From: fester@island.COM (Mike Fester)
Subject: Re: roy NL
Organization: /usr/local/rn/organization
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 16:01:11 GMT

In article <1992Sep25.163912.24668@watson.ibm.com> mjones@donald.aix.kingston.ibm.com writes:
>In article <6264@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP> genetic+@pitt.edu (Dr. Dave) writes:
>>Thus spake fester@island.COM (Mike Fester):
>>>??? Are you implying that PENA would be starting if the Red Sox had a healthy,
>>>capable alternative? 
>>If Valentine isn't, I am.  If the Red Sox had both Pena and, say, Francisco
>>Cabrera, who do you think would start?  Pena, I'd bet.  They'd probably start
>>him over Mike Macfarlane, too.  The point is not Pena's actual value, vs. the
>>actual values of other catchers, but Pena's *perceived* value vs. their
>>perceived values.  For some reason, the Red Sox think Pena is better than
>>he is.

>Why stop at "would be". They could have replaced him with Lance Parrish
>(.746 OPS) for *NOTHING*. (Pena's OPS is .585, BTW.) They could have brought
>up Eric Wedge - .812(!) OPS, but in only 49 AB. Admittedly, Wedge was hurt
>for part of the year, but he could have spent the rest of it in Boston. They

If you have a young, hurt prospect, do you want to risk him being hurt more?
Actually, probably not.

>could have kept Todd Pratt, whose MLE last year was .795 at 25 years old,
>instead of letting him get away. Through some odd combination of
>six-year minor league free agency and the Rule V draft he spent about a
>month with Baltimore then went to the Phillies. He's only had 30 AB
>there, but with a .770 OPS. John Marzano put up a .604 OPS last year in 114
>AB. Flaherty's MLE was .624. The question isn't whether the Red Sox have any
>better (offensive) catchers than Pena, but whether they have any who are
>worse! Now, I love to watch Pena behind the plate, and he has been very
>durable, but I have to believe that some combination of these guys above
>(and very likely Pratt alone) would have been a significant offensive
>improvement.
>
>>>it DOES appear so). Are you implying that the Red Sox should give up a player
>>>to acquire this valuable commodity? Give up a player to acquire someone of 
>>>identical value?
>>You don't *have* to give up players to get replacement-level guys.  You pick
>>them up off the waiver wire, or bring them up from AAA.  What did the Expos
>>have to give up to get Gary Carter and his .631 OPS?  Nothing.  What did the
>>Angels have to give up to get Lance Parrish and his .746 OPS?  Nothing.
>
>Even if you did, you can often get them for the moral equivalent of Tom
>Bolton (cf. Billy Hatcher). You could probably get a replacement-level X
>for, say, Mike Twardoski (1B, hit .300+ at Pawtucket with *no* power, 27
>years old, no future in Boston) or Wayne Housie (in a similar situation).

Carter has been a part-time palyer at a starter's salary for the Expos. Though
he is better than Fletcher, he has played less than Pena. Parish went to the
mariners, and is a backup catcher. Most likely, Pena is a better catcher than
any of the above, and a combo of Parish/Carter would no doubt have cost the
Red Sox a sum of money they could not afford on top of what they're paying
Pena. Add to that the they have a possible catcher for next year in Wedge,
and those moves you suggest don't appear to strengthen the Red Sox (BTW, 
Carter has announced his retirement).

Mike
-- 
Disclaimer - I'm only doing what the little voices tell me to do.