MLB Hotstove 08 [Archive] - Page 2

aloofman

Oct 31, 2007, 05:49 PM

Is Williams a better pure average hitter? Sure, but he doesn't have Arod's power.

With 3 HR, ARod will tie Ted Williams for career HR, and he has about 350 fewer career AB.

Is Williams a better pure hitter? Sure, but people need to start realizing the caliber of player we're talking about here, if they don't already.

.....

I love Ted Williams, but let's be reasonable. The numbers that Arod is putting up are truly spectacular.

I don't like the guy, but you cannot argue with the numbers.

I think you meant WAS Williams a better hitter, since his current hitting ability isn't really debatable. :p

I think relative to the strength of his league, plus his prime years lost to military service, Williams probably still put together the better total career. When Williams retired he was second only to Babe Ruth in many career stat categories, and few hitters of his era were hitting a lot of homers. Williams often led the league with fewer than 40 home runs because it was a much more difficult era for hitters. Physical fitness and nutrition knowledge was primitive by comparison, and no one worked out in the offseason back then.

On Rodriguez's side, he's far better defensively than Williams was, and he has played much more critical infield positions. Before switching to third, he was on his way to challenging Honus Wagner as the greatest shortstop of all time.

Factoring all these things in, I'd say Williams still has an edge, but if Rodriguez stays at a high level, even tapering off with age, then I think he'll be right up there. Even if he retires tomorrow, Rodriguez is a first-ballot HOFer.

aloofman

Oct 31, 2007, 05:51 PM

Sayhey

Oct 31, 2007, 06:28 PM

Am I the only one who thinks Rodriguez -- despite the rumors -- has ruled out signing with the Giants? No way he challenges the home run record playing half his games in <insert latest telecom brand name here> Park.

If the Giants want to enter the ARod sweepstakes, and I hope they do, they have the money to sign him, and AT&T is a wonderful place to play. If he wants the best park to break the record he will look to Denver, Arizona, Houston, or another of the band box parks to play in, but I think other considerations may play into his decision. If Torre signs with LA, and the Dodgers want to put up the kind of money it will take to get Rodriguez, then I'd say the Dodgers are the favorite in the ARod sweepstakes. But then again, Dodger Stadium isn't the best park in which to break the HR record either.

btw, I read the Dodgers are likely to go after Andruw Jones, but I don't see them going after both Jones and Rodriguez, do you?

IJ Reilly

Oct 31, 2007, 07:01 PM

btw, I read the Dodgers are likely to go after Andruw Jones, but I don't see them going after both Jones and Rodriguez, do you?

The name has certainly come up but I don't know about likely. Many of these potential moves will be dictated by the Torre influence. Jones and Rodriguez does have a nice sound to it, but I wonder what those two names would do to the price of a Dodger Dog (not that I eat them anymore).

fotografica

Oct 31, 2007, 07:14 PM

The Angels seem to be talking to Boras:
The Angels believe Manager Mike Scioscia can handle any superstar, no matter how gargantuan the ego or salary or how selfish that player can seem -- they will not shy away from Alex Rodriguez because the slugger ruffled feathers by opting out of his New York Yankees contract during Game 4 of the World Series.

So, the question of whether Rodriguez will play third base and bat cleanup in Anaheim next season, giving the Angels a lethal power hitter to pair with Vladimir Guerrero, essentially boils down to this: Is owner Arte Moreno willing to crank up his payroll to a point where he is losing money -- possibly a lot of it -- instead of making money?

Even with a payroll of $109 million, the fifth-highest in baseball, the Angels, because of their drawing power (3.4 million in 2007) and lucrative television package (10 years, $500 million from FSN), are expected to net $5 million to $10 million this season.

The loss of Bartolo Colon -- a free agent whom the Angels will not attempt to re-sign -- Shea Hillenbrand and Hector Carrasco will clear $25 million off the books, but it's not as if the Angels can plug Rodriguez's salary -- he's expected to command $25 million to $30 million a year -- into that slot and call it even.
"Finances are definitely going to be involved," new General Manager Tony Reagins said. "You want to make the best decision for your club. I'm sure Alex wants to make the best decision, and if the two jell, something can get done."

He has spoken to agent Scott Boras about Rodriguez, "and we'll be speaking again," Reagins said. Boras is also expected to meet soon with Moreno.

Sox seem to be weighing a couple of concerns

A Boston club source said that record of October failure is a major consideration in whether the Sox make a renewed effort to acquire Rodriguez. Another significant concern, the source said, is whether Rodriguez would hurt clubhouse chemistry.

Lucchino said that to his knowledge Rodriguez's agent, Scott Boras, had not contacted the Sox. "Believe me, I won't call him," Lucchino said. "I have no plans to call him."

Boras created controversy when he announced Rodriguez's decision to opt out on Sunday night, while the Sox were winning the World Series. He apologized for the timing the next day. "I thought his apology was timely and appropriate," Lucchino said, "and I was pleased that he did so."

Asked if he expected the Sox to hear from Boras regarding Rodriguez, Lucchino said, "It's impossible to try to guess what his strategy and schedule are. I stopped doing that a long time ago. At some point, he is officially free to talk to other teams, so I wouldn't be surprised. But we have our own free agents to focus on, first and foremost."

Lucchino and Boras have clashed on numerous occasions, so the agent's point of entry more likely would be Epstein or one of the other owners, Henry or chairman Tom Werner.

"We built a great ball club without Alex Rodriguez," Werner said, "and yes, we obviously recognize he is one of the great players in the game.

"But our priority is first to have conversations with Mike Lowell's agent."

Lucchino said the Pittsburgh Pirates have not yet asked to talk to Sox pitching coach John Farrell about their managerial vacancy.

aloofman

Oct 31, 2007, 07:19 PM

If the Giants want to enter the ARod sweepstakes, and I hope they do, they have the money to sign him, and AT&T is a wonderful place to play. If he wants the best park to break the record he will look to Denver, Arizona, Houston, or another of the band box parks to play in, but I think other considerations may play into his decision. If Torre signs with LA, and the Dodgers want to put up the kind of money it will take to get Rodriguez, then I'd say the Dodgers are the favorite in the ARod sweepstakes. But then again, Dodger Stadium isn't the best park in which to break the HR record either.

The bandbox park factor is one of the reasons I think the Cubs are in the running. Then again, Boras has talked Rodriguez into signing with a going-nowhere Rangers team too, so he might convince him that Dodger Stadium isn't so bad. Actually, in recent years, Dodger Stadium hasn't been as homer-unfriendly as it once was. It's doubles and triples that the park seems to make scarce.

With Boras in charge you can't help but think that the highest bidder is all that matters here. IIRC, back in 2000 everyone was thinking that Rodriguez would get his huge contract from the Mets and the Rangers surprised just about everyone by bidding higher. It could be a team we don't expect that lands him. I wonder if he will sign before Christmas?

btw, I read the Dodgers are likely to go after Andruw Jones, but I don't see them going after both Jones and Rodriguez, do you?

Boras would like that, wouldn't he? Maybe he can record a jingle that uses both their names? :p

While I welcome the chance to boot Pierre out of center field (see above), I'm not sure Jones makes much sense here. I think he's very overrated: kind of a strikeout-or-homer hitter and he's not as great in the field as he used to be. He'll also cost a lot, and we already have an overpriced center fielder.

So no, I don't see them going after both, but then McCourt seems to have more money than we thought, so who knows? I think that Boras will get Rodriguez signed first so that he establishes a new high water mark for contracts, then negotiate Jones and his other clients off that figure.

Sobe

Oct 31, 2007, 08:05 PM

Williams lost five season in the prime of his career to military service. What his power numbers would have been with those years added back in is anybody's guess, but a conservative estimate of 150+ more homeruns is not a bad bet (meaning over 670 homeruns in his career.) He was undoubtedly one of the great power hitters of all time. Will ARod pass that number? I don't know, but I thought Griffey would hit 700 homeruns looking forward from about 2000. Junior is not going to make it. Nothing is certain, even ARod - though I wish him luck now that he is not a Yankee and not yet a Dodger. ;)

I am not doubting Williams' greatness, but if you look at the home run rate in hr/ab Arod is nearly tied with fewer AB.

The big discrepancy is of course in walks, where Williams had over 2,000 in those 7,706 AB while Arod has only 915 in 7,350 career AB.

Interestingly, Williams batted only .200 in his only World Series appearance in 1946 with no extra base hits and only 1 RBI, covering 25 AB.

Arod has a .279 avg with 9 doubles, 7 HR, and 17 RBI in 147 AB but that obviously covers a lot of new postseason games that Williams never had the chance to play due to the formats used then.

IJ Reilly

Oct 31, 2007, 08:42 PM

The bandbox park factor is one of the reasons I think the Cubs are in the running. Then again, Boras has talked Rodriguez into signing with a going-nowhere Rangers team too, so he might convince him that Dodger Stadium isn't so bad. Actually, in recent years, Dodger Stadium hasn't been as homer-unfriendly as it once was. It's doubles and triples that the park seems to make scarce.

Dodger Stadium became substantially less pitcher-friendly when foul ground was reduced a couple of years ago. I don't know if this is borne out statistically, but it should have made at least a small difference in the number of base hits of all types.

aloofman

Oct 31, 2007, 08:52 PM

Dodger Stadium became substantially less pitcher-friendly when foul ground was reduced a couple of years ago. I don't know if this is borne out statistically, but it should have made at least a small difference in the number of base hits of all types.

The last stats I saw on it were that Dodger Stadium had basically become homer-neutral. I wonder if the wind patterns or temperatures have changed in that local area? I'm not sure there's any complete explanation for it, but it's not the place that fly balls go to die anymore.

Doubles and triples are still low because the power alleys aren't that deep and there are no crazy corners.

Sobe

Oct 31, 2007, 09:46 PM

The last stats I saw on it were that Dodger Stadium had basically become homer-neutral. I wonder if the wind patterns or temperatures have changed in that local area? I'm not sure there's any complete explanation for it, but it's not the place that fly balls go to die anymore.

Doubles and triples are still low because the power alleys aren't that deep and there are no crazy corners.

Yep, if we track the park factors for Dodger Stadium, we see this:

PF = ((homeRS + homeRA)/(homeG)) / ((roadRS + roadRA)/(roadG))

2001: 0.810
2002: 0.825
2003: 0.868
2004: 0.909
2005: 0.901
2006: 1.046
2007: 1.053

Below 1.00 favors pitchers.

Above 1.00 favors batters.

Now if you look at the top and bottom scores in MLB as a whole from 2001 to 2007:

2001: top= 1.584; bottom = 0.562
2002: top= 1.440; bottom = 0.540
2003: top= 1.382; bottom = 0.515
2004: top= 1.412; bottom = 0.834
2005: top= 1.285; bottom = 0.803
2006: top= 1.153; bottom = 0.860
2007: top= 1.177; bottom = 0.755

2001: 14 parks were 1.00 or higher
2002: 12
2003: 11
2004: 14
2005: 15
2006: 15
2007: 16 parks were 1.00 or higher

So you can see the trend...it's not just Dodger Stadium.

For example, Yankee Stadium went from a park factor of 0.805 in 2001 to a park factor of 1.070 in 2007.

Of course a lot of it depends on how well your team plays at home versus on the road due to the nature of the metric itself.

If you simply have a sucky road team, there may be a very high run differential that has nothing to do with anything but the psychology of the players on the roster that year.

MacNut

Nov 1, 2007, 01:17 AM

Andy Petitte has said that its either the Yankees in 08 or retirement.

via espn:
A day after saying he'd written goodbye letters to some of his Boston Red Sox teammates, Curt Schilling has posted a list of 13 teams he'd be willing to play for next season as he enters free agency for the first time.

The right-hander, who turns 41 on Nov. 16, made a list that includes the Red Sox but not the New York Yankees. Schilling filed for free agency Tuesday.

Schilling wrote on his Web site that his first choice remains re-signing with Boston.

He listed 2007 playoff teams Cleveland, the Los Angeles Angels, Philadelphia, Arizona and the Chicago Cubs, plus 2006 World Series teams Detroit and St. Louis, the New York Mets, Atlanta, the Los Angeles Dodgers, San Diego and Milwaukee.

Counterfit

Nov 1, 2007, 01:34 AM

Interestingly, Williams batted only .200 in his only World Series appearance in 1946 with no extra base hits and only 1 RBI, covering 25 AB.

They put a big shift on for him, and he hit into it nearly every time.

Sobe

Nov 1, 2007, 01:59 AM

They put a big shift on for him, and he hit into it nearly every time.

Yup, because he was too proud to just hit singles when he thought his team needed his HR power.

aloofman

Nov 1, 2007, 11:46 AM

They put a big shift on for him, and he hit into it nearly every time.

That wasn't just a tactic against him in the World Series though. Several teams did that during the regular season too, famously by the Lou Boudreau-led Cleveland Indians in the late 1940s. (Can you imagine a 20-something player-manager today? Bet that never happens again.) It was only one series, so it's not like it's a good sample of his abilities. Williams often said it was his biggest disappointment, letting his team down by not hitting well in the 1946 World Series.

fotografica

Nov 1, 2007, 11:51 AM

White Sox seem interested in Torii Hunter:

White Sox To Meet With Torii Hunter
According to Joe Cowley of the Sun-Times, White Sox GM Kenny Williams plans to meet with Torii Hunter next week. They can't talk contract terms, but Williams will work to convince Torii that the South Side is the place to be. Apparently Hunter told a friend he was receptive to the Sox.

It seems that five years and $75MM is the minimum Hunter will accept, and the Sox seem prepared to do that. It's a huge commitment for a guy coming off a career year. Plus, Hunter doesn't contribute an above-average OBP, something the White Sox need. Aaron Rowand is the alternative if the Sox can't sign Hunter. Though both are Type A free agents, Chicago's #8 overall pick is protected.

Cowley adds that the possibility of signing David Eckstein has caused the White Sox to hold off on Juan Uribe's $5MM option. However Cowley's source says the Sox will pick it up and use Uribe at second or third base if necessary. November 7th is the deadline for Uribe's option.

The usual daily A Rod talk
Gwen Knapp doesn't see the Dodgers getting A-Rod for a couple of reasons. First, of course, there's the price. Second, there's a possibly shaky relationship with Scott Boras given last year's unexpected opt-out by J.D. Drew.
Mark Feinsand disagrees - his L.A. source says the Dodgers will make a push for him. The expected hiring of Joe Torre will basically be a non-factor in Rodriguez's decision. Plan B for the Dodgers might be to sign Torii Hunter or Andruw Jones. That leaves Juan Pierre in left field or traded. Hey, it was a dumb signing at the time.
Feinsand also has a source indicating that Rodriguez is hoping the Yankees will entertain the possibility of bringing him back. The Yankees, of course, are scarred by the Texas money lost and have pledged repeatedly that they will not be involved. We've seen this a million times - teams love fresh faces. Say A-Rod had played out his Texas contract to this point - do you think the Yankees would be in the mix for him then? If the Yankees don't want A-Rod because he's simply too expensive, that's reasonable. But if they simply feel scorned by the opt-out, that's emotion.
Omar Minaya said on a conference call yesterday that he planned on discussing the team's interest in A-Rod with David Wright, since Wright would have to move to second base to accomodate him.

IJ Reilly

Nov 1, 2007, 12:00 PM

fotografica

Nov 1, 2007, 12:20 PM

The Torre deal appears to be all but done, but still no announcement. Ned Colletti spent the better part of Wednesday denying that any signing was imminent and refuting press reports (one of which ran on the front page of the LA Times!) that it was. Finally, near the end of the day, he admitted that the Dodgers have spoken to Torre, but no more. The Dodgers can't let this soap opera drag on any longer.

Yeah,I can't see the point in letting this drag on,especially with the free agent deadline coming....Just out of curiousity..Is LA a Dodger's town,or a Laker's town??Is it split?

IJ Reilly

Nov 1, 2007, 12:28 PM

Yeah,I can't see the point in letting this drag on,especially with the free agent deadline coming....Just out of curiousity..Is LA a Dodger's town,or a Laker's town??Is it split?

I guess it kind of depends on whether you're a baseball or a basketball fan. ;)

Actually the Dodgers have been eclipsed in popularity to a great extent in recent years by the Angels.

fotografica

Nov 1, 2007, 12:30 PM

I guess it kind of depends on whether you're a baseball or a basketball fan. ;)

Actually the Dodgers have been eclipsed in popularity to a great extent in recent years by the Angels.

True..Just curious which story was getting more media play?The Torre soap opera or the Kobe soap opera?

aloofman

Nov 1, 2007, 12:33 PM

I guess it kind of depends on whether you're a baseball or a basketball fan. ;)

It also depends on the time of year. I can be both. I think the Lakers have had a higher profile recently because of the three-peat and the Kobe-Shaq dramas. By comparison, the Dodgers had less soap-opera-ish headlines in the last ten years. But the Lakers have fallen out of contention and Dodger attendance is up, so I think it's closer now.

Actually the Dodgers have been eclipsed in popularity to a great extent in recent years by the Angels.

I wouldn't say eclipsed, more like parity now. The Angels used to be almost the Clippers of L.A. baseball. Now it's much more even. The big turning point, in my opinion, was when the Dodger front office let Scioscia leave.

True..Just curious which story was getting more media play?The Torre soap opera or the Kobe soap opera?

Kobe will get more headlines as long as he's here. The local media has invested a lot more in Kobe over the years, so he'll be the big story. Until a couple weeks ago, Torre hadn't had much local interest here (beyond the obvious national baseball hype) since he left the Angels broadcasting job.

MacNut

Nov 1, 2007, 12:50 PM

I thought Dodger fans were pissed off at the Angels for saying that they are the LA Angels since the team is no where near LA.

aloofman

Nov 1, 2007, 01:34 PM

I thought Dodger fans were pissed off at the Angels for saying that they are the LA Angels since the team is no where near LA.

"Pissed off" is too strong a term. Bemused? Annoyed? Puzzled?

People who live in the L.A. megalopolis often refer to the whole area as L.A. (although I think that's sometimes because they don't know where the city limits are), so I don't think that's such a big deal.

It's the Orange County people that were annoyed because they despise the city of Los Angeles. They root for the Angels at least partly because it's their local team that's NOT in Los Angeles.

IJ Reilly

Nov 1, 2007, 02:54 PM

I wouldn't say eclipsed, more like parity now. The Angels used to be almost the Clippers of L.A. baseball. Now it's much more even. The big turning point, in my opinion, was when the Dodger front office let Scioscia leave.

You could be right, but I don't know how you rate and rank a thing like popularity. I know only that the center of baseball gravity in the region has shifted substantially towards the Angels in recent years if only because they contend pretty consistently and the Dodgers have been also-rans. I've also heard quite a bit of discussion over the last few years about how the Dodgers squandered that spotlight and need to work very hard to earn it back. The Angels sticking "LA" in their name is more than an effort by the ownership to tap into the larger media market. It's a statement, and a direct challenge to the Dodgers over which team deserves to be called the regional standard-bearer.

MacNut

Nov 1, 2007, 05:38 PM

Joe Torre has been announced as new Dodgers manager with a press conference Monday.The Los Angeles Dodgers announced Thursday afternoon that they have named Joe Torre as new manager. The former New York Yankees manager replaces Grady Little, who resigned on Tuesday.

"Joe Torre is one of the most respected men in the game of baseball," said Dodger owner and chairman Frank McCourt. "As a player, a broadcaster, a manager and in his life off the field, Joe is a winner through and through. As we celebrate the 50th Anniversary of the Dodgers moving to Los Angeles, we will again have a Hall of Fame caliber manager at the helm. Joe's dedication, desire and ability will help lead the Dodgers to our ultimate goal -- a World Championship."

Torre's contract is for three years and slightly more than $13 million, according to a baseball official who had seen the deal.Meanwhile in NY...Joe Girardi stepped to the podium, put on his new pinstriped jersey and showed off a most appropriate number -- 27.

As in, now it's his job to lead the New York Yankees to their 27th World Series championship.

"How many do they have?" the new manager said Thursday, knowing full well the answer. In fact, that's precisely why he picked the number.

Girardi's name and picture were displayed on the scoreboard at Yankee Stadium for his introductory news conference. The team did its best to make him feel welcome, with general manager Brian Cashman presenting Girardi's wife, Kim, with a bouquet of roses.

"This is where we wanted to end up," Girardi said.

Girardi made it more of a family affair with a story about his father, who he said has Alzheimer's.

Steadying himself, Girardi said his dad hadn't spoken for a month. That is, until a caregiver showed his father a picture of Girardi being chosen as the Yankees manager.

"Oh, yeah," Girardi said his dad responded.

Girardi got a three-year contract. He said he had spoken to Joe Torre, who managed the Yankees to 12 straight postseason appearances. He also spoke with Yankees owner George Steinbrenner.

"He was very congratulatory," Girardi said. "He said: 'It's great to have you aboard.' "

After New York lost in the first round of the playoffs to Cleveland, Torre rejected a one-year contract with a pay cut.

"Joe had always been a person I always looked up to, respected," Girardi said. "We had a great conversation."

Girardi played, coached and broadcast for the team. He was the bench coach before leaving for the Florida Marlins, where he was the 2006 NL Manager of the Year.

Girardi said he'd spoken with former Yankees great Don Mattingly, who was Torre's bench coach last year. Mattingly wanted the manager's job and after finding out he hadn't been picked, he said he was not interested in a coaching spot for next year.

"I would've loved to have had him," Girardi said.

Girardi played for the Yankees and won three World Series championships as a hard-nosed catcher.

"The four greatest years of my career as a baseball player," he said.

The former Yankees broadcaster now gets the big office off the clubhouse, hoping he's the last occupant before the ballpark closes after next season.

This was the first introduction of a new Yankees manager at the ballpark since Torre was presented on Nov. 2, 1995. The following day the Daily News ran a backpage banner headline that became famous: "CLUELESS JOE" followed in smaller type by: "TORRE HAS NO IDEA WHAT HE'S GETTING INTO."

IJ Reilly

Nov 1, 2007, 05:50 PM

Finally. Mattingly is expected to follow, and possibly Bowa.

aloofman

Nov 1, 2007, 06:16 PM

Finally. Mattingly is expected to follow, and possibly Bowa.

Like I said, seeing Mattingly here is going to take some getting used to. This seems like a really good move for him though. If Girardi doesn't work out, Mattingly will still be around for consideration for the Yankee job again.

I think this is just the beginning of an interesting Dodger offseason. :eek:

fotografica

Nov 1, 2007, 07:09 PM

Wow,tough hit for the Tigers:

Reliever Zumaya to miss first half of '08

http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20071101&content_id=2290471&vkey=news_mlb&fext=.jsp&c_id=mlb

IJ Reilly

Nov 1, 2007, 07:21 PM

Like I said, seeing Mattingly here is going to take some getting used to. This seems like a really good move for him though. If Girardi doesn't work out, Mattingly will still be around for consideration for the Yankee job again.

I think this is just the beginning of an interesting Dodger offseason. :eek:

Let's hope so. You know who I'd like to see come back to the Dodgers? Jim Colborn. I presume he's available with Jim Tracy having been fired in Pittsburgh.

I has to be said, I feel for Grady Little. Apparently he was quite demoralized by the Dodgers' late-season collapse, and the public fight among the players. He's a good guy by all accounts, and for the most part, I liked the way he managed. I hope he gets another chance if he wants it.

MacNut

Nov 1, 2007, 07:24 PM

Reports are that the Dodgers were in talks with Girardi over the Summer about managing the team.

Sobe

Nov 1, 2007, 07:43 PM

Reports are that the Dodgers were in talks with Girardi over the Summer about managing the team.

Girardi is a hot head. What worked with a bunch of never-done much of anything Marlins in a nothing stadium for a nothing team is not going to work with the Yankees.

Girardi is smart, so hopefully he realizes that and can adapt.

If not, he'll have a lot of trouble working with that team.

I'll put the over under for a massive blow out fight between him and someone on the yankees at 90 games.

I'll take the under.

fotografica

Nov 1, 2007, 07:44 PM

I think this is just the beginning of an interesting Dodger offseason. :eek:

Seems like Andruw Jones is on their list:

Dodgers Serious About Andruw Jones

Scott Boras is believed to consider the Dodgers a more serious contender for center fielder Andruw Jones than for Alex Rodriguez.

It's not the first time we've seen the Dodgers linked to Jones; David O'Brien suggested it several weeks ago.

Ned Colletti, you may recall, wasn't exactly thrilled with Scott Boras a year ago when J.D. Drew unexpectedly opted out. But it sounded like much of his anger was directed at Drew. Boras seems to disagree with the notion that Jones should come with a significant price cut this winter. Before the season he was talking about $20MM annually. He'd still want at least $15MM per year.

The signing could leave the Dodgers with an outfield of Juan Pierre, Jones, Matt Kemp, and Andre Ethier. One of the last two could be peddled, and the team might have soured on Kemp a bit. How about Kemp for Miguel Tejada?

IJ Reilly

Nov 1, 2007, 07:54 PM

Matt Kemp should not be traded. He's a little undisciplined, but he's very talented and still young. With such a seasoned manager coming on board, it makes no sense to deal a diamond-in-the-rough like Kemp.

fotografica

Nov 1, 2007, 07:59 PM

aloofman

Nov 1, 2007, 08:03 PM

Seems like Andruw Jones is on their list:

Scott Boras is believed to consider the Dodgers a more serious contender for center fielder Andruw Jones than for Alex Rodriguez.

I've heard that one too. Personally I think Torii Hunter might be a better bet than Jones at this point. I'm not sure how a big-contract center fielder helps much if they don't trade Pierre though.

The signing could leave the Dodgers with an outfield of Juan Pierre, Jones, Matt Kemp, and Andre Ethier. One of the last two could be peddled, and the team might have soured on Kemp a bit. How about Kemp for Miguel Tejada?

From what I hear Tejada's defense has diminished pretty noticeably, although I haven't seen that firsthand. And we already have a capable SS in Furcal signed for one more season. Right now I would much MUCH rather give up Pierre for a bucket of balls than trade Matt Kemp. Kemp has star written all over him. In fact, I'd be OK with giving Kemp a starting job next season and daring another Dodger to take it from him.

If they trade away Kemp, they better get a proven star in return, like Johan Santana.

Especially not for Tejada :eek: How is the Pierre signing playing out? Bust or not?

Search Pierre in my posts and you'll know what I'm thinking. I think signing Pierre was their biggest mistake since the Dreifort contract.

Sayhey

Nov 1, 2007, 08:17 PM

If they trade away Kemp, they better get a proven star in return, like Johan Santana.

What are you drinking, my friend? ;)

Sobe

Nov 1, 2007, 08:18 PM

From what I hear Tejada's defense has diminished pretty noticeably, although I haven't seen that firsthand.

Tejada in 2007:

.971 FPCT
4.27 RF

Declining slightly from a high of .975 in 2002 and 5.00 in 2004. But for his whole career he's been in the .970s.

15 errors in 522 total chances is just fine.

His RF is decreasing but it still compares favorably to players like Derek Jeter who last year had a .970 FPCT and a range factor of 4.02 (down from 4.14 in 2006). That FPCT is 18 errors in 607 total chances.

By comparison Troy Tulowitzki had 11 errors in 834 total chances for a FPCT of .987 along with a range factor of 5.39.

Basically Tejada defensively is Derek Jeter or Julio Lugo.

Not great, not bad.

Trivia question: How many Short stops had a worse RF than Derek Jeter in 2007?

Answer: One. J.J. Hardy of the Milwaukee Brewers.

Of course don't let Yankee fans read this, they'll go insane and start talking about the playoffs where he cut that ball off on the first base line and shuffled it to the catcher to save the game.

Tejada may not be the MVP he once was, but decent defense and the ability to hit 18 HR and drive in 80+ rbi from the short stop position aint terrible. His OBP was decent (.357) and actually above his career average by 13 points.

Could do a lot worse, but I'd prefer to see the guy stay in Baltimore.

aloofman

Nov 1, 2007, 08:27 PM

Basically Tejada defensively is Derek Jeter or Julio Lugo.

And Furcal fields better than both of them. To make up for that, I'd want Tejada to put up better numbers at the Ravine than he did at Camden last year, which seems unlikely, doesn't it?

What are you drinking, my friend? ;)

The usual stuff. :p

That was meant to convey my desire to keep Kemp more than the odds of landing Santana. But if that idea scares you a little, then by all means take it seriously. :D

Sobe

Nov 1, 2007, 08:31 PM

And Furcal fields better than both of them. To make up for that, I'd want Tejada to put up better numbers at the Ravine than he did at Camden last year, which seems unlikely, doesn't it?

The usual stuff. :p

That was meant to convey my desire to keep Kemp more than the odds of landing Santana. But if that idea scares you a little, then by all means take it seriously. :D

Furcal is better defensively yes.

My point was that the observations that Tejada is deficient defensively are a bit overblown and probably have more to do with his drop in offensive producivity.

Sayhey

Nov 1, 2007, 08:34 PM

MacNut

Nov 1, 2007, 08:46 PM

The thought is that Torii Hunter will go to either the White Sox or the Rangers.

Sayhey

Nov 1, 2007, 08:49 PM

The usual stuff. :p

That was meant to convey my desire to keep Kemp more than the odds of landing Santana. But if that idea scares you a little, then by all means take it seriously. :D

The idea of Santana in Dodger blue does scare me. I'm counting on more breakdowns in the Dodger pitching staff to help give the Giants any chance at all. That and the Giants signing a new starting lineup.

Sobe

Nov 1, 2007, 08:57 PM

Have you ever heard of this site (http://www.fieldingbible.com/)? It takes the top ten votes of some well respected observers of the game and ranks the defensive abilities for each position. Notice Tejeda isn't listed in the top ten of defensive shortstops by anyone. Furcal comes in tenth.

The fielding stats are some the most notoriously inaccurate ways of measuring a players worth, so it is hard to evaluate a player without seeing him play day in a day out, but I guess Tejeda isn't impressing many people these days with his glove work.

Nothing wrong with that.

There are what...30 teams? So tejada could be 11-20 and still be a middle of the pack type.

The point is how much a role perception plays.

Read that article at the site you linked to by Bill James on Jeter vs. Everett.

A really good read that breaks a lot of this stuff down even if it doesn't specifically deal with Furcal or Tejada.

Bottom line: Tejada is just fine defensively but why go get him when you have a fine shortstop in the form of Furcal?

Just get Arod and problem solved!

zioxide

Nov 1, 2007, 09:04 PM

A-Rod is such a whore. I heard on SC that he and Boras want 10-12 years at 30 mil a year.

lol

That's pretty much a guarantee he won't be coming to Boston (thank god).

Sobe

Nov 1, 2007, 09:15 PM

A-Rod is such a whore. I heard on SC that he and Boras want 10-12 years at 30 mil a year.

lol

That's pretty much a guarantee he won't be coming to Boston (thank god).

I really don't understand the name calling or the hostility.

He's hand down the best hitter in the major leagues right now and he's quite good defensively. Even adds some speed.

I mean Jason Giambi made $23+ million in 2007.

Manny made $17 mill for sleep walking til the post season.

Hell, Mike Fricken Hampton made $14.5 million.

$30 mill over 10 years for a player of his caliber seems pretty good.

zioxide

Nov 1, 2007, 09:20 PM

Manny made $17 mill for sleep walking til the post season.

I'd rather pay Manny $17 mil to sleep walk in the regular season and perform amazingly in the postseason rather than pay A-Rod $30 mil to hit a ton of HRs in the regular season then choke on a dick in the post season.

But I don't really care. One of the LA teams or whatever can overpay him as much as they want. There's no way he's coming to Boston though, because Theo would never sign a 10 year deal especially to a guy who's 33.

Sobe

Nov 1, 2007, 09:41 PM

I'd rather pay Manny $17 mil to sleep walk in the regular season and perform amazingly in the postseason rather than pay A-Rod $30 mil to hit a ton of HRs in the regular season then choke on a dick in the post season.

But I don't really care. One of the LA teams or whatever can overpay him as much as they want. There's no way he's coming to Boston though, because Theo would never sign a 10 year deal especially to a guy who's 33.

Easy to say that when the rest of his teammates did all the heavy lifting to get to the playoffs to begin with.

You might want to check how baseball works.

You actually have to get to the playoffs first before you can actually play in them.

You can't use playoff performance through 20/20 hindsight to justify a lack luster regular season.

Well you can, it just fails the logic test because one is necessary in order to have the other.

zioxide

Nov 1, 2007, 09:56 PM

Easy to say that when the rest of his teammates did all the heavy lifting to get to the playoffs to begin with.

You might want to check how baseball works.

You actually have to get to the playoffs first before you can actually play in them.

You can't use playoff performance through 20/20 hindsight to justify a lack luster regular season.

Well you can, it just fails the logic test because one is necessary in order to have the other.

Give Manny a break.. he didn't have his best season but he still finished the regular season with a .296 average, 20HR, and 88RBI. And that was including missing a month due to injury.

IJ Reilly

Nov 2, 2007, 01:28 AM

...their biggest mistake since the Dreifort contract.

Oh, now there's a perfect case of 20-20 hindsight!

aloofman

Nov 2, 2007, 12:05 PM

My point was that the observations that Tejada is deficient defensively are a bit overblown and probably have more to do with his drop in offensive producivity.

That's entirely possible. It works the other way too, where a good hitter wins a GG because he wasn't as bad as usual in the field (e.g., Jeter, Palmeiro). I was only going by what I'd heard in scouting reports, since I don't get to see him play often.

The idea of Santana in Dodger blue does scare me. I'm counting on more breakdowns in the Dodger pitching staff to help give the Giants any chance at all. That and the Giants signing a new starting lineup.

Yeah, a Barry-less Giant lineup is going to be even more punchless than the Dodgers were this past season. Those young stud pitchers are going to have to be good to keep them in games.

I really don't understand the name calling or the hostility.

He's hand down the best hitter in the major leagues right now and he's quite good defensively. Even adds some speed.

Agreed. The best player in baseball should be paid accordingly, and Rodriguez set the benchmark with the last contract, when his track record wasn't as robust as it is now. It's easy to say you don't need him when you just won the World Series.

On the other hand, this is exactly the kind of salary calculation that the players union counts on to keep pushing salaries up. "Mike Hampton sucked and my guy doesn't, so he should make way more than Hampton did."

In my opinion, it's not the $30 million per that's crazy, it's the idea of 10 years. Locking yourself into that much money over so long is so risky, even with a player who works hard and stays healthy like Rodriguez.

Oh, now there's a perfect case of 20-20 hindsight!

I wouldn't go that far. A lot of people thought that contract was worrisome even when he signed it. Up to that point Dreifort had already had major surgeries, and his reputation was for having good "stuff" more than helping the team win. It wasn't a total shock that he never stayed healthy and produced for them.

20-20 hindsight is necessary for something like, say, trading Pedro Martinez for Delino DeShields.

IJ Reilly

Nov 2, 2007, 12:49 PM

I wouldn't go that far. A lot of people thought that contract was worrisome even when he signed it. Up to that point Dreifort had already had major surgeries, and his reputation was for having good "stuff" more than helping the team win. It wasn't a total shock that he never stayed healthy and produced for them.

20-20 hindsight is necessary for something like, say, trading Pedro Martinez for Delino DeShields.

Good luck finding a pitcher who hasn't had surgical repairs to his arm, or better yet, one who won't. In the end, the Dreifort contract didn't cost the Dodgers very much in the scheme of things because teams insure against these sorts of losses. Anyhow, we are talking 15 years ago, and I think it's a bit unfair to compare a pitcher who essentially never pitched to a position player who is performing every day pretty much as expected. This is true irrespective of whether you like him or not!

aloofman

Nov 2, 2007, 12:56 PM

...I think it's a bit unfair to compare a pitcher who essentially never pitched to a position player who is performing every day pretty much as expected. This is true irrespective of whether you like him or not!

You're right, it is an unfair comparison. Dreifort at least had tantalized us about the potential and there was still a chance back then that he would finally come together for him. By contrast, I expected Pierre to underperform and he hasn't surprised me so far.

IJ Reilly

Nov 2, 2007, 12:57 PM

You're right, it is an unfair comparison. Dreifort at least had tantalized us about the potential and there was still a chance back then that he would finally come together for him. By contrast, I expected Pierre to underperform and he hasn't surprised me so far.

You are relentless on this subject, aren't you? You hate Juan Pierre. We get it! :eek:

aloofman

Nov 2, 2007, 02:02 PM

You are relentless on this subject, aren't you? You hate Juan Pierre. We get it! :eek:

I don't hate the guy. By all accounts, he seems to be a good person. I think the Dodgers are paying him too much for how good he is and wish they could replace him.

But you're right that I've been harping on it too much. I'll try to avoid mentioning him for a while. :o

Sobe

Nov 2, 2007, 03:48 PM

I don't hate the guy. By all accounts, he seems to be a good person. I think the Dodgers are paying him too much for how good he is and wish they could replace him.

But you're right that I've been harping on it too much. I'll try to avoid mentioning him for a while. :o

So what's your opinion on, say, Juan Pierre?

IJ Reilly

Nov 2, 2007, 04:01 PM

So what's your opinion on, say, Juan Pierre?

As aloofman's press secretary, I can say only that he prefers not to comment on the subject of Mr. Pierre at the present time but that he may provide additional remarks on this matter at an appropriate future date.

Next question.

aloofman

Nov 2, 2007, 05:33 PM

Finally. Mattingly is expected to follow, and possibly Bowa.

Looks like it will be Mattingly and Bowa coming on board, with Duncan and Honeycutt staying (http://www.latimes.com/sports/la-sp-dodgers3nov03,0,3283681.story?coll=la-home-center).

fotografica

Nov 2, 2007, 07:05 PM

Here's a new one for today:
Glavine To Boston?
Posted by Don Burke November 02, 2007 1:40PM
Maybe I'm reading way too much into one sentence, but I have the feeling that Tom Glavine might try and land a deal with the world champion Red Sox this winter.

While the smart money is on the left-hander returning to the Mets or re-joining the Atlanta Braves after his five-year tour of duty in Queens, Glavine's agent, Gregg Clifton, told me yesterday that there could be another destination his client might consider.

"It's small, but I think it's there,'' said Clifton.

To me, that means the Red Sox.

Glavine, who plans on 2008 being his final season, was born and raised in suburban Boston where his parents still live. The Red Sox, while loaded with young pitching, might be looking for a veteran starter to replace Curt Schilling who is expected to depart via free agency. The Red Sox would also give Glavine his best chance of winning another World Series ring unless, of course, they wreck their own chances by going out and signing Alex Rodriguez.

No other locale -- other than Flushing or Atlanta -- really makes sense for Glavine, who signaled his intent to play next season when he filed for free agency a few days ago. No decision is expected from the pitcher until after Thanksgiving and there's nothing to say that the Red Sox, who need Glaviine a lot less than he needs them, are even remotely interested.

But it'll be interesting to see how this all plays ou

I find the last sentence of the below paragraph quite shocking :eek:

Hot Stove about to hit Orlando
TRACY RINGOLSBY
FOXSports.com, Updated 4 hours ago

Agent Scott Boras is hoping to enjoy a public stage in shopping Alex Rodriguez, but most teams are hunting for pitching. Florida, with Dontrelle Willis, and Minnesota, which could dangle Johan Santana, would both seem to be in command of that market. The Giants have even let it be known that Tim Lincecum, their No. 1 pick in 2006, can be had for a quality bat

Either Ringolsby is misinformed, or Brian Sabean has lost it.

Sobe

Nov 2, 2007, 07:23 PM

Either Ringolsby is misinformed, or Brian Sabean has lost it.

Not really, what offense do the Giants have with Bonds gone?

Pedro Feliz isn't striking fear into the hearts of anyone and pitching is a far riskier investment than hitting.

fotografica

Nov 2, 2007, 07:40 PM

Not really, what offense do the Giants have with Bonds gone?

Pedro Feliz isn't striking fear into the hearts of anyone and pitching is a far riskier investment than hitting.

The Giants have a heavy debt payment on their ballpark.Seems like it might make sense for the young players and prospects to have some time to develop??Granted pitching prospects are a risky investment,but from what I've seen of Linsecum,seems like he has a the right potential...

Counterfit

Nov 2, 2007, 07:50 PM

I don't think the Red Sox would really be looking to get another veteran. They've already got Wakefield, and I'm sure Beckett must be considered a veteran by now. If they did want another aging pitcher, they might as well stick with Schilling.

aloofman

Nov 2, 2007, 07:51 PM

The Giants have a heavy debt payment on their ballpark.Seems like it might make sense for the young players and prospects to have some time to develop??Granted pitching prospects are a risky investment,but from what I've seen of Linsecum,seems like he has a the right potential...

I think they'd be better off signing hitters with the money they've been spending on Bonds. Yes, they have to rebuild with their young guys, but without a Bonds chase or division title contention, attendance will dip. I'm not sure they can afford to do a full, multi-year rebuilding effort in such a big market right now.

Of course, as a Dodger fan, I hope they act as irrationally as possible. I only even suggestion this because I'm sure neither team is scanning these forums for my advice. :p

I don't think the Red Sox would really be looking to get another veteran. They've already got Wakefield, and I'm sure Beckett must be considered a veteran by now. If they did want another aging pitcher, they might as well stick with Schilling.

Maybe sign whichever one is cheaper? Both are really only looking for one more year and they're similar in value at this point.

Sobe

Nov 2, 2007, 07:51 PM

fotografica

Nov 2, 2007, 08:00 PM

Unless you believe lincecum is one fastball away from the DL with that crazy delivery (which a lot of people do).

Then you get the best you can for him while his stock is relatively high.

Which would lead to the next question..What bat to bring in for a trade?

Brian Sabean acknowledged today that he'll kick the tires on Alex Rodriguez but admitted that it could hamstring the team financially. That's right - he's considering tying up half of the Giants' payroll in two players. Signing with the Giants would be A-Rod embracing his mercenary reputation - the team has no chance of competing next year.

Additionally, Sabean mentioned that the Giants hope to re-sign Omar Vizquel and Pedro Feliz for the left side of their infield. Discussions have begun with Vizquel regarding a one-year pact with a vesting option. It's a very solid defensive tandem, but neither can hit much these days. They don't make much sense for a rebuilding team, unless the angle is to build confidence for the young pitchers.

Sabean also implies that he'll seek to upgrade the Giants by shopping Noah Lowry or Jonathan Sanchez. Shopping Lowry for a solid controllable position player actually seems reasonable.

Sobe

Nov 2, 2007, 08:05 PM

Which would lead to the next question..What bat to bring in for a trade?

Tough question, a lot of that will depend on where the FA pitching goes and who is left without pitching they think they need.

If I'm the Orioles, I offer tejada hard for lincecum.

fotografica

Nov 2, 2007, 08:07 PM

Tough question, a lot of that will depend on where the FA pitching goes and who is left without pitching they think they need.

If I'm the Orioles, I offer tejada hard for lincecum.

Seems like the Orioles have shopped Tejada the last couple off seasons.. For some reason, there's no takers...

Sobe

Nov 2, 2007, 08:10 PM

Seems like the Orioles have shopped Tejada the last couple off seasons.. For some reason, there's no takers...

he's aging, skills are diminishing, taint of steroids with raffy

I just want to see the O's really try to rebuild.

Of course with Mattingly (my favorite player ever) going to the Dodgers and having lived in LA for 7 years, I have to admit, I am pretty much loving Dodger blue right about now.

fotografica

Nov 2, 2007, 08:17 PM

he's aging, skills are diminishing, taint of steroids with raffy

I just want to see the O's really try to rebuild.

Of course with Mattingly (my favorite player ever) going to the Dodgers and having lived in LA for 7 years, I have to admit, I am pretty much loving Dodger blue right about now.

Well they can build around Markakis and Wieters. As far as Bedard and Roberts are concerned,I couldn't see this scenario unless they were going to totally tear it down and rebuild:
The O's are at a crossroads with Bedard and Roberts. They're locked in through 2009, and would have a lot of value on the trade market. The Orioles have to at least listen on these guys. Bedard is going to cost a king's ransom to sign long-term, and Roberts may prefer to leave for a winner.

MacNut

Nov 2, 2007, 08:23 PM

Sobe

Nov 2, 2007, 08:25 PM

Well they can build around Markakis and Wieters. As far as Bedard and Roberts are concerned,I couldn't see this scenario unless they were going to totally tear it down and rebuild:

Yeah it's just going to take time to get rid of some horrible contracts like Mora and Gibbons and ramon hernandez.

Baltimore may not be big money like the sox and yankees, but their payroll is pushing $100 million.

Their dollars spent per win is absolutely horrendous.

Benson's gone thank god, along with his $8 million salary.

I'd like to see Tejada, Mora, Hernandez, Gibbons, Baez, Payton, and Patterson all go.

That there would free up about $48 million.

Put the kids in and let them play.

MacNut

Nov 2, 2007, 08:27 PM

The first thing the O's need to get rid of is ownership. Then worry about the players.

Sobe

Nov 2, 2007, 08:28 PM

The first think the O's need to get rid of is ownership. Then worry about the players.

If the yankees can win with Steinbrenner, ownership is not an issue.

MacNut

Nov 2, 2007, 08:29 PM

If the yankees can win with Steinbrenner, ownership is not an issue.But Steinbrenner wins. I thought Ripken wanted to buy the team.

fotografica

Nov 2, 2007, 08:30 PM

I'd like to see Tejada, Mora, Hernandez, Gibbons, Baez, Payton, and Patterson all go.

That there would free up about $48 million.

Put the kids in and let them play.

Now that's really tearing it down and building it back up....Hope their farm system can sustain the rebuilding....

Sobe

Nov 2, 2007, 08:50 PM

Now that's really tearing it down and building it back up....Hope their farm system can sustain the rebuilding....

Well they lost what..92 games was it?..with a $95 million payroll. I'd rather stick the kids in there, let them lose now and see if the pieces are there or not.

I don't know about Ripken, he is involved to a point but he keeps his distance with Angelos.

Would I like to see Angelos gone? Of course, but he isn't really the problem.

The problem is overpaying aging people with fading talent and no stability at manager.

MacNut

Nov 2, 2007, 08:55 PM

The problem is overpaying aging people with fading talent and no stability at manager.And that comes down to ownership.

Sayhey

Nov 2, 2007, 10:33 PM

Tough question, a lot of that will depend on where the FA pitching goes and who is left without pitching they think they need.

If I'm the Orioles, I offer tejada hard for lincecum.

And if I'm Brian Sabean I refer you to a shrink who specializes in dealing with delusional thinking. Lincecum and Cain should be untouchable.

Sobe

Nov 3, 2007, 12:34 AM

And if I'm Brian Sabean I refer you to a shrink who specializes in dealing with delusional thinking. Lincecum and Cain should be untouchable.

I'm not saying they should take tejada, but if I got him, I sure offer him.

fotografica

Nov 3, 2007, 06:02 AM

Somebody should refer Sammy to a shrink as well:
Sosa wants to return to majors, but seeks $7 million contract

SANTO DOMINGO, Dominican Republic -- Sammy Sosa wants to play in the majors next year, provided a team offers him a contract for at least $7 million.

Sosa hit 21 home runs with 92 RBIs this season with Texas. He sat out in 2006, the Rangers gave him a $500,000, one-year contract, and he made $1.35 million more in performance bonuses.

"I feel victorious, and I think I proved that I have what it takes to stay in the major leagues," he said at a news conference.

The 38-year-old outfielder said he expects several offers next week when teams begin negotiations with free agents. Sosa had recently said he wanted to be back with Texas next year.

Sosa finished the year with 609 home runs. He was the fifth player to reach 600, joining Barry Bonds, Hank Aaron, Babe Ruth and Willie Mays.

"If they let me, I will reach 700," he said.

Sosa did not see a lot of action after the All-Star game.

"It was devastating when manager Ron Washington called me into his office and told me they were going to cut back my playing time," he said. "My reaction was to go home and quit."

Sosa finished with a .252 average in 114 games, including 87 starts as a designated hitter.

Sobe

Nov 3, 2007, 06:05 PM

Somebody should refer Sammy to a shrink as well:

Sosa's still useful. As a RH compliment to, say, a guy like David Dellucci he could put up some nice numbers.

He still kills left handed pitching:

2007:

vs. LHP: 119 AB, 7 HR, 37 RBI, .328 AVG, .410 OBP, 1.024 OPS.

His days as an everyday player, however, are over and $7 million per is probably $3-4 million too high.

MacNut

Nov 3, 2007, 09:10 PM

A-Rod is not coming cheap.Before Alex Rodriguez opted out of his contract with the Yankees earlier this week, the team was told that it would not be able to meet with the third baseman unless it presented an offer of at least $350 million, sources say.

The Yankees had hoped to meet with Rodriguez this week, and would have presented him with an extension offer close to five years and $150 million, to begin at the conclusion of his 2008-2010 contract, through which he would have earned $81 million. Through the Yankees' proposal, then, Rodriguez would have made about $230 million over eight years, and during the last five years of the contract, sources say, he would have earned the highest annual salary in Major League Baseball history.
But team executives were told, sources say, that in order to arrange a meeting with Rodriguez, they would have to be prepared to make an extension offer that would take the third baseman's deal up to a total value of $350 million. That means that the offer the Yankees intended to propose would have been more than $100 million short.Will any team pay him 350 million.

Naimfan

Nov 3, 2007, 09:56 PM

A-Rod is not coming cheap. Will any team pay him 350 million.

If anyone does, I hope it is NOT the Yankees!

Sobe

Nov 3, 2007, 10:05 PM

someone will, yes.

Sayhey

Nov 3, 2007, 11:18 PM

A-Rod is not coming cheap. Will any team pay him 350 million.

I think Boras may have overreached. I find it hard to believe any team will agree to the length of contract I've heard floated (10 years for a 32 year old player?) I can see 30 plus million per year, but anything past six years is a hell of a risk. Seven or eight years is daredevil GMing, and 10 years is lunacy.

MacNut

Nov 4, 2007, 12:52 AM

Sayhey

Nov 4, 2007, 10:07 AM

What happens if A-Rod is not happy with his new team in 4 years, will he have another opt out clause if the team tanks or he wants out. I think A-Rod needs to grow a pair and tell Boras what he wants to do with his career.

Are you bitter, MacNut? Just a tad? Could it be that someone didn't see being a Yankee as the same great honor as you do?

If ARod gets another opt out clause in his contract, he has one damn good agent representing him. I'd push for a Team buyout clause around year six, but I can't believe Boras would accept that.

Personally, what I'd like to see is ARod sign with the Giants for 6-8 years, or, barring that unlikely event, he signs with the Dodgers for 10 and promptly gets hurt. :eek:

With the Giants' luck it will be 10 years with the Giants with 7 of them on the disabled list. :(

fotografica

Nov 4, 2007, 11:45 AM

Another new one for today:

Crede For Damon Picking Up Steam

This thing is gaining traction. Buster Olney comments on the idea of a Joe Crede for Johnny Damon swap this morning:

Makes sense in a lot of ways: The Yankees would get the veteran third baseman they need without committing themselves to big dollars, shed Damon's salary, and the White Sox would solve their third base logjam while adding a center fielder for much less than what the free agent center fielders will get (Damon is owed about $26 million over the next two seasons, and presumably, the Yankees would eat some of that to make a deal happen).

IJ Reilly

Nov 4, 2007, 11:51 AM

What will A-Rod do in Florida, can the Marlins afford him and everyone else, the only thought is that he can help get a new stadium. Otherwise I see no reason for the Marlins to get involved in the A-Rod sweepstakes.

One of the LA Times sports columnists suggested last week that Florida could pay him from the luxury tax money they will collect this season -- which happens to be almost exactly $30 million. The point being that Rodriquez could sign almost anywhere, and we might well be surprised by where he ends up.

If it's true, I also think Boras is overreaching with the ten year deal. In fact I think his client might be better served with a two or three year contract. The value of free agents is constantly climbing, and Rodriquez is only going to become more valuable as he closes in on the home run record. Baring injuries, of course.

Teh Don Ditty

Nov 4, 2007, 11:51 AM

Another new one for today:

I approve of this. Damon's days as a FT CF in NY ended this year. Melky has a friggin cannon for an arm and hit fairly well. I can only see Melky getting better.

MacNut

Nov 4, 2007, 12:42 PM

Are you bitter, MacNut? Just a tad? Could it be that someone didn't see being a Yankee as the same great honor as you do?

If ARod gets another opt out clause in his contract, he has one damn good agent representing him. I'd push for a Team buyout clause around year six, but I can't believe Boras would accept that.

Personally, what I'd like to see is ARod sign with the Giants for 6-8 years, or, barring that unlikely event, he signs with the Dodgers for 10 and promptly gets hurt. :eek:

With the Giants' luck it will be 10 years with the Giants with 7 of them on the disabled list. :(A-Rod never liked it in NY no matter what he says, if he truly wanted to be in NY he would of sat down with the Yankees and worked out a deal and he would of told Boras to shove it. The fact is that A-Rod does not have a mind of his own and has done what ever Boras tells him to do. The Texas deal should not of happened in the first place but A-Rod went where the money was not where should A-Rod have the best chance to win. Is he a great player yes but he also lets his ego get in the way the same way that Bonds does. I think A-Rod is a better player then Bonds but they both seem to think they are bigger then the game and everyone around them. The problem is that A-Rod wanted to be Derek Jeter exept the Yankees already had him. If A-Rod wants to win a championship that really narrows down the number of teams he can go to.

IJ Reilly

Nov 4, 2007, 01:10 PM

I think Scott Boras believes he's bigger than the game, but that's just me.

He gets his clients the money, that's for sure.

MacNut

Nov 4, 2007, 01:15 PM

I think Scott Boras believes he's bigger than the game, but that's just me.

He gets his clients the money, that's for sure.He gets them money put does he get them the best team.

I think Boras likes his commission checks more then his players best interest.

IJ Reilly

Nov 4, 2007, 01:29 PM

He gets them money put does he get them the best team.

I think Boras likes his commission checks more then his players best interest.

I think you're assuming that players are prepared to exchange money for the opportunity to play for a winning ball club. Some might, but not many. I hope that's not too disillusioning. I imagine that most players realize that if they sign with Texas or Florida that their chances of a World Series ring are pretty darned small. If that hurts any, then they can rub some money on it and the pain goes away.

IJ Reilly

Nov 4, 2007, 01:31 PM

duplicate post deleted.

MacNut

Nov 4, 2007, 02:28 PM

I think you're assuming that players are prepared to exchange money for the opportunity to play for a winning ball club. Some might, but not many. I hope that's not too disillusioning. I imagine that most players realize that if they sign with Texas or Florida that their chances of a World Series ring are pretty darned small. If that hurts any, then they can rub some money on it and the pain goes away.I think A-Rod wants a ring while Boras wants the biggest contract. A-Rod will never be happy until he tells Boras what he wants not the other way around. A lot of people say that A-Rod is on a leash and Boras is the one tugging.

IJ Reilly

Nov 4, 2007, 02:34 PM

I think A-Rod wants a ring while Boras wants the biggest contract.

I don't know why you think both of them don't want the biggest possible contract. It would be the normal thing. We see players sign with hopeless teams all the time for a few extra bucks.

fotografica

Nov 4, 2007, 02:34 PM

He gets them money put does he get them the best team.

I think Boras likes his commission checks more then his players best interest.

Isn't that the goal of any agent?Get the most $$$ for his client?Not to mention the fact that even if A Rod wanted to take the lesser contract for a shot at a ring,there's no way the Player's Assoc would allow him to take the lesser contract..
I think it's time the teams/owners show some balls and not give into Boras...

MacNut

Nov 4, 2007, 02:36 PM

fotografica

Nov 4, 2007, 02:41 PM

I think Boras wants the money for himself and uses the player to get it. How much of a cut does Boras get on a contract.

Last I read it was 10-15 percent of the total value,before taxes...

MacNut

Nov 4, 2007, 02:44 PM

Last I read it was 10-15 percent of the total value,before taxes...So if A-Rod gets 350 Boras gets about 35?

fotografica

Nov 4, 2007, 02:46 PM

So if A-Rod gets 350 Boras gets about 35?

At 10%,you are correct...Not a bad day at the office...

MacNut

Nov 4, 2007, 02:50 PM

At 10%,you are correct...Not a bad day at the office...With all the big deals Boras has made over the years he will make out better then his clients.

Sobe

Nov 4, 2007, 03:23 PM

With all the big deals Boras has made over the years he will make out better then his clients.

His clients are doing pretty well...Drew for $70, Zito for $126, Varitek for $40, $87.5 for Bernie Williams, $52 for Damon, Arod for $252, $119 for Carlos Beltran...

Sayhey

Nov 4, 2007, 03:33 PM

Isn't that the goal of any agent?Get the most $$$ for his client?Not to mention the fact that even if A Rod wanted to take the lesser contract for a shot at a ring,there's no way the Player's Assoc would allow him to take the lesser contract..
I think it's time the teams/owners show some balls and not give into Boras...

Just how in the world does the Player's Association get to veto a contract based on how much money is involved? The collective bargaining agreement sets a minimum salary, everything above that is between the players and the clubs.

Personally, I think I'd rather see the money in the pockets of the players than in the pockets of the owners, but that's just crazy isn't it? Perhaps you think the owners are going to lower tickets prices or give a rebate to fans if the players don't sign for the money the owners decide to pay them, but I wouldn't hold my breath.

IJ Reilly

Nov 4, 2007, 03:38 PM

Personally, I think I'd rather see the money in the pockets of the players than in the pockets of the owners, but that's just crazy isn't it? Perhaps you think the owners are going to lower tickets prices or give a rebate to fans if the players don't sign for the money the owners decide to pay them, but I wouldn't hold my breath.

I don't know about you, but I come out to the ballpark to see the owners. ;)

MacNut

Nov 4, 2007, 03:46 PM

ersonally, I think I'd rather see the money in the pockets of the players than in the pockets of the owners, but that's just crazy isn't it? Perhaps you think the owners are going to lower tickets prices or give a rebate to fans if the players don't sign for the money the owners decide to pay them, but I wouldn't hold my breath.Well the Yankees have been giving the money to the players for years but you don't like them.

fotografica

Nov 4, 2007, 03:49 PM

Just how in the world does the Player's Association get to veto a contract based on how much money is involved? The collective bargaining agreement sets a minimum salary, everything above that is between the players and the clubs.

Since when does a union allow any of its members to settle for less money?

Here's an example,from MLB.com
A couple of months later, the Red Sox had agreed to a deal that would have sent Ramirez to the Rangers in a mega-swap for Alex Rodriguez in what would have been one of baseball's most historic trades. However, that deal fell apart when the Players Association wouldn't approve the restructuring of A-Rod's contract.

MacNut

Nov 4, 2007, 03:54 PM

That contract with the Rangers was already set, the union didn't want A-Rod to have to lose that guaranteed money. This is a new contract and he can ask for whatever he wants.

Sayhey

Nov 4, 2007, 04:08 PM

fotografica, I have no doubt the Player's Association wants its members to get everything they can, but they don't have a veto on whether a player accepts x or y amounts of dollars - with the exception that they can't sign for less than the minimum. What happened with their veto of a restructuring of a contract is another question altogether. There are safeguards in the collective bargaining agreement that give them the right to intervene if the way a contracted is worded doesn't meet certain standards. The long and short of it is that if ARod wants to sign for the minimum salary, there isn't a damn thing the Union can do about it. Not that he ever would do such a thing.

MacNut, I hate the Yankees because they are the Yankees. Not because they pay their players well.

IJ, exactly! :D

Sobe

Nov 4, 2007, 04:51 PM

MacNut

Nov 4, 2007, 05:39 PM

it's not that the yankees pay their players well, it's that they pay so many players well.

By all means, pay Jeter $50 mill a year if you want...it's the Abreu for $16, Jeter for $22, Arod for $27, Giambi for $23, Pettitte for $16 and on and on and on and on....that's the issue.If the Yankees have the money to spend why should anyone else tell them how they can spend it if the rules allow them too. If you think they spend to much then push for a salary cap in the league.

IJ Reilly

Nov 4, 2007, 07:16 PM

If the Yankees have the money to spend why should anyone else tell them how they can spend it if the rules allow them too. If you think they spend to much then push for a salary cap in the league.

So, are you saying that the revenue issues between large and small market baseball teams is irrelevant?

MacNut

Nov 4, 2007, 07:34 PM

I think if a team has the money they should not be told how to spend it. Until it is made illegal I don't think anyone has a right to say how a team spends its money.

Sayhey

Nov 4, 2007, 08:15 PM

I think if a team has the money they should not be told how to spend it. Until it is made illegal I don't think anyone has a right to say how a team spends its money.

Right now, MLB and the Player's Union agree with you to a degree. They have agreed that each player must be paid a minimum salary ($390,000 next year) and that if a team chooses to have a team salary of over a certain amount ($148 million in 2007, $155 million in 2008, $162 million in 2009, $170 million in 2010, and 178 million in 2011) they have to pay a tax for competitive balance to Baseball as a whole. Other than that the Yankees, or any team for that matter, can pay any player whatever they want. The Yankees consistently choose to have the highest salary in baseball, and I don't believe the departure of Alex Rodriguez is going to change that trend.

fotografica

Nov 4, 2007, 08:37 PM

Right now, MLB and the Player's Union agree with you to a degree. They have agreed that each player must be paid a minimum salary ($390,000 next year) and that if a team chooses to have a team salary of over a certain amount ($148 million in 2007, $155 million in 2008, $162 million in 2009, $170 million in 2010, and 178 million in 2011) they have to pay a tax for competitive balance to Baseball as a whole. Other than that the Yankees, or any team for that matter, can pay any player whatever they want. The Yankees consistently choose to have the highest salary in baseball, and I don't believe the departure of Alex Rodriguez is going to change that trend.

I hear what you're saying Sayhey..But what's the answer for getting some kind of parity in MLB?How do the smaller market teams compete with the larger markets?I'd say a salary cap,but I think the horse is out of the barn on that one..

Sobe

Nov 4, 2007, 08:40 PM

There has actually been a huge discrepancy since 2000, which is the last time the yankees won the WS.

In 2000 we had the following (top 10):

New York Yankees-$92,538,260
Los Angeles-$88,124,286
Atlanta-$84,537,836
Baltimore-$81,447,435
Arizona-$81,027,833
New York Mets-$79,509,776
Boston-$77,940,333
Cleveland-$75,880,871
Texas-$70,795,921
Tampa Bay-$62,765,129

The Yankees were separted from the number 10 team by $30 million.

The difference between top and bottom in 2000 was roughly $76 million.

In 2007 we have (top 10):

New York Yankees-$189,639,045
Boston Red Sox-$143,026,214
New York Mets-$115,231,663
Los Angeles Angels-$109,251,333
Chicago White Sox-$108,671,833
Los Angeles Dodgers-$108,454,524
Seattle Mariners-$106,460,833
Chicago Cubs-$99,670,332
Detroit Tigers-$95,180,369
Baltimore Orioles-$93,554,808

Difference 7 years later between #1 (Yankees) and #10 (Orioles) is now over $96 million.

The difference between top and bottom in 2007 was roughly $165 million.

The Yankees payroll went up by over $97 million in that time.

The Red Sox are getting worse too, of course.They increased by over $65 million.

Meanwhile, teams like Cleveland saw their payroll *drop* by over $14 million.

The Diamondbacks' payroll dropped by almost $29 million.

I wouldn't mind the Yankees spending whatever they liked if it weren't so out of whack with the rest of the league.

And let's face it, it's not even a winning strategy is it?

Jschultz

Nov 4, 2007, 08:45 PM

How does a payroll cap usually come about? I think that the NBA and NHL implemented the cap pretty successfully.

Sobe

Nov 4, 2007, 08:46 PM

How does a payroll cap usually come about? I think that the NBA and NHL implemented the cap pretty successfully.

Payroll caps are not well loved by the player's unions for obvious reasons. They want the highest salaries possible under all situations.

So the first step for bringing about a salary cap is to smack down the unions until they accept it.

swiftaw

Nov 4, 2007, 08:47 PM

How does a payroll cap usually come about? I think that the NBA and NHL implemented the cap pretty successfully.

I believe both came about only after a strike/lockout.

MacNut

Nov 4, 2007, 10:02 PM

I believe both came about only after a strike/lockout.There is no way the owners would lockout and the players are not going to risk another strike.

aloofman

Nov 5, 2007, 12:11 PM

I think Boras may have overreached. I find it hard to believe any team will agree to the length of contract I've heard floated (10 years for a 32 year old player?) I can see 30 plus million per year, but anything past six years is a hell of a risk. Seven or eight years is daredevil GMing, and 10 years is lunacy.

I still think it's just a negotiating ploy. By starting at an outrageously high amount, he forces everyone to bargain down to something that is merely amazingly high.

He gets them money put does he get them the best team.

I think Boras likes his commission checks more then his players best interest.

That's an agent's job. Players hire Boras because he has a reputation for getting bigger contracts. It's not like the player wakes up one day and suddenly realizes his agent is greedy.

I think A-Rod wants a ring while Boras wants the biggest contract. A-Rod will never be happy until he tells Boras what he wants not the other way around. A lot of people say that A-Rod is on a leash and Boras is the one tugging.

I'm not sure why people think they've got Rodriguez all figured out. How do you know he didn't like NY? Maybe he just didn't like Steinbrenner? Or Jeter? Or the locker rooms at Yankee Stadium? And how do any of us know what players and agents say to each other? Of course they keep their strategies close to the vest because they don't want to give away any negotiating advantage.

I can understand the rumors and speculation about where a player might go, but I'm not sure psychoanalysis is going to get us anywhere. He wants to play close to home in Florida. No, wait, he wants to own the Cubs. Or maybe he wants to go to Boston to stick it the Yankees. San Francisco, so he can break the home run record with Bonds' old team. Who the hell knows?

IJ Reilly

Nov 5, 2007, 12:41 PM

Payroll caps are not well loved by the player's unions for obvious reasons. They want the highest salaries possible under all situations.

So the first step for bringing about a salary cap is to smack down the unions until they accept it.

Not necessarily. Other professional sports are a lot better at sharing the game's revenue. If the owners could be "smacked down" to accepting this, then the impact of a couple of teams bidding up players salaries would be mitigated.

Some of us tend to forget that MLB is a congressionally protected monopoly. Then we blame the players for the owners paying them too much? This never made much sense to me.

aloofman

Nov 5, 2007, 01:19 PM

Not necessarily. Other professional sports are a lot better at sharing the game's revenue. If the owners could be "smacked down" to accepting this, then the impact of a couple of teams bidding up players salaries would be mitigated.

Some of us tend to forget that MLB is a congressionally protected monopoly. Then we blame the players for the owners paying them too much? This never made much sense to me.

It's not the first time I've suggested it (and there were others before me), but I think the most logical solution is for teams to share TV and radio money the same way they do gate receipts. Every home team shares its ticket sales with the road team for that game (60-40, maybe? not sure). After all, the home team needs an opponent, right? If teams shared their broadcast money too, it would even things out quite a bit, but the big-market teams would still make more money. This seems fair to me.

You're never going to get the kind of revenue-sharing that the NFL has because it's too impractical to have a national TV contract for so many baseball games. (In that way, the NFL acts even more like a cartel than baseball does.) The salary cap works in the NFL because the TV money is huge and is always increasing. This revenue-sharing system was also put in place before the NFL became the huge financial juggernaut that it is today. Making changes to a system of sharing money is much harder once some teams are making a lot of it.

I think the parity situation in baseball is much better than people assume. There's been much more parity in the last ten years than in the NFL, for example.

MacNut

Nov 5, 2007, 01:24 PM

Hate to say it but Torre looks odd in a Dodger uniform.

MacNut

Nov 5, 2007, 07:01 PM

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=3096282The San Diego Padres and pitcher Greg Maddux have agreed to terms on a one-year, $10 million deal, according to sources.

Maddux, who could have been a free agent, held a player option for $8.75 million for 2008. The Padres held a team option for $11 million for 2008.

Maddux has pitched 22 seasons for four teams, most of that time with the Atlanta Braves. He has 347 career wins, good for ninth on the all-time list.

A four-time Cy Young winner, Maddux was 14-11 with a 4.14 ERA in 34 starts for the Padres last season. San Diego lost a one-game playoff with the Colorado Rockies for the National League wild card.

Sobe

Nov 5, 2007, 11:20 PM

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=3096412

ORLANDO, Fla. -- Andy Pettitte declined his $16 million option with the New York Yankees, still uncertain whether he wants to pitch next season.

"I have spoken with Brian Cashman, who has reiterated what Hank Steinbrenner said about the Yankees wanting to give Andy all the time he needs to decide about next season," Pettitte's agent, Randy Hendricks, said Monday in an e-mail to The Associated Press. "Accordingly, we are declining to exercise the option for 2008 and Andy will declare free agency in order to free up a roster spot for the Yankees.

Last man off the embassy roof, turn out the lights please.

Teh Don Ditty

Nov 5, 2007, 11:28 PM

To be expected.

This ain't rebuilding.... this is starting from scratch.

This could actually be fun.

zioxide

Nov 5, 2007, 11:30 PM

To be expected.

This ain't rebuilding.... this is starting from scratch.

This could actually be fun.

as long as you don't expect to win the WS in the first year. rebuilding a franchise usually takes a few seasons.

SportsCenter just reported that the Sox are nearing a 1-year deal with Schill.

Teh Don Ditty

Nov 5, 2007, 11:33 PM

as long as you don't expect to win the WS in the first year. rebuilding a franchise usually takes a few seasons.

I ain't stupid. If I could survive the Islanders (hockey) from 1995-2001, I can survive anything.

EDIT: I could've sworn that the Dodgers home uniforms didn't have names on the back.... Hey IJ can you explain that one to me please?

zioxide

Nov 5, 2007, 11:36 PM

I ain't stupid. If I could survive the Islanders (hockey) from 1995-2001, I can survive anything.

Yeah, but I'm not sure about MacNut.

Teh Don Ditty

Nov 5, 2007, 11:41 PM

Yeah, but I'm not sure about MacNut.

Hahaha. I can't even explain him.

MacNut

Nov 5, 2007, 11:42 PM

Yeah, but I'm not sure about MacNut.I was hoping they would of rebuilt in 02.

Pettitte did say that he will either be a Yankee or retire in 08.

Nobody can explain me and thats the way I like it.:p

Hey Ditty since your Jets are done why not join us Giants fans in pushing the Pats over the cliff.

Teh Don Ditty

Nov 5, 2007, 11:44 PM

I was hoping they would of rebuilt in 02.

Pettitte did say that he will either be a Yankee or retire in 08.

Nobody can explain me and thats the way I like it.:p

We need to shed some salary....

coughGiambiDamoncough

zioxide

Nov 5, 2007, 11:45 PM

We need to shed some salary....

coughGiambiDamoncough

so what's bigger, Giambi's head or his salary?

MacNut

Nov 5, 2007, 11:46 PM

We need to shed some salary....

coughGiambiDamoncoughId rather have Damon DH and drop Giambi.

Teh Don Ditty

Nov 5, 2007, 11:46 PM

so what's bigger, Giambi's head or his salary?

Depends if he's still juicing or not.

MacNut

Nov 5, 2007, 11:46 PM

so what's bigger, Giambi's head or his salary?Its still smaller than Schilling's ego.:p

zioxide

Nov 5, 2007, 11:47 PM

Its still smaller than Schilling's ego.:p

speaking of Schilling

http://38pitches.com/2007/11/05/its-looking-good/

MacNut

Nov 5, 2007, 11:49 PM

speaking of Schilling

http://38pitches.com/2007/11/05/its-looking-good/Why can't the Red Sox just cut ties, maybe the Yankees will finally do the same with Clemans.

Teh Don Ditty

Nov 5, 2007, 11:51 PM

Why can't the Red Sox just cut ties, maybe the Yankees will finally do the same with Clemans.

That's a certainty. He can't pitch anymore. He's D-U-N. Schill has maybe another year left.

zioxide

Nov 5, 2007, 11:51 PM

Why can't the Red Sox just cut ties, maybe the Yankees will finally do the same with Clemans.

Because he was 3-0 in the playoffs this year, 6-1 since 2004, has helped us win 2 world series, and only wants to play 1 more year before he retires.

And he's a smart veteran in a staff that's going to have two young guys (Lester and Buchholz) next year.

MacNut

Nov 5, 2007, 11:53 PM

Because he was 3-0 in the playoffs this year, 6-1 since 2004, has helped us win 2 world series, and only wants to play 1 more year before he retires.

And he's a smart veteran in a staff that's going to have two young guys (Lester and Buchholz) next year.But will he be effective anymore or just take up space. Clemans was doing good too then he hit the wall.

zioxide

Nov 5, 2007, 11:56 PM

But will he be effective anymore or just take up space. Clemans was doing good too then he hit the wall.

He looked pretty good in the playoffs. As long as he stays in shape over the offseason (this was his prob last year) he'll do fine.

Sobe

Nov 6, 2007, 12:00 AM

MacNut

Nov 6, 2007, 12:02 AM

I see it as a bad move for the Red Sox. Just cut ties with him and save the money. If there is anything the Red Sox should have learned from the Yankees is not to hold on to old players.

zioxide

Nov 6, 2007, 12:09 AM

It's a very tough decision.

I mean if they pay the guy that payroll might be over $150 million!

Then Theo will have to decide how to shoe-horn all that talent into a payroll nearly triple that of the team they beat in the WS.

nah.. clement's 10 mil and gagne's 6 is coming off the books. plus maybe a trade coco for a minor leaguer or two and that's another 5 mil

Sobe

Nov 6, 2007, 12:11 AM

nah.. clement's 10 mil and gagne's 6 is coming off the books. plus maybe a trade coco for a minor leaguer or two and that's another 5 mil

I said talent!

:D

zioxide

Nov 6, 2007, 12:12 AM

I said talent!

:D

true. anyways, i don't really see the downside to this. it's only a one year deal. after that, he won't be back. he'll be valuable come october.

schill just posted this on sosh: "Things are winding down, details being taken care of. When something is final I'll blog it to let anyone that cares know."

IJ Reilly

Nov 6, 2007, 01:34 AM

EDIT: I could've sworn that the Dodgers home uniforms didn't have names on the back.... Hey IJ can you explain that one to me please?

I don't know if I can explain it, but they were removed for a couple of seasons but now they're back.

And the reason for this question?

fotografica

Nov 6, 2007, 06:09 AM

He looked pretty good in the playoffs.

Exactly..And that's why you have him. The guy has been money in the playoffs.That plus he'd be a nice stabilizer for a young staff:
According to Rob Bradford of the Boston Herald, Curt Schilling and the Red Sox are close to an incentive-laden one-year contract. When reached for comment, Schilling said "something could potentially get done."
The Red Sox would be looking at a 2008 rotation of Josh Beckett, Daisuke Matsuzaka, Curt Schilling, Clay Buchholz, and Jon Lester. Given the two kids and the 41 year-old, Tim Wakefield will get plenty of work. This is a very deep rotation.

It wouldn't surprise me if the Tigers make a run at Gagne,esp since Zumaya is out for at least half the season..

And it looks like the Marlins are doing some shopping of players as well:
Marlins | Cabrera, Willis both on trade block
Tue, 6 Nov 2007 02:41:21 -0800

Updating a previous item, The South Florida Sun-Sentinel's Juan C. Rodriguez reports the Florida Marlins will entertain trade offers for both SP Dontrelle Willis and 3B Miguel Cabrera at the general manager meetings this week in Orlando, to try and fill holes on the club in a faster way. "We have to find ways to try to improve the ballclub and shore up our deficiencies, and try to win more games," Marlins president of baseball operations Larry Beinfest said. "Whatever the payroll is, we have to try and find a way to get that done. Considering we finished last in the league in pitching and last in the league in defense, I don't think we're close enough to where we want to be."

aloofman

Nov 6, 2007, 11:42 AM

I could've sworn that the Dodgers home uniforms didn't have names on the back.... Hey IJ can you explain that one to me please?

They tried that for one year, I think, then went back to putting the names on. It was an effort to be more traditional, since the Dodgers didn't have names on their uniforms until the early 1970s. It wasn't popular with anyone though, so they switched back.

And it looks like the Marlins are doing some shopping of players as well:

Florida knows they won't be able to afford him in two years when he becomes a free agent. And they probably figure they should trade him now while his value is high and he hasn't passed 300 pounds yet.

zioxide

Nov 6, 2007, 11:53 AM

Schilling: $8 million base.

Schilling can earn another $2 million in clauses for meeting weight limits and an additional $3 million for performance bonues.

IJ Reilly

Nov 6, 2007, 12:16 PM

They tried that for one year, I think, then went back to putting the names on. It was an effort to be more traditional, since the Dodgers didn't have names on their uniforms until the early 1970s. It wasn't popular with anyone though, so they switched back.

I'm pretty sure the names were gone for both the 2005 and 2006 seasons.

Florida knows they won't be able to afford him in two years when he becomes a free agent. And they probably figure they should trade him now while his value is high and he hasn't passed 300 pounds yet.

Let's see if the Dodgers make a run at Cabrera.

zioxide

Nov 6, 2007, 12:20 PM

So now that this deal is done, our rotation is looking like this:

Beckett
Matsuzaka
Lester
Schilling
Buchholz
Wakefield

I'm guessing Wakefield will start in the bullpen and the Sox will probably try to trade Tavarez to pick up a different reliever or something.

aloofman

Nov 6, 2007, 12:33 PM

I'm pretty sure the names were gone for both the 2005 and 2006 seasons.

Was it two years? That could be. I thought it looked pretty odd at the time.

Let's see if the Dodgers make a run at Cabrera.

Cabrera has gotten fat and slow at an awfully young age. I'd need some real reassurance that he's going to slim down again.

So now that this deal is done, our rotation is looking like this:

Beckett
Matsuzaka
Lester
Schilling
Buchholz
Wakefield

I'm guessing Wakefield will start in the bullpen and the Sox will probably try to trade Tavarez to pick up a different reliever or something.

Considering the fragility of Schilling and the inexperience of Buchholz, Wakefield will be pretty nice to have around.

IJ Reilly

Nov 6, 2007, 12:51 PM

Was it two years? That could be. I thought it looked pretty odd at the time.

This is my recollection. I also thought it was a odd move. I assumed it was a cost-saving effort.

Cabrera has gotten fat and slow at an awfully young age. I'd need some real reassurance that he's going to slim down again.

He's also been a lot less than brilliant defensively. The Marlins might get a better offer for him from the AL, the home for fat, slow and old players. ;)

MacNut

Nov 6, 2007, 01:12 PM

He's also been a lot less than brilliant defensively. The Marlins might get a better offer for him from the AL, the home for fat, slow and old players. ;)You just named Barry Bonds.:p But he's not in the AL yet.

IJ Reilly

Nov 6, 2007, 01:15 PM

You just named Barry Bonds.:p But he's not in the AL yet.

Yet. Bonds remained in the NL last year for reasons that don't apply to Cabrera.

MacNut

Nov 6, 2007, 01:16 PM

Yet. Bonds remained in the NL last year for reasons that don't apply to Cabrera.Mainly greed and wanting to really piss off Selig.

fotografica

Nov 6, 2007, 01:17 PM

We'll see if anything comes of this:

Interest in Coco

A number of teams are believed to be interested in Red Sox center fielder Coco Crisp, including the Twins, Rangers, Braves, Phillies and Cubs.

The Red Sox are believed to be interested in pitching from the Twins. Rangers catcher Gerald Laird interests the Sox. The Phillies, who expect to lose Aaron Rowand in free agency, and the Braves also need help in center.

Red Sox general manager Theo Epstein said the Red Sox won’t trade Crisp just because Jacoby Ellsbury is ready to play for the big club.

“Yeah, I don’t agree with that,” Epstein said. “I think we’re very lucky to have a lot of outfield depth, particularly in center field. That’s an asset. I see that as a factor that should contribute to us winning a lot of games next year, and we’d be crazy to deplete that depth just for the sake of depleting it. As is the case every offseason, we’ll explore our options and see what’s out there. But unless there’s a very significant return, I don’t see a trade in that area.”

MacNut

Nov 6, 2007, 01:20 PM

How much can they really expect to get back for Coco.

fotografica

Nov 6, 2007, 01:23 PM

How much can they really expect to get back for Coco.

I'm thinking younger guys/prospects,esp a catcher..

I'm wondering if the Dodgers are really looking at Lowell?:
The Sox say publicly that they want to keep Mike Lowell, but privately fear that Lowell might command a four- or even a five-year deal on the open market, given the interest from the Yankees, Dodgers and Phillies, among other clubs.
Sox officials continue to work on trades for younger corner infielders such as Dodgers third baseman Andy LaRoche. But if the Sox lost Lowell, they almost certainly would entertain the idea of signing Rodriguez more seriously.

MacNut

Nov 6, 2007, 01:26 PM

Nothing would please me more then seeing A-Rod in Boston just destroying that team.:p I would gladly take Lowell to make that happen.:):cool:

fotografica

Nov 6, 2007, 01:27 PM

Nothing would please me more then seeing A-Rod in Boston just destroying that team.:p I would gladly take Lowell to make that happen.:):cool:

Stranger things have happened..I never thought Manny would be entering the eighth year of his contract with the Sox..I remember the night Duquette signed him..I thought "8 years??wow"...

MacNut

Nov 6, 2007, 01:29 PM

Stranger things have happened..I never thought Manny would be entering the eighth year of his contract with the Sox..I remember the night Duquette signed him..I thought "8 years??wow"...But Manny is not getting 350. A-Rod has a way of destroying clubhouses plus the media attention he will get.

fotografica

Nov 6, 2007, 01:32 PM

But Manny is not getting 350. A-Rod has a way of destroying clubhouses plus the media attention he will get.

I know,but at the time it was $160 mil w/2 option years at $20 million each..

MacNut

Nov 6, 2007, 01:34 PM

I would rather give Lowell 5 years at 25 million a year then give A-Rod 10 years at 35 million a year.

IJ Reilly

Nov 6, 2007, 02:04 PM

Mainly greed and wanting to really piss off Selig.

On the part of the Giants, keeping the fan's butts in the seats to watch a last-place team.

Lowell could make sense for the Dodgers. It wouldn't be the first time they signed a third baseman from Boston. LA has no incumbent at third. Anybody who can field well and hit with power is a candidate.

aloofman

Nov 6, 2007, 02:18 PM

Lowell could make sense for the Dodgers. It wouldn't be the first time they signed a third baseman from Boston. LA has no incumbent at third. Anybody who can field well and hit with power is a candidate.

He would certainly be a good guy to have, but his price is going to be very high and he isn't young anymore. I like LaRoche, but he needs more playing time to see what kind of hitter he's going to be. He would be more bang for the buck than Lowell, but if you start LaRoche instead of signing Lowell, you probably need to sign another bat somewhere anyway.

I think Lowell might wait until after Rodriguez signs to see what the market indicates. If Rodriguez gets $30 million for ten years, Lowell could ask for $15-20 for five. And if Rodriguez goes somewhere besides the Yankees, then the Red Sox and Yankees are outbidding each other for Lowell.

It's all so complicated. :eek:

MacNut

Nov 6, 2007, 02:22 PM

ORLANDO, Fla. -- For the first time Tuesday, baseball general managers recommended instant replay be used to help umpires make close calls.

The recommendation, by a 25-5 vote, was limited to boundary calls -- whether potential home runs are fair or foul, whether balls go over fences or hit the top and bounce back, and whether fans have interfered with a possible homer.

Five general managers -- Dan O'Dowd (Rockies), Josh Byrnes (Diamondbacks), Jim Bowden (Nationals), John Mozeliak (Cardinals) and Billy Beane (A's) -- were in charge of the recommendation.

"We have a very technologically savvy group of GMs," Solomon said. "I was surprised that we had five teams that said no."

Baseball commissioner Bud Selig opposes the use of replays but said last month he was willing to let GMs examine the issue.
"I don't like instant replay because I don't like all the delays. I think it sometimes creates as many problems or more than it solves," Selig said then.

But Jimmie Lee Solomon, an executive vice president in the commissioner's office, thinks Selig's stance has changed a bit recently.

"He seemed to be softer, at least on the consideration of the subject," Solomon said Tuesday.

He added it was unclear how the proposal will proceed and acknowledged there is "glacier-like movement in baseball" when it comes to innovation. Solomon said if Selig is willing, the commissioner probably would run the idea by owners. The plan needs approval from the players' association and umpires.

Solomon said GMs favored having a Major League Baseball official in a central place with access to all camera angles. If there is a disputed call, that official would be contacted and would view the television replay to make a decision.

A baseball executive told ESPN The Magazine's Buster Olney that instant replay is not likely to be implemented in 2008.

Solomon also said that to speed up games, baseball was considering limiting the number of times a hitter could step out of the batter's box during an at-bat and the number of times any player could visit the mound.

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=3096923

aloofman

Nov 6, 2007, 02:42 PM

Solomon said GMs favored having a Major League Baseball official in a central place with access to all camera angles. If there is a disputed call, that official would be contacted and would view the television replay to make a decision.

I think the only way that could work is if the umpires on the field can't agree and ask for someone with access to the camera angles to look at it. That doesn't happen very often.

Solomon also said that to speed up games, baseball was considering limiting the number of times a hitter could step out of the batter's box during an at-bat and the number of times any player could visit the mound.

I think Bill James had a very practical suggestion to reduce some of the time between pitches: batters can't step out of the box at all, unless to collect themselves (from say, a brushback pitch that put them in the dirt, or a foul ball off the foot). To balance that out, pitchers could only throw to first base twice in an inning, which would reduce the number of throws to only occasions when a pickoff is really likely. The games would move faster, both sides would have to be ready, and there would be more stolen base attempts.

MacNut

Nov 6, 2007, 02:45 PM

I thought they made a rule in the spring that the pitcher had 12 seconds from the time the batter was in the box to throw the ball. I don't seem to remember seeing that.

zioxide

Nov 6, 2007, 02:58 PM

I would rather give Lowell 5 years at 25 million a year then give A-Rod 10 years at 35 million a year.

talk about overpaying.

this is the problem with baseball.

the free agent market (especially boras) and ridicuously overpriced contracts driving prices up.

no way in hell Lowell is worth 5 years at 25 million a year. that's ****ing obsurd.

a-rod for 30 million a year 10 years is ridiculous too. He deserves like 6/7 years at 22 mil a year.

lowell 4 years 13-14 mil a year.

MacNut

Nov 6, 2007, 03:24 PM

lowell 4 years 13-14 mil a year.That might be what the Red Sox will offer him but he will get far more elsewhere. I'd bet the Yankees will offer 5 years 20 a year.

zioxide

Nov 6, 2007, 03:30 PM

That might be what the Red Sox will offer him but he will get far more elsewhere. I'd bet the Yankees will offer 5 years 20 a year.

and that's why they're the evil empire.

they really need to get away from overpaying for older free agents :P

MacNut

Nov 6, 2007, 03:31 PM

and that's why they're the evil empire.

they really need to get away from overpaying for older free agents :PWell they are not signing A-Rod.;) If the Red Sox go after A-Rod I'd say the same thing to you.

Lowell for 5 years at 20 Million is a steal compared to A-Rod.

IJ Reilly

Nov 6, 2007, 04:16 PM

Funny, a fan of the #2 payroll team accusing the #1 payroll team of inflating salaries. Earth to Boston... Earth to New York... come in please!

Stay tuned folks, this could be fun. :)

aloofman

Nov 6, 2007, 05:00 PM

Well they are not signing A-Rod.;)

They might. Of course the Yankees will say that they aren't interested, but they have to be very conscious of how much offense they're losing if Rodriguez doesn't come back. His performance is the only reason the Yankees were within spitting distance of the playoffs. And it's very likely that they'll get less out of Giambi and Posada next year, if only for age-related reasons.

If the Yankees don't think they can acquire Cabrera or Lowell, they will be under a lot of pressure to sign Rodriguez, even without the Rangers' subsidy. No matter who else he's negotiating with, you know Boras will give the Yankees one last chance to sign him back.

Stay tuned folks, this could be fun. :)

It already is!

Sobe

Nov 6, 2007, 05:01 PM

But Manny is not getting 350. A-Rod has a way of destroying clubhouses plus the media attention he will get.

what clubhouses has arod "destroyed"? How many first ballot hall of fame short stops would move to 3rd even if they were better offensively and defensively?

You want "destroy" -- go ask jeter, the captain, why he never stuck up for the guy when the fans and media were all over him.

MacNut

Nov 6, 2007, 05:05 PM

what clubhouses has arod "destroyed"? How many first ballot hall of fame short stops would move to 3rd even if they were better offensively and defensively?

You want "destroy" -- go ask jeter, the captain, why he never stuck up for the guy when the fans and media were all over him.Because they are not as buddy buddy as they once were. A-Rod wants to be the leader of the team and he can never be that with the Yankees.

Naimfan

Nov 6, 2007, 05:14 PM

Rodriguez appears to me as a less obviously corrosive version of Barry Bonds. Both are extremely talented, but neither have ever won anything, and the background noise around each has consistently been that they are extremely selfish. For all their talent, it seems as if the teams each have been on are almost dragged down, not raised up, by their talent, as opposed to someone like Peyton Manning, who has consistently elevated the play of those around him (yeah, yeah, yeah, I know--different sport.....).

fotografica

Nov 6, 2007, 06:56 PM

Theo's take on A Rod/Lowell

ORLANDO, Fla. - Red Sox general manager Theo Epstein spent most of yesterday at the GM meetings holed up in his hotel room, scheduling trade talks for the coming days while also “moving the ball forward a little bit” on the pending free agent cases of third baseman Mike Lowell and pitcher Curt Schilling.

Epstein had not spoken with Scott Boras, the agent for free agent third baseman Alex Rodriguez.

“If and when we do, it shouldn’t be perceived as an A-Rod meeting per se - we tend to check in with (Boras) about the current clients we have on the team and we always hear the free agent roster he has,” Epstein said.
The idea that the Sox would somehow be able to sign both Lowell and Rodriguez (to play shortstop) is not being entertained. Lowell’s agents, brothers Seth and Sam Levinson, checked into the Hyatt Grand Cypress yesterday.
With respect to third basemen, signing Mike is our clear priority,” Epstein said. “We’re going to work hard at that and really hope to get something done. I hope this doesn’t come to pass, but if he eventually signs somewhere else, then we’ll explore other options, but really, right now, we’re focused on trying to sign Mike.”

Sobe

Nov 6, 2007, 08:24 PM

Sayhey

Nov 6, 2007, 09:42 PM

Bonds play on the field made everyone around him better. I think the same can be said of Rodriguez. Whether they get along with everyone in the clubhouse or are the kind of person who you want to be around is another thing altogether. Who cares about the latter other than the gossip columnists who masquerade as sports reporters these days?

zioxide

Nov 6, 2007, 09:52 PM

Teh Don Ditty

Nov 6, 2007, 10:33 PM

I don't know if I can explain it, but they were removed for a couple of seasons but now they're back.

And the reason for this question?

No reason, I'm a bit slow and haven't watched much of the NL West.

They tried that for one year, I think, then went back to putting the names on. It was an effort to be more traditional, since the Dodgers didn't have names on their uniforms until the early 1970s. It wasn't popular with anyone though, so they switched back.

To be honest, the uniform looks better without the name on the back. It just looks cleaner.

IJ Reilly

Nov 6, 2007, 10:47 PM

To be honest, the uniform looks better without the name on the back. It just looks cleaner.

It can be a pain in the neck for fans though. We can't all remember every player number.

Teh Don Ditty

Nov 6, 2007, 11:35 PM

It can be a pain in the neck for fans though. We can't all remember every player number.

Slacker :p

Sayhey

Nov 6, 2007, 11:40 PM

It can be a pain in the neck for fans though. We can't all remember every player number.

Is this the home or road uniforms? The Giants have gone to home uniforms without names, but have the names on the road uniforms for fans who we wouldn't expect to know all of the players.

Teh Don Ditty

Nov 6, 2007, 11:40 PM

Is this the home or road uniforms? The Giants have gone to home uniforms without names, but have the names on the road uniforms for fans who we wouldn't expect to know all of the players.

We were discussing the Dodgers home uniforms. They took the names off for a 2 season and now they're back on.

Sayhey

Nov 6, 2007, 11:44 PM

Team chemistry is important.

This reminds me of a quote from the 2004 WS DVD.

"Teams with cliques don't win."

Team chemistry is important. On the field. Players can hate each other and still do extremely well together (the A's and Yankees in the 70s, etc.) Not that cutting each other's throats in the press will help any team, but as far as I know neither ARod or Bonds are guilty of that.

Sayhey

Nov 6, 2007, 11:45 PM

We were discussing the Dodgers home uniforms. They took the names off for a 2 season and now they're back on.

I like the no name version. Home town fans should be expected to learn who the players are on their own team.

Teh Don Ditty

Nov 6, 2007, 11:59 PM

I like the no name version. Home town fans should be expected to learn who the players are on their own team.

Not gonna get an argument from me.

MacNut

Nov 7, 2007, 01:33 AM

Not gonna get an argument from me.I don't think you have to worry about the Yankees having names.

Counterfit

Nov 7, 2007, 03:28 AM

I don't think you have to worry about the Yankees having names.

Yeah, they're all bums anyway. :D

Oh come on, you set me up for it!

furcalchick

Nov 7, 2007, 01:12 PM

look at this from today's miami herald. things are a total mess, and south florida is officially a sports wasteland now. add that to the miguel and dontrelle trade rumors and rising prices and you have yourself no more fans for this team.

League worried about Marlins' OB site
Posted on Wed, Nov. 07, 2007Digg del.icio.us AIM reprint print email
BY CLARK SPENCER
cspencer@MiamiHerald.com

ORLANDO -- The Orange Bowl site is not the best option for a new Marlins ballpark, a top executive with Major League Baseball said Tuesday. But it will have to do if the team wants to build a proposed 37,000-seat, retractable-roof stadium in South Florida.

''The [financial projections] would suggest that the Orange Bowl site would not necessarily generate as much as downtown,'' said Bob DuPuy, president and chief executive officer of MLB. ``We hope we're wrong. We all hope that the Orange Bowl site will be every bit as good as downtown. But there are concerns about it.''

Miami city leaders were told last month that the Marlins planned to trim their contribution to any stadium built on the Orange Bowl site, which became available when the University of Miami announced plans to leave.

The Marlins always have preferred a downtown Miami site for a new ballpark.

But DuPuy said the team has ''accepted the Orange Bowl site'' and discussions are continuing to work on a plan to finance construction.

''Believe me, nothing has ever been in concrete,'' said DuPuy, who is attending the annual general managers' meeting. ``This has been a lava light in terms of trying to put the financing together.''

He said he has had ''a number of talks'' during the past week with Miami-Dade County manager George Burgess, as well as other government officials.

''We have discussed several concepts over the course of the last month or so, and we're going to continue to do that,'' DuPuy said. ``The commissioner, this is very high on his radar screen right now.''

But DuPuy said there are no plans to set a deadline for any deal to get done.

''The commissioner refuses to give up. I refuse to give up,'' DuPuy said. ``At some point, though, maybe someone will say for as hard as we've tried, as long as we've tried, it's not going to happen. But we're not ready to concede that yet.''

zioxide

Nov 7, 2007, 01:22 PM

look at this from today's miami herald. things are a total mess, and south florida is officially a sports wasteland now. add that to the miguel and dontrelle trade rumors and rising prices and you have yourself no more fans for this team.

they are raising prices but wont pay to keep good players?

why don't they just move that team or something? or get an owner that's not so ****ing cheap.

on espn they were saying he likes to keep the payroll around 30 million. that's like 2 players.

Naimfan

Nov 7, 2007, 01:24 PM

IJ Reilly

Nov 7, 2007, 01:33 PM

I like the no name version. Home town fans should be expected to learn who the players are on their own team.

I know the numbers of most if not all of the regulars, but with my eyesight it's easier to identify who's trotting out to left field or who is warming up in the bullpen if both the name and number is on the uniform. Occasionally I bring binoculars to the games but I hate to lug them.

aloofman

Nov 7, 2007, 01:35 PM

look at this from today's miami herald. things are a total mess, and south florida is officially a sports wasteland now. add that to the miguel and dontrelle trade rumors and rising prices and you have yourself no more fans for this team.

Sad to say for Florida's baseball fans, but it just doesn't seem like a viable baseball market. Both the Marlins and Rays are just kind of limping along and you wonder how long it can last. At what point does someone at MLB finally realize that it's not working there.

On the other hand, how many viable markets are there for a team to move to? Portland? Las Vegas? Indianapolis? Vancouver? Sacramento and Charlotte as real long shots? The options are pretty limited. With the amount of cash flying around baseball these days, I seriously doubt anyone will get contracted. I think they'll subsidize teams for quite a while before moving them.

furcalchick

Nov 7, 2007, 01:56 PM

they are raising prices but wont pay to keep good players?

why don't they just move that team or something? or get an owner that's not so ****ing cheap.

on espn they were saying he likes to keep the payroll around 30 million. that's like 2 players.

loria and co. are cheap, very cheap. and 30 million payrolls mean you'll be dumping all the talent come arbitration time and just be everyone else's 4A team. time to get loria out of the marlins and give someone else a chance, since all he wants to do is destroy the team...and probably move them.

this makes me want a salary floor of 40 million more than anything, make them spend a bit for players instead of being so cheap that all you can afford is rookies and has been losers.

Sayhey

Nov 7, 2007, 01:57 PM

I know the numbers of most if not all of the regulars, but with my eyesight it's easier to identify who's trotting out to left field or who is warming up in the bullpen if both the name and number is on the uniform. Occasionally I bring binoculars to the games but I hate to lug them.

Don't they have a huge scoreboard in Dodger Stadium? I rely on that and the public address announcer when my eyes fail me. Believe me I sympathize with the eyesight problem, but I still like the look of the no-name unis better.

fotografica

Nov 7, 2007, 02:02 PM

they are raising prices but wont pay to keep good players?

why don't they just move that team or something? or get an owner that's not so ****ing cheap.

on espn they were saying he likes to keep the payroll around 30 million. that's like 2 players.

Must be a Miami thing because the same thing is happening with the Dolphins. It starts with an ownership that's committed to winning,or at least being above .500

furcalchick

Nov 7, 2007, 02:17 PM

Must be a Miami thing because the same thing is happening with the Dolphins. It starts with an ownership that's committed to winning,or at least being above .500

blame hyzengia (aka crater face) for both the dolphins and the marlins. he destroyed the fish before selling them off and is destroying the fins now.

IJ Reilly

Nov 7, 2007, 02:20 PM

Don't they have a huge scoreboard in Dodger Stadium? I rely on that and the public address announcer when my eyes fail me. Believe me I sympathize with the eyesight problem, but I still like the look of the no-name unis better.

Well yes, but they are not going to tell you who is warming up in the bullpen, and they also don't normally announce substitutions until the player is at his position (that's a rule, is it not?). Last season the Dodgers installed new scoreboards on the left and right field walls which are supposed to tell us about the current batter and pitcher, but I find them hard to read, even though my seats are right behind home plate.

Sure, the uniforms look better without the names (especially if the name is something like "Grudzelanic") -- I just prefer to have the information they provide.

fotografica

Nov 7, 2007, 03:10 PM

The soap opera continues

Will Yankees Offer Arbitration To A-Rod?
Will Carroll of Baseball Prospectus tell us not to expect the Yankees to offer arbitration with Alex Rodriguez and Scott Boras. However, Brian Cashman told Joel Sherman "of course" the Yankees would offer it, because of the two draft picks involved.

Sherman notes that there's a "very slim possibility" of Rodriguez accepting, and then getting a $30-40MM one-year contract as a result of the hearing. He adds that A-Rod would lose his no-trade clause in this scenario. This would be a great scenario for the Yankees. Rodriguez on any kind of one-year commitment is a sweet deal, and he'd be very trade-able. One year, $40MM is a lot easier to stomach for any team than 10 years, $300MM.

If they do offer arbitration and A-Rod declines (the most likely scenario), the Yankees will hope for one of the teams picking 16th-30th in next June's draft to sign him. That could be the Cubs, Tigers, Mets, Angels, or Red Sox. In those cases the Yankees get that team's first-round pick. On the flip side, it would not be preferred if the Dodgers, Giants, or any other team picking 1st-15th signs him. Those picks are protected.

Bosox3

Nov 7, 2007, 03:24 PM

Here's hoping the Yankees don't go crazy over Miguel Cabrera. Talented but apparently undisciplined, and Cashman is saying they don't want to break up the core of young players they have. Hope he can stick to it.....

I've also heard the yankees are looking at white sox 3rd baseman Joe Crede.

I dont see the big deal in trading somebody like hughes or Kennedy if they get somebody good in return.

Theres been rumors of kazmir to NY but the yanks wont give up Hughes....Now thats Insane! Kazmir is a proven cy young type pitcher, while hughes could still go either way.
The only guy I think the yanks should keep is Joba..the others can be expendable for the right price.

zioxide

Nov 7, 2007, 03:33 PM

Well since the Marlins like trading all their big names away for minor league prospects, maybe the Sox can swing a deal for Jed Lowrie + Justin Masterson for Hanley Ramirez. :p

that would be epic.

Then Julio Lugo could start selling Fenway Franks in the right field bleacher seats.

fotografica

Nov 7, 2007, 03:59 PM

They may not be as hot for Crede as believed:

Yankees Aiming Higher Than Crede
According to Ken Davidoff of Newsday, the Yankees aren't likely to trade for Joe Crede. They're aiming for bigger fish like Mike Lowell, Adrian Beltre, Miguel Cabrera, and Scott Rolen. Garrett Atkins has been deemed unavailable. Additionally, Kenny Williams hopes to deal Crede relatively quickly and the Yankees are in no rush to fill their third base vacancy. Maybe the Phillies will jump into the fray for Crede.

Lowell at least won't involve giving up young talent. But there are some questions about how he'd hit away from Fenway. And we're talking four or even five years to lure him. Beltre would be a fine acquisition and is affordable, though I don't know why the Mariners would part with him. And the Ms would want at least one blue-chipper, I'd imagine. The Yanks would have to mortgage tons of young talent for Cabrera. Davidoff's dark horse, Rolen, suddenly makes the most sense. It would be a salary dump and a health risk, but 3/36 isn't that scary for the Yanks. And it's less than Lowell would sign for.

Davidoff has a tidbit at the end of his column, a one-liner, that the Yanks are likely to re-sign Mariano Rivera at three years, $40MM soon. I'm surprised Newsday didn't call more attention to that part.

Bosox3

Nov 7, 2007, 04:30 PM

They may not be as hot for Crede as believed:

But if they want the bigger names...they need to let their young prospects go....which most likely wont be the case.

MacNut

Nov 7, 2007, 04:31 PM

But if they want the bigger names...they need to let their young prospects go....which most likely wont be the case.Well Lowell is a free agent.

Bosox3

Nov 7, 2007, 04:42 PM

Well Lowell is a free agent.

He wont go to the yanks..so that part doesnt really matter.
He'll be resigned in boston by the end of next week.

Sobe

Nov 7, 2007, 09:00 PM

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/wire?section=mlb&id=3099238

Rodriguez's $36 million assignment bonus will accrue interest at 2 percent annually and will be paid to the player each June 15 from 2016-25.

Man, I want that kind of a deal.

fotografica

Nov 8, 2007, 12:07 PM

There's actually interest in Clement

Clement Drawing Interest From Padres, Royals
Matt Clement is an interesting rehab project. The 33-year old had rotator cuff and labrum surgery, and was last seen topping out at 87 in September. With the right strengthening work, plus the National League, he could be a nice surprise in 2008.

I'm sure he wants to start, so there wouldn't be a fit with the Red Sox. Nick Cafardo says the Padres and Royals are in on him so far. It wouldn't be surprising to see the Nationals get involved. I think Clement will land in San Diego with $2-3MM guaranteed and maybe another $3MM in incentives. He came up through the Padres' system, taking his lumps before being traded for Mark Kotsay. He's going to have to reinvent himself as a finesse guy with good control. Wade Miller was a somewhat similar case; he wasn't able to do it.

IJ Reilly

Nov 8, 2007, 12:16 PM

More about Cabrera's availability from a Southern California baseball perspective:

Miguel Cabrera's on the market

Marlins third baseman is younger and cheaper than A-Rod, but Dodgers and Angels would have to give up prospects to get him

November 8, 2007

The Dodgers and Angels are in pursuit of an All-Star third baseman, one who could fill a long-standing vacancy for an elite power hitter.

Not Alex Rodriguez. That could come later. Miguel Cabrera could come sooner, forcing the Dodgers and Angels to consider whether to trade three top youngsters for Cabrera or keep prospects for the chance to spend perhaps 10 times as much on Rodriguez.

The Florida Marlins jolted this week's meeting of general managers in Orlando, Fla., putting Cabrera on the trading block and sending teams in search of a third baseman scrambling to consider a powerful alternative to Rodriguez. The Dodgers, Angels, New York Yankees, Boston Red Sox, Chicago White Sox and San Francisco Giants are expected to consider trading for Cabrera.

The price would be steep. The Marlins are believed to covet high-quality, low-cost talent at pitcher, third base, catcher and center field. They hope to trade Cabrera for three players, with at least two able to contribute at the major league level next season, a baseball source said.

The Dodgers could be asked for outfielder Matt Kemp, third baseman Andy LaRoche and pitcher Chad Billingsley or top pitching prospect Clayton Kershaw, although one official familiar with the Dodgers' thinking said the team probably would consider that price "too much." The Angels could be asked for their top two prospects -- third baseman Brandon Wood and pitcher Nick Adenhart -- and one of their two catchers, Mike Napoli or Jeff Mathis.

As of Wednesday afternoon, the Marlins were believed to be determining which teams would be interested, the step preceding submission of specific trade proposals.

On the Rodriguez front, Angels General Manager Tony Reagins has confirmed the Angels' interest in Rodriguez and has met briefly with his agent, Scott Boras, in Orlando. Dodgers General Manager Ned Colletti said he has not met with Boras in Orlando.

"The meetings have been very introductory," Reagins said. "We did talk about Alex, but in very general terms."

The Dodgers called the Marlins about Cabrera regularly last season, and they were told every time the Marlins had no interest in trading him.

Colletti repeatedly warned last season that he would not trade his best young players for a player one year -- or less -- from free agency. Cabrera must wait another two years before free agency

"It changes the dynamic if you have a player with you for a while," Colletti said in a telephone interview Wednesday.

Colletti spoke in general terms and would not discuss Cabrera specifically.

Reagins would not discuss Cabrera in particular, but he said the Angels have talked to several teams about power hitters, not necessarily third basemen.

"We're not limited to third base," he said.

Cabrera is 24, a four-time All-Star, yet just five months older than LaRoche and three weeks younger than Mathis. He played left field on the Marlins' 2003 World Series championship team and right field the next year, then moved back to his original position of third base.

He hit .320 with 34 home runs and 119 runs batted in last season, driving in at least 110 runs for the fourth consecutive season. His career statistics at his age are most comparable to Hank Aaron, Ken Griffey and Frank Robinson, according to baseball-reference.com.

But Cabrera stands to make about $11 million in arbitration next season, a prohibitive figure for the cost-conscious Marlins, and weight and conditioning concerns could force teams to move him to first base -- or, in the case of an American League team, to designated hitter.

Rodriguez is believed to be asking $300 million over 10 years. The financial commitment to Cabrera would be limited to about $25 million over two years.

That could leave the Dodgers plenty of dollars to sign a free-agent center fielder, with Torii Hunter, Andruw Jones, Aaron Rowand and Japan's Kosuke Fukudome among candidates of interest, and address pitching depth, perhaps with Japanese right-handers Hiroki Kuroda or Masahide Kobayashi.

"That's an obvious consideration," Colletti said. "It's one of the things we always have to gauge."

The Dodgers' interest in third basemen appears to leave six-time All-Star Nomar Garciaparra in limbo. The Dodgers owe him $8.5 million next season, after he hit .283 with seven home runs last season.

Colletti declined to discuss the Dodgers' plans for Garciaparra.

"We're looking to improve the club any way we can," Colletti said. "We'll be open-minded. We'll go from there."

As expected, Angels center fielder Gary Matthews Jr. met with representatives of the commissioner's office to discuss allegations he ordered human growth hormone. An MLB spokesman confirmed the meeting took place but declined to comment further. Scott Leventhal, the agent for Matthews, did not return a call for comment.

http://www.latimes.com/sports/la-sp-cabrera8nov08,1,7806875.story

BTW, does anybody remember my mentioning during the season the possibility that the Marlins would try to trade Cabrera before he became free agent?

aloofman

Nov 8, 2007, 12:33 PM

More about Cabrera's availability from a Southern California baseball perspective:

http://www.latimes.com/sports/la-sp-cabrera8nov08,1,7806875.story

BTW, does anybody remember my mentioning during the season the possibility that the Marlins would try to trade Cabrera before he became free agent?

Well, I don't think you were the only one who was predicting that. Even when the Marlins were denying they would trade him, you had to figure they'd listen to offers eventually. That team is too miserly to keep a guy who will make eight figures even in artbitration.

fotografica

Nov 8, 2007, 01:43 PM

Asking price for Cabrera is high

Miguel Cabrera Trade Rumors

For up for auction: two years of Miguel Cabrera. Who's going to place a bid? The latest buzz from Joe Capozzi is that the Dodgers, Angels, Giants, Yankees, Red Sox, and White Sox are all after him. A deal could happen at the Winter Meetings from December 3-6. The needs for the Marlins are starting pitching, third base, catcher, and center field. They want three players.

* Dodgers: Capozzi's source says they're "making a big push" for Cabrera, after calling about him last summer. This could even involve a package deal with Dontrelle Willis. The names being thrown around: Matt Kemp, Andre Ethier, Andy LaRoche, Chad Billingsley, Clayton Kershaw, Scott Elbert, and Jonathan Meloan. I can't see the Dodgers trading Billingsley; he's integral to the 2008 team. Dodgers side note: Bill Shaikin names Kosuke Fukudome as someone the Dodgers are monitoring.
* Angels: Capozzi says Cabrera could be the Angels' alternative if they fail to sign Alex Rodriguez. Bill Shaikin speculates on Brandon Wood, Nick Adenhart, and Mike Napoli/Jeff Mathis/Hank Conger. I'd make that deal.
* Giants: Cabrera could be their new Face of the Franchise, but it's tough to see this happening without Tim Lincecum or Matt Cain.
* Yankees: Joe Girardi managed him with the Marlins and speaks highly of him. The Yanks have already touched base about Cabrera with the Fish. It sounds like the Yankees will trade Melky Cabrera, but are very reluctant to trade Joba Chamberlain, Phil Hughes, or Ian Kennedy. I could see them relenting on Kennedy. Capozzi mentions their second tier of prospects - Alan Horne, Humberto Sanchez, Ross Ohlendorf, and Jose Tabata. Nah.
* Red Sox: Any big name, the Yankees and Red Sox have to at least check in. If the Sox somehow don't retain Mike Lowell, they could move on to Cabrera. The price is said to be Jacoby Ellsbury plus Jon Lester or Clay Buchholz. I don't see the Red Sox doing it.
* White Sox: Ozzie Guillen is friends with Cabrera and sure, the White Sox love him. Any package would have to start with Josh Fields, but I'm still not sure they have the goods even if they add Lance Broadway and Gio Gonzalez to the package.
* Indians: Capozzi doesn't mention them, but Paul Hoynes says they'll inquire. The Tribe has some expendable guys but a deal might have to start with Adam Miller.

No way I see the Red Sox parting with Ellsbury and Lester or Buchholz.

MacNut

Nov 8, 2007, 01:44 PM

ORLANDO, Fla. -- General managers decided Thursday that first- and third-base coaches will wear some sort of head protection during games next season, an action taken four months after Mike Coolbaugh was killed when he was struck in the neck by a line drive.

Coolbaugh, a former major leaguer and a coach for the Colorado Rockies' minor league team in Tulsa, died July 22 when he was hit as he stood in the first-base coach's box during a Texas League game at Arkansas. Some major league coaches started wearing helmets the rest of the season.

"There was a sentiment that as a concept this was a good idea," said Joe Garagiola Jr., senior vice president for baseball operations in the commissioner's office.

GMs will decide on the exact form of protection when they meet next month at the winter meetings.

"We're going to come back in Nashville with some options: liners, hard caps, helmets without flaps, helmets with flaps," Garagiola said.

While no formal vote was taken, Garagiola said the sentiment of the GMs was clear.

"Everybody just felt it was a situation that made sense," Detroit Tigers president Dave Dombrowski said.

Many batters started wearing helmets after Ray Chapman, a shortstop for the Cleveland Indians, was killed when he was hit by a pitch during a game in 1920. A rule requiring helmets for batters was adopted in 1971.

"If you think about the evolution of the batting helmet, unfortunately what ended up happening this year is essentially what happened with Ray Chapman," Oakland general manager Billy Beane said. "I think we need to come up with a recommendation."

Garagiola said the recommendation adopted by the GMs next month will not need additional approvals.

IJ Reilly

Nov 8, 2007, 02:29 PM

Well, I don't think you were the only one who was predicting that. Even when the Marlins were denying they would trade him, you had to figure they'd listen to offers eventually. That team is too miserly to keep a guy who will make eight figures even in artbitration.

Yeah, maybe -- but I was the first to mention it here. ;)

aloofman

Nov 8, 2007, 02:38 PM

Asking price for Cabrera is high

I don't see the Dodgers giving up Billingsley either. I can see giving up Ethier or Kemp but not both, plus some minor leaguers. I'm still not sure where they would play Cabrera at this point. No one likes his defense at third and Loney would seem to have first locked up. Maybe in left? But then if they sign a fielder too, no way you want Pierre's arm in right. So many variables.

ORLANDO, Fla. -- General managers decided Thursday that first- and third-base coaches will wear some sort of head protection during games next season, an action taken four months after Mike Coolbaugh was killed when he was struck in the neck by a line drive.

Vin Scully has been after them about this for years.

IJ Reilly

Nov 8, 2007, 03:10 PM

I don't see the Dodgers giving up Billingsley either. I can see giving up Ethier or Kemp but not both, plus some minor leaguers. I'm still not sure where they would play Cabrera at this point. No one likes his defense at third and Loney would seem to have first locked up. Maybe in left? But then if they sign a fielder too, no way you want Pierre's arm in right. So many variables.

Agreed. Who gives up starting pitchers these days, especially young, competent starting pitchers? I'd be surprised if the Dodgers gave up any of their top pitching prospects either.

Trading for Cabrera and then not playing him where the team has a gap seems like folly to me. I expect a lot of changes on the club this year, but I hope they don't try a bunch of wholesale juggling just to accommodate one player. That kind of thing starts looking desperate in a hurry.

fotografica

Nov 8, 2007, 03:29 PM

Back to where it all began:

Park Returns to Dodgers
By Kim Tong-hyung
Staff Reporter

With his Major League Baseball (MLB) career hanging by a thread, Park Chan-ho is heading back to where the magic all started.

The 33-year-old South Korean said Thursday he signed a contract with the Los Angeles Dodgers, where he started his Major League career in 1994, and expected to join the team in spring camp.

Team 61, Park's domestic management agency, declined to reveal the terms of the deal, including whether it's a minor league contract or a split contract, which would provide Park a higher rate of pay if added to the Major League roster.

Park, in an entry in his Weblog, said his salary would be similar to a ``rookie on the start.''

``Dodgers Town is the spring camp venue where I first started my Major League dreams,'' Park said. ``The terms of the contract are similar to a rookie on the start, but the important thing is that I will be able to play for a team that I always missed.''

IJ Reilly

Nov 8, 2007, 03:56 PM

Back to where it all began:

Sounds like a non-roster invitation to spring training. This story isn't even being reported on the Dodgers web site.

It sure would be helpful if you provided links to the stories you post...

fotografica

Nov 8, 2007, 04:01 PM

Sounds like a non-roster invitation to spring training. This story isn't even being reported on the Dodgers web site.

It sure would be helpful if you provided links to the stories you post...

Sorry...Here ya go:

http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/nation/2007/11/136_13391.html

MacNut

Nov 8, 2007, 05:34 PM

aloofman

Nov 8, 2007, 05:42 PM

Sounds like a non-roster invitation to spring training. This story isn't even being reported on the Dodgers web site.

It sure would be helpful if you provided links to the stories you post...

Park could be our next Scott Erickson or Brett Tomko!

Oh wait....

:o

IJ Reilly

Nov 8, 2007, 06:14 PM

Park could be our next Scott Erickson or Brett Tomko!

Oh wait....

:o

You had me excited there for a moment.

fotografica

Nov 8, 2007, 07:46 PM

Here is a story from Jayson Stark of espn.com. It's way to long to post but worth a read.
Drawn-out postseason schedule requires shortening (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/columns/story?columnist=stark_jayson&id=3099910)

I've got a better idea in regard to the MLB post seasaon..Nevermind shortening it..How about playing the games in the afternoons? Anybody remember when post season games were on in the afternoon?I remember rushing home from school to watch them..

zioxide

Nov 8, 2007, 07:54 PM

I've got a better idea in regard to the MLB post seasaon..Nevermind shortening it..How about playing the games in the afternoons? Anybody remember when post season games were on in the afternoon?I remember rushing home from school to watch them..

How about just start them at 7:05 like normal games. Then they'd be over at by 10:30 or so. This starting games at 8:45 and not ending until 1 is ****ing dumb.

MacNut

Nov 8, 2007, 11:55 PM

A-Rod not as hot an option at hot corner (http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20071108&content_id=2296300&vkey=hotstove2007&fext=.jsp)
ORLANDO, Fla. -- Early Thursday, after two-and-a-half days of a crammed agenda, baseball general managers quickly pulled out of the Hyatt Grand Cypress, site of their annual meetings.
Almost as fast as teams had pulled out of the Alex Rodriguez Sweepstakes during the week.

As if Rodriguez's options hadn't dwindled fast enough when all the clubs perceived as logical destinations either rejected or at least demurred on the idea, publicly anyway, his market took another big hit when Miguel Cabrera became openly available.

Cabrera, not Rodriguez, zoomed into the biggest name at the meetings as soon as Florida club president Larry Beinfest announced in a closed-door meeting with all 30 general managers that the Marlins would field offers for him.

Even previously, Rodriguez was not the only available marquee third baseman. But A-Rod could pull rank on others up for trade such as the White Sox's Joe Crede, or even fellow free agent Mike Lowell.

But Cabrera ... now there is a name to flutter the heart of any general manager looking for a hot new name at the hot corner.

Agent Scott Boras and Rodriguez, who've been crunching some pretty big numbers of their own (if you consider $350 million a big number), now have some other impressive numbers to crunch.

Such as, someone who is eight years younger and will cost half as much. A team able to trade for Cabrera would want to sign him to a multi-year deal, to cover some free-agency eligibility, but at the very least two years to buy out his two remaining arbitration years. Based on the $7.4 million salary Cabrera's received this season through an arbitration win, that two-year pact would come in at about $25 million.

If still in a crunching mood, try these numbers:

Cabrera, who will turn 25 in the second week of the 2008 season, is a career .313 hitter with 138 homers and 523 RBIs.

Rodriguez finished the season (1999) in which he turned 24 with a career average of .308 and 148 homers and 463 RBIs.

You could add that Cabrera also has a World Series ring (contributing four homers and 12 RBIs to the Marlins' 2003 postseason title run) -- but why pile on?

So it is easy to understand why Cabrera would suddenly be prioritized by all the teams with an undeniable need for a third baseman -- well, all except the Red Sox, still intent on striking a new deal with Lowell.

But the Angels, Dodgers, Yankees, Tigers, Phillies, Cubs, White Sox ... they're in the Miguel mix.

Sobe

Nov 9, 2007, 12:13 AM

Cabrera is great and all, but let's not pretend that a 24 year old with fewer than 150 career HR is better than a guy with 500+ career HR and multiple MVPs.

Arod wants $350 million and 10 years (or Boras does anyway).

That's going to severely narrow the market. And that's been done intentionally.

Cabrera made $7.4 million in 2007, isn't available for arbitration until 2008-2009, and isn't available for free agency until 2010.

That there is the real value.

Make him a FA next year and the interest isn't nearly as high.

MacNut

Nov 9, 2007, 12:15 AM

Did you miss this,

Cabrera, who will turn 25 in the second week of the 2008 season, is a career .313 hitter with 138 homers and 523 RBIs.

Rodriguez finished the season (1999) in which he turned 24 with a career average of .308 and 148 homers and 463 RBIs.

swiftaw

Nov 9, 2007, 12:19 AM

The other difference. Cabrera isn't going to be at 3B much longer. His (and his expanding waistline's) future is at 1B/DH.

MacNut

Nov 9, 2007, 12:20 AM

The other difference. Cabrera isn't going to be at 3B much longer. His (and his expanding waistline's) future is at 1B/DH.Im sure there will be a weight clause. A big difference from Florida and a big market.

Teh Don Ditty

Nov 9, 2007, 12:21 AM

Im sure there will be a weight clause.

what about a Santa Claus?

swiftaw

Nov 9, 2007, 12:22 AM

what about a Santa Claus?

Or even a Fred Claus (sorry that trailer has been on TV so much, it has sunk into my brain)

MacNut

Nov 9, 2007, 12:23 AM

what about a Santa Claus?Well the Winter meetings are next month.

Teh Don Ditty

Nov 9, 2007, 12:25 AM

Or even a Fred Claus (sorry that trailer has been on TV so much, it has sunk into my brain)

It took a lot for me to hold back on that one...

Well the Winter meetings are next month.

Touché

Sobe

Nov 9, 2007, 12:38 AM

Did you miss this,

no I didn't miss that.

GMs want to lock in costs for good players.

That's the point.

You take those same numbers and make him on the verge of free agency and you wouldn't see nearly the same interest.

MacNut

Nov 9, 2007, 12:40 AM

no I didn't miss that.

GMs want to lock in costs for good players.

That's the point.

You take those same numbers and make him on the verge of free agency and you wouldn't see nearly the same interest.And they also don't want to pay 350 for one player.

Sobe

Nov 9, 2007, 01:18 AM

And they also don't want to pay 350 for one player.

Of course not.

They don't want to pay $10 million either though.

fotografica

Nov 9, 2007, 08:46 AM

Collusion Against A-Rod?

The MLBPA leveled a serious charge, suggesting that Bud Selig is trying to hold down Alex Rodriguez's price. Apparently all the GMs gathered and publicly spoke about their offseason plans and available players. This information sharing inhibits free market economics, in the opinion of the MLBPA. The union did not specifically refer to A-Rod, but a source of the AP indicated he was implied.

The commissioner's guy, Rob Manfred, basically said the union's suggestion was absurd.

Interesting read on the A Rod soap opera
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=3101262&campaign=rss&source=MLBHeadlines

Naimfan

Nov 9, 2007, 10:42 AM

let's not pretend that a 24 year old with fewer than 150 career HR is better than a guy with 500+ career HR and multiple MVPs.

Depends on how you define "better," n'est-ce pas? Because finances figure in so prominently, a player who costs a quarter of what another does can indeed be "better" than a historically more productive player. And MacNut's statistics are indeed interesting.

IJ Reilly

Nov 9, 2007, 11:20 AM

Depends on how you define "better," n'est-ce pas? Because finances figure in so prominently, a player who costs a quarter of what another does can indeed be "better" than a historically more productive player. And MacNut's statistics are indeed interesting.

Not to mention, locking up $35 million a year on one player seriously reduces the GM's other options. A team could build most of a starting rotation for that kind of money. The talk of collusion is a laugh. Right, the teams are conspiring on their inability to spend $350 million on one player. The only teams with those kinds of resources are essentially out of the bidding. I still think Boras would do his guy a favor if he sought a three-year deal somewhere, with the expectation that by the 2011 season A-Rod is seriously chasing the home run record and can demand even bigger numbers in free agency. By that time, the bidding could include some of the teams that can actually afford to pay.

MacNut

Nov 9, 2007, 01:27 PM

Interesting read on the A Rod soap opera
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=3101262&campaign=rss&source=MLBHeadlinesCan't the teams say that Boras is riding the price to high, I don't see how the union has anything to complain about when the asking price is so over the top.

In other news the Devil Rays are now just the "Rays".
ST. PETERSBURG, Fla. -- The Tampa Bay Devil Rays are gone.

Trying to reinvent itself, the perennial last-place team officially shortened its nickname to simply "Rays" during a celebration that brought a crowd of about 7,000 to a downtown park Thursday night.

New team colors and uniforms were also unveiled during a fashion show featuring current players, as well as manager Joe Maddon, senior advisor Don Zimmer and former Tampa Bay stars Wade Boggs and Fred McGriff as models.

Navy blue and light blue have replaced green and black as the primary colors. The club's new logo, as well as the home and road uniforms for next season, feature the word "Rays" in navy blue lettering with a light blue shadow.

Team officials and local fans have routinely referred to the club as "Rays" for much of the expansion team's existence, but it wasn't until Stuart Sternberg took over as principal owner two years ago that consideration as given an actual name change.http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=3101213