The deadline for players to accept or decline arbitration is today.

I believe tomorrow is the deadline for teams to offer arbitration or non-tender players under 6 years. I hope the Jays offer Halladay arbitration!

My official prediction for the number of non-tenders: 39

Here's one transaction of interest to Jays fans: Cincinnatti Reds sign RHP Corey Thurman.

http://economics.about.com
I hope the Jays offer Halladay arbitration!

I think the odds that the Jays won't offer Halladay arbitration are precisely the same as the odds the Jays will offer Jonny German arbitration and the odds that they'll hire Craig Burley to be a designated pinch runner.

Mike

http://economics.about.com
Off The Wall Theory:

JP is waiting for David Eckstein to be non-tendered, so he can scoop him up to be a utility infielder. Thoughts?

Mike

I'm curious.
The Red Sox are close to signing Pokey Reese.
Could some body PLEASE tell me why he's better than Todd Walker?
Not that I mind seeing the Sox shoot themselves in the foot, but that just doesn't make sense to me. Walker was a MONSTER in the ALCS.

I think the odds that the Jays won't offer Halladay arbitration are precisely the same as the odds the Jays will offer Jonny German arbitration

Well, we have been having some promising discussions... seems they're looking for somebody to clean the white boards.

J.P. is waiting for David Eckstein to be non-tendered, so he can scoop him up to be a utility infielder.

Well it's better than a replacement level Moffatt theory anyways...

they'll hire Craig Burley to be a designated pinch runner

Craig Burley: A Herb Washington for the new generation! I like the idea.

http://toronto.bluejays.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/tor/news/tor_news.jsp?ymd=20031217&content_id=620036&vkey=news_tor&fext=.jsp&c_id=tor
12/17/2003 2:35 PM ET
Pond intimidating pitchers in P.R.
By Spencer Fordin / MLB.com

I missed this article , how about anybody else ?

Pond is tied with RIOS in HR and RBI's in this story.

CLICK MY NAME FOR THE LINK.

Just curious Mike, where did you here the Eckstein non-tender thing. His little blurb on ESPN says:

NEWS: December 15
SKINNY: It's looking less likely that the Angels will acquire a shorstop over the offseason, the Orange County Register reports.

This would seemingly suggest that Eckstein would be offered a contract. Regardless, I don't think too much of his abilities, but I guess if they can't get Aurilia (and I wouldn't offer him more than a 2-year contract at about 4-5), Eckstein would be a reasonable platoon with Woody. How much do you think Eckstein would get? I'd hope no more than a 1-year 1-million type deal...
Also, how about the prospects of aquiring a guy like Braden Looper assuming he's non-tendered and they don't sign Aurilia (or even Benitez for cheap???)...Both could be closers and a viable closer like Benitez (or even Looper) would really strengthen their bullpen and give them depth they haven't had for years...

I know this is going a few weeks back, but does anybody have a BA subscription? I'd be really curious to read what they wrote about Rios and Gross in their outfield rankings. If anyone could post the article, parts of the article or even a summary, I'd like ;)

I'm REALLY ANNOYED with Rob Nyer's latest article. Here's the blurb and it's downright disturbing he feels this is okay. I know Toronto is a middle market team, but to suggest the disparity that exists is alright, is just wrong...
Here it is:

I've heard people complaining about what's happened this offseason, with so many of the best players going to the Red Sox, the Yankees, and the Orioles. But unless your favorite team is the Blue Jays or Devil Rays, isn't this a good thing?

What we've got now is something that smart people have been advocating for a long time: the great players should make big money, and the near-greats and the goods should make substantially less money.

Why is this good? Because there aren't enough great players to swing the balance of power all over baseball. If they were spread around evenly, having one of them wouldn't constitute a substantial advantage. But of course, that's not what's happened. Rather, most of the great players -- at least the incredibly rich players -- are becoming concentrated among a few teams that happen to play in the same division. No, it doesn't really matter how smart you are if you're the Blue Jays, because the Yankees and Red Sox are smart and they're wealthy beyond belief.

But everywhere outside the American League East, smarts are just as important as cold cash, because there are plenty of good players available for the right price. The trick is to know which players are good and which prices are right.

It's funny. For all the talk over the years about Major League Baseball needing help from the players, all the owners really needed was a bit of sanity in the front offices. Now they've got that, and we're all -- except those of us in Toronto and Tampa -- better off as a result.

Hope and faith has returned. Glory be, and wait 'til next year.

My sense is that a lot of useful players are going to get non-tendered tomorrow, and that JP & Co. are holding off spending their last two million bucks until they see what washes up on shore. No one else seems to be making a push to get Aurilia, so maybe they're letting Rich cool his heels for the moment (I'm more than fine with that). Eckstein would be an unexpected bonus to come available, but he'd also have a ton of suitors, and Toronto won't win many bidding wars. Looper would be interesting. We'll see what tomorrow brings.

Anyone want to find the article where Gammons claimed the Jays would regret letting Abernathy go? That he'd outplay Whorelando?

Thanks Pete.

Could some body PLEASE tell me why he's better than Todd Walker?

Picks it like nobody's business, Pete. The best defensive second baseman in baseball... so whether he starts for you or comes off the bench, if you have him at a reasonable price he will win games for you.

to suggest the disparity that exists is alright, is just wrong...

I don't think it's wrong at all. Why shouldn't the teams with the most fans win more often? That makes sense to me. It's good for baseball. They shouldn't win *all* of the time. But most... well, it's not "fair" but it may be more fair than any other system.

Need I remind you that ten years ago the Jays were the 10,000-pound elephant, signing megabuck free agents, hoarding talent, and preying on teams for star players every year at the trade deadline? How soon we forget.

Craig Burley: A Herb Washington for the new generation! I like the idea.

Sure, put Strong Mad in the first base coaches box, and then when I need to "run", he just rolls me at top speed towards second base like a bowling ball.

Actually, once upon a time I ran pretty damn fast... I ran a 4.8 for 40 yards once, and a sub-12 second 100 meters. Those days are long gone. And of course, that's fast for a normal person, but not that fast for a ballplayer.

Things are getting mighty expensive in Philadelphia: Kevin Millwood accepted arbitration. Stack another $12M or so onto the Phillies' payroll.

Last year, it was Greg Maddux unexpectedly accepting arbitration that forced the Braves to give Millwood to Philadelphia for nothing more than a backup catcher. Hmmm ... Randy Wolf for Kevin Cash, anyone?

[Yes, I'm kidding.]

http://economics.about.com
Actually, once upon a time I ran pretty damn fast... I ran a 4.8 for 40 yards once, and a sub-12 second 100 meters. Those days are long gone. And of course, that's fast for a normal person, but not that fast for a ballplayer.

That's actually pretty damn fast. I can't get mine under 13.5 without my heart trying to leap out of my chest. That could explain why I get caught stealing so often.

RE: Eckstein. I don't think he'll be an Angel at the beginning of 2004, but I imagine the Angels will likely offer him arbitration then try and trade him. From what I've read they're looking for a bigger name at short.

I think he'd come pretty cheaply as he did only hit 252/325/325 last year and isn't a great gloveman. I also see him being the type of guy some team like the Tigers or Brewers would overpay for.

I wouldn't be surprised if there were 2 guys per team non-tendered, adding about 60 guys to the free agent pool. There will be a lot of talent available, which is why I'm not willing to judge Beane's off-season a failure yet.

Mike

#131714 Posted 12/19/2003 01:09 PM by Craig B:
Need I remind you that ten years ago the Jays were the 10,000-pound elephant, signing megabuck free agents, hoarding talent, and preying on teams for star players every year at the trade deadline? How soon we forget.

No, I haven't forgotten. I think the Jays from 10 years ago is a much context than the current baseball landscape. In 1993, the folowing teams made the playoffs with their payrolls in brackets.
- Toronto Blue Jays ($45,747,666)- Rank #1
- Atlanta Braves ($38,131,000)- Rank #7
- Chicago White Sox ($34,598,166)- Rank #13
- Philadelphia Phillies ($26,812334)- Rank #20
Here, there is a fairly reasonable distribution in playoff payrolls and hence the fact that the Jays made the playoffs is in large part due to management rather than payroll. Also realize that it is far from commonplace to have teams with payrolls 3X, 4X and even 5X greater than others in this market. While you could argue that the Yankees and Red Sox success is also due to wise management, their payrolls will undoubtedly rank 1-2 in baseball, both will make the playoffs and this in and of itself is quite different from 1993. Comparing 2003 to 1993 is apples and oranges.

Neyer is essentially saying that the Blue Jays are basically the only team that's tremendously suffering, and that this should continue for the good of baseball. That is my main objection with the article and equating the situation to 1993 is irrelevant anyway. As a Blue Jay fan, this is very disturbing and quite disheartening. I know a lot of you guys seem to believe that "playing against great teams magnifies the Jays accomplishments once they finally earn a playoff position" (which no offense, I think is absolutely crazy), but this is simply not what the majority of casual fans (unlike oursleves) look at. I really hope that in 2007, after four years of what I think will be some really great teams, the Jays will have something to show for it. Because if they don't, and there are no divisional or playoff modifications, and the Yankees and Sox continue this unreasonable dominance, I really believe that the future of baseball in Toronto is in grave danger. The ultimate doom of the Expos franchise was the 1994 strike that destroyed their chances to make the playoffs for the second time in history. Similar "unfair" circumstances could do the same to the Jays if things don't turn out the way we all hope...

http://economics.about.com
While you could argue that the Yankees and Red Sox success is also due to wise management, their payrolls will undoubtedly rank 1-2 in baseball, both will make the playoffs and this in and of itself is quite different from 1993. Comparing 2003 to 1993 is apples and oranges.

That's largely because of the Wild Card. You're right. There's no way both the Yankees and Red Sox make the playoffs in 1993.

2003 isn't any different than 1993, except now there's a couple of outliers. The Jays spent 41% more than the Brewers in 1992 and won the division by 4 games. Take away the payroll disparity and the Brewers take the division.

The Jays used to dominate by outspending. Now they don't/won't/can't spend as much, they don't dominate. This is nothing more than wanting to change the rules halfway through the game because you're losing. I have little sympathy for that.

Yeah, it sucks that the Jays have to be in the same division as the Red Sox and the Yankees. But as someone pointed out "some teams have to be". The Jays have a great team, so why not enjoy them for what they are?

Mike

Okay, I'm getting a little tired of people claiming that the Red Sox and Yankees are unbeatable because of their payroll. Last year Toronto was 9-10 against the yankees, as were the red sox. The same mark stands against Boston, 9-10. Total difference, 2 games which could go any way at all. The challenge has never been the Yankees or Boston.... it's been Tampa, the guys the Jays should steam roller over. Last year they were 8-11 against Tampa while Boston was 12-7 and the Yankees were 14-5. Performing against NY and Boston is not the problem, dominating them would be satisfying, but the important part is they have not beaten the guys who they should beat. Lets face it, it shouldn't require a 150 million dollar payroll to take out Tampa.

I have to put in a large "no" vote on the concept of the Jays going after Eckstein. Last year he was a very marginal offensive player and as noted above is an average defensive player. Admittedly his previous two years he produced a more attractive .280/.350/.360 type line. He will be 29 this year so I do not know whether last year was a down year or the first year of a gradual decline. On balance I think I would rather play Woodward than Eckstein. I would also rather have Alvarez or Sequea as the backup getting paid league minimum than paying Eckstein, say $1 million. I have little doubt that either Sequea or Alvarez could replicate something like the .250/.325/.325 that Eckstein "produced" last year. Now, if you could get that from someone who was an excellent defensive player then I think you'd have to consider them for a back-up defensive role.

If Eckstein is going to cost $1 million then no. Spend $400K or $500K on a backup and use the $1.9M or so remaining to get one more significant arm.

http://economics.about.com
If you've got a few minutes to be distracted.

Check out the Ethical Philosophy Selector. From the site:

"These questions reflect the dilemmas that have captured the attention of history’s most significant ethical philosophers. Answer the questions as best you can. When you’re finished answering the questions, press "Select Philosophy" to generate your customized match of ethical philosophers/philosophies. The list orders the philosophers/philosophies according to their compatibility with your expressed opinions on ethics. Click on a philosopher/philosophy to see a summary and links. We hope you enjoy this selector and we encourage your further philosophical explorations. --Tara Anderson"

I had a really weird mix of philosophers. Here's my comp list:

1. Jean-Paul Sartre (100%) Click here for info
2. Ayn Rand (95%) Click here for info
3. John Stuart Mill (86%) Click here for info
4. Epicureans (82%) Click here for info
5. Jeremy Bentham (76%) Click here for info
6. Kant (74%) Click here for info
7. Thomas Hobbes (71%) Click here for info
8. Aristotle (70%) Click here for info
9. Prescriptivism (59%) Click here for info
10. David Hume (53%) Click here for info

I was shocked to see Rand as my #2, seeing as I can't stand her novels and I think selfishness when taken to an extreme is a vice, not a virtue. Odd stuff.

So what are your comps?

Mike

Mike, I had a similar weird list:

1. John Stuart Mill (100%)
2. Jeremy Bentham (79%)
3. Kant (79%)

Maybe its the way I answered the questions?

Pistol's Results:

1. Jean-Paul Sartre (100%)
2. Kant (88%)
3. Stoics (88%)
4. Spinoza (77%)
5. Ayn Rand (65%)

And I haven't the foggiest what that means for me.......

I like to think of these things like computer dating. Clearly, my new boyfriend is Kant.

1. Kant (100%)
2. Prescriptivism (81%)
3. Jeremy Bentham (75%)
4. John Stuart Mill (74%)
5. Jean-Paul Sartre (70%)
6. Ayn Rand (56%)
7. Nel Noddings (52%)
8. Spinoza (52%)
9. Stoics (52%)
10. Aquinas (50%)
11. Aristotle (44%)
12. St. Augustine (41%)
13. Epicureans (36%)
14. David Hume (31%)
15. Nietzsche (31%)
16. Ockham (27%)
17. Plato (23%)
18. Cynics (15%)
19. Thomas Hobbes (10%)
--------------------

If I could have picked my number one comp, I might well have taken John Stuart Mill, who was totally, totally boss, so I'm glad to see him at number 4. I'd say I was surprised at Kant coming up at number one, but that would imply that I've been able to make some sense of him. Kant is, in my experience, impenitrable. (And don't bother with Lyotard's "Lessons on the Analytic of the Sublime"--it's not going to do you any good, if you're as thick as I am.)

Neat game.

My first two were Nel Noddings and Nietzsche. So I'm a feminist who believes that a woman's place is in the home. Unique.

What's good for baseball is to promote the concept that the winning teams have won a fair contest. Right now, the perception is that the big-spenders have an ever-increasing edge on the other teams. As I've said in the past, there can be little satisfaction for Yankees fans knowing that their incredible wealth has allowed them to win all those championships in recent years.

If you look back, you'll see that the Blue Jays' spending in their glory years wasn't nearly as far above the median as the current BoSox and Yankees are.

Regarding Millwood's acceptance of arbitration, didn't his agent say he had a 5 year $15 million/ year offer from some team?

What's good for baseball is to promote the concept that the winning teams have won a fair contest.

Ah. A Seligian. :-)

re Philosohers:

Mill, Kant and Bentham.

I would've picked Mill, so I guess I'm satisfied.

Take what you will from my Top Ten:

1. St. Augustine (100%)
2. Aquinas (94%)
3. Spinoza (89%)
4. Ockham (82%)
5. Kant (74%)
6. Nel Noddings (62%)
7. Aristotle (55%)
8. Jeremy Bentham (55%)
9. Jean-Paul Sartre (47%)
10. Nietzsche (47%)

is #3 Alvaro?

Scott, are you and I the same person? :)

I got 100% on Aquinas, with Spinoza second and Sartre third. Sounds about right for me, actually.

Hume in the 3 slot makes up for Sartre being number 1. I'll take it.

1. Jean-Paul Sartre (100%)
2. Kant (77%)
3. David Hume (75%)
4. Stoics (75%)
5. Spinoza (72%)
6. Nietzsche (71%)
7. Jeremy Bentham (62%)
8. Aquinas (58%)
9. Cynics (54%)
10. John Stuart Mill (53%)

r.

is #3 Alvaro?

Yeah, but it's Alvaro Q. Spinoza. You're thinking of Alvaro E. Spinoza.

Jordan, I got Augustine at 100% too.

Mike Moffat,

The rules have changed. Well, really "rules" in this case are simply the economic conditions of baseball. In 1993, the percentage of total revenue generated from local sources was smaller than it is now. Yes the Jays and some other teams had financial advantages then, but the SCALE of the financial edge of today's big boys far exceeds what it was in 1993.

It's a question of degree and the point at which disparities unbalance the playing field so much that serious problems are created. We are well past that point and things are getting worse.

#131727 Posted 12/19/2003 03:31 PM by Robert Dudek:
What's good for baseball is to promote the concept that the winning teams have won a fair contest. Right now, the perception is that the big-spenders have an ever-increasing edge on the other teams. As I've said in the past, there can be little satisfaction for Yankees fans knowing that their incredible wealth has allowed them to win all those championships in recent years.
If you look back, you'll see that the Blue Jays' spending in their glory years wasn't nearly as far above the median as the current BoSox and Yankees are.
--------------
I really agree with you. I think Neyer's blurb suggest precisely the opposite --- and almost a two-legue system between Yankees/Sox and the 'also-rans' in the other divisions.

"I was shocked to see Rand as my #2, seeing as I can't stand her novels and I think selfishness when taken to an extreme is a vice, not a virtue. Odd stuff."

I think this accounts for the missing 5%. Rand would have hated her novels if she hadn't written them.

1. Nietzsche (100%)

I'm mildly disturbed....

Robert's comment,

"If you look back, you'll see that the Blue Jays' spending in their glory years wasn't nearly as far above the median as the current BoSox and Yankees are"

seems correct. In 1993:

the Jays were #1 at $51,935,000, then

Atlanta $47,206,000
Yankees $46,588,000
Boston $46,164,000
CWS $42,115,000
Cinci $41,000,000
KC $40,164,000
Mets $40,000,000

The average payroll was $32,326,771.00
The lowest was San Diego at $12,842,333 (down from $28 million the year before) and then Colorado at $14 million(expansion team).

It is intersting to note that between '92 and '95 team payrolls fluctuated quite a bit (except Montreal). For example Clevland was $9,000,000 in 1992 but up to $39,000,000 in 1995. The Mets were at $44 million in 1992 (3rd highest) but were the lowest in 1995 at $13 million.

Is it fair to say Toronto spent its way to the series in 92 & 93? Well they did have the highest payroll. However, my impression is that a team's payroll tended to fluctuate depending upon how well it was doing. Teams (by and large) had the opportunity to put together a good team, raise the payroll and make a run at it. They then tended to fall back towards the median.

As Robert points out the current situation is a matter of degree. If the average payroll is $100,000,000 (I doubt it is) and the Yankees are spending $200 million - this is 5 Alex Rodriguez's or 8 Curt Schillings more than the average team.

Here's my top 10 list:

1. Aristotle (100%)
2. Aquinas (85%)
3. Spinoza (63%)
4. Stoics (61%)
5. David Hume (60%)
6. Plato (60%)
7. Nietzsche (49%)
8. Ayn Rand (44%)
9. Ockham (40%)
10. St. Augustine (40%)

A good little waste of time....

1. Jeremy Bentham (100%)
2. John Stuart Mill (93%)
3. Epicureans (90%)

http://economics.about.com
It's a question of degree and the point at which disparities unbalance the playing field so much that serious problems are created. We are well past that point and things are getting worse.

When did we hit that point?

I don't buy the argument that the 2000 Yankees "bought" the championship but the 1993 Jays "earned" it.

1993 Top 5 Team Salaries

Tor	45,747,666
Cin	42,851,167
NYY	40,405,000
KC	39,802,666
NYM	38,350,167

2000 Top 5 Team Salaries

NYY	92,538,260
LA	88,124,286
Atl	84,537,836
Bal	81,447,435
Ari	81,027,333

Are the two situations that much different?

You can bring up 2001-2003, but seeing as two supposedly small-market low-payroll clubs won the Series in 2002 and 2003, I don't see much of a case. Small-market low-payroll clubs weren't winning the Series in 1992 or 1993. But those were the halcyon days of competitiveness?

I'd argue that baseball has never been anywhere close to being on a level playing field since 1870, and I refuse to buy into all of this Seligian propoganda and anti-marketing.

This is one of those topics where people will never reach a consensus so I'm done talking about it. Feel free to discuss it further. :)

Cheers,

Mike

Here's my top 3
1. St. Augustine (100%) Click here for info
2. Spinoza (81%) Click here for info
3. Aquinas (76%) Click here for info
4. Kant (70%) Click here for info
5. Aristotle (68%) Click here for info
6. Plato (67%) Click here for info
7. Jean-Paul Sartre (65%) Click here for info
8. Jeremy Bentham (63%) Click here for info
9. John Stuart Mill (61%) Click here for info
10. Ayn Rand (59%) Click here for info

Damn Catholic upbringing. Too much Jebus.

I also apparently have trouble differentiating the number 3 from the number 10. I wonder if any philosopher has anything to say about that.

Rios hit 2 more homers yesterday, and now has 12 in 100 ABs. I think he should start saving 'em.

Excuse me, Anaheim is a small market?

As we know there's a great deal of luck involved in winning the Series, so dismissing the increased payroll disparity in 2001-2003 (and 2004) because of who won the World Series is silly.

If you look at the actual payroll numbers since 1992, you will see growing disparity. I'm not after some sort of utopian level playing field (the strawman referred to by Mike), but a LIMIT to the disparity.

MLB is a quasi-society. All societies need limits and any society that allow some force to grow too powerful suffers the consequences.

http://economics.about.com
Excuse me, Anaheim is a small market?

How did you infer that from this:

two supposedly small-market low-payroll clubs

Supposedly: [adj] based primarily on surmise rather than adequate evidence.

Mike

... and I refuse to buy into all of this Seligian propoganda and anti-marketing.

I resent the implication that those (like myself) who argue for the institution of more robust payroll disparity restraints are buying into "Seligian propoganda".

The two camps are comprised on the one hand of those who don't think anything is wrong with baseball and want "the market" (whatever that nebulous concept means in an MLB-context) to operate freely, and on the other hand those who think that financial/revenue/payroll disparity have already caused problems and wish to prevent further damage.

Mike,

You place too much importance on the World Series winners. And if it's "supposed" (supposed by whom?) then how does that lead to your conclusion that there isn't much of a case. Much of a case for what? I never claimed that only a very high payroll team can win the World Series. I claimed that payroll disparities have been increasing (not uniformly, to be sure) since about 1992 and that this has now amounted to a serious erosion of competetive balance, which constitutes a major threat to the health of major league baseball.

If you looked at ALL the data and, for example calculate the ratio between the top 15% of payrolls to the median, you would quickly agree that payroll disparity has in fact increased substantially since the 1983 to 1992 period.

Whether that is a problem or not is a judgment upon which we can disagree and marshall our arguments.

http://economics.about.com
Whether that is a problem or not is a judgment upon which we can disagree and marshall our arguments.

You see it as a problem. I don't. Really that's the end of the story.

Mike

Too much Jebus

Hehehe, man I love that episode. I can't stop laughing.

Re the philosophers, I don't think I 'consented' to being selected ethical philosophers without Locke's inclusion ;).

Here's my list of philosophers:
1. Jeremy Bentham (100%)
2. John Stuart Mill (100%)
3. Epicureans (79%)
4. Jean-Paul Sartre (68%)
5. Cynics (67%)
6. Thomas Hobbes (59%)
7. Aquinas (57%)
8. Kant (55%)
9. Aristotle (53%)
10. Nel Noddings (51%)

Am I the only one who feels the urge to sing Monty Python's drunken philosophers song right about now?

Warning: the rest of this is a bit of a ramble.

As for the concentration of wealth in relatively few baseball hands: I see the point that we as Jays fans shouldn't complain too much about payroll disparity, when once our team was the 800-pound gorilla of baseball. But consider soccer: most soccer leagues around the world are dominated by two or three teams. The richest teams win, therefore the best players want to play there, because winning is more fun than losing. The winning teams earn more money, and the cycle goes around again.

I blame Roger Clemens for this :-) - he was the first player to demand a trade from a near-contender (the Jays) to a team at the top (the Yankees).

What nobody knows yet is whether a team can eliminate the traditional success cycle in baseball by simply buying all the best players. The Yankees and Red Sox appear to be trying it this year.

And it bears mentioning that the norm in American League history is for the Yankees to win everything year after year. There were the Ruth/Gehrig Yankees, the DiMaggio Yankees, the Stengel/Mantle Yankees, and so on. The only years in which the Yankees haven't been dominant are the CBS era and the early Steinbrenner's Gone Mad period.

Having said all that, I don't see how you can impose regulations. Players should be free to go where they want to when their contracts expire (or earlier, if they can persuade somebody to move them). The only constraint they should operate under is to always try their hardest to win: sulking until you get to go to New York or Boston is not allowed.

Now that I think of it, I think the problem is not with the Yankees or Red Sox - it's with the teams not trying to win. As long as the Brewers, Expos, and whoever are not willing to pay what it takes to put a winning team on the field, they'll always be willing to funnel their best players to the richer teams, serving as a de facto AAAA farm team for them. Clean those messes up first before trying to sort out the revenue disparities at the other end.

Here are my philosopher matches:

1. C. Stengel
2. G. "S." Anderson
3. E. Weaver
4. B. Beane
5. B. Rickey

Not sure what philosophy you guys are all talking about.

Dave Till,

"Having said all that, I don't see how you can impose regulations."

Here's a simple regulation: payroll cap. Players can still go anywhere they want, but individual teams will be prohibited from buying up all the best talent.

Weaker teams and weaker markets will always exist. I don't think the Brewers or the Royals or the Tigers or the Pirates are not trying to win. I think they (a) don't know how to build a winner, and (b) can't spend their way out of oblivion (as the Mets are trying to do). In essence, they are caught in the trap of poor performance leading to poor viewership/attendance, leading to even less revenue, leading to poorer performance etc, which is the reverse of the situation you described WRT the soccer leagues. I call this the death spiral.

There are only 2 ways to get out of it: (1) to spend your way out of it (as the Orioles and Mets are currently trying to do) or (2) build your farm system and create a core of excellent young players (the Indians approach).

Eventually, either all those teams will build or spend their way out of oblivion (most likely build) or the franchises will die or be transferred to a new site (the fate awaiting the Expos). It's not simply a question of "paying what it takes to put a winning team on the field", because if clubs pay more for talent (collectively) that talent becomes more expensive.

MLB is like a high-stakes poker game: as the revenues for MLB as a whole increase, there is more and more pressure placed on the weaker markets. The more the clubs spend the more each club needs to spend to "stay in the game". The 2003 Expos payroll would have placed it among the big-spenders 10 years earlier. If clubs are very well run, they can survive and even prosper (e.g. Oakland A's); if not, the risk is great that they will fall into the death spiral.

There are a few factors that tend to pull the haves and the have-nots closer together:

(1) The amateur draft

(2) The tendency for high-priced players to be old, and for old players to decline. This means that a team built on high-priced talent needs to constantly add high-priced talent to maintain its advantage. If they don't they'll be dragged into the middle. Bill James identified this in the mid-80s in his discussion of the Yankees. He called this the "treadmill".

(3) Teams which engage in bidding wars for premium talent will tend to overpay in relation to expected production, which creates the opportunity to purchase mid-level talent (which by definition is plentiful) at reasonable cost for teams that cannot match the spending of the big boys.

The competitive balance dynamic is a struggle between (a) the tendency for teams to get caught in either the death spiral or experience the winning-high revenue virtuous circle, and (b) the forces that pull all teams towards the middle.

Okay, on an entirely different philosophical note, I'd just like to step up onna soap Box for a moment and remind readers of (and contributors to) Da Box are on the honor code for intellectual property law, Canadian or otherwise.

I don't pretend to know what the Canadian equivalent of the U.S. Fair Use law is, but the U.S. version says no more than 10 percent of a work can be republished without written consent of or compensation to the author and/or artist.

PLEASE don't republish entire articles off other sites here. PLEASE don't do this yourself. And when quoting other articles, take a good guess at least at eyeballing what is absolutely necesssary for your point and in the very, very least, link back to the article.

Similarly, please don't link to photos or images located on other servers. This is not only illegal, it's rude as it drives up the traffic noise on the other server without giving ANY credit.

Thank you for reading and we now return you to Hijack Central, a name that makes me -- an employee of the world's largest airline -- massively uncomfortable. But it's legal!

I don't pretend to know what the Canadian equivalent of the U.S. Fair Use law is...

Then don't try to comment on it.

We'll take this up via e-mail.

http://economics.about.com
Then don't try to comment on it.

We'll take this up via e-mail.

Aww.. do this out in the open. This looks like it could be very entertaining! :)

Did anyone catch Rob Neyer's chat? Apparently he's been stealing my views on the salary cap. I'm going to break into his house and swipe his flannel shirts.

Mike

St Augustine 100%
St Thomas 83%
Okham razor
Cynics ( wow it shows! )

"Shawn, Bloomington: I grew up watching a lot of Tigers games. Is a salary cap the only way they can compete again?

Rob Neyer: Honestly? After watching the A's and the Angels and the Twins and Marlins the last couple of seasons, isn't the notion of a salary cap pretty ridiculous? Yes, rich teams tend to win and poor teams tend to lose. But it's just as true that smart teams tend to win and dumb teams tend to lose. If the Tigers start doing everything right and they're still losing 100 games, then we can talk about a salary cap (Don Fehr won't listen, though)."

In answer to a stupid question, Rob provides a very superficial answer, with the typical strawman arguments againsts a salary cap. Yah, Rob, a salary cap is riduculous because of the A's, Angels, Twins and Marlins. How does that follow?

What I'd like him to do is start with a neutral stance and examine the question: "Would a payroll cap be a net benefit to MLB, or not?"

A hard cap makes who wins and loses purely a management issue. Now who wins is the best combination of resources and management.

Like Monopoly, you can still win if you don't start with $1500 and get $200 for passing go each time around, but it's a lot harder to pull off.

http://economics.about.com
A hard cap makes who wins and loses purely a management issue. Now who wins is the best combination of resources and management.

That sounds an awful lot like the real world. :)

Cheers,

Mike

Pistol,

I think you have the right idea, though I will add that a cap will simply limit the financial advantage of certain clubs, not eliminate it. But the ideal to aim for is a system where management counts for as much as possible and inherent financial advantages for a little as possible.

When human beings enter a competition, there's a strong desire to ensure that the competition fair. That is why chess players start in a balanced position and that's why hockey/basketball/ baseball etc. games start with a zero-zero score.

The same principle should extend into the competition for talent. Knowing we can not eliminate all imbalance in that regard, we ought to strive to limit that imbalance. The goal should be to create the fairest system possible working with the prevailing conditions as the starting point, and of course getting agreement from both management and the union.

We fans are the ones who provide the revenue, and so in the long run the wealth of owners and players depends on us. I think most fans desire fairness. Winning and losing is a zero sum game: no matter what happens, some fans will be happy because their team wins and others will be unhappy. So the key issue becomes HOW and WHY a team wins. Winning because your team works hard and is smart is much more satisfying to the fans than winning because you had a lot of money and were just smart enough not to spend it on bad players.

Mike,

The real world often sucks. That's why people try to change it.

http://economics.about.com
The real world often sucks. That's why people try to change it.

That doesn't imply that ideas for change are always good ones. :)

Mike

True, but it also doesn't imply that not changing it is the right course. Not changing it is just as much a choice as changing it - the real question is what is the best course of action.

http://economics.about.com
Robert: It's a personal question, so I completely understand if you don't want to answer.

Outside of the sphere of baseball, what is your prevailing political ideology? I normally get a strong libertarian vibe from you, which makes your want for "equality of outcome" in baseball a tad perplexing to me. Maybe I'm completely misreading you, though.

Cheers,

Mike

You know, Moffatt, for a man who is 86% John Stuart Mill, you don't seem to care much about the greatest good for the greatest number.

What I'd like him to do is start with a neutral stance and examine the question: "Would a payroll cap be a net benefit to MLB, or not?"

And Robert, you may be more that 40% Ockham.

Just to throw in my $0.02: a salary cap, accompanied by a salary floor, is the patently obvious solution to baseball's competitive balance problem.

Either that is the answer or I don't understand the problem.

I love this.

(Changing gears)

Baseball is not like the real world in a few key aspects. I'll outline two:

1) Competition isn't just the environment a team plays in. To some degree, it's the product. And you want a good product.
2) The teams who are poorly managed or have few resources don't close shop. If you can't close down the horrible teams, you have to drag their skinny, half-dead carcasses to the marketplace. The only interested parties at that point are the scavengers, picking at any scraps of baseball they can.

I'm not sure how a hard salary cap helps with either 1) or 2) though. The competition is pretty healthy today without a cap and I don't think any teams stink so much that they're dragging down the entire market.

Orlando Hernandez who didn't pitch because of a bum shoulder in 2003 has been non-tendered by the Expos. For the right price he could be worth a flyer as starting depth. I think the Jays are more likely to spend in relief though if they get another pitcher.

Outside of baseball, I believe that the best society is one that strikes a balance between individual liberty and equality of opportunity. I like the progressive tax systems the Western world has because those who are born into money, or acquire it, find it much easier to make more money than the general populous. They are in a position to hire intelligent advisors and have opportunities to acquire assets (which the general populous isn't) that lead to greater wealth.

They can send their kids to better schools, something which attacks the heart of the equality of opportunity concept. That's why we need strong publicly-funded schooling, which is (IMO) the most powerful tool we have for promoting equality. And yet I wouldn't outlaw private schools, because I believe that that would be too large a sacrifice of individual liberty.

Capitalism is a wonderful wealth-generating tool, but there have to be counterforces which "pull the outliers to the middle" or else runaway inequality results. Wealth means nothing unless it delivers quality of life, and social harmony is a big part of quality of life.

At the core of my social philosophy is the "we are all in this together" credo, which means that all members of society have responsibilities to one another.

To me, precisely the same dynamic occurs in MLB. MLB is a society that produces the good "baseball entertainment". All the clubs, all the players and all the fans ought to adopt the "we are all in this together" credo. It's clear to me that the Yankees/Red Sox are now playing the role of Mr. Moneybags and using their inherent advantages to create yet more wealth which in turn brings more wealth etc. They are acting as we would expect a wealthy capitalist to act. And that always promotes inequality.

The system isn't "pulling" them towards the middle strongly enough, therefore the liberty/equality of opportunity tradeoff has been tilted too much towards liberty. The simplest way to reign in the big two, while minimizing the effect on everybody else is to institute a hard salary cap, tied to MLB revenue and set roughly at 2 times the median payroll. They can continue to act as wealthy capitalists, though the scope of their actions will be somewhat reduced. They can keep all their extra revenues - but there'll be a limit on how forcefully they can leverage this into player acquisition.

This would result in a net benefit to the production of the good "baseball entertainment" (as I've argued in previous posts and threads). The whole point of the MLB enterprise is and ought to be the production of this good (if it weren't, fans would become disinterested, the owners would lose money, then the players would lose money and eventually the whole thing would collapse).

1. Epicureans (100%) Click here for info
2. Cynics (68%) Click here for info
3. Nietzsche (68%) Click here for info
4. John Stuart Mill (65%) Click here for info
5. Aquinas (64%) Click here for info
6. Spinoza (62%) Click here for info
7. Thomas Hobbes (60%) Click here for info
8. Stoics (59%) Click here for info
9. Ockham (58%) Click here for info
10. Jeremy Bentham (57%) Click here for info
11. Aristotle (56%) Click here for info

I have no idea what it means, but it was neat to do...

http://economics.about.com
You know, Moffatt, for a man who is 86% John Stuart Mill, you don't seem to care much about the greatest good for the greatest number.

How so?

Wouldn't the greatest good be a system where the Red Sox and the Yankees do well because they have the most fans?

Mike

Wouldn't the greatest good be a system where the Red Sox and the Yankees do well because they have the most fans?

Ah, but don't teams have the most fans because they're doing well?

Wouldn't the greatest good be a system where the Red Sox and the Yankees do well because they have the most fans?

This is Craig Burley's argument too.

They have the most fans because (in part) they've been the most successful. The Yankees would have far fewer fans if they had only won 2 World Championships in their history. Since World War II, the Sox have usually had good teams. Their proximity to New York makes them a favourite home of fans looking for an antidote to the U.S. Steel Yankees.

If other teams were more successful, their fan bases would grow. So if other teams won, their fan base would grow, which would offset the loss of happiness of Yankees/Red Sox fans.

But the main thing to note is that winning a lot leads to diminishing returns of happiness. I've argued this in the past: Yankees fans aren't particularly pleased with winning the AL championship in 2003 - if any other team had one, their fans would have been ecstatic.

This suggests that distributing championships so that no team gets huge bunches of them and almost everyone gets one once in awhile is the way to maximize fan happiness.

Wouldn't the greatest good be a system where the Red Sox and the Yankees do well because they have the most fans?

I knew that this was coming, but chose not to pre-empt it.

The way that I see "the greatest good for the greatest number" in the baseball competitive balance is that a decent probability of winning should be distributed amongst as many fans as possible. The more that the rich get richer, the fewer fans there are whose team has a reasonable probability of winning. The greatest good is competition - and Yanks and Sox fans would still be availed of that good if those two teams each had a $100M payroll (hypothetical cap). Further, if the Yanks payroll were mandated not to exceed $100M, then many more fans would get a taste of the good - a reasonable probability of competing.

Mill would advocate a salary cap.

Similarly, Braves fans don't get excited about winning the N.L. East and probably haven't been for about 10 years now.

After reading the beginning of this thread, I was going to throw in my 2 cents worth about Eckstein from the perspective of having seen him in a couple hundred games in recent years (you know, hard-nosed team player who would make a decent 2nd baseman for a mid-level team but doesn't fit the Angels' plans at shortstop), but I don't have the intellect to keep up where it meandered to.
Look for Amezaga to be the one to beat at SS in Anaheim (short of a trade for a big-name SS) with Kennedy at 2B and Eckstein backing up both if he isn't traded.
By the way, this Angel fan feels the gains of Colon and Escobar to join Washburn and Ortiz were just overshadowed by the A's adding Redman to their big 3.

Briefly back to the philosophy, apparently this is my starting lineup:

CF Kant (100%)
2B Jean-Paul Sartre
LF Ayn Rand (79%)
RF Aquinas (78%)
1B (platoon?) Stoics
3B Spinoza (74%)
C John Stuart Mill
SS Aristotle (52%)
P Jeremy Bentham (50%)

Are you sure you want Jeremy Bentham on the mound? Didn't he lose, like 22 games for Detroit this year? That strikes me as more of a fatalistic philosophy than one would want.

Isn't this a baseball board? Can't you guys clog up some other board with this philosphical-political arguing? It kinda makes it hard to find any actual baseball discussion when there are 3 or 4 Mike Moffatt being offended posts in between.

Apologies to Mick for my tone earlier. Besides, he's at least half right.

We're putting together an "Acceptable Use Policy" for Da Box, but I fear it may be a rather long way off yet. For now, we'd appreciate it if people respected copyrights and quoted *sparingly* when posting, as it is only fair.

Add RHP Juan Campos to the list of 6 year minor league free-agents (along with Hall, Chen, Maurer, and Matos) the Jays have quietly signed this off-season. Campos' name appears on the AA roster from the official Jays site.

The 119 remaining FAs who are permitted to negociate with current teams through Jan 8 are...

http://www.globeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20031220/JAYS20/TPSports/Baseball
A winter league, minor league update on Rios, Pond, Q, and Sequea in the Globe today. COMN to see.

Count me among those Jays fans who are against a salary cap (an exclusive club that appears to include Mike, maybe Craig, and me. Join now!) I find that in those sports in which a salary cap exists, the quality of play declines, in that the results even out to the point where they seem almost random, and the transactions of the sport, far from becoming less dependent on economics-does the team have the money in its budget to sign Player X, etc., becomes a game of capology that the ordinary fan can't understand and one that produces bizarre results that include things like teams trading for the basketball equivalent of recent-vintage Albert Belle.

Also, I think the pleasures of allowing dynasties haven't yet been spoken up for. It's my opinion that I will enjoy a prolonged, several season long growth towards contention by a team I support than I would a single, one-shot title by my team followed by a collapse into mediocrity. Interestingly, I would appear to be a good test subject, being both a Jays fan (assuming we're right about JP's acumen) and a supporter of the Tampa Bay Buccaneers. A sneak preview-it's early days in the experiment, but things don't look good for the NFL.

For all the wailing-not by those here, I hasten to add-about how some teams can't compete no matter how well they're run, the number of teams that haven't competed, at least briefly, since the strike is vanishingly small. Given that the list consists of Pittsburgh, Milwaukee, Tampa Bay and Detroit, the poster children for managerial incompetence, I think it's an entirely fair question to ask where all these well-run but doomed teams are.

I don't know. I look at the leagues that have salary caps (and expanded playoffs, another dreadful idea that would wreck the regular season and that has some currency here) and I see really boring institutions, that somehow combine the mediocrity of instant gratification with the boredom of interminably long seasons. Baseball, despite the horrible changes made to its playoff structure, still excites me. Part of it is the game itself, I'm sure, but part of it is the knowledge that my Jays could still build the next dynasty, and that their nothing giving them a hand up. I realize this may be an entirely personal opinion-and judging from the number of arguments I get into about this, it is. But I feel, for all that, that a salary cap, let alone the horror of expanded playoffs, would make Major League baseball a diminished institution.

I am in The Robert Dudek's a better world for all bandwagon, something really uber complicated by the fact that we are globalized, and institutions are not. taxing the rich in the rich countries does not help much the poor in the poor countries...
Baseball related notes:
-It could be intriguing to have El Duque as closer, his stuff is nasty and may be more resilient in that place.
-Juan Campos splits are good! ( thanks for the link )
-watched a Venezuelan league game the other night, only jay on the field was Sequea, so far, good glove ( as short stop ), funny stance, a bit anxious at the plate.

Mick asked: Are you sure you want Jeremy Bentham on the mound? Didn't he lose, like 22 games for Detroit this year? That strikes me as more of a fatalistic philosophy than one would want.

Well, see, what I like about Bentham is that he was a gamer who had the balls to tell himself to get stuffed. What really worries me is my left fielder.

David Dellucci has been non-tendered. No big surprise.

I think he'd make a nice 5th outfielder (the team's 4th OF will have to be Catalanotto's LF platoon mate). He can play decent defense in the outfield corners, bats left-handed and hits a bit. He hasn't hit much lately and will be 30 next season -- definite negatives -- but he has been hurt a lot in his career. I'd think he might go for a 1-year $750K contract.

I'd say there's every possibility he'd outhit Reed Johnson vs RHP (though he didn't last year).

A problem with getting Delucci is that you have to clear a roster spot for him. If the Jays drop someone it'll likely be for a pitcher or shortstop. If one of the outfielders get hurt they can call on Gross or Rios or minor league vet #231 as needed.

http://www.sportsline.com/mlb/story/6941109
Mark Redman has been non-tendered by the A's. Not sure why they traded for him...
(click name for link)

Wilson Alvarez signed with the Dodgers on Thursday and it flew completely under my radar. It's a one-year deal worth $1.5MM or, in other words, chicken feed.

I know the Jays are probably satisified with their rotation after a seemingly successful offseason but Wilson sure would have looked nice in the Jays rotation instead of Towers.

Of course, where a player wants to play is not always under JP's control.

If the Jays could pick up Mark Redman, it would be great to have him as someone to round out the staff. Not only was he good with Detroit two years ago, he was better than Towers in '03 and could pitch out of the bullpen if JP and co would rather not have him start in the rotation. It never hurts to have a sixth guy who can start around, but one wonders if there is something wrong with him given that the A's don't want him around at this point. Does anyone know what happened to Pete Walker or Bob File?

Jim Callis updates the draft order situation in today's Ask BA:

The Athletics and Twins now each have five picks before the start of their second round, and Oakland has an extra second-rounder as well. Here are the compensation picks as they stand right now:

First Round
22. Twins (from Mariners for Eddie Guardado)
23. Yankees (from Astros for Andy Pettitte)
24. Athletics (from Red Sox for Keith Foulke)
25. Twins (from Cubs for LaTroy Hawkins)
28. Dodgers (from Yankees for Paul Quantrill)
29. Royals (from Giants for Michael Tucker)
30. Rangers (from Braves for John Thomson)
Supplemental First Round
31. Athletics (for Foulke)
32. Athletics (for Miguel Tejada)
33. White Sox (for Bartolo Colon)
34. Yankees (for Pettitte)
35. Twins (for Guardado)
36. Twins (for Hawkins)
37. Royals (for Raul Ibanez)
38. Dodgers (for Quantrill)
39. White Sox (for Tom Gordon)
40. Blue Jays (for Kelvim Escobar)
Second Round
48. Athletics (from Orioles for Tejada)
52. White Sox (from Angels for Colon)
62. Royals (from Mariners for Ibanez)
68. White Sox (from Yankees for Gordon)
Supplemental Second Round
71. Brewers (for Eddie Perez)
Third Round
83. Blue Jays (from Angels for Escobar)
There are just five more unsigned free agents who could require compensation:

Type A: David Wells (NYY).
Type B: B.J. Surhoff (Bal).
Type C: Julio Franco (Atl), Orlando Palmeiro (StL),
John Vander Wal (Mil).

Just the luck of the Jays...in a year when they finally have some compensation picks the A's who like the same types of players have several of their own. One the plus side it looks like Escobar's pick will fall no further than the third round as the Angels are unlikely to pursue David Wells though I could be wrong. So the Jays' compensation picks currently fall at 40 and 83.

Spicol, I missed Alvarez' signing too, and given that his salary was a lot closer to your projection than mine, you deserve gloating rights. I can't figure out why Tom Martin gets more than Alvarez, but then who said life was fair?

I would have loved to have him in a Fighting Jay uniform at his salary, but I think he'll do better in Comerica than he would have in Skydome.

Mike, he can earn up to $2.5MM with bonuses based on IP. Let's call it a draw.

Its become pretty apparent that the goal of true "competitive balance" has not been achieved. Low budget teams who are able to contend are few and far between, and the ones that do are unable to sustain their success for extended periods of time. I would argue, then, that in addition to attempting to achieve balance through economic redistribution, we should also have EXPANDED PLAYOFFS, so that large market teams will cease to monopolize all the spots in the post season. That way, instead of the season being over when a team finds itself 12 games out in June, there's a real chance for it to make it in anyway. A team like our fighting Jays could get in with a fifth or sixth seed, and then knock off one of the big boys in a short series. It may devalue the regular season, but who cares? The increased interest in small market cities that finally have a shot at the post-season would more than make up for that. Plus, people still care about the NHL, NBA and NFL regular seasons, dont they?

I hate to miss out on a philosphical discussion about philosophy just because I've been travelling for two days, so here is my list:

1. Jean-Paul Sartre (100%)
2. St. Augustine (92%)
3. Cynics (89%)
4. Stoics (88%)
5. Nietzsche (82%)
6. Thomas Hobbes (79%)
7. Aquinas (78%)
8. David Hume (76%)
9. Ayn Rand (59%)
10. Jeremy Bentham (59%)

OK, now can someone tell me what that means?

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to all the great authors and readers here at the Box !

I am heading down to Toronto from the ONT/MAN Border for Christmas.

I will talk to you all in the New Year ! Jeff

I am in the same boat as a few others before me whereas I took the philosophy quiz just for the Hell of it, but have no idea what the results mean. But, for what it's worth, here they are. If anyone feels like deciphering them for me, feel free :-D

1. Jean-Paul Sartre (100%)
2. Ayn Rand (85%)
3. David Hume (80%)
4. Thomas Hobbes (74%)
5. John Stuart Mill (73%)
6. Stoics (68%)
7. Nietzsche (66%)
8. Spinoza (66%)
9. Epicureans (65%)
10. Aquinas (60%)

I got Sartre as #1 as well... an abnormal number of Bauxites seem to think like JP. I bet Richard Griffin would hate him.

On the other hand, this test sucks, because my personal hero David Hume was all the way down at #13 on my list =P
(though he's not known for his ethical philosophy... but still... 13?!?)

100% Sartre.
89% Hume.

Okay, this test result was accurate in that I admire those two thinkers a great deal, but like Gitz I'm rather uncertain what this test really shows . . .

Reports say Javy Lopez is close to a deal with the Orioles for 3 years, $23M.

I think Ken Rosenthal of the Sporting News has lost his mind.

"Pitching at home might not be such a great thing for new Astros LHP Andy Pettitte; the Yankees occasionally reworked their rotation because Pettitte did not perform well in front of family members at The Ballpark in Arlington. Pettitte is 2-3 with a 9.22 ERA in five career starts in Arlington, the most hitter-friendly park in the A.L. His three postseason starts against Texas all were at Yankee Stadium..."

Don't the Houston Astros play in Houston? I'm pretty sure. If he's referring to interleague play, Houston plays only three games per season in Arlington, no more than the Yankees (and sometimes less).

I almost wonder if someone hacked into and edited his column.

Hmmm. In rereading Rosenthal's column, I suppose his intent is to emphasize the family/location angle, not the parks per se. Still, using five starts in what will not be his home park isn't much of an argument.

Pettite's family lives in Katy. That's a suburb of Houston (more or less). They used to make the four-hour drive to D/FW to watch him pitch against the Rangers.

I do think Pettitte will fare worse in The Maid than he did in Yankee Stadium, but only because The Maid is not a pitcher's park. There will be many who point to his inability to "pitch in front of family" as the supposed reason, though.

Lexi's Line: .361/.406/.737!!!

In the two games that Caguas completed yesterday vs. Carolina (one resumed from Dec. 5), Rios went 4-7 including a 3B, 3 BB and SB. Perhaps the most amazing stat is his 98 TB in 34 games.

Didn't see anyone else mention this...

The Jays re-signed Chris Woodward at exactly the $775,000 he made last year. Good news, and under my projected budget for him.

ESPNews is reporting that the Baltimore Orioles signed C Javy Lopez (Braves) to an undisclosed deal. The deal was estimated to be around three years and $23 million during preliminary talks.

http://economics.about.com
RE: The A's signing Mark Redman.

Redman essentially replaces Lilly (who they traded to get Bobby Kielty), and all they gave up for him was Mike Neu. So from the A's point of view, the trade was:

A's Get
Kielty
Redman
PTBNL or $$

A's Give Up
Lilly
Neu
"Future Considerations" to the Marlins

Am I the only one who thinks the A's made out like bandits on this deal, even taking into account that Kielty + Redman make more than Neu + Lilly?

Cheers,

Mike

Mike - it looks like even more of a steal if you just take out Kielty and Lilly, doesn't it? The real steal was trading an easily replaceable commodity like Mike Neu for the rights to negotiate exclusively with Mark Redman. I think it's been generally agreed that Kielty and a PTBNL was certainly no great return for a lefty with "promise" like Lilly.

http://economics.about.com
Mike - it looks like even more of a steal if you just take out Kielty and Lilly, doesn't it?

I'm not so sure that it does. I'm not nearly as sold on Lilly as the rest of the BBox crowd.

I think you need to consider both deals together; just looking at the Lilly deal in isolation makes it look like the A's created a whole in the back end of their rotation.

Redman is also a lefty and is 2 years less a day older than Lilly. Lilly also gave up 24 homers in a pitchers park, so I'm a bit worried that he'll give them up in bunches in the Dome.

This isn't a slight at JP; I'm not suggesting he should have kept Kielty and traded for Redman instead. Redman is a California guy, so I don't think he would have signed in Toronto. But I do think Beane did pretty well for himself.

Mike

The J-Lo signing in Baltimore means what, exactly, for future Hall of Famer Ivan Rodriguez?

Anyone hear anything? The obvious places seem to be Chicago (either one) and back to Texas.

If anyone cares, Jeff Tam is now a Rockie.

I believe I heard LA was looking at Pudge, but I'm sure that was predicated on them being able to deal LoDuca elsewhere.

Mike - my comment on Lilly was meant to address his perceived value, not his actual value. I read many commentaries (both traditional and sabrmetric) which were surprised that Beane didn't get more for Lilly.

bluejays.com new design

bluejays.com new design
I hope that's the first stage of many...in a word, it's atrocious. I just can't quite decide what bugs me more, the grey picture of Toronto (making it seem like it rains 24/7/365) or the colour scheme that seems to have been designed by someone who's colour blind.

The J-Lo signing in Baltimore means what, exactly, for future Hall of Famer Ivan Rodriguez?

Apparently the O's are still interested (if Vlad falls through). If so, Lopez would DH a lot.

I had a feeling Pudge would regret not taking the Marlins offer.

If anyone cares, Jeff Tam is now a Rockie.

Extreme groundballers can be terrific successes or massive failures in Colorado.

Those who depend on breaking pitches get predictably killed. Tam, though, with his splitter of death, might actually enjoy some success.

To two previous comments, both LoDuca and J-Lo have seen time at 1B and, as defensive catchers, are excellent first basemen, right? So I'm not sure the presence of LoDuca or Lopez would put a hitch in LA or BAL signing Pudge. Both teams need bats.

Speaking of catchers who don't catch particularly well but have big bats ... here's an early Andujar 2004 nominee: Todd Greene in Colorado. My goodness, he could be the surprise fantasy player of the year there.

I think that signing also bumps up the odds of Texas bringing Pudge home, which is all predicated on the A-Rod non-trade happening, of course.

Lo Duca has been a historically bad first baseman in his time there. Mo Vaughn bad.

Pride and bad advice from his agent prevented I-Rod from taking what the Marlins offered which I thought was a very good deal. What Ivan doesn't realize is that the number of teams with the spending room to splurge on a star catcher are very few and far between.