How does Steve Phillips have a job?

Steve Phillips, baseball's worst GM and analyst, is on tonight's Baseball Tonight special. During a roundtable about whether or not the WBC presents a problem for teams who want to protect their investment in players, Phillips said something to the tune of: "We shouldn't be worried about the effects of the WBC on players. Look at the 2006 WBC. Did anyone get hurt? Was anyone affected." He says this "not just as a baseball fan, but as an ex-GM."

Does no one remember Jake Peavy? Following the added workload of the WBC, Peavy's ERA went up by 42%, his walks went up by 25% and his home run rate increased by 28%. He went from being 34% above league average in terms of his ERA to 1% below.

Looking deeper into the stats, we find that Peavy's BABIP was a bit high (.316), which clearly accounted for the 15% increase in hits between 2005 and 2006, while his HR/FB rate remained constant. However, this all happened to coincide with Peavy's 6% decline in groundballs and 8.1% increase in FB's, which led to an increased homerun rate and FIP increased of 21%.

All and all, it seems like Peavy's number were probably affected by some combination of luck and/or fatigue. While Peavy's most of peripherals remained relatively constant, his control was clearly affected by some measure -- and walks tend to be relatively luck neutral. Thus, I am tempted to side with the latter explanation (fatigue).

************************************

EDIT: Now the roundtable is talking about the youth movement in baseball. Never one to say something intelligent, Steve Phillips -- again in his opinion as "an ex-GM" -- is advocating drafting High School players over College players, despite all statistical evidence that points otherwise, because you can get "younger players."

Side note -- Phillips was notorious for signing aged veterans -- like Mo Vaugh, Bobby Bonilla and Kenny Rogers -- to expensive contracts during his brief tenure as the Mets GM.

Ay yi yi.

Do The Red Sox Need Varitek?

Curt Schilling thinks the Red Sox need Jason Varitek. At a cost of more than $5 million dollars a year, Fangraphs strongly disagrees. Neither Bill James, CHONE or Marcel thinks Varitek is going to bounce back in any way from his 2008 performance. Tek is a player on the decline; at age 36, there is little reason to resign him other than to help "coach" the team's young pitchers (which, by the way, is the job of the pitching coach and/or Kevin Costner).

Fangraphs put Varitek's production value at an astonishingly high $5.6 million (he contributed 1.2 Value Wins to the team, each win being worth [according to calculated league average salary/win contribution] $4.47 million). Baseball Prospectus indicated that the career of a Catcher begins to (sharply) decline somewhere around the age of 32:

"Catchers hold their value pretty well during their late 20s, comparable to other positions. The 30 to 33 range is very volatile... after age 34, things go downhill very quickly for catchers, a trend noticeable even in the very small sample sizes beyond age 35."

Based on empirical evidence, BP suggests that "the physical demands of the position...tend to reduce both the length of their [catchers] peaks and the length of their careers." Knowing this only affirms the conventional wisdom that it would be generally unwise for any team to sign Jason Varitek to an extended contracted.

At this point, however, the Red Sox are in dire need of a capable major league-ready catcher for the 2009 season if they plan on competing. To this point, I assert that the Red Sox sign Varitek to a contract worth no more than $3-4 million a year for no more than two years. Seeing as how Varitek turned down arbitration and would cost any team who signs him a draft pick, Varitek is being flagged. There is little room for him to negotiate a 2009 salary if he plans on playing anywhere other than Boston sometime before June (at which point, he is going to have to take a partial season pay cut anyway). A low value (perhaps incentive laiden) two year contract would be ideal because it would give the Red Sox three viable options for the future at the backstop, in my opinion.

1. Wait two years and sign Joe Mauer, who will be a free agent in 2011 at age 28 (just to clarify, Mauer will turn 28 right before the 2011 season), to an extended contract (4-6 years). Upside: with enough money to spend, the Sox could probably pull this off no problem. Downside: signing Mauer would almost assuredly cost the Sox their first round pick.
   
2. Trade Michael Bowden for Taylor Teagarden. The Red Sox have a very deep farm system when it comes to pitching; the converse is true about their minor league catchers. Obtaining a young player with as much upside as Teagarden could provide much future security for the Red Sox behind the plate.
3. Trade Clay Buchholz for Max Ramirez or Jarrod Saltalamaccia. Same logic as assertion #2, only I've downgraded the pieces of the trade on both sides of the table. It's already publically know that the Rangers covet Bowden and Buchholz and won't trade any of their young catchers for anything less than top talent. Given the Rangers' surplus of talent behind the plate, a swap of player depths between Boston and Texas seems most logical (especially since the Dbacks probably aren't willing to give up Miguel Montero at a reasonable price).

By 2011, any one of these four players should be ready and able to go as the Red Sox future catcher.