fromthestretch

Completely off topic here, but your avatar reminds me of a picture of a friend of mine that played baseball at Purdue. He was a left-handed hitter, and there was a photo of him with a beautiful followthrough on a swing. You could also see the catcher, getting ready to throw the ball back to the pitcher since it was a swing and a miss. We had to crop out the catcher so we could use the picture in the media guide. I only mention it since you're clearly on the followthrough of your swing, but you can still see the ball around your ankles. You should have someone Photoshop it out. :)

I know that. He was one of the best at power, and in the top 75 in not making outs. The only part of the game that was lacking was speed, and there are plenty of slow guys in the HOF. He wasn't bad defensively. In fact, for at least the first half of his career, he was pretty good with the glove. He excelled in two areas of the game. If you don't agree with that, that's fine, but the numbers prove that he was a dominant hitter.

All of those stats are reason why I think he falls short. All those stats show is that he was a completely one dimensional player. Actually, he did two things really well: hit for power (10th in career SLG%) and get on base (78th in career OBP). He certainly wasn't a liability defensively, and I can't blame him for the fact that he wasn't blessed with footspeed. Home runs are the best outcome of an at-bat. When you're one of the best all time at doing that, while maintaining a very high OBP, you belong in the HOF.

Define several. In the history of Major League Baseball, only 39 times has a player hit 50 or more home runs in a single season. Sure, there's a chance Dawson might have done it once or twice had he played in the late 90s, but I highly doubt he would have had several 50-homer seasons. Outside of his 49-homer season in '87, Dawson's next best home run season was 32 in 1983. I don't think it's safe to say he would have hit over 50 had he played in a slightly later era. Healthier knees would have helped Dawson more than a change in the era in which he played.

C'mon man. You'll vote for Big Mac but not for Dawson? Let's compare: Dawson: .279 BA, 2,774 hits, 1373 runs, 438 homeruns, 503 2B, 1591 rbi, 314 sb, 1 mvp, 8 gold gloves McGwire: .263 BA, 1626 hits, 1167 runs, 583 homeruns, 252 2B, 1414 rbi, 12 sb, no mvps, 1 gold glove Dawson was one of my favorite players when I was growing up, and no, I wouldn't put him in the HOF. The difference in OPS between the two is astounding (.982 to .805). McGwire has the 13th highest career OPS (and if you don't like that, he's tied for 11th all time in Adjsuted OPS+). On top of that, McGwire hit 145 more home runs in over 3100 fewer at-bats. He's seventh in career home runs, and first in at-bats per home run. He was one of the best power hitters of all time, while getting on base at a high rate. I'm not putting down Dawson in any way. He was a very good player. I just think he falls a little short.

$8 million per year for a guy that hasn't once pitched 200 innings in a season and has never had a season ERA below 4.00. On top of that, he's coming off a season that saw him pitch only 13 games. Insane.

I don't feel that either belong in the HOF, but I'm curious as to how you can vote for Jack Morris while not voting for Tommy John. While Dawson and Murphy were very good players, I think they both fall a little short of being considered HOF-worthy.

He actually wasn't all that bad defensively before injuries started to limit his range a bit. 583 homers and a career .982 OPS is good enough for me.

I agree that Ripken and Gwynn will probably be the only two to make it this year from the list. However, if voters are going to be too stubborn to vote for McGwire, then they should at least put that vote to good use and give it to Gossage. He should have been voted in awhile ago.

Unfortunately, you're probably right about that. Some sportswriters will feel they are making a statement by not voting for him the first time around. Then we'll get a week's worth of articles by those writers, trying to justify to the public why they didn't vote for him.

According to the article, the ballot consists of the following players: Harold Baines Albert Belle Dante Bichette Bert Blyleven Bobby Bonilla Scott Brosius Jay Buhner Ken Caminiti Jose Canseco Dave Concepcion Eric Davis Andre Dawson Tony Fernandez Steve Garvey Rich "Goose" Gossage Tony Gwynn Orel Hershiser Tommy John Wally Joyner Don Mattingly Mark McGwire Jack Morris Dale Murphy Paul O'Neill Dave Parker Jim Rice Cal Ripken Jr. Bret Saberhagen Lee Smith Alan Trammell Devon White Bobby Witt In my opinion, Gwynn, Ripken, Gossage and McGwire should all get in. Strong cases could be made for Blyleven, Trammell, Smith, Belle, and possibly even Rice, as well.

Seattle is great city. I can easily see why someone from that area would want to go back. Agreed.

Not sure if anyone else submitted this but, how about Chief Bender? http://www.baseball-reference.com/b/bendech01.shtml

Grant Balfour

Apparently someone's been Dusty-ized!!!!!! in 2004, CI hit .288 with a .330 OBP and 25 steals before getting hurt. i think he's the most logical candidate to start the season in the leadoff spot (if it's not going to be fonzie), but if he falters then you have to consider other options. i'm not at all advocating putting him there and leaving him no matter how he performs (which is what dusty would have done). i only like the idea of him there because of the speed he would provide leading off. A .330 OBP doesn't make him a logical candidate to leadoff. If he's batting any higher than eighth, I'd be upset. His speed does no good at the top of the order if he isn't on base enough to use it. If Soriano isn't leading off, I'd put Murton up there. If Soriano is leading off, I'd bat Murton second.

Except for in the second half of 2006, when he posted a 3.12 ERA and struck out 35 in 34.2 innings, while holding opponents to a .198/.277/.347 line. I'm not saying that I oppose the trade, but Aardsma certainly showed that he can be a successful reliever. I'm not saying Aardsma will never succeed, just that he hasn't proven it for anything that would be considered a decent period of time. One half of a season, on a team that was out of contention, doesn't qualify as proof IMO, that's all. Cotts did it for a whole year on a WS Champion. A bit different, wouldn't you agree? I wish Aardvark all the best. I hope he does well, and he certainly might. I'm not comparing Aardsma to Cotts. You said Aardsma hasn't shown that he'll be able to succeed at all. His performance this year shows that he certainly can succeed. Regardless of whether or not the Cubs were in contention, Aardsma still had pressure to prove he could get the job done and pitch at the major league level, and he did just that. I'm not saying it's a bad trade. Cotts gives the Cubs four potential left-handers out of the pen (Eyre, Ohman, and Rapada being the other three). That gives them some flexibility to trade one of them for something of value, and if they're able to use that to their advantage, I'm certainly not going to badmouth this deal.

Except for in the second half of 2006, when he posted a 3.12 ERA and struck out 35 in 34.2 innings, while holding opponents to a .198/.277/.347 line. I'm not saying that I oppose the trade, but Aardsma certainly showed that he can be a successful reliever.

Smoltz Peavy Hudson Chuck James That's a good front four for a rotation.

Manny was a right fielder in Cleveland. He didn't play LF until he went to the Red Sox. He has the arm for it.

Since very few posters gave him props for signing his own free agents (ARam, Wood, and Miller), I would think he should be ahead of the GMs that couldn't even sign their own free agents (Soriano, Drew, Schmidt, Zito, CLee, etc.). What? You want to rank him ahead of Beane because he managed to resign Ramirez but Beane didn't resign Zito? That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Sure it does. I realize that the A's made the playoffs with Zito but Beane should have cashed that chip at the deadline. Zito's loss would have been overcome with the depth the A's had. Hendry's big negative is that he overpays for medocrity. Again I say whoopeedo. Medocrity is what exists in baseball. There are only so many "superstars" available. Last offseason most here were clamoring for Brian Giles. That would have equaled roughly the same as what Jones put together. The difference is that Jones has a more manageable contract and that leaves the right doors open for Hendry - Trades. There hasn't been one trade that Hendry has made that has been a poor move. If Hendry has a club of mangeable and tradeable contracts then we can be active on the trade front. I wouldn't exactly call the Maddux-for-Izturis deal a good one. Although, if he can deal Izturis as part of a package to get an impact player, I'll stop complaining about that one. Don't forget Pierre for Mitre, Nolasco, Pinto. I'm definitely trying really hard to forget that one.

Since very few posters gave him props for signing his own free agents (ARam, Wood, and Miller), I would think he should be ahead of the GMs that couldn't even sign their own free agents (Soriano, Drew, Schmidt, Zito, CLee, etc.). What? You want to rank him ahead of Beane because he managed to resign Ramirez but Beane didn't resign Zito? That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Sure it does. I realize that the A's made the playoffs with Zito but Beane should have cashed that chip at the deadline. Zito's loss would have been overcome with the depth the A's had. Hendry's big negative is that he overpays for medocrity. Again I say whoopeedo. Medocrity is what exists in baseball. There are only so many "superstars" available. Last offseason most here were clamoring for Brian Giles. That would have equaled roughly the same as what Jones put together. The difference is that Jones has a more manageable contract and that leaves the right doors open for Hendry - Trades. There hasn't been one trade that Hendry has made that has been a poor move. If Hendry has a club of mangeable and tradeable contracts then we can be active on the trade front. I wouldn't exactly call the Maddux-for-Izturis deal a good one. Although, if he can deal Izturis as part of a package to get an impact player, I'll stop complaining about that one.

You're talking about a difference of 2 million dollars to the 2007 team salary for those two players. Blanco and DeRosa were each overpaid by about a million. Izturis is also overpaid by about 2 million. That's 4 million and 3 roster spots. Even if you plug a back-up catcher and two unproven IF from the farm system, thus increasing the freed money to 9 million, that doesn't make much difference in the grand scheme, because now you're banking on 3 unproven players with minimal MLB experience that will account for about 1000 ABs for your team in 2007. It's not realistic to think Hendry was going with all big money contracts and slots from the farm system around it, because the Cubs don't have the farm system to support this. This is an excellent plan if you have talent like Wright and Reyes in your farm system. Not so much when you're talking Theriot and Cedeno. Izturis is a Hendry mistake and the argument could be made he shouldn't even be on this team. To say that he really only has a $2 mil impact on this team isn't accurate. Now, the offseason isn't over yet, and if Hendry can deal Izturis as part of a package to another team in exchange for an impact player, then I won't complain about his horrible contract. As for Blanco, maybe he's overpaid by only $1 mil, but when you consider that Soto at league minimum wouldn't exactly be a big dropoff from Blanco's typically subpar offensive contribution, then you're looking at a little over $2 mil being wasted on him alone.

Of the one's that are eligble for FA, they all do. The going rate for most back-up catchers eligble for FA is 800k-1.2 million. Blanco is regarded very highly as one of the best back-ups in baseball, clearly for his defense, game calling, and teaching ability. He's probably not worth 2.5, but I don't think it's a stretch to say another team would have paid 3.0 for his services for two years. $3.0 mil per year or total? I highly doubt he'd have gotten that per year. I could see $1.5 mil per year, maybe $2.0 mil. I think Blanco would have gotten minimum 1.5 per year for two years from other teams around the league. He probably would have gotten the same contract the Cubs gave him from any other large market team that already projects high in total team offense (Mets, Yankees, Red Sox, White Sox) going into 2007. I don't believe the Yankees have paid over $1 million for a backup catcher since Joe Oliver in 2001. If any backup catcher is overvalued by his team, it's Doug "the only person who apparently can catch a knuckleball" Mirabelli, and he only made $1.5 mil in 2006. Like the Yankees, the White Sox and the Mets haven't paid $1 mil for a backup catcher the past few years.

O'Malley shouldn't even be included in this group, in my opinion. Rapada probably should be. I believe either Marmol or Mateo will be dealt, and with Rapada ready, either Ohman or Eyre will probably be dealt, as well. why would marmol be dealt? he actually seemed to show some pretty nice potential. Are you assuming he would be a valuable part of a big deal, or are you thinking about giving guys away (ala Juan Cruz)? I think either he or Mateo could be included as part of a deal, not as the lone piece in a trade.

Of the one's that are eligble for FA, they all do. The going rate for most back-up catchers eligble for FA is 800k-1.2 million. Blanco is regarded very highly as one of the best back-ups in baseball, clearly for his defense, game calling, and teaching ability. He's probably not worth 2.5, but I don't think it's a stretch to say another team would have paid 3.0 for his services for two years. $3.0 mil per year or total? I highly doubt he'd have gotten that per year. I could see $1.5 mil per year, maybe $2.0 mil.