Frayed Knot

Ahhh, the classics never go out of style. OK they sometimes do, but since no one has used this one in a while it was worth it.

I'm on it. I've got a running total of the consensus to date and plan to post a summary of where we're at in the next day or two.

Today's Fort Worth Star-Telegram is reporting that the Rangers have given Zito a weekend deadline to accept their offer. "We've made a very strong offer. If we don't have agreement with his agent by this weekend, we will pursue other alternatives." Rangers general manager Jon Daniels also confirmed that deadline, writing, "That's accurate. End of the week."

]Assume, too, that in addition to revenue sharing, the TV picture is far more lucrative too, since TV would have dozens and dozens more playoff games to broadcast nationally. But the more playoff games you concoct the less valuable each one becomes. The networks barely want the expanded playoffs that exist now - essentially taking the early rounds in order to get a shot at the big shebang at the end and wouldn't start spending mega-bucks for two solid months of step-by-step eliminations. Remember that this isn't football. The biggest source for a team's income is its local TV package which is what you're asking them to give up 25% of in order to gain 1/30th of whatever pittance the networks and near-networks (TBS) are going to cough up for a playoff system which makes the NBA/NHL ones look brief (and the ratings for many of those games draw infomercial numbers). There are 11 NFL playoff games while MLB has up to 41 as it is. No one is clamoring to turn that into 141 and they're certainly not lining up to buy into them.

Given the choice of advancing to the next round automatically or having to fight for it teams would choose the guaranteed option every time, it would be stupid to opt for anything else. Not that that alone makes the concept of inserting more playoff rounds with built-in 'Byes' a good idea. This concept - plus those in the radical realignment thread - are predicated on the idea that fans & the league (and the TV networks) are demanding more playoff rounds - even to the point where lopping off approx 1/4 of the reg season in order to make some kind of 2-month long ultra-playoff system involving everyone from actual division winners, to multiple wild-cards, to hand-picked ringers, to the Bingo Long Travelling Road Show, is going to be some kind of wild money maker. It isn't.

On his next blog entry he elaborates a bit; ... While I can’t give specifics on the deal, there are still at least six teams involved in some discussions centering on Atlanta. The Braves are in full dump mode, trying to get something for Andruw Jones, trying to find Jones’ replacement on the cheap, and working more on the bullpen. Leo Mazzone isn’t there to build a bullpen out of dreck anymore. So how does this all work together? Why trade a young player like Andy Adam LaRoche if they’re trying to control the payroll? Why deal Jones right now rather than at the deadline? The team is determined to find a solid bullpen and think they can do it with a series of deals that include LaRoche, Mike Gonzalez, Andruw Jones, and several CF candidates that I’m told include Rocco Baldelli, Curtis Granderson, and Nick Markakis. The deals appear to also have some other big names like Tim Hudson, Mark Teixeira, and Dontrelle Willis on the periphery. The three team deal that seemed close over the weekend doesn’t seem so close now as the complexity has increased. Remember that John Schuerholz is normally a slow worker, so quiet on this front doesn’t mean that nothing is happening.

'Bout time the media started paying some attention to this guy!!

HAIL! attgig wrote: is a lockout necessary to put a salary cap on baseball? There's no reason to think a lockout would would be a smart or successful step towards a salary cap. And, on a slightly seperate note, is there any reason to think that a salary cap would be a boon for the sport.

Just heard the reporter who covers the Yanx for WFAN (all-sports radio in NYC for you out-of-town types) and he's of the opinion that he doesn't think they'll persue Zito no matter what happens w/Johnson. Making long-term commitments to non hard-throwing types apparently isn't their line of thinking at the moment. Not that that alone makes it a fact or that Boras won't try to create the illusion that they are in hot pursuit. He also added the both RJ and his agent are out of the country at the moment and - seeing as how he has full veto power on deals - nothing should be considered imminent even if the talk between teams is progressing nicely as some have reported. Personally, I don't get why someone would want to take him on at this point; not at $16mil, not while coming off back surgery (may not be ready for O.D.), not while he turns 44 y/o late in the season, and not while I'd have to give up players just for the privelege. Assuming that he's healthy he can still be a useful, better-than-average pitcher (he hasn't been as bad as some NYY perfectionists like to portray), but that's a whole lotta baggage you'd be taking on, not to mention his always sunny disposition.

="Edgy DC"]I'm not sure we should feel our team was outflanked that somebody else moved on Brandon McCarthy. He seems like a younger, less accomplished version of Aaron Heilman. Less accomplished as far as less ML time for sure, but probably considered higher ceiling-ed as well. I doubt Heilman could net us a John Danks-type prospect for instance. Anyway, BP's Will Carroll chirps in with the latest rumors: - in the wake of the Brandon McCarthy deal I’m hearing from trusted sources that Texas is all but out on Barry Zito. They came over the top on the Mets, but weren’t able to make that stick. - Those same sources are hearing that the Mets aren’t the shoo-in we all thought, but that Seattle and San Francisco have made credible pitches as well. Zito may actually prefer the San Francisco offer, though it is shorter than the others (4 years.) - Zito’s former teammate Mark Mulder is also popular, with Arizona, Cleveland, and, yes, Texas as rumored destinations. - There are also several trades in the works, including the long-rumored Randy Johnson to Arizona deal and one three-team deal that has three BIG names. I’m going to tease you with the last one because it’s close enough that reporting it just might jinx it. Hmmmmmmm.

Nothing wrong with threads going off on tangents. Suppan's deal is 4yrs @ $42mil - which (IIRC) was exactly what we gave Kevin Appier to be a sort of consolation prize after Hampton left to take the REALLY big money. It's instructive, perhaps, to remember that Appier turned out to be nowhere near worth the money in the long run - even as he was only here for the short run. He, of course, begat Mo Vaughn in a contract-for-contract swap and even though Appier was part of the Angels WS team the following year, they wound up cutting him in the midst of his 2nd year there setting a record for money owed to a released player in the process. We, at least, got insurance relief for much of the bill for big Mo's last season. Of course it might also be instructive to remember that the main prize we 'lost out' on didn't turn out to be worth the money either.

Not sure that I buy the angle about this trade being a signal that Texas is less likely to pull off a Zito signing. Heck, I'd probably put out those vibes if I were them too -- 'Hey we love you Barry, just not $100mil worth so we'll do this instead!' -- but all they've really done is trade their own hot pitching prospect for another one about 1-year more advanced which could be looked at as a sign of telling the world (and Boras/Zito) that they're ready to compete NOW!!!! and aren't going to wait around for hopeful maybes. What this could do for those in the Zito market is take away a trade option. McCarthy was seen as someone ready to join the rotation this season possibly making one of the Contreras/Vazquez/Burhele group available. Danks, who I guess the ChiSox see as having a better upside than McCarthy, is probably at least a half-season or so away from contributing meaning that GM Kenny Williams is now probably less willing to deal away one of his vets.

It is. Increasing revenues and attendence are considered inadmissable evidence in this case. Only the decline of network TV ratings during a time when TV ratings are declining everywhere can be cited as proof.

I thought it was more than two years ago that Selig was up in front of Congress (at least on this issue). It was before the prior CBA was signed (the one that just ran out) when his cry-wolf act was truly in high gear. Since then; * revenues are markedly up, some 50% over the last 5 years I believe I recently read. Money from MLB media in particular (internet sales, internet radio, 'Extra-Innings' TV packages, etc.) has boomed over the last few years. Then there's that new TV deal, plus several new stadiums and record attendance. * the lux-tax penalties plus the increased levels or revenue sharing have spread that money out a bit better. Before, even if you believe that the league as a whole was losing money (questionable), those losses were largely concentrated on a handful of teams while the big profits belonged to a handful of others. Not quite so lopsided these days. What you have to remember also is that the reason Selig was up in front of the lawmakers was that he was looking for sympathy in order to get increased power over the Player's Association as a way to stem the cost side of the business on their backs because the owners couldn't solve it on their own. Those labor wars throughout the '90s were often as much a dispute between owners as it was between the owners & the PA. Once the post-9/11 labor agreement got P.A. agreement for the rev-sharing & lux-tax increases the owners themselves were more on the same page. And part of this is simply cyclical in the same way that financial & real estate markets flucuate. The dot-com era salary boom caused a bunch of teams to pull back after many of them got burned with diminishing returns. So, while the contracts from this winter are high, they're really only large when compared to the last few years and we may see another pull-back depending on how these deals look in 3-4 years from now. But even the bigger ones today like Soriano & Wells are still below the per-year numbers from those signed 6 - 8 years ago when Jeter, ARod, Giambi, Manny, Delgado, et al, all inked deals netting them north of $19mil/per. IOW; much higher revenue compared to 2000, NOT much higher contracts. Don't cry for them Arte Moreno!

So I guess his hand gets its own Christmas wrapping this year.

Just pointing out, for the record, that VZ doesn't yet belong to any other organization and so technically could still come back. I realize that Cliff isn't wearing anyone else's class ring yet either but he's already been replaced and is supposedly coming down the home stretch w/the Cubs. If Zambrano does return it'll most likely be on some kind of 'make-good' offer where he can be stored in the minors until he proves he's healthy - which, if so, wouldn't neccesarily be a bad thing.

Who's gone? -- Cliff, Woodward, Zambrano (could return), Darren Oliver, Heath Bell, Royce Ring, Brian Bannister, Henry Owens Also Mota for the first 50 games (suspension) and Pedro for maybe the first 80 or 90 (rotator cuff surgery) Who's come? -- Moises Alou will replace Cliff. Amborix Burgos (obtained for Bannister) will compete for a bullpen job Then the booty from several of those smaller trades (above) will compete for pen & bench jobs Who do we feel good about? -- A bit soon to tell. Alou isn't neccesarily better than Cliff, but his RH bat might fit better w/what we need Burgos is the kind of "power arm" Omar seems to like to take chances on (see O. Perez; D. Sanchez), has better upside than Bannister, and is younger despite 2+ ML seasons under his belt already. Who bad about? -- I'll miss Cliff

i'd be pretty ticket off if i were a pro athlete, and my agent's office had been tossing documents with my identity into the trash without shedding them first. Thank you, Sparky Anderson, for your input.

No harm in talking to the guy while you're out there and there does need to be some sort of "Plan B" if Lord Barry of Zito decides to ply his trade elsewhere. But, the thing is, if they are actually Tim Leary about going for a 4th, 5th, or 6th year for Zito (as opposed to it being a negotiating ploy) then you have to wonder what's the point since there's every indication that the Suppan's of the world (Meche, Lilly, Eaton, etc) have had no problem commanding 3-to-5 year deals.

Long-time prospect maven John Sickels weighs in with his rankings In addition to just listing them (Top 20 in this case) in order he also gives an evaluation of the system as a whole: This system has quality at the top, but the talent level bottoms out very fast. (same as it ever was it seems) as well as gives each a letter grade to each so you get some kind of comparison to prospects elsewhere. 1) Fernando Martinez, OF, A- (tools and youth, just needs refinement) 2) Mike Pelfrey, RHP, Grade A- (I think the breaking pitch problem is overblown. He had a good one in college and I think he'll find it again. I am sticking with my guns on this one) 3) Phil Humber, RHP, B+ (Many prefer him over Pelfrey, I like both) 4) Carlos Gomez, OF, B (great tools, but I'm not sure about his power) 5) Jon Niese, LHP, B- (projectable lefty is a personal favorite) 6) Deolis Guerra, RHP, B- (live arm, a long way away) 7) Kevin Mulvey, RHP, B- (accidently left off first list) 8) Joe Smith, RHP, B- (impressive reliever could advance fast) 9) Mike Carp, 1B, B- (developing power bat to watch) 10) Alay Soler, RHP, C+ (Cuban defector looks better as a reliever to me than a starter) Sickels (to his credit) doesn't tend to fawn all over prospects too easily - unlike others who just want to be the first to say they were yapping about some teenager long before everyone else - and doesn't throw out high grades easily. As a comparison, he's reviewed 10 NL teams so far and has only given out 2 'A' grades (Homer Bailey - RHP Cincy; Tim Lincecum - RHP Giants) and 5 'A-minus' (in addition to our two here).

I don't always read this thread so it may be here already, but ex-Met, and Long Island native, Paul Gibson is now Atlanta's scout for the Northeast region. Check last Sunday's Newsday if you want an article.

That stadium was a huge money pit from the very start. The mayor up there at the time was very popular and apparently could get just about anything through the gov't. I'm not sure was his particular appeal was but he used to get elected with 90+% margins - something not often seen outside of elections in the likes of cold-war era Bulgaria. The roof was supposed to be ready for the '76 Olympics but wasn't. As a result, there were surfaces down there (part of which became the warning track when coverted for baseball) which were never designed to work when wet. So when American high-jumper Dwight Stones complained about the incompetance which led to slick surfaces on the approach lane his complaints were translated as "I Hate French Canandians" in some of the local papers, leading to a nice little pissing contest in the news. I saw one game up there: lousy place for baseball, cheap tickets, great beer, nice bars afterward

I don't think the Yanx are going to be in this either -- but that's not gonna stop Boras from pretending that they're the ones currently on hold on the other line. People are suspecting Anaheim mainly because there's this view that they've been quiet ... almost too quiet.

The Hampton trade (just before) and the Mo Vaughn trade (just after) both came Christmas week. That said, I don't expect a quick resolution to this one. Zito has already talked to Texas (supposedly an offer was made) and now gets a first meeting with Omar & gang. Seattle & San Fran are rumored to be interested and the Angels are often mentioned as a dark horse even though they've yet to say anything publicly. Then again, they were also quiet in the Vlad sweepstakes before swooping in under everyone's noses. That some even suspect Anaheim could get it on things is enough of an excuse to allow Boras to float the existance of a "mystery team" into the works. Well, that and that the Yanquis are never far below anyone's radar. So unless the Mets think they've got enough pull to force an early decision with some sort of 'take-it-or-leve-it' offer, I suspect that this tour's still got a few stops left on it and could easily extend until after New Years.

Well, heck, we can use Lauren Bacall too, but by now I think we're stretching things a bit.