Q & A and direct from Baseball America.

Page 2 of 4 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

Go down

Re: Q & A and direct from Baseball America.

Post  RedMagma on Wed Jan 09, 2008 9:20 am

turn 2
$25M is a fair offer only if it is compatable to what others are offereing. its not a fair offer if the sox or mets offer $27M
also, once again i think this youth movement thing is going to people’s heads, the yankees dont offer fair market value, they raise the market. they just signed the biggest sports contract ever, paying Arod more than $5M/yr more than anyone else is making currently (i dont care if u call if promotion money or salary its still $30M). the Yankees dont lowball people, just ask arod, farnsworth, pettite, mussina, giambi, etc

RedMagma

Posts : 3654
Join date : 2007-12-24

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Dreaming on Cashman

Post  RedMagma on Wed Jan 09, 2008 9:25 am

Dreaming on Cashman

http://www.thegoodphight.com/story/2008/1/8/124656/6119

News flash: there ain't too much happening with the Phillies right now. The team avoided arbitration with Jayson Werth on Monday, signing the outfielder to a $1.7 million contract with performance bonuses for 2008. And they evidently signed two guys named Cory Willey (lefty pitcher) and Angel Negron (first baseman), according to Baseball America by way of Beerleaguer. Otherwise, Pat Gillick seems deep into his winter nap.

Given that it's probably his last one, though, it isn't too soon to think about who the next Phillies general manager might be. Our unhappy hypothesis is that Ruben Amaro, Jr., the assistant GM who's proven much more able a company shill than he was in uniform, will complete his apprenticeship with Gillick and secure the job at the conclusion of the 2008 season, when Gillick's contract expires and he eases into full-time retirement. After all, the notoriously insular Phillies went outside the organization to bring in Gillick; no way they'll do so again, right?

Still, another big name among GMs is going to come open after this season, and the team would be remiss not to at least think about making an offer. I refer to Yankees general manager Brian Cashman, who's been less than subtle in implying that he's not enjoying life under Hank "Little Big Stein" Steinbrenner in New York.


Now, Cashman's complaint against Little Big Stein seems to be that he no longer has the "full authority to run the entire program" stipulated in the contract he signed with George "Big Stein" Steinbrenner after the 2005 season. So depending on exactly what that means, he might not want to run the risk of the same kind of interference at the hands of David Montgomery, Bill Giles, Dallas Green and whoever else is involved with Phillies decision-making. (Please, reporters, throw us a frickin' bone here--I still want to know who pulled the trigger on the Abreu Abomination of mid-2006.) That's one potential snag, and another is that the Phillies surely won't have the sort of budget structure in which Cashman has built an unbroken streak of Yankee playoff teams.

But what I find ironic about Cashman and how he's perceived is that the same bloated payrolls that critics once alleged made it impossible for him to get burned by his mistakes now largely obscure the best work he's done. Following the Yankees' 2003 World Series loss to Florida and shocking ALCS defeat at the hands of Boston a year later, Cashman saw an aging roster and a largely depleted farm system. Cashman made a few additions of the type Big Stein had demanded since the '70s, bringing in the likes of Randy Johnson and, um, Carl Pavano--but his focus was on rebuilding a farm system that Baseball America had ranked 27th in early 2004 and 24th before the 2005 season. A year later, that ranking had jumped to 17th, and an assessment by Baseball Prospectus a year after that put the Yankees at 4th of the 30 MLB teams. BP's Kevin Goldstein wrote in December, "After years of sitting near the bottom of the organizational rankings due to some drafts that border on reprehensible, the Yankees have begun to place more focus and priority on the draft, and the results have come quickly. Their bounty of young pitching is the envy of baseball..."

While the easy thing to do would have been to keep buying high on trade targets and free agents, Cashman took on Big Stein and won a commitment to reload (not rebuild) through player development. His last few drafts have been excellent, and the philosophy that informs them--spend relatively more on draft picks and international signings rather than spend exponentially more on free agents at or past their prime--is exactly what the Phillies will need to leverage the peaks of their superstar core.

Loyalty's nice. Winning is much better--or so I understand. Let's hope the Phillies are at least open to the possibility of bringing in a GM who knows how to build and sustain a durable winner

RedMagma

Posts : 3654
Join date : 2007-12-24

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Q & A and direct from Baseball America.

Post  RedMagma on Wed Jan 09, 2008 9:26 am


Re: Dreaming on Cashman

"Loyalty's nice. Winning is much better . . . ." Are you new to the Philadelphia sports world?

by David Cohen on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 01:22:36 PM EDT
[ Reply to This ]


Re: Dreaming on Cashman

Hey, it's a season of hope.

by dajafi on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 01:32:57 PM EDT
[ Parent | Reply to This ]


Re: Dreaming on Cashman

You know... looking at Amaro's career stats... at least he knew how to take a walk. If he could hit for average worth a lick he would have had a good OBP.

by Homer on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 01:38:11 PM EDT
[ Reply to This ]


Re: Dreaming on Cashman

I have to admit, I had the exact same reaction when I was looking at that page to link it. Was very surprised to see his walk rate as good as it was. I remember him as a sort of proto-Perez/Nunez hitter (though Abe in '06 drew his walks too, I guess) with a bit more power.

by dajafi on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 01:40:18 PM EDT
[ Parent | Reply to This ]


Re: Dreaming on Cashman

Maybe he isn't as clueless to the value of not making outs as we are lead to believe?

by Homer on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 04:14:21 PM EDT
[ Parent | Reply to This ]


Re: Dreaming on Cashman

Maybe. There's at least one guy out there whose opinion I respect--he comments here occasionally--who believes that the Phillies as an organization are far, far more saber-conscious than they'll generally admit to being. He's also the most sanguine of anyone I've engaged on the question about Amaro taking over.

by dajafi on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 05:28:09 PM EDT
[ Parent | Reply to This ]


Re: Dreaming on Cashman

Like you said.. generally they are saber conscious... nothing explains Eaton though.

Amaro is relatively young (42), played with the On Base happy 93' team (seeing how valuable it is first hand)... The more I think about it... the less scared I get of him being the general manager. The only part I really fear is as being a good old boy member of the Phillies family he might not stand up to the owners for major decisions and just go with what they want.

by Homer on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 12:34:37 AM EDT
[ Parent | Reply to This ]


Re: Dreaming on Cashman

Let's hope the Phillies are at least open to the possibility of bringing in a GM who knows how to build and sustain a durable winner.

^ ....wasn't this Gillick? Or did he not build and sustain durable winners in Toronto, Baltimore, and Seattle before he came here?

by das411 on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 12:16:18 AM EDT
[ Reply to This ]


Re: Dreaming on Cashman

Didn't all those teams collapse after he left them? The Jays and Mariners played under .400 ball the year after he left and a solid 3 years before .500 ball was reached again. The .481 record the O's put up after he left there was the best they have put up. Seems like he leaves teams in rebuilding mode when he goes.

by Homer on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 12:31:03 AM EDT
[ Parent | Reply to This ]

RedMagma

Posts : 3654
Join date : 2007-12-24

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Q & A and direct from Baseball America.

Post  RedMagma on Wed Jan 09, 2008 9:28 am

In Philadelphia, the Cashman vultures are circling


http://riveraveblues.com/

For some reason or another, a small but vocal crew of baseball fans led by this man do not like Brian Cashman with a vengeance.

Some critics think he’s overrated and that the talent-evaluators working for him deserve more credit; others see postseason berths in every year of his ten-year reign as GM as indicative of the fact that he’s not good enough. He can’t build a bullpen; he can’t build a bench. You know the drill.

Well, outside of New York, the Cashman vultures are gearing up for what many, rightly, consider to be the steal of the century. When Brian Cashman, who many not seem to like the new Yankees organizational power structure all that much, leaves New York, Philadelphia will be ready to with open arms. Or at least the fans in Philly will be waiting.

Nothing is more indicative of this philosophy and outside view of Brian Cashman better than this post from The Good Phight. Take a look:

But what I find ironic about Cashman and how he’s perceived is that the same bloated payrolls that critics once alleged made it impossible for him to get burned by his mistakes now largely obscure the best work he’s done. Following the Yankees’ 2003 World Series loss to Florida and shocking ALCS defeat at the hands of Boston a year later, Cashman saw an aging roster and a largely depleted farm system. Cashman made a few additions of the type Big Stein had demanded since the ’70s, bringing in the likes of Randy Johnson and, um, Carl Pavano–but his focus was on rebuilding a farm system that Baseball America had ranked 27th in early 2004 and 24th before the 2005 season. A year later, that ranking had jumped to 17th, and an assessment by Baseball Prospectus a year after that put the Yankees at 4th of the 30 MLB teams. BP’s Kevin Goldstein wrote in December, “After years of sitting near the bottom of the organizational rankings due to some drafts that border on reprehensible, the Yankees have begun to place more focus and priority on the draft, and the results have come quickly. Their bounty of young pitching is the envy of baseball…”

That is, in essence, the praise that I have for Brian Cashman, and I would probably go one step further and give him a pass on the Carl Pavano deal. At the time, Pavano was a highly sought-after commodity. The Mets, Red Sox and Tigers were all showing various degrees of interest, and the Yanks got him at something of a bargain rate. Who knew that he would utterly break down and make fewer than 20 starts over three years? That was a great signing then; it just looks terrible in hindsight.

But the Good Phight’s point is one that is often overlooked, and it certainly relates to what Tommy said earlier. For much of the early 2000s, the Yankees were puttering along with no farm system. A series of poor drafts and few big-ticket international signings had left the system depleted, and the George Steinbrenner win-now-before-I-forget-it attitude led the Yanks to acquire pieces, such as Raul Mondesi, that never should have been in New York.

When Cashman made his power play, he and his people really turned things around. The Yankees are still big spenders; they can sign that big free agent — A-Rod, anyone? — when they have to, but they’ve built up an organization that is in the top five of all Minor League systems. They’ve got the chips to use when the time and returns are right, and they’re developing a core group of kids who are well on their way to becoming the next set of homegrown Yankee greats.

I believe that losing Cashman would not be a good move for the Yankee organization. Through thick and thin, Cashman has sustained Yankee success. He did it while facing constant pressure from a Boss who meddled too much in baseball affairs, and he did it by building up the farm when the Boss finally backed off. I’d hate to see the Steinbrenner brothers push him out, and Hank and Hal would be wise to heed a fan base and ownership in Philadelphia who could use a GM with Cashman’s ability to construct a top-notch Big League club while building up the farm for the future.


[quote]




1.
Travis G. says:
January 9th, 2008 at 12:48 am (Reply)

http://www.bostonherald.com/sp.....rticleFull

this article scares me. Cashman seems to clearly allude to leaving after the year. who knows who Hank would hire as the next GM - it could be a crazy win-now-at-all-costs guy that he probably wants. Cashman is building a longterm, efficient contender.
2.
juke says:
January 9th, 2008 at 12:53 am (Reply)

Strong argument for Cash. AND good luck…

Hey! Let’s start here: While technically correct, I wish people would stop referring to Hank & Hal as young or the ‘kids.’ Yeah, since he’s their biological father, they are younger than George, relatively younger, yes. Young? No; men in their 50s are NOT young.

Seems like nitpicking? it’s a gross & demeaning mischaracterization to suggest they are anything but men of late middle-age, who have been in business well over 25+ years. Would be nice if they were the ‘young,’ new owners. They ain’t.
1.
Ben K. says:
January 9th, 2008 at 12:54 am (Reply)

I see your point and changed it. When I’m 50, I hope someone calls me young.
3.
Rich says:
January 9th, 2008 at 1:06 am (Reply)

The guy is mistaken. Cashman was opposed to trading for Randy Johnson. It was George’s decision to pursue him, and he let Randy Levine handle the negotiations with Arizona. It has been widely reported that the D’backs could have had Wang and Cano in the deal, but they turned them down.

Cash preferred to use the money that was allocated to RJ’s salary to sign Beltran.

We should also not overlook the fact that the reason that the Yankees had to pursue Johnson, Pavano, etc. is because the farm system was not turning out quality pitching prospects, partly because they were burning top picks on free agent signings, but also because they were drafting so poorly.

It is extremely telling that once Cash finally gained authority over the draft (including the strategy to target high ceiling prospects with signability issues), the farm system started to flourish.

As I have pointed out on the sites that have unfairly criticized Cashman, it is an elementary principle of business management that the key to a successful organization is to hire, supervise, and retain quality people. Cashman has done that.

By his own admission, Cashman’s strength is not talent evaluation. He has demonstrated, however, that he can to develop and implement a successful plan.

Granted, Cashman has made mistakes, but Hank and Hal would rue the day that they lose him.
4.
E-ROC says:
January 9th, 2008 at 2:21 am (Reply)

I hope Cashman stays. He seemed discouraged when answering some of the questions at that charity event in Boston. Almost to the point that he knows he might not be back with the Yanks after the season. Just the “tone” of his answers to those questions in the Boston Herald has me worried. Sad
5.
RollignWave says:
January 9th, 2008 at 3:41 am (Reply)

While i’m not sure that if others would do a better job, Cashman clearly has something that we havn’t seen since Gene Michael’s days as GM

1.competence
2.a plan

it doesn’t sound like much, but you’d be surprised at how many GMs in baseball don’t appear to have those 2 things.

EVERY GM will get burned by some moves / drafts. but we have to look at the larger picture . a.did the move at the time make sense b. does his overall result remain good.
6.
Jeff says:
January 9th, 2008 at 5:36 am (Reply)

Cashman obviously falls on your side of the fence with the Phil Hughes staying philosphy but I think he is mediocre at best. Every contract we hand out is overblown. Clemens was the cake.
Also, or the last couple of years we have seen our team go into the season with a great line-up and a weak rotation. I really think with all the teams wealth he could have done better. This year with the ability to get Santana is another instance of turning down the chance to greatly improve the rotation. Sorry guys Santana is better than Hughes plain and simple.
I won’t blame him for Pavano or RJ. Who would have known? But Kevin Brown instead of Bartolo Colone. Igawa?
Also, we gave Gary Schefield the same contract the Angels got Vladdy for. That one burned my ass at the time. Maybe you guys can enlighten me as to why that happened.
Lastly, if I compare the job he’s done with Theo Epstein I think he has been outshown by a landslide.
1.
yankeemonkey says:
January 9th, 2008 at 6:57 am (Reply)

Isn’t it pretty well known at this point that George was the one who signed Sheff?
2.
CLT_JR says:
January 9th, 2008 at 8:26 am (Reply)

Also, Vlad had back issues. Teams were worried that with his violent swing that it would not hold up. I guess all the teams, but the Angels were wrong.
1.
TurnTwo says:
January 9th, 2008 at 9:01 am (Reply)

and if I remember correctly, I think the report was that Cashman had Vlad lined up for a contract and ready to go, and the whole thing was nixed bc George overruled him with the Sheffield deal.
7.
snoop dogg resident says:
January 9th, 2008 at 7:06 am (Reply)

“They’ve got the chips to use when the time and returns are right”

A core of all-stars who have 4-5 years, or less, left in their prime

losing 50 million off the payroll

no lefty in the rotation

no Ace in the rotation

An ace who is available
the best starting pitcher in the last 5 years
a guy who can change the balance of power in the AL
29 years old
doesn’t have a history of injuries and doesn’t rely on breaking pitches
which decreases his chances of injuries

3 kids in the rotation on limited pitch counts coupled with a shaky bullpen

“They’ve got the chips to use when the time and returns are right” - your quote. if the time is not right now for the best pitcher in the world than when is it right?
1.
TurnTwo says:
January 9th, 2008 at 8:01 am (Reply)

while i believe Andy Pettitte counts as a lefty in the current rotation, i can agree with this train of thought…

if you are holding your primo chips for that special player to become available, and then you have the financial resources to take advantage of the system to lock that player up, wouldnt this just argue FOR trading to get Johan? he’s not special enough a player?

while ive had discussions in the comments on this site about the topic, i am really just in the camp that i am not trading any of the Trinity, or really any of the top 5 prospects in the system, unless you are getting back a player that meets certain criteria: is a proven, all-star caliber player at the major league level; is younger than 30 so that i am taking advantage of the prime of his career; and i can control his talent for 4 years, or more.

there are very few players in this league that meet this criteria, and itd be fun to see what other people think of who this might include, considering the team’s current situation and roster.
8.
TurnTwo says:
January 9th, 2008 at 8:05 am (Reply)

i used to be a waswatching reader, but i just dont get his apparent anger with Cashman… its like anything that is done wrong in the system falls on his lap (bad signings, bullpen construction), and the things done right in the organization (draft strategies, promoting from within) is credited to someone else.
9.
Pfistyunc says:
January 9th, 2008 at 8:32 am (Reply)

I might be in the minority here, but I am an avid Cashman hater. This news is the best of the winter and I would love to help him pack his shit and throw it in the U-haul. Without Gene Michael’s coattails and a limitless checkbook, Cashman will demonstrate his incompetence to the lovable, forgiving Philly fans in a very short timeframe.
10.
Bo says:
January 9th, 2008 at 8:34 am (Reply)

Hes built such a bad bench and terrible bullpen that they’ve made the playoffs 12 years in a row.

With 4 titles in there.

Yeah, hes a terrible GM.

Also the fact that hes built the farm system from the worst in the majors to top 5 in 2 years since he got control.

He stinks!
1.
Alvaro says:
January 9th, 2008 at 9:33 am (Reply)

Cashman’s lack of attention to constructing a team with quality depth has been his biggest weakness IMO.

He wanted Beltran over Randy, Vlad over Shef and can anyone really dog him for acquiring both Weaver and Vazquez?
11.
James Varghese says:
January 9th, 2008 at 9:40 am (Reply)

Living in Philly, I can guarantee you that all of Philadelphia would throw the guy a ticker tape parade if they added Cash as a GM (and that the lovefest would last for a year…maybe less).
12.

RedMagma

Posts : 3654
Join date : 2007-12-24

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Q & A and direct from Baseball America.

Post  RedMagma on Wed Jan 09, 2008 9:28 am

steve (different one) says:
January 9th, 2008 at 10:03 am (Reply)

yes, George personally signed Sheffield, but don’t let facts ruin a good rant.

also, Bartolo Colon? hilarious.

Colon was an absolutely disastrous signing for Anahaim. he got $51M for 4 years. in 3 of the 4 years, he had an ERA over 5.00. he was a complete and utter bust. 1 good year in 4 seasons for $51M.

only someone with an agenda would place passing on Colon on the “Con” side of Cashman’s ledger. any objective analysis would credit Cashman with that decision.
1.
Pfistyunc says:
January 9th, 2008 at 10:26 am (Reply)

You forgot two things: he stole a Cy Young award and also had the worst haircut in the history of baseball.
13.
Bill Porter says:
January 9th, 2008 at 10:28 am (Reply)

I wish the Kinderstien would observe the old maxim “If it ain’t broke don’t fix it” and leave Ca$h alone. He arrived at an an organizational agreement in 2005 that has resulted in the rejuvenation of the organization. Squeezing him out the door now would be the height of idiocy; mismanagement at its worst. I have no desire to go back to the pre ‘94 days or the 2001 - 2005 era of wanton mindless gluttony. Ca$h has the the entire organization on the verge of capturing a formula and model that will ensure it remains competitive indefinitely. How could they turn their back on that? The Stiens ought to be kissing his ass not greasing the skids for his departure.
14.
Bill Porter says:
January 9th, 2008 at 10:42 am (Reply)

Oh and by the way Lombardi is simply running after Ca$h for the attention. He has advertised subscription advertising on his space. (12/27/2007) He needs traffic to sell it. What better way to create traffic than to buck the trend and trash a successful and popular GM. I don’t place comments at his site because I wont register to do so and help him out with his effort. He either needs a dog or a girl friend or both to occupy his time and distract him from this Ca$h campaign. (double entendre intended) In any event he should knock it off because he is looking pretty juvenile and pathetic in carrying it on.
15.
Jeff says:
January 9th, 2008 at 10:53 am (Reply)

I would put Colon and a CY young ahead of Brown and his broken back. I don’t think the Contract was a good one as he did break down but to the degree of not having 20 20 hindsight missing him while going for Brown was a bad decision.
If you guys want to blam GMs for contracts that don’t pan out than go all the way and lets get on Cash for Povano RJ and the rest. I don’t do that because you are trying to evaluate on decision making. And in some cases Cash has made the wrong move.
Wait it was George… is that the argument? Looks like Cash only takes orders so I don’t know what you are so in love with. The great negotiated contracts he gives? I think 20 mil for a couple months of Clemens was a bargain. Yep and Posada and Mariano were resigned for pennies on the dollar. Damond blew him right out of Boston - worth it? Farnsworth? The list could go on and on. He pays players to come here or stay here like we are the Royals. If we could get a GM that could negotiate a contract we would be so much better off.
[/quote]

RedMagma

Posts : 3654
Join date : 2007-12-24

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Q & A and direct from Baseball America.

Post  RedMagma on Wed Jan 09, 2008 9:29 am

Cashman opens up
GM discusses Santana, Yanks hierarchy



http://www.bostonherald.com/sports/baseball/red_sox/view.bg?articleid=1064862#articleFull


As Brian Cashman walked out of Fenway Park [map]’s EMC Club yesterday, the New York Yankees general manager offered a final message.

“Right now,” said Cashman, “all is quiet.”

But when it comes to the Yankees and a potential trade for Minnesota Twins ace Johan Santana, comments from both Cashman and the team’s senior vice president, Hank Steinbrenner, suggest serenity is anything but the norm these days.

On Friday, Steinbrenner told the Associated Press: “Nothing is really decided at this point. I’m still leaning toward doing it. There’s others leaning not to do it. There are some others that are leaning to do it also. Disagreements within the organization. Nothing major, but just different opinions. I’ve changed my opinion a couple times.”

Steinbrenner also touched up the dynamic between himself and Cashman.

“I always told him, ‘I’m going to make the final decisions because when you’re the owner you should,’ ” Steinbrenner said. “He is the general manager, and he has the right to talk me out of it and he has talked me out of some things.”

Yesterday, Cashman, in town to support the annual Hot Stove, Cool Music charitable event put on by Red Sox [team stats] general manager Theo Epstein and twin brother Paul’s Foundation to be Named Later, offered insight into how decisions are currently being made within the Yankees organization.

“The dynamics are changing with us,” said Cashman, while serving on a panel discussion that also included Toronto Blue Jays GM J.P. Ricciardi, Red Sox adviser Bill James, agent Scott Boras, Hall of Fame writer Peter Gammons and Theo Epstein. “When I signed up with this current three-year deal, and this is the last year of it, it was with full authority to run the entire program. George (Steinbrenner, the Yankees’ owner) had given me that. But things have changed in this third year now with the emergence of Hal and Hank Steinbrenner and that started this winter.

“I’ll be honest, I’m learning as I go along, too. But it is different. But the one thing is that I’ve been with this family, the Steinbrenner family, for well over 20 years, so I’m focused fully on doing everything I can to assist them in their emergence now as decision makers. But it is definitely different than it has been the last two years.”

Listening to Cashman and Epstein, it sounded as though the priority was to focus on the development of the here and the now of their organizations’ younger players, rather than Santana.

“There’s a lot going on around baseball,” Epstein said. “We’ve reached a point with our situation, with most of the world championship club back and a burgeoning farm system which was just rated second in all of baseball by (Baseball America), we feel we can improve by letting our young players play. We don’t have desperate holes that we have to go out and fill at any cost.

“We can pick and choose what makes sense for us rather than being desperately in the market place.”

Cashman reiterated that this time of year typically isn’t reserved for slotting in big pieces of the puzzle, although, as he points out, the Yankees in past years made trades for Alex Rodriguez and Roger Clemens well into the offseason.

“I can only tell you I know where we’re at, but I can’t speak for (the Twins) because they have more information,” said Cashman regarding the Santana situation. “They know what they want and they know what’s on the table.”

Not so fast

Despite the perception that the delay in a trade involving Santana might be holding up other moves, such as finding a fourth outfielder if center fielder Coco Crisp [stats] is dealt to Minnesota or elsewhere, Epstein said that isn’t the case.

RedMagma

Posts : 3654
Join date : 2007-12-24

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Q & A and direct from Baseball America.

Post  RedMagma on Wed Jan 09, 2008 9:31 am

I'm happy to hear that bit about the years on the extension. Hank's right. Anything beyond five years is just asking for it.

RedMagma

Posts : 3654
Join date : 2007-12-24

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Q & A and direct from Baseball America.

Post  RedMagma on Wed Jan 09, 2008 10:22 am

More Santana minor updates….

It seems the enthusiasm for all things Santana appears to be waning a bit. We are all realizing slowly but surely that if a deal is coming, it is far away and nothing is close with anyone. You hear Bedard is going to the M’s. Haren left already to the D Backs. That takes 2 potential suitors out of the mix for Santana.

I think the Twins are destined to lose this battle here. Fortunately for them, the Sox, and both NY teams are still claiming they are in this.

But I am thinking both the spanks and Sawx are really just trying to steer the conversation enough to keep Santana away from the other one.

What is left…really only us.

This does not mean he gets dealt. Just that it is growing increasingly clear that he is not being traded to those 2 AL teams.

My prediction….he starts the year a Twin and they make no announcement regarding this from now through spring training. So we keep hanging on innuendo rather than fact. Unless the GM makes an announcement from the Twins….we stand idly by

RedMagma

Posts : 3654
Join date : 2007-12-24

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Q & A and direct from Baseball America.

Post  RedMagma on Wed Jan 09, 2008 10:24 am

QUOTE(TheoShmeo @ Jan 4 2008, 10:02 AM) *
Let's assume that Hank is tampering within the meaning of the rule. So what? Does anyone expect Selig or the Twins to react in any meaningful way? Based on Hank's prior comments and the fact that nothing was done about them, Hank has been effectively given a "say what you want" pass.

It appears that Twins GM Bill Smith was asked about this in a Pioneer Press article from early December. From his response, he doesn't really care to do anything about it.

QUOTE
Major League Baseball has a tampering rule, but you wouldn't know it by the number of club officials and players discussing and lobbying about the imminent trade of all-star pitcher Johan Santana by the Twins.

"I'm not worrying about them; I'm only worrying about me," Twins general manager Bill Smith said Saturday. "I've got enough problems on my end of things without them."


I thought spike was being oversensitive when he first started this thread, but this has reached the point of ridiculousness. SoSIAS has now essentially said how long a contract he's willing to give Santana as well as that he's willing to bid more than anyone else for his services. This is undeniably tampering.

The fact that Selig is going to do nothing about a significant rules violation that impacts the integrity of the game (but apparently approves of Francona being checked by the fashion police during games) is infuriating, but unsurprising.

RedMagma

Posts : 3654
Join date : 2007-12-24

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Q & A and direct from Baseball America.

Post  RedMagma on Wed Jan 09, 2008 10:32 am

How much of the Mitchell report was really just political?

I know this has been discussed back and forth on these boards, but this subject is still not sitting well with me as a longtime diehard Yankees fan. While I don't believe this was a "conspiracy" against the Yankees, I have to question if Selig deliberately chose Mitchell to head up the steroids investigation because he IS a part of the Red Sox organization (6th ot 7th in ranking) and IS on the Red Sox board of directors, in order to protect both the Red Sox organization and MLB from the fallout of this investigation.

Not to get too political here, but if you look at the Mitchell report from more of a political standpoint, they had to find the perfect "fall guy(s)" for this that would make the greatest impact to get their message across, and yet do it in such a way as to minimize the damage this impact could potentially have on MLB. The facts are that the Yankees have won 26 WS championships to Boston's 7; the Yankees have always been seen by non-Yankees fans as the team they love to hate. The Red Sox were the underdogs in 2004, always seeming to lose at the hands of their archrivals the NY Yankees, so when they won that year, America fell in love with the Boston Red Sox and a whole lot of bandwagon fans jumped on board to ride the train, joining those who waited decades to see this history in the making, seemingly storybook-ending season unfold. (Excuse while I Gagme for a moment here) Bottomline is that this did wonders for Major League Baseball and their "bottomline", literally. From DVDs and memorabilia to T-shirts and programs (just to mention a few), MLB was certainly benefiting from this "Cinderella Story".

That being said, imagine had they outed Big Papi for doing steroids, can you imagine how that would impact MLB, more specifically, the bottomline for MLB? Do you honestly think many of those bandwagon fans would stand by him had he been accused? And even for those diehard fans who had followed the team for several decades, do you really think the Red Sox would not have lost many of those fans too?

As unforgiving as many say that NY Yankees fans are, I truly feel nothing can be further from the truth. Heck, we witnessed this case in point at the end of this season twice: the first was with how the Yankee brass treated Joe Torre, and the second being with the entire A-Rod opting out debacle. Say what you will, bottomline is that no matter what side of the camp you were on, you're still a fan of the team. Do you honestly think that Red Sox fans would still follow their team had A-Rod done this to them? I've met many of them, and I honestly do not think they could have handled this.

So now you're Bud Selig and you need someone who can head up the steroids investigation, who can protect the Red Sox organization (and thus protecting MLB in the process) and yet make an example of the Yankees (the team all others love to hate) without making their fans jump ship. What better way to do this than to hire someone involved in the Red Sox organization? It's a win for the Red Sox organization and fans, because their players are protected. And it's a win for MLB because they can get their point acrossed about steroids by making examples out of players from the best team in baseball and yet, still keep the fanbase of this team intact as many will suspect this report as being slanted because the investigation was performed by someone with a blatant conflict of interest. Ask yourself this question: how would you feel had this investigation been handled by a neutral party with the same results?

When you think about it logically, this all begins to make sense....

Mitchell Report did nothing but ruin lives (the hardest part about that listening to the Roger/McNamee phone call was realizing how many people were affected y their kids, wives and I'm sure the rest of their families as well) . Does MLB or Congress have a plan or goal with this PED stuff? Or are they just having hearings to say that there was PED usage in the sport? What's their puropse with this mess?

Selig has proved over and over his incompetence as commish. His choosing a member of any MLB organization was stupid. The fact that the report did not mention everyone is stupid. MLB needs a new commish very badly. For all the money and time spent on this special report it is laughable. I'm frankly tired of it all and just want to play ball.

Mitchell is not the ideal person to head this investigation. This report was far from expansive, concentrating on teams involved with McNamee. The Mitchell group was trying include in their report a big fish to substantiate the validity of such a committee. A few names here and there was not going to save McNamee from serving a year or two from the federal pententiary, but a big fish will. Under such pressure, one can be skeptical about the "big fish" being named. The Yankee hating public will say, a job well done and the millions spend was well worth it. After all, Selig can now say he address concerns as it relates to the steriod/hgh era. Am I satisfied with the report and is this the end all of steriod/hgh investigation? No way, a report that targets a few and omitting most is not a report, just a witch hunt and a field day for tabloids.

RedMagma

Posts : 3654
Join date : 2007-12-24

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Q & A and direct from Baseball America.

Post  RedMagma on Wed Jan 09, 2008 10:45 am

How much of the Mitchell report was really just political?

I know this has been discussed back and forth , but this subject is still not sitting well with me as a longtime diehard Yankees fan. While I don't believe this was a "conspiracy" against the Yankees, I have to question if Selig deliberately chose Mitchell to head up the steroids investigation because he IS a part of the Red Sox organization (6th ot 7th in ranking) and IS on the Red Sox board of directors, in order to protect both the Red Sox organization and MLB from the fallout of this investigation.

Not to get too political here, but if you look at the Mitchell report from more of a political standpoint, they had to find the perfect "fall guy(s)" for this that would make the greatest impact to get their message across, and yet do it in such a way as to minimize the damage this impact could potentially have on MLB. The facts are that the Yankees have won 26 WS championships to Boston's 7; the Yankees have always been seen by non-Yankees fans as the team they love to hate. The Red Sox were the underdogs in 2004, always seeming to lose at the hands of their archrivals the NY Yankees, so when they won that year, America fell in love with the Boston Red Sox and a whole lot of bandwagon fans jumped on board to ride the train, joining those who waited decades to see this history in the making, seemingly storybook-ending season unfold. (Excuse while I Gagme for a moment here) Bottomline is that this did wonders for Major League Baseball and their "bottomline", literally. From DVDs and memorabilia to T-shirts and programs (just to mention a few), MLB was certainly benefiting from this "Cinderella Story".

That being said, imagine had they outed Big Papi for doing steroids, can you imagine how that would impact MLB, more specifically, the bottomline for MLB? Do you honestly think many of those bandwagon fans would stand by him had he been accused? And even for those diehard fans who had followed the team for several decades, do you really think the Red Sox would not have lost many of those fans too?

As unforgiving as many say that NY Yankees fans are, I truly feel nothing can be further from the truth. Heck, we witnessed this case in point at the end of this season twice: the first was with how the Yankee brass treated Joe Torre, and the second being with the entire A-Rod opting out debacle. Say what you will, bottomline is that no matter what side of the camp you were on, you're still a fan of the team. Do you honestly think that Red Sox fans would still follow their team had A-Rod done this to them? I've met many of them, and I honestly do not think they could have handled this.

So now you're Bud Selig and you need someone who can head up the steroids investigation, who can protect the Red Sox organization (and thus protecting MLB in the process) and yet make an example of the Yankees (the team all others love to hate) without making their fans jump ship. What better way to do this than to hire someone involved in the Red Sox organization? It's a win for the Red Sox organization and fans, because their players are protected. And it's a win for MLB because they can get their point acrossed about steroids by making examples out of players from the best team in baseball and yet, still keep the fanbase of this team intact as many will suspect this report as being slanted because the investigation was performed by someone with a blatant conflict of interest. Ask yourself this question: how would you feel had this investigation been handled by a neutral party with the same results?

When you think about it logically, this all begins to make sense....

Mitchell Report did nothing but ruin lives (the hardest part about that listening to the Roger/McNamee phone call was realizing how many people were affected y their kids, wives and I'm sure the rest of their families as well) . Does MLB or Congress have a plan or goal with this PED stuff? Or are they just having hearings to say that there was PED usage in the sport? What's their puropse with this mess?

Selig has proved over and over his incompetence as commish. His choosing a member of any MLB organization was stupid. The fact that the report did not mention everyone is stupid. MLB needs a new commish very badly. For all the money and time spent on this special report it is laughable. I'm frankly tired of it all and just want to play ball.

Mitchell is not the ideal person to head this investigation. This report was far from expansive, concentrating on teams involved with McNamee. The Mitchell group was trying include in their report a big fish to substantiate the validity of such a committee. A few names here and there was not going to save McNamee from serving a year or two from the federal pententiary, but a big fish will. Under such pressure, one can be skeptical about the "big fish" being named. The Yankee hating public will say, a job well done and the millions spend was well worth it. After all, Selig can now say he address concerns as it relates to the steriod/hgh era. Am I satisfied with the report and is this the end all of steriod/hgh investigation? No way, a report that targets a few and omitting most is not a report, just a witch hunt and a field day for tabloids.

RedMagma

Posts : 3654
Join date : 2007-12-24

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Q & A and direct from Baseball America.

Post  RedMagma on Wed Jan 09, 2008 11:06 am

Like Redsox tamper with J.D Drew Last year and Bud Selig alter Redsox seal bid with Matsuzaka since Selig and Henry are best friends.


I think it's not tampering because they are involved in negotiations with Santana’s team?… It’s only tampering if the Twins file charges against the yankees with MLB. As long as there is a potential trade on the table between the two teams the Twins will not file charges.Hank needs to shut up and He's a bad businessman.
if what Hank is doing is tampering, the Mets did the same thing earlier this offseason when I heard a report on ESPN radio, where Minaya said that the Mets would offer a 7 year deal to Johan, even though they wouldnt go above 5 for Zito.

RedMagma

Posts : 3654
Join date : 2007-12-24

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Q & A and direct from Baseball America.

Post  RedMagma on Wed Jan 09, 2008 11:06 am

And this is a good point from another board about how Hanks is tampering again by openly talking about the length of contract he would give a player on another team's roster.

"(Hank) has now essentially said how long a contract he's willing to give Santana as well as that he's willing to bid more than anyone else for his services. This is undeniably tampering.

The fact that Selig is going to do nothing about a significant rules violation that impacts the integrity of the game (but apparently approves of Francona being checked by the fashion police during games) is infuriating, but unsurprising. "

Of course, Bud Selig is asleep again. Selig has always let the Steinbrenners (George, now Hank) get away with talking about players on other team's rosters that a Steinbrenner covets for Pinstripes.
ver1246 Post #3: 1:06 pm

RedMagma

Posts : 3654
Join date : 2007-12-24

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Q & A and direct from Baseball America.

Post  RedMagma on Wed Jan 09, 2008 11:08 am

I 'm hoping Usc Rey Mayluga will fore go his senior year and enter draft for 2008? Thoughts?

RedMagma

Posts : 3654
Join date : 2007-12-24

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Q & A and direct from Baseball America.

Post  RedMagma on Wed Jan 09, 2008 11:15 am

From a Bitter Redsox Fan with his inferiority complex towards the Yankees

http://boards.espn.go.com/boards/mb/mb?rls=Boston%20Red%20Sox&tid=2183313&lid=1



And this is a good point from another board about how Hanks is tampering again by openly talking about the length of contract he would give a player on another team's roster.

"(Hank) has now essentially said how long a contract he's willing to give Santana as well as that he's willing to bid more than anyone else for his services. This is undeniably tampering.

The fact that Selig is going to do nothing about a significant rules violation that impacts the integrity of the game (but apparently approves of Francona being checked by the fashion police during games) is infuriating, but unsurprising. "

Of course, Bud Selig is asleep again. Selig has always let the Steinbrenners (George, now Hank) get away with talking about players on other team's rosters that a Steinbrenner covets for Pinstripes

Bud Selig are best friends with John Henry and He let them bought The Redsox and become New Owner even though They weren't a high bidder at that time?

RedMagma

Posts : 3654
Join date : 2007-12-24

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Q & A and direct from Baseball America.

Post  RedMagma on Wed Jan 09, 2008 11:18 am

Talk about being bitter, Redsox fans still have inferiority complex towards The Yankees. Why do you guys care so much when Hank speak, your not a Fan of the Yankees? You just won the world series. Please stop it already.

RedMagma

Posts : 3654
Join date : 2007-12-24

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Q & A and direct from Baseball America.

Post  RedMagma on Wed Jan 09, 2008 11:21 am

"Wouldn't saying that be considered tampering?"

Apparently not. I mean, seriously, can we give this a rest already? If an owner, team president, GM, etc, keeps making all of these public comments, and nobody that matters (ie -- someone from the commissioner's office) says anything about it, then it's not tampering. Besides, in this case, Hank's comments would tend to make Santana LESS likely to use his NTC to force a trade to the Yankees, not more.

Now, I suppose we can argue about whether this stuff should be considered tampering if that really makes us happy, but tampering isn't defined by us posting here on this board, or by sportwriters or bloggers. It's defined by MLB, and there's been no indication that MLB has any real problem with Hank's big mouth. Or Omar Minaya's. Or Arte Moreno's. Or even Scott Boras'.

RedMagma

Posts : 3654
Join date : 2007-12-24

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Q & A and direct from Baseball America.

Post  RedMagma on Wed Jan 09, 2008 11:31 am

QUOTE(mabrowndog @ Jan 3 2008, 11:16 PM) *
If Hank hadn't used the player's name in making his statement, there'd be no issue whatsoever. But he's quoted as saying "Santana" in a sentence directly related to that player's potential compensation.



Regardless of the definition and any revisions it's undergone, I'd have to believe Selig will give Hank a smack on this one, if for no other reason than to reinforce to all owners and executives that publicly discussing specific players under contract with other teams is a huge potential legal risk for the league.


I think this is what spike was refering to. Tampering rules prohibit noncontractual teams from discussing any player that is on any other teams payroll. There is no gray area here. Despite Hanks statements of obvious, he is clearly doing what the tampering rules state not to do. He could have easily said the Sox could absorb a Santana extension as well. Either way, his reference to Santana should get a penalty


Let's assume that Hank is tampering within the meaning of the rule. So what? Does anyone expect Selig or the Twins to react in any meaningful way? Based on Hank's prior comments and the fact that nothing was done about them, Hank has been effectively given a "say what you want" pass.

exactly - Hank has no publicly told Santana that the Yankees opening offer is 5 years at more than any other team will offer him.

how is this not tampering?

WTF?

QUOTE(86spike @ Jan 9 2008, 01:29 PM) *
exactly - Hank has no publicly told Santana that the Yankees opening offer is 5 years at more than any other team will offer him.

how is this not tampering?

WTF?


Because the Twins haven't charged him with tampering. It would be the same thing if someone walked into a store and started taking money out of the register every day. The guy won't be charged for stealing until someone calls the police and reports it. Without a complaint, MLB will not investigate. And why should they?

QUOTE(TomRicardo @ Jan 9 2008, 01:38 PM) *
Because the Twins haven't charged him with tampering. It would be the same thing if someone walked into a store and started taking money out of the register every day. The guy won't be charged for stealing until someone calls the police and reports it. Without a complaint, MLB will not investigate. And why should they?


Well as a team involved in trying to acquire Santana, I certainly hope that the Sox would complain to MLB about this.

This isn't something that only affects the Twins, it affects any MLB team out there that might be interesting in trading for Santana.

Yeah, this has definitely crossed the line into tampering. I was a little unsure before but this seems pretty clear cut.

Odds that Murray Chass will write about this? Zero.

QUOTE(TomRicardo @ Jan 9 2008, 01:38 PM) *
Because the Twins haven't charged him with tampering. It would be the same thing if someone walked into a store and started taking money out of the register every day. The guy won't be charged for stealing until someone calls the police and reports it. Without a complaint, MLB will not investigate. And why should they?


The guy is stilling rifling the cash register, and the store owner is going to be short, unless the thief gets caiught. As a practical matter it would be unrealistic to believe that the Twins would file a grievance against a party with whom they may cut a deal. Nonetheless, Prince Hank is still tampering with Santana even if no one files a charge against him. Hopefully once this particular transactions is settled, someone will file a grievance with MLB.

QUOTE(Foulkey Reese @ Jan 9 2008, 01:57 PM) *
Well as a team involved in trying to acquire Santana, I certainly hope that the Sox would complain to MLB about this.

This isn't something that only affects the Twins, it affects any MLB team out there that might be interesting in trading for Santana.


But only the Twins have a right to file a grievance because it is their player under contract. Fact is unless Santana is not traded because he refuses to waive his no trade clause for any team other than the Yankees, there will be no grievance filed

This can't be tampering. If it were, Murray Chass would be all over it.

What we have seen from this guy is the inability to keep things to himself, and an equal inability to stand behind his own pronouncements. His saying he won't go beyond five years has as much validity as his saying ARod wasn't going to be re-signed.

RedMagma

Posts : 3654
Join date : 2007-12-24

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Q & A and direct from Baseball America.

Post  RedMagma on Wed Jan 09, 2008 11:34 am

I know it's from Yes boards duh, Talk about stealing other people posts, You do same thing MassSports? Please stop .

RedMagma

Posts : 3654
Join date : 2007-12-24

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Q & A and direct from Baseball America.

Post  RedMagma on Wed Jan 09, 2008 11:36 am

From a Bitter Redsox Fan with his inferiority complex towards the Yankees

[url="http://boards.espn.go.com/boards/mb/mb?rls=Boston%20Red%20Sox&tid=2183313&lid=1"]http://boards.espn.go.com/boards/mb/mb?rls...83313&lid=1[/url]


And this is a good point from another board about how Hanks is tampering again by openly talking about the length of contract he would give a player on another team's roster.

"(Hank) has now essentially said how long a contract he's willing to give Santana as well as that he's willing to bid more than anyone else for his services. This is undeniably tampering.

The fact that Selig is going to do nothing about a significant rules violation that impacts the integrity of the game (but apparently approves of Francona being checked by the fashion police during games) is infuriating, but unsurprising. "

Of course, Bud Selig is asleep again. Selig has always let the Steinbrenners (George, now Hank) get away with talking about players on other team's rosters that a Steinbrenner covets for Pinstripes

Bud Selig are best friends with John Henry .The incompetence Bud selig let his best friend bought The Redsox and become New Owner even though They weren't a high bidder at that time?

RedMagma

Posts : 3654
Join date : 2007-12-24

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Q & A and direct from Baseball America.

Post  RedMagma on Wed Jan 09, 2008 11:41 am

If McFadden is there at 6, do you take him Mel? Remember that NE picks right behind Jets and they would likely take him if he was available

RedMagma

Posts : 3654
Join date : 2007-12-24

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Q & A and direct from Baseball America.

Post  RedMagma on Wed Jan 09, 2008 11:45 am

Joe (NY): Big fan Mel, draft day is my favorite day of the year. Do you think that the Jets aren't convinced Kellen Clemens is the answer at QB? He wasn't very impressive although just a rookie. Any chance they pick my boy Matty Ice? WIll he still be there at 6? Thanks.

SportsNation Mel Kiper: (1:33 PM ET ) In terms of the draft, you just drafted Clemens not too long ago. What has happened, they have to assess that internally. He hasn't shown enough to guarantee it yet, but he's still young. And it's not like he has a lot of weapons to throw to. DE, OLB, WR and OL are key needs for them. They don't have a difference maker at OLB. A DE in that 3-4. Those are the areas you're looking at. Evaluating Clemens, you have to look at the WR spot. They don't have a big time WR. That's something they have to look at. If you want to evaluate Clemens, put some weapons around him. And they need a bluechip on the DL and an impact LB.

SportsNation Mel Kiper: (1:34 PM ET ) Cleveland had Anderson and he was a sixth round pick by the Ravens. They weren't sure about him and they drafted Brady Quinn. Now they have a very good problem of having two QBs that they like. Anderson was a young, intriguing QB but hadn't shown enough to say that he's our guy. I think they would have to protect themselves, with a veteran QB in the mix.

RedMagma

Posts : 3654
Join date : 2007-12-24

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Q & A and direct from Baseball America.

Post  RedMagma on Wed Jan 09, 2008 11:46 am

I don't think anyone of us know for sure that a team has to complain for MLB to get involved. I would hope the Selig has the lattitude to do his own investigation if he sees fit... but again, tampering rules are cloudy.

RedMagma

Posts : 3654
Join date : 2007-12-24

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Q & A and direct from Baseball America.

Post  RedMagma on Wed Jan 09, 2008 11:52 am

I don't think anyone of us know for sure that a team has to complain for MLB to get involved. I would hope the Selig has the lattitude to do his own investigation if he sees fit... but again, tampering rules are cloudy.










Hard to explain rising vote totals
posted: Wednesday, January 9, 2008 | Feedback | Print Entry


http://insider.espn.go.com/espn/blog/index?name=neyer_rob

People do take the Hall of Fame personally.

I don't. It does not concern me, personally, whether or not Bert Blyleven is in the Hall of Fame. Sure, it's unfair that he's not, and I suppose his life might be marginally better if he were elected.

But I don't feel sorry for Circle Me Bert or Alan Trammell or Ron Santo. OK, I do feel sorry for Santo because he keeps losing body parts. And for some reason I feel a little bit sorry for Tim Raines, too. But I think I'll get over it. I don't have a big heart, so I have to conserve my sympathies.

No, what fascinates me about the Hall of Fame is not the product, but the process. It's not that interesting watching superstars like Cal Ripken and Tony Gwynn saunter into the Coop as soon as they're eligible. What's interesting is how guys like Gary Carter and Ryne Sandberg spend years on the string before finally making it. Or how a guy like Jim Rice goes from 137 votes in 1995 to 392 votes in 2008.

Here are the six Hall of Fame candidates who garnered support from more than 30 percent of the voters this time around. For each player, the first row represents their percentage in each of the last three elections. The second row is the actual vote totals.

Player 2006 2007 2008
Goose Gossage 64.6 71.2 85.8
336 388 466
Jim Rice 64.8 63.5 72.2
337 346 392
Andre Dawson 61.0 56.7 65.9
317 309 358
Bert Blyleven 53.3 47.7 61.9
277 260 336
Lee Smith 45.0 39.8 43.3
234 217 235
Jack Morris 41.2 37.1 42.9
214 202 233

As you can see, progress is neither inexorable nor inevitable. Jack Morris and Lee Smith are basically holding steady, while Blyleven and Andre Dawson were down, then up. What's most striking when you look at the year-to-year results -- and I can tell you, this drives radio guys nuts -- is how many voters change their opinions about particular players.

Look at Gossage. Roughly 130 voters changed their minds in two years. Seems like a lot, doesn't it? But that's not even the half of it. When Gossage was first eligible in 2000, he got 166 votes. In seven years he picked up 200 additional votes. Granted, things have changed. Eight years ago, there were only two relief pitchers in the Hall of Fame, so you can understand how the voters might not have known exactly what to do with Gossage. When it comes to a Hall of Fame candidate, better safe than sorry, because once they're in, you can't take them out.

And frankly, sometimes the voters change their minds as the years progress. Aside from Gossage, the biggest mover here is Blyleven, who's picked up 59 votes in the last two years. But again, that's not the half of it. Not nearly. When Blyleven debuted on the ballot in 1998, he got 83 votes. He's picked up nearly 250 votes in 10 years.

How does that happen, exactly? Could someone explain that to me? The standards for starting pitchers certainly couldn't have changed much since 1998. Blyleven statistics certainly haven't changed much. He was actually stuck around 17 percent for three years, but began moving up in 2001 and, with the exception of last year's bizarre hiccup, hasn't stopped since.

You want to know how it happens? I have a theory. I think that your typical voter -- we'll call him Joe Voter -- doesn't do much research at all. When a player appears on the ballot for the first time, Joe Voter asks himself one simple question: "Does everybody say this guy's a Hall of Famer?" If the answer is yes, he votes for him. Otherwise, he doesn't (unless Joe Voter liked the player personally).

Thus, Joe Voter misses a great number of Hall of Fame-quality players the first time around. Facts can be powerful things, though. Especially when they're easy to understand. In 1989, when Fergie Jenkins first appeared on the ballot, he managed to draw support from only 52 percent of the voters. But you know, Fergie Jenkins won 284 games and five times he finished in the top five in Cy Young balloting. Two years after garnering only 234 votes, Jenkins got 334 votes and squeaked into the Hall with 75.4 percent support.

Did Jenkins win any more games in those two years? Did he show up on anyone's Cy Young ballot, or strike out more batters? No, he did not. He was exactly as worthy a Hall of Fame candidate in 1989 as in 1991, and today it's hard to imagine Cooperstown without him. If you were to hold a special election today, Jenkins would get well over 90 percent of the vote. Yet even when he did get elected, he was spurned by 109 voters.

Here's another, more extreme example: In 1979, shortstop Luis Aparicio first appeared on the ballot. He got 120 votes, or 28 percent. The next year he got 124 votes, and the next year he dropped all the way down to 48 votes! Aparicio got fewer votes than Roger Maris, Harvey Kuenn, Elston Howard, Thurman Munson and Ted Kluszewski. I mean, I know he was a great hitter, but Teddy Kluszewski? Aparicio got roughly a third as many votes that year as fellow shortstop Maury Wills (like everybody else here, still not in the Hall).

How did that happen? I don't know. What I do know is that Aparicio's support grew massively in each of the next three years, and in 1984 he cruised into the Hall with 84.6 percent of the vote. How did that happen? Again I don't know.

But again, it's clear to me that a great number of voters simply didn't do much work when Aparicio first appeared on the ballot, and were later convinced by those who did. And Little Looie is just one example; if you've got the time I can cite dozens more.

I'm not sure this is necessarily a bad thing. I suppose it's good that voters are cautious. Still, if you really look at the history of the voting, you do have to wonder how many Hall of Fame voters actually think for themselves, and how many instead just chill out in the echo chamber. Waiting for further guidance

RedMagma

Posts : 3654
Join date : 2007-12-24

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Q & A and direct from Baseball America.

Post  RedMagma on Wed Jan 09, 2008 11:55 am

AL East Moves to Make



http://community.foxsports.com/blogs/birk/2008/01/08/AL_East_Moves_to_Make


It’s been a while since I posted anything here. In fact, we were talking about the MVP award back then. In the mean time, a lot has happened on the transaction front. I’ve caught myself up, and now, I’d like to offer my opinions on what each team should do going forward. We’ll start with the AL East.

Baltimore Orioles – The Miguel Tejada trade signified that they were entering full-scale rebuilding mode, and given the state of their team and those of their division rivals, this should have been done years ago. With the Red Sox set up so well for the next few years, the Yankees not far behind, and the Rays on the way up, the Orioles probably need to set a target data of 2011, which means that 2B Brian Roberts and LHP Erik Bedard make great trade chips right now. When midseason rolls around and teams are looking for bullpen help, the O’s should come to the table with Danny Baez, Jamie Walker, and Chad Bradford. Of course, all of these trade dumps need to be made with rebuilding the farm system as the goal.

Boston Red Sox – As mentioned above, the Red Sox are set up really well for the next few years. Jason Varitek and Curt Schilling are the only starters that are guaranteed free agents before the end of the 2010 season. Of course, Manny Ramirez can be granted free agency either of the next two offseasons. The Red Sox hold club options for 2009 and 2010 at $20M each. Given the dollar amount, I’d suggest looking into signing Manny to an extension, but he is coming off a pretty mediocre 2007. Let him prove he’s still got the power in 2008. If you can’t reach an extension next offseason, exercise the first $20M option (is a one-year $20M deal really that risky anymore?). Repeat.

New York Yankees – Coming off last season, there was quite a bit of uncertainty with the Yankees. Alex Rodriguez, Jorge Posada, Mariano Rivera, Andy Pettitte, and Roger Clemens were all free agents. Four were re-signed, and Yankees’ fans nationwide gave out a collective sigh of relief. The Yankees are set up for another postseason run in 2008, but they might want to call up the Orioles and see if any of their relievers are currently available. In preparation for the future, Jason Giambi, Bobby Abreu, Pettitte, Mike Mussina, and Carl Pavano are free agents after the season. Maybe Abreu (and Pavano?) warrant extension talk right now, but given their ages, I’d be willing to hold off until next offseason.

Tampa Bay Rays – Do I think they’re ready to compete for a playoff spot in 2008? No, but 2009 might not be out of the question. Most of their position players arrived last year, and 3B Evan Longoria will be joining them this spring, and the rest of their rotation should be joining them soon. For now, sit tight, watch the youngsters, and get excited for the future.

Toronto Blue Jays – Toronto is one of a few MLB teams where I just look at their roster and go, “What’s going on here? Could they get any more middle-of-the-pack? Where are the impact players?” Coming back down to earth, Troy Glaus, Vernon Wells, and Alex Rios do all have the ability to make an impact on offense, but Glaus has injury questions and Wells completely fell apart last year. Roy Halladay and A.J. Burnett can make an impact in the rotation, but they have each had their injury concerns in the past. The real question comes down to this: “When you’re projected for third in the division, have no large holes to fill to make up the ground, and have several (not young) guys under contract for a few more years, what do you do?” I think it’s hard to say “blow the whole thing up” when you’re this close. The only sure-fire way I see to improve the team for 2008 is to find the largest (and easiest) hole to fill and get a star-caliber player. I think that means replacing Matt Stairs, Reed Johnson, and Adam Lind in left with someone. Jason Bay wasn’t a star last year, but he’s a guy worth taking a chance on in this situation (he’s also Canadian if that means anything to MLB’s Canadian Representative). I’m not sure who they give up for him, but the only other option for a star-caliber LF is that 43-year old HR king involved in a criminal trial.
I'll be back either tomorrow or Thursday with the AL Central.

RedMagma

Posts : 3654
Join date : 2007-12-24

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Q & A and direct from Baseball America.

Post  Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Page 2 of 4 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

Back to top

- Similar topics

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum