http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1107039016210&call_pageid=969907739730&col=970081600908
Griffin on Sunday, COMN. I don't know if this was already posted, so bear with me if it has.

Given a team that is talented, but shallow, if the stars align and you get healthy at the right time, even a $70-90 million payroll could win it all. Too bad the Jays are adamant about their $53 million guns.

Someone really should forward him a memo outlining the Marlins 2003 budget. In fairness, he's making the argument that you could win now with a $70-90 million dollar budget, but I don't see that much difference between the economic climate then and now.

I guess once you work for the Star, facts no longer matter.

Griffin would probably argue that you can't win a playoff spot in the AL East with a $53 million payroll, but you can win one in the NL East. That's an argument made all the time on the Box (though not by me).

For pitchers it's easy: Dwight Gooden

For hitters, I'll go with Mantle. There is probably someone better, but I can't think of it off the top if my head

Bill James did an All-Star team by age in one of the Abstracts. The teens are filled with names like Phil Cavaretta, Buddy Lewis and Wally Bunker, who I know only from reading about 'em. One I do remember is Tony Conigliaro who had a big year at age 19 in 1964.

Everyone should check out Bob Elliot's column today.
I read it an hour ago, and I'm still shaking my head.

http://slam.canoe.ca/Slam/Columnists/Elliott/2005/01/31/915588.html

Grand Funk out.

Can't argue with Mantle or Gooden. My first mention would have been Al Kaline, but he won the batting title in his age 20 season and left his teen years in late June of that season. So I'm still thinking, as the headline to this suggest, that Robin Yount is the guy, with 235 hits in his age 18 and 19 years.

Just for kicks, gotta give props to Joe Nuxhall, who started a game for the Reds at age 15.

Yount and Cavaretta are close. Cavaretta had 295 hits at 17-19, and hit for a decent average, but like Yount with not much plate discipline or power. Also like Yount, Cavaretta took a long time to reach his peak, but had a big year at age 28 in 1945.

http://www.rototimes.com/index.php?sport=bsball&type=playernotes
From RotoTimes, COMN

The Star-Tribune reports that Johan Santana (P) Min has rejected the Twins' offer of $25 million over the next three years. His agent, Peter Greenberg, apparently is determined to go to arbitration. The Twins have offered $5 million via arbitration, while the Cy Young winner has asked for $6.8 million.

Ok, this sounds like a mistake to me...
he's asking for 6.8 this year, and they offered 3 @$25M
that would be $6.8M, $8.8M, $9.4M

Does he really think he can command a lot more than all those 3 x 7-8's that went to Clement, Milton, Perez, Benson and Benitez??

If he gets the $5Mil this year, he'd need to get 2 x $10 just to break even!?!?

With apologies to the Commodores, Jeff Nelson looks to cut a new record: "Three Times a Mariner".

I'm going to guess that he, too, will sign for less than JP blew on Schoeneweis. Whatever talents the man may have, he is God-awful at assembling a bullpen...

Given a team that is talented, but shallow, if the stars align and you get healthy at the right time, even a $70-90 million payroll could win it all. Too bad the Jays are adamant about their $53 million guns.

Wow, I actually kind of agree with Griffin at least in part. Basically, what he saying is that in order to win it all, in a competitive division, on a "limited budget", one must get very lucky in one given season, which is true. The corollary to this is that you are extremely unlikely to contend every year (or anything close to every year) with a "limited budget". The only thing I disagree with is his definition of $70-90 million as a "limited budget". I think the kind of sporadic contention, i.e. in an off year by the Sox and Yanks, is possible even in the AL East on somewhat smaller budget. But like Griffin, I'm not convinced that the Jays are willing to spend enough to give themselves even that sort of long shot chance.

PS: Please don't bring up the Twins making the postseason four straight years on a budget about the same as the Jays. If we played in Comedy Central we'd be a legitimate contender too.

Does he really think he can command a lot more than all those 3 x 7-8's that went to Clement, Milton, Perez, Benson and Benitez??

I would hope so, he's a lot better. He's arguably the best pitcher in baseball. I don't think the Twins are even in the ballpark until they get up to 3 for $30.

Does he really think he can command a lot more than all those 3 x 7-8's that went to Clement, Milton, Perez, Benson and Benitez??

I certainly hope so. Benitez is a reliever, Milton and Benson are mediocre at absolute best, and Clement and Perez are solid but somewhat unspectacular. Santana is a legitimate young ace, which is extremely rare. He is among the two or three best pitchers in the AL, with little doubt. IIRC, Doc signed for 4 years and $39 million before last season; Santana deserves something at least close to that.

If I'm not mistaken, Santana won the Cy Young in his 4th season, just as Halladay did. Halladay signed a 4 year, $42 million contract last year.

Halladay will make $6 million in 2004, $10.5 million in '05, $12.7 million in '06 and $12.8 million in '07.

And this contract was signed last year when the cost was less than what it appears to be today.

PS: Please don't bring up the Twins making the postseason four straight years on a budget about the same as the Jays. If we played in Comedy Central we'd be a legitimate contender too.

How about the A's? They're in the most competitive division in baseball-no 19 games against Baltimore and TB every year. Seattle has spent large dollars; not Yankee large, but big bucks nonetheless.

The Jays problem is an inability to produce a critical mass of young, cheap and good players at the same time. If they can get 3-4 good cheap starting position players, and some good cheap starters at the same time, that'll go a long way to closing the spending gap between the Jays and Boston/NY.

Well, there's the school of thought that griffin presents where 'you gotta spend more' and then there's the school of thought which states that the budget, drafting/development system, etc. needs to be more efficient...

but I'd say its just both...

And as for the A's... I don't think you can really compare them simply because they're the most incredible phenomenon in the game... When you look at their production after weighing in all the factors division and all, its just an awe-inspiring achievment.

All my classmates seem to think that its meaningless if you can't win a Divisional Series, but wow... I'd take a couple of 100-game seasons here if I could get em'....

How about the A's? They're in the most competitive division in baseball-no 19 games against Baltimore and TB every year. Seattle has spent large dollars; not Yankee large, but big bucks nonetheless.

Well, much as I may disagree with some of his views, Billy Beane is the most talented GM in the game. But really, you can't seriously compare the AL West to the East. Climbing over Anaheim, Seattle, and Texas is much easier than facing the Yankees and Boston, who also get the freebies against Baltimore and TB.

Well, much as I may disagree with some of his views, Billy Beane is the most talented GM in the game. But really, you can't seriously compare the AL West to the East. Climbing over Anaheim, Seattle, and Texas is much easier than facing the Yankees and Boston,

With all due respect, the Jays are not even in the same league as any of the teams mentioned above. Heck even the freebies mentioned, (Balt and Tampa) finished ahead of the Jays. In Tampa's case they did it with a salary of slightly less than $29 million (an arguement for fiscal sanity?). However, Lee I get the main thrust of the point you are arguing.

I for one hope that Richard Griffen, Bob Elliot and others keep calling out Rogers. It occurs to me that here are fewer Rogers apoligists populating Da Box these days and there will be fewer still if Hillenbrand and SS go into a funk and start mouthing off and if Cory comes up lame with a bad back.

It is not enough to have a franchise and call it a baseball team. A franchise has to at least give the notion that it is competitive to its fans. If it doesn't then the media are doing their job bringing it to the attention of the fans.

But really, you can't seriously compare the AL West to the East. Climbing over Anaheim, Seattle, and Texas is much easier than facing the Yankees and Boston.

Why not? Until last year, what was so great about the Red Sox?

Until last year the Mariners and A's combined were easily as good as the Yankees and Red Sox. The Angels are heads and shoulders above the Jays, Orioles, and Devil Rays. The Rangers are a pretty good team in a difficult division.

This whole "the AL East is too hard" thing is a smoke-screen for people who refuse to see that the Jays, Orioles, and Devil Rays aren't very good teams. The reason why the Red Sox keep finishing in second each year wasn't because they were so good: it was because the rest of the division was so lousy. Look at the Red Sox record against non AL-East opponents over the last 10 years. It's pretty mediocre.

do the lowly Devil Fishees have the best young players in baseball? Kazmir, Upton, Crawford, Baldelli. They aren't all teens, but I think the oldest is 23.

You forgot about Delmon Young. If they ever figure out what they're doing, they'll be dangerous...

Kazmir landed in their lap. I so wish Patterson had said some flattering things about Batista, and it was the Jays instead of the Rays that benfitted from Duke/Wilpon's delusions of contending.

Halladay will make $6 million in 2004, $10.5 million in '05, $12.7 million in '06 and $12.8 million in '07.

Maybe its just my own inablitity to accept what makes up a $10Mil Pitcher.

Santana is a pretty good pitcher alright.

Off the cuff, both healthy -- who trades Halladay for Santana, even up, identical salaries?

I think I do.

I for one hope that Richard Griffen, Bob Elliot and others keep calling out Rogers. It occurs to me that here are fewer Rogers apoligists populating Da Box these days and there will be fewer still if Hillenbrand and SS go into a funk and start mouthing off and if Cory comes up lame with a bad back.

Please. I'm hardly a Rogers apologist. I don't think that they should spend $90MM when they don't have the cheap homegrown talent to ensure that what $90MM gets them is a great shot at the playoffs. The Yankees at this point are effectively a team that's been bought-every useful player on that team is through his arbitration years, I believe. Even assuming the Jays were more efficient, I don't think that $90MM puts them in the same league as the Yankees. Presumably, it adds $40MM in losses to Rogers as well, maybe less if the players added draw some more fans. I have my doubts about what JP could get for it though. He seems to have had to overpay for the mediocrities that he did add.

I think that the path the Jays need to take is clear-they need to put together that critical mass of young talent that enables them to have a big group of young guys who are cheap and good. We'll see how the Mulder and Hudson trades play out, but it seems to me that the A's are at the point where they have a certain amount of good momentum. They've got such a mass of good players that they're able to replenish the system by moving them one at a time. If I was JP, there'd be no one player on the team who was untradeable-if Doc or VW could net me a couple of AAA guys who are ready to make the leap, I'd look long and hard at it.

It occurs to me that here are fewer Rogers apoligists populating Da Box these days

The next apologist for *anybody* I see around here will be the first.

Amen Moffatt

Who is afraid of the Yankees anymore anyway?

The maximum-cut rule does not apply for free agents in arbitration. The Collective Bargaining Agreement specifically states that the maximum salary reduction rule is inapplicable in free-agent arbitration cases. To clarify, when Joe Sheehan wrote that that Toronto wouldn't risk going to arbitration with Carlos Delgado because of the 80% salary rule, he had his facts wrong. The rule didn't apply to Delgado because of his free-agent status.

According to an article on BP.com, the Jays didn't have to offer Delgado at least 80% of what he earned previously in arbitration. Does this change anyone's view on what the Jays did/should have done?

both healthy -- who trades Halladay for Santana, even up, identical salaries?

I probably would, but you'd be in good shape either way.

I'd like to apologize for Matthew E's earlier comment.

Wheee! What do I win for being first?

And as for the A's... I don't think you can really compare them simply because they're the most incredible phenomenon in the game...

Why are the A's a "phenomenon" and a team like the Twins aren't? They're small-market teams, they've got deep farm systems, and they've added ancillary and fundamental components via cheep free agents/Rule 5 pick-ups. So the Twins play in an easier division. Fine. But the Twins are the most underappreciated teams in analyst circles, as underrated as the A's are overrated.

Wheee! What do I win for being first?

Nothing. Sorry.

Oops. Premature posting. I had meant to qualify that as "It seems the Twins are ONE of the most underappreciated teams, as underrated as the A's can be, at times, overrated." See? Diplomacy. Even a dogmatic didactic such as myself can do it!

Who is afraid of the Yankees anymore anyway?

2B depth chart: Tony Womack, Rey Sanchez, Homer Bush

CF depth chart: Bernie Williams, Bubba Crosby, Doug Glanville

Nothing. Sorry.

Oooh! Are you intentionally going on irony alert? Doesm't this make you the second apologist on the Box?

2B depth chart: Tony Womack, Rey Sanchez, Homer Bush

CF depth chart: Bernie Williams, Bubba Crosby, Doug Glanville


Ahem.
Up in the first inning: Jeter, Matsui, A-Rod, Sheffield.
Your front three in the rotation: Mussina, Unit, Pavano
Your closer: Mariano Rivera

The fall is coming, but it ain't here yet.

Doesn't this make you the second apologist on the Box?

Does it?

Sorry about that.

BP joins the "Free Calvin Pickering" campaign in the latest Triple Play. Nice PECOTAs, he said admiringly...

Agreed Mick

However Mike Mussina does not scare me anymore, neither does Pavano. Pavano had one good season and got a lot of money for it. He has shown no evidence that he will back up his over achievment in 04.
Randy Johnson is the man, but will he win 20? No. 15? Yes

Sorry about that.

I've had enough of you being a Mick apologist. Stop drinking the Kool-Aid and quit being a Doherty fanboy. And step away from the computer and watch a game for a change, while you're at it.

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/features/freeagents
The next apologist for *anybody* I see around here will be the first.

Well I'll be the first apolgist then. I'm sorry for my choice of the word, apologist. Perhaps what I should have said instead, there seems to be fewer and fewer posters who are prepared defend an ever shinking budget as well as hold onto the notion that you can build a competitive ballclub on those terms.

I would put the GM in that camp judging by his statements this offseason.

Even assuming the Jays were more efficient, I don't think that $90MM puts them in the same league as the Yankees. Presumably, it adds $40MM in losses to Rogers as well, maybe less if the players added draw some more fans. I have my doubts about what JP could get for it though. He seems to have had to overpay for the mediocrities that he did add

I would disagree with this. COMN for the free agent salary list. I bet if you had $20 to $40 million extra in your budget you could pick a pretty good team in addition to what the Jays already have. I gave it two minute try and found it to be pretty fun.

Even allowing for more money to bribe players to Canada for something in the range of $35 million the team could have taken a run at the likes of Hidalgo, Glaus, Valentin Pierzynski and Lieber.
This is a two minute drill and if it was my fantasy team I'd put in more due dilligence. But my point is that kind of dough does make you competitive.

I'm sorry, I cannot believe communications and entertainment company cannot make a go of it running a competitive team in Toronto.

I'm willing to give Rogers a break right now, today, for a couple of reasons: the kids aren't quite ready, and they just sunk a bunch of money into purchasing and upgrading SkyDome.

If we had a bunch of guys tearing up AAA who were going to be with the big club this year, then I'd be calling for a budget increase to fill in the holes. But I'm happy for Rogers to sink money into SkyDome upgrades and let us see what the first crop of new kids will do this year, as long as they're ready with the money when it counts.

Or, hell, if the Jays get out to a red hot start and have a couple of visible weak spots, I'd like to see that money spent part way through this year to capitalize on it.

I just don't see what we'd get, though, plugging in some old, expensive guys into the team as it stands right now.

I've had enough of you being a Mick apologist. Stop drinking the Kool-Aid and quit being a Doherty fanboy. And step away from the computer and watch a game for a change, while you're at it.

You forgot "put down the spreadsheet".

Rob, Mick, Matthew E: you're cut.

With all due respect, the Jays are not even in the same league as any of the teams mentioned above.

I did not mean to imply they were.

http://toronto.bluejays.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/index.jsp?c_id=tor
Two new articles by SF on bluejays.com COMN for their homepage.

Why are the A's a "phenomenon" and a team like the Twins aren't?

Because the A's have two seasons of over 100 wins, whereas the Twins haven't even cracked 95.

The Twins are quite likely the better team now, but over the past 6 years or so, there's no comparison between the two clubs. The A's won a boatload more games in the regular season despite playing in a far, far tougher division.

They've both stunk in the playoffs, so I guess that's an equalizer.

But over the last 6 years, the A's are to the Twins as the Blue Jays are to the Tigers.

One needs to put the Twins' very recent success in perspective. Their first round draft position and picks 1996-2001 were:

1996-Travis Lee (2nd overall)
1997-Michael Cuddyer (9th overall)
1998-Ryan Mills (6th overall)
1999-BJ Garbe (5th overall)
2000-Adam Johnson (2nd overall)
2001-Joe Mauer (1st overall)

Johan Santana was a brilliant Rule 5 selection, but to a large extent, the Twins' current success, such as it is, is built upon their past failure. The A's record is much more impressive.

Moffatt, out of interest, why do you think the twins are quite likely the better team now?

Why are the A's a "phenomenon" and a team like the Twins aren't?

To be honest, I didn't put too much thought into it; it's just my reaction to the Hudson and Mulder trades, and the fact that Morneau will play a full season in Minny.

It's an interesting question, though. So let's post it to the Bauxites: Which team do you think is better going into 2005: The Twins or the A's?

You misunderstand. The A's clearly are a phenomenon. My very minor point is that so are the Twins, albeit in a smaller fashion. It's my standard complaint with the analyst crowd: apply the same lens, be it accustatory or praisatory (he he), to all teams. Give the A's their props, to be sure, but don't deny the Twins theirs.

I guess I'm confused here: how is the Twins success built on their past failure? (And the "such as it is" comment, regarding their success, struck me as odd, considering the Twins beat the A's in their only playoff matchup. If anything, we should be qualifiying the A's success.)

In 2005? I honestly have no idea. The A's could win 81 games or they could rip off 95 wins. It all depends on their young pitching. As a fan, I'm scared to death off the rotation. Rich Harden is the only sure thing, and while nobody denies the potetential of Meyer, Cruz, Blanton, et al, the potential for ugliness is there, as it is for all young pitchers.

You misunderstand. The A's clearly are a phenomenon. My very minor point is that so are the Twins, albeit in a smaller fashion.

I guess how much smaller is open to debate. The A's receive praise, and the Twins do too, only less of it. I don't really see what the problem is. Should teams that reach a minimum baseline of praise get the same amount of praise, no matter how much they exceed that baseline?

I guess what I'm saying is, I don't understand your point. At all.

Fair enough, Moffatt. Maybe I'm just crabby.

(Maybe? Maybe you're crabby, Gizzi? Are you kidding?)

Another factor which has undoubtedly contributed to the amount of praise Beane and the boys receive was the success of Money Ball.

By the way, part three of Beane's interview with Athletics' Nation is up.

And hey Moffatt, you’re from London and an economics guy. Do you know much about Western's econ program? Apparently they offer sports economics class in which a required text is Money Ball. Pretty neat eh?

Somewhat off-topic, but seeing "Moneyball" being read in a class reminds me that at (among other universities) U.C. Berkelely there is a course on "The Simpsons" and another on "The Matrix." Also, USC has offered a "Beatles" course for years, as far as I know. (It was offered in 1991 when I was there.) Are there similar themes on Canadian campuses?

http://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/MIN/
The Twins were a poor club from 1993-2000. COMN for their record. As a result of this performance, they had very high draft slots over a period of years, which contribute to their current performance. It's not a necessary implication, granted; plenty of teams make no use of favorable draft slots over a period of years.

I described the Twins' success as "such as it is" because their records of the last 3 years have been compiled against inferior competition.

Are there similar themes on Canadian campuses?

Not in engineering or applied math; I can't speak for other faculties. ;-)

And hey Moffatt, you’re from London and an economics guy. Do you know much about Western's econ program?

I did my undergrad in Econ there, though the place has probably changed quite a bit in the 5+ years that I left.

Apparently they offer sports economics class in which a required text is Money Ball. Pretty neat eh?

It's taught by John Palmer. A funny and interesting guy, who also happens to be a big baseball fan.

That should read "in the 5+ years since I left"

A long piece on the arbitration process at BP today. Here is an excerpt that may be of interest since it contradicts what many of us believed...

The maximum-cut rule does not apply for free agents in arbitration. The Collective Bargaining Agreement specifically states that the maximum salary reduction rule is inapplicable in free-agent arbitration cases. To clarify, when Joe Sheehan wrote that that Toronto wouldn't risk going to arbitration with Carlos Delgado because of the 80% salary rule, he had his facts wrong. The rule didn't apply to Delgado because of his free-agent status.

That is immediately followed with...

The last case where someone walked out of an arbitration hearing with less money than they made the previous year was Randy Milligan in 1994. Occasionally players settle prior to their hearing and settle at a salary that is less than they made the year before, but even that is extremely rare.

I'd take the bit about Randy Milligan with a grain of salt. Delgado's last contract was so large that this is a bit of a unique situation to which previous ones probably don't shed a lot of light.

About the question of the day:

I did a quick scan of baseball-reference's "Youngest Player" season-by-season records, and I found:

Mel Ott, who at 17 was appearing in 35 games with the Giants, at 18 was getting 163 at-bats, and at 19 was getting 435 at-bats with a .322 / .397 / .534 line (OPS+ was 139), with 18 homers while playing in right. It's roughly what Mantle did, but he played in more games, and OPS+ suggests that it was a better season in context.

Best pitcher I found was Silver King, who played 5 games with the Kansas City Cowboys at age 18, then at age 19 he started 44 games with the St. Louis Browns. He had 43 complete games, had a record of 32-12 (and a save). He had an ERA of 3.78, and was among the American Assosiation's top-ten in ERA, Wins (4th), Win/Loss percentage (2nd), WHIP, K's/9, Innings, Strikeouts, Shutouts, and ERA+ (120). He then went on to start 4 games in the World Series, going 1-3 with a 2.03 ERA. Of course, it was 1887, and his career was pretty much done by the age of 25, possibly because he pitched more innings in 5 years than Pedro Martinez has pitched in his entire career.

Most interesting young-gun that I found was the appropriately named Kid Keenan, who pitched for the Cincinnati Kelly's Killers in 1891. He pitched one complete game on August 11, 1981, and gave up 9 runs. None of them were earned. He also went 2 for 4, with one run, one stolen base, and a RBI. After the game, his short career was over, and he went on to do whatever 16 year-olds did at that time.

I'm confused, didn't Carlos become a free agent AFTER he was not offered arbitration by the Jays? In other words the 80% rule applied to the Jays but not to other teams.

I'm confused, didn't Carlos become a free agent AFTER he was not offered arbitration by the Jays? In other words the 80% rule applied to the Jays but not to other teams.

Other teams couldn't offer him arbitration; which is the only place that the 80% rule applies. We were wrong around here in thinking that JP had to offer Delgado 80% of his previous salary in arbitration. Given that Delgado had offers of at least 3 years/30 million at the deadline to accept, it seems unlikely to me that he would have accepted arbitration.

Dr. Prison Fence has two new stories up today, along with one from three days ago:

Jays Spring Training quick hits: Lineup order, rotation and bullpen roles. Also, "Three questions that need answers."
New-look Jays upbeat about 2005: About the loss of Delgado and the possibility of a pitching-and-defense team, with little power left in the lineup.
And a Vernon Wells article, which I think most of us have already read.

Just some Jays news for all of us in this January world we find ourselves in.

From MLB.com's AL East preview:

"1) The Orioles will press the Yankees for the Wild Card berth. Mark your calendars: Sept. 19-22, Birds at Yankee Stadium; it'll matter."

Excuse me while I wipe the spittle of laughter from my monitor.

The Orioles will press the Yankees for the Wild Card berth. Mark your calendars: Sept. 19-22, Birds at Yankee Stadium; it'll matter.

It's possible (likely?) that he was joking; his next item is Kevin Brown revealing that the Yankees pass around shots of Gerittol for luck.

Makes sense, though 'splittle' is a very funny word.

I don't know about that Magpie, that article was awfully markish in its content; I for one am sick of hearing about Schilling's damn ankle - just give it a spin-off show and let's be done with it!

Spencer, in your Jays preview, do you really figure Adams will hit leadoff? Maybe we can open it up to a bit of discussion here. Is he ready to bat leadoff? Personally I'd rather see him bat ninth; after the first go-around the batting order it won't really make much difference, and it would let Frankie Cat move up in the order, who I think would be wasted by batting sixth. I envision:

1. 2B Orlando Hudson
2. LF Frank Catalanotto
3. CF Vernon Wells
4. 3B Corey Koskie
5. DH Shea Hillenbrand
6. 1B Eric Hinske
7. RF Alex Rios
8. C Gregg Zaun
9. SS Russ Adams

Although a small part of me would love to see Wells and Hillenbrand change spots in the order. All I can think about was when Stewart and Cat were getting on base constantly in 2003, and it was easy pickings for Wells and Delgado.

The more I see this lineup the more I like it; I honestly think the Jays could suprise a lot of people this year, that's a damn steady and productive lineup.

Oh, and by the way Mr. Fordin, excellent articles :)

I have to ask, how does one get ready for the hustle and bustle of constant travel for six months, after spending all winter in hibernation?

Fozzy, I like that lineup better than the predicted (by so many people) lineup where Adams leads off, I think that Russ showed some good pop up in the bigs last year and probably should bat 7 with Rios 6, Hinske 8, and Zaun 9.

http://www.askmen.com/video/2005_jan/jan27_barry_bonds.html
COMN for Barry Bonds/ Hank Aaron Super Bowl commercial. Funny stuff.

It seemed like a lot of us thought Hinske would be at his best in the 2-hole last year, is there any chance of that coming to be again?
I think Adams should start at no. 9 in the order and if he proves he can get on base at a clip better than the O-Dog or F-Cat then he can move to the top of the order..

Hijacking the thread...

Today's Neyer article includes his take on the Top 10 teams that did the least to improve themself over the winter. Surprisingly, the Jays are not on the list. I would have thought the loss of Delgado might have put them on the list.

A propos interesting university courses we'd like to take, U Vic had a course on Jimi Hendrix a few years back and I believe both his dad and his sister, Angel, came and spoke.