For anyone who reads Fire Brand of the AL you might already know the news, but Lee and I have decided to close up YWA and move to a larger audience cialis online. We really enjoyed this site and thought it could have gone a long way, but this was an opportunity we couldn't pass up on. Fire Brand is now affiliated with ESPN and has plenty of recognition viagra online pharmacy.

The reason we started YWA was to educate the regular Red Sox fan about Sabermetrics and how player analysis has changed cialis. This was what we tried to do, but it's tough to get across when your site is still growing in traffic. For now I'm planning to leave YWA up for the next season to allow previous work to be found and read also many of our old posts are good reference pages for the basics of Sabermetrics viagra online.

Things that will not change though are my weekly article at THT and I am planning for added time at RotoSavants. My first post at FireBrand AL tomorrow so I hope you will all head over and check it out generic viagra.

Thanks for reading, and hopefully we'll see you over at Firebrand.

- Troy

-----------------------

Troy pretty much covered the reasons for the change in affiliations, but in a way, it's still a bit sad.

YWA was our first real Red Sox home. Even though Troy and I both still make sure we keep Rotosavants chugging along for the fantasy baseball crowd, writing about the Red Sox will always bring about more passion and enjoyment .

The change to Firebrand will be exciting, and we're excited to share the ideas and articles you've all enjoyed these past few months to a larger audience, hopefully where we'll all have a chance to engage in bigger discussions too.

We couldn't thank you enough for reading, and hope you follow us to Firebrand as well.

- Lee

Heading in to 2009 Lars Anderson was the talk of the Red Sox farm system and ranked #17 in the Baseball America Top 100. He was still looking to display his full power ability, but regarded as one of the better hitter's in the Red Sox system. We discussed his struggles and also how much his GB% will hurt his long term power growth. This has left the first base and DH as a potential opening long term for 2007 draft choice Anthony Rizzo.

Rizzo was drafted in the 6th round of the 2007 draft, but was later diagnosed after 21 games in 2008 with Hodgkin's Lymphoma. He was cleared of cancer later in 2008 and began 2009 healthy. He played 64 games at A ball and 55 at High A. He totaled a line of .297/.365/.457 across both levels.

He doesn't quite have the plate discipline of Anderson though. Anderson has never had a walk rate lower than 12.4%, which was this year. Rizzo has been lower and his highest was at High A ball at 11.1%. He does strikeout less though with an average around 19%. Anderson is averaging closer to 25% and has peaked over 30% his first time through Double-A.

When we found out Anderson was pounding his hits in the ground so much it was something I looked for with Rizzo. His 2009 ground ball rate was 36%, which is a solid rate and identifies someone who can hit more homers with his swing. It's not to say Anderson won't learn, but it's going to take an extra step or two for him.

Defensively they are both reported to be solid, but Rizzo is expected to be more athletic with better range. Using BaseballProspectus we can see that Anderson has been rated slightly negatively so far at first base and could be tested in the outfield or be a DH option. He played outfield some in high school, but the Red Sox have not even addressed that as an option yet.

At this point I still have Anderson higher on my prospect list. He is no longer the #1 though as Casey Kelly and Ryan Westmoreland have passed him. He now has a rival for the Red Sox future first base/DH option as well. Anderson will likely retry Double-A again to start 2010 and that has Rizzo held to Advanced A ball. These two guys are the Red Sox best chance for power from within and Anderson is now about a year away and Rizzo is about 2 years away.

Lately the chatter has turned to the Red Sox needing to make a big move to have a chance in 2010. Whether it be Roy Halladay, Matt Holliday, Jason Bay, Adrian Gonzalez, etc. the Red Sox fan want a big acquisition. This isn't a new thing and with the Yankees always trying to add the newest shiny toy it's not surprising. The team has to balance this with trying to carry out their plan and that can often be counterproductive.

One of the original ideas of the Oakland A's when Billy Beane was coming into his own was to trade players near or after the age of 29*. This was to avoid paying for decline and get the best years of a player for the cheapest amount you could.

* This is still something they still do today.

The Red Sox shouldn't have to do this though with a much larger budget than the A's though, right? Well not only is it cheaper to stick with the younger players, but it's also safer. Players signed to big deals past the age of 29 can have declines as well as increasing injuries with age.

One of Theo Epstein's biggest signings in Boston was J.D. Drew at $14 million per season at the age of 31. He has worked out since his value has held at $14 million average per season, he also has yet to decline in his value yet. If his skills had declined as expected post age 30 he would not have been worth it so far, but he is just one example.

Whether or not Theo thought Drew would be worth $14 million per year or even more it has worked out so far. How many of these free agents should you count on in their 30's before you start to have the aging players break down on you like Mike Lowell*. If you build your team by trading your prospects for these players in their 30's you are much more likely to miss on some. Just think Julio Lugo.

* Not a Theo Epstein acquisition.

Looking back now you can see how strict Theo has been avoiding the aging player when the money and years has become prohibitive. There is no reason to endanger your long term goals for a short term success. This can be seen in the Yankees who have loaded up for the short term, but face a 2012-2014 with another aging core of players.

So now we are stuck with a fan base who wants the big names signed and a management who believes you should build from within and avoid long term contracts when possible with players over 30. You must always be open to the deals though and look for players willing to take a contract at a good value for team and player (see Marco Scutaro).

We looked at this the other day and how lineups with Hollday, Bay or Mike Cameron all performed well on the projection system. So why go to extremes for even Holliday, who I would love to see in Boston, if the contract wouldn't hinder your team down the line.

Or perhaps trading our best prospects would be the wish of some to add a Gonzalez or Halladay. That might be even worse as you would have to extend their contracts and pay them while giving up some of your cheap talent. Based on what happened in 2009 with the hunt for a catcher. I expect the move, if they make one, will be at the deadline and not one we expected.

The Red Sox will have some work to do next year as Lowell and David Ortiz are going to be at the end of their deals. This is one spot the Red Sox don't have much coming in the minors and will have to look outside the minor leagues. This is a major reason not to go after someone like Halladay and limit your ability to obtain a third basemen or DH in 2011.

Winning in April through November has nothing to do with making the most noise in the offseason. If your team is well managed and has superior scouting and drafting then you should expect to be more quiet in the offseason as well as more consistent. While this model is not as exciting it should be something we're glad to have instead of perhaps the NY Mets who sign every player available and win 70 games.

As I had hoped back a few months ago Casey Kelly has agreed to only be a pitcher in 2010. This comes from @GordonEdes who also says he will get an invite to the big-league camp and could pitch in the high minors.

Not much surprise here as it was his best and possibly only chance to make the major leagues. His hitting was not enough to make it, but his pitching could make it even quicker. You could also say this would raise his value in trade since other teams would not worry about him pushing for time at shortstop, but I don't think Theo has any thoughts of trading

According to Ken Rosenthal the Red Sox have signed reliever Scott Atchison. He has spent the past two years in Japan after posting a 4.10 ERA in 68 IP between the Mariners and Giants from 2004-2007. He has a fastball, slider and curve according to Pitch f/x. He also throws a small amount of changeups.

His K/BB was impressive at 2.80 and some of his struggles were in part to a .323 BABIP. He also had some poor outcomes on HR/FB which stands at 14.7% and is due to regress. At worst he seems like a league average reliever. He did impressed in Japan posting a 1.70 ERA in 90 innings according to NPBtracker.com.

The deal is for one year with two club options. Depending on the money this seems like a great low risk move with a possibility for a solid return.

After my lineup article was passed around on Twitter yesterday I saw a response from @JasonCollette about Mike Cameron. He commented if Cameron goes to Chicago then "Burrell doesn't look so bad". I decided to take a look and I guess I could have used this for my Clone Wars at THT (I chose Bay and Adam Dunn), but wanted to put it here. Believe it or not, there are some similarities.

        GP    BB%  K%   BABIP  AVG   OBP   SLG   SB
Burrell 1149  15%  28%  .308   .258  .375  .482   5
(Total@30)
Bay      922  13%  27%  .332   .280  .376  .519  66

We have two glaring differences right away; speed and power. The difference in power is pretty small, but the two skills combined result in Bay's solid BABIP. Ultimately though Bay's BABIP doesn't make enough difference to separate him from Burrell in OBP.

How about in run value? If you go by CHONE calculations Pat Burrell had 179 batting runs above replacement after his age 30 season. The 2009 numbers have not been updated, but Jason Bay had 174 before last year and should be slightly ahead of Burrell once they're totaled.

So Bay is a step ahead of Burrell at the age of 31 offensively, but what about these two bumbling in the outfield? It turns out by both Total Zone and UZR that Burrell is a bit better. I can't remove the last two seasons for Burrell, but that still wouldn't alleviate the horrid UZR/150 he had in 2007 of -25.2. His left field UZR/150 for his career is -4.4, which is better than you might have guessed. The concern with Burrell was the downward trend. Bay on the other hand is a -8.0 in left field and has also trended worse until 2009.

Sending Bay to DH might be the future as his value would actually improve even with the position adjustment to DH. There is some adjustment to a position like DH and he might struggle, but he has the bat to move there. I don't think he'll have anything as bad as the year Burrell had in 2009 and that wasn't the point of this article. The point was that Bay profiles much better as a DH as his offense was better and defense was worse at 31 then Burrell. He also has a step of speed and power to maintain better BABIP levels.

The move to DH still can't push his value high enough to make him worth more than the 4/$60 they offered him. To do that, he would have to maintain his 2009 batting levels for all 4 seasons at either position (but if he were in left field his defense could make him even worse). Bay should be expected to total 9 WAR in the next 4 years based on normal decline and that is worth $45 million with a 7% inflation rate.

While the Red Sox front office is saying all the right things, it looks more and more like the 4/$60 offer was just for appearances. In all likelihood the team has planed all along to put on a full press to land Matt Holliday. The offer to Bay also keeps the door open in case they fail to sign Holliday.

Perhaps while discussing Bay we should talk about this article at USS Mariner since the Mariners fans also seem to be stuck on the "We need a power bat" mantra. The author doesn't supply an answer, but the question is important. Does a +10 player have different value if that value is from hitting or defense?

We only have one major hole left now to fill and so I thought some early lineup analysis might be good for what we can expect next year. If you have never played with the Baseball Musings lineup analyzer I suggest checking it out. To save you some time though I ran the lineup and here is what I found. (Using Bill James Projection in Analyzer)

Red Sox Sign Matt Holliday

If the Red Sox sign Matt Holliday here is the best lineup according to the tool.

Runs per Game	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9
5.936	Youkilis	Holliday	Pedroia	Drew	Ortiz	Martinez	Ellsbury	Lowell	Scutaro

I can almost assure you that Tito would never play with this lineup, but 5.936 runs per game is 961 runs scored. The Yankees only totaled 915 runs in 2009. The things I can see is that Ellsbury will be given the leadoff spot and Drew will not be allowed to hit cleanup. Let's see a lineup taking that into account.

Runs per Game	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9
5.883	Ellsbury	Holliday	Pedroia	Martinez	Youkilis	Ortiz	Drew	Lowell	Scutaro

That seems like something that might be close to what Francona might play with a few changes here and there in the middle. Once again that's 953 runs scored in 162 games and better than any team in 2009.

Red Sox sign Jason Bay

So what happens if we keep Bay, but have a full year of Victor Martinez and Marco Scutaro?

5.850

Youkilis

Bay

Pedroia

Drew

Ortiz

Martinez

Ellsbury

Lowell

Scutaro

This lineup is similar to the best lineup with Holliday yet is a bit behind that. The difference is only 0.086 or about 13 runs per season. Not a huge fall, but we never said offense was the reason for passing on Bay. His defense takes away another 10 runs and is his big negative.

Red Sox sign Mike Cameron (defensive option)

This would surely help the defense and pitching, but how much would it hurt the offense?

Runs per Game	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9
5.694	Drew	Youkilis	Martinez	Pedroia	Ortiz	Cameron	Ellsbury	Lowell	Scutaro

This is again the best lineup and we are now down to 5.694 or 922 runs scored. We can play with the lineup a bit and get it closer to the expected lineup, but even if you put Ellsbury and Cameron at the top of the lineup the total is still greater than 5.6 runs/game.

The lineup tool is obviously a very rough tool and would be based on only starting lineup games. Any days off would effect this for those games and final totals. Also you need to look at variance in numbers both good and bad. The point of the drill here is to show the amount of difference between these options in a vacuum.