Baseball Christmas Lists: 3 Teams - 3 Moves

Time for a little baseball talk.

I love the offseason because of all the possibility it brings. Teams that seems irrelevant one year burst on the scene and make big offseason noise. While teams like the Red Sox and White Sox have dominated headlines, here are 3 teams that with a couple of possibly realistic moves could drastically improve their team for the 2017 season:

New York Yankees
The Yanks really did what I wanted them to do most this offseason: which was resign Ardolis Chapman for < $100mm and not blow all their young talent on a trade. I was lukewarm at best on Matt Holliday (although he has potential to be a great pickup, and at one year isn't likely to really be a "bad move"). But now New York can focus on some smaller moves that can put them in a place to contend without being "all in" moves.

1. Sign Brett Anderson. I did think Rich Hill would have been a good move for New York. But I understand not wanting to commit that kind of money to such an aging/injury prone recent phenom. That is why I like them as a place for Brett Anderson. Anderson is still young enough (He'll be 29 on opening day) to maintain his upside. At one point he was a future ace for Oakland, and has at 3 different seasons posted sub-3.00 ERAs, and has a solid career ERA of 3.86 (105 ERA+)and an even better career FIP (3.70). He is just a season removed from a strong season of 180.1 innings of 3.69 baseball. His downsides are he had a horrible year last season in terms of longevity and performance and that is saying much on the longevity side since he is consistently injured. In fact he has only amassed >100IP 3 times in his career. His upside and injury risk make him like a riskier-lesser Rich Hill; not as sexy but also not as expensive. And New York has only 3 players who are really locks for their rotation (Sabathia, Tanaka, and Pineda) who all are no sure thing on the health front, meaning they should take the risk because even if Anderson is likely no good for a full season they could benefit greatly from having him for even half a season. Additionally, while they have some interesting rotation pieces, they could certainly offer him a real chance to start rather than other teams where signing on he would be more of a depth piece. And while other high-risk pitchers may offer more upside (ala Tyson Ross), Anderson will likely cost the team much less to take the risk.

2. Acquire Hernan Perez from MIL for Leonardo Molina OR Donny Sands. The Yankees have a lot of young guys who will be getting extended looks this year and could use some players who offer positional versatility. Perez (26 in March) is just that. This last year for the Brewers he played all IF and OF positions, proving to be a true utility player. And while he hardly is an astute defender at any position, it is that flexibility that will make him valuable to New York who may have to send some guys down to get more cuts in the minors at times. Not only is Perez a cheap, young, controllable guy they can plug in wherever they need him, he also this last year started to show himself to be a solid offensive piece as well. In 123 games for MIL in 2016 he hit 13 homers and stole 34 bases. The main weakness in his game is he doesn't walk much, but he at least hits for solid average (in over 200 games for Milwaukee he hit just over .270). All in all he is a very valuable bench piece to plug in for injuries/off days or for things like late game pinch running. On the other side of the trade, Molina and Sands were both ranked at the back end of MLB.com's midseason top 30 organizational prospect ranking with Molina coming in as New York's 28th best prospect and Sands ranked at 26. Molina however has probably greater upside and in fact has a 5-tool ceiling, but he is way behind in New York's depth chart and still years away (2019 ETA per the site) making him expendable. Sands also has a 2019 ETA, and was an 8th rounder drafted in 2015. He was a SS/P moved to 3B when drafted and then to C, where I imagine his intrigue for MIL would come in as their best C prospect (Nottingham) does not seem a sure thing to stick at the position. Both players are low enough that New York could afford to deal them but either one should be quality enough to garner Milwaukee's interest in a trade.



3. Sign Jorge De La Rosa. These moves seem so small scale for New York, but they make sense. The benefit of De La Rosa, a LHP who has spent quite some time now in the unfriendly pitching confines of COL is he can start or pitch relief. In fact, while most players of that tune are more likely seeking starting gigs, De La Rosa was clear he is willing to pitch relief. That means New York could sign him as a bit of a swing man, intending to use him in the pen, but able to switch him to the rotation in the likely event one of their starters is injured. He just makes sense as a depth option and is helpful by his openness to also pitching relief, which too many pitchers are grumpy about (ask Matt Garza if you don't believe me). And frankly, any guy who can survive Coors can compete in the AL East.

Houston Astros
Houston made some noise early in the offseason, adding Carlos Beltran, Brian McCann, Nori Aoki, and Charlie Morton. They are positioning themselves to be a tough team, combining this now young core of players with the necessary accompaniments.

1. Acquire Drew Smyly from TB for Forrest Whitley OR David Paulino, Daz Cameron OR Teoscar Hernandez, and Brady Rogers OR Guadalupe Chavez and Mike Fiers. It's no secret that Houston wants to improve its rotation. I can understand why as their current #1-3 starters all have great potential but have varying question marks. They were long said by many to be a good match for the White Sox's remaining gem Jose Quintana, but the cost is likely too much. Houston spent years in obscurity to build up this system and that kind of deal is just not worth it, not especially when they have a solid enough rotation that they don't need an ace or #2 pitcher. Still, it would help. This deal aims at one of the ones who may be available and attainable at a non-system gutting price. The price will be high still, because of how poor the free agent market was for starters, but Smyly had a down year and durability concerns enough that his price should still be attainable. Whitley or Paulino, both top 100 prospects on mlb.com's midseason report (69 and 70 respectfully) would be the headliner. Cameron or Hernandez would give a second top 10 team prospect and provide Tampa with an OF, an area they could improve upon organizationally, and the last prospect choice (between Rogers who has less upside but more MLB ready and Chavez who has a little more upside but is further away) is the cost of a pitcher in this market I think. Even with two top 10 prospects from a deep organization, 1 being a top 100 prospect, it will still likely take one more to get things done. Fiers also is a nice pickup for Tampa, giving them an immediate (albeit lesser) replacement who has some upside of his own. Why do this? Because before last season Smyly looked like a budding ace having delivered seasons of 2.37, 3.24, and 3.11 ball. He also has a strong career k/9 rate of 8.7 and a 3.43 k/bb ratio. He could step into the #2 or #3 spot of Houston's rotation and greatly improve their overall pitching outlook (if he can remain healthy of course).

2. Sign Tyson Ross. The second move to strengthen the rotation is Ross. Near about any team in baseball could be in on Ross right now, and if healthy he could likely step into any rotation. How healthy he will be is the question, and how much he will cost is the issue. Ross is rumored to be seeking 9-10mm to pitch for someone. Houston could go one of several routes I think: offer the money, or offer less guaranteed money (say 6mm) with either a lot of incentives to boost it well beyond that total (like to 12-13mm) or include 1-2mm in incentives AND a player option at a similar rate, offering Ross the choice to have another season of guaranteed money or to reenter the market if he fares well in 2017. Either way, Ross's success in SD is just too strong to ignore, and would make him a great addition to the rotation, even if only for part of the season. And pitching for a winner should hold some appeal in its own right. This would also prevent division rival teams like, Los Angeles, Seattle and Texas, all of whom would also have real reasons to add Ross.

3.Sign Brandon Moss. Houston has some uncertainty at LF and 1B, where guys like Reed, Aoki, and Gattis may be taking the bulk of the time. Additionally, Beltran while he has been so good for so long, is getting up there quickly in age. Depth at these positions, quality depth, would be wise. Moss adds another guy into that mix of 1B/LF/DH types. He has shown, including last year, some serious pop in his bat yet with the glut of similar types of rocky defense, big power hitters in this market he isn't likely to cost the team too much. Perhaps a 2 year deal in the $10-$16mm range. That's a modest commitment for a guy who hit 19 or more homers in each of the last 5 seasons, include 28 last year (his 3rd time hitting 25 or more) in only 128 games.

Colorado Rockies
What the Rockies really need is to build a completely indoor stadium like the Metrodome, where they can control air pressure more and make the place playable for pitchers. Or simply move to another city. But since neither of those seem likely to happen anytime soon, how about we settle for a couple deals that could put this fringe contender in a place to be a real contender if some of their young players continue to improve.

1. Trade Carlos Gonzalez to BAL for Darrin O'Day and PTBNL. The O's are still looking for an OF upgrade, the Rockies have a surplus of OF. While Blackmon is the more appealing option, he seems at this point less likely to be dealt as the teams that needed him the most and would pay well for him prospect wise seem to have all moved on, thus I think Car-Go is the more likely trade candidate. According to MLBtraderumors, Baltimore balked at a Jay Bruce for Brad Brach swap. I think a Cargo-for-Brach would be a good deal, but I'm not sure BAL would do that with all the salary they would be taking on, and they would be taking on a lot with Car-Go's 20mm 2017 salary. But being a one-year rental might be nice for BAL as they have a small window of contention anyways so they may prefer short term commitments. Coming back in the deal, COL adds to their bullpen. A Colorado team needs more than a good starter, it needs a good bullpen. Therefore O'Day, who has a career 2.41 ERA, and has through his career stranded 75% of his inherited runners would be a good addition. And while pricey, he is controllable for 3 more seasons. It's hard to gauge how the 1-for-1 element lines up, but I think it would be reasonable to expect Baltimore to contribute a minor leaguer in this deal, just who though is hard to determine and will be left as a player to be named later. Ultimately the deal is about adding a quality reliever while opening up a spot in the crowded OF and adding financial relief so that they can...

2. Sign Matt Wieters. I really liked COL as a site for C Jason Castro. Castro was a great receiver, but a light hitting catcher. He seemed perfect for Colorado since the confines would perhaps attract him so he could boost his offense hitting there while bringing him in would improve pitching theoretically since he was a good game caller and pitch framer. If Colorado cannot use free agency to bring in good pitchers, they should try using it to bring in catchers who can improve their current pitchers. While he is not as good defensively, Wieters does bring defensive upside with him along with offensive upside that would play well in Colorado. He could shore up what has long been a position of weakness for the Rockies. And the available funds from trading Gonzalez should make adding him possible. It will also allow Desmond to move to OF so the team can...

3. Sign one of Chris Carter, Mark Trumbo, Mike Napoli. The Trumbotron would be the best here I think. His power would play well, he could probably handle 1B halfway decently, and the team already surrendered its first-rounder when it signed Desmond so he will only cost a 2nd round draft pick. But I'm not sure they will have the budget space for him post-Wieters signing. If not, Napoli is a winner, a fan-favorite, a capable defender, and still has some power as he displayed last year for AL Champion Cleveland. But Carter may be cheaper, and still brings walks and way more power to the game as he led the NL in homers last year at 41. Any one of them will add pop, the question is really the price difference as to which one makes the most sense for Colorado. If I had to pick only one, I'd go with Napoli as the better combo of defense and power and the desire to excite the fanbase while more likely being in their price range.

So that's my picks to improve New York's depth, Houston's rotation, and round Colorado out a bit. What are your thoughts?

Not Voting is a Vote

You have to vote.

Just vote.

It's your duty to vote.

It's my duty to not vote. There I said it. I should be clear, I'm not talking about not voting at all, I'm talking about not voting for anyone I expect to see on the presidential ballot. I have some senatorial candidates and all that I will be voting for, but as of right now I refuse to vote for anyone on the ballot.

I'm not voting Hillary or Trump. No way. Lewis Black was not lying when he said we have a party of no ideas and a party of bad ideas. I've read plenty of blogs and news editorials on why I should vote for one of these two and most of them boil down to "you gotta vote for Hillary because if Trump wins we will become a fascist state" or "Anybody but Hillary."  If the best argument for your candidate is s/he is not the other candidate your candidate is unworthy of my vote. That tactic has failed. So interestingly has the "this candidate is not as bad as they've been painted" tactic because even they have done little to show me anything particularly likeable in their candidate. My analysis, comments, and reasons for refusing to vote for either were so negative, I had to delete them before publishing this post because I did not feel I could post them without violating the Commandment to not bear false witness against my neighbor, since it would be hardly interpreting their actions in the best possible light and in case I was inaccurate at all, I felt it would be wrong to state them. But when you literally have to invoke the "if you can't say nothing nice" clause it's a problem.

I was seriously considering Johnson for a while. I may be extremely pro-life and not happy with his pro-choice status, but I get the Libertarian philosophy behind it, and there are at least other areas I would like to see that philosophy at work. The thing that did me in for Johnson was not his brain fart when it came to naming world leaders but his fiscal plan of budget and tax reform. I am on board with making it law that the budget must be balanced. That makes sense. I am not on board with out and out 40+% spending cuts. That's unrealistic, and the poorest, oldest, and weakest among our nation would likely suffer. I know we need to increase spending in things like senior care and education, not decrease it. I think that can be done while being more fiscally responsible as a nation, I don't think it can be done with the kind of cuts he's proposing. And I looked very briefly at Jill Stein's platform, but it didn't take me long to consider it unrealistic and fiscally irresponsible and it more than any political pitch I have ever heard or read looked like a thousand empty promises hoping you will buy one of them. Of the options out there Johnson is in my view the best. But he has not won my vote.


And of course I've heard all the "3rd party vote is a wasted vote" or "you're taking votes away from Trump/Hillary who needs those votes to beat Hillary/Trump." That is a failed tactic too. For one,  giving increased place to a third party impacts its place in future holdings and is fundamental towards the march of breaking down our two-party system that has handcuffed our government and turned checks and balances from a checking of each branch of the government to a means of battling the opposing political party. And I am sick of it. It is still tempting to vote third party for that fact, and if the outcome changes who wins the election, then maybe the two parties will learn to put out a candidate who people aren't going out of their way to not vote for. Additionally, voting for anyone you believe in is not a wasted vote. That is the purpose of voting: getting to cast your voice.

This brings me to my case for not voting for any of them. In short, contrary to everything you have been taught, not voting is a vote. It's the one thing that people have missed for years, but this current election - especially the campaigns of Trump and Sanders - illustrated: many people who don't vote will if they find a candidate that resonates with them. Simply put, the parties and political climate they created have alienated a large portion of the population. It was outside the box candidates that posed a real threat to the existing party's current state that brought new voters out in droves. A non-vote is a way of saying to the parties "Do better next time", it is the means by which people say "I refuse to be complicit in either of these people's election". As one who sits on all sorts of boards that vote for various things, when someone abstains from a vote (especially when multiple people do), there usually is a reason. The best thing we can do is show up to vote, and when it comes to the part of president leave it blank. I refuse to settle for the choices left me. And frankly, if a large number of the population intentionally left that blank, you know in the next election the number one question out there will be "how do we get those people's votes?"

Before you say that simply makes me complicit in the election of so-and-so because I won't vote for your person, consider this: if I voted I would not vote for your person either way. So no, my vote by non-vote is not helping Trump or Hillary win, it is the opposite: it is refusing to help either of them win. Because at the end of the day, I have to live with who I voted for. It has brought me to one of three choices: a third party vote in hopes it boosts the party's presence in future elections, a vote for a candidate I hoped would've won the primaries in hopes it spurns that person onward to run in the future, or to leave the president section intentionally blank so that when the numbers are crunched they see the amount of ballots cast and times voted don't match. I have been wavering between the options and am currently leaning towards the third. This is my explanation. Not that it is needed, because in the end it is none of your business who I vote for, but because I think someone needs to express why there are people like myself considering action by inaction. And how your arguments to have me choose the lesser of two evils is not working and I would appreciate if you stop them.

I should also state something else. In the end, I will pray for whoever wins. I will pray for him/her, offer support, and even thank God for him/her. Because that is a job I don't want and am ill qualified for. And because we do need our government, and while I have beliefs on how the government should be run, even ones run by people I didn't vote for has yet to cause doomsday. I expect the same here. I do not believe Hillary or Trump will utterly ruin the country or start a fascist state. Along with not being enthralled in our two-party system or buying into the "you have to vote for our candidate" argument because the other candidate is literally the devil, I don't buy into the apocalyptic rhetoric both sides continually espouse. This isn't a belief that I would be complicit in destroying America if I vote for one of them, it's simply the belief that even if it isn't the end of the world we can do better.

5 Ezekiel Passages to Read

After concluding (finally) my reading of Ezekiel, I walked away realizing just how good this book of the Bible is and saddened that most lectionary-based churches give it rather little overall value, as it rarely is featured in the lectionary and therefore is rarely featured for many preachers and hearers. But the book is worth the read. It is the perfect example of a book that is full of wrath and judgment and yet maintaining God's desire for the people and God's mercy and doing so in some really beautiful ways. So for those who can only think of the Valley of Dry Bones when reading Ezekiel, here are some other passages to turn to:

Ezekiel's Call Ch 2-3 You can definitely expand this if you want. For example, chapter 1 includes the acid-tripping, alien abduction vision of God's glory Ezekiel has (and no I don't actually think he was on acid or it was aliens, all I'm saying is it sure sounds a lot like a guy on acid meeting an alien). But for me, chapters two and three are the ones to make sure you catch. They feature words every preacher should hear about preaching even to the stubborn and hard-hearted (2:4-7) and a delicious diet of literally living not on bread alone but every word that proceeds from the mouth of God when he eats a scroll (2:9-3:9). Talk about being given words to share!

God's Exit from the Temple Ch 10-11 This really begins all the way back in chapter 8 when they journey to Jerusalem, but the heart of the activity are in these chapters where the key explanation of the defeat of Jerusalem and destruction of the temple come in Ezekiel. God's glory leaves the temple and in fact heads east out of Jerusalem, right to where the enemy army is coming from and the exiles have been taken to! In short, God was not defeated by the Babylonians and their gods, he had already moved out because he was so fed up with Israel's practices. As a symbol of hope, and receiving honorable mention for important passages in Ezekiel to look up, in his later visions of a new temple he sees the glory of the Lord returning in chapter 43:1-9. This earlier section of God's exit however already hints at God's return and Israel's restoration in a passage that includes a promise quite similar to the new covenant in Jeremiah 31. Ezekiel 11:17-21 includes promises of return from exile, internal renewal of heart and spirit, new obedience, and the Bible's oft-repeated graceful biblical declaration "they will be my people and I will be their God".

Parable of the Adulterous Wife Ch 16 I'm sure some won't like the image, seeing it as vilifying the woman or sounding morbid, but it is worth the read. In what may be the longest clear parable of the Bible (and I say clear parable so those arguing things like Jonah don't even try to object since whatever case one makes for it as a parabolic story, it was not written "clearly" as a parable) Ezekiel is to explain to Jerusalem the experience God has suffered of their practices through a parable of the people as a woman rescued by God, loved, married, and lavished with good things who loses it all because she acts like a prostitute. But as he notes, a prostitute is paid, instead she is paying to betray her husband (God) for other nations/gods. Therefore, God says all the lovers are going to come calling, take everything, and humiliate them, bringing their sin on their own head. There are so many wonderful parts to this parable and its explanation. It begins so intimately. It conveys betrayal because it conveys God's love. When no one cared for Israel, it said God had compassion on her in an almost parable of the Good Samaritan fashion, finding her bloody and abandoned. It also has this interesting note of hypocrisy that is very common even today: he notes how they saw Sodom as an object of scorn before their own wickedness was exposed. It's that two-faced nature to judge in a very looking-down fashion until we ourselves fall. For all its judgment it also ends with a promise of a new and everlasting covenant to be established (again, very Jeremiah-y).

Oracles Against the Nations Ch 28-31 Again, the oracles against the nations are actually longer than this, but the ones covered in 28-31 are by far the most intriguing theologically. What is so interesting is the development and use of Sheol and the pit as a place of judgment and the imagery of Eden used in these passages. The interpretation of the story of the garden of Eden, which usually resides primarily on individuals of its story (Adam and Eve) becomes different when nations are talked about in language as trees of God's garden. Eden is used here in comparing glory and in referring to the establishment/creation of nations. It to me is fascinating in the way these oracles use the garden to help us in our own interpreting and applying the garden story to our origins today. Yet sadly, I never in these discussions see Ezekiel's use and descriptions used to talk about how we look at the Garden of Eden narrative.

God's Judgment and Mercy Ch 33-34 These chapters really have it all. It has a clear command to call out sin. In fact, God warns Ezekiel that he is like a watchman with a responsibility to call out danger when he sees it or else he is accountable. Thus in 33:8 is a word every preacher better take to heart: "If I say to the wicked, 'Wicked one, you will surely die,' but you do not speak out to warn him about his way, that wicked person will die for his iniquity, yet I will hold you responsible for his blood." It is, you might say, the darker side of Paul's words in Romans "But how can they call on him they have not believed in? And how can they believe without hearing about Him? And how can they hear without a preacher? And how can they preach unless they are sent?" Well, if you are sent like Ezekiel was, it is a responsibility. That's a hard word to hear as a pastor. That's just the beginning of this section. It also tells us we can't be saved by works, as the righteous man's acts will not save them from judgment for their transgressions. It conversely tells us, however, that God wants none to perish, all to turn to him and live, and the one who is wicked but turns away back to the Lord will be spared. So you have clear law and gospel. You even have God's response to those who don't like Law and Gospel in 33:17-20 beginning with a poignant judgment upon human judgment, "But your people say, 'The Lord's way isn't fair,' even though it is their own way that isn't fair." As the passage goes on there is a clear statement about God's concern for justice and faithfulness. Take verses 25-26 "This is what the Lord GOD says: You eat meat with blood in it, raise your eyes to your idols, and shed blood. Should you then receive possession of the land? You have relied on you swords, you have committed detestable acts, and each of you as defiled his neighbor's wife. Should you then receive possession of the land?" But the richness of these passages is not through yet. There is a great passage about the deaf ear syndrome again (see Ezekiel's call) to which at one point it is said to them the prophet is like a singer of love songs with a beautiful voice. They just love to listen. What preacher has never felt that way before? Then comes chapter 34, which lectionary readers will be acquainted with thanks to Good Shepherd Sunday. Here God condemns the leadership that has scattered his flock and led them astray, then promises to be their shepherd, to gather them, lie them down in good pasture separate rams from the goats, separate the fat sheep from lean sheep, appoint a single shepherd from the house of David, make a covenant of peace with them, and break the bonds of their yoke. It is a super-Jesus-y.

Last Verse Ch 48 As a bit of honorable mention, I will also throw this out there. The last many chapters are dedicated to a new temple in Jerusalem and the division of the land among the tribes. Along with the central theme phrase of Ezekiel "then you will know that I am the LORD" the major movement is first why did God leave Jerusalem. So upon visions of his return it is a powerful thing to end with the phrase: "The perimeter of the city will be six miles and the name of the city from that day on will be: The LORD Is There."