Roundup: D-backs Hike Camelback, Hope to Climb NL West Mountain as Well

The Diamondbacks have the earliest spring training report dates in baseball this year thanks to the Sydney series (although, the Dodgers are also headed to Australia…), and last Wednesday was the first full workout for position players. The beginning of spring training makes for one of the true “dead periods” of the baseball season — the team appears done with offseason transaction work, and yet none of the (few) roster battles have started to come into focus.

As Steve Gilbert reported on Friday, Kirk Gibson had pitchers and catchers climb Camelback mountain instead of running sprints “to break up the monotony.” I’m glad that went off without a hitch, although apparently the team had to take a 15 minute break on the way to the summit when an injured hiker was removed by helicopter. This is not the type of story we will get to read during the season. But in spring training? We get a picture.

Kudos to Jim McLennan for pulling this out — the Atlantic Casino published the first over/under odds on the MLB season. Every other team has the over/under set at a half win, but apparently the Atlantic just couldn’t resist putting the D-backs at exactly 81, which is where the team finished each of the last two seasons. With money at stake, you can assume the Atlantic is not being capricious with that wins figure. As Jeff published a month ago, Steamer’s projection is slightly above that mark (between 82 and 83), while ZiPS has the team pegged at 88 wins. At least the projections are higher, not lower. If I were a betting man, I’d feel comfortable putting some money on the D-backs to beat 81 wins.

Those same Atlantic Casino odds have the Dodgers at the head of the class, with a 92.5 win over/under; the Giants are also ahead of the D-backs, at 86.5. The Rockies and Padres both have 76.5 win over/unders, but we’ll be hoping that the D-backs don’t finish third in the division.

On to the links:

• At Snake Pit, Jim McLennan reviewed the D-backs’ offseason trades, coming away unimpressed in general. I pretty much agree, and so does our Jeff Wiser. Jeff also addressed other types of moves, and I’d add that some of the offseason’s best moves were either non-moves (not giving up Archie Bradley for Jeff Samardzija) or extensions (Josh Collmenter, Brad Ziegler).
• Also at Snake Pit, shoewizard examined what a playoff run by the D-backs would look like. Great exercise, great insight. I’m not sure I’m sold on the idea of a team needing X number of position players qualify for the batting title (I’m a big believer in alternative time shares), but shoewizard does have some evidence. There’s some survivor bias (literally — teams that have more injuries are likely to do worse and likely to have fewer hitters qualify), but the exercise is still sound, as shoewizard is describing what a playoff season would look like.
• At Hardball Times, Matthew Murphy explained why it can be smart for teams to pay Proven Closers — to keep from paying more to Unproven Closers (who are often under team control for longer). I agree. In fact, I’d humbly suggest that your friendly neighborhood Inside the ‘Zona writers were ahead of the curve on this one (in December) — Jeff covered this in depth at Beyond the Box Score, and it was my main reason in favor of having Putz close instead of Addison Reed.
• At Venom Strikes, Joseph Jacquez explains why A.J. Pollock and Will Harris could be the odd men out at the end of spring training. I completely agree on the Will Harris point — despite his success against lefties in 2013, it would be hard to find a spot for him now unless there’s an injury. Even if there is an injury, Harris will have to fight with Marcos Mateo for a spot, as Mateo must be offered back to the Cubs if he doesn’t make the 25-man. On Pollock, though, I just don’t follow. Even last year, Ross wasn’t quite a full time player, so I don’t know why we’d assume that for 2014 coming off an unusual, major injury. I think there’s a fit there for all four guys, even if Pollock is playing just 80% of the time, and Ross is playing just 50% of the time. Players will get bumps and bruises, and we could find that some games get started by Ross and Parra, with Pollock coming in later in the game to replace Ross (with Parra shifting back over). Jacquez also notes that the D-backs “plan to carry five outfielders during the 2014 season,” which I hadn’t heard before. If Ross is one of the outfielders, then yes, I think the team will carry a fifth. But if Ross is not, Chavez would probably serve as the functional fifth outfielder.
• I neglected to include these FanGraphs links last week, so if you’d like to learn more about Bronson Arroyo (from Eno Sarris) or the Arroyo signing (from Jeff Sullivan), I encourage you to head to those links.
• At Bleacher Report, Jonathan Cullen thinks that the D-backs payroll tells a “very disturbing story” for 2014. I’d counter that few free agent/market rate dollars end up being used on very good deals. The difference between a $60M payroll and a $100M payroll is usually just a question of taking some free agent chances, and some of those aren’t going to look great. I’m no apologist for the Arroyo signing, but the Cahill salaries are actually quite reasonable (to the extent that he has surplus value, even). I also take pretty big issue for the bald statement that “[e]ven with the $19.1 million tied up in Ross, Trumbo and Parra, the D’backs will still likely receive below-average production from their outfield this season…” Huh? The team’s outfield was slightly below average last season (per WAR, 17th at 7.7, just off of the 15th-ranked Braves at 7.9), but even if Trumbo isn’t much of an upgrade over Adam Eaton, he’s an upgrade over Jason Kubel. The outfield’s prospects of being above average next season is another bet I would definitely take.
• I highly recommend this piece from Jeff Summers, a message to the players that also walks through the organizational meetings process.