SaorsaDaonnan

Sorry, I didn't mean to edit just as you were commenting! Not trying to co-opt your response or anything. By tweeners, are you referring to guys like Novoa and Wuertz, or the Rusch and Remlinger group?

When Garciaparra returns, a bench guy has to go down. When Williamson comes back, we'll need to dump a guy from the 40 man, and demote a bullpen arm. Then when Wood comes back, another bullpen arm has to go down. All of this is assuming no trades, of course. So what moves do the Cubs make? It seems obvious that Cedeno will go down when Garciaparra comes up, and almost certainly Mitre for Williamson. The other two moves are less clear. First, who's off the 40-man? Koronka is a possibility, but I think Grieve is probably the guy they're likely to choose. They've never seemed that enthusiastic about him, and they'd still have Greenberg as an OF backup. Also, if they're serious about bringing Pie up in September, someone else would have to be removed from the 40-man. The really tough to predict move is when Wood returns (assuming Williamson beats him back...if not, same situation but reverse order). Assuming they keep Rusch and Remlinger around, the choice is between Wuertz and Novoa. Wuertz has been solid most of the season, but he hasn't been very sharp recently (yesterday being an arguable exception). Overuse is my explanation, but would the Cubs agree? Both have exceptional K rates, but Novoa's WHIP is terrible at 1.69 because of 18 walks in 23.1 innings (!). Not that Wuertz looks so great either; his WHIP is sitting at 1.59. However, Novoa's ERA is much lower than Wuertz's, and the Cubs believe in that statistic, so I'd bet on Novoa staying up, at least until his WHIP catches up to him, or his arm falls off. And all of this assumes that the Cubs plan to stick with a 12 man rotation. With Maddux, Williams, and Hill in the rotation, that seems quite likely to be the case through August. Agree? Does this argue for trading away Rusch or Remlinger? To me Rusch has less value than at first glance, and should be dealt, especially since there's such a friendly market right now. Having both Remlinger and Wood in the pen also could present a problem, since niether is an everyday guy. However, Wood could go for at least two innings, and Remmy somedoes does the same. Interesting to consider.

I too look skeptically at this. But it does seem to me that an important part of the argument for it is being ignored. To play devil's advocate: Most of us have been talking about this from our own point of view...that is, from the point of view of American baseball fans. And while I'm sure that Selig et al are hoping for a domestic ratings and merchandising spike, as well as possibly higher overall interest in the sport, there is much more to this. I think the main idea behind this is the development of international interest in the sport. Whereas it may be fair to say that our baseball fans -at least, the diehards- don't have a lot of interest in these things, it does appear that in areas like Latin America and Japan, there is tremendous interest in what it going on in foreign leagues such as our own, and therefore significant opportunity. It could reasonably be argued that significant increases in MLB's profile are possible in many of these countries. A larger fan base obviously correlates with increased revenues. So in this respect, there may be a strong business case for the tournament. This would be especially true if MLB can manage to convert, for instance, Dominican interest in Vladdy to interest in the Angels. If that were possible, not only could they sell both jerseys (actually, with alternate jerseys there would be even more options), but another important change could take place: they may suddenly start watching the games, either through broadcast TV rights deals or internet broadcasting. As we all know, those are powerful drivers of MLB's profit margin, and areas which might not have much overhead or risk. It is also clear that Selig views MLB as an organization entrusted with protecting and promoting the game itself, and that this "stewardship' of the game demands its promotion at all levels and in as many fora as possible. This is doubtless an additional factor, and one which could concievably pay off in the sense of a much larger pool of players to choose from, better international scouting, ect. There is also the long-term possibility that MLB franchises themselves could exist abroad (Canada aside). The interaction with the Japanese leagues appears to have been tremendously lucrative and is probably the sort of thing MLB wants to promote across the board, though perhaps it is an optimistic comparision outside of the DR. If these are the motivations, it is perhaps less important if US fan interest isn't very strong, or if US players aren't motivated to play. Either situation would probably not be enough to mitigate these advantages. But do these advantages justify it? I say that it depends on the circumstances. There is a potential problem for MLB teams- this cannot be denied. And so, if this is to work fairly, there would need to be a framework for compensation/risk reduction for the teams- it's not fair to expect them to pay for guys on the DL for injuries sustained in international play. Suppose Vladdy pulls his back, and has season ending surgery. Even if the Angels were completely off the hook for his salary, getting that 14 mil or whatever in March isn't going to fully compensate them, because at that point in the season no player of comparable skill is likely to be available for any price...it's not just the money. And if it's a multiyear contract, this all gets much more convoluted. Let alone if there are arguments about a guy who returns healthy enough to play, but who isn't the same afterwards. The Player's Union would obviously require that all parameters of the contract be fulfilled by someone; so if the Angels were released for a period of time, someone else (MLB) would have to foot the bill. These issues would be exceedingly difficult to resolve, and I don't have confidence in baseball's ability to resolve them satisfactorily (particularly not after the Expos debacle). If they aren't worked out, I have no choice but to oppose the games. It simply wouldn't fair for the league office to force the 30 organizations to "take one for the team." That sort of nonvoluntary collectivism is something I stand against.