The Rockies should trade Carlos Gonzalez?

33 Comments

That’s the thinking of New York Post columnist Joel Sherman. His belief: the Rockies might be better off having more young parts than having the duo of Troy Tulowitzki and Carlos Gonzalez tied up at $36 million-$40 million from 2015-17.

Personally, I’m not sold.

For one thing, Gonzalez is likely more valuable in Colorado than he would be anywhere else. Look at his home-road splits the last three years:

2010: 1.161 home OPS, .775 road
2011:  .999 home, .757 road
2012:  1.174 home, .847 road

In general, players with significant splits who have left Coors have tended to fare quite a bit better on the road with their new teams. Gonzalez, though, is just so awesome at Coors Field it’d be a shame to take him out of it. Also, his excellent range in left field is more useful there than it would be just about anywhere else (though another team could try putting him back in center).

For the other, $40 million doesn’t seem all that excessive for two players of that quality. And in the meantime, they’ll cost a combined $20.5 million next year and $26.5 million in 2014.

Sherman, of course, puts Gonzalez in play with the Yankees, noting how prospects Manny Banuelos, Gary Sanchez, Eduardo Nunez, Mason Williams and Dante Bichette Jr. could be made available (he even mentions how Bichette’s dad was a Rockies star). And Gonzalez would look nice in pinstripes, just as he would any uniform in the bigs.

The Rockies, though, would need a huge bounty to even consider letting Gonzalez go. It’s doubtful it’s something they’d give serious thought to anyway. If longtime GM Dan O’Dowd ships off Gonzalez now and commits to a full rebuild, there’s a good chance he won’t survive to see the fruits of it two or three years down the line.

Must-Click Link: Where’s Timmy?

Getty Images
2 Comments

Tim Lincecum last pitched last season for the Angels and he did not pitch well. Over the winter and into the spring there were reports that he was working out at a facility somewhere in Arizona with an aim toward trying to latch on to another team. He didn’t. And, given how his velocity and effectiveness had nosedived over the previous few seasons, it was probably unrealistic to think he’d make it back to the bigs.

But now, as Daniel Brown of the Mercury News reports, he seems to simply be gone.

He’s not missing in any legal sense — his friends and family know where he is — but he’s out of the public eye in a way that most players at the end of their careers or the beginning of their retirements usually aren’t. He’s not been hanging around his old club, even though the Giants say they’d love to honor him and give him a job if and when he announces his retirement. He’s not hanging around his high school or college alma maters even though he makes his home in Seattle, where they are. He’s gone from being one of the most identifiable and conspicuous presences in baseball to having disappeared from the public eye.

Brown’s story is an excellent one, touching on Lincecum’s professional rise and professional fall, as well as the personality traits that may suggest why he’s not eager to be making headlines or posing for pictures. A good read.

 

Major League Baseball claims it will “redouble its efforts” on expanded netting

15 Comments

Yesterday, during the Minnesota Twins-New York Yankees game at Yankee Stadium, a young girl was injured after a foul ball flew off the bat of Todd Frazier and into the stands along the third base line where she was sitting. In some parks that ball would be stopped because of netting down the line.

There was no netting that far down the line in Yankee Stadium, because (a) Major League Baseball does not require it; and (b) the Yankees have still not committed to expanding it like other teams have.

A few minutes ago, Commissioner Rob Manfred released a statement about the injury:

I’m not sure how baseball can “redouble” its efforts given that its efforts thus far have been to completely delegate the responsibility of expanded netting to the 30 clubs.

This delegation came in December of 2015 when Major League Baseball released its recommendation — not its mandate — that teams provide expanded netting. Teams were “encouraged” to shield the seats between the near ends of both dugouts (i.e., the ends of the dugouts located closest to home plate) and within 70 feet of home plate with protective netting or other safety materials of the clubs’ choice. At the same time, they launched “fan education” guidelines about where to sit and whether or not they’ll be protected.

While these recommendations were better than nothing, they also seemed far more geared toward diminishing the liability of the league and its clubs than actively protecting fans from screaming projectiles.

The stuff about fan education was obviously a creature of an assumption-of-the-risk calculus. It was, essentially, a disclaimer of the “don’t say we didn’t warn you” variety and, as such, was aimed more at shielding baseball from liability over batted ball or bat-shard injuries than at directly shielding fans from such injuries. Even the netting recommendation could be construed as MLB insulating itself from being joined in a lawsuit at a later date if a club were to get sued over a fan injury. A way of saying “hey, we told the Yankees [or whoever] that they should do more, please don’t sue us too.”

It’s one thing to do all of that and walk away, as the league seemed content to do in 2015. It’s another thing to walk back today, as Manfred is, claiming that the league will “redouble” such transparently ineffective efforts. It’s frankly insulting. Yet this is baseball’s approach to the matter. The league is, for whatever reason, afraid to tell its clubs that it has to do something that is so clearly prudent. It, apparently, is waiting for a someone to be killed by a foul ball before mandating netting rather than meekly suggesting it.

Oh, I’m sorry. Waiting for someone else to be killed. Because it has happened before. Absent prudent protections it will, inevitably, happen again.

While Major League Baseball may have been safe from being held responsible for such things due to its ticket disclaimers and assumption of the risk arguments in the past, it won’t be in the future. One would hope it will not take death or debilitating injury of a fan for the league to accept it.