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.