2010-11 Hot Stove League Thread - Grienke is a Baller

[Ksyrup]

I thought Heyman would be the only person dumb enough not to vote for Bagwell, but I've seen 2-3 other voters claim he falls short of the HoF right now but they're willing to reconsider in later years.

The sample size of votes I've seen is small, but is there really a chance that one of the top 5 1B ever isn't a first ballot HoFer?

There are a lot of people who suspect him of steroids, but since there is so little evidence they don't directly discuss it like they do McGwire, Bonds, Sosa, etc.

[DaddyTorgo]

Does Jon Heyman really buy into this stuff, or is he trying to be funny/tongue in cheek? This is the kind of writing of his that I was talking about earlier in this thread - it's almost so cliche that it seems like he forces himself to write this way because he believes this is the kind of "analysis" sportswriters are supposed to provide, or to be purposely funny. I'm sure it's the former, but I'm trying to give him the benefit of the doubt.

On his list of remaining free agents:



REALLY? If you had told me this was a keith law chat response, I would have believed you.




There's even a rumor that he made a baby with Jack Morris!




That's funny. I could have sworn he got paid last year. Why would he need a new team to pay him for last year's performance for another team?


[/left]

Yes, clearly a team should sign him because it was his skill that got him traded from one eventual WS team to the other. It wasn't a coincidence or fluke, and it is extremely relevant to a team's pursuit of him as a free agent this off-season. Clearly.





awesome analysis!!

[JonInMiddleGA]

but is there really a chance that one of the top 5 1B ever isn't a first ballot HoFer?

I dunno, who are you referring to? Because that sure doesn't describe Bagwell.

I love the list of "most similar" players including McGriff, Gallaraga, and Giambi. And fewer all-star appearances than any of them.
Nice players, but HOF? I'd love to see McGriff in there but I'm not on that bandwagon any more than I am on Bagwell's.

[stevew]

No evidence, but I strongly think Bagwell and probably (by virtue of association) Biggio were juicers.

[Atocep]

I dunno, who are you referring to? Because that sure doesn't describe Bagwell.

I love the list of "most similar" players including McGriff, Gallaraga, and Giambi. And fewer all-star appearances than any of them.
Nice players, but HOF? I'd love to see McGriff in there but I'm not on that bandwagon any more than I am on Bagwell's.

The only 1B that are clearly better than Bagwell are Gehrig, Pujols, and Foxx.

McGriff, Gallaraga, and Giambi don't compare. McGriff was inferior in just about every meaningful category. Gallaraga shouldn't be mentioned in the same sentence as Bagwell. Giambi is comparable as a hitter but was a huge negative throughout his career defensively and on the bases. Bagwell wasn't.

As a hitter Frank Thomas has an edge, but was a big negative in the field. Thome is probably the most comparable as a hitter and has the longevity edge, but I'd take Bagwell's peak over Thome's.

You could make an argument for Mize over Bagwell, but you'd have to weight the fact that he missed 3 years because of the war because based on actual play Bagwell's career was better.

I don't consider Musial a 1b nor do I consider any player before 1900 (sorry Roger Connor and Dan Brouther fans).

[cubboyroy1826]

Hmm so what happened to Bagwell the year he showed up at Spring training looking like someone let the air out of him? I liked watching the guy don't get me wrong but for anyone to think the dude was not on the juice is as bad as saying that Sammy Sosa just worked out really hard to change from the little guy on the White Sox to the power hitter he became on the Cubs. I guess if we are going to look past the guys that were obviously juicing then maybe he would qualify but I for one would not put Bags, Sosa, McGwire or any of the other juicers in.

[Atocep]

Hmm so what happened to Bagwell the year he showed up at Spring training looking like someone let the air out of him? I liked watching the guy don't get me wrong but for anyone to think the dude was not on the juice is as bad as saying that Sammy Sosa just worked out really hard to change from the little guy on the White Sox to the power hitter he became on the Cubs. I guess if we are going to look past the guys that were obviously juicing then maybe he would qualify but I for one would not put Bags, Sosa, McGwire or any of the other juicers in.


I don't have a problem with a HoF voter deciding to hold someone that tested positive, was busted by the feds, or something similar off their ballot.

Outside of that a HoF voter has no business guessing who did and didn't use and penalizing based merely on their gut feeling.

[cubboyroy1826]

Can you really say that by looking at Bagwell prior to testing and after testing that he looked the same? Now I know my opinion is not a popular one but just by looking at how much he shrank you gotta believe the guy was on steroids. The problem with my argument is obviously that there were so many players on steroid during the era where do you draw the line.

[cubboyroy1826]

I am trying to find the pictures but if you truly feel that the guy was not on steroids then that is the issue I have. I agree the guys numbers were sick and really did not realize that he had put up such huge numbers, which was probably because he was killing my Cubbies.

[cubboyroy1826]

Okay so are you saying that Sammy Sosa should be voted in as well? I already agree that based on his numbers he is a hall of famer. He had one hell of a 12 year run and I am ashamed I did not realize his numbers were so good.

If say prior to the hall of fame voting it comes out that Bagwell is on the mysterious unreleased (except for a few names) list of those who have tested positive for steroids would you still say he deserves to be in? I know for many it does not matter what players were on because "all the cool kids were doing it" but I am wondering if a positive test changes your mind.

[Chubby]

IT DOESN'T MATTER IF YOU THINK HE WAS ON STEROIDS. How dense are you? To the best of my knowledge he's never been linked to any actual report or failed test.

Any HOF voter who takes your approach should have their voting privileges revoked for life.

Which of course will never happen(revoking voting privileges). Just because you don't think a votre should look at whether they think a guy juiced is irrelevant. A voter certainly can look at that.

If he got away with cheating it's ok? Not in my book

[Ksyrup]

For a person to be pinned with "getting away with" cheating, one has to know that the person cheated. I think that's the issue, isn't it? You're starting with a premise that has very little substance aside from innuendo and vague circumstantial evidence.

[Logan]

This is the type of shit that comes with this system. Put the guys in with whatever mark/note on their plaque that you want to denote their suspension/failed test and move on.

[Ksyrup]

In some respects it comes down to what you think the HoF's purpose is. For some, it's solely to honor the very best players in the game. For others, it's a bit broader in that it serves as the de facto museum recording the history of baseball through its very best players. So where one side might believe that Barry Bonds is essentially disqualified from the HoF, the other side argues that you can't tell the story of baseball and its greatest players without including Bonds.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

What's the evidence with Sosa?

[Mustang]

This may be the most asinine thing I've ever read. If you paid the tiniest fucking bit of attention to what I actually said, it is predicated on some actual belief in a player juicing beyond one Cubs fan on a message board. If there had been the federal shit like the others, then no, Bagwell shouldn't get in. Just because YOU think he looked different one year, and provided nothing but conjecture to support it, doesn't mean a damn thing. :banghead:

Are you Jeff Bagwell?

Just curious.

[molson]

Baseball (including the player's union) has robbed of the opportunity to actually KNOW who was juicing by ignoring the issue for so many years, so I'm totally fine with the writers essentially being the final jury on that. McGwire is guilty with that jury, and so is, I suspect, Palmero, Bonds, Clemens, and Sosa. Bagwell, I think, has avoided that same stigma, so he'll get in. Maybe he was a rampant cheater, who knows. And obviously, the HOF writers' verdicts are not going to be 100% accurate. So what. Their evaluations of players' on-field play isn't 100% accurate either. They work with what they have, that's all they can do no matter what. If attitudes about steroids change down the road, maybe we'll see some of these guys get in. The cloud of mystery over the era kind of sucks, but it did give players the opportunity to step up and do the right thing and be a positive voice in all this (of course, only one player - Frank Thomas - actually did this, and he'll be a 1st-ballot guy.)

As for HOF voting, I think the formula they use is pretty clear, and I generally agree with it. 1. Were you a big enough deal in baseball to have a plaque in here? (stats, awards, being on winning teams, being a part of big moments. all factor into that). 2. Were you clearly, using available evidence, a big 'roider to the degree that it casts doubt on your accomplishments?

[RomaGoth]

This may be the most asinine thing I've ever read. If you paid the tiniest fucking bit of attention to what I actually said, it is predicated on some actual belief in a player juicing beyond one Cubs fan on a message board. If there had been the federal shit like the others, then no, Bagwell shouldn't get in. Just because YOU think he looked different one year, and provided nothing but conjecture to support it, doesn't mean a damn thing. :banghead:

Kinda getting your panties in a bunch, aren't you? :)

[cubboyroy1826]

Okay HiFi I get what you are saying and respect your opinion as you should others. The gist of the matter which I should have stated clearer early on was if there was evidence that Bagwell juiced should he still get in? You answered that which is great. On the flip side it is very closed minded to think that I am the only one who would say Bagwell was a product of steroids not some herculean abilities that were in his genetic makeup. Alas we will agree to disagree.

[Ksyrup]

With Bonds there's a federal investigation and people claiming to have seen him juice. Same with McGuire, Sosa etc. None of that, as far as I know, has been attached to Bagwell other than one Cubs fan here.

I hope people can see the obvious difference. Otherwise, every Phillie in history was on steroids. Keep them all out.

It's all shades of gray. If Bonds is found innocent, what do you do? If he cops a plea to lying but doesn't specifically admit to lying about taking steroids, what does that mean? If Bagwell is elected and then someone comes up with "evidence" (and apparently to you, it's enough evidence that "people claim to see them on jiuce"), do you throw him out? And then 3 years later when that evidence is discredited, you put him back in? Don't we want to know the truth? Under this line of reasoning, there's no reason for a Mark McGwire to come clean because without other evidence, he's electable.

It's a slippery slope because one person's evidence/proof isn't worth much to another person.

[Ksyrup]

The Bagwell steroids rumor has been around for a long time. This is nothing new. It was the first thing I mentioned when someone up thread wondered why he wouldn't get more support for the HoF.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

There was enough for Congress to bring him in and the others they went after all proved to be users.

Well, that's about the same calibre of evidence that exists with Bagwell.

[cubboyroy1826]

Didn't Sammy's name get leaked as being on the yet to be released list of guys who tested positive right about the time he was spouting off about deserving to be in the hall of fame?

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

Didn't recall that. Thanks.

[cubboyroy1826]

Here is a link to one of the reports on Sosa testing positive for a PED.

Report: Sammy Sosa of Chicago Cubs tested positive in 2003 - ESPN (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=4264062)

So is Sammy worthy? This is just a general question not pointed at anyone specific.

[RomaGoth]

Here is a link to one of the reports on Sosa testing positive for a PED.

Report: Sammy Sosa of Chicago Cubs tested positive in 2003 - ESPN (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=4264062)

So is Sammy worthy? This is just a general question not pointed at anyone specific.

I would say he is not worthy. Couple the steroid/hgh allegations, the corked bat and the sudden inability to speak English in front of Congress, and the guy is a complete douche. He had good numbers, but how much of it was due to drugs and corked bats?

[Ksyrup]

There's also the "evidence" that Rick Reilly challenged him to pee in a cup and he refused, so he must be guilty...:rolleyes:

[molson]

There's also the "evidence" that Rick Reilly challenged him to pee in a cup and he refused, so he must be guilty...:rolleyes:

If the players stepped up and provided any kind of transparency, in any way, we wouldn't have fans fighting with fans like we do in this thread, and the steroid era wouldn't have been as tainted. I don't think it was too much to ask, honestly, and at least, I don't feel bad for any player who doesn't get in based on suspicion - when those players fought tooth and nail to avoid giving us anything more concrete.

[Ksyrup]

I don't disagree with your premise, but that's a union thing, not something that should be pinned on a specific player based on a locker room ambush.

[molson]

I don't disagree with your premise, but that's a union thing, not something that should be pinned on a specific player based on a locker room ambush.

True, the union chose collectively to fight drug testing, and the players shouldn't complain about the consequences of that. (And fans shouldn't feel sorry for them).

[rowech]

http://thejockitch.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/jeff-bagwell.jpghttp://baseballevolution.com/images/bagwellsc

[Ksyrup]

You don't think clean body builders could show you pictures of themselves 15-20 years apart that look like that? I don't see before-and-after pics as anything but the flimsiest of evidence.

[cubboyroy1826]

The photo I was talking about was from spring training of Bagwell's last year in the league I think. This photo made him look like he went from Popeye to Olive Oil. Okay not that bad but I am not talking from his rookie year to 15 years later. I will keep searching when I have time.

[NorvTurnerOverdrive]

i'm here to help:
2106

[NorvTurnerOverdrive]

face/head bloating is usually a dead giveaway. i don't see much with bags though he definitely yoked up.

either way, i assume everyone from that era was juiced.

[rowech]

You don't think clean body builders could show you pictures of themselves 15-20 years apart that look like that? I don't see before-and-after pics as anything but the flimsiest of evidence.

Bodybuilders do it every day for their entire lives. Baseball players have four-five months when they aren't playing ball and those pictures are about 10 years apart I believe...not 15-20. In addition, bodybuilders have the frame for the kind of body they build. Most are generally big to start with. Bagwell doesn't have anywhere close to a body frame to have that size body naturally.

[rowech]

face/head bloating is usually a dead giveaway. i don't see much with bags though he definitely yoked up.

either way, i assume everyone from that era was juiced.

And I think that's the assumption for most people. So the question becomes do you put all of them in or none of them in because you shouldn't be picking and choosing.

[TRO]

The MLB Hall of Fame is not the United States justice system (for whatever that is worth). There is no requirement that anybody be positively linked to steroids for it to be a part of their ballot discussion.

Personally, I view each player on their own merit compared to the players of their own era as advantages come and go. Even without steroids, todays players still have many other medical advancements to lean on that players 30 years ago did not.

Bagwell was one of the premier players of his generation. I would give him my vote.

[NorvTurnerOverdrive]

i don't have any problem with it. an era's an era. if you outperform your peers you deserve credit.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

When did douchebaggy writers become the moral guardians of our sport, anyway?

[Logan]

Baseball (including the player's union) has robbed of the opportunity to actually KNOW who was juicing by ignoring the issue for so many years, so I'm totally fine with the writers essentially being the final jury on that.

Coming from someone who said that the writers shouldn't be making the final call...that's a very fair point.

[Ksyrup]

You mean the same writers who ignored steroids while they covered the game and now get to moralize about how all of these players should be stricken from the record books and banned from participating?

[Mustang]

When did douchebaggy writers become the moral guardians of our sport, anyway?

Sometime around 1852

[Logan]

I can't get riled up over that...how many of those writers could have taken that stance and not eventually paid for it with their jobs? Gammons and who else?

Since you don't mind crossing sports and politics (:)), I equate that to so many political/economic personalities who were silent during our good economic times but had no problem trashing government/big business once it came crashing down.

[Ksyrup]

Journalists would have lost their jobs by reporting the biggest sports scandal in 2 generations while it was going on? Really? That doesn't sound like the media/press I've seen over the years. Not sure why sports writers would be any different.

[Logan]

You think those beat writers doubled as investigative journalists?

[Ksyrup]

Do I think they did? Clearly not. Do I think they could/should have? Sure. Thomas Boswell wrote about Canseco using steroids in 1988 and didn't bother to follow-up on it. And in fact, he just casually mentioned another HoFer he saw taking stuff Canseco gave him in the Ken Burns' 10th Inning documentary. And he's now in the HoF, so I'm not sure it would have affected his credibility or job much if he had, you know, acted more like a journalist and less like a jock-sniffing quote-taker.

[molson]

I don't think it was in the collective conscious of America that using steroids was "cheating" until around 1998. I remember fans at Fenway chanting "steroids!" at Canseco throughout the late 80s and early 90s and he would just flex his muscles in response. Steroids just wasn't the dirty word it would become later, it wasn't associated with the legitmacy of the game. The press didn't jump on it because the fans didn't really care.

[Ksyrup]

Despite what you read, I don't think many fans care now, though. I see the fans' anger as being as much a media-driven fantasy than anything else. They could have been out front on that issue well before McGwire/Sosa.

[molson]

The fans care more than they used to, whether that's media driven or not (it's also probably driven by the fact that steroids are actually illegal now). Will McDonagh wrote an article in 1987 complaining about the NCAA banning steroids and not marijuana/cocaine. I think it sums up the views of not just the media but probably a lot of the public of the time. Here's some of it:

"Tell me if this makes sense to you. In this country, it is against the law to use marijuana and cocaine. It is not against the law to use steroids.

Yet, with its usual great wisdom, the National Collegiate Athletic Association has ruled it is OK to take cocaine and marijuana but not OK to take steroids.

Therefore, the NCAA this week has, during the height of the college bowl season, taken to punishing the innocent and protecting the guilty."

..

"What hypocrisy. Have you heard of one football player, college or pro, who has suffered any ill effects from taking steroids? Answer: No. Ask the same question about users of cocaine and marijuana and the numbers run into the hundreds we know about in the NFL alone who have needed treatment in the past five years."

[Atocep]

Joe Posnanski's HoF article today is outstanding.

Joe Posnanski » Posts Hall of Fame: The Eight Definites « (http://joeposnanski.si.com/2010/12/30/hall-of-fame-the-eight-definites/?eref=sihp)

[rowech]

Joe Posnanski's HoF article today is outstanding.

Joe Posnanski » Posts Hall of Fame: The Eight Definites « (http://joeposnanski.si.com/2010/12/30/hall-of-fame-the-eight-definites/?eref=sihp)

Totally agree. The previous two days have been great as well. He's reached the status of being my favorite writer on baseball.

[BishopMVP]

i don't have any problem with it. an era's an era. if you outperform your peers you deserve credit.+1. Stop quoting silly numbers like 3000 hits or 400 home runs, and start focusing on where the player ranked among his peers. Frank Thomas's numbers don't look great in comparison to the guys following him, but he was a monster for 8-10 years - better than a Rafael Palmeiro or Edgar Martinez who relied on longevity to rack up counting stats. I've also generally been a "peak" over "sustained performance" guy in baseball though, as long as you have 8-10 good seasons banked.

[Crapshoot]

When did douchebaggy writers become the moral guardians of our sport, anyway?

This. This. A 1000 TIMES THIS!

[dawgfan]

+1. Stop quoting silly numbers like 3000 hits or 400 home runs, and start focusing on where the player ranked among his peers. Frank Thomas's numbers don't look great in comparison to the guys following him, but he was a monster for 8-10 years - better than a Rafael Palmeiro or Edgar Martinez who relied on longevity to rack up counting stats. I've also generally been a "peak" over "sustained performance" guy in baseball though, as long as you have 8-10 good seasons banked.
Palmeiro, sure. Edgar? Uh, not sure what you're talking about here - Edgar's issue is counting stats because the M's were too stupid to promote him sooner and he didn't become a full-time MLB player until age 27.

Thomas was a better hitter than Edgar, but not by much.

[Atocep]

Palmeiro, sure. Edgar? Uh, not sure what you're talking about here - Edgar's issue is counting stats because the M's were too stupid to promote him sooner and he didn't become a full-time MLB player until age 27.

Thomas was a better hitter than Edgar, but not by much.

Edgar Martinez, Sammy Sosa, and Palmeiro are 3 of the strangest HoF cases and for different reasons.

For whatever reason Edgar Martinez was never really appreciated as a player. He has HoF numbers and I believe the DH excuse is thrown out because "he doesn't feel like a HoFer" is a weak argument. Despite the late start he still had roughly 8500 plate appearances at an amazing level of play. His case is much stronger than I think a lot of people realize.

Both Sosa and Palmeiro have strong counting stats, but the advanced stats aren't as kind to either (especially Sosa). When you look at Sosa's career it was 11 years of 4th outfielder along with a 6 year peak and 1 solid season at the end of that peak.

Before his peak Sosa over 10 years was a .257/.308/.469 hitter. His peak was ridiculous, but is it enough to make up for the fact that nearly 2/3s of his career wasn't very good at all? Even when you remove steroids from the discussion I don't think he was a HoF player.

Palmeiro's career was mostly a lot of really solid seasons in a nice hitting environment. I think if you remove ballpark and take into consideration the fact that he played in a crazy offensive era you end up with a borderline guy that falls just outside the HoF.

[Chief Rum]

For whatever reason Edgar Martinez was never really appreciated as a player.

Heh, he was appreciated in SoCal. Angels fans were plenty happy when Edgar Martinez was no longer in Seattle's lineup. He always killed us.

Strangely enough, we also had to deal with Palmeiro for many years, but while he was generally acknowledged as a dangerous hitter, I don't remember ever being more concerned about Texas because of Palmeiro (it was usually Juan Gone or maybe Julio Franco who was the concern in those days, with Palmeiro falling into that "oh yeah, and they have Palmeiro" type of category).

Jay Buhner on the M's was more cause for concern for the Angels as division rivals than Palmeiro was. Buhner also played well against the Angels.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Orioles' Alfredo Simon is main suspect in killing *| ajc.com (http://www.ajc.com/sports/orioles-alfredo-simon-is-793131.html)

SANTO DOMINGO, Dominican Republic — Baltimore Orioles reliever Alfredo Simon is the main suspect in the New Year's Eve killing of a man in the Dominican Republic, police said Sunday.

The pitcher shot and killed 25-year-old Michel Castillo Almonte and wounded his 17-year-old brother during a New Year's Eve celebration in the northeast coastal town of Luperon, police said in a statement. No motive was disclosed. Simon is from the Dominican Republic, and police said he fled after the violence.

Felipe Alou Jr., a Dominican representative for the Orioles, said he spoke with Simon on Saturday and the player insisted he was not involved in the New Year's Eve shootings.

The 29-year-old Simon joined Baltimore in 2008 but was quickly sidelined with an injury. He went 4-2 with a 4.93 ERA last season. He had 17 saves before Orioles manager Buck Showalter decided to make Koji Uehara the closer.

Simon could face up to 30 years in prison if found guilty.

[ISiddiqui]

+1. Stop quoting silly numbers like 3000 hits or 400 home runs, and start focusing on where the player ranked among his peers. Frank Thomas's numbers don't look great in comparison to the guys following him, but he was a monster for 8-10 years - better than a Rafael Palmeiro or Edgar Martinez who relied on longevity to rack up counting stats. I've also generally been a "peak" over "sustained performance" guy in baseball though, as long as you have 8-10 good seasons banked.

Indeed. Regardless of "steroid era", every single era in MLB is vastly different (compare the 30s and 60s). The only way to compare players of different eras is to compare each player against the players they played against.

[RomaGoth]

Now the closing of his auto dealership in 2009 makes perfect sense.

He's back: Bill Buckner will manage Brockton Rox - ESPN Boston (http://sports.espn.go.com/boston/mlb/news/story?id=5987630)

[Chief Rum]

I wonder if he will handle infield defense.

[molson]

I know a lot of people get worked up about HOF voting, to the point of calling for people to have their voting privileges revoked if they don't vote the right way, but I think we can all agree that Barry Stanton from ESPN.com (and HOF voter) has the strangest ballot ever:

BJ Surhoff
Don Mattingly
Tino Martinez
Edgar Martinez
Jack Morris

(and no Alomar, Blyleven, Larkin, Bagwell)

I mean, BJ Surhoff? What's going on here?

Edit: http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/hof11/news/story?id=5984898

[Atocep]

I know a lot of people get worked up about HOF voting, to the point of calling for people to have their voting privileges revoked if they don't vote the right way, but I think we can all agree that Barry Stanton from ESPN.com (and HOF voter) has the strangest ballot ever:

BJ Surhoff
Don Mattingly
Tino Martinez
Edgar Martinez
Jack Morris

(and no Alomar, Blyleven, Larkin, Bagwell)

I mean, BJ Surhoff? What's going on here?

Edit: ESPN's Baseball Hall of Fame ballot for 2011 - ESPN (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/hof11/news/story?id=5984898)

At least he voted for Edgar?

I'd be really interested to hear his reasoning for Surhoff. I can reasonably predict the case for Mattingly, Tino, and Jack Morris. I have no idea how you build a HoF case for BJ Surhoff.

[Pumpy Tudors]

I know a lot of people get worked up about HOF voting, to the point of calling for people to have their voting privileges revoked if they don't vote the right way, but I think we can all agree that Barry Stanton from ESPN.com (and HOF voter) has the strangest ballot ever:

BJ Surhoff
Don Mattingly
Tino Martinez
Edgar Martinez
Jack Morris

(and no Alomar, Blyleven, Larkin, Bagwell)

I mean, BJ Surhoff? What's going on here?

Edit: ESPN's Baseball Hall of Fame ballot for 2011 - ESPN (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/hof11/news/story?id=5984898)
Sorry, he asked me to fill out the ballot for him, and I was trying to be funny. Looking back on it, I wish I'd written Stan Javier's name instead, because that's even funnier.

[stevew]

He probably liked Surhoff and didn't want to see him get zero votes. I have no issue with that.

[Chief Rum]

Surprised no one has mentioned yet that it appears Beltre is going to be a Ranger and will get over $15 M until he's 37-38 (6 year deal).

It leaves me in a curious position of being simultaneously happy that the Angels didn't give out such a crappy contract and depressed that they seem more and more likely to bring back last year's crap lineup.

[Ksyrup]

At this point I've given up on the Jack Morris thing (I'm a Tigers fan anyway so it's not like I don't love the guy, even if he shouldn't get in) and want some attention turned to Tim Raines and Alan Trammell. Ridiculous they don't get more support.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Dan Uggla and the Braves agreed to a five-year, $62 million extension that will give him the highest average salary ever for a second baseman and keep him under contract through 2015, three sources close to negotiations said.

The sides agreed to terms Tuesday night on the deal, which covers Uggla’s final year of arbitration in 2011 and what would have been his first four years of free agency. It’s expected to be announced Thursday, after he passes a physical. ... The five-year deal includes no option year. Uggla’s average annual salary of $12.4 surpasses Philadelphia second baseman Chase Utley’s $12.14 million as the highest average salary for a second baseman (Utley has a seven-year, $85 million contract).

Uggla will have a $9 million salary in 2011, about $1 million to $2 million below what he might have commanded if he’d gone through with his final year of arbitration. He’ll earn an average of $13.25 million over the final four seasons of the deal, with the salaries fairly even over that period.



Uggla, Braves agree to five-year, $62 million extension | Atlanta Braves (http://blogs.ajc.com/atlanta-braves-blog/2011/01/04/uggla-braves-agree-to-five-year-62-million-extension/?cxntfid=blogs_atlanta_braves_blog&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter)

[RomaGoth]

Surprised no one has mentioned yet that it appears Beltre is going to be a Ranger and will get over $15 M until he's 37-38 (6 year deal).

It leaves me in a curious position of being simultaneously happy that the Angels didn't give out such a crappy contract and depressed that they seem more and more likely to bring back last year's crap lineup.

Don't feel bad. Sometimes it is better to not spend the most money in MLB. ;)

[Chief Rum]

Don't feel bad. Sometimes it is better to not spend the most money in MLB. ;)

Heh...well, I agree there, except it's better to do that when you're dealing with a strong hand. The Angels are coming off of their worst season since 2003, and to that roster they have lost their DH and added two relievers. Yippee!

[Crapshoot]

Surprised no one has mentioned yet that it appears Beltre is going to be a Ranger and will get over $15 M until he's 37-38 (6 year deal).

It leaves me in a curious position of being simultaneously happy that the Angels didn't give out such a crappy contract and depressed that they seem more and more likely to bring back last year's crap lineup.

Beltre's contract is not ridiculous - the guy is so good defensively and was so hurt by Safeco (a park that suppressed right-handed hitting power hitters) that he hasn't been recognized for what he is - the best 3B in baseball not named Longoria or Zimmerman (and maybe Wright), and probably the best defensive 3B in the game.

Adrian Beltre Is Not Movitated by Contract Years | FanGraphs Baseball (http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/adrian-beltre-is-not-motivated-by-contract-years/)

As for the Angels, if their manager didn't have a hissy fit about playing Napoli (you know, a guy who can actually hit) over Francis, this would be less of an issue, though I think they are ticketed for 3rd place no matter what.

[Chief Rum]

Beltre's contract is not ridiculous - the guy is so good defensively and was so hurt by Safeco (a park that suppressed right-handed hitting power hitters) that he hasn't been recognized for what he is - the best 3B in baseball not named Longoria or Zimmerman (and maybe Wright), and probably the best defensive 3B in the game.

Adrian Beltre Is Not Movitated by Contract Years | FanGraphs Baseball (http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/adrian-beltre-is-not-motivated-by-contract-years/)

As for the Angels, if their manager didn't have a hissy fit about playing Napoli (you know, a guy who can actually hit) over Francis, this would be less of an issue, though I think they are ticketed for 3rd place no matter what.

That contract isn't ridiculous not so much for the annual value Beltre may be worth now, but the albatross it will be in a few years, much like Mike Lowell had become with the Red Sox. Of course, Lowell's particular deal was made worse by injury issues, which haven't really been a problem for Beltre. That said, park factors alone don't explain the inconsistency in Beltre's year to year performance at the plate. I think the deal will look very good early on. It's at the end when it could look ridiculous.

I agree that regardless of how he hits, he'll provide excellent defense at third.

As for the Angels, I think they'll be in the mix for second with the A's, but I wouldn't be surprised if they ended up in third again.

[Ksyrup]

Problem with Beltre is that his 2 biggest seasons came when he was looking for a huge, multi-year contract - his last year with the Dodgers and last year with the Red Sox. Right or wrong, that is going to scare some people away. His middle 3 seasons with the Mariners were fairly solid - above-average OPS and his usually outstanding glovework. But they probably weren't worth $16M a year, and definitely didn't look good compared to 48 HRs with LA.

[lordscarlet]

The Nats signed Adam LaRoche.. 2 year deal for $15m with some sort of third year option with a $1m buy out... yay?

[molson]

It does seem these days that you have to be willing to deal with a few albatross years if you're going to bring in any guys that will deliver real impact production.

[stevew]

The Nats signed Adam LaRoche.. 2 year deal for $15m with some sort of third year option with a $1m buy out... yay?

If you don't mind the fact that he won't hit before July, he's a good player.

[Ksyrup]

Alomar and Blyleven in.

[Chief Rum]

Alomar and Blyleven in.

There should be more, but I am ecstatic that at least Blyleven is in. Any word how close some others got?

[Ksyrup]

Roberto Alomar 523 (90.0%)
Bert Blyleven 463 (79.7%)
Barry Larkin 361 (62.1%)
Jack Morris 311 (53.5%)
Lee Smith 263 (45.3%)
Jeff Bagwell 242 (41.7%)
Tim Raines 218 (37.5%)
Edgar Martinez 191 (32.9%)
Alan Trammell 141 (24.3%)
Larry Walker 118 (20.3%)
Mark McGwire 115 (19.8%)
Fred McGriff 104 (17.9%)
Dave Parker 89 (15.3%)
Don Mattingly 79 (13.6%)
Dale Murphy 73 (12.6%)
Rafael Palmeiro 64 (11.0%)
Juan Gonzalez 30 (5.2%)

[Ksyrup]

That's from the ESPN chat. Apparently Alomar jumped over 100 votes (EDIT: Stark says 83). And McGwire got fewer votes than last year.

Bagwell's and especially Raines' totals are embarrassing, IMO.

[Ksyrup]

And Kevin Brown not even getting 5%. That's ridiculous.

[Ksyrup]

Encouraged that Raines went from 30% to 37.5 and that Trammell jumped 20 votes.

[molson]

I guess the steroid talk hurt Bagwell more than I thought it would.

Nice jump for Larkin too, from 51.6% to 62.1%. I don't think there's any huge names joining the ballot next year, so he'll have a real shot.

[Ksyrup]

Larkin's in next year, guaranteed (unless it comes out he took steroids, I guess). Biggest name next year is Bernie Williams, I believe.

[MikeVic]

ESPN's Baseball Hall of Fame ballot for 2011 - ESPN (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/hof11/news/story?id=5984898)

First thing I noticed (after who got in) was some guy named Stanton with stupid votes. I look at the comments, and it seems like a majority of the ones I saw are calling him out lol. Who the hell is this Stanton guy and why is he voting for Surhoff, Tino, and Mattingly?

[stevew]

Dude, go up one page in this thread.

[stevew]

dola, my bad, it was a different thread.

[spleen1015]

I am glad Blyleven finally got in.

[MikeVic]

dola, my bad, it was a different thread.

Link?

[molson]

Link?

He was right the first time, it was up a little higher on the last page of this thread.

...

I had forgotten Blyleven only got 14% of the vote in 1999. That's gotta be a record jump. There's still hope, Dave Parker!!

[Ksyrup]

Parker is off the ballot this year.

[molson]

Damn. Then there's still hope, Dale Murphy!

And here's the under 5% guys:

Harold Baines 28 4.8
John Franco 27 4.6
Kevin Brown 12 2.1
Tino Martinez 6 1.0
Marquis Grissom 4 0.7
Al Leiter 4 0.7
John Olerud 4 0.7
B. J. Surhoff 2 0.3
Bret Boone 1 0.2
Benito Santiago 1 0.2
Carlos Baerga 0 0.0
Lenny Harris 0 0.0
Bobby Higginson 0 0.0
Charles Johnson 0 0.0
Raúl Mondesí 0 0.0
Kirk Rueter 0 0.0

Edit: The four guys who voted for Al Leiter should have their own TV show or something. Where they live in a house together and think everything is amazing. "Wow, this is a Hall of Fame sandwich", ect.

[cartman]

Alomar got the most votes? I was not expectorating that.

[Logan]

Did Benito Santiago even make Poz's no-vote column? Congrats Benito!

[Crapshoot]

Alomar may have been the best 2B since Joe Morgan - no doubt HOF in my books.

Also, I'm glad to see the Jack Morris idiocy tour has spluttered once again.

[MikeVic]

He was right the first time, it was up a little higher on the last page of this thread.

...

I had forgotten Blyleven only got 14% of the vote in 1999. That's gotta be a record jump. There's still hope, Dave Parker!!

Oh ok oops, my bad.

[Swaggs]

I read an article that said that every player that has ever gotten over 50% of the vote has eventually made it into the Hall of Fame except for Gil Hodges. That often includes being named by the veterans' committee.

I suspect that means that Larkin, Morris, Bagwell, and Raines (I'm guessing that the latter two will eventually hit 50%, perhaps as early as next season) will eventually get the call.

[Atocep]

Jack really didn't gain any ground this year and only has 3 years left on the ballot. I don't see him getting in.

[sterlingice]

Edit: The four guys who voted for Al Leiter should have their own TV show or something. Where they live in a house together and think everything is amazing. "Wow, this is a Hall of Fame sandwich", ect.

:D

SI

[ISiddiqui]

I am glad Blyleven finally got in.

This! Makes me happy that the sabermetrics crowd was able to get get justice for Blyleven!

[FBPro]

Damn. Then there's still hope, Dale Murphy!


Come on Murph.....

[Neuqua]

Sounds like Garza to the Cubs is going to happen today.

[lungs]

Sounds like Garza to the Cubs is going to happen today.

Pretty good move for them, I hate to say.

[Ksyrup]

Based on the rumored return, this deal makes the most sense if TB turns around and deals some of its depth for offense.

[stevew]

I dunno if anyone saw this.

Here is Barry Stanton's response to the questions about his ballot

In 1976, I was just out of college and working my first job at the Port Chester (NY) Daily Item, covering a Babe Ruth 13-year-old tournament. The starting pitcher for the team from Rye was supposed to be their star, a big kid named Rich Surhoff, whose father Dick had played for the NY Knicks in the 1950s. Surhoff did, in fact, make it t the major leagues, spending nine games with the Philadelphia Phillies. But that day, the pitcher's younger brother was the one who caught my attention. He was only 12 years old and playing with the older kids, playing shortstop. On consecutive plays, I saw him range behind third base to the left field line and throw out a runner, then range the other way all the way behind first to catch a tricky pop that eluded a teammate.

After that game, I told BJ I thought that someday, I'd be watching him in the major leagues. For the next few years, I watched BJ become a local star at Rye HS, covering his games occasionally. And I remember telling him then that someday, I'd be voting for him for the Hall of Fame. Surhoff, went on to a career at UNC, became the No. 1 pick of the draft, played on our first Olympic baseball team. He had a very good (though not great) career for 18 years in MLB. And then there he was on my ballot (I've been a BBWAA member since 1985 and have had a Hall of Fame vote since '95). So I remembered that promise (though I honestly can't say if BJ does) and checked the box.

The reaction to that astounds me. I expected people who didn’t know the story to question that vote. But the sheer level of nastiness, the anger, amazes me. I really didn't think BJ would get elected. I'd be surprised if he got another vote besides mine. And I'm fine with that. BJ was a very good player and a good guy (check out the work he's done for autism, sparked by his autistic son). He earned the fulfillment of that 35-year-old promise. And who, exactly did that hurt? If voting for BJ cost someone who deserved entry, I wouldn't have done it. And if the rules said that everybody who got one vote got in, then I definitely wouldn't have done it. But it didn’t.

[sterlingice]

An interesting development:

Joe Blogs: The Retirement of Meche (http://joeposnanski.blogspot.com/2011/01/retirement-of-meche.html)

(in it, he links to one of my, well, not favorite, but most memorable Poz pieces that has a great, nuanced story about pitch counts and overwork and how, as we now found out, it basically ended Gil Meche's career: Joe Posnanski » Posts Meche-ing with Sasquatch « (http://joeposnanski.si.com/2010/07/27/meche-ing-with-sasquatch/) )

SI

[sterlingice]

I give Meche a ton of credit for leaving the money on the table. It's amazing to see- and that's not because it's a guy with $50M giving up "only" $12M. But that there are so many pressures to just take that money anyways. How many times have we seen a guy put in a few token outings, go to the DL, and just collect a paycheck the rest of the year.

I know it's not MENSA or anything, but I was reading the Yahoo article and the reactions are just crazy to me. I understand the people saying "you're stupid to walk away from $12M"- that's a lot of money, even for a guy with $50M earned. But there are so many that range from "he was irresponsible to his family" to "he was wrong for not taking the money and donating it to charity" to "the Royals should let people go to games for free since he isn't getting paid" (tho, to be fair- they might have to as historically bad as KC might be this year). There was even some weird moral imperative undertone of "this is how much you were worth so you'd better get paid it no matter what because the market is sacrosanct and infallible".

It's a two way street - he pitches, he gets paid. If he doesn't want to pitch, he doesn't get paid. Just as any of us get at work. Yet because the sums are so great, it became some weird moral issue where people were attaching greater societal implications to this money.

Greinke-Meche was one hell of a 1-2 punch atop the rotation to start 2009. Unfortunately, well, the rest is history.

[ISiddiqui]

An interesting development:

Joe Blogs: The Retirement of Meche (http://joeposnanski.blogspot.com/2011/01/retirement-of-meche.html)

(in it, he links to one of my, well, not favorite, but most memorable Poz pieces that has a great, nuanced story about pitch counts and overwork and how, as we now found out, it basically ended Gil Meche's career: Joe Posnanski » Posts Meche-ing with Sasquatch « (http://joeposnanski.si.com/2010/07/27/meche-ing-with-sasquatch/) )

SI

Wow, what a great article. And lots of earned respect for Mr. Meche.

[sterlingice]

If you've never read him, Posnanski is the best sports writer out there and it's not even close. His only down side is that he churns out so much stuff now through various outlets that it gets a little watered down so it's sometimes not as succinct as it once was a few years ago when he was just writing for the KC Star.

SI

[Ksyrup]

His recent couple of blog posts about his daughter are fantastic.

[Ksyrup]

Um...I just read that the Twins are paying Matt Capps over $7M this year. W. T. F.? That's outrageous and irrresponsible. I thought that team was smarter than that. Wow.

[stevew]

Matt Capps has a FASTBALL!

[Chief Rum]

Um...I just read that the Twins are paying Matt Capps over $7M this year. W. T. F.? That's outrageous and irrresponsible. I thought that team was smarter than that. Wow.

I had a lol moment last night listening to the radio when a sports update came on. The announcer said Kendry Morales signed for about $3 M, Shin Soo Choo for under $4 M and Matt Capps for $7.1 M. Yeah, I sorta chortled at that one.

[LloydLungs]

Um...I just read that the Twins are paying Matt Capps over $7M this year. W. T. F.? That's outrageous and irrresponsible. I thought that team was smarter than that. Wow.

Yeah... they said they wanted a "closer" in case Nathan has problems. Seriously.

The Twins have been quietly really dumb for about three years now. Started with the Garza/Bartlett for Delmon Young trade and trading Santana for nothing, both in the 2007-08 offseason.

[sterlingice]

I can't find the post right now but I remember calling that one a couple of years ago when Smith took over for Ryan as GM of the Twins- he just didn't look like a good GM at all.

He has made a lot of bad moves and the only reason they are still winning now is because of the foundation he Ryan built and how the Twins are now spending big money (estimated $100M+ payroll next year).

That foundation is going to erode and I just don't see them spending $100M year in-year out but Minneapolis is a medium sized market, not a small market as their MSA is 15th

SI

[Ksyrup]

They have greatly benefited from the new stadium. That's the only reason they are over $100M payroll.

[Ksyrup]

Payroll will likely be around $115M this year after Pavano signs.

[JonInMiddleGA]

First manager of the Blue Jays(77-79) Roy Hartsfield dies at age 85
Former Atlanta Brave Dies - Sports News Story - WSB Atlanta (http://www.wsbtv.com/sports/26542431/detail.html)

[cougarfreak]

Wow...........Reds have really locked up some of their young core this offseason. Johnny Cueto signs a 4 year $27 million deal.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Amazing to see the huge payroll transformation with the Royals this off-season. Greinke, Meche, and Guillen all gone. Payroll drops from the 70M range to the 40M range. Lots of room to work now.

Judging from the interview with Moore I heard yesterday, all of that young talent that has allowed the Royals to get back to being the #1 farm system in the majors is going to get a chance to earn a roster spot this year.

[Ksyrup]

This is precisely the reason why a salary cap and salary floor is illogical in baseball. The Royals shouldn't be penalized by having to find veterans to overpay when they've invested in the draft and can use cheaper players to try to field a competitive team.

[cougarfreak]

This is precisely the reason why a salary cap and salary floor is illogical in baseball. The Royals shouldn't be penalized by having to find veterans to overpay when they've invested in the draft and can use cheaper players to try to field a competitive team.

How in the world can anyone trust the Royals to field a competitive team?

[Ksyrup]

First, I said "try." And second, they have a great farm system. What does trust have to do with it?

[Suicane75]

Listen, they'll give Melvin Mora $5 Million this season and like it. He can play like 11 positions.

[cougarfreak]

First, I said "try." And second, they have a great farm system. What does trust have to do with it?

By taking out a supposed salary floor, you would be placing trust in teams to try and field a competitive team. I doubt that fans in Pittsburgh, Kansas City
Baltimore, etc. would trust their respective braintrusts to do so. Heck, in Cincinnati, we publicly financed two new stadiums, and look what it has gotten us. The Reds were ridiculously cheap until Castellini took them over, and Bengals remain so.

[Ksyrup]

The point is, a salary floor makes no sense in a sport where the talent has to develop over years, if it ever develops. The reason the MLB draft isn't that big a deal is that only a handful of guys ever make it, and an even small number of guys have an impact within the first 2 years of being drafted. Not to mention, when you talk "payroll," you are limited to the 40 man roster and don't include most of the minor league talent you have paid for. So really, MLB payroll figures are incomplete and inaccurate, at best. In the NFL, you aren't paying $5M for a guy to sit on your practice squad.

[bronconick]

Don't compare MLB to the NFL. Compare it to the NHL. Minor league system, fanbases that are only regionally interested, vast differences in how much money some franchises are able to bring in outside of their ticket gate.

[molson]

This is precisely the reason why a salary cap and salary floor is illogical in baseball. The Royals shouldn't be penalized by having to find veterans to overpay when they've invested in the draft and can use cheaper players to try to field a competitive team.

They should be allowed to field the cheaper team, but then they shouldn't be allowed as big a percentage (or any percentage) of revenue sharing. Revenue sharing should operate as a boost for smaller market teams who are willing to try. Until those things are actually linked, it's just a handout. Maybe a soft floor, but every dollar you spend above it, you get another dollar from revenue sharing.

[Ksyrup]

What is "willing to try"? Spending money inefficiently on past their prime vets so Joe Sixpack, who doesn't understand rudimentary algebra, let alone the complexities of running a baseball operation, will stop yelling that they are cheap?

Someone mentioned the Pirates earlier. The Pirates spent a lot of money on guys like Kevin Young, Pat Meares, Jason Kendall, Raul Mondesi, etc. Those were stupid signings. And to compound matters, they drafted horribly, too. They weren't trying to be cheap; they had no good players to give money to, and when they did, they gave it to bad players. And then it really made no sense to try to give a Jayson Werth-type deal to some big free agent just to satisfy the idiot writers and fans. They've invested pretty heavily in the draft in the past few years. If they build something, fans will come, and free agents will want to play there. It's just not as simple as throwing a bunch of money at players and winning games.

[molson]

You can't and shouldn't help teams from being stupid. But historical evidence does appear to suggest a correlation between payroll and winning. If you're saying that revenue sharing is basically useless (and actually counter-productive to the success of small market teams), then that practice should end.

If a team has "no good players to give money to", that's fine, they shouldn't have to spend money. But if they don't, why should the Yankees and Yankee fans subsidize the team?

[Ksyrup]

I'm saying that the uses for revenue sharing don't always show up in payroll. And I think it would be a bad idea to penalize a team for using revenue sharing money to beef up scouting or spend more in the Dominican or in the draft, simply because those efforts don't pay off. The penalty for making poor decisions is a bad team and fewer fans. No need to compound that by removing revenue sharing.

I wouldn't object to some sort of MLB oversight requiring teams to justify their uses of that money, but I think it's an oversimplification to say that a team that gets $25M in revenue sharing, say, should be expected to spend an additional $25M in payroll the following season. And even when that money is used to pay down tteam debt, at what point do you argue that isn't helping the team? Less debt frees up other resources. Like I said, this is way too complex an issue ot simply point at payroll and make conclusions.

[molson]

Tieing in scouting expenses to the formula is a good idea. Perhaps it's too complicated overall.

My issue is I don't think there's much incentive for a 60 win team to spend money to become a 75-80 win team (which gives you the chance for a fluke good year and a playoff spot if you can get lucky and win a few more than that.) The small market teams aren't losing money, in fact, they seem to have settled into a profitable niche where there appears to be a "rock bottom" to fan interest that they can still work with. If losing was such a crippling thing for business, the Pirates and Royals should have been contracted or moved a long time ago. Instead, they get to putter along with minimal revenue and minimal expenses, and can trick their fans into blaming everyone else for their failures.

[Warhammer]

I'm not so sure about Pittsburgh, but KC is an incredible baseball market if they could get the team right.

[MikeVic]

Found this to be an interesting read:

Joe Posnanski » Posts Trading 500 for 325 « (http://joeposnanski.si.com/2011/01/19/trading-500-for-325/)

[Ksyrup]

He also did a follow-up today.

[stevew]

I'm not so sure about Pittsburgh, but KC is an incredible baseball market if they could get the team right.

Pittsburgh is the biggest homer market in the universe.

[MikeVic]

Anyone else seeing Vernon Wells to the Angels?

[sterlingice]

Anyone else seeing Vernon Wells to the Angels?

MLBTR has it:
Jays, Angels Swap Vernon Wells For Napoli, Rivera: MLB Rumors - MLBTradeRumors.com (http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2011/01/blue-jays-to-acquire-mike-napoli.html)

SI

[Travis]

Looks like Wells for Napoli and Rivera.

Just looking at a run down of their roster and it looks like they could still use a #3 type starter and a middle of the order hitting third baseman. Get those two without giving up much from the current lineup and they'd be looking pretty good if Bautista can even put up 70% of what he did last year.

If Hill and Lind can bounce back from last year a bit too, well, could be a fun team to watch.

[stevew]

It has to be hard being a Jays fan with the upside of every season potentially being a 3rd place finish.

[JPhillips]

It has to be great being a Jays fan with the upside of every season potentially being a 3rd place finish.

Fixed for Pirates fans.

[BishopMVP]

It has to be hard being a Jays fan with the upside of every season potentially being a 3rd place finish.The Rays lost a lot this offseason, and unless/until the Yankees fix their rotation, I could see either Toronto or Baltimore finishing ahead of one or either of them.

[stevew]

"Yankee rotation problems" meaning they lost a 2WAR Petitte? Or the fact that Joba is essentially an unlucky version of Bard plus they signed Soriano which gives them a disgusting pen?

[stevew]

Fixed for Pirates fans. I'm hoping for 74 wins this year. Yes, that would be plus 17, but surely they can't be as bad again.

[SackAttack]

I'm hoping for 74 wins this year. Yes, that would be plus 17, but surely they can't be as bad again.

On the plus side, anything up to -13 still leaves them 1 ahead of the 2002 Tigers.

[bhlloy]

Wow. An unbelievable move by the Angels. You won't pay for Crawford or Beltre, but you will pick up one of the worst contracts in baseball voluntarily?

Reagins is way, way out of his depth and Moreno is just enabling him. Unfuckingbelievable.

[BishopMVP]

"Yankee rotation problems" meaning they lost a 2WAR Petitte? Or the fact that Joba is essentially an unlucky version of Bard plus they signed Soriano which gives them a disgusting pen?Yankees rotation problems meaning their current 2-5 is the inconsistent and 34 y/o AJ Burnett, Phil Hughes (made a 70 IP jump to career-high 175 IP), Ivan Nova (career high 187 last year) and Sergio Mitre of the 5.27 career ERA, with no obvious backup plans like a Jeremy Hellickson in the minors. There are still a couple potential stopgaps out there (Justin Duchscherer the scariest in my mind), but as constituted that is not the rotation of an AL East playoff team.

[Chief Rum]

Wow. An unbelievable move by the Angels. You won't pay for Crawford or Beltre, but you will pick up one of the worst contracts in baseball voluntarily?

Reagins is way, way out of his depth and Moreno is just enabling him. Unfuckingbelievable.

I don't know that my reaction is that negative, but I am probably closer to this interpretation than I am to this being a big win for the Angels. That contract is just so awful, and Wells isn't exactly a guy they can be sure to count on for production on a level with last year.

I absolutely hate what the Angels did with Napoli. It would be just desserts for them if he should become the top notch power hitter his swing promises he will be in Toronto.

[JPhillips]

I'm hoping for 74 wins this year. Yes, that would be plus 17, but surely they can't be as bad again.

It can turn around with the right management. The Reds look set to compete for several years.

[Young Drachma]

AA is a genius, I guess managing to pull this swindle.

[molson]

That's a really unbelievable trade for Toronto. They must have NEVER thought they'd be able to get that Wells contract off the books, and they did, and got a productive player on top of it. I read somewhere they only have $14.5 million committed for 2012 now, so you'd think they have a great chance to be good within the next few years, especially if the 2nd wild card is instituted (and if they have any interest in spending money)

[bhlloy]

I don't know that my reaction is that negative, but I am probably closer to this interpretation than I am to this being a big win for the Angels. That contract is just so awful, and Wells isn't exactly a guy they can be sure to count on for production on a level with last year.

I absolutely hate what the Angels did with Napoli. It would be just desserts for them if he should become the top notch power hitter his swing promises he will be in Toronto.

In a vacuum it's not the worst deal ever, but when you put in context of the Angels not being willing to spend for any elite FA the last couple of years, to then turn around and take on one of the worst contracts in the game at a higher price than any of those FA would have come at... WTF.

It largely depends on what Vernon Wells we are getting sure, but we could have got Crawford, Beltre, Holliday or just kept Tex at that price. Angels consistently fail to sign high priced FA because they aren't willing to overpay/break their salary ceiling, and then they give up a decent asset to acquire a guy who isn't as good/is way less consistent than any of the guys they wouldn't pay for. It's nothing but a horrible panic deal and terrible, terrible GM'ing. I guess there's a chance we get good, actually somewhere close to worth 24million a year Vernon Wells for the rest of the contract, but I'm not betting on it. And even then I'd probably rather any of the guys listed above. Reagins out.

[MikeVic]

That's a really unbelievable trade for Toronto. They must have NEVER thought they'd be able to get that Wells contract off the books, and they did, and got a productive player on top of it. I read somewhere they only have $14.5 million committed for 2012 now, so you'd think they have a great chance to be good within the next few years, especially if the 2nd wild card is instituted (and if they have any interest in spending money)

The owners have said they'll spend money if there's an opportunity to win. I'm just happy Wells is off the books.

[stevew]

It can turn around with the right management. The Reds look set to compete for several years.

There's pieces in place, however the pitching just isn't there yet.

[McSweeny]

I think Wells' home/road splits would really worry me if I was an Angel's fan.

Home: .321/.363/.628
Road : .227/.301/.407

[Bad-example]

It would be just desserts for them if...

Not sure what this means in baseball terms but it sounds delicious!

[rowech]

There's pieces in place, however the pitching just isn't there yet.

I'm worried less about their pitching than I am their offense. They don't have a pure #1 I will grant you but they have at least seven starts I feel pretty comfortable with. Their bullpen, while not big on names, is also pretty good although Rhodes being gone might open up a hole in it.

[stevew]

I was talking about the Pirates.

[sterlingice]

Putting the Gil Meche money to good use:

Billy Butler Agrees To Extension With Royals: MLB Rumors - MLBTradeRumors.com (http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2011/01/royals-butler-agree-to-long-term-contract.html)

SI

[Maple Leafs]

I'm late on this, but holy shit I can not believe the Jays managed to trade Wells without paying at least half his contract.

This is an unreal move by the Jays. The Wells contract was an albatross that was going to prevent them from contending for four years. Now, there's hope. Not a lot, but some. Just ridiculous that they found a way to pull this off.

Two decent players and no cash the other way? Madness. Pure madness.

[MalcPow]

I'm late on this, but holy shit I can not believe the Jays managed to trade Wells without paying at least half his contract.

This is an unreal move by the Jays. The Wells contract was an albatross that was going to prevent them from contending for four years. Now, there's hope. Not a lot, but some. Just ridiculous that they found a way to pull this off.

Two decent players and no cash the other way? Madness. Pure madness.

I like to give these things a few days to settle in my mind, but this one still seems really bad.

[Ksyrup]

I assume the Angels were wowed by the Gold Gloves or something, because the guy's not even a decent OFer anymore.

Guy's got a Saberhagen thing going - 2006, OPS+ 129; 2007, OPS+ 85; 2008, OPS+ 122; 2009, OPS+ 86; 2010, OPS+ 127. And that's before the $23M salaries kick in. Good luck with that.

[MikeVic]

I'm definitely liking the Jays' GM so far. Hopefully they seriously contend in the next two-three years and Rogers lives up to their end of the bargain of actually spending money.

[Ksyrup]

Too bad BJ Ryan's contract is up, or maybe the Angels would have taken the last year off their hands for a box of balls or something.

[Ksyrup]

Napoli to Texas for Frank Francisco.

[Chief Rum]

Napoli to Texas for Frank Francisco.

Wow, really? That's F'd up. Well, that's what you get, Angels FO and Scioscia, when you continue to dick around a guy you should have been playing a ton more when you had the chance. Now he'll be bashing you around for 18 games every year.

But, hey, at least we have Jeff "Limp Noodle" Mathis and his power stick.

[Tasan]

Wow...Napoli is just about exactly what the Rangers needed too, a right handed bench bat that can DH and play 1st, as well as throw in at catcher whenever you have to pinch run for the starter.

[Crapshoot]

Watching the Angels trade for Vernon Wells - wow. How stunningly hilarious. I wonder if we can ship them Barry Zito for Fernando Rodney. :D

[Chief Rum]

Watching the Angels trade for Vernon Wells - wow. How stunningly hilarious. I wonder if we can ship them Barry Zito for Fernando Rodney. :D

Believe it or not, you don't want bleepin' Rodney, even if they'll do it.

[Ksyrup]

I feel your pain. Watching that guy pitch for Detroit was maddening.

[Chief Rum]

BTW, my uncle brought this up and in a sad way, I find it as tragically funny as he did.

The Angels are paying, on average, CF Vernon Wells $21.5 M, CF Torii Hunter $18 M and CF Gary Matthews Jr. $10.5 M or so, for a grand total of $50 M this year--and it may end up that none of them will play CF this year for the Angels (league min Peter Bourjos is currently set to get first shot there).

[Ksyrup]

I read that somewhere a couple of days ago.

[Ksyrup]

It's hard to believe smart businessmen don't realize that the big contracts they've given out have not worked because they gave them to the wrong players, not because they contracts were big. I mean, Gary Matthews and Darrin Erstad were black hole money pits from day one.

[Warhammer]

The Torii Hunter deal does not bother me, the Wells and Matthews deals are the ones that drive me nuts. How long does Reagins keep his job?

[Ksyrup]

Yeah, Hunter wasn't an awful signing. Matthews was the one that was just hysterical at the moment it happened. There wasn't even a need to "in hindsight" that one; it was stupid from day one.

[dawgfan]

The Angels have been a well-run organization for several years, but recent transactions have me really scratching my head - I'd guess there's growing talk about Reagins being in over his head. The Wells deal is the capper - I just can't see what he was thinking with that one.

[Bad-example]

hxxp://www.lopeztonight.com/episode_recaps_and_highlights/brian_wilson_is_a_seaman.php#blog

Brian Wilson on the George Lopez Show. Funny shit.

[stevew]

Still can believe they shed Alex Rios and Wells in a bit over a year. Amazing work.

[MizzouRah]

Brian Wilson is one hell of a funny dude.. great stuff.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sQesL-G4jPE&feature=player_embedded#

[stevew]

George Lopez cancels out any funny.

[MikeVic]

Still can believe they shed Alex Rios and Wells in a bit over a year. Amazing work.

I'm fairly optimistic, they've made some really nice moves.

[Young Drachma]

AA is a wunderkind. All of the Blue Jay blogs are basically saying that Francisco's live arm trumps Napoli's upside because with J.P. Arencibia needing some ABs eventually and Adam Lind at first, he'd have been nice but didn't really need him and that Francisco could fetch more in a deadline trade if we're out of it.

Dunno if I believe it, but I'll go with it because AA has already outdone whatever Riccardi did in his tenure.

[MikeVic]

AA is a wunderkind. All of the Blue Jay blogs are basically saying that Francisco's live arm trumps Napoli's upside because with J.P. Arencibia needing some ABs eventually and Adam Lind at first, he'd have been nice but didn't really need him and that Francisco could fetch more in a deadline trade if we're out of it.

Dunno if I believe it, but I'll go with it because AA has already outdone whatever Riccardi did in his tenure.

Yeah I read the same. Something about Francisco being a type A free agent, or big potential to be a type A? Which gives them a better draft pick if he's signed. I don't fully understand how that system works.

The Yunel trade was awesome. And I pretty much approve of the Marcum trade. We have a ton of pitchers in the minors and although I like Marcum, Lawrie is supposed to be a pretty nice player.

[Young Drachma]

Yeah I read the same. Something about Francisco being a type A free agent, or big potential to be a type A? Which gives them a better draft pick if he's signed. I don't fully understand how that system works.

The Yunel trade was awesome. And I pretty much approve of the Marcum trade. We have a ton of pitchers in the minors and although I like Marcum, Lawrie is supposed to be a pretty nice player.

Frank Francisco was a Type A free agent, meaning that any team that signed him would owe his previous team their 1st round pick plus said team would get a compensatory pick (a sandwich pick between the 1st and 2nd round). The Rangers offered him arbitration, but his arby number should come in less than Napoli's even if the Jays lose.

Here's a primer (http://www.baseballrumormill.com/2010/12/type-a-and-type-b-free-agents) on the FAs who were Type A and Type B for this off-season.

We'll see. I wasn't sold on the Marcum deal at first, but again, if we're going to stink anyway...no need to hold on to guys who can yield us something else.

[Lathum]

Mets sign RA Dickey to a 2 year deal.

LOOK OUT PHILS!!!!

[Ksyrup]

Um...Rob? ROB? ROB!!!!!!!!



A Quick Programming Note ...

Fifteen years ago, I moved to Seattle to work for a company called Starwave (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starwave). The company did a lot of things, but I was hired -- and this might surprise you -- mostly to edit fantasy-related content for a website called ESPNet.SportsZone.com; a few years later, we became the ESPN.com that everyone knows and loves so well.

Frankly, it's a minor miracle that I've been here ever since. I was the new guy, didn't know how I was supposed to behave, and somewhat routinely ran afoul of my bosses and their bosses. I owe a great deal to their good graces, and I'm sorry I can't thank everyone who's allowed me to do what I love for so long. I will toss extra hosannas to Geoff Reiss, David Schoenfield, and David Kull, for reasons they know only too well. Collectively, they're No. 2 on the all-time list.

You're No. 1.

Whether you've been reading my ramblings since 1996 or just since last week, you have my profound, impossible-to-express-in-words gratitude. There is not a working writer on Earth who's more grateful than I for his readers. Without you, I would have nothing.

Today, I hand off this space to whoever's next. I don't know yet who is next, but I'm highly confident that this blog and the SweetSpot Network will soon be in excellent hands.

Meanwhile, I'll be around. The kids tell me it's all about search these days. You won't have to search real hard to find me, if you want.

Happy trails, until we meet again.

[Ksyrup]

I know there are at least a few who appreciate Rob Neyer's work, so I'm kinda surprised no one else has posted about this.



Monday, January 31, 2011

Rob Neyer Leaving ESPN.com: An Appreciation



I met Rob Neyer in 1996 in Seattle, joining him at an amazing company called Starwave, which was charged with creating and producing what was then called ESPNet.SportsZone.com. (Really.)

Unless someone can prove otherwise, Neyer was the Web's first full-time online sports columnist. And there is a good chance he was the first full-time online columnist for ANY mainstream news company.

Rob was (and remains) a pioneer in not simply statistics in baseball media, but the application of those stats in talking about baseball.

And his contributions -- not to mention his longevity on the ESPN.com platform, basically for its entire existence -- is why it's such a big deal that he announced today he is leaving ESPN.com.

There is a strong argument to be made -- one that I personally believe in (and I'm not alone (http://twitter.com/FO_BBarnwell/status/32166139295432704)) -- that Rob has done more to popularize the understanding of baseball statistics by baseball fans than any writer in baseball history, including Michael Lewis.

(I hope that in the not-too-distant future, Rob receives the Ford Frick Award from the Baseball Hall of Fame, because he has already earned it.)

I will leave it to someone else to quantify Rob's accomplishments by trying to figure out how many readers he has reached over his 15-year career at ESPN.com -- or qualify Rob's impact by figuring out how many baseball writers today found him an inspiration (http://hardballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/01/31/rob-neyer-says-goodbye-to-espn/):

Not only can you make a living writing about sports on the Web, but you can be really, really good at it.

At ESPN.com, Rob combined accessible voice with smart writing. He wrote columns, did mailbags with readers, participated in marathon chats (at one point holding the ESPN.com chat-marathon record) and applied his style to his most recent project, the SweetSpot blog. (To say nothing of his amazing books, a totally different subject, but part of the whole Neyer story.)

I'll echo something I wrote about Peter King last week -- and Rob preceded King by at least two years. It can't be understated that back in 1996, people were just trying to figure out how to write for this new medium. Many were doing a lousy job at it, mostly applying what they knew from other mediums -- like newspapers -- and simply plopping in the same everything.

(This is the place where Rob would insist -- and I would concur -- that we pay tribute to Rob's longtime editor at ESPN.com, certainly during those formative, influential years of the late-90s, David Schoenfield. Without David's leadership and vision and collusion and sense of revolution as an editor, Rob wouldn't have had nearly the impact he did. Same goes for longtime ESPN.com publisher Geoff Reiss, who originally had the vision to hire Rob and give him that unprecedented role as sports' first full-time online writer/columnist. I count both David and Geoff as close friends and marvel at their impact, here and elsewhere.)

But perhaps because he didn't come from a newspaper or traditional media background, Neyer could allow his style and voice to flow more naturally. He was (and is) made for this medium, and the medium is better off for his contributions in its early formative years.

(I still have a copy of a column Rob wrote for me about college basketball -- I was ESPN.com's college hoops editor -- and it always made the coverage better to have Rob's contribution, almost always ideas he came up with on his own, noodling at his desk.)

Don't know what's next for Rob, but as he might describe it: 15 years creates a lot of data to draw conclusions, and it is easy to predict his continued success.

And it is easy to thank him for his 15 wonderful years at ESPN.com. In a medium as fleeting as online, it is perhaps the highest compliment to pay: Rob Neyer has mattered.

-- D.S.

Posted by Dan Shanoff at <A class=timestamp-link title="permanent link" href="http://www.danshanoff.com/2011/01/rob-neyer-leaving-espncom-appreciation.html" rel=bookmark><ABBR class=published title=2011-01-31T15:01:00-05:00>1/31/2011 03:01:00 PM</ABBR>

[Comey]

Mets sign RA Dickey to a 2 year deal.

LOOK OUT PHILS!!!!

Dickey owned the Phils last year. Tossed two near no-hitters against them, if I recall. I know, as a Phils fan, I usually groan when he's on the mound.

[Ksyrup]

Well, I guess the rumor is true - Neyer's joining SBNation.com.

[Logan]

I don't know much about that site beyond ending up there a few times when following links, never really browsed it. Seems like a horribly messy design. He must have gotten a massive bump to move there.

[Ksyrup]

I'm still wondering how it went down - did he leave on his own, did they push him out, was there a difference of opinion over a contract negotiation?

It does look pretty cluttered, I agree.

[dawgfan]

Rob has jumped ship to SBNations writing for their MLB homepage. Check out his first column - it's pretty funny, as he addresses how he was called out four years ago as irrelevant by...Jeff Sullivan, one of the SBNation MLB page editors (and the founder and owner of Lookout Landing):

http://www.sbnation.com/mlb/2011/2/1/1967543/michael-young-texas-rangers-al-west

[JonInMiddleGA]

Well, I guess the rumor is true - Neyer's joining SBNation.com.

My initial reaction? "WTF is SBNation.com?"

My subsequent reaction, after searching for the site? "WTF is SBNation.com, a sports-centric version of Examiner.com (http://www.examiner.com/about_examiner)?"

Looks to me as though either someone fell into a pot of money they needed to spend or ESPN wasn't interested in retaining Neyer. Not really seeing this closing the relative gap in the prominence of the two sites by a noticeable amount, more like the relegation of Neyer to considerable obscurity (not that he was exactly a household name to begin with).

Quite strange, bordering on weird.

[Crapshoot]

I'm a big fan of their blogs (McCoveYChronicles) = that's where their real value is, not the splash page. Think of them as individual localized team sites, with a fan focus.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

SBNation does pretty well for itself.

ComScore, the Reston-based tracker of consumer Internet habits, tallied 5.8 million unique visitors to SB Nation Web sites during the month of November.

Raised 23.5m in venture capital.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Raised 23.5m in venture capital.

In the online world, that doesn't go nearly so far as most people would think, at least not from anything I've seen.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

In the online world, that doesn't go nearly so far as most people would think, at least not from anything I've seen.

Well, combined with the ad revenue from the page views, I imagine they don't have financial concerns at the moment.

I've certainly heard of them, and probably the first time was several years ago.

[sterlingice]

When I post stuff from Royals Review, that's an SBNation blog. I'm also a pretty big fan of their Houston Rockets one. That said, I don't feel like they're that sort of destination, just a rough conglomeration of blogs. There's a wide variance from one subject to the next. You have RR or LL (Lookout Landing) that I think of as the big message board/blog destinations for their fans (short of, say, kcroyals.com or the Royals official Facebook page). The Dream Shake (the Rockets one) is a decent sized one but Clutch Fans is much bigger. While the KU one is downright sad, compared to say, phog.net.

SI

[JonInMiddleGA]

re: Neyer's whole "them vs us" spiel, I love the comment at the top of a random SBN site that Googled up

..but to tell you the truth we wanted to become THEM, not him become US.

Made me chuckle it did :)

[Ksyrup]

Damn, ESPN has had a couple of the SweetSpot team writers put up pieces today in what used to be Rob's space, and they are just getting trashed. It's like 1 substantive comment about the article subject for every 7 or 8 comments about how bad ESPN fucked up for not keeping Rob.

I really want to know how his departure went down.

[Ksyrup]

Glad to see Pettitte is retiring.

[stevew]

White Sox To Sign Lastings Milledge

Good luck with that.

[DanGarion]

White Sox To Sign Lastings Milledge

Good luck with that.

What's next Elijah Dukes?

[Logan]

For anyone following the Mets' Wilpon/Madoff lawsuit situation, a good Q&A from one of ESPN's legal experts now that the lawsuits have been unsealed and the Madoff trustee is alleging that the Wilpons either knew about the fraud or should have known about the fraud.

Legal experts weigh in - Mets Blog - ESPN New York (http://proxy.espn.go.com/blog/new-york/mets/post/_/id/13939/legal-experts-weigh-in)

My prediction is that Selig forces the Wilpons to sell the whole team within a matter of months.

[Atocep]

My prediction is that Selig forces the Wilpons to sell the whole team within a matter of months.

Although I'd love to see the Wilpons forced to sell I'd be a little nervous now that they actually have a front office I like in place.

[Terps]

Vlad to the O's...

Not that anyone cares besides me.

Definitely will be a fun team to watch for once.

[Chief Rum]

Vlad to the O's...

Not that anyone cares besides me.

Definitely will be a fun team to watch for once.

I care. About Vlad anyway. :)

Glad to see he signed somewhere and should get to continue playing a good deal.

[MizzouRah]

Good for Vlad.. I like him as well.

[Ksyrup]

I can't believe a team that will be lucky to fight for 3rd place would spend $8M on a guy like that.

[Chief Rum]

I can't believe a team that will be lucky to fight for 3rd place would spend $8M on a guy like that.

I can. What is the point of being part of a competitive venture if you're not going to put your best foot forward? The Orioles feel that Vlad at $8 M can help them this year. If they don't believe in maximizing their effort to win, no matter how unlikely, why would they even bother to be in the business?

[stevew]

I can't believe a team that will be lucky to fight for 3rd place would spend $8M on a guy like that.

agreed. That'll put asses in the seats.

[Chief Rum]

Now if you're saying it's wrong to spend the money because they aren't spending somewhere else that gets them closer to winning, I can buy that. But to my knowledge, the Orioles are actually spending more this year, and like the Nats, seemed willing to spend more from the start, if only some free agents wanted to actually play there.

[stevew]

I'm a bit of a homer, but Reimold should get at least one more legitimate chance to earn a spot in the bigs. Vlad signing there probably ends any chance he had of gaining a spot with the Orioles. Just seems like he'd save you 7.6M dollars vs Vlad, and could be pretty good(2010 weak sauce season aside).

[Terps]

Reimold had a lot of injury and personal problems but I'm hoping he still makes the team. He showed a lot of potential in 2009.

It's either going to be him or Pie that gets the 4th OF spot, but Reimold has an option left, Pie doesn't.

[Ksyrup]

Now if you're saying it's wrong to spend the money because they aren't spending somewhere else that gets them closer to winning, I can buy that.

This. If they have $8M burning a hole in their pockets, there are tons of places a baseball organization can spend it that would provide way better ROI than someone like Vlad.

And look, I don't have a problem with them signing the guy, either, but by all accounts they just caved to the amount he wouldn't take less than. They essentially paid him for his pride. But even if he's worth $8M on the field this year, he's not worth the signing unless they can flip him for useful future pieces at the break.

[JPhillips]

Will they lose a draft pick?

[Chief Rum]

Will they lose a draft pick?

No. Texas didn't offer arbitration (pretty sure Vlad would have accepted).

[Chief Rum]

This. If they have $8M burning a hole in their pockets, there are tons of places a baseball organization can spend it that would provide way better ROI than someone like Vlad.

Only if those assets are available, though. This late in the offseason, I doubt they are. Vlad's probably as good of an investment free agent wise as anyone else left out there right now. They might use that $8 M to take on a salary in a trade, but that also presumes fair market value back to the club trading the asset. And with the way the Orioles have been willing to spend this offseason from the offers we have seen or heard, it seems unlikely to me that they are spending short elsewhere (like in scouting or player development) in order to have the bigger payroll--Angelos doesn't lack for money, and the O's have been rather "free" with their spending this offseason. If they are not spending money on scouting/development, I doubt it's because they felt they had to choose between it or spending on free agents--from what I have heard on the O's and how they operate, if they aren't spending on scouting/developing, it's because they are stupidly not valuing it highly. So not spending $8 M on Vlad doesn't mean more money for scouting/development; it just goes back into the vault until the next opportunity for a free agent splash.

[Ksyrup]

from what I have heard on the O's and how they operate, if they aren't spending on scouting/developing, it's because they are stupidly not valuing it highly. So not spending $8 M on Vlad doesn't mean more money for scouting/development; it just goes back into the vault until the next opportunity for a free agent splash.

And that's the problem. His signing doesn't become smart by comparison to their stupidity to spend that money where it might actually help them. That's not the way you judge these things.

[Chief Rum]

And that's the problem. His signing doesn't become smart by comparison to their stupidity to spend that money where it might actually help them. That's not the way you judge these things.

Ah, but the mistake isn't in spending the money on Vlad. The mistake is having an organizational philosophy that does not encourage spending on scouting/development. I agree that is stupid, but that only makes the Vlad signing a poor one, if the money would otherwise go to S/D. Since that's not how the O's seem to operate (the money just goes back to Angelos unspent), the Vlad signing is likely a better alternative than the not spending (since if he's anywhere close to his numbers last year, he's likely to outperform the O's in-system options significantly for where he'll play).

[Chief Rum]

Meaning, that if you accept the unfortunate context that the O's aren't ever going to smartly spend that money on S/D, the way they have chosen to spend it isn't all that bad.

Regardless, Vlad's not going to get them past the Yanks or Red Sox, as you note (and probably not even the Rays, even with their losses).

[Ksyrup]

I disagree. It's a waste of money both because it isn't going to mean much, if anything, to the standings, and it takes away playing time from guys who will still be on the team after Vlad is gone and (presumably) when some of their young pitching will develop and make them more of a contender than they will be this year.

If they have to spend that money on FAs, I'd rather see my team spread $8M among several guys who might contribute this year, or just save it for next year or the year after.

[molson]

How, in a practical sense, can you spend $8 million to draft and scout better? Obviously there's a minimum budget you need to be competent in that area, but once you've past that, I'm not sure I believe spending $8 million on the "farm system" gives you any obvious return.

If Vlad's an upgrade over what they have it's worth it. The Orioles haven't had a winning season in 14 years, that's a worthwhile goal in itself. Every move can't have a "World Series or bust!" mindset. The Orioles and other bottom-feeding franchises have been vaguely "developing talent" for more than a decade now. Edit: What are the odds, really, that they'll pass Boston and/or the Yankees even in 2-3 years when all this young talent "develops"? I'd be impresed with a winning season.

[Ksyrup]

Investing in scouting and development is, by its nature, not something that gives an obvious, immediate return. But the fact is, a year of Vlad on the Orioles provides little tangible return, too.

But herre's the deal - they can take that money and use it to sign international players. That's like free agency, except the players won't be playing the majors for a few years. But that's a far better use of $8M than giving it to Vlad. Reds picked up Chapman for less than that per year. Red Sox signed their SS of the future for $8.2M. And those guys are going to help their teams win. Vlad is going to help the Orioles go from, what, 66 to 69 wins?

[dawgfan]

How, in a practical sense, can you spend $8 million to draft and scout better? Obviously there's a minimum budget you need to be competent in that area, but once you've past that, I'm not sure I believe spending $8 million on the "farm system" gives you any obvious return.
Well, first off what is a minimum budget to be "competent" in scouting, and have the Orioles met that level?

Second, more scouting money means more budget for more scouts/scouting time; instead of an area scout seeing a kid once (or not at all), he sees him two or three (or more) times and can form a more informed opinion about that kid. Even considering travel expenses, $8M would buy a lot of scouting hours for an organization.

[Chief Rum]

Investing in scouting and development is, by its nature, not something that gives an obvious, immediate return. But the fact is, a year of Vlad on the Orioles provides little tangible return, too.

But herre's the deal - they can take that money and use it to sign international players. That's like free agency, except the players won't be playing the majors for a few years. But that's a far better use of $8M than giving it to Vlad. Reds picked up Chapman for less than that per year. Red Sox signed their SS of the future for $8.2M. And those guys are going to help their teams win. Vlad is going to help the Orioles go from, what, 66 to 69 wins?

I think it's just a different mindset, and we'll just have to agree to disagree. I am with molson there--if you're not going to do everything to try to win, then why even participate? Why not fold the Orioles? The O's are trying to put their best foot forward and compete. I'm not going to fault them for not choosing to go completely in the dumps for picks and spending money on international free agents instead of trying for the unliekly result of winning the division and beyond.

Frankly, if you want a league that has either uber-contenders or a bunch of tankers going for the first pick, with no middle ground because "what's the point", you can start a league like that and have fun with it all you want. I prefer a league where everyone's trying to win every year.

[Ksyrup]

They aren't trying to win. They will not win because they signed Vlad, or because they signed anyone else this off-season. This team cannot win.

Being marginally better and trying to win are not the same thing. Winning means getting to the playoffs so you have a chance to win a championship. The Orioles are not trying to win in 2011. They are attempting to put an $8M, pea-sized band-aid on a gaping wound. That's not trying to win. That's being stupid.

[Chief Rum]

They aren't trying to win. They will not win because they signed Vlad, or because they signed anyone else this off-season. This team cannot win.

Being marginally better and trying to win are not the same thing. Winning means getting to the playoffs so you have a chance to win a championship. The Orioles are not trying to win in 2011. They are attempting to put an $8M, pea-sized band-aid on a gaping wound. That's not trying to win. That's being stupid.

I disagree. You may not like how they are doing it, but in their mind, they're putting their best foot forward, trying to maximize their chances. I don't fault them for that. Could they have been smarter with, well, everything? Of course. But they're not trying to mail in the season before it starts. You may not see the value in that, but I do. Good luck to them.

[molson]

Being marginally better and trying to win are not the same thing. Winning means getting to the playoffs so you have a chance to win a championship. The Orioles are not trying to win in 2011. They are attempting to put an $8M, pea-sized band-aid on a gaping wound. That's not trying to win. That's being stupid.

I'm not sure they're $8 million in the scouting department away from a 2013 world series.

[Ksyrup]

I don't have a problem with the Orioles trying to keep afloat while the execute some long-term plan to be competitive. But bidding against no one to pay an aging non-fielder $8M for 1 year is a pretty poor decision.

[Ksyrup]

I'm not sure they're $8 million in the scouting department away from a 2013 world series.

No, but that's not really the point. Tthis particular $8M, if spent on scouting, would help them more on that goal than spending it on Vlad in 2011.

Let's also not forget that not only did they give him this money, but no other team was going to spend $8M on him. They basically bid against themselves to appease his ego. If he couldn't play for less than $8M (or $3M) this year, he should have taken a seat next to Jermaine Dye on the "out of work" bench.

[Chief Rum]

No, but that's not really the point. Tthis particular $8M, if spent on scouting, would help them more on that goal than spending it on Vlad in 2011.

Let's also not forget that not only did they give him this money, but no other team was going to spend $8M on him. They basically bid against themselves to appease his ego. If he couldn't play for less than $8M (or $3M) this year, he should have taken a seat next to Jermaine Dye on the "out of work" bench.

But if they were willing to give it him, doesn't that justify him holding out for that amount? A player is worth what the market will give him (see, Nats, Werth). No one said the market is always smart.

[molson]

You always hear this stuff when a bad team signs a veteran. (Ivan Rodriguez with the Tigers is the most obvious example). "What's the point, they've terrible, he's not going to bring them to the World Series." At some point you have to try to improve your team in the present. I don't know if Vlad is specifically a good value or not, I'm just responding to the general point that bad teams should always plan for some vague future (that inevitably never arrives.)

[Chief Rum]

Heh, outside of politics to an extent, molson and I hardly agree on anything. Think about that, Ksyrup. :D

[molson]

No, but that's not really the point. Tthis particular $8M, if spent on scouting, would help them more on that goal than spending it on Vlad in 2011.

Let's also not forget that not only did they give him this money, but no other team was going to spend $8M on him. They basically bid against themselves to appease his ego. If he couldn't play for less than $8M (or $3M) this year, he should have taken a seat next to Jermaine Dye on the "out of work" bench.

You're saying Vlad's not worth it if he improves the team's record by 3 games, because that won't make the difference in making the playoffs. Presumably, you think $8 million in scouting obviously would make a difference of more than 3 games, and a trip to the playoffs. I don't think either of those options get them past the Yankees or Red Sox at any point in the next 10 years, but one of them is much more likely to make your team better.

[Ksyrup]

If you have smart people running the organization, than the future is not vague. Now, things might not work out - injuries, guys don't develop, etc. But when you have a guy like Nolan Reimhold around and he'll be in your organization as you (supposedly) harness your young talent to try to compete, and you stick him on the bench or in AAA while you let Vlad play during a 70-ish win season...how is that improving your team in the present or the future?

[Ksyrup]

But if they were willing to give it him, doesn't that justify him holding out for that amount? A player is worth what the market will give him (see, Nats, Werth). No one said the market is always smart.

I'm not faulting him for taking it. That's not really the point at all. The fault lies with them totally.

[Ksyrup]

You're saying Vlad's not worth it if he improves the team's record by 3 games, because that won't make the difference to making the playoffs. Presumably, you think $8 million in scouting obviously would make a difference of more than 3 games, and a trip to the playoffs.

We're talking the impact to 2011 when the team has no shot at the playoffs and the impact of those same dollars to their organization to improve it at some point in the future. $8M if he spent wisely could have quite a large impact 5 years from now, if they make smart decisions and players develop (which the money could be used to improve - scouting, development, and signing). Of course, if they have no plan, then it really doesn't matter.

[Logan]

I see this as similar (not perfectly of course) to the argument of whether or not it makes "sense" for an NFL team to win that last game or two towards the end of the season when it will likely result in their draft pick going from top 5 to top 15...or top 10 to top 20. Heard this a lot with the Lions this year. At some point, you have to try to break the losing mindset in the hopes that it will benefit the team when they really are ready to compete. There's no guarantee that spending the money elsewhere will pay dividends down the road, just like there's no guarantee that younger plays could learn something from a veteran like Vlad or could stand to gain from thinking that the front office is *finally* trying to do something different.

But it's worth a shot.

[molson]

If you have smart people running the organization, than the future is not vague. Now, things might not work out - injuries, guys don't develop, etc. But when you have a guy like Nolan Reimhold around and he'll be in your organization as you (supposedly) harness your young talent to try to compete, and you stick him on the bench or in AAA while you let Vlad play during a 70-ish win season...how is that improving your team in the present or the future?

I admit that I don't know much about Nolan Reimhold, except that he appears to be injured and he'll be turning 28 at the end of next season.

If he's the future of the Orioles, I agree its not smart to have a stop-gap solution and leave him on the bench (or to trade him for another stop-gap solution). And the Orioles should go with Wieters at C even if they had access to veteran that might out-produce him for a season. I don't think that's the situation here though.

I just think there's this bad team death cycle where management will always utilize the younger (and cheaper) player, regardless of whether he's a real prospect, regardless of how much it hurts the team in the current year. I suspect that's how management of bad teams try to stay employed, "We're BUILDING something, I swear!".

[molson]

I see this as similar (not perfectly of course) to the argument of whether or not it makes "sense" for an NFL team to win that last game or two towards the end of the season when it will likely result in their draft pick going from top 5 to top 15...or top 10 to top 20. Heard this a lot with the Lions this year. At some point, you have to try to break the losing mindset in the hopes that it will benefit the team when they really are ready to compete. There's no guarantee that spending the money elsewhere will pay dividends down the road, just like there's no guarantee that younger plays could learn something from a veteran like Vlad or could stand to gain from thinking that the front office is *finally* trying to do something different.

But it's worth a shot.

True. And I think more teams in the NFL go from 7 or 8 wins to 13, than go from 2 or 3 wins to 13. And in baseball, outside of the Devil Rays, I think more teams go from the 70s to the high 80s or 90s than go from the 60s to the high 80s or 90s. You usually have to get through OK before you get to very good or great.

[BishopMVP]

Aren't they adding a 2nd wild card in about 5 years? Or did I hallucinate that?

[Young Drachma]

Aren't they adding a 2nd wild card in about 5 years? Or did I hallucinate that?

Next year, actually. If all goes well. The only quibble is whether it ought to be a one-game play-in or a best of three.

[Young Drachma]

Vlad had suitors and the O's overpaid for Vlad, but he'll help them and if he can impact their other players positively as many believe he will than $8m is a bargain. It's not as if that money was going to be spent elsewhere and if it gives the fans something to chat about when they come to games, why the heck not do it?

In other news, Michael Young wants out of Texas as he doesn't want to DH. I hope Toronto gets him.

http://www.thestar.com/sports/baseball/mlb/bluejays/article/928824--griffin-is-michael-young-the-next-piece-of-jays-puzzle

[Travis]

If Wells were still in Toronto I'd imagine the Jays would get it done. Even without that extra incentive though I agree that seeing him at third so Bautista could play RF would be nice to see. A pretty good bat they could have probably in the 6 hole and a great glove to add to an already nice defense, yes please.

[sterlingice]

Ksyrup, just make sure you have my back when the Royals open 2011 with their miniscule payroll. ;)

The Meche money went to Butler's extension and the international and scouting budget went up this year, according to Moore.

There were some decent discussions on RR (and Rany) about how to structure Butler's contract extension. Basically, they went for a 5/8/8/8/12.5o. Now, typically, a contract would be more backloaded (3/6/8/12) as it allows that money to gain interest. In a perfect world, you'd do $1, $1, $1, and $28.999M to minimize your loss and maximize the time value of money. However, in this case, with $12M essentially burning a hole in their pocket, they spent some of that upfront so it appears they are spending more on payroll this year as they're already looking at something in the 30s range which, frankly, makes a lot of sense for a team staring at 100 losses and starting to bring up the future this year and next. Putting that money now allows for more extensions later and does influence some public perceptions.

SI

[molson]

The Meche money went to Butler's extension and the international and scouting budget went up this year, according to Moore.



Maybe if they spend enough money on scouting they'll be able to find and develop the next Zack Greinke!

Sorry, I'm still annoyed they traded him with two years left. I know they spent a little more money the last couple of years, but it's unlikely any of the "future talent" will be able to hold Greinke's jockstrap. Is the plan to wait until they can maybe get an entire rotation of Greinkes to all develop and reach MLB at the same time? KC has such an opportunity that Baltimore and Toronto doesn't, in that weak division. They should be able to at least occasionally compete with an elite guy at the top of the rotation and the amount of money they've spent the last couple of years (and maybe a little more). That's as good as its going to get.

[sterlingice]

Well, the Royals have the unanimous #1 farm system in all of baseball. I realize that and $3.50 will get you a cup of coffee but we've got 5 legit ace potential guys in AA and some really nice bats in Hosmer, Moustakas, and Myers that should be ready in the next year or two. It's one hell of a wave but it's going to take another year or two and Greinke demanded a trade.

Here's to hoping it does better than the last two youth movements: the one that peaked in 2000 with no pitching, and the one with Butler and Gordon and Greinke which pretty much had nothing else.

SI

[Terps]

Vlad is going to help the Orioles go from, what, 66 to 69 wins?

Wanna make a bet on that win total?

Sure they're not going to light the world on fire (especially in the AL East, but other than the Red Sox, I can see a slip from the rest of the division), but they're better than 69 wins. They have Reynolds, JJ Hardy, Vlad will replace Luke Scott at DH, which shifts Scott to LF, Derrek Lee, etc. all represent upgrades over what they had at those spots last year. Their bullpen should be solid, as well as Matusz, Guthrie, Bergesen, Arrieta, Duchscherer, with Zach Britton waiting in the wings to join the rotation.

By the way, the Vlad contract is actually $5 million this season, the rest is deferred.

[jbergey22]

Atleast the Orioles are putting out a team that can help some of their young pitchers. Vlad probably isnt going to get them to the playoffs but he can help get them past this 65-70 win hump they've been stuck in. Its gotta be hard on their confidence losing all the time. The Rays were in a similar situation at one time and learned to win and now they are one of the top teams in the AL. Vlad will provide leadership and thats probably worth what he is making.