Top Stories Dallas

Archive for the ‘Free agents’ Category

John Lackey might have pitched last game in an Angels uniform. With Los Angeles’ once-potent lineup plating just four runs in 22 innings against the Yankees, the Angels find themselves down two games to none in the ALCS and in need of a major turnaround to keep their World Series hopes alive. Lackey is scheduled to start game five, if the Angels can make it until then.

But no matter how long Los Angeles lasts, Lackey’s career in L.A. seems to be dwindling down to its final weeks. His contract expires at season’s end, and with the Angels facing the impending free agency of Chone Figgins, Bobby Abreu, and Vlad Guerrero as well, there may not be room to bring back the former 19-game winner.

According to SI’s Jon Heyman, Lackey rejected the Angels’ offer of 3 years and roughly $40 million prior to the start of the season, and when Lackey started having elbow problems, talks broke off entirely. L.A. then acquired lefty Scott Kazmir after the trade deadline, a move that not only seems to soften the blow of losing Lackey, but also provides another multi-million dollar hit to the payroll that further handcuffs the team financially. Supposedly, Lackey wants “A.J. Burnett money,” referring to the 5 year, $82.5 million deal that Burnett got from the Yankees last winter. And when you consider that Lackey’s number compare favorably almost across the board to Burnett’s, he can probably get it.

Enter the Texas Rangers.

Lackey, who was born and raised in Abilene, is a proud Texan and the closest thing to an ace that will hit the free agent market this offseason. The Rangers play in Texas and are in desperate need of said ace. So what’s not to like? Well, the price tag, for one. And there’s the question of whether Lackey’s a bona fide ace, or just a top-of-the-rotation kind of pitcher. And then there’s his age. And his health. And whether or not he’d wither in the Texas heat like so many before him.

The Rangers would be remiss if they didn’t at least explore all avenues in regards to Lackey. But even if the Rangers can afford to pay him the $16.5 million-per-year he’s hoping to emulate from Burnett, and even if they’re willing to commit their entire offseason to one player, one big question still looms.

Should they?

Lackey holds a relative similarity to one player already in a Rangers uniform — Kevin Millwood — who was the last pitcher the Rangers shelled out big money for and was the ace of the Texas rotation in 2009. Though, statistically, there are other pitchers around the league who bear a closer resemblance to Lackey, there isn’t one that Ranger fans know better nor one that serves as a better benchmark in seeing just how much Lackey could improve the team. And the pair are alike right down to their five-pitch repertoires: fastball, cutter, curveball, slider, and changeup.

But it’s not as black and white as it looks. Thanks to the technology of pitch f/x, we can break down the differences between Lackey’s stuff and Millwood’s stuff. And though FanGraph’s data only goes back to 2007 — and the ‘07 data is incomplete at that — it still provides plenty of information.

Lackey’s fastball has a bit more zip than Millwood’s, averaging 1.3 mph faster in 2009. Both pitches have nearly identical tailing action, but Lackey consistently gets more sink on his fastball, which can lead to more ground balls.

There’s also a noticeable discrepancy in the breaking stuff, where Millwood throws the more traditional hard slider and slow curveball. In ‘09, Millwood’s slider averaged 84.9 mph, while his curve dialed down to 73.6 mph. Lackey, on the other hand, essentially throws two different curveballs. He has a hard, tight curve that sits in the upper-70s — 79.3 mph in 2009 — and a slightly faster pitch that pitch f/x classifies as a slider, though it’d probably be more accurate to call it a slurve. Lackey’s slurve averaged 81.7 mph in 2009, only 2.4 mph faster than his curve which is, obviously, much closer than the 11.3 mph gap between Millwood’s slider and curve. Lackey’s slurve doesn’t drop as much as his curve, but drops much more than Millwood’s hard slider, making it kind of a tweener pitch that can be tough to classify. Comparatively, Lackey’s curveball gets a touch more horizontal movement than Millwood’s even though it comes in so much faster, and Lackey’s slurve breaks significantly more both vertically and horizonally than Millwood’s slider.

The biggest difference, however, is in how they use their pitches. Millwood throws a lot of fastballs and relies fairly evenly on the remainder of his repertoire the rest of the way. In 2009, Millwood threw his 4-seamer and 2-seamer 57.0 percent of the time and, including the cutter, threw a total of 64.9 percent fastballs. The remainder of his pitches were 16.9 percent sliders, 9.6 percent curveballs, and 8.7 percent changeups. In 2008, one of the worst seasons in his career, Millwood threw 75.3 percent fastballs.

Lackey, on the other hand, relies heavily on a three-pitch mix. He fired off 55.8 percent 4-seamers and 2-seamers in 2009, and sparse use of his cutter raised his total fastball percentage to 58.5 percent. His out pitch is the curveball, which he threw 26.1 percent of the time last year, and the slurve composed 11.7 percent of his selection. Unlike Millwood, Lackey rarely uses his cutter or change.

Since Millwood became a Ranger in 2006, Lackey has consistently posted better ERAs, seemingly the direct result of allowing fewer hits and walks and getting more strikeouts. So how do we explain the difference in the pair’s production? It goes back to the stuff.

While both Lackey and Millwood have thrown essentially the same percentage of strikes over the last three years, Lackey makes his count. Of his strikes, Lackey has averaged about 30 percent looking, 14 percent swinging, and 25 percent on foul balls — the remaining 31 percent were balls in play — while opposing hitters have only made contact on 80 percent of their swings. Millwood, on the other hand, gets only 27 percent looking and 12 percent swinging, and his 30 percent foul ball rate helped lead to a contact percentage of 85. In other words, Lackey has a much easier time missing bats with his sinking fastball, tight curve, and swooping slurve, which makes him less susceptible to long, draining at-bats and cheap base hits. He also helps himself by throwing first-pitch strikes at a clip of 65 percent and maintaining a very low walk rate.

So, now that we’ve determined what should have already been obvious — that John Lackey would be the best pitcher on the team should the Rangers sign him — now comes the tricky part. Even if the Rangers could find a way to round up enough cash to woo Lackey to Arlington, could they possibly justify it? In truth, saying Lackey would be the best pitcher on the roster wouldn’t necessarily qualify him as an “ace,” and though he had a great run from 2005 to 2007, his numbers aren’t quite up to par with names like Halladay, Santana, or Lincecum. Lackey’s last two seasons in particular are concerning, as he’s missed 15 starts with injuries and posted a cumulative 3.79 ERA. His strikeout ratio has also dropped in each of the last four seasons, going from 8.57 K/9 in 2005 to 7.10 in 2009.

Then there’s the question of whether or not he could pitch in Arlington. It’s no secret that, for his career, Lackey’s struggled in Texas, and the fact that he’s posted a 6.11 ERA and 1.64 WHIP in 84 innings at Rangers Ballpark in Arlington might make some queasy about the idea of committing major money to him. But Texas beat him up in L.A. as well, with Lackey owning a 5.64 ERA and 1.50 WHIP in 89.1 career innings when facing the Rangers at Angels Stadium. For whatever reason, the Rangers presented a matchup problem for Lackey, regardless of where he pitched. So, while there could be an expected jump in Lackey’s ERA should he end up making half his starts in Rangers Ballpark next year, it shouldn’t be as scary as his numbers here would indicate.

Still, it all comes down to the money. Signing Lackey would almost certainly mean no Marlon Byrd, no Ben Sheets, and probably a few more no’s down the road. Lackey’s touted as a big game pitcher with plenty of experience in October, but if the Rangers don’t make the playoffs it won’t do them much good, and Lackey alone wouldn’t guarantee a postseason berth. Yet with Kevin Millwood’s contract expiring after the 2010 season and Arlington’s reputation as a hitter’s haven, it’ll be awfully tough to find a better match any time soon.

John Lackey is exactly the type hard-nosed, tough-minded pitcher Texas seems to be lacking. All the Rangers need is an owner that can make it happen.

It’s only been seven days since the Texas Rangers ended their ‘09 campaign with a loss to King Felix and the Mariners in Seattle. It’ll be another 176 days before they take the field again — not that we’re counting or anything. And though there’s still a month of baseball left for the elite, or perhaps more aptly labeled, well-funded teams, it’s just not quite the same without a hometown team to root for.

So while a long offseason looms for us Dallas die-hards, the question of what key changes will be made to the Rangers roster for 2010 will likely have an answer by January. In truth, Texas doesn’t figure to throw a lot of money around on the  free agent market because, well, Tom Hicks doesn’t have it. It doesn’t help that the Rangers owe Vicente Padilla and Frank Catalanotto a couple million each to buyout their contracts, despite the fact that Cat hasn’t donned a Rangers uni in over a year and Padilla spent his Saturday pitching the Dodgers to their second straight NLCS berth (I slept until two and ate a day-old burrito. To each his own, I guess). But the Rangers supposedly aren’t looking to shed payroll, and if Evan Grant’s math is right, Jon Daniels and company could have at least a little cash to play with over the coming months.

Which brings us to Marlon Byrd.

Byrd started 100 games for the Rangers in center field this season and tallied another 41 starts in the corner outfield positions, providing much needed versatility in an outfield plagued with injuries and inconsistency. He got nearly half of his 547 at bats in prime run-producing positions, rewarding Ron Washinton’s confidence in him by posting a combined slash line of .305/.370/.554 while driving in 55 runs from the three and four spots in the order. By all accounts, he was a tremendous leader and clubhouse presence on a team rife with 20-somethings. He’s said that he wants to remain a Ranger. His teammates have spoken out about how vital his return is, with Michael Young being his most vocal supporter. Even the normally tight-lipped GM Jon Daniels, who prefers to play most things close to the vest, had this to say in a recent chat with Richard Durrett…

As we’ve told Marlon and his agent Sam Levinson, we’d like to have him back. Now it comes down to what fits for us financially, given the makeup of this team, and what he feels he’d accept. We’re not at the point just yet of exchanging specifics #s but we probably will be soon. If he’s not back, we have quality depth in the OF and we’ll also pursue alternatives via trade/FA.

It seems all parties want to get a deal done. So what’s the problem? At 32-years-old, Byrd is running out of time to really cash in on his playing career.  Sure, he’s earned about $5 million in the last two years, which is more than most people see in a lifetime. But that’s a pittance compared to what some of his peers make, and it’s what Alex Rodriguez pulled in for a month’s work this year, not including endorsements. So while Byrd and the Rangers have both said they’d like to reach an agreement, that’s no guarantee. Because talk is cheap, and Marlon Byrd won’t be.

When Byrd arrived in Arlington three years ago, he had just spent the ‘05 and ‘06 seasons struggling for playing time with the Washington Nationals, who, incidentally, finished last in the N.L. East both years. Byrd was 29-years-old, owned a career OPS of .692, and had been designated for assignment by one of the worst teams in baseball. After spending spring training with the Rangers, Byrd was promptly sent to triple-A in favor of guys like Brad Wilkerson and Jerry Hairston, Jr. In other words, his career was hanging by a thread.

But he got his chance in late May of 2007, and played in 109 of the Rangers’ final 116 games while posting career highs in batting average, slugging percentage, and OPS.  Prior to his stint in Texas, Byrd had never hit 10 homers, driven in 50 runs, or cracked an .800 OPS at the Major League level. He’s accomplished all three of those feats in each of his seasons as a Ranger.

So, obviously, Marlon Byrd’s been productive in Texas. He’s a gap hitter with a solid average and 10-20 home run power, putting him in the same category as quite a few well-known major leaguers. Offensively speaking, Byrd’s numbers compare to those of Randy Winn, Jose Guillen, or Alex Rios. Carl Crawford and Shane Victorino, save for the stolen base numbers, also bear a statistical resemblance and, to a lesser extent, so does Raul Ibañez. Though Ibañez’s statistics in the years leading up to his ‘08 free agency were definitely superior to Byrd’s, they’re at least in the same stratosphere, and Ibañez managed to overcome the recession and land a three year, $31 million contract at the age of 36.

Then again, Bobby Abreu only managed a one year deal worth $5 million despite owning six — and now seven — straight seasons with at least 100 RBI, so who knows. But if there’s one common thread between all the aforementioned players, it’s that they make a lot more money than Marlon Byrd did last year. Jose Guillen earned $12 million with the Royals as part of a three year, $36 million contract he signed at 32-years-old, the same age Byrd is now. Carl Crawford brought in $8.2 million, Randy Winn made $9.6 million, and Alex Rios signed a six year, $64 million extension in 2008.

According to FanGraphs, Byrd accounted for 2.4 WAR, or Wins Above Replacement, which ranked him as the 21st best outfielder in the A.L. and put him in the middle of the pack.

At least financially, Byrd’s in good company. But on the down side, he ranked second to last in walk rate and dead last in BB/K ratio among all qualifying A.L. outfielders in 2009. He made some spectacular diving catches on defense, but those may have been covering up for a lack of range brought on by below-average speed in center field. While Byrd’s UZR was 2.1 in left field and 1.6 in right field, it was an ugly -5.3 in center, a number that only figures to get worse with age.

So, if the Rangers plan on bringing Byrd back to roam center field, relieving Josh Hamilton’s weary body and giving Julio Borbon time to learn the position, they might want to think again. While Byrd seems to catch everything he gets to, he might not get to as many as he should, and the notion of sticking him in a corner outfield spot seems to defeat the purpose of bringing him back, especially Hamilton, Borbon, David Murphy, and Nelson Cruz already available there.

All things considered, it’s hard to imagine that Byrd could land an Ibañez-type deal that pays him $10 million annually. More than likely, Byrd will get a three or four year deal that will make him $6-8 million a year. The question is, are the Rangers willing to shell out $21 million for three more years of Marlon? It’s not the type of contract that would handcuff a franchise, and with Kevin Millwood’s salary coming off the books at the end of 2010, the Rangers could conceivably add a few big contracts in the coming years without actually adding payroll in the long-term. But if Tom Hicks’ financial situation means Marlon Byrd is the only big name the Rangers can bring in for the upcoming season, is that really enough?

Byrd figures to qualify as a type-B free agent, meaning if the Rangers offer him arbitration — which they should — and Byrd politely declines it — which he should — then at the very least, Texas would be compensated with a “sandwich pick,” which, unfortunately, isn’t as delicious as it sounds. MLB compensates teams that lose type-A and type-B free agents with an extra pick that falls between the 1st and 2nd rounds of the amateur draft. Recently, the Rangers have used sandwich picks to snag Julio Borbon and former Fresno State ace Tanner Scheppers, who could be at the top of Ranger prospect sheets next year.

So, in reality, there could be some value in losing Byrd. Not only could it free up the cash to make a big splash in a greater area of need, but it would give the Rangers the means to acquire another high-profile prospect. If Hicks decides re-signing Byrd doesn’t mean the Rangers are done for the winter, or Marlon decides he’d be willing to stick around for a one or two year deal, then his return likely won’t even be an issue.

But for all the strides the Rangers made in 2009, they still finished 10 games behind the Angels in the A.L. West and eight games back of the Red Sox in the Wild Card. And while it’s truly impossible to put a value on what a guy like Byrd can bring to a clubhouse, the fact remains that the Rangers have more players that can replace the production of a Marlon Byrd than, say, a Ben Sheets, assuming he’s healthy. All we know is, come April, the Rangers will take the field again, and Marlon Byrd will be ready to show off his fat new contract. They might just have to happen in two different places.