Master Index of Archived Threads


ESPN.com Insider

metirish Nov 22 2005 09:50 AM

Because I have access to "Insider" through my magazine subscription and because I know some of you want to know what Stark and co are writing I'll start this thread and will post any relevent articles or any that you guys want to read. Today is good news from Jayson Stark and it concerns the Mets among others. ] Mets, many others, can enjoy tax-free offseasonBy Jayson Stark ESPN.com Archive Since finals are approaching, it's time for a little baseball-economics quiz to help us make sure you're fully educated on a key development in the 2005-06 offseason: If the Mets' payroll inflates to, say, $150 million next season, how much luxury tax would they have to pay -- if the 2006 tax threshold is $136.5 million? A) $3.04 million (22.5 percent)? B) $4.05 million (30 percent)? C) $5.4 million (40 percent)? D) Way more than that, just because they're making Bud Selig really nervous? E) Zero dollars (nada percent), because of a little-known technicality in the Basic Agreement? OK, kids. Pencils down. All those answering "E" pass this test. And if you answered that correctly, either you've spent way too much time reading the Basic Agreement online (and feel free; it's here) ... or you cheated. But it's true. No matter how much cash the Mets insert in the wallets of free agents, Manny Ramirez, Carlos Delgado or all those talented and charming players they already have added this winter, their luxury tax next year is guaranteed to be exactly ... zilch. Same with the Angels, who were No. 4 (just behind the Mets) in the 2005 payroll standings. Or the Phillies, who were No. 5. Or any other team not known as the Yankees or Red Sox. That's because -- as first noted by CNN.com's Chris Isidore -- back in the crazed pre-agreement hours leading to the 2002 labor deal, the frenzied labor negotiators inserted a mysterious clause into the impending deal. That clause says, essentially (in language way more complicated than this) that any team that didn't pay luxury tax in the 2005 season is 100 percent off the hook in 2006. Doesn't matter by how much that team blows by the payroll threshold. Doesn't matter how many different tax rates are listed in the agreement for next season. Doesn't matter whether that team paid the luxury tax in any previous season. None of that matters. So, unbeknownst to most of the sport, the only teams that face a potential tax bill next year are the Yankees (guaranteed to be taxed at 40 percent, as four-time offenders) and the Red Sox (who paid this year but probably won't pay next year unless their payroll goes up by $13 million). But that's it. All righty then. We know what you're thinking: How the heck did a strange rule like this find its way into this labor agreement -- with just about nobody noticing? Well, here's the story, as we've heard it: You might remember that in the previous labor deal -- the first one to contain one of these payroll taxes -- the last year of the agreement was completely tax-free. OK, even if you don't remember, trust us. It was. Well, because of that wrinkle in the old deal, the union was pressing for the same free ride to be included in the current agreement. The idea was to give the market a year to adjust, in case the tax turned out to suppress player salaries more than anticipated. Oh, and one more thing: That one-year gap was supposed to establish the principle that the two sides weren't necessarily committed to this tax forever and ever. So naturally, as negotiations heated up, this issue remained a thorny little tug o' war. The owners didn't want any year to have no tax. The union was digging in. So in the end, they did what negotiators are supposed to do: They compromised. And this was the compromise: No matter how much tax a team paid in 2003 or 2004, if it dipped under the threshold in 2005, it was safe from the tax man in 2006. "I admit it's kind of quirky," says one baseball man who was involved in those talks. "But that's the compromise we came up with." So now here we are, more than three years later. And here's that compromise, ready to take hold for this, the final year of the labor deal. But when we polled high-ranking officials of four teams last week, only one had ever even heard of this rule. Why? Because MLB never mentioned it at the time the deal was done -- and hasn't advertised it since, even now that the time to apply that rule has arrived. Matter of fact, MLB has never even advised the Mets (or the Angels or Phillies, either) that it could directly affect them -- and save them millions of bucks. Why? Because it obviously was hoping nobody would bother to read the fine print. Oops. Somebody did. We didn't mean to blow anybody's cover. But someone needs to read this stuff -- and let the world know the rules. Sorry about that. Meanwhile, there's one more reason this rule could be even more significant than it might appear: We've been hearing murmuring beneath the surface that enough people in the sport are so happy with the current labor deal that they'd be interested in taking advantage of another clause in the agreement -- a clause that allows the two sides simply to extend the deal for 2007. But if they just extend it, they would be extending another tax-free year along with it (a potentially monstrous advantage for the Red Sox in 2007 if they pay no tax in 2006). Or they could negotiate yet another compromise on that particular issue. Now it isn't likely the Mets will actually add enough dollars to their payroll (which was about $101 million this year) to have this wrinkle kick in. But it's possible. Which means that, with a new TV network ready to hit the air, Mets GM Omar Minaya and his good friends, the Wilpons, have been handed the right to go on their very own fun-filled free-agent supermarket sweep. All thanks to the Wacky World of Labor Deals. Gotta love it. Jayson Stark is a senior writer for ESPN.com.

sharpie Nov 22 2005 09:57 AM

Actually, that article isn't an insider one as I had read it and I don't have the special pass. Thanks for posting this and future ones, Irish. Oh, and spend away, Omar.

metirish Nov 22 2005 09:59 AM

oops you're right, the article below it is an "insider"...damn

Elster88 Nov 22 2005 10:00 AM

It's nice to know that one of the major gains for management has just been thrown out that window. Maybe all that work they did really was just a way to punish the Yanks.

seawolf17 Nov 22 2005 10:00 AM

I think it blows that almost all the good stuff on espn.com is now exclusive "insider" territory: Stark, Neyer, Gammons, all the Sports Guy Archives, etc. Not cool, ESPN.

Valadius Nov 22 2005 11:17 AM

Exactly, Seawolf. Exactly. Wait a minute... this is the last year of the labor deal??? DAMMIT!!!!

Nymr83 Nov 22 2005 11:32 AM

i thought that you can't copy/paste insider articles, or is there a way around that?

metirish Nov 22 2005 11:40 AM

Nothing special Nym83, they are the same....I'll post Buster Olny's blog form today... ] Appeasing Red Sox Nationposted: Tuesday, November 22, 2005 | Feedback At the highest levels of the Red Sox front office, the executives wouldn't be doing their jobs if somebody didn't raise an obvious political point in the midst of these negotiations for Josh Beckett: If we do this deal, then the conversation in Red Sox Nation will change. The hand-wringing over Theo Epstein's departure will be alleviated. The concern that the front office is in chaos will end. The question of whether the Red Sox can conduct business without Epstein will end. Executives from other teams may have wondered if they would be wasting their time in discussing trades with Boston; no more. The Red Sox are moving on, and in a big way, by making the deal for a guy with the stuff and the makeup to lead the Boston staff for years to come. Assuming the Beckett deal is completed, it's a terrific trade for the Red Sox to make, right now. We have learned in the last three years, in particular, is that there is reason to fret over National League pitchers switching to the American League (Javier Vazquez, Carl Pavano and Matt Clement, among them). Beckett has never averaged more than 99.5 pitches per start in his career, as compared to Curt Schilling, who has averaged more than 100 pitches per start in every year since they started keeping that statistic; 95 pitches can translate into five innings after you apply the NL-to-AL exchange rate. It's not a slam dunk that Beckett is going to rack up 18- and 20-win seasons, or that he won't be hit by the kind of arm problems that have hampered the early part of his career. It could be that Hanley Ramirez or Anibal Sanchez will turn out to be great players. It could be that Mike Lowell's decline in 2005 was an accurate barometer of his physical state, and that the Red Sox will pay $18 million over the next two seasons for little production from a guy playing a power position. It's possible that Beckett will struggle to adapt to the intense atmosphere around the Red Sox. But it also may be that he thrives on it, after pitching too many games in front of too few fans in Florida, and it is very rare that you land a 25-year-old power pitcher with a strong World Series résumé and perhaps a decade of great days ahead of him. There's no doubt that he makes Boston a better team for 2006, on paper. Schilling could rebound and still be the de facto ace of the Red Sox, but Beckett has the ability to be the horse that hauls the staff, throwing consistent innings, taking pressure off the bullpen, Schilling and the other starters with outings of six and seven innings. He worked six or more innings in 23 of the 29 starts he made in 2005. If the Red Sox make the playoffs and Beckett is healthy, he can match up against any power pitcher that any other AL team throws out there, whether it's Johan Santana or Rich Harden or Randy Johnson or Bartolo Colon. His performance against the Yankees in Game 6 of the 2003 World Series was probably the most dominating outing against New York in its last decade of playoff baseball; Beckett raised the level of his command and intensity, and they had no chance, even while hitting in Yankee Stadium. Executives with other teams have wondered if the departure of Epstein would mean a change in the recent Red Sox philosophy of minor-league development, and if a front office led by Larry Lucchino would be more inclined to swap highly rated prospects for star power. Time will tell if, in a moment of midseason desperation in 2006, they are willing to discuss trading Jonathan Papelbon or Craig Hansen, two pitchers with great potential who should be stored away with 'UNTOUCHABLE' labels across their foreheads, like canned fruits. But the Beckett deal is the first evidence that the Red Sox will continue to be an aggressive, methodical and diligent organization, even without Theo Epstein. Tony Massarotti breaks down the deal. Gordon Edes notes the history of physical problems with Beckett. The Red Sox may or may not have a general manager in place for the winter meetings. Ken Davidoff has a line in his story that the Red Sox are interested in signing Tom Gordon. The Marlins are ready to move some of their other pricey stars, as well, and as Juan Rodriguez writes, they had some concerns about Hank Blalock as part of the package offered by Texas. Joe Capozzi notes in his story that the Marlins want to leave Miguel Cabrera at third base. The Dodgers have been involved in trade talks with the Marlins, as well. Dave George wonders if you can call Jeffrey Loria a quitter. It could be that this fire sale clinches a Marlins' move out of South Florida, and perhaps to Las Vegas. This is a strategy that obviously is not going to help the team's frustrated efforts to get a new ballpark, and by the time the team is ready to win again -- in 2008 -- they'll be in a better position to go someplace else. ********** Blog reader Drew B., from Pasadena, asked a great question: Did Joe Girardi know the Marlins were going to drastically reduce the payroll and go into rebuilding mode when he signed on? In hindsight, he might have been better off in Tampa, or maybe even with the Dodgers. Buster: Drew, that was the reason that I thought all along that Joe would go someplace else, because while he will have some good young talent to work with in the next couple of years, he will be consigned to losing for the first year or two, when first impressions on managers are formed. ********** • The Angels might move if they don't get some satisfaction from the city of Anaheim, writes Bill Shaikin. • The plan for the Twins' new park -- not yet approved -- continues to be nudged along. • The Pirates have traded Bobby Hill to the Padres. • Top Colorado prospect Ryan Shealy is thriving. • One scout tells Bob Finnigan that the new Seattle catcher is a lot like Dan Wilson. John Levesque thinks the Mariners have taken a good risk in filling what has been a black hole for them. • Jim Fregosi denies that he's been offered the job of Dodgers manager. • Tampa Bay sets its coaching staff. • A lot has changed for Jeff Cirillo in the last year. • The Busch Stadium demolition is ahead of schedule. • If Pete Rose ever gets into the Hall of Fame, it won't be the writers who put him there. • The Cubs already have landed Scott Eyre, and now they're going after Bobby Howry. • Minnie Minoso's Hall of Fame chances are still alive. • The marketing of Johnny Damon has begun. Having seen the Boras binders in the past, I think the sales job is aimed more at the media than interested teams, because most of the numbers provided by the agent can be found on the internet. The buzz on a client stems largely in part by what's written in the papers, and every time Boras has a major client, he unveils his binder to a New York reporter. I received one when Bernie Williams became a free agent in 1998, and a typical page would include a listing of his Gold Gloves, with 90 percent of the page filled with blank space. I don't think that Johnny Damon's prowess as a hitter -- and the inevitable concerns about whether his production will decline with age -- are a mystery to anybody in baseball. • Billy Wagner is being wined and dined in New York, and in Philly, there is concern. He's the real deal, writes Mike Lupica. • Mark Hale and Joel Sherman write that the Mets are looking at a couple of other catchers: Paul Lo Duca and Toby Hall. • The Yankees keep playing phone tag with Brian Giles.

Elster88 Nov 22 2005 12:21 PM

I think paying for Insider is as big a pain as everyone else, and I happily post things once in a while. But regularly posting such content is the best way to go looking for trouble on the web.

Frayed Knot Nov 22 2005 01:15 PM

I suspect that cuttin-n-pastin full articles from commercial sites to somewhere else is on shaky ground in any case whether it originates from a pay site or not, and it's probably something we should do sparingly just in case. I doubt anyone is going to come after this little site's assets (like we have any) but reporting articles with just a few relevant excerpts reproduced and then links that could be followed for the full text is probably the best idea just to avoid inviting trouble.

metirish Nov 22 2005 01:29 PM

I never even thought about that,I might have to re-think things...I wouldn't want Disney making an example out of me.

silverdsl Nov 22 2005 01:35 PM

Frayed Knot wrote: I doubt anyone is going to come after this little site's assets (like we have any) but reporting articles with just a few relevant excerpts reproduced and then links that could be followed for the full text is probably the best idea just to avoid inviting trouble. That is probably the best route. Unfortunately while the details are fuzzy at the moment since I heard about it a while ago, at least one media outlet, the AP, has been known to harass forums for allowing users to cut and paste articles in whole.

metirish Dec 01 2005 01:21 PM

Today from Buster Olney ] Benson to O's? It makes no senseposted: Thursday, December 1, 2005 | Feedback The Mets are talking about trading Kris Benson to the Orioles for Jorge Julio, according to Kevin Kernan. This deal, as detailed here, makes no sense to me, because of the innings that Benson gives the Mets -- unless it's a pure salary dump. And while Benson is 31 years old, Pedro Martinez is 34, Steve Trachsel is 35, and Tom Glavine is 39. I'd keep Benson. He's never reached the potential that others saw in him, but when healthy, he's decent. • It appears more and more likely that Frank Robinson will return to manage another season, reports Barry Svrluga. • In the end, the Padres relented in negotiations with Brian Giles. The Blue Jays had made a three-year offer to Giles. The Dodgers appear to have offered the most money for Giles, but lost out. • The Pirates add to their staff -- their coaching staff. • At the bottom of this story, below word of the signing of Julio Santana, Paul Hagen mentions the new changes to the Phillies' ballpark that are about to be made. The Phillies are going hard after Tom Gordon. • The Mariners are waiting to pick up the leftovers in the free-agent market. They're talking to Florida about reliever Ron Villone. • The Cardinals are nearing a critical decision on A.J. Burnett. • The market for Paul Byrd is near $20 million, says Royals GM Allard Baird, and in this same story, there is word of a possible destination for Tony Graffanino. • It was only a matter of time: George Steinbrenner is reportedly edgy over the lack of action on the Yankees' front, although the team appears on the verge of signing a set-up man. Joe Torre tells George King he's comfortable with Bubba Crosby in center field. • The Rangers also have bid on Kyle Farnsworth. With Farnsworth walking away from the Braves, it would seem that Todd Jones could be a good fit for Atlanta. • A Miami city official accuses the Marlins president of lying. Incidentally, I'm hearing from multiple sources that Joe Girardi was not told about the forthcoming fire sale in any detail, and that in fact, he was told that the team intended to try to build and win in 2006. Girardi has come out and publicly vetted the moves, but others say he really had no choice. "He made his decision, and he's stuck with it," said one person who knows the former Yankee catcher. • Mike Piazza has drawn interest from seven teams, says his agent. • Could it be Manny to the Phillies? Ramirez is a great hitter, but what would compel Philadelphia to move Bobby Abreu -- a pretty good hitter himself -- for a more expensive slugger who would weaken the team's defense? There must be a lot more to this. Maybe the Angels will get more aggressive about their pursuit for Ramirez, but I still wonder if GM Bill Stoneman -- who stubbornly refused to deal his prospects at the trade deadline, even with the Angels in a position to make an impact in the postseason -- will offer Boston anything close to the package that the Red Sox will require. Stoneman will weigh all his options, according to Mike DiGiovanna, who also updates the Paul Byrd negotiations; it sounds like Byrd wants to go back to the Angels. • The acquisition of Jim Thome helped lure Paul Konerko back to Chicago. The deal all but ends Frank Thomas's time with the White Sox. Jerry Reinsdorf came up with the cash to keep Konerko, writes Barry Rozner. • Arizona is telling Brad Ausmus it's interested. • A longtime Dodgers employee rips the franchise and says he's never seen such disarray. • Nomar tells Joe Brescia he's willing to play wherever he's needed. • The Tigers signed Bobby Seay. • If Jim Rice doesn't get into the Hall of Fame this year, it's hard to imagine that he'll ever be voted in by the writers. This is his best possible chance, in a year in which there are no rock-solid locks for induction. • The Cubs' offer to Rafael Furcal is five years and $50 million. Once Furcal makes up his mind, the falling dominos will affect the future of Julio Lugo, in all likelihood, as the Braves, Dodgers and Mets look for infielders. • Vernon Wells wants the Jays to keep Orlando Hudson, writes Mike Rutsey. • The Rockies are dangling Larry Bigbie in an effort to land a catcher. And they've laid the groundwork for a couple of other deals, as well. • It is something of a surprise that there has not been more action on Jeff Weaver.

Rotblatt Dec 01 2005 02:05 PM

Maybe we should test the Weaver waters if no one else is interested . . . Kids got some upside and he's still young. If we can sign him to a 2 or 3 year deal worth around $6M per, he'd probably be worth it. He ought to be at least as good as Benson, and he's got more upside.

Elster88 Dec 01 2005 02:06 PM

Mike Piazza has drawn interest from seven teams, says his agent. Come back Mike!

MFS62 Dec 01 2005 02:09 PM

Aside from how can someone named Buster have any credibility, I just read the 11/22 Olney item posted by Irish. Olney's credibility takes another hit in MHO. He called Johan Santana a "power pitcher". All you have to do is watch Santana pitch one inning to realize that his best pitch is the changeup. I realize that you need a decent fastball for the changeup to be effective. But I've never heard or read of anyone else calling Santana a power pitcher. To me, that is somebody who relies on hard stuff, fastball and slider, to get hitters out. Later

duan Dec 01 2005 04:30 PM hey there

I've talked about this a bit before - as someone who has a 'fairly substantial' interest in online media site I think the policy suggested here "reporting articles with just a few relevant excerpts reproduced and then links that could be followed for the full text is probably the best idea just to avoid inviting trouble." is both really responsible and would be encouraged by any media owner. It's funny - I've posted excerpts and snippets from BP.com here over the while (two decent chunks of articles yesterday which I should have linked properly that I didn't) but they were generally in a form that I feel may give people a 'taster' of stuff that would actually encourage them to subscribe. We're not aggressive about pursuing people who entirely cut & paste stuff but it is something that fundamentally disappoints and frustrates me.

Yancy Street Gang Dec 01 2005 05:01 PM

The problem is that the links will expire after two weeks or so. Pasting preserves the for posterity. If we're reading this in an archive two years from now, we won't know what we're discussing if we don't paste.

Johnny Dickshot Dec 01 2005 05:10 PM

I agree the relevent excerpts beats a simple link most times. I';ve been cutting and pasting mostly though, because there's no tool to EZ-ly post a link here without screwing up the page view.

metirish Dec 02 2005 10:53 AM

Jayson Stark asks if Omar gave up too much for Delgado... ] Did the Mets jump too soon and give up too much on Carlos Delgado? It's a question being asked these days. "That one surprised me," one AL executive said. "I never thought they would give up as much as they gave up if they were going to have to eat as much of Delgado's money as they ate. And to be honest, I don't think there was anybody else in on him beside the Mets." The Mets, on the other hand, were under the impression there were a number of teams battling for Delgado. But when Rumblings investigators checked around, we determined that the Orioles expressed early interest and then never made another serious overture. And Seattle was only interested if it could find a way to move money (possibly by dealing Richie Sexson). And the Angels weren't ready to do anything until they knew whether they could sign Paul Konerko. So in truth, it appears there really wasn't another team making any kind of serious run at Delgado at the time. But Omar Minaya isn't a guy who likes to sit around and wait to make anything happen, in case you hadn't noticed. Delgado tax-bill rumblings While it was announced that the Mets would pick up all but $7 million of the $48 million left on Delgado's contract, those of you who enjoy subtraction will be shocked to learn they'll still be on the hook for more than $41 million. That's because Delgado's deal with Florida included a clause that adjusted his salary upward if he got traded to a team where he would have to pay a state income tax. He paid none in Florida. Since the New York state tax rate is 7.7 percent, the Mets could wind up owing as much as another $1.8 million. (Hold those calculators. Remember that he owes that N.Y. tax only on home games.)

Rotblatt Dec 02 2005 11:53 AM

While there may not have been many people jockeying for him at the time, I bet that after Konerko signed, there would have been a whole lot more interest--as there appears to be in the Manny market now. It was a preemptive strike, I think. Makes sense to me, although of course we'll never know what might have happened. . .

Elster88 Dec 02 2005 11:59 AM

]Since the New York state tax rate is 7.7 percent, the Mets could wind up owing as much as another $1.8 million. (Hold those calculators. Remember that he owes that N.Y. tax only on home games I wish I didn't have to pay state taxes on the money I earned while my company had sent me to work in another state. Does he have to pay state taxes on the game checks from playing in the Bronx?

sharpie Dec 02 2005 12:15 PM

]Does he have to pay state taxes on the game checks from playing in the Bronx? I believe so, yes. I know in California they tax athletes for the games played in-state.

duan Dec 02 2005 12:48 PM

i also think VERY strongly that it makes lots of sense for people to go now "nobody else was really into him" because nobody wants to give the impression that they 'missed out' and therefore are 'in greater need' in a tight market. I like the Carlos Delgado trade, I wish it didn't involve Petit but I don't think Jacobs is going to be anything special at all.

Edgy DC Dec 02 2005 12:55 PM

Had we been a little creative, we'd've gone for Hans Lobert and moved him to first.

Yancy Street Gang Dec 02 2005 01:09 PM

Edgy DC wrote: Had we been a little creative, we'd've gone for Hans Lobert and moved him to first. How to make a zombie

Edgy DC Dec 02 2005 01:27 PM

You've been hanging at some strange sites today.

Yancy Street Gang Dec 02 2005 01:32 PM

I have you to thank for that.

metirish Dec 09 2005 11:16 AM

Rob Neyer had some interesting things to say about the Mets this week in "insider" , first the Blue Jays. ] A month ago, one could have easily predicted the New York Mets would be one of this offseason's big spenders. But did anyone predict the Toronto Blue Jays would be the other? Did anybody think the Blue Jays would commit $102 million to lock up two pitchers for five seasons apiece? I didn't, even though general manager J.P. Ricciardi hinted during the season that his club would be active in the free-agent market. In the short term, will the Blue Jays' largesse make a real difference in the standings? Last season they won 80 games, which left them 15 games behind the Yankees and Red Sox. As good as A.J. and B.J. might be, together they're not going to make the Blue Jays 15 games better. But how good were the Blue Jays in 2005, really? Their run differential -- they scored 775 runs and gave up 705 -- suggests an 88-74 record rather than their actual 80-82 record. In fact, according to this article, the Blue Jays were only the third team ever to outscore their opponents by at least 70 runs but lose more games than they won. Like virtually every other team that underperforms its run differential, the Blue Jays fared poorly in one-run games. Worse than poorly -- they were 16-31 in one-run games, worst in the majors. That simply isn't going to happen again, which is a significantly positive indicator for 2006. There's also a negative indicator, though. Actually, there are two of them: The Blue Jays scored 41 more runs than their underlying offensive statistics would predict and they allowed 23 fewer runs than their underlying defensive statistics would predict. So considering the Blue Jays' run differential, they should have won more games ... but their run differential shouldn't have been as good as it was. Which I suppose is an odd combination, if not a particularly uncommon one. A lot of strange things can happen over the course of 162 games. For the Blue Jays, the bottom line is that their good fortune and their bad fortune essentially canceled each other out, and this team was fundamentally a .500 club. And again, it's hard to see Burnett and Ryan lifting Toronto into contention. But of course, we're talking about two long-term moves. Trades or injuries notwithstanding, both Ryan and Burnett will still be pitching for the Blue Jays in 2010. The question about the Blue Jays isn't whether or not they can win 95 games in 2006. The question is whether or not they'll have the talent to win 95 games in 2007 or 2008. And that question, I think, is still an open one. For Mets, better luck next year In "The Hardball Times Baseball Annual 2006", contributor Dan Fox does something that I've never seen anybody do before: He puts together the wins and losses that we would expect from the run differentials and the underlying events that generally lead to runs scored and allowed. I won't present the method in any great detail -- Fox's article runs for several pages, and anyway, you should buy the book (which also contains, among other things, a couple of articles by Bill James and a modest essay by your humble columnist) -- but the results are worth mentioning. First, the five luckiest teams in 2005: Actual Proj Wins Wins Diff Nationals 81 69 +12 White Sox 99 89 10 Angels 95 87 8 Red Sox 95 89 6 Cardinals 100 94 6 The presence of four postseason teams on this list should not be a surprise. Generally, teams that win 95 or more games are lucky; that's one of the reasons most of them don't win 95 or more games the next season. Next, the eight unluckiest: Actual Proj Wins Wins Diff Tigers 71 79 -8 Marlins 83 91 8 Pirates 67 75 8 Rangers 79 86 7 Mariners 69 75 6 Cubs 79 85 6 Orioles 74 80 6 Mets 83 89 6 If you're a fan of one these teams, there's reason for optimism (well, unless you're a fan of the Marlins, but if the Marlins' attendance last season is any indication -- they ranked 15th in the National League -- there can't be many of you). But in terms of 2006, the Mets are the biggest news. Even if they hadn't done anything this offseason, they still would have been legitimate contenders next season, if only because they were unlucky last season and their young players are expected to improve. But the Mets have done quite a lot, adding Carlos Delgado, Billy Wagner, Paul Lo Duca and perhaps Mark Grudzielanek to the roster. Toss in the likely improvements of holdovers Carlos Beltran, Jose Reyes and David Wright, and the Mets are, at this moment, obviously big favorites to finally dethrone the Braves. In fact, only one thing can stop the Mets: a precipitous decline of the pitching staff -- particularly, the possibilities that Pedro Martinez's shoulder will give up the ghost and Tom Glavine will pitch like a 40-year-old, which he will be in March. Both could happen, of course. But neither of those possibilities is likely, and it's exceptionally unlikely that both will occur. And even if one of the Mets' starters does go down, the organization has a great replacement in Aaron Heilman (who currently is being wasted in the bullpen). I would like to pick the Braves or the Phillies because that would fly in the face of the conventional wisdom. But the conventional wisdom is usually right (or seems right, based on the evidence). And I can't escape the conclusion that the Mets are now the class of their division, and quite possibly the class of their league. http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/its-the-hardball-times-baseball-annual-2006/

Edgy DC Dec 09 2005 11:30 AM

The next three big signings by Blue Jays will by C.J. Nitkowski, D.J. Dozier, and E.J. Junior.

Vic Sage Dec 09 2005 11:34 AM

]Even if they hadn't done anything this offseason, they still would have been legitimate contenders next season, if only because they were unlucky last season and their young players are expected to improve. our very own William Peter Rottblatty made this very same point some time ago, in a lengthy thread accompanied by an avalanche of statistical evidence. Neyer... a step late and a dollar short.

metirish Dec 16 2005 12:28 PM

Steve Phillips accesses the needs of teams, here is Stevo on the Mets... ] New York Mets Need: Second baseman The Mets have had an exciting offseason. They have remade their team and energized the fan base. There are still a couple of holes remaining, the most glaring at second base. GM Omar Minaya says he is willing to go into the season with Kaz Matsui as his starting second baseman. The problem is that every time Matsui's name is announced at Shea Stadium a chorus of boos rains down upon the field. He has shown that he can't handle the boos, and to make matters worse, even though the boos are directed at Matsui, they affect the whole team. There is too much negativity in the stadium every time he is in the starting lineup. Matsui is more talented than he has shown, but he will never overcome the boobirds. His offense and his defense have suffered because of it. The Mets need a gritty, hard-nosed guy who can hit and, more importantly, play defense. The Mets' pitching staff is primarily a contact staff; the pitchers need playmakers behind them. The infielders need to turn double plays when they get the chance. The Mets also need range from their second baseman because Carlos Delgado is limited in that department at first base. The answer is Mark Grudzielanek. He has range, arm strength and grit. He will get dirty and take a hit to turn a double play. He is also a slasher on offense. Just ask anyone on the Cardinals' pitching staff how critical he was to their success. He turned the most DPs among second basemen in the majors last year. Grudzielanek would be a perfect fit for the Mets.

Nymr83 Dec 16 2005 12:34 PM

]Grudzielanek would be a perfect fit for the Mets. IF we can get rid of the Matsui contract i think Grudz is better, but he's not better enough to justify paying both him and matsui, imo.

Frayed Knot Dec 16 2005 01:34 PM

Except that one of the papers said today that the Mets have turned away from signing Grudzelanek.

MFS62 Dec 16 2005 01:42 PM

Maybe that's because he just signed with KC. That's tampering, y'know. Later

Edgy DC Dec 16 2005 01:48 PM

]New York Mets Need: Second baseman Or one of the ones they have to step up. ]The Mets have had an exciting offseason. They have remade their team and energized the fan base. See 2002 to remind you that doesn't mean much when the games start, Steve. ]There are still a couple of holes remaining, the most glaring at second base. GM Omar Minaya says he is willing to go into the season with Kaz Matsui as his starting second baseman. The problem is that every time Matsui's name is announced at Shea Stadium a chorus of boos rains down upon the field. The problem is that he hasn't been productive. ]He has shown that he can't handle the boos, and to make matters worse, even though the boos are directed at Matsui, they affect the whole team. Highly speculative. ]There is too much negativity in the stadium every time he is in the starting lineup. Matsui is more talented than he has shown, but he will never overcome the boobirds. His offense and his defense have suffered because of it. There is too much negativity in the stadium full stop. Surrendering to the boobirds is ceding control of your organization to abusive yahoos. ]The Mets need a gritty, hard-nosed guy who can hit and, more importantly, play defense. They need someone good. And, no, his hitting will not be less important than his defense. His relative grit is irrelevant. ]The Mets' pitching staff is primarily a contact staff; the pitchers need playmakers behind them. The infielders need to turn double plays when they get the chance. The Mets also need range from their second baseman because Carlos Delgado is limited in that department at first base. Pretty redundant, but I get your point. ]The answer is Mark Grudzielanek. He has range, arm strength and grit. He will get dirty and take a hit to turn a double play. He is also a slasher on offense. Just ask anyone on the Cardinals' pitching staff how critical he was to their success. He turned the most DPs among second basemen in the majors last year. Why does grit always translate as a kind of ethnic white guy? ]Grudzielanek would be a perfect fit for the Mets. You should know. Hey, he's off the market. What say we get Robby Alomar again?

Centerfield Dec 16 2005 01:59 PM

I love words like "grit". Does anyone remember the Canon "If business were that easy" series of commercials? There was one where the CEO of a company was talking to the marketing reps of another: Marketing Reps: "Hi. We have no experience in your field, no capability to meet your requirements, no business plan whatsoever, but we do have spunk." CEO: "Spunk huh? I sure do like spunk!"

Edgy DC Dec 16 2005 02:11 PM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Dec 16 2005 03:43 PM

Keep in mind that a lot of the time Matsui missed last year was because of his willingness "take a hit to turn a double play." We may have to hire Phillips again just to say nebulous stuff like that. Not that there's a GM in baseball who won't praise nebulous traits of a player when he signs one.

MFS62 Dec 16 2005 02:13 PM

Centerfield wrote: Marketing Reps: "Hi. We have no experience in your field, no capability to meet your requirements, no business plan whatsoever, but we do have spunk." CEO: "Spunk huh? I sure do like spunk!" Lou Grant (Ed Asner): You know what, Mary? Mary Richards (Mary Tyler Moore): What, Mr. Grant? Lou Grant (Ed Asner): Mary, you have spunk. Mary Richards (Mary Tyler Moore): Thank you, Mr. Grant Lou Grant (Ed Asner): And do you know what else? Mary Richards (Mary Tyler Moore): What, Mr. Grant? Lou Grant (Ed Asner): I hate spunk Later