2007 Hot Stove League Thread

[Brownian Motion]

The New York Times

Printer Friendly Format Sponsored By

December 8, 2007

Op-Ed Contributor

Union-Busting at the Hall of Fame

By FAY VINCENT

Vero Beach, Fla.

THE National Baseball Hall of Fame, itself based on the historical error that baseball was invented in Cooperstown, N.Y., has just let one go right through its legs. On Monday, a committee of 12 baseball executives, newspaper reporters and former executives and players posthumously elected Bowie Kuhn, the earnest but unsuccessful former commissioner, to the Hall while overlooking Marvin Miller, the former union leader who dragged baseball, against strenuous resistance, into the modern age of labor relations. There is simply no way to comprehend this absurd decision by the Veterans Committee.

Here are some facts that even this historically challenged committee would have to acknowledge as accurate. Free agency came to baseball during Kuhn’s tenure. He fought it with the owners’ total support. The concept of baseball players having the same legal rights as the rest of us to bargain with their employers on even terms caused Kuhn to warn that baseball might not survive such a cosmic alteration in the relative power of the two sides.

Kuhn’s devotion to baseball was genuine, but his judgment was not sound. He was unwilling to seek middle ground with the baseball players’ union, despite protracted legal battles that the union repeatedly won, because to have done so might have cost him owner support and even his job. And he loved the job and title.

When Andy Messersmith, a pitcher for the Los Angeles Dodgers, sought free agency in 1975, the arbitrator in the case encouraged Kuhn and the owners to settle on the best available terms. Kuhn arrogantly dismissed the suggestion. He took the ridiculous legal position that he and his side would have the arbitrator’s decision overturned in federal court. Of course, he was wrong, and free agency has now become an accepted part of baseball.

During the era of free agency, baseball has profited beyond all possible expectations, with owners and players making enormous amounts of money. It is not possible to study that history without wondering how much baseball would have prospered in the 1970s and early 1980s had Kuhn provided better leadership at a much earlier stage.

The decision by the Hall to overlook Miller is grounded in a bad reading of history. Miller had a bigger impact on baseball than any commissioner, owner or player in the past 40 years. Part of his legacy is a powerful, well-run union. The more important part is the present legal and financial structure of the sport, including free agency, arbitration and the enormous pension and benefit programs for the players, all due largely to his efforts.

Miller was much smarter and more talented than Kuhn. Though not a lawyer, he was a public relations genius. He had been an economist with the United Steelworkers when he became the executive director of the players’ union. Miller presented the economic issues in baseball largely in moral terms. Kuhn was the lawyer who argued against change. Miller argued against evil. Guess which was more appealing?

Kuhn permitted Miller to portray the owners as unenlightened and mean-spirited rich men while casting the players as downtrodden and benighted workers who wanted only to be treated fairly. The owners never had a chance.

When Kuhn was pushed out of baseball — as I was years later — he went back to his law firm. In 1988, he and another lawyer started a new firm that was expected to be a grandly successful practice. At the end of 1989, Myerson & Kuhn filed for bankruptcy. At this point, Kuhn moved to Florida — a move that his creditors’ lawyers said was made to claim the protection of that state’s homestead exemption.

Under that law, the home of a debtor may not be used to satisfy debts, and so Kuhn, with a large, valuable and recently purchased Florida residence, was literally home free. In effect, he thumbed his nose at the banks and court in New York, and he left his partners, some of whom he had vigorously recruited, holding a huge empty bag. One such former partner, a tax expert, complained bitterly to me when I was in baseball. He has since died but I wonder how he would have felt about this latest honor by an institution that claims to value character when it considers candidates.

The members of the committee that elected Bowie Kuhn and passed on Marvin Miller should feel ashamed. But they do not. They almost surely believe that Miller and the union won the war, but they refuse him the honor of his victory. This is a set of actions by little men making small-minded decisions. Electing Kuhn and Miller together might have been a tolerable result. But electing Kuhn alone is intolerable.

These are old men trying to turn back time, to reverse what has happened. Theirs is an act of ignorance and bias. I am ashamed for them. I am ashamed that they represent our game.

Fay Vincent was the commissioner of Major League Baseball from 1989 to 1992.

[Dan Gould]

I completely agree with what Vincent writes. Kuhn was a fool and an embarrassment (I'll show up for a World Series game in short-sleeves to "prove" its not cold) and has been noted in other commentary, he actually thought he had the power as commissioner to take the Messersmith decision out of the arbitrators hand, by fiat.

It shouldn't be surprising though that a Veteran's committee made up of old upper management baseball people would vote Kuhn in and not Miller. What is sad is that before, when the players were involved in the vote, Miller couldn't get elected either. All of these rich players owe an enormous debt of gratitude to him, yet they couldn't vote him into the Hall?

[Quincy]

But, good players do start to suck for no good reason. Dale Murphy looked like a sure fire HOF'er around Andruw's age as well. WORF, BORK, whatever, can't predict that stuff!

Ouch! You're right too. Say, not to make it sound like I wasn't listening as you just said "no good reason," but are there any theories as to why Murphy did indeed, just start sucking.

A refresher with old-time stats :

1987-Age 31-44 HR, 105 RBI, .295/.417/.580

1988-Age 32-24 HR, 77 RBI, .226/.313/.421

It didn't get any better in the following years, and yet he still played full time until 1992.

Was it his back? Eyesight? Too much clean living. It's one of the great mysteries of our time.

[Quincy]

I'm not arguing that these stats are BS. I don't know if they are or not--occaisionally I have the inclination, but never the time, to read some of this stuff.

You obviously spend more time with it. What website material (that doesn't require $ or a secret handshake) would you recommend for reading about some of this stuff?

Wikipedia has some definitions. The more important ones, or at least often used are VORP, PECOTA, and to a lesser extent EqAvg (and other "Eq" stats.) Baseball Prospectus has a mix of pay & free, and it can be frustrating as a freeloader (which I am) finding just the free stuff without getting a teaser paragraph. But if you have the time & energy, just keep clicking a bunch and see what comes up, at least for one visit. Their books (with Baseball Prospectus in the title) might be in your public library too, which may be your best bet.

Other than perhaps what a good number for VORP and EqAvg, this stuff isn't automatic with me either, and I've bought the Baseball Prospectus book 3 out of the past 5 years. While I still love the game and I guess still qualify as a Stathead, I'm less so than I used to be and no longer spend as much time with it. Musical minutiae is pushing that stuff out of the brain!

I grew up inhaling the Bill James Abstracts. I didn't start with his homemade Xeroxed ones but '83 was fairly early on. I didn't always agree with some of the new stats. I thought VRBI (or Very Important RBI) was silly & a waste of time. After the Abstracts stopped, 2 years later he did 3 years of Baseball Book(s). Following that the Stats Scoreboards were great collections for career projections, attempts to measure fielding stats, and questions such as does lineup protection matter. That series died off and now Baseball Prospectus is what's left in the "best of" the stat field. They tend to take a more player oriented approach in their annual at least, and while there are some funny observations sprinkled throughout it's much more stat heavy than the old James stuff, and it starts to read like Klingon after awhile. It's been noted by others that Bill James is a good writer, and what a waste that he decided to devote his energy to baseball.

[Dan Gould]

Eric, you're a big step above me (I never bought a Baseball Abstract, for one) but I am curious how you view stats like VORP and WARP. Personally they lose me when they make the jump to "wins" but I do think that the VORP stat is worthwhile.

[BERIGAN]

But, good players do start to suck for no good reason. Dale Murphy looked like a sure fire HOF'er around Andruw's age as well. WORF, BORK, whatever, can't predict that stuff!

Ouch! You're right too. Say, not to make it sound like I wasn't listening as you just said "no good reason," but are there any theories as to why Murphy did indeed, just start sucking.

A refresher with old-time stats :

1987-Age 31-44 HR, 105 RBI, .295/.417/.580

1988-Age 32-24 HR, 77 RBI, .226/.313/.421

It didn't get any better in the following years, and yet he still played full time until 1992.

Was it his back? Eyesight? Too much clean living. It's one of the great mysteries of our time.

Eric, I really don't know why!!! Steroids perhaps? Kidding, kidding! If ever anyone didn't do them, it was him. I think I have heard his knees were some of the problem..... He sure didn't have a violent swing like Andruw does. And never, ever got fat like Andruw.

Sorta like what happened to Jim Rice, or an even better example,(because of the quick decline) George Foster! Seemed like soon after joining the Mets, he had a hole in his swing 2 feet wide! How'd the guy hit .320, hit 52 HR's and drive in 149 at age 27, to hitting .247 with 13 HR's 70 RBI's at age 33???

I loved Foster back in the day(I am sure you know what I mean, I bet you were a fan too! ) I still have a George Foster black bat! Don't think he is a HOF'er though. I don't know why Jim Rice isn't in, nearly .300 BA, 8 100+ RBI seasons back when that was something. 1451 RBI's for his career, plus playing in Boston. I know the media and he didn't get along that well, but still....

I don't think Murphy has quite the numbers, but...this wiki post makes some very good points as to why he could be one. Says when he finished up, his 398 HR's were 19th best all time !!!! (And Dan, you will like his thoughts on Bonds, I am sure! )

If you all are too lazy to click on the link, read this part at least.....

Murphy is regarded by many as one of the premier players during the 1980s. His best years were with the Atlanta Braves, appearing in the All-Star Game seven times, and leading the National League in home runs and RBI twice; he also led the major leagues in home runs and runs batted in over the 10-year span from 1981 to 1990. He led the National League in games, at bats, runs, hits, extra base hits, RBI, runs created, total bases, and plate appearances in the 1980s. He also accomplished a 30-30 season in 1983, at the time only the 6th player since 1922 to do so. His 1983 MVP year is the only time in major-league history a player has compiled a .300 batting average, 30 home runs, 120 runs batted in, 130 runs scored, 90 bases on balls, and 30 stolen bases with fewer than 10 times caught stealing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dale_Murphy

[Patrick]

Quincy,

Thanks for the leads. I guess what would be of most interest to me are articles that explain a stat, and then demonstrate why it is significantly better than something old-fashioned (like, for example, on base percentage). I too don't have much time for this. Too bad the internet didn't arrive when I was still in elementary school.

If one wanted to do some baseball research, are datasets available that include the play by play of every game? Perhaps requires some $$ and a secret SABR handshake. I have mild amounts of interest, but absolutely no time...

[Quincy]

Eric, you're a big step above me (I never bought a Baseball Abstract, for one) but I am curious how you view stats like VORP and WARP. Personally they lose me when they make the jump to "wins" but I do think that the VORP stat is worthwhile.

That's where I'm at too. I can get glassy-eyed when wins are brought in.

As a VORPy aside, I didn't bother win fantasy baseball until 4 years ago. I thought it used dumb stats, and that it was silly to reward W, SV, batting average but not OBP or slugging. I didn't want to become one of "those guys" who obsesses about his pretend team or be put in a position where you have to root against your real MLB team because of a fantasy player. But for social reasons I was asked to play in a couple of leagues and thought what the hell. I mean they may be friends, but I can beat those schmucks. I ended up using projected VORP as my main criteria for drafting. (Keeping the hitters under 32 and guessing at who might be injury prone were secondary factors.) Of the 5 teams I've had in the past 3 years I have 4 first place finishes and 1 2nd. So yeah, I like VORP lots. I believe!

[Quincy]

re. Murphy's decline

Sorta like what happened to Jim Rice, or an even better example,(because of the quick decline) George Foster! Seemed like soon after joining the Mets, he had a hole in his swing 2 feet wide!

There's been too much trade talk of the great players of today lately that I've forgotten my favorites of the '70s. Yeah, those are both 2 good examples, and like you say Foster even better. Foster's last year was spent on the '86 Mets. Of course he wasn't with them when they were winning the world series, he had finished his career wearing this beautiful uniform.

It's so much easier for me to remember the bad backs (Mattingly, Juan Gonzalez) or drugs (Parker, Strawberry) that I forget about guys who just lost it. I mean Foster didn't even get fat either, which is another thing that can lead to decline.

How'd the guy hit .320, hit 52 HR's and drive in 149 at age 27, to hitting .247 with 13 HR's 70 RBI's at age 33???

I loved Foster back in the day(I am sure you know what I mean, I bet you were a fan too! )

One of my favorite confrontations was a Monday Night Baseball telecast of the Cards vs. the Reds. I don't think it was the year Foster hit 52 because Al "The Mad Hungarian" Hrabosky still had his Fu Manchu, which idiot Vern Rapp made him shave off in his last Cardinal season. Would have been the 8th or 9th (it was the '70s, none of this 1 inning closer crap ) and Hrabosky stepped off the mound rubbed the ball and went through his motions to psyche himself (and the crowd) up. Electric crowd, Foster's black bat wiggling. Foster jacked it. I suppose I should dig into Retrosheet sometime to see if I could find it.

I still have a George Foster black bat! Don't think he is a HOF'er though.

He's in the Hall of the Very Good. It's a special place, with many players who I liked more than some Hall of Famers. Not that they were better than Hall of Famers, though for 3 or 5 years they were as good, if not better. Don Mattingly is there, Dave Parker, Dick Allen. Some guys like Dwight Evans are there where I personally could see getting into the real thing through some sort of future vets committee that valued defense, but that's not going to happen so into the Hall of Very Good he goes. Guidry is there, what the hell, the troublesome twins of Gooden & Strawberry. Al Oliver. It's a very good place to be.

I don't think Murphy has quite the numbers, but...this wiki post makes some very good points as to why he could be one. Says when he finished up, his 398 HR's were 19th best all time !!!!

For many years he was the focus of debates as to whether he was a Hall of Famer, and I'm pretty sure Bill James favored his entry back in the day, though I'm not sure where he stands now. In his 1994 book Whatever Happened to the Hall of Fame (which is kind of a mess) he predicted that Dale & Kirby Puckett would be elected in the HoF in 2008. (Poor Kirby.) Clemens got in last year. (Shows you how long ago 1994 was, um, nutrition & physical fitness-wise.)

I have a sneaky feeling some of this has been posted before, but I hope y'all cut me some slack, it's late.

[Dan Gould]

Quincy,

Thanks for the leads. I guess what would be of most interest to me are articles that explain a stat, and then demonstrate why it is significantly better than something old-fashioned (like, for example, on base percentage). I too don't have much time for this. Too bad the internet didn't arrive when I was still in elementary school.

If one wanted to do some baseball research, are datasets available that include the play by play of every game? Perhaps requires some $$ and a secret SABR handshake. I have mild amounts of interest, but absolutely no time...

Patrick,

Quincy mentioned Retrosheet - I have no idea if its a paysite or not but they've got the play-by-play for all, or nearly all, games in MLB history.

OBP is actually one of those relatively new stats that the sabre people love and the other people (say, those not named Ozzie Guillen) have grown to recognize as valuable. The one thing I think that non-sabre people should come to understand is that BA and RBIs are "old fashioned, not very valuable" stats (BA because there tends to be a lot of variation based on luck - line drive rates, batting average on balls in play spiking (that is the explanation of Jorge Posada's enormous BA jump), RBI because its dependent on your teammates (same for runs scored). For pitchers, wins and to a lesser extent, ERA, are considered passe. Wins are really no way to measure a pitcher's value but unfortunately a lot of people haven't gotten there yet.

Probably the biggest thing to appreciate about most of the new-fangled stats is that league and park effects are normalized for most of them. That alone makes comparisons more realistic and informative.

[Patrick]

Dan,

Agree with everything in your post. My comment about data sets is getting at the question of how easy would it be for someone to create (and then test against historic data) some new stat, perhaps where one takes a weighted average of other stats. I imagine the SABR-heads have game info collected in a massive dataset somewhere that they can filter/sort and then calculate accordingly. Just curious how accessible (including cost) that is. My view is that a new-fangled stat (that is hard to calculate given widely available data) needs to demonstrate that it is significantly better to be worth the effort (for us non-professionals--obviously the pros have the incentive/ability to crunch all sorts of numbers trying to make better personnel decisions).

Totally agree that wins is a pretty lousy way to measure starting pitchers, yet listening to ESPN blowhards (like that former Dodger/Indian/Giant/pitching coach/when does he run for office or start an accounting firm? Orel Hershiser) talk about how the Cy Young has to go to someone with 20 wins if someone won that many. The reasoning being something like "Cy Young won 500+ games, the award is about the wins...". Whatever.

[Quincy]

If one wanted to do some baseball research, are datasets available that include the play by play of every game? Perhaps requires some $$ and a secret SABR handshake. I have mild amounts of interest, but absolutely no time...

There's a high degree of testing by STATs and Baseball Prospectus in trying to fine tune their measures. While I can certainly understand the desire to have independent testing, I think it's fair to say that when examining the predictive value of their own measures these outfits can be very critical of their own (and other's) measures. I'm not really sure where one can go for free data sets - it all depends on what you want to test and how much detail is desired.

Over the years Bill James tweaked his "runs created" formula. Fielding measures such as Zone Ratings as get tune ups as well. One of the great debates about Zone Ratings had to do with Ken Griffey Jr.'s Mariner years in CF. He'd win gold gloves and many thought he was a fine CF, but his Zone Ratings were usually near the bottom in the league.

Fielding stats continue to be the most difficult, as one can't be charged with an error without touching the ball, so if you're so immobile that you don't get to a ball you can have a high fielding %. So that lead to new & different ways to score a game. Project scoresheet was one way; here's the hit location diagram at Retrosheet. I think there's another outfit that might even have a different system. As I said earlier, thankfully I don't know this stuff in the level of detail that I used to.

Has the pitchf/x tool appeared here?

It's by Josh Kalk. "Basically, what I have done is stored the 300,000+ pitches tracked by PITCHf/x into a database and added a simple form for users to query and then look at the location of where the selected pitches crossed home plate. Note that the perspective is from the catcher (or umpire) so a negative horizontal value is closer to a right handed batter. Currently, you can choose any pitcher or batter who has either thrown or been at the plate for 50 tracked pitches. You can also select the type of pitch thrown (e.g. Fastball, Curve, Splitter etc...) or any combination of the three as long as either a pitcher or batter is selected. This means you can look at all of the Curves Barry Zito has thrown, or all the change ups Geoff Jenkins has flailed at, or match ups like Brad Penny against Barry Bonds, or whatever you would like."

I usually roll my eyes at people who don't like sports who whine about wasting one's time on baseball when instead we all should be out curing cancer and working for world peace. But sometimes I do wonder if maybe too much time is being spent on this stuff. (Actually given all the money at stake, it makes perfect sense.)

Edited December 9, 2007 by Quincy

[Dan Gould]

Totally agree that wins is a pretty lousy way to measure starting pitchers, yet listening to ESPN blowhards (like that former Dodger/Indian/Giant/pitching coach/when does he run for office or start an accounting firm? Orel Hershiser) talk about how the Cy Young has to go to someone with 20 wins if someone won that many. The reasoning being something like "Cy Young won 500+ games, the award is about the wins...". Whatever.

The one defense I can give for Hershiser's position is that W's are what get a pitcher the big bucks. So as a pitcher, he thinks W's are the deciding factor in who is great, good and so-so.

[BERIGAN]

re. Murphy's decline

Sorta like what happened to Jim Rice, or an even better example,(because of the quick decline) George Foster! Seemed like soon after joining the Mets, he had a hole in his swing 2 feet wide!

There's been too much trade talk of the great players of today lately that I've forgotten my favorites of the '70s. Yeah, those are both 2 good examples, and like you say Foster even better. Foster's last year was spent on the '86 Mets. Of course he wasn't with them when they were winning the world series, he had finished his career wearing this beautiful uniform.

It's so much easier for me to remember the bad backs (Mattingly, Juan Gonzalez) or drugs (Parker, Strawberry) that I forget about guys who just lost it. I mean Foster didn't even get fat either, which is another thing that can lead to decline.

How'd the guy hit .320, hit 52 HR's and drive in 149 at age 27, to hitting .247 with 13 HR's 70 RBI's at age 33???

I loved Foster back in the day(I am sure you know what I mean, I bet you were a fan too! )

One of my favorite confrontations was a Monday Night Baseball telecast of the Cards vs. the Reds. I don't think it was the year Foster hit 52 because Al "The Mad Hungarian" Hrabosky still had his Fu Manchu, which idiot Vern Rapp made him shave off in his last Cardinal season. Would have been the 8th or 9th (it was the '70s, none of this 1 inning closer crap ) and Hrabosky stepped off the mound rubbed the ball and went through his motions to psyche himself (and the crowd) up. Electric crowd, Foster's black bat wiggling. Foster jacked it. I suppose I should dig into Retrosheet sometime to see if I could find it.

I still have a George Foster black bat! Don't think he is a HOF'er though.

He's in the Hall of the Very Good. It's a special place, with many players who I liked more than some Hall of Famers. Not that they were better than Hall of Famers, though for 3 or 5 years they were as good, if not better. Don Mattingly is there, Dave Parker, Dick Allen. Some guys like Dwight Evans are there where I personally could see getting into the real thing through some sort of future vets committee that valued defense, but that's not going to happen so into the Hall of Very Good he goes. Guidry is there, what the hell, the troublesome twins of Gooden & Strawberry. Al Oliver. It's a very good place to be.

I don't think Murphy has quite the numbers, but...this wiki post makes some very good points as to why he could be one. Says when he finished up, his 398 HR's were 19th best all time !!!!

For many years he was the focus of debates as to whether he was a Hall of Famer, and I'm pretty sure Bill James favored his entry back in the day, though I'm not sure where he stands now. In his 1994 book Whatever Happened to the Hall of Fame (which is kind of a mess) he predicted that Dale & Kirby Puckett would be elected in the HoF in 2008. (Poor Kirby.) Clemens got in last year. (Shows you how long ago 1994 was, um, nutrition & physical fitness-wise.)

I have a sneaky feeling some of this has been posted before, but I hope y'all cut me some slack, it's late.

Eric, you did all this fancy quotin' stuff....hope what I write back makes some sense!

I remember George Foster going to the White Sox, and I think he even hit a home run his first game!(Saw highlights on CNN Sports, back when they Had Nick Charles and Fred Hickman) Didn't do much after that homer though....

And mention of "The Mad Hungarian", and Vern Rapp, good and bad memories there! Wish I had seen the game you remember! I loved Al and his Shtick....Just looked him up, can't believe his last game for the cards was 1977! I must have seen him that last year at one game. I seem to recall the fans booing a bit when he came out, which really confused me(Now that I see he had a 4.33 that year, makes some sense) He got the job done that day though..... Believe it or not, I can't recall if I became a fan of the Cards in 1976 or 1977.

Vern Rapp, one name I am not crazy about (Whitey Herzog and Dane Iorg are others, but that is another story for another day)

Edited December 10, 2007 by BERIGAN

[Big Al]

Amid all the free-agent signings go on this year, and do the Rangers land? Milton Bradley. Milton fucking Bradley.

I swear, I may not even post on next year's baseball thread. It'll get boring typing "Well, Rangers lost again" every damn day.

[Patrick]

Could be worse, Al, you could be a Brewers fan watching them sign Eric Gagne to a one year $10M (plus incentives) deal. ...A bit rich for a guy with recent performance issues, I'd say.

[zen archer]

It looks like the Santana deal for the Sox is still in the works , now the Twins are interested in the Ellsbury

part of the deal .

[Dan Gould]

It looks like the Santana deal for the Sox is still in the works , now the Twins are interested in the Ellsbury

part of the deal .

It doesn't surprise me but I think that the writers are just looking for something to report. I am kind of surprised that they can't sweeten the deal with a fourth prospect to get it done, but maybe there's a chance of a really terrific Christmas present in the next two weeks.

[zen archer]

It looks like the Santana deal for the Sox is still in the works , now the Twins are interested in the Ellsbury

part of the deal .

It doesn't surprise me but I think that the writers are just looking for something to report. I am kind of surprised that they can't sweeten the deal with a fourth prospect to get it done, but maybe there's a chance of a really terrific Christmas present in the next two weeks.

Thats what Felger said last night, he thinks the Twins are trying to bait the yankees back into the deal and are using the Sox. He also said which is a good point , if the Sox really want to complete this deal they would just put in lester with ellsbury and prospects. That should get the deal done .

Felger also said that Masterson is really just a middle relief guy ???.....I thought this guy was suppose to be

a future ACE ?

[Matthew]

It looks like the Santana deal for the Sox is still in the works , now the Twins are interested in the Ellsbury

part of the deal .

It doesn't surprise me but I think that the writers are just looking for something to report. I am kind of surprised that they can't sweeten the deal with a fourth prospect to get it done, but maybe there's a chance of a really terrific Christmas present in the next two weeks.

Thats what Felger said last night, he thinks the Twins are trying to bait the yankees back into the deal and are using the Sox. He also said which is a good point , if the Sox really want to complete this deal they would just put in lester with ellsbury and prospects. That should get the deal done .

Felger also said that Masterson is really just a middle relief guy ???.....I thought this guy was suppose to be

a future ACE ?

I wonder if the Yankees are thinking about how high their payroll can go. With ARod's salary, then Santana's, plus the re-signings, their payroll has to be sky-high, even for them. I'm also think everyone is waiting for the Mitchell report to come out tomorrow. Any signing will take second place to that for awhile.

Edited December 12, 2007 by Matthew

[Dan Gould]

Its been suggested that the Yankees backed off Santana because of payroll concerns. When you consider that their payroll is around 200 million right now and since they already pay the tax at the highest rate, 22 million a year to Santana actually equals 30.8 million. Its the same for the Sox, but with a 150 million dollar payroll, it doesn't seem quite as bad.

Close, but not quite as bad.

My guess is that the Herald has it right - they are sticking to their guns in terms of Lester OR Ellsbury, not both, and they feel good about any outcome:

The Twins give in and they get the best lefty in the league without giving up the farm;

The Yankees blink and add Kennedy, and the Yanks will put an inferior player in CF and lose two of their best pitching prospects;

Santana doesn't go anywhere and the Sox keep their prospects, which very well may be the best long-term outcome.

As for Masterson, I've heard different things, but it seems that at least the Twins see him as a superior setup man, perhaps a closer. He's very big - 6'7" and 250 - with a hard fastball/sinker combo. I know that his former coach, Tony Gwynn thinks he'll succeed as a starter but who knows?

[HolyStitt]

I know all the moves were outside of NY and Boston but nobody has anything to say about Rowand signing with the Giants, Tejada being to the Houston Astros or the Cubs signing Fukudome to a four year deal for $48 Million?

[Matthew]

I would hope that Houston at least looked at the Mitchell Report before trading for Tejada, if not, they might be regretting that trade tomorrow evening...

[BERIGAN]

I know all the moves were outside of NY and Boston but nobody has anything to say about Rowand signing with the Giants, Tejada being to the Houston Astros or the Cubs signing Fukudome to a four year deal for $48 Million?

This is an AL east coast only thread, don't ya know!

[Quincy]

...the Cubs signing Fukudome to a four year deal for $48 Million?

I read that Fukudome has been compared to J.D. Drew. As soon as I read that I heard Matthew & Noj snickering. One site noted he hit a little lighter in Japan than Godzilla (the Yankee) and is a little older than when Matsui made his US debut. So I suppose that comparison might be fair, as long as you don't include the baggage.

The Astros for Tejada looks deal looks like a lot of junk, though I say that without cracking the Prospectus so it's ill informed. But it almost looks like it's factored in that he made the Mitchell report. He could put up some pretty heady numbers hitting in that dopey lil' ballpark.

As for Rowand, while I can't imagine he'll be experiencing many wins anytime soon, he's a west coast guy, and he'll have a lot of money to spend in a beautiful town. There are worse things than to be young & rich in San Francisco.

Edited December 13, 2007 by Quincy