MLB 2011

[Paelos]

Bagwell's career high in HRs corresponds to the first year he didn't have to play in the Astrodome for half his games. You may not be aware but the Astrodome was one of the most extreme pitcher's parks in the league, and in particular had a large effect on depressing HR totals. If you use a park adjusted stat like OPS+ to evaluate him, his peak is the normal age, late 20s/early 30s.

It's no offense to him, but I think nobody who played under Bud Selig's watch from that era should get in. I take the all or nothing approach, and if we take the statements from people close to the game at face value 70% of the league was involved. Trying to sort out the other 30% just isn't worth it because they probably sucked.

[Ingmar]

I think that's fine, as long as we go back and kick out all the players in the 60s/70s who used amphetamines, everyone who ever threw a spitball, etc. The character clause is a joke, basically.

[Paelos]

I think that's fine, as long as we go back and kick out all the players in the 60s/70s who used amphetamines, everyone who ever threw a spitball, etc. The character clause is a joke, basically.

I think the roids thing was far more damaging to the game than either of those things. It was more widespread and had a more direct effect on enhanced performance. We're talking about records being shattered that would otherwise have stood test of time. I'm looking at you Barry Bonds, you worthless fucker.

That being said, baseball players are STILL on greenies. They have been all this time because they are playing 6 games a week and on cross-country flights. In 2006, players estimated about 50% of the league was on them.

[Ingmar]

In other news, the Rays traded Matt Garza to the Cubs for their entire minor league organization. I think this has definite backfire potential in the long run for the Cubs, they gave up a lot of their best prospects.

[HaemishM]

Fuck me. That was a stupid goddamn trade, even if I don't know more than one name on the list of players the Cubs gave up. Granted, 15 game winners don't come available every day, but starting pitching was not really the area I would have liked to see the Cubs trade for. They need some fucking hitting, especially someone that can either lead off or consistently drive in runs. They can't rely on Aramis Ramirez anymore, and Marlon Byrd is the only remaining proven power threat. Signing Carlos fucking Pena (.196 hitter? REALLY?) is not going to do it.

[Ingmar]

Pitchers and catchers report today! 

[Paelos]

Pitchers and catchers report today! 

WOOOOOOOOOOO! 

[WayAbvPar]

This is as close to first place as the Mariners will be all season! 

[Ingmar]

This is as close to first place as the Mariners will be all season! 

I've seen them in more than one list near the top of "least improved teams".

[Paelos]

Time for a bricks list! Who has no chance at making the playoffs this year? One point for each team you get right, minus 2 for each one you get wrong. We'll check at the end of the season:

My bricks list:

Baltimore
Toronto
Cleveland
KC
Oakland
Seattle
Florida
NY Mets
Washington
Cincy
Houston
Chicago Sox
Chicago Cubs
Pittsburgh
LA Dodgers
Arizona

[Ingmar]

I think you are cruising for a -2 or two there.

[Paelos]

I think you are cruising for a -2 or two there.

I like taking chances.

[Ingmar]

Doing this sort of blind (Prospectus isn't out yet, so I don't know how to think!) but my list would be:

Baltimore (They're improving, but...)
Toronto (See Baltimore)
Tampa Bay (I think the Rays are eating a down season this year and will bounce back when their recent prospect trades pay off. This one could bite me.)
Kansas City (in a couple years they could be quite dangerous, but they will be brutally bad this year)
Cleveland (Kansas City without the potential)
LA Angels (questionable decision after questionable decision)
Seattle (so very bad)
Florida (See Baltimore)
NY Mets (less improved than even the Mariners)
Atlanta (they took a terrible defense and added Dan Uggla to it)
Washington (That Werth deal is going to look Vernon Wells-bad within 2-3 years)
St Louis (taking a chance here as Pujols + their rotation is obviously strong, but I think the Pujols contract fail and some ugly moves at other positions (Ryan Theriot cannot field SS) mean they will fall short again)
Houston (upside nonexistent here)
Chicago Cubs (they could contend if the chips fall just right but Cincinatti and Milwaukee and St. Louis make this a tough division. Wild card probably comes out of the NL Central this year.)
Pittsburgh (they should be better than last year, at least)
San Diego (bye Adrian, was nice having you in the division)
Arizona (this *might* be the year that their young guys all click at once, in which case this could be a dangerous pick in what is still a soft division)
LA Dodgers (obligatory LA hate)

I am halfway tempted to put the Yankees on here too, just because they're all a year older, and their rotation looks really suspect. In fact, you know what, why not. Yankees on my list too.

[Paelos]

Nixing the entire NL East except Philly? That's ballsy.

[HaemishM]

Do you really think anyone has a chance in the East besides Philly? Atlanta's offense has been anemic, the Mets are fucking awful, Florida is everyone else's farm team and the Nationals are a few years off from really contending.

My non-bricks list:

AL
Yankees
Red Sox
Detroit
Texas

NL
Phillies
Cards
Giants
Cubs (yes I had to, but this and Detroit are my least sure picks)

[Ingmar]

So we're entering every team not on that list on your bricks list then. 

[WayAbvPar]

This is as close to first place as the Mariners will be all season! 

I've seen them in more than one list near the top of "least improved teams".

At least this year they are actually in a transition year- have a ton of young guys just breaking in to the majors, or on the cusp, and couple of huge albatross contracts that expire after the season. They didn't throw a bunch of money at old broken down free agents either. If ALL the young guys go apeshit this year they could flirt with .500 or a game or two over; if they all tank they will be close to 70 wins. Best bet is that some of them will be useful, and that they can use the next couple of off seasons to acquire some free agents to fill in the gaps. They have a good chance to be quite competitive in 2013 or so.

BRB off to find some rope. Anyone know how to fashion a useful noose?

[Paelos]

<coloring outside the lines>

Your kindergarten teachers hated you didn't they. Follow the rules you crazy crotch-pheasant!

[Sjofn]

Is it the post season yet?


Damn, caring about baseball is hard. 

[stu]

Are we gonna have a Bat Country league this year???  

[Teleku]

Haemish can say he'll start one then we'll never hear of it again, like in the thread further down the page.   

[HaemishM]

Yeah yeah fuc...

Oh right.

Remind me tomorrow and I'll set one up when I'm at work.

[ghost]

Pujols negotiations are done without an agreement.

I know that things can happen between now and the deadline, bu to me Pujols should stay a Cardinal.  I hate the fact that these guys seem to only go after the money 90% of the time. 

[stu]

The Cards totally screwed themselves by giving Pujols no-trade rights. They need to trade him to bolster their waifish batting order. Pujols, Holliday & Rasmus aren't enough to assist good pitching when the other six slots have limp wrists.

Haemish, let's get the fantasy league going!

[Paelos]

Let's be real. Pujols is asking for a 10 year deal and he SAYS he's 31 (if you believe that coming out of Santo Domingo, I have property to show you in sunny southeastern Atlanta).

Who in their right mind is going to pay a hitter until he's in his 40s? I would cut him a 6 year deal, with a one year option, guarantee 40% of the money and do it for $20M a year. Done. This ain't the fucking Yankees.

[caladein]

Pujols has no-trade rights because of he's played for ten years and has been with the same team for five.  He might have some kind of no-trade clause in his current contract, but that's superseded by his, full, automatic one.

As to his future contract, the biggest problem is that if the Cards pay him what he's worth with a "safe" deal, they turn into the Miami Heat.  He's still going to be a 7-8 WAR guy for a good many more years and the going rate is $5M/win.  Toss in that the Cards are suddenly in a very competitive division and that could jump higher.

The team could eat some (or a lot) of risk on the back-end for a discount now, but they're still looking at say, $28-30M per year, which still leaves them with a very top-heavy roster.

As for 6 years at $20M/year?  Let us compare Albert Pujols to the mere mortals who make about $20M a year.  (Illustrative and fun comparison #2.)

[Ingmar]

Hitters that start out as good as Pujols is right now are typically pretty good bets to remain valuable til they're 40, but it is still a big risk for sure.

[Paelos]

WAR is one of those stats I don't really trust yet. It's too new for me to give it much credit. It also falls into that Sabremetrics void I could give a shit less about.

What I do know is that the top salary in baseball is $33M a year. The top 5 salaries are all in NY. The greats outside of the big city don't pull numbers above $20M, but I imagine Pujols could command $25 for a shorter period if he pushed it. He will never make $30M+ outside of NYC.

[Ingmar]

I   FanGraphs.

Anyway, Pujols is pretty clearly the best hitter in baseball right now, so if he hits the market who knows where he'll end up and for how much. The last couple times players that dominant hit the market they ended up in San Francisco (Bonds) and Texas (A-Rod) after all. I want to say that Rangers contract for A-Rod was a record-setter too.

I guess the A-Rod Yankees deal also counts, though.

[stu]

Oh, the 10 & 5 rule!

Too bad, so sad, Cardinals.

[ghost]

Baseball is a funny sport.  You can have the best hitter in baseball and it might not even get you to .500 or the playoffs.  I think that the Cardinals should think really hard about hamstringing themselves with a 10 year contract or some obscene amount of money per year.  That being said, I believe Pujols is making enough money and should stick with this team.  

[Paelos]

I also think Pujols is a juicer so I don't really like him anyway.

[ghost]

Why do you think that?  There isn't a ton of evidence, right?

[Paelos]

Why do you think that?  There isn't a ton of evidence, right?

There is not. I just always wondered why he went from 40+ HRs from 03-06, and then suddenly, in what would be considered the prime of his career at 27-28 years old, he hits 32 and 37, the lowest marks since he came into the majors in his rookie season. This just happened to coincide with the fact that steroids came to the forefront of the media in 2006, with more investigations going on in those years.

It's purely circumstantial.

[ghost]

I have often wondered how good these tests are at uncovering steroid, et. al., use.  Look at Lance Armstrong-  if there was ever enough circumstantial evidence to nail someone, it would be him.  But he's never had a positive test that has been validated.  You may be right about Pujols.