2007 Hot Stove League Thread

[Tim McG]

Dan,

All I'm saying is the numbers simply do not give you all the information necessary to determine a player's ability and value to a team.

Take for example Matt Cain. According to the numbers he should have been a 20 game winner. His ERA was excellent. What the numbers don't tell you is he would often fall behind early in the game and then get chased for the loss often well before the 6th inning.

The numbers do not take into account the weather [rainy, windy, cold, etc] on field decisions [manager took the pitcher out, left him in too long, errors caused the loss, pitcher was arm tired, etc], the mindset of the team [up or down day, dugout dust-ups, manager got tossed, etc] or any number of player/manager related and non-measurable events and conditions which drive the game as it is being played.

I live for the subtleties of the game, not the recording of the numbers found the next day in the paper or a website.

Edited November 9, 2007 by GoodSpeak

[Dan Gould]

Dan,

All I'm saying is the numbers simply do not give you all the information necessary to determine a player's ability and value to a team.

Take for example Matt Cain. According to the numbers he should have been a 20 game winner. His ERA was excellent. What the numbers don't tell you is he would often fall behind early in the game and then get chased for the loss often well before the 6th inning.

The numbers do not take into account the weather [rainy, windy, cold, etc] on field decisions [manager took the pitcher out, left him in too long, errors caused the loss, pitcher was arm tired, etc], the mindset of the team [up or down day, dugout dust-ups, manager got tossed, etc] or any number of player/manager related and non-measurable events and conditions which drive the game as it is being played.

I live for the subtleties of the game, not the recording of the numbers found the next day in the paper or a website.

If that's the case, then you shouldn't be remotely concerned if Matt Cain ever wins 20 games. Beyond that, informed opinion recognizes that traditional measures like W-L are not worthwhile measures of a pitcher's ability because they are virtually completely out of the control of a pitcher. A pitcher can't control whether his team gives him a lot of run support or very little. And no one would argue that one pitcher who goes 18-16 with an ERA of 5 is a better pitcher than one who went 6-17 with a an ERA of 3.35.

The simple fact is that "statheads" recognize Cain as a fine young pitcher. His ERA is strongly above the league average, his WHIP is very good and his strikeout-to-walk ratio is outstanding. And the statheads don't have to appeal to "heart of a champion" or "determination" or even "bad luck" as an explanation for his lack of wins. They know that he was surrounded by a poor offense, and they don't hold it against him, because they are smart enough to recognize that wins aren't a decent measure of a pitcher's ability.

Measures that a pitcher actually controls, like WHIP and strikeout ratios, are.

Your other factors ("The numbers do not take into account the weather [rainy, windy, cold, etc] on field decisions [manager took the pitcher out, left him in too long, errors caused the loss, pitcher was arm tired, etc], the mindset of the team [up or down day, dugout dust-ups, manager got tossed, etc] or any number of player/manager related and non-measurable events and conditions which drive the game as it is being played") Tend to even out over the course of a season, and when we're talking about statistics we are talking about season and career numbers, not individual results in individual games.

[Tim McG]

Dan,

All I'm saying is the numbers simply do not give you all the information necessary to determine a player's ability and value to a team.

Take for example Matt Cain. According to the numbers he should have been a 20 game winner. His ERA was excellent. What the numbers don't tell you is he would often fall behind early in the game and then get chased for the loss often well before the 6th inning.

The numbers do not take into account the weather [rainy, windy, cold, etc] on field decisions [manager took the pitcher out, left him in too long, errors caused the loss, pitcher was arm tired, etc], the mindset of the team [up or down day, dugout dust-ups, manager got tossed, etc] or any number of player/manager related and non-measurable events and conditions which drive the game as it is being played.

I live for the subtleties of the game, not the recording of the numbers found the next day in the paper or a website.

If that's the case, then you shouldn't be remotely concerned if Matt Cain ever wins 20 games. Beyond that, informed opinion recognizes that traditional measures like W-L are not worthwhile measures of a pitcher's ability because they are virtually completely out of the control of a pitcher. A pitcher can't control whether his team gives him a lot of run support or very little. And no one would argue that one pitcher who goes 18-16 with an ERA of 5 is a better pitcher than one who went 6-17 with a an ERA of 3.35.

The simple fact is that "statheads" recognize Cain as a fine young pitcher. His ERA is strongly above the league average, his WHIP is very good and his strikeout-to-walk ratio is outstanding. And the statheads don't have to appeal to "heart of a champion" or "determination" or even "bad luck" as an explanation for his lack of wins. They know that he was surrounded by a poor offense, and they don't hold it against him, because they are smart enough to recognize that wins aren't a decent measure of a pitcher's ability.

Measures that a pitcher actually controls, like WHIP and strikeout ratios, are.

Your other factors ("The numbers do not take into account the weather [rainy, windy, cold, etc] on field decisions [manager took the pitcher out, left him in too long, errors caused the loss, pitcher was arm tired, etc], the mindset of the team [up or down day, dugout dust-ups, manager got tossed, etc] or any number of player/manager related and non-measurable events and conditions which drive the game as it is being played") Tend to even out over the course of a season, and when we're talking about statistics we are talking about season and career numbers, not individual results in individual games.

Of course things even out, but the numbers simply cannot predict that eventuallity and tend to cloud the real reasons for a player's given success for the moment and for future bargaining power.

Barry Zito is another prime example of how stats do not tell enough about a player relative to his percieved value. According to his stats, he should have had a great year. Instead, he just plain sucked. Why is that, Dan? The numbers don't tell the whole story.

As to W-L records, I think it just a little more than an overstatement to say I should not be interested in that concept. It is how we determine a team's playoff spot and eventual WS berth. Not the same thing as ERA, OBP or the rest.

Edited November 9, 2007 by GoodSpeak

[alocispepraluger102]

i am eagerly awaiting the day when sporting event viewers will have an option to shut off garbage screen displays and useless tickers and endless replays of every play.

Amen aloc!

That's why I prefer listening to the radio over watching a football or baseball game on TV. On the radio they talk about the game. On TV they talk about the replay.

that's 2 of us.

i love radio for sports, too.

[Tim McG]

i am eagerly awaiting the day when sporting event viewers will have an option to shut off garbage screen displays and useless tickers and endless replays of every play.

Amen aloc!

That's why I prefer listening to the radio over watching a football or baseball game on TV. On the radio they talk about the game. On TV they talk about the replay.

that's 2 of us.

i love radio for sports, too.

That makes three.

The radio is awesome especially since it frees me up so I can go do other things instead of having to sit in front of the tube.

The bad news is you can't mute the commercials.

Edited November 9, 2007 by GoodSpeak

[Quincy]

And no one would argue that one pitcher who goes 18-16 with an ERA of 5 is a better pitcher than one who went 6-17 with a an ERA of 3.35.

Joe Morgan would, because the guy with 18 wins is a "winner."

[Dan Gould]

Just when I think I might be breaking through, that we might have some common ground, you start saying more ridiculous things.

Of course things even out, but the numbers simply cannot predict that eventuallity and tend to cloud the real reasons for a player's given success for the moment and for future bargaining power.

Cloud the real reason for a player's given success?

So we're back to the "heart of a champion" explaining David Ortiz' post-season record, instead of his BA, OBP or slugging. That is just plain stupid.

And his "real reasons ... for future bargaining power"?

Tell me, is Boras going to tell teams that A-Rod has tremendous determination, instead of reminding them that he is the youngest player to reach 500 home runs of all-time?

Again, that is just plain stupid.

Barry Zito is another prime example of how stats do not tell enough about a player relative to his percieved value. According to his stats, he should have had a great year. Instead, he just plain sucked. Why is that, Dan? The numbers don't tell the whole story.

The fact of the matter is that the "stat-heads" PREDICTED that Zito would CONTINUE his marked decline in performance which started immediately after his Cy Young season of 2002. Just because a stupid GM is foolish enough to offer him 140 million dollars (or whatever it was) doesn't make him anything other than the mediocre pitcher he has been for several years now.

Fewest pitches over 90 MPH in all of baseball

Less command of his curveball = fewer pitcher's counts, more of his 85 mph 'heater' and more hits.

And where do you possibly get off saying that according to his stats, he should have had a great year????

His ERA was 4.53, and worse than league average.

His WHIP was among the worst of his career.

His ERA WAS the worst of his career.

Fewest stikeouts of his career and worst strikeout-walk ratio of his career.

What part of the story of his suck-itude do the numbers NOT tell?

Here is a newsflash:

Stat heads predicted that he'd continue his decline.

His decline did continue.

What part of that don't you understand? Guess he lost his "heart of a champion" and you know how a big contract effects player's "determination".

As to W-L records, I think it just a little more than an overstatement to say I should not be interested in that concept. It is how we determine a team's playoff spot and eventual WS berth. No the same thing as ERA, OBP or the rest.

I can't believe that you are incapable of wrapping your mind around this simple concept.

WINS and LOSSES are a TEAM STATISTIC. That's why they determine a team's playoff spot.

Just because WINS and LOSSES are assigned to PITCHERS under arcane and oftentimes ridiculous rules doesn't make them a valuable way to evaluate PITCHERS.

Which pitcher do you want on your team, starting every fifth game?

Pitcher A:

Has the heart of a champion, but he lost his stuff about two seasons ago. Still has that great determination, though.

2007 record:

18-13. 4.50 ERA, which makes him a league average pitcher by that measurement.

Allows almost two batters to reach base per inning.

Walks more hitters than he strikeouts.

Scouting report:

Pitcher A makes the most of what has become mediocre stuff. Often gets shelled but usually hangs around long enough to get the win if his team scores enough runs.

Pitcher B:

No known "intangibles". Likes to party, too.

2007 record:

10-16. 4.50 ERA, which makes him a league average pitcher by that measurement.

Allows just over 1 batter to reach base per inning.

Strikes out 3 batters for every walk issued.

Scouting report:

Pitcher B has the proverbial million dollar arm and ten cent brain. Often makes hitters look foolish with his five pitch repertoire, but last season too many fly balls landed in the bleachers, and he also suffered from a lack of run support. Great stuff, doesn't seem to win very often though.

Can you possibly get it through your thick skull that Pitcher B is the superior player?

[Tim McG]

Just when I think I might be breaking through, that we might have some common ground, you start saying more ridiculous things.

Of course things even out, but the numbers simply cannot predict that eventuallity and tend to cloud the real reasons for a player's given success for the moment and for future bargaining power.

Cloud the real reason for a player's given success?

So we're back to the "heart of a champion" explaining David Ortiz' post-season record, instead of his BA, OBP or slugging. That is just plain stupid.

And his "real reasons ... for future bargaining power"?

Tell me, is Boras going to tell teams that A-Rod has tremendous determination, instead of reminding them that he is the youngest player to reach 500 home runs of all-time?

Again, that is just plain stupid.

Barry Zito is another prime example of how stats do not tell enough about a player relative to his percieved value. According to his stats, he should have had a great year. Instead, he just plain sucked. Why is that, Dan? The numbers don't tell the whole story.

The fact of the matter is that the "stat-heads" PREDICTED that Zito would CONTINUE his marked decline in performance which started immediately after his Cy Young season of 2002. Just because a stupid GM is foolish enough to offer him 140 million dollars (or whatever it was) doesn't make him anything other than the mediocre pitcher he has been for several years now.

Fewest pitches over 90 MPH in all of baseball

Less command of his curveball = fewer pitcher's counts, more of his 85 mph 'heater' and more hits.

And where do you possibly get off saying that according to his stats, he should have had a great year????

His ERA was 4.53, and worse than league average.

His WHIP was among the worst of his career.

His ERA WAS the worst of his career.

Fewest stikeouts of his career and worst strikeout-walk ratio of his career.

What part of the story of his suck-itude do the numbers NOT tell?

Here is a newsflash:

Stat heads predicted that he'd continue his decline.

His decline did continue.

What part of that don't you understand? Guess he lost his "heart of a champion" and you know how a big contract effects player's "determination".

As to W-L records, I think it just a little more than an overstatement to say I should not be interested in that concept. It is how we determine a team's playoff spot and eventual WS berth. No the same thing as ERA, OBP or the rest.

I can't believe that you are incapable of wrapping your mind around this simple concept.

WINS and LOSSES are a TEAM STATISTIC. That's why they determine a team's playoff spot.

Just because WINS and LOSSES are assigned to PITCHERS under arcane and oftentimes ridiculous rules doesn't make them a valuable way to evaluate PITCHERS.

Which pitcher do you want on your team, starting every fifth game?

Pitcher A:

Has the heart of a champion, but he lost his stuff about two seasons ago. Still has that great determination, though.

2007 record:

18-13. 4.50 ERA, which makes him a league average pitcher by that measurement.

Allows almost two batters to reach base per inning.

Walks more hitters than he strikeouts.

Scouting report:

Pitcher A makes the most of what has become mediocre stuff. Often gets shelled but usually hangs around long enough to get the win if his team scores enough runs.

Pitcher B:

No known "intangibles". Likes to party, too.

2007 record:

10-16. 4.50 ERA, which makes him a league average pitcher by that measurement.

Allows just over 1 batter to reach base per inning.

Strikes out 3 batters for every walk issued.

Scouting report:

Pitcher B has the proverbial million dollar arm and ten cent brain. Often makes hitters look foolish with his five pitch repertoire, but last season too many fly balls landed in the bleachers, and he also suffered from a lack of run support. Great stuff, doesn't seem to win very often though.

Can you possibly get it through your thick skull that Pitcher B is the superior player?

My point:

1. Statistics make poor predictors and determiners relative to player worth.

2. Team statistics do not coincide with individual statistics....player value/worth was the original point. Still, not the same thing.

3. So the StatHeads get it right once in a while. All that proves is the possibility exists, not the certainty.

Dan, why play the game if the numbers are all that matter? You simply cannot discount the intangibles of the game and the fact those are human beings down on the field, not numbers.

Heart matters. Enthusiasm matters. Potential matters. Numbers only reflect the recorded past performance and that is all they do. StatHeads try to will more out of those numbers then is realistically plausible.

Edited November 9, 2007 by GoodSpeak

[Dan Gould]

My point:

1. Statistics make poor predictors and determiners relative to player worth.

This is unbelievably stupid and nonsensical, when every agent, player and GM look at statistics to determine what player to attempt to sign, what to offer them, what to offer an arbitration-eligible player, what an arbitration-eligible player asks for.

Do you think that those arbitration hearings turn on discussions of "champion's heart" and "determination" and other such bullcrap?

NO. They are in depth discussions of how a particular player compares to his peers, and what those peers are being paid. It is ALL STATISTICS that determine a player's worth.

2. Team statistics do not coincide with individual statistics....player value/worth was the original point. Still, not the same thing.

3. So the StatHeads get it right once in a while. All that proves is the possibility exists, not the certainty.

No, let's put it another way. How about if YOU identify ANY PLAYER that the statheads get "wrong". ANYONE.

This goes back to what you have refused to answer all along: Name the player who is "great" whom the stat-heads do NOT identify as "great". I suggested David Epstein, because he is someone who's press far outruns the talent he has for baseball. You laughed. So WHO IS IT? You assert that the "possibility exists" - I am asking you to PROVE that stat-heads have been wrong about SOME PLAYER.

Just name him. PLEASE.

Dan, why play the game if the numbers are all that matter? You simply cannot discount the intangibles of the game and the fact those are human beings down on the field, not numbers.

Heart matters. Enthusiasm matters. Potential matters. Numbers only reflect the recorded past performance and that is all they do. StatHeads try to will more out of those numbers then is realistically plausible.

No one claims that stats define the outcome of a future game. The game is played, and anything can happen then. No one has ever asserted otherwise.

What is asserted is that statistical analysis is the sole way to determine who is great, terrible, and in between. Can a great player have a bad game, week, month or season? Uh, yeah. Can a terrible player have a great game, week, month or season? Uh, yeah, sometimes they do. Sometimes a terrible player comes up big in a big moment (hello, Bucky Bleeping Dent), to which stat-heads say "BFD". Anything can happen when a professional ballplayer steps up to the plate at a given time. It never changes in the least the fact that Bucky Bleeping Dent was a piece of shit shortstop.

The simple bottom line is that these "numbers" reveal far more about a player's skill (or lack thereof) and the likelihood of his continued performance (or lack thereof) than any appeal to "heart" or "potential". Yes, the outcome of individual games cannot be predicted. No one ever said they were.

[Tim McG]

My point:

1. Statistics make poor predictors and determiners relative to player worth.

This is unbelievably stupid and nonsensical, when every agent, player and GM look at statistics to determine what player to attempt to sign, what to offer them, what to offer an arbitration-eligible player, what an arbitration-eligible player asks for.

Do you think that those arbitration hearings turn on discussions of "champion's heart" and "determination" and other such bullcrap?

NO. They are in depth discussions of how a particular player compares to his peers, and what those peers are being paid. It is ALL STATISTICS that determine a player's worth.

2. Team statistics do not coincide with individual statistics....player value/worth was the original point. Still, not the same thing.

3. So the StatHeads get it right once in a while. All that proves is the possibility exists, not the certainty.

No, let's put it another way. How about if YOU identify ANY PLAYER that the statheads get "wrong". ANYONE.

This goes back to what you have refused to answer all along: Name the player who is "great" whom the stat-heads do NOT identify as "great". I suggested David Epstein, because he is someone who's press far outruns the talent he has for baseball. You laughed. So WHO IS IT? You assert that the "possibility exists" - I am asking you to PROVE that stat-heads have been wrong about SOME PLAYER.

Just name him. PLEASE.

Dan, why play the game if the numbers are all that matter? You simply cannot discount the intangibles of the game and the fact those are human beings down on the field, not numbers.

Heart matters. Enthusiasm matters. Potential matters. Numbers only reflect the recorded past performance and that is all they do. StatHeads try to will more out of those numbers then is realistically plausible.

No one claims that stats define the outcome of a future game. The game is played, and anything can happen then. No one has ever asserted otherwise.

What is asserted is that statistical analysis is the sole way to determine who is great, terrible, and in between. Can a great player have a bad game, week, month or season? Uh, yeah. Can a terrible player have a great game, week, month or season? Uh, yeah, sometimes they do. Sometimes a terrible player comes up big in a big moment (hello, Bucky Bleeping Dent), to which stat-heads say "BFD". Anything can happen when a professional ballplayer steps up to the plate at a given time. It never changes in the least the fact that Bucky Bleeping Dent was a piece of shit shortstop.

The simple bottom line is that these "numbers" reveal far more about a player's skill (or lack thereof) and the likelihood of his continued performance (or lack thereof) than any appeal to "heart" or "potential". Yes, the outcome of individual games cannot be predicted. No one ever said they were.

I don't disagree that statistics do reveal a player's past performance. No doubt. They just don't predict well.

Dan, all I'm saying is there is much more to the puzzle than numbers. I'll bet you dollars to donut holes that any agent worth his salt is going to look for much more than the numbers. Numbers are only part of the player not the player himself.

Team W-L is not directly related to individual stats. If that were the case, Nolan Ryan would have been to the WS 20 times. Guess what...he didn't go because the teams he played on sucked. True?

[Dan Gould]

I don't disagree that statistics do reveal a player's past performance. No doubt. They just don't predict well.

Actually, they predict very well. Its called Trend Analysis, and "stat heads" who looked at Zito's post-2002 numbers used it to predict that he'd have a mediocre season. He's been trending in the wrong direction for years, and it continued. So statistics do predict pretty well.

Dan, all I'm saying is there is much more to the puzzle than numbers. I'll bet you dollars to donut holes that any agent worth his salt is going to look for much more than the numbers. Numbers are only part of the player not the player himself.

The only possible non-statistical element I can think of that an agent would use is how promotable special players are, such as A-Rod, David Ortiz, and other "face of the franchise" types. That is a value that a player has that is separate (though related) to his statistics. But its a lot more tangible and definable than "heart of a champion" or "determination".

Team W-L is not directly related to individual stats. If that were the case, Nolan Ryan would have been to the WS 20 times. Guess what...he didn't go because the teams he played on sucked. True?

Actually, team W-L can be related to individual stats, and this relates to your statement above that "statistics ... don't predict well."

You see, Baseball Prospectus used PECOTA, an acronym for Player Empirical Comparison and Optimization Test Algorithm, to predict player as well as team performances. I am unable to find the page that predicted cumulative stats and W-L records for every team, but this page details the fact that PECOTA predicted that the Chicago White Sox would go 72-90 this season.

What was their record again? Oh yeah. 72-90.

So, individual stats can be related to team W-L records, and in point of fact, here is yet another example where statistics made damn good predictions.

[Tim McG]

I don't disagree that statistics do reveal a player's past performance. No doubt. They just don't predict well.

Actually, they predict very well. Its called Trend Analysis, and "stat heads" who looked at Zito's post-2002 numbers used it to predict that he'd have a mediocre season. He's been trending in the wrong direction for years, and it continued. So statistics do predict pretty well.

Dan, all I'm saying is there is much more to the puzzle than numbers. I'll bet you dollars to donut holes that any agent worth his salt is going to look for much more than the numbers. Numbers are only part of the player not the player himself.

The only possible non-statistical element I can think of that an agent would use is how promotable special players are, such as A-Rod, David Ortiz, and other "face of the franchise" types. That is a value that a player has that is separate (though related) to his statistics. But its a lot more tangible and definable than "heart of a champion" or "determination".

Team W-L is not directly related to individual stats. If that were the case, Nolan Ryan would have been to the WS 20 times. Guess what...he didn't go because the teams he played on sucked. True?

Actually, team W-L can be related to individual stats, and this relates to your statement above that "statistics ... don't predict well."

You see, Baseball Prospectus used PECOTA, an acronym for Player Empirical Comparison and Optimization Test Algorithm, to predict player as well as team performances. I am unable to find the page that predicted cumulative stats and W-L records for every team, but this page details the fact that PECOTA predicted that the Chicago White Sox would go 72-90 this season.

What was their record again? Oh yeah. 72-90.

So, individual stats can be related to team W-L records, and in point of fact, here is yet another example where statistics made damn good predictions.

Agreed....for the most part.

[Dan Gould]

Well, Mr. Deeley got his wish as the Phils re-signed JC Romero.

I gotta say though that I wouldn't be at all surprised if the Phils regret giving him a three year deal (plus an option year) for 12 million before its all over. This is a guy who took the one year deal with the Red Sox in order to re-establish his worth in the market. He's been on a downslide for a couple of years at least, mostly because he lost his feel for the strike zone. Rewarding three good months by paying him four million a year for three years is nuts. I like the Phils and hope they contend next year but I wouldn't be surprised if the fans are screaming for Romero's head sometime in 2008, certainly by 2009.

[HolyStitt]

Well, Mr. Deeley got his wish as the Phils re-signed JC Romero.

I gotta say though that I wouldn't be at all surprised if the Phils regret giving him a three year deal (plus an option year) for 12 million before its all over. This is a guy who took the one year deal with the Red Sox in order to re-establish his worth in the market. He's been on a downslide for a couple of years at least, mostly because he lost his feel for the strike zone. Rewarding three good months by paying him four million a year for three years is nuts. I like the Phils and hope they contend next year but I wouldn't be surprised if the fans are screaming for Romero's head sometime in 2008, certainly by 2009.

I second your evaluation.

When JC (or as I like to call him Just Crazy) was with the Twins his slide increased with each season and at times, toward the end, with each game. He became difficult for Gardenhire to control. The pattern was that he was going to blow the lead when he used in relief and would throw a tantrum when he had to be pulled. I think the final straw was when he walked off the field before Gardenhire had the chance to take the ball from him.

[Dan Gould]

Well, it really looked like Posada was going to hear other team's offers but that threat scared the Yanks into acquiescing to a huge four year, 52+ million dollar contract. He certainly picked the right year to have a career year, but four years at that price to a catcher who will turn 40 before the contract expires is pretty risky. And now the Yanks are looking at probably the same four year deal for Mariano, who will be 42 when that runs out! I don't think they've truly learned yet what it means to have an old roster, and now with Mike Lowell able to listen to offers from other teams, it will be interesting to see how the Yankees approach him. Will they give him four or even five years to snatch him away? Will they regret it as quickly as they regretted Damon's contract? That roster could still be filled with aging, declining stars three years from now, especially if they keep Matsui.

I have to say I am less than thrilled that Lowell is reportedly holding out for top dollar/years. Apparently the Red Sox have offered three years but his advisors are sure they can get four on the market. Seems to me that if he really wants to stay, a three year deal ought to be enough, especially since he's never struck me as having the Pedro Martinez Diva gene. And any buyer should beware: Lowell hit .373 at Fenway, which means he hit around .270 on the road. Can anyone expect him to duplicate his .320/120 RBI season if he's not hitting in the cozy confines?

Even though it leaves open the possibility of an A-Rod signing, I have confidence that Theo will do the right thing if he has to replace his third baseman, even if that third baseman goes to the Yankees.

[Chalupa]

Well, Mr. Deeley got his wish as the Phils re-signed JC Romero.

I gotta say though that I wouldn't be at all surprised if the Phils regret giving him a three year deal (plus an option year) for 12 million before its all over. This is a guy who took the one year deal with the Red Sox in order to re-establish his worth in the market. He's been on a downslide for a couple of years at least, mostly because he lost his feel for the strike zone. Rewarding three good months by paying him four million a year for three years is nuts. I like the Phils and hope they contend next year but I wouldn't be surprised if the fans are screaming for Romero's head sometime in 2008, certainly by 2009.

I second your evaluation.

When JC (or as I like to call him Just Crazy) was with the Twins his slide increased with each season and at times, toward the end, with each game. He became difficult for Gardenhire to control. The pattern was that he was going to blow the lead when he used in relief and would throw a tantrum when he had to be pulled. I think the final straw was when he walked off the field before Gardenhire had the chance to take the ball from him.

$4 M is about right for a set man in today's market and two years from now it might look like a steal. I know he had difficulties w/ the Sox/Twins but the guy was pretty darn good on/off the field for us. But, you guys are right - that contract is a big gamble. The length is definitely a cause for concern. Hopefully, it will not turn out like Freddy Garcia, Adam Eaton, etc., and he will solidify the bullpen. I tell you if Lidge, Romero, Flash stay healthy and pitch like they have the Phils have the makings of a good bullpen. But I admit these are mighty big "ifs".

I'm wondering what the Mets are gonna do now?

[Tim McG]

Any guesses on how much A-Rod will get next season?

I hear the Yankees refuse to bargain with A-Rod if Boras is in the room. I wonder if this might be the beginning of the end of Boras' stranglehold on baseball saleries?

If all else fails, think Boras will get Texas to take him back?

Edited November 14, 2007 by GoodSpeak

[Dan Gould]

Any guesses on how much A-Rod will get next season?

I hear the Yankees refuse to bargain with A-Rod if Boras is in the room. I wonder if this might be the beginning of the end of Boras' stranglehold on baseball saleries?

If all else fails, think Boras will get Texas to take him back?

have you heard the latest out of New York? Multiple New York media outlets are reporting that A-Rod - all by his lonesome - has approached the Yankees about coming back, that he realizes he made a mistake in opting out, and what can he do to make it right ... if the reports are to be believed, if A-Rod is willing to negotiate (without Boras' assistance or even his presence in the room) a below market deal, the Yankees would take him back. Which only makes sense given how much his offense means to their rapidly aging lineup. The question now is, will A-Rod really agree to take less money - far less money than Boras promised him - to go back to New York? Will he really swallow his pride, and go back and grovel in front of the Steinbrenners to get back in their good graces?

I guess there are two things to look for to know whether that may happen: Does he announce that he and Scott Boras have had a parting of the ways, and do the Yankees make a strong move for Mike Lowell or do they sit back to see whether A-Rod follows through?

[alocispepraluger102]

Any guesses on how much A-Rod will get next season?

I hear the Yankees refuse to bargain with A-Rod if Boras is in the room. I wonder if this might be the beginning of the end of Boras' stranglehold on baseball saleries?

If all else fails, think Boras will get Texas to take him back?

have you heard the latest out of New York? Multiple New York media outlets are reporting that A-Rod - all by his lonesome - has approached the Yankees about coming back, that he realizes he made a mistake in opting out, and what can he do to make it right ... if the reports are to be believed, if A-Rod is willing to negotiate (without Boras' assistance or even his presence in the room) a below market deal, the Yankees would take him back. Which only makes sense given how much his offense means to their rapidly aging lineup. The question now is, will A-Rod really agree to take less money - far less money than Boras promised him - to go back to New York? Will he really swallow his pride, and go back and grovel in front of the Steinbrenners to get back in their good graces?

I guess there are two things to look for to know whether that may happen: Does he announce that he and Scott Boras have had a parting of the ways, and do the Yankees make a strong move for Mike Lowell or do they sit back to see whether A-Rod follows through?

i smell boras lurking somewhere.

yanquis wouldnt deal with boras and no team wanted to pay $300 million.

yanquis are biggest suckers in baseball.

boras will get his cut, and the yankees will be overspending fools again. remember a broken down roger of clemens and his $18 million for a half season?

[Matthew]

I don't see any upside for ARod going back to the Yankees. That team is aging fast, isn't going anywhere in the next couple of years, and ARod will get hammered by the fans when things go wrong. I still think he'll wind up with the Angels, home team fans will be easy on him, he'll be in the Hollywood spotlight (along with the wife ), and the Angels will have an easy time winning the West. Don't see ARod and the Yankees happening, but who knows, stranger things have happened.

[Dan Gould]

I don't see any upside for ARod going back to the Yankees. That team is aging fast, isn't going anywhere in the next couple of years, and ARod will get hammered by the fans when things go wrong. I still think he'll wind up with the Angels, home team fans will be easy on him, he'll be in the Hollywood spotlight (along with the wife ), and the Angels will have an easy time winning the West. Don't see ARod and the Yankees happening, but who knows, stranger things have happened.

Then you are the only one who doesn't see it. Reports out of New York are that they are now discussing contract language and incentive clauses, which means they've reached agreement on the dollars and cents. If the reports are accurate - ten years, 275 million, then the upside is very obvious: by going and groveling, A-Rod still gets the richest contract he could have received, and as we all know, that is what matters to him (and his agent).

The upside for the Yankees is that the enormous hole in their lineup is filled - but signing him through age 42 is the height of insanity. His numbers will start to decline within three years (and probably won't match this season ever again anyway) and that will leave seven years of a 27 million dollar salary as he tries to pass Barry Lamar.

I was willing to see Lowell go if he decides that he has to get four years since this is the last big money/long term contract he'll sign. But if he does that and goes to New York to play first base, then he deserves all of the abuse that Boston should rain down on his head. OK, go for the money - but sign with the MFY to change positions? Its obvious at this point that Lowell was not serious about staying in Boston, and that it is all about the money. That's fine, he's entitled to do what he can to support his family. But I don't need to hear that he "wanted" to stay if the Red Sox, as reported, have made an offer of three years/ 13-15 million per year. That's plenty of money if you really want to be there.

What is ironic is that a team is signing him based on this season, when it is clear as day that Fenway (and maybe Philly) are the only stadiums where he has a chance to produce similar numbers. His road splits were very mediocre: .276 with 7 homers and 47 RBIs. He's going to improve on those numbers elsewhere as he hits his mid-30s?

Lowell would be well-advised to take what the Red Sox are offering, or go back with an offer in hand and let them sweeten it a bit. He'll never perform as well as he has in a Red Sox uniform.

[Matthew]

I don't see any upside for ARod going back to the Yankees. That team is aging fast, isn't going anywhere in the next couple of years, and ARod will get hammered by the fans when things go wrong. I still think he'll wind up with the Angels, home team fans will be easy on him, he'll be in the Hollywood spotlight (along with the wife ), and the Angels will have an easy time winning the West. Don't see ARod and the Yankees happening, but who knows, stranger things have happened.

Then you are the only one who doesn't see it. Reports out of New York are that they are now discussing contract language and incentive clauses, which means they've reached agreement on the dollars and cents. If the reports are accurate - ten years, 275 million, then the upside is very obvious: by going and groveling, A-Rod still gets the richest contract he could have received, and as we all know, that is what matters to him (and his agent).

The upside for the Yankees is that the enormous hole in their lineup is filled - but signing him through age 42 is the height of insanity. His numbers will start to decline within three years (and probably won't match this season ever again anyway) and that will leave seven years of a 27 million dollar salary as he tries to pass Barry Lamar.

----------------------------------------------------------

I understand what you're saying, but still, it just doesn't feel right, if you know what I mean. Then again, the way ARod / Boras have handled the situation has been very strange from the start: Announcement during game four, not really going after other teams for the money -- though, as you say, maybe no one is willing to shell out 300,000,000 for someone that will decline in years to come. Maybe ARod just isn't on board with what Boras is doing, but it seems to me if ARod waits a little longer, the atmosphere might change and other teams will go after him. Then again, there's always the incredible possibility that ARod really wants to stay with the Yankees, but if so, why all the drama that came at the end?

Edited November 15, 2007 by Matthew

[Dan Gould]

I understand what you're saying, but still, it just doesn't feel right, if you know what I mean. Then again, the way ARod / Boras have handled the situation has been very strange from the start: Announcement during game four, not really going after other teams for the money -- though, as you say, maybe no one is willing to shell out 300,000,000 for someone that will decline in years to come. Maybe ARod just isn't on board with what Boras is doing, but it seems to me if ARod waits a little longer, the atmosphere might change and other teams will go after him. Then again, there's always the incredible possibility that ARod really wants to stay with the Yankees, but if so, why all the drama that came at the end?

Maybe a legitimate change of heart? Maybe a realization that Boras had screwed the pooch by convincing him that the way to more riches with the Yankees was to opt out?

I'm also not sure that Boras isn't involved. There are multiple reports that he was at A-Rod's Miami home while A-Rod was in Tampa, hat in hand, having his heart-to-heart with the Steinbrenners. Its also being widely reported that the Yankees insist they never "excluded" Boras from negotiating - probably because they know that is a gross violation of the Player's Agreement.

[Dan Gould]

Everyone seemed to believe that once the Yankees showed Mariano Rivera the money, he'd sign. But now Rosenthal is reporting that he wants a fourth year added to the deal, is pissed off at Hank Steinbrenner for referring to his age when he told reporters about the 3 year/45 million dollar offer, and is pointing out that A-Rod will be 42 when his presumed deal is over, and that Posada got four years, and the current highest paid reliever, Wagner, got four years from the Mets (two years ago when he was 34).

http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/7450914

I thought the Yanks were being stupid offering him that much money til he's 41 years old, but this Yankee hater will get an even bigger laugh if the Yanks give in to Mo.

Let's see - in four years, the Yankee will have a catcher who is 40, a third baseman who is 36, a presumed closer who is 42, Jeter will be 37, and presuming that they keep Matsui when his current deal is up, he'll be 37 too. I guess its good since no one is impressed with the regular position talent that is down on the farm, but how can a team compete if four out of eight position players are stumbling around like Willie Mays in a Mets uniform, or at the very least, a shadow of themselves? And how many DHs can play in the lineup at one time?

I could very easily see the Steinbrenner boys presiding over a team with a 200+ million dollar payroll, and an under .500 record, just as they are settling into their new stadium. I hope George is completely gone, in spirit if not body, before that happens.

[Tim McG]

Any guesses on how much A-Rod will get next season?

I hear the Yankees refuse to bargain with A-Rod if Boras is in the room. I wonder if this might be the beginning of the end of Boras' stranglehold on baseball saleries?

If all else fails, think Boras will get Texas to take him back?

have you heard the latest out of New York? Multiple New York media outlets are reporting that A-Rod - all by his lonesome - has approached the Yankees about coming back, that he realizes he made a mistake in opting out, and what can he do to make it right ... if the reports are to be believed, if A-Rod is willing to negotiate (without Boras' assistance or even his presence in the room) a below market deal, the Yankees would take him back. Which only makes sense given how much his offense means to their rapidly aging lineup. The question now is, will A-Rod really agree to take less money - far less money than Boras promised him - to go back to New York? Will he really swallow his pride, and go back and grovel in front of the Steinbrenners to get back in their good graces?

I guess there are two things to look for to know whether that may happen: Does he announce that he and Scott Boras have had a parting of the ways, and do the Yankees make a strong move for Mike Lowell or do they sit back to see whether A-Rod follows through?

Yeah, I read about this in today's paper.

Personally, I think Boras blew his client's deal by coming out with that crazy money bottomline. I sincerely hope this ends Boras' influence in the market.