Edward Cossette is enjoying the arguments between the Red Sox and the Yankees, and I must admit, I am too.

In yesterday's NY Daily News, The Boss takes Lucchino to task over these comments:

DN: John Henry, your former partner and owner of the Red Sox, was quoted as saying after you signed Contreras that he "was and is a big risk." What's your response?

GS: That's just ridiculous. It makes him look stupid because they did everything they could to get him, including offering more money than we did. They offered $10 million to get him away from us. I give credit to Mr. Contreras. He wanted to play for the Yankees.

John Henry put down $1 million to buy into the Yankees. He gets back $4.7 million. I hope he does as well for his partners.

DN: Larry Lucchino, president of the Red Sox, called the Yankees "the evil empire" after the signing.

GS: That's B.S. That's how a sick person thinks. I've learned this about Lucchino: he's baseball's foremost chameleon of all time. He changes colors depending on where's he's standing. He's been at Baltimore and he deserted them there, and then went out to San Diego, and look at what trouble they're in out there. When he was in San Diego, he was a big man for the small markets. Now he's in Boston and he's for the big markets. He's not the kind of guy you want to have in your foxhole. He's running the team behind John Henry's back. I warned John it would happen, told him, "Just be careful." He talks out of both sides of his mouth. He has trouble talking out of the front of it.

Lucchino responds in the Boston Globe:

Lucchino, reached last night while on a brief family holiday, said, ''Is that the best he could do? I don't think he even gets the reference.''

Henry did not respond to inquiries seeking a response as of early last evening. In an interview published in the Globe Saturday, Lucchino acknowledged that he and Steinbrenner are longtime antagonists.

''Let's just say that on the list of top people with respect and affection for me, you will probably not find George's name there,'' Lucchino said.

Steinbrenner also has some words of warning for Joe Torre:

DN: Joe Torre has become a New York icon. Judging by some of your actions, such as the way his contract was dragged out last year, it sometimes seems that you think he gets too much credit and you don't get enough?

GS: Joe is the greatest friend I've ever had as a manager. It's a great relationship. I don't want to destroy that, but I will tell you this: I want his whole staff to understand that they have got to do better this year. I will not see him drop back into the way he was before. Right now he's a sure-fire Hall of Famer. Before he came to the Yankees he didn't even have a job. Three different times as manager he didn't deliver, and was fired. Look how far he's come. He's come that way because of an organization, and he's got to remember that. I'm glad that Joe is an icon. He's a hell of a guy, a tremendous manager and tremendous figure for New York. I just want his coaches to understand that just being a friend of Joe Torre's is not enough. They've got to produce for him. Joe Torre and his staff have heard the bugle.

and Derek Jeter:

DN: The Yankees haven't had a captain since Don Mattingly. Do you see Derek Jeter as a strong candidate?

GS: Joe (Torre) would like that right now, but I don't think now is the right time. I want to see Jetes truly focused. He wasn't totally focused last year. He had the highest number of errors he's had in some time. He wasn't himself.

As far as trying and being a warrior, I wouldn't put anyone ahead of him. But how much better would he be if he didn't have all his other activities? I tell him this all the time. I say, 'Jetes, you can't be everything to everybody. You've got to focus on what's important.' The charitable things he does are important. A certain amount (of his outside pursuits) are good for him and for the team, but there comes a point when it isn't, and I think we're getting close to that point.

He makes enough money that he doesn't need a lot of the commercials. I'm not going to stick my nose into his family's business. They are very fine people, (but) if his dad doesn't see that, he should see it. When I read in the paper that he's out until 3 a.m. in New York City going to a birthday party, I won't lie. That doesn't sit well with me. That was in violation of Joe's curfew. That's the focus I'm talking about.

Jeter's still a young man. He'll be a very good candidate for the captaincy. But he's got to show me and the other players that that's not the right way. He's got to make sure his undivided, unfettered attention is given to baseball. I just wish he'd eliminate some of the less important things and he'd be right back to where he was in the past.

This is what I love about Steinbrenner. He's always fighting complacency. And he fights it from the top. If he can criticize the top two icons on the team, what's Nick Johnson or Alfonso Soriano going to think? They're going to think, "I'd better make curfew early, or I'll be traded to the Expos!" And by the way, I think George is right on in his criticism, too.

The Red Sox have signed the former Yankee reliever to a two year contract:

As for Mendoza, the Sox envision using him much like the Yankees did, mostly in a setup role, though he also could close and spot start.

''I wouldn't be surprised if he pitches some of the most critical innings of the year for us,'' Epstein said. ''His versatility and overall characteristics make him another really good quality option for Grady.''

Although Mendoza's strikeout numbers aren't high (5.32 per 9), but he walks no one and gives up very few HR. The Sox will need a good defense behind him, however, as he induces many more ground balls than fly balls.

Dr. Manhattan has an interesting post at Blissful Knowledge:

Similarly, while the integration of major league baseball was most importantly a cessation of an immense moral wrong, it also expanded the talent pool from which baseball teams drew. As such, it introduced a competitive pressure upon teams. Those that adapted to the post-Jackie Robinson era succeeded at the expense of those that did not.
All this was, or should have been, understood at the time by those whose primary priority was to win. While Branch Rickey certainly deserves tremendous moral credit for providing the means for Jackie Robinson’s entrance into the major leagues, he was just as undoubtedly interested in the competitive advantage his team would derive. When the Dodgers combined black players such as Robinson, Roy Campanella, Don Newcome and Junior Gilliam with white players like Duke Snider, Gil Hodges and Carl Furillo, the result was a team that won six pennants in Robinson’s ten seasons. As Adam Smith might have predicted, the Dodgers’ self-interest was a moral force.
The National League generally followed the Dodgers’ example to a greater extent than the American League did, with the expected result: according to Bill James’ Win Shares method, there were 11 National League players in 1963 that were better than any American League player that year. (The contrast is especially stark because Mickey Mantle was injured for most of that season, but the general point remains true.). Probably not coincidentally, the National League dominated the All-Star Game in that era.
Even the mighty Yankees were forced to adapt the competitive pressure exerted by the integration of baseball. As Bryant describes, the Yankees’ record on race was almost as bad as the Red Sox’s for a long time. The Yankees’ first noteworthy black player, Vic Power, was judged too “flashy” and quickly traded away despite his talent. The star catcher Elston Howard met the Yankees’ criteria, but not many others did. In his book October 1964, David Halberstam describes how the Yankees’ neglect of the talent afforded by the integration of African-American (and by then, Latino) players into baseball contributed heavily to the downfall of the Yankee dynasty in the 1960s. (There were, of course, other contributing factors: the Yankee player-development system was starved for resources in the early 1960s and didn’t develop many good white players, either.) When the Yankees resumed winning championships in the late 1970s, the team included outstanding minority players such as Mickey Rivers, Chris Chambliss and, of course, Reggie Jackson (who satisfied no era’s definition of decorum). And, as Bryant describes, the current dynastic Yankees are a model of diversity in terms of players’ backgrounds. Lingering prejudice against groups of players is, practically speaking, incompatible with George Steinbrenner’s monomaniacal desire for championships, and such prejudice has accordingly been overcome. The Yankees’ most recent moves - the signing of Japanese outfielder Hideki “Godzilla” Matsui and Cuban defector pitcher Jose Contreras - perfectly illustrate how the demand for the best players has overcome any prejudice against groups of such players. While it would be nice to assume high-minded motives on the Yankees’ behalf, it seems like Steinbrenner’s insatiable appetite for championships deserves the credit for the overcoming of such prejudice.

The one problem with the piece is that the lag time is not made clear. Jackie Robinson came into baseball in 1947. For the next 17 years, the game was dominated not by the Dodgers, but by the Yankees. What killed the Yankees in the 1960's was:

1. Ownership by CBS, which didn't have the killer instinct for winning.
2. The implementation of the baseball draft, which prevented the Yankees from signing the best young players to bonuses. The baseball draft, like today's luxury tax, was an item specificially designed to end Yankee hegemony at the expense of player wealth.

But once you account for the lag time, Dr. Manhattan is correct. The NL embraced blacks sooner, and was able to dominate the all-star game for a long time. Today, the All Star tide has turned because the AL was quicker to embrace latin players, and the dominance may continue in the future as the AL seems to be a little more in tune with bringing in Asian hitters. We should look forward to the day when the minority group dominating baseball is from the Middle East. Then we'll know we won the war.

The Everett, Washington Herald has a look ahead at the 2003 Mariners.

David Levens at Elephats in Oakland thinks the AL West has been too quiet this off-season. I agree with him on Anaheim. Disney has increased payroll. They should use that to address weaknesses on the team. Winners that stand pat usually fall off the next year.

In a related story, there's this article in the Contra Costa Times about a possible sale of the A's to an unamed south bay business man, including speculation about the A's moving.

Baseball seems to be catching on in Malaysia.

The NY Times has an interesting article on what Cal Ripken has been up to. The gist of the story is that Cal has created a corporation to increase the popularity of baseball through minor league ownership and youth baseball programs. What's very interesting is that the Ripkens seem to be giving Little League Baseball some competition:

His focus on encouraging young people has, of course, been welcomed by many influential people in the sport besides Mr. Vincent. But Mr. Ripken's moves in the youth baseball world have not gone over universally well with Little League Baseball.

The tension began in 1999, when the nonprofit Babe Ruth League renamed its age 5 to 12 division the Cal Ripken Division of Babe Ruth League Baseball, and Mr. Ripken reciprocated by helping to negotiate a television contract with Fox Sports to broadcast its championship games, setting up a competition for viewers. (Little League Baseball, which runs the Little League World Series, is broadcast on ABC.) Babe Ruth baseball will hold the Cal Ripken World Series next August in Aberdeen at the same time the Little League Baseball games are held in Williamsport, Pa.

Mr. Ripken and officials of Little League Baseball denied that there was competition. But Mr. Ripken said he thought that his strategy of branding and "rejuvenating fun" were the prescription for addressing the game's decline in popularity.

Nothing wrong with a little competition. If Ripken starts to succeed in drawing children away from LL, LL should respond with their own new ways of drawing children into the game. The hoped for result would be more young people getting interested in baseball, creating more life-long fans, and a healthier game.

This is the first time I've ever seen anyone claim that the income tax from visiting ballplayers will pay for a stadium. I went to a AAA game in Portland this year on a Monday night. They have a nice stadium. It was easy to get to, via light rail, and the people there were very friendly. But the stands were empty, so I wonder how much that city would really support an ML team.

ESPN.com has an AP article indicating that free agents aren't signing for as much this year:

Why the drop-off?

Except for the 32-year-old Thome, all the big-name free agents were either over 35 or coming off injuries. Teams are putting more players on the market, refusing to give contracts to 46 players by the Dec. 20 tender deadline, up from 34 last year and 27 two years ago.

Supply and demand. The more players that become free agents every year, the less you have to compete to get a player. Charlie Finley realized this back in the 1970's, when he wanted baseball to grant free agency to all players every year (each player would have a one-year contract). Unfortunately, he was the wrong messenger, and baseball set up a system that would lead to the free-agent price spiral.

Eric McErlain writes:

Let me preface, I'm a lifelong Mets fan, and no fan of Pete Rose. As far as I'm concerned, he has no place in the game of baseball.

But when it comes to the Harrelson incident, I clearly recall reading in the 1974 Mets yearbook that Harrelson conceded that he actually caused the fight. Harrelson made the admission at a dinner with New York sportswriters where he presented Rose with a "Good Guy" Award.

I've been looking on the internet for some confirmation of this. I found this quote from Pete Rose:

I ain't no little girl out there. If a guy hits me, I fight back.
Reds all-star outfielder Pete Rose

On his fight with the Mets' Bud Harrelson during the NLCS that nearly incited a riot in Shea Stadium. October 1973.

Of course, there's this from MLB.com:

In Game 3 of the 1973 NLCS, the Mets take a 2-1 lead in the series by whipping the Reds, 9-3. However, the highlight of the game occurs in the top of fifth inning when Reds outfielder Pete Rose and Mets Shortstop Bud Harrelson come to blows after Rose elbows Harrelson in the face. In the bottom of the inning, the Shea Stadium crowd showers Rose with debris. Willie Mays, Tom Seaver and Rusty Staub are finally able to calm the crowd.

You can read Eric McErlain's blog, Off Wing Opinion here.

This topic is generating some thoughtful responses:

David,

First off, Im a long time reader and admirer of your blog. Just so you know, I am an avid Atlanta Braves fan. My roommate, lives and dies for Boston Red Sox baseball. All year I hear Jaron lament about how the Yankees, "are buying another World Series", etc.. Im not going to insult your intelligence by discussing the fact that a majority of the Yankees payroll is comprised of home-grown talent or talent obtained through a trade. However, I do have a problem with the Boston president pouting about the Yankees. In my mind, the Red Sox are no worse than the Yankees. IN FACT, at least the majority of the Yankees "super-star" talent came from their own system (Posada, Jeter, Petite, Rivera, Soriano, Williams). Granted, Varitek and Garciaparra are "theirs". However: Pedro, Manny and Damon are all players which were the result of free agency.

Maybe a team like Pittsburgh has the right to complain about the Yankees. But not an organization whose payroll was well over 100 million last year.

Furthermore, the owners are the ones who are allowing foreign players to go to the highest bidder. From what I understand, a worldwide draft was something the players association was not all that opposed to.

Alas, I think the Red Sox organization is just already making excuses for another season of falling short.

Just my opinion.

Thanks,
Doug Childers

I'd just point out that Varitek was the result of a trade. I believe it was Slocumb for Varitek and Lowe, maybe the greatest trade the Red Sox have made in my lifetime. I think Doug's point about making excuses is correct, however.

I'd suggest there's something else at work here also. When I was an undergraduate at Harvard, I would sometimes meet people who had an association with Yale, but were experiencing Harvard for first time. I heard more than one of them say, "All Yale people talk about is Harvard, but no one at Harvard seems to talk about Yale." In my experience, that seems to be the telling the difference between the best and the 2nd best; a measure of confidence. Harvard doesn't talk about Yale, because they don't have to worry about being #1. Yale tries hard to show they are just as good by making comparisons. If you have to compare yourself to someone, you immediately make people think about the other group or person. If Yale really wanted to be #1, they'd change

"Our history department is as good as Harvard's."

to

"We have the best history department in the country."

My point, of course, is that the Red Sox are the Yale of the AL. They're really good. Most cities would love to have a team that good year after year. But instead of talking about how good the team is, they just keep comparing themselves to the Yankees. It's time for them to stop worrying about the Yankees and start thinking about how to put the best team they can find on the field.

Correction: Fixed my to by.

Reader Daniel Shamah responds to this response:

I think Weddell misses the point of Lucchino's complaint. He was more upset that any time the Red Sox target a free agent, the Yankees can just step in and outbid them. I don't believe he was really concerned with the possible impact on arbitration.

And that arbitration argument is a double-edged sword: yes, the Matsui and Contreras signings will have less impact on this year's arbitration hearings than a massive Greg Maddux or Cliff Floyd signing would, but these signings could also doubly hurt the Red Sox. The Yanks essentially paid middle of the road prices for two international all stars: what if they perform to that level here? Then the Yankees have two all star caliber players for the price of one: 15 million. Any time the Yankees actually save money, it kills their competitors, most of all the Red Sox.

Of course, those two stars might turn out to be duds in the US, in which case Lucchino's complaint is going to look silly. Actually, this is a bit of a lose-lose situation for Lucchino. If Contreras is a success, then why didn't the Red Sox pay more to get him. If he's a dud, why was Lucchino willing to spend so munch for an unproven player. No wonder he's mad at Steinbrenner.

I read that Paypal has the highest money market returns in the nation. So I opened an account, and since it's there, I put up a button for a tip jar. This site is free, and I don't expect anything, especially if you are a fellow blogger. But the button is there if you feel the urge to donate. They will be appreciated.

In case you missed them, the results are here.

I think that baseball should be very careful in measuring Rose's popularity. The one case of a bad survey that I keep in my mind is the one that resulted in the New Coke fiasco. Pepsi kept doing taste tests that showed that Pepsi tasted better than Coke. Coke decided it was true, so they changed the formula to make Coke sweeter, or more like Pepsi. What Coke didn't realize, however, was that the people who bought the bulk of the soda, drank Coke because it wasn't as sweet as Pepsi. Coke sales fell off. Coke then introduced Coke Classic for those who liked the old taste, and eventually, New Coke disappeared.

Our poll is a poll of baseball fanatics; the kind of people that keep watching through thick and thin; the people who buy tickets and watch on TV and listen to radio and really care about baseball. I don't think Rose's popularity with this population is very high. Baseball has to be careful that they are not appeasing the wrong population by letting Rose back in. It's not going to win them any new fans, and might cause some of the more die hard people to think less of the game.

Here are some comments I received:

Ratings based on how I admire them as a person as seen through the mists of media. Their accomplishments do count but my major issues are how selfish their concerns & what did they overcome to get to their stellar level.

Petey was always kind of an egotistical jerk, but he should be in the Hall, heck, 4000+ hits should count for something. As far as I can tell, even if he DID bet on baseball, or even his own team, he never bet on them to lose.

For the most part, I don't even care what the current HOFers say about Rose. Great (arrogant) player, lousy person. Utterly and totally living in denial. A Gambler, and a professional player who knew the rules. HE SIGNED THE AGREEMENT that keeps him out. I've read the Dowd report, more people should.

This is a pretty motley crew, David. A vengeful home run king, an egomaniacal stolen base king, baseball's Trent Lott, a couple of wildly overrated volume performers... why not Steve Howe or Vince Coleman or any of the real heroes of the generation?

I have heard that Maddux is an asshole, and I have a friend who worked at Pete Rose's Sports Bar in Florida, who says the same about him (but she did get me an autographed baseball card). I've also heard that some player said (I think during the 80's) that Nolan Ryan was the only player he knew who didn't cheat on his wife.

Rose is a sleezebag. Always has been, always will be.

admirable is something different than popular, which is how Rose was described. In general, I have no idea how admirable my favorite players are. (Or the people listed above.) And sometimes, it doesn't matter. I retain a fondness for Dwight Gooden, who doesn't seem to be particularly admirable, and love hasn't been admirable in a lot of ways.

Yes, Cal is lower than Rickey... all those stories about separate hotels and special treatment take their toll, especially against a mostly-innocuous group.

yep, you were right. Put him on a list with these guys (a smattering of his contemporaries), and Rose looks like the black sheep.

That's a funny list of players. I don't exactly know how admirable these guys are, so some of my picks are silly. I am sure that Pete Rose, Cal Ripken and Nolan Ryan are not people I admire. I also feel that Rickey isn't as big a douche bag as popularly believed, though I would be shocked if he doesn't place 9 to Pete Rose's 10.

If you gave me a list of every player in teh history of baseball Cal Ripken would still be last. What a phony. He hurt his team and he worked to project an image of a team player while seeking his own hotel on the road and other assorted examples of rampant arrogance and self-importance. Cal Ripken is the most selfish ballplayer I have seen and I lived in and around Baltimore his entire career. Yuck!

Hank Aaron seems to exude class as does Nolan Ryan. Cal Ripken rates so low for me because he truly seemed to put his personal goals ahead of his team. Pete Rose is a liar, plain and simple.

There's one other thing I'd like to get out there. I've never liked Pete Rose. In the last few weeks, I've wondered why. There are a number of bad-boys out there that I did like; Albert Belle and Rickey Henderson, for two. But Rose was somehow different. I think I finally put my finger on it. Rose was tenacious, yes. He was intimidating, yes. These are qualities that I usually admire in a player. But there was a difference with Rose. Rose was a bully.

How can you tell? Let's take the two most famous altercations in which rose was involved.

Let's start with a list of some of the 1973 Mets by weight:

 WT

----

 160  Bud Harrelson

 170  Rich Chiles

      Ken Boswell

      Willie Mays

 172  Felix Millan

 175  Brian Ostrosser

      Wayne Garrett

 180  Don Hahn

 185  Ron Hodges

      Jerry Grote

      John Milner

      Cleon Jones

 187  Duffy Dyer

 190  Rusty Staub

      George Theodore

      Jerry May

      Jim Beauchamp

      Jim Fregosi

 205  Ed Kranepool

I have Rose listed at 192. So who does he pick on? The smallest guy on the Mets. Not someone his own size like Grote or Milner or Kranepool. He goes after the little guy, Bud Harrelson. To Bud's credit, he stood up for himself.

The other famous altercation was with umpire Dave Pallone. Pallone was a scab, who had acquired his job during the 1979 umpires strike. He was never accepted by the other umpires. So Pallone was an easy target for Rose's wrath. He knew no other ump would back up Pallone. So when Rose was accidentially poked in the eye by Pallone, a fight ensued.

Maybe I'm wrong here, but I just don't see any reason why this particular player should be so popular. I will be very disappointed if he is reinstated.

Michael Weddell makes a good point about the effect of the Yankees foreign signings:

Regarding the Yankees' payroll, compared to the possible alternatives, Lucchino should be fairly happy. If one accepts it as a given that the Yankees will spend whatever it takes to have the best team on paper entering the season, then the Contreras signing is one of the least damaging things the Yankees can do with their money. As a player with no prior MLB experience, Contreras would be very hard to use as a comparison player in an arbitration hearing. Even as a use in free agent negotiations, Contreras' signing will have limited impact on negotiations between other players and other MLB teams because his value (and hence his ability to be used as a comparison) is so uncertain. This (and the Hideki Matsui signing) are much less damaging to other MLB teams' payrolls than if the Yankees had signed Greg Maddux to $18M per year or Cliff Floyd to $10M per year for example.

Larry Lucchino seems really upset at George Steinbrenner:

After the agreement had been reached, Lucchino initially offered a brusque "no comment" when reached by The New York Times. Then he pulled a 180 with his position.

"No, I'll make a comment. The evil empire extends its tentacles even into Latin America," Lucchino told The Times.

How do you really feel, Larry?

This surprised me a bit, because it appeared to me that the Yankees were trying to keep their payroll low so they wouldn't have to pay the luxury tax. But according to this article, the tax is only going to be about 7 million. I still think the Yankees will jettison Mondesi and White at some point, so it may not end up at the 153 million it currently stands at.

My advice to Lucchino: if you want to beat the Yankees, you're going to have to open the checkbook.

The results are in. Players were ranked 1 to 10, with 1 being the most admired, 10 the least admired. Scoring was using a Borda count (similar to MVP voting); players ranked 1 get 10 points, players ranked 10 get 1 point. If more than one player is ranked the same, the points for those positions are added together and averaged, and each player gets those points. So, for example, if the first five players are all ranked 1, they would get 8 points each. Also, the place in the voting is calculated, not necessarily taken from the ballot. In the above example, if the next player was ranked 2, the program recognizes that it's really a sixth place vote, and that's what the player is credited with.

Okay, now that I've confused you all, here are the results:

Votes by Rank          1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9  10  Points

Hank Aaron            49  29  16  10   7   5   2   2   3   4  1028.0

Willie Mays           30  24  30  11   8  11   8   2   3   0   966.5

Greg Maddux           14  18  14  18  27  13  12   8   2   1   830.0

Cal Ripken Jr.        20  16  14  12   5  13  13  18  15   1   760.5

Nolan Ryan            12  13  13  20  13  16   8  16  16   0   738.5

George Brett           8  10  12  14  22  23  18  17   3   0   728.5

Johnny Bench           5   6  10  19  22  26  22  13   3   1   699.5

Tony Perez             2   4   8   8  11  17  27  24  17   9   538.0

Rickey Henderson       4   6   3  10   5   7  13  15  56   8   461.5

Pete Rose              5   1   1   3   2   0   1   3  12  99   234.0

No suprise to me that Aaron is the most admired player of this group. Being sent to integrate southern baseball in the 1950's earns him a lot of respect. I probably would have voted Maddux over Mays, because Mays was briefly banned for baseball for working for a casino, but that's pretty minor. Ripken, Ryan, Brett and Bench are pretty interchangable. I got the feeling people didn't know much about Tony Perez, and he was the least talented of this group (that's not saying he wasn't a superb player). People don't like Rickey. I would have rated him higher, since I think he gets a lot of bad press. He's a better guy than he comes off being, but he's never done anything to polish his image (like getting an education). And there's Pete, bringing up the rear.

It looks like I'll be snowed in tomorrow, so I'll go through the comments then and publish some of them.

Charles Donefer responds to my response.

Aaron Gleeman has an excellent rundown of the top remaining free agents on his blog. His comments on Travis Lee are right on.

I hadn't seen this cartoon before. :-)

I'm going to leave the most admired poll open until Tuesday morning. I'll have time tomorrow to work on compiling the results and commenting about them. You can find a link to the voting here. Thanks to everyone who has contributed so far.

Charles Donefer has offered this rebuttal to Instapundit's idea for a baseball stadium at ground zero. (See previous post). It's titled "A Silly Idea for Ground Zero," in case the link doesn't take you right to it. There is at least one thesis in the rebuttal that I disagree with.

Putting up a baseball stadium is a surrender to the failed practice of creating taxpayer-funded monuments to the low-paying service sector while the real jobs continue to flee for the suburbs.

and

New York would have to borrow even more money, something that the neither the City or the State have the capacity to do at the moment. The tremendous debt load is already a constant threat to credit ratings and yawning budget gaps won’t lighten it any time soon. George Steinbrenner is not going to pay for even a small portion of any new stadium, which means that government will foot the bill.

The Port Authority owns the site, and in fact built the original WTC. The PANYNJ raises money through bond issues, not taxes. Yes, those bonds are backed by the ability of government to tax people to pay for them, but that hasn't happened so far. And regardless of what is built on that site, the PA is going to have to issue lots of new bonds. So it's bond holders, not taxpayers who are financing the stadium, although taxpayers hold the risk. The PANYNJ is insisting that whatever is built on the site generate revenue equal to what they were getting from the WTC. For this, some want to push them out.

And what if they build new office towers, and no one occupies them? Are companies really going to put top people at risk again in the top terrorist target in the US? I really wonder about the viability of a new office tower at that site. It may turn out like the Empire State Building, which was not profitable for decades after it was built.

I think there would be plenty of action in the financial district with or without mammoth office towers. A baseball stadium would offer a nice diversion, be a lot cheaper to build and would nicely serve as a memorial to the tragic events of 9/11. I don't know if it would work (there's so much I don't know about the politics and physics of the site), but it's not a silly idea.

One other thing:

We already have a good ballpark. What’s wrong with Yankee Stadium? It has served the Yankees and their fans just fine for three-quarters of a century and can do so for another three-quarters of a century if it’s maintained well. Excellent attendance figures year after year show that Yankee fans care more about watching quality baseball than skyboxes and sushi bars.

NY also has a bad ballpark, Shea Stadium. I think the Mets are really the appropriate team to move to a new stadium. Also, I believe you can get sushi at Yankee Stadium (although I can't find a list of concesssions on the internet).

Update: Normally, I do object to tax-payer funded stadiums, and Mr. Donefer's arguments are this point I feel are correct. But this is a different situation, where the stadium isn't necessarily being built to generate revenue or create jobs, but as a memorial to a tragic event that generates some revenue and provides a lot of pleasure for the populace.

Instapundit has an idea for ground zero. Build a baseball stadium! He says it's a dumb idea, but I think it's great. Both the Yankees and Mets can use a new park. And baseball was part of the initial healing process. It's right at the hub of a transportation center. I think it would work well.

If you haven't voted, please do.

I had two posts on Floyd yesterday. One was about Floyd going to the Orioles. As the previous post points out, Floyd actually went to the Mets (scroll down). Interestingly, the Sun took down the article that I originally linked to claiming that Floyd was for the Birds.

When it seemed that Floyd was going to Baltimore, I speculated that the luxury tax was having a different effect than what was intended; it was spreading talent around, not by poor teams getting more money to spend, but by mid-level teams having access to free agents because the big teams couldn't afford to sign them. Of course, with the Mets signing Floyd, I'm not sure that statement is really valid either.

What is clearly valid is that the luxury tax is really a salary cap. Teams are going out of their way to avoid the level at which the tax will kick in. This is probably better than the owners had wanted in terms of controlling salaries, but it isn't going to do anything to help Montreal or KC or Minnesota's ability to spend more on players. It's not going to help Tampa Bay compete with the Yankees. It's not going to even help Milwaukee compete with the Cardinals or Astros. I feel bad for the fans of these teams who thought the new agreement was going to level the playing field. It helps some of the mid-level team, but it doesn't spread enough money to give all teams a chance, because given a method of avoiding taxes, they will be avoided.

As a Met. This helps fill the void left by the departure of Alfonzo, and gives the Mets a good outfielder for the first time in a few years. And it looks like the Mets will look East for a new third baseman.

A number of years ago I subscribed to the Phillies electronic news letter. Most of the time, they just send me promotional junk, but a few minutes ago, I got this in the mail:

PHILLIES BREAKING NEWS
December 20, 2002

PHILS ACQUIRE KEVIN MILLWOOD FROM ATLANTA
The Phillies traded catcher Johnny Estrada to the Atlanta Braves for right-handed pitcher Kevin Millwood, General Manager Ed Wade announced today.

So the remaking of the Braves rotation is complete. They're keeping both Marquis and Maddux, but the third M is off to division rival Philadelphia. This should be a very interesting battle in the NL East next year. Phillies have no doubt improved themselves. The Braves are strong but with question marks. Atlanta could easily run away with the division again, but I think the Phillies will challenge, and I think the Phillies are in a good position for when the new ballpark opens in 2004. And again, the luxury tax is looking more like a salary cap, where Atlanta wasn't able to keep one of it's better pitchers.

Update: Shawn Bernard is shocked by this trade:

The Braves couldn't find a taker for Millwood in any other division? They had to trade him to their biggest division rival? My mind is totally boggled by this trade. For a backup catcher?

Not even a month ago, there was talk of trading Ortiz (the same Ortiz the Braves traded Moss for) for JD Drew. But the Braves trade Millwood for a 2nd string catcher? What the hell?

Shawn

It's the luxury tax/salary cap. Unintended consequences?

The Baltimore Orioles are close to signing Cliff Floyd, according to this story by Joe Christensen in the Baltimore Sun. It seems the Dodgers don't want to pay the luxury tax, and signing Floyd would push them over the limit. The Mets also are having a hard time finding the money. The Orioles seem to be the beneificiary, and may try to sign I-Rod also, although the two sides are fairly far apart on money.

It seems that rather than transfering wealth from big market teams to small market teams, the luxury tax is preventing players from signing with some big market teams, making them available to others. The tax may not be keeping the price of free agents down, but it does seem to be distributing talent a little more evenly.

At the suggestion of Jason Grady, I've put up a form for the popularity poll. You can vote here. Should be faster than e-mail.

Looks like Maddux will accept arbitration.

Wake Raymond Burr. Break out the nuclear warheads. Summon Mothra! The Yankees have signed Hideki Matsui.

Here is a link to his career stats. Like many great players, he came up at a young age (19) and just kept getting better. I'm impressed with his walk totals. Five times he's drawn over 100 walks in a season. And remember, they play a shorter season in Japan, so the most games he's ever played in a year is 140.

People wonder if he'll make it here. I think what we will see with Japanese hitters is very much what we saw after Jackie Robinson broke the color barrier. The majors picked up the top Negro League players. They didn't take the okay or the good players. Right now, MLB is only going to take the Japanese hitters who are not going to fail in the US.

I'd love to see a chart of where Matsui hits the ball. If he's a pull-hitter, Yankee Stadium could be very good to the lefty.

It's pretty clear that at least two of White, Mondesi or Spencer will be gone by opening day. And once again, Steinbrenner grabs the backpage of the tabloids.

Allen Barra in the Wall Street Journal has this as his opening paragraph in an opinion piece on why Rose should be reinstated:

In 1989, after months of investigations, Major League Baseball Commissioner A. Bartlett Giamatti concluded that Pete Rose--manager of the Cincinnati Reds, baseball's all-time leader in base hits and the most popular figure in the game--was to be banned for life for betting on baseball. For 13 years Rose has never wavered in his denial that he bet on baseball.

Most popular figure in the game? By what measure? I'm going to have to find the poll that's based on, because I'll bet (oops!) that it's a biased poll. What I'd like to see is something like this:

Rate these players 1 to 10, one being the player you admire the most, 10 being the player you admire the least:

• Hank Aaron


• Johnny Bench


• George Brett


• Rickey Henderson


• Greg Maddux


• Willie Mays


• Tony Perez


• Cal Ripken


• Pete Rose


• Nolan Ryan

Then do a Borda count and see who wins.

Okay, let's do it. If you like, send me an e-mail with your ratings. Get your friends to fill in the ballot. I'll tally the scores if I get enough ballots and let you know the results. To make it more fair, you may want to get friends to fill it out without the anti-popular preamble. I'll be happy to take as many ballots as you can send in. Click here to email me.

Update: You don't have to e-mail me. You can now fill out this form.

Looks like I was right about Biggio moving. Mike's Baseball Rant has him moving to left. Biggio needs to get his OBA back into the high .300's if he's going to be a good offensive player again.

The Washington Times editorializes against the public financing of a ballpark.

The Baseball Crank points out the downside of acquiring a Braves pitcher.

Jeff Kent has signed with the Houston Astros. The article by Jose De Jesus Ortiz does not say what position Kent will play for the Astros. FOXSports.com has him likely playing third, which makes perfect sense.

I don't know how much this really improves the Astros, however. The combination of third basemen Houston had last year posted numbers well above the NL average at third base.

As Third Baseman

Statistics through OCT-21-2002


               Avg   G  AB   R   H 2B 3B HR RBI  SB CS TBB HBP SO GDP OBP  SLG

Merced,O.    1.000 ---   1   0   1  0  0  0   0   0  0   0  0   0  01.0001.000

Loretta,M.    .545 ---  33   7  18  3  0  1   5   1  0   6  0   1  0 .600 .727

Ginter,K.     .333 ---   3   1   1  1  0  0   0   0  0   2  0   1  0 .600 .667

Vizcaino,J.   .318 ---  85   7  27  3  0  1  11   0  1   8  0   8  3 .372 .388

Blum,G.       .284 --- 331  39  94 20  4 10  51   2  0  45  0  59  8 .368 .459

Ensberg,M.    .233 --- 129  14  30  6  2  3  17   2  0  15  3  25  8 .327 .380

               AVG   AB   R    H  2B  3B  HR RBI  SB  CS  TBB   SO  OBP  SLG

Team Average  .294  582  68  171  33   6  15  84   5   1   76   94 .376 .448

League Avg.   .260  619  77  161  31   3  18  81   6   2   57  100 .326 .407

Yes, Kent is better than this, but is he really worth all that money to improve an already good position? Maybe Biggio is on his way out. Biggio had his worst year getting on base since his rookie season in 2002. Kent had nearly double the win shares of Biggio, 29 to 15. Replacing Biggio improves the team a lot more, so I wouldn't be surprised to see Craig move.

This NY Post article has the latest on Clemens and Godzilla's status with the Yankees. Also, Ron Guidry is to be honored this year:

Ron Guidry will be honored at Yankee Stadium on Saturday, Aug. 23 with "Ron Guidry Day." Club didn't announce if Guidry's No. 49 will be retired, but that's likely since nobody has worn it since Guidry retired after the 1988 season. Guidry's 170 victories are fourth on the all-time Yankee list.

"This is just about as big a compliment as you could receive from your organization," said the 52-year-old Guidry, who is a spring-training instructor for the Yanks. "I just can't think of a higher recognition."

If Guidry's number is retired, it will be the 16th Yankee number taken out of circulation.

Guidry is one of my favorite players. I'm glad to see him getting his due.

If the Yankees do sign Godzilla, can the Red Sox signing of Mothra be far behind?

The Braves continue to remake their starting staff. The new rotation looks something like:

Hampton

Millwood

Ortiz

Byrd

Maddux or Marquis

Tim Kurkjian thinks Maddux will return and the Braves will trade Millwood. I think the Braves let Maddux go and Millwood becomes the ace.

Only Baseball Matters likes the trade for the Giants. SF saves a lot of money, and gets a young lefty. I'm not too thrilled with Moss' K/BB (111/89). He didn't allow a lot of hits, but he had a great defense behind him. We'll see what happens with the Giants.

Well, that was a pretty boring weekend. The big winners were the Red Sox. They improved at both second base and first base. As I noted earlier, Todd Walker is an improvement at 2nd base. Daubach and Clark combined for 15 win shares last year, Giambi had 14 by himself in about 3/4 of a season. Walker had Sanchez beat in win shares 21-9. So the Red Sox have added about 15 win shares on the right side of the infield over a full season. That's 5 wins. That's not an insignificant gain without giving up that much.

Edward Cossette likes the Sox moves, too.

The other team that appears to have come out positively is the Giants. They decided to go with Alfonzo over Kent. I wonder if the Mets will try to sign Kent now? I think Alfonzo is fine, and appears to have saved the team some money. I still think they would do well to sign Pudge Rodriguez and move him away from catcher.

There was a four team deal, with the upshot being that the A's got Durazo. I don't think anyone hurt themselves with that deal, and I don't think anyone greatly improved themselves either.

The Mets, however, seem to be in total disarray. They no longer have a left side of the infield. They lost one of their better players in Alfonzo, but got rid of one of their weakest links in Ordonez. They now have only two offensive players worth anything; Piazza and Alomar, and both are getting old. They now have Stanton, but you have to have a lead for a setup man (or a closer) to be effective. Right now, I don't see the Mets having any offense.

So it wasn't an exciting meeting. It may get better as the Expos decide what they want to do.

He's a Met now.

Scrappleface catches the catch-22.

Sorry, blogger was broken last night and I couldn't post anything about the deals. I'll try to get things up this morning. Initial take, however, is that the Red Sox really improved themselves, while the Mets no longer have an infield.

A nice profile of Mark Shapiro's first year by Paul Hoynes of the Cleveland Plain Dealer.

Bob Elliott's notes column has this tidbit:

SIGNING: Former Jays second baseman Homer Bush (.222, zero, five with the Florida Marlins, .231, one, two with the Jays) signed a minor-league deal with the San Diego Padres.

A couple of years ago I thought Bush would become the all-time Homer homer leader. Unless he can come back with the Padres, that's not going to happen.

With nothing going on at the baseball winter meetings, here's a story on Pete Rose from The Age, an Australian newspaper.

Nothing like a cat fight between commissioners. Where's Batman when you need him?

Bob Nightengale of USA Today has this report in which he makes this incredible statement:

So where does Griffey want to go? As a player traded in the middle of a multiyear contract he has the right to demand a trade after one season. He's not going to name the teams on the record, but if you speak with him long enough it's not hard to figure out that the Yankees are his top choice, followed by the Braves and Diamondbacks.

I was sure I've heard in the past that Griffey would never play for the Yankees, due to the way they treated his father (from what I remember, they retreated him like the old, washed-up player he was). There is some disagreement here in an article by Hal McCoy of the Dayton Daily News:

There could be some interest in Griffey from the two New York teams, the Mets and the Yankees. Griffey has said he is not interested in playing for the Yankees, but he has no say. He does not have a no-trade clause in his contract. When it was negotiated, he was given the right to list four teams to whom he wouldn't accept a trade. But his agent, Brian Goldberg, did not give the Reds the four teams, so Bowden is free to deal him to any team.

If anyone else remembers Griffey not wanting to play for the Yankees in the past, please let me know.

Update: I found this at BaseballPrimer. Scroll down to the section titled: "Posted 7:41 p.m., July 29, 2001 - The Griffey Fan Club."

The Boston Red Sox have acquired Todd Walker from the Cincinnati Reds. I've always liked Walker. At some point, he fell into Tom Kelly's doghouse, but I thought that was unfair. He did a good job of replacing Knoblauch, and has respectable batting stats for a second baseman. And he's much better than Rey Sanchez. Sanchez was a .275 BA and nothing else. Walker has a career .292 BA, with a .349 OBA (.311 for Sanchez) and a .435 slugging percentage (.338 for Sanchez). And Walker is 5 1/2 years younger. The trade doesn't do anything to address the rebuilding of the farm system, but it makes the Red Sox a better team this year.

Dayn Perry has an interesting article on steroid use at ReasonOnline. They have a new blog there too called Hit and Run, which is worth checking out.

Here are links to previous post on steroids, one based on comments by Joe Morgan, but the really long screed is here.

Dr. Manhattan has some thoughts on this year's ballot. He puts both Sutter and Gossage in. I had voted at Baseball Prospectus a couple of hours before I read this post, and also voted for both Sutter and Gossage. Glad to see someone agree with me.

Robert Saunders e-mails me, and nails the Rose situation:

But Rose's situation is positively Heller-ean: it's against the rules to bet on baseball, and if you do you can't go to the HOF; so, Bart Giammati asks Rose to sign a document in which he doesn't admit to betting on baseball, in exchange for which Rose can't get into the HOF; now, to get into the HOF, he has to admit that he bet on baseball, which I believe is still against the rules!

If he didn't bet on baseball, let him in. If he did bet on baseball, I don't care how great he was, he's OUT! That's what makes his story a lesson for young players and a tragedy to people who were his fans (not me). If Madame Bovary doesn't commit suicide, it's not a tragedy, it's a Julia Roberts movie!

The catch-22 is exactly right. If Rose bet on baseball, he broke the rules and the ban should stay in place. If he didn't bet on baseball, then he's probably paid the price for consorting with gamblers. If Rose had done something to change his life, given back to the community some way, I'd be more amenable to his returning.

As to the idea that Rose would be put back in charge of the Reds; ARRRRRRGGGGGGGGGHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!

I don't know who's brilliant idea that is, but Rose should not be allowed near young players in a position of power. I remember being with BBTN at Disney in 1998. We were in the green room, and Ray Knight was talking about Pete Rose, and how good Pete was to him (and others) as rookies. It reminded me of the Bill James essay on Hal Chase. Chase would be nice to the new kids, while the other veterans just ignored them. Later, Chase would ask the kids for favors involving throwing games. I doubt Rose ever fixed games, but I bet Pete got the kids to look the other way when Rose would commit some other transgression.

I hope this is just a lot of speculation. The one area of agreement I've had with Selig is Pete Rose. For Pete to get back in, he's going to have to do a lot better job of apologizing than Trent Lott has.

I've gotten a number of letters on this subject, especially after Dowd came out with his opinions. I'll be blogging more on this later. Meanwhile, you should read this article from Baseball Prospectus that refutiates Bill James' view of the Dowd report. (Thanks to J Lentner)

Both Dave Abbuhl and Todd Morgan both have written to point out the flaw in the previous post. From Todd:

The reason corporations don't sponser ballpark names in the way you suggested is just for the reason you stated…

Phoenix Stadium sponsered by BankOne would be referred to as Phoenix Stadium by pretty much everyone. BankOne wouldn't be getting all of what they paid for, which includes its name coming out of peoples' mouths all the time. :-)

And from Dave:

Your comments yesterday about the naming of ballparks illustrate exactly why the teams and their ad folks do this naming stuff in the fashion you dislike. What's going to stick in the casual fan's mind (the target of the ads, of course) more: "Pepsi cola" or "cola drink sponsored by Pepsi"? So which ad form brings the higher price? The teams CAN do the naming in the fashion you suggest, but it would result in reduced revenues. Next thing you know, they "must" trade a veteran player for a couple AA reserve outfielders......

I would add, however, that it's not the casual fan's mind that they are trying get to say the name. They are trying to get the free advertisement on ESPN, Fox and other news sports outlets. I remember when Candlestick Park was renamed 3-Com Park. Chris Berman wouldn't use the name. The teams called him up and pleaded with him, telling him the real name was 3-Com Park at Candlestick Point. Berman started using the full name. That's where the real benefit lies.

Of course, that benefit doesn't look like it's that great. From what I hear, people do well to sell short companies that buy the right to name a field. Enron and United, anyone?

SBC has dropped the Pacific Bell name. This could lead to a change in the name of the San Francisco ballpark.

This is what I don't like about corporate names. Ballparks should have a name that can stand the test of time. Changing at the whim of some corporate executive just isn't right. Why not have a permanent name for a ballpark that can be sponsored by a company? Phoenix Stadium sponsored by BankOne? Then we can all just refer to Phoenix Stadium, and not worry about who the sponsor is.

Shawn Bernard sends me this link to a story about the Brewers signing Royce Clayton to play shortstop. That's a pretty big fall for the Brewers to go from an all-star to Clayton at short. Clayton has a .311 lifetime OBA. His 386 walks in 12 seasons is equal to about 2 1/2 seasons for Barry Bonds. He has no power. And I haven't heard to many comparisons to Ozzie Smith with the glove. Hernandez had 19 win shares last year, Clayton 8, so that's another 4 games in the loss column the Brewers are behind.

Allen Barra of the Wall Street Journal takes a lot at what was wrong about the way Roone Arledge broadcast sports.

I, for one, am tired of the up-close-and-personals. Back in 1972 when I first remember seeing them at the summer Olympics, they were a nice touch. But in 1972, you actually got to see the events. Now, they seem to spend more time on the behind the scenes pieces than on the events themselves. Once every four years, I like to watch archery! More sports, less fluff, please.

There's an article on ESPN.com today that Pete Rose and Selig appear to be negotiating reinstatement of the all-time hit leader.

Only Baseball Matters had a lot about Pete Rose earlier this winter. Start here and keep reading. The inclusion of the David Levens piece here is the best part of the series.

I don't like Pete Rose. I never liked him as a player, and as I learned more about him as a person, I liked him even less. He wasn't someone who hustled; he was someone who was obnoxious about hustling. He was a singles hitter who could have walked more. Rickey Henderson without the speed or the power. One of my college roommates hated Pete Rose. We once got him a dart set and a Pete Rose poster for his birthday. When I joined a strat-o-matic league in the 1980's, I knew I had found my home when they burned Pete Rose's card before the draft.

With my prejudices in mind, I don't think Rose should be reinstated. Bill James makes a great case that the Dowd report proves nothing, and I will not argue with James' conclusion on that. However, as David Levens piece points out, the Dowd report was probably trying to save a lot of people from embarassment. I think if we all knew what Rose was really like, he wouldn't get those standing ovations, and there wouldn't be much support for his induction into the Hall of Fame.

Olerud in Seattle and Thomas in Chicago. With all the lousy offensive first basemen out there, you think these two would have drawn some interest. Granted, Olerud did not want to leave Seattle, so maybe a lot of money didn't matter to him. But I can't believe no one wanted to take a chance on a bat like Thomas' making a comeback. If it weren't for the Phillies, Mets and Giants, you'd think collusion was going on.

And I haven't kept up with things. Only Baseball Matters has the low-down on the Giants moves this weekend. If it turns out that the Giants replaced Bell/Lofton with Durham/Grissom, the offense should stay about the same, and they may just suffer some defense at third. (Kent to third, Durham to 2nd? Or does Durham play the outfield if Kent stays?)

Aaron Gleeman has a good run-down of the Hall of Fame candidates for this year at Aaron's Baseball Blog.

Tom should like Shea, a real pitcher's paradise. I would expect he'll have success there. Three years may be too long for a 36 year-old pitcher, but he's a lefty who can get out righties, so I think he'll be around for a while (ala Tommy John). As long as he has a good defense behind him, he'll be okay.

MSNBC reports that the Reds are denying they are trading Griffey for Nevin.

One of the great things about signing Griffey for a discount is that it makes him much more tradeable. If there is a team that believes they can motivate Jr. to play, he'd be worth the $12 million a year.

The NY Times is speculating that Clemens will also take a pay cut to stay in NY, ala Robin Ventura.

In bargaining a new labor deal, the owners wanted to put a stop sign in front of George Steinbrenner, while the union wanted a caution light. It looks like the owners got their stop sign.

The Orioles have hired Jim Beattie and Mike Flanagan to be co-GM's.

I don't know how all this will work. I hear Flanagan is very smart, and Beattie was with the Mariners when they developed the core of the mid-'90s team. The Yankees actually work this way, where Cashman is the GM in title, but there actually are a number of people who have input into decisions.

Birds in the Belfry aren't too thrilled with the arrangement.

There is an editorial at Baseball Truth about the demise of the STATS Major League Handbook. I'm as disappointed as anyone that this and other books will no longer be published. However, I think there are some inaccuraccies in the editorial, and since the title of the site seems to be devoted to truth, I thought I should set the record straight.

The reason: money, pure and simple. FOX Sports, yes, THAT FOX, which bought out STATS Inc. a year ago, has decided it makes more financial sense to join with The Sporting News to put out one annual, well, two -- the Register and the Guide.

The sale of STATS was in January of 2000, nearly three years ago. The original sale was to a subsidiary of Fox. That subsidiary went under, and STATS was the only entity of that group that survived, and was placed under the control of Fox Sports.

The first indication of trouble came last year when the Bill James name was removed from the Handbook after 12 years. Many others, such as founders John and Sue Dewan and Don Zminda, also jumped (or were pushed) off the sinking ship. Last year, FOX put out the first few books -- the Handbook, the Profiles book of player breakdowns and the two Scouting Notebooks -- but did not publish the Scoreboard, a decade-old collection of analytical studies.

Don Zminda is still on the ship. When the deal was finalized in 2000, Fox decided that STATS should be it's research department. Don Zminda became the head of that department, not because they were killing the publishing arm, but because Don was the best man for the job. Secondly, STATS did put out one new book, Win Shares, by Bill James, so there was still a relationship there.

Withholding information was Elias' hallmark during the Eighties and the thing James and others like him fought. STATS Inc. was founded on the notion of making it available.

But when you look at the STATS Inc. Web site, it's depressing. There is no online database. Some stats it published, such as catcher ERA, will jump to the Sporting News books, but a vast amount is being taken private. STATS Inc., as far as the public is concerned, and as far as their Web site lets on, has become just a glorified fantasy-league operator.

Nothing has changed here. STATS has always sold it's data, not given it away. The difference between STATS and Elias is that STATS was willing to sell data to anyone at a relatively low price. The STATS web site does have a lot of statistical data, but you have to sign up and pay for it. STATS also supplies information to ESPN, BaseballDirect (see links on the right side) and others.

Also, there is a premium service called STATSPass. It allows you to build queries of the STATS database. However, I don't know if justanyone can sign up for it; it may just be for media clients.

The MLB Handbook was the Strat-o-Matic book of choice. It will be missed. But if you are going to call your page BaseballTruth, check your facts better.

In case you missed it, Rob Neyer has an interview with Bill James and John Dewan about the demise of the Handbook.

Dan Lewis has a link to a NY Times OpEd on the new Mets Ticket pricing strategy.

Josh Schulz is writing Go Cardinals. He has a nice post there right now on the Cardinals needs.

How often do you see an established veteran take a pay cut to stay with a team? According to this SportsTicker report, that's what Robin Ventura is going to do. I remember a decade ago free agents were taking less money to not play in NY.

A blog about the Cubs. If anyone knows of other team specific blogs, please let me know so I can link to them.

It's not a done deal, but ESPN has the story here, with a good sidebar by Rob Neyer. The way I see the deal, it was time these players moved from starters to backups, and it was easier for another team to demote them.

Update: I found this piece by Teddy Greenstein that seems to confirm the likely backup status of Karros and Grudz.

As eager as the Cubs were to rid themselves of Hundley, the Dodgers were equally determined to move Karros and Grudzielanek. Although Grudzielanek, 32, is a career .282 hitter with decent pop for a middle infielder, his on-base percentage has fallen from respectable (.376 in 1999) to disappointing (.335 in 2000) to awful (.301 last season).

Although he's subpar defensively, the Cubs say they plan to use Grudzielanek to back up Bobby Hill at second base and Alex Gonzalez at shortstop.

So Grudzielanek becomes the utility infielder. As for Karros:

Karros, 35, has at least one thing going for him: He hit .317 against lefties last season.

Plus the Cubs have been looking for a right-handed-hitting first baseman to complement rookie Hee Seop Choi.

So Karros will be the right-handed platoon player at first base. That means he'll get about 20% of the AB there.

Glenn Reynolds of Instapundit has linked to my blog! Instapundit is my favorite blog; it's updated constantly and I check it out whenever I have a spare moment. It's about politics and the law, not baseball, but worth the read. Check it out.

Dr. Manhattan of www.blissfulknowledge.com and I exchanged e-mails today on the Hall of Fame ballot, and it got me thinking about first ballot inductees. Seems to me it used to be really special to get in on the first ballot, and now it happens all the time. So I decide to check it out.

After the original 5 were inducted in 1936, no first ballot HOF'er was elected until 1962, when Bob Feller and Jackie Robinson went in together. The sixties was a tough decade for players being elected by the sports writers; only 6 were elected over all, but four of those were first timers, (Williams and Musial being the other two). The 1970's had 13 players elected by the sports writers, five on the first ballot (Koufax, Spahn, Mantle, Banks and Mays). I think part of this is that sports writers were catching up on all the players they should have elected in the 1960's; so deserving players had to wait. It was considered bad form to elect none but the greatest on the first ballot.

By the 80's, however, the backlog had been cleared, and more first ballot players were elected (10 of 18). The percentage went up again in the 1990's, as 10 of the 15 players elected got in on the first ballot. And so far in this decade, 3 of 5 have made it on the first ballot. What's happening now is that almost every year there is someone who is an obvious Hall of Famer. Rather than making them wait, like back in the 1970's, the competition is so thin that writers really have no choice but to vote for a player. And likewise, if you didn't vote for a player on the first ballot, what is going to change your mind about voting for him later. So players like Jim Kaat and Jim Rice never get over the hump (that last statement does not constitute an endorsement of either for the hall). About the only time a player has to wait is when you have a large number of great players in the same class; in 1999 you had Brett, Yount and Ryan make it while Fisk had to wait a year.

As time goes on, I believe the percentage of first time ballot elections will continue to rise until we have about 90% of players being elected on their first try.

Oakland and the White Sox trade closers in a six player deal. We shouldn't be surprised by this deal. Beane doesn't believe in spending too much on a closer:

Koch's success -- opponents are hitting .204 against him and he has struck out an average of more than one per inning -- plus his durability have prompted Beane to do something he rarely does: initiate long-term contract talks with the closer.

The A's normally aren't willing to spend much of their limited payroll on a specialty item like a closer. In fact, even though the front office thought Jason Isringhausen was the most interested in staying among a key group of free agents that included Jason Giambi and Johnny Damon last winter, the team found him too costly. Koch could be different.

I guess not.

Beane seems to have the Dick Wolf philosophy with closers. Wolf, the creator of the various Law and Order series believes in the stories, not the stars. If someone asks for a raise that Wolf considers too big, he replaces the actor with someone cheaper. And the show doesn't suffer because the stories are still very good, and competent actors don't hurt a good story. Beane appears to believe that any competent closer can save most of the games you put him into, so why spend a lot on the position?

As a Philadelphia resident, Jayson Stark likes the Phillies with Thome. I didn't realize until I read this column that Polanco was going to move to second base. That should add a couple of wins to the Phillies, so now their pitchers only have to pick up 6 wins. Third base, however, is Polanco's best position, so we'll see how good this move really is; I don't know if I'd go so far as saying that the Phillies will have the best defensive infield in the NL. Stark is right, however, in noting that there are going to be a lot more people interested in seeing the Phillies than there have been in the last few years.

Update: Phillies have announced a press conference for 4:30 PM EST. You can hear it here.

How much of an impact does an impact player make. I remember Dan Patrick, at the end of the 1990 season, attributing all of the Tigers 20 game turnaround to Cecil Fielder. This, of course, ignored the contributions of Tony Phillips, and the fact that the Tigers pitching staff had given up 60 fewer runs. So what was the impact of Fielder? Six, maybe seven games.

And that's what the Phillies have bought themselves in Thome. Travis Lee posted 13 win shares in 2002; Thome 34. That's a difference of 21 win shares, or about 7 games. It's significant. But does it make them a playoff team? They go from 80 to 87 wins, still 8 wins short of a wild card in 2002. Bell makes no difference for them at third; Palanco put up 7 win shares in 53 games for the Phillies, or about 20 over a full season. Bell had 19 (his highest ever) for SF last year. So third base is a wash. Tom Glavine is unlikely to supply them with the other 8 games. The chances of the Phillies making the playoffs have gone up, but they are going to need knock about a quarter run off their team ERA to have a real shot.

Of course, now they have a major star under contract for when the new stadium opens in 2004.

At least, that's what Bob Brookover is reporting. It won't be official until tomorrow. I guess this means Travis Lee is out of a job. Now there's a guy who wasted his talent. I'll try to have more on what all this means to the Phillies later tonight.

I started watching baseball in 1969, the year the Orioles started their Braves-like domination of baseball. Their rotation of Palmer, Cuellar, McNally and Dobson each posted 20 wins in 1971. More importantly, McNally was a freedom fighter:

McNally, who won 20 or more games in four straight seasons from 1968 to 1971, quit baseball in June 1975 after starting the season 3-6 with the Montreal Expos. Even though he said he was retired, the Expos offered him $125,000 to sign a contract.

He refused and joined Andy Messersmith of the Los Angeles Dodgers in a grievance filed by the Major League Baseball Players Association, claiming the teams couldn't renew their contracts in perpetuity.

Arbitrator Peter Seitz agreed with them, issuing the decision on Dec. 23, 1975, that overturned baseball's century-old reserve clause. Owners and the union then negotiated a labor deal under which players could become free agents after they had played in the major leagues for six seasons.

There are reports that Jim Thome will make up his mind today whether he'll be an Indian or a Phillie for the forseeable future. I don't quite understand why there has been so little interest in him. As I've talked about before (here and here), there are a lot of poor hitting first basemen out there. Maybe teams think they have cheaper alternatives (which they should), but as far as I can tell, they don't take advantage of them. This lack of interest is another sign that teams are still in tight control of their purses, and that revenue sharing is not going to improving teams, but into the pockets of the owners.