Official 2008-2009 MLB Offseason Thread

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by lungs

They made the playoffs and lost in the first round to the eventual World Series champions. Nothing to sneeze at.

People will probably bury the Brewers because of Sabathia going to the Yankees and it certainly won't help. Ben Sheets possibly going elsewhere will hurt too (he could still come back if nobody ponies up more than a one year deal). But the offense remains intact for the most part with another exciting hitter in Mat Gamel close to ready to fill the hole at third base.

As it stands, the Cubs are certainly still the class of the division. The Brewers still project as probably an 84 win team. With a little good luck and good health that could easily turn into 90 again. A little bad luck and bad health and it could just as well be 78 wins.

I'm not trying to dump on the Brewers here. They had a nice year- a year that KC would kill for. However, losing 2 aces is going to hurt any team and for a team that barely made the playoffs, things don't look that good. But, again, it's baseball and a lot can happen.

SI

[lungs]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

I'm not trying to dump on the Brewers here. They had a nice year- a year that KC would kill for. However, losing 2 aces is going to hurt any team and for a team that barely made the playoffs, things don't look that good. But, again, it's baseball and a lot can happen.

SI

I also don't see anybody within the division that has done squat to pass them either. The benefits of a weak division could propel them into the Wild Card hunt if they are lucky and healthy, like I said.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by lungs

I'm not denying small market teams are at a disadvantage, but leveling the playing field in terms of a salary cap will not help teams that pay $24 million to Jose Guillen, Kyle Farnsworth, Horacio Ramirez, Willie Bloomquist and Mike Jacobs. You could give them a $200 million dollar payroll and they'd still suck so long as you have yahoos like that doling out the cash.

I can't defend all of the moves the team has made. Not in the least- in fact, that's the original post that started this never-ending firestorm that I grow weary of as much as you guys get tired of hearing me talk about it.

1) I'm sure if Dayton Moore knew how badly the market would implode this season, he wouldn't have traded for the guys he did or signed Jose Guillen last year. I think this market caught a lot of teams off guard.

2) I've mentioned this before, but I don't believe in the myth of the replacement level player. It's great that we have a scale and measurement for a mythical replacement player. However, on a team which has been laid bare by the last 15 years, there aren't too many AAAA guys and, once again, baseball is not an exact science. It's a game of averages and percentages- "replacement level" guys can be competent one year but they cannot maintain it and that's why they're replacement level.

Even worse is that sometimes your replacement level guys completely fail and are such a detriment to the team. Perrenial sabermetric favorite Wily Mo Pena ate it again last year with a -16 VORP. Wasn't he going to be the next great thing as soon as he got out of that OF in Cincy and went to a better situation- Boston took a shot at him and dropped him like a hot potato. I remember the Royals dabblings with PECOTA-loved Calvin Pickering. He was positively awful and overmatched to the point where they got rid of him after a month because he wasn't just bad- he was a black hole in that lineup, costing outs and wins. That's the kind of performance you risk and are fairly likely to get from a "replacement level" player. (That said, I'm not sure how Bloomquist is anything but a replacement-level player)

3) And this really goes back to the heart of the matter and the post I made earlier. How would the Royals look this year if they had signed Torii Hunter, who they were in the running for, and then not had to reach for Jose Guillen. Then they also don't make the move for Coco Crisp. Then, how about they had gotten Furcal, who they were one of the last couple of teams in on this year. No Willie Bloomquist. Then, GMDM looks at his lineup and doesn't really see a need for power and make an imbecilic move for Mike Jacobs. So, then you still have Leo Nunez and Ramon Ramirez in the back of the pen and there's no way you make a move for Farnsworthless or Horacio Ramirez.

Suddenly- this team looks a lot like a contender or at least a good starting pitcher away (DeJesus/Furcal/Hunter/Gordon/Butler/Shealy/Teahen/Aviles/Buck with a nice bullpen like last year and Greinke/Meche at the top of the rotation). However, that takes $30M per year for long term commitments- not a bunch of little rinky dink 1 and 2 year deals. And, the part that really gets lost on larger teams who can afford dead money- the ability to eat a bunch of that money when Torii is barely a $10M guy and Furcal is always hurt towards the end of their contracts.

This also presumes foresight for the bottom falling out of the market- anyone who had Burrell for 2/$16M, raise their hand. Hell, anyone who had him making double that at 4/$32M would have been laughed out of this forum 2 months ago.

But they didn't have that cash so they have to make due with much lesser pieces and minimize risk. And that all goes back to what I said before- that small team can put all the pieces together for one run like when a small college gets a great class recruiting and makes a tourney run when they are seniors. However, they just can't reload year after year and the ability for some teams to do that and not others is what is patently unfair.

SI

Oh, and I do appreciate everyone who can enumerate any bad or even marginal contract the Royals make. 20/20 hindsight is a wonderful gift that even the blind have and if we wanted to rake each team over the coals for the plethora of overpayments and bad moves, we could do it for each and every one of your teams like every one of your a-hole posts does. But, of course, that misses the big picture that smaller markets can ill afford to make one major bad move or a few smaller ones whereas larger ones can afford to make many large Lugo/Sheffield/Sexton/Park/Zito/Hampton/{Insert_Any_Number_of_Yankees}-esque moves and not even feel them.

[Hammer755]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

I can't defend all of the moves the team has made. Not in the least- in fact, that's the original post that started this never-ending firestorm that I grow weary of as much as you guys get tired of hearing me talk about it.

Even worse is that sometimes your replacement level guys completely fail and are such a detriment to the team. Perrenial sabermetric favorite Wily Mo Pena ate it again last year with a -16 VORP. Wasn't he going to be the next great thing as soon as he got out of that OF in Cincy and went to a better situation- Boston took a shot at him and dropped him like a hot potato. I remember the Royals dabblings with PECOTA-loved Calvin Pickering. He was positively awful and overmatched to the point where they got rid of him after a month because he wasn't just bad- he was a black hole in that lineup, costing outs and wins. That's the kind of performance you risk and are fairly likely to get from a "replacement level" player. (That said, I'm not sure how Bloomquist is anything but a replacement-level player)

I know it's a pretty minor part of your post, but Pickering had all of 27 AB his last year in KC - how many wins can you cost a team in 27 AB? The previous season, he had a 113 OPS+ in 122 AB. His career OPS+ was 96 ... pretty much the definition of a replacement-level player.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

I'm definitely in favor of contracting but it's a tough choice. 30 years ago, it would have been the A's. 20 years, it would have been the Braves and Indians. 5 years ago, the Expos->Nats and Rays. Owners, GMs and players come and go, potentially changing the fortunes of the teams.

Perhaps a better solution would be maximize the fan base for X amount of teams. In other words, if the NYC area can easily support 3-4 teams, then let's have that - at the expense of small market/revenue areas. Both Florida and possible Arizona, should be in areas of large, solid fan bases - not struggling to make it year after year despite on-field successes. It also means that we could lose some historical teams like Pittsburgh or Cincinnati, definitely Kansas City. But that's been done in the past as population, demographics and fan interest changes.

Nothing, short of a salary cap, would bring down the NYC teams or the Red Sox more than putting additional teams in their cities, it makes perfect sense to look at the 2009 instead of 1950 geographic population situations. I don't know all the roadblocks to that. Obviously those big market teams wouldn't like it, but I don't know if there's anything contractual that prevents it.

With contraction, I think it would come down to what owners WANTED out. Carl Pohlad wanted a payout, and he wanted out. The Expos and the Marlins had transitional ownership situations. Nobody could be taken out against their will, which means the Royals might actually have been safe (I don't think they were even in the discussion last time). Basically they'd take the 4 lowest bidders for a payout to contract.

[Big Fo]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

About all that's left would be for him to add further insult to injury by wasting a dime on Glavine.
edit to add: And then most likely overpay for the round mound with no rebound to return as a rally killing doubleplay & strikeout machine. And by overpay I mean giving him the major league minimum.

Heh, I was just watching Hot Stove or whatever it's called on the MLB Network (damn not being able to fall asleep tonight) and they had Andruw on for a telephone interview. He said that he would like to come back to Atlanta.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

Oh, and I do appreciate everyone who can enumerate any bad or even marginal contract the Royals make. 20/20 hindsight is a wonderful gift that even the blind have and if we wanted to rake each team over the coals for the plethora of overpayments and bad moves, we could do it for each and every one of your teams like every one of your a-hole posts does. But, of course, that misses the big picture that smaller markets can ill afford to make one major bad move or a few smaller ones whereas larger ones can afford to make many large Lugo/Sheffield/Sexton/Park/Zito/Hampton/{Insert_Any_Number_of_Yankees}-esque moves and not even feel them.

Hey, the only post I made about this was how shitty the moves the Royals JUST MADE are. I don't think its 20/20 hindsight to say that what they're doing now is moronic. Although, I suppose I am using their history of terrible moves to color my opinion on their current moves.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Hammer755

I know it's a pretty minor part of your post, but Pickering had all of 27 AB his last year in KC - how many wins can you cost a team in 27 AB?

No more than 4 I'd say, since the Royals were 3-4 in the seven games in which he appeared in 2005, leaving them 53-102 the rest of the season. And if you want to just look at the time he was on the roster, they were 2-8 without him in the lineup.

Or that they were 13-22 in the 35 games he appeared in during 2004, a .371 winning percentage. They were 45-82 in games he did not play in, a .354 winning percentage, 2-5 isolating games he missed after he first appeared.

Combined 04-05, the Royals went 16-26 with Pickering in the lineup, a .381 clip. In games without him in the lineup while he was on the roster they were 4-13 for a .235 percentage.

Yeah, he was a real drain apparently.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Seemed like this would go well with all the whine.

[Logan]

Originally Posted by molson

Nothing, short of a salary cap, would bring down the NYC teams or the Red Sox more than putting additional teams in their cities, it makes perfect sense to look at the 2009 instead of 1950 geographic population situations. I don't know all the roadblocks to that. Obviously those big market teams wouldn't like it, but I don't know if there's anything contractual that prevents it.

I can't speak for Boston, but I really don't see what sort of impact it would have on the NYC market. This isn't 5 years after the Dodgers split town; I don't see Mets or Yankees fans abandoning the teams that they have been rooting for their whole lives. I really don't know a single person who isn't already a fan of either team, so it's not like there's a huge untapped resource. Maybe you have some casual fans who will go to games here or there, and there will probably be enough general baseball interest to sell a couple million seats.

But how does that bring down the Mets or Yankees? They'll still go on to sell 3-4 million tickets, and most importantly, the addition of another team isn't going to make their TV network money go away. It's not like they're going to start dividing up the local Fox Sports affiliate money. Just don't see it so please explain.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

Perhaps a better solution would be maximize the fan base for X amount of teams. In other words, if the NYC area can easily support 3-4 teams, then let's have that - at the expense of small market/revenue areas.

I've always wondered about this idea. Maybe Brooklyn would support a third team in New York due to historical ties, but I just figured any third or even fourth team would be some bastard step child that would draw some fans but wouldn't put a significant dent on the Yankees, for instance.

Just look at the White Sox- Chicago isn't New York, but the Chicago MSA has over 9M people, whereas there are a lot of MLB market MSA's in the 2-3M person range so it should easily be able to support 2, right? Well, they've had problems drawing in the past even with such a wealth of people to draw from, mainly because the Cubs are still the dominant presence there. And that's a franchise which is over 100 years old- the White Sox aren't a new thing on the block.

Similarly, if you plop a third team in New York, say in Brooklyn, you might get some Brooklyn fans but unless they started winning soon, they would have problems drawing- even in such a large metropolitan area because of the established teams there. And while you would draw away some token support from the Yankees, I would think it would actually hurt the Mets more.

Maybe in the long term, as people die and allegiances change, it would work- but in the near and mid term (and I mean for the next 50 years)- I would think it would be dropping a team into a smaller market because, realistically, a lot of New York City is already spoken for with people either fans of the existing teams or not baseball fans.

SI

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Logan

I can't speak for Boston, but I really don't see what sort of impact it would have on the NYC market. This isn't 5 years after the Dodgers split town; I don't see Mets or Yankees fans abandoning the teams that they have been rooting for their whole lives. I really don't know a single person who isn't already a fan of either team, so it's not like there's a huge untapped resource. Maybe you have some casual fans who will go to games here or there, and there will probably be enough general baseball interest to sell a couple million seats.

But how does that bring down the Mets or Yankees? They'll still go on to sell 3-4 million tickets, and most importantly, the addition of another team isn't going to make their TV network money go away. It's not like they're going to start dividing up the local Fox Sports affiliate money. Just don't see it so please explain.

Or what he said in less words that I did

SI

[Logan]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

Or what he said in less words that I did

SI

Yours was solid too! I think you make a good point in that, if anyone, it will hurt the Mets, as the front-running Yankee fans will stick.

One thing though is that allegiances carry very well from generation to generation in this area, so I don't even know if people dying and being born will shift the fan structure.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

No more than 4 I'd say, since the Royals were 3-4 in the seven games in which he appeared in 2005, leaving them 53-102 the rest of the season. And if you want to just look at the time he was on the roster, they were 2-8 without him in the lineup.

Or that they were 13-22 in the 35 games he appeared in during 2004, a .371 winning percentage. They were 45-82 in games he did not play in, a .354 winning percentage, 2-5 isolating games he missed after he first appeared.

Combined 04-05, the Royals went 16-26 with Pickering in the lineup, a .381 clip. In games without him in the lineup while he was on the roster they were 4-13 for a .235 percentage.

Yeah, he was a real drain apparently.

Wow. Nice analysis!

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

I've always wondered about this idea. Maybe Brooklyn would support a third team in New York due to historical ties, but I just figured any third or even fourth team would be some bastard step child that would draw some fans but wouldn't put a significant dent on the Yankees, for instance.

[snip]

Maybe in the long term, as people die and allegiances change, it would work- but in the near and mid term (and I mean for the next 50 years)- I would think it would be dropping a team into a smaller market because, realistically, a lot of New York City is already spoken for with people either fans of the existing teams or not baseball fans.

SI

Yeah, that's the rub. Adding teams to the NY market is (in theory) the best way to cut down on their huge resource advantages, but in reality, new teams in that market aren't likely to carve out a huge chunk of fans.

Probably the best way to go about it would be to put a team in New Jersey - get the pride of Jersey going, try to pull away as many of those fans as possible.

But you have to get a 2nd team too, so that there's both an AL and NL competitor to the Yankees and Mets.

I'm not sure Brooklyn would pull enough fans away - you might have to go up into Connecticut and try to pull away some of those commuter fans. But is there enough of a fan base to carve out there?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

Wow. Nice analysis!

Thankfully he didn't appear in that many games, nor miss that many when he was on their roster. Otherwise skimming over his game logs would have been a much bigger bitch to do. He was to the Royals what a leaky faucet was to H.M.S. Titanic.

[Logan]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

get the pride of Jersey going

Ha!

I'm not sure Brooklyn would pull enough fans away - you might have to go up into Connecticut and try to pull away some of those commuter fans. But is there enough of a fan base to carve out there?

Don't think so. The lower areas of Connecticut along 95 are transplanted New Yorkers, most of whom still work in NYC. Higher up and you hit Sox fans.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

Oh, and I do appreciate everyone who can enumerate any bad or even marginal contract the Royals make. 20/20 hindsight is a wonderful gift that even the blind have and if we wanted to rake each team over the coals for the plethora of overpayments and bad moves, we could do it for each and every one of your teams like every one of your a-hole posts does. But, of course, that misses the big picture that smaller markets can ill afford to make one major bad move or a few smaller ones whereas larger ones can afford to make many large Lugo/Sheffield/Sexton/Park/Zito/Hampton/{Insert_Any_Number_of_Yankees}-esque moves and not even feel them.

I'm pretty much staying out of this iteration because it's the same argument I've had with you several times, but this is disingenous. Like Ronnie Dobbs, I'm quite certain I've first-guessed many of the moves. Nobody is saying Mike Sweeney was overpaid and is killing the Royals. We're saying Mike Jacobs is trash that isn't worth more than the MLB minimum, Kyle Farnsworth sucks and why is Willie Bloomquist still on an MLB roster.

I'd also say your characterization of AAAA/replacement-level players is wrong. You can win 60-70 games playing basically a AAA-team - Florida showed that for a couple years. Boston had like 10 of these guys in Pawtucket alone last year - Joe Thurston/Chris Carter in the IF, Bailey/Van Every/Bobby Kielty in the OF, Pauley/Hansack/Zink/Chris Smith/Hunter Jones that aren't prospects and could be had for a song. Go add a hitter ($10-12m for Adam Dunn perhaps?), 2 decent league-average starters and you're only 2-3 homegrown stars away from having a shot at the postseason. Since any team, let alone one consistently drafting top 10, should be developing a star every couple years, that's not hard or out of the question. Especially if you take the $8 million being spent on shit like Kyle Farnsworth and Mike Jacobs and spend it on some more signability picks in the draft or player development.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

...and why is Willie Bloomquist still on an MLB roster.

Willie Bloomquist deserves to be on an MLB roster as the 25th guy super-sub/pinch-runner who gets no more than 150PA in a year. What he doesn't deserve is a 2-year contract, and for $1.5M per.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

for $1.5M per.

Isn't that about what the ML minimum is these days?
(yeah, I'm kidding, but not by all that much)

[Butter]

So, I'm watching the MLB Network's Prime 9 show last night, which in this episode was a list of the greatest centerfielders of all time.

#2 is Ty Cobb which is fine. But during the piece, they mention that Ty Cobb had 4,189 hits, which is 2nd all time.

How did he get 2 hits taken away? When Pete Rose was chasing the hits record, he beat Cobb when he got to 4,192 hits, which means that in 1986 or whenever it was, Cobb was considered to have 4,191 hits. Did some stat geeks actually go over some game film and take hits away from him? Anyone with insight on this? Or did they just make a mistake?

[DaddyTorgo]

good question

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

Offical Ty Cobb Career Batting Average.... - Baseball Fever

This thread talks about it a little. It seems that some believe that a 2 for 3 day in 1910 was entered into the record twice.

[ISiddiqui]

Yep, that's case. Records in the early days of the game were a bit spotty, so some folks went through the box scores and found double counting.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

Sources: Boston Red Sox, Kevin Youkilis agree to $40M deal - ESPN

Youkilis signs extension 4/40 with a fifth year option.

Makes losing out on Teixeira much more palatable.

[sterlingice]

I don't know why any player would sign a hometown deal at this moment as they will be way below market value. Kudos to the Red Sox for getting a nice deal done- buys out 2 FA years and possibly a 3rd with the option, if I'm reading right.

SI

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

Makes losing out on Teixeira much more palatable.

Why, because you kept a player on your team?

I realize the price is great, but it's the Red Sox, they have the money regardless.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

No, but signing a guy who arguably was the better player last year for a quarter of the money makes me happy. Not sure what you mean by they have the money regardless; I'm sure that any monies saved will go to Lester, Papelbon, or a trade.

[ISiddiqui]

What I mean is that I don't understand how it makes losing out on Tex more palatable. I mean it wasn't like Youk was gone if Tex came in.

Good deal, but I don't see that it has anything to do with losing out on Tex. In a good or bad way.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

A good thing balances out a disappointing thing. That is what I am trying to say.

[ISiddiqui]

Ah... ok.

I thought you were saying that it makes up for it (on-the-field). Nevermind me.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

Reports here in Boston all season/winter were that Youkilis and Papelbon were not going to sign team-friendly extensions. In my mind, I had pretty much come to grips with losing Youkilis in two seasons. And there was no hint that this was coming to a head at all. It was a pleasant surprise.

But you're definitely right, it doesn't change the equation for this upcoming season.

[ISiddiqui]

Wow, really? So there is a decent threat (still) that Papelbon may be gone when he comes up for resigning?

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

I feel that unless he decides to sign a friendly extension, he will be gone in three seasons. He has always let it be known that he wants to get paid, big-time. I don't think the Sox will do it for any closer, let alone one that has injury concerns.

[BishopMVP]

Papelbon agreed to remain the closer his 2nd? season in spring training, but made it clear he then expected to be paid equal to a top-flight starter when he was eligible for free agency. I don't expect him to go anywhere, but with his injury concerns I expect the Red Sox to agree to pay him very high $$ amounts but keep the years down when he hits free agency.

Lester, on the other hand, is the type of pitcher we should try to lock up, although it wouldn't be the worst thing to wait out this year and see if his arm holds up after the large jump in innings (some think he has the big frame to do so, but his innings jumped much more than the Sox like from young pitchers, partly due to the cancer throwing off his normal yearly progression.)

[DaddyTorgo]

Happy to see Youks stick around. And lil-Petey too.

I honestly don't think a lot of people realize how good Youks is. Between being a relatively under the radar 30-hr guy, to being a guy who sees a large number of P/PA, he does a lot of things that really keep the offense humming steadily.

As far as the discussion re: Paps - at this point, given that he's become almost a one-pitch pitcher, I'm not sure that he warrants the type of deal that he will be looking for. Dude has a nasty split, he needs to throw it more!! On the plus side with that, on the occasions that people other than Varitek were catching Paps, he did throw more splits. So I'm HOPING that to some % it was 'Tek falling in love with Paps FB and that Paps is still willing to throw the split. If he'd throw 2-3 pitches then he'd be worth a larger-$, longer-term deal. Not sure with him too to what extent the fact that his lil-brother is in the Sox minor-league system too might play a role in things if at all...

[Izulde]

I like the nice low-risk signing the White Sox made with Bartolo Colon. One year, $1 mill. base with performance incentives that could push it to $2 mill.

Even if he only lasts half the year until Contreras is back from rehab, he's still a nice end-rotation insurance for that price and can push the young guys and/or give the kids more development time out of the bullpen or in the minors.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

Just don't let him bat.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

Papelbon agreed to remain the closer his 2nd? season in spring training, but made it clear he then expected to be paid equal to a top-flight starter when he was eligible for free agency. I don't expect him to go anywhere, but with his injury concerns I expect the Red Sox to agree to pay him very high $$ amounts but keep the years down when he hits free agency.

Quicker than you thought:

http://www.fannation.com/si_blogs/ho...01?eref=fromSI

Electric closer Jonathan Papelbon has agreed to a $6.25 million, one-year contract with the Red Sox, SI.com has learned. The sum is a record for a first-year, arbitration-eligible reliever.

Wasn't willing to go long term it seems.

[Fighter of Foo]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Quicker than you thought:

http://www.fannation.com/si_blogs/ho...01?eref=fromSI



Wasn't willing to go long term it seems.

No, and he's on record saying as much last year when Sizemore and some other guys signed deals that bought out their arbitration years.

[BishopMVP]

There was basically no question he'd be going on 1-year deals until his arb years are finished. I'm of the opinion that even then, the Red Sox won't go long-term, and if anything will try to overpay by 3-5m/y to sign him to a 1-2 year deal rather than pay what he wants for as long as he will want.

[ISiddiqui]

And Jeff Kent officially hangs 'em up today after 17 seasons. Next stop, Cooperstown.

[Fighter of Foo]

Courtesy MLB trade rumors, here's who's left in the FA market as of yesterday:

Catchers
Paul Bako (37)
Gary Bennett (37)
Johnny Estrada (33)
Sal Fasano (37)
Paul Lo Duca (37) - Type B, not offered arb
Ivan Rodriguez (37) - Type B, not offered arb
Javier Valentin (33)
Jason Varitek (37) - Type A, offered arb
First basemen
Rich Aurilia (37)
Miguel Cairo (35)
Sean Casey (34)
Nomar Garciaparra (35)
Eric Hinske (31)
Doug Mientkiewicz (35)
Kevin Millar (37)
Richie Sexson (34)
Mark Sweeney (39)
Daryle Ward (34)
Second basemen
Craig Counsell (38)
Ray Durham (37)
Damion Easley (39)
Mark Grudzielanek (39) - Type B, offered arb
Orlando Hudson (31) - Type A, offered arb
Ramon Martinez (36)
Shortstops
Orlando Cabrera (34) - Type A, offered arb
Alex Cintron (30)
Craig Counsell (38)
Nomar Garciaparra (35)
Tomohiro Nioka (33)
Juan Uribe (30) - Type B, not offered arb
Third basemen
Rich Aurilia (37)
Craig Counsell (38)
Joe Crede (31)
Nomar Garciaparra (35)
Ramon Martinez (36)
Juan Uribe (30) - Type B, not offered arb
Ty Wigginton (31)
Left fielders
Moises Alou (42) - Type B, not offered arb
Garret Anderson (37) - Type B, not offered arb
Emil Brown (34)
Adam Dunn (29) - Type A, not offered arb
Cliff Floyd (36)
Luis Gonzalez (41) - Type B, not offered arb
Jay Payton (36)
Manny Ramirez (37) - Type A, offered arb
Center fielders
Jim Edmonds (39)
Andruw Jones (32)
Right fielders
Bobby Abreu (35) - Type A, not offered arb
Emil Brown (34)
Cliff Floyd (36)
Ken Griffey Jr. (39) - Type B, not offered arb
Eric Hinske (31)
Brad Wilkerson (32)
DHs
Cliff Floyd (36)
Mike Sweeney (35)
Frank Thomas (41) - Type B, not offered arb
Jose Vidro (34)
Starting pitchers
Kris Benson (33)
Paul Byrd (38) - Type B, offered arb
Roger Clemens (46)
Josh Fogg (32)
Freddy Garcia (33)
Jon Garland (29) - Type B, offered arb
Tom Glavine (43)
Charlie Haeger (25)
Livan Hernandez (34)
Orlando Hernandez (43)
Chuck James (27)
Jason Jennings (30)
Jon Lieber (39)
Braden Looper (34) - Type B, not offered arb
Rodrigo Lopez (33)
Pedro Martinez (37)
Mark Mulder (31)
John Parrish (31)
Odalis Perez (32)
Oliver Perez (27) - Type A, offered arb
Andy Pettitte (37) - Type A, not offered arb
Sidney Ponson (32)
Kenny Rogers (44)
Curt Schilling (42)
Ben Sheets (30) - Type A, offered arb
Kip Wells (32)
Randy Wolf (32) - Type B, not offered arb
Closers
Brandon Lyon (29) - Type B, offered arb
Middle relievers
Luis Ayala (31) - Type B, not offered arb
Joe Beimel (32) - Type B, not offered arb
Joe Borowski (38)
Shawn Chacon (31)
Chad Cordero (27)
Juan Cruz (30) - Type A, offered arb
Elmer Dessens (37)
Brendan Donnelly (37)
Scott Elarton (33)
Randy Flores (33)
Keith Foulke (35)
Eric Gagne (33) - Type B, not offered arb
Tom Gordon (41)
Eddie Guardado (38)
Jason Isringhausen (36) - Type B, not offered arb
Tyler Johnson (27)
Jon Lieber (39)
Aquilino Lopez (34)
Will Ohman (31)
Al Reyes (38)
Dennys Reyes (32) - Type B, offered arb
Ricardo Rincon (39)
Rudy Seanez (40) - Type B, not offered arb
Brian Shouse (40) - Type B, offered arb
Russ Springer (40) - Type A, not offered arb
Ken Takahashi (41)
Julian Tavarez (36)
Mike Timlin (43)
Ron Villone (39)
Kip Wells (32)
Matt Wise (33)
Jamey Wright (34)

[molson]

That's quite a list 20 days away from Spring Training. Using the ESPN Free agent ranker, half of the top 40 free agents are still unsigned.

Either we're about to have a ton of activity or there will be a lot of people sitting out.

Kind of an interesting note on Varitek from ESPN Insider:

"According to NESN, Varitek was not aware that teams would have to surrender a No. 1 Draft pick to sign him, and he takes full responsibility for his decision. NESN also said that Varitek's meeting was mainly to "clear the air," because the team had not been returning Boras' phone calls."

Also, it's very weird to picture Pedro Martinez pitching for the Marlins or Pirates next year - the only two teams that apparently have any interest.

[Karlifornia]

LOL..poor Varitek..well not really, but you know what I mean.

[stevew]

The Yankees should sign Cruz and Sheets and maybe even Manny. Basically their cost to acquire would only be 4th 5th and 6th round picks.

[lordscarlet]

Originally Posted by stevew

The Yankees should sign Cruz and Sheets and maybe even Manny. Basically their cost to acquire would only be 4th 5th and 6th round picks.

Yeah, they're in real need of some quality players...

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by stevew

The Yankees should sign Cruz and Sheets and maybe even Manny. Basically their cost to acquire would only be 4th 5th and 6th round picks.

Ah, but it's not necessarily that easy. Depends on how many Type A/B free agents they lost to other teams, and possibly how large the pool of Type A/B free agents was in the first place.

There are limits to how many such free agents a team can sign, which can only be exceeded if they've lost more than that number off their own roster, and I believe those limits cap at three such players, if the total class of such players exceeds 61.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

It is that easy. The pool is not Type A/B free agents, it's the total pool. Teams can sign up to nine free agents or however many A/Bs they lost, whichever is greater.

Question re: Type A Free Agents - Sons of Sam Horn

[stevew]

Yeah. Some analyst was suggesting they sign these guys basically cause it's that easy. Cruz, for instance, is not worth losing a first, but a 4th? It's just money at this point.

And I really wish the pirates would spend some money now cause they could sign these A types and only lose a second. And they already get the 3rd pick in the 2nd since their guy from last year didn't sign.