Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Login-facebook
Around SBN: Indy 500: 'Greatest Spectacle In Racing' Set For Sunday

SBNation HOF Vote

This is how the SB Nation baseball bloggers recently voted on our HOF ballots. On Jan 6th MLB will announce who gets enshrined in 2010. With all of it's foibles I still love the concept and the debate that goes into the HOF vote.

Phil : Bert Blyleven,  Alan Trammell,  Barry Larkin,  Tim Raines,  Andre Dawson

Eric : Bert Blyleven,  Roberto Alomar,  Barry Larkin,  Edgar Martinez,  Mark McGwire,  Fred McGriff,  Tim Raines

I'm was pleased to see that both of us voted for Raines who is actually one fo the top 10 left fielders to ever play the game but disappointed to see how many SB Nation baseball writers left him off the ballot. The complete voting results can be found here . Isn't Google Docs a great thing?  

I was really on the line with Roberto Alomar but his sudden decline at an early age left him off my ballot. He certainly had a HOF arc but drop offs like that leave a bad taste in my mouth.  I loved Edgar Martinez as a hitter but having watched his whole career I'm very certain that if he had to play the field he'd have been hurt much to often to put up those kind of numbers. He became a DH not because he couldn't field but because he couldn't stay healthy when he played the field.  Fred McGriff was a good to great first baseman but just not HOF material for me. I kind of regret voting for Andre Dawson and not sure why I did since I never have when I've done other votes.

Eric is busy today but will chime in later on his HOF vote.

Click here to do your HOF Vote - it is not linked to your user name so you need to fill that in.  At first the ballot looks blank but once you click on the downarrow for each vote you will get a dropdown displaying each eligible player. Duplicate votes for the same player will be discarded.  Thanks to SBNation for putting this together for each teams blog.

Player % Vote Total Votes
Bert Blyleven 92.3% 48
Roberto Alomar 73.1% 38
Barry Larkin 63.5% 33
Tim Raines 53.8% 28
Mark McGwire 51.9% 27
Edgar Martinez 48.1% 25
Alan Trammell 40.4% 21
Andre Dawson 32.7% 17
Lee Smith 26.9% 14
Fred McGriff 25.0% 13
Dale Murphy 17.3% 9
Jack Morris 13.5% 7
Don Mattingly 11.5% 6
Harold Baines 7.7% 4
Dave Parker 3.8% 2
Kevin Appier 3.8% 2
Ellis Burks 1.9% 1
Ray Lankford 1.9% 1
Shane Reynolds 1.9% 1
Not receiving votes: Andres Galarraga, Pat Hentgen, Mike Jackson, Eric Karros, David Segui, Robin Ventura, Todd Zeile

Comment 317 comments  |  0 recs  | 

Do you like this story?

Comments

Display:

Just did mine

Voted for

1) Mark McGwire
2) Edgar Martinez
3) Bert Blyleven
4) Harold Baines
5) Alan Trammel

I was a big fan of McGwire, Edgar and Trammel. You guys talked me into Baines.

by Michael White on Jan 4, 2010 8:59 AM PST reply actions  

McGwire
Martinez
Blyleven
Raines
Alomar
McGriff
Trammel
Larkin

The Ultimate Ned's Kind of Guy

by Humma Kavula on Jan 4, 2010 9:34 AM PST reply actions  

Can't believe Karros would get ANY votes

I heard some prior discussion/debate on this, but how does Karros get any HOF consideration if Steve Garvey never got in???!

by mrdodger1966 on Jan 4, 2010 9:53 AM PST reply actions  

If this vote is any indication

if someone would actually vote for Shane Reynolds and Ray Lankford, then Karros could get a vote or two. I’d be surprised if he got enough to remain on the ballot past this year though.

by EMDarrow on Jan 4, 2010 10:06 AM PST up reply actions  

I'm not bothered by Karros getting a vote or two.

If I were a sportswriter, and I’d worked a beat and knew these guys, worked with them, and there was a guy that I really liked and wanted to honor AND I knew that one vote wouldn’t make even a tiny bit of difference (ie, the player wasn’t going to sniff 5%) AND I had an open spot on my ballot… sure, I’d give him that. Why not? You can take the HOF seriously and also have just a bit of harmless fun. Why not?

No, what bothers me is Lou Whitaker, who sure looks like a HOFer to me, falling off the ballot with less than 5%. That is a crime.

The Ultimate Ned's Kind of Guy

by Humma Kavula on Jan 4, 2010 10:11 AM PST up reply actions  

my thoughts exactly

which is why I gave a token vote to our somewhat underappreciated hitting coach. :)

by sarcastro9 on Jan 4, 2010 10:15 AM PST up reply actions  

my others

Blyleven, Dawson, Larkin, Raines. I think I accidentally left Alomar off, but I definitely would have put him on there, as well.

by sarcastro9 on Jan 4, 2010 10:17 AM PST up reply actions  

Karros did not get any SB Nation votes

but he is eligible. You can’t take that away from him. I’m not sure what you are complaining about?

by meercatjohn on Jan 4, 2010 10:20 AM PST up reply actions  

Robin Ventura

actually had a decent argument but falls short. His defense is what helps put him in the discussion.

by meercatjohn on Jan 4, 2010 10:22 AM PST reply actions  

to Phil and Sarcastro

Is the McGwire omission a steroids thing? Assuming it is, does that mean you guys leave off Bonds, A-Rod and Clemens when their time comes?

Just curious.

by Michael White on Jan 4, 2010 10:23 AM PST reply actions  

yes and no

McGwire SPECIFICALLY not getting in has a lot to do with his steroids usage, but I’m not 100% opposed to voting for a known user (as much as I hate the whole steroids thing). McGwire would be getting in on his homeruns only (ok, he knew how to draw a walk, too, but he’s not getting into the Hall based on that), whereas Bonds, A-Rod, and Clemens were in a different class of ballplayers.

I freely admit that this is not the most scientific measure- in fact, it’s not scientific at all- but Hall of Fame voting, like MVP voting, is not 100% scientific. I just hope someday we get more clarity on the issue- who was using what, when they were using it, etc.- though I’m not holding my breath.

by sarcastro9 on Jan 4, 2010 10:32 AM PST up reply actions  

For me

in 2010 the answer is yes. I expect more information to keep coming forth as players retire and start divulging previously uncorraborated information. Until then I’m leaving anyone tainted off but I fully reserve the right to change my mind. It would be different if they didn’t get in and then fell off the ballot but since they will be there again I don’t feel the need to vote for them yet.

by meercatjohn on Jan 4, 2010 10:37 AM PST up reply actions  

OPS+ is amazing, and has great career total numbers, but he was so bad/injured for the years of his prime 91-94 that it really sticks with me. It is a real dilemma because I am not a “ban steroid users guy” but it was just so obvious.

But I have an open mind. That is why I say ask me next year…

by delias man on Jan 4, 2010 10:38 AM PST up reply actions  

Yup

the 93-95 seasons are a real red herring for me considering what he did after it compared to before.

by meercatjohn on Jan 4, 2010 10:39 AM PST up reply actions  

It really bothers me

when a SS like Trammel trails a DH like Edgar.

by meercatjohn on Jan 4, 2010 10:23 AM PST reply actions  

The only thing I can think of for why Trammel doesn’t get more love is perhaps due to his disastrous stint as a manager. Certainly that shouldn’t have any effect at all, but managing the Tigers when they were 1 game away from setting the single season record for losses and then managing two mediocre seasons, then Jim Leyland takes essentially the exact same team (as the mediocre season, not the near record setting season) to the World Series. Again, that obviously shouldn’t factor in, but for many people, that is likely the most recent memory they have of Trammel.

by Michael White on Jan 4, 2010 10:37 AM PST up reply actions  

I figure the argument

about how offensive SS like Nomar, Arod, and Jeter who followed him made his stats look ordinary but we have our suspicions about Nomar, Arod is a given, and Jeter is to this point unscathed. His contemporary was Cal Ripken and he measures up against Cal offensively and was the better defender.

by meercatjohn on Jan 4, 2010 10:41 AM PST up reply actions  

that's a good point

I’d forgotten how unusual it was back then for a shortstop to hit for some power. And though his stats are more or less comparable to Ripken’s, Trammell was always overshadowed by him during that era. So unfairly, those two things work against him- not having numbers to measure up to today’s (tainted?) superstar shortstops, combined with not even being fully appreciated when he WAS playing, will continue to make him a perennial longshot.

by sarcastro9 on Jan 4, 2010 11:02 AM PST up reply actions  

But his double play partner is also ignored.

Who was it that was suggesting that there might actually be an anti-Detroit bias to the HOF?

The Ultimate Ned's Kind of Guy

by Humma Kavula on Jan 4, 2010 10:41 AM PST up reply actions  

Jay Jaffe

from BP and I completely agree. Not that Lou Whitaker should be in the HOF but that he got zero support when players he was much much better then hang around getting votes. I’m still confused about who gets support and who doesn’t. Bobby Grich is a HOF, Dwight Evans was better then Jim Rice at every aspect of the game other then home runs and he didn’t get a sniffle.

by meercatjohn on Jan 4, 2010 10:44 AM PST up reply actions  

While I think there is a clear East Coast bias in sports reporting...

the middle of the country should really feel snubbed. There are a lot of really exceptional players that are constantly overlooked for the simple reason that they didn’t play near an ocean or very large lake.

by prosellis on Jan 4, 2010 1:55 PM PST up reply actions  

I completely had a brain fart on Trammell. I should have included him.

by Eric Stephen on Jan 4, 2010 10:44 AM PST up reply actions  

My votes

Blyleven, Dawson, Larkin, Raines, Trammel, Murphy, Mattingly

My personal guideline for who gets votes is simple. If while I was growing up, they stayed in my baseball card albums for a significant time without be relegated to the common boxes, then they get in. That is how Murphy and Mattingly made it when I know most wouldn’t vote for them. McGwire is an exception.

by CarolinaDodger on Jan 4, 2010 10:24 AM PST reply actions  

Alomar
Blyleven
Raines
Larkin

I struggle with McGwire, Dawson. Ask me again next year!

by delias man on Jan 4, 2010 10:28 AM PST reply actions  

I don't mean to sound like a jerk here, but...

…I would like to see somebody more knowledgable than I am answer the Keltner List questions for Kevin Appier. I don’t think he’s a HOFer — I really don’t — but still.

The Ultimate Ned's Kind of Guy

by Humma Kavula on Jan 4, 2010 10:41 AM PST reply actions  

Being done

at age 30 doesn’t help. He had some good years after that ERA+ wise but after six years of 130 plus ERA+ he never touched more then 115 after the age of 30. He was good but he wouldn’t even make my HOM (Hall of Merit)

by meercatjohn on Jan 4, 2010 10:47 AM PST up reply actions  

Tomorrow is the first day of Arb filings

a.k.a. when Russell Martin submits a figure much higher than he’s worth. :)

by silverwidow on Jan 4, 2010 11:33 AM PST reply actions  

Correction

The filing period is 1/5-1/15, but figures are submitted on 1/19.

by silverwidow on Jan 4, 2010 11:49 AM PST up reply actions  

Joel Guzman (#3) and Greg Miller (#6) on the Prospect Busts of the Decade list:

http://www.baseballamerica.com/today/prospects/ask-ba/2010/269334.html

by silverwidow on Jan 4, 2010 12:13 PM PST reply actions  

Miller was not in 04 draft was he?

by delias man on Jan 4, 2010 1:01 PM PST up reply actions  

1st round, 2002

I rank JtD as our biggest bust of the last 20 years given what he accomplished at age 19 in AA. For that matter Miller was also on the fast track at age 19 at AA.

by meercatjohn on Jan 4, 2010 1:41 PM PST up reply actions  

Miller was still 18 when he put up a 1.01 ERA in AA. Unbelievable!

by silverwidow on Jan 4, 2010 2:33 PM PST up reply actions  

That was only 4 games though

That being said, he struck out an insane 40 batters in those 4 games and walked only 7 (he also gave up 1 home run.) So his FIP for those 4 games was 1.44.

by Michael White on Jan 4, 2010 2:44 PM PST up reply actions  

He was drafted in 2002

He was the first pick of the supplemental round (for Chan Ho Park), number 31 overall.

by bhsportsguy on Jan 4, 2010 1:44 PM PST up reply actions  

Looking at the votes cast by other SBN bloggers I can conclude:

A) Burt Blyleven belongs in the hall of fame.

B) People who love the Yankees continue to know nothing about baseball.

by prosellis on Jan 4, 2010 1:46 PM PST reply actions  

How I define a HOF

I skew to the older side of TBLA posters so bear with me here but when I think of HOF, I think of the line from the old Mary Tyler Moore theme song with some changes, “he can take a nothing game and suddenly make it all seem worthwhile.”

Players like Pujols, pitchers like Maddux, those were guys that I watched in recent times (and I would put pre-suspension Manny in that group) that you were just excited to see play the game.

Bert Blyeven, Robby Alomar, Barry Larkin, Dawson, there is nothing wrong with those guys and the HOF is full of comparable players. But that doesn’t mean I have to think of them as HOF. (To be fair, I pretty much copied Eric S.’s list including McGwire).

by bhsportsguy on Jan 4, 2010 2:27 PM PST reply actions  

I was always excited

to watch King Kong come to the plate but of course he was not close to being a HOF. I don’t agree with your perception of what makes a HOF. Just because you got thrills as a kid when watching a player does not mean they should win over players who didn’t excite you but were clearly better players.

by meercatjohn on Jan 4, 2010 2:31 PM PST up reply actions  

Actually not as a kid

 Because I tended to think that only Bench, Morgan, Rose, Schmidt and Seaver were HOF. I pretty much ruled out any Dodger (including Sutton who got in because of the 300 wins). But the reason I felt this way is because if you let in Tony Perez, why not Steve Garvey, if you bring in Pops Stargell, why not Keith Hernandez. Carlton Fisk and not Ted Simmons?

by bhsportsguy on Jan 4, 2010 2:34 PM PST up reply actions  

Also from Joe Posnanski

and the Detroits exclusion

Bill Freehan got a measly two votes, one less than Lindy McDaniel. You know, there’s a myth out there — or anyway, I think it’s mostly a myth — about some sort of East Coast bias when it comes to the Hall of Fame. But I do wonder: Is there some sort of DETROIT bias in the Hall of Fame.

Here’s what I mean: From 1967-72, the Detroit Tigers won a World Series and a division championship. They won 90-plus games four times. They were obviously very good. But the only Hall of Fame semi-regular on those teams was the aging Al Kaline, who was obviously still great but never played more than 133 games in any season. And it’s not like those teams did not have Hall of Fame candidates. Norm Cash punched up a 139 OPS+ in a 2000-plus game career — in fact, Cash has the highest OPS+ of any eligible non-Hall of Famer with 2,000 game (Edgar Martinez, though, will probably pass him this year).

Cash got almost no Hall of Fame support — six votes his one time on the ballot.

There was Freehan too — brilliant defensive catcher who could hit. Bill James ranked him the 12th best catcher all-time in the New Historical Abstract. No Hall of Fame support.

Mickey Lolich does not seem like a slam dunk Hall of Fame candidate, no, but he did win 217 games, he was legendary in the 1968 World Series, and in 1971 he threw an absurd 376 innings, which is more than any pitcher had thrown since Deadball (the next year Wilbur Wood would throw 376 2/3 innings to top him). He at least stayed on the ballot for a while, but after an early 25% peak he faded badly and got just 5.2% in his final year.

OK. Now, from 1983 to 1988, the Tigers won a World Series, a division title, and won 87 or more games five times. They were obviously very good. There is not one Tigers player on those teams who is in the Hall of Fame or is likely to get there any time soon (unless the Jack Morris wave starts to crest).

And we all know that they had some excellent players, Hall of Fame caliber players. We’ll talk about a couple of them in a minute — Alan Trammell and Lou Whitaker are both in the Hall of Merit. I don’t support Morris’ Hall of Fame case, but he did win 250 games and pitch a phenomenal World Series Game 7.

My point is: Do the voters have something against Detroit?

by meercatjohn on Jan 4, 2010 2:29 PM PST reply actions  

That Detroit team also had some the longest runs as teammates

In baseball history, I don’t have my SABR record book handy but I think that era of Tigers had many key guys together for several seasons.

by bhsportsguy on Jan 4, 2010 2:31 PM PST up reply actions  

Dang

that whole thing should be in quotes.

by meercatjohn on Jan 4, 2010 2:31 PM PST up reply actions  

LOL

The commenter formerly known as El Lay Dave.

by David Young on Jan 4, 2010 9:20 PM PST up reply actions  

They were about 5 or 6 great influxes of baseball talent

1. Deadball Era (Young, Wagner, Cobb, Johnson, Mathewson, Alexander, Speaker)
2. Livelier Ball Era (Ruth, Gehrig, Sisler, Foxx, Grove, Hubbell, Greenberg, Feller, Dimaggio, Williams, Musial)
3. Post War/Integration (Jackie Robinson, Mays, Aaron, Snider, Mantle, Berra, Campanella, Clemente, Frank Robinson)
4. Second Pitcher’s Era (Koufax, Gibson, Marichal, McCovey, Cepada, Seaver, Bench)
5. Cookie Cutter/Astro Turf Era (Morgan, Rose, Schmidt, Brett, Palmer, Ripken)
6. Small Ballpark/Steroids (Bonds, McGwire, Gwynn, Pujols, Maddux, Clemens, Pedro)

All of these eras need to be looked at in their own time and not judged against each other.

by bhsportsguy on Jan 4, 2010 2:43 PM PST reply actions  

Put me down for this line of thought

I consider a Hall of Famer to be a player that was dominant during his time in the game. It is nearly impossible to cross compare eras. I like the attempts to make comparisons using normalized statistics, but I still don’t have faith that we are necessarily getting an accurate picture of past players through these stats alone.

by prosellis on Jan 4, 2010 2:50 PM PST up reply actions  

Nicely said.

Unfortunately it seems that this thinking is not held by the majority of people in the baseball world. Talent levels, equipment, ballparks, and many other things have changed so much over the history of baseball that it really does not seem logical to try and compare head-to-head the feats of players in different time periods.

by Jesse S. on Jan 5, 2010 12:21 PM PST up reply actions  

A couple of quick thoughts

Fred McGriff was a great home run hitter in the era of my teenage years for the most part. He was top four in HR for seven straight years (1988 to 1994), and also top 5 in OPS all seven years, and top 6 in OPS+ each year

HR leaders 1988-1994
McGriff 242
Bonds 218
J.Carter 213
Canseco 207
Fielder 197
M.Williams 194

With the HR binge of the last 15 or so years, the 500 HR plateau doesn’t have the same magic to it, but to me McGriff’s 493 HR stands tall in an era when that still was a huge accomplishment (plus he had a 134 OPS+ in over 10000 PA).

Look at the next seven years to see the progression of the HR

HR leaders 1988-1994
Sosa 355
McGwire 345
Bonds 308
Palmeiro 292
Griffey 288
Manny 258
Bagwell 257
JuanGone 257
Piazza 254
Thome 252

That’s 10 guys who put up more HR than McGriff in his seven-year period, a period he led far and away (although Cecil was in Japan for a bit). I think if McGriff was a few years younger, he could have benefited in a nominal sense by playing in a better offensive era.

If we look at neutralized batting stats (awesome tool on B-R), McGriff in a neutral environment (to help compare eras) put up a career of 512 HR and hit .284/.377/.511. My main man Eddie Murray’s career was neutralized to .292/.365/.485 with 539 HR. That’s why I had to include The Crime Dog on my ballot.

by Eric Stephen on Jan 4, 2010 2:49 PM PST reply actions  

Jay Jaffe

on the Crime Dog from his HOF series using JAWS

Which brings us to Fred McGriff, the Crime Dog. A ninth-round pick by the Yankees in 1981, McGriff’s big break came six months later when he was traded to the Blue Jays along with Dave Collins, Mike Morgan, and cash for Dale Murray and Tom Dodd. Nonetheless, he made slow progress to Toronto, finally cracking the big-league lineup as a DH in 1987, the year the Jays lost their final seven games to fumble the AL East flag into the hands of the Tigers. McGriff hit .247/376/.505 with 20 homers that year, the first of 15 seasons in which he would reach a plateau. Only 13 other hitters have equaled or surpassed that feat; 10 are in the Hall of Fame, and the other three are Barry Bonds, Ken Griffey Jr., and Jim Thome. The next year, McGriff began a string of seven straight 30-homer seasons, the first five of which were worth at least 5.9 WARP. He won the 1989 AL home run crown with 36 dingers, and won the 1992 NL crown for hitting 35 with the Padres in 1992, making him the first player to top both circuits (McGwire would become the second) and the last player for 16 years to lead a league with less than 40.
McGriff was traded to San Diego in the aforementioned December 1990 trade (with Tony Fernandez, for Roberto Alomar and Joe Carter)—a star-studded trade if there ever was one. The move helped the Blue Jays win two World Series in 1992 and 1993, but McGriff missed out on those parties, though he was swapped-part of the Padres’ infamous fire sale—to the defending NL champion Braves in July 1993. Those Braves were 53-40, eight games behind the Giants in the NL West standings when the deal went down; they would go a remarkable 51-18 the rest of the way, winning the West before being bounced by the Phillies in the NLCS. Settling in as one of the cornerstones of a dynasty, McGriff hit .310/.392/.612 with 19 homers in 291 plate appearances with Atlanta, and set a career high with 37 homers overall. Though the strike wrecked the 1994 season, McGriff would be part of three straight division champs (1995-1997) and back-to-back pennant winners in the first two of those years. He bopped a pair of homers and slugged .600 in both World Seres, the first of which the Braves won over the Indians, and the second of which they lost to the Yankees. Throughout his career, McGriff had an excellent track record in October, hitting .303/.385/.532 with 10 homers in 50 postseason games.
McGriff slumped to 22 homers and 0.9 WARP in 1997, and after the season the Tampa native was traded to the expansion Devil Rays (a transaction that received a decidedly lukewarm reception from one Chris Kahrl in these pages). He spent three and a half years with the godawful Rays, enjoying a mini-renaissance (34 homers, 2.7 WARP) in 1999 but otherwise merely clocking time in front of sparse crowds. After some no-trade clause-based resistance, he was swapped to the Cubs in July 2001, and while he again hit well upon switching teams, he couldn’t spur them to the postseason. After his 10th and final 30-homer season in 2002, he bounded to the Dodgers and then back to the Devil Rays before hanging up his spikes.
For years now, there’s been talk of the fact that with his 493 homers, McGriff might unseat Dave Kingman (442 homers) as the player with the highest total not to make the Hall of Fame. Jose Canseco (462 homers) has already erased the so-called “Kingman Line,” but then his transgressions insured he’d never make Cooperstown anyway. There’s bound to be a certain nostalgia among voters for McGriff, who hit the majority of his shots before the pharmaceutically-fueled assault on the single-season home-run record began, and an acknowledgment that the round-numbered milestone he fell short of means less today than it did a generation ago.
Even so, McGriff doesn’t have a particularly strong case for Cooperstown. Despite the two home-run titles, he’s well short of the Black Ink of a typical Hall of Famer (though that Jamesian metric fails to adjust for expansion). He never won an MVP award (his top single-season WARP total of 6.8 isn’t quite MVP territory), and while he did place in the top 10 in the voting in six straight seasons (1989-1994), he only cracked the top five in 1993. JAWS-wise, that stretch of six-win seasons still isn’t enough for him to measure up to the average Hall of Famer on peak score, and he’s even further below the standard on career WARP. The shape of his JAWS line is very similar to that of Tony Perez (59.0/41.3/50.2), but that particular Doggie had five pennants, two rings, and a more famous dynasty to his name. The guess here is that he’ll fall far short, but linger on the ballot for a long time.

by meercatjohn on Jan 4, 2010 2:52 PM PST up reply actions  

You just like him because he led credence to the Tom Emanski videos.

by KellyStephen on Jan 4, 2010 2:57 PM PST up reply actions  

He wore his (mesh) cap in those videos like Dad used to! :)

by Eric Stephen on Jan 4, 2010 2:58 PM PST up reply actions  

McGriff is a tough one

In my mind he is a true borderline guy. I left him off because I felt like he had a few great years, some very good years, and some pedestrian years at the end.

by prosellis on Jan 4, 2010 3:04 PM PST up reply actions  

I went with

Blyleven
Alomar
Raines
McGwire
Trammell

And I voted for Karros’ hair.

But the important news is….45 days until pitchers and catchers report!

by KellyStephen on Jan 4, 2010 2:53 PM PST reply actions  

Ouch

on the basketball news. To bad it looked like they could have been a contender.

by meercatjohn on Jan 4, 2010 2:56 PM PST up reply actions  

Yeah, I hear you. I think it’s crappy for the current players but something had to be done. I read that they’re hoping it’s damage enough so that the NCAA doesn’t come in and add more penalties. We’ll see.

This is a great example of how the NCAA penalty process is messed up. They absolutely have to penalize the school and in this case I’m not suggesting that USC should get away without penalties. But the two people who are most at fault here, OJ and Floyd, get off scott free. Floyd can accept a job tomorrow at another institution. This happens all the time. (See Huggins, Smith, Calipari.) There’s got to be a way to financially penalize the athletes and the coaches who do shit like this.

by KellyStephen on Jan 4, 2010 3:03 PM PST up reply actions  

+1

I don’t know what the NCAA could do to former players that have moved on, but I don’t understand how guys like Calipari are allowed to bounce from school to school without ever having any personal consequences.

by prosellis on Jan 4, 2010 3:09 PM PST up reply actions  

Yup

that is the problem I’ve always had. I rather they nail the institution for a huge fine payable to the rest of the league or take away future scholarships, then penalizing a team that had nothing to do with the infractions. Why should the other 9 players suffer because player 10 was a dick and they have a dirty coach. The coaches involved always get to leave for greener pastures after they have ruined an institution. USC should pay because they hired Floyd but the other players shouldn’t.

by meercatjohn on Jan 4, 2010 3:12 PM PST up reply actions  

I haven’t fully thought it through yet, but on first glance I really like your “pay the rest of the league” penalty. Especially if Notre Dame would have to pay everyone since they are an independent. :)

by Eric Stephen on Jan 4, 2010 3:16 PM PST up reply actions  

Hell, I’d pay a recruit to go to ND just to have them pay up! (He’d be a shitty recruit, of course.)

by KellyStephen on Jan 4, 2010 3:20 PM PST up reply actions  

Given how down and out the ND program seems to be does anyone really still hold actual vitriol against them or is it simply knee jerk at this point.

by meercatjohn on Jan 4, 2010 3:26 PM PST up reply actions  

I still hold vitrol against them

I prefer them to be down FOREVER! For me it is kind of like they come from Boston, not some hick town in the Midwest. Nothing good ever came from boston or south bend.

by MammothDodger on Jan 4, 2010 3:42 PM PST up reply actions  

I actually agree with Plaschke
It was to show "institutional control" to take heat for football team.

by delias man on Jan 4, 2010 3:53 PM PST up reply actions  

Rockies officially signed Miguel Olivo today to a one-year deal with a 2011 option, per Thomas Harding of MLB.com.

by Eric Stephen on Jan 4, 2010 3:14 PM PST reply actions  

30 home runs at Coors?

What will happen with Iannetta?

by meercatjohn on Jan 4, 2010 3:29 PM PST up reply actions  

Olivo’s 98/683 BB/K numbers are perhaps the worst I’ve seen in my life.

by silverwidow on Jan 4, 2010 3:35 PM PST up reply actions  

Olivo currently has the most career strikeouts, BY FAR, of anyone with less than 100 walks. Milt Pappas is next with 510 Ks. The list is mostly pitchers, but Bob Melvin has the next most by a position player (396 K, 98 BB).

If we up the limit to under 200 walks, Olivo’s 683 K trail only Corey Patterson (781) and Cito Gaston (693). Amazing

by Eric Stephen on Jan 4, 2010 4:51 PM PST up reply actions  

They will probably split duty, with Iannetta getting more playing time, but not by much.

by Eric Stephen on Jan 4, 2010 4:09 PM PST up reply actions  

I came here expecting all the comments to be about

Matt Kemp reportedly dating Rihanna.

Matt Kemp’s life > My life

by trainwreck84 on Jan 4, 2010 3:38 PM PST reply actions  

You are breaking that “news” for me. It won’t be hard for Matt Kemp to treat her better than her last boyfriend did.

by Michael White on Jan 4, 2010 3:41 PM PST up reply actions  

Hopefully Matt breaks the pattern and does not become part of the pattern.

by meercatjohn on Jan 4, 2010 3:46 PM PST up reply actions  

wow

http://www.tmz.com/tag/mAtt+Kemp/

When that whole Chris Brown thing broke, I wrote on my Facebook status that Rihanna needs to find a better man to stand under her umbrella-ella-ella. Nice to see she’s taken my advice!

Just to imagine for a sec that this is all related to Dodger baseball somehow, perhaps it should be encouraging for the long term that Matt seems to be enjoying the LA lifestyle quite a bit. Let’s just hope he doesn’t enjoy it TOO much- I don’t want this to turn into the part of Behind The Music that goes, “And just when everything seemed to be going Matt Kemp’s way…”

by sarcastro9 on Jan 4, 2010 4:36 PM PST up reply actions  

Current Vote
Player Name	Total
Bert Blyleven	24
Roberto Alomar	22
Tim Raines	16
Barry Larkin	14
Edgar Martinez	12
Mark McGwire	12
Alan Trammell	11
Andre Dawson	10
Don Mattingly	5
Fred McGriff	3
Lee Smith	3
Dale Murphy	2
Dave Parker	1
Harold Baines	1

by meercatjohn on Jan 4, 2010 3:44 PM PST reply actions  

Boy, who’s that clown who voted for Harold Baines?

{shakes head in shame}

by Michael White on Jan 4, 2010 3:48 PM PST up reply actions  

Is the minimum 70 or 75% for induction? I forget.

by silverwidow on Jan 4, 2010 3:50 PM PST up reply actions  

My Ballot

I’ll say first that I’m not a fan of excluding players for alleged or known steroid use. There are already cheaters in the hall of fame, and while it’s good for MLB to clean the league up, there’s no sense in denying history. I’d also vote for Joe Jackson but not Pete Rose, on the grounds that the lifetime ban can be lifted once the player is dead.

Edgar Martinez – whole career with the M’s and a 147 OPS+
Andre Dawson – played a lot, won an MVP, very close in enough seperate counting stats
Bert Blyleven – 3701 career Ks, 2.8 career K/BB ratio, top comparable player is Don Sutton
Tim Raines – similar to Dawson, but with more black ink
Mark McGwire – OPS+ never below 100 in a season with more than 100 PAs
Fred McGriff – was a tough one, but he had a really good career before he got to the Dodgers in 2003. Granted, last few seasons magically went on an upswing when he became teammates with Jose Canseco, but even then, a career 134 OPS+ looks good.

Dale Murphy just misses; if he retired after 1989 (never playing for another team) or if he didn’t lose it after age 32 (.236/.304/.388 from 1989-1993) then maybe. I could not vote for Trammell unless I also voted for Mattingly because they seem to have similar qualifications, except that the Tigers were good in the 80s and Trammell played longer.

by StolenMonkey86 on Jan 4, 2010 3:51 PM PST reply actions  

Other then the fact

one was a SS and the other was a 1st baseman.

by meercatjohn on Jan 4, 2010 3:53 PM PST up reply actions  

Yeah

Mattingly was a better hitter (127 OPS+; Trammell was at 117 OPS+ for the same time period), although the position adjustment would more than make up for that difference. But still, I don’t see either making it into the hall of fame as a hitter. Trammell doesn’t strike me as the guy who gets in on his glove like Ozzie Smith, and for that matter Mattingly had a reputation as a good defender. Both strike me as fringe hall of fame guys who get a good bit of help from playing their whole careers with the same team.

by StolenMonkey86 on Jan 4, 2010 9:55 PM PST up reply actions  

Not to go off on too separate of a tangent, but I would vote in Rose but not Joe Jackson, on the grounds that Rose gets in as a player (his sins were as a manager.) Jackson admitted to doing something that could have de-legitimized the entire sport at that time, and he did it as a player.

by Michael White on Jan 4, 2010 3:56 PM PST up reply actions  

I could never vote for either for

dealing with gamblers on the game they played. I especially would not vote for Rose because of the BS he pulled in declaring his innocence and smearing the good name of those who dared to indict him while along knowing they were right and he was wrong.

Joe Jackson was an ignorant man who may have gotten off with the Pedro defense of not being intelligent enough to even know what was going on.

by meercatjohn on Jan 4, 2010 4:00 PM PST up reply actions  

Could have? Did. Baseball needed cleaning up after the scandal.

Which, to me, is what makes Rose’s sins all that much worse. After the 1919 scandal, baseball wrote one inviolable rule: don’t gamble on the game. With every other baseball sin, there might be a punishment but no one-strike-and-you’re-out rule. That was necessary to legitimize the sport.

Rose knew exactly what he was doing. Not to excuse the Black Sox, but there were a lot of reasons for a player to take money to throw a game in ‘19. Rose knew the consequences but thought he’d get away with it because of who he was.

What I wonder is: say the scandal had come to light after Rose had already been elected to the HOF. What would have happened then? Can the Hall remove a player from the Hall?

The Ultimate Ned's Kind of Guy

by Humma Kavula on Jan 4, 2010 4:02 PM PST up reply actions  

Yup, you guys are both right.

I was rationalizing the difference between his actions as a manager as opposed to those as a player, but considering the historical sensitivities of gambling on the sport I fully understand your positions.

by Michael White on Jan 4, 2010 4:12 PM PST up reply actions  

Throwing the match hurts the integrity of the game

Whereas steroid use, like other forms of cheating, are still competitive. My only issue is that if you call it a lifetime ban, then it’s over after the guy dies and then at least put it up to a vote.

by StolenMonkey86 on Jan 4, 2010 9:59 PM PST up reply actions  

Well

Two half-baked responses.

1. “Life ban” is semantics. We know what that means: that the player has engaged in behavior so detrimental to the integrity of the game that he should never be a part of it again. Call that a “life ban” or a “permanent ban” or what you will.

2. I could be wrong, but I believe that the Hall of Fame is not actually bound by the “life ban” on Jackson and Rose issued by MLB — that is, they choose to follow what MLB has decreed. It is my understanding — and again, I could be wrong — that the Hall could decide, y’know, let’s put this in the hands of our voters/the veterans committee/a special committee and see what they decide and put either Jackson or Rose or both into the Hall tomorrow. They won’t, but I believe they could. Unless something changes, the reasons to keep them out still outweigh the reasons to accord them the game’s highest honor.

That’s all I got. If you call that half-baked reasoning, I won’t disagree.

The Ultimate Ned's Kind of Guy

by Humma Kavula on Jan 4, 2010 10:05 PM PST up reply actions  

26 Ballots


Player Name Total %
Bert Blyleven 24 92.31%
Roberto Alomar 22 84.62%
Tim Raines 16 61.54%
Barry Larkin 14 53.85%
Edgar Martinez 12 46.15%
Mark McGwire 12 46.15%
Alan Trammell 11 42.31%
Andre Dawson 10 38.46%
Don Mattingly 5 19.23%
Fred McGriff 3 11.54%
Lee Smith 3 11.54%
Dale Murphy 2 7.69%
Dave Parker 1 3.85%
Harold Baines 1 3.85%

by meercatjohn on Jan 4, 2010 4:03 PM PST reply actions  

Tough Crowd

Alomar over Larkin? Some would consider Larkin the greatest all around player of his day. Who could run, play defense, hit with power, on base, ba better then Larkin?
Raines can’t even make it here? I’m horrified, he’s one of the 10 best left fielders to ever play the game no matter what BH says about cross era’s.
Per Jay Jaffe of Baseball Prospectus:

Raines’ 1985 season, in which he hit .320/.405/.475, ranks as his most valuable, worth 9.5 WARP (third behind Dwight Gooden’s amazing 11.7 and Pedro Guerrero’s 9.7). He followed that up by winning the NL batting title in 1986, hitting .334. Just 27 at the end of the season, he reached free agency that winter, but suspiciously received no contract offers; baseball was in the midst of its collusion era. Forced to return to the Expos, he was ineligible to play until May. Without benefit of spring training or a minor league stint, he stepped into the lineup on May 2, turning a Saturday afternoon NBC Game of the Week against the Mets at Shea Stadium into The Tim Raines Comeback Extravaganza by bookending a first-inning triple off of David Cone and a 10th-inning, game-winning grand slam off of Jesse Orosco into a 5 3 4 4 boxscore line. Later in the summer, he would put on a late-inning tour de force at the All-Star Game, winning MVP honors. Raines set career bests for on-base and slugging percentages in 1987, hitting .330/.429/.526 with a career-high 18 homers and 50 steals. Even missing a month, he led the league in runs scored with 123. His 7.7 WARP ranked fifth in the league, but the MVP Award notoriously went to Dawson, whose paltry 3.3 WARP ranked 44th. Raines only finished seventh in the award voting, part of a long-standing pattern of neglect by the BBWAA voters; though he received MVP votes in seven separate seasons, he never finished higher than fifth.
Beyond that 1983-87 peak, injuries cut into Raines’ playing time. He averaged just 133 games over his next six seasons, and was traded in December 1990 to the White Sox in a five-player deal centered around Ivan Calderon. He spent five years on the South Side, the most valuable of which was his 1992 campaign (6.8 WARP). He actually hit better in 1993 (.306/.401/.480 with 16 homers), helping the Sox win the AL West but missing a month and a half due to torn ligaments in his thumb. Traded to the Yankees in December 1995, he was forced into a fourth outfielder/elder statesman role due to hamstring woes, but earned two World Series rings while hitting a cumulative .299/.395/.429 in his three years in pinstripes. He made further stops in Oakland, Montreal, Baltimore, and Florida before retiring at the end of the 2001 season.
According to JAWS, Raines compares quite favorably to the average Hall of Fame left fielder, breezing past both career and peak benchmarks. Two years ago, the system had him ranked as the ninth-best left fielder of all time, behind Barry Bonds, Stan Musial, Rickey Henderson, Ted Williams, Pete Rose, Jim O’Rourke, Ed Delahanty, and Carl Yastrzemski—some pretty fair ballplayers. The revisions have bumped him all the way to fifth, albeit substantially behind Bonds, Musial, Williams, and Henderson:

Rank Player Career Peak JAWS
1 Barry Bonds 186.2 83.1 134.7
2 Stan Musial 137.0 70.2 103.6*
3 Ted Williams 117.5 67.9 92.7*
4 Rickey Henderson 119.4 57.8 88.6*
5 Tim Raines 81.7 51.4 66.6
6 Ed Delahanty 73.2 54.1 63.7**
7 Manny Ramirez 73.1 40.1 56.6
8 Carl Yastrzemski 68.8 41.8 55.3*
9 Willie Stargell 66.0 42.6 54.3*
10 Fred Clarke 67.5 38.0 52.8**

  • BBWAA-elected Hall of Famer
    • VC-elected Hall of Famer
      Raines outdoes eight BBWAA-elected left fielders, as well as all nine VC-elected left fielders. If the rankings sounds crazy, consider that the New Bill James Historical Baseball Abstract ranked Raines eighth among left fielders back in 2001—he was that good. As for 2009 inductee Jim Rice, he ranks 49th among left fielders on the JAWS scale. Via the revised replacement level, Raines’ overall WARP score ranks 57th all-time among all players, and 38th among hitters. His peak score ranks 64th all-time, 45th among hitters, and his JAWS is 55th all-time, 37th among hitters.
      Raines is often slighted because he doesn’t measure up to Rickey Henderson, his direct contemporary and a 2009 Hall of Fame inductee. He doesn’t have 3,000 hits, and his 808 stolen bases rank “only” fifth all time, and while his 84.7 percent success rate is the best among thieves with more than 300 attempts (better even than Henderson’s 80.8 percent), that skill doesn’t really register in today’s power-saturated age, limiting the impression of his all-around ability. But Raines does measure up to another Hall of Fame contemporary, 2007 inductee Tony Gwynn. Their JAWS totals are very similar (78.5/48.4/63.5 for Gwynn, who has fallen behind after holding a 1.9-point edge last year), and Raines outdistances the left field benchmark by 12.9 JAWS points, while Gwynn rates just 2.3 JAWS points above the right field benchmark. Gwynn gets the glory because of his 3,141 hits, five 200-hit seasons, and eight batting titles. Raines won only one batting title, but while he never reached 200 hits due to his ability to generate so many walks, he compares very favorably to Gwynn in many key statistical categories

      AVG OBP SLG ISO EqA HR SB TOB TB BG R RBI
      Gwynn .338 .388 .459 .121 .307 135 319 3955 4259 5267 1383 1138
      Raines .294 .385 .425 .131 .306 170 838 3977 3771 5805 1517 980

      By way of explanation, TOB is times on base (H + BB + HBP), BG is bases gained, the numerator of Tom Boswell’s briefly chic mid-‘80s Total Average stat (TB + BB + HBP + SB – CS), which is presented here to show that Raines’ edge on the basepaths made up for Gwynn’s ability to crank out the hits. The point is better served via the comprehensive EqA and WARP valuations, but it’s nonetheless a worthwhile comparison for those wishing to stick to traditional counting stats. The conclusion is the same: Gwynn and Raines were two fantastic ballplayers who had slightly different skills. One was disproportionately heralded in his time thanks to his extreme success by the traditional measures of batting average and hits, while the other was under-appreciated in a career that included a more concentrated early peak and a lot more ups and downs. The two were virtually equal in value on both career and peak levels, and there is absolutely no reason why one should be in the Hall of Fame on the first ballot while the other should have languished outside for more than five seconds, let alone two years. Raines’ vote totals to date have been a gross injustice, and while it’s possible the writers were dragging their heels to guarantee the superior Henderson be elected first, there’s no question his name belongs on those ballots as well.

by meercatjohn on Jan 4, 2010 4:10 PM PST up reply actions  

A scroll box in a comment? Now I’ve seen everything.

by Julio Nievas on Jan 4, 2010 5:06 PM PST up reply actions  

Apparently Adrian Beltre is close to signing with the Red Sox (per Heyman and Olney). It seems to me Boston is really favoring defense this offseason.

By Plus/Minus (Bill James Online)
1B Youkilis +14 (3rd in MLB, top 10 last four years)
2B Pedroia +12 (5th in MLB, 5th last two seasons — after 25th in ’07)
SS Scutaro +16 (4th in MLB, 8th in 2008 despite only 472 innings)
3B Beltre +27 (3rd in MLB, top 10 last six years, including a 1st, a 2nd, and two 3rds)
LF Ellsbury: not good routes in CF, but have to figure will be better in LF, a la Pierre (Ellsbury is +5 in 490 career innings in LF)
CF Cameron +5 (16th in MLB, has ranged from 7th to 16th last four years, all above average)
RF Drew +11 (8th in MLB; was -7 in 2008 but always positive from 2004-2007 including a 3rd & 6th)

They are basically above average defensively (in some cases, near the top) at every position. That’s pretty awesome.

by Eric Stephen on Jan 4, 2010 4:29 PM PST reply actions  

Deal is done

Peter Gammons:

Beltre 1 yr. Deal for $9m with player option for $5m. Physical coming

by Eric Stephen on Jan 4, 2010 4:30 PM PST up reply actions  

Gotta admit, that is a bizarre structure.

by Eric Stephen on Jan 4, 2010 4:31 PM PST up reply actions  

One year???

What a defense. Might as well bring by Lowe if you are going to have a defense like that behind you.

by meercatjohn on Jan 4, 2010 4:49 PM PST up reply actions  

Also reporting a $1M buyout for 2011

Since he he has such a low player option, I wonder if Boston agreed not to offer arbitration if he files to become a free agent.

by bhsportsguy on Jan 4, 2010 5:12 PM PST up reply actions  

NFL playoff predictions

AFC Wild Card:

Jets over Bengals
Ravens over Patriots

NFC Wild Card:

Cowboys over Eagles
Packers over Cardinals

AFC Divisional:

Chargers over Jets
Colts over Ravens

NFC Divisional:

Cowboys over Vikings
Saints over Packers

AFC Championship:

Colts over Chargers

NFC Championship:

Cowboys over Saints

Super Bowl XLIV:

Colts over Cowboys

by silverwidow on Jan 4, 2010 4:54 PM PST reply actions  

Super Bowl V rematch!

by Eric Stephen on Jan 4, 2010 4:55 PM PST up reply actions  

What I want to know is

When is the NFL going to give up the ghost on the roman numerals?

Super Bowl LXXXVIII is gonna be pretty awkward.

The Ultimate Ned's Kind of Guy

by Humma Kavula on Jan 4, 2010 5:02 PM PST up reply actions  

Fun idea

I’ll play along

Bengals over Jets
Patriots over Ravens

Eagles over Cowboys
Packers over Cardinals

Chargers over Patriots
Colts over Bengals

Packers over Saints
Vikings over Eagles

Colts over Chargers
Packers over Vikings (as Green Bay riots in celebration)

Colts over Packers.

I’m disappointed Houston didn’t squeeze in. I loved Houston getting hot and winning the AFC (they would have been a really tough matchup for warm city/dome teams like San Diego and Indy since Schaub would be flinging it all over the place.)

by Michael White on Jan 4, 2010 5:03 PM PST up reply actions  

Hello, TBLA

This sounds right, except I would pick the Chargers over the Colts. I’m gushing over the Packers v. Vikings matchup.

by Julio Nievas on Jan 4, 2010 5:05 PM PST up reply actions  

I loved Houston’s offense, too. Andre Johnson is probably my favorite NFL player and Schaub is the most underrated QB in the game. (Both were on my fantasy team as well!)

by silverwidow on Jan 4, 2010 5:06 PM PST up reply actions  

Save your $20

for the TBLA Super Bowl Pool.
2000 payout
250 payout 1st quarter, halftime and 3rd qtr
50 payout per score change
Winner gets the rest.

by meercatjohn on Jan 4, 2010 5:06 PM PST up reply actions  

I have

Bengals over Jets
Patriots over Ravens

Eagles over Cowboys
Packers over Cardinals

Chargers over Pats
Colts over Bengals

Saints over Packers
Vikings over Eagles

Chargers over Colts
Saints over Vikings

Chargers over Saints

I think a lot of the intangibles change with the playoffs starting, and I think the Colts would lose to San Diego if they went for the perfect season or not.

I intend to live forever, or die trying.

by Mr. LA Sports Fan on Jan 4, 2010 5:09 PM PST up reply actions  

(1) Saints would play the (6) Eagles under your scenario.

by silverwidow on Jan 4, 2010 5:20 PM PST up reply actions  

Okay then

switch it around

Saints over Eagles
Vikings over Packers

I intend to live forever, or die trying.

by Mr. LA Sports Fan on Jan 4, 2010 5:41 PM PST up reply actions  

Knowing nothing about football...

…I will make predictions based upon which nickname/mascot is more powerful.

Bengals over Jets. If this were Bengals vs. Piloted, Armed Jets, I would take the Jets. But just a jet, sitting on the ground? A bengal would tear it apart.

Ravens over Patriots. Have you seen “The Birds?”

Eagles over Cowboys. This is tough. Cowboys have excellent skills. They would handle the colts quite handily. But I just don’t think they can get by a flock of eagles.

Packers over Cardinals. Burly grown men vs. tweety birds.

Chargers over Ravens. Fry those birdies to bits.

Bengals over Colts. Again, colts are tough. But they’re just no match.

Saints over Eagles. Sure, eagles have sharp talons, but the Saints have You Know Who on their side.

Vikings over Packers. Vikings are tougher and better-armed than packers are.

Chargers over Bengals. Zzzzzttt!
Saints over Vikings. Again, ya gonna mess with the big guy?

Saints over Chargers. Oh yes, man can put up a fight against nature, against God Himself. But the Almighty will always win out.

The Ultimate Ned's Kind of Guy

by Humma Kavula on Jan 4, 2010 5:25 PM PST up reply actions  

Oh come on guys

What would ever make you think that the Chargers could beat the Colts in the playoffs? Pfff.

/denial’d

by Son of Steve Sax on Jan 4, 2010 5:57 PM PST up reply actions  

Simple

An electrical charge would electrocute a horse.

QED

The Ultimate Ned's Kind of Guy

by Humma Kavula on Jan 4, 2010 8:30 PM PST up reply actions  

They shoot horses, don’t they?

The commenter formerly known as El Lay Dave.

by David Young on Jan 4, 2010 9:17 PM PST up reply actions  

If only

From Joe Posnanski

I put Bill James’ thought about Earl Weaver up there because Weaver always had a point to everything he did. That was his strength. That’s what made his teams great. Every move had a specific purpose. This guy played because he was sensational defensively, and this guy played because he got on base at a very high rate, and this guy played because he destroyed right handed pitching, and this guy played because he never walked anybody, and this guy played because he was magical on the double play, and this guy played because he stole bases at a very high percentage, and this guy played because he destroyed left-handed pitching. And so on. There was always purpose to the moves. Earl didn’t want guys who could "play baseball." He wanted guys who could "do something."

by meercatjohn on Jan 4, 2010 5:31 PM PST reply actions  

Some miscellaneous Detroit Tiger Records
1. Longest Time Spent Together as Two Teammates
19 years – Trammell & Whitaker ‘77-’95

From 1963-1975, a groups ranging from 4 to 9 Tigers spent 10-13 years together as teammates.

by bhsportsguy on Jan 4, 2010 8:12 PM PST reply actions  

If you want to count pitchers, and why wouldn't you,

Rivera and Jeter both debuted in May ’95. Posada debuted in September.

The Ultimate Ned's Kind of Guy

by Humma Kavula on Jan 4, 2010 9:34 PM PST up reply actions  

Either way

That is a pretty impressive run being that all three are top tier players in the free agent era. Only in New York, I guess.

by prosellis on Jan 4, 2010 10:34 PM PST up reply actions  

And Bernie Williams also spent his entire career in New York.

This just in: the late-90s Yankees were really good.

The Ultimate Ned's Kind of Guy

by Humma Kavula on Jan 4, 2010 10:37 PM PST up reply actions  

Well, they did just win the WS.

by Jesse S. on Jan 5, 2010 12:30 PM PST up reply actions  

Developing players

internally is one thing the Yankee’s don’t need to do if they can maintain this level of payroll. Instead of hit / misses you simply buy proven talent at a premium no one else can afford. The key is buying the right talent and it seems that Cashman is finally making better decisions. It all started with Teixeira/Sabbathia. I was always afraid of what would happen if they got smart and it seems they have.

by meercatjohn on Jan 5, 2010 12:35 PM PST up reply actions  

Anybody ever wonder

what baseball’s payroll structure would look like today if George had never purchased the Yankee’s?

by meercatjohn on Jan 5, 2010 12:36 PM PST up reply actions  

Exactly what I was thinking. Now that they’re on a roll of continuing to spend exorbitantly, I don’t see them ever having a real need to develop internal talent.

by Jesse S. on Jan 5, 2010 12:44 PM PST up reply actions  

They were smart in the choices they made in who to get

I’m not sure they were so smart with the amounts of money and lengths of the contracts that those players were given.

by prosellis on Jan 5, 2010 1:12 PM PST up reply actions  

Oh I agree

but does it really matter to them if they give to much for to long?

by meercatjohn on Jan 5, 2010 1:15 PM PST up reply actions  

That's the $300 million question.

If there is truly no limit to the Yankees’ payroll, then no, it doesn’t matter. When a player gets old and busted, they can either (a) trade that player, picking up a large portion of the salary, or even (b) release him, just to clear roster space for the new hotness.

But that would require payroll to be limitless. Surely there is some payroll number that would make even the Steinbrenners balk — unless, of course, there isn’t.

The Ultimate Ned's Kind of Guy

by Humma Kavula on Jan 5, 2010 1:20 PM PST up reply actions  

I’m not sure with the new stadium and all, but I would imagine last year’s payroll was somewhere near the limit. $226m with a $27m luxury tax penalty seems awful steep, especially since each additional dollar spent is essentially doubled.

by Eric Stephen on Jan 5, 2010 1:29 PM PST up reply actions  

OK, then...

…if we assume that’s true and the Yankees are now near their payroll limit, then one has to assume that yes, it does matter.

On the other hand… this offseason it sure seems like other teams give up talent like Granderson and Vazquez on the cheap. So long as they can get high-quality star talent for low-level and/or iffy prospects or league-average outfield talent, they’ll be fine.

The Ultimate Ned's Kind of Guy

by Humma Kavula on Jan 5, 2010 1:33 PM PST up reply actions  

You would think if salary cost wasn't an issue

they would have been in on either Bay or Holliday after losing Damon and Matsui.

by prosellis on Jan 5, 2010 1:38 PM PST up reply actions  

Cost is certainly

an issue but at the level they fly at they can make many more mistakes and still survive. They simply are uninterested in Bay or Holliday because Crawford will be playing LF for them in 2011.
And they are developing their prospects. They turned one into Vazquez another into Granderson. Sweet deal those. Hughes and Chamberlain may not be what anyone envisioned in 2009 but they are being patient and I bet it pays off handsomely.

by meercatjohn on Jan 5, 2010 1:42 PM PST up reply actions  

You make excellent points

and I can not dispute them.

I’m mostly just surprised that after having Posada/Jeter/Rivera as the foundation of the team for so long, the Yankees seem to have abandoned the model that started the last thirteen or fourteen years of success.

by prosellis on Jan 5, 2010 1:52 PM PST up reply actions  

I feel there is still an element of luck with bringing up quality players consistently. Avoiding injuries, developing talent to maximum potential – its a crapshoot.

by delias man on Jan 5, 2010 1:58 PM PST up reply actions  

Only if there is a limit to what they can/will spend

four or five years from now, there is a reasonable chance that they will have serious money tied up in some regressing players. Because they continue to give away draft picks by signing type A FA’s and trade prospects away, who’s going to fill in the gaps in production?

by prosellis on Jan 5, 2010 1:20 PM PST up reply actions  

Late to the party

I voted for Blyleven, Raines, Trammell, McGriff (barely – Eric sold me, but he’s close to the cutoff, esp. for 1B), Larkin, and – just to throw him a bone – Karros.

Trammell deserves it, but count this also as a protest that Lou Whitaker, who should be a serious candidate and/or in didn’t get enough respect from the BBWAA even to stay on the ballot.

E. Martinez has the impressive .312 / .418 / .515 triple-slash line (147 OPS+), but I still don’t know how to gauge career DHs yet. Paul Molitor was supposed to be some sort of measuring stick, but he still played over 13,000 innings in the field (roughly 9+ seasons worth), a heckuva lot more than Edgar’s paltry 4800+ (roughly 4 seasons worth). As half a player, maybe he should go in when half his eligibility is used up.

Call me a hardass, but I’m not voting a modern guy – who knows what the old-timers were up to – in on the first ballot that spat on an umpire. Roberto Alomar can wait.

I still don’t know what to think about McGwire. He has the 580+ HR, but only averaged 123 games/season, which hurts a lot of his other counting numbers, e.g. 1626 hits (sure he walked a ton too, 1317 BBs, but even BB+H is under 3000).

The commenter formerly known as El Lay Dave.

by David Young on Jan 4, 2010 9:17 PM PST reply actions  

I guess that should be “… that spat on an umpire in on the first ballot.” No one saw a ballot spit on an ump.

The commenter formerly known as El Lay Dave.

by David Young on Jan 4, 2010 9:39 PM PST up reply actions  

I figured that Alomar will get some votes

to protest the umpiring in the postseason this year

by StolenMonkey86 on Jan 4, 2010 10:36 PM PST up reply actions  

I never quite understood

the whole spit thing. Many times I’ve wanted to put a fist into somebodies mullet or wrap my hands around their throat but I’ve never felt compelled to spit on somebody. To me a spitting contest was bringing up a loogy and seeing how far it would go or letting one drop from a balcony.

Is that what they used to do when they created a duel? First they would spit in their face and then hit them with the handkerchief to wipe the spittle from their face? Can anyone enlighten me on the cultural significance of being spat on?

by meercatjohn on Jan 5, 2010 9:35 AM PST up reply actions  

If I remember correctly, wasn’t Alomar being held back by other players/umpires while arguing, and the spit was his choice of weapon to cover the distance between he and Hirschbeck?

by Eric Stephen on Jan 5, 2010 9:37 AM PST up reply actions  

Attendance counts, absolutely.

But when McGwire could answer the bell, he had one of the biggest bats in the game. IIRC, Bill James has him third among 1B all time (maybe better to say “had” — this was in 2000, pre-Pujols). Not that Bill James is the only thing worth considering and each man has a right to his own opinion — I’m just saying.

For me, McGwire is an excellent candidate for the Hall. I believe that the only reason he is not in is the elephant in the room, and as that has been rehashed a thousand times over, I see no reason to get into it. I also don’t criticize anyone who feels that the elephant outweighs McGwire. I’m not so sure I’m right to ignore it.

The Ultimate Ned's Kind of Guy

by Humma Kavula on Jan 4, 2010 9:45 PM PST up reply actions  

In the OPS+ thread

Someone liked to fangraph’s post on wRC+. I like the concept of the stat, but a tangential comment by tangotiger intrigued me (assume in his example that the pitchers are in the same ballpark, i.e., equal ballpark factors):

I am COMPLETELY opposed to the way b-r.com [calculates ERA+] (lgERA / ERA) [multiplied by 100]. It’s beyond the silly to put the thing you are comparing against in the numerator, all because you want to make it "bigger is better". I have a whole thread dedicated to this if someone is interested.
The only suggestion I have seen that makes any sense is:
2 – ERA/lgERA
And then multiply by 100. This way, if you have a 4.00 lgERA and your ERA is 3.00, then your ERA+ is 125. And if you have a 5.00 ERA, then your ERA+ is 75. Notice the symmetry and the bigger-is-better.
The way b-r.com does it, you end up with 133 and 80, even though together the two pitchers would be average.

That makes sense to me also. If two pitches with identical ballpark adjustments are exactly the same distance from the lgERA, then they should be equidistant from 100 as well.

The commenter formerly known as El Lay Dave.

by David Young on Jan 4, 2010 9:37 PM PST reply actions  

That makes sense to me too. The mind of Tangotiger is an awesome thing. :)

by Eric Stephen on Jan 4, 2010 10:41 PM PST up reply actions  

As he drives in

Cromartie and Raines with a double that hit the brick lick astroturf that ruined his knees and skipped to the wall.

Patience is for those who die waiting for something to happen

by Phil Gurnee on Jan 5, 2010 7:21 AM PST up reply actions  

Not

Wasn’t even that good of an RBI man :o

by Chad Moriyama on Jan 5, 2010 7:38 AM PST up reply actions  

If only

Raines had gotten on base more for him.

by meercatjohn on Jan 5, 2010 9:30 AM PST up reply actions  

Hall of Fame/Merit, not Hall of Very Good

For me.

Blyleven, Alomar, Larkin, Raines, McGwire

Even then, McGwire is borderline for me without the steroid stuff, which i’m hardly factoring.

by Chad Moriyama on Jan 5, 2010 7:19 AM PST reply actions  

HOF

does not like 2nd baseman. Grich and Whitaker are two of the most deserving still not in. Not getting in is one thing not getting any support whatsoever is what was bizarre.

by meercatjohn on Jan 5, 2010 9:15 AM PST up reply actions  

Angels and USC announcer Rory Markas passed away at age 56. Sad.

by Eric Stephen on Jan 5, 2010 9:10 AM PST reply actions  

Very sad

He’ll be missed by this Angel fan. Just another Halo victory will never be voiced again.

by meercatjohn on Jan 5, 2010 9:17 AM PST up reply actions  

Bad news

Man, that’s not that much older than I am.

The commenter formerly known as El Lay Dave.

by David Young on Jan 5, 2010 10:20 AM PST up reply actions  

The Danys Baez deal with Phillies is 2 years, $5.25m, per David Murphy of the Philadelphia Daily News.

by Eric Stephen on Jan 5, 2010 9:12 AM PST reply actions  

The Mota

deal but with an extra year. How strange these guys get these contracts. He doesn’t even have the health card he can play given how much time he’s missed over the last few years.

by meercatjohn on Jan 5, 2010 9:18 AM PST up reply actions  

Mota’s last contract doubled would still be $0.5M less than that. Ned is starting to look like a frickin’ genius.

The commenter formerly known as El Lay Dave.

by David Young on Jan 5, 2010 10:22 AM PST up reply actions  

Latest Results
Bert Blyleven	32	94.12%
Roberto Alomar	26	76.47%
Tim Raines	23	67.65%
Barry Larkin	21	61.76%
Mark McGwire	15	44.12%
Alan Trammell	14	41.18%
Edgar Martinez	13	38.24%
Andre Dawson	11	32.35%
Don Mattingly	7	20.59%
Fred McGriff	5	14.71%
Lee Smith	5	14.71%
Dale Murphy	3	8.82%
Dave Parker	3	8.82%
Eric Karros	1	2.94%
Harold Baines	1	2.94%

34 ballots

by meercatjohn on Jan 5, 2010 9:13 AM PST reply actions  

Given that Mwhite

meant to vote for Raines his real number is 24 votes on 34 ballots and a 70.59%. So far we have elected Bert and Roberto with Tim and Larkin wondering why they are on the outside looking in.

Raines would need six straight more ballots with his name on it to make 75% without anyone else voting. Sorry Tim, if you can’t make it here you aren’t going to make it anywhere.

I’m curious – for those who did not put Raines on your ballot would you have voted for Tony Gwynn? They were essentially the same player, you can look at the table above to check out how similar they were other then how the went about getting on base. Raines had more power and was probably the the best baserunner in history. Gwynn had the lofty batting average and RBI and they played in the same era.

by meercatjohn on Jan 5, 2010 9:28 AM PST up reply actions  

I was shocked that Raines ended up with more PA (10,359) than Gwynn (10,232). For some reason I thought he had far less.

I agree about the similar players part, but I think their power was close too:

Career ISO (SLG – BA)
Raines .131
Gwynn .121

Raines is just criminally underrated. Can’t go wrong with a .385 OBP in 10,000 PA, with all the baserunning exploits too. It seems that Raines suffers by merely not being Rickey.

by Eric Stephen on Jan 5, 2010 9:36 AM PST up reply actions  

that, and that he spent his BEST glory years ('83-'87) with the Expos

they are like the anti-Yankees, in terms of media-driven folklore. And while Raines DID spend part of his career with them during THEIR rebirth, by that point he was just a part-time player, albeit a very good one.

by sarcastro9 on Jan 5, 2010 10:41 AM PST up reply actions  

I voted for Raines

but I still find Gwynn to be more exceptional. I realize batting average is an overvalued and overused stat, but what Gwynn did in that area was so incredibly remarkable I think it needs some consideration. I won’t say he was a more valuable player than Raines, just more remarkable.

by prosellis on Jan 5, 2010 9:46 AM PST up reply actions  

So

Boise State’s entire football season was just a farce. “Here’s a 14 game schedule, go play it. It doesn’t matter if you go undefeated or winless, you have no shot at playing for the title. Go have some fun.”

Atleast my college football brackets remain perfect, with my Texas/Alabama final still alive. :)
vr, Xei

by Xeifrank on Jan 5, 2010 9:36 AM PST reply actions  

No Farce...

The school and the WAC made a lot of money. That is what it is all about.

by delias man on Jan 5, 2010 9:39 AM PST up reply actions  

After all, blue turf is expensive.

by Eric Stephen on Jan 5, 2010 9:40 AM PST up reply actions  

But how much more money

would the title game have given them?

by prosellis on Jan 5, 2010 9:47 AM PST up reply actions  

Probably

would’ve made more cash in a playoff.
vr, Xei

by Xeifrank on Jan 5, 2010 9:47 AM PST up reply actions  

Show your work on that one.

by Michael White on Jan 5, 2010 9:51 AM PST up reply actions  

Sure

I’ll get my accountant on it right now. :)
vr, Xei

by Xeifrank on Jan 5, 2010 9:52 AM PST up reply actions  

He works

at the firm of Common Sense.
vr, Xei

by Xeifrank on Jan 5, 2010 9:53 AM PST up reply actions  

Okay, then what is your common sense calculation of how more revenue would be gained by having playoff games played at home venues (which a playoff would certainly need to) as opposed to selling out two games at the Rose Bowl (capacity of 90,000+). And selling out a game at the University of Phoenix Stadium, and selling out Cowboys Stadium for the Cotton Bowl.

Neutral site venues are a cash cow because fans travel to them. But instead we could have had a home playoff game in 30,000 capacity TCU.

I like the idea of a 16 team playoff, but the money argument is nonsense. If they stood to gain more money from it, it would have been done 25 years ago.

by Michael White on Jan 5, 2010 9:57 AM PST up reply actions  

You could easily use neutral or regional sites in a playoff system. Or use go to BCS bowl sites for the final four. Seems like a lot of money making permutations to me. I think the current system is more of monopoly by the BCS conferences than anything else. NCAA basketball TV ratings are huge and ALL of those games are played at neutral sites. TV ratings would be huge for any college football playoff game.
vr, Xei

by Xeifrank on Jan 5, 2010 10:03 AM PST up reply actions  

Teams don’t travel to neutral sites the week before possibly travelling to another neutral site. Some fans aren’t millionaires, in fact, some are even students.

NCAA basketball games play two rounds in four days. And they only sell out those venues (when they do) because 8 different teams fans are playing in the same place within a few hours of each other.

I don’t disagree that TV ratings would be huge, but they are already huge. That’s the only bump in revenues you would see, and I argue that it’s not enough to make up for the lack of the games being played at a neutral site.

by Michael White on Jan 5, 2010 10:07 AM PST up reply actions  

You have many good points, but I believe that the number one priority should be a fair system for determining the champion. Secondarily, you milk the system to get the most money out of it as possible. I believe there are fixes to all the points you bring up. TV ratings bring in a lot of the money. Playoff games should bring in more of a national audience than a exhibition bowl game. There may or may not be attendance issues, but I have no doubt that a TCU/Boise St playoff game would sell out a venue like Cowboys Stadium or Mile High Stadium.
vr, Xei

by Xeifrank on Jan 5, 2010 10:16 AM PST up reply actions  

and let me say

that I appreciate all the arguments you have brought up. It will help me improve my playoff system proposal. :)
vr, Xei

by Xeifrank on Jan 5, 2010 10:34 AM PST up reply actions  

By winning, Boise State and the WAC would get at least one more game with a massive payout instead of just the one. Gotta figure the first two rounds of an 8-team playoff would be roughly equivalent to the current non-title BCS games.

by Eric Stephen on Jan 5, 2010 9:55 AM PST up reply actions  

I forgot about the need for home games, as mwhite mentioned above. Hard to get fans to commit to a potential 16-day stay instead of a 2-day stay at a neutral site.

by Eric Stephen on Jan 5, 2010 10:03 AM PST up reply actions  

First round at most

would be a home game for one of the teams. TV ratings/revenue would be great either way.
vr, Xei

by Xeifrank on Jan 5, 2010 10:07 AM PST up reply actions  

I was thinking it would be hard for a fan base to travel to 3 different neutral sites, but they do it for the basketball tournament.

by delias man on Jan 5, 2010 10:07 AM PST up reply actions  

Comparing

 a 20,000 seat basketball arena to a 100,000 seat football arena is not the same. Only certain Alumni could afford to make these trips.

by meercatjohn on Jan 5, 2010 10:08 AM PST up reply actions  

And the 20,000 stadiums are often split between 8 different teams.

by Michael White on Jan 5, 2010 10:12 AM PST up reply actions  

Would

you consider attending a game between two teams like Texas and Boise State if they were to play at the Rose Bowl in a semi-final or championship game? I bet a lot of locals would.
vr, Xei

by Xeifrank on Jan 5, 2010 10:18 AM PST up reply actions  

No

but I’d watch it on TV.

by meercatjohn on Jan 5, 2010 10:21 AM PST up reply actions  

I would too

I haven’t watched any of the bowl/exhibition games so far this year. I don’t get much out of completely meaningless games. Kind of like watching a Giants vs Padres game in the middle of September.
vr, Xei

by Xeifrank on Jan 5, 2010 10:23 AM PST up reply actions  

you missed some good ones

Outback, Alamo and Humanitarian were really exciting.

by delias man on Jan 5, 2010 10:26 AM PST up reply actions  

I'm sure they were...

Heck, even the Clippers have an exciting game now and then, but do I really want to invest the time to watch them play the Timberwolves?
vr, Xei

by Xeifrank on Jan 5, 2010 10:32 AM PST up reply actions  

You only watch teams

who can be champions? What are doing bothering with the Dodgers for?

by meercatjohn on Jan 5, 2010 10:33 AM PST up reply actions  

haha, I knew the Clippers reference would get you. :)
I have my favorite team(s) that I watch no matter what, but will also watch other games if they atleast have some meaning to them. I would watch a bowl game if it had some meaning on who would win the championship. I think many others are in the same boat. Playoff games would have much higher TV ratings than exhibition/bowl games. Since this is not a college thesis, please don’t ask me to prove it. I am hoping it is common sense.
vr, Xei

by Xeifrank on Jan 5, 2010 10:37 AM PST up reply actions  

Does it have to be home games

or could there just be a few regional sites playing down to one central location, a la March Madness?

by prosellis on Jan 5, 2010 10:07 AM PST up reply actions  

Here is an interesting study regarding college bowl payouts. It’s hard for schools to actually make money on the bowls.

by Eric Stephen on Jan 5, 2010 10:13 AM PST up reply actions  

This is my favorite article on this subject, from Stewart Mandel who I think is the best college football writer in the business.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2008/writers/stewart_mandel/12/30/mandel.mailbag/index.html

by Michael White on Jan 5, 2010 10:17 AM PST up reply actions  

A team like Boise still comes out ahead. I am sure they sell many more tickets to home and road games than they did 10 years ago, and it is so much easier to recruit top talent playing in these bowl games. That talent will feed the money making machine.

by delias man on Jan 5, 2010 10:17 AM PST up reply actions  

Boise

beating Oklahoma several years ago in the Fiesta Bowl was my favorite college game of the decade. Maybe the most entertaining college football game I’ve ever watched on TV.

by meercatjohn on Jan 5, 2010 10:20 AM PST up reply actions  

That game in 2007 was amazing. It’s funny how both of Boise’s biggest wins now have come on trick plays: hook and ladder, statue of liberty in 2007; fake punt in 2010.

by Jesse S. on Jan 5, 2010 12:36 PM PST up reply actions  

I would love to see some confederates in the AP

give Boise State some national championship votes to further demonstrate how bad the current system is.

by prosellis on Jan 5, 2010 9:50 AM PST up reply actions  

Current system is oh so lame

A team goes 14-0 and beats the Pac-10 champ and another undefeated team ranked in the top 5 and gets nothing to show for it. Not even a chance to play for the title. Lame!
Imagine the Saints going 16-0 and the NFL saying, sorry you had a nice season and a couple of nice wins, but since you play in the NFC South we are just going to pick our two gold old buddies the Colts and Vikings to play for the title. You can go play the Cowboys in a “friendly”.
vr, Xei

by Xeifrank on Jan 5, 2010 9:57 AM PST up reply actions  

32 teams in the NFL.

116 in NCAA division 1.

Do you also complain that the CIF football state championship games aren’t really championship games either?

by Michael White on Jan 5, 2010 9:59 AM PST up reply actions  

Yes, the CIF state championship system has some problems, but I will leave the smaller stuff for others to debate. Atleast in the CIF football playoffs teams cannot reach the state title game without winning a 16 team single elimination tournament.
vr, Xei

by Xeifrank on Jan 5, 2010 10:27 AM PST up reply actions  

Well, even in your proposed 8 team “playoff” it would require teams being selected using the BCS. And teams who conceivably win their round robin tournament (their conference) would be left off for teams who are essentially the prom king of collge football (like your stance that Oregon State if they won the Pac-10 in 2008 would have not played in the tournament while USC would.)

Which is why I say, either 16 team tournament (with every conference champion getting an automatic bid) or just blow up the BCS and give me Pac-10 versus Big Ten in the Rose Bowl every year.

by Michael White on Jan 5, 2010 10:33 AM PST up reply actions  

I would much prefer the old system of just let coaches and AP vote on their own and stop pretending we actually have a national champion every year.

Besides, the Rose Bowl was way more fun when it was Big-10/Pac-10. I actually used to go to those games. I haven’t been to one since the BCS was put in place.

by prosellis on Jan 5, 2010 10:36 AM PST up reply actions  

My system

would take a conference winner over a conference second place team barring some extremely strange scenario where the conference champ was ranked very low and the conference runner up was ranked extremely high. My system also would only use the BCS for seeding/ranking purposes.

I actually devised a 12 and 16 team playoff system but took both of those off the boards figuring that going to a two team playoff was like pulling teeth and that a 16 team playoff is likely something my grandkids can be debating on TBLA in the year 2040.
vr, Xei

by Xeifrank on Jan 5, 2010 11:07 AM PST up reply actions  

How do you define very low? Oregon State was ranked around 23 or so at that point, while USC was in the top 5? Being within the top 25 doesn’t seem to be “very low” to me. Oh, and Oregon State had beaten USC.

And as you say, your motivation for it to be 8 games instead of 16 is because this is “better than nothing.” Which is exactly what the motivation was for establishing the BCS to begin with. “Sure it’s not perfect, but it’s better than the system we have now.” Except that I don’t find the BCS to be better than the system before. It used to be that winning the Rose Bowl actually was considered an accomplishment and now its relegated to an afterthought. All for what? To say there is a “national champion” except not really because we argue about that constantly.

Your 8 team playoff would be the same thing for me. I actually do like bowl games in particular the Rose Bowl which would be completely phased out (IMO.) And it would still give us a “national champion” that would still be argued about because teams would still be jobbed out of at births in the tournament. If you’re going to kill the bowls, I need a better payoff.

by Michael White on Jan 5, 2010 11:16 AM PST up reply actions  

This is your windmill

but I don’t really care about who is National Champion.

by meercatjohn on Jan 5, 2010 10:34 AM PST up reply actions  

Interestingly

Posnanski says as much on SI.com today. Why can’t Boise just call itself the national champion? It used to be that way. There were debates all the time. Now there’s a game in which something like #1 plays something like #2, and that’s good, but it’s not the word handed down.

Boise can make a T-Shirt that says National Champs and have a parade, just as much as Texas or Alabama can.

The Ultimate Ned's Kind of Guy

by Humma Kavula on Jan 5, 2010 10:37 AM PST up reply actions  

Ya, just like some Ole Miss team in the 1960’s found one obscure newspaper which voted them national champions (after going undefeated.) Surely there are some newapapers in the Rocky Mountains which would declare Boise State national champions.

by Michael White on Jan 5, 2010 10:38 AM PST up reply actions  

I just ran a poll of people near my keyboard

and Boise State was unanimously voted national champions. I don’t have a fancy trophy or crystal to award, but I do have a very nice coffee mug.

by prosellis on Jan 5, 2010 10:40 AM PST up reply actions  

You don’t have to reach back that far. Some USC rooters claim out of one side of their mouth an AP national title in the BCS-era, while out of the other side they take the BCS-title credit also.

The commenter formerly known as El Lay Dave.

by David Young on Jan 5, 2010 10:48 AM PST up reply actions  

Playoff would be great

but I like the current system now. It has grown on me. The big Saturday night ABC game that has become the game of the week is great. It always brings you the biggest matchup of the week, and generally somebody gets knocked out of the title race live in prime time. It is like watching a reality show where you know someone is going home.

by delias man on Jan 5, 2010 10:03 AM PST up reply actions  

This is the one argument that I think really has some weight

The college football regular season is awesome, and a playoff might take away from that. But with so many schools competing for very few slots in a very short season, every game is still going to matter.

by prosellis on Jan 5, 2010 10:06 AM PST up reply actions  

Actually

under the current system too many (good) teams get knocked out of contention early in the season. With a playoff system, that allows something like 8 teams, you would have more late season meaningful games.
vr, Xei

by Xeifrank on Jan 5, 2010 10:08 AM PST up reply actions  

Those same teams would get knocked out of playoff contention early too.

by delias man on Jan 5, 2010 10:10 AM PST up reply actions  

Maybe, maybe not

You can’t say for certain. Maybe a team lost an early game because a key player or two were hurt, or they played a tough team on the road early in the season.
vr, Xei

by Xeifrank on Jan 5, 2010 10:21 AM PST up reply actions  

Exactly… I could think of 50 regular season games that are going to be more exciting than tonight’s Orange Bowl.

by delias man on Jan 5, 2010 10:09 AM PST up reply actions  

I’m actually looking forward to the Orange Bowl, but that’s because i have this weird rooting interest for Big Ten teams after having the Big Ten network and watching a ton of those games. Now that Ohio St. beat Oregon, maybe people will realize they play like actual football in the upper midwest.

by Michael White on Jan 5, 2010 10:14 AM PST up reply actions  

Or maybe they will

realize that Pac 10 football sucks.

by meercatjohn on Jan 5, 2010 10:14 AM PST up reply actions  

Ya, that’s the other (more likely) conclusion, that the Pac-10 sucks and the one, true, holy football conference the Ess Eee See! is the only good football being played anywhere.

by Michael White on Jan 5, 2010 10:18 AM PST up reply actions  

SEC was awful this year

Auburn, Tenn and Georgia stunk, their bottom feeders were awful, Ole Miss tanked, Spurrier seems to care less about his program. Top to bottom, boring year there.

by delias man on Jan 5, 2010 10:21 AM PST up reply actions  

Beltre deal

per Rosenthal, his $5m player option for 2011 can increase to $10m with 640 PA in 2010.

by Eric Stephen on Jan 5, 2010 9:51 AM PST reply actions  

That makes more sense

but that is still a pretty unique structure.

by prosellis on Jan 5, 2010 9:52 AM PST up reply actions  

640? I wonder how they picked that number.

Beltre PA

2009: 477
2008: 612
2007: 639

The Ultimate Ned's Kind of Guy

by Humma Kavula on Jan 5, 2010 9:59 AM PST up reply actions  

He can get 640 if he wears his cup this year.

by delias man on Jan 5, 2010 10:00 AM PST up reply actions  

In fact

Beltre has topped 640 PA only three times — in 04, 05, and 06, his age 25, 26, and 27 seasons.

The Ultimate Ned's Kind of Guy

by Humma Kavula on Jan 5, 2010 10:01 AM PST up reply actions  

My Vote

Blylevyn
Alomar
Larkin
Trammell
Morris

by Grzesio on Jan 5, 2010 9:52 AM PST reply actions  

Is Beltre

coming anywhere close to sniffing the unofficial title of “best player never to be an All-Star?”

The Ultimate Ned's Kind of Guy

by Humma Kavula on Jan 5, 2010 10:07 AM PST reply actions  

Yes

his defensive value is huge, but he needs to bounce back offensively to try to nab the crown that Humma is referring to. Besides, now that he is in Boston not only will he be in the all-star game, he will have a banner year.

by meercatjohn on Jan 5, 2010 10:10 AM PST up reply actions  

He will remain pull happy in that stadium. Which is a shame because he is at his best going the other way.

by delias man on Jan 5, 2010 10:12 AM PST up reply actions  

Then again

I don’t think Beltre is a cold weather ballplayer so the Fenway fans may be hating him by May 15th if he combines his normal slow starts with the cold of spring in Boston.

by meercatjohn on Jan 5, 2010 10:13 AM PST up reply actions  

Tim Salmon is probably #1. Maybe Kirk Gibson

by Eric Stephen on Jan 5, 2010 10:14 AM PST up reply actions  

Tim for me

will be interesting to see Jay Jaffee do his JAWS work on Salmon. One of my favorite players, probably the biggest reason I was rooting for a Halo World Championship.

by meercatjohn on Jan 5, 2010 10:16 AM PST up reply actions  

I agree, Salmon.

Famously, in fact. Career OPS+ of 128, 7 seasons with OPS+ over 130, including one at 165, which we might compare to Beltre’s 2004? Yes, that is a good player.

The Ultimate Ned's Kind of Guy

by Humma Kavula on Jan 5, 2010 10:21 AM PST up reply actions  

And as I recall

a very good Right Fielder but I’ve no idea what the metrics say.

by meercatjohn on Jan 5, 2010 10:23 AM PST up reply actions  

I’d like to see it for Jim Edmonds. Career 132 OPS+ in CF. A bit short on some counting stats. Both probably end up in the Hall of the Very Good. I was unhappy when the Angels traded him – because I wanted to see him in Dodger Blue, not another red uniform.

The commenter formerly known as El Lay Dave.

by David Young on Jan 5, 2010 10:52 AM PST up reply actions  

Probably

no one shocked me more then Edmunds did with his power based on his minor league numbers.

by meercatjohn on Jan 5, 2010 11:03 AM PST up reply actions  

btw

why didnt edmonds get a job as someones outfielder this past year???

he was coming off a Great year with the cubs batting .256 .369 .568 937 with 19 homers… why didnt someone give this guy a contract??

by matthewmafa on Jan 5, 2010 12:10 PM PST up reply actions  

I guess

he was unwilling to play for the pay.

by meercatjohn on Jan 5, 2010 12:31 PM PST up reply actions  

I had to pop over to fangraphs to do a little comparison

I hadn’t realized how similar those two were. Slight edge to Salmon.

by prosellis on Jan 5, 2010 10:20 AM PST up reply actions  

Highest OPS+ for Right Fielders from 1990 - 2010

Rk Player OPS+ From To Age HR RBI BB OBP SLG OPS
1 Vladimir Guerrero 145 1996 2009 21-34 407 1318 685 .386 .568 .954
2 Larry Walker 141 1990 2005 23-38 383 1307 908 .401 .568 .969
3 Tony Gwynn 133 1990 2001 30-41 90 722 408 .388 .475 .863
4 Bobby Abreu 132 1996 2009 22-35 256 1187 1254 .404 .493 .896
5 J.D. Drew 129 1998 2009 22-33 216 705 769 .392 .504 .896
6 Sammy Sosa 129 1990 2007 21-38 605 1654 918 .345 .537 .882
7 David Justice 129 1990 2002 24-36 304 1014 900 .378 .502 .880
8 Tim Salmon 128 1992 2006 23-37 299 1016 970 .385 .498 .884
9 Magglio Ordonez 127 1997 2009 23-35 277 1145 588 .371 .513 .884
10 Jay Buhner 125 1990 2001 25-36 288 893 744 .363 .499 .862
11 Paul ONeill 122 1990 2001 27-38 243 1093 789 .369 .476 .845
12 Shawn Green 120 1993 2007 20-34 328 1070 744 .355 .494 .850
13 Ichiro Suzuki 118 2001 2009 27-35 84 515 412 .378 .434 .811
14 Reggie Sanders 115 1991 2007 23-39 305 983 674 .343 .487 .830
15 Raul Mondesi 113 1993 2005 22-34 271 860 475 .331 .485 .815
16 Trot Nixon 112 1996 2008 22-34 137 555 504 .364 .464 .828
17 Jermaine Dye 111 1996 2009 22-35 325 1072 597 .338 .488 .826
18 Jeromy Burnitz 111 1993 2006 24-37 315 981 739 .345 .481 .826
19 Dante Bichette 108 1990 2001 26-37 271 1118 349 .339 .504 .843
20 Matt Lawton 105 1995 2006 23-34 138 631 681 .368 .417 .785
21 Brian Jordan 104 1992 2006 25-39 184 821 353 .333 .455 .788
22 Ruben Sierra 101 1990 2006 24-40 208 948 462 .316 .438 .754

by meercatjohn on Jan 5, 2010 10:31 AM PST up reply actions  

Andre Ethier’s current career OPS+ is 122, the exact same as Torre’s favorite comp for him, Paul O’Neill. Looking at the list, If he has anything from 115 on up in 2010, we should be reasonably happy with that.

The commenter formerly known as El Lay Dave.

by David Young on Jan 5, 2010 10:56 AM PST up reply actions  

I wonder

If ten years from now we will be having the same HOF argument about Bobby Abreu that we are currently having about Raines/Blyleven.

The Ultimate Ned's Kind of Guy

by Humma Kavula on Jan 5, 2010 10:41 AM PST up reply actions  

The HOF needs a playoff system! :) j/k
vr, Xei

by Xeifrank on Jan 5, 2010 10:43 AM PST up reply actions  

Abreu even has the nice counting numbers, too.

Seven straight 100 RBI seasons and eight out of nine

Active 100-RBI streaks
A-Rod 12
Pujols 9 (for 9!)
Abreu 7
Tex 6
M.Cabrera 6

Plus eight of 11 seasons with 100 runs (all 11 at 96 runs or more).

by Eric Stephen on Jan 5, 2010 10:49 AM PST up reply actions  

Look at those walks

no one is within 300 of him. Then again he gets his full career based on my select. Time for a new select.

by meercatjohn on Jan 5, 2010 10:51 AM PST up reply actions  

Career Walks for Right Fielder

I knew I loved Dwight Evans for a reason.

                                                                         
Rk Player BB G PA HR RBI IBB SO BA OBP SLG OPS
1 Mel Ott 1708 2730 11337 511 1860 0 896 .304 .414 .533 .947
2 Hank Aaron 1402 3298 13940 755 2297 293 1383 .305 .374 .555 .928
3 Dwight Evans 1391 2606 10569 385 1384 60 1697 .272 .370 .470 .840
4 Reggie Jackson 1375 2820 11416 563 1702 164 2597 .262 .356 .490 .846
5 Al Kaline 1277 2834 11597 399 1583 131 1020 .297 .376 .480 .855
6 Ken Singleton 1263 2082 8558 246 1065 125 1246 .282 .388 .436 .824
7 Jack Clark 1262 1994 8225 340 1180 127 1441 .267 .379 .476 .854
8 Rusty Staub 1255 2951 11229 292 1466 193 888 .279 .362 .431 .793
9 Bobby Abreu 1254 1951 8417 256 1187 104 1518 .299 .404 .493 .896
10 Dave Winfield 1216 2973 12358 465 1833 172 1686 .283 .353 .475 .827
11 Harry Hooper 1136 2309 10244 75 817 0 412 .281 .368 .387 .755
12 Paul Waner 1091 2549 10762 113 1309 0 376 .333 .404 .473 .878
13 Enos Slaughter 1018 2380 9084 169 1304 11 538 .300 .382 .453 .834

Provided by Baseball-Reference.com: View Play Index Tool Used
Generated 1/5/2010.

by meercatjohn on Jan 5, 2010 10:54 AM PST up reply actions  

Ken Singleton and Dwight Evans

two of the most underrated players in modern baseball.

by meercatjohn on Jan 5, 2010 10:55 AM PST up reply actions  

I really like Singleton as an announcer too. I never saw him play, but I agree that he is very underrated.

by Eric Stephen on Jan 5, 2010 10:57 AM PST up reply actions  

Check this out

http://joeposnanski.com/JoeBlog/2010/01/04/best-players-in-baseball/

Not very scientific but lots of fun and none other then Ken Singleton makes an appearance.

by meercatjohn on Jan 5, 2010 10:58 AM PST up reply actions  

I believe Singleton is the only switch-hitter on that list. I always liked the switch-hitters when I was a kid. Still do.

The commenter formerly known as El Lay Dave.

by David Young on Jan 5, 2010 11:02 AM PST up reply actions  

Thanks

I missed being here, but it sure seems if you gotta miss a week from a baseball blog, the week between Xmas and New Year’s is the week to do it. Didn’t take look to catch up, because not much is happening.

The commenter formerly known as El Lay Dave.

by David Young on Jan 5, 2010 11:12 AM PST up reply actions  

Abreu

should easily be number five on this list by the end of 2010.

by meercatjohn on Jan 5, 2010 10:57 AM PST up reply actions  

yup

was about to type that till i saw your comment,… wow that is impressive

by matthewmafa on Jan 5, 2010 12:12 PM PST up reply actions  

But does Bobby Abreu "feel like a Hall of Famer?"

I’m predicting that there will be the Chasses and the Heymans who say, “Sure, Abreu was a nice player, but he was never feared, not like ___________ was. This is the Hall of Fame, not the Hall of Very Good.”

I mean, I know that last offseason was crazy, but the idea that Bobby Abreu was only worth a $5 million contract… I think he’s criminally underrated, and I think that will hurt his HOF chances. Never higher than 12th (this year!) in the MVP vote. An All-Star only twice. Good 2B numbers, but “only” 256 HR.

The Ultimate Ned's Kind of Guy

by Humma Kavula on Jan 5, 2010 10:59 AM PST up reply actions  

If Brendan

were still around he’d point out that his defense is so bad it takes away from his offense. I don’t think Abreu has any chance for the HOF based on how the current voting is done.

by meercatjohn on Jan 5, 2010 11:01 AM PST up reply actions  

Yeah, he has virtually no shot at the HOF IMO until maybe the veterans committee in like 2035 or something.

by Eric Stephen on Jan 5, 2010 11:02 AM PST up reply actions  

Which is why

I’m wondering if someone will pick up the mantle from the Blyleven/Raines campaigns and try to build support for Abreu.

If he doesn’t fall off the ballot in the first year.

The Ultimate Ned's Kind of Guy

by Humma Kavula on Jan 5, 2010 11:05 AM PST up reply actions  

Given the era he’s playing, the ’ “only” 256 HR’ – plus whatever he tacks on in his twilight years – is actually a noteworthy negative. The great doubles power helps bring up that slg% though, and you get to throw in 348 SB at a 76% success rate.

The commenter formerly known as El Lay Dave.

by David Young on Jan 5, 2010 11:10 AM PST up reply actions  

Sure.

His case rests mainly on the fact that nobody can get him out.

If he plays for three more years, he’ll have… oh, let’s say 750 more times on base. That will put him, oh, let’s say, top-40 all time.

Players in the top 40 Times on Base who are not in the HOF are either permanently banned, retired but not yet eligible, still playing, or Rusty Staub.

The Ultimate Ned's Kind of Guy

by Humma Kavula on Jan 5, 2010 11:20 AM PST up reply actions  

And perhaps not coincidentally

Tim Raines is #41.

The Ultimate Ned's Kind of Guy

by Humma Kavula on Jan 5, 2010 11:21 AM PST up reply actions  

HOF is your windmill

just give me the games, the hot stove and a comfy couch to watch from. I barely care who gets in the HOF or wins Cy Young etc…
vr, Xei

by Xeifrank on Jan 5, 2010 11:09 AM PST up reply actions  

I'm not good at word jumbles

But so far for words >= 3 letters long I got.

1. Moss
2. Mass
3. Mars
4. Arm(s)
5. Oar(s)
6. Boss
7. Ass
8. Bass
9. Boras
10. Sosa

I guess the last two don’t count.
vr, Xei

by Xeifrank on Jan 5, 2010 11:54 AM PST up reply actions  

So the Angels

have had some dang good right fielder since 1992.

by meercatjohn on Jan 5, 2010 10:33 AM PST reply actions  

The Doders can't really complain either

Mondesi, Sheffield, Green, Andre for most of that time.

by meercatjohn on Jan 5, 2010 11:05 AM PST up reply actions  

Tragedy in SF

with the Juan Uribe signing, to make room on the 40-man roster, the Giants DFA’d Brian Bocock, one of the best names in sports.

by Eric Stephen on Jan 5, 2010 11:06 AM PST reply actions  

Giants putting together the

all utility team. Smart to have backup for DeRosa/Sanchez but I’m puzzled that Uribe was unable to find a better gig.

by meercatjohn on Jan 5, 2010 11:07 AM PST up reply actions  

Uribe as a utility player

could likely have a higher WAR than both our starting 1B and 2B.
vr, Xei

by Xeifrank on Jan 5, 2010 11:11 AM PST up reply actions  

good thing that WAR doesnt mean

sh*t…. WAR doesnt win you games its just a stat people use for no reason

by matthewmafa on Jan 5, 2010 12:14 PM PST up reply actions  

WAR -- huh?

What is it good for?

Absolutely nothin’!

The Ultimate Ned's Kind of Guy

by Humma Kavula on Jan 5, 2010 12:16 PM PST up reply actions  

I don’t know why you are so vehemently against WAR. The idea behind measuring wins above replacement player is very sound. I can see if you have a problem with UZR or how it is calculated/measured, but you never seem to offer anything beyond “UZR is a joke” or “WAR doesn’t mean sh*t”. It doesn’t really add much to the discussion.

I really would love to know exactly why you don’t like WAR (or by extension, UZR), because I think a discussion about that would lead to everyone here being able to better understand both sides of the argument.

by Eric Stephen on Jan 5, 2010 1:19 PM PST up reply actions  

I think the problem

is the extrapolation that based on WAR a player is worth so much per win which always seems to accompany someone who uses fangraphs.

by meercatjohn on Jan 5, 2010 1:39 PM PST up reply actions  

You posted that great THT article listing the flaws of WAR a while ago. My big beef is WAR for pitchers. Catchers is sort of pointess too, since it gives every catcher a WAR boost regardless of their actual defensive ability.

by Michael White on Jan 5, 2010 1:44 PM PST up reply actions  

I think that is just an error in the “value,” in that the set the dollars per win too high, and also treat it in a linear fashion, as though each dollar spent is equal.

by Eric Stephen on Jan 5, 2010 2:04 PM PST up reply actions  

I think people who dis WAR

should read this. And I believe some of the bad perception of WAR comes from people who use it incorrectly. WAR is a very powerful tool for showing what has happened, and also a very powerful tool for “projecting” what is “most likely” to happen given a reasonable set of player projections (ie – Chone, Zips, BJ, Marcel). If I were an owner and interviewing a prospective GM, one of the first questions I would ask him/her is to discuss their knowledge of WAR.
vr, Xei

by Xeifrank on Jan 5, 2010 2:29 PM PST up reply actions  

Speaking of names

That reminds me of one of my favorite Bob Gibson stories. In his final game, in 1975, he gave up a grand slam to Pete LaCock of the Cubs. LaCock ended up as the second to last batter Gibson ever faced, as Gibson retired, saying something like, “when you give up a grand slam to Pete LaCock, you know it’s time to go.”

by Eric Stephen on Jan 5, 2010 11:15 AM PST up reply actions  

when i read that...

i thought you were going to say some real tragedy with juan uribe in it… man you scared me

by matthewmafa on Jan 5, 2010 12:13 PM PST up reply actions  

Me two

I thought Uribe had shot somebody in the DR.

by meercatjohn on Jan 5, 2010 12:33 PM PST up reply actions  

Nope…the Giants didn’t invite Angel Villalona to the presser. :)

by Eric Stephen on Jan 5, 2010 1:04 PM PST up reply actions  

GREAT food spot in Old Town Pasadena

Tede’s Cafe

THE best egg salad sandwich ever. No exaggeration. This place puts just about any sandwich shop to shame, maybe even Mario’s in Glendale.

by silverwidow on Jan 5, 2010 12:37 PM PST reply actions  

I'm not a fan of egg salad, so I can't say, but...

I’ve heard Europane, just down Colorado and across Lake, has good egg salad.

Me, I go for the place across from Europane — Lovebirds. Great Thanksgiving sandwich.

The Ultimate Ned's Kind of Guy

by Humma Kavula on Jan 5, 2010 12:40 PM PST up reply actions  

Just the fact

you know about Mario’s has elevated your status in my eyes.

by meercatjohn on Jan 5, 2010 12:53 PM PST up reply actions  

Mario’s ROCKS. Their salami w/pepperoncini is an Italian sub at its finest.

by silverwidow on Jan 5, 2010 1:02 PM PST up reply actions  

You are making me hungry.

by Eric Stephen on Jan 5, 2010 1:05 PM PST up reply actions  

Not a fan of egg salad

Buuuut, since we’re talking about food spots in Pasadena, may I suggest Lucky Boy. Great breakfast burrito, even though its like 4597349587 calories.

by Julio Nievas on Jan 5, 2010 12:59 PM PST up reply actions  

I’ve been to Lucky Boy just based on the reviews at Yelp. The breakfast burrito was HUGE, but you’ll feel guilty about it later.

by silverwidow on Jan 5, 2010 1:04 PM PST up reply actions  

I couldn't finished it

I gave the other half to my buddy. And yes, i felt like I couldn’t eat junk afterwards.

by Julio Nievas on Jan 5, 2010 1:09 PM PST up reply actions  

Matt Kemp

Getting a lot of attention now that he’s with Rihanna. He’s the top search ‘web pulse’ on yahoo.com!

by Julio Nievas on Jan 5, 2010 12:41 PM PST reply actions  

People all over the world are wondering what a baseball player is. I’m about to whore the website.

by meercatjohn on Jan 5, 2010 12:55 PM PST reply actions  

Randy Johnnson to retire. Conference call moved to tonight to avoid conflict with Hall of Fame announcement tomorrow. about 2 hours ago from web

by delias man on Jan 5, 2010 3:31 PM PST up reply actions  

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

A place for Dodger fans to congregate without spending $10 on parking.

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recommended FanPosts

Cal_state_dominguez_hills_logo_small
Opposing Pitcher Preview: 5/25-5/27 Harrell, Norris, Happ
Cal_state_dominguez_hills_logo_small
Opposing Pitcher Preview: 5/21-5/23 Corbin, Cahill, Saunders
Tbj_pin_small
Memories of the past: Dodger Glory.com
Cal_state_dominguez_hills_logo_small
Opposing Pitcher Preview: 5/18-5/20 Lynn, Westbrook, Lohse
Cal_state_dominguez_hills_logo_small
Opposing Pitcher Preview: 5/14-5/15 Kennedy and Miley

Recent FanPosts

Sbn_ds_small
TBLA Challenge Week VII
Cal_state_dominguez_hills_logo_small
Opposing Pitcher Preview: 5/16-5/17 Richard and Volquez
Sbn_ds_small
TBLA Challenge Week VI
Small
Hey NYC Dodgers Fans
Dodgers_small
Dodger Need Help. ASAP!

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >

Pos No Player 2012 Salary
C 17 Ellis $490,000
1B 7 Loney $6,375,000
2B 14 Ellis $2,500,000
3B 5 Uribe $8,000,000
SS 9 Gordon $485,000
LF 23 Abreu $401,311
CF 27 Kemp $10,000,000
RF 16 Ethier $10,950,000

OF 10 Gwynn $850,000
IF 12 Sellers $481,000
OF/1B 33 Van Slyke $388,197
2B/3B 3 Kennedy $800,000
C 18 Treanor $850,000

SP 22 Kershaw $6,000,000
SP 58 Billingsley $9,000,000
SP 29 Lilly $12,000,000
SP 44
Harang $3,000,000
SP 35 Capuano $3,000,000

CL 74
Jansen $491,000
RHP 52 Lindblom $483,000
RHP 51 Belisario $414,426
RHP 54 Guerra $488,000
RHP 28
Wright $900,000
LHP 57 Elbert $488,500
RHP 60 Coffey $1,000,000

DL 55 Guerrier $4,750,000
DL 6 Hairston $2,250,000
DL 21 Rivera $4,000,000
60DL 36 Hawksworth $495,000
60DL 41 De La Rosa $485,000

AAA 13 DeJesus $86,648
AA 50 Eovaldi $7,885
AAA 56 Antonini $7,869



Manny $8,087,432 deferred


Andruw $3,375,000 deferred


Pierre $3,050,000 deferred
Furcal $3,000,000 deferred
Kuroda $2,000,000 deferred
Garland $1,500,000 option buyout
Blake $1,250,000 option buyout
DFA 66 MacDougal $650,000

Totals
$114,830,268

For more detailed information, click here.

Current 40-man roster count: 42
(incl. De La Rosa & Hawksworth)

Yahoo_full_count

Manager

Eric___ned___reporters_2011_trade_deadline_small Eric Stephen

Editors

100_1427_small Phil Gurnee

Dgy_small David Young

Hanauma_bay_small Chad Moriyama

2501_small Michael White

Raptors_small Brandon Lennox

Img_0103_small CraigMinami