not hit a wall when they leave the safe haven of the California League for the Texas League? Is it a good thing that they hit a wall and have to power through it? Is it ever realistic to expect hitting prospects not to struggle at first in AA? Hmm...

Jack Morris of course, Bagwell get the hell out

When cogent arguments fail, personal attacks are not far behind. Cue Pat Caputo, of the News Herald, which is in Michigan? whose argument for Jack Morris seems to be this:

Peter Gammons didn't vote for Jack Morris, but did vote for Jeff Bagwell. QED. 


First lets deal with the case he makes before moving on to the Gammons bashing. He says Morris won more games in the 1980s than anyone else. If this case was built on a solid metric that said Morris was one of the best in the 1980s I would agree with Caputo. He racked up 162 wins from 1980-1989, and put up a 3.66 ERA, and an ERA+ of 109. Ouch.

There were six pitchers over that decade with numbers higher than that who pitched at least 2,000 innings. A few much higher.

If you pitched in the 1980s for a good team and got deep into games you were going to pick up wins. Apart from his longevity there is really nothing impressive about Morris' candidacy. Ignore PED use for a minute and he basically boils down to Andy Pettitte, whose astronomical win totals were more down to the city he played in rather than his pitching ability.

That you can rag on a guy for not picking Morris, and then critique him for picking Bagwell, who is a border-line case in your opinion is comical. Bagwell dominated the 1990s more than Morris dominated the 1980s. Only two players have a higher bWAR over the first 10 years Bagwell played in the majors: Barry Bonds and Ken Griffey Jr. Fourth man Frank Thomas wasn't even close.

Now the crux. This is the gaping hole in anti-Bagwell articles. When they say he isn't a slam-dunk Hall of Famer, what they are saying is that his career did not explode in his early or mid-30s like some of his ilk did. Bagwell's career, as I've seen a few people express (might have been Beyond the Box Score) last year, follows the typical pattern. Peaks in the 20s, declines as he gets in his 30s, as old father time gets his hands on him as Caputo argues about Morris.

Father time did sort of mug Bagwell once he got his hands on his throat, and yes, steroids can cause the body to break down, but so can competitive sports. This cuts both ways, which is what Peter Gammons was probably trying to say, when he talked about Bagwell's arthritic shoulder.

I have never ruled out that Bagwell used PEDs, and therefore I cannot rule out that any PED use would have a detrimental effect on joints in the body of a user.

I sort of understand that Jack Morris, being a Detroit guy, makes Caputo have to argue his point stringently, but ragging on Gammons, one of the most revered baseball writers today to make it, was a poor move. Sure he argues Bagwell's case because he's followed his career the whole way, just like you or others might have done to Morris. If we're talking bias, you are probably 10 times more blinkered than Gammons is on the subject.

I can accept straight Morris arguments, even if I completely disagree with them, but this sort of logic is inexcusable.

What are Crane and Luhnow's views on eating contracts?

Wandy Rodriguez (if traded) guaranteed $36m/unguaranteed $25.5m*
Brett Myers (if 2013 buyout clause exercised) $14m
Carlos Lee $18.5m
TOTAL $68.5m/$58.5m

How keen are Jeff Luhnow and Jim Crane on having Carlos Lee and Brett Myers play out the 2012 season on the Astros books? We are going to suck in 2012, probably worse than last year, maybe slightly better if we get huge contributions from pretty much all our young players.

But that is good. Our young crop of players need as much major league playing time as they can. Crane may want to keep Myers and Lee so that some fans are duped into thinking the white flag has not been raised yet. Best worst case scenario, Lee spends 150 games at first base, keeping Wallace at AAA all season. Worst case scenario, he robs either Martinez of playing time in left field, or Bogusevic in RF by proxy with JD switching to right field and Lee into LF.

Meanwhile the rotation. The Astros have a lot of rotation options. Most of them are not very good, but they are options. J.A. Happ, Bud Norris and Jordan Lyles look set, although Lyles, if struggling, might get a trip to Dr. Hooton's clinic in Oklahoma City. Kyle Weiland is floating about. Henry Sosa, Lucas Harrell and Aneury Rodriguez sit on the fringes, while prospects Dallas Keuchel, Paul Clemens and Brett Oberholtzer might be ready soon.

That's 10 names if you ignore Wandy Rodriguez and Brett Myers completely.

If you can save $7m on Myers and $6m on Lee and Myers, totally about $13m, do you feel a bit better about eating a significant portion of Rodriguez's salary when you flip him for prospects? Because that's what we really need right now. Fans are lusting over the names tossed in the ring over Matt Garza trades and wishing Rodriguez could somehow bring back a fraction of that haul.

If the Astros were to ship a further $12m in a deal for Rodriguez, it would give the receiving team a pretty handy pitcher, at only $8m a year for the next three seasons. Do you look at this scenario as $27m saved on prior obligations or $31.5m that you are paying people who do not even play for you?

Is either of these ways how Luhnow views the situation, or will teams really not take a shot at Myers for $7m or Lee for $6m? Or does anyone think Myers and Lee are worth keeping for 2012?

*If Rodriguez is not traded and his option for 2014 is declined, total liability $25.5m.

Saberboy: Year One

If there was a time to draw a line in the sand over the BBWAA's collective actions it was this year, and it is only going to get worse next year when complete armaggeddon arrives in the form of the class of 2013. So it was good to see Randy Miller was put in his place for submitting a blank ballot even though he does not even cover baseball, and his stupid insult spawned a blogging superhero. So give one of the writers on the Platoon Advantage formerly Bill_TPA now @saber_boy a follow on Twitter. Bill has spoken out through this entire process strongly in favour of Bagwell, and is a very astute observer of the game.

*Artwork by Sarah Wiener.

And Astros fans, that's not the end of it, Randy Miller is still not quite sure about Craig Biggio for next year's ballot:

"Biggio? He has 3,000 hits, but I need to do more research."

Hey he's far too busy to check Bidge's career stats on baseball reference or Fangraphs. What this is is a basic admission that he never saw him play/ never followed his career/ really has no clue, and probably shouldn't be voting.

In Astros news meanwhile, Keith Law has decided not to pursue any opportunities with the Astros. Brian McTaggart has a small nugget on some Dominican teenagers the Astros signed. There's also some speculation that Fernando Martinez might be worth a waiver claim by the Astros. Here's what FanGraphs had to say about the Mets former star prospect.

Jeff Bagwell garners 56% misses out on Hall of Fame at second attempt

Congratulations to Barry Larkin for his enshrinement, but you've got to feel bitter about Bagwell only getting 56% of the vote on his second try, up from 41.2% last year. He'll still likely make it in, but his low total is a travesty to his playing career.

Apparently the only person to get 50% of the vote and not get in was Gil Hodges. So he'll get in, but the moment has been well and truly sullied. 

ESPN fires blog for pro-Bagwell sentiments

ESPN's sweetspot network just fired the Platoon Advantage over its series of Plagiarism articles.

ESPN has always been particularly sensitive to media criticism, and our ongoing series of posts regarding Jeff Bagwell and the Hall of Fame were sort of the last straw for the editors, who pulled the plug on us. 


Today is the day Bagwell gets another snub and likely the year Barry Larkin gets enshrined. And MLB.com's writers let their ballots be known today, with the two most ridiculous coming from Mark Newman and Tom Singer.

Firstly Newman:

Morris made a record 14 consecutive Opening Day starts, and the 300-win benchmark is already dropping. He got my vote for the first time. Smith should have gone in already with Goose Gossage and Bruce Sutter. Big Mac brought back baseball. Larkin was an 11-time All-Star, 'nuff said.

Nuff said? Opening day starts might be the dumbest criterion I've seen in a while. He votes for Mark McGwire for 'bringing back baseball' yet offers no explanation on Bagwell.

Singer meanwhile:

Aside on Bagwell: For me, he flunks the "dominant in his era" test; at a corner position, he only led the league in a major category once (RBIs, with 116 in 1994).

Buh. And he voted for Palmeiro, Morris, Lee Smith, Trammell and Edgar Martinez. This argument is so much more applicable to all these players than Bagwell. Not only did he put up a .970 OPS in his first 10 seasons, he averaged 6.5 bWAR over that period per season. So offensively he wasn't Barry Bonds or Albert Pujols, or Alex Rodriguez, but Singer just misunderstands what kind of player Bagwell actually was.

Check out Brian McTaggart's piece from this morning.

The End to My Jeff Bagwell Hall of Fame Argument

"Don't worry about it man, I once tested positive for Cheetos"

*disclaimer, read the entire thing before blowing up.  

Of all the baseball writers I never thought I would have to write something vehemently disagreeing with something that Rob Neyer wrote. This week when I criticised Jon Heyman for saying he needed more time to think about Bagwell's candidacy I said to Neyer that I thought six years was perfectly enough time, and for the record, I believe that what a writer is doing there is accusing Bagwell of cheating without actually having to come out and say it.

In his latest piece Its ok to think about Jeff Bagwell, Neyer seemed to show his frustration at how bloggers seem to want to let every PED user off, which is a gross simplification of what myself and a lot of others have been barking about for weeks. He said:
Seems like most bloggers and fans of bloggers, no matter the circumstances, give a free pass to every player who's ever cheated.


And then:
Seems like most Hall of Fame voters simply will not vote, no matter the circumstances, for any player who's been attached to steroids.

Tim's comment was perhaps the most succinct when he said in rebuttal to the 'fact' that the players 'brought it on themselves:

Yet the writers who have admitted to not doing enough themselves, get to conduct the witch hunt.

I thought I gave a rather logical answer, and felt that the first quote was a simplification of what happened, and that the second was not actually happening, as writers were happy to suspect some players one the one hand and not others, with similar amounts of evidence.

I said:
I, and I think many others have tried to frame this debate in terms of agreeing with good logic when we see it, and disagreeing (perhaps that is a mild way of putting it), with sloppy logic. That most writers are not even recycling the circumstantial evidence against Bagwell shows how dry the well has really become.


You cannot, and I repeat, you cannot, in a ballot which includes Barry Larkin, leave off Jeff Bagwell, because of drug suspicions, when you have absolutely no evidence that says it was any more or less likely that Larkin or any other player to have played in that time period used Performance Enhancing Drugs. You are whitewashing.


Rob, Perhaps you are tired and frustrated by the whole debate, but I find the quoted delineation insulting.

To which he replied:
"absolutely no evidence"
Really? None at all?
Let me suggest a thought experiment, AstroB.
I would like you to assign numbers to two players, representing the likelihood that they used steroids at some point in their careers.


The players are Derek Jeter and Edgar Martinez. Go.


Did anything happen in your mind at all? Did you arrive at identical numbers for each player?My guess is that you did not. My guess is that you came up with a higher number for Martinez than for Jeter.


That’s because of evidence. And it’s there for Larkin and Bagwell, whether you like it or not.

Either Rob has misread what I actually wrote, I did not say there was "no evidence" that Bagwell used PEDs, I said there was "no evidence" that Larkin-type players and Bagwell-type players should be treated any differently with suspicion to PED use.

What writers have done when looking at the steroid era is singled out a strata of baseball players who were muscular and hit home runs. We have heard a lot about players stabbing themselves a lot in the buttocks, but not that ‘greenies’ and amphetamines were supposedly readily available in clubhouses in that period. Do we assign different levels of cheating to those who used different drugs? Do you, or anyone else have a breakdown of how likely it is that each section of our baseball players used PEDs?


And actually no I did not arrive at a different number for either Jeter or Martinez. In fact I believe you have actually proved my point that writers are not treating all players equally. Why should writers accuse Bagwell of using steroids because he spent one spring training with Jason Grimsley, when Derek Jeter actually played with several people who have admitted to PED use? Does this silly line of thinking get us anywhere, using miniscule tidbits to fuel our own perceptions of what did and didn’t happen?


I also find that, having been very restrained to a writer I greatly admire, your riposte was childlike.


"That’s because of evidence. And it’s there for Larkin and Bagwell, whether you like it or not."


Lastly, does what you’ve said here contradict what you’ve just shot me down for saying? I’ve just said that Henning was wrong to treat Larkin and Bagwell differently, and you’ve actually agreed!


He deigned not to reply to this. Perhaps he had googled me by this point.

Does all of this make me a 'steroid' apologist? I've never thought of myself as one. I just want players to be treated fairly and equally. I think what the BBWAA 'steroid police' are doing is wrong, judgmental and unfair.

Why does Neyer upbraid Henning for suspecting Bagwell and not Edgar Martinez and does not believe he should extend the same criteria to Larkin? Do you think writers will leave Derek Jeter off their first ballot because of PED 'suspicions'? No they will absolutely not. This is the selective, hypocritical and cherry picking.

Rob Neyer is absolutely wrong to try and compare 'bloggers' like myself who slam writers like this to the BBWAA on the other hand who hold such 'inflexible' attitudes as if we are polar opposites who are somehow equally misguided.

Perhaps this position is a remnant of his writing days, but I thought we had done away with the 'us' and 'them' that Neyer himself referred to in his very first post on SB Nation. Christ, I would prefer the wrong in every aspect Barry Bloom argument that Steve Garvey and Jeff Bagwell are similar and thus he is not a Hall of Famer to this.

However, the most intriguing comment from Neyer was the following one, where he was asked whether he meant 'evidence' against Larkin and Bagwell.

He was asked:
By evidence do you mean changes in physical appearance or statistical production that seem fishy? Or is there harder evidence against Bagwell, Larkin, and Martinez that I haven’t heard about.
He replied:
Both of those things.
Though I will mention, once more, that I would vote for Bagwell.

In question to is there harder evidence against Bagwell, Larkin and Martinez that I haven't heard about, he answered, yes. You see I interpret this answer to mean that in baseball writing circles, there is evidence on PED use that, for one reason or another, has not been put into the public domain, but is common knowledge among writers. If this is incorrect then I would very much like to be corrected, but this harks back to what the common man has been writing about at the Platoon Advantage.

This concludes (hopefully) what I have to say about Bagwell before December 9th, when he will not be elected to the Baseball Hall of Fame.

The Curious Incident of Brian Bogusevic's 2011

Courtesy of Native_Astro, we have a recap of Brian Bogusevic's eventful winter via Baseball America. Tim Ednoff, the writer, has some nice quotes, but the premise of the entire piece has me adrift somewhat. Firstly, Bogusevic has had good success in the Dominican Republic. We can be happy with what he's achieved, but it is dangerous to expect in any way to correlate over to major league stats. He's had a good workout, has faced a lot of leftie pitching and will have learned some things about his plate approach.

It's odd, prior to his trade to the Phillies, Hunter Pence's numbers in 2011 were quite similar to Bogusevic's. The 27-year-old former pitcher put up a slash-line of .287/.348/.457, compared to Pence's .308/.356/.471, with comparable ISOs, with Bogusevic owning a higher BB%. Of course Pence's numbers in Philadelphia took off, but it does make you think.

A FanGraphs article from today talks about Josh Reddick as a fourth outfielder, when he is probably better tagged as a third outfielder. When Sean posted the link I think he was upset with the characterisation of Bogusevic as a fourth outfielder, when we really have little idea on how he will progress/regress. His swing does seem to have some pop in it, he plays above average defense in right field (bWAR likes his 'D' fWAR loves it).* He is an above average baserunner, and will probably steal more than four bases this year (he stole a high of 23 in 2010 in the minors).

I think a few people have mentioned to me what a two-way star Bogusevic was at Tulane University, where he was drafted by the Astros in the first round of the 2005 draft, and were not surprised he was showing up in the majors in 2011 with a surprising set of offensive skills. All this may just be a smokescreen and Bogusevic may never be more than a good outfield bat off the bench, but I wouldn't limit any number of possible outcomes just because he's had an unusual path to becoming a major league hitter.

*His fWAR for 2011 was a staggeringly high 2.4 is likely down to his collosal 10.4 UZR in 2011, a UZR/150 of 49.6.

Singling out Jeff Bagwell is wrong and you know it

Not such a happy new year for Bagwell

I can't remember where but some writer was talking about why he put on Pete Rose's name on his ballot paper. He said something like Rose was the only player to be punished in the way that he was, but it was far more forceful than that.

Jeff Bagwell's getting punished. FOR THE ENTIRE STEROID ERA. Firstly this is a rant. And I'm just making points more forcefully that I already made over at SBN Houston this morning. Bagwell is guilty of nothing that has been proven unlike Mark McGwire and Rafael Palmeiro, one who admitted to PED use and the other, who tested positive when the new rules were enacted.

Something that puzzled me in John Erardi's piece, even though he voted for Bagwell said:
Same for Fred McGriff, who piled up his outstanding numbers (493 homers, 1,550 RBI) before the steroid era kicked in.

McGriff played from 1986-2004. Have we established a steroid era chronology when I was not looking?

And the Chicago Tribune's Philip Hersh who says:

And I'm still too suspicious about Jeff Bagwell to include him.

You just voted for Larry Walker you cretin, someone almost perfectly contemporaneous to Bagwell. I need a sit down...

The thing that bugs me the most in this whole miserable saga, is that people use Bagwell's bulk as an indicator that he used steroids, but PEDs is a rather large umbrella. First-hand accounts have established that amphetamines could be commonly found in baseball clubhouses. But there is no 'indicator' for that sort of cheating.

Who is more guilty, the guy who injected himself in the buttocks during the offseason to gain muscle mass, or the guy who took a 'greenie' after all 162 games to shake off little nagging injuries?

Why are baseball writers constantly getting away with WHITEWASHING this baseball chapter, so much that it is called the 'steroid era', when other forms of cheating were probably more prevalent. What scares writers even now, that they cannot even contemplate the fact that drug use was anywhere near the 85% that Canseco said it was?

Why is it only sluggers, who may very well be clean, are getting basically accused of cheating? How is it fair that with little or no proof, writers are allowed to slander Bagwell at will and get away with it?

The entire thing is such a blatantly clumsy piece of journalism I have no clue how only people like Grant Brisbee, Hardball Talk, and the Platoon Advantage are actually calling them out. Some have put Bagwell on their ballots this year, but the damage has already been done. By leaving him off they have practically accused him of cheating, nothing done to any of his contemporaries up to this point.