Batter's Box Interactive Magazine

2006: Why Not?

In the midst of the weekend's free-form discussion, Bauxite Grasshopper spoke out against trading future stars for instant help, following the principle that the Blue Jays aren't going to win the World Series in 2006.

I'm not picking on you, Grasshopper - I think it's probably a widespread assumption.

Should it be?

The first thing that came to my mind, of course, was the 2005 Chicago White Sox. Who were coming off an 83-79 season. Who I had analyzed at length before the season started, and on the basis of that analysis, I had fearlessly picked them to finish third in the AL Central. They're not the only ones, of course. The last five world series champs, and their records the year before they won the big prize:

Chicago White Sox in 2004: 83-79
Boston Red Sox in 2003: 95-67
Florida Marlins in 2002: 79-83
Anaheim Angels in 2001: 75-87
Arizona Diamondbacks in 2000: 85-77

The five years from 2000 through 2004 consist of 150 seasons, played by the 30 major league teams. Here's how the World Series championships were distributed:

Regular Season Wins      Number of Seasons   World Series Titles the Following Year
100+                     10                  0
90-99                    33                  1
81-89                    35                  2
below .500               72                  2

What, I ask you, does it all mean?

Posted by Magpie on Monday, November 21 2005 @ 07:45 AM EST.

2006: Why Not? | 117 comments | Create New Account

The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.

GregJP - Monday, November 21 2005 @ 09:27 AM EST (#132610) #

What does it mean?

It means that baseball (despite its beauty) is a game where there is very little difference between supposedly good teams and bad teams.

Extremely tiny differences in bat to ball contact achieve extremely varying results.

It's like flipping coins that have a 60%, 50%, and 40% chance of coming up heads. If you flip the 60% coin 162 times the sample size is small enough that it might land heads only 75 or 80 times, and conversely a 40% coin might land heads 80 or more times.

So if a 162 game season might not be nearly long enough to even out all of the breaks, bloops, etc, what does that say about a best of 5 or best of 7 playoff series? Don't get me started on that.

I think the Jays have the same chance to be next years Sox just as much as about 20 other teams.

You assemble the best team you can, make the best decisions you can on a daily basis, and just hope for the best.

The Sox just happened to have 2 or 3 starting pitchers get results towards the upper end of what is expected based on their skill set in the same year, got a few more breaks here or there, and voila you have a world champion.

If Dave Roberts gets thrown out by Posada last year the Yankees sweep, the Redsox are chokers again,...... The difference was probably less than one tenth of a second on Posada's release.

The bottom line is that the Jays (even with Burnett and/or Ryan) might win 75 games next year, or if an inordinate number of players just happen to achieve above their median expected level they could win 90 games.

Only teams like the Tigers a couple of years ago are bad enough that even within a small sample size like 162 games they truly had no chance of being a competitive team.

Even a genius like Tony LaRussa with a very good roster at his disposal loses at least 40% of the time.

I think I once read a quote from Bill James to the effect that it would probably take up to a 2000 game sample size to differentiate between the majority of major league baseball teams.

Sometimes I wish baseball was like football where the better team defeats the inferior team 85-95% of the time.

Newton - Monday, November 21 2005 @ 09:37 AM EST (#132612) #

Given the current playoff format:

a) The Jays would have a legit shot at qualifying in 2006 were they to add Burnett, Ryan, and an above average bat or 2 the latter likely costing them some prospects.

b) anybody who gets into the playoffs has a legit chance of winning it all particularly if they have a dominant top 2 or 3 starting pitchers (the shorter first round series and extra off-days significantly alter the team make-up required for success in the post season vs the regular season).

So Yes the Jays have a legitimate chance in 2006, and it looks like they won't need to sell the farm to enjoy that chance.

If they did have to sell the farm to compete in 2006 I'd be against it.

As an organisation the Jays should aspire to field a competitive, contending club in as high a percentage of seasons as possible. This model makes good business sense and better baseball sense given the current playoff format since every contention year could realistically end with a world series.

Selling the farm to peak for a 1 year run is a fools errand.

Cristian - Monday, November 21 2005 @ 09:38 AM EST (#132613) #

If small sample size is an avowed problem, it seems disingenius to present a study with only five data points.

Cristian - Monday, November 21 2005 @ 09:40 AM EST (#132614) #

Scratch my earlier comment. On closer inspection of the study, I conclude I'm an idiot.

Jim - Monday, November 21 2005 @ 09:44 AM EST (#132615) #

The problem from a Jays point of view is that the one outlier is from the AL East. It's more difficult to make the playoffs from the AL East then it is to win the series from some other divsions - like the AL Central or NL West.

GregJP - Monday, November 21 2005 @ 09:50 AM EST (#132616) #

Jim,

I think you make a very point. Still, despite their massive payrolls the Yankees and Redsox have had downward cycles in the past. Hopefully, just as the Jays seemingly build towards a 2 or 3 year window of opportunity it will coincide with either (or both) of the Yankees or Redsox having a record towards the bottom end of their expected range based on how much money they have to spend.

Magpie - Monday, November 21 2005 @ 10:15 AM EST (#132617) #

Disingenuous? Moi? Every chance I get... :-)

It's most likely just One of Those Things. It's probably also true that the post-season is always a crap shoot. And maybe we don't have any truly Great Teams roaming the landscape at present - the Yankees have slipped a bit from their late 90s pinnacle, the Braves stuff doesn't work in the post-season, and no one else has really stepped up to fill the gap.

GregJP - Monday, November 21 2005 @ 11:20 AM EST (#132618) #

"the Braves stuff doesn't work in the post-season"

That statement is so beyond laughable that I don't know where to start.

What the Braves have accomplished in the past dozen or so years is probably unparalleled in the history of North American sports.

What they have not accomplished in the post season is 90% bad luck and just the nature of the playoff system.

Lets assume for a second that the Braves have a 55% chance of beating the team that they are playing in each of the 3 rounds. I'm probably overestimating here as the teams in the playoffs in any given year are all fairly equal in terms of talent. So 0.55^3=0.166. This means that they are likely to win the world series 17% of the time. (1 out of 6 times) So in the past 12 years they would have been expected on average to win twice instead of the one time that they actually won.

What does that prove? Basically nothing. But to win the same division over 162 games more than a dozen times consecutively is quite amazing. It really annoys me that the average sports fun can't comprehend how great a run it's been. Nothing in football, hockey, or basketball even comes close.

Magpie - Monday, November 21 2005 @ 12:18 PM EST (#132622) #

What the Braves have accomplished in the past dozen or so years is probably unparalleled

Not quite, but it's certainly right up there. Off the top of my head, I don't think it quite compares to the 1949-64 New York Yankees, but hey - the most dominant team ever was the 1904-13 Cubs, and they only won two championships. I ain't dissing the Braves.

I do think it's true that not only is the post-season a crap shoot - I wouldn't argue with that - but I also think that certain things that help your team emerge on top after 162 games either: a) don't do you any good whatsoever in the post-season (like depth, especially in the starting rotation) or b) actually help you lose in the post-season (like aggressive base running. Also known as the Tale of Tony LaRussa.)

baagcur - Monday, November 21 2005 @ 12:32 PM EST (#132624) #

And the Lakers weren't bad in the 80's. Nine consecutive division wins followed by a not too shabby 58-24 record and a trip to the finals

Also immediately springing to mind further afield Real Madrid actually won 14 Spanish soccer championships in 20 years in a league of around 18 clubs and Surrey won the English cricket championship 7 or 8 times consecutively in the 1950's with a much bigger group of competitors and whilst losing several players to international duty for a large span of the season

Grasshopper - Monday, November 21 2005 @ 12:51 PM EST (#132627) #

Alrighty sorry to upset anybody before... upon looking at the info i am now giving the jays a better shot in 2006 then i did a week ago... however i would still prefer to hold on to some of the prospects we have... My favorite all time jay is Kelly Gruber... A youngh jay prospect who worked his way up through the organization and helped to win the series in the early 90's... That could be Aaroh Hill. gotta cut the rant short.

Willy - Monday, November 21 2005 @ 01:03 PM EST (#132630) #

Disingenuous? Moi? Every chance I get... :-)

Yeah but don't let that get in the way of being disingenius, too, Magpie. There's lots of us on Da Box.

Anders - Monday, November 21 2005 @ 01:06 PM EST (#132631) #

Another reason to expect improvement is because of the Jays record in 1 run games, which is a pretty random thing. They went 16-31 in 1 run games. If they go 23-24, they finish 87-75. If they go a White Soxian 31-16, they tie with the Red Sox for the wild card.

Basically, if the team improves by 3-6 wins because of various wheelings and dealings and natural improvement, and has a normal (.500) record in 1 run games, they win 90 games next year. I dont think thats outside the realm of possibility.

Paul D - Monday, November 21 2005 @ 01:34 PM EST (#132634) #

I've been curious about one run games for a while. I've often seen it stated that teams should be expected to go a about .500 in one run games. However, it seems to me that a more likely prediction is that they should have a record which reflects their overall ability. So, take away their record in one run games and find out their winning percentage. Then apply that percentage to the number of one run games they had, and you'll see a rough guess of how a team would have done if the luck worked out better for them.

GregJP - Monday, November 21 2005 @ 01:53 PM EST (#132635) #

http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/ten-things-about-one-run-games/

Craig B - Monday, November 21 2005 @ 02:03 PM EST (#132638) #

It may seem that way to you, but it's not correct. In one-run games, teams will tend to have a win-loss ratio of about their runs scored/runs allowed ratio, which is usually about the square root of their overall win/loss ratio.

For a .600 team (who have a win/loss ratio of 3:2, or 1.5) their runs scored/runs allowed ratio will be about 1.225, and their record in one-run games about the same - essentially a .550 team in one-run games.

The neat thing is that this means that for almost all MLB teams if you add the team's record to .500, and divide by two, you should get close to the one-run record you'd predict from this method.

However, it's probably more accurate from an expectation poitn of view to use a team's actual runs scored/runs allowed ratio instead of half their record and half of .500.

Andrew K - Monday, November 21 2005 @ 02:26 PM EST (#132639) #

As soon as I saw the headline, I knew who had written this article :)

Toro54 - Monday, November 21 2005 @ 02:26 PM EST (#132640) #

You guys are funny. So many removed, chilled-out fans exist on a macro level: The reason the Braves lose most of the time is luck, having a .500 team isn't that much worse than a .600 team, just heads came up a few more times, etc. Didn't win this year? Maybe heads will come up a few times next year.

But then the games start, and Orlando Hudson getting the green light on a 3-0 pitch becomes the topic of an entire thread.

I'm not saying the macro perspective means nothing, but, we all know that when the games are actually played the Jays do NOT have the same chance as all those other teams. The reason is the personnel. It is very convenient to sit here and look at 5 years of season and say why not us -- but those teams that won the world series were on the verge on something. Do you get that sense with the Blue Jays?

CSHunt68 - Monday, November 21 2005 @ 02:32 PM EST (#132641) #

How many fans of those teams thought they were "on the verge of something" before it happened?
Hindsight's a wonderful thing.
By the way, that's a circular argument. OF COURSE those teams were "on the verge of something". They were on the verge of winning. To say that it's the personnel is equally circular.
Whether or not the Jay are "on the verge of something" we'll know by this time next year.
Depending upon how the FA signings and trades work out, why not? What's the stake to the heart of this team? I fail to see it.

GregJP - Monday, November 21 2005 @ 03:20 PM EST (#132644) #

The last time the Marlins won the world series they were down by one run to the Giants in the bottom of the 9th of the 5th game with 2 outs.

What they were on the verge of was losing in the first round of the playoffs. Then a single drives in 2 runs, and they end up winning the NLCS and the world series. If the bat makes contact a quarter of an inch lower on the ball it's a fly ball and the Giants win the series. Can you still honestly say that the Marlins "were on the verge of something" going into that year.

They were a decent team that didn't even win their own division, won a coin flip against the Giants, won a series against the Cubs that they were 5 outs away from losing, and ended up being "world champions"

I think the Jays (or about 15-20 other teams) are just as likely to win the world series as the Marlins were that year. I don't remember reading one prediction related to the White Sox winning this past year.

Mike D - Monday, November 21 2005 @ 03:37 PM EST (#132645) #

Your memory deceives you, GregJP. The '03 Marlins came from behind to win Game 3 of the NLDS and wrapped up the series in four -- there was no Game 5. Admittedly, it was an extremely close series and Barry Bonds did not hit well in it.

And yes, Florida didn't win the division. But they had a sensational second half after they moved Beckett, Cabrera and the D-Train into more central roles. Pudge, Derrek Lee and Mike Lowell all played at a very high level, the team played excellent defence, and the bullpen was boosted by some mid-season acquisitions who performed well.

I don't mean to argue with your general point, but by October of 2003 the Marlins were more than a "decent team."

GregJP - Monday, November 21 2005 @ 04:01 PM EST (#132648) #

Mike,

I stand corrected.

I still think the Marlins were no better than 50/50 against both the Giants and Cubs.

I also don't like the idea that a team can make changes half way through a year, and then win in the playoffs despite not having the best record. This whole emphasis on "playoffs" is a north American phenomenon that I despise.

In football (soccer) the winner of a league like the English premiership or the German bundesliga is the best team in the regular season. There is nothing left to prove once you come out on top after the long grind of a season. English football has an FA cup which is a single elimination tournament much like the NCAA tournament. However, the importance of winning the FA cup is nothing compared to being the "league winner"

Can you imagine how good regular season NHL games would be if the regular season determined the true league champion.

Of course the playoffs will always be considered the true test of the "character" of a team in north American sports.
It's not as bad in hockey and especially football because the nature of those sports allows for smaller sample sizes of games being able to separate a good team from an infrior opponent. Baseball is probably the one sport that I know of where having a playoff makes the least sense. I could live with two regular season pennant winners and a best of 11 or 13 world series, but having a best of 5 between 2 major league baseball teams is just lunacy. Have the managers call heads or tails or play rock, paper, and series, and don't pretend that a best of 5 actually proves anything about the relative merits of the two teams.

perlhack - Monday, November 21 2005 @ 04:03 PM EST (#132649) #

Well, it's news: Kenji Johjima signs three-year deal with Mariners.

R Billie - Monday, November 21 2005 @ 04:07 PM EST (#132651) #

Isn't that exactly the point that Greg was making? Obviously when young players and vets step up their games big time to perform at a high level, you're going to have a team that exceeds what the pre-season moves and the past few years of results suggest.

Was their any reason to believe it would surely happen though? Was there any reason to believe that the White Sox would come up with the best team defence in baseball by 5 lengths of a football field and consequently have 2 or 3 Cy Young candidates in their rotation? What is your level of confidence that they will repeat the same type of season? 95+ wins again?

We don't know ahead of time what will happen. What we do know is that the Jays have results wise the best overall pitching staff in the division. With some key additions and finally a full season from Roy it could happen. Adding even a couple of modestly above average bats to the weaker parts of the lineup could boost the offence significantly. This might be an 85 win team. Or 90+ win team if everything breaks rights. If they approach 95 wins they could get into the playoffs. If they get into the playoffs, anything could happen in a short series.

And if you really believe the Braves were doing something wrong by not winning more World Series then that's your perogative. But at least they're getting the opportunity on a regular basis. I don't see any other teams reeling off several Series wins in a row.

Newton - Monday, November 21 2005 @ 04:34 PM EST (#132653) #

GregJP:

Playoffs = Big Money and Prolonged Interest in a Dozen Big League Cities, but I like you hate the best of 5 wild card round.

That said I believe the answer to the inequity of the current baseball playoff sytem is to expand the playoffs to 8 teams from each League, NHL and NBA style.

4 best of seven series would tack only about 10-12 days onto the MLB playing calendar.

No 85-90 win wild card team is going to win 4 consecutive best of 7 series, particularly if the teams are properly seeded after a balanced schedule (I'm sure it would happen just a lot less often, that said, it could also lead to a sub .500 world series champion)

The 3 division wild card system has belitted the prestige and honour associated witn winnings one's division to such an extent I would have no problem with this change despite considering myself a traditionalist.

I see this format as a clear improvement more consistent with the pitching and bench depth required to win 100 games over the regular season.

GregJP - Monday, November 21 2005 @ 04:37 PM EST (#132654) #

I think a case could be made for each of the following teams making the playoffs next year

Yankees
Red Sox
Blue Jays-reasons mentioned in this thread

White Sox
Indians
Twins-if Liriano is the deal, Morneau, Mauer

Angels
A's
Rangers-with any pitching at all

Braves
Mets
Phillies

Cardinals
Astros
Cubs-healthy Wood, Furcal?

Padres
Giants
Dodgers

So there's 18 teams. It wouldn't shock me if any of these teams made the playoffs next year. I actually think the Mariners could be much better, Orioles should be better, Brewers and Pirates have some good young players.

I think next year is wide, wide open, and the Jays have as good a chance as any of these teams.

Magpie - Monday, November 21 2005 @ 04:45 PM EST (#132655) #

Hang in there, one and all - I'm working on a study of One-Run Games in general, and the 2005 Blue Jays in particular. Hope to have it done by the end of the week.

My best guess is that Halladay's injury cost Toronto about 5 wins overall - his replacements went something like 5-9.

And then there's the 16-31 record in one-run games. If they'd just split those games, and gone 24-23, they'd have finished up around 88-74, which is much more in line with what their runs scored and allowed would have led you to expect anyway. Never mind getting lucky, and winning 30 of them.

So I put those two things together - imagine a healthy Doc, imagine just .500 ball in one-run games - and I think this team is much closer to contending than 80-82 suggests. A full and productive year from Halladay, some modest improvements to the offense, and some good luck next time around... and Let the Good Times Roll.

GregJP - Monday, November 21 2005 @ 04:50 PM EST (#132656) #

Newton,

You want to have MORE teams make the playofs?????

You say the chances of a wild card team winning 4 rounds is not that great. What about the cances of a 100 win team winning 4 rounds?

Do you really think a 96-66 team has a significant advantage over a 81-81 team in a best of 7? I would say the 96-66 team would win a best of 7 60% of the time at best. Assuming they win that series they then have to beat 3 other teams that are just about as good as they are.

The whole point of playing 162 games is to have some semblance of a large enough sample size to differentiate between a very good team and just good team. If the very good team only wins 5 or 10 more games over a 5 month period, do you really think they have much more than a coin flip chance in a best of 7 series?

Lets say that there is one 100 win team in each league. What do you think are the chances that these 2 teams will meet in the world series if there are 3 rounds of playoffs preceeding that? I would say there is less than a 10% chance that happens. You will have some 83-79 team meeting some 88-74 team more often than not, just like now where a wild card team has won 3 out of the last 4 championships.

Why not just have every team make the playoffs. Isn't that what the average fan wants?

Ron - Monday, November 21 2005 @ 05:02 PM EST (#132657) #

The one common thing I always hear in sports is how if "insert player" was healthy the team would have won "x amount of games".

I'll use Doc and the Jays as an example. This type of reasoning is only valid if you assume the other teams roster wouldn't change.

If all the other teams had a full healthy roster, could you honestly say having a healthy Doc might have added 5 more wins to the Jays?

Newton - Monday, November 21 2005 @ 05:03 PM EST (#132658) #

First off my preference is 1 league champion playing the other league champion for the World Series; this will never happen again.

The 8 team format would have the top team in the AL or NL play the 8th seeded team in a best of 7 series in the first round.

Essentially a 100 win team playing a 84-85 win team.

The second round would have the top remaining seed play the lowest remaining seed.

Perhaps all they need to do is make the first round in the current system a best of 7, but any team winning 4 straight series against playoff calibre clubs would in my view be a legitimate world series champ.

GregJP - Monday, November 21 2005 @ 05:08 PM EST (#132659) #

But don't you think adding an extra round of playoffs just increases the luck factor rather than decreasing it? How can that be a good thing?

Magpie - Monday, November 21 2005 @ 05:21 PM EST (#132660) #

could you honestly say having a healthy Doc might have added 5 more wins to the Jays?

Of course I can say it. That part's easy!

But here's the data behind my reasoning - the performance by the guys who took his spot in the rotation. (These are the starts when they were actually taking Halladay's spot - Downs got promoted to taking Lilly's turn!)

Fill-Ins   ST  W  L  IPT   H  R ER BB SO  ERA
McGowan     7  1  3  34.1 44 33 31 16 23 8.13
Downs       5  2  0  25.1 30 16 14 10 17 4.97
Walker      2  0  1   9.1 10  6  6  3  4 5.79

TOTAL      14  3  4  69.0 84 52 51 29 44 6.65

The team went 5-9 in those 14 games. I dunno, I just think Doc would have pitched better than that. The team went 14-5 in his 19 starts, by the way.

Ron - Monday, November 21 2005 @ 05:32 PM EST (#132661) #

So perhaps Doc might have added around 5 more wins assuming the other rosters were static.

I just wonder how many more W's Doc would have added if all the other teams were healthy. For example if Schilling was pitching for the Red Sox instead of John Halama or if Maggie Ordanez was healthy when the Jays faced the Tigers.

Magpie - Monday, November 21 2005 @ 05:47 PM EST (#132662) #

Don't mind me, I like looking up this stuff!

The Jays went 3-4 against Boston in the second half - they beat Clement, Arroyo, and the Boston bullpen in a game started by Schilling.

They also went 3-4 against Detroit in the second half. The three wins came in succession at the RC in August. Ordonez played all three games (he went 1-8, 1 HR, 2 RBI) - the series featured McGowan's first career win (filling in for Doc!), Hudson's game-ending walkoff HR, and a wonderful pitching duel between Downs and Bonderman.

Michael - Monday, November 21 2005 @ 06:10 PM EST (#132664) #

A better study than just WS winners is how many teams with each record made the playoffs the next year.

Although being in the AL East is a big disadvantage. The Jays likely would have been in the playoffs a couple of years ago had they played in the AL Central.

As for impressive sports feats, the Braves are up there. I'd also add UCLA college basketball run (both the title runs and the 88 straigt games in the 70s).

Anders - Monday, November 21 2005 @ 06:31 PM EST (#132665) #

Craig has pointed out my faux pas in 1 run game reasoning. The point I was probably trying to make is that theres no real correlation between teams results in 1 run games from year to year. If all else holds constant for the Blue Jays, and they perform better in 1 run games, there is plenty of room for improvement there.

If they add a couple of players and get a bunch better... well there's a possibility of a lot of improvement.

HippyGilmore - Monday, November 21 2005 @ 06:50 PM EST (#132666) #

While this rampant optimism is nice, another thing you have to consider is the fact that the Jays scored a lot more runs than their EQA and EQR totals would have suggested. That performance is also not likely to be repeated, and so I suspect this offense is even worse than it looks and J.P. will absolutely need to find some sort of upgrade this offseason.

VGeras - Monday, November 21 2005 @ 07:24 PM EST (#132669) #

Just stumbled into thsi....Lee Gronk is answering questions from fans on InsideTheDome.com board

http://mb4.scout.com/ftorontobluejaysfrm1.showMessage?topicID=6126.topic

VGeras - Monday, November 21 2005 @ 08:10 PM EST (#132673) #

Josh Beckett just got traded to the RED SOX!!!!!!!!!!

Smithers - Monday, November 21 2005 @ 08:10 PM EST (#132674) #

http://mlb.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/news/article.jsp?ymd=20051121&content_id=1271198&vkey=hotstove2005&fext=.jsp

"According to ESPN, Beckett and Lowell would be heading to Boston in exchange for prized shortstop prospect Hanley Ramirez and Minor League pitching prospect Anibal Sanchez. Another pitching prospect may be included."

Looks like one more team out of the AJ sweepstakes - go Jays!

Arms Longfellow - Monday, November 21 2005 @ 08:18 PM EST (#132676) #

Bobby "That's My Purse, I Don't Know You" Hill traded to the Padres for player to be named later.

Okay, not quite as dramatic as Beckett to the Red Sox.

John Northey - Monday, November 21 2005 @ 08:25 PM EST (#132677) #

Hmm... 16 team playoffs. What would that have done to baseball since 1994, if they went that way instead of the wild card? Here is a listing of the worst record to make the playoffs (assuming the same 3 divisions, etc.) and where the Jays and Expos would've been (yes, I miss them)

1995 - NL NYM/Phi 69-75 (Expos 3 out)
       AL KC 70-74 (Jays 14 out)
1996 - NL Cin 81-81 (Expos 5th seed)
       AL Mil 80-82 (Jays 6 out)
1997 - NL Pit 79-83 (Expos 1 game out)
       AL Mil 78-83 (Jays 2 1/2 out)
1998 - NL StL 83-79 (Expos 18 out) Arizona/Mil added
       AL Bal 79-83 (Jays 5th seed) TB added, Mil removed
1999 - NL Phi/LA 77-85 (Expos 19 out)
       AL Bal 78-84 (Jays 6th seed)
2000 - NL Col 82-80 (Expos 15 out)
       AL Ana 82-80 (Jays 7th seed)
2001 - NL Phi 86-76 (Expos 18 out)
       AL Tor 80-82 (phew - end of Ash)
2002 - NL Phi 80-81 (Expos 7th seed)
       AL Tor 78-84 (phew again - start of JP)
2003 - NL LA 85-77 (Expos 2 out)
       AL KC 83-79 (Jays tied for 6th seed)
2004 - NL Phi 86-76 (Expos 19 out, over and out)
       AL Cle 80-82 (Jays 12 1/2 out)
2005 - NL Mil/Was 81-81 (tied for 8th)
       AL Tor 80-82 (by 1 game)

So, over an 11 year span the Jays would've made it 4/7 times under Gord Ash, and 3/4 times under JP. The poor Expos would've been there just twice. Lots of sub-500 teams making it, the worst one would've been 8 games under 500 thus able to win it all with a combined regular season/playoff record sub 500 (4 rounds, could still be 4 games under). I'm sure it has happened in hockey and basketball, so I'm sure baseball could survive it.

RhyZa - Monday, November 21 2005 @ 08:25 PM EST (#132678) #

what do you think of the deal?

Looks like they coughed up 2 of their top 4 prospects. Some have thought Hanley to be overrated which they might have a solid case in proving, and even though Red Sox fans are ecstatic having kept Lester (as they should be), Anibal is projected to be no slouch either. Still seems like a good deal though.

Magpie - Monday, November 21 2005 @ 08:37 PM EST (#132679) #

A better study than just WS winners is how many teams with each record made the playoffs the next year.

You talkin' to me?!

You're probably right, and maybe I will take a look at that. Once I'm done picking through the entrails of the One-Run Games.

I like Josh Beckett a lot (i.e. more than Burnett), and Renteria is under contract for three more years, I think, although he had offered to switch to 2b and make room for Ramirez. I think it's obviously a very good move for Boston, although Beckett's health record is... not excellent.

I believe we are witnessing Jeffrey Loria's vengeance on the taxpayers of South Florida for not providing him with a shiny new stadium. Can anyone explain the whole Loria phenomenon to me? I don't get it. Somehow, he keeps getting people to buy into whatever he's selling. Despite his track record. He's like the Hal Chase of baseball owners. Surely everybody knows what he's all about, but he keeps getting opportunity after opportunity to prove it. Why is that?

Mike D - Monday, November 21 2005 @ 09:11 PM EST (#132680) #

I'm not so sure it's a great move for Boston. Lowell has a terrible, generally untradeable contract and he'll block Youkilis. I probably project him to be a downgrade from Bill Mueller at third; from what I saw of him and what I read, his hitting seemed to go beyond "slump" and "bad luck" territory and well into "sharp decline" territory.

If Beckett realizes his potential while staying healthy, and if neither Ramirez nor Sanchez pan out, and if Lowell bounces back...it'll work out nicely. But those are big "ifs."

Adding to what Pistol said earlier, I would rather -- if I'm Boston -- sign Burnett and re-sign Mueller than to trade Ramirez and Sanchez for Beckett and Lowell.

Unless A.J. told you he was strongly leaning toward a divisional rival...

greenfrog - Monday, November 21 2005 @ 09:19 PM EST (#132681) #

Here's a hypothetical: if you were JP, would you have traded Hill and McGowan for Beckett and Lowell?

jayfanbrooklyn - Monday, November 21 2005 @ 09:34 PM EST (#132682) #

if you were JP, would you have traded Hill and McGowan for Beckett and Lowell? if I was out the running for AJ then yes

Rich - Monday, November 21 2005 @ 09:44 PM EST (#132685) #

I wouldn't do Hill / McGowan for Beckett / Lowell:

Lowell's contract is an albatross and he looks finished at the plate
McGowan still has tremendous upside
Beckett, much like AJ, hasn't really put it all together consistently
Hill is going to be a cheap, productive, versatile player for years

That said, I'd still rather that Beckett went somewhere other than the AL East.

Ron - Monday, November 21 2005 @ 10:03 PM EST (#132688) #

If AJ slipped through the cracks, I would trade Hill/McGowan for Beckett/Lowell in a heartbeat.

Heck I would even add Chacin to make the deal work.

Anytime you have a chance to obtain an elite proven MVP World Series caliber 25yr old pitcher, you do your best to aquire him. Beckett isn't an unknown. And I believe Lowell will bounce back. But even if doesn't rebound, I still like the deal.

There's a reason the Red Sox are giving up at least 2 of their upper tier prospects to get him.

Mike Green - Monday, November 21 2005 @ 10:03 PM EST (#132689) #

Beckett is a significantly better pitcher than Burnett, plus he's younger and hasn't had elbow surgery.

The Marlin inner defence last year was OK, but their outfield defence was atrocious. The groundballer Burnett was less affected by this than Beckett who has an average G/F.

From a talent perspective, the Sox made out quite well, I think. The economics are a whole 'nother story...

Newton - Monday, November 21 2005 @ 10:06 PM EST (#132690) #

There we have it, the price of a young proven relatively cheap player acquired via trade (Beckett):

one of the top prospects in all of baseballs; your organisations top pitching prospect; and taking on the unwieldy contract of an overpaid declining player.

We need to keep this in mind as we speculate on potential Jays trades.

Free agency is looking like the better route every day.

Pepper Moffatt - Monday, November 21 2005 @ 10:12 PM EST (#132693) #

I think Lowell will likely do better in Fenway than people expect. If they work on making him pull the ball more like he used to, rather than trying to slap the ball to all fields like he has been lately, he'll end up getting a lot of cheap singles and doubles off the Green Monster.

I wouldn't be surprised if he hits .270 with 10-20 homerruns. Of course, there's also a chance he's done like dinner...

Mike Green - Monday, November 21 2005 @ 10:13 PM EST (#132694) #

Whoa there. Hanley Ramirez isn't one of the best prospects in baseball any more. His stock has fallen considerably Anibal Sanchez is a fine pitching prospect, but choosing between him and Lester and Papelbon as the Sox top pitching prospect is not easy. I'd much rather have Beckett than Sanchez and Ramirez, purely on a talent basis. But, as I said, the finances are something else entirely.

Ron - Monday, November 21 2005 @ 10:18 PM EST (#132695) #

From the Red Sox perspective, Lowell's contract (in terms of dollars) means very little. It's not like they're going to have a 60 million dollar payroll next season.

Even the Jays could have taken on Lowell's contract which only lasts 2 more seasons. This ain't no Jim Thome situation.

I wonder if JP gave the Fish a call after learning Beckett was up for grabs.

Pepper Moffatt - Monday, November 21 2005 @ 10:34 PM EST (#132696) #

Ron's right. I wouldn't say this puts the Red Sox out of the running for AJ. There's no reason they couldn't have both pitchers on the team, unless there's some big beef between Burnett and Beckett that I don't know about. :)

Jonny German - Monday, November 21 2005 @ 10:55 PM EST (#132699) #

Beckett is a significantly better pitcher than Burnett, plus he's younger and hasn't had elbow surgery.

Better, sure, but I'd be much more concerned about Beckett's health than Burnett's. Not to re-hash the whole debate, but I remained totally unconvinced that players who successfully come back from TJ are more prone to re-injury down the road. Beckett on the other hand just enjoyed his healthiest season yet, but failed to top 200 innings (178) and missed 13 games in June with blister problems, another 13 in July with an oblique injury, and the last 8 games of the season with a sore shoulder.

JayFan0912 - Monday, November 21 2005 @ 10:59 PM EST (#132700) #

I think the red sox take a huge risk with this move since becket may not sign an extension, and he comes with a lot of injuries. They also traded their best bargaining chips, so it will be difficult to obtain any help in midseason. Pitchers by themselves don't fetch a lot, kazmir only got zambrano.

Re. Red Sox and Burnett: I don't think they will go after him now. The sox have holes in their bullpen, CF, RF, and 2B, and they are running out of prospects. Once they spend all sorts of money (prospects) to address these issues, would they still offer burnett a 5 year deal ...

Jordan - Monday, November 21 2005 @ 11:00 PM EST (#132701) #

Good trade for Boston, but not necessarily a pennant-clincher. Beckett has tremendous stuff and is still young, but he's been battling injuries his whole career -- a right-handed Al Leiter springs to mind as a comparison. His road ERA, like Burnett's, is a run or so higher than his home numbers, and a flyball pitcher in Fenway could have some problems. His odds of becoming utterly dominant are about the same as the odds he'll flame out altogether; but that's still a risk well worth taking. Lowell might bounce back, but I think it's more likely he'll be a bench guy (the Red Sox can afford to keep salaries like that on the bench); there's already talk the Sox might flip him to Minnesota for Romero.

The Marlins did poorly -- Ramirez has toolsy bust written all over him, and while Sanchez has eye-popping numbers and tremendous stuff, he hasn't pitched above AA. But this isn't about talent; this is about Jeff Loria scuttling another franchise. Baseball fans will look back on this era years from now and wonder how a ballclub that lasted only 15 years somehow captured two World Series championships. Far more so than the Yankees or A-Rod's big contract, the Marlins will be the symbol of all that went wrong with the game in the 1990s and 2000s.

Hill and McGowan for Lowell and Beckett? Probably not. Unlike the Red Sox, the Jays can't hide a salary like Lowell's, and they already have two underperforming third basemen on the roster as it is. Beckett is a superior talent to McGowan, but not by much, and he gets really expensive in two years' time. Hill will be a solid player long after Lowell retires.

Pistol - Monday, November 21 2005 @ 11:16 PM EST (#132702) #

Beckett is a significantly better pitcher than Burnett, plus he's younger and hasn't had elbow surgery.

Why is that? Looking at the Hardball Times it seems to give the advantage to Burnett statistically, and from a scout perspective everyone seems to rave about Burnett's stuff.

Burnett threw 30 more innings, had a lower FIP & xFPI, had a much better GB/FB ratio, and gave up a lower line drive percentage. The difference isn't large between the two, but I don't see how Beckett is significantly better.

HippyGilmore - Monday, November 21 2005 @ 11:18 PM EST (#132703) #

Tonight on ESPN radio, while talking about the Beckett deal, Peter Gammons said that he thinks B.J. Ryan is either going to the Mets or the Phillies on something like a 4 year, 36 million dollar contract. That just seems like an insane contract, but it's Gammons, of course.

Pistol - Monday, November 21 2005 @ 11:23 PM EST (#132704) #

Loria is far from a saint, but I believe the Marlins were banking on a stadium to get them additional revenues and with hurricanes criss-crossing the state the past two years no sane politician is going to put money towards that over rebuilding areas.

Nick - Monday, November 21 2005 @ 11:33 PM EST (#132705) #

While Loria has clearly left a bad taste in Canadian baseball fans' mouths, I think it is interesting to note that the local media in Miami blame the lack of fan support despite 2 World Series titles in 10 years and NOT Jeffrey Loria for the latest fire sale in Miami. You can read about it in Blair's latest blog entry (which is linked in the other active thread). I tend to agree with Blair. With Miguel Cabrera, Dontrelle Willis, Josh Beckett, AJ Burnett, Carlos Delgado, Juan Pierre, Louis Castillo, etc., Florida finished 28th in attendance this year. That's fine. People have the right to spend their money on whatever they wish. But don't expect to keep around a star-laden team if the fans don't support it. Getting out of Lowell's contract is a good, sound business decision. So is getting out of Delgado's contract. Never mind that they should have never given it to him in the first place. Even the Delgado signing was somewhat defensible as management tried to get fans excited and garner enthusiasm and support for a new stadium. It is perfectly reasonable to reject a taxpayer-funded baseball stadium. But don't be surprised when star players are traded because of large contracts. You can't have it both ways. Look, I don't feel sorry for Loria, nor do I even like him. It's not fun defending a guy like him. But before the easy, knee-jerk reactions snowball on this thread, consider the number of players who would have to be paid on the Marlins when taking into account their paltry fan support only 2 years removed from a World Series title. What would attendance look like without the WS title or a contending team? Discussions are more fun when both sides are heard. OK - can't wait to hear feedback after defending Loria (somewhat). *ducks*

jayfanbrooklyn - Monday, November 21 2005 @ 11:35 PM EST (#132706) #

B.J. Ryan is either going to the Mets or the Phillies

did he say anything about wagner??

Smaj - Monday, November 21 2005 @ 11:40 PM EST (#132708) #

"B.J. Ryan is either going to the Mets or the Phillies
did he say anything about wagner??"

Phillies or Mets.

Cristian - Tuesday, November 22 2005 @ 01:52 AM EST (#132714) #

The Miami baseball market was a known quantity before Loria bought the team. Just like the Montreal situation was a known quantity when Loria bought the Expos. How can he blame the fans when they've been doing (or not doing) what they've always done (or always not done). Loria begged to be a baseball owner and it meant him buying into the most challenging market. Then when he sold the Expos, he bought another franchise that had attendance woes even though it had a recent WS win.

Loria knew what he was getting into. He should take responsibility for not putting bums in the seats.

Michael - Tuesday, November 22 2005 @ 02:10 AM EST (#132715) #

The original topic of this thread was on the Jays chances of playoffs/world series in 2006. I think the Beckett Lowell to Red Sox trade clearly makes the Jays chances a lot worse.

You may be able to argue that the deal makes the Red Sox worse in the future or that they will end up paying to much $ to Lowell, but in terms of talent on the field in 2006 I think there is no doubt this is a big win for the Sox.

I just hope this pisses off George in NYY and he gets involved in some crazy situation or player negotiations against the advice of Cashman.

fra paolo - Tuesday, November 22 2005 @ 05:20 AM EST (#132716) #

Never mind that they should have never given it to him in the first place. Even the Delgado signing was somewhat defensible as management tried to get fans excited and garner enthusiasm and support for a new stadium.

I think Nick's spot on here. Loria is clearly a gambler. He gambled he could make something out of the mess he inherited from Brochu and, when he didn't, he did a 180 and got out of town as fast as he could. The same with the Delgado contract -- he gambled he could land the stadium deal, and now he hasn't, he's cutting costs furiously because he's losing money in another weak baseball market. (Although rumour has it that Samson is now in charge day-to-day.)

John Northey - Tuesday, November 22 2005 @ 07:46 AM EST (#132719) #

The Red Sox/Marlins deal is interesting.

Beckett - 25 years old, 3.38 ERA over 178.2 IP, former WS MVP, arbitration for '06 and '07 then free agent
Lowell - 31 years old, 236/298/360 last year over 500 AB's, career 272/339/461. 2 years $18 million on contract

This looks dang good short term for the Sox. 2 top prospects for an all-star starter plus $9 mill per year for a backup third baseman. The Sox have money to burn so they can waste $9 million on that. I suspect they will sign Beckett long term ASAP (3 years plus 2 options or a straight 5 year deal).

The silver lining for Jay fans? Well, Becket has some injury history and pitchers going to Boston can be hit hard if they aren't ready for it (pressure). Plus this probably takes the Sox out of the AJ contest. However, this will put the pressure on NY to sign AJ or someone else fast.

To be continued...

Jordan - Tuesday, November 22 2005 @ 09:22 AM EST (#132725) #

From Blair's blog:

Sources in Baltimore say there might be another reason that free-agent B.J. Ryan is not interested in the New York Yankees - the presence of Lee Mazzilli as a Yankees coach. Ryan, like 95 per-cent of the players who played for Mazzilli when he managed the Baltimore Orioles, has little time for the man.

Heh.

I'm also reading BJ Ryan's name in conjunction with four years and $36M. Good night and good luck -- Burnett's reported asking price is staggering enough, thank you.

Word is that the Snakes are close to dealing Javier Vazquez to an "East Coast" team -- exactly how far is Toronto from the Atlantic Ocean again? I doubt the Blue Jays are in on that one, and anyway, I'm not convinced that Vazquez would be a significantly better pitcher in the AL in 2006 than, say, Josh Towers, and Javy's a lot more expensive.

Mike Green - Tuesday, November 22 2005 @ 09:25 AM EST (#132726) #

Beckett was arguably a better pitcher than Burnett last year, although it is close. But, over their careers, it is no contest. Beckett's career ERA is 3.46; Burnett's in the same environment is 3.73. Beckett has superior W and K rates over his career.

And then there are the "character" issues. Beckett has avoided controversy, and pitched brilliantly in the post-season in 2003. Burnett's departure from Florida was, shall we say it, ungracious. I have a world of respect for Jack McKeon, and there was no reason for Burnett's behaviour towards him at the end of last season.

Spifficus - Tuesday, November 22 2005 @ 10:07 AM EST (#132728) #

Beckett's been a bit better at preventing runs over the course of their career, yes. But there are a few things to consider when we look forward to see who will likely perform better over the next 5 years.

First, it's kind of amusing to see that, even with major arm surgery knocking him out for a year, AJ has pitched almost the same number of innings as beckett over the past 4 years. I'd say that he is more likely to give a team 200+ innings than Josh. In which case, it could be a question of which is worth more, .30 points on the ERA, or 30+ innings.

Second, he has been significantly more difficult to homer against over that span, and to a lesser degree, over his career. This could be amplified when Beckett goes into Fenway with his modest 1.14 career GB/FB ratio.

Now, of course, AJ is 3 years older, gives up more walks, threw a tantrum at a very tuff-love-type manager, and has a major injury on his horison.

Basically, there's plenty of stuff to make the Hope-O-Meter swing both ways, but I'd say that it's no safe bet that Beckett will be the better pitcher over the next 5 years, and with Lowell coming along for the ride, he wasn't any cheaper. So all in all, who would I rather have? *SHRUG* I'd be a very happy fan with either on the mound every 5th day.

MatO - Tuesday, November 22 2005 @ 11:14 AM EST (#132729) #

If you look at the last 3 healthy seasons for Burnett (2002,2004 and 2005)then the ERA difference and the K and W difference between him and Beckett shrink considerably. Monetarily the Beckett deal will cost at least $14-15M for the next two years and would further complicate the Jays' infield situation. If you try to do an HLH type deal with Beckett (buy out 2 arb years and 2 FA years) then it will cost you probably $20M for the next two years on top of the 2 or 3 prospects it would cost. The Burnett deal only costs you a 2nd rounder and considerably less money.

Wildrose - Tuesday, November 22 2005 @ 11:26 AM EST (#132732) #

And then there are the "character" issues.

Actually the local Miami press, (Mike Berardino in an article that was not archived), strongly supported Burnett for his actions. My recollection was that he essentially said Burnett stood up to the teams administration regarding its harsh treatment of younger players and that the Marlins dysfunctional front office was mainly to blame.

At any rate, given Ricciardi's preference for "gritty character players" and Arnsberger's close relationship with Burnett, I think the Jays are not concerned by this pseudo issue.

Wildrose - Tuesday, November 22 2005 @ 11:33 AM EST (#132733) #

Good trade for Boston, but they've taken on a lot of risk. Beckett had two late season MRI's on his shoulder and even if he remains healthy, I've got a feeling two years from now, as a free agent, he may well return to the great state of Texas. Glad the Jays did not become involved in this situation.

Newton - Tuesday, November 22 2005 @ 12:33 PM EST (#132735) #

Northey,

Thanks for the 8 team playoff rundown, very interesting.

A sub .500 World Series Champion would be very odd indeed, but I think this format will arrive in the next 5-10 years.

W

Mike D - Tuesday, November 22 2005 @ 12:39 PM EST (#132737) #

I agree with MatO and Wildrose. Not only is the gap in ability between Beckett and Burnett slimmer than perceived, so to is the gap in character. Beckett is cocky and abrasive. Burnett is, sometimes, too emotional. It's not that one guy's a hero and the other's a villain to his teammates.

Moffatt, I am telling you with every ounce of conviction that I have that Mike Lowell is not the offensive player he was. I saw him play a series at RFK last year and it was reminiscent of Robbie Alomar in his last days with the Mets -- clearly, CLEARLY not as dangerous as he used to be with the bat. I think Lowell's 2005 numbers will be far more predictive than his 2001-05 numbers, considered in the aggregate.

Mike D - Tuesday, November 22 2005 @ 12:40 PM EST (#132738) #

Of course, I meant to say "so too is the gap."

Leigh - Tuesday, November 22 2005 @ 12:46 PM EST (#132741) #

I have see so many anti-Burnett articles during JP's courtship that I am beginning to think that there must be something that I am missing.

The strikeout rate, the walk rate, the homerun-prevention tendency, the extreme groundball penchant... what's not to like? Honestly, take a look at ESPN.com or SI.com and you'd think that he was Denny Naegle or Chan Ho Park.

Burnett's peripherals are top-notch. If there are ten starting pitchers as good as or better than AJ, I can't think of them.

Alexander - Tuesday, November 22 2005 @ 12:48 PM EST (#132742) #

(Of course, I meant to say "so too is the gap.")

S'ok, Mike. I dont think anyone cares about your grammar.

Cheers.

Alexander - Tuesday, November 22 2005 @ 12:50 PM EST (#132743) #

Excellent point, Leigh.

I have read 3 articles in the last two hours regarding Burnetts status as a white elephant in waiting and "the next Chan Ho Park". Its not like the guy had TJ surgery yesterday.

Is anything going to happen today, gents? Anything? I grow weary waiting for this team to improve.

Cheers

Jordan - Tuesday, November 22 2005 @ 12:59 PM EST (#132744) #

I don't see anything happening with the Blue Jays until Burnett signs, either with Toronto or with someone else. Burnett's agent has said he wants to wait till after the Winter Meetings before making a decision; Ricciardi has said he won't wait that long, and the Jays -- with an attractive "get back to me with your best offer" position -- are not a team Burnett can toss off the list so quickly. If I had to guess, Burnett will decide on the eve of the meetings, which means another two weeks at least to wait. But if there's another big trade or two, the Jays may have to move pre-emptively before the shelves are all emptied.

Pistol - Tuesday, November 22 2005 @ 01:28 PM EST (#132745) #

At this point the Jays seemingly have to know within a pretty narrow range what the cost will be to get Burnett. So if something came along tomorrow, hypothetically say a Beckett like player, and the team thinks that's going to be a better deal than signing Burnett I imagine they would pull the trigger.

My sense is that Burnett is a big part of 'Plan A' for the Jays. I suspect that 'Plan B' involves making a significant trade which is why JP wants something done with Burnett one way or another prior to the winter meetings as to not miss out on a trade because they were waiting on Burnett.

Magpie - Tuesday, November 22 2005 @ 01:53 PM EST (#132747) #

Is anything going to happen today, gents?

No.

Nobody's going to sign a big FA until after December 7. It makes no sense. I don't understand why the Cubs were in such a hurry to lock up Scott Eyre.

Jonny German - Tuesday, November 22 2005 @ 02:06 PM EST (#132749) #

Hmmm... looking at last year before November 22

...Long & Tankersley were traded to KC from San Diego for May & Bukvich
...Omar Vizquel signed a 3-year $12M deal with San Fran
...Cristian Guzman signed with Washington for 4 years $17M, Vinny Castilla for 2 years $6.2M
...Tory Percival signed with Detroit for 2 years $12M
...Rivera & Izturis were traded to Anaheim from Washington for Guillen

That's about it! Guess this year isn't as slow as it seems.

Alexander - Tuesday, November 22 2005 @ 02:08 PM EST (#132750) #

"I don't understand why the Cubs were in such a hurry to lock up Scott Eyre."

I dont think anyone does. Would he have actually got that kind of money from anyone else?

OUT

Craig B - Tuesday, November 22 2005 @ 02:28 PM EST (#132751) #

NO WAY, HE WAS SAFE

Alexander - Tuesday, November 22 2005 @ 02:29 PM EST (#132752) #

Ahahaha

Blue in SK - Tuesday, November 22 2005 @ 02:55 PM EST (#132755) #

Perhaps a consideration for the Jays at back up catcher... Bavasi went on record as saying that with the recent signing of Johjima (Japanse FA) he would look to trade Yorvit Torrealba.

As a platoon mate for Zaun, i.e. against lefties he looks pretty solid offensively with a line of 302/860 (OBP/SLG). Defensively, he had zero errors last year, 1 PB and a .357 CS% in 60 games started. His MLB bio notes call him a "solid defensive catcher".

Financially, I think the Jays would have him under control for 2 more years and he only made $715,000 last year. Seems pretty good, but I don't have any idea about how well he calls a game.

Blue in SK - Tuesday, November 22 2005 @ 03:23 PM EST (#132756) #

Quick correction on Torrealba, his career line against lefties is 291/364/510, although sample size is only 196 ABs. (as per his player page on SI.com)

hugh - Tuesday, November 22 2005 @ 03:58 PM EST (#132757) #

Don't know where to post this: Marlins are looking to move, maybe: according to the Globe.

Magpie - Tuesday, November 22 2005 @ 04:29 PM EST (#132758) #

...Omar Vizquel signed a 3-year $12M deal with San Fran

Was that part of the Giants' novel "Draft peeks? We don't need no steenking draft peeks!" policy?

John Northey - Tuesday, November 22 2005 @ 04:46 PM EST (#132759) #

Marlins moving? I heard there is an empty stadium up in Montreal.

Realistically? Miami moving to Las Vegas looks likely, as does MLB doing a contraction of Miami and Minnesota. I really hate both options, but neither would shock me. Ideally if Miami moves they go to Las Vegas or New Jersey or somewhere else that has many people and lots of money.

Sigh. 2007 looks uglier the more I look at it. Contract between players and owners expires, contraction possible, and the NHL looks to be doing just fine after writing off a season. I really hope the owners don't try the nuclear option but I fear it.

VBF - Tuesday, November 22 2005 @ 05:03 PM EST (#132760) #

I don't think that there's a market in our hemisphere that coudld support a MLB franchise better than Florida for the long haul, after the novelty. Las Vegas just has too many 'ifs'. I don't think their minor league sports are doing particularily well, and apart from the XFL (if that counts) we really have no idea what to expect.

But the best solution is to get a stadium in Florida. We know there's enough Marlin fans to fill the place up. We've seen them.

Mick Doherty - Tuesday, November 22 2005 @ 05:07 PM EST (#132761) #

the NHL looks to be doing just fine after writing off a season.

Couldn't disagree more, John. Are you located in Canada? That might be a difference-maker, but here in Dallas/Fort Worth, home of a very successful NHL franchise of late, the "stickiness" of the Stars is, well, coming unglued.

I don't know about the in-game crowds, which might be just fine, but the media coverage is much less in the newspapers and the general awareness of the team's existence (not to say success; how are they doing this year, anyway?) even by sports freaks like myself has fallen off quite a bit. (Okay, I looked it up and they are 13-6-1 and one of about eight or nine teams that look like the class of the regular season, I guess -- the point being, I didn't know that.)

I grew up on skates and love hockey, but it seems to me that the future of the NHL will rely a lot more on its status in DFW, LA, Miami and Phoenix than in the Original Eight cities.

HollywoodHartman - Tuesday, November 22 2005 @ 05:22 PM EST (#132762) #

"The Yankees are proceeding as if they will not sign B.J. Ryan or Brian Giles. Neither has scheduled a visit with the Yankees, and a person who has been briefed on the Yankees' plans said neither player seemed serious about signing with the Yankees.
-- New York Times"

Awesome...

greenfrog - Tuesday, November 22 2005 @ 06:18 PM EST (#132763) #

It is awesome, I agree, but I wonder whether Giles's reason for shunning the NYY isn't simply that he's planning on staying away from the east coast, and possibly the AL. I don't have anything to back this up, but if I'm 35 and used to the NL and west coast weather, I'd be reluctant to switch leagues and coasts.

As for Ryan, we've heard conflicting reports (some say he was impressed with Toronto, others that he's likely headed elsewhere).

If I had my choice between these two, I'd take Ryan, by a hair--despite the Jays offensive needs--simply b/c of his age. I would *love* to see the Jays add both, though.

Cristian - Tuesday, November 22 2005 @ 06:42 PM EST (#132765) #

As for Ryan, we've heard conflicting reports (some say he was impressed with Toronto, others that he's likely headed elsewhere).

Why do these reports conflict? Can't they both be true? Personally, I like Toronto but I'd rather live elsewhere.

Pepper Moffatt - Tuesday, November 22 2005 @ 06:46 PM EST (#132767) #

Moffatt, I am telling you with every ounce of conviction that I have that Mike Lowell is not the offensive player he was. I saw him play a series at RFK last year and it was reminiscent of Robbie Alomar in his last days with the Mets -- clearly, CLEARLY not as dangerous as he used to be with the bat.

I totally agree with that. Remember, I'm the guy who said that acquiring third basemen with old player skills on the wrong side of thirty is a bad idea. But then again, even a stopped clock is right twice a day. :)

If Lowell was in his prime, I think he could hit .300 with 40 homers in Fenway. It's really suited to his style of play.

He won't do that, obviously. I think he will experience a bounce next year from the change in park/league. I also think he'll receive a bounce because I think last year was a combination of bad luck and quickly declining talent, since nobody should decline that fast that young (same goes for Koskie - I think he'll bounce back a bit in 2006).

Remember a few years ago where the stock price of Enron tanked, then went up for awhile, before going bankrupt? I've got a hunch that 2006 will be a "went up for awhile" period for Lowell and the Red Sox would do well to hang on to him this year before dealing him next season.

BallGuy - Tuesday, November 22 2005 @ 07:01 PM EST (#132768) #

"....than the Original Eight cities."

of course you meant the Original Six.
:)

I like that Ryan and Giles are not visiting NY. It gives me more hope that they could sign in Toronto as does the Red Sox trade.

daryn - Tuesday, November 22 2005 @ 07:14 PM EST (#132770) #

>>So if a 162 game season might not be nearly long enough to even out all of the breaks, bloops, etc, what does that say about a best of 5 or best of 7 playoff series? Don't get me started on that.

I think the Jays have the same chance to be next years Sox just as much as about 20 other teams.<<

I think that in order to win a World Series if you aren't the Yankees or Braves, you need guys of Ed Sprague and Pat Border's general calibre to career years, and no one else to get hurt.

Looking at the ChiSox, that would include,
A.J., Crede, Contreras, Hermanson etc...
a couple injuries to Konerko or Buerhle and the Sox season is over.

In the Jays context, if Towers, Hinske and Rios play over their heads, and Koskie, Wells and Halladay all play to their potential... well, their chances would be the same as anyone else's if not in the AL East.

nicton - Tuesday, November 22 2005 @ 07:15 PM EST (#132771) #

I see Ryan going to the Mets or Phillies ( depending on which on signs Wagner. ) Giles has a 3/$25.5 mil offer from the Padres. A 3/$27 isn't going to be enough to convince him to leave SD. Do you go say 4/$40 for Giles????

John Northey - Tuesday, November 22 2005 @ 07:40 PM EST (#132774) #

Mick, good point about Canada vs the US for hockey. I don't follow it closely anymore but everything I've heard on the tv and radio is 'things are great'. But this is Toronto where the fans would pack the stadium if they put 6 year olds in the Leaf uniform.

The NHL attendance ranges from 112.4% (Calgary) to 66% (Washington) of capacity. They are 8-13 games into the season depending on team (out of 40 home games). The last season they played the range was 103.1% (Toronto) to 64.7% (Chicago). I'm guessing the over 100% is due to standing room tickets. In 2003/2004 there were 15 teams (50%) at 95%+ for capacity, 6 teams sub-80%. This year 14 teams are 95%+ (Pittsburgh just misses at 94.5%) and 8 teams sub-80%. The 8 dead teams are all in the USA but includes the NY Islanders, Chicago, St Louis, and New Jersey - all teams that should have a bigger fan base. What does it mean? Not sure. Attendance hasn't taken a major hit, so profits should be good plus the teams have a hard cap baseball owners drool over. The NHL is traditionally a gate driven league though so poor tv numbers (I don't know what they are) wouldn't hurt too much.

So, what does it mean for us baseball fans? It means owners know now that if they lock out players for a season and get a hard cap that fans won't stay away forever. I say the Jays should do whatever they can for 2006 as I fear 2007, and maybe 2008, is lost. A 3 year deal could be just one year. Boy do I hope I'm wrong.

CeeBee - Tuesday, November 22 2005 @ 08:01 PM EST (#132775) #

I'd hate to see baseball lose a year or even 2 but I'm all for a salary cap like the NHL has. I'd love to see a reasonably level playing field in baseball so maybe short term pain for long term gain would not be so bad.

sweat - Tuesday, November 22 2005 @ 08:06 PM EST (#132777) #

I like a 4/40 deal a lot more than i would a 3/36.

Nick - Tuesday, November 22 2005 @ 09:06 PM EST (#132779) #

I completely disagree that Miami could support an MLB better than any city in this hemisphere. Not to be repetitive, but the Marlins finished 28th in attendance with one of the most exciting teams in all of basbeball, only 2 seasons removed from a World Series title. The fans showed up for the playoffs and World Series. I think Fargo, North Dakota could fill a stadium to watch the World Series.

As for what markets would be better - Vegas is one. Las Vegas is the fastest-growing city in the US and has no major pro sports teams and a very limited college sports scene. Baseball would be king there. I realize there is gobs of other entertainment there but people need their sports fix. Vegas is not just a tourist town anymore. I am not guaranteeing it would be better, but it would be very difficult to display less support than Miami has.

I think more teams could thrive in the Northeast, where there is a high level of interest in baseball. I know the Yankees and Red Sox are supported in large part because they are the Yankees and Red Sox, but I think NY/NJ could definitely support another team (or two) better than Miami. I think Connecticut could support an MLB team. Charlotte is a growing big city but so much of the population is transplants who generally don't display much loyalty toward their cities or home teams. Again though, can't be much worse than Miami's been.

This is just off the top of my head. There may be others that don't immediately come to mind. Of course, I am not arguing if any of these things are plausible when factoring politics and egos and owners' wallets. But to state matter-of-factly that Miami is the best option for MLB after the brutal attendance numbers last year is simply false in my view.

Anders - Wednesday, November 23 2005 @ 12:56 AM EST (#132783) #

Scott Boras is really taking a big swig of that magic Kool-Aid

Agent Scott Boras made a copy of Johnny Damon's free-agent statistical binder available. In it are sections titled "Best Leadoff Man in Baseball"; "Most Durable Active Player in the Major Leagues/Deserving of a 7-Plus-Year Contract"; and "Better Than Future Hall of Famer Rickey Henderson."
-- New York Times

Well, as for best leadoff hitter in baseball... who knows whether thats true.

But better than slam dunk first ballot hall of famer Rickey Henderson?

Rickey's career OBP is 20 points better than Johnny Damon's best season. Period.
Rickey's career OPS+ is 10 points better than Damon's best season. And Rickey played until he was 44.

The best part?
Damon's year 31 (last year) .316/.366./.439, with 10 hr, 19 sb, and 53 walks, OPS +113.

Rickey's year 31 (1990) .325/.439/.577, with 28 hr, 65 sb, and *only* 97 walks, OPS+ 188

Then of course theres the part where Rickey has 2-4 more times of pretty much all things.

Sorry for the mini rant. Just. Argh. Oh, and Ricke was honoured by the BBWAA as numero uno for that age 31 season.

Ron - Wednesday, November 23 2005 @ 01:46 AM EST (#132785) #

People can bad mouth Scott Boras all they want, but If I was a player and heading into FA, I want Boras as my agent.

The bottom line is that he delivers big money deals to his clients. Despite his demands, teams have no problem signing Boras clients (heck even JP signed a Boras client last winter).

For further insight on Boras, read Liscense to Deal by Jerry Crasnick.

Magpie - Wednesday, November 23 2005 @ 06:52 AM EST (#132787) #

I think Boras is employing a strategy developed by the 36th president of the USA. Early in his career, in a difficult local race in Texas, LBJ advised his campaign manager to start a rumour that his opponent regularly enjoyed carnal relations with barnyard animals. "But it's not true, Lyndon!" said his shocked aide. "I know it's not true. I just want to make the S.O.B. deny it."

If you even engage Boras in these ridiculous arguments, he's already won. There's obviously very little comparison between Damon and Rickey, Damon was probably the fourth best leadoff hitter in the American League last year (Roberts, Sizemore, and probably Jeter were all better). But best of all is the suggestion that Johnny Damon (who has missed 60 games over the last five seasons) is somehow more durable than Miguel Tejada (who has missed ZERO).

That's what I call cheek! You have to admire it.

Mike Green - Wednesday, November 23 2005 @ 09:31 AM EST (#132793) #

I am shocked and appalled that Boras did not suggest that Damon's appearance caused 10,000 religious Christians to attend Boston home games. For the kind of cut Boras demands, superior representation should be expected.:)

Mike Green - Wednesday, November 23 2005 @ 09:36 AM EST (#132794) #

Apparently a tentative deal has been worked out between the Marlins and Mets, pending physicals, for Carlos Delgado. Delgado and $7 million go to the Mets; Mike Jacobs and Yusmeiro Petit to the Marlins. With all the reconstructions that the Marlins have done, they should be renamed the Miami Mechanics.

Wedding Singer - Wednesday, November 23 2005 @ 09:38 AM EST (#132795) #

Haven't seen this posted anywhere here, but it looks like Delgado may have found a new home (from ESPN):

Mets land slugger Delgado
Nov 23 - The Mets have reached an agreement to acquire slugger Carlos Delgado from the salary-dumping Marlins, Newsday reports.
The Mets will send pitching prospect Yusmeiro Petit and first baseman Mike Jacobs to the Marlins for Delgado. The Marlins will give the Mets $7 million to cover part of the $48 million owed to Delgado over the next three years.

According to Newsday, the trade won't be finalized until medical exams are complete and commissioner Bud Selig signs off on the deal.

Interesting that the Marlins were able to extract two premium prospects for Delgado, while still having the Mets pick up $14M per year of Delgado's salary. I think the deals made in the past two days show that the price of a talent such as Dunn is going to be very, very steep.

Good for the Marlins to sign Delgado, pay him $4M for one very productive year and then extract two premium prospects for him (total cost of $11M with the $7M that Florida is reportedly including in this deal).

It will be interesting to see how Delgado reacts to the NY media pressure........

Jordan - Wednesday, November 23 2005 @ 09:48 AM EST (#132797) #

I'm just glad Delgado is staying in the National League. I was getting worried he'd end up in Baltimore.

Carlos and Omar Minaya aren't the best of buddies, as I recall, so this ought to be interesting. Flushing isn't The Bronx, but Delgado will still need to do some adjusting to his more intense surroundings. Oh, and I hope he fires David Sloane in due course for failing to keep him in Florida.

Presumably, this takes the Mets out of Manny Ramirez sweepstakes, leaving ... the Angels, maybe?

Flex - Wednesday, November 23 2005 @ 10:07 AM EST (#132799) #

Count me relieved that Delgado is going to the Mets. And how will he handle the NY pressure? He'll do just fine. Delgado exists in a bubble of calm.

Chuck - Wednesday, November 23 2005 @ 10:12 AM EST (#132800) #

I have every confidence that Delgado can survive New York. It's not like he got an easy ride from the Toronto media, so he has experience with criticism (and numbskulls).

Colour me surprised as well that Florida got something in the deal. $11M for Delgado's 2005 and a prospect. Seems like a good deal.

Ramirez to Anaheim seems logical and inevitable, but... they do like their citizens to be solid and upright. They drummed Guillen out of town even when it hurt them to take his bat out of the lineup. Would they tolerate Ramirez's shenanigans?

On a final note, maybe one of the cabal could periodically fire up new posts for daily random chit-chat. This thread is getting long in the tooth.

Pistol - Wednesday, November 23 2005 @ 10:12 AM EST (#132801) #

Pistol - Tuesday, October 25 2005 @ 04:55 PM EDT: What I think will happen is that the Marlins will trade Delgado and send $5-7 million with him and get a solid B+ prospect in return.

Do I get a big no-prize for being that close?

Scott Boras is really taking a big swig of that magic Kool-Aid

Boras represents Damon and it's his job to pitch his client. Just because he says something doesn't make it true, and just because he's looking for x dollars and y years doesn't mean a team has to say yes. There's a reason why so many players choose him as an agent. That people have this hatred toward him is amusing. Teams are allowed to say 'no' and if they don't it's not Boras' fault it's the team's fault.

Brian W - Wednesday, November 23 2005 @ 11:22 AM EST (#132807) #

But better than slam dunk first ballot hall of famer Rickey Henderson?

Of course Damon is better than Rickey Henderson. Mostly because Rickey is now 46 years old so most MLB players are better than him.

Obviously Damon isn't anywhere near the player that Rickey once was, but with some careful wording Boras can easily claim that he is "Better Than Future Hall of Famer Rickey Henderson".

Anders - Wednesday, November 23 2005 @ 11:49 AM EST (#132812) #

Of course Damon is better than Rickey Henderson. Mostly because Rickey is now 46 years old so most MLB players are better than him. Obviously Damon isn't anywhere near the player that Rickey once was, but with some careful wording Boras can easily claim that he is "Better Than Future Hall of Famer Rickey Henderson".

Haha. I didnt think about it that way. Obiously Boras is a fantastic agent - if you want the most money possible (and theres nothing wrong with that.) I just find some of this stuff funny, thats all. I dont think theres any real way most of the stuff he says is true.

2006: Why Not? | 117 comments | Create New Account

The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.