Random Baseball Musings on Trade Deadline 2013

I've had a little hiatus from writing, but some MLB stuff has me wanting to scribe today...

Dead Trade Winds

The trade deadline in baseball came and went without much fanfare. And that shouldn't be a surprise.

With so many teams still within sniffing distance of the playoffs (including division leaders, there are 15 teams within 5 games of a playoff spot entering today) and the extra wild card spot helping keep teams in the playoff race, there's not a lot of teams willing to pull the trigger on major moves. Some of these teams on the fringe are in the uneviable position of "Should I Stay or Should I Go?", not far enough out of the playoffs to concede anything but far enough where you're going to have to gain X number of games on a bunch of teams in the next two months.

Trading guys was no problem for the crap de la crap of baseball (Astros, Cubs, White Sox all trading top half of the rotation starters to contenders). Hell, we even got one of the best trades for names in MLB history, as the Orioles shipped Hoes (L.J. Hoes - he's real, trust me) to Houston for Bud (Bud Norris). The only other trade I can think of with better names was when Detroit traded Furbush to Seattle for Fister.

The End of Long Deals?

Two stories that have transpired from the past couple weeks could not have been timed out better. As A-Rod, among many others, awaits his suspension from MLB on his role with the Biogenesis facility that has trampled the season of Ryan Braun, Albert Pujols went on the disabled list with a torn plantar facia, an injury that has been bothering him all season. According to many sources, it sounds as though he may be done for the year - just like his fellow Angels are (14 games back in AL West, 10 games back in Wild Card as of today).

The timing of this news has led a lot of sites to ask which of the contracts was worse - A-Rod or Albert? What the real question should be is: is this the end of long-term deals? It was going to be difficult for either of them to truly live up to the expectations of the size and length of their respective contracts (each got 10-year deals).

Here's what Albert has done since 2012 since becoming a member of the Angels. Those are not terrible stats, but when compared to the first 11 years of his career, there's a sharp decline in all of his power numbers (from 162 game averages of 43 home runs .328 average, .420 on base, .617 slugging with St. Louis to 31 home runs, .275 average, .338 on base, .485 slugging with the Angels.) In other words, he went from a Hall-of-Fame player to a guy that's above average, but definitely trending downwards (and in a hurry). There's still eight years on his mega-deal (10 years, 240M), so there's still time for him to turn things around (perhaps the injury has hurt his production?). But more likely, this is the sign of a player who is on the latter half of his career who can still produce at above-average player percentages. However, above-average is not what the Angels paid for.
 
As I said back in 2011, I thought it was smart for the Cardinals not to overpay for Albert. In my lifetime, they are as smart and steady of an organization as there has been in the majors, almost always in playoff contention. They made it to three World Series with Albert (won two), so they definitely got their money's worth and the very best of his contract. For this contract to be worth it for the Angels, I think they will need to win at least one World Series.

In that same article linked in the previous paragraph, I noted the stats of A-Rod since he signed his deal. Nothing has changed that would support this being a smart contract for the Yankees - a sub-par 2012 and a non-existent 2013 that is likely to end in suspension tell that story. They did win a title with him in 2009, which honestly seems decades ago with how much has happened in baseball and with A-Rod since then.

In the aftermath of these deals, I think you will see these big market teams be smarter in making these long-term deals. Should a long deal be made, it will be similar to the Dustin Pedroia extension with the Red Sox (a 6-year deal that signs him through his 38th birthday). Signing a 31-year-old guy to a ten-year-deal has proven to be a foolish move. The best of these guy's careers has already passed, and paying a 38/39 year-old Pujols close to $30M is going to be a disaster towards a team's payroll - the return on investment is going to be brutal for the Angels. If another 10-year deal is to be made, it will be for a guy in his mid-20s, which would be infinitely smarter than the Albert & A-Rod deals.

The Rise of the Small Payrolls

Ironically, it's contracts like these that have helped teams with smaller payrolls become contenders - as these teams have no chance in hell of ever being able to sign a guy to that long and rich of a contract.

A list of each team's payroll entering 2013 shows that you can contend in MLB with a lower payroll. Out of the six division leaders through July 30, there's more teams in the bottom half leading divisions than their higher spending bretheren:

AL West: Oakland (60M, 27th overall out of 30 teams)
AL East: Tampa Bay (57M, 28th)
AL Central: Detroit (148M, 5th)
AL Wild Cards & Contenders: Boston (150M, 4th), Baltimore (90M, 15th ), Cleveland (77M, 21st), Texas (112M, 12th)

NL West: Los Angeles (216M, 2nd)
NL East: Atlanta (89M, 16th)
NL Central: Pittsburgh (79M, 20th)
NL Wild Cards & Contenders: St. Louis (115M, 11th), Cincinnati (107M, 13th), Arizona (89M, 17th)

While not likely to happen, it is possible that none of the top-10 spending teams make the playoffs. That would require Detroit and Los Angeles (the NL version) to tail off in the last two months and for Boston to slip out of the Wild Card - all of which I don't see happening.  Best case scenario for the big spenders - three of the top 10 make it.

You may think some of these teams are flukes, but keep in mind that the Rays have been in the playoffs or on the fringe of it for a while now, Oakland won the division last year, and Pittsburgh has had strong first halves of seasons for three straight years now. These teams are all heading in the right direction and have solid player bases to remain contenders for the foreseeable future.

Argue all you want about MLB needing a salary cap, but I don't think that's accurate. In fact, it has forced these smaller teams to think outside the box, crunching numbers that were not studied decades ago in order to maximize the talent on its limited payroll (at least limited compared to the Yankees and Red Sox of the world).

I'll take my chances with the Rays, Pirates & Athletics' set-up for the next five years over what we have on both sides of Chicago.

Bye to the Hiatus: Sports Talk about Santo, Marlin$, Te-Pro Bowl

I've had writer's block, haven't really sat down by my computer after work, etc., so I apologize to the 10 of you who read my blog regularly.

And by apologize, I mean I'm not really sorry and you should write for me on my writing hiatuses.

Anywho, lots of sports stuff - might write a few blogs tonight. For now, a bulleted one.

As they always say, you're always more famous when you're dead...Ron Santo in the Hall of Fame, finally.

Welcome to the Hall, Ron. Too bad you weren't around to answer the call.

For years, Santo and his loyal fanbase lobbied for his induction into the Hall of Fame by the Veteran's Committee, which passed him over with each vote. It took the Golden Era Committee (which reviews players from 1947-1972 that have been left out of the Hall) to vote him in. A couple of points from this and the Hall of Fame in general:

1. Good for him, but why did he get voted in a year after he died? Did it take his death to get voted in?
2. The Hall of Fame shouldn't be easy to get into. It should be a selective process and reward only the game's best.
3. Santo didn't get voted into the Hall by the regular voters mainly because of the influx of guys voted into the hall during his 15 year eligibility span (over half of the time he was eligible, 4+ guys got voted in by regular committee).
4. The Hall voters are dumb. Only thing you need to know, no one, not even Babe Ruth or Ted Williams, has ever been voted in unanimously. Voters who leave certain guys off their ballots should have their vote taken away. Next example of this - Greg Maddux.
5. How can voters not vote for someone one year, then next year change their ballot to include said player(s)? Player's stats (aside from Hack Wilson's) haven't changed after they retired, so it makes no sense to leave a guy off of a ballot if you think he is a HOF. Either you think he is HOF-worthy or he is not. It shouldn't be a year-to-year thing where as a voter, you change your mind and say, you know what, he is worthy now.

The Miami Marlins have been bought by the ghost of George Steinbrenner.  First Reyes, now Buehrle. Next, Pujols? Marlins are spending like the Yankees right now. Last year, they were lucky to draw a thousand people to some games. They have a new stadium that they are looking to fill now. My guess is that it will be like the previous stadiums that opened - fun at first, but at the end of the day, people won't show up day in, day out for a losing product. The Reyes contract is going to look awful in  a few years, and if they sign Pujols, that'll make two contracts that look ugly come 2015. Reyes' game is based on speed, and with how often he gets hurt, I don't expect him to be getting within a whiff of his steal totals from the first half of his career. I consider him a bum for taking himself out of the last regular season game when he ensured himself of winning the batting title. This doesn't sound like a guy I'd want around my team.

Pujols has had 3-4 years in declining stats and is going to be an average to slightly above-average player in about 4-5 years, which means 5-6 years of dead money. Also, we assume he is 31 right now. With how often Dominicans who come to the major leagues have fudged their age, what if he is 33 right now? That would mean he would be 42-43 when this deal ends. Like I said a few weeks ago, the Cards should let the Marlins sign him. The Cardinals do not need him to contend in a weak NL Central now. And with the solid foundation of ownership that they've always had, they won't need him in the near future.

Tebow a Pro-Bowler? Not as crazy of a thought as you might think.

Never thought I'd be saying this, but I'd be surprised if Tebow WASN'T a Pro-Bowler this year. Before you think I've swallowed a couple of crazy pills and smoked a pipe, look at the AFC and look at the talent of the QBs this year by division. And by no means am I a believer in his long-term success, merely looking at this year's QB situations in the AFC. (Note: I've named the starter to be the guy who has started the most game for his team at this point):

AFC North: Big Ben, Flacco, McCoy, Dalton: Only one who will make Pro Bowl (at least initially) will be Big Ben.
AFC South: Schaub, Painter, Hasselbeck, Gabbert: No Pro-Bowlers here. Schaub, who would have made it, is out for year.
AFC East: Brady, Sanchez, Fitzpatrick, Moore: Brady will go. Sanchez is under-rated and gets too much criticism, don't see him getting in. Fitzpatrick is a sleeper for nomination. If Moore could have started the year, he may be more considered (and Miami may be a playoff team).
AFC West: Tebow, Palmer, Rivers, Cassel: Again, no one here deserves nomination. Rivers is having a down year, Palmer is still getting his feet wet.

Will get in: Brady, Big Ben
Could get in: Flacco, Dalton, Fitzpatrick, Tebow
Probably won't: Rivers, Hasselbeck, Sanchez
Won't get in: Everyone else

As you can see by a breakdown, it's not too crazy to think that the Tebow hype gets him in the Pro Bowl, even though his stats don't show it. The fans get a third of the vote, remember. Also remember that Big Ben and Brady will likely bail on the Pro Bowl (playoff status or not) and there will be replacement(s) for them.

Also remember that the Pro Bowl is a useless game that no one really cares about or watches anyways, and the arguments over who doesn't get in are as pointless as the arguments about the fringe teams who don't make the NCAA tourney.

The BCS got the final game right, but there should at least be a +1 scenario in place. Just about everyone who watches college football has something bad to say about the BCS, and most believe there should be some kind of playoff. I know some people who believe a team should win their conference (whether it have a title game or not) in order to be considered. Others don't like the idea of a rematch in the title game - I have no problem with one.

However, I do think that there should be some mini-playoff, like a +1 scenario, which I understand to be a four-team playoff, with winners of semi-final games to play in championship game. In years where there are less than two major conference teams that finish undefeated, the BCS process gets critiqued. Last year, Oregon and Auburn finished undefeated, so no problems there. This year? LSU and then a bunch of 1-loss teams.

I think Bama and OK St should play each other in a couple weeks to play for the right to play LSU in champ game. Either way, I think it'd end up being Bama/LSU for the title.

Sport Shorts: Why Pujols Should Be a Marlin & Tebow Won't Succeed Long-Term

Tebow will need to pray to keep this success going long-term

Tim Tebow is 3-1 as a starting QB...but it is not a formula that is going to win you long-term. I find it amazing that he has been able to lead the team to this record in the past month and I won't even use his schedule as an excuse. All three of those wins were on the road (Miami, Oakland and Kansas City). None of those wins were dominant passing performances either - outside of the norm in which most teams are winning these days.

However, much like the Wildcat, I don't think this offense will be long-term effective when teams get tape on it and play Tebow and the Broncos more than once. Adding little wrinkles into this college offense won't be enough for Tebow to succeed long-term. He does give the team a much-needed shot in the arm in terms of a spark, but if you're a Broncos fan, you can't expect this to be a long-term solution. Eventually, teams will figure it out, and this will require Tebow to pass the ball - you know, that thing successful professional teams do more than 8 times in a game.

Win a game, good for you. Let's see you do that the rest of 2011 and beyond.

Pujols supposedly offered 9 years, $225M...and this move makes perfect sense for the Miami (yes, new stadium requires a new team name) Marlins. With the new stadium, ownership needs to establish Miami as a team that actually spends and gives a crap about its team on a long-term basis, as opposed to trading off all its pieces in 5-7 year increments.

It also makes perfect sense for the Cardinals NOT to match the offer that the Marlins supposedly threw out there. Pujols is 31 years old now (and that may even be incorrect, as many baseball fans know that Dominican players have notoriously fudged their age to improve their signability when they first make it to the big leagues), which means his deal ends in 2020, which would be Pujols' 20th major league season in his (supposed) 40th year on Earth. I think the Cardinals got the majority of Albert's prime and would be investing in a slightly above average player about 4-5 years into the deal, with declining stats from there.

Pujols' power numbers have been in decline for the past 4 years. (But Brian, he has averaged 42 home runs, 126 RBIs and batted .328 in his 11 year career - he deserves the money!) I don't doubt he doesn't deserve to be paid like a top-player like he is, but the risk of a 9-year deal with a guy who statistically had his worst year (which let's be honest, about 95% of MLB would love to be their worst year) at the edge of most guy's prime wouldn't be worth it for the Cardinals, who have a world-class organization that attracts top-notch free agents/managers due to this reputation. From everything I've heard, this reputation is well-deserved and is largely due to their fan base.

Fans will continue to come to the ballpark to support the Cardinals, as proof of their attendance numbers before Pujols. In the 11 years before Pujols (1990-2000), they averaged over 33,000 fans (compared to 40,000 in the Pujols era). Granted, that's 7,000 fans per game who aren't going through the gates, but that's still more than most teams draw. However, this is a team which has a ton of talent to continue playoff runs into the next 5-10 years w/o Pujols.

For an idea on the last top guy to get a 9-10 year contract, here's a compare/contrast on A-Rod's career before and after the contract.

A-Rod's Stats:

Average stats from 1996 (first full year he played) thru 2007: 42 HRs, 123 RBIs, .308 average
Average stats from 2008-now: 28 HRs, 98 RBIs, .284 average.

It's also worth noting that A-Rod was also 31 years old when he signed his latest 10-year deal in the 2007/2008 offseason. Granted, that's not a terrible year for a guy to have, but is it worth 25-30 million a year? Perhaps it is to the Yankees, but I don't think any other team could afford to spend that much on that type of production.

That's not to say that Albert can't do better than this average. But in the post-steroid era, guys tend to have digression in their early 30s.

To fill seats, Miami needs to do this. To fill their postseason awards in the future (and not handcuff themselves financially), the Cardinals need to let Miami do this.