2006 MLB Thread

[Soulstation1]

for dan

u got any walls left at your place?

[Dan Gould]

"You may not "recognize" the team anymore, but no one can argue that those moves were the correct ones, particularly now.

As for Trot Nixon: His injury history and declining production marks him as gone after this season."

Theo dropped the ball by not re-signing Pedro and Damon, though I basically agree about the other players. Anybody who has Pedro will have to deal with a few weeks on the DL, but he's still a great pitcher. Theo made two fairly glaring errors of judgement after 2004. He 1) overestimated his own prospects (typical gaffe of a young GM) and 2) underestimated the need to keep the 2004 team intact and to mortage some of the future on a win-now situation. When you have a deadly duo of Ortiz and Manny in the middle of your lineup, you need to build around them, win now and let the future be damned. The second-richest team in the sport can certainly afford to do this, because when you have Boston's money, you don't need to ever "rebuild," you can just buy what you need when you need it. But Theo would have his fans believe otherwise -- since 2004, he has steadfastly refused to raise the team's payroll despite the revenue streams exploding with dollars. Where is this money going, I wonder? Lining the pockets of John Henry, no doubt. Maybe these locks on the checkbook were part of what nearly drove Theo out of town; I don't know. All I know is that what was a very special situation in 2004 has been dismantled by poor management since then. 2007 doesn't look to be much better, as the Sox are in dire need of pitching and there is little to be had via free agency. And what there is will be competed for by the Yankees, who will be in the market for a star starter of their own next year.

As for Nixon, if his injury history and declining production mark him as being gone next year, then why in the hell didn't Boston offer a bag of baseballs of their own to get Bobby Abreu? The Yankees gave up virtually nothing to get him; they just assumed his contract (which they made Philly pay for, for 2006!) Why couldn't Boston do this? The money certainly isn't an issue, as they have plenty of it, and they also are in need of a RF next year. Wily Mo Pena is a career fourth outfielder, so I can't imagine they have plans to start him in right next year...

Bad management. Theo apparently dismantled his 2004 team to build for 2008 (when Schilling and Ramirez will be gone). Good luck with that.

First of all, thanks for answering my questions. Not.

More importantly, you are frightfully misinformed on a number of counts.

The Phils ARE not paying Abreu's salary in 2006. They did pay Abreu the 1.5 million necessary for him to waive his no-trade and accept that the Yankees would not automatically guarantee his option year.

The Red Sox ARE NOT with unlimited resources. Theo's limits are approximately 125 mil in salary and another 20-25 mil in luxury tax. Abreu's salary plus luxury tax would have been 24 million, the vast majority of it next season. It was not an option.

How can anyone say that Theo "overestimated" his own prospects? Lester has made what? 12 starts? Delcarmen and Hansen haven't reached 50 appearances between them. The problem is not over-estimating their talents, its throwing them into the fire when they aren't quite ready. Hansen and Delcarmen will be major league pitchers for a long time, and are likely to excel.

Pena is a "career" fourth outfielder ... ok, but WHY? Because he ran out of minor league options at the age of TWENTY ONE and has been forced to learn at the major league level for three years. Of course he's been a fourth outfielder - what team can afford to put such a young, inexperienced player into the every day lineup? His development got screwed by the contract the Yankees gave him. In less than a full year learning from Papa Jack, Manny and David, his OBP has jumped by 80 points over his career average, and his BA has jumped by nearly 50 points (when he was up over .300 up until recently, his jump in BA was over .60 points). Call Gabe Kapler a career fourth outfielder - he came up on a normal course of development, played, stuck around, and settled into what his skills make him: a fourth outfielder. WMP CANNOT be described the same way. So long as his development continues as it has this year, I will predict that within two years, he'll put up a line something like:

.290 - 48 - 120 - with an OBP of .380. Talk to me in two years and we'll see if I am right. But don't write him off as some marginal player when he's only 24 and has to learn his craft against major league pitching.

About John Henry and the supposedly never-ending stream of revenue. Henry and the rest of the ownership group paid 750 million dollars for the team, iirc. It wasn't cash money. There was financing involved. In fact, said financing requires significant payment starting I believe in 2007. So the idea that endless revenue can simply go back into the payroll is simply stupid.

Which brings us to Theo:

It is simply STUPID to suggest that "locks on the checkbook" drove him away.

The argument that led to Theo's departure was about that very attitude of win now at any cost. Theo does not want to take the approach of win at all costs, always. With a budget and financial limits, a team MUST develop its own talent, and give that talent a chance to fail. The simple fact is that the Yankees, with unlimited payroll, can simply spend out of any problems that may come up with aging former stars. The Red Sox cannot. That means looking long and hard at players who are leaving their prime and entering the decline phase.

which leads me to Pedro. Pedro's ERA last year was 2.82. The current difference between an NL starter ERA and AL starter ERA is approximately 1.5. Add that to Pedro's ERA and you get 4.32, which would be a career high. Despite the results of the 2004 postseason, the Yankees had completely destroyed Pedro's mystique and sense of being unbeatable. Who needs such a pitcher if they can't beat your arch-rival? Add to that the fact that Pedro has morphed into Frank Tanana, with a fastball that no longer breaks 90 mph, on a GOOD day, and Pedro's presence would make not a bit of difference. The decision was the correct one.

As far as Damon goes, as I said, it looks like the Crisp move was a poor decision. On the other hand, in two years, Jacob Ellsbury will be at Fenway, and he will make everyone forget about Damon. By every account, the greatest CF since Fred Lynn.

So looking ahead to 2007:

Yes there are big issues for the starting rotation and there may be even more growing pains and general unhappiness. In the NL, I would consider only Jason Schmidt and Roy Oswalt as pitchers who could succeed in the AL (plus Clemens, should he do the same thing as this year and return in June). Schmidt is too old however. Barring some sort of trade, the key to the season will be whether or not Beckett turns out to be stubborn and stupid or smart enough to make the adjustments necessary. With the addition of a closer that allows Papelbon to start, I'll take Schilling, Papelbon and Beckett against any other group in the major leagues.

Last thing, I can't let this go by:

2) underestimated the need to keep the 2004 team intact and to mortage some of the future on a win-now situation. When you have a deadly duo of Ortiz and Manny in the middle of your lineup, you need to build around them, win now and let the future be damned.

WINNING in 2004 is what gave Theo the chance to do the right thing and start building a long-term winner. Yeah, you'd like to win multiple times with Ortiz-Manny in the lineup. But how can you accomplish that by keeping Lowe, Pedro, Mueller, et. al, all of whom entering their mid-30s and costing big bucks to keep? Their inevitable declines make them untradeable when the bottom falls out. Without the unlimited resources of the Yankees to spend their way out of it, they'd be stuck with a decrepit pathetic roster and would have turned into the Washington Redskins of MLB.

Now, with the payroll restraint they've instituted (Youklis, Pedroia, Papelbon, Lester, Delcarmen, Hansen all playing important roles at very low salary; Crisp signed cheaply; there are other very good players on the way from AA) I will bet that the Sox will activate the option on Manny and he will be here through at least 2008. With the limited investment in younger players, they will have the ability to build the necessary firepower around Ortiz-Manny, through free-agency. How about Vernon Wells or Andruw Jones? The Red Sox will have the money to go after talent like that, and with the Yankees wrapped up in the outfield, won't even have to worry about the Yankees getting into the bidding.

[Chalupa]

Rowand out 4-6 weeks w/ broken ankle

[Heatwave]

"First of all, thanks for answering my questions. Not."

What questions? These?

"Before I depart this thread, who are you, heatwave? Have you lurked here long? What are your baseball allegiances? And will you join us in the jazz discussions?"

Who am I? I am a jazz fan living in the United States. Have I lurked here long? More than week and less than five years. What are my baseball allegiances? Baseball is my favorite sport, although NFL Sundays are events that the baseball season can't replicate until the playoffs. Will I join you in the jazz discussions? I don't know if I joined you specifically, but I already made posts in other threads.

"More importantly, you are frightfully misinformed on a number of counts."

This should be interesting...

"The Phils ARE not paying Abreu's salary in 2006."

Yes. they are. The Yankees are only paying the two-month prorated portion corresponding to his play in NY. People like to add his whole 2006 salary so that they can artificially inflate the Yankees payroll, but it would be disingenuous to do so.

"The Red Sox ARE NOT with unlimited resources."

This is a red herring argument. Nobody's resources are unlimited. The Red Sox are the second richest team in baseball and can spend almost on par with the Yankees, yet their stingy ownership refuses to do so. Red Sox fans have absolutely every right to expect that RS ownership will spend on the same margins that George Steinbrenner will.

"Theo's limits are approximately 125 mil in salary and another 20-25 mil in luxury tax."

You're drinking the Kool-Aid. How in the world do YOU know what Boston has to spend? Here are the facts: Boston has kept the payroll close to static since 2004, yet revenues have mushroomed. And you're buying the baloney that they're maxed out. Congratulations -- it's this kind of burying one's head in the sand that allows the disgrace of the current management in Boston to keep this team from achieving what it can.

"Abreu's salary plus luxury tax would have been 24 million, the vast majority of it next season. It was not an option."

Boston could have paid Abreu without even blinking. But it probably would have meant that somebody would have gone without another summer house. For shame.

"How can anyone say that Theo "overestimated" his own prospects? Lester has made what? 12 starts? Delcarmen and Hansen haven't reached 50 appearances between them. The problem is not over-estimating their talents, its throwing them into the fire when they aren't quite ready. Hansen and Delcarmen will be major league pitchers for a long time, and are likely to excel."

They overestimated their prospects because they were willing to forfeit 2006 and 2007 (with Manny, Ortiz, Schilling and, as we have learned this year, the best closer since Mariano Rivera) on the expectation that they could achieve the same level of success with these prospects major-league ready and somebody else in the lineup to replace some of their best players. The Yankees have already learned the difference between keeping a special, championship-level nucleus of players and acquiring the best players available, and they'll learn even more about this when Derek Jeter and Mariano Rivera are gone. That level of greatness isn't replaceable by simply signing players to bring the collective OPS of the lineup or ERA of the pitching staff up to a certain number.

Epstein failed his team and failed his fans by failing to realize the necessitiy to build around the winner that he already had. Trying to win by spending less on a team with the huge resources of the Red Sox is like an attorney trying to get the high score on a bar exam -- it don't mean shit as long as you pass. It's foolhardy. As for the current crop of failed Boston prospects, of course they might be excellent players in two years. At least one of them probably will be a star. But the failures of all of them this year has functioned as a double-edged sword -- 1) they killed the team's chances of making the playoffs when they had a chance to contribute and 2) they have now diminished their own value on the trade market, which almost forces Epstein to wait them out. Oh well -- he made his bed. Now he has to sleep in it.

"Pena is a "career" fourth outfielder ... ok, but WHY? Because he ran out of minor league options at the age of TWENTY ONE and has been forced to learn at the major league level for three years. Of course he's been a fourth outfielder - what team can afford to put such a young, inexperienced player into the every day lineup? His development got screwed by the contract the Yankees gave him. In less than a full year learning from Papa Jack, Manny and David, his OBP has jumped by 80 points over his career average, and his BA has jumped by nearly 50 points (when he was up over .300 up until recently, his jump in BA was over .60 points). Call Gabe Kapler a career fourth outfielder - he came up on a normal course of development, played, stuck around, and settled into what his skills make him: a fourth outfielder. WMP CANNOT be described the same way. So long as his development continues as it has this year, I will predict that within two years, he'll put up a line something like:

.290 - 48 - 120 - with an OBP of .380. Talk to me in two years and we'll see if I am right. But don't write him off as some marginal player when he's only 24 and has to learn his craft against major league pitching."

These projections for Willy Mo Pena are so completely outlandish that they're not even worth responding to. Suffice it to say that Pena has done nothing at any level of his development to suggest that he's likely to achieve these numbers. I might be wrong and he might someday make a solid starting corner outfielder, but he's never going to become the next Manny.

"About John Henry and the supposedly never-ending stream of revenue. Henry and the rest of the ownership group paid 750 million dollars for the team, iirc. It wasn't cash money. There was financing involved. In fact, said financing requires significant payment starting I believe in 2007. So the idea that endless revenue can simply go back into the payroll is simply stupid."

So what you are saying is that Red Sox ownership *depended* on the revenue windfall of the 2004 championship simply to make their financing payments? If so, then their acquisition of the team was not only foolish, but Major League Baseball's approval of their ownership was a gross error. Of course, this argument is hogwash. There's plenty of money and the management owes it to the fans who pay the highest ticket prices in baseball to reinvest in the team, instead of making excuses.

"Which brings us to Theo:

It is simply STUPID to suggest that "locks on the checkbook" drove him away.

The argument that led to Theo's departure was about that very attitude of win now at any cost. Theo does not want to take the approach of win at all costs, always. With a budget and financial limits, a team MUST develop its own talent, and give that talent a chance to fail. The simple fact is that the Yankees, with unlimited payroll, can simply spend out of any problems that may come up with aging former stars. The Red Sox cannot. That means looking long and hard at players who are leaving their prime and entering the decline phase."

It is wrong to suggest that the Yankees have "limitless" revenue. They have a bit more to spend than Boston, but compared to the rest of baseball, these two teams operate in nearly identical ways. They (and the Mets, when Fred Wilpon is in a good mood) compete for the same players. Sometimes the Red Sox make the more attractive offer (Schilling, Ramirez), and sometimes the Yankees do (Bernie Williams, A-Rod). Sometimes the Red Sox make the hard decision to let a productive player walk and spend the money elsewhere (Damon, Pedro), and sometimes the Yankees do (Pettitte, Nelson, Gordon, Clemens and probably Bernie Williams and Gary Sheffield for 2007)

Red Sox fans have gotten so used to finishing second to the Yankees and so used to using the excuse that the Yankees simply buy their championships that they've allowed their management to continue feeding them this excuse long after it has had any validity. The Red Sox won the WS in 2004 and benefitted greatly by this in terms of revenue. They are not a small market team, they are one of three franchises who can rule the roost of major league baseball and can at least consider signing any virtually player that they want. The Red Sox fans who support this team deserve a GM and front office that thinks this way instead of like the Oakland A's.

"So looking ahead to 2007:

Yes there are big issues for the starting rotation and there may be even more growing pains and general unhappiness. In the NL, I would consider only Jason Schmidt and Roy Oswalt as pitchers who could succeed in the AL (plus Clemens, should he do the same thing as this year and return in June). Schmidt is too old however. Barring some sort of trade, the key to the season will be whether or not Beckett turns out to be stubborn and stupid or smart enough to make the adjustments necessary. With the addition of a closer that allows Papelbon to start, I'll take Schilling, Papelbon and Beckett against any other group in the major leagues."

Schilling is getting old for a power pitcher and it is unlikely that he will be a top starter next year. Expect something along the lines of 2005-2006 Randy Johnson. Beckett is a total wild card, but he's been so awful this year (few "quality starts," which is a fairly low barometer of success, when you think about it) that hoping for him to ever become an ace in the A.L. is probably wishful thinking. It's a shame that Papelbon might be asked to become a starter, since he already appears to be the next incarnation of Mariano Rivera as a reliver. Unless he's the second coming of Pedro as a starter, the Red Sox should really consider not permanently converting him.

"Now, with the payroll restraint they've instituted (Youklis, Pedroia, Papelbon, Lester, Delcarmen, Hansen all playing important roles at very low salary; Crisp signed cheaply; there are other very good players on the way from AA) I will bet that the Sox will activate the option on Manny and he will be here through at least 2008."

It's hard to believe, since they've tried so hard to trade him over the last few years, but if they're going to go down the road of starting a bunch of their own prospects, they may have to re-sign Manny to save some face. It would be un-Theo like to overpay for an aging slugger, though, and Manny would skip town in a heartbeat for a team that offered him a few bucks more.

"With the limited investment in younger players, they will have the ability to build the necessary firepower around Ortiz-Manny, through free-agency. How about Vernon Wells or Andruw Jones?"

This isn't just an idea, it's a necessity, when you look at the probable composition of this team in two years. I'm partial to Wells, myself.

[Dan Gould]

"First of all, thanks for answering my questions. Not."

What questions? These?

"Before I depart this thread, who are you, heatwave? Have you lurked here long? What are your baseball allegiances? And will you join us in the jazz discussions?"

Who am I? I am a jazz fan living in the United States. Have I lurked here long? More than week and less than five years. What are my baseball allegiances? Baseball is my favorite sport, although NFL Sundays are events that the baseball season can't replicate until the playoffs. Will I join you in the jazz discussions? I don't know if I joined you specifically, but I already made posts in other threads.

So, it took the collapse of the Red Sox to make you want to post. I simply found it odd that someone jumped full force into this thread for his very first two posts.

"More importantly, you are frightfully misinformed on a number of counts."

This should be interesting...

"The Phils ARE not paying Abreu's salary in 2006."

Yes. they are. The Yankees are only paying the two-month prorated portion corresponding to his play in NY. People like to add his whole 2006 salary so that they can artificially inflate the Yankees payroll, but it would be disingenuous to do so.

I stated this poorly, as I am well aware that the Phils have paid Abreu up until August 1st and the Yankees pay the balance. I am not stupid enough to think that the Yankees reimburse the Phillies for the time he spent on their roster.

Nevertheless, my statement about Abreu's costs are PRECISELY correct. The remaining salary for 2006, plus 2007 plus the luxury tax hit is 24 milion dollars.

"The Red Sox ARE NOT with unlimited resources."

This is a red herring argument. Nobody's resources are unlimited. The Red Sox are the second richest team in baseball and can spend almost on par with the Yankees, yet their stingy ownership refuses to do so. Red Sox fans have absolutely every right to expect that RS ownership will spend on the same margins that George Steinbrenner will.

"Theo's limits are approximately 125 mil in salary and another 20-25 mil in luxury tax."

You're drinking the Kool-Aid. How in the world do YOU know what Boston has to spend? Here are the facts: Boston has kept the payroll close to static since 2004, yet revenues have mushroomed. And you're buying the baloney that they're maxed out. Congratulations -- it's this kind of burying one's head in the sand that allows the disgrace of the current management in Boston to keep this team from achieving what it can.

"Abreu's salary plus luxury tax would have been 24 million, the vast majority of it next season. It was not an option."

Boston could have paid Abreu without even blinking. But it probably would have meant that somebody would have gone without another summer house. For shame.

And how do YOU know what the Red Sox revenue is and what exactly is going to the owners/investors??? How do YOU know the balance sheet? THERE IS NO FUCKING WAY THAT THE RED SOX CAN SPEND "ON THE SAME MARGINS" AS THE YANKEES. THE YANKEE REVENUE DWARFS THE RED SOX. RED SOX OWNERSHIP REFUSES TO PLAY THE SAME GAME, AS IS THEIR RIGHT. THEIR OBLIGATION TO THE FANS IS TO FIELD A COMPETITIVE TEAM. WITHOUT THE CRUSHING INJURIES THEY HAD THIS YEAR, THE TEAM WAS COMPETITIVE TO A POINT. BUT NO TEAM HAS TO SPEND LIKE A DRUNKEN ASSHOLE MINI-STEINBRENNER JUST BECAUSE GEORGE DOES IT. YOU KNOW WHY?

LOOK AT THE TEAMS THAT HAVE WON SINCE THE END OF THE LAST STEINBRENNER DYNASTY. THERE IS ANOTHER WAY. YOU'RE DRINKING THE KOOL-AID IF YOU THINK THAT THE ONLY WAY TO CONTEND WITH THE YANKEES IS TO SPEND SPEND SPEND.

"How can anyone say that Theo "overestimated" his own prospects? Lester has made what? 12 starts? Delcarmen and Hansen haven't reached 50 appearances between them. The problem is not over-estimating their talents, its throwing them into the fire when they aren't quite ready. Hansen and Delcarmen will be major league pitchers for a long time, and are likely to excel."

They overestimated their prospects because they were willing to forfeit 2006 and 2007 (with Manny, Ortiz, Schilling and, as we have learned this year, the best closer since Mariano Rivera) on the expectation that they could achieve the same level of success with these prospects major-league ready and somebody else in the lineup to replace some of their best players. The Yankees have already learned the difference between keeping a special, championship-level nucleus of players and acquiring the best players available, and they'll learn even more about this when Derek Jeter and Mariano Rivera are gone. That level of greatness isn't replaceable by simply signing players to bring the collective OPS of the lineup or ERA of the pitching staff up to a certain number.

Epstein failed his team and failed his fans by failing to realize the necessitiy to build around the winner that he already had. Trying to win by spending less on a team with the huge resources of the Red Sox is like an attorney trying to get the high score on a bar exam -- it don't mean shit as long as you pass. It's foolhardy. As for the current crop of failed Boston prospects, of course they might be excellent players in two years. At least one of them probably will be a star. But the failures of all of them this year has functioned as a double-edged sword -- 1) they killed the team's chances of making the playoffs when they had a chance to contribute and 2) they have now diminished their own value on the trade market, which almost forces Epstein to wait them out. Oh well -- he made his bed. Now he has to sleep in it.

The plan WAS NOT to use Lester, Delcarmen and Hansen this year as if they were 100% ready to perform in high-leverage situations. The plan was to bring them along this season so that they would be ready next year. INJURIES and INEFFECTIVENESS forced them to be used.

To say that their value on the trade market is diminished is simply asinine. The Sox asked the Braves about Andruw Jones. Their response was "Coco, Hansen and Lester". If you think that these growing pains have done anything to reduce their value, you are every bit as stupid as 99% of what you have posted.

"Pena is a "career" fourth outfielder ... ok, but WHY? Because he ran out of minor league options at the age of TWENTY ONE and has been forced to learn at the major league level for three years. Of course he's been a fourth outfielder - what team can afford to put such a young, inexperienced player into the every day lineup? His development got screwed by the contract the Yankees gave him. In less than a full year learning from Papa Jack, Manny and David, his OBP has jumped by 80 points over his career average, and his BA has jumped by nearly 50 points (when he was up over .300 up until recently, his jump in BA was over .60 points). Call Gabe Kapler a career fourth outfielder - he came up on a normal course of development, played, stuck around, and settled into what his skills make him: a fourth outfielder. WMP CANNOT be described the same way. So long as his development continues as it has this year, I will predict that within two years, he'll put up a line something like:

.290 - 48 - 120 - with an OBP of .380. Talk to me in two years and we'll see if I am right. But don't write him off as some marginal player when he's only 24 and has to learn his craft against major league pitching."

These projections for Willy Mo Pena are so completely outlandish that they're not even worth responding to. Suffice it to say that Pena has done nothing at any level of his development to suggest that he's likely to achieve these numbers. I might be wrong and he might someday make a solid starting corner outfielder, but he's never going to become the next Manny.

Here's a good reason why my projections for WMP easily defended:

In his last two seasons with Cincinnati, he had 730 Plate Appearances.

He hit 45 homers.

Ortiz had 713 PA in 2005 and hit 47 homers.

Manny had 650 PA in 2005 and hit 45 homers.

His homer rate is essentially the same as Manny and Ortiz. GOT IT?

In addition, there is no question that he has shown significant improvement in all areas of hitting this season:

His BA is 51 points over his career average.

His OBP is 40 points over his career average.

HIs OPS is 70 points over his career average.

His strikeout rate has dropped from .373 in his last year with Cincy to .305 in his first year in Boston.

HE IS ONLY 24. Time will tell - and time is most assuredly on his side.

"About John Henry and the supposedly never-ending stream of revenue. Henry and the rest of the ownership group paid 750 million dollars for the team, iirc. It wasn't cash money. There was financing involved. In fact, said financing requires significant payment starting I believe in 2007. So the idea that endless revenue can simply go back into the payroll is simply stupid."

So what you are saying is that Red Sox ownership *depended* on the revenue windfall of the 2004 championship simply to make their financing payments? If so, then their acquisition of the team was not only foolish, but Major League Baseball's approval of their ownership was a gross error. Of course, this argument is hogwash. There's plenty of money and the management owes it to the fans who pay the highest ticket prices in baseball to reinvest in the team, instead of making excuses.

"Which brings us to Theo:

It is simply STUPID to suggest that "locks on the checkbook" drove him away.

The argument that led to Theo's departure was about that very attitude of win now at any cost. Theo does not want to take the approach of win at all costs, always. With a budget and financial limits, a team MUST develop its own talent, and give that talent a chance to fail. The simple fact is that the Yankees, with unlimited payroll, can simply spend out of any problems that may come up with aging former stars. The Red Sox cannot. That means looking long and hard at players who are leaving their prime and entering the decline phase."

It is wrong to suggest that the Yankees have "limitless" revenue. They have a bit more to spend than Boston, but compared to the rest of baseball, these two teams operate in nearly identical ways. They (and the Mets, when Fred Wilpon is in a good mood) compete for the same players. Sometimes the Red Sox make the more attractive offer (Schilling, Ramirez), and sometimes the Yankees do (Bernie Williams, A-Rod). Sometimes the Red Sox make the hard decision to let a productive player walk and spend the money elsewhere (Damon, Pedro), and sometimes the Yankees do (Pettitte, Nelson, Gordon, Clemens and probably Bernie Williams and Gary Sheffield for 2007)

IT IS COMPLETELY WRONG TO SUGGEST THAT THE YANKEES AND RED SOX COMPETE WITH THE SAME RESOURCES. THE YANKEES HAVE A 54,000 SEAT CAPACITY STADIUM. EVEN WITH THE IMPROVEMENTS, THE RED SOX HAVE A 36,000 SEAT CAPACITY. EVEN WITH THE ENORMOUS TICKET PRICES THE RED SOX CHARGE, I GUARANTEE THAT STADIUM REVENUE OF A TEAM WITH 4 MILLION IN ATTENDANCE DWARFS THAT OF A TEAM THAT CAN'T EVEN DRAW 3 MILLION BECAUSE OF THE SIZE OF THE STADIUM.

As for your list of players "allowed to walk" or "given more attractive offers":

SCHILLING WASN'T A FREE AGENT.

CLEMENS RETIRED.

"So looking ahead to 2007:

Yes there are big issues for the starting rotation and there may be even more growing pains and general unhappiness. In the NL, I would consider only Jason Schmidt and Roy Oswalt as pitchers who could succeed in the AL (plus Clemens, should he do the same thing as this year and return in June). Schmidt is too old however. Barring some sort of trade, the key to the season will be whether or not Beckett turns out to be stubborn and stupid or smart enough to make the adjustments necessary. With the addition of a closer that allows Papelbon to start, I'll take Schilling, Papelbon and Beckett against any other group in the major leagues."

Schilling is getting old for a power pitcher and it is unlikely that he will be a top starter next year. Expect something along the lines of 2005-2006 Randy Johnson. Beckett is a total wild card, but he's been so awful this year (few "quality starts," which is a fairly low barometer of success, when you think about it) that hoping for him to ever become an ace in the A.L. is probably wishful thinking. It's a shame that Papelbon might be asked to become a starter, since he already appears to be the next incarnation of Mariano Rivera as a reliver. Unless he's the second coming of Pedro as a starter, the Red Sox should really consider not permanently converting him.

Schilling stopped being a power pitcher this season, if you've paid any attention. He knows he doesn't have the gas everytime he needs it and has worked in new pitches and new patterns. Given another year to refine his new approach, there is no reason why he cannot be at least as effective as he was this year, barring injury.

You ought to check your stats before declaring Beckett to have few "quality starts".

He's made 26 starts, and 15 of them qualify. That's 60% of the time. If you think that Beckett has as many wins as he does because of run support and nothing else, that is a total misconception. His problem is that when he is bad, he is very bad, and that results in a pretty bad ERA.

Papelbon is not being "asked" to become a starter: he was groomed as a starter from the moment he signed. Unlike closers like Rivera who were failed starters, Papelbon has four "plus" pitches (he dropped his curve when he became a closer) and I don't see how anyone can think that 220 innings out of a dominant horse doesn't have greater value than 70-80 innings. Either way is a win-win for the team: If he balks at going back to starting, we have a dominant closer. If we replace him with an above-average closer and he wins 20, I guarantee the final results are better than if he saves 40 and Matt Clement is in the rotation instead.

"With the limited investment in younger players, they will have the ability to build the necessary firepower around Ortiz-Manny, through free-agency. How about Vernon Wells or Andruw Jones?"

This isn't just an idea, it's a necessity, when you look at the probable composition of this team in two years.

Its not an idea or a necessity, IT HAS BEEN THE PLAN ALL ALONG:

ADHERE to a budget.

Make CLEAR-EYED DECISIONS about how to value players on your roster as well as potential free agents/acquisitions.

DEVELOP home-grown talent so that you can MAXIMIZE available payroll for IMPACT free agents.

Scout and sign enough young talent that you have usable trade bait if the right trade comes up. But make CLEAR-EYED decisions about the value of trade acquisitions in a seller's market vs the value of young players.

[ghost of miles]

Incisive analysis, Heatwave. Reading your posts makes me want to follow the game more thoroughly again.

Are you a Cardinals fan, by any chance?

[Dan Gould]

Incisive analysis, Heatwave. Reading your posts makes me want to follow the game more thoroughly again.

Are you a Cardinals fan, by any chance?

I suggest you take a look at my dissection of his "insight", David. I was writing it while you posted.

[Dan Gould]

The Yankees have already learned the difference between keeping a special, championship-level nucleus of players and acquiring the best players available, and they'll learn even more about this when Derek Jeter and Mariano Rivera are gone.

Epstein failed his team and failed his fans by failing to realize the necessitiy to build around the winner that he already had.

I can't leave this little nugget alone. Let's talk more about "core" players, Yanks vs Red Sox:

Yankee core player ages when they won in '96:

Jeter, 22

Bernie, 27

O'Neil, 33

Tino, 28

Posada, 24 (and not a regular)

Rivera, 26

Pettite, 24

These players were all YOUNG and in their primes. Only O'Neil was past 30, and iirc, he was signed for a significant period of time.

In other words: The Yankees had NO DECISIONS to make about keeping the core of that championship team in place. They only had to add a piece or two each season to keep the winning going.

Red Sox core players when they won in 2004:

Tek, 32

Millar, 32

Mueller, 33

Manny, 32

Trot, 30

Pedro, 32

Lowe, 31

Through no fault of his own, (Dan Duquette set it up that way), Nixon, Nomar, Tek, Pedro and Lowe all had their contracts expiring at the end of 2004.

What team, in this inflated market for free agents, can be expected to spend sufficient money to keep all of their "core" players? The fact of the matter is that the 2004 team was designed to be the one last, best chance for that group to make it to the promised land. There were going to be changes afterward, and no smart GM would commit huge dollars to keep such a team "together". It was a position that Brian Cashman never had to find himself in, due to the ages of his core at the time of the championship.

instead, Theo kept the heart and soul of the team (Tek), retained those pieces that made sense and began the process of building a SUSTAINABLE successful roster. Key players being signed til they are all 36-37 is a recipe for disaster. This team HAD to get younger, and as crushing as this season has been, Theo made the moves that are necessary for the long-term. Whether enough of them will work out to create that long-term success remains to be seen, but the fact is that in Spring Training, there was a quote of the Indians' GM to the effect that "The Red Sox have done it right - they may not win this year, but they are poised for a five year run of domination." I really wish I could find that quote, but trust me, that is the gist of what was said.

And I tend to be a bit more respectful of the opinions of successful General Managers than jack ass BB posters. And that includes me.

[Heatwave]

It is regrettable that at this time you must be dubbed a know-nothing blowhard, but that's exactly what you've revealed yourself as. Your technique is generally to spout off unsupportable nonsense, backtrack when shown up and raise non-issues when proven wrong.

Let me guess, you're in 9th or 10th grade?

Another tip: writing in all caps neither makes you look smarter nor more authoritative; it makes you look all the more like a jackass. Good luck with that.

"So, it took the collapse of the Red Sox to make you want to post. I simply found it odd that someone jumped full force into this thread for his very first two posts."

I go where my expertise and interests guide.

"And how do YOU know what the Red Sox revenue is and what exactly is going to the owners/investors???"

I don't need to, since I didn't state my point in terms of absolute dollars, like you did. I know what the Sox spent in '04-'06 and I know that they increased their revenues greatly in that span, yet did not increase payroll much. Knowing the absolute dollars obviously isn't necessary to draw the obvious conclusion. Get your head out of your ass.

"How do YOU know the balance sheet? THERE IS NO FUCKING WAY THAT THE RED SOX CAN SPEND "ON THE SAME MARGINS" AS THE YANKEES. THE YANKEE REVENUE DWARFS THE RED SOX."

I guess you lack a comprehension of the term "margins." Again, I'm not talking about absolute dollars. You might also want to check ESPN.com, which today ran a story stating that the Yankees have lost money over the last three years. This is because Steinbrenner is willing to spend his own money to fund the team. This is what owners do who really want to win. Apparently, the idiots in Boston just care about making money off their team. Well, they do make money. That's great. And the fans have to suffer through the garbage that was given them this year, as well as Theo's pie-in-the-sky fantasies about how great their prospects supposedly are.

"RED SOX OWNERSHIP REFUSES TO PLAY THE SAME GAME, AS IS THEIR RIGHT. THEIR OBLIGATION TO THE FANS IS TO FIELD A COMPETITIVE TEAM. WITHOUT THE CRUSHING INJURIES THEY HAD THIS YEAR, THE TEAM WAS COMPETITIVE TO A POINT. BUT NO TEAM HAS TO SPEND LIKE A DRUNKEN ASSHOLE MINI-STEINBRENNER JUST BECAUSE GEORGE DOES IT. YOU KNOW WHY?

LOOK AT THE TEAMS THAT HAVE WON SINCE THE END OF THE LAST STEINBRENNER DYNASTY. THERE IS ANOTHER WAY. YOU'RE DRINKING THE KOOL-AID IF YOU THINK THAT THE ONLY WAY TO CONTEND WITH THE YANKEES IS TO SPEND SPEND SPEND."

Then I sincerely hope that this is the last I hear from you about the Yankees payroll. If the payroll is not the main reason why the Yankees have won recently, then that's that. Apparently, you like to cry about payroll when it suits you, but cite it as less important when it doesn't.

"To say that their value on the trade market is diminished is simply asinine. The Sox asked the Braves about Andruw Jones. Their response was "Coco, Hansen and Lester". If you think that these growing pains have done anything to reduce their value, you are every bit as stupid as 99% of what you have posted."

Let me get this straight... you think that the trade value of any of these prospects *increased* or stayed the same since their horrible performances in the majors??? By comparison, check out Coco Crisp, a young player who was cited early on as a good value pickup by the Sox. At the trade deadline, they couldn't GIVE the guy away. So you think that the same reasons why Crisp's trade value declined (sub-par performance over a relatively small sample of games) will have no bearing on the trade values of these other players, whose performances were also sub-par? I'm not saying that the floor fell out on them, I said that their trade values declined. Had they played well, their values would have increased. This is a fairly simple concept, is it not?

"[PENA] IS ONLY 24. Time will tell - and time is most assuredly on his side."

Pena has no plate discipline and it is highly unlikely that he will put ever put together a 48 homer season. You sure are good at coming to unrealistic, unsupportable conclusions about your players. Why did no other team want this future 50-home run guy, I wonder...

"As for your list of players "allowed to walk" or "given more attractive offers":

SCHILLING WASN'T A FREE AGENT.

CLEMENS RETIRED."

Please, I'd love to see where I said anything about Schilling walking. I used Schilling in the context of the teams competing for the same players. The Yankees wanted Schilling but the Sox gave him the better offer. When you have so many fundamental problems with reading comprehension, it's no surprise that higher-level reasoning poses such obstacles as well...

[sheldonm]

I've been sick of this Yankees/RedSox thread since the beginning of the season.....it's finally starting to get interesting!

Mark~

[GregK]

I've been sick of this Yankees/RedSox thread since the beginning of the season.....it's finally starting to get interesting!

Mark~

[GregK]

Uhh, the yankees won in 96 because the Braves choked so terribly- they lost it and the yankees were there to vulture the title from the Braves.

[BERIGAN]

Rowand out 4-6 weeks w/ broken ankle

He is really lucky he didn't break his neck! I think his head left a slight dent in the field. I hope someone did an MRI on his neck....

[BERIGAN]

Uhh, the yankees won in 96 because the Braves choked so terribly- they lost it and the yankees were there to vulture the title from the Braves.

Bobby Cox. Best manager during season* Booby Cox. Worst post season manager. Ever.

*This season has shown he doesn't have a clue anymore, but teams still play hard for him.

[Dan Gould]

"And how do YOU know what the Red Sox revenue is and what exactly is going to the owners/investors???"

I don't need to, since I didn't state my point in terms of absolute dollars, like you did. I know what the Sox spent in '04-'06 and I know that they increased their revenues greatly in that span, yet did not increase payroll much. Knowing the absolute dollars obviously isn't necessary to draw the obvious conclusion. Get your head out of your ass.

"How do YOU know the balance sheet? THERE IS NO FUCKING WAY THAT THE RED SOX CAN SPEND "ON THE SAME MARGINS" AS THE YANKEES. THE YANKEE REVENUE DWARFS THE RED SOX."

I guess you lack a comprehension of the term "margins." Again, I'm not talking about absolute dollars. You might also want to check ESPN.com, which today ran a story stating that the Yankees have lost money over the last three years. This is because Steinbrenner is willing to spend his own money to fund the team. This is what owners do who really want to win. Apparently, the idiots in Boston just care about making money off their team. Well, they do make money.

So in order to win, one has to run a business at a loss? And that is the only way to win. You're reaching new levels of stupidity, so congratulations. Then you might want to check the Marlins in 2003, the Angels in 2002 and the White Sox in 2005. You might also take a look at the A's and this year's Tigers.

"To say that their value on the trade market is diminished is simply asinine. The Sox asked the Braves about Andruw Jones. Their response was "Coco, Hansen and Lester". If you think that these growing pains have done anything to reduce their value, you are every bit as stupid as 99% of what you have posted."

Let me get this straight... you think that the trade value of any of these prospects *increased* or stayed the same since their horrible performances in the majors??? By comparison, check out Coco Crisp, a young player who was cited early on as a good value pickup by the Sox. At the trade deadline, they couldn't GIVE the guy away. So you think that the same reasons why Crisp's trade value declined (sub-par performance over a relatively small sample of games) will have no bearing on the trade values of these other players, whose performances were also sub-par? I'm not saying that the floor fell out on them, I said that their trade values declined. Had they played well, their values would have increased. This is a fairly simple concept, is it not?

Their values have not declined whatsoever. Crisp was not "untradeable" he is the established player the Braves specifically asked for. Three weeks of poor performance do not effect the value of near-major league ready 23 year old pitchers. They don't help it but they don't hurt it either. For you to say that "had they played well, their values would have increased" only shows that with each successive post you write less intelligent things. No young player's trade value jumps in any way shape or form by having a good couple of weeks, or a good month. If he has a good year and looks ready to bust out, yeah, his value is higher. Beating the Yankees or blowing games wide open to the Yankees in a single series doesn't do a goddamn thing to their value.

"[PENA] IS ONLY 24. Time will tell - and time is most assuredly on his side."

Pena has no plate discipline and it is highly unlikely that he will put ever put together a 48 homer season. You sure are good at coming to unrealistic, unsupportable conclusions about your players. Why did no other team want this future 50-home run guy, I wonder...

Pena has no plate discipline, yet his OBP has jumped by 40 points over his career average, his BA is 50 points over his career average, and his SO rate has dropped 70 points. Apparently, in your world, such improvements at the age of 24 mean nothing, he is what he is and will never improve.

So, we have you, an asshole making pronouncements about what the future holds for young players, vs the learned opinion of professionals like GM Wayne Krivsky who stated that he "hated" to give up Pena but needed the pitching help and he predicted 45-50 homers per season within two years. If the Boston Globe website had a search function, I'd show you the quote. It appeared in the last 3 weeks, while Arroyo's failure to win his tenth game was leading people to re-evaluate that trade.

so: asshole spouting off on a BB

OR

baseball professional with 27 years in the business including holding scouting positions. Who's opinion gets more respect?

"As for your list of players "allowed to walk" or "given more attractive offers":

SCHILLING WASN'T A FREE AGENT.

CLEMENS RETIRED."

Please, I'd love to see where I said anything about Schilling walking. I used Schilling in the context of the teams competing for the same players. The Yankees wanted Schilling but the Sox gave him the better offer. When you have so many fundamental problems with reading comprehension, it's no surprise that higher-level reasoning poses such obstacles as well...

The Sox gave WHO the better offer??? They didn't give Schilling an offer, dumbass. They gave the Diamondbacks an acceptable offer and then convinced him to waive his no-trade. Don't start talking about reading comprehension when you're basic knowledge of facts is so limited.

Make sure your ass sticks around this BB because I intend to bring up all of these issues again when you're stupidity gets a dose of reality in 2007 and beyond.

[Dan Gould]

"[PENA] IS ONLY 24. Time will tell - and time is most assuredly on his side."

Pena has no plate discipline and it is highly unlikely that he will put ever put together a 48 homer season. You sure are good at coming to unrealistic, unsupportable conclusions about your players. Why did no other team want this future 50-home run guy, I wonder...

One more for you, dipshit. From the Sons of Sam Horn website:

Pena's top 5 Pecota comps are:

1. Jesse Barfield

2. Willie Stargell

3. Pete Incaviglia

4. Frank Howard

5. Charlie Spikes

Of that group of 5, the Barfield, Stargell and Howard comps are trending upward. The others are holding steady. On his top 20 comp list, in addition to those above, are Kirk Gibson, Tim Wallach, Greg Luzinski, Dale Murphy, Jose Canseco, Albert Belle and Jay Buhner, and *all* those comps are the ones trending upward, which seems like a pretty good sign to me.

If Pena's develops into Stargell or Howard, I'll be looking for you in the crowd at Cooperstown in about 20 years. But I'm not predicting that he will. All he has to do is be comparable to Belle, Murphy, Canseco, Gibson, and you will be proven a fool yet again.

Like I said, stick around. We'll be discussing this in this future.

[Heatwave]

You comprehension of baseball is incredibly low, which is unfortunate, since you have such a big mouth. You're also a disgusting human being, since your reaction to being shown that you are wrong is to attack the messenger. I only started insulting you after you began it yourself, and after you made yourself such an easy target.

You might want to learn to read (your many reading comprehension errors are going to be a serious problem for you if you continue to have such an egotistic persona), and you might want to learn basic things about baseball player analysis before you attempt to make substantive comments on the subject.

I'll be around, because publicly humliating troglodytic assholes such as yourself is quite enjoyable to me. You're my fucking bitch, and I'm going to continue treating you like one for so long as I deem appropriate. Enjoy the toilet that is the rest of your season, and 2007. You have a shitty general mananger who couldn't think his way out of a game of tic-tac-toe. And because of that you have a shit team. Enjoy, dipshit, enjoy.

And enjoy Willy Mo Pena, the homeless man's Mel Hall. I'll remember the comment about 48 home runs.

Edited August 23, 2006 by Heatwave

[Heatwave]

Uhh, the yankees won in 96 because the Braves choked so terribly- they lost it and the yankees were there to vulture the title from the Braves.

Agreed. '96 is definitely an example of a year when the best team didn't win it. But then so was '95, '97, '01, '02, '03, '04...

[Soulstation1]

dangerous dan and heatwave you guyzz just missed "SummerSlam"

can you two hold out until the next WWE PPV?

Edited August 23, 2006 by Soulstation1

[Big Al]

dangerous dan and heatwave you guyzz just missed "SummerSlam"

can you two hold out until the next WWE PPV?

[Big Al]

Geez, we've lost two in a row to the Devil Rays. We were winning while Buck was serving his suspension. If we could just get Millwood to throw at a guy, get Buck outta the clubhouse again for a few days....

Edited August 23, 2006 by Big Al

[HolyStitt]

dangerous dan and heatwave you guyzz just missed "SummerSlam"

can you two hold out until the next WWE PPV?

[Dan Gould]

You comprehension of baseball is incredibly low, which is unfortunate, since you have such a big mouth. You're also a disgusting human being, since your reaction to being shown that you are wrong is to attack the messenger. I only started insulting you after you began it yourself, and after you made yourself such an easy target.

Listen up, now shithead.

You've never shown me to be wrong in any single way. I on the other hand, have shown you to be wrong, for example, on the simple question of how the Red Sox acquired Curt Schilling: by making an offer TO THE DIAMONDBACKS, NOT HIM, as you asserted. Who's going to make who his bitch?

As for the rest of it,

You ASSERT that the Red Sox should spend more money. Why? Because you say so?

The fact is they are not. It is their right.

The fact also is that, regardless of how George Steinbrenner spends money at a net loss to field the "best" team, teams that take different approaches can still win, if they reach the playoffs. It may very well be impossible to compete across 162 games against a 210 million dollar payroll, but thank heaven for the WC. Anything can happen in the playoffs, and the goal of the organization remains to REACH the playoffs or have an excellent chance, by winning 95 games at minimum.

You ASSERT that the youngsters trade value has declined and Theo is now "stuck" with them, yet you are NOT A GM and have NO KNOWLEDGE whatsoever of what their trade value is, or for that matter, was.

You ASSERT that Pena is a worthless ballplayer, and I have given you countless reasons why he continues to develop and has a very high ceiling:

A respected GM predicts 40-50 homers per year by the age of 26.

His homer rate per PA in 2004-2005 SUPPORTS 45+ homers over a single season.

His BA, OBP and strikeout rates have all shown significant improvement this season.

His PECOTA comparables include many players who are HoF members or had solid near HoF careers.

To this, you simply say ... nothing other than "he has no plate discipline" and "he's Mel Hall". Just as you know NOTHING about trade values, you know NOTHING about ballplayer evaluation. You're not a scout, you don't work in a front office, and you can't even cite statistics to suggest that my projections are off the charts, as I actually have STATISTICAL EVIDENCE to support my assertions.

Your assertions are supported by what?

Your own pathetic insistence that a team must spend to the absolute maximum possible. I got it-you're a member of the staff of the player's union, right? That's why you hate the Red Sox for not spending more money on free agents.

Your own self-serving assumption about declining trade values of young players.

Your own claims that have no statistical backing whatsoever and are contradicted by the opinions of baseball professionals as well Baseball Prospectus.

Glad you're sticking here, and please, oh please make me your bitch, sir.

When you get a break though, take a look at "My Controls" and then scan down the left column for options. You get one chance to guess where you'll be, which is one more chance than you'd ever get to earn a living peddling your supposed baseball expertise.

[Big Al]

Nice article about a true great, Julio Franco. This guy should be the one who gets displayed as a real "baseball hero." I loved him when he was a Ranger, and have had nothing but the utmost respect for him since then.

Still playing after all these years

By DON BOWMAN

Star-Telegram Staff Writer

Have you ever wondered about things that are really old?

You know, the things that have been around forever, or at least seem to have been?

Stonehenge...The Great Wall of China...The California redwoods...The pyramids... Julio Franco.

Unlike some of the others, however, there seems to be no explanation for Franco.

The New York Mets utility infielder celebrates his 48th birthday today and is still contributing to a first-place team. The former Texas Rangers All-Star second baseman doesn't play every day now, but he's still hitting .274 and his next error will be just his second for the 2006 Mets. No longer a star, Franco is still a wonder.

Franco made his debut April 23, 1982, going 1-for-4 against the St. Louis Cardinals and Bob Forsch in a 9-2 Philadelphia loss. For an idea how long ago that was, it would be almost 15 more months before Rangers pitcher Edinson Volquez was born.

The game has changed a lot since then, but Franco hasn't. Except for getting older. Franco still loves the sport and has never given up on his ability.

"The game is much faster and the players are much more athletic," he said recently. "But I've never lost faith in myself.

"As long as you continue to believe in yourself, it doesn't matter what other people think," said Franco, who has been in and out of the majors several times since he began. "I take that positive approach in everything I do in my life."

It helps when you work at something, even when you're successful.

"I've never seen a player hit a ball harder than Julio did the year he led the American League in hitting [.341 in 1991]," said Rangers broadcaster Tom Grieve, who was then the team's general manager. "It seemed he made one or two outs a game that somebody made great plays on.

"Part of it was talent, of course, but most of it was his work ethic. He was always in the weight room, always working. In the early 1990s I wouldn't have said anybody would still be producing in 2006, but if I was asked to pick one player who could do it, it would be Franco. There's probably not 10 players now in better shape than he's in. He was, and is, a freak of nature."

When he was an All-Star with the Rangers, Franco was well-respected by his teammates, and not just because he hit .307 in his five years with the team. The respect hasn't disappeared almost 15 years later.

"I think the youngsters [on the Mets] respect me for what I have done with my career," he said. "I think they respect the fact that I [am old enough to] be some of their fathers and I am still putting on a uniform."

And the uniform isn't coming off yet. Franco has another year left on his contract and intends to fulfill it.

"It has been my goal to play until I am 50 and that's still what I want to do. I feel great," he said. "I want to be part of this franchise as long as I can."

Which makes one wonder, who'll be around longer? The Mets or Franco?

IN THE KNOW

Ageless wonder

Julio Franco, who was born Aug. 23, 1958, is a walking entry in a baseball encyclopedia. Some quick hits on what he's seen and done in his years in baseball:

Hometown hero: Played five seasons for the Rangers, hitting a combined .307 with 388 runs scored and 331 RBI despite being injured for most of the 1992 season.

Pick a team, any team: In his major league career, he's played for the Phillies, Indians, Rangers, White Sox, Indians again, Brewers, Devil Rays, Braves and Mets. Through Monday he had a lifetime average of .299 with 1,273 runs scored and 1,168 RBI. (Lifetime avg. .299!! DAMN!!!!!)

Pick a league, any league: He hasn't restricted himself to the majors. Franco has played in the majors (and minors of course) but also has had stints in the Mexican League, the Japanese League, the Dominican Winter League and the Korean League. In his 26-year career, he has more than 4,100 hits.

Remember me? In his rookie season, Franco finished second in the Rookie of the Year voting to Chicago's Ron Kittle and just ahead of Baltimore's Mike Boddicker. Kittle retired 15 years ago and Boddicker 13.

Filling the record book: No other position player has had over 100 at-bats past the age of 46. He's the only active player who was born in the 1950s, he's the oldest player to hit a home run, a grand slam, a pinch-hit home run, two homers in a game and steal two bases in a game. In July, he became the oldest player ever to pinch run. And the list goes on.

He's so old...: When he was 46, Franco set a record for most at-bats for somebody that age, breaking the mark of 38, held by pitcher Charlie Hough. Reliever Dave LaRoche pitched in Franco's first game with Philadelphia. Before he joined the Mets, LaRoche's son Adam was Franco's platoon partner at first base with Atlanta.

Sources: mlb.com; The Washington Post; Baseball Encyclopedia, Rangers Media Guide

[Dan Gould]

The way Franco takes care of himself, I could almost imagine him at the age of 60 still employed as a legit pinch-hitter. No Minnie Minoso BS appearances for him - he'd be up there, with 1% body fat, working the pitcher.