Maholm: Two or Three Syllables?

Why do people persist in pronouncing "Paul Maholm" as "Paul Muh-ha-lum"?  That can't be right, can it?  And look, frankly, I didn't look it up either.  That would be for two reasons:  (1) I wasn't confident I could actually find the answer; and, (2) It's stupid.

You know what else is stupid?  Factoring in a player's name when determining their value.  Positively or negatively... It goes both ways.  You know what I'm talking about.

For years Derek Jeter was over-valued in fantasy baseball because of his name and who he plays for... the championships, the gold gloves, his charming smile and dreamy eyes.  Good fantasy managers don't get caught up in those things.  Great fantasy managers know when there is a shift, too.

For Jeter, the shift was this year.  As the ESPN podcast guys like to call it, "the hate had gone too far."  Somehow people stopped believing.  His name became a liability, but the fact is that even though he's an aging shortstop he will give you a BA around .300 and middling home runs and steals with the potential for very good runs and solid RBI.  Regardless of his name, he's still a solid shortstop option.

Nevertheless, he was dropped completely from draft boards everywhere.  He went from a perennial over-rated top 5 shortstop to everyone saying something like, "I don't know, is Jeter even top 12 anymore?  I mean, really... He's old."  The fact is that he has usually been in the 6-8 range among shortstops, including this year.

This happens all over the place.  A guy like Mark Teixeira still gets credit for the high batting averages he put up early in his career.  He's a career .281 hitter!  He always hits well.  Folks, he hasn't hit over .256 since 2009 and he's doing it again this year.  His name is over-valued.

Paul Konerko, on the other hand, seems to still be trying to build his reputation back from hitting .234 with 18 HR's way back in 2003.  Other than a dip in 2008, that dude has been phenomenal.  And the past few years he's been better than Teixeira.  Seriously.  I know the names cloud our judgement, but look at the stats.  He's a career .284 hitter and has averaged 29.5 HR's over the past 8 years.  Tex is a career .281 hitter with 36 HR per year over the past 8 years, but don't stop there.

How about the all-important past two years?  The HR's are nearly identical and Konerko's BA is more than 50 points higher.  Fifty!  And those are just the surface stats that we all could see plain as day before the season even started.  How did they get drafted?  You know the answer: Tex went about two rounds higher than Konerko is just about every draft.  It's based on his name, where he plays, endorsements, etc.  Our judgements get clouded.

Also, having a nickname versus not having a nickname just feeds the issue.  Okay, I don't have any proof... but we are talking about perception here, right?  Do you want to draft a guy named "Konerko" or do you want "Tex"?  C'mon, you want Big Tex, right?  Of course you do.

You also want CarGo and the Flyin' Hawaiian.

I'm not gonna lie, this is a tough one folks.  If we could we should just re-name everyone John Smith, build logical projections for all of them, and then just draft numbers.  If we could do that, we would all be better off.

And, truly, it gets even tougher in-season.  Right about now you're looking at the no-name guys on the waiver wire and wondering if they are for real as the has-been's on your roster drag you down.  It happens every year.

I suggest that you take a look at your under-performers one at a time and do a "prime profile" for them as well as a profile of their most likely replacement.  Look at their age, injury history, pedigree, and performance over the past two years (with discounted minor league numbers where necessary).  Build a likely projection for both sides.  Some of your under-performers are just off to a slow start and will rebound.  But some of them are nursing an injury or just trending downward as their career enters the twilight.

You might be surprised what you find.  Doing a few of these profiles as one-offs where needed is actually a lot easier than building logical projections for over 300 players before the season starts.  Have fun with it...  This is where great fantasy players are made.

Cuddyer for Bumgarner. Seriously.

In my friends league (12 team, mixed, auction) I was offered Madison Bumgarner for Michael Cuddyer.  I jumped all over it, right?  Um, well... You see... Eventually, yes.

I initially declined.  And this is where you say, "What?!?"

The simple fact is that I needed HR's and RBI's in the worst way and if I traded Cuddyer I would only have Lucas Duda and Edwin Encarnacion (who might be playing over his head) qualifying at 1B.  That, and with guys like Ryan Vogelsong and Daniel Hudson on the waiver wire, who needs SP's?  Right?

Right?

Okay, so I looked a little deeper and realized that my IP were starting to lag behind the average, and even though most of my pitching stats looked good, I really could use some W's.  And, clearly... obviously... Bumgarner is a better baseball player than Cuddyer.  Even though I have Clayton Kershaw, Gio Gonzalez, and Dan Haren in that league a guy like Bumgarner is always welcome.  That, and Brandon McCarthy (who I also own) just went on the DL.

But, that can't be it.  When you are evaluating a 1-for-1 trade offer with players from different positions you have to look at a few things:

• Am I improving my starters by using assets from my bench?
• Is the future performance of this player going to be a net gain?
• Who replaces the guy I'm giving up?
• If it is a keeper league, what are the player values and keeper ramifications?

The fact is that I'm going to start Bumgarner every time out and Cuddyer was playing for me about 70% of the time.  With E5's emergence this year I was at least somewhat dealing from my bench for a starter.

The future performance of Bumgarner is more assured than Cuddyer.  Better "prime profile" as identified by age, track record, injury history, etc. (As discussed in this space previously.)

Now, the kicker...  Sure there are decent SP's available, but check out the 1B's that are also available: Mitch Moreland, Chris Davis, and Michael Morse (on the DL).  So, if I dropped Wei-Yin Chen for Moreland the total impact would look like: Cuddyer/Chen for Moreland/Bumgarner.

That, my friends is a big step forward.

Another thing about keeper value.  I famously paid $16 for Cuddyer.  Keeping him next year would cost $21, and that's just not happening.  Bumgarner was $14.  Am I going to keep him next year for $19?  Hmm, probably not... but there is a non-zero chance that his value will rise into the $20's and I'll get another year of value out of him.

So, I reached out to the other owner and asked if the deal was still on the table.  He was like, "Yeah.  I couldn't believe you turned it down.  I'm flush with SP's and really need a hitter."

So, the bottom line is that I really got lucky there.  I should have examined all of the angles before turning it down initially.  I guess I was busy that day and I just looked at the fact that my pitching stats were better than my hitting stats and turned it down.

Next time I get an offer that is even close I'll weigh all of the factors and look at all possible angles before making a decision.

Handcuffing Closers

For years we've been handcuffing running backs, but why not doing the same for closers in baseball?  There is certainly a time and a place for it...  It can be a viable, winning strategy.

But first, a definition.  You may not have ever heard the term "handcuff" in fantasy sports terms before.  All it refers to is spending a second roster slot on the clear backup to one of your studs.  It is usually done with running backs in football since there is often a clear starter and a clear backup.

In one league last year I rostered Ricky Williams.  I'm sure I had a few leaguemates who were wondering why I would waste my time with a has-been who wasn't likely to produce any meaningful fantasy stats.  The answer is simple and should be obvious in context... I owned Ray Rice.  I had a lot invested in Rice, so burning a roster spot on his obvious backup was an insurance policy.

There were a few things that made this particular move worth it:

• Williams had a track record of success in the past
• He was a viable alternative over a short timeframe (if Rice should become unavailable)
• I could get him very, very late in my draft (cheap acquisition cost)
• The 3rd string option was not a real threat (Ricky would get all of the carries if Rice was unavailable)

Sometimes it is less clear, like in the case of a running back by committee ("RBBC") or a 3-headed monster.  It isn't always going to be an available option for you.

Sometimes the handcuff is hard to acquire or expensive.  It may still be worth it to take Mike Tolbert (for example) in the 8th round, but that pick is still largely an insurance pick and is taken at the expense of something like a starting tight end or a 3rd wide receiver.  A handcuff that early has value, but you are probably better off taking another player that will have more of an impact on your team.  This should have gone into the decision-making process when drafting Ryan Mathews early on.  Perhaps it would have made more sense to take a different RB with a cheaper backup.  Maybe not.  But you should be thinking about such things.

These are important things to consider when building a fantasy squad.  Look at the overall makeup of your total roster and how every part plays a role.  It really can be a team and not merely the best grouping of individuals you can find.

Which leads us to baseball and if there are ever viable handcuff options there.  It has never been more apparent than this year that handcuffing your closers can be a really good idea.

Unfortunately, there are a few flies in the ointment...  You never know when the backup will also get injured.  In many cases you don't know who the real next guy in line is.  Furthermore, you can't predict with any level of certainty who will lose their jobs.

I mean, even with all of the closer craziness this year most of the pre-season obvious closers-in-waiting still haven't gotten the job.  Mike Adams, Glen Perkins, Anthony Pestano, etc.  It's amazing how many shaky guys like Matt Capps maintain the gig.  It's also amazing how many Tyler Clippard's remain in the setup role and how many Addison Reed's leapfrog the Matt Thornton's of the world.

It's an iffy proposition, and really hard to predict.  But it is something to be aware of.  You never know what will happen, but if you own Brian Fuentes it might still be a good idea to grab Ryan Cook.

ESPN FF 2012

I just activated my ESPN Fantasy Football leagues!  Just felt like I needed to share my excitement.

I'll be working on my rankings and audio series in the coming weeks and months, so be on the lookout!

Also, the Brain has some fantastic news about partnering with a major fantasy sports site.  When the ink is dry, you'll be the first to know.

DistraKtions

There are a lot of shiny objects in baseball and in football.  Many things that draw our attention.  Advanced statistics, off-field storylines, random occurrences, etc.  Often, when we translate what is happening in the real world to the fantasy sports world we get distracted from what makes an impact.

A perfect example is strikeouts.  Of course it is important to pay attention to K's with your pitchers, but why do so many people care about the number of times a hitter strikes out?  It's like looking at a house and thinking it is priced too high because there's bright red paint on the dining room wall.  Ridiculous.

Sure, strikeouts for a hitter can be an indicator or a predictor for you, especially when they are trending to a great degree in one direction or the other.  But, if there is a consistent track record?  Forget them.

Adam Dunn is a great case study.  For the seven seasons from 2004-2010 he averaged over 180 K's per year.  He also averaged over 40 HR's per year with exceptional consistency.  He was money in the bank for 40 HR, 80+ R, and 100+ RBI with a BA between .234 and .266.  At the same time it was very common for people to look at the 180+ strikeouts and think that they didn't want any part of Adam Dunn.

Why?  Who cares about his K's?  It limits his BA a bit, but that is already factored into the deal...  What if half of his K's were groundouts?  He would have had the same BA with only around 90 K's.  If that had been the case I guarantee you he would have been viewed differently and valued much more highly.

Another distraction?  Defensive ability.  Dunn is a terrible defender, which further reduces his perceived value.  But I ask you, who cares what he does with the leather?  If he loses some AB's to a defensive replacement on a regular basis, I suppose that could impact his value... But come on, there's too strong of a track record there.

In 2009 I got Dunn for $9 in a standard-issue 12-team keeper league.  And this was fairly early in the auction when people still had money.  He was supposed to go for at least $18 that year if I remember correctly, and I was really just price enforcing.  I already had my outfielders (Remember Dunn as an OF?  Good times, good times...) so I expected to drop out of the bidding around $14 or $15.  When I got him at $9 I couldn't believe it.  I kept him in 2010 for $14 but elected not to keep him in 2011 for $19.  He got drafted (by someone else) in that league last year for $23.  Ouch.

Anyway, the bottom line here is to become more aware that these sorts of distractions exist and that they artificially reduce player values in our minds.

A good one in the football world is the number of times a running back catches the ball out of the backfield.  Sure, it limits his production but that's already factored into his value.  What you have to look for is if the player is further downgraded in the perception of fantasy managers due to a limitation in one area of the game.  If they are perceived to be worse than what their track record would indicate... boom!  Buying opportunity.

Another one is the number of times a quarterback fumbles.  I mean, yeah, that's -2 points in most leagues but the point here is that if a QB is losing 7 or 8 fumbles per year they will be perceived poorly as a result.  For you that would be about -0.5 points per week worse than the average QB.  If all of the sudden a pretty solid QB option got bad press for his fumbling issues, don't you think his fantasy value would drop more than the reality of the situation?  -0.5 points per week should reduce their value somewhat, but it is hardly a major differentiator.  It is, however, a buying opportunity for you.

Be on the lookout for real value versus unfair drops in value based off of perceived value.

He's Not Gonna Hurt You

A lot of times people will talk about free agents and waiver wire pickups and say, "He's not gonna hurt you."  What are they talking about and how did they arrive at that conclusion?  And, why don't the rankings support the theory?

Empty qualitatives, that's why.  Allow me to explain.

Guys that are supposed to "not hurt you" are the players with decent qualitative statistics, which are perceived as harder to support and maintain over time.  Those qualitative stats are things like batting average, ERA, and WHIP.  Ratios and averages and not counting stats.

By the way, "counting stats" is a term that bothers me...  I'm not sure why.  All I can come up with is that it feels like someone is trying to dumb down the game for the masses.  Let's just say "quantitative statistics"... cool?

So anyway, quantitatives are easy to track and easy to see increasing...  When you go from 20 stolen bases to 23 in a couple of days it's easy to see exactly what happened.  When your team ERA goes from 3.98 to 3.95 most people just aren't really interested.  I guess it just takes more brainpower or something.

Nevertheless, you're only tracking 10 stats in most leagues and they are all equal.  Here's the crux of what I am saying:  If you pick up a guy who hits .300 with next to nothing in the quantitative stats, I've got news for you - he's hurting you.  There is a cost to starting a guy (or even rostering a guy) who only delivers in one category, regardless of what that one category is.

I'd rather pick up a free agent who hits .255 with decent HR's, RBI, and R's (I don't know, Juan Rivera?) than a Jeff Keppinger type of guy who will hit for a pretty good average and not too much else.  Keppinger is the kind of player that elicits comments like, "Pick him up, he's not gonna hurt ya."  I beg to differ.

And listen, last thing here, Keppinger will produce some numbers in the quantitatives.  What we are concerned about is the delta between what the average player gives you versus what the free agent pickup in question will give you.

Keppinger's quantitatives will be too far below the average for his .290-ish batting average to matter much to you.  You're probably going to be able to find someone who will deliver better statistics versus the average across the board.  And that, incidentally, is where those in-season rankings come from and why a "not gonna hurt you" kind of player is generally ranked worse than some other options that I guess are supposed to actually hurt you.

It's the opposite, my friends.

The Stature of a Stasher

One of the more overlooked assets that any fantasy team has is its bench.  There's good reason for this, and it's obvious - your starters are going to get most of the playing time so the impact of your reserves will be limited.

You also will have a limited number of slots on your bench, so the number of players you will have available as reserves is limited.  And what about good players who are injured?  You've got to stash them somewhere... And what about good players in a prolonged slump?  Yep, burn a bench spot to stash them.

With the limited nature of this resource you'll want to carefully examine what you are doing with your bench.  In a long season like baseball it will be a differentiator for you.  Here are some reasons why:

• Starters don't start every day.  There are off-days and rest days plus the occasional bad matchup or nagging injury.  You need to stay on top of these things and plug in a backup.  I tend to prefer guys who give me good qualitatives and are steady.  Their quantitative stats are gravy.  Think: Daniel Murphy or Omar Infante in hitting and the best set-up men in pitching.
•  Injuries happen and guys go on the DL.  It is better to have a "rosterable" asset available to you rather than grabbing the best available waiver wire guy.  Know who your most likely DL candidates are and plan accordingly.
• Accumulating quality players can give you a bevy of options at a few key positions and make it easier to trade for a guy who will help you in one key area of weakness.  In other words, if you need a catcher and you've got three solid 1B options you can deal one for that catcher you need even if you are overpaying a little.
• Insurance against a starter not living up to what you expected.  For example, I drafted Brett Lawrie for $20 and Edwin Encarnacion for $3 in one league.  Lawrie has been pretty decent so far, but E5 has been pure gold.  If Lawrie was just a notch or two lower than he is I could swap their roles and start E5 every day with Lawrie on the bench.  It's not a perfect example, but that's the concept.
• Stashing injured or slumping guys that have a high upside.  Carl Crawford is a prime example.  Hopefully you have a DL slot or two... If so, make sure they are always filled.  The DL slot is another overlooked resource and really just an extension of your bench.  Always have it working for you, even if it is populated with a longshot.  Better a longshot on the DL than an empty DL position where you don't even give yourself a chance to see something break right for you.

So, the bench is important.  It fulfills several key roles. 

I do have one more key note for you about stashing guys, especially this time of year...  As the season starts to mature you're going to have more an more guys on the DL.  Your DL slot(s) will fill up quickly and you'll have some decisions to make.  Burning an active bench spot on an injured player can be a good move, but there is an opportunity cost there.

You have got to weigh the value of who you could have in that position instead of the disabled player that you are stashing.  How many innings or at bats would that player on the wire give you?  How long will the injured player be out?  When the player comes back, how good will they be?  You have to weigh the potential impact of an available resource versus the return of the injured player.

Watch the number of slots where you are stashing guys... You may get a return when they come back from injury, but you are foregoing the opportunity to grab a replacement and that has to be taken into account.

Scanning the Standings

Go ahead and take a look at the full, detailed standings in your league(s).  If you are in the middle of the pack, or better yet close to the top, scanning how you rank this time of the year can really help you out.

I'm in fourth place in a rather competitive 14-team league.  Closers went super fast in this draft which allowed me to scoop up some great deals in the middle rounds and bolster most of the 5x5 stats.  Unfortunately, I waited on closers and ended up with guys like Glen Perkins, David Hernandez, and Mike Adams.  Later I added Pedro Strop and Vinnie Pestano.  Set-up guys with shaky dudes in front of them.

The problem is that Joe Nathan, Matt Capps, J.J. Putz, Jim Johnson, and Chris Perez have all been at least solid enough to keep their jobs.  I'm at nearly the bottom of the list of saves with 2 points out of a possible 14.  That is a glaring deficit when you are in 4th place overall.

I had to do something about it.  I decided that I had to sacrifice a quality guy for two closers, hopefully one of those five that I mentioned above (might come cheap) plus another one who is seriously legit.

Okay, so away I went to further scan the standings.

• Step One: Who has saves?
• Step Two:  What do they need?
• Step Three:  What can I supply?
• Step Four:  Make the offer with an explanation
• Step Five:  Can you replace some of what you are giving up?

So, I discovered that a guy one or two spots in front of me was at the top of the list of saves but near the bottom in steals.  Basically the opposite of me.  Better yet, he had J.J. Putz and Jason Motte.  Criteria fulfilled.

Did I have someone with more value to him than me that could supply steals?  Well, yes in fact that was was exactly the case.  Jason Heyward has 9 steals on this young season, which is phenomenal.  I looked a little closer and he is only hitting .260 (.183 over the past 14 days) and he was dreadful last year.  Quite possibly the perfect "sell high" guy to someone who needs steals.  Conversely, it could also be that I'm giving up a total stud when you look at his numbers from 2010, but if that happens it happens.  I need saves big time.

I've got Nelson Cruz, Matt Joyce, Lucas Duda, and Brett Gardner also... and it is a 3-OF league.  So, even though Gardner is on the shelf for another 3-4 weeks I should be okay.

And, upon further review, someone in the league just dropped Cameron Maybin.  I only have the #7 waiver priority, so I might not get him... but the guy I'm trading with is #13 so I don't have to worry about him taking Maybin for the steals.  Maybin was always a super-prospect, he finally delivered in 2011, and even though he started slow this year he is starting to pick up the pace.  A worthy gamble.  If I get him he will replace the SB's I'm losing at least until Gardner comes back.

So, I made the offer of Jason Heyward and Pedro Strop for Putz and Motte.  I included an explanation of my rationale which I usually like to do.  Writing an explanation has risks because sometimes your potential trading partner will feel like you are somehow trying to trick them or over-convince them... and they don't want to be duped.  If you really are trying to dupe them, maybe you should not include an explanation.  I understand both sides of the issue, but I still like to include my reasoning for the offer so they can understand why I'm willing to give up the value I'm willing to give up.

My explanation went like this: "You need steals in the worst way and I need saves. Jason Heyward has been terrific all around, but the big thing is that he's got 9 SB's. I don't want to give him up, but to get a good closer and a bad one who I already have the backup for (I'm carrying David Hernandez) would really help me out. I'm throwing in Pedro Strop who doesn't have the job right now, but he gets the occasional save and has been awesome so far. It bears mentioning that both of the guys I am offering are ranked significantly higher than both of the guys I'm asking for. I really need some saves."

The fact is that I am giving up a lot and everything I said in there is true.  I like the last sentence in there because it shows how desperate I really am.  The bottom line is that if I can get up to 8 or 9 points in the saves category I'll be in 2nd place with a real shot to win it all.

If I don't climb the saves mountain, I'll stay in (maybe) the upper-middle of the pack.  I really had to force the issue with saves.  I'm going to hold on to Perkins, Adams, Hernandez, and also Dale Thayer in this league for a while too.  I'm dropping Pestano for Felipe Paulino and putting a bid in on Maybin as well.

Now is the time of the season where patterns are emerging and things are starting to firm up and be pretty close to "real."  But you still have a very large majority of the season yet to play.  It's a great time to take inventory of what your team is really likely to be, scan the detailed standings, and make some calculated sacrifices where they make sense (and can be replenished).

Falling in Love

Quick blog entry today.  It's about the way that certain fantasy managers fall in love with specific positions.  Here's the basic point - If you've got two hitters on your bench and they are both 3B you're not maximizing your roster.  If you are in a league that starts 5 outfielders and you don't have any extra options on the bench, you're in trouble.

I was over at one of my favorite fantasy sports message boards today and there was a person asking for advice on his roster.  He had Carlos Pena at 1B, Adam Dunn at CI, Miguel Cabrera at 3B (qualifies at 1B), plus an outfielder who qualifies at 1B.  All of those 1B options and who did he roster with his one hitter slot on the bench?  Todd Helton.

Look, I think Helton is a little under-rated this year... but as your only hitter on the bench?  How many AB's do you think Helton gets on this specific fantasy squad all year?  50?  Wouldn't a lesser player who qualifies at bunches of positions make more sense?  Daniel Murphy, maybe?

Murphy plays 1B, 2B, 3B... he hits over .300... and well, that's about it.  The bottom line with him is that he'll fill in all over the place, help out in batting average, and any counting stats you get are gravy since he's just a fill-in anyway.  Perfect bench guy.

So, go ahead an evaluate your rosters and especially your benches.  Think critically about how you will deploy your fill-in's.  Maybe you've got guys on your bench who are there to step in if one of your injury-prone regulars goes down.  That's fine... but have a reason.

There should be a defined purpose for every player on your roster.  The starters are there to start, that's easy.  What about everyone else?

Are you ever going to use that fourth first baseman, loverboy?

Trading King Felix

So I traded Felix Hernandez only 7 starts into the season.  With a 1.89 ERA.  And a 0.94 WHIP.  And a K/9 darn close to 9.  Am I crazy?  Maybe.  I have some splaining to do.

This trade was a part of a 5-for-5 deal in my AL-only "Expert" league.  I had holes all over the place.  I invested heavily in the outfield, but with Carl Crawford, Nolan Reimold, and Brett Gardner on the DL (and Shin-Soo Choo banged up to boot) I needed help there.  A bigger need was the fact that I had no real closers on the roster.  Plus, I was also choosing between Jeff Keppinger and Maicer Izturis at my MI slot with Erick Aybar at SS.

A smaller need was CI, where I had Kendrys Morales.  Morales is playing pretty well but he's not getting full-time AB's and I still have lingering doubts about him coming off of a year and a half away from baseball.  His power hasn't fully returned yet.

Felix is obviously a huge trade chip in a league like this.  I have no doubt that he will continue to be amazing.  Three thoughts about him, though:

1. As I have written ad-nauseum, I was on auto-draft to start the draft and ended up with Justin Verlander and Felix with the wheel picks at #10 and #11.  If I had it to do over, I would have taken Adrian Beltre and one of the remaining first basemen - probably Prince Fielder, but possibly Mark Teixeira.
2. I've already gotten seven starts out of Felix since his first start was in Japan on 3/28.  This is a roto league, so I've squeezed more than 20% of his season out of him already.
3. I don't think that he will continue to get wins in 75% of his decisions.  Possible, but unlikely with that offense behind him.

So, I packaged Felix and Morales plus the worst three guys on my roster (who were promptly dropped by the other guy) for Mark Teixeira, Jake Arrieta, Robert Andino, Dayan Viciedo, and Jose Valverde.

Tex is an upgrade to Morales.  He always gets off to a slow start, is showing signs of heating up, and will always get full-time AB's.  Good start there.

I love Arrieta this year.  I think he should be 80% as good as Felix, so that estimate is a huge part of this deal.  If that is true, I win the deal in a landslide.  The day after the deal went down, Arrieta pitched masterfully at Yankee Stadium.  His WHIP is uber-tiny.  Nice.

Jose Valverde was phenomenal in 2011.  He has gotten off to a mediocre start in 2012, but in a 10-team AL-only league having him is a big win for me.  He should have an extremely long leash after the year he had last year, so I finally have a legit closer.  Problem solved.  (Now, if we can just get Aaron Crow the job in KC we'll really be in business.)

Robert Andino has been one of the best hitters in the AL so far and has continued to rake since the trade went down.  He's actually in my SS slot right now with Aybar moving over to MI.  That position can change, but bumping Keppinger and Izturis is a win.  Bonus.

And, finally, the outfield.  Look, Viciedo is no great shakes but there was absolutely nothing on the waiver wire.  I was seriously looking at Don Kelly, folks.  Viciedo will continue to get AB's and he has undeniable upside.  He gives me a good 6th outfielder to play with Reimold on the shelf.  I actually still have to start Gardner (and Choo) this week, so I'm not out of the woods.  If I hadn't picked up Viciedo I would have had to drop Izturis or Keppinger for a Don Kelly type.  It could be worse.  Hopefully Viciedo will catch fire and Reimold will get healthy.

So, what do you think?  Did I get the most bang for my buck in this deal?  I took my biggest strength (starting pitching) and made it fairly average, but filled 3 or 4 significant holes in the process.

Better a Year Early than a Year Late

I want to take issue with Matthew Berry of ESPN.  He is fond of saying that he would rather get off of a player's bandwagon a year too early than a year too late.  This is a sentiment with which I agree.

However, he has also decided that this year his big theory is the "proven player coming off a bad year."  The idea there is that you can get value with proven veterans who had a dip in production last year.  This can also be true.  You just can't easily blend the two concepts.

Unfortunately for the Talented Mr. Roto, one of his primary case studies for the PPOBY concept was Kevin Youkilis.  He was telling people in the pre-season that drafting Brett Lawrie over Youkilis is absolutely crazy.  Who's crazy now, TMR?

I don't own Youk in any of my leagues.  I do own Lawrie.

Why, you ask?  How did I know?  Youkilis has been on a downward trend for a long time and he was completely dreadful after the all-star break last year.  Sometimes there is obvious evidence that a player isn't coming back, and that seemed to be the case with Youkilis.  I'll admit that Lawrie was a risk coming into the season due to his small body of work, but I didn't see that small body of work as a bigger red flag than the recent performance of Youkilis.

This also goes back to the over-use of Ron Shandler's phrase that, "once you display a skill you own it."  That is a very dangerous phrase to wave around like some sort of campaign poster.  It says that players can always bounce back because they have the skill.  This isn't Tom Watson we're talking about here.  Sometimes ballplayers get old or they just lose their ability to compete in the big leagues.

Kevin Youkilis has his .205 since the All-Star break last year.  If you own him and can still get 25 cents on the dollar, I say do it.  You can't get Brett Lawrie, but I bet you could still get his old teammate Jed Lowrie.  Go make that offer right now and save yourself a lot of trouble.