UPL Wrap-Up: Where I Went Wrong

The UPL baseball season wrapped up earlier this month. Here are the final standings:

I went back and looked at what the standings were during the All-Star break and there wasn't much movement for the most part. Although, that's not to say that the season didn't have a dramatic finish. On the final day Phatsnapper managed to sneak past Hats for Bats to take the crown. I don't think we've ever had that happen on the last day in UPL Baseball before. (One year we did have a tie, though.)

Congratulations to Rupert (Phatsnapper) on his championship season! And I also should point out that both Pauly (Hats for Bats) and CJ (JimmyDix) both had remarkable turnaround seasons. Pauly's team played well enough to take the crown, but it just wasn't meant to be.

After my 6th place finish, I'm left trying to pick up the pieces. Going into this season, I listed most of my strategy for this keeper league. But there was one 800-pound gorilla in the room that I didn't want to talk about. I might as well talk about that now.

If you look at the history of warfare, armies have a tendency to fight the "previous war." Basically, military planners most carefully study the past war, what went wrong and what went right - and more importantly, what they could have done better. And so what happens is that when a new war breaks out, a seemingly solid strategy is to see how your current environment is similar to a past environment, then apply what was learned from that experience in order to best perform in the current war. It's not a bad strategy. In fact, it's probably a necessary component to any great strategy. But if you rely too much on what would have been a seemingly perfect strategy for the previous war, you can end up in big trouble.

In the UPL, we get to keep 18 players from season to season. For a team at the top of the pack, this sounds like a great deal. But it's really a double-edged sword. Things can change quite a bit from season to season, and in a non-keeper format you can change your roster swiftly with the times. When you have to keep 18 players, it can sort of feel like you're stuck in a quagmire.

Granted, my team had plenty of talent heading into this season. And I made some blunders along the way. But if I look at my top 4 picks from 2009, three of them heading into 2010 wouldn't have rated worthy of top 4 picks in my book (Carlos Beltran, Aramis Ramirez, Manny Ramirez) due to their problems with missing significant playing time the previous season. If we had done a complete re-draft, I think there would have been many opportunities to upgrade my team.

But I can't complain. I knew the rules ahead of time and made my own bed. Here are my top three regrets for this season, and they all boil down to not being aggressive enough:
1) Not getting more value for the #3 pick (in essentially the 19th round). I drafted Octavio Dotel to address my closer situation, but in hindsight, there was more league-wide demand for Aroldis Chapman than I realized. I had assumed that after Jason Heyward and Stephen Strasburg, there weren't any rookies who people were willing to trade away value to get. But I think I was wrong there. Had I drafted Chapman (or just  traded away the pick pre-draft), I could have probably gotten something better than Dotel.
2) Not addressing shortstop. I went into the year hoping that Jason Bartlett would have a .390 OBP with 30 steals. That would have been nice. But it didn't happen, and my backup plans for SS didn't work out either. At one point I thought about trying to trade for Troy Tulowitzki, and maybe I should have. But I kept thinking that a viable option at SS would just fall into my lap. It never happened.
3) Not fixing my starting rotation sooner. Part of this is bad luck. I mean, my starting pitchers were absolutely brutal the first month of the season. It's impossible to predict something like that. However, I could have done a better job of holding pitchers out of the lineup and searching the waiver wire for better short-term, and possibly long-term, solutions.

My goal was to win the league again this year, but at the very least I wanted to finish on the podium. So a 6th place finish is disappointing. The past 5 or so years I've been bouncing between first and middle of the pack. I still have a long way to go if I'm to field a contender year in and year out. The Chairman (O.N. Thugs) has made a habit of this, and really, so has C-Lauff (IamJabrone).

It was a fun season. Looking ahead to next year, I'll have to refine my strategy a bit. But then again, that part never ends.

Trade Wars

Earlier this week in the UPL we had the following trade: 1B Justin Smoak and SS Marco Scutaro of Pauly's Hats for Bats were to be shipped to CJ's JimmyDix Longballs for SP Jered Weaver and OF prospect Mike Stanton. On the surface, there doesn't appear to be anything earth-shaking about this deal. Except that the thugs in the commissioner's office auto-vetoed the deal--and then that set off Pauly. I won't reproduce the transcript of Pauly's message board rants (and yes, there was more than one rant), but I will give you a visual representation. First we had this:

And then some of this:

Finally, Pauly had to be restrained like this:

Honestly, I can't blame Pauly for being upset. Both he and CJ watch a lot of the MLB, have their own strategies for fantasy baseball, and had negotiated a deal that they each thought helped their own ball club. And while CJ later admitted it was OK for the deal to be nixed, Pauly was bouncing off the walls in frustration at the autoveto, reminiscent of Rupert's frustration with last year's Mauer/Lester for Holliday/Berkman deal that was autovetoed.

The resulting discussion on the UPL message board seems to be heading in the direction of ending the "autoveto" era as we know it. While it's hard to say what the new rules for trades will end up being, it looks like there is growing momentum to give managers more control over their own teams.

Last year I blogged about the challenges of deciding what's "fair" in fantasy baseball trades. Here's an excerpt from that post:

And what makes for a "reasonable" or "fair" trade anyway? I suppose in a non-keeper league certain things can be measured, such as how a player had done in the past and, if relevant, how that player has done so far that year. So in that case, you're trying to estimate how the players involved in the trade will do over the next 2 to 6 months.

But what about a keeper league? Doesn't the fact that you can keep players for the next year (and possibly for 5, 10, or 15 years) drastically change the equation? Isn't it possible you could propose a trade that the majority of owners will see as "obviously unfair to you," only to discover 5 years later that it was unfair to the other guy? (Except for the fact the trade was voted down and never happened. Lucky for the other guy...)

In fact, ever since the UPL first considered going to a keeper format, we've had discussions about how valuing trades might be affected. For example, in a non-keeper format, if you try to trade a top 50 player for a top prospect who likely won't see the field until September, the trade likely gets vetoed or voted down as unfair. But in a keeper league, trading away a top 50 player for a minor leaguer might be a key deal to set yourself up for a dynasty that starts in three seasons. Who knows?

On October 17, 2008, the Chairman first proposed taking UPL Baseball into the keeper era. At the time, in the comments section I warned about the difficulty in evaluating trades involving veterans for prospects. However, only now do I realize that I hadn't quite done a good enough job explaining my proposed solution. (I thought it really hard in my head, but I didn't type the words on my keyboard.) Here's what I proposed:

If it's a keeper league, I'd be in favor of putting restrictions on trades and waiver wire moves. For instance, a team could make no more than two trades in a year and the trades would have to be limited to at most two players for two players.

What I meant to add was this: By putting restrictions on the type (up to two players for two players) and number (two per year) of trades, we would give managers the right to make ANY trade they want without any possibility of it being voted down or vetoed. Period.

My thinking was that if we're going to give managers more control over the risks they're willing to take in trades (i.e., give up proven major league talent for top prospects), then there would need to be an associated cost: cap the number of trades in a season. Some people don't like the idea of fewer trades, and I can see their point. But capping the number of trades might increase the quality of trades by making people pick their spots better as to when to make a trade (such as right before the draft or right before the trading deadline).

Regardless, the key here is to somehow find the right balance between letting managers have fun making their own decisions and still keeping the integrity of the game intact for the league. If anyone out there has a solution to share with regard to how their league handles trades, I'd like to hear it.

My strategy: End game (Part 7 of 7)

This is the final post in a seven-part series documenting my fantasy baseball strategy. We've focused on winning now as opposed to the future, formulated a system to accumulate points, filled our roster with quality hitters and pitchers through the draft, and have made good trades and waiver wire pickups to safely navigate the league's rough waters for much of the season. We're in contention for a championship. Now it's time to seal the deal and bring it home.

Growing up, I was a big Ohio State football fan. (Okay, so I was a skinny Ohio State football fan, but you know what I mean.) In 1993, the Buckeyes started 8-0, and for the first time in years their fans were buzzing about a possible Rose Bowl berth. Next on their schedule were the Wisconsin Badgers, and I'll never forget reading this quote from OSU's star running back at the time, Raymont Harris: "I can smell a faint smell of roses. But right now I smell Badgers. And the roses smell a lot better." Unfortunately, the Buckeyes went on to only get a tie against the Badgers. Then after a win against Indiana, OSU finished their season with a 28-0 loss at the hands of their archrival, Michigan. No Rose Bowl for the Buckeyes.

During the 2009 UPL baseball season, my '90 Reds were in first place for much of May, June, July, and August. When the calendar had turned to September, I was feeling good about my chances. But the defending champ, C-Lauff's Team IamJabrone, was still close behind and eager to play the spoiler. I couldn't help but have flashbacks to 1993 and thinking like Raymont Harris: "I can smell the faint smell of a championship. But right now I smell Jabrones. And the championship smells a lot better."

Motivated to avoid the same type of collapse that had cost Harris and the Buckeyes a Rose Bowl trip 16 years earlier, I was now obsessing about the end game.

The start of the end

In any roto baseball league, my end game thinking starts shortly before the trading deadline. In the UPL, this deadline tends to be about the middle of August. So in late July I'm taking a hard look at how the categories are playing out league-wide and what types of trades could help my team. (Obviously, in a keeper league, if you feel that you have no shot at winning the championship, your focus at the trade deadline should be to do whatever best sets up your team for the next season.)

The end game in theory

And down the stretch they come! Just remember, if you're not willing to furiously whip your horse for extra performance at the end, somebody else will.

In March and April of a fantasy baseball season, I'm primarily picking players who I think will perform the best over the long run (6-month season). But by late July, two big changes have occurred.

• We've collected 3+ months of real data on players. Thus it's slightly easier to project how a player will perform over the final 10 weeks of the season when making that projection in July, as opposed to March. 
• We've also collected 3+ months of data on our team as well as our opponents' teams. So now we have a slightly better idea as to which categories will be most critical down the stretch.

In other words, early in the season I'm looking to acquire players who, given time, will perform the best during a 6-month season. But once it's down to the end game, I'm looking to acquire players who have the best chance to put up big numbers in the critical categories that I'll need to win the championship.

Back in part two, I wrote at length about the importance of team balance and trying to win all of the categories. And while it would be nice to win all of the categories, come late July you'll have a more realistic view of the scoreboard and what your team can actually accomplish. I wouldn't punt on any categories in late July or early August, but I would be willing to start emphasizing some categories over others for the purposes of making a trade.

For instance, in 2007 I was willing to trade the reigning AL MVP Justin Morneau (power) for Carl Crawford (steals) at the trade deadline because I saw that SB was the one category that I could gain the most ground on my main opponent (O.N. Thugs). And since I still had plenty of power on my team, the trade worked out as I closed the gap and finished in a tie for first with the Thugs.

As we move deeper into September, the end game comes into sharper focus in terms of which categories will be crucial. And here we can employ some strategies that would be crazy in June, but just might be necessary in September and October.

End gaming the system

Last August (2009) my team was sputtering. We weren't hitting or pitching particularly well, and while I wasn't going to panic, I knew that I needed to make a move. My main opponents were likely to make deadline deals to get better, and I had to do the same. So what move would best improve my team?

As I explored many trade possibilities last August, one thing started to become clear. I had an injured Carlos Beltran who likely would provide no further production in my quest for victory in 2009. And yet he still had some decent trade value for what he could likely do in 2010 and beyond. In looking at which players might be available in a trade, the fact that future Hall of Famer Chipper Jones had batted .400/.500 (OBP/SLG) over the past month with 6 homers really caught my attention. If Chipper could do anything close to that over the final 6 weeks of the season, he could help me in five categories (R, RBI, HR, OBP, and SLG). So Phatsnapper and I made that deadline deal in mid-August.

As the 2009 season winded down, many categories stayed in play. But on the offensive side, one category did start to stand out as especially important: steals. Over the final few weeks, I took every available opportuntiy to borrow a speedy guy from the waiver wire and place him in my lineup for a shot at an extra steal. And in the final week of the season, I was still looking at potentially +/- 2 points (4 point swing) in the steals category alone. With much smaller and much less likely possible point swings in the categories of HR, RBI, OBP, and SLG, I played Michael Bourn over Manny Ramirez at every chance. The reason being that Manny hitting 2 homers and 6 RBI in a single game might not raise my team point total at all. But Bourn getting 3 steals in a game could be the difference between losing two points or gaining two points in the standings. (Note: My other outfielders were Justin Upton and Carlos Gonzalez, so Manny was the only one in that group who wasn't much of a threat to steal.)

On the pitching side of things, I employed many spot starts over the past month or so of the season. I picked up and dropped several different pitchers, such as Pedro Martinez, Doug Fister, Barry Zito, and Andy Pettitte, and put them in games where I thought they had good matchups. Overall, this worked out okay for me. Not great, but okay.

Where things got interesting, though, was the morning of the second-to-last day of the season. My team was nursing a slim lead when I looked at the pitching stats and saw the following:

• Can't go up in W points
• Could take 3 losses and go down 2.5 in L points
• Could gain or lose a half point in saves
• Unlikely to see movement in any other pitching categories

In terms of likely pitching outcomes, by playing my pitchers I was looking at anywhere from gaining a half point to losing 3 points that otherwise wouldn't have happened. After examining all the scenarios, I determined that my best move was to bench all of my pitchers for the remainder of the season (Saturday and Sunday). That was Plan A. I also had a Plan B. Depending on what happened on Saturday, I might change my mind on Sunday out of a need to play my pitchers. One possibility was that somehow Westy's Sluggers would get a surprising number of W's and catch me in that category. Another unlikely event would be for IamJabrone to get way more K's than I expected. So on Saturday morning I not only benched all of my pitchers, I also picked up two likely Sunday starters, Homer Bailey and Chris Narveson, just in case I needed to make a miracle comeback that would include wins and K's on the final day.  

 Sometimes you need a Plan B to win. This holds true for most things in life, but especially for feel-good sports movies.

 
As we now know, the Beltran-for-Chipper deal didn't really work out for me. Chipper had some nagging injuries and slumped a bit. Although, he still gave my team more than Beltran would have in September. Time will tell if that deal hurts me in 2010, but I can't second guess it. At the time, I was looking to be aggressive and win in 2009. Chipper was swinging a hot bat at the time of the trade, and so I went for it.

Fortunately, Chipper aside, my offense did step up down the stretch, and on the pitching side, I didn't have to bring in my pitchers on the final Sunday. In fact, you could say that things came up roses for the '90 Reds.

Thank you for reading this series about my fantasy baseball strategy in the UPL. I've had fun pondering and documenting my various tactics, and of course, I'm still open to new ideas. I enjoy the discussions with other players, and my hope is to keep learning.

My strategy: Roster moves (Part 6 of 7)

This is the sixth in a seven-part series documenting my fantasy baseball strategy. In part five we discussed some ideas for drafting players. Now we'll examine some basic principles I follow when considering trades and waiver wire moves.

On May 10, 2009, I looked at Joe Saunders' season stats and was very pleased with my 18th round pick: He was 5-1 with a 2.66 ERA. Better yet, he was fresh off a complete game shutout victory over Zack Greinke and the Royals. But my celebration didn't last long. It was time for me to quickly get Saunders off my team--even if it meant flat out dropping him.

So how could this be? Joe Saunders had gone 17-7 in 2008, and so far in 2009 he was 5-1 with a 2.66 ERA. Why would anyone be in a rush to trade him, let alone drop him? Well, the answer is quite simple: In my world, he was no longer a "championship piece."

To trade or not to trade, that is the question

In theory, if you can develop a good system and then find the right personnel to implement that system, you can have a good team. The only problem, of course, is that this is easier said than done. You're going to have players who slump and guys who get injured, so there will be many times during a 6-month fantasy baseball season when you need to make roster moves, either finding guys on the waiver wire or making trades.

And really, we can simplify this a bit further. Every roster move you make is actually a trade. Either you're trading players with Mr. Other Manager, or you're trading players with Mr. Waiver Wire. I prefer to trade with Mr. Waiver Wire because I can usually rip him off.

There are several solid strategies for approaching roster moves. And I imagine that, at some level, most managers consider value over replacement player (VORP) whether they realize it or not. The Chairman has also posted about VORP. Essentially, with roster moves, you're expecting to add more stats to your team than you lose, and you want to factor in position scarcity to be more efficient in where you gain those stats. (For example, it's silly to trade your best 2B for another guy's best 3B when you have no other good options at 2B and a nearly-as-good 3B was already sitting on the waiver wire.)

Over the years, I've tried to add another wrinkle to my thinking when it comes to roster moves. I'm not sure if it's revolutionary, unconventional, or just plain reckless, but some seasons it seems to work okay. I call it the "champioinship pieces" philosophy.

Championship pieces

Back in part two, I explained the framework in which I try to accumulate points. Here's an excerpt from that previous post to give you a window into my thinking:

Every player on my team needs to have a clear purpose for being there. Even players on the bench. Players who start for my team are expected to produce now. Players on my bench are expected to produce when a starter can't go. Period.

Every manager wants his starters to produce now. That's nothing new. But I tend to put more emphasis on balance, and this includes having the strongest bench that I possibly can. Aside from the fact that it can lessen the damage done by injuries, a strong bench also gives me more opportunities to play platoons. 

In the excerpt above I also mention that "every player on my team needs to have a clear purpose for being there." When things are going very well, most players on my team are contributing in a big way, and the rest are at least contributing in a small way. It's rare to have this happen, but when it does, that's when my roster is completely filled with championship pieces.

What exactly is a championship piece? Well, it's hard to explain. I'm reminded of Justice Potter Stewart's famous quote from a 1964 Supreme Court ruling, "I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description ["hard-core pornography"]; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it."

But unlike Justice Stewart, I will try to further define championship pieces. Here goes:

1. I want my team to put up great numbers
2. I want my team to be balanced
3. Any player proving to be a key contributor to either (1) or (2) is, in my mind, a championshp piece

Another important thing to keep in mind regarding the championship pieces philosophy is that it gains steam as the season unfolds. After all, early on it's anyone's guess as to how players and teams will perform. And if June 1 rolls around with my team mired in 9th place, I'm not exactly going to be viewing my players as championship pieces. However, if June 1 rolls around and my team is in the top 3 battling for a title, then I'm definitely viewing each player with one question in mind: Is he a championship piece or not?

If my team is going well in May, let's say in 1st or 2nd place, I might look at my roster and identify 16 or 17 guys as championship pieces. My goal is then to see if I can get up to 18, then 19 and so on. The main idea here is to not go backward. If someone offers to trade me a perceived championship piece, but I would have to give up a championship piece in return, then what has my team gained?

Let's take last season for example. If I had had the first pick of the 2009 UPL Baseball Draft, I would have taken Albert Pujols. (I ended up with the 8th pick and took Ryan Howard.) However, after my team bubbled to the top of the standings and my 17th-round pick Pablo Sandoval showed signs of becoming a good MLB hitter, an interesting development occured. If I had been offered Pujols for Sandoval, I likely wouldn't have done the deal. Why? Two reasons. 1) Sandoval added tremendous balance to my team with position eligibility at C, 1B, and 3B. 2) Pujols would have been a bit redundant, since I already had Howard. So yes, Pujols would have increased my team's talent level, but he wouldn't have improved its balance.

My modus operandi

In the Urbana Premier League (UPL) where I play fantasy baseball, I make relatively few trades with other managers. Here's why:

1. Greater margins to improve my team exist on the waiver wire (I can more easily "rip off" the waiver wire than another manager)
2. I want to be careful that any trade I make will fit into my team's overall system
3. In general, I don't want to directly participate in making my opponents' teams better

Let me elaborate on that last point with an analogy. If you're on fire in the UPL, and I have a glass of water, and you're looking at me for help, then I'm probably just going to drink that glass of water.

Oh, I'm sorry, is that your house on fire? Welcome to the UPL, my friend.

Back in part four I opined that saves are a more reliable bet than win-loss ratio. As such, this can explain why I tend to favor trading starters for closers. It also explains why last season I cheered when the Thugs traded away Brian Fuentes for Clayton Kershaw--and then I cursed when he traded Tommy Hunter and Phil Hughes for Andrew Bailey. (Side note: My feeling is that the Bailey deal helped the Thugs' point total in 2009, but the Kershaw deal not so much. From a keeper standpoint, it will be interesting to see how this pair of trades looks in 2010 and the years ahead.)

Here's another example. In 2007, I had a healthy Brandon Webb pitching at a high level. However, I had a full staff of quality SPs, and as such, I started to question whether Brandon Webb was a championship piece or a redundant part with excellent trade value to help me land a real championship piece. After doing my homework on Jonathan Papelbon (including his full injury history, how he was managing his health, and watching interviews of him in the media), the Jabrones and I agreed to a deal: Webb for Papelbon. The Jabrones got what they wanted: One of the best starting pitchers in baseball. But in my estimation, Papelbon with his saves and rate stats would balance out my team better and I could win a championship without Webb. Fortunately, that year I tied for first, and yes, Papelbon's saves were critical.

What I Reallly Thought About Joe Saunders

Earlier I alluded to my Joe Saunders dilemma. He was 5-1 with a 2.66 ERA on May 10, 2009, but I wanted him off my team--even if it meant dropping him. So how did I reach this point? Easy. Saunders has a paltry K/9 rate, and it's hard to compete in that category with him on your team. Plus his only redeeming quality is his W-L ratio, which I've already stated isn't a very reliable stat. And finally, once I had determined he was no longer a championship piece, I started looking for championship pieces elsewhere. Time was of the essence, and I didn't want to waste it with Saunders being a drag on my roster.

And there was something else at play here. In the days leading up to May 10, my OF Manny Ramirez was suspended 50 games, and my 3B Aramis Ramirez landed on the 60-day DL. I needed to add a bat to my lineup. So I worked out a deal for Mike Cameron, who at the time had put up better numbers than Manny Ramirez over the first 5 weeks of the season. Granted, I didn't expect Cameron to keep it up, but I did hope he would be good enough to be my 4th OF and work him into my lineup a few times a week. In that regard, I did hope he would become a championship piece, and I did believe he was better than anyone on the waiver wire. (Those of you with good memories will recall that shortly after this deal was made during the week of May 10, both Saunders and Cameron went into a tailspin, so nobody "won" this trade. Although, it did win an unofficial UPL award for "most meaningless trade.")

Okay, now we're getting down to the end of this series. Next time in part seven we'll talk about the end game, where sometimes you need to chuck everything you know and just do whatever it takes to win.

Cold winter, hot stove

It's been a long, cold winter with no end in sight. So let's fire up the hot stove and see what we've got cooking this baseball offseason.

For the Cubs, I'm still scratching my head over the Marlon Byrd acquisition. I suppose he'd make a good fourth outfielder. But from what I can tell the Cubs are bringing him in to bat fifth. Last I checked, Byrd has played 8 seasons in the bigs, only one of which where he started 140+ games, and his career OBP/SLG is .340/.422 (mediocre). My thought here is that you bring in Byrd to bat fifth if you're trying to be the Texas Rangers. However, if you're trying to win the World Series, you figure out a different strategy.

The Tigers trading away Curtis Granderson and Edwin Jackson was a big deal. Much of the media talked about how great it was for the Yanks to pick up Granderson. But don't underestimate the D-Backs' acquisition of Jackson.

Even without the Tigers firesale, I liked the White Sox's chances in the division this year. With John Danks, Jake Peavy, Mark Buehrle, and Gavin Floyd at the top of the rotation, the Sox should be decent in starting pitching. With J.J. Putz now in the mix, their bullpen might be good too. Plus adding Juan Pierre in the leadoff spot is promising. If the Sox can stay healthy, they can compete with the Twins again.

The Cards signed Matt Holliday to a big fat contract. I don't know. It seems to me that $120 million is a little much for a guy who can't catch the ball under pressure. (Okay, I'm kidding. Or am I? Let's talk again next October.)

Cincy made a splash in the media by signing Cuban pitcher Aroldis Chapman. However, if Chapman were so good, why didn't the Yanks, Red Sox, or Mets sign him? Answer: He's not that good, and the Reds probably just wasted $30 million.

The young Marlins will be a team to watch this year. It looks like their biggest offseason move was to keep Josh Johnson, and there's nothing wrong with that. (Jayson Stark has an interesting take on Johnson's signing as it might relate to labor rules down the road. Okay, actually it was kind of a boring article, but I thought some parts were interesting.)

I was at first surprised by the Phils trade for the Jays' Roy Halladay. Although, after looking at the money and how Cliff Lee's contract is up at season's end, it did make business sense.

The Mariners were also part of that blockbuster Halladay deal, picking up Cliff Lee along the way. In fact, back in December I started to notice that the Mariners were part of several trades. Furthermore, for the most part I agreed with the Mariners' moves, including the Felix Hernandez extension, Chone Figgins signing, taking a flyer on Milton Bradley (who has .400/.500 potential) and dumping Adrian Beltre, to name but a few.

So who is the Mariners GM? His name is Jack Zduriencik (pronounced "zur-EN-sik"), and he has righted the Mariner ship since taking over in October 2008. He also was the first non-GM to win MLB Executive of the Year back in 2007. His excellent scouting was crucial to building the Milwaukee Brewers into a competitive club.

I'll keep a close eye on Zduriencik's future moves with the Mariners. If they're anything like his previous moves, it should be fun to watch.

Kenny's Pet Peavy

Wow. I didn't see this one coming.

The talk of Chicago the past 36 hours has been the White Sox's trade for Jake Peavy. And really, it's an interesting story on multiple levels. For starters, the Sox have apparently landed a top talent who could help them compete for the World Series this year. Another intriguing aspect is that Peavy rejected a deal to Chicago earlier this year. And, oh by the way, he's injured and can't pitch right now.

My initial reaction to the deal was actually a negative one. Clayton Richard (who was one of four players the Sox traded away in the deal) has actually pitched very well recently. About a week ago I heard Sox pitching coach Don Cooper say that the Sox as an organization would "fail" if it couldn't turn Richard into a "front-of-the-line rotation" pitcher. So at the very least I was thinking that Richard could be a solid #4 or #5 starter for the remainder of this season--and maybe help the Sox make the playoffs.

So admittedly, I didn't like the idea of trading away a potentially solid starter in Richard (plus three minor leaguers) for an injured NL pitcher who played half his games in a pitcher-friendly park. I also didn't like the idea that Peavy had turned down the Sox in May. I figured if he wasn't 100% on board, then why pick him up?

But then I remembered something very important: Kenny Williams made this trade. And Kenny Williams has proven time and time again to be the best GM in Chicago since Jerry Krause.

In analyzing this current Peavy trade, I actually go back to the year the White Sox won it all--2005. Back then, the crown jewel of the White Sox's farm system was a starting pitcher named Brandon McCarthy. And boy, did we keep hearing about how great he was and how highly Sox management thought of this kid. In fact, if he had been in any other organization, he probably would have been starting in the bigs in 2005. But the Sox were so good that year, McCarthy spent much of his time in Triple-A. I remember actually feeling kinda sorry for the guy. But I knew his time would come.

When 2006 came, the Sox did ship out Jon Garland, but they ended up bringing in Javier Vazquez. So really, there wasn't an automatic opening in the rotation and McCarthy went to the Sox bullpen. He was pretty average that year, but he was still really young. And I knew, along with all Sox fans, that his time would come.

At the end of 2006, the news came that the Sox were trading away Freddy Garcia; and so there it was--in 2007 Brandon McCarthy's time would come.

Except for the fact that before 2007 even arrived, the Sox shipped out McCarthy as well. And I, along with all Sox fans, was stunned.

Shortly after the McCarthy trade I heard Kenny Williams being interviewed on the radio by Mike North (who is also a Sox fan). North was questioning the trade and basically getting at the same point most other Sox fans wanted to know: How could you trade away Brandon McCarthy, a guy we've been hearing about for years, for two minor leaguers?

In the course of Williams' answer, he of course mentioned how high he was on the prospects the Sox were getting; and in reference to McCarthy's future, he thought he'd go to the Texas Rangers and be "serviceable."

As soon as the word "serviceable" came from Williams' lips, my ears perked up and North immediately interrupted his answer, saying (and I paraphrase): "Wait, wait, wait... We've been hearing from you for years that McCarthy would be a future ace and now you're saying that he'll be serviceabe?!? Serviceable?"

At this point I'm laughing my butt off, mainly because I thought it was hilarious the way Mike North was saying "serviceable." But given a mulligan on the question, I figured Williams would recalibrate his word choice and sing higher praise for the departing Brandon McCarthy--after all, why not?

But no, he repeated himself, responding in his usual calm way: "Yes, I think he'll be a serviceable pitcher for them."

If I recall, North kept repeating the word "serviceable," and I kept laughing. But on a serious note, in a matter of a few seconds I went from believing that McCarthy had a legit shot at becoming a #1 or #2 starter within the next 3 years to thinking that he might be doomed to a career ERA above 4.00. In a matter of moments, I had gone from thinking "These prospects we traded for better be good" to thinking "It might not even matter if these prospects are good."

Nearly three MLB seasons later, McCarthy has been plagued by injuries (currently sitting on the DL) and his ERA has consistently been above 4.00. And as for the Sox? Well, they got John Danks back in that deal--and he's well on his way to becoming one of the better pitchers in the AL.

So as I look at this Peavy/Richard deal, my guess is that Kenny Williams doesn't agree with Cooper's assessment last month that the Sox will "fail" if they don't turn Richard into a #1 or #2 pitcher. I think if Williams saw that type of potential in Richard, he doesn't do the deal. My hunch is that he's seen too much inconsistency for too long in Richard. (Paul DePodesta, of Moneyball fame and who works in the other front office involved in the Peavy trade, has posted his take on the trade here.)

So what about Peavy? How will he do for the Sox? Well, we keep hearing how he was the 2007 NL Cy Young Award Winner, but I think that type of talk is setting the bar a little too high. While Peavy has pitched well on the road some seasons (including his Cy Young year), over his career his road stats away from PETCO are a 3.84 ERA with a 1.30 WHIP. Those numbers are actually pretty close to what John Danks has done this season (4.00 ERA and 1.31 WHIP).

It's hard to predict exactly when Peavy will return to the mound--and it's especially hard to predict how he'll do the final few weeks of a season while adjusting to a new environment. But if I were to guess how Peavy will do over the next three seasons, I'd say that he would be about as good as John Danks. In fact, my prediction is that Danks will actually be better than Peavy in terms of ERA, WHIP, and games won from 2010 to 2012. (Side note: Sometimes it's fun to go back and look at how such projections start to play out. For instance, I just took a trip down memory lane over at the UPL Blog where we discussed Braun, Bruce, Votto, and the Upton brothers in May 2008.)

Up top I mentioned that I didn't like it that Peavy had rejected a deal to Chicago earlier in the season. Well, I've since learned some more info about that. First off, Peavy didn't say "no," he said "not yet." I can appreciate the fact that he liked living in San Diego and didn't want to give up on his team so early in the season. Second, I give kudos to Kenny Williams for being patient with Peavy, and for making it very clear to him that he was very much wanted in Chicago. Furthermore, there are some rumors now that Williams tried to deal for Peavy last July. So in the end, it seems that Williams finally got his guy.

I doth protest?

It's been a long time since I've played Monopoly, but I do enjoy that game. When I played it as a kid, I liked the different playing pieces (the top hat was my favorite), the various cards, and of course the colorful money. Once the game finally started, you could get down to the business of trying to totally dominate your opponents and ultimately monopolize the board.

And what would a game of Monopoly be without the haggling and dealmaking? I think some of my fondest memories of Monopoly are the different trades I made, tried to make, or observed other people make. And naturally, there would be arguments. Perhaps you would try in vain to get someone to accept your offer--or worse, you'd try to talk someone else out of making a deal that you thought would put another player "over the top."

But in Monopoly, at the end of the day each player is the master of his or her own domain. You might be mad that a certain deal is going through, but you can't stop it. (At least those were the house rules I always used.)

Fantasy baseball, on the other hand, is quite different when it comes to trades. Two adults can consent to a deal they both find amiable, but then the rest of the league can submit their protests and vote it down. Apparently, people think this is a good check to have in case two players try to collude or if one player ain't too smart and might ruin the fun for everyone else.

The "Monopoly way" of doing trades always made more sense to me. I mean, yeah, the point is to try and rip off the other guy in Monopoly--or at the very least improve your standing relative to the other players better than the other guy. The only exception to this that I could see (aside from collusion) would be if you cut a deal just to stay alive in the game. But even in that scenario, you're giving yourself an infinitely better chance of winning. (The difference between certain defeat or living to play another turn.)

What I find weird about the "fantasy baseball way" of doing trades is that the system is a tug of war between common-sense competitiveness and an unwritten code of conduct. And really, the unwritten code of conduct seems to always win out.

For example, the perennial UPL powerhouse O.N. Thugs recently saw their 2B go down with an injury. So he scrambled to make a deal for a 2B (trading away James Loney for Orlando Hudson). Strictly from a competitive standpoint, I see a move that my opponent wants to make, and I have it within my means to try and block it. Shouldn't I attempt to do so? If so, then it makes sense for me to cast my vote against the trade--and work to convince other owners to do the same until we kill the deal.

But I probably won't bother to try.

Why? I'm not really sure. My best guess is that it's the unwritten code.

Let's go back to Monopoly. Imagine a 5-player game, and it's fairly early on. Only two of the five players have monopolies, so they're considered the leaders. These two leaders then enter into a deal that will leave both of them with two monopolies (double what they had before). If, hypothetically speaking, the other three players have the option of voting against the deal, shouldn't they vote it down? I would say so. Yet in fantasy baseball, trades that help a strong team are allowed through all the time.

Now, don't get me wrong. I'm not saying all trades should be blocked or that anytime a good team tries to make a trade it should be blocked. What I'm saying is that it's weird how the checks and balances of a fantasy baseball trade only go one way. In theory, once two players make a trade, the rest of the league takes a look at it and each owner decides for himself whether the trade is "fair." If it's deemed fair, the trade goes through. If not, it gets nixed. But technically, even if an owner thinks a trade is reasonable, he could protest it for purely strategic reasons. (Yet this almost never happens.)

As for me, early in my first year of fantasy baseball I decided I'd try to stay out of the protest business. I wouldn't mess with anyone else's trades as long as they didn't mess with mine. I think part of my calculus here is that it's fun to make trades, so I didn't want to risk starting a trade-blockade war. But I'm not sure the idea of letting any "reasonable" trade go through helps me from a competitive standpoint. In fact, there are certain players in the league who I should probably protest any trade they make (unless of course I secretly think the trade will hurt their team).

And what makes for a "reasonable" or "fair" trade anyway? I suppose in a non-keeper league certain things can be measured, such as how a player had done in the past and, if relevant, how that player has done so far that year. So in that case, you're trying to estimate how the players involved in the trade will do over the next 2 to 6 months.

But what about a keeper league? Doesn't the fact that you can keep players for the next year (and possibly for 5, 10, or 15 years) drastically change the equation? Isn't it possible you could propose a trade that the majority of owners will see as "obviously unfair to you," only to discover 5 years later that it was unfair to the other guy? (Except for the fact the trade was voted down and never happened. Lucky for the other guy...)

Back when a keeper league was first proposed in the UPL, I made a few comments about how the nature of trades might change. (During that discussion, one thing I neglected to explicitly say was that the restriction on the number of players traded in a season would replace the current system of letting owners or the commish vote on whether or not a trade was "fair." Also, I'm not necessarily advocating a change to that system. I only bring it up for discussion purposes.)

This season we've already had one interesting case where a trade was autovetoed. Back on April 14, Westy's Sluggers wanted to trade way:
Lance Berkman
Matt Holliday

to Phatsnapper for:
Joe Mauer
Elijah Dukes
Jon Lester

A lot of people didn't like the trade, and ultimately the commish vetoed it. (Phatsnapper went into a rage on message board when the deal was autovetoed. But in fairness, Westy's Sluggers didn't seem to mind that the trade was nixed.)

What's interesting is that at the time of the trade, Joe Mauer was on the DL, but he's since come off the DL and gone on the hottest hitting tear of his career. Granted, we all know that Mauer will cool off, but it is possible that this spike in power won't taper off completely. For the next few years, he might hit more homers than he has in the past. He's only 26, and it's possible that he'll continue to develop as a hitter. (And who knows, maybe he is fed up with hearing everyone say that Matt Wieters is "Joe Mauer with Power.") My main point here is that I never would have guessed Mauer would come off the DL and hit like this right away. In that regard, my original assessment of this trade has been proven wrong.

But then again, I wouldn't be surprised if next week Mauer draws another "Go straight to the DL" card. In the meantime, I've got to figure out if it's worth trying to block this Orlando Hudson deal...

Hit parade...

Big Z in big trouble: Last Saturday the Cards weren't kind to the Cubs' ace. 10 hits. 9 earned runs. 4 homers. One of Carlos Zambrano's worst starts ever. Ouch.

Red storm rising: No, not Russia or China. The '90 Reds. A few weeks ago I was 40 points out in the UPL. Now I'm just 20 points out.

The Tortoise and the Haren? During the All-Star break the O.N. Thugs offered me Carlos Quentin for Dan Haren. I gladly obliged, and here are their numbers since: Quentin: .417/.745 with 11 homers, 23 runs, 24 RBI. Haren: 4-1, 35 K in 33.1 IP, 4.05 ERA, 1.29 WHIP. Both have done well, but the important thing is that I'm closing like Jason Lezak on the Thugs...

Snakes on a plan: I really like the D-Backs' trade for Adam Dunn. That, combined with their earlier trade for Jon Rauch, makes them all the more dangerous if they make it to October.

Trivia: If Ryan Braun manages to hit 12 more homers this season, he will hold the record for most homers in the first two seasons of an MLB career. Who currently holds that record with 75?

A storm is brewin'

So here in the midwest, the past few days major trades have been all the rage. Essentially, the top two teams in the NL Central both bolstered their starting rotations. First, the Brewers traded for CC Sabathia. Then the Cubs traded for Rich Harden.

Before this Harden deal, when I looked at the Cubs as a team, the biggest weakness I saw (aside from the Billy Goat Curse and the Bartman Ghost) was the top of their starting rotation. Now, I'm not knocking Carlos Zambrano/Ted Lilly/Ryan Dempster. Those guys are nice starters for the regular season. But I'm talking about the playoffs. Last year in the playoffs both Zambrano and Lilly got outpitched by their Arizona counterparts, and that was that. Season over.

In the offseason Arizona added another ace in Dan Haren, so you have to figure if they make the playoffs again they'll be even tougher. As such, it's been hard for me to look at Zambrano/Lilly/Dempster and feel as though the Cubs were somehow a heavy favorite to make the World Series.

Granted, now that the Cubs have dealt for Harden, this changes things. Provided that they can stay healthy, the Cubs should have four quality starters for the playoffs. Furthermore, if Zambrano were to go down with an injury, I think the Cubs still have a shot at the championship if Harden/Lilly/Dempster can pitch well in October.

But where things really get interesting is with Milwaukee. A small market team, the deal they've made for Sabathia is essentially a "now or never" move. If I'm not mistaken, Prince Fielder, Sabathia, and Ben Sheets are all free agents at season's end--and Milwaukee would likely lose at least two of them.

The Brewers have an explosive offense, but a suspect bullpen. Regarding their starting rotation, with a healthy Ben Sheets and CC Sabathia leading the way, their 1-2 punch is as good as any in the majors. The unfortunate thing for the Brewers is that Yovani Gallardo is hurt. He might be back in September, but it's hard to say how he'll perform. If the Brewers have Sheets, Sabathia, and Gallardo going strong in October, they'll be tough to beat.

The way I see it, the Cubs are the deepest, most talented team in the majors. Their batting lineup top to bottom, starting rotation top to bottom, and bullpen top to bottom match up very well with anyone else out there. However, while that's all nice for a 162-game regular season, it's not really what carries the day in a Best-of-7 (or Best-of-5) playoff series. In the playoffs, the biggest factor is starting pitching. If you can send a guy to the mound who's going to throw 9 shutout innings, then you've got a great shot at winning.

Look at what Josh Beckett did for Boston last year (or for Florida in 2003). Another great example is what Randy Johnson and Curt Schilling did for Arizona in 2001. Or how about Mark Buehrle, Jon Garland, Jose Contreras, and Freddy Garcia for the White Sox in 2005?

On paper, both the Brewers and Cubs have enough starting pitching to win the World Series. Now it's all about going out and proving it.

Hangin' tough

Do you remember that New Kids on the Block song, Hangin' Tough? It's the one that had the chorus that went something like this:

Ohh ohh ohhh ohhhhhh oh oh... Hangin' tough!

Well, my fantasy team is hangin' tough in a New Kids on the Block sort of way. That is to say that even though we suck, with the noise we're makin' we could still defy all logic and shoot to number one.

Here's my current roster:

C - Dioner Navarro
1B - Prince Fielder
2B - B.J. Upton
SS - Stephen Drew
3B - Chipper Jones
OF - Hideki Matsui
OF - Hunter Pence
OF - Ryan Ludwick
Util - Fred Lewis
Util - Randy Winn
Bench - Mark DeRosa
Bench - Carlos Pena (hurt)

SP - Dan Haren
SP - James Shields
SP - Ted Lilly
SP - John Maine
SP - Wandy Rodriguez
RP - Joakim Soria
RP - Jon Rauch
RP - Matt Capps
RP - Todd Jones
RP - Dan Wheeler
DL - Chris Young
DL - Chad Cordero

Note: I traded away Edwin Encarnacion for Stephen Drew, which so far has been a blah trade. I need Drew to get back to his .350/.500 ways.

Here's how my team is doing in each category through Saturday, June 7:

Runs -317 (T-9th, 47 off category leader)
HR -83 (6th, 12 off)
RBI -313 (T-7th, 37 off)
SB -43 (8th, 34 off)
OBP - .362 (2nd, .034 off)
SLG - .456 (3rd, .041 off)

W - 33 (T-3rd, 5 off)
L - 28 (T-5th, 9 off)
SV - 48 (5th, 9 off)
K - 442 (4th, 24 off)
ERA - 3.72 (4th, 0.72 off)
WHIP - 1.25 (2nd, 0.15 off)

Here's a snapshot of the UPL's overall standings through Saturday, June 7:


Some things have changed quite a bit from my previous UPL standings update. First off, you'll note that Westy's Slugs have sunk like a rock (about one month ahead of schedule). Also, you'll see that UPL rookie Black Sox has surged 33.5 points to put himself back in contention.

But other things haven't changed, such as the fact that six weeks later I'm still sitting on 94.5 points. The good news is that my team isn't completely inept at runs and steals anymore. Although, in all honesty, this is mainly due to the fact that some of my original guys have finally started hitting and stealing (B.J. Upton to name one).

About a week ago Westy's Slugs offered me Josh Hamilton for Prince Fielder straight up. I actually liked the offer, but I couldn't quite pull the trigger because I felt Fielder was starting to come around and Hamilton has yet to put an entire season together. In the end, Westy managed to move Hamilton to the Jabrones for Manny Ramirez. We'll see how that goes.

I'm glad that I took this time to go through my league's stats. It's already given me some ideas going forward. My next league update will be during the All-Star break. We'll see if the '90 Reds at that point are still hangin' tough.

How's that trade working out for Detroit?

Last December the sports world went abuzz when Detroit traded away their top prospects to Florida for Miguel Cabrera and Dontrelle Willis. The conventional wisdom at the time, as I remember it, was that this trade was exactly what Detroit needed to return to the World Series. And as for the Marlins? Well, many experts seemingly couldn't help but feel sorry for that small market team's fans.

My first reaction to the deal was one of surprise. Yes, it was an aggressive move by the Tigers, but the more I looked at it, the less I liked it. Adding Miguel Cabrera seemed fine to me, but adding Dontrelle Willis didn't. Then when I began to consider what the Tigers would have to pay Cabrera as well as the number of quality prospects they gave up, the trade started looking more and more desperate. Whereas on Florida's side, I felt they had done well to ship out Willis's and Cabrera's contracts while at the same time getting some top prospects in return; they had "diversified their funds" so to speak, and that made sense to me.

What I didn't expect was for Detroit to start out this season with the worst record in the AL through May 18. Nor did I expect the Marlins to be leading the NL East (many picked the Mets, Phillies, or Braves). These teams have both been surprises this year, although I think Detroit's troubles are mainly found in a non-existent bullpen (injuries) along with mediocre starting pitching. With regard to the Marlins, well, their young talent is finally taking it to the next level which is always among hardest things to predict in baseball.

I still believe one should usually wait at least three years before really judging a baseball trade, and this one is no different. However, that won't stop me from speculating; and as far as I'm concerned, the Marlins got the better end of the deal. Not only is their team playing better than the Tigers this season, their talent is younger and they have a better farm system going.

Although, while it's surprising to see the Marlins atop the NL East, what's more shocking is that they might not even be the best team in the Sunshine State...

Pushing the panic button

The panic trade.

We've all seen it. An All-Star caliber player has an atrocious first two weeks of the season so his fantasy team's owner panics and trades him away for some chump whose currently playing out of his mind but will likely cool off so much that he finishes the season on the waiver wire while the traded-away guy comes around and has yet another All-Star season. It sounds crazy, but we see it time and time again.

Today at work Paul (who taught me everything I know about baseball gambling when we were in Vegas earlier this month) was telling me that he had taken advantage of somebody else's baseball panic. He's in a 14-team head-to-head league, and here's the deal he made:

Paul traded away Randy Johnson and Carlos Delgado. In return, he got Roy Oswalt and Edwin Encarnacion.

Honestly, my first thought was: "Dang, I wouldn't want any of those guys on my team." However, with a 14-team league I guess you have to dig deep.

So what are your thoughts? Who got the better end of this deal? Did the owner of Oswalt panic too early?