Earl Weaver Baseball League

Re: Trade Possibilities

March 19th, 2009 by Wolverines GM

I will not comment on the Intradivisional trade, as far as Houston I think with Hicks it would work for them.

 

Jimmy Garrett is on the trading block. 

 

Reasoning- His contact is up after this year and I will re sign Punk Perez over him so I would be interested in any IF position so let me hear what you got.

 

Trade Possibilities

March 19th, 2009 by Admirals GM

As I've mentioned, I originally thought this offseason was going to see a lot of big moves for us.  This hasn't happened yet, but I'm thinking about a couple of trades that could make it happen.  I'm not at all sure I want to do these trades yet.  However, before investing a lot of time and energy in them, I thought I would float them.  Unfortunatley, both trades are with teams I control, so I need everybody's input.  Also, these trades may (probably) depend on one another, meaning that if one gets nixed, I might not want to do the other one.

 

1. CHICAGO

 

Paul Sims <--> Michael Bowden

 

So, it might seem unrealistic to trade Sims immediately after signing him, but I think that can be explained away: it's sort of (not exactly) like the sort of sign-and-trade deals you see in the NBA, or like the sign-and-trade deal between the Yankees and Tigers over Gary Sheffield a couple years ago.  Basic justification: Chicago has super SP strength, but very little offense (multiple starters with negative VORP last year), and an especially horrible OF situation.  Plus, Chicago has a huge age problem.  And, while Sims is no spring chicken, his age of 32 is much younger than Bowden's 38.  Their contracts are nearly identical in terms of salary.  Frankly, from Chicago's perspective, I think this is the sort of free agent they should've pusued last year, instead of getting Bowden, which didn't address a weakness.  Similarly, from our perspective, we probably should've gone all in for Bowden last year, rather than saving the money for Sims this year.

 

2. HOUSTON

 

Joe MacGregor + Jose Garcia <--> Aaron Ellis + Lloyd O'Neal OR Dan Hicks

 

Houston's biggest weakness is SPs.  In their 5 man rotation, they have 1 9 pt. pitcher and 4 8 pt. pitchers (including Scott Riley, who has fallen a ton).  So they should certainly want MacGregor.  However, there is no way they can take on MacGregor's contract unless they ship Ellis.  I'm of mixed thoughts about taking on Ellis.  On the bright side, his ratings still look solid:4-4-4-3-4.  On the other hand, he really fell off in 1994: .273/9/51, and a VORP of just 3.7 in 91 Games and 348 ABs.  Also, he has fallen a good deal in the position rankings: down to just the 11th best 2B in EWB now.  Plus, as is well established, his contract of $11M is way over the top, it's from the days when we didn't know how FA's worked and so Mike just offered him what he requested.  Now, both O'Neal and Hicks were backups in 1994, and project to be backups in 1995, but they're both very talented.  O'Neal has 4-5 actual, but is stuck behind Juan Bravo at 1B.  One bad rating that O'Neal has is eye: 2 (actual and potential).  To my mind, that's almost a good thing, given that I want him to be a run producer.  But in the computer's mind, that's a major weakness.  I suspect that's at least part of why Bravo still plays ahead of him.  Hick also has a lot of talent, but he's still more potential than actual: 5-4 potential, but 4-3 actual.  Last year, Hicks was the #7 prospect in EWB.  Right now, he's stuck behind veteran Geoffrey Barnes, who went .323/11/67 last year.  Now, if Barnes were the only issue, then I think Houston would probably just want to stick with Hicks: maybe make him a backup for another year, and then let him take over full time starter duties in 1996 or 1997.  *However*, another factor here is that Houston also has top notch C prospect Robert Bryant down in A ball, and Bryant has 5-4 potential and already 3-3 actual.  In terms of overall potential, Bryant is ahead of Hicks.  In terms of actual, Bryant is only a little behind.  In light of this, Hicks is kind of getting squeezed: he has Barnes ahead of him for now, and Bryant rearing up behind him.  That might make Hicks available.

 

Here are 3 more points to help you think about this trade.

 

FIRST: What exactly would happen to Houston if they agreed?  Garcia would start at SS, while presumably current SS Paul Ellison would move over to 2B to replace Ellis.  Garcia over Ellis is an ugrade.  They lose O'Neal/Hicks, but neither player started last year.  Offensively/Defensively, then, this trade would make Houston better as compared to last year.  And then we move to pitching, where it's obviously nothing but a huge improvement.  Again, right now their ace Scott Riley is an 8 pt. pitcher.  That's not enough to compete.  MacGregor is still 11.

 

SECOND: Remember how for years Houston had the top mL system in EWB?  Well, those prospects like Hicks/Bryant/O'Neal/Bravo are now either in the majors or close.  Because a number of these players play the same position, Houston really does need to make trades if they're going to make the most of their talent.

 

THIRD: Here is how I originally thought of the deal.  Remember, a prior deal that was on the table was Urive+Hearn for Garcia+MacGregor.  Well, Hearn is better than Ellis at this point, and a much better contract too.  In terms of ML accomplishment, Urive is better than O'Neal.  Now, I like O'Neal better, but I'm not sure the computer would agree, given that O'Neal only has a 2 eye while Urive has 4.  In light of that, a plausible case can be made that both components of this trade from Houston's side are worse than the 2 components from Boston's side.

 

3. ???

 

George Banks <--> ????

 

What I'm looking for in exchange for Banks will depend in part on whether these other trades happen.  If they do, then these other trades will lead to an increase in payroll for me, since Ellis makes more than MacGregor.  To offset that increase, I will want to trade Banks for either a mL prospect or, at most, someone making the ML minimum.  If these other trades don't happen, then salary won't be as big of a factor, and I'll be looking at Detroit's Logan Elmore among other possibilities.

Formal Invitation to GM MikeG and GM JTT

March 18th, 2009 by Banditos GM

Clear your calender on Wednesday April 5th, 1995 because I, GM Rob M, will be flying back to Omaha.  The South Omaha Vacqueros will be hosting the Council Bluffs Yellowjackets for a 7:05 pm game.  However, this is no ordinary game, in fact the community of South Omaha would like to thank and honor me for my baseball contributions to the community.  To honor me they will be renaming the old home of the Vacqueros, Buzzard Ballpark (seriously, that's what it was called).  It will from here on out be named ROB M FIELD.

Thank you, thank you.  Hope to see you there.

Re: '94-'95 Human Rule 5 Draftees

March 21st, 2009 by Banditos GM

I don't have a problem, in this instance, with returning him for the reasons stated.

However let me say this, every action in our league sets a precedent which always seems to be brought up again in the future.  So I just want to state that losing a player to Rule 5 doesn't mean automatic claim back because we did it this one time.  That might seem obvious but trust me, I guarantee this issue will come up again.  In fact since a mistake has happened I would think we should all be on guard about our Rule 5 eligible players from here on out.  It shouldn't happen again.

Re: '94-'95 Human Rule 5 Draftees

March 18th, 2009 by Admirals GM

Chris Martin needs to be returned to Washington.

 

He was no small part of why we were willing to do the Robinson trade in the first place.  If the computer is "protected" from its own stupidity, in that we prevent ourselves from claiming players off of waivers or preventing certain rip-off trades that the computer itself would agree to, then human owners should be protected from this sort of error.  Otherwise, I wouldn't have agreed to do my Draft 5 protections over Yugma, I would have demanded that Yugma stop, that I be sent a list of my unprotected players over e-mail, and that we would start the offseason back up at a later date.  If Martin wasn't protected, it's not because I otherwise had too much talent to cover with my 40 man roster (as might be the case with some of the other drafted players), or that I gambled that he wouldn't be taken and lost.  No, Martin is good enough that he *will* start the season on our ML roster, very possibly in our starting rotation (depending on how other trades go).  The only reason Martin was left unprotected is that I was trying to be accommodating and do the Rule 5 Draft quickly, over Yugma.

 

So, here is our trade offer to Dallas

 

Martin <--> $1.

 

That's 1 dollar, not thousand or million.

 

Also, let Dallas know that there are consequences if they don't return Martin.  As their assistant GM, I can sign off on trades.  Trades that will send their franchise back years.  Decades even.  If Martin is not returned, here is our first trade offer, to Omaha...

 

Omaha trades Dallas non-prospect P James McCann (SA), Dallas gives up $7 Million, cash.

 

Speaking as Dallas's assistant GM, I can report that we love this deal, and so if Mike gives the green light we agree as well.  IF Martin isn't returned, that is.  If Martin is returned, we'll re-think the McCann offer.

 

'94-'95 Human Rule 5 Draftees

March 18th, 2009 by Banditos GM

WASHINGTON

MR Chris Martin - Martin was acquired by Washington in the Mike Robinson Trade.  Before he even threw a pitch for the Admiral Organization he was drafted by Dallas as the 3rd overall pick in the Rule 5 Draft.  Martin is currently the Brahma spot starter and Middle Reliever.  He's rated 333, is 24 and has 9 endurance.  May have been an oversight by GM JTT, especially since it was right after the trade.

MIAMI

SP Travis Fuller - Fuller was the 10th overall pick.  At 25 and 243 Fuller has a pretty blase minor league resume despite being a 2nd round draft pick in 1990.  Fuller was never considered much of a prospect for Miami.  He's currently the 5th starter for a weak Quakers staff.

OF Marcus Farmer - Farmer was the 13th overall pick and might be the most interesting of this year's batch.  I've been touting him for the last two years trying to find a trade for him.  He definitely has EWB talent, he was 3/3 star now 2.5/2.5.  Prototypical fast, defensive outfielder.  Has had stints in Miami in '89, '90, '91, '92 and '94.  Played 108 games in 1990 and hit 10 HR with 32 SB in about 2/3rds a season.  Farmer will lead off for Memphis and start in LF, so they are really showing a lot of faith in him.  We're a little discouraged that he ended up in our division.

MR Daron Brooks - Brooks was the 18th overall pick.  Brooks is a 442 MR that we had hoped might be a surprise breakthrough.  We gave him a shot in 1993 and he rewarded us with 32.1 IP and a 2.78 ERA.  In 1994 he really struggled and unfortunately with our depth at reliever we couldn't give him time to see if he could shake the funk and therefore spent most of the season in Little Rock.  Brooks was drafted by a quite active KC team and was slotted as a MR.  I wouldn't be surprised if he makes a positive impact, probably one of the better Rule 5 picks this year.

SP Gavin Brooks - Gavin Brooks was the 2nd pick of the 2nd round taken by Indianapolis.  To be honest G. Brooks was kind of off my radar and I'm surprised he got taken.  He's 25 and rated a 232, .5/.5 star.  Really had no idea that the Blackjacks were that hard up on pitching.  G. Brooks will be joining former Rule 5 draftee, Wayne Gary, in the rotation.

OMAHA

C Chandler McCormick - McCormick was the 9th overall pick and drafted by Atlanta.  Another head scratcher pick, for two reasons.  First, McCormick was in the midst of a severe injury and still had 5-6 months so currently he's on Atlanta's DL for 3 more months.  Secondly, he's clearly worse than the 2 catchers they have right now.  Not sure what McCormick's future holds for him in Atlanta. 

OF Chin-yau "Salute" Chua - Chua was the 12th overall pick, selected right before Marcus Farmer.  Chua's story is pretty familiar to us after spending the majority of his career either on Miami or Omaha.  He will go to division rival Denver and is currently the top backup at every OF and DH.  He will also get a fair amount of starts due to platoons.  Like Farmer, Chua will be gunning for his old organization that never really gave him a fair shot.

MR Andrew Holder - Holder was the first pick of the 2nd round and drafted by LA.   Holder is a one star player, rated 342 and is 25 years old.  He was signed by Omaha in 1989, so a pre-Gilmore relic that is so few and far between in the Omaha organization.  He pitched in 45 games in Lincoln in 1994 and did decent sporting a 3.55 ERA.  He will go to LA and try to help shore up the worst bullpen in modern history, the 1994 Gargoyle bullpen.

Miami - DC Offer

March 17th, 2009 by Banditos GM

Just to keep you in the loop I just called Mike to offer the following deal to Washington DC:

Miami offers 3B Pedro Castaneda and a MR (Townsend, Sardinia, or Bennett)

For

3B Reynaldo Aguirre

Mike had mentioned on another occasion the DC needed bullpen help we are willing to part with some of ours.  Like I told Mike, although I think Aguirre is better than Castaneda (our reason for doing the trade is to upgrade) we don't think it's by much.  Therefore, this is a good opportunity for DC to really upgrade at a weakness by acquiring a strong, proven reliever and perhaps closer.  In return they slightly downgrade at 3B.  Plus Castaneda is still very cheap at the league minimum and the relievers are cheap as well.  Aguirre earns 2+ million in Arbitration and will be due for a contract soon.

Mike was pondering and I had to go so I left him pondering.  Hopefully he'll have an ok by the time we get to Yugma.  By the way are you going to be able to make it around 815 830?

Omaha in 1995.

March 16th, 2009 by Admirals GM

1. Omaha just won 108 games this past year, + the World Series.

 

2. Omaha really only loses 1 free agent of value this offseason, Gerald Lewis.

 

3. They already have their replacement for Lewis: Dan Parker.  In many ways, Parker looks pretty similar to Lewis.  Just to simplify things, let's stipulate that the two players are equals.  To get Parker, Omaha didn't have to give up anyone who contributed to their 1994 team.  (They gave up Oyama, but Oyama didn't contribute in any way in 1994, so he's not a loss to that 108 win team.)

 

4. And yet, Omaha has $20M to spend this offseason.  They could conceivably sign Kevin Morris + Vincent Carter, say.  Or Tom Campbell + Dan Dawson.  In short, they could sign two upper-tier, elite free agents.

 

5. Summing up: the Omaha 1994 team was dominant.  And they didn't lose anyone (assumption: Lewis = Parker, so Lewis doesn't count as losing someone).  And yet, they get to add two superstars.

 

6. Conclusion: Omaha could really be loaded for 1995.

Re: New Trade Offer

March 17th, 2009 by Admirals GM

Okay, if Rob agrees with you and vetoes the Garcia trade, I'll just move on.  But regardless of how that goes, here are a few points I want to make about trades in general.

 

1. First, your counter-offer involves me giving up Garcia + Panchor Urive to get Mark St. John.  I appreciate the effort to make a counter-offer, but I'm sure you'd agree in retrospect that this isn't really reasonable.  On the assumption of your offer, Sergio Garcia's negative value is so great that in order to get St. John, who we all will agree sucks, I would need to add a Pancho Urive to the mix, where Urive is ranked the #13 player in EWB.  (I think he's overrated right now, but still.)  That is unrealistic.

 

We're all new to thinking so seriously about contracts, and especially about salary dumps.  And that mike make us reasonably hesitant -- overly cautious -- to permit such dumps.  But here it seems to me is a good way to proceed.  First, take the money of the Garcia contract.  Second, pretend like Dallas is just adding Garcia as a free agent, without giving up any talent back.  Third, ask yourself what other player could they reasonably expect to get for the total money involved.  To make this last principle concrete, let's add Matthew Spencer to the deal for me, a 10 pt. pitcher (9 potential) who's making the league minimum.  I would not agree to add Spencer, for reasons that will emerge.  But the general idea can be illustrated using Spencer.

 

Would Dallas take Garcia + Spencer in exchange for nothing, just salaries?  Yes, surely they would.  Garcia + Spencer are two 10 pt. pitchers, and the *average* salary for the two of them is about $3.75M.  Now, of course, Garcia is the "big" part of that average, while Spencer is the "little" part, but that doesn't matter.  Picture it like this.  Suppose Dallas was going on the free agent market, and were committed to signing 2 separate 10 pt. pitchers.  What price would be reasonable for them to expect to pay?  Surely, more than $3.75M.  But then, if that's right, Dallas should be happy to add Garcia + Spencer for salary alone, and they would be.

 

Now, how does St. John figure in?  I was thinking that he was a total loss.  I was supposing that if I acquired him, I might just release him.  Maybe I would give him a shot, but my rotation is pretty full as is, and so eventually releasing him was a highly likely option in my mind.  If my assessment of St. John's worth is right, then Dallas should be totally happy to see him go.  As good as Garcia + Spencer for nothing was for them, Garcia + Spencer in exchange for St. John is even better -- for them.  In fact, I as Washington would not do that deal, because it would be one-sided against me.

 

I dwell on this point because I think there's a tendency here to overstate the negative value of an inflated contract.  Garcia's contract is bad, let me just grant.  But it's nowhere near Garcia+Urive <--> St. John kind of bad.

 

2. The fact that free agency is looming never qualifies as an argument against a trade.  No team has money "saved up" for free agency.  What teams have is salary flexibility, flexibility which can be used either toward trades or toward free agents.  In fact, other things being equal, a smart team will prefer at this time to acquire new contracts via trade rather than new contracts via free agency.  This is because, other things being equal, contracts acquired via trade were inevitably signed years ago, at previous market value, rather than right now, at current market value.  Now, you might think that with Garcia, other things aren't equal because his salary is just too high.  Fine.  But the argument against acquiring Garcia should not depend in any way on the fact that free agency is looming.  If anything, the openness of money right now speaks in favor of trading for Garcia (and, more generally, in favor of trading for any player) at this moment.

 

I mention this point because I have other offers I might make either before Yugma or during Yugma.  The fact that free agency is looming is not a reason against any of those trades.

 

Let me note that this is compatible with Rob's point about the trading deadline.  If it turns out, say, that San Antonio is competing for the division next year, and that Sergio Garcia is just the player to push them over the top, then they might be willing to acquire him then, even though they are not willing to acquire him now.  That's not because right now is a bad time for any team to make a trade -- it's a great time to make a trade.  Rather, that's because the trading deadline, when you're in contention, is the very best possible time to make a trade.  At the trading deadline, sometimes you knowingly allow yourself to be screwed over in order to get a deal done, if you're convinced that that's the deal to win it.  In contrast, no team right now should be willing to allow themselves to be screwed over.  However, the fact that the trading deadline is an unbelievably good time to make a trade does not mean that right now is still at least a very good time to trade. 

 

 

Re: New Trade Offer

March 16th, 2009 by Wolverines GM

I don't think Dallas would do that deal because they are getting basically the same pitcher for 4 million more. Plus all the teams money is going towards free agency right now. Secondly if you want to dump salary here is a proposal between 3 teams.

 

You give Boston MacGregor and Jose Garcia and Boston gives you Hearn and Urive,

You then give Dallas Urive and Sergio Garcia for St. John.

 

You are dumping over 16 million in salary and with getting Hearn it's about 12. Dallas on the other hand will eat Sergio's contract and get something of value to do it because on the other hand Dallas or pretty much any other team will not RIGHT NOW take Sergio's contract for a declining player..

New Trade Offer

March 16th, 2009 by Admirals GM

1. Taking in Rob's last point about how to factor in Sergio Garcia's when making a trade, it seems to me there's a couple ways you could do this.  (A) You could attach a good player with a good contract in the deal, so that even though the other team has to take on Garcia's contract, they also get positive value.  Here would be a (really) extreme version of this: I trade Garcia + Bicknell for Elmore Logan.  I take it that in that scenario, Detroit would be willing to swallow Garcia's contract.  (B) I could take a bad contract back in exchange.  I'm going to try (B) here...

 

TO DALLAS (me, so I need outside approval)

 

Sergio Garcia <--> Mark St. John

 

St. John was even worse than Garcia in 1994, going 8-16, 6.08, 1.49 WHIP, 0.6 VORP.  He's also a good deal older: 37, vs. Garcia's 32.  He has also seen his ratings slip with age, with last year being the first year of slip, and a horrible record to show.

 

St. John is scheduled to make $3.1M in both 1995 and 1996.  So, he's a bad contract in his own right, although still cheaper than Garcia.  On the other hand, because of age + present ratings, I take it that everyone will agree Garcia is the much better pitcher both right now, and going forward for the duration of their contracts.

 

I'm willing to do this only because I have a highly specific offseason plan, which requires freeing up a very specific amount of money to make a free agent push.

Re: Detroit

March 17th, 2009 by Banditos GM

Detroit would like to come back at an offer with Washington:

2B Carlos Valentin for Sergio Garcia  Straight up.

OR

We would consider the above PLUS

G. Banks for L. Elmore.

Re: Detroit

March 15th, 2009 by Banditos GM

No Detroit really doesn't have any interest in Garcia.  He's no good and he's payed a shitload for 3 more years. 

- In the last couple of years Garcia has declined from 444 to 443 to 343.  He's clearly declining is 32 years old.  I know you say he's still a 10 point pitcher but as I've mentioned before the "point" system is not absolute and Garcia is clearly a case where he's much worse than his ratings indicate.

- His stats are another indication of his decline.  Garcia tailed off bad in the latter of '93 and '94 was a disaster.

- The two above points are really not a big deal because they can be priced in a trade but the fact that he has a 3 year contract at +7 million a year makes him extremely unappealing.  We can concede that we can get him cheap in a talent for talent trade but there's no way to compensate for the contract.

At this point, I don't think any of the teams I assist would be too interested in Garcia RIGHT NOW.  Face it, going into FA and revamping your team, a risky, overpaid veteran is not going to be attractive to anybody.

However, I could see one of the teams I represent develop interest in him closer to the '95 deadline, that is if he's still decent and that team could really see him helping them win a pennant or World Series.  I think right now is bad timing to try and unload Garcia type of players, their appeal is more of a mid-season band aid or shot in the arm, not as a cornerstone for building a new team.

Detroit would still be interested the George Banks deal we sent though.

Detroit

March 11th, 2009 by Admirals GM

(Rob)

 

Does Detroit have any interest in Garcia?  At this point, they could have him cheap as I don't want to spend much more time thinking about trade possibilities.  Again, I would emphasize that at this point, Garcia has ratings basically matching Romano's, and is cheaper than Romano.

El Paso (Justin)

March 10th, 2009 by Wolverines GM

We would like to offer 1B Ben Lindsay and 2B Jose Muniz to El Paso for RF Jim Andersen.

 

Rationale- El Paso uses Andersen all over and he isn't in their starting lineup although he plays every OF position, conversely they need a 1B and a 2B because Jose Garza isn't that great for 1B in terms of offense and is ok on defense. They are starting Javier Martinon at 2B and we believe it would be an upgrade for them at 2B and 1B. Muniz has shown he can hit in the minors and we don't have the space for him now in Omaha now that we have made the deal for Dan Parker so we would like to see Jose get an everyday job. Ben Lindsay is an 8 at 1B compared to Garza who is 6. Now that's not a huge difference, but it is another thing that Lindsay is better at than Garza. Lindsay hit .293/47/125. Is he a one year wonder ? I don't think so with having 3 contact and 5 power and it being his first full year in EWB compared to like his 3rd or 4th year. So overall we think we are giving up more to get Andersen, but to get the deal done and to avoid haggling we offer a lot up front.

1994 mL Wrap-up Notes

March 8th, 2009 by Admirals GM

1. EL (AA) pitcher of the year is Adrian Ramos of Bowie for the Carolina organization.  Ramos, a 1st round pick in 1992, had a remarkable 303 K's in just 232 IPs.

 

2. Who led the IL (AAA) in HR's?  Doug Buckley, yet another 1B from the Boston Irish organization.  Buckley went for .285/39/130 this year for the Richmond Lava.  He saw a little action at the ML level, and palyed 4 innings at 3B, even thoug his 3B rating is non-existent.  Figures to compete with Pancho Urive for best-hitting-worst-fielding 3B in the Boston organization.

 

3. Watch out for Lonnie O'Rorke in the Atlanta organization.  O'Rorke signed with the Confederates as an undrafted free agent back on 4/1/91, and was very slow to develop at first.  He only played 9 games all year in 1991, despite not having any injury problems.  This year in AAA, though, O'Rorke exploded, going .271/34/121.  O'Rorke, a 1B with 3-4 contact-power ratings, could see major league action in '95.

 

4. Lionel White Eagle of the KC organization has lost some luster.  Ranked as the top SP prospect in all of baseball coming into the year, White Eagle was thought to have 11 pt. potential.  Now it's down to 9 pts, and White Eagle has grown "very unhappy" with the Wheat Kings being so slow in moving him up the ladder.  Look for White Eagle to be in KC's rotation this year, despite his recent disapointments.

 

5 Former NL MVP runner up Ken Cooper batted .288/28/74 in AAA this year in just 98 games, meaning he projects to around 45 HRs.  But, when he got called up for Pittsburgh, he went just .173/1/8 in over 50 at bats.

 

6. This next one is amazing.  So I'm checking out St. Louis's AAA team, and I see they have Reese Maxwell, one of the best SP prospects in baseball.  Maxwell has 10 pt. potential and should be in the majors next year -- yet another bright young Savage arm.  But then I check out his teammate: SP Paul Morgan.  Morgan's (present) actual ratings are 5-3-4.  And he has 8 fatigue.  That's a 12 pt. actual (not potential) pitcher with 8 fatigue that St. Louis failed to bring up for their pennant race.  If I remember correctly, there are only 2 12 pt. pitchers in EWB today, Ed Jackson and Tom Campbell.  Morgan is their equal.  Anyway, Morgan was 17-5 and 2.77 this year in AAA, with a WHIP of just 1.00 (fantastic) and 286 K's in 198 IP, for a rate of 13 K/9.  Those are almost unheard of numbers for a SP.  The 23-year-old Morgan has a 96 MPH fastball, but was only a 22nd round draft pick in 1992.  He improved a ton over the year: his potential on 1/1/94 was 3-2-3.  Before we annoint him the next George Banks, one concern about Morgan: his potential is just 4-2-4, so he's projected to fall off a bit.  I mean, if he does fall off, he's still a 10 pt. pitcher, which is good -- maybe even All Star worthy during his best years.  But the difference between a 12 pt. SP and a 10 pt. SP is immense.  2 Questions for the Savages: (i) how do they keep producing such fantastic young SPs? (ii) How come these great young SPs keep burning out?

 

7. Phil Cooper SP for Dunedin (R) within the Memphis organization went 22-2 and 1.43 this year for Dunedin.  His WHIP was 0.94.  He's a mid-level prospect: 3-3-3 potential.

Re: Fully formed free agents

March 9th, 2009 by Banditos GM

I have two possible explanations:

1)  Undrafted Players become Free Agents and stay in the player pool.  So if you look in the free agent player pool you'll always find guys with no playing experience even for a couple years after they went undrafted.  Those players can also experience talent changes, so it's possible these players were undrafted and some how worked hard and became a shit load better.  I guess I really haven't looked too hard at all of the players and their origins but it would be odd, as Justin pointed out, if this had only happened in the 1980's.

2)  The second possibility is that I believe we had SCOUTS on up until we took over the franchises.  Their is an option in the game for your scouts to be sent on scouting trips anywhere in the world to find hidden talent.  When they do find a good prospect that teams signs them, they DO NOT enter the draft pool.  So I guess it's possible if the Scouts Option was on that the computer teams were sending their scouts out and these players were a product of those searches.  This would also explain why we don't see it anymore, if we really don't.

But I can't answer with any certainty, those are just thoughts.

Fully formed free agents

March 8th, 2009 by Admirals GM

3 of the biggest names in EWB today are Don Kelly, Luis Altagracia, and Julio "Punk" Perez.  They had similar but unusual starts to their career.

 

1. Don Kelly signed with Denver on 6/24/84 as an undrafted free agent.  (El Paso claimed him off waivers on 8/4 of that year.)  Even though Kelly was undrafted, he was already viewed extremely highly: the 1 year deal he signed was worth $600K, even though he had never had a professional (ML or mL) at bat in his life.  He was 21 at the time he signed.  The first scouting report we have for Kelly is from 1/1/85, when he was 4-3-3 (and 5-5-5 potential).  Also, Kelly played only 28 games in mL in 1984 before receiving a big league call up, and at the ML level in 1984 he batted .331 and had an OPS of .872.  In 1985, Kelly's first full season in professional baseball (again, mL or ML), he won the MVP.  The point is: Kelly was a free agent who already had tons of ability, even prior to any development.  Kelly is American.

 

2. Luis Altagracia signed with St. Louis as an undrafted free agent on 3/6/87.  Again, despite never having pitched in professional ball at any level, his initial contract was 2 years for $520K per.  Altagracia did not play a single game at the mL level.  Instead, he started with the Savages in 1987 as a 26-year-old rookie, Altagracia went 16-5 and 2.07, and won the Bob Gibson Award.  Notably, he did not win the Angel Rosa rookie award.  Maybe it's because at 26, Altagracia already had "pro" experience in some other league?  He is Mexican, so maybe in a Mexican league.  At any rate, he was an instant superstar, like Kelly, who was not drafted and immediately was excellent.

 

3. Punk Perez signed with Miami as an undrafted free agent on 1/24/85.  He was 20 at the time of signing.  For Perez, we have his scouting report prior to signing (from 1/1/85): 4-4-5 (with 4-5-5 potential).  So immediately, without throwing a single professional pitch (at either mL or ML level), Perez was among the most talented RPs in the game.  Perez signed for 1 year @ $350K, which isn't high, but it's also not the league minimum.  Perez skipped over the minors entirely, starting at the ML level.  In 1985, he had a 3.31 ERA as a set up man for Joe Murphy.  In 1986, Perez wrested the closer's job away from Murphy.  By 1987, at age 22, he was an All Star.  Like Altagracia (and unlike Kelly), Perez is foreign born: he's Puerto Rican.  Again, maybe that's relevant to the fact that he enterred the league as a free agent even though he was so good; but then again, given Kelly, maybe it's not relevant.

 

I mention these 3 players partly because their stories are interesting for their own sake (we had talked about them a little before).  But I also mention them for this reason.  Has there been any Kelly/Altagracia/Kelly equivalent since we've been running things?  That is, any undrafted free agent who starts off so highly rated?  I don't remember any, but there's a chance they could've flown under the radar.  But also: If there aren't any, why not?  Why is this something that used to happen in EWB but doesn't happen anymore?  I mean, with Kelly, Altagracia, and Perez, you are talking about the best hitter of his generation, arguably the best SP (George Banks has an argument, but Altagracia might have more staying power than Banks), and arguably the best CL.  Does the computer notice talent defecits in the league at a given time, and then inject instant superstars if it needs to do so?

Re: Attention

March 8th, 2009 by Admirals GM

How about a 6th round pick for Muniz?  If not, then a 7th round pick for Buckley.

 

As far as El Paso/Kelly, I'm pretty hesitant to trade Kelly.  1. Even if they save money by getting rid of Kelly, there's no player on the free agent market this year as good as Kelly.  2. Really, the "window" for El Paso to negotiate a new deal with Kelly just opened -- they wouldn't have signed an extension any earlier than the beginning of FA's this year.  So, I want to give them a chance to re-sign him.  3. There is probably no bigger EWB icon today than Kelly, and he has played his entire career with the Iron Horses.  If Kelly is going to leave their team, it's almost definitely going to be because they (the computer) decided to make it happen.  I'm very reluctant to come in, as an assitant GM, and trade away the greatest player in the history of the franchise.

Re: Detroit Trade Offer

March 9th, 2009 by Banditos GM

Logan Elmore is attainable from Detroit.  We'd be more interested in George "Slider" Banks.  So we'd like to counter with:

Elmore for Banks straight up.

Detroit Trade Offer

March 8th, 2009 by Admirals GM

(For Rob)

 

Washington gives up: SP Sergio Garcia.

Detroit gives up: CL Logan Elmore + 1B Kenny Parker (A, Daytona, or maybe Benson, they're conflicting web info as to where he is right now).

 

Rationale. 

 

The Players

First, it should be said that both pitchers suffered through disappointing seasons in 1994.  Sergio Garcia was 10-4 and 5.81.  On the plus side, what really killed him was a horrible May (11.57 ERA); besides that he wasn't so bad.  Down the stretch, he had a 3.32 ERA in August and a 2.81 ERA in September, going 3-0 during the final month.  His ratings didn't slip this year, he's still 10 pts. with 10 potential (3-4-3).  What's a reasonable expectation for him next year?  I suspect something like his 1993 season: 4.06 ERA.  Elmore had a 4.81 ERA in 1994 and a 1.52 WHIP, both horrible numbers for a closer.  He also had just 26 Saves against 6 blown saves, for a dismal 81.3 Save percentage.  After being one of the very top closers in the game back in 1991 and 1992, Elmore is now ranked as just the #25 closer overall.  Like Garcia, though, Elmore hasn't seen his ratings slip: he's still an 11 pt. pitcher, 3-5-3.  I should also note that Elmore wasn't great even in 1993, he was just mediocre then with a 3.40 ERA and 1.38 WHIP.  So, exactly like Garcia, even if Elmore isn't as bad as he showed in 1994, it's doubtful that he's as good as he was in 1991-1992.

 

1B Kenny Parker has 3-3-3 (contact-power-eye) potential, and was a 1994 draftee.  In my book, that projects to a AAA 1B.  More specifically, here's how I analyze 1B's: to project as a ML starter, you need to add up to 8 pts. on power-contact (either 3-5, 4-4, or 5-3); there are some 7 pt. starters out there, but they are rare.  7 pts is good for a ML backup.  But 6 pts. (like Parker) doesn't even make an ML roster for 1B.  So, in taking on Parker, I'm hoping that maybe my mL system can add pts. to his potential; if he just stays the same, he's not much.  Why do I want him then?  Because in almost every trade I make for the next span, I want to add some youth, given what little mL talent we have.  Much of this youth won't pan out; but if just a player or 2 does, maybe it'll be worth it.

 

Strengths/Weaknesses

 

Right now, Detroit has the #14 ranked SPs, but that's really deceptive -- they're not good at all, they should be more like #28 or something.  At SP1 they have Romano.  Okay, I'll grant that's a strength, although Romano isn't what he used to be, and his 10 pt. ranking is identical to Garcia's.  But SP2 Jason McDonald is a 32-year-old 8 pt. pitcher who, unbelievably (given his age), has only spent one full season at the ML level: 1994.  SP3 Joe Huff is a 32-year-old 8 pt. pitcher who, unbelievably (given his age), made his first ML start this year (after spending years in Miami's bullpen).  SP4 Ken Gibson is a 35-year-old 9 pt. pitcher with 8 potential, who spent most of this year in the bullpen and hasn't started 20 games in a season since 1987.  SP5 Bo Jones is a 29-year-old 8 pt. pitcher who has had +5.40 ERAs each of the last 2 years.  That is absolutely horrible.  Horrible.  Down on the farm you have Bailey Manley, but he probably won't be ML ready until 1995.  You also have Bill Meredith in AAA, but he's recovering from a major arm injury (torn rotator cuff), and won't be ready until May of this year -- if he can even come back at full strength, which is dicey given the nature of the injury.  Also: Detroit's SP ERA this year of 5.34 was 16th in the NL.

 

On the other hand, in Detroit's bullpen you have a relative strength -- you have a fair amount of talent and potential, even if they didn't produce too much in 1994.  (Much of the current talent didn't spend much time with Detorit's ML team in 1994.)  MR Richard Wittig is an 11 pt. pitcher who was a rookie in 1994, and seems like he could fill the closer role if needed.  Newly acquired MR Manuel Figueroa is a 25-year-old 10 pt. pitcher who had a good rookie season in 1994 for Montreal, posting a 2.80 ERA.  He too could be a potential closer, though 10 pts. might be a little low for that role.  MR Michael Whittier has 11 pt. actual and 12 pt. potential.  He should probably be a closer right now for Detroit, even if they keep Elmore.  12 pt. closers are above average.

 

Division Positioning

 

As bad as Detroit was in 1994, they have a real opportunity to move up in 1995.  I think we'll all agree that Cleveland overachieved this past year; it's hard to see them playing as well in 1995 (especially given that ace Earl Armstrong is losing pts.).  Pittsburgh is almost certainly heading for a fall, given the loss of Tom Campbell and Norman Hopkins, and the fact that Pedro Velasquez has lost pts. compared to where he played much of 1994 (down to 3-4 after being 4-5 much of last year).  St. Louis has the bad combination of having their veteran players get up there in years (Tom Mills, Luis Aguirre) right as their young stars lose pts. like crazy (Victorio Aguirre, 4-4-4 in his prime, is down to 2-3-3 potential; Daniel Morgan is down to 2-3-3 actual).  The point is, Detroit shouldn't be thinking: rebuild.  They should be thinking: make a run this year.

 

Contracts

 

I think this trade would be a rip-off for us (we certainly wouldn't pursue it), except for the fact that we lose Garcia's contract.  His contract is overly high, but not insanely high: if Garcia were a free agent this offseason, he could probably get around what his contract is right now, and Detroit would seem like a plausible suitor.  At any rate, it's precisely because Garcia's contract is an issue that I've tempered my expectations in terms of what I'm getting in exchange.  I would like to hope that Elmore could return to be an adequate closer or above average MR.  But, there's plenty of 11 pt. pitchers out there who just suck year after year: Joe Schroeder (formerly of my team), Marc Jackson (the former CL in L.A. who's been terrible the past two seasons), and so on.

Re: Free agents to be: 1995

March 8th, 2009 by Wolverines GM

Justin(El Paso),

 

Would El Paso be interested in trading Don Kelly for maybe Ben Lindsay..

Ben Lindsay would start for them at 1B and they would get a good player instead of nothing at the end of the year. They also dump 10 million dollars of salary right before Free Agency. We would be interested to see what El Paso would want.

Free agents to be: 1995

March 8th, 2009 by Admirals GM

Here are some of the top players projected to be FA's after the 1995 season.

 

Aaron Ellis, 2B, Houston.  Will be finishing his mega-contract, originally signed with Omaha.  Fair to say he won't make as much next time around.

Ricardo Hernandez, 1B, Atlanta.  Another former Wolverine.

Don Kelly, RF, El Paso.  Given how his ratings have slipped some in recent years (down to 4-4 actual), I don't think it's crazy that El Paso could let him go.  Kelly will be just 32.

Cesar Leal, 2B, St. Louis.  MVP contender this past season.

Porter Scott, 3B, Montreal.  I suspect he'll retire.

Ken Bryant, 1B, Miami.  Could be a bargain.

Jeff Baird, SP, Pittsburhg.  15-8 in 1994.

George Banks, SP, Washington.  His ratings have just improved 1 pt. for some reason.

Ned Gordon, CL, Atlanta.  Coming off a down year in 1994.

Joe Murphy, CL, Kansas City.  The mercenary (4 teams since 1990) might be ready to move on.

Julio Perez, CL, Omaha.  This is looking like a huge year for closers on the market.

 

Maybe there are a few others I missed too; this was based just on a quick skim.  Also: some of these players will no doubt re-sign with their current teams.  But also: some players will probably void the last years of their contracts, and end up becoming free agents even though they aren't on this list (ala Kevin Morris this year).

Side Note on Robinson Trade

March 7th, 2009 by Banditos GM

So looking at the financials after the Force Trade Mike Robinson:  KC didn't retract any offers instead NOW their projected budget room is -11+ million.  Now I'm sure this is temporary because not all (if any) of their offers will accept.  On the off chance they do, KC better win or Ewing Kaufmann is going to be one pissed off owner who is losing a lot this year.

Miami Block

March 7th, 2009 by Banditos GM

This goes to all the human teams and the computer teams they run.  We would be willing to trade Star Prospect Antonio Hernandez OR Star Player Ken Bryant OR Orlando Gonzalez OR many of our bullpen components OR Pedro Castaneda OR Luis Carranza OR some combination of the former.  We want to upgrade at 3b, SP, SS.  Also, if we don't trade A. Hernandez then we want to clear a starting spot for him.

This is a take notice, on the block type of email.  I'm sure we'll be soliciting some trades in the near future.

PS  Right now Mike, I'm on hold with E. Hernandez for 2nd round pick.  I have to see how other things play out.

Re: Uploaded 11/22/1994

March 6th, 2009 by Admirals GM

Yeah, I had pretty much the same reaction as you to both trades.  You really have to give credit to Pablo Lara, who by the way is becoming quite the "name" GM, for really shaking things up and trying to make the Aztecas competitive.  As far as the Boston trade goes, I think it's funny because it's so ironic with the Hearn/MacGregor talks melting down and then they go make this move which appears to clear a slot for Urive.  However, they still have him platooning but now with Paul Elliot.  Elliot played the majority of his games at SS and 2B last year.  Keep in mind, though, that the AI rosters are still in major disarray as all the FA's just declared and many moves are yet to come.  Urive still may find a spot in the starting lineup.

As a side note, I feel really behind in a lot of EWB related matters and emails so bear with me as I catch up.

Re: Kansas City trade offer

March 7th, 2009 by Banditos GM

OK.  I was under the impression that I couldn't FORCE TRADE if the money wasn't there.  I thought FORCE TRADE was solely for making a trade when the AI didn't agree.  After receiving your email I went down and it was an option, so I hit FORCE TRADE.  Lo and behold it worked.

SO, the Mike Robinson trade is official.

Re: Kansas City trade offer

March 7th, 2009 by Admirals GM

I guess maybe that's what we'll have to do.  (You can't FORCE TRADE?)  I'll talk more later; now I have to go eat.

Re: Kansas City trade offer

March 7th, 2009 by Banditos GM

The problem is that I am not sure how I would go about forcing KC's hand, short of creating another Human GM and replacing their GM with him, similar to a Matt Egghead.  Yes, I understand that you would not have wanted to sim forward if this was a consequence, however, that's the point that this problem was not anticipated by any of us.

I don't necessarily disagree with you on the fact that this is probably in their interests, it's more of a logistical problem than anything.

I will say this though and this applies to your concern about MacGregor and Garcia, is that although teams make a lot of offers only one wins the contract and so a lot of these trades can eventually be made with decent timing.  I don't think this is a total roadblock, it will probably just lead to a more intense offseason where we'll have to monitor what's going on on a day to day basis.

On the flipside though, and I'm not sure if this applies to KC in this situation, but most teams can't make trades until their FA's declare and free up salary.  So you might be damned if you do, damned if you don't with regards until trading before or after FA day.

Re: Kansas City trade offer

March 7th, 2009 by Admirals GM

Well, from Washington's standpoint, part of the point of trading Robinson is that it frees up money to use to pursue a bigtime SP, like Tom Campbell or Kevin Morris.  So, we don't want a solution that might hinder us from doing these things -- for instance, to say wait and see (at least not for too long).  If I had known this was a possible consequence, I wouldn't have wanted to fast forward to 11/22 in the first place.

 

Another thing to say is this.  If we were to force KC's hand on this trade, I suspect we wouldn't be acting against their interest.  I mean, I can understand if their is some hesitancy to set a precedent on this front -- to force a computer team out of the things they are trying to do on  their own.  That is a legitimate consideration.  However, I would say that Robinson is almost guaranteed to be a better use of money than whoever it is they really are pursuing.  They're probably looking to spend $15M on the next Randall Helmick, or something.

 

I don't totally know what I want to propose, though.

 

One more thing.  I was hoping to pursue at least one more trade: either Sergio Garcia or Joe MacGregor could be dealt.  But now, I'm not sure who I can and can't pursue deals with.

Re: Kansas City trade offer

March 7th, 2009 by Banditos GM

Looking deeper into it:  I think I know why now.  Since we are on, technically, the first day of Free Agency, the computer has made offers already.  In the financial screen you can see the amount being offered.  In fact, KC has 15 million + in outstanding offers which hinders their ability to accept any contracts.  So I guess this is an unintended consequence of not trying to pull this trade off before FA.  Not sure who they are pursuing or whether it will be successful.

Not sure how to solve this dilemma in the fairest possible way either.  Open to ideas though.  I suppose we can monitor their money situation on a day to day basis or we can see how things play out and if they have enough pull the trigger after some FA time.

Re: Kansas City trade offer

March 7th, 2009 by Admirals GM

Follow up...

 

The other team that *should* have shitloads of money to spend is Atlanta.  For instance, Paul Sims contract is coming off the books for them this year.  Their payroll this past year was close to $50M, I think.  (Certianly over $40M.)  Their player payroll right now is just $24M.  And yet, their projected balance is -$427K.  If that holds up, Atlanta won't be able to take any salary on board this offseason, even though they are a huge market and their payroll of $24M is nothing.  So again, I suspect that if we just wait a day or so, team's budgets will expand.  But if not, Atlanta is going to be unbelievably, unbelievably shitty in 1995.

Re: Kansas City trade offer

March 6th, 2009 by Admirals GM

I have to think that's a kind of temporary budgetary glitch.  Looking at KC's financial page, their Current Budget is $51.5M, while their player payroll is $29.4M.  Now, I see that their projected balance is only +$615K, but it seems to me that should be just temporary.  (Meaning: that balance makes sense as a summary of 1994, but it doesn't make any sense going forward to 1995.)

 

Aside from these numbers, the whole reason I targeted KC in the first place was that they had a lot of overpaid players whose contracts expired after 1994 (e.g., Jaime Colon), so I figured they were a sure, sure bet to have the money to cover Robinson.  In fact, I still think that.  Kansas City is one of our big market teams, but they only have $29M in salary commitments for next year.  Either they are soon going to be able to take on board Robinson's contract, or else Ewing Kauffman must have slashed their budget by around $17M or so.

Re: Kansas City trade offer

March 6th, 2009 by Banditos GM

I don't have a problem with the trade BUT KC cannot afford it.  In fact I think it would take significant maneuvuring.  Let me know what you think.

Kansas City trade offer

March 6th, 2009 by Admirals GM

Kansas City is run by me.  Because of this, I need everyone's feedback on the proposal.

 

We give up: LF Mike Robinson.

We get back: 1B Ralph Evans (A, Papillion) + SP Chris Martin (AAA).

 

Rationale for KC

 

Kansas City has one major team weakness: offense.  In 1994, they ranked 14th (last) in the AL in runs scored.  Their curent OF is horrible.  Position-by-position rankings: 24-25-29 (LF-CF-RF).  And none of those guys are prospects either; their LF is 34, their CF is 33, and their RF is 26 and sucks.  Thanks to recent free agent departures, KC has money to burn this offseason.  There is no FA on the market who is a better offensive player than Robinson.

 

Kansas City has two organizational strengths: 1B prospects and SPs.  ALL of their top 7 prospects in their organization are 1Bs!  And then, at the ML level, you have 1B Wilfred Christian, a bigtime Angel Rosa candidate this year.  So bottom line: if KC is going to improve, they really do need to trade some 1B prospects.  This point should be uncontroversial.  Ralph Evans projects to be a top tier 1B: ranked somewhere from around #5 through #10 or so.  His potential ratings are 4-4-4-4-3 (3 in avoid K's).  To give you a scale of comparison: those are simiar ratings to John Hennesy (#14, San Antonio), Coy Rollins (#11, Miami), Shannon Townsend (#9 New York), and Roy Payton (#6 Montreal).  Evans has no speed, but does play a decent 1B: 8.  We feel hopeful that Evans will develop to this caliber of player, but I would note that we are taking some risk here.  Juan Bravo has similar ratings too, and he's been a disapointment (2.7 VORP in 1994).  Similarly, David Benitez of Memphis (1B) has exactly the same ratings as Evans' potential, and Benitez is not very good at all: .262/23/83 in 1994, and ranked as the #28 1B in EWB.  So there is an asymmetry in the trade: KC gets a sure thing while we do not.  This sort of risk seems inevitable if we're going to get younger, so we reluctantly embrace it.  Evans was ranked as the #55 prospect in EWB prior to the season.

 

KC's other organizational strength, again is SPs.  At the ML level, their SP ERA of 4.20 was 1st in the AL this past season.  SP Chris Martin spent all of the year in AAA.  He is a 3-3-3 pitcher (potential & actual) who has 9 fatigue.  As a 9 pt. pitcher, he projects to anywhere from a 3rd starter to a spot starter at the ML level.  He is what he is -- nothing great, but hopefully he could make our ML rotation this year or next.

 

Last bit on Robinson.  Robinson will be 33 next year and has showed no signs of ratings slipping.  He is ranked as the #11 player in all of EWB, and just this year finished 3rd in the AL in VORP (.332/20/92/25).  We hate to give him up.  In terms of what they will produce in the next 4 years, we think it's almost a sure thing Robinson will be better than Evans.  However, as others have noted, Washington doesn't have a lot of bigtime offensive prospects, and so we feel compelled to explore this sort of trade to get younger.  Kansas City has enough going for it (great SPs + Joe Murphy as closer + $$$ to spend even after they take on Robinson's contract) that if they can add Robinson, it seems to me that they should become an instant contender next year -- maybe not with Omaha, who is still stacked, but at the very least for the Wild Card.

Re: Trade Proposal: Memphis

March 6th, 2009 by Admirals GM

1. You're right, Houston has too many young C's.  But then, what I don't get is why they would want Jorge Ramos in return?  Ramos is another C.  I mean, I know you're promising to add in an OF as well, but the Ramos element of the trade will be pretty much lost on them.

 

2. On the other hand, Houston would be interested in Oyama, especially considering that Freddie Flemming just left the team via free agency and Oyama is ML ready (or at least nearly ML ready).  I know Oyama is also being discussed in connection with Philadelphia, but I thought I would mention that Houston could have an interest too.

Re: Trade Proposal: Memphis

March 6th, 2009 by Admirals GM

We've looked at Memphis's mL system, and we've settled on the pitcher we want to complete the deal: SP Justin Harris of R Pulaski.  Harris is a 7 pt. potential pitcher (2-2-3, with the 3 in movement) who has yet to rise above R ball in his 2 professional seasons.  He is something of an innings eater, though, which is good for us, because we don't have enough mL SPs.

 

So, the offer then

 

Washington gives up: 2B Daniel Smith + RP Russell Ramsey (both ML)

Memphis gives up: SP Justin Harris (R, Pulaski) + C Jimmy Maynard (AA, New Hampshire)

Re: Trade Proposal: Memphis

March 4th, 2009 by Wolverines GM

Houston(Justin)

 

Omaha would like A Ashland C Robert Bryant in return we would send C Jorge Ramos and one of my prospect OF.

 

Houston has NO OF prospects and a slew of young C's, Jorge Ramos is higher rated than Bryant and is only 19. Ramos is also my number 1 prospect even over Oyama. So we would like to work something out.

Re: Trade Proposal: Memphis

March 4th, 2009 by Wolverines GM

I think we can make a deal but, we would appreciate Ramsey as a throw in. If you want we will throw in a low level MR.

Re: Trade Proposal: Memphis

March 4th, 2009 by Admirals GM

TO MEMPHIS

 

1. No, Jackson/Crockett are not involved in any trade.  If you want Ramsey, we can talk.  If you're not at all interested in Ramsey, not even for a mL 7 pt. pitcher, that's obviously a tactical mistake on your part -- the expected utility from one year of Ramsey is higher than the expected utility of that mL pitcher.  But so be it.  We will talk to a more reasonable team instead.

 

2. It is false that Yamada or Benson is "just as good" as Smith.  Yamada has played since 1982, so he has a track record we can appeal to, we don't have to just speculate about what might happen next year if he starts.  In no single year of his 12 year career, has Yamada had a season as good as any season Smith had from 1991-1993, when he was our starter.  Yamada's best season was probably 1992 for Miami when he went .279/5/38/11.  That is obviously not starting 2B-caliber stats.  By contrast, Smith's 1993 season of .281/15/75/9 obviously is starting caliber 2B.  You're right, Smith's 3 defense is a limitation.  But you act against Memphis's interest by making the perfect the enemy of the good.  Memphis doesn't have anybody who can add good offense to good defense.  So if the requirement is both, Memphis doesn't have a 2B.

3. It is false that Maynard could start for "a lot" of EWB teams.  The #27 ranked C in EWB is Ron Bly of KC.  Bly is rated 4-4-2-4-4.  And so, Bly is much better than Maynard.  The #28 C in EWB is Thomas Brooks.  Brooks has worse power ratings than Maynard, but he does have 4 contact.  Thanks to that 4 contact, he batted .306 this year.  Seems to me that Brooks is better than Maynard.  The #29 C in EWB is Jeff Hicks.  Hicks is rated 3-4-3-4-4; defensively, he won the Gold Glove this year.  Hick is obviously better than Maynard.  The #30 C in EWB is Bob Matthews.  Matthews is rated 3-3-2-3-2.  We will spot you that one.  Maynard is better than Matthews.  So: Maynard is good enough to be the #30 C in EWB.  That is, if he fulfills his potential.  Let me also add this.  For years, my backup C was Carlos Lopez.  Offensively, Lopez is rated 2-4-2-5-3 (he hused to have a higher K rating of 4).  That's very much in the same ballpark as Maynard.  Specifically: Lopez's offensive total adds up to 16, while Maynard's potential (not actual) adds up to 16 as well (and again, Lopez used to be 17).  Lopez was (and is) 10-10 defensively, while Maynard is 10-9 -- so Maynard is worse.  I think Maynard might be a little better overall, because he has 3 contact rating while Lopez is 2, but then on the other hand Lopez is much better at eye (5 vs. 3).  So it's a tough call.  At any rate, I think it's fair to say this: Maynard is not significantly better than Lopez, at least based on ratings.  But again, that's what I said.  Lopez was a good backup C for me.  Maynard would be a good backup C as well.  But that is all.  You maybe overrate a good defensive catcher, but half the backups in EWB are defensive specialists.  That's Maynard's projected role.

 

4. We're happy to continue negotations.  To repeat: our offer is Smith for Maynard.  We think that's fair.  In fact, we think we're giving up more than fair market value, given that it's a known fact that Smith can contribute at the ML level but it's very much up in the air whether Maynard can.  But we're willing to give you a gift because we like Daniel Smith, and would like to see him start.  He hope we've persuaded you that it's fair.  If not, we can pursue a deal with another team.

On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 8:46 PM, mike gilmore <mgil6969@yahoo.com> wrote:

We need to find out if Kurt Wells will re sign with us, first off we are not very impressed with Daniel Smith's 3 rating at 2b, secondly we like Shunsho Yamada or Ed Benson to be the heir apparent to Kurt Wells if he decides to leave. We believe that Ed or Shunsho is just as good as Daniel Smith and they play a better 2B. Yes, it is true that we have a log jam a C in our minors, so for that we would trade Maynard to you for mL MR Rich Jackson or maybe Leonard Crockett. If you look at Maynard he could start for alot of EWB teams with a 10-9 defensive rating and solid ratings with 3 contact and power, so we believe that Jimmy is better than Smith, but as you have pointed out we could really use a MR. Hope we can make a deal.

Re: Trade Proposal: Memphis

February 3rd, 2009 by Wolverines GM

We need to find out if Kurt Wells will re sign with us, first off we are not very impressed with Daniel Smith's 3 rating at 2b, secondly we like Shunsho Yamada or Ed Benson to be the heir apparent to Kurt Wells if he decides to leave. We believe that Ed or Shunsho is just as good as Daniel Smith and they play a better 2B. Yes, it is true that we have a log jam a C in our minors, so for that we would trade Maynard to you for mL MR Rich Jackson or maybe Leonard Crockett. If you look at Maynard he could start for alot of EWB teams with a 10-9 defensive rating and solid ratings with 3 contact and power, so we believe that Jimmy is better than Smith, but as you have pointed out we could really use a MR. Hope we can make a deal.

Trade Proposal: Memphis

February 3rd, 2009 by Admirals GM

Washington sends Memphis: 2B Daniel Smith

Memphis sends Washington: C Jimmy Maynard (AA).

 

Rationale:

 

1. Smith

 

Smith is on the outs in Washington.  Brandon Kent was our primary starter at 2B in 1994, and Alexander Gardner figures to be ready for ML duty at some point in 1995.  But Smith still does have solid offensive tools for a 2B: 3-5-3-2-4.  (The 5 gap isn't trivial: he was among league leaders in doubles in both 1992 and 1993.)  And he has good speed: 7-7-6 baserunning ratings.  Obviously, he's coming off a down hitting year at .224/11/56 in 312 ABs, but that's what makes him a bargain.  At 31 years of age, there's no obvious reason to think he's over the hill (no ratings slippage).  He's projected to make $795K in 1995 due to arbitration, so he's a bargain.  (Smith has a 2 eye rating, and we all know how much the computer has a boner for EYE.  That's what keeps his salary down.)  In fact, I think Smith is exactly the sort of player that a small market team like Memphis should try to pursue: a bargain basement type who, if they get lucky, could return to a .285/15/75 year like he had in 1993.

 

2. Memphis' need for a 2B.

 

Kurt Wells, Memphis' 2B in 1994, is a free agent to be, and figures to be beyond Memphis' payroll possibilities.  Memphis has no obvious replacement for next year.  In the farm system, Derek Nutt looks like a good 2B prospect down in AA, but he's at least 1 and probably 2 years away from making it to the majors.  Smith could be a nice stopgap until then.

 

3. Maynard

 

Memphis has a real backlog of young C's.  ML starter Jose Espinoza is just 23 and hit .287/19/63 last year in EWB.  ML Backup Tony Worley is 24 and ranked as the #25 prospect in EWB at the beginning of 1994.  Maynard is just Memphis's 3rd ranked catching prospect, behind Worley and Terry Bowen in AAA.  Maynard's offensive potential is 3-4-3-3-3, which is worse or equal to Smith at every rating other than eye (which is still just 3 vs. 2).  Maynard does play good defense: 10-9.  But realistically, even ignoring Memphis's C situation, all he projects to is a good backup C or, at best, a lowest tier (like, ranked #25-#30) starting C.

 

In part, we do this deal because we like Smith and would like to see him get a chance to start somewhere else, if he's not with us.

 

Now, if Memphis is interested, we could also consider trading them RP Russell Ramsey.  Now let me be up front: the reason Ramsey is available is that his potential has dropped off to 1-3-3 (7 pts.).  Presently, his actual ratings are 2-3-4 (9 pts.).  By my ratings system, 9 pts. is an adequate ML RP.  7 pts. is not; it's not even a marginal ML RP.  So, if they have any interest in Ramsey, it should be for the sake of squeezing some decent ML innings out of him next year; they really shouldn't have any longer term plans for him.  Even so, it occurred to me that Memphis might be interested, just because there bullpen is so God Awful: 14th (last) in the AL last year at 5.91.  I don't have any official proposal regarding Ramsey at this point, because I don't want to bother to think about it unless Memphis is interested.  However, I will say that our expectations for a return are realistic.  What we would want in return is either an equivalent ML-ready marginal big leaguer (like Ramsey is about to become), or a prospect who presently projects to something less than ML-caliber (e.g., an 7 pt. SP), but who could become something more if we got lucky.

WOW

March 2nd, 2009 by Wolverines GM

I don't know if this was overlooked or already noticed, but Chad Church signs multiyear extension with Cincinnati. We were considering sogning him if the Oyama deal was done.

 

 

Sunday, October 2nd, 1994: Church Signs for 5 years
Media analysts hailed Cincinnati's signing of Chad Church, one of Earl Weaver Baseball League's brightest stars, as a pivotal move.

While the deal is certain to raise a few eyebrows, Church is expected to earn every bit of the $56,950,000 promised him over 5 years.

In his season totals, Church has 17 home runs, .318 BA, .403 OBP, 54 RBIs and 61 runs scored. He has played in 99 games

George Brett Shits Himself

February 27th, 2009 by Banditos GM

funny

http://www.theunticket.com/george-brett-shits-himself-story/

Boston Irish

February 24th, 2009 by Wolverines GM

Dear Mr. JTT,

 

We do want Mr. MacGregor, as you know Sparky likes to start Frank and it scares me to death because I think Sparky's managing of Frank is like smoking, in that the more you smoke the more the quality of life goes down and you cut years of life off at the end and that's what I see with Frank if I let Sparky do what he has been doing to him. If I get rid of Frank for a pitcher that has EXPERIENCE in starting we are better off because I think the rate that Frank's going he will be half the pitcher he was in a couple of years. So if we can get a starting pitcher of MacGregor's quality then that would be ideal for my ulcer. The terms that you wanted were too high and I could not afford to do that so we would be willing to trade you Frank Hearn under the following conditions,

 

1) That you take RF Jason Callahan's contract off our hands, Jason will make 6.9 million through the 1997 season. In return we would like Mark Jackson who would then offset our contract obligations to Mr. MacGregor in which it would then be a wash for us financially.

So the deal would be Jackson and MacGregor for Hearn and Callahan.

 

If you want Pancho Urive we would love to have Jose Garcia as he would fill a huge hole for us.

 

So that's where we stand if you like what you see please call me or send us a letter. We hope we can do business and help both of our ballclubs get to where we want to be and that's a win a world title, who knows maybe we'll meet in the World Series next year.

 

                                                                      Love,

                                                                    Takuma Endo

                                                                  GM Boston Irish

Re: A Few Thoughts

February 24th, 2009 by Admirals GM

Now that I'm back in town and things are a little less hectic -- last week, I had to give an hour long talk on Monday at a big Symposium at Puget Sound, I had to send off letters of recommendation for a student on Tuesday, I had to write up my comments for a conference on Wednesday, and I had to leave town Thursday for that conference in Chicago.  Now that I'm back, let me say this: I won't quite the league anytime soon.  That was really just the drama of the moment.  However, it really would be helpful to at least have several more days to work on stuff here before I get back into things.

As far as saving time, you're right, the thing I need to do is spend less time by myself trying to formulate/justify deals.  I suspect one casualty here might be trading realism, but I guess that's a better casualty than the league itself or my work commitments, so that's what will have to go.  In the MacGregor case, I literally looked at every team in the league, trying to think about whether I could realistically imagine a trade.

 

1. A trade seemed unrealistic for any team in the Mountain West, both because all those teams suck right now (and MacGregor is a veteran) and because they're division rivals.

 

2. Denver could afford him, but I felt it was stupid to imagine the Amigos letting Vincent Carter go as a free agent only to acquire a different, expensive 36-year-old.  Unrealistic, it seemed to me.  Chicago has budget room, but they should be trying to add offense or bullpen, not starting pitching.  Similarly, KC should add offense, their SPs are their strength.  Minneapolis doesn't have the money to make a deal.  And I wouldn't give up MacGregor to Omaha -- even if Omaha wanted him (which I'm sure they don't, given their feelings about MacGregor).

 

3. Atlanta could afford MacGregor, but again it struck me as an unsatisfying sort of deal to make.  Atlanta should be trying to rebuild, ideally.  Same goes for New Orleans.  Carolina can't afford him.  Memphis could, but I think they're such a small market team that it doesn't really make sense for them to pay so much for one player, unless that one player is like Don Kelly-in-his-prime level.  And again, I wouldn't trade him to Miami.

 

4. Houston probably can't afford him, especially because they're coming off multiple years in the red (due to the Aaron Ellis contract).  Same goes for El Paso and Austin.  Technically, San Antonio probably could, but I don't want to saddle them with such a big contract, given that they're such a small market team.  Again, a kind of situation similar to Memphis.  Dallas could afford him, but again they're rebuilding.

 

5. Indianapolis could afford him, but they couldn't easily give up the sort of veteran contributor I would hope for most.  Cincinnati can't afford him.  Detroit could, but I thought it was kind of stupid for the Cruisers to pay all this money for just 2 SPs: Emilio Romano + MacGregor.  I mean, maybe I could see it, but if there was a better match I would prefer that.  Pittsburgh probably could afford him, but they're losing Tom Campbell this offseason.  If they're going to let Campbell go, it struck me as unrealistic they would bring in some other expensive veteran SP.  Cleveland doesn't have the money, they're too small market.  St. Louis has the best SPs in the entire league.

 

6. Philadelphia has big budget problems.  A D.C. trade maybe could be made to work, but they have all these highly paid veterans -- Ken Dennis, Geoff McKnight -- and I worried that adding one more would cripple the organization.  At any rate, I'd prefer a trade with someone else, if possible.  Montreal is impossible for budget reasons.  And that left Boston & New York.  Approaching it from the Boston/New York angle struck me as the most interesting, because then I could imagine it in almost Yankees/Red Sox terms.  And it seemed realistic to me because both teams would be (I thought) highly motivated traders: Boston because they keep losing World Series, and New York because they keep folding down the stretch (happened in 1993 and 1994).  At any rate, that's how I settled on Boston.  I still do think personally that the MacGregor-for-Hearn trade made a lot of sense for Boston -- even if the computer rejects it, I think that's a mistake by the computer -- but that's water under the bridge now.

 

But I'll come up with new offers sometime soon, something along the lines of the Haberman/Romano trade, I guess.

Re: A Few Thoughts

February 20th, 2009 by Banditos GM

Ok, first and foremost, if anyone leaves the league it will be the end of the league.  I'm not saying that to create a sense of guilt, if you can't do it then you can't do it.  I bring it up, instead, to point out that all efforts will be made to accommodate everyone in the league.  I think we would all agree that having a slow league or imperfect league is better than no league.

A couple of things to address:

1)  Regarding Time.  I don't think any of us have any problem accommodating time constrictions.  The thing is that we have to be aware of them.  Justin you kind of let this all out after the fact.  If you knew you were going to be busy, I think I speak for Mike too, when I say that we'll happily adjust the schedule.  That goes for all of us.  You guys know I try to sim on a regular basis but if I can't do one, I'm not going to push myself it will just have to wait.  And when Mike has surgery I'm sure we'll have to pause as well.  My point is that the league should not feel like an obligation, but instead a hobby.  That's kind of the beauty about being in a 3 person league with friends as opposed to a full human league, you can always adjust to individual's needs.  As far as the ballots and HOF, we'll figure it out.  I'll do them if we need to.

2)  Regarding Control of AI.  This also has to do with the time commitment.  I proposed taking over the AI for a couple of reasons.  First, it allowed the AI to be more competitive and not get ripped off as bad.  In the prior system I always felt that we were overseeing trades and were reluctant to veto unless it was outrageously bad.  The problem was there were a lot of bad trades perpetrated on the AI, especially with regards to contracts.  I don't believe I was alone on this sentiment.  By allowing a human to represent the AI, the trades become more competitive which is what we wanted.  I truly believe this does not make trading more difficult to accomplish, just more even.  Secondly, it was to add another element to make it fun.  We could now propose to humans with the AI teams, which the computer was not doing.  This would allow the human glut of talent at AAA to help the computer and also make them more competitive.  Once again this is optional not an obligation, I don't have to help Pitt propose to Omaha.  In fact this system should be more efficient because you're dealing with one person and it doesn't have to have deep rationalization.  Just propose, counter etc.  The Omaha style of trading looks like this:

"The Omaha Wolverines offer you a 2nd round pick in the 1995 Amateur draft for Ernesto Hernandez."

Obviously not all trades are that simple, however, in the old system just as much convincing would go into the complicated trades as they would now.  As far as the rule change affecting Washington unfairly given the timing, I would say that any change has to be implemented at some time and will probably affect a team.  There's no way around it.  The important thing was that there was no intent to harm Washington, I think we can all agree on that.  Finally, I would say that, speaking for Miami, we too had some big contract obligations locked up and by Pythag. were probably just about the same as Washington.  So I don't see there being a huge competitive disadvantage.  With regards to the shop function, if we want to bring it back I have no problem.  However, just let me point out that in both the old system and presumably in the new system the shop function was never a final ok.  The trade still had to pass human muster.  My point is that the differences between the old and new system are really minute but in my opinion helped competitive balance between HUMAN and AI.  Finally, if we want to revert back to the old system of trading I don't care enough to fight about it.  Once again my main point is accomodations and concessions are better than a dead league.

3)  Regarding MacGregor/Hearn.  Really the only thing I want to say is that I sympathize with Justin on his points about time investment and his feelings about the trade system.  The only problem is that using the backdrop of this trade probably made it harder for the other two of us to understand because the trade was really far off.  It kind of felt like here propose this unbalanced trade (by the standards of Miami, Omaha, and most importantly the AI) and then when it gets denied attack the whole system.  Now Justin thoroughly explained his frustration in the game and in real life so I get it and it's no big deal.  However, if the trade was closer and Mike was playing extreme hardball I think it would be a different story.

4)  Solutions.  Here are some things we can contemplate this offseason.  First, regarding the time committment, do we want to switch to a different sim schedule?  Like once a week, twice a week etc?  We will need to switch up the ballot obligations.  Secondly, are we going to revert back to an older system of trading and/or bring shop back?  I think Justin has made it clear how he feels so we'll need to discuss it on the next Yugma.

Finally, I hope I don't sound judgmental or accusatory towards Justin. Nor do I really want to be argumentative.  I think the main point I wanted to make is that no league issue is too big we can't figure something out and work it out.  If real life is just to time consuming than it's a different story.  Like I said before, this league should be enjoyable and a break from the stresses of real life, once it's not then we need to make some adjustments.  That being said, we are going to take a week or so off.  Justin already said that he's going to be extremely busy and I actually have some projects, like cleaning my garage and start working out again, that I want to get done.  I may sim up to the Awards and hopefully we'll continue in a week or a week and a half.

Also, on a brighter note, OOTP 10 is scheduled to come out this spring.  They sent me the email about it and if it delivers what it promises some of these issues will be moot.  It looks kick ass, so that will definitely freshen things up.  I will forward the newsletter.

Re: A Few Thoughts

February 19th, 2009 by Admirals GM

1. No, I don't want Hearn anymore, in part because I realize any trade at this point would be tainted.

 

2. This isn't just me complaining now.  Look back at the old e-mails and you'll see I always raised the point about my contracts as a consideration when we were considering any change to the system (e.g., when we considered lowering our budgets, or when we considered implementing new trade rules).  I brought this up multiple times, that I would not have signed the contracts that I did if I had appreciated that this was going to be the system.

 

3. But set that aside.  I guess my real concern is time, and the whole Boston thing just triggered it for me because it ended up being such a waste of time in retrospect.  Again, don't think of that as an accusation.  I really mean it when I grant the trade was no good.  But at this point, I can realistically say this: I'm just not going to be able to stay in the league making as much of a time investment as I have been.  There might be different ways to solve this.  For instance, if maybe Mike or Rob took over control of the ballots sometimes, or maybe if we just handed over control for the Awards & Hall of Fame back to the computer, or maybe if we just went back to the system of Computer GMs.  Or maybe it's just because this has actually been an especially stressful week, with tons of things for me to do, and I pissed away a morning on EWB -- that is, maybe when things get back to normal I won't feel as negative as I do right now.  But I have to say that right now in the moment, with the stress of all these deadlines for work, the Boston frusturation (the TIME frustration) has me questioning whether I can stay in the league.  I don't mean to be overdramatic -- it will probably fade.

Re: A Few Thoughts

February 18th, 2009 by Wolverines GM

Another thing I traded Romano, who is probably at the time better than MacGregor for Haberman and a 4th round pick. So I didn't get his full value because he made 9.9 million dollars.

Re: A Few Thoughts

February 18th, 2009 by Wolverines GM

YOU made your team, YOU signed the contracts, don't be a fucking baby because you can't get the player you want when the deal is not in your favor. The reason we did this is because we are all good and winning our divisions NOW, so if you want fucking Hearn you can have your deal so you can win 110 games this year.

 

Happy