Tampa Bay interested in Bonds.

[gonzomax]

ESPN says Tampa Bay is interested in Barry Bonds. He would have to come in between 5 and 10 million for salary. They feel that the release of so many players using drugs has diminished the black mark on Barry somewhat. They want him to become a team member and forgo the special treatment he has been receiving.
Could he put spectators in the seats. ? Would he be booed ? Is it a good idea. ?
Is he likely to accept being another team mate.?

[Hawkeyeop]

Originally Posted by gonzomax

ESPN says Tampa Bay is interested in Barry Bonds. He would have to come in between 5 and 10 million for salary.

I would guess we would be a bit more expensive then that. Maybe $10-$15 million

Originally Posted by gonzomax

They feel that the release of so many players using drugs has diminished the black mark on Barry somewhat.
They want him to become a team member and forgo the special treatment he has been receiving.
Could he put spectators in the seats.

He would help them win baseball games. That would, in turn, increase attendance.

Originally Posted by gonzomax

Would he be booed?

Probably, but you have to buy a ticket to boo.

Originally Posted by gonzomax

Is it a good idea. ?

If the object is to compete with the Red Sox and Yankees, then an unqualified yes.

Originally Posted by gonzomax

Is he likely to accept being another team mate.?

Sure, why not. I don't recall him having any problems being accepted as a teammate in the past.

[gonzomax]

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/ins...ife_of_reilly/
This is what they want to avoid.

[Kid_A]

I hope he ends his career playing in front of 5 000 fans in that God-forsaken stadium.

[Marley23]

I had hoped that nobody would sign him and he'd have to retire unwanted, but this might be even better. Let him DH for a 75-win Tampa team in a cavernous, mostly empty ballpark. It'd be like sending him to Siberia.

[dalej42]

I love what ESPN said about this:

TAMPA BAY RAYS
Pro: Could do great juice promotions at Tropicana Field.


Will he be booed? Yes, because everyone who goes to a Rays game is a fan of the opposing team.

[Wee Bairn]

Originally Posted by Marley23

I had hoped that nobody would sign him and he'd have to retire unwanted, but this might be even better. Let him DH for a 75-win Tampa team in a cavernous, mostly empty ballpark. It'd be like sending him to Siberia.

Agree, and it would be funny to see if he would accept a role on a team going nowhere when he has always said he cares about winning championships over individual awards. I see him attracting fans at the beginning but after one go around with each team and a month or two at home the novelty would wear off. And in an empty home stadium the personal insults from fans are more easily heard- will he be able to take such abuse?

[Hawkeyeop]

Originally Posted by Wee Bairn

Agree, and it would be funny to see if he would accept a role on a team going nowhere when he has always said he cares about winning championships over individual awards. I see him attracting fans at the beginning but after one go around with each team and a month or two at home the novelty would wear off. And in an empty home stadium the personal insults from fans are more easily heard- will he be able to take such abuse?

A team going nowhere? Tampa has more young talent, then anyone in the game and it isn't really that close. They might not get there in the next year, even with Bonds, but they are certainly on the rise.

[storyteller0910]

Originally Posted by Hawkeyeop

A team going nowhere? Tampa has more young talent, then anyone in the game and it isn't really that close. They might not get there in the next year, even with Bonds, but they are certainly on the rise.

Well, if you mean "on the rise" in the sense that they might not be as bad as they've been, and probably won't be as bad as Baltimore, then OK, we are agreed. But that "young talent" is not necessarily "good talent," or more properly, it's not elite talent. The hitting talent is good, but Upton, Crawford, and Evan Longoria just aren't going to even approach producing at the plate anywhere near the level of, say, Ortiz-Ramirez-Youkilis. Or Rodriguez-Jeter-Posada. And the Rays pitching staff is just basically Scott Kazmir and then pray.

If the Rays were playing in, I don't know, the NL Central, they'd be an interesting team. But in the AL East, in order to make the playoffs, they will have to finish ahead of either the Yankees or the Red Sox, and very possibly both. I don't think it matters how good, say, Longoria turns out to be; the chances of that happening are virtually zero.

So, yeah, they're going nowhere - their ceiling is third place and a .500 record, and even that will require some breaks. They may be a serious wild card contender in 2010, if they can keep that talent together, but by then Bonds will have either retired or been staked through the heart by an itinerant Slayer, so it won't matter to him.

[Wee Bairn]

And chances are if any of that young talent pans out, they'll get signed up by a bigger club.

[Hawkeyeop]

Story,

First off, to me this is much more interesting discussion then whether Bonds should be exiled to the moon. The Rays don't just have young talent, they don't just have good young talent, they have early 90's Braves level of talent. Furthermore, they have the best hedge against prospects failing, tons of depth. Sure things might not work as well as planned, but the Rays are in as good a postiion as anyone for the future. However, since the Bonds question focuses on 2008, lets look at the short term. Here is my opening day lineup

Crawford
Upton
Bonds
Pena
Longoria
Floyd/Baldelli/Gomes
Iwamura
Bartlett
Navarro

That is a good lineup. Two guys at the top who get on base, have some pop and can fly. A number 3 hitter who still better then anyone else at not making outs. Pena and Longoria are bit more of wild cards, but ones with good odds, and obviously the Rays will need to catch some breaks here. The bottom 4 hitters should all be around league average for there position, perhaps a little below. While it isn't the Red Sox or Yankees, I would take this lineup over say Toronto.

There pitching is also significantly more then just Kazmir. Shields established himself last year as an adequete number 2. Garza dominated the minors in 2006, and has been at least okay in the majors thus far. And again, they have 3 more potential aces on the way. They are young and deep, perhaps even more so then their hitting. Most importantly, they have moved Upton to a position he can play and have acquired a shortstop who can field. There ERA's will go down across the board just based on significantly better defense.

Pecota projects them as 82-80 right now without Bonds, so I would say there upside is a bit better then that. The Red Sox and Yanks are both teams that are filled with old players and very young ones and there is plenty of risk there. Ortiz and Manny aren't the type of players that age well, and Youk isn't really any better then league average at his position. That said, I don't expect the Rays to make a run at either of those two this year. However, I believe that it is still worth for them if they can make run at 85 wins. It changes their image from a laughing stock (see posts in this thread thus far), to an up and coming contender. With that will come more prestige, money, and everything else. The Tigers are a good example of what can happen if you take the first step to respectability.

[storyteller0910]

Hawk -

Damn you for posting an interesting discussion topic less than twenty minutes before I have to leave work. Gah!

Off to baseball-reference.com.

[storyteller0910]

OK, short version response upcoming:

Originally Posted by Hawkeyeop

Story,
First off, to me this is much more interesting discussion then whether Bonds should be exiled to the moon. The Rays don't just have young talent, they don't just have good young talent, they have early 90's Braves level of talent. Furthermore, they have the best hedge against prospects failing, tons of depth.

The problem for a team like the Rays is not so much hedging against prospects failing; it's hedging against prospects up and leaving when they start getting good. Are you really so confident that Carl Crawford will be playing left field in Tampa Bay, and not in the Bronx, by the time 2008 ends? Also, the depth of the position player talent is a little less, now. They've traded away Delmon Young and Elijah Dukes, remember.

Crawford
Upton
Bonds
Pena
Longoria
Floyd/Baldelli/Gomes
Iwamura
Bartlett
Navarro

That is a good lineup. Two guys at the top who get on base, have some pop and can fly. A number 3 hitter who still better then anyone else at not making outs. Pena and Longoria are bit more of wild cards, but ones with good odds, and obviously the Rays will need to catch some breaks here. The bottom 4 hitters should all be around league average for there position, perhaps a little below. While it isn't the Red Sox or Yankees, I would take this lineup over say Toronto.

Agreed. Although I wouldn't under-rate Toronto's lineup. But the problem is that in order to make the playoffs, you don't have to get past Toronto. You have to get past Boston and New York, and the lineup above doesn't even come close to competing with either of those lineups.

There pitching is also significantly more then just Kazmir. Shields established himself last year as an adequete number 2.

Again, if .500 is your goal, then Shields is an adequate number 2. But he's not as good as the number 2 starters for Toronto, New York, or Boston. Also, his workload increased by 100 innings from 2006 to 2007, so a decline from last year - when he was basically average as a #2 - might well be in the cards.

And again, they have 3 more potential aces on the way. They are young and deep, perhaps even more so then their hitting.

Nearly every team in the majors has "3 potential aces on the way." The Red Sox will roll out Jon Lester and Clay Bucholtz this year, and both will likely outperform every pitcher on the Rays other than Kazmir. The Yankees have Phil Hughes, Ian Kennedy, and Joba Chamberlain - all very young, and all proven contributors at the major league level - and that's just their first wave. And we haven't even mentioned the bullpens, where both Boston and New York absolutely obliterate the Rays across the board.

Pecota projects them as 82-80 right now without Bonds, so I would say there upside is a bit better then that. The Red Sox and Yanks are both teams that are filled with old players and very young ones and there is plenty of risk there. Ortiz and Manny aren't the type of players that age well, and Youk isn't really any better then league average at his position.

There's not really any more reason to expect that Evan Longoria will be a star than to expect that Jacoby Ellsbury will continue to improve. Both Boston and Tampa (and New York) will be relying on young players to supplement their veterans; the difference is that Boston and New York have much better veterans.

That said, I don't expect the Rays to make a run at either of those two this year. However, I believe that it is still worth for them if they can make run at 85 wins. It changes their image from a laughing stock (see posts in this thread thus far), to an up and coming contender. With that will come more prestige, money, and everything else. The Tigers are a good example of what can happen if you take the first step to respectability.

Sure! But they've already taken the first step to respectability. My point is, if they try to rush it this year, by signing Barry Bonds to a big contract and stuffing him at the DH spot, it will hurt them in the medium term. They'll feel pressured to win, so one or two of those prospects you like so much will be gone at the deadline for, like, Steve Trachsel, in a vain and doomed attempt to make the playoffs. Bonds on the payroll may impede the team's ability to sign a player that will be useful when they are ready to contend with the big boys. There's just no reason to sign him now; he won't make them good enough this year, and he'll hurt them in the future.

[Hawkeyeop]

Originally Posted by storyteller0910

OK, short version response upcoming:

I don't think the word short means what you think it means.

Originally Posted by storyteller0910

The problem for a team like the Rays is not so much hedging against prospects failing; it's hedging against prospects up and leaving when they start getting good. Are you really so confident that Carl Crawford will be playing left field in Tampa Bay, and not in the Bronx, by the time 2008 ends? Also, the depth of the position player talent is a little less, now. They've traded away Delmon Young and Elijah Dukes, remember.

Well, Carl Crawford is under contract cheaply for a while, so yes. But I understand your larger point. However, Tampa Bay hasn't really dealt with this situation before. They have never been in position that they had young players worth keeping. So I can't really predict what they will do when the situation occurs. Teams are flush with money, so in most cases, teams are keeping their young talent. Just look at the free agent class of the last couple years.

Originally Posted by storyteller0910

Agreed. Although I wouldn't under-rate Toronto's lineup. But the problem is that in order to make the playoffs, you don't have to get past Toronto. You have to get past Boston and New York, and the lineup above doesn't even come close to competing with either of those lineups.

Eh. I don't think Toronto's lineup is particularly good, but that is a whole different argument Red Sox and Yankees both have elite lineups, but they are both filled with people on the wrong age of 30. And a number of players on both rosters (Damon, Matsui, Ramirez, Varitek etc.) have already shown signs of slowing down. Collapses can occur quickly, and the Rays should be in a position to take advantage.

Originally Posted by storyteller0910

Again, if .500 is your goal, then Shields is an adequate number 2. But he's not as good as the number 2 starters for Toronto, New York, or Boston. Also, his workload increased by 100 innings from 2006 to 2007, so a decline from last year - when he was basically average as a #2 - might well be in the cards.

Two might be pushing it, but he had an ERA under 4.00 in the AL east, with an awful defense, that is better then average.

Originally Posted by storyteller0910

Nearly every team in the majors has "3 potential aces on the way." The Red Sox will roll out Jon Lester and Clay Bucholtz this year, and both will likely outperform every pitcher on the Rays other than Kazmir. The Yankees have Phil Hughes, Ian Kennedy, and Joba Chamberlain - all very young, and all proven contributors at the major league level - and that's just their first wave. And we haven't even mentioned the bullpens, where both Boston and New York absolutely obliterate the Rays across the board.

Teams may say they do, but they don't. The mets, for example, have none. Not all prospects are created equal. Keith Law has 3 Devil Ray pitchers ranked in his top ten pitching prospects of the game. I can grab any other list and the results would be similar. Does that mean that all three will become stars? Of course not. However, given a conservative estimate lets say one becomes quality 2, and one a mid rotation starter. Suddenly, if Garza continues to improve, then Shields could potentially be the #5.

Originally Posted by storyteller0910

There's not really any more reason to expect that Evan Longoria will be a star than to expect that Jacoby Ellsbury will continue to improve. Both Boston and Tampa (and New York) will be relying on young players to supplement their veterans; the difference is that Boston and New York have much better veterans.

Yes, the Red Sox have a couple good young hitters. Yankees do as well. But the core of there lineups are over 30. The core of the Rays lineup is much much younger.

Originally Posted by storyteller0910

Sure! But they've already taken the first step to respectability. My point is, if they try to rush it this year, by signing Barry Bonds to a big contract and stuffing im at the DH spot, it will hurt them in the medium term. They'll feel pressured to win, so one or two of those prospects you like so much will be gone at the deadline for, like, Steve Trachsel, in a vain and doomed attempt to make the playoffs. Bonds on the payroll may impede the team's ability to sign a player that will be useful when they are ready to contend with the big boys. There's just no reason to sign him now; he won't make them good enough this year, and he'll hurt them in the future.

Signing Bonds doesn't mean you have to do other stupid things. He is a short term gamble and should not have any affect on the medium or long term.

[gonzomax]

What would his impact be on the morale?

[storyteller0910]

Originally Posted by Hawkeyeop

I don't think the word short means what you think it means.

You have played Mafia with me, right? That was the short version.

Well, Carl Crawford is under contract cheaply for a while, so yes. But I understand your larger point. However, Tampa Bay hasn't really dealt with this situation before. They have never been in position that they had young players worth keeping. So I can't really predict what they will do when the situation occurs. Teams are flush with money, so in most cases, teams are keeping their young talent. Just look at the free agent class of the last couple years.

I hope you're right; I really do. History suggests that the Rays best players will end up in Boston, New York, or Los Angeles in a few years. But I hope I'm wrong.

Red Sox and Yankees both have elite lineups, but they are both filled with people on the wrong age of 30. And a number of players on both rosters (Damon, Matsui, Ramirez, Varitek etc.) have already shown signs of slowing down. Collapses can occur quickly, and the Rays should be in a position to take advantage.

I understand your point, but I think you're overstating your case. In Boston, of the nine guys likely to make up the everyday lineup, only three - Lowell (34), Ramirez (36) and Varitek (36) are really old. Ortiz is 32, and coming off the best season of his career; he's not going anywhere. J.D. Drew and Julio Lugo are 32, not exactly Methuselahs. But they also have Youkilis (29), Pedroia (24), Ellsbury (24), Coco Crisp (28), and eventually, Jed Lowrie (24), who slugged .506 at shortstop in AAA. As for the Yankees, yeah, their lineup is old. But Jose Tabata and Austin Jackson are both pretty well regarded and are on their way, and Robinson Cano and Melky Cabrera are still quite young. Alex Rodriguez is not likely to decline for the next five years at least. And their rotation: Wang (28), Chamberlain (22), Hughes (22), Kennedy (23) - that's a group that will be together, and in its prime, for years. And every one of those guys has proven that they can succeed at the major league level - Kennedy is the worst of them, and he had an ERA of 1.89 in New York last year!

Teams may say they do, but they don't. The mets, for example, have none. Not all prospects are created equal. Keith Law has 3 Devil Ray pitchers ranked in his top ten pitching prospects of the game. I can grab any other list and the results would be similar. Does that mean that all three will become stars? Of course not. However, given a conservative estimate lets say one becomes quality 2, and one a mid rotation starter. Suddenly, if Garza continues to improve, then Shields could potentially be the #5.

Of those three guys, one of them, David Price, has never thrown a pitch in professional baseball. Ever. He's 22, the same age as Hughes and Chamberlain. Do you see why suggesting that the Rays young talent is superior to that of the Yankees or the Red Sox is dicey? Would you really prefer Price, Wade Davis, and Desmond Jennings over Hughes, Kennedy, and Chamberlain? Over Bucholtz - the best pitching prospect in baseball according to BP - Lester, and Daisuke Matsuzaka, who is only 27 and almost guaranteed to improve in the coming year? (And Justin Masterson, too).

And of course, the main point is: if Manny Ramirez stops hitting, the Red Sox have the financial resources to go out and replace him with top-of-the-line talent. They won't even have to give up Bucholtz or Lester to do it, because someone will be frantic to unload a contract. The Rays simply do not have that flexibility. If one of their gambles - Pena, or Longoria, or whoever, doesn't pan out, they can't carry the kind of payroll the Yankees or Red Sox can, and if they go after a more cost-effective option, they'll have to give up one of those good young prospects to get it.

And finally - the Rays lineup is going to have at least three spots well below league average as hitters: Bartlett is well below average, Navarro is a terrible hitter, and the Gomes/Floyd/Baldelli hydra is not going to produce an OPS+ of 100 and probably will collectively contribute fewer than 500 at bats. No one in the Yankees projected lineup is as bad as any of those three; it's not even close. The Yankees could slip by 10% and still outscore the Rays.

Signing Bonds doesn't mean you have to do other stupid things. He is a short term gamble and should not have any affect on the medium or long term.

Payroll isn't infinite. If you give Bonds $10M this year, that's $10M you can't commit to someone else. It means Johnny Gomes has to play the outfield, and he shouldn't. And it means you'll be expected to try to win in the short term - why sign a 40 year-old-outfielder with injury problems and baggage if you're not trying to win - which is a good recipe for bad decisions.

My whole point here is - they're not making the playoffs this year, with or without Bonds. The gap between Tampa Bay and the top two teams in that division is massive, and the Rays' youth is not so much better than the youth of the other teams as to make a sudden, dramatic shift in that dynamic likely or even possible. Given that, why blow $10M on a rental of a player who won't get you to the playoffs but will retard your financial flexibility and disrupt the really interesting team you're developing?

[Hawkeyeop]

Originally Posted by gonzomax

What would his impact be on the morale?

If they win, the morale will be just fine.

[RickJay]

Originally Posted by gonzomax

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/ins...ife_of_reilly/
This is what they want to avoid.

Aside from the fact that Reilly hated Bonds, exaggerates the case to a ridiculous degree, and based his article on the world of Jeff Kent, who in fact HAS been despised by most of the people he's played with...

...the Rays are in business to make money. Bonds could sell more tickets and make them some money. This is a team that really needs to do something soon before they fade into oblivion.

I realize the Rays have a lot of young talent, but I'm not sure I trust them to develop it. I remember people saying last year they'd be a lot better and they stank again.

[gonzomax]

The list of those who hate Bonds is long. He might want to go to a contender to finish his career off but he would be a dangerous acquisition. He is 90 years old and he might be done.

[Wee Bairn]

I'm sure a guy with his own section of the clubhouse, sitting in a Barcolounger in a roped off area where other players aren't allowed within 10 feet and aren't allowed to address him or make eye contact is going to great for morale.

But other than when/if he's two hits or two HR's shy of 3000/800, are people going to come out just to see and or boo him? Where's the draw when he's at 2970 and 770?

[Hawkeyeop]

Originally Posted by storyteller0910

You have played Mafia with me, right? That was the short version.



I hope you're right; I really do. History suggests that the Rays best players will end up in Boston, New York, or Los Angeles in a few years. But I hope I'm wrong.

Baseball is flush with money right now. That doesn't mean the Rays will choose to spend to keep their players, but they can if they so choose.

Originally Posted by storyteller0910

I understand your point, but I think you're overstating your case. In Boston, of the nine guys likely to make up the everyday lineup, only three - Lowell (34), Ramirez (36) and Varitek (36) are really old. Ortiz is 32, and coming off the best season of his career; he's not going anywhere. J.D. Drew and Julio Lugo are 32, not exactly Methuselahs. But they also have Youkilis (29), Pedroia (24), Ellsbury (24), Coco Crisp (28), and eventually, Jed Lowrie (24), who slugged .506 at shortstop in AAA. As for the Yankees, yeah, their lineup is old. But Jose Tabata and Austin Jackson are both pretty well regarded and are on their way, and Robinson Cano and Melky Cabrera are still quite young. Alex Rodriguez is not likely to decline for the next five years at least. And their rotation: Wang (28), Chamberlain (22), Hughes (22), Kennedy (23) - that's a group that will be together, and in its prime, for years. And every one of those guys has proven that they can succeed at the major league level - Kennedy is the worst of them, and he had an ERA of 1.89 in New York last year!

That paragraph starts with how old the Red Sox are and finishes with how good the Yankees young pitching is. It is kind of impressive. At any rate, let’s start with the Red Sox’s lineup.

Manny has slowed down significantly already. He does all the little things poorly, when you are hitting 40+ home-runs that’s fine, but when you are in the low 20's it isn't. Varitek plays a position were people don't age well, and the Red Sox have nothing behind him. Lowell had a career year last year. He is highly unlikely to do that again. Drew's power has disappeared, and Lugo has been awful since he got dealt to LA. Pedroria had a nice rookie season, but there isn't much projectability to him. I think if he stays as good as he was last year the Red Sox would be happy. Crisp and Youk are league average players that aren't likely to get much better. Ellsbury is a nice young player, but he might not develop much power, which would leave him limited. Lowrie might be able to play short, but he might not, which would just leave the Red Sox with another pretty good young 2nd baseman. You mentioned depth with the Rays, but the Red Sox have nothing other then a 4th outfielder and one pretty good middle infield prospect in the minors, and they have a lot of injury prone players. If Manny and Drew get hurt, not an unfathomable possibility, what does their outfield look like? How bout Varitek? Youk? This leaves you with a lineup that is highly reliant on David Ortiz. You say Ortiz is only 32, but how old was Mo Vaughn when he collapsed? Cecil Fielder? That type of player does not age well at all, and can fall in a hurry. I just don't see this lineup as invulnerable.

A similar argument can be made for the Yankees. Yes, Arod will be great, but what if he is more 2006 then 2007? What if the majority of Posada, Damon, Matsui, Jeter, Abreu and Giambi show their age? The Yankees have nothing close to being ready to replace any of them.

Originally Posted by storyteller0910

Of those three guys, one of them, David Price, has never thrown a pitch in professional baseball. Ever. He's 22, the same age as Hughes and Chamberlain. Do you see why suggesting that the Rays young talent is superior to that of the Yankees or the Red Sox is dicey? Would you really prefer Price, Wade Davis, and Desmond Jennings over Hughes, Kennedy, and Chamberlain? Over Bucholtz - the best pitching prospect in baseball according to BP - Lester, and Daisuke Matsuzaka, who is only 27 and almost guaranteed to improve in the coming year? (And Justin Masterson, too).

Well if we are discussing best young staffs, we have to consider Kazmir who still is under 25. We have to consider Garza as well. I’d probably take Kazmir over any starter on either the Red Sox or Yankees, though certainly arguments can be made. I’m also assuming you mean McGee as the third guy for Rays, since Jennings, while a top prospect, isn’t exactly a pitcher. That is five top young pitchers, not 3, and those aren’t the only ones the Rays have. None of those 5, unlike say Chamberlin, has any history of arm problems. The risk for the Yankees and the Red Sox isn’t that the youngsters can’t pitch, it is that they could get hurt. The Rays likewise have that risk, but it is muted given their depth. The depth will also present itself in a much improved Rays bullpen.

Originally Posted by storyteller0910

And of course, the main point is: if Manny Ramirez stops hitting, the Red Sox have the financial resources to go out and replace him with top-of-the-line talent. They won't even have to give up Bucholtz or Lester to do it, because someone will be frantic to unload a contract. The Rays simply do not have that flexibility. If one of their gambles - Pena, or Longoria, or whoever, doesn't pan out, they can't carry the kind of payroll the Yankees or Red Sox can, and if they go after a more cost-effective option, they'll have to give up one of those good young prospects to get it.

Just look at the free agent classes of the last couple years. For the most part teams are signing their own young stars. Sure, there are still a couple of teams that will trade away stars rather then resign them, but it is becoming a much shorter list. When was the last time, a team traded a star just to dump the contract? Who was the last top free agent to switch teams? It isn’t as easy at it used to be to buy talent.

Originally Posted by storyteller0910

And finally - the Rays lineup is going to have at least three spots well below league average as hitters: Bartlett is well below average, Navarro is a terrible hitter, and the Gomes/Floyd/Baldelli hydra is not going to produce an OPS+ of 100 and probably will collectively contribute fewer than 500 at bats. No one in the Yankees projected lineup is as bad as any of those three; it's not even close. The Yankees could slip by 10% and still outscore the Rays.

Baldelli had an OPS of 872 in 2006 (Last year was a lost season). Floyd’s was 795 last year, and Gomes 782. Between mixing and matching the three, I think you can cobble together a league average outfielder. Bartlett’s offensive numbers are subpar, but not awful for a shortstop and he is a plus with the glove. Navarro, eh, maybe someday he’ll start hitting again.

Originally Posted by storyteller0910

Payroll isn't infinite. If you give Bonds $10M this year, that's $10M you can't commit to someone else. It means Johnny Gomes has to play the outfield, and he shouldn't. And it means you'll be expected to try to win in the short term - why sign a 40 year-old-outfielder with injury problems and baggage if you're not trying to win - which is a good recipe for bad decisions.


My whole point here is - they're not making the playoffs this year, with or without Bonds. The gap between Tampa Bay and the top two teams in that division is massive, and the Rays' youth is not so much better than the youth of the other teams as to make a sudden, dramatic shift in that dynamic likely or even possible. Given that, why blow $10M on a rental of a player who won't get you to the playoffs but will retard your financial flexibility and disrupt the really interesting team you're developing?

Well because it isn't blowing money, and it won't disrupt the development of the team. You act like they are just throwing $10 million away. If they win more games, they will make more money. They will sell more tickets and merchandise this season, and they will have more advance sales for the following season. 10 million more, maybe not, but certainly some. Plus, he would likely take at bats away from Floyd/Gomes. That isn't exactly stunting your future. One year contracts are, by definition, not that risky. It isn’t like I’m arguing to spend 55 million on Gil Meche.

[storyteller0910]

Originally Posted by Hawkeyeop

Baseball is flush with money right now. That doesn't mean the Rays will choose to spend to keep their players, but they can if they so choose.

In principle this may be true, but it has not proven true in practice. Look, everyone likes Scott Kazmir, right? In a few years, he will become a free agent. He'll be 27-ish. He's a left-handed pitcher and a pretty legit #1 starter. I'd say it's almost certain he'll command $18 million per year at that point. Will the Rays give him that kind of money? Maybe, but more probably not. Because the Yankees, or the Red Sox, or the Mets, will offer him $19.5M if they have to - and there is a certain point after which the Rays cannot compete financially. Even in an era where money is flowing freely, they are still at a substantial competitive disadvantage relative to those teams. So by the time David Price is ready (assuming he is), and Evan Longoria has matured into a real star (assuming he does), they lose Kazmir to someone who can afford to pay him.

Manny has slowed down significantly already. He does all the little things poorly, when you are hitting 40+ home-runs that’s fine, but when you are in the low 20's it isn't. Varitek plays a position were people don't age well, and the Red Sox have nothing behind him. Lowell had a career year last year. He is highly unlikely to do that again. Drew's power has disappeared, and Lugo has been awful since he got dealt to LA.

etc.

You do realize that this lineup that you're trashing scored more runs than all but two teams in the American League last year, right? I don't doubt that one or more of the players you mention will decline. It's very nearly certain. But it is also very nearly certain that Ellsbury and Pedroia will perform better than they did last year, and that someone will have a better year than last year (Drew, is my best guess). It's also certain that if, for some reason, the Red Sox have trouble scoring runs, they will trade for a big bat. Or two. Or three. The Rays, at least historically, have not shown the ability to do this.

A similar argument can be made for the Yankees. Yes, Arod will be great, but what if he is more 2006 then 2007?

Then he'll be one of the best hitters in baseball, instead of the best.

What if the majority of Posada, Damon, Matsui, Jeter, Abreu and Giambi show their age? The Yankees have nothing close to being ready to replace any of them.

"Hi, this is Brian Cashman, calling for Mr. Krivsky. Wayne! How are you? Sorry to hear that you guys are in fourth place this year. Yeah, tough break on that Griffey, Jr, injury. Who could have seen that coming? Listen, Wayne, I know Adam Dunn is hitting free agency after this year. Jesus, can you imagine what a 28-year-old hitter with five straight 40-home-run seasons, is going to get on the open market? Listen, Wayne, I've got this outfielder down at AAA, Austin Jackson, and a pretty good pitcher named Alan Horne. How about you send Dunn and his contract for the rest of this year over here, and we'll worry about his money for next year. We'll give you Horne and Jackson and Ross Ohlendorf. OK, you think about it - but don't think for too long."

More seriously, if your biggest hope for the Rays is that Posada, Damon, Matsui, Jeter, Abreu, and Giambi (and neither Jeter nor Abreu is especially old or especially likely to decline) will all suddenly become league-average performers in the same year, then that's not much to bank on.

Well if we are discussing best young staffs, we have to consider Kazmir who still is under 25. We have to consider Garza as well. I’d probably take Kazmir over any starter on either the Red Sox or Yankees, though certainly arguments can be made.

Really? Over Josh Beckett? Really?

I’m also assuming you mean McGee as the third guy for Rays, since Jennings, while a top prospect, isn’t exactly a pitcher. That is five top young pitchers, not 3, and those aren’t the only ones the Rays have. None of those 5, unlike say Chamberlin, has any history of arm problems. The risk for the Yankees and the Red Sox isn’t that the youngsters can’t pitch, it is that they could get hurt. The Rays likewise have that risk, but it is muted given their depth. The depth will also present itself in a much improved Rays bullpen.

There is always a risk of injury. But the risk of injury to one of the Yankees young guys is muted by the fact that their old guys are better. It seems like your argument is: yes, the Yankees have just as many top prospects, and better veterans, but there's a chance that - all in the same year - all (or most) of the Yankees major veteran contributors will fall off a cliff and several of their top prospects will all get hurt. This is absolutely possible. It's also tremendously unlikely, and I certainly wouldn't be betting on it.

Again, it's in the realm of possibility. But it's sports: anything can happen. I just don't see the incredible confluence of aging and injury hitting both top teams in the AL East as anything more than tremendously unlikely. And even if it does, both teams have the wherewithal and resources to retool VERY quickly.

Baldelli had an OPS of 872 in 2006 (Last year was a lost season). Floyd’s was 795 last year, and Gomes 782.

Now, see, it's fascinating that you're quick to mention the likelihood that someone on the Yankees or Red Sox will get hurt, but are ignoring the fact that Baldelli last played a full major league season in 2004. Since 2002, Cliff Floyd has eclipsed 400 at bats exactly once. So not only are you relying on injuries and aging to wipe out the two best teams in the American League, you're also assuming that even the injury-prone Rays will stay healthy enough to contribute.

Well because it isn't blowing money, and it won't disrupt the development of the team. You act like they are just throwing $10 million away. If they win more games, they will make more money. They will sell more tickets and merchandise this season, and they will have more advance sales for the following season. 10 million more, maybe not, but certainly some.

OK, but if the net financial impact is a loss of money, and they still don't make the playoffs, how does that make any sense?

It isn’t like I’m arguing to spend 55 million on Gil Meche.

Which, interestingly enough, is a deal that - so far - doesn't look so bad.

[Hawkeyeop]

Well i was all set to respond, but will wait on this

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/spring...ory?id=3265581

Anything series kind of kills my entire argument.

[Least Original User Name Ever]

Originally Posted by Hawkeyeop

Well i was all set to respond, but will wait on this

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/spring...ory?id=3265581

Anything series kind of kills my entire argument.

I was just coming in here to post the same thing.