davearm2

I don't think the Nationals are trading Bryce Harper He said one of the best, not the best. There's only one best.

I agree with this. Scoring was clearly secondary in his mind to obliterating Posey. That's what I'm talking about, when the runner becomes more concerned with destroying the catcher than getting to the plate. It doesn't happen often, but you see it from time to time. Actually it would be more accurate to say that the guy was trying to score, and thought his best chance of doing so was to jar the ball loose (versus beating the tag). If he is successful in jarring the ball loose, then at that point he ought to have plenty of time to get back and touch the plate. So in a sense you're right that he wasn't focused on getting to the plate as quickly as possible, but he was still focused on scoring. If that makes any sense. I have no problem if someone wants to argue the rules should be changed, but the runner was not acting maliciously, as you make it seem.

It's a pretty good bet that Castro is going to be manning one of the top 2 spots for a while (hopefully #2). 3-4 can be filled via FA. Not being able to fill those slots internally doesn't mean the farm system is a failure. Nobody's saying the Cubs' farm system is ideal or set right now, but the repeated efforts to make it sound like it's barren just makes people sound ignorant. I didn't say the Cubs' farm is a failure, or barren. I said describing the Cubs as having a "group of good young players" is a stretch. Who in that group is fronting the rotation? Or hitting in the middle of the order? The group consists of guys that are more useful than good, and certainly none that project as impact guys. For those reasons I have to question the optimism implied by the phrase.

The fact that the term "useful" keeps coming up over and over says a lot. Sure the Cubs have a bunch of young guys that could/should be useful. Useful doesn't move the optimism needle much. The fact is, as we sit here right now it's anyone's guess who will hit 3-4-5 for the next decade, or man the 1-2-3 slots in the rotation. For my money a team with "good young players" doesn't have this many questionmarks.

Or at least more fielders trying to block bases if it's legal. And runners plowing them when they do. The rules around home plate are not different than at other bases, are they? Always wondered why this doesn't happen more frequently at 2B and 3B, especially on stolen base attempts. The fielder should just get there first and block the bag until the throw arrives, then tag the guy out. That's essentially what catchers try to do.

You can plow over the 1B or 2B if they're standing directly in your path without the ball. Unless they're attempting to field it off the bat. Otherwise you're right, plus you can/should be awarded the next base for obstruction.

That's a terrible reason. Realizing where the player is likely going to be in conjunction with the team's progression isn't a terrible reason. If you're convinced that Pujols is on a serious decline, fine, but to pass on a player of his ideal impact simply because the team isn't better is usually a terrible idea given how many wins he ideally brings if he's signed. The Cubs would have to be REALLY bad to justify that. I do think he will decline quickly to where that contract is hurting the team more than will provide. Given the roster, there's no doubt they need a strength anywhere on the team. They do nothing well. I question Pujols' health for the long-term, he's got a bad elbow, heel problems, and hamstring issues. Just wonder with him, if it right to pay for his past without getting that in the present. The fact the Cubs are a bad team right now doesn't help that window. Great. Pujols can torture Cub fans for a decade as a Cardinal, and for another decade as a Cub.

That's a terrible reason. Realizing where the player is likely going to be in conjunction with the team's progression isn't a terrible reason. When your a big market team with a group of good young players like Castro, Soto, Barney, Garza, Cashner, and Marmol, Marshall and a decent farm system, theres no reason not to be able to build a perenial contender around the best player in the world. If they cant manage that, there are a lot of people that need to be fired. If Pujols leaves the Cards, their likely done. When Fielder leaves the Brewers, they might be competitve for another year or 2 until Greinke and Marcum leave, and then their empty farm system leaves them in trouble. After that, I could really see the NL Central coming down to the Cubs, Reds, and Pirates for the next several years. That "group of good young players" is actually quite depressing. You know things aren't good when Barney starts to show up in that category.

Yup, but there's also more of them. So when one starts to decline you can just dump them for the next one. I will never advocate for having a speedy team if that will not lead to winning. I want the Cubs to win first. But if it gets to the point where having speed/defense is a viable way to play, I don't think that's a bad thing for the sport either. More of them? There's a handful of good fast players. Speed is absolutely worthless if you can't hit and the majority of fast players cannot hit at a major league level. That's my point. Right now you can only use the good ones. The ones who OPS 650-700 and have good speed and play good defense are bench players because they don't hit well enough to be in a starting lineup. Most of those type of players never even make the majors. If the average OPS of the league continues to go down though, those players will become more and more valuable. The fact that they can't hit much won't matter nearly as much because the rest of the league won't be hitting much either, and so teams will plug them in to use their other skills. That's only true if the replacement-level fast guys you're describing are somehow immune to the factors that are causing the league-wide decline in OPS. But if the replacement-level fast guys' OPSs are falling just like everyone else's, then their prospects haven't gotten any better.

The Japanese leagues want/need to keep all of their own young players, PLUS add as many good American guys as they can get. The last thing they want is for homegrown guys with ML talent leaving the country. There was an interview with Bobby Valentine on this very topic awhile ago. The gist was, the exodus of top players to the US is really hurting the Japanese leagues.

I accept your apology

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/odds/ If the Indians do have a .460 winning percentage the rest of the way as predicted by BP, I'd feel comfortable labeling it as an "absolutely epic collapse." It'd be an "absolutely epic collapse" if the Indians started playing the way most folks anticipated they would (and how they have, for the last couple years)?

except for the part where ticket sales increased by a quarter million his first year there. then people realized "oh wait our shortstop is awesome but the team still sucks balls" and stopped coming. 2000 attendance: 2,800,147 2001 attendance: 2,831,021 change: 30,874 http://www.ballparksofbaseball.com/2000-10attendance.htm http://espn.go.com/mlb/attendance/_/year/2000/sort/allPct http://espn.go.com/mlb/attendance/_/year/2001/sort/allPct http://www.rangerfans.com/attendance.html http://www.baseball-almanac.com/teams/rangatte.shtml

Actually I think it would be safer to say the Rangers' problem was that they overvalued ARod as an asset at the time they signed him. Three years in, they came to realize exactly what I was explaining earlier with regards to Pujols... they were paying him a whole lot more money than he was bringing in for them. All of the cross-promotion and branding and yadda yadda never took off the way they thought it would, the on-field success of the team never materialized, and the jump in ticket sales was nonexistent.

It won't cause teams to lose interest, but it's potential ammo for teams to use in negotiations. For instance, if a team calls interested in Beltran and the Mets are looking for elite talent in return for him, the opposing GM can cite Wilpon's comments as a reason why the Mets are asking too much. It's hard to get the most for your players when your own owner makes the comments he did. If I'm the Mets' GM and I hear that from another GM, I chuckle a little and say "yeah can you believe what a knucklehead Wilpon was there? Anyway are you interested or should I click over to line 2? I've got a bunch of other teams calling."

I understand what he's saying. I simply don't agree with his logic. ARod couldn't control whether or not the Rangers were contenders or if they made money. All he could do was play baseball well enough to justify the money spent on him. Which he did quite adequately. It's not my logic. Boras pitched this image. Tom Hicks' mistake was buying what the Boras/ARod camp was selling. Surely 10/252 wasn't Hicks' initial offer for christ sakes.

Thank you. I thought I was being clear when I stated that WAR numbers don't fully embody what the Rangers were hoping to get out of that deal. ARod was expected to be a cross-cultural mega-star global icon on the order of Beckham or MJ, not *just* the best player in MLB. All wearing a Rangers' "T" cap. Heck Boras marketed him as such during that free-agent tour. And you're right, it was not ARod's fault that stuff didn't materialize.

I'm not a Pena detractor, although I have to admit -- the first thought that jumped to my mind is that Soriano has had several great months in his Cub career too.

The Rangers, duh. Do you think they would have traded him if the plan was working as expected?

I don't think this drives down these guys' trade values that much. Sure it was completely foolish and unprofessional, but can you imagine a team no longer being interested in trading for any of these guys based on these comments? Now if there were only one or two interested teams to begin with, then maybe. But I doubt that applies here.

and if you look at the top of the list, how many teams are disappointed with the production they got for their dollar? the yankees probably will be for ARod Part II; nobody should've been for the previous monster contract. jeter? meh... his defense is mostly lousy, but it's the yankees and he was still very good through the entire life of that contract. jury is still out on mauer. teixeira and sabathia contracts look fine. manny probably wasn't worth $20m a year, but just because his glove was awful... offensively they got what they were paying for. tulo and agonz - who knows. miggy cabrera appears well on his way to earning that contract. if you narrow it down to elite players things don't really look that bad. I'm pretty sure the Rangers would disagree with you on the first ARod deal ;) The Rangers easily got the production they wanted for that contract. The fact that Hicks ran into money problems outside the game doesn't mean that was a bad contract at all. I'm quite certain I will regret going here, but I think it's safe to say that WAR numbers don't come close to embodying what the Rangers were hoping to get out of that deal. In the end, the Rangers paid nearly $50m/yr for 3 playoff-less seasons, with unrealized revenue streams, ticket sales, marketing synergies, etc. It was a failed experiment, and one the Rangers bet big on.

to be fair, santana was elite... health has been the main problem with him. Actually to be fair... pitchers are a whole different proposition from hitters.

and if you look at the top of the list, how many teams are disappointed with the production they got for their dollar? the yankees probably will be for ARod Part II; nobody should've been for the previous monster contract. jeter? meh... his defense is mostly lousy, but it's the yankees and he was still very good through the entire life of that contract. jury is still out on mauer. teixeira and sabathia contracts look fine. manny probably wasn't worth $20m a year, but just because his glove was awful... offensively they got what they were paying for. tulo and agonz - who knows. miggy cabrera appears well on his way to earning that contract. if you narrow it down to elite players things don't really look that bad. I'm pretty sure the Rangers would disagree with you on the first ARod deal ;)

Courtesy of Cot's, the most lucrative contracts in baseball history, by total value: 1. Alex Rodriguez, $275,000,000 (2008-17) 2. Alex Rodriguez, $252,000,000 (2001-10) 3. Derek Jeter, $189,000,000 (2001-10) 4. Joe Mauer, $184,000,000 (2011-18) 5. Mark Teixeira, $180,000,000 (2009-16) 6. CC Sabathia, $161,000,000 (2009-15) 7. Manny Ramirez, $160,000,000 (2001-08) 8. Troy Tulowitzki, $157,750,000 (2011-20) 9. Adrian Gonzalez, $154,000,000 (2012-18) 10. Miguel Cabrera, $152,300,000 (2008-15) 11. Carl Crawford, $142,000,000 (2011-17) 12. Todd Helton, $141,500,000 (2003-11) 13. Johan Santana, $137,500,000 (2008-13) 14. Alfonso Soriano, $136,000,000 (2007-14) 15. Vernon Wells, $126,000,000 (2008-14) . . . Barry Zito, $126,000,000 (2007-13) . . . Jayson Werth, $126,000,000 (2011-17) 18. Ryan Howard, $125,000,000 (2012-16) 19. Mike Hampton, $121,000,000 (2001-08) 20. Jason Giambi, $120,000,000 (2002-08) . . . Matt Holliday, $120,000,000 (2010-16) . . . Cliff Lee, $120,000,000 (2011-15) 23. Carlos Beltran, $119,000,000 (2005-11) 24. Ken Griffey Jr., $116,500,000 (2000-08) 25. Kevin Brown, $105,000,000 (1999-2005) 26. Carlos Lee, $100,000,000 (2007-12) . . . Albert Pujols, $100,000,000 (2004-10) 28. Carlos Zambrano, $91,500,000 (2008-12) 29. Mike Piazza, $91,000,000 (1999-2005) . . . Barry Bonds, $90,000,000 (2002-06) . . . Torii Hunter, $90,000,000 (2008-12) . . . Chipper Jones, $90,000,000 (2001-06) . . . Scott Rolen, $90,000,000 (2003-10) . . . Ichiro Suzuki, $90,000,000 (2008-12) Considering just the subset of these that aren't new in the last year or two: how many of those would the team rather have a do-over? Lots of cases of paying for past performance here. (And I get that Pujols is better than almost all of these guys... which is why the magnitude of his deal is gonna put him at or near the top of the list.)

Last year was the 4th best of his 10 MLB seasons. How are the next 10 going to rank ;)