Writings on baseball by Matt Barnard and Dan Stein.

 
I intended to post some comments and links touching on the Kirby Puckett story that's kind of breaking (it's been out there for awhile now, but it's finally coming to a head with the new issue of Sports Illustrated), but I'll just direct you for the time being to Aaron's eloquent commentary on the issue.

Rangers release Rob(bie) Bell
I get some of my baseball news from the excellent Rototimes baseball site, which I encourage you to check out, at the risk of giving away one of my sources. Of course, most news items that appear there require some further investigation and utilization of other more detailed sources, but it's excellent for what it is: a quick rundown of the latest events and a brief comment. Rob Bell's an interesting character, having gone from a decent prospect with the Braves and then the Reds organization to a guy who's been a disappointment with the Rangers after being traded to Texas for fellow failed prospect Ruben Mateo. He's also one of the only pitchers I can recall in recent years to wear a single digit number (Bell has worn #6 with Texas) also with the large and half-season-once dominant Jeff Juden, who wore #7 for the Indians at one point. That always bothered me...how hard is it to stick with tradition and pick a two digit number? Some guys just have to be different, I suppose.

I wasn't planning on posting on this topic (that being that he's been released by the Rangers, I realize I haven't gotten to it yet, but that's the news), but Rototimes' decision to refer to him as "Robbie Bell" caught me offguard. It's a bit similar to the strange name-shifting techniques of former Yankee and current Padre camp attendee Roberto/Bob/Bobby Kelly, though I'm not sure there's any actual reason for this. Has Bell asked to be referred to as Robbie? I've done a little bit of snooping around since I saw this, but to no avail...if you know anything more about this, I'd be very interested to hear. It's certainly possible a name switch has occured and I'm just unaware of it, I can admit to not listening to many Ranger games this spring as of yet, and it's not like he's been involved in many to begin with (he's apparently pitched just one inning).

Bell's really struggled at the major league level (a 5.95 ERA in 384 innings over 70 games, 68 of which have been starts), and while his first season with the Reds in 2000, when he was 23 and posted a 7-8 record in 26 starts with an ERA of 5.00, was an indication there might be good things to come, he really hasn't progressed since then. His rate stats aren't terrible, but suffice it to say that he's not done much to convince anyone to give him another extended shot at the majors. That said, this is a guy who once showed some promise, and a bad team could do worse than throw a minor league contract in the direction of a guy like Bell, who is still just 26, and give him a chance to prove himself worthy of another chance at AAA. In all honesty though, there's not much in his stats to suggest that we're ever likely to hear from Bell at the major league level in any meaningful way again.

Kenny Rogers to Minnesota
Worth a guaranteed $2 million for the 2003 season with up to $500,000 in performance-based incentives. I'm sure Aaron's going to have plenty to say about this later/tomorrow depending on what time of the day or night you read him, so I recommend checking that out. That said, I've got a few brief comments of my own.

Kenny Rogers, for all the problems he had in New York when he was with the Yankees (particularly in the postseason), is real good pitcher who will do a nice job in Minnesota. I remember well the great 1996 playoff he spent with the Yanks where he would start a game, get hammered, and the Yanks would win in spite of his crappy pitching...each of the three times he pitched, once in each series. Forgetting about his New York failures, he's coming off a nice year (3.84 ERA over 210.2 innings, 128 ERA+) in a bad pitcher's park, and while his strikeout rate continues to decline (and has never been particularly good), he's a proven commodity at this point and there's little to indicate an imminent collapse.

I don't think I'd advocate giving a 38-year old like Rogers much more than this, but he's replacing an injured Milton in the rotation and is locked up for just one year, just about the perfect scenario in which to sign him. Yes, he's likely going to take away a rotation spot from Johan Santana and that kinda sucks, but at least you're not hauling in a guy who's a) particularly expensive or b) unlikely to be up to the task. Santana'll be there to be continue to develop in a long relief/spot starter role and to step in if another injury hits the rotation. He's only 24, there's plenty of time for him to develop and become a full-time starter, and he should be an asset to the team whether he's opening games or pitching out of the bullpen in 2002.
posted by VZW Watcher at 1:31 AM -