Batter's Box Interactive Magazine Batter's Box Interactive Magazine Batter's Box Interactive Magazine
ESPN.com has updated its rankings of how teams have improved this offseason. Philadelphia maintains its #1 status followed by Baltimore and Boston, while last place deservedly belongs to Pittsburgh, whose marquee signing is the illustrious Daryle Ward.

Toronto dropped from third to ninth in the new rankings. ESPN.com generally limits its comments to recent activity, offering the tepid observation that there’s “no harm adding a left-hander to the bullpen” in reference to Valerio de los Santos.


I might place the Jays just a bit higher. Why Seattle deserves a higher ranking than Toronto is beyond my limited cognitive abilities. Regardless, these rankings don’t appear to consider “bang for the buck” or long-term implications of signings and losses, so don’t take them for more than a grain of infield dirt.

Incidentally, whoever performs this service for ESPN.com would make a fine press secretary. In approving of the Yankees acquisition of Tony Clark, he notes that Clark “had more homers than Nick Johnson last season in 70 fewer at-bats.” Well, yes, but he conveniently neglects to mention that Clark posted a Royce Clayton-esque .300 OBP compared to Johnson’s .422. Scott McClellan, watch your back.
Offseason Reconstruction Power Rankings: The Latest | 9 comments | Create New Account
The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.
_S.K. - Sunday, January 04 2004 @ 09:10 PM EST (#81542) #
The Atlanta comment: "No team hurt more this offseason than the Braves."

Atlanta placed 15th on the list.
_Andrew Edwards - Sunday, January 04 2004 @ 09:37 PM EST (#81543) #
Well, of course Philly is #1. Look at all those relievers!

Let's just say that it's nice for the Jays to get a bit of recognition, and that the ESPN rankings aren't exactly SABER-ific.

Happy new year, everyone, by the way.
_Jurgen - Monday, January 05 2004 @ 01:13 AM EST (#81544) #
New York has dropped considerably in my estimation. I'm still pro-Vazquez and Sheffield (and Brown is a good risk for a club who can afford him), but Tony Clark and Kenny Lofton to back up Jason Giambi and Bernie Williams? Yeesh.
_Jurgen - Monday, January 05 2004 @ 01:15 AM EST (#81545) #
Who isn't pro-Vazquez? I was merely inferring that Vazquez and Sheffield were even better pick-ups than Schilling and Foulke.
_A - Monday, January 05 2004 @ 01:21 AM EST (#81546) #
Hijack: John Sickle pinch-hits for Aaron Gleeman as Aaron spends his first days legal to drink/gamble in Vegas. Cheers to Aaron and thanks to John for a good read on the Twins' farm system.
Thomas - Monday, January 05 2004 @ 01:46 AM EST (#81547) #
I'm confused by these ratings as well. Didn't the Yankees basically merely add Lofton and Clark since the last update of the power rankings? If so, how does this warrant them shooting up the charts like they just did? I guess maybe ESPN wasn't counting unofficial signings like Quantrill.

The Atlanta comment puzzled me too, but I think they mean in terms of what they lost, as opposed to what they hav accomplished. I don't recall them losing anything to free agency itself save for Maddux, Lopez and Castilla. Well, I guess they are coutning Lopez's lost considerably. I'd count the loss of Guerrero higher than those, but maybe that's just me.
_Braves Fan Kyle - Monday, January 05 2004 @ 01:21 PM EST (#81548) #
We lost Sheffield to free agency. He is considered a decent player.
_S.K. - Monday, January 05 2004 @ 04:58 PM EST (#81549) #
Kyle - I was referring to the fact that the Braves were "hurt more" than any team this offseason, yet still rank 15th in a ranking of how teams have done so far in the offseason.
Lucas - Sunday, January 11 2004 @ 08:27 PM EST (#81550) #
ESPN updated its rankings yet again, with the Jays falling one spot to 10th. The Angels, as you might expect, now occupy to top spot.
Offseason Reconstruction Power Rankings: The Latest | 9 comments | Create New Account
The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.