The Other 15

Realistically, they weren't even the third best team in the division, the Blue Jays were better too. They failed utterly at the "fill out your roster with cheap, adequate players" part. Putting together a winning baseball team is still about more than how you spend your cash. Yeah, I agree that even the Jays were a much better team at the end of last year. They failed utterly at the "fill out your roster with cheap, adequate players" part. Cheap and adequate players may be the necessity for most franchises but we both know that it's not for the Yanks. They just need adequate players despite their price tag. The bell curve you mentioned was not established on anything reasonable, it was established by a goof-ball owner that outbid himself by almost $10M per year. Then another goof-ball owner re-ups A-Rod for more money. They can afford him and that's the only curve that matters. It's not that ARod is so much better than anyone that he deserves to be paid double and triple more.

That's a pretty good idea.

Marquis as a type A free agent would be a bad thing. There is no way you'd offer him arbitration. He'd likely take it and get $10 million +. I understand your overall point, though. I've gotten the impression that Marquis would likely have to be moved for the Cubs to add a major piece. Please explain how a SP, coming off of a season where he earns Type A status, accepts arbitration for a one year contract?

You can certainly find players that can help your team, no? Whats getting lost in this semantics argument is that there are other ways to spend $27 mil per year than just to shore up one position even if it is by A-Rod standards. Yes and no. Spending money to improve your team isn't linear, because MLB baseball talent represents the far end of the bell curve. You really shouldn't have to spend much money to get roughly average players at every position. So once you've filled out your roster with a complement of cheap, adequate players, you have extra money to spend on exceptional players. One A-Rod is worth at least as much as one A-Ram and your standard $12 million player in that regard. If you have a bad team with a lot of gaping holes, then you are better of spreading the money around. But if you are a good team already, you are probably better off throwing it all at one concrete upgrade. So once you've filled out your roster with a complement of cheap, adequate players,... That's not what we're talking about here. The Yanks spent money everywhere and A-Rods contract has not prevented them from adding talent. Yet, still, they fond themselves trialing two teams in their division. But if you are a good team already, you are probably better off throwing it all at one concrete upgrade. Which brings me back to my original point that you'd think teams would have learned by Yanks/A-Rod example that that isn't necessarily true.

nm

He doesn't have to be to be worth the contract. Players are on a bell curve, and there's only so many slots you can put them in. You can't just buy three players who are 1/3 as good as A-Rod and get the same results, because you have to use up three slots to play them. Really? So, just for conversations sakes, you can't pay someone like Aramis $15 mil to play 3B and use $12M elsewhere to help your team? I understand the Yankees don't care and they won't be limited by his contract to address other needs, but it has to become more about the game and not just about a player. To that end, I applaud the Sox for passing on Teixeira if it's not on terms fair to both sides. If you are doing a good job managing your team so that you don't have any gaping holes anywhere, you probably won't be able to find a 20-run upgrade anywhere for $12 million to make up for the difference between Rodriguez and Ramirez. You can certainly find players that can help your team, no? Whats getting lost in this semantics argument is that there are other ways to spend $27 mil per year than just to shore up one position even if it is by A-Rod standards.

He doesn't have to be to be worth the contract. Players are on a bell curve, and there's only so many slots you can put them in. You can't just buy three players who are 1/3 as good as A-Rod and get the same results, because you have to use up three slots to play them. Really? So, just for conversations sakes, you can't pay someone like Aramis $15 mil to play 3B and use $12M elsewhere to help your team? I understand the Yankees don't care and they won't be limited by his contract to address other needs, but it has to become more about the game and not just about a player. To that end, I applaud the Sox for passing on Teixeira if it's not on terms fair to both sides.

You'd think the A-Rod deal would bring some perspective. So far, he has lived up to his end (as far as production goes) of his contracts, yet can everyone fully agree that he's been twice or three times as good as the next players at his position? That's what his contract says. I love the argument that says that A-Rod brings in X amount of dollars in revenue to the team. I'm sure he does, however, I'm sure that the Yankees would have no trouble selling out seats, luxury boxes, team jerseys to fans, pink versions of team jerseys to gang bangers, building stadiums, paying other huge salaries, etc if A-Rod had stayed in Texas. The same applies to Boston and Teixeira. He'd be a good addition, but you need to think about the team first.

My first thought was simply that Boston was calling Boras's bluff. He's notorious for getting the big money owners to bid against themselves. If they are saying Washington is offering X, we'd like you to match, why not back out? I agree. Whenever you're uncomfortable with the terms (all of them, not just one), and are backing out, you're calling the other teams bluff. Hendry is calling Towers' bluff as well.

You don't get excited about short seasons, you don't get excited about 3 years of HS excellence, you don't get excited about his Cape League, and you don't get excited about his tools. Voila! You just listed reasons high schoolers get high draft status. You're acting as if no HS players deserve high draft status. Which, if you truly believe, makes you, and not everyone else, the ignorant poster.

Stop talking about the $10M. That's probably the last reason Boston is backing off. Read what Henry said, "After hearing about his other offers, however, it seems clear that we are not going to be a factor,...We all have limits," he wrote the AP on Wednesday. "Eight years is a very long time in baseball and everywhere else." It's more about the extra money, AND 8 years, AND opt out clause, AND perks that Boras asks for. All terms that are heavily slanted to the players favor and leave the team with little flexibility.

Again, can't quite place where I heard that scenario before but it sounds very familiar.

Wow, that's shocking. Kinzers "gentlemen's" agreement was so honorable with Hendry 3 years ago. Furcal is a nice player but his production (defense/running/and decent bat) was not on par with the top producers in baseball which is what he was being paid. Now, 3 years later, he has a back injury on his resume and is a bigger risk than the last time. Call it bad luck, or karma, or whatever, but the Dodgers didn't reap the benefits of his last contract so maybe they think a take two is necessary. Good for them. The best part of this - if owners all agreed that dealing with the Kinzers/Boras's was a bad idea, it would be considered illegal.

I'm sorry, I have an extremely difficult time describing someone as a very good hitter when their career batting average is .247, they average 160+ strikeouts a year, and his career RISP is .241 (.208 with RISP and 2 outs.) Sometimes, the situation demands a player step up to the plate and drive in a run, and he can't deliver that. His career numbers prove it. These SHOULD matter. Listen, OBP and SLG are great numbers to have...I know. But Dunn is basically another Soriano, only with the ability to take a walk and not steal a base. Most people here hate Soriano, yet praise Dunn profusely. He's a valuable offensive piece overall that just doesn't make sense for this team based on our needs. They praise Dunn and don't like Soriano because Dunn is a much better hitter, and other than the fact that they have a lot of power and strikeout they have basically nothing in common. Holy let's pile on an popular idea Batman! Dunn is a better hitter? He's a better selective swinger, but when he swings, other than a few more HR's how is he a better hitter than Sori? I completely understand that BA means nothing. Oh, wait, it only matters when its used in conjunction with BB's and HBP? That's right, i forgot about that. Sori is a career .282 hitter Dunn is .247. Sori averages 344 TB's in 162 games (that popular OPS thing we often refer to where Dunn is so supperior) to Dunns 287 162 game average. They both average .518 162 game SLG. Yeah, I can see where Dunn is such superior hitter. So how is Dunn a better hitter than Sori? Oh, OPS +, that's right that whopping 130 for Dunn to Soris 116. That's concludes it, Dunn is so much better. Yeah, Dunn gets about 70 more BB's per season, but Sori gets about 50 more hits per season. I'm sure some BP writers conclusions are that BB's are better than hits (and I'm sure that he'll have some spreadsheet to prove it) but in baseball hits still matter. There is no place I would prefer Dunn to Soriano.

Even though you're kidding, there is some truth to your statement. Both guys have other issues to deal with. Once those become closer to being completed, if Peavy is still around, they will likely touch base again before spring.

The ONE time he played a full season (or a close facsimile of a full season) in 2004 he put up good numbers and promptly followed it up by playing 75 games the next. 42, 77, 98, 101, 142, 75, 96, 61, 126. How can those games played in nine season earn a 3 or 4 year contract? I'm flabbergasted that he's such a popular pick. I don't think anyone can say he's bad, but come on, how can those numbers be ignored. There's a good reason why nobody has snagged him up long term.

Seriously, the question is not weather Bradley would be a safer bet to OPS .850+ over in house guys like Fukudome. The question is do you want another 4 year/$40 mil contract on the books for a guy like Bradley? Sure, I guess you can always find a taker for him but he hasn't exactly brought back riches in trades unless you count Ander Ethier as someone special.

Yeah, but that was in 61 games and 209 AB. The year before in 350 Ab he OPS'ed .817 in Oakland. Do you really believe he's high .900 OPS guy or a mid .800's?

Nolasco and Willis, while high in our system (top ten), weren't top 50 talents. Maybe I read too much into the question of this thread but I'm under the impression the poster was asking about Vitters type prospects. Sure Nolasco had a good year. We'll still have to wait a couple of more years to see if he becomes a stud.

Yeah, I'd like to give Saito a shot if he's healthy, but it would have to be on a incentive laden deal. Who knows, maybe Percival, Gagne failures will give teams looking to strike lightning in a bottle with a old injured ridden vet a pause this off season before they give them huge 1 year deals.

I'm just not interested in either guy. Just too many question marks about both to spend top money on. If either can be "stolen" for a 1 year deal, sure sign me up because a Alou/Lofton/Sosa outfield was able to exist without costing too many games defensively. But that's not what I'm interested in the next three years. You guys complain how Soriano is overpaid. It won't be long before you talk about how Dunn or Bradley are holding Hednry back from next years big thing (whoever that may be). As far as Bradley and his character; anybody wonder why all these teams that go out of their way to say how he wasn't a problem and was a great team mate, never bothered to sign him to longer deals? Just asking. I could take or leave both, I would just prefer to leave and go into next year with flexibility to get someone who might need help with pitching or needs to move a contract.

Nolasco? One 98 IP stretch hasn't put him in that star player that the Cubs gave up category yet. Willis? Never a highly ranked prospect. He did put up a few decent seasons recently, but again, not that stud they missed on. Jamie Moyer has had a nice career but he was never a top prospect and I think even he has to be amused how long he's lasted. If you're want to know which Cub prospect was traded for a quality return and ended up being a stud, you have to go back to Palmiero (main piece of Mich Williams deal) and Joe Carter (main piece of Sutcliffe deal).

The same right field bleacher Wrigley fans who used to give Sammy a standing ovation every time he took the field and would collectively kowtow to Andre Dawson? I think the issue with Jacque might have had more to do with the fact that he was horrible than some latent, inherent racism of Wrigley fans. Wow, I'm going to assume you didn't just write that players play their way into being called racial slurs. If that's the case, then how can that not be "some latent, inherent racism of Wrigley fans." No, Wrigley is not full of racists. But there is a certain element there that acts privileged to use language that is deemed ugly by most civilized people. It coincidentally has been used with players like Jones, Hawkins and Alfonseca. I invite you to ask Prince Fielder what he thinks of the idiot that was yelling to the Cubs pitcher to stop throwing him watermellons during a game last year. I assure you I didn't hear that kind of stuff used when Ryne Braun drove the ball. Jones handled the idiots with the kind of class that if it matched his playing ability he would have been a Hall of Famer. I just don't know how Bradleys volatile personality will handle it.

Why? The guy can rake. He's 36, is expensive, awful on defense, and I wouldn't say an .837 OPS for a corner outfielder is "raking". well, I can understand the age, but he can rake it. I understand you define "rake it" different than I do. So be it. Ibanez hit .293 this season, with 23 homers, 110 RBIs, a .358 on-base percentage and a .472 slugging percentage. He is one of just five outfielders who have driven in at least 100 runs in each of the past three seasons. The others: Carlos Beltran, Magglio Ordonez, Carlos Lee and Bobby Abreu. yes because rbis are such a good way to evaluate talent. sorry, a .472 slugging percentage from a corner outfielder isn't raking. he's a good hitter. Since you qualified your critique of Ibanez as a "corner OF," did you check and see how many corner OF's finished with higher slugging over the last3 years in the AL? 2008 - 4 corner OF finished with higher SLG 2007 - 6 corner OF Finished with higher SLG 2006 - 2 corner OF finished with higher SLG Out of 30 (or more) starting corner outfielder in the AL, Ibanez SLG seems to be pretty good,.....from a corner outfielder.

http://www.fannation.com/si_blogs/hot_stove/posts/31661-agent-peavy-frustrated-with-padres "If they come to us with a trade now, we'll consider it. But there won't be any more lists,'' Axelrod said. "No, we're done with that.'' In other words, from now on, they're no longer going to pretend to care about what the Padres get as long as they get what they want. Wouldn't surprise me one bit if Towers got a dream deal from the Angels and Peavy nixing it just to show Towers his appreciation for the fine work he did in the trade to where he wanted to go. "It's amazing to me how many people can waste time, money and resources, and get nothing done," Axelrod said. "Baseball moved lock, stock and barrel into that town, and absolutely nothing happened." I love this line as well. these are strange times in baseball. On one hand you get Johan Santana, without half the restrictions that Peavy had, traded for that so so package. Seriously, Carlos Gomez, who may become as good as Willy Tavares, was the center piece of that trade and Towers kept pushing for more for Peavy.